It is estimated that half to two-thirds of colonial immigrants were indentured servants. As late as 1790, 6% of the population of Kentucky was under indenture. Only about 40% of indentured servants lived to complete their terms.
Indentured servants were more profitable in the short term for land owners than enslaving Indians or free labor. Eventually rising costs of maintaining servants and the desire for land by former servants helped lead to the downfall of the system. Importing African slaves also became more profitable.
In Virginia and Maryland the headright system was introduced. A grant of 50 acres was offered for each person a colonist brought in as a servant. If 25 servants were imported, the "sponsor" was given 1250 acres of land.
Early indentured servants to Virginia came from both Great Britain and Africa.
Next up: The Headright System
[Sources: Wikipedia, USHistory.org, PBS.org]
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Indentured Servants
Indentured servitude saw its heyday from 1619 until 1775, but lasted into the early 20th century.
Poor people from Great Britain and, later, the German States frequently indentured themselves for passage to the Colonies.
The indenture was a contract whereby the person agreed to work for a set number of years in return for passage. At the end of the indenture, the servant was free to go on his or her way. Often the contract was made with a ship's master, who sold the indentures to colonial farmers, merchants or craftsmen in need of servants.
The indenture contract varied. In some cases, people over 24 were indentured for 1-3 years. More common were contracts of 5 or 7 to 8 years. The indentured servant received room, board, clothing and training during the indenture. Movement was restricted. Permission was needed to marry. They were subject to often harsh punishment and hunted down if they tried to escape. The contracts were generally enforced by the local courts. Women who became pregnant were subject to having their contracts extended. At the end of the term, the newly freed colonist would receive "freedom dues," which might include a new set of clothes, tools of his/her new trade, a small amount of money, or even land.
In addition to the poor, other group sold into servitude were debtors, kidnap victims, prisoners of war and victims of unscrupulous recruiters.
More tomorrow......
Poor people from Great Britain and, later, the German States frequently indentured themselves for passage to the Colonies.
The indenture was a contract whereby the person agreed to work for a set number of years in return for passage. At the end of the indenture, the servant was free to go on his or her way. Often the contract was made with a ship's master, who sold the indentures to colonial farmers, merchants or craftsmen in need of servants.
The indenture contract varied. In some cases, people over 24 were indentured for 1-3 years. More common were contracts of 5 or 7 to 8 years. The indentured servant received room, board, clothing and training during the indenture. Movement was restricted. Permission was needed to marry. They were subject to often harsh punishment and hunted down if they tried to escape. The contracts were generally enforced by the local courts. Women who became pregnant were subject to having their contracts extended. At the end of the term, the newly freed colonist would receive "freedom dues," which might include a new set of clothes, tools of his/her new trade, a small amount of money, or even land.
In addition to the poor, other group sold into servitude were debtors, kidnap victims, prisoners of war and victims of unscrupulous recruiters.
More tomorrow......
Monday, September 5, 2016
A final word or two on the family group
[1] I discussed marriage age in an earlier post. You may run into couples marrying at 14-16. It's rare, but it does happen. I honestly think that this is more likely in certain regions of the country than in others. Hill or mountain families may fit the profile better than city or farm folk. If you have a parent born about 1605 with a child born about 1620, become very suspicious and investigate. You may have siblings or half-siblings rather than parent/child.
[2] Parents tended to have large families well into the 20th century. Child mortality due to disease and other factors played a role. The need for help on farms [boys generally tending to plowing and other chores; girls to household duties] or the family business also figured in to the mix.
[3] Multiple marriages led to large families as well. A widowed father needed a wife to look after his children. A widowed mother needed a bread winner to provide for her children. A widower with three kids might marry a widow with four of her own. They might add 2-3 children of their own. Now you had a family with 9 or 10 youngsters.
[4] Back to the large family issue for a moment. Say a couple married at 22 and had their first child at 24 and the youngest at 40. By the time the eldest children were of marriageable age, the youngest would be old enough to take over the chores of those leaving the nest.
