The Confederate "Rebel" Flag and it's Meaning and Usage

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

It is not strawman just because you claim it is strawman, that is just refusing to address the issue.

slavery (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slavĄ¤erĄ¤ies
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

slavery [ˈsleɪvərɪ]
n
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery
indentured servitude
n.
a person who is bound to work for another for a specified period of time, esp. such a person who came to America during the colonial period.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Indentured+servitude
By very definition they are the same thing.
And yes, also according to history, PA was also dependent on their 30,000 "Indentured servants" economically. I never said that slavery was not an issue contributing to the war, In fact I said that slavery and the economic issues were one in the same issue.
ALSO: LOL @ Mudslinging. That is funny right there. No, TY, I would rather just stick to the facts.

The fact that Indentured Servitude was a contract between two people with the exchange of a service for future services rendered and slavery is not. It was no cake walk but it was still a contract and therefore is not slavery.

And in the first post you said the war was not about slavery but economy
which is only partly right, as I said, it was an issue from the start of the war and not entirely economic conserns as seen in the South Carolina D.O.S

Blacks were forced into indentured servitude against their will, that is no more a contract, than me imprisoning them and forcing them to work for me. It is the same thing regardless of how you try to twist it. As for My words, please do not take them out of context MY EXACT QUOTE: "According to his family, the war was not about slavery it was about economic supression." "His family" meaning "HIS FATHERS WORDS" to be precise, not mine. Mind you it was his family that were actually slaves here, this was their understanding of their OWN family history that was handed down with their family heirlooms. Much of their histories have been destroyed, I would think that you would allow them to at least what they have remaining.

Regardless of how you feel about it, to the Black confederates, that is their flag too.

As far as I am concerned the Slavery issue and economic issue were the same issue.

PS. Notice how the dictionary does not refer to a contract anywhere? Oh yea this was not a "mutual agreement". What were the consequences for refusing to comply?

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html
"Before the Civil War, slaves and indentured servants were considered personal property, and they or their descendants could be sold or inherited like any other personalty."

funny enough
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indentured+servant

also
http://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/
http://encyclopediavirginia.org/indentured_servants_in_colonial_virginia
http://www.folger.edu/html/folger_institute/jamestown/c_shifflet.htm

yea nowhere is it called a contract

"Blacks were forced into indentured servitude against their will" -right at first wrong after 1661

there alredy was a thriving slave trade for surgar plantations, because the death rate was so high they required a constant supply of new workers so wars were actively fought in Africa between nation states for the "resorce" so most slaves were,for a lack of a better term, spoils of war. The first black were considered indentured servants by law if not by choice, with freedom packages and 4-7year contracts, but all colones brought the hammer down on that rather quickly to differentiate between the types of chattel.

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

The fact that Indentured Servitude was a contract between two people with the exchange of a service for future services rendered and slavery is not. It was no cake walk but it was still a contract and therefore is not slavery.

And in the first post you said the war was not about slavery but economy
which is only partly right, as I said, it was an issue from the start of the war and not entirely economic conserns as seen in the South Carolina D.O.S

Blacks were forced into indentured servitude against their will, that is no more a contract, than me imprisoning them and forcing them to work for me. It is the same thing regardless of how you try to twist it. As for My words, please do not take them out of context MY EXACT QUOTE: "According to his family, the war was not about slavery it was about economic supression." "His family" meaning "HIS FATHERS WORDS" to be precise, not mine. Mind you it was his family that were actually slaves here, this was their understanding of their OWN family history that was handed down with their family heirlooms. Much of their histories have been destroyed, I would think that you would allow them to at least what they have remaining.

Regardless of how you feel about it, to the Black confederates, that is their flag too.

As far as I am concerned the Slavery issue and economic issue were the same issue.

PS. Notice how the dictionary does not refer to a contract anywhere? Oh yea this was not a "mutual agreement". What were the consequences for refusing to comply?

