A review of PBS’s “Asian Americans”

“ … from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States.”

– “Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882,” as passed by the United States Congress

Asian Americans have long had more influence than their modest numbers would seem to suggest. At the time that I write this, they are about six or seven percent of the American population (depending on whether or not you include those identifying as “White and Asian” in this category). Nonetheless, this documentary notes that they are the “fastest-growing” racial group in the United States. Because of the United States’ proximity to Mexico, there are actually larger numbers of Hispanic immigrants being added to the population at any given time; but as a percentage of those already here, Asian Americans are indeed the “fastest-growing,” as PBS says. Asians may be a small percentage of the American population, but they are a much larger percentage of the world population. This may account (at least in part) for their being well-represented among those who are trying to enter this country, and get away from the “Old World.”

Chinese Americans in San Francisco, circa 1900

A review of PBS’s “Native America”

“An act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi … ”

– Full title of the “Indian Removal Act of 1830,” as passed by the United States Congress

This television history of Native Americans is more cultural anthropology than history

This television history of Native Americans seems to be more cultural anthropology than history. In part, this is because they are focused primarily on pre-Columbian history (or history before Columbus). This may explain why they don’t rely much on written records, whose availability for this period is somewhat limited – although I should acknowledge that some examples of it do exist here. History is defined more as the study of written records from the past, whereas archeology is more about the study of physical objects from the past. There is some overlap between these things, but there are also some significant differences. By this traditional distinction, there isn’t much history in this documentary, although there is much archeology in it. More to the point, there is also a lot of cultural anthropology in it. This seems to be one of the weaknesses of this documentary. I tend to be a little skeptical of cultural anthropology in general. (Although I tend to be more supportive of physical anthropology, which I see as quite different.) Cultural anthropology has some interesting things to say, but it would seem to be more humanities than social science, and makes a lot of assumptions that are hard to support scientifically. These assumptions underlie much of the discussion in this documentary.

A review of PBS’s “The Latino Americans”

“[The Congress shall have the power] To establish an uniform rule of naturalization … ”

– Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 of the United States Constitution (signed 1787)

The United States has more Spanish speakers than any other country in the world, except its southern neighbor of Mexico. This may be ironic, given that the most spoken language in the United States is English. Nonetheless, the United States has a significant Spanish-speaking population, most of whom are native speakers. Indeed, Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority group in the United States – although it is noteworthy that they are not considered a “race” by the United States Census. Rather, “Hispanic or Latino” is considered an ethnicity, and includes people from multiple races, particularly Whites and Native Americans. This reflects the ethnic diversity of their various countries of origin, where White colonists from Spain had frequently intermarried with the locals.

Benjamin Bratt, the Hispanic/Latino narrator of this documentary

A review of David Grubin’s “The Jewish Americans” (PBS)

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … ”

– First Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1791)

Jews are a tiny percentage of the American population, but they have nonetheless exerted a massive influence on American life. Adherents to Judaism make up less than 3% of the American population, although ethnic Jews are more numerous than practicing religious Jews. But even these tiny percentages represent several millions of Americans. The United States has welcomed Jews more than any other country in the world, with the possible exception of the state of Israel. As this documentary shows, they were not free of Antisemitism even here, but the persecution that they faced in the Old World seems to have been far greater than anything that they faced here. Escaping such persecution was indeed one of the primary reasons that they came to America, and they generally succeeded in finding a safe haven in the New World.

David Grubin, the maker of this documentary

A review of “The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross”

“They [African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery … ”

– Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), possibly the most infamous decision in Supreme Court history, which created unfortunate barriers to both emancipation and racial equality

Black culture is “inextricably intertwined” with American culture

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. once said that “black culture is inextricably intertwined with American culture.” I tend to agree with this sentiment. It’s almost impossible to talk about the larger history of the United States without talking about black history in some depth. Unfortunately, chattel slavery was a prominent institution during the first 250 years or so of this country’s history. Compromises over slavery were written into the national Constitution (as I describe in this post) – although they were later amended – and the controversy over slavery was at the heart of our Civil War. We still grapple with the ripple effects of slavery today. The civil rights movement was spearheaded by African Americans, who were the most prominent victims of the racial discrimination against which this movement fought. In so many ways, black history is central to American history.

Slavery in Virginia on a tobacco plantation, 1670

It may be the most talked-about of any minority history that has transpired in this country

Because of this, their history is the most talked-about of any ethnic history that has transpired in this country, with the exception of white history. Of other ethnic minority histories, only Native American history seems to come close in this regard today. It is only natural that there should be a television history of the African American people, made by an African American named Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who has studied the subject in some detail. As Wikipedia noted, “It is the first documentary series to recount this history in its entirety since the nine-part History of the Negro People aired on National Educational Television in 1965, and the one-hour documentary Black History: Lost, Stolen, or Strayed, narrated by Bill Cosby and broadcast in 1968.” (See their page on this series.) This series came out in 2013, and covers African American history from its beginnings, all the way through the election of Barack Obama in 2008 (very recent, at the time that I write this).

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., the presenter of this series

A review of Ric Burns’ “The Pilgrims” (PBS)

“Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; [we] Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid … ”

– The Mayflower Compact, 11 November 1620 by the old calendar (or 21 November 1620 by the new calendar)

I grew up with the story of the Pilgrim Fathers, who settled at Plymouth Rock in Massachusetts (and not in Virginia, as they had originally intended). It is one of the great stories in American history, but it was not the beginning of the English colonies on this continent. Before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620, there was a settlement in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. But this Jamestown settlement wasn't anywhere near as successful as the later Pilgrim settlement. Both were racked by starvation and disease that claimed many lives, but the Pilgrim settlement survived, when the Jamestown settlement did not. Some brief comments about the Jamestown settlement may thus be warranted here, to give you an appreciation of what the Pilgrims did (although their success was marred somewhat by their relations with the Indians, in the ways that I will note soon).

Some brief comments about the Jamestown settlement (and the PBS documentary about it)

Regarding the Jamestown settlement, I actually purchased another documentary called “Secrets of the Dead: Jamestown's Dark Winter” (also by PBS). This voyage did actually land in Virginia, as they had originally intended (unlike the Pilgrim voyage, which landed in Massachusetts). But sadly for me, this Jamestown documentary was more focused on the archaeology involved than on the history. Thus, it is not to be construed as an actual “history” of the Jamestown settlement. The focus here is on the archaeological examination of the human remains found there. For example, they were able to show in this documentary that the grim stories about resorting to cannibalism at Jamestown were actually true. Although this was gross, it was certainly dramatic enough; but it did not satisfy my craving for the human story of what happened there. There was some passing mention of John Smith and Pocahontas, for example, but most of the story centered on the body of a teenage girl whose real name is unknown (although they call her “Jane” to identify her as a Jane Doe.) The definitive documentary about what happened at Jamestown, it would seem, thus has yet to be made at the time that I write this. By contrast, this documentary about “The Pilgrims” was much better; although it was not without some revisionist elements that I will note later on in this post. For now, I will just say that I found it to be entertaining despite its revisionism, and would recommend it to others anyway.

A review of Rafael Lapesa's “Historia de la lengua española”

“We hope that this book, which knows how to say the important and say it well, contributes to spread linguistic knowledge that usually receives so little attention.”

– Ramón Menéndez Pidal, in the “Prólogo” (or “Foreword”) to this book, 1942 (translation mine)

The title translates in English to “History of the Spanish Language”

So I recently finished reading a book about the history of the Spanish language – written almost entirely in Spanish. I say “almost,” because there are a few exceptions to this, which I will note later in this post. (But I'm getting ahead of myself … )

General comments about the history of the language itself

The Spanish language has a long and rich history. It is a source of endless fascination to me, with written records stretching back into the time of the Roman Empire – and beyond. It's a story of political and social change – of religious and literary ideas, which have had a vast influence on Western history. It's a story of a language that would become one of the most spoken languages on Earth, with 460 million native speakers at the time that I write this (see source). This is more than 5% of the world's population, and more than any other language in the world except Mandarin Chinese. But it's also a story of human beings – of people who are always reinventing themselves (and their language) to change with the times, and filling their culture with new life and new energy every day.

First page of the Castilian epic poem “El Cantar de Mio Cid,” which is referenced often in this book

A review of Simon Schama's “The Story of the Jews”

“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Fifth Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy,” Chapter 7, Verse 6 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

This is more of an ethnic history than a religious history …

Before watching this series, I had watched another documentary by the same filmmaker, which was Simon Schama's “A History of Britain.” Since Mr. Schama is also British, this was a television history of his own country, and was an inside perspective. This film is similar, because Simon Schama is Jewish, and can thus give an inside perspective on his own ethnic group. He is clearly familiar with the Hebrew language, and he displays this fluency at a number of times throughout this series. But as it turns out, not all ethnic Jews are of the Jewish faith, so there is thus a difference between being ethnically Jewish, culturally Jewish, and religiously Jewish. Mr. Schama is clearly ethnically Jewish and culturally Jewish, but may not be religiously Jewish. Thus, he has struck some as an odd choice to make this series. But considering how many ethnic Jews would match this description, it seems like it works for me. If you want to learn more about their faith, this film will give you some useful background; but you might actually be better off turning to some other source, for this particular kind of information. This is more of an ethnic history than a religious history, and pays only minimal attention to the history of Judaism. Nonetheless, it is still quite good for what it does have to offer.

Some parts of the Constitution mention “Indians” or “Indian tribes” …

“[The Congress shall have the power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes … ”

– Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution

When people today talk about the original Constitution, they often mention specific clauses that are relevant to black history. These include the Slave Importation Clause, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the Three-Fifths Clause. When people today talk about the civil rights amendments, they often mention the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment (and rightfully so). But when they talk about minority history, they seldom discuss the clauses specific to Native American history, even though the words “Indians” and “Indian tribes” are mentioned in three different clauses from either the original Constitution or its amendments.

Constitution of the United States

It is important to be clear on this point: there are actually no clauses in the Constitution that mention Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, or Pacific Islander Americans by any of their specific names. There are clauses specifically about African Americans, but none that mention them by name (even by names like “blacks”). However, three clauses from either the original Constitution or its amendments mention “Indians” or “Indian tribes” by these names. Thus, I would like to go over all of these clauses here, and show what the “supreme law of the land” has said about the legal status of Native Americans.

Charles Curtis (the 31st Vice President of the United States),

who was of Kaw, Osage, Potawatomi, French and British ancestry – served 1929–1933

A review of PBS's “Citizen King” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

– Martin Luther King's “I Have A Dream” speech (August 28, 1963)

This program about Martin Luther King doesn't do justice to the great civil rights leader …

This program has many of the ingredients needed for a great film about the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. It has photographs, newspaper headlines, and even actual footage of the period being depicted. It interviews people who knew him, and many others who lived through these times. These interviews are compelling, and have a great potential to tell the story. But this film is also missing some essential elements needed for a good documentary. Most importantly, it is missing any kind of narration; and thus has no narrative to hold the story together. They have to make some awkward transitions from one interview clip into another, without any narrations to ease these transitions. This is a major weakness in a documentary about history, and it is more the sort of thing that I would expect from a news network than from an educational network like PBS. Indeed, this program feels more journalistic than historical; and lacks the epic scale needed in a history film.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

Who can vote in the United States?: The voting rights amendments

" ... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

- Closing lines of Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" (November 19, 1863)

Many Americans have historically been denied the vote in this country ...

Voting rights are one of the most important rights that anyone can have in a free country. They are a right by which many others can be defended, and the essence of popular government in democracies and republics. But voting rights were long restricted in this country to white male citizens who had private property, and who were 21 years of age or older. They could be denied for failure to pay poll taxes, for having ancestors that had been enslaved, or for any number of other things that were used as restrictions on the right to vote.

Frederick Douglass, a notable advocate of African American voting rights

... and the changes in these policies were made somewhat gradually over a period of decades

It took a long time for this situation to be rectified, and the changes brought herein were made somewhat gradually over a period of some decades. Thus, it would seem appropriate to review them now, and show what categories are forbidden to be used as legal grounds for denying people the right to vote. (I should acknowledge that some would classify the Twenty-Third Amendment as a voting rights amendment as well; but since this amendment is more relevant to the electoral college than it is to individual suffrage, I have saved that discussion for another post. I will focus this post instead on the four amendments about voting rights at the individual level.)

Martin Luther King, another notable advocate of African American voting rights

The complicated legacy of the “Three-Fifths Clause”

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."

- Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (later changed by constitutional amendments, as I will describe in detail later)

It appeared on the surface to be one kind of racism, but in reality was another ...

Japanese American soldiers in World War II

"Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion."

- "Executive Order No. 9066," issued by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on 19 February 1942

Japanese American children pledging allegiance to the United States in 1942, shortly before the internment started

Japanese American soldiers served with great distinction in World War II

Most Americans today have heard the story of Japanese American internment in World War II (at least in outline form), which was unquestionably one of the sadder episodes in this country's history (at least in the last century). But most Americans have not heard of the story of the Japanese American soldiers in World War II, who served with great distinction in the war. This is a part of the story that our schools have not told as well, and so I thought I'd venture to offer some coverage of it on my blog here. (This necessarily involves some background about the story of Japanese internment, I should note here; but I intend to focus this post on the military contributions of the Japanese American soldiers.)

"Instructions to all persons of Japanese ancestry," under Executive Order 9066

A review of “The Storm That Swept Mexico”

The "Great Revolution" in Mexico: It's not the war of independence from Spain

If your average person on the street overheard a brief mention of the "Great Revolution" in Mexico (perhaps when I'm talking about it myself), they might assume that we're talking about the war of independence from Spain, with Mexico's war of independence starting in the year 1810. But when most Mexicans speak of the "Great Revolution," they are referring to a revolution against their own government in Mexico, in the year 1910 - almost an exact century after the beginning of their war of independence from Spain. It was a turbulent period, even by the standards of politics in Latin America. But it was one of the most important periods in Mexican history as well. Moreover, it merits the attention of American history buffs who want to understand our southern neighbor.

Leaders of the Mexican revolt of 1910

There is actual footage from the time to tell this story with

Surprisingly, this historical subject caught the attention of some filmmakers at American PBS, who decided to make a documentary about it called "The Storm That Swept Mexico." Because it was made for an American network, it is in English; and when it interviews people speaking Spanish, it uses English subtitles for its largely Gringo audience from north of the border. It's not a very well-known film, even by PBS standards; but its quality is a lot higher than you might expect after hearing this. Because the revolution that it depicts began in the year 1910, there exists actual footage from the time of its chosen subject - silent footage, it is true, but footage just the same. This allows them to make a pretty decent documentary about their subject, without a large budget for re-enactments. The silent footage from the time allows their film's visuals a power that even the best re-enactments would have difficulty achieving. This is probably what allowed them to make the film in the first place, because it could thus be shot on the cheap. This must have made it so that less funding was needed for the project, thus making it more likely for them to get the funding in the first place.

Woodrow Wilson, president of the United States for much of this period

Pancho Villa

A review of “Mexico: A History” (by Robert Ryal Miller)

"[The Mexican Empire] solemnly declares by means of the Supreme Junta of the Empire that it is a Sovereign nation and independent of old Spain ... "

- Declaration of the independence of the Mexican Empire, issued by its Sovereign Junta, assembled in the Capital on September 28, 1821

Since early 2012, I have made an effort to learn the Spanish language. The reasons for this are many (and too long to detail here), but chief among them is the local usefulness of the language. I live in Arizona (in the American Southwest); so Spanish is the most important local language besides my native English. The opportunities to use Spanish here are endless, and I have long wanted to know something about the Hispanic population of the Southwest. I have interacted with them for years, at school and at church.

Mexican flag

Mexico has a strong influence on the American Southwest

In the American Southwest, most of the Hispanics are of Mexican descent - in contrast to the strong Cuban descent found in Florida, and the strong Puerto Rican descent found in New York - the other parts of the United States where Spanish-speaking populations are most often found. In the American Southwest, people of Mexican origin are the most common ones, and so I thought it might be helpful to know something about their country of origin. Mexico is one of my country's only two neighbors, incidentally (the other being Canada). It is also the one that is closest to my home state of Arizona - and thus, the nation that we Arizonans do the most trade with outside of our own. (Stuff that my American audience already knows, I'm sure; but I have an international audience here, so the geography of my situation is worth going over.)

A review of Ken Burns’ “The Civil War” (PBS series)

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still must it be said that 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' "

- Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1865)

It was the bloodiest war in American history, with more American dead than World War II. It was a war that both sides thought would last ninety days, but which ended up dragging on for nearly four years. And it was a war that freed four million Americans from bondage, and brought some sweeping changes to American society.

Confederate dead at Antietam

A review of “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War”

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void."

- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1868), Section 4

It was the end of a civil war in which four million slaves were freed, but which failed to bring true freedom to the people on whose behalf it had largely been fought. It was called the "Reconstruction Era" because its purpose was to rebuild (and heal) a war-torn nation, but which saw almost as much violence and destruction as actual reconstruction. And it brought the vote and other rights to the former slaves of the South for a time, only to see those rights taken away almost overnight when the Reconstruction Era ended in a corrupt political deal, giving the White South almost everything it wanted.

