Replies

Thanks again! I’ll study your post later since it’s a lot to absorb!!

on the indentured servitude, tho, now you’ve got me confused.

According to
http://public.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/hist106web/site18/The%20Decline%20of%20Indentured%20Servitude.htm

” By the 1830s, indentured servitude among immigrants had almost entirely ended in mainland North America (Galenson, 14).”

but wiki draws also from Galenson to claim:
“Decline[edit]
Indentured servitude appeared in the Americas in the 1620s and remained in use as late as 1917.[43]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
[43] Galenson, David (1984). “The Rise and Fall of Indentured Servitude in the Americas: An Economic Analysis”. Journal of Economic History. 1 44: 1–26. doi:10.1017/s002205070003134x.

so which date is correct to use?

I know the 13th Amendment of 1865 abolished indenturedness, but is one cite speaking only to British-origin, indentured and the other cite to all indentured (Germans in 1800’s, Orphan trains after 1865, Chinese to work on railroads in the US and sugar plantation companies in Hawaii, etc)?

from http://www.wcl.american.edu/modernamerican/documents/Trammell.pdf

“Following practices established by previous organizations,
most of these charities provided assistance to children through indentured servitude, generally indenturing boys by the age of 12 and girls by the age of 14. [29] Given the
depressed economic conditions and lack of employment opportunities in the East, charities began to place and indenture affected children in rural areas where child labor was needed and welcomed. [30] This grew into the orphan train movement.

“In 1849, the board of governors of the New York Almshouse
favored placing children in families and sought legislation
allowing children to be indentured outside the State of New
York.[31]

“In 1855, New York State authorized “trustees, directors
or managers of any incorporated orphan asylum, or institute or home for indigent children” to “bind out” any male orphan or indigent child under 21 and any female orphan or indigent child under 18.[32]
:snip:

“A more complicated lawsuit arose from a 1904 Arizona Territory orphan train placement in which the New York
Foundling Hospital sent 40 Caucasian children between the ages of 18 months and 5 years to be indentured to Catholic
families in an Arizona Territory parish...”

My reference with regard to indentured servants involved their traditional use as an alternative to black slavery, with adult Europeans recruited in Europe, especially Britain, and their passage across the Atlantic paid by the purchaser of the indenture. This seemed to be implied by the context of your comment.

wholesale exportation of northern slaves to the South to make way for boatloads of indentured servants

The wholesale exportation (though that might not be exactly the right word) took place, though there were never huge numbers of slaves in the northern states to begin with relative to their number in the South.

But boatloads of indentured servants weren't being imported between the Revolution and 1860. There may have been some in the early years, no idea of the numbers, but after 1800 or so probably very few indeed.

IOW, the ending of slavery in northern states and the shameful selling south of their slaves, and indentured servant importation had nothing at all to do with each other.

Fairly obviously, orphan trains, Chinese imported to build railroads, and other late examples of "indentures" also had nothing at all to do with European peasants imported to "replace" slaves.

A little more on “indentured servants.”

Probably something like half of those imported during the colonial period were convicts. Everybody is familiar with convict transportation to Oz, but few are aware that the reason UK turned to OZ was that their previous destination for convicts, the American colonies, had been shut to them by war and then independence. Most of these convicts went to the Middle Colonies. Ben Franklin has a rant online someplace objecting to the practice.

Voluntary immigration via a shipowner selling off an indenture to pay for passage pretty much disappeared after the mid-18th century, with the primary reason being greatly reduced prices for passage relative to income of potential passengers. In the 16th and 17th century, passage cost something along the lines of 50% to 75% of the annual income of a British laborer.

Trading 4 to 7 years of your life for passage makes considerable sense under those conditions. With passage cheaper, not so much.