Question

(01.05 mc)question refers to the excerpt below. "put yourself in the place of the planter searching for labor. you can buy either servants or slaves … in the long run, the more expensive slave would have been the better buy."—james west davidson and mark hamilton lytle why were slaves a smarter choice for virginian planters, according to davidson and lytle?

Answer 1

In this example, Davidson and Lytle want us to understand why it would have been appealing for a planter to buy slaves. They invite us to think in the same way a planter might. To do so, they compare a servant and a slave. An indentured servant would have provided cheap labor for the planter. Moreover, he would have required the same things a servant would, such as clothes, food and housing. However, after a certain period of time, the servant would have been able to leave the planter. On the other hand, a slave would have required the same initial "investment," but would have never been able to leave his job. Therefore, from the point of view of the planter, a slave would have made more economic sense.

Answer 2

The slaves were a better choice because instead of the indentured servants who would have to be let free and then pose competition the slaves would work for life and were worth the larger fee up front because of the guarantee of labor for their entire life.