Scholars have recently devoted more attention to the various ways that Europeans settled the colonies in North America. It is clear that the majority of the earliest immigrants came here in some form of duress or desperation: as indentured servants or as criminals that were transported in lieu of harsh punishments in England and Ireland. Much of this history has been glossed over in the popular curriculum and is underplayed in the mythmaking about our colonial foundations.

The book makes a strong case that the early settlers were pawns in games being played by handfuls of an arrogant aristocracy that was driven by its own greed. It appears that a relatively small number of powerful players embraced the idea of transporting vast numbers of the poor to serve as conscripted labor for projects in the New World. This scheme persisted for a couple of centuries and was the solution for many problems:
1. It helped thin the ranks of the poor whose poverty fostered petty crime in England---it helped "rid England of undesirables"
2. Because a few wealthy "investors" were granted 50 acres for each "head" that was transported, it incentivized wealthy landowners to cruel labor practices workersl (since a dead worker could be replaced with a new conscript plus more land)..
3. It helped the British supply warm bodies to establish a foothold in North America
4. Britain used the rapid growth of the colonies to distract the French, with whom there was an ongoing struggle
5. The laborers became a de facto occupying army that cost the Crown almost nothing

The treatment of the indentured and transported persons was horrific , although not excessive given the standards of the time. A woman might be transported for stealing a plate. The terms would be set: if she survived the transatlantic voyage (1/3 did not) then she would be required to work for 7 years at whatever tasks her master required. Infractions against the master, e.g. getting pregnant, funning away, theft, etc. were met with whipping and more time added to the term of service. Often it appears that the term of service could be extended until the person was too weak or ill to carry on.. English aristocracy and the rapacious brand of capitalism embodied here look very bad.

There is a review posted here that alleges this is a hoax. This critique claims that the whole notion of "Irish slaves" has been debunked. It goes on to state that the idea is grounded in white supremacy and is an effort to minimize what happened to Africans that were brought to the colonies. INo citations or referenes are given to support this critique. It concludes by playing the Hitler card and comparing the authors to Nazis. It does not seem that this person actually read the book---there are many references to the differences between the treatment of the enslaved Africans and the transported/indentured Europeans. Those treatments changed over time and those changes were instrumental in the fostering of racist ideas justifying slavery. Francis X Kendi has discussed some of this, as have others.

This book is an overview of that research literature and is intended for the general layperson. This is a serious book from a serious press. As such it has been criticized, probably justifiably, for over-reliance on published and secondary sources. These criticisms come from academic historians who would want the authors to make more use of the unpublished stuff in the archives of diaries, etc. Fair enough, but this is an excellent introduction to a neglected topic in the history of the colonies. ( )

A topic that often comes up in regular society: "What about white slaves?" Unfortunately, political correctness has discouraged academic historians from even addressing the topic. Which is why this book is written by two non-academic, non-historians. (This is a demerit in the eyes of many. It is published by an academic press, NYU Press.)

In present-day academe, to claim there are white slaves, or white "slaves" if you prefer, is somehow seen to demote the horrific tragedy that was African slavery in the Atlantic world and what became the United States. As such, saying "white slaves" is verboten. Instead, you must say "indentured servants." That is fine. The white laborers were technically, legally indentured servants and black laborers, for the most part, were technically, legally slaves. (Chattels personal in the British colonies: moveable private property.) Okay. That is fine too. That is a proper distinction to make (though, the authors point out, white indentured servants were often referred to as "slaves" at the time). But, all too often, the indentured servants are portrayed as freely engaged workers who personally choose to sign contracts of indenture, and, all too often, the work of indentured servants is portrayed as relatively light in comparison to slavery. This book takes a contrasting point. A large majority of the indentured servants did not freely choose to be servants, many were criminals punished with servitude, or paupers punished with servitude, or kidnapped and sold into servitude. This is un-free labor. The book discusses this relatively well. The difference, of course, between indentured servants and slaves was, the indentured servants had some rights, slaves did not, and indentured servants had the prospect of their contract ending, slaves (unless freed by a master) could not see the end of their servitude. That is an important difference. As to rights and punishments, the authors note that indentured servants had few rights and recourse when it came to their masters. This is similar to that of the slaves. As to treatment, the authors rightly note that the indentured servants were sometimes treated far worse than slaves. Simply, if you're "renting" a guy for seven years, why not work him to death? If you purchased a slave for life, working him to death makes no sense, as you lose future return on your investment. These revelations and the indentured servitude system in no means is meant to take away from the evil that was African slavery in the Atlantic world, and the book does not do that, but the book and its revelations are meant to underscore the fact that many white servants did not freely choose to be servants, their work was hard and harsh, and their lives were often bleak.

The book is essential because it is one of the few out there. But, academics should study white servitude more, not be afraid to write about it and depict its horribleness. To do so is not meant to demean African Americans or detract from the evilness of African slavery in the Thirteen Colonies/United States. And, truthfully, some ignorant folk, some white bigots and racialists, point to "white slavery," "white cargo," white indentured servants and say: "African slavery wasn't that bad!" That is stupid. But, nobody should let stupidity diminish the need for actual, good research and retelling. Two things can be bad at once: chattel slavery of Africans and indentured servitude of Europeans. Both are violative of the principles Britain and America in particular, and the West in general, would later espouse, those Lockean and Jeffersonian ideals: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Better books can be written. This book, though published by an academic press, NYU Press, is written by two non-academic, non-historians. As such, they stick to published primary and secondary sources. Academic historians would mine the voluminous primary source material. This should be done. Many references are done oddly, some facts should be footnoted and aren't, etc. Index. Useless pictures. ( )

FYI this is all 100% lies.
This is classic Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist/KKK/MAGA lies.
This is ahistorical meaning there is zero evidence this ever happened.

No such thing ever occurred and this is a work of complete fiction.
White people were indentured servants which is a human rights violation.
It's not the same as chattel slavery.
It's not even close.
Their kids were born free.
Under chattel slavery your descendants are enslaved in perpetuity.
Indentured Servitude isn't an inheritable condition.
This is the historical equivalent of saying the US Japanese Concentration (Internment) Camps during WWII are the same Nazi Germany's Death Camps.
No, in both camps people are treated horribly, inhumanely and in violation of their human rights.
In the German camp they suffer same AND are being systematically murdered.
( )

Dodgy history.
Update: While not mentioned specifically, the NYT wrote a piece on the White Slave narrative:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/us/irish-slaves-myth.html?referer=http://m... ( )

Disjointed, overblown, and poorly sourced. Skip it. ( )

For most of the 1600's, the bulk of American slaves were white "indentured servants." Many of them came to the colonies involuntarily. While their servitude wasn't for a lifetime like black slaves' was, many many people died before they earned their freedom. For example: of the 300 children kidnapped and brought to America between 1619 and 1622, only 12 were alive in 1624. It was vicious. This book is about those people and what happened to them. the authors offer tales from diaries and personal accounts as well as evidence from legal records and publications. It was an interesting book. I liked it, depressing though it was. ( )

Tells the forgotten story of America's white slaves, where English undesirables were simply sold to slave owners in the Americas. It is a timely reminder that not all the slaves were black. ( )

It's good to see another addition to the few books on the transportation of convicts to North America. But like its predecessors, this book pretty much ignores the law. It describes all white forced servants as being slaves. In doing so, it somehow assumes that the law was a sham.
In law, there was a great gulf between indentured labourers and convicts. The latter were transported as a condition of their pardons from death sentences. As a consequence, they remained attainted until their sentences were served. Attainted persons were unable to hold property, sue in the courts or give evidence. That became a matter of great significance in New South Wales, which succeeded North America as the convict dumping ground.
In analysing indentured and convict workers as slaves, the authors blur the legal difference between them. Wittingly or otherwise, they adopt the essentially Marxist analysis of law which ended among legal historians with the publication of EP Thompson's Whigs and Hunters (1978). Until then, Marxists assumed that the law was merely a ruling class plot and that its pretensions to the rule of law were merely a mask for class preference. Famously, Thompson claimed at the end of his book that the rule of law was, without qualification, a Good Thing. At the least, it was to be taken seriously.
So for an old legal historian like me, this new book is a curious historical relic, a throwback to the age of the 60s and 70s.
Isn't it time for a North American legal historian to take the law of convicts seriously? 50000 convicts were transported to North America. In practice they may well have been treated as slaves. How did that practice meld with the law? What did the courts say when the sales of convict labour were tested, or when convicts tried to give evidence?
3 out of 5 because it tells an important story in a compelling fashion. But, my, the analysis is weak. ( )

Until I started reading [White Cargo] by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh I thought I knew a little something about American history. I didn’t. Between Jamestown and the Declaration of Independence, American style slavery was developed to supply the labor needed to work the new land. First street children, then convicts and undesirables like the Irish were being gathered and shipped to America. Some volunteered to work off the price of their passage for the opportunity they were told awaited them in the colonies. All found themselves in a slave trade that was so profitable that soon people were being kidnapped off the streets to fill the demand for labor in the New World.

The authors make a good case for their argument that ‘indentured service’ is just another name for slavery. As they point out, African servants were originally treated no differently from English servants. The story of Anthony Johnson, an African who worked out his indenture and went on to build his own plantation and own his own servants, both black and white, is illuminating to say the least. The book gave the best picture I have yet seen on the development of the institution of slavery and racial intolerance in America that I have seen.

The book is well researched and documented, their extensive bibliography offers a bounty for anyone wanting to do further investigation. Each chapter is well organized around specific aspects of the selling of other peoples labor and has the narrative flow of a novel while not venturing into speculation. The use of the phrase ‘played the race card’ struck me as anachronistic but the actions they describe planters taking after Bacon’s Rebellion certainly seem to fit our understanding of the term.

I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the history of the United States and the people that built it and I am looking forward to Jordan and Walsh’s next effort. ( )