Is Frederick Douglas An Excellent Citizen Or A Good Man?

Since Aristotle’s time, the discussion of whether an excellent citizen has the same virtues of a good man has been up for debate. In Politics, Aristotle makes a firm position on the side that the ideal citizen cannot be a good man. The historical figure I am going to examine is Frederick Douglas. Was he an excellent citizen or a good man?

In book three, chapter four, Aristotle compares and contrasts the virtues of a good man and an excellent citizen. Although we would like to think that many people meet all criteria, loyal citizens do not posses the same virtues as the good man. Aristotle states “citizens are dissimilar, preservation of the community is their task, and the regime is this community...If, then, there are indeed several forms

of regime, it is clear that it is not possible for the virtue of the excellent citizen to be single, or complete virtue” (Aristotle, book 3, chapter 4, 1276b, p.

67). The truth behind his words are seen throughout history. In the1940s, citizens loyal to Nazi Germany would not hesitate to report a member of the Jewish community to the authorities. This led to many unnecessary deaths due to the threats posed by the government. While this makes the citizen an excellent one, it does not make him a good person. The Nazis would applaud the citizen for good effort, but the United States would deem this as a flawed conscience. Since the civic duties vary between regimes, it makes it impossible for a citizen to be both an excellent citizen and a good man.

Frederick Douglas was born into slavery in 1818, after moving between owners he had finally escaped his slavery in 1838 with the help from a free black woman who lived in Baltimore, MD. Douglas had gotten on a train to New York using the uniform and legal papers that he obtained from a black seaman. Frederick Douglas

eventually became an abolitionist. In The Right to Criticize American Institutions, a speech that he gave in 1847 in front of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Douglas makes a strong statement in his speech, “I cannot agree with my friend Mr. Garrison, in relation to my love and attachment to this land. I have no love for America, as such; I have no patriotism. I have no country.” (Frederick Douglas, The Right to Criticize American Institutions). In this statement we can clearly see that Douglas not only has no patriotism, but he has no love for America. This can be explained by the fact that he was not only a slave, but a mistreated one. This is only some of the fuel for his anger. Earlier in this speech Douglas describes how he went to England to get away from his previous master, who had a grudge against him, and when he got there, he was not greeted with prejudice, but rather with the dignity of being a man. Douglas goes on to say, “I am not thought of, or spoken of, except as a piece of property belonging to some Christian slaveholder, and all the religious and political institutions of this country, alike pronounce me a slave and a chattel.” (The Right to Criticize American Institutions). In this quote we see that Douglas not only has no patriotism, but also has a hatred for the Constitution and other political institutions. He hates the Constitution and other political institutions because he feels that they both only view him, and people like him, as property of the slaveholder.
Aristotle would initially look at Douglas as not an excellent citizen. This is due to the fact that Douglas specifically expresses a dissent for the America and its government institutions. One cannot be an excellent citizen within his regime while vocally saying how he has disdain for the country and the government of that country. Aristotle may look at him as a good man though. Aristotle may do this because of how Douglas is speaking out against the injustices that are inflicted upon blacks. By Douglas speaking out against the oppression and the injustices he is striving for the better good of the black population of America.
What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?

This is not only a very deep, thoughtful question, but it is also a speech that Frederick Douglas wrote five years after The Right to Criticize American Institutions. In his later speech Douglas goes on to not only change his previous views, but also makes statements that would potentially make Aristotle to change his view on Frederick Douglas. Douglas goes about opening up his speech by talking about the accomplishment that the founding fathers had made 75 years prior. After giving the forefathers the well-deserved recognition and talking about the country at the time, Douglas moves to start talking about the topic of American Slavery. Douglas states, “Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery…” (p.5). We can pull a lot of information out of this quote. First, we can see that Douglas has changed his attitudes from his earlier speech. Douglas now shows patriotism and love for the constitution. Second, we see how Douglas is going to use the constitution to explain why not only slavery is wrong, but the arguments for slavery. Douglas proves that a slave is actually a man by using the laws of the slave

states. He begins by saying “They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black, (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death.” (p.5). This is nothing but an admission that the slave is an intellectual, moral and responsible being. These laws and punishments enacted upon the slaves would not need to be in place if the slave was not a moral, intellectual and responsible human being.
Douglas’ biggest argument that slaves have equal rights as white men is found in the Declaration of Independence: “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; and that, among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” By using this part of the Declaration of Independence, Douglas is appealing to the fact that the founding fathers believed that all men, regardless of race, age, and previous servitude, all have the same rights.
I feel that this later speech that Douglas gives evidence to that an excellent citizen and a good man can potentially be embodied by one person. In his second speech, Douglas, still exhibits the virtues of a good man by looking out for the common good of the black population of the country. Yet, Douglas has now moved toward being an excellent citizen. He has made this transformation of moving toward being an excellent citizen by having a love for the founding institutions and by trying to fix the faults within the government. Some will say that Douglas is absolutely not being a patriot, yet alone being an excellent citizen. I argue against this claim by looking at Douglas as a critic of the American way of life. By him criticizing the current American way of life, Douglas, is showing that he cares for the country by trying to better the life of an individual within the country and by exposing the faults of the systems that are currently in place.
Within American citizenship there is a fairly large scope for dissent. Part of being an American citizen includes having the ability to speak out when the government is doing something wrong or when there is something that needs to be fixed. This is protected under the Constitution. These rights are guaranteed to all American citizens, which allows us to freely express our feeling about the nation and the institutions without fear of being punished.