Confederate capitol of Richmond, 1865 (the end of the war)

Reconstruction period characterized by anarchy, chaos, and even (at times) armed conflict

Much has been written about the military conflict called the "Civil War" (fought between North and South), but not as much has been written about the postwar Reconstruction period, which is perhaps even more complex politically than the war itself. Indeed, some historians have even called it the "Second Civil War," because it was characterized by anarchy, chaos, and even (at times) armed conflict. This was between former Union soldiers occupying the South, and former Confederate soldiers joining the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist organizations, who were trying to undo all that the North had fought and died for.

A review of “The U.S.-Mexican War 1846-1848” (PBS series)

"The occupation, separation, and annexation [of Texas] were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union."

"For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."

- Ulysses S. Grant, in "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant," Chapter III

I live in a region of the United States that was once controlled by Mexico (in the state of Arizona), so I live daily with the effects of a war from the 1840's. Few people could put this war in the right half-century, let alone the correct decade; and fewer still could name any major battles or players in this war. Nonetheless, the effects of the war are all around us, and it has entered discussions about contemporary politics on more than one occasion. On topics ranging from illegal immigration to anti-Hispanic racism to foreign policy towards Mexico, we in the American Southwest are often reminded of this war. In less controversial ways, we are reminded of it in the many place names of Spanish origin that surround our homes. From names of streets to names of cities to names of entire states, the influence of Spanish place names are all around us, which were often borrowed in their turn from the native peoples of the region. Mexican culture is all around us, from Spanish taught in schools to the remarkable Mexican food that many of us eat; and the region would belong to Mexico still, if not for a long-ago war from the 1840's.

Mexico lost half its territory to the United States in this war ...

The war was, of course, fought between the United States and Mexico, and was the only major war between our two nations. There have been border skirmishes since then (notably one in the 1910's), but nothing on the massive scale of this one from the 1840's. Mexico lost half its territory to the United States in this war, and several American states were formed out of the land transferred in the peace treaty. The war was undoubtedly an act of imperialist aggression motivated (to some degree, at least) by racism. But there's more to the story than that. Imperialism and racism are favorite topics of liberal PBS; but surprisingly, the network manages to tell the story in a documentary for television with a minimum of political correctness, and manages to stick to the facts about this topic most of the time. My judgments might not completely agree with theirs, but I have to hand it to them that their documentary about this war is extremely interesting, and it is of tremendous value to the student of American history, particularly those who (like me) live in the Southwest. Thus, I thought I would offer my review of this documentary here.

A review of "Crucible of Empire: the Spanish-American War"

I just finished watching "Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War," PBS's two-hour documentary about this time. I was generally impressed by this documentary. One of the pleasant surprises for me was that they did not just cover the American side, but also the Cuban and Filipino sides as well. They interview some Filipino historians in addition to American ones, although there are no interviews with Cubans or Spaniards. The Cuban part is more understandable, since people in this communist country cannot speak their mind freely without fear of government reprisal; but the general omission of the Spanish perspective is something of a mystery, given the pains that they took to depict other perspectives.

Map of the Americas, with Cuba highlighted in red

This war was a two-front war, fought in both Cuba and the Philippines ...

This war of 1898 was really a two-front war, with fighting in both the Caribbean and the Pacific. Thus, the geography of the war is somewhat complicated. On the one hand, Cuba is a Caribbean island close to American Florida; but on the other hand, the Philippines are way across the Pacific Ocean, with distances comparable to those traversed during the Pacific theater of World War II. Thus, the fighting in this war was somewhat spread out.

Far side of the globe, with Philippines highlighted in green

Frederick Douglass: The forgotten antislavery leader

"Sincerely and earnestly hoping that this little book may do something toward throwing light on the American slave system, and hastening the glad day of deliverance to the millions of my brethren in bonds - faithfully relying upon the power of truth, love, and justice, for success in my humble efforts - and solemnly pledging my self anew to the sacred cause - I subscribe myself, FREDERICK DOUGLASS. Lynn, Massachusetts, April 28, 1845."

- Concluding words of the Appendix to the "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written By Himself"

Have you ever wondered what American slavery was like? If so, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better answer to this question than the "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written By Himself." This book was written by a former slave to influence Americans to oppose the "peculiar institution" of slavery.

Young Frederick Douglass