Frederick Douglas - Part 2

“In no sound philosophy can slavery be justified. 'Tis at war with the best feelings of the human heart. 'Tis at war with Christianity. Wherever we find an individual justify[ing] slavery on such a pretext you will find him also justifying the slavery of any human beings on the earth. 'Tis the old argument on the part of tyrants. Tyrants have ever justified their tyranny by arguing on the inferiority of their victims. The Slavery of only part or portion of the human family, is a matter of interest to every member of the human family; slavery being the enemy of all mankind.” http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/douglass/support8.html This is an excerpt from a speech that Frederick Douglas gave in Ireland around 1846 at the beginning of the famine that overtook Ireland. After escaping from slavery in 1838, Frederick Douglas met William Lloyd Garrison an avid abolitionist who hired Douglas as a lecturer. After Douglas published his book “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, an American Slave.” He traveled the country lecturing and his book became a best seller. His fame brought with it danger from people who opposed him. He left the country for a tour of England, Scotland and Ireland. In Ireland, he met Daniel O’Connell, a great Irish Nationalist who was to become a great friend and major influence. He is pointing out that tyrants, in order to justify their crimes against humanity argue that their victims are inferior. We have seen this same tyranny by Hitler against anyone non-Aryan and the English against the Irish. And that slavery in any form diminishes all of mankind. I have chosen this quote because while I have always been against slavery and have much admired Frederick Douglas, I did not know that he helped or was involved in the fight for Irish sovereignty or “Home Rule” as it was called. In reading about Frederick Douglas’ life, I have been amazed at his strength and intelligence. He is almost self-educated and yet, a brilliant writer and lecturer. He even influenced our great president Abraham Lincoln.

Week 9 Elizabeth Cady Stanton Frederick Douglas

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. I choose a part of the Declaration of Sentiments which Elizabeth Cady Stanton presented at the Women’s Rights Convention at Seneca Falls, New York in 1848. This was the first convention in support of women’s rights. It was attended by over 300 people. The Declaration was signed by 64 women and 32 men. Frederick Douglas signed as the only black man. She cleverly used the Declaration of Independence which she amended to read that all men and women were created equal. Women were not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. I choose this passage because it is almost impossible to believe that women were not considered equal to men. These brave forward thinking women fought for the abolition of slavery as well as the rights of women. Women had no rights to vote or own property. They were treated as second class citizens under the law and subject to their fathers or husbands. Women did not get the right to vote until 1920.

Part 2 of Week 8

The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 S. M. Africanus. The Fugitive Slave Law. Hartford, Connecticut, 1850. Rare Book and Special Collections Division. (3-5) This controversial law allowed slave-hunters to seize alleged fugitive slaves without due process of law and prohibited anyone from aiding escaped fugitives or obstructing their recovery. Because it was often presumed that a black person was a slave, the law threatened the safety of all blacks, slave and free, and forced many Northerners to become more defiant in their support of fugitives. S. M. Africanus presents objections in prose and verse to justify noncompliance with this law. Anthony Burns--Capture of A Fugitive Slave This is a portrait of fugitive slave Anthony Burns, whose arrest and trial in Boston under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 incited riots and protests by white and black abolitionists and citizens of Boston in the spring of 1854. The portrait is surrounded by scenes from his life, including his sale on the auction block, escape from Richmond, Virginia, capture and imprisonment in Boston, and his return to a vessel to transport him to the South. Within a year after his capture, abolitionists were able to raise enough money to purchase Burns's freedom. The unfairness of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 along with the Mexican War are what finally drove David Thoreau to his civil disobedience protest. He did not pay his taxes and was thrown into jail as his way to protest in a non-violent manner. He did not want to be a part of a government who advocated these injustices.

Week 8

How does it become a man to behave toward this American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also”. I chose this Henry Thoreau quote because I think it sums up his feeling that as long as the government of the United States practiced and condoned slavery everything else they say and stand for is hypocritical. Our government professes that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With one exception, they did not extend these rights to slaves. It was a matter of greed over ruling morality. Thoreau considers civil disobedience a moral and social duty of American citizens.. The churches with the exception of the Puritans and Quakers did not oppose slavery. I admire Thoreau for voicing his objection to the wrongs he saw in our government. In his “civil disobedience” instead to advocating violence he simply believed in non-participation. He refused to pay his taxes and therefore refused to fund or be a part of a government he found to be morally wrong. His philosophy of “civil disobedience was later a model for future leaders Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. Benjamin Lay, a Quaker who saw slavery as a "notorious sin," addresses this 1737 volume to those who "pretend to lay claim to the pure and holy Christian religion." Although some Quakers held slaves, no religious group was more outspoken against slavery from the seventeenth century until slavery's demise. Quaker petitions on behalf of the emancipation of African Americans flowed into colonial legislatures and later to the United States Congress. Benjamin Lay. All Slave Keepers that Keep the Innocent in Bondage . . . . Philadelphia: Printed for the Author, 1737. Franklin Collection, Rare Book and Special Collections Division. (3-22) I have always wondered how the churches in the United States could call themselves Christian and condone slavery. I am happy to find that there was a church who was outspoken against slavery. The Roman Catholic and the protestant churches were a part of the system. They had a higher moral duty to stand up for their fellow man. They were very hypocritical. Slavery is against everything God and Jesus Christ stood for. I knew very little about the Quaker religion except for the fact that they oppose war. At this time in history they were very courageous people and it is good to hear that all men did not turn a blind eye to the horrors experienced by these innocent people. The Quakers, Benjamin Law and Henry Thoreau share a belief in non-violent protest and civil disobedience. Plea for the Suppression of the Slave Trade Anthony Benezet. Observations on the Inslaving, Importing and Purchasing of Negroes. Germantown, Pennsylvania: Christopher Sower, 1760. American Imprints Collection, Rare Book and Special Collections Division. (3-1) In this plea for the abolition of the slave trade, Anthony Benezet, a Quaker of French Huguenot descent, pointed out that if buyers did not demand slaves, the supply would end. "Without purchasers," he argued, "there would be no trade; and consequently every purchaser as he encourages the trade, becomes partaker in the guilt of it." He contended that guilt existed on both sides of the Atlantic. There are Africans, he alleged, "who will sell their own children, kindred, or neighbors." Benezet also used the biblical maxim, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," to justify ending slavery. Insisting that emancipation alone would not solve the problems of people of color, Benezet opened schools to prepare them for more productive lives.

Anti-Federalist

Assignment (Due 10/29): Choose a passage from one of the Anti-Federalist writers, write out the passage and give your interpretation of the passage, then explain what this passage means to you or why you chose it. Letter IV “…It is true, we are not disposed to differ much at present, about religion; but when we are making a constitution, it is to be hoped, for ages and millions yet unborn, why not establish the free exercise of religion, as part of the national compact. There are other essential rights, which we have justly understood to be the rights of freemen; as freedom from hasty and unreasonable search warrants, warrants not founded on oath and not issued with due caution, for searching and seizing men’s papers, property, and persons. The trials by jury in civil causes…” I chose this passage because it is the basis of our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. I think that our founding fathers, some Federalists, some anti-Federalist came up with an amazing document. This document has stood up for over 200 years because it can be amended by the people governed. Just as our government is set up with checks and balances, I think that the argument between a powerful Federal Government versus the rights of the states has provided a balance of power. Go to the link for "American Politics." Look up the section "Federalism" and explain the differences between horizontal and vertical federalism. Veritical Federalism - The Constitution has granted to the Federal government power over foreign policy, defense, monetary policy and the regulation of commerce between the States. The rest of government is left, in theory, to the States and to local government which derive their authority from the States. http://toyatpol166.blogspot.com/2013/01/horizontalvertical-federalism.html Horizontal Federalism – is power divided between the 50 States. They have the power to establish laws, punish crime, build and staff schools, build roads. They receive funding from the Federal Government when they are in compliance with their policies.