Reading What Historical Actors Read

Image Credit: Wikicommons

Why do we bother to study, in close detail, the writing of Frederick Douglass? We study the writing of Frederick Douglass for reasons that are similar to those that motivated Douglass to study the writing of those who came before him. We study Douglass in order to become participants and engage in the world of ideas, which is much bigger than the opinions of those in our immediate surroundings or the times that we live in.

Let me lay down this proposition: the study of history is a lot like detective work. A student of history will not settle for historical accounts from secondary sources, but will seek out primary sources (firsthand accounts) from newspapers, pamphlets, recordings, transcripts of interviews, and other sources from the period that student is studying. This takes time, but your efforts will be richly rewarded by the insights this will give to you.

You will not only want to read what historical actors wrote and said; you will want to read the texts that influenced those actors. You will want to read the texts that helped to shape their thinking and their writing. In order to understand the people who influenced history, we have to understand the ideas and discourse that influenced those people.

Who was Douglass reading? How was he influenced by what he read? How might his subsequent thoughts and speeches been responses to the thoughts and speeches that were written early in his life, or even before he was born? How might your own thoughts be responses to the thoughts that were written before you were born?

We know, from his autobiography, that Douglass’ thoughts and speeches were heavily influenced by school book called TheColumbian Orator. The full name of the text is rather long: The Columbian orator: containing a variety of original and selected pieces, together with rules, calculated to improve youth and others in the ornamental and useful art of eloquence.

Whew; that’s quite a mouthful.

This book, edited by Caleb Bingham, was published in 1797. Douglass studied the Columbian Orator because he wanted to learn how to read, speak and write, but he also studied The Orator in order understand his situation as slave, and to learn how to think in order to end that system. He had to learn what the dominant discourse was, during his life and times, so that he could participate in it, with the objective of ending slavery.

As he read The Columbian Orator he no doubt encountered many ideas that he disagreed with, as well as those with which he agreed. This is the nature of the activity.

So, what were some of the ideas that Douglass encountered in The Orator?

As you scan the table of contents of book (click on the link above and scroll down), looking for writing that might have influenced him, you will notice several chapter titles that should catch your attention. These chapter titles will stand out if you have already read a reasonable sample of the works of Frederick Douglass, particularly his autobiographies.

Among these are: Francis Blake’s “Oration on Independence: July 4, 1796”; an “Oration at Boston, July 4, 1794”; “A Dialogue Between a Master and a Slave”; and Arthur O’Connor’s 1795 “Speech before the Irish Parliament on Catholic Emancipation”, which Douglass erroneously attributed to Richard Sheridan.

Because Douglass cites these documents in his autobiography, as having had a profound influence on his motivation to fight against slavery, we would do well to go directly to these primary sources and read these texts. Again, the study of history requires investigation, speculation, and detective work.

Dialogue on the Meaning of the Fourth of July

It is a useful exercise to read the two Fourth of July orations in the Orator, and then to read Frederick Douglass’ 1852 The Meaning of the Fourth of July for the Negro. Imagine a dialogue between Douglass and the authors of the two previous orations; how would such a dialogue go? What would the two previous orators say to Douglass? What would Douglass say in response to them? Use excerpts from all three texts in order to reconstruct such an oration.

Isn’t this, in effect, what has actually taken place as Douglass responds to conventional notions of the Fourth of July in his own oration of 1852?

Dialogue Between A Master And His Slave

Next, read excerpts from chapters 6 and 7 of Douglass’ autobiography; then read the dialogue between the master and the slave. How does the dialogue between the master and the slave resemble the conditions of servitude that Douglass describes of his own life as a slave?

Like the slave in this dialogue, Douglass eventually escaped into freedom. And like the slave in this dialogue, although under much different circumstances, Douglass was eventually able to confront his former master, and discuss with him the injustice of the system he had labored under.

What parallels do you see between the argument the slave gives in this dialogue and the arguments Douglass gave against the legitimacy of slavery in his autobiography? What arguments do both Douglass, and the slave in this dialogue, give in response to the master’s assertion that, even under slavery, the particular slave in question, if not all slaves, has been well fed, well clothed and well housed?

Finally, what do you make of the way this dialogue ends? What do you make of the last paragraph? What do you think the author is trying to say in that paragraph? What implications might it have for a free, white American youth who would likely read that text in the late 18^th century, more than 50 years before the outbreak of the Civil War?

Analogy Between the British Empire and Slavery

Now, consider George Fox’s 1778 Speech in the British parliament. What do you think Douglass found in this passage that inspired him?  Why do you think Douglass referred to texts – such as O’Connor on Catholic emancipation, and William Pitt (1775) and George Fox (1778) on the American Revolution – to persuade white Americans that they should oppose slavery?

Pay special attention to passages in Fox’s and William Pitt’s speeches to the British Parliament describing the American side in the conflict with the British Empire. Douglass seems to see, in Fox and Pitt’s texts, an analogy that is useful to understand the spirit and the state-of-mind of black American slaves at that time, and their relationship with white Americans.

What is Douglass communicating through the use of this metaphor? How does this metaphor foreshadow the Civil War? What insight does it shed on the way the dialogue ends between the Master and the Slave, mentioned above?

In order to enter the mind of Frederick Douglass, we must learn to appreciate his use of metaphor.

C. Matthew Hawkins