8 thoughts on “Oakes Reading Questions”

1. I think that the relationship between Lincoln and Douglass was ultimately a friendly one, but one that was complicated by the different mediums that the two public figures worked in. As Oakes mentioned several times, Lincoln was constantly forced to frame his actions in terms of the demands of the electorate, while Douglass was an agitator that could take up extreme and sometimes vacillating positions.

   I don’t think that one could extrapolate the relationship between Lincoln and Douglass to the broader interactions between white and black abolitionists for a variety of reasons. The foremost one must be that Lincoln was not exactly an embodiment of the abolitionist movement, if such a thing is even possible. Oakes describes Lincoln’s psychology in terms of two competing impulses: a lifelong hatred of slavery, and a conservatism that compelled him to abide by the law and the constitution. The effect of these beliefs was a set of seemingly contradictory and, to Douglass, often infuriating stances on the emancipation of slavery. In Douglass, Oakes finds a tension between powerful antislavery and egalitarian convictions and a growing pragmatism that led Douglass to support Lincoln even as he would occasionally vehemently attack him. As Oakes points out, the contradiction is clear in Douglass’s position during the election of 1860 in which he urged others to vote for Lincoln but he personally promised to vote for a more ideologically pure candidate. During the course of the civil war Lincoln was increasingly able to manifest that ideologically pure figure for Douglass as the exigencies of war allowed (or led) him to adopt the stance of the abolitionists.

   As we discussed in class, there were several levels of antislavery opinion that formed a fraught alliance against slavery. Frederick Douglass and other black abolitionists generally wanted both an immediate end to slave and political and social equality for blacks. Some white abolitionists shared this position, but some did not share a desire for black equality, but opposed slavery for economic, political or moral reasons that were not predicated on equality. Others, like the free-soilers, just wanted to stop the expansion of slavery, although this position is complicated due to the belief of some, like Lincoln, that slavery would naturally die off if it were not allowed to expand across the west. The frustration that ideological purists like Douglass and Garrison faced was that a successful movement against slavery involved necessitated increasingly watered down layers of antislavery sentiment and non-egalitarian positions, and the relationship between Lincoln and Douglass was complicated by the fact that Lincoln had to essentially stand astride this spectrum of opinion.

2. Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, labeled as the radical and the republican by historian James Oakes, were two prominent figures during the abolitionist movement, although each had very different viewpoints. Both could agree that they hated slavery as an institution; they sometimes disagreed, however, about slavery’s indirect effects, like racial inequality, and how slavery should be removed from the country.
   As a republican, Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong and should be stopped from spreading, but the Constitution prohibited him from abolishing it where it already existed. Douglass struggled over which political candidate he should support: one who he thought was more likely to win or one whose beliefs aligned more with his own. In the 1860 election Douglass chose to endorse the candidate who’s radical, abolitionist views were similar to his own; Lincoln was not the radical candidate. This election was only one small episode in the relationship between the two men.
   Their relationship seemed very one-sided, at least during its early years. Douglass mostly addressed Lincoln in speeches or writings, usually to criticize something Lincoln had done, or had not done; Lincoln, however, did not reach out to Douglass until later during his presidency. I was unsure, from reading the text, of how aware Lincoln would have been of Douglass and his opinions, which were often negative. I think that Lincoln must have had some idea of what Douglass was saying about him, especially as Douglass grew in prominence. Yet Lincoln does not seem to have changed his course if he did hear Douglass’s views, so it is hard to determine how much of an influence Douglass had over him.
   Douglass found many opportunities to find fault in one of Lincoln’s statements or actions. The fundamental difference between the two men was due to their roles, as radical abolitionist and republican political leader, and how these roles influenced their abilities to affect change regarding slavery. Most of Douglass’s criticisms were related more to the way Lincoln did something, rather than the substance of his decision (although Douglass did find faults with what Lincoln was doing). Lincoln usually followed a slow and steady path, waiting several years to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, allow Black troops to fight, or demand the order of Retaliation, always too slow for Douglass. Lincoln also made use of compromise, which Douglass disdained. Lincoln was an elected official who relied on popular support from his constituents; at times he thought he had to compromise in order to gain the support from the North and the South. Yet Lincoln would not compromise on slavery and its complete removal at the end of the war. Despite all of his criticisms, I think Douglass really admired this feature of Lincoln, his unwavering views against slavery. Emancipation was the reason that Douglass joined the abolitionist movement and became a prominent speaker; ending slavery was also one of Lincoln’s most important goals. This common goal between the two men fostered a mutual respect that ultimately led to a friendship. They only met in person a few times, but after their second meeting Douglass began to change his overall view of Lincoln. He began to appreciate everything that Lincoln had done by emancipating slaves and leading the way for their right to vote. This appreciation turned into an overwhelming fondness for Lincoln, firmly established after Lincoln’s death and Douglass could appreciate him in retrospect.

3. Using specific references to the book, how would you characterize the relationship between Lincoln and Douglass in particular, or between white abolitionists and black abolitionists generally? Friends? Allies? Opponents? Or something else?

   Lincoln and Douglass only directly talked to each other several times, so most of their relationship took place from afar. Lincoln was a politician, and Douglass was a radical reformer. Lincoln’s goals and beliefs were more conservative than Douglass’s. Lincoln was much more concerned about legalities and popular support than Douglass. Lincoln often accepted white racial prejudices, which Douglass did think should be accommodated. This frequently resulted in Douglass’s disapproval of Lincoln, although they had similar goals. Even though Douglass recognized the value of building an antislavery coalition that attracted popular support, Douglass did not support Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election, because Douglass thought that Lincoln was not dedicated enough to the antislavery cause and beliefs. Lincoln said that he would not interfere with slavery in the states that it already existed. Additionally Lincoln thought slavery was wrong but did not support equal rights for African Americans. During the war Douglass constantly criticized Lincoln for not taking actions soon enough. For example Lincoln did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation until September 1862, because he was preparing the public for it and waiting for a Union military victory. During this time Douglass was very impatient and did not understand why the slaves were not being emancipated due to military necessity. Douglass even questioned whether Lincoln would ever free the slaves. In 1864 Douglass initially did not support Lincoln for re-election but later did. The main turning point for Douglass’s opinion of Lincoln was when they met the 2nd time, and Lincoln talked about how worried he was that the war might not result in freedom for all slaves. This finally convinced Douglass that Lincoln’s support for antislavery was genuine, though he still disagreed with how Lincoln pursued this ideal. After Lincoln’s death Douglass became more understanding and less critical of Lincoln’s past behavior. He acknowledged that Lincoln had many accomplishments as President. Douglass also acknowledged Lincoln’s wisdom in delaying action, until he thought that it would have popular support.

   There is much less known about what Lincoln’s thought about Douglass. Lincoln didn’t allow himself to be pressured by Douglass into doing actions, before he thought it was the proper time. However when Douglass visited Lincoln, Lincoln listened to Douglass’s opinions and sought his help on the second visit. Additionally Lincoln’s views and actions become more progressive over time such as his support for black soldiers in the Union Army. I suspect that Douglass’s views had some influence on Lincoln.

4. Historian James Oakes’ book The Radical and the Republican examines the relationship between the abolitionist Fredric Douglas and Republican Abraham Lincoln. Both men saw the moral issues with the institution of slavery, and eventually the men began coming closer in ideology, though never totally meeting. Oakes writes “By 1858 Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas were saying the same thing, preaching the same antislavery politics.”(5) The main question I ask is: What was the true nature of the relation ship Between Lincoln and Douglas?

   It is apparent that there was some form of mutual respect between the two men. Oakes quotes Douglas saying: “ The truth is, that Slavery and Antislavery are at the bottom of the contest.’ And the antislavery spokesman, whom Douglas credited with upholding the noblest ideals… was Abraham Lincoln.” (38) A mutual ideology persisted between the two men’s beliefs, Douglas obviously viewed Lincoln as a champion for the Antislavery cause, but they differed in approach. Oakes points out that unlike Douglas, Lincoln never attacked American slaveholders as immoral, hypocritical or Sadists. (46) Lincoln went so far as to “[criticize] abolitionists for their sanctimonious denunciations of the South.” (51) I believe that the main difference between Lincoln and Douglas was their approach to how the issue of slavery was to be resolved. Douglas believed in, and preached, the principles of immediatism, while Lincoln was content with denouncing the morality of slavery and letting the political sphere bring slavery to its gradual end. Oakes notes that Lincoln wanted to distance himself, and his party members from all forms of radicalism related to the abolition of American slavery. (54) Douglas on the other hand was the epitome of a radical, preaching immediate abolition of all slaves.

