Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A Republic, if we can keep it

Part VIII: Lessons from the abolitionists

Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison

Abolitionists Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison had very different methods of reading the Constitution.

Public domain, Heritage Images via Getty Images

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

America’s most influential abolitionists found themselves at odds over the proper way to interpret the Constitution. Their disagreement was profound. It reverberates today.

The scene is well-known. Nineteenth-century America is crippled by the formal institution of chattel slavery. Human bondage will both cause and hasten the onset of the country’s bloodiest-ever war. America’s original sin will stand alone as the foulest stain on the nation’s declaration that “all men are created equal” and its corresponding vow to “secure the blessings of liberty.” The United States is “a house divided against itself.”


Enter Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison. Both are staunch abolitionists. They start out as close friends and comrades, especially during the late 1830s and into the 1840s when they toured together. They speak at meetings, gatherings and assemblies — a white man of the North and a Black, formerly enslaved man from below the Mason-Dixon line, sharing the stage. Eventually, though, the two will drift apart. Douglass will embark on a speaking circuit of the British Isles in 1845 and will return, 18 months later, to a frosty reception from his former touring companion.

Their initial fissure will emerge when Douglass starts his own abolitionist newspaper, The North Star, in direct competition with Garrison’s, The Liberator. The rift will widen when the former abandons pacifism in favor of violence and then outshines Garrison in Abraham Lincoln’s eyes. The fracture is complete when these historical giants offer starkly dissimilar images of America’s revered constitutional charter. It is those competing images, those dramatically unlike positions on the proper reading of the Constitution, that define the deterioration of this once great partnership. Unfortunately, they also help to explain the steep decline of America’s civic bond.

“What is the Constitution?” Douglass asked in 1860. “The American Constitution,” he answered, “is a written instrument full and complete in itself. No Court in America, no Congress, no President, can add a single word thereto, or take a single word thereto. It is a great national enactment done by the people, and can only be altered, amended, or added to by the people.”

For Douglass, the precise words of the Constitution were all that mattered. America’s fundamental law does not somehow absorb the interpretations and meanings imposed by such institutions as the Supreme Court. The charter stands alone and apart from those political officials charged with interpreting it. The Constitution’s words are clear; its pages tangible. We can touch it. We don’t need others to tell us what it says or, perhaps more critically, what its writers “intended.” Do we require some understanding of an author’s backstory, or of her motivations, when we read a novel? No, said Douglass. The same must then be true if we are reading the United States Constitution.

Garrison disagreed. He argued that context was the most crucial component of any constitution. Take slavery. Garrison recognized that the word slavery never appears in the Constitution. Doesn’t matter. The document was written by those who enslaved and by those who wanted to perpetuate the business of slavery. The Constitution therefore is a “compact with the devil” and an “agreement with hell.” One cannot understand the Constitution, the Bostonian insisted, without an awareness of the motivations of its drafters and the interpretations that have since furnished it with meaning. A novel, he held, is just a collection of words and sentences without the essential context of why and when it was written.

So, what does this abolitionists’ quarrel have to do with today’s politics? A good deal, actually. The way each of us understands the Constitution, I would argue, is the way we see the political world. A few illustrations may help, beginning with the most obvious: the right to privacy.

The word privacy, like slavery, does not appear anywhere in the Constitution or its 27 amendments. But does that omission mean that a woman can’t exercise her fundamental right to privacy? That the Constitution won’t protect her in securing a legal abortion? Douglass would say yes, unfortunately, it does mean that. The Constitution is “full and complete in itself” and if a safeguard for autonomous privacy is not enumerated, “no Court, no Congress, no President” can make it so.

Uh uh, says Garrison. The right to privacy is part and parcel of America’s constitutional story. He would no doubt cite Hamilton’s famous caution in “Federalist 84” that bills of rights are “unnecessary” and “even dangerous” as evidence that certain liberties — privacy among them — should be fiercely protected regardless of whether they are listed in the document. Unenumerated fundamental freedoms will emerge over time, Hamilton recognized; those that James Madison penned in 1789 cannot represent the entire set of “unalienable rights” that are “endowed by the Creator.” They just can’t. To think otherwise is to have one’s head in the sand. The Founders knew that men are fallible and, yes, even the Father of the Constitution might come up short with his list of liberties. How do we know that they knew this? The Ninth Amendment.

Now apply the competing stances taken by Douglass and Garrison to other political skirmishes. The Second Amendment mentions maintaining a “well-regulated militia” as the object for the people’s “right to keep and bear arms.” Can any citizen regardless of military service possess a gun? Article I empowers Congress to “lay and collect taxes,” “borrow money,” regulate interstate commerce” and “provide for the general welfare.” Does that mean it can charter a national bank? The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Can the state impose the death penalty? On a person of color who, studies demonstrate, is far more likely to receive capital punishment if his victim is white? And how about Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which bars any “officer of the United States” from holding “any office under the United States” if they have “taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States” and have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion against the same”? Does involvement in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, thus bar candidates from America’s highest office?

One’s answer depends on one’s view of the proper interpretive approach to the Constitution. We will never fully embrace a single method, like Douglass and Garrison never fully concurred, but it will certainly help our civic discourse if we at least understand each other’s positions. I truly believe that.

Thankfully, this story has a happy ending. Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison eventually reconciled. In 1873 they came together on the same stage to lend their considerable influence to the women’s suffrage movement. And though they would never again experience the depth of friendship they once enjoyed, they put aside their constitutional differences for a greater cause. The question is, can we?

Read More

U.S. Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites: Trump’s Pivot Amid Middle East Crisis

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine discusses the mission details of a strike on Iran during a news conference at the Pentagon on June 22, 2025, in Arlington, Virginia.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

U.S. Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites: Trump’s Pivot Amid Middle East Crisis

In his televised address to the nation Saturday night regarding the U.S. strikes on Iran, President Donald Trump declared that the attacks targeted “the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.” He framed the operation as a necessary response to decades of Iranian aggression, citing past attacks on U.S. personnel and Tehran’s support for militant proxies.

While those justifications were likely key drivers, the decision to intervene was also shaped by a complex interplay of political strategy, alliance dynamics, and considerations of personal legacy.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Medical Community Tells Congress That Telehealth Needs Permanent Federal Support
person wearing lavatory gown with green stethoscope on neck using phone while standing

The Medical Community Tells Congress That Telehealth Needs Permanent Federal Support

WASHINGTON–In March 2020, Stephanie Hendrick, a retired teacher in Roanoke, Virginia, contracted COVID-19, a virus that over 110 million people in the U.S. would contract over the next couple of years.

She recovered from the initial illness, but like many, she soon began experiencing long COVID symptoms. In the early months of the pandemic, hospitals and medical centers prioritized care for individuals with active COVID-19 infections, and pandemic restrictions limited travel and in-person treatment for other medical conditions. Hendrick’s options for care for long COVID were limited.

Keep ReadingShow less
MAGA’s War on the Social Fabric
The urgency to defeat authoritarianism to save freedom and justice
rarrarorro/Getty Images

MAGA’s War on the Social Fabric

In the first article of this series, we explored how the collapse of civil society left Americans vulnerable to authoritarian appeals. Here, we look at why those same civic institutions—newsrooms, libraries, unions, school boards—are the first targets of authoritarian movements.

Voting, while important, doesn’t keep democracy alive. It needs places where people gather in person to solve problems, such as school board meetings, union halls, local newspapers, block clubs, libraries, and faith-based nonprofits. These institutions form what social scientists call civil society—a network of voluntary groups that connect people with government. They are where democratic habits are learned: negotiation, compromise, listening, and the capacity to see one’s neighbor not as an enemy, but as a fellow citizen.

Americans once had these civic skills in abundance. Alexis de Tocqueville noted that America’s genius for democracy came not from its laws or geography, but from its unrivaled ability to form associations. Today, these associations create what Robert Putnam called bridging social capital—relationships that connect people across lines of difference. This is the social fabric that democracy needs to breathe.

But that fabric is fraying. And when it frays, so do the habits that make pluralism possible.

Keep ReadingShow less
We Need Critical Transformational Leaders Now More Than Ever

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) listens at a news conference following the weekly Senate Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on June 17, 2025, in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

We Need Critical Transformational Leaders Now More Than Ever

The image of U.S. Senator Alex Padilla—handcuffed and dragged away while advocating for immigrant rights—is more than symbolic. It’s a chilling reminder that in America today, even the highest-ranking Latino officials are not immune from the forces of erasure. This moment, along with ICE raids in Los Angeles, an assault on DEI in education, and the Tennessee Attorney General’s lawsuit seeking to dismantle funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), signals a coordinated assault on Latino dignity, equity, and belonging. These are not isolated events. They are part of a broader backlash against racial justice, driven by white supremacy and an entrenched fear of demographic and cultural change.

As a scholar of race, leadership, and equity in higher education, I know this moment calls for something deeper than mere outrage. It calls for action. We need what I call Critical Transformational Leaders—individuals who act with moral courage, who center justice over comfort, and who are unafraid to challenge systemic racism from positions both high and humble.

Keep ReadingShow less