Industrial Revolution in USA, social questions and comparison wie Europe

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,514
#21
My point is that US workers as a whole were not interested in radicalism or socialism. It might be partly because they perceived they had more opportunity. The fact discussed previously that there were more yeoman farmers than tenant farmer makes a difference. For example in the Spanish Civil War, yeoman farmers in generally strongly supported the Nationalists / Franco. An independent farmer is going to think like businessman, rather than a peasant.

Also, the French Revolution had much less influence in the US than Europe. In the late 19th century, Anarchists were mostly immigrants from Britain, Germany, or elsewhere. Only a small fringe went in for radicalism, and they were middle class intellectuals as much as workers.

There were strikes and the late 19th century and early 20th century, which were often put down ruthlessly, with casualties on both sides. However, most of the unions were not socialist and even if they were the workers weren't socialists or radicals.
 

Sindane

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,551
Europe
#22
This is very interesting. The perception in the USA that Europeans, especially in the UK, would have been 'farmers'.
No no no. They were agricultural labourers, who became industrial labourers
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,514
#23
This is very interesting. The perception in the USA that Europeans, especially in the UK, would have been 'farmers'.
No no no. They were agricultural labourers, who became industrial labourers
Exactly, which is one reason for the difference in attitude. There was more land available in the US and less of an aristocratic system. There were very few tenant farmers before the Civil War. For example in the mountainous areas of the south, most men were independent farmers of very marginal land, and most were Unionist in the war. Most of the freed slaves became tenant farmers. More whites also did, as there was no longer available frontier land, younger sons did not inherit farms, and many independent farmers lost their farms. This declined later with the mechanization of agriculture.
 

Sindane

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,551
Europe
#24
Yes, I think think this is a good point betgo. More space/land certainly and maybe 'ag lab' immigrants claiming to have been 'farmers'

I came across two photos recently. Mill girls, labourers, taken about the same time c 1910. The USA girls look healthy and bonny but the English girls look sickly and malnourished in comparison.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,530
San Antonio, Tx
#26
The U.S. was partially founded on self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and freedom. It was also founded on enslaving people and then subjecting the slave's descendants to segregation for a century after that ended. So Americans has had no problem oppressing people despite what the Pledge of Allegiance says. Maybe Americans should stop pretending America is holier than Thou and look at America's "garbage" before they start ridiculing other countries.
Well, I agree with this...
 
Oct 2011
7,631
MARE PACIFICVM
#27
Yes, I think think this is a good point betgo. More space/land certainly and maybe 'ag lab' immigrants claiming to have been 'farmers'

I came across two photos recently. Mill girls, labourers, taken about the same time c 1910. The USA girls look healthy and bonny but the English girls look sickly and malnourished in comparison.
I think its just a confusion in terms. When you say "Agricultural laborers" I believer you are referring to what we call 'tenant farmers' (one who doesn't own their own farm but works on someone else's land). When you say "farmer" I suspect you are referring to what we would call 'yeomen farmers' (independent farmers who own and operate their own land.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,514
#28
I think its just a confusion in terms. When you say "Agricultural laborers" I believer you are referring to what we call 'tenant farmers' (one who doesn't own their own farm but works on someone else's land). When you say "farmer" I suspect you are referring to what we would call 'yeomen farmers' (independent farmers who own and operate their own land.
I don't think it is confusion of terms, Sindane and I agreed that a major difference was that in the US there were more yeoman farmers than tenant farmers / agricultural laborers / peasants. In Britain most of the land was owned by the aristocracy or gentry and most people doing the farm work were tenant farmers or employees.

I think Sindane's point is that many immigrants to the US implied they were independent farmers in Europe when they were really tenant farmers.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,514
#29
The U.S. was partially founded on self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and freedom. It was also founded on enslaving people and then subjecting the slave's descendants to segregation for a century after that ended. So Americans has had no problem oppressing people despite what the Pledge of Allegiance says. Maybe Americans should stop pretending America is holier than Thou and look at America's "garbage" before they start ridiculing other countries.
I agree that the US wasn't better than Europe. I wasn't ridiculing Socialism. I just think it was a theory developed by middle class intellectuals that didn't work, and that European workers fell for it, but US workers didn't.
 
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
#30
I agree that the US wasn't better than Europe. I wasn't ridiculing Socialism. I just think it was a theory developed by middle class intellectuals that didn't work, and that European workers fell for it, but US workers didn't.
Its not really fair to say they "fell for it" when you have knowledge that it didn't work and they had no way of knowing that. The U.S. workers at the time f=didn't know it wouldn't work either.

And that it hasn't worked so far does not mean it can't work in a different implementation. Just because the first flight attempt didn't work didn't mean that airplanes would never fly.
 

Similar History Discussions