Henry David Thoreau’s Slavery in Massachusetts: Rhetoric and Critique

Context and Delivery of Thoreau's Anti-Slavery Address. "Who can be serene in a country where both rulers and ruled are without principle?" Henry David Thoreau recorded in his journal as early as 1853. His outrage became public just a month before Walden was published, in response to the arrest and forced return of the escaped slave Anthony Burns. Thoreau applied the foundational ideas he had explored in "Civil Disobedience," "Walking," and "Life without Principle" when he delivered this powerful abolitionist lecture at a protest meeting opposing the Fugitive Slave Law. According to Moncure Conway, who attended the speech, the large audience "clamored for" Thoreau (Canby 386).

The gathering was convened on July 4, 1854, by William Lloyd Garrison, editor of the Liberator, who used the occasion to publicly burn the United States Constitution in "protest against the protection it afforded slavery" (Harding and Meyer, New Handbook 18). Garrison later published Thoreau's address, as did Horace Greeley's Tribune and the National Anti-Slavery Standard. Thomas Wentworth Higginson, who had participated in a failed attempt to rescue Burns, was among those who wrote to thank Thoreau (Fink in Myerson 86). In the address, Thoreau vigorously lambastes the government for allowing, much less requiring, citizens to serve as "agents of injustice" to others. Historically, this essay was more widely heard and read in its own time than any other work by Thoreau. It stands as one of his most effectively structured works, remarkable for what Richard Dillman describes as rhetorical control over words and sentences born of intense anger (Dillman 11).

Rhetorical Shifts and Political Criticism. More strident than his previous essays, dealing a "blow straight from the shoulder" (Canby 381), "Slavery in Massachusetts" nevertheless aligns with Thoreau's overarching body of work as an urgent wake-up call to his neighbors and himself. Critic Richard Lebeaux argues that as Thoreau confronted the gathering national crisis surrounding slavery, he drew motivation from his own psychological sense of confinement (Lebeaux 207). However, the state government—specifically the Governor of Massachusetts—and the former supporters of abolition who failed to resist the Fugitive Slave Act provided more than sufficient justification for his outrage. Sarcasm tempers his anger as Thoreau opens the essay in the calm tone of a journalist reporting on a Concord meeting, observing a crowd that, rather than addressing the immediate plight of Burns or castigating the government, turned its attention to political developments in Kansas and Nebraska.

His tone rapidly transitions from detached reporting to passionate commentary as he names local figures who disappointed him by focusing on distant western territories while ignoring human rights violations at home. "Our Buttricks, Davices, and Hosmers are retreating thither," he remarks, "and I fear they will have no Lexington Common between them and the enemy. There is not one slave in Nebraska; there are perhaps a million slaves in Massachusetts" (333). He attacks the cowardly "voice of a Governor," characterizing it as merely "the crashing of crickets and the hum of insects". Railing against the governor's inaction during the Thomas Sims affair three years earlier, Thoreau declares, "He was no Governor of mine. He did not govern me" (334), later citing the governor's "time-serving irresolution" (346). He severely scolds his fellow citizens, calling their July Fourth celebration a "broad joke" given the total absence of liberty for the enslaved and their defenders (336). Furthermore, he condemns the military force of Virginia, trained merely to rob Mexico and return fugitive slaves to their masters—an act he explicitly equates to kidnapping (336).

Media Critique, Moral Autonomy, and Disillusionment. Thoreau extends his critique to the press, arguing that it exerts a "pernicious influence" over public morality (339). With the exception of a few liberal, abolitionist periodicals, he exonerates no one, asserting that the "editors of the periodical press" and "the people who read them are in the condition of the dog that returns to his vomit" (340). He further characterizes judges and lawyers as "men of expediency" who "persist in being the servants of the worst of men, and not the servants of humanity" (342).

Invoking the fundamental framework of "Civil Disobedience," Thoreau contends that "the State has fatally interfered with my lawful business," expressing astonishment that so few citizens recognize how the state violates their inherent rights. The hope for societal reform implicit in "Civil Disobedience" and "Walking" is largely absent here, replaced by deep disillusionment. In sharp contrast to the buoyant conclusions of Walden and "Walking," the address ends on a grim note: "Slavery and servility have produced no sweet-scented flower annually. . . . They are merely a decaying and a death, offensive to all healthy nostrils. We do not complain that they live, but that they do not get buried. Let the living bury them; even they are good for manure" (347). This closing sentiment serves as a direct precursor to his later acceptance of militant action in his essays on John Brown.

· 1851: The Thomas Sims affair occurs, marking an earlier instance of state enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law in Massachusetts.

· 1853: Thoreau records his growing outrage over unprincipled governance in his private journal.

· July 4, 1854: William Lloyd Garrison convenes an anti-slavery rally where Thoreau delivers his address and Garrison burns the U.S. Constitution.

· 1854: The speech is published across major periodicals, including the Liberator, the Tribune, and the National Anti-Slavery Standard.

For Discussion or Writing. The rhetorical strategies and political implications of "Slavery in Massachusetts" offer several critical avenues for academic inquiry:
1st point: Evaluate the potential effectiveness of Thoreau's biting rhetoric in inspiring citizens to take direct action, considering how similar vitriolic discourse might function in contemporary political contexts.

2nd point: Unlike "Walking," this essay relies almost exclusively on the American Revolution as its historical framework; assess whether incorporating broader historical models of moral resistance would have strengthened Thoreau's argument.

3rd point: Analyze the stylistic composition of the essay, identifying balanced stylistic phrasing alongside potential logical fallacies (such as ad hominem attacks, broad generalizations, or faulty syllogisms), and examine whether Thoreau effectively anticipates opposing viewpoints.