日志
美国也是英国的罪犯流放地
||
英国船只将罪犯送往的主要地点
- 弗吉尼亚 (Virginia)
- 为什么选这里？ 弗吉尼亚是接收罪犯最多的地区，因为其广阔的烟草种植园需要大量劳动力。切萨皮克湾地区的劳动密集型经济非常依赖这些工人。
- 人数： 从1615年到1775年，估计有2万至2.5万名罪犯被送到这里，1718年《运输法》后达到高峰。
- 港口： 早期是詹姆斯敦，后来诺福克和威廉斯堡等较大港口成为卸货点。罪犯在码头或附近市场上被拍卖。
- 细节： 许多人在潮水地区种植园工作。弗吉尼亚议会曾对罪犯流入表示不满，但无法违抗伦敦的命令。
- 马里兰 (Maryland)
- 为什么选这里？ 和弗吉尼亚一样，马里兰的烟草经济推动了对劳动力的需求，是第二大接收地。
- 人数： 大约有1.5万至2万名罪犯到达这里。有些资料显示马里兰接收了切萨皮克地区近一半的罪犯。
- 港口： 安纳波利斯和巴尔的摩是主要登陆点。船只停靠后，罪犯被卖给帕塔克森特河和波托马克河沿岸的种植园主。
- 细节： 马里兰的天主教背景并未减少其对强迫劳动的需求。到1750年代，当地人试图对罪犯进口征税以减缓流入，但英国否决了这些措施。
次要地点
- 卡罗来纳 (北卡和南卡, North and South Carolina)
- 为什么选这里？ 新兴的种植园经济（南卡的大米，北卡的烟草和松脂）需要劳动力，尽管后来奴隶制占主导地位。
- 人数： 总计约5000至7000人。数据不够精确，因为卡罗来纳是较晚参与的地区。
- 港口： 查尔斯顿（南卡）是主要地点，威尔明顿（北卡）也有少量登陆。
- 细节： 南卡在1720年后因稻田扩张接收更多罪犯。这里的罪犯面临酷热和疾病，存活率低。
- 乔治亚 (Georgia)
- 为什么选这里？ 乔治亚1733年建州时是个乌托邦实验，最初禁止奴隶和罪犯。到1750年代，政策放宽，开始接收少量罪犯。
- 人数： 很少，可能不到1000人。起步晚，规模小。
- 港口： 萨凡纳是主要卸货点。
- 细节： 创始人詹姆斯·奥格尔索普反对接收罪犯，但经济压力在他失去控制后改变了局面。
- 中部殖民地 (宾夕法尼亚、纽约、新泽西, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey)
- 为什么选这里？ 这些地区种植园较少，接收罪犯用于城市贸易或小型农场，需求低于南方。
- 人数： 总计约2000至5000人，分布在几十年间。
- 港口： 费城、纽约市和珀斯安博伊偶尔有船到达。
- 细节： 宾夕法尼亚的贵格会传统使其挑剔，大多数罪犯被送到马里兰。纽约在1718年后接收了一些，包括像安东尼·兰姆这样的技术工人。
- 新英格兰 (马萨诸塞、康涅狄格等, Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.)
