The Radical and the Republican by James Oakes Book Review James Oakes’ The Radical and the Republican is a thorough and captivating account of two of America’s most distinguished figures, Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas. In his intriguing and polished work, Oakes examines the issues of slavery, race, politics, and war in America during the mid-1800’s. Though both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas engendered immense social and political change throughout the Civil War era, the relationship between the two men is often neglected. Oakes argues that as America went to war with itself, Lincoln’s antislavery politics and Douglas’s abolitionism gradually converged. James Oakes vivid political analysis chronicles the transformation of two of America’s greatest leaders as Lincoln embraces the role of the “radical” and Douglas embraces the role of the “republican” (104). The Radical and the Republican is set in the Antebellum period when the United States was divided by the great struggle between liberty and slavery in the North and the South. The Antebellum Era in American history was a time of economic, political, and social change. …show more content…
Oakes’ masterful command of the broad literature of slavery, race, and the Civil War era allows him to trace the parallel journeys of two iconic American leaders. Oakes tells an absorbing and didactic story, shifting between accounts of Lincoln and Douglas and ending with their meetings in the White House. By portraying Douglas as a character of equal significance as Lincoln, Oakes not only provides insight into Douglas’s life but also enriches the study of Lincoln. The convergence of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas during the nation’s greatest crisis reveals “what can happen when progressive reformers and savvy politicians make common cause”
Chapter 5 “The Revolutionary Era: Crossroads of Freedom,” This chapter focuses on Revolutionary era and the war between Britain and the colonies. It shed light on the lives of the African Americans during the war and the decisions they made to fight with or against the colonies they were enslaved in. The first important topic is about Thomas Peters fight to get his freedom.
Washington was joined by slaves while leading the Continental Army in the field of battle, as well as during his time as president. Yet Wiencek also argues that the Revolution and the establishment of the new democracy changed Washington’s beliefs on slavery. By the end of his life, Washington had changed completely and “sickened by slavery, willing to sacrifice his own substance to end it.” (Wiencek 274) Many of the founding fathers recognized the problems created by slavery.
Ross’ story is told in a structurally unique way through Kennedy’s pen and with the theme of courage resonating throughout. Ross makes the decision to sacrifice his political career for the sake of saving the country of what ironically the Anti-Slavery radical Republicans were fighting so hard to vote against; freedom. Without his descriptive detail in his use of words, phrases and quotes, it’s message would be difficult to replicate. Without his subtle but significant use of rhetorical devices, he would never have able to persuade the audience to join Ross’ cause without even telling them his motives. Kennedy writes in a way which keeps the reader on the edge of confusion and enthrallment for Edmund G. Ross.
Allen Guelzo and Vincent Harding approached Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the eventual abolition of slavery from two very different viewpoints. The major disagreement between them is whether the slaves freed themselves, or Abraham Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation freed them. Harding argued the former view, Guelzo took the later. When these essays are compared side by side Guelzo’s is stronger because, unlike Harding, he was able to keep his own views of American race relations out of the essay and presented an argument that was based on more than emotion. Allen Guelzo
In this chapter of the Founding Brothers, Ellis centers the idea of Slavery. He employs the idea of both hindsight and foresight to explore the collapse of the Congress. He displays the Congress to not stand up to its expectations at both private and public means. Confidential affiliations were tested as the North and South commissioners opened and unraveled their hardships and resentment.
