An indentured servant was an individual who agreed to work for a specific number of years in exchange for passage to a new land, typically during the 17th to 19th centuries. This arrangement often involved labor in exchange for basic needs like food, shelter, and training. Upon completing their term of service, indentured servants usually gained freedom and sometimes land or money to start their new lives. However, conditions could be harsh, and many faced significant hardships during their servitude.
they agreed to work five years to pay back the cost of their passage to America
they left for FASHION ECONOMY
A slave owner would likely prefer to use slaves, as they have no restrictions on their labor and are considered property. Indentured servants have contracts with set terms and conditions, making them less controllable compared to slaves.
A landowner may prefer slaves over indentured servants because slaves were considered property for life, providing a long-term and potentially more cost-effective labor source compared to indentured servants who were only bound for a fixed period. Slaves were also seen as having less legal rights and were less likely to challenge their owners, giving landowners more control over their workforce.
Technically the question should be "Was an indentrued servant poor?" seeing as indentured servanthood was outlawed a while ago. However to answer the question, yes they were. In fact, many of them accepted the contract just to get somewhere. For example, many indetured servants were just poor people who wanted to get to the America in the 1700s but didn't have enough money so they signed a 7 year contract with a wealthier person who agreed to provide for them and get them to America in exchange for the 7 years of work. However, this "7 year" time was often abused by the wealthier person. For example, they would say something along the lines of "You didn't work hard enough. You owe me another year." So many people would not get out for a long time.