150 years after the assassination, when will we recover from Lincoln’s death?

April 14, 2015
The statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington

The statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, February 11, 2009. REUTERS/Molly Riley

How long does it take a nation to recover from the assassination of its president? 50 years? 100 years? 150?

At the time of his assassination, President Abraham Lincoln was directly engaged in what could be considered the second-greatest political challenge of his presidency: the reunification of the United States in the immediate aftermath of a Civil War that had claimed more than 700,000 lives.

No American family was left untouched by the carnage. The plans for Reconstruction were doomed from the start. Confederate sympathizers were defeated, angry and busy developing new systems of restriction and oppression for the recently manumitted Africans in America, even as they wrestled with the destruction of infrastructure across huge swaths of the South.


Lincoln’s address at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery, November 19, 1863. REUTERS/Library of Congress

Into that mix add an actor, John Wilkes Booth, known for his dramatic flair, who was a Confederate sympathizer — meaning he did not want slavery to end. Stir in a group of co-conspirators hell-bent on anarchy. Especially if anarchy could somehow return the South to its pre-Civil War form.

Although historians have teased out the complexities of the Civil War — regionalism, states’ rights versus federalism, paradigmatic shifts in the economy — slavery and its requisite dehumanization of black folks were both central to ideological battles during the war and a sticking point in the immediate aftermath of General Robert E. Lee’s surrender to the Union.

One of Lincoln’s prerogatives before, during and for the bit of time he lived after the Civil War was to challenge the nation to acknowledge black humanity.

He didn’t quite frame it that way, but Lincoln wanted black lives to matter as a matter of national policy. He was willing to stake his legacy on the point, and we could argue that his life was taken at least in part because of his commitment to an early iteration of today’s “black lives matter” movement. I am fully aware that both Lincoln historians and the architects and activists of the movement will read this assertion as blasphemy.

So, how long does it take for a nation to recover from the assassination of one of its presidents? The question may be unanswerable.

But to the extent that Lincoln as president was invested in pressing our nation to grasp the humanity of black folks — and given the fact that the GOP’s “Southern strategy” to gain the votes of disgruntled white Southerners still exists, combined with  the withering effects of mass incarceration of people of color — Lincoln’s work remains unfinished some 150 years later.

It remains unclear whether or not the United States has or ever will recover from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The emergence of neo-liberalism, our permanent war footing and the slow rollback of the civil rights agenda of the 1960s suggest that the Kennedy brand of presidential leadership would have been critical to strengthening America’s commitment to social justice in the era of globalization.


Hundreds of thousands of marchers gather around the reflecting pool to listen to Martin Luther King Jr. speak during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, August 28, 1963. REUTERS/Rowland Scherman/U.S. National Archives

Will America ever recover from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., by some accounts one of the greatest Americans who ever lived?

Though we, as a nation, have done our due diligence to memorialize Lincoln, Kennedy and King, their absences seem eerily pronounced in the 21st century. For so many of the social justice issues that these leaders were deeply invested in continue to plague our great nation.

The permanence of our nation’s greatest challenges: war and institutional racism becomes less and less debatable as the centuries go by. The United States has been at war — hot, cold or clandestine — since the Kennedy administration. And thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and a host of state legislatures, the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act have been systematically sapped of their legal and political strength.

In an 1858 “Fragment on Democracy,” Lincoln stated: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master . . .“ He claimed this dialectic frame as the very “idea of democracy” — the idea being that being a “master” can be as dehumanizing as being a “slave.” As long as men and women were conscripted in bondage, the United States could not be all that it posited itself to be.

American slavery emptied the concept of liberty of any absolute meaning. The concept of U.S. freedom instead relied exclusively on the notion of not being in bondage or its direct analogy of not being black/African/Negro/African-American.

In the 21st century, we have arrived at a moment when looking back is sometimes better than looking forward. Too often our contemporary politicos cite the great leaders of bygone eras without any inclination to model their courage or their incisive interventions into the American project. Lincoln’s life and legacy unfortunately fall victim to such appropriations.

We would be better served at this 150th commemoration of Lincoln’s assassination to come to terms with the significance of his actual political work as opposed to reveling in our celebratory fascination of time stamps and political platitudes.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

America is the only developed country to have imported slaves into its homeland. All other slave-holding nations kept them out in the colonies or far-flung islands. So when the slaves revolted, their homeland was spared. America was not so smart. There are now 42 million descendants of slaves in America; 350 million guns. And a 24-hour cable news network to stoke the flames of paranoia. Good luck.

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

Alkaline State – Slaves were first brought here when America WAS a colony; however, the importation of slaves was not discontinued until 1807. When the United States was formed, the biggest mistake was not eliminating slavery at that time.

Posted by mycentstoo | Report as abusive

If you care to pick on someone at least pick on them for SOMETHING THEY CAN CHANGE. No one can change their skin color!

Regarding Jack Kennedy… there were some flaws. Read book on him written by Secret Service. Includes his going under the ‘tunnels’ (assumedly subway tunnels) to meet with his girlfriend(s) at the Ritz Carlton in Manhattan even while Jackie was pregnant with John John. Secret Service did not like because he could not activate the so called nuclear football while in the tunnels.

Read the book on Kennedy’s father Joseph too. Guranteed… their eye openers on the Kennedys and of course Mary Jo Kopechne too.

Posted by Lyn4U | Report as abusive

The stigma of being the last group in history weak and dumb enough to be slaved is a painful legacy. Hopefully they can lose the pride and humble up, become part of America.

Posted by LetBalanceCome | Report as abusive

Lyn4U, wrong president, wrong article. Your ramblings are awesome though :)

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

Never. Because the re-construction would have been quite different under Mr Lincoln. The same can be applied for JFK because his attitude toward many things was different.

Posted by rikfre | Report as abusive

You don’t enlighten people by turning history into word-soup, injecting idiotic contemporary slogans like “#Blacklivesmatter” into a context that the author, despite his credentials, seems to have little real grasp of.

Posted by BBERDUDE | Report as abusive

Very insightful and extremely well said. Thank you for that.

Posted by PapaDisco | Report as abusive

One of Lincoln’s errors, not often written about, was replacing Vice President Hannibal Hamlin with Andrew Johnson, who became President a little over a month after taking office, after Lincoln’s death. While Hamlin was not by any means an exceptional politician, he was fully in sync with the Republican Reconstruction agenda – which Johnson was not and which led to his impeachment. The President and Congress, with Hamlin in office, would have been unified on Reconstruction policy, probably with beneficial effects which may very well would have lasted to the present. Hamlin leaving office is one of those seemingly minor historical oddities that likely changed things a lot.

Posted by SayHey | Report as abusive

Excellent…. Thank you for highlighting these critical insights

Posted by acoloredman | Report as abusive