Indentured Servants in Seventeenth-Century Virginia:

The Legal System’s Complicity in their Collective Abuse

Megan McInerney

History Honors Thesis 2012-2013

Advisor: Dr. Seeman

State University of New York at Buffalo

McInerney 2

Introduction

The year was 1642 and colonial Virginia had begun its transformation into a prosperous

colony with the production of tobacco. As demand for tobacco rose in England, the demand for

indentured servants similarly grew in the Chesapeake in order to sustain a controlled labor force

to cultivate the crop and contribute to planters’ increasing wealth. During this year, records in the

Northampton County Court detail the punishment of a maidservant named Joan, who was

brought to the court by her master, George Traveller, claiming she had absented herself from

service without obtaining his permission. For the misdemeanor of running away, the court

decided Joan deserved “Tenn Lashes upon her bare shoulders,” meaning ten strokes from a

whip.1 The year after this case was judged Virginia began to issue laws dictating the official

punishments for runaway servants, and these statutes evolved throughout the century to add ever

more penalties to the offense. By 1668, on top of their original indenture terms servants were to

serve double the time they were away, provide extra service to pay for the charges spent in

recovering them, and even more service if the time of their running away was during crop

season. They were also expected to be whipped or given other corporal punishment to dissuade

them from running away again.2 On September 7, 1674, Mary Simpson, a servant belonging to

Mr. Richard Robinson, was ordered to not only serve the extra time dictated by the law, but to be

“whiped with one & twenty lashes” as well.3 This clear increase in punishment for the same

1 T.H. Breen and Stephen Innes, Myne Own Ground: Race and Freedom on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, 1640-1676

(New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 63.2

William Waller Hening, “The Statutes at Large: being a collection of all the laws of Virginia, from the first session of the legislature, in the year 1619: published pursuant to an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, passed on the fifth day of February one thousand eight hundred and eight,” vol. 2, Law Library Microform Consortium (1768-1828), 116-117; 266.3 Middlesex County Order Book, no. 1, part 1, Virginia County Court Records: Order Book Abstracts of Middlesex County, Virginia 1673-1678 (The Ancient Press: Ruth and Sam Sparacio, 1989), 17.

McInerney 3

transgression, as ordered by law, represents one of the many declining rights of servants over the

course of the seventeenth century.

In the beginning of the seventeenth century Virginia’s laws toward indentured servants

were very basic and straightforward, generally due to the fact that this system was different than

the servitude practiced in Europe. In order to experiment with the new form of bondage, the laws

dealing with indentured servants basically only defined the master-servant relationship and

distinguished servants from freemen. Over the course of the century Virginians grew accustomed

to the system of indentured servitude and instead of relying on orders from the Crown back in

England, local statutes took over as the law codes for the region. With Virginia colonists

controlling legislation, statutes concerning indentured servants became more numerous and the

rights of servants grew increasingly constrained. Although a few laws may have benefited

servants, the majority of the statutes were fashioned in a way to provide masters with an

advantage and a way to easily manipulate legislation in colonial courts. It would be improper to

characterize all masters as providing equally harsh conditions, but however different their styles

of control, various forms of evidence disclose the overall poor conditions indentured servants

were subject to. The language of the laws in combination with other primary documents from the

period give many hints as to the circumstances of indentured servants, the ways in which their

masters used and abused them, and how the colonial courts played a part in servant mistreatment.

The careful analysis of these sources reveals indentured servants were increasingly abused as a

result of evolving Virginia legislation in the seventeenth century.

Historiography

Although a vast array of historians have studied the laws on indentured servants in

Virginia, I did not encounter any who conducted an analysis of the how the laws changed over

McInerney 4

this time period and more importantly, what effect this had on servant treatment. Nevertheless,

there are various studies that have given opinions on what they believed servant conditions to

have been like altogether. James Curtis Ballagh published a dissertation comparing the situation

of servants in Virginia to that of freedmen. Ballagh explored their ability to acquire property,

receive religious instruction, and give testimony in court.4 On top of these, he noted servants had

several rights from the court of law which would allow them a shortened term or even immediate

freedom if their masters breached contract, misused the servants, or did not fulfill the conditions

stated within the servant’s indenture.5 Ballagh downplayed the non-favorable aspects of

indentured servitude and the ways in which masters and courts could abuse the rights mentioned

above. He briefly mentioned their usual punishment consisted of whipping or additional service

for transgressions such as running away or stealing their master’s goods, however, his main

argument towards the subject is that the conditions of servitude in Virginia were much better

than universally supposed. Ballagh’s reliance on statute law for many points leads me to question

whether or not the treatment of indentured servants was accurately represented by these

prescriptive sources.6

Almost a century later in 1975, Edmund S. Morgan published his American Slavery,

American Freedom which compares indentured servitude in seventeenth-century Virginia to the

institution of slavery. He makes a key point of portraying the role of the legal system in the

abuse of servants. Morgan claims, “The assembly, as always a collection of masters, revised the

4 James Curtis Ballagh, White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia: A Study of the System of Indentured Labor in the American Colonies (New York: Burt Franklin, 1895), 44-45.5 Ballagh, 47-48.6 Prescriptive sources, such as law codes, are limited in the facts they present because they attempt to prescribe something according to how the author thinks it should be. Descriptive sources on the other hand, such as diaries, journals, and newspapers, have their limitations as well, but they attempt to describe something as witnessed or experienced creating a different type of source. For further explanation, see the paragraph below titled “Servant Relationship to Statue Law & Colonial Courts.”

McInerney 5

terms to give themselves and other masters a longer hold on imported labor.”7 In other words,

Morgan argues that the legislative assembly was made up of masters who had an interest to

increasingly restrict the rights of indentured servants in order to keep them in bondage for as

long as possible. He uses examples of laws against runaway servants, “forbidden pleasures,” and

those which extended indenture terms to display the limitations against servants that were made

possible through law.8 In the same way, T.H. Breen and Stephen Innes explore what they

consider to be “the severe legal restraints placed upon servants,” because they realized this was

scarcely studied compared to the extensive research on slave codes.9 In their 1980 work titled

Myne Own Ground, Breen and Innes examine the role of specific laws in abusing servants. But

similar to Morgan, they do not account for how these laws changed over the century. Breen and

Innes suggest that the Virginia colonial legislature was generally concerned with controlling

servants instead of improving their quality of life. The county courts only told masters to mend

their ways without actually enforcing their rulings.10

Along the same lines, Douglas J. Deal and James Horn examine the role of the legal

system in servants’ collective abuse. In his 1993 Race and Class in Colonial Virginia, Deal

studies how masters made laws, decided court cases, and generally treated their servants in a way

to create and maintain clear class distinctions. He learns that both servants and masters were

restricted by laws and customs, but ultimately decides: “there were no questions on whose side

the balance of power lay on.” He found only one court case on the Eastern Shore in the

seventeenth century in which a master was charged with murder of a servant; and the master was

acquitted anyway at the General Court in James City. Deal also states, “When a runaway died,

7 Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1975), 216.8 For detailed examples of these restrictions see E.S. Morgan, 216-223. Also, see Morgan’s article titled “Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox” for even further explanation.9 Breen & Innes, 62.10 Breen & Innes, 60-67.

McInerney 6

the justices bent over backward to absolve the master of all responsibility for the outcome.”11

Clearly, through his investigations of Virginia statutes and court records, Deal came to the

conclusion that the legal system favored masters over servants and so played a major role in their

mistreatment. Similarly, in Horn’s 1994 Adapting to a New World, he speaks of colonial

legislation itself as a sign of the harsh conditions of indentured servitude. In outlawing private

burials, restricting masters who impregnated their servants to get extra service, and by cautioning

masters about improper punishments, Virginia statutes reveal how servants were ill fed, hard

worked, and physically abused.12 Horn even studies the language of the laws and discovers that

such words as “the custome of the country,” “harsh,” and “unchristianlike” were left to the

discretion of the county courts in judging what these could entail.13 Due to the makeup of these

courts being mostly masters, the planters had the license to treat servants how they pleased.

The books by Morgan, Breen and Innes, Deal, and Horn support my argument by

showing how unfairly the legal system treated indentured servants. In using an equal balance of

prescriptive and descriptive primary sources, their arguments are reliable and supported by

evidence that can be said to be less biased than a historian who focuses more strongly on

prescriptive sources, such as Ballagh. Although the works by Morgan, Breen and Innes, Deal,

and Horn study how the laws provided harsh conditions for servants, all of their analyses portray

the laws as being static entities. Instead of noticing how the statutes on indentured servants

changed over the seventeenth century, these historians refer to the laws in general when

discussing their complicity in servant abuse. I will be taking this argument a step further by

showing how the statutes changed over the century, and analyzing how this allowed the legal

11 Douglas J. Deal, Race and Class in Colonial Virginia: Indians, Englishmen, and Africans on the Eastern Shore During the Seventeenth Century (New York, London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993), 94; 98; 100.12 James Horn, Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill, London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1994). For details on this colonial legislation see pages 269-270.13 Horn, 269.

McInerney 7

system to increasingly restrict servant rights. The studies of Morgan, Breen and Innes, Deal, and

Horn are correct in realizing that laws did play a role in mistreating servants, but I will be putting

a greater emphasis on how this abuse was ever growing due to the changing statutes throughout

the time period. Morgan touches on the aspect of change over time by realizing how the laws

toward runaway servants added more and more time onto their indentures for punishment, but he

does not take into account how all of the laws were subject to this mounting exploitation. Even

though we study the same statutes, these historians compare them with different court records

which may account for my unique viewpoint. However, all of our evidence supports an

overarching conclusion that Virginia laws contributed to the harsh conditions of indentured

servitude. Overall, my argument is distinguished by its focus on the entire legal system being

complicit in servant abuse, and most importantly, how the evolving statutes over the seventeenth

century made possible the increasing mistreatment of indentured servants.

Basics of Indentured Servitude

General Facts & Conditions

In order to better understand the changing conditions of indentured servants throughout

the seventeenth century, it is necessary to explore the background of the institution and its

defining aspects. For nine months out of the year, tobacco cultivation in Virginia required

constant labor to plant the crop, take care of it, ensure its growth, pack and ship it, and clear the

fields for the next season. Free labor was expensive and scarce in the New World and the

population had trouble reproducing due to the high death rates that plagued the Chesapeake area.

With the intention of enlisting bound laborers, Virginia planters in the early 1600s tried their turn

at enslaving Native Americans and even a small proportion of African slaves. But Indians

quickly passed away once exposed to European diseases or if they lived, could escape back to

McInerney 8

their tribes; while slaves were expensive since they were in bondage for life. On the other hand,

bringing white servants over from Europe seemed to be more economical because they would

only serve temporarily in Virginia, which was a place on average with a short life expectancy

rate anyways. As a result, the institution of indentured servitude was born: a new institution,

different from apprenticeship and “servants in husbandry” which existed back in England.14

Indentured servitude acquired its name from the written contract or indenture servants and

masters signed at the beginning of their terms. This was basically a printed document detailing

the length of time a person would serve, in exchange for what commodities, and any other

conditions the master felt necessary to include. At first, this contract was made before the servant

boarded a ship across the Atlantic, and it was in exchange for payment of the person’s passage to

America: this was the debt the servant would then labor for a certain number of years of his or

her life to pay off. As time went on, more servants began coming over on ships without

indentures. Instead, they entered into contract when they reached the shore and were subject to

local laws and practices.15

Over the course of the seventeenth century, about three-quarters of all emigrants to the

Chesapeake were indentured servants (about 90,000 out of 120,000).16 The majority of these

servants were unmarried males between the ages of 15 and 25 who according to the registers

kept at English seaports, “were laborers, who owned nothing, or journeymen artisans, who

possessed a skill and some tools but no shop.”17 Before 1620, most indentures were forcibly

transported as criminals or unwanted orphans to be shipped out of Europe and put to work in

14 Kenneth Morgan, Slavery and Servitude in Colonial America: A Short History (New York: York University Press, 2001), 10.15 Kenneth Morgan, 8. He compares and contrasts each of these three institutions, coming to the conclusion that indentured servitude was the harshest because servants could be bought and sold without their consent.16 Taylor, 142.17 David W. Galenson, White Servitude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis (Cambridge, London, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 26. The ratio of men to women was about 3:1; this was probably because men mostly worked in the fields while women were usually housekeepers and maidservants.

McInerney 9

America, but after this year the great majority were technically volunteers.18 Indentured servants

were unpaid during their terms – they received the necessary food, clothing, and shelter just

sufficient enough to keep them alive and able to work. When they were finished serving, masters

were supposed to give them “freedom dues” which usually consisted of a new set of clothes,

tools, and food.19 Relations between masters and servants are difficult to recapture due to the

absence of many surviving diaries, letters, and other primary sources from both parties during the

seventeenth century in Virginia. From what historians could tell, indentured servants usually

lived harsh, short lives and died from either disease or being overworked – according to historian

Alan Taylor, “The intense labor of tobacco cultivation peaked with the blistering sun, soaring

temperatures, thick humidity, and voracious mosquitos of the long, hot Chesapeake summer.”20

The unforgiving conditions of the environment were just one small part of the rough

conditions servants lived and worked under. Indentured servants were fundamentally property,

not people. They could be bought and sold, passed on to heirs, and were sometimes even

transferred to pay off gambling debts: court records from Lancaster County on March 7, 1670

displayed a case in which a man named Thomas Chetwode sold a woman servant, Isabel

Williamson, because he was “indebted to Mr. Walter Warton.”21 The earliest laws recorded on

indentured servants also revealed they were treated worse than freemen from the very start of the

institution. On March 21, 1624 James I passed Act 30 which stated servants were “fitt to

18 Taylor, 143; 142. There were also a great many indentured servants who were coaxed into going to the Chesapeake either by promotional tracts and recruiters, or were forcibly kidnapped by “shadowy recruiting agents” known as “Spirits.” For further information see: Kenneth Morgan, 16-17; Peter C. Mancall, ed., Emvisioning America: English Plans for the Colonization of North America, 1580-1640 (Boston: Bedford Books, 1995), 3, 112-132.19 Taylor, 142. During the first quarter of the seventeenth century servants in Virginia were promised fifty acres of land at the end of their terms, but this practice quickly vanished as land became scarcer. 20 Taylor, 143.21 Lindsay O. Duval, ed., Virginia Colonial Abstracts, Series 2, vol. 2, Lancaster County, Virginia 1656-1689 Court Orders and Deeds (South Carolina: Southern Historical Press, 1979), 45-46.

McInerney 10

undergoe corporol punishment” for crimes in which a freeman would be imprisoned or fined.22

The distinction between indentured servants and freemen was further exemplified by the 1632

law under Charles I specifying that while a freeman would be imprisoned for one month if he did

not notify the government upon sighting a Native American, a servant was to be degraded by

being whipped with twenty lashes.23 Although this punishment was mild compared to what it

would become in the later years of the seventeenth century, indentured servants were already

subject to worse conditions than free people in early colonial Virginia. The comparison between

laws and local court records perhaps may be the best source of evidence to recapture the true

conditions of indentured servants. Although law codes could be very effective primary sources

because they give a general model for what ideal conduct was projected to be within a society,

they may fail to account for the accurate behavior of the colonists, many of whom did not always

follow the expectations. Comparing these local statues with various Virginia court proceedings

will provide the foundation for viewing how the legal system increasingly abused servants.

The Role of Masters & Courts in Abusing Indentured Servants

In seventeenth-century Virginia, the legal system encompassed not just the laws and the

lawmaking body, but was connected to the entire framework of government. This included all of

the court systems and more indirectly, the upper class of society that was made up of the masters

of indentured servants. In arguing that changes in legislation contributed to the increasing abuse

of servants, it is necessary to understand that the legal system included all of the associations

mentioned above. Virginia statutes, lawmakers, local court systems, and more generally, masters,

all worked together to increasingly degrade indentured servants through the alterations made to

22 William Waller Hening, “The Statutes at Large: being a collection of all the laws of Virginia, from the first session of the legislature, in the year 1619: published pursuant to an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, passed on the fifth day of February one thousand eight hundred and eight,” vol. 1, Law Library Microform Consortium (1768-1828), 116-117; 127.23 Hening, vol. 1, 127.

McInerney 11

laws over the century. In order to comprehend how legislation had such an effect, we must

explore how each of these institutions played its part in the system.

Servant Relationship to Statute Law & Colonial Courts

Due to the formation of indentured servitude, a unique relationship developed between

servants and the legal system. According to a rule given by the English monarchy upon the

founding of the American colonies, colonial legislatures had been given the power to “abrogate

every part of the common law, except that which united the colonies to the parent state by the

general ties of allegiance and dependency.”24 In other words, Virginia lawmakers could

determine how much of the English law they would apply to their colony as long as they kept

their loyalty to the mother country of England. Since indentured servitude was a brand new

institution with few laws, the regulations of the system mainly became dictated by local statue

law and customary practice. When studying the statutes as they applied to indentured servants, it

is important to keep in mind these laws did not reflect actual practices. Historian Winthrop

Jordan perhaps provided the best explanation of what statutes may have revealed: “While

statutes usually speak falsely as to actual behavior, they afford probably the best single means of

ascertaining what a society thinks behavior ought to be; they sweep up the felt necessities of the

day and indirectly expound the social norms of the legislators.”25 The Virginia statutes towards

indentured servants were not evidence of their conditions, but were rules made by masters who

wanted them to be followed. Although the comparison between these laws and court records may

expose how indentured servants were actually treated, in constructing such increasingly harsh

statutes to control servant behavior masters were already trying to restrict their rights.

24 John Codman Hurd, The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States, vol. 1 (Boston: Little, Brown 7 Company, 1858), 223.25 Winthrop D. Jordan, White Over Black: American Attitudes toward the Negro 1550-1812, 2d ed. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 588.

McInerney 12

In the same way, Virginia statutes were in essence guidelines which cannot be assumed

to have always been enforced. Key words in the laws provided leeway, especially in relation to

regulations protecting servants – county courts could hold trials, execute sentences, and enforce

provincial legislation, but they did not always follow through with those parameters according to

how statutes dictated they should. As evidenced by various historians, the courts in which

Virginia cases were adjudged were made up of masters.26 According to one of these, Alan

Taylor, “In the Chesapeake, the county courts regulated indentured servitude on behalf of the

master class. Themselves wealthy planters, the judges almost always sided with masters accused

of denying food and clothing to their servants or of inflicting especially brutal punishments.

Even when servants died, the court preferred to exonerate the master.”27 Clearly, the colonial

courts played a key role in contributing to the increasingly harsh conditions of indentured

servants. Even further, over the seventeenth century in Northampton County, Virginia, the

majority of servant complaints against their masters were decided in favor of the master.28 It is

easy to see how masters were willing to override every part of the legal system to ensure their

servants were politically defenseless and able to work as cheap, disciplined laborers. Even

though indentured servants were given the right to petition the court, only a small minority did so

probably because of the strong odds against them. The legal system held most servants in their

place enough that they likely accepted their status as dependents and their vulnerability to

personal discomfort and privation.

Widespread Mistreatment of Servants

26 Warren M. Billings, ed., The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary History of Virginia, 1606-1689 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975), 133. Also, see Winthrop Jordan, 588; Alan Taylor 143-144; Breen & Innes 63.27 Taylor, 143-144.28 Breen & Innes, 63.

McInerney 13

Before we investigate the role of laws specifically in the abuse of indentured servants, it

will be helpful to look at some general cases of servant mistreatment. It was in the planters’

interests to extract as much work as possible from their servants, but to still keep them alive

despite their exhaustion. The earliest laws of the Virginia Company of London, the founding

venture of the Virginia colony, towards indentured servants revealed how truly bad conditions

were for them. An act made on October 23, 1622 plainly stated that plantations wronged servants

because masters made them serve “upon intollerable and unchristianlike condicons upon

promises of such rewards and recompence, as they were no wayes able to performe nor ever

meant.” Another act in 1623 repeated the same concept, adding that “masters in Virginia doe

much neglect and abuse their servants.”29 The Virginia Company of London recognized that

masters were putting indentured servants under overly harsh conditions. Since this document is

from the early 1600s, the Virginia Company of London was not yet subject to the opinions of

masters in formatting legislation that would increasingly degrade servants. Other sources

provided by servants in 1623 seem to exaggerate how bad conditions were because they were

writing to their families; but since the Virginia Company of London evidenced unfortunate

circumstances as well, the sources may prove to be reliable. For example, Richard Frethorne was

a servant living in 1623 Virginia who wrote to his parents in England for support because he

claimed “I have eaten more in day at home than I have allowed me here for a Week.”30

Records of the Virginia colonial courts contribute to the literature evidencing the growing

abuse of servants over the seventeenth century. The minutes from the Council and General Court

of Colonial Virginia documented a wide variety of these cases. In 1625 the registers had three

29 Virginia Company of London, The Records of the Virginia Company of London, vol. 2, Susan M. Kinsbury, ed. (Washington: Govt. print. off., 1906), 113; 442.30 Karen Ordahl Kupperman, ed., Major Problems in Colonial History, 2d ed. (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000), 65. For another example of a servant complaining of starving in 1623, see the letter of Thomas Best in Va. Co. London, vol. 2, 235.

McInerney 14

separate proceedings involving indentured servant mistreatment. On April 11, a case involved a

servant boy, John Verone, who was found hanging from a chain in a loft of his master’s house.

