At the end of the day, I feel that indentured servants were far better for the colonies. They did just as much work as the slaves, and in some cases they were treated the same, but the only difference is that indentured servants had something to work for. There was a light at the end of their tunnels, and the slaves didn't get that. It eventually came down to economics, when it should have come down to human rights. What gives any person, no matter their skin color or social status, a right to OWN another person? It was the indentured servants CHOICE to go, and I'm sad to report that the slaves had no such choice. The New World was a place of wonder, a place to start fresh; if they were criminals in their former lives in Europe, the New World was an opportunity to make things right! The slaves never even got that chance, and I respectfully disagree with anyone who tries to tell me that in any way, slavery is the answer.

i agree with those students who have stated that slave labor was more convenient and of better use than that of indentured servants. For one, slaves can be used their entire life while indentured servants have a time limit. It would have been a better choice for wealthy land owners as well because when an indentured servant's time ended the land owner was expected to give them land or other forms of reprations where as in slave labor one could breed slaves and only have to buy them once thus having for many generations. For this reason slave labor was more productive to the Chesapeake region than indentured servants. Many of my classmates have argued points on the humanity of the two; though in many cases, indentured servants were treated equally bad. Here is a sight that explains more on the topic of the lack of rights and harsh treatments of indentured servants http://www.teachervision.fen.com/slavery-us/resource/3848.html. Alex singleton made a very good point in talking about the cheepness of the slaves and why that makes them a better choice for plantation owners. This is demonstrated in “slavery is justified,” on page 77 of the primary source packet. It explains that the path to wealth in the new world is to be achieved by the use of slave labors.

When you say slavery was the best form of labor, or indentured servants were the best form of labor, you have to specify what point of view you are talking from. Alex put it best when he says that there are 2 main point of views on the matter. Obviously if you are looking at this from a plantation owner point of view slavery is the best form of labor. You don't have to pay them, and they work hard for you for their entire lives. Now if you look at this from the servant's point of view, being an indentured servant is a lot better than being a slave. Indentured servants were paid at the end with various thing (clothing, two hoes, three barrels of corn, and fifty acres of land according to (http://www.teachervision.fen.com/slavery-us/resource/3848.html), and they were also freed at the end. A huge benefit to being an indentured servant was you went to the new world on your own accord. Indentured servants were not captured and forced away from their families, instead they went seeking escape from the poverty they were stricken by in Europe. Indentured servitude gave hope to these people. (http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigations/212_indenturedfeature.html) says that the thirty years war left Europe's economy depressed, and it would make perfect sense for a poor person to immigrate as an indentured servant in hope of a better life.

Now when considering which form of labor is better there is a third point of view. That one would be us, the people who aren't affected by it, or were never affected by the effects of these things (directly anyways). From our point of view, and morally speaking, Indentured servitude was the best form of labor. Life as an indentured servant varied from master to master, and in some cases slaves were treated more humanely because they were lifelong investments (this is supported by http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1157.html). Although slaves COULD be treated better, worst case scenario is indentured servants and slaves are treated the same, but indentured servitude is still better merely because of the fact they will be eventually freed and pain/given a reward. As far as the Chesapeake region goes, I believe it was smarter for owners to use slaves rather than indentured servants. Bacon's rebellion gave hope to all people who were indentured servants, or were unhappy with the ruling of the region, that they would rise above the power of authority. Indentured servants more than likely had a knowledge of the government and its workings, and felt connected to Bacon based on nationality and a common interest of resentment of the authorities. Slaves however came from a continent that had absolutely no ties to Europe or the Colony's way of governing. More than likely the slaves couldn't care less what Bacon did, or how it would affect them. Slave labor in the Chesapeake would be the cheapest, and safest form of labor for owners looking to make it big from crops like tobacco.

Grace makes a really good point when she says indentured servants had a huge incentive to work towards. In the packet (the story on pages 68-73) the servant describes his release, and the joy of going back to his home to see his family again. I'm sure thoughts and hopes like that were on the minds of indentured servants all of the time, and this encouraged them to work even harder.

