[Yank-in-NY]

What if American Independence Had Not Happened?

We may still have been British subjects:

We would have the Queen on our currency.

We would have to use British spelling, example: colour

We would have to sing God Bless the Queen instead of God Bless America: The humanity!

Perhaps the worst of all, we would have the same citizenship with GreatBriton

[Hyack]

What the hell 4 out of 5 isn't bad

[Jaime_Souviens]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Britain didn't require slavery because the majority of their cotton was purchased from the southern slave states. Then again, the labourers on plantations in British controlled territories weren't any better off than most slaves. African and Asian subjects of the Crown didn't gain many civil liberties until the mid 20th century, so how free were they really?

That's true. Although the legal status of slaves was different than for indentured servants, working conditions were very similar, especially the farther back you go to the early 1600's.

The working conditions of both was bad enough to kill half of us today.

[Mustang1]

Nietzshe Nietzshe:

You still have not posted exactly what an indentured servant is and why you compare one to an actual slave.

I’m merely illustrating, yet again, your utter lack of knowledge about what you post here. You should’ve been able to see the parallels and I’m not about to educate you further – go look it up yourself (here’s a small hint – look Sir Thomas Smythe)

$1:

“If you compare the two that makes you ignorant which is something I gathered long ago.”

Compare the two – you mean, in your infinite stupidity, you can’t see the parallel? Read a book and get a clue.

$1:

“I do not ever recall a slave signing a contract.”

Really – that’s because it’s involuntary servitude, but both are servants and both were treated unbelievably harshly (again, look up Sir Thomas Gates and Thomas Dale – advocating flogging, hanging and physical abuse). I know this is complex and it demands a keen intellect, but do try and keep up.

$1:

“You expect them to receive passage to the New World for free?”

Argumentative fallacy – this has nothing to do with the treatment of indentured servants – read beyond wiki, my uneducated chum, and you’d know that.

$1:

“Another wonderful liberal here who thinks everything should be handed to people.”

You’ve made an assumption on my ideological leanings based on an accurate historical conclusion? Fuck, you really are pathetic Cylon, aren’t you?

$1:

“No wonder the corporations are tightening their grip. It is attitudes like his who force the corporations to look outside of the New World for workers”

Empty minutia from an empty intellect

Troll on, Starfuck, troll on.

[Ruxpercnd]

I have often thought that early American history was peculiar - slavery, tobacco and whiskey were all big factors.

Anyway, yes, there is definitely a relationship between indentured labor and slavery. I believe that the first slaves were actually treated as indentured, and could work off that indenture. And if an indentured servant tried to run away, they would be hunted down like a slave would be. Local courts would punish runaway servants by adding to their indenture. People often sold themselves into indenture simply for reasons of poverty, especially women who had no other recourse of worth.

New York City on the island of Manhatten was built by slaves.

And, yes, Canada had slaves.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_hist.htm

$1:

...Landowners in the American colonies originally met their need for forced labor by enslaving a limited number of Natives, and "hiring" many more European indentured servants. In exchange for their transportation across the Atlantic, the servants committed to work for the landowner for 4 to 7 years. A few slaves were imported from Africa as early as 1619. With the spread of tobacco farming in the 1670's, and the diminishing number of people willing to sign-on as indentured servants in the 1680's, increasing numbers of slaves were brought in from Africa. They replaced Native American slaves, who were found to be susceptible to diseases of European origin. "...small numbers of white people were also enslaved by kidnapping, or for crimes or debts." 2 The Africans "came from many racial stocks and many tribes, from the spirited Hausas, the gentle Mandingos, the creative Yorubas, from the Igbos, Efiks and Krus, from the proud Fantins, the warlike Ashantis, the shrewd Dahomeans, the Binis and Sengalese." 3 Eventually 600 to 650 thousand slaves arrived in America against their will. 4

Slavery was an attractive proposition to landowners. In 1638, "the price tag for an African male was around $27.00 while the salary of a European laborer was about 70 cents per day." 2 A slave had less value at the time than 40 days of labor by a European....

.....Slavery was also brutal in Canada. In 1734, a black slave, Marie-Joseph-Angelique, objected to slavery and her expected sale. She burned down her owner's home in Montreal in protest. The fire spread and eventually destroyed 46 buildings. Her sentence was to have her hands chopped off and then to be burned alive. This was reduced on appeal to simple hanging.

"Even in 1824, an 18-year old New Brunswick boy was 'hung by the neck until dead' for having stolen 24¢. In Upper Canada, [Ontario] theft can mean being branded with a red-hot iron on the palm of the hand or a public whipping." 5...

http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history ... yintro.htm

$1:

In 1619 Virginia had no law of slavery and the arrivals became "servants." They went to work in tobacco fields alongside other servants who were white and had come from England. Conditions were equally hard for both groups, but servitude could end. Early Virginia blacks gained their freedom and a few actually prospered. One, named Anthony Johnson . . . arrived at Jamestown in 1621, survived his own time of servitude, married, and acquired land and indentured servants.

Nonetheless, there was . . . one big difference. The whites had come freely, hoping for better lives once their servitude ended. We have no reason to think that those first twenty blacks entered the colony by their own choice. Many more were to follow. For these, even surviving was a triumph.

[Chumley]

I like to read a lot of history, not just popular books, but I like to dig up old history texts, and online stuff as well.
Here is a link to an online history site that i have been reading recently.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/

[HyperionTheEvil]

Wullu Wullu:

What this thread needs is for Harry Turttledove to lean into this topic. For anyone that has not read him, he does alternative history novel series. Some on the outlandish side ( aliens invade during WWII and the effects that has ), some very probable ( the North did not get a copy of Lee's plans and Gettysburg went to the south ). Both of these series come across as completely believable ( even the aliens )

He could do a fantastic job with this topic. Well this reminds me of him so time to start reading the books again.

I was about to mention the same thing. Since this thread has more less turned into a competition of counte-factual articles. I thought i would sugggest that people Read Harry TurtleDoves the Two Geroges

The Two Georges is an alternate history novel co-written by science fiction author Harry Turtledove and Oscar-winning actor Richard Dreyfuss. It was originally published in 1995 by Hodder & Staughton the United Kingdom, and in 1996 by Tor Books in the United States, and was nominated for the 1995 Sidewise Award for Alternate History.

For more than two centuries, the present-day United States and Canada has been the North American Union, an integral part of the British Empire as a result of an agreement between George Washington and King George III. This event is commemorated in a Gainsborough painting titled The Two Georges and has itself become a symbol of national unity, much like the Stars and Stripes, which in this world is the "Jack and Stripes."

While being displayed in New Liverpool (this world's Los Angeles), the painting is stolen while a crowd is distracted by the murder of "Honest" Dick (a.k.a "Tricky" Dick), the Steamer King, a nationally-known used Steamer (car) salesman - who, based on his nickname and description is clearly intended to be our world's Richard Nixon. Colonel Thomas Bushell of the Royal American Mounted Police leads the search for the painting, accompanied by curator Kathleen Flannery and Captain Samuel Stanley. Some days later, a ransom note is received from the Sons of Liberty, a paramilitary organization that wants to see America independent of Britain.

The search takes Bushell, Flannery, and Stanley across the country via airship (an advanced form of dirigible) and steamer. Along the way, the trio's investigations bring them into contact with many members of the Sons of Liberty including Boston newspaper editor John F. Kennedy.

The Governor-General of the North American Union, Sir Martin Luther King, informs Bushell in confidence that the painting must be recovered in time for King Charles III's state visit, or the government will pay the Sons' ransom demand of fifty million pounds.

The searchers arrive at Victoria (the Washington D.C. of our world) and manage to discover The Two Georges an hour before the King arrives and avert an assassination attempt by Bushell's superior officer and Sons of Liberty sympathizer Lieutenant General Horace Bragg both on the dock where the King lands and at the All-Union Art Museum where the King gives a speech in front of the recovered painting (an explosive is hidden in the picture frame).

Bushell and Stanley are both knighted by the King for their efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Georges

[Mustang1]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Nietzshe Nietzshe:

You still have not posted exactly what an indentured servant is and why you compare one to an actual slave.

I’m merely illustrating, yet again, your utter lack of knowledge about what you post here. You should’ve been able to see the parallels and I’m not about to educate you further – go look it up yourself (here’s a small hint – look Sir Thomas Smythe)

$1:

“If you compare the two that makes you ignorant which is something I gathered long ago.”

Compare the two – you mean, in your infinite stupidity, you can’t see the parallel? Read a book and get a clue.

$1:

“I do not ever recall a slave signing a contract.”

Really – that’s because it’s involuntary servitude, but both are servants and both were treated unbelievably harshly (again, look up Sir Thomas Gates and Thomas Dale – advocating flogging, hanging and physical abuse). I know this is complex and it demands a keen intellect, but do try and keep up.

$1:

“You expect them to receive passage to the New World for free?”

Argumentative fallacy – this has nothing to do with the treatment of indentured servants – read beyond wiki, my uneducated chum, and you’d know that.

$1:

“Another wonderful liberal here who thinks everything should be handed to people.”

