What were "indentured servants"?

[kentuck]

It is my understanding that they ordered to work for their "masters" for up to seven years when they came to this country. Many escaped into the mountains and other parts of the country to keep from being "slaves". British law required debtors to work for seven years, like in the Old Testament, until they repaid their debts. But what does that have to do with the present, huh?

[ET Awful]

1. Indentured servitude was a way of locking people into labor for the

most part. A situation was created where they would work to pay off debt (while incurring more debt to stay alive while working via food, rent, etc.).

The concept resulted not in a 7 year term, but in a relatively permanent underclass that wound up working forever to pay off an ever-increasing debt.

A good example of this in a more modern context would be the migrant farmworkers of the dustbowl/Grapes of Wrath era. They were paid miniscule amounts of money, but provided with housing (at exhorbitant rental rates), a credit line at the company store (once again at prices several times higher than they would pay anywhere else), etc. But, with the miniscule amounts they earned, they were unable to pay the debt entirely, so they incurred more debt in order to survive so they could continue working to pay the debt.

[SoCalDem]

5. They "owed their soul to the company store"

They were brought here and forced to work off their passage to GET here, but then they were charged room & board and because they were isolated, they have to shop with the "master", so they never really paid off the debt. Their 7 years were eventually up for the passage, but the debt they incurred during the 7 yeras would probably take a lifetime to repay.. That's why so many of them ran away..Probably when they were caught, they were sent to debtors' prisons or the poorhouse, but if they were young, running away seemed preferable anyway :)

[ET Awful]

7. Bingo.

And, your "company store" line is from a song describing another environment in which such practices were rampant. . . coal mining.

Read up on the Harlan County Wars (coal strikes, unionization, etc.) for more examples of latter day indentured servitude.

[signmike]

11. and Matewan. Excellent movie on VHS by John Sayles, if you prefer to watch

[SoCalDem]

12. Good Ole Tennessee Ernie Ford

16 Tons :)

[bryant69]

2. Well they agreed to those terms in order to get passage

to the new world. So while that seems not so great today, I'm not sure it's a direct parallel. I think it's more like the share-croppers as someone else as mentioned.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ET Awful]

8. Not at all like sharecropping.

With sharecropping, you farmed a plot of land which was the property of someone else. The rent on that land was a part of what you produced. While not perfect, sharecropping was much less of a form of exploitation than indentured servitude.

[bryant69]

13. That would be true

If sharecropping were generally done fairly. But the entire system at that time was set up to control black farmers and for the benefit of white landowners and bankers.

[ET Awful]

15. Actually, a huge number of sharecroppers where poor white people

and, a huge number of them became the migrant farmworkers of the dustbowl.

The family farms they lived on were, in fact, sharecropped, and belonged to the banks. When the dustbowl hit and huge draughts destroyed their crops, they were forced off the land and headed west, thus the vast dust bowl migrations.

It wasn't set up simply to control black farmers.

The only thing that kept people locked into sharecropping was that they had a piece of land that they could live on simply for a portion of their crops. The remainder of their crops served as both a means of income, and a means of sustenance (as they could sell part and keep part). They would never become wealthy, but they could live without too much difficulty, and, if they were willing to give up that plot of land on which many of them were born and raised, they could leave at any time. Most owned their own livestock, etc. They could produce all the food they needed from that plot of land. The biggest drawback being that they would never own the land, and that if they were hit by a draught, they could be evicted easily. This hasn't changed to any great extent today. Most family farms are owned by the bank in one way or another, the only difference is now the bank has to foreclose instead of just bulldozing the house.

[Guckert]

3. A way of working off the price for the trip to the New World

If you had a trade but no money, you could sign up for indentured servitude. If you were needed in the new world the time would be lowered. If you were a debtor you would work longer. Some of the Colonies even gave the indentured servants a plot of land at the end of their service that was included in the contract before coming over.
Yes, there were those who took advantage of this policy. but it was substituted for actual slaves that could be used for life and they kept the kids as well.

[kentuck]

4. Mr. Gannon, I presume?

:)

[Guckert]

9. Uh. Nope. just a bi curious GOP shill who loves $$$$ and Rep. dong

:wtf:

[Warpy]

6. What does it have to do with the present?

The above explanation is the past. People who survived that seven years of hard labor were "free" to do more hard labor for pay instead of just for bad food and a place in the barn where they could sleep. Some indentured servants took off to the "free" land on the frontier and did well enough to get indentured servants of their own, working seven years to pay off their fare to the Americas. Most didn't.

Now, we have credit cards and the minimum payment scam. While you're paying that minimum balance, you're indentured, and you'll stay indentured for at least the next 30 years, and that's if you manage to get through them without charging groceries or medical care and adding to your sentence.

