out of the fertility of the soil may accrue to the planters by the
richness of the commodities it produces. And we see that the Creoles
in Carthagena and all the rest of that continent are so rich by that, that
there be very few nay not any almost that will do any work, but
employing their negroes to manure the ground, by the infinite
encrease of cattle which they kill for the hides (there being little
account made of the flesh) by the commodities the earth brings forth
of tobacco, fruits, woods and rich dyes grow in a few years to
inestimable riches; nay their very slaves negroes if but once they can
gain their freedom in a very short time grow worth many 1000. of
ducats: so grateful generally is that soil to men's labor as not only to
feed but largely to enrich them.64

When the first colonists in Virginia sought a supply of labor, they had no compunctions about
purchasing twenty negroes from a dutch ship that came to Jamestown.65 Nevertheless, the year after
that first purchase, the system of indentured servitude started in Virginia and, unlike the situation in
Latin America, the English colonists initially were able to satisfy their needs for labor largely
through this system.

It may seem ethnocentric to search for reasons for the colonists purchase of slaves when so
many other nations plainly pursued the slave trade for profit. The English were not inherently any
more ethical than the African slave dealers or the Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch slave traders, even
though national pride led them to consider themselves superior to other nations. Nevertheless,
slavery never took root in England where land was limited and labor plentiful, and some English
writers took pride in the absence of slavery.66 Further, slavery was not an important source of labor
in the colonies for most of the seventeenth century. But the indentured labor system that
predominated also contributed in some degree to the acceptance by the colonists of the slave trade.

The colonial system of indentured labor had several aspects that distinguished it from the
labor relations of England, hi England, the master paid for his labor as he received it; paying room,
board and wages to servants who bound themselves by annual contracts or providing room, board
and training to apprentices in the crafts who were bound to serve several years. Acquiring labor in
the colonies, however, required laborers to be transported there. The worker who paid his own
passage could establish his own farm. To obtain labor, a colonial settler had to pay the transportation
costs for individuals who wanted to establish themselves in the new land but could not afford to get
there. This meant a high initial investment for the master who needed to obtain an unusually long
period of service to recover the cost. Further, although the immigrant of means could make contracts
in England and bring his servants with him, he still needed to acquire servants from England when
the term of the servants he brought with him expired and they set out on their own. Thus, he needed
an English agent to contract with the laborer. This swiftly evolved into a system whereby
Englishmen contracted with laborers who agreed to work for that person, their heirs and assigns.
The contract was then sold to a colonist when the laborer arrived in the new land. This system began
in Virginia in 1620 and resulted in indentures for service that were assignable.67 Unlike England,

11