2006-10-10 04:52:36 · 9 answers · asked by mystery2me 1 in Education & Reference ➔ Homework Help
Indentured servitude was a system of contract where the person immigrating into the US gave up their work rights for a specified number of years to the person paying their passage. In this way, it could be said to be a contract, and voluntary. Slavery was not voluntary. Both methods resulted in additional labor help to US residents.
2006-10-10 05:01:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Slavers treated the slaves as property. If the slave died you replace it, but you certainly don't care for it like a real person.
Indentured servitude was the idea that you would work for someone else for a certain period of time, but when that time was up you were free and clear to do whatever you wanted to as a person.
They are both systems of bondage only looking back at them through the eyes of how we try people now. Slaves were never considered people, so you would not have referred to slavery as a bondage issue. And indentured servants were only in temporary bondage, by the way a bondage they freely agreed to be in. It's like comparing apples and tornadoes, there is really no comparison for the two systems.
2006-10-10 05:00:52 · answer #2 · answered by SmileyGirl 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was the nature of the product purchased. Europeans commonly came in indentured servitude, they work for a time in order to get the buyer to pay for their passage. When the slave traders brought people in from Africa, they often were already slaves--africans sold slaves, people the Africans had already enslaved. It is the difference between leasing a car or buying one. The europeans came as free people and africans came as slave--sometimes, there are numerous accounts of simple raiding, but it is also true that some on those boats were already slaves.
2006-10-13 05:50:35 · answer #3 · answered by Rabbit 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should people have to pay for a servant when they could keep one for free? Slavery was around a lot longer than indentured servitude. Old habits are hard to break, especially when it was legal.
2006-10-10 04:55:45 · answer #4 · answered by roamin70 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well initially they didnt like slavery even, it was way too expensive to bring them over. They soon had to drop the idea of indentured servants because they were very unmanageable-Bacons Rebellion inspired fear that they may revolt again and win- and indentured servants only worked for 7ish years (although that time was extended for small mistakes towards the end.) When slaves became more available they were more widely used b/c they knew many great cultivation techniques and were immune to malaria-which killed many-and were able to do/accomplish the hard strenuous work. hope it elps!
2006-10-10 05:01:09 · answer #5 · answered by Schlav!! 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Each existed because each had a different source of labour supply. Furthermore, slaves were bought or captured while indentured workers were obtained on contract.
2006-10-10 05:03:03 · answer #6 · answered by Einmann 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Indentured servants were a more expensive form of labor, and could not be compelled to so some of the worst labor.
2006-10-10 05:00:52 · answer #7 · answered by Buffy Summers 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Both continue to this day with victims of human trafficking, sex trafficking and domestic servitude (often accomplished by threat to family members back in the home country) in the thousands, and right under our noses in every area of the USA.
2006-10-10 05:00:29 · answer #8 · answered by nido_tr3s 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depended on the economic imperatives of the locality and whether it can support one or the other.
2006-10-10 05:01:02 · answer #9 · answered by baparri 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