Sorry for this extra-long response to this, but I felt as someone studying history, I should point out the egregious factual inaccuracies in that article. This makes so many mistakes that I really must go line by line.
This “James II Proclamation of 1625” did not exist as outlined here. First off, James II ruled from 1685 to 1701, so this article must be confusing him with James I. Anyway, even if it was James I, none of his proclamations from this year make any mentions of Irish or indentured servants. In addition, the idea of 300,000 Irish being sold as slaves by 1652 is quite fanciful given that the British North American population was only 200,000 in 1688. In the larger period between 1630 and 1775, the total migration of Irish to the Americas (including the West Indies) was 165,000, so I have no idea how double this number of Irish could be sold in a decade like this article suggests.
Similarly, I see no evidence for the mass selling of Irish children to the West Indies. The figure of 100,000 children being sold is ridiculous, considering only 50,000 Irish went to the West Indies in the entire 17th century, and this article seems to claim that double this in 10-14 year old’s alone were sold in 10 years.
The 1656 plan to use 2000 Irish children in the West Indies was suggested, however this plan did not intend to use them as slaves, and it has been pretty definitively proven that this plan never went ahead.
There are several key differences between being a slave and being an indentured servant. The main one being that you were only an indentured servant for as long as your debt was paid off, and then you were free, usually after 3-7 years. Also, unlike slaves, your children were born free, however in some cases this would add two years to the length of your contract. While slavery was fundamentally based on race, specifically Africans, indentured servitude included all nationalities. Legal systems also set much harsher punishments for slaves than indentured servants. In the one documented case of “extreme” punishment of an indentured servant I could find, in which Englishman John Thomas had his hands burned by his masters, he was able to sue, gain significant financial compensation, and have his masters placed in jail. This was not at all available to slaves, for whom punishments such as being hung, drawn, and quartered were common for even minor offences.
This article also both underestimates the price of an indentured servant and overestimates the price of a slave. In the late 17th century, and indentured servant would cost around £12 for his limited contract, while an African slave would be around £20 for a lifetime service, including any offspring. Rather than lead to worse treatment, like this article implies, this instead led to the decline of indentured servitude.
There is also no evidence of forced breeding programs of Irish and Africans by slave masters. There was evidence of consensual relations between slaves and indentured servants, however these were rare and strongly disapproved of. The 1681 law seems to refer to legislation from Maryland which punished women that had relations with Africans, however this was only after slavery was explicitly made to be based on race in 1664, so would not have been in response to any “forced interbreeding”.
There is no evidence of Irish slaves being thrown overboard due to lack of food, however, this is perhaps a reference the 1781 Zong Massacre, where 132 enslaved Africans were thrown overboard to save fresh water (although there are allegations that it was an insurance scam). No ship at the time could even carry 1,302 people, with the largest capacity I could find for a slave ship being 609 slaves.
Finally, The British would also end the international slave trade in 1807, not 1839.
Anyway, it is not just me pointing out these inaccuracies, but this article has produced an open letter of over 100 historians objecting to the gross historical inaccuracies. The author has yet to identify themselves, address critiques, or even provide any historical credentials.
Yes, indentured servitude was bad, and conditions were horrible, with many dying, but it was overall shorter, less widespread, and less brutal than African slavery. While African slavery would rapidly grow over the course of the 17th century, and beyond indentured slavery would decline just a few decades after the first colonies. It should not be forgotten, but this article does a poor job of remembering even basic facts.
Sorry for this extra-long response to this, but I felt as someone studying history, I should point out the egregious factual inaccuracies in that article. This makes so many mistakes that I really must go line by line.
This “James II Proclamation of 1625” did not exist as outlined here. First off, James II ruled from 1685 to 1701, so this article must be confusing him with James I. Anyway, even if it was James I, none of his proclamations from this year make any mentions of Irish or indentured servants. In addition, the idea of 300,000 Irish being sold as slaves by 1652 is quite fanciful given that the British North American population was only 200,000 in 1688. In the larger period between 1630 and 1775, the total migration of Irish to the Americas (including the West Indies) was 165,000, so I have no idea how double this number of Irish could be sold in a decade like this article suggests.
Similarly, I see no evidence for the mass selling of Irish children to the West Indies. The figure of 100,000 children being sold is ridiculous, considering only 50,000 Irish went to the West Indies in the entire 17th century, and this article seems to claim that double this in 10-14 year old’s alone were sold in 10 years.
The 1656 plan to use 2000 Irish children in the West Indies was suggested, however this plan did not intend to use them as slaves, and it has been pretty definitively proven that this plan never went ahead.
There are several key differences between being a slave and being an indentured servant. The main one being that you were only an indentured servant for as long as your debt was paid off, and then you were free, usually after 3-7 years. Also, unlike slaves, your children were born free, however in some cases this would add two years to the length of your contract. While slavery was fundamentally based on race, specifically Africans, indentured servitude included all nationalities. Legal systems also set much harsher punishments for slaves than indentured servants. In the one documented case of “extreme” punishment of an indentured servant I could find, in which Englishman John Thomas had his hands burned by his masters, he was able to sue, gain significant financial compensation, and have his masters placed in jail. This was not at all available to slaves, for whom punishments such as being hung, drawn, and quartered were common for even minor offences.
This article also both underestimates the price of an indentured servant and overestimates the price of a slave. In the late 17th century, and indentured servant would cost around £12 for his limited contract, while an African slave would be around £20 for a lifetime service, including any offspring. Rather than lead to worse treatment, like this article implies, this instead led to the decline of indentured servitude.
There is also no evidence of forced breeding programs of Irish and Africans by slave masters. There was evidence of consensual relations between slaves and indentured servants, however these were rare and strongly disapproved of. The 1681 law seems to refer to legislation from Maryland which punished women that had relations with Africans, however this was only after slavery was explicitly made to be based on race in 1664, so would not have been in response to any “forced interbreeding”.
There is no evidence of Irish slaves being thrown overboard due to lack of food, however, this is perhaps a reference the 1781 Zong Massacre, where 132 enslaved Africans were thrown overboard to save fresh water (although there are allegations that it was an insurance scam). No ship at the time could even carry 1,302 people, with the largest capacity I could find for a slave ship being 609 slaves.
Finally, The British would also end the international slave trade in 1807, not 1839.
Anyway, it is not just me pointing out these inaccuracies, but this article has produced an open letter of over 100 historians objecting to the gross historical inaccuracies. The author has yet to identify themselves, address critiques, or even provide any historical credentials.
Yes, indentured servitude was bad, and conditions were horrible, with many dying, but it was overall shorter, less widespread, and less brutal than African slavery. While African slavery would rapidly grow over the course of the 17th century, and beyond indentured slavery would decline just a few decades after the first colonies. It should not be forgotten, but this article does a poor job of remembering even basic facts.