{"id":5292,"date":"2012-07-24T13:02:49","date_gmt":"2012-07-24T17:02:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/?page_id=5292"},"modified":"2013-07-09T12:41:32","modified_gmt":"2013-07-09T16:41:32","slug":"spiers","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/journal\/past-issues\/issue-4\/spiers\/","title":{"rendered":"Frederick Douglass, The (In)credible Orator"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sophie Spiers<\/a><\/h2>\n

(WR 100, Paper 3)
\nRead the instructor’s introduction<\/a>
\nDownload this essay<\/a><\/p>\n

In every formative period in history, a few individuals\u2019 actions and words stand apart from the rest of society. Abraham Lincoln\u2019s Second Inaugural Address <\/em>exemplifies the near destruction of the Union; FDR\u2019s Fireside Chats<\/em> are central to the Great Depression; and Martin Luther King\u2019s I Have a Dream<\/em> speech is representative of the entire Civil Rights Movement. During the mid to late 1800s, when anti-slavery sentiments were at their peak, women also began to find their voices in the fight for the equality and liberty of all humans. The women\u2019s rights movement quickly gained momentum and, simultaneously, built an association with the abolition movement. While some abolitionists could not bring themselves to support women\u2019s quest for equality, others, such as Sarah Grimk\u00e9, William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass, became fervent advocates. In rising to represent the unification of abolition and women\u2019s rights, these figures made a prominent mark on history; no one can deny their genuine belief in and desire for equality and liberty, nor can we ignore the moral correctness of their aims. What I intend to examine and question, however, is the credibility <\/em>they demonstrate in their rhetoric: do Grimk\u00e9, Garrison, and Douglass present themselves as credible representatives of the union of abolition and women\u2019s rights? In other words, do all of these figures demonstrate an understanding of the fragile relationship between these two movements? In answering these questions, I not only intend to describe the fragility of this relationship, but also to emphasize that credibility is most apparent when one demonstrates sensitivity to the dangers inherent in such a fragile relationship. In my view, Douglass, in his implicit characterization of the opponent, his passionate yet conscious tone, and his tactful mention of both women and<\/em> slaves, demonstrates a clear understanding of the danger in associating women\u2019s rights and anti-slavery, and is therefore a more credible representative of these movements than Grimk\u00e9 or Garrison.<\/p>\n

In today\u2019s society, women continue to gain prestige and power as doctors, lawyers, and executives. Such opportunity, unfortunately, was not available during Sarah Grimk\u00e9\u2019s time. During the height of her career, Grimk\u00e9\u2019s gender, as well as her outspoken approach to representing the woman movement, garnered a great deal of opposition. So much so that she not only \u201chad trouble obtaining venues in which to speak,\u201d but was also \u201cfrequently heckled\u201d (Reid and Klumpp 316). Animosity against Grimk\u00e9\u2019s support for the abolition movement continued to build, as those opposed to abolition accused her of \u201cseeking black husbands\u201d (Reid and Klumpp 316). Grimk\u00e9 was not the only target of criticism and anger; the entire concept of uniting abolition and women\u2019s rights was largely met with hostility and disapproval.<\/p>\n

Linking women and abolitionists created a delicate relationship between the two movements, so that remarks regarding one threatened to diminish the following of the other. According to critic Aileen Kraditor, the movements\u2019 orators \u201chad to consider the expediency of any position they might adopt on women\u2019s rights in a period in which abolitionism was gaining many converts who would be repelled by . . . the equality of the sexes\u201d (40). In her essay, Kraditor also emphasizes how \u201cmost advocates of the more popular reform endorsed the prevailing disapproval of the other\u201d (40). So as not to deter support, it was imperative that advocates find balance between the two issues. In the specific case of the abolition and woman movements, employing rhetorical approaches to maintain this balance, in my view, equates to credibility. <\/em>In his speeches Douglass employs several such rhetorical devices: he addresses and defines the opponent without attacking that opponent; he promotes his views while remaining conscious of his audience; and finally, he makes equal mention of both movements to clearly establish their relatedness. Douglass, more so than Grimk\u00e9 or Garrison, demonstrates an awareness of the necessity of balance, tailors his writing to fit this balance, and establishes credibility in his rhetoric.<\/p>\n

At the heart of both the anti-slavery and the women\u2019s rights movements were anger, hostility, and an overwhelming desire to combat the opponent. To overcome these emotions, it was crucial for speakers to help their audience understand the opponent. Grimk\u00e9 and Garrison were vocal in identifying the white male as the villain, and in condemning his actions. <\/strong>To Grimk\u00e9, man and his tyrannical nature, \u201cadorned the creature whom God gave him as a companion, with baubles and gewgaws . . . and made her the instrument of his selfish gratification, a plaything to please his eye and amuse his hours of leisure\u201d (321). She describes man\u2019s assertion over woman as a \u201cwar he has waged against her mind, her heart, and her soul,\u201d and even characterizes the very idea of female subservience as \u201cmonstrous\u201d and \u201canti-Christian\u201d (321). Grimk\u00e9 makes no concession in her description of man, in general, as an evil being. Equally outspoken and unapologetic in his description of the opponent is Garrison in his commentary on a debate over women\u2019s rights at the Boston Lyceum. In referring to men as \u201cimpounders of stray women,\u201d Garrison suggests a tendency for \u201ctyrannical men\u201d to treat women as less than human (99, 100). He echoes this sentiment when he declares men to be \u201cthe usurpers of mankind\u201d (100). Garrison views men as both a threat to women and a source of destruction to mankind in general. Grimk\u00e9 and Garrison not only identify the opponent, but also manage to publically denounce him with their unforgiving, blunt, and pointed characterizations.<\/p>\n

Contrary to Grimk\u00e9 and Garrison\u2019s critical, brazen rhetoric, Douglass employs implicit, rather than explicit, tactics in addressing the opposition. He does not declare man an \u201cimpounder\u201d of women or a war-wager. In fact, Douglass does not specifically mention \u201cman\u201d at all. Instead, he makes general mention of his adversaries when he states, \u201cmany who have at last made the discovery that the negroes have some rights . . . have yet to be convinced that women are entitled to any\u201d (\u201cEditorial\u201d 84). Using a similar tactic, he again refers to \u201ca number of persons of this description,\u201d and continues to describe \u201cthe judgment of such persons\u201d (\u201cEditorial\u201d 84\u201385). As a supporter of the same movements as Grimk\u00e9 and Garrison, we can assume Douglass shares with them a common opponent. Unlike his fellow reformers, however, Douglass\u2019 implicit, vague references to \u201csuch persons\u201d do not come across as harsh; he may condemn the adversaries\u2019 views, but he refrains from insulting and personally attacking them. This restraint is evidence of his unwillingness to jeopardize either women or slaves in their movements for equality, and helps to establish his credibility as an orator.<\/p>\n

Characterization of the opponent is not the only area where Grimk\u00e9 and Garrison demonstrate passionate, emotionally charged rhetoric. The overall tones of both speakers also strike an unwaveringly intense chord. At the very outset of her \u201cResponse to the Pastoral Letter,\u201d Grimk\u00e9 exhibits a propensity toward dramatic rhetoric when she refers to the pastors as \u201c[t]hose . . . who are now endeavoring to smother the irreplaceable desire for mental and spiritual freedom which glows in the breast of many, who hardly dare to speak their sentiments\u201d (320). Grimk\u00e9\u2019s statements increase in intensity as she continues to promote her position; she declares, \u201cAlas! She has too well learned the lesson which MAN has labored to teach her. She has surrendered her dearest RIGHTS, and has been satisfied with the privileges which man has assumed to grant her\u201d (321). Her use of capital letters and exclamatory punctuation smacks of a forceful, unrelenting tone.<\/p>\n

Equally as bold, but arguably more insulting, is the nature of Garrison\u2019s writing. In reporting on the debate at the Boston Lyceum, Garrison calls the arguments proposed by those averse to women\u2019s rights \u201cbad illustrations and worse witticisms\u201d (99). He considers them \u201cbarbarous,\u201d and \u201cnot entitled to Christian consideration\u201d (100). Garrison\u2019s blatant disagreement with the subjects of his critique is again underlined when he demands, \u201cA most unmeaning flourish of words! Can any reason be given, why a man may not jointly rule in the same empire? Why he should not govern solely by love as well as woman?\u201d (100). Given his position on women\u2019s rights, we could expect Garrison to demonstrate some favoritism toward the pro-women\u2019s side of the debate. In his commentary, however, Garrison\u2019s aggressive tone is more than a product of favoritism. His insulting, belligerent depiction of the other side\u2019s arguments is uncompromisingly partial, and shows no sensitivity to any views other than his own. While their passion is admirable, Grimk\u00e9 and Garrison\u2019s pieces are aggressive in tone, and appear intolerant of other points of view. Such intolerance could leave the audience feeling attacked during a time when reform success is largely dependent on audience support.<\/p>\n

There are certain speeches in which Douglass\u2019 tone mirrors Grimk\u00e9 and Garrison\u2019s more vigorous styles.\u00a0 As an escaped slave and a fervent proponent of abolition, Douglass delivered many speeches urging the immediate cessation of slavery. The most notorious examples are products of his passionate views and what one biographer describes as his \u201c\u2018rich voice, handsome physique and superb command of the English language\u2019\u201d (qtd. in Reid and Klumpp 338). In his oration entitled \u201cWhat to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?\u201d Douglass employs the emotional, powerful rhetoric that is characteristic of his speeches dealing solely<\/em> with abolition. In addressing his audience, Douglass declares:<\/p>\n

This Fourth of July is yours<\/em>, not mine<\/em>. You<\/em> may rejoice, I<\/em> must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. (\u201cFourth of July\u201d 341)<\/p>\n

In emphasizing the separation that exists between himself, as a slave, and his audience of white women, Douglass highlights his listeners\u2019 na\u00efvet\u00e9; he uses theatrical and pointed speech as a means of inducing guilt in his audience, and opening their eyes to the cruelty of slavery. Given Douglass\u2019 tendency toward this type of robust rhetoric, the balanced, restrained tone he implements in his North Star <\/em>editorial on women\u2019s rights is of even greater note; Douglass recognizes that when dealing with slaves and<\/em> women, his rhetoric must adapt to his audience.<\/p>\n

Despite his ability to passionately emote in front of a crowd, Douglass was highly praised by critics for his even temper. According to Margaret Fuller, Douglass \u201cseems very just and temperate. We feel that his view, even of those who have injured him most, may be relied upon. He knows how to allow for motives and influences\u201d (\u201cNarrative of Frederick Douglass\u201d 356). Fuller\u2019s depiction of Douglass holds especially true for his editorial in the North Star<\/em>, where instead of broad, emotional statements, he uses logical appeals to explain his views. While describing his belief in women\u2019s rights, he states:<\/p>\n

We are free to say that in respect to political rights, we hold woman to be justly entitled to all we claim for man. We go farther, and express our conviction that all political rights which it is expedient for man to exercise, it is equally so for woman. (\u201cEditorial\u201d 85)<\/p>\n

While his proclamations could seem rather flat compared to Grimk\u00e9\u2019s or Garrison\u2019s, Douglass manages to present the same arguments about equality in a way that limits insult and offense. His logic shines through again when he reasons:<\/p>\n

And if that government only is just which governs by the free consent of the governed, there can be no reason in the world for denying to woman the exercise of the elective franchise, or a hand in making and administering the laws of the land. (\u201cEditorial\u201d 85)<\/p>\n

Douglass\u2019 conclusion about the government\u2019s intended role is not only sensible, but also difficult to dispute; anyone who believes in the democratic principles upon which our nation is founded should have a difficult time denying rights of freedom and equality. Douglass pinpoints a loophole in his audience\u2019s reasoning, and responds to it with his clear rationale. Thus, he once again demonstrates a consciousness of his audience, which, as evidenced by their overtly emotional rhetoric, Grimk\u00e9 and Garrison do not.<\/p>\n

It is not my intent to suggest that credible rhetoric leaves no room for emotional appeals. On the contrary, emotion is often a useful embellishment to rational arguments. My interpretation of credibility depends on the specific period when women\u2019s rights and abolition merged together. To some, this dependency could render my standards for credibility unduly narrow. In my view, there is no generic definition of credibility; what is \u201ccredible\u201d in one situation could be different from what is \u201ccredible\u201d under a completely different set of circumstances. In terms of slavery and women\u2019s rights, the delicacy of this reform period did not allow for bursts of passion, where there was the potential for hurt feelings and bitter reactions. Superfluous displays of emotion threatened the already unsteady union of the reforms. Thus, emotion was not the keystone of credible rhetoric during this time, but a deterrent to one\u2019s credibility. To be credible, the rhetoric of the time needed balance.<\/p>\n

The final component to my definition of credible rhetoric involves clear, equal incorporation of the abolition and woman causes. <\/strong>When two monumental reforms join hands, one expects to see extensive overlap between the rhetoric of each. It seems only natural that abolitionists would mention women, and vice versa, in speeches and editorials. Furthermore, one would expect the mention to be made with great care, and with an awareness of the possible implications of representing a neighboring movement. This is not the case in the pieces by Grimk\u00e9 and Garrison. Throughout her entire response to the Ministers of Massachusetts, Grimk\u00e9 mentions slavery once, and while she boldly asserts her belief in freedom and equality\u2014both of which are at the core of abolition\u2014she focuses almost exclusively on women. Her one mention of slavery comes when she says:<\/p>\n

I rejoice, because I am persuaded that the rights of woman, like the rights of slaves, need only be examined to be understood and asserted, even by some of those, who are now endeavoring to smother the irreplaceable desire for mental and spiritual freedom which glows in the breast of many, who hardly dare to speak their sentiments. (320)<\/p>\n

Grimk\u00e9\u2019s simple mention of \u201cthe rights of slaves\u201d seems haphazard in its placement, and plays into the opposition\u2019s view that women\u2019s rights was an \u201c\u2018extraneous\u2019 issue,\u201d that was \u201ctacked\u2026onto the antislavery movement\u201d (Kraditor 40). While the limited number of references to slavery is alarming, I take issue more with Grimk\u00e9\u2019s disregard for the comments she makes after<\/em> her reference to slaves\u2019 rights. Her discussion of \u201cthose, who are now endeavoring to smother the irreplaceable desire for mental and spiritual freedom,\u201d once again uses extreme rhetoric to create an unforgiving view of the opponent. By associating slavery with such bold remarks, Grimk\u00e9 risks misrepresenting her fellow movement. Garrison, while he extends his mention of slavery in his editorial, is also abrasive in his rhetoric. He describes the men\u2019s debate on women\u2019s rights by stating:<\/p>\n

It was like a meeting of slaveholders to discuss with all gravity the question, whether their slaves, if emancipated, would be in a better condition than if kept in bondage; and having muzzled their victims, so that their wishes could not be expressed or known, coming to the rational conclusion that to extend their \u201cappropriate sphere\u201d beyond the boundaries of a plantation, would be injurious to them and destructive to the welfare of society! (100)<\/p>\n

Garrison provides his own interpretation of a \u201cmeeting of slaveholders,\u201d and summarizes what he considers the oppositions\u2019 conclusions regarding slavery. In doing so, he once again portrays the opponent as a tyrannical force. Garrison\u2019s conclusions seem too bold for a public figure that desires to build support for both women and anti-slavery. His remarks could easily upset the slaveholders he describes, and in turn, could endanger the abolition movement. A level of carelessness in representing both movements is apparent in Grimk\u00e9\u2019s and Garrison\u2019s rhetoric, and further discounts the credibility of their words.<\/p>\n

Perhaps Douglass\u2019s most impressive display of balance is in his equal mention of abolition and women\u2019s rights. He manages to reference the two reforms, while emphasizing the core values and goals that unite them. Early in his editorial, Douglass acknowledges the delicate relationship between the movements when he explains:<\/p>\n

Eight years ago a number of persons\u2026actually abandoned the anti-slavery cause, lest by giving their influence in that direction they might possibly be giving countenance to the dangerous heresy that woman, in respect to rights, stands on an equal footing with man. (\u201cEditorial\u201d 85)<\/p>\n

Douglass immediately recognizes the growing uncertainty of some abolitionists surrounding the incorporation of the woman movement, and attempts to prevent further uncertainty when he discusses human duty and morality in promoting freedom and equality. Douglass proclaims, \u201cStanding as we do upon the watch-tower of human freedom, we cannot be deterred from an expression of our approbation of any movement, however, humble, to improve and elevate the character of any members of the human family\u201d (\u201cEditorial\u201d 85). In dedicating much of his rhetoric to promoting general principles, Douglass avoids favoritism of one movement over the other. His representation of the two movements as one united effort displays deference for each individual movement, and recognizes the fragility of the relationship between them. Neither Grimk\u00e9 nor Garrison proves able to achieve this balance, which is the final reason why their rhetoric lacks the credibility of Douglass\u2019s.<\/p>\n

So often we equate fame and prestige with perfection. Those whose influence manages to stand the test of time, we consider flawless and above criticism. There is no denying the honor and respect with which today\u2019s society regards the abolition and woman movements. Without courageous, moral reformers such as Grimk\u00e9, Garrison, and Douglass, our society may never have realized its egregious error in denying both slaves and women the equality and liberty on which the United States is based. While I do not dispute the importance of these reformers, I cannot help but question how their rhetoric influenced the eventual outcomes of both movements: how did their messages, and the way in which they presented those messages, affect anti-slavery? Women\u2019s rights? Would the pace or the outcome of the reforms have been different had the rhetoric been less emotional? More balanced? While we may be incapable of answering these questions, any orator who wishes to effect lasting change must consider them. In leading major movements, speakers have an obligation to envision the possible outcomes and implications of their words. As voices of unification, Grimk\u00e9, Garrison, and Douglass needed to speak for both women and slaves. Grimk\u00e9 and Garrison chose emotional, harsh, and imbalanced rhetoric to express their views. In contrast, Douglass approached his audience in a rational, clear, and balanced way. Douglass, therefore, established himself as a particularly worthy and credible orator.<\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/h2>\n

Douglass, Frederick. \u201cEditorial from The North Star<\/em>.\u201d Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings<\/em>. Ed. Miriam Schneir. New York: Vintage, 1972. 83\u201385. Print.<\/p>\n

—. \u201cWhat to the Slave is the Fourth of July?\u201d American Rhetorical Discourse<\/em>. Ed. Ronald Reid and James Klumpp. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 2005. 340\u2013343. Print.<\/p>\n

Fuller, Margaret. \u201cOn the Narrative of Frederick Douglass.\u201d The American Transcendentalists: Essential Writings<\/em>. Ed. Lawrence Buell. New York: Modern Library, 2006. 354\u2013356. Print.<\/p>\n

Garrison, William Lloyd. \u201cRights of Woman.\u201d William L. Garrison and the Fights Against Slavery: Selections from <\/em>The Liberator<\/span>. Ed William E. Cain. Boston: Bedford\/St. Martin\u2019s, 1995. 97\u2013101. Print.<\/p>\n

Grimk\u00e9, Sarah. \u201cResponse to the Pastoral Letter of the General Association of Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts.\u201dAmerican Rhetorical Discourse<\/em>. Ed. Ronald Reid and James Klumpp. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 2005. 317\u2013320. Print.<\/p>\n

Kraditor, Eileen. \u201cThe Woman Question.\u201d Means and Ends in American Abolitionism \u2013 Garrison and His Critics on Strategy and Tactics, 1834-1850<\/em>. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, Inc., 1967. 39\u201377. Reprint. 1989.<\/p>\n

Reid, Ronald E., and James F. Klumpp. Introduction to \u201cPastoral Letter and Response to the Pastoral Letter.\u201d American Rhetorical Discourse<\/em>. Ed. Ronald Reid and James Klumpp. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 2005. 315\u2013317. Print.<\/p>\n

—. Introduction to \u201cWhat to the Slave is the Fourth of July?\u201d American Rhetorical Discourse<\/em>. Ed. Ronald Reid and James Klumpp. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 2005. 338\u2013330. Print.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sophie Spiers (WR 100, Paper 3) Read the instructor’s introduction Download this essay In every formative period in history, a few individuals\u2019 actions and words stand apart from the rest of society. Abraham Lincoln\u2019s Second Inaugural Address exemplifies the near destruction of the Union; FDR\u2019s Fireside Chats are central to the Great Depression; and Martin […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4801,"featured_media":0,"parent":5258,"menu_order":5,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5292"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4801"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5292"}],"version-history":[{"count":25,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5292\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5703,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5292\/revisions\/5703"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5258"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}