A Problem with Voluntaryism, Indentured Servitude In U.S. History
Well if they agree to it voluntarily, what it what problem?
Some would go as far as saying that slavery is okay if it’s voluntary. The problem is that many times people choose a lesser of evils to survive. This Passage from The Peoples History Of The United States was one thing that got me thinking about the age old voluntaryist comment ‘well if it’s voluntary’. The problem is sometimes we voluntarily choose something harmful out of desperation thus submitting to rulers and tyrants. This is historically seen in indentured servitude. By some some definitions this could be defended by a defense of private property.
The servants who joined Bacon’s Rebellion were part of a large underclass of miserably poor whites who came to the North American colonies from European cities whose governments were anxious to be rid of them. In England, the development of commerce and capitalism in the 1500s and 1600s, the enclosing of land for the production of wool, filled the cities with vagrant poor, and from the reign of Elizabeth on, laws were passed to punish them, imprison them in workhouses, or exile them. The Elizabethan definition of “rogues and vagabonds” included:
… All persons calling themselves Schollers going about begging, all Seafaring men pretending losses of their Shippes or goods on the sea going about the Country begging, all idle persons going about in any Country either begging or using any subtile crafte or unlawful Games … comon Players of Interludes and Minstrells wandring abroade … all wandering persons and comon Labourers being persons able in bodye using loytering and refusing to worke for such reasonable wages as is taxed or commonly given….
Such persons found begging could be stripped to the waist and whipped bloody, could be sent out of the city, sent to workhouses, or transported out of the country.
In the 1600s and 1700s, by forced exile, by lures, promises, and lies, by kidnapping, by their urgent need to escape the living conditions of the home country, poor people wanting to go to America became commodities of profit for merchants, traders, ship captains, and eventually their masters in America. Abbot Smith, in his study of indentured servitude, Colonists in Bondage, writes: “From the complex pattern of forces producing emigration to the American colonies one stands out clearly as most powerful in causing the movement of servants. This was the pecuniary profit to be made by shipping them.”
After signing the indenture, in which the immigrants agreed to pay their cost of passage by working for a master for five or seven years, they were often imprisoned until the ship sailed, to make sure they did not run away. In the year 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses, born that year as the first representative assembly in America (it was also the year of the first importation of black slaves), provided for the recording and enforcing of contracts between servants and masters. As in any contract between unequal powers, the parties appeared on paper as equals, but enforcement was far easier for master than for servant.
The voyage to America lasted eight, ten, or twelve weeks, and the servants were packed into ships with the same fanatic concern for profits that marked the slave ships. If the weather was bad, and the trip took too long, they ran out of food. The sloop Sea-Flower, leaving Belfast in 1741, was at sea sixteen weeks, and when it arrived in Boston, forty-six of its 106 passengers were dead of starvation, six of them eaten by the survivors. On another trip, thirty-two children died of hunger and disease and were thrown into the ocean. Gottlieb Mittelberger, a musician, traveling from Germany to America around 1750, wrote about his voyage:
During the journey the ship is full of pitiful signs of distress-smells, fumes, horrors, vomiting, various kinds of sea sickness, fever, dysentery, headaches, heat, constipation, boils, scurvy, cancer, mouth-rot, and similar afflictions, all of them caused by the age and the high salted state of the food, especially of the meat, as well as by the very bad and filthy water.. .. Add to all that shortage of food, hunger, thirst, frost, heat, dampness, fear, misery, vexation, and lamentation as well as other troubles…. On board our ship, on a day on which we had a great storm, a woman ahout to give birth and unable to deliver under the circumstances, was pushed through one of the portholes into the sea….
Indentured servants were bought and sold like slaves. An announcement in the Virginia Gazette, March 28, 1771, read:
Just arrived at Leedstown, the Ship Justitia, with about one Hundred Healthy Servants, Men Women & Boys… . The Sale will commence on Tuesday the 2nd of April.
Against the rosy accounts of better living standards in the Americas one must place many others, like one immigrant’s letter from America: “Whoever is well off in Europe better remain there. Here is misery and distress, same as everywhere, and for certain persons and conditions incomparably more than in Europe.”
Beatings and whippings were common. Servant women were raped. One observer testified: “I have seen an Overseer beat a Servant with a cane about the head till the blood has followed, for a fault that is not worth the speaking of….” The Maryland court records showed many servant suicides. In 1671, Governor Berkeley of Virginia reported that in previous years four of five servants died of disease after their arrival. Many were poor children, gathered up by the hundreds on the streets of English cities and sent to Virginia to work.
The master tried to control completely the sexual lives of the servants. It was in his economic interest to keep women servants from marrying or from having sexual relations, because childbearing would interfere with work. Benjamin Franklin, writing as “Poor Richard” in 1736, gave advice to his readers: “Let thy maidservant be faithful, strong and homely.”
Servants could not marry without permission, could be separated from their families, could be whipped for various offenses. Pennsylvania law in the seventeenth century said that marriage of servants “without the consent of the Masters .. . shall be proceeded against as for Adultery, or fornication, and Children to be reputed as Bastards.”
Although colonial laws existed to stop excesses against servants, they were not very well enforced, we learn from Richard Morris’s comprehensive study of early court records in Government and Labor in Early America. Servants did not participate in juries. Masters did. (And being propertyless, servants did not vote.) In 1666, a New England court accused a couple of the death of a servant after the mistress had cut off the servant’s toes. The jury voted acquittal. In Virginia in the 1660s, a master was convicted of raping two women servants. He also was known to beat his own wife and children; he had whipped and chained another servant until he died. The master was berated by the court, but specifically cleared on the rape charge, despite overwhelming evidence.
10:37 am
if this was supposed to be a condemnation of voluntarism, it has failed utterly as the entire story is about the oppression of people by governmental laws. It’s a pretty cute straw man argument though.
10:40 am
It really wasn’t intended to be a condemnation of voluntaryism, but more of a look at the idea of contract between unequal powers.
10:48 am
if it’s not intended to be a condemnation of voluntarism then the title is poorly chosen.
3:01 pm
Honestly man, I choose titles sometimes to piss people off. People don’t read articles with boring titles…. I’d say many of my titles are poorly chosen.
1:06 am
Seemed a decent title to me … although pissing people off with a title certainly garners attention
.
With my limited knowledge of indentured servitude I’d always pictured it as contractually agreed to ho-hum long-term employment (minus the regular wages) instead of being the “temporary slavery” that is portrayed above. If I were one of these unfortunate souls, I’d surely wonder “was this really what I signed up for?” and count the days until the end of my contractual servitude (assuming I survived the voyage)
Every political ideology (or combination thereof) has its potential downsides, none are exempt. The real question people have to answer for themselves is whether the benefits of a particular ideology sufficiently outweighs those downsides.
10:41 am
Many voluntaryists I have spoken to or read do agree on exchanges or contracts being mutual. If that is truly the case then this is not an issue, but I do not believe it is often the case.
10:48 am
Choose between ‘voluntarily’ signing yourself into slavery for x number of years or be imprisoned and flogged by the government in Europe is not a true voluntary choice. Just like choosing between paying taxes in the US or going to prison is not a true voluntary choice.
2:59 pm
Without a state there will still be situations of desperation the point being many would say any decision made voluntarily would be valid or justifiable. I simply posted this not for the prior (state they flee from) but the latter the contract between unequal partners entered into out of desperation.
7:47 pm
Might we argue that the wage labor system likewise forces truly nonvoluntary choices between work for the boss and hunger?
The likes of Crimethinc, the anarchist hobo poets, might argue that the existence of a substrata upon which you can ride the rails of the excesses of the state (dumpster diving, hitching, targeted petty theft) to survive causes the supposed coercion to disappear: there is always the option of dropping out and subsisting on late capitalism’s table scraps, they might say. In other words, we always have a choice between wage slavery and the narrow survival of the underground railroad. And yet is even this truly a morally significant choice? Between the boss and the crustpunk drifter lifestyle?
Just thinking out loud. Haven’t solved these questions myself.
10:43 am
I think that was kind of a direction I was thinking.