Maggie Thatcher and Abraham Lincoln

[J. Beckert]

I think this piece speaks volumes about Lincoln's thoughts on labor and society.

And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government. But then the question arises, how can a government best, effect this? In our own country, in it's present condition, will the protective principle advance or retard this object? Upon this subject, the habits of our whole species fall into three great classes – useful labour, useless labour and idleness. Of these the first only is meritorious; and to it all the products of labour rightfully belong; but the two latter, while they exist, are heavy pensioners upon the first, robbing it of a large portion of its just rights. The only remedy for this is to, as far as possible drive useless labour and idleness out of existence. And, first, as to useless labour. Before making war upon this, we must learn to distinguish it from the useful. It appears to me, then, that all labour done directly and incidentally in carrying articles to their place of consumption, which could have been produced in sufficient abundance, with as little labour, at the place of consumption, as at the place they were carried from, is useless labour."12

Perhaps as a young man, Mr. Lincoln had done his share of useless labor to last a lifetime. Mr. Lincoln did what was necessary and he expected others to do the same. His work ethic was fundamental to his attitudes toward slavery. A man had the right to the fruits of his labors – and an obligation to pursue his labors to the best of his ability.

[Liz Rosenthal]

I agree that the quote you provide is telling about Lincoln's beliefs regarding labor and the economy.

However, it would be helpful to note the context of this passage, which was part of a political speech. I believe what Lincoln was referring to here as "useless labor" was the labor involved in moving goods long distances, from a place where they were produced to the place where they would be consumed. In particular, this would have been relevant to imports from foreign countries - imports of things that could have been produced here. This would have been a good argument in support of a high tariff, and I believe that that is what Lincoln was talking about here.

Incidentally, I don't think Lincoln really is the best "poster boy" for the Horatio Alger ideal. This is not because he didn't achieve great things or that the U.S. isn't a great place for an ordinary person to rise above humble circumstances and achieve great things. This is because Lincoln was an *extraordinary* man. Few people in history have had his brains and abilities. Few people would have been able to teach themselves as well as he did from boyhood onward; few educated people could have written as well as he did; few lawyers in Illinois were as good as he was when they had the benefit of some law school and/or clerking in a law firm and he had neither; and no one with any advantage of heritage or schooling could have been the president he was.

(04-09-2013 09:25 AM)J. Beckert Wrote:  I think this piece speaks volumes about Lincoln's thoughts on labor and society.

And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government. But then the question arises, how can a government best, effect this? In our own country, in it's present condition, will the protective principle advance or retard this object? Upon this subject, the habits of our whole species fall into three great classes – useful labour, useless labour and idleness. Of these the first only is meritorious; and to it all the products of labour rightfully belong; but the two latter, while they exist, are heavy pensioners upon the first, robbing it of a large portion of its just rights. The only remedy for this is to, as far as possible drive useless labour and idleness out of existence. And, first, as to useless labour. Before making war upon this, we must learn to distinguish it from the useful. It appears to me, then, that all labour done directly and incidentally in carrying articles to their place of consumption, which could have been produced in sufficient abundance, with as little labour, at the place of consumption, as at the place they were carried from, is useless labour."12

Perhaps as a young man, Mr. Lincoln had done his share of useless labor to last a lifetime. Mr. Lincoln did what was necessary and he expected others to do the same. His work ethic was fundamental to his attitudes toward slavery. A man had the right to the fruits of his labors – and an obligation to pursue his labors to the best of his ability.

[Laurie Verge]

No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive.
--September 30, 1859 Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society


I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.
--March 6, 1860 Speech at New Haven, Connecticut

[My Name Is Kate]

I don't understand all this obsession with wanting to get rich (and wanting to be famous often goes along with that). People ought to want to be useful and be a decent person, and as long as they have enough material wealth to satisfy their basic needs, and have equal opportunity to improve their circumstances if they can, they ought to be content. There is no need to single out any group of people as being inherently lazy or without ability or talents. Less talented people can naturally expect to be less wealthy. And it's true that there is an unfair distribution of wealth in this world, and it's not right for some people to be billionaires (even if they earned their billions) and some people to not have enough to eat. But if people are not going to be happy until they have everything they see other people having, whether it be wealth, fame, good looks, talent, or whatever, maybe they ought to consider not reproducing, so they don't pass on that attitude to future generations.

[Mike B.]

