NYQUEENS-L Archives

Archiver > NYQUEENS > 2000-07 > 0963591667


From: David Lindstedt <>
Subject: [QUEENS] Fw: [FreePobal] White Slavery
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:21:07 -0400


-------------Forwarded Message-----------------

From:"Gerald Tobin", INTERNET:
To:"David J. Lindstedt", 73422,1726

Date:7/14/00 10:22 AM

RE:Fw: [FreePobal] White Slavery


Here's some additional information

Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Hamilton
To: ;
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [FreePobal] White Slavery


Very good, Dave. Usually that is something that is swept under the carpet
and I'm glad to see such a thoughtful essay on it here. American education
is starting to change though, as I discovered in my past two years of
substitute teaching, and more emphasis is now being placed upon the fact
that most early immigrants were slaves.

Serfdom was alive and well in Prussia, the rest of the eastern Holy Roman
Empire, and Austria-Hungary, during the 17th and 18th centuries, and in
the Russian Empire until 1861.

Treatment of slaves in North America took a definite downturn for the
worse when younger sons of plantation owners in Barbados began to populate
the colony of Carolina.

Many people do not realize that for certain offences such a trying to run
away X number of times, "indentured servants" could have their term of
indenture extended for life, and that there were white slaves until the
1840's.


----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 6:00 AM
Subject: [FreePobal] White Slavery


Somebody recently sent a post to Freepobal about white slavery.
Perhaps because of the poster's own preferences or prejudices,
or perhaps because it was being posted
to a predominantly "irish-american" list, that post
emphasised the "irish" aspect. I would like to put
this in a slightly different context.

Any american who is not either one hundred percent
black or a pure-blooded native american (and there
aren't many of them around)and who can trace their
ancestry in america back to before 1800 is probably
descended from white slaves. And the probability
is that the white slaves they are descended
from were English.

It is ironic that some of the white slave-owners
in the old south were themselves the descendants
of slaves.

When I was studying the early history of "white" america
at university, we were taught that the vast _majority_
of migrants to america in the early days were virtual
slaves.

White slavery was more widespread in the Potomac region
(Tidewater Virginia and Maryland) than it was in New
England. But by far the most important of these two
regions in the early days was the Potomac. New England
was a bit of a side-show.


Slavery had existed throughout Europe in ancient times,
and it continued to exist during the middle ages. For
instance, slavery was endemic in Ireland, and Saint
Patrick himself was a British slave captured during
a raid by the Irish. As for Scotland, it was boasted
that, after a particular Scottish victory in battle
over the English, for a generation, every Scottish
household had an English slave. Almost certainly an
exaggeration, and of course it often happened the other
way round too. Acquiring slaves through battle was
widespread in Europe.

But gradually slavery changed. People became "serfs"
rather than outright slaves. Serfs were not free.
They couldn't leave their master. They couldn't
move to another place. But it was the _estate_
they were tied to. They couldn't be taken to market
and sold like animals. But if the estate changed
hands, then they changed masters just like
the animals did.

During the early 18th Century, long after the discovery
and settlement of America, you still had a few serfs
in Scotland. The last two groups of workers in serfdom
were the salt workers and the coal miners. These two
groups with extremely unpleasant working conditions
doing essential jobs were not allowed to quit.

Going back a few hundred years, the great leap forward
in reducing slavery (it was never actually "abolished")
was the plague. The plague had wiped out a huge
proportion of the population of Europe, creating
a massive labour shortage, and competition between
employers. In such circumstances, once the plague
abated, and with it the fear that a stranger might
be carrying it, any new person in an area might
not be asked if he was a runaway slave. He might
instead just be told "there is work for you here".

Although it was never actually "abolished",
by the time america was discovered, despite
a few pockets of serfdom, slavery as such
was considered a thing of the past. This
created a problem for the ruling class.
There was a huge amount of work to be done
in "developing" America. They quickly discovered
that they weren't going to get the native americans
to do it. So who could they get to do all this
back-breaking work of clearing land, bringing
it into cultivation, etc. ?

Fortunately, there was famine in England.
In these circumstances, what would happen
was that a young man would move from the country
to the nearest town to seek work. After a few weeks
of failing to find the means of earning his bread
there, he would move to a larger town. Then, after
failing to find work there also, he would move
to Bristol, or London, or some other big port.
But there were hundreds of thousands in exactly
the same desperate situation as himself. So when
some ship owner offered him work in a place called
"america" provided he made his mark on this piece
of paper, he had little choice but to accept.
After all, he was hungry, and he had long since
lost contact with his home village, and he couldn't
go back there to beg for charity and admit he
had been a total failure in the town and the city.
So he signed.

The piece of paper he had signed was an indenture.
Originally, indentures were contracts of apprenticeship.
They tied the apprentice to a particular employer
for a certain period of years while they were learning
the trade. My brother Bert signed an indenture contract
as an apprentice back in the 1950s, my cousin George
signed one as a painter and decorator, my _other_
cousin George (the one on my mother's side) signed
one to become a slater and roofer. However, those
indentures used to trick young men into going to
Virginia were virtual death warrants. The great
_majority_ of the early English immigrants to america
died before their indentured time was up. They were
quite literally worked to death.

Although the black slavery which came later to america
was terrible, in this one respect indenture could be
worse. Under chattel slavery, the slave-owner has a
valuable piece of property. Both the slave him/herself
and any children that slave might have can be sold.
While slaves might be cruelly treated, the slave-owner
has a very definite interest in keeping them alive
and reasonably healthy. But the master with an
indentured servant had no such interest. They only
had the servant for five, or seven, years, or whatever.
Faced with a never ending mountain of work in opening
up this new continent, the master of an indentured
servant figured "I'll get every ounce of sweat
out of him while I've got him". As a result,
not only were the majority of early English
immigrants to America un-free, but the majority
of them died without ever experiencing freedom.

>>Oliver Cromwell, had 100,000 WHITE IRISH
>men & women SOLD into Slavery on the same
>auction block in Barbados as the black slaves!
>This was done between 1650 and 1700.

From 1650 to 1700 is a period of 50 years.
It is truly miraculous that Olver Cromwell
managed to keep on selling Irish men and women
into slavery throughout this period, considering
he was only alive for the first 8 of these
50 years. He died in 1658. Some Irish folk
seem to be so obsessed with Cromwell, they
attribute superhuman powers to their enemy.

The old practice of enslaving defeated enemies
was revived because of the huge labour shortage
in america. As well as indentured servants,
many defeated rebels, criminals, etc., were
shipped to america. So many Irish people were
sent to Barbados that, even today, that island
has a distinct "Ireland in the Carribean" feel,
as a large number of its inhabitants are descended
from a mixture of Irish and black slaves.

But note that it was the Carribean to which irish
slaves were sent - not what became the USA.
And I think that figure of 100,000 is just
to round and neat a figure to be true. I suspect
it's an exaggeration.

Also, this "1650 to 1700" period covers enormous
political changes, and the defeated rebels being
shipped to america changed according to political
fortune. For instance, before the victory of William
of Orange in 1688, and after the presbyterian Argyll
Rebellion in Scotland, and the Monmouth Rebellion
in England in 1685, the catholic King James had
many protestant Scottish and English rebels shipped
to america.

During the 18th Century, conditions in England
gradually improved. As a result of this, and also
as a result of the horror stories which started
to circulate, fewer and fewer people could
be found who were desperate enough to be prepared
to go to america. And there simply weren't enough
rebels or criminals. It was this that led to growth
of the African slave trade. There had always been
slavery in Africa. The europeans just bought people
who were already slaves from Africans.

Yet these black slaves were not referred to
as "slaves", but as "servants", the same as
the white indentured servants. The first time
the word "slave" appeared in any american
legal document was in Lincoln's emancipation
proclamation.

The biggest rebellion in America _before_
the American Revolution was Bacon's Rebellion
in Virginia. This was a major rebellion
in the most heavily populated and economically
important part of america. The governor
of Virginia wrote about how there had been
this "outrageous rebellion" by "white and black
servants as well as some of the common sort"
(that is, some whites who were technically
"free" had joined in).

Gradually, over a period of time, a distinction
grew up between the black and the white servants,
because this was found to be in the ruling class's
interest. "Divide and rule."

In the late 18th Century, Virginia passed a law
against white indentured servants "running away
with blacks".

Now, you don't pass a law against something
unless it is a problem. There was already
a law against indentured servants running
away. The fact that it was felt necessary
to pass a law against the even more terrible
crime of "running away with blacks" shows
that significant numbers of white people
in Virginia were doing just that.

The lesson of history is not that the White
Man is the Devil, as some "black nationalists"
would have it. Nor is it that the English
Man is the Devil, as some Irish nationalists
would have it. The lesson of history is
that the exploited classes have a common
enemy in the ruling class.





Dave

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread: