Replies

Ah, but you fail to read on.

No. Not really. Reading on only reveals Lincoln's elaboration upon the core theory of value he set forth about labor.

Moreover, Lincoln soon modified these views (note the date)

No. Not really. As far as his writings indicate, they were with him to the end of his career and most likely life. He references a labor theory of value in his speeches throughout his career, as is the case in this excerpt from 1861:

"I have long thought that if there be any article of necessity which can be produced at home with as little or nearly the same labor as abroad, it would be better to protect that article. Labor is the true standard of value." - Abraham Lincoln, February 15, 1861

You would know this if you were familiar with Lincoln or had an interest in understanding his economic beliefs, but obviously you do not.

and while he always "stood up" for labor, he also, as an attorney, represented banks and railroads in numerous cases which he won.

Representing railroad companies in no way precludes espousal of the labor theory of value, nor does it make one a laissez faire capitalist. If that were so Enron's top congressional recipient and lackey Sheila Jackson Lee would be the biggest freemarketeer in Washington.

You might look at some of his court cases to see somewhat contradictory arguments.

What records remain appear in Lincoln's multi-volume collected works. After a fairly extensive search of those works for references to labor and tariff issues, it appears to be one of the few things he consistently stuck to in his political career.

and you'll see he in fact was, as Richard Hofstadter called him, the "Marx of the Master Class."

In some regards that argument could be made and I do believe Hofstadter makes a decent case. Interestingly enough in that same book a chapter later, Hofstadter is one of the many historians to point out that your punching bag George Fitzhugh was a crackpot fringer. You have said otherwise. Do you agree with Hofstadter on this?

I think Hofstadter dismisses Fitzhugh precisely because Fitzhugh cut both ways, endangering northern abolitionist "free love" radicals and exposing them as socialists. Note that this is not the same as the northern capitalists, who had little in common with these guys. But who knows why Hofstadter takes Calhoun seriously, but not Fitzhugh. Ask him. To me, the ideas are nearly identical, and that is why they are so important.

And there is plenty of Lincoln available on what he said about banks and corporations. See my article, "Abraham Lincoln and the Growth of Government in the Civil War Era," Continuity, Spring 1997.

I'll say again, Lincoln was consistent. He FIRMLY believed that labor was a cornerstone, but only a means to attaining a farm and/or industrial work. Even the socialist historians, like Foner, admit this.