I think trying to put Lincoln into a political context today is really impossible since the issues and the world are SO much different.

However, there are some key points that are of interest.

Lincoln's economic ideas expressed best in Gabor Boritt's classic "Abraham Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream."

Lincoln was a Whig.
He believed in the power of the state to tax and improve infrastructure. He felt that this would allow people to rise by making their labor more valuable. For example, farmers would get more of a return on their labor if they could transport their crops to market easier, etc. He wanted to be the "DeWitt Clinton" of Illinois" meaning he wanted to be like the NY Gov. who used the state to build the Erie Canal.

He also supported tariffs to protect American industry at the beginning from cheap British goods. And he supported the land grant higher education system. He passed the first Federal income tax in his admin. as well.

In short, Lincoln was not laissez-faire when it came to the economy and government. However, again the issues today and then are much different in nature and scale. He was in opposition to the Jacksonians who wanted very small government spending.

Likewise, what he spoke about often with the "right to rise" was in opposition to some of the southern economists who claimed that labor or "mud sills" as they called it were always at the bottom of any economic system and slaves and low income workers were in the same boat, and there was no real difference.

Lincoln particularily disliked this argument and often talked about how free workers could get ahead. Again different time and place...

---

(04-09-2013 10:03 AM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  I agree that the quote you provide is telling about Lincoln's beliefs regarding labor and the economy.

However, it would be helpful to note the context of this passage, which was part of a political speech. I believe what Lincoln was referring to here as "useless labor" was the labor involved in moving goods long distances, from a place where they were produced to the place where they would be consumed. In particular, this would have been relevant to imports from foreign countries - imports of things that could have been produced here. This would have been a good argument in support of a high tariff, and I believe that that is what Lincoln was talking about here.

Incidentally, I don't think Lincoln really is the best "poster boy" for the Horatio Alger ideal. This is not because he didn't achieve great things or that the U.S. isn't a great place for an ordinary person to rise above humble circumstances and achieve great things. This is because Lincoln was an *extraordinary* man. Few people in history have had his brains and abilities. Few people would have been able to teach themselves as well as he did from boyhood onward; few educated people could have written as well as he did; few lawyers in Illinois were as good as he was when they had the benefit of some law school and/or clerking in a law firm and he had neither; and no one with any advantage of heritage or schooling could have been the president he was.

(04-09-2013 09:25 AM)J. Beckert Wrote:  I think this piece speaks volumes about Lincoln's thoughts on labor and society.

And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government. But then the question arises, how can a government best, effect this? In our own country, in it's present condition, will the protective principle advance or retard this object? Upon this subject, the habits of our whole species fall into three great classes – useful labour, useless labour and idleness. Of these the first only is meritorious; and to it all the products of labour rightfully belong; but the two latter, while they exist, are heavy pensioners upon the first, robbing it of a large portion of its just rights. The only remedy for this is to, as far as possible drive useless labour and idleness out of existence. And, first, as to useless labour. Before making war upon this, we must learn to distinguish it from the useful. It appears to me, then, that all labour done directly and incidentally in carrying articles to their place of consumption, which could have been produced in sufficient abundance, with as little labour, at the place of consumption, as at the place they were carried from, is useless labour."12

Perhaps as a young man, Mr. Lincoln had done his share of useless labor to last a lifetime. Mr. Lincoln did what was necessary and he expected others to do the same. His work ethic was fundamental to his attitudes toward slavery. A man had the right to the fruits of his labors – and an obligation to pursue his labors to the best of his ability.

You are absolutely correct about this. That quote was in the context of defending a high protective tariff or tax on imported goods.

---

(non-Lincoln point here)

I would caution too about comparing politics across countries.

Thatcher was leader of the Tory Party in the UK, the center-right party in Britain.

However, the Tory Party and Thatcher held many positions that would be considered center-left or left in this country.

For example, Thatcher supported the Kyoto Protocols that were to the left of "cap and trade."
She also famously said, "The National Health Service is safe with us."
Meaning she supported a single payer health service for everyone and her government put more money into it. She also increased payments to their old-age pensions, which would be equivalant to our Social Security. In this country they are considered left positions.

Now she did cut taxes on income, but raised them on VATs (value added tax).

So I would caution those who try to pull Lincoln into today's American politics, pulling Thatcher and her Tory Party to American politics is very hard.

Just think it was the Tory or Conservative Party led coalition of David Cameron in the UK that just voted to legalize same-sex marriage in the UK nationally. (and this is their center-right party).

[Liz Rosenthal]

Mike, I totally agree with you that it's perilous to try to relate 19th century politics to politics of the 20th or 21st centuries.

And that's one reason I'm troubled by certain politicians, such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, trying to latch onto Lincoln to help legitimize their economic philosophies.

[Gene C]

(04-09-2013 06:37 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  And that's one reason I'm troubled by certain politicians, such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, trying to latch onto Lincoln to help legitimize their economic philosophies.

Personally I wish more of our current politicians would latch onto the ideals and values of Abraham Lincoln.

[Thomas Thorne]

It was Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen,who was known as the 'Wizard of Ooze" for his oratorical style, who came up with the best description of our compulsion to believe that Lincoln would support each of us today in our various political positions.

Dirksen called it "Getting Right with Lincoln."

To Reagan and Thatcher he was a proponent of free market economics. To communists Lincoln the railroad attorney was an underground communist. Every February American communists held Lincoln-Lenin dinners. in the 1990's a prolific but awful alternate history writer with the implausible name of Harry Turtledove had Lincoln bore his readers to death with turgid recitations of "Das Kapital." Prohibitionists believed he was one of them. African Americans hailed him as their liberator. White Southerners believed he would have supported the redeemers and post reconstruction white supremacy.

Remember the fun brawl we had in deciding what Lincoln would have done if he had lived. But you can't plausibly extend the speculations to situations he was unaware of.

Now let me tell you what Lincoln would have thought of Baseball's Designated Hitter......
Tom

[Jim Page]

Folks, there's a time and a place for discussions about who we consider wonderful in today's political world and who we consider beneath out contempt, but this forum isn't it. Or am I wrong?

I hope this doesn't become the fifth forum I bail on because of political opinions entering into the discussion of our main interest. I honestly can't stand such nonsense.

I know I can't contribute on the level of those who are much more learned regarding history than I am, but I do my best and if that isn't sufficient, well, so it goes. But I refuse to come here daily to read discussion of current political issues. I can go to other places for that.

--Jim

[Gene C]

You are right Jim, and I apologize and will modify my previous post.

[Jim Page]

Gene, you're a buddy of mine and you know it, and I consider every other member of this forum to be someone I hold in very high regard, and I don't care one little bit what they believe, politically or otherwise. I am darn sure not pointing fingers at ANYONE.

I just don't think this is the place to discuss such stuff, that's all. It bums me out.

And should it continue, I'll vote with my feet. Or fingers. Or whatever.

No offense meant towards anyone whatsoever.

--Jim

[My Name Is Kate]

What I like best about this forum is the civil attitude that people have toward each other, and the awareness of the value of having facts to support ones theories, etc. I hate the name-calling and emotional baggage that dominates discussions on most other forums. I see nothing wrong with sometimes discussing current politics here on this forum. It's about the only way I have of learning anything about politics, because I just can't handle the aforementioned nonsense.

(Needless to say, this isn't my forum, and it isn't up to me to make a decision on that.)

[Gene C]

Hey, Laurie's fussed at me before and we're still friends. If you can't be honest with your friends, then they're not really your friends. Thanks for letting me know I irritated you (and probably a few others) and please accept my apology

[Jim Page]

(04-09-2013 07:40 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Thanks for letting me know I irritated you (and probably a few others) and please accept my apology

Well, please know that nothing said by anyone on this thread irritated me personally.

I just don't like discussions of current-day politics. I've walked away from some rather good bands for the same reason.

--Jim

[Mike B.]

(04-09-2013 07:52 PM)Jim Page Wrote:  

(04-09-2013 07:40 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Thanks for letting me know I irritated you (and probably a few others) and please accept my apology

Well, please know that nothing said by anyone on this thread irritated me personally.

I just don't like discussions of current-day politics. I've walked away from some rather good bands for the same reason.

--Jim

I would tend to agree with this. I am on the board of a Civil War Roundtable, and we had trouble when a speaker turned his speech into a political rant. Many of our members were offended.

I don't want to go into the weeds of current day politics per se.

Lincoln was a politician so politics was important to him, but the applicability to his views today are tricky and often aren't clear.

My overall point was that it is really impossible for anyone to draw a straight line from Lincoln to their own political positions today.

I though have no problem with politicians quoting Lincoln. He is our greatest President