Posts Tagged Frederic May Holland
Douglass, meantime, had been hard at work as editor and lecturer. That spring he spoke in about twenty cities in Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
A reception was given him, on February, in Chicago, where he told about ” Self-made Men;” and his whole trip was a pleasant one, except at Janesville.
There he and the two colored men who accompanied him were put at a table by themselves, in full view of all the rowdies in the bar-room. Douglass soon said, loud enough to be heard by all the crowd, that he had made a great discovery in the stable.
“I saw black and white horses eating there in peace, out of the same trough; and I infer that the horses in Janesville are more civilized than the people.”
The by-standers laughed good-naturedly; and there was no color-line across that dining-room afterwards.
Holland, Frederick May. Frederick Douglass: The Colored Orator (1895)
Dr. Frederick Douglass: “Sometimes … I lay me dear, old fiddle aside, and listen to the soft, silent, distant music of other days, which, in the hush of my spirit, I still find lingering somewhere in the mysterious depths of my soul.”
“I sometimes (at long intervals) try my old violin; but after all, the music of the past and of imagination is sweeter than any my unpracticed and unskilled bow can produce. So I lay my dear, old fiddle aside, and listen to the soft, silent, distant music of other days, which, in the hush of my spirit, I still find lingering somewhere in the mysterious depths of my soul.”
Holland, Frederic May. Frederick Douglass: The Colored Orator (1895 edition), p. 335.
Case for Speculations: David Blight is an intellectual disgrace to Douglassonian Biographers Frederic May Holland, James Monroe Gregory, Benjamin Quarles, Philip Foner, John Blassingame and Dickson J. Preston (Part 2)
There is a Hall of Fame of Douglassonian Biographers.
In order of appearance: Frederic May Holland, James Monroe Gregory, Benjamin Quarles, Philip Foner, John Blassingame and Dickson J. Preston.
(ED Note: Leigh Fought is not eligible as her years as a Douglassonian are still active. The Kendricks would be inducted as a father-son duo of Douglassonians.)
Absent from this short list is David Blight of Yale University, one of the most overrated Civil War historians of the last generation.
Douglassonians are thorough-headed scholars of FD’s network as a connecting line throughout his entire life, from connections running the neighborhood streets of Fells Point to local petitioners who approached him while he walked the muddy streets of Old Anacostia, a locally respected and internationally known statesman for the friendless.
Blight is not a Douglassonian. Blight’s presentations on Douglass are restrictive and dated, just as is his scholarship.
Blight’s book published nearly thirty years ago in 1989 was an outgrowth of his 1985 dissertation at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the same institution attended by another over-rated old American white man and alleged “Douglass Scholar.” The book is by Blight’s own admission “juvenile writing.” We agree.
Blight covers Douglass in the years leading to the Civil War and during the Civil War. It’s a book every Douglass scholar should have but not one that is of particular importance. It’s maybe a top 50 Douglass book, not better than that. There are around 100 real books about Douglass so Blight’s work by honest evaluation is a book in the middle, not bad, not particularly good. In reading of Blight’s book in preparation for writing my own book he gets a number of dates and facts related to the Douglass Reconstruction years in Washington City wrong.
David Blight, a 68-year old former high school history teacher from Flint, Michigan, has comfortably traveled the country and world for years without advancing any unique understanding or interpretation of Douglass beyond the metaphorical.
He views Douglass as a mythical metaphor. He lauds Harvard professor John Stauffer, who has taken credit for research done by Zoe Trodd and Celeste-Marie Bernier and did some other jankey stuff with his inaccurately sub-titled co-authored book.
Douglass is a neighborhood guy. This stable of current old American white men who are somehow lauded and labeled “Douglass experts” — Blight, Ira Berlin and John Stauffer [the youngest being born in 1965] — will never understand Douglass as Freddy Fred. Never. Never ever. All Douglass is to them is a method for them to reign unchallenged within their Ivory Towers of largely speculative scholarship.
Douglass is a benevolent spirit watching over all the intellectual curious children of the 1-6 and lost souls seeking shelter from the sub-zero temperatures in the abandominiums of Old Anacostia.
Douglass is not a past and distant myth and a convenient metaphor.
Real live. He’s got the biggest house in the ‘hood.
Case for Speculations (1): Imitating Douglass’ voice, cracked, high-pitched and subservient
This is not history. It is bizarre pseudo-speculation and this old white man’s effort to imitate how he thinks Frederick Douglass would conduct himself in a meeting with President Abraham Lincoln. Bizarre on many levels.
A true historian, let alone a Douglassonian, would directly quote from source material. Blight does not. He offers an imitation of Douglass.
See, young scholar-soldiers, I came up 901 G. Where you might catch Anthony Pitch giving a presentation without a single inference, note of speculation, whiff of guesswork or hint of conjecture.
This non-historical pseudo-genuflecting drivel by Blight and other alleged “Douglass experts” is nothing any respectable W Street Douglassonian and self-respecting historian can and will ever respect.
Case for Speculations (2): “You can milk it for pages.“
Blight demonstrates his appalling laziness as a speculative historian by professing that to a narrative-based biographer such as himself he jumps at the occasion to take any short cut he can find.
When looking through vertical files of old newspaper clippings that chronicle Douglass’ life and times, in real time, Blight admits when he finds a clipping he views the discovery as an opportunity to “milk it for pages.”
In his presentation to Harvard Law School he says this with exaggeration, emphasizing the point with a small rattle of his off-dominant lecture hand.
On W Street we don’t milk. We research. We respect the game. Otherwise they take you out.
I’m on mission to agitate, agitate, agitate and take out all of these alleged Douglass experts who are a disgrace to the limited and sacred Hall of Fame of Douglassonian Biographers.
Don’t tell me Blight is a Douglass expert because he is not. He is a speculative, mediocre Civil War historian.
Many folks claim to be Frederick Douglass scholars but fewer have ever published a single sentence about his life and times in so much as a local newspaper and lesser have ever published a book or monograph of original research.
We all know FD wrote his own autobiography about 3.5 times. In modern times Robert S. Levine at University of Maryland and a couple others have written about FD’s writing of himself. That is not the scholarship I particularly care for. May it be under the genre of literary criticism, but I prefer literary history because FD ran with many writers, journalists, poets and authors.
During his own lifetime FD had two biographers, James Monroe Gregory, a professor at Howard University FD knew well, and the seemingly “elusive” Frederick May Holland.
Recently came across this small entry for Holland in Charles Dudley Warner’s (a neighbor of Mark Twain in Hartford, Conn.) Library of the World’s Best Literature: Biographical Dictionary
Holland, Frederick May. An American Unitarian divine and miscellaneous writer; born at Boston, 1836. He has written: “The Reign of the Stoics” (1879), giving their history, religion, maxims, etc. ‘Stories from Browning” (1882); “Life of Frederick Douglass” ; “Rise of Intellectual Liberty from Thales to Copernicus,” ; etc.
A couple days ago I posted a clipping from the Baltimore Sun indicating Anna Murray Douglass was buried in Graceland Cemetery within days of her death on August 4, 1882. I then called the clerk of Mount Hope Cemetery who told me their records indicate Anna Murray Douglass was buried there in 1882, but didn’t have the exact date of her internment. Fair enough.
A friend and a reader have since sent an article I’d overlooked from February 22, 1895 revealing that upon Frederick’s death in Washington in February 1895, his children intended to “disinter” Anna, who was still buried in DC, now at Glenwood Cemetery (as Graceland Cemetery closed in July 1894), and move her to Rochester to rest alongside Frederick, and their youngest daughter, Annie.
I called over to Glenwood Cemetery on Lincoln Road NE and spoke with Walter, the superintendent. I explained all the background and said I was trying to get to the bottom of this mystery. Ever gracious Walter gave a thorough once-over through the card files and internment book from 1894 until 1896. This would have covered Anna’s possible move from Graceland and/or her disinterment, right Well, Walter didn’t see anything but extended the invitation to come over and check the books out in person, if I’d like.
What I find interesting is, that if Anna Murray Douglass was moved from Graceland to Glenwood, she was moved to what Richardson calls one of the city’s “big five” white cemeteries of the last nineteenth/early 20th century. Those five being, Oak Hill, Rock Creek, Congressional, Glenwood, and Mount Olivet, which was a biracial burial ground. The “big five” of Washington’s black cemeteries of this time, Richardson writes, were Harmony, Payne’s (east of the river), Mount Olivet, Mount Zion, and Mount Pleasant.
Now, back to Mount Hope. The New York Times clipping must be read with a certain level of critical perspicacity. At the time of Frederick’s death in 1895, Rosetta, his oldest daughter, was alive, but his youngest daughter Annie, had been dead for thirty-five years. So, only one of Douglass’ daughters was buried in Rochester, not two.
Calling Mount Hope I spoke with Lydia Sanchez, a clerk at Mount Hope Cemetery which is run by the city of Rochester. I explained Lydia my quandary. Once again, Lydia confirmed that according to Mount Hope’s records Anna Murray Douglass was buried in 1882. It wasn’t until 1888 that datebooks of burials were kept.
With this info, is it correct to say that if Anna Murray Douglass was buried in Mount Hope in late February or early March 1895 alongside her husband of 44 years there would be an exact date. I have a whole collection of newspaper accounts of Douglass’s funeral service in DC and Rochester and his subsequent burial in Rochester that I can examine as well as letters. This is not something I had expected to find, but it’s been found nonetheless.
Foner, Quarles, and McFeely don’t really get into detail about Anna’s death and burial. Deadrich in Love Across Color Lines does go there, stating that Anna was brought to Rochester and buried there right after her death. Her citation does nothing to prove her claim. While Douglass’ other biographers didn’t step up to bat on this one, Diedrich did. But she struck out.
My main man, Frederic May Holland, and his blasphemously ignored work 19th century work on Douglass, may come the closest to to giving some valuable clues to solving his mystery.
Will look into this further and get up another post. To be continued….
21st Century technology has not cannibalized everything just yet… at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library’s Washingtoniana Division you can still use a card catalog. And in this catalog you can find an often overlooked biography of Frederick Douglass by Frederic May Holland.
Available on Google Books HERE.