Young Frederick/Bailey
Frederick around 1848
Born 1818
in Talbot County, Maryland, to Harriet Bailey, a slave, and Frederick
Augustus Washington Bailey, a white man. He was looked after by his
grandmother at Holme Hill Farm plantation. In 1824 he was then taken to
Lloyd plantation, and reunited with his brothers and sisters. In
1826, he was taken to Baltimore to live with Hugh Auld, the brother
of his slave-owner, Thomas. around 1826 Auld’s wife, Sofia, teaches
Frederick some letters of the alphabet until Auld prevents further
lessons.
So Frederick took what he knew and began to teach himself to write while working in the Auld & Harrison shipyard, from 1829-1832. In 1833 was sent back to Thomas Auld, and was then loaned to Edward Covey, a particularly very brutal overseer. After suffering several beatings, Federick fights back, and Covey never touches him again. He then plans to escape but his plan are discovered, and he is sent to jail for a short time. After a few days, he is returned to Hugh and Sofia Auld.
In 1838 After becoming engaged to Anna Murray, a free black woman, he escapes to New York by forging papers and train tickets. Anna travels to join him. He then changes his name from Bailey to Douglass, and the couple moved to New Bedford, Massachusetts, where abolitionists help to protect them from slave-catchers. Soon after he begins work at a shipyard.
So Frederick took what he knew and began to teach himself to write while working in the Auld & Harrison shipyard, from 1829-1832. In 1833 was sent back to Thomas Auld, and was then loaned to Edward Covey, a particularly very brutal overseer. After suffering several beatings, Federick fights back, and Covey never touches him again. He then plans to escape but his plan are discovered, and he is sent to jail for a short time. After a few days, he is returned to Hugh and Sofia Auld.
In 1838 After becoming engaged to Anna Murray, a free black woman, he escapes to New York by forging papers and train tickets. Anna travels to join him. He then changes his name from Bailey to Douglass, and the couple moved to New Bedford, Massachusetts, where abolitionists help to protect them from slave-catchers. Soon after he begins work at a shipyard.
The Journey
Frederick Douglass (click to enlarge)
In
August 1845, Frederick Douglass set sail for Liverpool, England on a
ship called the Cambria. Before his trip had even begun, he was met with
pro-slavery defendants, who argued against his passage. In a letter to
William Lloyd Garrison in September 1845, he wrote: “…from the moment
we first lost sight of the American shore, till we landed at Liverpool,
our gallant steamship was the thereat of an almost constant discussion
of the subject of slavery commencing cool but growing hotter every
moment as it advanced…the truth was being told and having its legitimate
effect on the hears of those who heard it…the slave-holders, convinced
that reason, morality, common honesty, humanity and Christianity, well
all against them, and that argument was no longer any means of
defense…[so] they actually got up a mob – a real, American, republican,
democratic, Christian mob and that too, on the deck of a British
steamer…I declare it is enough to make a slave ashamed of the country
that enslaved him…”
The pro-slavery supporters demanded he should return to his berth, and many decried he should be sent back to slavery. Some even threatened to throw him into the ocean, but:
“…a noble-spirited Irish gentleman assured the man who proposed to throw me overboard that two could play at that game, and that, in the end, be thrown overboard himself. The clamor went on, waxing hotter and hotter, til it was quite impossible for me to proceed…”
During his tour of Britain, Douglass spoke about this treatment on a number of occasions. He wanted to embarrass America – pro-slavery advocates were aggressive and violent in their defense of slavery, and he compared this experience with the favorable treatment he had received thus far in England. Slavery (and racism) were persistent problems that needed to be abolished.
However, controversy also marred his return to the United States. The Stirling Observer reported on 15 April 1847 that:
“A disgraceful circumstance has disturbed the departure of this emancipated slave from the shores of this country. Mr Douglass had come to England to plead the cause of his brethren in captivity as slaves in the United States; and having accomplished his object, he resolved to return to America…when he arrived at Liverpool, and went on board the vessel, a number of Yankee passengers objected to a man of color receiving the same treatment…though he had-paid the same fare as they done…and so Mr Douglass was refused his passage.”
Douglass had to resort to a lower class berth on the ship, an ironic way to mark his return to the United States after dining with some of the most privileged men in the country. Not to be perturbed, Douglass turned this experience, as he had done with his arrival, to his advantage. He wrote to the London Times at the beginning of April 1847, condemning his treatment and declaring that “the British public will pronounce a just verdict on such proceedings.” His letter was widely published in newspapers across the country, and many people, not necessarily abolitionists, wrote to complain about Douglass’s ordeal. Even the Captain of the Cambria was forced to defend himself – he penned a letter to the Caledonian Mercury (published 22 April 1847) stating that Douglass had “misled” the public. He was the same Captain that Douglass had seen before on his journey to Liverpool, and this convinced him that Douglass would cause trouble and repeat the experience. The Captain argued he would have denied him passage “even if he was the whitest man”. Regardless of his motives, Douglass used the incident as propaganda - just like his arrival, Douglass left Britain in a whirl of controversy.
The pro-slavery supporters demanded he should return to his berth, and many decried he should be sent back to slavery. Some even threatened to throw him into the ocean, but:
“…a noble-spirited Irish gentleman assured the man who proposed to throw me overboard that two could play at that game, and that, in the end, be thrown overboard himself. The clamor went on, waxing hotter and hotter, til it was quite impossible for me to proceed…”
During his tour of Britain, Douglass spoke about this treatment on a number of occasions. He wanted to embarrass America – pro-slavery advocates were aggressive and violent in their defense of slavery, and he compared this experience with the favorable treatment he had received thus far in England. Slavery (and racism) were persistent problems that needed to be abolished.
However, controversy also marred his return to the United States. The Stirling Observer reported on 15 April 1847 that:
“A disgraceful circumstance has disturbed the departure of this emancipated slave from the shores of this country. Mr Douglass had come to England to plead the cause of his brethren in captivity as slaves in the United States; and having accomplished his object, he resolved to return to America…when he arrived at Liverpool, and went on board the vessel, a number of Yankee passengers objected to a man of color receiving the same treatment…though he had-paid the same fare as they done…and so Mr Douglass was refused his passage.”
Douglass had to resort to a lower class berth on the ship, an ironic way to mark his return to the United States after dining with some of the most privileged men in the country. Not to be perturbed, Douglass turned this experience, as he had done with his arrival, to his advantage. He wrote to the London Times at the beginning of April 1847, condemning his treatment and declaring that “the British public will pronounce a just verdict on such proceedings.” His letter was widely published in newspapers across the country, and many people, not necessarily abolitionists, wrote to complain about Douglass’s ordeal. Even the Captain of the Cambria was forced to defend himself – he penned a letter to the Caledonian Mercury (published 22 April 1847) stating that Douglass had “misled” the public. He was the same Captain that Douglass had seen before on his journey to Liverpool, and this convinced him that Douglass would cause trouble and repeat the experience. The Captain argued he would have denied him passage “even if he was the whitest man”. Regardless of his motives, Douglass used the incident as propaganda - just like his arrival, Douglass left Britain in a whirl of controversy.
A national campaign
against slavery was already underway before Douglass arrived in
Scotland. In 1843, an independent sect broke away (below) from the
established Church of Scotland to form the Free Church, led by Doctor
Thomas Chalmers (left)To raise money for their new organization,
missionaries were sent to the United States, and Southerners in
particular proved sympathetic to the cause, providing the Free Church
with over £10,000.[1]
However, the news reached abolitionists that slaveholders had raised
over £3,000 of this amount, and they denounced the Free Church for
supporting slavery. When Douglass arrived, his oratorical skill set this
campaign alight:
“Scotland is a blaze of anti-slavery agitation – the Free Church and Slavery are the all-engrossing topics. It is the same old question of Christian union with slaveholders – old with us, but new with most people here…The Free Church is in a terrible stew. Its leaders thought to get the slaveholders’ money and bring it home, and escape censure. They had no idea that they would be followed and exposed. Its members are leaving it, like rats escaping from a sinking ship. There is a strong determination to have the slave money sent back, and the union broken up. In this feeling all religious denominations participate. Let slavery be hemmed in on every side by the moral and religious sentiments of mankind, and its death is certain.” (Frederick Douglass, letter to William Lloyd Garrison, April 16 1846)
Douglass spoke at four meetings in Dundee in January 1846, and the first three were so crowded that tickets had to be issued for his last speech. He promised Christians he was not against religion, but argued that both slavery and Christianity were incompatible. He demanded that the entire world hear his cry against slavery, and the Free Church should be shamed into returning the money.[2] In August, he summarized the conduct of the Free Church: “When the slaves of America heard of a free church, we had reason to believe that the day of our redemption drew near…they accepted the slave-holders’ invitation, took their money; paralysed their own Christian feelings, turned a deaf ear to the groan of the slave as they went on their way through the South – were dumb on the question of slavery – were invited by the slave-owners to their pulpits – dined at their tables, in their pews –heard them preach to their slave congregations – took the blood money, which was offered them, and brought it to Scotland, to pay the Free Church ministers. I charge them with having gone into a land of man-stealers – among men whom they knew to be man-stealers – they struck for the sake of money…tell them to send back to America that blood stained money!” (Frederick Douglass, “A Call for the British Nation to Testify Against Slavery” in Exeter, England, August 28 1846.)
