Category: Uncategorized

Loading Likes...

In Chapter X, there’s a passage which I really admire:

“I have observed this in my experience of slavery,—that whenever my condition was improved, instead of its increasing my contentment, it only increased my desire to be free, and set me to thinking of plans
to gain my freedom. I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one.“

I think it is very inspiring the way he refuses to be lured by any temptations of impermanent sense of satisfaction. It shows his unyielding quality, a willpower that aligns with his strong moral compass to not settle with the lesser evil that is slavery but with acceptable conditions. Evil is evil, and there should not be compromises. Happiness is not given, it is sought and pursued by a person.

It also brings us back to Chapter VII, in which Douglass regards of the even of him learning how to read being a “curse” because he is no longer able to shut himself off from thoughts of what could be better and how stuck he is. It’s like the curse of being an intellectual who is ahead of their time and is left without the appropriate language or technology express their ideas, and a society that is unwilling to accept it.

Additionally, I see a little bit of Emerson’s Nature through Douglass’ narrative:
“The one thing in the world of value is the active soul,—the soul, free, sovereign, active. This every man is entitled to; this every man contains within him, although in almost all men obstructed, and as yet unborn. The soul active sees absolute truth and utters truth, or creates.”

This brings me back to the question brought up in class about why Emerson never addressed the issue of slavery in any of his essays, which were advocating quite passionately for the freedom of the soul and “self-reliance”. I feel like he was afraid to face the controversy head-on and so decided to stick to more abstract measures.

I did get a bit lost at the end as everything began moving so fast following Douglass’ escape. From Mr. and Mrs. Johnson to his wife Anna Murray, which I don’t think was mentioned before in any of the previous chapters. I was also surprised that Douglass let Johnson choose his name rather than his wife, because I thought Anna Murray was the one who helped him choose the name Douglass.

Loading Likes...

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and the excerpt from My Bondage and My Freedom while about the same scene, are very different. I wanted to note some differences in tone and language that I found in the passages, which seem to reflect the additional years Douglass has had to reflect on this turning point in his life and what additional knowledge he has learned. 

The first notable difference: “My master, who I did not venture to hope would protect me as a man, had even now refused to protect me as his property” (Bondage, 1229). I know that in the early text Douglass does not shy away from the term “property”, but he always uses it passively when in reference to himself. In Narrative, it is inferred that Douglass is a part of this larger group who suffers the effects of commodification and further dehumanization. Here, it is a stark and direct declaration, which shifts the tone significantly to be more confident – or assertive – of the truth he was establishing in the former text. 

Another notable difference was the addition of this excerpt: “I was loved by the colored people, because they thought I was hated for my knowledge, and persecuted because I was feared” (Bondage, 1231). The awareness shown in this statement is bold because it is so blunt and it seems to acknowledge how he recognized his actions as having an effect/were being noticed. It is not that Narrative did not convey this message of knowledge as a weapon, but the declaration from Douglass himself was not seen. The fight with Covey or Mr. Auld’s reaction to the ABCs provides a good illustration of how knowledge is feared in slaves by slave masters, but it strikes as even more powerful in this written format. For me, these past two declarations are symbolic of Douglass becoming even more comfortable with and aware of how using words can influence politics, culture, and history. 

The last thing that I wanted to note was the line “I was nothing before; I WAS A MAN NOW” (Bondage, 1235). In Narrative, there are the similar lines that read as “and behold a man transformed into a brute!” (1199) and “you shall see how a slave was made a man” (1200). I’ll preface that I do not mean to say that the latter lines are being replaced by the former because this is something that I cannot know, yet the change does reflect the same theme (as the previous examples). Whereas in Narrative, Douglass seems to be separating the Douglass of the past from the present, the later text revises the statement to indicate Douglass’ complete possession of his past (“I” is being used now). In all, these differences develop a growing sense of stability and confidence in his identity.

Loading Likes...

Mistreatment is a constant in Douglass’ narrative. This is, of course, a staple of any story involving slavery, and the brutality is always to be expected. But it is the description of his first six months with Mr. Covey which stands out to me in particular. Douglass writes that “Mr. Covey succeeded in breaking [him],” that he was “broken in body, soul, and spirit.” (1199) Crushed beneath the heel of cruelty, Douglass experiences something akin to a severing of his humanity, where his interests and identity are washed away and he becomes “a man transformed into a brute.” (1199) What follows on the next page is his plaintive speech as he watches the ships leaving the bay and begs to understand the state of his life, how he could be abandoned to the “hottest hell of unending slavery” (1200) and deprived of his personhood so ceaselessly.

Here, let us take a moment to consider the frequent use of animalistic descriptions for the Native Americans in The Last of the Mohicans. Here, let us consider the similar zoomorphism projected onto Black people, both free and otherwise. These passages present both a counter and an explanation. The dehumanization wrought upon Douglass is explicitly done by the hands of his oppressors. It is not a natural state of being for him, whatever his contemporary white readers may have originally assumed. He sets the degradation of his personhood in direct contrast with what he has before and after it: humanity. By describing the process of losing and regaining that identity, he disproves the notion of its absence as an inherent trait. 

Loading Likes... The norton’s excerpt from “My Bondage and My Freedom,” offers a much closer and personal examination of Frederick Douglass’s experiences. It tells about the time he was sent to stay with an overseer, Mr. Coven’s, and his time resisting his abuse which was his first major act of open rebellion.

He writes, “Covey at length (2 hours had lapsed) gave up the contest. Letting me go he said, –puffing and blowing at a great rate–“now you, scoundrel, go to your work; I would not have whipped you half as so much as I have had you not resisted.” The fact was, he had not whipped me at all. He had not, in all the scuffle, drawn a single drop of blood from me. I had drawn blood from him: and even without this satisfaction, I should have been victorious, because my aim had not been to injure him, but to prevent his injuring me.”

This excerpt from the text shows the increased closeness and vulnerability shown by Douglass than in comparison to his writing in Narrative of the Life, in which he recollects his memories in a more distant writing style. This same event of his life was briefly mentioned in the narrative, but with much less distinct detail. When reading this account of his experience however, the writing felt much more vivid and haunting due to the quantity of details and the closeness to Douglass who tells the reader of his thoughts in addition to just the events of his life. The much closer narrative style that reads more like a journal than a biography creates a more impertinent emotional impact that led me to check the dates each piece was published. I found that My Bondage and My freedom was published ten years after a Narrative Life which would account for a higher amount of detail and emotional vulnerability as Douglas was further separated from slavery and further immersed in the abolitionist movement. This assumption is further supported by the appendix that he added to the Narrative of the Life after its initial publication in which he writes more intense poetry about abolitionism. I would be curious to know more about the historical context between 1945 and 1955 when the two pieces were published. Was there a surge in abolitionism that made it possible for more passionate abolitionism pieces to be published or was Douglas more bold with time.

Loading Likes...

While religion was referenced in the “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass,” it’s meaning to Douglass only becomes clear in reading the appendix. At first, I was confused about his take on religion and if he supported it or not. This was clarified for me in the appendix when he separates out “slaveholding religion” and “Christianity proper” (1224). Here, he goes into depth about the hypocrisy and sin underlying the former version.

In particular, the Parody of “Heavenly Union” really put this into perspective for me. It cleverly reveals how slavery goes against every part of slaveholders’ supposed religion with lines like “damn you if you steal a lamb; yet rob old Tony, Doll, and Sam, of human rights, and bread and ham,” and “Of One whose heart for sinners broke: he tied old Nanny to an oak, and drew the blood at every stroke” (1227-1228). These lines in particular struck me as poignant examples of how slaveowners used religion to make themselves feel better about themselves and their morality while simultaneously going about as far against the morality of their religion as they could through slavery. 

In addition to the poem, he explicitly called out certain actions that he felt were strongly against the Christianity that he has come to know. He uses the examples of slaveowners selling women for the purpose of prostitution calling themselves pious, and the example of them thinking it’s essential to read the bible and failing to teach their slaves to read. These are examples that reveal the exploitative nature of slavery, and how the system of slavery was only beneficial for slaveowners if they were able to control every part of their slaves’ lives. This included their education, family, free time, religion, etc (or lack thereof). It seems as though they viewed it as a business, and not something connected to their own morality or religion. The lack of self awareness (or at the very least, care for the harm they were causing) is astonishing, especially through the perspective of Christianity. 

 

 

Loading Likes...

On page 1230 Fredrick Douglass says, “What had I done, what had my parents done, that such a life as this should be mine?” Douglass did nothing to deserve the treatment that he received, especially the treatment that he outlined about being whipped and physically mistreated. He even says on page 1197, “How I escaped death, I do not know.” While Douglass survived unimaginable pain and the worst experiences possible, he also talks about his escape (pg 1202) where he discusses his escape, making distance through the woods, and ignoring the calls and threats from Covey demanding that he return. He was in an extremely trying situation, as he said in his writing.

On page 1221, Douglass says, “We now began to feel a degree of safety, and to prepare ourselves for the duties and responsibilities for a life of freedom.” This quote sparked my thinking about what “a life of freedom” would look for Douglass at this point in history, he says he worked and became known to the anti-slavery world (pg 1224), but I wanted to dig more into what the treatment of a freedman would look like, even in the anti-slavery world, to get a better understanding of Douglass’s life experiences.

An NPS source (linked below) said that even while the north opposed slavery, they often still did not want Black people/freed slaves migrating up north. This was because they had a fear that having Black people available to do labor would cut into White wage earning. To discourage Black people from coming to the north, there were “Black laws” which that denied Black people citizenship, suffrage, and property rights. This information provides facts that lead me to the conclusion that even after Douglass’s escape and entering into an “anti-slave world”, he still was not being welcomed into that space.

• https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/chapter-1-race-slavery-and-freedom-northern-unfreedom.htm#:~:text=Although%20Northerners%20had%20distaste%20for,blacks%20migrating%20into%20Northern%20cities.

Furthermore, a Library of Congress source (linked below) outlines the general treatment of freedmen. Black people faced great challenges due to lack of resources such as money and education. For Douglass, he had the resource of being able to read and write. The source says many freedmen struggled to develop lives because of hostile attitudes from White people. In this source provides a quote from Houston Hartsfield Holloway, “”…we colored people did not know how to be free and the white people did not know how to have a free colored person about them.” This source is important to think about how freedom would have been defined for a freedmen, and how it is different from the definition that we immediately think of upon hearing the work freedom. The work of Fredrick Douglass is able to give us historical context that can help us refine what freedom would have looked like at this point in history.

• https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/civil-war-and-reconstruction-1861-1877/freedmen/#:~:text=Hundreds%20of%20thousands%20of%20African,other%20resources%2C%20such%20as%20money.

Loading Likes...

In Chapter 9 of Narrative of the Life, Douglass describes his escape from slavery. He describes it in very vague terms, not giving any specifics, to avoid implicating anyone who helped him escape, and to avoiding causing “greater vigilance on the part of the slaveholders” (1216). His attitude greatly contrasts with that of his “western friends [who] have conducted what they call the underground railroad” (1216). Douglass describes these friends as publicly announcing their efforts to rescue slaves, and thus aiding slaveowners in their efforts to prevent slaves from running away. I felt the contrast between these two interesting, because it shows a divide in the abolition movement between the former enslaved and those who were always free. Douglass has first hand experience with slavery, and therefore he has an understanding of the mechanisms of slavery that white abolitionists do not, which causes a different opinion about what methods are the most effective in fighting slavery. I also think this passage really underscored the cruelty and the power of the slaveowners. Even though Douglass is now escaped from slavery, he is still afraid to tell the entirety of his story, and restricted in a way that the white abolitionists are not. 

Loading Likes...

It is interesting to think about the way that having knowledge can be equated to having power, autonomy, and freedom in Douglas’ experience. Along the trajectory of Frederick Douglass’s life, his movement from oppression to liberty is certainly fueled by the urge of knowing. Douglas is keen to know the ideas of the world (history, language, culture, etc.) and at the same time is very eager to uncover details about his identity. This includes wondering about his age and birthday, confusion regarding his parental identity rumors that his master is his father, and vague memories of his mother who was allowed to meet him only at night. Without this proper family identity, Douglas was even more eager to establish an identity of his own, which he seemed to realized from a young age could only be developed with knowledge and learning.  His journey began with learning and literacy in Baltimore under the guidance of Mrs. Auld. Once Mrs. Auld was warned by her husband, the learning stopped, but Douglass indulged in self-learning and pressed on. He started reading news paper secretly and learned from poor little white boys in exchange for bread. It becomes clear that educating slaves in any sort of way, or providing them with knowledge (even just about themselves, their birthday, their age, etc) was condemned and seen as something that would give these people power they didn’t deserve. It is incredible how through all of this resistance, there was still a spark of desire in Douglass, almost like a mission to ‘steal’ the wealth of knowledge from the privileged whites. Douglas’s story showcases his incredible growth, and the way he develops from a learner to an educator, and from a listener to a speaker. 

