HENRY,SLAVERY

The incidents of slavery impacted more than the lives of the slave, but it also impacted the slave owner. In our readings this week, we learned that possible there is more than one master in the slave and slave owner relationship. I believe that the slave is also a master in sense, because he/she controls the master. The masters’ actions are direct responses to the slaves’ actions and vice versa. In Fredrick Douglass’ tale, as in most slave narratives, slaves were not allowed to read and write. In this tale slave owners wanted so very badly to prevent slaves from learning how to read. Yet, Douglass puts all that he has in educating as many slaves as he possible could. In this aspect, the slave continually pursues what the owner does not want him to do and has to commit acts to punish the slave for disobeying. So he beats him and this is because of the actions of the slave, then the cycle starts over. Due to these actions committed by the slave owner, it is ridiculous to believe that they have any trace of morality. It is funny to think that save owners felt the slaves were subhuman, and yet they inflicted beating so bad as to cause death. If there was any trace of humanity on the slave owners’ part, then it is lost when they felt pleaser and power when causing pain to another being. As in the case of Harriet Jacobs’ story of her being continuously raped by her slave owner, which is a savage act to commit. In present day society rapist are looked upon as inhuman creatures, even in prison. So, should the slave owner be treated differently? My answer is no, and they should be treated worst because they deprive humans of the born right of care. Every human is born with the right to be cared for, and that falls into the lap of the slave owners sense they are responsible for their slaves. In present day society I believe we hold the same control over others, in the form of social class. Some people are born into a class and inherit a lot of money and power, while others have to work for the little money they get, without the power. This is a way that the high class controls the lower class because this allows the lower class to work all their lives and not reach as near as much success as the higher class. Yet, they keep striving for it as slaves did in learning how to read and write.

Moran: moral compromise

Few would argue that the institution of slavery did not produce an incalculable number of evils for the people who are owned, but Frederick Douglass also argues that it does great evil to the masters as well. The idea is if you can lower someone or a group of people until they aren’t even human anymore, you must lower your conscious and soul to the same level. The best example of such would have to be Frederick Douglass himself. He is rumored to be half white, most likely the son of his and his mother’s master. Despite being the master’s flesh and blood, he is still nothing more than a piece of property in the eyes of the law and most of southern society. If indeed his father is also his master, the white members of his family now own one of his sons. If the master decides to keep his son, the white members of his family would most likely despise him and go out of their way to torture him (perhaps even literally). The other option is to sell him, where his birthfather would be unable to offer him any protection, if he so wanted to, and leave him to the harsh life of a slave for the rest of his life. Either way, the owner would have to choose between being a father and a master. Most would choose to be the master, a moral compromise that I believe would destroy the soul.