On his return to the
United States, fueled by the independence and support he had received,
Frederick decided to set up his own newspaper, The North Star. British
friends raised money for this enterprise, to which he gratefully
acknowledged on numerous occasions. This was not welcomed by everybody,
and many of the Garrisonian abolitionists in America and in Britain
believed it to be an inevitable failure. In the first edition,
Frederick explained its goals, making it clear that he would pursue his
newspaper, despite the critics. “Scotland is a blaze of anti-slavery agitation – the Free Church and Slavery are the all-engrossing topics. It is the same old question of Christian union with slaveholders – old with us, but new with most people here…The Free Church is in a terrible stew. Its leaders thought to get the slaveholders’ money and bring it home, and escape censure. They had no idea that they would be followed and exposed. Its members are leaving it, like rats escaping from a sinking ship. There is a strong determination to have the slave money sent back, and the union broken up. In this feeling all religious denominations participate. Let slavery be hemmed in on every side by the moral and religious sentiments of mankind, and its death is certain.” (Frederick Douglass, letter to William Lloyd Garrison, April 16 1846)
Douglass spoke at four meetings in Dundee in January 1846, and the first three were so crowded that tickets had to be issued for his last speech. He promised Christians he was not against religion, but argued that both slavery and Christianity were incompatible. He demanded that the entire world hear his cry against slavery, and the Free Church should be shamed into returning the money.[2] In August, he summarized the conduct of the Free Church: “When the slaves of America heard of a free church, we had reason to believe that the day of our redemption drew near…they accepted the slave-holders’ invitation, took their money; paralysed their own Christian feelings, turned a deaf ear to the groan of the slave as they went on their way through the South – were dumb on the question of slavery – were invited by the slave-owners to their pulpits – dined at their tables, in their pews –heard them preach to their slave congregations – took the blood money, which was offered them, and brought it to Scotland, to pay the Free Church ministers. I charge them with having gone into a land of man-stealers – among men whom they knew to be man-stealers – they struck for the sake of money…tell them to send back to America that blood stained money!” (Frederick Douglass, “A Call for the British Nation to Testify Against Slavery” in Exeter, England, August 28 1846.)
"It is scarcely necessary for us to say that our desire to occupy our present position at the head of an Antislavery Journal, has resulted from no unworthy distrust or
ungrateful want of appreciation of the zeal, integrity, or ability of the noble band of white laborers, in this department of our cause; but, from a sincere and settled conviction that such a Journal, if conducted with only moderate skill and ability, would do a most important and indispensable work, which it would be wholly impossible for our white friends to do for us…It is neither a reflection on the fidelity, nor a disparagement of the ability of our friends and fellow-laborers, to assert what "common sense affirms and only folly denies," that the man who has suffered the wrong is the man to demand redress,—that the man STRUCK is the man to CRY OUT—and that he who has endured the cruel pangs of Slavery is the man to advocate Liberty. It is evident we must be our own representatives and advocates, not exclusively, but peculiarly—not distinct from, but in connection with our white friends. In the grand struggle for liberty and equality now waging, it is meet, right and essential that there should arise in our ranks authors and editors, as well as orators, for it is in these capacities that the most permanent good can be rendered to our cause. Hitherto the immediate victims of slavery and prejudice, owing to various causes, have had little share in this department of effort: they have frequently undertaken, and almost as frequently failed. This latter fact has often been urged by our friends against our engaging in the present enterprise; but, so far from convincing us of the impolicy of our course, it serves to confirm us in the necessity, if not the wisdom of our undertaking. That others have failed, is a reason for OUR earnestly endeavoring to succeed."
No comments:
Post a Comment