Why did middle colonies depend more on indentured servants than slave for labor?

Answer 1

Morality aside, indentured servants made more sense economically than a slave.

You could easily buy a fully trained slave, but the slave was usually quite expensive. If you bought an untrained slave or one was born to your existing slave you had put the slave through a training period. During that time you got no work, and possibly some damages made by an inexperienced worker.

There were laws regulating the treatment of the slave, and once the slave was too old to work, or too feeble the owner had to feed and clothe that slave for life. By the same token, if you had dangerous work required, and the slave was hurt you had to care for him or her.

Slaves were forbidden by law and custom to be taught to read and write therefore they couldn't work as clerks or assist with any business transactions.

An indentured servant typically brought existing skills needed by the "employer." Although the servant may have had meals and clothing provided, it wasn't necessarily required. It all depended on the contract. The person taking the indentured servant could specify what he was looking for, and get it on his terms. Once the indenture was over, obligation was over.

Lastly, the middle colonies socially were more "do it yourselfers," religious and cultural norms meant that they typically wanted to work and do for themselves. If you were starting a farm or business you may need some help to start but once the operation was going, they wanted to do it themselves.

Answer 2

Yes they did Though indentured servitude was more common, slave numbers grew significantly in the eighteenth century. By the mid-eighteenth century, slaves comprised twelve percent of the population of New York though the Quakers attempted to pass statutes forbidding the slave trade in 1688, 1693, and 1696, the British Parliament overruled these laws in 1712.

Answer 3

Yes...many come over seas with the promise from the london company for better life after a few years of service to another person. The London company also said the indentured servants would get 50 acres of land and a job but that did not happen.

-Alex Kranz, age 13 abram

Answer 4

You could easily buy a fully trained slave, but the slave was usually quite expensive. If you bought an untrained slave or one was born to your existing slave you had put the slave through a training period. During that time you got no work, and possibly some damages made by an inexperienced worker.

There were laws regulating the treatment of the slave, and once the slave was too old to work, or too feeble the owner had to feed and clothe that slave for life. By the same token, if you had dangerous work required, and the slave was hurt you had to care for him or her.

Slaves were forbidden by law and custom to be taught to read and write therefore they couldn't work as clerks or assist with any business transactions.

An indentured servant typically brought existing skills needed by the "employer." Although the servant may have had meals and clothing provided, it wasn't necessarily required. It all depended on the contract. The person taking the indentured servant could specify what he was looking for, and get it on his terms. Once the indenture was over, obligation was over.

Lastly, the middle colonies socially were more "do it yourselfers," religious and cultural norms meant that they typically wanted to work and do for themselves. If you were starting a farm or business you may need some help to start but once the operation was going, they wanted to do it themselves

Answer 5

Yes, the middle colonies did have slavery, but of course all colonies had slavery at one point or the other.

Answer 6

The settlers of the colonies used the indentured servant concept to bring workers to the colonies.