This essay will discuss the Civil rights tradition and how Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King compare as two great figures in-terms of leadership within this American black history civil rights tradition. The main areas I will discuss are; who Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King actually were and what they did during this civil rights tradition. I will talk about how they are similar and yet very different in regards to leadership and conclude with what possible reasons there are for these similarities and differences.
The American black history civil rights movement occurred mainly between 1954 and 1968 and was ultimately a fight for social justice – by that I mean it was a time where Black citizens in the United States were protesting and fighting to gain equal rights in things like work, education, voting, etc. within the laws of the United States (History.com, 2009). This movement came right around the end of the civil war, which had abolished slavery officially but although slavery was gone, discrimination, racism and violence against the black population still lingered (Singh, 2003). Many influential figures were prevalent during this time including Rosa Parks, Little Rock Nine, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King to name a few who all fought for equality and all contributed to the signing of many laws such as the ‘Voting rights act of 1965’ and the ‘Civil rights act of 1964’ (History.com, 2009). However this was a long and painful fight and didn’t ‘just happen’.
When looking at Frederick Douglass, he began life as the son of a slave woman and an unknown white man, he saw his mother very little before she died living with his grandparents in the country and witnessed first hand the effects of slavery; for example as a child he would see ‘brutal whippings’ and both saw and experienced the withholding of food – put simply, he observed slaves being treated as animals (Alcorn, Frederick Douglass (2016). At aged eight he lived in Baltimore for around 7 years with a ship carpenter where he learned to read and write however he was later sent back after being hired to work at a farm that was run by a slave owner notorious for the awful treatment of slaves; it’s been said that this broke Douglass’ ‘body, soul and spirit’ and was perhaps the catalyst for him becoming a great ‘activist against slavery’ (Desmond Tutu peace foundation, 2013).
Later on in life after many attempts to escape the farm, Douglass married a woman he met in Baltimore. Known as an avid reader, he spent his days educating himself further, perfecting his literary and speaking skills and attending ‘Abolitionists meetings’ which were essentially meetings set up to discuss and make plans of action to convince people that the slave trade should be abolished. After becoming a lecturer for the ‘ Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society’ he published many books and journals such as the ‘Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave’ in 1845 and served as an advisor to presidents such as Abraham Lincoln where he fought for the rights African Americans, many different minority groups as well as women and the poor (Desmond Tutu peace foundation, 2013).
To some he was considered the “most powerful spokesperson for the destruction of the institution that had enslaved him for the first 20 years of his life”, (Gannaway, 2018). To me the mere fact Douglass saw slavery first hand was important as it meant his leadership came from first hand experience. He knew the original struggle of being treated unfairly, without any rights where as other leaders in the civil rights movement such as Martin Luther King experienced the aftermath of this (which is a big factor of how they differ as Martin Luther King suffered and dealt with racism and unfair treatment that came in the later years, although very similar and aimed to make further changes) whereas Douglass was an integral part of the original changes that were made (Boxill, 2009).
He was seen as such a good leader as he wasn’t just fighting for himself or ‘his-kind’, he fought for all and was able to bring different ethnicities together by working with these powerful people instead of against them. By doing this it’s my belief that because of the unity he was able to create in such divisive times, more people of all races respected him – the African Americans saw a man that had escaped from the perils of slavery, a sort of mirror image of themselves that they could look up to and follow, the fact many white people agreed and followed his views (such as the republican party) also meant they were less afraid to voice and share similar opinions to him at his seminars and lectures – if he can preach it, why cant they? (Gannaway, 2018). Many white people including powerful leaders saw him as a surprisingly educated black man, that spoke with vigour and passion, which made them more open to listening to him, as far as a lot of them were concerned African Americans were only good for farm and housework, they weren’t free thinking and intellectual individuals; Douglass showed otherwise.
The fact Douglass lead with vision and was forward thinking also allowed him to lead well in the civil rights movement because these characteristics helped him to connect morally with his listeners through speech. For example in one speech Douglass said “…the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be denounced.” (Boxill, 2009) Here he was sharing what needed to happen in the future – the white people needed to be aware about the unfairness and poor treatment African Americans and minority groups suffered and that acting this way was a crime against god who taught man must ‘love thy neighbour’ and ‘treat people how you wish to be treated”, these thoughts he put into his speeches allowed his audience to take a deeper look into their own behaviours and possibly inspired them to join the cause and help end slavery.
