Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oh crap!!! Here we go again!!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LightningCrash" data-source="post: 2643238" data-attributes="member: 4278"><p>There was always a large distinction from Indentured servants and Slaves. Indentured servants had a place in the legal system. Unlike slaves they had trials and due process and a right to complain to the authorities. You couldn't get away with working them to death without paying some consequences, while you could do that with slaves.</p><p></p><p>The number one, most important difference is that the Irish were always indentured for a set period of time: they did not lose their freedom for life, and their children were not consigned to slavery for life. Another key difference is that they retained their status as legal persons and citizens. The justification for their being made to work, after all, was a contract which put them under indenture. The whole system of indenture, in other words, was predicated on the assumption that these were free individuals and citizens, who could never be someone else's property. Finally, European servants also retained many of the most important legal rights of other citizens - they could appeal to the authorities if they were mistreated, and there were legal/cultural limits on just how poorly they could be treated. That's what Eltis was referring to when he talked about "Christian usage"</p><p>Africans brought to the Caribbean and American colonies, in contrast, had no contract: they were there for life, and their children would be there for life too. Africans were not recognized as legal persons; they were chattel, property. By the eighteenth century, it was expressly written into law in many American slave states that slave's owners could beat, rape, or even murder them and they had no legal recourse. This was never the case for Irish servants.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LightningCrash, post: 2643238, member: 4278"] There was always a large distinction from Indentured servants and Slaves. Indentured servants had a place in the legal system. Unlike slaves they had trials and due process and a right to complain to the authorities. You couldn't get away with working them to death without paying some consequences, while you could do that with slaves. The number one, most important difference is that the Irish were always indentured for a set period of time: they did not lose their freedom for life, and their children were not consigned to slavery for life. Another key difference is that they retained their status as legal persons and citizens. The justification for their being made to work, after all, was a contract which put them under indenture. The whole system of indenture, in other words, was predicated on the assumption that these were free individuals and citizens, who could never be someone else's property. Finally, European servants also retained many of the most important legal rights of other citizens - they could appeal to the authorities if they were mistreated, and there were legal/cultural limits on just how poorly they could be treated. That's what Eltis was referring to when he talked about "Christian usage" Africans brought to the Caribbean and American colonies, in contrast, had no contract: they were there for life, and their children would be there for life too. Africans were not recognized as legal persons; they were chattel, property. By the eighteenth century, it was expressly written into law in many American slave states that slave's owners could beat, rape, or even murder them and they had no legal recourse. This was never the case for Irish servants. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oh crap!!! Here we go again!!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom