Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Damani Davis: Today in the midst of a very historic week with the inauguration of our new president,
we have the most fitting and timely book lecture by Dr. John Stauffer.
Over this week, as I’ve viewed some of the different news programs,
a continuously repeated refrain by many of the commentators
was that President Obama stands on the shoulders of
some key historical figures who paved the way for him.
Well two of the most important of these figures are the subjects of
Dr. Stauffer’s lecture and book, which is entitled
“Giants: The Parallel Lives of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln”.
John Stauffer received his PhD from Yale University in 1999
and began teaching at Harvard the same year.
He writes and lectures on the Civil War era, anti-slavery movements,
and social protest movements. He is the author of seven books
and more than forty-five articles, including
“The Black Hearts of Men: Radical Abolitionists and the Transformation of Race”.
Which won four major awards including the Frederick Douglas Book Prize,
the Avery Craven Book Award, and the Lincoln Prize, runner up.
His essays have appeared in Time Magazine, Raritan, New York Post,
21st The Journal of Contemporary Photography, and the Harvard Review.
He has appeared on national radio and television shows.
Currently Dr. Stauffer is completing a book with Sally Jenkins on the
radical interracialism and unionism in Civil War era Mississippi.
The story Free State of Jones will appear as a major motion picture by the
filmmaker Gary Ross, with whom he served as a scholarly consultant.
After this lecture there will be a book signing at the archives shop.
Without further ado, let us welcome Dr. John Stauffer.
Dr. John Stauffer: Thank you very much for that wonderful introduction,
and thank you for coming. Can everyone hear me in the back?
I’d like to speak for about forty-five minutes, and then I’ll open it up
for questions and answers and criticism and comments.
And I want to speak for a few minutes just about how this book came into being,
the background of “Giants”. Then I want to summarize some of the key themes
that I describe in the book, hopefully to whet your appetite to read it if you haven’t.
And then I want to spend the last five or ten minutes discussing the legacy
of both Lincoln and Douglas and particularly on Barack Obama.
Obama has been deeply influenced by both men.
I’ve written about the influences in the New York Times recently,
and in the Huffington Post and other places. And I want to share with you some of my thoughts.
I should say that I started writing giants right around the time that
Obama launched his election – or his campaign – at a time when very few
Americans believed he could actually get elected.
And the book was published on Election Day, and having steeped myself in both
Frederick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln during the 21 months of
Obama’s campaign, I felt like I have a very good understanding
of what I referred to as the Obama phenomenon.
I actually felt after hearing Obama launch his campaign in Springfield,
that he had a very good chance of winning because of –
– having steeped myself in Douglas and Lincoln –
– so I want to share that with you at the end. First the background.
This book really began as a chapter in a larger project that I'm working on which is
on interracial friendships in American society. My previous work has focused on
some aspect of interracial friendship. Why do I think they're important?
I think that friendship throughout history – throughout western culture –
has been a central theme for philosophers, for political thinkers,
for writers, because friendship was seen as a symbol of democracy.
From Plato and Aristotle through the Quakers who very self-consciously
defined themselves as friends, through the founding fathers through people like
Walt Whitman, Emerson, Thoreau, Frederick Douglass – friendship was seen as
a kind of test case of how well democracy was working.
Throughout western culture people believed that a virtuous society was one in
which friendships flourished. And in the new United States,
which was unlike classical Greece or Rome in which Americans were very
self-consciously patterning themselves, Americans understood that this new society
was a multi-racial one. So in thinking about how democracy functioned on the ground,
people began exploring the concept of interracial friendship to see
how democracy was working. And people from –
– as I said, Whitman, Emerson, Thoreau, Frederick Douglass, interracial friendship was
a key test case for how well democracy was doing.
I published a version of that in Time Magazine in 2005 when Lincoln was featured on the cover
as a founding father, and as I continue to write on that chapter and after publishing in Time
Magazine I quickly realized that that chapter threatened to overwhelm the rest of my book on
interracial friendship because of the significance of both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick
Douglass and so I decided to write a separate book just on those two men. And by pairing them
together I felt that I could accomplish a number of goals. I think a dual biography allows a
writer or a scholar to move the lens, so to speak – to change perspectives in order to see two
famous men who've been written about a lot in new and interesting ways. Abraham Lincoln is
one of the most written about figures in American history – probably the most written about
individual in American history. And so one of my objectives and what can I say that's new
about Abraham Lincoln. And I felt that by viewing him – by seeing him framed or reflected
against Frederick Douglass, I could offer some new interpretations. Primarily I think one of the
things that I do with Lincoln is like de-romanticize him. I de-mythologize him. I think Lincoln
continues to be written about in ways that suggest a mythological figure. What do I mean by that?
A lot of writers see Lincoln as being essentially perfect, particularly during his presidency.
He truly was in my view the greatest president. He was a brilliant politician. But I think too
many writers see him as someone who never made a mistake – whose every action was a perfect
one, so to speak. And that is to create a myth, not a human. To be human is to make mistakes,
to be deeply flawed. And I felt that by acknowledging – highlighting even – some of the flaws,
I’d come away – and hopefully readers would come away – respecting and appreciating him
even more by understanding how far he was able to grow.
By pairing him with Frederick Douglas I also wanted to represent and to show Douglas in a new
light – and especially by showing him in a light that sees him as an equal as significant as
Abraham Lincoln. Most of my previous work has been on anti-slavery abolitionism, and I’ve
written a lot about Frederick Douglas. He appeared in “The Black Hearts of Men,” and I’ve
edited his second autobiography. And probably in hundreds of talks that I’ve given on Frederick
Douglas, the first thing I ask to audiences is, “How many of you here have read anything by
Frederick Douglass?” and the answer depends among whites. Just about every African-American has
read Frederick Douglass, but among whites it’s very age-dependent. Most whites over the age of fifty
barely even know who Frederick Douglass is, much less having read anything by him. Most
whites under the age of thirty-five are familiar with Frederick Douglass, which reflects the
degree to which Douglas has entered the classrooms – entered high school and college
curriculums. And I think Douglas is a crucially significant figure, as important in his own right
as Lincoln. And by writing a book that pairs Lincoln and Douglass, I felt that I would be able to
reveal that or show that. “Giants” is a book that, more than anything else, is about parallel
lives that converge. Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, I argue, are the two preeminent
self-made men in American history. Douglas began his life as a slave, he had zero formal
education, and he was the most famous black man in the world before the age of forty. His rise
was truly extraordinary, and he in his day was seen as one of the greatest writers and orators.