In my opinion the indentured servant was a better source of labor for many reasons. While slavery was forced, being an indentured servant was a choice many families made that opened a window of opportunity, and provided hope for both the worker and his family. Not all people chose to be an indentured servant, however. Sometimes it was given as punishment for a crime that was committed. I believe that this method of punishment, although it might seem unfair, overall helped the criminal. After serving the amount of years that person was sentenced to, they were given an opportunity to lead a better life once they were released. I agree with some of my fellow students that slavery was better for the owner. It is true that the owner was the only one who benefited from it. However, if you were an indentured servant both you and the owner benefit from it. It provided work for the owner, and clothes, shelter, and food were to be given to the servants. In the packet on page 70 it expresses that both the slaves and the servants worked the same in the fields, and had the same rules and terms to abide by. The only difference between the two was that the indentured servants would have a chance at a better life and have hope for what kind of life he or she could live after they served the amount of years they were sentenced to. On page 71 in the packet, it also states that slaves were sold like sheep and were going to be slaves for life and were owned by those who bought them, which to me is not right at all. No one should have the right to own another person’s life against their will, and be forced to work by the owners under any circumstances.

The reason so many thought of slavery as something acceptable may have started with a man named Nathaniel Bacon whose rebellion opened the eyes to many people, particularly landowners, who needed workers, but were upset with the indentured servants who were often unstable and would revolt against their owners. They turned to African slaves as their primary source of labor hoping it would solve their problems and settle their issues.

I do agree with Sarah that slavery, down the road, hurting the overall economy of the country. However, if we are talking about "splitting the country apart" via the Civil war, that was not directly Slavery. Economic and social differences, state vs. federal rights, etc. played a larger role in that (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm). Slavery hurt our country more immediately than in a long-term process for reasons other than the economy.

Personally, I think slaves were the better source of labor. Although morally and ethically wrong, slaves were far cheaper than indentured servants and worked much, much longer. Their owners owned them untill they died or sold them, unlike indentured servants, who only worked between 4-7 years. Indentured servant owners were required to give their servants 50 acres of land and a years' supply of corn after their indenture or charter was up, as described in our packet on page 66. Slave owners didn't have to do this, allowing them to save money and labor. In some of the previous posts, people have argued that indentured servants worked harder because they had an incentive, freedom. Although I do believe in some cases this was true, slave owners were allowed to treat their slaves however they wanted, allowing them to threaten their slaves with physical punishment if they weren't working hard enough. Overall slaves were a better deal for the owners, they had complete control over their slaves for as long as they wanted.

I also think that slaves were the better source of labor for the Chesapeake Region. They posed no threat of uprising, as indentured servants did, since they were permantely owned by their masters. As our book and http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h521.html state, many former indentured servants played a large role in Bacon's Rebellion. To prevent any future conflict between indentured servants and the wealthy class, many plantation owners switched to slave labor. Indentured servants, once free, competed with plantation owners, making slaves the best choice for the Chesapeake region.

As many of my fellow students before me have stated, I agree with Grace's point that slavery is wrong. I do not think that I will ever agree with it on any level. I do understand that slaves were better for the owner, but I do not agree with them choosing that source of labor. They did not deserve to be treated like a piece of property.

The majority of indentured servants were poor Europeans, hoping to find wealth and new oppurtunity in the New World. Many were young, unsucessful farmerers or unskilled workers, as stated in http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~crosslin/records/va/immigrants3.html, while others were criminals fufilling their sentences.

Life as an indentured servant depended on the owner. As explained in http://www.teachervision.fen.com/slavery-us/resource/3848.html, some indentured servants were treated just as badly as slaves, regularly whipped and beaten by their masters. On page 71 of the packet, one servant describes how he was forced to work even though he was extremely sick. Often times, they weren't allowed to leave the house or marry without permission from their master. Sometimes, owners even tried to prolong their servants" charter by accusing them of stealing or other crimes they hadn't commited.

