lly not clear as to what part of my postings Michael Etchison is disagreeing with. I began with something to the effect that the idea of any free labor in the 18th and 19th centuries is more of a myth than a reality. I ended saying that those writing about the issues of labor in factories in the nineteenth century compared 'free' white labor in the north and slave labor in the south from the point of view of costs with the north stating that costs of white labor were cheaper, and the southerners defending slavery as a cheaper form of labor. Nothing Etchinson says addresses this. I did not say that being a slave was better than working in a factory. The fact is, neither position was free. The women (not the craftsMEN whom Etchinson refers to) not only worked an average of 75 hours a week for an average pay of $2.50 a week which was significantly less than the average male salary of $6.00 a week, the women (get this -- this is gender, not race) DID NOT HAVE THE VOTE. Further, married women were not legally entitled to receive their own wages (their wages were paid to their husbands). Further, married women were not allowed to own or deed property. Further, Etchinson says women could choose who they married. Well, ain't women lucky -- does this say that women who married had the choice not to contribute to their own costs? No, in fact the gendered wage scale which exists shows clearly that women's labor was remunerated enough to contribute to her costs, but not enough to make her independent of marriage, so most women had no choice but to marry. Further, a closer examination of records shows that most women worked for wages or performed at least half of the agrarian labor on family farms throughout the ante-bellum years, married or not. Finally, the bulk of men's wages did not support a family, and male wage workers ended up receiving much of the outdoor relief available in northern cities to get them through seasonal lay offs which were much more common in the nineteenth century than they are in the twentieth. None of this is meant in any way to indicate that slavery was any less unjust, or horrible, or tragic, than it was. However, to then say that those laboring for wages (not to be confused with those who owned land or businesses or who were the minority of highly paid artisans) in the north were significantly better off is to buy, hook, line and sinker, the propaganda of the white ruling class which has re-written history to make themselves look like the good guys! maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
