, Research Paper
In both of the Hagiographas by Douglass and Stowe, the inquiry is raised refering the being of God. On page 1790 while watching the canvass of the ships on Chesapeake Bay Douglass cries out for God to salvage him and allow him freedom and so provinces, & # 8220 ; Is there any God? & # 8221 ; On pages 2330 in response to Mr. Wison & # 8217 ; s suggestion to swear in the Lord, George answers, & # 8220 ; Is there a God to swear in? There & # 8217 ; s a God for you, but is at that place any for us? & # 8221 ; This inquiry reverberates throughout both plants. Slaves were looked upon as things or objects to be bought and sold, non as human existences with psyches. Therefore, since they were non human, there could non be any inhumane intervention of these non-soul animals. So, in kernel, the white slave owners created a system where there was no God for slaves.
While Stowe states the premiss clearly, Douglass does more to develop the claim. Douglass gives us an confidant about documental manner expression behind the scenes at the Christianity of the slave owners. He begins with the poetry in Genesis 9:20-27 refering the cursing of Ham, which slaveholders used as Scriptural cogent evidence that American bondage was right. Even the foundation rules of the slave owners Christianity were built on a false premise- the misunderstanding of an vague transition of the Bible. Douglass continues to back up the claim when he describes his experience with the Aulds refering larning to read. Those & # 8220 ; who proclaim it a spiritual responsibility to read the Bible & # 8221 ; denied him & # 8220 ; the right of larning to read the name of the God who made & # 8221 ; him. Mr. Auld stopped his married woman from learning Douglass to read because it would & # 8220 ; spoil & # 8221 ; him, make him & # 8220 ; discontented and unhappy & # 8221 ; , make him & # 8220 ; unwieldy & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; unfit to be a slave. & # 8221 ; Despite his motivation, Mr. Auld unwittingly pointed the manner to Douglass & # 8217 ; s freedom.
By far the greatest support given by Douglass to the claim of a deficiency of a God for the slaves is his history of the transition of Thomas Auld. Douglass declares Auld as a & # 8220 ; mean adult male & # 8221 ; , but states that despite his hopes of bettering the character of Auld, faith made him & # 8220 ; more cru
EL and hateful in all his ways.” Douglass states that Auld was worse after his transition than earlier. Douglass lists the assorted spiritual activity of Auld including his being an “instrument of the church in change overing many souls.” Auld even allowed many slave having sermonizers to populate on his belongings who justified non merely at that place having of slaves, but the barbarous whippings with Scripture. These “religonists” surrounded Douglass. They used the pretence of faith to back up their inhuman treatment. Rev. Hopkins crush his slave for the smallest offenses, believing he would “beat the Satan out of them” , yet Douglass gives him recognition for being one who was non equaled in his “professions of religion” and was really devoted to his household. After Douglass endures this lip service of Auld and so the inhuman treatment of Covey, he finds the deficiency of faith in the life of Mr. Freeland an “advantage.” Douglas called the faith of the south ”a mere covering for the most horrid offenses, a apologist of the most dismaying atrocity, a sanctifier of the most hateful frauds and a dark shelter under which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal workss of slave owners find the strongest protection.” Douglass preferred to hold a maestro without faith than one with. I think it was this contrast that formed the footing of his belief refering the “wide difference” between the Christianity of the land and the Christianity of Christ.
Douglass believed this difference was so broad & # 8220 ; that to have the one as good, pure and sanctum, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt and wicked. To be the friend of the 1, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. & # 8221 ; He & # 8220 ; loved & # 8221 ; the & # 8220 ; impartial Christianity of Christ & # 8221 ; , but & # 8220 ; hated & # 8221 ; the other. Face with lone these two options, it would non be difficult to reason that the God of the slave owners did NOT be for the slave. What slave in his right head would desire such a God? Surely non Douglass or Stowe or literally 1000000s of Americans since. I hope that same spirit will be rejected by a coevals of & # 8220 ; religonists & # 8221 ; that still worship God and do allowances for their biass.
