Article #202-1 | Gutenberg Articles

Excerpt

Excerpt from My Bondage and My Freedom, by Frederick Douglass

All know the lightness of Indian corn-meal, as an article of food, and
can easily judge from the following facts whether the statements I have
made of the stinginess of Master Thomas, are borne out. There were four
slaves of us in the kitchen, and four whites in the great house Thomas
Auld, Mrs. Auld, Hadaway Auld (brother of Thomas Auld) and little
Amanda. The names of the slaves in the kitchen, were Eliza, my sister;
Priscilla, my aunt; Henny, my cousin; and myself. There were eight
persons in the family. There was, each week, one half bushel of
corn-meal brought from the mill; and in the kitchen, corn-meal was
almost our exclusive food, for very little else was allowed us. Out of
this bushel of corn-meal, the family in the great house had a small
loaf every morning; thus leaving us, in the kitchen, with not quite a
half a peck per week, apiece. This allowance was less than half the
allowance of food on Lloyd’s plantation. It was not enough to subsist
upon; and we were, therefore, reduced to the wretched necessity of
living at the expense of our neighbors. We were compelled either to
beg, or to steal, and we did both. I frankly confess, that while I
hated everything like stealing, as such, I nevertheless did not
hesitate to take food, when I was hungry, wherever I could find it. Nor
was this practice the mere result of an unreasoning instinct; it was,
in my case, the result of a clear apprehension of the claims of
morality. I weighed and considered the matter closely, before I
ventured to satisfy my hunger by such means. Considering that my labor
and person were the property of Master Thomas, and that I was by him
deprived of the necessaries of life necessaries obtained by my own
labor—it was easy to deduce the right to supply myself with what was my
own. It was simply appropriating what was my own to the use of my
master, since the health and strength derived from such food were
exerted in his service. To be sure, this was stealing, according to
the law and gospel I heard from St. Michael’s pulpit; but I had already
begun to attach less importance to what dropped from that quarter, on
that point, while, as yet, I retained my reverence for religion. It was
not always convenient to steal from master, and the same reason why I
might, innocently, steal from him, did not seem to justify me in
stealing from others. In the case of my master, it was only a question
of removal—the taking his meat out of one tub, and putting it into
another; the ownership of the meat was not affected by the transaction.
At first, he owned it in the tub, and last, he owned it in me. His
meat house was not always open. There was a strict watch kept on that
point, and the key was on a large bunch in Rowena’s pocket. A great
many times have we, poor creatures, been severely pinched with hunger,
when meat and bread have been moulding under the lock, while the key
was in the pocket of our mistress. This had been so when she knew we
were nearly half starved; and yet, that mistress, with saintly air,
would kneel with her husband, and pray each morning that a merciful God
would bless them in basket and in store, and save them, at last, in his
kingdom. But I proceed with the argument.

It was necessary that right to steal from others should be
established; and this could only rest upon a wider range of
generalization than that which supposed the right to steal from my
master.

It was sometime before I arrived at this clear right. The reader will
get some idea of my train of reasoning, by a brief statement of the
case. “I am,” thought I, “not only the slave of Thomas, but I am the
slave of society at large. Society at large has bound itself, in form
and in fact, to assist Master Thomas in robbing me of my rightful
liberty, and of the just reward of my labor; therefore, whatever rights
I have against Master Thomas, I have, equally, against those
confederated with him in robbing me of liberty. As society has marked
me out as privileged plunder, on the principle of self-preservation I
am justified in plundering in turn. Since each slave belongs to all;
all must, therefore, belong to each.”

Explanation

Frederick Douglass’s My Bondage and My Freedom (1855) is the second of his three autobiographies, expanding on his earlier Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave (1845) with deeper philosophical, political, and moral reflections on slavery. This excerpt, from Chapter X ("Life in Baltimore"), illustrates the dehumanizing conditions of slavery while also showcasing Douglass’s intellectual resistance to its moral contradictions. Below is a detailed analysis of the passage, focusing on its content, themes, literary devices, and significance, with emphasis on the text itself.

Context of the Excerpt

This passage describes Douglass’s time as a young enslaved boy in Baltimore, living under the ownership of Thomas Auld, a particularly stingy and hypocritical master. Douglass contrasts the meager rations allotted to enslaved people with the abundance enjoyed by the white family, exposing the systemic deprivation that forced enslaved people to beg or steal to survive. The excerpt is not just a recounting of hardship but a moral and logical dissection of slavery’s injustices, where Douglass justifies his actions through reasoned argument—an act of intellectual defiance against a system that sought to deny him agency.

Key Themes in the Excerpt

Dehumanization and Starvation as Tools of Control
- The passage opens with a calculating, almost clinical breakdown of food distribution, emphasizing the mathematical cruelty of slavery. Four enslaved people and four white people exist in the same household, yet the rations are grossly unequal:
  - The white family receives a "small loaf every morning" from the same half-bushel of cornmeal that must sustain the enslaved for the week.
  - The enslaved are left with "not quite a half a peck per week, apiece"—an amount Douglass notes is less than half what was given on Lloyd’s plantation.
- The physical deprivation is not accidental but deliberate, designed to keep enslaved people weak and dependent. Douglass highlights the hypocrisy of the Aulds, who pray for blessings on their food while locking away surplus as the enslaved starve.
Moral Justification of Theft
- Douglass does not glorify stealing but rationalizes it as a moral necessity. His argument unfolds in stages:
  - First, he distinguishes between stealing from Master Thomas and stealing from others. Taking from Thomas is not true theft because:
    - His labor and body are Thomas’s property.
    - The food he takes is his own earnings, wrongfully withheld.
    - The transaction is merely a "removal"—Thomas owns the food in the tub and later owns it in Douglass’s body (as labor power).
  - Second, he extends this logic to society at large, arguing that since society colludes in his enslavement, he is justified in taking from it as well. His reasoning is radical but methodical:
    - "I am... the slave of society at large."
    - Society actively participates in his oppression, so he has a right to "plunder in turn."
    - "Since each slave belongs to all; all must, therefore, belong to each."
  - This is a scathing indictment of complicit institutions (church, law, economy) that uphold slavery.
Religious Hypocrisy
- Douglass contrasts the Aulds’ piety with their cruelty:
  - They pray for God’s blessings on their "basket and store" while denying food to the hungry.
  - Their Christianity is performative, a tool of oppression rather than compassion.
- Douglass’s disillusionment with organized religion (especially as preached by white clergy) is evident. He still respects "religion" in the abstract but rejects the hypocritical version used to justify slavery.
Intellectual Resistance and Agency
- The passage is not just about survival but mental liberation. Douglass analyzes, debates, and concludes—actions forbidden to enslaved people.
- His legalistic and philosophical reasoning (e.g., "self-preservation," "privileged plunder") undermines the dehumanizing myth that enslaved people were incapable of complex thought.
- By articulating his own moral code, he asserts his personhood in a system that treats him as property.

Literary Devices and Stylistic Choices

Irony and Sarcasm
- Douglass employs biting irony to expose contradictions:
  - The Aulds pray for "merciful God" to bless their hoarded food while enslaved people starve.
  - The "saintly air" of Mrs. Auld contrasts with her active participation in cruelty.
- His understated tone (e.g., "It was not always convenient to steal from master") makes the horror more striking.
Logical Argumentation (Syndrome)
- Douglass structures his justification like a legal or philosophical treatise:
  - Premise 1: My labor and body are my master’s property.
  - Premise 2: My master withholds the fruits of my labor (food).
  - Conclusion: Taking back what is mine is not theft but restoration.
- He extends this to society, using deductive reasoning to argue for a right to resistance.
Repetition and Parallelism
- "We were compelled either to beg, or to steal, and we did both."
- "I hated everything like stealing, as such... I nevertheless did not hesitate."
- These structures emphasize the lack of choice while also showcasing Douglass’s moral conflict.
Metaphor and Symbolism
- Cornmeal as a symbol of oppression: The light, insufficient food represents the meager, degrading existence allowed to enslaved people.
- The locked meat house: Symbolizes the systemic denial of basic needs, with Rowena’s key as a symbol of white control.
Direct Address to the Reader
- Douglass frequently invites the reader into his reasoning ("The reader will get some idea of my train of reasoning..."), making the argument interactive and persuasive.

