Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

A rebuke to Southern pro-slavery thinking.

Douglass wrote his Narrative in the midst of a national debate on slavery. As Northern abolitionists began making forceful religious and moral arguments against slavery, the Southern backers of that institution shifted and amplified their arguments as well, defending slavery not as an unfortunate economic necessity, but as a natural institution and positive good. There were all manner of vile arguments made for slavery, but four general positions predominated. Douglass undercuts these positions throughout the book, at times directly, but often simply with his description of the reality of slavery. These positions are listed below, with spacing so that you can make note of Douglass’ counter-arguments.

Pro-slavery argument 1: That slavery was a “paternal” institution where masters looked after slaves as a stern parent might a child. In this rosy “paternal” view, slavery was based on discipline, not torture, and masters acted with the best interest of their slaves at heart. How do Douglass’ many depictions counter this? What of slaves (like Douglass) that were the literal children of their masters? Did the masters treat their own enslaved children as a father should treat his son or daughter?

Pro-slavery argument 2: That slaves were happy and content in their bondage, freed from the necessity of having to provide for themselves.

Pro-slavery argument 3: That black people and white people were biologically distinct species. Who was Douglass’ father? Think of the history of slavery that you have learned. Were the races really separate? Was race more of a legal creation or a biological one?

Pro-slavery argument 4: That slavery was sanctioned by the Bible, as peoples from Africa were supposedly the descendants of Canaan, the cursed son of Ham. (I’m not making this up.) Douglass, a very religious man himself, is particularly critical of Southern Christianity. What does he say about religious masters? Was the Christianity that justified slavery a true Christianity?

An argument about the way slavery had perverted Christianity.

Southern masters lived in defiance of God, yet offered their praise as “good Christians.” How had slavery perverted the practice of Christianity in the South? How were masters enemies of Christian morality and propagators of sin?

The link between Christianity, freedom, and gaining a sense of self.

Douglass wasn’t criticizing Christianity, just the Christianity of the master. What role did faith and Christian practice play in Douglass’ path to mental emancipation and physical freedom? How do you think this description would have been greeted by his (largely) abolitionist audience?

A few extra things:

In the early chapters you may find it hard to keep track of the various masters and overseers. The descriptions of the relations between the various Auld and Anthony family members can be confusing. Concentrate more on the descriptions of these people and their cruelty than on the people themselves. A handful of main people – Sophia Auld, and Mr. Covey, for example will demand more consideration (but this will be obvious when you are reading, as these people are described in detail).

Slavery was meant to rob the enslaved of their individuality and sense of self, and to obliterate the history of the enslaved. In writing the Narrative, how was Douglass creating his own origin story? When was he ‘born’ a free man? What was his purpose, now that was free in the North. (Think of the importance of literacy to obtaining mental emancipation. How has Douglass written himself into existence?)

Here’s an interesting bit of trivia: Frederick Douglass was the most photographed man in the world in the 19th century. He was obsessed with photography. Everywhere he travelled he went to a photography studio to have his picture taken, and he wrote several essays on the technology and meaning of photography. Why do you think Douglass was such a champion of photography? How did it differ from painted portraiture? Who controlled the composition and content of the image? Who was it accessible to?

A rebuke to Southern pro-slavery thinking.

Douglass wrote his Narrative in the midst of a national debate on slavery. As Northern abolitionists began making forceful religious and moral arguments against slavery, the Southern backers of that institution shifted and amplified their arguments as well, defending slavery not as an unfortunate economic necessity, but as a natural institution and positive good. There were all manner of vile arguments made for slavery, but four general positions predominated. Douglass undercuts these positions throughout the book, at times directly, but often simply with his description of the reality of slavery. These positions are listed below, with spacing so that you can make note of Douglass’ counter-arguments.

Pro-slavery argument 1: That slavery was a “paternal” institution where masters looked after slaves as a stern parent might a child. In this rosy “paternal” view, slavery was based on discipline, not torture, and masters acted with the best interest of their slaves at heart. How do Douglass’ many depictions counter this? What of slaves (like Douglass) that were the literal children of their masters? Did the masters treat their own enslaved children as a father should treat his son or daughter?

Pro-slavery argument 2: That slaves were happy and content in their bondage, freed from the necessity of having to provide for themselves.

Pro-slavery argument 3: That black people and white people were biologically distinct species. Who was Douglass’ father? Think of the history of slavery that you have learned. Were the races really separate? Was race more of a legal creation or a biological one?

Pro-slavery argument 4: That slavery was sanctioned by the Bible, as peoples from Africa were supposedly the descendants of Canaan, the cursed son of Ham. (I’m not making this up.) Douglass, a very religious man himself, is particularly critical of Southern Christianity. What does he say about religious masters? Was the Christianity that justified slavery a true Christianity?

An argument about the way slavery had perverted Christianity.

Southern masters lived in defiance of God, yet offered their praise as “good Christians.” How had slavery perverted the practice of Christianity in the South? How were masters enemies of Christian morality and propagators of sin?

The link between Christianity, freedom, and gaining a sense of self.

Douglass wasn’t criticizing Christianity, just the Christianity of the master. What role did faith and Christian practice play in Douglass’ path to mental emancipation and physical freedom? How do you think this description would have been greeted by his (largely) abolitionist audience?

A few extra things:

In the early chapters you may find it hard to keep track of the various masters and overseers. The descriptions of the relations between the various Auld and Anthony family members can be confusing. Concentrate more on the descriptions of these people and their cruelty than on the people themselves. A handful of main people – Sophia Auld, and Mr. Covey, for example will demand more consideration (but this will be obvious when you are reading, as these people are described in detail).

Slavery was meant to rob the enslaved of their individuality and sense of self, and to obliterate the history of the enslaved. In writing the Narrative, how was Douglass creating his own origin story? When was he ‘born’ a free man? What was his purpose, now that was free in the North. (Think of the importance of literacy to obtaining mental emancipation. How has Douglass written himself into existence?)

Here’s an interesting bit of trivia: Frederick Douglass was the most photographed man in the world in the 19th century. He was obsessed with photography. Everywhere he travelled he went to a photography studio to have his picture taken, and he wrote several essays on the technology and meaning of photography. Why do you think Douglass was such a champion of photography? How did it differ from painted portraiture? Who controlled the composition and content of the image? Who was it accessible to?