+Property Relations+
Though the practices connected with the institution of negro and Indian
slavery in the Spanish colonies were known to the English colonists,
yet at first the latter did not see fit to impose the status of slavery
upon the Indians brought into the colonies by way of trade with the
Spanish islands or otherwise, but were content to retain possession
of the services of their subject Indians without taking possession
of their persons through legal declarations imposing the status of
slavery upon them.[736] Such Indians were held in the status of
servitude, a condition which stood “midway between freedom and absolute
subjection”, and which was the “historic base upon which slavery,
by the extension and addition of incidents, was constructed.”[737]
The right of ownership of the services of both negroes and Indians
was, after all, what the colonists most desired, and appeared to
promise satisfaction in this instance as it had in the case of the
white indentured servants. Indian servitude not only preceded Indian
slavery, but even continued after the institution of slavery was fully
developed. This is true of most, if not all, of the English-American
colonies. It is certainly true of Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Statutory recognition of slavery in general by the English-American
colonies occurred as follows: by Massachusetts in 1641; by Connecticut
in 1650; by Virginia in 1661; by Maryland in 1663; by New York and New
Jersey in 1664; by South Carolina in 1682; by Pennsylvania and Rhode
Island in 1700; by North Carolina in 1715; and by Georgia in 1755.[738]
But the legislation of these dates did not always include the subject
Indians. When such was the case, however, according to a strict legal
interpretation, any subject Indian, if enslaved, had the right to
demand his freedom from the colonial courts. Such an instance existed
in the case of Virginia where the acts of 1655 and 1661 specifically
forbade Indian slavery and guaranteed to the subject Indians all the
rights of servants.[739]
The recognition of Indian as well as negro slavery by customary law
came somewhat earlier than by statute law. With the extension of
the period of servitude to a life term, the change from servitude
to slavery was practically completed so far as customary law was
concerned. Only the enactment of legal provisions sanctioning the
change was necessary to complete the process. The common use in
subsequent law of the terms “servant for life”, “perpetual servant”,
and “bond servant” as synonymous with the term “slave” shows how
little change was really effected in the condition of the servant.
Such change consisted chiefly, from the standpoint of the master,
in the extension of his right to service, and consequently in the
extension of his obligation of protection and maintenance, and what was
still more important, in the acquisition of the right of possession
of the offspring of his slaves. From the standpoint of the slave,
it meant little more than the loss of the right to ultimate liberty,
political and civil, and the extension of his right to protection and
maintenance.[740]
The legislation which marked the changing status varied in nature in
the several colonies. In certain colonies the slavery status was simply
recognized as being in existence by certain acts relating to slaves,
without any formal declaration to the effect that Indians held in
servitude should be considered slaves. In other colonies the condition
of slavery as applied to Indians was legalized by general acts relating
to slavery in general, and not specifying either Indians or negroes.
In still other colonies the holding of Indians in a condition of
actual slavery was legalized by legislative acts relating directly to
Indians. An act of this latter character was passed by New York in 1678
declaring that all Indians that should come to, or be brought into
the province at any time during the succeeding six months, should be
sold as slaves for the benefit of the government.[741] South Carolina,
in an act of 1712 relating to the “better ordering and governing of
negroes and slaves”, provided that “all negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes
or Indians which have at any time heretofore been sold, or now are held
and taken to be, or hereafter shall be brought and sold as slaves, are
hereby declared slaves to all intents and purposes; excepting all such
negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes or Indians which heretofore have been,
or hereafter shall be for some particular merit, made and declared
free, either by the Governor and Council of this province, or by their
respective owners and masters; and also, excepting all such negroes,
mulattoes, mestizoes or Indians as can prove they ought not to be sold
as slaves”.[742] The acts, already mentioned in other connections,
authorizing the enslavement of Indian captives taken in war, the
holding in slavery of such captives when obtained in trade from sources
outside the colony, and the enslavement of free Indians by the colonial
authorities as punishment for misdemeanors and crimes, are also cases
in point.
From the standpoint of English law the action of the colonial
legislatures enacting the slavery status had no legal sanction. It
was based on the interpretation of the common law of nations, that
is, it was carried on in accordance with a “law not promulgated
by legislation, and rested upon prevalent views of universal
jurisprudence, or the law of nations supported by the express or
implied authority of the home government” concerning the institution
of slavery.[743] So the colonies, by a gradual process of changing
conditions and legal enactments, substituted the slavery status for
the servitude status without molestation from the home government,
which was interested in colonial slave conditions and legislation
only when the African slave trade was involved. So long, therefore,
as the enactment of colonial laws decreeing the slavery status did
not interfere with that trade, the home government gave no attention
to the matter. As for Indian slavery _per se_, if England had given
it any attention whatever, she would probably have considered it a
purely colonial matter. Since it was never sufficiently extensive to
interfere with negro slavery and the slave trade, it never received any
attention from the home government, and so existed as legal because
never declared illegal. An authority on the legal status of early
American slavery states: “It may be laid down as a legal axiom, that in
all governments in which the municipal regulations are not absolutely
opposed to slavery, persons already reduced to that state may be held
in it, and we also assume, as a first principle, that slavery has been
permitted and tolerated in all the colonies established in America by
European powers, as relates to blacks and also as relates to Indians
in the first periods of conquest and colonization. This accounts in
a measure for the absence of any legislative act of European powers
for intruding slavery into the American dominions.”[744] Hence it
followed that the English colonial charters authorizing the colonial
legislatures to make laws, gave no license as such to enslave.[745]
With the change from the status of servitude to the status of slavery,
certain of the attributes of the former condition were continued and
connected with the latter. Chief of these, and the fundamental idea on
which the change was effected, was the conception of property right
which, from the idea of the ownership of an individual’s service
resting upon contract implied or expressed, came to be that of the
ownership of an individual’s person.
Indian slaves were recognized as property in all the English colonies,
and were openly bought and sold at both public and private sales
like negroes and other property.[746] They were advertised in the
colonial newspapers with statements of their qualifications and
ability for work, their ages, and sometimes descriptions of their
personal appearance. From the New England newspapers it is apparent
that for a time dealers advertised such slaves for sale openly in
their own names.[747] Later the possible purchaser was directed by
the advertisement to “inquire of the Printer and know further”, or
to “inquire at the Post Office”.[748] It was not uncommon for slaves
offered for sale to choose their future owner from those who desired to
purchase them,[749] or to approve the bill of sale.[750]
Like other property, real or personal, Indian slaves could be given
away by word of mouth or by “last will and testament”. One of the
earliest of such wills on record is that of Governor John Winthrop
of Massachusetts, made in 1639, by which he gave to his son Adam,
Governor’s Island and with it “also my Indians thereon”.[751] In South
Carolina where Indian slaves were most numerous, the records of their
disposal by will are frequent.[752] The custom, in fact, was universal
in the colonies.[753]
Indian slaves were listed in the various colonies in the inventories
of estates along with indentured servants of unexpired terms[754] and
negro slaves.[755] They were taken like other chattels in payment
for debt, and in certain of the colonies provision was made by law
regarding the matter. South Carolina, February 7, 1690, decreed that a
slave was to be taken like any other chattel as payment for debt.[756]
Maryland, 1729, passed an act to the effect that no slave should be
taken for any debt due from the deceased so long as there should be
any other goods sufficient for the purpose.[757] In those colonies
where legislation makes no mention of the matter, it is known from
the history of negro slavery that the custom was similar to that of
Carolina.
The proximity of the Indian tribes to the colonists, furthermore,
afforded a condition most suitable for the escape of Indian slaves.
Individual testimony, frequent advertisements in the colonial
newspapers giving descriptions of fugitive Indian slaves and offering
rewards for their capture and return, and the amount of colonial
legislation concerning both negro and Indian runaway slaves, show that
Indians held in servitude took frequent advantage of the opportunities
at hand for their escape, and that their owners used all possible
means to regain their lost property. At the time following the Pequot
War, Mason complained of the tendency to run away shown by the Pequot
slaves in the colonies.[758] The Indians enslaved after King Philip’s
War likewise escaped. Mayhew tells of runaway Indian slaves in
Massachusetts in 1690.[759] In this same year one Isaac Morrill of New
Jersey was arrested at Newbury, Massachusetts, for enticing Indian and
negro slaves to run away.[760]
The _Boston News Letter_ came into existence, 1704,[761] at about the
time when Indian slaves began to be brought into the northern colonies
from the Spanish islands and from the Carolinas. Rarely was there an
issue of that or the other Massachusetts newspapers from that time down
to the Revolutionary period which did not contain an advertisement
for a runaway Indian slave. Sometimes the same advertisement was
repeated in two or three successive issues,[762] and was often
inserted in more than one newspaper. For the capture and return of the
fugitives, rewards were offered, sometimes indefinite in nature as
“suitable rewards”,[763] sometimes of stated amounts as £3.[764] forty
shillings,[765] twenty shillings,[766] £6,[767] £20,[768] £5,[769]
£7,[770] £15,[771] four pistoles,[772] fifty shillings.[773] These
advertisements relate for the most part to fugitive men and boy Indian
slaves, but advertisements relating to runaway women Indian slaves are
not lacking.[774] The escapes appear for the most part, though not
always, to have been made singly. One advertisement shows two Indian
men, two Indian women and an Indian boy belonging to different persons
to have escaped together.[775] Captains of vessels were often cautioned
in the advertisements against carrying away such fugitive slaves, and
any person harboring them or aiding them to escape was threatened with
full penalty of the law.
All the colonies enacted fugitive slave laws. Some of these laws were
applied to slaves in general, some to negroes and “other slaves,”
still others to negro, mulatto and Indian slaves. The colonies where
slavery was of greatest extent had the most extensive and elaborate
laws on the subject, and those colonies where Indian slavery existed
to any considerable extent included the term “Indian slaves” in their
laws. Pennsylvania made but little provision regarding runaway slaves.
Maryland concerned itself more largely with servants.
Some of these laws did not define the term “runaway slave”. Others in
an attempt to avoid confusion gave clear explanations of the term. Such
an act was passed by Connecticut in 1690, specifying that any Indian,
mulatto or negro servants and slaves wandering outside the place to
which they belonged without a ticket of leave or pass in writing from
some assistant or justice of the peace or from their owner, were to
be considered runaways and treated as such.[776] New Jersey, in 1713,
considered as runaways any negro, mulatto or Indian slave who was five
miles from his master’s habitation without written leave of absence
from his owner, and any such slave found in New Jersey but belonging to
another province was declared a runaway.[777] South Carolina, by the
act of 1690, considered as a runaway any negro or Indian slave absent
from his master’s plantation (no distance specified), without a written
ticket of leave unless in company with a white man.[778]
To discourage aid and assistance being given fugitive slaves, the
colonies specified by legislative acts the punishment to follow such
offense. On June 14, 1705, Lord Cornbury, in his opening speech to the
New York assembly, expressed his opinion regarding the necessity for
passing an act to prevent negro, Indian and mulatto slaves running away
from their masters.[779] An act of the common council of Albany, 1686,
forbade all persons harboring negro or Indian slaves in their houses
without the owners’ consent.[780] Pennsylvania, 1726, decreed a fine
of five shillings for the first hour and one shilling for every hour
afterward that any person should harbor or entertain any runaway negro,
Indian or mulatto slave.[781] Virginia, by the act of 1705, specified
a fine of £100 for any shipmaster transporting any negro, mulatto or
Indian slave out of the colony without permission of the owner.[782]
South Carolina, also, by an act of 1690, levied forty shillings fine
on any one not attempting to apprehend a negro or Indian slave coming
into his plantation without a ticket of leave from his master or not
accompanied by a white man.[783]
Not infrequently the colonial authorities were called upon to furnish
protection to the owners of Indian slaves against their seizure by
the free Indians, or against fugitive Indian slaves being hidden and
retained by the tribes. To effect the return of such slaves special
inducements were offered by the colonial government from time to time.
