Talk:Indentured servant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Post-emancipation indenture in the Caribbean 2 Thirteenth Amendment 3 POV reversions 4 Possible nonsense (reversed) 5 Unfree Labour???? 6 Indentured servitude versus apprenticeship? 7 Merger with indenture 7.1 The draft 8 african indentured servants 9 Missing some important things 10 female indentured servants 11 Cost Basis 12 Michael A Hoffman II 13 Spam in the article 14 Good point or no?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

• The following text has been removed in this edit because it is uncited/unsupported material that may possibly constitute sneaky vandalism.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Merger with indenture

• Don't merge an indenture is a useful stub for a type of contract. Have edited accordingly. -- Paul foord 12:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't merge I have noted that the standard classification of deeds is into indentures and deeds poll. Francis Davey 13:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't merge I think the topics people are expecting to find when searching for indenture vs. indentured servant are sufficiently different that they should not be merged. Emfraser 01:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)