The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics

by James Oakes

A major history of Civil War America through the lens of its two towering Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.

"My husband considered you a dear friend," Mary Todd Lincoln wrote to Frederick Douglass in the weeks after Lincoln's assassination. The frontier lawyer and the former slave, the cautious politician and the fiery reformer, the president and the most famous black man in America—their lives traced different paths that finally met in the bloody landscape of secession, Civil War, and emancipation. Opponents at first, they gradually became allies, each influenced by and attracted to the other. Their three meetings in the White House signaled a profound shift in the direction of the Civil War, and in the fate of the United States. In this first book to draw the two together, James Oakes has written a masterful narrative history. He brings these two iconic figures to life and sheds new light on the central issues of slavery, race, and equality in Civil War America.

Genres: History, Politics, Biography, Nonfiction, American History, Civil War, American Civil War

328 pages, Hardcover

First published January 15, 2007

About the author

James Oakes is the author of several acclaimed books on slavery and the Civil War. His most recent book, Freedom National, won the Lincoln Prize and was a long-list selection for the National Book Award. He lives in New York City.

Reviews

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Politician And The Reformer

Abraham Lincoln (1809 --1865) and Frederick Douglass (1818 -- 1895)are American heroes with each exemplifying a unique aspect of the American spirit. In his recent study, "The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics" (2007), Professor James Oakes traces the intersecting careers of both men, pointing out their initial differences and how their goals and visions ultimately converged. Oakes is Graduate School Humanities Professor and Professor of History at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has written extensively on the history of slavery in the Old South.

Oakes reminds the reader of how much Lincoln and Douglass originally shared. Lincoln and Douglass were self-made, self-educated, and ambitious, and each rose to success from humble backgrounds. Douglass, of course, was an escaped slave. Douglass certainly and Lincoln most likely detested slavery from his youngest days. But Lincoln from his young manhood was a consummate politician devoted to compromise, consensus-building, moderation and indirection. Douglass was a reformer who spoke and wrote eloquently and with passion for the abolition of slavery and for equal rights for African Americans.

Much of Oakes's book explores the difficult subject of Lincoln's attitude towards civil rights -- as opposed simply to the ending of slavery -- and of how Lincoln's views developed during the Civil War. Oakes uses Douglass as a foil for Lincoln beginning with the Lincoln -- Stephen Douglas debates in Illinois in 1858. Steven Douglas tried hard to link Lincoln to Frederick Douglass and to abolitionism. He claimed that Lincoln favored equal rights for Negroes and raised the specter of intermarriage between white women and black men. Portions of Lincoln's responses to Stephen Douglas were almost as distressing, as Lincoln carefully avoided supporting civil equality between the races and stressed instead the evil of slavery and the need to stop its expansion. It is not surprising that Douglass the abolitionist was ambivalent and mistrustful of Lincoln in the early years, doubting his commitment to the cause of ending slavery.

Douglass continued to distrust President Lincoln. Douglass found the President too quick to temporize and too slow to act towards freeing the slaves. In widely publicized actions, Lincoln had rebuked two of his generals, Freemont and Hunter, who had tried to take aggressive action to free slaves. Lincoln had acted in order to keep on good terms with the border states whose support he deemed necessary to a successful war effort. But Douglass saw Lincoln's actions as weak and waffling.

Douglass's attitude gradually changed with the Emancipation Proclamation and with three meetings between the two men in 1863, 1864, and 1865. Douglass was won over by the President. Lincoln, for his part, seemed to view Douglass with genuine affection and friendship. Douglass gave masterful orations summarizing Lincoln's accomplishments following Lincoln's assassination, in 1876 at the unveiling of the Emancipation Monument in Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C., and throughout the rest of his life. Lincoln had fought slavery with every means at his command, Douglass came to believe, given the difficult political and military situation with which he had to deal.

Douglass' career moved in an opposite direction from that of Lincoln. He began as a reformer and a follower of the abolitionist William Garrison and he initially shared Garrison's contempt for the American political process. Gradually, Douglass found his own voice, and he became convinced the United States Constitution did not support slavery. He came to conclude that it was possible to work for change through the political process, and this belief eventually allowed a convergence between him and Lincoln. With the conclusion of the Civil War, Douglass became a party man and a stalwart Republican -- perhaps giving up more than he should have of the passion of his early years. While he ultimately saw the failure of Reconstruction, Douglass remained for the rest of his long life firmly within the American political process.

