The history of labor in colonial America covers more than 200 years, spans a vast geography, and includes important regional diversity. Adding to the complexity, laborers themselves often left little written record, making it difficult to piece together the experiences and stories of their lives. A common theme, however, does appear. Until well into the 18th century, scarcity describes labor everywhere. Potential employers complained that even if laborers were available, wages were too high. This lament came from tobacco producers in the Chesapeake area as well as artisans in the port cities. Labor shortages were the result of the rich natural resources found in the colonies, primarily land. Colonists had less need to work for someone when they could own land.
Colonists turned to a variety of solutions to solve some of the problems created by labor scarcity. The three major port cities, Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City, and the Middle Colonies blended bound with free workers. The plantation owners in the southern, Chesapeake, and West Indian colonies responded to the shortage of workers by depending primarily on unfree laborers.
Colonial America contained three distinct types of unfree labor—apprentices, indentured servants, and slaves. Each form was used in varying degrees in every colony. However, the nature of each system varied. Apprentices combined education with labor. Apprentices were bound to a master for a period of years, and in exchange for obedience and work the master provided food, clothing, lodging, and training in the “art and mysteries” of a trade. The colonial system of apprenticeship came from England, where it was intended to supply society with skilled labor and at the same time to reduce the burden of supporting orphaned and other poor children.
Apprenticeship did little to relieve the labor shortage in the colonies. Unlike servants and slaves, apprentices came primarily from the native-born population. More important, because they started their service at a very young age, they contributed little in terms of labor, often being relegated to running errands, sweeping floors, lighting and tending fires, and other odd jobs. Older apprentices gained the skills that enabled them to participate more fully in the labor force. Apprentices served artisans most often, although masters who also taught skills ranged from doctors to lawyers, seamstresses to domestic service.
Indentured servitude contributed greatly to easing the labor shortage in the colonies. Between one-half and two-thirds of white immigrants from Great Britain and continental Europe immigrated as indentured servants. The vast majority of colonial servants labored in the agricultural sector. Most entered into servitude because they were too poor to finance their own passage to the colonies and were willing to exchange service for a specified period of time, usually three to four years, for the price of their transportation.
African slavery provided the bulk of workers in the southern colonies, especially after 1700. The brutal system reduced human beings to property. In the early 17th century little distinction apparently existed between servants and slaves. Gradually, white colonists passed laws that bound African slaves for life and passed this condition on to the slaves’ children.
The Chesapeake Area and Lower South
Although the economies of the Chesapeake area and the Lower South developed differently, both regions relied on staple crops that required intensive labor. In the Chesapeake area planters grew primarily tobacco; in the Lower South they focused their energies on rice and indigo. The first Jamestown settlers in 1607 worried very little about labor. Many assumed that they could grow rich in Virginia on its natural abundance. They were so confident that they would not have to work that the first ships transported a large percentage of gentlemen (who would not work because of their status) and skilled craftsmen, like silversmiths and jewelers, who could extract precious metals and stones. If they did need labor, the colonists fully expected to mold the local Indians into a labor force.
Nothing went according to plan. Death stalked the colonists, and gold and silver were nowhere to be found. In addition, the Indians understandably refused to work for them. John Rolfe introduced the one ray of hope for Jamestown beginning in 1612, when he discovered that the lands of Virginia were well suited for the cultivation of tobacco. At that time the English smoked tobacco for its medicinal qualities. This changed, however, when regular shipments of the weed arrived from the New World. People increasingly smoked for pleasure, and the demand for the “jovial weed” rose dramatically. Tobacco helped solve the colony’s financial problems, but it had a hidden difficulty. The cultivation of tobacco was labor intensive—it required many workers over a long planting, growing, and harvesting season.
The Virginia Company of London, the joint-stock company in charge of promoting and developing Virginia, indentured young English people to solve their immediate labor needs. These servants entered into servitude for the company by exchanging the cost of their transportation to Virginia and food, shelter, and clothing for seven years of service. The company promised this first group of servants a share in the profits from the colony. The company, however, struggled financially and devised another system to entice people to sign on as servants. Instead of buying and shipping the servants, the company encouraged anyone who planned to immigrate to Virginia to pay the costs of their own servants’ travel. For each servant transported, the master received 50 acres of land. The company also promised land to the servants as part of their freedom dues. According to the first population census in 1625, more than 40 percent of Virginia’s residents were indentured servants; almost all of them had emigrated from England.
About three-quarters of the 75,000 whites who immigrated to the Chesapeake colonies from Britain between 1630 and 1680 came as indentured servants. Masters struggled with how to force servants to labor under harsh, inhospitable conditions when they lacked economic motivation. In a sense, servants were prepaid by their transportation to the colonies. They did not earn any additional benefit from their labor. Gradually, legislators devised a legal system that devoted a great deal of attention to controlling servants’ behavior. If servants ran away, masters could add time to their contracts, whip them, crop their hair, or, if they absconded habitually, brand them. The laws licensed masters to use “reasonable” force if they needed to exert control over their servants.
For the first 50 years of Virginia’s existence, servants were the machines that grew tobacco. Gradually, toward the end of the 17th century, slaves began to replace servants. This transformation occurred for a number of reasons. As economic conditions and workers’ incomes improved in
England, the supply of servants dwindled while the demand for labor continued to increase. Simultaneously, the availability and relative costs of slaves decreased. During the early 17th century high mortality rates made it more cost effective to invest in the short-term service of a servant than in the more expensive slave for life. As the risk of early death diminished and when the Royal African Company’s monopoly on the slave trade ended in 1698, the costs of Africans decreased, and planters turned to slaves. The decline in mortality also meant that more servants survived their servitude and collected their land. In addition, Chesapeake area planters feared that they would compete in the tobacco market. Because slaves served for life, they posed no risk of competition.
The cycle of tobacco production extended over an entire calendar year. The heaviest labor occurred during the late summer and early fall, but the crop demanded almost daily attention. Because tobacco required so much care, it was well suited for gang labor, small units of about eight to 10 workers. This allowed the tobacco master or overseer to command close supervision of the workers; one member of the gang often set the pace for the group. The slaves who labored in the tobacco fields worked from sunup to sundown, and because their workday was organized around time rather than output, they had little incentive to work quickly. Although masters adhered to strict gender division of labor regarding white women and would not place female servants in the fields, they had no reservations about black women. Through the 18th century black women outnumbered men as field workers, and they were often joined by black children.
The story of staple crop development and labor unfolded differently in the Lower South. South Carolina’s settlers came primarily from the West Indies and arrived with their slaves. The system of labor did not evolve from one dependent on white servitude to one dependent on black slavery. Rather, slaves were present in the colony from its inception. In the early decades of the colony, no single crop dominated production. By the second generation planters focused their energies on rice. Rice was not part of the English diet, but planters recognized its potential value because it was an important dietary staple in southern Europe. Even though the boggy soils of the Carolinas were perfectly suited for rice cultivation, the first attempts failed because planters did not know enough about what they were doing. Successful rice cultivation coincided with the arrival of a large number of West Africans who were familiar with rice production. They introduced the style of planting, cultivating, cooking, and even singing work songs that provided the rhythms of production. The key role they played did not soften the effects of slavery. Ironically, the slaves’ ability to grow rice moved the colony more quickly toward a heavy reliance on slave labor.
The cycle of rice cultivation lasted for more than a year, with the most intense activity at midsummer and midwinter. Unlike tobacco, rice growing featured slack periods, and slaves often ended their day before sunset. Nevertheless, rice demanded heavy work, and it was grown near swamplands and stagnant waters that bred disease.
During the mid-18th century Carolina planters developed an additional export crop, indigo. The best varieties of indigo also came from the West Indies, and West African skills contributed to its successful cultivation. Indigo plantations reeked from the smells of fermenting plants, and the odors attracted swarms of flies and other insects.
Both rice and indigo required large labor forces, and planters turned to a number of sources. As in the Chesapeake area, local Indians refused to work for them or often died from European diseases if they were enslaved. Planters imported some indentured servants but never in sufficient numbers to satisfy their labor needs. They relied most heavily on African slaves, who provided more than just their labor. West African expertise allowed for the successful production of rice and indigo. By the third decade of the 18th century, blacks constituted a majority of the South Carolina population.
Caribbean
The history of labor in the Anglo-CARIBBEAN mirrored that of the Chesapeake area in that the labor force shifted from white indentured workers to African slaves. However, this transformation of labor occurred far earlier than in Maryland and Virginia. During the first four decades of the 17th century, the majority of laborers were indentured servants from England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. During the 1640s Barbados planters began to realize the advantages of slave labor. Unlike servants, slaves served for life and could be treated far more harshly. As the island’s sugar industry developed, planters increasingly invested in slave labor. Although the smaller islands followed a similar labor pattern, they did so a bit later.
Planters preferred that slave cargoes include a balanced gender ratio, and in the early years of the slave trade an almost equal number of men and women were shipped to the Caribbean. Over time the slave trade consisted almost exclusively of men. Because women played essential roles in agricultural production, African societies could ill afford to lose them; they considered men to be more expendable.
Middle Colonies and New England
No staple crop dominated agricultural production in the Middle Colonies and New England, and the demand for labor consequently was less intense. Most farmers in these regions practiced a mixed AGRICULTURE and depended on family members for labor. Immigrants to New England settled in townships and divided the lands among the household units. Pennsylvania families gathered in villages, and land was distributed to families based on their status. New York developed the most unusual organization. In some regions originally settled by the Dutch, patroons controlled vast amounts of land worked by tenant farmers; in newer regions families cultivated smaller acreages.
Immigrants to New England in the 1630s often brought servants with them. They realized how much labor was involved in creating new settlements. However, once these servants achieved their freedom, they were not replaced. Indentured labor never played a significant role in the labor force. Perhaps one-quarter of all Massachusetts families owned servants. New England farm families did require additional labor, especially during harvesting, building, and birthing. They preferred to rely on their children or, if necessary, exchange or hire labor for specific days and tasks.
Pennsylvania’s founding generation predicted that labor would be scarce. The Free Society of Traders, the joint-stock company in charge of the colony’s development, planned to import servants and slaves. As in the colonies to the north, unfree laborers did play an important role in establishing the first farms. Approximately 271 servants and between 400 and 500 slaves resided in Pennsylvania in the early decades. By the early 18th century the demand for unfree labor shifted from the rural to the urban sector. By the 18th century Philadelphia accounted for a disproportionate number of unfree laborers. Throughout the history of the colony, servants and slaves were members of interchangeable labor forces. Residents preferred the labor of white servants, but when they were in short supply they bought slaves.
Gendered Division of Labor
Households everywhere participated in a gendered division of labor. Women had primary responsibility for the house and children, and among middling and poorer families they also cultivated gardens. Men were relegated to the fields. During periods of peak labor demand, this structure altered somewhat. For example, in Pennsylvania when wheat and hay were harvested, men and women formed teams. Women operated slightly lighter scythes and helped reap and pile the grain. Haying followed, and because the scythes for this were considerably heavier, women trailed the men and spread the grass to dry. Both men and women loaded the hay onto the wagons.
Households participated in a range of activities in which the roles of men and women were interdependent. In textile production, for example, men assumed the primary responsibility for growing the flax. Women might do some weeding, but their most important contribution was turning the flax into cloth and then making items of
This engraving shows a colonial carpenter at work. (Library of Congress) clothing. The economic status of the household dictated to a large extent the ways in which women spent their time. Women in middling families devoted a large percentage of their labor to food preparation and preservation. They performed the labor themselves or with the assistance of their daughters. Upper-class women were responsible for the same range of tasks but were more likely to supervise servants than to perform the work themselves. Women in poorer families maintained their households and took care of their children. They also supplemented their families’ incomes in various ways. In the cities they took in washing or sewing for a small fee or scavenged in the streets for discarded items; in rural areas they might weed gardens or gather vegetables in exchange for food.
Women contributed to the economic well-being of their families beyond their household tasks. They were involved in an often hidden but essential network that exchanged goods and services. These rarely involved cash but constituted an important part of their families’ incomes. Women who made cheese, for example, might trade with a neighbor for candles or preserves. Women also tended the sick, pulled flax together, and assisted at a birth. New England PuRlTANS demonstrated how they valued women’s work by attaching a symbolic value to their labor. For each man who arrived in the colonies without his family, the Massachusetts Court of Assistance offered him cash to be used to hire the services usually performed by a wife.
The value of women’s labor eroded in the 18th century. Key to this shift was the transformation of the ECONOMY. Although women were always subservient to men, this position did not affect their essential contributions to the household economy. During the 18th century money played an increasingly larger role, and market consciousness expanded. Consequently, the value of labor came to be measured more in terms of cash. While women’s work remained virtually unchanged and they continued to labor in the home, they received little external cash value. Women were no longer considered to be part of the “real economy,” as domestic labor had become marginalized.
Changing Artisanal Labor Conditions
Important transformations occurred in the nature and the organization of labor among artisans at the end of the colonial era in British North America. Masters began to function more as employers in a free market rather than as craftspeople. Rather than relying on bound APPRENTICES and JOURNEYMEN engaged for long periods, masters began to hire and fire workers as they needed them. Journeymen, consequently, enjoyed more individual freedom, since their personal lives were less frequently supervised by masters outside of the workplace. However, journeymen became more vulnerable to the vagaries of the market, since they were dismissed when the economy in general or the demands for their specific skills decreased. Meanwhile, the apprenticeship system, which taught young people artisanal skills, began a slow decline. All of these changes established the foundation for conflicts between employers and workers that would become considerably more serious in the 19th century.
See also CONVICT labor.
Further reading: Philip Morgan, Slave Coun'terpoin't: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Lowcountry (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998); Gary B. Nash, The Urban Crucible: Social Change, Political Consciousness, and the Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979); Billy G. Smith, ed., Down and Out in Early America (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003).
—Sharon V. Salinger and Billy G. Smith
La Demoiselle ("Old Briton") (d. 1 752) Miami leader La Demoiselle, known among the British as “Old Briton,” was an anti-French leader among the Miami Indians of Ohio during the mid-1740s. A Piankashaw by birth, La Demoiselle married into the tribe and became an influential war leader among the Miamis inhabiting the town of Kekionga on the Maumee River. Around 1745, he became involved in an emerging political dispute that centered upon the Miamis’ wavering economic and military attachment to the French. Increasing trade prices had driven many Miami leaders, including La Demoiselle, to support a rebellion against the French-supported alliance chiefs who dominated the tribe’s political leadership. In opposition to Piedfroid, the headman of Kekionga and a staunch supporter of the French alliance, La Demoiselle and his supporters attacked the French trading post at the town in 1747. Following this attack, La Demoiselle removed his followers to a new village along the Miami River, Pickawillany, where he forged union among anti-French Indian elements in the Ohio country and created a new trade relationship with the English. However, a smallpox epidemic and continued political factionalism among his supporters seriously undermined La Demoiselle’s efforts. His rebellion came to a sudden halt in June 1752, when a French-led force of Ottawas and Chippewas sacked Pickawillany. La Demoiselle, who vowed never to return to the French alliance, was killed and most of his followers, unwilling to emulate his example, returned to the old alliance with the French.
Further reading: Richard White, The Middle-Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Regions, 1650-1815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
—Daniel P. Barr
World History
