I thought it was very interesting how this essay compared wage slavery with Black slavery. It was very ironic that there was a lot of support for the idea that arguments against wage slavery actually supported the pro-slavery argument. For example, on page 325, John Finch states that black slaves in the South actually enjoy more leisure time than free, wage laborers in the North. In essence, historians who would agree with Finch would argue that the harshness of wage slavery made it all the more apparent that black slavery was a comfortable living and that it was actually preferable to being a free wage laborer in the North. Southerners who were proponents of slavery could have easily pointed to the whining wage laborers in the North and could have explained that the need to abolish industry is more pressing than the need to abolish slavery, because the 'wage slaves' of an industrial society, (though they are technically free), actually suffer harsher lives and restrictions than the supposedly 'oppressed' black slaves in the South.
I found Roediger's essay both very interesting and surprising. He notes that white working class men during the 1820s-40s increasingly invoked the prospect of "white slavery" (or "wage slavery") in their efforts to gain better working conditions from their wealthy employers. Yet, they were typically not at all supportive of anti-slavery arguments, and even went out of their way to argue that they were different from and better than black slaves. Still, the fact that factory workers feared becoming "White Slaves" reflects just how bad factory life must have been in that time. The idea that struck me the most about the article, however, was the irony that some, if not many, of the factory workers who complained about how they were treated actually argued for black slavery in the South. Even if that wasn't their intent, their rhetoric gave ammunition to defenders of slavery by suggesting that black slaves were actually better off than factory workers since they worked "only half the number of hours required by northern employers", and "...enjoy more leisure time and liberty." Lastly, this essay made me wonder whether wage slavery and the factory worker's complaining had an effect on the abolition of black slavery in the South. Could it have contributed to prolonging the abolition of slavery throughout the nation by informing people in the North that slaves may not have been treated that bad after all?
Roediger discusses the uses of phrases like “white slavery” and “wage slavery” in comparison to black slavery. Unlike some historians or citizens during the antebellum era, I believe that the comparison between white and black slavery was legitimate. Conditions in the North were extremely oppressive, from the long hours to the harsh management. For example, single women working in textile factories were sometimes referred to as slaves. Conditions were poor and the wages that people earned were extremely small. However, pro-slavery advocates in the South disagreed, arguing that slavery was actually preferable to the freemen’s conditions. They said that slaves were taken care of by their masters. In actuality, slavemasters were merely afraid of the job competition that would occur if the slavery was abolished. They believed that black slavery was necessary to preserve the whites’ independence. I understand how slavery could be considered economically advantageous, but it does not have to be based off of racial discrimination. Even though some critics believed that the protests were paranoid, in the end they did have some truth to them. Critics also believed that the masters in the North did not actually function as slavemasters. However, one cannot compare the North and the South too literally. Yes, the bosses in the North did not whip their employees, but they failed to create comfortable and reasonable working conditions. Overall, I support the views that the northerners took in terms of white and wage slavery.
I found the comparison of white "wage slaves" in the north to black slaves in the south to be very fascinating comparison. It seems that, although the north had abolished slavery for the most part, northern merchants viewed themselves as having an economic disadvantage compared to the south because of their lack of slaves. Northern workers felt that they simply could not compete with the free labor that slavery provided. On page 321, the author explains that many northerners believed that the proposed 10 hour labor system could in no way match the production of the slave labor of the south. What I also found interesting about Roediger's was the way it explained how supposedly "free" northern workers were treated in the workplace. On page 322 the author describes the "blacklisting and whipping of workers in some small mills." The fact that a cruel and degrading punishment that had been reserved for slaves was being used on "free" workers seemed to confirm that "white slavery" was something more and more managers were using in the north.
I can safely say that this Roediger essay is one of the most entertaining pieces of writing I have ever read for a history class. We've encountered several paradoxes pertaining to the Jacksonian presidency in class already, but this comparison between "white slavery" and chattel slavery is nothing short of hilarious. Even though such ideologies as described by Roediger probably withered and died over a century ago, I lose faith in the human race just imagining that such beliefs existed a couple generations ago. How could the wage laborers of the North feel that they , and there employers, were the "real" slaves of the capitalist system? How could they honestly accuse free-blacks and abolitionists as, "... villains in a loose plot to enslave white workers." It seems to me in that bubble of ignorance, everybody considered themselves a slave, and the only who weren't were the blacks, who had it "easy." On page 325, "The proslavery affinities of those who denounced white slavery..." says it all. Now I wouldn't attempt to underscore the poor conditions of the working class in the North, but again, white workers supporting the very archetype of their fears is just mind-boggling.
I also noticed the relevance of Roediger's essay on page 320, when he refers to the "paranoid" style of antebellum politics. Based on what we've learned about this era, the Americans of the age felt that their liberty was in constant mortal peril. But are we so different in this day and age? I think one would be hard-pressed arguing that we don't live in an age where politics are based on paranoia, considering our actions at home and abroad pertaining to the war on terror and other major issues. I guess if there's one thing that's becoming more and more clear, it's that paranoia is an American tradition.
The Roedinger essay exposed a facet of the industrial revolution I had never before considered but found disconcerting for the ignorance and callousness of the northern white. The Industrial Era was brutal to the common man, woman, and child; dangerous conditions and low pay plagued the “white slave” and made living impoverished and difficult. But I could not reconcile this position with the argument put forth by these working Americans that their working conditions placed them within the same situation as that of slaves with the same lack of personal freedom. The premise of their argument is based on their factory jobs but neglects to recognize that they have the freedom to chose where they work, where they live, to never be bought and sold, separated from their family, beaten, killed or have access to justice or the voting polls. These “white slaves” elected to work in the factories. Such choices were not granted to the black slave. But this fact seems to be marginalized in an argument to bolster a position arrived at to justify their dissatisfaction. They took for granted the freedoms that they had thereby discounting these liberties to such a degree that they make the life of a black slave acceptable. The irony is that Americans hold out freedom to be the very underpinning of society and have always been quick to fight for it: from Britain, from Mexico (They invited us in and we kicked them out), from “the man”, the list is endless. Freedom, liberty, they are intangible and they are worth everything; even today we can see countries where the citizens would give anything to have the rights that we have. The citizens of America in the 1800’s were so passionate about how important being a free man was, and yet they would trade this right if they had a master who “cared for their wellbeing”. That is what the argument was; “white” slavery and black slavery were the same in every respect, except that blacks had a master who wanted them alive, and whites were replaceable and over worked. But Northerners forgot to include freedom into their equation, something that can’t be bought, but must be fought for. Black slaves would die, and did die, for the chance to be their own master in life, even if, in the process, they would have a “master” as their employer.
The Roedinger essay gives a different perspective of the time than other pieces we have read. It was interesting to me how hard working but largely poor white men wanted to almost be considered slaves. For example at the end of the essay the author quotes John Finch and says, "The laborer at wages has all the disadvantages of freedom and none of its blessings, while the slave, if denied the blessings, is freed from disadvantages." This quote really stood out to me because it is a completely different characterization of slavery. This is basically saying that it is better to be a slave than a free white man. I think that this shows the true beliefs of the time. Because people seem to be so cavalier about slavery and are discussing willingly entering into slavery, it shows that people during this time did not regard slavery as too severe. To the people of this time slavery was the norm and as a part of the status quo rich, white, male property owners owned slaves.
i found that the topic presented by Roedinger's essay was a very interesting one. towards the end of the essay the point is made clear in the following passage which really stood out to me; "The most common comparison, repeated by Walsh and several others, was that the 'poor negro' was a 'farm horse' with one master who would protect him when ho could 'toil no more' while the 'poor white man' was a 'horse in a livery stable' hired to many masters and therefore overworked by all and without protection when infirmed." this shows that as a paid, white slave the living situation is possibly less favorable than that of the negro slave which would have never occurred to me. Before i read this essay i had no idea that these paid slaves even existed, and upon learning of them i would have never imagined there quality of life to be comparable to that of the negro slaves since there's was so poor.
I found it interesting that wage workers of the time period that Roediger describes disapproved of wage labor going as far as calling themselves white slaves. I am accustom to hearing the phrase “my boss is a slave-driver”, but never considered it any more than comical criticism. The workers then, unlike now, saw the effects of slavery in the south and feared their own loss of liberty and freedom at the hands of their bosses. As the article states, the “highly visible movement to abolish slavery evoked reexamination of the line between slavery and freedom”(320). The common workingman began to question whether the “equations between race and fitness for liberty were not eternal truths but objects of political debate”(320). If so they feared that their own liberty and freedom as whites could be questioned. Northerners knew that if they did not work longer and harder their production “[would never] match the production of Southern slave labor”(321). I believe that Northern white workers’ skepticism came from their inability to recognize employed labor as necessary and normal, as it is nearly impossible for everyone to be self-employed especially as industrialization and mass production increases. As the article describes, “American workers have historically lacked the class consciousness said to have existed elsewhere in the industrializing world”(320). I therefore believe that the titles Northerners were giving themselves such as white slave and wage slave were excessive especially knowing the fact that hired labor in the North was not nearly as strenuous as slave labor in the south.
I found that Roedinger's essay shed light an on a very interesting aspect of slavery during a time of great change for America. The author describes how though the North had wished for the freedom of slaves. They at the same time could not compete with the south in productivity (page 321). Due to the south's policy of slavery, merchants and plantation owners could nearly triple their productivity as compared to that of northern business owners. The North was limited to a 10 hour labor system, which they found to be extremely constricting to their business. At the same time, white workers in factories believed that they were being treated like slaves themselves. They argued that just because they are white does not mean that they should not be overlooked in the slave talks; it was called the issue of "factory slavery" (page 322). This essay said some serious light on the slavery topic for me because I had never even known that there were discussions of "white slavery."
I found the Roediger essay interesting when he brought up the comparison between free US labor with British “slaves” and black slaves and how the 10 hour system, that became so prominent in the US, could not function because they had to compete with Britain. The disgruntled and unhappy opinion of the British system is brought out through the working man’s advocate saying, “Are we to slave 13 or 14 hours a day…because the Manchester spinner or the Birmingham blacksmith so slaves?” (321). It is interesting to see the tension between the two nations as one worked to keep up with an almost overachieving other. As Americans learned of British resistance, they felt that if the British workers got their way and worked less hours, why should they work as hard and as long? It is interesting to note that so much attention was paid to how the other country was working is labor class. If one of the country had simply kept a provincial mindset and focused on it’s own work and it probably would have collapsed due to the severity of the labor. A comparison had to be made to protect the rights of the people.
In reading Roediger's take on the exploitation of labor in the north, I found it interesting how he compellingly compared this to the exploitation of blacks in the south. While whites in the north are free to live as they please, their working conditions are so poor, and they work for so long, that they are basically slaves to the system. At the end of the article, I found it most interesting how Roediger partially claimed that the life of a black slave in the south was more likely to be easier and better than a white wage laborer in the north. It seems contradictory to the morally deplorable nature of slavery; however, I am sure that some well-treated black slaves had an easier life than did the wage laborers in the north. The rhetoric of the wage laborers who felt oppressed, claiming that they were under a system of "white slavery" (320), was extremely compelling, for it showed the destitute nature of pure capitalistic greed. Without powerful labor unions, and without federal labor laws, these workers, especially those working for large companies, felt severely oppressed by their "masters" (323), as many of them put it. Lastly, I would comment that although I think some historians go too far in saying that slaves in the south had it easier than "slaves" in the north, it is an important parallel to draw, for in the century to come, it was a long and arduous battle for laborers to finally obtain any substantive protection from their powerful employers.
I thought it was very interesting how this essay compared wage slavery with Black slavery. It was very ironic that there was a lot of support for the idea that arguments against wage slavery actually supported the pro-slavery argument. For example, on page 325, John Finch states that black slaves in the South actually enjoy more leisure time than free, wage laborers in the North. In essence, historians who would agree with Finch would argue that the harshness of wage slavery made it all the more apparent that black slavery was a comfortable living and that it was actually preferable to being a free wage laborer in the North. Southerners who were proponents of slavery could have easily pointed to the whining wage laborers in the North and could have explained that the need to abolish industry is more pressing than the need to abolish slavery, because the 'wage slaves' of an industrial society, (though they are technically free), actually suffer harsher lives and restrictions than the supposedly 'oppressed' black slaves in the South.
ReplyDeleteI found Roediger's essay both very interesting and surprising. He notes that white working class men during the 1820s-40s increasingly invoked the prospect of "white slavery" (or "wage slavery") in their efforts to gain better working conditions from their wealthy employers. Yet, they were typically not at all supportive of anti-slavery arguments, and even went out of their way to argue that they were different from and better than black slaves. Still, the fact that factory workers feared becoming "White Slaves" reflects just how bad factory life must have been in that time. The idea that struck me the most about the article, however, was the irony that some, if not many, of the factory workers who complained about how they were treated actually argued for black slavery in the South. Even if that wasn't their intent, their rhetoric gave ammunition to defenders of slavery by suggesting that black slaves were actually better off than factory workers since they worked "only half the number of hours required by northern employers", and "...enjoy more leisure time and liberty." Lastly, this essay made me wonder whether wage slavery and the factory worker's complaining had an effect on the abolition of black slavery in the South. Could it have contributed to prolonging the abolition of slavery throughout the nation by informing people in the North that slaves may not have been treated that bad after all?
ReplyDeleteRoediger discusses the uses of phrases like “white slavery” and “wage slavery” in comparison to black slavery. Unlike some historians or citizens during the antebellum era, I believe that the comparison between white and black slavery was legitimate. Conditions in the North were extremely oppressive, from the long hours to the harsh management. For example, single women working in textile factories were sometimes referred to as slaves. Conditions were poor and the wages that people earned were extremely small. However, pro-slavery advocates in the South disagreed, arguing that slavery was actually preferable to the freemen’s conditions. They said that slaves were taken care of by their masters. In actuality, slavemasters were merely afraid of the job competition that would occur if the slavery was abolished. They believed that black slavery was necessary to preserve the whites’ independence. I understand how slavery could be considered economically advantageous, but it does not have to be based off of racial discrimination. Even though some critics believed that the protests were paranoid, in the end they did have some truth to them. Critics also believed that the masters in the North did not actually function as slavemasters. However, one cannot compare the North and the South too literally. Yes, the bosses in the North did not whip their employees, but they failed to create comfortable and reasonable working conditions. Overall, I support the views that the northerners took in terms of white and wage slavery.
ReplyDeleteI found the comparison of white "wage slaves" in the north to black slaves in the south to be very fascinating comparison. It seems that, although the north had abolished slavery for the most part, northern merchants viewed themselves as having an economic disadvantage compared to the south because of their lack of slaves. Northern workers felt that they simply could not compete with the free labor that slavery provided. On page 321, the author explains that many northerners believed that the proposed 10 hour labor system could in no way match the production of the slave labor of the south. What I also found interesting about Roediger's was the way it explained how supposedly "free" northern workers were treated in the workplace. On page 322 the author describes the "blacklisting and whipping of workers in some small mills." The fact that a cruel and degrading punishment that had been reserved for slaves was being used on "free" workers seemed to confirm that "white slavery" was something more and more managers were using in the north.