In his day, throughout the 1850’s, and even into the 1860’s, Douglass was seen as a better orator
than Lincoln. Most people remember and think of Lincoln as a great orator, and he was.
But in his time Lincoln paled with respect to Douglass.
Douglass was able to obtain greater royalties, greater speaking fees than just about any other individual.
And the fact that he was a black man and he was able to that is truly extraordinary.
Most of you know that Lincoln was born in a log cabin. To say it was a log cabin itself is to
romanticize it. It was really kind of three-sided hut with one side exposed. He was what his
contemporaries referred to as poor white trash who grew up to become the greatest president.
So there are the two preeminent self-made men in American history, who converged in the sense
that Douglass met with Lincoln three times at the White House. He was the first black man to
meet a U.S. president on terms of near equality to advise him, and they considered each other
friends. And the fact that they considered each other friends was significant given the
importance ascribed to friendship in that time period in the 19th century. In ways that I never
could have envisioned before beginning research and writing the book, they led strikingly,
surprisingly parallel lives. Many common occurrences in their rise, in their self-making which
struck me because one is a white man who grows up in essentially the South – born in Kentucky,
grows up in Indiana and Illinois, both states settled primarily by Southerners – and Douglass a
slave. Most people think of slave and white man as totally different during that time period.
What are the commonalities, the parallel aspects of their self-making and their upbringing?
Probably first and foremost is the fact that more than any other factor; they were able to rise up
because they learned how to use words as weapons. They understood the importance of literacy,
the importance of being able to articulate their thoughts in order to convert their audiences to
their cause. And both of them learned how to hone their skills of literacy and writing. Both of
them virtually memorized the same six books. Long before they ever met, they both read,
reread, virtually memorized the same six books. Any of you have any ideas what those books are?
Bible is one, probably the most important. And the Bible – this is a period in which
common education was not that well known, particularly in the South and particularly in what’s
now known as the Midwestern states. Many young boys did not have formal education. If you
only had one book to read, aside from the religious significance, the Bible is in my view probably the
greatest work of literature in western culture. Both of them quoted liberally, extensively from
the Bible. They read and reread it. What else? Shakespeare. Lincoln loved Shakespeare. Most
people know that. Douglass could quote Shakespeare almost as comfortably as Lincoln could.
You all are great. What’s the third? Any thoughts? Pardon? No, close. Pardon. Close!
If Shakespeare was the most famous writer in America in the day, which he was –
Shakespeare now is read primarily by the well-educated, but at the time Shakespeare was read by yeoman
farmers in Mississippi. All classes read Shakespeare. Blacks, whites, rich, poor.
Everyone read Shakespeare, which is a phenomenon when you think about it today.
The second most famous writer at the time was Lord Byron. Douglas in particular loved Byron,
but so did Lincoln. Byron’s poetry was seen by Americans as emblematic of
American ideals of freedom. Byron was seen as the great freedom fighter both in his poetry
and in his life. He died for the cause of freedom in Greece. So that was another figure.
Another is the Columbian Order, which is a collection of speeches designed for young boys to
learn how to become orators. This was a time in which public speaking, oratory, was one of the
only forms of public entertainment. It was analogous to being a rock star, movie star, or radio
personality today. No matter where you started in life, if you could be a great orator there were
few limits to how far you could rise. And both Douglas and Lincoln understood that. Caleb
Bingham wrote the introduction to the Columbian Order, and in it he told young boys how you
learn how to be a great orator. Here are great, emblematic speeches throughout history from
Cicero through great English writers. But he taught young boys how to position your tongue so
that you can lose pronounced accents. Both Lincoln and Douglas had what we would think of
today as just horrible accents; accents that betrayed them as being ignorant or stupid. And part
of being a democratic gentleman was to lose some of your pronounced accent. Lincoln retained
more of his accent or dialect when he entered the White House than Douglas did. But Caleb
Bingham taught young boys how to position your tongue so that you could lose your accent,
borrowing from Cicero and others. How to speak with a proper cadence, so that you could reach
a large audience. And that was a book that both men learned and virtually memorized. There
are instances of people remembering Lincoln going out into the fields and speaking to the crops
in the prairie. Douglass was forbidden to read. His masters wouldn’t let him read. He shined
shoes, received some money, purchased a used copy of the Columbian Order and kept it hidden.
It was the only thing that he took with him when he became free. So that was a crucial book.
Another book was Aesop’s Fables. Most of you are still familiar with it today. The best way to
describe Aesop’s Fables is that it is the oral tales of slaves; it’s a slave narrative – a collection of
oral tales of slaves from classical antiquity, ancient Greece. And that was a book that was a
bestseller and widely-read then. And it still is read today. So they read the same books, they
were familiar with the same examples of books that helped them rise up by using words as weapons.
Another common parallel was that they both defined a fight as a major turning point in their
young lives. And it’s ironic because at the very time that both men were describing or
characterizing themselves as intellectuals or aspiring intellectuals, a fight became an important
turning point. For Frederick Douglass it was a fight with the famous slave breaker named
Edward Covey. Douglass grew up on the eastern shore of Maryland. He was fortunate in being
able to move to Baltimore because his master had died. And that’s where he learned to read and
write, and that’s where he acquired his copy of the Columbian Order. He was sent back to the
eastern shore of Maryland. He was now literate, and with literacy he gained a sense of
empowerment. When he returned to the eastern shore, his new master Thomas Auld considered
him insolent because he looked Thomas Auld in the eye. He talked back to Thomas Auld.
He stood up to him. And so Thomas Auld decided that Douglass needed to be disciplined.
There was a man on the eastern shore by the name of Covey who was known as a slave breaker.
By that he meant that he was someone who broke the will of slaves so that they would become
good or proper slaves. Douglass was hired out to work for Covey for one year to do hard labor.
And Douglass, for the first six months of his tenure with Covey, was mercilessly whipped at
least once a week. He said that the welts on his back from the whips were as thick as his thumb.
