On Douglass, Oakes looks at how he moved from radical to politician throughout his life, including wedding himself so much to the GOP in his last years that he apparently never entertained the idea of a "Free Vote Party" paralleling the Liberty Party of his younger days.

No, it's not a full bio, but it leads to further questions. Was this the "settling" of an old man? Was it an evolving pragmatism? Did getting a patronage job bank his inner fires?

On Lincoln, Oakes takes a careful look at the long-debated issue as to whether or not he had any racist bones, either before election to the presidency or even after.

On 126-29, Oakes tackles the pre-1860 politics of Lincoln re black-white relations beyond slavery with depth. He says Lincoln simply accepted white intransigence was so great that blacks never could have equality and that it was not a case of Lincoln himself rejecting racial equality. Nonetheless, Oakes believes "spineless" is a legitimate charge, as is "cynical."

More serious are some of the themes from a pro-colonization lecture, in essence, Lincoln gave to northern black leaders shortly before announcing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

Oakes sees this as a more cynical version of Lincoln's 1850 stance on accepting white racism even though Lincoln didn't hold to it himself. After claiming in the past "racism" and "slavery" were different, Oakes says Lincoln now tried to conflate them with a cheap syllogism.

This level of analysis is what makes the book all of the things I said in my header.

No, again, this is not a complete dual bio. But Oakes' excellent "For Further Reading" appendix points to the best bios on both men, as well as takes on the Civil War militarily and socially, Reconstruction and more.

I am reading this book now and am struck by the evolution of Douglass' ideas about politics. At first, he was angry and rejected all compromise, influenced by radical abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison. Later, he began to see the value of politics and compromise and became a Republican in 1856 when John C Fremont was the nominee of the new party. Douglass accepted the necessity of compromise and a strategy of gradual starvation of the institution of slavery. From rejecting the Constitution as a "slaveowners' document", he became an enthusiastic supporter of the American system and sought citizenship for the freed slaves once the South collapsed, by war or economic forces they could not resist. I wish some Black Liberation advocates would read it. Douglass was a wise man and not as radical as the title suggests. An excellent book. Also a new look at Lincoln although I knew most of the story.

There is a perennial tension in any democracy between those who insist that there must be scrupulous respect for the law, and those who insist that at times a higher law must be followed. Philosophical and moral disagreements separate the two groups. But so does temperament.

James Oates' The Radical and the Republican masterfully witnesses to the crucial role temperament plays in determining which side of the political and moral divide one lands in the higher law debate. Lincoln (the republican) was by nature a man inclined toward moderation, reason, patience, and unemotional analysis. Although always a loather of slavery, it took the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act to put slavery in the middle of his political radar screen. Even then, he insisted that slavery was implicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, and that, short of a constitutional amendment, the most a President or Congress could do was to geographically contain it. Lincoln, who eventually adopted a policy Oates calls "strategic racism"--refusing to speak against the race-baiting so popular in the U.S. in order to make his eventual decision to emancipate the slaves an easier pill to swallow--thought John Brown a madman.

Douglass (the reformer--or better, perhaps, the rebel) had a much more phlegmatic tempermant: emotional, volatile, black-and-white thinking, quick judgments. Although aligned when young with the pacifist Garrisonians, Douglass was never much of a pacifist. But he imbibed the Garrisonian insistence that the Constitution and the government, through their complicity with slavery, were utterly corrupt, and that a higher moral law not only sanctioned but obliged disregard of them when it came to slavery. Douglass, who adopted a policy of black self-reliance which Oates calls "strategic separatism," thought John Brown a hero.

The Civil War created an extraordinary environment, argues Oates, in which Lincoln the republican and Douglass the reformer began to converge. Lincoln dropped his idea of gradual and compensated emancipation by issuing the Emancipation Declaration and lobbying for the passage of the 13th Amendment. Douglass, under the influence of Gerrit Smith, came to see the Constitution as an anti-slavery document and politics as a legitimate method to reforming society. By the time Lincoln was murdered, Douglass had come to greatly admire the man who he mercilessly criticized through much of the war. And Lincoln went out of his way to refer publicly to "my friend" Douglass. Still, their basic temperaments remained quite different, and it's curious to reflect on what their relationship might've evolved into had Lincoln lived.

Oates' discussion of the two men is fascinating, well-written, and well-documented. Strongly recommended not only for those interested in the Civil War but also for anyone interestd in the higher law debate.

One of the easiest things to do, especially on the web, is to take a highly regarded leader of the past, say, Abraham Lincoln, pull a few of his quotes or actions out of their historical context, and supposedly "prove" how horrible that leader actually was. In contrast, author James Oakes explains Lincoln to us postmoderns the way an historian should - by reminding us of Lincoln's circumstances and explaining Lincoln's overarching purposes. Oakes does this without resorting to making Lincoln a saint. According to Oakes' compellingly-supported evidence, Lincoln refused to compromise two essential commitments - to antislavery and to the American political system. Lincoln would not compromise his antislavery position to get more votes, nor would he compromise his oaths to uphold the Constitution to undermine slavery. This dual commitment of Lincoln's goes very far in helping us understand why Lincoln limited his goal to preventing the spread of slavery before he became president, why he didn't just go ahead and free all the slaves when he became president, why he moved slowly towards emancipation during the war, etc. Furthermore, the author's discussion of Lincoln's overwhelming desire to change the hearts and minds of Americans about slavery instead of merely forcing through political change regardless of wider support was especially useful. As the "Republican" in the title, Lincoln wanted a government that represented the will of the people; therefore, the will of the people needed to be converted before the government could make radical change. The fact that Lincoln helped accomplish this more widespread change is quite a testament to his legacy of leadership.

The "Radical" in the title is another great American, Frederick Douglass. Unlike Lincoln's, Douglass' reputation typically is not in dispute. Most of us love Douglass, and for good reason. Oakes doesn't tarnish Douglass' reputation, but he does help us to understand how Douglass' singular commitment to antislavery/antiracism, as compared to Lincoln's dual commitment explained above, often put Douglass at odds with the political process AND caused Douglass to speak out so vehemently against politicians like Lincoln. From Douglass' perspective, only immediate emancipation and egalitarianism would serve justice. Thus, by necessity, Douglass would oppose and criticize Lincoln - that is, until the two men met.

One of the reviewers below critiques Oakes for supposedly overstating the relationship between the two men. I believe this critique is misplaced because Oakes never claimed to be writing primarily about the interpersonal relationship between the two. Instead, he's writing about the interplay of the radical ideology of one, and the antislavery politics of the other. Also, I think that Oakes analyzes the relationship between Brown and Douglass comprehensively, not simplistically, as a reviewer below seems to believe.

As a person who teaches history at the college level, and as a person who enjoys reading history for fun, I would recommend this book. I intend to make it one of my required texts for my survey American history course, alongside Frederick Douglass' autobiography.