Indentured servants would ‘trade’ working in extremely harsh conditions for 4 to 7 years for a passage to the Virginia colony, a place to live, food and water, clothing, and a job. At the end of their 4 to 7 year term, they would be paid their ‘Freedom Dues’ and be freed. The ‘Freedom Dues’ included things such as teaching the servants how to read, write, cipher, and farm. They would also give the servants new clothing, farming tools, or a piece of land. Of course, freedom was to be expected in the “Freedom Dues.” (http://abqgen.swnet.com/article1.html)


I believe that in terms of actual labor, indentured were the slightly better choice. They were motivated with the fact that they only had to put up with extremely hard labor for four to seven years and then they would be free. They had to do hard work, but they had a roof over their head and food to eat and that kept them working on a day to day basis. The only major downfall in indentured servants labor was that at the end of their term, they would start to slack off and become lazy because they knew that freedom was just around the corner.

Also, During Bacon’s Rebellion, the Chesapeake region started to realize the threat of a landless, unstable class. Because the indentured servants would be released after a set amount of years, they would cause a large unstable, landless class to form. This was very worrisome for the Jamestown colony, so they started to turn to slave labor (as seen on page 35). Slaves would never be released, making them no threat to the colony.

I agree with Jaylen’s comment that neither indentured servants or slaves were a good source of labor, just they were what was available. Both of them slacked off, were disobedient and had bad tempers. Both of them had no reason to like the work that they had to do on a day to day basis, they were just stuck with it. Motivation can only work so well and both of them were motivated. The indentured servants had freedom and farm land to look forward to while the slaves knew that if they did not please their owner, they would be dead.

Bacons rebellion had a major effect on the transition of the Chesapeake region from indentured servants to slaves because of the fact that many of the rebellions followers of bacon were indentured servants. There are numerous examples of the rebellious attitudes of indentured servants leading the way to the African American transition. In the primary source packet, (An irritable Servant is Punished, pg.74) it has written that masters struggled to keep their misbehaved, bad-tempered, and drunk servants in line and i think the reason why is that these servants came from England where they are not used to the kind of oppressive work as the slaves. It is because of the fact that they saw them selves as free men that they were so difficult when forced to work in slave like conditions.

I agree with Grant. I believe that slaves were the best source of labor in the Chesapeake Region. They weren't set free unless their freedom was granted by their owner. I believe that slaves were harder workers than the indentured servants because indentured servants would eventually be set free and would begin to slack off on their work when they were about to become free. I don't agree with slavery i just believe it was the best source of labor. Slaves didn't serve for just a set amount of time they served their whole life unless their owner set them free. Also the slaves wouldn't become a large unstable, landless class because the were never set free and that would have helped prevent something like Bacon's Rebelion.

Kira Vance you do realize that indentured servants were treated in many cases just as bad if not worst thn slaves so both forms of labor are inhumane and they certantly were not motivated after they came from england into a slave like inviroment

I agree with Grant about the Chesapeake region's changing from indentured servants to slave labor. Slaves had no rights, nor could they rebel against the landowners as the indentured servants had in the social class. So, they were safe from another rebellion.

I agree with Emily about the indentured servants having a better incentive to work harder for the landowners. They worked harder then slaves because, there was only a period of time they had to work unlike slaves that were slaves till death. Also, indentured servants had to work hard because there time could be extended if something such as pregnancy occurs, the servant tries to runaway, or another issue occurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant).

I still do believe that indentured servants were a better source of labor. They had an incentive to not only work, but to work harder. Also, indentured servants had a choice to come over to the New World and start over. Where as, slaves had no say of being there. In the packet on pages 68-73, ‘A Servant Describes His Fate’ it talks about a servant who had a happy life after his contract was up. I agree completely with Grace that slavery is not right, no matter what. The New World was about making things right and abusing people is in no way right. Also, slaves were not treated humanly right, so they became weaker much faster than an indentured servant who had a contract protecting their rights.

I agree with Grant that slavery was the best form of labor. Even though slavery wasn't right there was twice as many slaves as there were indentured slaves. I still believe that the slaves worked harder for their owner than the indentured servants did because the slaves knew they wouldn't become free unless granted by the owner as Jacob said.

I believe that the slaves were the better source of labor. Unlike the indentured servents they did not have contracts. Slaves were owned like property and were not released until their master said so. There was also a large quantity of slaves which ment that more work could be done. The slaves were forced to go to the New World and the treatment of them was not very good. As for the indentured servents who were from England and poor(page 67 of the packet). The indentured servents had a choice to come to the New World and most came to become landowners.

The Chesepeake region turned to the African slave trade to fulfill their needs. African slaves did not need to be released. So that they would not have instability in the colonies large population of free, landless men.(Page 35 The Unfinished Nation)

I agree with Jake and Alex about there being two views on which was a better source of labor, slaves or indentured servants. From the point of the plantation owners the slaves were obviously the best decision, they were cheap and there for expendable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery and also slaves could have family therefore the plantation owner could get free slaves from the children. From the view of the indentured servant they had it a lot better then the slaves.The indentured servants came from Europe to start a new life. At the end of their working term which could be as long as 7 years they would receive money, items(clothing, farm equipment ,etc.), and freedom http://www.teachervision.fen.com/slavery-us/resource/3848.html. Slaves were also better for the Chesapeake region, I say this because it was the lower class, freed indentured servants, that started Bacon's Rebellion.

I agree with Jake in saying that you have to view it from different points of view. If you were to view it from the slave/servant owners point of view, slaves would be the best form of labor because you would be able to keep them for your whole life and they don't require any form of payment. Many plantation owners chose to use indentured servants in the Chesapeake region because each indentured servant meant more land for his sponsor under the headright system, show in http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Chesapeake-Colonies-Virginia-Maryland.topicArticleId-25073,articleId-25011.html#ixzz0sRIVaEs8 . However, this changed when the indentured servants raised a rebellion lead by Nathaniel Bacon. After the rebellion, many plantation owners feared another uprising from indentured servants, and transitioned to African slaves. Now if you view it from a third person view, such as a common citizen, you would probably see indentured servants being the morally correct choice. Life as an indentured servant was in most cases, but not all, easier than a slaves life. Indentured servants would be set free after a set period of time, so most people think that they would work hard until their time was up and then live peacefully afterward. However, this isn't exactly the case. In "A servant Girl Pays the Wages of Sin" in the primary source packet, it states that "Single, lonely, and hard-used, indentured servants enjoyed few liberties. Those who went astray could be severely punished". This shows that being an indentured servant was not always better than being a slave. When they did get punished, this could lead to the indentured servants resenting their masters and in some cases, rebelling against them. Also, many of the servants came from Europe as the poor and lower class and even violent criminals who had nothing to lose. This sometimes made it dangerous for plantation owners to have servants, so they began to switch to slaves.

Using the information I have compiled above, I believe that slavery, although not right, was a better source of labor than indentured servants. Slaves had no liberties, so they were not involved in political matters and didn't have any reason to rebel. I also agree with Grant in saying that the slaves probably worked harder than indentured slaves because they wanted to have a chance to be freed from their owners, while indentured servants KNEW that they would be freed in a certain amount of time. I agree again with Grant in the fact that because there were many more slaves than servants, they were easier to obtain and replace if they died or escaped. Also slaves required no form of payment to upkeep, making it much easier for the slave owners to make a profit.

I agree with Evan up to a point where he says "Now if you view it from a third person view, such as a common citizen, you would probably see indentured servants being the morally correct choice." The common man of this time period would more than likely not have felt any different using slaves or indentured servants because they treated both workers almost the same, and also the indentured servants would sometimes not cooperate with the plantation owners. "The planter-employers and masters struggled constantly to keep their hard-drinking fractious servants in line." page 74 primary source reading "An Unruly Servant is Punished". Also in the packet "Slavery Is Justified" page 77, it talks about how "Even the ministers of the gospel parroted the arguments in behalf of slavery...". So using these references it is apparent that there was a morally correct choice back then.

As Adam said slaves were the economic choice, but I disagree with indentured servants being better. The identured servants started fears of another rebellion like Bacon's Rebellion which was very bad for a newly formed colony. We today see slaves as moraly wrong choices, whereas back then all the plantation owners saw in the slaves were a source of labor and in turn a profit for their crops.

While i agree with Adam that the life of an indenture servant was usually better than a slave's life, this does not mean that they are the best form of labor. Slaves would work hard every day with the hope that their master would free them from their bonds, while indentured servants would not always work their hardest because they knew they would be freed at the end of the 4-7 year period that they were bound to their master. Also, Adam said that the servant owners had to give the servant food and things to start a new life once their time was up, while slave masters didn't have to give the slaves anything. This made slaves the better economic choice.

In the beginning slaves were almost equal to indentured servants as a source of labor. In 1619, when the first African arrived there were no slave laws and they were treated similar to indentured servants. They were allowed the same chances at freedom and the benefits at the end of a term as indentured servants. Not until 1661, were any slave laws passed limiting these freedoms in Virginia. At this time, however, from the standpoint of a colonial elite or a southern plantation owner slaves were clearly the better form of labor. Slaves were bought and kept for the entire lifetime working them until the moment of death. They were viewed as cheaper, more profitable, and an unlimited supply source of labor. If a black slave got pregnant that was just a new free slave with a lifetime's worth of servitude but if an indentured servant were to get pregnant that was against the law and they would have a small amount of time tacked on to their contract. This small time is nothing compared to getting a brand new human working for you for the rest of their life.

Indentured servants served under a contract lasting on an average of four to seven years including money for their passage to the New World, room and board once there, food, clothes, and all the benefits of freedom ( up to fifty acres of land, a year's supply of corn, and other necessities in which to start a new life). Landowners soon began to feel challenged by the newly freed servants. The demand for land became even more prominent which raised even more conflicts among the Native Americans.
Looking at it from an unbiased and somewhat clear view now it is easy to see which is morally, humanely, and ethically right but back then it was soley what they knew. They were taught that whites were superior and they only strived to make more money. Sources to back up this information can be found at http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigations/212_indenturedfeature.html, within "The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People" textbook, and the "American Life in the Seventeenth Century, 1607-1692" packet.

After taking time to research this topic, my opinion on the better source on labor is still wavering. I do believe having an indentured servant is the more humane thing to do. Indentured servants, after serving their period of time, can get off and "be free". From the indentured servants standpoint, they would definitely believe their time is better than a slave's time. But, if you were a very wealthy landowner, I personally believe that you would want slaves to do your work. Slaves never know if they will be free, so they would work harder than an indentured servant. So, as a better source of labor, I would say the having slaves is the better choice. After reading the article http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Chesapeake-Colonies-Virginia-Maryland.topicArticleId-25073,articleId-25011.html, it stated in the section entitled "Indentured Servants and Slaves", that there wasn't alot of economic opportunity for freed indentured servants in the Chesapeake region, and that they were frequently replaced by slaves. Life as an indentured servant was definitely not as hard as the life of a slave. Most indentured servants came from England. They were young, white men just wanting to come to the New World, and a way for them to get there was saying they would work for a certain amount of years as a servant. In my opinion, I don't believe that they worked as hard as a slave would because they know after a period of time, they will be released and most likely become a subsistence farmer. Also, in terms of Bacon's Rebellion, they colony turned to slaves more because they don't work for money and they are more easily expendable. Indentured servants were required a certin amount of things that the slaves were not. Bacon's Rebellion made landowners realize that slave trade could be more beneficial to the colony.

I definitely agree with Alex's post. I feel that him and I are on somewhat of the same page about this discussion. He states that in an indentured servants eyes, it would be a better source of living, but in a plantation owner's eyes, slavery would be the way to go. Another point that I would like to make is that after reading in the primary source packet, I caan see more clearly how an indentured servant's life would be like. The poem is very deep and creative. I really enjoyed reading it.

Both the indentured servant form of labor and slavery, I think were inhumane because they were both treated as inferiors and trash. However, I think that indentured servants were less wrong because they ended up getting something out of the hard work. The slaves worked against their will for all of their lives, but indentured servants new exactly what they were doing. Therefore, the indentures servants were the better laborers because they had an incentive and knew they would eventually be freed. Slaves had no purpose. Some may have thought that they would be worked to death or killed so it was a lose-lose situation. Having said this, we are all biased because we have grown up in an enviornment where everyone is equal and everyone works for there money. We all find the methods of the plantation owners different from ours so therefore we're inclined to think they were these terrible people. The truth is they were raised a certain way just like us, but on the other end of the spectrum.

I agree with Grace especially when she says it is immoral to own another human being. I also agree with her standpoint on the topic at hand in saying that indentured servants were a better source of labor.

they are both immoral indentured servants were treated just as bad in many cases.

Slaves were the better source of labor due to the fact that their labor lasted a lifetime, however indentured servants labor lasted only three to seven years. Slaves were better for the Chesapeake region. This is due to the fact that in the Chesapeake there were little economic opportunities for indentured servants. At best they became substance farmers, which were the class that lead into Bacon’s Rebellion. The number of new indentured servants decline due to little economic opportunity. Thus, their labor began to be replaced with that of African Slaves http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Chesapeake-Colonies-Virginia-Maryland.topicArticleId-25073,articleId-25011.html. Life of an indentured servant was hard however it was not as bad as a slave. They were often poor Irish, Scottish, English, and Germans, citizens who chose to come to the colonies by selling themselves to be a servant for three to seven years. For indentured servants this was the only way they could get to the new world. In Exchange they received transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant. They had few rights. Without the permission of their master they couldn’t marry, leave their house or travel, and they couldn’t buy or sell anything. Female servants were often raped, and servants in general were often beaten. They were often sent to work in the tobacco fields in Virginia and Maryland. It was very hard labor especially in the hot summer sun. After enduring these conditions for three to seven years they were finally freed. http://www.teachervision.fen.com/slavery-us/resource/3848.html.

I do agree with what Grace and Morgan Tolbert said about slavery being wrong. The slaves were treated badly as soon as they were bought this is supported by the statement that follows :"We mark'd the slaves we had bought in the breast, or shoulder, with a hot iron, haveing the letter of the ship's name on it"- page 78 from the primary source reading packet. I believe slavery is wrong, however some students I've noticed have forgot to look at which was actually the better source of labor. The better source of labor was slavery no matter how immoral it was.

In my opinion the better source of labor is slavery. I do believe it is inhumane and cruel but, it is the better source of labor. I believe from the owners point of view slaves were a better for their plantations. They got more work out of the slaves and the slaves served for a lifetime instead of four to seven years. Slaves were harder working than the indentured servants because they didn't want to be seperated from their families so they would work their hardest to not be sold or traded. Indentured servants were freed after their four t seven years of service. They were allowed to live a normal life. There was very little economic oppurtunity for the indentured servants once they were freed. At best the became subsistence farmers. This lead to them forming a large unstable, landless class that caused Bacon's Rebellion. As the number of indentured servants declined the number of African slaves increased. After 1660, the Chesapeake colonies enforced laws that defined slavery as a lifelong and inheritable condition based on race. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Chesapeake-Colonies-Virginia-Maryland.topicArticleId-25073,articleId-25011.html.
Indentured servants included Europeans, including Irish, Scottish, English, and Germans. Like slaves indentured servants could be bought and sold. They couldn't marry without the permission of their owner. They were subject to physical punishment. If they survived their period of labor, servants would receive a payment known as "freedom dues" and become free members of society. The freedom dues included a new suit of clothes, tools, or money, and were freed. The indentured servants came to the America's for economic oppurtunity but there was very little oppurtunity for them in the America's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant. That is why slaves were the better source of labor for the Chesapeake Region.

Among the most the slaves were more suited for the colonies other then indentured slaves. Though both worked as hard and in the same conditions (as said on pg. 70 of the source packet) indentured slaves were set free after working off a certain amount of years, as for slaves they were servants for life until bought by another owner. Also the indentured servants were far more unstable then the slaves and would rebel at any given moment. When the time of the indentured servants was up most of them weren't able to go back home creating a unstable landless class. The indentured servants came from all over Europe and were composed of many different ethnicities, and most of them were ordinary people of those though with them also were sent criminals to pay of thier crimes with labor (usually around 7 years of work). Most often the African slaves proved to be a better source for labor in the tobacoo fields then the indentured servants because the would always have to work for their lives and for the generations after them but but indentured servants were to be freed after their time was up.

I agree with Brittney when she stated that slaves were better for the plantation owners then indentured servants since they have to work for the rest of their lives, unlike the indentured servants who only worked for a limited amount of time and got freed in the end.