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
|
