To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Europeans attempting to found colonies on the North American mainland encountered an abundance of land and other natural resources and a chronic shortage of labor to exploit them. Establishing settlements, building forts to shelter colonists from hostile Native Americans and rival European powers, clearing land for farming, learning how to raise suitable crops for food in unfamiliar environments, erecting houses, and building up herds of Old World livestock required massive amounts of labor. Moreover, in order to procure essential supplies from their homelands, settlers had either to produce products in demand in Europe or to earn income to buy them through trade with other regions. With capital for development and workers willing to emigrate to the new settlements in short supply, colonists soon turned to novel solutions to alleviate their labor problems.
Initially some aristocratic investors expected to develop their holdings with European tenants, but the ready availability of land precluded tenancy as a viable option in most regions. Others hoped to persuade or force Native Americans to work for them, a strategy that also proved futile on the mainland. In the early seventeenth century, England was perceived to be overpopulated, so British colonists turned first to fellow countrymen to fill the labor gap. English men and women too poor to pay their passage to the New World were recruited to come to the colonies under indenture, working off the cost of transportation with a number of years of unpaid service.
Everyone agrees that bound laborers were brought to the Chesapeake primarily for the purpose of raising tobacco. Consequently it is rather surprising that the eighteenth century scholars have neglected to examine in any detail the relationship between the supply of bound labor and the fortunes of the region's staple. Recently compiled databases on the Chesapeake slave and servant trades, and now information on staple prices, and on tobacco, slave, and servant traders allow us to explore the links for the first time. This essay first reassesses the volume of imported bound laborers, the relationship between staple prices and labor supply, and the interplay between the trades in tobacco and bound laborers. It then examines in greater detail the strategies followed by merchants from Britain's major ports, and the differing terms by which indentured servants, convicts, and slaves were sold in the Chesapeake. Finally it discusses some of the implications for the distribution of bound labor within sub-regions of the Tobacco Coast and among purchasers of varying wealth.
Slaves clearly predominated among bound laborers in the eighteenth century Chesapeake, although there is less agreement about the relative contributions of imports and of natural increase to this result. By the early 1690s slaves outnumbered servants by more than three to one even in Maryland, a colony which was less well supplied with slaves than Virginia throughout the seventeenth century. And by the 1720s indentured servants were no longer a significant component of the bound labor force in most of the region.
Data were collected from254 skeletons at the Monroe County Almshouse in Rochester, NewYork, dating from1826–1863.Additional evidence was used to calculate mortality rates for paupers (Brighton Town Clerk's Records) and the general population of the City of Rochester (Mount Hope records and census data). Because death rates were so high at the almshouse, the signs of biological stress observed in the skeletons, with the possible exception of infants, were probably not the result of institutionalization but, rather, the result of nutritional inadequacies or diseases experienced outside the almshouse. Documentary evidence indicates that mortality in the City of Rochester around the middle of the nineteenth century was highly variable and characterized by considerable infectious and parasitic diseases. Infant and early childhood mortality was severe. At the Monroe County Almshouse almost one-half of the subadults (as evidenced in both the skeletal collection and the BTC Record) died within the first year of life.
The health index for the sample is 72.3% of the possible maximum score, which is higher than that for the St. Thomas' Anglican Church sample. Documentary evidence, when available, should be included in the overall assessment of health among skeletal samples. It is evident from the Brighton Town Clerk's record that acute infectious disease played a major role in the mortality experience of almshouse residents, a situation that was not incorporated into the Mark I version of the index. In some respects, inmates of the almshouse do not appear much different from the population in general, for example, with respect to the stature of adult males.
Over the course of two hundred years Chesapeake planters sought to make the most of scarce labor while exploiting abundant land. Large planters were able to offset a secular decline in tobacco crops per laborer with productivity gains in grains, thus maintaining or enhancing revenues per hand in constant value. Intensification of the labor process and a switch from hoe to plow culture account for most of the increase; agricultural improvements, very little.
By the mid-eighteenth century, tidewater Chesapeake households at all levels of wealth were both able and willing to buy a wide range of non-essential consumer goods either previously unavailable or long considered unimportant. The use of amenities and often luxuries as props for increasingly elaborated and differentiated life styles was not a result of country folk imitating city consumption patterns, however. Urban life styles did produce new spending habits, but the vast majority of the population who lived in rural areas managed to improve their consumption levels without altering traditional patterns of resource allocation.