Were slaves ever allowed to “retire”

[Odesio]

@YWTF

There is no amount of money anyone could pay me that would make picking cotton all day, every day, in extreme heat or otherwise, an attractive occupation. Absolutely no wage would ever be enough to make me sign up for this jig. None. The only way I would ever do it is if I was forced to do it. And perhaps the only thing that would drive me to do this work well is if the constant threat of violence hung over my head. Meaning, I could expect to receive brutal consequences when my output fell short of what the boss desired. And what the boss desired was to be as profitable as possible.

As far as labor goes, cotton picking in and of itself isn’t particularly bad when placed into the context of a society where the vast majority of the population made their living through direct physical labor and mostly on farms. My father and uncle picked cotton as teenagers in Texas to earn some spending money and cotton was grown in other parts of the world without having to resort to slave labor. The problem wasn’t picking the cotton it was the conditions under which they were picking the cotton.

[Melbourne]

@mhendo

First, however badly they were treated, indentured servants had, at least, signed their indenture contracts voluntarily

Tangent:
I hope I’m not sticking my neck out here, but are you sure? The British system of transportation of convicts to America ended around 1776, so I think that overlaps with the period you are talking about. “Transportation” as punishment was a system where people “bought” convicts as indentured labor for the cost of transporting them to America, where they could be sold. (Technically, where their indentures could be sold).

(While I’m here: the idea that slaves were always treated rationally for profit is ludicrous to anyone who is familiar with the treatment of convict labor in Australia, or the wide variation in the treatment of farm animals.)

[mhendo]

@Melbourne

I hope I’m not sticking my neck out here, but are you sure? The British system of transportation of convicts to America ended around 1776, so I think that overlaps with the period you are talking about. “Transportation” as punishment was a system where people “bought” convicts as indentured labor for the cost of transporting them to America, where they could be sold. (Technically, where their indentures could be sold).

Well, I guess it’s a question of terminology. When I show my classes the statistics about immigrants to the British North American colonies in the 18th century, I distinguish indentured servants from convicts, and when I’m talking about indentured servitude I’m talking specifically about those who migrated voluntarily. I guess my usage is something of a tautology: indentured servitude was voluntary, because when I say indentured servitude, I’m talking about voluntary migration.

You’re right that convict labor could be purchased, but in that case the indenture contract was generally not really with the convict, but with the Crown and/or the transport ship. That’s the reason I make the distinction.

[Strassia]

The distinction also built up. There were African descended indentured servants in the English colonies before slaves. But, as illustrated by the case of John Punch, they weren’t considered the same. Punch and 2 white indentured servants ran away. All got 30 lashes. The white men got 10 extra years service. The black man was sentenced service for life.