Some people believe that slavery was morally acceptable because slaves had the necessities of an average lifestyle: clothes to wear, food to eat, and a place to live. Due to the research taught in history lessons and Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, however, this belief can be strongly opposed. It is taught that slaves, especially those from the south, had a terrible life. Regardless of the fact that they were given some of life’s basic essentials, the argument remains that slaves were treated unfairly, considering their necessities were always given to them in the bare minimum or in the worst possible condition. Therefore, it is appropriate to argue—especially with historic proof from research and Douglass’
…show more content…
Nothing is either just one thing or the other, for it is always a combination of the two. Hence, not every single slave owner was as cruel as research will conclude them to be, nor was every single one of them as cruel as Douglass would describe. Douglass refers to one of his previous masters, Master Daniel, “who became quite attached to [him]” (71). In spite of this, Douglass was rarely whipped or beaten, and would even receive cake from the boy. However, he was still deprived of appropriate clothing and comfortable sleeping arrangements for harsh weather. Another seemingly nice master was Sophia Auld, for she was teaching him to read. However, he learned that slavery corrupted her as a slave owner, since the previously kind-hearted owner “had but a short time to remain such” (77). She had become used to the power, began to rely on the slavery of Douglass, and expected complete obedience from him—doing whatever was necessary to ensure it. As Douglass realized, and as those who believe slavery fulfilled the needs of those who were enslaved should learn, slavery was, in the end, barbaric. The exceptional “kindly, paternal masters” cannot make up for the innumerable amount of other harsh ones, for a person would not be …show more content…
Through his own narrative, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, he is able to further support the factuality of the complete barbarism slaves underwent. Reliable, historic research also helps to develop the claim that slaves were universally miserable. Despite any minor rebuttals, it seems as though Douglass would believe that slavery should always be considered utterly terrible, and should not ever be referred to as an
Nothing is either just one thing or the other, for it is always a combination of the two. Hence, not every single slave owner was as cruel as research will conclude them to be, nor was every single one of them as cruel as Douglass would describe. Douglass refers to one of his previous masters, Master Daniel, “who became quite attached to [him]” (71). In spite of this, Douglass was rarely whipped or beaten, and would even receive cake from the boy. However, he was still deprived of appropriate clothing and comfortable sleeping arrangements for harsh weather. Another seemingly nice master was Sophia Auld, for she was teaching him to read. However, he learned that slavery corrupted her as a slave owner, since the previously kind-hearted owner “had but a short time to remain such” (77). She had become used to the power, began to rely on the slavery of Douglass, and expected complete obedience from him—doing whatever was necessary to ensure it. As Douglass realized, and as those who believe slavery fulfilled the needs of those who were enslaved should learn, slavery was, in the end, barbaric. The exceptional “kindly, paternal masters” cannot make up for the innumerable amount of other harsh ones, for a person would not be …show more content…
Through his own narrative, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, he is able to further support the factuality of the complete barbarism slaves underwent. Reliable, historic research also helps to develop the claim that slaves were universally miserable. Despite any minor rebuttals, it seems as though Douglass would believe that slavery should always be considered utterly terrible, and should not ever be referred to as an