Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one said that slavery was illegal till the late 1600s. What was said is that RACE based slavery was not legally recognized - in other words, it wasn't legal to enslave someone and strip away their rights MERELY because they were black.
That doesn't mean that slavery didn't exist before that - of course it did. And it exists today for that matter.
The legality of slavery was not a prerequisit for its existence. so how did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's father become so wealthy if only poor immigrants braved the sea's and savages to scarape out and existence in the new world?
The legality of slavery was not a prerequisit for its existence. so how did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's father become so wealthy if only poor immigrants braved the sea's and savages to scarape out and existence in the new world?
Actually Washington's great grandfather lucked out and was given 700 acres of land as a wedding gift, along with slaves to work it. He wasn't wealthy when he came over though!
so those slaves arriving on the dutch ship in 1619 were let free and no other slaves were brought into the country until slavery was legal 20 years later?
Never said that. Why don't you get back to us when you're capable of understanding what multiple people are trying to tell you?
The legality of slavery was not a prerequisit for its existence. so how did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's father become so wealthy if only poor immigrants braved the sea's and savages to scarape out and existence in the new world?
I NEVER SAID that the legality of slavery had anything to do with whether or not it existed. In fact, I've stated repeatedly that it DID exist in the New World from the early 1600s (perhaps even before that).
The point I was making is that it was not the norm for new immigrants in the 1600s to get off the ship and immediately buy a cart full of Africans and sit back in the shade drinking mint juleps while the slaves did all the work.
Never said that. Why don't you get back to us when you're capable of understanding what multiple people are trying to tell you?
Okay history hacks, clearly it is entirely possible for an individual with money to have come to the new world from Europe in the 1700's, acquire land and buy slaves. class dismissed.
There's a difference between something existing in a turbulent, far flung colony, and something being recognized as legal or illegal. RACE based slavery (in other words, because you're of African descent, it's legal to enslave you) differs from a practice that was in place but not legally addressed comprehensively. I was only discussing RACE based slavery - in other words, BECAUSE a person was black, they were considered to have fewer rights. ALL slaves and servants, regardless of color, had fewer rights then, but it wasn't because of the color of their skin - it was because of their station in life. In the early 1700s, this concept was legally changed - and it became the color of skin that determined largely whether or not a person could legally be a slave. White people could be indentured, but they could not be bought and sold as property, because they had basic human rights which were denied people of African descent.
For some perspective, in Virginia in 1690, there were only 950 people of African descent - and this included free people of color, some of whom owned slaves THEMSELVES. After that time, the slave trade increased at an alarming rate and within twenty years there were over 25,000 slaves of African descent in Virginia.
This is what I was talking about when I said "slavery was recognized as legal." Of course it was happening before, but it hadn't been fully addressed by the legal system one way or the other.
True.
Actually both convicts, brought technically under a forced indenture issued by the court, and others who were indentured, could and were treated as property even past then. They were passed on in wills and the holder of the indenture could sell to someone else at will. Children born of servants were not desired, so the mother had her contract extended, but the child could be held until the age of 21, which meant mother's often stayed. The newly arrived were marched off the ship to the square and displayed, then sold by the ships captain. Customers were allowed to 'check' for health like they would if they were cattle as well. Punishments were vicious as well, and the laws dealing with escaped slaves were first written and enforced dealing with escaped servants. Up until into the 1700's, over half of 'servants' died before completion, many within a year due to punisments and conditions. Few children survived. Early blacks were simply indentured as well. One, a planter named Anthony Johnson, helped define slavery in legal terms, as one of his servants, seen as a ring leader (who was black), became legally a servant for life. There were other cases, but this is one of the steps along the way during the time period which led to legal slavery. As living conditions generally improved, more 'servants' survived to get their payment at the chance of escape increased. Gradually it became more economic to shift to Africans who did not have the restrictions. The largest buildup occured in beginning of the 1700's, after the legal footing for slavery had been piece by piece put into place. Servants were slowly granted a higher layer, convicts often not. But they were still subject to being sold to another and restrictions placed on their personal affairs. Punishments were still vicious and if they ran away they were recaptured and often years added to an indenture. But given that to the upper crust in the mother country that servants were objects and easily replaced, it isn't surprising. After the 'free willers' who voluntarily came under an indenture discovered it was not what they were told, the labor pool was filled by those 'swept' (ie, kidnapped) off the streets of London or Glascow to order in the cities or in sweeps in the countryside. Prisoners of war in Britan's frequent domestic troubles with Scotland and Ireland were usually shipped away as indentured labor. The laws had diverged racially to a degree before the 1700's but given that most came under duress and were treated like property, in reality 'servants' were still seen as such while held. Socially, though some three quarters of the citizens of Boston had been indentured or were decended from that, society had changed and the indentured were looked upon as lesser for accepting the humiliation. Thats why most Americans who are descendent of the first slaves don't know it, since it was 'erased'. It's interesting that indenture, or debt slavery, was not actually outlawed until the 13th amendment, which outlawed it along with slavery. It just faded to the shadows on its own. But nobody rode with across the sea free of charge, and if you couldn't pay cash you paid in years, and perhaps with your life. Thomas Paine was one of the few offical passangers on the ship he sailed to America in. He barely had the funds to come free, but he watched how the others were treated and it was one of the inspirations for his later political writings like Common Sense. By 1776 a social shift had taken place. Indentured servants still came, but fewer, and partly due to their past and partly due to the disease which came with them, convicts were used but not happily, largely by large scale land owners. But three quarters of those who lived in Boston were descendents of the indentured and it became the family secret. Those who came under indenture now usually had them arrainged and had a skill. But there was no free voyage, even if it was cheaper by then, and you either could afford it or someone paid and you paid them back.
Last edited by nightbird47; 10-29-2013 at 01:06 PM..
Reason: restored the paragraphs
Actually both convicts, brought technically under a forced indenture issued by the court, and others who were indentured, could and were treated as property. They were passed on in wills and the holder of the indenture could sell to someone else at will. Children born of servants were not desired, so the mother had her contract extended, but the child could be held until the age of 21, which meant mother's often stayed. The newly arrived were marched off the ship to the square and displayed, then sold by the ships captain. Customers were allowed to 'check' for health like they would if they were cattle as well. Punishments were vicious as well, and the laws dealing with escaped slaves were first written and enforced dealing with escaped servants. Up until into the 1700's, over half of 'servants' died before completion, many within a year due to punisments and conditions. Few children survived. Early blacks were simply indentured as well. One, a planter named Anthony Johnson, helped define slavery in legal terms, as one of his servants, seen as a ring leader (who was black), became legally a servant for life. There were other cases, but this is one of the steps along the way during the time period which led to legal slavery. As living conditions generally improved, more 'servants' survived to get their payment at the chance of escape increased. Gradually it became more economic to shift to Africans who did not have the restrictions. The largest buildup occured in beginning of the 1700's, after the legal footing for slavery had been piece by piece put into place. Servants were slowly granted a higher layer, convicts often not. But they were still subject to being sold to another and restrictions placed on their personal affairs. Punishments were still vicious and if they ran away they were recaptured and often years added to an indenture. But given that to the upper crust in the mother country that servants were objects and easily replaced, it isn't surprising. After the 'free willers' who voluntarily came under an indenture discovered it was not what they were told, the labor pool was filled by those 'swept' (ie, kidnapped) off the streets of London or Glascow to order in the cities or in sweeps in the countryside. Prisoners of war in Britan's frequent domestic troubles with Scotland and Ireland were usually shipped away as indentured labor. The laws had diverged racially to a degree before the 1700's but given that most came under duress and were treated like property, in reality 'servants' were still seen as such while held. Socially, though some three quarters of the citizens of Boston had been indentured or were decended from that, society had changed and the indentured were looked upon as lesser for accepting the humiliation. Thats why most Americans who are descendent of the first slaves don't know it, since it was 'erased'. It's interesting that indenture, or debt slavery, was not actually outlawed until the 13th amendment, which outlawed it along with slavery. It just faded to the shadows on its own. But nobody rode with across the sea free of charge, and if you couldn't pay cash you paid in years, and perhaps with your life. Thomas Paine was one of the few offical passangers on the ship he sailed to America in. He barely had the funds to come free, but he watched how the others were treated and it was one of the inspirations for his later political writings like Common Sense. By 1776 a social shift had taken place. Indentured servants still came, but fewer, and partly due to their past and partly due to the disease which came with them, convicts were used but not happily, largely by large scale land owners. But three quarters of those who lived in Boston were descendents of the indentured and it became the family secret. Those who came under indenture now usually had them arrainged and had a skill. But there was no free voyage, even if it was cheaper by then, and you either could afford it or someone paid and you paid them back.
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. The sources I was looking at said 1696 which was pretty darn close to 1700 (not just wiki but that was yesterday and I didn't save the info).
There is a really good book, White Cargo, the forgotten history of Britan's white slaves in America by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh, which deals with the period when all the mini-steps came together. There was no one single event which established slavery as black but a lot of smaller steps towards that end. The book is very readable and with lots of further references, and concentrates on Virginia and Maryland, which were the primary destination of most indentured as it was where they economy was dominated by labor intensive tabacco and the indentured system was created. It also highlights some of the steps along the way where indentures became a vehical for slavery, and the first color divide as Bacon and his insurrection taught those in charge to be wary of the mob so the race card was first played. Slavery came in bits and pieces to America, and was borne out of a system which mirrored it in many ways and that century was the transition, and those who came before should be remembered.
Okay history hacks, clearly it is entirely possible for an individual with money to have come to the new world from Europe in the 1700's, acquire land and buy slaves. class dismissed.
Go back to school and learn how to apply logic and reasoning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
