Fredrick Douglas Autobiography; Ethos, Pathos, Logos

In his narrative Fredrick Douglas uses a mixture of ethos and pathos to subtly manipulate his audience inculcation of his theories and views on the dysfunctional parental relationships slaves have with their masters, consequently exploiting the reader's family values. Slave owners like their comparative counterpart have power over their "children"; they are the administrators of their lives. So in the sense of absolute ownership, slave owners and parents are alike. But slave owners aren't held down by the same emotional barriers as parents, this is where the digression in the comparison is found. Douglas says, "The children of slave women shall in all cases follow the condition of their mothers, and this is done obviously to administer to their own lusts, and make a gratification of their wicked desires profitable as well as pleasurable." Douglas explains that these masters have free rein to enact their every desire, to the extent of whimsicality. Abuse and masochism abound, the master clearly finds joy in his act, Douglas expresses through his twisted logic and ethos, how administering to their own lusts is lucrative because if a slave master happens to father a child he would have gained another slave, hence the profitability as well as the "pleasure-ability". This is the first instance where this mongrel form of ethos is seen.

Douglas is credible as a proponent of abolishism, so that is already to his advantage. Additionally, he is speaking to an audience who is willing and voluntarily present because they have an interest in hearing what he has to say. But these are still white folks, possible slave owners. So they aren't a crowd who has been entirely converted to the idea of completely disestablishing the institution of slavery. So Douglas is at the ebb of a revolution, and taking into the consideration the progress the abolitionists have made, he is determined to "push" or exploit his audience to meet his desired ends. So by using all of his available means of persuasion, pathos finds itself in his argument. For instance on the topic of a slave master who have fathered slaves, Douglas is trying to underscore and in a sense exaggerate the callousness of slave owners towards their mixed children, even though there were many cases where slave masters would defy the social norms for their mixed children. Douglas is aware of this but overlooks this truth in order to pull at the heart strings by making the audience see a role that they can picture themselves in; a role that is played by a man (slave owner) who makes the audience ashamed to have any connection to him. This shame and guilt is what Douglas is yearning for. He omits a confirmation, artfully disregarding any exceptions to slavery's horrors, intent on exploiting his audience's emotions.

Douglas uses this combination of ethos, pathos and even a hint of logos to manipulate the social paradox behind the interpersonal relationships of slavery; the strong feelings for something a master has fathered, which he/she is supposed to hate. This shame of having consummated with your property, and conceived something held with great contempt is a contradiction. Douglas refers to the story of Ham on page 243, where the Son of Noah,