- 为什么选这里？ 新英格兰的清教徒理念和小型农场几乎不需要罪犯，他们更喜欢自由劳动力或学徒。
- 人数： 微不足道，最多几百人，通常是政治流放者而非普通罪犯。
- 港口： 波士顿偶尔接收，如1715年雅各布派起义后。
- 细节： 当地人拒绝大部分船只。1670年马萨诸塞法律禁止“流氓和流浪者”，不过仍有一些漏网之鱼。
运作方式
船只——通常是像 Forward 或 Alexander 这样的私人商船——从英国港口（伦敦、布里斯托尔、利物浦）出发，每艘载50至200名罪犯。航程需6至12周，取决于天气和疾病爆发。船长在殖民地港口直接将罪犯卖给买家，每人赚10至15英镑。像乔纳森·福沃德这样的大承包商在1720至1770年代主导了贸易，运送了数千人。
地区模式
- 切萨皮克主导： 弗吉尼亚和马里兰接收了75-80%的罪犯（共3.5万至4.5万人）。烟草是关键，种植园主不在乎劳动力来源。
- 南移趋势： 卡罗来纳和乔治亚随着南方殖民地扩张而晚期加入，但罪犯数量与奴隶制兴起相比微不足道。
- 北方抵制： 马里兰以北地区强烈抵制。新英格兰和中部殖民地将罪犯视为道德和经济负担。
到1775年，美国革命停止了运输。英国一个多世纪以来依赖这些地点——尤其是切萨皮克——但殖民地的反抗（法律、税收和富兰克林的“响尾蛇”讽刺）预示了终结。1776年后，澳大利亚的植物湾成为新的罪犯目的地。
++
美国并非英国罪犯的主要流放地，但英国确实在殖民时期将一些罪犯送往北美殖民地。以下是相关背景：
1. 北美殖民地的流放
时间：17世纪至18世纪，特别是在美国独立战争之前。
原因：英国监狱人满为患，北美殖民地成为流放罪犯的选择之一。
流放人数：相对较少，主要集中在弗吉尼亚、马里兰等殖民地。
2. 流放制度
罪犯类型：多为轻罪犯，如小偷、债务犯等。
生活：罪犯通常被卖为契约劳工，服役期满后可获自由。
3. 影响
劳动力：流放罪犯为殖民地提供了廉价劳动力。
社会结构：部分流放者及其后代融入了殖民地社会。
4. 结束
终止时间：随着美国独立战争的爆发，英国停止向北美流放罪犯。
总结
虽然英国曾将部分罪犯流放到北美殖民地，但规模远不及后来在澳大利亚的流放制度。美国的流放历史对殖民地社会产生了一定影响，但并非主流。
%%
美国的流放历史对殖民地社会产生了一定影响，但并非主流。
请进一步解释
好的，我来进一步解释美国的流放历史（即英国将罪犯运输到美国殖民地）如何对殖民地社会产生影响，同时为什么它并非主流因素。
对殖民地社会的影响
- 经济贡献，但有限
- 劳动力供应： 从1615年到1775年，大约5万至6万名罪犯被送到美国殖民地，主要集中在弗吉尼亚和马里兰的烟草种植区。这些流放者作为契约仆人为种植园经济提供了廉价劳动力，尤其是在17世纪后期至18世纪中期，当时奴隶贸易尚未完全取代契约劳动。他们的工作帮助种植园主扩大了烟草生产，支撑了早期殖民地的出口经济。
- 局限性： 然而，流放者的数量和影响远不及其他群体。到1775年，殖民地人口约为250万，而这5万至6万名罪犯仅占总人口的2-3%，分散在160多年的时间里。与之相比，约30万自愿契约仆人和50万被奴役的非洲人构成了更主要的劳动力来源。罪犯的七年或十四年服役期也限制了他们的长期经济作用，因为许多人未能活到获得自由。
- 社会影响与污名
- 犯罪与不安： 流放者带来了一些社会问题。当地居民常常抱怨这些“罪犯”逃跑或重操旧业，例如偷窃或抢劫。殖民地报纸上经常刊登寻找逃跑契约仆人的广告，其中不少是运输来的罪犯。这种不安导致了对流放者的普遍污名化，他们被视为道德败坏或危险分子。
- 融合与隐匿： 尽管如此，许多幸存下来的流放者在服役期满后融入了社会。一些人成为小农、工匠甚至地方名人，比如前面提到的安东尼·兰姆（Anthony Lamb）。他们的后代往往掩盖这段出身，避免社会歧视。这种低调融入意味着流放历史对殖民地社会文化的直接塑造有限。
- 政治与法律反应
- 地方抵制： 流放者引发了殖民地的政治反弹。到18世纪中期，弗吉尼亚和马里兰试图通过征税或禁令减少罪犯输入，比如1751年本杰明·富兰克林提议用响尾蛇“回礼”英国。这些努力虽被英国否决，但反映了殖民地对流放政策的反感。这种不满后来融入独立战争前的更大矛盾中，尽管它只是次要因素。
- 法律遗产： 流放者的存在可能间接影响了殖民地法律对契约劳动和惩罚的态度，但并未形成独特的法律传统，因为奴隶制和自由移民的法律框架更占主导地位。
为什么不是主流？
- 数量与比例不足
- 流放者的人数相对于其他移民群体微不足道。自愿移民（包括宗教流亡者如清教徒、经济移民）和被奴役的非洲人构成了殖民地人口的主体。到18世纪，奴隶制在南方殖民地迅速扩张，取代了契约劳动（包括流放者）作为经济支柱。相比之下，流放者只是劳动力拼图中的一小块。
- 时间与地理限制
- 流放主要集中在17世纪后期到1775年，且80%集中在切萨皮克地区（弗吉尼亚和马里兰）。新英格兰几乎拒绝接收，中部殖民地接收很少，南方晚期殖民地（如乔治亚）也仅在后期少量参与。这种地理和时间上的局限使流放未能成为塑造整个殖民地社会的广泛力量。
- 文化与身份的主导来源
- 殖民地社会的文化和身份更多由宗教理想（如清教徒的“山巅之城”）、自愿移民的创业精神，以及奴隶制的深刻影响所塑造。流放者的故事——往往是羞耻或生存的个人经历——缺乏凝聚力，无法形成主流叙事。相比之下，独立宣言的起草者或种植园精英的家族史更深刻地定义了美国早期认同。
- 革命后的淡化
- 1775年革命中断了流放，英国转而将罪犯送往澳大利亚。美国独立后，流放历史被胜利叙事和“新世界自由”理念掩盖。罪犯后裔大多选择低调，历史记载也很少强调这一部分，强化了其非主流地位。
总结
美国的流放历史确实对殖民地社会有一定影响：它补充了劳动力，引发了社会紧张，并间接助长了地方对英国的不满。但它并非主流，因为流放者人数少、分布有限，且被更大的移民和奴隶制潮流所淹没。殖民地社会的核心特征——经济结构、文化认同和政治理念——更多源于自愿定居者和奴隶制体系，而非英国的罪犯运输实验。这就像一幅画中的细小笔触，有存在感，但远非画面的主体。
The idea that America was primarily a dumping ground for Britain’s criminals is a bit of a simplification, rooted in historical practice but often exaggerated in popular imagination. Let’s break it down.
From the late 16th century through the 18th century, Britain did indeed use its American colonies as a destination for convicts—a practice known as "transportation." This wasn’t unique to America; it was part of a broader system to manage crime, reduce prison overcrowding, and supply labor to colonies. Between 1615 and 1775, estimates suggest around 50,000 to 60,000 convicts were sent to the American colonies, primarily to places like Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas. These weren’t all hardened criminals—many were petty offenders, like thieves or debtors, convicted under harsh laws where even stealing a loaf of bread could get you transported. Some were political prisoners or rebels, like after the Monmouth Rebellion in 1685.
The process worked like this: courts would sentence convicts to transportation instead of execution or jail. They’d be shipped across the Atlantic, often in brutal conditions, and sold as indentured servants to planters or merchants. Terms typically lasted 7 to 14 years, after which they could theoretically earn freedom—though survival rates were low due to disease, malnutrition, and harsh work. This labor helped build the colonies’ economies, especially in tobacco regions, alongside voluntary indentured servants and, later, enslaved Africans.
But America wasn’t just a criminal outpost. The colonies were also settled by religious dissenters (think Puritans), economic migrants, and adventurers. By the early 18th century, voluntary settlers far outnumbered transported convicts. For context, the total colonial population hit about 2.5 million by 1775, so those 50,000-60,000 convicts over 160 years were a small fraction—maybe 2-3% of the total influx, including immigrants and enslaved people.
The practice peaked in the early 1700s but tapered off as colonial resistance grew. Locals didn’t love having convicts dumped on them—Ben Franklin famously suggested sending rattlesnakes back to Britain as payback. By the 1760s, tensions over this (and bigger issues like taxation) were boiling, and when the American Revolution kicked off in 1775, transportation to America stopped cold. Britain pivoted to Australia instead, starting in 1788, sending over 160,000 convicts there by the mid-19th century.
So, the "land of criminals" label has truth but misses the bigger picture. Most convicts who survived blended into colonial society, some even thriving—others left descendants who’d rather not bring it up at Thanksgiving. Meanwhile, America’s identity was shaped far more by waves of voluntary settlers and the enslaved population than by Britain’s unwanted. The criminal angle’s just one thread in a messier tapestry.
pl give more details
Alright, let’s dig deeper into the mechanics, numbers, and stories behind Britain sending convicts to America, along with how it fit into the colonial landscape.
The System of Transportation
Transportation as a punishment emerged in England as a practical alternative to an overstretched justice system. The 1597 Vagrancy Act laid early groundwork, allowing banishment for "rogues and vagabonds," but it really took off with the 1718 Transportation Act. This law formalized sending convicts to America "beyond the seas" for 7 years (for lesser crimes) or 14 years (for more serious ones), with death as the penalty for returning early. It was a win-win for Britain: clear out jails, avoid executions that might stir public sympathy, and supply cheap labor to colonies hungry for workers.
Convicts were rounded up from prisons like Newgate or local jails, marched to ports like London or Bristol, and loaded onto merchant ships. Conditions were grim—crowded holds, little food, and disease like typhus ("gaol fever") often killed 10-20% before they even reached America. Once there, they were auctioned off to the highest bidder, usually planters or tradesmen, for the duration of their sentence. Unlike enslaved Africans, they had an end date to their servitude, but the reality was brutal—beatings, starvation, and overwork were common, and many didn’t live to see freedom.
Who Were They?
The convicts weren’t all master criminals. England’s legal code—the "Bloody Code"—had over 200 capital offenses by the 18th century, including stealing goods worth more than a shilling or poaching a rabbit. Judges often commuted death sentences to transportation for these petty crimes, especially for first-timers. A 1770s sample from London’s Old Bailey shows typical cases: a 19-year-old caught pickpocketing a handkerchief, a woman pilfering cloth, or a man forging a shilling coin—all shipped off. Some were more serious—highwaymen, burglars, or forgers—but murderers were usually hanged, not transported.
You also had political exiles: Scots after the 1715 and 1745 Jacobite risings, Irish rebels, or English radicals. After the 1685 Monmouth Rebellion, about 800 supporters of the Duke of Monmouth were sent to Virginia and the West Indies, though many died en route or shortly after. Women made up about 15-20% of the total—often convicted of theft or prostitution—and faced extra risks, like sexual exploitation by ship crews or masters.
Numbers and Impact
Estimates vary, but historian A. Roger Ekirch pins the total at 52,000 convicts sent to America from 1718 to 1775, with maybe 10,000 more before 1718. The peak decade was the 1750s, with 1,000-2,000 arriving annually. Maryland and Virginia took the lion’s share—about 75%—because their tobacco plantations devoured labor. The Chesapeake region’s economy leaned hard on indentured servants (convict or voluntary) until African slavery dominated after 1700.
Compare that to the bigger picture: by 1775, the colonies had 2.5 million people. Voluntary indentured servants—poor Europeans seeking a new start—numbered around 300,000 from 1607 to 1775, while enslaved Africans topped 500,000. So, convicts were a minority, maybe 10% of all indentured labor. They mattered economically—boosting tobacco output and infrastructure—but weren’t the colonies’ backbone. Culturally, they left a mark too: some scholars trace early American slang or folk songs to convict influence.
Life in the Colonies
Once in America, convicts worked fields, built roads, or served in households. Masters paid £10-£15 per head (roughly $2,000 today), a bargain compared to voluntary servants or slaves. Runaways were common—ads in colonial newspapers like the Virginia Gazette often list absconded convicts, identifiable by scars, accents, or irons. Punishments for recapture were harsh: extended sentences, whippings, or branding.
A few beat the odds. Anthony Lamb, transported in 1724 for theft, became a respected New York instrument-maker after his term. Most, though, faded into obscurity or died early—malaria and dysentery didn’t care about your sentence length. Women sometimes married out of servitude, but options were slim. Convict labor’s reputation soured over time; planters preferred slaves for life over temporary servants who might bolt.
Colonial Pushback and Endgame
By the 1750s, colonists were fed up. Convicts brought crime—some returned to theft or formed gangs—and competed with free labor. Virginia and Maryland passed laws taxing or banning convict imports, though Britain overruled them. Benjamin Franklin’s 1751 quip about sending rattlesnakes to England wasn’t just wit; it reflected real resentment. The 1775 Revolution ended it entirely—Britain lost its American dumping ground, and the last convict ship sailed in 1776.
Post-war, Britain turned to Australia, shipping 162,000 convicts there from 1788 to 1868. America’s convict legacy lingered, though—some Founding Fathers’ neighbors were ex-convicts, and their descendants quietly shaped the nation.
The Full Picture
Britain didn’t send convicts to create America; it was a side hustle to a larger colonial project. The "land of criminals" tagline oversells it—convicts were a cog, not the engine. The real story is messier: a mix of desperation, exploitation, and survival, woven into a society built by dreamers, slaves, and outcasts alike.
which locations British ships dumped convicts?
British ships didn’t just "dump" convicts haphazardly—they delivered them to specific colonies in North America where labor was in demand. Here’s a breakdown of the key locations where these convicts were sent between the early 17th century and 1775, when transportation to America ended.
Primary Destinations
- Virginia
- Why Here? Virginia was the biggest taker, thanks to its sprawling tobacco plantations. The Chesapeake Bay region’s labor-intensive economy chewed through workers, and convicts were a cheap fix.
- Numbers: Estimates suggest 20,000-25,000 convicts landed here from 1615 to 1775, peaking after the 1718 Transportation Act.
- Ports: Jamestown (early on), then larger hubs like Norfolk and Williamsburg saw ships unload. Convicts were auctioned at docks or nearby markets.
- Details: Many worked the Tidewater plantations. Virginia’s House of Burgesses grumbled about the influx but couldn’t stop London’s orders.
- Maryland
- Why Here? Like Virginia, Maryland’s tobacco boom drove demand. It was a close second in convict imports.
- Numbers: Around 15,000-20,000 arrived over the same period. Some sources peg Maryland at nearly half the total Chesapeake intake.
- Ports: Annapolis and Baltimore were key landing spots. Ships docked, and convicts were sold to planters up the Patuxent and Potomac rivers.
- Details: Maryland’s Catholic roots didn’t soften its appetite for forced labor. By the 1750s, locals tried taxing convict imports to slow the flow—Britain overruled them.
Secondary Destinations
- The Carolinas (North and South)
- Why Here? Emerging plantation economies (rice in South Carolina, tobacco and pitch in North Carolina) needed hands, though slavery later dominated.
- Numbers: Maybe 5,000-7,000 total. Less precise data exists, as the Carolinas were newer players in the convict game.
- Ports: Charleston (South Carolina) was the big one; smaller landings happened at Wilmington (North Carolina).
- Details: South Carolina took more as its rice swamps expanded post-1720. Convicts here faced brutal heat and disease—survival rates were low.
- Georgia
- Why Here? Georgia started as a utopian experiment in 1733, banning slavery and convicts initially. By the 1750s, it loosened up and accepted some.
- Numbers: Very few—perhaps 1,000 or less. It was late to the party and small-scale.
- Ports: Savannah was the main drop-off.
- Details: Founder James Oglethorpe hated the idea of convicts, but economic pressure flipped the script after he lost control.
- Middle Colonies (Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey)
- Why Here? Less focused on plantations, these colonies took convicts for urban trades or smaller farms. Demand was lower than in the South.
- Numbers: Around 2,000-5,000 total, scattered across decades.
- Ports: Philadelphia, New York City, and Perth Amboy saw occasional shipments.
- Details: Pennsylvania’s Quaker roots made it picky—most convicts went to Maryland instead. New York got some post-1718, including skilled workers like Anthony Lamb, the thief-turned-optician.
- New England (Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.)
- Why Here? New England’s Puritan ethos and smaller farms meant almost no interest in convicts. They preferred free labor or apprentices.
- Numbers: Negligible—hundreds at most, often political exiles rather than common criminals.
- Ports: Boston saw rare deliveries, like after the 1715 Jacobite rising.
- Details: Locals outright refused most shipments. A 1670 Massachusetts law banned "rogues and vagabonds," though some slipped through.
How It Worked
Ships—often private merchant vessels like the Forward or Alexander—left British ports (London, Bristol, Liverpool) with 50-200 convicts per trip. The journey took 6-12 weeks, depending on weather and disease outbreaks. Captains sold their human cargo directly to colonial buyers at port auctions, pocketing £10-£15 per head. Major contractors like Jonathan Forward dominated the trade, shipping thousands from the 1720s to 1770s.
Regional Patterns
- Chesapeake Dominance: Virginia and Maryland absorbed 75-80% of all convicts (35,000-45,000 combined). Tobacco was king, and planters didn’t care where labor came from.
- Southward Shift: The Carolinas and Georgia picked up late as southern colonies expanded, but their convict numbers stayed small compared to slavery’s rise.
- Northern Rejection: North of Maryland, resistance was fierce. New England and the Middle Colonies saw convicts as a moral and economic nuisance.
End of the Line
By 1775, the American Revolution halted shipments. Britain had relied on these spots—especially the Chesapeake—for over a century, but colonial pushback (laws, taxes, and Franklin’s rattlesnake jab) foreshadowed the cutoff. Post-1776, Australia’s Botany Bay became the new convict hub.
So, no random dumping—Britain targeted specific labor-hungry colonies, with Virginia and Maryland as the main bullseyes. The rest got scraps, if they took any at all.
