这是在1976年4月《林肯传》一书的征求意见稿上，翻译组为本书写的序言。原书是人民出版社和云南人民出版社共同组织翻译出版的，由“来自祖国边疆的上山下乡知识青年、工农兵学员、部队同志和专业人员集体翻译”，所以在中国资本主义复辟后，以云南和北京的简称——“云京”作为翻译组的集体代称出版。该书在翻译时进行了节译，同时还根据马克思和恩格斯有关论述对正文的内容加了评注。在复辟后出版的版本上，节译的内容有所增加，序言也遭到巨大修改。而这本1976年4月的征求意见稿则一直都没有电子版。我将这篇序言OCR分享给大家。认为这篇文章，对于我们学习林肯的生平、美国南北战争有很大意义。这本书里面的评注价值也很高，反映出翻译组精湛的历史研究水平，但是复辟后版本的评注保留情况，还没详细查证。
由于本人OCR校队精力有限，未免有些错漏，如有发现请及时发言提醒。
1776年7月4日，北美英属十三个殖民地的人民在反抗英帝国殖民统治的革命战争的熊熊烈火中发表《独立宣言》，成立了美利坚合众国——美洲第一个独立的资产阶级共和国。
从共和国建立到十九世纪中期，北部资本主义自由雇佣劳动制和南部种植场黑人奴隶制之间的斗争一天也没有停止过，两种社会经济制度冲突的不断激化终于孕育成必不可免的第二次资产阶级革命风暴–1861-1865年的美国内战(南北战争)。“伟大的革命斗争会造就伟大人物”（《列宁全集》第29卷第71页）。美国历史上这场剧烈的阶级大搏斗，造就了一位“领导自己国家进行解放被奴役种族和改造社会制度的史无先例的战斗”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷第21页）的杰出的资产阶级革命家——阿伯拉罕·林肯(1809-1865年)。
林肯的一生正是处在美国社会大变革的历史时期。
经过1775-1783年的资产阶级革命，美国虽然赢得了政治独立，但在经济上对英国的依赖程度还很深。马克思认为，到十九世纪中期，“从经济上来说，美国仍然是欧洲的殖民地”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷第21页）。美国独立后建立的政权是奴隶主在政治上长期占优势的资产阶级与奴隶主的联合专政。奴隶主寡头集团不发展本国的工业，极力扩大种植场经济，把南部的主要产品棉花大部分输往英国等欧洲国家，以换取廉价工业品。他们在残酷压榨和奴役南部几百万黑人奴隶的同时，竭力向西部和北部扩展奴隶制，他们还野心勃勃地安图兼并墨西哥、古巴和中美洲，梦想在美洲建立一个从属英国的庞大的奴隶制棉花王国，把历史拉向后退。
十九世纪初美国开始了工业革命，北部新兴工业资产阶级迫切要求增加自由劳动力，保证工业原料的充足供应，实行高额关税，扩大国内市场，在西部新领地建立自由州，以便发展资本主义经济。在西部新领地建立自由州还是蓄奴州，不仅牵涉到资产阶级和奴隶主的经济利益，而且直接关系到双方在政府中的政治力量的对比。十九世纪上半期，随着北部工业和南部植棉业的发展以及美国领土向西部扩展，两种社会经济制度的矛盾日趋尖锐，逐步上升为国内的主要矛盾。
但是由于北部资产阶级同南部种植场奴隶主在经济上有着千丝万缕的联系，特别是金融、商业资本家分享着南部棉花出口和贩卖奴隶的巨额利润，纺织工厂主依赖南部的棉花作原料，因此他们对南部奴隶主采取妥协立场和退让政策。1820年密苏里妥协案、1833年关税问题妥协案和1850年大妥协案便是这一政策的产物。
林肯就是在这样的历史背景中登上政治舞台的。
林肯出身于劳动农民家庭，早年当过垦荒者、船工、店员、土地测量员和邮务员等，深受广大劳动人民憎恶奴隶制思想的感染，因而他同情黑人的悲惨遭遇，主张黑人也应享有生存和自由的权利。在林肯当了律师、州议员和辉格党的地方领袖后，就成了资产阶级的政治代表。他把鼓吹南北调和的辉格党领导人享利·克莱奉为“理想中最完美的政治家”(本书55页)。1837年林肯在伊利诺斯州议会第一次正式表明他对奴隶制的态度。他一方面谴责奴隶制度，指出它是“非正义”的，另一方面又不主张触动南部的奴隶制，认为“传播废奴主张只会增加而不会减少奴隶制度的罪恶”(29页)。林肯的这种态度典型地反映了资产阶级温和派在反奴隶制斗争中的不彻底与调和妥协的立场。
两种制度的矛盾表现在阶级关系上，一方面是奴隶主同资产阶级的矛盾，另一方面是奴隶主同人民大众的矛盾。北部的广大工人、农民和黑人采取了与资产阶级截然相反的态度,他们对奴隶制展开了坚决的斗争。1848年欧洲革命失败后，马克思和恩格斯的战友魏德迈和一些社会主义者移居美国，开始在工人中间传播马克思主义。北部的工人逐渐认识到“在黑人的劳动被打上屈辱的烙印的地方，白人的劳动也永远不能解放”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第31卷第539页），如果奴隶主向北部扩展奴隶制的阴谋得逞，整个工人阶级就有沦为奴隶的危险,工人阶级反奴隶制的运动目益高涨。南部奴隶主肆无忌惮地向西部扩张，不断侵占农民开垦的土地，进一步激起了农民的反抗斗争，他们勇敢地拿起武器，同奴隶主派遣的武装匪徒进行了浴血战斗。受压迫最深的黑人奴隶，用逃往自由州、焚毁种植场、杀死奴隶主直至武装起义等各种方式同奴隶主进行长期的不届斗争。到美国奴隶制在内战中被废除为止，有记载的奴隶起义就达两百五十多次。广大工人和农民反奴隶制的斗争同黑人争取解放的正义斗争汇成了一股终将摧毁奴隶制的势不可挡的革命洪流，他们是反对奴隶制度的主力军。
南部奴隶主向北部发动了越来越猖狂的进攻，特别是1854年堪萨斯一内布拉斯加法案取消了对奴隶制扩展的一切地理限制和法律限制后，他们用武力在堪萨斯建立蓄奴派政权，使奴隶制有扩展到全国的危险，从而引起了美国社会的大动荡和各种政治力量的大分化、大改组，主张调和妥协的辉格党分化瓦解，终于被历史淘汰。反奴隶制的各派政治力量组成了一个主要代表工业资产阶级利益的新政党–共和党。随着革命形势的发展，在人民群众的推动下,林肯在反奴隶制道路上向前迈进了一步,确信让奴隶制扩展到北部是错误的，他在1856年参加了共和党。1858年在同北部资产阶级保守派斯·道格拉斯的七次大辩论中，林肯强调“制止奴隶制的进一步扩展”,将使它“处于最后灭亡的过程中”(85页)。这是因为南部种植场奴隶主滥用土地,地力很快被耗尽,不继续扩张领土、建立新的种植场，蓄奴州就无法生存下去。正如马克思所指出的，“把奴隶制度严格地限制在其旧有地区之内，由于经济规律，势必使奴隶制度逐渐消亡……共和党人提出应当用法律完全禁止奴隶制度的进-步扩展的原则，就等于要从根割断奴隶主的统治”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷第355页）。所以，林肯和其他共和党人的这个主张虽然还不够彻底，但在当时的历史条件下是有进步意义的，是符合北部广大人民的愿望的。林肯还主张把西部国有土地无偿分配给贫苦农民，反对在政治上歧视外国移民(大部分是工人和其他劳动者)，因而赢得了劳动人民的拥护。林肯还赞成建立统一的国家银行系统、实行保护关税、发展交通事业等，这些主张是符合工业资产阶级利益和要求的。
从1810年到1860年这五十年间，美国工业总产值增长了近九倍。北部集中了美国近代工业的百分之九十，资本主义经济已在全国经济中占主导地位，但当时国家政权主要掌握在隶主手中。经济实力大大增强了的工业资产阶级强烈要求独掌政权，他们迫切需要一个既能代表他们的利益又能联合广大人民的政治领袖，以便把全国政权从奴隶主手中夺过来。正是在这种历史条件下，思想倾向进步、得到人民拥护的林肯就成了工业资产阶级合适的人选。历史证明，是美国资产阶级民主革命的需要，在两种制度决战的重要历史关头，把这个地位本来并不十分重要的人物推上了国家最高领导岗位。1860年，林肯当选为美国第十六任总统、共和党的第一个总统。
古今中外一切反动派都不甘心自行退出历史舞台。南部奴隶主为了重新夺回他们长期把持的国家领导权，以林肯当选为口，悍然制造分裂，纠集一些蓄奴州代表组织南部同盟，发动反革命武装叛乱。1861年4月，他们指使叛军炮轰联邦的萨姆特堡垒，从而挑起了全面内战。
面对南部奴隶主点燃的妄图扼杀共和国的战火，成千上万的工人、农民抱着维护国家统一和消灭奴隶制的决心,踊跃参军，奋勇杀敌，以自己的鲜血和生命为美国历史谱写新的篇章。然而，尽管北部士兵在前线前仆后继、英勇作战，内战头两年，北部在主要战场上却接连吃败仗，这是什么原因呢?。南北战争的实质是两种制度的生死决战。马克思指出:“当前南部与北部之间的斗争不是别的，而是两种社会制度即奴隶制度与自由劳动制度之间的斗争。这个斗争之所以爆发，是因为这两种制度再也不能在北美大陆上一起和平相处。它只能以其中一个制度的胜利而结束。”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷第365页）因此内战一开始，历史就把消灭南北战争的根源–奴隶制–这一革命的中心任务提上了日程。但是林肯的思想却远远落后于形势,仍停留在五十年代限制奴隶制、拘守旧宪法的立场上。在战争的第一阶段，他强调斗争的最高目标是拯救联邦,而不是拯救或摧毁奴隶制,要本着宪法的途径致力于恢复“原来的联邦”(252页)。诚然,国家统一是要坚决维护的，但在新的革命形势下，恢复战前的旧联邦则是历史的倒退，是不符合广大人民利益的，实际上也是办不到的。只有消灭了奴隶制，在革命的基础上才能建设一个真正统一的资产阶级共和国。显而易见，林肯受同南部有经济联系的资产阶级保守派的影响而执行的这条护宪路线，从根本上说来是错误的。林肯之所以迟迟不敢宣布解放黑人奴隶，是因为他站在剥削阶级的立场上,认为私有财产是神圣不可侵犯的，他担心剥夺奴隶主的财产会使还留在联邦内的几个边界蓄奴州倒向南部同盟一边，对这些边界州的所谓“忠诚的”奴隶主百般迁就。黑人奴隶受压迫最深，对奴隶制的仇恨最强烈，“只要有一个由黑人组成的团就会使南部大伤脑筋”(《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷第272页)但林肯政府却不给广大黑人参军的权利，有的将领甚至还把南部逃亡奴隶强行送还奴隶主，严重地压制了黑人的革命积极性。奴隶制是叛乱分子的统治基础，也是南部的致命弱点，林肯偏偏不去触动它，这就使敌人得以利用这种制度照旧强迫奴隶承担全部生产劳动，而把其他一切可用于作战的力量全部投入战场，叛军的力量因此大大增强。错误的路线必然导致失败。战争初期北部在军事上的连连失利，根本原因就在这里。
“人民，只有人民，才是创造世界历史的动力。”（《毛泽东选集》横排合订本第932页）北部广大人民群众“决心要强迫政府以革命方式进行战争，在星条旗上写上’废除奴隶制度!’作为战斗口号”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷第558页）。他们纷纷举行集会和示威游行，用各种方式对林肯政府施加压力和影响，要求立即解放奴隶、武装黑人和严惩反革命。国际无产阶级革命导师马克思和恩格斯在报刊上连续发表文章，批评林肯政府路线错误，他们指出，只有按照革命方式进行战争，才能保证北部取得最后胜利。马克思认为如果林肯政府不这样做，北部就会发生革命。由于大势所趋，人心所向,由于全国人民的强烈要求和促进,林肯终于在1862年9月颁布了“联邦成立以来的美国史上最重要的文件”(《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷第586页)《解放宣言》。同年5月，林肯还签署了把西部国有土地无偿分配给农民的《宅地法》，这个“北部人民大众久盼而未得的宅地法”(同上第558页)是解决美国土地问题的一项革命措施。《解放宣言》和《宅地法》的颁布是内战的转折点，标志着“内战的第一幕，即根据宪法进行的战争”宣告结束,“第二幕，即以革命方式进行的战争”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第15卷第558页）从此开始;标志着林肯由主张限制奴隶制前进到主张废除奴隶制，由资产阶级温和派转变为资产阶级革命派;标志着林肯终于解脱了资产阶级保守势力的羁绊，大踏步地跟上了历史前进的步伐，开始执行一条革命路线。在战争第二阶段，林肯还采取了一系列革命措施,如武装黑人,撤换主张同南部妥协的一些反动将领，清洗政府中的内奸，制裁“铜头蛇”(内战时期南部奴隶主在北部的代理人)头目的反革命活动，把一些革命废奴主义者和激进派提拔到重要的领导岗位。这些都极大地激发了人民群众的革命积极性。同时，林肯坚决顶住保守派安图迫使他撤销《解放宣言》的强大压力，一丝一毫也不从他的宣言后退。1864年12月，他坚定地重申:“只要我仍然担任我目前的职位，我决不收回或修改宣言，我也决不使那些根据这一宣言的条款或根据国会的任何法令而获得自由的任何人重新沦为奴隶。”(492页)他还签署了国会1865年1月通过的第十三条宪法修正案，宣布在全国范围内废除奴隶制度。路线端正了，战局就发生根本的变化，经过四年的浴血奋战，南北战争终于以当时较为先进的社会制度——资本主义雇佣劳动制——的胜利而结束。
能否正确对待人民，能否跟随历史的潮流前进，这是摆在每一个历史人物面前的严峻课题，林肯用自己一生的实践作出了回答。他的一个比较突出的特点是谦虚，能够听取批评、改正缺点，跟上人民前进的步伐。在人民群众的批评和推动下，他“一旦发现错误，就努力克服;一旦发现某些新的观点是正确的，就立即采纳”(252页)。有一次林肯和一位黑人领袖谈起一直在批评他的温·菲力浦斯(废奴运动革命派领袖、后来的第一国际会员)的时候说:“没什么关系，告诉他继续这么做吧。让他促使人民甘心情愿地去为解放奴隶而奋斗，而我也一定会和这些人并肩前进的。”(316页)他是这么说的，也是这么做的。这正是他能不断进步的一个重要因素。林肯并不认为奴隶解放是他个人的功劳，他对欢庆《解放宣言》的人群说，不应当特别赞扬他个人，应当首先归功于在前线英勇奋战的官兵。他深切感到联邦政府是依靠人民坚定的爱国主义、北部忠诚的献身精神和军队的优秀战斗素质才战胜重重困难的。历史唯心主义者不顾血的事实，硬把黑人奴隶的解放归功于林肯和资产阶级的恩赐，林肯本人的这番话恰恰是对这种谬论的最大嘲讽。在这场规模空前的人民战争中，北部有三十六万优秀儿女为联邦统一和奴隶解放事业献出了宝贵的生命。是美国人民用历史上最大的流血牺牲换来了奴隶解放的辉煌成果;是人民群众的推动促使林肯及其政府转变立场，朝着解放奴隶的革命目标不断前进。菲力浦斯把林肯形象地比喻成一棵橡树，他说，“林肯先生是一个天天在成长的人。为什么他会成长呢?因为我们用水浇灌了他。”(380页)
林肯作为新兴工业资产阶级的政治领袖，联合和依靠各阶层人民的力量,胜利地进行了一场资产阶级民主革命,用革命暴力镇压了南部奴隶主的武装叛乱,推翻了奴隶主寡头集团的反动统治，在全国范围废除了奴隶制，在革命的基础上恢复了国家的统一。反动派因此对他恨之入骨，在举国欢庆胜利的时刻，南部奴隶主和北部反动资本家的走狗对林肯下了毒手。林肯虽然被暗杀了，但他作为美国革命传统的继承者和发扬者在美国史册上留下了不可磨灭的一页。他曾说过:人民起来革命，“这是最宝贵、最神圣的权利”，“不遵循旧的路线或旧的法律;而把旧的路线和旧的法律破掉，建立新的，这是一切革命的特点”(47-48页)林肯最后就是为新制度战胜旧制度的革命事业献出生命的。马克思评价林肯时写道，“这是一个不会被困难所吓倒，不会为成功所迷惑的人;他不屈不挠地迈向自己的伟大目标，而从不轻举妄动，他稳步向前,而从不倒退,……总之，他是一位达到了伟大境界而仍然保持自己优良品质的罕有的人物。这位出类拔萃和道德高尚的人竟是那样谦虚，以致只有在他成为殉难者倒下去之后，全世界才发现他是一位英雄。”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷第108-109页）
恩格斯评价南北战争时说:“这种人民战争……的结局无疑地将决定整个美国今后几百年的命运。美国政治和社会发展的最大障碍–奴隶制度一经粉碎，这一国家就会繁荣起来，在最短期间它就会在世界历史上占据完全不同的地位”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第31卷第431页）。这次战争的结果使美国资本主义经济获得了迅速发展，同时也促进了美国工人阶级队伍的壮大和工人运动的发展，无产阶级和资产阶级的矛盾以及资本主义社会所固有的其他各种矛盾空前激化，从而为无产阶级革命创造了条件。马克思指出，“美国反对奴隶制的战争将开创工人阶级取胜的新纪元”（《马克思恩格斯全集》第16卷第21页）。许多国家成千上万的工人直接参加了美国人民反奴隶制的战争，西欧各国工人阶级在马克思、恩格斯的组织和指导下对英、法等国政府的反革命干涉阴谋进行了不屈不挠的斗争，这大大地促进了无产阶级的国际团结和欧洲革命运动的高涨。列宁认为南北战争具有“极伟大的、世界历史性的、进步的和革命的意义”（《列宁选集》第二版第3卷第593页）。
但是，美国内战是一次不彻底的资产阶级民主革命。黑人在政治和经济上并没有获得与自人平等的权利。前奴隶主的土地没有被剥夺，黑人对土地的要求没有得到满足，前奴隶主保持土地所有权，就有了从事反革命复辟活动的经济基础。这一次资产阶级革命的实质是以一种剥削制度代替另一种剥削制度。黑人虽然挣脱了奴隶主的枷锁，但又被套上新的剥削枷锁，成了资本家的雇佣奴隶，改变了的只是剥削奴役的形式而已。随着资本主义走向反动，黑人在内战中所争得的一些权利也越来越受到限制。内战只是为美国资产阶级开辟了真正的“黄金时代”，许多大财阀都是在内战中起家的，他们通过各种手段所搜刮的财富远远打破历史上的记录，而千百万劳苦大众依然挣扎在苦难的深渊。战后，美国迅速走向垂死的、腐朽的、反动的垄断资本主义阶段，变成了帝国主义国家。共和党和民主党之间的区别越来越小，逐渐变成了垄断资本的政觉。
林肯作为资产阶级的政治代表必然要受到其阶级的局限，决不可能提出一个彻底解放奴隶的纲领，在他看来，黑人和白人只能在某些方面平等而不能在一切方面都平等。他所采取的一切措施都是以不违背资产阶级的根本利益为前提的。他强调工人的斗争“不应当导致对财产的宣战，也不应当导致对业主的宣战”(397页)，可见他认为资产阶级私有制和他们的统治地位是不容侵犯的。在反奴隶制的斗争中，林肯继承和发展了《独立宣言》的民主思想，提出用“民有、民治、民享”的政府代替奴隶主寡头政权，这在历史上是有进步意义的，但是，必须指出，在这种政府中起支配作用的是资产阶级，而决不是什么“自由劳动者”，这种政府在实质上是资产阶级压迫劳动人民的政府。资产阶级所谓的“民主”只不过是少数剥削者的民主，即少数剥削者对绝大多数劳动人民的专政。美国广大劳动人民在内战中的奋斗目标从根本上说同资产阶级是截然不同的。资产阶级把解放奴隶作为夺权斗争的一种必要手段，对他们说来，从奴隶主手中夺取了全国政权，为资本主义发展扫除了障碍，革命就告结束。劳动人民是为自身的彻底解放而斗争，他们消灭奴隶制是要为进一步消灭资本主义剥削制度、打碎自己身上的一切锁链创造条件，这个伟大的革命日标，只有在无产阶级政党的正确领导下才能够实现，也一定能够实现。Sandburg’s biography of Lincoln provides us with a wealth of historical material for studying Lincoln and the American Civil War. The author’s writing attitude is relatively objective, and his prose is quite vivid. Based on a large amount of historical data, he confirms that slavery was the fundamental cause of the Civil War, and that the war was “a revolution to destroy the oligarchic regime of Southern plantation owners and establish the dominance of financial and industrial interests centered in New York City” (p. 367). Standing against slavery, advocating national unity, and supporting the bourgeois democratic revolution, the author narrates the fierce struggle between two systems, describes the conflicts among various political factions, affirms Lincoln’s historical achievements and progressive role, and dedicates a certain length to the struggles of the masses, singing the revolutionary tradition of the American people. The book exposes the evil phenomena of capitalist society that harm others for profit, such as greed, speculation, corruption, and decadence; it also reflects the impoverished lives of workers and their strike struggles. When discussing signs of fundamental changes in labor-capital relations caused by the outcome of the Civil War, the author confirms that society is constantly changing, which “makes the American ruling class uneasy” (p. 275).
Due to the limitations of bourgeois worldview, the author cannot use historical materialism and Marxist class analysis methods to evaluate historical events and figures, nor can he reveal Lincoln’s class limitations. His descriptions of Lincoln often contain embellishments. The author consistently depicts Lincoln as the representative of the correct path without specific analysis, portraying the abolitionist revolutionary movement and bourgeois radicals pushing Lincoln forward as extremists. The reactionary nature and crimes of Southern slaveholders and rebels are not sufficiently exposed and criticized. The author vigorously promotes bourgeois democracy and freedom, taking great pleasure in Lincoln’s slogan of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The book conceals the distinct class nature of democracy and freedom, portraying bourgeois democracy and freedom as the people’s democracy and freedom, romanticizing the bourgeois government as the people’s government, and depicting Lincoln as a representative of the working people, which is clearly wrong. The author also advocates that the 13th Amendment to the Constitution granted Black people “perpetual freedom,” but we must see that this “freedom” is essentially the “freedom” of laborers to sell their labor power, subjected to exploitation by capitalists. As Engels pointed out, “so-called freedom is the freedom from slavery, but also the freedom to have nothing except one’s own labor power” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 19, p. 315).
Following Chairman Mao’s teaching of “Use the past for the present, use the foreign for the Chinese,” and based on the needs of anti-revisionism, consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, and preventing capitalist restoration, we can draw some useful lessons from the historical experience of foreign class struggles through the Marxist-Leninist perspective. The historical experience of the American Civil War tells us that emerging revolutionary classes must defeat declining reactionary classes; advanced social systems must replace decayed ones; new things must triumph over old. This is an objective law that does not depend on human will. The rising Northern bourgeoisie’s free wage labor system as a new mode of production was basically compatible with the social productivity of the time; whereas the Southern plantation Black slavery system was a decayed and reactionary mode of production that severely hindered the development of American social productivity. The Southern slaveholding clique desperately defended and expanded this system, even resorting to armed rebellion, attempting to push the American people back into the abyss of colonial suffering. This goes against the tide of history and the will of the people, and was ultimately crushed by the wheel of history.
The struggle between new and old systems is a great social transformation. In this process, Lincoln stood on the side of the new system, followed the trend of history, issued the Emancipation Proclamation and the Homestead Act, and led the victorious revolutionary war to destroy the old system, thus winning the support of the people. Southern Confederate President Davis and the “Copperhead” leaders like Vallandigham acted as defenders of the old system and were inevitably thrown into the rubbish heap of history. Throughout history, reactionaries who try to block the progress of the wheel of history are almost everywhere, but in the end, none escape with their heads intact. Two thousand years ago, Confucius stubbornly defended the declining slave system; over a century ago, the American slaveholding oligarchy was the same; today, all reactionary retrograde forces will meet the same fate. The Soviet social-imperialism, disguised as “socialism,” is imperialist in nature, restoring capitalism internally and practicing hegemonism externally, opposing the peoples of all countries, going against the tide of history, and ultimately, like the old imperialism, will be buried by the proletariat and revolutionary peoples.
The historical experience of the American Civil War also teaches us that in class society, social transformations that replace old systems with new ones will inevitably provoke strong resistance and opposition from reactionary classes. The struggle to seize and consolidate power is long and sharp, sometimes recurring. Since the day the Declaration of Independence was drafted, the American bourgeoisie has fought nearly a hundred years to seize power from the slaveholding oligarchy. To maintain their reactionary rule, the slaveholding oligarchy used all means to suppress revolutionary forces, brutally repress slave uprisings and abolition movements. They relied on old forces in politics, economy, and ideology to make a dying struggle, and even used violence to expand slavery into Kansas, eventually triggering a nationwide civil war. During the war, reactionary forces temporarily succeeded at times, but the struggle did not end—recurrences occurred. Ultimately, through the blood sacrifices of the broad masses and with violence, they crushed the slaveholders’ rebellion, allowing the industrial bourgeoisie to seize national power. Like all defeated reactionary ruling classes, Southern slaveholders and the entire reactionary regime are never willing to accept their failure. Soon after the rebels surrendered, they crazily assassinated Lincoln with counterrevolutionary bullets. Isn’t this a profound historical lesson? It shows that reactionary classes, in their attempt to restore their lost paradise, will retaliate with hatred and madness against the revolutionary classes. “Historical experience is worth noting,” today, to prevent capitalist restoration, the proletariat and revolutionary people who have seized power must take class struggle as the main line, adhere to the basic line of the Party during the socialist stage of history, and implement comprehensive dictatorship over the bourgeoisie.
The historical experience of the American Civil War once again proves that reactionary social systems can only be overthrown by revolutionary violence. Before the war, revolutionary abolitionists and the broad masses resolutely advocated using violence to destroy slavery, while bourgeois moderates and conservatives sought to resolve the North-South conflict through compromise. As a result, not only did they stimulate the greed of slaveholders, but they also failed to touch even a single hair of slavery—compromise and concession were ultimately surrender routes. Later, although Lincoln came to power through elections, he did not truly seize control of the government. “A broom that doesn’t sweep will leave dust behind” (Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 1029). After a four-year bloody war, the reactionary rule of the slaveholders was finally overthrown. History has fully proven Mao’s truth: “The central task and highest form of revolution is armed seizure of power, and war solves the problem” (Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 506). Lincoln gradually understood the necessity of revolutionary violence in the course of the war, and in the second phase of the war, he opposed the “Copperhead” advocates of ceasefire and betrayal of revolutionary achievements, resolutely continuing the revolutionary war to eliminate slavery. He declared that if necessary, the war would continue until all the wealth accumulated by the slaveholders’ two hundred and fifty years of exploitation was destroyed, and until every drop of blood drawn by the whip and every drop spilled in the fight was paid back with blood. However, the Soviet revisionist traitor group ignored this historical fact, maliciously claiming that “Lincoln was an opponent of war” because he “saw the huge sacrifices and suffering caused to the people by war.” This is a wild distortion of Lincoln’s thoughts and a shameless falsification of history. Lenin pointed out: “The representatives of the bourgeoisie understand that, in order to overthrow the black slave system and the slaveholders’ regime, they must carry out a domestic war for many years, suffering endless destruction, devastation, and terror, and it is worth it” (Collected Works of Lenin, Second Edition, Vol. 3, p. 593). The Soviet social-imperialists, in such nakedly trampling Lenin’s teachings, aim to frighten peoples worldwide with “war terror” to cover up their mad arms buildup and imperialist plunder.
From the history of the American Civil War, we also see that: internal division and external national capitulation are common tactics of all reactionary forces, past and present, engaged in reactionary restoration and counterrevolutionary conspiracy. When Southern slaveholders saw themselves about to be expelled from the stage of history, they openly raised the banner of division. Their first move was to seize the army, occupy federal arsenals and strategic strongholds. The Southern slaveholders’ agent, President Buchanan, used a double-dealing approach, publicly claiming that Lincoln’s election “does not constitute a legitimate reason for dissolving the Union” (p. 130), while secretly supporting Southern secession. Before Lincoln took office, Buchanan, while still in power, approved the transfer of federal elite troops to the Deep South to support secessionists. The slaveholding clique also despicably schemed to assassinate Lincoln on his train journey to Washington to take office.
The people want unity, not division; they want progress, not backwardness. The conspiracy of the rebels’ division is unpopular; they are extremely isolated domestically and are forced to pin their hopes of reactionary ambitions on foreign reactionaries. The Southern Confederacy repeatedly sent spies to Europe to carry out treasonous surrender activities. The rebels even plotted to “abolish the Declaration of Independence,” reimpose colonial rule over the United States, and planned to cede large territories to France, betraying territorial sovereignty in exchange for foreign military aid. However, history is merciless. Although the rebels received support from international reactionary forces, they could not escape their fate of total destruction. Their acts of division and surrender only made the people see their reactionary nature more clearly and accelerated their demise.
The Civil War ended over a hundred years ago. There are still a few reactionaries in the United States who call this revolutionary war “meaningless bloodshed,” claiming that Davis and Lincoln were “both lovers of the Union,” and that Robert Lee “was once a national enemy but now should be regarded on equal footing with Washington and Lincoln.” They openly restore the reputation of the Southern Confederacy leaders and rebel commanders who stained their hands with the blood of the Northern people, attempting to deny the revolutionary nature of the war and to whitewash the reactionary slaveholders, erasing the revolutionary tradition of the American people. But all this is in vain. We firmly believe that the American people, inheriting the glorious revolutionary traditions of the 18th-century War of Independence and the 19th-century Civil War, under the leadership of the working class, will continue to carry forward the revolutionary spirit of sacrifice and heroic struggle of their predecessors, and will surely overcome the numerous obstacles posed by domestic and foreign reactionaries, eliminate all barriers on the road ahead, and make great contributions in the new era of the working class’s victory initiated by the war against slavery.