Lol, they are covering up two hidden facts with that BS.
It was 'indentured servitude' to start with, and they are somewhat correct that indentured servitude was not the same thing as the slavery we so often refer to.
Indentured servitude could be entered willingly, and often was, as it was the only form of welfare around. Guaranteed job security with benefits.
It was also used as incarceration, putting a criminal in the charge of the person they had wronged. The very concept of "Paying your debt to society" was born from this practice.
It had a limit, a maximum of seven years before you were required to be freed. Modern statutes of limitations are born from these same laws.
They had rights, the same rights as any other person minus the right to quit their job.
The person who owned the contract (note the distinction) was required to feed and house the servant for the full seven years, AND their family. The reason people voluntarily entered into servitude.
Most depictions you are familiar with of "Servants" are of this exact system in practice. Some servants renegotiated their contract every seven years and willingly served for life.
The first major disruption of this system was the Slave Trade. Demand had outstripped willing servants, particularly in America where the pioneer spirit meant anyone could head west and make a life for themselves. This left the rich in need of a supply of healthy workers, which the British were all to happy to provide.
But then a BLACK democrat successfully sued to keep one of his slaves past the 7 year contract he was supposed to have freed him by. The end result of that had a DEMOCRAT judge declare that slaves (indentured servants at the time) were actually property, and that black slaves were subhuman and didn't have the same rights as other slaves. This changed virtually everything about indentured servitude and, technically, "Slavery" as we define it now was born at that moment.
This led to things getting much, MUCH worse, for a very short time period that led to the push for abolition becoming wide spread. A cornerstone of human civilization had been twisted into something much worse than it was supposed to be and people were more supportive of abolishing it than trying to fix it.
I would really love to know more about this lynching and how it’s linked to Columbus Day. I have never heard about this ever.
Edit:
I checked the Wikipedia, which does mention it as the first time it was celebrated as a national holiday but that it was a one time thing until post 1900. That a group had celebrated it in New York City 100 years earlier and that New York City, as a whole, had celebrated it for nearly 30 years prior to the event. The state would make it a holiday until ~1907. It wouldn’t be made into a federal holiday until [nearly 100 years after its first national celebration] 1968.
I don’t think we can call it the origin for the holiday.
yeah i also saw the snopes article "setting the record straight" article. I am very skeptical I understand this is debatable but honestly the fact that you are here debating semantics when i wasnt even aware of this "indentured servitude" just makes me rethink a lot of things they didn't consider "good enough" to teach
The only reason that I know about indentured servitude is because I am a Christian and the Bible has a whole series of rules and laws about the treatment of indentured servants. Including exactly when they must be freed. The term in the Bible is Bond Servant, and in searching that term you will likely find primarily theological discussion.
Very few people are aware of indentured servitude as it existed, and many who are think it's just a fancy term for the same thing. It's understandable because in many of the worst points in history the lines were blurred between the two. So from a critical eye looking back they were both the same thing.
The Romans for example didn't have a word necessarily, but there were slaves who were Roman Citizens, and slaves who were not. There were two sets of laws on how those slaves were to be treated. Non Romans were treated like slaves, Romans were treated like indentured servants.
The key difference is that a slave had no rights, while an indentured servant kept most of their normal rights. In many cases at the most civilized periods of history, it was an employment contract you could not back out of.
My original point was less about being semantic, and more that Snopes was trying to bury the lead about Irish slavery by covering it up with even more widely misunderstood facts about slavery.
I... Uh... would like one of the links to these bits of history. When did the lawsuit happen? It seems like Irish slavery existed before black slavery, so I was curious as two when these things happened in relation to each other.
It has been significantly edited down over the years, particularly the lawsuit itself and information about the judge, but it the main facts are still there.
So, the article mentions that there were cases of slavery before this court case but that this one in particular was significant because it was the first official* case of lifelong slavery.
*Official being that a court ruled on it being just, not to be confused with proof of slavery predating such.
Basically, yes. This created a legal precedent for slavery above and beyond the previous laws, and lead to the classification of the black slaves as less than human according to the law.
So, I did some research and it seems like there is some weirdness here.
It would seem that there is a difference between indentured servitude and African chattel slavery. The difference appears to be more technical than practical. That being slavery for a minimum of 7 years without permission to sire off spring or marry in that time period unless granted by the master. Doing such without permission would result in the child being born “endentured” and time being added to the father’s sentence. How long th Echols would remain endentured is unknown to me. Some said 12 years or until 30, such would vary based on customs, while another source said that was for native Americans, so take it with a grain of salt.
Irish slavery was particularly bad in the Caribbean apparently. I’m not an expert or historian, just some guy on the Internet researching such. It would seem that, with the exception of the Caribbean, Irish slavery had a light at the end of the tunnel.
Lol, they are covering up two hidden facts with that BS.
It was 'indentured servitude' to start with, and they are somewhat correct that indentured servitude was not the same thing as the slavery we so often refer to.
The first major disruption of this system was the Slave Trade. Demand had outstripped willing servants, particularly in America where the pioneer spirit meant anyone could head west and make a life for themselves. This left the rich in need of a supply of healthy workers, which the British were all to happy to provide.
But then a BLACK democrat successfully sued to keep one of his slaves past the 7 year contract he was supposed to have freed him by. The end result of that had a DEMOCRAT judge declare that slaves (indentured servants at the time) were actually property, and that black slaves were subhuman and didn't have the same rights as other slaves. This changed virtually everything about indentured servitude and, technically, "Slavery" as we define it now was born at that moment.
This led to things getting much, MUCH worse, for a very short time period that led to the push for abolition becoming wide spread. A cornerstone of human civilization had been twisted into something much worse than it was supposed to be and people were more supportive of abolishing it than trying to fix it.
I would really love to know more about this lynching and how it’s linked to Columbus Day. I have never heard about this ever.
Edit: I checked the Wikipedia, which does mention it as the first time it was celebrated as a national holiday but that it was a one time thing until post 1900. That a group had celebrated it in New York City 100 years earlier and that New York City, as a whole, had celebrated it for nearly 30 years prior to the event. The state would make it a holiday until ~1907. It wouldn’t be made into a federal holiday until [nearly 100 years after its first national celebration] 1968.
I don’t think we can call it the origin for the holiday.
yeah i also saw the snopes article "setting the record straight" article. I am very skeptical I understand this is debatable but honestly the fact that you are here debating semantics when i wasnt even aware of this "indentured servitude" just makes me rethink a lot of things they didn't consider "good enough" to teach
The only reason that I know about indentured servitude is because I am a Christian and the Bible has a whole series of rules and laws about the treatment of indentured servants. Including exactly when they must be freed. The term in the Bible is Bond Servant, and in searching that term you will likely find primarily theological discussion.
Very few people are aware of indentured servitude as it existed, and many who are think it's just a fancy term for the same thing. It's understandable because in many of the worst points in history the lines were blurred between the two. So from a critical eye looking back they were both the same thing.
The Romans for example didn't have a word necessarily, but there were slaves who were Roman Citizens, and slaves who were not. There were two sets of laws on how those slaves were to be treated. Non Romans were treated like slaves, Romans were treated like indentured servants.
The key difference is that a slave had no rights, while an indentured servant kept most of their normal rights. In many cases at the most civilized periods of history, it was an employment contract you could not back out of.
My original point was less about being semantic, and more that Snopes was trying to bury the lead about Irish slavery by covering it up with even more widely misunderstood facts about slavery.
We all come from indentured servants, if you can;t trace your genealogy to a king that's where you are.
I... Uh... would like one of the links to these bits of history. When did the lawsuit happen? It seems like Irish slavery existed before black slavery, so I was curious as two when these things happened in relation to each other.
Surprisingly still available on wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
It has been significantly edited down over the years, particularly the lawsuit itself and information about the judge, but it the main facts are still there.
Thanks for that.
So, the article mentions that there were cases of slavery before this court case but that this one in particular was significant because it was the first official* case of lifelong slavery.
*Official being that a court ruled on it being just, not to be confused with proof of slavery predating such.
Basically, yes. This created a legal precedent for slavery above and beyond the previous laws, and lead to the classification of the black slaves as less than human according to the law.
Yeah, especially with an emphasis on Democrats causing this when the Democrat party didn't exist for another 200 years
So, I did some research and it seems like there is some weirdness here.
It would seem that there is a difference between indentured servitude and African chattel slavery. The difference appears to be more technical than practical. That being slavery for a minimum of 7 years without permission to sire off spring or marry in that time period unless granted by the master. Doing such without permission would result in the child being born “endentured” and time being added to the father’s sentence. How long th Echols would remain endentured is unknown to me. Some said 12 years or until 30, such would vary based on customs, while another source said that was for native Americans, so take it with a grain of salt.
Irish slavery was particularly bad in the Caribbean apparently. I’m not an expert or historian, just some guy on the Internet researching such. It would seem that, with the exception of the Caribbean, Irish slavery had a light at the end of the tunnel.