+Treatment+
The treatment of Indian slaves apparently differed in no essential
degree from that of the negroes. The slaves of the two races lived
and worked together; but since the negroes were in the majority, the
treatment of slaves in general was determined by the ordinary usage
which the whites accorded them in particular. It is customary for
writers dealing with early slavery among both the English and French
of America to declare it mild in nature.[917] The statement appears to
be true. The system was patriarchal in nature, though it is doubtful
if race feeling among the English was ever so nearly obliterated,
and a condition of fellowship approaching equality ever so fully
developed, as in the case of the French. Individual cases of cruelty
and harsh treatment undoubtedly existed as they must exist in all
cases of servitude; but Indian slavery never became an institution
sufficiently well organized to make harsh treatment general. There was
never anything in either the English or French colonies corresponding
to the labor gang used by the Spanish. The number of Indian slaves
in a locality was too small for that; nor did the service which the
colonists required of their Indian slaves demand it. Kind treatment,
however, did not exclude the infliction of corporal punishment, if
thought needful.[918]
To judge from the frequent newspaper advertisements of runaways, the
Indian slaves of the English colonists were at least comfortably
dressed. The following are typical extracts from the newspapers of the
various colonies: “a black crape gown and a striped stuff jacket”;
“a blue flannel petticoat, a dark Estamine gown and a double striped
gown”;[919] “a grey coat with pewter buttons, with leather breeches,
an old tow shirt, grey stockings, good shoes and felt hat”;[920] “a
green hat and yellow breeches”;[921] “an orange colored broadcloth
coat, with a narrow cape, and a flannel jacket with narrow stripes, a
cotton shirt, and a loose pair of Oxenbridge trousers ... a beaver hat,
and had a bundle of clothes with him”;[922] “an old blue coat, striped
flannel jacket, pretty good hat, black wig, linen trousers, white yarn
stockings, and an old pair of mended shoes”;[923] “a good felt hat,
orange colored jacket, thick leather breeches, checked wool shirt,
light grey stockings and pretty good shoes”:[924] “pea-jacket of light
brown, leather breeches, shoes, stockings and hat”;[925] “a drugat
waistcoat and kersey petticoat of a light color”.[926] From these
advertisements it appears that the slaves were dressed much like the
colonists themselves, though doubtless their clothing often consisted
of “cast offs”. In the Carolinas where slaves were more numerous,
coarse goods were imported by the planters for slaves’ clothing.
Mention is found of “serge suits for the servant maids, of coarse
kerseys, tufted holland jackets, etc.”, with which the plantation was
wont to be supplied for the slaves and convict servants. These were
used in addition to cloth woven and made into clothes by the women of
the household.[927]
Generally kind as the treatment of Indian slaves may have been,
the sentiment of the English colonists was quite opposed to the
intermingling of whites and Indians, bond or free, even if in the
early history of Virginia there was some effort made to encourage the
marriage of whites and free Indians.[928] It was natural, therefore,
that definite action should be taken to prevent the marriage of free
whites and Indian slaves. In 1691, Virginia passed an act forbidding
the union of free whites with Indians whether slave or free; but
there seems to have been no provision against marriage of negroes or
Indians with white indentured servants.[929] The provision, perhaps,
was unnecessary, for the consent of the white indentured servant’s
master was necessary for the validity of such a union, and such consent
was usually refused because of the strong prejudice against race
mixture.[930]
North Carolina, also, in 1715, passed an act forbidding the marriage
of whites with negroes, mulattoes or Indians, under penalty of £50,
and making clergymen celebrating such a marriage liable to a fine of
£50.[931] A later act of 1741 provided a fine of £50 for the marriage
of any white man or woman with an Indian, negro, mustee, mulatto,
or any person of mixed blood to the third generation, bond or free.
Any minister or justice of the peace performing such a service was
punishable by a fine of £50.[932] Maryland, on its own part, in 1692,
passed an act against the marriage or promiscuous sexual relations
of whites and negroes or other slaves. Any white person so offending
was to become a servant for seven years, if free at the time of the
marriage. If already a servant, he or she must serve seven years after
the end of the present term of service.[933]
The same feeling existed in New England. A Massachusetts act of 1692
forbade the marriage, under severe penalty, of any white person with
a negro, Indian or mulatto. Mixed marriages of whites and Indians,
like those admired by Sewall in 1702,[934] did occur, however, in New
England,[935] and it appears probable that some of these marriages were
with the enslaved captives of King Philip’s War and the Indian slaves
imported from Carolina.
