I am sending this offline . . . . The last time I mentioned slaves - it got a few people upset. Just to clarify with you. Not all indentured servants were slaves. My understandin is that there were 3 clasifications. (1) Those who volunteered their work for a period of time for their passage, (2) those were forced into it because they were thrown off of their land, etc and (3) those who were kidnapped off the street or stolen literally out of their beds. I would say it would be hard to prove which kind our relatives were. Many of the Northern states have looked down on the Southern states for slavery but apparently the Northern states also used slaves. Their slaves worked in agriculture and provided the food for the slaves in the British West Indes who worked in the sugar cane fields. There is a lot of information coming our now but slowly. It's there if one looks for it. In one of the books I read it said about the Irish that went to Barbados - they couldn't stand the heat and died more rapidly than the blac! ks. There was disease, lack of food and nutrition, cruel beatings, etc They said NO ONE EVER CAME BACK TO TELL WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM. How very sad. I guess what I am trying to say - if I had a slave in the family I would gladly claim that person and acknowledge them for sure. My apologies for going on. -----Original Message----- From: cadybeth@gmail.com To: IRL-CLARE-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [CLARE] Re: Indentured Servants I do appreicate your imput here. I had never thought my grandma was a slave just to make that clear. I had never heard of "indentured servants" until just recently. I had never heard of there ever being Irish slaves (like in the 1700's). It was a bit shocking to me. On 8/12/06, Dolmenx@aol.com <Dolmenx@aol.com> wrote: > > > In a message dated 8/12/2006 6:00:41 A.M. Eastern Standard > Time, IRL-CLARE- > D-request@rootsweb.com writes: > > <have noticed very many the women on the passenger lists I look at seem > to > be listed as going to the US to work as a Servant and men > as Laborers. This > has my curiosity. I know my Grandmother, Catherine Kelly, came to Boston > and worked as a house maid for a family on Martha's Vineyard. It was > something > she wouldn't talk about. > > > These stories irritate me every time I see them. Maybe some immigrants > to > North America in the 17th of 18th C. were indentured (I know some Irish > deported by Cromwell were taken to New Hampshire by ship captains rather > than to > slavery in the Barbadoes). Those very lucky persons were often employed > as > "indentured servants", for a number of years, but stories of Irish > immigrants > as late as the 19th C. being so employed I believe are largely false or > based > on a misunderstanding of circumstances and job descriptions. Of course, > it's possible for individuals to have entered into probably illegal > arrangements, but to suggest that a "domestic servant" was a virtual slave > is way off > the mark. > > In Ireland, a review of many marriage registers will show that a large > percentage of females described themselves as "servants", which meant > simply that > they worked as a domestic for some probably well-off neighbor or perhaps > their landlord. - often a relative, though of different religion! They > were by > no means enslaved or held in servitude or bondage. Many Irish in the USA > seem > so willing to believe the worst, when that was not at all the case. > > A young woman of a non-landed (read Catholic) family in 19th C. Ireland > had > few employment options in rural Ireland. A domestic ("servant") was one > of > the few. If they were unwilling to talk about it, the reason most likely > was > that they would have been looked down upon in the USA as akin to freed > slaves, based on the common perceptions of "servant" at that > time. That's not to > say there weren't some bad employment situations after immigrating here - > but > often avoidable, especially after achieving US citizenship. > > The same applies to males. If one was not of the landed gentry class, > there were few occupations that merited any other designation than > "laborer"?. > Some exceptions I've seen were "carpenter", "farmer", "soldier". There > were > some others, but most were reserved for the ascendancy. Thus a "laborer" > was usually a farm worker, either employed by some other land owner, or > working > his own farm which was leased from someone else. Catholics could only > lease land for periods of 33 years, sometimes renewable especially if > there were > family ties with the lessor, so some families were able to hold onto > property for several generations. If by some chance he were able to > own some land > outright he would be a "farmer" or maybe even "gentleman > farmer" (especially > if he had conformed to the state religion) , but otherwise a "laborer". > > I hope this helps to clarify the matter, > > Len Keane > > > > > > ==== IRL-CLARE Mailing List ==== > If you just want to subscribe to this list or unsubscribe from it, send > e-mail to IRL-CLARE-L-request@rootsweb.com > or (for the digest list) IRL-CLARE-D-request@rootsweb.com and put the word > subscribe or unsubscribe in the message body. > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx > > ==== IRL-CLARE Mailing List ==== If you just want to subscribe to this list or unsubscribe from it, send e-mail to IRL-CLARE-L-request@rootsweb.com or (for the digest list) IRL-CLARE-D-request@rootsweb.com and put the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the message body. ============================== Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.