By the election of 1860, political campaigning and organization had begun in earnest, although the candidates themselves rarely traveled like we see today. Abraham Lincoln received visitors at his home and relied on a network of political organizers to host rallies in his name, while Stephen Douglas, his opposition, made the unusual move of canvassing for himself. Republicans held speeches in German to appeal to immigrants and got abolitionists like Owen Lovejoy to embrace a more moderate platform to sway votes away from the Democrats, who retaliated by running racist cartoons and threatening secession if Lincoln won. But perhaps no campaigning efforts were to greater effect than demonstrations by the Wide Awakes.
“Who are these Wide Awakes?” you may be asking, and you wouldn’t be alone.
During one of the earliest marches of the Wide Awakes, a drunk New York politician observing them asked the very same question. The Wide Awakes were bands of young men, donned in military-esque costumes, who would march silently through the streets at midnight, stumping for Abraham Lincoln. Most interestingly about this grassroots organizing movement is that they emerged completely independently from the leadership of the Republican campaign, generating a thunderous yet virtually accidental wave of support for Lincoln.
What was so alluring about the Wide Awakes? They provided a fraternity space for the young men — not yet married or with children — to be active, social, and crucially, to feel their own power. The value of feeling like a part of something cannot be overstated; both the Trump and Harris campaigns have sought to cultivate this feeling, in different ways, in order to attract and retain voters to their base. At first glance, Donald Trump’s base may seem more akin to the Wide Awakes. After all, his supporters thrive on militarism, portrayals of masculine dominance, and feeling like a part of something, and this is to say nothing of the fascist militant groups like the Proud Boys that sprung up in his name. But his base did not emerge independently of his campaign — rather, the opposite is true.
The modern equivalent to the Wide Awakes is not a uniform, organized coalition, and their name was created not by their supporters, but by their opponents: the Woke Mob.
See, the unstoppable popularity of the Wide Awakes frightened the Democrats, who tried (and failed) to make their own alternative. The militarism, the mass organization, and in particular the youth support, signaling the changing views of a coming-of-age generation who could destabilize their traditional ideals, made the Wide Awakes a threat. The Democrats responded by belittling the Wide Awakes, attacking in particular their youth — calling them naive about the way politics works and condemning them as infant politicians, signifying the long-standing interrelation between age and political power that these young upstarts threatened to upend.
Compare this to the label of Woke today, which evokes the same kind of fear to modern Republicans that Wide Awakes did to pro-slavery Democrats. Woke is used primarily (although not exclusively) against young, politically active liberals and leftists who challenge the status quo and the modern Republican platform. A mob implies disorganization and violence, the kind of threats against themselves and their politics that Trump’s supporters fear. By decrying certain demographics of voters as weak, naive, or Woke, the supporters of such groups coalesce tighter together into more effective political machines. These aren’t machines in the traditional sense — there’s no central organizer and they aren’t an official collective — but whether it’s woke or weird, labels spread like wildfire.
It’s important to remember that there is no group of people known simply as the Wokes the way the Wide Awakes were named, but there doesn’t need to be: the term ‘Woke Mob’ is wielded against non-Republicans with the aim of creating a political out-group. Countless organizing groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter have sprung up under the umbrella of wokeness, the key difference being that it was a label applied to them, not one they chose like the Wide Awakes. Both Antifa and BLM have been branded militaristic — ironic coming from a party supported by white-supremesist militias. Trump has named his enemy; in doing so, he has made the threat they pose to him clear.
But if there is no group of people organizing as a collective Woke Mob, how can they be as effective as the Wide Awakes campaigning for Lincoln?
Remember that those most commonly accused of being woke are young leftists, who have grown increasingly aware of the power of their political voices. Youth political excitement about the presidential campaign had waned by the time Biden took office in 2020, and continued to wane well into 2024. But with the emergence of Kamala Harris, many voters feel represented, or at least like they have the opportunity to be heard, in a way neither the Trump nor Biden campaigns had offered. The majority of the young men involved in the Wide Awakes had come of age during a time of great political upheaval and unpredictability, and rather than be disillusioned, they pushed for a candidate they thought could steer them through the storm. A similar tactic is at play with young voters today — though none believe that one election will solve everything.
But the strength of young, woke voters coalescing behind the Harris campaign only matters if they’ve got something to advocate for, be it a candidate or a change in her policy, and a means by which to spread their views. For the Wide Awakes, it was the printing press. For the Harris campaign, it’s social media.
Newspapers printed details about Wide Awake marches, about local chapters, about stories from other states, drawing more and more young men into the fold. 20,000 Wide Awake uniforms were tailored by one of its founding members and shipped across the country, all in the name of fitting into an aesthetic of masculinity. Once again, there are parallels to Trump’s base, particularly in the form of his signature red hats and in the spread of alt-right rabbit holes. The kind of widespread sharing of information that the Wide Awakes capitalized on is no longer controlled by traditional newspapers; the Harris campaign is the first to use social media to all its advantages.
A crucial part of the Wide Awakes is how they functioned for a candidate but were not originated by the candidate. This mirrors the way young Democrats and leftists use social media to spread their political beliefs, often through capitalizing on trends, memes, and impersonations. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of accounts have sprung up impersonating Harris’s laugh, doing dance remixes of her speeches, or providing fact-checks against both her and Donald Trump. Even @kamalahq, her campaign’s Instagram account handle, was started by someone from her base, totally independent of her campaign leadership. It wasn’t until @kamalahq had a following that the Harris campaign took it over. These accounts simultaneously mock the candidate and endear their followers to her, gaining supporters by the thousands.
A common thread between the Wide Awakes of 1860 and those that are lambasted as the Woke Mob of today is that the energy, vigor, and political awareness of youth has been and continues to be drastically underestimated. From coming of age in a time of political upheaval, to being attacked as a threat and infantilized as a child, to the mediatization of campaigning prior to the candidate or party’s knowledge, there are a multitude of parallels between the Wide Awakes and what Trump calls the Woke Mob. Decentralized political canvassing that demonstrates the power of the youth vote is a commanding tool — if it can be harnessed.
For further reading:
“‘Young Men for War’: The Wide Awakes and Lincoln’s 1860 Presidential Campaign” by Jon Grinspan, The Journal of American History, 2009, pg. 357-378, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25622297?seq=12
“‘To Protect the Rights of the White Race’: Illinois Republican Racial Politics in the 1860 Campaign and the Twenty-Second General Assembly” by Sally Heinzel, Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, 1998, pg. 374-406, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jillistathistsoc.108.3-4.0374
Wow! This was a fantastic read and a great argument!