Talk:Engagé

Irish in New Orleans
Opening the talk page discussion on including Irish labor in the 1830s in New Orleans in an article about indenture in New France. First, the sources provided do not support the claim that these laborers were indentured. They were clearly exploited, but a reliable source is needed to assert that they were engagés. Second, the article is about a practice of New France. The 1830s are nearly three decades after the Sale of Louisiana and Louisiana had been a U.S. state for nearly 20 years. Before that, Spain had controlled Louisiana for four decades. Beyond that, indentured servitude in French Louisiana was common in the 1600s and early 1700s, but after the bursting of the Mississippi it appears to have declined as did immigration to the colony in general. Absent a reliable source that identifies this Irish labor as indentured servants (and specifically as indentured under the French engagé system), then it doesn't belong in this article. (When removing the text, I did place the sources on the New Basin Canal article.) — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The edit to change the scope of the article to include the state of Louisiana still doesn't provide any reliable source for classifying Irish labor in the 1830s as indentured servants rather than as exploited immigrants. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have already added a source that says they were indeed indentured servants. Aearthrise (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The source you added has a single adjectival use of "indentured" (not engagé): "Early commercial development began in the 1830s when Irish indentured servants cut the New Basin Canal through the swamps ..." That comes in a short historical description of the Lakeview neighborhood. Compare that to the description in Joe Regan's "Irish Immigrants in the Rural U.S. Slave South", which goes into details of the contracts used to attract workers: "Cameron recruited 136 Irish labourers in Philadelphia on favourable terms. Cameron offered to pay passage, as well as the workers' lodgings and board. The workers were offered $20 a month and an agreement was made that their pay would be remitted back to Philadelphia to support their families." (p. 241) There's a lot about Irish indentured servitude in Regan's thesis, but he while he outlines how the New Orleans Canal and Banking Company exploited Irish labor and didn't uphold their contracts, he doesn't characterize them as indentured, much less as engagés (which is a specific French form of indenture and not a generic term for the practice). — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, looking at the Sealsfield source used to make a claim about Germans being sold into "white slavery", it's clear the term used at least by English-language press at the time for indentured servants was "Redemptioners". The Irish workers, who had been hired in Philadelphia and who were promised a monthly salary (which is different from the indentured servants who might receive a sum at the end of their term of labor, but not a regular salary), struck because "The Irishmen believed they had been treated no better than 'redemptioners' by the company..." . While exploited, the more detailed sources show that the Irish canal builders were not indentured. Regarding the number of deaths, the 8,000 figure is commonly cited but is unsupported by contemporary evidence or later research. This is mentioned in the New Basin Canal article, but detailed in . —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

White slavery claim
The claim "Creoles often referred to engagés as "white slaves" and especially Germans were commonly sold as "white slaves" in Louisiana." fails verification. The source provided (in full: ) reads: "The fourth class, the Germans, live under circumstances of 'self-contempt and an awareness of uselessness for society.' Many of the were 'being sold as white slaves.' Without any comment the narrator summarizes, 'Englishmen, Scots, and Iris normally get on fine' (1995, 196–97), obviously avoiding details and judgment because of the intended publication of his book in Great Britain." This comes as part of Sealsfield's attempt to characterize the sociological structure of the New Orleans, which Ritter describes as "This presentation of a sociological structure, dictated by social status and rank, reminds the reader of European orders." Looking to the original source where the "being sold as white slaves" comes from, Sealsfield wrote: "These people, without being possessed of the smallest resources, embarked eight or ten years ago, and after having lost one-half, or three-parts of their comrades during the passage, they were sold as white slaves, or as they are called, Redemptioners, the moment of their arrival. Thus mixed with the negroes in the same kind of labour, they experience no more consideration than the latter; and their conduct certainly deserves no better treatment. Those who did not escape, were driven away by their masters for their immoderate drinking; and all, with few exceptions, were glad to get rid of such dregs." There's nothing in either source that supports the claim that Creoles often (or ever) used the phrase "white slaves" (in fact, Sealsfield points to the common term as being "Redemptioners"). Looking at the 1825 Civil Code of Louisiana, the word engagé is used in the French-language version of the code to describe both apprentices and those who have "vendu leurs services" / "sold their service" (Article 157, Nos. 2–3; English, p. 48; French, p. 49), differentiating them from those who hire themselves out as wage laborers (Article 147, No. 1). Both forms of engagé are clearly in the section on free servants (Title VI; Chapter 2), not the section on enslaved people (Title VI; Chapter 3). There are clear rules and parameters around bound servants and they have access to legal channels to break their contract, which slaves did not.

The claim "The children of engagés or petits habitants (Creole peasants) were sometimes abandoned and sold into slavery as whites slaves." seems to be designed to set up the mention of Sally Miller, implying that her case was a common one. This assertion is unsourced and the Sally Miller article does not make the claim that her situation (the orphaned child of Redemptioner who was apparently was sold into slavery by her father's contract-holder after her father died) was a common one. It's also worth noting that one of the reasons the Supreme Court of Louisiana found that Miller was to be freed was because she was white (per ). The Miller story also undercuts the prior claim that Germans were "commonly sold as 'white slaves'" in that Miller's owner had been cautioned she "was only to be kept a slave by great care" (Wilson & Wilson (1998), p. 6) because the seller and buyer were both aware she was white. While acknowledging the sources are anecdotal, Wilson & Wilson (1998) does allow that there likely was some white slavery (broadly in the South, not specifically in Louisiana) and that the most likely instances involved children like Miller who were orphaned and/or kidnapped. Regardless, this does not support the unsourced claims being made. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Now you're seriously reaching for straws, you ignore the quotes about Irish indentured servitude, claim that Creoles never used the term White slave, and that the sentence "children were sometimes abandoned and sold into slavery as whites slaves" is false. Children were indeed sometimes abandoned and sold into slavery in Louisiana. Your failed verifications tags don't make any sense, and you are trying very hard to replaced published sourced material that verifies what is already written. Aearthrise (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring quotes about Irish indentured servitude. I'm looking at the sources and seeing that while there is some casual use of the phrase, sources that focus on Irish labor and canal construction note they were contracted as wage laborers, not indentured laborers ... and when they felt they were being treated as if they were indentured, they went on strike. The full sources and supporting quotes and context are here on the talk page. If you have better sources, please provide them similarly.
 * I didn't say Creoles never used the term "white slave" but I don't see any evidence that they used it "often" as you claim. Again, the source you provided and the full quotes surrounding it's use are here on the page. The new sources you added to the statement still don't appear to support the claim: "white slaves" doesn't appear in Crisis Cities; The article you're citing in Le Correspondant is "Les Escaves Blancs aux Antilles Françaises," Louisiana isn't mentioned and it appears to be using "escaves blancs" as a rhetorical device to criticize policy in the colony; Lefranc has the phrase "des esclaves blancs ou noirs" on page 60 as part of a pro-abolition statement, not a description of practices in Louisiana.
 * The only one that might support the claim is Aventuriers et Corsaires, a novel that includes the description un homme de vulgaire encolure et portant le costume des engagés, sorte d'esclaves blancs qu'un service temporaire liait aux colons propriétaires., which connects the phrase "white slave" with "engagé" ... in Martinique. Emya did live for a time in New Orleans, but he wrote for a French audience, so I don't think this is a clear indicator of support for the statement that "[Louisiana] Creoles often referred to engagés as "white slaves".
 * As to children being abandoned and sold into slavery, the sources don't support saying in wikivoice that this was a common practice. The Lost German Slave Girl outlines one case, and Wilson & Wilson mention a few more, although not all in Louisiana. The Garrison quote in Wilson & Wilson is, again, is speaking broadly about slaveholding states, not particularly about Louisiana.
 * This isn't about trying to replace material that verifies what is already written; I'm looking at what you've added (some of which was apparently copied from other articles, is that right?) and when it seems to be WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, or wrong, I'm looking at the sources provided and other scholarship to see what is correct. Again, if you have better sources, bring them to the discussion here, but the verification failed tags, etc., shouldn't be removed until the claims are properly documented. &mdash; Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Saint-Domingue claims
"Many of the indentured servants in Saint-Domingue were German settlers or Acadian refugees deported by the British from old Acadia during the French and Indian war."

The given source does not support the claim. The Acadian refugees recruited to settle in Môle-Saint-Nicolas where they were expected to settle and farm; however, the crown also demanded they labor on behalf of the crown to dredge a river and divert it's course. Since the crown was supporting the refugees and because the project would improve the lands allotted to them, they were impressed to complete the work."Though no army forced them to work, nor did they suffer under slave discipline, Acadians knew a more subtle kind of coercion. Beholden to the French state for their subsistence and bound by the empire's gift of land, Acadians could scarcely generate any resistance, whether to break free of the settlement or simply to get out of unwanted work. In a moment of stress, Acadians at Môle tried to redefine their relationship to the new empire in terms of basic rights; the state's labor needs, however, made such rights difficult to establish. The River Saint Nicolas was in fact dredged, and hands accustomed to building dikes to wall out the frigid tides of Nova Scotia changed the foul, hot stream's course. They were not paid. (p. 127)" Although the source does note that some remained in Saint-Domingue bought land and "joined the ranks of slave owners" (p. 129), there's no indication they were indentured to other landowners to work on sugar plantations, as the section implies. Some Germans (fleeing from French colonization efforts in Guiana) did end up in Môle-Saint-Nicolas, but, again, there's no mention of indentured servitude in the source (p. 129). The larger effort to settle Germans in New France discussed in the source is around the Kourou River in Guiana. This was a settlement effort where people were provided passage, land, and support for three years until the colony could support itself, not a case of indentured servitude or engagés (p. 114).

The only mention of indentured servitude in the source states: "One witness described the results for Acadians as a 'bondage so harsh' &mdash; a condition that buttressed indentured servitude with state coercion, replaced expropriation with forced settlement, and mingled slavery with liberty." (p. 101). The footnote attributes that statement to, and while I haven't been able to see the full context of the statement (the Google Books snippet view shows only: "Un si dur esclavage (car un nègre même peut améliorer son sort, devenir libre et acquérir tous les droits des citoyens) ne pouvait que leur ôter le courage et les sentiments et ne leurs laisser d'audace que pour le crime, la désertion la révolte;" p. 711), it's unlikely to support the claim here since the book is about French colonization in Guiana, not Saint-Domingue. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)