Antislavery Work of Fredrick Douglass - Essay Example

Frederick Douglass Thesis ment: The speech by Fredrick Douglass was a clear indication that the fight against slaverywas slowed down by wrangles and frustrations among the abolitionist group. Fredrick Douglas was a prominent American abolitionist. Born in 1818, his antislavery work gained prominence in the 1940s and is well known for his attacks on Jim Crow and his lynching in the 1890s. Douglass is well known for his writings and oratory which were staunchly against the slavery. He has authored speeches, autobiographies and at one timed edited a newspaper that advocated for the rights of the slaves. His stand on slavery is understandable because himself was born in bondage, he endured the harsh slave conditions and until he escaped from slavery in the 1940s. Looking at the speech “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro,” he gave on July 5, 1852, one gets a sense that he is very unhappy with the prevailing situations and the apparent lack of progress in the fight against slavery. He poignantly enumerates the ills the slaves are suffering at the hands of their masters in a way that echoes someone who has witnessed and endured such ills. He says ‘… to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages … to flay their flesh with the lash … to sell them at auction… to sunder their families… to burn their flesh.’1 This clear enumeration of the ills shows clearly that he understood what was going on, having witnessed firsthand some of this ills. To him, the aspirations of the American as espoused by the American Farmer2 that the American has moved from servile labour and useless toil to prosperity rings hollow for this group of Americans. The writing of Douglas, especially assertion that divinity and brutality cannot go hand in hand, and that one is either on one hand or the other must have been aimed at the radical abolitionists so well covered by Harris3. This abolitionist were mainly whites who had joined the blacks to bring an end to the slavery. The campaign was later to be taken up by religious revivalism with dominant figures being Arthur and Lewis Tappan4 who wanted to bring the religious approach to abolishing slavery through presenting the preaching of the bible that hold that all men are equal. The speech is inherently against the use of religious basis to perpetuate slavery through argument such as it is God ordained. But above all, he is very much against the fact that religious leaders, who ought to have known better, attended a ceremony to celebrate 4th of July knowing very well that there is nothing to celebrate in the country. The intended audience for this speech was mainly the blacks. He wanted them to know that things are getting out of hand and may not change soon. However, the biggest part of the speech was aimed at mocking whites, especially those who subscribe to the Christian faith. He lashes out severely at them, accusing them of hypocrisy and doubting the kind of relationship they have with God. The main argument of the author is that matters are getting out of hand and there is need for some drastic measures to be taken. Essentially, he pours out his heart to illustrate the ironies of the society; that America is presenting itself as a progressive society when slaves are enduring horrible conditions. Douglass speech has a number of assumptions. First, he assumes that the audience knows what happened on July, 4th given that he at no time explains what transpired on that day. Another thing he assumes that the audience knows is the role of religion in the whole spectrum of things, especially how divinity and the brutality interact, and therefore why he is so much pissed about the the role of religion. The speech is a mockery of the July 4th celebrations. On 4th July, American celebrates its independence with a number of public events. He sees hypocrisy in the sense that whole Americans are celebrating independence, millions are held across the country as slaves, denied their liberty. He castigates those celebrations by remarking that, ‘your celebration is a sham…your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless…your religious parade and solemnity… a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.’5 .He therefore does not see why the independence celebrations should be held when a part of the society key in production and running the economy of the country is living in bondage under horrific conditions. The speech must have been written after the independent celebrations which should have been outstanding with the religious prayers and thanksgiving, for he comes down hard on what he sees as irony at the religious alters. It is easy to detect biasness in the speech. For once, he spent a lot of time berating the failings of the religious leaders and their followers yet they are not the only ones owning slaves or supporting perpetuation of slavery by quoting the bible or through other such arguments. Truth be told, some white religious leaders were long against slavery and been joined the abolitionist. Blanket condemnation of religious leaders is therefore not fair. The source is consistent from the historical record that I know. This is because the American independence has always been held in high esteem and is always accompanied by huge celebrations. The source has enriched my understanding especially considering the fact that propaganda sometimes has no limits. To use a religious book selectively to serve nefarious ends is something I cannot think anyone would be capable of. But again, this was not isolated case, but widespread in the nation of scholars. Looking at the speech by Douglas, there is an indication that the views he presents are in line with those of Harris’s description of black abolitionist in New York City. There is a perception that people expected to pursue a given course are the ones who are doing the unexpected things. While the religious leaders in Douglas speech appear to unwittingly support the position of the slavery owners, the black abolitionist in New York City, majority of them middle class, tends to implicitly focus on themselves by focusing less on the needs of the lower class black wage earners6. This has a lot of echoes to the picture the American Farmer7 draws of Americans are drivers of their lives without interference even from mighty lord!. Given that this group of African Americans were being given a sense of belonging by white Americans8, we can deduce that they began to forget about their brethren who were slaves and focused on their own lives as they sought to fit in. Looking at both works, we see that they are offering different analyses of inequality. The abolitionist have the same aim, that of bringing an end to slavery. It is our expectations that those against slavery will be united but what we get are subterranean divisions. The analysis of slavery and inequality offered by these two works is also different. Douglas presents the difference being approached from a religious perspectives and power while Harris9 presents difference anchored on economic differences. These were fault lines dividing the debate between those for and against slavery. Bibliography Erick, Foner, “Give Me Liberty: An American History”, Volume 1, 4th seagull edition (New York: WW Norton, 2014) Frederick Douglass, “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro,” Speech on July 5, 1852, Rochester, New York (1852) Harris, Leslie M. 1997. In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863. Chicago: University of CHicago Press. Read More