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html
"Before the Civil War, slaves and indentured servants were considered personal property, and they or their descendants could be sold or inherited like any other personalty."

funny enough
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indentured+servant

also
http://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/
http://encyclopediavirginia.org/indentured_servants_in_colonial_virginia
http://www.folger.edu/html/folger_institute/jamestown/c_shifflet.htm

yea nowhere is it called a contract

"Blacks were forced into indentured servitude against their will" -right at first wrong after 1661

there alredy was a thriving slave trade for surgar plantations, because the death rate was so high they required a constant supply of new workers so wars were actively fought in Africa between nation states for the "resorce" so most slaves were,for a lack of a better term, spoils of war. The first black were considered indentured servants by law if not by choice, with freedom packages and 4-7year contracts, but all colones brought the hammer down on that rather quickly to differentiate between the types of chattel.

From your first source:
"Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution, persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers."
As for the use of the word "contract" in that dictionary, I should write them and show them the other dictionary definitions and have them update it accordingly, as one cannot be under contract when they were forced or kidnapped, that is contradictory.

How can one be under contract if they were kidnapped or convictd without jury as they were in Pennsylvania until after the war?

From your second source:
"Only about 40 percent of indentured servants lived to complete the terms of their contracts."
From your third source:
"In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed - in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 -and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun."

Virginia encyclopedia is a joke, and I reject it as a good source.
Last source:
"The terms of their contracts, laws regulating their behavior, and court records and newspaper advertisements on those who ran away promise to open additional windows on the conditions of indentured servitude. A number of laws enacted in the seventeenth century governed the behavior of masters and servants. These laws tell us a good deal about such matters as the place of bonded labor in the social hierarchy, when race and slavery came to be connected, and of the role of race and gender in early Virginia. Restrictions had to be placed both upon masters against "barbarous" treatment of their servants and upon servants against "fornication" and "unapproved" marriages. Additionally, distinctions evolved in the laws between Indians, slaves, and servants, between the baptized and un-baptized, or Christians and heathens, and so between freedom and slavery. The laws show as much if not more conflict between masters and servants as between servants and slaves. Often slaves and servants ran away together.

For most of the seventeenth century the lives of white indentured servants and enslaved blacks were similar. They worked together in the fields; they ate together and slept in the same part of a building. The changes in day-to-day conditions really came after Nathaniel Bacon's rebellion in 1676. But indentured servitude differed from slavery in one very substantial way. Bondage in perpetuity carried with it (after 1662 in Virginia) the condition of inheritance for every child born of a slave mother. This set slavery apart from indentured servitude however similar were the physical conditions of their lives. And, obviously, indenture was contractual and consensual; slavery was forced and involuntary, usually the result of capture and sale. Finally, the right of self-possession and full control over the labor of one's hands cannot be overestimated.

In the practice of indenture, not uncommonly, owners treated servants like slaves. Even those who did have contracts often found themselves at the mercy of masters who abused them (especially in the case of women), provided the bare minimum in terms of food, clothing and shelter, and took their fifty-acre headright. Historians have noted how such abuse and degradation was bound to shape attitudes of young servants who, as they grew older, helped set later patterns of labor exploitation.

Not surprisingly, servants ran away. Without a published newspaper in the seventeenth century, it is difficult to assess the extent of flight by indentured servants. Court records will need to be thoroughly examined before we can take a full measure of such unrest. But it is already clear from a perusal of some county records that running away was taken quite seriously by colonial officials and was met with harsh treatment, different from that given to resistant slaves only in terms of when it was carried out. Runaway servant entries in York County, Virginia records, for example, reveal punishments of twenty, thirty, or more "lashes on his bare shoulders" for a runaway servant, or additions of years, sometimes twice the original number or more, to the first contract. The leniency of treating the first sentence as a warning did distinguish indentured servants from slaves. But it did little to stop runaways. In the eighteenth century, hundreds of advertisements in the Virginia Gazette newspaper provide a treasure trove of richly detailed information on servant and slave runaways. When all of this evidence is examined carefully, historians will have a fuller picture of the practice of indentured servitude. Then we can begin to assess how the practice shaped the attitudes and values of white laboring men and women whose experience as servants certainly ingrained them to accept black labor exploitation as a common feature of the American experience."

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

Blacks were forced into indentured servitude against their will, that is no more a contract, than me imprisoning them and forcing them to work for me. It is the same thing regardless of how you try to twist it. As for My words, please do not take them out of context MY EXACT QUOTE: "According to his family, the war was not about slavery it was about economic supression." "His family" meaning "HIS FATHERS WORDS" to be precise, not mine. Mind you it was his family that were actually slaves here, this was their understanding of their OWN family history that was handed down with their family heirlooms. Much of their histories have been destroyed, I would think that you would allow them to at least what they have remaining.

Regardless of how you feel about it, to the Black confederates, that is their flag too.

As far as I am concerned the Slavery issue and economic issue were the same issue.

PS. Notice how the dictionary does not refer to a contract anywhere? Oh yea this was not a "mutual agreement". What were the consequences for refusing to comply?

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html
"Before the Civil War, slaves and indentured servants were considered personal property, and they or their descendants could be sold or inherited like any other personalty."

funny enough
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indentured+servant

also
http://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/
http://encyclopediavirginia.org/indentured_servants_in_colonial_virginia
http://www.folger.edu/html/folger_institute/jamestown/c_shifflet.htm

yea nowhere is it called a contract

"Blacks were forced into indentured servitude against their will" -right at first wrong after 1661

there alredy was a thriving slave trade for surgar plantations, because the death rate was so high they required a constant supply of new workers so wars were actively fought in Africa between nation states for the "resorce" so most slaves were,for a lack of a better term, spoils of war. The first black were considered indentured servants by law if not by choice, with freedom packages and 4-7year contracts, but all colones brought the hammer down on that rather quickly to differentiate between the types of chattel.

From your first source:
"Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution, persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers."
As for the use of the word "contract" in that dictionary, I should write them and show them the other dictionary definitions and have them update it accordingly, as one cannot be under contract when they were forced or kidnapped, that is contradictory.

How can one be under contract if they were kidnapped or convictd without jury as they were in Pennsylvania until after the war?

From your second source:
"Only about 40 percent of indentured servants lived to complete the terms of their contracts."
From your third source:
"In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed - in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 -and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun."

Virginia encyclopedia is a joke, and I reject it as a good source.
Last source:
"The terms of their contracts, laws regulating their behavior, and court records and newspaper advertisements on those who ran away promise to open additional windows on the conditions of indentured servitude. A number of laws enacted in the seventeenth century governed the behavior of masters and servants. These laws tell us a good deal about such matters as the place of bonded labor in the social hierarchy, when race and slavery came to be connected, and of the role of race and gender in early Virginia. Restrictions had to be placed both upon masters against "barbarous" treatment of their servants and upon servants against "fornication" and "unapproved" marriages. Additionally, distinctions evolved in the laws between Indians, slaves, and servants, between the baptized and un-baptized, or Christians and heathens, and so between freedom and slavery. The laws show as much if not more conflict between masters and servants as between servants and slaves. Often slaves and servants ran away together.

For most of the seventeenth century the lives of white indentured servants and enslaved blacks were similar. They worked together in the fields; they ate together and slept in the same part of a building. The changes in day-to-day conditions really came after Nathaniel Bacon's rebellion in 1676. But indentured servitude differed from slavery in one very substantial way. Bondage in perpetuity carried with it (after 1662 in Virginia) the condition of inheritance for every child born of a slave mother. This set slavery apart from indentured servitude however similar were the physical conditions of their lives. And, obviously, indenture was contractual and consensual; slavery was forced and involuntary, usually the result of capture and sale. Finally, the right of self-possession and full control over the labor of one's hands cannot be overestimated.

In the practice of indenture, not uncommonly, owners treated servants like slaves. Even those who did have contracts often found themselves at the mercy of masters who abused them (especially in the case of women), provided the bare minimum in terms of food, clothing and shelter, and took their fifty-acre headright. Historians have noted how such abuse and degradation was bound to shape attitudes of young servants who, as they grew older, helped set later patterns of labor exploitation.

Not surprisingly, servants ran away. Without a published newspaper in the seventeenth century, it is difficult to assess the extent of flight by indentured servants. Court records will need to be thoroughly examined before we can take a full measure of such unrest. But it is already clear from a perusal of some county records that running away was taken quite seriously by colonial officials and was met with harsh treatment, different from that given to resistant slaves only in terms of when it was carried out. Runaway servant entries in York County, Virginia records, for example, reveal punishments of twenty, thirty, or more "lashes on his bare shoulders" for a runaway servant, or additions of years, sometimes twice the original number or more, to the first contract. The leniency of treating the first sentence as a warning did distinguish indentured servants from slaves. But it did little to stop runaways. In the eighteenth century, hundreds of advertisements in the Virginia Gazette newspaper provide a treasure trove of richly detailed information on servant and slave runaways. When all of this evidence is examined carefully, historians will have a fuller picture of the practice of indentured servitude. Then we can begin to assess how the practice shaped the attitudes and values of white laboring men and women whose experience as servants certainly ingrained them to accept black labor exploitation as a common feature of the American experience."

and you missed the point-although thank you for copy pasting thing I have already seen before linking them to you. also it might help you to read when I say "by law if not by choice"

just about everywhere refers to it as a contract, despite you saying it did not, and the part I said by law and not by choice. Yes there were people kidnapped, however, the vast majority of indentured servants were not and were willing participants in the contract.
They are both chattel systems which are bad, corrupt, immoral,(insert nasty thing), but they are still not the same thing and should not be considered the same thing.

From what you just cited back to me so i assume you were reading it.
" And, obviously, indenture was contractual and consensual; slavery was forced and involuntary, usually the result of capture and sale. Finally, the right of self-possession and full control over the labor of one's hands cannot be overestimated."

also rejecting a source,a source I was using for a dictionary dentition btw, when you cite northenslaves.com is kinda funny

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

funny enough
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indentured+servant

also
http://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/
http://encyclopediavirginia.org/indentured_servants_in_colonial_virginia
http://www.folger.edu/html/folger_institute/jamestown/c_shifflet.htm

yea nowhere is it called a contract

"Blacks were forced into indentured servitude against their will" -right at first wrong after 1661

there alredy was a thriving slave trade for surgar plantations, because the death rate was so high they required a constant supply of new workers so wars were actively fought in Africa between nation states for the "resorce" so most slaves were,for a lack of a better term, spoils of war. The first black were considered indentured servants by law if not by choice, with freedom packages and 4-7year contracts, but all colones brought the hammer down on that rather quickly to differentiate between the types of chattel.

From your first source:
"Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution, persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers."
As for the use of the word "contract" in that dictionary, I should write them and show them the other dictionary definitions and have them update it accordingly, as one cannot be under contract when they were forced or kidnapped, that is contradictory.

How can one be under contract if they were kidnapped or convictd without jury as they were in Pennsylvania until after the war?

From your second source:
"Only about 40 percent of indentured servants lived to complete the terms of their contracts."
From your third source:
"In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed - in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 -and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun."

Virginia encyclopedia is a joke, and I reject it as a good source.
Last source:
"The terms of their contracts, laws regulating their behavior, and court records and newspaper advertisements on those who ran away promise to open additional windows on the conditions of indentured servitude. A number of laws enacted in the seventeenth century governed the behavior of masters and servants. These laws tell us a good deal about such matters as the place of bonded labor in the social hierarchy, when race and slavery came to be connected, and of the role of race and gender in early Virginia. Restrictions had to be placed both upon masters against "barbarous" treatment of their servants and upon servants against "fornication" and "unapproved" marriages. Additionally, distinctions evolved in the laws between Indians, slaves, and servants, between the baptized and un-baptized, or Christians and heathens, and so between freedom and slavery. The laws show as much if not more conflict between masters and servants as between servants and slaves. Often slaves and servants ran away together.

For most of the seventeenth century the lives of white indentured servants and enslaved blacks were similar. They worked together in the fields; they ate together and slept in the same part of a building. The changes in day-to-day conditions really came after Nathaniel Bacon's rebellion in 1676. But indentured servitude differed from slavery in one very substantial way. Bondage in perpetuity carried with it (after 1662 in Virginia) the condition of inheritance for every child born of a slave mother. This set slavery apart from indentured servitude however similar were the physical conditions of their lives. And, obviously, indenture was contractual and consensual; slavery was forced and involuntary, usually the result of capture and sale. Finally, the right of self-possession and full control over the labor of one's hands cannot be overestimated.

In the practice of indenture, not uncommonly, owners treated servants like slaves. Even those who did have contracts often found themselves at the mercy of masters who abused them (especially in the case of women), provided the bare minimum in terms of food, clothing and shelter, and took their fifty-acre headright. Historians have noted how such abuse and degradation was bound to shape attitudes of young servants who, as they grew older, helped set later patterns of labor exploitation.

Not surprisingly, servants ran away. Without a published newspaper in the seventeenth century, it is difficult to assess the extent of flight by indentured servants. Court records will need to be thoroughly examined before we can take a full measure of such unrest. But it is already clear from a perusal of some county records that running away was taken quite seriously by colonial officials and was met with harsh treatment, different from that given to resistant slaves only in terms of when it was carried out. Runaway servant entries in York County, Virginia records, for example, reveal punishments of twenty, thirty, or more "lashes on his bare shoulders" for a runaway servant, or additions of years, sometimes twice the original number or more, to the first contract. The leniency of treating the first sentence as a warning did distinguish indentured servants from slaves. But it did little to stop runaways. In the eighteenth century, hundreds of advertisements in the Virginia Gazette newspaper provide a treasure trove of richly detailed information on servant and slave runaways. When all of this evidence is examined carefully, historians will have a fuller picture of the practice of indentured servitude. Then we can begin to assess how the practice shaped the attitudes and values of white laboring men and women whose experience as servants certainly ingrained them to accept black labor exploitation as a common feature of the American experience."

and you missed the point-although thank you for copy pasting thing I have already seen before linking them to you. also it might help you to read when I say "by law if not by choice"

just about everywhere refers to it as a contract, despite you saying it did not, and the part I said by law and not by choice. Yes there were people kidnapped, however, the vast majority of indentured servants were not and were willing participants in the contract.
They are both chattel systems which are bad, corrupt, immoral,(insert nasty thing), but they are still not the same thing and should not be considered the same thing.

From what you just cited back to me so i assume you were reading it.
" And, obviously, indenture was contractual and consensual; slavery was forced and involuntary, usually the result of capture and sale. Finally, the right of self-possession and full control over the labor of one's hands cannot be overestimated."

also rejecting a source,a source I was using for a dictionary dentition btw, when you cite northenslaves.com is kinda funny

No, I got the point entirely. You are attempting to downplay the harshness in comparing slavery to that of indentured servitude, but the reality was it was not. Under the definition that you posted above,
"Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution, persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers." Slaves were slaves by law as well, that does not make those laws any better than the indentured servants.
( That IS your dictionary definion that you linked BTW)

Your own sources said 40% died due to their servitude, that they lived and worked in the same harsh conditions with slaves, and that they were lashed publicy as punishment, the same as slaves. How is changing the name and making empty promises of freedom any better? When they became "free" under Pennsylvania laws, they still were not even free.

Most indentured servants were not voluntary, that was the problem here. That is what is obvious here. Pretending they were does not change the lives of those who endured this. You are attempting to make something out to be better than it was. Northern slavery is a far better source than a " virginia encyclopedia" that takes all the things out that may make their ancestors look bad so it doesn't scare the children. I will take a source that shows the good and the bad in an accurate light ty.

Lil devils x:

Your own sources said 40% died due to their servitude, that they lived and worked in the same harsh conditions with slaves, and that they were lashed publicy as punishment, the same as slaves. How is changing the name and making empty promises of freedom any better? When they became "free" under Pennsylvania laws, they still were not even free.

Most indentured servants were not voluntary, that was the problem here. That is what is obvious here. Pretending they were does not change the lives of those who endured this. You are attempting to make something out to be better than it was. Northern slavery is a far better source than a " virginia encyclopedia" that takes all the things out that may make their ancestors look bad so it doesn't scare the children. I will take a source that shows the good and the bad in an accurate light ty.