Loading Likes... In the section of Douglass’s Narrative we read for Tuesday’s class, Douglass’s writing style is on full display. I find it interesting how matter-of-fact he is about many of the horrors of slavery without ever allowing the reader to lose sight of how horrible the things he is describing are. One incident in particular I found striking was when he described the overseer whipping Aunt Hester for seeing Lloyd. Douglass explains how he hid in a closet because he was so horrified and states, “I expected it would be my turn next.” He had never seen anything like that before, having lived on the outskirts of the plantation previously, so with typical child-like naivety he expects he will be next, not knowing what truly prompted the overseer to whip Aunt Hester. He combines the childish innocence with the harsh reality that he actually could be next if he displeased the overseers. His frank detailing of the horrors of his life are part of what give his writing so much power. He neither overstates not understates the events he witnessed, and doesn’t attempt to over-dramatize them for the sake of a story. I think this is what makes his writing so engaging because he never minces words and tells things very plainly, but quickly, never spending too long on one tale and always keeping the narrative moving forward. Cooper could learn from that.

Loading Likes...

 

 I was struck by the sympathy that Douglass displays toward the slave owners. Douglass speaks extensively about the good nature of his mistress in Baltimore, Sophia Auld, who teaches him how to read. However, Auld quickly becomes inconsiderate in her treatment of Douglass, enraged at the mere site of him reading. Sophia Aulds complete change in character serves to emphasize that the institution of slavery is destructive to not only the slaver but to those who are given the power over another’s life. Douglass views Sophia Aulds shift in character with sympathy. He speaks of the harm that slavery has caused her by noting that “slavery soon proved its ability to divest her of these heavenly qualities” (1187). Douglass illustrates that slavery can transform good citizens into one who is completely inconsiderate, acting to uphold the established rules of slavery without consideration of what is humane. Douglass sympathizes with slave holders as they are likewise corrupted by slavery and rid of their once pure soul. Furthermore, Douglass’s account of the complete change in Sophia serves as a warning to the reader illustrating that slavery is a sickness that can affect anyone handed the power. Similarly, Douglass notes that the valuation process, particularly brutal for the enslaved, who were ranked alongside animals and inspected unmindfully, also displays the loss in humanity of the slave holders. He argues that at the valuation, “he saw more clearly than ever the brutalizing effects of slavery upon both slave and slaveholder” (1191). The slave holders in treating the enslaved with a complete loss of respect have simultaneously rid them of their own humanity.  

Loading Likes...

As I read Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, I found the descriptions of social hierarchies in enslaved communities to be incredibly interesting. Douglass writes that “few privileges were esteemed higher, by the slaves of the out-farms, than that of being selected to do errands at the Great House Farm. It was associated in their minds with greatness” (Douglass, 1176). The enslaved were truly of a completely different world than their free, white counterparts. Within this world, the social structures were based on the master who enslaved them, and the job that they performed on the plantation. I had assumed that enslaved people viewed each other as equals because they were all under forced suppression and abuse, and consequently, there is no better form of slavery or abuse in comparison to another. Douglass’s Narrative proves this thought untrue as Douglass states that when appointed to the Great House “a representative could not be prouder of his election to a seat in the American Congress” (Douglass, 1176). The comparison of an enslaved person’s position in the Great House Farm to a representative in the American Congress reveals the gap between the white and enslaved communities in America while simultaneously emphasizing the connection between human beings. Douglass humanizes the enslaved community by describing their excitement over a “promotion” in life. The humanization over a mundane accomplishment such as a promotion bridges the gap between black and white people as this is something that both races celebrate and feel excitement over. It is only when the reader considers the truth of the situation, that the enslaved person is excited over a “better” form of slavery, that this comparison emphasizes the harsh reality of an enslaved person’s life. Not long after this comparison, Douglass continues to write about the hierarchies of slavery when he states that “It was considered as being bad enough to be a slave; but to be a poor man’s slave was deemed a disgrace indeed!” (Douglass, 1180). Not only did an enslaved person’s job on a plantation indicate the enslaved person’s role in a slave community but the wealth of their master did as well. This further emphasizes the separate world that enslaved people were forced to live in, and consequently, displays that enslaved people developed their own social norms and customs for black communities in the U.S. 

Loading Likes...

Merriam Webster defines literature as “writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest.” There is no doubt that the work of Douglass fits into this definition. His writing is elegant, well-structured, clearly worded, and has been studied across centuries. His Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass tells his story, and the stories of those around him, with the goal of informing people far removed from slavery of its true horrors. 

