Juneteenth: Frederick Douglass, Principles, and Electoral Politics
Douglass’s shift from Garrisonian ideals to pragmatic action mirrors today's social movement complexities.
Frederick Douglass, born into the brutal institution of American slavery, emerged as a beacon of abolitionist thought and action. Douglass's journey from moral suasion to political pragmatism mirrors the complexities and necessities of social movements in America, a journey that many contemporary organizers, staffers, operatives, and activists might find resonant.
Garrisonian Idealism: The Power of Moral Clarity
Douglass was initially deeply influenced by the Garrisonian approach to abolition, which emphasized moral suasion—the idea that slavery could be ended through religious zeal and moral appeal. William Lloyd Garrison, a prominent abolitionist, believed that by damning and awakening the moral conscience of the American public, slavery could be abolished without the need for political, electoral, or military action.
Garrison famously believed that the American Constitution was fundamentally a pro-slavery document, a stance that set him apart from many of his contemporaries. He argued that the Constitution's compromises, such as the Three-Fifths Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Clause, enshrined the institution of slavery at the nation's core.
To Garrison, the Constitution was not a framework for liberty but a pact with sin, requiring radical abolitionists to reject it outright. This belief fueled his call for immediate and uncompromising emancipation, as he saw no moral or legal basis for slavery's continuation under a just government — and therefore Garrisonians rejected politics and parties. Garrison’s view demanded a complete moral and societal transformation, a vision that initially inspired Douglass but later clashed with his evolving belief in political pragmatism.
In the rift between Douglass and Garrison, we witness a profound ideological divergence that shaped the trajectory of the abolitionist movement. Douglass, evolving from his Garrisonian roots, began to embrace a more pragmatic approach to dismantling slavery.
Douglass:
My position now is one of reform, not of revolution. I would act for the abolition of slavery through the Government - not over its ruins. If slaveholders have ruled the American Government for the last fifty years, let the anti-slavery men rule the nation for the next fifty years. If the South has made the Constitution bend to the purposes of slavery, let the North now make that instrument bend to the cause of freedom and justice. If 350,000 slaveholders have, by devoting their energies to that single end, been able to make slavery the vital and animating spirit of the American Confederacy for the last 72 years, now let the freemen of the North, who have the power in their own hands, and who can make the American Government just what they think fit, resolve to blot out for ever the foul and haggard crime, which is the blight and mildew, the curse and the disgrace of the whole United States.
This shift reflects Douglass's belief in leveraging the government and Constitution as a tool for radical reform, contrasting sharply with Garrison's moral absolutism.
Garrison’s dogged adherence to moral suasion and his dismissal of political avenues ultimately clashed with Douglass’s evolving perspective. Garrison famously proclaimed, "I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice." In stark contrast, Douglass began to see the Constitution as a potential ally rather than an enemy. He argued, "If the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slaveholding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it."
This re-interpretation highlighted Douglass's strategic shift towards working within the existing political framework to achieve abolition. Garrison viewed this as a betrayal of pure abolitionist principles, stating, "I am determined at every hazard to lift up the standard of emancipation in the eyes of the nation, within sight of Bunker Hill and in the birth-place of liberty." Despite their shared goal, their paths diverged irrevocably, with Douglass embracing political pragmatism while Garrison clung to his moral suasion and radical idealism.
Confronting the Slave Power: Douglass’s Strategic Shift
Douglass’s views evolved as he recognized the limitations of moral suasion. He saw the necessity of political engagement and strategic action. The brutal reality of slavery and the entrenched power structures that supported it required more than moral appeals. Douglass began to understand that achieving abolition demanded direct political action and pragmatic alliances.
He saw that while moral arguments could sway some hearts and minds, the deeply embedded economic and political interests sustaining slavery required a more robust confrontation. Douglass realized that influencing legislation, securing legal protections for freed slaves, and dismantling the Slave Power necessitated working within the political system, even if it meant compromising with those who did not fully share his ideals.
Douglass’s evolving views were intertwined with his analysis of the so-called "Slave Power"—the political and economic forces that perpetuated slavery in the United States. Douglass understood that the fight against slavery was not merely a battle of moral rhetoric but a struggle against a powerful and entrenched system that wielded significant influence over American politics. He articulated that the “Slave Power” had a stranglehold on American democracy, influencing laws and the presidency. Douglass recognized that dismantling this power required more than moral persuasion; it required strategic political action.
"The slaveholders, with a craftiness peculiar to themselves, by encouraging the enmity of the poor, laboring white man against the blacks, succeeds in making the said white man almost as much a slave as the black slave himself,” Douglass wrote. “Both are plundered, by the same plunderers. The slave is robbed by his master of all his earnings, above what is required for his bare physical necessities; and the white man is robbed by the slave system of the just results of his labor, because he is flung into competition with a class of laborers who work without wages."
Douglass and Lincoln: The Radical and the Republican
For Lincoln, the primary goal was to preserve the Union, even if it meant tolerating slavery for a time. Lincoln originally sought to quell the spread of slavery rather than abolish it. This “pragmatic” approach was a source of deep frustration for Douglass, who saw it as a betrayal of the fundamental principles of human freedom and equality. Douglass famously criticized Lincoln's inaugural address, calling it “weak, uncalled for and useless” for failing to take a strong stand against slavery. He wrote, “The occasion was one for honest rebuke, not for palliation and apology.”
However, Douglass also recognized the political acumen in Lincoln's strategy. During the Civil War, as Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and began to publicly support the idea of black soldiers in the Union army, Douglass's view of Lincoln softened. He acknowledged Lincoln’s pragmatism and the delicate balance he had to maintain to keep the border states loyal to the Union. Douglass noted in 1863, “[Lincoln] impressed me more entirely with his sincerity.”
Douglass’s willingness to engage with Lincoln despite their differences underscored his shift from a purely moral stance to a more pragmatic approach. He understood that influencing policy required engagement with political power, even if it meant compromising on certain ideals. “It is a sad fact that the people of this country are, as yet, on a plane of morality and philanthropy far below what the exigencies of the cause of human progress demands,” Douglass lamented, acknowledging the slow processes of political change.
Moderate Republicans were frustrated that Douglass’ primary focus was promoting anti-slavery ideology rather than helping Republicans win seats in Washington. But Douglass was at times willing to compromise and be pragmatic about politics. Earlier in his career, Douglass believed engagement with the Republican Party would harm the abolitionist movement. But in 1856, Douglass parted with many in the abolitionist movement by endorsing a Republican candidate for President, John C. Fremont.
Douglass vacillated between biting criticism of moderate Republicans and cautious praise of the party as a vehicle for emancipation during electoral campaigns. “Take them [Republicans]...not merely for what they are, but for what we have good reason to believe they will become,” wrote Douglass. "I support Fremont as the best thing I can do now, but without losing sight of the great doctrines and measures.”
Despite his eventual alignment with Lincoln, Douglass’s criticisms of the Republican Party and Lincoln's policies were unyielding. He accused Lincoln of weakness and conciliation towards the South, stating, "The Republican president bends the knee to slavery as readily as any one of his infamous predecessors."
Douglass vacillated between fierce criticism and cautious support for the Republican Party. In 1860, he remarked, "[The Republican Party] is opposed to the political power of slavery, rather than to slavery itself. It leaves the great work of abolishing slavery still to be accomplished." By 1861, his frustration with Lincoln was palpable: "The Republican president bends the knee to slavery as readily as any one of his infamous predecessors." In 1864, Douglass noted, “It is not the malignity of enemies alone we have to fear, but the deflection from the straight line of principle by those who are known throughout the world as our special friends.”
Still, Douglass's pragmatic engagement with the Republican Party also included moments of endorsement, despite his ideological reservations. He once stated, "Take them [Republicans]...not merely for what they are, but for what we have good reason to believe they will become.” This illustrates his recognition of the potential for political parties to evolve and align more closely with abolitionist goals, even if imperfectly at first.
Douglass Challenges Lincoln in 1864
As the presidential election campaign of 1864 approached, Douglass found himself attracted to a movement among Radicals in the Republican Party aiming to replace Lincoln with John C. Frémont as the presidential nominee in the party primary process.
He joined the chorus of anger and frustration, calling for "complete abolition of every vestige, form and modification of Slavery in every part of the United States." Douglass insisted on "perfect equality for the black man in every state before the law, in the jury box, at the ballot box and on the battlefield." His support for Frémont signaled a radical stance, leaving no room for pragmatic gradualism.
Douglass navigated Abraham Lincoln’s moderation during the 1864 election with a blend of frustration and acumen. Douglass’s ire was ignited by Lincoln’s Ten Percent Plan, which Douglass decried as a betrayal of republican ideals. His critique was blistering: he lambasted Lincoln for extending the franchise to former Confederates while withholding it from Black soldiers who had fought to save the Union. Douglass’s invective was not mere rhetoric; it reflected a deep-seated fear that post-war policies would re-enslave Black Americans under a veneer of legalism.
In June 1864, Douglass’s public denunciation of Lincoln was scathing, accusing the president of reestablishing slavery under another name. He wrote, "It was now a 'swindle' that the federal government asked 'the respect of mankind for abolishing slavery,' all the while 'practically re-establishing the hateful system in Louisiana.'" Yet, Douglass’s critique was not born of simple opposition but of a profound disillusionment with Lincoln’s incrementalism. Douglass believed that true emancipation required not just the end of slavery but the full civic integration of Black Americans—a vision that Lincoln’s cautious policies seemed to undermine.
Douglass aligned himself with radicals within the Republican Party who sought to unseat Lincoln in the Republican Party primary process. He believed that a more radical candidate would be committed to genuine equality and the complete abolition of slavery. Douglass threw his support behind Frémont, a former Republican standard-bearer, hoping that Frémont’s candidacy would push Lincoln to adopt stronger antislavery measures.
As the 1864 election approached, Lincoln faced significant pressure from radical elements within his party, including those who initially supported John C. Frémont. Frémont's campaign and his supporters pushed for more aggressive antislavery policies and comprehensive civil rights for Black Americans. Recognizing the need to unite the party and attract radical support, Lincoln began to incorporate key elements of Frémont’s platform into his own campaign.
However, as the election drew closer and Frémont withdrew from the race, Douglass faced a difficult decision. Despite his deep frustrations with Lincoln’s cautious approach, Douglass recognized that a divided Republican Party could lead to a Democratic victory and the undoing of emancipation. Reluctantly, Douglass chose to support Lincoln’s reelection, understanding that while imperfect, Lincoln still represented the best hope for the continued progress of Black Americans’ rights.
Douglass in Lincoln’s White House
Despite his frustrations, Douglass never abandoned the potential for Lincoln’s moral growth. When Lincoln invited him to the White House for a second meeting, Douglass saw a glimmer of hope. Douglass arrived at the White House in August 1864, where he was greeted not just as a critic, but as a significant figure whose opinions could shape the nation’s future. Their exchange was candid and intense. Douglass did not mince words, accusing Lincoln of "heartlessness" and being consumed by "policy, policy, everlasting policy," which he believed had robbed the nation of moral clarity. Yet, Lincoln, recognizing Douglass’s importance and the weight of his critique, sought his counsel on critical issues, including how to motivate and protect newly freed slaves in the South.
Lincoln’s willingness to listen was a pivotal moment. He asked Douglass to help devise a strategy to bring as many slaves as possible out of the rebel states into the Union lines, showcasing a rare openness to radical ideas. This interaction underscored a grudging mutual respect and an acknowledgment of Douglass’s influence on national policy. Douglass, despite his earlier harsh criticisms, was struck by Lincoln’s genuine concern for the plight of freed slaves and his evolving stance on emancipation. He saw in Lincoln a man who, despite his flaws, was capable of significant moral and political growth.
By engaging Douglass, Lincoln not only gained valuable insights but also worked to unify the fractious elements within the Republican Party. For Douglass, it was a bittersweet recognition that change often required working within the system he so often railed against. The encounter left Douglass cautiously optimistic, aware of the long road ahead but heartened by the potential for real progress under Lincoln’s leadership.
In the mid-19th century, the abolitionist movement, Radical Republicans in Congress, and President Abraham Lincoln came together to end slavery -- but the realignment of 1860 was rife with tension and turmoil. Some abolitionists, like Douglass, believed in full racial equality. A larger group of abolitionists and Radicals wanted to focus on ending slavery, but were not in favor of full civil and voting rights. And a larger number of Republicans, at first, simply wanted to limit the expansion of slavery into new states -- not abolish slavery altogether.
Douglass faced a dilemma: “Too much compromise would dilute the basic principles of the antislavery cause, but too much emphasis on ideological purity would make any antislavery coalition impossible,” writes historian James Oakes. “Douglass had trouble finding the right balance, so much so that his contemporaries charged him with being erratic and unreliable in his political allegiances.”
Despite a loyal following among the growing abolitionist movement, Douglass was a polarizing national figure who many Republicans in Congress admired, even as they feared that any association with Douglass’ radicalism could cost them their seats. His searing comments about the Republican Party and its leaders may not have helped assuage those fears:
In 1859, commenting on the Republican Party’s ideology: “an inconsistent, vacillating, crooked and compromising advocacy of a good cause.” In 1861, commenting on Lincoln’s inaugural address: "The Republican president bends the knee to slavery as readily as any one of his infamous predecessors…weakness, timidity and conciliation toward the tyrants and traitors had emboldened them." In 1864: “It is not the malignity of enemies alone we have to fear, but the deflection from the straight line of principle by those who are known throughout the world as our special friends.”
Lessons for Today: Bridging Principles, Ideology, and Politics
Politics are what they are – and they are terrible. Still, Frederick Douglass was like a master navigator guiding a ship through turbulent seas, with the abolitionist movement's ideals as his steadfast compass, the Republican Party's shifting currents as the tides, and Lincoln's pragmatic approach as the wind. As the ship's course wavered, Douglass not only steered but also pushed against the headwinds of Lincoln’s cautious pragmatism, urging him to set a bolder course toward emancipation and aligning with him in other moments. Douglass' relentless pressure and strategic maneuvering ensured the vessel remained on track, driving it through political storms toward the clear horizon of freedom and equality.
Today, figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib are often portrayed by their opponents as radical threats, much like Lincoln was linked to radicalism through his association with Douglass. This tactic aims to undermine their influence by painting them as extreme.
During the debates of 1858, Senator Stephen Douglas strategically linked Abraham Lincoln to Frederick Douglass to paint Lincoln as a radical. He exclaimed, “I found Lincoln’s ally, in the person of Fred. Douglass, THE NEGRO, preaching abolition doctrines, while Lincoln was discussing the same principles down here.” This association was a deliberate political maneuver to undermine Lincoln’s credibility among moderate voters who were wary of radical abolitionist positions. By highlighting Lincoln's supposed connection to a black abolitionist like Frederick Douglass, Stephen Douglas aimed to stoke racial fears and present Lincoln as an extremist, thus alienating him from more conservative and moderate constituents.
Despite the attacks, Lincoln did not throw Douglass under the bus. Instead, Lincoln understood Douglass as an essential and influential part of his broader coalition. Lincoln recognized the importance of Douglass's advocacy and the moral clarity he brought to the abolitionist cause. Their relationship, though complex and sometimes strained, was built on mutual respect.
Lincoln scholar John Waugh wrote: “For most conservatives in his party, the radicals were anathema. Frank Blair viewed them as simple partisan plunderers….But Lincoln could not bring himself to dislike them, despite their antipathy to him. Musing one day with Hay about the ones from Missouri, he said, ‘They are nearer to me than the other side, in thought and sentiment, though bitterly hostile personally. They are utterly lawless – the unhandiest devils in the world to deal with – but after all their faces are set Zionwards.”
Douglass, and abolitionists outside Congress, were not the only forces driving forward the antislavery cause. A faction of Radical Republicans in Congress pressured Lincoln and moderate Republicans on the inside to move swiftly toward emancipation. In one particular battle between Radical Republicans and President Lincoln, abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner put forward a bill that fell short of his belief in full emancipation but proposed the immediate emancipation of slaves in Washington D.C. Representative Thaddeus Stevens, a stalwart of racial equality, in turn demanded that every other bill be set aside until Sumner’s bill was approved. When the bill eventually passed, Lincoln delayed signing it.
Sumner went on the attack: “Do you know who at this moment is the largest slaveholder in this country? It is Abraham Lincoln, for he holds all the three thousand slaves of the district, which is more than any other person in the country.”
Lincoln eventually signed the bill while financially compensating the slaveholders for their “property.” Throughout the mid-19th century, abolitionists and Radical Republicans compromised when necessary but always kept their principles and ultimate goals in mind. They understood that moderates like Lincoln were not going to take the same positions as they did, but they made themselves indispensable to the party. Historian Eric Foner credits the ideology of abolitionists and Radical Republicans as the force that gave them their power.
“Radicalism, however, possessed a dynamic of its own, based first of all on the reality that in a time of crisis, Radicals alone seemed to have a coherent sense of purpose,” writes Foner. They were the “one body of men who had any positive affirmative ideas,” said a moderate Republican. They were “the vanguard of the radical party,” he continued. “They knew exactly what they wanted to do, and were determined to do it.”
The abolitionists and Radical Republicans often held positions that did not have majoritarian support among voters in the mid-19th century. They put moderates in their own party in uncomfortable situations and also made compromises when necessary, always keeping their eyes on the ultimate goal of ending slavery. They were never the majority of the party.
Abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and allied Radical Republicans like Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens in Congress are a guiding example for progressives today, illustrating how principled activists can leverage our democratic institutions, which often favor moderation and compromise, to create a nation that truly represents all its people. They discovered a method to uphold a clear set of principles while operating within a major party. They compromised when necessary but maintained a long-term perspective. They recognized that moderates, such as Lincoln, would not adopt their positions in more moderate constituencies, yet they made themselves indispensable to the party.
As The Nation expressed in its 1868 eulogy of Thaddeus Stevens, highlighting the importance of the radical abolitionist movement broadly:
"Any young politician who proposes to get on in the world by being a cowardly sneak, as thousands of young politicians do, cannot help profiting by the study of [Stevens’s] life. He will see by it that, even under the shadow of an irresistible popular will, the road to the highest success lies through courage and self-assertion, and not through base compliance."