Were 18th century slaves much worse off than 'free' poor people?

Question

They obviously didn't have their liberty, so were much worse off in that respect, but otherwise wasn't that a time when the poor, slave or freeman, had hard, short and brutal lives.

Answer 1

<>Yes, life was tough for everyone in those days. And, while there were many 'humane' slave-owners, some were very brutal with their chattel. Few were ever educated, owned land, or achieved any kind of independence. However, the average person was not much better off, often having to subsist on poor food and substandard housing, while some slaves fared better.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/18frm.htm
http://www.history.org/Almanack/people/african/aaintro.cfm

Answer 2

You’ve already identified the significant important factor – liberty. The basic concept of slavery is the ownership of and total control over other human beings, without their consent. From a basic psychological viewpoint that is a difficult concept to accept when it is applied to one’s self. For instance, white people in the US, no matter how poor, overworked and/or starving, were not volunteering to become slaves. Slaves were classified as property, could be sold or bequeathed, couldn’t unilaterally decide to go elsewhere and try something new and their children suffered the same fate. There are always a few people who will trade liberty for food and shelter – e.g., prison versus the streets -- but most people want freedom and at least the opportunity to attempt to pursue their own ideas re the destinies of themselves and their descendants, no matter how illusory those ideas may be.

Answer 3

The poor of the 18th century were far better off than the slaves of the same period. A free man had choice, could learn a trade and get paid for work done. Life for everyone in the 18th century was extremly hard. I have read about a rope making yard at Portsmouth where 18th century rope maker workers were working 18 hours a day on low pay with hardly ever a break or a holiday, except perhaps one day off at Christmas.

The best option for a man of the 18th century was seriously to either join the Army or Navy. Life onboard a Royal Navy ship in the 18th century was very good when compared to life ashore. The chances of actually being in a naval engagement were as low as 1%. Yeah, I know, that sounds unreal, but it is true.

Life in the army was also much better than life as a civilian. Look at it like this; the chances of being in a war zone were quite low and your chances of survival were pretty good. War then was nothing like the horror faced today - it mostly amounted to a day or two in the field facing the opposing force and firing single shot muskets. Yeah you could be horribly wounded and die but mostly you survived.

Meanwhile back here in London in the 18th century if you were poor life was pure hell. Take a look at some of the period cartoons and paintings available to view on the Internet. You could also be hanged or transported for the most ordinary of crimes.

Following the abolition of slavery the next move was for the emancipation of the slaves - their total freedom. This actually came about because the slaves of Jamaica rose up in revolt in the 1830s. The British Army was sent to Jamaica to put down the uprising. It did this but soldiers returning to UK afterwards told of the horrific conditions of the slaves. Many of these soldiers joined with the emancipation movement and pushed for total freedom of the slaves. That's how it was. We then rushed headlong into the 19th century proper and worked ourselves to death by age 50.

It just gets better.

Answer 4

18th century: 1700s. Every household, slave or poor but free man, grew some kind of food for sustenance and livestock at the whim of the elements, still in the last little ice age. I tend to think that slaves as chattel might have been better cared for than a free man on his own.

I don't know if it's a matter of good genes or what but the set of ancestors I got tended to live long lives, into 90s not uncommon. The trick was apparently to survive childhood.

Answer 5

This isn't really an answer, but just another point to consider - would it have made sense for slavemasters to allow their slaves, and therefore their investment, to starve? They would at least have to feed their property. The poor free would have relied on church or government handouts, or crime - and at least prisoners are fed. Of course, I'm applying common business sense to people who saw slaves as sub-human, so the reasoning is flawed.
I wish I could find the source which also stated that freed slaves rebelled. In some, very, very few cases, being a slave was a better option than being free. In those cases, freedom just meant the freedom to die at a much earlier age from more interesting causes. It's hard, and dangerous, to generalise.

Answer 6

The life of a slave was dreadful and nothing can excuse the people who were involved in this terrible trade. However, the end of slavery, from what I have read, did not necessarily improve the lot of the new 'freemen'. Many slave owners in the southern states of America were not prepared to pay them to work so they were cast off to fend for themselves. This resulted in tragic stories of ex slaves walking from state to state in an effort to find work. Many starved or died from exhaustion. Some things never change it seems. The US politicians clearly had not looked ahead at the possible consequences so no safeguards as to the welfare of the freed slaves were put in place.

Answer 7

in most cases 18 century slaves lived a life of socialist heaven- food, housing and medical care provided for "free", (valuable property, after all) and one gets told what to do. The slave owner was the "one party system" or "party commissar"- above the law.
The poor factory workers were worse off- in most cases they had only a day wage- sickness or injury meant no food that day. OTOH they could always hope for better times- if they chose the risky road to the "west".

If you ask me, I'd rather be hungry and free.

Answer 8

Good point, but are you sure that they had Hard, short and brutal lives? From which perspective?

Slavery brought shorter and more miserable lives. We are talking about worst tortures created by human mind. We are talking about merchandise traded and not living being. problem is when half world accept the fact that trade humans were something shameful, mostly saw a really profitable market and did not care about human nature.

Shorter, hard and brutal life in your own country is one thing. fight to survive is one thing...... but completely different is work to provide sustain to another person. Have a shorter life, other's life and not its own. Its hard survive but most terrible keep eyes open just to feed hope to come back.

Physical limitations are bearable. Live in misery since beginning is easy once you have no comparisons.... but mental torture, loose reason to live is another really different.

Why have a longer and non-productive live? Why live 90 years and arrive at the end of you life alone or demented or without not even get close to dreams created by a midia?

Shorter and better life is something that nobody thinks about. Hard life is not a problem, but life without purpose and stressful work leads to empty life.

I would take hard and short.
due it, i do not agree about brutal lives.

Answer 9

Of course 18th century slaves were much worse off than the free poor people!!!!

Answer 10

Those slaves were regarded as goods rather than human beings and as such had no rights. The free poor people can still voice their opinions, and demand for their rights.
Being forcibly removed from your homeland in chains, packed like sardines in ships across the ocean and then subjected to perpetual exploitation and degradation is incomparable.