INDIAN SLAVERY IN COLONIAL TIMES WITHIN
THE PRESENT LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES
BY
ALMON WHEELER LAUBER, Ph.M.
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN THE
+Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University+
NEW YORK
1913
+Copyright+, 1913
BY
ALMON WHEELER LAUBER
PREFACE
It is the purpose of this study to bring to light a hitherto neglected
phase of early American history: the enslavement of the Indians. The
extensiveness of negro slavery in comparison with Indian slavery has so
emphasized the former that, in the study of the institution in general,
the existence of Indian slavery during the colonial period has almost
entirely been lost sight of. In this discussion it is shown that the
enslavement of the natives was practiced by the Indians themselves, the
Spanish, the French and the English; yet in the case of no one of the
European nations did it exist as a system separate and distinct from
negro slavery. Though the holding of Indians as slaves by three of the
European nations has been considered, it is the author’s intention to
lay emphasis chiefly upon the institution as practiced by the English.
The fact that hitherto no special attention has been given to the
subject of Indian slavery has made the gathering of material difficult.
Many of the important sources treating of the subject have never
been published and are widely scattered. Much of even this material
is vague in nature and consequently more or less unsatisfactory. The
rapid increase in the number of negro slaves during the colonial period
resulted in the general use of such terms as “slaves,” “negroes and
other slaves” and “negroes,” without specification of Indian slaves as
such. This is true particularly of the colonial laws, even in the case
of those colonies where Indian slavery existed to the greatest extent.
The author desires to express his indebtedness to Mrs. N. M. Surrey
for her generous permission to use manuscript material collected in
the southern states; to the librarians and their assistants of the
Massachusetts Historical Society, the New York Historical Society, the
Pennsylvania Historical Society, and the Maryland Historical Society,
for their many kindnesses; and to Professor Herbert L. Osgood, of
Columbia University, for his advice and for the use of extracts from
the records of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign
Parts. The author’s most sincere thanks are due to Professor William R.
Shepherd, of Columbia University, under whose guidance this work has
been carried on. His suggestions and criticisms have been invaluable,
and he has given unsparingly of his time in reading both manuscript and
proof.
+Almon W. Lauber.+
+New York City, March 15, 1913.+
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE INDIANS,
THE SPANIARDS AND THE FRENCH
CHAPTER I
+Enslavement by the Indians Themselves+
PAGE
Introductory statement 25
Indian slavery among the Indians practically universal 25
More extensively used among some tribes than others 25
No entire tribes held in subjection 25
Slavery on the Great Plains and Atlantic Slope 25
Different from that in west 25
Not slavery in the true sense in many cases 25
“Slavery” confounded with “prisoner” and “adoption” 25
Slavery to be interpreted in the broadest sense 26
Processes of enslavement 26–35
For crime 26
Indians staked themselves when gambling 26
Indians sold children in time of famine 26
Barter with other tribes 27–28
Warfare 29–35
Coming of Europeans affected slavery 33–35
Stirring up tribes against one another 34
Employment of Indian slaves 35–39
Domestic servants 35–36
Mistresses 36
Agricultural laborers 36
Miners 37
Hunters 37
Fishermen 37
Objects of barter and trade 38
Treatment of slaves 39–40
Depended upon individual owners 39
A distinct class in west 39
A part of family or tribe in east 39
Adoption 39
Treatment generally kind 39
Instances of cruel treatment 40
Precautions to prevent escape 40
Women of tribe have power to spare or kill 40
Punishment by death 41
Distinction between owner and slave not so clear as between the
European and his slave 41
Privileges and favors 41–42
Manumission 43–45
Marriage into the tribe 43
Birth 43
Death of owner 43
Adoption 43–44
Peace with tribe to which slave belonged 44
Exchange 44
Messenger in formal declaration of war 44
CHAPTER II
+Enslavement by the Spaniards+
Idea of slavery 48
Practiced by Indians 48
Captives of Spanish wars enslaved 48
Sanctioned by Church and State 48
Public opinion 48
Enslavement of Indians would Christianize them 49
Processes of enslavement 49–55
War 49
Spanish explorers 49–55
Employment of slaves 55
Guides 55
Interpreters 55
Camp laborers 55
Burden bearers 55
Cooks 55
Mistresses 55
Treatment 55–57
Depended upon individual owners 55
Kindness to enslave instead of to kill 56
Instances of kindness 56–57
Manumission 57
Act of individual owners 57
Law of 1543 to end slavery in Spanish America 57
Law not successful 58
Missions and “presidios” 59–61
Life of Indians was practical slavery 61
CHAPTER III
+Enslavement by the French+
Legality 63–65
Never authorized by law in early colonial period 63
Home government not interested 63
Indirect royal action in eighteenth century 63
Authorized by colonial authorities 63
Action of Company of the Indies, 1720 64
Recognition by Governor-General Hocquart, 1736 64
Action of royal council, 1745 64
Public opinion 65
Not concerned with the subject 65
Knowledge of slavery vague 65
Countenanced slavery as an institution 65
No leader like Las Casas to create sentiment against slavery 65
Attitude of the missionaries 65–67
Processes of enslavement 67
War 67–73
Natchez War 67–68
Minor wars 69
With the Fox Indians 69
With the Chickasaw 69
Urging allies to war and taking captives 69–70
Requiring conquered tribes to go to war and take captives 70–71
Kidnapping 71–73
Trade 73–79
Indian slaves an object of trade 74
Part played by “coureurs de bois” 75–77
Attempt to check action of “coureurs de bois” 77
Opposition to it not strong 78
Attitude of Jesuits 78–79
Gifts: made to the explorers 79–81
Birth: throughout history children of slaves generally regarded
as slaves 82
Employment of slaves 82–86
Among the explorers 82
Guides 82
Interpreters 82
Among the colonists 83–86
Interpreters 83
Domestic servants 83
Mistresses 83
Agricultural laborers 83–84
Laborers on fortifications 84
Menial camp laborers 84
Objects of bribe to win friendship of tribes 84–86
Recognition as property 86
Tax law of 1728 86
Treatment of slaves 86–90
Slavery was of mild nature 86
Social distinction between slave and owner was less marked than
in case of English and Indian slaves 87
Instance of “coureurs de bois” 87
Religious training 87–88
Relation to ceremonies and sacraments of the Church 88–90
Extent of Indian slavery 90–94
In Louisiana 90–91
In Natchitoches 91
In north Mississippi Valley 92
In Detroit 92–93
Manumission 93–95
Verbal manumission 94
Law of 1735 required manumission by notarial deed 94
Law of 1721 freed children of slave mothers and free fathers 95
Causes of end of Indian slavery 96–102
Indians not adapted to slavery 96
Decrease in number of Indians 96
Removal of tribes from neighborhood of whites 96
Law of 1693 forbade trade in Indians 96
Law of 1736 repeated the order 97
General unsatisfactoriness of the institution 97–99
Growth of indenture system 99
Growth of negro slavery 100–102
PART II
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE ENGLISH
CHAPTER IV
+The Number of Indian Slaves+
Exact number in any colony unknown 105
Statistics rare or lacking altogether 105
Comparative numbers in different colonies 105–117
Largest number in South 105–108
Carolinas possessed most 106
Carolinas exported many 106
Fewer Indian slaves than negroes 108
Number in Georgia very small 108
The same true of Virginia 108
New England possessed many 109–112
Massachusetts enslaved captives taken in war 109–110
The Pequot War 109
King Philip’s War 109
Slaves in various towns 109
Rhode Island possessed some 110
Connecticut and New Haven had but few 110–111
New Hampshire had very few 111
The middle group of colonies had a smaller number than New
England 112
New York had more than other colonies 112
None taken in war 113
Some imported from the Carolinas and the Spanish Islands 114
Pennsylvania had few 115
Some imported 115
New Jersey had very few 116
Maryland probably possessed the smallest number 117
CHAPTER V
+Processes of Enslavement: Warfare+
Indian wars generally confined to South 118
Wars in Virginia 119
War with Opechancanough 119
Bacon’s rebellion 119
Wars in Carolina 119–122
War with the Kussoe 119
Expeditions against Spanish Indians after 1701 119–121
In 1702 119
In 1704 120
In 1708 120
In 1727 121
Tuscarora War 121–122
Barnwell’s expedition 122
Moore’s expedition 122
Wars in New England 122–126
Pequot War 123
The Mistick Fight 123
The Swamp Fight 123
Captives retained in colonies 123–124
Captives exported 124
King Philip’s War 124–130
Captives exported 125
By Massachusetts 126
Captives retained in colonies 127
Wives and children of captives enslaved 127
Children of Indians who surrendered enslaved for short period 128
Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Connecticut transported no
captives 128
Rhode Island retained captives in colony 129
Captives were involuntary indentured servants rather than
slaves 130
Connecticut enslaved captives 130
Colonial action regarding enslavement of Indians 130–152
Virginia 130
Action of 1668 131
Action during and after Bacon’s rebellion 131–132
Maryland 132–133
Intention in 1652 132
North Carolina 133–134
Action during Tuscarora War 133
South Carolina 134–137
Action during war with the Kussoe 134
Action during war with the Stono 134
Action during wars of early eighteenth century 135
Assembly provided committee to dispose of captives 135
Act of 1703 gave anyone a right to purchase slaves 135
Acts of 1707 and 1708 gave commanding officers of
expeditions the right to purchase slaves 136
Act of 1715 provided that public receiver should dispose of
captives 136
Action during war with the Cherokee 136
New England 137–152
Prior to King Philip’s War 137–138
Disposal of captives by general court: Massachusetts 137
Disposal of captives by council of war: Plymouth 137
Act of United Colonies of New England 138
Articles of Confederation, 1643 138
Action in 1645 138
During King Philip’s War 138–152
Captives sold outright to obtain money for treasury 138–139
Captives sold to pay debts to individuals 139–140
Captives granted directly to captors 141
Military commanders authorized to sell captives 142
Attitude toward Praying Indians 143
Colonial governments realized danger of retaining enslaved
captives in colonies 144
Massachusetts act of 1676 144
Massachusetts act of 1677 145
Plymouth act of 1678 146
Government action in capture and sale of Indians not always
above suspicion 146
Plymouth act of 1646 146
Seizure and sale of Dartmouth Indians 146–147
Event at Cocheco 147
Disposal of Indians after the war 148
Massachusetts 149
Connecticut 149–150
Rhode Island 150–152
CHAPTER VI
+Processes of Enslavement: Kidnapping+
Action of Cabot, Frobisher, Weymouth, Harlow, Hunt 154–159
Evidence of kidnapping in southern colonies meagre 159
Event of 1685 at Cape Fear, North Carolina 159–160
Action of Laughton, 1676 160–161
Kidnapping in Pennsylvania 162
Kidnapped Indians in New York: Spanish Indians 162–163
Kidnapped Spanish Indians in other colonies 164
Legislative action against kidnapping 165–167
Nature of legislation 165
Purpose of legislation 165
Acts of
Virginia, 1657 166
Maryland, 1672, 1692, 1705 166
Massachusetts, 1641 166
New Jersey, 1675 167
New Hampshire, 1679 167
CHAPTER VII
+Processes of Enslavement: Trade+
Purchase of Indians from tribes closely connected with fur trade 168
Work of the “coureurs de bois” 168
Captives obtained by South Carolina traders from the Westo,
Savannah and other tribes 169–171
French warn Indians against purpose of English 171
Action of English west of Mississippi river 172
Action of English and French among Chickasaw and Choctaw 172
Two-fold policy of proprietors of Carolina 173–175
Sanctioned enslavement of Indians for their own benefit 174
Opposed enslavement of Indians by colonial officials 174
Directions to grand council 175
Appointment of commission to prevent trade in Indians 175
Directions to governors 175
Inquiries from council and individuals 176
Declare traders’ reasons for traffic in Indians unsound 177
Matter of traffic in Indians given to parliament 178
Attitude of Governor John Archdale 178
Action of Governor James Moore 179
South Carolina assembly deals with trade in Indians, 1707 180
Appointed board of commissioners 180
Duties of board 180
Oath of members 180
Directions to traders 181–182
Purpose of assembly 182
Result of action of assembly 183
Attempts by board to check traffic in Indians 183
Memorial of governor, 1720 184
Failure of authorities to enforce decrees 184–185
Trade in Indians in Virginia 185–187
Traffic begun early 185
Attitude of assembly 185–186
Number of slaves obtained by trade never so extensive as
in Carolina 187
Trade in Indians in New England 187
No direct traffic in slaves with tribes 187
Obtained from other colonies 187
Colonial legislation forbidding traffic in Indian slaves 188–195
Massachusetts 188
New Haven 189
Connecticut 189–190
Rhode Island 191–192
New Hampshire 192–193
New York 193
Pennsylvania 193–195
CHAPTER VIII
+Other Processes of Enslavement+
Abuse of indenture or apprenticeship 196–201
Indians indentured to whites by their tribe 196
Indians sold to whites by their families 196
Indians offered as security for loans 196
Indians sell themselves to whites for protection 196
Whites enslave such Indians by refusing to give them up 196–201
Instance in North Carolina, 1660 197
Cause of Tuscarora War 197
Virginia legislation shows custom followed there 197–198
Massachusetts legislation aiming to prevent such action 198–199
Rhode Island legislation to prevent abuse of
apprenticeship 199–200
Abuses in New York 200–201
Decree of Governor Clinton to free Indians wrongly enslaved 200
Custom still in existence at late date, 1755 201
Punishment for violation of law and order 201–207
Enslavement as punishment general throughout colonies 201
Enslavement decreed as punishment in two ways 201
By law specifying enslavement as punishment for certain
crimes 201
By a court decreeing enslavement as punishment for crimes
committed 201
Carolina court decrees illustrating sentences for crimes
committed 201–202
Virginia legislation illustrating specified punishment for
specified crimes 202
Massachusetts legislation 203
Massachusetts court decrees 203
Plymouth court decrees 203–205
Rhode Island legislation 205
Rhode Island court decisions 205–206
Connecticut legislation 206
Connecticut court action 206
Action of the United Colonies 206–207
Birth 207–210
In law children of slave mothers generally considered slaves 207
Colonial laws imposing status of slavery on children of slave
mothers 207–209
South Carolina 207–208
Virginia 208
Maryland act of 1663 an exception 208
Maryland act of 1692 following general custom in other colonies 209
New York 209
Colonies that did not pass laws regarding the matter followed
general custom 209
Massachusetts 209
Connecticut 209
Cases in colonial courts recognizing status of slavery by birth 210
CHAPTER IX
+Property Relations+
Indians in servitude at first held in status servitude 211
Status servitude followed by status slavery 211
Status servitude and status slavery existing together 211
Indian slavery first recognized in customary law 212
Incidents of the change 212–213
Indian slavery recognized in statute law 213–215
Instance of South Carolina 213
Colonial acts from the standpoint of English law 214
Had no legal sanction 214
Based on law of nations 214
England indifferent to such acts 214–215
Acts therefore legal because not declared illegal 215
Incidents of status servitude continued into status slavery 215–241
Conception of property right 215–241
Indian slaves bought and sold 216
Newspaper advertisements of Indian slaves for sale 216
Indian slaves disposed of by will 216
Indian slaves in inventories 217
Tendency of Indian slaves to run away 217–218
Newspaper advertisements for runaway Indian slaves 218–219
Fugitive slave laws 220–221
Persons forbidden to aid runaways 220
Punishment for rendering such aids 221
Inducements to free Indians to return runaways 221
Intercolonial agreements concerning return of runaways 222–224
Articles of federation of the United Colonies of New England 222
Treaty of United Colonies of New England and New Netherland 223
Incident of New York and Pennsylvania 224
Incident of North Carolina and Virginia 225
Massachusetts rewards master for Indian slave taken from him 225
Courts settle disputes regarding ownership of Indian slaves 225
Taxation of Indian slaves 226
South Carolina acts 226–227
North Carolina acts 227
Virginia acts 227–230
Massachusetts acts 230–232
New York acts 232
Acts of the town of Rye, New York 232–233
Import duties on Indian slaves 233–240
Protective duties 234–237
South Carolina acts 234
Virginia acts 235
Rhode Island act 235
New Hampshire act 236
Pennsylvania act 236
New Jersey acts 236–237
Duties for revenue 237–240
New York acts 238–240
Export duties on Indian slaves 240–241
South Carolina act 240–241
CHAPTER X
+Methods of Employment+
Uses of Indian slaves similar throughout colonies 242–249
Hunters 242
Fishermen 242
Guides 242
Domestic servants 243–244
Agricultural laborers 244
Craftsmen 245
Rented like other chattels 245
Laborers in camp and field 245–247
Soldiers 247–249
CHAPTER XI
+Treatment+
Treatment the same as that accorded negroes 250
Harsh treatment not general 250
Clothing 251–252
Newspaper evidence 251–252
Marriage of whites with Indian slaves 252
Forbidden by the following colonies:
North Carolina, 1715 253
Maryland, 1692 253
Massachusetts, 1692 253
Regulation of Indian slaves 253–254
Each colony settled this matter for itself 253
Indian slaves included by implication in all colonial acts
relating to slaves, if not specified 253
Right to give evidence in court 254–255
Could not testify in trial of a white person 254
South Carolina 254
North Carolina 254
Virginia 255
Maryland 255
New York 255
Protection of slaves’ and owners’ rights in court 255–259
The right to life 255
New Hampshire act of 1708 255
Trial of slaves similar to that of freemen 255
Chance of slave obtaining his rights in court 256
Virginia, 1692, provided special courts for trial of slaves 256
Massachusetts provision of 1647 256–257
New Jersey act of 1713 257
New York act of 1712 257
Tendency of slave owners to conceal crimes committed by slaves 258
Remuneration of master if slave was executed 258–259
Maryland act of 1717 259
Restrictions 259–260
Punishments 260–264
Death 261
Branding 261
Whipping 262–263
Mutilation 263–264
Religious life 264
Provisions of home government regarding religious
instructions of slaves in general 265
Indifference of slave owners 265
Attitude of missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts 265
Reports of the missionaries to the Society 266–268
Attitude of the Society 268
Effect upon the colonists 268–275
Opinions of English authorities regarding idea that baptism
of slaves confers freedom upon them 275
Manumission 275–282
Action of individual owners 276
Purchase of freedom by slaves 276–277
Proof of freedom in court 277
Government action 277–280
Virginia 278
North Carolina 278
Massachusetts 279
Plymouth 279–280
Regulations regarding life of manumitted slaves 280–282
CHAPTER XII
+The Decline of Indian Slavery+
Small number of Indians in English territory 283
Decrease in number of Indians 283
Decreased birth rate 285
Susceptibility to diseases of whites 285–286
Intestine wars 286
Intermingling of Indian and negro slaves 287
Physical and mental unfitness of Indians for slave labor 287–288
Indian slave labor not satisfactory 288–289
Indian slaves given to running away 289
Indian slaves concerned in conspiracies and uprisings 289–290
Colonial legislation declaring Indian slaves undesirable 290–292
Indians as hired servants 292–294
Indians as indentured servants 295
White indentured servants 295–297
Negro slavery 297–298
Comparative values of Indian and negro slaves 298–302
Opposition to Indian slavery and contrasted opinion 303–311
Legislation 311–319
Virginia 312–315
South Carolina 315–316
Rhode Island 316–319
New York 316–319
PART I
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE
INDIANS, THE SPANIARDS AND
THE FRENCH
CHAPTER I
+Enslavement by the Indians Themselves+
The discussion of the use of Indians as slaves by the aborigines within
the present limits of the United States, both before and after the
coming of the Europeans, may be prefaced by the statement that the
institution of slavery in some form was practically universal. Certain
tribes held slaves more generally than others, and various tribes were
more subject to enslavement than others, according to their relative
strength and weakness.[1] Yet nowhere in the territory under discussion
did slavery exist on such an extensive scale that some tribes held
others in a state of subjection and demanded servile labor from them.
Slavery among the tribes of the Great Plains and the Atlantic Slope
was different in nature from that in the northwest. Frequent mention
of such slavery is found, but it has been shown that the term “slave”
was often used by the early Spanish and French writers in an erroneous
sense as synonymous with “prisoner.”[2] The institution of adoption
so largely used by the American Indians, and incident to intertribal
warfare and the consequent depletion of the tribal numbers, has also
been confused by the writers with the institution of slavery.[3]
Though slavery, in the strictest sense, was not general in the
territory above mentioned, yet some form of the institution is recorded
as having existed among the leading tribes. In the discussion which
follows, the term “slave” must, then, be considered in its broadest
sense. A prisoner held by his captor as an inferior and forced to labor
for him, or sold into servitude or freedom for the financial benefit
of his captor, will be considered a slave when thus treated by the
Indians, as he will be so considered in a later discussion when thus
treated by the whites.
Among the Aztec Indians of Mexico outcasts and criminals of the tribe
were enslaved,[4] and the usage appears to have been followed, to a
very slight extent, by Indians in the area of the French and English
colonies to the northward.[5]
Individual instances of slavery proceeded from other causes. The
Indians were inveterate gamblers, and when nothing else was left, both
men and women not infrequently staked themselves to serve as slaves in
case of loss. Such slavery was sometimes for life, and sometimes for
such short periods of time as a year or two.[6] In case of famine, the
Indians even sold their children to obtain food.[7]
The slaves possessed by a given Indian tribe were oftener obtained
through barter with other tribes. This intertribal traffic, though
probably not common, was evidently far-reaching.[8] Owing to the
wandering habits of the Indians and their custom of bartering goods
with other tribes, articles of copper became distributed throughout
the Northwest, especially in Wisconsin. The Illinois Indians possessed
slaves who came from the sea coast, probably Florida.[9] The Illinois
also bartered their slaves with the Ottawa for guns, powder, kettles
and knives,[10] and with the Iroquois to obtain peace.[11] Marquette
found (1673) among the Arkansas Indians, knives, beads and hatchets
which had been obtained partly from the Illinois and partly from the
Indians farther to the east.[12] The Jesuit, Grelon, relates that in
Chinese Tartary he met a Huron woman whom he had known in America.[13]
The transition from the method of obtaining slaves by actual warfare
and barter to that of mere slave raids was an easy one. The desire to
gain the reputation of a skillful hunter, and, still more, of a brave
warrior, and thus to win the esteem and regard of his tribesmen, was
inherent among the natives. To be a brave warrior was to be truly a
man. So eager was the Indian to acquire the name of “brave” that he
unhesitatingly underwent any hardships to obtain slaves or scalps as a
proof of his qualifications for the title.[14] This means of obtaining
slaves was used by the stronger tribes like the Illinois and the
Iroquois.[15]
The slaves bartered by the Illinois were generally taken in the
territory beyond the Mississippi.[16] This the Illinois were better
able to do after the coming of the whites, as they were provided with
guns, while the Indians to the westward had no weapons of the sort.
One of the chief sources from which these slaves was obtained was the
Pawnee nation. In 1719, Du Tisné wrote to Bienville, the commandant at
New Orleans, that the Pawnee were afraid of him when he arrived among
them, as their neighbors, the Osage, had made them believe that his
intention was to entrap and enslave them.[17]
The same practice was followed by the other northern tribes. Le Jeune,
in 1632, found slaves among the Algonquin. The Indians of the Great
Lakes region had a young Esquimaux as a slave in 1646.[18] Tonti found
Iroquois slaves among the Huron and Ottawa.[19] The Dutch navigator,
Hendrickson, in 1616, found the Indians of the Schuylkill River country
holding Indian slaves.[20]
Of all the northern Indians, the Iroquois were by far the most
powerful. They were the enemies, in the time of the early French
explorations and settlements, of the Huron and the Illinois, and
from these tribes they took many captives whom they enslaved. The
statement has been made that no personal slavery ever existed among the
Iroquois—that their captives were either killed or adopted as a part
of the nation.[21] Quite the contrary is true. They held both Indians
and whites in personal slavery. They brought back from the Ohio country
bands of captives, sometimes numbering three or four hundred.[22]
They preyed upon the Shawnee and carried them off into slavery.[23]
They captured and enslaved the Miami for whose redemption they were
presented with quantities of beaver skin. These they received but
failed to free the slaves.[24] They brought home slaves from Maryland
and the south,[25] and from the land of the “Chat”[26] (the Erie). It
was the Iroquois (the Seneca), called by an early writer “Sonnagars,”
who enslaved captives taken from the tribes of Carolina and Florida.[27]
Similar practices are related of the southern Indians. The Virginia
tribes possessed “people of a rank inferior to the commons, a sort of
servants ... called black boys, attendant upon the gentry.”[28] When
Menendez founded St. Augustine in 1565, he discovered in a native
village the descendants of a band of Cuban Indians who had come to the
mainland, been taken prisoners by the Florida Indians, and reduced to
slavery.[29]
In the south the strongest tribes were the Choctaw and Chickasaw. These
two tribes were not only at war with each other from time to time, but
each preyed upon the weaker tribes of the surrounding country. In 1717,
a Cadodaquiou chief informed La Harpe, on his journey to the Nassoni
northwest from Natchitoches, that the Chickasaw had killed and enslaved
their nation until it was then very small, and that the remnant had
been forced to take refuge among the Natchitoch and Nassoni.[30]
The Choctaw enslaved the Choccuma, a small tribe lying between them and
the Cherokee,[31] and about 1770 captured and burned their village. The
chief and his warriors were slain, and the women and children became
the slaves of the conquerors.[32] The Pima of the present southern
Arizona took their slaves chiefly from the ranks of the Apache and
their allies, and in some degree from the Yuma. These captives were
largely children. When not killed they were enslaved. Some of them
were kept within the tribe, and were even permitted to marry members
of the tribe. But their origin was never forgotten, and the innate
superstition of the natives found expression in the declaration of the
medicine men that disasters and misfortunes came to the tribe through
the presence of these aliens.[33]
In 1540, Mendoza stated that the Pueblo Indians kept their captives for
food and for slaves.[34] In the same year, Coronado, on his journey to
Cibola, found among the Indians he met an Indian slave who was a native
of the country that Soto traversed.[35]
When Du Tisné, in 1719, made his journey west of the Mississippi
River, he found the Osage at peace with the Pawnee and at war with the
Kansas, Padouca, Aricara and other tribes, who in turn preyed on the
Pawnee.[36] The Pawnee were common prey to the tribes on both sides
of the Mississippi River. Their nation was not especially small in
numbers,[37] but they appear to have been lacking in certain warlike
qualities with which some other nations, as the Illinois and Iroquois,
were more generously endowed. On this account they were so generally
enslaved by their enemies that the term “Pawnee” became synonymous
with Indian slave.[38] In 1724, de Bourgmont found the Kansas Indians
employing Padouca slaves.[39] De Boucherville, also, on his journey
from the Illinois country to Canada, 1728–1729, took with him a little
slave for the governor-general of Canada, and was offered other slaves
as gifts by the Indians whom he encountered.[40]
In a letter written at Quebec, October 1, 1740, the Marquis de
Beauharnois speaks of the Huron bringing slaves from the Flathead and
delivering them up to the Outaouac (Ottawa).[41] La Vérendrye, in 1741,
was told by the Horse Indians that the Snake Indians had destroyed
seventeen of their villages, killed the warriors and women, and carried
off the girls and children as slaves.[42]
Of the Wisconsin tribes, the Ottawa and Sauk, at least, were in the
habit of making captives of the Pawnee,[43] Osage, Missouri, and even
of the distant Mandan, whom they consigned to servitude. The Menominee
did not usually engage in these distant wars, but they, and probably
other tribes, had Pawnee slaves whom they purchased of the Ottawa, Sauk
and others who had captured them. For the sake of convenience, they
were called “Pawnees,” though some of them were certainly from the
Missouri tribes. These captives were usually children.[44]
“Beginning with the Tlingit, slavery as an institution,” using the term
in its strictest sense, “existed among all the Northwest coast Indians
as far as California. It practically ceased with southern Oregon,
although the Hupa of Athapascan stock, and the Nozi (Yanan), both of
northern California, practiced it to some extent.”[45] Slavery in some
form appears to have existed among both the Klamath and the Modoc, and
in the Columbia River district as far as the Wallawalla River, where it
existed among the Cayuse and the Nez Percés.[46] “The Northwest region,
embracing the islands and coast occupied by the Tlingit and Haida, and
the Chimmesyan, Chinookan, Wakashan, and Salishan tribes, formed the
stronghold of the institution.”[47] Toward the eastward the institution
became modified, as has been shown.
According as an Indian nation proved friendly or unfriendly, the whites
used it for their own advantage. Originally the slaves consisted almost
entirely of captives taken in war, for there was but little trade among
the different nations and tribes until articles of commerce were given
by the whites in return for furs and slaves. How the traffic in slaves
was affected is seen in the case of the Choctaw and the Chickasaw,
the former friends of the French, the latter, of the English. The ill
feeling of the two nations was nourished by the international rivalry
of their white allies to whom the Indians disposed of many of their
captive slaves.[48] The Spaniards of Mexico made slave raids and
induced the Indians to do so. La Salle’s expedition, found abundant
evidence in 1687 of Spanish trade among the Cenis Indians, in their
possession of pieces of money, silver spoons, lace, clothes and a bull
from Rome exempting the Spaniards in Mexico from fasting during the
summer.[49] Some messengers of the Chouman among the Cenis, and the
Cenis themselves, told the French of the slave raids and of the cruel
treatment of the Indians by the Spaniards to the southward.[50]
Even the Jesuits were not averse to stirring up tribe against tribe.
So strong was their interest in the Huron that, for the advancement
of the Jesuit cause, it was felt advisable to break up the Iroquois
power. Even La Salle advised such a course of action, and urged that
the French strengthen the southern Indians by supplying them with
firearms and in other ways, so that they might be enabled to defeat the
Iroquois, destroy their organization, and carry off their women and
children as slaves.[51]
On the other hand, since the Huron were the friends of the French and
had been largely converted by the French missionaries, the Jesuits
sought to better the lot of the Huron slaves held by the Iroquois,[52]
and sent an earnest appeal to the Christians in France to contribute
funds for the redemption of the Christian captives.[53] Hennepin’s
_Narrative_ tells of an attempt made by the Jesuits in 1681 to free
some Ottawa Indians who were slaves among the Iroquois, by gifts of
wampum belts, and by telling the Iroquois that these Ottawa were the
children of the governor of the French, and that by holding them they
were making war on the French.[54]
The employment to which the Indian slave was put by his Indian owner
depended largely upon the section in which the tribe resided. Their
use as domestic servants was probably common. Father Fremin tells of a
young Iroquois woman who possessed more than twenty personal slaves,
whose duty it was to get wood, draw water, cook, and do all other
services which their mistress might direct. On the death of the owner
who was a Christian, her mother desired that the missionary instruct a
sick slave in his religion, so that after death the slave might attend
her former mistress in Heaven and perform the same services for her as
she had done on earth.[55] Among the Illinois, La Hontan found that two
hours after sunset, the slaves covered the fires in the lodge before
going to rest.[56] Bartram mentions a southern chief, who had attending
him as slaves many Yamasee captives who had been captured by him when
young.[57]
Le Jeune found the Huron and Ottawa Indian slaves engaged in minor
household duties.[58] In the northwest, enslaved women and children
performed the same labor.[59] One other use to which the young women
and girls were put, if they did not marry into the tribe, was to serve
as the mistresses of their owners.[60]
All the tribes east of the Mississippi River and south of the St.
Lawrence River and the Great Lakes practiced agriculture to some
extent. They all raised corn, beans, squashes and melons.[61]
Consequently the captive slaves worked in the fields with the members
of the tribe, caring for the maize and vegetables. The Iroquois used
their captives in tilling the fields.[62] Captain John Smith, in
speaking of Powhatan’s tribe, states that they made war, “not for lands
and goods, but for women and children, whom they put not to death, but
kept as captives, in which captivity they were made to do service.”[63]
A part of this service consisted in caring for the crops. The Indians
of North Carolina kept their slaves at work in the fields.[64] Soto
found that the Indians among whom he passed had many foreign slaves
whom they employed in tilling the ground.[65] Among the Illinois, La
Hontan found the women slaves employed in sowing and reaping.[66]
Slaves were also employed in mining, hunting, fishing, and whatever
menial tasks needed to be done about the camp. But few of the tribes
worked mines to any extent, yet Joutel, 1687, found the Cenis Indians
working slaves in their mines.[67] Hunting and fishing were more
important occupations, since they furnished food for the tribe. Among
the Iroquois,[68] Huron,[69] Ottawa,[70] and Illinois,[71] such work
was partly done by the slaves who often worked with their masters. In
the northwest the slave assisted his master in paddling, fishing and
hunting. He cut wood, carried water, aided in building houses, etc.[72]
The existence of barter or trade among the different tribes, and among
individuals of the same or different tribes, as a means of obtaining
slaves has been already noted. Hence it follows that slaves, along
with wampum, furs, etc., served as a medium of exchange in trade.
Furthermore, they served as gifts or objects of barter whereby captives
belonging to the possessor’s tribe might be obtained, and by which an
unfriendly tribe or individual might be placated. They were given to
the whites to win their favor and friendship.[73] This use of slaves
to purchase peace with a stronger tribe was noted by Tonti in the case
of the Illinois and Iroquois. The Illinois were too weak to cope with
the Iroquois on a certain occasion owing to their young men being away
at war, and so by the gift of beaver skins and slaves they were able to
arrange a peace.[74] Dubuisson, the French commander in the war of 1712
between the French and allied Indians, and the Ottogami and Mascouten,
records a similar use made of their slaves by the Indian allies of the
French as a means of appeasing the Potawatami for an old quarrel.[75]
From the area about Green Bay in the present State of Wisconsin, De
Lignery wrote in 1724 of bringing the warring tribes to an amicable
settlement through an interchange of slaves.[76] Other French
commanders in the same section used the same means to regain peace. Not
only to each other, but to whites as well, were slaves given in order
to make reparation for losses in war. In 1684, the Indians offered Du
Luth slaves to take the place of some assassinated Frenchmen.[77] In
1724, the Indians at Detroit offered the French commander, by way of
truce, two slaves for the same purpose.[78] When slaves were desired
for such use, if the tribe possessed none, a raid was often made upon
an enemy in order to obtain them. At the time of certain disturbances
around Detroit, the Indians in the peace arrangements promised the
French that they would make raids on distant nations to obtain slaves
whom they would deliver to the French allies to replace their dead.[79]
The treatment of slaves depended upon the individual owner, whose
disposition and mood might vary from kindliness to extreme cruelty
according to circumstances or caprice, and, still more largely,
upon custom. In the northwest slavery had existed for a sufficient
length of time before the coming of the whites to modify materially
the habits and institutions of the people. It doubtless produced the
ideas of rank and caste so generally found among the Indians of that
section, but so little known elsewhere among the American Indians.[80]
Nevertheless the slaves among the Indians of the northwest were not,
as a class, considered any more inferior to their owners than the
slaves of the tribes farther east where adoption was more generally
practiced. Consequently servitude in that section was of a rather
mild type.[81] The same appears to have been true of servitude in
general among the Indians. Slaves were probably not generally neglected
or abused.[82] Yet there are many testimonials of cruel treatment.
Travelers spoke of the slaves of the southern Indians serving and
waiting on their masters with signs of the most abject fear, as tame,
mild and tractable, without will or power to act but as directed by
their masters.[83] The slave was expected to obey his master blindly
and without disputing.[84] In this connection it must be understood
that enslavement of captives in war was in itself a kindly act on the
part of the captors, determined partly by the need of laborers and
additional members in the tribe, partly by the use which the victors
could make of these captives in traffic with other tribes and with the
whites, and partly by mere whim. Otherwise, the prisoners were tortured
and killed as an expression of hatred, or as a means of obtaining
revenge for injury. To instil fear into them, slaves were often
compelled to observe the torture of their fellow captives who were
condemned to death. La Salle relates an instance in which slaves were
forced to eat one of their own nation, a victim of such torture.[85]
Among the Cenis such a custom was followed, and it is quite possible
that this method of producing subjection was consistent with the
habitual cruelty of most tribes.
Precautions were taken to prevent the escape of slaves. The southern
Indians were accustomed to mutilate the feet of their slaves either by
cutting away a part of the foot, or by cutting the nerves and sinews
just above the ankle or instep. The slave was thus prevented from
running rapidly, and if he should escape, the tracks of his mutilated
feet were easily recognizable.[86]
The life or death of Indian slaves depended upon either the council
or the women.[87] The captives were apportioned by the council to
different individuals of the tribe, usually at the request of the
women, who often preferred to adopt captives into their families to
replace lost husbands and sons, rather than to revenge themselves
for the loss of relatives by demanding the torture and death of the
slaves.[88] After such distribution, the life or death of a slave
depended entirely upon the will of the owner. Among a barbarous people,
a slave’s life naturally had but little value. Sick and useless slaves
were often put to death,[89] and trivial faults might be punished in
the same way. The Jesuit missionaries said of the Iroquois: “When a
barbarian has split the head of his slave with a hatchet, he says, ‘It
is a dead dog—there is nothing to be done but to cast it upon the dung
hill’.”[90]
On the other hand, the Jesuits record certain instances of kindness
shown to slaves by the Iroquois and other tribes.[91] One important
difference existed between the Indian slavery as practiced by the
Indians themselves, and that in existence among the whites. Among the
Indians the question of social equality did not determine the relation
of the slave to the master. The Indian slaves were always considered
eligible for adoption into the tribes as actual members, in order to
replete the numbers reduced by war, famine, disease or other cause.[92]
Among the Iroquois certain chosen slaves married into the tribe and
became heads of families after the death of their owners. They led
a tolerably easy life, but were still considered as slaves, and had
no voice, either active or passive, in the public councils.[93]
Still others, who had been the richest and most important in their
own villages, received no reward from their masters except food and
clothing.[94] A certain amount of liberty seems to have been accorded
these slaves, for the Jesuits were allowed to work among them sometimes
as openly as among the members of the tribe.[95] Bartram found that
among the southern Indians the slaves were dressed better than their
owners, and were allowed to marry among themselves; but they remained
slaves for life.[96]
There were several ways by which Indian slaves could obtain their
freedom. Among the Huron a young brave could marry his mother’s slave,
and his parents had no right to hinder him. By becoming his wife the
slave became a free woman.[97] Among the southern Indians the children
of slave parents were free and were considered in every respect equal
to their parents’ masters.[98] Among the western Indians, upon the
death of a savage, his slaves intermarried with others of their kind
and lived in a separate hut as a sign that they were free since they
had no master to serve. The children of such marriages were adopted
into the tribe and became the children of the nation, since they were
born in the country and village of the tribe. The Indians believed
that the children should not be held as slaves since they “contributed
nothing to their creation.”[99] In the northwest, the distinction
between slave and free man was generally sharply drawn with regard to
marriage, for the slave usually could not marry the free man or woman,
though the Makah men frequently married slave women. The children of
such marriages appear to have held “an equivocal position between free
men and slaves.”[100]
The most common mode of acquiring freedom was through adoption into
the tribes. Among the tribes of the Great Plains and the Atlantic
Slope, adoption seems to have been universally practiced. The slaves
adopted usually consisted of war captives,[101] who in some instances
were adopted wholesale, or who, after a period of servitude in the
tribe, had proved themselves possessed of certain desirable qualities,
such as bravery and strength in war or the chase. The adopted person
became in every respect the peer of his fellow-tribesmen. If he showed
his ability he might become of high rank in the tribe. If he were a
poor hunter, a poor provider, or, above all, if he turned out to be a
coward, he was despised and treated according to his demerits, probably
worse than if he had been born a member of the tribe. Still, he was
a member of the tribe and remained a free man, though he was deposed
from man’s estate and “made a woman.” Adopted persons who showed
little ability, were sometimes made to serve in the families of the
influential and prominent men of the tribe; but such persons were free,
even though they performed menial labor.[102]
In some sections, a captive could not become a member of a tribe
without a relationship of some sort; and to obtain this, he had to be
adopted by a woman as her child.[103] The captive took the kinship
name under the fiction that he was “younger” to every living person
of the tribe at the time, and that all persons subsequently born were
“younger” to him. If the captive belonged to a tribe of hereditary
enemies who had from time immemorial been designated by opprobrious
terms, such as cannibals, liars, snakes, etc., it might be that the
captive was doomed to perpetual “younger brotherhood,” and could never
exercise authority over any person within the tribe, though such person
might have been born after the adoption of the captive. Usually,
though not invariably, the captives adopted were children. They might
ultimately become useful members of the tribe, and by their virtues
even win rank in kinship. A captive might thus pass from slavery to
freedom.[104]
Occasionally the settlement of intertribal difficulties resulted in
the freeing of the captives by the victors, with permission to return
to their former homes. Such freedom might be given to a whole tribe
that had been conquered,[105] or to single individuals. In either case
the stigma of disgrace attached to the condition of slavery still
remained, and leaders of the tribe were preferably chosen from those
who had never been slaves.[106] Exchange or ransom was common. If a
tribe declared war against another formally, which happened but rarely,
slaves were sent with the notification of such fact to the enemy, and
were given their freedom if they promised not to take up arms against
their former masters.[107] Freedom was given for performing certain
services against their masters’ enemies, such as influencing their own
tribe against such enemies.[108]
In concluding this account of the institution of slavery among the
Indians of the present United States it should be stated that no
attempt has been made to treat the subject in detail. The purpose
of the chapter is to show the existence of slavery and something of
its nature, so as to obtain an historical setting for the discussion
of the enslavement of the Indians by the whites which is to follow.
Relatively few of the Indian tribes have been mentioned, but these
covered sufficient territory to show that the custom of slave-holding
was practically universal.[109] The familiarity of the Europeans who
came to America with the institution of slavery, and the finding of the
same custom among the Indians themselves, make their carrying on of the
practice quite natural.[110]
CHAPTER II
+Enslavement by the Spaniards+
In their attitude toward the Indians the Spaniards simply applied the
theory of their time regarding slavery. The taking of slaves was then
considered part of any expedition of discovery or conquest. The high
authority of the Church sanctioned the institution of slavery to the
extent that the leading theologians had declared all barbarous and
infidel nations who shut their ears to the truths of Christianity, fair
objects of rapine, captivity and slavery.[111]
The general feeling regarding the relation of the Indians to the
Spaniards is well expressed by Hernando de Escalante Fontanedo, who
was with Menendez in Florida as interpreter. In writing of Florida, he
declared it his belief that the Indians “can never be made submissive
and become Christians”; so he advocated that they all be taken, “placed
on ships, and scattered throughout the various islands, and even on the
Spanish Main, where they might be sold as His Majesty sells his vessels
to the grandees in Spain.”[112]
Given this attitude on the subject it was but natural that the
enslavement of the American Indians should begin with the discovery of
the Antilles,[113] and that it should be continued by the explorers on
the mainland. The Spanish exploring expeditions were war expeditions
in the sense that they aimed to conquer and retain for the crown the
territory through which they passed. All these expeditions captured and
retained Indians as slaves. Yet in some cases it might be difficult to
determine whether the Indians enslaved were captives taken in actual
warfare, or whether they were merely kidnapped by the expedition
passing through their territory. Often the expeditions possessed the
double character of a war party and a kidnapping company.
The enslavement of the Indians by the Spaniards in the early years of
occupation was legalized by a royal decree which declared the act to
be in accord with the laws of God and man, and justified it on the
ground that Indians could otherwise not be reclaimed from idolatry
and converted to Christianity. Consistent with its assertion the home
government made careful provision, in the various patents issued to the
explorers, for the spiritual welfare of the enslaved Indians.
These patents commonly made provision for the acquisition of Indian
slaves. That of Ponce de Leon, February 23, 1512, authorizing his
voyage of discovery and colonization, provided that the Indians on the
islands he might discover should be distributed among the members of
the expedition, that the discoverers should be well provided for in
the first allotment of slaves, and that they should “derive whatever
advantage might be secured thereby.”[114] The “cédula,” issued
to Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, in 1523, authorized him to “purchase
prisoners of war held as slaves by the natives, to employ them on his
farms and export them as he saw fit, without the payment of any duty
whatever upon them; formal apportionment of the natives was expressly
forbidden.[115] In the patent to Soto, also, it was required that
he should carry with him “the religious and priests, who shall be
appointed by us, for the instruction of the natives of that province in
our holy Catholic faith.”[116]
The idea of Christianizing the natives was applied to both free and
slave Indians. The taking of captives by force, and then Christianizing
them was the continuation of what was known as “the exercise of a just
and pious doctrine against pagans and heathens,” a doctrine common
to other nations as well as to Spain. The patent of Ponce de Leon,
however, made no provision for Christianizing the Indians.[117] His
instructions from the crown required him to summon the natives by
“requisition” to embrace the Catholic faith and yield to the king of
Spain under threat of sword and slavery.[118] Consequently the Spanish
explorers within the present limits of the United States continued the
policy of enslaving Indians pursued by their countrymen elsewhere in
the New World.
A Spanish ship sailing under Esteban Gomez, a Portuguese, in 1525,
coasted along the shores of North America between Nova Scotia and
Florida, seeking the northwest passage, and carried a few Indians
back to Spain.[119] In April, 1528, the expedition of Pánfilo de
Narvaez landed near the entrance to Tampa Bay on the west coast of
Florida. From this point a portion of the expedition started into the
interior. The first Indians met seemed unfriendly, and five or six of
them were seized.[120] On one occasion, a cacique, or chief, was held
prisoner.[121] But supplies failed and discouragement followed, so the
number of Indians taken was not great. In 1538, also, an expedition
sent out by Hernando de Soto brought two natives from Florida to Cuba,
where they were held to learn the Spanish language in order that
they might act as guides and interpreters for the expedition of the
following year.[122]
In 1539, Soto himself landed in the Bay of Espiritu Santo in Florida
for the purpose of conquest. He had served under Pizarro in Peru, and
his methods were those learned from his master.[123] To insure success
all opposition must be overcome, so, with the expedition were taken
blood-hounds, chains and iron collars for the catching and holding
of Indian slaves.[124] The expedition was military in nature, hence
it was natural that force and conquest should precede conciliation.
There is no doubt that one of the purposes of Soto was to capture
Indian slaves. He had chosen as his lieutenant, a rich resident of the
town of Trinidad in Cuba, Vasco Porcallo de Figueroa, who had come to
Florida with the object of obtaining Indian slaves for his estates. But
slaves were not easily obtainable near the coast, so Porcallo returned
home shortly after.[125] Soto himself was a slave owner. Among his
possessions in Cuba were Indian slaves, whom he employed as herdsmen
and in getting gold. In some cases, the Indian chiefs through whose
territories Soto and his men were passing, furnished slaves. At other
times, they, both men and women, were taken by force. Narrators relate
the capture and distribution of such women in groups of one hundred to
three hundred.[126] Among the captives were a queen and a cacique.[127]
After the survivors of Soto’s expedition had reached Mexico, Viceroy
Mendoza dispatched the Franciscan, Fray Marcos de Niza, in 1539, to
inform the native tribes that an effectual stop had been put to the
enslavement of the Indians. Some of the friar’s party reached Hawaikuh,
the southernmost of the seven cities of Cibola. The account which the
friar gave on his return, induced the viceroy to send out another
expedition in the following year, 1540. The command of this was given
to Francisco Vasquez de Coronado.[128]
But Coronado did not carry out the intention of Mendoza regarding the
Indians. The records of his expedition do not indicate the number of
his slaves as equal to that in Soto’s expedition, yet Coronado was
a man of his time, and Mendoza was ultra humanitarian. When Tiguex
was conquered and plundered, March, 1541, Coronado imprisoned and
made servants of all the people, one hundred and fifty men, women and
children who were in it.[129]
Still other Spanish expeditions were nothing more than slave raids or
kidnapping excursions. In 1520, Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, a wealthy
resident of Hispaniola, determined to send out a ship for the purpose
of exploring the section north of that covered by Ponce de Leon in
1513. His caravel met among the Bahamas a second ship sent out by
another resident of Hispaniola to obtain Indian slaves. The two vessels
joined company, and proceeded toward the continent, which they reached
June 25, 1521, in the neighborhood of the River Jordan (the present
Santee or Combahee) and the cape afterward called Cabo de Santa
Elena. By gifts and proffers of friendship, the Indians were lured
on board, and the ships, having obtained a full cargo, set sail for
Hispaniola.[130]
After the collapse of Narvaez’s expedition, Cabeza de Vaca wandered
through the southwest, hoping to reach Spanish settlements. As he
proceeded, he met, thirty leagues from St. Miguel, a Spanish expedition
coming from the south, from which the Indians were fleeing lest they be
captured and held as slaves. Though this slave hunting expedition met
with considerable success, its leaders, nevertheless, wished to enslave
the friendly Indians who had guided Cabeza de Vaca and his companions
thither.[131] Cabeza de Vaca relates that he continued his journey to
Compostella in the company, among others, of six Christians and five
hundred Indian slaves.[132]
Such expeditions from Mexico were continued until well into the
colonial period. The Indians whom La Salle met, 1684–1688, told
him they knew whites toward the west, “a cruel, wicked nation, who
depopulated the country round them.”[133]
It will be seen that the custom of enslaving Indians was general among
the Spanish discoverers and explorers. Not to have followed such a
custom would have been acting contrary to the spirit of the times.
Church and State sanctioned it. The need for a servile class, and the
supply of natives near at hand to meet the demand, made enslavement
only a matter of course. Slavery existed among the native tribes
themselves and the tribal chiefs readily furthered the policy of the
Spaniards by furnishing them with additional slaves and prisoners.
Consequently, when the action of the Spaniards is viewed from the
moral standpoint of the time, no condemnation can be attached to their
practice of enslaving the aborigines.
Some of the Indians used by the Spanish explorers were obtained from
the Indian tribes through purchase or trade. Such a method of obtaining
them was advisable when the tribes were friendly and it was not politic
to arouse their enmity. Prisoners and slaves, accordingly, both men
and women, were traded or presented as gifts, along with other
merchandise, to the Spaniards.[134]
In all the exploring expeditions, the need of guides, interpreters,
camp laborers and burden bearers was imperative. At one time, Soto
possessed eight hundred Indians, given him by an Indian chief, to
act as porters.[135] The leaders must have some means of rewarding
the services of their soldiers. Gold and other desirable objects
were scarce. Indian slaves helped satisfy this need. Soto had the
foresight, before setting out on his journey of exploration, to provide
guides, consisting of Indian slaves seized in the territory which he
expected to traverse,[136] and seized others to act in this capacity
as occasion required.[137] Slaves were used for the same purpose by
Coronado.[138] The women slaves were used largely as cooks and as
mistresses. Soto apportioned women slaves among his men.[139] The
narrators relate the capture and distribution of such women in groups
of one hundred to three hundred.[140] Women were sometimes given by the
chiefs to the white men for this purpose, as in the case of Coronado’s
expedition.[141]
In general, the treatment of slaves must have depended upon the
individual owners. It must be noted that it was held an act of
clemency on the part of the victor to enslave rather than to slaughter
the captives taken in war, for, according to the ideas of the time,
conquered enemies were at the disposal of the conquerors. In the
case of Soto’s expedition, the treatment of the slaves appears, on
the whole, to have been kind. After the death of Soto, the Spaniards
decided to quit the scene of exploration. The Indian slaves could not
be taken, for there was no way of transporting them, so it was decided
to dismiss them, except about three hundred belonging to the leader
Moscoso and some of his friends. To satisfy others who desired to take
their Indians with them, Moscoso granted permission to take the slaves
as far as the mouth of the river. The owners, moved by an humanitarian
motive, and preferring to give up the Indians before sailing, rather
than to free them at the mouth of the river to become the prey of
enemies, set free five hundred men, women and children.[142] Many of
them had learned to speak Spanish, had become Christians, and were
so attached to their Spanish owners that they wept bitterly at the
separation. This scene indicates an affection between master and slaves
that would exist only with kind treatment. It has been held that Soto’s
treatment of the Indians was probably better than that practiced by
most of the discoverers—a treatment at least partly dictated by policy,
for the Indians of the section traversed by him were superior to those
of Central and South America, both in courage and perseverance.[143]
Those Indians who continued the journey with the Spaniards were set
free by the viceroy on reaching Mexico.[144] In the siege of Tigeux
Coronado’s men cared for those Indians who, in trying to escape, were
overcome by wounds and cold.[145] Special cases of cruelty occurred.
Strict vigilance and severe punishment were necessary to prevent
treachery on the part of the slaves. The cruelty of the age was
expressed by throwing a lying and treacherous Indian to the dogs,[146]
by cutting off the hands and noses of some,[147] and by keeping others
in chains.[148] On the whole, however, the treatment of the slaves
was probably no more cruel than that shown slaves elsewhere, nor than
would be expected considering the tendency of the age, the nature of
the owners, largely soldiers and adventurers, and the incapacity and
disinclination of the natives for many kinds of labor.
The manumission of slaves depended partly on the individual owners,
partly on the leaders of the various expeditions. An instance of the
latter kind we have already seen in the case of Moscoso freeing the
slaves when quitting the scene of Soto’s expedition. But such an
incident was the exception rather than the rule, for slaves were the
personal property of their individual owners, and subject to their
action.
By the law of 1543, the Spanish government intended to end Indian
slavery in its American dominions,[149] but the law was ineffectual.
The American possessions were too far removed for thorough control by
the home government. When Spain took final possession of Louisiana, in
1769, O’Reilly discovered that the French held many Indian slaves,
and in a proclamation, which he issued in 1770, declared this to be
“contrary to the wise and pious laws of Spain.” While not at once
declaring these Indian slaves to be free, he ordered that the actual
proprietors should not dispose, in any manner whatever, of those whom
they held, unless it were to give them their freedom, until the orders
of his Majesty on the subject should be received, and further, that all
owners of Indian slaves should make a declaration of name and nation
of the Indians so held in slavery by them, and the price at which they
valued such slaves. This proclamation was generally understood by the
French settlers of upper Louisiana as emancipating all the Indian
slaves; yet the latter remained in slavery, either voluntarily or
otherwise. They obtained some benefit from O’Reilly’s decree, however,
for when they escaped they were not returned to slavery, and when they
sued for their freedom they received it. Thus, in 1786, Governor Miró,
in a case that came before him from St. Louis, rendered a judgment
that liberated several such slaves. This judgment reminded Lieutenant
Governor Cruzat that the ordinance of O’Reilly was not being obeyed, so
in June, 1787, he issued a proclamation that Indians could not be held
in slavery under the ordinance of 1770, and declared that he “judged
it expedient to repeat the aforesaid ordinance, so that the public
might know its tenor in order to conform to it.” Accordingly the said
ordinance was ordered to be read, published and posted in the customary
places. No order on this subject was received from the king, so Baron
Carondelet, 1794, ordered two Indian slaves to abide with their masters
until the royal will was expressed. In the same year, however, he
ordered another Indian slave to be released.[150]
It is evident, therefore, that it was not through direct executive
decree that Indian slavery passed out of existence in Spanish territory
within the present limits of the United States. In fact, from the
instance cited in connection with Louisiana, it is seen that it did not
pass out of existence until after the colonial period. Certain causes,
however, contributed to its decline. Great number of Indians could be
hired, at very small wages, to perform labor of any extent.[151] Still
another cause, which was less effective perhaps in Spanish territory
than in that of France and England, was the use of negro slaves. The
labor of the blacks was early found to be more profitable than that of
the Indians, and as early as the founding of St. Augustine, Menendez
imported into Florida five hundred negro slaves. Otherwise, “the labor
of building that town would have fallen on the white men, and on the
Indians whom he could impress.”[152]
From the earliest days of Spanish occupancy, the spiritual welfare of
the Indians was of much concern to the Spanish Church and State. The
materialization of such an interest was largely accomplished by the
establishment of missions throughout the Spanish territory from Florida
to California, chiefly through the labors of the Franciscans. The
endeavors of the missionaries resulted in the establishment by 1615 of
twenty missions in Florida and the dependent coast region. By 1655, the
Christian Indian population of northern Florida and the Georgia coast
was estimated at 26,000.[153] By 1630, there were more than 60,000
“converts” in the Pueblo missions of New Mexico and Arizona.[154] In
California, the missions, the first of which was founded at San Diego
in 1769, continued in a fairly prosperous condition until 1834.[155]
These large numbers of barbarian neophytes were presided over in
each of the missions by a very small number of monks who directed
the religious and industrial activities of their Indian charges. It
was necessary that a mission should be self-supporting. The Indians
gathered at these centers voluntarily, and submitted to the routine
life of the missions. But the natives were ignorant and incapable, and
the monks were in consequence the directing and guiding force among a
population which responded in a mechanical sort of way. The natural
result was that the mission life developed into a kind of slavery. The
life of a California mission, though of later date, and more fully
developed than the earlier missions of colonial times, affords a
picture of the general condition of affairs.
The Indians constructed the buildings, planted and cultivated the fruit
trees and vineyards, tended the cattle, made pottery, wove cloths and
performed, in fact, all the manual labor that was necessarily required
in an extensive colony. In return, they received food, clothing and
lodging, were instructed in the Church doctrines and observances,
and were taught dancing and music and occasionally the rudiments of
reading, writing and arithmetic. Their life was a regular routine, and
though material comfort was generally in evidence, still the Indian
neophytes were never allowed to act on their own initiative. Beyond
their existence from day to day, they received no pecuniary reward for
their labors, any more than if they had been slaves.[156]
The Indians of the missions were generally tractable, but occasionally
the desire for their former life of freedom brought reaction and
rebellions; or, incited and aided by the wild tribes, they rose and
destroyed the missions. The revolt of the Pima in 1750 is a case in
point.[157]
The “alcaldes,” or local officials to whom the king had entrusted
the protection of the Indians, instead of protecting them, preyed
upon them for their own profit. These men, like many of the colonists
themselves, were often of an inferior class, and too far from the
central government to feel any special fear at disobeying the laws
that the home government might make with regard to the natives.
Accordingly the Indians were often induced to run into debt, and had
in consequence to mortgage or sell whatever property they possessed.
They thus became subject to whatever impositions the officials chose
to put upon them.[158] In 1792, Fray Juan Agustin de Morfi complained
to the viceroy of New Spain that from each pueblo in their respective
jurisdictions, the “alcaldes” in Texas were accustomed to levy weekly
contributions of produce; that they required the Indians to perform
free labor upon their estates; that they demanded heavy tolls from each
pueblo at harvest time; that the Indian women were forced to grind
the “alcaldes’” grain; that some officials required tithes of fleeces
and compelled the Indians to weave them; and that the Indians had to
serve as mule drivers and care for the animals of the “alcaldes.”[159]
The attitude of the “alcaldes” toward the Indians, furthermore, was
repeated by the officials of the “presidios,” or frontier posts.[160]
The same method of obtaining cheap labor was followed by the colonists.
Frequent raids were made upon the “rancherías,” or Indian settlements,
to secure agricultural workers, herdsmen and domestic servants.
Children were usually in demand, but adults also were taken. The
practice continued, indeed, until late in the eighteenth century.[161]
CHAPTER III
+Enslavement by the French+
In the French colonies of America, Indian slavery was never authorized
by legal declaration during the early colonial period.[162] In fact,
the matter received no attention whatever from the home government.
Such lack of notice on the part of the monarch was due to the
insignificance of American affairs in general, and to the unimportance
of the institution of Indian slavery in particular. Gradually, however,
as the matter began to assume importance in the system of trade,
through the influence of the trading companies certain indirect royal
action was taken in the eighteenth century, and this action recognized
the existing institution as legal. The modifications which the king
sought to accomplish in it did not aim to destroy the institution, but
rather tended to make it better suited to the requirements of trade.
Some doubt appears to have existed regarding the legal status of Indian
slaves, and, in order to remove it, Jacques Raudot, the intendant at
Quebec, decreed in April, 1709, that “all the Pawnis and Negroes, who
have been bought and who shall be purchased hereafter, shall belong
in full proprietorship to those who have purchased them as their
slaves.”[163] The state of unrest caused by the “coureurs de bois”
and others stirring up the tribes in order to take captives for sale
to the French as slaves, interfered with the success of the trading
corporation then in possession of Louisiana, and on October 25, 1720,
the Company of the Indies issued a command from Paris, stating that
such action was contrary to the command of the king, and harmful to
both the commercial welfare of the Company and the establishments
which it hoped to make in the territory of the Illinois, Missouri and
Arkansas tribes. The Sieur de Bourgmont, in the service of the Company
in that area, was directed to arrest and confiscate the merchandise
of the “voyageurs” who should come to trade within the confines of
his jurisdiction without first obtaining permission and declaring to
him the motives with which they wished to trade. Bienville, then in
immediate charge of the colony in Louisiana, was directed to execute
this order of the Company at once, and all other officers as well were
enjoined to carry it out and to give any aid and assistance to M. de
Bourgmont which he might require in fulfilling his instructions.[164]
On July 23, 1745, the royal council at Paris sanctioned the possession
of Indian slaves by declaring that all slaves who might follow the
enemy to the colonies of France, and their effects, should belong to
his most Christian Majesty.[165] After the acquisition of Canada the
Parliament of Great Britain showed itself favorable to the importation
of slaves into the colonies. Accordingly, the forty-seventh article
of the capitulation of September 8, 1760, provided: “The negroes and
Pawnees, of both sexes, shall remain in their quality of slaves, in
the possession of French and Canadians to whom they belong; they shall
be at liberty to keep them in their service in the colony, or to
sell them; and they shall also continue to bring them up in the Roman
religion.”[166]
Public opinion in France never concerned itself with the matter of
Indian slavery. There appears to have been no opposition to it,
either in France or in the French colonies of America. Public opinion
early countenanced the institution of slavery in the colonies without
distinction of color or race.[167] It was negro slavery that brought
profit to the trader as well as to the colonist. The Indian slave in
the French colonies possessed no champion, such as the Indian slave in
the Spanish territory had in Las Casas. Within the French territory
under discussion, negro slavery continued, without meeting violent
opposition, as long as the territory remained under French control. And
with it continued Indian slavery, gradually growing weaker as negro
slavery grew stronger, and so less likely to attract attention.
Much of the French exploration was carried on by the missionaries.
Slave holding was not inconsistent with the belief of these religious
travelers.[168] Two objects inspired their zeal: the “greater glory of
God,” and “the influence and credit of the order of Jesus,” of which
many of them were members.[169] To the missionaries about to start
from Paris to explore the Ottawa country, the direction was given:
“Remember it is Christ and the Cross you are seeking, and if you aim
at anything else, you will get nothing but affliction for body and
mind.”[170] The Jesuit held that if the object was good, the action was
right. It would redound to the glory of God to convert any heathen,
bond or free; therefore, slave holding by a monk was legitimate.
The records do not show any great numbers of slaves owned by the
missionary explorers. There are certain reasons why this was so.
Abnegation of self was a part of the Jesuitic doctrine, so the monk
could have no need for any considerable number of personal attendants.
He possessed no mines or lands for the working of which slaves could
be used. What services the fathers could not perform in the extension
of their faith, were performed partly by servants brought from France,
and partly by “donnés,” or those who voluntarily gave their labor. At
the missions[171] and in the Indian villages where the missionaries
stayed, the Indians rendered them free service and furnished them
with supplies. Then, too, the Indian domestic did not prove very
satisfactory.[172] The slave was a subject for conversion, but the
French missionary did not spend much time on the conversion of single
individuals. He aimed rather to collect the heathen in groups about a
religious center, and to guide and teach them somewhat after the manner
of his brethren in Paraguay. Yet we find that the French missionaries
possessed some Indian slaves.[173] It would not do to refuse to save
any soul, neither was it advisable to risk the chance of offending
any Indian, whatever his rank, who might make them the gift of a
slave. Most of the slaves held by the missionaries appear to have been
gifts. Sometimes to accept such a slave was to save the person from
death. Some of the slaves were purchased. By teaching them the French
language, and the principles of the Christian Church, the clergy hoped
to make missionaries of some of them, and so extend the scope of their
religion.
