“Independent Laborers by Voluntary Contract”

Alex Gourevitch

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139519434.003

2 - “Independent Laborers by Voluntary Contract”

The Laissez-Faire Republican Turn

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 December 2014

Alex Gourevitch

Show author details

Alex Gourevitch: Affiliation:
Brown University, Rhode Island

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Where are the slave auction-blocks ... the slave-yokes and fetters ...
They are all gone! From chattels to human beings.... Freedmen at work
as independent laborers by voluntary contract!
William Lloyd Garrison

It was 1869. The Civil War was over and Congress had ratified the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the American Constitution, which abolished slavery and guaranteed equal protection of the laws. William Lloyd Garrison’s debates with working men and national reformers were long behind him. He could finally consider his life’s work accomplished. Surveying the new economy, he exulted that he saw nothing but “independent laborers by voluntary contract.” It was a telling turn of phrase – “independent ... by contract.” Although in the last chapter we saw how Garrison opposed his abolitionist theory of freedom to the republican emphasis on independence, in this later utterance we see a blurring of the lines. Now, for Garrison, the absence of interference with voluntary agreements just was independence.

Garrison might not have been running these ideas together intentionally, but it was an important feature of the postbellum ideological atmosphere. As the “labor crisis” took center stage, it became increasingly common to find economists, legal theorists, employers, and public officials arguing that wage-labor was free labor because legal self-ownership was enough to guarantee a person’s economic independence. If the wage-laborer was legally “sui iuris,” or under his own power, then that was enough to know he was independent. Legal status described economic condition. The abolition of slavery and the universal guarantee of freedom of contract eliminated chattel slavery and secured legal protection against becoming subject to any particular employer’s will. Nobody could be forced to work for anyone else; each chose his employer voluntarily. This chapter reconstructs this view because it was the hegemonic idea against which labor republicans would react. This reconstruction is also important because it reminds us that the purity of two ideological traditions, represented in scholarly statements like “we have inherited two rival and incommensurable theories of negative liberty,” is difficult to maintain. In fact, laissez-faire ideas arose not so much by negating the republican theory as by incorporating it into liberal thinking and practice.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: From Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth
Labor and Republican Liberty in the Nineteenth Century
, pp. 47 - 66

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519434.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Kant, Immanuel, “On the Common Saying: ‘This May Be True in Theory, but It Does Not Apply in Practice,’” in Kant Political Writings, ed. Reiss, H. S. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 61–92Google Scholar

Rodgers, Daniel T., The Work Ethic in Industrial America, 1850–1920 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 34–35Google Scholar

Dubofsky, Melvyn, Industrialism and the American Worker (Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1985), 4–9Google Scholar

Foner, Eric, The Story of American Freedom (New York: W. W. Norton, 1998), 116–37Google Scholar

Steinfeld, Robert J., “Changing Legal Conceptions of Free Labor,” in Terms of Labor: Slavery, Serfdom and Free Labor, ed. Engerman, Stanley L. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999), 137–47Google Scholar

Mandel, Bernard, Labor, Free and Slave: Workingmen and the Anti-Slavery Movement in the United States (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1955)Google Scholar

Tomlins, Christopher L., The State and the Unions: Labor Relations, Law, and the Organized Labor Movement in America, 1880–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 32–52Google Scholar

Benedict, Michael Les, “Laissez-Faire and Liberty: a Re-Evaluation of the Meaning and Origins of Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism,” Law and History Review 3, no. 2 (Autumn 1985), 293–331CrossRef Google Scholar

Novak, William, “The Legal Origins of the Modern American State,” in Looking Back at Law’s Century, ed. Kagan, Robert and Garth, Austin Sarat Bryant (Ithaca: Cornell University press, 2001)Google Scholar

Horwitz, Morton J., Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 160–210Google Scholar

Montgomery, , Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862–1872 (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1967), 230–60Google Scholar

Cooley, Thomas McIntyre, A Treatise on the Law of Torts, or, The Wrongs Which Arise Independently of Contract (London: Callaghan & Company, 1888), 326Google Scholar

Gantt, T. Fulton, “Breaking the Chains: A Story of the Present Industrial Struggle,” in The Knights in Fiction: Two Labor Novels of the 1880s, ed. Grimes, Mary C. (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 68Google Scholar

Sumner, William Graham, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1883)Google Scholar

Labbé, Ronald and Lurie, Jonathan, The Slaughterhouse Cases: Regulation, Reconstruction, and the Fourteenth Amendment (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003)Google Scholar

Gillman, Howard, The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence (Durham: Duke University Press, 1993), 33–45Google Scholar

Pope, James Gray, “The Thirteenth Amendment Versus the Commerce Clause: Labor and the Shaping of American Constitutional Law, 1921–1957,” Columbia Law Review 102, no. 1 (January 2002), 1–122CrossRef Google Scholar

Sawyer, Laura Phillips, “Contested Meanings of Freedom: Workingmen’s Wages, the Company Store System, and the Godcharles v. Wigeman Decision,” The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 12, no. 3 (July 2013), 285–319CrossRef Google Scholar

Currarino, Rosanne, The Labor Question in America: Economic Democracy in the Gilded Age (Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield: University of Illinois Press, 2011), 60–85Google Scholar

Godkin, E. L., “The Labor Crisis,” The North American Review CV (July 1867), 177–213Google Scholar

Tiedeman, Christopher Gustavus, A Treatise on the Limitations of the Police Power in the United States (St. Louis: The F. H. Thomas Law Book Co., 1886), 195Google Scholar

Oestreicher, Richard, “A Note on Knights of Labor Membership Statistics,” Labor History 25, no. 1 (1984), 102–8CrossRef Google Scholar

Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States, ed. Skocpol, Theda (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992)

Brest, Paul et al., Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials, 4 ed. (Boston: Little Brown, 2003), 344–45Google Scholar

Katznelson, Ira and Kalyvas, Andreas, Liberal Beginnings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 4Google Scholar

Shklar, Judith, American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 64–5Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.