Indentured Servants and Company Towns. Specifically, it

¶ … indentured servants and company towns. Specifically, it will research and discuss how sociological concepts apply to these topics. Sociologically, company towns and indentured servitude are two of the most complex topics of life in historic America. Indentured servants placed their trust in others to eventually gain their freedom and a better life, while company towns existed to better the company, rather than the residents.

These two forms of controlled labor created new classes in America, and, sociologically, say much about a people who can keep others in bondage, no matter what the outcome. Indentured servants were an important part of Colonial America (and many other developing countries). Basically, most indentured servants came to the New World seeking a better life. Settlers in the new world encouraged indentured servants to come to America to help them work their lands.

The servants would sign up to work for their American masters for a specific length of time (often seven years). Included in their indenture was the cost of their travel to America, which they had to work to pay off. If they successfully completed their indenture, they would receive land, or cash, or tools, or sometimes a combination of these things. As one historian notes, "Immigrants signed labor contracts (indentures) committing themselves to serve other persons for a term of years.

In exchange, they had their transatlantic transportation expenses paid and were normally entitled to 'freedom dues' on the completion of their service" (Steinfeld 11). They would gain their freedom, too. This was a great incentive for many poor in Europe, who had little chance of advancement in their situations at home. In addition, many indentured servants were criminals working off their sentences, which added another dimension to the working class in America.

Clearly, employers took advantage of their indentured servants by contracting with them so long, and often working them incredibly hard each day of their indenture. In addition, the "master" "servant" relationship was not only clear socially, it was clear in law of the time. The master had the right to punish his servant for infractions, and masters could even resort to corporal punishment if they felt the need (Steinfeld 16).

Sociologically, this created a vast difference between the social classes, and created barriers between classes that were difficult to surmount, even when indentured servants eventually gained their freedom. Indentured servants could be punished by beating or whipping if they ran away or did not obey their masters, and if female servants got pregnant, they would have the time they could not work during their pregnancy added on to their indenture. They had few rights in society, and there were numerous laws concerning their discipline and servitude.

They were considered the lowest of classes, and although they added much to Colonial life, they were consistently subjugated and punished for the slightest infraction. As historian Steinfeld continues, "As late as 1793, it was still possible for Americans to understand the unfreedom of indentured servitude not as slavery but as some lesser form of unfreedom. In that year one court could still describe indentured servants as occupying 'a middle rank between slaves and freemen'" (Steinfeld 102).

Thus, the division of labor between groups and economic classes was established early in the New World, and it would continue to build on itself until in culminated in the Civil War. The main items separating servants during this time were freedom and race. Most slaves were black, and had no hope of freedom unless they escaped their masters. Most indentured servants were white, and did hang on to the hope of freedom someday. The social benefits of indentured servitude were many.

Freedmen often became successful and accepted members of the community, and added economically and socially to their areas. In addition, indentured servants provided much of the agricultural labor in the colonies, creating viable economic benefit to their masters and their communities. It is interesting to note that by the early 1800s, indentured servitude had all but disappeared in America. Like indentured servants, company towns served a similar purpose later in American history. These company built towns existed near the jobs where the laborers worked.

Company towns were more than just living quarters, however. One historian wrote, "One definition would be that it is a community devoted to a single industry, with all land and buildings owned by the company and all housing rented to employees" (Garner 176). These towns also contained schools, parks, and even company stores, where the laborers had to shop. Unfortunately, these stores often charged outlandish prices for their wares, which were taken directly out of the workers checks.

Along with rent and utilities that went back to the company, often, laborers were left with little or nothing in their wages after they paid back the company each week. Company towns were unique sociological experiments for a number of reasons. First, they tended to keep the residents apart from other communities and cultures. Often, the towns were built in remote areas because of necessity (the mines and industries the towns were devoted to were often located in remote areas, and it made sense to keep the workers housed nearby).

Thus, families were often far from the civility of cities and their many social and cultural opportunities. Often, company towns not only isolated their employees, they created an environment of sameness that did not encourage personal growth or character. Most often, the towns were laid out in square and uncompromising grids, and the homes were all built in the same style of the same materials. There was no originality encouraged or desired by the company.

They wanted to keep their employees under their complete control, and in this, the employees were much like indentured servants. Their wages were miniscule after the company deductions, so the company kept them dependent. They could never get enough money ahead to move away, and so, their family's well being and very survival depended on their subservience to the company and its' policies. Anyone who spoke out against costs, living conditions, wages, or social conditions was simply fired and kicked out of their company house.

With nowhere to go, most employees simply did not speak up or make waves. Just as with indentured servants, the company, or "master" had all the power, and the worker had little. Indentured servitude may have disappeared in the country, but savvy companies still knew how to control their workers and get the most work out of them for the smallest investment possible. Interestingly enough, company towns still exist to a.