The argument that the author shows why and how Virginians had started to turn toward a slave-labor economy in addition to this how it had imported workers to England as well as Virginians imported workers from England to ensure their profits.
Edmund Morgan suggests that as soon as Virginians found tobacco, that the colony was on the road for slavery. The forcing servants into slavery might have led to massive rebellion, that the enslave Virginians, that on chapter 15 it states that “Virginians had only men who were already enslaved after the initial risks of the transformation had been sustained by other elsewhere”. (297) This quote illustrates that the people that were already a servant will become enslaved. Therefore in 1660, with a decline in immigration due to an end to England’s. population problems, it became more advantageous for Virginia planters to buy slaves. Edmund Morgan further explains that the Virginia planters had advantages over other plantation economies. They could have replaced the slaves at a lower rate than sugar planters, giving a greater return to the investment of a rise in the price of tobacco meant they could have pay from them, as well as tobacco required, that in chapter 15 it states that, “And man small amount of capital, insufficient for the outlay of sugar plantation.” (303) This actively illustrates the quote that the small production equipment was not enough for the capital. Therefore, the men who wanted to get into plantation production went to Virginia. Another reason that the author would argue with is that the men who arrived had garnered more of the prestige in England that they brought slavery to Virginia by buying where it states that, “These were the man who brought slavery to Virginian, simply by buying slaves instead of servants.” (304) This actively illustrates that people that are servants are no longer servants but slaves. Therefore, by the end of the century, more than half of Virginia’s labor force was enslaved.
Hi Shadae, you’ve made a solid effort to analyze this difficult and dense chapter… At times here, however, you sound a little unclear on the difference between (English) indentured servants and (African) slaves. By law, English indentured servants could not be enslaved, although they could have time added on to their terms of indenture, and they were subject to other punishments. Given the advantages of Virginia planters you describe, as well as the economic advantages of owning enslaved workers as opposed to servants, why does Morgan say that the transformation to slave labor in Virginia took place slowly and gradually rather than all at once?