Social change often evolves through similar stages- a brave few call for social reform, the call is met with resistance, change eventually propagates, and successful advancement alters moral identity. Such social change has occurred throughout American history, and consequently, American identity has progressed throughout time. Every major change and reform can be traced back to strong voices leading the movements, and such voices can be studied to better understand both the beneficial and misleading movements within the evolution of society. Some of the leading voices that stand out in American history are Jonathan Edwards and Frederick Douglass. Edwards led the Great Awakening of the 1730s-1750s to reinstall reverence for religion, and Douglass, amongst other voices, pioneered the abolitionist movement in the mid 1800s (O’Connell). Although these men found themselves immersed in cultures focused on advancement, they both called for people to prioritize their moral obligations and to question if their actions reflected a moral life. Both Edwards’ and Douglass’ efforts can be studied through their iconic speeches, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”. Douglass’ and Edwards’ speeches share the theme of prioritizing morality over advancement, and therefore, both arguments appear noble and similar. However, through further analysis of their arguments and rhetoric, Edwards’ message collapses while Douglass’ exhibits substance, and the juxtaposition between the ultimately unsuccessful and successful movements reflects the necessity and presence of a quality leader behind every beneficial movement in American society.

Upon initial understanding of Douglass’ and Edwards’ shared theme, their messages both appear to be reasonable and similar. They both assert that the morality of society is superlative, and advancement is subordinate to virtue. They accuse their societies of not considering the morality of their choices, and they demand that their audiences alter their actions. Douglass states that America needs a harsh awakening, “it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder” (1005). Edwards calls for the same awakening, “let everyone that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come” (220). Through their cries for moral awareness, Edwards and Douglass indicate that their societies are too focused on progress and advancement as opposed to living moral lives. Both of their claims appear to be valid; however, upon further scrutiny, Edwards’ call for action proves to be counterproductive while Douglass’ proves to be righteous.

The arguments’ differences in validity become clear as their motivations for reform are examined. Douglass and Edwards both critique the current political conditions of their societies, but the evident difference between the two men’s speeches is that Edwards’ call for reform is based on the fear of God’s wrath and dependence on science, while Douglass’ call for reform is based on the conviction that men should not rely on forced free labor for advancement. Edwards’ opposition to progress stems from a fear that scientific advancements are causing people to lose sight of God and their dependence on him. Edwards preaches, “[t]he devil stands ready to fall upon them, and seize them as his own, at the moment God shall permit him. They belong to him; he has their souls in his possession, and under his domain” (211). He accuses his congregation of being sinners who are damned to hell without God’s aid and instills fear in them to force a return to total reliance on God. Douglass also questions advancement and the toll it takes on society; however, the advancement he questions is slavery. Although slavery helped the South flourish and increase productivity through free labor, Douglass asserts that this practice is immoral and dehumanizing. He illustrates the atrocities inflicted upon slaves, “[they] knock out their teeth [and] burn their flesh,” and he eludes to the deadening effects slavery has on the humanity of the enslaver, “for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival” (1005). His argument shows that the practice of slavery is detrimental to all, and the future of the nation is dependent upon the abolition of such dehumanizing practices. Ultimately, Edwards, out of fear, seeks to preserve the nation that his father knew through reigniting spiritual fervor, and Douglass oppositely, out of vision, fights to forge a nation that looks nothing like what his father experienced.

In addition to the difference in their visions for society, Edwards’ and Douglass’ arguments utilize different argumentative strategies. Although they both centralize their arguments around appeal to emotion through the use of vivid imagery to awaken the conscience, they implement this tactic to varying extents. The primary cornerstone of Edwards’ argument is imposed fear while Douglass presents a balanced argument. Edwards appeals to people’s emotions by scaring them with images of an angry God and eternal damnation. He alerts his congregation, “[i]t is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery” (218). The fear he spreads leads his congregation to subscribe to his message. Douglass also uses vivid imagery to upset people by describing the atrocities of slavery and the situational irony of giving this speech while America is celebrating its independence from Britain by stating, “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 jubilant shouts that reach them” (1003). This tactic leads the audience to feel guilty for celebrating their own independence while others are in bondage. However, Douglass’ argument is also rooted in appeals to logos. Not only does the irony of celebrating independence in a nation that practices slavery appeal to logic, he also presents the argument that the enslaver has already acknowledged the humanity of the slave by holding him/her accountable to governmental laws, and therefore, there is nothing to be argued. He asks his audience how he can even argue against something that is so clearly wrong, “that which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition!” (1005). The juxtaposition between Edwards’ argument that depends solely on fear and Douglass’ argument that is rooted in both logic and emotion illuminates how much more substantial Douglass’ argument is even though both messages preach the same theme.

In addition to the difference of the quality of argument, Douglass’ and Edwards’ speeches vary in future visions for society. While Edwards simply instructs his audience to consistently live in fear of God’s wrath, Douglass offers a constructive solution by ordering “the conscience of the nation must be roused... its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and renounced” (1005). Douglass leaves the audience with the encouragement that they can improve society by abolishing slavery. His speech inspires people to look to the future and proactively strive to create equality while Edwards leads people to anxiously cower in fear of God and advancement. Based on the difference of their messages’ implications for action, it becomes clear why Douglass’ movement is still respected today while Edwards’ died in the 1750s and his own congregation voted him out of his church (Baym 178).

America, the land focused on progress and advancement, has been refined periodically throughout history by leaders to arrive at its current state. Although not every leading voice directed the nation in a progressive or beneficial way, it is important to study all of the leaders, such as Douglass and Edwards, to understand the nation’s history and to learn how to discern if an argument is valid and should be implemented. Which arguments we follow today, such as the arguments of presidential candidates, black rights activists, and environmental activists will dictate the future of America. We can look back at the examples of Douglass and Edwards to discern that, despite the similarity in theme of reinstalling morality, the consequences of their messages were quite different. Edwards called people to repent of their progressive attitudes and live in anxious fear of God’s wrath, while Douglass called for America to abolish the immoral practice of slavery. Although both arguments call for abandonment of practices in the name of morality, we can analyze their arguments’ motivations, constructions, and visions to decipher the quality of their messages. Through the evaluation of Douglass and Edwards, it becomes evident that not all movements based on the value of morality are beneficial, and we must be analytical and decipher sensible ideas. As Edwards’ and Douglass’ impact indicates, accepted arguments leave substantial footprints in history books. Therefore, as American society continues to evolve and change, we must look at the outcomes of leaders in the past to inform us in our selection of leaders for the future as the hope of our nation resides in these decisions.