Children transported to British Colonies (Children in Bondage)?

+7 votes
339 views

In Scotland/Ireland/Britain during colonial times it was common practice to kidnap children, charge them with trumped up crimes, and deport to the American Colonies, the "spirits" (recruiting agents) making money on each child deported.  There must be many profiles that must fit this category. 

Quesstion:  Under Penal Transportation to British Colonies can we create a category Children in Bondage OR Children Transported as Indentured Servants  OR  just Transported Indentured Servants??

WikiTree profile: Thomas Lockerby
in Genealogy Help by Grace McChesney G2G3 (3.1k points)
retagged by Maryann Hurt
How many profiles have you run across that would go into this category?
The term TRANSPORTED in passenger lists is what distinguishes them from those who "immigrated."  There were actually large numbers, although lay genealogists may not be aware of it.  In my case, it was recorded that "Thomas Lockaby was charged with "theft of (1) pair of braies (britches) & (1) pair of stockings" and was deported to Virginia Colony in 1763."

As Jack said, these children had no choice in the matter. And as historian Richard Hofstadter pointed out, " it remains true that a certain small part of the white colonial population of America was brought by force, and a much larger portion came in response to deceit and misrepresentation on the part of the spirits [recruiting agents].

@ Jack Day:  Yes, I like the term Indentured Children.  I think that covers it quite well.  I don't think it should go under Penal Transportation to the Americas, although that is the case, but I think most people wouldn't look there for it.  They would look perhaps under British Colonists,and then look for Indentured Servitude   What say you?

Transported is also a term used to indicate someone brought over other people and gained headlights for them.  Such as " so and so transport so and so and received such and such for them "  I think to created this category would be redundant. As it is already covered in the Irish slave project.
So, does this cover "British Home Children"?  I have several ancestors who were removed from England to Canada by Dr Barnardo's.  They were not imprisoned, nor convicts - but the outcome was the same (dreadful).

3 Answers

+3 votes
 
Best answer
This is a topic that we are just learning.  I think when it was just generalities in school, the subject could be ignored, but now that we are researching individuals' lives we are discovering these stories.  So it seems to me a category to group these children in would be good, and probably it makes sense to group them by country of origin -- and maybe destination as well.  If the children were brought to North America, it wouldn't surprise me if several decades later we didn't have the same phenomenon with Australia.  

I'm fishing for just the right word and it's not coming to me yet.  The servitude was for a set period of time (7 years?) so they were not slaves, but they were certainly put in a miserable circumstance for others' benefits!
by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (457k points)
edited by Jack Day

So here's a thought:  

Category:  Indentured Children  (could be a subcategory of prisons and a variety of other major categories.

I think a category name should include the word "children" because that sets it off from less abusive categories.  In Maryland in the 1600s, Skordas is the authority on land grants, and about 90% of the names were "transported."  "Immigrants" paid their own way, but those who were transported got their passage paid in exchange for being indentured for 7 years, after which they were free, could get their own land grant, marry, and have children.  So they were indentured -- but they chose it themselves.  The children we're talking about here didn't make any choices for themselves.  Someone else put them under indenture, and someone else benefited.  Nevertheless, those who survived still could become free and many had successful adulthoods.  It's a story that needs telling.

Subcategories (illustrative list only): 

Indentured Children, Scotland to British Columbia

Indentured Children, Ireland to Barbados

Indentured Children, England to Australia

I would not picture creating subcategories until needed.  If there are 5 places they could be from and 30 destination places, that's 150 subcategories, most of which, hopefully would never be used, but this would establish a format in which subcategories could be created as needed.

One resource for this project is from Wikitree: Indentured servitude in the Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude_in_the_Americas

In Scotland at this time it was common practice to kidnap children, charge them with trumped up crimes, and deport to the American Colonies, the "spirits" (recruiting agents) making money on each child deported.  In the immigration papers there is a distinct difference between being "transported" and those who immigrated.

Another good reference is a true story entitled "Indian Peter" https://www.amazon.com/Indian-Peter-Extraordinary-Adventures-Williamson/dp/1845960327/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469817412&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Skelton%2C+Douglas.+Indian+Peter%3A+The+Extraordinary+Life+and+Adventures+of+Peter+Williamson.+Publisher%3A+Mainstream+Publishing+%28November+1%2C+2004%29+Language%3A+English+ISBN-10%3A+1845960327  It tells of a boy, captured on his way home, charged with theft, and 'transported'. His horrendous tale is quite enlightening.

Between the 1630s and the American Revolution, one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the American colonies arrived under indentures. Many went to the Carribean, eastern seacoast of the Am. Colonies both north and south, Australia, New Zealand, New South Wales... most colonies that Britain held at that time.

I will be happy to develop resources and perhaps images for this category... maybe develop a template.  I just don't know where the best place to sub-catagorize it would be.  Also, are there instructions (or a mentor) on making categories?  I've worked with Maria Maxwell in developing the Scottish Ridell Clan, so I have some experience.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you, Grace

+2 votes

The UK/Irish Project has an  "Irish Slaves" category. Check it out to see if it will work for you. http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:Irish_Roots

by J Murray G2G6 Mach 3 (37.2k points)
Checked it out... it's misleading.  I don't think it fits.  Do you mean create a subcategory under UK/Irish project?
Would it be acceptable for me to add [[Transported Indentured Servants]] under Penal Transportation to British Colonies?
Or would putting [[Children in Bondage]] under Penal Transportation to British Colonies??

            or under UK/Irish Project??
The Irish Project is onto something here, and a lot of this happened in the 1800s.  But something to be alert to is the genocide committed by the English Puritan armies in the 1600s.  The troops of English "Protector" Oliver Cromwell troops destroyed some Irish villages, killing every man, woman and child.  Other villages, all the residents were taken into slavery and shipped to Barbados and other Caribbean Islands.   

One of the accounts I read said that those engaged in the African slave trade were up in arms against Cromwell, because they were trying to sell their African slaves for a price, while Cromwell was sending Irish slaves to the Caribben for free, thereby undercutting the value of African slaves.  These are chapters of history not often taught in school.
+2 votes
I started a discussion about Irish Slaves a few months back.  Then some time after these discussions the Irish Slave category came about. These " kid napped "  children were not indentured , they were not released in most cases , they were slaves. As were many adults.  So I would check out the Irish Slave Category.  Men , woman and children were from Ireland , Scotland and Wales  also were loaded in ships and dumped in the ocean .  Indentured implies they would be released at some point in time. They were not sent for punishment , they were removed.
by Anonymous Roach G2G6 Pilot (197k points)
edited by Anonymous Roach
The distinction is certainly extremely important.  A slave is a slave for life except in the exceptional circumstance that one is set free, but there is never a guarantee or even expectation that one will be set free.  That was certainly the case for slaves of African origin.  

An indenture was for a term of years, typically seven in Maryland.  Many adults voluntarily subjected themselves to indenture in order to get passage across the Atlantic and the chance at a new life.  Many of these, labelled as "transported" in the records, went on to become prominent citizens.   

Kidnapped children shipped across the Atlantic is yet another kind of situation.  Certainly it was not voluntary.  What became of them?  Were they typically freed at some later point or not?  There is a lot here that we don't know until we look at specific cases.  My strong recommendation would be to start with one or more persons/profiles who fit this description, and create the appropriate category for them, rather than to create categories in advance into which they might fit.

In the case of James Lockerby, mentioned by Grace McChesney in a separate query, the situation fits indenture rather than slavery.  It was certainly not voluntary.  The mechanism was an abuse of justice to charge the child with a crime so that the "punishment" could be shipping the child away across the Atlantic.  But under the guise of "punishment" there was a definite term limit after which Lockerby was free, and he went on to live a life and found a family.  I would recommend a category like "Indentured Children, Scotland to Virginia" as one most likely to fit the categorization objective of grouping persons in similar circumstances together for genealogical purposes.
Jack , something my research has led me to that I find interesting is Quakers in early America not not believe in owning another human being  , but did sometimes purchase slaves.  Housed and fed them , educated them and emancipated them.  Then the emancipated softened did the same kid of thing. Often the bought the younger slave.  Some of my family were both African and Scots and Irish.  Native Americans were also sold as slaves.  I have found records of emancipation where slaves ,  then sold themselves into indentured.  It was a very complicated thing.  I was taught in school many years ago , that Africans were slaves and whites were indentured.  This was untrue .  Horrible practice none the less.  My tie to Alex Haley on wikitree was from a marriage of a Quaker woman to a slave.  My family in early Virginia appears to be quite mixed racially.  My grand fathers first wives may have been Native women bought by them.  Still searching.

Jack and Trudy, this is the discussion I was hoping to have on this topic.  There were Irish/British and African slaves, and there were (at first anyway -- 1610) Africans who were treated as indentured and given their freedom after an aloted # of years.  The same is true of British/Irish (predominantly Irish) who were slaves with no indenture, and indentured "slaves."  The trick was always that if they "misbehaved" more time was added on to the indenture, so it could end up being 10, 15+ years or more as a virtual slave (all horrendous and criminal in itself).  Now to Project/sub-project/category:  Project I'm thinking should be placed under United Kingdom. then sub-project the term British Indentured Servants and Slaves which encompasses all (almost) --  In my research I found that Indentured did have an age limit and was rarely anyone over 25.  Category: Indentured Children, Scotland to Virginia as Jack suggested.  That opens the door to categorize Adult Indentured Servants in the future, also England to Maryland, etc in the future. Irish Slaves could go under to broader term British Indentured Servants and Slaves also.  This makes sense to me and would be easy to find in the Project/Category structure What say you?

I think this is an important topic and so a category structure that makes sense up and down would be important.  As a member of the category project, I'll certainly call attention to it and to what I would propose at this point:

Status quo:  Starting at Category, the downward trail is Category-->World History--Slavery,   There is also a trail Category-->Society

Proposal:  Without taking anything away, I'd propose creating a new category under Society named Servitude.  I would add Servitude as a higher category for Slavery, and also create a new subcategory under Servitude called Indenture.  Now you would have a trail Category->Society-->Servitude-->Indenture.   

I haven't checked to see if there is a category for Apprentices, but that was a separate form of servitude, also with a time limit, that could fit under servitude -- and also under work or professions.

A category like British Indentured Servants could go under Indenture. I'm not comfortable having one category for both Indentured Servants and Slaves;  I think it would be better to have a separate one under Slavery for British Slaves and then put a cross-link under British Slaves and Indentured Servants to refer one back and forth from one to the other.  

 A category for Indentured Children would go under Indenture.  I think it would be important to distinguish between those who were indentured but never moved, and those whose migration was part of their indenture, but I don't think that would require a separate subcategory, just difference of names under Indentured Children.  So if you found a child who was indentured but stayed in England, it would simply be Indentured Children, England, and one who was transported would have the category I suggested earlier, Indentured Children, England to Virginia.

I"m personally conservative about categories, preferring to create only the ones one needs for profiles one has access to.  So for the profile that would fit under Indentured Children, England to Virginia, I'd recommend creating that profile, once no objections to this system surface, and then create the necessary higher categories over it so that the finished trail would go Indentured Children, England to Virginia --> Indentured Children --> Indenture --> Servitude --> Society --> Categories.

If this is part of a Project, then of course the categories covered by the Project would be subcategorized under the Project name as well.  

I would resist having British as a higher level distinction because the focus is on the type of servitude, and Britain is simply one of many places where it can happen;  we need a category structure that can accomodate them all.  So if the profile warrants it,  Enslaved Children, Albania to Hongkong would have a place.  But I would only recommend creating the categories that profiles need;  the specificity is good when you have the profile to go with it, but the theoretical possibilities are almost endless.
Wonderful!  No objection here!!

>Society-->Servitude-->Indenture -->Indentured Children -->Indentured Children, England to Virginia.

Yes!

Related questions

+6 votes
0 answers
+7 votes
2 answers
172 views asked Oct 16, 2021 in The Tree House by Living Kelts G2G6 Pilot (545k points)
+3 votes
5 answers
309 views asked Feb 12, 2019 in Policy and Style by Living Harlan G2G6 Mach 1 (16.1k points)
+2 votes
3 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...