Ronald Reagan Spoke on the Fourth of July: Celebrating Freedom, Shared Values, and Diversity

Ronald Reagan, White House photo

On July 4th, 1986, United States President Ronald Reagan spoke for unity. He praised the United States for being one nation, united. Ceremonial speeches are at their best when they remind audiences of shared values, when they pull us together—when they encourage us to work “heart in hand.” Reagan celebrated religious and ethnic diversity, praising a nation that is united, not by race or creed, but, more importantly, by shared values.

While acknowledging our differences, Reagan focused instead on our common goals. Reagan asked the nation to put disagreements into perspective. He asked us to celebrate and embrace what is good. He called Americans to uphold shared values, with world freedom (not just our own freedom) being the paramount value, working together, yes, “heart in hand.”

Today, have we forgotten that lesson?

A true traditionalist, Reagan quoted our third president, Thomas Jefferson, to reach across the ages with his optimism. Quoting Jefferson, Reagan reminded the audience about the nation’s ability to triumph over adversity, to ride through storms. He reminded the audience that we can overcome strife and continue to enjoy a united America: a United States of America. By quoting Jefferson, Reagan tied his ideas to tradition, while simultaneously looking to the future:

“‘It carries me back,’ Jefferson wrote about correspondence with his co-signer [John Adams] of the Declaration of Independence, ‘To the times when, beset with difficulties and dangers, we were fellow laborers in the same cause, struggling for what is most valuable to man, his right to self-government. Laboring, always at the same oar, with some wave ever ahead threatening to overwhelm us and yet passing harmless, we rode through this storm with heart and hand.’”

“Rode through the storm.” We often lose perspective, don’t we? Our differences alarm us, while we overlook what we share. That is why, continuing, Reagan stated the balance—the balance between our heritage and our hopes for the future, on the one hand, and the seemingly minor differences that set us apart:

“…the things that unite us, America’s past of which we’re so proud, our hopes and aspirations for the future of the world and this much-loved country. These things far outweigh what little divides us.”

Having reinforced the nation’s shared principles, Reagan neared his value-laden conclusion. Drawing an even larger point, Reagan gave the nation a lesson in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI):

“And so tonight we are to reaffirm, that Jew and Gentile, we are one nation under God. That black and white, we are one nation indivisible. That Republican and Democrat, we are all Americans. Tonight, with heart and hand, through whatever trial and travail, we pledge ourselves to each other and to the cause of human freedom. The cause that has given light to this land, and hope to the world.”

Doesn’t that make sense? By definition, a united nation is an inclusive nation. We are all Americans, Reagan insisted, no matter what our religion. Regardless of race or ethnicity, he said, “we are one nation indivisible” (echoing the Pledge of Allegiance). Regardless of our disagreements, he said, Americans are to reach “heart and hand,” not only to one another, but to “the cause of human freedom.”

Indeed, yes, ceremonial speaking at its best pulls us together and reminds us of our shared values. Reagan talked about values by which we can live. We are weak if we fracture, but we can live in a united America. We can agree that freedom is important, and not just freedom for the privileged few, but freedom for everyone.

So often, conservatives today honor Ronald Reagan as one of our greatest presidents. However, should we all listen to him more often than we do? Can we agree about “the cause of human freedom?” Can we, on the Fourth of July 2023, remember to work together, “heart and hand?”

What Happened to the Fourth of July Speeches? 

In my youth, we always heard a patriotic speech before the July Fourth fireworks. The content varied a little from year to year, but the speaker always reminded us about what it means to be an American. That practice has died away. The 4th of July should mean much more than setting off fireworks or grilling frankfurters. Shouldn’t it? Can we “ride through the storm?”

Happy Birthday, United States of America!

________________________

Mark Twain's 1886 Fourth of July Speech

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

Reagan versus Trump: The Unifier and the Divider. Two Public Speaking Styles. Same Message, Different Songs

President Trump Awards Medal of Honor: An Epideictic Speech

________________________

Research note: the insight that ceremonial (or epideictic) speeches teach shared values traces back to The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, by Belgian philosophers Chaïm Perlman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca.

Thanks to the good people at rev.com for preparing a transcript of this important speech.

John Kennedy Spoke for World-Wide Freedom and Independence in his 1962 Fourth of July Speech

Independence Hall

A good ceremonial speech teaches a lesson—sometimes a policy lesson, sometimes a moral lesson. In his 1962 Fourth of July speech, President John Kennedy told the nation that American independence depended on peace and independence throughout the world.  He spoke of values that implied major foreign policy decisions. 

As a decorated combat veteran of the Pacific war, Kennedy understood how injustice in one part of the world could affect us all. He taught a vital moral and political lesson. Furthermore, as the 21st Century United States becomes increasingly isolationist, it is a lesson for us to remember today.

Speaking at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, Kennedy insisted that Independence Day is not just about a historical event, but a value. That value, however, gave rise to powerful action that formed our new nation. Praising the Declaration of Independence, Kennedy said that it was a unique document because it gave:

“…the final irrevocable decision that it took to assert the independence of free states in place of colonies, and to commit to that goal their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.”

Yet, independence comes with obligations, with a place in the world. That is why Kennedy urged the United States to protect everyone’s freedom across the globe. It was, he explained, the United States’ moral obligation to do its part for world freedom. Indeed, Kennedy explained that injustice anywhere threatened all of us:

“On this fourth day of July, 1962, we who are gathered at this same hall, entrusted with the fate and future of our states and nation, declare now our vow to do our part to lift the weights from the shoulders of all, to join other men and nations in preserving both peace and freedom, and to regard any threat to the peace or freedom of one as a threat to the peace and freedom of all.”

Kennedy pledged the United States’ moral and physical strength to protect world freedom and justice:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred [honor].”

So, yes, Kennedy praised the Declaration of Independence. That was his proper thesis. From that praise, however, he drew a moral lesson. He showed that the United States had world responsibilities. But moral values imply moral actions. Kennedy also gave a policy lesson. That lesson was for the United States of America to stand up for world freedom.

World War II taught us that conflict and tyranny can reach across the world to affect us. The rise of authoritarianism in the United States itself should warn us of continuing dangers from within. We do not have ceremonies like Independence Day just to make us feel good. No, we celebrate to remember what is important in our lives. The lessons of the past give us wisdom for the future.

Earlier Post: Should ceremonial speeches cause controversy?

Earlier Post: America a Dream? Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Independence Day Speech

____________


Research Note: Chaïm Perlman and Lucie-Olbrechts-Tyteca expounded the view that ceremonial speeches convey basic values. Their monumental book is available in academic libraries and large bookstores.

Image of Independence Hall: © William D. Harpine

Image of John Kennedy: Kennedy Library

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