Do you know that the names Tshosa and Tshane are types of spears?

October 17, 2016

a-bechuana-warrior-in-the-19th-century-ken-welshOne of the privileges of being a lexicographer is that you tend to find out language issues which other people take for granted. In the past few years I have gained much fascination from the history of words, that is, where they come from. The Setswana that we speak has gone through much change over the years. Some of the changes, perhaps the most obvious ones, are those which come from language contact. Setswana has had contact with English, Afrikaans, Kalanga and other regional languages. There is a need to preserve these changes in dictionaries so that those who come after us will understand some old texts and also understand who they are. Many personal names are fossilized nouns of old which are no longer used in daily discourse. For instance surnames such as Tshane and Tshosa.

In our quest to preserve our language in dictionaries, we must not reinvent the wheel. We must learn from developments elsewhere. One place from which we can learn is from the English language. Let us dial the clock backwards – way back to the 1800s. In November 1857 Richard Chenevix Trench read a paper entitled On some deficiencies in our dictionaries to the Philological Society of England. This paper has been considered by Winchester as a formidable critique of the few dictionaries then in existence. Trench argued that dictionaries suffered from a number of shortcomings – grave deficiencies from which the language and, by implication, the Empire and its Church might well eventually come to suffer. The paper was significant in that it gave the first impetus to the work on the magnificent Oxford English Dictionary (the mighty OED). Because of the weaknesses outlined, Trench argued that there was therefore a need for a new dictionary written on historical principles. Such a dictionary, he argued, would record every word from its birth to its death, carefully documenting its shades of meanings. He considered a dictionary as “an historical monument, the history of a nation contemplated from one point of view; and the wrong ways into which a language has wandered or been disposed to wander, may be nearly as instructive as the right ones in which it has traveled: as much as may be learned, or nearly as much from its failures as from its success, from its follies as from its wisdom”. Trench’s criticism offers some useful insights to the neglected subject of etymology in Setswana, though we do not argue for Setswana dictionaries to be compiled on historical principles. The treatment of etymology in dictionaries for African languages is an important one, and yet one that is grossly neglected in African language lexicography in general.

There has been some interest in etymology in MLA Kgasa’s Thanodi ya Setswana ya dikole (Kgasa, 1976); Dikišinare ya Setswana English Afrikaans (Snyman et al, 1990); Thanodi ya Setswana (Kgasa & Tsonope, 1995) and English-Setswana-English (Matumo, 1993). Kgasa (1976) traces a word to the language of origin but does not give its etymon (a word in the source language). He has 239 headwords marked with etymology. Snyman et al (1990) just like Kgasa (1976) marks the source language of the etymon (the word), but does not give the etymon. Kgasa and Tsonope (1995) do not include any etymological markup in the dictionary. Matumo (1993) marks words as being of foreign origin (FOR) but doesn’t mark the source language or the etymon.

Historically Setswana has been, and currently is, in contact with Afrikaans, English, other local and regional languages (e.g. Zulu) languages. It is important that a dictionary must attempt to capture the degree of lexical influence from these languages in its pages. As a growing language, Setswana has been creating numerous words through a variety of word formation processes such as coining, blending etc. It is critical that the origins of such terms are preserved within the pages of a monolingual dictionary. The latest monolingual dictionary Tlhalosi ya Medi ya Setswana traces the etymology of over 10% of the entries. While this is a welcome development, much of the etymology   information relates to borrowed terms. For instance the word jeme is traced to the English word jam. Other entries such as names of months have elaborate etymology where words are traced to other words and practices in the Setswana culture. For instance the word Firikgong which is traced to the dove mofiri which builds its nest using small pieces of word dikgong. The etymology therefore reads as follows: Kgwedi e e reilwe ka lephoi la mofiri kgotsa kofiri le le a beng le sela dikgonnyana, le aga sentlhaga, go tla le simolola go baya mae. Ka go nna jalo leina le le tswa mo go mofiri le dikgong.

We however still need to dig the roots of the Setswana language some more. For instance in my recent readings I have found that the words tlhobolo (gun) and lerumo (bullet) are old words which predate the coming of guns amongst the Batswana. The word tlhobolo used to mean a quiver for arrows. This meaning is archaic and no longer used. The term has been semantically extended to mean a gun. The word lerumo also used to mean a spear and it is now used to mean a bullet. The word tshane which is now common amongst the Bangwaketse as a surname has also fallen off from usage. It used to mean broad-bladed spear or sharpened stick used by herdboys. The name Tshosa, common amongst Ngwato royalty is sometimes mistaken to mean to scare off or to intimidate(assumed to be derived from the verb go tshosa: “to scare or frighten”), while it has an archaic meaning of a long spear with large blade.

There is therefore a need to dig the lost meanings of our words and store them in our dictionaries for the benefit of researchers and our children.

