Comments on: Jeffersonian Principals: The New York Times, 1899 http://www.offthemarble.com/2009/08/19/jeffersonian-principals-the-new-york-times-1899/ Arkansas Policy & Politics from the Capitol Floors Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:09:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Mark Martin http://www.offthemarble.com/2009/08/19/jeffersonian-principals-the-new-york-times-1899/comment-page-1/#comment-249 Mark Martin Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:06:57 +0000 http://www.offthemarble.com/?p=1531#comment-249 eLwood, <BR> I cannot say that I disagree with anything that Lincoln says here in the full context of your source, and certainly within the context of his collected works. I am particularly aligned as it relates to labor preceding capital. <BR> Most of Lincoln's works can be read online for free here: http://ow.ly/kE3g <BR> This reminds me of a person I recently learned about at one of our Arkansas State Parks. The Plantation Agriculture Museum: http://www.arkansasstateparks.com/plantationagriculturemuseum/ <BR> His name is Scott Winfield Bond: http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=1594 <BR> I found his story so compelling that I bought the book: Rudd, Dan A. and Theo. Bond. <B>From Slavery to Wealth: The Life of Scott Bond</B>. Edited by Willard B. Gatewood. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2008. <BR> I still have not read it yet, as soon as I stop allowing politics to take over my life, I look forward to sitting down to a good read. eLwood,

I cannot say that I disagree with anything that Lincoln says here in the full context of your source, and certainly within the context of his collected works. I am particularly aligned as it relates to labor preceding capital.

Most of Lincoln’s works can be read online for free here:
http://ow.ly/kE3g

This reminds me of a person I recently learned about at one of our Arkansas State Parks. The Plantation Agriculture Museum:
http://www.arkansasstateparks.com/plantationagriculturemuseum/

His name is Scott Winfield Bond:
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=1594

I found his story so compelling that I bought the book:
Rudd, Dan A. and Theo. Bond. From Slavery to Wealth: The Life of Scott Bond. Edited by Willard B. Gatewood. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2008.

I still have not read it yet, as soon as I stop allowing politics to take over my life, I look forward to sitting down to a good read.

]]> By: eLwood http://www.offthemarble.com/2009/08/19/jeffersonian-principals-the-new-york-times-1899/comment-page-1/#comment-248 eLwood Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:29:24 +0000 http://www.offthemarble.com/?p=1531#comment-248 And let the Republicons align them selves with whom? Surely not Abraham Lincoln who wrote: <i>The world is agreed that labor is the source from which human wants are mainly supplied. There is no dispute upon this point. From this point, however, men immediately diverge. Much disputation is maintained as to the best way of applying and controlling the labor element. By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital – that nobody labors, unless somebody else owning capital, somehow, by the use of it, induces him to do it. Having assumed this, they proceed to consider whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it, without their consent. Having proceeded so far, they naturally conclude that all laborers are naturally either hired laborers or slaves. They further assume that whoever is once a hired laborer, is fatally fixed in that condition for life; and thence again, that his condition is as bad as, or worse than, that of a slave. This is the "mud-sill" theory. But another class of reasoners hold the opinion that there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed; that there is no such thing as a free man being fatally fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer; that both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them groundless. They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed; that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor.</i> <a href="http://dig.lib.niu.edu/teachers/econ1-lincoln.html" rel="nofollow">Source here.</a> . And let the Republicons align them selves with whom?

Surely not Abraham Lincoln who wrote:

The world is agreed that labor is the source from which human wants are mainly supplied. There is no dispute upon this point. From this point, however, men immediately diverge. Much disputation is maintained as to the best way of applying and controlling the labor element. By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital – that nobody labors, unless somebody else owning capital, somehow, by the use of it, induces him to do it. Having assumed this, they proceed to consider whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their

own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it, without their consent. Having proceeded so far, they naturally conclude that all laborers are naturally either hired laborers or slaves. They further assume that whoever is once a hired laborer, is fatally fixed in that condition for life; and thence again, that his condition is as bad as, or worse than, that of a slave. This is the “mud-sill” theory. But another class of reasoners hold the opinion that there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed; that there is no such thing as a free man being fatally fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer; that both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them groundless. They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed; that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor.

Source here.

.

]]>