Seven witnesses all testified in accordance with Robert Edmundes, the examiner, who did not

find “any blowes or stripes uppon his body” and had never heard of the servant complain of

hardships in his life. The jury found John Verone guilty of suicide. Whether this servant did

willfully take his own life or even if the ruling was incorrect and his master murdered him, either

conclusion reveals the harsh conditions of servitude. On April 14, two servants were recorded to

have complained about the meager rations they received as passengers while onboard a ship as

servants, further portraying the mistreatment these people were subject to.31 And finally, on

December 29, 1625, a ship master was so horrified by the cruel treatment of indentured servants

that he refused to play a role in shipping them to Virginia. He said that his “mate” would starve

them and that “servants were sold here upp & downe like horses and therefore he held it not

lawfull to carie any.”32 This man, who would economically benefit from bringing servants to

Virginia, could not bring himself to let people endure such mistreatment.

Later in the century, further cases show the increasing degradation of servants. A 1657

record from York County provided information about a servant, John Wells, who complained

that his master denied him a “cure” when he had “a very soare and much perished Legg.”33 The

master, Robert Crouch, forced this indentured servant to work despite his injury – a hardship that

would not have been endured by a freeman. Subsequently, in the counties of York and

Accomack, there were other records of indentured servants committing suicide during their terms

of service, first in 1658 and again in 1664.34 Once more, much can be inferred from the servants’

31 McIlwaine, 54.32 McIlwaine, 82.33 Beverley Fleet, ed., Virginia Colonial Abstracts, vol. 26, York County 1648-1657 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961), 85.34 On April 24, 1658 William Bennett was recorded to have “murdered himself by drowning.” Information for this case was provided by: Lindsay O. Duval, ed., Virginia Colonial Abstracts, series 2, vol. 5, York County, Virginia,

McInerney 15

actions if they truly did commit suicide or even if they were killed by their master’s order. Their

deaths either way were related to the harsh circumstances the servants were living under. Even as

late as 1696, there was evidence of servant mistreatment within Virginia colonial court records.

After maidservant Sarah Gambrell was found dead in the house of her masters, Ann and Henry

Davis, the court received testimony about her murder. John Marter, an ex-servant, reported that

Ann Davis “did unmercifully beate hir [Sarah Gambrell] with an Iron about fourteen Inches

Long and also upon the Eleventh of this Instent did beat [her] three times…and Sarah dyed the

same day.” Two neighbors also testified to have witnessed or heard Sarah’s beatings multiple

times and also that she had been starved. Eventually, Ann Davis was charged in Jamestown with

murder.35 Despite the outcome of this case which actually did blame the killing of a servant on a

master, the painful conditions of Sarah Gambrell’s life exposed yet another situation in which

indentured servants were increasingly subject to mistreatment.

Cases of Courts Exploiting Servant Rights

Although colonial courts did sometimes uphold the rights of servants, they played a

major role in the legal system by contributing to the abuse of indentured servants. On the tenth of

October in 1624, a case was presented to the General Court of Virginia in which it seemed a

maid servant was beaten to death by her master. There were multiple testimonies from other

servants and also gentlemen who probably had similar social rankings to that of Mr. Proctor, the

master being accused of such horrible mistreatment. These accounts varied in their descriptions

of the treatment of the said servant, Elizabeth Abbott. Mr. Thomas Gates said he not only

witnessed the whipping of the servant, but also heard Mr. Proctor say he did not care as to

Wills, Deeds, Orders 1657-1659 (South Carolina: Southern Historical Press, 1978), 29. Similarly, on April 8, 1664, Edward Whittel was judged to have hung himself in a tobacco house on the plantation of his master. Information for this case was provided by: Warren M. Billings, ed., The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary History of Virginia, 1606-1689 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975), 143.35 Darret B. Rutman, A Place in Time: Middlesex County, Virginia 1650-1750 (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Compnay, 1984), 136; 136-137.

McInerney 16

whether she was killed: “it were no matter if shee were hanged.” In his testimony, Mr. Gates also

made it clear that he believed this severe mistreatment, some five hundred lashes from the whip,

to have caused her death because her body “was grevous to behold” and “in some places was raw

and very black and blew.” Another witness offered divergent testimony. Richard Grove, a fellow

servant under Mr. Proctor, frequently observed Elizabeth Abbott being whipped as punishment

for running away, but never did she receive more than twenty to thirty lashes in his account.36

There were fifteen witnesses who had some say in the matter, eleven of which gave evidence of

severe punishment by Mr. Proctor. Nevertheless, her mistreatment did not matter to the court

which deemed the beatings necessary and dropped the case; even though Mr. Proctor had been

accused once before for killing another servant with a rake and got away with it, the courts once

again sided with the master.

Beginning in 1643, lawmakers started to incorporate some rights into the statutes which

seemed to protect indentured servants from the abuses of their masters. At first glance these laws

appeared to better the conditions of servants, but upon closer look they revealed loopholes which

left true discretion up to the colonial courts – or more blatantly, the assemblage of masters. Act

XXII of 1643 gave servants the right to complain against their master if they had been subject to

“harsh or unchristianlike usage or otherways for want of diet, or convenient necessaryes.” This

right to petition the court would seem to be for the benefit of the servants, but the wording at the

end of the act exposed the advantage masters had over this privilege. In order for a commissioner

to do anything, he had to find “good and sufficient proofes” to support the servant’s complaint.

And even if he did find such evidence of misusage, the courts were required only to warn the

master.37 Therefore, there was more than a little room for leeway of masters in this statute. They

36 McIlwaine, 22-24; 22; 22; 23.37 Hening, vol. 1, 255.

McInerney 17

were also left to define what the terms “harsh” and “unchristianlike” entailed in terms of masters

punishing servants. It must have been extremely difficult for servants to come up with proof

against their master in a legal system which used all of its power to keep them in servitude for as

long as possible. On top of all of this, it is likely that few servants were willing to take the chance

to bring their complaints to court if they were probably going to be shut down or their master

only let off with a warning and vengeance towards the servant. According to historian James

Horn, only in cases where servants were repeatedly abused by their masters did the courts

threaten to or actually remove servants.38

In looking at records across the seventeenth century, it is easy to demonstrate how

indentured servants were increasingly subject to abuse by courts, which worked together with the

statutes such as the one mentioned above. On July 31, 1649, there was evidence of a Lower

Norfolk County case in which the legal system limited a servant’s rights. John Mulders gave

testimony that his fellow servant, Charity Dallen, had been beaten by their mistress “more Liken

a dogge then a Christian,” and told of seeing her arm “which was full of black and blew bruises

and pinches, and her necke Likewise.” Despite her clear mistreatment, Dallen was reluctant to

petition the court with her complaint and did so only when Mulders promised to not tell their

mistress, Deborah Fernehaugh. In the end, Lower Norfolk County Court accused Fernehaugh of

misusing her servant only after Dallen had complained multiple times, and evidence had been

gathered from both Muldears and a Michaell Mikaye.39 This case shows how hard it was for

servants to initiate legal action because they would probably reap the consequences for doing so,

as Charity Dallen did by suffering her master’s punishments. Even though Act XXII may have

38 Horn, 270.39 Billings, 137.

McInerney 18

seemed like it was put in place to protect servant rights, the local courts used the statutes to their

advantage in order to contribute to the abuse of servants.

In 1658 the Virginia legislature revised Act XXII of 1643, but only changed the wording

of the statute to make it further benefit masters. Servants were now justified to complain due to

“harsh or bad usage,” instead of “harsh or unchristianlike usage,” as it was termed before.40

Substituting the word “bad” in place of “unchristianlike” seemed to place a narrower connotation

on the phrase, adding on to the range of intolerable conditions masters could get away with.

When studying the cases of local courts after this date, more servant grievances were deemed

false than in the early 1600s. In 1658 York County, Abraham Harman and Samuel Harrison,

servants of Mr. Thomas Beale, complained to the court against their master. Since they did not

have “sufficient evidence,” both servants were ordered to receive twenty lashes from the whip

and made to promise they would not make any more “causeless complaints” against Thomas

Beale.41 Along the same lines, the General Court of Virginia recorded a suit in 1671 in which a

servant, Mary Merebath, protested against her master but the complaint was deemed “false and

scandalous” and she was ordered twenty lashes on her bare back.42 Even later in the century there

was a 1681 case in Accomack County in which two servants accused their master of taking a

fellow servant’s life. The petition was reasoned to be “a false and most malicious accusation by

the said servants combination contrived thereby hopeing to acquitt themselves of the notorious

wrong they had done their said Master.” The court not only deemed the servants’ complaint to be

untrue, but accused them of murder and they were ordered to serve their master extra time at the

40 Hening, vol. 1, 440.41 Duval, vol. 5, 58. According to Deal on page 101, another indentured servant, John Sanderson, complained of “harsh usage” in 1664 and his master was only ordered “to post bond for good behavior.”42 McIlwaine, 248.

McInerney 19

expiration of their indentures.43 Thus, the Virginia colonial courts contributed to the increasing

abuse of servants by siding with masters in the majority of servant complaints against them.

Masters’ Cruelties in Laws Protecting Servants

Just as the Virginia colonial courts played a role in the legal system, the masters

themselves were a major factor in facilitating the growing abuse of indentured servants. Like the

laws studied above, many statutes were put into place to seemingly protect servants and provide

them with some minor rights. But once again, most of the legislation was written in a way to give

masters an advantage over their servants. However, there were also cases in which masters

abused the protections of servants and mistreated them in their own ways. In comparing the laws

with the primary sources included in this study, there were a few which gave rights to servants

that were not neglected by masters. These are the statutes which could be used to argue against

the central thesis of this paper since they provide servants with some protection from their

masters. But in fact this legislation was passed during only one decade of the 1600s, and there

were still masters who misused their servants through the loopholes in these laws or if necessary,

by disregarding them altogether.

In order to give a sense of the statutes that were made to deliver rights to servants, those

which seemed to have been upheld by masters will be studied first. In 1678 the Commonwealth

passed Act VIII which demanded masters of ships to provide “poor servants” with sufficient

“cloaths,” bedding, and “diett” onboard their voyage to Virginia.44 This law was maintained in

1662, titled Act CXXVI under Charles II.45 The term “poor servants” could again be left to the

discretion of the county courts in deciding which servants would fall under this description. Two

more laws were also passed in 1662 which seemed to benefit servants. Act II gave servants the

43 Billings, 144.44 Hening, vol. 1, 435.45 Hening, vol. 2, 129.

McInerney 20

right to goods that may have been brought with them or would be sent from their families back in

England. Act VI is a bit more complicated because it actually stated the reason for making it had

to do with the abuses of masters; the statute said: “Whereas by act of Assembly every woman

servant having a bastard is to serve two years, and late experience shew that some dissolute

masters have gotten their maides with child, and yet claime the benefit of their service.” The

maidservants in this situation were to be sold for two years to the parish in place of serving extra

time to their masters.46 The lack of court suits in defiance of each of these laws could either mean

no servants were brave enough to speak up if they were in fact abused, or that masters did indeed

follow these rules.

Nevertheless, the majority of the statutes which seemed to protect indentured servants

were in reality ignored by masters who used the legal system to help them exploit the bound

laborers. Act XV of 1662 required every servant and free person to be buried in mandatory

public burial sites at local parishes. The law also required three or four neighbors to view the

corpse before it was put in the ground because servants for the most part had been “buryed

without the knowledge or view of any others than such of the family.” These private burials

allowed for “much scandal against diverse persons and sometimes not undeservedly of being

guilty of their deaths.”47 In other words, the statute seemed to protect servants from being

murdered by their masters and privately buried to cover up the crime. But the wording of the law

already showed the biases of lawmakers towards masters by referring to the deaths of servants

being “not undeservedly.” There were various cases of masters disregarding this statute,

including one that was exposed relatively recently. Archaeologists discovered a human skeleton

buried in the cellar of a house on the site of Leavy Neck, a small seventeenth century farm in

46 Hening, vol. 2, 167.47 Hening, vol. 2, 53.

McInerney 21

Virginia. After collecting evidence, historians concluded the body must have belonged to an

indentured servant living with a family on the property between 1663 and 1680. The hidden

circumstances of his burial and the trauma in his bones suggested he was abused and overworked

to the point of death. 48 Clearly, his masters had secretly discarded of the servant’s body to hide

their mistreatment of him and their violation of Act XV.

The other laws which seemed to give rights to servants were likewise neglected by

masters. An act in 1662 regulated that masters were to provide sufficient “dyett clothing and

lodging” and were not to “exceed the bounds of moderation in correcting them [servants] beyond

the merit of their offences.” Although this statute would appear to have protected servants from

starving and being physically injured by their master’s punishments, the courts were again left to

interpret the definitions of the terms and when they applied. In the same way, the wording of the

law revealed the legislation was only made for the benefit of the country, not the servants. The

first line of the statute stated: “Whereas the barbarous usage of some servants by cruell masters

bring soe much scandal and infamy to the country in generall, that the people who would

willingly adventure themselves hither, are through feare thereof diverted, and by that meanes the

supplies of particuler men and the well seating his majesties country very much obstructed.”49

Therefore, the act was passed in attempts to encourage more indentured servant emigration to

Virginia; the wording did not even mention the conditions of servants themselves being too harsh

or in need of guidelines. And once more, there is record of a master disregarding the legislation.

In 1689, Mary Tabb complained to the York County Court of “ill usage” from her master when

she was “in a very Lambe Condicon.” The court even ordered William Mansfeild, her master, to

48 Smithsonian Institution, “The Body in the Basement,” Smithsonian Museum of National History, web.49 Hening, vol. 2, 117-118.

McInerney 22

pay the charges that were required in curing her.50 All in all, masters played a significant role in

the increasing abuse of indentured servants.

Role of Laws in Abusing Indentured Servants

Adding on to the assemblage of colonial courts and masters, the Virginia legal system

included, most visibly, the laws that governed indentured servants. Over the course of the

seventeenth century, these statutes evolved as lawmakers sought to impose ever more restrictions

on servants. The laws that dealt with servant rights were studied above and shown to be biased

towards masters and worded specifically for the easy manipulation of local courts. In the same

way, legislation restricting indentured servants was composed of similar limitations to worsen

their conditions and contribute to the cruelty of the legal system. It is the changing laws over

time that will set this argument apart from those given by other historians. Throughout the 1600s,

four categories of laws reveal the growing mistreatment of bound laborers: those dealing with

indentures, sexual relations, runaway servants, and servant activities. Through the careful

analysis of the statutes composing each of these sections, it will be evidenced how indentured

servants were increasingly abused as a result of the changing Virginia legislation over the

seventeenth century.

Defining Terms of Indentures

There were two ways in which an indentured servant could enter him or herself under

contract. In the beginning of the century, the most common way was for a person to sign an

indenture in Europe before boarding the ship to America. Through this manner, servants who

50 Crandall Shiffett, “Virtual Jamestown,” Virginia Center for Digital History, University of Virginia, 1999-2007, web. Quoted from York Labor Complaints, Book 8, page 312. The final law which gave the impression of protecting servants was passed in 1677, titled Act VII. For the wording of the law see Hening, vol. 2, 388. Masters abused this statute as well. For information on those cases see: Beverly Fleet, ed., Virginia Colonial Abstracts, vol. 32, Accomack, 1637-1640 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, Co., 1961), 76-77; and the case of John Talbert from Billings, 135.

McInerney 23

could not afford the trip to North America would have their passage paid for by someone already

in the New World. This was then the person to whom the servant would be bound in order to

work for a number of years to pay off the debt. On the other hand, those servants who boarded

the ship without written documentation would be indentured according to the “custom of the

country” once they landed in Virginia. During the latter part of the century, this style became the

popular way for servants to become indentured. This was most likely due to the fact that the

“custom of the country” was regulated by the statutes of Virginia and was subject to the

increasing manipulation of the legal system. According to historians Oscar and Mary Handlin,

indentures were frequently “without definite statement of terms under the assumption that the

custom of the country was definite enough.”51 Masters of servants could create their own

definition of what this expression meant because of the ways in which legislation was worded.

This led to very different indentures for servants as to how long they were to serve their master

and what they would receive in terms of “freedom dues” once they finished.

Servants without Indentures upon Arrival

Servants who were indentured in Virginia were at a severe disadvantage because they

relied on the statutes of the colony to dictate their terms of service. John Hammond, author of a

pamphlet describing life in Virginia, warned prospective servants: “be sure to have your contract

in writing and under hand and seal, for if you go over upon promise made to do this and that, or

to be free or your own man, it signifies nothing.”52 Hammond was cautioning servants to do

whatever they could to avoid being subject to the laws of Virginia in defining their indentures.

He probably felt the need to do so after experiences of servants such as Thomas Damer. Damer

was a servant who signed a four year indenture with a merchant, Thomas Tolson, before he 51 Oscar & Mary F. Handlin, “Origins of the Southern Labor System,” in Africans Become Afro-Americans: Selected Articles on Slavery in the American Colonies, ed. Peter Charles Hoffer (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998), 3.52 Breen, 60. Quoted from page 11 of Hammond’s pamphlet titled “Leah and Rachel.”

McInerney 24

boarded a ship to Virginia. Upon arrival though, Damer was sold “according to the custom of the

country” for seven years instead.53 Losing or damaging an indenture, being sold to another

master on different terms, or being duped such as Thomas Damer was, were all conditions under

which servants were forced to serve longer than they originally contracted. In Lower Norfolk

County, Francis and Thomas Brooke were both indentured to Henry Corbin for four years.

Corbin sold them to Colonel Nathaniel Utie whom they served for a year, and then were sold

again to Mr. Joseph Wicks for four years. This being a year longer than the terms of their

indentures, the Brooke brothers petitioned to the court for their freedom. They were ordered by

the county court to “returne againe” to their master and “serve him Two yeares longer, then…

[they] first covenanted for.”54 Clearly, the Virginia legal system used their power over indentures

to hold servants in bondage for as long as possible.

In looking at the Virginia statutes dictating the common length of indenture terms and

how they evolved over the course of the seventeenth century, it is easy to see how indentured

servants were increasingly exploited. In 1643, Act XXVI was passed regulating how long

servants were to serve as related to their age when they arrived in the colony: those over twenty

years old were to serve four years, those above twelve and less than twenty were to serve five

years, and the indentured servants under twelve years old were to serve seven years.55 By the

year 1658, the Commonwealth had passed another law defining the indenture terms of servants.

Act XVIII stated all servants above the age of sixteen would serve four years, while all those

below sixteen would serve until they reached age twenty-one. Although indentured servants

between the ages of sixteen and twenty were now serving only four years instead of five, the

servants under sixteen now had to serve until age twenty-one. This term was much longer than 53 Horn, 271. Similarily, Horn tells of another servant by the name of Richard Chapman. His indenture was found “nott to be authentick, but only a Certificatt from some office in England nott signed by any p’son” (Horn, 272).54 Horn, 271-272. 55 Hening, vol. 1, 257.

McInerney 25

serving five years, and those under twelve years old could be serving double the time they had

before. Adding on to that, Act XVIII decided the “courts to be judges of their ages.”56 No matter

what age a servant came into the country as, the colonial courts had the power to make them into

whichever age they wanted. On June 24, 1659 a “girlie” brought over by Captain Juniper Flower

was judged to be “but 10 years old,” even though she had claimed to be age twelve.57 It is evident

how the local courts worked together with legislation to make sure indentured servants would

serve the longest terms possible.

Continuing on with the changing laws on indentures, in 1662 Act XCVIH lengthened the

terms of indentured servants even further. All servants above the age the age of sixteen were now

to serve five years, while those below age sixteen were to serve until age twenty-four. On top of

that, masters could claim the privilege of requiring the court to “make inspection and judge of

their ages,” if he was not satisfied with the length of his servants’ indenture terms.58 Act XCVIH

was obviously harsher than the previous ones on the same subject, which is further supported by

an example from 1664. A record from the Surry County Deed Books revealed this statute was

even stricter than what some masters would have required it to be. A merchant named Lott

Richards sold his servant, William Freeman, for the term of eight years even though he had only

judged him to be about eleven years old.59 Although the law dictated that an indentured servant

of eleven years of age was supposed to serve until age twenty-four, a master did not even feel

this extensive length of time was necessary. In the year 1666, a final act toward this issue was

made to increase the age in which servants would only serve five years to be nineteen years old.

56 Hening, vol. 1, 441.57 Duval, vol. 5, 38. Also in 1700, Northumberland Court recorded a complaint from servants Katherine and Owen Swillivant, who said that “Capt. William Thornton whose ship they arrived here in did deteyne their indentures.” The ship master was working with the system of laws, probably so the servants’ ages could be judged by the court and they would be forced to serve longer terms. Taken from: Duval, Lindsay O., ed., Virginia Colonial Abstracts, series 2, vol. 1, Northumberland County, Virginia 1678-1713 (South Carolina: Southern Historical Press, 1979), 78.58 Hening, vol. 2, 113-114.59 Billings, 136.

McInerney 26

All indentured servants younger than this, including those between ages sixteen and nineteen,

would have to serve until they were twenty-four years of age.60 Compared to the indentures made

before servants arrived in Virginia, the terms defined by Virginia laws were significantly longer

and did not have special circumstances included in them to better conditions.61

Freedom Dues

The changing practices around “freedom dues” also show how indentured servants were

progressively abused throughout seventeenth-century Virginia. Freedom dues varied in each

colony and for that reason were determined by local customary practice instead of laws. In

Virginia, servants received land and clothing at the expiration of their indentures until the year

1626, but then were no longer given land at the end of their service.62 After this year, the “custom

of the country” dictated the standards for freedom dues and usually referred to “a new suit of

clothes, three barrels of corn (a year’s provision) and, occasionally, tools such as axes and hoes.”

