again read the article before you comment you’re making assumptions based on your understanding without reading the article that dispute your assumptions about how indentured servitude worked in reality
There is a logic to this.
if you have two slaves..
one you own in perpetuity (40 + years) and
0ne you own only temporarily (7 years)
which are you going to use up first?
since you only have the temporary one for 7 years but the permanent one for a longer time
you basically want to use up the short timer first ...you use up (work harder) the one that has the shorter time of being a slave to you
You “use up” the one to whom you have no further obligation if unable to work, and you “use up” the one whose inevitable, accelerated decline if he or she lives is none of your concern.
it’s no different than something you own versus something your rent ...like a car
people always abused a rental car harder
than they’re a car that they own
because the car they own going to have last for a longer time then the car they only have temporary
I did read the article. What you say may be true, but I maintain it still isn’t the same as chatel slavery. People in England were sent to debtors prison for not paying debts. “Free” people turned to crime because they had no other option than starvation. Press gangs scooped up “free” Englishmen for the Navy and Army. Brutal times.