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.
It has been estimated that somewhere between 40% to 2/3's of the British Isles immigrants between the 1630's and the Revolutionary War to the American colonies were the so-called Indentured Servants. Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas had the highest proportions and New England the lowest.
The term indentured servants is a white washing of the fact that these people were slaves who were bought and sold. If they ran away they were hunted down. If the owner impregnated one of his "servants", her sentence was extended by a year. Most sentences were 4 to 7 years, though sometimes they ran as high as 14. For children the sentence ran until they were 21, and it was their owner who got to decide how old they were when they were purchased. Many did not survive their indenture because it was not in the owner's interests for them to survive. This was due to the requirement to give them some land or other means to start on their own as free citizens at the end of their indenture. The land they were given was rarely good land, but rather the more marginal land and land on the frontier where settlers were subject to Indian raids.
Some sold themselves into indenture as a way of coming to the colonies. Most came involuntarily as a result of very minor criminal offenses. There were thousands of children kidnapped and sold. Even if a parent could find their child before the ship left, most could not afford to pay the fees being charged by local officials for housing them while waiting for the ships to leave.
In exchange for paying the passage to get them to the colonies the owner would be granted 50 acres per head plus of course years of free labor. Some owners kept the land but resold the people to others. A few indentured servants learned valuable trades. Most worked the fields in the manner that black slaves did. The huge different between the white slaves and the black of course is that the white slaves eventually were freed, assuming they lived through their full period of indenture.
True..and thank you for the cogent summation----I feel it important to add that there was no particular emphasis on the Irish--the poor and the petty criminals were the usual subjects of indentured servitude. Especially those with debts they could not pay off--they would 'sell' themselves into servitude rather than go to jail. Poor families would 'sell' their children. Was this slavery? Technically--probably not--but actually? Yeah...I think so. While not all holders of indentured servants were monsters--and many treated their servants well and to the letter of the law..they were under no real pressure to do so..and abuses were common.
That the Irish were slaves is a myth. No truth to it at all. If you think so, read this article.
That being said, the Irish were treated terribly in this country in the mid 1850s or so.
When railroads were being built in the south, especially in swampy Florida, before the Civil War, the railroads had a choice to use either black slaves or regular laborers (mostly whites). It came down to economics. Slaves cost a lot of money to own and to feed and to shelter and to clothe, etc, and if one died of malaria or other swamp diseases then a major loss occurred. The actual attitude of the railroad builders was that Irishmen were cheap to hire, you paid them little, usually in liquor, and if one died of malaria you just buried him in the swamp and hired another semi-starving Irishman fresh off the boat.
When the Civil War came along, it seemed that a notable amount of Union troops were Irish lads, often from New York City. The practice during that war was that you could weasel your way out of the draft if you could find someone to take your place, so a lot of well to do New Yorkers paid Irish lads to take their place. Look at the roster of Civil War units, you'll see tons of obviously Irish names there.
The Irish weren't slaves, but it seems they almost had it worse than actual slaves, given such low pay and they had to buy everything they needed with that meager pay. I've been poor and it sucks; and when I read accounts of poverty from that era I just shake my head at how bad it was and it lasted right up to about WW-1.
Cheap labor. Since somebody owned black slaves, that owner had something to lose. They likely invested a lot of money and resources into them.
Since nobody owned Irishmen or were invested in them, and they were willing, I can see how they were preferable, but to suggest black slaves somehow had it "better" is a ludicrous argument.
The one thing that is common throughout US history is the constant search for the cheapest labor possible. It's why blacks continued to be kidnapped and incarcerated after the abolition of slavery. Black prisoners were cheaper than paying poor Southerners a decent wage and worry about their working conditions.
Not to try to stray too far off topic, but I believe it's why today's farm industries fight against the deportation of latino illegal immigrants, but also extending them any kind of labor rights. They are easiest to exploit exactly where they are.
"There is no race of people on earth that hasn't at some point in time enslaved its own people, including blacks enslaving other blacks. That’s why one race trying to make another race feel uniquely guilty for slavery is really very stupid."
I remember reading an excerpt from Howard Zinn. He talk about a story from the late 19th century where Anglo farmers rather hire blacks to work instead of hiring Irish who are Catholic and dirty. I think it took place in Texas. He also talks about how Americans both black and Wasp have tendencies to be anti immigrant.
