Similarities Between Frederick Douglass And Machiavelli

Sound Logic

(An Connection between Douglass’ Narrative and Lao-tzu, Machiavelli, Rousseau, and Jefferson’s work, Concerning Politics)

The issue of slavery is one of the most controversial and difficult subjects that has ever been discussed. While most people seem to believe that slavery is wrong, there are a few who completely support the idea of slavery. A lot of the opinions that are formed by the population is based off of the basic morals of their government. Frederick Douglass was a black slave who managed to escape him life of imprisonment and make it to the North. He taught himself to read and write as a young slave boy, and as soon as he was in the North, he choose to begin touring the world and speaking out against slavery. Thomas

He writes that for a government to be successful, the master must allow everything to work around them, without trying to stop of change the universe. They must simply allow the people to believe that they are in complete control and that their master only helps to put all things into motion. Niccolo Machiavelli took a much different approach to his idea of government. He wrote that the ‘prince’ of a land must be extremely deceitful to maintain their power. The prince must always assume that someone else is planning to take him out. He must also work to ensure that the people think that he is the most honest caring person, while in all honesty, he has never actually told anyone the truth. Machiavelli’s method is lying and aggression; that you must do whatever it takes to maintain you superiority over the people. Jean-Jacques Rousseau takes an intermediate approach to the government. He introduces the idea that the master of the government and the people under him work together to do what is best for the country. This often means that sometimes you have to give up a little, to make a big difference for the better in your community. Thomas Jefferson then takes a similar approach to Lao-tzu, but gives more power to the people, rather than nature. He believes that the common people would be the best to run the government and that the people who follow the other

Machiavelli wrote that you have to lie and cheat everyone beneath you to maintain your status, as being the ruler of your country is the most important thing. Leo Paul S. de Alvarez, a professor at the University of Dallas, explains Machiavelli’s position perfectly, “The prince cannot be virtuous because of the people. So that the people may keep their own he must give up his desire to be virtuous. Prudence, but not an Aristotelian prudence, replaces virtue. Machiavellian prudence is what permits the prince to be good and not good, as necessity requires.” (de Alvarez) The slaveholders of the time clearly did not care about the feelings or morals of any of the people under them, a.k.a., the slaves. Douglass gives an good explanation of the slaveholders when he writes, “I suffered more anxiety than most of my fellow-slaves. I had known what it was to be kindly treated; they had known nothing of the kind.” (pg. 117) Douglass was very lucky in his time as a slave, as he managed to have all very kind and calm masters, but he had been around other masters in his area that were abusive and heartless; they simply did everything that they could to maintain their power over their property, including aggressive and abusive means. The slaveholder obviously knew about Machiavelli and his theory, which is obviously the major reason why they were so