Slave Life in Douglass's Narative

One of the most disturbing things that struck me when I was reading Frederick Douglass’s Narrative was the way that the slave women were taken advantage of. This seems to be relatively common occurrence during Frederick Douglass’s time, but it is through his narrative that we get a first hand experience of his feelings on the matter. Almost all of the slave narratives before Douglass’s were ghostwritten because it was illegal to teach a slave how to read and write, and once a slave was free, there was hardly any time for learning such matters due to the need to support one’s self as well as one’s family. That’s what makes Douglass’s case so unique- he wrote it himself, without a middle man. I’m sure it was proofread and adjusted as need be, but to be of one’s own pen and literary technique is profound at this time.

It is interesting to me that although Frederick Douglass was half white and half black, he was only seen as black. I understand that the laws at the time stated that if a person’s ancestry was only one eighth black, they were still considered entirely black, but this seems strange and foreign to be. It is simply people seeing only what they want to see so they can elevate themselves to a higher standing. But in any case, to see how Frederick Douglas came to be is what disturbs me. Slaves were treated like animals and given so few rights that they seemed so separated from the white race, yet these slave owners saw them as objects of sex. The proof is in the children, as Douglass states that “the slaveholder, in cases not a few, sustains to his slaves the double relation of master and father” (Baym 2073). He is a product of this, and instead of living a free life like his siblings, he was a slave. He addresses this point when he talks about why a master must sell his children, because the master must “stand by and see one white son tie up his brother, of but a few shades darker complexion than himself, and ply the gory lash to his naked back” (Baym 2073). In this statement, Frederick not only talks about the problems that occur from masters sleeping with their slaves, he also illustrates that these people are actually brothers, and they are harming their own flesh and blood.

Douglass also talks about when he first saw a slave being beat by the master. He says that the slave was a female that had been visiting a slave from another plantation during the night. Douglass discusses that when she was called upon by the master and she wasn’t there, he decided to beat her. Douglass writes, “Had [the master] been a man of pure morals himself, he might have been thought interested in protecting the innocence of my aunt; but those who knew him will not suspect him of any such virtue” (Baym 2074). Douglass had just stated in the previous paragraph the woman’s “graceful proportions” and “personal appearance”, so it is implied that the master was jealous because he was sleeping with the girl. So what did he do? He beat her.

These types of stories were common during this time, but the children that were products of this were ignored and made slaves instead of recognized as people, and the stories could not be shared because the slaves would be punished if they told anyone and they could not write them down to share with other people. Therefore, Frederick Douglass was instrumental in sharing these stories with people that would otherwise have never known, which in turn drummed up support for the end of slavery and its evils.

Thoughts on Palin's Rally and the Federalist Papers

As I waited for the debate in the arena at the Sarah Palin rally (because it was free) and tried to read the Federalist Papers amidst a bunch of middle-aged white guys in patriotic button-downs and their wives in accompanying hockey mom/pit bull/lipstick t-shirts, I realized that a lot of what I was reading was being played out in front of me. The Federalist Papers as written by Alexander Hamilton are arguments in support of the new constitution, but they also talk about different parties and the differences in opinions between them. Hamilton writes, “To judge the conduct of opposing parties, we shall be lead to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions and increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations, and by the bitterness of their invectives” (Baym 667). The Federalist Papers supported the new constitution as something that would ensure of the rights of the new Americans, but it also had to balance the role of the government in the situation. The country had just defeated a domineering monarchy, and the last thing the people wanted was another form of this in place. I imagine that the opposing parties that Hamilton is talking about are those for and against the new constitution, and those against it probably saw it as imposing on their lives like the monarchy did. Hamilton battles this by saying that “nothing could be more ill judged than that intolerant spirit, which has, at all times, characterized political parties” (Baym 667). The intolerant spirit seems to be the people against the constitution, and Hamilton recognizes this as a pretty normal thing, which it is. I have yet to see an entire country unite down to the last person on a single issue.

Although we have come a long way from the beginnings of our country and the birth of our rights, the interpretation of these rights is and will always be a matter of debate. The parties now interpret them differently, and both probably far from what our founding fathers thought. So as I sat next to the guy that screamed out “the liberals!” when the announcer on the screen asked who was at fault for the economy, I realized that this is our right, argued for and protected by our founding fathers through these papers. And as much as I may disagree with someone, it is their right to express their opinion as much as it is my right to go and cancel their vote out.