Cheap labor. Since somebody owned black slaves, that owner had something to lose. They likely invested a lot of money and resources into them.
Since nobody owned Irishmen or were invested in them, and they were willing, I can see how they were preferable, but to suggest black slaves somehow had it "better" is a ludicrous argument.
The one thing that is common throughout US history is the constant search for the cheapest labor possible. It's why blacks continued to be kidnapped and incarcerated after the abolition of slavery. Black prisoners were cheaper than paying poor Southerners a decent wage and worry about their working conditions.
Not to try to stray too far off topic, but I believe it's why today's farm industries fight against the deportation of latino illegal immigrants, but also extending them any kind of labor rights. They are easiest to exploit exactly where they are.
Yes, the railroads used and abused the Irish pretty badly. They were essentially 'free' compared to the cost of owning slaves. You didn't have to lock up the Irish to keep them from running away and they just showed up at the work sites looking for work.
I concede your point about slaves being worse off, but they did have shelter, food and clothing provided which the Irish had to buy. I see parallels to today's practice of 20 illegals living in squalid flophouses to the 20 legal immigrants of the 1850s living in squalid tenements in NYC. The Irish were free but life was still quite miserable in those conditions.
The use of Mexicans for hard work goes back at least to WW-II where tens of thousands of Mexicans were allowed in under the Bracero Program to do the hard work at railroad track laborers and crop pickers. Here's the wiki on that: "The Bracero Program (named for the Spanish term bracero, meaning "manual laborer" or "one who works using his arms") was a series of laws and diplomatic agreements, initiated on August 4, 1942, when the United States signed the Mexican Farm Labor Agreement with Mexico. The agreement guaranteed decent living conditions (sanitation, adequate shelter and food) and a minimum wage of 30 cents an hour; it also allowed the importation of contract laborers from Guam as a temporary measure during the early phases of World War II. The agreement was extended with the Migrant Labor Agreement of 1951, enacted as an amendment to the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Public Law 78) by Congress, which set the official parameters for the Bracero Program until its termination in 1964.
Before WW-II a lot of crop picking was done by Americans, black and white, and I can show you photos on the Library of Congress website (LOC/FSA/OWI) of white sharecroppers during the Great Depression.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
"There is no race of people on earth that hasn't at some point in time enslaved its own people, including blacks enslaving other blacks. That’s why one race trying to make another race feel uniquely guilty for slavery is really very stupid."
Every year, about this time, the myths reemerge.
There is a huge difference between indentured servants and African slaves.
African slaves commanded a higher value at auction because they, unlike indentured servants, had no human rights or path to earn freedom.
The Irish also refused to assimilate and brought their Catholicism and Christmas celebrations with them.
They were dirt poor and refused to assimilate. They were Catholic which did not go over well with those who had immigrated from Britain for religious freedom and believed the Pope had to much influence on the Church of England.
True..and thank you for the cogent summation----I feel it important to add that there was no particular emphasis on the Irish--the poor and the petty criminals were the usual subjects of indentured servitude. Especially those with debts they could not pay off--they would 'sell' themselves into servitude rather than go to jail. Poor families would 'sell' their children. Was this slavery? Technically--probably not--but actually? Yeah...I think so. While not all holders of indentured servants were monsters--and many treated their servants well and to the letter of the law..they were under no real pressure to do so..and abuses were common.
Yes, the "indentured servants" came from throughout the British Isles...England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland. Come the Revolutionary War when the English lost the American marketplace to sell their prisoners to, they started shipping them to Australia. In Australia there was a very different and much more humane system than what existed in the American colonies. Interestingly modern day Australia celebrates their convict laborers for their contribution to the building of Australia. Their names and histories are fairly readily known and it is almost a badge of honor so to speak to be descended of them. The US has largely forgotten its indentured servants and it is very difficult to determine that status when doing genealogy research.
I remember reading an excerpt from Howard Zinn. He talk about a story from the late 19th century where Anglo farmers rather hire blacks to work instead of hiring Irish who are Catholic and dirty. I think it took place in Texas. He also talks about how Americans both black and Wasp have tendencies to be anti immigrant.
Uhh no. The Irish were not slaves, meaning owned as PROPERTY. It's an offense to those of us whose ancestors were actual slaves. That is the point.
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.