The rich always do this to us: pay us less than it takes to support us, then allow us easy access to debt to make up the difference. That's who they are, and that's what they do, and it has never varied throughout history, although we do manage to get a few years now and then when some of us can breathe free.

[ET Awful]

10. No, they weren't "free" because during that period of servitude

they incurred more debt, which they had to continue working to pay off after the initial period, the whole while incurring more debt. The food, lodging, etc. was not free as part of their servitude, it was a further expense. They had to work more to pay that off.

[crikkett]

18. Credit Cards & Mortgages are today's Indentured Servitude

Warpy beat me to the punch!

Now, we have credit cards and the minimum payment scam. While you're paying that minimum balance, you're indentured, and you'll stay indentured for at least the next 30 years, and that's if you manage to get through them without charging groceries or medical care and adding to your sentence.

This bankruptcy bill would keep us all in plastic chains, working to make the minimum payments versus living a free life.

Somebody make a poster! I can't do art today.
:cry:

[DBoon]

14. At least they were only required to work for seven years

Current bankruptcy bill has no such limit - they can own you for life

[ET Awful]

16. No, they were told they were only required to work for 7 years,

but, being as they were incurring additional debt for the entire period, it was NOT only a 7 year indenture. It was much longer, as they had to keep working to pay off the old debt, while continously earning new debt.

It was the same scam, different name.

[Mairead]

17. They were employees under contract.

I own an indenturement document from 1687. It's on actual sheep-skin parchment and except for the beautiful penwork 'Indenture' at the top, it's just written out in the formal handwritng of the day (which is hard, but not impossible to read).

Articles of indenturement were not unlike articles of apprenticeship, except that they typically did not involve learning a craft. They were nothing more or less than employment contracts.

The one I own specified that a certain person was to work for a period of 4 years for a certain other person 'and Alyce his wife and their heirs and assigns forever'. So, like a baseball player's contract, an indenturement could be sold (the 'assigns' part). The 'forever' simply meant that the contract wouldn't evaporate even if the master and mistress and all their family suddenly died, which was not impossible in those days. Whoever eventually inherited their property would also inherit this employment contract for whatever was left of its period.

The person being employed promised to do the bidding of the employers, and the employers promised to pay a small wage plus supply food, clothing, shelter, and pay all normal expenses such as the cost of transportation if they emigrated. The people lived in York, and apparently intended to keep on doing so, though. Down at the bottom on the back (the darn thing goes on forever, the clerk's handwriting getting worse as it goes) there are the signatures of everyone involved plus a magistrate and 4 witnesses, two on each side I suppose, though it doesn't say.

So it was a two-way deal: both sides committed themselves completely. There were no escape clauses, which while making it a lot like temporary slavery, also assured the indenturee that he was going to get his basic needs met for the next 4 years. If the employers failed to honor their side of the bargain, he could take them to court for breach of contract and win. Similarly, if they emigrated and he decided to duck out once they hit Baltimore or wherever, they could have him posted as a runaway bondsman, which would have the sheriffs looking for him as they would a runaway slave.

There's a lot of misinformation floating around about indenturement during colonial times.

[RamboLiberal]

19. And unfortunately it is still occurring - right here in the U.S.

and across much of the world.

IMMOKALEE, FL (Coalition of Immokalee Workers) - The members of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers are proud to announce a recent victory in the fight against modern-day slavery in the agricultural industry. On June 26, 2002, after two long years of a CIW investigation, three Central Florida employers who ran a violent and coercive slavery operation in citrus were found guilty by a jury in federal court of charges including: conspiracy to hold workers in indentured servitude, interference with interstate commerce through extortion, and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. The employers, Ramiro, Juan, and Jose Luis Ramos face up to 25 years in jail and forfeiture of up to $3 million in assets.

In the past five years, the CIW has uncovered and investigated three large slavery operations in tomato fields and citrus groves, and acted as a key consultant to the DOJ/ Civil Rights Division in two other slavery prosecutions. In this most recent case, CIW members gathered crucial intelligence while working undercover , investigated the employers' multiple business interests in the area, and helped liberate several workers.

According to workers, their employers held them in debt on labor camps in Lake Placid, telling them they owed $1,000 each for their ride from Arizona to Florida. The Ramos' deducted from workers' weekly pay for the ride fee, rent, food, work equipment, and so on, with workers ending up with as little as $70 a week in hand. The workers were then taken to Ramos' family stores to spend what was left. The employers used threats of beatings and death to create a climate of fear and keep workers against their will. Visitors to the camp were threatened and blocked from leaving.

When the CIW managed to visit one of the camps, workers told us that they were being held against their will and threatened. We informed workers of their right to work where they choose in the US. Shortly afterwards, four workers called for help, and in a harrowing and tense ordeal CIW members assisted in getting them off the camp.

http://www.iabolish.com/news/global/2002/ciw07-11-02.htm