In total, all of these items were worth about 450 to 500 pounds of tobacco.63 The only exceptions

to these Virginia customs were once again, those indentures made in Europe prior to a servant’s

passage across the Atlantic. In all of the documents analyzed for this study, the only two

indenture forms which mentioned land after 1626 were signed in London and thus, not subject to

the local regulations of Virginia.64 It is already apparent how indentured servants in Virginia

60 Hening, vol. 2, 240. Edmund Morgan (216) discovered in the Lancaster County records from 1662 to 1680 that only 32 out of 296 indentured servants were judged to be age 19 or older; and in Norfolk County only 1 out of 72. This shows how the colonial courts worked with legislation to keep servants in bondage for as long as possible.61 For examples of indentures which were made before the passage and thus did not follow the laws of Virginia in 1668, 1678, and 1688, see these three sources: Duval, Lindsay O., ed., Virginia Colonial Abstracts, series 2, vol. 2, Lancaster County, Virginia 1656-1680 Court Orders and Deeds (South Carolina: Southern Historical Press, 1979), 42; Middlesex County Order Book No. 1, part III, Virginia County Court Records: Order Book Abstracts of Middlesex County, Virginia 1677-1680 (The Ancient Press: Ruth and Sam Sparacio, 1989), 21; Billings, 135.62 Kenneth Morgan, 9.63 Deal, 129.64 In 1635, a blank indenture form in London gave servants “one whole yeeres provision of Corne, and fifty acres of Land.” Similarly, on July 31, 1637 an indenture which was originally contracted in London allowed the servant, Richard Lowther, at the expiration of his term to receive “the quantity of Fifty acres of Land in Virginia.” This information is taken from: Kupperman, 67; Shifflett, Quoted from “First Hand Accounts of Virginia 1575-1705,” Indenture Contract of Richard Lowther.

McInerney 27

were increasingly exploited as a result of the legal system. In general, Virginia local customs

were harsher in their conditions of indentures than contracts made in Europe, and the decreasing

rights they were allotted in freedom dues are one example of this phenomenon.

In studying some examples of the changing descriptions of freedom dues in indentures

contracted in Virginia, it will further provide evidence of the growing abuse of servants. In 1638

there was record in the Colonial Abstracts of Accomack County of a servant, John Clay,

receiving his freedom dues. “According to his indentures,” Clay was allotted “3 bbl corn and…

apparel due for his service 8 years.”65 This early indenture provided a somewhat detailed

explanation of the freedom dues which Clay would be receiving. As the century progressed,

freedoms dues were rarely described in indentures, but were referred to in expressions such as

“Freedom Corne and Cloathing” or simply “Corne & Cloathes.”66 This standardized language

allowed masters and colonial courts much more leeway in regulating exactly how much they

would give indentured servants at the expiration of their service. The latter part of the century

also brought many more abuses of masters in not allotting any freedom dues to their servants.

There were court cases in Middlesex and York counties in the years 1674, 1687, and 1693 in

which servants petitioned because they had served their term according to their indentures, but

did not receive their freedom dues.67 Overall, the Virginia legal system used statutes defining

length of indenture terms and local customary practices towards freedom dues to increasingly

mistreat indentured servants throughout the 1600s.

Regulating Sexual Relations

65 Fleet, vol. 32, 10.66 Middlesex County Deed Book, part 2, Virginia County Court Records Deed Book: Middlesex County, Virginia 1688-1694 (The Ancient Press: Ruth and Sam Sparacio, 1989), 53; 71.67 Middlesex County Order Book, no.1, part 1, 23; Shifflet, York Freedom Suits, book 7, 292; Shifflet, York Freedom Suits, book 9, 267.

McInerney 28

Another way in which the legal system curtailed servants’ rights was by restricting the

sexual relations they could have among one another and with non-servants. The major ways they

did this were by imposing ever more regulations on marriages, fornication, and what laws termed

“bastard children,” because servants who were not married could not have legitimate childbirths.

Within each of these three categories there is evidence of the increasing limitations which

defined the sexual lives of servants and further degraded their status.

Secret Marriages

The evolution of the statutes dictating the punishments of indentured servants who

married during their terms shows that sexual relations were a major factor contributing to their

growing mistreatment. As part of the first set of laws on servants in Virginia in 1619, the

legislative assembly already set the bar by forbidding marriages of servants without the consent

of a master or magistrate.68 The wording of the legislation was that simple and did not include

any terms of punishment or further circumstances. In 1643, another statute was passed which

provided many more restrictions on what it termed “secret marriages” of indentured servants.

Act XX described the punishments for servant men, servant women, and also freemen who

married with a servant. Servant men were to serve one year extra after the completion of their

indenture, while servant women had to double their original time of service; freemen on the other

hand could be punished with a fine and were to pay the master double the value of the servant

plus 500 pounds of tobacco to the parish.69 Obviously this law was much harsher than the

original because it detailed the punishment for the misdemeanor and even discouraged freemen

from looking for love within the servant population.

68 Hurd, 229.69 Hening, vol. 1, 252-253.

McInerney 29

By the year 1662, Virginia lawmakers had updated the statute to include even harsher

punishments for freemen, who now had to pay 1500 pounds of tobacco to the master or serve

them for one complete year. Even the language of the law revealed the growing cruelty towards

servants in stating “much Issue and detriment doth arise to diverse masters by the secret marriage

of servants, the said servants through that occasion neglecting their works and often perloying

their masters goods and provisions.”70 It is clear that the statute was biased toward masters

because it mentioned only the harm it would cause to them instead of recognizing the rights of

servants. Furthermore, the Virginia courts played their role in increasing the severity of these

acts. A suit from Lancaster County in 1666 recorded the punishment for the “secret marriage” of

servants John Jones and Sarah Garnett would be for both to serve their master, Joe Meredith,

four years extra service.71 This ruling was three years more than the law required the penalty to

be.

Fornication

Similar to the legislation restricting servants from marrying, the changing laws towards

servants committing fornication contributed to their ever more abusive treatment by the legal

system. In the same 1643 Act XX as mentioned above, lawmakers dictated the punishments of

servants who had sexual relations when they were not married. Servant men were required to

serve the master of the woman servant whom he had relations with for one year after the

expiration of his indenture. Freemen were also required to “make satisfaction” to the owner of

the female servant for one year’s service.72 The only changes to this legislation were made in

1662, titled Act C. This stated that freemen who fornicated with servants were to pay 500 pounds

of tobacco to the parish or be imprisoned. Servants were to serve the same amount of time at the

70 Hening, vol. 2, 114.71 Duval, vol. 2, 34.72 Hening, vol. 1, 253.

McInerney 30

end of their indentures as would compensate for 500 pounds of tobacco, since the master would

have to pay this fine to the parish. But it also added on, that “if a master shall refuse to pay the

fine then the servant to be whipped.”73 Therefore, not only would they be serving extra time if

they committed fornication, but servants could be whipped for their masters’ faults as well.

There are several records of indentured servants being subject to this hardship because of

fornication, but none of the court records actually specify if this was a result of their masters’

refusal to pay the fine. The Middlesex County Order Books recorded in 1678 and 1679 two

women servants by the names of Mary Baker and Elizabeth Joy, being ordered to the “Publique

Whipping Poaste” and subject to thirty-nine lashes each on their “bare back,” because they

committed the “Act of Fornication.”74 Although it is unclear whether or not these whippings

were a result of their masters’ noncompliance, either way they reveal the growing abuse of

indentured servants.

Bastard Children

The Virginia laws toward indentured servants having “bastard children” were closely

connected with those restricting fornication. In 1658 the Commonwealth approved Act XIV in

order to officially regulate how servants were to be punished for bearing a child during their term

of service.75 The woman servant who had borne the child was ordered to double her time of

service to her master; whether the father of the child was a servant or a freeman, they both either

had to serve the master of the woman for one complete year or pay him 1500 pounds of tobacco, 73 Hening, vol. 2, 114-115.74 Middlesex County Order Book, part 1, 89; Middlesex County Order Book, part 2, 62. There is also record in 1677 of a woman servant being saved from whipping by her master who paid the fine. Elizabeth Leaurance was then only subject to serving extra time “according to Law,” which still contributed to her misusage since this was now more time than she would have served earlier in the century. This example is taken from Middlesex County Order Book, part 2, 29.75 Throughout all of the records analyzed for this study, there were three cases concerning “bastard children” before the year 1658. In 1656, Charles City recorded an incident in which Anne Parke, servant of Elizabeth Hatcher, was ordered to double the time of her service to Hatcher because she had “borne a Child in the time of her service.” Again in 1657, Elizabeth Turner’s and Ellinor Bray’s terms of service were doubled because they had a “bastard child.” These examples are taken from: Billings, 144; Fleet, vol. 26, 82, 4.

McInerney 31

which was obviously easier for the freeman. The father was also supposed to “give securitie” to

pay off all charges involved in caring for the child.76 In order to fully appreciate how the legal

system used this law to increasingly exploit indentured servants, it is necessary to examine an

extraordinary court suit from 1658. York County Court held a trial in which various witnesses

testified against Elizabeth Hunt, master of Margaret Baker, accusing her of putting to death the

“bastard child” of the servant. Out of the six women who spoke against Hunt, none of which

were servants, all agreed upon finding Baker “in a very weak condition and that the child was

brought out to them by the wife of the sd. Hunt from a cradle, the child dead, the head bruised to

pieces & the child bleeding.” They also recounted having witnessed Baker being beaten prior to

her delivery of the child, describing it as: “She was whipped and kicked, and her body was in sad

condition.” Despite the massive amounts of evidence against Hunt, the court did nothing more

than dismiss the case and order Mr. Hunt to pay 5000 pounds of tobacco to the parish, which

would probably be compensated back to him by Baker serving extra time at the expiration of her

indenture.77 Although her husband was required to pay a heavy fine, Elizabeth Hunt was not

punished for the murder of a baby because it was a “bastard child” birthed by an indentured

servant. Neither did Margaret Baker receive any justice regarding the death of her child nor even

her own abuse, because the court was biased towards her master and probably felt the servant

deserved her penalty for having a child during her term of service in the first place.

In 1662, the statute regulating how to reprimand the felony of having “bastard children”

was further altered to degrade servants even more. It stated, “in regard the losse and trouble her

master doth sustaine by her having a bastard,” women servants were to serve double their

original indenture terms or could pay 2000 pounds of tobacco, which was almost impossible for 76 Hening, vol. 1, 438-439.77 Fleet, vol. 26, 32-34. On page 58 of this same abstract, a male servant, Thomas Keeble, was forced to pay the master of Troth Ebbs for impregnating her, even though the child died and would not cost him any charges in keeping.

