From: crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea)
Subject: Re: The story of the Scottish flag
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 06:16:59 EST

In article <1hm3nsINNpvc@network.ucsd.edu> fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu (Fragano Ledgister) writes:
>>
>>On paper, you are correct; in practice, you are wrong. There were too many 
>>similarities between white "service" and black slavery to see much diference.
>>Both suffered an average of over 50% mortality in coffin ships during the
>>crossing, usually due to cramping, unsanitary conditions, rotten food,
>>slimy water, etc. Both lived in unheated shacks, with poor rations, rags,
>>and restrictions that made them chattel property (this was true for BOTH 
>>servants and slaves). Finally, neither were expexted to actually live in
>>the New World for longer than 3 years without succumbing to forced labor,
>>exposure, disease, whipings, etc.
>
>It needs to be noted here that indentures were in vogue for only a
>few decades, while African slavery lasted for over two centuries. In
>no way, even given horrible conditions of life and work, could
>indentured servants be considered chattel property.
>

A "few decades" translates into roughly 1600-1690. I don't know, call
it what you will, but if you are forced to endure all the above, 
and you have no rights but as your master (same word here) allows, 
you sound like a slave to me. If you look and act like a duck...
Seiously, about 2/3 of the population south of New England in Colonial
times started out as servants. Of this number, about 40% died in
servetude. Of THAT remaining number (we're talking smaller now) about 30%
actually got tenancy. Of THAT even smaller number about 10% even got to own 
land and were called Mister. 
	After 1680, however, things became even more limited. I got
	this information from an American colonial historian, but
	if you need the numbers...

>
>
>>
>>The only difference was price. Slaves from Africa cost 60 lbs. to puchase
>>in America, because the Africans doing the hunting had to be paid for their     work; white servants were criminals who took the choice between a quick 
>
>By no means all white indentured servants were criminals, some were
>people down on their luck who were given the choice of signing an
>indenture or going to the workhouse.
>

We know that the years for the most indentures were the middle decades of the
1600's. But what were those years? Irish rebellion, Civil War, and other 
forms of activity not approved by the government. There was no shortage
of people to threaten.You yourself admit that Montserrat and Barbados
were filled with the Irish--why do you think they were there at all?
Barbados was a sugar colony--not exciting about chopping cane
till you croaked.
>
>>death on the gallows or a slow one in the Jamaican canefields. They only
>
>Indentured service was of little significance in the colonisation of
>Jamaica. The problem of runaways was greater in that colony, since
>in the late 17th century an alternative to working on the
>plantations was available on the island. That alternative, service
>on a privateer, seems to have been quite popular.
>
ALL the colonies relied to an extent on indentures. Remember, the whole
idea was to get rid of undesireable scum (as the English saw it) in 
some useful purpose for the Empire. No surprise that some of them wound
up as pirates. 
>
>>cost 20 lbs because they were criminals (ie, no overhead). While you may
>         ^^^
>           \ this is pounds weight, not pounds sterling
Hey, give me a break, I don't have a pounds sterling symbol on this
network thing. 

>
>>read great things about how America was founded by these freed indentured
>>servants, the reality shown by mortality rates was quite different. 
>
>But once they ran away, they were rather hard to find. And a lot of
>them skipped on their contracts. It has to be noted that slavery was

Yes, there were several attempts to run away, but what does this tell us
about indentured service? Remember that the gentleman who noticed his
servant missing often was a militia leader of the county. He could usually
organize a posse. Rewards were offered. People were hanged. Not a nice
system, thank you.

>to last longer than contract servitude, and was to become far more
>prevalent and operate on a far larger scale. You need to explain
>why, if slaves were more expensive, there were far more of them.

Over time, there were more slaves, but slavery from Africa was irrelevant 
before 1690. No one could afford them! 60 pounds was a lot to pay when
you could get an Irishman or Scots rebel to work just as hard for a third
of the price. Slavery existed since 1619 but it was a relative oddity
as compared to servitude. When the Irish risings were quelled after
1690 the supply of Irish rebels dropped, and more blackbirders went
into the African trade.  By the way, ever wonder why there are so many
Celtic names in the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, etc in colonial 
times, while there were very few in New England? The difference was in
the practice of indentured service.

>Indentured servitude, by the way, was reintroduced in the mid-19th
>slavery. Most of the bonded labourers came from the Indian
>subcontinent, though some were brought from Germany and from
>Madeira, and some were recruited in China.  
>

I didn't know that, but I guess you're right. That's how the Chinese 
built the railroads. (And you can still see it in the Mexican grapepickers
in California, who I read are dependent on their bosses for everything).

Chris

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british