The Dignity of Wage Labor in the Republicans’ Free Labor Ideology

Abraham Lincoln as "Railsplitter." Cartoon image from masthead of The Railsplitter (1860) Library of Congress

Abraham Lincoln as “Railsplitter.” Cartoon image from masthead of The Railsplitter (1860) Library of Congress

Volume 2 of historian John Ashworth’s discussion in Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic touches on a shift in Americans’ views toward wage labor. This shift anticipated the rise of the Republican Party’s “free labor” ideology, and then continued to develop concurrent with it. Prior to this shift, Americans widely viewed wage labor as invested with little dignity, as scarcely preferable than indentured service. If one worked for wages, respectability required that one aim to work out of this form of employment, saving toward property ownership or work as an independent artisan. Only those who couldn’t or wouldn’t move out of wage labor remained in that condition permanently. Lifelong wage labor was for losers.

Part of this attitude was ideological. “Freedom” not only meant freedom from improper political restraint, it meant freedom from dependence on other people for one’s provision. The Jeffersonian yeoman, in particular, as well as the independent artisan (also less so), exemplified this aspiration.

I suspect the nature of the labor market at this time supported this view as well. In early America, population was highly diffuse, towns were small and travel difficult. Labor markets were so thin, and transition costs so high, that employment was sticky, wage workers often had few practical alternatives to their current employers. At this time, employer-employee relationships were often paternalistic, extending beyond one’s work into all parts of an employee’s life.

With increasing population density and industrialization, local labor markets naturally thickened. That meant more options for wage employees. It became more of a sellers’ market for labor rather than a buyers’ market. This undercut a requisite of the older, more hierarchical relationship of wage employees to the employer. Increased market power allowed the wage employee increasingly to transact on an equal basis with the employer. If the employee did not like the wages or working conditions offered by the employer, then the worker was free to find alternative employment more to his liking.

Changes in the social conception of the wage worker followed from changes in the labor market, no longer conceived as a social and economic subordinate, the lifelong wage worker could now be a social and economic equal.

The workers’ relationship to the market changed as well, at least relative to yeomanry. For the yeoman the market existed on the periphery of daily life. The “market” was a special day of the week, not a daily occurrence. One produced mainly for one’s own consumption, with only the surplus used for exchange in the market, and then for a few things one could not easily make. Freedom was understood as freedom from human influence, even as one’s life was subjected to the potentially harsh vagaries of nature.

In contrast, the market interpenetrated the daily existence of wage labor; the market was a central feature of the life of wage workers, dictating a different rhythm and, as it were, creating a different semiotic environment. “Contract” became the epitome of human liberty rather than the yeoman’s independence from human direction. By definition, a contract takes at least two parties, so it is of necessity a social phenomenon. Subsistence farming, at least in its ideal form, exists with minimal economic dependence on those outside the family.

This picture of free (and freed) men contracting with each other, upright and face to face, provided the emotive core of the Republican’s “free labor” ideology. Free labor ideology had a broader view of human dignity beyond the end of chattel slavery (which was, of course, a critical first step).

This view of freedom and human dignity not only had political implications, but legal and social implications as well. Indeed, the legal doctrine of substantive due process—the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment’s liberty guarantee included a commitment to contractual freedom for labor, and therefore was suspicious of government restraints on the contractual rights of workers—rose decades later, from the roots of Republican free labor ideology.

This view of human dignity and contractual liberty also led to the early use of antitrust laws against union collective bargaining agreements. These agreements were seen as restraints on trade, limiting the freedom for workers to contract independently with their employers, and thereby offending their dignity as mature men. Unions of course contested the claim and argued that this conception of contractual liberty continued to protect the dignity of workers in light of once-again changed economic circumstances and the need for collective action. This argument, with differing conceptions of the nature of power, liberty, work and wages, and the relationships between them, continued to rage pretty much for the next century.

James R. Rogers

James Rogers is associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University, and is a fellow with the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy at the Bush School of Government and Public Service. He also served as editor of the Journal of Theoretical Politics from 2006 through 2013.

About the Author

Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts

Comments

  1. nobody.really says

    I’d never really thought about any of this. I had a vague notion that labor was scarce on the frontier, and so a man could simply ride the train West, get off at a random town, and find a job as a farm hand or cow poke or movie extra–but I hadn’t any idea how exactly that would occur. I hadn’t considered that employment relationships were “sticky,” such that my “day laborer” model might not really work.

    Thanks for this essay!

    • gabe says

      “Movie extra” – Luvv’d it!

      But you left out “gold prospector” – think of all those 49’ers. They appear to have had a higher success rate than the current SF 49’ers!

  2. gabe says

    “Changes in the social conception of the wage worker followed from changes in the labor market, no longer conceived as a social and economic subordinate, the life-long wage worker could now be a social and economic equal. ”

    I am not certain that this is quite true – even to the current day. Were not so many of these wage workers deemed “deplorables”? I would suggest also that in the latter part of the 19th century, while that specific term may not have been employed, it may very well have been the upper crusts’ perception of the wage earner.

    Otherwise a fine essay.

  3. nobody.really says

    Off topic: Hey, gang, remember our lengthy discussion on Rogers’s question, “Are There Economic Policy Choices between “America First” and “Global Cosmopolitanism”?“?

    Well, Rogers has posted another version of it over at First Things: “How Many Foreigners is an American Worth?” After acknowledging how free trade boosts the living standards in the developing world, but arguably at the expense of the living standards of working-class Americans, Rogers notes this:

    [T]here are policy options beyond raising tariffs or reimposing regulatory trade barriers. Recognizing that freer trade means bigger pies, rather than reimposing losses on other nations by tariffs and trade barriers, nations might consider win-win policies such as directing national gains to assist workers in markets disproportionately burdened by freer trade.

    But the people writing comments apparently skipped over that part, because the accuse Rogers of having no plan to harness the power of free trade for the benefit of the working class. Not so different than many of the comments here, really.

    Rogers also remarks:

    From Trump-supporting Christian leaders, we hear paeans to the natural good of national solidarity, and how President Trump promises to protect and revive the good of solidarity in the face of regnant globalization.

    That’s not inappropriate. Nationhood constitutes one of those dimensions defining who is one’s “own” for Christians to provide for especially. It’s entirely appropriate to identify and support policy interventions that aim to benefit fellow Americans. But that cannot be the only dimension of policy evaluation for Christians; Christians do not have the luxury of ignoring the impact of those policies on peoples overseas, [including Christians].

    To my befuddlement, First Thing‘s editor RR Reno has thrown in his lot with these Trump-supporting Christian leaders.

    Those of us who have not been banned should click over and share a thought or two. Our religious friends benefit from sound econ/policy arguments, too. Plus, you won’t have to put up with my counterpoints!

    • gabe says

      nobody:

      SO, apparently you were NOT reinstated. That is not good, just like here, your voice is of value. I will try Spiliakos again.

      Quick question for you. How do you navigate that site now – I can not seem to get to the essays (politico / legal / economic) that I want without going through a bunch of philosophical – theological stuff (as Seinfeld would say, “not that there is anything wrong with that”).

      Substantively: I, too, am surprised by the editors comments. It is not that I disagree with them but rather that the impression I have had of many First Things types was that they took the Christian admonition to do charity, etc seriously. Hmmm!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>