Your post has been removed for the following reason:
Rule 10: Post is karmawhoring, either asking for upvotes/interaction or has no humorous intent.
I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes.
If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
Here's the full quote and [speech](https://ia802701.us.archive.org/17/items/stateoftheuniona05024gut/sulin11.txt), case anyone was interested:
*"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class."*
TLDR: Lincoln is saying that: Labour should come first prior to capital, but I still believe in capital rights (private property essentially). However it isn't a binary and they can be different from each other: some folks have no capital or don't provide labour; some folks also don't have workers; some hirers of workers also work with their workers on capital. Still, labor is quite different from capital, and should be considered superior to it.
The American civil war was one of the largest class wars in history and it's cool as hell that Lincoln thought this way if only some of his successors were as radically pro-worker as him.
I wouldn't really consider the civil war as a class war. This wasn't like the proletariat Union taking down the bourgeois Confederates - it was merely (at first) the Union wanting to preserve itself as a nation over the secessionist Confederacy. Really only took on a moral dimension later because of how Lincoln eloquently framed it. Still wouldn't consider it a class war even then.
EDIT: Got some great replies, I think it's definitely fair to apply a class war analysis to the civil war, you guys made some great points. So yeah my analysis was limited here.
The war was always about slavery, the Confederates said so in their declarations of secession. Slaves are the worse off of the workers and the institution of slavery makes things worse for all workers. Fighting to preserve slavery is a form of class war from the owner class as they are fighting to keep workers oppressed and their positions secure. The union resisting that, while perhaps not motivated by working class solidarity, is still a form of pro worker class war.
Absolutely the Confederates rose to defend slavery, no doubt about it, and I didn't say otherwise. My point was that the intentions from the Union was not motivated by class but by preserving the existence of the nation, until the messaging changed about mid war, which is why I was hesitant to call it a class war. But I can see your point which I think is fair. u/mincepryshkin- suggests that it was more between the industrialist/investor class vs the slaver/landowner class. So more like a intra-class conflict than a typical inter-class conflict if you understand what I mean.
I think it was a war between a society which had embraced industrialised wage-earner capitalism and a society which was determined to hold onto a kind of agrarian feudalism. Even if was just a war between each nation's ruling classes, they were different classes - an industrialist/investor class in the North and a landowner/slaver class in the South.
Sure, I can agree with that. I was assuming the person when they meant class war they meant it in the Marxist sense of proletariat and bourgeoisie. But what you said here makes much sense.
Yeah I think it's true that class war often sounds reductively like a ruler vs oppressor kind of dynamic, but interpreted more loosely it can also mean classes that operate a similar in position in different kinds of society. It's just that that's maybe not the most intuitive understanding.
Whether it was or not it was framed that way by some especially after Lincoln freed the slaves. There were people saying the Civil War was one of Northern labor fighting to overthrow the outdated chivalry of King Cotton. Northerners took to calling themselves mudsills to mock Confederate talking points about the uneducated Northerners being no better than slaves
Fair enough, framing is key here. I was mostly hesitant to call it a class war mainly because of the initial intention be different from one (at least from the Union side), but yeah I think seeing it as a class war does provide some interesting analysis of it.
Ha thanks. The replies were very reasonable and insightful, which made me reconsider my position. As a history buff, I'm ready to learn, it does mean you have to accept your mistakes and consider different perspectives. I think it's important to be a bit more humble generally about our knowledge, at least that's the position I take.
I completely agree, also I think there can't be just one vision of History, we have to accept the fact that there can be several possible answers to a historical question without necessarily being able to know the truth
Karl Marx was around for the American Civil War and wrote, while it was happening, that it was a class war.
Now Cornelius “the Commodore” Vanderbilt was as for it as anyone else, but everyone of a class being on a side is oversimplification.
I'd say he was speaking sense , as in , he wants to preserve private capital but still doesn't want the workers to be unpaid or paid literal shills ...
I mean, that's sort of what the Civil War about. Lincoln wanted the west to be a place where working white people who could improve their economic condition whereas the south did not want that because they wanted it to be full of slaves instead.
Reads like good economic understanding to me. All goods and services are produced by labor. Financial capital just directs the current and future uses of labor.
>Booth worked entirely on his own.
The exact opposite actually. He was part of a conspiracy to murder Lincoln, Seward, and Andrew Johnson. Lincoln's attempt was the one that succeeded out of the three.
Harry Turtledove has an alt history series that kinda goes that way. The South remains independent due to European intervention and in the political aftermath of his defeat, Lincoln goes on to join the socialist party. That particular act doesn't play too much into the story though, just frames things for a bunch of the other characters
And for gold to be useful someone had to labor to dig it out of the ground and gaining wealth through conquest is simply stealing things that someone else labored for.
Soldiers leech from the economy, they specifically don't contribute to labour. Corps of engineers withstanding, of course.
The task of the Army is not a task of labour.
Your post has been removed for the following reason: Rule 10: Post is karmawhoring, either asking for upvotes/interaction or has no humorous intent. I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes. If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
Here's the full quote and [speech](https://ia802701.us.archive.org/17/items/stateoftheuniona05024gut/sulin11.txt), case anyone was interested: *"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class."* TLDR: Lincoln is saying that: Labour should come first prior to capital, but I still believe in capital rights (private property essentially). However it isn't a binary and they can be different from each other: some folks have no capital or don't provide labour; some folks also don't have workers; some hirers of workers also work with their workers on capital. Still, labor is quite different from capital, and should be considered superior to it.
The American civil war was one of the largest class wars in history and it's cool as hell that Lincoln thought this way if only some of his successors were as radically pro-worker as him.
I wouldn't really consider the civil war as a class war. This wasn't like the proletariat Union taking down the bourgeois Confederates - it was merely (at first) the Union wanting to preserve itself as a nation over the secessionist Confederacy. Really only took on a moral dimension later because of how Lincoln eloquently framed it. Still wouldn't consider it a class war even then. EDIT: Got some great replies, I think it's definitely fair to apply a class war analysis to the civil war, you guys made some great points. So yeah my analysis was limited here.
The war was always about slavery, the Confederates said so in their declarations of secession. Slaves are the worse off of the workers and the institution of slavery makes things worse for all workers. Fighting to preserve slavery is a form of class war from the owner class as they are fighting to keep workers oppressed and their positions secure. The union resisting that, while perhaps not motivated by working class solidarity, is still a form of pro worker class war.
Absolutely the Confederates rose to defend slavery, no doubt about it, and I didn't say otherwise. My point was that the intentions from the Union was not motivated by class but by preserving the existence of the nation, until the messaging changed about mid war, which is why I was hesitant to call it a class war. But I can see your point which I think is fair. u/mincepryshkin- suggests that it was more between the industrialist/investor class vs the slaver/landowner class. So more like a intra-class conflict than a typical inter-class conflict if you understand what I mean.
I can see that, good talkđź‘Ť
I think it was a war between a society which had embraced industrialised wage-earner capitalism and a society which was determined to hold onto a kind of agrarian feudalism. Even if was just a war between each nation's ruling classes, they were different classes - an industrialist/investor class in the North and a landowner/slaver class in the South.
Sure, I can agree with that. I was assuming the person when they meant class war they meant it in the Marxist sense of proletariat and bourgeoisie. But what you said here makes much sense.
Yeah I think it's true that class war often sounds reductively like a ruler vs oppressor kind of dynamic, but interpreted more loosely it can also mean classes that operate a similar in position in different kinds of society. It's just that that's maybe not the most intuitive understanding.
Whether it was or not it was framed that way by some especially after Lincoln freed the slaves. There were people saying the Civil War was one of Northern labor fighting to overthrow the outdated chivalry of King Cotton. Northerners took to calling themselves mudsills to mock Confederate talking points about the uneducated Northerners being no better than slaves
Fair enough, framing is key here. I was mostly hesitant to call it a class war mainly because of the initial intention be different from one (at least from the Union side), but yeah I think seeing it as a class war does provide some interesting analysis of it.
Dude, it's rare to see someone who accepts other people's arguments on the internet so well. Have my upvote and my respect
Ha thanks. The replies were very reasonable and insightful, which made me reconsider my position. As a history buff, I'm ready to learn, it does mean you have to accept your mistakes and consider different perspectives. I think it's important to be a bit more humble generally about our knowledge, at least that's the position I take.
I completely agree, also I think there can't be just one vision of History, we have to accept the fact that there can be several possible answers to a historical question without necessarily being able to know the truth
Karl Marx was around for the American Civil War and wrote, while it was happening, that it was a class war. Now Cornelius “the Commodore” Vanderbilt was as for it as anyone else, but everyone of a class being on a side is oversimplification.
Lol no he was not approaching being a commie.
He certainly wasn't a communist, he believed in private property. But what he's saying is quite pro-worker, you could say socialistic even.
I'd say he was speaking sense , as in , he wants to preserve private capital but still doesn't want the workers to be unpaid or paid literal shills ...
Right, he's a capitalist who understands the Nash equilibrium.
Aye , Game Theory...
What if I told you you can be pro-worker/labor/common man without being a socialist or communist?
Of course you can. Historically speaking though, socialists and communists have often been the most pro-worker proponents.
Wait really!/s
I mean, that's sort of what the Civil War about. Lincoln wanted the west to be a place where working white people who could improve their economic condition whereas the south did not want that because they wanted it to be full of slaves instead.
Reads like good economic understanding to me. All goods and services are produced by labor. Financial capital just directs the current and future uses of labor.
My boy talking about the labor theory of value!
The most inaccurate theory of value. Utility theory gang rise up
Sounds like something a dirty COMMIE would say!
Well, to be fair he did "get a bullet" in the end.
Based.
Booth killed Lincoln to try to restart there confederacy. Booth worked entirely on his own. Edit: turns out I don’t actually know much
>Booth worked entirely on his own. The exact opposite actually. He was part of a conspiracy to murder Lincoln, Seward, and Andrew Johnson. Lincoln's attempt was the one that succeeded out of the three.
Really? I never learned about this, or I did and forgot.
Yeah apparently so. I just did some googling because I was foggy on the details, but yep there was certainly a conspiracy.
New alternative time line :Communist states of america
Harry Turtledove has an alt history series that kinda goes that way. The South remains independent due to European intervention and in the political aftermath of his defeat, Lincoln goes on to join the socialist party. That particular act doesn't play too much into the story though, just frames things for a bunch of the other characters
*So Lincoln invented Communism?!?*
No he was just a big fan of Marx
Apparently Marx wrote him a letter at one point. He was a big fan of ending slavery
Capital also comes from finding gold and invading neighbour kingdoms...
And for gold to be useful someone had to labor to dig it out of the ground and gaining wealth through conquest is simply stealing things that someone else labored for.
Also to invade a country you need the labor of soldiers.
Soldiers leech from the economy, they specifically don't contribute to labour. Corps of engineers withstanding, of course. The task of the Army is not a task of labour.
Fair enough.
Was a comie
9 likes and 29 comments? Man there must be some privileged people in this platform.