Change is one of the few constants of American democracy, and Americans will always fiercely debate that change. One of the most seismic changes this nation experienced was its transformation from a slave-holding country, to a free land. Two men, Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, sought to end this abhorrent institution, but they disagreed on how to bring this goal to fruition. Of course, Douglass’ desire for abolition was never in question as he dedicated his life to that cause. However, Lincoln’s dedication to the antislavery movement has often come into question, and while it is true that Lincoln often avoided committing himself to abolition, there is significant evidence that he vehemently despised the institution of slavery. In an 1858 speech, Lincoln stated, “I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist.”[1] However, Lincoln had to restrain his moral compass at times as President to keep the Union strong enough to defeat the Confederacy. Eventually, when he deemed the circumstances favorable enough, Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation which historian Andrew Deblanco described as “the final triumph within Lincoln’s heart of… ‘the higher law’ over legal compunction.” [2] Douglass’ responses to Lincoln’s actions and words as President give insight into how Douglass would have pursued emancipation with more abandon than Lincoln did. From these comparisons in strategy, it becomes apparent that achieving change in American democracy requires both those who can exercise restraint in pursuing the causes they believe, like Lincoln, and those who are guided by their passion for their cause, like Douglass.
Inaugural Address
Lincoln’s First Inauguration (Library of Congress)
On March 4 1861, with the secession crisis looming, Abraham Lincoln delivered his First Inaugural Address. In his write-up of the address in Douglass’ Monthly, Frederick Douglass complained that the document “conceals rather than declares a specific policy.” Douglass believed that Lincoln should have taken a tougher stance on secession and slavery than he did. [3] However, as historian Matthew Pinsker reveals in his book Boss Lincoln, Lincoln’s original draft of his inaugural address actually was more aggressive. “The address offered a firm statement against secession that ended with the startling question: ‘Shall it be peace, or a sword?’” But, on the advice of Secretary of State-to-be Seward, Lincoln removed the language and opted instead for a final appeal for unity to conclude his speech. [4] Lincoln opted to exercise restraint and exclude the very language that Douglass criticized the speech for lacking. Where Lincoln prudently avoided provoking more states into secession, Douglass would have instead vigorously condemned southern secession to make the Union appear strong and not guilty of “cowardly baseness.”[5] Lincoln’s deliberate approach and Douglass’ zealous one were often at odds with each other and continued to be throughout the American Civil War.
Frémont’s Proclamation
Once the war began, Abraham Lincoln continued to exhibit restraint in both his words and actions on the slavery issue. On the other hand, Douglass wished for more radical action and was unfettered in his condemnations of slavery. One of the most well-documented examples of the contrast between Lincoln and Douglass’ approaches was their respective reactions to General Frémont’s Proclamation that came in August of 1861. Faced with difficult circumstances in Missouri where he commanded Union forces, Frémont issued an order that freed all slaves of masters who were disloyal to the Union. Sensing the danger that Frémont’s proclamation could scare border states like Kentucky into secession, Lincoln ordered Frémont to adapt his order to comply with the recently passed Confiscation Act which would limit the slaves who were freed to only those working for Confederate forces. [6] Lincoln’s choice to shut down Frémont’s Proclamation, regarded by some as the first “Emancipation Proclamation,” was quickly assailed by abolitionists and radical Republicans including Douglass. In his paper, Douglass’ Monthly, he asserted that he and his peers “were never more hopeful since the commencement of this war… as when they read the fearless and earnest proclamation of John. C. Frémont.” Douglass then ruthlessly attacked Lincoln for killing this policy, even going so far as to condemn his reelection: “In three years more the people will sanction the death of slavery in the man of their choice” [7] Clearly, Douglass would have supported the policy had he been in Lincoln’s shoes.
Gen. John C. Frémont (American History Central)
While Lincoln doubtless desired the emancipation of slaves, he knew that freedom for slaves in Missouri threatened the freedom of millions still held in bondage in the event that border states seceded because of Frémont’s Proclamation. Lincoln, as an executive, restrained his government in their pursuance of antislavery measures, but perhaps, on a personal level, Lincoln had to restrain himself from allowing the freedom of many enslaved people in Missouri. Faced with this moral dilemma, Frederick Douglass likely would have made the opposite decision. In an 1858 speech celebrating emancipation in the West Indies, Douglass asserted that “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” [8]. Douglass intended to place every demand on the power of the slaveholders, and given the opportunity to green-light an emancipation document, he almost certainly would have. Douglass rarely exhibited the same kind of restraint Lincoln did. More often, he was guided by his passion for emancipation that served him so well as an author and orator.
Frederick Douglass’ Mission of the War Speech
In January of 1864, when Douglass delivered his “The Mission of the War” speech, circumstances were very different than they had been in August of 1861 when Frémont issued his proclamation. Slaves in rebel states had been legally emancipated, and Black men could even serve in the Union Army. In his speech, Douglass wrote, “I know the American people. They are an impulsive people, impatient of delay, clamorous for change…”[9] Douglass’ understanding of the character of Americans perhaps demonstrates why he wanted more aggressive anti-slavery tactics. Douglass sought rapid change, at least in part, because he was worried that Americans would grow tired of the war effort and concede the slavery issue in favor of unifying the nation.
Lincoln had a much different conception of the American people. Lincoln understood that he needed the consent of the governed to make lasting changes to institutions such as slavery. Historian Matthew Pinsker notes Lincoln’s “relentless coalition building” in his attempt to strengthen the fusionist Union party after the battle of Gettysburg. [10] Lincoln’s efforts to unify the factions in the north illustrated his belief that patiently developing unity among Americans; not hasty action, was required as he began to think about Reconstruction policies to not only reintegrate the south back into the north but also to integrate formerly enslaved people into free society. However, in his 1863 annual message, Lincoln continued to exercise restraint and “made a point of avoiding the growing controversies connected to reconstruction policy,”[11] according to Pinsker. Lincoln knew that he had to withhold some of his ideas to appeal to the diverse coalition he had helped to create. He had to wait until the American people and their representatives were on his side.
Conclusion
Douglass believed wholeheartedly that “the feeling of the nation must be quickened” to bring about the end of slavery.[12] As for Lincoln, historian Matthew Pinsker puts it best: “Nobody controlled events, especially during the Civil War, but Lincoln had always controlled his reactions to wartime events–a key to his success as a leader.” [13] While Douglass opted for impassioned appeals and radical action to invigorate the nation, Lincoln took advantage of and adapted to the changing circumstances the war created. He took action only when the political climate supported such action, but without Douglass, that ideal political climate very well may have never emerged. If the Union were a steam locomotive, Lincoln would be the engineer – controlling the speed at which the train moved – while Douglass would be the fireman, shoveling coal into the furnace so the train had the ability to move faster and faster. To effectuate change in American democracy, both the fireman and the engineer are required. A century after the events of the civil war, Lyndon B. Johnson and Martin Luther King Jr. formed a similar team to that of Lincoln and Douglass. While King built external pressure for reform through protest, Johnson deftly pulled political strings in Washington D.C. to get key legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed. [14] One thing is clear. Prudence or passion alone can be powerful tools for change, but together, they are bringers of lasting change to American democracy.
[1] Abraham Lincoln, The Portable Abraham Lincoln, ed. Andrew Delbanco (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), 118
[2] Andrew Delbanco, introduction to The Portable Abraham Lincoln, by Abraham Lincoln, ed. Andrew Delbanco (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), x.
[3] Henry Louis Gates Jr. and John Stauffer, eds., The Portable Frederick Douglass (New York: Penguin Books, 2016), 458.
[4] Matthew Pinsker, Boss Lincoln (New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc, 2026), 288.
[5] Gates and Stauffer, 459.
[6] Edna Greene Medford, “Lincoln and the Constitutional Dilemma of Emancipation.” OAH Magazine of History 21, no. 1 (2007): 21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25162095.
[7] Gates and Stauffer, 477.
[8] Gates and Stauffer, 288.
[9] Gates and Stauffer, 326.
[10] Pinsker, 406.
[11] Pinsker, 404.
[12]Gates and Stauffer, 207.
[13] Pinsker 410.
[14] Jessie Kratz, “LBJ and MLK,” National Archives, https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2018/02/28/lbj-and-mlk/.