the servant as long as possible. Indeed there are several examples of white servants who had to
petition for their freedom because their masters attempted to hold them beyond the period of their
indenture.72 The slave had no indenture. The contract was made with the seller of the slave, and he
had no incentive to limit the term of service because that would serve only to limit his potential
profits.73 The colony passed laws limiting the time of service for white servants who had no
indenture because permitting masters to hold them for an unlimited period would discourage
immigration. The African was not a voluntary immigrant, so there was no similar need to assure his
time of service would be limited. Thus the method by which slaves were acquired made it easier to
hold servitude for an indefinite time while economic forces worked against any limit being imposed.
The colonists came to make money, and few, if any, had second thoughts about appropriating the
labor of others in their quest for profit.

Another factor that may have played a role in the white colonists' willingness to establish a
system of lifetime servitude was the class based society from which they came. Although white
servants came with the hope of bettering themselves, society in England had a substantially fixed
class structure. Even if servant status was a product of an annual or an at-will contract, the servant
in England was likely to remain in that status for life because he or she had no better alternative. The
colonial indenture was necessary because servants in America had alternatives, but the master was
unlikely to perceive anything wrong in a servant class which remained in servitude throughout their
life. Although the indentured servant had rights to receive com, clothing and rights to land from his
master when his term of servitude expired, the master owned all of the labor of the servant during
the indenture period.74 In view of the high rate of mortality in the early years of the colony, term
servants often died before their term expired.75 The sharp difference we see between servitude and
slavery may have been less distinct in such a context.

Finally, the African was different in so many ways from the white servant that it was
possible, as the 1639 bills demonstrate, for the English colonists to view them as not entitled to the
"rights of Englishmen." Even though many masters must have lived and worked alongside their
servants and slaves, the initial barriers of religion, race, language and culture produced an attitude
that perpetuated the gulf between negro slave and white master. Just as parents tend to perceive their
children as children long after the child has reached maturity, so the attitudes produced in the initial
relationship would color the master's perception of his slave to prevent the perception of human
equality. Meanwhile, the indentured servant who shared the race, religion and language of the
master was likely to identify with the master, hoping to become a master one day, and thus tending
to share the same distanced view of the slave despite working together in the early years. Many of
the differences between Englishmen and Africans also existed between the colonists and the indians.
Indeed, some indians were taken as slaves in the early stages of colonization.76 As early laws
indicate, however, slavery was dangerous to the society where the slave's kinsmen were armed
nearby.77 Further, indians could escape back to their tribe. The African had no kin in the new land.

In short, for the master, perpetual slavery was economically desirable, it was not foreclosed
by contract or positive law, and a variety of other factors including the alien background of the slave,
the hierarchical structure of english society, and the comparability of slave and servant status

13