MLA KGASA (1914-2001) A lexicographer, statesman and national icon

September 27, 2016
Kgasa5As we celebrate 50 years of independence, I celebrate MLA: a national icon and a pioneer Setswana lexicographer. He was born Morulaganyi Lochinvar Andrew Kgasa in Kanye on April 16th 1914; the grandson to Motsatsing, whose origins are Barungwane from Kgatleng in Moshupa. MLA (as he was later to become known) was the third son of Tekonyane Dilotsotlhe and Reverend Andrew Kgasa, who was one of the first Batswana ministers of religion in the London Missionary Society (LMS). His is the story of a man whose background could be classified as enlightened and privileged with an excellent blend of Christian values, Western education and African cultural values. It is the tale of a man who later in life lived under the painful affliction of tuberculosis – and for a significant part of his life, lived as an invalid – physically weakened by illness, but who nevertheless remained spiritually strong, mentally active and intellectually alert.
In his unpublished memoirs, “Malatsi a me mo dikoleng” (1974), MLA mentions his first primary school teacher as Kgosikobo Chelenyane at Rachele School and Stephen Makhene as the headmaster of the school. He also remembers other teachers such as Modisaotsile Mabote, Kehetoge Petso, Kwelagobe General Bome, Ms Victoria Namane, Ms Edith Sediapelo Kooneeng, Outlule Boakgomo and Sejako Tiro.
After the completion of his primary education at Rachele primary School in Kanye, he started Form 1 at Tigerkloof, South Africa, in 1931 and studied for the Junior Certificate. He describes the standards of the education system then as very high compared to the education most students go through these days. Yet he points out that a teacher for a specific class was supposed to teach all the subjects: “English, History, Geography, Mathematics, Arithmetic, Physical Science, Biology and Physiology”. Aware that he was writing his memoirs in Setswana and that the subjects he lists are all rendered in English, he admits the difficulty of translating the names into Setswana this way: “Go a pala, le fa re ka re re patelela jang.”
MLA states in his memoirs that while he was in Form 3 in 1934, he met Pidio in Tigerkloof, who was in Standard 6. Although MLA moved on to Lovedale for Matric studies, he declares he never forgot Pidio as one who could be a future wife. Pidio herself was the daughter of Disang Raditladi and Nkwane Ratshosa. Pidio’s elder brother was the renowned Botswana author, Leetile Raditladi, while her younger sister was Mary Mmaanete who married their first cousin Mookame Gaseitsiwe (younger brother to Chief Bathoen II). In other words both Bathoen’s mother and Pidio’s mother were sisters from the Ratshosa family.
He and Pidio Disang Raditladi were married on the 28th of December 1942.
After his return from South Africa to Botswana in 1952, MLA became a member of the African Advisory Council and Joint Advisory Council which worked hard towards the achievement of a non-racial Botswana society long before Botswana’s attainment of independence.
His first teaching post in Botswana was at Moeng College in 1957. Again he taught some of the renowned Batswana such as the former President Gontebanye Mogae, David Magang, Lepetu Setshwaelo, Benjamin Makobole, Lebang Mpotokwane, Kegalale Gasennelwe and Joyce Thema.
In 1961 he was appointed translator in the Education Department. From 1962 to 1966 he was the Principal of Kgari Sechele Senior Secondary School. MLA was also instrumental in the establishment of the Association of Botswana Secondary School Headmasters. This was an organization that facilitated cooperation and encouraged better communication among secondary schools, and between secondary schools and the Department of Education (later Ministry of Education).
MLA retired from teaching in 1967, but this did not end his national contribution. After his retirement he was appointed education specialist for Bangwaketse schools. He also served for a long time as Setswana examiner for both the Junior Certificate and Cambridge School Certificate for schools in Botswana. Other forms of service included membership of the Place Names Commission (1968-77). He later became Deputy Chairman of this Commission. From 1969 to 1979 he was Chairman of the Public Service Commission as well as of the Judicial Service Commission. He was on the Board of Directors of Longman Botswana from the establishment of the company in 1981. Between 1983 and 1985 he was news editor at Radio Botswana, and in 1985 he was a member of the National Setswana Language Council.
Faithful to his family background MLA was a staunch and diligent lay worker in the United Congregational Church of Southern Africa (UCCSA), which he served in a variety of capacities over an extended time. He was a regular delegate to the annual assemblies of the UCCSA as well as Chairman and Treasurer of the Botswana Synod, Synod representative on the Governing Board of Kgolagano College, of which he was Vice-Chairperson, and Chairman of the Board of Governors of Moeding College.
It is mainly as a writer and promoter of the Setswana language and culture that MLA made the greatest mark. Beginning in the 1940s as a regular columnist in newspapers like “Naledi ya Batswana”, where he wrote under the pen name “Makepeace Shabaa”, he later contributed short essays regularly in the government magazine Kutlwano under the heading “Moakanyi a re…” and “Mogopolo wa kgwedi…” In 1970 he gave regular talks over Radio Botswana on the theme “Setswana sa borre” as well as discussions on various aspects of Setswana culture.
For eight years from 1968 to 1976 he compiled, single-handedly, the first Setswana dictionary, “Thanodi ya Setswana ya dikole”, having tried without success to persuade others to tackle the project jointly as a team. A revised edition of Kgasa’s first dictionary appeared in 1988. As he was anxious that the dictionary work should continue after his death, he teamed up with a young linguist, Dr. Joseph Tsonope, and together they worked on a major monolingual dictionary of Setswana. It was published by Longman in 1995 under the title Thanodi ya Setswana. MLA’s wife Pidio passed away on 19 February 1987, after which he married Mabel Seipone Sebogodi (a nurse by profession) in August 1994. In recognition of his contribution to Botswana as a teacher and Setswana scholar, the University of Botswana awarded MLA an honorary Doctorate of Letters in 1992. In recognition of his contribution to Setswana language and culture, Longman Botswana set up a prize, the MLA Kgasa/Longman Prize for the outstanding performance by a student in the Setswana language (in the Department of African Languages and Literature) at the University of Botswana.
This giant of a man passed away on August 10, 2001, at the age of 87.

Why BOT50 is wrong and BOTS50 is correct.

September 15, 2016


There is a perfectly good reason why BOTS50 rolls off your tongue with such ease compared to BOT50. You may have also heard people say “I come from Bots” and never: “I come from Bot”. This is not by mistake. There is a reason to the propensity to call Botswana Bots and not Bot. This technically is known as hypocorisms – pet name of calling. How this is done comes down purely to linguistics, specifically Setswana linguistics. Let us conclude here first that it was a terrible mistake to brand the Botswana independence’s entire campaign BOT50 and not BOTS50. It is no wonder Batswana keep saying BOTS50 anyway and ignore the name BOT50! Below I argue that BOT50 is influenced by applying English rules to a Setswana name while BOTS50 is the most appropriate name for Botswana50 since it conforms to Setswana phonotactics. Dear reader I beg that you keep up with this article because the argument will use some linguistic knowledge, though fairly rudimentary, which may be challenging to one who is not familiar with the field of linguistics.

On the 30th of September 2016 Botswana will celebrate fifty years of independence from British rule. The celebrations of this important event have been termed Botswana50 which has been shortened to BOT50. We argue that this shortened version is flawed since it influenced by English syllabification and not by Setswana syllabification which would result with BOTS50. We start with the very matter of syllabification and consider it for both Setswana and English. Let’s start here: the syllable (I will not discuss the matter of syllable structure). The name BOTSWANA is made up of three syllables botswa, and na. What is clear is that each of these syllables is made of a consonant (C) followed by a vowel (V): bo (CV), tswa (CV) and na (CV). This is fairly easy to understand for bo and na found in the name Botswana. However, the central syllable [tswa] can be confusing for those without Setswana linguistics training. Their question may be this: Isn’t tswa made of three consonants followed by a vowel? It appears so. [t, s, w, a]. However in Setswana linguistics /tsw/ is a single consonant! Actually what is technically a consonant is /ts/ which in this case is produced with lip-rounding (technically called labialisation). The consonant here is therefore /ts/ with /w/ being a feature indicating labialization. This is a very important point. I will repeat: This is a very important point. Remember this: /ts/ is a Setswana consonant. This means that it cannot be broken into two in the same way that it would be absurd to break /m/ or /k/ into two when we write. You cannot split /ts/ into two and discard /s/ and then remain with /t/ without butchering the language and sounding weird. It is therefore linguistically correct to say BOTS50, and not BOT50, because /ts/ in this regard is a single consonant. And remember, you never split a consonant, therefore you must never split /ts/! The proper thing to say is BOTS50 and not BOT50 which merciless splits a Setswana consonant. There are other place names which follow this pattern. For instance, we say Moch for Mochudi and we don’t say Moc. This is because /ch/ in the name Mochudi constitutes a single consonant which must not be split. We also say Mosh for Moshupa and we don’t say Mos. This is because /sh/ in the name Moshupa constitutes a single consonant which must not be split. We also say Lots for Lotsane and we don’t call Lotsane, Lot. This is because /ts/ in the name Lotsane constitutes a single consonant which must not be split. Since you cannot split /ts/ in Botswana, then BOTS50 is much more appropriate than BOT50.

We must however deal with the issue of how we could have come up with BOT50. And the answer sadly lies in English. The BOT50 scenario can also be explained through the matter of the syllable, that is, through how English speaking people break the name BOTSWANA into syllables. It is totally different from how native Setswana speakers do it. While native speakers break the word Botswana into the following three syllables bo. tswa. and na, English speakers break the name into bot. swa and na. This may even be deduced from the way English native speakers pronounce the name Botswana. They pronounce it as: Bot-swana. This is precisely because English doesn’t have /tsw/ or even /ts/ at the beginning of the word or a syllable (technically, at syllable onset position). No English word or syllable begins with /ts/ or /tsw/. Therefore anytime there is a word that has /ts/ or /tsw/ somewhere in the middle, English speakers will break that consonantal cluster so that it conforms to the rules of English. They will break it so that /t/ belongs to the preceding syllable, while /s/ belongs with the following syllable. This happens because in English /ts/ is not a consonant but a cluster of consonants that always occurs at the end of a word and never at the beginning of a syllable. English speakers would therefore have no problem with pronouncing BOTS50, not because they consider /ts/ a single consonant, but because they see /ts/ as a series of consonants that sometimes occurs at the end of a word, as in the word boots. Therefore how we ended with BOT50 may be explained by appealing to the English syllabification of the name BOTSWANA into Bot, swa and na.

Since the name Botswana is not an English word, but a Setswana word, it is properly syllabified as bo. tswa. na and not as bot. swa. na. It was therefore a terrible mistake to brand the Botswana independence’s entire campaign BOT50 and not BOTS50. It is no wonder Batswana keep saying BOTS50 anyway and ignore the name BOT50!

Motho! Motho!

August 31, 2016

KhamaMaloba tautona a goroga le ’atla sa gagwe, morwa Khama, kwa phuthegong ya Domi, gatwe batho ba gowa ba re: “Motho! Motho!” Kana ke raya go gowa batho ba goelela ba bangwe ba re: “Motho! Motho!” Ka ipotsa gore a naare ba rotloetsi ba ba Modimo ba; a ba ne ba sa nne khuduthamaga mme ba tswa ka megopolo ya dikgalaletso tse di botoka tsa go boka tautona Mogae le ’atla sa gagwe Ian Khama. A o raya gore batho ba ka goeletsa yo mongwe ba re: “Motho! Motho!” ntswa le bone tota e le batho? Mme kana ke matswakabele a puo le bokao jwa yone ka tota bagalaletsi ba, ba ka go bolelela gore “Motho! Motho!” ke khutshwafatso ya eng, le gore ditso tsa go goeletsa mo, ke eng. Mme nna fa ke ka re ke feta batho jaaka nna ba re “Motho! Motho!” nka nna ka le botsa phokoje ke itlhoma ba mpona sesenyi; fa ke le pelo kgale nka botsa gore: “Betsho lwa re ke rileng fa lo nkgoeletsa lo re: “Motho! Motho!” jaana?” Ga ke tseye gore potso e tautona le monnawe ba ka e botsa ka ke dumela gore ba tlhaloganya gore puo e e raya eng.

O tlaa lemoga fa ke rile seatla sa ga tautona ke Ian Khama. ’Ina la gagwe kana le a ntshita ka re le bantsi re mmitsa maina a a farologanyeng. Bangwe ba re ke Ian Khama, Bangwe ba re Seretse Khama Ian Khama; gotwe Lieutenant-General Seretse Khama Ian Khama, bangwe ba re: Mothusa Tautona Lieutenant-General Seretse Khama Ian Khama. Le le telele go a feta otlhe maina a ke: Kgosi-kgolo ya Bangwato Mothusa Tautona Lieutenant-General Seretse Khama Ian Khama. O nkinele diatla metsing morwa Khama fa ke sa go bitsa sentle, rona baRuele re setse re sitega re sa itse gore re go bitse jang; bangwe bone ba tlhalefile ka ba go bitsa fela ba re: “Motho! Motho!”

Ke itumetse thata fa ke utlwa fa tautona a ne a baya phuthego pele molaetsa ka Setswana. Ke itse fa a ka se se dirise nako tsotlhe, fela jaaka bontsi jwa Batswana bo sa bue Setswana nako tsotlhe, mme re a mo akgola fa a se bua e bile a se bua ka botswerere. E le ruri “metsi ya re go kgoberega morago a itsheke” e bile molaetsa wa gagwe wa gore go busiwe dipelo dilo di boele meriting, re solofela o wetse mo mmung o o bongola e seng mo lokgarapaneng, wa tla wa selwa ke botswere. Re itse fa bangwe ba ne ba rile ba tsieditswe. Bangwe ba re: “Fa ba ne ba sa mo dika o ka bo a fetile ka tse di tsididi.” Le nna nka rialo ka re ke dikilwe, fa ke bona dilo di gotela. Mme re solofela fa Matomokoraga a tlaa ipopa a rarabolole kgang tsa bone.

Mme kana puo fa e gola mo bathong ga ba e lemoge, e bile e kare e ba tsaya ka tshoganyetso. Re tshwanetse ra galaletsa batho ba ba tsileng ka “Bulela ditswe” go bo ba godisitse Setswana. Ga ke akgele sepe ka gore a thulaganyo ya Bulela ditswe e siame kgotsa nnyaa. Se ke se akgelang ke gore diphathi di ntse di tlhalosa meono ya tsone ka mafoko le megopolo ya Sekgoa. Bangwe ba re ba sala megopolo ya Marxism morago; bangwe ba re Socialism le a mangwe mafoko a makima a Sekgoa a nako tse dingwe a re sitang. Ka jalo go tswa ka “Bulela ditswe” ke go tswa ka lefoko la Setswana le le tlhalosang maiteko a thulaganyo nngwe ya lekoko la sepolotiki. Ka jalo fa re kwala dithanodi tsa Setswana re tlaa tshwanelwa ke go tsenya lefoko “Bulela Ditswe” mme re le lemoge jaaka lefoko le le simolotseng go dirisiwa ke MaDomi ka ngwaga wa 2003.

Fa re kwala dithanolo mo dithanoding re tshwanetse ra lemoga fa mafoko “kopano, tsholetsa” a na le bokao kgotsa tiriso e sele go na le jaaka re tlwaetse. Ka jalo re tlaa tshwanelwa ke go tlhalosa dikgoeletso tsa makoko a sepolotiki a a farologaneng jaaka BNF, BDP le a mangwe. Mo go tlhaloseng dikgoeletso tse, ga re a tshwanela go lebala “Motho!” jaaka kgoeletso e e dirisiwang mo boeteleding-pele jwa Madomi ke balatedi.

