I disagree somewhat.

"Indentured servant" in the 17th century meant just
that, but "servants" were not all indentured.

In fact, the general term "servant" probably was
broader in the 17th century than it is now and did, as
you suggest, include employee and other meanings
between employee and someone who was indentured. Nell
Marion Nugent discusses this issue in the Introduction
to the first volume of Cavaliers and Pioneers.

Given the general absence of such records, it is
usually impossible to tell the precise status of most
persons named as headrights in Virginia patents.

jc





--- Katharine Harbury <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The term, "servant" or "indentured servant," in the
> 17th-century held a
> different meaning - I believe it was used in the
> context of an
> "employee" instead of a "servant" as we know it
> today.  This was why
> Adam Thorowgood was described both as a "servant"
> (employee) and a
> gentleman.  Many younger sons of nobility came to
> Virginia as
> "indentured servants," and no stigma was attached to
> it.  The more
> modern meaning of "servant" only came later.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of research and writing about
> Virginia history
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joe
> Chandler
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:07 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: a question about transporting new
> colonists
>
> To the previous information I would add the
> following:
>
> (1) A headright does not necessarily mean that the
> person for whose
> passage was paid was an indentured servant. I
> seriously doubt that Adam
> Thorowgood was an "indentured servant," although he
> is described as a
> "servant" in the muster of Edward Waters in Jan-Feb
> 1624/5, having
> arrived in the "Charles" in 1621.
> Indeed, he was described as a "gentleman" when he
> bought 150A on the
> north side of Hampton Roads on December 30, 1626.
> His status was such
> that he married Sarah Offley, who was (as has been
> noted) the daughter
> of one Lord Mayor of London and granddaughter of
> another. Her father
> invested more than L100 in the Virginia Company ca.
> 1618/19, perhaps in
> response to the major change of administration of
> the Company that
> occurred then. I suspect Adam's status was akin to a
> clerk or
> aide-de-camp to Waters while Adam got acclimated to
> Virginia (going
> through one full year's cycle and surviving the
> climate and other
> threats to life).
>
> (2) Headrights were also awarded for persons merely
> visiting in the
> colonies -- it was the transit for which the
> headright was earned, even
> though not everyone transported stayed.
>
> (3) Headrights were also fungible, much like bearer
> bonds are today.
> They could be sold (and often were) by simple
> endorsement on the face or
> the back and sometimes passed through several hands
> before being
> redeemed. Ship captains also acquired headrights for
> transporting
> individuals for free, often to fill out the
> passenger spaces on their
> ships for later redemption (investments) and/or to
> provide a sufficient
> number of souls to meet contract requirements for
> which the captain had
> been advanced funds by a planter in Virginia.
>
> jc
>
>
>
> --- Douglas Deal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Barbara's response nicely summarizes the
> difficulties inherent in
> > using land patents and headrights for genealogical
> purposes. The
> > larger historical significance of the system is
> pretty clear, though.
> > The idea was to reward--with land grants--those
> immigrants who paid
> > for their own passage to the colony and for that
> of others, whether
> > family members, servants, or (for several decades,
> at least) slaves,
> > at the rate of 50 acres per person transported
> (self plus others).
> > Those whose passage was
> > thus paid did not get the land, except for a spell
> in certain other
> > colonies, such as Maryland where it was part of a
> servant's freedom
> > dues (until 1683, if I remember correctly). For
> most of the colonies,
> > including Virginia, the headright system rewarded
> the wealthiest with
> > even more wealth. In Virginia, it helped build a
> landed elite that,
> > conveniently, was rewarded for bringing more labor
> into the colony.
> > Political conflict in the decades before and after
> 1700 revolved, much
>
> > of the time, around the abuses and inequalities
> that the practices of
> > land distribution entailed. Anthony Parent's
> recent book, Foul Means,
> > treats some of this story in detail.
> >
> > Doug Deal
> > History/SUNY-Oswego
> >
> > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe,
> please see the
> > instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
> >
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please
> see the
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please
> see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html