Frederick Douglass Day: Time to Give Credit Where It’s Due

Frederick Douglass was born into slavery on (or around) Valentine’s Day in 1818. In his 70-odd years of life, he escaped his captivity, became one of the most outspoken opponents of slavery, and ultimately lived to see its abolishment. After Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, Douglas was reputed to have received the late president’s favorite walking stick from his widow.

It’s said that history is written by the winners. History is also written by those in power, those with privilege, those who have not been disenfranchised. Douglass was a counter-point to that trend, writing two autobiographies and becoming a great enough orator that his voice could not be ignored completely. Few of his brothers and sisters in bondage would have been able to read, but Douglass, born into that life, was an accomplished writer.

White slaveholders and defenders of slavery were using everything from scriptural interpretation to bad science to protect their interests in that “most unusual institution” of the American South. One of their major arguments was that black slaves were clever animals, not actually capable of human intelligence. Douglass, smarter than all of them, demolished that argument simply by existing, but he took the time to explain exactly what was wrong with treating people as property – you know, for the slower students.

I think it’s worth noting how truly exceptional an individual Douglass really was. There’s a kind of historical chauvinism where we look back at places, times and events in history, with our 20/20 hindsight, modern education and all the benefits of being born now, rather than just about any other point in the past. People say, “why didn’t the Jews fight back when they were being carted off to Auschwitz?” or “I never would have put up with being a slave.” They also take the moral high ground: “I never would have supported Hitler” and “I wouldn’t have been a plantation owner.”

The truth is that now and in the past, most of us tend to follow the path of least resistance and do whatever everyone else is doing. Questioning the status quo is something the more thoughtful among us do, and actually doing something about it? You have to be rather courageous to blaze a trail for social change. No one wants to be the first to step out of line.

Amidst a chorus of praise for Lincoln, Steven Spielberg’s latest opus, there are a few dissenting voices. The screenplay’s first draft (written in 2001) actually focused on the friendship between the president and Douglass, but after rewrites and casting and filming, somehow this crucial black leader ended up disappearing from the movie. It wasn’t only Douglass whose contributions were written out of this story. According to historian Kate Masur, an active and well-organized black political presence in the DC area that the real Lincoln would have been well-acquainted with in the months leading up to his death are also conspicuously absent from the film.

There’s a degree of revisionist history here, which scholars of the last several decades have been working to correct. The traditional version of what happened is that important white people, like Lincoln, had a crisis of conscience, decided slavery was wrong, and, after one bloody war, presented freedom to African Americans as a gift on a silver platter. But of course Lincoln, while he did fight to end slavery by peaceful means for most of his career leading up to the Civil War, was also very clear about his priorities.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.

Douglass himself was critical of Lincoln for being so late to the game with emancipation, so while he called him the greatest American president (and he may still be the greatest president, to date), it may have been at least somewhat along the lines of democracy not being a very good system, but better than all the alternatives. Yes, in the end he got the job done, but far from being a white knight, riding to moral rescue at any cost, he was a decent but very human individual who understood politics, made compromises and took those final crucial steps only when he was forced to. So how come Lincoln gets a movie and Douglass doesn’t even get a bit part in it?

I have my suspicions. Certainly, Kate Masur got at some of it. But Douglas is at an additional disadvantage. Fairly critical of the church, and basically non-religious, especially when compared to figures like MLK or Malcolm X, many Americans may be a little less apt to put Douglass in a heroic role.

The film Agora, a period piece set in the Ancient Roman Empire, struggled to find a U.S. release, for seemingly much the same reason. Hypatia, an atheist, was martyred by early Roman Christians. Though it was well over a thousand years ago, modern U.S. Christians, it seemed, weren’t eager to cheer on the faithless while the bad guys are religious nuts.

So Douglass, a fighter for equal rights, is even still being discriminated against today. Ironically, he was so far ahead of his time that even with all the strides we’ve made with respect to race, he’s managed to bait an entirely different sort of prejudice. Maybe one day we’ll be able to leave prejudices of all kinds behind us.

Related stories:

African Americans for Humanism Launch Awareness Campaign

From Emmett Till to Trayvon Martin: How Black Women Turn Grief Into Action

Black Herstory: From Suffrage to Civil Rights

Photo credit: Unknown (public domain)


Robin R.
Past Member 1 years ago

Hey buddies, such a marvelous blog you have made I’m surprised to read such informative stuf quick loans online

Jospeh R.
Jospeh R.2 years ago

Just saying thanks wouldn’t just be enough, for the fantastic fluency in your writing. business credit builders

Jane H.
Jane H2 years ago

For Sarah H. yes--it is interesting that the Dems and Repubs have done a switcher-roo on race. This is because of Nixon's "Southern strategy" and his hopes of winning the South after LBJ was President.

Carole R.
Carole R2 years ago

Good post.
Thank you.

Nita O.
Nita O.2 years ago

Thanks for sharing

Val D.
Val D2 years ago

This was one of the most important men in "recent" American History. Everyone should know about how much this man did for the nation. He was one in a billion.

Margaret G.
Margaret Goodman4 years ago

I saw a one-man play at Stanford University many years ago about Douglass. Two things stuck in my mind:
1. The slaveholders separated Douglass from his mother, so after a long day's work, she would walk eight miles to where he was being raised and stay with him until he fell asleep. I believe that Douglass inherited her tenacity and strength.
2. It was illegal to teach slaves to read and write.

I agree with many other writers that a movie about this great man is long overdue.

Sarah Hill
Sarah Hill4 years ago

Very interesting. After reading I looked him up on Wikipedia. That was interesting also.

What is interesting to know is that the first blacks in congress were Republicans. It was the Democrats who started the KKK.

Dale O.

Cyan D you may believe that it is a lie of 'revisionist" historians/liberals stating that Abraham Lincoln had a mental illness. I didn't say that having a mental illness such as depression made him great, had simply pointed out that leaders are great despite having mental illness such as both Lincoln and Winston Churchill. Both men led nations in crucial times despite having depression. You disbelieve he had a mental illness.

You then mentioned that the concept of Lincoln having depression is somehow 'justifying an agenda' and that the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is flawed because it once labelled homosexuality as a mental illness. Medicine, be it physical or psychological does change over time and simply because the DSM reflected the prejudices of that time in history re: homosexuality doesn't mean it can't change progressively as it has in the present. The same goes for physical medicine, one can't be against medicine because say cancer treatments in 1898 is out of touch with present reality. Some believe psychiatry is a myth while others feel despite its flaws it has helped many, that is another debate.

Harley Williams
Harley W4 years ago

I read Mr. Douglass's Autobiography. I highly recommend it to everyone.