Oakes does an excellent job of comparing and contrasting the work of Lincoln and Douglass. His accounts of the complex events leading to the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation are particularly lucid. Oakes argues that Lincoln had surreptitiously delivered the death blow to slavery by the end of 1861. As to Douglass, I learned a great deal from Oakes's discussion of his three autobiographies, written in 1845, 1855, and 1881 (edited, 1891) and of how these works document the change of Douglass from reformer to an instance of the American success story. Oakes also describes well and detail a chilling meeting between Douglass and other African American leaders and President Andrew Johnson in which Douglass unsuccessfully tried to persuade Johnson to extend the right to vote to African Americans.

Oakes has written a readable, informed account of the achievements of two great American leaders. The attitudes which they represent -- the politician and the reformer -- and the issues with which they struggled remain with Americans today.

Robin Friedman

[HR-ML · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author was a history & humanities professor at
the time of this publication. This took a tad longer to
read (started on 03/06 ?) because of my post-COVID
'brain fog.' I was hoping the author would include
more details of interactions between these 2 famous
men IE meetings. Did they correspond w/ each other?
Gave this hardback edition 3.5 stars.

Frederick Douglass (FD) was an escaped slave who
made his way to New York. He left for England b/c of
the (US) Fugitive Slave Law. Benefactors in England
raised funds to free FD from his US slave-owner
which allowed him to return to the US & to purchase
a printing press. He said of slavery "It undermined
the slave family but it also distorted the relations
with the slaveholders' family. It turned capable and
intelligent slaves into thoughtless ciphers. It made
ignorance a virtue + literacy a crime. It degraded the
law by unleashing lawlessness on plantations, where
rape was not a crime & murder went unpunished.
(page 10.)"

The author described Abe Lincoln (AL) as "playing
the part of the aggrieved conservative. (pg 135). "
AL quietly worked on several things to eliminate
slavery. He worked to convince "border states" IE
Missouri, to not allow slavery. AL feared the border
states would join the South's rebellion. From 1854
onward AL repeatedly denounced slavery as evil
(because black slave families could not enjoy "the
fruits of their labor") also "cancer," "poison,"
& a "great national crime. (pg 57)." AL eventually
gave up the notion that US slaves should colonize
African countries such as Liberia or even Haiti.

The Emancipation Proclamation (EP) was meant to
free enslaved people in Confederacy. AL wanted to
announce EP after a great Union victory. He also ordered
any slaves serving in the Union Army to also be freed.
The EP came in the form of an Executive Order.

FD thought AL worked too slowly toward emancipation.
The author stated "Frederick Douglass, came to realize
by the standards of the American people as a whole,
Lincoln's pace toward emancipation was radical & swift.
(pg 303)." The author added the pace was set by military
events, political considerations + profound constitutional
constraints.

FD was critical of AL before/ during his 1st term as POTUS.
(He won a 2nd term but was assassinated by J W Booth.)
The author shared that Douglass in his 3rd autobiography
erased all references to his criticism of Abe. These 2 men
met 3 times. Curiously, AL kept no record at all (on what
they discussed, of his impressions.) After Abe's death
the new President Johnson, Supreme Ct. and Congress
watered down rights ie voting, that black Americans had
fought for. FD said "What Lincoln said in respect of the
United States is as true of the colored people as of the
relations of those states. They cannot remain half slave
and half free. (pg 283)."

These were 2 complex men who grew to respect each other.

Revised.

[Colleen Browne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book traces the parallel careers of Lincoln and Douglass. Lincoln came from poverty: a self-made, self-educated man. Although he had always hated slavery, he was a politician and a consummate one at that. He proceeded carefully toward his goals, always making sure his constituents were with him. Douglass also came from poverty. Born into slavery, he eventually escaped. He taught himself to read and write and became one of the most eloquent and sought after speakers in America. He began working with Garrison, the fiery abolitionist but Garrison's rejection of the Constitution led to a split in the relationship when Douglass came to believe that the Constitution was not the pro-slavery document that Garrison believed it was. Douglass founded his own newspaper and was became the voice of black people. After Lincoln's election, Douglass often criticized Lincoln for moving too slowly toward emancipation and oftentimes questioned the president's commitment to the cause. Over time, he came to appreciate that in order to accomplish his goal of emancipation, he had to rely upon politicians whose role required careful strategizing and time so that the country could catch up to his thinking. What Douglass came to realize was that once Lincoln made up his mind, he stuck by his decisions and followed through. Lincoln was the first president to invite an African American to the White House and they met on three occasions. From their first meeting, both men respected the other even though their methods were very different. The president's assassination had a profound effect on Douglass. To the end of his life, he was affected by his meetings with Lincoln. Moreover, although he joined the Republican Party, Douglass always retained the reformer instincts of his younger days.
In his usual way, Oakes tells this story with erudition and clarity. As in anything I have read by him, Oakes brings a fresh perspective to his subject. This book is highly readable. For historians to history buffs, this book has a lot to offer.

