Jump to content

Talk:Indentured servitude/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV reversions

submitted by user:PoliticalHack but reverted by --StanZegel 20:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC):

The controversial Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Opponents of the law have criticized it as unduly favoring creditors over consumers, and have stated that the credit card industry spent millions of dollars lobbying in support of the act. The Act contains a unprecedented compulsory requirement of servitude in a adult education programs; previously only criminals convected for DUI or for patronizing a prostitute could be required to serve time in a involuntary education programs, do to the 13th Amendment of the Constitution outlawing slavery only for people who are not convicts.
Prison population affected Under the new bankruptcy law about one half million Americans every year will be forest to pay for years or a life time for many they will be held in servitude as chattel they will be completely subservient to a dominating influence of the company that holds the loan. Thier loan will be put on the maket for sale for profit.

Thirteenth Amendment

The article presently conclues with "In the United States, indentured servitude was abolished along with slavery when the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution passed in 1865" but that Amendment abolished "slavery or involuntary servitude" and indentures were voluntary. I think it safest to remove the paragraph. Thoughts?--StanZegel 19:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude
"Indentured servitude was a normal part of the landscape in England during the 1600s. During the 1640s and 1650s, some indentured servants were kidnapped and taken to Barbados. The term Barbadosed was coined for these actions, and Redlegs for the group concerned. Other indentured servants were English captives from Cromwell’s expeditions to Ireland and Scotland, who were forced into being brought over between 1649 and 1655."
Re; the above
How can somebody who fit the above class as kidnapped, a captive, forced ... be considerred "servants?" Many histories of the Carribean ("From Columbus to Castro") and Ireland ("Barbados: The Etnic Cleansing of Ireland")refer to these as slaves. In "The History of the Irish Race" pg.429 with citations. One of many letters "14th Sept. 1653, contracted (with four of the most active slave trading agents, to be supplied with 250 woman of the Irish Nation above twelve and under forty-fives years of age. Also 300 men between twelve and under forty-fives years of age.
The Definition apparantly is used to avoid an embarrasing part of Europe's history regarding treatment of captured white persons.--User:MikeMcCormick
Obviously those brought to the New World involuntarily were not "indentured servants" because they had never signed an indenture contract; they were slaves, or prisoners sentenced to Transportation, and thus had a different legal status. It is because of that distinction that I raised my original question above, questioning the confusion of slavery with indentured servitude in the article's former conclusion that indentured servitude was abolished by the 13th Amendment. I think a clear reading of the Amendment shows that it did not abolish barter contracts for labor, and that the former conclusion was properly deleted by another editor earlier this month. Out of curiousity: can any Constitutional scholars or legal researchers cite any Decisions one way or the other on this point? --StanZegel 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: Anyway we can lose the following obviously subjective statements?

"In modern times, Indentured servitude is limited to the military service of certain countries where the poor are disproportionately induced to agree to a fixed term of service in exchange for accomidation, food, and often education; a contract which may be enforced by the use of imprisonment.

Military service can become involuntary Slavery when soldiers are compelled to continue their service beyond the term of agreement. Modern indentured servitude and military slavery are opposed by liberals. Supporters often include those who benefit most from this slavery, including big oil interests and the politicians they financially support, many of whom have evaded service themselves and or helped their children evade military service."

The obviously are POV, so you're right... they don't belong in the article. --StanZegel 01:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
In what way is the contract provided by the military - ie Education, accommodations, and some money in exchange for fixed term of service from which there is no option to terminate and which is enforceable by imprisonment. It is easy for us to criticise others, but I suggest a bit hypocritical as well. Benjamin Gatti
What you asking about -- voluntary patriotic service -- could legitimately be described as indentured servitude (the topic of this Article) because of the employment contract, but the inflammatory POV paragraphs cited above distort it into involuntary slavery. There is a world of difference between the two! --StanZegel 05:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that Indentured Servitude is meant to describe "Voluntary Service" in a free-market quid pro quo. (Involuntary servitude has another name. Military service meets all of the criteria of indentured servitude, and I might point out that the poor are disproportionately propositioned and recruited (I don't see Cheny's children or Bush's kids volunteering for military duty - funny it seems both of them skipped out when it was their turn. Benjamin Gatti
First off, 42 U.S.C. §1994, apparently passed as part of the Anti-Peonage Act of 1867, specifically disallows "the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise," so whether or not a contract was entered into voluntarily is moot. Supposedly, the act was passed in pursuance to the Thirteenth Amendment, ratified two years prior (if it can be found, the text of the bill might confirm this).