In order for it to achieve this goal, Narrative of the Life. had to fit this definition of literature. It needed to fit the standard for writing at the time, both to increase its readership and also to demonstrate that literature, a part of society, can also be partaken in by those excluded by society. His writing has the “excellence of form” given in the definition. He uses literary devices fluently, playing around with sentence structure and allusions in a masterful way.

“Permanent or universal interest” is also present in Douglass’ work. Most slave narratives published around the same time were written by white authors, telling the stories of enslaved people that they interviewed. Douglass stands out in that his narrative is written by himself. This gives his writing a certain authority, as he is speaking from his own experience. There was a large interest in Douglass’ writing when it was first published in 1845, and it still retains that interest today, as historical witness literature and as a proponent of a movement that shaped the course history.

 

Loading Likes...

One of the quotes that caught my attention while reading Douglass was on page 1185 when it said, “if you teach that [censored] (speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave.” This quote made me really think about the power that words and literature have. I understood this quote as it saying that Douglass would have too much power if he was able to read, and restricting his literacy was a way of oppression, given the power that words have. Another part of this quote that I really thought about was the language used, that I personally censored in my retyping of the quote. Using a word as strong as that slur says a lot about how Mr. Auld viewed Douglass’s worth as a person, and is important to look at when analyzing Douglass and others treatment under the Auld’s. 

Prior to chapter 1, there was a quote from Wendell Phillips that I thought also brought an emphasis to how important words are. On page 1170, it reads “after all, I shall read your book with trembling for you.” This quote bring attention to the empathy that reading experiences can evoke. I thought this also connected with the quote I talked about at the top of the blog post where it insinuated that Douglass would be too powerful if he had the ability to read. Words have so much power when reading them that if Douglass had been given a further ability to talk about his experience, it would have given him more ability than his masters wanted him to have. 

Another section of the reading that I thought emphasized the importance of language was on pages 1176-1177 when it talks about songs and it reads, “I have sometimes thought that the mere hearing of those songs would do more to impress some minds with the horrible character of slavery[…]” Thinking about songs historical significance, especially the significance of songs to slaves. These forms of writing were combined with music to bring African Americans together and give them a forum in which they could express the effects that they were feeling as a result of their trauma. 

Loading Likes...

I am unsure how to even begin analyzing Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Written by Himself because Douglass had so much more at stake than any author we’ve read. Emerson wrote for notoriety, Poe for money, and Douglass for freedom. That being said, I found Douglass hard to read in the sense that the content was so devastating, but also easy to read in the sense that his sentences flowed well. It’s interesting to consider that his writing style is perhaps most authentic because he did not have access to literature growing up so in many ways his voice as a writer was not as heavily influenced as someone who came from a privileged background and grew up reading both ancient and contemporary literature (for example, Emerson). The way that Douglass writes about how he taught himself to read and write is truly remarkable, and I feel like I don’t have any literary analysis because I’m so in awe of how he was able to write about something so horrific and traumatic in such a composed manner. 

I would also be really interested in reading Douglass’s later re-publications, because the introduction mentions that he writes differently about his mother and grandmother in them. One of the most heart-wrenching parts of Douglass’s story is his separation from his family, and I would be really interested in learning more about his familial relations. 

Loading Likes... While reading the preface, I found myself interested in Douglass’s testimony, in which he stated that “A slaveholder’s profession of Christianity is a palpable imposture. He is a felon of the highest grade. He is a man stealer. It is of no importance what you put in the other scale” (1168). Particularly the term “man-stealer” which to me, proves more effective of a title rather than “slaveholder.” The idea of holding a slave connotes a privilege and duty being held. I remember hearing something about a movement from denoting victims of slavery as “slaves” to “enslaved people” and I find that it has a similar gut wrenching effect of emphasizing the humanity behind the titles. In a similar vein, Garrison’s questioning of the reader regarding whether or not they will side with “Human flesh-mongers” (1172) was particularly impactful. I find that such use of epithets accurately portrays a person-first discussion surrounding slavery, rather than separating the act of enslaving people from the title with terms such as “master” and “slaveholder.” Looking online, this article from the National Park Service (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/undergroundrailroad/language-of-slavery.htm#:~:text=or%20legal%20decisions.-,Enslaved%20Person,or%20loved%20ones%2C%20or%20death.) references the use of the terms “enslaver” and “enslaved people” as a way of putting humanity central to the identities of those involved in slavery. I find the idea of changing the narrative around slavery simply through word choice fascinating, as applied by both Garrison and Douglass in their abolitionist efforts.