+The Number of Indian Slaves+
To arrive at any knowledge of the exact number of Indian slaves in
any of the English colonies is impossible. Census reports and other
vital statistics are infrequent or lacking, especially in the early
colonial period; and often in such statistics as are extant Indian
slaves either receive no mention, or are classed with negro slaves
without distinction. From existing records, however, one is able to
obtain a knowledge of the comparative numbers in the different groups
of colonies, and to some extent in the individual colonies, during
the colonial period. New England and the southern colonies were the
sections that employed Indian slave labor most extensively, the south
taking precedence, for climatic conditions there were more favorable,
and economic conditions made necessary a larger quantity of servile
labor than was required in the north.[345] Yet New England made use of
the natives as slaves as long as they lasted,[346] and drew further
supplies from Maine,[347] the Carolinas,[348] and other districts.[349]
Among the English colonies, the Carolinas stood first in the use of
Indians as slaves. Such use began with the founding of the colony.
The need for laborers was great; the source of supply was near at
hand and the colonists availed themselves of their opportunity.
Probably captives of the Stono War became the Indian slaves mentioned
in the inventory of Captain Valentine Byrd, “one of the grandees of
the time.”[350] In a report on conditions in the colony, made to the
proprietors, September 17, 1708, by Governor Nathaniel Johnson and his
council, the number of Indian men slaves was given as 500, Indian women
slaves, as 600, Indian children slaves, as 300, a total of 1400 Indian
slaves. The number of negroes at the same time was stated as 4100, of
indentured servants, 120, and of free whites, 3960. The governor gave
the cause of the rapid increase in the number of the Indian slaves
during the five preceding years, as “our late conquest over the French
and Spanish, and the success of our forces against the Appalaskys and
in other Indian engagements.”[351]
Only a small portion of the whole number of Indians enslaved were kept
in the colony.[352] Yet, in 1708, it was estimated that the native
population furnished one-fourth of the whole number of slaves in South
Carolina.[353] The public records of that colony contain a list of
ninety-eight Indian slaves with their owners’ names, taken by the
Spaniards and their allies in 1715, during the Indian war, and carried
to St. Augustine. The number of these slaves belonging to individual
persons varied from one to ten.[354] A report of 1723 mentions the
number of slaves in South Carolina and Georgia as ranging from 16,000
to 20,000, “chiefly negroes and a few Indians.”[355] Another report of
the following year estimates the number of slaves as 32,000, “mostly
negroes”,[356] In 1728, the population of St. Thomas’ parish, South
Carolina, consisted of 565 whites, 950 negro slaves, and 60 Indian
slaves.[357] From these statistics, it will be seen that the number of
Indian slaves was much smaller than the number of negroes, and that it
was growing smaller toward the middle of the eighteenth century, while
that of negroes was constantly increasing.
The early history of Indian slavery in Georgia is so bound up with that
of Carolina, the Indian wars, and the difficulties with the Spaniards
of Florida, as to require but little especial attention. After the
settlement of Georgia as a separate colony, occasional mention is
made of Indian slaves.[358] In 1759, as the basis for a tax bill, the
number of slaves was placed at 2500, but a committee of the legislature
declared the number to have been underestimated. How many of this
number were Indians is not known. The colony was settled at a time when
Indian slavery was passing out of existence. So it is safe to state
that the number of such slaves was small.
The number of Indian slaves in Virginia, also, was small, owing largely
to the number of indentured servants, and to the early introduction and
fitness of the negroes for the labor of the colony. In 1671, Berkeley
reported the whole population of the colony as 40,000, the number of
indentured servants as 6000, and that of slaves as 2000.[359] But no
division of slaves according to color was made. In certain sections
but few slaves were used. The Scotch-Irish and the Germans preferred
their own labor to that of slaves. Some Indians were taken in war, but
they were inconsiderable when compared with the number captured in the
Carolinas. Occasional mention of Indian slaves is found well into the
eighteenth century.
Indian slavery in Massachusetts began early. Following the Pequot War,
1637, forty-eight captives were retained as slaves in the colony.[360]
After King Philip’s War, 1675, also, certain of the captives were made
slaves,[361] but no record exists of the exact number. The various
records and histories of the Massachusetts towns show a general
distribution of Indian slaves throughout the colony during the colonial
period, such as existed following the two Indian wars above noted.
Mere mention may be made of some of these: Plymouth,[362] Boston,[363]
Roxbury,[364] Ipswich,[365] Quincy,[366] Charleston,[367] Malden,[368]
Haverhill,[369] Milton.[370] None of the official reports on the
condition of New England makes mention of Indian slaves.[371] But
statistics show the number of slaves in Massachusetts in 1720 to have
been 2000, including a few Indians.[372] In 1790, according to the
United States census report, the number of slaves in the state was
6,001, which number included about 200 half breed Indians.[373] Since
Massachusetts took the lead in the two Indian wars of New England, it
seems likely that the number of Indian slaves in that colony exceeded
that in either Connecticut or Rhode Island.[374]
The Rhode Island laws from 1636 to 1704 make no mention of Indian
slaves. Yet they were held in the colony before 1704. The records of
Block Island show them there in sufficient numbers, in 1675, to warrant
the town council regulating their action. Captives taken in King
Philip’s War were retained in the colony temporarily as slaves. The
Boston newspapers occasionally mention runaway Indian slaves of Block
Island.[375] Both negro and Indian slavery reached a development in
colonial Narragansett unusual in the northern colonies.[376] In 1730,
South Kingston had a population of 935 whites, 333 negroes and 223
Indian slaves. Eighteen years later, the proportion of races was nearly
the same: 1405 whites, 380 negroes, and 193 Indians.[377] As late as
1778, the laws of Rhode Island mentioned Indian slaves.[378]
Indian slavery in Connecticut began almost with the founding of the
colony, and came about as a result of the Pequot War (1636). The
captives taken in the war were assigned directly to the colony and
were retained and distributed among the inhabitants.[379] The colonists
appear to have held a greater number of such slaves then than at
any later period. Certain Indians, also, were kept in the colony as
slaves following King Philip’s War, but the number is unknown.[380]
Local histories show them in different towns well into the eighteenth
century.[381] An answer sent to a query from the Board of Trade in
1680 states that there were then thirty slaves in Connecticut, but no
mention is made of Indian slaves though they existed in the colony.[382]
The number of Indian slaves in New Hampshire was undoubtedly very
small. During the Pequot War and King Philip’s War, New Hampshire
remained at peace with the Indians, and the statement has been made
that no New Hampshire merchant or captain, during the Indian wars,
kidnapped natives or consciously broke faith with them.[383] The close
connection with Massachusetts, however, made inevitable the existence
of Indian slaves in the former colony,[384] and the Boston newspapers
occasionally mention such slaves as late as approximately 1750.[385]
In the middle group of colonies, the number of Indian slaves was never
large, and, in comparison with that in either the southern or New
England groups, it was conspicuously small. There appear to have been
more of such slaves in New York than in any other colony of the group,
a condition due to its greater trade with the colonies which exported
them. The English colony, furthermore, took over no Indian slaves from
its Dutch predecessor.[386]
The inhabitants of New York, under Dutch or English rule, never waged
any war on the order of those in New England against the Indian tribes.
Nor did the distribution of New England captives affect this colony
to any great extent. A few Indian slaves were introduced from foreign
parts, but the selling and holding of Indians as slaves was never a
general custom.[387] The existence of Indian slaves, however, was
recognized by a decree of the governor and council in 1680.[388] An
Indian slave was sold, July 30, 1687, in Hempstead, Long Island.[389]
The narrative of grievances against Jacob Leisler includes the
following: “The same night, December 23, 1689, an Indian slave,
belonging to Philip French, was dragged to the Fort (New York), and
there imprisoned.”[390] Aaron Schuyler of New York, 1693, gave to each
of his two daughters, in his will, an Indian slave woman.[391] In July,
1703, the governor received a petition regarding an Indian slave.[392]
The will of William Smith, of the manor of St. George, Suffolk County,
April 23, 1704, divided a number of negro and Indian slaves among his
children.[393] In 1715, certain Indians complained that the whites
were enslaving native children entrusted to them for instruction.[394]
In 1724, the Reverend Mr. Jenney reported: “There are a few negro and
Indian slaves in my parish.”[395] On July 3, 1726, the Reverend Mr.
Vesey of New York, in a letter to the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts, stated that in the colony there were
“about one thousand and four hundred Indian and negro slaves,”[396] but
tells nothing about the proportion of each. Colonel Johnson’s letter to
Governor Clinton, January 22, 1750,[397] and William Johnson’s letter
to G. W. Banyar, June 28, 1771,[398] the former relating to Indian
children held as slaves, and the latter mentioning a Pawnee Indian
slave in New York, show the existence of such slaves until a late date.
Occasional mention is found in the newspapers of the time of runaway
Indian slaves.[399] From the evidence the conclusion is that although
the existence of Indian slavery was continuous in New York throughout
the colonial period, the number of Indian slaves, in comparison with
that of individual colonies in New England and the south, was small.
William Penn, speaking of his purpose in founding a colony in America
said: “I went thither to lay the foundation of a free colony for all
mankind.” Yet in Pennsylvania existed the indentured servant, the
negro slave and the Indian slave. Considering the attitude and the
relations of Penn and his followers toward the red men one would hardly
expect to find the Indians enslaved. In the absence of wars with the
natives,[400] no Indian captives were reduced to servitude. The Indian
slaves used were brought from other colonies. The newspapers contain
accounts of their being bought and sold, and of their running away,
as in the other colonies.[401] The leading men of the colony owned
them. Penn’s own deputy, Governor William Markham, owned one, born in
1700, who, by the terms of Markham’s will, was to be freed at the age
of twenty-five.[402] In a bill of sale of the personal effects of Sir
William Keith, dated May 26, 1726, an Indian woman and her son were
mentioned among the seventeen slaves listed.[403]
In 1780, a farmer of East Nottingham, Chester County, registered, at
the county seat, the names of an Indian girl, aged twenty-four years, a
slave for life, and of an Indian man in slavery until he arrived at the
age of thirty-one years.[404] The action of the Friends’ Yearly Meeting
in 1719, also, shows that Indian slaves, as well as negro slaves, were
owned by the members of that religious society.[405]
It has been said that slavery in New Jersey was more prevalent among
the Dutch settlements and the plantations of South Jersey than in
the Calvinistic towns of East Jersey.[406] Since the number of negro
slaves throughout the Dutch possessions of America was considerable,
it may be concluded that the scarcity of Indian slaves was due to
conditions rather than to scruples, though the presence of a Quaker
element may have affected the situation. The proximity of the powerful
Iroquois, also, by shutting off the source of possible supply, may
have had something to do with the matter. The number of Indian slaves
in New Jersey was very small, yet the newspapers of the time show the
presence of such a servile class in the colony throughout the colonial
period.[407]
In Maryland, there appears to have been even a smaller number of
Indian slaves than in New Jersey. There were no Indian wars to furnish
captives,[408] and the Indians from the Carolinas were sent to ports
in New England where the demand for them was greater. In Maryland
indentured servants largely supplied the need for laborers and so
minimized the use of the natives as slaves.