Directed by Steven Spielberg
The other evening I viewed an
interesting film, Lincoln directed by
Steven Spielberg and starring Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role. The film shows one side to Lincoln and
concentrates on his effort to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution
that outlaws slavery.
The strong parts of the film
consist of the determined effort Lincoln made in getting this Amendment passed
through Congress. Even when the
Confederacy was effectively defeated in the Civil War, there were enough votes
in congress that might have blocked the passage of this amendment. The core opposition to the abolition of
slavery came from the Democratic Party.
This is the same political party that President Barrack Obama represents.
Clearly Lincoln did play a heroic
role with respect to the defeat of the Confederacy. At the beginning of the war, many of Lincoln’s advisers
argued that a deal could be reached with the enemy that would make the war a
relatively short conflict. Lincoln
had a better understanding of the sentiment in the country and knew that only a
complete defeat of the slave owners would end this conflict.
The problem with this film is
that it gives a heroic picture of Lincoln without looking at the historical
context to the events of the film.
The film portrays Lincoln as opposing slavery primarily because he is
appalled at how black people were treated by this institution. This may be true, but there were other
issues that Lincoln had to deal with.
Why did the Civil War happen?
We can begin the narrative of the
Civil War with what happened in the state of Kansas. Growing cotton in the slave states destroyed the soil and
prompted slave owners to move west in search of new lands. Kansas was one of the states where the
slave owners attempted to take political control.
However, homesteaders from the
east also wanted to settle in Kansas.
Initially the slave owners won a referendum and took control of the
state government. This state of
affairs provoked a war between the slave owners and the homesteaders. The Republican Party became a political
force because it organized support for the homesteaders of Kansas. Eventually these homesteaders prevailed
and the slave owners of Kansas were repressed.
The events of Kansas demonstrated
how the interests of slave owners were different, not only from the interests
of slaves, but also antagonistic to workers and even to the owners of
capitalist enterprises. The
slaveocracy wanted to move west to establish slave plantations. Homesteaders wanted this same land to
set up small farms. Workers in the
east also supported the homesteaders because they liked the idea that they had
the option of moving west.
The slave owners needed
thoroughly repressive governments that made their top priority to enslave human
beings and apprehend escaped slaves.
The governments of the north wanted skilled workers who toiled for
wages. They also wanted
manufacturing enterprises that would build all kinds of commodities for a profit. These were some of the irreconcilable
differences that led to the Civil War.
However, before the election of
Lincoln, politicians who accepted the institution of chattel slavery
effectively controlled the government.
The election of Lincoln changed this, and this change was something the
slave owners would not tolerate.
This is why the Confederacy seceded from the Union and this act sparked
the Civil War that had been brewing for decades.
When we look at the opposed
priorities of the Union and the Confederacy, we can see why the government
needed to pass the Thirteenth Amendment and abolish chattel slavery. Abraham Lincoln was not part of the
abolitionist movement that consistently organized to abolish slavery. He compromised his opposition to
slavery when he favored continuing this horrendous institution in the
border-states.
What might have happened if there was a compromise with slavery?
From today’s perspective we can
say that there was a possibility that a compromise might have been reached with
the slave owners. We do not know
what the outcome might have been if this would have been the case. Certainly there might have been many
possible outcomes.
What we do know is the history of
Latin America. There, large
landowners did maintain control of the government. This meant that the nations of Latin America became
relatively underdeveloped, dominated economically and politically by foreign
powers, and ruled for many years by repressive military dictatorships. This could have been one of the possible
outcomes in the United States had a compromise been reached with the slave
owners during the Civil War.
The other side to Lincoln
While we can applaud the actions
of Lincoln in the Civil War, we can also judge his actions with respect to
Native Americans to be reprehensible.
One of Lincoln’s first actions as President was to order the executions
of 38 members of the Santee nation who lived in what is now the state of
Minnesota.
The Santee signed a treaty with
the U.S. government that was supposed to guarantee them enough food so they
would be able to live. The U.S.
representative charged with allocating this food told the Santee that if they
wanted food they could “eat grass.”
Since this was a violation of the treaty, which is an act of war, the
Santee did what they needed to do so their people would avoid starvation. Many settlers died because of this war.
Instead of understanding why the
Santee engaged in an armed rebellion, Lincoln treated them as common criminals
and ordered the largest mass execution in the history of the United States.
After Lincoln’s assassination,
two of Lincoln’s generals, and his closest advisers carried out a genocidal war
against Native Americans. These
generals were Phillip Henry Sheridan, and William Tecumseh Sherman. General Sheridan made the infamous
statement that “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Sherman and Sheridan did their best to
make this statement a reality.
Lessons we can learn from the Civil War
While the abolition of slavery in
the United States was an immensely progressive act, this marked the end of any
progressive politics that would be advanced by the United States
government. Reconstruction
governments came into being after the Civil War. These governments were some of the most democratic in the
history of the United States. They
advanced literacy for former slaves and full rights for everyone including
women and Native Americans.
The federal government under the Republican
President of Rutherford B. Hayes made a deal to withdraw federal troops from
the former confederate states.
This action effectively handed power to the terrorist organization of
the Ku Klux Klan. The Supreme
Court then effectively denied Black people citizenship rights in the United
States in their decision Plessey vs. Fergusson.
This history demonstrates why
Karl Marx was both an ardent supporter of Lincoln’s actions in the Civil War,
as well as an ardent critic of the political economic system of capitalism. Marx argued that the price of labor is
the price required to sustain workers at a minimum level.
Today many workers are learning
that we can loose everything when employers eliminate the jobs we work at. However, workers are in a much better
position to advance and defend our interests than people who lived under
chattel slavery .
All progress for working people after
the Civil war came because of pressure that emanated from workers. Woman’s suffrage, labor, civil rights,
and anti-war movements would force the government to abandon policies they had
advanced in the past.
These movements all had
international ramifications. Since
capitalism has always been an international system, workers and farmers need to
defend the interests of workers all over the world.
Abraham Lincoln did have opinions
that many of his supporters today would object to. Clearly he believed that the only way for slavery to be
eliminated was with the force of arms.
The Civil War ended the rule of slave owners in the United States.
As Malcolm X once said that the
interests of Black people need to be advanced by, “any means necessary.” Malcolm quoted Patrick Henry when he
said: “Give me liberty or give me death.”
This is the revolutionary
heritage that workers and farmers have today. When we look at the Civil War from this perspective, there
is good reason to be optimistic about the future.