Significance of the Passage

Exposing the Economic Exploitation of Slavery
- Douglass quantifies oppression, showing how slavery was not just about racial domination but economic extraction. The enslaved are starved to maximize profit.
Challenging Moral and Legal Justifications of Slavery
- By dismantling the idea of theft, Douglass exposes how slavery itself is the real crime. His argument prefigures later reparations debates—if labor is stolen, restitution is justified.
Asserting Black Intellectualism
- In a time when enslaved people were denied education, Douglass’s complex moral reasoning is an act of defiance. He claims the right to think, debate, and judge—rights reserved for white citizens.
Critique of Complicit Institutions
- Douglass doesn’t just blame individual masters but society, religion, and law for upholding slavery. This systemic critique aligns with later abolitionist and civil rights arguments.
Humanizing the Enslaved
- Unlike pro-slavery propaganda that portrayed enslaved people as content or childlike, Douglass shows their desperation, intelligence, and moral agency. The passage forces the reader to confront the humanity of those enslaved.

Conclusion: Why This Passage Matters

This excerpt is more than a description of hunger—it is a philosophical manifesto. Douglass turns a personal struggle into a universal indictment of slavery’s moral bankruptcy. His reasoned defiance—balancing moral outrage with logical precision—makes this one of the most powerful passages in slave narratives. It challenges readers to see slavery not as a benign institution but as a violent, systemic theft—of labor, dignity, and life itself.

By justifying his actions, Douglass does not glorify theft but exposes the greater theft of slavery. His words demand accountability—not just from his master, but from a society that allowed such injustice to persist. In this way, the passage remains relevant today, resonating with discussions of economic justice, systemic racism, and resistance.

Questions

Question 1

The passage’s depiction of Douglass’s moral reasoning about theft is primarily structured to:

A. expose the hypocrisy of a system that criminalizes survival while institutionalizing exploitation.
B. provide a pragmatic justification for stealing as a necessary evil in extreme circumstances.
C. illustrate the psychological toll of slavery by showing how it erodes ethical boundaries.
D. argue that property rights are inherently arbitrary when labor is coercively extracted.
E. demonstrate the futility of moral frameworks in a context where power dictates justice.

Question 2

Douglass’s assertion that “since each slave belongs to all; all must, therefore, belong to each” functions rhetorically as:

A. a radical inversion of the logic of chattel slavery to indict its moral foundations.
B. an appeal to communal solidarity among the enslaved as a form of resistance.
C. a utilitarian calculation that prioritizes survival over abstract ethical principles.
D. a rejection of individual ownership in favor of a collectivist economic model.
E. an ironic mimicry of slaveholders’ justifications for their own appropriation of labor.

Question 3

The passage’s tone when describing the Aulds’ prayers is best characterized as:

A. resigned bitterness.
B. indignant sarcasm.
C. detached observation.
D. controlled irony.
E. moral outrage.

Question 4

Which of the following best captures the relationship between Douglass’s intellectual reasoning and his physical deprivation in the passage?

A. His logical justification for theft emerges as a direct response to the material conditions imposed by slavery.
B. His moral arguments are undermined by the desperation of his circumstances, revealing cognitive dissonance.
C. His ability to reason abstractly is presented as evidence of his inherent superiority to his oppressors.
D. His philosophical reflections serve primarily to distance himself emotionally from his suffering.
E. His arguments are framed as a rhetorical performance to elicit sympathy from abolitionist readers.

Question 5

The passage’s concluding generalization—that Douglass is “the slave of society at large”—primarily serves to:

A. shift blame from individual slaveholders to broader systemic forces.
B. expand the moral justification for resistance beyond the immediate context of his enslavement.
C. highlight the complicity of Northern institutions in perpetuating Southern slavery.
D. argue that slavery is a collective rather than an individual responsibility.
E. suggest that emancipation requires dismantling all social hierarchies.

Solutions and Explanations

1) Correct answer: A

Why A is most correct: The passage’s core tension lies in Douglass’s exposure of a systemic contradiction: slavery criminalizes the enslaved for taking what is necessary to survive while institutionalizing the theft of their labor and bodily autonomy. His reasoning is not merely pragmatic (B) or psychological (C), but a deliberate unveiling of hypocrisy—the law and gospel condemn his theft while sanctioning the far greater theft of his personhood and labor. This aligns with his broader critique of religious and legal complicity in slavery.