Effectiveness, as defined by Webster’s dictionary, is being successful in producing a strong or favorable impression on people. David Walker, a free black man in the times of segregation and slavery, and Frederick Douglas, a man born into slavery with an enthralling saga that led to freedom, generate texts with the attempt to dismantle the institution of slavery. David Walker wrote “ Walker's Appeal in Four Articles; Together with a Preamble, to the Coloured Citizens of the World, but in Particular and Very Expressly to Those of the United States of America,” in 1829 and died in 1830 before he had the opportunity to lead an abolitionist movement. Unfortunately, the United States banned the production of Walker’s appeal shortly after its first publication. On the other hand, Frederick Douglas wrote, Narrative of The Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, which was widely published and is now recognized as one of the greatest texts of American history. However, is recognition always a sign of effectiveness? No, recognition, in this case, is simply propaganda implemented on a large population because one group of people came to the consensus that such text highlights pivotal tactics of American Literature. I assert that David Walker was more effective, by Webster’s definition, in developing an argument against slavery than Frederick Douglas because he incorporates biblical allusions, chronic jeremiads, and historical context into his appeal, while Frederick Douglas only incorporates extensive imagery and metaphors.
Frederick Douglass’ narrative could not be as effective at attacking the institution of slavery, regardless of his implementation of imagery and metaphor, because the narrative format does not allow the same room for criticism that an appeal allows. To clarify, Douglass’ goal was to vividly describe his odyssey, from a slave to a free man, as a means to reveal the evils of slavery. This format, extensive in its essence, does not allow Douglas to, as David Walker did, concisely defile slavery in a way that inspires social change. For example, in the confines of his narrative format Douglas writes:
“I would pour out my soul's complaint, in my rude
way, with an apostrophe to the moving multitude of
ships: -- "You are loosed from your morrings, and are free;
I am fast in my chains, and am a slave! You move
merrily before the gentle gale, and I sadly before
the bloody whip! You are freedom's swift-winged
angels, that fly round the world; I am confined in
bands of iron! O that I were free!”(Douglas 67).
While it is evident that this metaphor of “ swift- winged angels” is powerful and thought provoking, the narrative format does not allow him to briefly generate the argument that slavery should be incinerated because it does not allow everyone to feel the freedom of swift- winged angels. David Walker’s appeal format allowed him to do the prior, and blacks, who were recently gaining literacy, had the knowledge to read his coherent appeal and, in effect, act on it. Henceforth, David Walker’s appeal format allowed him to be more effective than Douglas because he was succinct enough to connect with his audience.
Furthermore, while concise, David Walker still assimilates intricate biblical allusions into his text to challenge the continuity of slavery. Within the first part of his appeal, he exclaims, “ I will not here speak of the destructions which the Lord brought upon Egypt, in consequence of the oppression and consequent groans of the oppressed-- of the hundreds and
 |
| David Walker; Slave abolitionist |
Moving on, Walker’s use of historical context developed his logos and, in subsequence, allowed him to adequately bash slavery. In his opening paragraph David Walker states, “ They tell us of the Israelites in Egypt, the Helots in Sparta, and of the Roman Slaves, which last were made up from almost every nation under heaven, whose sufferings under those ancient and heathen nations, were, in comparison with ours, under this enlightened and Christian nation, no more than a cypher” (Walker 1). Cypher, in this case, means a nonentity. Evidently, he argues that all the previous institutions of slavery do not compare to american slavery in their cruelty. He cleverly precedes the idea that American slavery is the worst form of slavery by providing historical examples that the audience could empathize with the cruelties and then use that same empathy to despise american slavery. At another point, Walker says “And yet they are calling for Peace!--Peace! ! Will any peace be given unto them? Their destruction may indeed be procrastinated awhile, but can it continue long, while they are oppressing the Lord's people? Has He not the hearts of all men in His hand? Will he suffer one part of his creatures to go on oppressing another like brutes always, with impunity?” (Walker 4). Again, David Walker implements historical context with a series of rhetorical questions regarding the cruel Spaniards. He cleverly guides his audience’s thinking, so that they may relate it back to current American slavery. Hence, David Walker’s dexterous use of historical context allow him to be extremely effective in speaking against slavery.
Lastly, Mr. Walker sagaciously uses Jeremiads, or a literary work or speech expressing a bitter lament or a righteous prophecy of doom, within his appeal to solidify his argument against slavery. David Walker challenges the world’s existence due to its great injustice. His appeal states, “They shall have enough of making slaves of, and butchering, and murdering us in the manner which they have. No doubt some may say that I write with a bad spirit, and that I being a black, wish these things to occur. Whether I write with a bad or a good spirit, I say if these things do not occur in their proper time, it is because the world in which we live does not exist”( Walker). To clarify, he bluntly states that either the whites will pay for the cruelties they implemented on blacks, or the world will cease to exist because it never deserved to. This causes his audience to listen/ read attentively, as he is challenging their mere existence. Adding on, David Walker implements a jeremiad, with the same purpose, by saying, “ He may see some of my brethren in league with tyrants, selling their own brethren into hell upon earth” (Walker). While concise, he still argues that human trafficking has no alternate result except hell. Walker argues that slavery will lead all its originators into hell. This is effective because religion was prominent in the United States and people were extremely scared of not acquiring salvation upon death, so using this jeremiad caused the whites of the time to realize that their actions led to a dark and fiery place. Thus, jeremiads allowed Walker to be effective in attacking the institution of slavery.
In conclusion, it is evident that David Walker was more effective in developing an argument against slavery than Frederick Douglas because he used biblical allusions, shocking jeremiads, and historical context in his appeal, while Frederick Douglas only incorporates extensive imagery and metaphors. Ultimately, both authors were as effective as they could be in the confines of their formats. This makes both Walker’s appeal and Douglass’ narrative great pieces of American literature. However, Walker’s appeal format allowed him to be more straight forward and concise when attacking slavery, which provoked stronger emotion; subsequently, by Webster’s definition, David Walker was more effective in incinerating the adamant walls of slavery.
