Slave Labor vs. Factory Labor

[matthew mckeon]

I do not understand the purpose or point of this thread. Are you saying the North was more moral than the South in this situation therefore everything was fine?

I asked you in another thread to show how slaves were profitable in the North, I saw no reply. The answer is they were not. That is the only reason slavery did not exist in the North.

That is why there were abused factory workers in the North and abused slaves in the South. If you want to say one was abused more than the other, I'm not sure what the point of it is knowing that slaves were unprofitable in the North.[/QUOTE

The takeaway for me is that "there were abused factory workers in the North and abused slaves in the South" therefore there they are equivalent is a false statement. Its a particular type of lie, with a very long pedigree, designed to excuse slavery.

Slaves were not any less profitable in Massachusetts in 1779 then a year later when the courts ruled that the practice of slavery itself was unconstitutional. Nothing had changed, except peoples' understanding of freedom and humanity. Which didn't happen because of the industrial revolution or immigrants.

If you want to say is was easy to abolish slavery because it was a small part of the economy, I would agree.

As far as the point of this thread, the other thread was getting derailed about the slave labor vs. factory labor debate, which was irrelevant to the discussion of why the northern states abolished slavery, since they didn't have factories when they were abolishing slavery.

 

[Old_Glory]

The takeaway for me is that "there were abused factory workers in the North and abused slaves in the South" therefore there they are equivalent is a false statement. Its a particular type of lie, with a very long pedigree, designed to excuse slavery.

Slaves were not any less profitable in Massachusetts in 1779 then a year later when the courts ruled that the practice of slavery itself was unconstitutional. Nothing had changed, except peoples' understanding of freedom and humanity. Which didn't happen because of the industrial revolution or immigrants.

I never said they were equivalent, that is why I questioned this thread. They are two completely different things that are unrelated.

It seems the two are being compared here to make a statement about the moral superiority of the North. I am adding that it is an irrelevant point to compare the morality of the two regarding labor since the slaves were not profitable in the North. Massachusetts banned them because they were a societal nuisance with no economic value.

 

[MattL]

I never said they were equivalent, that is why I questioned this thread. They are two completely different things that are unrelated.

It seems the two are being compared here to make a statement about the moral superiority of the North. I am adding that it is an irrelevant point to compare the morality of the two regarding labor since the slaves were not profitable in the North. Massachusetts banned them because they were a societal nuisance with no economic value.

Well someone in the "Why did slavery decline in the North?" did in fact bring this up... here's the quote in case you missed it:

Eric Foner : Republicans believed that a man "remained all his life dependent on wages for his livelihood appeared almost as unfree as the southern slave"

Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War

The issue of social mobility is the primary justification Antebellum Republicans used to present a moral superiority of the free labor north vs the slave labor south. Unfortunately, for many free laborers, the prospect of social and economic advancement was often not present. Furthermore, the income inequality and harsh working conditions was frequently such that free laborers did not fare much better than slave laborers.

There were multiple back and forth from both sides of the argument. So yes "slave labor vs factory labor" is a valid topic that apparently at least some people on both sides of the argument wanted to pursue... and as you can see in the historical of comments in the thread you are wrong that these are simply compared to make a statement about moral superiority.

Beyond that, what do morals have to do with it... The title simply says one vs the other. An objective evaluation of working conditions, quality of life, freedoms, etc certainly can be done without injecting personal opinions of morality.

 

[Allie]

Although I believe that freedom, an intangible, is valuable enough to offset almost anything, which makes factory worker the clear winner, I think this thread isn't being accurate in its depictions of factory life in the 1850s and 60s. Everyone seems to be just assuming it's a certain way without having done any research. For example, the casual statement that factory workers' children were given a free education. Um... Yeah that didn't happen to the children of workers who were children themselves, who were housed in factory housing, and only allowed social contact under strict rules. Being a mill girl was very little better than being a slave, as far as most tangibles were concerned. In some cases they were almost literally slaves, in that if they ran away the police would go after them and hand them back to the factory owners. The main difference being that a minor child "owned" by a factory would eventually grow up and become free, while a negro slave never would. In later years, owners would hire Pinkertons to literally mow down striking workers with guns.

I realize I'm talking off the top of my head here, but there are multiple primary sources about the conditions in Northern factories, and I think we need to see some to evaluate the question in any meaningful way.

 

[1SGDan]

"I asked you in another thread to show how slaves were profitable in the North, I saw no reply. The answer is they were not. That is the only reason slavery did not exist in the North."

This ignores the fact that many people in the north who had no connection to the profitability of slavery found the practice abhorrent from the very beginning. This dislike gradually found its way into the political sphere as the number of slavery haters grew. It was democracy at work in its finest sense.

 

[Allie]

"I asked you in another thread to show how slaves were profitable in the North, I saw no reply. The answer is they were not. That is the only reason slavery did not exist in the North."

This ignores the fact that many people in the north who had no connection to the profitability of slavery found the practice abhorrent from the very beginning. This dislike gradually found its way into the political sphere as the number of slavery haters grew. It was democracy at work in its finest sense.

The thing is, if you read writings by Southerners, many of them state that they found slavery abhorrent - but did it anyway, for economic reasons. People in the North lacked the same motivations to justify their behavior.

 

[Suzanne A]

That time line for factory workers is too general in nature and it leaps over time, perhaps by half a century or more. The fact of life in the early 19th century was if you were not rich, you had to work and it was going to be manual labor except in rare instances because of the nature of the prevailing economy. Laws required whites and free Blacks to be indentured to learn a trade after age 12 because there not free public schools available yet except in some churches, such as the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches. If they had money, this could be avoided by enrollment in a private school or they could be demonstrably employed in the family business to escape the indenture requirement (speaking specifically of New York State and England, but other states were similar, the requirement was similar to our present laws keeping children in school to a certain age or grade).

Unions arose after slavery, after the Civil War. Some factories in thst period were not "sweat shops", New England textile mills hired young women who likely could read and write, housed them in dormatories and regulated their conduct. Hours were long, pay was low, but we were emerging from what was almost a barter economy at the family farm level outside of urban areas. Young unmarried women took this step for a while to provide money for the families they were raised in. After the Civil War, immigrants began to take those jobs. In farm areas, people earned their keep by laboring on their family farm, then moved on to find land of their own farther west when they came of age. Often in these land offerings, there was a requirement of citizenship which excluded Blacks and Native Americans. The economy in this country was 80% agrarian by the end of the 19th century, so any idea that slaves could just "get a job" if freed is misguided. Thus those who wished to abolish slavery proposed land offering to freed slaves (undone by the failure of Reconstruction) or the imaginary "repatriation" to Africa. There was no happy solution as it turned out.

Urban "sweat shops" in New York City originally referred to garment workers crowded into small apartments doing piece work that was distributed to them by their supervisors employed by their employer. It was hard work in a cut-throat business, but it did employ women who had little opportunity to earn at that time except as domestic servants. The city garment factory arose for the most part after the Civil War and the famous Triangle Shirtwaist Fire which killed a large number of young female employees because they were locked in and couldn't get out of the blazing building occurred in 1911. Reaction to the fire caused many reforms in legislated working conditions and fueled the Union movement, led by immigrants who had come to New York toward the end of the 19th Century.

Re slavery, whoever thought that a slave woman who was sold could "bring" her children with her is missing the point of slavery. Those "children" were assets worth money at the slave market and would be themselves sold and the family broken apart. Slavery recognized no family ties, not marriage, not parentage, not siblings. Think of the slaves as pets or cattle, no problem selling any of them off to whatever conditions, no matter how far away. People today do not understand that female slaves were sex slaves at the whim of their master, which explains the 26% Caucasian DNA in today's Black population with roots in slavery all those. "Mulattoes" in the censuses. Evidently until recent years, no educator wanted to stand up in front of a room full of students to paint this picture. From a woman's point of vew, I would rather starve than have to endure that or have to see my daughter endure that. If you listen to music of slavery, a many songs are prayers for death and deliverance to Heaven.

Also the expression "slaves selling themselves"? Who got the money? This is new to me, I would love to see examples. Slaves who were family members of free Blacks were often purchased by their free Black kin to protect them from sale to outsiders by their master, this was the usual situation for free Blacks who were slave owners (but not all of them). And slaves sometimes were capable of working outside of their owner's home to purchase their freedom, this with their owner's consent of course.

There is no comparison between slavery and free factory labor whatsoever, except that injustice and abuse could occur in both. But personal freedom made all the difference.

 

[1SGDan]

The thing is, if you read writings by Southerners, many of them state that they found slavery abhorrent - but did it anyway, for economic reasons. People in the North lacked the same motivations to justify their behavior.

But again many in the north never started this behavior so they did not have to justify it. As their numbers grew so did their political influence. Eventually they gained enough power to abolish the practice. Many of these people had no connection with the economics of slavery. They were politically motivated by their dislike of slavery, it was not solely an economic decision as suggested.

 

[Old_Glory]

This ignores the fact that many people in the north who had no connection to the profitability of slavery found the practice abhorrent from the very beginning. This dislike gradually found its way into the political sphere as the number of slavery haters grew. It was democracy at work in its finest sense.

The only reason the dislike gained power was because there no reason for the slave owners to have power. It was a worthless endeavor in the North after the slave trade was removed.

 

[major bill]

One disadvantage of slave labor was death and injury. Kill or injured a slave and you lost the value of the slave. Kill or injure a free laborer and you lost nothing. You could hire a new worker the next day. If that worker was kill in a week, just hire another worker.

 

[1SGDan]

The only reason the dislike gained power was because there no reason for the slave owners to have power. It was a worthless endeavor in the North after the slave trade was removed.

The

The only reason the dislike gained power was because there no reason for the slave owners to have power. It was a worthless endeavor in the North after the slave trade was removed.

Those that opposed slavery from the beginning had little concern for the economic aspects of the trade. To underestimate the moral aspect of their disagreement is just plain wrong. Anti slavery forces proved a very powerful political influence that had nothing to do with money. They simply disagreed with what they saw as wrong.

 

[Lost Cause]

Well someone in the "Why did slavery decline in the North?" did in fact bring this up... here's the quote in case you missed it:


There were multiple back and forth from both sides of the argument. So yes "slave labor vs factory labor" is a valid topic that apparently at least some people on both sides of the argument wanted to pursue... and as you can see in the historical of comments in the thread you are wrong that these are simply compared to make a statement about moral superiority.

Beyond that, what do morals have to do with it... The title simply says one vs the other. An objective evaluation of working conditions, quality of life, freedoms, etc certainly can be done without injecting personal opinions of morality.

You incorrectly equate generalized personal opinions of morality of today with less frequent anti slavery sentiment of abolitionists of the antebellum period (which the latter I described). The primary northern abolitionist response frequently brought forth a moralistic viewpoint while overlooking the financial benefits northern organizations often indirectly received from slavery. I spoke of a few of these organizations in case you have not seem them.

 

[MattL]

You incorrectly equate generalized personal opinions of morality of today with less frequent anti slavery sentiment of abolitionists of the antebellum period (which the latter I described). The primary northern abolitionist response frequently brought forth a moralistic viewpoint while overlooking the financial benefits northern organizations often indirectly received from slavery. I spoke of a few of these organizations in case you have not seem them.

I'm sorry but no I'm not, you are taking my statements about morality having nothing to do with the comparison out of context. Context is everything. That context being what I quoted:

It seems the two are being compared here to make a statement about the moral superiority of the North. I am adding that it is an irrelevant point to compare the morality of the two regarding labor since the slaves were not profitable in the North

Old Glory was suggesting that the only purpose this comparison is being made is about the posters making moral statements and to compare the morality of the two (suggesting some sort of normalized morality applied to both)... Hence why I said our views of morality don't have to be applied to compare slave labor vs. factory labor.

Yes you are right comparing the views of morality in those regions and at those times are perfectly fine, which again has nothing to do with my comment. If anything your response to my post incidentally supports my own point, that there are in fact valid ways to compare the two that have nothing to do with the posters views of morality.

 

[Lost Cause]

I'm sorry but no I'm not, you are taking my statements about morality having nothing to do with the comparison out of context. Context is everything. That context being what I quoted:



Old Glory was suggesting that the only purpose this comparison is being made is about the posters making moral statements and to compare the morality of the two (suggesting some sort of normalized morality applied to both)... Hence why I said our views of morality don't have to be applied to compare slave labor vs. factory labor.

Yes you are right comparing the views of morality in those regions and at those times are perfectly fine, which again has nothing to do with my comment. If anything your response to my post incidentally supports my own point, that there are in fact valid ways to compare the two that have nothing to do with the posters views of morality.

Ok

 

[MattL]

Ok

To be more concise, you said:

You incorrectly equate generalized personal opinions of morality of today with less frequent anti slavery sentiment of abolitionists of the antebellum period (which the latter I described).

I didn't... I only was referring to "generalized personal opinions of morality of today"... I was equating it to nothing and in fact was clearly making the point modern morality doesn't need to have a bearing on the conversation. The irony is your response to my post seems to actually agree with me.

 

[Lost Cause]

S

To be more concise, you said:



I didn't... I only was referring to "generalized personal opinions of morality of today"... I was equating it to nothing and in fact was clearly making the point modern morality doesn't need to have a bearing on the conversation. The irony is your response to my post seems to actually agree with me.

Ok

 

[Old_Glory]

The

Those that opposed slavery from the beginning had little concern for the economic aspects of the trade. To underestimate the moral aspect of their disagreement is just plain wrong. Anti slavery forces proved a very powerful political influence that had nothing to do with money. They simply disagreed with what they saw as wrong.

To overestimate the moral aspect of their disagreement with slavery is far worse and fuels the inaccurate versions of history taught to many as truth. The argument of economics and power are always more powerful than morality since every side of any cause always thinks they were more righteous and moral.

In war, industry, politics, and labor the truth is found by following the money, not the morality.

 

[1SGDan]

To overestimate the moral aspect of their disagreement with slavery is far worse and fuels the inaccurate versions of history taught to many as truth. The argument of economics and power are always more powerful than morality since every side of any cause always thinks they were more righteous and moral.

In war, industry, politics, and labor the truth is found by following the money, not the morality.

To apply a theory that economics is the only mediator of personal action is foolish. There have been many occasions in our history where we have acted outside of our best economic interest, the American Revolution for example. Sometimes people just do what is right.

 

[James_tiberous]

Slavery had so many negative aspects to it that bled into society that it did make the north much more of a moral society. Slavery required brutality. As Frederick Douglas said, it was a society where everyone was looking for the right to beat the person lower on the social scale than themselves. Andrew Johnson knew this first hand, having been tied to a tree by a slave holder for running past their big house. Slavery promoted thugs and sadistic people into positions of authority. Laws were much more draconian in the slave regions, because they had to be. Education was a negative value in the south, as it was deemed as dangerous, while in the north it was seen as virtue and promoted. Racial hatred was as much a part of the system as brutality. Hate was a positive value in the south because it buttressed the system.

 

[colt45texan]

I'm not a fan of slavery. Wouldn't want one nor would I be one. But I do see one difference between slavery and the old factory workers up north. When a slave was hurt, the owner made sure he had medical care. When the slave became old and could no longer work he was still taken care of. Sickness of the factory worker stopped his wages and he had take get his own medical attention if he had the money. When he got disabled on the job or old and could not work, then he was faced with being homeless or starved unless family stepped in.
When I worked construction we had an old saying about most of the jobs: "Kill a mule, buy another; kill a man, hire another". That. in my opinion, pretty much sums it up with the factory jobs tho you might add "hurt a man, hire another. Being free is better then a slave but those factory workers were almost one as I imagine it was hard to quit and move on when you owed the 'company store' or the wages paid so little that it was a hand to mouth living.