However some have argued that perhaps Douglass wasn’t the extraordinary leader many believed, although he preached unity and wanting to help other minorities like supporting women’s rights to vote, when asked by Elizabeth Cady Stanton to band black men and women together to ‘fight for universal suffrage’ he refused to help, thinking that by doing this it could result in both causes failing – this could be seen as unhelpful and in some ways selfish as he had a lot of power that the women could have used during a sexist time but it did result in the passage of the 15th Amendment which gave black men the right to vote, so in some ways he thought ahead weighing up his options and saw what would lead where, which a great leader would do – but then again, would a great leader only focus on one group (black men)? (Douglass, 1996).
Another great figure in the civil rights movement was Martin Luther King. King came much later then Douglass and was a social activist and a minister who campaigned for equality for ‘African Americans, the economically disadvantaged and victims of injustice’ but through peaceful protest. He was also a part of the famous ‘Bus Boycott’ headed up by Rosa Parks and the ‘1963 March on Washington’ which resulted in the Civil rights and Voting rights acts being signed (History, 2009). He was seen as such a powerful figure he was even awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. He was the child of a Pastor and a former schoolteacher and went to a segregated public school later going to college and studying medicine and law. King was influenced by Dr Benjamin Mays who was an ‘outspoken advocate for racial equality’ and later became the president of his senior class – who were predominantly white (History, 2009).
King travelled the globe giving lectures about civil rights and on how to protest peacefully. During his travels he met many religious and political leaders and activists such as Ghandi who he described as “the guiding light of our technique of nonviolent social change.” Again showing how he preached the peaceful and nonviolent way of protesting and getting his point across (Walton, 1998). What made King such a great leader was his ability to motivate people through speech (which was similar to Douglass) he was a great talker and clear with his vision, even titling his most famous speech as ‘I have a dream’ in which he discussed what he wanted for the future of African Americans, this forward thinking gave his audience hope and inspiration – on top of this he showed faith in his followers and acknowledged the work they were doing saying “Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecutions and staggered by the winds of police brutality” by showing them he believed in them it motivated his followers to work harder and give even more (White, 1998). Unlike Douglass, King wasn’t afraid to be disruptive, where Douglass didn’t provide support to some causes in case it affected where he stood with other groups, King settled for nothing but equality and realised that he needed to be innovative and think differently in order to succeed – showing he was a great leader as in my opinion great leaders don’t settle for the way things are, they fight for even more until every part f their mission is complete (Walton, 1998).
The difference in King and Douglass’ leadership was that Douglass appeared to want to work with the opposition to reach common goals and reduce the amount of violence each side could face and strongly fought for others not just the African American population. King however seemed to narrow his focus on the African Americans and although similarly believed in peace, non-violence and equality for all, he appeared to see less of a need to get the ‘white people’ on side, instead choosing to connect more with the minorities. Also, because King had travelled the globe and met people from all walks of life, it could be said he was even more able to unite a variety of different groups and generations because he had been surrounded by them, understood them and ‘experienced’ them (Walton,1998)
To conclude, from countless journals and chapters of books I have read, even though King and Douglass were similar in the sense they both wanted and campaigned for equality and both used speech to communicate to masses of people and share this message hoping to create change. Their differences in leadership could be due to multiple reasons. In my opinion, it could be due to the fact that Douglass actually experienced slavery. He had a coloured childhood, perhaps this lead him to be in some way fearful of being treated like that again (e.g. the lashings, not being given food or anything to do other then work). Not only that, but he realised that being treated aggressively and with violence didn’t have much affect on him or other workers (slaves) at that time, all it seemed to do was either lead to resentment, hostility and suppressed aggression, or lead to fear, for instance some slaves would cower everytime their ‘boss’ was around (Douglass, 1996)) – seeing this, I believe Douglass wanted change in not only how he and others were treated and felt but how others treated and felt about them. I believe he wanted them to view them as not only slaves but as human and as equals and by being violent and fighting fire with fire, it wouldn’t make people see them differently but as the ‘animals’ they were already treated like. The ‘working together approach’ would show the ‘white man’ that they could be civilised, they could share opinions and make change – it wouldn’t be without arguments and racial slurs, even violence. But the aim was to make change and positive strides, not cause more hostility. King however was more worldly and observed the trials and tribulations of people from all walks of life as opposed to just America – he was also able to get inspiration and learn from great people who preached his same message which he in turn could then share with others.