   Another point of contention between Lincoln and Douglas was that of Racism. Lincoln, by today’s standards was undoubtedly a “raciest.” Lincoln never expressed sentiments that blacks should be free and equal to whites. It can be said with reasonable surety that Lincoln believed blacks should be free, but not equal to whites. Oakes points out that “beginning in 1854 Lincoln began to insist that he shared the prejudices of most whites.” (121) On the other hand Douglas saw Racism as the mother of slavery. Oakes wrote of Douglas’ view of racism and slavery stating: “Douglas early on concluded that racism was nothing more than and excuse for Slavery. No slavery, No Racism.” (110)

   Though the men did not always see eye to eye on every issue, in Lincoln’s death Douglas championed him for his work to free the slaves. Drawing from what I learned by reading the Oakes book I believe that I can now answer my question: “What was the true nature of the relation ship Between Lincoln and Douglas?” The Nature of the relationship between Lincoln and Douglas was that of two friends arguing the best way to get a big box through a small door. Though Lincoln and Douglas both approached the problem in different ways, and defended/argued that their way was best, they were still working towards the same goal.

5. According to the views put forth by Oakes, I think that the relationship between Lincoln and Douglass can be characterized by mutual respect and unity in their hatred of slavery, although they often disagreed on their goals related to slavery and how best to achieve those goals.

   Douglass and Lincoln were strongly united by the fact that they both hated slavery. However, as Oakes points out, their reasons for hating slavery were very different due to their vastly different backgrounds. This seemed to cause some tension because of the two very different stances that the two men took against ending slavery. Douglass devoted his whole life to radical abolitionism. He escaped from slavery when he was only 20 and from that time on he was universally committed to the immediate emancipation of slavery. Lincoln was not at all an immediatist. Although he hated slavery, he was too conservative, too much of a politician, and too committed to the Constitution to advocate ending slavery in the places where it already existed. Even in the middle of the Civil War, Lincoln still was not convinced that abolition was necessary. I think that this was a key obstacle in Douglass ever fully backing Lincoln.

   However, the Oakes book seems to suggest that as time progressed, Lincoln the Republican and Douglass the Radical began to converge more and more. Lincoln seems to represent one of the competing impulses that Douglass had always felt internally—while it is important to stick to your principles and never abandon your ideals, you are going to be able to get more accomplished and affect more change by working within a familiar political framework. A familiar political framework that actually finally had power to affect real change was the growing and strengthening Republican Party towards the end of the 1850’s. Though Douglass heavily qualified his support of Lincoln due primarily to their competing ideas about the immediate emancipation of slavery, I think that the 1860 election marked a key turning point because Douglass, as well as the South and the rest of the country, realized that this was the moment when real political change in the issue of slavery was eminently possible for the first time.

   It seems that Lincoln’s shift towards the radical happened somewhat later. I think this is because the bent towards political moderation in order to achieve practical goals seems to have always been present in Douglass, even in spite of his radical ideology. On the other hand, as someone who was very practical and conservative, radicalism seemed to go against Lincoln’s very nature. It seems there is clear evidence that Lincoln resisted the influence of radicalism as long as possible. Even after the South had seceded and the Civil War was well underway, Lincoln still did not support abolition in the States where slavery already existed. He was mostly concerned with winning the war and preserving the Union. It seems as if he did not support immediatism until it had become clear that there was really no other option, which is more in line with his practical personality rather than with true radicalism.

   Oakes seems to think, and I agree, that Lincoln and Douglass did influence each other although they spent relatively little time together. I think the way the impacted each other was more observational rather than direct. In Douglass’s beliefs, Lincoln could see the radical manifestation of what he actually wanted, but could not support due to political expediency. In Lincoln’s career, Douglass could see a practical change that he actually wanted although he could not fully support it due to radical idealism. Lincoln and Douglass definitely could not be considered enemies. Their mutual hatred of slavery and the relative compatibility of their goals against it were too similar that they could be considered enemies. However I think it may be too simple to say that they were “friends” or “allies.” They were not so much friends or allies before the 1860’s because they had never met and at that point their goals regarding slavery were too widely disparate. However, going into the 1860’s, it would be much more accurate to describe Lincoln and Douglass as friends and allies. They actually met and conversed and it was clear they respected each other. Their views regarding what should be done about slavery were rapidly converging more and more.

   While Lincoln and Douglass were clearly extraordinary individuals, I think we can draw a few conclusions from them about ordinary relationships between black and white abolitionists. Clearly they represent the distinct experience of being white versus being black in the antebellum United States. Like Lincoln and Douglass, all white and black abolitionists had vastly different experiences because the experience of being white and the experience of being black were very different during this time period. By virtue of this key difference, I think that their views towards abolition and immediatism were clearly going to be influence by different factors. However, many whites were still immediatists, while Lincoln was not, so obviously that could not have been the only factor. Like Lincoln and Douglass, I think white and black abolitionists would certainly not be “enemies” due to the commonality of their basic goals. Their relationships would probably best be characterized by the label “friends” or “allies,” although, as in the case of Lincoln and Douglass, this must be qualified by the fact that their experiences, and thus their views, had some key differences.

