Social systems not much different from 1858

[nature-lover]

September 2, 2023
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
SEP 3

On March 4, 1858, South Carolina senator James Henry Hammond rose to his feet to explain to the Senate how society worked. “In all social systems,” he said, “there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life.” That class, he said, needed little intellect and little skill, but it should be strong, docile, and loyal.

“Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization and refinement,” Hammond said. His workers were the “mud-sill” on which society rested, the same way that a stately house rested on wooden sills driven into the mud.

He told his northern colleagues that the South had perfected this system by enslavement based on race, while northerners pretended that they had abolished slavery. “Aye, the name, but not the thing,” he said. “[Y]our whole hireling class of manual laborers and ‘operatives,’ as you call them, are essentially slaves.”

snip

Hammond’s vision was of a world divided between the haves and the have-nots, where men of means commandeered the production of workers and justified that theft with the argument that such a concentration of wealth would allow superior men to move society forward. It was a vision that spoke for the South’s wealthy planter class—enslavers who held more than 50 of their Black neighbors in bondage and made up about 1% of the population—but such a vision didn’t even speak for the majority of white southerners, most of whom were much poorer than such a vision suggested.

snip

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since Lincoln’s day, but on this Labor Day weekend, it strikes me that the worldviews of men like Hammond and Lincoln are still fundamental to our society: Should our government protect people of property as they exploit the majority so they can accumulate wealth and move society forward as they wish? Or should we protect the right of ordinary Americans to build their own lives, making sure that no one can monopolize the country’s money and resources, with the expectation that their efforts will build society from the ground up?

More at:

[link:https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-2-2023?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email|

[leftstreet]

1. Back when they just said the quiet part out loud

DURec

[slightlv]

2. The 99% are "needed" to maintain the 1%'s lifestyle.

Meanwhile, they leave the 99% fighting for the crumbs that fall from the table. I hope one day this changes drastically. One of the first places to make a meaningful National effort, I feel, is to stop taxing wages, i.e., "earned income." Income earned by the sweat of one's brow or by the knowledge one has gained through effort and debt (college), should not be taxed more than "unearned income", IMNSHO.

This has always been a hot button for me. Earned income should be taxed much less, if for no other reason than "social engineering" that earning one's income is good; living off the digital fat is nowhere near as noble or useful to society. Unearned income I see as basically an anti-social form of income; it's a solitary form of greed with way too many loopholes.

Earned income is something to be proud of... a societal good that engenders a feeling of accomplishment and fosters community.

Like I said, just a personal sticking point of mine, appropriate to probably nothing at this point in the evolution of civilization, since we seem to be de-evolving on the civilization scale. YMMV, of course.

[IbogaProject]

3. Yep

Wage income tax, investment earnings and capital gains all need to be graduated progressively so the more you earn the higher marginal rate you pay on the last dollars. The wealthy spend their money slower than the bottom 70% so cutting their taxes slows the entire economy.

[spike jones]

4. A picture is worth a thousand words. No wait, not since photoshop.

[link:|

[iluvtennis]

6. Great picture! - thanks for posting it. n/t

[ChuckInMO]

5. The Conservative Mind

This is the argument Burke made that the father of modern conservatism embraced. That being Russell Kirk in the "Conservative Mind". There is nothing new.

[Kingofalldems]

7. I remember actress Helen Hayes being interviewed

and voicing a pretty similar opinion, saying she was a republican because she thought wealthy people should run the nation.

[DemocraticPatriot]

9. "Mudsills and Greasy Mechanics for A. Lincoln"

was the sign carried by some partisans at the Lincoln-Douglas debates,
in response to this Hammond diatribe...