, Research Paper
In both of the writings by Douglass and Stowe, the question is raised concerning the existence of God. On page 1790 while watching the sails of the ships on Chesapeake Bay Douglass cries out for God to save him and grant him freedom and then states, “Is there any God?” On pages 2330 in response to Mr. Wison’s suggestion to trust in the Lord, George replies, “Is there a God to trust in? There’s a God for you, but is there any for us?” This question reverberates throughout both works. Slaves were looked upon as things or objects to be bought and sold, not as human beings with souls. Therefore, since they were not human, there could not be any inhumane treatment of these non-soul creatures. So, in essence, the white slaveholders created a system where there was no God for slaves.
While Stowe states the premise clearly, Douglass does more to develop the claim. Douglass gives us an intimate almost documentary style look behind the scenes at the Christianity of the slaveholders. He begins with the verse in Genesis 9:20-27 concerning the cursing of Ham, which slaveholders used as Scriptural proof that American slavery was right. Even the foundation principles of the slaveholders Christianity were built on a false premise- the misinterpretation of an obscure passage of the Bible. Douglass continues to support the claim when he describes his experience with the Aulds concerning learning to read. Those “who proclaim it a religious duty to read the Bible” denied him “the right of learning to read the name of the God who made” him. Mr. Auld stopped his wife from teaching Douglass to read because it would “spoil” him, make him “discontented and unhappy”, make him “unmanageable” and “unfit to be a slave.” Despite his motive, Mr. Auld unknowingly pointed the way to Douglass’s freedom.
By far the greatest support given by Douglass to the claim of a lack of a God for the slaves is his account of the conversion of Thomas Auld. Douglass declares Auld as a “mean man”, but states that despite his hopes of improving the character of Auld, religion made him “more cru
Douglass believed this difference was 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.” He “loved” the “impartial Christianity of Christ”, but “hated” the other. Face with only these two options, it would not be hard to conclude that the God of the slaveholders did NOT exist for the slave. What slave in his right mind would want such a God? Certainly not Douglass or Stowe or literally millions of Americans since. I hope that same spirit will be rejected by a generation of “religonists” that still worship God and make allowances for their prejudices.