Lincoln On Labor
Abraham Lincoln's 1859 speech before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society and why it matters now more than ever.
In 1859, Abraham Lincoln delivered one of his most important (yet, often forgotten) speeches before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society in Milwaukee. The speech, a year before the 1860 election, focused on the topic of “free labor.” Lincoln argued that free labor, in contrast with the system of slavery, promoted individual liberty and economic opportunity. While slavery was centered around the belief that one class of society (specifically, the wealthy and elite slaveowners) was above everyone else, the ideals of free labor were grounded in a fundamental belief that all Americans should be afforded the opportunity to achieve social mobility. In doing so, Lincoln argued that slaveholders and their defenders were the true fomenters of class warfare, reinforcing a fundamental inequality that was socially and economically unacceptable.
Lincoln vs. “Mud-Sill” Theory
While the system of slavery depended on maintaining a sharp divide between economic classes, the ideals of free labor promoted economic opportunity for all. In slavery, there was a class only meant to work and toil for the elites, with no potential for advancement. Free labor offered a system in which all could pursue genuine economic mobility, a system where the wage laborer could reach the status of business owner. It is also in this speech where Lincoln rejects the notion of “mud-sill,” a theory that attempted to justify slavery as necessary for society.
“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 that capital, 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 necessarily 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.”
Lincoln recognized a general consensus: society could not exist without labor. The real debate, however, lay in how labor was valued and understood. The elite class argued that “mud-sill” theory was a justification for a segment of society (whether it was underpaid wage laborers or slaves) that was essentially condemned to a lifetime of unrewarding work with no room for mobility. In other words, the economic elites at the time argued that “…in every society there must of necessity be a lower class to provide for the support and maintenance of the upper class.”1 In rejecting mud-sill theory, Lincoln adopted a progressive view on labor and economics. Lincoln built upon this view later in his speech:
“The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This, say its advocates, is free labor – the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all, gives hope to all, and energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all.”
Indeed, Lincoln believed in a just economic system that guaranteed equal opportunity for all—one in which an individual didn’t need to be born into wealth to achieve the American Dream. He advocated for an economic structure that leveled the playing field and dismantled systemic barriers—with slavery being the most significant of his time. Lincoln’s free labor philosophy ultimately served as a prototype for the labor movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Thus, the former president laid the groundwork for reformers, union leaders, and Progressive Era policymakers to build upon his vision of economic fairness and individual dignity.
Laissez-faire misinterpretations
While Lincoln’s words offer strong evidence of his support for an economic outlook that afforded opportunity for all, there are those of the laissez-faire view who often selectively quote and misinterpret his words from the very same speech. Particularly, a part of the speech where he acknowledges that some in the free labor system may not achieve such mobility:
“If any continue through life in the condition of the hired laborer, it is not the fault of the system, but because of either a dependent nature which prefers it, or improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune. I have said this much about the elements of labor generally, as introductory to the consideration of a new phase which that element is in process of assuming.”
Some laissez-faire advocates may interpret this as Lincoln blaming laborers for their own economic stagnation and deeming them undeserving of help. In reality, Lincoln was reinforcing the core principles of free labor’s progressive philosophy.
He is acknowledging that some may choose to remain laborers because they find their work economically rewarding enough to thrive (“a dependent nature which prefers it”).
Lincoln understood that human beings make mistakes (“improvidence, folly”) in their efforts to achieve economic prosperity. This didn’t mean Lincoln supported an unforgiving, punishing system where those who stumbled should be left to suffer. Lincoln was simply acknowledging, even in a truly just system that ensured equal opportunity for all, individuals could still make errors that hindered their own mobility. That is natural—and precisely what makes us human.
Lastly, Lincoln notes that “singular misfortune” could play a role too. This reinforces his progressive vision, where he explicitly acknowledges an inherent inequality in society that may limit personal growth. It is here where Lincoln seeks to reiterate the “free labor” philosophy must ensure those less fortunate (through no fault of their own) can also achieve economic mobility.
Abraham Lincoln advocated for a system that genuinely rewarded hard work—but was neither punishing nor unforgiving. This is precisely what distinguishes “free labor” from unfiltered laissez-faire absolutism.
Modern “Mud-Sill”
Today, “mud-sill” theory is still alive and well—though it has evolved into a new form. In the 21st century, extreme economic inequality, stagnant wages, and shrinking social mobility have tragically become the defining features of the American economy. Neoliberal policies of recent decades—with their emphasis on deregulation, privatization, and corporate power—have hollowed out economic security for millions, especially working-class Americans.
Simultaneously, movements like MAGA have weaponized the anger of those left behind—not by challenging the economic system itself, but by redirecting blame toward cultural “others.” All this, while MAGA leadership pushes budget proposals that double down on the very economic inequalities that fueled its popularity among many in the working class. Thus, the foundational logic of mud-sill remains: that a permanent class of expendable individuals must exist to sustain the wealth and comfort of those above. The names and rhetoric have changed, but the underlying injustice persists.
Indeed, MAGA’s brand of laissez-faire absolutism is the 21st-century successor to the mud-sill theory. Pro-slavery advocates also stoked fear of the “other” to maintain power, convincing poor white Americans that they shared common cause with the elite slaveholding class—when in truth, it was that very class whose interests were against both the enslaved and the white working poor. Today, unlike the pro-slavery elites, MAGA appeals to a multiracial working class—but it now exploits a new fear of “others” to fuel its influence, even as it betrays the very people it claims to represent. As our country once again faces the test of rejecting “mud-sill,” I will leave you with the words of my late father, who warned of mud-sill’s modern form in the shape of laissez-faire absolutism.
“Mudsill is very much present in libertarian-conservative economics. It is a rationalization for devaluing the value of both the skilled and unskilled worker. It is inherent in all the variations of laissez-faire libertarianism, differing only in degree. The term ‘mudsill’ by itself suggests its pernicious nature… By understanding the expression’s foundational roots, we are better able to explain that economic libertarianism is not about liberty or a recipe for free enterprise and opportunity but dependence and oppression.”2
—F.L. Cocozzelli, December 31, 2021
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/mud-sill-speech/
Cocozzelli, F. L. (2022). Commissar Conservatives: How Laissez-faire Libertarianism is Disturbingly Similar to Communism. Progressive Works Publishing, LLC.