Talk:Redemptioner

Untitled

A wiktionary word, if an authentic context can be quoted. The essay entry would be fmore indable under indenture no?

I agree with Anonymous above. If a "redemptioner" is an indentured servant, then shouldn't this be a redirect to indentured servant? Joyous 15:34, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

The Wiktionary definition was over general. A "redemptioner" was a specific type of indentured servant, but the terms are NOT interchangeable. Redemptioners were found mostly in 18c Pennsylvania, and they had more rights than 17c indentured servants had. The demographics of the redemptioner population differed from those of the larger indentured servant population; redemptioners tended to be older, were more likely to be married (often with children), and were often ethnically German. Drfryer 13:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment and Question

I agree that Redemptioner needs to be a separate entry for the reasons mentioned above. However, I don't think redemptioners were better off than indentured servants who negotiated their contracts in the U.K. On the contrary, redemptioners were non-British and came without the protection afforded British citizens regarding indentured servant contracts. The redemptioners were forced to negotiate their deals at the worst possible time/situation.

I read the source material cited below and found it related to early 19th century redemptioners when the phenomena had slowed to a trickle and so is not representative of the large number who came in the 18th. I've added some more source material. Also, I've written a long article, my first, and would like to run it past the group. Is there a place to post it first? WikiMensch 11:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

source material for redemptioner

http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/kade/adams/chap4.html

http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/b/i/e/Harold-D-Biebel/FILE/0003text.txt

http://www.mc.cc.md.us/departments/hpolscrv/whiteser.html

http://dz-srv1.sub.uni-goettingen.de/cache/toc/D227803.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html

Major revision

I received no answer to my question on 9 February 2007 so I replaced the "Redemptioner" stub article with my piece on 17 February 2007. The stub article lacked depth and also suggested it was an advantage to enter into indentured servitude via the redemptioner method compared to those who negotiated their indentures before leaving for America. It's my understanding that, on the contrary, it was a disadvantage to have to bargain when one's only option was to remain in the custody of the shipping company until the next interested buyer arrived. The physical and psychological stress would also have been a burden to the redemptioner at the end of his/her long and usually difficult voyage. In many cases the sea voyage was preceded by a long and tedious land/river journey and would have added to the travelor's desire to be done with the process. WikiMensch 22:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

reverted edits

I've clarified, with references, the legislation for British subjects needing to agree an indenture before a magistrate, and a similar law under Irish legislation. It was reverted with a comment of "The ref doesn't stack up". Please explain what about the ref that doesn't stack up. --HighKing (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no difference between British & Irish nationality at that time. The magistrate's word was good in GB and Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodMuncher (talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh? At that time, pre-1801, there were two different legislatures. One for the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and one for the Kingdom of Ireland. Two completely different parliaments, each with their own laws. Which isn't the same thing as your statement implies. A UK magistrates word was good in the UK. An Irish magistrates word was good in Ireland. A UK magistrates word was not good in Ireland though, and vice versa. Which is exactly what the references I've added have stated, and why it is incorrect to imply that the same laws applied over the British Isles, or that a single magistrate or Act of Parliament had jurisdiction over an area outside of their own area. Also, I find it very odd and suspicious that a completely new editor quotes BRD, and reverts my edits with an edit summary remarkably similar to a legion of previous socks on this subject. --HighKing (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on editors and agf at all times. I'm busy now and will respond at a later date. WoodMuncher (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you've any reasonable reasons for undoing the edit and quoting BRD. You've not demonstrated any reasons why "The ref doesn't stack up", as such, until a reason is forthcoming, I'll reinstate the edit. Please demonstrate a reason why you revert my edits before reverting in the future. --HighKing (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)