DESUSSEX-L Archives

Archiver > DESUSSEX > 2000-09 > 0968239437


From: "Family Tree Bookshop" <>
Subject: Re: [DESUSSEX] Indentured Servants
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:23:57 -0000


Good Morning to All:
I have been watching this particular thread with interest. The note
below is rather succinct in its approach to the institution of indentured
servitude, and is correct in many ways. But being one of those who studies
in depth those more academic works "containing lots and lots of tables and
erudite thinking and writing" I feel compelled to join the fray.

Perhaps those of us who read, research, and write on the topic of
servitude seek to go beyond the types of servitude that existed and perhaps
come up with a greater understanding of the society and culture in which it
flourished, and how individuals functioned within that particular milieu,
and I strongly believe that there is much for those performing family
research to gain and little to lose from studying such works as it begins
the process of allowing us in the 21st century to "understand" how our
ancestors thought and reacted to the world about them.

We need to understand what was happening in Great Britain at the time
that indentured servitude flourished, who made up the "majority" of those
coming over -and it appears NOT to be a preponderance of destitute or in
fact children--why they chose to enter into such a contract, what were their
options--they were not for the most part spirited away, but instead entered
into the contract knowing where they were going and how long they would be
serving for--and what forces were at work both on this side of the Atlantic
as well as in the homeland that brought about the end of the practice.

The major wave of "indentured servants" coming to the New World
transpired between the years of 1640-to around the late 1680s. Historians
have attempted to understand the impulse that began this wave of migration
and particularly that of indentured servitude--the first major study on the
migration patterns being that of Mildred Campbell who posited the notion
that the devastation caused by the English Civil War, particularly in the
area around Bristol--which was the major port of embarkation--may have been
the major cause. Her article was important because it made use of the
Bristol List--one of those dreaded tables--which was a list of migrants
leaving the port under indenture. While her argument contains a certain
degree of validity, no event or movement in history can be seen as
monocausal. Later historians, particulary James Horn and David
Galenson--who made use of the London List as well--began to look at economic
conditions in England as well as other parts of Great Britain and argued
that perhaps what was going on economically could have been among the major
causes.

England --as well as other parts of Europe--were staggering under
spiraling inflation causing much hardship among many to keep themselves fed
and clothed and paying rents due the landlord Added to this were the
beginnings of the agricultural revolution which began the trends of
enclosure acts as well as the practice of "rack-renting" which forced many
copyholders or long-term lease holders off the manors and also restricted
use of "common areas" of the manors which had been for centuries a right and
privilege for those residents on the manors worked an economic mischief for
those struggling to survive. Added to all this was the beginning of a
population explosion which added further economic woes to those in England.

Witn many mouths to feed, and difficulties feeding those mouths, many
younger siblings (second sons and daughters) were forced off the land (copy
holds or long term leases were heritable but with shrinking acreage
available to be passed along the notion of partiable inheritance was
impractical) and began looking for opportunities elsewhere. Many made
their way into the cities, particularly London but opportunities there
shrank as well as the city filled up with new arrivals. Thus, the lure of
the New World. From a 21st century point of view, and as Americans, we like
to believe that it was "the promise of abundent land and opportunity" that
led them to come here, but for a number of those migrating the Atlantic was
seen as a two way street. Time spent here might result in the opportunity
of getting land, wresting a living and a certain degree of wealth, but after
which the migrant would return home to England once more to farm, young
women who signed to make the journey saw it as opportunity to provide a
dowery and/or perhaps help the family back home. Many, in fact most--who
survived--did stay and attempt to carve out a better life for
themselves--quite a few did, many others didnt as the deck--so to speak--was
stacked against them (witness much of the discontent arising from the
servant population and the newly freed servants during Bacon's rebellion in
Virginia).

