What do you think?
Rate this book
The Crooked Path to Abolition: Abraham Lincoln and the Antislavery Constitution
Finalist for the 2022 Lincoln PrizeAn award-winning scholar uncovers the guiding principles of Lincoln’s antislavery strategies.
The long and turning path to the abolition of American slavery has often been attributed to the equivocations and inconsistencies of antislavery leaders, including Lincoln himself. But James Oakes’s brilliant history of Lincoln’s antislavery strategies reveals a striking consistency and commitment extending over many years. The linchpin of antislavery for Lincoln was the Constitution of the United States.
Lincoln adopted the antislavery view that the Constitution made freedom the rule in the United States, slavery the exception. Where federal power prevailed, so did freedom. Where state power prevailed, that state determined the status of slavery, and the federal government could not interfere. It would take state action to achieve the final abolition of American slavery. With this understanding, Lincoln and his antislavery allies used every tool available to undermine the institution. Wherever the Constitution empowered direct federal action—in the western territories, in the District of Columbia, over the slave trade—they intervened. As a congressman in 1849 Lincoln sponsored a bill to abolish slavery in Washington, DC. He reentered politics in 1854 to oppose what he considered the unconstitutional opening of the territories to slavery by the Kansas–Nebraska Act. He attempted to persuade states to abolish slavery by supporting gradual abolition with compensation for slaveholders and the colonization of free Blacks abroad.
President Lincoln took full advantage of the antislavery options opened by the Civil War. Enslaved people who escaped to Union lines were declared free. The Emancipation Proclamation, a military order of the president, undermined slavery across the South. It led to abolition by six slave states, which then joined the coalition to affect what Lincoln called the "King’s cure": state ratification of the constitutional amendment that in 1865 finally abolished slavery.
The long and turning path to the abolition of American slavery has often been attributed to the equivocations and inconsistencies of antislavery leaders, including Lincoln himself. But James Oakes’s brilliant history of Lincoln’s antislavery strategies reveals a striking consistency and commitment extending over many years. The linchpin of antislavery for Lincoln was the Constitution of the United States.
Lincoln adopted the antislavery view that the Constitution made freedom the rule in the United States, slavery the exception. Where federal power prevailed, so did freedom. Where state power prevailed, that state determined the status of slavery, and the federal government could not interfere. It would take state action to achieve the final abolition of American slavery. With this understanding, Lincoln and his antislavery allies used every tool available to undermine the institution. Wherever the Constitution empowered direct federal action—in the western territories, in the District of Columbia, over the slave trade—they intervened. As a congressman in 1849 Lincoln sponsored a bill to abolish slavery in Washington, DC. He reentered politics in 1854 to oppose what he considered the unconstitutional opening of the territories to slavery by the Kansas–Nebraska Act. He attempted to persuade states to abolish slavery by supporting gradual abolition with compensation for slaveholders and the colonization of free Blacks abroad.
President Lincoln took full advantage of the antislavery options opened by the Civil War. Enslaved people who escaped to Union lines were declared free. The Emancipation Proclamation, a military order of the president, undermined slavery across the South. It led to abolition by six slave states, which then joined the coalition to affect what Lincoln called the "King’s cure": state ratification of the constitutional amendment that in 1865 finally abolished slavery.
284 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 12, 2021
126 people are currently reading
3005 people want to read
About the author
James Oakes
48 books47 followersJames 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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
April 5, 2022
This is a short book that, Oakes explains, started as an essay and was expanded into book form. It’s both a reiteration and a continuation, a consolidation and an expansion, of his earlier Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865, which traced the legislative and executive process by which the abolition of slavery was achieved. This book hones in on the concept of antislavery constitutionalism, whose adherents used the very Constitution that protected slavery, to ultimately destroy it.
It was a “crooked path” to abolition, and nothing was inevitable - but in Oakes’ telling, it all makes perfect sense.
Early chapters explain the pro-slavery and anti-slavery readings of the Constitution and how the two sides ultimately hardened into rival political factions. Oakes doesn’t pick sides as to which reading was correct, but he traces how slavery supporters took advantage of the protections built into the compromise Constitution to read it as an inherently pro-slavery document, while slavery opponents believed the Constitution contained the seeds for slavery’s ultimate extinction. It was only when opposition to slavery began intensifying, slavery opponents began gaining the upper hand politically, and Lincoln rode the wave into the White House, that the antislavery constitutionalists’ view ultimately prevailed.
It can be a little dense if you’re coming to the subject cold, and perhaps there’s “nothing new” if you’re an expert on the issues and the era. But Oakes explains complicated legal issues very understandably, in a conversational tone, making the book read almost like a transcript of an engaging speech or a lecture. For anyone not as familiar with the subject matter, Oakes makes it very easy to follow; for anyone who is more familiar with the subject matter, it’s still enlightening to see it so concisely and coherently argued.
The gist of antislavery constitutionalism is the belief that the Constitution’s "proslavery clauses were exceptions in a Constitution whose general rule was freedom," Oakes explains. “In the absence of positive law creating slavery, the presumption of freedom prevailed." But with the exception of the Adamses, every president before Lincoln was either a southern slaveholder or a northern doughface, giving the slavocracy the upper hand and allowing their reading of a proslavery constitution to prevail. Only once Lincoln became president, and particularly once the Civil War began, did the antislavery view of the Constitution predominate.
Oakes shows how Lincoln and his Republican Congressional colleagues were able to start chipping away at slavery right away, while still believing that the Constitution did not allow the federal government to abolish slavery in the states where it existed. Using a carrot-and-stick approach, proposals like gradualism, encouraging states to slowly phase out slavery; compensation for slaveowners in exchange for freeing them; and colonization for freed slaves, so racist slaveowners wouldn’t have to worry about living alongside them; were all considered the “carrots.” When those didn’t work, emancipation was the “stick.” A careful reading of the Constitution allowed the Lincoln administration to begin "emancipating slaves, or in the language of the Constitution, discharging them from service," as a way to end the war and pressure the states to end slavery on their own, which antislavery constitutionalists believed was the only permissible way to bring about abolition.
The Emancipation Proclamation, then, far from being a drastic strategy shift that came out of the blue, ended up being “the most effective tool for exerting that pressure" on the states. Even after issuing the Proclamation, Oakes describes how Lincoln continued pressing the border states, and former Confederate states under Union control with loyal governments, to abolish slavery within their borders, ultimately leading to the states' ratification of the 13th Amendment.
"Historians sometimes tell us that the destruction of slavery was the incidental by-product of the war,” Oakes writes. “It would be more accurate to say that slavery was abolished because the Civil War radically accelerated the decades-long shift in the balance of power between slave and free states."
While the book lauds the ultimately successful strategy that Lincoln championed, Oakes still addresses some touchy subjects head on, in a blunt but nonjudgmental way, such as Lincoln’s apparent racism and his support for colonization. He suggests that Lincoln was not racist per se, but was far from being what we would consider an antiracist. And he wasn’t fully in favor of colonizing freed slaves so much as he thought it would be necessary to avoid racial strife. In doing so, however, Oakes says Lincoln "allowed his racial pessimism to override his commitment to racial equality." The takeaway seems to be that we are allowed to be disappointed in Lincoln’s failings, while also remaining grateful for his successes.
It was, after all, a “crooked path” to abolition. As Oakes well explains, the “good guys” aren’t perfect, and abolishing slavery didn’t solve racism. Yet none of it happened as haphazardly as others claim. Oakes connects the dots in a way few others have, proving himself to be one of our greatest thinkers on the political process that led to abolition.
Thinking some of it to be dense and repetitive, I initially gave Oakes’ Freedom National four stars. But after reading Noah Feldman’s comparatively terrible The Broken Constitution: Lincoln, Slavery, and the Refounding of America in the meantime, I’ve gone back to boost Freedom National to a well-deserved five stars. It now stands alongside The Crooked Path to Abolition as being among the best books on the subject I’ve read - and perhaps the best books on the subject there are.
It was a “crooked path” to abolition, and nothing was inevitable - but in Oakes’ telling, it all makes perfect sense.
Early chapters explain the pro-slavery and anti-slavery readings of the Constitution and how the two sides ultimately hardened into rival political factions. Oakes doesn’t pick sides as to which reading was correct, but he traces how slavery supporters took advantage of the protections built into the compromise Constitution to read it as an inherently pro-slavery document, while slavery opponents believed the Constitution contained the seeds for slavery’s ultimate extinction. It was only when opposition to slavery began intensifying, slavery opponents began gaining the upper hand politically, and Lincoln rode the wave into the White House, that the antislavery constitutionalists’ view ultimately prevailed.
It can be a little dense if you’re coming to the subject cold, and perhaps there’s “nothing new” if you’re an expert on the issues and the era. But Oakes explains complicated legal issues very understandably, in a conversational tone, making the book read almost like a transcript of an engaging speech or a lecture. For anyone not as familiar with the subject matter, Oakes makes it very easy to follow; for anyone who is more familiar with the subject matter, it’s still enlightening to see it so concisely and coherently argued.
The gist of antislavery constitutionalism is the belief that the Constitution’s "proslavery clauses were exceptions in a Constitution whose general rule was freedom," Oakes explains. “In the absence of positive law creating slavery, the presumption of freedom prevailed." But with the exception of the Adamses, every president before Lincoln was either a southern slaveholder or a northern doughface, giving the slavocracy the upper hand and allowing their reading of a proslavery constitution to prevail. Only once Lincoln became president, and particularly once the Civil War began, did the antislavery view of the Constitution predominate.
Oakes shows how Lincoln and his Republican Congressional colleagues were able to start chipping away at slavery right away, while still believing that the Constitution did not allow the federal government to abolish slavery in the states where it existed. Using a carrot-and-stick approach, proposals like gradualism, encouraging states to slowly phase out slavery; compensation for slaveowners in exchange for freeing them; and colonization for freed slaves, so racist slaveowners wouldn’t have to worry about living alongside them; were all considered the “carrots.” When those didn’t work, emancipation was the “stick.” A careful reading of the Constitution allowed the Lincoln administration to begin "emancipating slaves, or in the language of the Constitution, discharging them from service," as a way to end the war and pressure the states to end slavery on their own, which antislavery constitutionalists believed was the only permissible way to bring about abolition.
The Emancipation Proclamation, then, far from being a drastic strategy shift that came out of the blue, ended up being “the most effective tool for exerting that pressure" on the states. Even after issuing the Proclamation, Oakes describes how Lincoln continued pressing the border states, and former Confederate states under Union control with loyal governments, to abolish slavery within their borders, ultimately leading to the states' ratification of the 13th Amendment.
"Historians sometimes tell us that the destruction of slavery was the incidental by-product of the war,” Oakes writes. “It would be more accurate to say that slavery was abolished because the Civil War radically accelerated the decades-long shift in the balance of power between slave and free states."