Re santse re tlhokana le go dira ditlhotlhomiso ka puo ya sepolotiki go tlhaloganya mafoko a a dirisiwang ke mapalamente. Ngwaga o o fetileng maiteko a a ne a dirwa ke Naledi Naomi Kgolo, a fetsa dithuto tsa gagwe tsa Sekgoa kwa Yunibesithing. Mme ka ditlhotlhomiso tsa gagwe di ne di itebagantse le mekwalo ya palamente, gape a ne a kwala pampiri e potlana, o tshephotse fela. Re tshwanetse ra lebelela tiriso ya puo kwa diphuthegong tsa diphathi le ka fa puo e diriswang ka teng mo dikganetsanyong tsa mo mebileng mme ra e tlhaloganya ra bo ra e tlhalosa. Ka go dira jalo re tlaa lemoga fa Setswana se dirisiwa ka mefutafuta. A ga o bone go na le “Motho! Motho!”



How do you know your child is not attending a useless tertiary institution?

August 16, 2016



With the proliferation of local institution there is a need to begin ranking colleges and universities to judge which ones are good and which ones are substandard. Usually what parents and guardians are concerned about is whether their children have been admitted to an undergraduate program: a certificate, diploma or degree. Many don’t worry about where the student has been admitted or about whether the admitting institution is of any good quality. They lack the skill and tools of measuring institutional quality. In this column I wish to consider elements or markers of quality institutions.

  1. Quality infrastructure

One of the good qualities of a good tertiary institution is quality infrastructure. Students must be taught in good classrooms and lecture theatres which are conducive for learning. The classrooms must be spacious and not crowded and they must be enough. It is not good to have two or three classrooms and lecture theatres when an institution is running multiple programs. There must be enough chairs and tables. The floors and walls must be clean and the floors carpeted. The windows must be in good condition and not broken, allowing excellent ventilation which is critical for learning. The space must be well lit and not dump and dingy. The grounds and space outside the classroom must also be sufficient and not crammed allowing for intellectual engagement between students and staff. Students must be able to sit and gather in various parts of the institution outside to exchange ideas, discuss assignments and work in groups. The space outside a classroom is critical to learning just as the space inside. The lecturers must have offices and not be huddled in a staffroom like secondary school teachers. There must be a library or libraries which provide an intellectual space for research and discovery for students and staff. This has implications on their preparation, student consultation and student assessment. Finally, all our institutions must have (a) well-resourced lab(s) for students to type their work and research online. All the computers must have internet access and be linked to international educational databases. There must also wifi for all students and staff.

  1. Staff

There can be no quality institutions without quality staff. Quality staff is to be measured by its training as well as its output. Has the institution employed reputable staff with great CVs? All teaching staff must have a minimum of a Master degree, with senior staff required to have a PhD. While lecturers are usually mistaken for teachers, all teaching staff at our tertiary institutions must be more than teachers. They must also research and publish their work in refereed journals. This must be a requirement. Resources and time must be availed to ensure that this happens. The staff research also must be measured for impact. Is it quoted and considered as quality research by peers in the field? The more a publication is cited, the more influential it is. So the more highly cited research papers a university publishes, the stronger its research output is considered. This will ensure that we develop vibrant and exciting departments which address nation and international challenges. It has been said before that there are really no great universities, only great departments. Great departments will be characterised by conferences and seminars where staff present their research. An inquisitive mind on the part of lecturers will rub on the learners and lead to exciting projects which address both theoretical and practical challenges through research. The quality of staff of an institution must also be measured by the degree of staff collaboration, both through staff exchanges and research collaboration between members of staff from different institutions (both local and international).

  1. Students

One way of determining if an institution is good is by considering the quality of students it attracts as well as the quality of students it graduates. For instance, Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, Harvard, MIT, and Stanford attract some of the top students in the world and some of their graduates lead in various disciplines and industries around the world. This is in part because such institutions possess some of the best resources: staff, libraries and staff to student ratios. An excellent example locally is the alumni pool of the University of Botswana which is a testament of its enduring excellence over the years. If an institution attracts some of the worst students from BGCSE or low quality graduate students, that may be a sign that it is a poor-quality institution. Good universities and colleges repel lazy and unimaginative students and attract some of the best minds. Additionally, good institutions have a lower staff to student ratio. This facilitates learning and ensures that learners don’t compete for resources. The degree to which an institution attracts international students (and researchers) is also a mark of its international appeal since international reputation will always attract international students.

  1. Research

The research output of an institution is a perfect mark of its international standing. This is first at the level of graduate students that it produces (Masters and PhDs), and the weight of the academic articles that it publishes in refereed and non-refereed journals as well as the books and book chapters they produce. Good institutions are determined by the body of research that they produce. Such institutions do not only disseminate knowledge, they create it, aggregate it and make it known to the world. It is important for parents to ask the questions: How much research is done by staff at this institution?

Above I have outlined four critical markers of quality institutions. They are not the only ones, but they are the core ones. I hope parents will not be fooled by sexy institutions with sexy courses and instead ask the right questions before sending their children to superficial and substandard institutions.

Why Setswana must be made Botswana’s official language

July 25, 2016

DSC_3815Let me start with the conclusion before outlining the argument of this column. Setswana must be declared Botswana’s official language for Botswana to be a nation; for Batswana to feel patriotic. For full national unity to occur Batswana must not only be united by a flag and a national anthem, they must be united by a common language and culture. As long as Setswana is not Botswana’s official language there will forever be a sense of alienation amongst the citizens. There will be cultural and linguistic erosion. This will lead to the disconnect between the citizens and their country, which will engender national insecurity. There will be nothing unique about being a Motswana. We as a people of Botswana have lost a sense of national dress that sets us apart. We are increasingly losing pride in our diet and cuisine. Every day our culture is being eroded with our assistance and participation. Our language is on the line. Shall we sit by and watch helplessly as it fades away? Shall we be the generation that failed to transfer its language to its children?

Let us start from the beginning. Why are we using a Pula instead of a Rand? Why do we have a flag? Why does Botswana have a national anthem at all? Why are we not singing a British or an American one? The answer lies in the idea of nationhood, who we are as a people. We are Batswana. This doesn’t mean we are homogenous. There is no homogenous morafe in fact. Amongst the Bangwato there are Batalaote, Bakwena, Baherero and Bakalaka who make the Bangwato morafe. The same can be said of the Bangwaketse who have amongst them Bakgwatlheng, Bakgatla, Bahurutshe, Bakubung and other groups who make up the Bangwaketse. The Botswana nation is equally multicultural and multilinguistic with Setswana being the lingua franca and the most widely spoken African language. Setswana must be seen as a language that can be used to unite the country. Just like a flag and a national anthem, Setswana must be made official to engender pride on who we are as a people. Failure to make Setswana official will see Setswana vanish from the public sphere. National pride and identity will increasingly fall away. The Setswana language is spoken internationally by around seven million people (cf. Janson and Tsonope, 1991; Andersson and Janson, 1997; Otlogetswe, 2007; Chebanne, 2008). Numerically this makes Setswana internationally a minority language. It has mother-tongue speakers in at least four countries: South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe. The largest number of speakers is found in South Africa (with over 4 million speakers making about 8% of the population) where Setswana is one of the eleven official languages. Zimbabwe has an estimated 29,000 Setswana speakers and Namibia has approximately 6,000. In Botswana, Setswana is spoken by close to two million speakers (70-90% of the population) as a mother tongue (Andersson and Janson, 1997), second or even a third language. Selolwane (2004:4) observes that “…the SeTswana language is the most dominant of all the language groups found in Botswana, with at least 70% of the population identifying it as a mother tongue and another 20% using it as a second language.” Seven percent speak other Sotho-Tswana languages (Setswapong and Sebirwa), 9% Ikalanga, 3% Seherero or Sembukushu, 2% Sesarwa (Khoisan), while 1% speaks Sesobea (Chikuhane) and 1% Seyei. Her observations on the Setswana language are confirmed by Ramsay’s (2006) report that 79% of Botswana’s population speaks Setswana as a mother tongue. Ramsay’s data was taken from the 2001 household census data. Setswana is therefore a perfect candidate for being declared an official language.

My view is not new. It has been expressed in the 1977 education commission findings, a commission chaired by Prof. Torsten Husen. The central core of its recommendations were aimed at redressing the historical imbalances brought about by Botswana’s position as a British protectorate. The commission therefore recognised in its preliminary pages that: “For 81 years until 1966 Botswana was the Bechuanaland Protectorate under British rule. Not surprisingly, the institutions and culture of the colonial power were imposed on the country.  To some extent the indigenous culture became submerged and many Batswana were encouraged to believe that their own cultural inheritance was inferior to that imported by the British. With Independence has come the opportunity to reassess this situation, to reassert the national identity, and to build a society which gives expression to the noblest values from the past.” (1977:11).

The commission therefore recommended that there was a need to “reassert the national identity and to build a society which gives expression to the noblest values from the past”. To create a unified nation and reinforce national cultural identity, the commission identified language in the educational system as a critical component. It argued that: “Language is one means by which cultural identity is strengthened, but education provides other ways to inculcate in every Motswana a sense of pride in and identification with his or her cultural heritage. … The education system should orient young people toward the social, cultural, artistic, political and economic life of their unique society and prepare them to participate proudly in it” (1977:12).

Setswana was therefore identified as a language to be used to foster national unity and national cultural pride. Every Botswana national was urged to rally behind the national language. “The pursuit of unity calls for every Motswana to appreciate his or her rights and responsibilities as a citizen of Botswana, to become fluent in the national language, and to take pride in the national cultural heritage” (1977:30).

“Secondly, the curriculum of the school must stress national unity and national identity. A fundamental requirement is the national language, Setswana, must be mastered by all, for it is an essential means of communication between Batswana, and is the medium through which a great deal of the national culture is expressed” (1977:31).

Additionally, Setswana has been chosen by ACALAN (The Academy of African Languages) as one of the first working cross-border languages and the vehicular cross-border languages which should be given priority in the southern African region. ACALAN is an arm of the African Union, created in 2001 to deal with the growing efforts of promoting the African languages as tools of development and regional integration in Africa. Out of the 2,130 languages spoken in Africa, it was discovered that 396 are cross-border languages, that is, they are spoken across national boundaries. Setswana was identified to be one of these languages. The African Union is interested in promoting and developing these 396 languages to use them in promoting regional development and integration. In southern Africa Setswana and Chinyanga have been selected as the first regional languages to play the role of regional development and integration. The two languages were chosen for the southern African region on the basis of their broad use in several countries. This includes their extensive use in public domains, their success in attracting second language speakers, their national/official status and their levels of technicalisation and standardisation. Setswana now has an African Union Language Commission made up of language experts/promoters, writers and cultural promoters. Setswana has therefore overall African, and not just national relevance. Because of such relevance, Setswana deserves a unique position in Botswana as an official language. I must conclude. My conclusion appears in the introduction.

“What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?”

July 4, 2016

Frederick Douglass, ca. 1879. George K. Warren. (National Archives Gift Collection) Exact Date Shot Unknown NARA FILE #: 200-FL-22 WAR & CONFLICT BOOK #: 113

Frederick Douglass, July 5, 1852

Mr. President, Friends and Fellow Citizens:

He who could address this audience without a quailing sensation, has stronger nerves than I have. I do not remember ever to have appeared as a speaker before any assembly more shrinkingly, nor with greater distrust of my ability, than I do this day. A feeling has crept over me, quite unfavorable to the exercise of my limited powers of speech. The task before me is one which requires much previous thought and study for its proper performance. I know that apologies of this sort are generally considered flat and unmeaning. I trust, however, that mine will not be so considered. Should I seem at ease, my appearance would much misrepresent me. The little experience I have had in addressing public meetings, in country schoolhouses, avails me nothing on the present occasion.

The papers and placards say, that I am to deliver a 4th [of] July oration. This certainly sounds large, and out of the common way, for it is true that I have often had the privilege to speak in this beautiful Hall, and to address many who now honor me with their presence. But neither their familiar faces, nor the perfect gage I think I have of Corinthian Hall, seems to free me from embarrassment.

The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable — and the difficulties to be overcome in getting from the latter to the former, are by no means slight. That I am here to-day is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as of gratitude. You will not, therefore, be surprised, if in what I have to say I evince no elaborate preparation, nor grace my speech with any high sounding exordium. With little experience and with less learning, I have been able to throw my thoughts hastily and imperfectly together; and trusting to your patient and generous indulgence, I will proceed to lay them before you.

This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act, and that day. This celebration also marks the beginning of another year of your national life; and reminds you that the Republic of America is now 76 years old. I am glad, fellow-citizens, that your nation is so young. Seventy-six years, though a good old age for a man, is but a mere speck in the life of a nation. Three score years and ten is the allotted time for individual men; but nations number their years by thousands. According to this fact, you are, even now, only in the beginning of your national career, still lingering in the period of childhood. I repeat, I am glad this is so. There is hope in the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon. The eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that America is young, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence. May he not hope that high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? Were the nation older, the patriot’s heart might be sadder, and the reformer’s brow heavier. Its future might be shrouded in gloom, and the hope of its prophets go out in sorrow. There is consolation in the thought that America is young. Great streams are not easily turned from channels, worn deep in the course of ages. They may sometimes rise in quiet and stately majesty, and inundate the land, refreshing and fertilizing the earth with their mysterious properties. They may also rise in wrath and fury, and bear away, on their angry waves, the accumulated wealth of years of toil and hardship. They, however, gradually flow back to the same old channel, and flow on as serenely as ever. But, while the river may not be turned aside, it may dry up, and leave nothing behind but the withered branch, and the unsightly rock, to howl in the abyss-sweeping wind, the sad tale of departed glory. As with rivers so with nations.