6. Oakes characterizes Lincoln and Douglass as men who were unable to meet due to the political atmosphere over time, but a pair who nonetheless held a high amount of respect for one another. Despite his characterization of Lincoln growing “in wisdom and judgement” over the course of the Civil War as Douglass’ radicalism became tempered, I’m not entirely sure that was the case (xviii). Lincoln never truly outgrew his political nature, and to the extent that any document that exists was an accurate portrayal of his character will always be questionable. Still, since Douglass lived longer and kept better records of his private opinions, it is clear that Douglass eventually cooled off and came to accept Lincoln as an ally in the fight against slavery. In particular, his comments following their second meeting in the White House, “I have not yet come to think that honesty and politics are incompatible,” reflects his growing esteem (235). Over time, Lincoln became more comfortable with speaking about how important freedom and equality were to the future of the nation, and he did occasionally seek the audience of groups more radical than himself. It is reasonable to say that they were aiming for the same goal, yet it still seems a bit too far to call them friends after only a few meetings.

7. This course and Oakes’s book share a word – “radical.” What is Oakes’s definition of a “radical,” and why does he believe a “radical” like Douglass is worth studying?

   Radical is a term which is ascribed to many people, groups, or ideas for a great number of reasons and a diverse range of intent. Essentially, a radical is an individual whose ideas and beliefs break strongly from what the greater society accepts as the social standard. Some associate the term with negative and wild connotations, implying that radicals are dangerous people who will bring ruin. In other instances, radicals are championed as trail blazers and ingenious innovators who are capable of contributing to the world in a ways which nobody that has come before could. That the same word would have such polar connotations is extremely interesting and indicative of just how much influence radicals have on our society.
   Oakes’s examination of Frederick Douglass demonstrates that he feels the study of radicals is essential to our understanding of history. That he himself confesses great deal of respect for Douglass as one of the men he most admires from the 19th Century is evident of this. He depicts radicals as reformers who will not rest until they upheave the institutions he saw as corrupt with no regard for the strength of their opposition or the practicality of their means. Douglass, as a radical, would never cede the moral high-ground in order to further his cause and refused to yield in his convictions and beliefs. These attitudes and characteristics often make radicals the catalysts for great cultural and social changes, or even revolutions, which is why the study and examination of them is so important to expand.

8. Oakes puts that the crucial difference between Frederick Douglass and Lincoln was that Douglass was a reformer and a politician (Oakes, Introduction p. xx). Oakes does not define that Douglass was the radical and Lincoln was not—rather, he views them both as radical figures that strived for change, but in different manners according to their occupations.

   When Douglass first joined the Abolitionist movement, he first subscribed to Garrisonian abolitionism, which was concerned with the verbal denunciation of slavery. Then, Gerrit Smith became Douglass’s mentor, and influenced him to believe that abolitionism could be furthered through political action and he worked to influence fellow citizens to vote for certain candidates or certain causes. However, when political maneuvering came to an impasse, Douglass supported the idea of revolutionary violence.

   These factors led Douglass to become a radical in the traditional sense—a reformer who had non-popular views who was vocal of his opponents and advocated extreme measure to implement the views into policy. However, Oakes views that Lincoln, a shrewd, “conservative” politician was a radical as well.

   In describing Lincoln, Oakes dedicates a whole chapter—“I have always hate slavery”—to emphasize that Lincoln morally, and thus internally, opposed slavery. Furthermore, Lincoln as far as back as 1850 believed that the slavery problem cannot be solved through political compromises—a rather provocative statement for a politician (pp.136-7) (N.B. Lincoln was technically not a politician at 1850, however, he just finished his post as a congressman at 1849, and sought political office in the future).

   Despite these “radical” ideas, when president, Lincoln did not outright seek abolition. Rather, he waited for the right moment, such as the Union Victory streak during the Civil War to announce the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln, as a politician, “filtered the law of the land and people’s will” (p.132) before he acted on his moral principles.

   Radical, in Oakes’s definition, need not be a marginalized figure, who voices unpopular opinions to the public. Instead, a radical may try to work within the institution to inspire change. Douglass, despite some of his extreme positions, tried to inspire such change within by influencing fellow citizens to vote for a certain cause. And Lincoln, through his political planning, tried to do so as well.