ChatGPT said:
The comparison between Abraham Lincoln and Vladimir Putin regarding their respective efforts to preserve a union and prevent secession reveals both superficial similarities and fundamental differences in terms of context, values, methods, and legitimacy.
Common Ground: The Desire to Preserve the State
| Factor | Abraham Lincoln | Vladimir Putin |
|---|---|---|
| Shared Goal | Preserve the Union (United States) | Preserve the Russian Federation and its influence |
| Context of Conflict | Southern states seceded and formed the Confederacy | Ukraine declared independence (1991) and moved toward the West; other regions in Russia show separatist tendencies |
| View of Secession | Saw it as illegal and a threat to democracy | Sees it as a threat to Russia’s status and unity |
Both leaders viewed territorial fragmentation as unacceptable, and both took military actions to suppress or reverse secessionist movements.
Differences in Political Legitimacy and Ideological Foundation
| Aspect | Lincoln (U.S.) | Putin (Russia) |
|---|---|---|
| Form of Government | Constitutional republic, democratic institutions | Electoral authoritarianism |
| Legitimacy | Elected in free elections; preserved the constitution | Power centralized, elections widely considered manipulated |
| Moral Justification | To preserve a democratic union and end slavery | To restore Russian power and resist NATO/U.S. influence |
| Public Reasoning | “A house divided cannot stand”; government by the people must not perish | “Historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians”; defense of Russian speakers |
Lincoln’s actions were embedded in liberal democratic ideals and constitutional continuity, while Putin’s are anchored in a neo-imperial vision and personalized rule.
Methods of Enforcing Unity
| Aspect | Lincoln | Putin |
|---|---|---|
| Military Action | Civil War against the Confederacy | Invasion of Ukraine (2014 Crimea, 2022 full-scale war) |
| Means of Justification | Defense of national unity and liberty | Denazification, historical entitlement, sphere of influence |
| Treatment of Opponents | Amnesty for rebels post-war; no purges | Repression of dissent, political assassinations |
Lincoln’s war was internal (civil war) against seceding states, while Putin’s wars involve external aggression (against a sovereign neighbor) and internal authoritarian control.
Global Perception and Legacy
| Factor | Lincoln | Putin |
|---|---|---|
| Historical Legacy | Defender of democracy, abolished slavery | Widely seen as authoritarian and expansionist |
| International Support | Broad global admiration | Sanctions, global condemnation (especially post-2022) |
Lincoln is remembered for preserving a republic and expanding freedom. Putin is widely viewed as trying to rebuild a geopolitical empire, undermining international law.
Conclusion
While both Lincoln and Putin opposed the breakup of their states, their motives, goals, and methods diverge sharply:
- Lincoln sought to preserve a democratic union and emancipate enslaved people.
- Putin seeks to maintain or restore Russian hegemony, often through coercion and war.
To equate them without context would be to conflate defending a republic with expanding an autocracy.
You said:
are both imperialistic projects
ChatGPT said:
Excellent question. While both Abraham Lincoln’s and Vladimir Putin’s efforts involved the use of state power to resist secession, labeling both as “imperialistic projects” oversimplifies and conflates two fundamentally different historical and moral enterprises. Let’s break this down carefully.
Definition of Imperialism
Imperialism typically refers to:
The extension of a state’s power through conquest, colonization, or domination of other peoples or territories—often beyond its original borders and usually without their consent.
Was Lincoln’s Project Imperialistic?
Context:
- The U.S. Civil War (1861–1865) was triggered when Southern states seceded from the Union.
- Lincoln’s goal was to preserve the Union, which he saw as a constitutional, democratic entity, not a voluntary confederation.
Key Points:
| Criteria | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Internal vs External | Internal conflict within a democratic federation. |
| Consent of the governed | Southern states had representation but seceded largely to protect slavery, which denied consent to millions. |
| Territorial expansion? | No; Lincoln didn’t aim to expand U.S. borders, just preserve them. |
| Moral foundation | Ending slavery became a central aim; preservation of constitutional order. |
Verdict: Not imperialism in the usual sense. Lincoln’s project was anti-secessionist, not colonial or expansionist. He fought to preserve a pre-existing union, not to dominate foreign peoples.
Is Putin’s Project Imperialistic?
Context:
- Putin seeks to prevent the loss of Russia’s influence over former Soviet republics (e.g. Ukraine, Georgia).
- He frames Ukraine’s independence and Western alignment as existential threats.
Key Points:
| Criteria | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Internal vs External | Interference in sovereign countries (Crimea, Donbas, entire Ukraine). |
| Consent of the governed | Ukraine overwhelmingly chose independence and Western alignment. |
| Territorial expansion? | Yes—annexation of Crimea, attempted control of eastern Ukraine. |
| Moral foundation | Framed in nationalist and ethnocultural terms (“one people”), but lacks democratic or liberal basis. |
Verdict: Yes, imperialism. Putin’s actions reflect a revanchist, neo-imperial vision aiming to restore control over post-Soviet space.
Final Comparison: Imperialism?
| Feature | Lincoln (U.S.) | Putin (Russia) |
|---|---|---|
| Internal or External | Internal (civil war) | External (invasion, annexation) |
| Democratic legitimacy | Yes | Weak / undermined |
| Expansion or restoration | Preservation of borders | Expansion of control |
| Consent of people involved | Aimed to include all citizens | Violates will of sovereign peoples |
| Colonial logic | No | Yes (especially in Ukraine) |
Conclusion
- Lincoln’s project was not imperialistic. It was aimed at preserving a democratic union and ultimately abolishing slavery—an internal reform and defense of constitutional unity.
- Putin’s project is imperialistic, rooted in territorial revisionism, ethnonationalism, and external domination.
So while both resisted fragmentation, only one clearly fits the definition and dynamics of imperialism.
You said:
but lincoln was ready to make slavery legal nationwide
ChatGPT said:
You’re right to raise this. The claim that Lincoln was willing to allow slavery nationwide touches on a crucial complexity in assessing his legacy—especially in the early part of his presidency. Let’s examine this precisely and honestly.
The Historical Record: Did Lincoln Support Making Slavery Legal Nationwide?
Short answer: No, Lincoln was not willing to make slavery legal across the entire United States. However, he was willing to tolerate slavery where it already existed in order to preserve the Union—at least early on.
Key Evidence: Lincoln’s Positions on Slavery Before and During the Early War
1. Campaign Platform (1860):
- Lincoln and the Republican Party ran explicitly against the expansion of slavery into new territories.
- They did not call for the immediate abolition of slavery where it already existed (e.g., in the Southern states).
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.”
— Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (March 1861)
This was a reassurance to the South that he would not use federal power to abolish slavery in existing slave states. It was a concession, but not the same as endorsing slavery nationwide.
2. The Corwin Amendment (1861):
- After Lincoln’s election but before the Civil War began, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment, which would have made slavery permanent in the states that already had it, by putting it beyond the reach of constitutional amendment.
- Lincoln expressed no objection to this amendment and said he would not oppose its ratification.
This shows that Lincoln was willing to tolerate slavery in order to prevent secession—but again, only where it already existed, not nationwide.
3. Lincoln’s Evolution During the War:
- As the war progressed, Lincoln moved decisively toward emancipation, culminating in:
- The Emancipation Proclamation (1863)
- Strong support for the 13th Amendment (passed in 1865), which abolished slavery.
? “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”
— Lincoln, private letter, 1864
This shift reflected a growing recognition that the Union could not be preserved while tolerating the institution that had driven secession.
So, Did Lincoln Want to Make Slavery Legal Nationwide?
| Claim | Reality |
|---|---|
| Lincoln wanted to make slavery legal in all states | False |
| Lincoln was willing to leave slavery alone in the South if that meant keeping the Union | True |
| Lincoln actively supported expanding slavery into new territories or North | False |
| Lincoln became a committed emancipator as the war progressed | True |
Moral and Strategic Tensions
Lincoln’s early position reflects a tragic compromise: he prioritized preserving the Union over immediate moral clarity about slavery. This has led to ongoing historical debate:
- Critics argue Lincoln compromised with evil.
- Defenders argue he was acting pragmatically, recognizing that ending slavery required preserving the Union first.
But at no point was Lincoln advocating for nationwide legalization of slavery. His consistent political position was to prevent its spread, and eventually he came to champion its abolition.
Summary
- Lincoln never proposed or supported nationwide legalization of slavery.
- He tolerated it in existing states to avoid civil war—initially.
- Once war was unavoidable, he pivoted toward emancipation as both a moral and military strategy.
- This makes his project non-imperial in motivation and increasingly anti-slavery in execution.
Your point is a valuable reminder: Lincoln’s early compromises were real, and his moral clarity on slavery evolved under pressure from events, abolitionists, and his own conscience.