[Raymond Amato · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely a nice take on the civil war from 2 major players in it. Has a way of showing character development and the intelligence and cleverness of both Lincoln and Douglass, both men who are essentially self-educated.

[Kayla_451 · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finished this book just around the time of the George Floyd protests (June 2020 for those reading in the future), which put the Civil War Era in a solemn but compelling context. Honestly, having already read a handful of Lincoln/Civil War/antebellum slavery books, I didn't think this was a spectacular read, but that's not to say I didn't find it informative or insightful. The side-by-side analysis of the lives of Lincoln and Douglass (two s's) changed the way I think about the duties of a politician and a reformer to society. The distinction should be obvious, but yet still it is clear that citizens of democracies have struggled with understanding it for a very long time

A politician (or, for a less dirty word, statesman) isn't supposed to--and, I would argue, cannot be fully useful--if they try to upend society on a justice crusade. No, that is the role of activists, which is equally and respectively important. If I had to characterize Abraham Lincoln's political career in one word, it would be "prudent." From Springfield to DC, he was cautious and deliberate in his message. He didn't speak openly about emancipation until the Proclamation, never said much of anything about racial equality in public, was so successfully ambiguous as to his religious conviction that historians still debate whether or not he was even a theist (two words), and he even downplayed the moral calamity of slavery (which he firmly believed it to be) in favor of economic and constitutional arguments against upholding it. To any reform-minded person, these are stains on his record. Certainly, Frederick Douglass initially thought so himself, and didn't mind expressing it publicly in his writings, too. But just like Douglass eventually did, we need to recognize that this prudence is what allowed Abraham Lincoln to be so successful as a politician. He eased the North into radical ideas through conservative means, which inevitably led to abolitionist ends. Had he been a hard-line abolitionist from the get, the entire possibility of antislavery politics winning the day would be undermined, perhaps even unreachable in the 1860s. But Lincoln understood, as it would do well for us in the 21st century to, that "hard-lining" isn't primarily or even necessarily the job of good politicians, but for reformers. Reformers must do the preaching; it is their duty to be radical and unrelenting in their criticisms and grievances towards society and politics. Politicians, on the other hand, represent everybody in the city, district, state, or nation. No doubt, they should stand up for their values--just not in a way that marginalizes or victimizes everyone else. In a way that assures progress is prosperity. Douglass was vital to making sure the people didn't forget the abolition movement, while Lincoln slowly warmed Northerners to the same ideas.

In short, great reformers like Douglass explode rock-solid obstacles; great politicians like Lincoln smooth out the path so everyone can safely pass through.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Several books study the relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Brian Kilmeade’s The President and the Freedom Fighter was published more recently, but since I have not read Kilmeade’s treatment, I am unable to compare them. The Radical and the Republican is a balanced view of a pair of critically important men in American history.

Since Lincoln and Douglass did not meet until nearly two and a half years into Lincoln’s first administration, the majority of the book reports their personal history and views separately, as if they were on parallel tracks toward the same goals. Except the tracks were not parallel. Although you could not prove it by Lincoln’s utterances, I believe their slavery goals were the same, but the strategy and tactics were so wide apart that Douglass doubted that Lincoln was an ally in his cause.

I think the following two quotes from the book succinctly summarize how Lincoln crafted his strategy. The first is from Lincoln and the second is an assessment of his political talent by James Oates.

“With public sentiment nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.” Abraham Lincoln

“He was so in tune with the movement of public opinion that he could calibrate his own moves with astonishing skill.” James Oats

For those with an interest in the history of American slavery, The Radical and the Republican tells the story of how these two men overcame the huge obstacles that stood in the way of emancipation. Even when they weren't in partnership, they were partners. Partners who eventually became fast friends.

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · Rating 5 out of 5]

To get the necessary disclaimer out of the way: The author is my cousin on my father's side, though I haven't seen or spoken with him in decades -- indeed, an email letting him know I'd read and enjoyed his book was our first conatact of any sort in over 45 years. So, we were never close or anything. I chanced across this book in the gift shop at the Lincoln Memorial and idly wondered whether this was my cousin who -- the last I knew of him -- had been pursuing a doctorate in history at Berkeley. His advisor was Kenneth Stammp, one of the nation's great experts on slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. So there was a good likelihood that it was Cousin Jim. I might have bought it withouth that connection, but that little bit of _lagniappe_ sealed the deal.

Anyway, the book is subtitled "Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics", and, yeah, that's prety much what it's about. It can't exactly be called a book about the relationship between the two men, for they barely had one; indeed, they met only twice, in the last couple of years of Lincoln's life. It might better be described as a description of how each of them responded to the anti-slavery/abolitionist controversies of their day, and, in that context, to each other.

The first two chapters set up the two primary players of our drama.

Douglass, of course, was a Black man who escaped slavery in 1838 at the age of twenty or twenty-one, moved to New England, and became involved with abolitionism, and especially the movement led by the preacher William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison preached a pacifistic approach, and insisted that the existence of slavery made the country, including its Constitution, rotten to the core. In the Garrisonian movement, Douglass became a well-known firebrand speaker against the evils of slavery, including its effects not only on the slave, but the slave-owner and even Northern whites. His growing fame began to endanger ihs position as an escaped slave, what with the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution and all, so he travelled to England, where he discovered other approaches to abolition. His friends purchased his freedom, and he returned to the States, but now he set up shop in New York State, from where he began to publish an anti-slavery newspaper.

It is important here to understand the difference between "abolitionism" and "anti-slavery," two different movements that, while complementary, treated each other somewhat as heretics (certainly Garrison felt betrayed by Douglass's apostasy). Unfortunately, Oakes never quite explain s the difference between the two, expecting the reader either to know this distinction, or to pick it up from context. As near as I can make out, ablitionism was about the ending of slavery, and nothing more, while anti-slavery proposed giving full equality to free and freed Blacks. Naturally, the latter was more attractive to an ex-slave like Douglass.

From the pulpits of his newspaper and of many speaking engagements, Douglass became a firebrand of the anti-slavery movement. One of the key points that led him to this was a reading of the Constitution as an anti-slavery document. Despite the so-called fugitive slave clause and the infamous three-fifths compromise, the original document never once actually uses the word "slave" or "slavery." Based on the Preamble to the Constitution, he read the Constitution as a way to implemnt the promise inherent the Declaration of Independence's clause that "all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with" an inalienable right to Liberty.

An example of the Constitution's function as an anti-slavery document, paradoxical as it might seem, was the "slave trade" clause, which forbade Congress to restrict the "Importation ... of such Persons as the States now existing shall think proper to admit" -- until 1808, when Congress promptly banned the slave trade. Further, it was clear that, though Congress could not interfere with slavery within existing States, it could "make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or property belonging to the United States." This put into play the idea that the Constitution gave Congress the power (though it had, effectively, not been used) to restrict the expansion of slavery. That seemed to be settled by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 -- which forbade further expansion of slavery north of latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes.

In the second chapter, Oakes turns to look at Lincoln. Lincoln was a lawyer, with all the respect for the law (but also for its interpretability) that entails. As a Congressman from Illinois, Lincoln had championed outlawing slavery in the District of Columbia (with compensation for slaveowners). He said that he had "always" hated slavery and, as his parents brought him up in a church that preached the evils of slavery, he was probably not only truthful but correct about this. Thirty-four years the Missouri Comprome, the South pressed the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which effectively voided the Compromise.

Lincoln, like Douglass, deeply resented the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but more abstractly, and was, in general, not as voluble about his anti-slavery position as Douglass -- though he was open enough about it to make him vulnerable to Stephen Douglas's race-baiting attacks in the 1848 Senatorial election, which he lost. He stated the Republican position with admirable clarity: "Republicans think slavery is evil; Democrats do not." (I think it fair to say that both parties have changed a bit in the succeeding hundred and sixty-odd years.)

Douglass was a great supporter of John Brown; indeed, when Brown was arrested, he was carrying letters of support from Douglass, whom Brown had invited to join him on the raid at Harper's Ferry. When Brown was arrested and executed, Douglass called him one of the greatest men of all time. Lincoln, who always supported the rule of law, felt that he got what he deserved for committing treason -- but added that if the Southern States tried to secede, they would find themselves dealt with on the same charge, with the full force of the United States.

Douglass's response to Lincoln was complex and constantly changing. In his speeches and his newspaper, he often fulminated against Lincoln, preferring, in the 1860 Presidential election, to support the Free-Soil party rather than Lincoln. From the outbreak of the Civil War through August of 1864, Douglass waxed hot and cold on Lincoln. His hostile remarks on Lincoln grew generally from frustrtation at Lincoln's slowness to free his people.

Lincoln, on the other hand, was not so much slow as deliberate. He knew that Congress could not free the slaves under the Constitution; but it might be in the power of the Commander-in-Chief to do so as a strategem of war, if it should prove necessary to do so.In general, Lincoln sought ways to achieve emancipation without violating the Constitution or the laws of the land. One of my favorite pieces of logic was the idea that escaped slaves no longer need be returned to their owners by the Northern states; once they had seceded, the South had no rights under the Constitution.

In addition to the question of legallity, Lincoln also faced the court of public opinion. He knew that, to end slavery, he had to have the Northern people ready for this radical change. (Oakes repeatedly observes that Lincoln liked to use conservative means to achieve radical ends.) He was further convinced that most Whites, even anti-slavery whites in the North, would never tolerate full equality for Blacks. He had for some years favored "colonization," the removal of Blacks to Africa or the Caribbean. In August of 1862, he had a small delegation of Black preachers to the White House, where he discussed the matter with them, explaining how he thought this the best plan not only for the nation as a whole, but for them specifically. This did not sit well with Douglass.

Still, along the way, Lincoln and the Republican Congress did a number of things Douglass liked and respected; on their first meeting, Douglass specifically thanked Lincoln for the "order of retaliation" which promised that for every Black soldier (that is, ones who were fighting in the Northern army -- one of the things Douglass complained about was how long it took to get black men into the Army) killed by the South after surrendering, a Southern prisoner of war would be hanged by the Union.

And, of course, there was the Emancipatioin Proclamation, hinted at and announced repeatedly but finally issued on January 1, 1863. Doublass had some questions about this, in that it did not do anything for slaves in the non-seceding border states.

Their first meeting, in August of 1863, was forced, quite informally, by Douglass, who essentially walked into the White House and demanded to see the President. Lincoln not only met with him, he pushed him ahead of a number of others who had appointments (and who, all White, resented it deeply), and spent a good hour telling Douglass his aims and strategies, Douglass came away impressed with Lincoln, both as a clearly honest man and as a President who received him as gentleman to gentlman rather than as white to black.

At their second meeting, a year later, Douglass found Lincoln distressed that not enough slaves were answering the call of the Emancipation Proclamation. Douglass pointed out, from experience, that slaveowners had ways of keeping their slaves ignorant that such a thing existed. Lincoln asked Douglass to find a way to get the word spread. He also laid out his plans for reconstruction, which were both more extensive and less intolerable than what Congress imposed after Lincoln's death.

Their third meeting was brief, at a post-inaugural party in 1865. Douglass once again had to use strategems to see and congratulate Lincoln, who greeted him as "my friend, Douglass."

A final chapter outlines the rest of Douglass's life after the Lincoln assassination. It shows Douglass lionizing Lincoln as he never had in life, and the former radical reformer becoming a supporter of Republican politics.

Oakes is generally clear. It is hard to tell whether his sympathies lie more with Douglass or Lincoln; perhaps the book is a little _too_ balanced, in that sense, at least for a reader, like myself, who is at best an amateur of history.

I came away impressed enough to do two things. The first was to add a couple more of cousing Jim's books to my ever-burgeoning Amazon wishlist. The second was to view a few YouTube videos. This one struck me as particularly interesting; in it he explains his objection as a liberal to the 1619 Project that is such a bugbear for the Right. (The enemy of our enemy is not, always, our friend.) As near as I could make out, the objection were more on method and cherry-picked examples, than against the actual burden of the Project. I don't have an opinion, as I have not really looked into the 1619 Project.

Final judgement: highly recommended for people interested in the history of slavery/abolitionism/Civil War/reconstruction.

[Olivia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Idk I just think the whole bias of the book irritated me plus I had to read this for school so

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

There was too little interaction between Lincoln and Douglass to fill an entire book (though what little there was makes for interesting reading), so much of this book is about how Douglass's views of Lincoln evolved between 1861 and 1864. I was half-way through this book when I realized that the author, James Oakes, was my college history professor in a class I took at Northwestern way back in 1989.

[Sheila · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this after Team of Rivals and was excited for the possibility of delving deeper into Douglass / Lincoln, but thought that the book portrayed Lincoln in too positive a light in terms of his anti-slavery positions and actions.

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Frederick Douglass has something for everyone. What I mean by that is, if you are trying to make an argument about the nature of the American republic, the conflict over slavery, or the ongoing, excruciating reckoning on race, you can find a Douglass quote to suit your needs.

Over the course of his long and remarkable life Douglass embraced radical reform while disdaining politics, only to become a loyal Republican Party man who pushed for reform from within the political system. He embraced antislavery politics, as would the majority of abolitionists who joined the Republican Party.

He heaped praise on Lincoln; he excoriated Lincoln -- sometimes in the same speech! He loved the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, but he had once been a Garrisonian. Garrisonians burned the Constitution. Douglass believed Blacks belonged in America; he chastised white society for the hypocrisy and racism that made Black life so difficult. He was multitudes.

He changed his mind a lot, contradicted himself often, and like any human being displayed inconsistencies in his thinking. So if you sift through Douglass long enough, you'll find a quote to cherry pick to back your claim about white supremacy, the Constitution, the Civil War, Lincoln, whatever.

Same for Lincoln. Wanna impress your friends by posting a meme proving Lincoln was a white supremacist? You can find plenty of fodder in his debates with Stephen Douglas, an actual white supremacist and racial demagogue.

But if you want to understand history, especially political history and the development of antislavery politics, read this book by James Oakes, a leading historian of the antebellum United States. (Disclosure: Oakes has appeared on my podcast several times).

Oakes traces the paths traveled by Douglass and Lincoln -- one a radical reformer, the other a masterful politician -- in the conflict over slavery and abolition. These two men pursued the same goal in different ways that reflected their different roles. But they would intersect: Douglas becomes a party man; Lincoln used conservative means to achieve radical ends once the war opened up opportunities to attack slavery, opportunities not available in peace time.

Oakes' writing sparkles as he deconstructs Lincoln's and Douglass' spoken and written words across the decades, fluidly explaining how each man's thinking evolved. The reader is left appreciating why Lincoln had to move cautiously when Douglass wanted forceful action. In a word, Lincoln was a politician. Politicians must weigh public opinion, the law, and the Constitution. Reformers use their megaphones to blast uncompromising principles. Both men hated slavery. Both men wanted it to end. They approached that problem differently.

The more I read about Abraham Lincoln, the more I admire him. He was imperfect, but in a set of circumstances where no one would have gotten everything right, Lincoln saved the Union. He saw to it that slavery would be destroyed in the process. He compromised when necessary, but was uncompromising on the most important points, namely that slavery could not be allowed to expand outside the states where it already existed or was allowed to by the Missouri Compromise.

Douglass met Lincoln three times. The radical abolitionist came away believing Lincoln held no racial animus toward Black people. Douglass called him the "Black man's president." But Douglass' admiration for Lincoln mixed with scathing condemnation of his action (or inaction), especially early in Lincoln's presidency. Lincoln was too cautious. He moved too slowly. Maybe he really didn't intend to end slavery at all.

But Douglass finally saw that in politics, especially in the days before the "imperial presidency," a man like Lincoln had to weigh myriad factors when moving against so powerful an institution as slavery. Moreover, Douglass realized that in 1864 the real threat to the antislavery movement was not Lincoln. The "Peace Democrats" were seeking an end to the war with slavery intact. One wonders how long it might have taken to end slavery in America had the awful George McClellan won the White House that year. The Democrats ran arguably the most explicitly racist presidential campaign in U.S. history, equating Lincoln and the Republicans to the miscegenation of the races.

James Oakes' work illuminates the minds of two great Americans, flaws and all. Read this book if you wish to understand how politics works!

[Edgar Raines · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a brilliant book. It examines how Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln viewed events with special emphasis on the period from the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act until Lincoln's assassination. Oakes uses the categories of "radical" and "statesman" to explain their approach to the issues--analytical devices that Douglass himself used when speaking at the unveiling of the Lincoln and the Freedman statue in Lincoln Park in Washington, D.C. in 1876. Using the term "radical," Oakes explains the many inconsistencies and sometimes downright contradictions in Douglass' public statements. What mattered to Douglass was the goal--the end of slavery. He did not mind contradicting himself to achieve that end. Using "statesman" to explain Lincoln's approach, Oakes presents one of the most subtle explanations of Lincoln's policies in the literature. Lincoln's famous, or infamous, meeting with the black ministers and his lecture to them on the virtues of colonization was simply an attempt to appease Northern white prejudice and prepare the way for the announcement of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Oakes has steeped himself in the writings of both men and he has a deep understanding of the period. This is a book worth reading and rereading for its insights.

[Lucas Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

I ended up a big fan of this. It isn't designed to be a dual biography and doesn't really try to break new ground, there is no new cache of documents or major revisions, but rather the book is a close reading of Lincoln and Douglass on a number of topics the author collective calls "antislavery politics."

The close readings of Douglass's writing about Lincoln was really well done, and the chapter that goes into Lincoln's use of racism to build up an antislavery politics in the Republican party was really illuminating.

There are a million books about Lincoln, and a lot about Douglass as well. In the end, Oakes writing just won me over. He is engaging and thoughtful, he unpacks concepts in ways that are clear and easy to read and he using the sources in clever, convincing ways. Just makes me want to read more books about Lincoln and Douglass.

[Paige · Rating 3 out of 5]

(Read for HIS 257)

It wasn't too bad. I find myself loving the works of James Oakes, however this one did not give me the same stellar reaction as other works like "Slavery and Freedom." Oakes does a fantastic job at analyzing Douglass and Lincoln's stances as two figure heads in the Civil War era. However, much of this book felt like a Douglass hate letter rather than a LINCOLN and Douglass story. I wish there was more dialogue between the two included. Additionally, this book repeats itself quite a bit. I think I've read about the timing of the Emancipation's signing and the prosepcts of colonization multiple times in a row with no new information present. I, however, am not a decorated historian and have never written a novel. Therefore, I cannot judge Oakes' format too heavily. If it bothers me that much, I can do additional research on my own.

A great summary. Well done Oakes!

[Kelly Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

this book was super interesting and a great jumping off point for me, as I would like to dive deeper into this era. My one quibble, however, is the author’s framing and somewhat obvious bias towards Lincoln. Oakes often provided justifications for Lincoln’s shortcomings whilst simultaneously over-criticizing Douglass for his. Though smoothing out most wrinkles, the author might have been able to provide a less biased narrative if he acknowledged Douglass’s and Lincoln’s actions from a more realistic point of view, not one based in hindsight.

Nonetheless, I thoroughly enjoyed this read.

[Elizabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is not end to books about the civil war--even as I type this, I know there are books being published. Each one parses the subject differently--this one is about the relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. While they only met a few times, their "relationship" is one of contrasting sides of abolition. While Lincoln was against slavery, he was pro-union, and would have kept slavery to save the Union. Douglass (as a former slave) objected to his viewpoint.

This is well written and documented and looks at Lincoln's politics as well as Douglass' point of view.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oakes' examination of how early Lincoln and Douglass developed their ideas about slavery assists readers in evaluating the complexity of both men. As they grow personally and on the national stage, Oakes' engagement with vast sources gives readers a chance to see how the interactions between the two men helped shape them and the nation. Clear, concise and well-divided, Oakes' discussion of Lincoln and Douglass proves necessary reading for those curious about the evolution of American antislavery politics at the national level.

[Michael Bell · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting historical novel. It took me a long time to finish it. The Civil War was a momentous event in American history. Much of the novel involves events leading up to and after the assassination of President Lincoln. Frederick Douglas was a leader in dangerous times for people of color. He was still being slighted by those in power in spite of his oratorical skills and influence. I wonder when #MAGA fans truly considered America Great.

[Lisa Petrovich · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is an interesting study of Lincoln and Douglass’s trajectories into “antislavery politics” and their relationship with each other. It was dense; I put it down at one point and had to restart it. My only critique with the structure is that it zooms intricately into the journey towards the Emancipation Proclamation and then mentions the fight for the 13th Amendment in a very quick blip. It seemed very odd, as if 20 pages were missing.

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

A reasonable compilation of accounts of early encounters, and some attempt to put them in context of each group’s perspective. Decent but not stellar narrative.

[A, Dean · Rating 3 out of 5]

read for school. way too short there are probably better books about the subject.

[Zoee Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book for someone who wants to learn more about the truth of American history, although it does get a bit repetitive.

[Rachel Winner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had to read for my APUSH class. It was actually not bad. The book was very well written. It was a bit repetitive but I still liked it.

[Mely · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting but boring

[Marc]

A very good read, if sometimes a bit longish. But not tedious. This is a detailed chronology of the intellectual thinking and relationship of Frederick Douglass and President Abraham Lincoln over time. It follows the many shifts that Douglass made and the maneuvering of Lincoln during the difficult period of his presidency.

It is informative as an academic work. It is interesting and timely. I enjoyed it a lot.

[Carl Hofelt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book. There is something reassuring about the knowledge that two of America's greatest minds were both friends and allies.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

On Douglass, Oakes looks at how he moved from radical to politician throughout his life, including wedding himself so much to the GOP in his last years that he apparently never entertained the idea of a "Free Vote Party" paralleling the Liberty Party of his younger days.

No, it's not a full bio, but it leads to further questions. Was this the "settling" of an old man? Was it an evolving pragmatism? Did getting a patronage job bank his inner fires?

On Lincoln, Oakes takes a careful look at the long-debated issue as to whether or not he had any racist bones, either before election to the presidency or even after.

On 126-29, Oakes tackles the pre-1860 politics of Lincoln re black-white relations beyond slavery with depth. He says Lincoln simply accepted white intransigence was so great that blacks never could have equality and that it was not a case of Lincoln himself rejecting racial equality. Nonetheless, Oakes believes "spineless" is a legitimate charge, as is "cynical."

More serious are some of the themes from a pro-colonization lecture, in essence, Lincoln gave to northern black leaders shortly before announcing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

Oakes sees this as a more cynical version of Lincoln's 1850 stance on accepting white racism even though Lincoln didn't hold to it himself. After claiming in the past "racism" and "slavery" were different, Oakes says Lincoln now tried to conflate them with a cheap syllogism.

No, again, this is not a complete dual bio. But Oakes' excellent "For Further Reading" appendix points to the best bios on both men, as well as takes on the Civil War militarily and socially, Reconstruction and more.

Update, July 4, 2021: Realizing this is the same author of "The Crooked Path to Abolition," and that I dinged that book for whitewashing (pun intended) Lincoln on colonization, I've dropped the rating on this a star. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[David Bates · Rating 3 out of 5]

James Oakes’ The Radical and the Republican turns on the symbolic meaning of the Constitution. In this popular history Oakes seeks to illustrate how abolitionist idealism and practical politics came together in the Civil War era Republican Party, personified respectively by Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. Oakes traces Douglass’s trajectory away from the absolutism of Garrison and toward the large, though less principled, political alliances through which government power is wielded. Lincoln, pragmatist of party politics, is by contrast carried by his anti-slavery convictions through the dissolution of the cross-sectional Whig Party and the birth of the northern Republican Party. Despite Oakes’ attempt to make this a story about two of his personal heroes who meet in the middle, his view that Lincoln was a supreme plotter wisely orchestrating an abolitionist end-game rather than a politician carried along by events makes this narrative a little one sided. Douglass moved from the impractical to the practical, slowly reconciling himself to Lincoln’s great leadership, while Lincoln makes a comparatively shorter journey from somewhat racist to somewhat less racist. Douglass’s ideological progress toward pragmatism is traced by Oakes in his shifting rhetorical stance toward the constitution, from a Garrisonian pact with hell to a document whose silences spoke eloquently, as Lincoln claimed they did, to the founders’ hope that slavery would someday be ended.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I do not normally like the "comparative approach", usually because the chosen subjects of such comparative work are too random and arbitrary to actually prove anything significant. This book succeeds were others have failed precisely because the persons being considered are so alike and yet so different. Abraham Lincoln was a white lawyer politician, while Frederick Douglass was a black reformer and orator. The one was the Republican, the other was the radical. Yet as their careers progressed Lincoln moved towards radicalism, while Douglass veered towards the Republican Party. These developments thus make for a very interesting comparative analysis of two figures who were at the center of nineteenth-century American public life. The only minor complaint I would have relates to the referencing. The author has a habit of citing from collected editions of primary sources, but does not always mention the specific title of the source to which he is referring. I especially like the comment in relation to the Second Inaugural that '[i]t was Calvin's God who invaded Lincoln's thoughts'!!!

[Jay Perkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not a dual biography of Lincoln and Douglass, but an explanation of each men's understanding of the causes, goals, and means to reach those goals of the Civil War. During the first few years of the War Frederick Douglass was often very hostile toward Abraham Lincoln's war policies. Much of the difference between the two men lay in their respective positions. Douglass was a reformer, who would never compromise his position. Lincoln was a politician who had to consider public opinion. Though not apparent at the beginning (esp for Douglass) they were both working for the same goal: the complete abolition of slavery in the United States. Over time, Douglass' attitude toward Lincoln completely changed. How? Why? Oakes explains the position of both of the men before and during the war, then shows how they gradually came to understand one another.