Planters came to prefer enslaved labor over indentured labor for several key reasons:
- Enslaved laborers were cheaper in the long term despite an initial purchase cost, as they did not have contracts limiting the length of their service, allowing planters to use their labor indefinitely. This was more economically advantageous compared to indentured servants who worked for a limited term.
- Enslaved labor was associated with racial distinctions, which made it easier for planters to capture runaways and maintain control over their workforce, reinforcing social and legal control based on race.
- The supply of indentured servants declined significantly starting around the 1660s and 1680s, while the availability and lower prices of enslaved Africans increased, further encouraging planters to shift toward slave labor.
- Indentured servants often had legal protections and the potential for social mobility after their term of service, which could create competition for land and labor with planters. Enslaved Africans, by contrast, were bound for life and did not threaten the socio-economic hierarchy.
- Indentured servants had limited service terms and often sought freedom afterward, which created a less stable labor force. In contrast, enslaved individuals served for life, providing a permanent labor source.
- Social unrest such as Bacon's Rebellion highlighted the potential threat posed by a large population of discontented former indentured servants. Replacing indentured servants with enslaved Africans helped planters and elites prevent future rebellions by uniting white society along racial lines rather than economic class.
In summary, planters preferred enslaved labor due to lower long-term costs, lifetime service, greater social control enforced by racial distinctions, a shrinking pool of indentured laborers, and the desire to avoid social unrest linked to indentured servitude.