We also have to understand that those wishing to enter into an indenuture
were not "forced" in most cases or coerced but did so of their own volition.
Because many were skilled they could strike a better deal for themselves,
and those who entered into an indenture that were older could work for
shorter terms. This was a bargain and one in which they did have a certain
amount of say. Additionally, they had choice concerning where they wanted
to serve. The Chesapeake was not the only region which made use of
indentured servants. The West Indies as well --in the early years ---was a
particular desirable location. The burgeoning sugar industry was lucrative
and the structure of land holding--large estates owned by many absentee
owners--made it particularly desirable. The Chesapeake ranked a second in
terms of destinations, and only first during periods of boom times in the
tobacco market, or during those times when labor was particularly in demand
and the servant could work a better term of indenture. So, they did have
choice in the matter and made use of it.

The time frame that much of the note below concerns is of the 18th century
when indentured servitude was on its last legs. In the Chesapeake, the
growth of slavery and the extension of credit to tobacco planters allowing
them to purchase slaves much easier did much to do away with the practice of
using servants. Equally important to the decline of indentured servitude
was the improvement in the economic conditions back home which obviated the
need to look outside England for employment. As conditions there improved
fewer and fewer sought opportunity in the New World through employment as
indentured servants. Certainly, among the lesser planters there was a need
for servants, as slave-owning was impractical or economically unfeasible and
it is at this point when the use of younger children as servants as well as
women and later convicts becomes more wide spread.

I would not discount the notion that many runaways had the desire to do
so early on, but again, I would say that this was more common towards the
end of the practice than at the beginning. Harsh conditions, brutish
masters, would have certainly contributed as well to run aways or the notion
of entering into an illegal contract elsewhere may have been responsible.
The motivations of run aways is myriad and no one motivation can be seen as
the predominate factor. In the later part of the 17th century and into the
early 18th, many ran away to become tenant farmers in southeastern
Pennsylvania as the opportunity was better there for eventually becoming a
free holder than in the Chesapeake, which gives rise to the descriptive
phrase for the area as being the "best poor man's country"

I would definitely dispute the notion that "life was not as short as some
like to think." It was and would continue to be so for a very long time.
It isn't until a hardy creole stock took root that survival rates had a
chance of improving and even then it would be well into the 18th century
before average life spans began to rise. If the writer was basing the
notion on age of testators in written wills they are negating the fact that
wills were predominately written by those of an older age who had
substantial property to transmit. This does not take into account the
staggering amount of infant and child mortality, the large numbers of women
who died in child birth, or those young men in the prime of life who had
little or no property to transmit or family to transmit it too, or those who
died rather suddenly. Add all these into the mix and the life expectancy
rate goes down dramatically.

There are a number of other things that could be said here, but I have
probably already taken up too much of your time. Particularly important to
note is the cultural climate of the times, how certain things such as
"childhood" were viewed by those who lived in the time frame. The notion of
childhood as we have come to see it was an out growth of the Enlightenment
period which flourished at the end of the 17th and into the 18th century and
it is John Locke's essay on human understanding that begins to bring the
notion of childhood as a separate phase of life and one in which children
were not merely little adults. But I will only go into this on request,
and besides it is time to voraciously read those dull charts and tables.

Best wishes to all,
<<<Neil>>>
http://www.familytreebookshop.com

-----Original Message-----
From: <>
To: <>
Date: Sunday, September 03, 2000 11:38 AM
Subject: [DESUSSEX] Indentured Servants


>Good morning,
>
> A Genealogy Tip--I thought others might be interested in!
>
> Happy hunting, Helen (DCGS)
>
>Dear Scott:
>
>
>Thank you so much for explaining the difference between slavery and
>indentured servitude. Indentured servitude has been widely studied by a
>number of PhDs, with many books published on the topic containing lots and
>lots of tables and erudite thinking and writing.
>
>
>There were three types of indentured servitude, those who agreed to sell
>themselves (and/or their families) into service for a specific length of
time
>in order to pay their passage from Europe; redemptioners who were mostly
>German, were purchased by the ship's master (sometimes a ship owner) to be
>redeemed or resold upon their arrival in the colonies either at the dock or
>schlepped en masse around the countryside by "soul drivers" or "soul
>sellers"; and apprentices (yes, folks, these, too, were indentured
servants!)
>who were bound to a master or mistress to learn a trade. Indenture means a
>contract and is also used in land transactions; apprentices had to abide by
>the same rules and regulations as other indentured servants which is why I
>include them in the indentured population.
>
>
>I have encountered records where children as young as 18 months are bound
out
>or indentured until the age of 21. Usually, these are orphans or children
of
>parents truly too poor to care for them. In the 1740s there were gangs of
men
>who would sweep through poor villages in Scotland and snatch up little
>children to sell into service in the colonies.
>
>
>Life in the 17th and 18th centuries was hard and cruel (though not as short
>as some like to think), so don't be shocked to hear these things.
Indentured
>servitude was a cheap and easy way to remove oneself from far worse
>circumstances in Europe. From my research into runaway indentured servants,
>I'm convinced that many of those who sold themselves into bondage had
>absolutely no intention of remaining indentured for their full term which
>accounts for the proliferation of runaways. As soon as they set foot in
>America, you'd better believe some of them took to the hills as fast as
they
>could.
>
>
>On the other hand, whole families bound themselves in an effort to stay
>together. If a farmer or a manufacturer had no family of his own, this was
an
>ideal setup. In the case of those children I mentioned earlier, some were
>brought up as family members, almost all of them had some form of
schooling,
>and were taught farming, housewifery, and other occupations that would
>provide them with trades that would support them as adults.
>
>
>George Gesner of Ridley was younger than 14 years old when his master Col.
>Caleb Davis died at the early 19th century. We know this because Davis's
will
>has a guardian appointed for the boy. George must have been highly thought
of
>by Col. Davis because Davis bequeathed his considerable property in Phila.
to
>George when he came of age. From servant to gentleman with the stroke of a
>pen. This sort of case is undoubtedly the unusual, and most indentured
>servants lived lives of dull drudgery until their term was up. At which
time
>they would be given their freedom dues, clothing, farm tools, sometimes a
>Bible. Some bound themselves out over and over to different masters to be
>kept gainfully employed. Others became day laborers, shopkeepers, artisans.
>The opportunities for servants once their term was complete to make their
way
>in the world were far greater here in America than in Europe where if you
>were poor, you generally remained poor.
>
>
>Karen Greim Mullian
>
>
>
>
>
>In a message dated Fri, 1 Sep 2000 3:36:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Scott
>Anderson <> writes:
>
>
><< On Friday, September 1, 2000, wrote:
>
>> I was introduced to a web site, in the last day or so, that
>
>> mentions many of our Pa. residents that owned slaves. It also list many
of
>
>> their names. I have to admit that learning about this site, has really
>
>> thrown me a bit. Many of my own family's names are listed their as
>
>> slaveowners. I guess I have a lot to learn. I always thought that slavery
>
>> was from the MASON-DIXON line down into the South. I knew that it
extended
>
>> into Maryland and that Delaware, seemed to stay neutral.
>
>
>Slavery was practiced in all of the colonies, irrespective of the
Mason-Dixon
>line. It was only outlawed in the Northern states between 1777 and 1804.
This
>was easier for them to accomplish because slavery was not as intertwined in
>their economies as it was in the South.
>
>
>> Though I knew of the many Indentured Slaves, I never knew our state was a
>
>> slave owning state.
>
>
>There is a distinction between Indentured Servitude (the correct term) and
>Slavery. The former was generally entered into willingly through an
>indenture, "a contract binding one party into the service of another for a
>specified term." Slavery was almost always involuntary, and the slave was
>considered property. See, for example,
><http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,117527+1+109538,00.html
>.
>
>
>S R C A
>
>cott obert ranston nderson
>
>
>
>
>

This thread: