First to own a black slave for life

[Gene C]

(01-18-2015 01:10 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Another example of political correctness destroying the facts of history?

That's because PBS stands for "PoliticalCorrectness Broadcasting Service"

[L Verge]

(01-18-2015 11:21 AM)brtmchl Wrote:  Not sure, but I believe an indentured servant could have been classified as felons doing time. Regardles of the wording. They were often treated just as horribly depending on their "Master." I have come to believe it is a more softer word for slavery. The PC movement of the 18th and 19th century.

I believe that the original intent of indentures related to the colonization of the English holdings in North America was to provide access for the poorer classes to leave Europe and seek adventure/new life while providing a labor force for the "owners" of the colony (such as the Lords Baltimore in Maryland, a proprietary colony).

It was designed as a contractual agreement much like signing personnel papers is today, and the intent was to set limits as to how long the person would be held in "servitude." The proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. A catching point, however, was that most of the people who signed indentures did not read in order to find out how long that indenture was truly for. They had to take the word of the person witnessing the signing (the "X") as to the terms.

As for slavery - no papers, except for the sales receipt given to the buyer by the slave trader, and no promise of eventual freedom. Depending on the buyer, that freedom might come via manumission or the slave being allowed to buy his own freedom.

As for the penal aspect of relieving the overcrowded prison conditions, I am not sure if either indenture or slavery applies here (will have to check further). In the case of colonizing Georgia, sending felons there also added a degree of protection from hostile forces that were holding Florida. Pardon this crude analogy, but it was sort of like sending junkyard dogs to protect the property?

[LincolnMan]

Or at least ignoring the facts of history.

[L Verge]

(01-18-2015 08:50 AM)HerbS Wrote:  My question is-What is the difference between an indentured servant and slave? To me they are the same!The sad fact is that he was on a prosperous Tobacco plantatation,and not on a stereo typical-Cotton plantation! I feel that no human should own another human!

I agree with you 100%, Herb; but be careful with assigning indentures or slavery terms to just Southern plantations. The institutions were widely spread across the U.S. that existed in our early years.

One of these days, we also need to consider the child labor laws (or non-existent labor laws) that industrialization used for the exact same purposes. Six-year-olds sent to the textile mills by their parents in order to bring home meager wages to help support the family reeks of cruelty also - especially when you see the accident and death statistics related to working around the machinery.

[LincolnMan]

Yes, my ancestor did his indentured servitude in the great southern state of Pennsylvania!

[brtmchl]

I must be thinking of involuntary servitude Laurie. However indentured servants were not always willing. There are many examples of kidnapped people ( especially children ) that were forced into servitude. I guess what really seperates the phrase "indentured" or "slave" was that indentured servants were guaranteed their freedom at the end of their contracts, whether they were signed willingly or forced.

I read an interesting stat that claimed that "half of the white immigrants to the American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries were indentured.' -Wikipedia

One of my ancestors, possibly more, came to America this way from Germany. Eventually settling on the West Virginia/ Kentucky border. No relation to the Hatfield's or McCoy's.

[L Verge]

I won't belabor this point of how political correctness may be influencing our history, but I recently ran across the story of an interesting man, the third largest slaveholder in South Carolina. William Ellison and his family were great supporters of the Confederacy, and one son left the plantation to join an artillery unit. During the war, the Ellison family changed its tasks from raising the more profitable cotton to producing foodstuffs needed to feed the Confederate armies in the field.

Ellison was one of the richest men in South Carolina, and by 1860, he owned more than sixty slaves, putting him in the top 5% of slaveholders in his state. His claimed wealth was more than $65,000 - higher than 90% of his neighbors. Some historians believe that he was even richer and was hiding some of his assets to avoid taxes. Unfortunately, Ellison invested heavily in Confederate bonds that became worthless after the Confederacy's defeat.

I bet that you have already figured out what my last line will be -- William Ellison was a black man and a former slave. Is it just me, or would history be so much easier to learn from if it were told fairly from all sides of an issue (and I don't mean just the issue of slavery)?

In my readings, I also ran across an interesting question that maybe some of you can help with. We are all certainly familiar with the photograph of the runaway slave, Gordon, whose back is horribly scarred from numerous beatings. Gordon was from Mississippi and escaped by rubbing himself down with onions in order to throw off his scent from dogs that might pursue him. He made it to Union lines in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where Union men took that famous photo.

The author that I was reading asked a logical question, however. Where are the photographs of other badly beaten slaves? If we assume that beatings were a way of life on Southern plantations, shouldn't there have been other photos taken of men and women like Gordon once freedom came? However, 150 years after the war, Gordon's is the only portrait regularly reproduced in histories of the Civil War.

[brtmchl]

I couldn't agree more. History should be taught completely. The good and the bad. It shouldn't be whitewashed to fit agendas or to erase atrocities or even to elevate or diminish one group over another. It is a record of who we are. Where we came from and what we have learned by our mistakes while we created a great nation. No nation is free of past wrongs, and no one should be made to feel guilt from ancient history. Especially when ALL facts are not placed on the table.

Besides it's just more fun and interesting to hear the whole story.

[Jim Garrett]

(01-18-2015 01:42 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  Yes, my ancestor did his indentured servitude in the great southern state of Pennsylvania!

South Philly?

[LincolnMan]

Indeed!

[My Name Is Kate]

I read some of the comments for the article cited in post #4, and a couple people noted that the person who wrote the article referred to James II when it should have been James I. So I wonder how many other errors there may be.

[brtmchl]

Good point Kate. Welcome back. There were quite a few other articles that were similar. I posted only one. It looked like all of them were either taken from the same source or just copied and pasted. The one I cited could have been a sloppy copy.

[My Name Is Kate]

This is somewhat an aside, but I once edited a Wikipedia article (the topic was music, not history) and I was amazed to see that my edit immediately was inserted into the article and went online, apparently without anyone reviewing it to see if it was factual! Ever since, I've been very leery of what I read on that site, although in general, it seems to be a fairly good source of info.

[LincolnMan]

That is scary when you think about it.