Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Indian slavery in colonial
times within the present limits of the United States
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Indian slavery in colonial times within the present limits of the
United States
Author: Almon Wheeler Lauber
Release date: May 23, 2025 [eBook #76148]
Language: English
Original publication: New York: Almon Wheeler Lauber, 1913
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76148
Credits: deaurider, Robert Tonsing and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INDIAN
SLAVERY IN COLONIAL TIMES WITHIN THE PRESENT LIMITS OF
THE UNITED STATES ***
times within the present limits of the United States
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Indian slavery in colonial times within the present limits of the
United States
Author: Almon Wheeler Lauber
Release date: May 23, 2025 [eBook #76148]
Language: English
Original publication: New York: Almon Wheeler Lauber, 1913
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76148
Credits: deaurider, Robert Tonsing and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INDIAN
SLAVERY IN COLONIAL TIMES WITHIN THE PRESENT LIMITS OF
THE UNITED STATES ***
Page 4
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
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
Page 5
Copyright, 1913
BY
ALMON WHEELER LAUBER
BY
ALMON WHEELER LAUBER
Page 6
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
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
Page 7
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.
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.
Page 8
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
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
Page 9
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
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
Page 10
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
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
Page 11
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
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
Page 12
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
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
Page 13
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
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
Page 14
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
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
Page 15
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
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
Page 16
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
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
Page 17
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
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
Page 18
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
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
Page 19
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
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
Page 20
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
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
Page 21
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
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
Page 22
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
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
Page 23
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
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
Page 24
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
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
Page 25
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
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
Page 26
PART I
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE
INDIANS, THE SPANIARDS AND
THE FRENCH
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE
INDIANS, THE SPANIARDS AND
THE FRENCH
Page 27
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]
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]
Page 28
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]
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]
Page 29
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]
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]
Page 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]
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]
Page 31
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]
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]
Page 32
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]
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]
Page 33
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
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
Page 34
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
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
Page 35
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.
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.
Page 36
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
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
Page 37
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
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
Page 38
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]
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]
Page 39
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
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
Page 40
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
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
Page 41
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
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
Page 42
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
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
Page 43
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
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
Page 44
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,
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,
Page 45
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]
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]
Page 46
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,
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,
Page 47
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]
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]
Page 48
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
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
Page 49
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
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
Page 50
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
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
Page 51
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
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
Page 52
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,
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,
Page 53
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.
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.
Page 54
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]
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]
Page 55
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
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
Page 56
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]
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]
Page 57
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]
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]
Page 58
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]
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]
Page 59
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
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
Page 60
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
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
Page 61
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
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
Page 62
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,
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,
Page 63
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
243 26 883 45
Right
Idem on the Left 306 35 456 5
On the Shore of Lake
7 2 14
Ponchartrain
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
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
243 26 883 45
Right
Idem on the Left 306 35 456 5
On the Shore of Lake
7 2 14
Ponchartrain
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
Page 64
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
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
Page 65
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 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
Page 66
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
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
Page 67
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
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
Page 68
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
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
Page 69
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.
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.
Page 70
PART II
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE
ENGLISH
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE
ENGLISH
Page 71
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]
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]
Page 72
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.
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.
Page 73
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
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
Page 74
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
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
Page 75
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
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
Page 76
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.
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.
Page 77
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
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
Page 78
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
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
Page 79
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
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
Page 80
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
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
Page 81
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
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
Page 82
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
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
Page 83
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
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
Page 84
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
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
Page 85
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
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
Page 86
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
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
Page 87
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]
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]
Page 88
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
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
Page 89
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
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
Page 90
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
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
Page 91
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
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
Page 92
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.[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
Page 93
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
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
Page 94
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
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
Page 95
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]
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]
Page 96
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
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
Page 97
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,
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,
Page 98
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
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
Page 99
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
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
Page 100
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
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
Page 101
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
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
Page 102
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
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
Page 103
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.
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.
Page 104
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]
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]
Page 105
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]
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]
Page 106
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
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
Page 107
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.
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.
Page 108
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]
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]
Page 109
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]
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]
Page 110
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
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
Page 111
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]
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]
Page 112
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
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
Page 113
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
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
Page 114
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
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
Page 115
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.
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.
Page 116
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
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
Page 117
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
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
Page 118
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 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
Page 119
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]
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]
Page 120
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
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
Page 121
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
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
Page 122
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
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
Page 123
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]
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]
Page 124
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
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
Page 125
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]
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]
Page 126
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]
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]
Page 127
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]
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]
Page 128
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]
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]
Page 129
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]
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]
Page 130
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,
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,
Page 131
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
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
Page 132
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 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.
Page 133
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
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
Page 134
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]
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]
Page 135
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
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
Page 136
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
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
Page 137
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
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
Page 138
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,
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,
Page 139
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
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
Page 140
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
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
Page 141
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
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
Page 142
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,
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,
Page 143
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
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
Page 144
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
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
Page 145
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]
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]
Page 146
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].
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].
Page 147
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,
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,
Page 148
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
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
Page 149
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
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
Page 150
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
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
Page 151
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]
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]
Page 152
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
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
Page 153
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
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
Page 154
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,
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,
Page 155
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
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
Page 156
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
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
Page 157
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]
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]
Page 158
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]
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]
Page 159
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
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
Page 160
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
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
Page 161
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
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
Page 162
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
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
Page 163
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
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
Page 164
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
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
Page 165
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
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
Page 166
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
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
Page 167
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
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
Page 168
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,
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,
Page 169
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]
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]
Page 170
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
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
Page 171
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
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
Page 172
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
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
Page 173
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
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
Page 174
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
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
Page 175
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
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
Page 176
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]
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]
Page 177
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.
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.
Page 178
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]
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]
Page 179
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
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
Page 180
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.
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.
Page 181
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
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
Page 182
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
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
Page 183
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
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
Page 184
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
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
Page 185
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
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
Page 186
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
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
Page 187
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;
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;
Page 188
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
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
Page 189
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
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
Page 190
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.
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.
Page 191
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.
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.
Page 192
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.
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.
Page 193
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.
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.
Page 194
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.
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.
Page 195
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.
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.
Page 196
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.
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.
Page 197
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,
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,
Page 198
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.
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.
Page 199
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–
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–
Page 200
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.
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.
Page 201
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.
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.
Page 202
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,
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,
Page 203
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.
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.
Page 204
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.
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.
Page 205
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.)
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.)
Page 206
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.
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.
Page 207
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.
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.
Page 208
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.
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.
Page 209
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.
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.
Page 210
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.
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.
Page 211
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.
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.
Page 212
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.
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.
Page 213
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.
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.
Page 214
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.
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.
Page 215
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.
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.
Page 216
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–
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–
Page 217
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.
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.
Page 218
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;
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;
Page 219
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
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
Page 220
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
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
Page 221
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
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
Page 222
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;
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;
Page 223
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
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
Page 224
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
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
Page 225
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
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
Page 226
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
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
Page 227
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
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
Page 228
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;
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;
Page 229
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
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
Page 230
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
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
Page 231
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;
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;
Page 232
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;
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;
Page 233
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;
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;
Page 234
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;
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;
Page 235
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
La 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
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
La 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
Page 236
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;
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;
Page 237
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
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
Page 238
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
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
Page 239
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
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
Page 240
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;
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;
Page 241
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;
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;
Page 242
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
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
Page 243
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
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
Page 244
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;
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;
Page 245
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
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
Page 246
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
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
Page 247
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
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
Page 248
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
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
Page 249
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
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
Page 250
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
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
Page 251
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;
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;
Page 252
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
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
Page 253
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
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
Page 254
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
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
Page 255
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.
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.
Page 256
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.
[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.
Page 257
[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.
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.
Page 258
[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.
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.
Page 259
[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.
[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.
Page 260
[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
[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
Page 261
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.
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.
Page 262
[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.
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.
Page 263
[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.
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.
Page 264
[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.
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.
Page 265
[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.
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.
Page 266
[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.
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.
Page 267
[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.
[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.
Page 268
[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.
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.
Page 269
[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).
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).
Page 270
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,
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,
Page 271
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.
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.
Page 272
[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.
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.
Page 273
[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.
[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.
Page 274
[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.
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.
Page 275
[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
[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
Page 276
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.
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.
Page 277
[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
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
Page 278
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.
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.
Page 279
[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. 49.7
[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.
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. 49.7
[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.
Page 280
[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.
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.
Page 281
[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.
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.
Page 282
[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.”
[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.”
Page 283
[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.
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.
Page 284
[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
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
Page 285
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
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
Page 286
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.
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.
Page 287
[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.
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.
Page 288
[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
[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
Page 289
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.
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.
Page 290
[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
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
Page 291
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.
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.
Page 292
[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.
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.
Page 293
[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.
[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.
Page 294
[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.
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.
Page 295
[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.
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.
Page 296
[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;
[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;
Page 297
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.
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.
Page 298
[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.
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.
Page 299
[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.
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.
Page 300
[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.
[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.
Page 301
[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.
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.
Page 302
[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
[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
Page 303
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.
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.
Page 304
[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.
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.
Page 305
[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,
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,
Page 306
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.
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.
Page 307
[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
[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
Page 308
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.
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.
Page 309
[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.
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.
Page 310
[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.
[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.
Page 311
[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.
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.
Page 312
[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.
[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.
Page 313
[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.
[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.
Page 314
[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.
[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.
Page 315
[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.
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.
Page 316
[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.
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.
Page 317
[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.
[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.
Page 318
[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.
[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.
Page 319
[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.
[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.
Page 320
Transcriber’s Notes
New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain.
Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.
In Footnote 252, the last page number is cut off in all available scans.
New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain.
Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.
In Footnote 252, the last page number is cut off in all available scans.
Page 321
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INDIAN SLAVERY
IN COLONIAL TIMES WITHIN THE PRESENT LIMITS OF THE
UNITED STATES ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.
Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license,
apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and
trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not
be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of
the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project
Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may
use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative
works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks
may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically
ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S.
copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
IN COLONIAL TIMES WITHIN THE PRESENT LIMITS OF THE
UNITED STATES ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.
Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license,
apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and
trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not
be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of
the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project
Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may
use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative
works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks
may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically
ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S.
copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
Page 322
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic
work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept
all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If
you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this
agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom
you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic
work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept
all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If
you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this
agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom
you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
Page 323
collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works
in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project
Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with
the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format
with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which
the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase
“Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.
You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org.
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works
in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project
Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with
the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format
with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which
the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase
“Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.
You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org.
Page 324
If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the
country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived
from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United
States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or
providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”
associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with
the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain
permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide
access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived
from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United
States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or
providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”
associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with
the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain
permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide
access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
Page 325
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of
obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided
that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of
obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided
that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
Page 326
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth
in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in
Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and
proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the
Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be
stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete,
inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -
Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH
OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES
of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth
in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in
Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and
proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the
Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be
stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete,
inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -
Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH
OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES
Page 327
EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return
the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that
provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu
of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a
refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If
any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law
of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly
from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a)
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return
the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that
provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu
of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a
refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If
any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law
of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly
from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a)
Page 328
distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration,
modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work,
and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals
and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely
available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and
permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To
learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and
the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state
of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue
Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is
64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S.
federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza
#516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact
modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work,
and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals
and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely
available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and
permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To
learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and
the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state
of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue
Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is
64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S.
federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza
#516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact
Page 329
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable
effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have
not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable
effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have
not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Page 330
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including
how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including
how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.