I found Frederick Douglass\u2019s idea that the postwar era may be defined and controlled by whichever side could best shape interpretations of the war to be very compelling.\u00a0 He understood that it is almost more important to control how the story is told than the story itself.\u00a0 Douglass\u2019s argument that the people could not lose memory of the real issues and purposes of the fight rings true when thinking about many other historical situations.<\/p>\n
Christopher Columbus is usually portrayed as the explorer who heroically though the Earth was round and discovered America.\u00a0 After doing more research into Columbus and his expeditions though, one finds that he had many flaws (such as the ruthless way he treated the Natives that he encountered once in America).\u00a0 This example goes well with Frederick Douglass\u2019s point because the narrative of the war could very easily have been shifted if the South were allowed to tell the story by alone (like one of my roommate\u2019s insistence on calling it \u201cthe war of Northern aggression\u201d).<\/p>\n
Douglass\u2019s understanding of the idea that, \u201cpeople and nations are shaped and defined by history,\u201d is very advanced.\u00a0 I only know of a few men in history that have been as aware of this idea (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind because of his prolific writing and record keeping).\u00a0 Furthermore, I think that Douglass took it upon himself to make sure history remembered him so that he could tell the tale of slavery and freedom from the perspective of his people.\u00a0 Last semester, I read one of his autobiographies in an American History class; so obviously his ideas have been passed down just like he was hoping for.<\/p>\n
I think that it is crucial when talking about Douglass and his opinions to keep them in context.\u00a0 This was, obviously, a time before Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.\u00a0 Douglass, a former slave, was in the unique position to really talk to all African-Americans through his speeches and testimonies.\u00a0 Douglass understood that what he said was going to be read about by the rest of the country because of the man he had become.\u00a0 With this power, Douglass took it upon himself to continue the crusade for his people.\u00a0 He felt the best way to do this was to make sure that the Civil War was remembered for its causes and results.\u00a0 Anthony John Pignone (Olney, Maryland) makes a different argument.\u00a0 He contends that Douglass\u2019s view on the war may be skewed because he did not fight in the war.\u00a0 While I think this is a valid concern, I believe that Frederick Douglass was not trying to discount the perils and bravery of the actual fighting, he was merely trying to protect the legacy of emancipation and the future of his people.\u00a0 I understand what AJ is saying, but I think that Douglass was more focused on how future generations would remember the war than the war experience itself.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I found Frederick Douglass\u2019s idea that the postwar era may be defined and controlled by whichever side could best shape interpretations of the war to be very compelling.\u00a0 He understood that it is almost more important to control how the story is told than the story itself.\u00a0 Douglass\u2019s argument that the people could not lose … <\/p>\n