As I understand it Indentured Service died out because of the increase in slavery is this correct? In an America where slavery is made financially impractical and the ex-slaves are encouraged to move onto the frontier, would Indentured Service make a comeback as part of a smaller scale cotton economy and in the face of greater and earlier industrialization? Was there an immigration policy for the Early Republic (say 1789-1850), or was it just hop on a ship and come? In a Federalist led America would it be logical to have Indentured service be part of some immigration plan, Alien and Sedition acts aside would they push an Immigration plan/policy methinks yes?
Indentured Servitude
- Thread starter GreatScottMarty
- Start date
Grey Wolf
Donor
IIRC it was big in Mexico until the abolition of slavery echoed out from the US and caught up near-things in its wake
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Read my blog!
www.alternate-history-fiction.com/blog
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Read my blog!
www.alternate-history-fiction.com/blog
It's logical that a Federalist administration would make such laws, but as in OTL they would be dead letters. Only immigrants from the British Isles were welcome acccording to Federal law prior to 1830; in 1830, immigration from "Northern Europe" (Germany and Scandinavia) became legal, and immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe became legal as part of the general overhaul of the government that was Reconstruction. Yet none of these laws mattered a bit because there was no Federal agency tasked with enforcing them, and State and local agencies almost never had any interest in doing so even when they had the spare resources. A law with no cop to enforce it isn't really a law. Obviously there was a significant amount of "illegal" immigration 1788-1860.
I would argue that indentured servitude was forced out by "proper" slavery and ultimately killed by the Revolution. Selling oneself into slavery for a limited time seems reasonable to some people if the USA is just "Britain over there", but once it's a separate nation it becomes a different idea - many fewer people interested in immigrating on that basis, and the "Mother country" isn't going to sentence anybody to it anymore. But it was already in decline because chattel slavery was more effective for the landowner - no need to fabricate excuses for refusing to honor the original contract or pay wages, less problems with runaways (the different skin color makes blending into the population tricky) - the initial cost is about the same and an African slave was a better long-term investment.
I would argue that indentured servitude was forced out by "proper" slavery and ultimately killed by the Revolution. Selling oneself into slavery for a limited time seems reasonable to some people if the USA is just "Britain over there", but once it's a separate nation it becomes a different idea - many fewer people interested in immigrating on that basis, and the "Mother country" isn't going to sentence anybody to it anymore. But it was already in decline because chattel slavery was more effective for the landowner - no need to fabricate excuses for refusing to honor the original contract or pay wages, less problems with runaways (the different skin color makes blending into the population tricky) - the initial cost is about the same and an African slave was a better long-term investment.
Thanks Guys
So it could be a law but it would be pointless, would it be useful as a tool of political compromise to convince the south to go along with a gradual manumission plan (particularly if the gradual manumission had a generous financial component)??
So it could be a law but it would be pointless, would it be useful as a tool of political compromise to convince the south to go along with a gradual manumission plan (particularly if the gradual manumission had a generous financial component)??
Funny how many of those 7-year contracts wound up lasting 30 years; that's what happens when the owner can legally tack on extra years for stealing from him, wasting his property, etc. Most indentured servants died in servitude, long after the 7 years they were promised were up. Or ran away eventually. The idea of owning offspring is important of course.
Many indentured servants arrived in BNA as part of labor deals. Labor dealers sold packages to big farmers and others needing labor that included transport to the Americas. Immigrants volunteered to give their seven years in exchange transport and a (usually eh-paying) job. This was mostly a prerevolutionary institution, since the conversion to slavery was already happening quickly for ag. Tension arose down South because immigrants had trouble finding jobs. That served as source of pressure for ethnically cleansing more Indians so the newbs could have places to farm.
Up North, indentures were probably more used for skilled apprenticeships. There was plenty of misuse there, too, but, at least, faster economic and population growth also meant there were more jobs for them.
Up North, indentures were probably more used for skilled apprenticeships. There was plenty of misuse there, too, but, at least, faster economic and population growth also meant there were more jobs for them.
I suspect the real reason is economic development. Indentured servitude can work pretty well under the right circumstances, from an investor's point of view, but the circumstances in America were not really right. Jobs were plenty, law enforcement haphazard, communities generally welcoming and the place was big. Even if we discount the possibility of owning offspring (which IIRC slave prices reflected most of the time - slaves were usually expensive), slaves were a better deal because they were far easier to dominate. That had less to do with the law and much more with societal attitudes. A white man, especially one at home in English culture, would be readily welcomed in any community, could find work, di business, and blend in. The burden of proof that he was in any way obligated to someone else was on that person. A black man had none of these options, and the burden of proof that he was not property was on him. In addition, psycvhological factors may have played a role - slaves were property and thus constituted converting one kind of wealth into another. They also offered palpable, real power over other 'people' (read adult males), a rare commodity in a society as comparatively egalitarian and rich as colonial America. Indentured servants were a net wealth reduction since you didnt own them, they created costs and while you owned the surplus of their labour, ensuring that that worked out was your business. You could squeeze them hard, but that was abusive, and recognised generally as such. Not many people like to be abusive. With a slave, it's par for the course.
So with slavery outlawed in an ATL USA would they turn back to indentured service as a way to get the labor necessary to run the big plantations or would the plantations by necessity be split up and shrunk to something more reasonable?
1) What Indentured Servitude was, and is, explained here fairly well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
Why it was what it was is better explained here:
http://eh.net/Clio/Publications/indentured.shtml
2) What happened when it declined (last paragraph)
http://www.africanaonline.com/slavery_introduction.htm
3) Why it was declining:
"1680s – Rising wages in England shrank the pool of poor people willing to gamble on a new life (or an early death) as indentured servants in America. During this time, more black slaves were arriving in America than white servants"
I haven't been able to cross reference this cause elsewhere to any original sources (except JSTOR and most of us don't have access)
But, for purely economical reasons, while Indentured Servitude served (until late 1600's, early 1700's) cheap labor requirements and population replacement purposes, eventually it transformed the labor economy by giving rise to more and more Indenture Completed people who were frustrated at the finite amount of servants arriving, and their own conditions... Given increased economics (wages) in England & Europe, the numbers of servants began to drop as well. When the English Crown lost the sole license of slave trading (and they'd only been importing to Caribbean and S. America), merchants jumped at the opportunity to provide mass quantities of labor, more cheaply than indentureds.
You can try here:
http://www.mrbaker.org/American Life in the 17th Century.htm
and here (for greater detail)
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/spl/thandekawhiting.html
In short, combine a) improving economic conditions b) improving living conditions c) increasing labor crises situations and d) racism to provide a reasonable explanation for the declining population of IS and the rising population of 'Chattel'.
Distasteful subject, and extremely rife with problematic political controversy
However, I did like how one article pointed out that the ration, in ~1640-1650, was 1 to 6... black to white, indentured servants. That, in the labor pool, skin color was truly seen as only skin deep and they 'laughed, worked, stole hogs, got drunk, and even made love together' frequently, as a common occurrence.
A small ray of hope for mankind, yes?
Max Sinister
Banned
Wait, despite of the Pennsylvania Germans, German immigration once was restricted in the US?
Not in our timeline.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Immigration_to_the_United_States
Look in the section "Immigration 1850 to 1930"
Now, that's not to say there weren't local rulings passed, etc.
The simplest answer though, is that prior to the mid 1800's, the federal govt simply lacked the ability to *enforce* any such law.
Even the 1808 law barring importation of slaves wasn't really enforceable...
The death knell for Indentured Servitude was the French and Indian (7-Years) War. A huge proportion of the indentured population of the colonies fled their contracts to enlist in the fight.
The trouble was, fled servants needed to be brought back quickly if it was to happen at all, and no-one was much likely to haul off His Majesty's soldiers, eh? Add to that that it happened in a rush, instead of the usual piecemeal escapes, and the institution was dead in the water.
The trouble was, fled servants needed to be brought back quickly if it was to happen at all, and no-one was much likely to haul off His Majesty's soldiers, eh? Add to that that it happened in a rush, instead of the usual piecemeal escapes, and the institution was dead in the water.