We’re All in This Together (and We’re Breakin’ Free!)

Cally James

Prof Andrea Williams

ENGLISH2290

18 November 2016

We’re All in This Together(and We’re Breakin’ Free!)

        Since the American Revolution, the people of the US have always had the impulse to fight for independence and to control their own destiny. This desire for freedom carried on into the nineteenth century as slavery in the US became a fiery and controversial topic. Women’s rights also became a hot topic as women fought to control their own destiny and break the stereotypical barriers that bound them. The overlap that occurred between abolitionism and women’s rights came naturally due to the common goal between the two groups of equality and freedom of expression. Writers and speakers such as Frederick Douglass, Fanny Fern, and Margaret Fuller became bold advocates for their causes as the nation resonated with the continuous cry for equality and freedom. Although the physical and societal treatment of slaves and women (particularly married women) differed notably, the common goal of equal rights and consideration led to the two movements to intersect naturally along the way.

        The first and foremost goal of abolitionism was to free all slaves from bondage; bondage was also something women’s rights resented and fought against. Margaret Fuller calls out the central problem with marriage in society as being the idea that a married woman no longer has independence because she is her husband’s property(Fuller 760). That idea of a human being the property of another human and losing all of his/her rights is potentially the strongest connection between abolitionists and women’s rights activists. Douglass’ entire narrative focuses on his bondage, though as a slave. He goes into detail on the cruelty he experiences, describing the whipping and humiliation of his aunt(Douglass 948). His attention to detail and passionate retelling of his struggles in slavery confirms how the biggest problem of slavery was not only people claiming others as their own possessions, but also treating them like less than humans. Although women didn’t argue that their treatment was as bad as that of slaves, those feelings of bondage helped each cause relate and support the other.

        A large theme that Douglass focuses on in his narrative was the idea that through bondage, one’s personhood is taken away. He begins his narrative at the time of his childhood, and states that he was not told how old he is, and that “it is the wish of most masters within my knowledge to keep their slaves thus ignorant”(Douglass 946). Something as simple as knowing one’s age is a significant portion of a person’s identity that “everyone” gets. To take that away from the slaves helped the slaveowners lower their personhood and thus value. Douglass also writes of the treatment of mulatto children, born of a white father and black mother, as a cruel practice among slaveowners. Because a child’s race was determined by their mother’s, Douglass explains that this made the “gratification of their wicked desires profitable as well as pleasurable” since they could produce their own slave without financial losses(Douglass 947). Although their partially-white heritage would imply better treatment than fully-African-American slaves, it is revealed that their treatment is actually worse due to the resentment of the slaveowner’s wife. This degrading plan shows no consideration for mulatto children as anything more than property(Douglass 947).

        Women’s rights activists focused more-so on the limitations and expectations that women experienced in society. Fuller puts forth that men hold onto the ideals that limit women’s potential because “they also are under the slavery of habit”(Fuller 758). She gives the example of a man refusing to educate his young daughter fully because of his end-goal to protect her by marrying her off so she’ll be cared for. Although his motives are good, Fuller states that he refuses to see things from a woman’s point of view, and so keeps his daughter ignorant and quenches her potential by refusing to educate her fully.  Fanny Fern also argues against these sorts of stereotypes against women. However, she directs her scolding to not only men but women, as well. Fern refers to a “class of sentimental women” who didn’t just argue for women’s rights, but instead look with disdain at home-making tasks(Fern332). Fern saucily mocks them as stating that “to touch household matters with so much as the end of a taper finger would be ‘beneath them’”(Fern 332). These remarks stand out from the propaganda of women’s rights because they acknowledge that both women and men were restraining the rights and actions of women within US society. Although women’s rights didn’t concentrate on the loss of personhood as abolitionism did, the common theme of restraining and limitation still continued between the two causes.