Blood streamed down every week and he was whipped again before the old wounds were even
healed. And after six months of enduring this, Douglass decided finally to stand up to Covey.
Douglass was very big for his time; he was over six feet. He was very strong and very muscular.
Covey was about 5’7”. And when Douglass decided to stand up to Covey he realized that he had
reached the point at which he was not afraid to die. That was essentially the cost of standing up
to him. He stood up to Covey, they had a two-hour epic fight. And Douglass was disciplined
throughout this fight. He could have killed or seriously maimed Covey, in my view. He chose
merely to beat Covey in this fight. And in the wake of this fight Douglass said that he defined
himself thereafter as a free man in form, even if he would be a slave in fact.
And from the moment of that fight Douglass vowed to become free.
Covey for his part never divulged the fight. Douglass could’ve easily been sent south into
Mississippi or had been killed or so seriously maimed that it would have virtually destroyed him.
Covey didn’t divulge the fight in part because he wanted to preserve his reputation as a slave breaker.
So this fight also highlights the degree to which Douglass, I argue, was a privileged slave.
He was a privileged slave because, for one, he was born in Maryland and not in Mississippi
or Alabama. If you were born in the Deep South your chances of becoming free were virtually nil.
The vast majority of slaves who became free were in the Border States. He also suspected
Douglass was the son of a white man and a slave woman. He suspected that his father was also
his master, and there is some evidence for that given how well he was treated. He was not only
not punished because of the fight with Covey – Douglas, before he actually did run away,
attempted to run away and he was captured. Most slaves who attempted to run away and were
captured were either sent into the Deep South or whipped so hard that they were permanently
maimed. And Douglas, in the wake of his attempt to run away,
was promised his freedom at the age of 21. So he was a privileged slave.
Lincoln, for his part, was also lucky. Most people know of how big Lincoln was; he was 6’4”.
So he was taller than most men by almost a foot. Lincoln grew up like Douglass in this vicious
backwoods community. I think many scholars have romanticized the prairie background of
Lincoln. It was a vicious backwoods community in which the defining aspects of manhood was
the capacity to fight hard and to drink a lot. One of the reasons that both Douglass and Lincoln abstained
from alcohol their entire lives was because they understood the destruction that alcohol caused in
their communities. Lincoln had just moved to New Salem, Illinois at the age of 21.
He described his first 21 years as a slave because technically he had to turn over all of his
money to his father. He’s finally free from his father, who he didn’t like because his father was not
interested in education or literacy. He was a laborer, carpenter, and farmer. And Lincoln arrives
in New Salem, and one of the local leaders there was a man named Jack Armstrong. He was
essentially a thug, and he and his buddies loved to lure strangers into poker games, steal their
money, and beat them up. Jack Armstrong liked to roast
live pigs to hear the sounds of their squealing before they died.
One of the most common forms of fighting in the backwoods of Illinois was what people called
the no-holds-barred rough-and-tumble. And it was a kind of fight in which it was not uncommon
for a man to lose a nose, part of an ear, a finger, to have testicles ripped out. And the great prize
in this fight was to liberate an opponent’s eyeball and keep it as a prize. This was a brutal
environment. Armstrong wanted to fight Lincoln in a rough-and-tumble, but the best that we
know is that Lincoln said, “No, I don’t want to do that. I’ll wrestle you. I’ll have a regulated
wrestling match.” It was a less brutal form of fight in which each man had to keep an arm on the
other. People came from miles around to bet on it, which was common in fighting. It’s unclear
exactly what happened in the fight, but what we do know is that they called it a draw.
Armstrong fouled Lincoln, the fight ended, they called it a draw, and no one lost money.
And in the wake of that fight Lincoln quickly became a leader in New Salem and also a friend of Jack Armstrong.
Within six months Lincoln was already running for the state legislature.
He became the captain of his company in the Black Hawk War and from that point rose up quickly.
Both men married up, and I argue their wives were central to their self-making.
Douglass married a free black woman – which was very unusual – when he returned to Baltimore.
It was very unusual for slaves and free black to interact in that way. And it was Anna Murray and her
money that was primarily responsible for allowing Douglass to dress as a free sailor, to purchase
a train ticket, and to take a train north up to New York City where he became free in 1838.
Without her help his chances of becoming free would have been, I think, profoundly limited.
Most people see Mary Todd as this mad woman or crazy woman. Mary Todd was at least as
sophisticated about politics as Lincoln was. She grew up in Kentucky near the home of Henry
Clay, who was the hero of statesmen for Lincoln. She was a friend of Clay and she was
an aristocrat. In marrying Mary Todd, Lincoln made a very wise political decision.
Mary Todd advised Lincoln in every step of his rise through politics. And so without
their wives, I think the potential for them rising up would have been very slim indeed.
The first time that Douglass ever refers to Lincoln is in 1847. Douglass has moved to Rochester,
New York. He’s now a newspaper man, and already the most famous black man in the country.
He’s virtually a household name. He becomes famous overnight because of his autobiography,
which is a bestseller. In a sense similar to Obama. And he writes about Lincoln in the context of
Lincoln’s term in Congress. Douglass refers to Lincoln as part of a rogue’s gallery of
congressmen who oppose a bill to abolish slavery in Washington, D.C. Now why does Lincoln
oppose this bill to abolish slavery in Washington, D.C. as a congressman? Because it deviates
from Lincoln’s vision or strategy for ending slavery. Lincoln hated slavery. Lincoln said on
numerous occasions that he hated slavery as much as any abolitionist, and there’s no reason to
doubt that. But his strategy for ending slavery was threefold: 1) Very gradual and very congenial
so as to not uproot society. And in fact in his debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858, Lincoln
said, “When do I think slavery should end? When will ultimate extinction of slavery occur? Not
less than one hundred years.” That would have placed the end of slavery at the very earliest,
barring civil war, in 1958. It’s a very gradual end to slavery. 2) Lincoln also advocated
compensation to masters for the loss of their property, which this bill in Washington, D.C. did
not call for. It’s one of the reasons he opposed it. 3) And Lincoln also urged subsidies for
colonizing free blacks outside of the United States. So in essence his vision of America was a
white one. Douglass was outraged at Lincoln’s opposition to this bill to end slavery.
And probably before they became friends, they were quite frankly enemies.
And this is highlighted in Lincoln’s first inaugural in 1861. The closest Frederick Douglass ever
came to losing his faith in America, repudiating the possibility of America ever living up to its
ideals in the Declaration, was in the immediate wake of the First Inaugural. Why? Because in
the First Inaugural Lincoln says two things in particular that outrage Frederick Douglass. Now
remember, when Lincoln gives his first inaugural seven states had already seceded and the
Confederacy had already been formed. Lincoln is appealing in his inaugural primarily to the
southern states in the Upper South that Lincoln hopes to prevent from seceding. And in that
inaugural address Lincoln first vows to vigorously defend the Fugitive Slave Law, which many northerners
viewed as unconstitutional because it virtually legitimated the kidnapping of free blacks and
completely ignored the due process of law. Second and more onerously in that First Inaugural,
Lincoln affirmed and embraced a new constitutional amendment that Congress had just passed.
A few days before Lincoln gave his first inaugural, Congress had passed the first 13th Amendment
Most people remember the Thirteenth Amendment as the amendment which abolishes slavery. The first
13th Amendment which Congress had just passed in an attempt to conciliate with
southerners was an unamendable amendment that guaranteed slavery in the slave states forever.
Now Lincoln had run on a platform of prohibiting the spread of slavery with the goal for its
ultimate extinction. That was Lincoln’s basic platform. Now accepting this amendment that
guarantees slavery in the slave states, in Frederick Douglass’s mind Lincoln was contradicting or
suddenly cutting against the basic platform. And he says, “I’m out of here."
He plans a trip to Haiti with the goal of emigrating there.
He refers to Lincoln as a slave hound and as a representative American racist.
Now as a way to understand their differences at this point, the best way to summarize Lincoln as
a politician is to say that as president he sought first and foremost the preservation of the Union.
It was based on the oath of office that he took. He hoped to defeat the Confederacy and preserve
the Union. The question of slavery was always secondary to that chef objective. Frederick
Douglass’s fundamental identity was one of calling for an immediate end to slavery and racial
equality under the law. Throughout his life, those were the two things that Frederick Douglass
championed. During the inaugural, in the wake of southern states seceding, Douglass felt that
the quickest way to reunite the nation was to end slavery. Douglass chose not to go to Haiti
because the Civil War broke out. With the firing on Fort Sumter, Douglass recognized that this
war offered a way to end slavery. Douglass was very familiar with John Quincy Adams’s
statement – as far back as 1836, Quincy Adams had stood up in Congress and said to
southerners, “If we keep being belligerent there’s going to be a civil war, and if there’s a civil
war the Constitution allows under its war power clause allows Congress and the president to end
slavery constitutionally.” For Frederick Douglass slavery itself represented a state of war.
And because he believed slavery represented a state of war, he called for the immediate end of slavery
even before the actual war broke out for constitutional reasons. And immediately after Fort
Sumter, Douglass started calling on the president and sending his newspaper to the White House
saying, “End slavery. That will be the quickest way to end the war. Because the slaves
constitute the stomach of the rebellion. Unless you emancipate the slaves four million blacks,
roughly one third of the southern states, are aiding and abetting the Confederacy. They’re
feeding the Confederates, they’re building roads for them, and they’re building fortifications and
trenches for them. If you emancipate them you’ll have in theory four million people that will be on the Union side.”
Lincoln ultimately came to recognize the military validity of emancipating slaves as a war
measure, which is precisely how the Emancipation Proclamation was phrased. He emancipated
slaves as part of a war measure. And so their divergence to the convergence resulted in the fact
that Douglass and Lincoln had two very different objectives that converged. And their
friendship was more than anything else utilitarian. When they first met in 1863 in the wake of
the Emancipation Proclamation, Douglass recognized that he needed Lincoln on his side to help
him achieve his objective of universal emancipation and equality under the law. And Lincoln
recognized that he needed Frederick Douglass on his side – Douglass was essentially the
ambassador of African-Americans – in order to achieve his goal of preserving the Union. The
details of their first meeting in August of 1863 – Douglass had been recruiting black soldiers.
The Emancipation Proclamation effectively called for the arming of black troops. And Douglass
had devoted himself from January of 1863 until early August full time to recruiting blacks.
He virtually single-handedly recruited the famous Massachusetts 54th Black Regiment.
Two of his sons were his first two recruits. Douglass got fed up with recruiting because of the
administration’s policy – black soldiers were being paid half of what white soldiers were,
and they were not being promoted for valiant duty. And so he decided to take his case to Washington, D.C.
He takes a train to D.C., arrives in the city on August 10th of 1863 early in the morning, and goes
right to the White House. There’s already a long line of people waiting to see the president.
Lincoln was known for having an open door policy – admitting just about all callers. Douglass
stood in line. He thought he was going to have to wait all day, maybe more. He sent up his card,
and within two minutes he’s called up by Lincoln. And as he passes these whites in line to go up
to see Lincoln he hears one of them say, “I see how it is. They let the *** through.”
He arrives in the office. Lincoln knows Douglass because he’s so famous. He says,
“Hello, Mr. Douglass. It’s good to see you. I know about you. I’ve read you. What can I do for you?”
Douglass states his case to Lincoln and Lincoln vows that he will make every effort to pay black
soldiers the same as white soldiers. He acknowledges that he has been very tardy both in
emancipation and in giving equal rights to blacks. And he also vows to promote black soldiers.
At this first meeting Douglass and Lincoln acknowledge that politically they’re very different.
Douglass after all is a radical activist. Lincoln is a politician. Douglass wants not only the
immediate end to slavery but immediate racial equality. Lincoln’s chief goal is preserving the
Union. But they at this first meeting define themselves afterwards as friends. Why? In part
because they both have enormous respect for each other as self-made men. One of Douglass’s
most famous speeches was on self-made men. They recognize the dialect of each other. And in
fact in my book I try to convey or capture what each man sounded like at various stages of his
career. And in fact after that first meeting, President Lincoln told the next person that he saw in
the White House that he had just met with Frederick Douglass and he said, “I consider Mr.
Douglass one of the most meritorious men in these United States.” Douglass said after meeting
Lincoln that he considered Lincoln the king of self-made men. So they both had great respect for
each other as self-made men even though they disagreed politically.
The second meeting occurred a year later at a time in which the war was going very poorly for
the north. Lincoln thought he was going to lose reelection. It was August of 1864 and
northerners were tired of fighting. Lincoln felt sure he was going to lose to the Democratic
nominee George McClellan. Now McClellan ran on a platform of negotiated settlement with the
Confederacy and immediate peace which would have left slavery intact. And Lincoln calls
Douglass to the White House for an urgent meeting. Douglass comes to Washington and meets
with Lincoln in the White House. And Lincoln tells Douglass, “I’d like you to plan and embark
upon a John Brown scheme in which you’ll invade the south with an army of blacks and whites.
Bring as many blacks as possible to Union lines. Worst case scenario is that I’ll lose the election
to McClellan, but thousands more blacks will be in Union lines and free before slavery remains
permanent in the Confederacy. Best case scenario: these thousands more blacks that come to
Union lines will aid the Union effort, lead to a major victory, turn the tide of war, and convince
northerners that the war will soon be over and that we can finish off this fight. Frederick
Douglass was amazed at this request because Douglass had been a close friend of John Brown.
John Brown, if you’ll remember, was the most radical white abolitionist of the day. John Brown
had with an army of blacks and whites in 1859 went south, raided, and took over the federal
arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia with an eye towards distributing the arms there to slaves and
inciting a massive slave insurrection. Although Douglass had opposed John Brown from going to
Harper’s Ferry, it was only because he thought John Brown was going to lose his life. Which he did.
Brown was captured, tried and executed for treason and that Harper’s Ferry affair was one
of the last sparks that led to the Civil War. Frederick Douglass, however, considered John Brown, “one of
the greatest men in these United States.” That’s a quote from Douglass. John Brown wrote his
provisional constitution which would govern those areas that Brown hoped to liberate from
slavery in Douglass’s home. Brown could not write a grammatically correct sentence. It’s the
most eloquent document Brown ever wrote, which suggests that Douglass essentially edited it for him.
He was very much in favor of Brown conspiring against the United States in order to end
slavery if he thought it would work. Lincoln and all Republicans distanced themselves
dramatically from John Brown when it occurred. Lincoln said, “I agree with Brown in
principle.” Meaning, “I agree that slavery is wrong. But John Brown committed treason against
the United States government and he justly deserved to be hung.” Now four years later,
President Lincoln is calling for Douglass to embark upon a John Brown scheme. In essence,
John Brown has been mainstreamed. It was also a period in which most northern soldiers sung
the John Brown song as they went to fight as a form of inspiration in fighting the Confederacy.
Douglass planned this John Brown scheme. A few weeks later, though, General Sherman was
victorious in Atlanta and began his march to the sea. It transformed northern opinion and
essentially clinched Lincoln’s reelection, so that scheme never went into practice.
Their third and final meeting was during Lincoln’s inaugural address. Douglass was invited to
the address, and at the reception he essentially had a front row seat. He sat right in front of
Lincoln. Lincoln saw Douglass when he gave his address. Douglass went to the reception at the
White House in the wake of the inaugural address. This was in March of 1865. The war was
virtually over. There were almost 200,000 black troops marching throughout the south.
Douglass was initially barred from entering the White House when he gets there because a
policeman says, “You’re not allowed to enter. Blacks aren’t allowed to enter.” And Douglass
says, “There must be some mistake.” He sends his card in and Lincoln admits him. When
Lincoln sees Frederick Douglass he’s with a group of whites and he says, “Here comes my friend
Frederick Douglass. It’s good to see you. I saw you in the crowd today. There is no man in this
country whose opinion I value more than yours. What did you think of my address?”
And Frederick Douglass responds, “Mr. President, that was a sacred effort.” Within a month Lincoln
has been assassinated. There’s very good evidence that had Lincoln lived, Douglass and he
would have remained very close friends despite their political differences.
So what are the lessons of their friendship? One is that political differences do not necessarily
correlate into social behavior. Douglass and Lincoln genuinely liked each other and felt genuine
affection for each other even though they never agreed politically. Even in ’64 and ’65,
Douglass’s hope for reconstruction was much more radical than Lincoln’s. He advocated
immediate suffrage for all blacks – for men and women – and immediate racial equality under
the law. Lincoln, representative of his entire political career, wanted reconstruction to occur
much more gradually. But they genuinely felt comfortable; in part because they shared a
common background, they shared common interests, and also they understood that they were
facing a common enemy that threatened their identity and their livelihood. Another crucial
reason, I think, for their convergence relates to the varying definitions of self-made men. Both
Douglass and Lincoln understood that self making reflected the idea of oneself in a state of
continual evolution and flux, meaning that who Lincoln and Douglass were in 1840 was totally
different from who they were in 1845, 1850, 1855, and 1860. And both men never changed so
dramatically as they did during the four years of the Civil War. Now this idea of self making
contradicts the very notion of racism, because racism depends upon a self that is permanently
fixed. It depends upon one self who is permanently superior and white to another self who is
permanently inferior and non-white. And by embracing this idea of self making, or of a self in
continual flux or revolution it contradicts this notion of racism, which is another important
reason why they were able to come together.
What are the legacies of these two men? I mentioned that Obama has been deeply influenced by
both Douglass and Lincoln. Obama has on frequent occasions acknowledged his debt to
Lincoln. He hasn’t so much with Frederick Douglass, I think for two reasons. One is Obama
very much defines himself as embracing a post-racial America. And Frederick Douglass has
come down to most people today as a race man. And so for that reason he has not acknowledged
his debt. To see Douglass solely as a race man is erroneous. Douglass in his own day was very
similar to Obama; he sought to move beyond the division of race and reach a common
understanding between blacks and whites. Douglass’s friendship with Lincoln was one of
numerous friendships with whites that Douglass had. Douglass was a close friend of John
Brown, he was a close friend of Garrett Smith, he became a very close friend of Charles Sumner
particularly at the end of the war and Reconstruction. But because Douglass has come down to
us as a race man Obama has distanced himself. I think second, particularly during the campaign
and probably more significantly, Obama understands that if he acknowledges his debt to
Frederick Douglass and says that he has been deeply influenced by Douglass, opponents will
quickly seize on that fact, recognize that Douglass was a radical and a friend
of John Brown, and say, “There you go again associating with another terrorist.”
What has Obama learned from Frederick Douglass? As he says in his book “The Audacity of Hope”,
there are instances in which power will concede nothing without a fight. And that’s what
I learned from Frederick Douglass. And both Obama and Frederick Douglass understood that
words are the most potent weapons for fighting this opponent. That’s one thing that he learned
from Douglass. Another thing that he learned from Douglass – and I’m now paraphrasing
Douglass – “True art will break down racial barriers.” Douglass was, as I emphasized, one of the
greatest writers and orators in his day. Much as Obama is. Frederick Douglass would get up to
speak before an audience of whites; and most of the whites in that audience, before seeing and
hearing Frederick Douglass assumed that blacks were subhuman. Most whites believed in
Douglass’s day believed that blacks were incapable of self-government. And they would listen
to Douglass’s very rich, deep baritone voice. They’d hear his eloquence. They’d see his beauty.
And Frederick Douglass was nothing if not handsome; even his enemies acknowledged that.
“He was majestic in his wrath,” as one convert said of him. They’d hear him and see him
perform, and they’d essentially shed their racism and be converted to the cause of abolitionism.
And there are numerous examples of that happening. In one instance Douglass goes to Buffalo,
New York to speak on abolitionism. Buffalo was a city in which, when he arrived, virtually no
one was an abolitionist. All people wanted to do was make money. He’s in Buffalo for ten days,
and by the tenth day over half of the city comes to hear him on the green. No auditorium can
even hold the audiences, and he’s converted the multitude.
True art breaks down racial barriers. There are numerous examples of whites before they hear
Obama saying, “I can never imagine myself voting for a black man.” They hear Obama, they see
his majesty and eloquence. His elegance. I think most people acknowledge Obama to be immensely
handsome. They see his performance and they too shed their racism and vote for him. I think
the best way to understand about Obama’s political campaign is as a very, very successful artistic
performance – which is a crucially important thing that he’s learned from Frederick Douglass.
In many respects, Frederick Douglass is the most direct descendant of Barack Obama.
Both men are children of one white and one black parent. Both men became world famous almost
overnight on the strength of their autobiography. Both men are among the great writers and
orators of their day. Ironically though, I think Obama shares more in common with Lincoln.
Why? Well first and foremost, like Lincoln Obama defines himself as a politician.
As a politician he’s constrained by what he can do. For him to accomplish anything he needs to get
elected, so no matter what he might think privately he cannot publicly espouse
certain things that will destroy his potential for getting elected.
He has acknowledged his debt to Lincoln about the importance of being pragmatic –
– the willingness to sacrifice one’s moral certainty in the greater goal of reaching for common
understanding over various social divisions. And both Lincoln and Obama have been very
effective at employing their pragmatic vision. I think another similarity – or something that
Obama has learned from Lincoln that not as many people have emphasized – is that Lincoln had
a brilliant sense of public opinion. And he understood that the relationship between a political
leader and the public was really one of the dialectic. A political leader should not simply
internalize public opinion and echo it back. A political leader should also not try to put a
stranglehold on the public and force them in the direction he wants to go. But rather understand
the large, diverse views of the public and through eloquent language inspire them to move
towards this collective or common goal. Douglass and Lincoln, like Obama today, I think
function more than anything else as inspiration. Douglass and Lincoln inspire us as Obama has
continually said that he hopes to do – inspire us to bind up national wounds, to complete the
unfinished work of the nation, and thereby fulfilling the ideals of freedom and equality of
opportunity for all Americans. Thank you. Any questions, comments, criticisms? Yes?
Audience Member: How long did Frederick Douglass live after Lincoln died?
Dr. John Stauffer: Douglass lived until 1895, so he lived another 40 years. He gave numerous
talks on Lincoln. He considered Lincoln the greatest American statesmen. But he was also very
honest. I think the most accurate assessment of Lincoln to this day is when Douglass gave the
speech at the Freedmen’s Monument in 1876 commemorating Lincoln’s assassination. It was a
speech in which Congress was all there, the Supreme Court were all there, President Grant was
there. And the statue, in case you haven’t seen it, is a statue of Lincoln with the Emancipation
Proclamation in one hand and his other hand outstretched over a kneeling slave. The kneeling
slave had been an icon in the abolitionist movement. Douglass didn’t like the statue. But he
begins his speech to all these dignitaries by saying, “We blacks are Mr. Lincoln’s stepchildren.
Whites are his children.” Which no doubt shocked his audience. Because Lincoln’s chief goal
was preserving the Union. And then Douglass did what he often did in speeches. It’s called – he
learned it from the Columbian Order – it’s called a reversal. You start at one place and you end
at another. He said, “We are Lincoln’s stepchildren; whites are his children.” But because
Lincoln ultimately recognized that in order to preserve the Union he needed blacks on his side,
although we are his stepchildren, through his transformation we became accepted as part of a
national family. It’s a stunning, moving, brilliant speech. And Douglass gave various versions
of that for the rest of his life. Douglass was immensely inspired by his friendship with Lincoln.
He was proud of it. He felt like he grew as an individual because of it. And Lincoln did not say
as much about his friendship with Douglass, but there’s good evidence that Lincoln was
profoundly moved and transformed through his friendship with Douglass; that Douglass helped push
him in the directions that Douglass wanted to go. Yes?
Audience Member: I appreciated your mentioning the readings they shared and how telling
they were. You mentioned six; and my recollection is that you mentioned the Columbian Order,
Byron, Aesop’s Fables, Shakespeare, and the Bible. What was the sixth?
Dr. John Stauffer: The Bible, Shakespeare, Lord Byron, the Columbian Order – oh, Robert Burns’ poetry.
Audience Member: Thank you.
Dr. John Stauffer: Lincoln loved Burns because Burns is a farmer who embraces his
rich dialect. And Lincoln had memorized most of Robert Burns.
Audience Member: Lincoln was a poet himself.
Dr. John Stauffer: He was a poet himself. In fact, in the book I argue that Lincoln
and Douglass are two of the great writers in American history. Yes?