Northernslavery dose the exact same thing as what you clam virgina encyclopedia dose, just in the oppsite direction, life lives in the gray not in the black or white.

they were voluntary when they talked to the labor recuture for the Virginia company. There was a bit of false advtising with the "land of milk and honey" thing but between the 30 years war, English Civil war Europe was not exactly a great place to live, or have food for that matter.

also the 40% figure is a bit misleading attrition rates among free colonist was not any better. measles,small pox+3month trip= dead ship regardless of what your occupation was after the trip. Jamestown had a 20% survival rate after the starving time.

it was a hell a lot better then Slave ships to say the least,13-33% mortality rate on the voyage alone
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Slave_ship_diagram.png
When the ships have suicide nets you know you care about the passangers

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

Your own sources said 40% died due to their servitude, that they lived and worked in the same harsh conditions with slaves, and that they were lashed publicy as punishment, the same as slaves. How is changing the name and making empty promises of freedom any better? When they became "free" under Pennsylvania laws, they still were not even free.

Most indentured servants were not voluntary, that was the problem here. That is what is obvious here. Pretending they were does not change the lives of those who endured this. You are attempting to make something out to be better than it was. Northern slavery is a far better source than a " virginia encyclopedia" that takes all the things out that may make their ancestors look bad so it doesn't scare the children. I will take a source that shows the good and the bad in an accurate light ty.

Northernslavery dose the exact same thing as what you clam virgina encyclopedia dose, just in the oppsite direction, life lives in the gray not in the black or white.

they were voluntary when they talked to the labor recuture for the Virginia company. There was a bit of false advtising with the "land of milk and honey" thing but between the 30 years war, English Civil war Europe was not exactly a great place to live, or have food for that matter.

also the 40% figure is a bit misleading attrition rates among free colonist was not any better. measles,small pox+3month trip= dead ship regardless of what your occupation was after the trip. Jamestown had a 20% survival rate after the starving time.

it was a hell a lot better then Slave ships to say the least,13-33% mortality rate on the voyage alone
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Slave_ship_diagram.png
When the ships have suicide nets you know you care about the passangers

Northern Slavery does not do the same thing, they have a far more accurate picture than simply omitting the majority of the information as virginia Encyclopedia does. You can't just leave out the details and it still be considered accurate.
Why does the dictionary reference you linked state:
"Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution, persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers." If they were voluntary as you claim? The whole " voluntary" bit comes across more as for show than the reality when they publicy lash them when they try to leave. Being convicted without a jury doesn't exactly come across as " voluntary" in any way, neither does " kidnapped for that purpose". From the articles you posted, they lived and worked along side the slaves in the same conditions, yet they had it better? Do you really believe what you are writing here? Why would anyone defend that trying to make it sound better than it was?

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

Your own sources said 40% died due to their servitude, that they lived and worked in the same harsh conditions with slaves, and that they were lashed publicy as punishment, the same as slaves. How is changing the name and making empty promises of freedom any better? When they became "free" under Pennsylvania laws, they still were not even free.

Most indentured servants were not voluntary, that was the problem here. That is what is obvious here. Pretending they were does not change the lives of those who endured this. You are attempting to make something out to be better than it was. Northern slavery is a far better source than a " virginia encyclopedia" that takes all the things out that may make their ancestors look bad so it doesn't scare the children. I will take a source that shows the good and the bad in an accurate light ty.

