Reply #58: Two Schools ...

[RoyGBiv]

I'll try to summarize in an intelligent manner. I need my books to elaborate more specifically, and my brain isn't working well enough at this time of day/night to find what I need.

A bit of context:

Unlike Fearless Leader(tm), Lincoln didn't want to be War President(tm). He had specific ideas about how the nation should be managed, and he wanted to implement those ideas to expand the nation and make it a world economic leader. A good deal of this was based on Clay's "American System." Lincoln always referred to himself as a "Clay Whig" and attached himself to Clay's ideas in much the same way politicians during a previous era attached themselves to Jefferson or Hamilton. He was devoted, shall we say, to the idea that the American System was the best course for the country to take.

School One:

The American System is seen by this school as the ancestor to the emergence of corporations as the primary influence in the American economy. During his Presidency, Lincoln pushed forward domestic policies that fostered the growth of railroads as proto-corporate monoliths, to some extent funded by the government (what we would call corporate welfare) and laid the groundwork whereby future business interests could use the model of the railroad's expansion to develop themselves, sometimes (perhaps often) at the expense of individual liberty and the rights of labor and/or consumers. Lincoln was complicit in encouraging this development by being aware of where it could lead and not openly objecting to it or doing anything to reduce the possibility. This school sees a direct lineage from the Republicans of the 1860 through the modern era.

School Two:

By this line of thought, the American System was never intended to do anything like foster the growth of massive business interests protected by the "corporation as citizen" legal philosophy, but was perverted by an eventually dominant segment of the Republican party centered on business interests specifically to extend to these lengths. During his Presidency, Lincoln did in fact promote a modified form of the American System, but one geared toward internal improvements that would benefit all interests, not merely those involved in and financially benefiting from this expansion. Lincoln would have placed limits on the role of government in financing and protecting the conglomerates that eventually emerged. The Republicans of the late 19th and early 20th century merely engaged in a game of something like "waving the bloody shirt" to gather support for their initiatives by invoking Lincoln's name without any realistic support for the notion that Lincoln would have agreed to or supported their actions.

And I say "at least two" distinct schools because there are others that draw from these two and form a different line of reasoning altogether. I, for example, believe elements of both 1 and 2 are viable positions and that one can draw a direct lineage between modern Republicans of the 1860's and the modern era, but that this line of ancestry is broken in the sense that the Republicans of the 19th century were an emerging party with fractures in ideology and that the "corporate" wing eventually gained control, shaking off its roots, in effect "cleansing" itself of it socially responsible aspects. Lincoln's own ideology in some respects fit with this corporate wing, but not in all, as he did in fact have a strong social conscience, and I do not believe his ideology would have allowed for the emergence of the corporate control we have today. In other words, my position is that Lincoln's ideology, as descended from Whig ideology, was perverted for purposes he would not have tolerated.

As a somewhat related aside, you mentioned profiteering during the war. My view of Lincoln not allowing the expansion of corporate control is in fact based in his response to that. In short, he despised it, looked for legal ways to end it, and even privately offered the idea that those who engaged in it should be, effectively, taken out and shot.