In forma pauperis: Indentured Servitude, the Right to Counsel, and White Citizenship in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
Anna Suranyi
{"title":"<i>In forma pauperis:</i> Indentured Servitude, the Right to Counsel, and White Citizenship in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake","authors":"Anna Suranyi","doi":"10.1093/ajlh/njad024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Indentured servitude was an exploitative form of coerced labor in England’s American colonies, but indentured servants were expected to join settler society after completing their terms of indenture, and they possessed clearly defined legal rights and protections in both English and colonial laws, even during their period of servitude. The masters and mistresses of indentured servants sometimes engaged in physical abuse and contractual fraud, but servants could sue their masters or mistresses in court without owing fees, a status termed in forma pauperis. Courts facilitated servant lawsuits and heeded procedural fairness, bringing in compensated witnesses, searching archival records, and even providing pro bono lawyers. It appears that most servants won their cases against their masters and mistresses, obtaining their freedom, their withheld freedom dues, or reimbursement for overlong terms of servitude. Indentured servants’ lawyers affirmed that their clients were rights-bearing members of society, persuasively utilizing terms such as ‘justice’ and ‘equity’ to represent their cases. The access of servants to legal recourse, the courts’ commitment to ensure due process and legal representation, and the frequent victories of servants over their masters demonstrated that indentured servants were regarded as valued members of colonial society in the Chesapeake, and in other colonial regions. Unlike enslaved people, who possessed neither legal rights nor access to the courts, white indentured servants possessed inherent, though limited, rights of freeborn subjects, even if from disenfranchised groups, such as women, children, or those of Irish origin. The legal and social distinctions between servitude and slavery began arising half a century before Bacon’s Rebellion in the 1670s, which is conventionally assumed to be a watershed event in the division between indentured servitude and slavery. The affirmation of the rights of indentured servants developed in parallel with the growth of slavery, and contributed to developing ideals of white citizenship.","PeriodicalId":54164,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY","volume":"25 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajlh/njad024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Indentured servitude was an exploitative form of coerced labor in England’s American colonies, but indentured servants were expected to join settler society after completing their terms of indenture, and they possessed clearly defined legal rights and protections in both English and colonial laws, even during their period of servitude. The masters and mistresses of indentured servants sometimes engaged in physical abuse and contractual fraud, but servants could sue their masters or mistresses in court without owing fees, a status termed in forma pauperis. Courts facilitated servant lawsuits and heeded procedural fairness, bringing in compensated witnesses, searching archival records, and even providing pro bono lawyers. It appears that most servants won their cases against their masters and mistresses, obtaining their freedom, their withheld freedom dues, or reimbursement for overlong terms of servitude. Indentured servants’ lawyers affirmed that their clients were rights-bearing members of society, persuasively utilizing terms such as ‘justice’ and ‘equity’ to represent their cases. The access of servants to legal recourse, the courts’ commitment to ensure due process and legal representation, and the frequent victories of servants over their masters demonstrated that indentured servants were regarded as valued members of colonial society in the Chesapeake, and in other colonial regions. Unlike enslaved people, who possessed neither legal rights nor access to the courts, white indentured servants possessed inherent, though limited, rights of freeborn subjects, even if from disenfranchised groups, such as women, children, or those of Irish origin. The legal and social distinctions between servitude and slavery began arising half a century before Bacon’s Rebellion in the 1670s, which is conventionally assumed to be a watershed event in the division between indentured servitude and slavery. The affirmation of the rights of indentured servants developed in parallel with the growth of slavery, and contributed to developing ideals of white citizenship.
形式上的贫民:17世纪切萨皮克的契约奴隶、律师权利和白人公民权
契约劳役是英属美洲殖民地强制劳动的一种剥削形式,但契约佣工在完成契约条款后被期望加入定居者社会,即使在其被奴役期间,他们在英国和殖民地法律中都拥有明确界定的合法权利和保护。契约仆人的主人和女主人有时会进行身体虐待和合同欺诈,但仆人可以在法庭上起诉他们的主人或女主人,而无需支付费用,这种状态被称为形式贫民。法院为仆人诉讼提供便利,注重程序公平,引入有偿证人,检索档案记录,甚至提供无偿律师。似乎大多数仆人都赢得了对主人和女主人的诉讼,获得了自由,获得了被扣留的自由费,或获得了长期奴役的补偿。契约劳工的律师肯定他们的当事人是拥有权利的社会成员,有说服力地使用“正义”和“公平”等术语来代表他们的案件。仆人获得法律追索权,法院承诺确保正当程序和法律代表,以及仆人对主人的频繁胜利表明,契约仆人在切萨皮克和其他殖民地地区被视为殖民地社会的重要成员。与既没有合法权利也没有诉诸法庭的奴隶不同,白人契约仆役拥有与生俱来的自由臣民的权利,尽管这种权利是有限的,即使是来自被剥夺公民权的群体,如妇女、儿童或爱尔兰裔。在17世纪70年代培根起义之前的半个世纪,奴隶制和奴役之间的法律和社会区别就已经出现了,这通常被认为是契约制奴役和奴隶制之间划分的分水岭事件。对契约仆人权利的肯定与奴隶制的发展同步发展,并促进了白人公民理想的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Legal History was established in 1957 as the first English-language legal history journal. The journal remains devoted to the publication of articles and documents on the history of all legal systems. The journal is refereed, and members of the Judiciary and the Bar form the advisory board.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信