INDIAN SLAVERY IN COLONIAL TIMES WITHIN
THE PRESENT LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES
BY
ALMON WHEELER LAUBER, Ph.M.
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN THE
+Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University+
NEW YORK
1913
+Copyright+, 1913
BY
ALMON WHEELER LAUBER
PREFACE
It is the purpose of this study to bring to light a hitherto neglected
phase of early American history: the enslavement of the Indians. The
extensiveness of negro slavery in comparison with Indian slavery has so
emphasized the former that, in the study of the institution in general,
the existence of Indian slavery during the colonial period has almost
entirely been lost sight of. In this discussion it is shown that the
enslavement of the natives was practiced by the Indians themselves, the
Spanish, the French and the English; yet in the case of no one of the
European nations did it exist as a system separate and distinct from
negro slavery. Though the holding of Indians as slaves by three of the
European nations has been considered, it is the author’s intention to
lay emphasis chiefly upon the institution as practiced by the English.
The fact that hitherto no special attention has been given to the
subject of Indian slavery has made the gathering of material difficult.
Many of the important sources treating of the subject have never
been published and are widely scattered. Much of even this material
is vague in nature and consequently more or less unsatisfactory. The
rapid increase in the number of negro slaves during the colonial period
resulted in the general use of such terms as “slaves,” “negroes and
other slaves” and “negroes,” without specification of Indian slaves as
such. This is true particularly of the colonial laws, even in the case
of those colonies where Indian slavery existed to the greatest extent.
The author desires to express his indebtedness to Mrs. N. M. Surrey
for her generous permission to use manuscript material collected in
the southern states; to the librarians and their assistants of the
Massachusetts Historical Society, the New York Historical Society, the
Pennsylvania Historical Society, and the Maryland Historical Society,
for their many kindnesses; and to Professor Herbert L. Osgood, of
Columbia University, for his advice and for the use of extracts from
the records of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign
Parts. The author’s most sincere thanks are due to Professor William R.
Shepherd, of Columbia University, under whose guidance this work has
been carried on. His suggestions and criticisms have been invaluable,
and he has given unsparingly of his time in reading both manuscript and
proof.
+Almon W. Lauber.+
+New York City, March 15, 1913.+
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE INDIANS,
THE SPANIARDS AND THE FRENCH
CHAPTER I
+Enslavement by the Indians Themselves+
PAGE
Introductory statement 25
Indian slavery among the Indians practically universal 25
More extensively used among some tribes than others 25
No entire tribes held in subjection 25
Slavery on the Great Plains and Atlantic Slope 25
Different from that in west 25
Not slavery in the true sense in many cases 25
“Slavery” confounded with “prisoner” and “adoption” 25
Slavery to be interpreted in the broadest sense 26
Processes of enslavement 26–35
For crime 26
Indians staked themselves when gambling 26
Indians sold children in time of famine 26
Barter with other tribes 27–28
Warfare 29–35
Coming of Europeans affected slavery 33–35
Stirring up tribes against one another 34
Employment of Indian slaves 35–39
Domestic servants 35–36
Mistresses 36
Agricultural laborers 36
Miners 37
Hunters 37
Fishermen 37
Objects of barter and trade 38
Treatment of slaves 39–40
Depended upon individual owners 39
A distinct class in west 39
A part of family or tribe in east 39
Adoption 39
Treatment generally kind 39
Instances of cruel treatment 40
Precautions to prevent escape 40
Women of tribe have power to spare or kill 40
Punishment by death 41
Distinction between owner and slave not so clear as between the
European and his slave 41
Privileges and favors 41–42
Manumission 43–45
Marriage into the tribe 43
Birth 43
Death of owner 43
Adoption 43–44
Peace with tribe to which slave belonged 44
Exchange 44
Messenger in formal declaration of war 44
CHAPTER II
+Enslavement by the Spaniards+
Idea of slavery 48
Practiced by Indians 48
Captives of Spanish wars enslaved 48
Sanctioned by Church and State 48
Public opinion 48
Enslavement of Indians would Christianize them 49
Processes of enslavement 49–55
War 49
Spanish explorers 49–55
Employment of slaves 55
Guides 55
Interpreters 55
Camp laborers 55
Burden bearers 55
Cooks 55
Mistresses 55
Treatment 55–57
Depended upon individual owners 55
Kindness to enslave instead of to kill 56
Instances of kindness 56–57
Manumission 57
Act of individual owners 57
Law of 1543 to end slavery in Spanish America 57
Law not successful 58
Missions and “presidios” 59–61
Life of Indians was practical slavery 61
CHAPTER III
+Enslavement by the French+
Legality 63–65
Never authorized by law in early colonial period 63
Home government not interested 63
Indirect royal action in eighteenth century 63
Authorized by colonial authorities 63
Action of Company of the Indies, 1720 64
Recognition by Governor-General Hocquart, 1736 64
Action of royal council, 1745 64
Public opinion 65
Not concerned with the subject 65
Knowledge of slavery vague 65
Countenanced slavery as an institution 65
No leader like Las Casas to create sentiment against slavery 65
Attitude of the missionaries 65–67
Processes of enslavement 67
War 67–73
Natchez War 67–68
Minor wars 69
With the Fox Indians 69
With the Chickasaw 69
Urging allies to war and taking captives 69–70
Requiring conquered tribes to go to war and take captives 70–71
Kidnapping 71–73
Trade 73–79
Indian slaves an object of trade 74
Part played by “coureurs de bois” 75–77
Attempt to check action of “coureurs de bois” 77
Opposition to it not strong 78
Attitude of Jesuits 78–79
Gifts: made to the explorers 79–81
Birth: throughout history children of slaves generally regarded
as slaves 82
Employment of slaves 82–86
Among the explorers 82
Guides 82
Interpreters 82
Among the colonists 83–86
Interpreters 83
Domestic servants 83
Mistresses 83
Agricultural laborers 83–84
Laborers on fortifications 84
Menial camp laborers 84
Objects of bribe to win friendship of tribes 84–86
Recognition as property 86
Tax law of 1728 86
Treatment of slaves 86–90
Slavery was of mild nature 86
Social distinction between slave and owner was less marked than
in case of English and Indian slaves 87
Instance of “coureurs de bois” 87
Religious training 87–88
Relation to ceremonies and sacraments of the Church 88–90
Extent of Indian slavery 90–94
In Louisiana 90–91
In Natchitoches 91
In north Mississippi Valley 92
In Detroit 92–93
Manumission 93–95
Verbal manumission 94
Law of 1735 required manumission by notarial deed 94
Law of 1721 freed children of slave mothers and free fathers 95
Causes of end of Indian slavery 96–102
Indians not adapted to slavery 96
Decrease in number of Indians 96
Removal of tribes from neighborhood of whites 96
Law of 1693 forbade trade in Indians 96
Law of 1736 repeated the order 97
General unsatisfactoriness of the institution 97–99
Growth of indenture system 99
Growth of negro slavery 100–102
PART II
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE ENGLISH
CHAPTER IV
+The Number of Indian Slaves+
Exact number in any colony unknown 105
Statistics rare or lacking altogether 105
Comparative numbers in different colonies 105–117
Largest number in South 105–108
Carolinas possessed most 106
Carolinas exported many 106
Fewer Indian slaves than negroes 108
Number in Georgia very small 108
The same true of Virginia 108
New England possessed many 109–112
Massachusetts enslaved captives taken in war 109–110
The Pequot War 109
King Philip’s War 109
Slaves in various towns 109
Rhode Island possessed some 110
Connecticut and New Haven had but few 110–111
New Hampshire had very few 111
The middle group of colonies had a smaller number than New
England 112
New York had more than other colonies 112
None taken in war 113
Some imported from the Carolinas and the Spanish Islands 114
Pennsylvania had few 115
Some imported 115
New Jersey had very few 116
Maryland probably possessed the smallest number 117
CHAPTER V
+Processes of Enslavement: Warfare+
Indian wars generally confined to South 118
Wars in Virginia 119
War with Opechancanough 119
Bacon’s rebellion 119
Wars in Carolina 119–122
War with the Kussoe 119
Expeditions against Spanish Indians after 1701 119–121
In 1702 119
In 1704 120
In 1708 120
In 1727 121
Tuscarora War 121–122
Barnwell’s expedition 122
Moore’s expedition 122
Wars in New England 122–126
Pequot War 123
The Mistick Fight 123
The Swamp Fight 123
Captives retained in colonies 123–124
Captives exported 124
King Philip’s War 124–130
Captives exported 125
By Massachusetts 126
Captives retained in colonies 127
Wives and children of captives enslaved 127
Children of Indians who surrendered enslaved for short period 128
Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Connecticut transported no
captives 128
Rhode Island retained captives in colony 129
Captives were involuntary indentured servants rather than
slaves 130
Connecticut enslaved captives 130
Colonial action regarding enslavement of Indians 130–152
Virginia 130
Action of 1668 131
Action during and after Bacon’s rebellion 131–132
Maryland 132–133
Intention in 1652 132
North Carolina 133–134
Action during Tuscarora War 133
South Carolina 134–137
Action during war with the Kussoe 134
Action during war with the Stono 134
Action during wars of early eighteenth century 135
Assembly provided committee to dispose of captives 135
Act of 1703 gave anyone a right to purchase slaves 135
Acts of 1707 and 1708 gave commanding officers of
expeditions the right to purchase slaves 136
Act of 1715 provided that public receiver should dispose of
captives 136
Action during war with the Cherokee 136
New England 137–152
Prior to King Philip’s War 137–138
Disposal of captives by general court: Massachusetts 137
Disposal of captives by council of war: Plymouth 137
Act of United Colonies of New England 138
Articles of Confederation, 1643 138
Action in 1645 138
During King Philip’s War 138–152
Captives sold outright to obtain money for treasury 138–139
Captives sold to pay debts to individuals 139–140
Captives granted directly to captors 141
Military commanders authorized to sell captives 142
Attitude toward Praying Indians 143
Colonial governments realized danger of retaining enslaved
captives in colonies 144
Massachusetts act of 1676 144
Massachusetts act of 1677 145
Plymouth act of 1678 146
Government action in capture and sale of Indians not always
above suspicion 146
Plymouth act of 1646 146
Seizure and sale of Dartmouth Indians 146–147
Event at Cocheco 147
Disposal of Indians after the war 148
Massachusetts 149
Connecticut 149–150
Rhode Island 150–152
CHAPTER VI
+Processes of Enslavement: Kidnapping+
Action of Cabot, Frobisher, Weymouth, Harlow, Hunt 154–159
Evidence of kidnapping in southern colonies meagre 159
Event of 1685 at Cape Fear, North Carolina 159–160
Action of Laughton, 1676 160–161
Kidnapping in Pennsylvania 162
Kidnapped Indians in New York: Spanish Indians 162–163
Kidnapped Spanish Indians in other colonies 164
Legislative action against kidnapping 165–167
Nature of legislation 165
Purpose of legislation 165
Acts of
Virginia, 1657 166
Maryland, 1672, 1692, 1705 166
Massachusetts, 1641 166
New Jersey, 1675 167
New Hampshire, 1679 167
CHAPTER VII
+Processes of Enslavement: Trade+
Purchase of Indians from tribes closely connected with fur trade 168
Work of the “coureurs de bois” 168
Captives obtained by South Carolina traders from the Westo,
Savannah and other tribes 169–171
French warn Indians against purpose of English 171
Action of English west of Mississippi river 172
Action of English and French among Chickasaw and Choctaw 172
Two-fold policy of proprietors of Carolina 173–175
Sanctioned enslavement of Indians for their own benefit 174
Opposed enslavement of Indians by colonial officials 174
Directions to grand council 175
Appointment of commission to prevent trade in Indians 175
Directions to governors 175
Inquiries from council and individuals 176
Declare traders’ reasons for traffic in Indians unsound 177
Matter of traffic in Indians given to parliament 178
Attitude of Governor John Archdale 178
Action of Governor James Moore 179
South Carolina assembly deals with trade in Indians, 1707 180
Appointed board of commissioners 180
Duties of board 180
Oath of members 180
Directions to traders 181–182
Purpose of assembly 182
Result of action of assembly 183
Attempts by board to check traffic in Indians 183
Memorial of governor, 1720 184
Failure of authorities to enforce decrees 184–185
Trade in Indians in Virginia 185–187
Traffic begun early 185
Attitude of assembly 185–186
Number of slaves obtained by trade never so extensive as
in Carolina 187
Trade in Indians in New England 187
No direct traffic in slaves with tribes 187
Obtained from other colonies 187
Colonial legislation forbidding traffic in Indian slaves 188–195
Massachusetts 188
New Haven 189
Connecticut 189–190
Rhode Island 191–192
New Hampshire 192–193
New York 193
Pennsylvania 193–195
CHAPTER VIII
+Other Processes of Enslavement+
Abuse of indenture or apprenticeship 196–201
Indians indentured to whites by their tribe 196
Indians sold to whites by their families 196
Indians offered as security for loans 196
Indians sell themselves to whites for protection 196
Whites enslave such Indians by refusing to give them up 196–201
Instance in North Carolina, 1660 197
Cause of Tuscarora War 197
Virginia legislation shows custom followed there 197–198
Massachusetts legislation aiming to prevent such action 198–199
Rhode Island legislation to prevent abuse of
apprenticeship 199–200
Abuses in New York 200–201
Decree of Governor Clinton to free Indians wrongly enslaved 200
Custom still in existence at late date, 1755 201
Punishment for violation of law and order 201–207
Enslavement as punishment general throughout colonies 201
Enslavement decreed as punishment in two ways 201
By law specifying enslavement as punishment for certain
crimes 201
By a court decreeing enslavement as punishment for crimes
committed 201
Carolina court decrees illustrating sentences for crimes
committed 201–202
Virginia legislation illustrating specified punishment for
specified crimes 202
Massachusetts legislation 203
Massachusetts court decrees 203
Plymouth court decrees 203–205
Rhode Island legislation 205
Rhode Island court decisions 205–206
Connecticut legislation 206
Connecticut court action 206
Action of the United Colonies 206–207
Birth 207–210
In law children of slave mothers generally considered slaves 207
Colonial laws imposing status of slavery on children of slave
mothers 207–209
South Carolina 207–208
Virginia 208
Maryland act of 1663 an exception 208
Maryland act of 1692 following general custom in other colonies 209
New York 209
Colonies that did not pass laws regarding the matter followed
general custom 209
Massachusetts 209
Connecticut 209
Cases in colonial courts recognizing status of slavery by birth 210
CHAPTER IX
+Property Relations+
Indians in servitude at first held in status servitude 211
Status servitude followed by status slavery 211
Status servitude and status slavery existing together 211
Indian slavery first recognized in customary law 212
Incidents of the change 212–213
Indian slavery recognized in statute law 213–215
Instance of South Carolina 213
Colonial acts from the standpoint of English law 214
Had no legal sanction 214
Based on law of nations 214
England indifferent to such acts 214–215
Acts therefore legal because not declared illegal 215
Incidents of status servitude continued into status slavery 215–241
Conception of property right 215–241
Indian slaves bought and sold 216
Newspaper advertisements of Indian slaves for sale 216
Indian slaves disposed of by will 216
Indian slaves in inventories 217
Tendency of Indian slaves to run away 217–218
Newspaper advertisements for runaway Indian slaves 218–219
Fugitive slave laws 220–221
Persons forbidden to aid runaways 220
Punishment for rendering such aids 221
Inducements to free Indians to return runaways 221
Intercolonial agreements concerning return of runaways 222–224
Articles of federation of the United Colonies of New England 222
Treaty of United Colonies of New England and New Netherland 223
Incident of New York and Pennsylvania 224
Incident of North Carolina and Virginia 225
Massachusetts rewards master for Indian slave taken from him 225
Courts settle disputes regarding ownership of Indian slaves 225
Taxation of Indian slaves 226
South Carolina acts 226–227
North Carolina acts 227
Virginia acts 227–230
Massachusetts acts 230–232
New York acts 232
Acts of the town of Rye, New York 232–233
Import duties on Indian slaves 233–240
Protective duties 234–237
South Carolina acts 234
Virginia acts 235
Rhode Island act 235
New Hampshire act 236
Pennsylvania act 236
New Jersey acts 236–237
Duties for revenue 237–240
New York acts 238–240
Export duties on Indian slaves 240–241
South Carolina act 240–241
CHAPTER X
+Methods of Employment+
Uses of Indian slaves similar throughout colonies 242–249
Hunters 242
Fishermen 242
Guides 242
Domestic servants 243–244
Agricultural laborers 244
Craftsmen 245
Rented like other chattels 245
Laborers in camp and field 245–247
Soldiers 247–249
CHAPTER XI
+Treatment+
Treatment the same as that accorded negroes 250
Harsh treatment not general 250
Clothing 251–252
Newspaper evidence 251–252
Marriage of whites with Indian slaves 252
Forbidden by the following colonies:
North Carolina, 1715 253
Maryland, 1692 253
Massachusetts, 1692 253
Regulation of Indian slaves 253–254
Each colony settled this matter for itself 253
Indian slaves included by implication in all colonial acts
relating to slaves, if not specified 253
Right to give evidence in court 254–255
Could not testify in trial of a white person 254
South Carolina 254
North Carolina 254
Virginia 255
Maryland 255
New York 255
Protection of slaves’ and owners’ rights in court 255–259
The right to life 255
New Hampshire act of 1708 255
Trial of slaves similar to that of freemen 255
Chance of slave obtaining his rights in court 256
Virginia, 1692, provided special courts for trial of slaves 256
Massachusetts provision of 1647 256–257
New Jersey act of 1713 257
New York act of 1712 257
Tendency of slave owners to conceal crimes committed by slaves 258
Remuneration of master if slave was executed 258–259
Maryland act of 1717 259
Restrictions 259–260
Punishments 260–264
Death 261
Branding 261
Whipping 262–263
Mutilation 263–264
Religious life 264
Provisions of home government regarding religious
instructions of slaves in general 265
Indifference of slave owners 265
Attitude of missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts 265
Reports of the missionaries to the Society 266–268
Attitude of the Society 268
Effect upon the colonists 268–275
Opinions of English authorities regarding idea that baptism
of slaves confers freedom upon them 275
Manumission 275–282
Action of individual owners 276
Purchase of freedom by slaves 276–277
Proof of freedom in court 277
Government action 277–280
Virginia 278
North Carolina 278
Massachusetts 279
Plymouth 279–280
Regulations regarding life of manumitted slaves 280–282
CHAPTER XII
+The Decline of Indian Slavery+
Small number of Indians in English territory 283
Decrease in number of Indians 283
Decreased birth rate 285
Susceptibility to diseases of whites 285–286
Intestine wars 286
Intermingling of Indian and negro slaves 287
Physical and mental unfitness of Indians for slave labor 287–288
Indian slave labor not satisfactory 288–289
Indian slaves given to running away 289
Indian slaves concerned in conspiracies and uprisings 289–290
Colonial legislation declaring Indian slaves undesirable 290–292
Indians as hired servants 292–294
Indians as indentured servants 295
White indentured servants 295–297
Negro slavery 297–298
Comparative values of Indian and negro slaves 298–302
Opposition to Indian slavery and contrasted opinion 303–311
Legislation 311–319
Virginia 312–315
South Carolina 315–316
Rhode Island 316–319
New York 316–319
PART I
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE
INDIANS, THE SPANIARDS AND
THE FRENCH
CHAPTER I
+Enslavement by the Indians Themselves+
The discussion of the use of Indians as slaves by the aborigines within
the present limits of the United States, both before and after the
coming of the Europeans, may be prefaced by the statement that the
institution of slavery in some form was practically universal. Certain
tribes held slaves more generally than others, and various tribes were
more subject to enslavement than others, according to their relative
strength and weakness.[1] Yet nowhere in the territory under discussion
did slavery exist on such an extensive scale that some tribes held
others in a state of subjection and demanded servile labor from them.
Slavery among the tribes of the Great Plains and the Atlantic Slope
was different in nature from that in the northwest. Frequent mention
of such slavery is found, but it has been shown that the term “slave”
was often used by the early Spanish and French writers in an erroneous
sense as synonymous with “prisoner.”[2] The institution of adoption
so largely used by the American Indians, and incident to intertribal
warfare and the consequent depletion of the tribal numbers, has also
been confused by the writers with the institution of slavery.[3]
Though slavery, in the strictest sense, was not general in the
territory above mentioned, yet some form of the institution is recorded
as having existed among the leading tribes. In the discussion which
follows, the term “slave” must, then, be considered in its broadest
sense. A prisoner held by his captor as an inferior and forced to labor
for him, or sold into servitude or freedom for the financial benefit
of his captor, will be considered a slave when thus treated by the
Indians, as he will be so considered in a later discussion when thus
treated by the whites.
Among the Aztec Indians of Mexico outcasts and criminals of the tribe
were enslaved,[4] and the usage appears to have been followed, to a
very slight extent, by Indians in the area of the French and English
colonies to the northward.[5]
Individual instances of slavery proceeded from other causes. The
Indians were inveterate gamblers, and when nothing else was left, both
men and women not infrequently staked themselves to serve as slaves in
case of loss. Such slavery was sometimes for life, and sometimes for
such short periods of time as a year or two.[6] In case of famine, the
Indians even sold their children to obtain food.[7]
The slaves possessed by a given Indian tribe were oftener obtained
through barter with other tribes. This intertribal traffic, though
probably not common, was evidently far-reaching.[8] Owing to the
wandering habits of the Indians and their custom of bartering goods
with other tribes, articles of copper became distributed throughout
the Northwest, especially in Wisconsin. The Illinois Indians possessed
slaves who came from the sea coast, probably Florida.[9] The Illinois
also bartered their slaves with the Ottawa for guns, powder, kettles
and knives,[10] and with the Iroquois to obtain peace.[11] Marquette
found (1673) among the Arkansas Indians, knives, beads and hatchets
which had been obtained partly from the Illinois and partly from the
Indians farther to the east.[12] The Jesuit, Grelon, relates that in
Chinese Tartary he met a Huron woman whom he had known in America.[13]
The transition from the method of obtaining slaves by actual warfare
and barter to that of mere slave raids was an easy one. The desire to
gain the reputation of a skillful hunter, and, still more, of a brave
warrior, and thus to win the esteem and regard of his tribesmen, was
inherent among the natives. To be a brave warrior was to be truly a
man. So eager was the Indian to acquire the name of “brave” that he
unhesitatingly underwent any hardships to obtain slaves or scalps as a
proof of his qualifications for the title.[14] This means of obtaining
slaves was used by the stronger tribes like the Illinois and the
Iroquois.[15]
The slaves bartered by the Illinois were generally taken in the
territory beyond the Mississippi.[16] This the Illinois were better
able to do after the coming of the whites, as they were provided with
guns, while the Indians to the westward had no weapons of the sort.
One of the chief sources from which these slaves was obtained was the
Pawnee nation. In 1719, Du Tisné wrote to Bienville, the commandant at
New Orleans, that the Pawnee were afraid of him when he arrived among
them, as their neighbors, the Osage, had made them believe that his
intention was to entrap and enslave them.[17]
The same practice was followed by the other northern tribes. Le Jeune,
in 1632, found slaves among the Algonquin. The Indians of the Great
Lakes region had a young Esquimaux as a slave in 1646.[18] Tonti found
Iroquois slaves among the Huron and Ottawa.[19] The Dutch navigator,
Hendrickson, in 1616, found the Indians of the Schuylkill River country
holding Indian slaves.[20]
Of all the northern Indians, the Iroquois were by far the most
powerful. They were the enemies, in the time of the early French
explorations and settlements, of the Huron and the Illinois, and
from these tribes they took many captives whom they enslaved. The
statement has been made that no personal slavery ever existed among the
Iroquois—that their captives were either killed or adopted as a part
of the nation.[21] Quite the contrary is true. They held both Indians
and whites in personal slavery. They brought back from the Ohio country
bands of captives, sometimes numbering three or four hundred.[22]
They preyed upon the Shawnee and carried them off into slavery.[23]
They captured and enslaved the Miami for whose redemption they were
presented with quantities of beaver skin. These they received but
failed to free the slaves.[24] They brought home slaves from Maryland
and the south,[25] and from the land of the “Chat”[26] (the Erie). It
was the Iroquois (the Seneca), called by an early writer “Sonnagars,”
who enslaved captives taken from the tribes of Carolina and Florida.[27]
Similar practices are related of the southern Indians. The Virginia
tribes possessed “people of a rank inferior to the commons, a sort of
servants ... called black boys, attendant upon the gentry.”[28] When
Menendez founded St. Augustine in 1565, he discovered in a native
village the descendants of a band of Cuban Indians who had come to the
mainland, been taken prisoners by the Florida Indians, and reduced to
slavery.[29]
In the south the strongest tribes were the Choctaw and Chickasaw. These
two tribes were not only at war with each other from time to time, but
each preyed upon the weaker tribes of the surrounding country. In 1717,
a Cadodaquiou chief informed La Harpe, on his journey to the Nassoni
northwest from Natchitoches, that the Chickasaw had killed and enslaved
their nation until it was then very small, and that the remnant had
been forced to take refuge among the Natchitoch and Nassoni.[30]
The Choctaw enslaved the Choccuma, a small tribe lying between them and
the Cherokee,[31] and about 1770 captured and burned their village. The
chief and his warriors were slain, and the women and children became
the slaves of the conquerors.[32] The Pima of the present southern
Arizona took their slaves chiefly from the ranks of the Apache and
their allies, and in some degree from the Yuma. These captives were
largely children. When not killed they were enslaved. Some of them
were kept within the tribe, and were even permitted to marry members
of the tribe. But their origin was never forgotten, and the innate
superstition of the natives found expression in the declaration of the
medicine men that disasters and misfortunes came to the tribe through
the presence of these aliens.[33]
In 1540, Mendoza stated that the Pueblo Indians kept their captives for
food and for slaves.[34] In the same year, Coronado, on his journey to
Cibola, found among the Indians he met an Indian slave who was a native
of the country that Soto traversed.[35]
When Du Tisné, in 1719, made his journey west of the Mississippi
River, he found the Osage at peace with the Pawnee and at war with the
Kansas, Padouca, Aricara and other tribes, who in turn preyed on the
Pawnee.[36] The Pawnee were common prey to the tribes on both sides
of the Mississippi River. Their nation was not especially small in
numbers,[37] but they appear to have been lacking in certain warlike
qualities with which some other nations, as the Illinois and Iroquois,
were more generously endowed. On this account they were so generally
enslaved by their enemies that the term “Pawnee” became synonymous
with Indian slave.[38] In 1724, de Bourgmont found the Kansas Indians
employing Padouca slaves.[39] De Boucherville, also, on his journey
from the Illinois country to Canada, 1728–1729, took with him a little
slave for the governor-general of Canada, and was offered other slaves
as gifts by the Indians whom he encountered.[40]
In a letter written at Quebec, October 1, 1740, the Marquis de
Beauharnois speaks of the Huron bringing slaves from the Flathead and
delivering them up to the Outaouac (Ottawa).[41] La Vérendrye, in 1741,
was told by the Horse Indians that the Snake Indians had destroyed
seventeen of their villages, killed the warriors and women, and carried
off the girls and children as slaves.[42]
Of the Wisconsin tribes, the Ottawa and Sauk, at least, were in the
habit of making captives of the Pawnee,[43] Osage, Missouri, and even
of the distant Mandan, whom they consigned to servitude. The Menominee
did not usually engage in these distant wars, but they, and probably
other tribes, had Pawnee slaves whom they purchased of the Ottawa, Sauk
and others who had captured them. For the sake of convenience, they
were called “Pawnees,” though some of them were certainly from the
Missouri tribes. These captives were usually children.[44]
“Beginning with the Tlingit, slavery as an institution,” using the term
in its strictest sense, “existed among all the Northwest coast Indians
as far as California. It practically ceased with southern Oregon,
although the Hupa of Athapascan stock, and the Nozi (Yanan), both of
northern California, practiced it to some extent.”[45] Slavery in some
form appears to have existed among both the Klamath and the Modoc, and
in the Columbia River district as far as the Wallawalla River, where it
existed among the Cayuse and the Nez Percés.[46] “The Northwest region,
embracing the islands and coast occupied by the Tlingit and Haida, and
the Chimmesyan, Chinookan, Wakashan, and Salishan tribes, formed the
stronghold of the institution.”[47] Toward the eastward the institution
became modified, as has been shown.
According as an Indian nation proved friendly or unfriendly, the whites
used it for their own advantage. Originally the slaves consisted almost
entirely of captives taken in war, for there was but little trade among
the different nations and tribes until articles of commerce were given
by the whites in return for furs and slaves. How the traffic in slaves
was affected is seen in the case of the Choctaw and the Chickasaw,
the former friends of the French, the latter, of the English. The ill
feeling of the two nations was nourished by the international rivalry
of their white allies to whom the Indians disposed of many of their
captive slaves.[48] The Spaniards of Mexico made slave raids and
induced the Indians to do so. La Salle’s expedition, found abundant
evidence in 1687 of Spanish trade among the Cenis Indians, in their
possession of pieces of money, silver spoons, lace, clothes and a bull
from Rome exempting the Spaniards in Mexico from fasting during the
summer.[49] Some messengers of the Chouman among the Cenis, and the
Cenis themselves, told the French of the slave raids and of the cruel
treatment of the Indians by the Spaniards to the southward.[50]
Even the Jesuits were not averse to stirring up tribe against tribe.
So strong was their interest in the Huron that, for the advancement
of the Jesuit cause, it was felt advisable to break up the Iroquois
power. Even La Salle advised such a course of action, and urged that
the French strengthen the southern Indians by supplying them with
firearms and in other ways, so that they might be enabled to defeat the
Iroquois, destroy their organization, and carry off their women and
children as slaves.[51]
On the other hand, since the Huron were the friends of the French and
had been largely converted by the French missionaries, the Jesuits
sought to better the lot of the Huron slaves held by the Iroquois,[52]
and sent an earnest appeal to the Christians in France to contribute
funds for the redemption of the Christian captives.[53] Hennepin’s
_Narrative_ tells of an attempt made by the Jesuits in 1681 to free
some Ottawa Indians who were slaves among the Iroquois, by gifts of
wampum belts, and by telling the Iroquois that these Ottawa were the
children of the governor of the French, and that by holding them they
were making war on the French.[54]
The employment to which the Indian slave was put by his Indian owner
depended largely upon the section in which the tribe resided. Their
use as domestic servants was probably common. Father Fremin tells of a
young Iroquois woman who possessed more than twenty personal slaves,
whose duty it was to get wood, draw water, cook, and do all other
services which their mistress might direct. On the death of the owner
who was a Christian, her mother desired that the missionary instruct a
sick slave in his religion, so that after death the slave might attend
her former mistress in Heaven and perform the same services for her as
she had done on earth.[55] Among the Illinois, La Hontan found that two
hours after sunset, the slaves covered the fires in the lodge before
going to rest.[56] Bartram mentions a southern chief, who had attending
him as slaves many Yamasee captives who had been captured by him when
young.[57]
Le Jeune found the Huron and Ottawa Indian slaves engaged in minor
household duties.[58] In the northwest, enslaved women and children
performed the same labor.[59] One other use to which the young women
and girls were put, if they did not marry into the tribe, was to serve
as the mistresses of their owners.[60]
All the tribes east of the Mississippi River and south of the St.
Lawrence River and the Great Lakes practiced agriculture to some
extent. They all raised corn, beans, squashes and melons.[61]
Consequently the captive slaves worked in the fields with the members
of the tribe, caring for the maize and vegetables. The Iroquois used
their captives in tilling the fields.[62] Captain John Smith, in
speaking of Powhatan’s tribe, states that they made war, “not for lands
and goods, but for women and children, whom they put not to death, but
kept as captives, in which captivity they were made to do service.”[63]
A part of this service consisted in caring for the crops. The Indians
of North Carolina kept their slaves at work in the fields.[64] Soto
found that the Indians among whom he passed had many foreign slaves
whom they employed in tilling the ground.[65] Among the Illinois, La
Hontan found the women slaves employed in sowing and reaping.[66]
Slaves were also employed in mining, hunting, fishing, and whatever
menial tasks needed to be done about the camp. But few of the tribes
worked mines to any extent, yet Joutel, 1687, found the Cenis Indians
working slaves in their mines.[67] Hunting and fishing were more
important occupations, since they furnished food for the tribe. Among
the Iroquois,[68] Huron,[69] Ottawa,[70] and Illinois,[71] such work
was partly done by the slaves who often worked with their masters. In
the northwest the slave assisted his master in paddling, fishing and
hunting. He cut wood, carried water, aided in building houses, etc.[72]
The existence of barter or trade among the different tribes, and among
individuals of the same or different tribes, as a means of obtaining
slaves has been already noted. Hence it follows that slaves, along
with wampum, furs, etc., served as a medium of exchange in trade.
Furthermore, they served as gifts or objects of barter whereby captives
belonging to the possessor’s tribe might be obtained, and by which an
unfriendly tribe or individual might be placated. They were given to
the whites to win their favor and friendship.[73] This use of slaves
to purchase peace with a stronger tribe was noted by Tonti in the case
of the Illinois and Iroquois. The Illinois were too weak to cope with
the Iroquois on a certain occasion owing to their young men being away
at war, and so by the gift of beaver skins and slaves they were able to
arrange a peace.[74] Dubuisson, the French commander in the war of 1712
between the French and allied Indians, and the Ottogami and Mascouten,
records a similar use made of their slaves by the Indian allies of the
French as a means of appeasing the Potawatami for an old quarrel.[75]
From the area about Green Bay in the present State of Wisconsin, De
Lignery wrote in 1724 of bringing the warring tribes to an amicable
settlement through an interchange of slaves.[76] Other French
commanders in the same section used the same means to regain peace. Not
only to each other, but to whites as well, were slaves given in order
to make reparation for losses in war. In 1684, the Indians offered Du
Luth slaves to take the place of some assassinated Frenchmen.[77] In
1724, the Indians at Detroit offered the French commander, by way of
truce, two slaves for the same purpose.[78] When slaves were desired
for such use, if the tribe possessed none, a raid was often made upon
an enemy in order to obtain them. At the time of certain disturbances
around Detroit, the Indians in the peace arrangements promised the
French that they would make raids on distant nations to obtain slaves
whom they would deliver to the French allies to replace their dead.[79]
The treatment of slaves depended upon the individual owner, whose
disposition and mood might vary from kindliness to extreme cruelty
according to circumstances or caprice, and, still more largely,
upon custom. In the northwest slavery had existed for a sufficient
length of time before the coming of the whites to modify materially
the habits and institutions of the people. It doubtless produced the
ideas of rank and caste so generally found among the Indians of that
section, but so little known elsewhere among the American Indians.[80]
Nevertheless the slaves among the Indians of the northwest were not,
as a class, considered any more inferior to their owners than the
slaves of the tribes farther east where adoption was more generally
practiced. Consequently servitude in that section was of a rather
mild type.[81] The same appears to have been true of servitude in
general among the Indians. Slaves were probably not generally neglected
or abused.[82] Yet there are many testimonials of cruel treatment.
Travelers spoke of the slaves of the southern Indians serving and
waiting on their masters with signs of the most abject fear, as tame,
mild and tractable, without will or power to act but as directed by
their masters.[83] The slave was expected to obey his master blindly
and without disputing.[84] In this connection it must be understood
that enslavement of captives in war was in itself a kindly act on the
part of the captors, determined partly by the need of laborers and
additional members in the tribe, partly by the use which the victors
could make of these captives in traffic with other tribes and with the
whites, and partly by mere whim. Otherwise, the prisoners were tortured
and killed as an expression of hatred, or as a means of obtaining
revenge for injury. To instil fear into them, slaves were often
compelled to observe the torture of their fellow captives who were
condemned to death. La Salle relates an instance in which slaves were
forced to eat one of their own nation, a victim of such torture.[85]
Among the Cenis such a custom was followed, and it is quite possible
that this method of producing subjection was consistent with the
habitual cruelty of most tribes.
Precautions were taken to prevent the escape of slaves. The southern
Indians were accustomed to mutilate the feet of their slaves either by
cutting away a part of the foot, or by cutting the nerves and sinews
just above the ankle or instep. The slave was thus prevented from
running rapidly, and if he should escape, the tracks of his mutilated
feet were easily recognizable.[86]
The life or death of Indian slaves depended upon either the council
or the women.[87] The captives were apportioned by the council to
different individuals of the tribe, usually at the request of the
women, who often preferred to adopt captives into their families to
replace lost husbands and sons, rather than to revenge themselves
for the loss of relatives by demanding the torture and death of the
slaves.[88] After such distribution, the life or death of a slave
depended entirely upon the will of the owner. Among a barbarous people,
a slave’s life naturally had but little value. Sick and useless slaves
were often put to death,[89] and trivial faults might be punished in
the same way. The Jesuit missionaries said of the Iroquois: “When a
barbarian has split the head of his slave with a hatchet, he says, ‘It
is a dead dog—there is nothing to be done but to cast it upon the dung
hill’.”[90]
On the other hand, the Jesuits record certain instances of kindness
shown to slaves by the Iroquois and other tribes.[91] One important
difference existed between the Indian slavery as practiced by the
Indians themselves, and that in existence among the whites. Among the
Indians the question of social equality did not determine the relation
of the slave to the master. The Indian slaves were always considered
eligible for adoption into the tribes as actual members, in order to
replete the numbers reduced by war, famine, disease or other cause.[92]
Among the Iroquois certain chosen slaves married into the tribe and
became heads of families after the death of their owners. They led
a tolerably easy life, but were still considered as slaves, and had
no voice, either active or passive, in the public councils.[93]
Still others, who had been the richest and most important in their
own villages, received no reward from their masters except food and
clothing.[94] A certain amount of liberty seems to have been accorded
these slaves, for the Jesuits were allowed to work among them sometimes
as openly as among the members of the tribe.[95] Bartram found that
among the southern Indians the slaves were dressed better than their
owners, and were allowed to marry among themselves; but they remained
slaves for life.[96]
There were several ways by which Indian slaves could obtain their
freedom. Among the Huron a young brave could marry his mother’s slave,
and his parents had no right to hinder him. By becoming his wife the
slave became a free woman.[97] Among the southern Indians the children
of slave parents were free and were considered in every respect equal
to their parents’ masters.[98] Among the western Indians, upon the
death of a savage, his slaves intermarried with others of their kind
and lived in a separate hut as a sign that they were free since they
had no master to serve. The children of such marriages were adopted
into the tribe and became the children of the nation, since they were
born in the country and village of the tribe. The Indians believed
that the children should not be held as slaves since they “contributed
nothing to their creation.”[99] In the northwest, the distinction
between slave and free man was generally sharply drawn with regard to
marriage, for the slave usually could not marry the free man or woman,
though the Makah men frequently married slave women. The children of
such marriages appear to have held “an equivocal position between free
men and slaves.”[100]
The most common mode of acquiring freedom was through adoption into
the tribes. Among the tribes of the Great Plains and the Atlantic
Slope, adoption seems to have been universally practiced. The slaves
adopted usually consisted of war captives,[101] who in some instances
were adopted wholesale, or who, after a period of servitude in the
tribe, had proved themselves possessed of certain desirable qualities,
such as bravery and strength in war or the chase. The adopted person
became in every respect the peer of his fellow-tribesmen. If he showed
his ability he might become of high rank in the tribe. If he were a
poor hunter, a poor provider, or, above all, if he turned out to be a
coward, he was despised and treated according to his demerits, probably
worse than if he had been born a member of the tribe. Still, he was
a member of the tribe and remained a free man, though he was deposed
from man’s estate and “made a woman.” Adopted persons who showed
little ability, were sometimes made to serve in the families of the
influential and prominent men of the tribe; but such persons were free,
even though they performed menial labor.[102]
In some sections, a captive could not become a member of a tribe
without a relationship of some sort; and to obtain this, he had to be
adopted by a woman as her child.[103] The captive took the kinship
name under the fiction that he was “younger” to every living person
of the tribe at the time, and that all persons subsequently born were
“younger” to him. If the captive belonged to a tribe of hereditary
enemies who had from time immemorial been designated by opprobrious
terms, such as cannibals, liars, snakes, etc., it might be that the
captive was doomed to perpetual “younger brotherhood,” and could never
exercise authority over any person within the tribe, though such person
might have been born after the adoption of the captive. Usually,
though not invariably, the captives adopted were children. They might
ultimately become useful members of the tribe, and by their virtues
even win rank in kinship. A captive might thus pass from slavery to
freedom.[104]
Occasionally the settlement of intertribal difficulties resulted in
the freeing of the captives by the victors, with permission to return
to their former homes. Such freedom might be given to a whole tribe
that had been conquered,[105] or to single individuals. In either case
the stigma of disgrace attached to the condition of slavery still
remained, and leaders of the tribe were preferably chosen from those
who had never been slaves.[106] Exchange or ransom was common. If a
tribe declared war against another formally, which happened but rarely,
slaves were sent with the notification of such fact to the enemy, and
were given their freedom if they promised not to take up arms against
their former masters.[107] Freedom was given for performing certain
services against their masters’ enemies, such as influencing their own
tribe against such enemies.[108]
In concluding this account of the institution of slavery among the
Indians of the present United States it should be stated that no
attempt has been made to treat the subject in detail. The purpose
of the chapter is to show the existence of slavery and something of
its nature, so as to obtain an historical setting for the discussion
of the enslavement of the Indians by the whites which is to follow.
Relatively few of the Indian tribes have been mentioned, but these
covered sufficient territory to show that the custom of slave-holding
was practically universal.[109] The familiarity of the Europeans who
came to America with the institution of slavery, and the finding of the
same custom among the Indians themselves, make their carrying on of the
practice quite natural.[110]
CHAPTER II
+Enslavement by the Spaniards+
In their attitude toward the Indians the Spaniards simply applied the
theory of their time regarding slavery. The taking of slaves was then
considered part of any expedition of discovery or conquest. The high
authority of the Church sanctioned the institution of slavery to the
extent that the leading theologians had declared all barbarous and
infidel nations who shut their ears to the truths of Christianity, fair
objects of rapine, captivity and slavery.[111]
The general feeling regarding the relation of the Indians to the
Spaniards is well expressed by Hernando de Escalante Fontanedo, who
was with Menendez in Florida as interpreter. In writing of Florida, he
declared it his belief that the Indians “can never be made submissive
and become Christians”; so he advocated that they all be taken, “placed
on ships, and scattered throughout the various islands, and even on the
Spanish Main, where they might be sold as His Majesty sells his vessels
to the grandees in Spain.”[112]
Given this attitude on the subject it was but natural that the
enslavement of the American Indians should begin with the discovery of
the Antilles,[113] and that it should be continued by the explorers on
the mainland. The Spanish exploring expeditions were war expeditions
in the sense that they aimed to conquer and retain for the crown the
territory through which they passed. All these expeditions captured and
retained Indians as slaves. Yet in some cases it might be difficult to
determine whether the Indians enslaved were captives taken in actual
warfare, or whether they were merely kidnapped by the expedition
passing through their territory. Often the expeditions possessed the
double character of a war party and a kidnapping company.
The enslavement of the Indians by the Spaniards in the early years of
occupation was legalized by a royal decree which declared the act to
be in accord with the laws of God and man, and justified it on the
ground that Indians could otherwise not be reclaimed from idolatry
and converted to Christianity. Consistent with its assertion the home
government made careful provision, in the various patents issued to the
explorers, for the spiritual welfare of the enslaved Indians.
These patents commonly made provision for the acquisition of Indian
slaves. That of Ponce de Leon, February 23, 1512, authorizing his
voyage of discovery and colonization, provided that the Indians on the
islands he might discover should be distributed among the members of
the expedition, that the discoverers should be well provided for in
the first allotment of slaves, and that they should “derive whatever
advantage might be secured thereby.”[114] The “cédula,” issued
to Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, in 1523, authorized him to “purchase
prisoners of war held as slaves by the natives, to employ them on his
farms and export them as he saw fit, without the payment of any duty
whatever upon them; formal apportionment of the natives was expressly
forbidden.[115] In the patent to Soto, also, it was required that
he should carry with him “the religious and priests, who shall be
appointed by us, for the instruction of the natives of that province in
our holy Catholic faith.”[116]
The idea of Christianizing the natives was applied to both free and
slave Indians. The taking of captives by force, and then Christianizing
them was the continuation of what was known as “the exercise of a just
and pious doctrine against pagans and heathens,” a doctrine common
to other nations as well as to Spain. The patent of Ponce de Leon,
however, made no provision for Christianizing the Indians.[117] His
instructions from the crown required him to summon the natives by
“requisition” to embrace the Catholic faith and yield to the king of
Spain under threat of sword and slavery.[118] Consequently the Spanish
explorers within the present limits of the United States continued the
policy of enslaving Indians pursued by their countrymen elsewhere in
the New World.
A Spanish ship sailing under Esteban Gomez, a Portuguese, in 1525,
coasted along the shores of North America between Nova Scotia and
Florida, seeking the northwest passage, and carried a few Indians
back to Spain.[119] In April, 1528, the expedition of Pánfilo de
Narvaez landed near the entrance to Tampa Bay on the west coast of
Florida. From this point a portion of the expedition started into the
interior. The first Indians met seemed unfriendly, and five or six of
them were seized.[120] On one occasion, a cacique, or chief, was held
prisoner.[121] But supplies failed and discouragement followed, so the
number of Indians taken was not great. In 1538, also, an expedition
sent out by Hernando de Soto brought two natives from Florida to Cuba,
where they were held to learn the Spanish language in order that
they might act as guides and interpreters for the expedition of the
following year.[122]
In 1539, Soto himself landed in the Bay of Espiritu Santo in Florida
for the purpose of conquest. He had served under Pizarro in Peru, and
his methods were those learned from his master.[123] To insure success
all opposition must be overcome, so, with the expedition were taken
blood-hounds, chains and iron collars for the catching and holding
of Indian slaves.[124] The expedition was military in nature, hence
it was natural that force and conquest should precede conciliation.
There is no doubt that one of the purposes of Soto was to capture
Indian slaves. He had chosen as his lieutenant, a rich resident of the
town of Trinidad in Cuba, Vasco Porcallo de Figueroa, who had come to
Florida with the object of obtaining Indian slaves for his estates. But
slaves were not easily obtainable near the coast, so Porcallo returned
home shortly after.[125] Soto himself was a slave owner. Among his
possessions in Cuba were Indian slaves, whom he employed as herdsmen
and in getting gold. In some cases, the Indian chiefs through whose
territories Soto and his men were passing, furnished slaves. At other
times, they, both men and women, were taken by force. Narrators relate
the capture and distribution of such women in groups of one hundred to
three hundred.[126] Among the captives were a queen and a cacique.[127]
After the survivors of Soto’s expedition had reached Mexico, Viceroy
Mendoza dispatched the Franciscan, Fray Marcos de Niza, in 1539, to
inform the native tribes that an effectual stop had been put to the
enslavement of the Indians. Some of the friar’s party reached Hawaikuh,
the southernmost of the seven cities of Cibola. The account which the
friar gave on his return, induced the viceroy to send out another
expedition in the following year, 1540. The command of this was given
to Francisco Vasquez de Coronado.[128]
But Coronado did not carry out the intention of Mendoza regarding the
Indians. The records of his expedition do not indicate the number of
his slaves as equal to that in Soto’s expedition, yet Coronado was
a man of his time, and Mendoza was ultra humanitarian. When Tiguex
was conquered and plundered, March, 1541, Coronado imprisoned and
made servants of all the people, one hundred and fifty men, women and
children who were in it.[129]
Still other Spanish expeditions were nothing more than slave raids or
kidnapping excursions. In 1520, Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, a wealthy
resident of Hispaniola, determined to send out a ship for the purpose
of exploring the section north of that covered by Ponce de Leon in
1513. His caravel met among the Bahamas a second ship sent out by
another resident of Hispaniola to obtain Indian slaves. The two vessels
joined company, and proceeded toward the continent, which they reached
June 25, 1521, in the neighborhood of the River Jordan (the present
Santee or Combahee) and the cape afterward called Cabo de Santa
Elena. By gifts and proffers of friendship, the Indians were lured
on board, and the ships, having obtained a full cargo, set sail for
Hispaniola.[130]
After the collapse of Narvaez’s expedition, Cabeza de Vaca wandered
through the southwest, hoping to reach Spanish settlements. As he
proceeded, he met, thirty leagues from St. Miguel, a Spanish expedition
coming from the south, from which the Indians were fleeing lest they be
captured and held as slaves. Though this slave hunting expedition met
with considerable success, its leaders, nevertheless, wished to enslave
the friendly Indians who had guided Cabeza de Vaca and his companions
thither.[131] Cabeza de Vaca relates that he continued his journey to
Compostella in the company, among others, of six Christians and five
hundred Indian slaves.[132]
Such expeditions from Mexico were continued until well into the
colonial period. The Indians whom La Salle met, 1684–1688, told
him they knew whites toward the west, “a cruel, wicked nation, who
depopulated the country round them.”[133]
It will be seen that the custom of enslaving Indians was general among
the Spanish discoverers and explorers. Not to have followed such a
custom would have been acting contrary to the spirit of the times.
Church and State sanctioned it. The need for a servile class, and the
supply of natives near at hand to meet the demand, made enslavement
only a matter of course. Slavery existed among the native tribes
themselves and the tribal chiefs readily furthered the policy of the
Spaniards by furnishing them with additional slaves and prisoners.
Consequently, when the action of the Spaniards is viewed from the
moral standpoint of the time, no condemnation can be attached to their
practice of enslaving the aborigines.
Some of the Indians used by the Spanish explorers were obtained from
the Indian tribes through purchase or trade. Such a method of obtaining
them was advisable when the tribes were friendly and it was not politic
to arouse their enmity. Prisoners and slaves, accordingly, both men
and women, were traded or presented as gifts, along with other
merchandise, to the Spaniards.[134]
In all the exploring expeditions, the need of guides, interpreters,
camp laborers and burden bearers was imperative. At one time, Soto
possessed eight hundred Indians, given him by an Indian chief, to
act as porters.[135] The leaders must have some means of rewarding
the services of their soldiers. Gold and other desirable objects
were scarce. Indian slaves helped satisfy this need. Soto had the
foresight, before setting out on his journey of exploration, to provide
guides, consisting of Indian slaves seized in the territory which he
expected to traverse,[136] and seized others to act in this capacity
as occasion required.[137] Slaves were used for the same purpose by
Coronado.[138] The women slaves were used largely as cooks and as
mistresses. Soto apportioned women slaves among his men.[139] The
narrators relate the capture and distribution of such women in groups
of one hundred to three hundred.[140] Women were sometimes given by the
chiefs to the white men for this purpose, as in the case of Coronado’s
expedition.[141]
In general, the treatment of slaves must have depended upon the
individual owners. It must be noted that it was held an act of
clemency on the part of the victor to enslave rather than to slaughter
the captives taken in war, for, according to the ideas of the time,
conquered enemies were at the disposal of the conquerors. In the
case of Soto’s expedition, the treatment of the slaves appears, on
the whole, to have been kind. After the death of Soto, the Spaniards
decided to quit the scene of exploration. The Indian slaves could not
be taken, for there was no way of transporting them, so it was decided
to dismiss them, except about three hundred belonging to the leader
Moscoso and some of his friends. To satisfy others who desired to take
their Indians with them, Moscoso granted permission to take the slaves
as far as the mouth of the river. The owners, moved by an humanitarian
motive, and preferring to give up the Indians before sailing, rather
than to free them at the mouth of the river to become the prey of
enemies, set free five hundred men, women and children.[142] Many of
them had learned to speak Spanish, had become Christians, and were
so attached to their Spanish owners that they wept bitterly at the
separation. This scene indicates an affection between master and slaves
that would exist only with kind treatment. It has been held that Soto’s
treatment of the Indians was probably better than that practiced by
most of the discoverers—a treatment at least partly dictated by policy,
for the Indians of the section traversed by him were superior to those
of Central and South America, both in courage and perseverance.[143]
Those Indians who continued the journey with the Spaniards were set
free by the viceroy on reaching Mexico.[144] In the siege of Tigeux
Coronado’s men cared for those Indians who, in trying to escape, were
overcome by wounds and cold.[145] Special cases of cruelty occurred.
Strict vigilance and severe punishment were necessary to prevent
treachery on the part of the slaves. The cruelty of the age was
expressed by throwing a lying and treacherous Indian to the dogs,[146]
by cutting off the hands and noses of some,[147] and by keeping others
in chains.[148] On the whole, however, the treatment of the slaves
was probably no more cruel than that shown slaves elsewhere, nor than
would be expected considering the tendency of the age, the nature of
the owners, largely soldiers and adventurers, and the incapacity and
disinclination of the natives for many kinds of labor.
The manumission of slaves depended partly on the individual owners,
partly on the leaders of the various expeditions. An instance of the
latter kind we have already seen in the case of Moscoso freeing the
slaves when quitting the scene of Soto’s expedition. But such an
incident was the exception rather than the rule, for slaves were the
personal property of their individual owners, and subject to their
action.
By the law of 1543, the Spanish government intended to end Indian
slavery in its American dominions,[149] but the law was ineffectual.
The American possessions were too far removed for thorough control by
the home government. When Spain took final possession of Louisiana, in
1769, O’Reilly discovered that the French held many Indian slaves,
and in a proclamation, which he issued in 1770, declared this to be
“contrary to the wise and pious laws of Spain.” While not at once
declaring these Indian slaves to be free, he ordered that the actual
proprietors should not dispose, in any manner whatever, of those whom
they held, unless it were to give them their freedom, until the orders
of his Majesty on the subject should be received, and further, that all
owners of Indian slaves should make a declaration of name and nation
of the Indians so held in slavery by them, and the price at which they
valued such slaves. This proclamation was generally understood by the
French settlers of upper Louisiana as emancipating all the Indian
slaves; yet the latter remained in slavery, either voluntarily or
otherwise. They obtained some benefit from O’Reilly’s decree, however,
for when they escaped they were not returned to slavery, and when they
sued for their freedom they received it. Thus, in 1786, Governor Miró,
in a case that came before him from St. Louis, rendered a judgment
that liberated several such slaves. This judgment reminded Lieutenant
Governor Cruzat that the ordinance of O’Reilly was not being obeyed, so
in June, 1787, he issued a proclamation that Indians could not be held
in slavery under the ordinance of 1770, and declared that he “judged
it expedient to repeat the aforesaid ordinance, so that the public
might know its tenor in order to conform to it.” Accordingly the said
ordinance was ordered to be read, published and posted in the customary
places. No order on this subject was received from the king, so Baron
Carondelet, 1794, ordered two Indian slaves to abide with their masters
until the royal will was expressed. In the same year, however, he
ordered another Indian slave to be released.[150]
It is evident, therefore, that it was not through direct executive
decree that Indian slavery passed out of existence in Spanish territory
within the present limits of the United States. In fact, from the
instance cited in connection with Louisiana, it is seen that it did not
pass out of existence until after the colonial period. Certain causes,
however, contributed to its decline. Great number of Indians could be
hired, at very small wages, to perform labor of any extent.[151] Still
another cause, which was less effective perhaps in Spanish territory
than in that of France and England, was the use of negro slaves. The
labor of the blacks was early found to be more profitable than that of
the Indians, and as early as the founding of St. Augustine, Menendez
imported into Florida five hundred negro slaves. Otherwise, “the labor
of building that town would have fallen on the white men, and on the
Indians whom he could impress.”[152]
From the earliest days of Spanish occupancy, the spiritual welfare of
the Indians was of much concern to the Spanish Church and State. The
materialization of such an interest was largely accomplished by the
establishment of missions throughout the Spanish territory from Florida
to California, chiefly through the labors of the Franciscans. The
endeavors of the missionaries resulted in the establishment by 1615 of
twenty missions in Florida and the dependent coast region. By 1655, the
Christian Indian population of northern Florida and the Georgia coast
was estimated at 26,000.[153] By 1630, there were more than 60,000
“converts” in the Pueblo missions of New Mexico and Arizona.[154] In
California, the missions, the first of which was founded at San Diego
in 1769, continued in a fairly prosperous condition until 1834.[155]
These large numbers of barbarian neophytes were presided over in
each of the missions by a very small number of monks who directed
the religious and industrial activities of their Indian charges. It
was necessary that a mission should be self-supporting. The Indians
gathered at these centers voluntarily, and submitted to the routine
life of the missions. But the natives were ignorant and incapable, and
the monks were in consequence the directing and guiding force among a
population which responded in a mechanical sort of way. The natural
result was that the mission life developed into a kind of slavery. The
life of a California mission, though of later date, and more fully
developed than the earlier missions of colonial times, affords a
picture of the general condition of affairs.
The Indians constructed the buildings, planted and cultivated the fruit
trees and vineyards, tended the cattle, made pottery, wove cloths and
performed, in fact, all the manual labor that was necessarily required
in an extensive colony. In return, they received food, clothing and
lodging, were instructed in the Church doctrines and observances,
and were taught dancing and music and occasionally the rudiments of
reading, writing and arithmetic. Their life was a regular routine, and
though material comfort was generally in evidence, still the Indian
neophytes were never allowed to act on their own initiative. Beyond
their existence from day to day, they received no pecuniary reward for
their labors, any more than if they had been slaves.[156]
The Indians of the missions were generally tractable, but occasionally
the desire for their former life of freedom brought reaction and
rebellions; or, incited and aided by the wild tribes, they rose and
destroyed the missions. The revolt of the Pima in 1750 is a case in
point.[157]
The “alcaldes,” or local officials to whom the king had entrusted
the protection of the Indians, instead of protecting them, preyed
upon them for their own profit. These men, like many of the colonists
themselves, were often of an inferior class, and too far from the
central government to feel any special fear at disobeying the laws
that the home government might make with regard to the natives.
Accordingly the Indians were often induced to run into debt, and had
in consequence to mortgage or sell whatever property they possessed.
They thus became subject to whatever impositions the officials chose
to put upon them.[158] In 1792, Fray Juan Agustin de Morfi complained
to the viceroy of New Spain that from each pueblo in their respective
jurisdictions, the “alcaldes” in Texas were accustomed to levy weekly
contributions of produce; that they required the Indians to perform
free labor upon their estates; that they demanded heavy tolls from each
pueblo at harvest time; that the Indian women were forced to grind
the “alcaldes’” grain; that some officials required tithes of fleeces
and compelled the Indians to weave them; and that the Indians had to
serve as mule drivers and care for the animals of the “alcaldes.”[159]
The attitude of the “alcaldes” toward the Indians, furthermore, was
repeated by the officials of the “presidios,” or frontier posts.[160]
The same method of obtaining cheap labor was followed by the colonists.
Frequent raids were made upon the “rancherías,” or Indian settlements,
to secure agricultural workers, herdsmen and domestic servants.
Children were usually in demand, but adults also were taken. The
practice continued, indeed, until late in the eighteenth century.[161]
CHAPTER III
+Enslavement by the French+
In the French colonies of America, Indian slavery was never authorized
by legal declaration during the early colonial period.[162] In fact,
the matter received no attention whatever from the home government.
Such lack of notice on the part of the monarch was due to the
insignificance of American affairs in general, and to the unimportance
of the institution of Indian slavery in particular. Gradually, however,
as the matter began to assume importance in the system of trade,
through the influence of the trading companies certain indirect royal
action was taken in the eighteenth century, and this action recognized
the existing institution as legal. The modifications which the king
sought to accomplish in it did not aim to destroy the institution, but
rather tended to make it better suited to the requirements of trade.
Some doubt appears to have existed regarding the legal status of Indian
slaves, and, in order to remove it, Jacques Raudot, the intendant at
Quebec, decreed in April, 1709, that “all the Pawnis and Negroes, who
have been bought and who shall be purchased hereafter, shall belong
in full proprietorship to those who have purchased them as their
slaves.”[163] The state of unrest caused by the “coureurs de bois”
and others stirring up the tribes in order to take captives for sale
to the French as slaves, interfered with the success of the trading
corporation then in possession of Louisiana, and on October 25, 1720,
the Company of the Indies issued a command from Paris, stating that
such action was contrary to the command of the king, and harmful to
both the commercial welfare of the Company and the establishments
which it hoped to make in the territory of the Illinois, Missouri and
Arkansas tribes. The Sieur de Bourgmont, in the service of the Company
in that area, was directed to arrest and confiscate the merchandise
of the “voyageurs” who should come to trade within the confines of
his jurisdiction without first obtaining permission and declaring to
him the motives with which they wished to trade. Bienville, then in
immediate charge of the colony in Louisiana, was directed to execute
this order of the Company at once, and all other officers as well were
enjoined to carry it out and to give any aid and assistance to M. de
Bourgmont which he might require in fulfilling his instructions.[164]
On July 23, 1745, the royal council at Paris sanctioned the possession
of Indian slaves by declaring that all slaves who might follow the
enemy to the colonies of France, and their effects, should belong to
his most Christian Majesty.[165] After the acquisition of Canada the
Parliament of Great Britain showed itself favorable to the importation
of slaves into the colonies. Accordingly, the forty-seventh article
of the capitulation of September 8, 1760, provided: “The negroes and
Pawnees, of both sexes, shall remain in their quality of slaves, in
the possession of French and Canadians to whom they belong; they shall
be at liberty to keep them in their service in the colony, or to
sell them; and they shall also continue to bring them up in the Roman
religion.”[166]
Public opinion in France never concerned itself with the matter of
Indian slavery. There appears to have been no opposition to it,
either in France or in the French colonies of America. Public opinion
early countenanced the institution of slavery in the colonies without
distinction of color or race.[167] It was negro slavery that brought
profit to the trader as well as to the colonist. The Indian slave in
the French colonies possessed no champion, such as the Indian slave in
the Spanish territory had in Las Casas. Within the French territory
under discussion, negro slavery continued, without meeting violent
opposition, as long as the territory remained under French control. And
with it continued Indian slavery, gradually growing weaker as negro
slavery grew stronger, and so less likely to attract attention.
Much of the French exploration was carried on by the missionaries.
Slave holding was not inconsistent with the belief of these religious
travelers.[168] Two objects inspired their zeal: the “greater glory of
God,” and “the influence and credit of the order of Jesus,” of which
many of them were members.[169] To the missionaries about to start
from Paris to explore the Ottawa country, the direction was given:
“Remember it is Christ and the Cross you are seeking, and if you aim
at anything else, you will get nothing but affliction for body and
mind.”[170] The Jesuit held that if the object was good, the action was
right. It would redound to the glory of God to convert any heathen,
bond or free; therefore, slave holding by a monk was legitimate.
The records do not show any great numbers of slaves owned by the
missionary explorers. There are certain reasons why this was so.
Abnegation of self was a part of the Jesuitic doctrine, so the monk
could have no need for any considerable number of personal attendants.
He possessed no mines or lands for the working of which slaves could
be used. What services the fathers could not perform in the extension
of their faith, were performed partly by servants brought from France,
and partly by “donnés,” or those who voluntarily gave their labor. At
the missions[171] and in the Indian villages where the missionaries
stayed, the Indians rendered them free service and furnished them
with supplies. Then, too, the Indian domestic did not prove very
satisfactory.[172] The slave was a subject for conversion, but the
French missionary did not spend much time on the conversion of single
individuals. He aimed rather to collect the heathen in groups about a
religious center, and to guide and teach them somewhat after the manner
of his brethren in Paraguay. Yet we find that the French missionaries
possessed some Indian slaves.[173] It would not do to refuse to save
any soul, neither was it advisable to risk the chance of offending
any Indian, whatever his rank, who might make them the gift of a
slave. Most of the slaves held by the missionaries appear to have been
gifts. Sometimes to accept such a slave was to save the person from
death. Some of the slaves were purchased. By teaching them the French
language, and the principles of the Christian Church, the clergy hoped
to make missionaries of some of them, and so extend the scope of their
religion.
The chief, though not the earliest, source of Indian slaves among
the French was that of captives taken in war with the Indian tribes.
For many years after the coming of the French to Louisiana, they
and the Natchez Indians lived in friendly intercourse. Minor Indian
troubles in 1711[174] and 1715[175] resulted in the enslavement and
transportation of certain Indians to Cape François on the island of
Haiti. The hostilities begun with the Natchez Indians in 1715 continued
intermittently until 1740.[176] In 1730, because of ill treatment by
M. du Chapart, governor of Fort Rosalie, who wished the site of a
Natchez village on which to build a town, and because of other abuses,
the Natchez rose against the French and massacred over two hundred of
them.[177] Governor Périer formed an army and advanced against them in
their fort. The Natchez offered to leave the place if their lives were
spared. Their offer was accepted, but they were detained as prisoners,
all but twenty who escaped.[178] About four hundred and fifty of the
tribe, including the Great Sun, the Little Sun and several of the
principal war chiefs, were captured and carried to New Orleans.[179]
The women and children were retained as slaves on the plantations. Some
of the prisoners were burned in New Orleans.[180] The Great Sun, the
Little Sun, their families, and more than four hundred of the captives,
were sent at once to Cape François, Haiti, and most of them sold to
the planters as slaves.[181] The two chiefs and their families were
retained as prisoners on the island. On April 22, 1731, the minister
informed the Company that, in his opinion, the only solution of the
matter lay in selling as slaves the survivors of the two families. The
registers of the Company contain the following record: “It was resolved
to order the sale of the survivors of the said two families of Natchez
Indians.”[182]
The Natchez war was the most important of those between French and
Indians in Louisiana. There were, however, minor difficulties, from
time to time, in which the same policy of enslaving the captive Indians
was followed by the French. The war with the Fox Indians, 1712, serves
as an example of these lesser troubles.[183] By 1720, war had broken
out between the French and the Chickasaw, whom the English had stirred
up.[184] An intermittent warfare with this tribe and others continued
in 1724,[185] 1728,[186] 1736,[187] (with a peace in 1740),[188]
1750,[189] and 1752.[190] Captives were enslaved by both sides. Some
of these were left with the Indians to dispose of at will. Others were
kept among the French as slaves.[191]
During the period of colonial history, each European nation was in
alliance, from time to time, with various Indian tribes. In time of
war with other tribes, the allied Indians took an active part, and not
infrequently they were urged on to hostilities by their white friends
for various reasons. One of these reasons was to obtain war captives
to give to the whites for slaves. In 1698, Tonti had encouraged the
Illinois, who were in alliance with the French, to capture and enslave
the Iroquois Indians and so break their power.[192] La Salle favored
the same course.[193] In 1708, the Canadian French were exciting the
Indians about Kaskaskia to wage war with each other, and were on
the spot to get slaves to sell to the English.[194] The Marquis de
Vaudreuil, governor-general of Canada, in 1706 demanded of the Ottawa
of Detroit certain captives as slaves for the allied Sonnontouan to
replace their men slain by the Ottawa,[195] and others to be slaves
to the French, in return for a missionary and a French deserter they
had killed.[196] The slaves were duly presented in 1707.[197] The
demands of the governor-general were part of a military plan to form
an alliance of the western tribes with the French, and continued
the Indian custom of giving slaves to make reparation for injuries
committed or for foes slain.[198] Thus the allied Indians were
satisfied, and a token of subjection was obtained from the Ottawa.[199]
As late as 1723, de Vaudreuil was accused of urging on the Abnaki
against the Illinois to get slaves for him.[200] Apparently, such
action was as agreeable to the Indians as to the French. An Indian
orator of the Arkansas tribe, in his address given in honor of Bossu’s
arrival in 1762, said: “We warriors will strike the common enemy to get
prisoners which shall serve as slaves.”[201]
Sometimes the French went still further, and demanded that conquered
tribes make war on other tribes in order to get captives for them to
take the place of Frenchmen killed during the war. Such a condition
Sieur de Louvigny placed on the conquered Fox Indians in 1716.[202]
As already observed, kidnapping was the means earliest adopted by
all the European nations for taking Indians as slaves. In 1524,
accordingly, Verrazano attempted to capture an Indian family consisting
of an old woman, a young girl and six children, on the northeast coast
of North America. But the girl proved so intractable that the soldiers
were forced to give up the attempt to take the whole family to the
ship, and finally carried away but one small boy who was too young to
make any resistance.[203] The purpose of Verrazano’s expedition was
to obtain for France a place in the discoveries in which the rival
powers, Spain, Portugal and England were engaged. Some proof that the
expedition reached the New World was desirable. A native would furnish
it.
In Cartier’s first expedition, 1534, he seized some of the natives
and carried them on board his ships. The relations with the Indians
were so friendly that he was able, by gifts and explanations, to
persuade them that he meant no harm. Two of them were finally detained
on board and carried to France.[204] On the second expedition, in
1535, Cartier, replying to the request of the chief, Taiguragui, that
the French carry away another chief, Agona, declared that the king
of France had forbidden him to bring back either man or woman, and
permitted him to bring to France only two or three little boys to learn
the language.[205] But these pretended instructions did not prevent
Cartier from seizing Taiguragui and other chiefs for the purpose of
carrying them to France. On the outcry of the Indians against such an
act, he promised that the chiefs should be well treated, and that after
visiting France for the purpose of telling the king about the land of
Saguenay, they should be returned to their own country within the space
of twelve months.[206]
On his setting out for the New World in 1562, the queen of France
commanded Ribaut to bring back some of the natives.[207] In obedience
to her command, Ribaut attempted to detain two of the natives on board
ship to carry them to France, but the savages managed to escape and
swam to shore.[208]
Some of the Indians kidnapped by the explorers mentioned were slaves
only in a modified sense. They were not put to servile labor, yet
they were deprived of their liberty and were at the disposal of their
captors. Some were held as objects of curiosity. Others were taken
for a definite purpose: to furnish information regarding their native
country, and to serve as interpreters in later expeditions. For such
a reason La Harpe, in 1719, in his journey in the southwest, when
returning to the coast, resolved to capture some of the Indians, hoping
that by good treatment he might induce them to allow him to settle in
their country and to carry out his plans. Under the pretence of landing
to obtain water for his ships, he seized a dozen or more, and sailed
for Mobile.[209]
The Indians soon became suspicious of the explorers and traders,
especially in the sections where more than one of the rival races
carried on exploration and trade. Such a state of affairs Du Tisné
found in 1719, when he was badly received by the Pawnee whom the Osage
had told that his purpose was to entrap Indians for slaves.[210]
The great purpose of the French in the new world was trade. Their
expeditions, excluding those of the missionaries, were commercial in
nature. With them gold hunting was not a primary consideration, as was
the case with the Spaniards, and that for the simple reason that no
gold could be found. Nor were they seeking a refuge from persecution
like the English. The great fur trade was being developed by them.
This trade was carried on with the Indians, and in all sections where
captives in war or kidnapped Indians were purchased from the natives,
such purchase was usually a part of the trade in furs.
The custom of purchasing Indians originated with the early explorers
and discoverers. Sometimes such a purchase was made for a purely
commercial reason: to obtain a slave to perform some certain labor. At
other times the buyer was moved by an humanitarian motive: to save an
Indian from torture or death at the hands of his captors. The purchased
Indian might then be allowed to return to his own tribe and be retained
as a slave at the will of his new master. In 1678, Du Lhut, when
setting out from Montreal on his travels westward, bought an Indian to
act as a guide.[211] Du Tisné, in 1719, similarly acquired some slaves
from a chief at Natchitoches.[212] In 1724, de Bourgmont purchased a
considerable number of slaves from the Kansas tribe. Mention is made
of fifteen at one time, six at another.[213] For these he was forced
to pay double price, as the Indians stated that the year before, a
Frenchman had given such a price to a party of Illinois who were with
them.[214] Sometimes the slaves obtained by these explorers and traders
were used in their own expeditions. At other times, they were sent back
to the settlement along with other merchandise. De Bourgmont sent some
of those whom he purchased back to New Orleans. La Vérendrye, also, in
1731, sent back slaves to the French settlements, and in writing of his
action implied that he thought he deserved much credit for furnishing
the colonists with slaves.[215]
Until well into the latter half of the eighteenth century Indian
slaves were held by the settlers of Detroit, who obtained them in trade
with friendly Indians who in turn took them in war with the Pawnee,
Osage, Choctaw and other western tribes.[216] In 1741, the so-called
“Nation of the Serpent” entirely destroyed seventeen villages, killed
all the men and older women, made slaves of the young women, and traded
them for horses and other merchandise.[217] A report to the home
government in 1720, concerning Natchitoches, declared that the most
extensive commerce which could be carried on with the Indians of that
section, would be in slaves, horses, skins, etc.[218] Another report
sent by La Salle told of the Alabama Indians bringing twenty-seven or
twenty-eight Mobile Indian women and children into the colony, and
disposing of them to the French.[219]
The friendly and allied Indians appreciated the results to be obtained
from the sale of their captives to the whites, and not only sold
them to the “coureurs de bois” and other traveling traders, but took
them directly to the French settlement for sale, as is shown in the
preceding paragraph. Apparently all the leading French settlements
afforded a ready market for such slaves. Mobile furnishes a case in
point. In November, 1706, a party of Ouacha arrived in the settlement
bringing some Abnaki captives for sale.[220] In the same month, also,
some Choctaw brought to the settlement Cahouita and Altamaha captives
for the same purpose.[221]
It was the Jesuit and French missionaries who first advocated the
purchase of Indian captives by the traders, in order to prevent
their being put to death. By putting them in a mild condition of
servitude they hoped to place them in a position where they would be
Christianized.[222] Both Tonti[223] and La Salle[224] advised such a
course of action.
The colonists favored the same action for a more commercial reason.
The French of Kaskaskia, in 1708, were urging the allied Indians to
war, and were on the spot to obtain captives to sell as slaves to the
English.[225] De Vaudreuil, governor-general of Canada, throughout the
first quarter of the eighteenth century was urging the Abnaki to wage
war on the Illinois to obtain slaves for him.[226]
An important factor in the French colonial trade was the “coureurs de
bois.” These men, having cut loose from civilization, wandered at will
among the Indians, trading for the various commodities which they could
dispose of in the settlements of either the French or English colonies.
One of these commodities was Indian slaves, obtained for the most
part from the tribes who had captured them in war. Judging from the
number of these white men of the woods, their unrestrained life, and
the evidence given by the men of the time, it seems not unlikely that
this feature of colonial trade produced a considerable portion of the
Indian slaves used by the French.[227] If the “coureurs de bois” did
not find a sufficient number of slaves among the tribes they visited,
they not infrequently stirred up the tribes to war, so that they might
obtain the captives for sale. On July 25, 1707, La Salle wrote from
Fort Louis to the Minister of Marine that the “coureurs de bois” from
Canada were thus stirring up the Indian tribes against each other, in
order to obtain Indian slaves to sell in Louisiana.[228] The work of
the “coureurs de bois” was, however, by no means limited to Louisiana,
but extended over all the area claimed by the French. The desire of
the English for Indian slaves afforded an opportunity for profit that
could not be rejected. They always found a ready market for their
Indian slaves with the English of the Carolina country. The control of
the French officials over this wandering class was always slight, and
since there was practically no export trade in Indians to be had in
Louisiana, and since all the Indians whom they obtained could not be
disposed of in the colony, they turned to the English colonies for the
purpose.
Some effort was made by the French officials to prevent this trade,
but the attempt met with indifferent success. It was not the traffic
in human beings which disturbed them, but the fact that their enemy,
the English, were profiting by the transaction. In 1714, a report
of Cadillac to the home government lamented both his inability to
restrain the French allied Indians from trading with the English in
slaves and other commodities, and also his embarrassment at not being
able to prevent the French colonists from trading with the English
in skins and Indian slaves.[229] Such opposition, however, was not
general among the French colonial officials. Some of the most prominent
ones were engaged in this same slave trade with the English, even
when appearing to be opposed to it. In 1708, Bienville ordered the
Canadian French to cease exciting the Indians of Kaskaskia to wage war
on each other to obtain slaves for them.[230] Yet, in the same year,
he proposed, since the French would not cultivate the land, to obtain
the needful supply of labor by seizing Indians and sending them to the
West Indies in exchange for negroes.[231] And in his report to the
home government mentioned above, Cadillac complained of the selling
of Indian slaves to the English by Bienville.[232] Such transactions
by the French officials were carried on secretly. The Sieur de Ste.
Heleine, nephew of Bienville, was killed by the English allied
Indians while on such an expedition to sell Indians to the English of
Carolina.[233]
Some opposition to the trade was shown by the Jesuits, since the hoped
for result of having numbers of slaves to convert, if purchased by the
French, did not materialize. Accordingly, in 1693, they petitioned the
governor of Canada to prohibit the trade in Indian slaves. The request
was granted and an order issued to that effect, but without definite
result. The “coureurs de bois” continued the trade in spite of the
penalty of fine and imprisonment.[234]
Certain of the Indians possessed by the explorers were gifts from
Indian chiefs. On his second voyage, in 1535, the chiefs of the
Saguenay River country gave Cartier three children.[235] Afterwards,
owing to mutual suspicions on the part of the French and Indians, one
of these children made her escape.[236] On the resumption of good
feeling, the Indians promised to return her. Later, another chief
offered Cartier two children, one of whom was accepted.[237]
In 1564, Laudonnière led an expedition to the region of Florida.
Desiring to penetrate into the interior and realizing that the
friendship of the Indians was necessary for such an attempt, he sought
to obtain from an Indian chief two of his prisoners, whom he proposed
to use in winning the friendship of another chief by presenting them
to him.[238] At first, the chief declined to give away the prisoners;
but, upon Laudonnière’s renewing his request, the chief yielded, the
prisoners were produced, and were taken back by the French to Fort
Carolina.[239]
Champlain desired to send to France some girls to have them
“instructed in the law of God and good manners.” An opportunity to
satisfy this desire came with the wish of the Montagnais to present
something to the French traveler. Three girls were given him, whom he
named Faith, Hope and Charity, and whom he had instructed in religion,
domestic work, etc.[240] Still other Indians were taken to France by
the expedition. One of the sagamores of the Montagnais gave his son to
M. du Pont for that purpose. Still another savage, an Iroquois woman,
the Frenchman begged of the tribe which was about to eat her.[241]
Other and similar instances of obtaining Indians are recorded for the
same general humanitarian and religious purpose.[242]
The Illinois gave Marquette and Jolliet an Indian slave boy, whom
Jolliet took with him when going to Quebec, and who was drowned on
the journey.[243] The Ottawa gave Marquette a young man,[244] and
a Kishkakon chief gave him “a little slave he had brought from the
Illinois a few months before.”[245] In the same manner, Indians
were given to La Salle and to his companion, Tonti, on their
expeditions.[246] In 1699, Father Anastasius accepted from the Indians
the gift of an Indian girl as a slave.[247] In 1703, M. de Saint Cosmé,
a missionary priest traveling from Canada to Natchez, possessed in his
party a young Indian slave boy.[248]
When Du Lhut was in Montreal in 1678, the savages gave him three
slaves.[249] At another time, 1684, the Indians wished to give him some
slaves as an atonement for their having murdered some Frenchmen.[250]
In 1700, the “Mantantons” (Mdewakanton), at a feast in his honor,
presented Le Sueur, among other gifts, with an Indian slave.[251] In
1719, La Harpe, on his journey northwest from Natchitoches, was given a
young Kansas slave by the chiefs of several nations gathered together.
One of the chiefs expressed his sorrow that he had but one slave to
give, and La Harpe, in his letter to Terrisse, regrets that he did not
arrive sooner, and by receiving them as slaves, prevent the seventeen
companions of his slave from being eaten.[252]
The Indians realized that the trade in captive slaves was profitable.
When, in 1724, the Kansas tribe charged de Bourgmont double price
for slaves sold him, they feared that he would be angry at the price
asked, and that in consequence they would lose future trade. So they
presented him with five slaves as a gift.[253]
Throughout history the children of slave mothers have generally been
considered slaves. A report on the condition of Louisiana, 1716,
declared that the inhabitants were accustomed to sell the children
of their Indian female slaves.[254] Later, in 1724, a royal decree
provided that children born of marriages between slaves should be
slaves, and should belong to the masters of their mothers, and not to
the masters of their fathers, if father and mother should belong to
different masters.[255]
The uses to which Indian slaves were put, either in early or later
colonial times, were determined by economic conditions. Among the
explorers, the need for guides and interpreters was imperative, and
one finds the French, like the Spanish, using Indian slaves for this
purpose. On his second expedition, Cartier made such use of the Indian
children whom he carried to France on his first expedition.[256]
Laudonnière, in 1564, intended to use slaves for this purpose.[257] Du
Lhut purchased a slave to act as guide.[258] The Mallet expedition, in
1739, used a slave as guide.[259] One of the slaves purchased by de
Bourgmont on his expedition in 1724, was retained with the expedition
as interpreter, and was taught French by de Bourgmont himself.[260]
Doubtless the instances might be multiplied if the records were
complete, though it is not likely that enslaved Indians were used for
this purpose to the same extent as the friendly allied or converted
Indians.[261]
The French never sent out any great expeditions like those of the
Spaniards. Hence among the explorers the use of slaves as domestics
was limited. Among the colonists, one finds Le Page du Pratz, on
his arrival in Louisiana, buying an Indian woman to act as cook and
interpreter.[262] The early Louisiana colonists experienced the need
for servants, and, May 26, 1700, expressed the hope that the Indians
would supply such need.[263] The life of the Illinois colonist was less
luxurious than that of the inhabitant of Louisiana; in consequence, the
need of slaves in household service was less.
Early in the eighteenth century life among the French of Louisiana,
both rich and poor, was quite licentious,[264] and one of the means of
fostering this life was the use of Indian women, slave and free. The
demoralization resulting from such a condition attracted attention,
and in 1709 it was urged that girls suitable for wives be sent over in
order “to prevent these disorders and debaucheries.”[265]
Agricultural pursuits appear to have been the chief labor to which the
French put Indian slaves. Such pursuits, along with trading, formed the
chief industry of the colonies.[266] But it was the general tendency
of the French to prefer the novelty and excitement of the trader’s
life, rather than the more quiet existence of the agriculturalist.
Bienville complained much of this state of affairs, and sought to
remedy it.[267] The consequence of this tendency was to make the price
of labor high,[268] and the use of Indian slaves was a means at hand
to solve the difficulty. In the simpler life of the inhabitants of the
Illinois country, agriculture was the chief industry of the settlers
until the close of the period under discussion.[269] And the farmers
increased the results of their industry by the extensive use of Indian
slaves.[270]
Throughout the French territory in the military stations, both soldiers
and frontiersmen found use for their Indian women slaves as cooks and
in performing the other domestic labors of fort and camp.[271] The male
slaves were used in erecting fortifications, performing other heavy
labor, and as guides in military expeditions.[272]
The custom of using Indian slaves as a bribe or reward was common. In
either case the purpose of the whites was the same: to procure the
friendship and alliance of the tribes. In the northwest the French
demanded that certain subdued tribes bring them Indian slaves, which
they might use to replace the members of the allied tribes whom the
conquered tribes had killed during the war.[273] In the area where
the claims of the European nations overlapped, alliance of the tribes
was especially desired by each nation. These Indian captive slaves
or slaves purchased from other tribes were often returned to their
own tribes as a peace offering or as a token of friendship. Thus the
alliance of the tribes was won, and a barrier created against the
encroachments of the Spanish and the English.[274] Such use was made
of slaves by de Bourgmont, in 1724, in the Kansas country. With a
messenger sent from there to the Comanche, he sent also two Comanche
slaves whom he purchased from the Kansas in order that his messenger be
well received.[275] He also purchased some Padouca slaves in order to
return them to their people.[276]
In 1728, the king of France issued an edict regarding certain
concessions of land, and required a tax of five livres on each slave,
the proceeds of which were to be used in building churches and
hospitals.[277] Thus the Indian slaves, along with the negroes, served
as a property basis in this one instance, as they did many times in the
English colonies. They were also regarded as property in all legal and
business transactions and were classed along with negroes, domestic
animals and real estate, which could be sold to satisfy their owners’
debts.[278]
The early slavery among the French was mild in nature.[279] The system
was of a patriarchal type. The Indian slaves often worked along with
their owners, especially those engaged in agricultural labor, and were
treated as children who must be guided, directed, punished or rewarded
by their superiors. Cramoisy, writing of Bienville’s expedition of
1737, states that a Chickasaw slave who acted as guide, had belonged to
his owner five years and was always treated as one of the family.[280]
A French settler in the Fox Valley is spoken of as living with his
Pawnee slaves in feudal style.[281]
The relation of the French and the Indians, bond or free, was always
different from that existing between the English and the Indians. The
Frenchman never looked upon the Indians with the disdain and contempt
for an inferior race which was displayed by the English. Marriage
between French and Indians was common. The social result of this close
connection was more pronounced in case of the Frenchman than in that
of the Indian. It meant the “Indianizing” of the Frenchman, or the
bringing him to the social level and to the life and habits of the red
man. The most striking result of this tendency was supplied by the
“coureur de bois;” but the same result was apparent even in the case
of the superior colonists of lower Louisiana. And to this result the
Indian slave contributed in a measure. The lack of social distinction
between Frenchman and native tended toward kind treatment on the part
of the owner, and to a shifting of the social planes of master and
slave toward that of equality. Yet instances of cruelty to slaves
are not lacking. The punishments of the age were cruel, whether the
offender was bond or free.[282]
It has been said that the dominating feature of French colonial life
was trade. But religious and commercial advancement went hand in hand.
From the earliest arrival of the French, the missionary labors of the
Church extended not only to the Indian tribes, but also to the negro
and Indian slaves held by the colonists. The conversion of the Indian
was an asset for the growth of trade. French commissions, as well as
Spanish, provided for the conversion of the Indians.[283] Priest and
friar were everywhere present. Each Christianized Indian slave marked
a gain in the advancement of the faith, and made possible a readier
access to trade with the convert’s tribe and those of his friends.[284]
But the religious training and teaching of slaves were not entirely a
matter of policy. It was rather a part of the generally kind treatment
of the master. The rites of the Church were commonly accorded them.
The Louisiana church records certain accounts of the birth, baptism,
marriage and burial of Indian slaves.[285] The Mobile and New Orleans
registers are similar to the church registers to be found throughout
Lower Canada wherever a church was established. The parish registers of
Levis, Quebec and Long Point are cases in point. Throughout the first
and part of the second half of the eighteenth century, these registers
show that Indian slaves, many of whom, in Quebec for instance, were
brought from Louisiana, were baptized, and then records kept of such
baptisms as in the case of the whites.[286] The church records of
Kaskaskia[287] and Vincennes[288] make frequent mention of the birth,
baptism and death of Indian slaves (called Panis) down to the time
of British occupation; but from that time they became more and more
infrequent as Indian slavery gradually gave way to negro slavery.
The baptismal register of Mobile, Alabama, dating from 1704 to 1740,
contains baptismal records of whites, blacks and Indians. From the
register it appears that witnesses to the baptism of a slave were not
considered necessary, though sometimes used. In some instances the
person baptized is recorded as the slave of a certain person. In other
cases he is mentioned as a slave, and the owner’s name is not given.
The earliest baptism of an Indian slave in this record is that of a
fifteen-year-old slave of Iberville. Baptisms of Indian slaves are
quite as frequent as those of negro slaves. February 8, 1734, is the
latest date of Indian slave baptisms in the register. Some of these
Indian slaves are recorded as legitimate children of slave parents.[289]
The laws of France did not permit the holding of any Christian in
slavery. This meant that the conversion of Indians or other slaves
would confer freedom upon them.[290] But the law was never enforced.
The French clergy went on continuously with their work of converting,
baptizing and teaching both bond and free; and in the “Code Noir” of
1724, Louis XV commanded that all slaves in the French colonies, “be
educated in the Apostolic Roman Catholic religion, and be baptized,”
and enjoined their owners to have these matters attended to within a
reasonable time.[291] The code dealt directly with negro slaves, but
the Indian slaves still in existence were necessarily included in its
provisions.
In Louisiana Indian slavery began with the founding of the colony. A
report of the colony written in 1704, states that at Fort Louis de
Louisiane, having a white population of 180 soldiers and 27 French
families numbering 64 persons, (a total of 244 white persons), there
were six Indian boy slaves from twelve to eighteen years of age, and
five Indian girl slaves from fifteen to twenty years of age.[292] In
1708, the colony consisted of fourteen officers, seventy-six soldiers,
thirteen sailors, three priests, six mechanics, one Indian interpreter,
twenty-four laborers, twenty-eight women, twenty-five children, (a
total of 190 free persons), and eighty Indian slaves.[293] In 1713,
besides the soldiers, there were twenty-eight families, twenty negroes
and a few Indian women and children.[294] The following statistics are
given in the archives of the Ministry of the Colonies in Paris:[295]
Census of New Orleans, November 24, 1721. Recapitulation: Men, 446;
Women, 140; Children, 96; Negro slaves 523; Indian slaves, 51.
Census of New Orleans in 1723. Recapitulation: Men, bearing arms, 229;
Women or girls, 169; Children, 183; Orphans, 45; Slaves, 267.
General census of the Colony of Louisiana on January 1, 1726.
Recapitulation: Masters, 1952; Hired men and servants, 276; Negro
slaves, 1540; Indian slaves, 229.
General census of the Department of New Orleans on July 1, 1727.
Recapitulation:
_Masters_ _Hired_ _Negroes_ _Savage_
New Orleans 729 65 127 17
The Bayou and Chantilly 42 5 73 5
Inhabitants up the River on the Right 243 26 883 45
Idem on the Left 306 35 456 5
On the Shore of Lake Ponchartrain 7 2 14
On Bayou Tauchpao 2 5 8 1
———— ——— ———— ——
Total 1329 138 1561 73
From these statistics it will be seen that in Louisiana the negro
slaves far outnumbered the Indian slaves, and that the ratio of the
number of Indian slaves to the number of whites in the colony was very
small. A memoir concerning Natchitoches, 1720 or 1721, states that the
number of black slaves in that settlement was thirty-four, and the
number of Indian slaves, six (two men and four women).[296] A report
on the condition of Louisiana at large in 1744 declared that there
were very few Indian slaves in the colony, “because we are at peace
with all nations: these we have were taken in former wars, and we keep
them.”[297] Another account, in 1750, states that the inhabitants
of New Orleans consist of “French, Negroes, and some savages who
are slaves—all these together do not number ... more than 1,200
persons.”[298]
The smallness of the number of Indian slaves in Louisiana appears due
to several reasons: the generally friendly relations of the French and
the neighboring tribes; the absence of extensive agriculture at an
early date; the neglect of the colonial authorities to develop a trade
in savage slaves, like that of Carolina; and the rapid increase in the
importation of negro slaves by the time that occupations profitable for
slave labor were developed.
In the northern part of the Mississippi Valley, also, Indian slavery
began with the coming of the whites. Slavery at Vincennes and in the
country below the present site of Terre Haute, Indiana, was regulated
by the laws of Louisiana. That in the country to the north was
regulated by the customs of Canada. Indian slavery in Canada began
early. Record exists of Indian slaves in Montreal in 1670.[299] In
Louisiana the greater number of slaves were negroes; whereas in Canada
the larger portion were Indians.[300] In the early history of Vincennes
most of the slaves were Indians, for the inhabitants were more
extensively engaged in the Indian trade than in agricultural pursuits.
The same was true of the country about Detroit. Some of these Indians
went, of course, to Louisiana; but the larger portion went to Canada. A
report in 1750 shows that in the five French villages of the Illinois
country there were eleven hundred whites, three hundred blacks and
sixty Indian slaves.[301] Indian slavery, already giving way to negro
slavery, continued so to do after British occupation.
Indian slaves, mostly children, are recorded in Detroit in 1710,[302]
1712,[303] and 1715.[304] Their use continued there until the English
occupation. A report in 1733 shows the Canadians trading in Indian
slaves whom they seized or purchased from other Indians.[305] By the
terms of the surrender of Montreal, 1760, already mentioned, the
English guaranteed to the settlers all the rights in property they had
enjoyed, and Article IV of the capitulation provided that all negro and
Pawnee slaves should remain in their condition of servitude.[306] In
1763, the population of Canada comprised about 70,000 Europeans, 30,000
Indians and 400 black slaves.[307] It will be seen that the number of
negro slaves was very small as compared with the number in Louisiana.
And, judging from the frequent mention of Indian slaves in the parish
records,[308] and the not inconsiderable trade in such slaves that went
on with the western tribes, one may concede the truth of the assertion
that the number of Indian slaves in that territory, under Canadian law,
exceeded the number of negro slaves, even though, in proportion to the
white population, the number was small.
In the French colonies, the earliest method of manumission was to grant
slaves their freedom verbally and without further formality. In the
Wisconsin country, during the first half of the eighteenth century,
at least, there appears to have been some requirement or obligation,
perhaps imposed by custom, for the owners of Indian slaves to free
them after a certain period of servitude.[309] But on April 11, 1735,
a memorandum of the king to de Beauharnois and Hocquart declared that
the judges of the colonies might conform themselves to the custom of
considering the Indians held in servitude as slaves, and that masters
who might wish to grant such Indians their freedom should do so by
notarial deed.[310] Accordingly, on September 1, 1736, an ordinance was
issued at Quebec by Hocquart, the intendant, stating, with the consent
of the Marquis de Beauharnois, governor and lieutenant-general of the
colony, that anyone wishing to free any slave must make affirmation to
that effect before a notary, to which he would be held. The act would
be registered in the “greffe” of the nearest royal jurisdiction. A
manumission performed in any other way was declared null and void.[311]
As above stated, it was customary for the French colonists to sell the
children of their female slaves.[312] The practice might, and did, mean
that a father sold his own child. Notice of the matter having been
called to the attention of the king, an attempt was made to prevent
the practice by inserting in the instructions sent to the colony in
1721–1722, a provision forbidding the sale of either a female negro or
Indian slave or her child, if a free colonist were the father of such
a child. The same instructions further declared it in harmony with
religion and the welfare of the colony that at the end of a certain
period of time both mother and child should be given their liberty, and
so be made free inhabitants of the colony.[313] Such a kindly attitude
on the part of the home government met with but little response in the
colonies.
Several causes contributed to the passing of Indian slavery in French
territory. Wherever the American Indians have been brought into contact
with the white races, the result has been disaster to the red men.
The Indian’s nature is not adapted to the white man’s scheme of life.
The Indian absorbed the white man’s diseases and vices. Not the least
of these vices was the love for strong drink, and the weakness of the
natives in this respect was recognized and encouraged by the traders
of all nations. The decrease in game and other food supplies as the
Indians retreated from the sea,[314] famine followed by gluttonous
excesses, wasting of the forests of the table lands,[315] all resulted
in inferior living conditions and a consequent decrease in the birth
rate and weakening of the tribes. As the weakened tribes withdrew from
contact with the whites they usually joined with stronger tribes. The
removal of tribes from their immediate neighborhood, and the union with
other and distant tribes, acted as a check on the whites’ obtaining
Indians as slaves. Such was the case with the tribes from whom the
French of the Illinois country and Canada drew their slaves.[316]
It has already been seen that the French missionaries of early colonial
days believed that the enslavement of Indians would serve as a means of
spreading the Christian religion. They found, however, that the method
of obtaining Indian slaves by trade only increased the distribution
of spirituous liquors among the tribes; and so, in 1693, they asked
the king to prohibit the Indian slave trade. An order to this effect
was accordingly issued, but with little result. The “coureurs de bois”
found means to carry on the trade clandestinely notwithstanding the
penalty attached.[317] Again, in 1736, the king decided formally
to prohibit the enslavement of Indians and issued a decree to that
effect;[318] but to no advantage.[319]
The gradual passing out of existence of Indian slavery, furthermore,
was due, in no small measure, to its unsatisfactory character. The
leading colonists early made up their minds to this effect. Bienville,
in a letter to the Minister of Marine, July 28, 1706, stated that the
French colonists earnestly requested negroes to till their lands, for
whom they were willing to pay silver, since the colonies found Indian
slaves unsatisfactory. He furthermore requested permission for the
colonists to transport Indian slaves to the West Indian Islands in
exchange for negroes. The fact that the colonists were willing to trade
three Indians for two negroes is sufficient proof of the small value of
Indians as slaves.[320] Another letter to the home government, in 1717,
records the same state of affairs in the colony.[321]
Indian slaves were prone to run away, and their use by the French as
individual laborers, or their use only in small groups, if worked
together, made escape comparatively easy. A letter of Périer to the
home government, May 12, 1728, declared that the traffic in Indian
slaves and their use in the French colony was contrary to the welfare
of the country, since such slaves served but a short time before
they escaped back to their own tribes or to neighboring Indians.
Moreover, these deserting Indians persuaded the negro slaves to run
away with them.[322] A letter from the President of the Navy Board
to la Jonquière and Bigot, May 4, 1749, represented that the Indian
slaves brought up in the colony by the officers or by the inhabitants,
generally left them when they attained a certain age and again became
uncivilized; that they were the more dangerous on account of the
knowledge which they had acquired of the country, being better able
than others to make incursions therein; and that through the habit of
keeping these slaves the whites were dissuaded from becoming domestic
servants.[323]
Among the slaves the boys were not so much to be depended upon as the
girls, since they were stubborn, resented more strongly their being
held in slavery, and were more inclined to run away. Long’s Journal,
1768–1782, speaking of the western Indians, records: “They are also
full of pride and resentment, and will not hesitate to kill their
masters in order to gratify their revenge for a supposed injury. The
girls are more docile, and assimilate much sooner into the manners of
civilization.”[324] It is probable that slaves coming from the Pawnee
tribe, and held so largely by the French of Detroit and Canada, were
more satisfactory than those coming from other tribes.[325] It has been
said that “it would be difficult to find another of the wild tribes of
the continent capable of subjection to domestic slavery.”[326] But the
Pawnee, like other slaves, ran away.[327]
Though Indian slaves were not as profitable laborers as might be
desired, their loss was to be avoided, if possible. The matter was so
serious as to interest the action of the authorities, and in 1709,
Jacques Raudot, intendant of Canada, issued an ordinance containing
an injunction which forbade any slave running away, and containing
provisions for imposing a fine of fifty livres on those who aided such
runaways.[328]
Indian slaves were too few in number and too inferior in capacity for
labor to supply the needs of the colonists. So an attempt was made
by the home government to supply the needed laborers by establishing
the system of indentured servants in the colonies. On November 16,
1716, an ordinance directed that vessels leaving France for any of
the king’s American colonies were to carry thither, if of fifty tons,
three servants; of sixty to one hundred tons, four servants; of one
hundred tons and upward, six servants. The period of service of such
servants was fixed at three years. They were required to be of sound
body, between the ages of eighteen and forty, and in height not under
four feet. These servants were to be examined before the officers of
the admiralty to see if they fulfilled the requirements of the law,
and were to receive another examination by the commissary on landing
in America. Such of the redemptioners as the captain might not sell
were to be given to some of the planters who had none, and who were to
pay their passage. The ordinance was repeated May 20, 1721, with the
additional provision that merchants of the ports having permission to
trade with the colonies were to pay sixty livres for each redemptioner
whom they had to furnish, if individuals for that purpose were not
furnished them by the government.[329]
The purpose of France, in making such careful provision for sending
indentured servants to the New World, was a real effort to increase
the population and, therefore, the trade of America.[330] Moreover,
the home government feared the danger that might come to the colony
by the increase of the black over the white population, and hoped
this indentured servant system would be a means to that end. But the
scheme had little result. The colonists preferred black slaves to white
servants. Their term of service was for life instead of a short period.
They were easier to control, cheaper to keep, and were better workers.
Yet, it has been estimated that from 1711 to 1728, two thousand five
hundred redemptioners were brought to the French colonies.[331] Such
a number of white servants must, in a measure, have checked the
acquisition of Indian slaves.
But the need for laborers was to be supplied in the French colonies by
the black, instead of the white race. Although the home government grew
to fear the result of the rapid increase of the negro element, yet, at
first, it favored the importation of blacks to the American colonies.
In 1688, Louis XIV issued an edict authorizing the importation of
negroes from Africa into America.[332] Article XIV of the letters
patent granted by the king to Crozat, September 30, 1712, gave the
latter permission, if he found it advisable to have the blacks in
Louisiana, to send a ship every year to the coast of Guinea to obtain
them, and to sell them to the inhabitants of the colony.[333] So,
from the first, negro slaves were present in the French colonies,
though during the earlier part of the eighteenth century, they were
outnumbered by the Indian slaves.[334]
In 1713, there were but twenty negro slaves in Louisiana,[335] but
with the granting of the charter of the Western Company in 1717, their
increased importation began. A provision of the charter required that
during the lifetime of the charter (twenty-five years,) not less than
three thousand negroes be carried to the colony. The first large
importation was made by the Company in June, 1719, when five hundred
negroes were brought from the coast of Guinea.[336] For several
years, the importation of negroes into Louisiana was one of the most
profitable monopolies of the Western Company.[337] One authority states
that, during the period from 1717 to 1723, one thousand, four hundred
and forty-one negroes were brought in.[338] Another states that from
1717 to 1728 eighteen were introduced.[339] The “Code Noir” of 1724
shows that the negro slaves had become the majority by that time, for
no direct mention is made in it to Indian slaves.[340] In 1727, it
was reported that on each of the “concessions,” or leading grants,
there were, at least, sixty negroes cultivating corn, rice, indigo and
tobacco.[341]
To open up and work the mineral resources of Louisiana, Philip François
Renault was sent out by the Company of the West in 1719. On his way,
he bought at San Domingo, in the name of his Company, five hundred
negroes for working the mines. These negroes were taken into the
Illinois country.[342] The number of negroes in the Illinois country
never equaled that of the country farther south, yet in 1750, a Jesuit
missionary found one thousand, one hundred whites, three hundred
blacks, and sixty Indian slaves in five villages of the Illinois
country,[343] and by 1763, the black population numbered over nine
hundred.[344]
From the foregoing account it will be seen that the steadily increasing
number of negro slaves, resulting from a promotion of the commercial
interests of the home government and from the more satisfactory labor
performed by the blacks, must have been the leading cause that produced
the steady decrease in the number of Indian slaves among the French.
PART II
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE
ENGLISH
CHAPTER IV
+The Number of Indian Slaves+
To arrive at any knowledge of the exact number of Indian slaves in
any of the English colonies is impossible. Census reports and other
vital statistics are infrequent or lacking, especially in the early
colonial period; and often in such statistics as are extant Indian
slaves either receive no mention, or are classed with negro slaves
without distinction. From existing records, however, one is able to
obtain a knowledge of the comparative numbers in the different groups
of colonies, and to some extent in the individual colonies, during
the colonial period. New England and the southern colonies were the
sections that employed Indian slave labor most extensively, the south
taking precedence, for climatic conditions there were more favorable,
and economic conditions made necessary a larger quantity of servile
labor than was required in the north.[345] Yet New England made use of
the natives as slaves as long as they lasted,[346] and drew further
supplies from Maine,[347] the Carolinas,[348] and other districts.[349]
Among the English colonies, the Carolinas stood first in the use of
Indians as slaves. Such use began with the founding of the colony.
The need for laborers was great; the source of supply was near at
hand and the colonists availed themselves of their opportunity.
Probably captives of the Stono War became the Indian slaves mentioned
in the inventory of Captain Valentine Byrd, “one of the grandees of
the time.”[350] In a report on conditions in the colony, made to the
proprietors, September 17, 1708, by Governor Nathaniel Johnson and his
council, the number of Indian men slaves was given as 500, Indian women
slaves, as 600, Indian children slaves, as 300, a total of 1400 Indian
slaves. The number of negroes at the same time was stated as 4100, of
indentured servants, 120, and of free whites, 3960. The governor gave
the cause of the rapid increase in the number of the Indian slaves
during the five preceding years, as “our late conquest over the French
and Spanish, and the success of our forces against the Appalaskys and
in other Indian engagements.”[351]
Only a small portion of the whole number of Indians enslaved were kept
in the colony.[352] Yet, in 1708, it was estimated that the native
population furnished one-fourth of the whole number of slaves in South
Carolina.[353] The public records of that colony contain a list of
ninety-eight Indian slaves with their owners’ names, taken by the
Spaniards and their allies in 1715, during the Indian war, and carried
to St. Augustine. The number of these slaves belonging to individual
persons varied from one to ten.[354] A report of 1723 mentions the
number of slaves in South Carolina and Georgia as ranging from 16,000
to 20,000, “chiefly negroes and a few Indians.”[355] Another report of
the following year estimates the number of slaves as 32,000, “mostly
negroes”,[356] In 1728, the population of St. Thomas’ parish, South
Carolina, consisted of 565 whites, 950 negro slaves, and 60 Indian
slaves.[357] From these statistics, it will be seen that the number of
Indian slaves was much smaller than the number of negroes, and that it
was growing smaller toward the middle of the eighteenth century, while
that of negroes was constantly increasing.
The early history of Indian slavery in Georgia is so bound up with that
of Carolina, the Indian wars, and the difficulties with the Spaniards
of Florida, as to require but little especial attention. After the
settlement of Georgia as a separate colony, occasional mention is
made of Indian slaves.[358] In 1759, as the basis for a tax bill, the
number of slaves was placed at 2500, but a committee of the legislature
declared the number to have been underestimated. How many of this
number were Indians is not known. The colony was settled at a time when
Indian slavery was passing out of existence. So it is safe to state
that the number of such slaves was small.
The number of Indian slaves in Virginia, also, was small, owing largely
to the number of indentured servants, and to the early introduction and
fitness of the negroes for the labor of the colony. In 1671, Berkeley
reported the whole population of the colony as 40,000, the number of
indentured servants as 6000, and that of slaves as 2000.[359] But no
division of slaves according to color was made. In certain sections
but few slaves were used. The Scotch-Irish and the Germans preferred
their own labor to that of slaves. Some Indians were taken in war, but
they were inconsiderable when compared with the number captured in the
Carolinas. Occasional mention of Indian slaves is found well into the
eighteenth century.
Indian slavery in Massachusetts began early. Following the Pequot War,
1637, forty-eight captives were retained as slaves in the colony.[360]
After King Philip’s War, 1675, also, certain of the captives were made
slaves,[361] but no record exists of the exact number. The various
records and histories of the Massachusetts towns show a general
distribution of Indian slaves throughout the colony during the colonial
period, such as existed following the two Indian wars above noted.
Mere mention may be made of some of these: Plymouth,[362] Boston,[363]
Roxbury,[364] Ipswich,[365] Quincy,[366] Charleston,[367] Malden,[368]
Haverhill,[369] Milton.[370] None of the official reports on the
condition of New England makes mention of Indian slaves.[371] But
statistics show the number of slaves in Massachusetts in 1720 to have
been 2000, including a few Indians.[372] In 1790, according to the
United States census report, the number of slaves in the state was
6,001, which number included about 200 half breed Indians.[373] Since
Massachusetts took the lead in the two Indian wars of New England, it
seems likely that the number of Indian slaves in that colony exceeded
that in either Connecticut or Rhode Island.[374]
The Rhode Island laws from 1636 to 1704 make no mention of Indian
slaves. Yet they were held in the colony before 1704. The records of
Block Island show them there in sufficient numbers, in 1675, to warrant
the town council regulating their action. Captives taken in King
Philip’s War were retained in the colony temporarily as slaves. The
Boston newspapers occasionally mention runaway Indian slaves of Block
Island.[375] Both negro and Indian slavery reached a development in
colonial Narragansett unusual in the northern colonies.[376] In 1730,
South Kingston had a population of 935 whites, 333 negroes and 223
Indian slaves. Eighteen years later, the proportion of races was nearly
the same: 1405 whites, 380 negroes, and 193 Indians.[377] As late as
1778, the laws of Rhode Island mentioned Indian slaves.[378]
Indian slavery in Connecticut began almost with the founding of the
colony, and came about as a result of the Pequot War (1636). The
captives taken in the war were assigned directly to the colony and
were retained and distributed among the inhabitants.[379] The colonists
appear to have held a greater number of such slaves then than at
any later period. Certain Indians, also, were kept in the colony as
slaves following King Philip’s War, but the number is unknown.[380]
Local histories show them in different towns well into the eighteenth
century.[381] An answer sent to a query from the Board of Trade in
1680 states that there were then thirty slaves in Connecticut, but no
mention is made of Indian slaves though they existed in the colony.[382]
The number of Indian slaves in New Hampshire was undoubtedly very
small. During the Pequot War and King Philip’s War, New Hampshire
remained at peace with the Indians, and the statement has been made
that no New Hampshire merchant or captain, during the Indian wars,
kidnapped natives or consciously broke faith with them.[383] The close
connection with Massachusetts, however, made inevitable the existence
of Indian slaves in the former colony,[384] and the Boston newspapers
occasionally mention such slaves as late as approximately 1750.[385]
In the middle group of colonies, the number of Indian slaves was never
large, and, in comparison with that in either the southern or New
England groups, it was conspicuously small. There appear to have been
more of such slaves in New York than in any other colony of the group,
a condition due to its greater trade with the colonies which exported
them. The English colony, furthermore, took over no Indian slaves from
its Dutch predecessor.[386]
The inhabitants of New York, under Dutch or English rule, never waged
any war on the order of those in New England against the Indian tribes.
Nor did the distribution of New England captives affect this colony
to any great extent. A few Indian slaves were introduced from foreign
parts, but the selling and holding of Indians as slaves was never a
general custom.[387] The existence of Indian slaves, however, was
recognized by a decree of the governor and council in 1680.[388] An
Indian slave was sold, July 30, 1687, in Hempstead, Long Island.[389]
The narrative of grievances against Jacob Leisler includes the
following: “The same night, December 23, 1689, an Indian slave,
belonging to Philip French, was dragged to the Fort (New York), and
there imprisoned.”[390] Aaron Schuyler of New York, 1693, gave to each
of his two daughters, in his will, an Indian slave woman.[391] In July,
1703, the governor received a petition regarding an Indian slave.[392]
The will of William Smith, of the manor of St. George, Suffolk County,
April 23, 1704, divided a number of negro and Indian slaves among his
children.[393] In 1715, certain Indians complained that the whites
were enslaving native children entrusted to them for instruction.[394]
In 1724, the Reverend Mr. Jenney reported: “There are a few negro and
Indian slaves in my parish.”[395] On July 3, 1726, the Reverend Mr.
Vesey of New York, in a letter to the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts, stated that in the colony there were
“about one thousand and four hundred Indian and negro slaves,”[396] but
tells nothing about the proportion of each. Colonel Johnson’s letter to
Governor Clinton, January 22, 1750,[397] and William Johnson’s letter
to G. W. Banyar, June 28, 1771,[398] the former relating to Indian
children held as slaves, and the latter mentioning a Pawnee Indian
slave in New York, show the existence of such slaves until a late date.
Occasional mention is found in the newspapers of the time of runaway
Indian slaves.[399] From the evidence the conclusion is that although
the existence of Indian slavery was continuous in New York throughout
the colonial period, the number of Indian slaves, in comparison with
that of individual colonies in New England and the south, was small.
William Penn, speaking of his purpose in founding a colony in America
said: “I went thither to lay the foundation of a free colony for all
mankind.” Yet in Pennsylvania existed the indentured servant, the
negro slave and the Indian slave. Considering the attitude and the
relations of Penn and his followers toward the red men one would hardly
expect to find the Indians enslaved. In the absence of wars with the
natives,[400] no Indian captives were reduced to servitude. The Indian
slaves used were brought from other colonies. The newspapers contain
accounts of their being bought and sold, and of their running away,
as in the other colonies.[401] The leading men of the colony owned
them. Penn’s own deputy, Governor William Markham, owned one, born in
1700, who, by the terms of Markham’s will, was to be freed at the age
of twenty-five.[402] In a bill of sale of the personal effects of Sir
William Keith, dated May 26, 1726, an Indian woman and her son were
mentioned among the seventeen slaves listed.[403]
In 1780, a farmer of East Nottingham, Chester County, registered, at
the county seat, the names of an Indian girl, aged twenty-four years, a
slave for life, and of an Indian man in slavery until he arrived at the
age of thirty-one years.[404] The action of the Friends’ Yearly Meeting
in 1719, also, shows that Indian slaves, as well as negro slaves, were
owned by the members of that religious society.[405]
It has been said that slavery in New Jersey was more prevalent among
the Dutch settlements and the plantations of South Jersey than in
the Calvinistic towns of East Jersey.[406] Since the number of negro
slaves throughout the Dutch possessions of America was considerable,
it may be concluded that the scarcity of Indian slaves was due to
conditions rather than to scruples, though the presence of a Quaker
element may have affected the situation. The proximity of the powerful
Iroquois, also, by shutting off the source of possible supply, may
have had something to do with the matter. The number of Indian slaves
in New Jersey was very small, yet the newspapers of the time show the
presence of such a servile class in the colony throughout the colonial
period.[407]
In Maryland, there appears to have been even a smaller number of
Indian slaves than in New Jersey. There were no Indian wars to furnish
captives,[408] and the Indians from the Carolinas were sent to ports
in New England where the demand for them was greater. In Maryland
indentured servants largely supplied the need for laborers and so
minimized the use of the natives as slaves.
CHAPTER V
+Processes of Enslavement: Warfare+
Of the processes in vogue among the English for the acquisition of
Indian slaves, the most productive was that of warfare.[409] With the
exception of the Pequot War and King Philip’s War in New England, the
Indian wars in the English colonies were confined to the south, and
there the greatest number of Indian war captives were enslaved.
After the Indian massacre of 1622 in Virginia, there was published
in London, in the same year, a tract entitled: “_The Relation of the
Barbarous Massacre in Time of Peace and League, treacherously executed
by the native infidels upon the English, the Twenty-second of March,
1622, published by Authority_.” The general trend of the tract is to
show the good that might result to the plantation from this disaster.
Number five of the possible results reads: “Because the Indians, who
before were used as friends, may now most justly be compelled to
servitude in mines, and the like, of whom some may be sent for the use
of the Summer Islands.”[410]
The policy advocated by the tract was carried out in succeeding
Indian wars in Virginia. The accounts of a certain Thomas Smallcomb,
lieutenant at Fort Royal on Pamunkey, who was probably killed in the
war with Opechancanough, show him possessed at the time of his death,
1646, of several Indian slaves.[411] It seems probable that these
slaves were captives in war. After his rebellion, 1676, Bacon sold some
of his Indian prisoners.[412] The rest were disposed of by Governor
Berkeley.[413]
From the beginning of the colony, the settlers of Carolina were in
trouble with the Indians. In September, 1671, war was declared against
the Kussoe, a tribe on the southern frontier who posed as allies of the
Spaniards, and who vexed the Carolina settlers with petty depredations.
The Kussoe were quickly defeated, and the prisoners sent to be sold out
of the colony, unless ransomed by their countrymen.[414] During the war
with the Stono Indians in 1680, the captive Indians were brought to
Charleston and sold by Governor West to the traders in the colony to be
carried to the West Indies as slaves.[415]
The breaking out of the war of the Spanish Succession in 1701 gave
Governor Moore a chance to attack the Spanish Indians, capture and
sell them under the excuse of the rules of war. Therefore, in 1702,
he led a force of militia and Indians against St. Augustine, burned
the city, and carried off, as slaves, whatever Indians he could
obtain from the Spanish Indian villages along the way.[416] A second
attack on St. Augustine was made by Moore in 1704, with the purpose of
destroying missions and carrying off slaves.[417] An advance into the
territories of the Apalachee resulted in the destruction of several
missions, and the capture of more than a thousand Indians, some free,
some slave.[418] Nearly all the Apalachee were distributed as slaves
among the Carolina settlers.[419] The enslavement of Indians, indeed,
was carried on wholesale. A letter to the proprietors, July 10, 1708,
states that “the garrison of St. Augustine is by this war reduced to
the bare walls, their cattle and Indian towns all consumed, either by
us in our invasion of that place, or by our Indian subjects ... they
have driven the Floridians to the islands of the cape, have brought in
and sold many hundred of them, and maybe now continue that trade, so
that in some five years, they’ll reduce the barbarians to a fearless
number.”[420] In 1708, Colonel Barnwell of South Carolina made an
expedition to the Appalachian province of Florida. It is thought that
this was the time when Captain Nairn of South Carolina, with a party
of Yamasee Indians, advanced to the vicinity of Lake Okechobee and
brought back a number of captive Indians as slaves.[421] A similar
expedition of Colonel Palmer in 1727 against the Yamasee resulted in
the destruction of many Indian towns, the slaughter of many natives,
and the carrying off of great numbers to Charleston as slaves.[422]
As the result of the three expeditions sent by South Carolina from
1702 to 1708 against the Yamasee, Apalachee, and Timucua of northern
Florida, there was carried back to Charleston, for sale as slaves,
almost the entire population of seven towns, in all, some 1400
persons.[423] The captives taken in 1715 when the Yamasee and Creek
Indians made a foray upon the South Carolina frontier, were sold as
slaves. Mr. Johnston, a South Carolina missionary of the Society for
the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, in his letter to
the Society, December 19, 1715, states: “It is certain many of the
Yammousees and Creek Indians were against the war all along. But our
military men were so bent upon revenge, and so desirous to enrich
themselves by making all the Indians slaves that fall into yr hands ...
that it is in vain to represent the cruelty and injustice of such a
procedure”.[424]
Throughout the Tuscarora War in North Carolina, Indian captives
were retained or sold as slaves.[425] At the beginning of military
operations, following the Indian massacre of 1711, the friendly Indians
agreed to help the English against their enemy upon promise of a reward
of six blankets for each man killed by them, and the usual price of
slaves for each woman and child delivered as captives.[426] During
the course of the war several hundred Indian allies were used by the
English,[427] and these allies took advantage of the opportunity to
obtain large number of Indian captives to sell to the slave traders of
the time.
In an attack on an Indian fort in 1711, thirty-nine women and children
were captured and disposed of in the settlements as slaves.[428] The
two chief expeditions during the war were those of Colonel Barnwell,
who was sent by South Carolina in January, 1712, and of Colonel Moore
in January and February, 1713. Colonel Barnwell’s expedition took two
hundred Indian women and children prisoners.[429] The expedition of
Colonel Moore virtually ended the war by capturing the fort in which
the Tuscarora had taken refuge.[430] Nine hundred men, women and
children were killed or taken prisoners.[431] In both expeditions the
allied Indians secured as many as possible of the captured Indians
whom they took along with them to sell as slaves in Charleston,[432]
and they still further increased their supply of slaves by attacking
the peaceful Indians along the route of their return to South
Carolina.[433] During the course of the war more than seven hundred
Indians were sold into slavery.[434]
The earliest of the slave-producing wars in New England was that with
the Pequot in 1637. The war consisted of two battles: the Mistick
Fight, and the Swamp Fight. In the first of these two events, but
seven captives were taken.[435] In the second, the Swamp Fight, about
one hundred and eighty captives were taken.[436] Two of the sachems
taken in the Swamp Fight were spared, on promise that they guide the
English to the retreat of Sassacus. The other men captives, some
twenty or thirty in number, were put to death.[437] The remaining
captives, consisting of about eighty women and children, were divided.
Some were given to the soldiers, whether gratis or for pay does not
appear. Thirty were given to the Narraganset who were allies of the
English, forty-eight were sent to Massachusetts and the remainder
were assigned to Connecticut.[438] The women and girls of the
Massachusetts captives were distributed among the towns.[439] It
seems probable that Connecticut made a similar disposition of its
share of the captives regardless of sex.[440] The male children among
the Massachusetts captives were ordered by the Massachusetts general
court, 1637, to be carried to the Bermudas by William Pierce, and sold
there as slaves.[441] The shipload of Indians, however, consisting of
fifteen boys and two women was taken by Captain Pierce to the West
Indies., instead of to the Bermudas, and disposed of at the island
of Providence.[442] One Pequot seized near Block Island was sent to
England.[443]
It is possible that this single cargo of women and children was not
the only one sent to the islands at this time. A letter from the
Company of Providence Islands, replying from London, July 3, 1638, to
letters from authorities on the island, and directing that special
care be taken of the “cannibal negroes brought from New England,”[444]
and a second letter written in 1639, when the company, fearing the
danger that might arise from too large a number of negroes on the
island, suggested that the negroes be sold or sent to New England
or Virginia,[445] may possibly have been called forth by a further
purchase of Indians, or by an exchange of negroes for them.
By the time of King Philip’s War, 1675–1676, the colonists were well
accustomed to the sending of Indian captives out of the country, and
to the use of them in their homes.[446] The policy followed toward the
Indians captured in this war was the same as that shown in the Pequot
War. The captives were either exported for sale in the European or West
Indian slave markets, or were retained in servitude in the colonies. In
the beginning of the war, Captain Moseley captured eighty Indians, who
were retained at Plymouth. In the following September, one hundred and
seventy-eight were put on board a vessel commanded by Captain Sprague
who sailed from Plymouth with them for Spain.[447] In this same year,
1675, Indians, probably from the coast of Maine, were landed as slaves
at Fayal, one of the Azores.[448] Again in 1675, fifteen Indians were
captured and sent to Boston, “tied neck to neck, like galley slaves.”
Much against the will of the populace they were given a trial. All
were finally acquitted except two who were sentenced to be sold out
of the country as slaves.[449] During the years 1675 and 1676, one
finds mention of the sale of Indians in Plymouth in groups of about a
hundred,[450] fifty-seven,[451] three,[452] one hundred and sixty,[453]
ten,[454] one.[455] From June 25, 1675 to September 23, 1676, the
records show the sale by the Plymouth colonial authorities of one
hundred and eighty-eight Indians.[456]
In the Massachusetts Bay colony a similar disposal of captives was
accomplished. On one occasion about two hundred were transported and
sold.[457] There is extant a paper written by Daniel Gookin in 1676,
one item of which is as follows: “a list of the Indian children that
came in with John of Packachooge.” The list shows twenty-one boys and
eleven girls distributed throughout the colony.[458]
With the close of the war after Philip’s death, many of the Indian
chiefs were executed at Boston and Plymouth, and most of the remaining
chiefs with their captive followers were sold and shipped off as
slaves outside the colonies.[459] Those transported were carried to
various parts: the Spanish West Indies, Spain, Portugal, Bermuda,
Virginia,[460] and the Azores.[461]
Not all the Indians whose lives were spared were transported.[462]
Generally the men, rather than the women and children, were thus
disposed of, though such was not always the case. One finds instances,
like that of Philip’s wife and son,[463] when women and children were
transported, and other instances when grown male Indians were retained
in the colonies and sold to the colonists.[464]
Not only were the Indians who themselves engaged in the war sold as
slaves at home and abroad, but the wives and children of the captive
males were also seized and consigned to slavery. In 1677, the
Massachusetts general court ordered that the Indian children, boys and
girls, whose parents had been in hostility with the colony or had lived
among its enemies in the time of the war, and who were taken by force
and given or sold to any of the inhabitants of the colony, should be at
the disposal of their masters or their assignees.[465] In the case of a
certain Praying Indian, who withdrew from the English side and joined
the Indian enemy, not only himself, but his wife and children were
taken prisoners and held as slaves until redeemed by Eliot.[466] The
same policy was followed in Plymouth. A case in point is that of the
chief, Popanooie, whose wife and children were retained in the colony
as slaves, while he himself was transported and sold into slavery.[467]
Both Plymouth and Massachusetts made a distinction between the
children of those Indian enemies who were taken by force, and those
who voluntarily gave themselves up to the colonial authorities. The
children of the latter were to serve as slaves only until twenty-four
years of age. The term of service of the former was not specified.[468]
Neither Rhode Island nor Connecticut transported Indian slaves to
the West Indies. Both colonies, however, retained Indian captives
of King Philip’s War, but only for limited periods of time, not for
life. During the war numerous bands of the Indians surrendered to
the English at Providence and Newport. The sentiment of the colony
against enslaving Indians, here, as in Connecticut, the result of
Quaker influence,[469] had already been shown. So, in accordance with
the spirit already expressed, it was voted by the town of Providence,
August 14, 1676, to appoint a committee of five persons to dispose
of the Indians there.[470] The town agreed to abide by the action of
the five men.[471] The committee decided to sell the Indians in the
colony for a term of years; one-half the proceeds of the sale to go to
the captors, and the other half to the public treasury. The length of
service was to depend upon the Indians’ ages. Those under five years
were to be simple bondsmen till thirty; all above five years, and under
ten, till thirty-eight; above ten and under fifteen, till twenty-seven;
above fifteen and under twenty, till twenty-six; such as were above
thirty, seven years. Several receipts signed by this committee show
that such sales occurred.[472] A few days before, the Rhode Island
companies had brought in forty-two Indian captives. These, and all
other Indian prisoners held at the time, were sold into service in the
colony for a period of nine years.[473] The Indians thus sentenced did
not become actual slaves according to the strictest interpretation of
the term, since the persons who acquired them purchased only their
services for a stated period of time, and not for life. Their condition
is better explained by the term “involuntary indenture”.
During King Philip’s War Connecticut suffered nothing on its own soil
from hostile Indians. In consequence the number of captive Indians
enslaved was small, and only infrequent mention is found of these
captives. A certain amount of the booty which the Connecticut troops
assisted in taking fell to their lot, and among this booty were some
of the captive Indians. An interesting record of such a slave is found
in the account book of Major John Talcot (1674–1688) which includes
his accounts as treasurer of the colony during King Philip’s War. On
opposite pages of the ledger occurs the following account (54–55):
“1676. Captain John Stanton of Stonington, Dr., to Sundry Commissions
given Captain Stanton to proceed against the Indians by which he gained
much on the sale of captives”. “Contra, 1677, April 30. Per received
an Indian girl of him, about seven years old, which he gave me for
commissions on the other side, or, at best, out of good will for any
kindness to him”.[474]
In consequence of the small number of Indian captives enslaved in the
colony, none was transported by colonial action. The privilege of thus
getting rid of undesirable and troublesome Indian slaves by selling
them out of the colony, was, however, conferred upon individual
owners, when, May 10, 1677, the general court decreed: “for the
prevention of those Indians running away, that are disposed in service
by the Authority, that are of the enemy and have submitted to mercy,
such Indians, if they be taken, shall be in the power of his master to
dispose of him as a captive by transportation out of the country”.[475]
During the Indian wars in Virginia Governor Berkeley himself in a
letter, 1668, to Robert Smith, militia commander in the Rappahannock
country, not only proposed that, with the consent of the council of
war, a war of extinction be waged against the northern Indians, but
also suggested that the colonial government defray the expenses of
the undertaking by the disposal of the women and children.[476] Smith
submitted Governor Berkeley’s letter to the Rappahannock court for
approval. In rendering their decision, the justices declared that
the conduct of the northern Indians, notably the “Doagges” and the
neighboring Indians, justified the taking of severe measures against
them; and accordingly advised “with the assistance of Almighty God, by
the strength of our northern part, utterly to eradicate [them], without
further encroachment than the spoils of our enemies”.[477]
During Bacon’s rebellion in 1676, the assembly at his instigation
declared the enslavement of Indians for life to be legal, and made
provision for granting captive Indians to soldiers as a partial
inducement to volunteer.[478] This act was repealed by the general act
setting aside all the acts of this assembly that sat in 1676 under the
rule of Bacon.[479] But it was again revived by the assembly of 1679
called by Deputy-Governor Chicheley.[480] Legal enslavement of Indians
was prohibited by implication rather than by the terms of the act of
1691.[481] But the North Carolina Indian troubles in November, 1711,
once more brought the old law forward, and captive Indians belonging
to tribes at war with the English were directed to be transported and
sold, those capturing them to have the money of the sale.[482]
It will be noted that, though in the case of Virginia, as in that of
the other colonies, the disposal of the Indians captured in war was
sanctioned by the colonial government, the action of the Virginia
government in the matter ended with that sanction. By the acts of
1643[483] and 1658,[484] the colony lost the right to possess servants.
Therefore, the government during the Indian wars decreed that the
captive Indians were the property of their captors who were entitled to
the proceeds of their sale.[485]
In the case of Maryland is found another colony in which the government
intended that Indian captives taken in war should be sold for the
benefit of the colony. At the time of the Puritan ascendency the
Indians began to be troublesome.[486] The Nanticoke of the Eastern
shore began a war upon the settlers. March 29, 1652, on petition of
the settlers, the general assembly attempted to pass a militia act. An
expedition was planned, and a levy of troops made.[487] The captive
Indians were to be sold. But the government never had a chance to carry
out any such sale, for the Puritans of Anne Arundel County refused to
make their levies, and the expedition had to be abandoned.[488]
During the Tuscarora War in North Carolina, one again finds an
instance of a colonial government taking possession of the captive
Indians, selling them as slaves, and depositing the proceeds of
the sales in the colonial treasury. At the breaking out of the war
Governor Hyde instructed the agents whom he sent to South Carolina to
ask for military aid to represent to the colonial authorities there
“the great advantage that may be made of slaves, there being many
hundreds of them, women and children; may we not believe three or four
thousand”.[489] The colony, indeed, found the disposal of the captives
to be as profitable as had been hoped. The promised reward of slaves
as pay for services rendered brought the desired Indian allies. On one
occasion, Tom Blount, chief of a tribe of friendly Indians in the area
of disturbance, in making arrangements with the colonial government
for an attack on a certain tribe, specified that his warriors receive
payment in captives, and failing these, in other commodities.[490]
The journals of the North Carolina council for June 25, 1713, show
negotiations between acting Governor Pollock and the council for the
purchase of a number of Indians for shipment to the West Indies.[491]
It was sometimes a problem to provide for the captured Indians;
consequently in the same year the assembly chartered a private sloop to
carry away captives brought by friendly Indians.[492]
In South Carolina, the Indian captives taken in the early war with the
Kussoe were sold as slaves by governor and council with the sanction
of the proprietors, who, though they had forbidden the enslavement
of Indians in the temporary laws sent out to Governor Sayle in 1671,
were nevertheless the first to grant the privilege of selling Indian
captives from Carolina to the West Indies, as the cheapest means of
“encouraging the soldiers of the infant colony”.[493] Accordingly,
when war broke out with the Stono Indians in 1680, Governor West,
taking advantage of the precedent already established and the expressed
sanction of the proprietors for such an action, offered a price for
every Indian that should be taken and brought to Charleston,[494] and
obtained the funds he needed for defense by selling the Indians to the
traders.[495] The plan proved successful, so successful, in fact, as to
arouse the jealousy of the proprietors, for West appropriated some of
the profits for his own benefit. The proprietors sanctioned the sale of
Indians taken in actual warfare for the benefit of the colony, which
meant for their own benefit. Their title to the colony rested upon the
claims of England to this territory by right of conquest.[496] The
Indians were the captives and the conquered people of that conquest. By
the rules of war the conquered people were at the mercy and disposal
of the conquerors, and since the proprietors found more profit in
selling than in killing the captive Indians, they naturally resented
West’s taking their profits for other purposes.
By the time of the wars in the early eighteenth century, the power
of the proprietors was broken, and the assembly took charge of the
matter of disposing of captives in war. An act passed September 10,
1702, provided that the Indian slaves taken by the Yamasee and the
other Indian allies on the expedition to St. Augustine in 1702,
should be bought only by a committee of four named by the assembly.
The slaves would then be disposed of to help meet the expenses of
the expedition.[497] But the committee neglected to carry out its
instructions, and another act of May 8, 1703, provided that the slaves
taken on the expedition might be bought by anyone, and the Indian
allies be thus encouraged.[498]
That all the Indian captives taken on the second expedition to St.
Augustine in 1704 were not sold as slaves was due to an order of the
assembly expressed through the governor.[499] Moore lamented this fact,
as the plunder of his men, which he estimated should have been £100
to a man, would thus be much diminished. That he still hoped with the
governor’s assistance “to find a way to gratify them for the loss of
blood”, may mean that he had not yet given up the idea of selling those
Indian captives whom he called “free”.[500]
As a part of the preparation for self-defense made by South Carolina
in 1707 and 1708, acts were passed giving the commanding officer of
any expedition the power of commissioner to buy all prisoners of the
Indian enemy above the age of twelve years that should be taken captive
by the white forces or the Indian allies. The slaves so bought were to
be delivered to the public receiver, who was directed to pay for them
not to exceed the sum of £7 for every Indian, and then to ship them to
the islands of the West Indies for sale, or to dispose of them within
the colony for the use of the public to any person who would enter into
bonds, with the penalty of £200, not to send or carry any slave so
bought to any place within the province, or to the northward thereof.
Any white person refusing to sell such slave to the commanding officer,
must dispose of the slave himself, as before described, within the
space of one month, or forfeit the same to the receiver for the use of
the public, to be disposed of as aforesaid.[501] In 1715, however, the
law was changed so as to read that all Indian enemies captured should
be handed over to the public receiver for the use of the public, the
receiver to sell such as slaves to those who would pay the highest
price, and who would promise to export them from the colony within the
period of two months after the sale.[502]
During the French and Indian War, the Cherokee Indians began
hostilities with the English. North Carolina, in the provisions made
in 1760 for raising troops against them, offered to anyone who took
captive “an enemy Indian” the right to hold him as a slave.[503] By
the treaty concluded by South Carolina with the Cherokee at the close
of the war, it was provided that the captives on each side should be
given up. The North Carolinians, however, followed the policy advocated
in 1760, and the Indians accordingly retaliated by carrying off two
white girls from South Carolina to Pensacola, and demanded, before
releasing them, that those of their own people held in captivity should
first be given up.[504]
In both of the New England Indian wars discussed, the disposal of
the captives fell under the immediate jurisdiction of the respective
colonial governments, and was carried on either by the general court,
as in the case of Massachusetts, or by a council of war which was a
committee of the general court, as in the case of Plymouth. Though
during the Pequot War Connecticut sent no Indians to the West Indies,
still it was customary for the government to sell them out of the
colony during the period following the war. This appears from a law
passed in 1656 by the general court, forbidding such sale outside
the boundaries of “the other three colonies”, without the consent of
the authorities of the plantation “under the penalty of £10 for each
default”.[505]
The attitude of the New England colonial governments, so definitely
expressed during the Pequot War, was continually shown from that time
until King Philip’s War. During that period, 1636–1675, New England
was the scene of constant intertribal Indian difficulties between the
Mohegan and Narraganset tribes. Because of the danger resulting from
these disturbances, Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, Connecticut and New
Haven entered into confederation for mutual defense, under the name of
the United Colonies of New England. The articles containing the terms
of the intercolonial agreement, drawn up May 19, 1643, expressed the
same spirit that was shown during the Pequot War, for they provided
that “the whole advantage of the war ..., whether it be in lands,
goods or persons, shall be proportionally divided among the said
confederates”.[506]
Continued disturbances led the commissioners of the United Colonies to
prepare for a campaign against the Narraganset Indians in 1645. Captain
John Mason was put in command of the forces raised. In keeping with
the provision of the articles already mentioned, his commission, dated
July, 1645, concluded thus: “what booty you take or prisoners, whether
men, women or children, you may send to Seabrook fort, to be kept and
improved for the advantage of the colonies in several proportions
answering to their charges, etc.”[507]
During King Philip’s War the various New England governments, with
Massachusetts and Plymouth in the lead, again took charge of the
disposal of the captive Indians. Various methods were adopted to
convert their Indian captives into a source of immediate revenue. One
was to sell them outright outside of the colonies, or, on occasion,
within the colonies, and thus replenish the exchequer, and, so far as
might be, defray the expenses of the war. At a meeting of the Plymouth
Court in 1676 to consider the disposal of more than a hundred captives,
the conclusion was reached, “upon serious and deliberate consideration
and agitation” concerning them, “to sell the greater number into
servitude”.[508] A little later, in the same year, several more were
sold.[509] In each case the colonial treasurer was ordered to effect
the sale for the benefit of the colony. A fiscal report of Plymouth for
the period from June 25, 1675, to September 23, 1676, gives among the
credits the following, which relates to the sale of the one hundred and
eighty-eight Indians already mentioned: “By the following accounts,
received in, or as silver, viz.: captives, for 188 prisoners at war
sold, £397 13s.”[510]
Records of similar events are found in Massachusetts Bay. On November
4, 1676, the magistrates and deputies adopted a report of a committee
of the general court providing for the selling abroad of several
Indians.[511] Again, on September 16, 1676, the general court passed an
act for handing over the disposal of certain captured Indians to the
council. The general court expressed the opinion that such of them as
had shed English blood should suffer death. The inference concerning
the remainder is that they were to be sold.[512]
A second method of paying debts by the use of captives was to direct
the treasurer of the colony to dispose of a certain number of Indians,
and turn the proceeds to the account of a certain individual in whose
debt the colony stood; or to give a certain number of Indians to such
a person, usually with the stipulation that the Indians be at once
sold out of the colony. An instance of the first kind occurred in
Plymouth, October 4, 1675, when the general court voted with “reference
to such emergent charges that have fallen on our honored governor,
the summer past, the court have settled and conferred on him, the
price of ten Indians of those savages lately transported out of the
government”.[513] The second method is illustrated by a later act of
the Plymouth court, August 24, 1676, when, along with ten Indians
ordered by the court to be delivered to Captain Benjamin Church and
Captain Anthony Low for transportation out of the colony, one Indian
was ordered “to be at the disposal of Henry Lilly, which he receives
in full satisfaction for his attendance at this court.” This Indian,
like the others, was to be transported.[514] How far the receipts from
the sale of captives went toward meeting the expenses of the colony is
not known. It must, however, have been but a short way, if one is to
judge by the condition of the colonial exchequer at the time and the
expedients adopted by the colonial government to obtain money to defend
the frontiers and meet the other expenses of war.[515]
Still a third way was to grant the captured Indians directly to
those who took them prisoners, as a bounty for their capture. The
Massachusetts act of 1695, which, along with the rewards for killing
Indians,[516] conferred on the soldiers for their own use all plunder
and provisions taken from the enemy, appears to have been the earliest
relinquishment by the provincial government of its sovereign right
to prisoners and captives.[517] In the later laws liberal premiums
were continued for scalps, and volunteer captors of Indians were, by
the law of 1706, granted the benefit of captives and plunder.[518] A
law of 1703 provided that the governor and council, in the absence of
the general assembly, possessed the power to pay for Indian captives
under ten years old the sum of £3, and stated that they could use the
Indians thus obtained, either for the redemption of English captives
among the Indians, or else they could sell them across the sea.[519]
Another law of the same year granted the regular forces the benefit
of the sale of all Indian prisoners under the age of ten years taken
by them to be transported out of the country, the profits of the
sale to be shared among the officers and men of the company engaged,
proportionally to their wages. All volunteers were, likewise, to have
the benefit of all Indian prisoners under the age of ten years by them
taken.[520] By such legal action Massachusetts was in reality putting a
premium on slave catching.
The colonial governments not only sold the Indian captives themselves,
but sometimes authorized their military commanders so to do. On January
15, 1676, the governor of Massachusetts issued instructions to Captain
Benjamin Church to go against the Indians, and to distribute among his
men the plunder and captives according to such agreement as captain and
company might make. The instructions read: “And it shall be lawful, and
is hereby warranted, for him to make sale of such prisoners as their
perpetual slaves; or otherwise to retain them, as they think meet (they
being such as the law allows to be kept)”.[521] On August 28, 1676,
also, the governor of Plymouth wrote to the governor of Rhode Island
that Captain Church had been chosen and authorized by Plymouth “to
demand and receive of the governor of Rhode Island” all the captive
Indians, and to guard and conduct them to Plymouth, or to sell and
dispose of them, as he chose, to the “inhabitants or others for terms
of life, or for shorter times, as there may be reasons”.[522]
No exception to this custom of enslavement was made in the case of the
Praying Indians. During the course of the war several of these Indians,
“through the harsh dealings of the English”, and because of neglect to
provide them with “sufficient shelter, protection and encouragement”,
joined the warring Indians.[523] Such of these Indians as were taken
in arms were declared by the Massachusetts general court to be in
rebellion, and were tried and sentenced, some to be killed, but the
most of them to be transported and sold as slaves.[524]
Captives were also retained as slaves in the colony, especially
the women and children. For instance, in 1675, in return for the
privilege granted by Mr. Shrimpton of Noddle’s Island to quarter one
hundred Indians upon that island free of charge, the general court of
Massachusetts ordered five Christian Indian prisoners to be delivered
to him to be employed on Noddle’s Island, “he returning them to the
order of the council”.[525]
It is very probable, as Gookin asserts, that instances are not lacking
in which some of the Praying Indians were sold as slaves under
accusations which were false.[526] Such happened also in the case
of other Indians. Their promises were not considered sincere by the
colonial authorities, for a result of the war was an intense hatred and
suspicion of all Indians.[527] The Praying Indians were sufficiently
numerous to be a dangerous factor, and the colonial authorities
intended to give them no chance to gain the advantage.[528]
Whatever may have been the number of enslaved Indian captives retained
in Massachusetts, that number was sufficiently large to cause some
uneasiness on the part of both authorities and people. On July 22,
1676, the general court of Plymouth confirmed an act of the council of
war declaring that, because of the danger to the peace and safety of
the colony incurred by having Indian captives residing there, no male
captive above the age of fourteen years of age should reside in the
colony; and that, if any such captive above that age was then resident
in the colony, he was to be disposed of out of the colony before
October 15, 1676, or be forfeited to the government.[529] It is not
likely that the act was rigorously enforced during its brief existence.
Exceptions to the law were doubtless made by the court from time to
time.[530]
Another act of similar tenor was passed March 29, 1677, when the
Massachusetts council in an order, the preamble of which shows much
alarm on the part of the people, decreed that no one within the colony
should thereafter buy or keep, more than ten days after the publication
of the council’s decree, any Indian men or women already bought, above
the age of twelve years, without allowance from authority. A fine of
£5, and the forfeit of the Indian or Indians concerned were fixed as
a penalty for violation of the law.[531] Toward the end of the year
Plymouth still further extended governmental supervision of captives
by decreeing, March 5, 1678, that no one was to buy the children of
the captive Indians taken during the late war, “without special leave,
liking and approbation of the government of this jurisdiction”.[532]
The seizure of Indians by authority of the colonial governments, and
their subsequent sale, were not always above suspicion. At the time of
the Narraganset troubles, in 1646, Plymouth gave legal sanction for
the seizure of peaceable and unsuspecting Indians whose tribes were at
peace with the English.[533] A second instance of the same character
occurred during King Philip’s War shortly after the destruction of
Dartmouth in 1675. The Dartmouth Indians had not been concerned in the
burning of the town, so the whites entered into negotiations of peace
and friendship with them, and the captains of the resident militia and
the Plymouth forces sent thither promised them protection. But through
other influences they were conducted to Plymouth, and, by order of the
council, August 4, 1675, they were sold and “transported out of the
Country, being about Eight-score Persons”.[534] On September 2, 1675,
the council took similar action in the case of “a parcel of Indians
lately come into Sandwich, in a submissive way to this colony. They
were adjudged to be “in the same condition of rebellion”, and were
condemned, fifty-seven in number, to perpetual servitude.[535]
A fourth, and far more notable instance of bad faith on the part of the
English, occurred at Cocheco (Dover, New Hampshire) during the Indian
difficulties in that section, contemporaneous with and following King
Philip’s War. Major Waldron was in command of the local garrison, and
had gathered about him four hundred Indians, about two hundred of whom
were refugees who had fled there for protection after the death of
King Philip, which Waldron had promised them. The depredations of the
Androscoggin Indians at Casco and the devastation of the settlements
on the Kennebec caused the Massachusetts government to send a military
force into that locality, with orders to seize all southern Indians
wherever they could find them. In obedience to this order the leaders
of the Massachusetts troops wished to seize the Indians at once, but
Waldron hesitated to break his promise and proposed a stratagem to
avoid disastrous results. His suggestion was followed, and all the
Indians were disarmed and made prisoners, September 7, 1676. The
“strange Indians”, or those who had come from the south, two hundred
in number, were retained and sent to Boston. Seven or eight who were
convicted of having shed English blood were condemned to death; the
rest were sold into slavery in foreign parts.[536]
Toward the close of the war orders were given by certain of the New
England colonies to the constables to seize all Indians remaining in
the colonies after a specific date. All who had been concerned in the
death of a colonist or the destruction of property were to be summarily
executed. Those who remained friendly or had finally assisted the
English, were allowed to retain their lands and continue their regular
life. The others were to be sold by the treasurers of the various
colonies for the benefit of their respective governments.[537]
The locating of those Indians that remained after the war, and the
necessity of maintaining order, resulted, 1677, in the government
of Massachusetts settling the groups of Indians, Praying as well as
unconverted, in various localities, and the distribution of some to
“remain as servants in English families” where they were to be taught
and instructed in the Christian religion. Both the captive male Indians
and their families were held as slaves. Massachusetts and Plymouth
limited the time of servitude of the children of “friendly Indians”, or
those who surrendered and assisted the English, to the time when they
should become twenty-four years of age.[538] The time of service of
the children of the warring Indians was not so limited.
Since King Philip’s War was never carried into Connecticut territory,
the problem of disposing of Indian captives never assumed the same
importance there as in Massachusetts, and the Connecticut government
did not export its captive Indians. On October 23, 1676, as a measure
intended to induce the surrender of the warring tribes and so hasten
the conclusion of the war, the general court ordered that all Indians
who surrendered before January 1, 1677, should not be sold out of
the country as slaves. The measure, however, permitted their use as
temporary slaves in the colony. They were to receive good usage in
the service of those to whom the council might dispose of them, and
after ten years, all over sixteen years of age, on certificate of good
behavior from their masters regarding their good service during that
period, were to have their liberty and be allowed to dwell in the
colony and work for themselves, provided they observed English law. If
the master should refuse such certificate, then the Indian could apply
to the authorities and have his case decided. The council was given
power to lengthen the term of servitude if it should see cause, but
could not shorten it. All Indians under sixteen years of age were to
serve until twenty-six years of age.[539]
At a meeting, November 24, 1676, the Connecticut council decided upon
its method of procedure. A committee was appointed to meet at Norwich
on the second Wednesday of the following December to “dispose and
settle all surrenders according to order”. All Indians expecting
to have the benefit of the declaration must then and there appear.
After that time all those who had shown hostility to the English were
excluded from the privilege and were to be dealt with as enemies, as
were also those who should hide or harbor them. The notice of the
council’s action was to be sent among the various Indians of the
colony. The instructions of the committee appointed directed them,
among other things, to take all young and single persons of all sorts
to put into English families to be apprentices for ten years. After
that they were to be returned to their parents on proof of their own
and their parents’ fidelity. Otherwise they were to be sold into
slavery. The general court appointed certain persons in each county
to receive and distribute these Indian children proportionally, and
to see that they were sold to good families. Those counties which had
already had some share of the surrendered Indians and captives or which
had too many Indians already, were not to receive as many as the other
counties.[540]
The Rhode Island authorities also limited the bondage of Indians to
a period of years. On May 18, 1652, the colony passed a law “that
no black mankind or white” should be “forced by covenant, bond or
otherwise, to serve any man or his assignees longer than ten years,
or until they became twenty-four years of age, if they be taken in
under fourteen, from the time of their coming within the limits of
the colony; and at the end of the term of ten years, they were to be
set free, as the manner is with English servants”.[541] Either the
framers of the law intended that Indians be included under the terms
“black mankind or white”, or else the subject of Indian slavery had not
yet attracted the attention of the law makers at this time. Probably
the latter is the true explanation of the omission of the term “Indian”
from the act, though at a later time the same restriction of service
was applied to Indians without legislation.
On March 13, 1676, the general assembly convened at Newport and
discussed the Indian situation. An order was given that “no Indian in
this colony shall be a slave”, save only for debts, covenant, etc., “as
if they had been countrymen not at war”.[542] But Rhode Island did not
avail itself of every opportunity to retain captive Indians. On one
occasion the assembly voted, June 30, 1676, to send back to Plymouth
a number of Indians whom Roger Williams had sent there, because they
believed the Indians rightly belonged to the northern colony.[543]
Again, on August 23, 1676, the government held a court martial for
the trial of some Indians whom the Rhode Island troops had captured.
Several of these Indians were sentenced to death for crimes against the
English. Others were freed. None was retained in the colony.[544]
The assembly made an earnest effort to prevent the indiscriminate and
unfair sale of Indians not taking part in the war, by forbidding during
its session in August, 1676, that any Indians be brought into the
colony without permission of the governor and two assistants, under
penalty of a fine of £5 and the forfeit of such Indian or Indians.
The sum of the fine and the forfeited Indians were “to return to the
treasurer of each town”. All persons were declared to be entitled
to half the produce of the Indians whom they might legally bring to
Newport. The other half was to go to the treasury. If such an amount
was not paid in, the said Indians were to be forfeited to the treasurer
of the colony. It was also forbidden to carry any Indian away from
the colony without a permit from the governor, deputy-governor or
two magistrates, upon penalty of the forfeiture of £5. All acts,
orders, commissions, verbal orders, etc., which had been issued by
town councils, councils of war, private orders of officers and “other
ministers of justice”, which related to Indians, were declared legal by
the assembly.[545]
Such action as that referred to in this measure was taken at a town
meeting in Portsmouth, March 8, 1675. The meeting, fearing that the
holding of Indian slaves might prove “prejudicial”, ordered that all
persons of the town having any Indian slave of either sex should be
given but one month to sell and send such out of the town, and that no
inhabitant after that time should buy or keep an Indian slave under
penalty of £5 fine for each month thus holding such a slave, the amount
of the fine to be paid to the town treasurer.[546]
CHAPTER VI
+Processes of Enslavement: Kidnapping+
The process of obtaining Indians by kidnapping was common to the early
English explorers in America, as well as to those of Spain and France.
In 1498, the expedition of Sebastian Cabot brought back to England
three natives from the New World.[547] Lord Bacon states that two of
the Indians “were seen two years afterward, dressed like Englishmen,
and not to be distinguished from them”.[548] The Cabots had set off,
promising to bring home heavy cargoes of spices and oriental gems. They
returned with empty ships and with nothing to relate concerning the
sought-for land of Cathay. Their expedition had not reached its desired
destination, but some of the natives would serve as proof of another
land discovered, and would, perhaps, provoke sufficient interest to
assure the fitting out of a second expedition.[549] These Indians
were not destined for the slave markets, and were probably kept as
curiosities.
England still hoped to find the northwest passage to the Orient. In
1576, Frobisher made another attempt in that direction. He desired to
take away some token as proof of his having been in the New World, and,
as it was supposed the Indians had destroyed or stolen three of his
men who were lost, he decided to take some savages captive by luring
them to trade. In this way one was captured, but died on reaching
England.[550] A similar instance occurred on the second voyage in 1577.