Northernslavery dose the exact same thing as what you clam virgina encyclopedia dose, just in the oppsite direction, life lives in the gray not in the black or white.

they were voluntary when they talked to the labor recuture for the Virginia company. There was a bit of false advtising with the "land of milk and honey" thing but between the 30 years war, English Civil war Europe was not exactly a great place to live, or have food for that matter.

also the 40% figure is a bit misleading attrition rates among free colonist was not any better. measles,small pox+3month trip= dead ship regardless of what your occupation was after the trip. Jamestown had a 20% survival rate after the starving time.

it was a hell a lot better then Slave ships to say the least,13-33% mortality rate on the voyage alone
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Slave_ship_diagram.png
When the ships have suicide nets you know you care about the passangers

Northern Slavery does not do the same thing, they have a far more accurate picture than simply omitting the majority of the information as virginia Encyclopedia does. You can't just leave out the details and it still be considered accurate.
Why does the dictionary reference you linked state:
"Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution, persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers." If they were voluntary as you claim? The whole " voluntary" bit comes across more as for show than the reality when they publicy lash them when they try to leave. Being convicted without a jury doesn't exactly come across as " voluntary" in any way, neither does " kidnapped for that purpose". From the articles you posted, they lived and worked along side the slaves in the same conditions, yet they had it better? Do you really believe what you are writing here? Why would anyone defend that trying to make it sound better than it was?

as I said before Kidnaping was rarer then you make it out to be. It's like judging all Christians based on what the Westborow dose, you need a larger sample as it is not indicative of the whole
"yet they had it better"
If you look closely I was talkign about the trip, and yes it was better.

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

Northernslavery dose the exact same thing as what you clam virgina encyclopedia dose, just in the oppsite direction, life lives in the gray not in the black or white.

they were voluntary when they talked to the labor recuture for the Virginia company. There was a bit of false advtising with the "land of milk and honey" thing but between the 30 years war, English Civil war Europe was not exactly a great place to live, or have food for that matter.

also the 40% figure is a bit misleading attrition rates among free colonist was not any better. measles,small pox+3month trip= dead ship regardless of what your occupation was after the trip. Jamestown had a 20% survival rate after the starving time.

it was a hell a lot better then Slave ships to say the least,13-33% mortality rate on the voyage alone
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Slave_ship_diagram.png
When the ships have suicide nets you know you care about the passangers

Northern Slavery does not do the same thing, they have a far more accurate picture than simply omitting the majority of the information as virginia Encyclopedia does. You can't just leave out the details and it still be considered accurate.
Why does the dictionary reference you linked state:
"Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution, persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers." If they were voluntary as you claim? The whole " voluntary" bit comes across more as for show than the reality when they publicy lash them when they try to leave. Being convicted without a jury doesn't exactly come across as " voluntary" in any way, neither does " kidnapped for that purpose". From the articles you posted, they lived and worked along side the slaves in the same conditions, yet they had it better? Do you really believe what you are writing here? Why would anyone defend that trying to make it sound better than it was?

as I said before Kidnaping was rarer then you make it out to be. It's like judging all Christians based on what the Westborow dose, you need a larger sample as it is not indicative of the whole
"yet they had it better"
If you look closely I was talkign about the trip, and yes it was better.

Um no, it was not rare, in fact it was considered generally how they went about getting enough people to do the labor. Pointing out those conned into working themselves to death only to not really receive their freedom they were promised, unless they were white doesn't make that better. Blacks and whites were not treated equally, even as indentured servants. You cannot show how the whites were treated and then claim that somehow makes it better for the blacks that did not receive that same treatment. The statistics for the white indentured servants do not offset what happened to the blacks, nor does it make it any better.
EDIT:
"They were an entirely different class of laborer from White indentured servants. Later in the 17th century the term "Servant" took on a new and ominous meaning and was used synonymously with Slave but much more often. One of the reasons is that by the 1720s the importation of servants had become big business and eager employers were willing to pay the high prices demanded by procurers. Since Africans were more and more being recognized and treated as Slaves rather than servants, while White indentured servants were not, there was an increasing trend to use the term "Negro" in word combinations as a way of distinguishing them -- like "Negro quarters" (which was recorded in 1734). After the Gradual Emancipation Act of 1780 was passed in Pennsylvania, the term "servant" frequently came to mean either someone in indentured servitude or someone employed by the head of the household.

http://www.blackvoicenews.com/columnists/joseph-a-bailey-ii-md/45083-indentured-servants-during-slavery.html

To me it is a symbol of anything south of the Mason-Dixon line. I think of it as more rebelious and just a representation of th southern U.S. long before racial differances cross my mind.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked