Frederick Douglass by William S. McFeely (Review)
After reading, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, I wanted to know more about Frederick Douglass. After reading Grant by Jean Edward Smith, I learned about Douglass’s time representing the United States in Haiti, which led me to McFeely’s biography from 1991. The first portion of the book seemed repetitive to Douglass’s own recounting of his youth, but the rest of the book gave great insight to a complex and interesting man.
McFeely’s book does not have the same pace and enjoyment that some of my favorite biographers can muster, but his writing is still engaging and informative. I have read that Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom by David Blight is superb, so it may be that there are better options available. But McFeely’s book is still a sound option to learn more about what Frederick Douglass did for the United States. Here are some of notes from the book.
Douglass’s family told Frederick that his owner was his father. This parentage could have been Overseer Anthony Aaron, or Thomas Auld, who later became his master. How heartbreaking it must be to have one’s life born of rape, pillage, and the unknown.
Douglass was moved by John Quincy Adams who called for action in Congress to abolish slavery. Prior abolition activity focused on moral change and the inherent evil of slavery. Douglass addressed the evil of slavery, as well, but he also focused on political action and encouraging people to use government to beget change.
Douglass began his abolition activities with the Garrison Abolitionists led by William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison Abolitionists eschewed all political activities, which Douglass came to realize was ineffective. He took a two-tiered approach of both moral arguments and the need for political activity.Studying the abolitionist movement looks quite different from presidential history. With the latter, individuals introduce policy proposals, and the laws pass or fail. Movements like abolitionism are in the background of historical books that focus on the laws and the individuals who create them. But in studying Douglass’s history, there is a clear policy proposal—end slavery—yet it is harder to gauge which events, or words, or people make the most difference. When Douglass traveled to Europe, his fame and followers grew mightily. He exerted pressure on the Church of Scotland to in turn put pressure on southern slaveowners in the American church to end slavery. This effort had an undoubted effect, but it seems harder to gauge. The clear takeaway, however, is the power and effectiveness of Douglass’s rhetorical skills and the importance of informing and moving people to act.
After the Nebraska-Kansas Act when the federal government gave up its determination of slavery in new states. Leading up to the Civil War, Black America was despondent according to McFeely. There were few signs of improvement or movement toward broad emancipation. This assessment seems in alignment with Ulysses Grant’s conclusion that fighting and bloodshed was the only way to purge slavery and move toward unity.
While Douglass was avoiding fallout from John Brown’s attack on Harper’s Ferry, George Thompson—the ardent abolitionist—gave a speech in Glasgow, Scotland. Thompson lambasted the United States and its constitution because of its tolerance of slavery. Douglass responded to Thompson’s harangue with his own speech in Glasgow before the Scottish Anti-Slavery Society on March 26, 1860. He defended the constitution and noted it could become the tool that freed the slaves. Douglass critiqued both Thompson and his arguments.
Early on, he classified Thompson as one of the insulting “small men who argue for victory rather than for truth.” Douglass acknowledged that it is understandable to condemn a nation that tolerates something as damnable as slavery, but such a perspective is incomplete. Douglass offered the following analogy: “the American Government and the American Constitution are spoken of in a manner which would naturally lead the hearer to believe that one is identical with the other; when the truth is, they are distinct in character as is a ship and a compass. The one may point right and the other steer wrong.” President Trump’s harsh words on the international stage has left many countries facing a similar question: are his words reflective of the United States. In light of another election that shows a 50-50 split in state after state, there should be a warning to look back at history and attempt to avoid the war that grew out of the 50-50 split in the 1800s.As Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans rose to power, Douglass saw the ideas of his seed planting start to sprout. With the Republican victory, anti-slavery was the policy position of the majority party.
McFeely introduced me to an interesting executive order by President Lincoln that I had never heard before. The Confederacy declared that black Union soldiers would not be treated as soldiers if captured. Instead, they would be treated as slave insurrectionists, which carried a punishment of execution by hanging. Lincoln responded that “for every soldier killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed.” There is a harshness to this order that seems unexpected from the persona we often read about in Abraham Lincoln.
During a meeting with Secretary of War Stanton on recruitment, Douglass stated, “the negro...[is neither] an angel or a devil; he is simply a man and should be dealt purely with as such. Some were brave, some cowardly, some ambitious and aspiring, some not.”
Abolitionist, Ottilie Davida Assing, said that “reconstruction” was a politician’s term; the Civil War’s conclusion ushered in a revolution.
In 1865, community leaders in Baltimore formed the Frederick Douglass Institute in an effort to promote African American causes. White leaders had to form the committee because blacks were not permitted to incorporate; this changed in 1872. Interestingly, the institute liquidated its holdings in 1889 because the board determined it had accomplished its purpose. It had to be particularly sweet for Douglass returning to Baltimore, the place from which he escaped slavery, and have an organization there honor his work.
Once emancipation occurred, Douglass turned his eyes to voting rights for the newly freed slaves. He saw this right as the critical safeguard to protect against treatment as second-class citizens.
It would have been worthwhile if McFeely had spent more time on Lincoln’s death and Johnson’s overt racism. The backdrop of radical Republicans striving for the rights of freed slave while Johnson undermined everything would have been an intriguing foundation to understand what Douglass faced and how the situation changed under Grant.
The split between the previously unified movement by African Americans and women to jointly secure the right to vote was quite sad. They were so close to achieving it together. One wonders if the outcome would have been different under Lincoln. In Lincoln’s absence, Andrew Johnson was disastrous in his cruelty.
McFeely’s description of Grant appointing Douglass to serve as secretary on the commission to explore the annexation of Santo Domingo (the Dominican Republic) gave a more complete picture of the action compared to Jean Edward Smith in his biography of Grant.
Douglass had a stint as bank president for The Freedman’s Savings and Trust Company. He took over after the bank had fallen into near insolvency, and his role was to instill confidence in the bank by the black community. Unfortunately, the Board of Trustees neglected to hire a single individual with financial experience. The bank soon failed due to poor loans without adequate oversight. University of Chicago Dr. Constantine Yannelis recently researched the effect of the bank, which was positive during its existence, but “It seems likely that the collapse of the Freedman’s Bank and the loss of savings has contributed to an intergenerational mistrust of banks.” When the bank failed, it left 60,000 depositors with nearly $3 million in losses.
Douglass participated in the Colored Conventions Movement, which was a series of gatherings that took place both before and after the Civil War. He gave an 1883 speech in Louisville entitled, “Address to the People of the United States.” Douglass answered the question on why such a convention was necessary:
“It is our lot to live among a people whose laws, traditions and prejudices have been against us for centuries, and from these they are not yet free. To assume that they are free from these evils simply because they have changed their laws is to assume what is utterly unreasonable and contrary to facts...Though the colored man is no longer subject to be bought and sold, he is still surrounded by an adverse sentiment which fetters all his movements...He is rejected by trade unions, of every trade, and refused work while he lives, and burial when he dies, and yet he is asked to forget his color, and forget that which everybody else remembers.”In 1883, the Supreme Court decided a group of five cases entitled, The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3. The nine Republican justices shocked the black community by deciding that the 13th and 14th Amendments did not bar private individuals from racial discrimination. This decision neutered The Civil Rights Act of 1875, which Republicans passed to provide equal access to the country for the freed slaves. These cases were the forerunner to Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and the “separate but equal” status that relegated the freed slaves to the unequal status of second-class citizens. In both cases, Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented and chastised the court for gutting the laws.
When Douglass surprised everyone by his unannounced marriage to Helen Pitts Douglass, he received strong criticism from both blacks and whites. Pitts was white, and the mixed-race marriage was offensive to even staunch abolitionists. Even Helen’s abolitionist father disowned her, and Frederick’s children disapproved of the marriage. The marriage was another way that Douglass advanced racial rights in America.
President William Henry Harrison appointed Douglass as Minister to Haiti, which was appealing to Douglass. He and many others had high hopes for an independent, black nation—the only one in the Western Hemisphere and one of three in the world.
Many criticized Douglass for his tenure as minister to Haiti. The critiques came from expansionists and traders in New York who wanted a new secure market. On one hand, Douglass had an undoubted favor toward President Florvil Hyppolite and the Haitian government. He wanted to see Haiti succeed in its self-governing independence. On the other hand, this hope for Haiti made him overlook President Hyppolite’s tyrannical side. Irrespective of Douglass’s desires for Haiti, he worked hard to secure a military base for the United States, and the criticisms seem unwarranted looking back at Douglass’s record.
In the mocking, “Negro Day,” at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair, Frederick Douglass gave a speech at which a number of white speakers jeered his words as Douglass attempted to read. Douglass threw down his papers, as he drowned out the hecklers: “Men talk of the Negro problem. There is no Negro problem. The problem is whether the American people have honesty enough, loyalty enough, honor enough, patriotism enough to live up to their own Constitution.” To offer these stirring, powerful words off the cuff must have been quite a sight to see.
McFeely did an excellent job of transitioning the civil-rights fight from Frederick Douglass to Ida B. Wells. His juxtaposition of the two as they struck up a friendship in the 18090s gave a final dose of vigor to both to the end of Douglass’s life and to the end of McFeely’s book.
McFeely observed that some people accused Douglass of running away from his blackness. Yet Douglass continued fighting prejudice until his very last days. With his fiery speeches, Douglass announced “not only that he was black but also instructed to all who looked at him that they were not to see that fact pejoratively.”
McFeely’s book continued to improve with each passing chapter. I suspect that is partially due to additional information to add depth and texture to the book. Whatever the reason, it proved worthwhile to wade through the early years of Douglass’s life to reach the action of his abolitionism. I recommend Frederick Douglass, and the events of 2020 are a particularly fitting time to learn more about his life.