Audience Member: Did Lincoln have a more optimistic view of human nature than Frederick Douglass?
Dr. John Stauffer: Did Lincoln have a more optimistic view of human nature than Frederick Douglass?
I would say not really. And that’s a great question. And the reason I would say not
really is – it links to their religious differences. One of the justifications for Frederick Douglass
in calling for an immediate end to slavery and racial equality is that Douglass defined himself as
a prophet. Douglass believed that he knew that god believed slavery was wrong and wanted it
ended immediately. And Douglass believed that one could dismantle sin. Douglass understood
that throughout human history one of the justifications for slavery is that all humans are slaves in
one form or another because of Genesis – because of Adam and Eve’s original sin. All humans
are slaves to their sin, they’re slaves to god, they’re slaves in life. And part of being human is
that you can’t overcome sin, and all sin was a form of bondage. Douglass essentially – as an
abolitionist – inverted that relationship between sin and slavery and said slavery is a horrible sin.
That humans have the capacity to dismantle sin and become free – both achieving inner freedom
as well as outer freedom. Lincoln – the best way to summarize his religious views was that he
had a Calvinist sensibility. Lincoln continually said that it was hubris to believe that one could
know what god wanted. The most one could do was to look for signs of what one thought god
wanted. And because of that Calvinist sensibility, Lincoln acknowledged the innate depravity of
humans. He acknowledged their capacity for evil, which is one of the reasons for his
pragmatism. Douglass was someone who had this vision of the perfect society and believed that
it could be realized – racial equality and universal freedom. And that reflected his deep and
enduring faith in humanity endowed with god. And in the book I essentially say that Frederick
Douglass embraced the idea of sacred self-sovereignty. In other words, he believed that the
kingdom of god was within you and theoretically within all individuals. Lincoln was much more
skeptical of the potential for what I’ll call perfectionism. Yes?
Oh I'm sorry.
Audience Member: Obama’s approach in the election – the way he raised funds shifted power to
himself and allowed him to outdo the political interests. Is there anything equivalent for Lincoln?
The vested interests at that time – the cotton interests, the shippers, those people – where did they come out?
Dr. John Stauffer: That’s a great question. Not any direct parallels, but then the similarities are
that Lincoln, like Obama, in the 1860 political election was a real dark horse. Lincoln didn’t even
enter the national political scene until – beginning with his debates with Stephen Douglas.
The real similarity is both men’s capacity for being such eloquent and elegant public speakers.
And even critics acknowledged that of Lincoln in his day. And that’s true of Obama. But in terms of
the kind of institutional grassroots campaign that Obama has so successfully employed –
– there was some of that equivalent in Illinois, but because times have changed
so dramatically it’s hard to draw direct parallels there. You had a question?
Audience Member: I was fascinated by two things: When Douglass comes to Washington and
gets to meet with Lincoln, you actually have a replica of that paper and Lincoln writes on it,
“I concur.” I assume that these are the Douglass papers that are in the Library of Congress?
Dr. John Stauffer: They are!
Audience Member: But whatever happened with that commission that was promised to
Douglass? It would have been interesting to see what he did when he was a part of the Union
army. And then my other question was about John Brown. How did Douglass
get away with that association – being involved with Brown?
Dr. John Stauffer: Two great questions, thank you. The first one I didn’t have time to go into.
In that first meeting with Lincoln, Douglass actually goes to the White House with Samuel
Pomeroy who was an abolitionist senator from Kansas – although Pomeroy was really in the
background. They first go to see Edwin Stanton. And Stanton was so taken with Douglass’s
debating skills, and knew of Douglass, that he promised Douglass a commission as a black officer.
Which would allow Douglass to go south and recruit blacks from the south into the Union army.
There were far more blacks in the south, which meant that his ability to recruit would increase dramatically.
He then went to – the Postmaster General Montgomery Blair signed the commission,
essentially acknowledging that Douglass is a Union man and
giving him the pass to go anywhere he wants. And Douglass tells Lincoln that he’s just received
a commission to be a Union officer. Douglass goes home and he ends his newspaper because
he’s already been promised this commission to be a black officer in the Union army and he’s
immensely proud of this. Well the commission falls through; it never happens. And it’s
probably because Edwin Stanton understood the symbolism behind commissioning Douglass as
a Union officer – outraging and alienating conservative northerners. It reflected the comparative
conservatism. Douglass never really blames Lincoln, but Lincoln knew of this failure of the
commission because Lincoln had to sign all of the commissions. Douglass thought briefly of
going south anyway without the gold officer bars on his shoulders, but he decided not to go
because he felt that it would be much more dangerous and he would be less effective at recruiting.
So he continued to recruit in the north. But it was frustrating. When Douglass ended
his newspaper it was the longest-running black newspaper in the nineteenth century.
He had been very proud at the prospect of becoming a black officer.
Why was John Brown not captured during and after John Brown’s raid? The short answer is that
he almost was. When the news hit that John Brown had raided Harper’s Ferry and been
captured, there was a letter from Frederick Douglass to John Brown in his knapsack.
And President Buchannan essentially granted all federal officers the license to capture
Frederick Douglass wherever he was and send him to Virginia for trial and almost certain death.
And technically Douglass was an accomplice of John Brown because of his close friendship with him.
Douglass got news of it and immediately fled to Canada. And in fact it was from Canada
that he wrote a newspaper article acknowledging his friendship with
Brown saying that he did not oppose conspiring against the
United States government as long as it will work because the true ideals of the government are
for freedom. He then goes to England for six months. And when he returns – essentially Congress has a
senate investigation over John Brown’s raid and they understand how politically combustible the
raid is. And in order to prevent more sectional tensions they essentially don’t prosecute anyone.
And when Douglass returns no one accuses him of being a conspirator. And once the Civil War
breaks out, increasingly Americans come to agree with Frederick Douglass. In the wake of
Brown’s death when the war breaks out he said, “John Brown started the war that hopefully will
end slavery.” And increasingly northerners came to agree with that, which is why by 1864 –
John Brown had been seen as this radical fanatic, but by 1964 he’s mainstream. The majority
of northern soldiers are singing the John Brown song as they go off to battle. Yes?
Audience Member: In your estimation of the two men personally, to what degree in your opinion did the
politician chasten the activist notion of the ideal, and to what degree did the activist
elevate the politician’s notion of the possible?
Dr. John Stauffer: Great question. I wouldn’t say chastened. I think that their relationship,
again, was something of a dialectic. I think that the idealist and the politician should work
together acknowledging that they’ll never entirely converge. But the idealist can inspire the
politician and the politician can highlight to the idealist the costs of trying to realize one’s vision
or the practical problems of doing so. And I would characterize Douglass as a prudent
revolutionary during this time. It’s one of the reasons he didn’t go to Harper’s Ferry with John Brown.
John Brown spent two days trying to convince Douglass to go with him. Douglass said,
“No, I don’t want to go. I’m going to die and I think you’re going to die." Douglass was very,
very prudent and disciplined. And so while he was an idealist, he wasn’t – like John Brown, I
would argue – a reckless idealist. In that sense I think Douglass also
shares a lot with Obama; they’re immensely disciplined as individuals.
Audience Member: You described Douglass and Lincoln as friends. And I’m wondering …
is there a mid-nineteenth century ideal of friendship that you’re drawing on here?
Dr. John Stauffer: Yes, that’s a great question. The characteristic of friendship throughout much
of western culture initially was likeness in a double sense. You liked the friend and you were
like the friend. Now there’s a flaw in that basic definition for most of western culture, which is
that the friend had to be just like you. In fact for Aristotle, for Plato, for thinkers, even for
Quakers for the most part, rich and poor could not be friends. For Aristotle a man and a woman
could not be friends because they were essentially different. And certainly an ethnic, racial other
and someone else could not be friends. That started to change in the United States soon after the
founding of the nation because of this awareness of friendship as a symbol of democracy –
– we need to think about the notion of interracial friendship. But Douglass and Lincoln, setting aside
their racial differences, were like each other in their self making and background. And the fact
that they did come to like each other, I think, is significant. The second characteristic of
friendship is equality or near equality which Douglass and Lincoln shared. The third is –
– actually at this time in the United States there were two different understandings of friendship.
One is spiritual friendship and the second is utilitarian friendship. Utilitarian friendship is the
friendship that Douglass and Lincoln achieved, and that utilitarianism depends in part upon
gaining something from each other, which I spelled out. Lincoln realized that Douglass could
help him preserve the Union and Lincoln could help Douglass achieve his goals of ending slavery.
The difference between spiritual friendship and utilitarian friendship is that spiritual
friendship is one in which the two individuals share a common spiritual world view and sensibility.
Aristotle and Plato said essentially that a spiritual friend was as though two bodies unite into one soul.
And the term that we would use today would be soul mates. And Americans were very
self-conscious about their use of friendship. In Douglass’s correspondence and letters
after meeting someone, the first series of letters with someone, he’ll say “respectfully yours” or
“sincerely yours.” And when he first uses the term “your friend,” that’s a significant moment.
The whole tone of the letter has changed. In the 20th century, friendship has been much more
used in the service of commoditization. So it doesn’t have the significant spiritual or political or
otherwise … In the 20th century the most common reference to friendship is through Dale
Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. Friendship is used in the service of selling.
There’s a breakfast cereal in the United States today called Good Friends which features
an interracial couple on the cover. So unfortunately I think friendship has
lost some of its political, spiritual, and cultural significance. Yes?
Audience Member: [Incredibly long yet inaudible question]
Dr. John Stauffer: Another great question. There is not very much material from Lincoln
describing his relationship with Frederick Douglass. I rely heavily on Douglass himself.
I’ve read all of Frederick Douglass – his letters, his three autobiographies – and Douglass as an
ex-slave and an African-American understood the significance and the importance of truth-telling.
And Douglass had an amazing memory, as well. He’s even remembering incidences of ten or
twenty years earlier. He sometimes gets a few details wrong, but the basic facts are right.
And so the characterization of Lincoln’s attitude towards Douglass comes primarily from Douglass.
Douglass had no reason to falsify or romanticize Lincoln’s perception of him, really.
So Douglass is the main source for my characterization of Lincoln. And I want to emphasize that,
as I said, it wasn’t until their first meeting that Douglass really started to see Lincoln in ways that
he felt he could really even interact with him. Had Douglass wanted to meet with Lincoln in the
White House before the Emancipation Proclamation, there’s no way that Lincoln would have
admitted him because it wasn’t in Lincoln’s interest. So Douglass recognized that Lincoln was
politically very different – still a conservative. But Douglass had the capacity to feel
comfortable around Lincoln even though they disagreed so profoundly. The point you make
about Lincoln’s other members in the administration – both in the cabinet and in congress –
– is also an excellent one because I characterize Lincoln as a conservative Republican.
The two front-runners for the presidency in 1860, Chase and Seward, were much more progressive.
Both of them, for example, believed the Fugitive Slave Law was unconstitutional. Lincoln did not;
he thought it was constitutional. I argue that it was John Brown’s raid – with Douglass’s
endorsement or friendship with Brown – that helped more than anything to get Lincoln elected
for a variety of reasons. But to see Lincoln as a conservative Republican who was pushed by
circumstance to a place where he otherwise would not have gone is important. Lincoln himself
said, “Events controlled me, I didn’t control them.” And I think that’s important to understand.
Who Lincoln fundamentally was was not a radical, and to champion universal emancipation and
radical equality under the law was a radical stance. Those were the two basic templates of
northern abolitionists – immediate end to slavery and racial equality. It’s questionable how far
Lincoln ever went in terms of racial equality given his vision of reconstruction, but he was
pushed by events. And I think part of his greatness reflects that Lincoln understood that he was
pushed in a certain position – that there was already a social transformation occurring in America.
In 1860 very, very few northerners believed in racial equality under the law and universal emancipation.
By 1865 the vast majority of northerners embraced universal freedom and increasing
numbers understood the significance of giving black men the vote. And so Lincoln in a sense
reflects this social transformation, which is a result of the Civil War.
Thank you very much.
Speaker: Thank you so much for joining us today. If you’d like to come upstairs to the archives
shop, we’ll be signing copies of the book. The book will also be for sale.
Once you exit the theater just turn to the right and go up the stairs. Thank you.