Bold text

As for whether the language of the amendment itself disallows indentured servitude, Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which altered the way enumeration worked, took the language of Article I, Section 2 and removed mention of both "all other persons" (slaves) and "those bound to service for a term of years" (indentured servants) while keeping mention of "Indians not taxed." The Fourteenth was written, passed and ratified by many of the same people responsbile for the Thirteenth. However, whether or not omitting indentured servants from the Fourteenth was an oversight or because it was understood that the Thirteenth prohibited indentured servitude is debatable. Again, digging up the original Anti-Peonage Act might help.David Iwancio 2005-08-29T06:50Z
Very interesting! The text of the original Act here and it appears that it was passed to deal with the Territory of New Mexico, so I think 13th Amendment implementation was not the primary goal. What do you think, after reading it? --StanZegel 07:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I was kinda hoping for the original bill, with all the "whereas" parts talking about why the bill was presented in the first place (thomas.loc.gov has spoiled me). I didn't see that in the law link you provided so I went looking for the next best thing and found Clyatt v. US:
Peonage is sometimes classified as voluntary or involuntary; but this implies simply a difference in the mode of origin, but none in the character of the servitude. The one exists where the debtor voluntarily contracts to enter the service of his creditor. The other is forced upon the debtor by some provision of law. But peonage, however created, is compulsory service,-involuntary servitude. The peon can release himself therefrom, it is true, by the payment of the debt, but otherwise the service is enforced
(...)
It is not open to doubt that Congress may enforce the 13th Amendment by direct legislation, punishing the holding of a person in slavery or in involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime. In the exercise of that power Congress has enacted (the Antipeonage Act) denouncing peonage, and punishing one who holds another in that condition of involuntary servitude.
So in the opinion of the US Supreme Court, at least, Congress was exercising Thirteenth Amendment powers by banning voluntary "peonage." David Iwancio 2005-08-29T11:43Z
I believe US courts will not order Specific Performance of personal services. I wonder if your research has unearthed the origin of that principle? --StanZegel 16:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
From the looks of things, it goes back to Bailey v. Alabama, which again refers to the Thirteenth Amendment and the Antipeonage Act (it doesn't look like the courts hyphante "anti-peonage").
The fact that the debtor contracted to perform the labor which is sought to be compelled does not withdraw the attempted enforcement from the condemnation of (The Antipeonage Act). The full intent of (the Thirteenth Amendment) could be defeated with obvious facility if, through the guise of contracts under which advances had been made, debtors could be held to compulsory service. It is the compulsion of the service that the statute inhibits, for when that occurs, the condition of servitude is created, which would be not less involuntary because of the original agreement to work out the indebtedness. The contract exposes the debtor to liability for the loss due to the breach, but not to enforced labor.
(...)
The state may impose involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, but it may not compel one man to labor for another in payment of a debt, by punishing him as a criminal if he does not perform the service or pay the debt.
David Iwancio 2005-08-30T05:21Z

Time does have a way of healing things, sometimes by surprise. The article's paragraph on the effects of the 13th Amendment was the subject of this string -- greatly helped by the research by David Iwancio. As a result of his excellent contributrion, it would be more accurate to have the paragraph in question read "In the United States, indentured servitude was effectively abolished but the Anti-Peonage Act (1867) passed under the powers granted by the Thirteenth Amendment (1865) to the United States Constitution" but when going back to the article to make such a correction, we find that the original paragraph has completely disappeared in the course of the various rewriting and editing that meanwhile was taking place! This makes the point moot for now, but extremely educational. If anyone adds a reference to the 13th Amendment in the future, this discussion can guide them. --StanZegel 16:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfree Labour????

At least in the US, I don't see indentured servitude as being "unfree labour". I believe that using this term is POV. IS can be unfree labour, but it isn't in all cases which is how the opening paragraph leads one to believe. Any objections to changing the text so this is weakened? Kyaa the Catlord 08:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible nonsense (reversed)

  • The following text has been removed in this edit because it may be irrelevant to the article:
Currently there are a number of rural scholarships providing financial aid to complete a course of study with a contracted obligation of service on completion, this is particularly so for rural health, for example the "Queensland Health Rural Health Scholarship Scheme" [1].
If it was relevant information, then it was out of place (wrong section, wrong article). --Ted 16:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
However, many indentured servants were forced to work longer than the contracted time, even if sponsered by a distant relative.
If I was mistaken in interpreting this as an act of vandalism, please reply to this thread. You may also want to click on "Help" on the left-hand side of the page, and read the official Wikipedia policy documentation on making edits, citing sources, and what not. --Ted 19:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
If the many is changed to some, then there is definitely some truth in that sentence. --ScWizard 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
if i were them i would have fought for freedom. --ScWizard 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
that is so true so would i. --smitty 7:55, 1 november 2006 (UTC)

Missing some important things

Was there indentured servitude in England? Did servants work the farms there? How did plantation servitude evolve in America? How much was colonial indentured servitude based on English tradition?

There are too many unawsered questions here. --ScWizard 23:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Cost Basis

I think some rough economic data would be helpful, perhaps broken down by century. The cost of a voyage and the cost of the 50 acres of land or so was exchanged for 7 years of labor. I think it would be very interesting to be able to calculate what his would be like in today's terms. 7 years median US income is about $280K or 140K pounds. In the year 1650, how many pounds sterling is that in England? I would guess that it would be about 35 pounds but that is a rough estimate. I would rather hear an expert's take on it, with some citations for the values.Sandwich Eater 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael A Hoffman II

Reading Hoffman's wikipedia page I cannot imagine that his claims are without controversy. I think that should be noted in the article. Sandwich Eater 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam in the article

Someone should edit out all the advertisments for that damned movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.19.238 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I have just removed the spam. Mrslippery 17:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point or no?

This site says the following:

Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about Indentured Servitude is massive, but it omits any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World!

Do they make a fair point? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A reference to that has been "dropped in" without much explanation, in a place where it seems out of place. I'm going to do some research on this, and see what I can dig up. --♣Transfinite(Talk) 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indentured servitude versus apprenticeship?

Would someone please elaborate upon the relationship between indentured servitude and apprenticeship? I had ancestors who were both, and my understanding always has been that the one definitely did not have anything to do with the other. Right now the article reads,

"It is the legal basis of the apprenticeship system by which skilled trades were learned."

-- but I am not sure that this is so. The distinction, as I understand it, is that an indentured servant certainly had greater hope than a slave did, although she/he had a lowest-possible social status in a somewhat socially-snobbish society -- my own understanding is that most indentures provided for household workers, and were not any sort of guarantee of eventual career-track employment as apprentices.

Not so? --Kessler 23:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Two different things. Apprenticeship was the means to learn a trade under a master. Masters typically charged a fee for an apprenticeship. If a person or family did not have the money to pay for an apprenticeship, they might indenture themselves or the child to be apprenticed. ProxA (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is way too un-neutral

In the beginning, it talks about indentured servituded as if it were good. It isn't, and it wasn't. And frankly, most people will probably only read the first part —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dinoisme (talk • contribs) 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Many bonded laborers in the Northern United States were forced into contracts usually lasting till they died or was near death (28 years). In many ways it represented a system even less humane than slavery since people were "freed" when they couldn't work anymore and then thrown away to die alone. It was used as a gradual abolishing of slavery. Any kind of forced labour is by definition slavery, contract or no contract. Articled marked POV. 80.167.218.195 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
What source do you have that says many indentured servants in the Northern US had contracts lasting 28 years? As for it being a gradual abolishing of slavery, actual history in the US shows that indentured slavery appeared first and that it, not slavery, did not survive. I have removed the POV tag because you do not appear to have a firm grasp on the actual history of the situation. Tom (North Shoreman) 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
For a starter you could check out: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us - Readded POV tag. Slavery in the north was primarily in the shape of indentured slavery but slavery in the classic sense also existed side by side since 1619. Slavery in the north was abolished in the period of 1780-1804 and replaced with involuntary indentured servitude usually with contracts of 28 years duration. In the north indentured slavery existed after classic slavery and even existed after classic slavery (non-contractual slavery) was abolished in the south. 80.167.218.195 04:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said, you really don't have a grasp of the actual historical situation. The article you listed talks about gradual emancipation which is quite a different thing than indentured servitude. Removed tag again. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The article talks about indentured servitude as a transitional phase between slavery and freedom (gradual emancipation). You have obviously no grasp what so ever of history and analysis of history. You just claimed that there wasn't slavery in the north, and now you claim that the indentured servitude in the transition phase from the non-existent slavery to freedom isn't indentured servitude. You are contradicting yourself. Readded POV-tag. 80.167.218.195 14:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous user claimed that I "just claimed that there wasn't slavery in the north". Now that's not true is it? So either show where I said that or apologize. If you have such a difficult time interpreting the two paragraphs I've written, then maybe you ought to reexamine your ability to analyze the much larger article. As for the other claim you made, slaves who have been granted freedom from slavery at some time in the future are NOT indentured servants and nothing in the article says otherwise -- let alone actual books on the subject. The following is what the article says about gradual emancipation: Most of the original Northern colonies implemented a process of gradual emancipation in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, requiring the children of slave mothers to remain in servitude for a set period, typically 28 years. Please show where the article, or any article, refers to this condition as "indentured servitude". There is a significant legal difference between a compulsory state law that provides for mandatory emancipation and a voluntary agreement allowed under contract law. As far as what the article says about actual indentured slavery, it pretty much says what I said it said. From the article, As slaves replaced increasingly expensive indentured servants in the New World, their prices went up. In the period 1748 to 1775, slave prices in British America rose nearly 30 percent. The article also says One potent piece of evidence supporting the notion that slavery provides pecuniary benefits is this: slavery replaces other labor when it becomes relatively cheaper. In the early U.S. colonies, for example, indentured servitude was common. As the demand for skilled servants (and therefore their wages) rose in England, the cost of indentured servants went up in the colonies. At the same time, second-generation slaves became more productive than their forebears because they spoke English and did not have to adjust to life in a strange new world. Consequently, the balance of labor shifted away from indentured servitude and toward slavery. So I will give you the opportunity to do the honorable thing and take off the tag yourself. If you fail to do so, I will be glad to do it myself. Tom (North Shoreman) 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please just rewrite the article? I thought it was poorly written, unorganized and lacked historical context. I think this would be more productive than the bickering that is going on about it.

Some discussion as to why, if it was such a horrible system, so many people volunteered for it would good, too.

If there's a question about the preference of indentured servitude, then I suggest one look to the non-English countries of Europe for the living conditions and prospects of the peasantry in that manorial system first before commenting. Certainly, for the French and Spanish the prospect of eventual land ownership was enticing. LTC David J. Cormier (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger with indenture

The draft

Educate me - as I read above, the military draft could be construed as a form of indenture. Why not?? --Dumarest 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While a number of indentures were enforced by the courts of the time, there were also a large enough number of voluntary indentures by people attempting to buy passage for themselves and their families to the New World. Conscriptees by definition aren't voluntary enlistees. Also, one must look to see if there are 'mustering out benefits' upon completion of the contract. Nice point to ponder, though. LTC David J. Cormier (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

References for the Lead

Wiki editor N2e stated that the reference Immigration into Pennsylvania Through the Port of Philadelphia, 1700-1775, Genealogical Pub. Co., Baltimore, 1979. is "clearly not the most reliable published source for such a general claim since the reference only covers one period of time, for one ethnic group, through one port, in a single country." Actually, The Diffenderffer book describes the indenturing process in detail for immigrants from Ireland, not only from Germany. I added a second reference, which is an autobiography annotated by editors Susan Klepp and Gordon Smith. In Preface section "Labor and Migration", pages xix-xx, the editors state: "at least half of all European migrants to the British North American colonies during the eighteenth century, ...signed a contract called an indenture. By this agreement, an immigrant worked as a servant for between three and seven years for a designated master." The book then describes the indenturing process used by "thousands of others to emigrate to the New World...". Greensburger (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Greensburger. That seems better. And the comment in the first ref that indicates the book is broader than its title is helpful. I haven't had time to read any of the second book on Google books but it sounds like it, too, will be helpful. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Like slaves, .........

"Like slaves, servants could not marry without the permission of their owner, were subject to physical punishment (like many young ordinary servants), and saw their obligation to labor enforced by the courts." ?????? 85.96.53.106 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC

I don't have a ref on this. Probably needs one.
It makes sense. If the servant marries, s/he would have other obligations, monetary or child-bearing, that would interfere or be inconsistent with their service. People did beat ("discipline") servants in those days. To rationalize a bit, these were most often children, teens, sometimes adults in their twenties. It was an enforceable contract. The latter should be relatively easy to find. Student7 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

White Slavery extended.

Cromwell's Irish who were "Barbadosed", in time we have forgotten that yes some were indentured yet some were sold as outright slaves until death. Furthermore, some of those that were indentured by Cromwell were never given a time period and labored until the end of their lives. (O'Callaghan, S. To Hell or Barbados. Brandon Books Pub. Ltd., 2001) (McCafferty, K. Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl. Viking Press. 2002.) Orasis (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We can also look at Serfdom, all pretexts aside, those people most of whom were of European/White descent were slaves.

There are document instances. How many instances? Documented instances can be counted, I can't cite this.

Proposal to remove POV tag

Hello, and thank you for your interest in WP. The POV tag is dated July 2011. The matter may have been satisfactorily addressed by interval modifications. As far as I can tell the major themes addressed on the talk page have reached resolution. Your further thoughts are accordingly solicited. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfree labor

I re-added the Wikipedia requisite bolded title to the lede. Somebody seems to have deleted it, as well as the reference to unfree labor, which is precisely what indentured servitude is. It is not slavery, but not free labor either; the term defines unfree labor as specifically including contractually-mandated labor designed to "work off" a debt, in this case the debt of travel costs from Europe to the colonies. Again by contract, the laborers were considered as the same status as children or "indigent workers", both of which were subject to the whims of their employer, including free application of corporal punishment and other punishments no free man would stand for. Please don't delete it again. The term was created with indentured servitude specifically in mind. Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Question..turn of 19th century ?

end of text.. This appears confusing..

>>>these servants had virtually dissolved in America by the early 1800s and were eventually outlawed in the United States before the turn of the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.133.249 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dissolved? Sounds painful. There was definitely a peak for indentured immigration, but I'm not sure it was that late. Due to the rise of African slavery, such legal bargains continued at an dwindling rate into the 19th century. Wordreader (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Penal Colonies

After having read this article it strikes me as odd that there can be so much emphasis on the slavery aspects and no mention whatsoever of the fact that many of the "servants" sent here by Britain were actually convicted criminals and until the revolution North America was being used as British penal colony and indentured servitude was a large part of that program.

Since the article on penal colonies links here for more information one would think that it would be addressed in some manner on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.173.190 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that information? Student7 (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
There were sad cases of people convicted of stealing minor items and forced into transport. One case I remember reading about was the theft of a handkerchief (given the court system of the time, guilt was another matter). The homeless were rounded up and sent away, too. This was a "safety valve" that killed two birds with one stone: overpopulation of the desperately poor in centers like London and the desire to get more cheap laborers into the Colonies. Try Peter Wilson Coldham's The Complete Book of Emigrants in Bondage, 1614-1775 and Emigrants in Chains, 1607-1776. I've read an 18th century newspaper article (Boston, maybe?) that worried openly about all the criminals being dumped into the Colonies, but I no longer have access to the database, "Early American Newspapers". Wordreader (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced statements removed

I have removed the following statements as they have been tagged "citation needed" or "original research" for several months:

  • If children were produced the labour would be extended by 2 years.
  • The term Barbadosed was coined for these actions, and Redlegs for the group concerned.
  • Anecdotal material suggests that there were some similarities between the experiences of the indentured workers and the African slaves who had been brought to Trinidad.

If anyone can find sources to back them up, feel free to re-add them. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 10:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just found a source for*The term Barbadosed was coined for these actions, and Redlegs for the group concerned. http://www.yale.edu/glc/tangledroots/Barbadosed.htm Now where was that quote... I'm heading into the history to find it.Ollie Garkey (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's true that if women became pregnant, even by their owner (and indentured servants were treated as property while under contract), two years were added to their time at the expiration of their contract, at least in Virginia. Here's a Library of Congress link: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html Wordreader (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

african indentured servants

hey, there have been a few cases of african indentured servitude, but there has been not much to mention of the surnames of these africans or the transmission of culture on to the descendants. i have read about the Kumina religion in Jamaica being based on the religion of the indentured servants but not about their culture or the keeping of specific cultural attributes like kinship etc. please feel free to email me(doms_bakk@hotmail.com) for any info.Domsta333 02:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Africans who arrived in Dutch-controlled New Amsterdam as part of a 17th century privateering haul were treated as indentured servants and would, for the most part, become free after a few years and could go on to become property owners. No mention was made of there being formal contracts drawn up, it was just the Dutch being the laissez faire Dutch. See: The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America by Russell Shorto. Wordreader (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The article currently claims that indentured servitude is illegal within the USA, which is generally but not completely true. I did a bit of research last year and found a document containing language that demonstrates the indentured nature of military service (which I feel I should point out is significantly different from slavery). Yet when I post these facts, they are deleted as irrelevant. I would like some advice on how we can work together to improve this article. Thanks, Mwenechanga (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

you need a Reliable Secondary source that makes the case that this is an example of indentured servant. OR (original research) is not allowed in Wikipedia--you should publish the OR on your Facebook page. Rjensen (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems disingenuous to disallow a quote from the US Military on the topic, but I take your point about finding a secondary source to explain the quote. I'll drop it for now Mwenechanga (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
the military quote says nothing about "indentured servant" which is the topic here. Rjensen (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Even in nations that utilize a draft, military participation is considered a public service, is it not? Wordreader (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

origins of term

Should this article discuss the "indentures" on legal documents that gave the term its name? ~~RKH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.21.242.75 (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Treatment

Was it legal in any Western country to treat indentured servants as slaves? Could they be forced to work so hard that they were completely worn out before the end of their contracts? Could they be sexually abused, locked up, battered, possibly even killed, without running any risk of being put on trial for it? I just wondered if there was any real difference between being an indentured servant and being a slave? 2015-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Lena, the first problem with your question is the word "treat." If we boil down slavery to feelings or "treatment," which are both subjective, then practically anything can be compared to slavery. "Ugh, they treat me like a slave at McDonald's." You see the problem?
Now, there are distinct legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery. Granted, both are forms of unfree labor, but in different ways. Slaves inherently had fewer rights than servants, being that slaves were legal property and servants were supposed to be temporary contracted help. The servant was still legally a person; a slave was no more a person than a chair is a person. So, no, indentured servants couldn't be outright killed without their employers having to answer for it to a magistrate or in a court of law. In most jurisdictions, being that a slave was property that an owner had bought and paid for, that owner could do as he wished with their slave, including kill them. On the one hand, owners largely weren't held accountable for murdering their slaves because it couldn't be defined legally as homicide to destroy property; on the other hand, the murder of slaves who hadn't attempted to run away beforehand was rare, since destroying property one has invested money in is often against an owner's economic interests.
Obviously, as with any labor system, there are going to be examples of abuse, and indentured servitude was no exception. There are plenty of stories out of Barbados, for example, where indentured servants experienced particularly harsh levels of abuse during the 1700s. Nothing that I can find to the level of outright murder (because the servant was still a person with legal rights a person has), but physical punishments, overwork, and sexual assault were certainly common in Barbados (though, not really very common elsewhere). Common enough to the point that white supremacists online and off-line have perpetuated this idea that indentured servitude and slavery are the same thing, when they really aren't. The differentiation between personhood and property-hood is a very important one, in the legal sense.
for details in colonial America see Randolph Roth (2012). American Homicide. pp. 507–8.. The servants fought back --with theft, beating the owner's small children, arson & even murder--and Roth looks at the court cases. He alerts the reader before he turns to the gruesome stories: "In most instances, indentured servants and their owners got along well enough to see their contracts through...." Rjensen (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The word "treat" should not be overinterpreted. (I have ssen a lot of people complaining about treatment which is not actually comparabale to what they call it.) What I really wondered was if indentured servants were in practice as lacking in legal rights as slaves. This really seem to have been the case on Barbados. Anyone which know any other place or area where this was the case? 2015-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Property and people

"One could buy and sell indentured servants' contracts, and the right to their labor would change hands, but not the person as a piece of property."

Now, that may have been the case in the United States. But It was not the case for all Slaves in Rome or Serfs in Europe. They were property.

Because Indentured servants were considered property, indentured labor is also an output of property. How is this different from slavery? This should just become a lease on slaves--thus taking away the risk of loss of property(the death of slaves) and allows for better production value.

No, User:Dtong101, indentured servants were not legally considered property. That is the defining difference between indentured servitude and chattel slavery: Indentured servants were legal persons who had some rights that personhood came with, who were under labor contracts for finite periods of time; chattel slaves were legal property like how a chair or a table is legal property, with no rights that personhood came with. Indentured servants could testify in court; slaves could not. Indentured servants could sue their employers; slaves could not. Indentured servitude wasn't a hereditary status that automatically passed from mother to child; chattel slavery was. Indentured servants weren't auctioned off like cattle; chattel slaves were. Indentured servants' contracts were finite, with set periods of time; chattel slaves were property for life or until their masters freed them. Indentured servants typically received freedom packages with money and land once their contracts ended; chattel slaves who were freed were guaranteed nothing by law for services rendered.
Now, indentured servitude was admittedly a system subject to abuse, in some places more than others (Barbados, for example). There have been people who were forced into indentured servitude against their will (although historians such as Donald Akenson found the majority of indentured servants voluntarily signed their contracts of service as a means of paying for passage to the New World). At times, employers had treated servants horribly to the point where some servants were worked to death before their contracts were up, contracts were sometimes extended repeatedly, laws against mistreatment of servants weren't always enforced, etc.
However, no matter how horrid indentured servitude could be, the legal designation of servants as people did come with some basic legal protections. Slaves didn't even have that admittedly minimal level of legal protection, because they were considered property and not people.
EricSpokane (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Indentured servant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

White slavery?

