The Radical and the Republican

“Lincoln was a politician and Douglass was a reformer, and the difference, as either of them might have said, was at some point irreconcilable. As a politician Lincoln liked to position himself as the conservative, moved by forces greater than any one man. As a reformer Douglass preferred to position himself on America’s left flank; he would hold fast to the moral high ground no matter how great the forces arrayed against him.”

Continuing with setting the groundwork for the reader, here Oakes lays out the fundamental difference in how the reader must view the two men. It is not possible to take them on the same terms, Oakes argues, because they are beholden to two distinctly different modes of action and groups of people. Because of this, it is clear that Douglass will never truly be happy with Lincoln and that Lincoln can never truly agree with all of Douglass’s positions. However, it does show how in a democracy, compromise and debate, no matter how heated, should work together for the good of all.

“I was now my own master—a tremendous fact—and the rapturous excitement with which I seized the job, may not easily be understood except by someone with an experience like mine. The thoughts—‘I can work; I can work for a living; I am not afraid to work; I have no Master Hugh to rob me of my earnings’—placed me in a state of independence, beyond seeking friendship or support of any man.”

Oakes opens the first chapter with an epigram from Frederick Douglass. Not only does this passage lay bare what Douglass feels upon his escape from slavery, it also foreshadows the main argument of the Republican Party against slavery, namely that it is an affront to man because it steals his labor from him. The idea of work and labor and the dignity that comes from it is a central element both to Lincoln’s and Douglass’s philosophy on why slavery is problematic and why it should be ended. Although the two men do share this common point, the means by which the men think this policy should be enacted could not be more different.

“If liberty was defeated slavery would spread itself throughout the United States. If liberty were victorious slavery’s expansion would be halted and ‘the public mind’ calmed by the knowledge that slavery had been put back where it belonged, on the road to ultimate distinction.”

A paraphrased excerpt from The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, here Oakes lays out how Lincoln sees slavery in the overall scheme of the United States. Far from being just one issue, Lincoln view it as the preeminent issue that the United States must deal with. It was not something that could be compromised or pushed aside because its theme was so central to the foundational ideal of the United States. To continue the status quo would only allow for the Union to rot from within until nothing more could be done to save it, except for the most radical and violent of options.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

This is one of the most famous quotations in all of American History. Here Abraham Lincoln lays claim that the question of slavery in America is an all or nothing issue, for it will be impossible for America to exist with two different economic, social, and political systems. His call is one for compromise—but compromise in the direction of progress, not simply continuing making Faustian bargains that will ultimately lead to the collapse of the American governmental and social system.

“‘The best friend of a nation,’ Douglass wrote, ‘is he who most faithfully rebukes her for her sins—and her worst enemy, who, under the specious and popular garb of patriotism, seeks to excuse, palliate, and defend them.’”

Far from viewing patriotism as blind adherence to doctrine and country whether it be right or wrong, here Frederick Douglass argues that one of the most vital elements in a healthy democracy is consent and the ability to call the government out on its failings. He views it not only as his duty but his obligation, if he is to be considered a true friend of America, to point out not just its greatness but its shortcomings. Thus, framing himself as a reformer, Douglass tries to lessen whatever criticisms might be leveled against him in proclaiming that his dissent comes not from bitterness or hatred of America, but from a profound love that wants America to become the best version of itself that it can.

“Many Republicans opposed slavery not because it was cruel and not because the slaveholders were hypocrites but because it was an affront to progress. Slavery retarded the South’s development by rewarding laziness rather than diligence and by stifling economic opportunities for those who worked hard. Slavery, Republicans charged, destroyed the American dream.”

Here Oakes lays out one of the reasons informing a central position of the Republican Party’s opposition to slavery. It eschews all moral argument, and it does not even begin to argue that African-Americans are the equals of whites, rather it merely says that all people should be entitled to equal earnings from the labor they do. The position maintains that the latter will be better for the country because it will not only incentivize free blacks to work even harder, but it will also force Southern plantation owners to keep up with the times due to the economics of competition and supply and demand. It is abolition on economic terms, not moral ones.

