Hi Paul, Thanks for the clarification. One thing on my mind: does this scenario extend to encompass the Scottish (and to a smaller extent, Irish) emiggration from their homelands to America in the 1750s? Cheers from HD, Dick Stewart =-=-=- Richard wrote: Did the 'redemptioners' scenario consist only or primarily of Germans/Prussians? Me: While the bulk of redemptioners were German-speaking, the program could in theory be extended anywhere on the continent where sovereigns allowed these Neulaender to wander about and recruit their citizens. I suspect that the Dutch tended to go to the Dutch East Indies. The French came to North America mainly as Huguenot refugees who had been living in other countries since the 1685 Revocation of the Treaty of Nantes. If a Huguenot had been living in England, s/he could come under a different system (see next paragraph). German-speaking Swiss also came but often after having spent time (or a generation or two) in Baden-Wuerttemberg or the Palatinate or somewhere else in "Germany" and thus were considered Palatines, not Swiss. Many British came as indentured servants but not under the redemptioner system. They worked out the terms of their indentures before leaving the British Isles. There was a fair amount of kidnappings and misrepresentation in the early arrivals (late 1600's) so that British law early changed to state that indentures of British citizens were not legally enforceable in the colonies unless they were endorsed by a magistrate in Britain. The idea was that a person would appear before a magistrate who would examine the person and his understanding of the indentures (contract) to verify s/he understood the terms and conditions and was signing his/her future labor away voluntarily. There apparently still was abuse when a magistrate could be bribed but it meant that most British indentured servants had negotiated their indentures before leaving the old country and therefore they had some protection and some bargaining power. Redemptioners, on the other hand, were at the mercy of the market after they had arrived and were desperate, hungry, sick, scared, and with no other alternative. If the ship had to depart before the human cargo had been "placed" then the remaining travelers were brought ashore and kept under house arrest by the shipping company's local agent until redeemed. If a passenger died after crossing the halfway point, his family was responsible for the deceased's fare and thus had to negotiate to trade their future labor for a much higher sum. It was not unusual for children to be split from parents and obligated to work substantial distances from other family members. Apparently, many started out the journey with what they were led to believe was ample funds to pay for the entire voyage but ended up going into debt during the voyage and having to also sell themselves. Gottlieb Mittleberger accompanied an organ from Germany to install it in a Lutheran chapel in the colonies. After returning to Germany, he wrote an account of the redemption system. The book has been in continuous print since then. It's pretty graphic (some scholars say sensationalist) about the abuses of the system. For a translation of substantial portions of Mittleberger's 1754 book, see http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/40-mit.html German immigrants later formed into societies to pressure the various colonial and later U.S. states and federal legislature to regulate the trade in their countrymen. Eventually, the regulation made the trade so humane that it became unprofitable for shipping companies because they couldn't pack them in like sardines and charge for everything biscuit they ate, riffle their baggage, charge for family members who didn't survive the voyage etc. The trade wained in the late 1700's and was all but killed by some new legislation in 1819. Regards, Paul in Oregon