4C. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845)

The daguerreotype image of Douglass above was taken around the year 1855.
It is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

 Click here for the full text.

Logos and Pathos

1. Douglass began his narrative, stating matter-of-factly many details about his early life. He seemed detached from the emotions that his childhood should have provided him. He even stated that the death of his mother was not felt deeply in the way it should have [been], though the nature of his relationship with his mother was skewed to relate to the experiences of many slaves of the time. It seems that Douglass’ choice to state facts in the first few pages of his narrative served to assert his authority as a voice of a slave’s experience. Douglass did not shy away from the gory details of murders that he witnessed. Douglass described that after the murder of Demby, a fellow slave, “blood and brains marked the water when he had stood” (1018) and another was “killed with a hatchet, by knocking his brains out” (1019). This showed how used to violence slaves were after witnessing it so often.

2. It’s easy to contrast his first autobiography with his orations, as they take a much more somber and cold tone that conveys his views in a much more calm manner, but they still manage to appeal to the listener’s emotions all the same, as can be seen in descriptions of plantation brutality such as when “[Mr. Gore] raised his musket to [Demby’s] face, taking deadly aim at his standing victim, and in an instant poor Demby was no more. His mangled body sank out of sight, and the blood and brains marked the water where he had stood.” (1018) The development of his style is intriguing. Does he choose coldness when writing to an imperceivable audience as a matter of persuasive choice over the flames of his oration, or was the difference defined by the development of his experience as an abolitionist?

3. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself was probably one of the most enlightening and valuable readings I've done in college. The narrative was published in 1845, but the abolition of slavery didn't happen until 1865. I can only imagine this text's impact on a slave-owning society when it was published. Douglass mentions that while on the plantation, the men and women enslaved would sing. He writes, "I have sometimes thought that the mere hearing of those songs would do more to impress some minds with the horrible character of slavery, than the reading of whole volumes of philosophy on the subject could do" (Douglass 11). I could go on and on about the wretchedness of slavery, but I think Douglass makes the point pretty clear himself. By writing this, Douglass sang his own song. In light of his work's long-standing reputation, he was right in assuming that personal accounts and literature charged with emotion would do more to impress minds with an evil image of slavery than philosophy books ever would.

Vivid Excerpts:

• “I have often been awakened at the dawn of day by the most heart-rending shrieks of an own aunt of mine, whom he used to tie up to a joist, and whip upon her naked back till she was literally covered with blood.”
• “I have seen him whip a woman, causing the blood to run half an hour at the time; and this, too, in the midst of her crying children, pleading for their mother’s release."
• “My feet have been so cracked with the frost, that the pen with which I am writing might be laid in the gashes.”

Question: should students (college, high school, younger . . .) in history classes be required to read passages like the ones above?  How might Oklahoma House Bill 1775 (the "Critical Race Theory" law) affect the likelihood of that happening?

Emotional Paradoxes: When Learning is Painful

4. Something I found thought-provoking while reading this narrative was Douglass’s thoughts on learning how to read. He states, “I would at times feel that learning to read had been a curse rather than a blessing. It had given me view of my wretched condition, without remedy. It opened my eyes to the horrible pit, but to no ladder upon which to get out.” . . . after grasping the extent of what he and his fellow people endured I could see how not having the option to learn how to read could have (in some way) protected the others from understanding the full extent of their conditions.

Question: Consider the difference between a learning experience that is painful and knowledge that is painful. What might persuade someone to undergo a painful learning experience that will bring them knowledge that is also painful?

How the Slave Became a Man: Violence

5. The disgusting and abhorrent abuses and neglect attributed to enslaved individuals are hard enough (though important) to learn about, without realizing through Douglass’ narrative just how inhumanely these people viewed the enslaved; literally buckling at the sight or idea of pain being inflicted upon them or their loved ones that even comes close to rivaling that which they inflicted so regularly, readily and easily upon the people they abused. What really drove this point home for me was the chapter in which Douglass talks about finally fighting Covey back, wherein he and his white friends visibly falter once they realize that Douglass has decided to treat them with the same (lack of) respect that he receives,and that they are also subject to his physical will. Douglas states that “The whole six months afterwards, that I spent with Mr. Covey, he never laid the weight of his finger upon me in anger”(Douglass). This both brought me joy for Douglass in that he was able to stand up for himself and subsequently reduce some of the abuse, but also so unyieldingly sad at the idea that this is what it took for him to be treated without even the most basic of human dignity and respect, as someone who is not only so worthy of respect as a human being but also as a clearly wonderful, creative and curious mind which should have been allowed to flourish rather than spent starving and protecting itself. This was a difficult read for me, but I am glad that I read it. It’s somethingthat after reading, I think everyone would benefit from reading.

Self-Reliance?

In the passage below, Douglass describes the pivotal moment in his life when he fought back against his cruel overseer. Is it fair to criticize this turn in the narrative for suggesting that slaves who didn't fight back were to some extent responsible for their own suffering?

This battle with Mr. Covey was the turning-point in my career as a slave. It rekindled the few expiring embers of freedom, and revived within me a sense of my own manhood. It recalled the departed self-confidence, and inspired me again with a determination to be free. The gratification afforded by the triumph was a full compensation for whatever else might follow, even death itself. He only can understand the deep satisfaction which I experienced, who has himself repelled by force the bloody arm of slavery. I felt as I never felt before. It was a glorious resurrection, from the tomb of slavery, to the heaven of freedom. My long-crushed spirit rose, cowardice departed, bold defiance took its place; and I now resolved that, however long I might remain a slave in form, the day had passed forever when I could be a slave in fact. I did not hesitate to let it be known of me, that the white man who expected to succeed in whipping, must also succeed in killing me.

From this time I was never again what might be called fairly whipped, though I remained a slave four years afterwards. I had several fights, but was never whipped.

How the Man Became a Leader of a Movement

Douglass's eloquence refutes the notion that Blacks were intellectually inferior to Whites.The following passage is one of the most often excerpted passages from Douglass's Narrative, partially because it makes use of several classical literary devices, such as apostrophe, antithesis, and personification.

I was sometimes prompted to take my life, and that of Covey, but was prevented by a combination of hope and fear. My sufferings on this plantation seem now like a dream rather than a stern reality.

Our house stood within a few rods of the Chesapeake Bay, whose broad bosom was ever white with sails from every quarter of the habitable globe. Those beautiful vessels, robed in purest white, so delightful to the eye of freemen, were to me so many shrouded ghosts, to terrify and torment me with thoughts of my wretched condition. I have often, in the deep stillness of a summer’s Sabbath, stood all alone upon the lofty banks of that noble bay, and traced, with saddened heart and tearful eye, the countless number of sails moving off to the mighty ocean. The sight of these always affected me powerfully. My thoughts would compel utterance; and there, with no audience but the Almighty, I would pour out my soul’s complaint, in my rude way, with an apostrophe to the moving multitude of ships:—

“You are loosed from your moorings, and are free; I am fast in my chains, and am a slave! You move merrily before the gentle gale, and I sadly before the bloody whip! You are freedom’s swift-winged angels, that fly round the world; I am confined in bands of iron!

Real Christianity

6. Douglass talks about religion when he brings up his cruel master, Covey, who claimed to be a devout man but was a prolific adulterer. Douglass makes many remarks about Christianity in his memoir to point out the hypocrisy of slave holders who practiced it. He states “The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of each week meets me as a class-leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation,” and much more.

However, [Douglass] adds an appendix at the end of his memoir to clarify that Christianity as practiced by slave owners is distinctly separate from Christ and his teachings. He states “I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land.” He argues that the set of beliefs condoning slavery and real Christianity cannot coexist within the same man.