While the book lauds the ultimately successful strategy that Lincoln championed, Oakes still addresses some touchy subjects head on, in a blunt but nonjudgmental way, such as Lincoln’s apparent racism and his support for colonization. He suggests that Lincoln was not racist per se, but was far from being what we would consider an antiracist. And he wasn’t fully in favor of colonizing freed slaves so much as he thought it would be necessary to avoid racial strife. In doing so, however, Oakes says Lincoln "allowed his racial pessimism to override his commitment to racial equality." The takeaway seems to be that we are allowed to be disappointed in Lincoln’s failings, while also remaining grateful for his successes.
It was, after all, a “crooked path” to abolition. As Oakes well explains, the “good guys” aren’t perfect, and abolishing slavery didn’t solve racism. Yet none of it happened as haphazardly as others claim. Oakes connects the dots in a way few others have, proving himself to be one of our greatest thinkers on the political process that led to abolition.
Thinking some of it to be dense and repetitive, I initially gave Oakes’ Freedom National four stars. But after reading Noah Feldman’s comparatively terrible The Broken Constitution: Lincoln, Slavery, and the Refounding of America in the meantime, I’ve gone back to boost Freedom National to a well-deserved five stars. It now stands alongside The Crooked Path to Abolition as being among the best books on the subject I’ve read - and perhaps the best books on the subject there are.
October 1, 2020
Thank you to NetGalley for providing a copy of "The Crooked Path to Abolition" in exchange for an honest review. I am really interested in Abraham Lincoln and anything pertaining to his history. Therefore I jumped at the chance to read and review this new book. I will say that the book is well researched and informative. I will also say that I found the book to be extremely dry and dense. The first half of the book essentially made points about pro-slavery vs anti-slavery readings of the constitution and how different groups of people in America viewed the document that decides everything two very different ways. I kept reading and finished the book hoping against hope for any personal details but came away without that. I did appreciate a review of statements that seemed so out of character made by Lincoln regarding slaves and black Americans and why he likely made those statements to pacify certain people politically. However by analyzing those statements, it is made clear that he rarely, if ever, made those statements from a place of his personal views. I definitely found some new tidbits to think over with this book but I didn't come away with what I hoped for with this book.
November 11, 2022
James Oakes always seem to look at issues in history in a way that other historians hadn't thought of and that is one of the great strengths of his work. He is also a lucid and interesting writer. In this book, he follows the evolution of Lincoln's thinking on emancipation from his early days to the passage of the Amendment in Congress in early 1865. As the books' title suggests, the path was a crooked one but it was always in motion. Whether it was barring the slave trade and ultimately, slavery in D.C. or instructing his generals to give runaway slaves harbor with the Union Army, supporting the Confiscation Acts, the Preliminary Emancipation Act, The Emancipation Proclamation Act and finally, the Thirteenth Amendment, Lincoln listened to and took advice from the people around him. When he realized the futility of colonization, he dropped it (perhaps without ever understanding how deeply racist it was). I have studied this era a great deal and as alluded to above, learned a lot I had not known before. It is a short and very readable book that anyone with an interest in the era would find valuable.
August 31, 2021
Decent book if you are new to Lincoln and don't really know the subject.
Unfortunately it is hard to write something new and compelling about him.
The one key point that I will remember from this book is how after announcing the Emancipation Proclamation, but before it went into effect, Lincoln had to give his State of the Union address to Congress. In that address he still sought a civil remedy to slavery including some sort of gradual emancipation or buyout program. He was still open to recolonizing the former slaves.
After that address in December, neither of those options were brought up by him again.
Unfortunately it is hard to write something new and compelling about him.
The one key point that I will remember from this book is how after announcing the Emancipation Proclamation, but before it went into effect, Lincoln had to give his State of the Union address to Congress. In that address he still sought a civil remedy to slavery including some sort of gradual emancipation or buyout program. He was still open to recolonizing the former slaves.
After that address in December, neither of those options were brought up by him again.
May 19, 2023
A truly great book always seems to be too short; that certainly applies here. I enjoyed this book immensely, I just wish that it were longer. While the author touched on some important subjects, I felt that any one of the chapters could have been expanded into its own book length study. Overall a very worthy effort.
February 26, 2021
Summary: A historical account of how Abraham Lincoln, although not a traditional abolitionist, strongly supported and implemented the antislavery portions of the Constitution to pursue the end of slavery.
Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist in the traditional sense. He did not advocate immediate emancipation in the slave states. He did not advocate active resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act, but only for due process rights. He did not rail in his rhetoric against the vile evils of slavery. But Abraham Lincoln hated slavery and believed there were resources within the Constitution properly leveraged that would lead to its eventual end. How could this be so when the Constitution protected slavery in the states? Only states could abolish slavery, not the Federal government. Both Constitution and legislation allowed slave owners or their proxes to capture and return runaway slaves even where slavery was not legal. And there was that language of slaves being three-fifths of a person.
Actually those who believe in an antislavery Constitution might start there. Slaves are written of as “persons,” undermining the contention of slaves as being property. Beyond this, those who developed the idea of an antislavery Constitution drew on both the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble affirming the equality of persons. They focused on the due process rights protected under the Fifth Amendment to make it as hard as possible for slave owners to retrieve runaways, while not breaking the fugitive slave laws. They used the Federal power to regulate the territories to make these free rather than slave. The Constitution said Congress had no authority “to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.” They antislavery people were committed to no more compromises that would admit new slave states into the country.
Lincoln believed that slavery would eventually wither away of its own. Some proposed that slaves brought into free territory could sue for their freedom. The dynamic economy of the north would outstrip the south, particularly because it could not expand its economy, fenced about by free territories becoming states. Eventually Southern states would abolish slavery on their own, which only they could do, Lincoln believed, since the Constitution did not give this power to the Federal government.
James Oakes traces the development of this antislavery doctrine, particularly within the Republican party. With enough votes in the growing North, Lincoln was elected. While he assured the South that slavery would be upheld, the implementation of other aspects of the antislavery doctrine triggered secession. Oakes shows how this offered new avenues to antislavery effort: ending slavery in the District of Columbia, ending the slave trade and blocking slave shipping to southern ports, and most significantly, voiding Fugitive Slave laws for slave owners in rebel states, since they no longer were under the laws of the Union. Slaves who fled into Union lines would be considered “contraband” and emancipated. While this was not so for border states who remained in the Union, the Army was directed not to assist in the retrieval of any fugitive slaves, since they did not have the legal powers to properly adjudicate such matters. The owners were on their own, further contributing to abolition.
Oakes doesn’t portray Lincoln as an antiracist. He favored colonization of Blacks, believing Blacks and Whites could not live together. But he hated slavery with a singular focus. One senses a Lincoln both shrewd and resolute in availing himself of all the resources available in the Constitution to move the needle toward abolition and emancipation, even maneuvering conquered states to constitute themselves as free and to join in ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment.
What I continue to wonder about is whether Lincoln realized his approach would send the South over the edge, precipitating the Civil War? Or did the South adequately take on board Lincoln’s resolve to preserve the Union once attacked? I wonder, given the case Oakes make, whether there is an argument to suggest that the South played into Lincoln’s hand, accelerating the demise of slavery that may otherwise have taken another fifty to one hundred years. Did Lincoln fully understand the cards he was holding and play them to full advantage?
I’ve often commented about the writing of slavery into our Constitution. I don’t think we can dodge that terrible compromise. But Oakes offers another perspective, showing the side of the Constitution that assumes freedom and equality the norm and slavery an exception. He also shows the lawyerly genius of Lincoln to recognize and exploit that side to its full extreme. The great sadness of all this was the lives it cost, including in the end, Lincoln’s own.
Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist in the traditional sense. He did not advocate immediate emancipation in the slave states. He did not advocate active resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act, but only for due process rights. He did not rail in his rhetoric against the vile evils of slavery. But Abraham Lincoln hated slavery and believed there were resources within the Constitution properly leveraged that would lead to its eventual end. How could this be so when the Constitution protected slavery in the states? Only states could abolish slavery, not the Federal government. Both Constitution and legislation allowed slave owners or their proxes to capture and return runaway slaves even where slavery was not legal. And there was that language of slaves being three-fifths of a person.
Actually those who believe in an antislavery Constitution might start there. Slaves are written of as “persons,” undermining the contention of slaves as being property. Beyond this, those who developed the idea of an antislavery Constitution drew on both the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble affirming the equality of persons. They focused on the due process rights protected under the Fifth Amendment to make it as hard as possible for slave owners to retrieve runaways, while not breaking the fugitive slave laws. They used the Federal power to regulate the territories to make these free rather than slave. The Constitution said Congress had no authority “to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.” They antislavery people were committed to no more compromises that would admit new slave states into the country.
Lincoln believed that slavery would eventually wither away of its own. Some proposed that slaves brought into free territory could sue for their freedom. The dynamic economy of the north would outstrip the south, particularly because it could not expand its economy, fenced about by free territories becoming states. Eventually Southern states would abolish slavery on their own, which only they could do, Lincoln believed, since the Constitution did not give this power to the Federal government.
James Oakes traces the development of this antislavery doctrine, particularly within the Republican party. With enough votes in the growing North, Lincoln was elected. While he assured the South that slavery would be upheld, the implementation of other aspects of the antislavery doctrine triggered secession. Oakes shows how this offered new avenues to antislavery effort: ending slavery in the District of Columbia, ending the slave trade and blocking slave shipping to southern ports, and most significantly, voiding Fugitive Slave laws for slave owners in rebel states, since they no longer were under the laws of the Union. Slaves who fled into Union lines would be considered “contraband” and emancipated. While this was not so for border states who remained in the Union, the Army was directed not to assist in the retrieval of any fugitive slaves, since they did not have the legal powers to properly adjudicate such matters. The owners were on their own, further contributing to abolition.
Oakes doesn’t portray Lincoln as an antiracist. He favored colonization of Blacks, believing Blacks and Whites could not live together. But he hated slavery with a singular focus. One senses a Lincoln both shrewd and resolute in availing himself of all the resources available in the Constitution to move the needle toward abolition and emancipation, even maneuvering conquered states to constitute themselves as free and to join in ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment.
What I continue to wonder about is whether Lincoln realized his approach would send the South over the edge, precipitating the Civil War? Or did the South adequately take on board Lincoln’s resolve to preserve the Union once attacked? I wonder, given the case Oakes make, whether there is an argument to suggest that the South played into Lincoln’s hand, accelerating the demise of slavery that may otherwise have taken another fifty to one hundred years. Did Lincoln fully understand the cards he was holding and play them to full advantage?
I’ve often commented about the writing of slavery into our Constitution. I don’t think we can dodge that terrible compromise. But Oakes offers another perspective, showing the side of the Constitution that assumes freedom and equality the norm and slavery an exception. He also shows the lawyerly genius of Lincoln to recognize and exploit that side to its full extreme. The great sadness of all this was the lives it cost, including in the end, Lincoln’s own.
April 5, 2021
I gave it 5 stars. I think it was a 4.6 star book so I rounded up.
It was well done for its genre. Great structure, great preface, backed with gobs of facts and quotes. If there is fault in this book, it’s that it reads a little dry. But it’s essentially a historical record, so I think it fits. I think, in this day and age, I am used to some history books that read like novels. This one doesn’t.
