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.
But indentured servants were not citizens, so they could NOT own land in some of the colonies.
That is a topic for another thread. The point was that it was typical that the indentured servants got something after their service ended. And to further the point, there was an end to their servitude.
History is written by the winners. I recently took a college American History course. It amazed me how much has been changed in the books since I was in high school in the 1960s. It is all sanitized history. Anything that showed the U.S. in a bad light, like the invasion of Hawaii or The massacre at Wounded Knee, has been eliminated.
Hmmm..always had problems with that statement--History books may be written by the winners..but History is. It simply exists. The truth, or a close approximation, is out there. I submit that you had a very bad American history class.
There are many books on the incidents you cited. Some with agendas...some without. Learning is a interactive thing..you bear the responsibility of discerning motive and bias.
Many of the Irish were "indentured" and could never make enough to pay for their release.
Indenture contracts were fixed term (even for convicts). They were provided food, shelter and clothing per contract, not wages however. The indentured could buy back his contract at any time for the value on the contract. At the term of the contract the indentured was free to leave, may be offered employment, and may (depending on the terms of service) receive cash or goods as a remittance for the work performed.
So I don't know where you're getting couldn't pay for their release, or make enough, because being indentured they weren't paid (they were in debt for the costs that led to their indenture, their labor recouped the debt). Further they couldn't exactly provide labor to another employer, them being indentured. Finally the indenture contract was for a fixed term the indentured servant owed nothing at the end of the contract, that was kind of the point, they were paying their debt through labor.
It wasn't chattel slavery, it wasn't enlightened either. However it was completely different circumstances. A slave knew that they were enslaved for life without reprieve. An indentured servant knew they were bound for a fixed term. Practically (especially in the West Indies) this may have been de facto the same, but is significantly different at the time of agreement, of which Indentured Servants actually had to agree (again with a caveat of coerced agreement, like Press Ganging). Children of indentured servants were not indentured at birth or at all, children of slaves were also slaves and owned like their parents. Indentured servants had limited legal rights that protected them from the worst excesses, rape, maiming and murder being some that indentured servants had protection from (with the caveat of it did need reporting to authorities), slaves being property had no such protections, much like modern livestock (although depending on state law, modern livestock may have more protections).
While neither was especially civilized, the differences in the two systems make them light years apart.
Sorry, but indentured servants had the expenses for their keep taken out of their "wages", meaning it took some many years to get their voyage paid off.
Hmmm..always had problems with that statement--History books may be written by the winners..but History is. It simply exists. The truth, or a close approximation, is out there. I submit that you had a very bad American history class.
There are many books on the incidents you cited. Some with agendas...some without. Learning is a interactive thing..you bear the responsibility of discerning motive and bias.
This thread is a great example.
Most of the current American History books used in high school and college omit a lot of stuff. Especially bad things that our country did.
That is a topic for another thread. The point was that it was typical that the indentured servants got something after their service ended. And to further the point, there was an end to their servitude.
The end was often death in the Caribbean colonies. Since they were cheap compared to slaves and were worthless at the end of the contract, usually 10 years, the owners had no incentive to treat them well and every incentive to work them to their deaths before the contract was up.
I don't really consider an indentured servant a slave. I'm certain it wasn't always "nice", but after x amount of years, they were able to move on. I've seen some dodgy records in the Caribbean, but nothing much in the states.
I did.. didn't debunk anything.. mistreatment, beaten.. Oh,, but they were not slaves.. what a crock!
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.