The chief, though not the earliest, source of Indian slaves among
the French was that of captives taken in war with the Indian tribes.
For many years after the coming of the French to Louisiana, they
and the Natchez Indians lived in friendly intercourse. Minor Indian
troubles in 1711[174] and 1715[175] resulted in the enslavement and
transportation of certain Indians to Cape François on the island of
Haiti. The hostilities begun with the Natchez Indians in 1715 continued
intermittently until 1740.[176] In 1730, because of ill treatment by
M. du Chapart, governor of Fort Rosalie, who wished the site of a
Natchez village on which to build a town, and because of other abuses,
the Natchez rose against the French and massacred over two hundred of
them.[177] Governor Périer formed an army and advanced against them in
their fort. The Natchez offered to leave the place if their lives were
spared. Their offer was accepted, but they were detained as prisoners,
all but twenty who escaped.[178] About four hundred and fifty of the
tribe, including the Great Sun, the Little Sun and several of the
principal war chiefs, were captured and carried to New Orleans.[179]
The women and children were retained as slaves on the plantations. Some
of the prisoners were burned in New Orleans.[180] The Great Sun, the
Little Sun, their families, and more than four hundred of the captives,
were sent at once to Cape François, Haiti, and most of them sold to
the planters as slaves.[181] The two chiefs and their families were
retained as prisoners on the island. On April 22, 1731, the minister
informed the Company that, in his opinion, the only solution of the
matter lay in selling as slaves the survivors of the two families. The
registers of the Company contain the following record: “It was resolved
to order the sale of the survivors of the said two families of Natchez
Indians.”[182]
The Natchez war was the most important of those between French and
Indians in Louisiana. There were, however, minor difficulties, from
time to time, in which the same policy of enslaving the captive Indians
was followed by the French. The war with the Fox Indians, 1712, serves
as an example of these lesser troubles.[183] By 1720, war had broken
out between the French and the Chickasaw, whom the English had stirred
up.[184] An intermittent warfare with this tribe and others continued
in 1724,[185] 1728,[186] 1736,[187] (with a peace in 1740),[188]
1750,[189] and 1752.[190] Captives were enslaved by both sides. Some
of these were left with the Indians to dispose of at will. Others were
kept among the French as slaves.[191]
During the period of colonial history, each European nation was in
alliance, from time to time, with various Indian tribes. In time of
war with other tribes, the allied Indians took an active part, and not
infrequently they were urged on to hostilities by their white friends
for various reasons. One of these reasons was to obtain war captives
to give to the whites for slaves. In 1698, Tonti had encouraged the
Illinois, who were in alliance with the French, to capture and enslave
the Iroquois Indians and so break their power.[192] La Salle favored
the same course.[193] In 1708, the Canadian French were exciting the
Indians about Kaskaskia to wage war with each other, and were on
the spot to get slaves to sell to the English.[194] The Marquis de
Vaudreuil, governor-general of Canada, in 1706 demanded of the Ottawa
of Detroit certain captives as slaves for the allied Sonnontouan to
replace their men slain by the Ottawa,[195] and others to be slaves
to the French, in return for a missionary and a French deserter they
had killed.[196] The slaves were duly presented in 1707.[197] The
demands of the governor-general were part of a military plan to form
an alliance of the western tribes with the French, and continued
the Indian custom of giving slaves to make reparation for injuries
committed or for foes slain.[198] Thus the allied Indians were
satisfied, and a token of subjection was obtained from the Ottawa.[199]
As late as 1723, de Vaudreuil was accused of urging on the Abnaki
against the Illinois to get slaves for him.[200] Apparently, such
action was as agreeable to the Indians as to the French. An Indian
orator of the Arkansas tribe, in his address given in honor of Bossu’s
arrival in 1762, said: “We warriors will strike the common enemy to get
prisoners which shall serve as slaves.”[201]
Sometimes the French went still further, and demanded that conquered
tribes make war on other tribes in order to get captives for them to
take the place of Frenchmen killed during the war. Such a condition
Sieur de Louvigny placed on the conquered Fox Indians in 1716.[202]
As already observed, kidnapping was the means earliest adopted by
all the European nations for taking Indians as slaves. In 1524,
accordingly, Verrazano attempted to capture an Indian family consisting
of an old woman, a young girl and six children, on the northeast coast
of North America. But the girl proved so intractable that the soldiers
were forced to give up the attempt to take the whole family to the
ship, and finally carried away but one small boy who was too young to
make any resistance.[203] The purpose of Verrazano’s expedition was
to obtain for France a place in the discoveries in which the rival
powers, Spain, Portugal and England were engaged. Some proof that the
expedition reached the New World was desirable. A native would furnish
it.
In Cartier’s first expedition, 1534, he seized some of the natives
and carried them on board his ships. The relations with the Indians
were so friendly that he was able, by gifts and explanations, to
persuade them that he meant no harm. Two of them were finally detained
on board and carried to France.[204] On the second expedition, in
1535, Cartier, replying to the request of the chief, Taiguragui, that
the French carry away another chief, Agona, declared that the king
of France had forbidden him to bring back either man or woman, and
permitted him to bring to France only two or three little boys to learn
the language.[205] But these pretended instructions did not prevent
Cartier from seizing Taiguragui and other chiefs for the purpose of
carrying them to France. On the outcry of the Indians against such an
act, he promised that the chiefs should be well treated, and that after
visiting France for the purpose of telling the king about the land of
Saguenay, they should be returned to their own country within the space
of twelve months.[206]
On his setting out for the New World in 1562, the queen of France
commanded Ribaut to bring back some of the natives.[207] In obedience
to her command, Ribaut attempted to detain two of the natives on board
ship to carry them to France, but the savages managed to escape and
swam to shore.[208]
Some of the Indians kidnapped by the explorers mentioned were slaves
only in a modified sense. They were not put to servile labor, yet
they were deprived of their liberty and were at the disposal of their
captors. Some were held as objects of curiosity. Others were taken
for a definite purpose: to furnish information regarding their native
country, and to serve as interpreters in later expeditions. For such
a reason La Harpe, in 1719, in his journey in the southwest, when
returning to the coast, resolved to capture some of the Indians, hoping
that by good treatment he might induce them to allow him to settle in
their country and to carry out his plans. Under the pretence of landing
to obtain water for his ships, he seized a dozen or more, and sailed
for Mobile.[209]
The Indians soon became suspicious of the explorers and traders,
especially in the sections where more than one of the rival races
carried on exploration and trade. Such a state of affairs Du Tisné
found in 1719, when he was badly received by the Pawnee whom the Osage
had told that his purpose was to entrap Indians for slaves.[210]
The great purpose of the French in the new world was trade. Their
expeditions, excluding those of the missionaries, were commercial in
nature. With them gold hunting was not a primary consideration, as was
the case with the Spaniards, and that for the simple reason that no
gold could be found. Nor were they seeking a refuge from persecution
like the English. The great fur trade was being developed by them.
This trade was carried on with the Indians, and in all sections where
captives in war or kidnapped Indians were purchased from the natives,
such purchase was usually a part of the trade in furs.
The custom of purchasing Indians originated with the early explorers
and discoverers. Sometimes such a purchase was made for a purely
commercial reason: to obtain a slave to perform some certain labor. At
other times the buyer was moved by an humanitarian motive: to save an
Indian from torture or death at the hands of his captors. The purchased
Indian might then be allowed to return to his own tribe and be retained
as a slave at the will of his new master. In 1678, Du Lhut, when
setting out from Montreal on his travels westward, bought an Indian to
act as a guide.[211] Du Tisné, in 1719, similarly acquired some slaves
from a chief at Natchitoches.[212] In 1724, de Bourgmont purchased a
considerable number of slaves from the Kansas tribe. Mention is made
of fifteen at one time, six at another.[213] For these he was forced
to pay double price, as the Indians stated that the year before, a
Frenchman had given such a price to a party of Illinois who were with
them.[214] Sometimes the slaves obtained by these explorers and traders
were used in their own expeditions. At other times, they were sent back
to the settlement along with other merchandise. De Bourgmont sent some
of those whom he purchased back to New Orleans. La Vérendrye, also, in
1731, sent back slaves to the French settlements, and in writing of his
action implied that he thought he deserved much credit for furnishing
the colonists with slaves.[215]
Until well into the latter half of the eighteenth century Indian
slaves were held by the settlers of Detroit, who obtained them in trade
with friendly Indians who in turn took them in war with the Pawnee,
Osage, Choctaw and other western tribes.[216] In 1741, the so-called
“Nation of the Serpent” entirely destroyed seventeen villages, killed
all the men and older women, made slaves of the young women, and traded
them for horses and other merchandise.[217] A report to the home
government in 1720, concerning Natchitoches, declared that the most
extensive commerce which could be carried on with the Indians of that
section, would be in slaves, horses, skins, etc.[218] Another report
sent by La Salle told of the Alabama Indians bringing twenty-seven or
twenty-eight Mobile Indian women and children into the colony, and
disposing of them to the French.[219]
The friendly and allied Indians appreciated the results to be obtained
from the sale of their captives to the whites, and not only sold
them to the “coureurs de bois” and other traveling traders, but took
them directly to the French settlement for sale, as is shown in the
preceding paragraph. Apparently all the leading French settlements
afforded a ready market for such slaves. Mobile furnishes a case in
point. In November, 1706, a party of Ouacha arrived in the settlement
bringing some Abnaki captives for sale.[220] In the same month, also,
some Choctaw brought to the settlement Cahouita and Altamaha captives
for the same purpose.[221]
It was the Jesuit and French missionaries who first advocated the
purchase of Indian captives by the traders, in order to prevent
their being put to death. By putting them in a mild condition of
servitude they hoped to place them in a position where they would be
Christianized.[222] Both Tonti[223] and La Salle[224] advised such a
course of action.
The colonists favored the same action for a more commercial reason.
The French of Kaskaskia, in 1708, were urging the allied Indians to
war, and were on the spot to obtain captives to sell as slaves to the
English.[225] De Vaudreuil, governor-general of Canada, throughout the
first quarter of the eighteenth century was urging the Abnaki to wage
war on the Illinois to obtain slaves for him.[226]
An important factor in the French colonial trade was the “coureurs de
bois.” These men, having cut loose from civilization, wandered at will
among the Indians, trading for the various commodities which they could
dispose of in the settlements of either the French or English colonies.
One of these commodities was Indian slaves, obtained for the most
part from the tribes who had captured them in war. Judging from the
number of these white men of the woods, their unrestrained life, and
the evidence given by the men of the time, it seems not unlikely that
this feature of colonial trade produced a considerable portion of the
Indian slaves used by the French.[227] If the “coureurs de bois” did
not find a sufficient number of slaves among the tribes they visited,
they not infrequently stirred up the tribes to war, so that they might
obtain the captives for sale. On July 25, 1707, La Salle wrote from
Fort Louis to the Minister of Marine that the “coureurs de bois” from
Canada were thus stirring up the Indian tribes against each other, in
order to obtain Indian slaves to sell in Louisiana.[228] The work of
the “coureurs de bois” was, however, by no means limited to Louisiana,
but extended over all the area claimed by the French. The desire of
the English for Indian slaves afforded an opportunity for profit that
could not be rejected. They always found a ready market for their
Indian slaves with the English of the Carolina country. The control of
the French officials over this wandering class was always slight, and
since there was practically no export trade in Indians to be had in
Louisiana, and since all the Indians whom they obtained could not be
disposed of in the colony, they turned to the English colonies for the
purpose.
Some effort was made by the French officials to prevent this trade,
but the attempt met with indifferent success. It was not the traffic
in human beings which disturbed them, but the fact that their enemy,
the English, were profiting by the transaction. In 1714, a report
of Cadillac to the home government lamented both his inability to
restrain the French allied Indians from trading with the English in
slaves and other commodities, and also his embarrassment at not being
able to prevent the French colonists from trading with the English
in skins and Indian slaves.[229] Such opposition, however, was not
general among the French colonial officials. Some of the most prominent
ones were engaged in this same slave trade with the English, even
when appearing to be opposed to it. In 1708, Bienville ordered the
Canadian French to cease exciting the Indians of Kaskaskia to wage war
on each other to obtain slaves for them.[230] Yet, in the same year,
he proposed, since the French would not cultivate the land, to obtain
the needful supply of labor by seizing Indians and sending them to the
West Indies in exchange for negroes.[231] And in his report to the
home government mentioned above, Cadillac complained of the selling
of Indian slaves to the English by Bienville.[232] Such transactions
by the French officials were carried on secretly. The Sieur de Ste.
Heleine, nephew of Bienville, was killed by the English allied
Indians while on such an expedition to sell Indians to the English of
Carolina.[233]
Some opposition to the trade was shown by the Jesuits, since the hoped
for result of having numbers of slaves to convert, if purchased by the
French, did not materialize. Accordingly, in 1693, they petitioned the
governor of Canada to prohibit the trade in Indian slaves. The request
was granted and an order issued to that effect, but without definite
result. The “coureurs de bois” continued the trade in spite of the
penalty of fine and imprisonment.[234]
Certain of the Indians possessed by the explorers were gifts from
Indian chiefs. On his second voyage, in 1535, the chiefs of the
Saguenay River country gave Cartier three children.[235] Afterwards,
owing to mutual suspicions on the part of the French and Indians, one
of these children made her escape.[236] On the resumption of good
feeling, the Indians promised to return her. Later, another chief
offered Cartier two children, one of whom was accepted.[237]
In 1564, Laudonnière led an expedition to the region of Florida.
Desiring to penetrate into the interior and realizing that the
friendship of the Indians was necessary for such an attempt, he sought
to obtain from an Indian chief two of his prisoners, whom he proposed
to use in winning the friendship of another chief by presenting them
to him.[238] At first, the chief declined to give away the prisoners;
but, upon Laudonnière’s renewing his request, the chief yielded, the
prisoners were produced, and were taken back by the French to Fort
Carolina.[239]
Champlain desired to send to France some girls to have them
“instructed in the law of God and good manners.” An opportunity to
satisfy this desire came with the wish of the Montagnais to present
something to the French traveler. Three girls were given him, whom he
named Faith, Hope and Charity, and whom he had instructed in religion,
domestic work, etc.[240] Still other Indians were taken to France by
the expedition. One of the sagamores of the Montagnais gave his son to
M. du Pont for that purpose. Still another savage, an Iroquois woman,
the Frenchman begged of the tribe which was about to eat her.[241]
Other and similar instances of obtaining Indians are recorded for the
same general humanitarian and religious purpose.[242]
The Illinois gave Marquette and Jolliet an Indian slave boy, whom
Jolliet took with him when going to Quebec, and who was drowned on
the journey.[243] The Ottawa gave Marquette a young man,[244] and
a Kishkakon chief gave him “a little slave he had brought from the
Illinois a few months before.”[245] In the same manner, Indians
were given to La Salle and to his companion, Tonti, on their
expeditions.[246] In 1699, Father Anastasius accepted from the Indians
the gift of an Indian girl as a slave.[247] In 1703, M. de Saint Cosmé,
a missionary priest traveling from Canada to Natchez, possessed in his
party a young Indian slave boy.[248]
When Du Lhut was in Montreal in 1678, the savages gave him three
slaves.[249] At another time, 1684, the Indians wished to give him some
slaves as an atonement for their having murdered some Frenchmen.[250]
In 1700, the “Mantantons” (Mdewakanton), at a feast in his honor,
presented Le Sueur, among other gifts, with an Indian slave.[251] In
1719, La Harpe, on his journey northwest from Natchitoches, was given a
young Kansas slave by the chiefs of several nations gathered together.
One of the chiefs expressed his sorrow that he had but one slave to
give, and La Harpe, in his letter to Terrisse, regrets that he did not
arrive sooner, and by receiving them as slaves, prevent the seventeen
companions of his slave from being eaten.[252]
The Indians realized that the trade in captive slaves was profitable.
When, in 1724, the Kansas tribe charged de Bourgmont double price
for slaves sold him, they feared that he would be angry at the price
asked, and that in consequence they would lose future trade. So they
presented him with five slaves as a gift.[253]
Throughout history the children of slave mothers have generally been
considered slaves. A report on the condition of Louisiana, 1716,
declared that the inhabitants were accustomed to sell the children
of their Indian female slaves.[254] Later, in 1724, a royal decree
provided that children born of marriages between slaves should be
slaves, and should belong to the masters of their mothers, and not to
the masters of their fathers, if father and mother should belong to
different masters.[255]
The uses to which Indian slaves were put, either in early or later
colonial times, were determined by economic conditions. Among the
explorers, the need for guides and interpreters was imperative, and
one finds the French, like the Spanish, using Indian slaves for this
purpose. On his second expedition, Cartier made such use of the Indian
children whom he carried to France on his first expedition.[256]
Laudonnière, in 1564, intended to use slaves for this purpose.[257] Du
Lhut purchased a slave to act as guide.[258] The Mallet expedition, in
1739, used a slave as guide.[259] One of the slaves purchased by de
Bourgmont on his expedition in 1724, was retained with the expedition
as interpreter, and was taught French by de Bourgmont himself.[260]
Doubtless the instances might be multiplied if the records were
complete, though it is not likely that enslaved Indians were used for
this purpose to the same extent as the friendly allied or converted
Indians.[261]
The French never sent out any great expeditions like those of the
Spaniards. Hence among the explorers the use of slaves as domestics
was limited. Among the colonists, one finds Le Page du Pratz, on
his arrival in Louisiana, buying an Indian woman to act as cook and
interpreter.[262] The early Louisiana colonists experienced the need
for servants, and, May 26, 1700, expressed the hope that the Indians
would supply such need.[263] The life of the Illinois colonist was less
luxurious than that of the inhabitant of Louisiana; in consequence, the
need of slaves in household service was less.
Early in the eighteenth century life among the French of Louisiana,
both rich and poor, was quite licentious,[264] and one of the means of
fostering this life was the use of Indian women, slave and free. The
demoralization resulting from such a condition attracted attention,
and in 1709 it was urged that girls suitable for wives be sent over in
order “to prevent these disorders and debaucheries.”[265]
Agricultural pursuits appear to have been the chief labor to which the
French put Indian slaves. Such pursuits, along with trading, formed the
chief industry of the colonies.[266] But it was the general tendency
of the French to prefer the novelty and excitement of the trader’s
life, rather than the more quiet existence of the agriculturalist.
Bienville complained much of this state of affairs, and sought to
remedy it.[267] The consequence of this tendency was to make the price
of labor high,[268] and the use of Indian slaves was a means at hand
to solve the difficulty. In the simpler life of the inhabitants of the
Illinois country, agriculture was the chief industry of the settlers
until the close of the period under discussion.[269] And the farmers
increased the results of their industry by the extensive use of Indian
slaves.[270]
Throughout the French territory in the military stations, both soldiers
and frontiersmen found use for their Indian women slaves as cooks and
in performing the other domestic labors of fort and camp.[271] The male
slaves were used in erecting fortifications, performing other heavy
labor, and as guides in military expeditions.[272]
The custom of using Indian slaves as a bribe or reward was common. In
either case the purpose of the whites was the same: to procure the
friendship and alliance of the tribes. In the northwest the French
demanded that certain subdued tribes bring them Indian slaves, which
they might use to replace the members of the allied tribes whom the
conquered tribes had killed during the war.[273] In the area where
the claims of the European nations overlapped, alliance of the tribes
was especially desired by each nation. These Indian captive slaves
or slaves purchased from other tribes were often returned to their
own tribes as a peace offering or as a token of friendship. Thus the
alliance of the tribes was won, and a barrier created against the
encroachments of the Spanish and the English.[274] Such use was made
of slaves by de Bourgmont, in 1724, in the Kansas country. With a
messenger sent from there to the Comanche, he sent also two Comanche
slaves whom he purchased from the Kansas in order that his messenger be
well received.[275] He also purchased some Padouca slaves in order to
return them to their people.[276]
In 1728, the king of France issued an edict regarding certain
concessions of land, and required a tax of five livres on each slave,
the proceeds of which were to be used in building churches and
hospitals.[277] Thus the Indian slaves, along with the negroes, served
as a property basis in this one instance, as they did many times in the
English colonies. They were also regarded as property in all legal and
business transactions and were classed along with negroes, domestic
animals and real estate, which could be sold to satisfy their owners’
debts.[278]
The early slavery among the French was mild in nature.[279] The system
was of a patriarchal type. The Indian slaves often worked along with
their owners, especially those engaged in agricultural labor, and were
treated as children who must be guided, directed, punished or rewarded
by their superiors. Cramoisy, writing of Bienville’s expedition of
1737, states that a Chickasaw slave who acted as guide, had belonged to
his owner five years and was always treated as one of the family.[280]
A French settler in the Fox Valley is spoken of as living with his
Pawnee slaves in feudal style.[281]
The relation of the French and the Indians, bond or free, was always
different from that existing between the English and the Indians. The
Frenchman never looked upon the Indians with the disdain and contempt
for an inferior race which was displayed by the English. Marriage
between French and Indians was common. The social result of this close
connection was more pronounced in case of the Frenchman than in that
of the Indian. It meant the “Indianizing” of the Frenchman, or the
bringing him to the social level and to the life and habits of the red
man. The most striking result of this tendency was supplied by the
“coureur de bois;” but the same result was apparent even in the case
of the superior colonists of lower Louisiana. And to this result the
Indian slave contributed in a measure. The lack of social distinction
between Frenchman and native tended toward kind treatment on the part
of the owner, and to a shifting of the social planes of master and
slave toward that of equality. Yet instances of cruelty to slaves
are not lacking. The punishments of the age were cruel, whether the
offender was bond or free.[282]
It has been said that the dominating feature of French colonial life
was trade. But religious and commercial advancement went hand in hand.
From the earliest arrival of the French, the missionary labors of the
Church extended not only to the Indian tribes, but also to the negro
and Indian slaves held by the colonists. The conversion of the Indian
was an asset for the growth of trade. French commissions, as well as
Spanish, provided for the conversion of the Indians.[283] Priest and
friar were everywhere present. Each Christianized Indian slave marked
a gain in the advancement of the faith, and made possible a readier
access to trade with the convert’s tribe and those of his friends.[284]
But the religious training and teaching of slaves were not entirely a
matter of policy. It was rather a part of the generally kind treatment
of the master. The rites of the Church were commonly accorded them.
The Louisiana church records certain accounts of the birth, baptism,
marriage and burial of Indian slaves.[285] The Mobile and New Orleans
registers are similar to the church registers to be found throughout
Lower Canada wherever a church was established. The parish registers of
Levis, Quebec and Long Point are cases in point. Throughout the first
and part of the second half of the eighteenth century, these registers
show that Indian slaves, many of whom, in Quebec for instance, were
brought from Louisiana, were baptized, and then records kept of such
baptisms as in the case of the whites.[286] The church records of
Kaskaskia[287] and Vincennes[288] make frequent mention of the birth,
baptism and death of Indian slaves (called Panis) down to the time
of British occupation; but from that time they became more and more
infrequent as Indian slavery gradually gave way to negro slavery.
The baptismal register of Mobile, Alabama, dating from 1704 to 1740,
contains baptismal records of whites, blacks and Indians. From the
register it appears that witnesses to the baptism of a slave were not
considered necessary, though sometimes used. In some instances the
person baptized is recorded as the slave of a certain person. In other
cases he is mentioned as a slave, and the owner’s name is not given.
The earliest baptism of an Indian slave in this record is that of a
fifteen-year-old slave of Iberville. Baptisms of Indian slaves are
quite as frequent as those of negro slaves. February 8, 1734, is the
latest date of Indian slave baptisms in the register. Some of these
Indian slaves are recorded as legitimate children of slave parents.[289]
The laws of France did not permit the holding of any Christian in
slavery. This meant that the conversion of Indians or other slaves
would confer freedom upon them.[290] But the law was never enforced.
The French clergy went on continuously with their work of converting,
baptizing and teaching both bond and free; and in the “Code Noir” of
1724, Louis XV commanded that all slaves in the French colonies, “be
educated in the Apostolic Roman Catholic religion, and be baptized,”
and enjoined their owners to have these matters attended to within a
reasonable time.[291] The code dealt directly with negro slaves, but
the Indian slaves still in existence were necessarily included in its
provisions.
In Louisiana Indian slavery began with the founding of the colony. A
report of the colony written in 1704, states that at Fort Louis de
Louisiane, having a white population of 180 soldiers and 27 French
families numbering 64 persons, (a total of 244 white persons), there
were six Indian boy slaves from twelve to eighteen years of age, and
five Indian girl slaves from fifteen to twenty years of age.[292] In
1708, the colony consisted of fourteen officers, seventy-six soldiers,
thirteen sailors, three priests, six mechanics, one Indian interpreter,
twenty-four laborers, twenty-eight women, twenty-five children, (a
total of 190 free persons), and eighty Indian slaves.[293] In 1713,
besides the soldiers, there were twenty-eight families, twenty negroes
and a few Indian women and children.[294] The following statistics are
given in the archives of the Ministry of the Colonies in Paris:[295]
Census of New Orleans, November 24, 1721. Recapitulation: Men, 446;
Women, 140; Children, 96; Negro slaves 523; Indian slaves, 51.
Census of New Orleans in 1723. Recapitulation: Men, bearing arms, 229;
Women or girls, 169; Children, 183; Orphans, 45; Slaves, 267.
General census of the Colony of Louisiana on January 1, 1726.
Recapitulation: Masters, 1952; Hired men and servants, 276; Negro
slaves, 1540; Indian slaves, 229.
General census of the Department of New Orleans on July 1, 1727.
Recapitulation:
_Masters_ _Hired_ _Negroes_ _Savage_
New Orleans 729 65 127 17
The Bayou and Chantilly 42 5 73 5
Inhabitants up the River on the Right 243 26 883 45
Idem on the Left 306 35 456 5
On the Shore of Lake Ponchartrain 7 2 14
On Bayou Tauchpao 2 5 8 1
———— ——— ———— ——
Total 1329 138 1561 73
From these statistics it will be seen that in Louisiana the negro
slaves far outnumbered the Indian slaves, and that the ratio of the
number of Indian slaves to the number of whites in the colony was very
small. A memoir concerning Natchitoches, 1720 or 1721, states that the
number of black slaves in that settlement was thirty-four, and the
number of Indian slaves, six (two men and four women).[296] A report
on the condition of Louisiana at large in 1744 declared that there
were very few Indian slaves in the colony, “because we are at peace
with all nations: these we have were taken in former wars, and we keep
them.”[297] Another account, in 1750, states that the inhabitants
of New Orleans consist of “French, Negroes, and some savages who
are slaves—all these together do not number ... more than 1,200
persons.”[298]
The smallness of the number of Indian slaves in Louisiana appears due
to several reasons: the generally friendly relations of the French and
the neighboring tribes; the absence of extensive agriculture at an
early date; the neglect of the colonial authorities to develop a trade
in savage slaves, like that of Carolina; and the rapid increase in the
importation of negro slaves by the time that occupations profitable for
slave labor were developed.
In the northern part of the Mississippi Valley, also, Indian slavery
began with the coming of the whites. Slavery at Vincennes and in the
country below the present site of Terre Haute, Indiana, was regulated
by the laws of Louisiana. That in the country to the north was
regulated by the customs of Canada. Indian slavery in Canada began
early. Record exists of Indian slaves in Montreal in 1670.[299] In
Louisiana the greater number of slaves were negroes; whereas in Canada
the larger portion were Indians.[300] In the early history of Vincennes
most of the slaves were Indians, for the inhabitants were more
extensively engaged in the Indian trade than in agricultural pursuits.
The same was true of the country about Detroit. Some of these Indians
went, of course, to Louisiana; but the larger portion went to Canada. A
report in 1750 shows that in the five French villages of the Illinois
country there were eleven hundred whites, three hundred blacks and
sixty Indian slaves.[301] Indian slavery, already giving way to negro
slavery, continued so to do after British occupation.
Indian slaves, mostly children, are recorded in Detroit in 1710,[302]
1712,[303] and 1715.[304] Their use continued there until the English
occupation. A report in 1733 shows the Canadians trading in Indian
slaves whom they seized or purchased from other Indians.[305] By the
terms of the surrender of Montreal, 1760, already mentioned, the
English guaranteed to the settlers all the rights in property they had
enjoyed, and Article IV of the capitulation provided that all negro and
Pawnee slaves should remain in their condition of servitude.[306] In
1763, the population of Canada comprised about 70,000 Europeans, 30,000
Indians and 400 black slaves.[307] It will be seen that the number of
negro slaves was very small as compared with the number in Louisiana.
And, judging from the frequent mention of Indian slaves in the parish
records,[308] and the not inconsiderable trade in such slaves that went
on with the western tribes, one may concede the truth of the assertion
that the number of Indian slaves in that territory, under Canadian law,
exceeded the number of negro slaves, even though, in proportion to the
white population, the number was small.
In the French colonies, the earliest method of manumission was to grant
slaves their freedom verbally and without further formality. In the
Wisconsin country, during the first half of the eighteenth century,
at least, there appears to have been some requirement or obligation,
perhaps imposed by custom, for the owners of Indian slaves to free
them after a certain period of servitude.[309] But on April 11, 1735,
a memorandum of the king to de Beauharnois and Hocquart declared that
the judges of the colonies might conform themselves to the custom of
considering the Indians held in servitude as slaves, and that masters
who might wish to grant such Indians their freedom should do so by
notarial deed.[310] Accordingly, on September 1, 1736, an ordinance was
issued at Quebec by Hocquart, the intendant, stating, with the consent
of the Marquis de Beauharnois, governor and lieutenant-general of the
colony, that anyone wishing to free any slave must make affirmation to
that effect before a notary, to which he would be held. The act would
be registered in the “greffe” of the nearest royal jurisdiction. A
manumission performed in any other way was declared null and void.[311]
As above stated, it was customary for the French colonists to sell the
children of their female slaves.[312] The practice might, and did, mean
that a father sold his own child. Notice of the matter having been
called to the attention of the king, an attempt was made to prevent
the practice by inserting in the instructions sent to the colony in
1721–1722, a provision forbidding the sale of either a female negro or
Indian slave or her child, if a free colonist were the father of such
a child. The same instructions further declared it in harmony with
religion and the welfare of the colony that at the end of a certain
period of time both mother and child should be given their liberty, and
so be made free inhabitants of the colony.[313] Such a kindly attitude
on the part of the home government met with but little response in the
colonies.
Several causes contributed to the passing of Indian slavery in French
territory. Wherever the American Indians have been brought into contact
with the white races, the result has been disaster to the red men.
The Indian’s nature is not adapted to the white man’s scheme of life.
The Indian absorbed the white man’s diseases and vices. Not the least
of these vices was the love for strong drink, and the weakness of the
natives in this respect was recognized and encouraged by the traders
of all nations. The decrease in game and other food supplies as the
Indians retreated from the sea,[314] famine followed by gluttonous
excesses, wasting of the forests of the table lands,[315] all resulted
in inferior living conditions and a consequent decrease in the birth
rate and weakening of the tribes. As the weakened tribes withdrew from
contact with the whites they usually joined with stronger tribes. The
removal of tribes from their immediate neighborhood, and the union with
other and distant tribes, acted as a check on the whites’ obtaining
Indians as slaves. Such was the case with the tribes from whom the
French of the Illinois country and Canada drew their slaves.[316]
It has already been seen that the French missionaries of early colonial
days believed that the enslavement of Indians would serve as a means of
spreading the Christian religion. They found, however, that the method
of obtaining Indian slaves by trade only increased the distribution
of spirituous liquors among the tribes; and so, in 1693, they asked
the king to prohibit the Indian slave trade. An order to this effect
was accordingly issued, but with little result. The “coureurs de bois”
found means to carry on the trade clandestinely notwithstanding the
penalty attached.[317] Again, in 1736, the king decided formally
to prohibit the enslavement of Indians and issued a decree to that
effect;[318] but to no advantage.[319]
The gradual passing out of existence of Indian slavery, furthermore,
was due, in no small measure, to its unsatisfactory character. The
leading colonists early made up their minds to this effect. Bienville,
in a letter to the Minister of Marine, July 28, 1706, stated that the
French colonists earnestly requested negroes to till their lands, for
whom they were willing to pay silver, since the colonies found Indian
slaves unsatisfactory. He furthermore requested permission for the
colonists to transport Indian slaves to the West Indian Islands in
exchange for negroes. The fact that the colonists were willing to trade
three Indians for two negroes is sufficient proof of the small value of
Indians as slaves.[320] Another letter to the home government, in 1717,
records the same state of affairs in the colony.[321]
Indian slaves were prone to run away, and their use by the French as
individual laborers, or their use only in small groups, if worked
together, made escape comparatively easy. A letter of Périer to the
home government, May 12, 1728, declared that the traffic in Indian
slaves and their use in the French colony was contrary to the welfare
of the country, since such slaves served but a short time before
they escaped back to their own tribes or to neighboring Indians.
Moreover, these deserting Indians persuaded the negro slaves to run
away with them.[322] A letter from the President of the Navy Board
to la Jonquière and Bigot, May 4, 1749, represented that the Indian
slaves brought up in the colony by the officers or by the inhabitants,
generally left them when they attained a certain age and again became
uncivilized; that they were the more dangerous on account of the
knowledge which they had acquired of the country, being better able
than others to make incursions therein; and that through the habit of
keeping these slaves the whites were dissuaded from becoming domestic
servants.[323]
Among the slaves the boys were not so much to be depended upon as the
girls, since they were stubborn, resented more strongly their being
held in slavery, and were more inclined to run away. Long’s Journal,
1768–1782, speaking of the western Indians, records: “They are also
full of pride and resentment, and will not hesitate to kill their
masters in order to gratify their revenge for a supposed injury. The
girls are more docile, and assimilate much sooner into the manners of
civilization.”[324] It is probable that slaves coming from the Pawnee
tribe, and held so largely by the French of Detroit and Canada, were
more satisfactory than those coming from other tribes.[325] It has been
said that “it would be difficult to find another of the wild tribes of
the continent capable of subjection to domestic slavery.”[326] But the
Pawnee, like other slaves, ran away.[327]
Though Indian slaves were not as profitable laborers as might be
desired, their loss was to be avoided, if possible. The matter was so
serious as to interest the action of the authorities, and in 1709,
Jacques Raudot, intendant of Canada, issued an ordinance containing
an injunction which forbade any slave running away, and containing
provisions for imposing a fine of fifty livres on those who aided such
runaways.[328]
Indian slaves were too few in number and too inferior in capacity for
labor to supply the needs of the colonists. So an attempt was made
by the home government to supply the needed laborers by establishing
the system of indentured servants in the colonies. On November 16,
1716, an ordinance directed that vessels leaving France for any of
the king’s American colonies were to carry thither, if of fifty tons,
three servants; of sixty to one hundred tons, four servants; of one
hundred tons and upward, six servants. The period of service of such
servants was fixed at three years. They were required to be of sound
body, between the ages of eighteen and forty, and in height not under
four feet. These servants were to be examined before the officers of
the admiralty to see if they fulfilled the requirements of the law,
and were to receive another examination by the commissary on landing
in America. Such of the redemptioners as the captain might not sell
were to be given to some of the planters who had none, and who were to
pay their passage. The ordinance was repeated May 20, 1721, with the
additional provision that merchants of the ports having permission to
trade with the colonies were to pay sixty livres for each redemptioner
whom they had to furnish, if individuals for that purpose were not
furnished them by the government.[329]
The purpose of France, in making such careful provision for sending
indentured servants to the New World, was a real effort to increase
the population and, therefore, the trade of America.[330] Moreover,
the home government feared the danger that might come to the colony
by the increase of the black over the white population, and hoped
this indentured servant system would be a means to that end. But the
scheme had little result. The colonists preferred black slaves to white
servants. Their term of service was for life instead of a short period.
They were easier to control, cheaper to keep, and were better workers.
Yet, it has been estimated that from 1711 to 1728, two thousand five
hundred redemptioners were brought to the French colonies.[331] Such
a number of white servants must, in a measure, have checked the
acquisition of Indian slaves.
But the need for laborers was to be supplied in the French colonies by
the black, instead of the white race. Although the home government grew
to fear the result of the rapid increase of the negro element, yet, at
first, it favored the importation of blacks to the American colonies.
In 1688, Louis XIV issued an edict authorizing the importation of
negroes from Africa into America.[332] Article XIV of the letters
patent granted by the king to Crozat, September 30, 1712, gave the
latter permission, if he found it advisable to have the blacks in
Louisiana, to send a ship every year to the coast of Guinea to obtain
them, and to sell them to the inhabitants of the colony.[333] So,
from the first, negro slaves were present in the French colonies,
though during the earlier part of the eighteenth century, they were
outnumbered by the Indian slaves.[334]
In 1713, there were but twenty negro slaves in Louisiana,[335] but
with the granting of the charter of the Western Company in 1717, their
increased importation began. A provision of the charter required that
during the lifetime of the charter (twenty-five years,) not less than
three thousand negroes be carried to the colony. The first large
importation was made by the Company in June, 1719, when five hundred
negroes were brought from the coast of Guinea.[336] For several
years, the importation of negroes into Louisiana was one of the most
profitable monopolies of the Western Company.[337] One authority states
that, during the period from 1717 to 1723, one thousand, four hundred
and forty-one negroes were brought in.[338] Another states that from
1717 to 1728 eighteen were introduced.[339] The “Code Noir” of 1724
shows that the negro slaves had become the majority by that time, for
no direct mention is made in it to Indian slaves.[340] In 1727, it
was reported that on each of the “concessions,” or leading grants,
there were, at least, sixty negroes cultivating corn, rice, indigo and
tobacco.[341]
To open up and work the mineral resources of Louisiana, Philip François
Renault was sent out by the Company of the West in 1719. On his way,
he bought at San Domingo, in the name of his Company, five hundred
negroes for working the mines. These negroes were taken into the
Illinois country.[342] The number of negroes in the Illinois country
never equaled that of the country farther south, yet in 1750, a Jesuit
missionary found one thousand, one hundred whites, three hundred
blacks, and sixty Indian slaves in five villages of the Illinois
country,[343] and by 1763, the black population numbered over nine
hundred.[344]
From the foregoing account it will be seen that the steadily increasing
number of negro slaves, resulting from a promotion of the commercial
interests of the home government and from the more satisfactory labor
performed by the blacks, must have been the leading cause that produced
the steady decrease in the number of Indian slaves among the French.
PART II
THE INSTITUTION AS PRACTICED BY THE
ENGLISH