A first I would get tired of the plethora of facts and figures, but the author does a good job making sure they are organized and tell a cohesive story. The preparation for this book must have been extensive. I’m grateful for the hard work that went into that.
Though the author doesn’t explicitly make the connection, I liked the way the constitution mirrored Lincoln— an anti-slavery document/man, but riddled with some confusing and contradictory statements regarding slavery and race.
The battle for emancipation was so political. One side would use clever wording to get a bill passed, then the other would find a technicality to flip it to their advantage. This political bickering goes on for so many years that the language of the bills gets so specific and added to the confusion. The arguments for what to do in certain circumstances with certain slaves from certain places became so packed with rules and exceptions that it ultimately builds tensions that can only be released by full emancipation. By adding all the details in this book, we can get a taste of what it must have been like to feel that tense progression.
Anyway, great book!
It was well done for its genre. Great structure, great preface, backed with gobs of facts and quotes. If there is fault in this book, it’s that it reads a little dry. But it’s essentially a historical record, so I think it fits. I think, in this day and age, I am used to some history books that read like novels. This one doesn’t.
A first I would get tired of the plethora of facts and figures, but the author does a good job making sure they are organized and tell a cohesive story. The preparation for this book must have been extensive. I’m grateful for the hard work that went into that.
Though the author doesn’t explicitly make the connection, I liked the way the constitution mirrored Lincoln— an anti-slavery document/man, but riddled with some confusing and contradictory statements regarding slavery and race.
The battle for emancipation was so political. One side would use clever wording to get a bill passed, then the other would find a technicality to flip it to their advantage. This political bickering goes on for so many years that the language of the bills gets so specific and added to the confusion. The arguments for what to do in certain circumstances with certain slaves from certain places became so packed with rules and exceptions that it ultimately builds tensions that can only be released by full emancipation. By adding all the details in this book, we can get a taste of what it must have been like to feel that tense progression.
Anyway, great book!
June 30, 2021
Do you know which of the original thirteen states were free states? (none)
Do you know what four slave states remained with the Union?
Can you describe the legal underpinnings of the antislavery movement?
This wonderful, readable explanation of the development and articulation of the antislavery interpretation of the United States Constitution will answer those questions in context, as James Oakes takes us on the crooked path that led, finally, to the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. Well worth reading.
Do you know what four slave states remained with the Union?
Can you describe the legal underpinnings of the antislavery movement?
This wonderful, readable explanation of the development and articulation of the antislavery interpretation of the United States Constitution will answer those questions in context, as James Oakes takes us on the crooked path that led, finally, to the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. Well worth reading.
July 11, 2022
This is a well reviewed book that traces as how President Lincoln studied the antislavery options. He wanted the enslaved people who escaped to be free. Later, the Emancipation Proclamation led to abolition by six slave states, and the ratification of the constitutional amendment by several states in 1865 finally abolished slavery. Highly recommneded.
July 4, 2021
This is good overall, but it loses a star on Lincoln and colonization. With Oakes, it's more a throwaway than a full-throttled claim like that of David S. Reynolds in "Abe-Abraham Lincoln and His Times," but Oakes claims Lincoln stopped discussing abolition after 1862.
(Update: Book lost a star due to email exchange with Oakes:
You have to be obsessed with colonization to give a shit about this. I’m not and I don’t.
Here’s why:
Q. Of the four million slaves emancipated by the Civil War, how many did the federal government colonize outside the United States?
A. Zero
I’m interested in explaining what happened, not what didn’t happen.)
My response: I'm "obsessed" with historical accuracy. I guess you're admitting you're not.
PLUS, you knows it "goes to motive" on explaining persona of Lincoln.)
This is half-true by the letter, at best, and totally untrue in spirit, as he allowed the Emigration Bureau to discuss Belize colonization in 1863, asked AG Bates in 1864 if colonization was legally still on the table, and reportedly discussed the issue with Spoons Butler just before his assassination.
Given this, and that Oakes like Reynolds tries to "soften" old Lincoln statements from charges of racism, it's no wonder Reynolds blurbed it. Add to that the fact that they're peers at CUNY and even both went to Berkeley and there probably was some cross-pollinization.
As with Reynolds' book, were the five-star elements in it not fully five-star, the book would have gotten three stars because of this willful and egregious failure. (As with Reynolds, it is both; I know he knows the history I just cited.)
(Update: Book lost a star due to email exchange with Oakes:
You have to be obsessed with colonization to give a shit about this. I’m not and I don’t.
Here’s why:
Q. Of the four million slaves emancipated by the Civil War, how many did the federal government colonize outside the United States?
A. Zero
I’m interested in explaining what happened, not what didn’t happen.)
My response: I'm "obsessed" with historical accuracy. I guess you're admitting you're not.
PLUS, you knows it "goes to motive" on explaining persona of Lincoln.)
This is half-true by the letter, at best, and totally untrue in spirit, as he allowed the Emigration Bureau to discuss Belize colonization in 1863, asked AG Bates in 1864 if colonization was legally still on the table, and reportedly discussed the issue with Spoons Butler just before his assassination.
Given this, and that Oakes like Reynolds tries to "soften" old Lincoln statements from charges of racism, it's no wonder Reynolds blurbed it. Add to that the fact that they're peers at CUNY and even both went to Berkeley and there probably was some cross-pollinization.
As with Reynolds' book, were the five-star elements in it not fully five-star, the book would have gotten three stars because of this willful and egregious failure. (As with Reynolds, it is both; I know he knows the history I just cited.)
