Frederick Douglass

On Friday, the Japanese Supreme Court denied claims for compensation by former sex slavers (comfort women as they are called in Japan) and forced Chinese laborers during World War II. The Court did admit that both groups were taken involuntarily by the Japanese military or industry complex.

This issue has been a bane to Japan, since in the past, Japanese textbooks were altered to omit this history. During an official visit to Washington, D.C. this week, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said the following about the sex slaves:

“Regarding the extremely hard situation they were placed in, I am filled with a sense of apology,” Mr. Abe said Thursday in a meeting with leaders of the House of Representatives. And in a press conference with President Bush at Camp David on Friday, he said that he had “deep-hearted sympathies” for the women and that he was sorry that they had been “placed in extreme hardships and had to suffer that sacrifice,” The Associated Press reported.

In both statements, Mr. Abe avoided assigning responsibility for the practice and did not retract his denial of the military’s direct role in it, a crucial point to his nationalist supporters, who argue that the women were prostitutes or forced into brothels by private brokers. The House is considering a resolution that would call on Japan to unequivocally admit its wartime sex slavery and apologize for it.” (1)

You may recall that apologies for Slavery have been issued by Virginia and Maryland. Other states are considering this as well. Frederick Douglass commented on the daily, monthly, and yearly reality of being a slave:

“The men and women slaves received, as their monthly allowance of food, eight pounds of pork, or its equivalent in fish, and one bushel of corn meal. Their yearly clothing consisted of two coarse linen shirts, one pair of linen trousers, like the shirts, one jacket, one pair of trousers for winter, made of coarse negro cloth, one pair of stockings, and one pair of shoes; the whole of which could not have cost more than seven dollars.

The allowance of the slave children was given to their mothers, or the old women having the care of them. The children unable to work in the field had neither shoes, stockings, jackets, nor trousers, given to them; their clothing consisted of two coarse linen shirts per year. When these failed them, they went naked until the next allowance-day. Children from seven to ten years old, of both sexes, almost naked, might be seen at all seasons of the year.”

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Chapter II.

Reference

(1) Japan Court Rules Against Sex Slaves and Laborers: 27 April 2007. International Herald Tribune.

On 16 April 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill called the District of Columbia Emancipation Act. This law was the precursor to the monumental Emancipation Proclamation that was enacted on 01 January 1863.

“This legislation abolished slavery in Washington, D.C. by providing compensation of up to $300 for each slave freed by masters loyal to the Union. Women and children, however, were assigned a lesser value than men. Reflecting Lincoln’s faith in colonization efforts, the federal government provided up to $100 for those freed slaves who chose to leave the United States. As a result, 3,100 slaves received their freedom, at a total cost of approximately one million dollars. This act represented the first and last time the United States government authorized compensated emancipation.” (1)

On the 26^th anniversary of the District of Columbia Emancipation Act, Frederick Douglass, a resident of the city, made a very compelling speech. I would like to provide one excerpt, with regards to the economic reality years after Emancipation, from this speech of 16 April 1888. I will provide a link in the reference section if you would like to read the entire speech. The Library of Congress link displays the original manuscript, along with hand-written notes and corrections made by Mr. Douglass.

“Do you ask a more particular account of the question why the negro of the plantation has made so little progress, why his cupboard is empty, why he flutters in rags, why his children run naked and his wife is bare-footed and hides herself behind the hut when a stranger is passing? I will tell you. It is because the husband and father is systematically and almost universally cheated out of his hard earnings.

The same class that once extorted his labor under the lash, now extorts his labor by a mean, sneaking and fraudulent device, which is more effective than the lash. That device is the trucking system, a system which never permits him to see or to save a dollar of his hard earnings. He struggles and struggles, from year to year, but like a man in a morass, the more he struggles, the deeper he sinks.

The highest wages paid to him are eight dollars a month, and this he receives only in orders on a store. A store, which, in many cases, is owned by his employer. This scrip has a purchasing power on that one store and on that one store only. A blind man can see that a laborer is by this arrangement bound hand and foot and is completely in the power of his employer who can charge the poor fellow just what he pleases and give him just what kind of goods he pleases, and he does both.

His victim can not go to another store and buy. As a man with money could do. He is deprived of the protection afforded by competition, and this the store-keeper knows full well. The only security the wretched negro has under this arrangement, is the conscience of the store-keeper—a conscience educated in the school of slavery, a conscious educated in fraud, educated where the idea prevailed in theory and practice that the negro had no rights which white men were bound to respect. An arrangement in which everything in the way of food or clothing, whether it be tainted meat or damaged cloth, is deemed good enough for the negro. And for these he is often made to pay a double price.” (2)

References

(1) D.C. Emancipation Day: The Historical Society of Washington, DC.
(2) The Frederick Douglass Papers at the Library of Congress.

In April of 1835, Frederick Bailey made his first attempt to escape the bonds of slavery. He, along with four others, decided to use the Easter holiday as a diversion. On Holy Saturday, the plan was to depart Talbot County by canoe up the Chesapeake Bay. Their strategy was to follow the North Star in the direction of New York.

“Our path was beset with the greatest obstacles; and if we succeeded in gaining the end of it, our right to be free was yet questionable–we were yet liable to be returned to bondage. We could see no spot, this side of the ocean, where we could be free. We knew nothing about Canada. Our knowledge of the north did not extend farther than New York; and to go there, and be forever harassed with the frightful liability of being returned to slavery–with the certainty of being treated tenfold worse than before–the thought was truly a horrible one, and one which it was not easy to overcome.”

“The plan we finally concluded upon was, to get a large canoe belonging to Mr. Hamilton, and upon the Saturday night previous to Easter holidays, paddle directly up the Chesapeake Bay. On our arrival at the head of the bay, a distance of seventy or eighty miles from where we lived, it was our purpose to turn our canoe adrift, and follow the guidance of the north star till we got beyond the limits of Maryland. Our reason for taking the water route was, that we were less liable to be suspected as runaways; we hoped to be regarded as fishermen; whereas, if we should take the land route, we should be subjected to interruptions of almost every kind. Any one having a white face, and being so disposed, could stop us, and subject us to examination.

The week before our intended start, I wrote several protections, one for each of us. As well as I can remember, they were in the following words, to wit:–

“This is to certify that I, the undersigned, have given the bearer, my servant, full liberty to go to Baltimore, and spend the Easter holidays. Written with mine own hand, &c., 1835.

‘WILLIAM HAMILTON, ‘Near St. Michael’s, in Talbot county, Maryland.’

We were not going to Baltimore; but, in going up the bay, we went toward Baltimore, and these protections were only intended to protect us while on the bay.”

Unfortunately, on the morning of their scheduled departure, which was conceived and organized by Frederick, the group was betrayed. As they went to eat breakfast, several constables approached.

“By this time, the three constables rode up, and in great haste dismounted, tied their horses, and met Master William and Mr. Hamilton returning from the barn; and after talking awhile, they all walked up to the kitchen door. There was no one in the kitchen but myself and John. Henry and Sandy were up at the barn. Mr. Freeland put his head in at the door, and called me by name, saying, there were some gentlemen at the door who wished to see me. I stepped to the door, and inquired what they wanted. They at once seized me, and, without giving me any satisfaction, tied me–lashing my hands closely together. I insisted upon knowing what the matter was. They at length said, that they had learned I had been in a “scrape,” and that I was to be examined before my master; and if their information proved false, I should not be hurt.

In a few moments, they succeeded in tying John. They then turned to Henry, who had by this time returned, and commanded him to cross his hands. “I won’t!” said Henry, in a firm tone, indicating his readiness to meet the consequences of his refusal. “Won’t you?” said Tom Graham, the constable. “No, I won’t!” said Henry, in a still stronger tone. With this, two of the constables pulled out their shining pistols, and swore, by their Creator, that they would make him cross his hands or kill him. Each cocked his pistol, and, with fingers on the trigger, walked up to Henry, saying, at the same time, if he did not cross his hands, they would blow his damned heart out. “Shoot me, shoot me!” said Henry; “you can’t kill me but once. Shoot, shoot,–and be damned! I won’t be tied!” This he said in a tone of loud defiance; and at the same time, with a motion as quick as lightning, he with one single stroke dashed the pistols from the hand of each constable. As he did this, all hands fell upon him, and, after beating him some time, they finally overpowered him, and got him tied.”

“We were to be dragged that morning fifteen miles behind horses, and then to be placed in the Easton jail. When we reached St. Michael’s, we underwent a sort of examination. We all denied that we ever intended to run away. We did this more to bring out the evidence against us, than from any hope of getting clear of being sold; for, as I have said, we were ready for that. The fact was, we cared but little where we went, so we went together. Our greatest concern was about separation. We dreaded that more than any thing this side of death. We found the evidence against us to be the testimony of one person; our master would not tell who it was; but we came to a unanimous decision among ourselves as to who their informant was. We were sent off to the jail at Easton. When we got there, we were delivered up to the sheriff, Mr. Joseph Graham, and by him placed in jail. Henry, John, and myself, were placed in one room together–Charles, and Henry Bailey, in another. Their object in separating us was to hinder concert.”

The others in the escape party were released from jail, and returned to the plantation. Frederick remained alone in his cell to contemplate his future.

“I was now left to my fate. I was all alone, and within the walls of a stone prison. But a few days before, and I was full of hope. I expected to have been safe in a land of freedom; but now I was covered with gloom, sunk down to the utmost despair. I thought the possibility of freedom was gone. I was kept in this way about one week, at the end of which, Captain Auld, my master, to my surprise and utter astonishment, came up, and took me out, with the intention of sending me, with a gentleman of his acquaintance, into Alabama. But, from some cause or other, he did not send me to Alabama, but concluded to send me back to Baltimore, to live again with his brother Hugh, and to learn a trade.

Thus, after an absence of three years and one month, I was once more permitted to return to my old home at Baltimore. My master sent me away, because there existed against me a very great prejudice in the community, and he feared I might be killed.”

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave: Chapter X.

Last week, in Frankfurt, Germany, Judge Christa Datz-Winter cited the Holy Qur’an as a defense in a divorce proceeding. In this particular case, a German-born woman with Moroccan roots sued for a rapid divorce due to the physical beatings she suffered at the hands of her Moroccan husband.

In an article by Mr. Mark Landler of the International Herald Tribune, here was the judge’s rationale to deny the plaintiff’s claim, along with the reactions of her decision:

“In a remarkable ruling that underlines the tension between Muslim customs and European laws, the judge, Christa Datz-Winter, said the couple came from a Moroccan cultural milieu in which it is common for husbands to beat their wives. The Koran, she wrote, sanctions such physical abuse… The court in Frankfurt abruptly removed Datz-Winter from the case on Wednesday, saying it could not justify her reasoning… The woman’s lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk, said she decided to publicize the ruling, which was issued in January, after the court refused her request for a new judge. ‘It was terrible for my client,’ Becker-Rojczyk said. ‘This man beat her seriously from the beginning of their marriage. After they separated, he called her and threatened to kill her.’ ” (1)

According to Mr. Landler, Islamic leaders in Germany felt that the judge misinterpreted a sura, or passage, in the Holy Qur’an with regards to marital relations.

“ ‘Our Prophet never struck a woman, and he is our example,’ Ayyub Axel Köhler, the head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, said in an interview.” (2)

Frederick Douglass, as a young child and growing adolescent, was no stranger to beatings. In fact, he felt that the worst masters and/or slave handlers were ones who justified their behavior by religious beliefs.

“I have said my master found religious sanction for his cruelty. As an example, I will state one of many facts going to prove the charge. I have seen him tie up a lame young woman, and whip her with a heavy cowskin upon her naked shoulders, causing the warm red blood to drip; and, in justification of the bloody deed, he would quote this passage of Scripture–‘He that knoweth his master’s will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.’ ”

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Chapter IX.

“Were I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall me. For of all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others.”

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Chapter X.

“Even the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose.” William Shakespeare

References

(1 and 2) German Judge Stirs Protest by Citing Koran: International Herald Tribune, 22 March 2007.

Recently, both bodies of Virginia’s General Assembly passed an interesting resolution. They stated that “Government-sanctioned slavery ‘ranks as the most horrendous of all depredations of human rights and violations of our founding ideals in our nation’s history; and . . . the abolition of slavery was followed by . . . systematic discrimination, enforced segregation, and other insidious institutions and practices toward Americans of African descent that were rooted in racism, racial bias, and racial misunderstanding.’ The General Assembly also expressed regret for the ‘exploitation of Native Americans.’ ” (1)

Dr. Walter Williams, who is a Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, along with a respected syndicated columnist, author, and social commentator, had the following opinion about this resolution:

“I can personally relate to the Virginia General Assembly’s declaration. My great-grandparents were slaves in the Virginia cities of Chase City and Newport News. The General Assembly’s statement of regret for slavery means absolutely nothing to me. If anything, it’s nothing less than a cheap insult and capitulation of white delegates to black hustlers. Possibly, the whites who voted in support of the declaration were mau-maued into it or they felt guilt over our history of slavery. In any case, they should know that their actions mean little in dealing with the day-to-day plight of many black Virginians — which has nothing to do with slavery.” (2)

After reading Dr. Williams’ article, I was reminded of a meeting between former slave and master. On his death bed, Captain Hugh Auld, the childhood master of Frederick Douglass, summoned him.

“We addressed each other simultaneously, he calling me “Marshal Douglass,” and I, as I had always called him, “Captain Auld.” Hearing myself called by him “Marshal Douglass,” I instantly broke up the formal nature of the meeting by saying, “not Marshal, but Frederick to you as formerly.” We shook hands cordially, and in the act of doing so, he, having been long stricken with palsy, shed tears as men thus afflicted will do when excited by any deep emotion. The sight of him, the changes which time had wrought in him, his tremulous hands constantly in motion, and all the circumstances of his condition affected me deeply, and for a time choked my voice and made me speechless. We both, however, got the better of our feelings, and conversed freely about the past.

Though broken by age and palsy, the mind of Capt. Auld was remarkably clear and strong. After he had become composed I asked him what he thought of my conduct in running away and going to the north. He hesitated a moment as if to properly formulate his reply, and said: “Frederick, I always knew you were too smart to be a slave, and had I been in your place, I should have done as you did.” I said, “Capt. Auld, I am glad to hear you say this. I did not run away from you, but from slavery; it was not that I loved Caesar less, but Rome more.”

Life and Times of Frederick Douglass: Chapter XVI.

References

(1 and 2) Regrets For Slavery: The Patriot Post, 07 March 2007 by Dr. Walter E. Williams