From: fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu (Fragano Ledgister)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The story of the Scottish flag
Date: 29 Dec 1992 09:10:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Dec29.015734.27067@newstand.syr.edu> crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea) writes:
>In article <1ho30cINNddm@network.ucsd.edu> fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu (Fragano Ledgister) writes:
>>Indentures were only significant from the 1620s to the 1640s.
>>Thereafter in the 
>>West Indies and the southern mainland colonies slave labour provided
>>the bulk of the workforce.
>>
>
>Okay Let's get into numbers here.
>
>Date                  White Immigrants/Population          African Imm./Pop
>1630                    138,000         10,000              27,000      1,000
>1650                    166,000         97,000             111,000     17,000
>1680                     73,000        185,000             210,000     87,000
>1700                     92,000        266,000             295,000    146,000 
>
>Source: Henry A. Gemery, Emigration from the British isles to the New World, 
>1630-1700: Inference from Colonial Populations," Research in Economic History,
>1980. 
>
>First, understand that these numbers came from quoted historican sources using
>the best sources available. Second, it becomes obvious that, given that 2/3 
>of the colonists in southern British America were indentured at some point, 
>they clearly made up the labor pool, not Africans, until close to the
>turn of the century. So you are corect in sheer numbers, but not in 
>scope of time.

These figures are interesting, but you don't say which colonies they
apply to. also there is a rather large gap between 1650 and 1680. I
wonder what the figures for 1670 would have been.

>
>>Indentured servants had legal rights. These might have been ignored,
>>but they were there. Furthermore, those who skipped their indentures
>>could blend into the general white population in a way not available
>>to black slaves. In the British empire slaves were granted no legal
>>protections until 1823.
>>
>
>"Might have been ignored"?! They were! Otherwise, how many of them 
>might have gained land? The vast tobacco estates that made the gentry of
>Viginia and the West Indies possible would not have been had the indentures
>been fulfilled. Besides, the law was twisted against the servants. And 
>finally, if you consider the actual size of the frontier in the 1600's
>(and most of present Virgina was frontiers), with such miniscule populations
>shown above, how likely was it that anyone could have blended in with the
>population? With a population of only 97,000 whites between Maine and Jamaica,
>do you really think anyone could "blend in" if they couldn't get
>passage to somewhere else? I went to school with 30,000 people and 
>every day I bumped into several people I knew (in an area of a couple square    miles).

Yes, but in Virginia they could light out for the frontier. The
possibility of escape was greater. There weren't vast tobacco
estates in Barbados -- large estates in the Caribbean were a result
of the cultivation of sugar cane, which was carried out with slave
labour.

>>
>>What proportion of slaves attained that?
>>
>
>I'd say about the same that became freedmen. So one white guy out of a
>hundred got their freedom. This is an improvement?! What sort of 
>contract is that? Sounds like serfdom at best, slavery at worst. Would
>you like to live under an indenture in that society?

I wouldn't. I'd like even less to live a slave, with no chance at
all of social mobility for myself (not to mention my posterity).

>
>>I repeat, indentured service was of little significance in Jamaica.
>>A decade after the conquest was completed it relied on slave labour,
>>rather than contract labour. Privateers, by the way, are not pirates
>>(their actions are commerce raiding in time of war -- under license
>>-- rather than simple thievery).
>>
>
>Privateers in the service of the empire, pirates in peace. I understand
>the difference well enough. However, after 1671 Jamaican piracy, and the
>Pirates of the Caribbean as well, were wiped out. After Henry Morgan's 
>attack on Panama after the signing of the Treaty of Madrid a naval 
>squadron was sent to Jamaica, where the pirates were destroyed, and
>Morgan was sent to the Tower in chains. 

Morgan boasted that he had never sailed without a letter of marque,
and he himself, on his return from the Tower with the rank of
Lieutenant-Governor of Jamaica, was responsible for putting down
piracy. He used privateers for this purpose.
>


-- 
Dawn over the dark sea brings on the sun;                      
She leans across the hilltop: see, the light!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu