My Bondage, My Freedom, Douglass (pg. 322-324)

Slave narratives are pretty typical fare in American social studies courses from early elementary school all the way through upper level college courses. I suppose the goal in this is to deeply instill an appreciation for how far we have come as a nation in the past 200 years, and to teach children in our melting pot of society a sense of equality amongst one another, a preventative measure of sorts to keep history from proverbially repeating itself. Commonly, depending on the age of students, the narratives are pretty similar. You have an introduction of the slave and their background, a summary of plantation life, and then varied stories of inhumanely difficult labor, cruel beatings and a terrible sense of all around suffering. These stirring accounts are then typically balanced out with talk of abolitionists and discussion of the underground railroad and then detailed accounts of daring and epic escapes from the confides of plantation life to that of the free north. The narrator shares with the reader ever harrowing detail of sneaking out under cover of darkness, running barefoot through woods, swamps and rivers, avoiding slave hunters and dogs by hiding in trees or in the cellars of homes along the underground railroad, and etc. Douglass's accounts of captivity are probably some of the most detailed, and therefore most gruesome, so as a sympathetic reader I couldn't wait to get to the part where he would eventually account his much deserved escape to freedom. However in a rather stark contrast, he refuses to do so, and while that was off-putting at first, I soon realized that his reasons were very well justified. Calling out the writers of previous narratives he denounces the practice of recounting their methods of escape. Because of them, he believes the underground railroad ought to be called the "Upper-ground railroad [as] its stations are far better known to the slaveholders than to the slaves," and goes on to say that he "must deprive [himself] of this pleasure and the curious gratification which such a statement of facts would afford." He admits that he would rather suffer under all the assumptions that might be made in his lack of an explanation than, "exculpate [himself]...and thereby run the hazard of closing the slightest avenue by which a brother in suffering my clear himself of the chains of...slavery." I found this both noble and righteous and overall rather interesting as I had never thought unto this point that in essence by sharing their tales of escape most free slaves were ultimately closing off many routes to their brethren in the south who could no longer do the same thing after their masters got hold of these books.

My Bondage and My Freedom, Douglass (pg40-42)

It's curious to me how they always say that history is written by the victors, but yet we are always subjected to the lessons found in America's entanglement in slavery. Granted it is always written from the perspective of the freed slave, or the victorious Northern abolitionist, nonetheless I can't think of a sadder, less victorious standpoint than that of the slave. I find this to be true and surprising in a point made by Frederick Douglass in the reading assigned this week when he discusses the life of a slave child up until the point which he would be transferred to field or house labor. He shares with the reader that since children were not yet valuable to the slave owner, being too small and too weak, they spent most of their days having more enjoyment than even their while adolescent counterparts. In fact, according to Douglass, "the slave-boy escapes many troubles which befall and vex his white brother." Slave boys could run around, get dirty, swim in their clothes, and just basically enjoy whatever little they had at their disposal to its fullest extent without too much concern of the effects thereof or the reprimand that could accompany their actions had they been white or been bred to be respectful and peaceful like white children were. These images paint an idyllic picture, an almost Utopian happiness and what I feel is a rather stark contrast to the typical image we, as students, are subjected to frequently when in the discussion of slaves. I realized while reading this however that there is really no way to prove that what Douglass says is true or false. Not many other slaves could read let alone write, and abolitionists and slaveholders alike were not involved to such a grand extent in the life of young slave children to deny or affirm what Douglass shares. This adds a quiet sadness to the images he shares with his reader because unless we accept it word for word it left me wondering if perhaps while wanting to teach us about the ills and negatives of slavery, Douglass wanted to show us, and perhaps needed to show himself to some degree, that is wasn't all bad all the time.

Lincoln - Address to the Washington Temperance Society of Springfield, Illinois

It goes without saying that Abraham Lincoln was one of, if not the most, brilliant politician and orator the United States has had the benefit of calling their own. Before this class my reading and knowledge of his work extended little beyond The Gettysburg Address and a few other small speeches made over the extent of his career, but I never once thought otherwise of his abilities. Therefore when beginning the readings for our class I found myself grinning at some of the amazing subtlety executed in a number of his speeches. Especially in his address to the Temperance Society I couldn't help but notice his amazing ability to try and pull a country together without directly saying or showing he was doing so. Not once did he stray from the topic of commending those who had found their way back to the path of sobriety through the work of the Society but at the same time he was conveying an even more important and deep-seeded message to the people of the US. His speech infers through the example of the alcohol salesmen themselves, that people, by human nature alone, will be much more accustomed to compromise if treated fairly and with friendly intent than if attacked directly and demanded to change. With the arguments over slavery looming and potentially preparing to divide our country in two this is clearly a plea for reason, one of Lincoln's strongest beliefs, asking us not to vilify our brothers for their beliefs but to extend to them intelligent discussion and suggestion to show them the err in their ways. Nearing the end of his speech he praises those who have never succumb to alcoholism to continue to fight the good fight even if they feel there is nothing they can do, or no more they can contribute. In what I see as another allusion to the country's over-arching larger problems, Lincoln comments that when trying to peacefully change strongly rooted beliefs and practices in our fellow men, "[they] needs every moral support and influence, that can possibly be brought to [their] aid, and thrown around [them]." Change, he believes, is much easier to come across when those actually doing the changing can see, "all that he respects...admires...[and] loves, kindly and anxiously pointing him onward..." All in all I find it astounding how brilliant this speech is, as it serves its purpose at face value, and yet at the same time, is only the tip of a much larger and influential iceberg in the dangerous sea that Illinois was slowly becoming in regards to Slavery Reform.

Liberty's Daughters - Overall

The female condition in America has always been a topic that usually doesn't see much space in US History text books. Typically, or as far as I can remember in any of my previous classes, the history of women in America has always been relegated to the trials and tribulations of the suffrage movement, and more recently woman's fight for equality in the workforce. That was honestly the thing that concerned me most upon beginning this text because having never discussed the plight of the female condition in the years leading up to, and shortly after, the American Revolution I was unsure how much of this would just be a new angle on an old topic, or something genuinely engaging and thought provoking. Having completed the book now I can honestly say I am surprised that it is not assigned reading in high school history courses or at least in introductory level American History courses because it seems like the cornerstone to the entire woman's rights movement in America. The Revolutionary War seemingly changed a heavily embedded perspective of male dominance and women being confined to household duties, and that is a transition of American ideals that I believe are worth noting. The most interesting part of the book, in my opinion, however was to see the transition of the American male opinion while women were beginning to really assert their influence on society. The transition was subtle and was over an expanse of years, but it was still significant, as men went from placating their partners, asserting their unquestioned dominance that the wife be there to meet their needs and have their children, calling assertive women, "trifling insignificant Animals" to valuing their virtuous tendencies so much as to say the fate of the republic stood upon on them. "We shall always be, what women please to make us," Norton quotes from an American magazine piece written by a man named "W.J." about the virtuosity of women and their positive effect on men, "It is in their power to give either a good or a bad turn to society, and to make men take whatever shape they think proper to impose." In the end I just never realized the amazing effect the Revolutionary War had on the rights and opportunities for American women, as typically all we read of are the men who fought and died for our freedom, leaving the history of women to about 10 pages almost 100 years afterward.

Liberty's Daughters - The Female Slave/Slave Life

In many history classes I've taken over the course of my secondary and post-secondary academic career, when focusing the fate of slaves and their lifestyle in early America, the stories are typically heart-wrenching. If not for the absolutely intolerable and unfortunate circumstances they were subjected to unfairly by the white population at the time, than for all the terribly sad stories of families being ripped apart by being sold to different plantations, or members being worked to death, escaping to the north, or worse, being killed. Now I recognize that the situations that Mary Beth Norton discusses should be read as the rarities that they were, but the perspective she introduces was rather interesting nonetheless. Plantation owners like our rather revered Thomas Jefferson were rather ahead of their time, in a sense, in allowing if not encouraging marriage amongst slaves, as well as doing anything they could to ensure the successful childbirth for the wife. After the birth Jefferson also made sure that the families would ultimately stay within the same plantation or system of plantations, even if it meant moving them about his own property, or selling slaves that he hadn't intended to part with when selling ones that he did. This allowed slave families, as the book stated, "at least from the standpoint of their female members...more [geographic stability] than those of free white people." This really interested me because, irrespective of the rarity of the situation, this is quite possibly the first time I had ever heard of the life of the slave being possibly more stable in any regard to that of the white populous at the time. However, I suppose the adage of something being "too good to be true" rears its ugly head here, as despite how benevolent his actions may have seemed, Jefferson recognized the business benefits of his actions--keeping a family together meant the greater possibility of more children, and that meant more slaves. "I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm," Norton quotes Jefferson as saying, "what she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption."