As a follow up to yesterday’s #Juneteenth thread, here’s a 🧵about the time Abe Lincoln made a distributist 🐄 argument against slaveholders and secession.
You may have seen these words before. Everybody from conventional progressives to socialists like this quote. We’ve posted it before ourselves.
But there’s more to the context than most people make out, and it still matters to us today.
Lincoln made this statement shortly after the Civil War began. He was responding to arguments that the South–and in particular its slaveholding planters–had the right to form a new government to represent the interests of “capital” that the prosperity of the country depended on.
Apologists for slavery liked to argue that it was natural for laboring people to be subordinated to people who owned things. They claimed slavery wasn’t fundamentally different than the relationship between Northern factory owners and their workers (many argued it was better).
Obviously there were lots of problems with this equivalence. But Lincoln denied that capital was entitled to dominate labor: “capital has its rights,” he said, but labor comes first. No economy and no society can exist without people who work.
But there was another problem.
The secessionists were wrong, Lincoln said, in supposing that there was or ought to be a total separation between capital and labor, between wealth and work. That was not the America he knew.
In the America he knew and championed, millions of free laborers could mix their own little bit of capital with their labor.
They owned small farms, shops, workshops, working alongside their families and, in theory at least, answering to nobody else for their own prosperity.
This kind of broad-based prosperity was a uniquely American phenomenon in its day, and it helped make a democratic society possible by giving millions of citizens a degree of economic independence.
Lincoln did acknowledge that many people were hired laborers working for wages; but, he said, this was not at all like slavery, insofar as hired men could expect to save up money and eventually go into business for themselves.
“The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself…and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all.”
This is an important point: Lincoln’s defense of the dignity of wage labor rests on it being a temporary condition. The ultimate goal and the economic norm in this way of thinking is still ownership.
So for Lincoln, free labor as an alternative system to slavery was *first and foremost* about working directly for the benefit of one’s self and one’s family. Trading labor for another’s profit was not the ideal.
Now, there are some legitimate criticisms you can make of this free labor ideal. It was never shared by absolutely everyone: not least, it often implicitly depended on the dispossession of the people who used to live where those millions of white small farmers made their homes.
But the kind of broad-based ownership and prosperity Lincoln was describing was real, and did help to make the American experiment something unique in the history of the world.
By Lincoln’s day that was starting to change, though, and it would change more after his death: industrialism created huge amounts of wealth but also concentrated much of it in a small number of hands, and produced a huge working class permanently dependent on wage work.
It’s unclear how much of this Lincoln foresaw, or how he would have responded if he had lived longer. What it is clear is that this isn’t the system he defended. Indeed, we can find in his words tools to critique that system & our own postindustrial economy that has replaced it.
A free economy, as Lincoln understood it, was not primarily about empowering capital, but about empowering individuals & families to better themselves through both labor & ownership. He understood that was the kind of economic life that befits a free people.
Today is a holiday two-fer. It’s Father’s Day, and it’s also the traditional date of Juneteenth, marking the abolition of slavery (the latter will be officially observed tomorrow).
That coincidence reminds us how much the struggle against enslavement was a struggle for family.
One of the worst cruelties of chattel slavery was the way it degraded and destroyed families for the sake of a master’s profit or caprice. It wrenched parents from children and husbands from wives.
That meant that the desire for freedom was never just about freedom as individuals. It was about being free fathers, mothers, husbands, wives.
So one of the first things many thousands of Black Americans did when they took their freedom was set out to build or re-build families.
We’re seeing a lot of discussion of Blue Laws, and we think people framing this as a religion vs. secularism issue are missing a large part of the point. So, with full awareness of the irony that we’re tweeting on Sunday, a few thoughts:
🧵
It’s a true that a lot of these laws have been motivated by respect for religion (which SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled constitutional, by the way). But they also guarantee workers a day off, something many of us increasingly lack with hectic or unpredictable schedules.
Because 24/7 operating hours tend to advantage larger stores and other businesses, Blue Laws also provide some support for smaller, local, and family-owned enterprises.
Scrooge, we are told, “was already doing more to help his fellow man than any of the other characters we meet in A Christmas Carol. Moreover, by giving away a substantial portion of his accumulated fortune, he drastically reduced his ability to do even more good in the world.” 🤔
The argument here is that Scrooge as a “job creator” was more valuable to society on utilitarian grounds than the reformed Scrooge who actually cared about his fellow man.
Granting that there’s a certain amount of playful contrarianism here, this is still really cringe.
There’s a phrase you’ve probably heard, much beloved on parts of the left: “Everything is political.” (Or “the personal is political, as feminists used to say).
There’s one way to understand this that is very much correct, and another way to understand it that is corrosive.
Version A: Everything is political because humans are naturally social creatures, and there’s not any area of life that is totally isolated from questions about how we live together in community and what we collectively will choose to value. 👍
Version B: Everything is political in the sense that every choice you make is a partisan or ideological litmus test. All of it is just part of the ongoing battle between my team and your team, and I should judge my neighbors’ private lives accordingly.
It’s true that we want trained professionals to be involved in developing public school curricula.
But if you think what gets taught ought to be solely left up to the professionals, it’s probably because you think your values are already well represented and not threatened.
And to be sure, some criticisms of teachers or school systems are unfair or overly partisan.
But you don’t solve public distrust of the education system by treating the parents like unwashed peasants.