I gave you this document in class.
Given our discussion about Southern white society, read this document about "poor whites." What is Kemble's main point? What is Olmsted's main point? How do they differ and/or compare? Do you think their views are indicative of the rest of the "non-poor white" population?
Due: MIDNIGHT, Thursday, Oct. 25
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
The main idea of this document is to express and explain the opinions of Kemble and Olmsted regarding the issue of slavery. Kemble sees poor whites as the cause of slavery because he believes they are too lazy and won't work as hard as the black slaves. He wishes slavery would be abolished. Olmsted sees slavery as a necessity because white men see work as a slave's job. He says that if someone hired a white man and you asked him to do certain things (taking care of cattle, or getting water or wood to be used in the house) he would get mad and say that is a black man's job. I kinda agree with Kemble but then I don't because yes certain white men were lazy but not all were. Also black slaves worked hard because if they didn't they would be punished and I dont't think a white man would be punished for not working. I learned in this document that not everyone in the south was for slavery, which was very surprising to me. I was confused a little about the wording and some of the points that they made.
This document is about the "Poor Whites" in the South, Kemble and Olmsted talk about their take on the slave problem or as Olmsted would say the positive attributes of slavery. Kemble blames the white people because they are too lazy to do the hardwork that black slaves would do, because it is "degrading." The he goes on to say, "this is an exceedingly dignified way of proving thir gentility for the lazy planters who perfer an idle life of semistarvation and babarism to the degradation of doing so themselves-" sorry for the long quote. He talks about how squatting is more degrading because they are either squatting on other people's lands or on goverment land. They are the whole reason for the growing popularity of slavery.
Olmsted on the otherhand was a supporter of slavery and it was considered a necessity. And a good thing for the economy. He talks about how that there a job's that are only meant for african american's and there are jobs that are only for white men. He says that if there were not slaves then the jobs basically would not get done.
This document is an excerpt from a journal or essay by Frances Kemble and Frederick Olmsted. The main point of this article is to examine the position of the “poor whites” in the south. Kemble’s main point is that the “poor whites” are basically lazy and they contribute to keeping slavery an institution in the south. Olmsted’s main point is that the slaves basically have a better living than the poor whites because they have steady employment and they are provided for by their owners. These two excerpts compare because they both agree that the position of poor whites is a problem. Kemble thinks that they contribute to the continuation of slavery, and Olmsted thinks that slaves have a better life than poor whites. Kemble is viewing the poor whites as a Yankee visiting to the south and talking to a southern man. Olmsted’s view is similar. I think that their views ARE characteristic of the non-poor white position because they give no breaks and view the poor whites rather harshly.
Brian Jones
Kemble views the poor whites as lazy and corrupt. She said the reason they won't work is cause the mentality of the South is that any exertion or hard work is work for the slaves and not for white people. In Kemble's view the poor whites were contributing to the mindset that all hard labor was for the slaves. The rich planters shunned them because of their thinking that physical labor was reserved for slaves. Kemble thinks that if slavery were no longer necessary then the slavesholders would give up their slaves. She later found out that that was not the case. Slavery was still a very profitable business and most people were too greedy to change their ways. Olmsted almost seems the pity the poor whites. He mentioned that he thought the living conditions for the poor whites were worse than that of the slaves. He also stated that he thought the poor whites were corrupting the slaves and encouraging them to steal and exposing them to liquor.
When looking at the position of “poor whites” in southern society there are varying opinions. The document given makes this point evident. Though both Kimble and Olmsted agree that the “poor whites” in the south are a problem the way they view the class is different. Kimble has a harsher view on the poor whites; he believes that they are lazy and the reason they have such a hard life is because they refuse to work. He also thinks that they are the reason slavery is still somewhat prevalent in the south. The “poor whites” will not do the “degrading” work that the blacks are forced to do. Olmsted has a different approach; he does not give poor whites complete blame for the position they are in. He puts the blame on the slaves saying that they take all the jobs that the whites would, and should, receive. I do not agree with either one hundred percent. I believe that yes, there would be some jobs available if slavery was not there, but this is not the slaves fault. It is the slave owners that take advantage of the cheap, or free, labor.
In “Accounts about “Poor Whites””, Frances Kemble and Frederick Olmsted write about their views about “poor whites” in the south. They look onto the matter from a personal point of view during their visits to the South. Both Kemble and Olmsted form differing opinions about a poor whites’ position in the south. Kemble believes that “poor whites” are a “terrible” result of slavery. He believes that “these wretched creatures” are lazy. Olmsted believes that white people are “extremely ignorant and immoral” and are almost socially lower than the slaves. He claims that they were unreliable workers and were “corrupt[ing]” the negroes”. Both Kemble and Olmsted recognize the bad in “poor whites” but, in my opinion and contrary to most of my classmates’ opinions, Olmsted goes about describing them in a harsher way by using strong language to convey his dislike of “poor whites”. From reading this document I have learned that slaves demanded a particular amount of money when working (“Negroes had commanded such high wages…”). What I do not understand is why Kemble and Olmsted showed such an interest in “poor whites”. This document reminds me of Jonathan Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God” in that they both point out the problems of a particular group. Edwards reveals the problems of sinners while Kemble and Olmsted explain the problems with the “poor whites”.
Hi it is Jared.
The main idea for Kemble is that the "poor whites" are the "direct growth of slavery". Kemble writes this from a yeomanry of Georgia. Kemble sees the "poor whites" as lazy and are doing slaves work. Kemble describes the "poor whites" as "rude shelters", "food is chiefly supplied by shooting the wildfowl and venison, and stealing from...patches of the plantations..." The main idea for Olmsted is that "poor whites" are employed in the tobacco factories and other major factories in Virginia. Olmsted writes this from his state of Virginia from a possibly non slaveholder's view. Olmsted says that "poor whites" don't exchange money to help the market and they fed themselves by cultivating the land. Olmsted says that "poor whites" are "to be extremely irgnorant and immoral, as well as indolent and unambitious", "habits of useless", "to "corrupt" the negroes, and to encourage them to steal, or to work for them at night adn on Sundays, and to pay them with liquor". But Olmsted seems to not put down the "poor whites" but considers them above the level of slaves. He says that "poor whites" are "any other portion of the community, to and despise the negroes." Kemble wrote this in 1839 and Olmsted wrote this in 1856. The views are quite different one comes from the Lower South and one from the Upper South. It seems to have a reason why they have "poor whites" in the South. That there are two different opinions on the reasons why they have "poor whites" in the South.
This document are entries written by Frances Anne Kemble and Frederick Law Olmsted. It is concerning the issue of slavery and poor whites. Kemble thinks that although some southerns say they see the wrong in slavery, they are reluctant to abolish it. She goes on to say that owners feel that the slaves are of too much value, so they simply chose to ignore the fact that they are holding innocent people in bondage. In her entry, Mr. Kings says that if the south really believed that slavery was indeed wrong, it could be done away with immediately. It is all a choice; a reflection of moral values, if you will. On another note, Olmsted addresses the issue of poor whites. He says that the poor white people live in worse conditions than slaves. He focuses on the fact that they are too lazy to work, and can't hold steady jobs. He points out that these people refuse to do the work that most slaves do on a daily basis. This refusal to work contributes to the poor whites lack of social status. The two entries compare in a sense that maybe if the poor whites weren't so useless, slavery wouldn't be necessary.
The main point of the documents are to point out the cultural conditions of poor whites in Antebellum and South and to juxtapose them with the conditions of slaves. Both accounts were given from the individual perspectives of two white men. One of the men (Kemble) clearly comes from the North and seems to have a bit of an abolitionist perspective and looks down upon the institution of slavery while the other man (Olmsted) doesn't necessarily favor human bondage, but doesn't seem to necessarily have a vested interest in its survival. For the most part, that is the only place where the two men differ. They both seem to agree upon the point that poor whites were a crude a lazy people. Kemble characterized them as "wretched creatures" while Olmested said that they were a "rather despicable class." They both asserted that poor whites were extremely lazy, lived in crude housing, and often would not work because they saw that as the work of a "negro." Not only did the two men agree that poor whites were a disgraceful people, but they also agreed that slavery could never be irradicated in the South so long as it remained so profitable. They conceded that so long as it is advantageous to enslave humans, that the practice will continue on and on. I think that likely their viewpoints were shared by the majority of non "poor white" men (except for the belief that slavery was an evil institution). I learned that there were people that could admit how twisted some of the facets of society were back then and how pathetic some people were to hold on to the notion that race defined them as superior than others. These documents remind me of when the colonists first tried to enslave Native Americans and how many Native American men refused to do farm work because thy believed that it was the work of women (a gender that they considered to be inferior). I didn't find anything confusing about the documents.
Kemble's main point here is that whites of all classes will not do any work of their own, and therefore that, combined with the vast value of the slaves that would all disappear, convinces the south to never abolish slavery. Olmsted speaks on poor whites that hire themselves out to work, but still consider certain tasks to be reprehensible and for black people only. They differ on how much poor whites can stand to work by a slight degree, but both speak on the general laziness of them towards working. The rest of the population looks down on poor whites, considering them only harmful to business except in extreme cases where planters needed extra labor. Both documents confirm that poor whites were not well looked upon, and both mention a sort of "hate triangle" between planters, slaves, and poor whites with each having a bad opinion of another group if not both others.
Kemble says poor whites are a cause for slavery because they are lazy, he wants to see an end to slavery. Olmsted views slavery as necessary because he believes whites shouldn't do menial tasks he believes grunt work is a black man's work. Their views differed on the point of whether slavery should be instituted or not and the reasons for slavery, but they agreed on that slavery was practiced because whites didn't want to do the work whether it was out of laziness or whether they felt they were to good for it.
Warren Johnson
This document shows the two sides that southerners had about slavery. Kemble believes that the only reason there is slavery, is because the poor whites arent willing to work as hard as a black slave. Olmsted's view was that the south needed slavery because many southern white people viewed certain jobs as slaves work. I agree and disagree with both of them because they both have thier good points. Had slavery been abolished at this time the southern economy would have completly crashed so i can see where they say slavery is a necessity. But I also agree that some of the poor white people should have done more work because they contribute no more to society than the slaves do.
The document from Kemble describes a conversation she had with a man who had observed the social differences in the South. It can be given that she is a Northerner, as the information is second hand. Her main point is that Southerners, despite whether they are slaveowners or "yeoman farmers", are dependent on slavery in one way or another, whether materially or socially. It's obvious that the aristocratic slaveowners benefit from the labor brought in by their slaves, but for the poor white majority, the blacks and slaves are a barrier, keeping them from the very bottom of the social ladder. Kemble describes their lifestyles as very meager, but brimming with a type of pride in being white that none of them will go to work at all, proving devatating to the white population. Olmstead observes the white laboring class and comes to the conclusion that they could never come into competition with black laborers in his document. White men, unlike slaves, never could be depended on because they held themselves too highly to work as hard as blacks. He also observes the interesting fact that whites often corrupted the blacks, encouraging them to adopt their lives of licentiousness and petty crimes, while at the same time despising them as the lowest of the low. Their views seem to be biased, as the introductory paragraph indicates, and focused on the extremes of southern society, the poorest of the poor, rather than the overall picture. Our textbook contends that most of the white population did not live in such a manner as depicted by Kemble and Olmstead. Instead, the majority lived in tight-knit communities that grew enough food to feed their families and make a living, rather than squatting and stealing to survive without work. Most whites were open to labor and employed their whole families if necessary to make ends meet if they could not afford slaves.
The whole point of this article is for Kemble and Olmstead to express their different views and opinions on the poor whites. Mr. Kemble thinks that the poor whites are just lazy bums and says that they prfer "an idle life of semistarvation and barbarism to the degredation of doing anything themselves." He calls the poor whites and squaters "wretched creatures" and basically just considers them animals and an insult and burden to society. He also says that becuase of the poor white population growth, slavery increases. Olmsted says that the poor whites are lower and worth less than slaves becuase of thier ignorance and almost stupidity to not work. He says how they refuse to do work even when they are poor becuase it is below them and that this refusal also leads to more slavery. I agree with both Kemble and Olmstedn becuase when someone who needs the money doesn't work that is just straight up lazy. I wouldn't care if it was "below" me if i was hungry and needed to work for food, i would be working from sun up to sun down. Thanks to the poor whites, we now have today what is called "white trash" who are also mostly lazy and dont work. It's kinda wierd though how the document says that if the poor whites weren't so lazy there wouldn't be slavery becuase even if the poor whites worked, there would probably still be slaves because that had been a way of farming for so long. But i can see where they are coming from.
this reminds me of how today when i was at the doctor there was a couple there who had no insurance so of course the government pays for their health care. I'm fine with that, if you cant afford it then you can't afford it but what got me was that the couple drove away in a mercedes benz. doesn't make sense.
Frances Anne Kemble and Frederick Law Olmsted both express their opinions on "Poor Whites" in these journals. They share how they feel about "Poor Whites" and how they came to be such. Kemble feels as if all of the "Poor Whites" or even White people for that matter are lazy. He says they refuse to do work because it is below them. I think this claim is absurd. Not to justify them being lazy or to support slavery, but why would you do any work if there is no need to? Olmsted feels almost the same. I don't think their view points are the same as other "non slave holding whites". In my opinion their view point would be more like that of a northerner.
The main idea of the document is to show two differing oppinions of the poor whites in the south. Kemble sees the poor whites as a disgrace, as lazy people who wont do "degrading" work in order to make a living. Kemble tells how she beleives that since the poor whites are to lazy to work that this makes slavery popular. Olmsted sees the poor whites as a problem also but doesn't place the blame of their poverty on the poor whites entirley. He says that slavery takes the jobs of these people and makes it hard for them to find work at all. Their oppinions are the similar in the way that they see these people as a problem, they differ because kemble thinks that these people are poor because they are laze while Olmsted thinks they are poor because slaves do the jobs that the poor whites would do in order to make money. I think their differing views do express the rest of the non-poor white population. I think that some poor whites were poor because they were lazy while other. I leaned how everybody, even slaves looked down on poor whites. This document doesnt remind me of any others, and it wasnt too confusing.
Both parties had different opinions. Kemble looked at the poor whites look like they just needed help and didnt deserve to live the way they did. While Olmsted basically called them lazy because the would only half tail do a job and charge a lot for it. One is for helping them and one is basically for knocking some sense into them. This is a point of view from two wealthier men and they both saw this part of society from two differentiated points of views. It was proven that they wouldnt work as hard as slaves so what was the point in hiring them when you could get a slave to do more work for less. A slave was an investment. He or she cost a lot at first but you could usually get 10 years of good work from a well treated slave. I agree with Rachel about agreeing with Kemble. Not all poor whites were lazy, but ya there were the select few who were.
Nick Foister
Kembles main point is that he views the poor whites as lazy, and not wanting to work really at all. Olmsteds main point was that slayery was a need because no white man would every do any certain kind of work, because of being lazy. Olmsted also says that if you asked a white man to do a job he would respond with thats a black mans job. Kemble and Olmsted both talk about the non poor white population very negatively.
In the document Accounts about “Poor Whites”, Kemble and Olmsted address the complexity of the southern white social system. I was have always believed that most southern people in general lived in the Gone with the Wind plantations and the only tensions that arose was from freed blacks or slaves. I didn’t realize that within the white society there were divisions. A lot of tension arose between the wealthy planters and the poor whites. The poor whites however felt that they still had white supremacy over the slaves. Kemble’s main point in this account is that the wealthy white plantation owners are to spoiled to lift a hand in the name of labor. The wealthy planters rather, “ prefer an idle life of semistravation and barbarism to the degradation of doing anything themselves. The wealthy planters felt that were above any physical labor. Kemble then talks about the squatters who just take from the people who have worked hard in life to receive nice things. They live on others land and barely set up a home more like a shack because they know sooner or later they will be run off. I think that what Kemble is trying to say is that these squatters are nasty people and only take from others. Kemble says that these poor white people would rather steal or starve then the do the work of a slave. Kemble is against slavery and he even agrees with the statement that “I hate slavery with all my heart; I consider it an absolute curse wherever it exists”. Kemble also knows that as only as slavery is bringing in money, the southerners will never turn against it. Olmsted’s view about the laboring white people is that there is none. No white southerners have permanent jobs and they work by the day. Olmsted also observed that white men wouldn’t do the considered work of a slave. Even white ladies refused to do household work because in a sense it was being degraded. The employers liked slaves to work with them because the slaves they didn’t have to pay them and they couldn’t drive them to better work. Also the white employers felt that the white labors were on the same page as them Olmsted makes the statement that the poor whites hate the blacks then any other whites in the South. I think the slaves and the freed blacks look on the poor whites are trash and ignorant people. These men and women won’t work and seem to be very lazy. I think this is a very childish attitude I disagree with Chels when she says that his account is rather harsh on the poor white folks. I am so tried of people trying to defend people who let pride get in the way of making a living. It is there own fault that they squat get a job and shut up. The government should throw these people in jail.
Congratulations Mrs. Stone!! This is Mackenzie Wilder
Frances Anne Kemble and Frederick Law Olmsted explain their opinions on slavery in the "Poor Whites." Kemble views poor whites as the cause of slavery because he thinks they are lazy and would not work as hard as the blacks. Kemble wants to completely abolish slavery. Kemble believes squatting is more degrading than slavery, and that the poor whites are the reason for the growing of slavery.
Olmsted believs slaves have a better life than poor whites. Slaves have a steady job, clothing and food at all times. Both agree that the poor whites are the ones causing the growth of slavery, which most everyone before me has said. I agree with both sides because both sides have their strong points-that some people are just to lazy to work for themselves. I agree with Sophie that it reminds me of "sinners in the hand of an Angry God" because they put out their opinions and problems of different groups.
Both of these men have seperate ideas on poor whites and also their views on slavery. Kemble disagrees with poor whites in general and slavery while Olmsted believes that the U.S., especially the south need slavery, because slaves are bought for work and only work. In this this time the people known for doing the dirty work were the black men. Usually all poor whites were were squatters on other peoples' land. Many things mentioned in this document show a strong supporter of slavery and also a person for anti-slavery who defended very vigorously.
Kemble's main point almost seems to defend the yeomen, or the pinelanders as he refers to them, and chastises the planter class for being lazy and the ultimate cause for this degradation of laborers, an 'inferior race,' slavery. He calls the planter class "wretched creatures" for believing they are superior to a laboring race when they do not even lift a finger. In defense of the yeomen, Kemble says they work just as hard as slaves and live in just as destitute conditions, if not worse. He states that the planter class associates the pinelanders with the slaves, essentially as equals.
However, Olmsted's view of white laborers was not quite as favorable. He considered them just as unreasonable, inconsiderate, pompous, and lazy as the planters, saying they too believed they were superior to blacks.
While Kemble holds a more forgiving and altruistic idea of the yeomen, Olmsted did not view them any different from the planter class and said both groups had the same white-against-black mentality.
Although it's a sad thought, I do think Olmsted's observations are more accurate because, considering our discussion of these diverse social classes, nonslaveholders, though less influential and powerful (financially according to their lifestyle) in society, held the same feeings about blacks as the powerful planter class. However, I don't think all planters were this degrading and overbearing; they couldn't have been as bad as Kemble and Olmstead describe them. But since I look for the good in people, that could just be my opinion.
-Josh Hammond
Kembles main point is that the poor white's laziness and refusal to do hard agricultural "slave labor" contributes and sustains slavery in the south. She doesnt like slavery and wishes for abolition, but knows that emancipation will be hard because of all the slave owners depending on slave labor. Olmsted however says slavery is necessary because no one else can be driven to work as hard and do the same work slaves do. I think that rest of the population is split between abolitionists and slaveholders/proslavery-ers. I also noticed almost everybody referred to Kemble as a "he" when Frances Anne appeared to me as a female name, but what do I know.
Writers: Frances Kemble & Frederick Olmsted
POV/Purpose: Northeners visiting the South; to describe the various aspects & social interactions (or non-interactions) between the different classes in the South, namely planters, slaves, & poor whites
Main idea: Kemble finds the poor whites truly pathetic, but he discerns that they hold out like they do out of a sort of pride or dignity: "for they are whites, [they will not] labor for their own subsistence." "These free men will hold it nobler to starve or steal." They don't want to labor because they think they are too high to work alongside blacks. Kemble also is against slavery, though he learns why the South cannot bear to let it go.
Olmsted, like Kemble, also learns that poor whites refuse to do labor usually relegated to blacks. He explains how Southerners view poor whites as even lower than slaves because slaves are at least less lazy and more reliable. He also observes that poor whites are thought to corrupt slaves with their lazy and licentious ways. Both men share similar observations, though obviously their information is from a biased source. However, it seems that these views are the planters' collective opinion.
Links to other docs: I agree with Sophie about "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"--lots of dogmatic views.
I learned: that poor whites were looked down more than slaves sometimes...who knew?
Confusion: Olmsted keeps referring to a "he" but never introduces that he. I'm guessing it's Mr. King
Liz Godwin
The main point in 'Accounts about "Poor Whites"' is voicing the opinions of Kemble and Olmsted and their opinions on slavery. Kemble is totally against slavery and says the cause of it is because of there "poor whites". He blames them because they do not want to do any work for themselves so they get slaves to do all the work for them. He says if the South really wanted to get rid of slavery they could, they're just too lazy to do it. Olmsted on the otherhand supports slavery. He thinks that without slave labor work will not get done. He believes that white people wouldn't get the job done because they don't work as hard as blacks. Both Kemble and Olmsted agree that the "poor whites" were lazy and had a negative affect on slavery.
This is Andrew's
This document showed the opinions of Kemble and Olmsted on the issue of slavery and "poor whites." Kembler and Olmsted both have different views on slavery but on the topic of white society, they both believe that it isn't the best thing, but have different opinions on the details of these classes. Kemble says that "poor whites" have put themselves in the situation that they are in. He feels that they are too lazy and because of that they have chosen the poor lifestyle that they will live. He also somewhat blames them for the reason that slavery is still present in the south. He says that since they won't do the work that the blacks will do that the blacks are considered slaves. Olmsted has a different view. Olmsted somewhat defends the situation that the poor whites are in blaming it on the blacks. He says that the blacks take all the jobs that the whites would do, therefore there is nothing for them to do. I think that both have good points. I feel that although the blacks have taken some jobs, the whites can still work and are somewhat lazy. I feel like most everybody else is kind of fed up the poor whites for what ever reason they all want something to change with them.
In this document Kemble and Olmsted give their opinions about "poor whites" in the South. Like Jenna said, Kemble basically thinks that the poor whites are too lazy and they are the reason for slavery in the first place because they didn't feel like doing the work themselves. Olmsted on the other hand believes slavery is needed because white men never will work steadily at any employment. He said that white men saw all work as black men's jobs and that they were almost "too good" to do the simple tasks that would be asked of them. Olmsted also says that there are certain jobs only for a black man and certain jobs only for a white man. If a black man did not do the job he was meant to do and the same for the white man, these certain tasks or jobs would not be completed. Both of their opinions seem very characteristic of a non-poor white because they have extremely stereotypical views of the poor whites and the slaves both.
In this document, Kemble and Olmsted gave their opinions on the issue of slavery and poor whites. Kemble says that the reason the people can't get rid of slavery is because white people are too lazy, therefore there is no one else who will do the work that is needed. Kemble does not like slavery and wants abolished. Olmsted however has a different point of view. He thinks there are certain jobs for black and white men. He basically says hard labor jobs are for slaves. He says that even a hired white man wouldn't even do certain things that a slave would do for free mostly out of fear of being punished. Olmsted seems to not be bothered by the poor whites. He says that he has been "told" that poor whites are less respectable than slaves but I don't think he agrees by the tone he uses. I learned that poor white women also worked for pay but that most of them were not allowed in someone's house because they were not respectable women.
this is blair.
The main point of these accounts from Kemble and Olmstead is to express their opinion on the poor whites. Kemble calls the poor whites “lazy” and says that they do not do anything that is “below them.” He points out that poor whites are good at squatting…isn’t that something the Indians did? He even goes on and infers that because of the poor whites, the slavery population increases. Olmstead stoops even lower than Kemble and says that poor whites were lower than slaves because the poor whites didn’t seem to want to work. Which is stupid because if you need something, work for it. Everything in life isn’t going to be handed to you. These accusations seem low, but they are really true. If the poor whites were not willing to work because they thought it was below of them, then they are stupid. Slaves who have more than them (I think, sort of) work. They have more and still work because it’s the only way to get better. If poor whites are stupid not to work then they should be considered below the slaves..at least the slaves earned what they got. Kemble and Olmstead’s opinions differ slightly. Kemble sees the poor whites..aka “white trash” as above the slaves, but lazy and Olmstead puts them below the slaves. But the same over all opinion is the same. The only thing I disagree with both of them about is their opinions are too generalized..not all poor whites were lazy.
this document is an account of poor white people as veiwed by to different white males of the time. both men view the poor whites as lazy and crude. neither man was favorable towards slavery and did not agree with the practice of enslaving humans. kemble wishis for the abolisment of slavery while olmsted belives slavery will remain present as long as it is cheaper than hirering people to do the work.
tres tired...zzzz.....
I am so sorry to disappoint, but I have no time for sarcasm, or over physcho-analyzing. Next article- I promise to tear it up really good. (that was for you, T)
This article basically lays out two different opinions on the "poor whites". Kemble (such a nice guy) is obvious in his beliefs. He thinks that the poor whites are lazy and are only broke because they won't do any work to become something different. (oy, says the man who was probably sitting at a table with his little pinky raised as he drank some tea). Olmsted, on the other hand, has some sympathy for the poor whites, as he beliefs that the slaves are taking any available jobs. He even lists his reasoning- slaves can be commanded, poor whites would be uncontrollable ... Both Kemble and Olmsted agree that the white man is lazy (wowzers- what an observation!), but they disagree on how the "poor whites" fall into society. I really don't think the rest of the white society cared that much. It seemed like it was more of a dispute between the slaves and their masters and the poor whites. That's it- everybody else wasn't really e/a(?)ffected by it. And then, after the Civil War and all that fun rebuilding the South stuff, they all live happily ever after. The end.
the maid idea of kemble and olmsted's account of poor whites is to in general discuss the opinions that they have towards the poor whites, and slavery. they discussed the general laziness of the poor whites, and their refusal to do certain jobs that were meant for black slaves. they thought that all whites were lazy, those that squatted on the land of other men, or the government, and refused to do certain work, and those that solely relied on slaves in order to get work done. both seem to be against slavery, and possible from the north.
hey mrs. stone its Jake from 4th period
This document is based on the poor whites in the south. To sum it up the article is telling how one person saw these poor whites and opinions he had gained from others on the subject. The poor whites didn't work because that was held only for the slaves, so it was hard to make an existence when they had no slaves themselves. Some didn't even own land and had to squat on other peoples land or the governments and steal food. The slaves even looked down on these white folks. At the end of the article it talks about the abolition of slavery, and based on the opinions of a few people from the south how it could never happen. Most of this article made sense to me exept for a few sentences I failed to comprehend.
Kemble & Olmsted believe that the main reason for people not wanting to get rid of slavery was because white men were too lazy and were too babied by the luxury of slavery to know how to survive on their own. By stating this, a reader might assume that Kemble & Olmsted were against slavery and were one of many who were arguing for its abolishment. I also got the impression that Kemble & Olmsted believed that whites wouldnt know how to servive on their own because they have never actually worked. This is partially true in that the planters relied on slaves to make their profit. However, many of the slave owners were not plantation owners; instead they owned one maybe 2 slaves that were just an extra helping hand. These writers make good points however they don't completely state all that is wrong with slavery.
This document was from a journal thing written by Frances Kemble and Frederick Olmsted about their opinions on the subject of slavery and poor whites. The poor whites were the bottom of the totem pole and were looked down upon by slaves. They talk about how lazy these poor whites are and how they don't even work and steal off of other peoples lands for food and stuff. I didn't like how whites wouldn't do supposed "blacks" work. That is ridiculous. Kemble pretty much blames slavery on poor whites.
"Accounts about "Poor Whites"" was written by Frances Anne Kemble and Frederick Law Olmsted. This document explains the views and opinions that are held by both Kemble and Olmsted regarding the controversial issue of slavery and the "poor whites" in the south. Both of these people wrote this from the point of view of visitors to the south. Both of them had made visits and saw the things that were going on in the south. Kemble believes that "poor whites" are the result of slavery. He also states that these people are lazy. Olmsted feels that "poor whites" are almost socially lower than slaves. He also feels like they are corrupting the slaves. I feel like Olmsted described them too harshly. I learned from this document that not everyone that was black in the south was a slave. I got confused a little by the way he worded things. Like Sophie, this document reminded me of Edwards sermon that we read earlier in the year. They both point out things about certain groups of people and they explain their views on them.
Hannah Mauldin :)
The main idea of this document is to convey the opinions of Olmsted and Kemble on slavery. Olmsted views slavery as an important thing in the south and even thinks its necessary. Olmsted also seems to be more open-minded about slavery than Kemble. Kemble thinks slavery is because of the white people's laziness and unwillingness to do hard labor. He seems to favor abolitionist ideas. The two also talk about "poor whites" and how they are just about as bad as slaves. That is one thing they can agree on. This document confused me because at first I didn't realize that I was reading two people's opinions, but then i wised up ("duh hannah").
and Donna, benz are gangster ;)
Sorry its late...I forgot about it until now.
The document shows the different views that the southerners had on slavery. Kemble states that poor whites will notdo plantation work because they are much lazier than the black slaves and will not get as much work done. Olmsted stated that slavery was a necessity in the south because some of the work that slaves do are looked down upon and degraded, therefore, whites do not want to be seen having such a job and refuse to do so. I think Kemble's statement is pretty accurate. I mean, how many white men would WANT to work if they had slaves right there to do the work for them. They had no intentions of being lazy, just didn't see the need in doing the work if they were there to be used (and im not defending slavery). It was interesting to me to hear that whites were even considered for doing some of the labor, i had always had the empression that the slaves did all the work all the time and the white folks just layed back and chilled sort of. Boy was I wrong.
Hi Ms. Stone, I was absent for two days last week and that's why this blog is so late.
Kemble seems to think that slavery is the direct cause of the poverty and lazy of poor whites, that having slaves is degrading to physical labor itself to such a point that the poor will not condescend to work. He sees it as an evil that only produces more evil.
Olmsted simly says that it is the way things and a necessity. He also seems to take views such as the ones Kemble holds regarding poor whites as insulting.
The "Accounts about Poor Whites" was written by Frances Anne Kemble and Frederick Olmsted. Kemble sees that the Southern slaveholders do not just own slaves because they can not free themselves from it, but because they want it. He also says that the poor whites won't work because it is degrading and meant for only the slaves. Olmsted says the complete opposite, that poor whites work hard, but they refuse to do the same tasks as slaves. Their viewpoints differ also because while Kemble accuses whites as "squatters", Olmsted says they constantly are moving around to find new work.
Post a Comment