Posted: Sun May 09, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject: Due 5.10
After reading ch. 2 please write 100-200 words in response to the chapter and to your peers' responses. Please include a question in your response to help other people get started.
Here's mine:
Though quite a few white workers supported the abolition of slavery, larger numbers were indifferent or hostile toward the antislavery movement. How do you explain that?
Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 15 Location: undisclosed, MA.
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 3:21 am Post subject:
I'll try to answer a question.
there seems to be a common idea that people in similar conditions all like each other. so the poor workers would be sympathetic to the similarly downtrodden slaves. I don't think this is true.
White workers (i learned this all last mod in Civil War) generally hated the idea of abolition because it meant the freed slaves would compete for their jobs. they feared a sort of 'invasion' of blacks. They didn't want them living in their cities, or even the country, really. there was a movement for 'colonization' that said the Blacks should be brought back to Africa, (even though most of them had been born in america at this point.) Just because they were northern doesn't mean they weren't racist.
But i have a question: how did The revolutionaries win the war with Britain? The book made out the Colonial armies as being pretty disorganized, And it sort of brushed over the fact that they won. How did it happen? that's not supposed to be thought-provoking or anything. i just want to know.
In response to the main question: I think poor whites were often opposed to freeing black slaves not despite, but because of the similarities between their positions in society. When people feel entirely dispossessed and powerless, as the working poor whites of the colony days surely did, the slightest power over others becomes immensely important. Any slight advantage over another group is a saving grace, proof that 'things may be bad but at least I'm better off than some'.
The elite who planned to prevent another Bacon's Rebellion when they made white slavery illegal understood this.
Possibly for discussion: One man was quoted as saying; "the lowest Mechanicks discuss upon the most important points of Government with the utmost Freedom."
What do you think are the consequences when a society suddenly makes politics a public matter? This was before public education -- was it wise to let the uneducated masses into the matters of government (and later vote)?
In response to the main question; white working class citizens covers a vast number of people, the real question is how could they all share the same ideas on slavery? When there is a large amount of people, white, black, hispanic, ect they're not all going to agree on the same manner. For instance; "Contemporaries estimated that about one third of the free colonists favored independence, another third opposed it and the rest stayed neutral." (p.29) The colonialists couldn't even agree on independence, so it’s not surprising to sat that they didn't agree on abolishing slavery.
Also following up with what the last two posts said, some people simply did not want slavery to be abolished because they wanted a slight advantage over another group. This also ties into women’s rights; “The legal system gave husbands absolute title to their wives personal property, including any wages earned. As in the past, husbands could legally subject their wives to beatings that did not cause irreparable bodily harm.” (p.45) Weather the advantage is over wives, slaves or freed African Americans, someone will always attack groups of people in attempts to oppress them (in order to feel more powerful.)
The question I pose; what are the similarities working class women shared with slaves? Were husbands and slave owners more similar then not?
I’m going to answer the previous question: What are the similarities working class women shared with slaves? Were husbands and slave owners more similar then not?
The similarities were that they both struggled with what society forced them to be. Women were rarely seen for who they truly were because their opinions were not viewed as important (and this was same for slaves because white and rich men were on the top of the social ladder). Women struggled with issues of being trapped and controlled by men. They did not have the ability to practice their freedom or stand up for themselves. I guess I can say that women and slaves were in similar position, where they did not get as much as respect as they should have. I’m not so sure about whether husbands and slave owners were similar. I guess they can be similar and different at the same time. While slave owners were stricter and considered their slaves as animals or something less than that, husbands considered his wives as companion for life or…sometimes as sexual objects. Anyways, women and slaves were known to be in the bottom of the social ladder in which they were incapable of making their own decision and grasp total freedom.
So my question is this. Then, who do you think was the on the lowest, bottom of the social ladder? And, prove that from any incident in the history.
My explanation of this hostility through an economic point of view would be a need for the labor slaves provided. With the abolition of slavery the cost of cotton, tobacco, sugar cane, and coffee would rise since the plantation owners could not rely on free labor previously supplied by slaves. This would cause trouble for quite a few free Americans who depended on these cheaper raw goods as the basis of their work.
My question, and it may be unnecessary or silly, is the success of the war and the slow but steady process of abolition have been possible with out the printing press?
In response to who is on the bottom of the social ladder i would say that it would be slaves who cannot speak or communicate in the language of their captors. one of the recurring themes seems to be that so long as the oppressed/angered group of people had an outlet for their words and a way to be heard (eg. pain's common sense, Skidmore's the rights of man to property!, and even The Declaration of Independence) they possessed a powerful tool to create change. By taking a person and condemning them to the status of chattel and also stripping them of this tool would, for me, constitute the very lowest you could go.
In response to the question about uneducated masses, not only do i think it a wise idea let people such as these vote and discuss politics but i think it is extremely necessary. A government by and for the people cannot exist when the people are not part of it. Granted you do end up with tea partiers and weathermen, but they still represent a part of the people and as such should be included in the voting process and encouraged to partake in the discussion of politics. (in a sad way worst comes to worst you end up with a funny SNL skit)
I will first answer to the question concerning the white workers' indifference to the abolition of slavery. Lily brought up an economical reason of the prices of goods rising dramatically if the slaves were abolished. This point is valid since the transformation of thousands of free workers to a paid workforce would require a huge sum. However, looking at the reason which we touched upon in class, I think the division of the classes also played a large role towards the indifference of the white workers.
Answering another question, the slaves were the bottom of the social ladder. Without any rights and no pay, in many ways the white workers were above the slaves. I believe that the white workers didn't like the idea of slaves attaining the same rights as they do. With the abolition of slavery, former "slaves" could potentially rise above the ranks of a white worker. I believe this fear is the reason for most of the hostility of the white workers towards the abolition.
I think the question concerning woman's role and its similarities to the a slaves' is a good one, and would also like to see an answer.
As Lily and everyone else said, the social ladder was complex in colonial america. There were hosts of different classes and groups, including slaves, indentured servants, freed slaves, native americans... and the list goes on. There were also big differences in the structure of the societies in the South and the North in the colonial period. Virginia had some of the richest planters in the colonies. Of course there were discrepancies and disagreements between them. And to Martha's question, i would agree with Lily on the fact that people were complacent with the prices with they bought their cotton. Also, I think most people were removed from the horrors of slavery so they would have no compassion or feeling towards slaves. Just like i could care less how people making my clothes are treated because there is no way that i can fathom what it is like.
The founding fathers did not really trust the uneducated lower class, that was the labor force at the founding of the nation. They created redundancies in the government to prevent the government from being a direct democracy because they did not trust the working class. The electoral collage is an example of that, even the senate was not directly elected until the early 1900s.
Q: Do you think the working class of america was ever fully represented in american democracy?
also it seems that the only shifts in regulation and change in the laws and regulations and practices of the labor movement were because of protests or other big problems. that really has not changed at all since then, now there will probably be regulation on off shore oil rigs (like there is in most European countries) and new safety regulation for coal mines, why do there have to be tragedies or public outcries for good change?
I hate to harbor on our current education system but I think its important...this is the first book I've read throughout my entire education that presents the British as the best option for slaves seeking freedom. In my past classes I've always been taught that the Continental Army served as the best opportunity for slaves to acquire freedom and that it was an fully "integrated" (the book does mention that it was mostly integrated, but how could it have been entirely integrated when most felt that blacks were inferior) military. Anyways, I agree with Corinna's answer to Martha's question...basically that no individual wants to be on the bottom of the totem pole but that is more looking at whites anti-abolition views from a psychological perspective but I think also that if slavery were abolished the lower class whites couldn't compete with the slaves for the blue collar jobs and the elite (and I guess the poor whites did too from the growth of the U.S.'s economy) profited off the slaves and so as long as they were in power there was not going to be any anti-slavery movement.
To briefly respond to Adam's question...Regulation vs. Not interfering with private enterprise goes in cycles I think this quote I heard a few weeks ago summed it up quite well...I'm paraphrasing but it went to the effect of People hate regulation until there is a factory explosion/any disaster and than they feel that regulation is necessary. My question: The book clearly says that the revolutionary war had more support and a base among the lower and middle classes so why during and after the war were the elite in power? Also, the book mentions a few small uprisings that were quickly diffused but why didn't any worker class rebellion attempt to take over the government or even push for more policies that favored the poor...like a progressive tax system? Did the government just do too good of a job at squelching these sorts of movements or was it more of an issue with the working class?[/i]
Joined: 18 Nov 2009 Posts: 16 Location: In your closet
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 11:47 am Post subject:
Quote:
Though quite a few white workers supported the abolition of slavery, larger numbers were indifferent or hostile toward the antislavery movement. How do you explain that?
If the slaves were freed, the poor white workers would then have competition. They realized that they had brought to many slaves and they now have the potential to take over (or so they think)
Quote:
Then, who do you think was the on the lowest, bottom of the social ladder? And, prove that from any incident in the history.
In my opinion, the lowest group in the social ladder are the common slaves. The lower the social status is, usually the most of them existed (a pyramid, if you will). And back then, at any given state in the south, you will see more slaves then whites. Plus they are treated the worst. I said common slaves because there were other slaves who were overseers, worked in the houses of their masters, etc. The "common slaves" were the ones working in the fields.
Quote:
Success of the war and the slow but steady process of abolition have been possible with out the printing press?
Well, the media helped spread news. It keeps those who were active in the process of abolition in the loop and it gives others opportunities to keep updated. To actually answer the question, yes I think the process of abolition would have progressed without the printing press, although it'll be much slower, but instead of the printing press, it would be a letters sent instead. _________________ WARNING: I am not responsible for what i type above because apparently, my cats learned how to type
gabechai.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