ReplyDeleteI can safely say that this Roediger essay is one of the most entertaining pieces of writing I have ever read for a history class. We've encountered several paradoxes pertaining to the Jacksonian presidency in class already, but this comparison between "white slavery" and chattel slavery is nothing short of hilarious. Even though such ideologies as described by Roediger probably withered and died over a century ago, I lose faith in the human race just imagining that such beliefs existed a couple generations ago. How could the wage laborers of the North feel that they , and there employers, were the "real" slaves of the capitalist system? How could they honestly accuse free-blacks and abolitionists as, "... villains in a loose plot to enslave white workers." It seems to me in that bubble of ignorance, everybody considered themselves a slave, and the only who weren't were the blacks, who had it "easy." On page 325, "The proslavery affinities of those who denounced white slavery..." says it all. Now I wouldn't attempt to underscore the poor conditions of the working class in the North, but again, white workers supporting the very archetype of their fears is just mind-boggling.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed the relevance of Roediger's essay on page 320, when he refers to the "paranoid" style of antebellum politics. Based on what we've learned about this era, the Americans of the age felt that their liberty was in constant mortal peril. But are we so different in this day and age? I think one would be hard-pressed arguing that we don't live in an age where politics are based on paranoia, considering our actions at home and abroad pertaining to the war on terror and other major issues. I guess if there's one thing that's becoming more and more clear, it's that paranoia is an American tradition.
The Roedinger essay exposed a facet of the industrial revolution I had never before considered but found disconcerting for the ignorance and callousness of the northern white. The Industrial Era was brutal to the common man, woman, and child; dangerous conditions and low pay plagued the “white slave” and made living impoverished and difficult. But I could not reconcile this position with the argument put forth by these working Americans that their working conditions placed them within the same situation as that of slaves with the same lack of personal freedom. The premise of their argument is based on their factory jobs but neglects to recognize that they have the freedom to chose where they work, where they live, to never be bought and sold, separated from their family, beaten, killed or have access to justice or the voting polls. These “white slaves” elected to work in the factories. Such choices were not granted to the black slave. But this fact seems to be marginalized in an argument to bolster a position arrived at to justify their dissatisfaction. They took for granted the freedoms that they had thereby discounting these liberties to such a degree that they make the life of a black slave acceptable. The irony is that Americans hold out freedom to be the very underpinning of society and have always been quick to fight for it: from Britain, from Mexico (They invited us in and we kicked them out), from “the man”, the list is endless. Freedom, liberty, they are intangible and they are worth everything; even today we can see countries where the citizens would give anything to have the rights that we have. The citizens of America in the 1800’s were so passionate about how important being a free man was, and yet they would trade this right if they had a master who “cared for their wellbeing”. That is what the argument was; “white” slavery and black slavery were the same in every respect, except that blacks had a master who wanted them alive, and whites were replaceable and over worked. But Northerners forgot to include freedom into their equation, something that can’t be bought, but must be fought for. Black slaves would die, and did die, for the chance to be their own master in life, even if, in the process, they would have a “master” as their employer.
ReplyDeleteThe Roedinger essay gives a different perspective of the time than other pieces we have read. It was interesting to me how hard working but largely poor white men wanted to almost be considered slaves. For example at the end of the essay the author quotes John Finch and says, "The laborer at wages has all the disadvantages of freedom and none of its blessings, while the slave, if denied the blessings, is freed from disadvantages." This quote really stood out to me because it is a completely different characterization of slavery. This is basically saying that it is better to be a slave than a free white man. I think that this shows the true beliefs of the time. Because people seem to be so cavalier about slavery and are discussing willingly entering into slavery, it shows that people during this time did not regard slavery as too severe. To the people of this time slavery was the norm and as a part of the status quo rich, white, male property owners owned slaves.