Frobisher planned to seize several Indians, bestow gifts upon them,
and send them to their own people, hoping thus to win the friendship
of the natives, after keeping one of them as interpreter. An attempt
was made to seize two, but one escaped. As a companion for this man, an
Indian woman was afterward captured. Frobisher attempted to trade these
captives for some lost Englishmen, but was unsuccessful;[551] so it is
probable that they were carried to England. The relation of the third
voyage, 1578, mentions a similar man and woman, but the narrator does
not state whether these were the same two taken on the second voyage,
carried to England, and brought back to America on the third voyage,
or two others taken on the third voyage. These Indians provoked much
curiosity and comment in England, and pictures of them were made for
the queen and others.[552]
The search for the northwest passage was continued by Captain George
Weymouth in 1605, under the patronage of Lord Popham and Sir Ferdinando
Gorges. Weymouth reached the coast of America at the mouth of the
present Penobscot River in Maine. By making presents to the Indians
and by treating them kindly, he induced five of them to come on board
his ship. These five Indians were kidnapped and carried to England,
along with their canoes and the personal belongings which they had with
them at the time of capture. There appears to have been no feeling
of opposition shown to such an act. Three of them were presented by
Weymouth to Gorges, and two to Popham.[553] Gorges declared that
“this accident must be acknowledged the means under God of putting on
foot and giving life to all our plantations”.[554] Weymouth did not
propose to obtain financial profit by the sale of these Indians any
more than did his predecessors, Cabot and Frobisher. His immediate
purpose was probably to please his patrons by a curious gift, and
doubtless he shared the purpose of Gorges and Popham of learning from
them the resources of their native land, and by instructing them, to
have them fitted to act as intelligent guides and interpreters in some
future expedition. His instructions required that he treat the Indians
kindly so that they might prove friendly to future settlements.[555]
The treatment of the captives in England was evidently kind. Gorges
kept his Indians in his family three years and obtained from them the
knowledge he desired. The Indians were shown to the curious, perhaps
for money, and it has been held that one, after death, was exhibited
for an admission price.[556]
Captain Edward Harlow, under the patronage of the Earl of Southampton,
visited America in 1611, and at “Monhigan Island” seized three Indians
who had come on board to trade. One of these escaped and incited his
friends to revenge, so Harlow proceeded southward and from the islands
in the vicinity of Cape Cod kidnapped three others. With these five
Indians he returned to England.[557]
Though in the cases cited the Indians taken by the English were
probably not destined to actual slavery, yet instances are not wanting
in which they were taken for that purpose. The profit to be derived
from the sales in the slave markets was tempting. Just before sending
out the expedition of 1614, Captain Henry Harley brought to Gorges a
native of the island of Capawick[558] (Martha’s Vineyard.) This Indian
had been captured with some twenty-nine others by a ship from London
and taken to Spain for sale as a slave. The sale failed wholly or in
part, and some of the Indians were brought to England and shown as
curiosities as the other Indians had been.[559] Gorges, though he had
sanctioned the act of Weymouth, condemned the action of the captors of
this group of Indians, for he feared the Indians of America would be
unfriendly to colonial enterprise.
The London ship above mentioned was one commanded by Thomas Hunt, and
formed part of Smith’s expedition for the carrying of fish, furs and
oil from New England to Virginia and Malaga. Smith took the first ship
to Virginia and left Hunt to take the other to Spain with a cargo of
dry fish. But a cargo of slaves seemed to offer greater gain than one
of fish. Twenty-seven Indians were taken captive off the Massachusetts
coast and sent to Spain. Among this number was Tisquantum (called
Squantum by the English), who had formerly been captured by Weymouth,
and who had been returned to America. Some of the Indians were sold in
Spain for £20 apiece. By the interference of some monks the further
sale of the Indians was prevented, and Squantum, at least, was carried
off to England. When Gorges sent out Captain Hobson to America two of
Hunt’s captives accompanied him, but, on arrival, they escaped and so
aroused their friends that a settlement by Hobson was prevented. This
feeling of suspicion and hatred toward the English must have found
expression, if it had not been prevented by the deadly pestilence of
1616 which weakened the Indians of New England, and by the intercession
of Squantum who proved a firm friend of the English in arranging a
treaty with the Indians.[560] Hunt’s act was done entirely on his own
responsibility and without the knowledge or sanction of Smith who
denounced it as a vile deed, since it ever afterward kept him from
trading in those parts.[561]
The evidence of kidnapping in the southern colonies seems very meagre.
The existing records deal chiefly with other modes of obtaining Indians
for slaves. There were undoubtedly many cases of kidnapping pure and
simple, if we may judge by the general attitude of the colonists
toward the Indians; but kidnapping, considered as distinct from any
sort of warfare, was not a suitable means of producing the number of
Indians needed or desired by the Carolina colonists. Trade and war
were more prolific means, and hence were more largely used. Kidnapping
was a process of obtaining slaves suited only to a locality, or to an
occasion when but few Indians were desired.
Yet certain incidents show the custom was practiced here as elsewhere.
An event of 1685 is probably only one of many such which occurred
on the southern coast and in the interior at the time of the Indian
disturbances in that section, before war had actually begun. In that
year a vessel from New York kidnapped four Indians in the locality of
Cape Fear, North Carolina, and carried them to New York for sale.[562]
That there was a certain amount of kidnapping carried on in the other
southern colonies, as Virginia and Maryland, is shown by the colonial
legislation regarding the matter, which will be discussed later.
It has been seen that it was customary to enslave Indian captives taken
in war, and that certain colonial governments even allowed the seizure
of peaceable Indians in time of war, lest they join with the warring
Indians. The distinction between kidnapping, pure and simple, and
seizures made in time of war, was too delicate to be always observed,
and was open to abuse by unscrupulous persons desiring to obtain
Indians for sale. Nowhere is this more clearly exemplified than in the
New England colonies. Here, as in the south, kidnapping was carried
on by the frontier people who were generally rough and lawless. Along
with indifference to the rights of the Indians, fraudulent practices in
trade, and refusal to sell them arms and ammunition on the slightest
suspicion that the weapons might be used against the whites, the
kidnapping of Indians, and the selling of them as slaves in the West
Indies were all numbered among the causes of King Philip’s War.[563]
With the opening of King Philip’s War the custom was continued. The
Maine Indians were about to join those in Massachusetts when, through
the efforts of Abraham Shurt of Pemaquid, and by means of promises
made to right their wrongs and treat the native fairly in the future,
the union with the Massachusetts Indians was prevented, and assurances
of friendship were exchanged with the English. Rumors were soon
spread abroad, however, that the Indians were possessed of arms, and
were forming a conspiracy against the colony. The government became
alarmed and issued a warrant to General Waldron of Cocheco (Dover, New
Hampshire) “to seize every Indian known to be a man slayer, traitor or
conspirator”. Waldron took it upon himself to issue general warrants
for this purpose. These warrants fell into the hands of unprincipled
men who set about using them to immediate advantage. A vessel was
fitted out at Pemaquid and a crew organized for the purpose of
kidnapping Indians for sale abroad. Shurt remonstrated with the leaders
of the proceeding and warned the Indians of their danger. But the plan
succeeded, at least in part. A vessel off Pemaquid, commanded by one
Laughton, succeeded during the winter of 1676 in capturing several
Indians, and carrying them abroad for sale. The Indians complained of
this action, but the only satisfaction they obtained was more offers
of friendship and the promise that means should be taken to return
their captured friends to them.[564] Waldron was indicted by the grand
jury for surprising and stealing seventeen Indians, carrying them off
to Fayal in the vessel _Endeavor_ and selling them there, but was
acquitted. John Laughton, captain of the vessel, was also indicted for
the same offenses, found guilty by the Court of General Sessions, and
fined £20.[565] More pressing matters engaged the attention of the
authorities for some time, and no further attention was given to this
event.
Not even Pennsylvania was free from the custom. In 1710, the Indians
manifested some uneasiness, and when the governor sent a committee to
learn their wishes they returned eight wampum belts which represented
their requests. One belt signified, so the Indians explained to
the committee, that their old women desired the friendship of the
Christians and Indians of the government, and the privilege to fetch
wood and water without danger and trouble; another, that their children
might have room to play and sport without danger of slavery. The young
men begged that they might be granted the privilege to hunt without
fear of death or slavery; and the chiefs desired a lasting peace that
thereby they might be secured against those “fearful apprehensions”
they had felt for several years.[566] A similar complaint was made by
the “Senoquois” to Lieutenant-Governor Gookin. The Indians asserted
that one Francis La Tore had taken a boy from them and had sold him
in New York, and requested the lieutenant-governor to inquire about
him.[567]
Whether or not actual kidnapping of the natives occurred in New York,
at least the Indians were familiar with the custom as practiced by
the whites. The following is a case in point. When the Moravian
missionaries first visited New York, early in the eighteenth century,
the whites, in order to counteract the influence of Rauch, one of these
missionaries who was working at the Indian town of Shekomeka east of
the Hudson River, told the Indians of that section that the missionary
intended to seize their young people, carry them beyond the seas and
sell them into slavery.[568]
Events in New York illustrate another phase of Indian kidnapping.
During the war between Spain and the United Netherlands prizes were
occasionally brought by privateers to New Amsterdam from the Caribbean
islands and the Spanish Main. Part of the cargoes of these vessels
consisted of kidnapped Spanish Indians. Their presence in the colony
was considered undesirable and their seizure generally unfair, for
they were in some cases of Spanish[569] as well as Indian blood. After
peace was declared between Spain and the Netherlands, 1648, hostilities
still continued between Spain and France. To privateers flying the
French flag, New Amsterdam was a neutral port where captive negroes and
other prize goods were sold. Among these negroes was sometimes found a
Spanish Indian. In 1692,[570] and again in 1699,[571] laws were passed
to suppress privateering. But, despite these laws, the practice was
adhered to, and the number of free Spanish Indians held in New York
increased. A petition to the governor of New York, in 1711, shows a
free Indian woman, a resident of Southampton, kidnapped and sold as a
slave in Madeira, from whence she was returned by the English consul to
New York.[572] This instance illustrates the work of pirates also.
Mention is frequently found of Spanish Indians in other colonies,
especially in New England. Cotton Mather records buying a Spanish
Indian and giving him to his father.[573] Mayhew mentions the death of
Chilmark, a Spanish Indian brought from some part of the Spanish Indies
when he was a boy and sold in New England.[574] The New England and
other newspapers contain frequent mention of Spanish Indian runaways
and Spanish Indians for sale in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode
Island and Pennsylvania.[575] The _Boston News Letter_ of July 31,
1704, and October 28, 1706, mentions both negro and Indian slaves taken
off the coast of New Spain by privateers fitted out in South Carolina.
It may be that the so-called Spanish mulatto kidnapped by a privateer,
sold in the colony of Pennsylvania and freed by the council in 1703,
was a Spanish Indian.[576]
Considering the prevalence of piracy and privateering during the
colonial period, it seems probable that there were not a few Spanish
Indians brought to the different colonies in this way and in the
cargoes of negroes from the West Indies and Brazil, whose existence
in the colonies was never brought to the attention of the colonial
authorities.[577]
“Kidnapping of Indians was contrary to express statute in most, if
not in all the colonies, and to the law of nations as generally
recognized in the international intercourse of Europeans with heathen
and barbarian nations.”[578] There was considerable legislative action
in the different colonies intended to check the practice, which
had, however, but little effect. In some of the colonies laws were
passed intending to put an end to the practice by providing fines and
penalties for the kidnapping of Indians. In other colonies legislative
or executive action dealt, not with the custom in general, but with
certain specific events which aroused attention or were brought by
some one concerned directly to the notice of the legislative body or
the executive. One thing is apparent throughout all the legislation on
this subject: the absence of any particular sympathy for the Indian
himself. In some cases the Indian was only included incidentally or by
implication in a general law which made no specific mention of him.
In other cases laws against kidnapping were passed because of the
effect that kidnapping might have on the Indians within or surrounding
the colony. In short, the motive was the desire for self-protection
dictated by fear of disastrous results, rather than by any humanitarian
feeling.
It has been seen that kidnapping concerned two classes of Indians,
those taken in English territory, and those taken in Spanish territory
and brought to the English colonies. Colonial legislation and executive
action included both classes.
The Virginia act of 1657 aimed directly at the stealing of Indian
children by Indians who had been hired by the English. All such stolen
children were to be returned to their own tribe within ten days, and
five hundred pounds of tobacco were to be paid by the offending party
to the informer of such kidnapping.[579]
In 1672, the council of Maryland forbade the carrying of a certain
friendly Indian out of the colony without special license from the
governor.[580] In 1692, for the sake of preserving peace with the
neighboring Indians, a law was enacted forbidding any one to “entice,
surprise, transport, or cause to be transported, or sell or dispose
of any friendly Indian or Indians whatsoever, or endeavor or attempt
so to do, without license from the governor for the time being,” and
offering a reward to any informer of such an event.[581] The same law
was reënacted in 1705.[582]
Article ninety-one of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641
provided that no one except captives taken in just wars etc. should be
held as slaves in the colony.[583] In 1649, the Body of Liberties was
reënforced by a law decreeing: “If any man stealeth a man or mankind,
he shall surely be put to death.”[584] Some attention was given to
enforcing this law, for the records show an occasional imprisonment
for stealing Indians.[585] On July 4, 1667, the governor of Barbadoes
sent back to Massachusetts two Indians that had been taken to England
and then carried to Barbadoes and sold as slaves. In an accompanying
address to the governor and assistants of Massachusetts he promised to
rectify all such abuses that might come under his jurisdiction.[586]
But in spite of laws and precautions the practice of kidnapping
continued throughout the colonial period.
Other colonies followed the example of Massachusetts in making
man-stealing a capital crime. New Jersey, in 1675,[587] and New
Hampshire, in 1679,[588] enacted similar laws. Just how far the
laws were intended to relate to kidnapped Indians is a matter for
conjecture. They were in all probability intended to apply to the
stealing of negro slaves, and there is nothing in their content to show
that they were intended to relate also to the stealing of free Indians.
CHAPTER VII
+Processes of Enslavement: Trade+
In all sections where captives in war or kidnapped Indians were
purchased from the natives, such buying was closely connected with
the fur trade. The general fickleness and instability of the Indian’s
character, which caused the tribes to change their allegiance so
readily from one white race to the other, made easy the acquisition of
slaves along with other commodities. The routes along which the fur
trade was carried on facilitated both the acquisition of Indians and
their transportation to the markets. And the fact that furs and the
agricultural products of the south were not commodities that competed
with English wares eliminated opposition to the traffic in Indians.[589]
Throughout the region of the Mississippi Valley and the Great Lakes
the “coureurs de bois” collected furs and purchased slaves,[590] both
of which they sold to Carolina traders at the mouth of the Mississippi
River, and in some cases they went to the Carolinas directly to effect
their sales.[591] Throughout the Carolinas, the Mississippi and
Illinois country and the west, the fur and Indian trade was heavy. By
1720 the Carolina fur trade had reached very large dimensions, and the
trade in Indians had developed proportionally, so that at “set times
of the year” a flourishing business in “dressed deer skins, furs and
young Indian slaves” was carried on by the traders.[592]
In the Carolinas the custom of purchasing their prisoners from
the friendly Indians, the holding of these captives in the colony
as slaves, or, possibly, their subsequent sale to the West India
islands, existed almost from the beginning of the colony.[593] But
the proprietors, anxious to cultivate the friendship of the Indians,
forbade, in the temporary laws sent out to Governor Sayle in 1671, that
any Indian on any pretext whatever be made a slave, or without his own
consent be carried out of the country.[594]
Yet the traffic in Indians continued. The adventurous nature of the
settlers,[595] combined with the need for laborers which could be
partially supplied by the use of Indians at home or by the negroes for
whom they could be readily exchanged in the islands, and coupled with
the attraction of good prices which the Indians brought when sold for
cash, induced both planters and government officials to enter largely
into the trade.
To supply the ever-increasing demand for Indian slaves, the tribes of
the south and southwest constantly preyed upon each other. The matter
of international rivalry also entered largely into the policy of the
Carolinians. The Indians of the south and west were divided in their
allegiance to the three white races, Spanish, French and English. Each
of these three nations sought not only to win and hold the allegiance
of as many of the tribes as possible, but also to use these tribes
to strike at its rival’s allies, and the readiness with which the
English, especially, bought the captives for slaves served to keep up a
continuous series of depredations of tribe upon tribe.[596]
The Westo, an important tribe on the southern border of South
Carolina, furnished a number of such captives during the latter part
of the eighteenth century in spite of their two treaties made with
the proprietors, 1677 and 1678, in which they promised not to prey
upon the smaller and weaker tribes who were friends and allies of the
English.[597] In 1693, the Cherokee sent a delegation to Governor Smith
of South Carolina to complain of the Esaw, Congaree, and Savannah
who were preying upon those tribes and selling the captives thus
obtained as slaves to the English. The Savannah, like the Westo, were
so acting in violation of their treaty by which they agreed not to
molest neighboring tribes.[598] In 1706, English Indian allies attacked
Pensacola and carried off members of the Apalachee tribe for sale as
slaves.[599] On July 10, 1708, Thomas Maine, an agent of the general
assembly of South Carolina, reported to that body that the Talapoosa
and the Chickasaw, incited by the good prices which the traders offered
them for captives, were engaged in making slaves of the Indians on the
lower Mississippi who were subject to the French. In this instance one
finds the usual excuse given by the English in such cases: “some men
think it both serves to lessen their number before the French can arm
them, and it is a more effective way of civilizing and instructing them
than all the efforts used by the French missionaries”.[600]
The French asserted that the policy of the English of Carolina in
setting one Indian tribe against another was a part of their plan
for driving the French from Louisiana and the Mississippi River
country.[601] The process of obtaining Indian slaves through trade was,
then, a part of a great political contest. The alliance of the leading
tribes, such as the Chickasaw and the Choctaw, meant much to both
English and French from the territorial and the commercial standpoints.
In consequence, no effort was spared by either of the white races to
obtain a dominating influence over these tribes in order to use them
for their own benefit. This benefit consisted largely of the gain in
trade both in furs and slaves. The French sought to dissolve this
friendship by telling the Chickasaw that the English were only seeking
to destroy them by having them wage war for slaves, and that when they
were sufficiently weakened by war the English would fall upon them and
sell them all as slaves.[602]
In consequence of the unstable nature of the Indian and the influence
brought to bear upon the tribes by both French and English, it was
but natural that Indian relations in the section east of the lower
Mississippi should be kaleidoscopic in character.[603] As each tribe
gave, or refused to give, allegiance to the English it was in turn
preyed upon by the English allies. If one is to accept the assertions
of the French in the early eighteenth century, the Chickasaw during
their eight or ten years intercourse with the English lost five hundred
prisoners, and the Choctaw, eight hundred, sold as slaves by the
English.[604]
The opening of the War of the Spanish Succession increased the activity
of both English and French among the Indians and the consequent
preying of tribe upon tribe. The French asserted that they established
their colony at Mobile for the purpose of keeping the savages of the
neighborhood as allies of the French and Spanish against the English
and Chickasaw whose purpose, in their opinion, was to win them over or
else destroy them by enslavement.[605] By 1700 the English of Carolina
had crossed the Mississippi River and on the west bank pursued the
same tactics with the Indians as elsewhere.[606] Slaves were obtained
by the English and Chickasaw from nations as far distant as the
Taensa.[607] In furtherance of their scheme to win the friendship of
the warlike Chickasaw, and so strike a blow at the English and protect
their allies from the slave raids of the former, the French repeatedly
sought to make peace between the Chickasaw and Choctaw.[608] But the
English influence was too strong for such a peace to be permanent so
long as the Choctaw remained allies of the English. The peace arranged
by Bienville in 1703 was broken in 1705 by the Chickasaw making an
irruption into the territory of the Choctaw, capturing a number of
their people and selling them to the English of Carolina.[609] A later
peace arranged by Bienville was no more permanent, for in 1711 the
Chickasaw, at the instigation of the English, fell upon the Choctaw
and word was brought to Bienville that three hundred Choctaw women and
children had been carried off as slaves by the Indian allies of the
English and Chickasaw, and that the Chickasaw themselves had carried
off one hundred and fifty.[610] By 1713 English traders and agents were
among the Natchez Indians to purchase Indians whom the French accused
them of obtaining by exciting the tribes against each other.[611]
In their relations with the Indians the Carolina proprietors appear to
have been playing a double game. They posed as protectors of the tribes
and made treaties to insure the peace and safety of their allies.
Consistently with such action, also, they opposed the purchase by the
colonists of captives taken in various intertribal difficulties. On
the other hand, it was the proprietors themselves who gave permission
to sell in the West Indies the Indian captives taken by the colonists
in wars against the tribes.[612] The distinction, if any existed,
between the classes of captives obtained in various ways and held as
slaves, was too fine a one for the colonists to appreciate; hence the
purchase and sale of Indians continued.
In short, the whole attitude of the proprietors on the subject came
primarily from jealousy for the colonial officials, and not from
feelings of humanity or sympathy with the Indians. They opposed any
action of the colonial officials which tended to make them independent
of the proprietors’ authority. This explains why they removed the
deputies, Mathews, Moore and Middleton, and Governor West, also, in
1683, for selling Indians to the West Indies.[613] News, in fact, had
reached the proprietors that the dealers in Indians were the “greatest
sticklers” against having the parliament elected according to the
proprietors’ instructions, so drastic measures were necessary. The
fact that the proprietors chose to succeed West, Sir John Yeamans, a
man filled with the slave sentiment of Barbadoes,[614] is sufficient
evidence that they entertained no hostile feelings against the system
of slavery in general.
A secondary reason for the opposition of the Carolina proprietors to
Indian slavery lay in the fact that the stirring up of the tribes by
the colonists in order to obtain captives for slaves resulted in danger
and damage to the colony, which necessarily meant financial loss to
the proprietors. To carry out the idea of protecting the Indians,
the grand council, in accordance with previous instructions from
its superiors, sent two agents to visit the plantations in 1680 and
bring to Charleston all Indian slaves whom the Westo had sold to the
planters. These slaves were set at liberty.[615] In the same year, the
proprietors appointed a commission to prevent the trade in Indians and
to decide all cases arising in future between Indians and English.[616]
The commission proved a failure and was abolished in 1682 on the ground
that it was used for the oppression instead of the protection of the
natives.[617]
The proprietors continued their directions to the governors regarding
the sale of Indians. On May 10, 1682, they instructed Governor Joseph
Moreton that upon no pretense or reason whatsoever was he to suffer
any Indian to be sent away from Carolina, asserting that they had
taken into their protection as subjects of England all the Indians
within four hundred miles of Charleston. Hence the Indians must not
be made slaves in war, or in any way injured by the colonists without
proprietary permission.[618] Additional instructions, September 30,
1683, forbade the governor and council to allow the transportation
of any Indians without the consent of the parliament, and gave the
palatine’s court, to be assembled by the governor and council for the
purpose, the privilege of proposing such an act to the parliament.
Any officer commissioned by the council or chosen by the palatine’s
court who transported Indians without a license was to be at once
dismissed.[619]
A battle royal was now on between the proprietors, with perhaps a
small number of sympathizers in the parliament, on the one hand, and
the council and traders on the other. The proprietors made inquiries
regarding the selling of Indians both from the council and from private
individuals.[620] In a letter, September 30, 1686, also, they set
forth their dissatisfaction with the condition of affairs and asserted
their belief that “the private gains made by some by buying slaves
of the Indians had more to do with the opinion that they ought to be
transported than any consideration of public safety or benefit.”[621]
The dealers in Indians stated three reasons for the traffic: that the
Savannah, having united all their tribes, had become so powerful that
it was dangerous to disoblige them; that South Carolina was at war
with the Waniah in which the Savannah assisted; that humanity decreed
the buying of their slaves to keep them from “a cruel death”. These
reasons for the traffic were held by the proprietors to be unsound.
They declared the buying of slaves from the Savannah alone, and the
forbidding of such buying from the other Indians would serve not only
to keep the Savannah united, but would join the other tribes to them
and so strengthen them that they would be a danger to the colony. The
war with the Waniah, they thought, had been the result of a quarrel
that the whites picked for the purpose of obtaining Indians to
transport. If the Savannah were to take captive the Waniah and sell
them to the dealers in Indians, it was only to those few dealers who
had a share in the government. These dealers had resorted to subterfuge
in order to force the Savannah to sell only to them. The emissaries of
peace sent by the Westo and the Waniah to the Savannah, declared the
proprietors, had been seized by the last named and sold to the dealers,
thus prolonging both the Waniah and the Westo wars, and likely to
cause other wars. By purchasing slaves from the Savannah, also, these
Indians were encouraged to make raids upon their weaker neighbors.
Such activities when discussed in England prevented settlers from
going to South Carolina, fearing lest the runaway negroes could not be
brought back on so large a continent unless the Indians were preserved.
Finally, said the proprietors, God’s blessing could not be expected on
a government so managed.[622]
The proprietors, however, did not wish to forbid the selling of
Indians. They recognized the usefulness, as West had done, of
permitting “soldiers for their encouragement, to make the best
advantage that they can out of their prisoners”; but they wanted the
initiative in the matter to rest with themselves. Accordingly they
authorized the parliament to pass acts for the exportation of “such
Indians as they should decide upon”, the said Indians to be shown in
the house and examined by sworn interpreters as to their capture, name
and station. The license issued by the parliament was to specify the
person to whom the leave of exportation was granted. The decision of
the parliament was to be rendered by a majority of the house. This
license was not granted by a standing order, but for “each batch”.
Anyone exporting Indians without such a license was to receive the
utmost punishment prescribed by law.[623]
During his administration, John Archdale, consistent with his religious
persuasion of Quaker and his political position of proprietor, did what
he could to check the traffic in Indians. In 1695, a party of Yamasee
(English Indians) fell upon a party of Spanish Indians not far from St.
Augustine, took them prisoners and brought them to Charleston for sale
to the English islands as slaves. On examining the captives and finding
that they were Christians, Archdale ordered the chief of the Yamasee
to return them to the Spanish governor. The difficulty of restraining
Indian tribes from revenging themselves upon their enemies and selling
their captives as slaves, Archdale himself records.[624]
In 1700, James Moore forced the council to annul the election of
Moreton as governor, and was himself chosen for the office. He then
packed council and assembly with his associates and followers. These
persons at once proceeded to use their offices for their own financial
benefit, and one of the means practiced to that end was the selling of
Indians to the islands of the West Indies. Moore issued commissions to
persons to capture all the Indians they could for his own profit.[625]
At his instigation the Apalachee attacked the missions of Santa
Catalina, on the island of that name off the coast of the present
state of Georgia, and the mission of Santa Fé in Florida, burned the
villages, massacred many Christian Indians and carried off others to be
sold as slaves in Carolina.[626] The members of the assembly and other
inhabitants of the colony, June 26, 1705, complained to the proprietors
of Moore’s enslaving Indians, not on the grounds of justice and
humanity, but of expediency. His action was ruining the Indian trade by
creating confusion among the Indians, and would, they feared, arouse
an Indian war.[627] The proprietors denounced the governor but did not
stop the practice.
By 1707 the activities of the traders in Indian slaves had become so
notorious that the South Carolina assembly took up the consideration
of means to remedy the matter. A board of commissioners, nine in
number, was appointed to have entire charge of the subject. By them it
was declared that one condition of a trader’s license and bond should
provide against the seizure of free Indians. Provision was also made
for the appointment of Indian agents with residence (except a vacation
of two months) among the Indians, said agents to give a bond of £200
and receive a yearly salary of £250. Their term of office was limited
to one year.[628] But conditions became worse after the appointment of
the board than before.[629] Indian slaves were constantly brought to
Charleston and sold openly in the market place. Unprincipled men were
granted trading privileges and made Indian agents.[630] A report on the
condition of the colony in 1708 shows that these slaves were sold in
Boston, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and the West
Indies.[631]
It was the purpose of the assembly to have the board regulate the trade
and keep it in the hands of the government. Its agents were required
to take the following oath: “I, A. B., do promise and declare that I
will well and truly observe and perform all the powers, orders and
instructions, as shall be from time to time given or sent to me by
the present commissioners, and that I will not embezzle or make away
with any goods, wares, merchandise, skins, furs, slaves, or other good
or liquors whatsoever, that shall be entrusted or given in charge to
me or come into my hands, belonging to the public, and that I will not
directly or indirectly trade with any Indian whatsoever for any skins,
furs or slaves, but for the sole use of the public; and that I will
keep secret and not divulge the debates and resolutions of this Board,
so help me God.”[632]
Further directions required that the agents buy no male slaves above
the age of fourteen years;[633] that they should “not buy knowingly any
free Indian for a slave, nor make a slave of any Indian that ought to
be free, that is to say, an Indian of any nation that is in amity and
under the protection of this government”;[634] and that they should
not buy an Indian as slave until such had been at least three days in
the town of the warrior who had captured him.[635] Any Indian trader
who, by his own confession or by verdict of a jury, should be found
guilty of selling any free Indian as a slave, at any time after the
ratification of this act, should forfeit the sum of £60 current money
of the province, and failing to pay such fine, was to receive such
corporal punishment as the judges of a General Session might decree,
not extending to life or limb; and upon conviction for such offense the
Indian slave so sold was declared free. The directions further urged
the agents to aim constantly to promote peace and good will among all
nations of Indians with whom South Carolina was accustomed to trade,
and to engage as many others as possible to embrace the friendship and
amity of the English.[636]
In the enactment of these measures it was not the purpose of the
assembly to stop the traffic in Indians, but only to regulate it by
preventing the illegal acquisition of Indians by the traders and by
requiring the traders to dispose of their Indians to the board itself
which would then sell the Indians as it chose.[637] Their action
was dictated by a double purpose: to prevent the traders kidnapping
Indians belonging to the tribes friendly to the colony and so bring
on dangerous Indian uprisings; and to obtain the profits of the trade
for the colonial exchequer, which not infrequently meant for their
own profit. Humanitarian feeling for the Indians played no part in
their action. The matter was made more complicated by the governor
neglecting to sustain the action of the assembly. The explanation of
his attitude is not difficult. He was accustomed to obtain substantial
perquisites from the sale of Indians. Valuable gifts were presented him
by the traders for allowing them to remain unmolested. On one occasion
Governor Nathan Johnson refused £200 offered by the assembly for his
Indian perquisites.[638]
As already observed, the check on the traders by the creation of the
board of commissioners was so slight that they continued as before to
traffic in Indians with impunity. Unprincipled traders were licensed
and obtained Indians wherever and however they could. Some traders went
so far as to keep a body of slaves with them in the Indian nation where
they traded, whom they sent out to attack other tribes for the purpose
of obtaining captives.[639] Attempts, of course, were made by the board
to check the traffic. At its meetings Indian agents were tried for
illegally reducing Indians to slavery,[640] and on one occasion it was
ordered that a woman and child should be brought back from New York
where they had been sold as slaves.[641] In 1711, an attempt was made
to check the practice of the traders employing Indian slaves in the
manner above mentioned, by issuing the following order to all traders:
“You shall permit none of your slaves to go to war on any account
whatsoever.”[642] This order had as little effect as those which
preceded it. The influence of the traders, indeed, among the friendly
tribes could accomplish the same result by stirring them up against
other tribes.[643]
These and other efforts at regulation of the Indian slave trade
were alike fruitless. The general weakness of the province made it
impossible to control the action of the traders on the frontier and
outside the boundary of the province. Reports to the English Board of
Trade made frequent mention of the state of affairs but conditions were
not remedied.[644] On October 27, 1720, several merchants suggested
to the Board of Trade, as a means of improving conditions in South
Carolina, “to prohibit by still greater penalties the selling as a
slave of any person of the nations in amity with us throughout the
continent and to prevent abuse therein”, and declaring that “none but
deputies from the public should have power to buy Indian slaves from
those Indians in alliance with us as taken in war, which deputies on
public account should be obliged to transfer them to the Islands there
to be sold on condition not to be sent to the province again”.[645]
But the provincial authorities could not enforce these decrees, so
the action of the traders continued unmolested until checked by other
causes. Government officials continued to league with the traders. As
late as 1754, a Catawba trader wrote to the board of commissioners as
follows: “The Catawbas held a council yesterday in the king’s house,
and have resolved to go with the English against the French. They want
me and my people to go with them, and we are willing to do so, even
without pay, on one condition: that we be allowed to keep as our own
property whatever plunder in the way of Indian slaves we may be able
to capture.” There are frequent intimations in the records that Indian
slaves were still being held in South Carolina at this time, though
their wholesale delivery and sale in Charleston had ceased.[646]
In Virginia trade with the Indians began at an early date, and
the traffic in Indians became later a part of it.[647] The French
reported, in 1701, that the English from Virginia, established among
the Chickasaw, had armed the savages with guns, joined with them in
their expeditions against other people, especially the “Colipissas”
(Acolapissa), and had sent the prisoners to be sold as slaves in the
West Indies, keeping the children as slaves for themselves.[648]
For some time the Virginia authorities did not recognize the right of
the whites to enslave an Indian, no matter how obtained. In the session
of 1657–1658, the assembly passed an act forbidding the stealing of
Indian children or the buying of them from Indians or others for
traffic, or the selling of them under any condition by the English, on
penalty of 500 pounds of tobacco.[649] In 1662, the assembly passed
an act declaring that if any Englishman should bring in any Indians
as servants and assign them to any one else he should not sell them
as slaves or for any longer time than English servants of like age
should serve by act of assembly.[650] The assembly evidently intended
to enforce these acts, for in the session of 1662 it ordered a Powhatan
Indian to be freed who had been sold to the English by the chief of
another tribe who, according to the assembly, had no right thus to sell
him.[651]
By 1670 the assembly appears to have modified in a measure its opinion
regarding Indian slaves. An act of that year declared Indians taken
in war by any other nation and sold by such nation to the English to
be servants for life, if brought in by sea—if boys or girls, till
thirty years old; if men or women, twelve years and no longer.[652]
By a later act of 1682 the legislature repealed the act of 1670 and
definitely decided who should be slaves. Among those specified were all
Indians obtained by purchase, in case they and their parents were not
Christians at the time of their first being purchased by a Christian,
although afterwards and before their importation into Virginia, they
might have become converted to the Christian faith; and all Indians
thereafter sold by the neighboring Indians or any other trafficking
in slaves. But in 1691 these acts in turn were repealed and after
that date no Indian could legally be bought or sold as a slave in
Virginia.[653]
Legislation, however, did not end the bringing of Indian slaves
into the colony. Lawson records the sale in Virginia before 1700
of a young Indian woman brought from beyond the mountains.[654] In
1715, the Carolina settlers reported to the home government that
the Sarrow Indians were selling in Virginia among other commodities
slaves (presumably Indian as well as negro) taken from the Carolina
colonists.[655]
Yet the Indian slaves brought into Virginia through the process of
trade were never so numerous as in the Carolinas or the New England
colonies, because the trade of Virginia with the Indian country was
never so extensive as that of the Carolinas, or with the Carolinas
so extensive as that of New England. Neither was the industry of the
Virginia colonists in the early days such as to require Indian slaves
from the traders. The export trade was largely carried on with the
mother country instead of with the colonies. The whole system of trade
was not conducive to traffic in Indians.
In New England there was no direct traffic with the Indian tribes such
as existed in the south. Instead, Indian slaves were obtained by trade
with the other colonies, notably the Carolinas. Commerce of this sort,
abundant evidence of which is furnished by the newspapers of the time,
flourished from the opening of the eighteenth century[656] until some
time after the Tuscarora War.
In Massachusetts the number of Indians imported from the south
increased so rapidly that the colonial authorities feared certain
disastrous effects upon the colony from their presence. Accordingly,
August 23, 1712, an act was passed, the preamble of which set forth
four reasons for its enactment: the Indian slaves imported from the
south were “malicious, surly and revengeful”; the industry of the
colony was unlike that of the West Indies; with savage enemies at hand,
it was dangerous to have bondsmen of a kindred race; the influx of the
slaves discouraged the importation of Christian servants. Accordingly
it was forbidden to import “any Indian, male or female, by land or sea
from any part or place whatever, to be disposed of, sold or left within
the province”, on pain of forfeit to her Majesty’s government, unless
the offender “importing such Indians give security at the Secretary’s
office at £50 per head, to transport or carry out the same again within
the space of one month next after their coming in, not to be returned
back to this province”. It was also provided that the captain or
commander of any ship bringing such Indians into the province should,
within twenty-four hours after the arrival of such ship, report the
names, number and sex of such Indians, and give security of £50, under
penalty of £50 for neglect to do so.[657]
On December 28, 1725, Massachusetts passed an act regarding the
exportation of Indians. This measure, like that of 1712, was not
humanitarian but self-protective. The act forbade the carrying of any
Indian out of the province except by legal authority, or on condition
of giving £100 security for the safe return of such Indian, due
allowance being made for unforeseen exigencies.[658]
New Haven, also, in 1656, passed a general law ordering that no person
should sell “any servant male or female of what degree soever”, out
of the colony unless into some of the other three colonies belonging
to the New England Confederation, without leave and license from the
authorities of that plantation to which such servant belonged, under
penalty of a fine of £10 for each offense.[659] The measure could be
applied to Indian slaves, though not intended specifically for that
purpose.
After the Tuscarora War the importation of “revengeful, warlike
savages” alarmed the Connecticut colonists and led to definite
legislative action regarding the matter. In view of the fact that
several persons had brought into the colony Carolina Indians, “which
have committed many cruel and bloody outrages” there, and “may draw
off our Indians” to the extent of arousing hostilities if their
importation were continued, in July, 1715, the governor and council
decided to prohibit the importation of Indian slaves until the meeting
of the assembly, and to require each ship entering port with Indians
on board to give a bond of £50 to remove them from the colony within
twenty days. Further they decided that Indians brought into the colony
thereafter should be “kept in strictest custody”, and “prevented from
communicating with other Indians”, unless the owner gave the same bond
as above to take them out of the colony within twenty days.[660]
The following October, the general court, copying the Massachusetts
act of 1712, made permanent the prohibition to import Indian slaves,
since “divers conspiracies, outrages, barbarities, murders, burglaries,
thefts, and other notorious crimes at sundry times, and especially of
late, have been perpetrated by Indians and other slaves, ... being of
a malicious and vengeful spirit, rude and insolent in their behavior,
and very ungovernable, the overgreat number of which, considering the
different circumstances in this colony from the plantations in the
islands and our having considerable numbers of Indians, natives of our
country, ... may be of pernicious consequence.” An act was then passed
decreeing the forfeiture of all Indians thereafter imported, and the
payment of a fine of £50 by the shipmaster or any other person who
might bring them.[661] Since this act did not stop the importation,
another was enacted in 1750 providing that “all Indians, male or
female, of what age soever, imported or brought into this colony by
sea or land, from any place whatever, to be disposed of, left or sold
within this colony, shall be forfeited to the treasury of this colony,
and may be seized and taken accordingly; unless the person or persons
importing or bringing in such Indian or Indians shall give security
to some naval officer of this colony of £50 per head, to transport or
carry out of the same again, within the space of one month after their
coming, not to be returned back again to this colony”.[662]
A similar act passed in 1774 forbade the importation of Indian, negro
or mulatto slaves. The act stated that the cause of this legislation
was the fact that the “increase of slaves in this colony is injurious
to the poor and inconvenient”. Any person, therefore, importing Indian,
negro or mulatto slaves or knowingly bringing them as such, should
forfeit to the treasurer of the colony the sum of £100 for each slave
so imported or purchased.[663]
Rhode Island, in August, 1676, decreed that any person importing
Indians into the colony without permission of the colonial authorities,
should forfeit all right to them and pay a fine of £5 to the colony.
Certain persons allowed to import such Indians were directed to pay
half the sum of the sale to the treasurer or forfeit the Indians; and
all persons were forbidden to carry any Indians out of the colony
without permission of the government, under penalty of £5.[664]
As a special measure of protection against internal disturbances,
the general assembly of Rhode Island, also, passed an act, January
4, 1704, forbidding, under penalty of forfeiture, the importation of
Indians either to be kept or sold. And if any person brought Indians
into the colony and set them at liberty under the pretense of bringing
them as servants, such person would have to carry such Indians out of
the colony at his own expense. If the person importing Indians failed
to remove them, he should be seized by the authorities and dealt
with according to law, as should also the person having them in his
possession.[665]
The Indian wars in the southern colonies brought the same action in
Rhode Island as in the other New England colonies. In July 5, 1715,
an act was passed to prohibit the importation of Indian slaves.
The preamble of the act states that in both Rhode Island and the
neighboring colonies, “conspiracies, insurrections, rapes, thefts and
other execrable crimes” had been perpetrated by the Indian slaves, “and
the increase of them in this colony daily discourages the importing
of white servants from Great Britain, etc., into this colony, which
if not immediately remedied may prove very pernicious and troublesome
to this government”. The act, therefore, provided that within three
months after its publication, all Indians, male or female, of whatever
age, brought by land or sea, from any part or place, to be disposed of,
sold or left within the colony, should be forfeited to his majesty, for
and toward the support of the colony, unless the person who brought
in such Indian or Indians, should give security of £50 per head to
carry them out within the period of one month. All masters of ships,
and others engaged in the traffic, were to record in the secretary’s
office within twenty-four hours after arrival the names, number and sex
of the Indians and give security of £50 per head. Failure to meet this
requirement was to be punished by the confiscation of the Indians.[666]
This act was continued in force and was reënacted in the Digest of Laws
in 1766.
In New Hampshire a law was passed in 1714 forbidding the importation
or bringing into the province, by sea or land, of any male or female
Indian to be used as a servant or a slave. This was done because
of the fact that “notorious crimes or enormities have of late been
perpetrated and committed by Indians or other slaves, within several of
her Majesty’s plantations in America”, and because the use of Indian
slaves was considered “a discouragement to Christian servants”.[667]
By the terms of the act, “Indians, male or female, of what age soever,
that shall be imported or brought into this province by sea or land,
every master of ship or other vessel, merchant or person, importing or
bringing into this province such Indians, male or female, shall forfeit
to her Majesty, for the support of the government, the sum of £10 per
head, to be sued for and recovered in any of her Majesty’s courts of
record, ... to be paid into the treasury for the use of the aforesaid”.
The occasion for this act was the same as that for the Massachusetts
act of 1712, namely, the bringing of southern Indian slaves to the
northern colonies. The influence of Massachusetts is readily seen, for
Indian slaves could not have been so numerous as to have been a serious
menace in a province of fewer than 10,000 inhabitants.[668]
A part of the small number of Indian slaves in the colony of New York
came through the process of trade.[669] Indians from the Carolinas, for
example, were sold there.[670] Since New York took certain legislative
action regarding other Indians but never considered the importation
of the southern Indians, it may be concluded that the number imported
during the southern wars was never sufficiently large to cause any
concern in the colony. Probably very few, if any, came into the colony
through direct trade with the Indians themselves.
Though the number of Indians imported into Pennsylvania was also small,
it was large enough to lead to legislation concerning it. January 12,
1706, the general assembly passed an act to prevent the importation
of Indian slaves from any other province or colony of America after
March 25, 1706. The preamble of the act stated that the importation of
Indians from Carolina and other places had given offense to the Indians
of the province and caused them to become suspicious and dissatisfied.
Perhaps a fellow feeling, or perhaps the fear that the custom of the
whites using Indian slaves might affect their liberty, led the Indians,
already in a state of disturbance, to protest against such importation.
At the same time, the act declared “that no such Indian slave, as
deserting his master’s service elsewhere shall fly into this province,
shall be understood or construed to be comprehended within this act.”
A further exception was made in the case of those slaves with their
children who, for the space of one year before such importation, could
be proved to have been menial servants in the family of the importer.
Any slave brought into the province contrary to this law was declared
forfeited to the government, and was to be set free or otherwise
disposed of according to the will of the governor and council.[671]
The law of 1706 proved to be inadequate.[672] The continued importation
of Indians and the still existing fear of having ungovernable and
dangerous slaves in the colony, led to the passage in 1712 of a second
act, already mentioned, which levied a duty of £20 on every negro
or Indian imported.[673] Masters of vessels bringing them in were
required to state their number and the name of the importer. Any negro
or Indian in whose case these provisions were violated was to be seized
and sold by provincial officers, and the money obtained from their sale
paid to the treasurer for the use of the government. Duties paid upon
any negro or Indian imported, but exported again within twenty days,
however, were to be returned. One Samuel Holt was appointed to put the
act into execution, and was given the necessary powers to use force,
if necessary, to find concealed negroes and Indians whose owners had
not complied with the terms of the act, and to dispose in public sale
of those so captured. Owners could bring back their runaway negro or
Indian slaves, and “gentlemen and strangers” traveling in the province
were allowed to retain their negro or Indian slaves for a time not
exceeding six months.[674] But the act was not put into operation, for
it was repealed by the queen in council, February 20, 1714.[675]
CHAPTER VIII
+Other Processes of Enslavement+
It sometimes happened that the Indians sold to the whites, for a
specified number of years, members of their own tribe as a punishment
for some grievous offense.[676] Families sold some of their own members
into temporary servitude to obtain money or other necessities,[677] or
an individual Indian offered himself or his children as security for
loans, and, on failure to meet the obligations, became the slaves of
the creditors.[678] Occasionally an outcast or disgraced Indian, having
lost his position in the family or the tribe, sold himself into slavery
to the whites in order to escape punishment at the hands of his own
people and to secure future protection for himself.
The treachery of the whites in refusing to give up the Indians at the
expiration of the specified term of service, and the selling of them
out of the country, caused considerable disturbance among the Indians
in several colonies. In 1660, a company of English from Massachusetts
settled on Old Town Creek at its junction with Cape Fear River in
the present North Carolina. The settlement was short lived, lasting
something less than three years. One reason why the settlers left was
the hostile attitude of neighboring Indians who believed that the white
men had shipped off as slaves some of the Indian children who had been
entrusted to their care, under the pretext of sending them north to
be educated.[679] Though the charge has never been substantiated, it
seems probable that it was not without cause. The lax state of morals
among the early settlers would permit the kidnapping of Indians to be
practiced by this little settlement as well as elsewhere. But whether
the settlers were guilty or not on this particular occasion, the
incident throws a certain light on the custom of the times through the
fear which the Indians showed of such treatment.[680] Evidently the
practice continued in North Carolina, for one of the grievances of the
Tuscarora Indians at the breaking out of the Tuscarora War was that
their children who had been bound out for a limited time in English
families, were, contrary to the spirit of the agreement, transported to
other plantations and sold as slaves.[681]
Virginia was always comparatively lenient in her treatment of the
Indians. Accordingly, its early legislation dealt with the matter of
unjustly forcing Indians into slavery. In 1655, provision was made that
Indian children could become indentured servants only by consent of
their parents and for specified terms agreed upon, and such children
were to be educated in the Christian religion.[682] The following
year, 1656, it was provided that Indian children brought into the
colony as hostages should be assigned to masters by choice of their
parents, but should not be made slaves.[683] Again, in 1658, it was
decreed that any Indian children disposed of by their parents to a
white man for “education and instruction in the Christian religion”,
or for any other purpose, were not to be turned over to any other
person upon any pretext whatever, and any such child was to be free
at the age of twenty-five.[684] The fact that the legislation on the
subject was repeated at such short intervals affords evidence of the
continuance of the custom which it was intended to abolish. A letter
of Governor Spotswood to Lord Dartmouth, March 11, 1711, regarding
the Indian college, tells of his attempt to persuade Indians to allow
their children to attend the college by remitting their annual tribute
of skins, and declares that “they were a little shy of yielding to his
proposal, and urged the breach of a former contract made long ago by
this government, when instead of their children receiving the promised
education, they were transported, as they say, to other countries and
sold as slaves”.[685]
Massachusetts sought to control the custom of the Indians in
apprenticing themselves and their children to the whites and the
consequent abuse of the practice, by enacting, in 1700, a law requiring
the consent of two or more justices of the peace to such a proceeding,
so as to make sure that the terms of the agreement were reasonable. The
justices of the regular courts were empowered to hear the complaint of
an Indian with regard to any indenture or apprenticeship, and to settle
the matter.[686] Similar acts were passed in 1718[687] and 1725.[688]
The latter act provided a heavy fine for taking any children beyond the
seas without due legal sanction, and further decreed that any indenture
then existing of an adult Indian should be good for no longer than one
year from the date of the passage of the law, except by legal approval
as specified in the law. In 1763, another act, to continue as law for
three years, was passed, forbidding any Marshpee Indian to bind out his
or her child or children to any English person whatsoever by indenture
or any other way, in satisfaction of or as security for a debt, without
the consent of the major part of the overseers, and declaring that
every indenture or any instrument whatever, or oral agreement whereby
such child or children should be bound out contrary to the true intent
and meaning of the act, should be adjudged null and void.[689]
Rhode Island, also, for the same purpose of preventing the conversion
of apprenticeship into actual slavery, passed an act, June 15, 1730,
requiring the assent of two justices to any bond of apprenticeship to
which the Indians were parties.[690] If the Indian captives disposed
of for periods of years by Rhode Island at the close of King Philip’s
War are to be considered as involuntary indentured servants, then
such abuses as the law of 1730 were intended to remedy existed with
reference to those captives. By the terms of their disposal they were
to be free after a temporary period of service. But the colonists
sometimes continued to hold them in servitude after the specified term
had expired. Furthermore, though no provision for such action was made
by the colonial government, the masters of these servants held as
slaves the children born of these Indians while in servitude.[691]
Conditions in New York in the eighteenth century serve to illustrate
the same point. In July, 1715, Colonel Heathcote wrote home to
Secretary Townsend: “The Indians complain that their children, who
were many of them bound out for a limited time to be taught and
instructed by the Christians, were, contrary to the intent of their
agreement, transferred to other plantations and sold for slaves, and
I don’t know but there may be some truth in what they allege”.[692]
The authorities were aware of the danger caused by the colonists’
action, and in 1750 Governor Clinton ordered all Indian children held
as pledges or slaves, to be returned to their families.[693] Johnson,
the Indian commissioner, was much pleased with the governor’s action
and January 22, 1750, wrote him: “I am very glad that your excellency
has given orders to have the Indian children returned, who are kept
by the traders as pawns or pledges as they call it, but rather stolen
from them (as the parents came at the appointed time to redeem them,
but they sent them away before hand), and as they were children of
our Friends and Allies, and if they are not returned next Spring,
it will confirm what the French told the Six Nations (viz.): that we
looked upon them as slaves or negroes, which affair gave me a great
deal of trouble at that time to reconcile”. Evidently the holders were
disinclined to obey the governor’s order, for Johnson cited in his
letter two cases where such return had not been made, and from which
he feared disturbance.[694] To what extent the governor’s decree was
effective would be hard to state. There certainly were Indian slaves
in the colony after its publication. “A list of the Negro, Indian and
Mulatto Slaves within the district whereof Benjamin Smith is Captain at
Hempstead in Queens County taken the first day of April, 1755,” shows
that Indian slaves were being used on Long Island at that date,[695]
and it seems not unlikely that some of them might have been obtained by
abuse of indenture.
Another process of enslaving Indians was that which had to do with the
infliction of punishment for offenses against law and order. The custom
of sentencing Indians to enslavement at home, or to transportation
and enslavement abroad, for such offenses was general throughout the
colonies. Such a sentence came about in one of two ways: either the
colonial legislature enacted a law which imposed enslavement as the
punishment for a given offense; or a colonial court acting on its own
initiative used it to that end.
In South Carolina, even after the wholesale deportation of captive
and kidnapped Indians for slaves had practically ceased, natives were
sometimes sentenced to slavery by the assembly as punishment for crime
of which the accused was convicted or suspected. Such an instance
occurred, May 29, 1725, when it was “Ordered that Colonel Alexander
Parris, Public Receiver, do forthwith sell the Indian now in jail for
the supposed murder of a white man to the northward of the province,
in order that he may be transferred to Bermuda, Jamaica or Barbadoes,
or some other of the West India Islands.”[696] Again on May 31, 1732,
“His Excellency having asked the advice of the Council in relation to
an Indian delivered up by her own nation, now in jail of this town, on
suspicion of having murdered an Indian trader; it is resolved, that
as it could not be fully proved that she was the person that murdered
the said Indian trader, but strong presumptions appearing ordered that
Colonel Parris cause her to be transported and sold, for the use of
the Publick.”[697] A similar instance occurred in Massachusetts in
1666 when the general court sentenced a Pequot to slavery for life as
punishment for the murder of a white colonist by the Indians.[698]
In Virginia, as a measure of protection to property rights upon a
complaint of damages committed by Indians, the assembly voted in
1660 that the plaintiff in the case be given the right, provided
satisfaction were not made, to sell as many Indians out of the country
as the court might prescribe.[699] Another act of similar character
was passed in 1722 after the treaty of Albany, when the assembly voted
that no Virginia Indian should cross the Potomac River, and that none
of the Five Nations or their allies should go beyond that boundary. Any
offenders were to be punished by death, or be transported and sold as
slaves.[700] In Massachusetts, also, the question of runaway slaves who
sought refuge among the Indians, led the general court, June 2, 1641,
to pass an order by which it was declared to be the mind of the court
“that if the Indians send not back our runaways, then, by commission
of the governor and any three of the magistrates, to send and take so
many as to satisfy for the want of them and for the charge of sending
for them”.[701] The order, like that of the Virginia legislature, meant
that any master might be authorized to right himself upon the Indians
for wrong done him by them.
Not only the higher courts, but the lower courts as well, were
accustomed to make use of this form of punishment. In 1678, the
court of Sandwich, Plymouth, directed that three Indians convicted
of breaking open a house and stealing therefrom, should be perpetual
slaves, and empowered the owner of the house and stolen property to
“make sale of them in New England or elsewhere, as his lawful slaves,
for the term of their lives.”[702]
Their love of strong drink not infrequently led the Indians into
temporary servitude, and served as a means by which the colonists, if
so minded, could force them into that condition. On one occasion Boston
was building a fort on an island in the harbor. Wages were high and
economy was desirable. The general court, therefore, ordered that for
drunkenness the Indians should not be whipped, but sent to this island
to work for ten days. The Indians protested and preferred whipping as
punishment, but their complaint received no attention.[703]
On March 8, 1683, the Plymouth general court decreed that a certain
Indian should serve as a slave for a specified time because of a
judgment against him.[704] At a council held in Boston, also, June 14,
1686, upon notification of the keeper of the prison that a sentence
of transportation of an Indian had not been carried into effect, the
treasurer was ordered to sell the Indian for a period not exceeding
seven years in satisfaction of the judgment against him.[705] The
Massachusetts council records of January 18, 1695, tell of an Indian
accused of “corresponding with and adhering to the Indian enemy” who
was transported and sold for the offense.[706] A similar instance
occurred in 1696, when an Indian was condemned “to be transported
beyond the seas as a dangerous person and sold”.[707] On December
1, 1705, the Massachusetts deputies sent in a bill providing that
fornication or marriage of white men with negroes or Indians should
be punished by selling the colored offenders out of the colony as
slaves. Through the intercession of Samuel Sewall, the Indians were
dropped from the bill which was then passed as applying to blacks and
mulattoes.[708] The records mention other instances in 1713[709] and
1776[710] when Indians were sold as punishment for crime, the latter
case being one of theft. An incident occurred in 1721 when the sentence
of an Indian imprisoned in Boston was changed from imprisonment to
a term of servitude.[711] Another Indian, in 1727, was sold for a
term of years to a resident of the colony to serve a sentence for
debt.[712] In 1739, on petition of the sheriff of Barnstaple county,
the Massachusetts general court impowered the justices of that county
to sell an Indian prisoner convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to
imprisonment “to any of his majesty’s good subjects for a term not
exceeding ten years, for the most he will fetch”, in order to get money
to pay the cost of prosecuting the prisoner and the charges of his
imprisonment.[713]
The Indians of Rhode Island gave much trouble by stealing the goods
and cattle of the colonists. To prevent it, a law was passed, 1659, to
the effect that, if the damage exceeded twenty shillings, the convict
might be sold as a slave to any English plantation abroad unless he
made restitution.[714] Instances are not lacking in which the law of
1659 was put into effect. On one occasion (between 1671 and 1685) an
Indian convicted of breaking into a house and of beating and wounding
a servant, was sentenced to pay a fine, or, if payment were not made
in three months, to be sold as a slave in Barbadoes.[715] In 1676, the
general court provided that all Indians who should come upon any island
in the bay, must have written permission so to do from the committee
appointed to dispose of Indians, without which they would be liable to
be sold into servitude.[716]
The first code of Connecticut laws, 1650, followed the Massachusetts
Body of Liberties in authorizing enslavement as a mode of
punishment.[717] In 1650, certain Indians who failed to make
satisfaction for injuries were ordered to be seized and delivered to
the injured party, “either to serve or to be shipped out ... as the
case will justly bear”.[718] In 1660, the general court was empowered
by the United Colonies to send a company of men to obtain satisfaction
from the Narraganset for certain depredations upon the settlers. Four
of the guilty Indians were to be demanded and sent to Barbadoes to be
sold as slaves.[719]
Not only did the New England colonies take separately such legislative
action regarding the enslavement of Indians, but Plymouth,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven acting together as the New
England Confederation, took similar action. Alleged trespassing of
Indians upon English territory, and the fear of a Narraganset war,
led the United Colonies, in 1646, to pass an order authorizing, upon
complaint of trespass by Indians, the seizure of any of them who should
“entertain, protect or rescue the offender”. “And because it will be
chargeable keeping Indians in prison, and if they should escape, they
are like to prove more insolent and dangerous after, that upon such
seizure, the delinquent or satisfaction be demanded of the sagamore
or plantation of Indians guilty or accessory as before, and if it be
denied, that the magistrates of the jurisdiction deliver up the Indians
seized to the party or parties indamaged, either to serve or to be
shipped out in exchange for negroes as the case will justly bear.”
The commissioners agreed that this measure, though just, was severe,
and that it might lead to the Indians seizing the English in return;
but they could see no better means of preserving the peace of the
colony. As a measure of fairness, therefore, they decreed that before
any seizure of Indians was made, a copy of the declaration should be
published and given to the particular sagamore. Copies were accordingly
given to four leading sachems.[720]
A further process of enslavement was connected with questions of birth.
By the recognized common law of nations, the civil law, and the Jewish
law, the children of a slave mother became at birth the property of
the mother’s owner. Nobody thought of the children of slaves being
free. Yet, to make certainty doubly sure, the colonial laws from time
to time considered the matter and declared the common law a part of
colonial legislation.[721] South Carolina, for example, by an act of
1712,[722] repeated in 1722,[723] and 1735,[724] declared that, with
the exception of certain individuals freed by the government, “all
negroes, mulattoes, mustizoes, or Indians which at any time heretofore
have been sold, or now are held or taken to be, or hereafter shall be
bought and sold as slaves, are hereby declared slaves; and they and
their children, are hereby made and declared slaves to all intents and
purposes.” Another act of 1740, though worded differently, decreed a
similar condition for the children of negro, mulatto, mustee and Indian
slave mothers.[725] In 1705, Virginia similarly declared all children
bond or free according to the condition of their mothers;[726] and,
in 1723, decreed that children of female mulattoes or Indians obliged
by law to serve till the age of thirty or thirty-one should serve the
master or mistress of such mulatto or Indian until they should attain
the same age as that up to which the mother was obliged by law to
serve.[727]
A Maryland act of 1663 differs from the acts just mentioned by stating
that “all children born of any negro or other slave, shall be slaves
as their fathers were for the term of their lives.” Another section
of this same act provides that “whatsoever freeborn woman shall
intermarry with any slave, from and after the last day of the present
assembly, shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her
husband; and that all the issue of such free-born woman, so married,
shall be slaves as their fathers were.”[728] Though the law was of
brief duration, persons born of the union between slaves and free
white women, and the descendants of such persons, were held in slavery
down to 1791, when the highest court of the state decided that for
want of proof concerning the white woman who originally married a
slave, her descendants were not slaves, and could not be legally held
as such.[729] A later Maryland act, June 2, 1692, provided that all
children born or thereafter to be born of slaves within the province
were to be slaves for the term of their natural lives.[730] Nothing is
said in the act of children one of whose parents was free. The act was
repealed in 1715.[731] New York, on its own part, in 1706, decreed that
any negro, Indian, mulatto or mustee child should follow the condition
of the mother and be esteemed a slave “to all intents and purposes
whatsoever.”[732] Frequent incidental mention, also, is found in the
documents of the time and in newspaper advertisements to slaves “born
in the house”.[733]
Certain judicial decisions rendered in the trial of cases in federal
and state courts, finally, offer clear indication as to the legality of
holding in slavery the children of Indian slave mothers.[734] Of these
decisions the one rendered by the Virginia court of appeals in 1831 is
particularly instructive. In part it runs as follows: “I cannot for a
moment doubt the propriety of the former decisions of this court, and
of the instructions under consideration, that proof that a party is
descended in the female line from an Indian woman, and especially a
native American, without anything more is _prima facie_ proof of his
right to freedom liable to be repelled by proof that his race has been
immemorially held in slavery; which may be in turn rebutted by the
consideration of the ignorance and helpless condition of persons in
that situation, aided by other circumstances, such as that many such
were bound by law to a service equivalent, in all respects, to a state
of temporary slavery, until they attained the age of thirty-one years;
and in many cases (according to circumstances existing in almost every
case) for an uncertain term beyond that age.”[735]
CHAPTER IX
+Property Relations+
Though the practices connected with the institution of negro and Indian
slavery in the Spanish colonies were known to the English colonists,
yet at first the latter did not see fit to impose the status of slavery
upon the Indians brought into the colonies by way of trade with the
Spanish islands or otherwise, but were content to retain possession
of the services of their subject Indians without taking possession
of their persons through legal declarations imposing the status of
slavery upon them.[736] Such Indians were held in the status of
servitude, a condition which stood “midway between freedom and absolute
subjection”, and which was the “historic base upon which slavery,
by the extension and addition of incidents, was constructed.”[737]
The right of ownership of the services of both negroes and Indians
was, after all, what the colonists most desired, and appeared to
promise satisfaction in this instance as it had in the case of the
white indentured servants. Indian servitude not only preceded Indian
slavery, but even continued after the institution of slavery was fully
developed. This is true of most, if not all, of the English-American
colonies. It is certainly true of Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Statutory recognition of slavery in general by the English-American
colonies occurred as follows: by Massachusetts in 1641; by Connecticut
in 1650; by Virginia in 1661; by Maryland in 1663; by New York and New
Jersey in 1664; by South Carolina in 1682; by Pennsylvania and Rhode
Island in 1700; by North Carolina in 1715; and by Georgia in 1755.[738]
But the legislation of these dates did not always include the subject
Indians. When such was the case, however, according to a strict legal
interpretation, any subject Indian, if enslaved, had the right to
demand his freedom from the colonial courts. Such an instance existed
in the case of Virginia where the acts of 1655 and 1661 specifically
forbade Indian slavery and guaranteed to the subject Indians all the
rights of servants.[739]
The recognition of Indian as well as negro slavery by customary law
came somewhat earlier than by statute law. With the extension of
the period of servitude to a life term, the change from servitude
to slavery was practically completed so far as customary law was
concerned. Only the enactment of legal provisions sanctioning the
change was necessary to complete the process. The common use in
subsequent law of the terms “servant for life”, “perpetual servant”,
and “bond servant” as synonymous with the term “slave” shows how
little change was really effected in the condition of the servant.
Such change consisted chiefly, from the standpoint of the master,
in the extension of his right to service, and consequently in the
extension of his obligation of protection and maintenance, and what was
still more important, in the acquisition of the right of possession
of the offspring of his slaves. From the standpoint of the slave,
it meant little more than the loss of the right to ultimate liberty,
political and civil, and the extension of his right to protection and
maintenance.[740]
The legislation which marked the changing status varied in nature in
the several colonies. In certain colonies the slavery status was simply
recognized as being in existence by certain acts relating to slaves,
without any formal declaration to the effect that Indians held in
servitude should be considered slaves. In other colonies the condition
of slavery as applied to Indians was legalized by general acts relating
to slavery in general, and not specifying either Indians or negroes.
In still other colonies the holding of Indians in a condition of
actual slavery was legalized by legislative acts relating directly to
Indians. An act of this latter character was passed by New York in 1678
declaring that all Indians that should come to, or be brought into
the province at any time during the succeeding six months, should be
sold as slaves for the benefit of the government.[741] South Carolina,
in an act of 1712 relating to the “better ordering and governing of
negroes and slaves”, provided that “all negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes
or Indians which have at any time heretofore been sold, or now are held
and taken to be, or hereafter shall be brought and sold as slaves, are
hereby declared slaves to all intents and purposes; excepting all such
negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes or Indians which heretofore have been,
or hereafter shall be for some particular merit, made and declared
free, either by the Governor and Council of this province, or by their
respective owners and masters; and also, excepting all such negroes,
mulattoes, mestizoes or Indians as can prove they ought not to be sold
as slaves”.[742] The acts, already mentioned in other connections,
authorizing the enslavement of Indian captives taken in war, the
holding in slavery of such captives when obtained in trade from sources
outside the colony, and the enslavement of free Indians by the colonial
authorities as punishment for misdemeanors and crimes, are also cases
in point.
From the standpoint of English law the action of the colonial
legislatures enacting the slavery status had no legal sanction. It
was based on the interpretation of the common law of nations, that
is, it was carried on in accordance with a “law not promulgated
by legislation, and rested upon prevalent views of universal
jurisprudence, or the law of nations supported by the express or
implied authority of the home government” concerning the institution
of slavery.[743] So the colonies, by a gradual process of changing
conditions and legal enactments, substituted the slavery status for
the servitude status without molestation from the home government,
which was interested in colonial slave conditions and legislation
only when the African slave trade was involved. So long, therefore,
as the enactment of colonial laws decreeing the slavery status did
not interfere with that trade, the home government gave no attention
to the matter. As for Indian slavery _per se_, if England had given
it any attention whatever, she would probably have considered it a
purely colonial matter. Since it was never sufficiently extensive to
interfere with negro slavery and the slave trade, it never received any
attention from the home government, and so existed as legal because
never declared illegal. An authority on the legal status of early
American slavery states: “It may be laid down as a legal axiom, that in
all governments in which the municipal regulations are not absolutely
opposed to slavery, persons already reduced to that state may be held
in it, and we also assume, as a first principle, that slavery has been
permitted and tolerated in all the colonies established in America by
European powers, as relates to blacks and also as relates to Indians
in the first periods of conquest and colonization. This accounts in
a measure for the absence of any legislative act of European powers
for intruding slavery into the American dominions.”[744] Hence it
followed that the English colonial charters authorizing the colonial
legislatures to make laws, gave no license as such to enslave.[745]
With the change from the status of servitude to the status of slavery,
certain of the attributes of the former condition were continued and
connected with the latter. Chief of these, and the fundamental idea on
which the change was effected, was the conception of property right
which, from the idea of the ownership of an individual’s service
resting upon contract implied or expressed, came to be that of the
ownership of an individual’s person.
Indian slaves were recognized as property in all the English colonies,
and were openly bought and sold at both public and private sales
like negroes and other property.[746] They were advertised in the
colonial newspapers with statements of their qualifications and
ability for work, their ages, and sometimes descriptions of their
personal appearance. From the New England newspapers it is apparent
that for a time dealers advertised such slaves for sale openly in
their own names.[747] Later the possible purchaser was directed by
the advertisement to “inquire of the Printer and know further”, or
to “inquire at the Post Office”.[748] It was not uncommon for slaves
offered for sale to choose their future owner from those who desired to
purchase them,[749] or to approve the bill of sale.[750]
Like other property, real or personal, Indian slaves could be given
away by word of mouth or by “last will and testament”. One of the
earliest of such wills on record is that of Governor John Winthrop
of Massachusetts, made in 1639, by which he gave to his son Adam,
Governor’s Island and with it “also my Indians thereon”.[751] In South
Carolina where Indian slaves were most numerous, the records of their
disposal by will are frequent.[752] The custom, in fact, was universal
in the colonies.[753]
Indian slaves were listed in the various colonies in the inventories
of estates along with indentured servants of unexpired terms[754] and
negro slaves.[755] They were taken like other chattels in payment
for debt, and in certain of the colonies provision was made by law
regarding the matter. South Carolina, February 7, 1690, decreed that a
slave was to be taken like any other chattel as payment for debt.[756]
Maryland, 1729, passed an act to the effect that no slave should be
taken for any debt due from the deceased so long as there should be
any other goods sufficient for the purpose.[757] In those colonies
where legislation makes no mention of the matter, it is known from
the history of negro slavery that the custom was similar to that of
Carolina.
The proximity of the Indian tribes to the colonists, furthermore,
afforded a condition most suitable for the escape of Indian slaves.
Individual testimony, frequent advertisements in the colonial
newspapers giving descriptions of fugitive Indian slaves and offering
rewards for their capture and return, and the amount of colonial
legislation concerning both negro and Indian runaway slaves, show that
Indians held in servitude took frequent advantage of the opportunities
at hand for their escape, and that their owners used all possible
means to regain their lost property. At the time following the Pequot
War, Mason complained of the tendency to run away shown by the Pequot
slaves in the colonies.[758] The Indians enslaved after King Philip’s
War likewise escaped. Mayhew tells of runaway Indian slaves in
Massachusetts in 1690.[759] In this same year one Isaac Morrill of New
Jersey was arrested at Newbury, Massachusetts, for enticing Indian and
negro slaves to run away.[760]
The _Boston News Letter_ came into existence, 1704,[761] at about the
time when Indian slaves began to be brought into the northern colonies
from the Spanish islands and from the Carolinas. Rarely was there an
issue of that or the other Massachusetts newspapers from that time down
to the Revolutionary period which did not contain an advertisement
for a runaway Indian slave. Sometimes the same advertisement was
repeated in two or three successive issues,[762] and was often
inserted in more than one newspaper. For the capture and return of the
fugitives, rewards were offered, sometimes indefinite in nature as
“suitable rewards”,[763] sometimes of stated amounts as £3.[764] forty
shillings,[765] twenty shillings,[766] £6,[767] £20,[768] £5,[769]
£7,[770] £15,[771] four pistoles,[772] fifty shillings.[773] These
advertisements relate for the most part to fugitive men and boy Indian
slaves, but advertisements relating to runaway women Indian slaves are
not lacking.[774] The escapes appear for the most part, though not
always, to have been made singly. One advertisement shows two Indian
men, two Indian women and an Indian boy belonging to different persons
to have escaped together.[775] Captains of vessels were often cautioned
in the advertisements against carrying away such fugitive slaves, and
any person harboring them or aiding them to escape was threatened with
full penalty of the law.
All the colonies enacted fugitive slave laws. Some of these laws were
applied to slaves in general, some to negroes and “other slaves,”
still others to negro, mulatto and Indian slaves. The colonies where
slavery was of greatest extent had the most extensive and elaborate
laws on the subject, and those colonies where Indian slavery existed
to any considerable extent included the term “Indian slaves” in their
laws. Pennsylvania made but little provision regarding runaway slaves.
Maryland concerned itself more largely with servants.
Some of these laws did not define the term “runaway slave”. Others in
an attempt to avoid confusion gave clear explanations of the term. Such
an act was passed by Connecticut in 1690, specifying that any Indian,
mulatto or negro servants and slaves wandering outside the place to
which they belonged without a ticket of leave or pass in writing from
some assistant or justice of the peace or from their owner, were to
be considered runaways and treated as such.[776] New Jersey, in 1713,
considered as runaways any negro, mulatto or Indian slave who was five
miles from his master’s habitation without written leave of absence
from his owner, and any such slave found in New Jersey but belonging to
another province was declared a runaway.[777] South Carolina, by the
act of 1690, considered as a runaway any negro or Indian slave absent
from his master’s plantation (no distance specified), without a written
ticket of leave unless in company with a white man.[778]
To discourage aid and assistance being given fugitive slaves, the
colonies specified by legislative acts the punishment to follow such
offense. On June 14, 1705, Lord Cornbury, in his opening speech to the
New York assembly, expressed his opinion regarding the necessity for
passing an act to prevent negro, Indian and mulatto slaves running away
from their masters.[779] An act of the common council of Albany, 1686,
forbade all persons harboring negro or Indian slaves in their houses
without the owners’ consent.[780] Pennsylvania, 1726, decreed a fine
of five shillings for the first hour and one shilling for every hour
afterward that any person should harbor or entertain any runaway negro,
Indian or mulatto slave.[781] Virginia, by the act of 1705, specified
a fine of £100 for any shipmaster transporting any negro, mulatto or
Indian slave out of the colony without permission of the owner.[782]
South Carolina, also, by an act of 1690, levied forty shillings fine
on any one not attempting to apprehend a negro or Indian slave coming
into his plantation without a ticket of leave from his master or not
accompanied by a white man.[783]
Not infrequently the colonial authorities were called upon to furnish
protection to the owners of Indian slaves against their seizure by
the free Indians, or against fugitive Indian slaves being hidden and
retained by the tribes. To effect the return of such slaves special
inducements were offered by the colonial government from time to time.
At the close of the Pequot War an agreement was made by the chief,
Miantonomo, and the Massachusetts government, by which the former
promised to seize such Pequot slaves as escaped, and return them to
their owners.[784] On June 2, 1641, the general court of Massachusetts
made a similar agreement with Lieutenant Willard of Concord, Ensign
Holman of Dorchester, and Sergeant Collacot of Dorchester. As a partial
return for the monopoly of the Indian trade granted them, these men
agreed to demand, wherever they should find them, all fugitive Pequot
slaves that belonged to the English.[785] A similar request for
protection is found in New York, where two widows petitioned governor
and council, May 16, 1717, regarding two Indian slaves who were
secreted by the Indians of Pekkemeck.[786] Events in North Carolina,
following the Tuscarora War, offer numerous illustrations of colonial
action taken to secure the return of such fugitives. The Indian slaves
in the colony, consisting largely of the captive Tuscarora, frequently
escaped and took refuge with the free Indians of their tribe. The
Indians neglected to return these runaways, and the council was
compelled to call many times upon “King Blount” to compel his people
to return the slaves according to his agreement with the Carolina
government. Such action is recorded as late as 1731.[787]
Sometimes this protection of slave owners in their property rights
assumed intercolonial importance. Such a recognition of property rights
occurred in the articles of federation of the United Colonies of New
England, 1643, provision: “If any servant run away from his master
into any of these confederated jurisdictions, ... in such case, upon
certificate of one magistrate in the jurisdiction of which the said
servant fled, or upon other due proof, the said servant shall be
delivered, either to his master or any other that pursues and brings
such certificate or proof”.[788]
Since it was found that certain Indian villages harbored fugitive
Indians, the Confederation, September 5, 1646, decided that such
villages might be raided and the inhabitants carried off, women and
children being spared as far as possible, and declared that “because
it will be chargeable keeping Indians in prison and, if they should
escape, they are liable to prove more insolent and dangerous after,
it was thought fit that upon such seizure ... the magistrates of the
jurisdiction deliver up the Indian seized to the party or parties
indamaged, either to serve or to be shipped out and exchanged for
negroes, as the cause will justly bear.”[789] In the same year the
commissioners of the United Colonies sent a letter to Governor Kieft
of New Netherland demanding the return of an Indian captive “fled from
her master at Hartford” and “entertained in your house at Hartford
and, though required by the magistrate, ... under the hands of your
agent there denied ... and said to have been either married or abused
by one of your men”. “Such a servant,” they declared, “is part of her
master’s estate and a more considerable part than a beast.” Kieft
refused to give up the Indian woman, and replied: “as concerns the
barbarian handmaid”, it is “apprehended by some, that she is no slave,
but a freewoman, because she was neither taken in war, nor bought
with price, but was in former times placed with me by her parents for
education”.[790] By the intercolonial treaty of September 19, 1650, the
provision of the articles of confederation concerning fugitive slaves
was extended so as to include the intercourse of the New Englanders and
the Dutch.[791] Another fugitive slave law similar to that of 1643 was
contained in the articles of confederation of the United Colonies in
1672.[792]
Similar events involved New York and Pennsylvania. In 1723, some Seneca
Indians trading in South Carolina carried away an Indian slave boy
belonging to an Englishman there. The governor of New York charged
the Seneca with the act and demanded that the slave boy be returned.
The Seneca acknowledged that they were among the party who took the
slave boy, said that he had been given to some Susquehanna Indians,
and requested the governor to ask for him there.[793] An undated
letter of William Penn to the Susquehanna Indians regarding some
Indian slaves taken from the people of New York by them, refers to a
similar incident. In it Penn mentions the people of New York having
twice appealed to him regarding an Indian woman and boy, both slaves,
bought in New York from the governor of Carolina, which the Susquehanna
Indians had taken away. Penn urged the Susquehanna to deliver the
slaves to his messenger that they might be put on board a vessel and
returned to New York.[794]
In July, 1682, Plymouth provided that if any Indian who was a servant
of the English should run away, “such Indians where such a runaway
Indian is come, shall forthwith give notice of the runaway to the
Indian constable, who shall immediately apprehend such Indian servant
and carry him or her before the overseer or next magistrate.”[795]
At a meeting, January 9, 1713, the council of North Carolina considered
the matter of two Indian slaves sent to the colony from Virginia,
and found that they belonged to two residents of South Carolina from
whom, presumably, they had been stolen. The council, acknowledging the
owners’ claim to the right of possession, ordered that the Indians be
delivered to Colonel James Moore “for the use and on behalf of the
owners.”[796]
A case in Massachusetts shows a colonial government remunerating a
citizen for an Indian slave taken from him by governmental authority.
During King Philip’s War, one George Speere bought an Indian from
Captain Hull who had been empowered by the council to make sale of
Indian captives at that time. The council, by warrant of the constable
of Braintree, took away the Indian boy for some reason. Speere
complained of the loss of his property, after, as he said, he had
brought it to a “very tractable and profitable state”, and petitioned
to have his Indian boy returned to him, or to be given his value. The
council accordingly granted him the value.[797]
As in the case of other property, the colonial courts were sometimes
called upon to settle disputes regarding the ownership of Indian
slaves. Two events in Massachusetts and North Carolina are cases in
point. In 1684, the Massachusetts Court of Assistants was called
upon to settle a case of disputed ownership which had been appealed
from the County Court of Salem.[798] On November 24, 1777, complaint
was made to the North Carolina House of Commons by a slave owner who
had been dispossessed of his Indian slave by two other Carolinians.
The House appointed a committee to investigate the matter.[799]
Similar instances in other years are recorded in connection with North
Carolina.[800]
With the growth of the idea of property incident to the slavery
status, the “early transition of the slave from personal estate to a
chattel real, or real estate with accompanying incidents, was easy
and natural.”[801] Under the caption of “property” both negro and
Indian slaves were subject to taxation like other property, either for
colonial revenue in general or to meet local expenses. Moreover in
certain colonies both Indian and negro slaves were assigned the double
character of persons subject to a poll tax and property subject to a
property tax.
South Carolina, in the act of 1690, provided “that all slaves ... as to
the payment of debts shall be deemed and taken as all other goods and
chattels, ... and all negroes and slaves shall be accounted as freehold
in all other cases whatsoever and descend accordingly”.[802] Middleton,
president of the council, consequently declared, in 1725, that negroes
were real property, such as houses and lands, in Carolina.[803] Yet
they were always returned as personal property in the inventories of
intestates.[804] This condition continued until 1740, when it was
declared that negroes and Indian slaves should be reputed and adjudged
in law to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and
possessors and their executors, administrators and assigns.[805]
Various tax acts were passed from time to time for special reasons, and
in some of these Indian slaves, along with negroes, were a part of the
basis of taxation, being rated as property without specification as to
real or personal, along with goods, lands, cattle and white servants.
Such an act was passed in 1703.[806] The act contained the general term
“slaves”, which, of course, included Indian slaves by implication.
A tax on polls was generally selected by the colonies as the chief
source of revenue. In accordance with this idea of taxation North
Carolina during the eighteenth century regarded Indian slaves as
taxables. In the earliest legislative action of the colony taxables
were declared to be every white male aged sixteen years, and every
slave, negro, mulatto, or Indian, male or female, aged twelve
years.[807] By the act of 1750, furthermore, a taxable was every white
man of sixteen years of age, every negro, mulatto or mustee, and every
other person of mixed blood to the fourth generation, twelve years of
age.[808]
In Virginia, especially, there was much confusion regarding the
position of the slave as a person and as property. Until after the
Revolution, taxes were chiefly imposed according to the number of
tithables in each county, i. e., persons assessed for a poll tax.[809]
The act of 1649 declared all imported male servants to be tithables.
Indians imported into the colony as servants were included by
implication. Since in the preceding year an act had declared that a
specified poll tax should be levied only on the tithables, Indian
servants, as they must be called before 1670,[810] were attributed a
legal personality or a membership in the social status inconsistent
with the condition of a chattel or property. By the act of March, 1658,
Indian servants, male and female, sixteen years of age, were included
among the tithables by specific mention.[811] The same provision was
repeated in the acts of March, 1662.[812] Some doubt having arisen as
to whether this law applied to female Indian servants as well as to
male, acts were passed in December, 1662,[813] September, 1672[814] and
November, 1682,[815] to settle the matter. The former act related to
women servants commonly employed in “working in the crop”; the latter
declared that “all Indian women are and shall be tithables, and ought
to pay levies in like manner as negro women brought into this country
do, and ought to pay.”
In 1682, the gradual process of change from the status of Indian
servitude to that of Indian slavery was completed. The Virginia act of
1670 had decreed a condition of slavery for all Indians imported into
the colony by sea.[816] But the great body of subject Indians were
natives of the country. Such Indians remained servants up to 1676, when
at the beginning of the Indian war, one of Bacon’s laws made all Indian
captives slaves.[817] In 1682, slavery was extended to captives sold
by tributary Indians “in the hope of mitigating their condition as it
was certain that they would be held in slavery by their captors.”[818]
These acts did not make provision for changing the condition of Indian
servants that existed in the colony before 1670. Such a change had come
about through a gradual and natural process with the passage of the
laws mentioned and the changed attitude toward the subject Indians, so
that in fact all subject Indians were not considered slaves. Hence,
in 1682, all Indian slaves were considered in law as persons inasmuch
as they were tithables. By 1705 it was found necessary, for legal
purposes, to “advance the property notion of the slave from personalty
to realty,”[819] though certain incidents of personalty were still
retained. The statute of that year by which the change was effected
provided that in future “all negro, mulatto or Indian slaves in all
courts of jurisdiction and other places within this dominion shall be
held, taken and adjudged to be real estate and not chattels”.[820] As
a part of real estate property slaves were subject to taxation. An act
of 1748 again made slaves personal estate, but was repealed by the
king, October 31, 1751.[821] By the acts of 1779 and 1781 slaves were
still liable to a poll tax of £5 and 10s. respectively, to be paid
by the owner.[822] So it may be seen that from 1649 until after the
Revolution Indian servants and slaves either as persons or as property
were used as a basis for taxation in Virginia.
Massachusetts was the only other colony that assigned the double
status of personalty and real property to its slaves. There, as in
Virginia, the status varied from time to time. Under the earliest laws
of taxation in that colony, slaves must have been rated, if taxed
at all, as polls, the owners paying for them as for other servants
and children, “such as take not wages”. This continued until 1692,
when “every male slave of sixteen years old and upwards” was rated
at “£20 estate”.[823] But in 1694 “all negroes, mulattoes and Indian
servants, as well male as female, of sixteen years old and upwards”,
were assigned a status of personalty by being rated at 12d. per poll,
the same as other polls.[824] In 1695, “all negro, mulatto and Indian
servants” again became a property basis for taxation by an act valuing
negro, mulatto and Indian male servants fourteen years of age and
upward at £20 estate, and similar female servants at £14 estate, unless
disabled by infirmity.[825] They were subsequently, in 1696,[826] rated
as “other personal estate”, which rating was continued in 1697[827]
and 1698,[828] in the latter year “according to the found judgment and
discretion of the assessors, not excluding faculties”, i. e., trades or
professions. This rating for faculties was common throughout the early
tax laws of Massachusetts, and continued into the nineteenth century.
It was applied to white men from the beginning,[829] but the law of
1698 appears to have been the first and only one in which the feature
was applied to the negroes, mulattoes and Indians who were slaves.
There was little variation in the tax laws during the remainder of
the colonial period. All Indian, negro and mulatto servants continued
to be rated as personal property in the usual yearly levies.[830]
Occasionally, as in the earlier period, some of those who were servants
for a term of years, but not for life, were numbered and rated as
polls.[831] Other exemptions were made in the case of slaves “disabled
by infirmity”.[832]
In 1716, an attempt was made to modify this feature of property status
for slaves in Massachusetts. In that year Judge Sewall was a member of
the council, and on June 22, 1716, proposed to that body that negro
and Indian slaves be no longer rated with horses and hogs as personal
property. The council agreed to the proposition, and its decision
was sent down to the deputies for concurrence. But the members of
the house refused assent on the ground that they were just going to
make a new valuation. In the preceding valuations of the property of
their constituents, Indian, negro and mulatto slaves were regarded as
property, and the owners of it should be taxed accordingly.[833]
In the remaining colonies that taxed Indian and other slaves, such
taxation was levied on the basis of property, sometimes personal and
sometimes real. The annual tax in South Carolina included slaves among
the taxable property.[834] A law of 1719 provided that since Indian
slaves were commonly reputed to be of less value than negro slaves, all
persons possessing them should pay for each Indian in proportion to
half the value of whatever might be rated and imposed for each negro,
and no more.[835]
In New York Indian and negro slaves entered but little into the system
of taxation, since slaves were not numerous in the colony and therefore
would furnish but a poor basis for taxation, and the finances of the
colony were provided for more largely by income taxes than otherwise.
In 1709, however, along with a tax on chimneys, fireplaces and stoves,
a tax of two shillings was levied on every negro or Indian slave from
fifteen to sixty years of age, with directions for collecting the same,
and provision for fine and punishment if such tax were not paid.[836]
Again, in 1734, when arrangement was made to raise a certain amount
yearly for a period of ten years, one source of revenue was to be a
tax of “two pennyweight and twelve grains of Sivil Pillar or Mexican
Plate, or the sum of one shilling in Bills of Credit made current in
this colony” on every Indian or mulatto slave who was above the age of
fourteen and under the age of fifty years.[837]
An instance of Indian slaves serving as a basis of taxation in a local
levy is found in the history of Rye, New York. At a town meeting in
1703, to raise the assessment for the ensuing year, it was decided that
a portion of the sum should be obtained by the tax on £12 valuation of
all slaves of sixteen years old and upward.[838] Though Indian slaves
were not mentioned in the town action, they were doubtless included by
implication, for in 1711 the people of the town were called upon to pay
taxes under “an act for raising one shilling on every Indian and negro
slave.”[839]
In most of the colonies import duties, and in at least one instance
export duties, were levied on Indian slaves brought into or taken from
the colonies. Such duties were generally levied for self-defense,
though occasionally for revenue. During the colonial period England’s
interest in the African slave trade led her to take effective
measures to dispose of as many negroes as possible in the American
colonies. In course of time the colonists awoke to the danger which
might result from an excess of an ignorant servile class which in
some sections outnumbered the white population. Frequent attempts
were made in various colonies to check the importation of negroes
by levying import duties. At times Indians as well as negroes were
included in these laws. In their enactment it seems probable that the
colonial legislatures had a double purpose: to shut out undesirables
of both races, and to prevent the importation of negroes in the guise
of Indians. Real danger threatened the colonies from an excessive
importation of Indians as slaves, and an attempt was therefore made to
check it. In those colonies where import duties furnished a substantial
part of the colonial revenue, such duties were levied on Indian slaves
as well as on other property.
As early as 1698 the importation of negroes into South Carolina
had reached such proportions that the safety of the province was
considered endangered.[840] Attempts to check such importation were
accordingly made throughout the colonial period by levying import
duties. As the number of Indian slaves in the colony increased, they
too were included as a basis for duties. By the act of 1721, the
importation of negro, mulatto, mustee and Indian slaves (Spanish
Indians excepted) by their owners was permitted without duty, provided
such owner intended to settle in the colony and employ the slaves in
his own service. He was required, however, to take an oath that in case
he sold any of these slaves within twelve months after bringing them
into the colony, he would pay certain required duties.[841]
The Spanish Indians were considered especially undesirable.
Accordingly, an act of 1722 imposed upon all such Spanish Indians,
negroes, mulattoes and mustees imported, a duty of £50 current money of
the province.[842] The duty on Indian slaves was levied without regard
to age, while that on negro slaves was graduated according to age. A
report to the Board of Trade, February 2, 1736, gave the duty on negro
slaves imported from Africa above ten years old as £10; under ten years
old, £5; and on all Indians imported, £50 each.[843] The following
was the tariff schedule on negroes and Indians in force in 1775.[844]
“Indians imported as slaves, each £50. Negroes or slaves, four feet two
inches or more in height, each £10. Negroes, under four feet two, and
above three feet two inches, each £5. Negroes, under four feet two, and
above three feet two inches, sucking children excepted, each 2£ 10s.
Negroes or slaves from any of his Majesty’s plantations in America,
where such slaves have been for six months or more, unless imported by
the owners with design to be employed on their own account, besides the
above £10, £5, and £2 10s., each slave, £50.”
The earliest act passed in Virginia to check the importation of
negroes, that of 1699, imposed a duty of fifteen shillings per poll
upon every servant not born in England or Wales, and twenty shillings
for every negro or other slave imported into the colony. This duty was
continued or increased by a number of temporary acts between 1669 and
1776.[845] The acts were worded “all slaves” or “negroes and other
slaves”. Thus import duties were levied upon Indian as well as negro
slaves. A statute of 1710 advanced the duty on negroes to £5 per head,
and placed a duty of twenty shillings on Indians imported by land.[846]
The difference in the amount of the duties is indicative of the
relative amount of danger attached by the colonists to the presence of
the two classes of slaves in the colony.
At the time of the Tuscarora War, the northern colonies realized fully
the possible results of the importation of the captives sold in their
communities. Some of them in consequence passed laws to ward off danger
from this source. In 1712, Rhode Island passed an act levying a duty
of forty shillings on every Indian brought into the colony. The act
was enforced by severe penalties, and every ship owner was required to
give bond to the amount of £50 for observing it.[847] New Hampshire,
in 1714, levied the heavy duty of £10 on the importation of any Indian
into the province.[848]
Pennsylvania, also, June 7, 1712, voted to levy a duty of £20 on all
negroes and Indians brought into the colony by land or water, certain
negroes from the West Indies excepted. Exception was also made in the
case of negro and Indian slaves brought in by their owners with the
intention of taking them out again within the space of twenty days, and
in the case of Indians or negroes belonging to persons in the province
and sent out of it on their masters’ business with intent to return
again.[849]
A duty of £10 was levied by New Jersey in 1713.[850] In January, 1739,
the New Jersey assembly presented to the council for concurrence
a bill entitled “An act for laying a duty on negro, Indian and
mulatto slaves imported into this province.”[851] The bill did not
appeal favorably to the council and was rejected.[852] The reason
for rejection was the need of laborers in the province, owing to the
decrease in the number of white indentured servants, and the check
that this bill would give to the importation of negroes.[853] But in
November, 1769, a bill setting forth as its purpose the encouragement
of the coming of white servants by limiting the importation of blacks,
was passed. The duty in this case was higher than that proposed in
1739, being £15 on all slaves imported, negro, Indian or mulatto.
Punishment for refusal or neglect to pay was specified. Purchase of
a slave “made upon the Water or Waters along the Seacoast” of the
province, or on those between the province and the provinces of New
York, Pennsylvania and the Lower Counties of the Delaware, was, by
section VII of the act, declared a “purchase within the county” of New
Jersey “opposite to such Water”, and so was exempt from duty.[854]
The second cause for levying duties on Indians and other slaves was
to obtain revenue. Virginia in its legislation on the subject had
pretended at least that such was its purpose, and to carry out the
pretense had devoted the amounts thus obtained to meeting colonial
expenses.[855] Other colonies sought directly for revenue.[856] New
York was a striking example of such colonies. Import duties formed a
chief source of the colonial revenue, and slaves were enumerated among
the other commodities. The act of May 1, 1702, the first specifically
to mention Indian slaves, placed a duty of fifteen shillings on every
negro or Indian slave imported into the colony directly from their
place of residence, and thirty shillings upon every negro or Indian
slave not so imported.[857] The act which was to continue but two years
was found to be “of great use in this colony” and was accordingly
repeated on August 4, 1705, to continue seven years.[858] On June 24,
1719, it was again repeated to remain in effect from July 1, 1720, to
July 1, 1726.[859] Still other acts imposing similar duties were passed
as follows: in 1709, levying a duty of £3 on every negro imported into
the colony not directly from Africa and £3 on every other slave or
slaves not directly imported into the colony from Africa, the act to
continue till May 1, 1711;[860] on June 21, 1714, levying “a duty of
ten ounces of good plate” to be paid by the master or commander of any
vessel, or any other person importing slaves;[861] and on September
1, 1716, levying a duty of “ten ounces of good plate” on each negro,
Indian or mulatto slave imported into the colony from Africa in any
vessel not wholly owned by the people of the colony, and a like duty on
every negro, Indian or mulatto slave imported into the colony from any
part of the West Indies or any of the neighboring colonies, negroes or
other slaves going to and fro on their owners’ business excepted.[862]
On October 16, 1718, furthermore, it was decreed that no greater
duty was to be demanded on any slave brought into the colony directly
from Africa by a ship of Great Britain, than was to be demanded from
vessels wholly owned by inhabitants of the colony.[863] In June 17,
1726, on every Indian, negro or mulatto slave (male or female) of four
years of age or upwards imported by land or water from all places
other than Africa, a duty of £4 was laid.[864] On October 14, 1732,
a similar duty, regardless of the place from which the slave was
imported, was laid.[865] On November 28, 1734, on every negro, Indian
or mulatto slave above the age of fourteen and under the age of fifty,
during the period of ten years, the duty was fixed at “the quantity of
two pennyweight and twelve grains of Sivil pillar or Mexican plate,
or the sum of one shilling in Bills of Credit made current in this
colony.”[866] On December 16, 1737, finally, every negro, Indian or
mulatto slave above the age of four years imported directly from
Africa was made dutiable at the rate of five ounces of “Sivil pillar
or Mexican plate” or forty shillings in bills of credit current in
the colony; and for every such slave imported from all other places
by land or water, the sum of £4 in like money was exacted.[867] All
slaves belonging to the crew of any vessel, and slaves coming into the
colony from the neighboring colonies upon the service of their masters,
and all slaves under fourteen years of age were to be admitted free of
duty.[868] Any person coming into the colony alone, or with his or her
family to reside or visit in the colony, was allowed to bring slaves
for personal service, provided the owner gave sufficient security to
the treasurer within four days after the importation thereof, that,
whenever such slaves should be sold, the duty imposed by the act should
be paid within two days after such sale. Upon failure to pay such duty,
the owner or disposer of such slaves was to forfeit the sum of £10, the
slave or slaves, nevertheless, to be subject to the duty in question.
The duties provided for by the act were to remain in existence for the
period of one year.[869] At the expiration of the act it was continued
for another year, with certain amendments which did not relate to
slaves.[870] At the expiration of the specified period it was again
continued for another year or until the close of 1740,[871] when it
was again continued until December, 1741.[872] Such acts were then
passed by New York each year until the opening of the troubles of the
Revolutionary period.[873]
The number of Indians exported as slaves from South Carolina was larger
than that from any other colony. As a means of obtaining revenue, as
well as of attempting to check the business of the Indian traders, the
colony passed an act in 1703 which placed a duty upon Indian slaves
exported from the colony.[874] The traders were carefully instructed
not to attempt any such exportations without first paying at Charleston
the required duties, twenty shillings for each Indian exported[875].
CHAPTER X
+Methods of Employment+
Since the English never made long journeys of exploration into the
interior, as the Spanish and French did in the earliest days of their
occupation of America, their use of Indian slaves as hunters, fishermen
and guides was relatively limited. With the forming of settlements
and the growth of institutional life this use became more prominent.
In Carolina it appears that the Indian slaves were occupied chiefly
in hunting and fishing for their masters, whereas the greater part of
the harder field work was left to the negroes[876]. The Indians were
expert hunters, and as the woods abounded in game, such a hunter “was
of great service in a plantation, and could furnish a family with more
provisions than they could consume”.[877] In New England, also, there
is occasional mention of Indian slaves used as guides.[878] It seems
probable, however, that this service was more largely confined to the
south where Indian slaves were less expensive and more easily procured
than in the north, for such an occupation offered more opportunity for
escape than any other.
In New England the Indians retained in the colonies as slaves after
the Pequot and King Philip Wars were chiefly women and children. In
the early history of Massachusetts some of the leading families in
wealth and importance unable to obtain other help, employed Indians as
cooks.[879] After the wars in question the Indian slaves were put to
the same use by both Massachusetts and Connecticut.[880]
The colonial newspapers of New England attribute much domestic ability
to the Indian slaves advertised in their columns: “An Indian woman
who is a very good cook, and can wash, iron and sew”;[881] “A likely
Indian wench about nineteen years of age fit for any business in town
or country”;[882] “An Indian woman ... fit for all manner of household
work either in town or country, can sew, wash, brew, bake, spin and
milk cows”;[883] “A lusty Carolina Indian woman fit for any daily
service”.[884] The newspapers of the middle colonies furnish a similar
record: “A young Spanish Indian woman, fit for all manner of household
business”;[885] “An Indian woman and her child ... she washes, irons
and starches very well, and is a good cook”.[886]
The agricultural system of New England was not favorable to the use
of slaves in the fields, yet there are occasional glimpses of Indian
slaves employed in agricultural pursuits. In the account book of
Lieutenant Stephen Longfellow, 1710, appears the item: “Bouston one day
to plant”. Bouston was his Indian slave.[887] It has been considered
probable, judging from the number of negro and Indian slaves in Rhode
Island, that both were an important factor in developing the stock
farming of the colony.[888] The newspaper advertisements of the day
offer some information on this point: “A Carolina Indian man fit for
any service within doors or without”;[889] “An Indian boy about sixteen
years old, fit for either sea or land service”;[890] “An Indian man ...
fit for any service”;[891] “A Survanam Indian man, twenty-five years
of age, who has been in the country thirteen years, fit for service in
either country or town, and who can mow well”.[892]
In all the southern colonies Indian slaves worked in the fields side
by side with the negroes up to the time of the Revolution.[893] The
discovery, about 1693, of rice as a profitable staple for export, made
necessary a large supply of labor in South Carolina; hence along with
the negroes so largely imported to meet the demand, the Indian slaves
worked also as the plantation system grew. In South Carolina, Governor
Moore employed some of his Indian slaves in tilling his fields.[894]
The instances of Indian slaves employed by their owners in manual
occupations are more numerous in New England than elsewhere. The
newspapers furnish instances like the following: “An Indian lad about
eighteen years old, a cooper by trade”[895] “... can do anything at
the carpenter’s trade”;[896] “An Indian lad ... he can work at the
weaver’s trade”.[897] Similar advertisements are found in the New York
papers: “An Indian man ... a good carpenter, wheelwright, cooper and
butcher”.[898]
Such instances are to be found even in the south.[899] The training of
Indian slaves to skilled labor was not generally considered politic,
however, since it interfered with the coming to the colonies of white
craftsmen who were so much desired. In 1743 or 1744, a committee in
South Carolina, appointed to consider the most effectual means of
increasing immigration to the province, included in the bill which it
originated, a clause prohibiting the bringing up of negroes and other
slaves to those mechanical trades in which white persons are usually
employed.[900]
Indian slaves were made a source of income to their owners by hiring
them out to work in the same way as negroes and indentured white
servants. The colonial laws in some instances made provision for
such use. A South Carolina law of 1712 permitted an owner to hire
out his slaves by the year or for a shorter time, and receive their
earnings.[901] The provision was repeated in acts of 1735[902] and
1740.[903] Maryland, in 1753, provided that masters of ships might hire
servants or slaves from their owners.[904] New York City, in 1731, made
provision for owners hiring out negro and Indian slaves.[905] Since the
custom was common in its application to other servile classes, one may
believe that it was followed in other colonies besides those which made
legal provision regarding it.
The use of Indian slaves in military operations was not infrequent.
In the New England wars Captain Church employed Indian captives
against the enemy, a plan which he found serviceable on several
occasions.[906] This use of Indian as well as negro slaves for military
purposes was advocated in 1666 in a narrative addressed to the Duke of
Albemarle.[907]
In the intercolonial wars both negro and Indian slaves were captured
by the French from the English army. In French records dealing with
occurrences in Canada, under date of November 11, 1747, “four negroes
and a Panis who were captured from the English during the war ...” are
mentioned.[908] Still another possible proof of the use of Indian
slaves by the English army is found in the Articles of Peace drawn up
at Niagara, July 18, 1764. They contain the following: “Article 2nd.
That any English who may be prisoners or deserters, and any negroes,
Panis, or other slaves who are British property, shall be delivered
up within a month to the commandant of Detroit, and that the Hurons
use all possible endeavors to get those who are in the hands of the
neighboring nations, engaging never to entertain any deserters,
fugitives or slaves, but should any fly to them for protection, they
are to deliver them up to the next commanding officer.”[909]
That such slaves were put to practical use in the military preparations
of the colonies, is seen in the New York City ordinances of 1693 and
1694 which provided that all persons, and all negro and Indian slaves
that were not listed, should work on the fortifications.[910] Such
a town action was not unusual. In 1638, the townsmen of Hartford,
Connecticut, voted to levy on the cattle and slaves of the townspeople
when needed for public service.[911]
South Carolina on different occasions offered inducements for slaves to
serve in the war. Some of these acts mentioned Indian slaves. In 1704,
an act was passed “for raising and enlisting such slaves as shall be
thought serviceable to this province in time of alarms”. It provided
for making a list of all negro, mulatto and Indian slaves in the
province fit for service. The masters of the slaves were to be notified
of such listing and given a chance to show cause why it should not be
done. In case the slaves were called upon for service, the master must
furnish weapons according to specifications. If the slave were maimed
or killed in the service, the owner should be compensated out of the
public treasury.[912]
To provide still further for the use of slaves in war, it was decreed
by a South Carolina act of 1719 that the captains, lieutenants, and
ensigns of the militia companies should form a list of negro, mulatto,
mustee and Indian slaves from sixteen to sixty years of age fit for
military service. Owners were given a chance to show why such slaves
should not serve. These slaves when enlisted were to be armed and
equipped by the captain of the division, or they might be armed by
their owners, the latter to be compensated for loss or damage to their
arms. A fine of £20 was fixed for neglect of any owner to send his
slave in time of alarm to the usual place of rendezvous of the various
divisions. Any officer neglecting to carry out the terms of the act was
to be fined £5. A slave serving in war was to be allowed £10 reward if,
on the testimony of a white person, he could prove that he had killed
one of the enemy in time of invasion. The owner was to be indemnified
from the public funds for a slave killed or wounded.[913]
In 1778, when Washington proposed to enlist slaves in the battalions
raised by the State of Rhode Island, the assembly voted that every able
bodied negro, mulatto or Indian man slave in the state might enlist in
either battalion to serve during the continuance of the war. Such slave
was to receive all the bounties, wages and encouragements allowed by
the Continental Congress to any soldier enlisting in the service, and
in addition was immediately to be set free.[914]
It is noticeable that in this legislation regarding the use of slaves
in war, no provision was made for their military training. Such
training would require too much time, and besides being a loss to
the owners, might prove dangerous to the colony if the slaves were
sufficiently numerous. Maryland recognized this fact and in 1715 voted
to exclude slaves from such training.[915]
Just as the Spanish and the French made diplomatic and military use
of their Indian slaves by returning them to their own tribes and
thus winning friendship and peace, so the English followed the same
practice. In 1715, in order to secure the aid of the Tuscarora, the
assembly of South Carolina voted that, for every one of these allies
killed in actual warfare by the enemy, a Tuscarora slave then in
servitude among the whites should be given them for the loss, and that
to every Tuscarora taking an Indian enemy captive, a slave of his
nation should similarly be assigned as a reward.[916]
CHAPTER XI
+Treatment+
The treatment of Indian slaves apparently differed in no essential
degree from that of the negroes. The slaves of the two races lived
and worked together; but since the negroes were in the majority, the
treatment of slaves in general was determined by the ordinary usage
which the whites accorded them in particular. It is customary for
writers dealing with early slavery among both the English and French
of America to declare it mild in nature.[917] The statement appears to
be true. The system was patriarchal in nature, though it is doubtful
if race feeling among the English was ever so nearly obliterated,
and a condition of fellowship approaching equality ever so fully
developed, as in the case of the French. Individual cases of cruelty
and harsh treatment undoubtedly existed as they must exist in all
cases of servitude; but Indian slavery never became an institution
sufficiently well organized to make harsh treatment general. There was
never anything in either the English or French colonies corresponding
to the labor gang used by the Spanish. The number of Indian slaves
in a locality was too small for that; nor did the service which the
colonists required of their Indian slaves demand it. Kind treatment,
however, did not exclude the infliction of corporal punishment, if
thought needful.[918]
To judge from the frequent newspaper advertisements of runaways, the
Indian slaves of the English colonists were at least comfortably
dressed. The following are typical extracts from the newspapers of the
various colonies: “a black crape gown and a striped stuff jacket”;
“a blue flannel petticoat, a dark Estamine gown and a double striped
gown”;[919] “a grey coat with pewter buttons, with leather breeches,
an old tow shirt, grey stockings, good shoes and felt hat”;[920] “a
green hat and yellow breeches”;[921] “an orange colored broadcloth
coat, with a narrow cape, and a flannel jacket with narrow stripes, a
cotton shirt, and a loose pair of Oxenbridge trousers ... a beaver hat,
and had a bundle of clothes with him”;[922] “an old blue coat, striped
flannel jacket, pretty good hat, black wig, linen trousers, white yarn
stockings, and an old pair of mended shoes”;[923] “a good felt hat,
orange colored jacket, thick leather breeches, checked wool shirt,
light grey stockings and pretty good shoes”:[924] “pea-jacket of light
brown, leather breeches, shoes, stockings and hat”;[925] “a drugat
waistcoat and kersey petticoat of a light color”.[926] From these
advertisements it appears that the slaves were dressed much like the
colonists themselves, though doubtless their clothing often consisted
of “cast offs”. In the Carolinas where slaves were more numerous,
coarse goods were imported by the planters for slaves’ clothing.
Mention is found of “serge suits for the servant maids, of coarse
kerseys, tufted holland jackets, etc.”, with which the plantation was
wont to be supplied for the slaves and convict servants. These were
used in addition to cloth woven and made into clothes by the women of
the household.[927]
Generally kind as the treatment of Indian slaves may have been,
the sentiment of the English colonists was quite opposed to the
intermingling of whites and Indians, bond or free, even if in the
early history of Virginia there was some effort made to encourage the
marriage of whites and free Indians.[928] It was natural, therefore,
that definite action should be taken to prevent the marriage of free
whites and Indian slaves. In 1691, Virginia passed an act forbidding
the union of free whites with Indians whether slave or free; but
there seems to have been no provision against marriage of negroes or
Indians with white indentured servants.[929] The provision, perhaps,
was unnecessary, for the consent of the white indentured servant’s
master was necessary for the validity of such a union, and such consent
was usually refused because of the strong prejudice against race
mixture.[930]
North Carolina, also, in 1715, passed an act forbidding the marriage
of whites with negroes, mulattoes or Indians, under penalty of £50,
and making clergymen celebrating such a marriage liable to a fine of
£50.[931] A later act of 1741 provided a fine of £50 for the marriage
of any white man or woman with an Indian, negro, mustee, mulatto,
or any person of mixed blood to the third generation, bond or free.
Any minister or justice of the peace performing such a service was
punishable by a fine of £50.[932] Maryland, on its own part, in 1692,
passed an act against the marriage or promiscuous sexual relations
of whites and negroes or other slaves. Any white person so offending
was to become a servant for seven years, if free at the time of the
marriage. If already a servant, he or she must serve seven years after
the end of the present term of service.[933]
The same feeling existed in New England. A Massachusetts act of 1692
forbade the marriage, under severe penalty, of any white person with
a negro, Indian or mulatto. Mixed marriages of whites and Indians,
like those admired by Sewall in 1702,[934] did occur, however, in New
England,[935] and it appears probable that some of these marriages were
with the enslaved captives of King Philip’s War and the Indian slaves
imported from Carolina.
Considering, further, the determination of legal relations between the
whites and the Indian slaves, it should be remembered that, when not
specifically referred to, Indian slaves were included by implication
in the legislative acts of the various colonies relating to slaves.
Sufficient proof of this statement lies in the fact that Indian slaves
are directly mentioned in certain of the legislative acts of any given
colony, whereas other acts of the same colony specify slaves, negroes
and other slaves, or negro and mulatto slaves.[936] In one colony,
Virginia, the term “mulatto” was made to include Indians by the act of
1705, which provided that the child of an Indian should be “deemed,
accounted, held and taken to be a mulatto.”[937]
It was a part of the universal law of slavery in the southern colonies
that a slave should not be allowed to testify against a white person in
the courts.[938] South Carolina, by the acts of 1712,[939] 1722[940]
and 1735,[941] permitted “negroes and other slaves” to testify in the
trial of any slave accused of specified crimes and offenses. Certain
of the colonies, by express provision, forbade Indian slaves to
give testimony in the trial of whites. North Carolina declared that
“all negroes, mulattoes, bond and free to the third generation, and
Indian servants and slaves, shall be deemed to be taken as persons
incapable in law to be witnesses in any case whatever except against
each other”.[942] Virginia, 1705, decreed that “popish recusants,
convict negroes, mulattoes and Indian servants and others not being
Christians, shall be deemed and taken to be persons incapable in
law to be witnesses in any case whatsoever”.[943] In 1732, the same
colony decreed that the evidence of any negro or Indian slave might
be received in the trial of any slave, but was not valid in the trial
of any other person.[944] Maryland declared, in 1717, that it would
be dangerous to allow the evidence of any negro, mulatto or Indian
slave in the trial of a freeman, but conceded that, if evidence was
lacking in cases regarding any negro, mulatto or Indian slaves, that
such slaves might give testimony for or against themselves and one
another.[945] In some of the northern colonies, at least, acts were
passed forbidding slaves to give testimony in the trial of white
persons. The New York law of 1706 is a case in point.[946] This feature
of the law of evidence was renewed from time to time in the various
colonies and continued until the Revolution.
The right to life was generally conceded all slaves regardless of
color. At least one colony, New Hampshire, 1708, in an act guaranteeing
this right, included Indian slaves by specific mention.[947] This
and other rights could be protected by appeal to the courts. If not
otherwise provided for, the mode of trial used by the colonists
themselves was employed in the case of Indian slaves, negroes and free
Indians.[948] Special legislation concerning the trial of slaves was
enacted by all the English colonies. It has been said that for an
Indian to gain his point in an English court, unless his case was an
extremely strong one, was a rare occurrence.[949] Whether the statement
is generally true in the case of either free or slave Indians, might
be difficult to decide. Doubtless the Indian slave supported by his
master possessed a better chance of obtaining justice than the free
Indian. Since a slave was owned body and soul, and therefore had no
right to life except as the same might be conceded by his owner and
the authorities, it may be said that whatever legal rights he had were
granted for the protection of the slave owners in their property rights
and for the general safety of the community, rather than because of any
special consideration of justice toward the slave himself.
Virginia, in 1692, provided special courts for the trial of
slaves.[950] The provisions regarding these courts were changed from
time to time. By the act of 1765 it was provided that the justices be
given a standing commission of oyer and terminer empowering them to
try without a jury all criminal offenses committed by slaves in their
respective counties.[951] In accordance with these provisions one finds
the Earl of Dunmore issuing a commission in 1772 to certain justices in
the county of the present state of West Virginia, authorizing them to
serve as a court for the trial of negro and Indian slaves.[952]
The Massachusetts general court provided, 1647, that one or more of the
magistrates, according to agreement among themselves, should hold a
court every quarter to hear and determine all cases civil and criminal,
except those involving capital punishment, which might concern Indians,
and that minor offenses should be tried by the sachems themselves.[953]
At the first general court held on Martha’s Vineyard, June 18, 1672, it
was ordered that an Indian should have liberty in any case to appeal
from such courts as they held among themselves to the quarter court,
and from the quarter court to the general court.[954]
A New Jersey act of 1713 provided for the trial of any negro, Indian or
mulatto slave accused of committing murder, rape, etc., by a justice
and five freeholders. But if the owner of such slave should desire a
jury, the privilege might be allowed him. He also had the right to
challenge jurors as in other cases of like nature.[955] The act was
repealed in 1768.[956]
By a New York act of 1712, three justices and five freeholders of the
county constituted judge and jury, seven making a quorum, for the
trial of negro and Indian slaves accused of murder, rape, insurrection
or conspiracy. The prosecution provided the accusation to which the
offended was obliged to plead apparently without the aid of counsel.
The owner of the slave was given the right, however, to have his slave
tried by a jury of twelve, provided he paid the jury charges of nine
shillings.[957] An act of 1730 changed the required number of justices
to three, one to be a quorum, associated with five of the principal
freeholders of the county. Agreement of seven was required for the
decision. In this case, as before, the owner could have his slave tried
by a jury of twelve if he paid the jury charges of nine shillings.[958]
There was a general tendency among slave owners to conceal crimes
committed by slaves, or to secrete slave offenders and thus avoid the
financial loss consequent upon the time consumed by the trial and the
possible imprisonment of the slave in case of conviction, as well as
the possible injury to the slave by corporal punishment, or the still
greater loss of the slave’s entire value in case of his execution.
To prevent this interference with justice, as well as to recognize
and protect the property rights of the slave owners, special acts
were passed in some of the colonies providing that the slave owner be
remunerated by the colonial government in case of the loss of his slave
through execution for crime. In some colonies the amount to be paid the
owner of a slave was specified by law, and this amount varied from £30
for a man slave, and £20 for a woman slave (negro, Indian or mulatto),
as provided for in a New Jersey act of 1713,[959] to £50 in a South
Carolina act of 1717.[960] In other colonies the amount to be paid the
slave owner was left to the decision of the court. The Maryland act of
1717[961] is a case in point. It provided that the court should value
the slave (negro, mulatto or Indian) in tobacco, and that three-fourths
of the value thus adjudged should be allowed in the public levy to be
paid to the owner of the slave.
In all of the colonies the conduct of Indian slaves as well as that
of other slaves was necessarily subject to police regulations, and
punishments were decreed for their violation. These regulations did
not differ greatly in the various colonies, for the problems arising
from the use of slaves varied but little in their nature. Among the
prohibitions laid on Indian slaves specifically were the following: to
be away from home without the owner’s permission;[962] the possession
of fire arms;[963] and engaging in certain kinds of traffic.[964]
Boston decreed, 1728, that no Indian, negro or mulatto should carry
stick or cane within the town.[965] In 1778, when forming its first
proposed constitution, Massachusetts excepted from the franchise
“negroes, Indians and mulattoes, bound and free”.[966] In an act of
1660 the Connecticut general court declared that neither negro nor
Indian servants should be required to “train, watch or ward”.[967]
In 1676, New York City excluded all Indian and negro slaves from
the privilege of being carters, and in the same year passed an act
to prevent the revels of Indian and negro slaves at inns.[968] An
ordinance of the Albany city council, 1686, forbade any negro or Indian
slave to drive a cart within the city.[969] A New York act of 1731,
also, provided for regulating the conduct of negroes and Indians in the
night time.[970]
Few of the acts of colonial legislatures decreeing punishment for
various offenses mention Indian slaves; yet in the following colonies
the death penalty was to be inflicted upon Indian slaves convicted
of certain crimes:[971] by North Carolina, in 1741, for the second
offense of killing horses, cattle or hogs, and for stealing, mismarking
or misbranding such animals;[972] by New Jersey, in 1713, for murder,
or conspiracy, or attempt to murder,[973] and in 1768, for rape, for
wilfully burning any dwelling-house, barn, stable, outhouse, stacks
of corn or hay, for wilfully mutilating, maiming or dismembering any
person, for manslaughter, for stealing any sum of money above the value
of £5, and for committing any felony or burglary.[974]
Branding as a punishments for Indian slaves was decreed by the
Massachusetts general court. Runaway Pequot slaves were so
punished.[975] Judging from the descriptions of runaway Indian slaves
contained in the colonial newspapers, some form of branding or marking
such culprits was used until a late period. These brands or marks
sometimes took the form of letters or symbols pricked into the skin by
gunpowder or India ink. They were placed usually on the forehead or the
cheeks.[976]
Whipping, the most common punishment provided by law for Indian as well
as other slaves, was decreed by different colonies as follows: by North
Carolina, in 1741, to consist of thirty-nine lashes well laid on, for
giving false testimony in court, killing any domestic animal without
the owner’s consent, and for stealing, mismarking or misbranding such
animals;[977] by Pennsylvania, in 1721, for making, selling or using
any fireworks or firearms in Philadelphia,[978] and in 1751, for taking
part in horse races or shooting matches without a license, fifteen
lashes for the first offense and twenty-one for the second;[979] by New
Jersey, in 1713, for stealing to the value of six pence;[980] by New
York City, in 1682, for absence from their owners’ homes or plantations
without ticket of leave in owners’ handwriting,[981] in 1683, ten
lashes for meeting together at any place on Sunday or any other day in
groups of more than four, and possessing arms, unless the owner paid
six shillings in lieu of the penalty,[982] in 1713[983] and 1731,[984]
thirty-nine lashes for being found in the city streets, if above the
age of fourteen years, later than one hour after sunset, in 1721,[985]
and 1731,[986] for gambling, in 1731, for attending a funeral in
groups of more than twelve,[987] for disorderly riding through the
streets,[988] and for selling “the Fish Commonly Called and known by
the name of Bass” in the months of December, January and February,[989]
and in 1759, for committing any nuisance in the streets;[990] by
Connecticut, in 1750, forty lashes for publishing or speaking such
words of and concerning any other person, which, if spoken or published
by a white person, would be considered by law objectionable,[991]
and for being abroad after nine o’clock at night;[992] and by
Massachusetts, in 1693, for dealing in stolen goods.[993] The town of
Medford, Massachusetts, ordered, in 1734, that all negro, Indian or
mulatto slaves found abroad without leave and not on their masters’
business were to be punished by whipping.[994] Block Island, finally,
in 1709, provided ten lashes as punishment for any negro or Indian
slave abroad after nine o’clock at night.[995]
Punishment by mutilation was sometimes used, especially in the southern
colonies.[996] North Carolina, in 1741, provided that any slave,
negro or Indian, giving false testimony in any court was to have an
ear nailed to the pillory and to stand there for an hour, after which
the ear was to be cut off. The other ear was then to be nailed in like
manner and cut off at the expiration of an hour. By the same act the
cutting off of both ears was made a partial punishment for killing
horses, cattle or hogs without the consent of the owner, and for
stealing, misbranding or mismarking such animals.[997]
Certain of the colonies attempted to prevent the sale of spirituous
liquors to Indian and other slaves. At the time of King Philip’s War,
Massachusetts forbade the sale of liquor without license to any Indian
or negro.[998] New Hampshire, 1686, passed a similar act.[999] In the
same year the common council of Albany prohibited the selling of liquor
to Indian slaves without the owners’ permission.[1000]
Considering still another phase of treatment, namely, that which had
to do with religious instruction, it may be said that, among the early
regulations of the British government for the colonies, it was required
that measures be taken whereby “slaves may be best invited to the
Christian faith and be made capable of being baptized therein”.[1001]
In the instructions to the colonial governors the home government not
infrequently gave directions for the conversion of both negroes and
Indians, but the Indians referred to were free, not slave. The enslaved
natives were in too great a minority to attract attention; but any
effort to instruct and convert the negroes must, of course, include
the former by implication.[1002]
The good intentions of the home government for the conversion of
slaves were commonly frustrated by the popular belief that baptism
conferred freedom upon slaves. The general attitude of slave owners
in all the colonies was to oppose or forbid the religious instruction
and conversion of negro and Indian slaves. They argued that the
instruction and conversion of slaves tended to make them disrespectful
and unreliable and hence decreased their value. Consequently the
religious training of slaves in the earlier colonial period depended
upon the personal teaching of the owner’s family.[1003] This condition
of affairs appealed strongly to the missionaries of the Society for
the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts[1004] on their coming
to America primarily to work among the Indian tribes. In the reports
sent to their Society early in the eighteenth century they lamented the
unenlightened condition of the slaves, and urged that they be allowed
to work among them where they believed their efforts would accomplish
more than among the Indian tribes. The Society granted their requests
and gave them special instructions to look after the spiritual
interests of all slaves.[1005] Their subsequent reports, though they
dealt primarily with negro slaves, sometimes made mention of Indian
slaves, and show that there was no distinction in religious matters
between the slaves of the two races.
A letter from Samuel Thomas to the Society, December 21, 1705, told
of the employment of negro and Indian slaves on the Lord’s Day;[1006]
but in a memorial of the same year he rejoiced in the prospect of
bringing many Indian and negro slaves to the knowledge and practice
of Christianity.[1007] In a letter of the following year he urged
that the Society give the missionaries strict charge to labor with
great diligence in the conversion of the Indian and negro slaves
in the respective parishes.[1008] In 1710, he reported that there
was several unconverted Apalachee slaves in his parish whom he was
especially anxious to baptize.[1009] Le Jau, another missionary in
South Carolina, reported, in 1708, that the masters opposed the baptism
and marriage of their slaves, and declared that “many masters cannot be
persuaded that negroes and Indians are otherwise than beasts and use
them like such”.[1010] In the same year he reported many Indian and
negro slaves instructed and on probation for baptism.[1011] In 1710,
also, certain masters had so far yielded in their opposition to the
religious training of slaves as to allow Indian and negro slaves to
remain a half-hour after the services for instruction.[1012] In 1711,
one Indian slave and thirty negro slaves had joined the church in his
parish,[1013] and he was catechizing “negroes and other slaves” with
their masters’ consent,[1014] though then, and even at a later period,
other masters in the same parish (Goose Creek) opposed his work among
the slaves.[1015] Where such consent was granted, the slaves were often
required to declare that they were not being baptized out of any effort
to free themselves.[1016] From still another South Carolina parish (St.
Thomas) the pastor, Haskell, wrote in 1711 that he was encouraging the
conversion of Indian and negro slaves, and that he was also trying to
persuade their masters to his mind.[1017] He met with some success, for
another letter of the same year recorded the baptism of two negroes
and an Indian slave.[1018] As late as 1730, however, he reported that
the religious instruction of Indian and negro slaves was obstructed
by irreligious and worldly people.[1019] In 1707, Dunn, the pastor
of a parish thirty miles from Charleston reported that he met great
difficulty in persuading masters to allow their Indian and negro slaves
to receive religious instruction or to be baptized, since they believed
that baptism would free slaves.[1020]
The same attitude of masters concerning the religious instruction of
their slaves was reported from other colonies by the missionaries of
the Society in question. But since the number of Indian slaves in no
other colony was as large as in South Carolina, the mention of them by
the missionaries is far less frequent, when made at all. Sharpe of New
York, in a letter of 1712, mentioned two Spanish Indian slaves who were
Christians.[1021] Neau of New York reported much opposition of masters
to his work among the slaves.[1022] But Governor Cornbury promised to
help him,[1023] and evidently his labors were successful, for a report
in 1726 alluded to fourteen hundred negro and Indian slaves, many of
whom had been instructed by Neau.[1024]
Since in general the religious instruction of servants and slaves was
recognized as a duty by both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities
in England, the response of the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts to these letters and reports was encouraging,
and the missionaries were directed to do all in their power for the
education and conversion of all slaves.[1025] On one occasion the
Society went so far as to draft a bill to be introduced into Parliament
providing for the more effectual conversion of negroes and servants in
the plantation,[1026] and also petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury
that his majesty be requested to encourage the passage of laws in
the colonies to the effect that baptism did not confer freedom upon
slaves.[1027]
The colonial clergy similarly tried to obtain legislation at home which
might serve to dispel the popular illusion that baptism conferred
freedom upon slaves. A proposition contained in Mr. Forbes’ account
of the state of the church in Virginia, July 21, 1724, is a case in
point. It stated that the Christian duty of instructing and educating
heathen slaves in the Christian faith was much neglected by slave
owners in America, though recommended by his majesty’s instructions.
It was accordingly proposed that every Indian, negro or mulatto child
that should be baptized and publicly catechized by the minister in
church, and who could, before the fourteenth year of his or her age,
give a distinct account of the creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the ten
commandments, should, if the owner received a certificate from the
minister to that effect, be exempted from paying all levies till the
age of eighteen years.[1028]
Laws to this effect were passed in some of the colonies. The Carolina
Fundamental Constitutions of 1669 had provided that it should be
lawful for slaves to become members of any church or religious
profession as if they were freemen, but that every owner should have
absolute power and authority over his slaves regardless of their
opinion or religion.[1029] But by the so-called “Church Act” of 1705
South Carolina showed itself averse to the policy advocated in the
Constitutions of 1669, and decreed that the register of a parish
should except negro and Indian slaves from the entries of births,
christenings, marriages and burials.[1030] The law suited the times
and was accordingly followed.[1031] But in 1712, in order to correct
the popular misconception that a Christianized slave was by law free,
an act was passed to the effect that baptism of slaves did not confer
freedom upon them.[1032]
As early as 1655, the Virginia assembly had voted that Indian servants
should be educated and brought up in the Christian faith.[1033] Yet the
idea that baptism conferred freedom upon a slave even then existed in
the colony, since one of the reasons given for the disallowance of the
sale of an Indian boy by “The Kinge of Waineoke” to Elizabeth Short in
1659 was that the boy was desirous of baptism.[1034] The above action
of the legislature probably contributed to the enactment of the law of
1667 which decreed that the baptism of a slave did not confer freedom
upon him or in any way change his condition. The act naively declared
the reason for this legislative action to be that masters freed from
this doubt might the more carefully encourage the propagation of
Christianity by permitting the conversion of slaves.[1035] The act of
1670, when slaves were for the first time legally designated as such
in Virginia, decreed that freedom resulting from Christianity was
limited to servants imported by shipping. Consequently Indian servants
or slaves, since they generally came into the colony by land, were not
eligible to become freemen by the provision.[1036] The act of 1670 was
repealed in 1682 and a new act removed the possibility of conversion
to Christianity conferring freedom upon any slaves, negro, mulatto or
Indian, by decreeing that whether converted to Christianity before or
after being brought to the colony, they should remain slaves.[1037]
Finally, in 1712, Virginia passed a law requiring that the parents of
free-born children and the owners of slave-born children, within twenty
days after the birth of a child, should give notice in writing of the
birth, with name and sex, the names of the parents of a free-born
child, and the name of the owner of a slave-born child. The death of
a slave was to be reported to the minister of the parish in the same
way, and the minister was required to keep a record of all births and
deaths in his parish.[1038] Virginia parish registers after this date
contain records of the death of Indian slaves.[1039] Maryland, also, by
the acts of 1692,[1040] 1694,[1041] 1704[1042] and 1715[1043] sought
to encourage the baptism of “negroes and other slaves” by asserting
that baptism did not confer freedom upon slaves or their offspring. In
accordance with the instructions of Queen Anne to Governor Cornbury,
1702, New Jersey passed an act in May, 1704, declaring that baptism of
any negro, Indian or mulatto slave should not be considered reason or
cause for his freedom.[1044]
The amended “Duke’s Laws” published about 1674, decreed that turning
Christian should not set at liberty any negro or Indian servant in New
York who had been bought by any person.[1045] Evidently the colonists
put but little faith in this provision, for Governor Dongan reported in
1687 that they “take no care of the conversion of their slaves.”[1046]
The old idea that conversion conferred freedom upon slaves prevailed,
and was doubtless strengthened by an order of the council, October 11,
1687, that Christian Indians and children of Christian parents brought
from Campeachy and Vera Cruz as slaves should be set free,[1047] and
by a similar order in the following year that Spanish Indian slaves
professing Christianity were to be released and sent home.[1048] This
last order was accompanied by a decree of the council, July 30, 1688,
that the Spanish Indian slaves of certain persons be brought before
it with a view of liberating them if they were able to say the Lord’s
Prayer.[1049] A report of Governor Bellomont, April 27, 1699, also,
states that a “Bill for facilitating the conversion of negroes and
Indians ... would not go down with the assembly; they having a notion
that the negroes being converted to Christianity would emancipate
them from their slavery, and loose them from their service.”[1050]
But an act of October 24, 1706, “to encourage the Baptizing of Negro,
Indian and Mulatto slaves” stated that the baptism of slaves did not
confer freedom upon them.[1051] This partially calmed the fears of the
slave owners, and the baptism of slaves became more frequent;[1052]
but it did not lead the owners in all cases to favor the work of the
missionaries among the slaves. In 1724, Mr. Jenney reported to the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts: “There
are a few negroes and Indian slaves ... in my parish: the catechist,
a school-master from the honorable society, has often proposed to
teach them the catechism, but we cannot prevail upon their masters
to spare them from their labor for that good work.”[1053] Again, in
1728, Mr. Wetmore reported the opposition of Quaker, Presbyterian
and Episcopalian masters to the instruction and baptism of their
slaves,[1054] but in 1734 he alluded to the baptism of one adult Indian
slave.[1055]
In New England the earliest action taken by the colonial government
with regard to the religious instruction of slaves occurred in 1677
in connection with the disposal as slaves of the captives taken in
King Philip’s War, when it was decreed that all the Indian slaves
distributed among the inhabitants of the colony should “be taught and
instructed in the Christian religion.”[1056] How far such religious
training was carried out would be difficult to ascertain. Occasional
glimpses of the situation can be obtained. Experience Mayhew lamented
that all the English did not instruct their servants in the “principles
of the true religion”;[1057] though he cited instances when Indian
servants, some of whom may have been slaves, were so instructed.[1058]
Just how much missionary work was done in the homes of Massachusetts
or elsewhere for the conversion of Indian servants and slaves is not
known. Indian slaves were owned by ministers of the gospel, and it
may be supposed that some attention was given to their instruction.
Evidently the religious spirit of the Massachusetts colonists was
sufficiently strong to include Indian slaves and servants, for in
some churches negroes and Indians had a special location assigned
them in the church[1059] and occasional reference is found to Indian
slaves being church members. According to the baptismal records of
November 19, 1727, for example, the Indian slave of Lieutenant Stephen
Longfellow, great-great-grandfather of the poet, was his fellow member
in the Byfield church.[1060] In this same year the Reverend Timothy
Cutler reported from Boston: “Negro and Indian slaves belonging to my
parish are about thirty-two, their education is according to the houses
they belong to. I have baptized but two. But I know of the masters of
some others who are disposed to this important good of their slaves and
are preparing them for it; however, there is too great a remissness
upon this article”.[1061] In Rhode Island, also, for a long period the
slaves were excluded from the church because their owners considered
church membership to be inconsistent with their position. Finally in
1721 James MacSparran, pastor of Narragansett, protested against
denying slaves the benefit of religious instruction and activities,
and carried his point.[1062] After that date Indian and other slaves
could belong to the churches, though baptism and membership were still
held in disfavor by the slave owners.[1063] Connecticut, too, in 1727,
favored the work of the church by enacting that masters and mistresses
of Indian children were to use their utmost endeavors to instruct them
in the Christian faith.[1064]
The popular idea that baptism conferred freedom upon slaves aroused
eventually so much discussion among both the colonists and the
representatives of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel
in Foreign Parts, and so many inquiries were addressed to the home
government concerning the matter, that in 1729 the opinions of Talbot
and Yorke, the attorney and solicitor generals of England, were
expressed on the subject. Their decision was in accord with the acts
of the various colonial legislatures to the effect that baptism did
not confer freedom upon slaves. The declaration of Gibson, Bishop of
London, about the same time, also, that “Christianity and the embracing
of the Gospels does not make the least alteration in civil property”,
practically ended the discussion.[1065]
Turning now to a consideration of the question of manumission, it
may be said that an Indian slave, like a negro of like condition,
might obtain freedom during the latter’s lifetime, or by testamentary
disposition at the owner’s death. His freedom might be purchased
either by himself or others. A colonial court might declare him free
if it were found that he was illegally held or misused. A colonial
government, also, might grant him freedom for some special service
rendered.
Action of the owner was naturally the most common way of conferring
freedom.[1066] When freedom was bestowed during the owner’s lifetime,
a deed of manumission was usually given in order to avoid future
complications.[1067] Occasionally in special instances the colonial
government recognized such action of the slave owners as legal. For
instance, the South Carolina Board of Counsel, August 3, 1711, in
its directions to the Indian traders provided that any Indians taken
captive in war and declared free by their respective masters who had a
right so to act, should be deemed free men.[1068]
Record exists of Indian slaves purchasing their freedom from two
sources, viz.: the colonial governments that held them before they
were transferred to individual owners, and the individual masters
themselves. In Plymouth, March 5, 1668, it was ordered that a certain
Indian held at Boston “for matter of fact”, since there was “a
probability of a tender of some land for his ransom from being sent
to Barbadoes”, should be freed from such slavery on the tender of the
land in question.[1069] A similar instance occurred in Connecticut. One
of the earliest land grants of that colony was conveyed to its owner
by the Indian chief, Uncas, in 1678, in exchange for Betty, an Indian
woman taken captive in King Philip’s War.[1070] Experience Mayhew
relates the instance of an Indian slave who, after his master’s death,
purchased his freedom from his mistress on easy terms, “his master
having never designed to keep him a slave all his days”.[1071] Another
instance, in 1709, shows an Indian slave woman sold to a free Indian to
become his wife, in return for certain land.[1072]
By South Carolina law, an Indian slave was given a chance to prove his
right to freedom. According to the act of 1712, any negro, mulatto,
mustee or Indian slave, claiming freedom for certain reasons specified
in the act, had the right to have his case heard and determined by
governor and council.[1073] The act was repeated in 1722.[1074] By the
terms of the acts of 1735[1075] and 1740,[1076] any slave might apply
to the justices of the Court of Common Pleas by petition or motion. The
court would then appoint a guardian for “said negro or Indian, mulatto
or mestizo”; and, after hearing evidence, would render decision. The
alleged owner might defend himself, and if the plaintiff were declared
free, the jury might award damages to the defendant. If the defendant
should win the case, the court might inflict such corporal punishment
on the plaintiff as it should see fit, not extending to danger to
life or limb. The burden of proof was to lie with the plaintiff, and
any such negro, Indian, etc., was to be considered a slave until the
contrary was proved. Other courts of the province besides the one
mentioned, were to have similar jurisdiction in the matter.
Certain of the colonies specified how slaves might be emancipated. In
1723, Virginia declared that no negro, mulatto or Indian slave was to
be set free upon any pretense whatever except for some meritorious
service, to be adjudged and allowed by the governor and council for the
time being, and a license therefor first obtained. If any slave should
be set free by his owner in any other way, it was declared lawful for
the churchwardens of the parish wherein such slave should reside for
the space of one month following his being freed, to take up and sell
the said negro, mulatto or Indian as a slave at the next court held for
the county.[1077] North Carolina, similarly, in 1741, provided that no
slave was to be freed except for meritorious service, to be adjudged
and allowed by license of the county court. If any owner should free
his slave in any other way, the church wardens of the parish wherein
such “negro, mulatto or Indian” should be found at the expiration of
six months after the manumission, were authorized and required to sell
the said negro, mulatto or Indian as a slave at the next session of the
county court.[1078]
The colonial governments themselves granted freedom to Indian slaves
on special occasions. By an act passed in 1660, Virginia provided that
an Indian sold by another Indian, or an Indian who spoke the English
language and who might desire baptism, should be given his or her
freedom.[1079] In 1675, also, the Massachusetts general court freed the
sister of an Indian whose friendship it wished to assure. The alleged
owner of the slave being able to prove his title, the court ordered
that £5 be paid for the slave’s liberty.[1080]
At the time of King Philip’s War the general courts of Massachusetts
Bay and Plymouth reserved the privilege, not only of disposing of
captives as slaves, but also of taking these slaves away from their
owners and giving them their liberty if such action seemed advisable.
In March, 1679, the Massachusetts general court made reparation in
money to the master of an Indian slave, when for some reason the
court freed the slave.[1081] The Plymouth general court, June 3,
1679, ordered the release of a certain Indian woman and her husband
upon the payment by the woman’s brothers of £6 in New England silver
money.[1082] The same order provided in the case of a “younger Indian”
that he should remain with his master until twenty-four years old,
and then be given his freedom.[1083] Like action was taken in 1714
when the owner of an Indian slave petitioned the Massachusetts
general court for the payment of £25, “the prime cost which he paid
for an Indian boy lately called out of his hands to be returned to
the Indians at the time of the late pacification, besides charges in
keeping and clothing of him and for doctors”.[1084] Just prior to
Church’s expedition in King Philip’s War, furthermore, as a military
measure to prevent conspiracy among the Indians in the colony and their
union with the warring tribes, Massachusetts decreed that any Indian
servant discovering any dangerous plot or conspiracy of Indians should
be emancipated, and his master be paid out of the public treasury a
reasonable price for his services.[1085]
Some of the colonies considered it advisable to make regulations
regarding the Indians after emancipation. A Virginia act of 1670
specified that former Indian slaves “though baptized and enjoined their
own freedom” could not purchase Christian white servants. The law did
not debar them, however, from buying any of their own race.[1086]
Both New York by the act of 1712,[1087] and New Jersey by the act of
1713,[1088] decreed that no freed Indian could hold any real estate
property in the colony concerned. South Carolina and North Carolina,
also, regarded the presence of manumitted Indians in the colony as
undesirable. The possibility that freedmen of this sort might stir up
disturbance among their fellows who remained in slavery was too great
a risk. A South Carolina act of 1722 decreed that, if owners freed any
slave, they must make provision for his passage out of the province.
Such freedman, if he did not leave the province within twelve months
after his manumission (being at liberty to do so) would lose the
benefit of his emancipation, and continue to be a slave, unless the
manumission were confirmed by both houses of the legislature.[1089] A
further act of 1735 required that the slave when manumitted should quit
the province within the period of six months following his manumission,
and not return within seven years.[1090] The North Carolina act of 1741
specified that, if any freedman did not depart from the province within
six months following his manumission, or should thereafter return to
the province, the church wardens of the parish where he might be at the
end of one month after his return, were to sell him at public auction
at the next session of the county court.[1091]
The freeing of slaves who after their manumission might possess no
means of support and in consequence become a burden upon the community,
presented a problem that often needed attention. Connecticut understood
the value of freeing worn-out slaves so as to avoid supporting them in
their time of uselessness; hence in 1702 the general court enacted that
every slave owner who freed his slave should in the years following
manumission, if the former slave came to want, meet the expense which
the local government encountered in caring for the freedman.[1092]
The act was renewed by the court in 1703.[1093] Another act of
practically the same tenor and including “Spanish Indians” was passed
in 1711.[1094] An act of 1777, also, relieved the former owner of a
freedman from any obligation to contribute to his support if the act
of manumission had been sanctioned in due form by the selectmen of the
former owner’s town.[1095]
A New York law of 1712, on the other hand, provided that any one
manumitting “any negro, Indian or mulatto slave” should give security
of not less than £200 to pay yearly to such freed slave the sum of
£20 lawful money of the colony. If the slave were freed by will
and testament, the executors of the deceased person were required
to give the same security after probate. If such security were not
given, the manumission should be void.[1096] Since the law proved to
be unsatisfactory, in 1717 it was amended so as to provide that any
master or other person manumitting an Indian or negro slave should give
security at the General Sessions of the Peace for city and county where
such freed Indian or negro should reside, to keep such freedman from
becoming a charge on the city, town or place.[1097]
New Jersey, too, in 1713, passed an act declaring that no negro or
mulatto slave could be manumitted unless the slave’s master gave surety
to pay such freed slave £20 yearly.[1098] This is the only section
of the act which did not include Indian slaves in its provisions.
Evidently the omission was unsatisfactory, for a later act, November
16, 1769, repealed the section and provided that, if any owner should
by will or otherwise free “any negro, Indian or mulatto slave”, then
such owner, his heirs or executors, at the next session of the Court of
General Quarter Sessions of the Peace in the county where such owner
resided, must give a bond of £200, so as to indemnify the community if
such freedman became a pauper.[1099]
CHAPTER XII
+The Decline of Indian Slavery+
The small number of the Indians within the territory actually occupied
by the English had its influence upon both the extent and the decline
of Indian slavery. The Indians were never as numerous in the English
territory as in that occupied or claimed by the Spanish and French.
From many estimates made of the Indian population in the section under
English rule,[1100] it would seem that the supply was sufficient to
nourish the system of Indian slavery indefinitely: but it must be noted
that the greater portion of this Indian population was made up of
tribes generally remote from the English settlements.
The consensus of opinion to-day is that the number of Indians in
New England about the year 1600 was not greater than twenty-four or
twenty-five thousand. This number was so much reduced by the plague of
1616,[1101] that Palfrey states that the English found practically a
vacant domain.[1102] In the Florida country many small tribes were so
thoroughly exterminated before the coming of the whites that no trace
of their existence remained except a few local names.[1103] In the
interior of the continent before the French or the English had obtained
a foothold, the whole country during the seventeenth century was the
seat of intertribal wars so disastrous in their results as to destroy
many large and powerful tribes.[1104]
With the coming of the white races the decrease in the number of the
Indians went on rapidly. Estimates show such to have been the case with
the Indians of the North Atlantic coast during the first quarter of
the eighteenth century.[1105] Bradford[1106] and Winthrop[1107] bear
witness to the small number of the natives, and to the further decrease
of that number after the coming of the whites. An early writer on New
York declares: “There is now (1670) but few Indians upon the island and
those few no ways hurtful. It is to be admired how strangely they have
decreased by the hand of God, since the English first settling in these
parts.”[1108] Oldmixon gives the number of Indian men in New York in
1708 as one thousand, “whereas there are seven or eight times as many
English.”[1109] According to the same authority, the number of Indians
in New Jersey at the opening of the eighteenth century did not exceed
two hundred.[1110]
A decreased birth-rate was not the least important cause of this
decrease in numbers throughout all the tribes. Following the advent of
the whites in the new world, “sterility became the rule and not the
exception”, where before the Indians were very prolific.[1111] The
natives, bond or free, seemed to possess a peculiar susceptibility
to the diseases of the whites, and a lack of ability to withstand
their effects. The Indians of the Delaware River country complained
that during the sixteen years after the coming of the Swedes, their
number had been much diminished, presumably by small-pox.[1112] In
both North and South Carolina, the Indians were much afflicted by
this same disease in early colonial days, one tribe being entirely
swept away,[1113] another nearly exhausted,[1114] and still others
much reduced in numbers.[1115] Owing to diseases and other causes the
several tribes in Carolina at the opening of the eighteenth century
were small, most of them not numbering more than fifty men each.[1116]
Douglass recorded that the Spanish Indians captured at St. Augustine
and brought to New England, soon died of consumption.[1117]
Dean Berkeley who repeatedly visited Narragansett to examine the
conditions and character of the Indians of that locality, in his sermon
before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts
at its anniversary in 1731, bears witness to such destruction in the
following statement: “The native Indians, who are said to have been
thousands within the compass of this colony, do not at present amount
to a thousand, including every age and sect; ... the English [having]
contributed more to destroy their bodies by the use of strong liquors,
than by any means to improve their minds or save their souls. This slow
poison, jointly operating with the small-pox, and their wars, (but much
more destructive than both), has consumed the Indians, not only in our
colonies, but also far and wide upon our confines.”[1118]
Intestine wars, often, as has been seen, fostered by the whites,
resulted in great loss of numbers to the Indians, and sometimes even
destroyed whole tribes. In consequence of a war between the Yoamaco
Indians of Maryland and the Susquehanna, the former disappeared.[1119]
In Virginia, between 1609 and 1669, spirituous liquors, the small-pox,
war and a diminution of territory reduced the tribes to one-third of
their original number.[1120] During the next twenty years they had
become so much weakened that three of their principal tribes were able
to send to a great Indian congress only four representatives, including
attendants. By the end of the next century all had perished, except
three or four of one tribe, ten or twelve of another, and a few women
only of a third.[1121]
By 1780 all the Indian nations of the territory settled by the
English in the south were either extinct or had retreated westward
and had united with the neighboring Cherokee and Creeks. At this
time the Catawba were so reduced that they possessed but seventy or
eighty men.[1122] The Westo and Savannah were likewise reduced from
many thousands to small numbers,[1123] and the Corannine tribe was
practically destroyed.[1124]
Another cause which contributed in a measure to the passing of Indian
slavery was the amalgamation of the red and black slaves. Since
intercourse and marriage of slaves were not generally interfered with
by the whites, it was natural that the slaves of the red and black
races should intermingle. Since, also, the Indians were generally
in the minority, as well as inferior in power of resistance, their
physical characteristics gradually disappeared, while those of the
negro remained.
By his very constitution, furthermore, the Indian seemed unfitted for
servitude. He was highly susceptible to climatic changes, and unable to
endure sustained labor. In his native condition he was accustomed at
times to great tests of physical endurance, which, however, alternated
with periods of rest and recuperation. Though authorities may differ
as to the capacity of the Indian for civilization, the fact remains
that civilization has only to a very small extent been assimilated
by the red man. Taking into due consideration the treatment accorded
him by the whites, the conclusion seems warranted that such lack of
assimilation is due in some measure to the inability of the Indian to
develop beyond the stage which he had already reached when discovered
by the Europeans. Furthermore, the dominant idea of Indian life was the
love of liberty. Heredity and environment coöperated to make the Indian
a creature opposed to all restraint when exercised by an exterior
force.[1125]
The general conclusion, therefore, so far as it can be determined by
individual testimony, colonial legislative action and the comparative
values of Indian and negro slaves, is that Indian slave labor within
the territory under discussion was not, as a rule, satisfactory. Mason
records that the captives distributed among the colonists as slaves
at the close of the Pequot War “could not endure that yoke; few of
them continuing any considerable time with their masters”.[1126]
Mayhew tells in 1690 of the tendency to run away shown by the Indian
slaves of Massachusetts.[1127] Moses Marcy of Oxford, Massachusetts,
had an Indian woman sold him by the general court prior to 1747. In
that year he was discharged from his bond, she having “made way with
herself after having tried to murder her mistress ... run off and not
heard from since”.[1128] It is stated that the Indian female slaves
of New England could not be taught to sew, to wash clothes, or to
render any valuable domestic service;[1129] and that the Indian slaves
of Rhode Island “only became efficient workmen under a stern and
vigorous discipline”.[1130] Sir Robert Mountgomry, who advocated in
1717 the establishment of a colony south of Carolina, urged the use of
indentured white servants, so that there might be “no necessity to use
the dangerous help of Blackamoors or Indians”.[1131]
The various laws, already discussed in another connection, and the
numerous newspaper advertisements show Indian slaves to have been as
much given to running away as their negro companions. In fact it seems
not unlikely that they were more inclined toward trying to escape, for
the possible chance of returning to their own people offered greater
inducements for such an act than in the case of negroes.
Indian slaves as well as negroes were implicated in the various
slave disturbances which occurred from time to time in the different
colonies. Though there seems no evidence that Indians were usually more
instrumental than negroes in creating these disturbances, yet their not
infrequent participation in such events tended to lower the colonists’
estimate of their value, and led to definite legislation seeking, by
preventive measures and by decreeing severe punishments in case of
conspiracies or uprisings, to avoid the danger which the colonists
feared.
Legislation regarding slave conspiracies and uprisings was general
throughout the English colonies from an early date. In some of
these acts Indian slaves were expressly mentioned. In others they
were included by implication in the general term “slaves” or in the
expression “negroes and other slaves”. Reference will be made to only
those acts which include Indian slaves by express mention. A South
Carolina act of 1690 related to Indian and negro slaves striking a
white person.[1132] The Spanish Indians were evidently considered
especially undesirable, for an act passed in 1722 stated that “the
importation of Spanish Indians, mustees, negroes and mulattoes may be
of dangerous consequence....”[1133] In 1703, Massachusetts passed “an
act to prevent disorder in the night”. The preamble reads: “whereas
great disorders, insolences and burglaries are oftimes raised and
committed in the night time by Indian, negro and mulatto servants
and slaves....”[1134] As late as 1769 Connecticut passed an act
relating to any disturbance created by “any Indian, negro, or mulatto
slave.”[1135] The murder by an Indian man slave and a negro woman of
an entire white family in Queens County, New York, led to the passage
of an act, October 30, 1708, to prevent the conspiracy of Indian and
negro slaves.[1136] A Philadelphia ordinance, also, of July 3, 1738,
dealt with “the tumultuous meetings and other disorderly doings of
the negroes, mulattoes and Indian servants and slaves within the
city”.[1137]
A second class of colonial laws related to Indian slaves alone and
show that in certain of the colonies the inhabitants, for definite
reasons, feared the presence of too many Indian slaves among them.
Such were the laws passed by the northern colonies at the time of
the Tuscarora War, by which they sought by means of heavy duties to
prevent the importation of such dangerous slaves.[1138] The preamble
of the Massachusetts act of 1713, for example, reads: “Whereas divers
conspiracies, outrages, barbarities, murders, burglaries, thefts and
other notorious crimes and enormities, at sundry times, and especially
of late, have been perpetuated and committed by Indian and other slaves
within several of her majestie’s plantations in America, being of a
malicious, surley and revengeful spirit, rude and insolent in their
behaviour, and very ungovernable, the over-great number and increase
whereof within this province is likely to prove of pernicious and
fatal consequences to her majestie’s subjects and interest here unless
speedily remedied, and is a discouragement to the importation of white
Christian servants, this province being differently circumstanced from
the plantations in the islands, and having great numbers of the Indian
natives of the country within and about them, and at this time under
the sorrowful effects of their rebellion and hostilities....”[1139] The
Connecticut act passed in August, 1715, likewise for the purpose of
checking the importation of Indians into the colony, is a transcript
of the Massachusetts act and shows that the colonists considered a
large Indian slave element in the population to be quite as undesirable
as did the people of Massachusetts.[1140] The New Hampshire act of
1714 cited as a reason for checking the importation of Indians: “the
over-great number and increase of such slaves within the province is
likely to prove of fatal and pernicious consequences to her majesty’s
subjects and interests here unless speedily remedied”.[1141] The
Rhode Island act of July 5, 1715, similarly was passed to prevent
the importation of Indian slaves, because “divers conspiracies,
insurrections, rapes, thefts, and other execrable crimes have been
lately perpetrated in this and the adjoining colonies by Indian slaves,
etc.”[1142]
Again, it seems not unlikely that the use of hired Indian servants may
have had something to do with the passing of Indian slavery, though
the influence was probably slight. Very early in the history of the
northern colonies, Indians were employed for wages. The need for
laborers could thus be partly met at very little cost. A Frenchman
residing in Boston in 1687, records the wages of such servants who
worked in the fields as “a shilling and a half a day and board which is
eighteen pence”.[1143]
The number of such Indians employed was generally small. As a hired
laborer the Indian was no more reliable or trustworthy than as a
slave. The keeping of Indians in the colonists’ families was always
considered to be more or less dangerous. Massachusetts, in 1631,[1144]
and Virginia, in 1661,[1145] required that all persons should get
special licenses before employing Indians. In 1634, Winthrop and his
son did so. Winthrop himself speaks of the “Indians which are in
our families”,[1146] and mention of his Indian servant is found in
other connections.[1147] As the colony grew stronger and the fear of
the Indians passed away, other leading men of Massachusetts, such as
Thomas Morton,[1148] the Reverend Mr. Pariss,[1149] Isaac Addington,
secretary of the Council of Safety in 1714,[1150] and John Eliot[1151]
employed such servants. The law was repealed in 1646, “there being
more use of encouragement thereto than otherwise.”[1152] That a
similar employment of Indians existed in Plymouth is seen by the
act of 1651 which shows the danger to the colony in providing such
servants with firearms.[1153] The Praying Indians hired themselves
to the whites.[1154] The New England whale fisheries employed hired
Indians, at least from 1670 to 1680.[1155] During the publication of
the New Testament in Massachusetts in 1661, and the translation of
the New and Old Testaments and the Psalms into the Indian language by
John Eliot in 1663, Green, the printer, was assisted in his work by
an Indian apprentice.[1156] In Little Compton, Massachusetts, hired
Indians were largely engaged in building stone fences.[1157] In 1659
and 1660, the people of Connecticut were employing the Mohegan Indians
in agricultural labor,[1158] and the use of hired Indians is reported
in the colony in 1774.[1159] By 1731 most of the Indians remaining
in Narragansett were servants in families.[1160] The records also of
Southampton, New York, show the employment of Indians for hire.[1161]
It was a part of the Puritan missionary scheme to win the heathen to
Christianity by employing them in their homes where they might be
brought into contact with the workings of the Christian religion. In
this manner they hoped to bring the savages to a state preparatory
to conversion.[1162] Something of the same purpose was intended by
the early Virginia colonists. Hence, in 1619, their first legislative
assembly ordered that every plantation should procure Indian youths
by just means for this purpose.[1163] In 1774, the governor of
Connecticut, in reply to various inquiries made by the home government
regarding conditions in the colony, stated that there were then
1,363 Indians in the colony, and that many of them dwelt in English
families.[1164] A similar statement was made in 1731 by Dean Berkeley
to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. He
declared that nearly all the native Indians of Rhode Island were at
that time servants or laborers for the English.[1165]
Some of the earliest of the indentured servants used in America,
moreover, were Indians. Reference has already been made to the
Massachusetts law of 1700 seeking to avoid the abuse of the custom.
In 1674, Plymouth passed a law providing that both Indians who lived
idly and those who did not pay their debts on conviction could be
handed over to those to whom they were indebted or to others as bond
servants.[1166] The Southold town records mention Indian apprentices
in 1678.[1167] Indentured male and female Indians existed in Salem
in 1685.[1168] Similar records of Indian apprentices and indentured
servants exist for Rhode Island,[1169] Connecticut,[1170] New
Jersey[1171] and New York.[1172] As a rule these bond servants were
young, for they were then more easily trained and were more tractable
and useful. In Virginia, in every agreement between Indian parents and
whites, a covenant had to be entered into providing that the child be
instructed in the Christian religion.[1173]
One of the most important causes for the passing of Indian slavery is
found in the introduction of indentured white servants. Almost from the
time of the earliest settlements these servants were an institution in
the English colonies. Some of them were persons who entered voluntarily
into temporary bond service to pay for passage to the new world.[1174]
Some were prisoners of war.[1175] Others were convicts sent into
exile for punishment.[1176] These white servants were so much desired
by the colonists that requests were not infrequently sent to England
for them.[1177] To encourage their voluntary coming, the colonial
authorities sometimes offered them special inducements.[1178]
The number of such servants in the different colonies varied according
to conditions in America and England. Naturally their number was
greatest where their work was most needed.[1179] Whatever their
condition before coming to America and whatever the reason for their
coming,[1180] their productivity of labor, native intelligence and
acquaintance with the customs and observances of civilization made
them more desirable than Indian servants. There were forces, also,
urging them to go to America, and forces in America drawing them
there. So, until the development of the traffic in negroes, and their
consequent greater use, the indentured white servants were for a while
perhaps the leading factor in the decline of Indian slavery.
Another element that contributed greatly to the decline of Indian
slavery was that furnished by negro slaves. The rapidly increasing
number of negroes in each individual colony attested both the energy of
trading companies and the desire of the colonies for the negro type of
slave labor. Both indentured white servants and negro slaves, in fact,
far outnumbered the Indian slaves. The sources from which the white
servants and the negro slaves were drawn were well nigh inexhaustible,
whereas the sources of Indian slavery were limited. From these limited
sources, also, the colonists drew but in a small degree. White servants
and negro slaves were obtained by peaceful means, but the acquisition
of Indian slaves not infrequently meant danger to the colony. Behind
the indentured white servants and the negroes there were powerful
forces supplying them to the colonists in some cases even faster than
they needed them. Both indentured white servants and negroes proved
more easily fitted to the life and work required of them by their
masters, their labor was more productive and they were more easily
controlled.
Some idea of the relative values attached to Indian and negro slaves
may be obtained by a comparison of the prices for which they were
sold. In Massachusetts, for instance, record exists of the sale of
an Indian man slave in Newbury, in 1649, for “the quarter part of a
vessel”.[1181] Sewall records that on July 1, 1676, nine Indians were
sold for £30.[1182] An inventory of 1690, on the other hand, appraised
a single negro at £30.[1183] In the inventory of an estate in Ipswich,
in 1683, “Lawrence ye Indian” was valued at £4.[1184] In the same
town £5 was paid for an Indian boy and girl.[1185] The Reverend Mr.
Thacher of Milton, in 1674, paid £5 down and £5 more at the end of the
year for an Indian woman slave.[1186] An Indian girl brought £15 at
Salem in 1710;[1187] whereas in the case of a cargo of negroes brought
into Boston in 1727, as high as £80 was paid per head.[1188] In the
settlement of an estate in Newbury, an Indian slave was valued at an
early date at £20.[1189] In 1708, a South Carolina Indian boy was sold
for £35.[1190] In 1713, a Spanish Indian boy was sold in the same town
for £38.[1191] In 1725, a negro was sold in Newbury for £100, and three
other negroes were valued at £132 6s. 8d. in colonial currency.[1192]
In 1708, an Indian was sold at Salem for £32.[1193] An Indian girl was
sold in the same town in 1710 for £15.[1194] A negro was appraised in
the same town at £40.[1195] In 1764, a negro woman was sold for £8
13s. 4d.[1196] In Byfield a negro was listed in the inventory of an
estate in 1689 at £60.[1197] A negro given to Cotton Mather in 1706 was
purchased at an expense of £40 or £50.[1198] An Indian boy was valued
in Boston in 1721 at £20, and an Indian girl at £10.[1199]
In Rhode Island the prices of Indian slaves were lower than those
already mentioned, for here the Indians were sold into slavery for
limited periods only. The average price at which Indians “great and
small” were sold in the colony, was about thirty-two shillings. Some
of the lot brought into Rhode Island at the close of King Philip’s
War sold for twelve bushels of Indian corn, some for £2 10s. in
silver, some for 100 pounds of wool, one for three fat sheep, two for
twenty-two bushels of Indian corn.[1200] One sold in 1677 at Portsmouth
for £4 10s.[1201] Indian slaves appear among other effects in the
probate inventories. They were appraised at £8 and £10 each, while
negroes were valued at from £60 to £80,[1202] with an average price of
£50 for an able negro man and £40 for a woman.[1203] That is, a negro
laborer was reckoned as the equivalent of five or six Indians.[1204]
In 1718, three Indian children were worth £23.[1205] An inventory in
1723 valued the two years and ten months’ service of an Indian girl at
£5.[1206]
The inventory of the estate of Gabriel Harris who died in 1684 in New
London, Connecticut, contained the item: “An Indian maid servant,
valued at £15.”[1207] An Indian slave of Wethersfield was appraised in
1662 at £24. A negress and child belonging to the same estate were at
the same time appraised at £22.[1208] In Derby, Connecticut, an Indian
woman, twenty-six years old, sold in 1722 for £60.[1209]
The inventory of a New Jersey estate, in 1714, included an Indian man
valued at £11 5s.[1210] In another inventory, in 1725, an Indian woman
was valued at £30.[1211] In 1711, an Indian woman and two children were
valued at £100.[1212] Similar inventories valued an Indian girl in 1696
at £30;[1213] an Indian woman in 1724 at £30;[1214] an Indian boy in
1711 at £40;[1215] ... two Indian slaves in 1726 at £80; and two Indian
slaves in 1730 at £50.[1216]
The account book of the executor of Thomas Smallcomb of York County,
Virginia, 1646, contains the following items:[1217] “By two Indians
sold by Sir William Berkeley, 600 lbs. By two Indians sold by Sir
John Hammon, 500 lbs. By two Indians sold by Captain Thomas Petters,
600 lbs.” In the records of Surrey County, 1659, occurs the following
deed: “Know all men by these presents, that I, King of Waineoakes, do
firmly bargaine and make sale unto Eliz. Short, her heires, executors
or Assignes a boy of my nacon, named Weetoppen, from the day and date
herself untill the full terme of his life, in consideracon whereof I,
the said Elizabeth Short, doth for myself, my heires, executors or
Assignes ingage to deliver and make sale unto the above said kinge a
younge horse foale, aged one yeare, in full satisfacon for above said
boy to enjoy for her pper use forever. In witness thereof, wee ye above
specified, have set our hands”.[1218]
The inventory of a North Carolina estate in 1693 valued a negro and his
wife at £40, an Indian woman and her child at £15, and an Indian boy
at £12.[1219] A bill of sale, March 5, 1711, shows an Indian between
twenty and thirty-five years of age sold for £14.[1220] In 1713, the
council of North Carolina decreed that “King Blount” might have eight
Indians to ship to the West Indies at £10 per head.[1221] The average
price for the Indian captives taken in the Tuscarora War and sold as
slaves to the islands and the northern colonies appears to have been
about £10 each.[1222]
A South Carolina law of 1719 states that an Indian slave was of much
less value than a negro.[1223] The English of South Carolina, according
to the French, were accustomed to pay (1714) the Indians fifteen
pistoles for an Indian slave, while the French were able to purchase
them for 115 livres.[1224] The English sold these slaves ordinarily for
300 or 400 livres.[1225]
A comparison of these prices paid for Indian slaves shows much
variation at different times and places. In New England after the
Indian wars the prices were low, for the chief object of the government
was to get rid of the captives. In localities where the Indian’s labor
was in greater demand the prices rose and appear to have been highest
among the English of the southern colonies. When compared with sums
paid for negroes at the same time and place, the prices of Indian
slaves are found to have been considerably lower. In general the prices
of slaves increased during the years preceding the Revolution, but the
values of Indian slaves did not equal those of negro slaves.
During the existence of Indian slavery, furthermore, there was never
any general expression of opinion regarding it either in England[1226]
or America, nor are there many records of opinions expressed during
the colonial period as to the right or wrong of enslaving the natives.
The English colonists followed the Spanish custom of reducing the
Indians to a condition of slavery, but neither the English colonists
nor the English government heeded the example of the later policy of
the Spanish government in looking upon Indian slavery as unjust and
declaring it illegal.
That personal opinions favorable or unfavorable to the enslavement of
Indians were not more generally expressed is not altogether strange.
The enslavement was not premeditated nor did it spring into sudden
existence throughout the English colonies, but began here and there in
various colonies at various times and for various reasons. The custom
of enslavement came from the necessity of disposing of war captives,
from the greed of traders and from the demand for labor. Individuals
in the colonies, such as officials of high rank and church leaders,
who would naturally be expected to express an opinion either for or
against the custom, themselves held Indian slaves quite as a matter of
course, and found no necessity for discussing their action. Nor did the
possession and employment of Indian slaves ever become sufficiently
extensive to present any of the problems which later attracted the
attention of the people and led to the opposition which overthrew
negro slavery in several of the colonies, and incidentally, Indian
slavery as well.
Yet throughout the history of Indian slavery certain expressions of
opposition to the system, usually mild in nature, occurred from time
to time. In the English colonies there was never any such earnest
opponent to Indian slavery as the Spaniard, Las Casas, who argued
directly against the enslavement of Indians from the standpoint of the
injustice of reducing the natives to such a condition. Most of the
opposition expressed in the English colonies was aimed at some specific
instance of harsh treatment or cruel punishment of which enslavement
was an incident; or it arose during the later colonial period as a part
of the antagonism to slavery in general; or, as was the case in South
Carolina, it revealed the attitude of one faction of the government
toward the actions of another faction, and was not at all concerned in
abolishing the practice of enslaving Indians as such.
The system adopted by Rhode Island at the time of King Philip’s War
of using the captive Indians as involuntary indentured servants for
short periods of years, was anticipated by the query expressed by Roger
Williams in his letter to Governor Winthrop, September 18, 1637, as
to whether the captive Indians whose lives were spared should not be
retained in involuntary servitude for short periods of time and then
be released.[1227] This spirit of opposition to the enslavement of
Indian captives for life, shown by Rhode Island during both the Pequot
and King Philip wars, was somewhat out of harmony with the spirit of
the times. But it should be noted that this opposition was not the
expression of the entire colony. During the Pequot War it represented
the feeling of the “Liberal Party” against the enslavement of the
captive Indians, and during King Philip’s War it resulted from the
dominating influence of the Quaker element in the government.
The opposition of John Eliot to the enslavement of Indians during King
Philip’s War was similar to that shown by Roger Williams during the
Pequot War, though perhaps it was prompted by a more nearly unselfish
and humanitarian motive. Throughout the war Eliot remonstrated strongly
against selling the captive Indians into slavery. In a letter, June
13, 1675, to the governor and council at Boston, he stated his reasons
for opposing the enslavement of the captives. He first urged a politic
reason: that such enslavement was likely to prolong the war and bring
still further disaster upon the land by rousing the Indians to renewed
hostilities. He then emphasized the Christian attitude of mercy by
asserting that it is the design of Christ “not to extirpate nations but
to Gospelize them”. “To sell souls for money,” he continued, “seems to
me a dangerous merchandise. To sell them away from all means of grace,
when Christ has provided means of grace for them, is the way for us
to be active in the destroying of their souls.” His plea for mercy
was strengthened, also, by calling attention to the letters patent
of the king which urged the Indians’ conversion rather than their
destruction.[1228]
Some faint opposition to the enslavement of Indians was expressed by
Samuel Sewall of Massachusetts in 1706, called forth by an act passed
by Massachusetts against Indians and negroes. Perhaps something was
accomplished by the protest, though the act either failed to pass or
was repealed, since no trace of it remains.[1229]
In 1729, Ralph Sandiford published a work entitled: “The Mystery of
Iniquity in a Brief Examination of the Practice of the Times.” In the
dedication of his book, he speaks of going to South Carolina, and of
refusing the bounty of a rich colonist there because his riches had
been obtained through the labor of negro and Indian slaves. He declares
that negroes and Indians who are the Lord’s freemen cannot be slaves to
Christians.[1230] He further asserts that the matter he is aiming at is
“this trading in mankind, which is pernicious to the Publick, but more
especially to the common-wealth of Israel; which raised forth a zeal
in Men for the House of the Lord, which would have even consumed men
had not I witnessed against this rottenness and hypocrisy that would
introduce itself amongst the saints, whereby, as way-marks, they lead
many into the same corrupt practice which is contrary to the Principal
of Truth, which is over the Heads of such Transgressors, that the
Righteous in all Churches are undefiled with it, for their Bodies are
the Temples of the Holy Ghost to dwell in, which they cannot defile
with Babylon, who is Harloted from the Truth to feed upon the Flesh or
receive nourishment from the blood of the poor Negro or Indian captive,
or whomsoever ravenous Nature (which is the Beast’s work) has power to
prey upon”.[1231]
Granville Sharp, in 1767, published in London a protest against
slavery, in which he declared there could be no reasonable pretense
for holding either negroes or Indians in slavery. In discussing the
bringing about of a state of slavery through contract he declared that
“in such a case there would still remain a great suspicion that some
undue advantage had been taken of the Indians’ ignorance concerning the
nature of such a bond.” Slavery he declared a “shameless prostitution
and infringement on the common and natural rights of mankind.” Every
inhabitant of the king’s realm, regardless of color, he declared to be
the king’s subject, and asserted that no one, therefore, had a moral or
legal right to enslave any such subject.[1232] If color were a basis
for slavery, he argued, then in a short time any Englishman might be
enslaved since there was but little difference between the complexion
of a northern Indian and a white man.[1233]
Anthony Benezet, about 1750, began to express his opposition to slavery
in the almanacs and newspapers of the day. After three separate
publications dealing with slavery in general, he issued in 1784 a book
entitled “Some Observations on the Situation, Disposition and Character
of the Indian Natives of this Continent.” In this he refers to the
kindness, hospitality and generosity of the Indians toward the English
in the early days of trade, and laments the fact that “the adventurers
from a thirst of gain overreached the natives”, so that the latter “saw
some of their friends and relatives treacherously entrapped and carried
away to be sold as slaves”.[1234]
Throughout the colonial period the Society of Friends showed more or
less opposition to slavery, although the members of the Society held
slaves. From 1688 a certain amount of agitation concerning the matter
is apparent in the records of the various quarterly and yearly meetings
in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys. In the records of the Philadelphia
Yearly Meeting for the year 1719, is found the first mention of Indian
slaves made in the minutes of the Yearly Meeting. In that year, after
an earnest admonition to Friends to refrain from selling, trading or
exchanging in any way any spirituous liquors with the Indians, the
Yearly Meeting voted: “And to avoid giving them occasion of discontent,
it is desired, that Friends do not buy or sell Indian slaves.”[1235]
From the wording of the record it may be concluded that the basis for
the Friends’ action was not the idea of any moral wrongdoing attached
to the enslavement of Indians, but rather the possible harm that might
come to the colony through the discontent which enslavement might
cause among the free Indians. And, judging from the previous action
of the Society taken with regard to slavery, it may also be concluded
that this basis for the opposition to the trade in Indian slaves was
used as a means of calling the immediate attention of its members to
the matter, and that the reason for the opposition of the Meeting to
trading in Indians was the same as that to negro slavery: “caution not
censure”.[1236]
Some criticism was expressed in Massachusetts at the seizure of the
Indians at Cocheco in 1676, and the subsequent transportation of
part of the number captured by order of the government.[1237] Such
criticism, however, was not aimed at the action of the government in
selling the Indians as slaves, but at the breach of faith in seizing
Indians at peace.
In South Carolina, as already observed,[1238] the proprietors
sanctioned enslavement of Indians when carried on for their own
financial benefit, and opposed it when carried on by the colonial
authorities. The colonial officials favored the practice and carried
it on both as a means of meeting colonial expenses and as a source of
personal income. In this respect the action of the existing colonial
government of South Carolina differs materially from that of the
officials of any other colony. Nowhere else was the desire for personal
gain a controlling cause for the disposal of captives taken in war and
hence colonial property.
In contrast to these incidental expressions of personal opposition to
the enslavement of Indians, stands the ownership and employment of them
by leading colonists.[1239] The New Englanders not only bought Indians
at the time of the Indian wars, but also sent requests to the colonial
officials for them. Captain Stoughton wrote to Governor Winthrop from
the scene of the Swamp Fight: “By this pinnace, you shall receive 48
or 50 women and children, unless there stay any here to be helpful,
concerning which there is one, I formerly mentioned, that is the
_fairest_ and _largest_ amongst them to whom I have given a coate to
cloathe her. It is my desire to have her for a servant, if it may stand
to your good liking, else not. There is a little squaw that steward
Culacut desireth, to whom he hath given a coate. Lieut. Davenport also
desireth one, to wit, a small one, that has three strokes upon her
stomach.... He desireth her, if it will stand with your good liking.
Sosomon, the Indian, desireth a young little squaw, which I know
not.”[1240] The Reverend Hugh Peter also wrote to Governor Winthrop in
1637: “Mr. Endecot and my selfe salute you in the Lord Jesus, etc. Wee
haue heard of a diuidence of women and children in the bay and would
bee glad of a share viz: a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke
good: I wrote to you for some boyes for Bermudas, which I thinke is
considerable.”[1241] In July, 1637, Roger Williams petitioned Governor
Winthrop for an Indian as follows: “It having againe pleased the Most
High to put into your hands another miserable droue of Adams degenerate
seede, & our brethren by nature, I am bold (if I may not offend in
it) to request the keeping & bringing vp of one of the children. I
haue fixed mine eye on this litle one with the red about his neck, but
I will not be peremptory in my choice, but will rest in your loving
pleasure for him or any, &c.”[1242] The barrister, Emanuel Downing,
writing to John Winthrop in 1645, clearly illustrates the view of his
day. He says: “A warr with the Narraganset is verie considerable to
this plantation, ffor I doubt whither yt be not synne in vs, hauing
power in our hands, to suffer them to maynteyne the worship of the
devill which their paw wawes often doe; 2lie, If vpon a Just warre the
Lord should deliuer them into our hands, wee might easily haue men
woemen and children enough to exchange for Moores, which wilbe more
gaynefull pilladge for vs then wee conceive, for I doe not see how wee
can thrive vntill wee gett into a stock of slaves sufficient to doe all
our buisines, for our children’s children will hardly see this great
Continent filled with people, soe that our servants will still desire
freedome to plant for them selues, and not stay but for verie great
wages. And I suppose you know verie well how wee shall maynteyne 20
Moores cheaper then one Englishe servant.”[1243]
In only a few of the English-American colonies were attempts made by
legislative enactment to end Indian slavery as a system separate from
negro slavery. The reasons for this fact are obvious. In the course of
time Indian slavery became absorbed by the institution of negro slavery
to such an extent that it attracted no attention. With the various
colonial acts at the time of the Tuscarora War, which forbade the
further importation of Indians into the northern colonies, the system
was maintained only by the natural increase of the Indian slaves
already in existence. So Indian slavery existed as an unimportant
system along with and overshadowed by negro slavery until the spirit of
opposition to the institution of slavery in general grew sufficiently
strong to lead to legislation providing for the abolition of slavery in
various colonies.
The first colony to take such legislative action was Virginia, but in
this instance there is a slight possibility that the intent of the act
to be discussed was quite different from what later interpretations
have considered it to be. In 1691, “by implication rather than by
the terms of the act”, Indian slavery was rendered illegal by an act
authorizing a free and open trade for all persons, at all times and
all places, with all Indians whatsoever.[1244] It is barely possible
that the “legislature may have viewed the act as a treaty with a
nation which, _ipso facto_, was recognized as of equal status as to
freedom, while the treaty in no wise prevented subsequent enslavement
of individuals sold by the nation itself to the whites, or of hostile
captives, or of Indians not native North Americans as generally
understood”.[1245] But it is generally considered that the act was
intended, as it was later construed, to acknowledge the free condition
of all Indians. If the colonists of the time so construed it, they
intentionally disobeyed it and enslavement of Indians continued. In
1705, a similar act was passed with the same enacting clause.[1246]
Cases arising later showed a similar failure to accomplish desired
results.
In 1777, the assembly, when called to pass upon the matter, decided
that no Indians brought into Virginia since the passage of the act of
1705, or their descendants, could be slaves in the commonwealth.[1247]
At that time knowledge of the existence of the act of 1691 seems to
have disappeared.[1248] Even after the decision of the assembly in
1777, the settlement of the matter was so far uncertain as to give rise
to certain cases in law in 1792 and 1793, appealed from the County
Court to the Court of Appeals to maintain the right to the services of
the descendants of Indians enslaved after the passing of the act of
1705. In both these cases the higher court affirmed the decision of the
lower courts which granted freedom to the Indians thus held as slaves,
and which interpreted the act of 1705 as repealing all former acts
permitting the existence of Indian slavery in the colony.[1249]
In 1806, the Supreme Court of the state decided that Indians had
always been considered free persons in fact and in right, and that the
presumption was that all Indians introduced into the state at any time,
were _prima facie_ presumed to be free, or that, if the date of their
introduction did not appear, the _prima facie_ presumption was that
they were American Indians, or brought in after the act of 1705, and
therefore free.[1250] In 1808, came the judicial recognition of the
law of 1691. A Supreme Court decision of that year declared “that no
native American Indian brought into Virginia since the year 1691 could
under any circumstances lawfully be made a slave.” It was also held
by the court that if a female ancestor of a person asserting a right
to freedom, whose genealogy could be traced back to such ancestor by
females only, be proved to have been an Indian, “it seems incumbent on
those who claim such person as a slave to show that such ancestor, or
some female from which she descended, was brought into Virginia between
the years 1679 and 1691, and under circumstances which, according to
the laws then in force, created a right to hold her in slavery.”[1251]
In the case of Butt _v._ Rachel _et al._, 1814, the plaintiffs claimed
their freedom as descendants of a native female Indian who was brought
into Virginia about the year 1747. The court instructed the jury that
no native American Indian brought into Virginia since the year 1691,
could, under any circumstances, be made a slave. The defendant claimed
to hold the slaves on the ground that they were the descendants of a
native American Indian woman who was held as a slave on the island of
Jamaica, and brought to Virginia as a slave about the year 1747. The
defendant moved the court to instruct the jury that a native American
Indian held as a slave on the island of Jamaica by the laws of that
island, might be held as a slave when imported into Virginia. The court
refused so to do, and judgment was awarded the plaintiff. The case was
appealed, but the court sustained the judgment.[1252]
Considering the possibility already mentioned that the act of 1691 may
have been intended to apply only to Indians outside the colony and
that it did not apply to those in the colony, either free or enslaved,
and the fact that the later legislative action of 1777 and the cases
in law already mentioned show that the law was either misconstrued or
ignored, the acts of 1691 and 1705, so far as putting an end to Indian
slavery in Virginia in colonial times is concerned, might as well have
never existed.[1253]
At a later date, South Carolina also enacted laws which, by court
decision, were interpreted to mean the abolition of Indian slavery. The
act of 1740[1254] stated that “all negroes, Indians (free Indians in
amity with this government, and negroes, mulattoes, or mestizoes who
are now free, excepted), mulattoes, or mestizoes, who are now or who
shall hereafter be in this province, and all their issue and offspring
born, or to be born, shall be, and they are hereby declared to be
and remain forever hereafter, absolute slaves, and shall follow the
condition of the mother.” Under this provision it has been uniformly
held that color was _prima facie_ evidence that the party bearing the
color of a negro, mulatto or mestizo, was a slave; but the same _prima
facie_ result did not follow from the Indian color, according to the
decision of the courts.[1255] After the passage of the act, Indians
and descendants of Indians were regarded as free Indians in amity with
the government, until the contrary was shown. Elsewhere in the act of
1740 it is declared that “every negro, Indian, mulatto, and mestizo
is a slave unless the contrary can be made to appear”, yet in the
same act it is immediately thereafter provided—“the Indians in amity
with this government excepted, in which case the burden of the proof
shall lie on the defendant”, that is on the person claiming the Indian
plaintiff to be a slave. This latter clause of the provision grew to be
considered the rule, and so the race of slave Indians, or of Indians
not in amity with the government, passed out of existence and the
previous part of the provision lost its application.[1256]
By an act of May 18, 1652, passed by the Commissioners of Providence
Plantations and Warwick, it was provided that “no black mankind, or
white, being forced to covenant, bond or otherwise, serve any man or
his assigns longer than ten years, or until they come to be twenty-four
years of age, if they be taken under fourteen, from the time of their
coming within the limits of this colony, and at the end or term
of ten years to set them free, as the matter is with the English
servants”.[1257] The act makes no mention of Indian slaves, doubtless
because at this early date there were not enough in the colony to
arouse interest in their condition.
When at the time of King Philip’s War Indian slaves were being
transported by Massachusetts and distributed among the settlements,
Rhode Island, March, 1676, passed a law concerning them similar to the
law of 1652 relating to negroes. This act provided that “no Indian
in this colony be a slave but only to pay their debts, or for their
bringing up, or courtesy they have received, or to perform covenant, as
if they had been countrymen not in war.”[1258]
In colonial New York it was customary to discriminate between the
free natives of the colony and those brought from the Spanish West
Indies. On December 5, 1679, it was voted at a council meeting that
“all Indians here are free and not slaves, except such as have been
formerly brought from the Bay of Campeachy and other foreign parts”,
some of whom were slaves in the colony. Concerning such foreign Indians
the act provided: “But if any shall be brought hereafter within the
space of six months, they are to be disposed of as soon as may be, out
of the government, but after the expiration of six months, all that
shall be brought here from these parts shall be free”.[1259] On April
20, 1680, a decree of governor and council repeated this resolution as
a formal order.[1260] Apparently no immediate attention was given to
the enforcement of the law. Later some action regarding the matter was
taken when the council, October 11, 1687, ordered that certain Spanish
Indians brought from the Bay of Campeachy and sold as slaves in the
colony should be set free.[1261] On July 30, 1688, the council again
took up the question of foreign Indians. It was resolved “that all
Indian slaves within this province subject to the King of Spain, that
can give an account of their Christian faith and say the Lord’s Prayer,
be forthwith set at liberty, and sent home by the first conveyance, and
likewise them that shall hereafter come to the province.”[1262] On the
same day the council rejected a petition of the owner to retain in the
colony an Indian slave purchased outside the colony and brought to New
York.[1263]
The numerous petitions to the governor to free such Indians from
slavery, and his attitude in the matter, show the colonial authorities
willing to stand by their legislation on the subject. On December 28,
1700, such a petition was presented by the mayor and aldermen of New
York City to the governor, demanding the release of a free born Indian
woman, a native of Curaçao, then held as a slave in New York.[1264] On
July 15, 1703, Jacobus Kierstead, a mariner, of New York, petitioned
the governor regarding an Indian brought by him from the West Indies
and sold as a slave.[1265] Soon after Governor Hunter’s arrival in the
province a petition was handed him on behalf of a number of free-born
Spanish subjects thus held as slaves.[1266] Among the victims was one
Stephen Domingo, a native of Carthagena, who had been held as a slave
for eight years. Hunter became interested in the matter and wrote to
the Board of Trade, June 23, 1712, that there were Spanish Indians in
New York who had been unjustly kept there in slavery for many years. He
discovered that one Husea and one John, both held as slaves and both
engaged in the slave conspiracy of 1712, were brought to New York as
prisoners of war taken from a Spanish vessel by a privateer; that they
were Spanish-American Indians and subjects of the king of Spain, sold
as slaves in New York and kept in bondage six or seven years “by reason
of their color which is swarthy”. They declared they were sold among
many others of the same color and the same country. These two Indians
Governor Hunter reprieved awaiting the queen’s pleasure. The Indians
who petitioned, though he “secretly pitied their condition”, he was
unable to help as he had no other evidence than their words.[1267]
Rhode Island is the only other colony which took direct action
concerning Spanish Indians, but even Rhode Island never put forth any
general legislation on the matter. Special action was taken similar to
that in New York. In 1746, the general assembly of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations voted to send back to the West Indies certain
free subjects of the king of Spain who had been captured and sold in
the colony as slaves.[1268] These, like the others mentioned, were
captives taken in the recent war with Spain.[1269] Here, as in New
York, the point involved was one of international importance, and the
Indians concerned were considered, not as Indians but as the objects
about which the point was raised.
The other colonies of the original thirteen which finally took
legislative action to end the institution of slavery in general did not
accomplish such action during the colonial period; so the conclusion
remains that with the exception of Virginia, South Carolina, Rhode
Island and New York, none of the colonies ever declared Indian slavery
illegal.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TITLES MENTIONED IN THE TEXT
_Printed Material_
Adams, S. W. and Stiles, H. R., _The History of Ancient Wethersfield,
Connecticut_, etc. New York, 1904.
Albach, J. R., _Annals of the West_. Pittsburg, 1856.
Aler, Vernon, _History of Martinsburg and Berkeley County, West
Virginia_. Hagerstown, Md., 1888.
_American Antiquarian Society Transactions and Collections._ Worcester,
Mass., 1820–
Arber, Edward, _The First three English books on America_, etc.
Birmingham, 1885.
_Archives of Maryland._ Edited by William Hand Browne. Baltimore, 1883–
Baird, Charles W., _History of Rye, Westchester County, New York_, etc.
New York, 1871.
Baker, Henry A., _History of Montville, Connecticut_, etc. Hartford,
1896.
Ballagh, James Curtis, _A History of Slavery in Virginia._ (In Johns
Hopkins University Studies. Extra volume xxiv.) Baltimore, 1902.
Ballagh, James Curtis, _White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia_. (In
Johns Hopkins University Studies, vol. xiii). Baltimore, 1895.
Bancroft, George, _History of the United States from the Discovery of
the Continent_. 6 vols. Boston, 1878.
Bancroft, Hubert H., _History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530–1888_.
San Francisco, 1889.
Bancroft, Hubert H., _History of California_. 7 vols. San Francisco,
1884–1890.
Bartram, F. S., _Retrographs_. New York, 1888.
Bassett. John Spencer, _Slavery and Servitude in North Carolina_. (In
Johns Hopkins University Studies, vol. xiv.) Baltimore, 1896.
Baylies, Francis, _An Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth
from ... 1608 to ... 1692_. 2 vols. Boston, 1866.
Beazley, C. Raymond, _John and Sebastian Cabot_. New York, 1898.
Belknap, Jeremy, _The History of New Hampshire_. Dover, N. H., 1862.
Benezet, Anthony, _Some Observations on the Situation, Disposition and
Character of the Indian Natives of the Continent_. Philadelphia,
1784.
Best, George, _Frobisher’s First Voyage_. (In Voyages of the
Elizabethan Seamen to America, etc. E. J. Payne’s edition.) London,
1880.
Beverly, Robert, _The History of Virginia in Four Parts_. Second
edition. London, 1722.
Bliss, William Root, _Side Glimpses from the Old Meeting House_. Boston
and New York, 1894.
Bodge, George Madison, _Soldiers in King Philip’s War_. Leominster,
Mass., 1896.
Bolles, Arthur S., _Pennsylvania, Province and State_. 2 vols.
Philadelphia, 1899.
Bolton, Robert, _History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
County of Westchester, from ... 1693 to ... 1853_. New York, 1855.
Bossu, M., _Nouveaux Voyages dans l’Amérique Septentrionale_.
Amsterdam, 1777.
_Boston Public Library Monthly Bulletin._ Vol. vii. February, 1902.
Bourne, Edward Gaylord, _The Voyages and Explorations of Samuel de
Champlain, 1604–1616, narrated by Himself_. 2 vols. New York, 1906.
Bourne, Edward Gaylord, _Narratives of the Career of Hernando de Soto
in the Conquest of Florida_. 2 vols. New York, 1904.
Bradford, William, _History of Plymouth Plantations_. (In Original
Narratives of Early American History.) Edited by J. Franklin
Jameson. New York, 1908.
Brain, Belle M., _The Redemption of the Red Man_, etc. New York, 1904.
Breese, Sidney, _Early History of Illinois, 1673–1763_, etc. Chicago,
1884.
Brickell, John, _The Natural History of North Carolina_, etc. Dublin,
1737.
Brodhead, John Romeyne, Ed., _Documents Relative to the Colonial
History of the State of New York_. 15 vols. Albany, 1858–1887.
Brodhead, John Romeyne, _History of the State of New York_. 2 vols. New
York. First edition, 1871. Revised edition, 1874.
Brown, W., _The History of Missions, or, of the Propagation of
Christianity among the Heathen since the Reformation_, etc. 3 vols.
Edinburg, 1854.
Bruce, Philip Alexander, _Economic History of Virginia in the
Seventeenth Century_, etc. New York and London, 1907.
Bruce, Philip Alexander, _Institutional History of Virginia in the
Seventeenth Century_, etc. 2 vols. New York and London, 1910.
Brymner, Douglas and others, Ed’s., _Reports on Canadian Archives and
on the System of Keeping Public Records_. Ottawa, 1882–
Buckingham, James Silk, _Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the
other British Provinces_. London and Paris, 1843.
_Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Reports._ Washington, D. C.
_Bureau of American Ethnology, Publications._ Washington, D. C.
Burge, William, _Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws_, etc. 4
vols. London, 1838.
Burke, Edmund, _An Account of the European Settlements in America_. 2
vols. London, 1777.
Burton, C. M., _Cadillac’s Village, or Detroit under Cadillac_.
Detroit, 1896.
_Calendar of State Papers and other Manuscripts of Virginia_ ...
1652–1869. 11 vols. Richmond, 1875–1893.
Carroll, B. R., _Historical Collections of South Carolina_, etc. 2
vols. New York, 1836.
Carver, J., _Travels through the Interior Parts of North America in the
Years, 1766, 1767, and 1768_. London, 1778.
Case, J. Wickam, _Southold Town Records_. 2 vols. Southold, N. Y., 1882.
Catesby, Mark, _The Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama
Islands_, etc. 2 vols. London, 1743.
Caulkins, Francis Mainwaring, _History of New London, Connecticut_. New
London, 1852.
_Centennial (The) of Incorporation of Charleston, South Carolina._
Charleston, 1884.
Channing, Edward, _Narragansett Planters; a study of causes_. (In Johns
Hopkins University Studies, vol. iv.) Baltimore, 1886.
Chappell, Philip, _A History of the Missouri River_, etc. Kansas City,
1905.
Charlevoix, François Xavier de, _History and General Description of New
France_. Translated with Notes by John Gilmary Shea. 6 vols. New
York, 1866.
Chase, George Wingate, _History of Haverhill, Massachusetts_.
Haverhill, 1861.
Chitwood, Oliver Perry, _Justice in Colonial Virginia_. (In Johns
Hopkins University Studies, vol. xxiii.) Baltimore, 1905.
Church, Benjamin, _The History of King Philip’s War_. Edited by Henry
Martyn Dexter. 2 vols. Boston, 1865.
Cobb, Thomas R., _Historical Sketches of Slavery from the earliest
periods_. Philadelphia, 1858.
Coffin, Joshua, _A Sketch of the History of Newbury, Newburyport and
West Newbury from 1635 to 1845_. Boston, 1845.
_Collections of the Maine Historical Society._ Portland, 1831–
_Colonial Records of Connecticut._ Edited by Charles J. Hoadly. 15
vols. Hartford, 1850–1890.
_Colonial Records of the State of Georgia._ Atlanta, 1904–
Coman, Katharine, _Economic Beginnings of the Far West_, etc. 2 vols.
New York, 1912.
Cooley, Henry Schofield, _A Study of Slavery in New Jersey_. (In Johns
Hopkins University Studies, vol. xiv.) Baltimore, 1896.
Corey, Deloraine Pendre, _The History of Malden, Massachusetts,
1633–1785_. Malden, 1859.
Courtenay, William A., Ed., _The Genesis of South Carolina, 1562–1670_,
etc. Columbia, 1907.
Cramoisy, Le Sieur, _Journal de la Guerre du Micissippi contre les
Chicachas_. New York, 1859.
Currier, John C., _History of Newbury, Massachusetts, 1635–1902_.
Boston, 1902.
Dalcho, Frederick, _An Historical Account of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in South Carolina_. Charleston, 1820.
Daniels, George F., _History of the Town of Oxford, Massachusetts_.
Oxford, 1892.
De Brumath, A. Leblond, _Bishop Laval_. Toronto, 1906.
Denton, Daniel, _A Brief Description of New York formerly called New
Netherlands_, etc. New York, 1845.
Diffenderffer, Frank R., _The German Immigration into Pennsylvania
through the Port of Philadelphia, 1700 to 1775_. 2 vols. Lancaster,
1900.
Dillon, John B., _Oddities in Colonial Legislation in America_.
Indianapolis, 1879.
Dix, Morgan, _A History of the Parish of Trinity Church in the City of
New York_. 4 vols. New York, 1898–1906.
_Documentary History of the State of Maine._ Edited by J. G. Kohl,
William Willis and others. (In Collections of the Maine Historical
Society). Series 2. 5 vols. Portland, 1869.
Dorr, Henry C., _The Narragansetts_. (In Rhode Island Historical
Society Collections, vol. vii) Providence, 1885.
Douglass, James, _Old France in the New World. Quebec in the
Seventeenth Century._ Cleveland and London, 1905.
Douglass, William, _A Summary, Historical and Political of the first
Plotting, Progressive Improvements and Present State of the British
Settlements in North America_. 2 vols. Boston, 1755.
Doyle, J. A., _English Colonies in America_. 5 vols. New York,
1889–1907.
Drake, Samuel Gardner, _The Book of the Indians_, etc. Ninth edition.
Boston, 1845.
Drake, Samuel Gardner, _The Old Indian Chronicle_, etc. Boston, 1857.
Dubroca, Louis, _L’Itinéraire des Français dans la Louisiane_. Paris,
1802.
Dunlap, William, _History of the New Netherlands, Province of New York
and State of New York to the Adoption of the Federal Constitution_.
2 vols. New York, 1839–1840.
Dunn, J. P., _Indiana_. Boston and New York, 1888.
Du Pratz, Le Page, _The History of Louisiana_, etc. London, 1774.
Durfee, Thomas, _Gleanings from the Judicial History of Rhode Island_.
(In Rhode Island Historical Tracts, No. 18.) Providence, 1883.
Earle, Alice Morse, _Customs and Fashions in Old New England_. New
York, 1896.
_Early English and French Voyages._ (In _Original Narratives of Early
American History_.) Edited by Henry S. Burrage. New York, 1906.
_Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth._ Edited by the Librarian of
the Rhode Island Historical Society. Providence, 1901.
_Early Records of the Town of Providence._ 20 vols. Providence,
1892–1909.
_Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New York._ 3 vols. Albany,
1901–1902.
Ellis, Charles Mayo, _The History of Roxbury Town_. Boston, 1847.
Ellis, George W., and Morris, John E., _King Philip’s War_. New York,
1906.
Ewell, John Lewis, _The Story of Byfield_. Boston, 1904.
Fairbanks, George R., _History of Florida from ... 1512 to ... 1842_.
Philadelphia and Jacksonville, Fla., 1871.
Fairbanks, George R., _The History and Antiquities of the City of St.
Augustine, Florida_, etc. New York, 1858.
Farmer, Silas, _History of Detroit and Michigan_, etc. 2 vols. Detroit,
1890.
Felt, Joseph B., _History of Ipswich, Essex and Hamilton_,
(Massachusetts). Cambridge, 1834. _Statistics of Towns in
Massachusetts._ (In _American Statistical Association Collections_,
vol. i, pt. 1.) Boston, 1843. _Statistics of Population in
Massachusetts._ (In _American Statistical Association Collections_,
vol. i, pt. 2.) Boston, 1843. _Statistics of Taxation in
Massachusetts including Valuation and Population._ (In _American
Statistical Association Collections_, vol. i, pt. 3.) Boston, 1843.
_Annals of Salem._ Second edition. 2 vols. Salem, 1845.
Ferland, J. B. A., _Cours d’Histoire du Canada_. Seconde Partie,
1663–1759. Quebec, 1865.
Ferris, Benjamin, _A History of the Original Settlements on the
Delaware_, etc. Wilmington, 1846.
Field, R. S., _The Provincial Courts of New Jersey with Sketches of the
Bench and Bar_. (In _New Jersey Historical Society Collections_,
vol. iii.) New York, 1849.
Fisher, E. T., _Translation of a Report of a French Protestant Refugee
in Boston, 1687_. Brooklyn, 1868.
Foote, William Henry, _Sketches of Virginia, Historical and
Biographical_. First series. Philadelphia, 1850.
Force, Peter, _Tracts and other Papers_, etc. 4 vols. Washington,
1836–1846.
Fortier, Alcée, _A History of Louisiana_. 4 vols. New York, 1904.
Fortier, Alcée, _Old Papers of Colonial Times_. (In _Publications of
the Louisiana Historical Society_, vol. i, p. 2, 1895.)
Freeman, Frederick, _Civilization and Barbarism, illustrated by
especial reference to Metacomet and the extinction of his race_.
Cambridge, 1878.
Freeman, Frederick, _The History of Cape Cod_. 2 vols. Boston, 1860.
French, Benjamin Franklin, _Historical Collections of Louisiana_.
Various series. New York, 1846–1875.
Futhey, J. S., and Cope, Gilbert, _History of Chester County,
Pennsylvania_, etc. Philadelphia, 1881.
Gaffarel, Paul, _Histoire de la découverte de l’Amerique, depuis les
origines jusqu’à la mort de Christophe Colomb_. 2 vols. Paris, 1892.
Gayarré, Charles, _History of Louisiana_. 4 vols. New Orleans, 1885.
Fourth edition. New Orleans, 1903.
Glenn, James, _A Description of South Carolina_, etc. London, 1761.
Godwyn, Morgan, _The Negro’s and Indian’s Advocate, sueing for their
Admission into the Church; or a persuasive to the Instructing and
Baptising of the Negroes and Indians in our Plantations. Shewing
that as the Compliance therewith can prejudice no Man’s just
Interest; so the Wilful neglecting and opposing of it, is no less
than a manifest Apostacy from the Christian Faith. To which is
added, A brief Account of Religion in Virginia_. London, 1680.
Goodwin, John A., _The Pilgrim Republic_. Boston, 1888.
Gookin, Daniel, _History of the Christian Indians_. (In _American
Antiquarian Society Collections_, vol. ii, 1836)
Gorges, Sir Ferdinand, _A Brief Narration_, etc. London, 1658. (In
_Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_. Series 3. Vol. vi.)
Grahame, James, _The History of the United States of North America from
the Plantation of the Colonies_, etc. 4 vols. Boston, 1845.
Green, Mason A., _Springfield, 1636–1886, History of Town and City_.
Springfield, 1888.
Guenin, Eugène, _La Louisiane_. Paris, 1904.
Hakluyt, Richard, _A Selection of Curious, rare and early Voyages, and
Histories of Interesting Discoveries_, etc. London, 1812.
Hakluyt, Richard, _The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and
Discoveries of the English Nation_, etc. 3 vols. in two. London,
1600.
_Hakluyt Society Publications._ London, 1847–
Halkett, John, _Historical Notes respecting the Indians of North
America_, etc. London, 1825.
Hamilton, James Cleland, _The Panis, An Historical Outline of Canadian
Slavery in the Eighteenth Century_. (In _Proceedings of the
Canadian Institute_. Vol. i. Part 1. February, 1897.)
Hamilton, James Cleland, _Slavery in Canada_. (In _Transactions of the
Canadian Institute for the Year 1890_.) Toronto, 1891.
Hamilton, Peter J., _Colonial Mobile. An Historical Study_, etc. New
York, 1898.
Harrisse, Henry, _Dècouverte et Evolution Cartographique de Terre-Neuve
et des Pays Circonvoisins_, etc. London, 1900.
Hawkins, Ernest, _Historical Notices of the Missions of the Church of
England in the North American Colonies of North America_. London,
1845.
Hawks, Francis L., _History of North Carolina with Map and
Illustrations_. Second edition. 2 vols. Fayetteville, N. C., 1857.
Hazard, Samuel, _Annals of Pennsylvania from the Discovery of the
Delaware, 1609–1682_. Philadelphia, 1850.
Hazard, Ebenezer, _Historical Collections_, etc. 2 vols. Philadelphia.
1792–1794.
Hennepin, Louis, _A New Discovery of a vast Country in America_. Edited
by Reuben Gold Thwaites. 2 vols. Chicago, 1903.
Hewat, Alexander, _An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of
the Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia_. 2 vols. London, 1779.
Hildreth, Richard, _The History of the United States of America from
the Discovery of the Continent_, etc. 3 vols. New York, 1849.
Hinsdale, B. A., _The Old Northwest_, etc. Revised edition, 1899.
_Historical Collections of the Essex Institute._ Salem, 1859–
_Historical Documents from the Old Dominion._ (Printed from the papers
of William Byrd, of Westover, in Virginia, Esquire.) 2 vols.
Richmond, Va., 1866.
_Historical Magazine, and Notes and Queries concerning the Antiquities,
History and Biography of America._ 23 vols. Boston, 1857–1875.
Hoadly, Charles Jeremiah, _Records of the Colony and Plantation of New
Haven, from 1638 to 1649_. Hartford, 1857. _Records of the Colony
or Jurisdiction of New Haven from May, 1653, to the Union. Together
with the New Haven Code of 1656._ Hartford. 1858.
Hodge, Frederick Webb, _Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico_.
(_Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 30._) 2 vols. Washington,
1910.
Holmes, Abiel. _American Annals_, etc. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass., 1808.
Houck, Louis, _A History of Missouri from the Earliest Explorations_,
etc. 3 vols. Chicago, 1908.
Hough, Franklin B., _A Narrative of the Causes which led to Philip’s
Indian War of 1675 and 1676_, by John Easton of Rhode Island, etc.
Albany, 1858.
Hough, Franklin B., _Papers relating to the island of Nantucket_, etc.
Albany, 1856.
Howland, Edward, _Annals of North America_, etc. Hartford, 1877.
Hubbard, William, _A Narrative of the Indian Wars in New England from
... 1607 to ... 1677_, etc. Brattleborough, 1814.
Humphreys, David, _An Historical Account of the Incorporated Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts containing their
Foundation, Proceedings, and the Success of their Missionaries in
the British Colonies, to the Year 1728_. London, 1730.
Hurd, John Codman, _The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United
States_. 2 vols. Boston and New York, 1862.
Hutchinson, Thomas, _The History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay
from ... 1628 until ... 1691_. Second edition. 3 vols. London, 1765.
_Illinois State Historical Library Collections, Publications and
Transactions._ Springfield, Ill., 1903–
Irving, Theodore, _The Conquest of Florida under Hernando de Soto_. 2
vols. London, 1835.
James, Alton J., _English Institutions and the American Indian_. (In
_Johns Hopkins University Studies_, vol. xii.) Baltimore, 1894.
Jefferson, Thomas, _Notes on the State of Virginia_. London, 1787.
Johnson, W. D., _Slavery in Rhode Island: 1755–1776_. (In _Rhode Island
Historical Society Publications_. New series, ii.)
Jones, Hugh, _The Present State of Virginia_, etc. London, 1724.
Josselyn, John, _An Account of Two Voyages to New England_, etc.
London, 1675. (In _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_.
Series 5. Vol. iii.)
_Journal of the American Irish Historical Society._ Boston 1898–
Joutel, Henri, _A Journal of the Last Voyage Perform’d by Monsr. de
laSale_, etc. Chicago, 1896.
Judd, Sylvester, _History of Hadley, including the Early History
of Hatfield, South Hadley, Amherst and Granby, Massachusetts_.
Northampton, 1863.
_Kaskaskia Records, 1778–1790._ (In _Illinois State Historical
Library Collections_, vol. v.) Edited by Charles Walworth Alvord.
Springfield, Ill., 1909.
Kennet, White, _An Account of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in
Foreign Parts_, etc. London. 1706.
Kingsford, William, _The History of Canada_. 10 vols. Toronto and
London. 1888–1898.
La Harpe, Benard de, _Journal Historique de l’Établissement des
Français à la Louisiane_. New Orleans and Paris, 1831.
Laudun, Lavalette de, _Journal d’un Voyage à la Louisiane fait en 1720.
Par M——, Capitaine de Vaisseau du Roi._ Paris, 1768.
Laverdière, C. Honoré, _Oeuvres de Champlain publiées sous le patronage
de l’université Laval_. Seconde édition. 6 vols. Quebec, 1870.
Law, John, _The General History of Vincennes_, etc. Vincennes, 1858.
Law Reports: Courts of Connecticut (ed. by Ephraim Kirby, Litchfield,
1789); Massachusetts (ed. by Luther S. Cushing, Boston, 1859);
New Jersey (ed. by George B. Halstead, Elizabethtown, 1849);
Pennsylvania (ed. by A. J. Dallas, 2d. edition, Philadelphia,
1806-); South Carolina (ed. by J. S. G. Richardson, Columbia,
1845-; ed. by R. H. Spears, Charleston, 1860); Virginia (ed. by
Bushrod Washington, Richmond, 1798; ed. by Benjamin W. Leigh,
Richmond, 1831; ed. by William W. Hening and William Munford, 2d
edition, Flatbush, N. Y., 1892).
Laws—
Connecticut:
_Acts and Laws of His Majesty’s English Colony of Connecticut in
New England in America._ New London, 1750.
_Acts and Laws, Passed by the General Court or Assembly of His
Majesty’s English Colony of Connecticut_, etc. New London, 1769.
_Acts and Laws of the State of Connecticut, in America._ New
London, 1784.
Maryland:
Bacon, Thomas, Ed., _Laws of Maryland_, etc. Annapolis, 1765.
Maxcy, Virgil, Ed., _The Laws of Maryland_, etc. 3 vols. Baltimore,
1811.
Massachusetts:
_Colonial Laws of Massachusetts._ Edition of 1672. Reprinted.
Boston, 1887.
_The Acts and Resolves, public and private, of the Province of the
Massachusetts Bay_, etc. 17 vols. Boston, 1869–1910.
New Hampshire:
_Acts and Laws passed by the General Court or Assembly of His
Majesty’s Province of New Hampshire in New England._ Boston, 1726.
_Acts and Laws of His Majesty’s Province of New Hampshire in New
England ..._ Portsmouth, 1771.
_Laws of New Hampshire ..._ Edited by Albert Stillman Batchellor.
Manchester, N. H., 1904.
New Jersey:
Allinson, Samuel, Ed., _Acts of the General Assembly of the
Province of New Jersey from ... 1702 to ... 1776_. Burlington, N.
J., 1776.
Elmer, Lucius Quintius Cincinnatus, _Digest of the Laws of New
Jersey_, etc. Bridgeton, 1838.
Nevill, Samuel, Ed., _Acts of the General Assembly of the Province
of New Jersey_. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1752.
New York:
_Laws of New York from the Year 1691, to 1751, inclusive_, etc. New
York, 1752.
_Colonial Laws of New York._ 5 vols. Albany, 1894.
North Carolina:
Martin, François-Xavier, Ed., _The Public Acts of the General
Assembly of North Carolina, 1715–1803_. (A reprint and revision
of the edition of James Irewell) 2 vols. Newbern, 1804.
Pennsylvania:
_The Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania_, etc. Philadelphia, 1714.
_The Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania._ 10 vols. Philadelphia,
1896.
Rhode Island:
_Laws and Acts made from the First Settlement of Her Majesties
Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations by the General
Assembly of the said Colony_, etc. Providence, 1705.
_December, 1772. At the General Assembly of the Governor and
Company of the English Colony of Rhode Island, and of Providence
Plantations, in New England_, etc. Newport, 1772.
South Carolina:
Brevard, Joseph, _Digest of the Public Statute Law of South
Carolina_. 3 vols. Charleston, 1814.
Grimké, Faucheraud, _The Public Laws of the State of South Carolina
from its first Establishment as a British Province down to the
Year 1790_, etc. Philadelphia, 1790.
_The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_; edited under authority
of the Legislature, by Thomas Cooper and David J. McCord. 13
vols. Columbia, S. C., 1836–1875.
Trott, Nicholas, _Laws of the Province of South Carolina_. 2 vols.
Charleston, 1736.
Virginia:
Hening, William Waller, _The Statutes at Large; being a collection
of all the Laws of Virginia from the first session of the
Legislature in the year 1619_. 13 vols. New York. 1823.
Lawson, John, _A New Voyage to Carolina_, etc. London, 1709.
Lawson, John, _The History of Carolina_, etc. Raleigh, 1860.
Leaming, Aaron, and Spicer, Jacob, _The Grants, Concessions and
Original Constitutions of the Province of New Jersey_, etc. Second
series. Philadelphia, 1881.
Lechford, Thomas, _Note-Book kept in Boston, Massachusetts Bay, from
1638 to 1641_. Cambridge, Mass., 1885.
Le Clercq, Chrétien, _First Establishment of the Faith in New France_;
translated by J. G. Shea. 2 vols. New York, 1881.
Lee, Francis Bazley, _New Jersey as a Colony and as a State_, etc. 5
vols. New York, 1902.
Lescarbot, Marc, _Histoire de la Nouvelle-France, suivie des Muses de
la Nouvelle-France_. Nouvelle édition. 3 vols. Paris, 1866.
Livermore, S. T., _A History of Block Island from its Discovery in 1714
to the Present Time, 1876_. Hartford, Conn., 1877.
Logan, John H., _A History of the Upper Country of South Carolina_.
Charleston and Columbia, 1859.
Love, W. De Loss, _Samson Occom and the Christian Indians of New
England_. Boston and Chicago, 1899.
Lowery, Woodbury, _The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of
the United States, 1513–1561._ New York and London, 1901.
Lowery, Woodbury, _The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of
the United States. Florida, 1562–1574_. New York and London, 1905.
Lowry, R. and McCardle, W. H., _A History of Mississippi from the
Discovery of the Great River by Hernando de Soto_, etc. Second
edition. Jackson, Miss., 1891.
Lyford, James O., Ed., _History of Concord, New Hampshire, from the
Original Grant ... to the Opening of the Twentieth Century_. 2
vols. Concord, 1903.
McClintock, John W., _History of New Hampshire_. Boston, 1889.
McCormac, Eugene I., _White Servitude in Maryland, 1634–1820_. (In
_Johns Hopkins University Studies_, vol. xxii.) Baltimore, 1904.
McCrady, Edward, _The History of South Carolina under the Proprietary
Government, 1670–1719_. New York, 1897.
McCrady, Edward, _Slavery in the Province of South Carolina,
1670–1770_. (In _Annual Report of the American Historical
Association for 1895_.)
_Magazine of American History with Notes and Queries._ New York,
Chicago, 1877–
Marbois, Barbé, _The History of Louisiana_, etc. Translated by W. B.
Lawrence. Philadelphia, 1830.
Margry, Pierre, _Découvertes et Établissements des Français dans
l’Ouest et dans le Sud de l’Amérique Septentrionale_. 6 vols.
Paris, 1879–1888.
Marshall, Orsamus H., _The Historical Writings of the late Orsamus
H. Marshall relating to the Early History of the West, with an
Introduction by William L. Stone_. Albany, 1887. (In _Munsell’s
Historical Series_, vol. xv.)
Martin, François Xavier, _The History of Louisiana from the Earliest
Period_. 2 vols. New Orleans, 1827–1829.
Martin, John Hill, _Chester and its Vicinity, Delaware County in
Pennsylvania_. Philadelphia, 1877.
Mason, John, _A Brief History of the Pequot War_, etc. (In Orr’s
_History of the Pequot War_.)
_Massachusetts Historical Society Collections._ Boston, 1806–
_Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings._ Boston, 1879–
Mather, Cotton, _Diary, 1681–1708_. (In _Massachusetts Historical
Society Collections_. Series 7. Vols. vii and viii.)
Mather, Cotton, _Magnalia Christi Americana_, etc. First American
edition. 2 vols. Hartford, 1820.
Mather, Increase, _A Brief History of the War with the Indians in New
England_, etc. Drake’s edition. Albany, 1862.
Mather, Increase, _A Relation of the Troubles which have happened in
New England by reason of the Indians there_, etc. Boston, 1677.
Reprinted in Drake’s _Early History of New England_, etc. Boston,
1864.
Mayhew, Experience, _Indian Converts or some Account of the Lives
and Dying Speeches of a Considerable Number of the Christianized
Indians of Martha’s Vineyard in New England_. London, 1727.
Meade, Bishop W., _Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia_. 2
vols. Philadelphia, 1878.
_Medford Historical Register._ Medford, Mass., 1898–
_Mémoires des Commissaires du Roi et de Ceux de Sa Majesté Brittanique
sur les possessions & les droits respectifs des deux Couronnes en
Amérique._ 3 vols. Paris, 1755–1757.
_Mémoires et Documents Relatifs à l’histoire du Canada._ Published by
La Société Historique de Montreal. 1859.
_Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania._ 12 vols.
Philadelphia, 1864–1876.
_Messages from the Governors [of the State of New York] comprising
executive communications to the Legislature and other Papers
relating to Legislation_, etc. Edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. 10
vols. Albany, 1909.
Michener, Ezra, _A Retrospect of Early Quakerism, being Extracts
from the Records of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting and the Meetings
Composing it. To such is prefixed an Account of their First
Establishment._ Philadelphia, 1860.
_Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections._ Lansing, 1877–
_Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York._ 8 vols. New
York, 1905.
_Mississippi Historical Society Publications._ Oxford, Miss., 1898–
Monette, John W., _History of the Discovery and Settlement of the
Valley of the Mississippi ... until the year 1846_. 2 vols. New
York, 1848.
Moore, Frank, _Materials for History printed from Original Manuscripts
with Notes and Illustrations._ First series. New York, 1861.
Moore, George H., _Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts_.
New York, 1866.
Morgan, Edwin Vernon, _Slavery in New York_. (In _Historic New York_,
vol. ii.) New York and London, 1899.
Morton, Nathaniel, _New England’s Memorial_, etc. Plymouth, Mass., 1826.
Morton, Thomas, _The New English Canaan_. (In _Prince Society
Publications_, vol. ix.) Boston, 1883.
Munsell, J., _The Annals of Albany_. 10 vols. Albany, 1850–1859.
Murphy, Henry C., _The Voyage of Verazzano_, etc. New York, 1875.
_Narrative of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca._ (In _Original Narratives of
Early American History_.) New York, 1907.
_Narratives of the Expedition of Coronado_, by Pedro Castañeda. (In
_Original Narratives of Early American History_.) New York, 1907.
Neill, Edward D., _History of Minnesota_. Philadelphia, 1858.
Neill, Edward D., _History of the Virginia Company of London_. Albany,
1869.
_New England Historical and Genealogical Register._ Boston, 1859.
_New England’s First Fruits; in respect, 1st of the Indians; 2nd of the
Colledge at Cambridge_, etc. London, 1643. New York, 1865.
_New Hampshire Historical Society Collections._ Concord, 1824–
_New Jersey Archives._ Newark and other cities, 1880–
_New Jersey Historical Society Proceedings._ Newark, 1847–
Newspapers:
_The American Weekly Mercury._
_The Boston Gazette or Weekly Journal._
_The Boston Weekly Mercury._
_The Boston Weekly News Letter._
_The Boston Weekly Post Boy._
_The New England Courant._
_The New England Weekly Journal._
_The New York Gazette._
_The New York Weekly Mercury._
_The Pennsylvania Gazette._
_New York Historical Society Collections._ New York, 1811–
_North Carolina Colonial Records._ Raleigh, 1886–
_North Carolina Historical and Genealogical Register._ 3 vols. Edenton,
N. C., 1900–1903.
Northrup, A. Judd, _Slavery in New York, A Historical Sketch_. (In _New
York State Library Bulletin_. History, No. 4, May, 1900.) Albany,
1900.
O’Callaghan, Edmund Bailey, _The Documentary History of the State of
New York_. 4 vols. Albany, 1849–1851.
O’Callaghan, Edmund Bailey, _Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in
the Office of the Secretary of State, Albany, New York_. Pt. ii,
English. Albany, 1866.
O’Callaghan, Edmund Bailey, _History of New Netherland; or New York
under the Dutch_. 2 vols. New York, 1846–1848.
O’Gorman, Thomas, _A History of the Roman Catholic Church in the United
States_. New York, 1895.
Oldmixon, J., _The British Empire in America_, etc. 2 vols. London,
1708.
O’Neall, John Belton, _The Negro Law of South Carolina collected and
digested...._ Columbia, 1848.
Orcutt, Samuel, _The History of the Old Town of Derby, Connecticut_.
Springfield, Massachusetts, 1880.
Orr, Charles, _History of the Pequot War_, etc. Cleveland, 1897.
Palfrey, John Gorman, _History of New England_. 5 vols. Boston,
1858–1890. _History of New England during the Stuart Dynasty._ 3
vols. Boston, 1858–1864. _A Compendious History of New England_,
etc. 4 vols. Boston and New York, 1883.
_Parkman Club Papers_, Milwaukee, 1896.
Parkman, Francis, _The Discovery of the Great West_. Boston, 1874. _The
Old Régime in Canada._ Boston, 1874. _The Conspiracy of Pontiac._
Boston, 1874. _A Half-Century of Conflict._ 2 vols. Boston, 1892.
_Pioneers of France in the New World._ Boston, 1898.
_Pennsylvania Colonial Records._ 17 vols. Philadelphia, 1852–1860.
_Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography._ Philadelphia, 1877–
Perry, William Stevens, _Historical Collections relating to the
American Colonial Church_. 5 vols. Hartford, 1870–1878.
Perry, William Stevens, _The History of the American Episcopal Church,
1587–1883_. 2 vols. Boston, 1885.
Pickett, Albert James, _History of Alabama, and incidentally of Georgia
and Mississippi_. Birmingham, 1900.
Pittman, Captain Philip, _The Present State of the European Settlements
on the Mississippi_, etc. Edited by Frank H. Hodder. Cleveland,
1906.
_Plymouth Colony Records._ Edited by N. B. Shurtleff. 12 vols. Boston,
1855–1861.
Poore, Benjamin Perley, _The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial
Charters and other organic laws of the United States_. 2 vols.
Washington, 1877.
Porter, William S., _Historical Notices of Connecticut_, published
under the patronage of the Connecticut Historical Society.
Hartford, 1842.
_Present State of the Country and Inhabitants, European and Indian of
Louisiana on the North Continent of America._ By an officer at New
Orleans to his friends at Paris. London, 1744.
Prince, Thomas, _A Chronological History of New England in the Forms of
Annals_. 5 vols. in one. Edinburg, 1887.
_Proceedings of the Commissioners of Indian Affairs, appointed by Law
for the extinguishment of Indian titles in the State of New York_,
etc. 2 vols. Albany, 1861.
_Professional and Industrial History of Suffolk County, Massachusetts._
3 vols. Boston, 1894.
_Publications of the Prince Society._ Boston, 1865–
Purchas, Samuel, _Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes_, etc.
20 vols. Glasgow and New York, 1905.
Ramage, B. J., _Local Government and free schools in South Carolina_.
(In _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, vol. i.) Baltimore, 1883.
Rambaut, Thomas D., _A Sketch of the Constitutional History of Canada_.
New York, 1884.
Raper, Charles Lee, _North Carolina, A Study in English Colonial
Government_. New York, 1904.
_Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in
New England._ 10 vols. Providence, 1856–1865.
_Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of Massachusetts
Bay._ 2 vols. Boston, 1901–1904.
_Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay in New
England._ Edited by N. B. Shurtleff. 5 vols. Boston, 1854.
_Records of the Town of Southampton._ 4 vols. Sag-Harbor, N. Y., 1874.
_Records of the Towns of North and South Hempstead, Long Island, New
York._ Edited by B. D. Hicks. 5 vols. Jamaica, 1896–1904.
_Reports of Record Commissioners on Providence Town Records._ 5 vols.
in four. Providence, 1892–1897.
_Rhode Island Historical Society Collections._ Providence, 1827–
_Rhode Island Historical Society Publications._ Providence, 1893–
_Rhode Island Historical Tracts._ Providence, 1877–
Richman. Irving Berdine, _Rhode Island, its Making and its Meaning_,
etc. 2 vols. New York and London, 1902.
Rivers, William J., _A Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the
Close of the Proprietary Government ... 1719_, etc. Charleston,
1856.
Rivers, William J., _Topics in the History of South Carolina_.
Charleston, 1850.
Robinson, Conway, _An Account of Discoveries in the West until 1519 and
of Voyages to and along the Atlantic Coast of North America from
1520 to 1573_. Richmond, 1848.
Rosier, James, _A True Relation of the most Prosperous Voyage made this
present year, 1605, by Captain George Weymouth in the Discovery of
the Land of Virginia_. London, 1605. (In _Massachusetts Historical
Society Collections_. Series 3. Vol. viii.)
Ross, Peter, _A History of Long Island from its earliest settlement to
the present time_. 3 vols. New York, 1903.
Rowland, Dunbar, _Encyclopedia of Mississippi History_. 2 vols.
Madison, 1907.
Rupp, I. Daniel, _History of Lancaster County_, etc. Lancaster, Pa.,
1844.
Sagard-Theodat, Gabriel, _Histoire du Canada ... depuis Van 1615; avec
un dictionnaire de la langue huronne_. New edition. Paris, 1866.
Sainsbury, Noël, Ed., _Calendar of State Papers_. Colonial series.
London, 1860–
Salone, Émile, _La Colonisation de la Nouvelle-France_, etc. Deuxième
édition. Paris, 1906.
Salley, A. S., _Journals of the Grand Council of South Carolina_,
August 25, 1671 to June 24, 1680. Columbia, 1907. _Journal of the
Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina ..._ September 20, 1692
... October 15, 1692. Columbia, 1907. _Journals of the Commons
House of Assembly for South Carolina for ..._ 1693. Columbia, 1907.
_Journal of the Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina ..._
January 30, 1696 to ... March 17, 1696. Columbia, 1908.
Sanborn, Frank B., _New Hampshire, An Epitome of Popular Government_.
Boston and New York, 1904.
Sandiford, Ralph, _The Mystery of Iniquity in a Brief Examination of
the Practice of the Times_. Philadelphia, 1730.
Schaper, William A., _Sectionalism and Representation in South
Carolina_. Washington, 1901.
Scharf, Thomas, _History of Delaware, 1609–1888_. 2 vols. Philadelphia,
1888.
Scharf, Thomas, _History of Westchester County, New York, including
Morrisania, King’s Bridge, and West Farms_, etc. 2 vols.
Philadelphia, 1886.
Scharf, Thomas, and Westcott, Thompson. _History of Philadelphia._ 3
vols. Philadelphia, 1884.
Schoonmaker, Marius, _The History of Kingston_. New York, 1888.
Schuyler, George W., _Colonial New York, Philip Schuyler and his
Family_. 2 vols. New York, 1885.
Sewall, Samuel, _Diary_. (In _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_. Series 5. Vol. v, vii.) Boston, 1878–1882.
Sharp, Granville, _Extract from a Representation of the Injustice and
Dangerous Tendency of Tolerating Slavery or Admitting the least
Claim of Private Property in the Persons of Men in New England_.
London, 1769. Philadelphia, 1771.
Shea, John Gilmary, _Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi
Valley_, etc. New York, 1853. _Early Voyages up and down the
Mississippi_, etc. Albany, 1861. _The Catholic Church in Colonial
Days._ New York, 1886.
Sheldon, George, _1636—Pocumtuck—1886. A History of Deerfield,
Massachusetts_, etc. 2 vols. Deerfield, Mass., 1895.
Shipp, Barnard, _The History of Hernando de Soto and Florida; or Record
of the Events of fifty-six years from 1512 to 1568_. Philadelphia,
1881.
Simms, William Gilmore, _The History of South Carolina_, etc.
Smith, George, _History of Delaware County, Pennsylvania from the
Discovery_, etc. Philadelphia, 1862.
Smith, John, _A Description of New England_, etc. (In _Massachusetts
Historical Society Collection_. Series 3. Vol. vi.) Boston, 1836.
Smith, T. Watson, _The Slave in Canada_. (In _Nova Scotia Historical
Society Collections_. Vol. x, 1896–1898.) Halifax, N. S.
_South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine._ Charleston, 1900–
_South Carolina Historical Society Collections._ Charleston, 1857–
Sparks, Edwin Erle, _The Record of a Lost Empire in America_. (In “_The
Chatauquan_.” Vol. xxxiii.) Cleveland, 1901.
Staples, William R., _Annals of the Town of Providence from its
first Settlement_, etc. (In _Rhode Island Historical Society
Collections_. Vol. 5.) Providence, 1843.
_State of the British and French Colonies in North America_, etc.
London, 1755.
Steiner, Bernard Christian, _A History of the Plantation of Menunkatuck
and of the Original Town of Guilford, Connecticut, comprising the
present Towns of Guilford and Madison_, etc. Baltimore, 1897.
Steiner, Bernard Christian, _History of Slavery in Connecticut_. (In
_Johns Hopkins University Studies_, vol. xi.) Baltimore, 1893.
Stiles, Henry Reed, _The History and Genealogies of Ancient Winsor,
Connecticut_, etc. New York, 1859. _A History of the City of
Brooklyn_, etc. 3 vols. Brooklyn, 1867–1870. _The History of
Ancient Wethersfield, Connecticut_, etc. 2 vols. New York, 1904.
Stoddard, Amos, _Sketches, Historical and Descriptive of Louisiana_.
Philadelphia, 1812.
Stroud, George M., _A Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery in the
several States of the United States of America_. Second edition.
Philadelphia, 1856.
Sumner, William Hyslop, _A History of East Boston with Biographical
Sketches of its Early Proprietors and an Appendix_. Boston, 1858.
Sylvester, Herbert Milton, _Indian Wars of New England_. 3 vols.
Boston, 1910.
Tanguay, Cyprien, _A Travers les Registres_. Montreal, 1886.
Thacher, James, _History of the Town of Plymouth from ... 1620 to ...
1832_. Boston, 1832.
Thevet, André, _La Cosmographie Universelle_, etc. 2 vols. Paris, 1575.
Thomas, Cyrus, _The Indians of North America in Colonial Times_,
Philadelphia, 1903.
Thwaites, Reuben Gold, Ed., _The Jesuit Relations and Allied
Documents_. 73 vols. Cleveland, 1896–1901. _Father Marquette._
New York, 1902. Ed., _Early Western Travels, 1748–1846_. 32 vols.
Cleveland, 1904. Ed., _New Voyages to North America by the Baron de
La Hontan_. 2 vols. Chicago, 1905.
Tiffany, Charles, _A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
United States of America_. New York, 1895.
Tooker, William Wallace, _John Eliot’s first Indian Teacher and
Interpreter, Cockenoe-de-Long Island, and the Story of his Career
from the Early Records_. New York, 1896.
Trott, Nicholas, _Laws of the British Plantations in America relating
to the Church and the Clergy, Religion and Learning_. London. 1721.
Tucker, St. George, _A Dissertation on Slavery_. Philadelphia, 1776.
Updike, Wilkins, _History of the Episcopal Church in Narragansett,
Rhode Island, including a History of other Episcopal Churches in
the State_, etc. New York, 1847.
Usher, James M., _History of the Town of Medford, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts_, etc. Boston, 1886.
Van Rensselaer, Mrs. Schuyler, _History of the City of New York in the
Seventeenth Century_. 2 vols. New York, 1909.
_Vestry Book and Register of Bristol Parish, Virginia, 1720–1789._
Richmond, 1898.
_Virginia Company of London, Abstract of the proceedings ...
1619–1624, prepared from the records in the library of Congress_,
by C. Robinson and edited by R. A. Brock. 2 vols. (In _Virginia
Historical Society Collections_, 1888–1889.) Richmond.
_Virginia Historical Society Collections._ Richmond, 1882–
_Virginia Magazine of History and Biography._ Richmond, 1894–
_Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the Province
of Pennsylvania_, etc. 6 vols. Philadelphia, 1752–1776.
Walker, George Leon, _History of the First Church in Hartford,
1633–1883_. Hartford, 1884.
Wallace, Joseph, _History of Illinois and Louisiana under French rule_,
etc. Cincinnati, 1893.
Washburn, Emory, _Historical Sketches of the Town of Leicester,
Massachusetts, during the first century from its settlement_.
Boston, 1860.
Waters, Thomas Franklin, _Ipswich in the Massachusetts Bay Colony_.
Ipswich, Mass., 1905.
Watson, John F., _Annals and Occurrences of New York City and State in
the Olden Time_, etc. Philadelphia, 1846.
Watson, John F., _Annals of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in the Olden
Time_. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1857.
Weeden, William Babcock, _Early Rhode Island, a social History of the
People_. New York, 1910.
Weeden, William Babcock, _Economic and Social History of New England,
1620–1789_. 2 vols. Boston and New York, 1894.
Weise, Arthur James, _The History of the City of Albany, New York_,
etc. Albany, 1884.
Wheeler, Jacob O., _A Practical Treatise of the Law of Slavery_. New
York and New Orleans, 1737.
William and Mary College Quarterly. Vols. vi, and viii. Richmond, 1898
and 1900.
Williamson, _The History of North Carolina_. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1812.
Williamson, William Durkee, _The History of the State of Maine ... to
... 1820_. 2 vols. Hallowell, 1832.
Wilson, Daniel Munro, _Where American Independence Began. Quincy, its
famous Group of Patriots; their Deeds, Homes and Descendants._
Boston and New York, 1902.
Winfield, Charles H., _History of the County of Hudson, New Jersey_,
etc. New York, 1874.
Winsor, Justin, _The Memorial History of Boston including Suffolk
County, Massachusetts, 1630–1880_. 4 vols. Boston, 1880. _Narrative
and Critical History of America._ 8 vols. Boston, 1886–1889. _The
Mississippi Basin._ Boston and New York, 1895.
Winthrop, John, _Journal History of New England_, 1630–1649. (In
_Original Narratives of Early American History_.) 2 vols. New York,
1908.
Winthrop, Robert, _Life and Letters of John Winthrop_. 2 vols. Boston,
1864.
_Wisconsin Historical Society Collections._ Madison, 1855–
_Year Book of the Society of Colonial Wars in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts._ Boston, 1897–
_Year Books, City of Charleston._ Charleston, South Carolina, 1880–
Young, Alexander, _Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers of the Colony of
Plymouth from 1602 to 1625_, etc. Second edition. Boston, 1844.
MANUSCRIPT MATERIAL
Allen, Ethan, _Calendar of Maryland State Papers_. In the Library of
the Maryland Historical Society.
_Bancroft Papers relating to Carolina._ In the New York City Library.
_Baptismal Register of Mobile, Alabama, from 1704 to 1740._ In the
Cathedral at Mobile.
_Journal of the Board of Trade._ In the Public Record Office, London.
_Louisiana Historical Society Transcripts._ New Orleans, La.
_Massachusetts Manuscript Records._ In the State House at Boston.
_Mississippi Manuscript Records._ Jackson, Miss.
_Notes et Documents Historiques de la Louisiane._ Transcript in the
library of the Louisiana Historical Society. New Orleans, La.
_Records of the Friends’ Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania and the
Jersies._ Philadelphia Meeting House.
_Records of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign
Parts._ In the Society’s Building. London.
_Selection of Christian and Brotherly Advices given forth from Time
to Time by the Yearly Meeting of Friends for Pennsylvania and
New Jersey held alternately at Burlington and Philadelphia:
alphabetically digested under Proper Heads._ Philadelphia Meeting
House.
_South Carolina Manuscript Records._ Columbia, S. C.
_Transcripts_ in the library of Mr. Peter J. Hamilton of Mobile, Ala.
INDEX
Acolapissa, Indian tribe, attacked and enslaved by Chickasaw and
English, 185
Abnaki, Indian tribe, take slaves from Illinois, 70
Adoption, 43
Addington, Isaac, secretary of council of safety, 293;
hires Indians, 293
Advertisements of Indian slaves, 243, 244
Agona, chief, seized by Cartier, 72
Agriculture, 36, 83
Alabama, tribe, enslave and sell Mobile Indians, 75
Algonquin, nation, hold Indian slaves, 28
Albany, common council, act concerning fugitive slaves, 221;
treaty of, 202;
restrictions on slaves, 260
Alcaldes, enslave Indians, 61
Altamaha, tribe, 75
Amalgamation, cause of decline of slavery, 107, 287
Anastasius, Father, given an Indian girl, 81
Antilles, discovery, 48
Apache, tribe, enslaved by Choctaw, 30
Apalache, tribe, enslaved by Carolina settlers, 120, 121;
attacked by English Indians, 171;
attack missions of Santa Catalina and Santa Fé, 179
Archdale, John, governor of South Carolina, tries to check trade in
Indians, 178
Archbishop of Canterbury, 268
Aricara, tribe, 31
Arizona, 30, 60
Arkansas, tribe, 27, 64, 70, 75
Assembly, of South Carolina, takes up matter of trade in Indians,
180–185;
of Virginia regarding Indian slaves, 186
Athapascan, hold slaves, 33
Atlantic slope, Indian slavery in, 25
Awanthonks, squaw sachem, 148
Azores, Indians carried to, 125, 127
Bacon, sells captives as slaves, 119;
instigates assembly to legalize enslavement of Indians, 131
Bacon, Lord, sees Indians in England, 154
Bannister, Mr., before Board of Trade, 188
Baptism, of Indian slaves, 88, 89;
relation to freedom, 267–275
Barbadoes, governor of, sends Indians back to Massachusetts, 167;
South Carolina sends Indians to, 202
Barnwell, Colonel, expedition to Florida, 120;
expedition to North Carolina, 122
Barter, 27, 37, (see trade)
Bartram, on Indian slaves, 35, 42
Bellomont, Governor, reports on religious conditions of slaves, 272
Bermudas, Indian slaves carried to, 124, 127, 202
Benezet, Anthony, opposed to Indian slavery, 307
Berkeley, Dean, on decrease of number of Indians, 286;
on Indians as hired servants, 294
Berkeley, Sir William, on conditions in Virginia, 108;
sells Indian captives, 119;
proposes enslavement of Indians, 131;
buys Indian slaves, 301
Bienville, commandant at New Orleans, 28, 64;
orders Canadian French to stop urging Indians to war, 78;
proposes exchanging Indians in West Indies for negroes, 78, 97;
sells Indians to English, 78;
complains of neglect of agriculture in Louisiana, 84;
states that French colonists desire negroes, 97;
arranges peace between Choctaw and Chickasaw, 173
Birth, method of enslavement, 207
Birth-rate, decreased, cause of decline of Indian slavery, 285
Blackfeet, tribe, slavery among, 45
Block Island, slaves in, 110
Blount, Tom, chief, receives Indian captives as slaves as reward for
aiding English, 133
Board of Commissioners, appointed by South Carolina to deal with
trade in Indians, 181;
attempts to check traders, 183
Board of Trade, reports to, 111, 118
Bossu, journey of, 70
Boston News Letter, beginning of, 218;
advertises runaways, 218
Boston, slaves in, 109, 126, 180, 187, 274, 299;
prohibitions on slaves, 260
Bradford, on number of Indians, 284
Branding, punishment, 261
Bressani, Father, captured by Iroquois, 47
Bristol Parish, Virginia, Indian slaves in, 229
British Columbia, Indian slavery in, 46
Cabo de Santa Elena, Cape, 53
Cabot, Sebastian, kidnaps Indians, 154
Cadadaquiou, tribe, enslaved, 30
Cadillac, report concerning Indian slaves, 78
Cahouita, tribe, enslaved, 75
Calicott, Richard, has Indian slave, 243
California, 33;
missions, 59, 60
Canada, acquisition of, 64;
population of, 93
Capawick (Martha’s Vineyard), 157
Cape Fear, Indians kidnapped, 159, 197
Cape François, Indians sent to, 67, 68
Capitulation of Montreal, 64, 93
Carolina, Indians captured, 29;
Indians exported from, 117;
coureurs de bois sell Indians into, 168;
French idea concerning policy of, 171
Carondelet, Baron, orders slaves to remain with owners, 58
Cartier, kidnaps Indians, 71, 72;
receives Indians as gifts, 79;
uses Indian slaves as guides, 82
Catawba tribe, reduced in numbers, 287
Cenis, tribe, have slaves, 34, 37, 38
Champigny, sends Indians to France, 73
Champlain, given Indians by a chief, 80
Charity, Indian girl given Champlain, 80
Charleston, Indian slaves in, 109, 121, 180
Chat, tribe, enslaved, 29
Cherokee, tribe, abolish slavery, 46;
hostile to English, 136;
treaty with, 136;
demand that English give up enslaved members of their tribe, 137;
sold as slaves, 137;
complain that tribes prey on each other for slaves, 170;
other tribes join with, 287
Chester County, Pennsylvania, Indian slaves in, 116
Chickasaw, tribe, war with French, 69;
slave of Bienville, 86;
prey on tribes for captives to sell, 30, 171;
allies of English, 34, 171;
French try to destroy alliance of, 171;
lose 500 prisoners in ten years, 172;
obtain slaves from distant nations, 172;
French attempt to make them friends of Choctaw, 173;
attack Choctaw, 173;
enslave Shawnee, 173;
armed by English of Virginia, 185
Children, sold for food, 26
Chimmesyan, tribe, 33
Chinook, tribe, slavery among, 46
Chinookan, tribe, 33
Choctaw, tribe, enslave other Indians, 30, 75;
friends of French, 33;
allies of English, 171;
lose 800 prisoners in ten years, 172;
French attempt to make them friends of Chickasaw, 173
Chouman, tribe, 34
Church, sanctions slavery, 48;
missionary labors of, 87
Church, Captain Benjamin, receives Indians to transport, 140;
instructed to go against Indians, 142;
to distribute captives among soldiers, 142;
to receive captives from governor of Rhode Island, 142
Church act, 269
Cibola, 31, 52
Clermont, Sieur Pierre, manumits Indian slave, 95
Clinton, Governor, on Indian slaves in New York, 114;
tries to prevent abuse of apprenticeship, 206
Clothing of slaves, 42, 251–252
Cocheco, seizure of Indians at, 147, 309
Code Noir, 90, 102.
Collacot, Sergeant, agreement of Massachusetts with, 222
Colonists, of Louisiana, character of, 82;
used slave women as mistresses, 82
Columbia River country, Indian slavery in, 33, 45, 46
Columbus, enslaves Indians, 48
Comanche, tribe, 86
Company, of the Indies, 64;
of the West, 102;
of Providence Islands, 125
Compostella, 54
Concessions, negroes on, 102
Congaree, tribe, preys on weaker tribes, 170
Corannine, tribe, destruction of, 287
Cosmé, owns Indian slave, 81
Connecticut, slaves in, 110, 111, 123, 128, 130–131;
act against importing Indians, 189–191;
enslaves Indians as punishment, 206;
restricts Indian slaves, 260;
favors religious instruction of slaves, 275;
exchanges Indian slave for land, 277;
regulates manumission, 281;
regulates action of slaves, 290;
finds Indian slaves unsatisfactory, 291;
hired Indians in, 294;
indentured Indians in, 295
Cooks, hired Indians as, 243;
Indian slaves as, 243
Copper, object of barter, 27
Cornbury, Governor, on fugitive slave law, 221;
helps in conversion of slaves, 268
Coronado, Francisco Vasquez de, 31, 52, 53;
uses Indian slaves as guides, 55
Council, Indian, 40, 42;
grand council of South Carolina sends agents to remove Indian
slaves from plantations, 175;
opposed to proprietors, 176
Coureurs de bois, stir up tribes, 64;
purchase Indians, 75, 76, 77, 78, 168;
Indianized Frenchmen, 87;
trade, 96
Cramoisy, on Indian slaves, 86
Creeks, tribe, enslaved by Indians, 121;
other tribes join with, 287
Crows, tribe, slavery among, 45
Cruzat, Lieutenant-governor, proclamation of against enslavement of
Indians, 58
Culacut, Steward, desires Indian slaves, 310
Cutler, Reverend Timothy, reports on religious condition of slaves in
Boston, 274
Dartmouth, Indians, seized by Plymouth, 146
Davenport, Lieutenant, desires Indian slave, 310;
Reverend John, on Indian slaves, 209
Dealers, in Indians state reasons for traffic, 177
Death, punishment, 261
De Ayllon, cédula issued to, 49;
sends expedition, 53
De Beauharnois, governor of Canada, 94
De Boucherville, journey to Canada, 32
De Bourgmont, 32, 64;
purchases Indians, 74, 80;
sends Indian slaves to New Orleans, 74;
uses slave as interpreter, 82;
uses slaves as bribes and rewards, 86
Decline of Indian slavery, 59, 96–102, 281–319
Deer Island, Indians sent to, 143
De Figueroa, Vasco Porcallo, 52
De la Barre, expedition against Iroquois, 85
De Leon, patent of, 49;
proclamation of, 50
Le Lignery, proposes that tribes exchange slaves, 38
De Louvignery, demands slaves of Fox Indians, 71
De Morfi, Fray Agustin, describes mission, 61
De Narvaez, 51;
collapse of expedition, 53
De Niza, Fray Marcos, 52
Denonville, expedition against Iroquois, 85
Derby, Indian slaves in, 300
Detroit, 38, 75;
slavery in, 93, 99
De Vaca, Cabeza, enslaved, 46;
on Indian slavery, 54
De Vaudreuil, governor-general of Canada, demands slaves from
tribes, 70
Disease, cause of decline of Indian slavery, 41, 96, 283, 285
Doagges, tribe, 131
Dongan, Governor, report on religious condition of slaves, 272
Donnés, 66
Dubuisson, 38
Du Chapart, governor of Ft. Rosalie, 67
Dudley, Governor, report on slaves, 109
Duke’s Laws, on baptism of slaves, 272
Du Luth, 38;
expedition, 74;
given Indian slaves, 81;
uses slave as guide, 82
Dunmore, Earl of, authorizes court for trial of slaves, 256
Dunn, pastor of South Carolina parish, to S. P. G. F. P., 267
Du Pont, receives Indian as gift, 80
Dutch, enslave and transport Indians, 112–113
Du Tisné, 28, 31, 73, 74;
mediates peace between Pawnee and Padouca, 31
East Nottingham, Pennsylvania, Indian slaves in, 116
Eliot, John, redeems Indian slaves sold abroad, 128;
hires Indians, 293;
translates Bible, 293;
opposed to Indian slavery, 305;
has Indian slave as tutor, 243
Employment of Indian slaves, 35–39, 55, 83–86, 242–249
Endicot (Endecot), desires Indian slave, 310
England, rival power, 71
Erie, tribe, enslaved, 29
Esaw, tribe, prey on western tribes, 170
Esclavos, Indian community, 25
Esquimaux, enslaved, 28
Eyanoco, chief, has white slaves, 46
Faith, Indian girl given to Champlain, 80
Famine, cause of slavery, 26, 41
Fayal, one of Azores, 125;
Indians carried from Plymouth to, 125;
Indians seized by Laughton carried to, 161
Fishing, employment of Indian slaves, 37
Flathead, tribe, 32
Florida, 27, 29, 30, 48, 51, 52, 59;
free Indians in, 284
Fontaine, Reverend Peter, advocates intermarriage of whites and
Indians, 252
Fontanedo, 48
Food, of slaves, 42
Forbes, account of church in Virginia, 269
Fort Carolina, 79
Fort Royal, 119
Fox, tribe, war with French, 69, 71;
valley, 87
France, 66, 71;
Indians carried to, 71, 72;
laws of, 89;
sends indentured white servants to America, 100;
sends negroes to America, 101
Franciscans, 59
Friends, own Indian slaves, 115–116;
opposed to Indian slavery, 307
Friends’ yearly meeting, action on slavery, 116
Freedom, of slaves, 42, 43, 44, 45 (see manumission.)
Fremin, Father, 35
Frobisher, kidnaps Indians, 155
Fugitive slave law, 220;
in articles of confederation of United Colonies, 224
Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, 269
Fur trade, 73, 74;
connected with purchase of slaves from Indians, 168
Galleys, French, Indian slaves in, 73
Gamblers, Indians as, 26
General court, Massachusetts, authorizes enslavement of Indians, 124,
126, 127, 128, 137, 139;
decree regarding retention of male Indian slaves in colony, 145;
Plymouth, 137;
disposes of captives, 139;
decree regarding retention of male Indian slaves in colony, 145;
decree regarding purchase of captive Indian children, 146;
sanctions seizure of peaceable Indians, 146;
disposes of Dartmouth Indians, 146;
Connecticut, orders that Indians who surrender shall not be
transported, 149;
arranges to dispose of captives, 149
Georgia, report on, 107;
slaves in, 108
Gibson, bishop of London, declares baptism does not free slaves, 275
Gomez, 51
Gookin, Lieutenant-governor, receives complaint of Indians regarding
kidnapping, 162
Goose Creek, parish in South Carolina, 267
Gorges, Sir Ferdinand, patron of Weymouth, 154;
given Indians, 155, 157;
condemns capture of Indians, 158
Great Lakes, 28, 36
Great Plains, 25
Great Sun, chief of Natchez, 68
Green Bay, 38
Grelon, 27
Guns, objects of barter, 27
Haida, tribe, 33
Harley, Captain Henry, brings Indians to Gorges, 157
Harlow, Captain Edward, kidnaps Indians, 157
Hartford, levies on slaves of townsmen, 247
Haskell, pastor of St. Thomas parish, South Carolina, 267
Hatchets, objects of barter, 27
Hawaikuh, 52
Heathcote, to Townsend, 200
Hempstead, Indian slaves in, 114, 201
Hendrickson, finds Indian slaves in Schuylkill River country, 29;
finds white slaves among Mohawk, 47
Hennepin, on slaves among Iroquois, 35
Hispaniola, Indian slaves in, 53
Hobson, Captain, brings two of Hunt’s Indian captives back to
America, 158
Hocquart, intendant of Canada, 94
Holman, Ensign, agreement of Massachusetts with, 222
Hope, Indian girl given Champlain, 80
Horse, tribe, 32
Hunt, Captain Thomas, kidnaps Indians, 158
Hunter, Governor, petition to, regarding Spaniards in New York, 318
Hunting, occupation of Indian slaves, 37
Hupa, tribe, 33
Huron, tribe, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42
Hyde, Governor, on enslavement of Indians, 133
Iberville, baptism of his Indian slave, 89
Illinois, tribe, 27, 28, 29, 31, 37, 38, 64, 70, 80;
area, 32;
Indian slaves in, 93, 102;
negro slaves in, 102
Incle and Yarico, play and opera, 303
Indentured servants, Indians as, 295;
white, 295–297
Indians, as hired laborers, 59;
as apprentices, 196
Indian slaves, among the aborigines, 25–47;
among the Spaniards, 48–62;
among the French, 63–102;
among the English, 102–319;
in the Carolinas, 66–108;
in Georgia, 108;
in Virginia, 108;
in Massachusetts, 109–110;
in Rhode Island, 110;
in Connecticut, 110–111;
in New Hampshire, 111;
in New Netherland, 112–113;
in New York, 113;
in Pennsylvania, 115;
in New Jersey, 116;
in Maryland, 117;
by warfare, 118–153;
war with Stono Indians, 119;
war with Kussoe Indians, 119;
war of Spanish succession, 119;
Tuscarora War, 121;
Pequot War, 123;
King Philip’s War, 125;
Bacon’s rebellion, 131;
disposed of by colonial governments, 132–152;
by kidnapping, 154–167;
by trade, 168–195;
sold by family or tribe, 196;
abuse of apprenticeship, 198–201;
punishment, 201;
birth, 207–210;
considered property, 211–241;
bought and sold, 216;
advertised for sale, 216;
disposed of by will, 216;
runaways advertised, 218, 219;
disputes concerning, settled by court, 225;
personal property, 226;
real property, 226;
regarded as taxables, 227–228;
import and export duties on, 233;
as hunters, fishermen and guides, 242;
employed in fields, 244–245;
in manual occupations, 245;
hired out by owners, 245;
in military occupations, 246–249;
captured by French from English army, 246;
included by implication in legislative acts relating to slaves, 253;
right to testify in court, 254–255;
granted right to life, 255;
prohibitions on, 259, 260;
punishments, 260–264;
religious instruction of, 264–275;
manumission, 57, 94–95, 276–282;
freed by owner, 276;
purchase freedom, 276;
regulation of actions after emancipation, 280;
decline of use of, 283–319;
poor domestics, 288;
implicated in slave disturbances, 289;
included in laws concerning slaves by implication, 290;
values of, 298–302;
less valuable than negroes, 302;
use of, abolished in Virginia, 312;
in South Carolina, 315;
in Rhode Island, 316;
in New York, 317
Iroquois, tribe, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41;
effect on Indian slavery, 117
Ipswich, slaves in, 109, 298
Jenney, Reverend, on Indian slaves, 114, 273
Jesuits, 27, 34, 35, 41, 42;
oppose sale of Indians, 78, 79;
enslaved by Iroquois, 47
Johnson, missionary in South Carolina, on Indian slaves, 121
Johnson, Nathaniel, governor of Carolina, 106;
report on condition of Carolina, 106;
refuses to sell Indian perquisites, 183
Johnson, Robert, governor of Carolina, makes peace between nations,
172
Johnson, William, on Indian slaves in New York, 114
Jolliet, given an Indian, 80
Jones, Reverend Hugh, on baptizing Indian and negro slaves, 271
Jordan, river, 53
Joutel, 37
Judicial decisions recognize children of slave mothers as slaves, 210
Kansas, tribe, 31, 32, 74, 81, 86
Kaskaskia, Indian slaves at, 70, 76, 78;
church records of, 89
Keith, Sir William, owned Indian slaves, 116
Kettles, objects of barter, 27
Kidnapping, 154–167;
contrary to law, 165;
legislation regarding, 166;
Virginia act regarding, 166;
Maryland act regarding, 166;
Massachusetts act regarding, 166;
New Jersey act regarding, 167;
New Hampshire act regarding, 167
Kieft, Governor, requested by United Colonies to return runaway
Indian slave, 233
King Blount, chief, North Carolina orders to return runaway Indian
slaves, 222;
buys Indians, 302
King Philip, wife and son transported, 127
King Philip’s War, captives, enslaved, 110, 111, 125–131;
ran away, 218;
to receive religious instructions, 273
Kishkakon, tribe, 80
Klamath, tribe, 33
Knives, objects of barter, 27
Kussoe, tribe, war with, 119;
captives sold as slaves, 119, 134
La Harpe, journey in southwest, 30, 73;
seized Indians, 73;
given Indians, 81
La Hontan, 35, 37
La Salle, expedition of, 34, 35;
death of, 47;
urges Illinois against Iroquois, 70;
reports Indian slaves held by French, 75, 77;
advocates enslavement of Indians, 76;
given Indians, 81
Las Casas, opponent of Indian slavery, 65, 304
La Tore, Francis, kidnaps Indians, 162
Laudonnière, given Indians, 79;
intends using slaves as guides, 82
Laughton, John, captures and sells Indians abroad, 161;
indicted for the act, 161
La Vérendrye, 32;
sends Indian slaves to French settlements, 74
Law, customary, recognizes Indian slavery, 212
Leisler, Jacob, grievances against, 114
Le Jau, missionary, 266
Le Jeune, 28, 36
Le Page du Pratz, uses Indian slave as cook and interpreter, 83
Le Sueur, given Indians, 81
Levis, parish register of, 88
Little Compton, hired Indians in, 293
Little Sun, chief’s son, sent to West Indies, 68
Long, journal of, 98
Longfellow, Stephen, owns Indian slave, 274
Long Point, parish register of, 88
Louis de la Louisiane, Fort, 90
Louis XIV, edict of, 63;
orders captive Indians sent to France, 85
Louisiana, 57, 59, 64, 67, 77, 82, 83;
church records of, 88;
census of, 91;
report on, 91;
negro slaves in, 101
MacSparran, betters religious condition of slaves in Narragansett,
275
Madeira, Indian slaves in, 163
Maine, Indians from, carried to Massachusetts as slaves, 105;
carried to the Azores, 125
Maine, Thomas, on preying of tribe upon tribe for slaves, 171
Makah, tribe, 43
Mallet, expedition, uses slaves as guides, 82
Mandan, tribe, 43
Manumission of Indian slaves, 57, 94, 195, 276–282
Mantantons, tribe, 81
Marcy, Moses, owns Indian slave, 288
Markham, Governor William, owns Indian slave, 116
Marquette, Father, 27;
given an Indian slave, 80
Marriages, of slaves, 42, 43, 252;
of French and Indians, 87
Martha’s Vineyard, general court grants slaves right of appeal, 257
Maryland, Indian slaves in, 117;
indentured white servants in, 117;
assembly authorizes enslavement of Indians, 132;
act against kidnapping, 166;
decrees children shall follow condition of father, 208;
decrees slavery as condition of slave parents’ children, 209;
recognizes Indian slaves as property, 217;
permits owners to hire out slaves, 246;
forbids marriage of whites and slaves, 253;
permits slaves to testify at trial of slaves, 255;
remunerates owners of executed slaves, 259;
encourages baptism of slaves, 271
Mascoutens, tribe, 38
Mason, John, commander in campaign against Narraganset, 138;
authorized to enslave captives, 138;
on runaway Indian slaves, 218;
declares Pequot captives poor slaves, 288
Massachusetts, Indian slaves in, 123, 124, 126, 187;
exports Pequot captives, 124;
exports other Indians, 126;
act against kidnapping, 166;
act against importation of Indians, 188;
act against exportation of Indians, 188;
act to prevent abuse of apprenticeship, 198;
sentences Indians to slavery as punishment for crime, 202, 203, 205;
remunerates owner for Indian slave taken from him, 225;
courts settle disputed ownership of slaves, 225;
regards Indian slaves as taxables, 230–231;
forbids marriage of whites and negroes or Indians, 252;
provides for slave courts, 261, 262;
regulates sale of spirituous liquor to Indians, 264;
provides religious instruction for captives of King Philip’s War,
273;
remunerates owner for slave taken from him, 279, 280;
provides freedom as reward to slave, 280;
regulates actions of slaves, 290;
legislation shows Indian slaves unsatisfactory, 291;
requires license to hire Indians, 292
Matthews, deputy, removed by proprietors, 174
Mayhew, Experience, regrets lack of religious instruction for slaves,
273;
tells of Indian slave purchasing liberty, 277
Mdewakanton, tribe, 81
Medford, slaves in, 263
Mendoza, viceroy, 31, 52, 53
Menendez, 30, 48;
brings negroes to Florida, 59
Menominee, tribe, 32
Mexico, 26, 34, 56
Miami, tribe, 29
Miantonomo, chief, agreement with Massachusetts, 221
Michigan, Indian slavery in, 33
Middleton, deputy, removed by proprietors of Carolina, 174
Milton, Indian slaves in, 298
Mining, occupation of Indian slaves, 37
Ministry, of the colonies, 91
Minquae, tribe, have white slaves, 47
Miró, governor, frees slaves, 58
Missions, 59, 60, 66
Missionaries, as slave holders, 65, 66, 67;
advocate enslavement of Indians, 76
Missouri, tribe, 32, 33, 64
Mississippi, river, 31, 36;
valley, 92
Mistick Fight, captives enslaved, 123
Mistresses, Indian slaves used as by Indians, 36;
by Spaniards, 55;
by French, 83
Mobile, tribe, held as slaves by French, 75;
settlement, 73, 75;
church records of, 88, 89;
purposes of establishment of, 172
Modoc, tribe, 33
Mohawk, have white slaves, 47
Mohegan, tribe, at war with Narraganset, 138;
hired by English, 294
Monmouth, county, New Jersey, Indian slaves in, 117
Montreal, capitulation of, 64, 93;
slavery in, 92
Montagnais, tribe, 80
Moore, Governor, enslaves and exports Indians, 119, 120, 135;
Colonel, expedition of, to North Carolina, 122;
deputy, removed by proprietors, 174;
forces council to annul election of Moreton as governor, 179;
on traffic in Indians, 179;
employs Indian slaves in fields, 245
Moreton, Governor Joseph, instructed by proprietors not to allow
Indians to be carried from South Carolina, 175
Morton, Thomas, hires Indians, 293
Moscoso, leader after Soto’s death, 56;
treatment of slaves, 56
Moseley, Captain, captured Indians, 125
Mountgomry, Sir Robert, advocates use of indentured white servants,
289
Mutilation, punishment, 246
Nairn, Captain, expedition of to Florida, 120
Nanticoke, tribe, war of Maryland with, 132, 133
Narraganset, tribe, Pequot captives given to, 123;
at war with the Mohegan, 138;
campaign against, 138
Narragansett, slaves in, 110, 275;
hired servants in, 294
Nassoni, tribe, 30
Natchez, tribe, friendly with French, 67;
enslaved by French, 67, 68;
English traders purchase slaves from, 173;
enslave Shawnee, 173
Natchitoch, tribe, 30
Natchitoches, 30, 74;
report concerning, 75
Neau, pastor in New York, to S. P. G. F. P., 268
Negroes, use of a cause for decline of Indian slavery, 297, 298
Newbury, Indian slaves in, 298
New England, Indian slaves in, 105, 117, 187;
free Indians in, 283;
Indian slaves die of consumption, 285;
hired Indians in, 293
New England Confederation, decrees slavery as punishment for
Indians, 206, 207;
provides for enslavement of Narraganset captives, 207;
orders Indians seized for harboring runaway slaves, 223
New Hampshire, Indian slaves in, 111;
act against importation of Indians, 192–193;
levies import duties on Indians, 236;
grants slaves the right to life, 255;
finds Indian slaves unsatisfactory, 291
New Haven, act against exportation of Indians, 189
New Jersey, Indian slaves in, 116–117, 180, 300;
import duties on Indians, 236;
provides for trial of slaves, 257;
remunerates owners of executed slaves, 258;
punishments for slaves, 261, 262;
act concerning baptism of slaves, 271;
regulates action of freedmen, 280;
regulates manumission, 282;
indentured Indians in, 295
New London, Indian slaves in, 300
New Mexico, missions, 60
New Netherland, Indian slavery in, 112–113
New Orleans, 28, 74;
census of, 91;
report on, 92
Newport, Indians surrender at, 129
New York, Indian slaves in, 113–115, 187;
act to prevent importation of Indians, 193;
abuse of apprenticeship, 200;
decrees slavery as condition of slave mothers’ children, 209;
regards Indian slaves as taxables, 232;
levies import duties on Indians, 238–240;
forbids slaves to testify at trial of whites, 255;
provides for trial of slaves, 257;
decrees that baptism does not free slaves, 272;
regulates actions of freedmen, 280;
regulates manumission, 282;
free Indians in, 284;
regulates conduct of slaves, 290;
indentured Indians in, 295;
abolishes Indian slavery, 317
New York City, permits owners to hire out slaves, 246;
employs Indian slaves in military operations, 247;
restrictions on slaves, 260
Nez Percés, tribe, 33
Niagara, articles of peace drawn up at, 247
North Carolina, Indian slaves in, 36, 133, 301;
runaway Indian slaves, 222;
recognizes Indian slaves as property, 225, 226;
regards Indian slaves as taxables, 227;
forbids marriage of whites and Indians, 253;
forbids slaves to testify in court, 254;
punishments for Indian slaves, 261, 263, 264;
act regarding manumission of slaves, 278;
act regulating conduct of freedmen, 280, 281;
small-pox destroys Indians, 285
Northwest, 25, 27, 33, 36, 37, 39, 42, 85;
Indian slavery in, 45
Northwest Territory, slavery in, 33
Nova Scotia, 51
Oakinacke, tribe, slavery among, 46
Ohio, 29
Okechobee, Lake, 120
Oldmixon, on number of free Indians in New York, 284;
in New Jersey, 285
Old Town Creek, settlement, Indian children enslaved, 197
Opechancanough, chief, 119
Opinion, public, concerning Indian slavery, 303
Ordinance of 1787, 33
Oregon Indians, slavery among, 33, 45
O’Reilly, proclamation of concerning slaves, 58
Ortiz, Juan, enslaved, 46
Osage, tribe, 28, 31, 32, 73, 75
Ottawa, tribe, 27, 28, 32, 35, 36, 37;
area, 66, 70, 80
Ottogami, tribe, 38
Ouacha, tribe, 75
Outaouac, tribe, 32
Padouca, tribe, 31, 32, 86
Palfrey, estimate of number of Indians, 284
Pamunkey, 119
Panis, synonym for Indian slave, 89, 246
Paraguay, 67
Paris, 64, 66, 91
Pariss, Reverend, hires Indians, 293
Parliament, of Great Britain, 64;
of South Carolina, partly in sympathy with proprietors, 176;
of Canada, abolishes slavery, 97
Parris, Alexander, receiver of South Carolina, 202
Pawnee, tribe, 28, 31, 33, 73, 75, 99;
synonym for Indian slave, 32, 64, 93, 99
Payupki, enslavement of Indians of, 38
Pekkemeck, Indians, conceal runaway slaves, 222
Pemaquid, 160, 161
Penn, William, founder of a “free colony,” 115;
letter to Susquehanna, 224
Pennsylvania, kidnapping in, 161;
Indian slaves imported from South Carolina, 180, 187, 194;
acts against importation of Indians, 193–195;
act concerning runaway slaves, 221;
import duties on Indians, 236;
punishments for slaves, 262
Pensacola, English Indians attack, 171
Pequot War, captives, enslaved, 109, 110, 123, 124;
ran away, 218;
agreements to return runaways, 221–222;
unfitted for slaves, 288
Periér, governor of Louisiana, enslaves Natchez Indians, 68;
protests against trade in Indians, 98
Peter, Reverend Hugh, desires Indian slave, 310
Philadelphia, yearly meeting, action on Indian slavery, 308
Pierce, Captain, carries Indian slaves to the Bermudas, 124
Pima, tribe, 30
Pirates, work of, 163, 205
Plymouth, Indian slaves in, 109, 125;
sends Indians to Spain, 125, 126;
sentences Indians to slavery as punishment for crime, 204;
concerning runaway slaves, 224;
frees Indian slaves, 277;
provides remuneration for slave owners, 279;
hired Indians in, 293;
apprenticed Indians in, 295
Pollock, Governor, negotiates sale of Indians, 133
Popham, Lord, patron of Weymouth, 155;
given two Indians, 156
Portsmouth, forbids holding Indian slaves in the town, 152;
Indian slaves in, 299
Portugal, rival power, 71;
Indians carried to, 127
Potawatami, tribe, 38
Powder, object of barter, 27
Powhatan, chief, 36;
Indian freed by Virginia assembly, 186
Praying Indians, enslaved, 128, 143, 144;
hired, 293
Privateers, bring prizes to New Amsterdam, 163
Proprietors, of Carolina, grant privilege of selling Indians in West
Indies, 134, 174;
jealous of Governor West, 134;
power broken, 135;
forbid enslavement of Indians, 169;
play double game with reference to Indians, 173;
jealous of colonial officials, 174;
oppose Indian slavery, 175;
forbid Governor Moreton to allow exportation of Indians, 175;
oppose dealers in Indians, 177;
recognize usefulness of enslaving Indian captives, 178;
denounce Governor Moore’s Indian policy, 179;
sanction Indian slavery, 309;
caution West against appointing certain deputies, 174
Protection, to owners’ property in Indian slaves, 221, 222
Providence, island, Indians carried to, 124;
town, Indians surrender at, 129
Pueblo, tribe, 31;
missions, 60
Puritans, of Anne Arundel County, refuse to raise military levy, 133;
missionary scheme concerning Indians, 294
Quakers, at peace with Delaware, 115;
control government of Rhode Island, 129;
affect Indian slavery, 305;
oppose Indian slavery, 307–308
Quebec, 80;
parish register of, 88
Queen Charlotte Island, slave mart, 45
Quincy, slaves in, 109
Rancherias, practically enslave Indians, 61
Ransom, 44
Rappahannock, court, authorizes enslavement of Indians, 131
Rauch, missionary in New York, 162
Raudot, Jacques, intendant, authorizes
Indian slavery, 63;
issues ordinance against slaves’ running away, 99
Reaping, occupation of Indian slaves, 37
Renault, sent to Louisiana, 102
Rhode Island, slaves in, 110, 128–130, 187, 236;
limits bondage of Indians to term of years, 150;
general assembly so orders, 151;
sends Indians back to Plymouth, 151;
Indian slaves brought to from South Carolina, 180;
act against importing Indians, 191, 192;
act to prevent abuse of apprenticeship, 199;
sentences Indians to slavery as punishment, 205;
levies import duties on Indians, 235;
votes to enlist Indian slaves, 248;
religious condition of slaves in, 274;
legislation shows Indian slaves unsatisfactory, 292;
indentured Indians in, 295;
prices of Indian slaves in, 299;
abolishes Indian slavery, 316;
legislation concerning Spanish Indians, 319
Ribaut, instructions from Queen of France, 72;
seizes Indians, 72
Rowlandson, Mrs., taken prisoner by Indians, 47
Roxbury, Indian slaves in, 109
Rye, declares Indian slaves taxables, 232
Saguenay, 72, 79
St. Augustine, 30, 107;
expedition against, 119, 120, 135;
Indians captured at, 285
St. Denis, enslaved by Indians, 47
St. George, manor, Indian slaves in, 114
St. Lawrence, river, 36
St. Miguel, 53
St. Peters, Indian slaves in, 271
St. Thomas, parish, 107
Salem, indentured servants in, 295;
Indians slaves in, 298, 299
Salishan, tribe, 33
San Diego, 60
San Domingo, 102
Sandiford, Ralph, opposed to Indian slavery, 306
Sandwich, Indians in, 147;
court sentences Indians to slavery, 203
Sarrow, tribe, sells Indians in Virginia, 186
Sassacus, chief, 123
Sauk, tribe, 32
Savannah, tribe, prey on other tribes, sell captives, 170;
break treaty, 170;
reduced in numbers, 287
Savoile, owns Indian slaves, 77
Sayle, governor of Carolina, 169
Schuyler, Arient, owns Indian slaves, 114, 217
Schuylkill, river, 29
Seabrook, Fort, Indian captives to be sent to, 138
Seneca, tribe, 29;
carry Indian slave boy from South Carolina, 224
Serpent, Nation of the, 75
Sewall, Samuel, intercedes to prevent enslavement of Indians, 204;
admires marriage of whites and Indians, 253;
on sale of Indians, 298;
opposed to Indian slavery, 305
Sharp, Granville, opposed to Indian slavery, 306
Sharpe, pastor in New York, to S. P. G. T. P., 268
Shawnee, tribe, 29;
enslaved, 173
Shekomeka, Indian town in New York, 162
Short, Elizabeth, purchases Indian, 270
Shrimpton, Mr., quarters Indians on Noddle’s Island, 143
Shurt, Abraham, prevents union of Massachusetts and Maine Indians, 160
Smallcomb, Thomas, owns Indian slaves, 119;
sells Indians, 301
Smith, Captain John, 36;
expedition to New England, 158;
William, owns Indian slaves, 114
Snake, tribe, 32
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, purpose
of American missionaries, 265;
allows missionaries to work among slaves, 266;
response to missionaries, 268;
drafts bill to aid conversion of slaves, 268
Sonnagars, tribe, 29
Sonnontuan, tribe, 70
Soto, 31, 37, 49;
lands in Florida, 51;
captures Indians, 52;
a slave owner, 52;
uses Indian slaves as guides, 55;
death, 56
Southampton, hired Indians in, 204
Sowing, employment of Indian slaves, 37
South Carolina, report on, 107;
Indian slaves in, 109, 134–136;
sentences Indians to slavery, 201;
decrees condition of slavery for children of slave mothers, 207;
recognizes Indian slaves as property, 213;
Indian slaves disposed of by will, 217;
act concerning runaway slaves, 221;
esteems slaves as real property, 226;
as taxables, 232;
levies import duties on Indians, 234;
levies export duties on Indians, 240;
permits owners to hire out slaves, 246;
employs slaves in military operations, 247, 248;
rewards Tuscarora for military service by gifts of Indian slaves,
249;
permits slaves to testify, 254;
remunerates owners of executed slaves, 258;
averse to slaves being church members, 269;
directions to traders, 276;
allows Indian slaves to prove right to freedom, 277;
act regulating freedmen, 280;
small-pox destroys Indians, 285;
declares Indian slaves of less value than negroes, 302;
abolishes Indian slavery, 315
South Kingston, slaves in, 110
Southold, Indian apprentices in, 295
Spain, Indians carried to, 51, 125, 126, 158;
rival power, 71
Spanish Indians, in New York, 163;
in New England, 164;
in Pennsylvania, 164;
undesirable, 290
Spanish Main, 48
Spanish Succession, war of, 119, 172
Spiritual welfare of Indians, 59
Spotswood, Governor, to Lord Dartmouth, 198
Sprague, Captain, carries Indian slaves to Spain, 125
Stanton, Captain John, owns Indian slaves, 130
Status, slavery, servitude, 212–216
Statutory recognition of slavery, 212
Steevens, missionary of S. P. G. F. P., 183
Stono, tribe, war with, 106, 119;
captives enslaved, 119, 134
Stoughton, Captain, requests Indian slave, 210
Susquehanna, tribe, carry away Indian slaves from New York, 224;
war with Yoamaco, 286
Swamp Fight, captives enslaved, 123
Swanzey, Indian slave in, 145
Taensa, tribe, Chickasaw obtain slaves from, 173
Taiguragui, chief, 71
Talapoosa, tribe, preys on tribes for captives to sell, 171
Talbot, attorney-general of England, decides that baptism does not
free slaves, 275
Talcot, Major John, treasurer of Connecticut, 130
Tampa Bay, 51
Tartary, 27
Terre Haute, slavery in, 92
Terrisse, 81
Thacher, Reverend Peter, owns Indian slaves, 251, 298
Thomas, Samuel, to S. P. G. F. P., 266
Thompson, Indians, slavery among, 46
Tiguex, captured by Coronado, 53, 56
Timucua, tribe, enslaved by English, 121
Tisquantum, captured by Captain Hunt, 158
Tlingit, tribe, 33
Tonti, 28, 38;
urges Illinois against Iroquois, 69;
advocates enslavement of Indians, 76;
given Indians, 81
Toungletat, Indian slavery among, 45
Trade, leading employment of French-American colonists, 87;
means of obtaining Indian slaves, 168–195
Treasurer, of colony, authorized to sell Indians, 139, 140, 148
Treatment, of Indian slaves, 39–42, 55–57, 86–92, 250, 282;
not different from treatment of negroes, 250
Tusayan, tribe, enslave Indians of Payupki, 38
Tuscarora, war, captives enslaved, 121, 122, 133;
cause of, 197;
Indians, runaway, 222
Uncas, chief, exchanges land for Indian slave, 277
United Colonies of New England, authorize enslavement of Indians, 138;
recognize property rights in Indian slaves, 222;
letter to Governor Kieft, 223
Ute, tribe, slavery among, 45, 46
Vancouver Island, Indian slavery on, 45
Verrazano, kidnaps Indians, 71
Vesey, Reverend, on Indian slaves in New York, 114
Vincennes, church records of, 89;
slavery at, 92
Virginia, Indian slaves in, 30, 108, 118, 119, 127, 180, 187, 271,
301;
assembly authorizes transportation and sale of Indians, 131–132;
act against kidnapping Indians, 166;
early trade with Indians, 185;
policy regarding enslavement of Indians, 185;
act against enslavement of Indian children, 198;
sentences Indians to slavery, 202–203;
act concerning runaway slaves, 221;
regards Indian slaves as taxables, 227–230;
levies import duties on, 235, 237;
forbids marriage of free whites and Indian slaves, 252;
decrees child of an Indian to be a mulatto, 254;
forbids slaves to testify in court except at trial of slaves, 255;
provides special courts for trial of slaves, 256;
votes to educate Indian servants, 270;
legally designates slaves in 1670, 270;
repeals act of 1670, 272;
requires registration of slaves, 271;
act concerning manumission of slaves, 278, 279;
regulates actions of freedmen, 280;
decrease in number of Indians, 286;
requires license to hire Indians, 292;
indentured Indians in, 295;
abolishes Indian slavery, 312;
supreme court decision regarding abolition of Indian slavery, 313
Voyageurs, 64
Waineoke, King of, sells Indian to Elizabeth Short, 270, 301
Wakashan, tribe, 33
Waldron, Major, seizes Indians at Cocheco, 147;
issues warrants for seizure of Indians, 161;
indicted for stealing and selling Indians, 161
Wallawalla, river, 33
Wampum, 35, 37
Waniah, tribe, at war with South Carolina, 177
Washington, General George, proposes to enlist slaves, 248
West, Governor, sells Indians as slaves, 119, 134;
removed from office by proprietors, 174;
cautioned by proprietors against appointing certain deputies, 174
West Indies, 78;
Indians carried to, 68, 97, 119, 124, 127, 133–134, 169, 180, 185,
202, 302
West Virginia, slave courts in, 256
Western Company, charter of, 101;
imports negroes into Louisiana, 101
Westo, tribe, sell captives to English, 170;
break treaty, 170;
sell Indians to Carolina planters, 175;
reduced in numbers, 287
Wethersfield, Indian slave in, 300
Wetmore, on opposition of owners to baptism of slaves, 273
Weymouth, kidnaps Indians, 155
Whipping, punishment, 262–263
Willard, Lieutenant, agreement of Massachusetts with, 222
Williams, Roger, on Indian slavery, 304;
requests an Indian slave, 310
Winthrop, John, owns an Indian slave, 216;
on number of free Indians, 248;
obtains licenses to employ Indians, 292
Wisconsin, 27, 32, 38, 94
Yamasee, tribe, 30
Yanan, tribe, 33
Yaqui, tribe, enslaved, 54
Yazoo, tribe, enslave Shawnee, 173
Yeamans, Sir John, chosen by proprietors to succeed West as
Governor, 174
Yoamaco, tribe, war with Susquehanna, 286
Yorke, solicitor-general of England, decides that baptism does not
free slaves 275
Yuma, tribe, 30
VITA
The author of this dissertation, Almon Wheeler Lauber, was born at
Lawrenceville, St. Lawrence Co., New York, March 24, 1880. He was
graduated from the New York State Normal School, Potsdam, New York,
in 1900. During the academic year of 1900–1901 he was principal
of the graded school at Lawrenceville, New York. In 1905, he was
graduated from Syracuse University with the degree of Ph. B., and in
the same year received the Ph. M. degree. During the three succeeding
academic years he was instructor in history at George School, Bucks
Co., Pennsylvania. In 1908, he entered Columbia University where he
pursued graduate work. His major subject was American History, and his
minors were Constitutional Law and European History. He took courses
in American History under Professors Shepherd, Osgood and Dunning; in
Constitutional Law under Professor Burgess; and in European History
under Professors Osgood, Robinson and Sloane. He was a member of
seminars under Professors Shepherd, Osgood and Dunning.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] In Mexico, a certain community of Indians was named “Esclavos” by
the Spaniards, because the Aztec rulers had drawn so largely upon them
for slaves. Gage, _A New Survey of the West Indies_, third edition, ii,
p. 414.
[2] Hodge, _Handbook of American Indians north of Mexico, Bureau of
American Ethnology_, Bulletin 30, pt. ii, p. 599.
[3] _Ibid._
[4] Fiske, _The Discovery of America_, i, p. 121; Prescott, _History of
the Conquest of Mexico_, twenty-second edition, i, pp. 35, 41. See also
Clavigero, _The History of Mexico_ (translated by Cullen), i, p. 157,
ii, p. 154; Prescott, _op. cit._, i, pp. 63, 68, 147, 155, 168, 285;
ii, pp. 82, 137.
[5] See Neill, _History of Minnesota_, p. 85, for the case of an Indian
who wanted to enslave his daughter’s murderer. Brickell, _The Natural
History of North Carolina_, etc., p. 355, tells of Indians enslaving
one another for theft until reparation was made.
[6] _The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents_, edited by Reuben
Gold Thwaites, xvi, pp. 199, 201. The same custom was followed by the
Indians in later periods. See Parker, _A Journey Beyond the Rocky
Mountains_ (1835), p. 53.
[7] _Jesuit Relations_, xv, p. 157.
[8] Margry, _Découvertes_, etc., i, p. 470; _Michigan Pioneer and
Historical Society Collections_, xxiv, p. 182.
[9] Thwaites, _Father Marquette_, p. 85. The spelling of the Indian
names in this dissertation is that used by Hodge in _Handbook of
American Indians north of Mexico_.
[10] Hennepin, _A New Discovery of a Vast Country in America_, edited
by Reuben Gold Thwaites, p. 631.
[11] French, _Historical Collections of Louisiana_, pt. i, p. 56;
Margry, _op. cit._, i, p. 527.
[12] Shea, _Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley_, etc.,
pp. lvi, 32; Thwaites, _Father Marquette_, p. 81.
[13] _Jesuit Relations_, lix, p. 309.
[14] _Jesuit Relations_, lxvii, p. 171. In the south, the term “slave”
was used by the Indians, not only in the sense in which it is commonly
used, but as applied to dogs, cats, tame and domestic animals, and to
captive birds. “So when an Indian tells you that he has a slave for
you, it may, in general terms as they use, be a young eagle, a dog, or
any other thing of that nature, which is obsequiously to depend upon
the master for its substance.” Lawson, _The History of North Carolina,
containing the exact description and natural history of that country_,
p. 327.
[15] In 1694, the Illinois informed Tonti that during the preceding
seven years they had killed and taken prisoners 334 men and boys and
111 women and girls. Margry, _op. cit._, iv, p. 5.
[16] Hennepin, _A New Discovery_, etc., ii, p. 631; Margry, _op. cit._,
ii, p. 98; _Jesuit Relations_, liv, p. 191; lix, p. 127.
[17] Chappell, _A History of the Missouri River_, p. 25.
[18] _Jesuit Relations_, xxx, p. 133.
[19] French, _Historical Collections of Louisiana_, pt. i, p. 69.
[20] Hazard, _Annals of Pennsylvania_, p. 7.
[21] Discourse delivered before The New York Historical Association
at the anniversary meeting, December 6, 1811, by the Honorable DeWitt
Clinton; La Hontan, _New Voyages to North America_, edited by Reuben
Gold Thwaites, ii, p. 504.
[22] Margry, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 141, 272; iv, p. 5.
[23] Hennepin, _op. cit._, ii, p. 659.
[24] Margry, _op. cit._, i, p. 527; ii, p. 141.
[25] _Jesuit Relations_, lxii, p. 67.
[26] _Ibid._, lxi, p. 195.
[27] Catesby, _The Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama
Islands_, etc., ii, p. xiii; Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 532.
[28] Beverly, _The History of Virginia in Four Parts_, second edition,
p. 179; Smith, _The General Historie of Virginia, New England, and the
Summer Isles_, in Arber’s edition of Captain John Smith’s Works, ii, p.
570.
[29] _Memoir of Hernando de Escalante Fontanedo on the Country and
Ancient Indian Tribes of Florida_, in French, _Historical Collections
of Louisiana and Florida_, series ii, p. 253.
[30] French, _op. cit._, pt. iii. p. 68.
[31] Bulletin 43 of the _Bureau of American Ethnology_, p. 296.
[32] _Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society_, v, p. 305.
[33] _Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology_,
1904–1905, p. 197.
[34] _Bureau of American Ethnology Publications_, xiv, pt. i, p. 548.
[35] _Ibid._, p. 449; Lowery, _The Spanish Settlements within the
Present Limits of the United States, 1513–1561_, p. 314.
[36] French, _op. cit._, pt. iii, p. 74. Du Tisné meditated making
peace between the Pawnee and Padouca, and thought it could be done by
giving presents to each tribe, and by getting each to return the slaves
which it held of the other nation. Chappell, _op. cit._, p. 26.
[37] Iberville, in 1702, found them to number 2,000 men. Margry, _op.
cit._, iv, pp. 597–599.
[38] Thwaites, _Early Western Travels_, vi, p. 61; _Jesuit Relations_,
lxix, p. 301.
[39] Margry, _op. cit._, vi, p. 416.
[40] _Narrative of De Boucherville_, in _Wisconsin Historical Society
Collections_, xvii, pp. 42, 55, 89.
[41] _Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections_, xxxiv, p.
182.
[42] Parkman, _A Half Century of Conflict_, ii, p. 46.
[43] The term “Pawnee” or “Panis” signifying an Indian slave was
especially used in Canada. See J. C. Hamilton, _Slavery in Canada_,
in _Transactions of the Canadian Institute_, 1890, pp. 102–108; “_The
Panis_” in _Canadian Institute Proceedings_, 1899, pp. 19–27; Smith,
_The Slave in Canada_, in _Nova Scotia Historical Society Reports_, x,
pp. 3, 72.
[44] Grignon, _Seventy-two Years’ Recollections of Wisconsin_, in
_Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, iii, p. 256; Thwaites,
_Early Western Travels_, i, pp. 304, 309. In the present state of
Michigan, traces are found of Indians holding others as slaves, though
the Ordinance of 1787 forbade slavery in the Northwest Territory.
_Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections_, xiv, p. 658.
[45] Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. ii, p. 598.
[46] _Ibid._, pt. ii, p. 598.
[47] _Ibid._, pt. ii, p. 598.
[48] Margry, _op. cit._, v, p. 506; French, _Historical Collections of
Louisiana_, pt. iii, pp. 33, 34, 68; Cramoisy, _Journal de la Guerre
du Micissippi contre les Chicachas_, pp. 65, 67, 68, 89; La Harpe,
_Historical Journal of the Establishment of the French in Louisiana_,
in French, _op. cit._, pt. iii, p. 27; Brickell, _op. cit._, p. 324.
[49] Douay, _Narrative of La Salle’s Expedition_, in Shea, _Discovery
and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley_, p. 204; French, _op. cit._,
pt. iv, p. 204.
[50] Shea, _op. cit._, pp. 205, 211, 216.
[51] French, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 42.
[52] _Jesuit Relations_, xliii, p. 299; xliv, pp. 47, 49; l, p. 115.
[53] _Ibid._, xliii, p. 293.
[54] Hennepin’s _Narrative_, in Shea, _Discovery and Exploration of the
Mississippi Valley_, p. 144.
[55] _Jesuit Relations_, liv, pp. 93, 95.
[56] La Hontan, _op. cit._, ii, p. 454. _A Memoir of La Salle to
Frontenac_, November 9, 1680, declares that the Illinois forced their
slaves to work. _The Historical Magazine_, v, p. 197.
[57] Bartram, _Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East
and West Florida_, p. 185.
[58] _Jesuit Relations_, xvi, p. 199.
[59] Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. ii, p. 598.
[60] _Jesuit Relations_, xliii, p. 293. It was the existence of this
class of slaves among the Iroquois which the Jesuits deplored most of
all.
[61] Carr, _The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley Historical
Considered_, p. 8; Lowery, _The Spanish Settlements within the Present
Limits of the United States, 1513–1561_, p. 32.
[62] Carr, _op. cit._, p. 18.
[63] _Purchas His Pilgrimes_, edition of 1908, iv, pp. 1699–1700.
[64] Brickell, _op. cit._, p. 321; Lawson, _op. cit._, p. 188.
[65] Lowery, _The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the
United States, 1513–1561_, p. 32.
[66] La Hontan, _op. cit._, ii, p. 432.
[67] Margry, _op. cit._, iii, p. 339.
[68] _Jesuit Relations_, lxi, p. 195; La Hontan, _op. cit._, i, pp. 94,
106, 111, 113; Hennepin, _op. cit._, ii, p. 509; Carr, _op. cit._, p.
18.
[69] _Jesuit Relations_, xvi, p. 199.
[70] _Ibid._, xvi, p. 199.
[71] La Hontan, _op. cit._, ii, p. 432.
[72] Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. ii, p. 598.
[73] _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, xvi, p. 345. For the
legend of the enslaving and freeing of the Indians of Payupki by the
Tusayan, see the _Bureau of American Ethnology_, Report for 1886–1887,
p. 40.
[74] French, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 56.
[75] _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, xvi. p. 284.
[76] _Ibid._, xvi, pp. 306, 429, 444, 447–451.
[77] _Ibid._, xvi, p. 123.
[78] _Ibid._, xvi, p. 276.
[79] _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, v, p. 79.
[80] Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. ii, p. 598.
[81] _Ibid._
[82] This statement implies that the term “slave” does not include
prisoners of war who were tortured by their captors.
[83] Bartram, _op. cit._, p. 185.
[84] La Hontan, _op. cit._, ii, p. 439.
[85] French, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 160.
[86] Brickell, _The National History of North Carolina_, p. 321;
Irving, _The Conquest of Florida under Hernando de Soto_, i, p. 280;
Shipp, _The History of Hernando de Soto and Florida_, etc., p. 367;
Pickett, _History of Alabama_, p. 64. The statements of Irving, Shipp
and Pickett are based on the account by Garcilaso de la Vega.
[87] Margry, _op. cit._, v, p. 95.
[88] Margry, _op. cit._, v, p. 95; Marshall, _Historical Writings
Relating to the Early History of the West_, p. 211; La Hontan, _op.
cit._, ii, pp. 420, 505.
[89] Marshall, _op. cit._, p. 212; Hennepin, _op. cit._, ii, p. 508;
_Jesuit Relations_, xliii, p. 303.
[90] _Jesuit Relations_, xliii, p. 295.
[91] _Ibid._, xliii, p. 299; Shea, _Discovery and Exploration of the
Mississippi Valley_, p. 34.
[92] Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. ii, p. 599.
[93] _Jesuit Relations_, xliii, p. 293.
[94] _Ibid._, xliii, p. 293.
[95] _Ibid._, 1, p. 115.
[96] Bartram, _op. cit._, p. 186.
[97] La Hontan, _op. cit._, ii, p. 613.
[98] Bartram, _op. cit._, p. 186.
[99] La Hontan, _op. cit._, ii, p. 474. These freed slaves were
accustomed to go each day to visit their former masters’ graves to
offer pipes and tobacco in acknowledgment of their freedom.
[100] Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. ii, p. 598.
[101] _Ibid._, pt. ii, p. 599.
[102] _Ibid._ For the Iroquois, see Carr, _op. cit._, p. 18; Margry,
_op. cit._, v, p. 8; _Jesuit Relations_, lxii, p. 63. For the western
Indians, see Hennepin, _op. cit._, p. 509; _Jesuit Relations_, lxix,
p. 59. For the northern Indians, see Catesby, _op. cit._, ii. p. xiii
(editor’s note).
[103] Hennepin, _op. cit._, ii, p. 508.
[104] _Fifteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology_,
1893–1894, p. cxii.
[105] Brickell, _op. cit._, p. 321; Lawson, _op. cit._, p. 323;
Catesby, _op. cit._, ii, p. xiii.
[106] _Jesuit Relations_, liv, p. 237.
[107] La Hontan, _op. cit._, ii, p. 508.
[108] _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, xvi, p. 46.
[109] The holding of slaves by the Indians continued long after
colonial times. It naturally died out first in the east, with the
growth in power of the whites and the consequent decrease in the
numbers and strength of the Indians.
The Indians of the Columbia River country held slaves till well into
the nineteenth century. These they procured by trading beads and
furs with the interior tribes. Franchère’s _Narrative_, in Thwaites,
_Early Western Travels_, vi, p. 324; xxix, p. 242; xxx, p. 111. The
Blackfeet, Cayuse, Crows, and Ute were accustomed to keep the women
taken in war as slaves, (_Ibid._, xxiii, p. 118); and other neighboring
tribes did the same. Travelers in Oregon in 1846 found that the Oregon
Indians enslaved their war captives, and that they made war for the
purpose of obtaining slaves. _Ibid._, xxix, p. 124. The Toungletat,
who inhabited Vancouver Island, at the same time had Indian slaves,
captives in war. _Ibid._, xxix, p. 149. The tribes of the section south
of the Columbia River country were given over to the same custom.
Both here, and in the Columbia River country, the Indians were heavy
gamblers, and not infrequently staked their own freedom in their games.
_Ibid._, xxx, p. 161; xxvii, p. 171; Parker, _Journey Beyond the Rocky
Mountains_, p. 53. The Indians of the extreme northwest held slaves in
1840. Considerable numbers were owned by the chiefs. These were worth
thirty blankets each, and were generally purchased from the natives of
Queen Charlotte Island, the great slave mart of the northwest coast.
Bancroft, _History of the Northwest Coast_, ii, pp. 647–649.
The slaves of the Columbia River country were well treated as long as
they were able to work. The district was a commercial one, and the
slaves, as an article of commerce, were valuable. But when a slave grew
old and was unable to work, he was neglected. The women of the tribe
had several slaves who were dependent entirely upon their will. Slaves
could be purchased by the male members of the tribes for wives. The
Oackinacke Indians, at this time, possessed but few slaves, and these
were adopted as children and as members of the family. _Ibid._, vii,
pp. 103, 107, 303.
Until 1850, the Thompson Indians of British Columbia enslaved captive
Indians. Teit, _The Thompson Indians of British Columbia_, in _Memoirs
of the American Museum of Natural History_, pp. 269, 290. In 1836, the
Chinook Indians possessed Indian slaves. In 1855, the Ute sacrificed
four slaves, and buried them with one of their chiefs. One of these
slaves was buried alive. Thomas, _Indians of North America in Historic
Times_, p. 369. In 1863, the Cherokee abolished slavery by law. This
was amended in 1866, so as to permit it as a punishment for crime.
Thwaites, _Early Western Travels_, xx, p. 303.
[110] Enslavement of the whites by the Indians was not uncommon. Cabeza
de Vaca and other survivors of Narvaez’s expedition were made slaves by
the Indians among whom they wandered. _Narrative of Cabeza de Vaca_,
in _Narratives of Early American History_, i, pp. 64, 69. Soto found
one of these survivors, Juan Ortiz by name, who had taken on Indian
customs, and nearly forgotten his native language. “_Relation of
Biedma_,” in Bourne, _Narratives of the Career of De Soto_, ii, p. 3.
Strachey, _The Historie of Travaile into Virginia_, speaks of a story
that he had heard from the Indians, concerning an Indian chief, Eyanoco
by name, living somewhere to the south of Virginia, who had seven white
slaves who had escaped from the massacre at Roanoke. These slaves the
Indians employed in beating copper. _Hakluyt Society Publication_,
vi, p. 26. Whether the story is wholly or partly true has never been
determined. That the Indians of the locality did enslave the whites
captured in war or shipwrecked off the coast is shown by the preamble
of an act of Carolina in 1707. _North Carolina Colonial Records_,
i, p. 674. In the war of 1711, the Indians spared some of the women
and children captured on the plantations so that they might serve as
slaves. _Ibid._, i, p. 182.
Captain Hendrickson, in 1616, found three persons belonging to the
Dutch West India Company, who were slaves of the Mohawk and Minquae,
and who were traded to him for merchandise. Hazard, _Annals of
Pennsylvania_, p. 7.
Father Bressani was captured in 1644 by the Iroquois, and given to a
woman as a slave. She sent him to Fort Orange, where he was ransomed
by the Dutch and returned to France. _Jesuit Relations_, xxvi, p.
49. Other Jesuits were enslaved by the Iroquois. Basqueville de la
Potherie, _Histoire de l’Amérique Septentrionale_, iv, pp. 125–163.
French men, women and children had a similar fate. _Jesuit Relations_,
xl, p. 137; xlvi, p. 207. Some of them were ransomed and freed by the
Dutch. Margry, _op. cit._, vi, pp. 123, 125. Joutel, in 1687, feared
that he would be enslaved by the Cenis, and put to work in their mines
along with their Indian slaves. Margry, _op. cit._, iii, p. 339. After
the death of La Salle, and the massacre of most of his followers in
1687, the children who were spared were taken captive by the Spanish
Indians, and sent to Mexico as slaves. Margry, _op. cit._, iii, p. 339.
Saint Denis, in 1721, certified that he had been eleven months a slave
among the savages of the west Mississippi country. Robinson, _Account
of Discoveries in the West_, etc., p. 215. As late as 1754, the Indians
of Virginia had French prisoners as slaves. _Virginia Historical
Society Collections_, iii, p. 267.
In the time of King Philip’s War, Mrs. Rowlandson of Lancaster was
taken prisoner by the Indians and sold to a Narraganset chief whose
slave she became. Clark, _History of King Philip_, p. 290. During the
various colonial wars, many Englishmen were taken by the Indians as
slaves and sold to the French in Canada. _Massachusetts Archives_,
lxxiv, p. 57.
[111] Prescott, _History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the
Catholic_, edition of 1838, i, p. 390; ii, p. 40.
[112] French, _op. cit._, series 2, p. 263.
[113] For slaves taken by Columbus on his three voyages, see _Journal
of Columbus’ First Voyage_, in _Original Narratives of Early American
History_, i, pp. 112, 306; Thacher, _Christopher Columbus, His Life,
His Work, His Remains_, etc., ii, pp. 301, 357, 393, 585, 644, 685.
[114] Lowery, _The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the
United States, 1513–1561_, p. 136. According to the patent, the king
was to name the individuals who should distribute the slaves. _Ibid._,
p. 136.
[115] Lowery, _The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the
United States, 1513–1561_, p. 162.
[116] Shea, _The Catholic Church in Colonial Days_, p. 112; Lowery,
_op. cit._, p. 136.
[117] For this reason he took no monks or priests with him. Lowery,
_op. cit._, p. 136.
[118] The proclamation of Ponce de Leon is quoted in Helps, _The
Conquerors of the New World and Their Bondsmen_, etc., ii, pp. 111–116.
This peculiar summons to surrender had been used by the Spanish
explorers and conquerors since 1509. After telling the Indians of the
creation of the world, it traced the title thereto to St. Peter, and
thence to the ruling pope. It cited also the grant of the Indies by
the pope to the sovereigns of Castile; and after urging the Indians to
acknowledge their fealty to these sovereigns, it threatened them with
war and slavery if they refused.
[119] Lowery, _op. cit._, p. 169.
[120] _The Narrative of Cabeza de Vaca_, in _Original Narratives of
Early American History_, ii, p. 25.
[121] _Ibid._, ii, p. 30.
[122] Bourne, _op. cit._, i, p. 20.
[123] Buckingham Smith, _Life of De Soto_, p. 170.
[124] Bourne, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 60, 94, 97, 103, 105.
[125] Bourne, _op. cit._, i, p. 34.
[126] _Ibid._, i, p. 45; ii, pp. 25, 121.
[127] _Ibid._, i, p. 70; ii, pp. 72, 75, 117, 129.
[128] Coronado, in his letter to Mendoza, August 3, 1540, mentions
both negroes and Indians in the expedition. He does not allude to
their being slaves. In other parts of the letter, he mentions friendly
Indians accompanying the expedition. _Coronado’s Letter to Mendoza_,
in the _Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology_;
Shea, _The Catholic Church in Colonial Days_, p. 114.
[129] _The Narrative of the Expedition of Coronado_, by Pedro de
Castañeda, in _Original Narratives of Early American History_, ii, p.
324.
[130] Lowery, _op. cit._, pp. 156–157; Martin, _The History of North
Carolina from the Earliest Period_, i, p. 2.
[131] _The Narrative of Cabeza de Vaca_ in _Original Narratives of
Early American History_, i, pp. 25–118. Among the Indians of this
region, who were carried away into captivity, were Yaqui who long
afterwards remained hostile to the whites.
[132] Bancroft, _History of the North Mexican States_, i, p. 59.
[133] French, _op. cit._, pt. iv, p. 201; Shea, _Discovery and
Exploration of the Mississippi Valley_, p. 201.
[134] For such instances in Soto’s journey, see Bourne, _op. cit._
For Coronado’s journey, see _Original Narratives of Early American
History_, ii, pp. 289, 329, 342; _Narrative of Jaramillo_, in
_Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology_.
[135] Bourne, _op. cit._, ii, p. 11.
[136] _Ibid._, i, p. 20.
[137] _Ibid._, ii, p. 55.
[138] _The Narrative of the Expedition of Coronado_, by Castañeda, in
_Original Narratives of Early American History_, ii, pp. 329, 342.
[139] Bourne, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 21, 117.
[140] _Ibid._, i, p. 45; ii, pp. 25, 121.
[141] _The Narrative of the Expedition of Coronado_, by Castañeda, in
_Original Narratives of Early American History_, ii, p. 289.
[142] Bourne, _op. cit._, i, pp. 193–194.
[143] Fairbanks, _History of Florida from Its Discovery_, etc., p. 58.
[144] Lowery, _The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the
United States, 1513–1561_, pp. 249 (note), 357, 415, 417.
[145] _The Narrative of the Expedition of Coronado_, by Castañeda, in
_Original Narratives of Early American History_, ii, p. 324.
[146] Bourne, _op. cit._, i, p. 177; ii, p. 60.
[147] _Ibid._, i, pp. 102, 139, 171, 191; ii, pp. 80, 121.
[148] _Ibid._, i, pp. 44, 84, 93; ii, pp. 94, 97, 103, 105, 106, 110,
112, 113, 115, 116, 117.
[149] See Lucas and Stevens, _The New Laws of the Indies_.
[150] Houck, _History of Missouri_, ii, p. 240; Wheeler, _A Practical
Treatise of the Law of Slavery_, pp. 12–14. O’Reilly’s instructions to
the various commandants at Natchitoches, the coast and elsewhere, are
given in Gayarré, _History of Louisiana, Spanish Domination_, pp. 20,
25.
[151] Bancroft, _History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530–1888_, p. 132.
[152] Lowery, _The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the
United States, Florida, 1562–1574_, pp. 145–160.
[153] Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 874.
[154] Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 893.
[155] _Ibid._, pt. i, pp. 894–895.
[156] _Ibid._, pt. i, p. 895; Bancroft, _History of California_, i,
p. 111; Coman, _Economic Beginnings of the Far West_, i, pp. 100–101,
147–155.
[157] Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 894.
[158] Coman, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 28–29, 31–32, 144.
[159] _Ibid._, i, pp. 40–44.
[160] _Ibid._, i, p. 99.
[161] Barrett, _The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring
Indians_, in _University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology_, vi, p. 45.
[162] The edict of Louis XIV in 1688 authorizing the importation of
slaves related only to negroes from Africa. Hamilton, _Slavery in
Canada_, in _Transactions of the Canadian Institute_, 1890, i, p. 102.
[163] Hamilton, _op. cit._, in _Transactions of the Canadian
Institute_, 1890, i, p. 102; _Mémoires et Documents Relatifs à
l’Histoire du Canada_, p. 5.
[164] Margry, _op. cit._, vi, p. 316.
[165] Hamilton, _op. cit._, in _Transactions of the Canadian
Institute_, 1890, i, p. 102.
[166] Hamilton, _op. cit._, in _Transactions of the Canadian
Institute_, 1890, i, p. 102; _New York Colonial Documents_, x, p. 1118.
General Amherst, the English commander and agent in the negotiations,
wrote opposite the proposition: “Granted, except those who shall have
been made prisoners.”
Though the word “Pawnee,” in the records, seems to have special
reference to Indian slaves, it is sometimes used by the old Canadian
writers to signify all persons in servitude, without regard to color.
Hamilton, _op. cit._, in _Transactions of the Canadian Institute_,
1890, i, p. 107.
[167] In 1557, ten young Brazilian Indians were purchased by
Villegaignon, and sent to France as a gift to King Henry II. The king
distributed them among the nobles of his court. Lescarbot, _Histoire de
la Nouvelle-France_, i, p. 174.
[168] See _Transactions of the Canadian Institute_, ii, p. 173.
[169] Parkman, _The Discovery of the Great West_, sixth edition, p. 27.
[170] Thwaites, _Father Marquette_, p. 34.
[171] It should be noted that the missions never attained the same
prominence among the French, within the limits of the present United
States, as among the Spaniards. “The neophyte was too much a child, too
much a slave, too little a man” to please the Frenchman.
[172] Margry, _op. cit._, v, p. 162. La Salle, on his expedition,
employed Indian hunters who were not slaves. Joutel’s _Journal of La
Salle’s Last Voyage_, pp. 20, 76, 82, 94, 95, 97, 98; Parkman, _The
Discovery of the Great West_, sixth edition, pp. 144, 356.
[173] _Jesuit Relations_, xxx, p. 133.
[174] _Archives du Ministre des Colonies, C. 13 ... Correspondance
Générale_, ii, 1707–1712.
[175] Lowry and McCardle, _A History of Mississippi from the
Discovery_, etc., second edition, p. 84.
[176] Thwaites, _Early Western Travels_, xiii, p. 179.
[177] Thomas, _The Indians of North America_, etc., p. 321.
[178] Garneau, _Histoire du Canada_, etc., fourth edition, ii, p. 95.
“The number of the Natchez that escaped the grasp of Périer, at this
time, has been put down by some writers as three hundred warriors.”
French, _Historical Memoirs of Louisiana_, series 5, p. 102.
[179] Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. ii, p. 36; Monette, _History of the
Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi_, etc., i,
p. 272, states the number as four hundred and twenty-seven. Lowry
and McCardle, _op. cit._, p. 85, place the number as forty-five male
Indians, and four hundred and fifty women and children.
[180] Pittman, _The Present State of the European Settlements on the
Mississippi_, Hodder edition, p. 80.
[181] On the passage, some of the Indians, for “showing their
resentment by upbraiding the authors of their misery,” were thrown into
the sea. _Ibid._, p. 80.
[182] Marbois, _op. cit._, p. 119, and appendix, No. 4.
[183] Ferland, _Cours d’Histoire du Canada_, seconde partie, p. 446.
[184] Landun, _Journal d’un Voyage à la Louisiane fait en 1720_, p.
247; Margry, _op. cit._, vi, p. 316; La Harpe’s _Journal_ in French,
_op. cit._, p. 351.
[185] Martin, _The History of Louisiana from the Earliest Period_, i,
p. 256.
[186] _Ibid._, i, p. 256.
[187] Dubroca, _L’Itinéraire des Français dans la Louisiane_, p. 81.
[188] Thomas, _The Indians of North America_, etc., p. 319; Cramoisy,
_Journal de la Guerre du Micissippi contre les Chicachas_, p. 65.
[189] Cramoisy, _op. cit._, p. 65.
[190] Gayarré, _Louisiana, its History as a French Colony_, p. 64.
[191] Cramoisy, _op. cit._, pp. 49, 65, 67, 68, 89; Margry, _op. cit._,
v, p. 432.
[192] Margry, _op. cit._, iii, p. 564.
[193] French, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 42.
[194] Margry, _op. cit._, v, p. 476; French, _op. cit._, new series, i.
p. 100. Hennepin, _A New Discovery_, etc., p. 631, mentions the French
of Kaskaskia using both Indian and negro slaves.
[195] _Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections_, xxxiii, p.
286.
[196] _Ibid._, pp. 324, 397.
[197] _Ibid._, pp. 328, 439, 544.
[198] _Ibid._, p. 550.
[199] _Ibid._, pp. 365, 396.
[200] _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, xvi, pp. 434, 436.
[201] Bossu, _Nouveaux Voyages dans l’Amérique Septentrionale_, p. 100.
[202] _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, xvi, p. 343.
[203] Kohl, _Documentary History of Maine_, i, p. 255. Verrazano says
of the Indians of this region: “They are suspicious, hostile and
desirous of obtaining steel implements for defense against kidnappers,
who frequent the coast to seize and transport them to the Spanish
Islands of the West Indies.”
[204] Hakluyt, _Voyages_, iii, pp. 209, 213; Lescarbot, _Histoire de
la Nouvelle-France_, ii, p. 350; Kohl, _Documentary History of Maine_,
i, pp. 327, 330; Douglas, _Old France in the New World_, pp. 22, 23,
27, 28, 30; Robinson, _An Account of Discoveries_, etc., p. 359. _Early
English and French Voyages, chiefly from Hakluyt_, 1534–1608, in
_Original Narratives of Early American History_, p. 81.
[205] Lescarbot, _Histoire de la Nouvelle-France_, ii, p. 364; Douglas,
_op. cit._, pp. 39, 40, 42.
[206] Lescarbot, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 363–367; Kohl, _Documentary
History of Maine_, i, p. 336; Douglas, _op. cit._, p. 37; Robinson,
_op cit._, p. 369. _Early English and French Voyages, chiefly from
Hakluyt_, 1534–1608, in _Original Narratives of Early American
History_, p. 81. The promise of Cartier that the prisoners should be
well treated was evidently kept. In the archives of St. Malo for the
year 1538, is noted the baptism of three savages brought there by
Cartier. Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History of America_, iv, p.
57. These Indians were questioned by Francis I, (Thevet, _Cosmographie
Universelle_, Tome II, p. 1013), and thus served the purpose for which
they had been brought. They never returned to America, for all of them,
except one little girl, died in Brittany before Cartier’s third voyage
in 1540. Kohl, _Documentary History of Maine_, i, p. 342; Robinson,
_op. cit._, p. 406.
