The historical framework of anti-slavery in America was briefly at the table for discussion during the creation of the United States Constitution but with powerful influences particular to those representing the interests of Colonial Virginia the issue went unresolved. Through strong anti-slavery politics that remained inherent in the northern states of the new republic of the United States and the southern cry for cessation from the Union both Lincoln and Douglass remain stalwart representatives of antislavery using a constitutional argument according to (Finkelman 33). It is this in mind that the reader approaches the James Oakes (2007) perspective on how anti-slavery politics brought about the American Civil War and the ultimate triumph of the abolishment of slavery in the greatest experiment of America’s constitutional democracy. The following book review begins by discussing the dynamics of the thesis of James Oakes’ (2007) The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics.

Oakes (2007) posits that the only thing that separated the view of anti-slavery as constitutionally undemocratic was Douglass as a private citizen, former slave, and self-educated American could approach the issue head on whereas Lincoln was impelled as a politician to only do what the existing law and the people of America would allow him. This amounts to Oakes’ (2007) researching public speeches and other documents of both Douglass and Lincoln and presenting an honest picture of the anti-slavery issue to policy. As a politician Lincoln astutely obscured his radical move in ending the slavery issue based on the Constitution by enacting the Emancipation Proclamation freeing every man, woman, and child from the bonds of slavery (McCoy 2008)

The radical application Oakes (2007) assigns to Lincoln’s political character is not the prevalent point of view of some if not most historians. Perman (2012) reviews another historian Eric Foner’s (2010) book on Lincoln and points out how this author sees Lincoln as, “Neither rigidly conservative nor advanced and radical, Lincoln, so Foner argues, was a moderate and a centrist, whose approach to policy-making on slavery and race was always practical and adaptive, though rarely capricious or opportunistic” (Perman 246). This is the main split in Oakes (2007) and other historians’ assessment of Lincoln and his final solution to the slavery issue plaguing the Union of the United States.

Oakes (2007) amply provides how Lincoln the political Republican and Douglass the anti-slave radical in fact did not differ on abolition and slavery as assumed by historians. The driving force against slavery for both these men was a simple but poignant question about anyone settling “for something less than equal rights?” (Oakes xxi). Such an inquiry took Douglas down the path of rational radicalism and Lincoln all the long reflecting a radical shade of pragmatism. Oakes points this out referring to the Lincoln/Douglas debates of 1858 with Douglas calling America’s soon to be 16th president a “black republican” (Oakes 40) and called to the public’s attention the very evidence of his association with the former slave and now international abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Lincoln would not meet the anti-slavery leader until 1863 or even have correspondence with him.

Oakes (2007) uses his wealth of research to organize a well-planned and written assessment of these men reaching the same destination as two pivotal American historical figures revealing the two different roads on their journey to see slavery abolished. Oakes makes the reality of America’s unstable 19th century politics the backdrop of explaining these two men whose paths eventually converge. Lincoln’s change from a straight-line political Whig to the Republican Party after 1854 and the simple and clear position that since both “slavery was wrong” (Oakes 54) and America’s expansion West “should therefore be restricted” (Oakes 54) on the issue led his personal and political conviction from then on as explained by the author. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 as explained by Oakes (2007) further fed the ire of Lincoln against the proslavery politics espousing African-Americans as less than human was a direct danger to the very fiber of what America stood. With a foundation of the wrongness of slavery, Lincoln as explained by Oakes (2007) used every opportunity his political position allowed to champion the abolition of slavery in America.

In this short space the above attempt to get to the heart of the message Oakes (2007) intended in his extremely engaging book proved challenging. The author leaves the reader with a sense of satisfaction in understanding those turbulent times when the conscience of America began to pique at its soul about the hypocrisy of slavery as an ongoing institution in the depths of the free nation that now existed. The fact both Lincoln and Douglass were self-made men in the best place that opportunity afforded anyone but a slave and with the perspective of a former slave is the substance that makes this a satisfying study. Oakes’ (2007) analytical abilities as a historian connected to the research referenced in this book is an amazing fete that brings a personal appreciation of what is shared on the pages of this book. It brings to life that era of Victorian standards, class and race, as well as democracy in action. Compared to the realities of the issues of equality plaguing the 21st century global community today, the fact is this historical step back in time into the thoughts and actions of both Douglass and Lincoln to end slavery is a wake up to what democracy still affords.