ReplyDeletei found that the topic presented by Roedinger's essay was a very interesting one. towards the end of the essay the point is made clear in the following passage which really stood out to me; "The most common comparison, repeated by Walsh and several others, was that the 'poor negro' was a 'farm horse' with one master who would protect him when ho could 'toil no more' while the 'poor white man' was a 'horse in a livery stable' hired to many masters and therefore overworked by all and without protection when infirmed." this shows that as a paid, white slave the living situation is possibly less favorable than that of the negro slave which would have never occurred to me. Before i read this essay i had no idea that these paid slaves even existed, and upon learning of them i would have never imagined there quality of life to be comparable to that of the negro slaves since there's was so poor.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that wage workers of the time period that Roediger describes disapproved of wage labor going as far as calling themselves white slaves. I am accustom to hearing the phrase “my boss is a slave-driver”, but never considered it any more than comical criticism. The workers then, unlike now, saw the effects of slavery in the south and feared their own loss of liberty and freedom at the hands of their bosses. As the article states, the “highly visible movement to abolish slavery evoked reexamination of the line between slavery and freedom”(320). The common workingman began to question whether the “equations between race and fitness for liberty were not eternal truths but objects of political debate”(320). If so they feared that their own liberty and freedom as whites could be questioned. Northerners knew that if they did not work longer and harder their production “[would never] match the production of Southern slave labor”(321). I believe that Northern white workers’ skepticism came from their inability to recognize employed labor as necessary and normal, as it is nearly impossible for everyone to be self-employed especially as industrialization and mass production increases. As the article describes, “American workers have historically lacked the class consciousness said to have existed elsewhere in the industrializing world”(320). I therefore believe that the titles Northerners were giving themselves such as white slave and wage slave were excessive especially knowing the fact that hired labor in the North was not nearly as strenuous as slave labor in the south.
ReplyDeleteI found that Roedinger's essay shed light an on a very interesting aspect of slavery during a time of great change for America. The author describes how though the North had wished for the freedom of slaves. They at the same time could not compete with the south in productivity (page 321). Due to the south's policy of slavery, merchants and plantation owners could nearly triple their productivity as compared to that of northern business owners. The North was limited to a 10 hour labor system, which they found to be extremely constricting to their business. At the same time, white workers in factories believed that they were being treated like slaves themselves. They argued that just because they are white does not mean that they should not be overlooked in the slave talks; it was called the issue of "factory slavery" (page 322). This essay said some serious light on the slavery topic for me because I had never even known that there were discussions of "white slavery."
ReplyDeleteI found the Roediger essay interesting when he brought up the comparison between free US labor with British “slaves” and black slaves and how the 10 hour system, that became so prominent in the US, could not function because they had to compete with Britain. The disgruntled and unhappy opinion of the British system is brought out through the working man’s advocate saying, “Are we to slave 13 or 14 hours a day…because the Manchester spinner or the Birmingham blacksmith so slaves?” (321). It is interesting to see the tension between the two nations as one worked to keep up with an almost overachieving other. As Americans learned of British resistance, they felt that if the British workers got their way and worked less hours, why should they work as hard and as long? It is interesting to note that so much attention was paid to how the other country was working is labor class. If one of the country had simply kept a provincial mindset and focused on it’s own work and it probably would have collapsed due to the severity of the labor. A comparison had to be made to protect the rights of the people.
ReplyDeleteIn reading Roediger's take on the exploitation of labor in the north, I found it interesting how he compellingly compared this to the exploitation of blacks in the south. While whites in the north are free to live as they please, their working conditions are so poor, and they work for so long, that they are basically slaves to the system. At the end of the article, I found it most interesting how Roediger partially claimed that the life of a black slave in the south was more likely to be easier and better than a white wage laborer in the north. It seems contradictory to the morally deplorable nature of slavery; however, I am sure that some well-treated black slaves had an easier life than did the wage laborers in the north. The rhetoric of the wage laborers who felt oppressed, claiming that they were under a system of "white slavery" (320), was extremely compelling, for it showed the destitute nature of pure capitalistic greed. Without powerful labor unions, and without federal labor laws, these workers, especially those working for large companies, felt severely oppressed by their "masters" (323), as many of them put it. Lastly, I would comment that although I think some historians go too far in saying that slaves in the south had it easier than "slaves" in the north, it is an important parallel to draw, for in the century to come, it was a long and arduous battle for laborers to finally obtain any substantive protection from their powerful employers.
ReplyDelete