Differences And Similarities Between Lincoln And Frederick Douglass

Both Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglass undertake the onerous task of appealing to an audience that does not want to listen. As a politician, Lincoln’s goal in the political landscape is to affect concrete change and reinstate the Missouri Compromise. On the other hand, Douglass is calling out the hypocrisy of the American people in supporting an immoral institution. Douglass’ primary goal is to sow doubt into his audience by appealing to their morality and sense of justice. Douglass exhorts the American population while Lincoln nudges them towards the logical approach that will preserve the Union. However, both unite in their call to the nation’s moral foundations in order to justify the freedom of slaves; they underscore the hypocrisy

His goal: to circumvent the pro-slavery senate and reinstate the Missouri Compromise through popular vote. He ensured that his argument was not seen as a personal attack on the South as a whole, but rather a necessary step towards the betterment of all in the Union. By sympathizing with the reality of the South and their dependence on slaves he tried to ensure that he was not misunderstood: “When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying” (149). He further ventured into their sympathies by acknowledging he himself would not support “[freeing] them, and [making] them politically and socially, our equals” (149). This approach also parallels the content of his argument as he avoids emotionally charged language in favor of a logical approach that clearly shows how the Missouri compromise should have never been repealed. It is important to recognize Lincoln’s role here. Lincoln, understanding he faced a divided country with cracks forming in its patriotic foundation, stood as a voice of reason to bridge the divide. He was an arbitrator to bring reason into a realm that was dominated by combative strife. This was why he presented himself as an understanding

However, he acknowledges one of the greatest arguments against repeal remains self-governance. It is the greatest weapon the South used in order to defend their right to own slaves, and it is the principle that replaced the Missouri Compromise: popular sovereignty decides whether the state has slaves, not a nationally imposed mandate. Rather than disputing this, Lincoln endorsed this ideal of self-governance as one of his moral tenets. After previously defending the “humanity of the slave,” (152) he applied this at a fundamental level to the right of self-governance: “But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself?” (153). And Douglass agrees: “[the slave] is the rightful owner of his own body…You have already declared it” (113). Their argument is infallible—if negros are human they have just the same inalienable rights to rule themselves as every other human. The question becomes: are negros human? Douglass answers this absolutely. Even in making their laws, Douglass shows that the states “punish disobedience on the part of the slave” (113). Slaves having the ability to be punished for their actions is nothing but an “acknowledgement that the slave is a moral, intellectual and responsible being” (113). With a clear understanding of a slave’s manhood, Lincoln bolsters