Prior to the civil war would you rather be a laborer in the North or a slave in the South? Keep in mind that slaves were well fed and always had shelter and clothing.
by 
Anonymous
ANSWERS: 7
-
seriously?
-
I disagree with your assertion. Slaves were *sometimes* well fed, and *usually* had shelter. This was simply good business practice by the slave owners. But some slave owners were not competent and abuse their slaves by accident, some were malicious and abused them on purpose. And slave owners could do things like breaking up families by selling one and not the other. The best off of slaves were probably better than the worst off of labourers - but an average labourer was much beter off than an average slave - and had freedom.
-
Most people that paid money to own a slave did very well to keep their property healthy because they rely on them to do their work to make them money. Laborers in the North had to work in just as bad, or worse conditions (minus the fact that they were free of course,) and got poor compensation and a vast majority of them struggled to stay afloat and just keep themselves and their family fed.
-
Recent archaeological excavations revealed a large slave cemetery in the heart of New York City. From examining the condition of the bones it is clear that northern slave owners treated their slaves as bad or worse than did southern slave owners.
-
Henry Ford was called a trader to his class for paying his workers $5.00 a day. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/ http://www.wvculture.org/hiStory/minewars.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Riot Economic slavery or actual slavery some choice! 16 hour work days on a plantation or 16 hour work days in a carding mill. The workers in the north were slightly better treated that is until you got black lung or cotton lung. All and all I think I'll hang out with Mother Jones +4
-
I am sad to learn that laborers in the north were also mistreated. :( I do know that there were (Yankee) merchants who were involved in the underground to help slaves. I don't know how they treated those who worked for them. :( As far as feeding slaves, they were property--considered to be like farm equipment :( I would imagine they were kept in working order, but having food, shelter and clothing is not freedom (those things were provided to keep them working and procreating so the slave owner could turn a bigger profit). An undernourished slave could become ill, weak or die which would cause a financial loss. They were chattel and losing one would affect the slave owner financially. Laborers would be easily replaced. I would rather be a laborer because at least they were free. Why are you at negative points for this question? I can't + you anymore today. I will specifically check this question first and +5 you.
-
My opinon is off of my family history, the stories I've been told about my grandparents. They werent always fed (were stuck eating what their masters didnt eat, which werent the good parts of the animal) or treated right, forced to have kids with the slave owners (my moms side of the family ) or with eachother and many were beaten. Slaves were only fed so they could work, they had shelter so they didnt run, and didnt have any freedom or a fair chance to receive an education. The laborers in the North had freedom, even though many of them may have been homeless or mistreated and were in poor conditions. Atleast being a laborer in the North I feel like they may have been able move up in life (if they got lucky) and were dicriminated in the same manner...both were pretty bad though.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC