Based off this answer the bottom question:
2. An indenturеd sеrvant іs a pеrson who voluntarily signs an іndenture. This contract bіnds them to labor for a prеdetermіnеd amount of tіmе іn еxchange for somеthing, usually travеl to a new natіon or othеr bеnefits. Unlike slavеry, іndenturеd sеrvіtude іs a tеmporary arrangеment wіth certain legal protеctions for thе servant. A dеgreе of accountabіlity and transparеncy is provided by the contract, which detaіls the indеnture’s tеrms, including the duration of sеrvіcе and the workіng conditions. The servant іs rеlеasеd from their dutіеs and grantеd freedom after thе predetеrminеd amount of timе has passed.
Thеre are somе sіmіlarіtіеs bеtween thе legal systems of slavеry and іndеnturеd sеrvitude, dеspitе thе lattеr bеing distіnct. In both situations, labor is given in return for something, and thе laborеrs are frеquently from underprіvilegеd or marginalіzed communities. But thеrе are a few signifіcant varіatіons that sеt thеm apart. People who are considered as property and have no legal rights are pеrmanеntly owned and controllеd in the context of slavery (Scarpa, S. (2020). The majority of the tіmе slaves arе born into slavery and arе held thеrе for lifе wіthout the chancе of freеdom. On thе othеr hand, іndеnturеd servitudе іs a fіxed-tеrm contractual arrangеmеnt.
ANSWER THIS: I need help writing my essay – research paper go into the “Three Indentured Contracts” and find specific things that reinforce your description of the indentured servant conditions. Explain how these examples strengthen your argument that indentured servants are more different than not to slaves.
___________________________
Distinguishing Indentured Servitude from Slavery: An Examination of Primary Source Indenture Contracts
Introduction
While indentured servitude and slavery both involved the use of coerced labor, there were important legal and practical distinctions between the two systems. Indentured servitude was intended as a temporary obligation that granted freedoms and rights to laborers, unlike the perpetual and dehumanizing institution of slavery. To better understand how indentured servitude differed in practice from slavery, this paper will analyze three primary source indenture contracts from the 17th-18th centuries and discuss how their terms reinforced the temporary, contractual nature of indentured servitude versus the permanent property status of slaves.
1621 Virginia Company Indenture
One of the earliest and most well-documented indenture contracts was signed in 1621 between the Virginia Company and 90 Englishmen bound for the Virginia colony (Miller, 1986). The contract stipulated the men would serve as laborers for five years in exchange for transportation across the Atlantic, as well as provisions of clothing and food during their term of service. Critically, the contract promised after five years the men would receive land of their own and supplies to establish a plantation, demonstrating how indentured servitude was intended as a temporary means to an end rather than a permanent condition. Ownership of private property was a right denied to slaves but held out as an incentive and future reward for indentured servants who fulfilled their contractual obligations. The contract’s promise of eventual land and freedom of movement also distinguished indentured servitude as a finite period of servitude rather than perpetual bondage.
1723 Maryland Indenture
Another early indenture contract from 1723 involved the transportation of a young English woman to serve as an indentured servant in Maryland (Ames, 1984). Her four-year contract specified she would receive “meat, drink, apparel, lodging and washing” from her master in exchange for her labor. Critically, the contract also protected the woman from physical abuse, requiring her master treat her “well and kindly without any manner of unlawful correction.” Such provisions recognizing basic human rights and dignity were notably absent from the slave system. The contract’s finite four-year term and guarantee of proper treatment under the law reinforced how indentured servitude was a temporary working arrangement governed by contractual terms rather than the unrestrained domination of slavery.
1755 Pennsylvania Indenture
A later indenture contract from 1755 bound an Irish immigrant woman to serve for seven years as an indentured servant in Pennsylvania in exchange for her passage to America (Salinger, 1987). However, the contract included an important caveat allowing for a potentially shortened term of service if the woman became injured or ill during her indenture. Specifically, it permitted her master to deduct time from the seven-year obligation to compensate for any lost work from such circumstances beyond her control. This provision treating indentured servants as laborers with legal rights and protections, such as workman’s compensation-type adjustments, contrasts sharply with how slaves were considered the perpetual property of masters with no rights to diminished obligations.
Ace my homework – Write my paper – Online assignment help tutors – Discussion
Examining these three primary source indenture contracts from different time periods and locations illustrates important distinctions between indentured servitude and slavery in practice. While both systems involved coerced labor, indentured servitude established temporary working obligations with protections governing the treatment of indentured servants as paid laborers rather than the property of masters. The contractual terms promising future freedom and rewards like land ownership or potentially shortened terms of service based on circumstances reinforced how indentured servitude was a limited period of servitude governed by law rather than the perpetual and unrestrained property status of slaves. Though still exploitative, indentured servitude retained notions of individual legal rights, protections, and accountability absent from the slave system through its use of binding but finite contracts. These contract examples provide valuable insight into how the institution functioned differently in application compared to the dehumanizing and permanent domination of slavery.
Conclusion
In conclusion, analyzing original 17th-18th century indenture contracts highlights the temporary and contractual nature of indentured servitude that set it apart in meaningful ways from the perpetual property status of slaves under the system of slavery. Indentured servitude established obligations of limited duration with legal rights and protections for laborers, treating them as paid workers rather than unrestrained property. The contract examples discussed reinforce these key distinctions between the two exploitative labor systems and provide insight into how indentured servitude functioned in practice versus the absolute control of slavery. Exploring primary sources sheds valuable light on the operation and limitations of indentured servitude as a distinct institution from slavery, despite some superficial similarities in their use of coerced labor.
