The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-04-24

I he is no Marxist who accepts such an
explanation. There are individuals
in society who personify certain adj
vanced tendencies and to the super
fetal observer seem to see beyond
their time, but, as Marxists, we know
that never at any time, under any
conditions has anyone transcribed the
epoch in which he lived. The most
cursory understanding of Marxism
teaches us that it is utterly impossible
for an idea to penetrate the mind OF
man until the material conditions for
such an idea are at hand. Some per
ceive the light of a new stage in So
ciety before others, but that certainly
furnishes no basis for mystical, reli-
gious, theological, transcendental in
terpretations.
MY article on Lincoln was written
Az with the object of dispelling the
myth that Lincoln was the great
emancipator" depicted by the prosti-
tuted historians of capitalism. The
entire article was devoted exclusively
to that task, which l think accom-
plished, not by quoting the bourgeois
historians but by referring to undis-
puted documentary evidence, viz:
Lincoln's inaugural address and his
official acts rebuking Generals Ere
mont and Hunter
If Oneal had accused me of stress
ing this side of the record of Lincoln
to the exclusion of other point might
be inclined to concede error, but in
extenuation l would plead the impossi-
bility of sufficiently celebrating the
character of Lincoln within the con-
fines of one article.
Certainly Communists are the last
to belittle the historical role Of Lin
coin and we have time and again
pointed to the fact that he was one Of
the outstanding figures of his time
and that he played a revolutionary
role by helping to smash the slave
power by force Of arms, in spite of
his pathetic hesitation and excessive
caution in handling the question Of
chattel slavery.
HOWEVER, there is a vast differ
l. ence between placing Lincoln in
his proper historical perspective and
INDUCING in the tawdry sentimental
ism of an Oneal, whose writings outdo
the dithyrambics of an Ida Tarbell,
John Drinkwater, an Irving Bachel-
Ter and others of the historico-fiction-
lists.
Oneaps total inability to discuss HIS
tory from working class standpoint
is further revealed in his master
piece" called "The Workers in Ameri-
can History" where on page lit he
refers to the secret revolutionary
committees of correspondence" OF
the colonies as Adventures, poll
ticians and poor farmers who were In
duced to enlist to present the appear
ance of fighting force against Great
Britain" Since Patrick Henry, Thomas
Jefferson of Virginia and Samuel
Adams of Massachusetts were leading
figures in this secret agitation, and
were not poor farmers, the plain i'm
plication is that they were adventur-
ers and despised politicians.
This sort of fiippant denunciation
of the revolutionary fighters of the
bourgeoisie at time when that class
was rising against feudalism is con-
fined exclusively to the American so
cialists. In other countries the revo-
lutionary traditions are emphasized,
not belittled, and contrary to OneaPs
denunciation of Samuel Adams for
such fiery individuals as Adams and
dealing with the British patriots in the
colony of Massachusetts,, we find q
great deal to admire in him.
Instead of weeping over the fate Of
the snivelling hypocritical lackey of
the crown, Chief Justice Hutchinson
of Boston (p. 116), who was driven
from his house by the enraged colo
nists, Oneal would perform a much
better service to the working class by
explaining the true significance OF
such fiery individuals as Adams and
the role they play In revolutionary up
heavals.
How one who processes to write his
tory for American workers can praise
such creatures of the slave power as
Jackson and Van Buren, and denounce
the committees of correspondence"
Of the revolutionary period is beyond
me.
Though Oneal sarcastically says
"wicks always solemnly considers
everything from the baby's toothache
to the price Of potatoes, in terms OF
Leninism," | must confess that his
peculiar method OF Interpreting his
tory is somewat battling to a Lenin-
list. Even the worst of other social
democratic and bourgeois writer's do
not indulge in such mental gymnastics.
He is unique. The realm Of pathology
might be much more appropriate TO
deal with him.
II Is much easier to understand his
f,,r,y at tho onnaoranoa - N ATo~xtrt