As noted in an earlier post on slavery, the English colonies in the Americas fell short when it came to having a large and inexpensive labor force in order to turn a profit for a colony's proprietor and in return also for the Crown. After all, sending people across the ocean is expensive, and the typical laborer England and Ireland didn't have the means to make the voyage.
Indentured servants arrive early in the history of the colonies, one letter from 1623, describes conditions in Virginia from the perspective of Richard Frethorne. Frethorne opens his letter painting a fairly bleak picture.
"I your child am in a most heavy case by reason of the country, [which] is such that it causeth much sickness, [such] as the scurvy and the bloody flux and diverse other diseases, which maketh the body very poor and weak. And when we are sick there is nothing to comfort us; for since I came out of the ship I never ate anything but peas, and loblollie (that is, water gruel)...people cry out day and night Oh! That they were in England without their limbs – and would not care to lose any limb to be in England again, yea, though they beg from door to door" - Frethorne
From what we know of indentured servitude, it appears to have been a nasty business. It was a way for the English government to tackle a few problems in what probably seemed like pragmatic fashion. The first problem was to do with debtors, in England at the time being poor was likely to brand you as a criminal. As noted in an earlier post, Georgia was specifically setup as a colony for debtors, but indentured servitude was another route to the colonies. Second it was also the only route available for those laborers who could not afford passage to the Americas. And lastly, another source of indentured servants was the English colonization of Ireland, which ramped up during the reign of Oliver Cromwell and caused many Irish Catholics to be branded "criminals" later under the Penal Laws.
But what exactly was indentured servitude?
One description from Pennsylvania in 1750 describes it this way, Colonists " go on board the newly arrived ship that has brought and offers for sale passengers from Europe, and select among the healthy persons such as they deem suitable for their business, and bargain with them how long they will serve for their passage money, which most of them are still in debt for. When they have come to an agreement, it happens that adult persons bind themselves in writing to serve 3, 4, 5 or 6 years for the amount due by them" - Gottlieb Mittelberger
The outcome is a contract binding a person to a master for a period of time (like 5-10 years). The contents of these contracts is fairly interesting. Here are two examples: John Reid - 1742 and William Buckland - 1755 Reid's contract provides a little more detail although they read similarly. In short the servant works for the master and must always be available to work during the duration of the contract, and the master must only provider basic necessities such as food and water. The servant must
"...faithfully shall serve (his Master), his Secrets keep, his lawfull Commands gladly every where obey: he shall do no Damage to His said Master nor see to be done by others without letting or giving Notice to his said master he shall not waste his said Masters Goods, nor lend them unlawfully to any, he shall not commit Fornication, nor contract Matrimony within the said Term. At Cards, Dice or any other unlawful Game, he shall not play, whereby his said Master may have Damage with his own Goods, nor the Goods of others within the said Term, without Lisence [sic] from his said Master, he shall neither buy not [sic] sell, he shall not absent himself Day nor Night from his said Masters Service without his Leave..." - Reid contract 1742
For the duration of the contract, the servant does not have liberties.
There are a few key differences between the indentured servants and slaves in the colonies which should be noted before continuing:
- Servanthood was for a defined period of time and could not be passed on to your offspring
- Indentured servants were considered persons with legal rights
As persons, indentured servants had some legal recourse. as "legal persons with legal rights. Many used the court system to argue that they were being held beyond their term."
Indentured servants also self-liberated periodically, and ads to track down run-aways can be found here.
In the end, at least part of the colonies' economy was built on this source of free labor. (Between indentured servants and slaves, there is a lot of free labor happening.) The problems in England with what to do with some debtors and how to remove Irish Catholics was at least partially solved, and for those that could endure a contracted period of captivity, they would earn their freedom at the end of their term. How well did this system work for the servant? It's hard to say as clearly it caused Mr. Frehorne distress, and others likely felt similar distress in choosing to run-away. What can be said is that clearly from the start, the colonies were lands of freedom and opportunity for those who could afford it, but not a land of liberty for those who could not.
No comments:
Post a Comment