The Radical and the Republican

Although it might have seemed clear to a modern reader that Abraham Lincoln would be the obvious candidate for a figure like Frederick Douglass, this was not the case. Douglass was a man of staunch principle, and as such, would rather cast his vote behind a party and a candidate that would eventually lose, but who more closely reflected his own personal politics. As the Whig party was slowly dying out due to internal conflict and lack of a coherent platform, numerous other parties, like the Free-Soil Party and the Liberty Party emerged, the center of whose platforms rested on abolitionist policy. For Lincoln and the Republican party, which had only recently been founded by the 1860 election, abolition was not a central tenant. Instead, the party and Lincoln as candidate was willing to concede on slavery so long as the Union was preserved. Their argument against slavery was an economic one, and as such they believed that, given time, it would slowly die out because it would become an inefficient means of industry.

This latter position was not something Douglass, who wanted emancipation and wanted it “now,” could get behind. He viewed doing so to be an abandonment and a betrayal of his principles, as even should a Republican candidate win, they would only manage to maintain the status quo. Better was to be on record supporting a radical reformer than a winning candidate who advanced nothing. From his standpoint as a reformer, this was most important. However, Oakes takes pains to show that the public campaigning Lincoln was not always the same as the private, thoughtful Lincoln, who was much more radical. Lincoln understood to show such would harm his political chances and result in the election of an opposition party that would do more harm than good.

Moreover, Oakes also highlights another problem inherent in elected democracy: where ultimate power lays. While it might have seemed clear to reformers like Douglass that, as president, Lincoln could do whatever he wanted, the reader must remember that in 1860, America was barely 80 years old. The country was still trying to understand the nuances of its political system, which was unique to the world. Absolutism and monarchy were still the norm for much of the developed world, so the idea of an elected leader acting unilaterally wreaked of monarchism and would have been seen by many as political overreach. Lincoln understood this, but he also realized that without continual pressure from the Office of the President, Congress would be slow to act to enact change, since to do so would risk alienating the individual constituencies that elected them. Thus, Lincoln found himself between a rock and a hard place, both wanting to act, but not overact, both wanting to be progressive, but not wanting to jeopardize the Union. From his perspective slavery was but one issue to be considered, whereas from Douglass’s perspective, it was the only issue to be considered.