![]() |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
W.E.B. Du Bois-3October 01, 2004![]() Black Reconstruction in America [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 ] We turn to the European and African workers in North America. Du Bois says of the White laborer: [p. 17]. The new labor that came to the United States, while it was poor, used to oppression and accustomed to a low standard of living, was not willing, after it reached America, to regard itself as a permanent laboring class and it is in the light of this fact that the labor movement among white Americans must be studied. The successful, well-paid American laboring class formed, because of its property and ideals, a petty bourgeoisie ready always to join capital in exploiting common labor, white and black, foreign and native. The more energetic and thrifty among the immigrants caught the prevalent American idea that here labor could become emancipated from the necessity of continuous toil and that an increasing proportion could join the class of exploiters, that is of those who made their income chiefly by profit derived through the hiring of labor. These workers came to oppose slavery not so much from moral [objections] as from the economic fear of being reduced by competition to the level of slaves. They wanted a chance to become capitalists; and they found that chance threatened by the competition of a working class whose status at the bottom of the economic structure seemed permanent and inescapable. At first, black slavery jarred upon them, and as early as the seventeenth century German immigrants to Pennsylvania asked the Quakers innocently if slavery was in accord with the Golden Rule. Then, gradually, as succeeding immigrants were thrown in difficult and exasperating competition with black workers, their attitude changed. These were the very years when the white worker was beginning to understand the early American doctrine of wealth and property; to escape the liability of imprisonment for debt, and even to gain the right of universal suffrage. He found pouring into cities like New York and Philadelphia emancipated Negroes with low standards of living, competing for the jobs which the lower class of unskilled white laborers wanted.There follows a passage describing waves of race riots in Northern cities. In the forties came quite a different class, the English and German workers, who had tried by organization to fight the machine ... The attitude of these people toward the Negro was varied and contradictory. At first they blurted out their disapprobation of slavery on principle.... Then they began to see a way out for the worker in America through the free land of the West. Here was a solution such as was impossible in Europe... In other words, the worker in America saw a chance to increase his wage and regulate his conditions of employment much greater than in Europe. The trade unions could have a material backing that they could not have in Germany, France or England. This thought, curiously enough, instead of increasing the sympathy for the slave turned it directly into rivalry and enmity.So much for the Europeans who settled north of the Mason Dixon line. In the south, the European Americans who did not settle in the cites or who were not planters—i.e., the great majority—drifted off the political radar screen: we have so far ignored the white workers of the South and we have done this because the labor movement ignored them and the abolitionists ignored them; and above all, they were ignored by Northern capitalists and Southern planters. They were in many respects almost a forgotten mass of men. Cairnes describes the slave South, the period just before the war:It resolves itself into three classes, broadly distinguished from each other, and connected by no common interest—the slaves on whom devolves all the regular industry, the slaveholders who reap all its fruits, and an idle and lawless rabble who live dispersed over vast plains in a condition little removed from absolute barbarism.From all that has been written and said about the ante-bellum South, "one almost loses sight of about 5,000,000 white people in 1860 who lived in the South and held no slaves. Even among the two million slaveholders, an oligarchy of 8,000 really ruled the South, while as an observer said: "For twenty years, I do not recollect ever to have seen or heard these non-slaveholding whites referred to by the Southern gentleman as constituting any part of what they called the South." They were largely ignorant and degraded; only 25% could read and write.
Click image for article The second half of the 19th century was, in areas where commerce had matured, in a chronic depression. One of the trends was for the planters to rent out slaves with specialized skills (this is what happened to Fredrick O Douglass) to what little industry there was on the eastern seaboard. This tended to accompany the liquidation of white working classes in a stroke: once Blacks entered a profession in a particular southern city, it was curtains for the white workers since entreprenuers usually followed suit. To this development, the poor Southern white had three coping mechanisms: he could emigrate from the South entirely (as occurred in huge numbers during the '40's and '50's of the 20th century); he could flee into the bush, and become a subsistence farmer, living in abject squalor; or he could try to fight the capitalists by fighting their workers—by fighting against the appearance of Blacks in his trade. I think this must have been the paramount force behind the poor white Southerner's obsessive hatred of his fellow African American laborer. |