Conservatives Outraged!

I wonder what options you consider these free white industrial workers had up north?

Do you suppose that when the stress got to be too much they loaded up the kids in the station wagon for a relaxing weekend in the Pocono Mountains? :awesome:

Yeah, their employers respected their individual liberties. :rolleyes:

But maybe someday there will be a television program about it.
 
lol. Maineman thinks Irish immigrants in NYC in the 1840s lived like the Brady Bunch in a Seinfeld apartment building.

:awesome:
 
what would having your towns airplanes stolen by the neighboring town so they could bomb your home from the air while others ran in the streets shooting men women and children because you were too successful as a city be compared to ?

must be "Tale of Two Cities"......
 
Last edited:
I wonder what options you consider these free white industrial workers had up north?

Do you suppose that when the stress got to be too much they loaded up the kids in the station wagon for a relaxing weekend in the Pocono Mountains? :awesome:

Yeah, their employers respected their individual liberties. :roll eyes:


But maybe someday there will be a television program about it.

I understand that, from your perspective, you would have CHOSEN to be a slave and the property of a white plantation owner because of all the benefits THEY had that northern white factory workers did not.

I got that. I understand that you believe that their live of POSSIBLE misery was way better than the CERTAIN misery of the white factory workers.

I fully understand that you think that the chances of being tied to the whipping post were nowhere near as great as being given $300K and your freedom from the hoards of saintly plantation owners.

I'll just say that I have a different view.
 
You know I read a lot of British fiction and non-fiction, and last year I went through some Victorian-era mysteries by Anne Perry, her William Monk series. She was a careful researcher of the times and she showed the stark differences between the rich and poor. She wrote about the "mudlarks", little kids who hung out on the shores of the Thames and scavenged for whatever they could sell. There's no doubt that daily life was miserable for the poor. Yet when poor people both then and now try to better their circumstances you have the wealthy whining about redistribution, communism, entitlements etc. ad nauseam.

Places like London were rat infested, polluted hellholes in the 19th century, your chances of living to the age of forty without succumbing to cholera, TB or some bacterial infection were very low. They were slaves in all but name and had absolutely no control over their lives.
 
This is interesting. Talks of slave trials, prosecutions and *ACQUITTALS* in York County, Virginia....

http://www.history.org/history/teaching/enewsletter/volume5/february07/mastersmercy.cfm

Slaves in York County did not usually use violence to challenge slaveholder authority. From the perspective of white victims of violent slave crime, only one white person died at the hands of a slave in York County over the course of the eighteenth century.6 All in all, over the course of the eighteenth century, slaves in York County did not often commit violent crimes, but when they did, it was more likely to have occurred before 1750. Of the 38 accused slave felons tried in the period from 1704 to 1750, 10.5 percent were tried for crimes of violence, two for arson (convictions), and one for the murder of a fellow slave (conviction). During the next thirty years, 1750 to 1780, only 5.2 percent of accused slave felons were tried for committing violent crimes out of 116 slaves charged: two rapes (one conviction and one acquittal), one poisoning and murder (conviction), one case of arson (conviction), one case of mutilation (reduced to a misdemeanor), and the above-mentioned murder of a white person that was reduced to manslaughter. The one charge of suspected slave rebellion and insurrection in York County (1753) resulted in an acquittal.7 For the whole period from 1700 to 1780, there were only six slaves convicted for violent crimes in York County. In one of those, the victim was a slave and in another the court invited a review and recommended a pardon by the governor and Council.

The great majority of accused slave felons were male; only 8 percent of the 154 slaves arrested and tried between 1704 and 1780 were women. Females made up 38 percent of all slaves prosecuted before 1735, but from 1735 until 1780 only 5 percent of accused slave felons tried were women. In spite of the fact that the rate of crime in the county accelerated after 1740, only five female slaves were accused of committing a felony and brought to trial between the years of 1743 and 1780. Four of the five women were prosecuted for theft, and four were accused of committing the crime with a male slave. Of the five female slaves brought to trial during those years, 40 percent were acquitted and discharged while 33 percent of all accused male slave felons were acquitted.

But why allow documented history to derail a good caricature? :rolleyes:
 
I understand that, from your perspective, you would have CHOSEN to be a slave and the property of a white plantation owner because of all the benefits THEY had that northern white factory workers did not.

I got that. I understand that you believe that their live of POSSIBLE misery was way better than the CERTAIN misery of the white factory workers.

I fully understand that you think that the chances of being tied to the whipping post were nowhere near as great as being given $300K and your freedom from the hoards of saintly plantation owners.

I'll just say that I have a different view.

And I qualified all of the above by saying it was not typical. But, ignore away.
 
... and they were slaves in all but name with nobody responsible for their health and welfare, as with actual slaves.

But they were free! Those merry mudlarks used to wake every morning looking forward to another day rooting through raw sewage, dead bodies and the detritus of London thanking their lucky stars that they were free.
 
and it was interesting that Taft mentioned taking the kids in the station wagon into the Poconos for the weekend. Oddly enough, about ten years before the civil war, thousands and thousands of northeastern white factory workers took their families on long trips.... some in covered wagons, some by sailing ship.... all the way to San Francisco where they became 49'ers prospecting for gold. Some of them made a ton of money, many died penniless, but they ALL had the option to seek their fortune on the other side of the continent.

Can you picture the scene a little further south? Standing in the cotton fields while a horsewhip bearing overseer watched their every move, a young black family stands up and says, "Massa... we knows dat you be wantin' us to keep picking' yo cotton from now until the day we dies, but we wuz thinking'.... hows about you just gives us our freedom this mornin' and a wagon (and maybe $300K while you're at it) so we can goes out to California and find ourselves some of dat dere GOLD?" But maybe not.... maybe the extreme infrequency and uncertainty of their "misery" might have led them to think that being a millionaire prospector might be nice, but working' in massa's cotton fields, with all that vacation and time off, and all those opportunities to enjoy the blessings of property-hood would certainly seem even nicer.

plus... there was all that singing and banjo playing every night by the fire.... you do know, don't you, that black slaves brought the banjo with them to America when they arrived from Africa on those plush cruise - oops, I mean SLAVE - ships?
 
Last edited:
Oddly enough, about ten years before the civil war, thousands and thousands of northeastern white factory workers took their families on long trips.... some in covered wagons,

Wow, what a great option. After spending every cent you had to get your family from Ireland to New York in the hold of a stinking ship, and working all yourselves ragged for a few years, how lovely it was that they had the option to strike out into the wilderness without a cent in their pockets, to be massacred by Indians.

Wheeeeee! Life is good!

:awesome:
 
Wow, what a great option. After spending every cent you had to get your family from Ireland to New York in the hold of a stinking ship, and working all yourselves ragged for a few years, how lovely it was that they had the option to strike out into the wilderness without a cent in their pockets, to be massacred by Indians.

Wheeeeee! Life is good!

:awesome:

I, for one, celebrate the fact that many many brave and adventurous Americans took those options. Their spirit helps define us to this day.

And clearly... it was an available option.

as opposed to the one who was property.

THAT is THE point.... when you are someone's property, your "options" are held by your owner.

Being a slave...being property.... IS significantly worse than NOT being property....

and clearly, you're such a frightened pussy that you probably would never have moved more than five blocks west from the dock where you first landed. Fucking coward.
 
Wow, what a great option. After spending every cent you had to get your family from Ireland to New York in the hold of a stinking ship, and working all yourselves ragged for a few years, how lovely it was that they had the option to strike out into the wilderness without a cent in their pockets, to be massacred by Indians.

Wheeeeee! Life is good!

:awesome:

how did the slaves get here?

what was their reward for their hard work once they were here?
 
I say that you hate negroes because you scoff at the fact that they were owned as property and comparing their plight as sub-human property as not significantly worse than working in a factory in the northern states.

And I wonder why you give to the UNCF, I would think that the myriad of kind and benevolent plantation owners and their progeny all over the south were taking care of that along with other commonplace bootstrap measures such as buying negroes $300K businesses and such. You yourself have all but said that you would prefer to be a black slave than a white factory worker.... because you felt the odds of benevolence on the part of your owners/bosses was better as a slave. In fact... that is the essence of your hatred of negroes: you hate them for the cushy life they led on the plantations whilst real hardworking white Americans struggled in the sweatshops of the north.

Pretty sure that bit about supporting the UNCF was snark.
 
Wow, what a great option. After spending every cent you had to get your family from Ireland to New York in the hold of a stinking ship, and working all yourselves ragged for a few years, how lovely it was that they had the option to strike out into the wilderness without a cent in their pockets, to be massacred by Indians.

Wheeeeee! Life is good!

:awesome:

Yes, but they were free. Those poor slaves would never get to appreciate the freedom to travel in a covered wagon for thousands of miles only to get scalped by marauding Indians.
 
And clearly... it was an available option.

as opposed to the one who was property.

What? They didn't have the option to run away? There wasn't an "Underground Railroad" to assist them?

This country does not benefit today from the spirit of the runaway slaves?

I knew you were racist, in addition to being an anti-Semite. I can smell your type a mile away.

Fuckin' bigot.
 
Yes, but they were free. Those poor slaves would never get to appreciate the freedom to travel in a covered wagon for thousands of miles only to get scalped by marauding Indians.

Bloody hell, I never thought that I'd live to see the day when I was thanked by Desh and Taft for the same post!
 
But they were free! Those merry mudlarks used to wake every morning looking forward to another day rooting through raw sewage, dead bodies and the detritus of London thanking their lucky stars that they were free.

Now you're being facetious. I think there are some interesting philosophical arguments here about slavery v. factory workers etc. but the bottom line? It's all about the benjamins. It's greed and immorality on the part of the slaveholders and the factory owners who want to rake in the bucks while having the dirty work done by those they can exploit.

So what if some slaves had benevolent masters. Was it moral in the first place for rich s.o.b.s to go to Africa, capture natives and bring them back to serve? Was it moral for rich factory owners to demand a seven-day work week while paying a pittance to people who had no other choice but to accept it?

Let's cut to the chase, the only way both these practices came about and persisted was because of greed.
 
Back
Top