{"id":20,"date":"2021-06-21T13:16:34","date_gmt":"2021-06-21T13:16:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-goodman\/?page_id=20"},"modified":"2021-09-22T14:39:03","modified_gmt":"2021-09-22T14:39:03","slug":"essay","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-goodman\/essay\/","title":{"rendered":"Essay"},"content":{"rendered":"

To Be Cautious or To Be Bold: The Competing Strategies of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass during the Civil War\u00a0<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\"Lincoln<\/a>

Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln (People’sWorld)<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cThe friends of freedom, the Union, and the Constitution, have been most basely betrayed, deceived, and swindled.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0 -Frederick Douglass, 1862<\/p>\n

Introduction:\u00a0<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Frederick Douglass did not mince words when expressing his frustration with Abraham Lincoln\u2019s approach to abolition and the Civil War.\u00a0 These were two of the most well-known 19th century figures who worked towards securing freedom for all.\u00a0 But, they took vastly different approaches to promote their agendas at the outbreak of the war.\u00a0 In contemporary politics too, contending strategies arise and factions emerge within larger coalitions.\u00a0 Sometimes the differences in approaches taken by people on the same side of an issue are so great that it seems like they are working against each other.\u00a0 Lincoln and Douglass\u2019s debates should serve as a case example for how we should be aware that those with different strategies may be working towards the same end.\u00a0 Lincoln was a calculated politician who exercised caution in order to keep slavery\u2019s opponents united, and Douglass was a radical who thought that bold speech and actions would attract supporters, but both wanted to put an end to slavery.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Interpretations of the Constitution:<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\"Constitution\"<\/a>

Constitution of the United States (National Archives)<\/p><\/div>\n

Both Lincoln and Douglass interpreted the Constitution as an anti-slavery document, but Lincoln saw it as laying out the boundaries for abolition whereas Douglass saw it as an open call to action.\u00a0 As President of the United States, Lincoln believed it was his utmost duty to uphold and enforce the Constitution.\u00a0 He believed that the founders wrote the document \u201cknowing slavery was evil but certain it was dying,\u201d and that they compromised with slavery in order to create the Union.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 He believed that the founders \u201chid slavery away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time.\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0 Essentially, Lincoln thought that the Constitution allowed him to fight against slavery but also believed that the power it gave him was limited.\u00a0 Oakes explained that \u201cno matter how much he personally hated slavery, the Constitution recognized it in the states where it had already existed,\u201d so he was only able to stop the expansion of slavery, but could not interfere where it was already constitutionally recognized.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

On the other hand, Douglass saw the Constitution as a document that granted everyone the right to fight against slavery using whatever means were deemed necessary.\u00a0 Oakes explained that Douglass believed that the Constitution and its Preamble promised universal freedom and that it was significant that there was no explicit mention of slavery in the document.\u00a0 He thought the Constitution was \u201ca weapon to \u2018be wielded in behalf of emancipation,\u2019\u201d and that it \u201cvirtually commanded politicians to take aggressive action against slavery wherever it existed.\u201d[5]<\/a>\u00a0 In relation to the nation\u2019s founding, he believed \u201cif in its origin, slavery had any relation to the government, it was only as the scaffolding to the magnificent structure, to be removed as soon as the building was completed.\u201d[6]<\/a>\u00a0 He disagreed with Republicans, like Lincoln, who claimed that there were constitutional barriers to abolition, and he was frustrated by the fact that a document he thought called for change was inhibiting it.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Douglass\u2019s 1852 \u201cFifth of July\u201d Speech:<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\"Douglass\"<\/a>

Frederick Douglass in London, 1846 (Bettmann Archive)<\/p><\/div>\n

Douglass took a radical approach to anti-slavery advocacy, both in his speech and actions because he believed that in order to spark change, he had to be bold.\u00a0 His \u201cFifth of July\u201d speech in 1852 exemplified this important component of his strategy.\u00a0 Douglass strategically gave this speech the day after the nation\u2019s celebration of its independence in order to make a statement about how a portion of the population, American slaves, had nothing to celebrate on the 4th of July.\u00a0 He explained that \u201cthis Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn,\u201d and followed by asking \u201cdo you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day?\u201d[7]<\/a>\u00a0 Douglass tried to make his listeners uncomfortable in order to both capture people\u2019s attention and move them to action.<\/p>\n

Douglass used inflammatory language as a way to move audiences and attract followers.\u00a0 He referred to the institution of slavery as \u201cthe great sin and shame of America!\u201d and said that he intended to \u201cuse the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.\u201d[8]<\/a>\u00a0 It is clear that Douglass refused to censor himself in any way on the issue of slavery, publicly or privately.\u00a0 <\/strong>His use of explosive rhetoric served as a way for him to outwardly expose the hypocrisy of the nation.\u00a0 He stated, \u201cat a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation\u2019s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder.\u201d[9]<\/a>\u00a0 Essentially, he emphasized that not only did the hypocrisy need to be exposed, it should be blasted.\u00a0 Douglass\u2019s language was divisive and confrontational and served to attract followers by evoking a visceral response.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Lincoln\u2019s 1858 \u201cHouse Divided\u201d Speech:<\/strong><\/h5>\n

In Lincoln\u2019s \u201cHouse Divided\u201d speech in 1858, he employed a relatively radical tone as he was trying to unite the opponents of slavery in the North. \u00a0He gave this speech when he accepted the Republican nomination to run for Senator in Illinois, after Illinois Republicans \u201cbroke new political ground by nominating Lincoln in advance of the legislative elections as their \u2018first and only choice\u2019 for U.S. senate.\u201d[10]<\/a>\u00a0 In Lincoln\u2019s speech, he argued that \u201ca house divided against itself cannot stand,\u201d which essentially meant that in order for the nation to maintain itself, it had to become entirely anti-slavery or pro-slavery.[11]<\/a>\u00a0 He thus hinted that an end to slavery was inevitable and threatened that if the Union did not come together, it would not survive.\u00a0 He took a more explicit position\u00a0 against slavery, stating that \u201cto meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.\u201d[12]<\/a>\u00a0 The \u201cdynasty\u201d that he referred to was slavery.<\/p>\n

\"Lincoln\"<\/a>

Image of Lincoln at the Lincoln-Douglas debate in 1858 (Bettmann Archives\/Getty Images)<\/p><\/div>\n

This speech was seen as radical because he outwardly took a position against slavery and because he claimed he foresaw an end to it.\u00a0 This was alarming to society because nobody had lived in a world in which slavery did not exist.\u00a0 If slavery were abolished, slaves would become free citizens and many people then feared what an integrated society would look like.\u00a0 Northern Democrats interpreted Lincoln\u2019s speech as threatening because they did not want to live in a society in which white and black people were equal.\u00a0 While Lincoln was actually only advocating for abolition and not equality, his opponents did not see it that way.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Lincoln\u2019s 1861 First Inaugural Address:<\/strong><\/h5>\n

In reading Lincoln\u2019s First Inaugural address, it is evident that as the possibility of war grew, Lincoln exercised more caution.\u00a0 Unlike his “House Divided” speech, his First Inaugural on March 4, 1861 highlighted some of the distinct elements of his anti-slavery strategy like focusing on preserving the Union while not explicitly taking a position on slavery.\u00a0 In describing his central message, Oakes explained, \u201che had no intention of interfering with slavery but every intention of enforcing the law.\u201d[13]<\/a>\u00a0 Lincoln stated that the \u201conly substantial dispute,\u201d was that \u201cone section of our country believes slavery is right, <\/em>and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong<\/em>, and ought to be restricted.\u201d[14]<\/a>\u00a0 Lincoln suggested, as he had many times before, that his priority was to uphold the Constitution and that he would not violate its promises.\u00a0 Because of this, he argued that the South\u2019s threat to secede was baseless.\u00a0 He went further to declare that not only was secession baseless, but \u201cunconstitutional.\u201d[15]<\/a>\u00a0 He explained that \u201cno government could make provision for its own destruction; no contract could be abrogated at the whim of only one of its signatories.\u201d[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

\"First<\/a>

Photograph of Lincoln’s First Inauguration (photo taken by John Wood) (Library of Congress)<\/p><\/div>\n

Lincoln also argued that he would not attack first, but would react to a Southern attack.\u00a0 Specifically, he explained \u201cin your<\/em> hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine<\/em>, is the momentous issue of civil war.\u201d[17]<\/a>\u00a0 Oakes described this as being on the \u201cstrategic defensive,\u201d which was part of Lincoln\u2019s conservative approach.[18]<\/a>\u00a0 Persuaded by his Secretary of State to conclude his speech in a more disarming way, Lincoln stated, \u201cwe are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.\u201d[19]<\/a>\u00a0 Oakes further explained that his speech, especially the conclusion, targeted the North more than the South in an attempt to convince the North to resist southern secession.\u00a0 In doing so, he was \u201cpositioning the North as the defender of the Union rather than as the invader of the South.\u201d[20]<\/a>\u00a0 Walking a fine line while rallying northern support was essential to Lincoln\u2019s strategy because he thought that the only way he would be able to abolish slavery was by keeping the Union together.<\/p>\n

What is important to recognize about Lincoln\u2019s First Inaugural address is that he strategically left out certain points that he made in previous speeches, like his \u201cHouse Divided\u201d speech in 1858.\u00a0 In his \u201cHouse Divided\u201d speech, Lincoln made radical appeals to end slavery that he did not in his First Inaugural address.\u00a0 Where he referred to the northern democrats as \u201cenemies\u201d in 1858, he referred to them as \u201cfriends\u201d in 1861.[21]<\/a>\u00a0 He spoke eloquently, employing neutral language as to appease his entire audience.\u00a0 This increased caution with respect to his rhetoric served to appeal to both slaveholders and abolitionists in an attempt to keep the Union together.\u00a0 Lincoln did not explicitly say that abolition was the reason behind the war in his inaugural address because he knew that most northerners did not have any desire to fight a war which was dedicated to abolition.\u00a0 He feared that if he did take a clear position against slavery, he would lose support for the war, which he believed would\u00a0 be detrimental to the anti-slavery cause.\u00a0 The radical nature of his \u201cHouse Divided” speech did not get him elected in 1858, but it made him nationally recognized.\u00a0 Now that Lincoln was President of the United States, he chose not to risk alienating parts of the country because without strong support, he would not be able to carry out his agenda.\u00a0 Lincoln\u2019s approach, which is evident in this address, was a stark contrast to Douglass\u2019s direct and provocative approach, and Douglass questioned his intentions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Douglass\u2019s 1861 Editorial:<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Upon hearing Lincoln\u2019s First Inaugural address in 1861, Douglass was critical of it because it was not immediate and all encompassing.\u00a0 Douglass did not find sectional reconciliation to be of any importance.\u00a0 Additionally, as mentioned before, Douglass believed that the Constitution enabled the government to eliminate slavery wherever it existed, so he did not agree with Lincoln\u2019s argument that there were constitutional impediments.\u00a0 More importantly, Douglass interpreted Lincoln\u2019s claim that he did not intend to interfere with slavery in the states as his \u201cmoral indifference to slavery.\u201d[22]<\/a>\u00a0 While Lincoln believed he was standing by the nation\u2019s principles, so he could not \u201coverstep his constitutional authority,\u201d[23]<\/a>\u00a0 Douglass interpreted this as disregard because he believed that of the principles, universal freedom was the most important.\u00a0 Douglass believed that this war was about abolition and should be treated as such.\u00a0 He thought Lincoln\u2019s approach was morally unacceptable and that he should have been calling to abolish slavery completely.<\/p>\n

\"Douglass\"<\/a>

Douglass in 1866 (Granger\/REX\/Shutterstock)<\/p><\/div>\n

In one of Douglass\u2019s 1861 editorials, \u201cCast Off The Mill-Stone,\u201d he expressed frustration with the fact that the war was not being acknowledged as an abolition war, when everybody knew that was at stake.\u00a0 He stated that \u201cthe present policy of our Government is evidently to put down the slaveholding rebellion, and at the same time protect and preserve slavery.\u201d[24]<\/a>\u00a0 He went on to say that \u201cfor the Government to adopt the abolition policy, would involve the loss of the support of the Union men of the Border Slave States. Grant it, and what is such friendship worth?\u201d[25]<\/a>\u00a0 Douglass emphasized that Lincoln knew the war was about slavery, even if he did not explicitly take a position on it for fear of losing support.\u00a0 But, Douglass did not care about losing support.\u00a0 He thought that in order to spark real change regarding abolition, the government needed to be bold and call it what it was.\u00a0 He did not see the point in appeasing slaveholders or anybody who wanted to preserve the institution of slavery.\u00a0 A bold, direct approach, he believed, would attract the right kind of supporters and then, they would be able to win the war and achieve abolition.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Conclusion:<\/strong><\/h5>\n

After comparing the anti-slavery strategies of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, <\/span>it is clear how even those pursuing the same end often employ different means.\u00a0 L<\/span>incoln believed the best way to advance his agenda was<\/span> by exercising cautious and deliberate calculation, while Douglass believed it best to be bold and uncompromising. This was in <\/span>part due to their individual roles in society, as Lincoln was President of an entire nation and by extension responsible for its preservation, while Douglass was a radical activist whose primary mission was eradicating slavery.\u00a0 It is hard to know whose approach was more effective, but examining the differences highlights the complexities involved in enacting social and political change.\u00a0 There may not be a right approach, and perhaps multiple approaches were necessary, but this has been demonstrated in history time and time again.\u00a0 Lincoln and Douglass\u2019s debates can be compared to the debates of other later well-known historical figures discussed in this website, such as those between <\/span>Booker T. Washington<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>W.E.B. DuBois<\/span><\/a>, or <\/span>Susan B. Anthony<\/span><\/a> and those fighting for women\u2019s suffrage in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is important to consider the implications of this because it may be useful in coalition-building today. As was evident with Lincoln and Douglass, approaches to a goal may be in tension with one another, but they can also serve to push each other. For this reason, perhaps we should welcome diverse approaches and competing strategies instead of viewing them as threatening.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

\"Emancipation<\/a>

Painting of the first Emancipation Proclamation reading in front of Lincoln’s Cabinet (painted by F.B. Carpenter) (Library of Congress)<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> James Oakes, The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics <\/em>(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007), 165.<\/p>\n

[2] <\/a>Oakes, 109.<\/span><\/p>\n

[3] <\/a>Andrew DelBanco, <\/span>The War Before the War: Fugitive Slaves and the Struggle for America\u2019s Soul from the Revolution to the Civil War<\/span><\/i> (Penguin Books, 2018), 70.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

[4] <\/a>Oakes, 109.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

[5] <\/a>Oakes, 109-121.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

[6] <\/a>DelBanco, 70.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Frederick Douglass, \u201cFifth of July\u201d Speech (1852) excerpted in <\/a><\/span>Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

[8]<\/a>Frederick Douglass, \u201cFifth of July\u201d Speech (1852) excerpted in <\/a><\/span>Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

[9]<\/a>Frederick Douglass, \u201cFifth of July\u201d Speech (1852) excerpted in <\/a><\/span>Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Matthew Pinsker, \u201cMan of Consequence: Abraham Lincoln in the 1850s,\u201d The Dickinson Survey of American History, House Divided Project, 2009, (Accessed June 30, 2021),\u00a0https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-american\/essay-man-of-consequence\/#<\/a>.<\/a><\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Abraham Lincoln, \u201cHouse Divided\u201d Speech (1858), excerpted in <\/a><\/span>Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

[12]<\/a>Abraham Lincoln, \u201cHouse Divided\u201d Speech (1858), excerpted in <\/a><\/span>Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Oakes,140.<\/span><\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Abraham Lincoln, \u201cFirst Inaugural Address\u201d (1861), excerpted in <\/a><\/span>Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Oakes, 140<\/span>.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Abraham Lincoln, \u201cFirst Inaugural Address\u201d (1861), excerpted in <\/a><\/span>Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Abraham Lincoln, \u201cFirst Inaugural Address\u201d (1861), excerpted in <\/a><\/span>Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Oakes, 141.<\/span><\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Abraham Lincoln, \u201cFirst Inaugural Address\u201d (1861), excerpted in <\/a><\/span>Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Oakes, 141.<\/span><\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Abraham Lincoln, \u201cFirst Inaugural Address\u201d (1861), excerpted in <\/a><\/span>Knowledge for Freedom Seminar; Abraham Lincoln, \u201cHouse Divided\u201d Speech (1858), excerpted in Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.<\/a><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> Oakes, 142.<\/span><\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> Oakes, 142.<\/span><\/p>\n

[24] <\/a>Frederick Douglass, \u201cCast Off The Mill-Stone.\u201d <\/a><\/span>Douglass\u2019 Monthly (<\/span><\/i>1861), excerpted in Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.\u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> Frederick Douglass, \u201cCast Off The Mill-Stone.\u201d Douglass\u2019 Monthly<\/i> (1861),\u00a0excerpted in Knowledge for Freedom Seminar.\u00a0<\/i><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

To Be Cautious or To Be Bold: The Competing Strategies of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass during the Civil War\u00a0 \u201cThe friends of freedom, the Union, and the Constitution, have been most basely betrayed, deceived, and swindled.\u201d[1]\u00a0 -Frederick Douglass, 1862 Introduction:\u00a0 Frederick Douglass did not mince words when expressing his frustration with Abraham Lincoln\u2019s approach […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":115,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-20","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","post-preview"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-goodman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-goodman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-goodman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-goodman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/115"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-goodman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20"}],"version-history":[{"count":90,"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-goodman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":472,"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-goodman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20\/revisions\/472"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-goodman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}