Glad to see Donald Akenson's book mentioned. My family links run vaguely backwards from Virginia to Barbados, St.Kitts, Montserrat and Ireland and, as it turns out, Professor Akenson is a long-time friend whose career (and writings) I'd lost track of. The book's thesis, fully and carefully documented, is that the oft-pitied early Irish emigrants (here I'm including my own likely progenitors) displayed very little difficulty in both drifting away from the Church and, themselves, becoming prominent slave owners in the new world. It is my strong impression that the indenturing system is often exaggerated as "slavery." In unusual circumstances the physical treatment (work, punishment, abuse of females) of indentured servants could resemble slavery. But their legal status couldn't have been more different. An indentured servant's relationship with the person paying his passage was based in contract; that contract was enforceable by either side. A slave had no contractual rights whatsoever. A slave was property, and had no more independent legal rights than a wagon, a plow, or a dog would have. Contracts are frequently broken and misapplied, and some indentured servants certainly encountered such abuse, but there was recourse in the courts and the great majority of indentured servants went on to fulfill their indenture, receive the promised consideration (usually a plot of land), and form many of America's original families. J. Fallin