The Constant Victim

Frederick Douglass Dissed in Two Dimensions

You may have heard by now that a statue of Frederick Douglass has been ripped up and thrown in a ditch by some unknown knaves. I didn't bother, having been preoccupied with other matters, writing up my essay anticipating the misappropriation of Douglass' words on Independence Day. Like every other thoughtful black American, I have been informed about the ammunition he presents radicals with his speeches, most notably "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?"

All of the media, upon presenting this news, have taken a similarly oblique view of Douglass' words, and none that I've seen yet have bothered to post them other than a few words in the context they most want to project. Consider PBS:

In Rochester on July 5, 1852, Douglass gave the speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July,” in which he called the celebration of liberty a sham in a nation that enslaves and oppresses its Black citizens.

To a slave, Douglass said, Independence Day is “a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

Consider the Washington Post who uses the same paragraph:

Douglass answered: "A day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.”

Consider the LA Times who gives this brief on Douglass

In Rochester on July 5, 1852, Douglass gave the speech “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July,” in which he called the celebration of liberty a sham in a nation that enslaved and oppressed its Black citizens.

To a slave, Douglass said, Independence Day is “a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

Across the Pond the Guardian spends more time on Douglass' words, but in the end: 

To a slave, Douglass says, America’s annual celebration of independence is “a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

I just happened to have read recently the excellent biography of Douglass by David Blight which interestingly of note makes a number of unnecessary but interesting observations of what might arise in today's society vigorous comment to various sentiments of Douglass' day. I found them a bit PC, myself, but it's good they are there. Histories themselves are subject to history. 

So it didn't take long for me to recall that I did read the full text of Douglass' speech and had been involved several times in controversial arguments about the complexities of the man, many of which make him admirable. But I'd simply like to draw your attention the these paragraphs from the text I recall which is something to be highlighted for those of us who appreciate a full reading. Namely the clear faith and conviction Douglass had, shared also I am convinced by MLK about the core nature of America's Constitution.  

Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretence, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing, and a bye-word to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your Union. It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement, the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice; it shelters crime; it is a curse to the earth that supports it; and yet, you cling to it, as if it were the sheet anchor of all your hopes. Oh! be warned! be warned! a horrible reptile is coiled up in your nation’s bosom; the venomous creature is nursing at the tender breast of your youthful republic; for the love of God, tear away, and fling from you the hideous monster, and let the weight of twenty millions crush and destroy it forever!

But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious Fathers of this Republic.

Then, I dare to affirm, notwithstanding all I have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped

To palter with us in a double sense:
And keep the word of promise to the ear,
But break it to the heart.

And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practiced on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe. There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length — nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour.

Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a track of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman. Ex-Vice-President Dallas tells us that the Constitution is an object to which no American mind can be too attentive, and no American heart too devoted. He further says, the Constitution, in its words, is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens. Senator Berrien tell us that the Constitution is the fundamental law, that which controls all others. The charter of our liberties, which every citizen has a personal interest in understanding thoroughly. The testimony of Senator Breese, Lewis Cass, and many others that might be named, who are everywhere esteemed as sound lawyers, so regard the constitution. I take it, therefore, that it is not presumption in a private citizen to form an opinion of that instrument.

Now, take the Constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.

It's a bit much to expect, I imagine, those peddlers of the short form, investors in the clickbait trade, even in their minutes of sincere consideration to do anything but insult the intelligence of their audience. With any luck such an insult will be sufficient to threaten their business models to the point at which the publication of thick paragraphs whose significance and value might last for a hundred years will be considered worth their effort. Monetize that, numbskulls.

Similarly, it's difficult to tell whether the cretinous vandals who have knocked over Douglass were part of some thin-skinned reactionaries bent on exchanging retarded tit for scabrous tat, or some literate boneheads discovering that Douglass himself had less hatred for America than they do. Either way, it's an ugly shame. At least now you know where you ought to be standing. The words are yours.