I recently read "My Bondage and My Freedom" by Frederick Douglass. Douglass was born a slave in Maryland around 1817. He escaped to the North in 1838. This 1855 book (the second of three autobiographical works by Douglass) largely consists of an account of his years as a slave in Maryland (where he moved between the Eastern Shore where he was born and Baltimore). It also contains a less comprehensive account of his life as a free man (including a 21 month trip to Great Britain) and in an appendix excerpts from abolitionist speeches and letters of his.
I found the account of his years as a slave interesting and worth reading. For the most part I (as a layman) also found it credible although a little caution is in order as a book like this is to some extent abolitionist propaganda. But Douglass comes across as a reasonably objective observer, noting for example that some of the mistreatment of slaves he reports was not typical (which of course was of little help to a slave who unluckily found themself at the mercy of an exceptionally bad master). And in truth the case against slavery doesn't really need embellishment, the facts are bad enough.
One point about which I am a little doubtful is Douglass's repeated claim that harsh treatment of slaves was rational and necessary from the perspective of the (amoral) slave owner, that any leniency would just encourage thoughts of rebellion (or escape). This seems to have been true for Douglass himself but I wonder to what extent he is rationalizing what could be seen as lack of gratitude for relatively good treatment. Or perhaps I am just reluctant to let go of the fantasy that if I had owned slaves I would have been such a fair and generous master that I would have inspired loyalty.
I was also a little puzzled by of Douglass's seeming lack of interest regarding the identity of the (white or nearly white) man who was his father. Perhaps he really didn't care but I wouldn't be too surprised if this was a bigger concern to him than he lets on.
I found the account easy to read and the language and style surprisingly modern (to the extent that I looked for and found a statement that the 1969 Dover edition I read was an unaltered reproduction of the original). I found the rest of the book less interesting, it could be skipped without losing too much.
In summary I found this book to be pretty good and a useful reminder that even the life of a relatively privileged slave in the old South left a great deal to be desired.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment