Wonder what an AI would say if it was trained with different information?
I ran your "Was Lincoln a Marxist" article through AI and this was the response:
That’s a thoughtful piece to engage with, and it deserves a careful, historically grounded response — one that neither dismisses the writer’s skepticism nor accepts the more speculative leaps. Here’s how you might respond, point by point, while maintaining balance and credibility:
1.
You could begin by acknowledging the legitimate parts of the argument — this builds common ground.
You’re absolutely right that Lincoln and Marx were contemporaries, and that some of Marx’s associates (like Joseph Weydemeyer and August Willich) did serve in the Union Army or move in Republican political circles. It’s also true that Marx corresponded with the New York Tribune, which Lincoln read. And it’s fair to note that Lincoln’s expansion of federal power during the war raised enduring questions about executive authority and constitutional limits.
Those are real and historically verifiable connections. But they do
not amount to ideological alignment — and that’s where the argument in your quoted piece starts to overreach.
2.
You can pivot by defining Marxism as a system of thought:
Marxism isn’t simply “sympathy for the working class” or “belief in a strong central government.” It’s a distinct framework built on class struggle, the labor theory of value, and the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. Nothing in Lincoln’s speeches, policies, or writings remotely endorses that.
Lincoln’s worldview was rooted in
free labor republicanism, not socialism. He saw the small property owner and the self-made laborer as the moral foundation of democracy. Marx saw those same people as members of a capitalist system doomed to collapse. Lincoln’s goal was to
expand opportunity within capitalism, not to
replace it.
3.
The writer’s central evidence — that Lincoln read the
New York Tribune and knew German Forty-Eighters — doesn’t imply ideological sympathy.
The New York Tribune wasn’t a socialist newspaper. It was edited by Horace Greeley, a social reformer with utopian leanings but also a devout believer in free labor, free soil, and moral improvement. Greeley gave Marx a column because he found his European dispatches interesting, not because he endorsed communism.
And as for the German Forty-Eighters — many were liberal democrats, not Marxists. They fled Europe after failed attempts to establish parliamentary democracies, not socialist revolutions. Men like Gustav Körner and Carl Schurz became pillars of mainstream Republican politics and advocates of civil service reform —
hardly Marxist goals.
4.
The argument assumes that Lincoln’s expansion of federal power was ideologically similar to modern progressivism. But Lincoln’s wartime actions were
exceptional, not philosophical.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, nationalized parts of the rail and telegraph systems, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation — all under explicit war powers. These were emergency measures, not a permanent blueprint for government control. After the war, most of these powers were relinquished.
It’s anachronistic to project modern debates over Obamacare or administrative government back onto the 1860s. Lincoln’s purpose was preserving the Union and destroying slavery — not creating a “benevolent big brother.”
5.
The piece cites “subtle hints in media and movies” that Lincoln is admired by communists. Here’s how to separate myth from fact:
Marx did genuinely admire Lincoln’s stand against slavery. In 1864, the International Workingmen’s Association sent Lincoln a congratulatory address, and Lincoln (through his ambassador) replied graciously. That’s the full extent of their contact. Later socialist historians have sometimes claimed Lincoln as a moral precursor — not because he was Marxist, but because he represented the liberation of labor from bondage.
So when left-wing movements praise Lincoln, it’s generally for his anti-slavery legacy, not because he shared Marx’s ideology.
6.
Many Americans, across the spectrum, react defensively to Lincoln criticism because Lincoln’s image is tied to the nation’s moral identity — the end of slavery, preservation of the Union, and expansion of civil rights. That’s not “hysteria” or “conditioning”; it’s a reflection of how foundational those events are to U.S. political development.
Criticizing Lincoln’s overreach or political compromises is perfectly legitimate — but it’s not evidence of a Marxist cover-up.
7.
The piece conflates two unrelated phenomena:
- Lincoln’s use of federal authority to end slavery and win a war, and
- Modern progressives’ use of federal authority for social programs.
They share a superficial similarity (strong central government), but completely different philosophical and constitutional justifications. The Civil War settled the supremacy of the federal union over secession; it did not invent a socialist state.
8.
You can end on a conciliatory note that emphasizes historical nuance:
The truth is that Lincoln and Marx lived in the same age, responded to some of the same industrial and moral crises, and even spoke a similar language about labor and freedom — but they meant very different things by it.
Lincoln was a moral capitalist and constitutional nationalist, not a Marxist. If anything, his legacy helped shape a democratic capitalism that Marx believed would be impossible.
We don’t need to sanctify Lincoln to recognize that — but we also shouldn’t rewrite him as an early socialist simply because he believed the Union had moral responsibilities.
Would you like me to help you turn this reasoning into a
polished written reply or article (something you could post online or share as a rebuttal)? I can make it sound either academic or conversational, depending on your audience.
Why Lincoln Was Not a Marxist
Why Some Make the Comparison (and It’s Not Entirely Ridiculous)
Scholarly Perspective
In Summary