You’ve made an assumption on my ideological leanings based on an accurate historical conclusion? Fuck, you really are pathetic Cylon, aren’t you?

$1:

“No wonder the corporations are tightening their grip. It is attitudes like his who force the corporations to look outside of the New World for workers”

Empty minutia from an empty intellect

Troll on, Starfuck, troll on.

I noticed my clueless little chum hasn’t responded – big shock, it’s just like his last CKA incarnation. All he does his spew ignorance, project his onto others, barf up ahistorical crap, through tantrum, sprinkle some mangled grammar and then run like a little bitch when confronted. It’s a simple mantra.

I own you Starfuck.

[bootlegga]

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

What if American Independence Had Not Happened?

Perhaps the worst of all, we would have the same citizenship with GreatBriton

[Nietzshe]

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

What if American Independence Had Not Happened?

We may still have been British subjects:

We would have the Queen on our currency.

We would have to use British spelling, example: colour

We would have to sing God Bless the Queen instead of God Bless America: The humanity!

Perhaps the worst of all, we would have the same citizenship with GreatBriton

Tell me, are you still licking the feet of French tourists who visit in thanks for saving your asses from us? If not you had better get cracking.

[Nietzshe]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Nietzshe Nietzshe:

You still have not posted exactly what an indentured servant is and why you compare one to an actual slave.

I’m merely illustrating, yet again, your utter lack of knowledge about what you post here. You should’ve been able to see the parallels and I’m not about to educate you further – go look it up yourself (here’s a small hint – look Sir Thomas Smythe)

$1:

“If you compare the two that makes you ignorant which is something I gathered long ago.”

Compare the two – you mean, in your infinite stupidity, you can’t see the parallel? Read a book and get a clue.

$1:

“I do not ever recall a slave signing a contract.”

Really – that’s because it’s involuntary servitude, but both are servants and both were treated unbelievably harshly (again, look up Sir Thomas Gates and Thomas Dale – advocating flogging, hanging and physical abuse). I know this is complex and it demands a keen intellect, but do try and keep up.

$1:

“You expect them to receive passage to the New World for free?”

Argumentative fallacy – this has nothing to do with the treatment of indentured servants – read beyond wiki, my uneducated chum, and you’d know that.

$1:

“Another wonderful liberal here who thinks everything should be handed to people.”

You’ve made an assumption on my ideological leanings based on an accurate historical conclusion? Fuck, you really are pathetic Cylon, aren’t you?

$1:

“No wonder the corporations are tightening their grip. It is attitudes like his who force the corporations to look outside of the New World for workers”

Empty minutia from an empty intellect

Troll on, Starfuck, troll on.

I noticed my clueless little chum hasn’t responded – big shock, it’s just like his last CKA incarnation. All he does his spew ignorance, project his onto others, barf up ahistorical crap, through tantrum, sprinkle some mangled grammar and then run like a little bitch when confronted. It’s a simple mantra.

I own you Starfuck.

An indentured servant is a labourer under contract (an indenture--explained below) to work (for a specified amount of time) for another person or a company/corporation, often without any monetary pay, but in exchange for accommodation, food, other essentials, training, or passage to a new country. After working for the term of the contract (traditionally seven years) the servant was then free to farm or take up trade of his own. The term comes from the medieval English "indenture of retainer" — a contract written in duplicate on the same sheet, with the copies separated by cutting along a jagged (toothed, hence the term "indenture") line so that the teeth of the two parts could later be refitted to confirm authenticity. They were also used to make the labour-intensive cash crop tobacco in the 17th century.

It was the legal basis of the apprenticeship system by which skilled trades were learned.

Indentured servitude is NOT identical with involuntary servitude and slavery.

$1:

Indentured Servitude in the Colonial U.S.
Joshua Rosenbloom, University of Kansas
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a variety of labor market institutions developed to facilitate the movement of labor in response to the opportunities created by American factor proportions. While some immigrants migrated on their own, the majority of immigrants were either indentured servants or African slaves.

Because of the cost of passage—which exceeded half a year’s income for a typical British immigrant and a full year’s income for a typical German immigrant—only a small portion of European migrants could afford to pay for their passage to the Americas (Grubb 1985a). They did so by signing contracts, or “indentures,” committing themselves to work for a fixed number of years in the future—their labor being their only viable asset—with British merchants, who then sold these contracts to colonists after their ship reached America. Indentured servitude was introduced by the Virginia Company in 1619 and appears to have arisen from a combination of the terms of two other types of labor contract widely used in England at the time: service in husbandry and apprenticeship (Galenson 1981). In other cases, migrants borrowed money for their passage and committed to repay merchants by pledging to sell themselves as servants in America, a practice known as “redemptioner servitude (Grubb 1986). Redemptioners bore increased risk because they could not predict in advance what terms they might be able to negotiate for their labor, but presumably they did so because of other benefits, such as the opportunity to choose their own master, and to select where they would be employed.

