planters were "to suppress all inhuman severity toward servants." If they did
mistreat a laborer with excess punishment, malnourishment, misappropriation of
their property, or provided inadequate quarters, the laborer could file grievance
with the colonial House of Burgess.
15
However, contracts were the basis of
servitude and because contracts were always made "between unequal powers [that
appear] on paper as equals, enforcement was far easier for the master than for the
servant." Thus, servants' complaints fell on deaf ears, even under the reformed
government. After all, servants did not vote or "participate in juries. Masters
did."
16
The law reflected only the interests of the planter class – a group more
"interested in controlling servants" than regulating the methods in which "they
were procured" and the manner in which they were treated – allowing masters to
exercise complete control over their servants.
17
Laborers' sex lives were regulated
and punishments were issued for transgressions, while masters made marriage
decisions on behalf of their workers.
18
Monetary rewards were issued to anyone
who caught an indenture off the plantation without a note of permission from his
or her master. The trait of servitude most indicative of its slave-like nature was
that indentures were bought, sold, and gambled away at the discretion of the
masters.
19
Like the slaves that would follow, servants had no control over their
own destinies.
These structural conditions of colonial Virginia were founded on the
classist ideology of the colonial elites, which was exported by the English elites
when they exported the poor themselves. English society looked upon such dregs
with contempt and "anticipated that the Colony would diminish crime in the
kingdom by drawing away" those tempted "to drift into vagabondage, beggary,
and lawlessness."
20
The Virginia planters held the same lowly views of the lower
classes, believing them to be "dirty and lazy, rough, ignorant, lewd, and often
criminal." Underclass servants were seen as thieving, wandering bastards who
"corrupted society with loathsome diseases," and the elites doubted the ability of
the poor to make it in the New World as a landowner or artisan because they were
"shiftless, hopeless, ruined individuals."
21
15
Philip Alexander Bruce, Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century: An
Inquiry into the Material Condition of the People, Based Upon Original and Contemporaneous
Records, Volume II (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1935), 10, 46.
16
Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present (New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 2003), 43-44.
17
Jordan and Walsh, White Cargo, 122.
18
Zinn, A People’s History, 44. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Volume II, 38.
19
Ronald Schultz, "A Class Society? The Nature of Inequality in Early America," in
Inequality in Early America, ed. Carla Gardina Pestana and Sharon V. Salinger (Hanover:
University of New England Press, 1999), 211-212.
20
Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Volume I, 583.
21
Zinn, A People’s History, 46-47.
4
Grand Valley Journal of History, Vol. 2 [2012], Iss. 1, Art. 1
https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/gvjh/vol2/iss1/1