Rhetoric of Douglass and King: Ethos, Pathos, and Justice

Introduction

Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. were truly great men and exceptional public speakers. King was also a hero and martyr to the cause of nonviolent resistance who, quite possibly, was assassinated by Southern racists with the complicity of the federal government. As far as ethos is concerned, both men possessed immense moral authority: Douglass was an escaped slave who became the leading Black abolitionist in the North, while King was a Baptist minister who led the civil rights movement from 1955 to 1968. Douglass, in his Fourth of July speech, used more pathos than King in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, graphically describing the terrible conditions of Southern slavery that he had experienced firsthand. Unlike King, he did not make a moral argument for nonviolence, although he strongly denounced the United States for betraying its own principles of liberty and democracy for all.

In their respective rhetorical situations, both men addressed white audiences they hoped would be sympathetic to their cause, and both offered strong criticism of white Christians who had been indifferent to the situation of Black Americans and had failed to live up to the highest principles of their faith. King also expressed disappointment with white moderates in the South who were largely standing on the sidelines and allowing racists and segregationists to have their way. Douglass expected nothing from white Southerners, though he hoped to inspire Northern whites to take stronger action against slavery and the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law.

Rhetorical Situations

Martin Luther King Jr.'s pretext for writing his letter was a response to a group of "moderate" white clergy who had opposed the demonstrations in Birmingham. More than likely, he understood very well that these men were not particularly moderate and had no genuine sympathy for the cause of Black civil rights. The letter nonetheless gave him an opportunity to condemn moderate whites across the South for failing to take a stand against the segregationists and the Ku Klux Klan, which had been so violent in Birmingham that the city had earned the nickname "Bombingham." Even the moderate whites did not want King in the city, called his demonstrations "unwise and untimely," and hoped only that he would leave (King 442).

Frederick Douglass was an escaped slave speaking before a sympathetic white audience in Rochester, New York. Like King, he was attempting to reach out to white moderates and fence-sitters — at least those willing to give him a hearing. Outright racists, slaveholders, and their supporters would not have listened to him, while Black Americans were already all too well aware of their own situation. Rather than completely alienating his audience by simply denouncing America on the Fourth of July, Douglass subtly compared the Founders to abolitionists, noting that they too were "accounted in their day plotters of mischief, agitators, and rebels, dangerous men," as were King and Douglass in their own time (Douglass 554). Douglass made clear that he fully endorsed the principles of the American Revolution, for with the Founders "justice, liberty and humanity were 'final', not slavery and oppression," and even George Washington had freed his slaves in his will (Douglass 555).

Argumentative Strategies

King affirmed his deeply held convictions about Christian nonviolence and social justice — regular themes in all his speeches and writings — regardless of whether the Southern white clergy were actually listening. He was in Birmingham "because injustice is here," and just as the Apostle Paul "carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town" (King 443). Like Douglass, King believed that "freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed," and that "justice too long delayed is justice denied" (King 445). Although the white clergy condemned him for breaking the law, King agreed with Douglass that laws oppressing minorities or degrading the "human personality" were unjust. Because Black Southerners had no right to vote or participate in creating these laws, they were justified in breaking them — though "one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty" (King 446).

Douglass advocated the same ideals of justice, freedom, and morality regarding the situation of Black Americans, although he argued that violence would probably be necessary to end slavery, just as it had been necessary to win independence from Great Britain. Black Americans were hardly full and equal citizens of the Republic in 1776, 1852, or even 1963, but both King and Douglass demanded such inclusion. Douglass stated plainly: "I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us" (Douglass 557). For Black Americans, all the promises of liberty and democracy were false, since most were still enslaved, and even those who had escaped to the North were no longer secure under the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. American democracy was a fraud when Northerners were acting as "mere tools and bodyguards to the tyrants of Virginia and Carolina" (Douglass 561).

Conclusion

Nothing could be clearer than the absolute repugnance that Douglass felt toward the institution of slavery and how he hoped to inspire Northern whites to take action against it — by any means necessary. King hoped to inspire equal abhorrence for segregation and racist violence in his white audience, but he also pointed out that when he entered the civil rights movement in 1955 he had hoped for strong support from white religious institutions in the South. He had received virtually none, and this had been one of his great disappointments, since for evil to prosper it required the silence of good people. Unlike Douglass, King took a strongly principled stand for nonviolence, but he warned whites that if peaceful change failed, the United States could expect a racial conflagration.