Although data on immigration for the colonial period are scattered and incomplete a number of scholars have estimated that between half and three quarters of European immigrants arriving in the colonies came as indentured or redemptioner servants. Using data for the end of the colonial period Grubb (1985b) found that close to three-quarters of English immigrants to Pennsylvania and nearly 60 percent of German immigrants arrived as servants.

A number of scholars have examined the terms of indenture and redemptioner contracts in some detail (see, e.g., Galenson 1981; Grubb 1985a). They find that consistent with the existence of a well-functioning market, the terms of service varied in response to differences in individual productivity, employment conditions, and the balance of supply and demand in different locations.

The other major source of labor for the colonies was the forced migration of African slaves. Slavery had been introduced in the West Indies at an early date, but it was not until the late seventeenth century that significant numbers of slaves began to be imported into the mainland colonies. From 1700 to 1780 the proportion of blacks in the Chesapeake region grew from 13 percent to around 40 percent. In South Carolina and Georgia, the black share of the population climbed from 18 percent to 41 percent in the same period (McCusker and Menard, 1985, p. 222). Galenson (1984) explains the transition from indentured European to enslaved African labor as the result of shifts in supply and demand conditions in England and the trans-Atlantic slave market. Conditions in Europe improved after 1650, reducing the supply of indentured servants, while at the same time increased competition in the slave trade was lowering the price of slaves (Dunn 1984). In some sense the colonies’ early experience with indentured servants paved the way for the transition to slavery. Like slaves, indentured servants were unfree, and ownership of their labor could be freely transferred from one owner to another. Unlike slaves, however, they could look forward to eventually becoming free (Morgan 1971).

[Chumley]

so they had to give turn thier dentures in at the border?

[Nietzshe]

Chumley Chumley:

so they had to give turn thier dentures in at the border?

Oooh! Such wit! I stand before you in awe! May I have your autograph sir?

[Mustang1]

Nietzshe Nietzshe:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Nietzshe Nietzshe:

You still have not posted exactly what an indentured servant is and why you compare one to an actual slave.

I’m merely illustrating, yet again, your utter lack of knowledge about what you post here. You should’ve been able to see the parallels and I’m not about to educate you further – go look it up yourself (here’s a small hint – look Sir Thomas Smythe)

$1:

“If you compare the two that makes you ignorant which is something I gathered long ago.”

Compare the two – you mean, in your infinite stupidity, you can’t see the parallel? Read a book and get a clue.

$1:

“I do not ever recall a slave signing a contract.”

Really – that’s because it’s involuntary servitude, but both are servants and both were treated unbelievably harshly (again, look up Sir Thomas Gates and Thomas Dale – advocating flogging, hanging and physical abuse). I know this is complex and it demands a keen intellect, but do try and keep up.

$1:

“You expect them to receive passage to the New World for free?”

Argumentative fallacy – this has nothing to do with the treatment of indentured servants – read beyond wiki, my uneducated chum, and you’d know that.

$1:

“Another wonderful liberal here who thinks everything should be handed to people.”

You’ve made an assumption on my ideological leanings based on an accurate historical conclusion? Fuck, you really are pathetic Cylon, aren’t you?

$1:

“No wonder the corporations are tightening their grip. It is attitudes like his who force the corporations to look outside of the New World for workers”

Empty minutia from an empty intellect

Troll on, Starfuck, troll on.

I noticed my clueless little chum hasn’t responded – big shock, it’s just like his last CKA incarnation. All he does his spew ignorance, project his onto others, barf up ahistorical crap, through tantrum, sprinkle some mangled grammar and then run like a little bitch when confronted. It’s a simple mantra.

I own you Starfuck.

An indentured servant is a labourer under contract (an indenture--explained below) to work (for a specified amount of time) for another person or a company/corporation, often without any monetary pay, but in exchange for accommodation, food, other essentials, training, or passage to a new country. After working for the term of the contract (traditionally seven years) the servant was then free to farm or take up trade of his own. The term comes from the medieval English "indenture of retainer" — a contract written in duplicate on the same sheet, with the copies separated by cutting along a jagged (toothed, hence the term "indenture") line so that the teeth of the two parts could later be refitted to confirm authenticity. They were also used to make the labour-intensive cash crop tobacco in the 17th century.

It was the legal basis of the apprenticeship system by which skilled trades were learned.

