Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass: literary analysis and themes

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

Perversion of Christianity by American Slave-Holding Masters -- as Told by Frederick Douglass, an American Slave

Slavery remains to be one of the most shameful periods of American history. It was a cruel institution that deprived millions of human beings of dignity, human rights, and freedom for three hundred years. It was also an institution that corrupted those practicing it. To justify their practice of human bondage, American slaveholders resorted to moral and religious hypocrisy. They began to interpret the Bible as it fitted their needs, perverting the meaning of Christianity to justify slavery. Frederick Douglass, a slave who escaped the cruel bondage and became an eloquent abolitionist, exposed this religious hypocrisy of slaveholders in his autobiography. Douglass made it clear that the way American slaveholders practiced Christianity was incoherent, hypocritical, and a perversion of true Christianity.

Douglass begins his narrative with the description of his upbringing and mentions how the slaveholders' interpretation of the story of Ham in the Bible did not withstand the reality of life. American slaveholders claimed that God had cursed Ham and that his descendants then became Africans who, to redeem themselves, needed to serve their masters well. But Douglass explains that the story was incoherent because it did not take into consideration that "a very different-looking class of people are springing up at the south, and are now held in slavery, from those originally brought to this country from Africa; and if their increase will do no other good, it will do away the force of the argument, that God cursed Ham, and therefore American slavery is right. If the lineal descendants of Ham are alone to be scripturally enslaved, it is certain that slavery at the south must soon become unscriptural; for thousands are ushered into the world, annually, who, like myself, owe their existence to white fathers, and those fathers most frequently their own masters" (19). Slaveholders claimed that all slaves were descendants of Ham and therefore were in slavery, but Douglass and many thousands had white parents and were nevertheless in bondage. How could the story of Ham withstand in the face of this, Douglass is asking here? He is also making a veiled suggestion that the slaveholders may soon concoct a new theory intended to justify the enslavement of children who had both white and black parents.

The lack of logic in slaveholders' quasi-religious theories was not the only problem of the way they practiced Christianity. Douglass argues that his masters were religious hypocrites. They claimed or pretended to be religious and pious but were in reality cruel and sadistic. In his narrative, Douglass recalls how his master attended a Methodist camp-meeting in 1832 and converted to religion. Douglass says he hoped that this religious experience would encourage his master to free his slaves or at least make him more humane. "I was disappointed in both these respects," Douglass writes. "It neither made him to be human to his slaves, nor to emancipate them. If it had any effect on his character, it made him more cruel and hateful in all his ways; for I believe him to be have been a much worse man after his conversion than before. Prior to his conversion, he relied upon his own depravity to shield and sustain him in his savage barbarity; but after his conversion, he found religious sanction and support for his slaveholding cruelty" (p. 62). Douglass is saying here that his master was cruel but true to his own depraved nature before conversation; he, however, became hypocritical after experiencing religion. He began to use religion to sanction his cruelty toward slaves. He became pious, attended Church meetings, and invited other persons of religious piety to his house. But in his treatment of human beings whom he held in bondage, nonetheless, the master became a more cruel and sadistic monster. He became a barbaric religious hypocrite.

Ultimately, Douglass argues that American slaveholders totally perverted the meaning of Christianity and that the slaveholders were not true Christians. He makes it clear toward the end of his narrative that his criticism of religion was directed at the specific way American slaveholders practiced it. Douglass explains:

What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest, possible difference -- so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels" (p. 116).

Douglass here is emphatically stating that he has no problem with Christianity as taught by Christ. He actually loves it. But his problem is with the way American slaveholders practice it. Douglass makes it clear that, in his opinion, American slaveholders pretending to be Christians are hypocrites who are worse than those who never claim to be Christian. The slaveholders lie to others and lie to themselves. If they were true Christians, they would not have kept millions of human beings in bondage in the first place; and, even if they did, they would have at least been kinder and more humane in their attempts to live up to Christian ideals. The slaveholders corrupted religious teachings to suit their own base and wicked instincts. Douglass also suggests here that true Christianity is the absolute polar opposite of what American slaveholders practice; therefore, as he notes, loving the teachings of Christ necessitates hating American slaveholders and their religious hypocrisy.