Far be it from me to deny that the English revolution, which brought Charles I to the scaffold, began with a refusal to pay taxes or that the North American revolution, which ended with the Declaration of Independence from Britain, started with a refusal to pay taxes. The refusal to pay taxes can be the harbinger of unpleasant events in Prussia too. It was not John Hampden, however, who brought Charles I to the scaffold, but only the latter’s own obstinacy, his dependence on the feudal estates, and his presumptuous attempt to use force to suppress the urgent demands of the emerging society. The refusal to pay taxes is merely a sign of the dissidence that exists between the Crown and the people, merely evidence that the conflict between the government and the people has reached a menacing degree of tensity. It is not the cause of the discord or the conflict, it is merely an expression of this fact. At the worst, it leads to the overthrow of the existing government, the existing political system. The foundations of society are not affected by this. In the present case, moreover, the refusal to pay taxes was a means of society’s self-defense against a government which threatened its foundations.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/02/25.htm

Marx’s view more closely fits the views of the 1619 Project, which saw British taxes as a threat to the economic foundations of American society, the institution of slavery and the slave trade. “No taxation without representation!” did not constitute a revolutionary slogan or program in the view of Karl Marx.

As to whether the document represented secession or revolution, we have Engels’ footnote in the Dialectic of Nature:

The Declaration of Independence, adopted on July 4, 1776, at the Philadelphia congress of delegates from thirteen English colonies in North America, proclaimed the secession of these colonies from England and the establishment of an independent republic, the United States of America.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/dialectics-nature.pdf . P. 330

If Marx and Engels agreed with the historians of the 1619 Project, and saw the American revolution as a Tax rebellion and a secession which did not affect the foundations of society, then what view does the WSWS represent when it argues for the legend of Jefferson? It argues for American chauvinism and for faith in American institutions as the product of enlightened thought, ignoring all the scientific evidence that proves the contrary.

As for Lincoln, we have conflicting views from Lenin and Trotsky, and only greater context can elucidate the political considerations in the exchange between Lincoln and Marx.

Lenin’s view is crucial for an understanding of Lincoln’s imperialist diplomacy:

In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain in 1898 stirred up the opposition of the “anti-imperialists”, the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy who declared this war to be “criminal”, regarded the annexation of foreign territories as a violation of the Constitution, declared that the treatment of Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipinos (the Americans promised him the independence of his country, but later landed troops and annexed it), was “jingo treachery”, and quoted the words of Lincoln: “When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs others, it is no longer self-government; it is despotism.” ^[2] But as long, as all this criticism shrank from recognising the inseverable bond between imperialism and the trusts, and, therefore, between imperialism and the foundations of capitalism, while it shrank from joining the forces engendered by large-scale capitalism and its development-it remained a “pious wish”.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch09.htm

You can see from this view that Lenin saw Lincoln’s conflicted attitude towards empire-building as a “pious wish,” a deception. Lenin talks about how militarists such as Lincoln practiced a veiled rather than open support for imperialism, considering the nationalist cause futile in the “scientific” sense.

Since the reform of the basis of imperialism is a deception, a “pious wish”, since the bourgeois representatives of the oppressed nations go no “further” forward, the bourgeois representative of an oppressing nation goes “further” backward, to servility towards imperialism under cover of the claim to be “scientific”.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch09.htm

This deception of Lincoln finds further proof in Trotsky. Trotsky compared Lincoln’s expropriation of the slaveholders’ property to the expropriation of the oil of imperial corporations through nationalization. These did not address the root cause of imperialism within the private ownership of capital. They only created an “independent democratic development of bourgeois society.”

To the Chamberlains of that time, too, the expropriation of the slaveholders seemed a diabolical ‘Bolshevik’ measure. In reality the historic task of the Northerners consisted in clearing the arena for the independent democratic development of bourgeois society. Precisely this task is being solved at this stage by the government of Mexico. General Cardenas stands in the series of those statesmen of his country who have been fulfilling work comparable to that of Washington, Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and General Grant.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/britain/britain/ch12.htm

The expropriation of oil is neither socialism nor communism. But it is a highly progressive measure of national self-defence. Marx did not, of course, consider Abraham Lincoln a communist; this did not, however, prevent Marx from entertaining the deepest sympathy for the struggle which Lincoln headed. The First International sent the Civil War president a message of greeting, and Lincoln in his answer highly appreciated this moral support.[34]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/britain/britain/ch12.htm

National self-defense against imperialism is “highly progressive,” and in that sense Lincoln played a progressive role. He did not really end slavery, since tenant farming and wage slavery continued, but he ended the imperialist control of the American economy by the aristocratic, monarchist European powers. Not bourgeois economic development but national independence and the break-up of the European empires on principle constituted the “highly progressive” position of “Washington, Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and General Grant.” Their reliance on cheap cotton could not justify any further delay on the expropriation of the slaveholder, tied to the nobility, tied to the feudal monarchy. As Trotsky and Marx saw it, imperialism constituted an intolerable tax on labor that further oppressed the workers beyond the simple extraction of surplus value. The rebellion against such taxation did not change the foundation of society, but it did allow for the break-up of empires, a step forward in the struggle to end exploitation.

We can now look at Trotsky’s footnote, related to the exchange between Marx and Lincoln:

This address, drafted by Marx, was sent to Lincoln in November 1864, on the occasion of his re-election as President and shortly before the end of the Civil War and his assassination. It denounced ‘the Confederate gentry’ and described their ‘slaveholders’ rebellion’ as ‘a general holy crusade of property against labour’. The reply, which was received in January 1865 through the American embassy in London, said that Lincoln hoped he would he worthy of ‘the confidence which has recently been extended to him by the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.’

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/britain/britain/ch12.htm#a34. Footnote 34.

As we can see from this footnote, Lincoln considered Marx and the International Workingman’s Association (IWA) powerful and important figures. This had to do with the powerful political force that they represented, the rising proletariat. Lincoln’s decision to give public, political credibility to Marxism had everything to do with practical considerations related to the war effort and diplomacy. France had expanded its influence into Mexico and shipped supplies to the Confederacy throughout the war. The British wanted to break the Union blockade of the South in order to end a shortage of cotton affecting its textile industry. In the general sense, a splintering of the Union would also give rise to splintering in other anti-colonial rebellions and independent republics and to a general strengthening of empires and monarchs. Lincoln prevented France and Britain from recognizing the Confederacy by threatening war and an invasion of Canada.

He further strengthened his position with a revolutionary war strategy that included Marx and the IWA in Europe, which, with support from the US federal government could potentially unseat an unpopular European aristocracy and give the US Republic a more progressive ally in Europe. This would focus the rage of the reactionaries and militarists of Europe onto their own neighbor. This threat proved unnecessary but still effective as a threat, like the potential invasion of Canada, and it forced the European powers to back down. Marx had “deep sympathy” for Lincoln’s cause and Lincoln sought, as much as possible, to ally himself with and make himself worthy of “the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.” In reality, these deep, personal feelings had very real practical, political implications for the road to power of the International and the defense of weaker nations against larger nations’ aggression, oppression, and exploitation.

In the end, Lincoln and Grant would support Westward Expansion and the parallel European Scramble for Africa, which lends support to Lenin’s theory that Lincoln had only practiced the deception of the “pious wish.” As Lincoln had no interest in expropriating the banks and the monopolists, he could not provide any more help for the Marxist movement or the general, popular opposition to imperialism. Through his extremely forceful unification of the former colonies of the British, French, and Spanish empires, he gave in to a contradiction of capitalist development, the rise of former colonies into new hegemonic powers. This sharp contradiction forced him to reach out to Marx and consider, however momentarily, supporting a socialist government, like a stake in the heart of aristocratic Europe.

The rise of India, China, Brazil, and other former colonies through the development of capitalism will lead to conflicts in which these powers may offer a “pious wish” to the Fourth International. The Fourth International should demand recognition for overcoming its suppression by capitalist republics and Stalinist governments and an offer of support for an alliance with a future Fourth International government that seeks the overthrow of global capitalism. The Fourth International must confirm and show absolute confidence in its nonnegotiable, scientific view that proletarian world revolution can and inevitably will end imperialist conflict.