[207] Hakluyt, _op. cit._, iii, pp. 303–319; Lescarbot, _op. cit._, i,
p. 44; _Narrative of Jean Ribaut’s Whole and True Discovery of Terra
Florida_, reprinted in Courtnay, _The Genesis of South Carolina_, p.
xxiv.
[208] Hakluyt, _op. cit._, iii, p. 320, says, “by permission of the
king”; Robinson, _op. cit._, p. 431.
[209] French, _op. cit._, p. 74; Margry, _op. cit._, vi, pp. 282, 370,
371. An instance of kidnapping Indians in Canada by military officials
is worthy of mention. In 1687, a number of Iroquois chiefs went to a
French camp near Montreal, on the invitation of the French officials,
to confer with the governor of Canada. The intendant, Champigny, had
these chiefs seized and by the king’s orders sent to France to serve in
the galleys. Brodhead, _History of New York_, first edition, ii, p. 476.
[210] Margry, _op. cit._, vi, p. 314.
[211] Margry, _op. cit._, vi, p. 29.
[212] _Ibid._, vi, p. 315.
[213] _Ibid._, vi, p. 406.
[214] _Ibid._, vi, p. 410.
[215] _Ibid._, vi, p. 593.
[216] Farmer, _The History of Detroit and Michigan_, p. 344.
[217] Margry, _op. cit._, vi, p. 601.
[218] _Ibid._, iv, p. 230; _Mississippi Provincial Archives, French
Domination, Correspondance Générale_, ix, 1720–1722, p. 111; _Archives
du Ministre des Colonies_, C. 13, vi, p. 50.
[219] _Archives du Ministre des Colonies_, C. 13, 1707–1712, p. 398.
[220] French, _op. cit._, pt. iii, p. 36.
[221] _Ibid._, pt. iii. p. 36.
[222] Carver, _Travels through the Interior Parts of North America_,
etc., p. 346.
[223] Margry, _op. cit._, iii, p. 564.
[224] French, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 42; _A Memoir of La Salle to
Frontenac_, November 9, 1680, states: “The young bisons are easily
tamed, and may be of great help, as well as the slaves in which the
natives are accustomed to trade.” _Historical Magazine_, v, p. 197.
[225] Margry, _op. cit._, v, p. 476; French, _op. cit._, new series, i,
p. 100; Hennepin, _A New Discovery_, etc., p. 631, mentions the French
of Kaskaskia using both negro and Indian slaves.
[226] _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, xvi, pp. 434, 436.
[227] Savoile reported from Ft. Biloxi, August 4, 1701, that he
possessed some slaves from the territory to the west and one Illinois
slave, who was probably a runaway, and then adds that the French
“voyageurs” would not miss this one runaway since they had so many.
_Mississippi Provincial Archives, French Domination, Correspondance
Générale,_ 1678–1701, i, p. 152; _Archives Nationales, Colonies_, C.
13, _Louisiane, Correspondance Générale_, 1678–1708, i, p. 315.
[228] _Archives Nationales, Colonies_, C. 12, second series, Carton
I—_Louisiane, Correspondance Générale_, 1699–1773. (Transcript in
Mr. Peter J. Hamilton’s library); Charlevoix, _History and General
Description of New France_, (Shea’s Translation), vi, p. 32.
[229] _Mississippi Provincial Archives, French Domination,
Correspondance Générale_, 1713–1714, iv; _Archives du Ministre des
Colonies_, C. 13, 1710–1712, iii.
[230] Margry, _op. cit._, v, p. 476; French, _op. cit._, new series, i,
p. 100.
[231] Kingsford, _The History of Canada_, iii, p. 226.
[232] _Ibid._
[233] _Mississippi Provincial Archives, French Domination,
Correspondance Générale_, 1716, vii, p. 23; _Archives du Ministre des
Colonies_, C. 13, iv, p. 248.
[234] Carver, _Travels through the Interior Parts of North America_,
etc., p. 347.
[235] Robinson, _An Account of Discoveries in the West until 1519_,
etc., p. 369; _Early English and French Voyages, chiefly from Hakluyt_,
1534–1608, in _Original Narratives of Early American History_, p. 50.
[236] Lescarbot, _op. cit._, ii, p. 352.
[237] Robinson, _op. cit._, p. 369; _Early English and French Voyages,
chiefly from Hakluyt_, 1534–1608, in _Original Narratives of Early
American History_, p. 55.
[238] Lescarbot, _op. cit._, i, p. 71; Hakluyt, _op. cit._, iii, pp.
319–349.
[239] Lescarbot, _op. cit._, i, p. 74; Hakluyt, _op. cit._, iii, p. 396.
[240] Sagard-Theodat, _Histoire du Canada et Voyages_, etc., new
edition, iv, p. 829; Le Clercq, _The First Establishment of the Faith
in New France_, Shea’s translation, i, p. 283; Douglas, _op. cit._, pp.
181, 195; Laverdière, _Oeuvres de Champlain_, seconde édition, vi, pp.
154–158.
[241] _Purchas His Pilgrimes_, xviii, p. 225; Bourne, _The Voyages and
Explorations of Samuel de Champlain_, etc., i, p. 229.
[242] Bourne, _op. cit._, i, pp. 226, 229; Laverdière, _op. cit._,
seconde édition, vi, pp. 154–158; Marshall, _Historical Writings
Relating to the Early History of the West_, p. 22. It will be seen that
these Indians were not considered as slaves by Champlain. They were
to be educated and trained in religious duties for their own good,
for that of the faith and the future good of the French. Yet they
illustrate the readiness with which the Indians parted with members of
their own tribe, as well as with those whom they held captive.
[243] Shea, _Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley_, pp.
xxxii, 23; _Jesuit Relations_, lix, p. 121; French, _op. cit._, pt. iv,
p. xxxii.
[244] Shea, _Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley_, p.
lv.
[245] French, _op. cit._, pt. iv, p. li.
[246] _Ibid._, pt. iv, p. 169; pt. i, pp. 71, 72, 74; Margry, _op.
cit._, ii, p. 98; Joutel, _Journal of La Salle’s Last Voyage_, p. 118.
[247] French, _op. cit._, series 2, p. 100.
[248] _Ibid._, new series, p. 84; Margry, _op. cit._, v, p. 433.
[249] Margry, _op. cit._, vi, p. 21.
[250] _Ibid._, vi, pp. 47, 48.
[251] _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, xvi, p. 192.
[252] French, _op. cit._, p. 74; Margry, _op. cit._, vi, pp. 282, 370,
37?.
[253] Margry, _op. cit._, vi, p. 407.
[254] _Mississippi Provincial Archives, French Domination,
Correspondance Générale_, 1716, vi, p. 355.
[255] _Le Code Noir_, Article IX.
[256] Robinson, _op. cit._, p. 363.
[257] Lescarbot, _op. cit._, i, p. 74.
[258] Margry, _op. cit._, vi. p. 21.
[259] _Ibid._, vi, p. 458.
[260] _Ibid._, vi, p. 417.
[261] As in the case of the Spaniards, not all the Indians who
accompanied the French exploring parties were slaves. Many of them were
hired. Others were sent by their chiefs. Some went voluntarily.
[262] Le Page du Pratz, _The History of Louisiana_, etc., p. 20.
[263] _Correspondance Générale_, 1678–1706. Tome 2, p. 328. A memoir in
the possession of the Louisiana Historical Society.
[264] _The Present State of the Country and Inhabitants, European and
Indians of Louisiana on the North Continent of America_, p. 12.
[265] _Archives du Ministre des Colonies_, C. 13. 1707–1712, p. 398.
[266] Pittman, _The Present State of the European Settlements on
the Mississippi_, etc., Hodder edition, p. 102; Hamilton, _Colonial
Mobile_, p. 67; Monette, _History of the Discovery and Settlement
of the Valley of the Mississippi_, i, p. 192; Gayarré, _History of
Louisiana, French Domination_, i, p. 242; Thwaites, _Early Western
Travels_, xxvii, p. 55; _Jesuit Relations_, lxix, p. 145; Martin,
_History of Louisiana_, i. p. 173.
[267] Guénin, _La Louisiane_, p. 297.
[268] Pittman, _op. cit._, Hodder edition, p. 102.
[269] _Jesuit Relations_, lxix, p. 145.
[270] _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, xvi, p. 332.
[271] _Mississippi Provincial Archives, French Domination,
Correspondance Générale_, iv, 1713–1714, p. 14; _Notes et Documents
Historiques de la Louisiane_, p. 29.
[272] Bossu, _op. cit._, p. 114; Margry, _op. cit._, i, p. 112.
[273] _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, xvi, pp. 378, 379,
454.
[274] Margry. _op. cit._, ii, p. 293. The only instance in which a
home government demanded that Indians be sent to Europe to perform
actual labor as slaves, exists in the case of the French. On July 31,
1684, Louis XIV ordered de la Barre to send all Iroquois prisoners
to France to serve in the galleys, because, said the letters royal,
“these savages are strong and robust.” Brodhead, _History of New York_,
first edition, ii, p. 476. De la Barre made an expedition against the
Iroquois, but was unsuccessful. In 1687, Denonville, the succeeding
governor-general, led another expedition against the Iroquois who had
been especially arrogant toward the French since the repulse of de la
Barre. Before the expedition had set out from Fort Frontenac, another
dispatch from the king had arrived. This repeated his former orders
to send the Iroquois prisoners to France to serve in the galleys.
Denonville obeyed the command. Brodhead, _op. cit._, ii, p. 507. The
order was repeated March, 1688, declaring “It is certain that those
Indians, who are vigorous and accustomed to hardship, can serve
usefully on board his Majesty’s galleys,” Brodhead, _op. cit._, ii,
p. 546. Continued difficulties with the Indians led Denonville, among
other concessions and attempts at conciliation, to write to France,
asking that as many of the Indian galley slaves as survived should be
returned to Canada, and suggesting that, to produce as good an effect
as possible, they be decently clothed. The request was complied with.
Marshall, _Historical Writings relating to the early History of the
West_, p. 159; De Brumath, _Bishop Laval_, pp. 214, 215, 216. For a
description of the French galleys of the time, see Clément, _Vie de
Colbert_, p. 456.
[275] Parkman, _A Half-Century of Conflict_, ii, p. 17.
[276] Margry, _op. cit._, vi, p. 402.
[277] _Arkansas Historical Society Publications_, ii, p. 342.
[278] Hamilton, _Slavery in Canada_, in _Transactions of the Canadian
Institute_, 1890, i, p. 103.
[279] See Hinsdale, _The Old Northwest_, etc., revised edition, p.
347; Monette, _op. cit._, pp. 199–200; _Wisconsin Historical Society
Collections_, 1856, iii, pp. 256 _et seq._
[280] Cramoisy, _Journal de la Guerre du Micissippi contre les
Chicachas_, p. 53.
[281] _Wisconsin Historical Society Proceedings_, xlvi, p. 141.
[282] Bienville ordered one of the Indian prisoners, who had assisted
in the murder of St. Cosmé, to be placed on a wooden horse, and his
brains to be beaten out with a club. His scalp was then cut off, and
his body thrown into the river.
[283] Parkman, _The Pioneers of France in the New World_, pp. 217, 244.
[284] Lescarbot, _op. cit._, iii, p. 612; Parkman, _The Pioneers of
France in the New World_, p. 279; Marshall, _op. cit._, p. 127.
[285] The following records are from a transcript in the library of
Tulane University.
1724, Feb. 4, est né un fils d’une esclave Indienne appt—le père est
inconnu. (p. 26).
1724, May 2—autre fois esclave de la nation des Panis marié avec
Francarte de la nation de Chat—(p. 33).
1728, Sept. 13—ai inhumé dans la cimetière de cette paroisse—le corps
de sauvagesse apport à—(p. 280).
1729, Feb. 26—ai baptisé—sauvage appt. à M. Roquet, (p. 371).
1729, June 20—ai baptisé—sauvage appt. à M. Villevalle (p. 389).
1730, Janvier 30—ai inhumé dans la cimetière de cette paroisse avec les
ceremonies ordinaires de l’église, le corps de Jean Baptise, sauvage,
age de deux ans, appt. à M. de Ste. Cheuse (p. 424).
au fay de quoy j’ai signé, Fr. Hyacueltre.
[286] Tanguay, _A Travers les Registres_, pp. 88, 111, 157 (instances
cited).
[287] _Jesuit Relations_, lxx, p. 232.
[288] Dunn, _Indiana_, p. 127. _Parkman Club Papers_, p. 210, gives an
account of the marriage of two Indian slaves in 1754. About 1750 half
the baptisms and marriages recorded in the church register of Vincennes
were “red or Indian slaves,” belonging to the commandant or to the
inhabitants. Law, _The General History of Vincennes_, etc., p. 145.
[289] This register is now kept in the Mobile cathedral under the care
of the Bishop of Mobile. It was presented for examination through the
kindness of Father Hacket.
[290] Margry, _op. cit._, iii, p. 66; Godwyn, _The Negro and Indian’s
Advocate_, etc., p. 30. When arrangements for an expedition to New
Biscay were being made, a memorial on America, February, 1684, called
attention to this state of affairs, and urged the king to enforce it in
order to attract to the side of the French the numerous negro, Indian
and mulatto slaves of that country. Margry, _op. cit._, iii, p. 66.
[291] Fortier, _A History of Louisiana_, i, p. 87.
[292] _Archives Nationales, Colonies_, C. 13, _Louisiane,
Correspondance Générale_, 1673–1706, i, p. 168.
[293] French, _Historical Collections of Louisiana and Florida_, new
series, i, p. 99; Pickett, _History of Alabama_, etc., p. 179.
[294] Martin, _The History of Louisiana from the Earliest Period_, i,
p. 173.
[295] Quoted in Fortier, _A History of Louisiana_, i, p. 101.
[296] Margry, _op. cit._, vi, p. 231; _Mississippi Provincial Archives,
French Domination, Correspondance Générale_, ix, p. 12; _Archives du
Ministre des Colonies_, C. 13, vi, p. 51.
[297] _The Present State of the Country and Inhabitants, European and
Indians of Louisiana on the North Continent of America_, etc., p. 26.
[298] _Jesuit Relations_, lxix, p. 211.
[299] Smith, _Slavery in Canada_, in _Nova Scotia Historical Society
Collections_, 1896–1898, x, p. 3.
[300] Dunn, _Indiana_, p. 126.
[301] _Jesuit Relations_, lxix, p. 145; Hinsdale, _The Old Northwest_,
etc., p. 347.
[302] Burton, _Cadillac’s Village, or Detroit under Cadillac_, p. 34.
[303] _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, xvi, p. 295.
[304] _Ibid._, xvi, p. 340.
[305] _Beauharnois et Hocquart au Ministre._ Quoted in Salone, _La
Colonisation de la Nouvelle-France_, deuxième édition, p. 353.
[306] _Mémoires et Documents Relatifs à l’Histoire du Canada_,
published by the Montreal Historical Society, pp. 8–9. Records
following that time show Pawnee slaves still in existence down to 1827,
_Wisconsin Historical Society Collections_, vii, pp. 158, 177, 179;
xi, p. 393; xii, p. 94; _Nova Scotia Historical Society Collections_,
1896–1898, x, p. 3. In the Niagara _Herald_ several advertisements
are found relating to Indian slaves. One of August 25, 1802, forbids
all persons harboring a runaway Indian slave. So in the _Gazette_ and
_Oracle_, early in the nineteenth century, advertisements refer to
Indian slaves or “Pawnees.”
[307] Rambaut, _A Sketch of the Constitutional History of Canada_, p.
28.
[308] Smith, _Slavery in Canada_, in _Nova Scotia Historical Society
Collections_, 1896–1898, x, p. 3.
[309] Grignon, _Recollections_, in _Wisconsin Historical Society
Collections_, 1856, iii, pp. 256–258, mentions several such instances.
[310] _Report Concerning Canadian Archives_, 1904, pt. ii, p. 211.
[311] _Mémoires et Documents Relatifs à l’Histoire du Canada_, pp. 5–6.
An interesting example of such manumission is recorded in Louisiana in
1770. On April 30th of that year, the Sieur Pierre Clermont appeared
before the notary of the Cabildo and declared that he had had for a
long time in his service an Indian, Louison, of the nation of the
“Sious.” The latter had served him with so much attachment and zeal
that he desired to reward him, and believed that the best way to do
so was to give him his freedom. As, however, he had an indispensable
need for the Indian for three years longer, and feared that he might
be prevented by death from liberating him, he stated that it was his
wish that in three years Louison be set free and enjoy all the rights
of freedom. Louison, in his turn, stated that he thanked the Sieur
Clermont, and promised to serve him faithfully for three years. He
also agreed to lose all rights given him by his master if he should
be ungrateful to him. Fortier, _Old Papers of Colonial Times_, in
_Louisiana Historical Society Publications_, i, pt. ii, 1895, p. 17.
[312] _Mississippi Provincial Archives, French Domination,
Correspondance Générale_, 1716, vi, p. 355.
[313] _Ibid._, 1721–1722, x, p. 217; _Archives du Ministre des
Colonies_, C. 13, vi, p. 368.
[314] Hewat, _An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the
Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia_, ii, p. 227.
[315] Wilson, _A New History of the Conquest of Mexico_, p. 34.
[316] Dunn, _Indiana_, p. 126.
[317] Carver, _Travels through the Interior Parts of North America_,
etc., p. 348.
[318] Salone, _La Colonisation de la Nouvelle-France_, deuxième
édition, p. 353.
[319] In 1793, slavery was abolished in Upper Canada by act of the
Provincial Parliament. In Lower Canada, it had practically ceased by
1800, the few remaining slaves being freed by an imperial act in 1834.
_Jesuit Relations_, lxix, p. 301. The last public sale of a slave in
Canada took place in Montreal in 1797. It has been held, however, that
it was the proceeding of the Canadian courts, consistent with the
rising public sentiment in England and France against slavery, rather
than the actual state of the law, which reached the slave owners’
claims, and finally broke them. Hamilton, _Slavery in Canada_, in
_Transactions of the Canadian Institute_, 1890, i, p. 102.
[320] _Archives Nationales, Colonies_, C. 13, _Louisiane,
Correspondance Générale_, i, 1678–1706, p. 514; Gayarré, _History of
Louisiana_, i, p. 100.
[321] _Mississippi Provincial Archives, French Domination,
Correspondance Générale_, viii, 1717–1720, pp. 73–74.
[322] _Mississippi Provincial Archives, French Domination,
Correspondance Générale_, xvii, pp. 303–307.
[323] _Report Concerning Canadian Archives_, 1905, i, p. 117.
[324] John Long’s _Journal_, 1768–1782, in Thwaites, _Early Western
Travels_, ii, p. 116.
[325] Care should be taken to distinguish between the term “Pawnee”
as applied to an Indian tribe, and as used by the French to mean any
Indian slave, regardless of the tribe to which he originally belonged.
[326] Parkman, _The Old Régime in Canada_, p. 338.
[327] _Ibid._, p. 388.
[328] Hamilton, _Slavery in Canada_, in _Transactions of the Canadian
Institute_, 1890, i, p. 102.
[329] Fortier, _A History of Louisiana_, i, p. 85; Burke, _An Account
of the European Settlements in America_, i, p. 45.
[330] France also had in mind the getting rid of an undesirable class.
[331] Martin, _The History of Louisiana_, i, p. 266.
[332] French, _op. cit._, pt. iii, p. 42. Hamilton, _Slavery in
Canada_, in _Transactions of the Canadian Institute_, 1890, i, p. 102.
[333] French, _op. cit._, pt. iii, p. 42.
[334] Rowland, _Encyclopedia of Mississippi History_, ii, p. 673.
[335] Wallace, _History of Louisiana and Illinois_, p. 239.
[336] Rowland, _op. cit._, ii, p. 673.
[337] French, _op. cit._, pt. iii, p. 21.
[338] Stoddard, _History of Louisiana_, p. 36.
[339] Martin, _History of Louisiana_, i, p. 266. For an instance of one
hundred and seventy-five negroes brought in one vessel to Louisiana in
1721, see Margry, _op. cit._, v, p. 583.
[340] See Fortier, _op. cit._, i, pp. 87–94.
[341] _Jesuit Relations_, lxvii, p. 281.
[342] Albach, _Annals of the West_, p. 88; _Illinois Historical Society
Publications_, xi, 1906, p. 49.
[343] Breese, _Early History of Illinois_, p. 194.
[344] _Illinois Historical Society Publications_, xi, 1906, p. 49.
[345] Doyle, _English Colonies in America, The Puritan Colonies_, ii,
p. 506.
[346] _I. e._, until after the Pequot and King Philip Wars.
[347] Freeman, _The History of Cape Cod_, p. 72.
[348] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, 1715, p. 516.
[349] Coffin, _A Sketch of the History of Newbury_, etc., p. 337;
_Essex Institute Historical Collections_, vii, p. 73; _Connecticut
Colonial Records_, 1711, p. 233.
[350] Hawks, _History of North Carolina_, etc., second edition, ii, p.
577.
[351] _Bancroft Papers Relating to Carolina_, in New York City Public
Library, MSS. vol. i, 1662–1769; Rivers, _A Sketch of the History of
South Carolina to the Close of the Proprietary Government_, etc.,
p. 232; _South Carolina Historical Society Collections_, ii, p.
217; Thomas, _The Indians of North America_, etc., p. 95; Schaper,
_Sectionalism in South Carolina_, p. 263.
[352] Logan, _A History of the Upper Country of South Carolina_, i, p.
189.
[353] Rivers, _A Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the Close
of Proprietary Government_, etc., p. 231.
[354] _Public Records of South Carolina_, 1711–1716, vi, p. 276;
_British Public Record Office_, Am. N. I., vol. 620.
[355] Hewat, _An Historical Account of the Rise of the Colonies of
South Carolina and Georgia_, i, p. 309.
[356] Glenn, _A Description of South Carolina_, etc., p. 81;
_Charleston Year Book_, 1883, p. 407. (A quotation from a pamphlet
entitled, “The Importance of the British Plantations in America to this
Kingdom,” London, 1731).
[357] Dalcho, _An Historical Account of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in South Carolina_, p. 287; Humphreys, _An Historical Account of the
Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign
Parts_, etc., edition of 1730, pp. 103–105.
As the result of the intermingling of negroes and Indians, which came
about when the coast tribes dwindled and the small number of remaining
members moved inland, associated and intermarried with the negroes
until they finally lost their identity and were classed with that
race, a considerable portion of the blood of the southern negroes is
unquestionably Indian. _Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of
American Ethnology_, 1897–1898, p. 233. It was these mixed bloods, as
well as the pure blood Indians, to which the statutes referred by the
terms “Indian slaves” and “mustee,” or “mestee,” slaves. Occasional
mention is made in the colonial newspapers of slaves of the mixed
red and black races. _American Weekly Mercury_, October 24, 1734.
The opinion has even been advanced that, in certain of the colonies,
there never were any pure blood Indian slaves. Mr. W. B. Melius of
Albany, New York, asserts; “I do not believe the pure Indian was sold
as a slave (in New York), I believe the Indian who was the slave was
not without mixture.” _New York State Library Bulletin, History_, No.
4, May, 1900. One instance of the mixture of the Indians and negroes
in New York is found in a complaint made in 1717, that negro slaves
ran away, and were secreted by the Minisink with whose women they
intermarried. _Ibid._, No. 4, May, 1900.
[358] _Colonial Records of the State of Georgia_, vi, p. 259, mentions
an Indian slave in 1749.
[359] Howe, _Historical Collections of Virginia_, etc., p. 134.
[360] Winthrop, _Journal History of New England_, i, p. 225, in
_Original Narratives of Early American History_.
[361] See Chapter V.
[362] “It seems probable that there were no Indian slaves in Plymouth
before the division of land in 1623.” _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_, series 4, iii, p. 114.
[363] _Boston News Letter_ and other newspapers.
[364] Ellis, _The History of Roxbury Town_, p. 136.
[365] Felt, _The History of Ipswich_, pp. 306, 320; _Boston Weekly
Mercury_, October 2, 1735.
[366] Wilson, _Where American Independence Began_, p. 154.
[367] Corey, _The History of Malden_, p. 416.
[368] _Ibid._
[369] Chase, _The History of Haverhill_, pp. 239, 248.
[370] Earle, _Customs and Fashions in Old New England_, p. 84.
[371] Doyle, _English Colonies in America, The Puritan Colonies_,
ii, p. 68. In 1708, Governor Dudley made a report on slaves and the
slave trade to the Board of Trade, in which he stated that there were
400 negro slaves in Massachusetts. No mention was made of Indians.
_Historical Magazine_, x, p. 52.
[372] _American Antiquarian Society Proceedings_, 1885–1887, new
series, iv, p. 216.
[373] _American Statistical Association Collections_, i, pp. 208–214;
_Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 1, iv, p. 199.
[374] Livermore, _A History of Block Island_, etc., p. 60.
[375] _New England Courant_, June 17, 1723—A Spanish Indian runaway
from Newport; _Boston Gazette_, October 28, 1728—An Indian runaway
slave from Warwick, Rhode Island.
[376] Channing, _The Narragansett Planters_, p. 10, in _Johns Hopkins
University Studies_, iv.
[377] _Ibid._, p. 10.
[378] _Colonial Records of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations_,
viii, p. 359.
[379] Bradford, _History of Plymouth Plantation_, p. 342, in _Original
Narratives of Early American History_.
[380] See pp. 130–131, 150.
[381] Caulkins, _History of New London_, pp. 330, 335, mentions Indian
slaves in 1711 and 1735; An Indian woman slave lived in Westbury until
her death in 1774. Steiner, _History of Slavery in Connecticut_, p. 21,
in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, xi.
[382] Steiner, _op. cit._, p. 12, in _Johns Hopkins University
Studies_, xi.
[383] Sanborn, _New Hampshire, an Epitome of Popular Government_, p.
137.
[384] Sanborn, _op. cit._, p. 151, states that in 1720, hardly an
Indian remained in New Hampshire, except, perhaps, an enslaved captive.
[385] The _Boston Postboy_, May 2, 1743, advertises a runaway Indian
slave from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The same paper, July 25, 1743,
advertises another runaway Indian slave from New Castle, in the same
colony.
[386] “In theory, at least, the Hollander considered the Indian a man
like himself, with analogous rights to life, liberty and possessions.”
Consequently, “Indians were not enslaved in New Netherland.” Van
Rensselaer, _History of the City of New York in the Seventeenth
Century_, i, p. 63. These statements are rather difficult to prove.
Holding Indians as slaves who had been enslaved elsewhere and then
brought into the colony, and making slaves in the colony and then
sending them out of it, were practices that unquestionably existed,
even if on a small scale. The declaration of the governor and council
of New York in 1680 that “all Indians here have always been, and are,
free, and not slave, except such as have been formerly brought from the
Bay and Foreign Ports,” (Brodhead, _History of the State of New York_,
first edition, ii, p. 331), shows the presence of some Indian slaves in
the Dutch colony.
The records of New Netherland contain accounts of manumission in that
colony of slaves called Spaniards and bearing Spanish names. Whether
these individuals were Spanish Indians, or negroes from the Spanish
Islands, is not specified in the records. One such person received
his freedom in 1645, by payment of 300 carolus guilders. O’Callaghan,
_Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of
State, Albany, New York_, pt. i, p. 45. Another received his freedom in
1646, in return for his long and faithful services. O’Callaghan, _op.
cit._, pt. i, p. 105. Two others, slaves in the Company’s service, were
freed in 1664. O’Callaghan, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 264. Still others,
belonging presumably to individual owners, received freedom in this
same year. O’Callaghan, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 269.
Two incidents of enslavement of Indians in New Netherland are
noteworthy, even if the individuals concerned were subsequently
sent out of the colony. The first instance occurred in 1644, in
connection with the Indian troubles of that time. At the close of the
difficulties, some of the Indian prisoners were sent by Governor Kieft
to the Bermudas “as a present to the English governor.” Still others
were given to the “oldest and most experienced soldiers,” who, at that
time, were allowed to go to Holland. Brodhead, _History of the State of
New York_, revised edition, i, p. 396; _New York Colonial Documents_,
i, p. 215; Van Rensselaer, _op. cit._, i, p. 235. The second instance
was connected with the Esopus Indians. On May 25, 1660, a resolution
was taken in the council to transport to Curaçao all but two or three
of the lately acquired Esopus Indians, “to be employed there, or at
Buenaire, with the negroes in the Company’s service.” Brodhead, _op.
cit._, revised edition, i, p. 676; O’Callaghan, _Calendar of Historical
Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of State in Albany_, pt.
i, p. 295. On June 29th, Stuyvesant issued an order, and arranged for
their passage. O’Callaghan, _op. cit_., pt. i, p. 214. O’Callaghan,
_History of New Netherland_, etc., ii, p. 420, gives the number
transported as eleven. Schoonmaker, _The History of Kingston_, p. 16,
states it as twenty. Those retained in the colony on this occasion were
not enslaved, but were to be punished “as might be thought proper or as
necessity might demand.” Schoonmaker, _op. cit._, p. 16. The relations
with the Iroquois had prevented any serious Indian wars in the colony,
and because of this relation Stuyvesant’s act was considered highly
impolitic. His course, which was perhaps patterned after the action
of the English following the Pequot War, he sought to justify in his
declaration that “their enlargement would have a tendency to create
disaffection toward our nation. Our barbarian neighbors would glory,
as if they had inspired us with terror.” Schoonmaker, _op. cit._, p.
16. In 1661 these Indians were recalled from slavery. O’Callaghan,
_Calendar of Historical Manuscripts_, etc., pt. i, p. 295.
[387] Van Rensselaer, _History of the City of New York in the
Seventeenth Century_, i, p. 193.
[388] Brodhead, _History of the State of New York_, revised edition, i,
p. 193.
[389] _Records of the Towns of North and South Hempstead, Long Island_,
ii, p. 60.
[390] Northrup, _Slavery in New York_, in _New York State Library
Bulletin, History_. No. 4, May, 1900, p. 305.
[391] _Ibid._ Note that April 27, 1699, Bellomont reported to the Lords
of Trade: “They have no other servants in this country but negroes.”
[392] O’Callaghan, _Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of
the Secretary of State, Albany, New York_, pt. ii, p. 314.
[393] _New York Historical Society Collections_, 1892, i, p. 413.
[394] _New York Colonial Documents_, v, p. 433.
[395] Scharf, _History of Westchester County_, etc., ii, p. 667.
[396] _Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New York_, iv, p. 2357;
Dix, _History of the Parish of Trinity Church in the City of New York_,
i, p. 203.
[397] _New York Colonial Documents_, vi, p. 546.
[398] O’Callaghan, _Documentary History of New York_, ii, p. 984;
_Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections_, xxx, p. 596.
[399] _New York Gazette_, July 23, 1733 (a runaway Indian slave from
Flushing); March 3, 1734 (a runaway Indian slave from Westchester);
February 13, 1739 (a runaway slave from New York City). _New York
Weekly Mercury_, October 27, November 3, and November 10, 1740 (a
runaway Indian slave from New York); August 16, 1756 (a runaway Indian
slave from Long Island); May 30 and June 13, 1757 (a runaway Indian
slave from “the mines near Second River”); June 12, June 19, June
26, July 3, 1758 (a runaway Indian slave from Newcastle, Westchester
County).
[400] The Delaware Indians had been conquered by the Iroquois, and so
humbled that they were glad to accept the friendship of the Quakers
and live in peace. Parkman, _The Conspiracy of Pontiac_, etc., sixth
edition, i, p. 82.
[401] _The Pennsylvania Gazette_, April 20, 1737, October 5, 1738,
March 16, 1731. _The American Daily Mercury_, March 24, 1720; May 24,
1726; August 28, 1729; July 30, 1730; August 16, 1733; July 8, 1771,
_The Pennsylvania Journal_, June 18, 1726.
[402] Scharf, _History of Delaware_, i, p. 180; Smith, _History of
Delaware County, Pennsylvania_, p. 219.
[403] Martin, _Chester and its Vicinity_, p. 189.
[404] Smith, _History of Delaware County, Pennsylvania_, p. 335;
Martin, _Chester and its Vicinity_, p. 189; Futhey and Cope, _History
of Chester County, Pennsylvania_, etc., p. 424. The registration was
made in accordance with the terms of the act of 1780, which provided
for the registration of all negro and mulatto slaves and servants for
life.
[405] _Report of the Friends’ Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania and the
Jersies, from the 19th to the 24th of the 7th month, 1719_, p. 211.
[406] Lee, _New Jersey as a Colony and as a State_, i, p. 199.
[407] Cornelius Van Vorst had a slave known as “Half Indian Jack,” who
died at Harsimus, February 2, 1831, at the age of 102 years. Winfield,
_History of the County of Hudson, New Jersey_, p. 434.
_The New York Gazette_, June 24, July 8, July 15, July 29, August 12,
and August 26, advertises a runaway Indian slave, and a second slave,
half Indian and half negro, from Monmouth County, New Jersey. _The
American Weekly Mercury_, October 24, October 31, and November 7, 1734,
advertises a runaway slave, half Indian and half negro, from Perth
Amboy, New Jersey.
[408] The Yoamaco Indians of that section had been so preyed upon by
the “Susquahannocks” that they had abandoned their country. Oldmixon,
_The British Empire in America_, etc., i, p. 189.
[409] Lawson, _A New Voyage to Carolina_, etc., p. 194, states that the
Indians of the Carolina country refused to sell their children, though
they would sell anything else they possessed for wampum. For precedents
when the English sold white captives in war, see Trowbridge, _A History
of Ancient Maritime Interests in New Haven_, p. 47; Lecky, _A History
of England in the Eighteenth Century_, ii, p. 189.
[410] Quoted in Bannister, _British Colonization and Colored Tribes_,
pp. 49–54.
[411] _William and Mary College Quarterly_, vi, p. 214.
[412] _The Narrative of Bacon’s Rebellion_, in Winder Papers, Virginia
State Library, reprinted in _Virginia Magazine of History_, iv,
1896–1897, p. 140, tells of forty-five Indian captives taken. “The
plunder and captives estimated noe lesse than 6 or 700, the goodes
being three horse loades.”
[413] _Calendar of State Papers_, colonial series, x, p. 165. Later all
but five were restored to the queen by Ingram, one of Bacon’s officers.
[414] Rivers, _A Sketch of the History of South Carolina_, etc., p. 106.
[415] Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 78; Grahame, _The History of the United
States_, etc., ii, p. 113.
[416] Rivers, _op. cit._, p. 200.
[417] Religious hatred and race hatred, as well as the desire for
personal gain, dictated Moore’s action. Note that the constant enmity
of the Spanish and English Indians, and their raids upon each other,
gave him excellent opportunity to accomplish his purpose.
[418] Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 157.
[419] _Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology_,
p. 233.
[420] _Public Records of South Carolina_, v, 1700–1710, p. 196;
_British Public Record Office_, vol. 620.
[421] Fairbanks, _History of Florida from its Discovery_, etc., p. 179.
[422] Fairbanks, _op. cit._, p. 189; Fairbanks, _The History and
Antiquities of the City of St. Augustine_, etc., p. 139.
[423] Hodge, _op. cit._, pt. i, p. 875; pt. ii, p. 600.
[424] _Records of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in
Foreign Parts._
[425] A few Indians were captured before this, and a few more were
imported, like other slaves. Bassett, _Slavery and Servitude in
the Colony of North Carolina_, p. 72, in _Johns Hopkins University
Studies_, xiv.
[426] _North Carolina Colonial Records_, i, p. 815.
[427] McCrady, _The History of South Carolina under Proprietary
Government_, p. 499.
[428] _North Carolina Colonial Records_, i, p. 826.
[429] _Ibid._, i, p. 875.
[430] _Ibid._, ii, p. iv.
[431] _Ibid._, i, p. 826.
[432] _Ibid._, ii, p. 30; McCrady, _op. cit._, p. 526; _South Carolina
Historical and Genealogical Magazine_, ix, 1908, pp. 33, 39, 41.
[433] McCrady, _op. cit._, p. 566; Rivers, _A Sketch of the History
of South Carolina_, etc., p. 254; _South Carolina Historical and
Genealogical Magazine_, viii, 1908, pp. 28–54.
[434] Bassett, _op. cit._, p. 73, in _Johns Hopkins University
Studies_, xiv.
[435] These Indians had never forgotten the seizure of twenty-seven
of their number by Thomas Hunt who had been in Smith’s expedition of
1614, and were, in consequence, always antagonistic to the whites. As
the result of their depredations, the Connecticut general court, May
1, 1637, declared an offensive war against them. See copy of the court
record in Orr, _History of the Pequot War_, etc., p. ix. Mason records
that one cause of not pursuing the Indians farther was the Sabbath
coming on. Mason, _A Brief Narrative of the Pequot War_, in Orr, _op.
cit._, p. 34.
[436] _Ibid._, p. 39.
[437] Winthrop, _Journal History of New England_, i, p. 225, in
_Original Narratives of Early American History_; Hubbard, _A Narrative
of the Indian Wars in New England_, p. 42. They were carried into the
harbor and drowned. Mather, _Magnalia_,, edition of 1820, ii, p. 483.
It has been stated that Massachusetts made no effort to retain
the captive male Pequot as slaves because of the admonition given
in Leviticus, xxiv, 44, that the heathen of the land in which the
Israelitish people dwelt were not to be enslaved, but only those “that
were round about them”—the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and Syrians,
whose utter extermination had not been expressly decreed. _Historical
Magazine_, x, p. 49.
[438] Winthrop, _Journal_, i, p. 225, in _Original Narratives of Early
American History_; Bradford, _History of Plymouth Plantation_, p. 342,
in _Original Narratives of Early American History_. Winthrop states the
number of captives as eighty. This is evidently an error, for the sum
of those whom he mentions as disposed of is eighty-three. Mason, _op.
cit._, in Orr, _op. cit._, p. 39, gives the number of captives as one
hundred and eighty.
A division of the Indian captives among the allies would tend to draw
them nearer to the English. It was for this reason, and because the
Indians enslaved at the first division of captives persisted in running
away, that all the Indians of the second division were not enslaved.
The Indians distributed among the friendly Indians did not become
their slaves. In the case of the Narraganset, Roger Williams informed
Governor Winthrop, June, 1637, that they did not desire to use the
Pequot as slaves, but preferred to treat them kindly, and grant them
houses and lands. _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_,
series 4, vi, p. 195.
[439] Winthrop, _Journal_, i, p. 225, in _Original Narratives of Early
American History_.
[440] Steiner, _History of Slavery in Connecticut_, p. 9, in _Johns
Hopkins University Studies_, xi.
[441] Morton, _op. cit._, 104; _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_, series 4, iii, p. 360. In the Swamp Fight the Indians
were attacked by the combined forces of Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Hence the division of the captives between the two colonies.
[442] Winthrop, _Journal_, i, p. 260, in _Original Narratives of
Early American History_; Bradford, _op. cit._, p. 342, in _Original
Narratives of Early American History_.
[443] Winthrop, _Journal_, i, p. 225, in _Original Narratives of Early
American History_.
[444] _Calendar of State Papers_, colonial series, i, 1574–1660, p. 278.
[445] _Ibid._, i, p. 296.
[446] Freeman, _Civilisation and Barbarism_, p. 64, declares that the
enslaving of Indians had become a mania with speculators.
[447] Williamson, _The History of the State of Maine_, etc., i, p. 531;
Drake, _The Book of the Indians_, ninth edition, bk. iii, p. 40.
[448] Drake’s Note in Hubbard, _A Narrative of the Indian Wars in New
England_, etc., ii, p. 94.
[449] Bodge, _Soldiers in King Philip’s War_, p. 209.
[450] _Plymouth Colony Records_, v, p. 173.
[451] _Ibid._, v, p. 174.
[452] Felt, _The Ecclesiastical History of New England_, ii, p. 576.
[453] Baylies, _Historical Memoir of New Plymouth_, ii, pt. iii, pp.
47–48; Church, _The History of King Philip’s War_, Dexter edition, p.
147.
[454] Baylies, _op. cit._, ii, pt. iii, p. 75.
[455] Hough, _A Narrative of the Causes which led to Philip’s Indian
War of 1675–1676_, pp. 188–189.
[456] _Plymouth Colony Records_, v, p. 173; ix, p. 401.
[457] Hough, _op. cit._, p. 25; Felt, _Annals of Salem_, second
edition, i, p. 507.
[458] _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_, viii, pp.
270–272.
[459] Hutchinson, _The History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_,
etc., i, p. 306.
[460] Ellis and Morris, _King Philip’s War_, p. 287.
[461] Drake’s Note in Hubbard, _op. cit._, ii, p. 94. These Indians did
not sell well abroad, for doubtless former experience had proved their
race to be unsatisfactory as slaves. In one instance, when no immediate
market could be found, a number of them were left in the slave market
of Algiers from which, by the efforts of John Eliot, they were enabled
to return to America in 1683. _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_, series 1, ii, p. 183. Of this incident Cotton Mather
said: “Moreover, ’tis a prophecy in Deut. 28: 68, ‘The Lord shall bring
thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee.
Thou shalt see it no more again; and there ye shall be sold unto your
enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.’ These did
our Eliot imagine were sent to be sold in the coasts lying not very
far from the coasts of Egypt, on the Mediterranean Sea, and scarce any
chapman would offer to take them off.” _Magnalia_, bk. iii, pt. 3.
[462] Baylies, _op. cit._, ii, pt. iii, p. 190.
[463] For a discussion of the treatment of Philip’s wife and son, see
_Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 4, viii, p. 689.
For the opinions of the two eminent divines to whom the matter of their
disposal was referred before colonial action was taken, see Baylies,
_op. cit._, ii, pt. iii, p. 190.
[464] _Plymouth Colony Records_, vi, p. 15. _The Boston Book of
Possessions_, p. 145 (quoted in Corey, _The History of Malden_, p. 48),
contains a proclamation issued by Governor Leverett, September 23,
1675, relating to the sale of seven male Indians to two colonists who
were to transport and sell them anywhere they wished.
[465] Shurtleff, _Records of the Governor and Company of the
Massachusetts Bay in New England_, v, p. 136.
[466] Gookin, _History of the Christian Indians_, in _American
Antiquarian Society Proceedings_, 1836, ii, p. 449.
[467] _Plymouth Colony Records_, v, p. 244.
[468] Shurtleff, _op. cit._, v, p. 136; _Plymouth Colony Records_, v,
pp. 207, 223; vi, p. 15. The Plymouth general court required that the
magistrates who disposed of such Indian children according to the order
of the court, should sign “indentures for such as are so disposed, to
prevent further differences.” _Plymouth Colony Records_, vi, p. 15.
[469] In 1676, as well as several years before and after, the
government of Rhode Island was in the hands of the Quakers. Staples,
_Annals of Providence_, p. 169. No organized effort against the system
of slavery in general was made in Rhode Island until that of the
Quakers, 1717. Weeden, _Early Rhode Island_, p. 188.
[470] _Rhode Island Historical Society Collections_, v, p. 170; _Rhode
Island Historical Society Publications_, new series, i, p. 234. This
same town meeting freed certain Indians and gave them the rights of
inhabitants, and sentenced others to be shot for crime. _Early Records
of Providence_, viii, p. 12. These Indian captives were carried to
the port in a vessel belonging to Providence Williams, son of Roger
Williams. Staples, _op. cit._, p. 172.
[471] Roger Williams was a member of this committee.
[472] _Rhode Island Historical Society Publications_, i, pp. 236–238;
Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, i, p. 425. For examples of
indentures or bills of sale, and receipts returned to the committee,
see _Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth_, pp. 430–433; vol.
01087 of the _Town Records of Providence_. See _Report of Record
Commissioners on Providence Town Records_.
[473] Richman, _Rhode Island, its Making and its Meaning_, ii, p. 192;
_Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in
New England_, ii, p. 549.
[474] Orcutt, _The History of the old Town of Derby, Connecticut_, p.
lvii.
[475] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, ii, p. 308.
[476] _William and Mary College Quarterly_, viii, p. 165.
[477] _Ibid._, viii, p. 165.
[478] Hening, _The Statutes at Large_, etc., ii, pp. 346, 404.
[479] Foote, _Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical_, first
edition, p. 18.
[480] Hening, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 404, 440; _Virginia Magazine of
History_, ii, p. 173. This law is almost a literal transcript of
Bacon’s law.
[481] Ballagh, _A History of Slavery in Virginia_, in _Johns Hopkins
University Studies_, extra volume xxiv, pp. 35, 50; Hening, _op. cit._,
ii, pp. 346, 404.
[482] Hening, _op. cit._, iv, p. 10.
[483] _Ibid._, i, p. 259.
[484] _Ibid._, i, p. 459.
[485] Indians held in captivity before 1670 were not slaves but
servants. See Chapter ix.
[486] Before that time, the Indians had given little or no trouble, and
the colony had never passed a militia act.
[487] Every seventh man was to be pressed into service. William Fuller
was appointed to command.
[488] Allen, _A Calendar of Maryland State Papers_, i, p. 54. This
appears to have been the only attempt made by Maryland to enslave
Indian war captives.
[489] _North Carolina Colonial Records_, i, p. 900; ii, p. iv.
[490] _Ibid._, ii, p. 305.
[491] _Ibid._, ii, pp. iv, 52; Williamson, _History of North Carolina_,
i, p. 289.
[492] _North Carolina Colonial Records_, ii, p. 45.
[493] Rivers, _op. cit._, p. 132.
[494] Lands were also given as reward for valor, but they were not
acceptable for the people had no laborers to work them. Hewat, _op.
cit._, i, p. 78.
[495] Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 74.
[496] Blackstone, _Commentaries on the Laws of England_, Lewis edition,
1898, i, p. 108.
[497] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, ii, pp. 189, 212.
[498] _Ibid._, ii, p. 212.
[499] In 1703, Sir Nathaniel Johnson succeeded Moore as governor.
[500] In a letter to the governor of South Carolina, May 1, 1704,
Moore states that he has taken all the people of three towns, and the
greatest part of four more, and that he has with him thirteen hundred
free Apalachee Indians and one hundred slaves. Carroll, _op. cit._, ii,
pp. 574–576.
[501] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, ii, pp. 322, 325.
[502] _Ibid._, ii, p. 637.
[503] Martin, _The Public Acts of the General Assembly of North
Carolina_, etc., edition of 1804, p. 135. If such an Indian should be
killed, the captor was to secure £10 from the public treasury. This
amount was probably less than the regular price of such slaves, for if
the amount were equal to the full value, the captor would have been
tempted to kill the captive, and thus avoid the trouble of keeping him.
Bassett, _Slavery and Servitude in the Colony of North Carolina_, p.
73, in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, xiv.
[504] _North Carolina Colonial Records_, xiii, pp. 204–205, contains
a letter of President Lowndes of South Carolina to Governor Caswell
of North Carolina, August 6, 1778, concerning the adjustment of this
matter. As late as 1776 Cherokee prisoners of war were sold to the
highest bidder in South Carolina, _Nineteenth Annual Report of the
Bureau of American Ethnology_, p. 223; Basset, _op. cit._, p. 73, in
_Johns Hopkins University Studies_, xiv.
[505] Hoadly, _Records of the Colony or Jurisdiction of New Haven, from
May, 1653, to the Union_, etc., p. 177.
[506] _Plymouth Colony Records_, ix, p. 4.
[507] _Ibid._, ix, p. 35.
[508] _Plymouth Colony Records_, v, p. 173.
[509] _Ibid._, v, p. 174.
[510] _Ibid._, v, p. 173; ix, p. 401.
[511] _Ibid._, xi, p. 242.
[512] Shurtleff, _op. cit._, v, p. 115.
[513] Baylies, _op. cit._, ii, pt. iii, p. 75.
[514] Hough, _op. cit._, pp. 188–189. It is to be noted that none
of the Indians transported were allowed to return to the colonies.
This same court, on rumors of Indians landing near the coast of Rhode
Island, forbade the landing of any Indian on the shores of Rhode Island
or Narragansett Bay. Hough, _op. cit._, p. 189.
[515] See Sylvester, _op. cit._, ii, p. 457, for expedients adopted by
Massachusetts to obtain money to defend the frontiers. Yet the number
killed and sold, along with those who escaped, practically destroyed
the warring Indians. According to the Massachusetts Records of
1676–1677 a day was set apart for public thanksgiving, because, among
other things of moment, “there now scarce remains a name or family of
them (the Indians) but are either slain, captivated or fled.”
[516] Both Plymouth and Massachusetts, by encouraging, as a part of
the war policy, the capture of Indians alive, through legalizing
such capture or granting a specified reward for each captive,
unintentionally increased the number of Indian captives that could be
sold. In a declaration issued by the New England commissioners at the
beginning of the war, it was declared “lawful for any person, whether
English or Indian, that shall find any Indians traveling or skulking
in any of the towns or roads (within specified limits), to command
them under their guard and examination, or to kill them as they may or
can.” To this direction was added: “The council hereby declaring, that
it will be most acceptable to them that none be killed or wounded that
are willing to surrender themselves into custody.” Halkett, _Historical
Notes respecting the Indians of North America_, p. 135.
In the eastern campaign Massachusetts offered twenty shillings bounty
for every Indian scalp, and forty shillings for every prisoner. The
individual towns sometimes took similar action. For instance, the
people of Monhegan publicly offered a bounty of £5 for every Indian
that should be brought in. In 1694, Massachusetts decreed that
volunteers were to have for every Indian, great or small, which they
should kill or bring in prisoner, £50, as well as all plunder. Soldiers
under pay were to receive, over and above pay, £10. In 1695, £25 was
decreed as the reward for any Indian woman or young person under
fourteen years of age. _Acts and Resolves_, i, pp. 176, 211, 292.
[517] _Historical Magazine_, x, p. 188.
[518] Douglas, _A Summary, Historical and Political_, etc., i, p. 557.
[519] _Acts and Resolves_, viii, p. 45.
[520] _Ibid._, i, 530.
[521] Church, _op. cit._, Dexter edition, i, p. 189. For the successful
expedition of Church in which he captured 126 Indians, see Sylvester,
_Indian Wars of New England_, ii, p. 326.
[522] This last phrase related to a decree of the Plymouth Council of
War, in turn confirmed by the Court, July 23, 1676. Hough, _op. cit._,
pp. 187–189. The bill of sale of one of the Indian women to Adam Right
of Duxbury bears the signature of Church. Weeden, _Early Rhode Island,
a Social History of the People_, p. 178.
[523] Gookin, _op. cit._, in _American Antiquarian Society
Collections_, ii, 1836, p. 449. One of the arguments used by the
warring Indians to persuade the Praying Indians to join with them, was
that the English proposed to destroy all the Praying Indians, or sell
them out of the country as slaves. _Ibid._, pp. 462, 476. The feeling
against the Praying Indians was so strong that a council in Boston,
August 30, 1675, disbanded them, and distributed them among five of
their own villages. Gookin, _op. cit._, in _American Antiquarian
Society Collections_, ii, 1836, p. 450. Most of the Indians were sent
to Deer Island. Some of them were transported before harvests were
gathered, and the government neglected to provide them with sufficient
food, clothes and shelter. _Ibid._, ii, 1836, p. 433 _et seq._
[524] Belknap, _The History of New Hampshire_, i, p. 245.
[525] Sumner, _A History of East Boston_, etc., p. 197.
[526] Gookin, _op. cit._, in _American Antiquarian Society
Collections_, 1836, ii, p. 449.
[527] Some of the Praying Indians fought on the English side. It was
reported among the Indians that these Christian Indians never shot
at their Indian opponents, but into the tops of trees, and that they
sold to Phipp’s agents the ammunition provided them. _Massachusetts
Historical Society Collections_, series 5, i, p. 106.
[528] It is estimated that there were probably between 30,000 and
40,000 white inhabitants in the United Colonies at the time of King
Philip’s War, and that of these, 6,000 to 8,000 were able to bear arms.
Mather, _A Brief History of the War with the Indians of New England_,
p. xxix. No estimate of the number of Praying Indians at the time
of the war seems available. Palfrey, _A Compendious History of New
England from the Discovery by Europeans_, etc., ii, p. 124, states
their number, when at the highest, as 4,000. In 1685, Mr. Hinckley,
governor of Plymouth, estimated them at 1,439, not counting children
under twelve years of age. Hutchinson, _The History of the Colony of
Massachusetts_, i, p. 349.
[529] _Plymouth Colony Records_, v, pp. 173–174; xii, p. 242; Baylies,
_op. cit._, ii, pt. iii, p. 188.
[530] Church, _op. cit._, Dexter edition, i, p. 182, mentions the sale
of an old Indian named “Conscience” to a native of Swanzey. Perhaps an
exception was made in the case of this Indian, because of age. Another
exception appears to have been made by the Plymouth Court, September
1, 1676, when Sergeant Rogers was allowed to keep his Indian man at
his own house, provided he should produce the said Indian on demand of
the court. Hough, _op. cit._, p. 186. Still another exception was made
by the Plymouth Court at the same session granting Church the right to
“some five or six Indians,” who, if their behavior was satisfactory,
might remain in the colony and not be sold to foreign parts unless
any of them should be proved to have murdered any of the English.
One Indian named “Crossman” was especially mentioned, as he had been
accused of murdering Mr. Hezekiah Willet. _Plymouth Colony Records_,
xi, p. 242; Baylies, _op. cit._, ii, pt. iii, p. 188.
[531] Pamphlet published in Cambridge in 1677, now in possession of the
Boston Athenaeum. The full text is as follows:
“At a court held at Boston in New England, the 29th of March, 1677. The
council being informed that certain strange Indians, who have been in
Hostility against us, or have lived amongst such, are brought into this
Jurisdiction, and bought by several persons, which causeth much trouble
and fear to the Inhabitants where they reside, and may be of dangerous
consequence, not only to the Towns where they live, but to the whole
Jurisdiction, if not timely prevented:
“It is therefore Ordered that what person soever within this
Jurisdiction shall hereafter buy or keep above ten days after the
publication hereof, any such Indian, man or woman already bought,
above the age of twelve years, without allowance from authority, shall
besides the forfeit of such Indian or Indians, pay the fine of five
pounds to the Treasurer of the Country, and the Constables of the
several towns are ordered forthwith to publish this Order in their
Precincts.
By the Council, Edward Rawson, Secr.”
[532] _Plymouth Colony Records_, v, p. 253.
[533] _Ibid._, ix, p. 71.
[534] Sylvester, _op. cit._, ii, p. 259; _Plymouth Colony Records_, v,
p. 173. This action was opposed by Church, but without result.
[535] Sylvester, _op. cit._, ii, p. 259; _Plymouth Colony Records_, v,
p. 174. Church, _op. cit._, Dexter edition, i, p. 46.
[536] Belknap, _The History of New Hampshire_, i, pp. 143, 245; _New
Hampshire Provincial Papers_, i, p. 357; Williamson, _The History of
the State of Maine_, i, p. 539; Sylvester, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 339–340;
Shurtleff, _op. cit._, v, p. 115. Hubbard and Mather barely mention
this affair. Hubbard, _op. cit._, pt. ii, p. 28; Mather, _Magnalia_,
bk. 7, ch. 6. Williamson states that the propriety of the event was
a “subject which divided the whole community; some applauded, some
doubted, some censured, but the government approved.”
[537] Ellis and Morris, _King Philip’s War_, p. 287; Baylies, _op.
cit._, ii, pt. iii, p. 190. In at least one instance, provision
against their being sold as slaves was made by the Indians in the
terms of their surrender. When the squaw-sachem, Awanthonks, deserted
the cause of Philip and allied herself with the English, she obtained
a promise from the Plymouth government “that the life of every man,
woman and child shall be spared, and none shall ever be sold as slaves,
or transported from their native soil.” Hough, _op. cit._, p. 20;
Drake, _The Book of the Indians_, ninth edition, p. 252; Freeman,
_Civilization and Barbarism_, p. 129.
[538] Shurtleff, _op. cit._, v, p. 136; _Plymouth Colony Records_, v,
pp. 207, 223.
[539] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, ii, 1665–1677, pp. 297–298.
Indians convicted of having murdered any of the English were to be put
to death, as in Massachusetts and Plymouth.
[540] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, ii, 1665–1677, pp. 481–482. At
this meeting the council granted liberty to ten Indians who had been
captured in a swamp where they had hidden.
[541] _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
in New England_, i, p. 243; Richman, _Rhode Island, its Making and its
Meaning_, ii, p. 192.
[542] _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_, ii, p. 534.
[543] “Because it is said they were left as hostages to the English
force of the United Colonies.” Hough, _op. cit._, p. 186.
[544] Action was taken in accordance with the powers granted in the
charter “to exercise the law martial in such cases as occasions shall
necessarily require, and upon just cause, to invade and destroy the
native Indians and other enemies of the said colony.” Hough, _op.
cit._, p. 173 _et seq._
[545] _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_, ii, pp. 549–551.
[546] _Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth_, p. 188. Rhode Island
was accustomed to sell both whites and Indians into temporary servitude
as punishment for crime. The Indians here mentioned were probably
examples of such cases. See _Rhode Island Tracts_, No. 18, p. 131. The
towns appears to have reversed its policy later. See Weeden, _Early
Rhode Island_, etc., p. 178.
It was politic for the colonial governments to oppose the enslavement
of Indians who were friendly to the English or in alliance with them.
Two such instances are recorded in connection with North Carolina. In
1713, at the request of the governor of New York, the Seneca Indians
sent an Indian to the Tuscarora to caution them against going to war
with the English. The South Carolina Indians captured this Indian and
held him as a slave. The council decided to buy him and send him back
to his own nation. _North Carolina Colonial Records_, ii, pp. 1–2.
In the same year the council ordered that a colonist who had sold a
friendly Indian as a slave should be held for trial. _Ibid._, ii, p. 55.
During the intercolonial wars the French Indians were accustomed to
take both their white and red captives to Canada, where the latter
became slaves. As a part of their protective, diplomatic and military
policy, the English sought to regain the freedom of these Indians, and
thus retain the friendship of the Six Nations. In 1688, Governor Dongan
demanded of the French agents that certain New York Indians who had
been sent from Canada to France, be returned to the English consul at
Paris or to the authorities in London, so that they might be brought
home and be given their freedom. _New York Colonial Documents_, iii,
p. 526. The French authorities agreed, and the Indians were brought
back. _Ibid._, iii, pp. 621, 732, 733. In 1748, Governor Shirley sought
to obtain the freedom of a Rhode Island Indian who had been sold as a
slave in Canada, and on another occasion sent fourteen French prisoners
to South Carolina to redeem certain members of the Six Nations who
were held there. _Ibid._, vi, p. 448. Throughout the French and Indian
struggle the governors of New York insisted that the members of the
Six Nations, when captured in war, should be treated exactly as other
English subjects, or, in other words, that they should not be enslaved.
[547] _Hakluyt Society Publications_, vii, p. 23; Beazley, _John and
Sebastian Cabot_, p. 118.
[548] Beazley, _op. cit._, p. 118.
[549] Historians differ regarding the place where these Indians were
captured. J. G. Kohl, in _A History of the Discovery of the East Coast
of North America_, reprinted in _Maine Historical Society Collections_,
series 2, i, p. 142, expresses the opinion that Cabot probably obtained
them on some shore south of New York harbor. James S. Buckingham, in
_Canada, Nova Scotia_, etc., pp. 168, 337; and Samuel G. Drake, in _The
History and Antiquities of Boston_, i, p. 1, regard Newfoundland as the
probable home of the savages.
[550] Best, _Frobisher’s First Voyage_, in _Voyages of the Elizabethan
Seamen to America_, Payne’s edition, pp. 65, 66.
[551] _Ibid._, pp. 76–88.
[552] _Ibid._, p. 136.
[553] Mather, _Magnalia Christi Americana_, etc., first American
edition, (1820), i, p. 52; Prince, _A Chronological History of New
England in the Form of Annals_, edition of 1887, ii, p. 26; Rosier, _A
True Relation of the most prosperous Voyage made this present year_,
etc., in _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 3,
viii, p. 145.
[554] Gorges, _A True Relation of the late Battell fought in New
England_, etc., in _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_,
series 3, vi, p. 51; Williamson, _The History of the State of Maine
from its first Discovery_, i, p. 207; Young, _Chronicles of the Pilgrim
Fathers of New England_, etc., second edition, p. 190.
[555] Stith, _History of Virginia_, bk. i, pp. 33, 34; Drake, _The Old
Indian Chronicle_, edition of 1867, pp. 10–13.
[556] Shakespeare’s jeering remark in “The Tempest,” Act II, Scene II,
regarding those who refuse to help a lame beggar, but who will pay
their money to see a dead Indian, may apply to one of these captives.
Out of the common interest in savages the poet doubtless constructed
the monster, Caliban.
When the Plymouth colony was founded, two of these captives were
placed on board a vessel bound from Bristol to the coast of Maine. A
Spanish fleet captured the ship, and the Indians were carried to Spain.
Gorges afterward recovered one of these two, who, with at least two
others of the original five, was afterward sent to America. Gorges,
_A Briefe Narration of the Originall Undertakings of the Advancement
of Plantations into the parts of America_, etc., in _Massachusetts
Historical Society Collections_, series 3, vi, p. 54; Drake, _op.
cit._, edition of 1867, p. 13.
[557] Hubbard, _A General History of New England_, etc., in
_Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 2, v, p. 37;
Drake, _op. cit._, edition of 1867, pp. 13–14. No record seems to exist
regarding the fate of these Indians. It may have been one of them
whom Gorges obtained from the Isle of Wight at the time the Earl of
Southampton was in command.
[558] Gorges, _A Briefe Narration of the Originall Undertakings of
the Advancement of Plantations into the parts of America_, etc., in
_Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 3, vi, p. 59.
[559] Drake, _The Book of the Indians_, etc., ninth edition, bk.
ii, p. 8; Gorges, _op. cit._, in _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_, series 3, vi, p. 58; Bradford, _History of Plymouth
Plantation_, pp. 111–112, in _Original Narratives of Early American
History_.
[560] Gorges, _op. cit._, in _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_, series 3, vi, p. 60; Freeman, _Civilisation and
Barbarism_, etc., p. 39; Drake, _The Old Indian Chronicle_, edition of
1867, pp. 6–7.
[561] Smith, _A Description of New England_, etc., in _Massachusetts
Historical Society Collections_, series 3, vi, p. 132. There is no
reason to believe that Smith had ideas regarding the Indians different
from those held by the Englishmen of his time who did not rank the
savage above the position of the slave, and who generally looked upon
the Indians as a “degraded, inferior and faithless race, and no more to
be regarded than the Africans.” Drake, _op. cit._, edition of 1867, p.
7.
[562] O’Callaghan, _Calendar of Manuscripts_, etc., pt. ii, p. 117.
[563] Ellis and Morris, _King Philip’s War_, p. 294; Drake, _The Book
of the Indians_, etc., ninth edition, bk. iii, p. 104.
[564] Williamson, _The History of the State of Maine_, etc., i, p. 531;
Holmes, _American Annals_, etc., pp. 403–407; Hubbard, _A Narrative of
the Indian Wars in New England_, etc., pp. 332–344.
[565] _Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of
Massachusetts Bay_, i, p. 86.
[566] Futhey and Cope, _History of Chester County, Pennsylvania_, p. 39.
[567] Rupp, _History of Lancaster County_, etc., p. 89—Based on
Gookin’s minutes of a journey in 1711 to the Indians in the vicinity of
the Palatines.
[568] Brown, _The History of Missions, or, of the Propagation of
Christianity among the Heathen since the Reformation_, i, p. 394.
[569] O’Callaghan, _Calendar of Historical Manuscripts_, pt. i, p. 45,
records the manumission of Manuel, the Spaniard, from slavery, February
17, 1648, for the sum of 300 carolus guilders.
[570] _Colonial Laws of New York_, edition of 1894, i, p. 279.
[571] _Ibid._, i, p. 389. In 1685, the master of a Carolina brig, in a
petition to Governor Dongan of New York, complained of Humphrey Ashley,
who chartered the vessel but ruined the voyage by killing an Indian and
kidnapping four others near the Cape Fear River, whom he brought to the
port of New York. The result shows the colonial government of New York
not in favor of kidnapping. The necessity of keeping on good relations
with the Iroquois made it policy to discourage the kidnapping custom.
So it was ordered that all the effects of Ashley be sold at auction and
the proceeds used to defray the cost of transporting Ashley and the
four Indians back to Carolina. O’Callaghan, _op. cit._, pt. ii, p. 117.
[572] O’Callaghan, _op. cit._, pt. ii, p. 117.
[573] _Diary of Cotton Mather_, in _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_, series 7, vii, p. 203.
[574] Mayhew, _Indian Converts_, etc., p. 120.
[575] _Boston News Letter_, September 10, 1711; May 2, 1715;
January 15, 1719; December 28, 1720; June 18, 1724; March 2, 1732;
_Pennsylvania Gazette_, March 7, 1731; _New England Weekly Journal_,
August 30, 1731; October 14, 1735; August 10, 1736; _Boston Gazette or
Weekly Advertiser_, December 22, 1718; August 1, 1749; _New England
Courant_, June 17, 1723; _Boston Weekly Mercury_, October 2, 1735.
[576] _Pennsylvania Colonial Records_, ii, pp. 112, 120.
[577] Spanish Indians are mentioned in the following issues of the
colonial newspapers: _Boston News Letter_, November 13, 1704; April 29,
1706; August 5, 1706; May 2, 1715; January 5, 1719; December 28, 1720;
June 18, 1724; March 2, 1732; _New England Courant_, June 17, 1723;
_Boston Gazette or Weekly Journal_, August 1, 1749; _Boston Weekly
Mercury_, October 2, 1735; _New England Weekly Journal_, August 30,
1731; August 10, 1736; _Pennsylvania Gazette_, March 7, 1731; _American
Weekly Mercury_, April 10, 1739.
[578] Hurd, _The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States_, i,
p. 205.
[579] Hening, _op. cit._, i, p. 482.
[580] _Archives of Maryland_, xv, p. 22.
[581] _Ibid._, xiii, p. 525.
[582] _Ibid._, xxvi, p. 514.
[583] _Colonial laws of Massachusetts reprinted from the edition
of 1660 with the supplements to 1672, containing also the body of
Liberties of 1641_, p. 53.
[584] _Colonial Laws of Massachusetts_, edition of 1672, p. 15.
[585] Vol. XXX, No. 227 A. of the Massachusetts manuscript records
contains a petition, dated September 20, 1676, of one John Harton
imprisoned for stealing Indians, asking freedom under bail in order to
support his wife and family.
[586] Felt, _The Ecclesiastical History of New England_, ii, p. 418.
[587] Leaming and Spicer, _The Grants, Concessions and Original
Constitutions of the Province of New Jersey_, etc., p. 105.
[588] _New Hampshire Historical Society Collections_, viii, p. 11.
[589] Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 126.
[590] Margry, _op. cit._, vi, p. 316.
[591] _Ibid._, v, pp. 178, 354, 360, 361; _Wisconsin Historical Society
Collections_, xvi, p. 332.
[592] _South Carolina Historical Society Collections_, v, pp. 166,
460–462; _Narratives of Early Carolina_ (Woodward’s relation of his
Westo voyage), p. 133, in _Original Narratives of Early American
History; Calendar of State Papers_, colonial series, vii, p. 634. One
of the instruments of supply was the Cherokee. Thomas, _The Indians of
North America_, etc., p. 96; Logan, _The History of Upper Carolina_, i,
p. 174.
[593] In 1666 Robert Sanford, secretary of the proprietors, made a
voyage from Cape Fear to Port Royal and reported to the proprietors
that the Indians of that section were anxious for friendship with the
whites “notwithstanding we ... had killed and sent away many of them.”
_Robert Sanford’s Relation of his Voyage in 1666_, in _Charleston Year
Book_, 1885, p. 292.
[594] Rivers, _A Sketch of the History of South Carolina_, etc.,
appendix, p. 353; _Journal of the Grand Council of South Carolina_,
August 25, 1671–June 24, 1680, p. 84.
[595] For the character of the Carolina settlers, see McCrady, _The
History of South Carolina under the Royal Government_, pp. 297–298.
[596] Rivers, _op. cit._, p. 126, holds that but little credit can be
given to the assertion that the colonists instigated the tribes against
each other for the purpose of trading in their captives. Hewat, _op.
cit._, i, pp. 126–127, asserts that the colonists early found out the
usefulness to this end of setting one tribe of Indians against another.
Lawson, _The History of Carolina_, etc., p. 325, tells of the Coranine
Indians inviting the Machapunga Indians to a feast, taking them
prisoners and selling them to the English.
[597] Rivers, _op. cit._, p. 126; Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 127.
[598] Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 127.
[599] French, _op. cit._, pt. iii, p. 36.
[600] _Public Records of South Carolina_, 1706–1710, p. 197; _B. P. R.
O._, vol. 620.
[601] Winsor, _The Mississippi Basin_, etc., p. 133. The English in
their turn accused the French of pillaging the traders.
[602] Margry, _op. cit._, iv, pp. 406, 507, 516.
[603] On June 18, 1718, Robert Johnson, governor of Carolina, reported
that he had made peace “with several nations, particularly the great
nation of the Creeks who live to the southward near St. Augustine,” and
added that “the treaties with them are very precarious so long as the
French from Morels and the Spaniards from St. Augustine live and have
intercourse amongst them, and do continually by presents and furnishing
them with arms and ammunition and buying the slaves and plunder,
encourage them to war upon us.” _Public Records of South Carolina_,
1717–1720, vii, p. 135; _B. P. R. O._, _B. T._, x, p. 2157.
[604] Margry, _op. cit._, iv, p. 517.
[605] _Ibid._, iv, p. 578.
[606] _Ibid._, iv, p. 544; _Report concerning Canadian Archives_, 1905,
i, p. 523.
[607] French, _op. cit._, pt. iii, p. 32.
[608] _Ibid._, new series, i, p. 86.
[609] _Ibid._, new series, i, p. 97; pt. iii, p. 33.
[610] _Ibid._, pt. iii, p. 34.
[611] _Ibid._, new series, p. 123; Margry, _op. cit._, v, p. 506. The
slaves acquired on this special occasion were from the Shawnee nation,
and had been taken by a combined force of Chickasaw, Yazoo and Natchez.
[612] Rivers, _op. cit._, p. 132.
[613] Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 78. In their letter to West, telling
him of their sanction of his appointment, the proprietors cautioned
him against appointing any deputies, including Mathews, Moore and
Middleton, who might belong to the opposing party. _Calendar of State
Papers_, colonial series, xii, p. 11. West became governor in 1674.
[614] Oldmixon, _The British Empire in America_, i, p. 337; Grahame,
_op. cit._, ii, p. 115. Yeamans prospered so well in the traffic in
negroes with Barbadoes that, in 1684, he returned to his plantation and
the office of governor was restored to West.
[615] Rivers, _op. cit._, p. 126.
[616] West was a member of this commission.
[617] Chalmers, _Political Annals of the Province of Carolina_, in
Carroll, _op. cit._, ii, p. 314.
[618] _Public Records of South Carolina_, i, 1663–1684, p. 141; _B. P.
R. O._, _Colonial Entry Book_, xx, p. 184.
[619] _Calendar of State Papers_, colonial series, xi, pp. 508–510.
[620] The colonial officials persistently denied that they stirred
up the tribes to make war upon each other so as to obtain captives
for slaves. Such letters and statements of denial are found in _North
Carolina Colonial Records_, ii, p. 252. (A letter of April 5, 1716);
_Journal of the Board of Trade, Public Record Office_, Co. 391, 25
R., xvii, p. 175 (Testimony rendered July 16. 1715). The government
officials claimed that the Indian outbreaks against the English were
caused, not by any action of the officials in stirring them up to
obtain slaves, but rather by the abuses practiced upon them by the
traders and by the inability of the colonial government to control the
traders. _Journal of the Board of Trade, Public Record Office_, Co.
391, 25 R., xvii, pp. 168, 169, 176, 191.
[621] Chalmers, _op. cit._, in Carroll, _op. cit._, ii, p. 314. This
special letter of the proprietors was called forth by Captain Godfrey’s
treatment of the Indians, and by the opinions of private individuals
expressed in letters to them. The proprietors had already struck a blow
at the council by giving the parliament a right to punish members of
the council for misbehavior. The council had complained of this to the
proprietors, who in turn asserted that the Indian dealers (members of
the council) feared lest the parliament have too much power over them.
Archdale, _A New Description_, etc., in Carroll, _op. cit._, ii. p. 100.
[622] _Calendar of State Papers_, colonial series, xi, pp. 508–510.
[623] _Calendar of State Papers_, colonial series, xi, pp. 508–510.
[624] Archdale, _op. cit._, in Carroll, _op. cit._, ii, p. 107; Hewat,
_op. cit._, i, p. 78; _Calendar of State Papers_, colonial series, xi,
p. 508; _Public Records of South Carolina_, i, 1663–1684, p 266; _B.
P. R. O._, _Colonial Entry Book_, xxii, p. 20. _The Journal of the
English Board of Trade_, vol. xi, p. 174, under the date August 19,
1698, and the marginal heading _American Indian Slaves_, contains the
following direction to the governor of Bermudas: “And upon observation
made that it is commonly said there are many Americans at Bermuda kept
as slaves; ordered, that the governor be required to give an account,
what number there are of them, from whence they are bought and by whom
imported.” The governor’s reply was a mere tabulation of slaves, with a
statement of their sex and the locality in which they resided, without
any special reference to Indian slaves. No further reference was made
to the matter by the Board of Trade.
[625] Rivers, _op. cit._, appendix, p. 456.
[626] O’Gorman, _A History of the Roman Catholic Church in the United
States_, p. 39.
[627] Rivers, _op. cit._, appendix, p. 456; _North Carolina Colonial
Records_, ii, p. 904. The complaint read: “ruined trade in skins and
furs (whereby we held our chief correspondence with England) and turned
it into a trade of Indians or slave making, whereby the Indians to the
south and west of us are already involved in blood and confusion, a
trade so odious and abominable, that every colony in America (although
they have equal temptation) abhor to follow.”
[628] Logan, _op. cit._, i, p. 172.
[629] _State of the British and French Colonies in North America_, p.
25.
[630] _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_, 1859, xiii,
p. 300.
[631] Thomas, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 95–100; _Journal of the Board of
Trade, British Public Record Office_, Co. 391. 25 R., xvii. p. 168.
[632] _Indian Book_, 1710–1718, i, p. 17, in Columbia, South Carolina,
Historical Commission Department. The letters of the missionaries
of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts
stationed in South Carolina contain frequent mention of the traders’
action: Letters of Le Jau, 1708: February and July, 1711 (The letter of
February 20, 1711, relates an instance of the traders bringing back one
hundred Indian slaves); August 10, 1714; Letters of Johnston, January
27, 1715; December 19, 1715, in _Records of the S. P. G. F. P._
[633] _Indian Book_, 1710–1718, i, p. 29, in Columbia, South Carolina
Historical Commission Department, (directions given to traders, July
24, 1716).
[634] _Ibid._, i, p. 156, (directions given to traders, May 14, 1717);
i, p. 28, (directions given to traders July 24, 1716); i, p. 40,
(directions given to traders, July 27, 1716).
[635] Logan, _op. cit._, i, p. 180.
[636] Logan, _op. cit._, i, p. 187.
[637] On being handed over to the board, the Indians were ordered to
be sold at auction at a specified time and place to anyone who would
promise to export them from the province within a specified time. In
the meantime they were fed and sheltered at public expense. Logan, _op.
cit._, i, p. 156.
[638] Logan, _op. cit._, i, p. 171. Johnson became governor in 1703.
[639] _Ibid._, i, p. 182.
[640] Logan, _op. cit._, i, pp. 175, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183 cites
such trials. A letter of Steevens, missionary of the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, in South Carolina, 1708,
tells of the trial and acquittal of traders for the illegal enslavement
of Spanish Indians. _Records of S. P. G. F. P._
[641] Logan, _op. cit._, i, p. 180.
[642] _Ibid._, i, p. 182.
[643] _Ibid._, i, pp. 183–186. Case of Alexander Long and Eleazer
Wiggon who in revenge stirred up the Cherokee to destroy the Euchee.
[644] On July 15, 1715, Mr. Byrd, one of the council of Virginia,
appeared before the Board of Trade, and in reply to questions regarding
the hostilities lately committed by the Indians on Carolina, declared
the action of the Indians to be due to the cupidity of the traders and
the custom of encouraging the Indians to wage war on each other that
the traders might buy the captives as slaves. _Journal of the Board
of Trade, B. P. R. O._, Co. 391, 25 R., xvii, pp. 167–168. Similar
statements were made by Mr. Banister, _Ibid._, p. 169, Mr. Kettleby,
_Ibid._, p. 175 and Mr. Crawley, _Ibid._, p. 191.
[645] _South Carolina Public Records_, April to December, 1720, vii, p.
226; _British Public Record Office, South Carolina, Board of Trade_,
Co. 5, 358 A 14 and 15, October 27, 1720.
[646] Logan, _op. cit._, i, p. 189. Though no estimate of the number of
Indians enslaved during this long period in the south is possible, it
was so large that the decay of the coast Indians has been attributed to
it. Thomas, _The Indians of North America_, etc., ii, p. 95.
[647] Hening, _op. cit._, i, p. 482; ii, pp. 143, 155; Lawson, _The
History of North Carolina_, p. 280.
[648] Margry, _op. cit._, iv, pp. lvi, 531, 544, 561.
[649] Hening, _op. cit._, i, p. 455.
[650] Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 143.
[651] _Ibid._, ii, p. 155; Tucker, _A Dissertation on Slavery_, p. 32.
[652] Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 283.
[653] _Ibid._, iii, p. 69.
[654] Lawson, _The History of North Carolina_, p. 280.
[655] _North Carolina Colonial Records_, ii, p. 252.
[656] A letter from the governor and council of South Carolina, May
7, 1707, states: “We have also commerce with Boston, Rhode Island,
Pennsylvania, New York and Virginia, to which places we export Indian
slaves.” _Bancroft Papers relating to Carolina_, in New York City
Public Library, MSS., vol. i, 1662–1769; Thomas, _The Indians of North
America_, etc., p. 95; Coffin, _A Sketch of the History of Newbury_, p.
336; _Journal of the Board of Trade, Public Record Office_, Co. 391,
25 R, xvii, p. 168. The colonial newspapers mention Carolina Indians
in the following issues: _Boston News Letter_, July 31, 1704: October
28, 1706; March 31, 1707; November 15, 1708; August 6, 1711; August 20,
1711; September 10, 1711; December 10, 1711; July 5, 1714; September
17, 1716; March 11, 1717; _New England Courant_, August 19, 1723.
[657] _Acts and Resolves_, i, p. 698. July 15, 1715, Mr. Bannister
of Virginia appeared before the Board of Trade and declared that the
selling in New England of Indian slaves taken in war had caused so much
injury by arousing the hostility of the neighboring natives, that the
legislature of Massachusetts had been obliged to pass a law prohibiting
the buying or selling of any Indians as slaves. _Journal of the Board
of Trade, Public Record Office_, Co. 391, p. 169.
[658] _Acts and Resolves_, ii, p. 364. The unforeseen exigencies were
“death, danger of the seas, captivity or inevitable accident.”
[659] Hoadly, _Records of the Colony or Jurisdiction of New Haven from
May, 1653, to the Union_, etc., p. 177.
[660] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, v, p. 516.
[661] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, v, pp. 534–535.
[662] _Acts and Laws of the State of Connecticut, in America_, edition
of 1784, p. 230.
[663] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, xiv, p. 329.
[664] _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_, ii, p. 550.
[665] _Ibid._, iii, p. 483.
[666] _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_, iv, pp. 193–194.
[667] _Laws of New Hampshire_, edition of 1771, p. 53; edition of 1726,
p. 49; _Magazine of American History_, xxi, 1889, p. 62.
[668] McClintock, _History of New Hampshire_, p. 151.
[669] _New York Colonial Documents_, xii, p. 414.
[670] _Pennsylvania Archives_, first series, xii, p. 280; _Bancroft
Papers relating to Carolina_, in New York City Public Library, MSS.,
vol. i, 1662–1769; Thomas, _The Indians of North America_, etc., p. 95.
[671] _Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania_, ii, p. 236; _Pennsylvania
Colonial Records_, ii, p. 213; Bolles, _Pennsylvania, Province and
State_, ii, p. 172.
[672] An Indian boy was said to have been imported into the colony
in 1708 contrary to the law. The matter was brought before the
council, September 14, 1709, but was referred for lack of evidence.
_Pennsylvania Colonial Records_, ii, p. 490. It was perhaps due to
this event that the council, February 21, 1710, decided that a case of
infringement of the act of 1706 should be tried before the Court of
Common Pleas. _Ibid._, ii, pp. 508–509.
[673] This was the first effort to restrain negro slavery in
Pennsylvania. It was introduced into the assembly in the form of a
petition by William Southeby, a resident of Maryland and a Roman
Catholic. In 1696 he wrote papers against slavery. For a sketch of his
life, see the article by Nathan Kite in vol. xxviii of _The Friend_,
pp. 293, 301, 309.
[674] _Laws of Pennsylvania collected_, etc., 1714, p. 165;
_Pennsylvania Colonial Records_, ii, pp. 550, 553; _Pennsylvania
Statutes at Large_, ii, p. 433; _Votes and Proceedings of the House of
Representatives of the Province of Pennsylvania_, ii, pp. 112, 114;
_Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs_, i, p. 389.
[675] Burge, _Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws_, i, p. 737;
Gordon, _History of Pennsylvania_, p. 166.
[676] Lawson, _The History of North Carolina_, p. 351, tells of Indians
selling an Indian thief to the governor.
[677] Livermore, _A History of Block Island_, p. 60, mentions an
instance of an Indian sold by his brothers for ten gallons of rum;
and a second instance when another Indian was sold by his brothers
and sisters for a term of thirteen years, for thirty gallons of rum
and four cloth coats, the rum to be paid in annual instalments of one
gallon each. The Indian was to have his board and clothing and two
suits of apparel at the expiration of his bondage. _Ibid._, p. 60.
[678] Green, _Springfield_, etc., p. 153, quotes a deed for land, 1665,
in which an Indian girl is given by her parents as security for payment.
[679] Williamson, _The History of North Carolina_, i, p. 95; Lawson,
_op. cit._, pp. 73, 74; Hawks, _History of North Carolina_, second
edition, ii, p. 73.
[680] Williamson, _op. cit._, p. 95.
[681] _New York Colonial Documents_, v, p. 433.
[682] _Hening_, _op. cit._, i, p. 410.
[683] _Ibid._, i, p. 396.
[684] _Ibid._, i, p. 455.
[685] _Virginia Historical Society Collections_, new series, i, p. 125.
(This probably refers to the act of 1666).
[686] _Acts and Resolves_, i, p. 436.
[687] _Ibid._, ii, p. 104.
[688] _Ibid._, ii, 364. Palfrey, _History of New England_, ii, p. 30,
points out that the expression in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties,
“willingly sell themselves,” related to such as contracted to labor
for a term of years, though in some cases, such term might have been
for life. The engagement, whatever its duration, would be subject to
transference to a third party, in which case the original contractor
would be “sold.”
[689] _Acts and Resolves_, iv, p. 641.
[690] Arnold, _History of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations_, ii,
p. 101; _Rhode Island Historical Society Collections_, vii, p. 232.
[691] _Early Records of the Town of Providence_, xvi, p. 244. Weeden,
_Early Rhode Island_, p. 173, mentions such slaves in 1750.
[692] _New York Colonial Documents_, v, p. 433.
[693] _Ibid._, vi, p. 546.
[694] _New York Colonial Documents_, vi, p. 546.
[695] List given in Ross, _History of Long Island_, i, p. 125.
[696] Rivers, _Topics in the History of South Carolina_, p. 51.
[697] _Ibid._, p. 51. It will be noted that in both the South Carolina
cases cited, the sentence of transportation and slavery was passed
before the Indians concerned were proved guilty of the charges against
them.
[698] Winthrop, _Journal_, Savage edition, i, p. 233 (editor’s note);
Hildreth, _A History of the United States from the Discovery of the
Continent_, etc., i, p. 239.
[699] Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 15.
[700] Hening, _op. cit._, iv, p. 104; _Historical Documents from the
Old Dominion_, No. 3, p. 258. The governor and council, without a jury,
were to act as a court for the trial of such offenders.
[701] Shurtleff, _Records of the Governor and Company of the
Massachusetts Bay in New England_, i, p. 329.
[702] Freeman, _The History of Cape Cod_, ii, p. 72; Thacher, _History
of the Town of Plymouth_, p. 149.
[703] _Calendar of State Papers_, colonial series, ix, p. 307; Cook,
_Drummond Island_, p. 70. To retain their services for a time longer
than that specified in the sentence of the court, the whites were
accustomed on the ninth day to furnish the Indians with rum and get
them drunk so that they must remain ten days longer. The practice
was so long continued that at one time there was several hundreds
of Indians on the island, “many whereof had been by the practices
aforesaid kept about three months.”
[704] _Plymouth Colony Records_, vi, p. 104.
[705] _Manuscript Council Records of Massachusetts_, ii, p. 40; _Laws
of New Hampshire, Provincial Period_, i, p. 116.
[706] _Manuscript Council Records of Massachusetts_, ii, p. 310.
[707] Freeman, _The History of Cape Cod_, i, p. 714.
[708] _Sewall’s Diary_, in _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_, series 5, vi, p. 143.
[709] _Manuscript Council Records of Massachusetts_, viii, No. 169.
[710] _Ibid._, ccxxxii, No. 1.
[711] _Boston Public Library Monthly Bulletin_, vii, February, 1902,
p. 74. This Indian was stolen from his owner by pirates and carried to
South Carolina, but escaped and returned to New England. He was about
to return to his master to serve out his term of servitude when he was
seized by two white men of Massachusetts and enslaved by them.
[712] _Manuscript Council Records of Massachusetts_, xxxi, No. 148.
[713] _Acts and Resolves_, xii, p. 602.
[714] Arnold, _History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_, i, p. 271.
[715] Durfee, _Gleanings from the Judicial History of Rhode Island_, p.
131, in _Rhode Island Historical Tracts_, No. 18.
[716] Arnold, _op. cit._, i, p. 423.
[717] The code provided that, in case an Indian should fail to give the
satisfaction required in case of conviction, the court might sentence
him to serve the injured party as a slave, or to be shipped out of the
country in exchange for negroes. _Connecticut Colonial Records_, i, p.
532.
[718] Hildreth, _The History of the United States_, i, p. 372.
[719] Orcutt, _The History of the old Town of Derby, Connecticut_, p.
lvii.
[720] _Plymouth Colony Records_, ix, p. 71; _Connecticut Colonial
Records_, i, p. 532.
[721] Moore’s article in _Historical Magazine_, x, p. 189.
[722] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 352.
[723] _Ibid._, vii, p. 371.
[724] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 385.
[725] _Ibid._, vii, p. 397. The act decreed that “all negroes and
Indians (free Indians in amity with this government, and negroes,
mulattoes, mustizoes, who are now free, excepted), mulattoes or
mustizoes who now are or shall hereafter be, in this Province, and all
their issue and offspring, born or to be born, shall be, and they are
hereby declared to be, and remain forever hereafter, absolute slaves
and shall follow the condition of the mother.”
[726] Hening, _op. cit._, iii, p. 460.
[727] _Ibid._, iv, p. 133.
[728] Stroud, _A Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery_, etc., p. 2.
[729] _Ibid._
[730] _Archives of Maryland_, xiii, p. 546.
[731] Maxcy, _The Laws of Maryland_, etc., i, p. 115; Bacon, _Laws of
Maryland_.
[732] _Colonial Laws of New York_, edition of 1894, i, p. 598; Trott,
_Laws of the British Plantations in America_, etc., p. 273.
[733] Moore, in _Historical Magazine_, x, p. 189. The Reverend John
Davenport, in a letter to the younger Winthrop, June, 1666, spoke of
the baptism of slaves “born in the house.” _Historical Magazine_, x,
p. 59. The instance of Mr. Maverick of Noddle’s Island attempting to
breed slaves is another example of the general custom of the time of
holding the children of slave women as slaves. Littleton _v._ Tuttle,
in _Massachusetts Reports_, iv, p. 128; Cushing, _Reports_, x, p. 410.
Felt, in _Statistical Association Collections_, i, p. 586. Palfrey,
_History of New England_, ii, p. 30, states that no person was ever
born into legal slavery in Massachusetts. See also Moore, _Notes on
the History of Slavery in Massachusetts_, pp. 24–25, and Steiner, _op.
cit._, pp. 18–19.
[734] Pirate _v._ Dalby, 1786 (Pennsylvania), in 1 _Dallas_, second
edition, p. 167; Wilson et al. _v._ Hinkley et al., 1787 (Connecticut),
in _Kirby_, p. 202; The State _v._ Van Waggoner, 1797 (New Jersey),
in 1 _Halstead_, p. 374; Jenkins _v._ Tom, 1792 (Virginia), in 1
_Washington_, p. 123; Coleman _v._ Dick, 1793 (Virginia), in 1
_Washington_, p. 233; Hudgins _v._ Wright, 1806 (Virginia), in 1
_Hening and Munford_, second edition, p. 134; Pallas et al. _v._ Hill
et al., 1807 (Virginia), in 2 _Hening and Munford_, second edition, p.
149; Gregory _v._ Baugh, 1831 (Virginia), in 2 _Leigh_, p. 665.
[735] Wheeler, _op. cit._, p. 20; 2 _Leigh_, p. 665.
[736] Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 31.
[737] _Ibid._, pp. 31–32.
[738] Hurd, _The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States_,
i, pp. 249, 257, 260, 262, 265, 266, 268, 269, 275, 276, 283, 288,
295–297, 310; Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 35.
[739] Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 35. Indian slavery in Virginia was not,
then, actually in existence until so decreed by the laws of 1670, 1676
and 1682. Hening, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 280, 283, 346, 404.
[740] Ballagh, _op. cit._, pp. 27–37. The status of servitude had
distinct recognition in statute law as follows: Virginia, 1619;
Massachusetts, 1630–1636; Maryland, 1637; Connecticut, 1643; Rhode
Island, 1647; North Carolina, 1665; Pennsylvania, 1682; Georgia, 1732.
Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 36.
[741] Bartram, _Retrographs_, p. 42.
[742] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 352. The act
was repeated in 1722. _Ibid._, vii, p. 371.
[743] Hurd, _op. cit._, i, p. 225. Not until 1772 did the highest
English court declare the common law of England incompatible with
slavery, and neither recognizing nor permitting its existence in
England. The decision had no relation to the colonies.
[744] Wheeler, _op. cit._, p. 15. Had there been any objection raised
by the mother country to the enslavement of Indians on the ground of
illegality, the colonists could have fallen back on the recognized
right of enslaving captives in war. By a legal fiction the Indians
could at any time have been considered in a state of war, their lands
confiscated and their persons seized and held for disposal at the
pleasure of the whites. Such was the legal argument used by England in
justification of enslaving the African negroes.
[745] For a discussion of the neglect to define the Indians’ rights in
the various letters patent and charters, see the _Eighteenth Annual
Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology_, pt. ii, p. 550.
[746] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 3, i, p.
27, contains a bill of sale of an Indian man, given by Governor John
Winthrop of Massachusetts to John Mainford of Barbadoes.
[747] As typical examples of this kind of advertisement, see _Boston
Gazette_, December 15, 1718; _Pennsylvania Gazette_, March 7, 1732;
_New England Weekly Journal_, March 5, 1733; _Boston News Letter_,
August 20, 1711; January 5, 1719; December 28, 1720.
[748] _Boston News Letter_, July 2, 1711; October 11, 1708; October
6, 1737; February 11, 1717; November 22, 1708; May 24, 1714; _Boston
Gazette or Weekly Journal_, November 15, 1748; _New England Weekly
Journal_, February 24, 1729.
[749] Stiles, _A History of the City of Brooklyn_, etc., i, p. 233;
_New York Mercury_, June 12, 1758.
[750] _Early Records of Portsmouth_, p. 434; Currier, _History of
Newbury_, p. 254.
[751] Winthrop, _Life and Letters of John Winthrop_, ii, p. 252;
Winsor, _The Memorial History of Boston_, i, p. 489.
[752] See _South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine_, vii,
p. 169, (1691); x, p. 85, (1694); v, p. 98, (1710); v, p. 164, (1730);
vi, p. 173, (1732); v, p. 105, (1734); vi, p. 117, (1735); v, p. 218,
(1753); v, p. 113, (1765); viii, p. 214, (1769); vi, p. 25, (1802).
[753] _Charleston Year Book_, 1900, p. 42 (appendix), cites a will in
New London, Connecticut (1711) disposing of Indian slaves. Schuyler,
_Colonial New York_, ii, p. 293, cites the will of Arient Schuyler,
December, 1724, bequeathing to each of his two daughters an Indian
slave woman. February 7, 1690, South Carolina passed a law that slaves
should descend by inheritance like any other property. _The Statutes at
Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 343.
[754] See Weeden, _Economic History of New England_, i, p. 292.
[755] See _Early Records of Providence, Rhode Island_, xvi, p. 244.
[756] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 343.
[757] Bacon, _Laws of Maryland_, etc. Both these laws related to slaves
in general, and did not specify either negro or Indian slaves.
[758] Mason, _A Brief History of the Pequot War_, etc., in Orr, _op.
cit._, p. 39.
[759] Mayhew, _op. cit._, p. 26.
[760] Coffin, _A Sketch of the History of Newbury_, etc., p. 153.
[761] This was the first newspaper in the colonies.
[762] _Boston News Letter_, August 6; August 13; August 20, 1711.
[763] _Ibid._, August 6, 1711.
[764] _Ibid._, April 7, 1718; May 23, 1745; July 4, 1751; _Boston
Gazette and Weekly Journal_, November 1, 1743; _New York Gazette_, July
23; August 6; August 20, 1733; February 13, 1739; _Boston News Letter_,
October 30, 1760; November 6, 1760; November 28, 1760.
[765] _Boston News Letter_, March 2, 1732; October 4, 1739; June 28,
1750; _New England Weekly Journal_, October 16, 1727; _New England
Courant_, August 19, 1723; _Pennsylvania Mercury_, August 28, 1729;
_Pennsylvania Journal_, June 18, 1767; _New York Gazette_, June 24;
July 8; July 15; July 29; August 12; August 26, 1734; _New York Weekly
Mercury_, October 27, 1740; November 3; November 10, 1740; May 30; June
13, 1757.
[766] _Boston News Letter_, October 7, 1742; August 23, 1744; _New York
Mercury_, June 12, June 19, June 26, July 3, 1758.
[767] _Boston News Letter_, November 10, 1748; _Boston Post Boy_, July
25, 1743.
[768] _Boston Post Boy_, July 6, 1752; July 18, 1753; _Boston Gazette_,
August 1, 1749.
[769] _Boston Post Boy_, May 2, 1743; July 2, 1750; August 6, 1750;
_New England Courant_, June 17, 1723; _Boston Weekly Mercury_, October
2, 1735; _New York Weekly Mercury_, August 16, 1756.
[770] _Boston Post Boy_, February 11, 1745; April 15, 1751.
[771] _Boston Post Boy_, December 5, 1748.
[772] _Pennsylvania Gazette_, October 5, 1738.
[773] _Pennsylvania Mercury_, July 30, 1730.
[774] _Boston News Letter_, August 6; August 13; August 20, 1711;
_American Weekly Mercury_, May 24, 1726; _New York Weekly Mercury_,
June 12; June 19; June 26; July 3, 1758. _Boston Gazette_, April 7,
1718.
[775] _Boston News Letter_, September 10, 1711.
[776] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, iv, p. 40.
[777] Nevill, _Acts of the General Assembly of the Province of New
Jersey_, pp. 18, 22.
[778] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 343.
[779] _Messages from the Governors of New York State_, i, p. 116.
[780] Weise, _The History of the City of Albany_, etc., p. 209.
[781] _The Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania_, iv, p. 62.
[782] Hening, _op. cit._, iii, p. 217.
[783] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 343.
[784] Drake, _The Book of the Indians_, etc., ninth edition, pp. 60–70;
Winthrop, _Journal_, i, p. 267; ii, p. 8, in _Original Narratives of
Early American History_.
[785] Lechford, _Note Book kept in Boston, Massachusetts Bay, from 1638
to 1641_, p. 434.
[786] O’Callaghan, _Calendar of Historical Manuscripts_, pt. ii, p. 433.
[787] _North Carolina Colonial Records_, ii, pp. 315, 534, 536, 570,
674; iii, p. 218; xi, pp. 10, 23.
[788] _Plymouth Colony Records_, ix, pp. 6–7. This was the first
fugitive slave law in America.
[789] Hazard, _Historical Collections_, etc., ii, p. 63; _Plymouth
Colony Records_, ix, p. 71. See full text of the resolution, p. 207.
[790] _Plymouth Colony Records_, ix, p. 64; Brodhead, _History of the
State of New York_, revised edition, i, p. 429.
[791] _Plymouth Colony Records_, ix, p. 64.
[792] _Ibid._, x, p. 348; Shurtleff, _op. cit._, iv, pt. ii, p. 473;
Hurd, _The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States_, i, p. 269.
[793] _New York Colonial Documents_, v, pp. 793, 796.
[794] _Pennsylvania Archives_, series 1, xii, p. 280.
[795] Baylies, _An Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth_,
ii, pt. iv, p. 39.
[796] _North Carolina Colonial Records_, ii, p. 2.
[797] _Massachusetts Manuscript Records_, vol. xxx.
[798] _Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of
Massachusetts Bay_, i, p. 259.
[799] _North Carolina Colonial Records_, xii, pp. 138–139, 302.
[800] _Ibid._, ii, pp. 95, 97, 113–114.
[801] Ballagh, _A History of Slavery in Virginia_, pp. 39–40.
[802] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, pp. 343–344.
[803] Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 314.
[804] McCrady, _Slavery in the Province of South Carolina_, in _Annual
Report of the American Historical Association_, 1895, p. 645.
[805] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 397.
[806] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, ii, p. 207. The act
of 1704, seeking to correct any misinterpretation of a former tax act,
specifies white servants among the property serving as a basis for
taxation, but does not mention slaves. _Ibid._, ii, p. 264.
[807] Williamson, _The History of North Carolina_, i, p. 122.
[808] Raper, _North Carolina, A Study in English Colonial Government_,
p. 147.
[809] _William and Mary College Quarterly_, viii, p. 160. At first only
free white persons were tithables. The law of 1645 provided for a tax
on tithables and tithable persons. Hening, _op. cit._, i, p. 306.
[810] Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 35.
[811] Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 454.
[812] _Ibid._, ii, p. 84.
[813] _Ibid._, ii, p. 170.
[814] _Ibid._, p. 296.
[815] _Ibid._, ii, p. 492.
[816] _Ibid._, ii, p. 283. The act doubtless referred to Indians
imported from the West Indies or Spanish South America.
[817] _Ibid._, ii, p. 346.
[818] Hening, _op. cit._, i, pp. 396, 471.
[819] Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 63.
[820] Hening, _op. cit._, iii, p. 133.
[821] _Ibid._, v, p. 432; Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 67.
[822] Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 72. A curious case shows the owner of an
Indian slave in Bristol Parish, Virginia, petitioning the vestry of
the parish, 1730, to grant that such Indian slave might be exempted
from the parish levy as he was sick and unable to work. The petition
was granted. _Vestry Book and Register of Bristol Parish, Virginia_,
1720–1789, p. 49.
[823] _Acts and Resolves_, i, p. 92.
[824] _Ibid._, i, p. 167.
[825] _Ibid._, i, p. 214.
[826] _Ibid._, i, pp. 240, 258.
[827] _Ibid._, i, pp. 278, 302.
[828] _Ibid._, i, pp. 337, 359.
[829] Moore, _Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts_, p. 62;
Douglas, _The Financial History of Massachusetts, etc._, p. 31.
[830] The laws are given in _Acts and Resolves_, i, ii, iii, and iv.
[831] See laws of 1707 and 1718.
[832] See laws of 1695 and 1707.
[833] Moore, _op. cit._, p. 64; Sewall’s _Diary_, in _Massachusetts
Historical Society Collections_, series 5, vii, p. 87; Coffin, _A
Sketch of the History of Newbury_, etc., p. 188.
[834] Laws of 1758 and 1777 in _The Statutes at Large of South
Carolina_, iv, pp. 116, 365. These laws serve as examples of the
various tax acts.
[835] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, iii, p. 77.
[836] _New York Colonial Laws_, edition of 1894, i, pp. 682–683.
[837] _Ibid._, ii, pp. 877, 881.
[838] Baird, _History of Rye_, p. 202.
[839] _Ibid._, p. 182.
[840] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, ii, p. 153.
[841] _Ibid._, iii, p. 196.
[842] _Ibid._, iii, p. 196.
[843] _South Carolina Public Records_, xviii, 1736–1737; _B. P. R. O._,
S. C., B. T., viii, p. 37.
[844] _The Centennial of Incorporation of Charleston, South Carolina_,
p. 210.
[845] By the terms of the act this duty was to continue three years.
Hening, _op. cit._, iii, p. 193; _Virginia Historical Society
Collections_, new series, vi, p. 10. All enactments which increased the
duties were vetoed by the crown.
[846] Hening, _op. cit._, iii, p. 482; _Letters of Governor Spotswood_,
in _Virginia Historical Society Collections_, new series, i, p. 52;
Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 14.
[847] _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_, iv, p. 134. Exceptions were sometimes made to this law.
During the Yamasee War in South Carolina, many of the planters left the
colony. Several ladies came to Rhode Island bringing with them their
Indian slaves. On their petition, the assembly voted, June 13, 1715,
to relieve them from the import duties on their slaves. Arnold, _op.
cit._, ii, p. 55; _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_, iv, p. 186. A similar instance occurred in August of the
same year. Arnold, _op. cit._, ii, p. 57; _Records of the Colony of
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations_, iv, p. 197.
[848] _Laws of New Hampshire_, edition of 1711, p. 53. Since New
Hampshire did not afford as ready a market for the sale of the southern
Indians, because of its small population, the duty was doubtless more
nearly prohibitive than in the case of Rhode Island.
[849] _Pennsylvania Statutes at Large_, ii, pp. 433, _et seq._;
_Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs_, i, p. 389; _Votes and
Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the Province of
Pennsylvania_, ii, pp. 112, 114; _Pennsylvania Colonial Records_, ii,
pp. 550, 553. A special officer was appointed to have charge of this
matter of imported Indians and negroes, and given special directions
regarding the duties of his office. The act was repealed by the crown,
February 20, 1714. _Pennsylvania Colonial Records_, ii, p. 546.
[850] Allinson, _Acts of the General Assembly of the Province of New
Jersey_, p. 31. By the terms of the act, the duty was to continue seven
years, beginning June 1, 1714.
[851] _New Jersey Archives_, first series, xv, p. 30.
[852] _Ibid._, first series, xv, p. 351.
[853] _Ibid._, first series, xv, pp. 384, 385.
[854] Allinson, _Acts of the General Assembly of the Province of New
Jersey_, p. 315.
[855] Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 14.
[856] Pennsylvania, January 12, 1706, passed an act for the purpose
of meeting government expenses. Negroes were enumerated among the
commodities on which duties were laid. No mention was made of Indians.
_Pennsylvania Statutes at Large_, ii, p. 280.
[857] _New York Colonial Laws_, edition of 1894, i, pp. 484, 487.
[858] _Ibid._, i, p. 588.
[859] _Ibid._, i, p. 1013.
[860] _Ibid._, i, p. 677. On October 11, 1709, the act was amended with
regard to its enforcement. _Ibid._, i, p. 736.
[861] _Ibid._, i, p. 803.
[862] _Ibid._, i, p. 899.
[863] _New York Colonial Laws_, edition of 1894, i, p. 1012.
[864] _Ibid._, ii, pp. 255, 310.
[865] _Ibid._, ii, p. 772.
[866] _Ibid._, ii, p. 877.
[867] _Ibid._, ii, p. 1048.
[868] _Ibid._, ii, p. 1049.
[869] _New York Colonial Laws_, edition of 1894, ii, p. 1049. The act
also provided technical arrangements for settling disputes regarding
the ages of the slaves, the exemption from duty if the slave should die
within a period of thirty days after arrival, the receipt issued for
such duty by the treasurer, and precautions to prevent smuggling.
[870] _Ibid._, iii, p. 2.
[871] _Ibid._, iii, p. 32.
[872] _Ibid._, iii, p. 88.
[873] _Ibid._, iii and iv. New York, like Virginia, sought to avoid
the veto of the home government to these laws by giving them a short
term of existence, usually one year. And generally New York was more
successful than Virginia. But the home government was not always
satisfied by such provisions as is witnessed by the Privy Council’s
rejection of the act of 1735 levying a duty on negro and Indian slaves,
_New York Colonial Documents_, vi, p. 33.
[874] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, ii, p. 201. Duties
were also levied by the act upon skins and furs.
[875] _Indian Book_, 1710–1718, in Columbia, South Carolina, Historical
Commission Department, i, p. 19.
[876] Hawks, _History of North Carolina_, etc., second edition, ii, p.
229; Brickell, _The Natural History of North Carolina_, etc., p. 42.
[877] Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 128; Schaper, _Sectionalism in South
Carolina_, p. 283.
[878] Cotton Mather kept an Indian prisoner to serve as a guide.
_Magnalia_, edition of 1820, ii, p. 507.
[879] Lyford, _History of Concord, New Hampshire, from the Original
Grant_, etc., ii, p. 1051; Goodwin, _The Pilgrim Republic_, p. 191.
[880] One of these Indians who became a slave in the family of Mr.
Richard Calicott of Dorchester, was afterward the tutor of John Eliot
when the latter was learning the Indian language in preparation for his
missionary work. Winslow, _The Glorious Progresse of the Gospel among
the Indians of New England_, etc., in _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_, series, 3, iv, p. 90; Tooker, _Cockenoe-de-Long-Island_,
p. 12.
[881] _Boston Gazette or Weekly Journal_, November 15, 1748.
[882] _New England Weekly Journal_, March 5, 1733.
[883] _Boston News Letter_, January 5, 1719.
[884] _Boston News Letter_, November 15, 1708.
[885] _Pennsylvania Gazette_, March 7 and March 16, 1732.
[886] _American Weekly Mercury_, April 10, 1729. In 1715, Massachusetts
granted an exception to the law against the importation of Indian
slaves to a gentleman from South Carolina, so that his Indian slave
attendant might accompany his family to Massachusetts. _Acts and
Resolves_, ix, p. 412.
[887] Ewell, _The Story of Byfield_, p. 88.
[888] Channing, _The Narragansett Planters_, p. 10, in _Johns Hopkins
University Studies_, iv.
[889] _Boston News Letter_, March 11, 1717.
[890] _Boston News Letter_, April 12, 1714.
[891] _Boston News Letter_, May 24, 1714.
[892] _Boston News Letter_, June 18 and June 25, 1724.
[893] _Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology_,
1897–1898, p. 233.
[894] Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 157.
[895] _Boston News Letter_, March 21, 1715.
[896] _Boston News Letter_, July 23, 1716.
[897] _Boston Post Boy_, May 2, 1743.
[898] _New York Gazette_, June 24, 1734.
[899] Lawson, _A New Voyage to Carolina_, etc., p. 172.
[900] _Public Records of South Carolina_, xxi, 1743–1744, p. 333; _B.
P. R. O._, _S. C., B. T._, vol. xiii, H., p. 36.
[901] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 363.
[902] _Ibid._, vii, p. 393.
[903] _Ibid._, vii, p. 409.
[904] Bacon, _Laws of Maryland_.
[905] _Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York_, iv, p.
85.
[906] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 3, iv, p.
188.
[907] _Calendar of State Papers_, colonial series, v, p. 361.
[908] Northrup, _Slavery in New York_, in _New York State Library
Bulletin, History_, 1900, No. 4. The French considered these slaves as
spoils of war which became the property of the captors exactly as if
they were guns or any other implements. They were sent to “Montinisco”
(Martinique) and sold there for the benefit of the planters.
[909] Northrup, _op. cit._, in _New York State Library Bulletin,
History_, May, 1900, No. 4.
[910] _Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York_, i, pp.
329, 354.
[911] Porter, _Historical Notes of Connecticut_, No. 2, p. 13.
[912] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 347.
[913] _Ibid._, iii, p. 109. South Carolina, however, did not favor the
traders using their Indian slaves to wage war without the authority
of the colonial government. Among the instructions given the traders
was this one: “You shall not permit or allow any of your slaves to go
to war on any pretence whatever.” _Indian Book_, 1710–1718, Columbia,
South Carolina Historical Commission Department, i, p. 19.
[914] _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_, viii, pp. 359–361.
[915] Bacon, _Laws of Maryland_.
[916] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, ii, p. 636.
[917] Usher, _History of the Town of Medford, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts_, etc., p. 352; _Proceedings of the American Antiquarian
Society_, 1885–1887, new series, iv, p. 214; Field, _Provincial
Courts of New Jersey_, pp. 130–131; Washburn, _Historical Sketches of
Leicester_, p. 51.
[918] It is recorded of the Rev. Peter Thacher of Milton,
Massachusetts, in 1679, that he beat his Indian slave severely for
letting his daughter, Theodora, fall on her head. Earle, _Customs and
Fashions in Old New England_, p. 84; Sheldon, _History of Deerfield_,
ii, p. 888.
[919] _Boston Gazette_, April 7, 1718.
[920] _Boston News Letter_, October 4, 1739.
[921] _Boston News Letter_, May 23, 1745.
[922] _Boston News Letter_, October 30, 1760.
[923] _Boston Post Boy_, July 6, 1752.
[924] _Boston Weekly Mercury_, October 2, 1735.
[925] _American Weekly Mercury_, August 28, 1729.
[926] _American Weekly Mercury_, May 24, 1726.
[927] Hawks, _History of North Carolina_, etc., second edition, ii, p.
577.
[928] The Rev. Peter Fontaine advocated intermarriage with the Indians
as a means of promoting their Christianization and civilization.
Colonel Byrd favored the plan also. Meade, _Old Churches, Ministers and
Families of Virginia_, i, pp. 82, 283–285.
[929] Hening, _op. cit._, iii, p. 87. The act also forbade the marriage
of free whites and mulattoes or negroes bond or free. Banishment was
the punishment for such a marriage.
[930] Bruce, _The Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth
Century_, ii, p. 38.
[931] Trott, _Laws of the British Plantations in America_, etc., p. 100.
[932] Martin, _The Public Acts of the General Assembly of North
Carolina_, i, pp. 45–46.
[933] _Archives of Maryland_, xiii, pp. 546–549.
[934] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 5, vi, p.
143.
[935] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, i, p. 403.
[936] Bruce, _The Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth
Century_, ii, p. 130, says of the Indian slaves of Virginia: “The
regulations established for the management of such slaves were
practically the same as those in operation for the control of Africans.
They were brought within the scope of every measure adopted for the
protection of the negro slaves, and morally as well as materially stood
precisely upon the same footing in the view of the law.” McCrady,
_Slavery in the Province of South Carolina_, in _Annual Report of the
American Historical Association for 1895_, p. 642, states: “In South
Carolina from 1690 onward, all acts concerning slaves apply to Indians
as well as negroes.”
[937] Hening, _op. cit._, iii, p. 252.
[938] Bassett, _Slavery and Servitude in the Colony of North Carolina_,
p. 29, in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, xiv.
[939] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 357.
[940] _Ibid._, vii, pp. 375–376.
[941] _Ibid._, vii, p. 389.
[942] Bassett, _op. cit._, pp. 29–30, in _Johns Hopkins University
Studies_, xiv.
[943] Hening, _op. cit._, iii, p. 298.
[944] _Ibid._, iv, p. 327.
[945] Maxcy, _Laws of Maryland_, i, p. 140.
[946] Hurd, _The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States_, p.
281. This act does not specifically mention Indian slaves.
[947] _Laws of New Hampshire_, edition of 1771, p. 101.
[948] Bruce, _The Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth
Century_, i, p. 673.
[949] Drake, _The Book of the Indians_, ninth edition, bk. iii, p. 16.
[950] Chitwood, _Justice in Colonial Virginia_, p. 99, in _Johns
Hopkins University Studies_, xxxiii.
[951] Hening, _op. cit._, viii, pp. 137–138.
[952] Aler, _History of Martinsberg and Berkeley Counties, West
Virginia_, pp. 200, 201.
[953] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 3, iv,
p. 48. A Spanish Indian slave was tried and acquitted by the Court of
Assistants of Massachusetts Bay, in 1676. _Records of the Court of
Assistants of Massachusetts Bay_, i, p. 15. Sewall mentions Indians
(probably free Indians) tried, condemned and executed for crimes in
Massachusetts in 1709. Sewall’s _Diary_, in _Massachusetts Historical
Society Collections_, series 5, vi, pp. 264, 265.
[954] Hough, _Papers relating to the Island of Nantucket_, etc., p. 50.
[955] Nevill, _Acts of the General Assembly of the Province of New
Jersey_, i, p. 19.
[956] Allinson, _Acts of the General Assembly of the Province of New
Jersey_, p. 309. Another act passed in 1768 provided for the trial in
specified courts of slaves convicted of certain crimes. Indian slaves
were not directly mentioned. Allinson, _op. cit._, p. 308; _New Jersey
Archives_, series 1, xvii, p. 486; xxvi, p. 163.
[957] _New York Colonial Laws_, edition of 1894, i, p. 766.
[958] _Ibid._, ii, pp. 684–685.
[959] Nevill, _op. cit._, i, p. 21. The act was repealed, May 10, 1768.
Allinson, _op. cit._, p. 309.
[960] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 369. By this
act nothing was awarded the owner if the slave was executed for murder.
[961] Bacon, _Laws of Maryland_. Other Maryland acts of 1737, 1740,
1744, 1747, 1751, 1754, 1757, and 1762, required that the full adjudged
value be paid the owner of any slave executed by law. Bacon, _op. cit._
[962] Massachusetts, 1703, _Acts and Resolves_, i, p 535; Rhode Island,
1704, _Rhode Island Historical Society Collections_, vii, p. 230; 1750,
_Records of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations_, v, p. 320; and
1770. _Rhode Island Laws_, edition of 1772, pp. 24, 25; Block Island,
1709, Livermore, _A History of Block Island from its Discovery_, etc.,
p. 61; New Hampshire, 1714, _Laws of New Hampshire_, edition of 1771,
p. 52. Connecticut, in 1750, forbade Indian slaves being abroad after
nine o’clock at night without the owner’s permission. _Acts and Laws
of Connecticut_, edition of 1750, p. 230. New York City, in 1713,
stated the latest time at which Indian slaves could be away from home
without their masters’ permission as one hour after sunset. _Minutes
of the Common Council of the City of New York_, iii, p. 177; and 1751,
_Ibid._, iv, p. 87. Rhode Island, 1667, forbade any Indian to walk
about in the night time. Livermore, _op cit._, 61. New Jersey, 1713,
forbade any negro, Indian or mulatto slave to go five miles from home
without his master’s permission. Nevill, _op. cit._, i, p. 21.
[963] Massachusetts, during King Philip’s War, Baylies, _op. cit._,
pt. iii, p. 189; Block Island, 1675, Livermore, _op. cit._, p. 60;
New Hampshire, 1689, _Laws of New Hampshire_, edition of 1904. i, p.
288 (The act referred simply to Indians without specifying bond or
free); the city of Albany, 1686, Munsell, _Annals of Albany_, viii,
296; New York City, 1683, _Minutes of the Common Council of the City
of New York_, i, 134; Pennsylvania, 1721, _The Statutes at Large of
Pennsylvania_, iii, p. 254.
[964] Massachusetts, 1693, _Acts and Resolves_, i, p. 156; New York,
1715, _New York Colonial Laws_, edition of 1894, i, pp. 157, 519; New
Jersey, 1682 and 1713, Leaming and Spicer, _Grants and Concessions_, p.
254; Nevill, _op. cit._, i, p. 18.
[965] Winsor, _The Memorial History of Boston_, ii, p. 485.
[966] Moore, _Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts_, p. 191.
[967] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, i, p. 349; Stiles, _The History
and Genealogies of Ancient Winsor_, i, p. 434.
[968] Watson, _Annals and Occurrences of New York City and State_, p.
158.
[969] Weise, _The History of the City of Albany_, p. 209.
[970] Dunlap, _History of the New Netherlands_, etc., ii, appendix, p.
clxiii.
[971] The slave code of South Carolina was more elaborate than that of
any other colony. But the various laws relating to trial and punishment
of slaves make no mention of Indian slaves, though as has been seen,
Indian slaves were more numerous in that colony than elsewhere.
[972] Martin, _The Public Acts of the General Assembly of North
Carolina_, 1715–1803, i, p. 50.
[973] Nevill, _op. cit._, i, p. 19.
[974] Allinson, _op. cit._, p. 308. By the terms of the act, the court
could, if it thought best, inflict punishment other than death for some
of these crimes.
[975] Winthrop, _Journal_, in _Original Narratives of Early American
History_, i, p. 226.
[976] _New England Courant_, June 17, 1723; _Pennsylvania Gazette_,
October 12, 1738; _American Weekly Mercury_, August 28, 1729, and
August 6, 1730; _New England Weekly Journal_, December 2, 1728. These
marks may, in some instances, have been tattooed for decorative
purposes. The South Carolina acts of 1712 decreed branding as
punishment for specified crimes committed by “slaves.” _The Statutes at
Large of South Carolina_, vii, pp. 359–360, 374, 376, 377.
[977] Martin, _The Public Acts of the General Assembly of North
Carolina_, 1715–1803, i, p. 50.
[978] _The Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania_, iii, p. 254.
[979] _Ibid._, v, p. 109.
[980] Nevill, _op. cit._, i, p. 22.
[981] _Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York_, i, p. 92.
[982] _Ibid._, i, p. 134.
[983] _Ibid._, iii, p. 30.
[984] _Ibid._, iv, p. 50. The whipping was to be given, if desired, by
the master or owner of the slave.
[985] _Ibid._, iii, p. 177.
[986] _Ibid._, iv, p. 87.
[987] _Ibid._, iv, p. 88.
[988] _Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York_, iv, p.
89.
[989] _Ibid._, vi, p. 157.
[990] _Ibid._, vi, p. 177. The city ordinances were usually continued
one year and were then renewed. In this way the ordinances mentioned
were in many cases continued into the Revolutionary period. The
records of the early eighteenth century show the frequent punishment
of “slaves, negroes and Indians” for being out too late at night,
collecting in too large groups, noisy reveling and gambling. On such
occasion the owner of the slaves was fined. Watson, _Annals and
Occurrences of New York City and State_, etc., p 162.
[991] _Acts and Laws of Connecticut_, edition of 1750, p. 240.
[992] _Ibid._, p. 230.
[993] _Acts and Resolves_, i, p. 156.
[994] _The Medford Historical Register_, iii, 1900, No. 3, p. 121. The
master also was to be fined for his negligence.
[995] Livermore, _A History of Block Island from its Discovery_, etc.,
p. 61.
[996] The South Carolina act of 1690 provided various sorts of
mutilation for any slave convicted of specified crimes. _The Statutes
at Large of South Carolina_, vii, pp. 359–360.
[997] Martin, _The Public Acts of the General Assembly of North
Carolina_, 1715–1803, i, p. 50.
[998] _Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings_, series 2, xiii,
p. 252.
[999] _Laws of New Hampshire_, edition of 1904, i, p. 117.
[1000] Weise, _The History of the City of Albany_, p. 209.
[1001] _New York Colonial Manuscripts, Instructions_, etc., 1660,
quoted in Baird, _History of Rye_, p. 185.
[1002] The instructions to Governor Dongan, 1686; Andros, 1688;
Sloughter, 1689; Fletcher, 1691–1699; Bellomont, 1709, of New York;
Cornbury of New Jersey, 1702, are cases in point.
[1003] Morgan Godwyn, writing to Governor Berkeley of general religious
conditions in Virginia, says: “All things concerning the church and
religion were left to the mercy of the people. And, last of all, to
propagate Christianity among the heathen, whether natives or slaves
brought from other ports, although (as must piously be supposed) it
were the only end of God’s discovering these countries to us, yet is
that lookt upon by our new race of Christians, so idle and ridiculous,
so utterly needless and unnecessary, that no man can forfeit his
judgment more than by any proposed looking or tending that way.”
Tiffany, _History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States_, p. 33.
[1004] Incorporated June 16, 1701.
[1005] Humphreys, _An Historical Account of the Incorporated Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts_, p. 90.
[1006] _South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine_, v, p. 26.
The Society ordered the secretary to lay the matter before the Bishop
of London and ask his lordship’s advice regarding such abuse.
[1007] _Ibid._, v, p. 37.
[1008] _Ibid._, v, p. 47.
[1009] _Ibid._, v, p. 98. Mr. Thomas was appointed in 1702 the first
missionary of the Society in South Carolina.
[1010] Hawkins, _Historical Notices of the Missions of the Church of
England in the North American Colonies_, pp. 50, 73.
[1011] Letter of Le Jau, February 18, 1708–1709, to the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Humphreys, _op. cit._, pp.
83, 84.
[1012] Letter of Le Jau, June 13, 1710, to the S. P. G. F. P.
[1013] Letter of Le Jau, February 20–21, 1711, to the S. P. G. F. P.
[1014] Letter of Le Jau, September 5 and 18, 1711, to the S. P. G. F. P.
[1015] Letter of Le Jau, December 11, 1712, to the S. P. G. F. P.
[1016] Letter of Le Jau, October 20, 1709, to the S. P. G[. F P.]
[1017] Letter of Haskell, March 12, 1711, to the S. P. G. F. P.
[1018] Letter of Haskell, September 4, 1711, to the S. P. G. F. P.
[1019] _Records of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in
Foreign Parts_, vol. xxiii, bk. vii.
[1020] Letter of Dunn, April 21, 1707, to the S. P. G. F. P.
[1021] Letter of Sharpe, June 23, 1712, to the S. P. G. F. P.
[1022] Letter of Neau, July 4, 1704, to the S. P. G. F P.
[1023] Letter of Neau, August 29, 1704, to the S. P. G. F. P.
[1024] Letter of Chuardens, July 15, 1726, to the S. P. G. F. P.
[1025] Kennet, _An Account of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in
Foreign Parts_, etc., p. 61.
[1026] _Ibid._, p 61.
[1027] _Journal of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in
Foreign Parts_, vol. i, April 19, 1705–1706.
[1028] Perry, _Historical Collections relating to the American Colonial
Church_, i, p. 344; Meade, _Old Churches, Ministers and Families of
Virginia_, i, p. 265.
[1029] Poore, _The Federal and State Constitutions. Colonial Charters_,
etc., ii, pp. 1407, 1408.
[1030] Trott, _Laws of the British Plantations in America_, etc., p. 17.
[1031] Ramage, _Local Government and Free Schools in South Carolina_,
p. 12, in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, i.
[1032] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, pp. 364–365.
[1033] Hening, _op. cit._, i, p. 410.
[1034] _William and Mary College Quarterly_, vi, p. 215; Hening, _op.
cit._, ii, p. 155.
[1035] Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 260.
[1036] _Ibid._, ii, p. 283.
[1037] _Ibid._, ii, p. 491. The testimony of the Reverend Hugh Jones,
chaplain of the Virginia assembly, shows that the colonists, even
after such legislative action, did not approve of the baptizing of
Indians and negroes as they thought it made them proud and not so
good servants. Jones, however, declared that these objections could
be easily refuted “if the persons be sensible, good and understand
English, and have been taught (or are willing to learn) the principles
of Christianity and if they be kept to the observance of it afterward,
for Christianizing encourages and orders them to become more humble and
better servants and not worse than when they were heathen.” Jones, _The
Present State of Virginia_, in Sabin’s _Reprints_, No. 5, p. 70.
[1038] Trott, _Laws of the British Plantations in America_, etc., p.
142.
[1039] The parish register of St. Peters, New Kent County, Virginia,
1680–1787. pp. 53 and 64, mentions the deaths of two Indian slaves in
1722 and 1723, but records no births or marriages.
[1040] _Archives of Maryland_, xiii, p. 505.
[1041] _Ibid._, xix, p. 32.
[1042] Bacon, _Laws of Maryland_.
[1043] _Ibid._
[1044] Trott, _op. cit._, p. 257.
[1045] Morgan, _Slavery in New York_, in _Historic New York_, i, p. 8.
[1046] _New York Colonial Documents_, iii, p. 415.
[1047] Brodhead, _op. cit._, first edition, ii, p. 486. This act merely
confirmed previous legislation in 1680.
[1048] _Ibid._, first edition, ii, p. 509. This confirmed the
legislation of the previous year.
[1049] _Ibid._, first edition, ii, p. 510.
[1050] _New York Colonial Documents_, iv, p. 510.
[1051] Morgan, _op. cit._, in _Historic New York_, ii, p. 20; _Laws of
New York_, edition of 1752, p. 69.
[1052] Morgan, _op. cit._, in _Historic New York_, ii, p. 20.
[1053] Bolton, _History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
County of Westchester_, p. 228.
[1054] _Ibid._, p. 250.
[1055] _Ibid._, p. 264. The slaves in New York, as in other colonies,
did not favor giving up their Sundays to religious instruction and
observances, for they preferred to hunt and fish on this, the only day
which they had to themselves. _Ibid._, pp. 62–63.
[1056] Shurtleff, _Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts
Bay_, v, p. 136.
[1057] Mayhew, _Indian Converts_, p. 194.
[1058] _Ibid._, pp. 202, 222, 257.
[1059] _Plymouth Colony Records_, ii, pp. 103–104; _Medford Historical
Register_, iii, No. 3, p. 121.
[1060] Ewell, _The Story of Byfield_, p. 88.
[1061] Perry, _Historical Collections relating to the American
Episcopal Church_, ii, p. 231.
[1062] _Journal of the American Irish Historical Society_, iii, p. 57.
[1063] Johnston, _Slavery in Rhode Island_, in _Rhode Island Historical
Society Publications_, 1894, ii, p. 120.
[1064] Hurd, _op. cit._, i, p. 272; Steiner, _op. cit._, p. 16, in
_Johns Hopkins University Studies_, xvi.
[1065] Cobb, _An Historical Sketch of Slavery from the Earliest
Periods_, p. clii.
[1066] Coffin, _History of Newbury_, p. 336, cites instances in Newbury
in 1687 and 1702. Orcutt, _The History of the old Town of Derby,
Connecticut_, p. lvii, mentions a deed of manumission in Connecticut
in 1688, given to Tobie, an Indian captive of King Philip’s War.
Smith, _History of Delaware County, Pennsylvania_, p. 219, refers to
the conditional manumission of an Indian slave, three years old, born
in the family. Cotton Mather, also, promised to free an Indian slave
at the close of four years of service. _Diary_, in _Massachusetts
Historical Society Collections_, series 7, vii, p. 203.
[1067] A Virginia act of 1782 provided for the freeing of a slave
by an instrument in writing submitted by the owner. A copy of this
instrument attested by the clerk of the county court was to be given to
the manumitted slave. Any master neglecting to give such a copy to the
slave in question was liable to a fine of £10. Hening, _op. cit._, xi,
p. 39. Maryland by an act of 1752 declared that owners under ordinary
circumstances had the right to free slaves. Two witnesses were required
for the act, which must be in writing. Bacon, _Laws of Maryland_. These
acts were intended primarily to apply to negro slaves.
[1068] _Indian Book_, 1710–1718, Columbia, South Carolina, Historical
Commission Department, i, p. 19.
[1069] _Plymouth Colony Records_, iv, p. 173. By the terms of the
order, the value of the land was to be expended for defraying the
charges of printing the book “New England’s Memorial.”
[1070] Baker, _History of Montville, Connecticut_, p. 77. This woman
was given by the colonial government to Captain James Avery who sold
her to Mr. Charles Hill who in turn traded her to Uncas.
[1071] Mayhew, _Indian Converts_, p. 120.
[1072] Orcutt, _The History of the old Town of Derby, Connecticut_, p.
vii.
[1073] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 352.
[1074] _Ibid._, vii, p. 371.
[1075] _Ibid._, vii, p. 385.
[1076] _Ibid._, vii, pp. 397–398.
[1077] Hening, _op. cit._, iv, p. 132.
[1078] Martin, _The Public Acts of the General Assembly of North
Carolina_, i, p. 66; Dillon, _Oddities in Colonial Legislation_, p. 233.
[1079] Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 155.
[1080] Baylies, _op. cit._, ii, pt. iv, p. 4; Freeman, _The History of
Cape Cod_, ii, p. 72.
[1081] _Massachusetts Manuscript Records_, vol. xxx.
[1082] _Plymouth Colony Records_, vi, p. 15.
[1083] _Ibid._, vi, p. 15.
[1084] _Acts and Resolves_, ix, p. 376.
[1085] Baylies, _op. cit._, ii, pt. iv, p. 109.
[1086] Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 280.
[1087] _New York Colonial Laws_, edition of 1894, i, p. 764.
[1088] Nevill, _Acts of the General Assembly of the Province of New
Jersey_, i, p. 23.
[1089] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 384.
[1090] _Ibid._, vii, p. 396.
[1091] Martin, _The Public Acts of the General Assembly of North
Carolina_, i, p. 66; Dillon, _op. cit._, p. 233.
[1092] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, iii, pp. 375–376.
[1093] _Ibid._, iii, p. 408.
[1094] _Ibid._, v, p. 233.
[1095] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, xvi, p. 415.
[1096] _New York Colonial Laws_, edition of 1894, i, p. 765.
[1097] _Ibid._, i, p. 922.
[1098] Nevill, _op. cit._, i, p. 25.
[1099] Allinson, _op. cit._, p. 316.
[1100] Brain, _The Redemption of the Red Man_, p. 2, believes that the
entire Indian population of the territory now occupied by the United
States never exceeded 300,000 souls. Bancroft, _History of the United
States of America from the Discovery of the Continent_, edition of
1878, ii, p. 408, estimates the number east of the Mississippi River
and south of the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes at not far from
180,000 at the time of the discovery. To the various tribes of the
Algonquin race he assigns 90,000; the eastern Sioux, 3000; the Iroquois
including their southern kindred, 17,000; the Catawba, 3,000; the
Cherokee, 12,000; the Chickasaw, Choctaw and Muskohgee, 50,000; the
Uchee, 1000, and the Natchez, 4,000.
[1101] Sylvester, _op. cit._, ii, p. 54.
[1102] Palfrey, _op. cit._, iii, p. 137.
[1103] Thomas, _The Indians of North America in Historic Times_, p. 60.
[1104] Parkman, _A Half Century of Conflict_, ii, p. 286.
[1105] _Year Book of the Society of Colonial Wars in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts_, 1898, p. 110.
[1106] Bradford, _History of Plymouth Plantations_, in _Massachusetts
Historical Society Collections_, series 4, iii, p. 325.
[1107] Winthrop, _Journal_, i, pt. iii, p. 119, in _Original Narratives
of Early American History_.
[1108] Denton, _A Brief Description of New York_, etc., in Gowan,
_Bibliotheca Americana_, p. 7.
[1109] Oldmixon, _The British Empire in America_, etc., i, p. 125.
[1110] Oldmixon, _op. cit._, i, p. 141.
[1111] Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, i, pp. 421–422.
[1112] Ferris, _A History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware
from its Discovery by Hudson to the Colonization under William Penn_,
etc., p. 83.
[1113] Archdale, _op. cit._, in Carroll, _op. cit._, ii, p. 89.
[1114] _Ibid._, ii, pp. 89, 519.
[1115] _Ibid._, ii, p. 89.
[1116] Letter of Mr. Thomas, missionary of the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 1706, in _South Carolina
Historical and Genealogical Magazine_, v, p. 42.
[1117] Douglass, _A Summary, Historical and Political_, etc., i, p. 175.
[1118] Updike, _History of the Episcopal Church in Narragansett, Rhode
Island_, p. 177.
[1119] Oldmixon, _op. cit._, i, pp. 187, 189.
[1120] Jefferson, _Notes on the State of Virginia_, edition of 1787, p.
153.
[1121] _Ibid._, edition of 1787, pp. 154, 155.
[1122] Letter of Samuel Thomas, missionary in South Carolina of the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 1706, in
_South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine_, 1904, v, p. 42;
Letter of Henry Laurens, 1780, in Moore, _Materials for History printed
from Original Manuscripts with Notes and Illustrations_, p. 187.
[1123] Archdale, _op. cit._, in Carroll, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 88–89.
[1124] _Ibid._, ii, p. 89.
[1125] It is perhaps true that the Indians of the territory occupied
by the English colonists of America possessed certain inherent
characteristics which made them less desirable as servants or slaves
than those used by the Spaniards in Mexico and South America, and that
they had less fear and dread of the whites than the Indians farther
south.
[1126] Mason, _A Brief History of the Pequot War_, etc., in Orr, _op.
cit._, p. 39.
[1127] Mayhew, _Indian Converts_, p. 26.
[1128] Daniels, _History of the Town of Oxford, Massachusetts_, p. 44.
[1129] Dorr, _The Narragansetts_, in _Rhode Island Historical Society
Collections_, vii, p. 210; Wood, _New England’s Prospect_, Prince
Society edition, p. 73.
[1130] Dorr, _op. cit._, in _Rhode Island Historical Society
Collections_, vii, p. 233.
[1131] Force, _Tracts and other Papers relating principally to the
Origin, Settlement and Progress of the Colonies in North America_,
etc., i, p. 10.
[1132] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 343. Other
acts were passed by South Carolina in 1712, 1735, 1740, 1743, and 1783,
relating to slave conspiracies and uprisings. The omission in these
acts of direct reference to Indian slaves is probably due to the fact
that negro slaves were in the majority.
[1133] _Ibid._, iii, p. 196.
[1134] _Acts and Resolves_, i, p. 535.
[1135] _Acts and Laws of Connecticut_, edition of 1769, p. 185; Dillon,
_Oddities in Colonial Legislation_, p. 242.
[1136] _New York Colonial Laws_, edition of 1894, i, p. 631. New York
passed other laws in 1712 and 1730 relating to the uprisings and
conspiracy of slaves.
[1137] Watson, _Annals of Philadelphia_, i, p. 62.
[1138] See above, pp. 233–240.
[1139] _Acts and Resolves_, i. p. 698.
[1140] _Connecticut Colonial Records_, v, p. 233.
[1141] _Laws of New Hampshire_, edition of 1771, p. 53.
[1142] _Records of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations_, iv, pp.
193–194.
[1143] _Report of a French Protestant Refugee in Boston, 1687_,
Fisher’s translation, p. 20.
[1144] Winsor, _The Memorial History of Boston_, i, p. 489.
[1145] Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 143. For a petition, October 25,
1711, to Governor Spotswood for such a permit to employ an Indian man
and woman, see _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_, i, p. 150.
[1146] Winthrop, _Journal_, i, p. 260, in _Original Narratives of Early
American History_.
[1147] Hazard, _Historical Collections_, etc., ii, p. 188.
[1148] Morton, _The New English Canaan_, in Force’s _Tracts_, ii, p. 48.
[1149] Peabody, _Life of Cotton Mather_, p. 223.
[1150] Sewall’s _Diary_, in _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_, series 5, vii, p. 30.
[1151] Drake, _The Book of the Indians_, ninth edition, ii, p. 111.
[1152] Winsor, _The Memorial History of Boston_, i, p. 489.
[1153] _Plymouth Colony Records_, xi, p. 59.
[1154] Gookin, _op. cit._, in _American Antiquarian Society
Collections_, 1836, ii, p. 434.
[1155] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, i, p. 433,
435, 443, 447.
[1156] _Professional and Industrial History of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts_, iii, p. 398.
[1157] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, first series,
ix, p. 201. We are told that only by being “flagellated” were these
Indians made to perform their labor according to their contracts.
[1158] Steiner, _History of the Plantation of Menunkatuck_, p. 72.
[1159] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 1, ix, p.
78.
[1160] Updike, _History of the Episcopal Church in Narragansett_, etc.,
p. 177.
[1161] _Records of the Town of Southampton, Long Island_, bk. ii, pp.
56–59, 72.
[1162] Love, _Samson Occom and the Christian Indians of New England_,
p. 5; _New England’s First Fruits_, in Sabin’s _Reprints_, quarto
edition, No. vii, p. 6.
[1163] Bruce, _Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth
Century_, i, p. 5.
[1164] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 1, ix, p.
78.
[1165] Updike, _op. cit._, p. 177.
[1166] _Plymouth Colony Records_, xi, p. 237.
[1167] _Southold Town Records_, p. 154.
[1168] Weeden, _op. cit._, i, p. 292.
[1169] The inventory of the estate of Samuel Gorton of Providence shows
that he possessed apprenticed Indian servants. _The Early Records of
the Town of Providence_, xvi, pp. 243, 244.
[1170] Walker, _History of the First Church in Hartford_, p. 255.
[1171] _New Jersey Archives_, series 1, xx, p. 111; xxvi, p. 458.
[1172] Baird, _History of Rye_, p. 192.
[1173] Hening, _op. cit._, i, p. 410.
[1174] The so called “redemptioners.”
[1175] Several hundred Scotchmen taken prisoners by Cromwell were sent
to Boston. Morton, _New England’s Memorial_, p. 86.
[1176] In New Netherland many girls from the almshouses of Holland
served as indentured servants. Van Rensselaer, _History of the City of
New York in the Seventeenth Century_, i, p. 466.
[1177] Such a request was sent to the Virginia Company in 1620.
_Abstracts of the Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London_, i, p.
92.
[1178] Penn offered on certain conditions fifty acres of land to
every servant who came with the first adventurers, and made adequate
provisions in the Charter of Laws for the servants’ protection
against being cheated or abused in any way by dishonest masters. For
a discussion of indentured servants in Pennsylvania, see Bolles,
_Pennsylvania, Province and State_, ii, pp. 173–182; Diffenderffer,
_German Immigration into Pennsylvania_, pt. iii; _Pennsylvania Magazine
of History_, xxx, p. 436; xxxi, p. 83; _Historical Addresses and Papers
of Lancaster Historical Society_, x, p. 331; _Pennsylvania Colonial
Records_, i, iii, iv, vi, vii, ix, x, xi. In 1676, the Duke of York
provided for the government, protection, and final dismissal of bond
servants in Delaware. _Pennsylvania German Society Proceedings_, x, pp.
223–224.
[1179] In 1671, Governor Berkeley estimated that 1500 white servants
were arriving annually, and at that time out of a total population
of 40,000, six thousand were indentured servants. Tucker, _Life of
Jefferson_, i, p. 14; Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 515. In the time of
Governor Hamilton of Pennsylvania, it was estimated that there were
60,000 imported white servants in the province. Scharf and Westcott,
_History of Philadelphia_, i, p. 190. The German immigrants more than
met the demand for servants in Pennsylvania. Virginia, Maryland and
Pennsylvania were the three great servant importing colonies.
[1180] For Connecticut, see Steiner, _History of Slavery in
Connecticut_, in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, xi; for New
Hampshire, Sanborn, _New Hampshire_; for New Jersey, _New Jersey
Archives_, series 2, i, p. 436; for Maryland, McCormac, _White
Servitude in Maryland, 1634–1820_, in _Johns Hopkins University
Studies_, xxii; for Virginia, Ballagh, _White Servitude in the Colony
of Virginia_, in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, xiii; for North
Carolina, Bassett, _Slavery and Servitude in North Carolina_, in _Johns
Hopkins University Studies_, xiv; for South Carolina, McCrady, _Slavery
in the Province of South Carolina, 1670–1770_, in _Annual Report of the
American Historical Association for 1895_, and Schaper, _Sectionalism
in South Carolina_; for Georgia, _Colonial Records of Georgia_, i, pp.
54, 259.
[1181] Weeden, _op. cit._, i, p. 153; Coffin, _A Sketch of the History
of Newbury_, etc., p. 337.
[1182] Sewall’s _Diary_, in _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_, series 5, v, p. 14.
[1183] Moore, _Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts_, p. 65.
[1184] _Publications of the Ipswich Historical Society_, x, p. 29;
Waters, _Ipswich in the Massachusetts Bay Colony_, p. 217.
[1185] Bodge, _Soldiers in King Philip’s War_, p. 480; Waters, _op.
cit._, p. 217.
[1186] Earle, _Customs and Fashions in Old New England_, p. 84.
[1187] _Essex Institute Historical Collections_, i. p. 14.
[1188] Felt, _Annals of Salem_, second edition, ii, p. 416.
[1189] Currier, _History of Newbury_, p. 254; Coffin, _op. cit._, p.
188.
[1190] Coffin, _op. cit._, p. 336.
[1191] Coffin, _op. cit._, p. 336.
[1192] Currier, _op. cit._, p. 255.
[1193] _Essex Institute Historical Collections_, x, p. 79.
[1194] _Ibid._, i, p. 14.
[1195] _Ibid._, x, p. 79.
[1196] _Ibid._, xxxiv, p. 64.
[1197] Ewell, _The Story of Byfield_, p. 65.
[1198] Mather’s _Diary_ in _Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections_, series 7, vii, p. 579.
[1199] Bliss, _Side Glimpses from the Old Meeting House_, p. 16.
[1200] Staples, _Annals of Providence_, second edition, p. 171; _Rhode
Island Historical Society Publications_, i, p. 235; Richman, _op.
cit._, ii, p. 192.
[1201] _The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth_, p. 433.
[1202] Dorr, _The Narragansetts_, in _Rhode Island Historical Society
Collections_, vii, p. 233.
[1203] Weeden, _Early Rhode Island_, p. 143.
[1204] Dorr, _op. cit._, in _Rhode Island Historical Society
Collections_, vii, p. 233.
[1205] Weeden, _op. cit._, p. 144.
[1206] _The Early Records of the Town of Providence_, xvi, p. 244.
[1207] It should be noted that the Connecticut bondmen or slaves were
often called “servants” down to about 1700. Adams and Stiles, _History
of Ancient Wethersfield_, i, p. 700; Caulkins, _History of New London_,
p. 271; _Charleston Year Book_, 1900, p. 42. (_Appendix._)
[1208] Adams and Stiles, _op. cit._, i, p. 700.
[1209] Orcutt, _op. cit._, p. lvii.
[1210] _New Jersey Archives_, series 1, xxiii, p. 20.
[1211] _Ibid._, series 1, xxiii, p. 29.
[1212] _Ibid._, series 1, xxiii, p. 37.
[1213] _Ibid._, series 1, xxiii, p. 62.
[1214] _New Jersey Archives_, series i, xxiii, p. 65.
[1215] _Ibid._, series 1, xxiii, p. 67.
[1216] _Ibid._, series 1, xxiii, 472. In these New Jersey inventories,
the Indian slaves were regarded as personal estate.
[1217] _William and Mary College Quarterly_, vi, p. 214. The “lbs.”
refer to tobacco, the medium of purchase in early Virginia.
[1218] _William and Mary College Quarterly_, vi, p. 214. This is the
deed which has already been referred to as having been set aside by the
House of Burgesses. Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 155. _Cf._ above, p. 270.
[1219] Hawks, _History of North Carolina_, ii, p. 577.
[1220] _North Carolina Historical and Genealogical Register_, iii, p.
270.
[1221] Williamson, _History of North Carolina_, i, p. 289.
[1222] _North Carolina Colonial Records_, ii, p. 52.
[1223] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, iii, p. 77.
[1224] _Mississippi Provincial Archives, French Domination,
Correspondance Générale_, v, 1710–1715.
[1225] _Report on Canadian Archives_, 1905, i, p. 523; Margry, _op.
cit._, iv, p. 544.
[1226] It is doubtful whether any definite knowledge of the enslavement
of Indians existed in England. The public criticism of the play and
opera “Incle and Yarico,” which dealt with the capture of two Indian
girls in America and their subsequent sale in Barbadoes, because the
first scene was laid in America, tends to show a general ignorance
on the subject. This play written by Coleman and told in story by
Steele in “The Spectator,” No. 11, March 13, 1710, is supposed to have
been founded on fact. The event is described in Ligon, _History of
Barbadoes_, p. 55. The play is given in Inchbald, _British Theatre_.
[1227] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 4, vi, p.
214.
[1228] _Massachusetts Manuscript Records_, xxx, No. 173; _Plymouth
Colony Records_, x, pp. 451–453; _New England Historical and
Genealogical Register_, vi, p. 297 and xxxii, p. 299; Winsor, _The
Memorial History of Boston_, i, p. 322.
[1229] Moore, _Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts_, p.
90. In 1700, Sewall had published a protest against slavery in general
in the form of a tract: _The Selling of Joseph, a Memorial_. The
tract did not mention Indian slavery. Moore, _op. cit._, pp. 83–87;
_Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings_, 1863–1864, pp. 161–165.
[1230] Sandiford, _The Mystery of Iniquity_, etc., p. 19.
[1231] _Ibid._, p. 96.
[1232] Sharp, _Extract from a Representation of the Injustice_, etc.,
p. 15.
[1233] _Ibid._, p. 13.
[1234] Benezet, _Some Observations on the Situation, Disposition_,
etc., p. 9. In a footnote he refers to Hunt’s kidnapping act.
[1235] _Records of the Friends’ Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania and the
Jersies_, p. 211; Michener, _A Retrospect of Early Quakerism_, etc.,
pp. 260, 341. According to custom the action of the Yearly Meeting
was at once made known to the various Quarterly Meetings within its
jurisdiction by extracts from its minutes. Such extracts recorded
in the minutes of the various Quarterly Meetings for the year 1719
contain exactly the same expression: “And to avoid giving them occasion
of discontent, it is desired that Friends do not buy or sell Indian
slaves.”
[1236] After 1719 the records show the opposition of the Yearly Meeting
to have been expressed against slavery in general, and no mention is
made of Indian slaves, though the records sometimes read: “negroes and
other slaves.” For the action of the Yearly Meeting at various times
up to the time of the abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania in 1780,
see _Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs_, i, p. 392 _et seq._;
Sharpless, _A History of Quaker Government in Pennsylvania_, ii, p. 224
_et seq._; _American Society of Church Publications_, v. ii, (article
by Allen C. Thomas); Michener, _A Retrospect of Early Quakerism_, etc.;
_Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, xiii, pp. 265 _et seq._
[1237] Williamson, _The History of the State of Maine_, etc., i, p. 539.
[1238] _Cf._ above, pp. 173–174.
[1239] Cotton Mather, _Magnalia_, edition of 1820, ii, p. 507; _Diary_,
in _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 7, vii, pp.
22, 203; Increase Mather, _Ibid._, series 7, viii, p. 232; The Reverend
Mr. Brown of Haverhill (1723), Chase, _History of Haverhill_, pp. 239,
248; The Reverend Mr. Thacher of Milton (1674), Earle, _Customs and
Fashions in Old New England_, p. 84; the Reverend Mr. Callicott of
Dorchester, Tooker, _Cockenoe-de-Long Island_, p. 12; John Winthrop,
_Records of the Court of Assistants, Colony of Massachusetts Bay_,
1630–1692, ii, p. 91; Daniel Gookin, _New England Historical and_
_Genealogical Register_, viii, p. 272; Governor Berkeley of Virginia,
_William and Mary College Quarterly_, vi, p. 214; Colonel Pollock,
acting governor of North Carolina, _North Carolina Colonial Records_,
ii, p. 52; Governor West of South Carolina, Hewat, _op cit._, i, p. 74;
and Governor Moore of South Carolina, Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 140, are
important cases in point.
[1240] Sylvester, _op. cit._, i, p. 293; Drake, _Book of the Indians_,
ninth edition, bk. ii, p. 107.
[1241] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 4, vi, p.
95.
[1242] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 4, vi,
pp. 195–196.
[1243] _Ibid._, series 4, vi, p. 65.
[1244] Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 267.
[1245] Ballagh, _A History of Slavery in Virginia_, p. 50.
[1246] Hening, _op. cit._, iii, p. 468.
[1247] Tucker, _A Dissertation on Slavery_, p. 35; Wheeler, _A
Practical Treatise of the Law of Slavery_, p. 19.
[1248] See Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 50, for a discussion of the
disappearance of this act. Not until 1806 was it discovered that the
act of 1705 was a repetition of that of 1691.
[1249] Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 51; 1 _Washington_, pp. 123 (Jenkins
_v._ Tom), 233 (Coleman _v._ Dick.)
[1250] Wheeler, _op. cit._, p. 19, (Hudgins _v._ Wright).
[1251] 2 Hening and Munford, p. 149 (Pallas _v._ Hill); James, _English
Institutions and the American Indians_, p. 47, in _Johns Hopkins
University Studies_, xii.
[1252] Wheeler, _op. cit._, p. 18.
[1253] If this interpretation of the acts of 1691 and 1705 be the true
one, then they belong in the same class with the acts of the northern
colonies which were passed at the time of the Tuscarora War for the
purpose of putting an end to the importation of Indians, but which did
not aim to put an end to the status of slavery as applied to Indians.
[1254] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 397. By
previous acts of 1712, 1722 and 1735; South Carolina had specified who
were to be slaves. _Ibid._, vii, p. 352; vii, p. 371; vii, p. 385.
[1255] 3 _Spears_, p. 128 (The State _v._ Harden, 1832): 1
_Richardson_, p. 324 (Nelson _v._ Whetmore, 1844).
[1256] O’Neall, _The Negro Law of South Carolina_, p. 5.
[1257] _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_, i, p. 243.
[1258] _Laws and Acts made from the First Settlement of Her Majesties
Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations by the General
Assembly of said Colony_, etc., edition of 1705, p. 54; Updike,
_History of the Narragansett Church_, p. 171; Staples, _Annals of the
Town of Providence_, second edition, p. 171.
[1259] _New York Colonial Documents_, xiii, p. 537; Brodhead, _op.
cit._, first edition, ii, p. 331.
[1260] Brodhead, _op. cit._, first edition, ii, p. 331; _Minutes of the
Common Council of the City of New York_, i, p. 80.
[1261] Brodhead, _op. cit._, first edition, ii, p. 486.
[1262] _Ibid._, first edition, ii, p. 509.
[1263] _Ibid._, first edition, ii, p. 510.
[1264] O’Callaghan, _Calendar of Historical Manuscripts_, etc., pt. ii,
p. 279.
[1265] _Ibid._, pt. ii, p. 314. July 20, 1703, Thomas Newton, mariner,
made deposition that he purchased this slave at Jamaica. _Ibid._, ii,
p. 314.
[1266] _New York Colonial Documents_, v, p. 342.
[1267] _New York Colonial Documents_, v, pp. 342, 357. The Lords of
Trade regarded Hunter’s action favorably, and on August 27, 1712,
recommended to her majesty to grant a pardon to the Spanish Indians
then in prison for engaging in the conspiracy.
[1268] _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_, v, p. 176.
[1269] Coffin, _A Sketch of the History of Newbury_, etc., p. 337,
contains a receipt for the sale of a Spanish Indian boy in 1718.
Transcriber’s Notes:
• Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
• Text enclosed by pluses is in small caps (+small caps+).
• Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.
• In Footnote 252, the last page number is cut off in all scans.Project Gutenberg
Indian slavery in colonial times within the present limits of the United States
Lauber, Almon Wheeler