Was Lincoln a Marxist?
Now, let me start this out by saying that re-visiting Lincoln and the Civil War is a losing political strategy. For that reason, I have never looked very deeply into the questions of Lincoln. I have not read any of DiLorenzo's books, although I catch the occasional short Youtube speech by him. My preference has been to see the issue as a battle of big government (Taxes and Lincoln maintaining the Union), vs. the South wanting to be free from the central Federal government. The end of slavery was a positive result, but was probably not the actual cause of the Civil War. Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and setting a precedent for ignoring the Constitution was a negative side-effect. No doubt many who believe in "the ends justify the means" philosophy embrace both of those side effects, i.e. the rule of law had to be sacrificed for the goal of eliminating slavery.
It must be clear, this is all a losing and divisive issue in politics, and should take a back seat to current political debate. And there is no doubt in the world that the end of slavery was an extremely positive step in the evolution of society.
But then they had to continue the push of Lincoln. Movies, articles, etc. And at the same time, they demonize Jefferson. Obviously they want to bring this battle to the forefront, as it applies today to big government vs. small government. Was Obamacare Constitutional? Did it pass through the Congress in the appropriate way? Did the Supreme Court make the correct ruling? They want to say it doesn't matter. The ends justify the means. Obamacare is good, and nothing should stand in the way of a "benevolent" big brother, even if the Constitution and the rule of law must be ignored.
The issue is being forced, so some outstanding questions needed to be answered:
- Why do so many pundits, politicians and media go apoplectic when there is any criticism of Lincoln? Does it just spoil their agenda of an all powerful big government? Or are they just as ignorant as most of us, and associate Lincoln with nothing more and nothing less than slavery?
- What is the origin of subtle hints in the media and movies that Lincoln is somehow a hero of communists?
- Neo-conservatives and leftists both have in common this hysteria about Lincoln. They also share a Marxist philosophical heritage. Coincidence?
Thus, the question is posed: was Lincoln a Marxist? The answer is quite surprising.
Let's start with a quick timeline of Lincoln and Marx. Americans are so ignorant of history that they often do not realize that Marx and Lincoln were contemporaries.
- Lincoln born: February 12, 1809
- Marx born: May 5, 1818
- Marx publishes a
book about
Emancipation: 1843
- Marx expelled from France as a radical: 1845
- Lincoln elected to US House: 1846
- Marx publishes the Communist Manifesto: February 1848
- Marx is a contributor to the New York Tribune (Lincoln's favorite newspaper), 1851-1861
- Lincoln runs for U.S. Senate vs. Douglas, famous Lincoln-Douglas debates occur: 1858
- Lincoln becomes US President: 1860
- Civil War Starts: 1861
- Emancipation Proclamation: January 1, 1863
A quick Google search of Lincoln and Marx points to a relevant article. Who better to describe the connections of Lincoln and Marx than the International Socialist?
So it seems that there is a connection between Lincoln and Marx, albeit with a single degree of separation, where Lincoln and Marx were not personal friends, but shared some acquaintances. The ideas and philosophies of Marx and his associates was no doubt well known to Lincoln, as Lincoln was an avid reader of everything, including newspapers which supported him such as the New York Tribune. It seems that Lincoln was as attached to the New York Tribune as John McCain is today attached to the Weekly Standard.
In all fairness to Lincoln, this was a new philosophy, with the good intention of helping the common man. Hindsight is 20/20, and Lincoln did not live to see the road to hell that eventually resulted, best represented by Lenin and Stalin. In Lincoln's time, the philosophy was about good intentions. That being said, we can never lose sight of the fact that the Civil War was the result of many converging and diverging agendas, not just one or another.
Now back to the original questions:
- Why do so many pundits, politicians and media go apoplectic when there is any criticism of Lincoln? Does it just spoil their agenda of an all powerful big government? Or are they just as ignorant as most of us, and associate Lincoln with nothing more and nothing less than slavery?
Probably all of the above. They believe in a big, activist government, and they also believe that the ends justify the means. All good intentions, never any thought about slippery slopes or the road to hell that often results. For those who are completely in the know, the venom is probably a way to divert from the Marxist roots. Any question of Lincoln is blasphemy. They want to leverage that into attacking any questioning of an enormous and all-powerful, central, activist government. They want to equate it with Lincoln, and therefore stifle any criticism.
- What is the origin of subtle hints in the media and movies that Lincoln is somehow a hero of communists?
Solved. They were contemporaries, and had shared associations. Those in the know will hint at it just for fun (or bragging as the International Socialist might do).
- Neo-conservatives and leftists both have in common this hysteria about Lincoln. They also share a Marxist philosophical heritage. Coincidence?
Once again, keeping a lid on the Marxist connections is probably a shared motive for those who truly know the history. For others, who just have a surface knowledge, they have been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to recoil in horror at any criticism or "non-approved" discussion of Lincoln.
- Thus, the question is posed: was Lincoln a Marxist?
How could Lincoln be a Marxist if the label of "Marxism" was probably not in common usage yet? They were contemporaries who could influence each other, with shared connections. Hindsight is 20/20, and the dangers that evolved from Marxism later had not even occurred yet. It was a time of evolving philosophy. Are there knowledgeable socialists and Marxists (or those who have roots in those philosophies) today that know the connection, and relish it? Probably a few.