February 20, 2021
A slim volume dense volume with ideas centered on the evolution of Abraham Lincoln's thoughts on ending slavery in the United States.
Today it is fashionable to denigrate Lincoln as insufficiently abolitionist and a tad too racist. This, I feel, is unfair and irrational, as the man grew, evolved and changed the nation as no other US president until, perhaps, Franklin Roosevelt. Of course Lincoln's image was tarnished in the aftermath of the Compromise of 1877; the political resurrection of unrepentant Southern Slavocrates, and the diminution of Radical Republicans in Congress; and the rise of the so-called "Liberal" Republicans who placed big business interests before civil rights and looked the other way as states of the old Confederacy enacted legislation that all but reinstituted slavery.
Of course this book covers the bigger picture of the antislavery movement than just Abraham Lincoln. While many today regard the unamended US Constitution as decidedly proslavery, it was anything but. The ambiguousness of many pertinent articles regarding the South's "peculiar institution" also, interestingly enough, gave rise to antislavery constitutionalism. An "Antislavery Project" began almost as soon as the Constitution was ratified. Of course that is a fact of our history that was buried in the post-Civil War years as the political strength of institutions lampooned by Jay Ward's Bullwinkle cartoon series as "Confederate Correctors," grew in the years leading up the election of unrepentant segregationist Woodrow Wilson.
Today it is fashionable to denigrate Lincoln as insufficiently abolitionist and a tad too racist. This, I feel, is unfair and irrational, as the man grew, evolved and changed the nation as no other US president until, perhaps, Franklin Roosevelt. Of course Lincoln's image was tarnished in the aftermath of the Compromise of 1877; the political resurrection of unrepentant Southern Slavocrates, and the diminution of Radical Republicans in Congress; and the rise of the so-called "Liberal" Republicans who placed big business interests before civil rights and looked the other way as states of the old Confederacy enacted legislation that all but reinstituted slavery.
Of course this book covers the bigger picture of the antislavery movement than just Abraham Lincoln. While many today regard the unamended US Constitution as decidedly proslavery, it was anything but. The ambiguousness of many pertinent articles regarding the South's "peculiar institution" also, interestingly enough, gave rise to antislavery constitutionalism. An "Antislavery Project" began almost as soon as the Constitution was ratified. Of course that is a fact of our history that was buried in the post-Civil War years as the political strength of institutions lampooned by Jay Ward's Bullwinkle cartoon series as "Confederate Correctors," grew in the years leading up the election of unrepentant segregationist Woodrow Wilson.
December 29, 2021
Seems any book I read about Lincoln or this era is good, a lot to learn and is relevant to many things today. One thing I'm not sure I knew about before was the warnings given about secession. It was generally accepted the Feds couldn't do anything about slavery in a state, only encourage or try to pressure a state to abolish it, as well as it had no power to enforce the fugitive slave clause (although that was a bit more debated). The free states weren't interested in enforcing it, but at least there was something in the Constitution that says they should (so much for states' rights...). But there were many northerners who were warning the slave power that if a state seceded, then they could forget any fugitive slaves being returned, and it would open the door via war powers for emancipation. I knew the blindness of the slave power (bemoaning states rights, it was always about keeping their slaves and life of leisure), but this made it even clearer how blind they were. What a buncha dummies.
I continue to find Lincoln's approach fascinating, the balance b/w pragmatic governance and sticking to principles, and this book delves deep into that. Good stuff.
I continue to find Lincoln's approach fascinating, the balance b/w pragmatic governance and sticking to principles, and this book delves deep into that. Good stuff.
November 30, 2021
Politicians of the time alleged that the Civil War was about something other than slavery. Jefferson Davis claimed it was about states rights, but, as Lincoln pointed out, slavery was the only state right being challenged. Not that Yankee politicians were more forthright. In the early years of the war, Lincoln said he was fighting solely to restore the Union. After the fact, most books by participants and historians have treaded lightly on slavery as the primary cause.
During and after the Constitutional Convention, slaveholding states had threatened to secede if they did not get their way. With a few brief interludes, slaveholders or slave tolerant politicians controlled the national government from its inception. The slave states had grown used to dominance, but a party had emerged who outspokenly threaten their “peculiar institution.” With the election of the first Republican President, the slaveholders made good on their decades-old threat to dismantle the Union.
The Crooked Path to Abolition is a timely book. Historians are always looking for a niche perspective on Abraham Lincoln. James Oats has picked a rare one. He doesn’t come up with a unique thesis and then cobble together evidence to prove his thesis. For the most part, he compiles evidence and then presents it impassively, allowing the reader to make up their mind.
Lincoln certainly took a crooked path to abolition. A purposeful path or the flailing of an uncertain politician?
Read the book and you decide.
During and after the Constitutional Convention, slaveholding states had threatened to secede if they did not get their way. With a few brief interludes, slaveholders or slave tolerant politicians controlled the national government from its inception. The slave states had grown used to dominance, but a party had emerged who outspokenly threaten their “peculiar institution.” With the election of the first Republican President, the slaveholders made good on their decades-old threat to dismantle the Union.
The Crooked Path to Abolition is a timely book. Historians are always looking for a niche perspective on Abraham Lincoln. James Oats has picked a rare one. He doesn’t come up with a unique thesis and then cobble together evidence to prove his thesis. For the most part, he compiles evidence and then presents it impassively, allowing the reader to make up their mind.
Lincoln certainly took a crooked path to abolition. A purposeful path or the flailing of an uncertain politician?
Read the book and you decide.
June 19, 2023
Brilliant. A short and deeply informed discussion of two issues: (1) was the Constitution pro-slavery or pro-abolition? and (2) how do we understand Lincoln's relationship to emancipation and race. Particularly the former question is answered in the kind of complex and thoroughly reasoned way that should be required reading in schools (rather than being a subject that is now forbidden in more than a dozen states).
November 15, 2022
A fine historical introduction to President Lincoln’s evolution to a determined anti-slavery President. Also most helpful in laying bare Southern fears as to the abolition of enslavement. The book suggests the Civil War, as instituted by the South, was an anti-democratic rebellion. I will be reading more on this subject.
January 7, 2024
This book was provided an interesting look at how Lincoln can be seen as reading the Constitution as demanding an end to slavery. The author explains the opposing readings of the Constitution as pro- or anti-slavery and how Lincoln's actions over time show him seemingly adopting an anti-slavery reading. It was a bit repetitive but overall worth the read.
May 8, 2025
I listened to the audiobook. Fantastic! This along with James Oakes' other book The Scorpion Sting are excellent introductions to the fundamental constitutional disagreement between Northern and Southern states regarding slavery that was resolved by the Civil War. This will be one of my go to recommendations.
September 12, 2021
This book was okay. The first part was very dense and fairly boring, but it got better as it progressed. Well researched and the author is clearly very knowledgeable, but sometimes it felt overwhelmingly so.
October 11, 2021
An excellent analysis of how Abraham Lincoln and others looked at the Constitution as an antislavery document, and how that view informed their strategies for putting slavery on the path, albeit a crooked one, to its ultimate extinction.
Longer review to follow.
Longer review to follow.
December 2, 2024
Interesting, detailed history of the torturously slow road to antislavery.
January 1, 2021
I got this book as an e-arc from the publisher.
This was a fascinating book. I learned a lot. The tone changed pretty abruptly on page 186 to more personal and conversational, which was a much better tone for the book to take. I wish the entire book had been like that. It did end rather abruptly as well. If it were a research essay a student gave me, I'd likely tell them they needed some sort of conclusion. For instance, I know the book is about the PATH to abolition, but it gets to the states ratifying it (very hurriedly gets through that, by the way) and then is just over. Feels like the author just needed another day or two with it, to be honest.
Even with these small issues, I learned so very much and it was very interestingly written. I plan to recommend it to a lot of people.
This was a fascinating book. I learned a lot. The tone changed pretty abruptly on page 186 to more personal and conversational, which was a much better tone for the book to take. I wish the entire book had been like that. It did end rather abruptly as well. If it were a research essay a student gave me, I'd likely tell them they needed some sort of conclusion. For instance, I know the book is about the PATH to abolition, but it gets to the states ratifying it (very hurriedly gets through that, by the way) and then is just over. Feels like the author just needed another day or two with it, to be honest.
Even with these small issues, I learned so very much and it was very interestingly written. I plan to recommend it to a lot of people.
February 8, 2021
This book was brilliant and enjoyable. Though the preface was overlong, Crooked Path gives an excellent explanation of the pro and anti-slavery views of the Constitution. Oakes clearly and intelligently describes the constitutional and legal views of slavery from 1787 to the Civil War. He also shows the legal basis for the Emancipation Proclamation and how pre-war abolitionist thinking became federal policy during the Civil War. In addition, the author demonstrates how Lincoln brilliantly advanced three separate policies at once to bring slavery to an end. This is an excellent book for those who love to read about the Civil War.
May 31, 2021
Great read. The book focused, as the title suggests, on the perception of the constitutionality of slavery and the introduction of abolition, with (naturally) Lincoln taking the lead role, albeit guardedly and methodically. National sentiments on either side of the slavery vs. abolition are given their due, but we're primarily treated to the many interpretations of the Constitution and how both sides by a number of well-known and lesser-known politicians. A very good read, highly recommended.
February 4, 2022
As indicated in the title, the path to finally abolishing slavery in the United States was longer and more complicated than hardly anyone believed, even those who thought it would long and complicated. The determination and the creativity of the abolitionists and those who, like Lincoln, came to see the necessity of abolition in a more measured way, was most enlightening. The author includes so many details which connected events that I never saw connected before. Thoroughly researched, and well written.
September 1, 2021
Having read American Heretic, a biography of Calhoun, earlier this year, and my heavy background in civil war era history, I started this book with a pretty good foundation and then some when it comes to understanding the abolition movement and emancipation of slavery. But this book hit different. Coming mostly from an objective evaluation of Lincoln and his northern counterparts, the reader really comes to grips with the truth (and it is truth) that the southern states weren’t alone in their racist views and that the northern states were, at worst, just as racists and at best, complicit. The lengths in which our entire country, including Lincoln himself, through the political landscape, went to appease southern slave owners and compromising policies for new states and territories, while STILL viewing our black brothers and sisters as less than one whole human being, strike that, image bearers, is simultaneously disgusting and a reality check as to just how hard it is to call out, persuade, correct, legislate, redeem and heal from systemic racism. Here’s the truth that leaders then had to deal with (and didn’t) that leaders today need to as well (and aren’t):
There is no neutrality that exists on this topic. There are many things in life that are both/and. This isn’t one of them. It is certainly either/or. Forgive me for reducing this important topic to a sports metaphor but there are no sidelines on this field. All of us are in the game and, through our thoughts, words and actions, are moving the proverbial ball closer to one end zone or the other when it comes to racial equity and reconciliation. We don’t get to claim color blindness. We don’t get to say that game ended with Lincoln. We don’t get to respond with all lives matter. They should. But they haven’t. So we can’t. So think about which jersey you’re wearing and which end zone you’re staring at and make the necessary changes so that the kingdom of God can be established on earth as it already is in heaven.