“His [Henry Clay] own solution to the problem of slavery envisioned the colonization of emancipated slaves in their ‘ancestral’ home of Africa. By removing blacks, Clay hoped to remove yet another obstacle to national unity.”

Oakes introduces the figure of Henry Clay, a giant in American politics and a great influence on the ideas of Abraham Lincoln. However, he is careful to highlight Clay’s belief that blacks and whites could never live together as equals. He views blacks as problematic to uniting society because they will always cause a rift between the white man. This is not meant to morally judge Clay in a 21st Century context, but rather show how even the most radical of thinkers were still far away from our modern sensibilities. Moreover, it is meant to show how change, especially for politicians beholden to the desires of their constituents, must enact change gradually, which can be maddening for reformers like Douglass.

“The Declaration [of Independence] ‘contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere.’ More to the point, it contemplated a world without slavery. But the Founders lived in the real world with a slave system they found difficult to eradicate.”

Again, Oakes takes time to remind the modern reader to not view the actions of American history through a 21st Century lens. He is arguing that change for the positive, no matter how gradual, is better than no change at all. Furthermore, he is trying to explain how idealism and reality often clash, thereby lessening the entirety of the ideal so that at least part of it might come to pass in the real world. This, he argues, is true compromise, and why good thinkers and politicians are so essential for the public good—because they find ways to make the impossible possible.

“For Lincoln human equality was a moral principle; to attack that principle was to tear at the more core of the nation.”

Once again, Oakes highlights a contradiction within Lincoln’s character and a problem for his intellect. What, exactly, does equality mean, and how is the best way to enact it in the real world? Moreover, in this situation, Oakes is framing Lincoln in relationship to the Constitution, a document that he must uphold, and which guides his political thinking. Any attack on the equality promised in it undermined the foundational principles of the Union. Still, it was an opaque document, viewed by some, like Douglass, as doing nothing to oppose slavery and bondage. This notion of interpretation and duty to the rule of law serves as a central motif throughout the book, for it governs how politicians will approach their work.

“Many of the differences between Lincoln and Douglass shade into matters of personality. Douglass was impulsive and voluble, quick to react to current events, quick to take offense, quick to impugn the motives of those who disagreed with him […] Lincoln shied away from emotional arguments. His speeches wed reason to fact. He was a skeptic in an age of religious enthusiasm. He soared to eloquence by restating great principles rather than expression great passion. Passionate men lost control of themselves; they took the law into their own hands; they shed blood.”

After taking the first two chapters to introduce Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass individually, Oakes uses the third chapter to clearly draw contrasts to the personalities of the two men to further highlight for the reader why their positions, though similar, often times seemed so far apart. It was not in theory that the men were different, but in outlook and action. Their difference was enactment, not what was to be enacted, and this passage highlights this dramatically by placing the men’s values and thought-processes side by side.

“Abraham Lincoln dismissed John Brown as a madman. Frederick Douglass said he was one of the greatest men who ever walked the earth.”

Again, Oakes tries to frame Lincoln and Douglass in the context of each other. He also shows the difference ways in which a politician and a reformer can and cannot express support for certain events and individuals. For Lincoln to endorse Brown would have been political suicide, as he would have been immediately lumped in as a radical abolitionist who could not be reasoned with. For Douglass, to hitch his wagon to Brown was to further incite his base and to give a more intellectual and academic credence to Brown’s populist action.

“Brown had a romantic disdain for the rule of law. Like Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Theodore Parker, and Thomas Wentworth Higginson, the Yankee intellectuals who subsidized and lionized him, Brown was contemptuous of mainstream politics. It was all flabbiness and corruption.”

The notion of idealism and the “perfect world” are often central to what drives the principles of reformers. They view the world not as it is, but how it can be, and they often overlook the steps required to get to that point, insisting, instead, that the point be reached as quickly as possible. On the other hand, good politicians like Lincoln see all that must be done between the present moment and the desired endpoint, and they attempt to bring together slowly all the elements necessary to make it happen. However, this is often seen as dalliance, or in this case “flabbiness” on the part of the reformer, who does not understand why things must first go through so many convoluted backchannels.

“If there was something calculated in the way Lincoln talked about race—and there almost certainly was—it was not merely because he was on the defensive or because his own views were more ambivalent.”

This passage refers to an installment of Lincoln-Douglas debate in which Lincoln opened the debate with comments that were, by and large, not in keeping with his normal abolitionist sentiments. Oakes highlights this element of Lincoln’s political career to show that while Lincoln never truly compromised his principles, he did have to be flexible from time to time in order to bring more people into his camp and ultimately enact the legislation he was passionate about. It is another example of Lincoln the politician first, and the reformer second—a theme that maddened the likes of Frederick Douglass.

“Democracy doesn’t work without compromise. It is the willingness to compromise that makes politicians so indispensable and so untrustworthy.”

A central element of The Republican and the Radical, Oakes continually returns to this as a means by which to defend what might seem like, for modern audiences, inaction on the part of Lincoln. It also speaks to the heart of one of the central issues with democratic government—no group will ever be entirely happy with the final outcome or decision regarding an issue because there must always be a middle ground struck.

“To lose Kentucky is to lose the whole game.”

This quotation shows both how Lincoln was hamstrung in his desire for quick action to bring about the end of slavery and his greater understanding of the political landscape needed to fight the American Civil War. If he moved too quickly to free the slaves, or if he made it seem as though slavery was the central issue behind the war, Lincoln risked alienating the border states. If these states, like Kentucky or Maryland left the Union, the Union would be placed in an almost untenable position. Thus, rather than move quickly to appease the more vociferous abolitionist among the Northern ranks, Lincoln chose instead to placate these slaveholding states. In doing so, he ultimately was able to win the war and eradicate slavery throughout America.

“With these proposals Lincoln revealed his ideal version of emancipation: It would be gradual; it would be enacted voluntarily by the vote of the state legislatures; the owners of freed slaves would be compensated. Congress would meanwhile appropriate funds to encourage the voluntary colonization of the freed people ‘so far as individuals may desire.’ It was classic Lincoln, employing conservative means to radical ends.”

This passage refers to early plans of Lincoln during the war to slowly bring about the end of slavery. Fearing that doing it himself or forcing it upon the states would be a political disaster, Lincoln chose to try to work through Congress to enact slow reforms that would incentivize the individual states to free the slaves and compensate the owner for his lost property. In doing so, Lincoln could both distance himself by the act by showing that it was an issue of popular sovereignty among each individual state’s populace and also not have slavery appear to be the main driving force behind the North’s propagation of war against the South. He also made it clear that no Union military leaders could grant emancipation to slaves in the field, thus controlling the issue in Washington and preventing confusion on the issue.

“The proclamation itself was one of several orders which together shifted the Union military toward a policy of ‘hard war’ against the Confederacy. As if to emphasize its military rationale, Lincoln withheld publication of the proclamation until a Union victory made emancipation look like a demonstration of northern strength rather than an act of northern desperation.”

Ultimately, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was seen as a means by which the North could rob the South of much of its industry and economic vitality. If the slaves were freed, then the South would lose a vast chunk of its manpower to manufacture certain goods for the war effort. Moreover, in timing the announcement with a massive Union victory, Lincoln made it seem that the proclamation was merely another in a line of war acts, rather than an act of desperation on the part of the Union to counteract failures in the field or waning public support on the home front.

“‘The national edifice is on fire! Every man who can carry a bucket of water, or remove a brick, is wanted,’ he [Douglass] declared. And yet the policy makers of the Union remained ‘determined that the flames shall only be extinguished by Indo-Caucasian hands.’”