Indentured servitude is NOT identical with involuntary servitude and slavery.

$1:

Indentured Servitude in the Colonial U.S.
Joshua Rosenbloom, University of Kansas
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a variety of labor market institutions developed to facilitate the movement of labor in response to the opportunities created by American factor proportions. While some immigrants migrated on their own, the majority of immigrants were either indentured servants or African slaves.

Because of the cost of passage—which exceeded half a year’s income for a typical British immigrant and a full year’s income for a typical German immigrant—only a small portion of European migrants could afford to pay for their passage to the Americas (Grubb 1985a). They did so by signing contracts, or “indentures,” committing themselves to work for a fixed number of years in the future—their labor being their only viable asset—with British merchants, who then sold these contracts to colonists after their ship reached America. Indentured servitude was introduced by the Virginia Company in 1619 and appears to have arisen from a combination of the terms of two other types of labor contract widely used in England at the time: service in husbandry and apprenticeship (Galenson 1981). In other cases, migrants borrowed money for their passage and committed to repay merchants by pledging to sell themselves as servants in America, a practice known as “redemptioner servitude (Grubb 1986). Redemptioners bore increased risk because they could not predict in advance what terms they might be able to negotiate for their labor, but presumably they did so because of other benefits, such as the opportunity to choose their own master, and to select where they would be employed.

Although data on immigration for the colonial period are scattered and incomplete a number of scholars have estimated that between half and three quarters of European immigrants arriving in the colonies came as indentured or redemptioner servants. Using data for the end of the colonial period Grubb (1985b) found that close to three-quarters of English immigrants to Pennsylvania and nearly 60 percent of German immigrants arrived as servants.

A number of scholars have examined the terms of indenture and redemptioner contracts in some detail (see, e.g., Galenson 1981; Grubb 1985a). They find that consistent with the existence of a well-functioning market, the terms of service varied in response to differences in individual productivity, employment conditions, and the balance of supply and demand in different locations.

The other major source of labor for the colonies was the forced migration of African slaves. Slavery had been introduced in the West Indies at an early date, but it was not until the late seventeenth century that significant numbers of slaves began to be imported into the mainland colonies. From 1700 to 1780 the proportion of blacks in the Chesapeake region grew from 13 percent to around 40 percent. In South Carolina and Georgia, the black share of the population climbed from 18 percent to 41 percent in the same period (McCusker and Menard, 1985, p. 222). Galenson (1984) explains the transition from indentured European to enslaved African labor as the result of shifts in supply and demand conditions in England and the trans-Atlantic slave market. Conditions in Europe improved after 1650, reducing the supply of indentured servants, while at the same time increased competition in the slave trade was lowering the price of slaves (Dunn 1984). In some sense the colonies’ early experience with indentured servants paved the way for the transition to slavery. Like slaves, indentured servants were unfree, and ownership of their labor could be freely transferred from one owner to another. Unlike slaves, however, they could look forward to eventually becoming free (Morgan 1971).

Thanks, Wikipedia! So, you didn’t know what it meant and had to employ some fantastic “researchin’ via web surfin’” to help your crumbling point. I claimed they were similar and that both were classified as servitude – one was indentured whereas the other was involuntary. That’s it, Captain Starfuck, that was my point and evidently, you forgot to print this part from your goof source,

“However, according to author Michael A. Hoffman, of They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America (1993), the system was rife with abuse. Unscrupulous creditors could buy the debts of the unwitting poor in Britain and Ireland, and these people might find themselves involuntarily separated from their families and shipped off to America as indentured servants. Some masters also found ways to keep their charges indebted to them, and therefore unable to leave their bondage.”

- Wikipeida

You ommited that glaring point and that screams disenugneious tactic

Next time, quote the whole source, not abridge parts that only demonstrate your uneducated dullardry and try to refute my points – my historical examples remain unchallenged and you tried to bitchslap with your cheek again.

Oh…your other Xeroxed source clearly illustrates my parallel well when it says, “Like slaves, indentured servants were unfree, and ownership of their labor could be freely transferred from one owner to another. Unlike slaves, however, they could look forward to eventually becoming free”

Why leave this standing as it proves my point? Smooth move, Hand on Polo

[Dayseed]

Hey Neitzshe,

Guess what? You just quoted a source which ultimately blew your own point right out of the water! And, in a surprise Comment Corner announcement, you just won the honourary WATCH ME CHEEKSLAP THIS GUY'S FIST Award!



Congratulations once again! Wear the award with pride, you've earned it! And remember, to keep it, all you have to do is keep on cheekslappin' away at people's fists with some researchin' via web surfin' and some favourable cuttin' of contrary points in your quotin'!