Why does white slavery (historical) redirect to indentured servitude? It was not indentured servitude, it was slavery, pure and simple. Until the 1800s the majority of slaves in the Americas were Irish or Scottish, not Africans. These historical facts deserve to have an article, not to be swept under the rug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.84.136 (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

How is slavery "pure and simple? You can't rewrite history. My professor is correct. I cannot use this as a source.

This statement is factually untrue. However, the redlegs are an example of white slavery as caused by Cromwell. White slavery is not indentured servitude, and it is often ignored. Which leads to misunderstandings like those expressed in the preceding statement. The link should be changed. Ollie Garkey (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The white slavery article should not forward to indentured servitude. It is well known that Rome, Greece, England etc, used White slaves. They were not "servants." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Although the majority of slaves in the Americas were not Scottish or Irish, they did exist. Ok, please cite it. Please.

I too agree that to forward the 'White slavery' page automatically to the indentured servitude one is highly irresponsible and historically inaccurate. White slaves did exist and they were in no way indentured servants, they were whole property unto death. They were slaves. Orasis (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of factually incorrect statements in this article, particularly under the heading "America." Most indentured servants were not teenagers, they were children. They were typically aged between 6 and 11 years old when they were shipped from England to the US under the belief that they would have a better life in the US. A HUGE majoraty didn't survive the crossing and even fewer lived to see their days as a free person. I cannot link to this because it is all the archives in Virgina...but the book (your 1st source) is not an adequate source I'm afraid. The records are there in their orignal form in Virgina and this article is grossly midleading. It suggests that being an indentured servant was favourable and most servants benefitted from it. It wasn't wasn't and they didn't and as such you are doing a disservice to those that were part of it and those that wish to understand it by getting your facts wrong. Shh071 (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

no published history seems to agree. Why would anyone pay passage for a small child --to feed, clothe and take care of --instead of a teenager who could do far more work? any why would a ship captain take them when a "huge majority" would die onboard his ship? Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Think about the opportunity cost of having one more body aboard the ship. There was very little difference in cost for the captain to have 15 or 20 boys, so in hopes that he could sell more contracts they would usually overload. Huge majority does sound like an overstatement to me though. 140.146.36.185 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Several points:
1. Except where the term is enclosed in quotation marks as the historical label, why can't you simply say "slaves" or "European slaves"? The divisiveness of the repeated use of "white slaves" is unnecessary. After all, you wouldn't say "black slaves", you'd say "African slaves."
2. In contrast to people who entered servitude voluntarily, there were plenty of cases where people were forced into indentures against their will. So, although they possessed signed documents of indenture, they were by definition, enslaved. This is a hybrid area; picture a Venn diagram of intersecting circles, one labeled "Slave", the other "Indentured Servant". The intersecting area = indentured European slaves.
3. Although it's true that there are inspiring examples of indentured servants who worked through their indentures and prospered, there are a multitude of examples where it was a hopeless situation. Orphaned, abandoned, even kidnapped children were transported. They were cheap to buy from their workhouses and were treated like little disposable parts just as the African slaves were. (There are some notorious examples of slave owners in Jamaica, if not other places, who did not spend money to care for their slaves because they were so cheap to replace. It's the same with these child indentured servants.) When one died during the passage, there were others already in the hold to help recoup the loss. Kids were also cheaper to buy for the "customer" and just as disposable on that end. In some places and times, a high percentage of the indentured didn't live to survive their contracts. Here's an example of a teenaged boy that was found buried, away from view, in a shallow grave in the basement of a VA farm house, representative of many indentured servants who were lost: http://anthropology.si.edu/writteninbone/leavy_neck.html Thank goodness that it was a fairly short-lived era. Wordreader (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

July 11, 2013: Well to just blow this thing wide open, "White slavery" is not only largely a fallacy, its a pretty meaningless term. What "White Slavery" enthusiasts call slavery was in fact, in almost all cases, 16th to 19th century indentured servitude, convict labor, or serfdom--all of which are different forms of 'unfree labor' but they were not slavery. Yes all kinds of people have been enslaved and discriminated against throughout world history, going way, way back, and they have been of all races, nationalities and religions, etc. But the term "White slavery" is so unspecific that it serves no purpose. For instance, the people the Romans enslaved--were they all "white"? Did they all share a common culture? No. They were very distinct peoples--language, ethnicity, etc. Was a Briton enslaved to a Roman the same as a Nabatean (from current day Jordan) enslaved by a Roman? How about a Carthaginian (North African berbers) and a Gaul (French)? Were they all the same because they were "White"? The color of their skin was not important--that wasn't the variable they used to determine slavery--one's status vis-à-vis the Roman Empire was what mattered. Obviously, not all slavery at all times has been based on race, although the most recent, largest, and most advanced slave system ever in the world (African slavery in the Americas from circa 1550 to 1880s) clearly was. And we are still living with the aftereffects of this system--lingering racism and inequality in numerous countries. 'White' is also essentially an Western European and American identity construction. Russians don't think of themselves as "white," nor do Hungarians, or Greeks, or Cyprians, or Italians, or Finns, etc. They don't all share the same language, religion, culture or identity as, say, people from Colorado or New Hampshire. "White" assumes cultural homogeneity as well as skin color, and assumes there isn't some other way groups identify themselves other than by race. The only people hung up on "White slavery" are usually Americans who feel Blacks in their country are getting preferential treatment because of their supposed 'victim' status--that they underwent slavery and Jim Crow segregation and therefore their rights require legal protection. And these proponents are actually upset about the loss of 'white entitlement'--they think it's a raw deal that they are not getting some kind of imagined 'perques' they feel African Americans get. They feel cheated so they comb through history to find examples of "whites" being oppressed and use it as a justification for repealing civil liberties extended to African Americans. My ID is Breeze009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breeze009 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

These indentured servants were criminals, political dissidents and people who couldn't afford the trip to the new world. This is what is taught, because it can be proven. Moreover, it is still going on.

July 14 2014, The concept of creating special benefits to persons of any race due to genealogical heritage is promotion of racism, nepotism, and aristocracy. I would have to disagree with Breeze009's argument, the argument made is weak seeing as Africa through out history is a content that contained many races and languages long before slavery ever took hold. There is great arrogance to believe that one race being abducted and enslaved is not equal to the plight of another race that was abducted and enslaved is further evidence of racism. White slavery, Caucasian slavery, political prisoner slavery, indentured servant. These are all forms of slavery, where rights have been taken or stolen with fraudulent documentation when needed or no documentation at all. While even today there is the legal precept that one can enter into contract and give up their rights, if said rights are natural and unalienable, no person could ever sign their rights away, as such no court could ever order a person to labor or be subject to a debt that cannot be repaid. As such credit systems would fail along with mortgages and auto loans,forcing real market prices based upon manufacturing costs not what the market can bear due to credit inflation. Debt slavery is the nuanced adaptation of slavery practices used globally against all races of people by those with the power and resources to enforce it. While the conditions are pleasurable by comparison to the torture and outright murder those experienced in earlier eras, the precept of mans unalienable right to the listed "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" would outlaw credit systems, it's important to pay attention to the declaration of independence as it also has the line "among them" meaning that there are likely more rights that could be listed. It does not naturally relate that a free market or capitalist market would charge more because someone else is paying, debt as such is a socialized form of governance that has lead to insurance. The origins of America were entrepreneurship, by means of work, save, buy, expand, very quickly after it's independence England conspired to corrupt the American nation subsidizing a slave industry that guaranteed inequality and undermined human rights. This information can be found by researching the commissioning of slave vessels, and the use of the Caribbean islands mainly owned by England as import locations. This line from the Atlantic slave trade wiki really puts this into perspective "The first Africans imported to the English colonies were classified as "indentured servants,"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk Greninger (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nov. 30th, 2016 Looking back at the history of indentured servitude, many convicts were entitled to this form of free labor. However, convicts were not the only indentured servants, and to say that they are the "only" ones is ignorant. In our history, many labor movements proved that the greatest population of indentured servants came from the Chinese and Indians. Looking at the global scale, the British were the developers of this system, which became implemented in America after slavery was abolished. There is a concrete evidence in history of Chinese immigrants moving to California and being bound to contracts (indentured servitude). These immigrants were usually bound for a limitless amount of time. They worked on rail roads and jobs that required very hard physical labor. In our society today, I do not believe it is relevant to say that taking away someones rights means they partake in the term indentured servant. A prisoner in America still has rights. What you have described is more of a terrorist who has no rights because he is declared a "terrorist." As a matter of fact, prisoners are not indentured servants because they still receive benefits from American tax dollars. They do not work for "free" because they work for food and to pay off their debt to society for the actions they committed. Indentured servitude is not slavery because, in slavery, one race is oppressing the other in every aspect of life. The oppressed race are not granted rights and are seen as aliens. You have included some lines of the Declaration of Independence in an attempt to prove your case, but you are not clearly stating the connection between indentured servitude in connection to slavery and race. The forms of servitude correlate with one another, but are different in nature as seen in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketsangasong (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Post-emancipation indenture in the Caribbean

I just added a little about Post-emancipation indenture in the Caribbean, though there's a lot more to said. I'll try to add more when I'm less sleepy. I'm pretty inexperienced with contributing, so it may need some editing by the more experienced of you out there. Also, is there anyone out there who's familiar with indenture in South and East Africa or in the Pacific or Indian Oceans? Oh, and does anyone else think the line, "Even the islands themselves had become deadly disease death traps for the white servants." should be changed? "Deadly disease death traps" sounds overly dramatic, but I'm not confident enough to make non-grammatical changes to other people's contributions yet. Miraclediver 06:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

female indentured servants

Could there be female indentured servants in Chappell Hill, Texas (or any Texas town) when they hired Poles to come over and take the place of the freed slaves? And if so what would they have done? Does anybody know? Jim Bart

Higher education in USSR

Maybe "indentured servitude" could describe higher ed in USSR. People did not pay for education, if they were good enough at passing exams and studying to get enlisted - they were even PAID for being students, albeit not much. However after graduating they were obligated to work several years "by distribution" among enterprises booking high-educated youth. After few years you could move away, however chances were that during those very young years person would settle in place and would not move away even after nominally being as free to do as other citizens. Also just-married or not-yet-married couples saw hardships about being "distributed" together. There was no re-selling though. If enterprise demanded state to dispatch them a specialist, re-selling would be proving the demand was fraudulent. One more dimension was travelling abroad, and "Jewish question". With Israel then actively repatriating Jews from everywhere, USSR started demanding paying back the High Education costs before going out of USSR (or working through at some bad "distribution" place, which would hold the whole family inside USSR for years to come). And since the state was the sole provider of H.E. the prices were arbitrary. Were they justified or prohibited - was a matter of belief not about reasonable checking.

Requested move 8 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


Indentured servant → Indentured servitude – Our other related articles (Indentured servitude in the Americas, Indentured servitude in Pennsylvania, Indentured servitude in Virginia) agree with the proposed title, and articles on similar topics don't have names like Involuntary servant, Slave, Wage slave, Conscript, Penal labourer or Wage labourer. "servant" appears in this article in the singular only twice (the title and the first sentence) while "servitude" appears ten times in the article text alone. Under the current title, the first sentence is also ungrammatical, as [a]n [...] indentured labor is not a thing, nor is it synonymous with the current title. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Caribbean

This section was brutal. I removed text (and associated sources) that implied the non-existence of slavery and other dubiousness, as well as other unreferenced text. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hawaii: Indentured Servitude

Hawaii maintaned a system of indentured servitude with Chinese Coolies brought from China at least through the 1890s.

https://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/home/HawaiiLaborHistory.html 

From June 21st, 1850 laborers were subject to a strict law known as the Masters and Servants Law. Under the provisions of this law, enacted just a few weeks after the founding of the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society, two different forms of labor contracts were legalized, apprenticeships and indentured service. Under this law, absenteeism or refusal to work could cause a contract laborer to be apprehended by the district magistrate or police officer and subsequently sentenced to work for the employer an extra amount of time after the contract expired, usually double the time of the absence. 
      For those contract laborers who found conditions unbearable and tried to run away, again the law permitted their employers "coercive force" to apprehend them, and their contracts on the plantation would be extended by double the period of time they had been away. If such a worker then refused to serve, he could be jailed and sentenced to hard labor until he gave in. The law, therefore, made it virtually impossible for the workers to organize labor unions or to participate in strikes. Indeed, the law was only a slight improvement over outright slavery.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/4473/June-14-1900-The-Abolition-of-Slavery-in-Hawaii.aspx

--Patbahn (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Indentured Servitude in Virginia

Hello,

My name is Kayla Wilson, and i wanted to briefly introduce myself as well as my assignment i have been working on. I am in my second semester at San Diego Mesa College and am currently enrolled in History 109 (american history) Our sole assignment for this semester is to choose a topic within the subjects that have been discussed in class throughout the semester. I have chosen to discuss about Indentured Servants. After narrowing down a topic we were to research a similar topic within wikipedia, and then decide what we can add to the article found. I have chosen specifically this wikipedia article on Indentured Servitude to focus on. I have reviewed this article and i would like to contribute to its content. I believe there should be a separate link of its own to focus on Indentured Servitude in Virginia I would like to provide some useful information and resources to help create this individual link for the Indentured Servitude in Virginia. 2600:8801:950B:CA00:2042:65A5:E980:B368 (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kayla. That's fine and we are happy to have you make improvements. Just to make sure - are you aware that there is already a separate article on Indentured servitude in Virginia?

"Indentured Labour", and the move of the page away from the title "Indentured servant"

User:Hijiri88 you wrote above in the section "Requested move 8 February 2017" "indentured labor is not a thing". A simple Google book search "Indentured+labour" "Indentured+labour" returns may books on the subject. Taking the first book returned as an example:

  • P.C. Emmer (2012) Colonialism and Migration; Indentured Labour Before and After Slavery ISBN 9400943547

Please explain how you reached you conclusion? -- PBS (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what I wrote. Please read my comment more carefully. What I actually wrote (with grammar slightly altered and the quotation being made even more obvious for your benefit) was the first sentence is ungrammatical, as "an indentured labor" is not a thing.
Also, it's really annoying to ping people so you can nitpick the grammar of their talk page comments eight months after the fact (even if you had been technically right). If you make a regular habit of doing this, I would advise you stop.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
OK then what was the reason for requesting the page move? -- PBS (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Please actually read comments before attacking them. I gave a clear rationale for the page move eight months ago, and you clearly either have not attempted to read it, or are pretending not to have read it as an excuse to be needlessly antagonistic. I honestly don't know which is worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indentured servitude. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Meaning unclear

"In 1643, the white population of Barbados was 37,200[22] (86% of the population).[23]"

Why was this statement added to the article? It just comes out of the blue without rhyme or reason. It doesn't refer to indentured servitude in any way, implicitly or otherwise. Are we to assume that the entire population of Barbados was indentured, of which 86% were white?Ealtram (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Indentured servitude in the United Kingdom (and maybe more widely in Europe?)

I'm drafting a section on indentured farm labour in the UK, but I wonder if there was also indentured servitude elsewhere in Europe? Any inputs would be appreciated, either on the UK section or on Europe more widely - Thanks -

Gilgamesh4 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indentured_servitude/Archive_1&oldid=1243996625"