Fellow-citizens, I shall not presume to dwell at length on the associations that cluster about this day. The simple story of it is that, 76 years ago, the people of this country were British subjects. The style and title of your “sovereign people” (in which you now glory) was not then born. You were under the British Crown. Your fathers esteemed the English Government as the home government; and England as the fatherland. This home government, you know, although a considerable distance from your home, did, in the exercise of its parental prerogatives, impose upon its colonial children, such restraints, burdens and limitations, as, in its mature judgment, it deemed wise, right and proper.

But, your fathers, who had not adopted the fashionable idea of this day, of the infallibility of government, and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow-citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers. Such a declaration of agreement on my part would not be worth much to anybody. It would, certainly, prove nothing, as to what part I might have taken, had I lived during the great controversy of 1776. To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men’s souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men. To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers. But, to proceed.

Feeling themselves harshly and unjustly treated by the home government, your fathers, like men of honesty, and men of spirit, earnestly sought redress. They petitioned and remonstrated; they did so in a decorous, respectful, and loyal manner. Their conduct was wholly unexceptionable. This, however, did not answer the purpose. They saw themselves treated with sovereign indifference, coldness and scorn. Yet they persevered. They were not the men to look back.

As the sheet anchor takes a firmer hold, when the ship is tossed by the storm, so did the cause of your fathers grow stronger, as it breasted the chilling blasts of kingly displeasure. The greatest and best of British statesmen admitted its justice, and the loftiest eloquence of the British Senate came to its support. But, with that blindness which seems to be the unvarying characteristic of tyrants, since Pharaoh and his hosts were drowned in the Red Sea, the British Government persisted in the exactions complained of.

The madness of this course, we believe, is admitted now, even by England; but we fear the lesson is wholly lost on our present ruler.

Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men, and if they did not go mad, they became restive under this treatment. They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here, the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born! It was a startling idea, much more so, than we, at this distance of time, regard it. The timid and the prudent (as has been intimated) of that day, were, of course, shocked and alarmed by it.

Such people lived then, had lived before, and will, probably, ever have a place on this planet; and their course, in respect to any great change, (no matter how great the good to be attained, or the wrong to be redressed by it), may be calculated with as much precision as can be the course of the stars. They hate all changes, but silver, gold and copper change! Of this sort of change they are always strongly in favor.

These people were called Tories in the days of your fathers; and the appellation, probably, conveyed the same idea that is meant by a more modern, though a somewhat less euphonious term, which we often find in our papers, applied to some of our old politicians.

Their opposition to the then dangerous thought was earnest and powerful; but, amid all their terror and affrighted vociferations against it, the alarming and revolutionary idea moved on, and the country with it.

On the 2d of July, 1776, the old Continental Congress, to the dismay of the lovers of ease, and the worshipers of property, clothed that dreadful idea with all the authority of national sanction. They did so in the form of a resolution; and as we seldom hit upon resolutions, drawn up in our day whose transparency is at all equal to this, it may refresh your minds and help my story if I read it. “Resolved, That these united colonies are, and of right, ought to be free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, dissolved.”

Citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. They succeeded; and to-day you reap the fruits of their success. The freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. The 4th of July is the first great fact in your nation’s history — the very ring-bolt in the chain of your yet undeveloped destiny.

Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

From the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen. Heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! That bolt drawn, that chain broken, and all is lost. Cling to this day — cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight.

The coming into being of a nation, in any circumstances, is an interesting event. But, besides general considerations, there were peculiar circumstances which make the advent of this republic an event of special attractiveness.

The whole scene, as I look back to it, was simple, dignified and sublime.

The population of the country, at the time, stood at the insignificant number of three millions. The country was poor in the munitions of war. The population was weak and scattered, and the country a wilderness unsubdued. There were then no means of concert and combination, such as exist now. Neither steam nor lightning had then been reduced to order and discipline. From the Potomac to the Delaware was a journey of many days. Under these, and innumerable other disadvantages, your fathers declared for liberty and independence and triumphed.

Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too — great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.

They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests.

They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was “settled” that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final;” not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times.

How circumspect, exact and proportionate were all their movements! How unlike the politicians of an hour! Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. Mark them!

Fully appreciating the hardship to be encountered, firmly believing in the right of their cause, honorably inviting the scrutiny of an on-looking world, reverently appealing to heaven to attest their sincerity, soundly comprehending the solemn responsibility they were about to assume, wisely measuring the terrible odds against them, your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately, under the inspiration of a glorious patriotism, and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep the corner-stone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you.

Of this fundamental work, this day is the anniversary. Our eyes are met with demonstrations of joyous enthusiasm. Banners and pennants wave exultingly on the breeze. The din of business, too, is hushed. Even Mammon seems to have quitted his grasp on this day. The ear-piercing fife and the stirring drum unite their accents with the ascending peal of a thousand church bells. Prayers are made, hymns are sung, and sermons are preached in honor of this day; while the quick martial tramp of a great and multitudinous nation, echoed back by all the hills, valleys and mountains of a vast continent, bespeak the occasion one of thrilling and universal interest — a nation’s jubilee.

Friends and citizens, I need not enter further into the causes which led to this anniversary. Many of you understand them better than I do. You could instruct me in regard to them. That is a branch of knowledge in which you feel, perhaps, a much deeper interest than your speaker. The causes which led to the separation of the colonies from the British crown have never lacked for a tongue. They have all been taught in your common schools, narrated at your firesides, unfolded from your pulpits, and thundered from your legislative halls, and are as familiar to you as household words. They form the staple of your national poetry and eloquence.

I remember, also, that, as a people, Americans are remarkably familiar with all facts which make in their own favor. This is esteemed by some as a national trait — perhaps a national weakness. It is a fact, that whatever makes for the wealth or for the reputation of Americans, and can be had cheap! will be found by Americans. I shall not be charged with slandering Americans, if I say I think the American side of any question may be safely left in American hands.

I leave, therefore, the great deeds of your fathers to other gentlemen whose claim to have been regularly descended will be less likely to be disputed than mine!

My business, if I have any here to-day, is with the present. The accepted time with God and his cause is the ever-living now.

Trust no future, however pleasant,
Let the dead past bury its dead;
Act, act in the living present,
Heart within, and God overhead.

We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future. To all inspiring motives, to noble deeds which can be gained from the past, we are welcome. But now is the time, the important time. Your fathers have lived, died, and have done their work, and have done much of it well. You live and must die, and you must do your work. You have no right to enjoy a child’s share in the labor of your fathers, unless your children are to be blest by your labors. You have no right to wear out and waste the hard-earned fame of your fathers to cover your indolence. Sydney Smith tells us that men seldom eulogize the wisdom and virtues of their fathers, but to excuse some folly or wickedness of their own. This truth is not a doubtful one. There are illustrations of it near and remote, ancient and modern. It was fashionable, hundreds of years ago, for the children of Jacob to boast, we have “Abraham to our father,” when they had long lost Abraham’s faith and spirit. That people contented themselves under the shadow of Abraham’s great name, while they repudiated the deeds which made his name great. Need I remind you that a similar thing is being done all over this country to-day? Need I tell you that the Jews are not the only people who built the tombs of the prophets, and garnished the sepulchres of the righteous? Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves. Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood, and the traders in the bodies and souls of men shout — “We have Washington to our father.” — Alas! that it should be so; yet so it is.

The evil that men do, lives after them, The good is oft-interred with their bones.

Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation’s sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation’s jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the “lame man leap as an hart.”

But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. — The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mineYou may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!

“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.”

Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, “may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!” To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then fellow-citizens, is AMERICAN SLAVERY. I shall see, this day, and its popular characteristics, from the slave’s point of view. Standing, there, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery — the great sin and shame of America! “I will not equivocate; I will not excuse;” I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, and denounce less, would you persuade more, and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man, (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the acknowledgement that the slave is a moral, intellectual and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then will I argue with you that the slave is a man!

For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold; that, while we are reading, writing and cyphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hill-side, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian’s God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look to-day, in the presence of Americans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? speaking of it relatively, and positively, negatively, and affirmatively. To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. — There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employments for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman, cannot be divine! Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may; I cannot. The time for such argument is passed.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: 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. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) “the internal slave trade.” It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa. Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man. The duty to extirpate and destroy it, is admitted even by our DOCTORS OF DIVINITY. In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren (nominally free) should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa! It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable.

Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and America religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow the drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States.

I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and have watched from the wharves, the slave ships in the Basin, anchored from the shore, with their cargoes of human flesh, waiting for favorable winds to waft them down the Chesapeake. There was, at that time, a grand slave mart kept at the head of Pratt Street, by Austin Woldfolk. His agents were sent into every town and county in Maryland, announcing their arrival, through the papers, and on flaming “hand-bills,” headed CASH FOR NEGROES. These men were generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners. Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble. The fate of many a slave has depended upon the turn of a single card; and many a child has been snatched from the arms of its mother by bargains arranged in a state of brutal drunkenness.

The flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot at Baltimore. When a sufficient number have been collected here, a ship is chartered, for the purpose of conveying the forlorn crew to Mobile, or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night; for since the antislavery agitation, a certain caution is observed.

In the deep still darkness of midnight, I have been often aroused by the dead heavy footsteps, and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. The anguish of my boyish heart was intense; and I was often consoled, when speaking to my mistress in the morning, to hear her say that the custom was very wicked; that she hated to hear the rattle of the chains, and the heart-rending cries. I was glad to find one who sympathized with me in my horror.

Fellow-citizens, this murderous traffic is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit, I see clouds of dust raised on the highways of the South; I see the bleeding footsteps; I hear the doleful wail of fettered humanity, on the way to the slave-markets, where the victims are to be sold like horsessheep, and swine, knocked off to the highest bidder. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken, to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight.

Is this the land your Fathers loved,
The freedom which they toiled to win?
Is this the earth whereon they moved?
Are these the graves they slumber in?

But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason and Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the Star-Spangled Banner and American Christianity. Where these go, may also go the merciless slave-hunter. Where these are, man is not sacred. He is a bird for the sportsman’s gun. By that most foul and fiendish of all human decrees, the liberty and person of every man are put in peril. Your broad republican domain is hunting ground for men. Not for thieves and robbers, enemies of society, merely, but for men guilty of no crime. Your lawmakers have commanded all good citizens to engage in this hellish sport. Your President, your Secretary of State, our lordsnobles, and ecclesiastics, enforce, as a duty you owe to your free and glorious country, and to your God, that you do this accursed thing. Not fewer than forty Americans have, within the past two years, been hunted down and, without a moment’s warning, hurried away in chains, and consigned to slavery and excruciating torture. Some of these have had wives and children, dependent on them for bread; but of this, no account was made. The right of the hunter to his prey stands superior to the right of marriage, and to all rights in this republic, the rights of God included! For black men there are neither law, justice, humanity, not religion. The Fugitive Slave Law makes mercy to them a crime; and bribes the judge who tries them. An American judge gets ten dollars for every victim he consigns to slavery, and five, when he fails to do so. The oath of any two villains is sufficient, under this hell-black enactment, to send the most pious and exemplary black man into the remorseless jaws of slavery! His own testimony is nothing. He can bring no witnesses for himself. The minister of American justice is bound by the law to hear but one side; and that side, is the side of the oppressor. Let this damning fact be perpetually told. Let it be thundered around the world, that, in tyrant-killing, king-hating, people-loving, democratic, Christian America, the seats of justice are filled with judges, who hold their offices under an open and palpable bribe, and are bound, in deciding in the case of a man’s liberty, hear only his accusers!

In glaring violation of justice, in shameless disregard of the forms of administering law, in cunning arrangement to entrap the defenseless, and in diabolical intent, this Fugitive Slave Law stands alone in the annals of tyrannical legislation. I doubt if there be another nation on the globe, having the brass and the baseness to put such a law on the statute-book. If any man in this assembly thinks differently from me in this matter, and feels able to disprove my statements, I will gladly confront him at any suitable time and place he may select.

I take this law to be one of the grossest infringements of Christian Liberty, and, if the churches and ministers of our country were not stupidly blind, or most wickedly indifferent, they, too, would so regard it.

At the very moment that they are thanking God for the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, and for the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, they are utterly silent in respect to a law which robs religion of its chief significance, and makes it utterly worthless to a world lying in wickedness. Did this law concern the “mint, anise, and cumin” — abridge the right to sing psalms, to partake of the sacrament, or to engage in any of the ceremonies of religion, it would be smitten by the thunder of a thousand pulpits. 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. Further, if this demand were not complied with, another Scotland would be added to the history of religious liberty, and the stern old Covenanters would be thrown into the shade. A John Knox would be seen at every church door, and heard from every pulpit, and Fillmore would have no more quarter than was shown by Knox, to the beautiful, but treacherous queen Mary of Scotland. The fact that the church of our country, (with fractional exceptions), does not esteem “the Fugitive Slave Law” as a declaration of war against religious liberty, implies that that 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. A worship that can be conducted by persons who refuse to give shelter to the houseless, to give bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and who enjoin obedience to a law forbidding these acts of mercy, is a curse, not a blessing to mankind. The Bible addresses all such persons as “scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites, who pay tithe of mint, anise, and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith.”

But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines. who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.

For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done! These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion. They strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throng of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form. It is a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and thugs. It is not that “pure and undefiled religion” which is from above, and which is “first pure, then peaceable, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” But a religion which favors the rich against the poor; which exalts the proud above the humble; which divides mankind into two classes, tyrants and slaves; which says to the man in chains, stay there; and to the oppressor, oppress on; it is a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and enslavers of mankind; it makes God a respecter of persons, denies his fatherhood of the race, and tramples in the dust the great truth of the brotherhood of man. All this we affirm to be true of the popular church, and the popular worship of our land and nation — a religion, a church, and a worship which, on the authority of inspired wisdom, we pronounce to be an abomination in the sight of God. 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. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth. They are a trouble to me; I am weary to bear them; and when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you. Yea! when ye make many prayers, I will not hear. YOUR HANDS ARE FULL OF BLOOD; cease to do evil, learn to do well; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed; judge for the fatherless; plead for the widow.”

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. The sin of which it is guilty is one of omission as well as of commission. Albert Barnes but uttered what the common sense of every man at all observant of the actual state of the case will receive as truth, when he declared that “There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it.”

Let the religious press, the pulpit, the Sunday school, the conference meeting, the great ecclesiastical, missionary, Bible and tract associations of the land array their immense powers against slavery and slave-holding; and the whole system of crime and blood would be scattered to the winds; and that they do not do this involves them in the most awful responsibility of which the mind can conceive.

In prosecuting the anti-slavery enterprise, we have been asked to spare the church, to spare the ministry; but how, we ask, could such a thing be done? We are met on the threshold of our efforts for the redemption of the slave, by the church and ministry of the country, in battle arrayed against us; and we are compelled to fight or flee. From what quarter, I beg to know, has proceeded a fire so deadly upon our ranks, during the last two years, as from the Northern pulpit? As the champions of oppressors, the chosen men of American theology have appeared — men, honored for their so-called piety, and their real learning. The Lords of Buffalo, the Springs of New York, the Lathrops of Auburn, the Coxes and Spencers of Brooklyn, the Gannets and Sharps of Boston, the Deweys of Washington, and other great religious lights of the land have, in utter denial of the authority of Him by whom they professed to be called to the ministry, deliberately taught us, against the example or the Hebrews and against the remonstrance of the Apostles, they teach that we ought to obey man’s law before the law of God.

My spirit wearies of such blasphemy; and how such men can be supported, as the “standing types and representatives of Jesus Christ,” is a mystery which I leave others to penetrate. In speaking of the American church, however, let it be distinctly understood that I mean the great mass of the religious organizations of our land. There are exceptions, and I thank God that there are. Noble men may be found, scattered all over these Northern States, of whom Henry Ward Beecher of Brooklyn, Samuel J. May of Syracuse, and my esteemed friend (Rev. R. R. Raymond) on the platform, are shining examples; and let me say further, that upon these men lies the duty to inspire our ranks with high religious faith and zeal, and to cheer us on in the great mission of the slave’s redemption from his chains.

One is struck with the difference between the attitude of the American church towards the anti-slavery movement, and that occupied by the churches in England towards a similar movement in that country. There, the church, 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. There, the question of emancipation was a high religious question. It was demanded, in the name of humanity, and according to the law of the living God. The Sharps, the Clarksons, the Wilberforces, the Buxtons, and Burchells and the Knibbs, were alike famous for their piety, and for their philanthropy. 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: and the anti-slavery movement in this country will cease to be an anti-church movement, when the church of this country shall assume a favorable, instead of a hostile position towards that movement. Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your countrymen. You hurl your anathemas at the crowned headed tyrants of Russia and Austria, and pride yourselves on your Democratic institutions, while you yourselves consent to be the mere tools and body-guards of the tyrants of Virginia and Carolina. You invite to your shores fugitives of oppression from abroad, honor them with banquets, greet them with ovations, cheer them, toast them, salute them, protect them, and pour out your money to them like water; but the fugitives from your own land you advertise, hunt, arrest, shoot and kill. You glory in your refinement and your universal education yet you maintain a system as barbarous and dreadful as ever stained the character of a nation — a system begun in avarice, supported in pride, and perpetuated in cruelty. You shed tears over fallen Hungary, and make the sad story of her wrongs the theme of your poets, statesmen and orators, till your gallant sons are ready to fly to arms to vindicate her cause against her oppressors; but, in regard to the ten thousand wrongs of the American slave, you would enforce the strictest silence, and would hail him as an enemy of the nation who dares to make those wrongs the subject of public discourse! You are all on fire at the mention of liberty for France or for Ireland; but are as cold as an iceberg at the thought of liberty for the enslaved of America. You discourse eloquently on the dignity of labor; yet, you sustain a system which, in its very essence, casts a stigma upon labor. You can bare your bosom to the storm of British artillery to throw off a threepenny tax on tea; and yet wring the last hard-earned farthing from the grasp of the black laborers of your country. You profess to believe “that, of one blood, God made all nations of men to dwell on the face of all the earth,” and hath commanded all men, everywhere to love one another; yet you notoriously hate, (and glory in your hatred), all men whose skins are not colored like your own. You declare, before the world, and are understood by the world to declare, that you “hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; and that, among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” and yet, you hold securely, in a bondage which, according to your own Thomas Jefferson, “is worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose,” a seventh part of the inhabitants of your country.

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.

I have detained my audience entirely too long already. At some future period I will gladly avail myself of an opportunity to give this subject a full and fair discussion.

Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic, are distinctly heard on the other. The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, “Let there be Light,” has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen, in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. “Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God.” In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:

God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o’er
When from their galling chains set free,
Th’ oppress’d shall vilely bend the knee,

And wear the yoke of tyranny
Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom’s reign,
To man his plundered fights again

God speed the day when human blood
Shall cease to flow!
In every clime be understood,
The claims of human brotherhood,
And each return for evil, good,
Not blow for blow;
That day will come all feuds to end.
And change into a faithful friend
Each foe.

God speed the hour, the glorious hour,
When none on earth
Shall exercise a lordly power,
Nor in a tyrant’s presence cower;
But all to manhood’s stature tower,
By equal birth!
That hour will come, to each, to all,
And from his prison-house, the thrall
Go forth.

Until that year, day, hour, arrive,
With head, and heart, and hand I’ll strive,
To break the rod, and rend the gyve,
The spoiler of his prey deprive —
So witness Heaven!
And never from my chosen post,
Whate’er the peril or the cost,
Be driven.


Source: Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings, ed. Philip S. Foner (Chicago: Lawrence Hill, 1999), 188-206.