[lentulusgracchus]

Slavery was illegal in Illinois. Indentured servitude was not.

I thought indentured servitude was illegal in the U.S. since, well, at least since the Constitution was ratified in 1787, and maybe since the Articles of Confederation, which would be 1777. They had indentures in Illinois? If they had indentures, how could they condemn chattel slavery? Bondage is bondage -- that's why Hewlett-Packard's employees sued H-P and Tata International in the 90's over some of the H-1B's Tata was bringing to work for H-P, that had (what the plaintiffs complained were) indenture clauses in their contracts.

Something doesn't add up.

[Non-Sequitur]

I thought indentured servitude was illegal in the U.S. since, well, at least since the Constitution was ratified in 1787, and maybe since the Articles of Confederation, which would be 1777.

What would make you think that indentured servitude was banned by the Constitution when slavery was not?

[4CJ]

They had indentures in Illinois?

Yep.

[GOPcapitalist]

They had indentures in Illinois? If they had indentures, how could they condemn chattel slavery?

Simple. Like all yankees, they adhered to the "do as we say, not as we do" school of government.

[#3Fan]

I thought indentured servitude was illegal in the U.S. since, well, at least since the Constitution was ratified in 1787, and maybe since the Articles of Confederation, which would be 1777. They had indentures in Illinois? If they had indentures, how could they condemn chattel slavery?

When did they condemn it?