Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 13th, 2012, 12:14 PM   #11
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 12

Still, must have been better than being taken from your native land and made to work on a foreign land until you dropped dead (slaves, obviously). There were those who worked the land in the colonies as indentured slaves, atleast they had the choice but saying that this was no walk in the park either.
riconos is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 13th, 2012, 12:46 PM   #12

Earl_of_Rochester's Avatar
Scoundrel
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Perambulating in St James' Park
Posts: 11,037

The highest price for grain in France was in 1789.

You know what happened next.
Earl_of_Rochester is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 12:55 PM   #13

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,219

Quote:
Originally Posted by riconos View Post
Still, must have been better than being taken from your native land and made to work on a foreign land until you dropped dead (slaves, obviously). There were those who worked the land in the colonies as indentured slaves, atleast they had the choice but saying that this was no walk in the park either.
Apart from the human dignity factor, African slaves taken to the colonies could often be better off than the indentured servants.
The vast majority of indentured servants did not travel voluntarily, their papers were signed by a relative, usually a parent (a contract could only be concluded by someone over the age of 21 and very few were over that age. They were effectively "sold" to a ship owner who in turn "sold" them in the form of selling their contracts on arrival. Other indentured servants were orphans or "redemption men" (debtors). While the service period was finite, it could be as long as 14 years as in the case of a 7 year old, bound until his 21st birthday and if female servants became pregnant, the period of their pregnancy was added on to their contract.
Servant's contracts and thus the person could be sold on and often were and in many cases an unco-operative or poorly performing servant could have his length of service increased. As with ordinary servants of the day, they were subject to arbitary corporal punishment and the standard of lodgings and food was totally at the whim of the master.
As indentured servants were only available for a finite time while slaves were a long-term capitial purchase, it made sense for masters to work them harder and pay less attention to their welfare.
An indentured servant without a beneficent master could end his time with absolutely nothing but the clothes he stood up in. No accomodation, no food and no money. A slave on the other hand, could always look forward to a meal and a whip-round.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 01:03 PM   #14
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
Apart from the human dignity factor, African slaves taken to the colonies could often be better off than the indentured servants.
The vast majority of indentured servants did not travel voluntarily, their papers were signed by a relative, usually a parent (a contract could only be concluded by someone over the age of 21 and very few were over that age. They were effectively "sold" to a ship owner who in turn "sold" them in the form of selling their contracts on arrival. Other indentured servants were orphans or "redemption men" (debtors). While the service period was finite, it could be as long as 14 years as in the case of a 7 year old, bound until his 21st birthday and if female servants became pregnant, the period of their pregnancy was added on to their contract.
Servant's contracts and thus the person could be sold on and often were and in many cases an unco-operative or poorly performing servant could have his length of service increased. As with ordinary servants of the day, they were subject to arbitary corporal punishment and the standard of lodgings and food was totally at the whim of the master.
As indentured servants were only available for a finite time while slaves were a long-term capitial purchase, it made sense for masters to work them harder and pay less attention to their welfare.
An indentured servant without a beneficent master could end his time with absolutely nothing but the clothes he stood up in. No accomodation, no food and no money. A slave on the other hand, could always look forward to a meal and a whip-round.
Indeed, but I doubt the slaves felt they were better off but point taken.
riconos is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 01:39 PM   #15
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 669

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
I know that during the 1770s or so 70% of the children died before they reached the age of 5 in London and 90% of thr children died before reaching 5 in Londons orphanages.

How do i know this? QI!!! best bbc show ever hehe
This is important to remember: What happened over the course of the 18th century was a large class of people went from 'dead' on average to 'subsistence wage to low income' on average.

Real wages also increased over the course of the 18th century, so take stories of proud, independent peasant farmers driven off their lands into Satan's infernal mills with a grain of salt. Enclosure was a big thing but it was extremely, extremely far from the only source of industrial labor.
MAlexMatt is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 08:13 PM   #16

viking's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 1,461

I said earlier it was a period of transition and how some prospered whilst others suffered as I said when talking of weavers But it was a transition in commerce as well and that affected prices. What evidence have you to argue that enclosure distress should be taken wih a grain of salt?
"Crime against property in 18th C England arose primarily from problems of employment,wages and prices. ..they increased when men found themselves squeezed by rising prices or lack of work (Beattie 1974)
Bread riots took place 1709,1740,1756-7,1773,1782 and in particular 1775 and 1801.
viking is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
18th, century, class, lower


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lower class place in socio-political life. based on 1984 ricka Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 4 July 1st, 2012 08:26 PM
America in the 18th Century lizzi American History 1 May 31st, 2012 01:53 AM
How Large were Lower Class Houses in Ancient Athens? Leonidas Ancient History 11 December 27th, 2011 10:52 AM
Top ten generals of the 18th Century? nuclearguy165 War and Military History 11 December 10th, 2011 11:59 AM
18th Century Andriko History Book Reviews 12 February 8th, 2010 08:16 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.