It is argued by some that the slaves were better off than both wage earners in the northern industry and......

Question

free black in Africa. Do you agree....? What are your thoughts on this....?

Answer 1

My answer has always been 'so what,' slavery is still slavery and it is a greater evil than the evil of low wages or no wages.In many ways blacks in America are 'wage slaves.' How many Blacks work in Prison Industries?
But since you bring up the wage issue - - - why not ride it out?
This will shock a few. Slaves did not simply break rocks in the hot sun. They held jobs that would be worth big bucks today. Imagine an NFL Player on a Southern Team of the pro-slavery forces had prevailled. His Earnings of say Ten Million a Year go to his Master, now his Master Might Be kind and Give the NFL Player perks & comfort but is he not a Slave> There were Architects, Wheelwrights, Carpenters, Draftsmen, Professional who could Over See Plantation Work Forces, and they were Slaves. There were Slaves who lived Comfortable Lives such as that aforementioned archietct.

As for wage earners in the North and the West (why does Oregon and California which REJECTED Slavery get ignored in these talks?) Yes Wage earners were exploited all across the nation and yes Blacks traded slavery for wage-slavery - - - ask any black who went into coal mining in West Virginia.

And in all of it was racism and that was the greatest evil of all. After the not So Civil War blacks found themselves barred from jobs some of the very jobs they were skilled at...

Peace.....

Answer 2

In todays politically correct world it is impossible to give a real answer to a question like this without being branded a racist.

So i will take a chance anyway.

Slaves were exploited, so where workers in many northern factories, no doubt about that. So on the exploitation scale about the same.

Slaves worked about 80% of there time towords there own sustenance on the average. Larger plantations were different of course where there were 100's

Of course the big difference was the northern industrial worker could quit. The slave could not. Big difference there. Freedom does matter. But of course the northerner had the freedom to watch his children starve to death, something we in the west no longer understand since we have the safety net

their are also many cases of slaves being sent north on barges taking cargo to free states, collecting money there for the cargo, and returning home with it. So it is not as simple as people think.

As to compared to back in Africa. The average slave life expectanacy was about 60+ years, he had medical attention and rarely if ever faced starvation. In Africa life expectency was about 40, no medicine and starvation was common.

I wont say what was better or worse. But in this as in all quesitons, consider the facts. Not just the emotions.

Answer 3

I think the argument is nonsense and can be show to be by using economic reasoning of revealed preference.
If slaves were better off than free blacks in Africa why were there no volunteers in Africa to become slaves. Why did they have to be captured and brought here in chains. Recruiting people in Europe to work in the northern states was easy.
If slaves were better off than northern workers, why did not northern workers go south and seek to work as slaves. Why did slave owners in the south expend the effort to keep people in slavery if they could have obtained the needed labor from free men because they offered them a better life.

Answer 4

Thanks Bearstirringfromcave, for an insightful response. Others are pretty thoughtful, too. Rbenne doesn't have to worry about the dread political correctness as much as someone enquiring about his statistics, especially average age. If, as he says, we don't know that much about Africa in the 19th century (I'll challenge that!), how does he know about average life expectancy across the entire continent? Sounds like a lot to me!

While legal status is a key point, I recall that many former slaves also had a bit to say about brutality. Fed and cared for? That sounds like a familiar justification. I think the physical treatment of slaves classified as objects, or as 3/5 of a person, is as important as their legal status.

I'm mostly the descendant of northern industrial workers, though of a later period, and I get the point about wage slavery, as it was called at the time.

I remember reading books about sharecropping and industrial labor in the same part of my US history courses in college. All God's Dangers was the sharecropping book, and I forget the name of the industrial labor book.

Both situations sucked, but at the end of the day, the Polish steelworker who worked 10 hour shifts six days per week could pass some savings on to his children, and have them educated in a public school, and they could go on to be clerks or managers or something safer, more comfortable, and more profitable than he had.

The industrial worker could hold out hope of the American Dream. Could the slave?

Answer 5

Thats a load of crap.

It is better to be free and dying than enslaved and cared for.

In slavery (especially racially fueled slavery) your humanity is taken away, or its at least tried. What good is food and lodging if youre considered an animal?

Besides, there are huge variations in how people were treated. Some were treated better, some were not.
Typically the ones treated better were for economic reasons, not humanity (ie. dangerous jobs would be done by Irishmen instead of blacks since blacks getting hurt ruined an investment, while and Irishman wasnt bought and paid for, only hired for a few hours.).

Answer 6

No legitimate historian makes that arguement--or ever has. Not that its not out there--but it comes from white supremicists.

Many wage earners in the North during the antebellum era were not well off, granted. But the overwhelming majority of those who were very poor were recent immigrants who had limited skills and initially took low-wage jobs. This was especially true of the Irish. However, they did not have the danger of being sold away from their families, could not be whipped, etc. They did have the help and support of their immigrant communities. Finally, they had hope--and it was justified. Over time as they acquired skills and knowledge of American culture, they were able to move into better jobs and build good lives for themselves.

The case of blacks still in Africa is less clear--we have fewer records. But again, they had their families and freedom--and communities where they had support and mutual help. Matierly, they were certainly no worse off than slaves, who had living conditions that were abysmal and little in the way of personal possessions.

Answer 7

i think of the question better off isn't what you're intending to ask. no person might chosen to be slave. i think of for the income stand element Slaves provided extra to the economic device than loose blacks. loose adult adult males weren't able get jobs, own assets and subsequently maximum in all probability worked as sharecroppers and that would desire to in straight forward terms produce lots paintings.