Final rating: Borrow It
There is no neutrality that exists on this topic. There are many things in life that are both/and. This isn’t one of them. It is certainly either/or. Forgive me for reducing this important topic to a sports metaphor but there are no sidelines on this field. All of us are in the game and, through our thoughts, words and actions, are moving the proverbial ball closer to one end zone or the other when it comes to racial equity and reconciliation. We don’t get to claim color blindness. We don’t get to say that game ended with Lincoln. We don’t get to respond with all lives matter. They should. But they haven’t. So we can’t. So think about which jersey you’re wearing and which end zone you’re staring at and make the necessary changes so that the kingdom of God can be established on earth as it already is in heaven.
Final rating: Borrow It
July 16, 2022
This book is great for information about honest Abe. However, it is not great at presenting that information to you in a way that pulls you in and keeps you entertained as well. I find history entertaining, I do have an interest in it, and generally I have a great time reading about it. This book is just a bit too much like a textbook to me, and not in a good way. (Some textbooks can be quite interesting, though many are not so much). It feels dry, you're getting tons of information, but the way it's fed to you makes it hard to swallow. I feel like not much stuck in my memory due to the non-creative writing of this novel. I do get that it's supposed to be heavily factual, and not packed full of action and drama, but it just doesn't hit my history bone the right way. History can, and is written to be entertaining often, but this book just doesn't really have that.
The information within is abundant and educational, the actual knowledge you can gain from this book is aplenty. I did walk away knowing a bit more than I previously had, and there's nothing wrong with the facts.
My main problem is just the way that the facts are presented, and written. Overall, it's just average to me. I can see this being a great teaching tool, but I wouldn't consider it a good casual read, even for a history lover.
The information within is abundant and educational, the actual knowledge you can gain from this book is aplenty. I did walk away knowing a bit more than I previously had, and there's nothing wrong with the facts.
My main problem is just the way that the facts are presented, and written. Overall, it's just average to me. I can see this being a great teaching tool, but I wouldn't consider it a good casual read, even for a history lover.
October 1, 2021
James Oakes presents here a richly detailed, cogently written history of the Constitutional roots of the anti-slavery politics of abolitionism from the Constitutional Convention through to the enactment of the 13th Amendment in 1865. Tracing the political and legal interpretations of the Constitution as an anti-slavery document (and, to a lesser extent, as a pro-Slavery document in counterpoint) Oakes illustrates the fraught politics of the antebellum era with regards to the slavery question. While Lincoln is certainly a central focus of the volume - as his personal interpretations of the issue of slavery and its Constitutionality flavor the text throughout - those expecting this to be similar to Eric Foner's The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery will be disappointed (or relieved): this is not a book strictly tracing Lincoln's anti-slavery beliefs; but rather an overview of the legal and Constitutional basis of the Abolition movement, albeit a very well written and detailed one.
May 18, 2021
There is so much discussion these days about “originalism” which seems to be a far-right attempt to strip away two centuries of advance in human rights by ultra conservative members of the Supreme Court. Proponents of “originalism” say that they are going back to the true text of the Constitution in order to align their decisions with those of the writers. The author brilliantly strips away this fraud by showing that, in fact, the Constitution contains both pro-slavery and anti-slavery components. For many consequential issues of our times, the Constitution, a document created by compromise, can be used to support multiple positions.
This book focuses on the abolition of slavery, certainly one of the most consequential acts in American history. It is a fascinating read focusing on documents of the time and bringing forward all of the conflicts faced by successive presidents leading up to the Civil War.
This book focuses on the abolition of slavery, certainly one of the most consequential acts in American history. It is a fascinating read focusing on documents of the time and bringing forward all of the conflicts faced by successive presidents leading up to the Civil War.
March 13, 2023
I enjoyed this book, a short but well formed narrative. I liked Oakes' focus on constituionalism. He shows how abolitionists and politicians opposed to slavery read the Constitution and used various pieces of it to support their views and arguments, as well as how they coped with or reacted to the pro-slavery opposition.
As he himself notes, Oakes is coming at this as a historian, not a legal scholar, who may have different opinions and judgments on the subject. But from a historical perspective I appreciated the discussion of how antislavery forces developed and marshalled their arguments, and how those arguments spread from radicals to more moderate or conservative Republicans of the era. Oakes then did a good job of showing how Lincoln utilized the "antislavery constitution" in his efforts to pursue emancipation and abolition.
Overall a good discussion of some of the legal/constitutional arguments made by Lincoln and the Republicans.
As he himself notes, Oakes is coming at this as a historian, not a legal scholar, who may have different opinions and judgments on the subject. But from a historical perspective I appreciated the discussion of how antislavery forces developed and marshalled their arguments, and how those arguments spread from radicals to more moderate or conservative Republicans of the era. Oakes then did a good job of showing how Lincoln utilized the "antislavery constitution" in his efforts to pursue emancipation and abolition.
Overall a good discussion of some of the legal/constitutional arguments made by Lincoln and the Republicans.
March 23, 2022
Oakes makes the amazing point that because the constitution was a compromise between pro and anti slave forces, prior to the civil war there was much debate over if the constitution was pro slavery or anti slavery. In a time that was even more reverential of the constitution Lincoln promoted the anti slavery interpretation. I was interested to see how the pro-slavery cause tried to use the constitution as a precedent despite its ban on the slave trade and the first congress’s ban on slavery in the NW territories. Even though sometimes it was parsing words like person vs property he was building a constitutional consensus that an amendment was needed and it would be the “kings cure.” Well written and interesting analysis.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews