In The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, escaped slave Frederick Douglass recounts his experiences in bondage and his understanding of the institution of slavery. In one anecdote, Douglass discusses the free time granted to slaves by masters during Christmas and New Years. He explains that many masters encouraged slaves to spend this time on drunken antics.. Douglass asserts that, while professedly a token of goodwill, the off-time given to slaves during the winter holiday was actually used to reinforce slave obedience. The holiday, he posits, was a vessel through which slave masters could deliver a perverted image of freedom and expose slaves as a class that enjoyed crass entertainment and could easily revert
…show more content…
One such source was Ulrich B. Phillips’ 1918 book American Negro Slavery. In a chapter entitled “Plantation Labor,” Phillips characterizes slavery as a moderate institution that was economically practical and fitting given the natural servility of slaves. Another was Kenneth M. Stampp’s 1950 history, A Peculiar Institution. In a chapter entitled “A Troublesome Property,” Stampp declares that slaves were widely unhappy with their lot, and that they pushed against many structural hurdles through acts of individual resistance. Eugene D. Genovese’s 1960 Studies on the Left article, “The Legacy of Slavery and the Roots of Black Nationalism,” observes the tendency of American slaves to accommodate and cede to their masters, and bemoans the unwillingness of contemporary thinkers to admit to the moderation or justifiability of slavery as an institution. Douglass’ vignette about Christmas in slavery complicates the arguments of these 20th century historians Philips, Stampp, and Genovese by asserting that the institution of slavery was supported by masters’ deliberate attempts to distort the way slaves understood freedom and their fitness for …show more content…
Each one offers a different explanation: Phillips argues that the lack of significant insurrection gives grounds to defend the institution of slavery. Stampp suggests that slaves opted for individual acts of resistance because large-scale rebellion proved too challenging. Genovese maintains that many of the conditions of American slavery made it unconducive to mutiny. Douglass offers that calculated schemes by masters diminished slaves’ desire for freedom. The convergence of all four documents around the question of why slaves did not fight back with more fortitude illuminates that question as an essential and complex issue in the historical narrative around slavery. Because each man answered this question in a way that aligned best with their overall understanding of slavery as an institution, it is impossible to privilege one narrative over the other. Rather, exploring all four texts as a body may offer the best understanding of this essential question and many
One such source was Ulrich B. Phillips’ 1918 book American Negro Slavery. In a chapter entitled “Plantation Labor,” Phillips characterizes slavery as a moderate institution that was economically practical and fitting given the natural servility of slaves. Another was Kenneth M. Stampp’s 1950 history, A Peculiar Institution. In a chapter entitled “A Troublesome Property,” Stampp declares that slaves were widely unhappy with their lot, and that they pushed against many structural hurdles through acts of individual resistance. Eugene D. Genovese’s 1960 Studies on the Left article, “The Legacy of Slavery and the Roots of Black Nationalism,” observes the tendency of American slaves to accommodate and cede to their masters, and bemoans the unwillingness of contemporary thinkers to admit to the moderation or justifiability of slavery as an institution. Douglass’ vignette about Christmas in slavery complicates the arguments of these 20th century historians Philips, Stampp, and Genovese by asserting that the institution of slavery was supported by masters’ deliberate attempts to distort the way slaves understood freedom and their fitness for …show more content…
Each one offers a different explanation: Phillips argues that the lack of significant insurrection gives grounds to defend the institution of slavery. Stampp suggests that slaves opted for individual acts of resistance because large-scale rebellion proved too challenging. Genovese maintains that many of the conditions of American slavery made it unconducive to mutiny. Douglass offers that calculated schemes by masters diminished slaves’ desire for freedom. The convergence of all four documents around the question of why slaves did not fight back with more fortitude illuminates that question as an essential and complex issue in the historical narrative around slavery. Because each man answered this question in a way that aligned best with their overall understanding of slavery as an institution, it is impossible to privilege one narrative over the other. Rather, exploring all four texts as a body may offer the best understanding of this essential question and many