Using this vivid analogy, Frederick Douglass argued for the ability of blacks to serve as soldiers in the Union Army. Although many blacks in the North were freemen, they were still barred from certain civic activities, like serving in the military. Douglass argued that in a time of national emergency, it didn’t make sense to have a vast untapped resource of men idle simply because they were black. He also argued and firmly believed that blacks should be allowed to fight because for them the cause was personal, and thus the sight of black soldiers would both uplift the black community and elevate them in the eyes of their white neighbors.

“Once again Lincoln spoke of freedom as universal, something that applied to all and thereby gave hope to all. It [freedom] was the very opposite of slavery. This made it easy for Lincoln to continue to claim, even after the Emancipation Proclamation, that his first goal was to restore the Union, for the Union of which he dreamed was the home of universal liberty.”

Even after the proclamation, Lincoln still feared slavery being seen as the driving force behind the Union war effort because this would undermine him both militarily and politically as anti-war Northern Democrats would seize upon this. The idea of freedom was promoted as central to the values of the Union, and in turn, the Union as central to the fabric of America. Therefore, America was the greatest prospect of mankind that Lincoln chose to wed himself. The North was fighting to preserve the great experiment started by the Founding Fathers, not to merely free the slaves. That was merely a bi-product of a larger cause and agenda.

“None of his [Douglass] complaints had to do with emancipation as such; all of them had to do with racial equality. Blacks were good enough to fight for the government, Douglass wrote his friend, but not good enough to vote for the government. The government had invited slaves to rebel against their former masters, and now the government expected the freed people to subject themselves to the political authority of their former masters.”

Never content to stop until he felt that true equality had been reached, Douglass campaigned vigorously for the enfranchisement of the African-American population because he saw this as the final step before blacks could truly be free. If they did not have the power of the ballot box, nothing would matter, as the old regime would soon come back to dominate and through the rule of law, enact legislation that would bring back all elements of slavery but without the name. It was a prescient and sadly correct argument.

“‘Slavery is not abolished until the black man has the ballot.’”

In keeping with the previous quotation, Douglass again highlights that freedom for African-Americans is empty unless it comes with the power to vote. Otherwise, how can they be free if they cannot express themselves politically or safeguard their interests via the rule of law and due process?

“When Douglass finished, the President [Andrew Johnson]unburdened himself with a long and remarkable rant. His entire life, Johnson said, showed him to be the ‘friend of the colored man.’ It was true that he had owned slaves and had even bought slaves, ‘but I never sold one.’ This Johnson said, showed that he had always been guided by humanity more than ambition. He had always treated his slaves well, and dealt with his former slaves the same way; some of them had even come to Washington with him. So great were the sacrifices Johnson believed he had made for his slaves that for all practical purposes ‘I have been their slave instead of them being mine.’”

Oakes illustrates the massive difference in not only how Douglass was received in the White House by Johnson when compared to Lincoln, but the fundamental difference in the way the two presidents viewed the world. A Democrat and a slave owner, Johnson had little time or interest in the advancement of blacks and saw their freedom as a necessary evil to end the war and bring the South back into the Union. However, Johnson wished for a quick and easy Reconstruction. The issues of African-Americans, in his mind, were done now that they were freemen.

“He [Douglass] now accepted the premise from which Lincoln himself started: that to defend the Union was to uphold the principle of universal liberty upon which the Union was based.”

Towards the end of his life, and after the death of Lincoln, Douglass’s views on Lincoln’s actions and beliefs softens dramatically. No longer fully embroiled in the debates over abolition and the promulgation of the war, Douglass admits and almost marvels at the political skills possessed by Lincoln to not only win the war and keep the Union together, but to also manage to emancipate the slaves. It also goes to show his growing love of the Constitution as a document protecting the rights of all men and of America as the grand experiment in which all man can be treated as equal and thrive.