Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

Frederick Douglass

History repeats itself. Frederick Douglass warned us about the Christian Right in 1852.

Invited to speak about the Fourth of July in Rochester, New York on July 5, 1852, escaped slave Frederick Douglass proclaimed that the American church had, by supporting slavery, become “an abomination in the sight of God.” He thundered in the words of a biblical prophet: 

“In the language of Isaiah, the American church might be well addressed, ‘Bring no more vain ablations; incense is an abomination unto me: the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.’” 

Douglass raged for more than an hour against a nation that spoke for freedom but founded its economy on the backs of African American slaves.  We have all heard the famous question that he asked near the speech’s middle: “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?” Most critics, however, overlook his diatribe against the hypocrisy of most American churches. The Christian Right is nothing new. Does the Christian Right of today reflect the same hypocrisy? I will give the evidence and let the reader decide. 

In this Fourth of July speech, Douglass was not attacking Christianity – he was, for a time, an ordained minister of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. Instead, he argued that most mainstream American churches betrayed their religious principles when they either supported or excused American slavery. Why should we care today? Many Christians, not always trusting their own judgment, look to church leaders for moral guidance. When church leaders turn to evil, however, who will guide the guides? 
 

The Fugitive Slave Law

Beginning, Douglass condemned Christian churches that either supported or excused the Fugitive Slave Law. The Fugitive Slave Law required free states to return escaped slaves to their masters. Douglass called the law “one of the greatest infringements of Christian Liberty. He continued that: “if the churches and ministers of our country were not stupidly blind, or most wickedly indifferent, they, too, would so regard it.” 

Explaining why the Fugitive Slave Law was unchristian, he pointed out that, hypothetically, a law that would “abridge the fight to sing psalms, to partake of the sacrament, or to engage in any of the ceremonies of religion” would arouse a massive response from the churches: 

“A general shout would go up from the church, demanding repeal, repeal, instant repeal! And it would go hard with that politician who presumed to solicit the votes of the people without inscribing this motto on his banner.” 

Yet, Douglass said that the law was “a declaration of war against religious liberty.” In language echoing the Hebrew prophets, Douglass maintained that the Fugitive Slave Law attacked religion’s moral foundations. Indeed, the failure of most churches to object to the law told Douglass that the “church regards religion simply as a form of worship, an empty ceremony, and not a vital principle, requiring active benevolence, justice, love and good will towards man. It esteems sacrifice above mercy; psalm-singing above right doing; solemn meetings above practical righteousness.” 

The Church and Wrongful Public Policies

 Not content with his prophetic statement, Douglass then protested that churches were siding with evil: “the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors.”

In fact, he complained that churches taught “that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God,” and that, even worse, “to send it back and escape the bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.” 

Furthermore, Douglass protested, mainstream churches had twisted Christianity into a tool of depravity: “they conferred the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty.” He said, that, by taking evil’s side, churches were driving good people away from the gospel: they “serve to confirm more infidels in this age than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done!” He lamented that “These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion.”

The Corruption of the Church

By this point, Douglass had gone well beyond the condemnation of slavery. He was now attacking what was, to him, a corrupt church that defiled itself as it served the slave masters. He said that false ministers, who, he believed, represented the majority of churches, “strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throng of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form.” Instead, American Christianity had become “a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and dogs.” He complained that American Christianity had become “a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and enslavers of mankind.” 

In a bold, brilliant rhetorical move, Douglass contrasted what he said was the American church’s wickedness against the English church’s anti-slavery activism. The English church, he said “true to its mission of ameliorating, elevating, and improving the condition of mankind, came forward promptly, bound up the wounds of the West Indian slave, and restored him to his liberty.” He praised English churches for viewing emancipation as a “religious question.” Because of the English churches’ more principled stand, “the anti-slavery movement there was not an anti-church movement, for the reason that the church took its full share in prosecuting that movement.” Thus, he showed that religion did not need to be pro-slavery. He urged the American church to follow the British example.
 

Sin of Omission?

Douglass’ decisive point, however, was that the American Christian church had committed a sin of omission. Instead of using their moral authority to excuse slavery, he said, they could exert that authority for the abolitionist cause. What if more religious leaders had stood up against slavery and worked toward the biblical Jubilee, the day of freedom and restoration? Churches and preachers could abandon their passive acquiescence. Instead, they could become a positive force for social justice and reform – just as the Hebrew prophets commanded: 

“The American church is guilty, when viewed in connection with what it is doing to uphold slavery; but it is superlatively guilty when viewed in connection with its ability to abolish slavery.” 

Religion can be a powerful, radical force for good, but, all too often, churches and other religious organizations serve the rich and powerful. That was true during the Crusades. It was true in Douglass’ time and remains true today. In a survey, 86% of white evangelical Protestants inexplicably said that the Confederate flag was a symbol of southern pride, not racism. And scholar Robert P. Jones found that “ “the more racist attitudes a person holds, the more likely he or she is to identify as a white Christian.” Of course, not all white Christians hold these attitudes. Still, these findings seems utterly contrary to the prophets’ teachings.

The Christian Right of Today?

The Christian Right of today does not advocate slavery, but has been known to support openly racist political candidates and public policies. Just as Douglass predicted, no one is quicker than today's Christian Right to protest the slightest infringement of their liberty to exclude or oppress people for their race, creed, or political views. Anyone who deprives them of the right to oppress becomes in their minds, a threat to religious liberty. 

Douglass distinguished between religion of form and religion of content. Does being religious mean that one should follow that religion’s moral principles? Or does religion transform itself into an excuse for evil? When religious leaders side with wickedness, they justify people who wish to perform wicked deeds. I have written before about conversation-stoppers. There is no faster way to stop the conversation then to claim that God is on your side, no matter how evil your side might become. 

Earlier: Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies and Gave a Lesson in How to Shut Down Reasoned Debate

Conclusion

Douglass cited biblical authors and religious principles to condemn the Christian church. He held nothing back as he attacked the United States’ political system and religious organizations. There are reasons that scholars routinely rank Douglass  among the greatest orators. His eloquence, his command of the English language, but, most of all, is willingness to take a firm, uncompromising stand – to attack evil without hesitation, no matter the risk – have marked him as a persuasive force through the ages.

Earlier: What happened to the Fourth of July Speeches?

Earlier: Mark Twain’s Fourth of July Speech

Earlier: Barack Obama’s Fourth of July Speech

Research Note:

James Darsey, a prestigious communication scholar, argues in his award-winning book, The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America, that radical speakers often quote the Hebrew prophets. Let us remember, of course, that the abolition of slavery was considered a dangerous, wildly radical idea in Douglass’ time. 

Quotations from Amos: Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE ®, Copyright  © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1977, 1995 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. www.Lockman.org

Image: public domain, via Wikimedia Commons