Republican ideas on the consent of the governed were also embraced and exemplified through the limitation of the government. As seen in both Document I and the Bill of Rights, at least the idea to limit the government to prevent any abuses of power against the people was taken into account. However, on the other hand, politics, in a way, didn’t change after the war as well. Even after the war and the propagation of egalitarian ideas, only rich, protestant, land-owning, white men participated, if not dominated, politics. In the post-revolution confederacy, it was only rich, white men who could and did occupy positions of political power, and more often
In the journal article “ Andrew Jackson versus the Historians”, author Charles G. Sellers explained the various interpretations of Jackson, from the viewpoint of Whig historians and Progressive Historians. These interpretations were based on the policies of Jackson. The Whig historians viewed the former president in a negative way. They considered him arrogant, ignorant, and not fit for being president. Sellers pointed out that it was not just because of “Jackson’s personality…nor was it the general policies he pursued as president”
Slavery had been a central issue in the United States since the founding of the country when the Founding Fathers As the U.S. moved closer to war, it became more divided by its attitudes, interests, and general lifestyles. Although sectionalism, the loyalty to interests of a particular region over the country, can be traced to the earliest years of the new nation, it became more of an obstacle in the 19th century as Americans began to see themselves as either Southerners or Northerners. Although sectional discord was an important factor leading to the onset of war, at its core was the division and conflicts related to slavery. This is seen with a brief examination of the election of 1860.
One of reasons the confederacy failed was because the U.S. Congress, with Lincoln’s support, proposed the 13th amendment which would abolish slavery in America. Although the confederate peace delegation was unwilling to accept a future without slavery, the radical and moderate Republicans designed a way to takeover the reconstruction program. The Radical Republicans wanted full citizenship rights for African Americans and wanted to implement harsh reconstruction policies toward the south. The radical republican views made up the majority of the Congress and helped to pass the 14th amendment which guaranteed equality under the law for all citizens, and protected freedmen from presidential vetoes, southern state legislatures, and federal court decisions. In 1869, Congress passed the fifteenth amendment stating that no citizen can be denied the right to vote because of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass are American heroes with each exemplifying a unique aspect of the American spirit. In his recent study, "The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics" (2007), Professor James Oakes traces the intersecting careers of both men, pointing out their initial differences and how their goals and visions ultimately converged. Oakes is Graduate School Humanities Professor and Professor of History at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has written extensively on the history of slavery in the Old South. Oakes reminds the reader of how much Lincoln and Douglass originally shared.
Both King and Douglass were advocating for the same thing: their constitutional sanction of freedom. Both men, in their respective letters touch upon parallel thoughts and beliefs that revolve around the much bigger topic of racial inequality and discrimination. Both men were discriminated against and they talk about their experiences and plight in their very distinctive yet special styles. Born in the year 1817, in an era of open and unashamed slave trade, Frederick Douglass’s story begins as a serf to Mrs. Hugh in the city of Maryland.
Freedom is the primary ideal upon which America was founded. It is the tenet most cherished by the original colonists; it is a pillar upon which they built the new government. However, freedom was denied to a large part of America's citizens for a long time. Frederick Douglas was one of the greatest activists for African-American freedom of the 19th century; he used literary works and speeches, instead of violence, to achieve his goals. In his piece "What, to the Slave, is the Fourth of July?"
Frederick Douglass, born a slave and later the most influential African American leader of the 1800s, addresses the hypocrisy of the US of maintaining slavery with its upheld ideals being freedom and independence on July 4th, 1852. Douglass builds his argument by using surprising contrasts, plain facts, and provocative antithesis. Introducing his subject, Douglass reminds his audience about the dark side of America for slaves, in sharp, surprising contrasts with the apparent progressivity within the nation. He first notices “the disparity,” that “the sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and deaths to me,” as an African-American former slave. It is surprising for the audience to hear that the Sun does not bring him any prosperity, that the Sun, the source of life on earth, brings him destruction.
On September 2nd, 1862, Abraham Lincoln famously signed the Emancipation Proclamation. After that, there’s been much debate on whether Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation truly played a role in freeing the slaves with many arguments opposing or favoring this issue. In Vincent Harding’s essay, The Blood-red Ironies of God, Harding argues in his thesis that Lincoln did not help to emancipate the slaves but that rather the slaves “self-emancipated” themselves through the war. On the opposition, Allen C Guelzo ’s essay, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, argues in favor of the Emancipation Proclamation and Guelzo acknowledges Lincoln for the abolishment of slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation.
Throughout Douglass's speech, he exceeds expectations by adding excellent examples of ethos, pathos, and unique tone. These examples help the audience see his viewpoints and helps him connect with them. The literary devices used in his speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”, aided in his fight against