European peasant living conditions

[nicholls]

I read this comment from a libertarian who said that this: "Abolitionists who went to the UK to raise money for their cause were instructed to avoid describing the living conditions of the slaves, because they were much better than the living conditions of the peasants of those countries."

I want to know from people on this forum who are better educated on this subject if that statement is true?

 

[Wehrkraftzersetzer]

just one word

bullshit

European industrial workers did not have the same "future prospect" as slaves. Why? well they weren't slaves

 

[Jim Klag]

I read this comment from a libertarian who said that this: "Abolitionists who went to the UK to raise money for their cause were instructed to avoid describing the living conditions of the slaves, because they were much better than the living conditions of the peasants of those countries."

I want to know from people on this forum who are better educated on this subject if that statement is true?

The statement, in general, is untrue. Surely there were some poor Europeans who lived as poorly as slaves. There were some working-class Americans living as poorly as slaves. But generally, comparing apples to apples, the poorer folk in both Europe and America who were farmers or farm workers were much better off than black slaves in the south.

 

[diane]

England had a very healthy, rapidly growing middle class in the 19th century. Earlier, one might be able to say things were super bad for the poor and a slave in America might well be better off. But that was not true at the time of the CW. You'd have to show me why American abolitionists in the UK would be advised not to talk about the conditions of the slaves since that would eliminate full discussion of their cause. What would they discuss with UK supporters if they didn't get to talk about that?

 

[jgoodguy]

England had a very healthy, rapidly growing middle class in the 19th century. Earlier, one might be able to say things were super bad for the poor and a slave in America might well be better off. But that was not true at the time of the CW. You'd have to show me why American abolitionists in the UK would be advised not to talk about the conditions of the slaves since that would eliminate full discussion of their cause. What would they discuss with UK supporters if they didn't get to talk about that?

Depends on the country. Only the US, France, and England had free labor, the rest mostly coerced labor of some sort. The British colonies of the Caribbean were death traps. Even the conditions of slaves varied. House slaves were better off than gang labor slaves.

 

[diane]

Sugar plantations had a very low life expectancy for slaves - that was the cash cow in the Caribbean!

 

[rittmeister]

Depends on the country. Only the US, France, and England had free labor, the rest mostly coerced labor of some sort. The British colonies of the Caribbean were death traps. Even the conditions of slaves varied. House slaves were better off than gang labor slaves.

serfdom was mostly done for in 1820 - in russia it lasted 'till 1861 (france 1789 obviously, prussia 1807)

 

[jgoodguy]

serfdom was mostly done for in 1820 - in russia it lasted 'till 1861

Agree

The OP described in post 1 is devoid of dates and places.

 

[rittmeister]

Agree

The OP described in post 1 is devoid of dates and places.

i think that whole 'quote' is bogus - libertarians never mention the freedom of small fry it's always about freedom for big fish

 

[jgoodguy]

i think that whole 'quote' is bogus - libertarians never mention the freedom of small fry it's always about freedom for big fish

Yes

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Sugar plantations had a very low life expectancy for slaves - that was the cash cow in the Caribbean!

And Louisiana, That Guy made most of his millions on that coffle trail.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

in russia it lasted 'till 1861

I believe it was later than 1861. Source?

Btw,

“As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

― Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Letters

 

[jgoodguy]

i think that whole 'quote' is bogus - libertarians never mention the freedom of small fry it's always about freedom for big fish

Then there is the detail that if one is going after contributions, they are not going to hit up poor people, but the affluent.

 

[rittmeister]

I believe it was later than 1861. Source?

The Emancipation of the Russian Serfs, 1861 | History Today

www.historytoday.com

 

[O' Be Joyful]

The Emancipation of the Russian Serfs, 1861 | History Today

www.historytoday.com

I stand corrected and shall not debate you upon this. I can admit a mistake.

 

[diane]

And Louisiana, That Guy made most of his millions on that coffle trail.

There was no end of need for slaves in Louisiana - Forrest had a standing order of between 300-500 per month with a dealer down the river.

It seems to me that the middle class was growing in states where there was no slavery, and rapidly dwindling where it existed. In the South, with the planters buying up all the land, it was becoming increasingly hard for a small farmer to compete with them. The yeoman farmer was rapidly becoming more dependent than he might like on the good-will of his more powerful neighbor with a plantation. As the South became more separated in classes and more feudal, they became more disdainful of the Northern 'shopkeepers'...which is why they were so surprised (not to mention insulted) when the shopkeepers rang their bell pretty good during the CW.

Industrialization was ending a lot of the peasant/serf/super poor in Europe. Mexico had no slavery but they had peons. That system was similar to the share cropping system that developed in the South.

 

[jgoodguy]

There was no end of need for slaves in Louisiana - Forrest had a standing order of between 300-500 per month with a dealer down the river.

It seems to me that the middle class was growing in states where there was no slavery, and rapidly dwindling where it existed. In the South, with the planters buying up all the land, it was becoming increasingly hard for a small farmer to compete with them. The yeoman farmer was rapidly becoming more dependent than he might like on the good-will of his more powerful neighbor with a plantation. As the South became more separated in classes and more feudal, they became more disdainful of the Northern 'shopkeepers'...which is why they were so surprised (not to mention insulted) when the shopkeepers rang their bell pretty good during the CW.

Industrialization was ending a lot of the peasant/serf/super poor in Europe. Mexico had no slavery but they had peons. That system was similar to the share cropping system that developed in the South.

I agree.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

In the South, with the planters buying up all the land, it was becoming increasingly hard for a small farmer to compete with them. The yeoman farmer was rapidly becoming more dependent than he might like on the good-will of his more powerful neighbor with a plantation. As the South became more separated in classes and more feudal, they became more disdainful of the Northern 'shopkeepers'...

There is a modern metaphor in there.

History don't repeat, but it sure as Hell rhymes.

 

[nicholls]

Thanks for the responses. Libertarians are totally idiots when it comes to Civil War history. They unfortunately take the side of the Confederacy.

 

[rittmeister]

Thanks for the responses. Libertarians are totally idiots when it comes to Civil War history. They unfortunately take the side of the Confederacy.

really? they are idiots whenever involved - freedom of the big fish; never freedom for the little guy.