McInerney 32

them to do as servants. The father of the child, if a servant, was now forced as well to “make

satisfaction to the parish” since the church would take care of these babies while they were still

in service.78 The language of the law was clearly biased toward masters because it emphasized

how they lost service over this misdemeanor. And even though the punishment of indentured

servants did not seem to change much from the 1658 law, being required to “make satisfaction”

probably meant that these servants were going to have even more time added on to the end of

their indentures because they would not have the money to pay off the necessary charges to the

parish. In the years 1672, 1674, 1677, and 1678, female indentured servants were repeatedly

required to serve extra time “according to Law” for having a “bastard child.”79 In 1677 there was

even evidence of two women, Elizabeth Joy and Mary Stratton, being forced to “satisfie” their

masters for 500 pounds of tobacco for unknown reasons, on top of the standardized punishment

for this crime.80 Evidently, the legal system of Virginia used all of its resources to increasingly

restrict the sexual relations of indentured servants including marriage, fornication, and childbirth.

Punishing Runaway Servants

In order to keep indentured servants in bondage for as long as possible, the Virginia legal

system collaborated to progressively worsen the statutes towards runaway servants. Legislators

did this by not only regulating the punishments the servants themselves received, but also by

enacting more and more penalties against any freemen who helped indentured servants in their

flight. This was perhaps the cruelest attack on servants because the retributions they had to make

for running away became the most severe penalties they paid for any misdemeanor.

Retributions for Runaway Servants78 Hening, vol. 2 114-115; 168.79 For the more detailed records of these instances see: the 1672 case involving Margaret George in Shifflett, York Runaways, book 5, 11; the 1674 suit involving Susanna King in Middlesex County Order Book, no. 1, part 2, 12; and the 1678 cases concerning Mary Baker, Mary Moss, and Ellinor Edwards, respectively in Middlesex County Order Book, no. 1, part 2, 89; 93; 95.80 Middlesex County Order Book, no. 1, part 2, 60.

McInerney 33

It is easy to see how the statutes toward runaway servants played a role in their collective

mistreatment by the comparison of how servants were punished before and after laws regulated

this offense. In the year 1642, there was not yet legislation dictating how indentured servants

were to be reprimanded for running away. A case from the court records of Northampton County

shows a maidservant, Joan, being punished by “Tenn Lashes upon her bare shoulders” because

she had run away from her master.81 What this means is that before laws standardized how

indentured servants were to be penalized for running away, corporal punishment was the main

form of retribution used. By 1643 the first law on this subject was passed. Act XXII starts off by

saying: “Whereas there are divers loitering runaways in the collony who very often absent

themselves from their masters’ service, And sometimes in two or three monthes cannot be found,

whereby their said masters’ are at great charge in finding them, And many times even to the

losse of their year’s labour before they be had…”82 Before the statute even began to describe

how servants would be punished for running away, it was innately biased toward masters in

explaining how much this crime could cost them. The legislation then stated the penalty for

servants “that shall absent themselves from their said masters service,” would be to serve extra

time at the expiration of their indentures, in the amount of double the time they neglected while

away. Runaways were also subject to serving more time “if the commissioners for the place

appointed shall find it requisite and convenient.” And finally, multiple offenders were to be

branded in the cheek with the letter “R.”83 Obviously, this punishment was more severe than had

81 Breen, 63-64. Another example Breen gives in these same pages is from the year 1640. Thomas Wood was found dead after being beaten by his master, Peter Walker. Wood had multiple times run away, pointing to the unhappy life he led on the Walker plantation. After Wood returned, he was severely whipped by his master and a hired man, Samuel Lucas. There was testimony given that Lucas had struck Wood with a rope “about the bignes of a Finger.” Once again this shows that corporal punishment was the way in which indentured servants were penalized for running away.82 Hening, vol. 1, 254-255.83 Hening, vol. 1, 254-255.

McInerney 34

been the whipping because indentured servants were coerced into serving longer terms and could

even be branded.

When studying the actual punishments indentured servants received for running away

during this time period, their increasing abuse by the legal system is indeed evident. On top of

serving extra time, some servants were whipped as well, even though this was not yet put in

writing by law. The Colonial Abstracts of York County showed multiple suits in which this was

the case. One of these took place on February 25, 1646 when William Keaton was ordered to

serve his master, William Hockaday, one extra year for “absenting himself on the pretence of

being free…and for running away to receive 30 lashes on his bare back at the whipping post.”84

The colonial courts therefore supplemented the law by demanding extra punishment to be added

to Keaton’s offense. This servant also seemed to have believed he was free from his service and

so did not technically run away. Nevertheless, the legal system used their power and multiple

outlets to keep Keaton indentured longer.85 In the year 1658, the Commonwealth revised the

earlier act to include more reprimands for runaway servants. Act CXIII reinforced the same

guidelines as the former law, but added on that wherever the indentured servant was found, he

must be “sent from constable to constable untill such runnawaie or runnawayes shall be delivered

to his or theire master or mistresse.”86 What this meant is that indentured servants would now be

subject to punishment by each county officer they passed on their journey back to their masters.

In order to fully understand the severity of this restraint, it is necessary to present to case of

William Gill from York County in 1662. This servant of Anthony Franklyn had been caught after

84 Beverey Fleet, ed., Virginia Colonial Abstracts, vol. 24, York County, 1633-1646 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961), 70.85 There are numerous other examples of this occurrence in York County between the years of 1646 and 1659. For details, see: the cases of Benjamin Hallyard, James Pinor, an unnamed servant of George Light, Thomas Buckes, Jane Hallyman, and Allin Jarvis in Shifflett, York Runaways, book 2, 169, 297; book 3, 2, 58, 66, 79; and the case of Henry Gasper from Duval, series 2, vol. 5, 77. In the language of these cases you can also see the bias towards masters because the courts seem to highlight the losses which the running away of these servants caused them.86 Hening, vol. 1, 483.

McInerney 35

running away; so it was ordered against him: “having no just cause of runing away, be whipped

till ye blood come & then with warrant sent to his said Master from Constable to Constable.”87 If

the first officer had already permitted such a harsh punishment, it is safe to say the other

constables along the way would probably do the same.

More and more statutes were put in place to progressively restrict runaway servants and

keep them indentured for as long as possible. Act III of 1659 required masters to cut the hair of

every runaway servant to right above their ears so that “they may be with more ease discovered

and apprehended.”88 Indentured servants thus lost the right to control their own hairstyle. By

1662, servants were to obtain proof of their freedom by certificate from the local court, which

would serve as “warrant” for their being able to travel. But this could be done only if their master

accompanied the servant or gave him “sufficient testimoniall,” because an indentured servant

could also be punished for forging a “freedom certificate.”89 Act CI once again added on to the

limitations of servants because it was highly unlikely that masters would go the court with their

servants or even give them permission to obtain their freedom. In fact, out of the hundreds of

cases analyzed in this study, only eleven involved servants petitioning their freedom by

allowance of their masters – one of which the servant could not “produce a sufficient indenture,”

and thus was forced to return to service.90 A second statute in 1662 added another parameter to

the legislation toward runaway servants. Act CII declared if indentured servants ran away during

the “time of…the crop or the charge of recovering them extraordinary,” the servants were

87 Shifflett, York Runaways, book 3, 176.88 Hening, vol. 1, 517-518.89 Hening, vol. 2, 116.90 The specific suit mentioned involved Edmond Saunders in 1678, and is taken from Middlesex County Order Book, no.1, part 2, 26. For information on the other ten cases, see: George Williams from Beverley Fleet, ed., Virginia Colonial Abstracts, vol. 1, Lancaster County, Record Book No. 2 1654-1666 pages 1-394 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961), 4; Thomas Keeble, Henry Bridges, and Francis Albrighton from Duval, series 2, vol. 5, 58, 65, 79; Edward Boodle, Richard Bishop, William Edward, Thomas Blatt, Thomas Berry, and Edward Haydon from Middlesex County Order Book, no.1, part 1, 45,45,54,60,60,61; Edmond Maudley from Duval, series 2, vol. 1, 35; William Catillah and Cornelius Cornute from Shifflett, York Freedom Suits, book 10, 153, 242.

McInerney 36

required to serve a longer term of service on top of doubling the time they had been away. The

colonial courts had the power to judge the amount of service to be “proportionable to the

damage.”91 As part of the legal system, the courts surely took advantage of this authority in

deciding what months composed the crop season, what charges could be deemed

“extraordinary,” and how much service would cover the “damage.” There is again a plethora of

evidence from the decades after this legislation which exposes how servants were ordered to

serve more time at the expiration of their indentures for these reasons, as well as to pay “court

charges” and “officer fees.”92

The remaining legislation passed regarding runaways legalized even greater abuses of

indentured servants. Act IV of 1668 put into writing the right of masters to inflict corporal

punishment upon runaway servants, on top of their extra service. Lawmakers justified both of

these retributions by claiming: “the one being necessary to reclayme them from persisting in that

idle course, as the other is just to repaire the damages susteyned by the master.”93 The number of

lashes the servants received for this offense also increased to about thirty-nine, as is evidenced

by the court records after this date.94 Between the years 1669 and 1670, two more laws were

passed adding on further measures to ensure servants would remain indentured for as long as

possible. Act VIH enabled masters to receive 1000 pounds of tobacco in order to make up for the

losses of the servant, who then had to pay this back by serving extra time. This statute referred to

91 Hening, vol. 2, 116-117.92 For specific examples of how the colonial courts exploited runaway servants, see the cases involving: Christopher Cocks, John Tems from Deal, 100, 100-101; John Mansfield from Horn, 270; May Tomkins and Alice Ambrose from Edward D. Neill, Virginia Carolorum: The Colony Under the Rule of Charles the First and Second, A.D. 16255-A.D. 1685, Based Upon Manuscripts and Documents of the Period (Albany: Joel Munsell’s Sons, 1886), 299; Ogdan Gillam, Stephen Gardiner, Peter Garrett, Peter Stubbins, William Pindleton, William Barbar, Robert Sturdy, Mary Mariott from Shifflett, York Runaways, book 4, 33, 37, 61, 111, 119,126,178,251; Beverley Fleet, ed., Virginia Colonial Abstracts, vol. 22, Lancaster County, 1652-1655 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961), 93.93 Hening, vol. 2, 266.94 In 1670, Alex Phillis was ordered to receive 39 lashes on his bare back for running away, plus to serve extra time according to the “Act.” William Dixon and Samuel Twisden received the same exact punishment in 1671. Both of these sentences were ordered by the General Court of Virginia: McIlwaine, 207, 245.

McInerney 37

the “wickednesse of servants” and admitted its “severity” which could be avoided by indentured

servants who “keep within the bounds of their duty.”95 Act I of 1670 complemented this by

stating that servants were to serve four months extra for every 200 pounds of tobacco used in

recovering them. It also ordered that every constable a servant passed by when returning to their

master must “whip them severely.”96 The language of both of these laws revealed the bias

towards masters and the increasingly harsh conditions indentured servants were subject to.

The evidence from court records after these laws were passed showed that most local

courts followed the guidelines when ruling over runaway cases. Since the legislation was so

strict in itself, it seems as if the statutes were punishment enough. For example, in 1670s

Lancaster, Christopher Adams was absent from service for six months and was required to serve

three years extra: one for the absence (double the time), one for the loss of the crop he would

have contributed to, and one for the 1300 pounds of tobacco expended in recovering him.97 There

were various other suits dealing with runaway servants throughout the rest of the century that

came to the same calculations sanctioned by law.98 In order to further stress how brutally the

legal system treated runaway servants, it is necessary to examine a quotation from Governor

Berkeley in the 1670s. In a proclamation to the county courts, he declared servants “will by

such…proceedings be driven into dispaire of ever being free, and thereby be made carelesse how

much charge they put the country to.”99 Even a top-ranking official realized the cruelty of the

laws toward runaway servants. His statement also portrayed how the goal of all masters was

95 Hening, vol. 2, 273.96 Hening, vol. 2, 277-279.97 Edmund Morgan, 217.98 For examples of these cases see: Shifflett, York Runaways, book 4, 301, 324, 350; Shifflett, York Runaways, book 5, 11, 62, 121, 126, 153; Middlesex Order Book, no. 1, part 1, 17; Middlesex Order Book, no. 1, part 2, 27, 79, 104; Shifflett, York Runaways, book 6, 37, 57, 112, 299, 300, 375, 410, 421, 448, 462, 524, 535, 610; Billings, 143; Shifflett, York Runaways, book 7, 117, 247, 292, 315; Shifflett, York Runaways, book 8, 22, 206, 483, 527, 528; Shifflett, York Runaways, book 9, 137, 187, 252; Shifflett, York Runaways, book 10, 340-341, 353.99 Deal, 123.

McInerney 38

fulfilled by extracting the most service possible from indentured servants. Servants were forced

to no longer care about how much extra service their misdemeanor called for because they

thought they would be servants forever with all of the restrictions imposed by the statutes. On the

whole, the legal system heaped ever more abuse on indentured servants, especially through the

laws towards runaways.

Penalties against Harboring Runaways

Dispersed between all of the legislation toward runaway servants were statutes which

dissuaded freemen from helping servants in their flight as well; once again, this was a collective

effort to further degrade indentured servants. These laws gradually increased the punishments for

anyone sheltering runaways so that freemen were swayed away from the offense. In 1656, the

law stated that anyone who “shall lodge or harbor any such runaways” was required to pay

twenty pounds of tobacco per night, and forty pounds of tobacco per day.100 By 1658, an

additional parameter was added on to this act stating that any resistance to the previous statute or

neglect to cooperate to help find runaway servants would result in a fine of 350 pounds of

tobacco.101 In 1662, the amount of tobacco ordered to be paid per night was enlarged to thirty

pounds.102 And finally, Act IX of 1666 increased the fine per day and night to be sixty pounds of

tobacco each.103 The courts usually followed through with the fines regulated by law in order to

deter any other people from “harboring” or “entertaining” runaway servants too. In 1674, Mr.

Richard Laurence was fined, by the General Court of Virginia, four hundred pounds of tobacco

for “Entertaining the Honorable Governors Servants.”104 And in 1675, Anthony Melton was

ordered to pay Mr. John Babb sixty pounds of tobacco per day and night after “entertaining” one

100 Hening, vol. 1, 401.101 Hening, vol. 1, 483.102 Hening, vol. 2, 116.103 Hening, vol. 2, 239.104 McIlwaine, 372.

McInerney 39

of his maidservants for three days.105 Many freemen also expected a reward for turning in

runaway servants which contributed to their even further cooperation with the law.106 Again, the

evolving statutes increasingly worsened the punishments of runaways.

Restraints on Servant Activities

The final category in which indentured servants were subject to exploitation by the legal

system was that of restrictions put on their everyday activities. In seventeenth-century Virginia,

lawmakers passed various statutes in order to limit servant trade and travel. As backlash against

this legislation, indentured servants would often retaliate by doing such things as stealing their

masters’ goods or even attempting to harm them. Consequently, more and more laws were put in

place to punish servants for striking back as well.

Restricted Trade & Travel

The changing legislation which put restrictions on servant trade and travel represents one

of the ways in which indentured servants were increasingly mistreated over the course of the

century. For the first half of the period, the only law dealing with servant trade in Virginia was

one from the very first legislative assembly in 1619. This statute forbid indentured servants to

trade with Indians and was meant to deprive the Indians more than the servants.107 It was not

until the year 1662 that another law was passed regarding this topic. Act CV was titled “Against

trading with servants,” and it prohibited any freeman from trading with indentured servants

because this would encourage them to steal their masters’ goods. Clearly biased towards masters,

the statute also stated that servant trade was “to the greate injury of their masters.” Freemen

could be imprisoned for one month and also were required to pay the master of the servant whom 105 Shifflett, York Runaways, book 5, 94.106 Samuel Jewell brought to the Lancaster County Court in 1669 a woman servant named Anne Reynolds, a runaway of Robert Middleton’s from the county of Westmoreland. He then demanded “benefit of Acte for takeing up a runawayes.” Source: Duval, series 2, vol. 3, 46.107 Hurd, 229.

McInerney 40

they traded with four times the amount of goods taken. Indentured servants would of course have

to make all of this up through extra service at the expiration of their indentures.108 Evidence from

the Virginia local courts revealed how harshly freemen and servants were punished for partaking

in trade with one another, both within and beyond the parameters of the law. For instance, in

1675 Middlesex County, Stephen Burroughs, Thomas Jellitt, and George Rasill confessed to

have stolen “hoggs” from their master in order to trade with a freeman. They were ordered to be

“publiquely whipt” and to each serve two to four years extra to make up for the losses.109 This

penalty may have followed the law by ordering extra service, but the amount of time each

servant was expected to serve seems quite inflated. The court used its power in the legal system

to require the servants to be whipped as well. Only in the year 1699 were servants actually

ordained by statute to “receive on his or their bare back or backs thirty lashes well laid” for

killing a deer without permission from their master, a comparable offense to hog-stealing.110

Similarly, indentured servants had limitations on where and when they could travel.

Before there was legislation dealing with this subject, a court from York County addressed the

issue in 1658 on its own terms. Although the abstracts do not reveal the punishment of the

servant for ‘traveling,’ there was a complaint made by John Dickens, the neighbor of George

Mode, reporting that he had seen Mode’s servant go fishing multiple times in the creek. Dickens

informed the local court of this because he had “never heard Mr. and Mrs. Mode speak to the sd.

servant to go fishing.”111 It seems the general consensus was that indentured servants were not

108 Hening, vol. 2, 118-119.109 Middlesex County Order Book, no.1, part 1, 38. For information on other cases which deal with indentured servants being punished for trading, see the suits of: Hues and Thomas Oakes from Middlesex County Order Book, no.1, part 1, 38, 45; Margaret Reine in Duval, series 2, vol. 1, 52. There is also record of a freeman’s punishment for this offense in the case of Richard Café: McIlwaine, 301.110 William Waller Hening, “The Statutes at Large: being a collection of all the laws of Virginia, from the first session of the legislature, in the year 1619: published pursuant to an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, passed on the fifth day of February one thousand eight hundred and eight,” vol. 3, Law Library Microform Consortium (1768-1828), 108.111 Duval, series 2, vol. 5, 30.

McInerney 41

allowed travel because Dickens felt the need to report an incident in which a servant only went

as far as a nearby creek to go fishing, without obtaining permission. In 1663 this practice was

solidified by Act XVIII, titled “For better suppressing the unlawful meetings of servants.”

Indentured servants were thereby required to attain a “lycence” from their master in order to

“depart from their houses,” let alone travel to far distances. The colonial courts were ordered to

“punish the offenders” as they saw fit.112 It appears this law was put in place as a protection to

masters so that servants could not get together and plot a rebellion. Throughout all of the

histories analyzed in this study, there were no traces of servants gaining licenses through the

court. This could mean that indentured servants were barely ever awarded this privilege. On the

other hand, their masters used this law to their own advantage since there are dozens of

transportation records.113 The legal system enabled masters to transport their servants using this

statute, but the servants themselves rarely benefitted from the act.

Servant Retaliation

As a reaction to the growing abuses toward indentured servants throughout the 1600s,

they sometimes felt the need to retaliate against their misusage. But along with all of its other

cruelties, the legal system used this reprisal by servants as a way to further degrade them and

make them liable to extra service. In 1619, the punishment for a servant “for ill conduct towards

his master” was “pillory and whipping.”114 Although there was evidence of some servants going

as far as to murder their masters, even by just “threatening to strike his master, Mr. John Carter,

with his hoe” did a servant named David Miles in 1655 receive twenty lashes from the whip.115

112 Hening, vol. 2, 195.113 This is an example of what a transportation record looked like from 1663: “Certificate to Nicholas Cox for the trans. Of Arthur Holly, Robert Pierce, John Howes, Rebecca Tahnage, Edward Reddis, John Howell, John Porter, Jone Owen & two Negroes.” Source: Duval, series 2, vol. 2, 18.114 Hurd, 229.115 Fleet, vol. 22, 71. For an example of an indentured servant killing his masters, see the 1658 case of Huntington Aryes in: Duval, series 2, vol. 5,62.

McInerney 42

Indentured servants could therefore by punished for even the verbal threat of retaliating against

their masters. By 1660, statute law worsened the penalty for “unruly servants.” Act XIII required

all courts in Virginia to order servants two years of additional service for “laying violent hands

on his or her master or mistresse or overseer.” Indentured servants were labeled as “stubborn and

incorrigible,” and were said to had brought “many mischeifs and losses to divers particular

persons of this country” by resisting their masters.116 The adjectives used to describe servants

reveal the bias of this legislation toward masters, as does the new and harsher punishment of

extra service for the offense. There were also some cases of indentured servants being ordered

additional retributions for assaulting their masters. In 1679 Accomack County, Elizabeth Bowen,

master of Thomas Jones, pleaded to the court that he “in most barbarous and villanous nature sett

upon and most desperately attempted to murder the said Bowen with a naked Rapier and Knife to

cut her throat.” The court ruled that as a “just reward for his said horrid offense and crime,”

Jones was sentenced to receive thirty-nine lashes, have his hair cut off, and wear an iron collar

around his neck “dureing the Courts pleasure.” All of this was on top of his extra service: one

year for his violence, two years for wounding Bowen, and even more time to pay her back for the

court charges.117 It is clear that servant retaliation led the legal system to become increasingly

complicit in abusing indentured servants throughout the century.

Conclusion

Most historians who have studied the conditions of indentured servitude over the course

of the seventeenth century take note of the role the Virginia legal system played in abusing

servants. But what these studies do not expose is when studying the laws themselves, it is easy to

see how servants were increasingly mistreated by lawmakers who constantly made alterations to 116 Hening, vol. 1, 538.117 Billings, 146-147. The colonial courts sometimes followed the sentences dictated by law, such as in the case of Thomas Berry: Middlesex County Order Book, no. 1, part 1, 6.

McInerney 43

the statutes in order to keep them in bondage for as long as possible. In combination with other

primary documents from the period, it becomes even clearer how the Virginia colonial courts

worked together with the laws and masters to progressively degrade indentured servants. The

entire legal system contributed to the abuse of servants in multiple ways, as each one of the

sections in this paper denotes. First, masters were a main factor in mistreating their indentured

servants, and they did so within and beyond the parameters of the statutes. Second, since the

local courts were primarily made up of these owners, they too played a major role by exploiting

the rights of servants and extending their misusage beyond the punishments put in place by

Virginia law. And finally, legislation itself created boundaries to worsen the conditions of

indentured servants. The statutes dictated the length of indenture terms and the makeup of

freedom dues to be allotted to servants at the end of their terms. They also restricted the sexual

relations of indentured servants including their ability to marry, fornicate, and have children. The

laws regulated the punishments of runaway servants and even the penalties against freeman

harboring them. And legislation set restraints on servant activities such as their trade, travel, and

retaliation. The analysis of each of these categories exposes how statute law evolved in a way as

to ever more degrade servants.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Billings, Warren M., ed. The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary History

of Virginia, 1606-1689. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975.

Catterall, Helen Tunnicliff, ed. Judicial Cases concerning American Slavery and the Negro. 5

vols. New York: Octagon Books, Inc., 1968.

Deeds of Middlesex County, Virginia 1687-1750, Miscellaneous Records 1752-1831, and Deed

McInerney 44

Book 1736-1739 Reel 4, Virginia State Library. Virginia County Court Records, Record

Book: Middlesex County, Virginia 1721-1813. The Ancient Press: Ruth and Sam

Sparacio, 1998.

Duval, Lindsay O., ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Series 2, vol. 1, Northumberland County,

Virginia 1678-1713. South Carolina: Southern Historical Press, 1979.

Duval, Lindsay O., ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Series 2, vol. 2, Lancaster County, Virginia

1656-1680 Court Orders and Deeds. South Carolina: Southern Historical Press, 1979.

Duval, Lindsay O., ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Series 2, vol. 3, The Virginia Company of

London 1607-1624. South Carolina: Southern Historical Press, 1978.

Duval, Lindsay O., ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Series 2, vol. 4, James City County, Virginia

1634-1904. South Carolina: Southern Historical Press, 1979.

Duval, Lindsay O., ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Series 2, vol. 5, York County, Virginia,

Wills, Deeds, Orders 1657-1659. South Carolina: Southern Historical Press, 1978.

Duval, Lindsay O., ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Series 2, vol. 6, Records of Prince George

County, Virginia 1666-1719. South Carolina: Southern Historical Press, 1978.

Fleet, Beverley, ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Vol. 1, Lancaster County, Record Book No. 2

1654-1666 pages 1-394. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961.

Fleet, Beverley, ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Vol. 22, Lancaster County, 1652-1655.

Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961.

Fleet, Beverley, ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Vol. 24, York County, 1633-1646. Baltimore:

Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961.

Fleet, Beverley, ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Vol. 25, York County, 1646-1648. Baltimore:

Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961.

McInerney 45

Fleet, Beverley, ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Vol. 26, York County, 1648-1657. Baltimore:

Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961.

Fleet, Beverley, ed. Virginia Colonial Abstracts. Vol. 32, Accomack, 1637-1640. Baltimore:

Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961.

Greene, Jack P., ed. The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, vol. 1.

Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1965.

Hening, William Waller. “The Statutes at Large: being a collection of all the laws of Virginia

from the first session of the legislature, in the year 1619: published pursuant to an act of

the General Assembly of Virginia, passed on the fifth day of February one thousand eight

hundred and eight.” Vol. 1, Law Library Microform Consortium. 1768-1828.

Hening, William Waller. “The Statutes at Large: being a collection of all the laws of Virginia

from the first session of the legislature, in the year 1619: published pursuant to an act of

the General Assembly of Virginia, passed on the fifth day of February one thousand eight

hundred and eight.” Vol. 2, Law Library Microform Consortium. 1768-1828.

Hening, William Waller. “The Statutes at Large: being a collection of all the laws of Virginia

from the first session of the legislature, in the year 1619: published pursuant to an act of

the General Assembly of Virginia, passed on the fifth day of February one thousand eight

hundred and eight.” Vol. 3, Law Library Microform Consortium. 1768-1828.

Klepp, Susan E. and Billy G. Smith, ed. The Infortunate: The Voyage and Adventures of William,

Moraley, an Indentured Servant. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State

University Press, 1992.

Knight, Sir Ralph Verney. Verney Papers: Notes of Proceedings in The Long Parliament, Temp.

Charles I. Edited by John Bruce, Esq., F.S.A. London: John Bowyer Nichols and Son for

McInerney 46

the Camden Society, 1845.

Kupperman, Karen Ordahl, ed. Major Problems in American Colonial History, 2d ed. Boston,

New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

McIlwaine, H.R., ed. Minutes of the Council and General Court of Virginia, 2d ed. Richmond,

Virginia: Virginia State Library, 1979.

Middlesex County Deed Book 2, Part I. Virginia County Court Records Deed Book: Middlesex

County, Virginia 1679-1688. The Ancient Press: Ruth and Sam Sparacio, 1989.

Middlesex County Deed Book 2, Part II. Virginia County Court Records Deed Book: Middlesex

County, Virginia 1688-1694. The Ancient Press: Ruth and Sam Sparacio, 1989.

Middlesex County Deed Book 2, Part III. Virginia County Court Records Deed Book: Middlesex

County, Virginia 1694-1703. The Ancient Press: Ruth and Sam Sparacio, 1989.

Middlesex County Deed Book 3, Part I. Virginia County Court Records Deed Book: Middlesex

County, Virginia 1703-1709. The Ancient Press: Ruth and Sam Sparacio, 1989.

Middlesex County Deed Book 3, Part II. Virginia County Court Records Deed Book: Middlesex

County, Virginia 1709-1720. The Ancient Press: Ruth and Sam Sparacio, 1989.

Middlesex County Order Book No. 1, Part I. Virginia County Court Records: Order Book

Abstracts of Middlesex County, Virginia 1673-1678. The Ancient Press: Ruth and Sam

Sparacio, 1989.

Middlesex County Order Book No. 1, Part II. Virginia County Court Records: Order Book

Abstracts of Middlesex County, Virginia 1677-1680. The Ancient Press: Ruth and Sam

Sparacio, 1989.

The National Society of the Colonial Dames of America in the State of Virginia. The Parish

Register of Christ Church, Middlesex County, Va. From 1653-1812. Richmond: WM.

McInerney 47

Ellis Jones, Steam Book and Job Printer, 1897.

Revel, James. The Poor Unhappy Transported Felon’s Sorrowful Account. Of his fourteen Years

Transportation at Virginia in America. London: Stonecutter Street, Fleet Market, 1780.

Shifflett, Crandall. “Virtual Jamestown.” Virginia Center for Digital History, University of

Virginia. 1999-2007. http://www.virtualjamestown.org, accessed 8 November 2012.

Smithsonian Institution. “The Body in the Basement.” Smithsonian National Museum of

National History, http://anthropology.si.edu/writteninbone/leavy_neck.html.

Virginia Company of London. The Records of the Virginia Company of London. Vol. 1, Edited

by Susan M. Kingsbury. Washington, Govt. print. off., 1906.

Virginia Company of London. The Records of the Virginia Company of London. Vol. 2, Edited

by Susan M. Kingsbury. Washington, Govt. print. off., 1906.

Virginia Company of London. The Records of the Virginia Company of London. Vol. 3, Edited

by Susan M. Kingsbury. Washington, Govt. print. off., 1906.

Virginia Company of London. The Records of the Virginia Company of London. Vol. 4, Edited

by Susan M. Kingsbury. Washington, Govt. print. off., 1906.

Wright, Louis B. and Marion Tinling, ed. The Secret Diary of William Byrd of Westover 1709-

1712. Richmond, Virginia: The Dietz Press, 1941.

Secondary Sources:

Ballagh, James Curtis A.B. White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia: A Study of the System of

Indentured Labor in the American Colonies. New York: Burt Franklin, 1895.

Billings, Warren M., ed. The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary History

of Virginia, 1606-1689. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975.

Breen, T.H. and Stephen Innes. Myne Owne Ground: Race and Freedom on Virginia’s Eastern

McInerney 48

Shore, 1640-1676. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Deal, J. Douglas. Race and Class in Colonial Virginia: Indians, Englishmen, and Africans on the

Eastern Shore During the Seventeenth Century. New York and London: Garland

Publishing, Inc., 1993.

Galenson, David W. White Servitude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis. Cambridge,

London, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Handlin, Oscar and Mary F. Handlin. “Origins of the Southern Labor System.” In Africans

Become Afro-Americans: Selected Articles on Slavery in the American Colonies, edited

by Peter Charles Hoffer, 1-24. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1988.

Horn, James. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake.

Chapel Hill, London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1994.

Hurd, John Codman. The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States, Vol. 1. Boston:

Little, Brown & Company, 1858.

Jordan, Winthrop D. White Over Black: American Attitudes toward the Negro 1550-1812, 2d ed.

Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968.

Mancall, Peter C., ed. Emvisioning America: English Plans for the Colonization of North

America, 1580-1640. Boston: Bedford Books, 1995.

Menard, Russell R. Migrants, Servants and Slaves: Unfree Labor in Colonial British America.

Variorum Collected Studies Series. Aldershot and Burlington: St. Edmundsbury Press,

2001.

Morgan, Edmund S. American Slavery, American Freedom. New York and London: W. W.

Norton & Company, Inc., 1975.

Morgan, Kenneth. Slavery and Servitude in Colonial America: A Short History. New York: New

McInerney 49

York University Press, 2001.

Neill, Edward D. Virginia Carolorum: The Colony Under the Rule of Charles the First and

Second, A.D. 1625-A.D. 1685, Based Upon Manuscripts and Documents of the Period.

Albany, N.Y.: Joel Munsell's Sons, 1886.

Oxford English Dictionary, Online. Oxford University Press, 2013. http://www.oed.com/.

Rutman, Darrett B. and Anita H. A Place in Time: Middlesex County, Virginia 1650-1750. New

York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1984.

Taylor, Alan. American Colonies: The Settling of North America. Edited by Eric Foner. New

York: Penguin Books, 2001.