At the close of the Pequot War an agreement was made by the chief,
Miantonomo, and the Massachusetts government, by which the former
promised to seize such Pequot slaves as escaped, and return them to
their owners.[784] On June 2, 1641, the general court of Massachusetts
made a similar agreement with Lieutenant Willard of Concord, Ensign
Holman of Dorchester, and Sergeant Collacot of Dorchester. As a partial
return for the monopoly of the Indian trade granted them, these men
agreed to demand, wherever they should find them, all fugitive Pequot
slaves that belonged to the English.[785] A similar request for
protection is found in New York, where two widows petitioned governor
and council, May 16, 1717, regarding two Indian slaves who were
secreted by the Indians of Pekkemeck.[786] Events in North Carolina,
following the Tuscarora War, offer numerous illustrations of colonial
action taken to secure the return of such fugitives. The Indian slaves
in the colony, consisting largely of the captive Tuscarora, frequently
escaped and took refuge with the free Indians of their tribe. The
Indians neglected to return these runaways, and the council was
compelled to call many times upon “King Blount” to compel his people
to return the slaves according to his agreement with the Carolina
government. Such action is recorded as late as 1731.[787]
Sometimes this protection of slave owners in their property rights
assumed intercolonial importance. Such a recognition of property rights
occurred in the articles of federation of the United Colonies of New
England, 1643, provision: “If any servant run away from his master
into any of these confederated jurisdictions, ... in such case, upon
certificate of one magistrate in the jurisdiction of which the said
servant fled, or upon other due proof, the said servant shall be
delivered, either to his master or any other that pursues and brings
such certificate or proof”.[788]
Since it was found that certain Indian villages harbored fugitive
Indians, the Confederation, September 5, 1646, decided that such
villages might be raided and the inhabitants carried off, women and
children being spared as far as possible, and declared that “because
it will be chargeable keeping Indians in prison and, if they should
escape, they are liable to prove more insolent and dangerous after,
it was thought fit that upon such seizure ... the magistrates of the
jurisdiction deliver up the Indian seized to the party or parties
indamaged, either to serve or to be shipped out and exchanged for
negroes, as the cause will justly bear.”[789] In the same year the
commissioners of the United Colonies sent a letter to Governor Kieft
of New Netherland demanding the return of an Indian captive “fled from
her master at Hartford” and “entertained in your house at Hartford
and, though required by the magistrate, ... under the hands of your
agent there denied ... and said to have been either married or abused
by one of your men”. “Such a servant,” they declared, “is part of her
master’s estate and a more considerable part than a beast.” Kieft
refused to give up the Indian woman, and replied: “as concerns the
barbarian handmaid”, it is “apprehended by some, that she is no slave,
but a freewoman, because she was neither taken in war, nor bought
with price, but was in former times placed with me by her parents for
education”.[790] By the intercolonial treaty of September 19, 1650, the
provision of the articles of confederation concerning fugitive slaves
was extended so as to include the intercourse of the New Englanders and
the Dutch.[791] Another fugitive slave law similar to that of 1643 was
contained in the articles of confederation of the United Colonies in
1672.[792]
Similar events involved New York and Pennsylvania. In 1723, some Seneca
Indians trading in South Carolina carried away an Indian slave boy
belonging to an Englishman there. The governor of New York charged
the Seneca with the act and demanded that the slave boy be returned.
The Seneca acknowledged that they were among the party who took the
slave boy, said that he had been given to some Susquehanna Indians,
and requested the governor to ask for him there.[793] An undated
letter of William Penn to the Susquehanna Indians regarding some
Indian slaves taken from the people of New York by them, refers to a
similar incident. In it Penn mentions the people of New York having
twice appealed to him regarding an Indian woman and boy, both slaves,
bought in New York from the governor of Carolina, which the Susquehanna
Indians had taken away. Penn urged the Susquehanna to deliver the
slaves to his messenger that they might be put on board a vessel and
returned to New York.[794]
In July, 1682, Plymouth provided that if any Indian who was a servant
of the English should run away, “such Indians where such a runaway
Indian is come, shall forthwith give notice of the runaway to the
Indian constable, who shall immediately apprehend such Indian servant
and carry him or her before the overseer or next magistrate.”[795]
At a meeting, January 9, 1713, the council of North Carolina considered
the matter of two Indian slaves sent to the colony from Virginia,
and found that they belonged to two residents of South Carolina from
whom, presumably, they had been stolen. The council, acknowledging the
owners’ claim to the right of possession, ordered that the Indians be
delivered to Colonel James Moore “for the use and on behalf of the
owners.”[796]
A case in Massachusetts shows a colonial government remunerating a
citizen for an Indian slave taken from him by governmental authority.
During King Philip’s War, one George Speere bought an Indian from
Captain Hull who had been empowered by the council to make sale of
Indian captives at that time. The council, by warrant of the constable
of Braintree, took away the Indian boy for some reason. Speere
complained of the loss of his property, after, as he said, he had
brought it to a “very tractable and profitable state”, and petitioned
to have his Indian boy returned to him, or to be given his value. The
council accordingly granted him the value.[797]
As in the case of other property, the colonial courts were sometimes
called upon to settle disputes regarding the ownership of Indian
slaves. Two events in Massachusetts and North Carolina are cases in
point. In 1684, the Massachusetts Court of Assistants was called
upon to settle a case of disputed ownership which had been appealed
from the County Court of Salem.[798] On November 24, 1777, complaint
was made to the North Carolina House of Commons by a slave owner who
had been dispossessed of his Indian slave by two other Carolinians.
