What would you rather have been in the 19th century, Veeky Forumspanics?

Hell yes, this.

Manual laborer and quit job immediately and move to greener pastures. A free white man has that luxury.

Of moving to america and making something of myself

>just quit your job and go live off the land man!

I love this bohemian mindset privileged neets tend to have.

Yeah, like in the mines of Virginia.

I'll take my chances. Sure as hell beats slavery and coal mining.

Protip: very very few people go live off the land on their own and survive.

It's hard enough for actual cultural hunter-gatherer groups.

When I said greener pastures I don't mean literal green pastures. Is english your second language?

You'd have a better chance at actually succeeding in living off the land than moving to a strange country and actually making it.

And you know this how? I don't need to turn into the next Carnegie or Rockefeller. Just a middle class life. That's attainable for a white laborer especially one with some education. It's impossible for a slave.

You should tell that to all the immigrants.

Because history is rife with failure.

Think homesteaders, gold rush, the original US colonists, even the Pilgrims.

The immigrants themselves had a shitty time.

Also, "just go somewhere else" applies to slaves just as much as to manual laborers.

Slaves would get hunted down, but there was a lot more open land to hide in.

Manual laborers would get hunted down just the same for vagrancy among others.
To give you an example: France had a highly sophisticated prison system in the 19th century, and it was packed with vagrants forced to do manual labor.

Yeah, go move to America.
They're even giving away land for free I hear!

>rock up with your cock up
>stake your claim
>find out there are no trees or anything out on the plains
>have to build a hovel out of literal dirt
>have to burn feces for fuel
>constantly break plows on the matted roots of the plains' turbograss
>have virtually no access to medical care

This is the life eh boys?

>Because history is rife with failure.
>Think homesteaders, gold rush, the original US colonists, even the Pilgrims.
You're not actually answering the question of whether fending for yourself off the land has a higher chance of success over immigrating to another country. I'm not aiming for success in an undeveloped area either like all those examples you put out. I'm looking for factory work or even bookkeeping and that's it. Maybe join a union too.

>Manual laborers would get hunted down
Not even remotely true in America.

>France had a highly sophisticated prison system in the 19th century, and it was packed with vagrants forced to do manual labor.
Because France was a shithole. What did those people do? Fucking go to America. Life in 19th New England is pretty alright and there's far more class mobility than in Europe, even accounting for language.

I swear to god, how were people excited to claim this shit? There was so much rushing and racing for everyone to claim Oklahoma that people even did it illegally, and it became that state's folklore. How?

DON'T
DON'T
DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!

Low-level worker. I'd try and head out west, but even if that didn't work out, at least my children have a chance at a good future and would be able to learn to read without being beaten to death or being forcibly separated from each other.

It's miserable work

>I'm looking for factory work
So you're fleeing a factory for another factory?

>or even bookkeeping
You don't think the spawn of manual laborers in the 19th century had common access to education, do you?

>Not even remotely true in America.
Very true in Europe.
America was still largely wilderness at the time. If you weren't hunted for vagrancy, you were hunted by natives or wildlife.

>I'd try and head out west
See

People only saw the "free land!" part.

But to be fair, the plains were a pretty unique place; there was no way for them to know what it was like until they got there.

>"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

>So you're fleeing a factory for another factory?
Fleeing a coal mine (in the op pic) since that shit sucks. A textile mill is far better especially if you're in a union.

>You don't think the spawn of manual laborers in the 19th century had common access to education, do you?
Depends on where they live. In Massachusetts, for example, it's pretty damn common.

>Very true in Europe.
Again, not true in America. 19th century Europe sucking so much ass is one of the reasons why people moved to America.

>This is the life eh boys?

Better than slavery.

They had coal mines in the US too. Just like they had textile mills in Europe too.

Education and unions were from the late 19th century, when slavery was abolished. So not applicable to this comparison.

>Again, not true in America.
Yes true in America. There were vagrancy laws in virtually every single town.
It's just that there were a lot more places in the US to go where there weren't (Western) people.

Not in any practical sense.

Not much difference between being owned by the factory boss and being owned by a plantation boss.

But that's wrong you idiot.

Except factory workers can have hope for the future. Maybe their kids will have a future. They actually get money, to save and spend on things. Even if it's slim it's something. Slaves get nothing for their effort. All their work can ever really earn them is another day on the farm. The difference between slavery and factory work is like the difference between a shitty job and prison. At least after you're done working you get to go home. Slaves don't really get that.

>Except factory workers can have hope for the future.
Only if they watched as many Hollywood movies as you did.

>They actually get money, to save and spend on things.
Yes, their overprices factory-owned house and food from the overpriced factory-owned store.

>Slaves get nothing for their effort.
Food, shelter, medical care, ...

>At least after you're done working you get to go home.
So did slaves, pic related.
Slave shacks were arguably better than those sod houses homesteaders had to make.

You really don't know anything about this subject, do you?

Slaves don't "get" anything. They don't "earn" anything. Yes they are provided with shelter and food just like a prisoner. That doesn't make prison better than a shitty back-breaking job. Literally no one volunteered to be a slave. When slaves ran away they ran north. But they never ran back to slavery. Funny isn't it? I wonder why?

>nobody ever improved their situation in life for themselves or their children

Idiot.

>That doesn't make prison better than a shitty back-breaking job.
There are a lot of people throughout history that would disagree with that.

I know I'd rather pick cotton than work in a fucking mineshaft, especially if the living conditions were about the same.

What?

Anyone arguing for slavery over terrible working conditions is a fucking literal subhuman and should be shot on the spot, our brought into slavery so they can see the error of their ways for the rest of their lives.

The bosses own you in both cases.

Pretty much the only difference is the type of work: plantation work vs heavy industry/mining.

>There are a lot of people throughout history that would disagree with that.

All the slaves who went north and did back breaking labor instead of being slaves would disagree with you. Gee I wonder who's opinion is more valuable?

Except they do not at all own you in any comparable sense.

Many many more of them stayed where they were.

Hence why the black demographic is overwhelmingly found in the southern states.

Of course they do.

The factory worker was eternally indebted to the factory boss who owned the house the worker lived in, and the store the worker bought from, and the bar the worker drank at.

Ah yes that does indeed sound the same as being literal property so that my master can rape or beat me to death or imprison me as he sees fit, because I, a human being, am literally of the same worth by law as well as economically or philosophically as a fucking cow or even an expensive table.

>that does indeed sound the same as being literal property so that my master can rape or beat me to death or imprison me as he sees fit
Pretty much.

You really need to read up on living conditions for the masses during the bulk of the 19th century.

>Many many more of them stayed where they were.

I'm sure it's because they had a great work environment with a real passion for their work. Or maybe, just maybe it's because they were forced to stay under pain of death or physical assault of them or their families. No it's because slavery secretly ruled. Then you had sharecropping which basically turned them into serfs. No. What I see is when slaves could get away, they did. And they never went back. I wonder why?

>when slaves could get away, they did
Then how come the vast majority of them stayed right where they were after the abolition of slavery?

>you just need to read up on this shit man, if you knew what I know

No. Just fucking no.

I will repeat my statement that you are literally subhuman, if you cannot fathom that living in shit conditions as LITERAL PROPERTY EQUAL TO INANIMATE OBJECTS, is worse than living in shit conditions as a human being.

You deserve not the freedom you have been given, for you value it not. You might as well be a horse working on a fucking farm.

BECAUSE THEY WERE NO LONGER SLAVES?

How is it possible to be this retarded?

Sharecropping i.e. they literally couldn't even if they tried.

>he doesn't think wageslavery is a thing

spotted the capitalcuck

Oh yes I feel so burdened by my salary. Oh lord how I wish I could be an unemployed loser like you. Also fucking jews.

>living in shit conditions
I'd be willing to bet living conditions for slaves on the plantations were a lot better than living conditions for factory worker rabble in the 19th century.

Compare pic related to The sanitation conditions alone would kill any modern human being in a week.

Factory workers were pretty much property all the same. They worked much longer hours than rural workers (like plantation slaves), under much more severe conditions.

So why stay put when you're free?
Why stay and most likely do the exact same work, likely even for the exact same boss?

Same situation as "free" factory workers then.

Except black southern really couldn't vote or get access to education or, you know, fucking leave and get a different job. So yeah totally they same god damn thing.

*southerners
*the

I fucking hate auto correct

>I'd wanna be a free worker because then I can just go away!
>I wouldn't wanna be a free worker because then I couldn't just go away!

>sharecroppers
>""""""""""free""""""""""" workers

Okay friend

>factory workers
>""""""""""""free"""""""""""" workers

My point all along.

At least they could vote and send their kids to school sometimes. At least they weren't banned from reading.

A tiny bit of freedom>absolutely no freedom ever

>blacks couldn't vote
There were states that gave blacks voting rights right after the American Revolution, like NC.
Also, a lot of poor whites in the US couldn't vote either for much of US history.

>blacks were banned from reading
This was an anecdote even during slavery times.

>There were states that gave blacks voting rights right after the American Revolution, like NC.

Maybe for freed blacks. Slaves could not vote.

>Also, a lot of poor whites in the US couldn't vote either for much of US history.

Better than never getting to vote.

>This was an anecdote even during slavery times.

Perhaps but slaves had really limited access to education and literature compared to freed men. Again some>none

But dude are you really trying to argue that slaves were just as "free" as white factory workers? Working conditions I can see but this is nonsense.

European worker because then I wouldn't be black

>Maybe for freed blacks. Slaves could not vote.
Guess what black slaves became after abolition?

>Better than never getting to vote.
Many whites never got to vote.

Meanwhile, there have always been blacks with voting rights in the US, ever since US independence.

>but slaves had really limited access to education and literature compared to freed men.
There were slaves being taught to read (for religious conversion purposes) while many whites in the US had no such education.

>But dude are you really trying to argue that slaves were just as "free" as white factory workers?
No.
Just that having the label of "slave" does not mean your life is worse when literally everything about your life (work, housing, sanitation, ...) is the same or better than the life of """"free"""" factory workers.

>Literally no one volunteered to be a slave
Well, people volunteered to be indentured servants. That's not much different.

>Guess what black slaves became after abolition?

We're talking about slaves here. I know I brought up sharecroppers but that was only to counter the "idea" that blacks """""""willing""""""" stayed in the South.

>Meanwhile, there have always been blacks with voting rights in the US, ever since US independence.

I'm not sure what this is truly in reference to but I'm almost a billion percent certain this only extended to the handful of freed landowning blacks in NC. But I'd like to see a source to be sure. Whatever the case it really doesn't have anything to do with slaves does it?

>There were slaves being taught to read (for religious conversion purposes) while many whites in the US had no such education.

I don't mean to be a fedora but the bible isn't really meaningful literature in an economic sense. Unless your a pastor.

>Just that having the label of "slave" does not mean your life is worse when literally everything about your life (work, housing, sanitation, ...) is the same or better than the life of """"free"""" factory workers.

Let me boil this down if the conditions are roughly the same it's better to have no freedom than a little. You just keep ignoring political power and social mobility. Factory workers had some, slaves by definition have none. Those things make life better. You can't just keep brushing this off.

*nobody willing became chattel for life and all of their future descendants lives

Fixed that

>that was only to counter the "idea" that blacks """""""willing""""""" stayed in the South
They stayed as willingly as factory workers stayed: they HAD to work to survive.

>Whatever the case it really doesn't have anything to do with slaves does it?
It shows that the situation wasn't as clear-cut as "whites could vote, blacks could not".

>the bible isn't really meaningful literature in an economic sense
If you can read the bible, you can read, period.

>You just keep ignoring political power and social mobility.
Poor whites likewise had neither.
In the US and Europe, you had to have a certain wealth before you could vote for a long time.

>They stayed as willingly as factory workers stayed: they HAD to work to survive.

My point is people were willing to become factory workers. Lots of people moved great distances to become factory workers. Nobody volunteered to pick cotton and become somebodies property for eternity. I believe their is a reason for that.

>It shows that the situation wasn't as clear-cut as "whites could vote, blacks could not".

Okay 100% of white men could before abolition even happened. Slaves could never vote period.

>If you can read the bible, you can read, period.

I don't even care about this one anymore desu

>Poor whites likewise had neither.
Why because you said so? Some>none

>My point is people were willing to become factory workers. Lots of people moved great distances to become factory workers. Nobody volunteered to pick cotton and become somebodies property for eternity. I believe their is a reason for that.
No factory worker chose to become the boss' plaything and work inhumane hours in inhumane circumstances.
It was simply either that or die in the street from hunger.
This also explains why so many blacks simply staid put doing the same work for the same bosses after abolition.

>Okay 100% of white men could before abolition even happened.
The 15th amendment said nobody could be denied the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This was right around the time of abolition.
Again, not clear-cut.

What's wrong with that picture? I've been to SEA where plenty of places look like that. There's plenty of fun to be had, with happy people, and its pretty comfy in its own way.

But I'm not going to continue discussing with a literal subhuman who glorifies being a slave to another man.

>What's wrong with that picture?
Lol.
Illness, poverty, famine, crime, lack of sanitation, exploitation, squalor, infant death, freezing temps, ...

>This also explains why so many blacks simply staid put doing the same work for the same bosses after abolition.

People moving to find better pay=\= you were just slaves and reconstruction fell though so now you have to be serf instead

>Again, not clear-cut.
A Slave could never ever vote vs factory worker could eventually vote

But since you've completely gone off topic let me fill you in. When the vote shifted from landed gentry only to all free white men these farmers and laborers become the majority of the electorate. Political parties immediately stated pandering to them. Meanwhile after reconstruction failed southern democrats regained power and did everything they could to deny former slaves access to their voting rights and were very successful at it. So while yes it is true that a one point early after the revolution that slaves and factory workers couldn't vote. But their is a 25 time span that factory workers could vote and slaves obviously couldn't. Then after former slaves were "allowed" to vote they really couldn't vote.

>People moving to find better pay=\= you were just slaves and reconstruction fell though so now you have to be serf instead
So same situation as factory workers.
Free but hopeless.

>A Slave could never ever vote vs factory worker could eventually vote
Voting rights for poor whites came about around the same time as abolition.

>you've completely gone off topic
You brought voting into this.

>freed but hopeless
Sure Marx whatever

>Voting rights for poor whites came about around the same time as abolition.
Working class white people could vote as early as 1820 in New England. You know that place with all the factories.

>You brought voting into this.
That's not really what I was talking about but yes I did because it's relevant.

>Sure Marx whatever
You don't have to be a communist to see this.

>Working class white people could vote as early as 1820 in New England. You know that place with all the factories.
And working-class black people could vote in NC since US independence.

>You don't have to be a communist to see this.

You just have to be reductive.

>And working-class black people could vote in NC since US independence.

Yeah all three of them. I guess that makes everything square and equal.

>I guess that makes everything square and equal
Never made any claims about being square and equal.

You are way too simplistic in your reasoning.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe I wanted to live in a house made of dirt?

>slaves
>medical care

>The Supreme Court of North Carolina had upheld the ability of free African Americans to vote in that state. In 1835, because of fears of the role of free blacks after Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion of 1831, they were disenfranchised by decision of the North Carolina Constitutional Convention. At the same time, convention delegates relaxed religious and property qualifications for whites, thus expanding the franchise for them.[29]

This is what you're referring to? I really don't see what this is supposed to prove.

That isn't true though. It isn't illegal for cows and tables to learn how to read.

>slave owners
>not protecting their costly investments

Get learned.

That certain blacks in the US could vote before lots of whites could.

>That certain blacks in the US could vote before lots of whites could.

So what? This is a incredibly small fraction of black people in one state for 4 measly years. This is some serious grasping.

yuropoor worker of course
I could head for New York, Havana, Rio or Buenos Aires in a crowded ship and find a job

>there are 4 years between US independence and 1835

Also, the point was that a large proportion of whites had just as little political power and voting rights as slaves.

Industrial worker conditions in the US were just as bad as in Europe.
In fact, iirc the US had the highest work accident rate of all western countries.

So if you happen to be lucky enough to be part of the 1% of black people who were freed men that lived in North Carolina from 1776 to 1835 you could vote. Okay cool. This doesn't really change the fact that the average white man started to get his voting rights around 1820 to 1828. While again slaves never got to vote. How does this incredibly small minority of black people make up for that huge of a difference? How does it matter in the least?

The point was more that a large proportion of whites had no voting rights for a very long time in the US.

The fact that a small proportion of blacks did have voting rights from the very conception of the US is anecdotal.

>The point was more that a large proportion of whites had no voting rights for a very long time in the US.

Yeah but so what? My whole point was that poor whites got to vote at all. Which is an upgrade from can't vote ever

>The fact that a small proportion of blacks did have voting rights from the very conception of the US is anecdotal

That's a pretty big claim with a bunch of nothing to back it up.

>My whole point was that poor whites got to vote at all. . Which is an upgrade from can't vote ever
But poor whites did not get to vote in the US for a long time.
Particularly during the slavery period.

>That's a pretty big claim with a bunch of nothing to back it up.
Wtf, you posted proof of this yourself, here

I don't really see how any of this proves that poor whites and slaves were somehow equal in terms of political power. What I see is that politicians campaigned for poor white voting rights before the the slavery debate even blew up. And sure NC constitution allowed freed blacks to vote. But in this evidence for your claim it shows that blacks slaves got this right taken away and helped poor whites secure more rights at the same time. So far all this evidence points to slaves losing rights over time and poor whites gaining rights. Wouldn't that suggest that poor whites had more political power than slaves?

Move to South America.

>literal
>literal
>literal

Not even the person you were arguing with but you are an insufferable cunt

>there is a person in this thread claiming that being a slave in 19th century America was better than being a factory worker

>in a dogs choice or no choice thread

>have virtually no access to medical care
Oh no, how can one ever recover from disease without bloodletting and leaches?

Also I'd still take of those other hardships over being a slave

cuck