Frederick Douglass

(When asked to compare the overseers, this theme is what immediately came to mind, even if it involves masters and not only overseers. Page numbers all refer to the standalone book, not the Norton Anthology. Sorry!)

Douglass is surrounded by wrongdoing in the name of Christ as he grows up, and this leads him to understand the great difference between the Christianity of Christ and the “Christianity” of slaveholders, a difference that is still prevalent in today’s society. Douglass does not despise Christianity as a whole; he only hates Christianity when it is used as an excuse to do evil.    

“I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ,” Douglass declares on page 115 of his first autobiography. Though the examples of Bad “Christianity” far outnumber those of Good, there are a few instances of the latter, one of which is the preacher Mr. George Cookman. Shortly after Captain Auld’s conversion, he begins to invite several local pastors over for dinner. The slaves all “loved” Mr. Cookman, because he always called them in for prayers, while the other preachers only sometimes called in the slaves. They also thought him instrumental in getting a very rich slaveholder to emancipate his slaves, and “by some means got the impression that he was laboring to effect the emancipation of all the slaves” (63). Though he could not openly show his sympathy for the slaves, they felt it and knew he was a good man. Another “true Christian” in Douglass’ life was his mistress Sofia Auld. When he first arrived, she had never owned a slave and therefore did not know the “proper” way it was done. She treated him with kindness, gave him enough to eat, “seemed to be disturbed by [the crouching servility, usually so acceptable a quality in a slave]. She did not deem it imprudent or unmannerly for a slave to look her in the face” (43), and she did not beat him. Unfortunately, she ultimately became corrupt with the power of slaveholding and “that cheerful eye…soon became red with rage; that voice, made all of sweet accord, changed to one of harsh and horrid discord; and that angelic face gave place to that of a demon” (44). The final example that could be construed as true Christianity is that Mr. Covey allowed his slaves to rest on Sundays, and often called them to worship at his home. While his character was corrupt, he showed some compassion by not forcing the slaves to work on Sundays.

            “I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land” (115). Clearly, Douglass condemns not his own Christianity but that of his owners. Douglass also states “that slaveholders have ordained…that the children of slave women shall in all cases follow the condition of their mothers; and this is done too obviously to administer to their own lusts, and make a gratification of their wicked desires profitable as well as pleasurable” (17). Douglass also relates cases in which slaveholders murder their slaves without a second thought. All of these “religious” men seem to have forgotten the very basis of Christianity in the Ten Commandments, specifically “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Such people are not Christians, no matter how much scripture they quote or how many church services they attend. The “Christianity” of these people is the “Christianity” that Douglass despises.