The House appointed a committee to investigate the matter.[799]
Similar instances in other years are recorded in connection with North
Carolina.[800]
With the growth of the idea of property incident to the slavery
status, the “early transition of the slave from personal estate to a
chattel real, or real estate with accompanying incidents, was easy
and natural.”[801] Under the caption of “property” both negro and
Indian slaves were subject to taxation like other property, either for
colonial revenue in general or to meet local expenses. Moreover in
certain colonies both Indian and negro slaves were assigned the double
character of persons subject to a poll tax and property subject to a
property tax.
South Carolina, in the act of 1690, provided “that all slaves ... as to
the payment of debts shall be deemed and taken as all other goods and
chattels, ... and all negroes and slaves shall be accounted as freehold
in all other cases whatsoever and descend accordingly”.[802] Middleton,
president of the council, consequently declared, in 1725, that negroes
were real property, such as houses and lands, in Carolina.[803] Yet
they were always returned as personal property in the inventories of
intestates.[804] This condition continued until 1740, when it was
declared that negroes and Indian slaves should be reputed and adjudged
in law to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and
possessors and their executors, administrators and assigns.[805]
Various tax acts were passed from time to time for special reasons, and
in some of these Indian slaves, along with negroes, were a part of the
basis of taxation, being rated as property without specification as to
real or personal, along with goods, lands, cattle and white servants.
Such an act was passed in 1703.[806] The act contained the general term
“slaves”, which, of course, included Indian slaves by implication.
A tax on polls was generally selected by the colonies as the chief
source of revenue. In accordance with this idea of taxation North
Carolina during the eighteenth century regarded Indian slaves as
taxables. In the earliest legislative action of the colony taxables
were declared to be every white male aged sixteen years, and every
slave, negro, mulatto, or Indian, male or female, aged twelve
years.[807] By the act of 1750, furthermore, a taxable was every white
man of sixteen years of age, every negro, mulatto or mustee, and every
other person of mixed blood to the fourth generation, twelve years of
age.[808]
In Virginia, especially, there was much confusion regarding the
position of the slave as a person and as property. Until after the
Revolution, taxes were chiefly imposed according to the number of
tithables in each county, i. e., persons assessed for a poll tax.[809]
The act of 1649 declared all imported male servants to be tithables.
Indians imported into the colony as servants were included by
implication. Since in the preceding year an act had declared that a
specified poll tax should be levied only on the tithables, Indian
servants, as they must be called before 1670,[810] were attributed a
legal personality or a membership in the social status inconsistent
with the condition of a chattel or property. By the act of March, 1658,
Indian servants, male and female, sixteen years of age, were included
among the tithables by specific mention.[811] The same provision was
repeated in the acts of March, 1662.[812] Some doubt having arisen as
to whether this law applied to female Indian servants as well as to
male, acts were passed in December, 1662,[813] September, 1672[814] and
November, 1682,[815] to settle the matter. The former act related to
women servants commonly employed in “working in the crop”; the latter
declared that “all Indian women are and shall be tithables, and ought
to pay levies in like manner as negro women brought into this country
do, and ought to pay.”
In 1682, the gradual process of change from the status of Indian
servitude to that of Indian slavery was completed. The Virginia act of
1670 had decreed a condition of slavery for all Indians imported into
the colony by sea.[816] But the great body of subject Indians were
natives of the country. Such Indians remained servants up to 1676, when
at the beginning of the Indian war, one of Bacon’s laws made all Indian
captives slaves.[817] In 1682, slavery was extended to captives sold
by tributary Indians “in the hope of mitigating their condition as it
was certain that they would be held in slavery by their captors.”[818]
These acts did not make provision for changing the condition of Indian
servants that existed in the colony before 1670. Such a change had come
about through a gradual and natural process with the passage of the
laws mentioned and the changed attitude toward the subject Indians, so
that in fact all subject Indians were not considered slaves. Hence,
in 1682, all Indian slaves were considered in law as persons inasmuch
as they were tithables. By 1705 it was found necessary, for legal
purposes, to “advance the property notion of the slave from personalty
to realty,”[819] though certain incidents of personalty were still
retained. The statute of that year by which the change was effected
provided that in future “all negro, mulatto or Indian slaves in all
courts of jurisdiction and other places within this dominion shall be
held, taken and adjudged to be real estate and not chattels”.[820] As
a part of real estate property slaves were subject to taxation. An act
of 1748 again made slaves personal estate, but was repealed by the
king, October 31, 1751.[821] By the acts of 1779 and 1781 slaves were
still liable to a poll tax of £5 and 10s. respectively, to be paid
by the owner.[822] So it may be seen that from 1649 until after the
Revolution Indian servants and slaves either as persons or as property
were used as a basis for taxation in Virginia.
Massachusetts was the only other colony that assigned the double
status of personalty and real property to its slaves. There, as in
Virginia, the status varied from time to time. Under the earliest laws
of taxation in that colony, slaves must have been rated, if taxed
at all, as polls, the owners paying for them as for other servants
and children, “such as take not wages”. This continued until 1692,
when “every male slave of sixteen years old and upwards” was rated
at “£20 estate”.[823] But in 1694 “all negroes, mulattoes and Indian
servants, as well male as female, of sixteen years old and upwards”,
were assigned a status of personalty by being rated at 12d. per poll,
the same as other polls.[824] In 1695, “all negro, mulatto and Indian
servants” again became a property basis for taxation by an act valuing
negro, mulatto and Indian male servants fourteen years of age and
upward at £20 estate, and similar female servants at £14 estate, unless
disabled by infirmity.[825] They were subsequently, in 1696,[826] rated
as “other personal estate”, which rating was continued in 1697[827]
and 1698,[828] in the latter year “according to the found judgment and
discretion of the assessors, not excluding faculties”, i. e., trades or
professions. This rating for faculties was common throughout the early
tax laws of Massachusetts, and continued into the nineteenth century.
It was applied to white men from the beginning,[829] but the law of
1698 appears to have been the first and only one in which the feature
was applied to the negroes, mulattoes and Indians who were slaves.
There was little variation in the tax laws during the remainder of
the colonial period. All Indian, negro and mulatto servants continued
to be rated as personal property in the usual yearly levies.[830]
Occasionally, as in the earlier period, some of those who were servants
for a term of years, but not for life, were numbered and rated as
polls.[831] Other exemptions were made in the case of slaves “disabled
by infirmity”.[832]
In 1716, an attempt was made to modify this feature of property status
for slaves in Massachusetts. In that year Judge Sewall was a member of
the council, and on June 22, 1716, proposed to that body that negro
and Indian slaves be no longer rated with horses and hogs as personal
property. The council agreed to the proposition, and its decision
was sent down to the deputies for concurrence. But the members of
the house refused assent on the ground that they were just going to
make a new valuation. In the preceding valuations of the property of
their constituents, Indian, negro and mulatto slaves were regarded as
property, and the owners of it should be taxed accordingly.[833]
In the remaining colonies that taxed Indian and other slaves, such
taxation was levied on the basis of property, sometimes personal and
sometimes real. The annual tax in South Carolina included slaves among
the taxable property.[834] A law of 1719 provided that since Indian
slaves were commonly reputed to be of less value than negro slaves, all
persons possessing them should pay for each Indian in proportion to
half the value of whatever might be rated and imposed for each negro,
and no more.[835]
In New York Indian and negro slaves entered but little into the system
of taxation, since slaves were not numerous in the colony and therefore
would furnish but a poor basis for taxation, and the finances of the
colony were provided for more largely by income taxes than otherwise.
In 1709, however, along with a tax on chimneys, fireplaces and stoves,
a tax of two shillings was levied on every negro or Indian slave from
fifteen to sixty years of age, with directions for collecting the same,
and provision for fine and punishment if such tax were not paid.[836]
Again, in 1734, when arrangement was made to raise a certain amount
yearly for a period of ten years, one source of revenue was to be a
tax of “two pennyweight and twelve grains of Sivil Pillar or Mexican
Plate, or the sum of one shilling in Bills of Credit made current in
this colony” on every Indian or mulatto slave who was above the age of
fourteen and under the age of fifty years.[837]
An instance of Indian slaves serving as a basis of taxation in a local
levy is found in the history of Rye, New York. At a town meeting in
1703, to raise the assessment for the ensuing year, it was decided that
a portion of the sum should be obtained by the tax on £12 valuation of
all slaves of sixteen years old and upward.[838] Though Indian slaves
were not mentioned in the town action, they were doubtless included by
implication, for in 1711 the people of the town were called upon to pay
taxes under “an act for raising one shilling on every Indian and negro
slave.”[839]
In most of the colonies import duties, and in at least one instance
export duties, were levied on Indian slaves brought into or taken from
the colonies. Such duties were generally levied for self-defense,
though occasionally for revenue. During the colonial period England’s
interest in the African slave trade led her to take effective
measures to dispose of as many negroes as possible in the American
colonies. In course of time the colonists awoke to the danger which
might result from an excess of an ignorant servile class which in
some sections outnumbered the white population. Frequent attempts
were made in various colonies to check the importation of negroes
by levying import duties. At times Indians as well as negroes were
included in these laws. In their enactment it seems probable that the
colonial legislatures had a double purpose: to shut out undesirables
of both races, and to prevent the importation of negroes in the guise
of Indians. Real danger threatened the colonies from an excessive
importation of Indians as slaves, and an attempt was therefore made to
check it. In those colonies where import duties furnished a substantial
part of the colonial revenue, such duties were levied on Indian slaves
as well as on other property.
As early as 1698 the importation of negroes into South Carolina
had reached such proportions that the safety of the province was
considered endangered.[840] Attempts to check such importation were
accordingly made throughout the colonial period by levying import
duties. As the number of Indian slaves in the colony increased, they
too were included as a basis for duties. By the act of 1721, the
importation of negro, mulatto, mustee and Indian slaves (Spanish
Indians excepted) by their owners was permitted without duty, provided
such owner intended to settle in the colony and employ the slaves in
his own service. He was required, however, to take an oath that in case
he sold any of these slaves within twelve months after bringing them
into the colony, he would pay certain required duties.[841]
The Spanish Indians were considered especially undesirable.
Accordingly, an act of 1722 imposed upon all such Spanish Indians,
negroes, mulattoes and mustees imported, a duty of £50 current money of
the province.[842] The duty on Indian slaves was levied without regard
to age, while that on negro slaves was graduated according to age. A
report to the Board of Trade, February 2, 1736, gave the duty on negro
slaves imported from Africa above ten years old as £10; under ten years
old, £5; and on all Indians imported, £50 each.[843] The following
was the tariff schedule on negroes and Indians in force in 1775.[844]
“Indians imported as slaves, each £50. Negroes or slaves, four feet two
inches or more in height, each £10. Negroes, under four feet two, and
above three feet two inches, each £5. Negroes, under four feet two, and
above three feet two inches, sucking children excepted, each 2£ 10s.
Negroes or slaves from any of his Majesty’s plantations in America,
where such slaves have been for six months or more, unless imported by
the owners with design to be employed on their own account, besides the
above £10, £5, and £2 10s., each slave, £50.”
The earliest act passed in Virginia to check the importation of
negroes, that of 1699, imposed a duty of fifteen shillings per poll
upon every servant not born in England or Wales, and twenty shillings
for every negro or other slave imported into the colony. This duty was
continued or increased by a number of temporary acts between 1669 and
1776.[845] The acts were worded “all slaves” or “negroes and other
slaves”. Thus import duties were levied upon Indian as well as negro
slaves. A statute of 1710 advanced the duty on negroes to £5 per head,
and placed a duty of twenty shillings on Indians imported by land.[846]
The difference in the amount of the duties is indicative of the
relative amount of danger attached by the colonists to the presence of
the two classes of slaves in the colony.
At the time of the Tuscarora War, the northern colonies realized fully
the possible results of the importation of the captives sold in their
communities. Some of them in consequence passed laws to ward off danger
from this source. In 1712, Rhode Island passed an act levying a duty
of forty shillings on every Indian brought into the colony. The act
was enforced by severe penalties, and every ship owner was required to
give bond to the amount of £50 for observing it.[847] New Hampshire,
in 1714, levied the heavy duty of £10 on the importation of any Indian
into the province.[848]
Pennsylvania, also, June 7, 1712, voted to levy a duty of £20 on all
negroes and Indians brought into the colony by land or water, certain
negroes from the West Indies excepted. Exception was also made in the
case of negro and Indian slaves brought in by their owners with the
intention of taking them out again within the space of twenty days, and
in the case of Indians or negroes belonging to persons in the province
and sent out of it on their masters’ business with intent to return
again.[849]
A duty of £10 was levied by New Jersey in 1713.[850] In January, 1739,
the New Jersey assembly presented to the council for concurrence
a bill entitled “An act for laying a duty on negro, Indian and
mulatto slaves imported into this province.”[851] The bill did not
appeal favorably to the council and was rejected.[852] The reason
for rejection was the need of laborers in the province, owing to the
decrease in the number of white indentured servants, and the check
that this bill would give to the importation of negroes.[853] But in
November, 1769, a bill setting forth as its purpose the encouragement
of the coming of white servants by limiting the importation of blacks,
was passed. The duty in this case was higher than that proposed in
1739, being £15 on all slaves imported, negro, Indian or mulatto.
Punishment for refusal or neglect to pay was specified. Purchase of
a slave “made upon the Water or Waters along the Seacoast” of the
province, or on those between the province and the provinces of New
York, Pennsylvania and the Lower Counties of the Delaware, was, by
section VII of the act, declared a “purchase within the county” of New
Jersey “opposite to such Water”, and so was exempt from duty.[854]
The second cause for levying duties on Indians and other slaves was
to obtain revenue. Virginia in its legislation on the subject had
pretended at least that such was its purpose, and to carry out the
pretense had devoted the amounts thus obtained to meeting colonial
expenses.[855] Other colonies sought directly for revenue.[856] New
York was a striking example of such colonies. Import duties formed a
chief source of the colonial revenue, and slaves were enumerated among
the other commodities. The act of May 1, 1702, the first specifically
to mention Indian slaves, placed a duty of fifteen shillings on every
negro or Indian slave imported into the colony directly from their
place of residence, and thirty shillings upon every negro or Indian
slave not so imported.[857] The act which was to continue but two years
was found to be “of great use in this colony” and was accordingly
repeated on August 4, 1705, to continue seven years.[858] On June 24,
1719, it was again repeated to remain in effect from July 1, 1720, to
July 1, 1726.[859] Still other acts imposing similar duties were passed
as follows: in 1709, levying a duty of £3 on every negro imported into
the colony not directly from Africa and £3 on every other slave or
slaves not directly imported into the colony from Africa, the act to
continue till May 1, 1711;[860] on June 21, 1714, levying “a duty of
ten ounces of good plate” to be paid by the master or commander of any
vessel, or any other person importing slaves;[861] and on September
1, 1716, levying a duty of “ten ounces of good plate” on each negro,
Indian or mulatto slave imported into the colony from Africa in any
vessel not wholly owned by the people of the colony, and a like duty on
every negro, Indian or mulatto slave imported into the colony from any
part of the West Indies or any of the neighboring colonies, negroes or
other slaves going to and fro on their owners’ business excepted.[862]
On October 16, 1718, furthermore, it was decreed that no greater
duty was to be demanded on any slave brought into the colony directly
from Africa by a ship of Great Britain, than was to be demanded from
vessels wholly owned by inhabitants of the colony.[863] In June 17,
1726, on every Indian, negro or mulatto slave (male or female) of four
years of age or upwards imported by land or water from all places
other than Africa, a duty of £4 was laid.[864] On October 14, 1732,
a similar duty, regardless of the place from which the slave was
imported, was laid.[865] On November 28, 1734, on every negro, Indian
or mulatto slave above the age of fourteen and under the age of fifty,
during the period of ten years, the duty was fixed at “the quantity of
two pennyweight and twelve grains of Sivil pillar or Mexican plate,
or the sum of one shilling in Bills of Credit made current in this
colony.”[866] On December 16, 1737, finally, every negro, Indian or
mulatto slave above the age of four years imported directly from
Africa was made dutiable at the rate of five ounces of “Sivil pillar
or Mexican plate” or forty shillings in bills of credit current in
the colony; and for every such slave imported from all other places
by land or water, the sum of £4 in like money was exacted.[867] All
slaves belonging to the crew of any vessel, and slaves coming into the
colony from the neighboring colonies upon the service of their masters,
and all slaves under fourteen years of age were to be admitted free of
duty.[868] Any person coming into the colony alone, or with his or her
family to reside or visit in the colony, was allowed to bring slaves
for personal service, provided the owner gave sufficient security to
the treasurer within four days after the importation thereof, that,
whenever such slaves should be sold, the duty imposed by the act should
be paid within two days after such sale. Upon failure to pay such duty,
the owner or disposer of such slaves was to forfeit the sum of £10, the
slave or slaves, nevertheless, to be subject to the duty in question.
The duties provided for by the act were to remain in existence for the
period of one year.[869] At the expiration of the act it was continued
for another year, with certain amendments which did not relate to
slaves.[870] At the expiration of the specified period it was again
continued for another year or until the close of 1740,[871] when it
was again continued until December, 1741.[872] Such acts were then
passed by New York each year until the opening of the troubles of the
Revolutionary period.[873]
The number of Indians exported as slaves from South Carolina was larger
than that from any other colony. As a means of obtaining revenue, as
well as of attempting to check the business of the Indian traders, the
colony passed an act in 1703 which placed a duty upon Indian slaves
exported from the colony.[874] The traders were carefully instructed
not to attempt any such exportations without first paying at Charleston
the required duties, twenty shillings for each Indian exported[875].