[5] Families also might "indenture" their children to another family member or neighbor. If the older children were going to inherit the bulk of the family property, placing a boy with a local tradesman to learn his business would help guarantee the boy's future. A daughter might be indentured to a family to help with children, learn housekeeping, cooking or some other skill.
More on indenture next time!
[2] Parents tended to have large families well into the 20th century. Child mortality due to disease and other factors played a role. The need for help on farms [boys generally tending to plowing and other chores; girls to household duties] or the family business also figured in to the mix.
[3] Multiple marriages led to large families as well. A widowed father needed a wife to look after his children. A widowed mother needed a bread winner to provide for her children. A widower with three kids might marry a widow with four of her own. They might add 2-3 children of their own. Now you had a family with 9 or 10 youngsters.
[4] Back to the large family issue for a moment. Say a couple married at 22 and had their first child at 24 and the youngest at 40. By the time the eldest children were of marriageable age, the youngest would be old enough to take over the chores of those leaving the nest.
[5] Families also might "indenture" their children to another family member or neighbor. If the older children were going to inherit the bulk of the family property, placing a boy with a local tradesman to learn his business would help guarantee the boy's future. A daughter might be indentured to a family to help with children, learn housekeeping, cooking or some other skill.
More on indenture next time!
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Meet the Kirkwood family
In a stroke of luck, Thomas Kirkwood's will is located! Thomas wrote his will on 10 November 1722; it was proved 26 October 1723.
Thomas named the following children: my eldest son, Ian... eldest daughter, Sally... sons Harper & Thomas... daughters Lucy Ann, Mary, Sarah & Ann... my unborn child... my wife, Sarah. Wife Sarah & eldest son, Ian named executors.
So, here we have it, the Kirkwoods had: Ian [b. 1702], Sally [b. 1704], Lucy Ann [b.1705], Mary [b. 1711], Harper & Sarah [twins, b. 1713], Thomas [b. 1715], Ann [b. 1722] & James [b. 1723, shortly after his father's death]
Even though the couple had nine children, there are gaps [1705-11 & 1715-1722] that would allow for the births of children who did not survive until 1722.
How did you do?
Thomas named the following children: my eldest son, Ian... eldest daughter, Sally... sons Harper & Thomas... daughters Lucy Ann, Mary, Sarah & Ann... my unborn child... my wife, Sarah. Wife Sarah & eldest son, Ian named executors.
So, here we have it, the Kirkwoods had: Ian [b. 1702], Sally [b. 1704], Lucy Ann [b.1705], Mary [b. 1711], Harper & Sarah [twins, b. 1713], Thomas [b. 1715], Ann [b. 1722] & James [b. 1723, shortly after his father's death]
Even though the couple had nine children, there are gaps [1705-11 & 1715-1722] that would allow for the births of children who did not survive until 1722.
How did you do?
Saturday, September 3, 2016
How well do the Kirkwood children fit the family?
Ian [12 Aug 1702] - born 10 mo. after marriage - good fit, named for grandfather?
Sally [6 May 1704] - born nearly 2 yrs. after Ian - good fit, named for mother?
Lucy Ann [17 Dec 1705] - born 19 mo. after Sally - good fit, named for grandmother?
Ivan [4 Jan 1706] - born less than a month after Lucy - one of them doesn't fit?
Thomas [26 Feb 1708] - gap between births works - good fit, named for father?
Mary [[4 Nov 1711] - gap works - good fit, named for father?
Harper [28 Jun 1713] - gap works - good fit, family surname?
Sarah [28 Jun 1713] - gap works - good fit, if Harper's twin, but 2nd named for mother!
Alvin [2 April 1714] - gaps works - good fit
Thomas [20 Mar 1715] - gap works - good fit, but 2nd Thomas!
Mary Ann [7 Jul1718] - 3 yr. gap is OK, good fit, but 2nd Mary!
Ian Robert [11 Sep 1720] - 2 yr. gap is OK, good fit, but 2nd Ian!
Marie Louise [25 Oct 1721] - 13 mo. gap works, good fit, but Mary/Marie close.
Ann [13 Mar 1722] - too close to Marie's birth, one or both of them doesn't fit.
James [29 Apr 1723] - gap works, born after father's death, named for grandfather.
Now for the list of the Kirkwood children....
[see tomorrow's post!]
Sally [6 May 1704] - born nearly 2 yrs. after Ian - good fit, named for mother?
Lucy Ann [17 Dec 1705] - born 19 mo. after Sally - good fit, named for grandmother?
Ivan [4 Jan 1706] - born less than a month after Lucy - one of them doesn't fit?
Thomas [26 Feb 1708] - gap between births works - good fit, named for father?
Mary [[4 Nov 1711] - gap works - good fit, named for father?
Harper [28 Jun 1713] - gap works - good fit, family surname?
Sarah [28 Jun 1713] - gap works - good fit, if Harper's twin, but 2nd named for mother!
Alvin [2 April 1714] - gaps works - good fit
Thomas [20 Mar 1715] - gap works - good fit, but 2nd Thomas!
Mary Ann [7 Jul1718] - 3 yr. gap is OK, good fit, but 2nd Mary!
Ian Robert [11 Sep 1720] - 2 yr. gap is OK, good fit, but 2nd Ian!
Marie Louise [25 Oct 1721] - 13 mo. gap works, good fit, but Mary/Marie close.
Ann [13 Mar 1722] - too close to Marie's birth, one or both of them doesn't fit.
James [29 Apr 1723] - gap works, born after father's death, named for grandfather.
Now for the list of the Kirkwood children....
[see tomorrow's post!]
Friday, September 2, 2016
A Family Group Sample
Rather than embarrass some well-intentioned researcher who has placed a wacky family group sheet on-line, I will offer up a sample creation with some glaring errors:
Thomas Kirkwood [parents: James Kirkwood & Lucy Harper]
[b. 23 May 1678 Hampshire, England - d. 9 February 1723 Plymouth Co., Massachusetts]
m. 15 October 1701 Plymouth Co., Massachusetts
Sarah "Sally" MacDowell [parents: Ian MacDowell & Mary Iverson]
[b. 30 September 1681 Suffolk Co., Massachusetts - d. 22 January 1734 Plymouth Co., Massachusetts]
(all children born in Plymouth Co., MA)
[1] Ian Kirkwood [b. 12 August 1702]
[2] Sally Kirkwood [b. 6 May 1704]
[3] Lucy Ann Kirkwood [b. 17 December 1705]
[4] Ivan Kirkwood [b. 4 January 1706]
[5] Thomas Kirkwood Jr. [b. 26 February 1707]
[6] Amos Kirkwood [b. 10 February 1708]
[7] Mary Kirkwood [b. 4 November 1711]
[8] Harper Kirkwood [b. 28 June 1713]
[9] Sarah Kirkwood [b. 28 June 1713]
[10] Alvin Kirkwood [b. 2 April 1714]
[11] Lucy Kirkwood [b. 19 December 1714]
[12] Thomas Kirkwood [b. 20 March 1715]
[13] Mary Ann Kirkwood [b. 7 July 1718]
[14] Ian Robert Kirkwood [b. 11 September 1720]
[15] Marie Louise Kirkwood [25 October 1721]
[16] Ann Kirkwood [13 March 1722]
[17] James Kirkwood [29 April 1723]
Your assignment is to decide which kids could belong to Thomas and Sarah. Study dates closely, also look at the names. Tomorrow I will examine each child's fit into the family group.
Thomas Kirkwood [parents: James Kirkwood & Lucy Harper]
[b. 23 May 1678 Hampshire, England - d. 9 February 1723 Plymouth Co., Massachusetts]
m. 15 October 1701 Plymouth Co., Massachusetts
Sarah "Sally" MacDowell [parents: Ian MacDowell & Mary Iverson]
[b. 30 September 1681 Suffolk Co., Massachusetts - d. 22 January 1734 Plymouth Co., Massachusetts]
(all children born in Plymouth Co., MA)
[1] Ian Kirkwood [b. 12 August 1702]
[2] Sally Kirkwood [b. 6 May 1704]
[3] Lucy Ann Kirkwood [b. 17 December 1705]
[4] Ivan Kirkwood [b. 4 January 1706]
[5] Thomas Kirkwood Jr. [b. 26 February 1707]
[6] Amos Kirkwood [b. 10 February 1708]
[7] Mary Kirkwood [b. 4 November 1711]
[8] Harper Kirkwood [b. 28 June 1713]
[9] Sarah Kirkwood [b. 28 June 1713]
[10] Alvin Kirkwood [b. 2 April 1714]
[11] Lucy Kirkwood [b. 19 December 1714]
[12] Thomas Kirkwood [b. 20 March 1715]
[13] Mary Ann Kirkwood [b. 7 July 1718]
[14] Ian Robert Kirkwood [b. 11 September 1720]
[15] Marie Louise Kirkwood [25 October 1721]
[16] Ann Kirkwood [13 March 1722]
[17] James Kirkwood [29 April 1723]
Your assignment is to decide which kids could belong to Thomas and Sarah. Study dates closely, also look at the names. Tomorrow I will examine each child's fit into the family group.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
And then there's the young 'uns....
Once you've figured out that your ancestors married at a reasonable age [say, 18-30], you can sort out the children.
[1] Although there may be a few close calls, the eldest child should be born a year or two after the parents married. [Parents marry in July 1765; 1st child born February 1766. Possible under certain circumstances, like the bundling bag failed to hold.
[2] After the 1st born, couples generally had a child every 18 months to 2 years. If there are large gaps between births, a few possibilities exist: [a] infant(s) died young, stillborn, miscarried, etc.; [b] you haven't found all of the kids yet; [c] some event prevented the couple from having children, like a war.
[3] Most women, before the past few decades, stopped giving birth around 40. This was primarily for health reasons. If children are being born after the mother reaches 45, it is probably a red flag. After 50? Whoa!
[4] Large families were commonplace before the 20th century. Most families were still living on farms and help was needed. The odds of all of the kids reaching adulthood was slim, but did happen frequently. A family with 6-12 children was not uncommon. Now if you come across a family with 21 children with repetitive names [3 Johns, 2 Marys, 2 Sarahs, 2 Williams, etc.] and repetitive birth years, chances are 2-3 tree have been combined. Sort with care and common sense.
[5] In determining if kids fit, look at the mothers age at marriage [say 20] and count the years to 40 [again 20]. That allows for about 10 kids [1 every two years], give or take - allow for multiple births, miscarriages or mom having 1-2 babies after 40.
more tomorrow.....
[1] Although there may be a few close calls, the eldest child should be born a year or two after the parents married. [Parents marry in July 1765; 1st child born February 1766. Possible under certain circumstances, like the bundling bag failed to hold.
[2] After the 1st born, couples generally had a child every 18 months to 2 years. If there are large gaps between births, a few possibilities exist: [a] infant(s) died young, stillborn, miscarried, etc.; [b] you haven't found all of the kids yet; [c] some event prevented the couple from having children, like a war.
[3] Most women, before the past few decades, stopped giving birth around 40. This was primarily for health reasons. If children are being born after the mother reaches 45, it is probably a red flag. After 50? Whoa!
[4] Large families were commonplace before the 20th century. Most families were still living on farms and help was needed. The odds of all of the kids reaching adulthood was slim, but did happen frequently. A family with 6-12 children was not uncommon. Now if you come across a family with 21 children with repetitive names [3 Johns, 2 Marys, 2 Sarahs, 2 Williams, etc.] and repetitive birth years, chances are 2-3 tree have been combined. Sort with care and common sense.
[5] In determining if kids fit, look at the mothers age at marriage [say 20] and count the years to 40 [again 20]. That allows for about 10 kids [1 every two years], give or take - allow for multiple births, miscarriages or mom having 1-2 babies after 40.
more tomorrow.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)