Considering, further, the determination of legal relations between the
whites and the Indian slaves, it should be remembered that, when not
specifically referred to, Indian slaves were included by implication
in the legislative acts of the various colonies relating to slaves.
Sufficient proof of this statement lies in the fact that Indian slaves
are directly mentioned in certain of the legislative acts of any given
colony, whereas other acts of the same colony specify slaves, negroes
and other slaves, or negro and mulatto slaves.[936] In one colony,
Virginia, the term “mulatto” was made to include Indians by the act of
1705, which provided that the child of an Indian should be “deemed,
accounted, held and taken to be a mulatto.”[937]
It was a part of the universal law of slavery in the southern colonies
that a slave should not be allowed to testify against a white person in
the courts.[938] South Carolina, by the acts of 1712,[939] 1722[940]
and 1735,[941] permitted “negroes and other slaves” to testify in the
trial of any slave accused of specified crimes and offenses. Certain
of the colonies, by express provision, forbade Indian slaves to
give testimony in the trial of whites. North Carolina declared that
“all negroes, mulattoes, bond and free to the third generation, and
Indian servants and slaves, shall be deemed to be taken as persons
incapable in law to be witnesses in any case whatever except against
each other”.[942] Virginia, 1705, decreed that “popish recusants,
convict negroes, mulattoes and Indian servants and others not being
Christians, shall be deemed and taken to be persons incapable in
law to be witnesses in any case whatsoever”.[943] In 1732, the same
colony decreed that the evidence of any negro or Indian slave might
be received in the trial of any slave, but was not valid in the trial
of any other person.[944] Maryland declared, in 1717, that it would
be dangerous to allow the evidence of any negro, mulatto or Indian
slave in the trial of a freeman, but conceded that, if evidence was
lacking in cases regarding any negro, mulatto or Indian slaves, that
such slaves might give testimony for or against themselves and one
another.[945] In some of the northern colonies, at least, acts were
passed forbidding slaves to give testimony in the trial of white
persons. The New York law of 1706 is a case in point.[946] This feature
of the law of evidence was renewed from time to time in the various
colonies and continued until the Revolution.
The right to life was generally conceded all slaves regardless of
color. At least one colony, New Hampshire, 1708, in an act guaranteeing
this right, included Indian slaves by specific mention.[947] This
and other rights could be protected by appeal to the courts. If not
otherwise provided for, the mode of trial used by the colonists
themselves was employed in the case of Indian slaves, negroes and free
Indians.[948] Special legislation concerning the trial of slaves was
enacted by all the English colonies. It has been said that for an
Indian to gain his point in an English court, unless his case was an
extremely strong one, was a rare occurrence.[949] Whether the statement
is generally true in the case of either free or slave Indians, might
be difficult to decide. Doubtless the Indian slave supported by his
master possessed a better chance of obtaining justice than the free
Indian. Since a slave was owned body and soul, and therefore had no
right to life except as the same might be conceded by his owner and
the authorities, it may be said that whatever legal rights he had were
granted for the protection of the slave owners in their property rights
and for the general safety of the community, rather than because of any
special consideration of justice toward the slave himself.
Virginia, in 1692, provided special courts for the trial of
slaves.[950] The provisions regarding these courts were changed from
time to time. By the act of 1765 it was provided that the justices be
given a standing commission of oyer and terminer empowering them to
try without a jury all criminal offenses committed by slaves in their
respective counties.[951] In accordance with these provisions one finds
the Earl of Dunmore issuing a commission in 1772 to certain justices in
the county of the present state of West Virginia, authorizing them to
serve as a court for the trial of negro and Indian slaves.[952]
The Massachusetts general court provided, 1647, that one or more of the
magistrates, according to agreement among themselves, should hold a
court every quarter to hear and determine all cases civil and criminal,
except those involving capital punishment, which might concern Indians,
and that minor offenses should be tried by the sachems themselves.[953]
At the first general court held on Martha’s Vineyard, June 18, 1672, it
was ordered that an Indian should have liberty in any case to appeal
from such courts as they held among themselves to the quarter court,
and from the quarter court to the general court.[954]
A New Jersey act of 1713 provided for the trial of any negro, Indian or
mulatto slave accused of committing murder, rape, etc., by a justice
and five freeholders. But if the owner of such slave should desire a
jury, the privilege might be allowed him. He also had the right to
challenge jurors as in other cases of like nature.[955] The act was
repealed in 1768.[956]
By a New York act of 1712, three justices and five freeholders of the
county constituted judge and jury, seven making a quorum, for the
trial of negro and Indian slaves accused of murder, rape, insurrection
or conspiracy. The prosecution provided the accusation to which the
offended was obliged to plead apparently without the aid of counsel.
The owner of the slave was given the right, however, to have his slave
tried by a jury of twelve, provided he paid the jury charges of nine
shillings.[957] An act of 1730 changed the required number of justices
to three, one to be a quorum, associated with five of the principal
freeholders of the county. Agreement of seven was required for the
decision. In this case, as before, the owner could have his slave tried
by a jury of twelve if he paid the jury charges of nine shillings.[958]
There was a general tendency among slave owners to conceal crimes
committed by slaves, or to secrete slave offenders and thus avoid the
financial loss consequent upon the time consumed by the trial and the
possible imprisonment of the slave in case of conviction, as well as
the possible injury to the slave by corporal punishment, or the still
greater loss of the slave’s entire value in case of his execution.
To prevent this interference with justice, as well as to recognize
and protect the property rights of the slave owners, special acts
were passed in some of the colonies providing that the slave owner be
remunerated by the colonial government in case of the loss of his slave
through execution for crime. In some colonies the amount to be paid the
owner of a slave was specified by law, and this amount varied from £30
for a man slave, and £20 for a woman slave (negro, Indian or mulatto),
as provided for in a New Jersey act of 1713,[959] to £50 in a South
Carolina act of 1717.[960] In other colonies the amount to be paid the
slave owner was left to the decision of the court. The Maryland act of
1717[961] is a case in point. It provided that the court should value
the slave (negro, mulatto or Indian) in tobacco, and that three-fourths
of the value thus adjudged should be allowed in the public levy to be
paid to the owner of the slave.
In all of the colonies the conduct of Indian slaves as well as that
of other slaves was necessarily subject to police regulations, and
punishments were decreed for their violation. These regulations did
not differ greatly in the various colonies, for the problems arising
from the use of slaves varied but little in their nature. Among the
prohibitions laid on Indian slaves specifically were the following: to
be away from home without the owner’s permission;[962] the possession
of fire arms;[963] and engaging in certain kinds of traffic.[964]
Boston decreed, 1728, that no Indian, negro or mulatto should carry
stick or cane within the town.[965] In 1778, when forming its first
proposed constitution, Massachusetts excepted from the franchise
“negroes, Indians and mulattoes, bound and free”.[966] In an act of
1660 the Connecticut general court declared that neither negro nor
Indian servants should be required to “train, watch or ward”.[967]
In 1676, New York City excluded all Indian and negro slaves from
the privilege of being carters, and in the same year passed an act
to prevent the revels of Indian and negro slaves at inns.[968] An
ordinance of the Albany city council, 1686, forbade any negro or Indian
slave to drive a cart within the city.[969] A New York act of 1731,
also, provided for regulating the conduct of negroes and Indians in the
night time.[970]
Few of the acts of colonial legislatures decreeing punishment for
various offenses mention Indian slaves; yet in the following colonies
the death penalty was to be inflicted upon Indian slaves convicted
of certain crimes:[971] by North Carolina, in 1741, for the second
offense of killing horses, cattle or hogs, and for stealing, mismarking
or misbranding such animals;[972] by New Jersey, in 1713, for murder,
or conspiracy, or attempt to murder,[973] and in 1768, for rape, for
wilfully burning any dwelling-house, barn, stable, outhouse, stacks
of corn or hay, for wilfully mutilating, maiming or dismembering any
person, for manslaughter, for stealing any sum of money above the value
of £5, and for committing any felony or burglary.[974]
Branding as a punishments for Indian slaves was decreed by the
Massachusetts general court. Runaway Pequot slaves were so
punished.[975] Judging from the descriptions of runaway Indian slaves
contained in the colonial newspapers, some form of branding or marking
such culprits was used until a late period. These brands or marks
sometimes took the form of letters or symbols pricked into the skin by
gunpowder or India ink. They were placed usually on the forehead or the
cheeks.[976]
Whipping, the most common punishment provided by law for Indian as well
as other slaves, was decreed by different colonies as follows: by North
Carolina, in 1741, to consist of thirty-nine lashes well laid on, for
giving false testimony in court, killing any domestic animal without
the owner’s consent, and for stealing, mismarking or misbranding such
animals;[977] by Pennsylvania, in 1721, for making, selling or using
any fireworks or firearms in Philadelphia,[978] and in 1751, for taking
part in horse races or shooting matches without a license, fifteen
lashes for the first offense and twenty-one for the second;[979] by New
Jersey, in 1713, for stealing to the value of six pence;[980] by New
York City, in 1682, for absence from their owners’ homes or plantations
without ticket of leave in owners’ handwriting,[981] in 1683, ten
lashes for meeting together at any place on Sunday or any other day in
groups of more than four, and possessing arms, unless the owner paid
six shillings in lieu of the penalty,[982] in 1713[983] and 1731,[984]
thirty-nine lashes for being found in the city streets, if above the
age of fourteen years, later than one hour after sunset, in 1721,[985]
and 1731,[986] for gambling, in 1731, for attending a funeral in
groups of more than twelve,[987] for disorderly riding through the
streets,[988] and for selling “the Fish Commonly Called and known by
the name of Bass” in the months of December, January and February,[989]
and in 1759, for committing any nuisance in the streets;[990] by
Connecticut, in 1750, forty lashes for publishing or speaking such
words of and concerning any other person, which, if spoken or published
by a white person, would be considered by law objectionable,[991]
and for being abroad after nine o’clock at night;[992] and by
Massachusetts, in 1693, for dealing in stolen goods.[993] The town of
Medford, Massachusetts, ordered, in 1734, that all negro, Indian or
mulatto slaves found abroad without leave and not on their masters’
business were to be punished by whipping.[994] Block Island, finally,
in 1709, provided ten lashes as punishment for any negro or Indian
slave abroad after nine o’clock at night.[995]
Punishment by mutilation was sometimes used, especially in the southern
colonies.[996] North Carolina, in 1741, provided that any slave,
negro or Indian, giving false testimony in any court was to have an
ear nailed to the pillory and to stand there for an hour, after which
the ear was to be cut off. The other ear was then to be nailed in like
manner and cut off at the expiration of an hour. By the same act the
cutting off of both ears was made a partial punishment for killing
horses, cattle or hogs without the consent of the owner, and for
stealing, misbranding or mismarking such animals.[997]
Certain of the colonies attempted to prevent the sale of spirituous
liquors to Indian and other slaves. At the time of King Philip’s War,
Massachusetts forbade the sale of liquor without license to any Indian
or negro.[998] New Hampshire, 1686, passed a similar act.[999] In the
same year the common council of Albany prohibited the selling of liquor
to Indian slaves without the owners’ permission.[1000]
Considering still another phase of treatment, namely, that which had
to do with religious instruction, it may be said that, among the early
regulations of the British government for the colonies, it was required
that measures be taken whereby “slaves may be best invited to the
Christian faith and be made capable of being baptized therein”.[1001]
In the instructions to the colonial governors the home government not
infrequently gave directions for the conversion of both negroes and
Indians, but the Indians referred to were free, not slave. The enslaved
natives were in too great a minority to attract attention; but any
effort to instruct and convert the negroes must, of course, include
the former by implication.[1002]
The good intentions of the home government for the conversion of
slaves were commonly frustrated by the popular belief that baptism
conferred freedom upon slaves. The general attitude of slave owners
in all the colonies was to oppose or forbid the religious instruction
and conversion of negro and Indian slaves. They argued that the
instruction and conversion of slaves tended to make them disrespectful
and unreliable and hence decreased their value. Consequently the
religious training of slaves in the earlier colonial period depended
upon the personal teaching of the owner’s family.[1003] This condition
of affairs appealed strongly to the missionaries of the Society for
the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts[1004] on their coming
to America primarily to work among the Indian tribes. In the reports
sent to their Society early in the eighteenth century they lamented the
unenlightened condition of the slaves, and urged that they be allowed
to work among them where they believed their efforts would accomplish
more than among the Indian tribes. The Society granted their requests
and gave them special instructions to look after the spiritual
interests of all slaves.[1005] Their subsequent reports, though they
dealt primarily with negro slaves, sometimes made mention of Indian
slaves, and show that there was no distinction in religious matters
between the slaves of the two races.
A letter from Samuel Thomas to the Society, December 21, 1705, told
of the employment of negro and Indian slaves on the Lord’s Day;[1006]
but in a memorial of the same year he rejoiced in the prospect of
bringing many Indian and negro slaves to the knowledge and practice
of Christianity.[1007] In a letter of the following year he urged
that the Society give the missionaries strict charge to labor with
great diligence in the conversion of the Indian and negro slaves
in the respective parishes.[1008] In 1710, he reported that there
was several unconverted Apalachee slaves in his parish whom he was
especially anxious to baptize.[1009] Le Jau, another missionary in
South Carolina, reported, in 1708, that the masters opposed the baptism
and marriage of their slaves, and declared that “many masters cannot be
persuaded that negroes and Indians are otherwise than beasts and use
them like such”.[1010] In the same year he reported many Indian and
negro slaves instructed and on probation for baptism.[1011] In 1710,
also, certain masters had so far yielded in their opposition to the
religious training of slaves as to allow Indian and negro slaves to
remain a half-hour after the services for instruction.[1012] In 1711,
one Indian slave and thirty negro slaves had joined the church in his
parish,[1013] and he was catechizing “negroes and other slaves” with
their masters’ consent,[1014] though then, and even at a later period,
other masters in the same parish (Goose Creek) opposed his work among
the slaves.[1015] Where such consent was granted, the slaves were often
required to declare that they were not being baptized out of any effort
to free themselves.[1016] From still another South Carolina parish (St.
Thomas) the pastor, Haskell, wrote in 1711 that he was encouraging the
conversion of Indian and negro slaves, and that he was also trying to
persuade their masters to his mind.[1017] He met with some success, for
another letter of the same year recorded the baptism of two negroes
and an Indian slave.[1018] As late as 1730, however, he reported that
the religious instruction of Indian and negro slaves was obstructed
by irreligious and worldly people.[1019] In 1707, Dunn, the pastor
of a parish thirty miles from Charleston reported that he met great
difficulty in persuading masters to allow their Indian and negro slaves
to receive religious instruction or to be baptized, since they believed
that baptism would free slaves.[1020]
The same attitude of masters concerning the religious instruction of
their slaves was reported from other colonies by the missionaries of
the Society in question. But since the number of Indian slaves in no
other colony was as large as in South Carolina, the mention of them by
the missionaries is far less frequent, when made at all. Sharpe of New
York, in a letter of 1712, mentioned two Spanish Indian slaves who were
Christians.[1021] Neau of New York reported much opposition of masters
to his work among the slaves.[1022] But Governor Cornbury promised to
help him,[1023] and evidently his labors were successful, for a report
in 1726 alluded to fourteen hundred negro and Indian slaves, many of
whom had been instructed by Neau.[1024]
Since in general the religious instruction of servants and slaves was
recognized as a duty by both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities
in England, the response of the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts to these letters and reports was encouraging,
and the missionaries were directed to do all in their power for the
education and conversion of all slaves.[1025] On one occasion the
Society went so far as to draft a bill to be introduced into Parliament
providing for the more effectual conversion of negroes and servants in
the plantation,[1026] and also petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury
that his majesty be requested to encourage the passage of laws in
the colonies to the effect that baptism did not confer freedom upon
slaves.[1027]
The colonial clergy similarly tried to obtain legislation at home which
might serve to dispel the popular illusion that baptism conferred
freedom upon slaves. A proposition contained in Mr. Forbes’ account
of the state of the church in Virginia, July 21, 1724, is a case in
point. It stated that the Christian duty of instructing and educating
heathen slaves in the Christian faith was much neglected by slave
owners in America, though recommended by his majesty’s instructions.
It was accordingly proposed that every Indian, negro or mulatto child
that should be baptized and publicly catechized by the minister in
church, and who could, before the fourteenth year of his or her age,
give a distinct account of the creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the ten
commandments, should, if the owner received a certificate from the
minister to that effect, be exempted from paying all levies till the
age of eighteen years.[1028]
Laws to this effect were passed in some of the colonies. The Carolina
Fundamental Constitutions of 1669 had provided that it should be
lawful for slaves to become members of any church or religious
profession as if they were freemen, but that every owner should have
absolute power and authority over his slaves regardless of their
opinion or religion.[1029] But by the so-called “Church Act” of 1705
South Carolina showed itself averse to the policy advocated in the
Constitutions of 1669, and decreed that the register of a parish
should except negro and Indian slaves from the entries of births,
christenings, marriages and burials.[1030] The law suited the times
and was accordingly followed.[1031] But in 1712, in order to correct
the popular misconception that a Christianized slave was by law free,
an act was passed to the effect that baptism of slaves did not confer
freedom upon them.[1032]
As early as 1655, the Virginia assembly had voted that Indian servants
should be educated and brought up in the Christian faith.[1033] Yet the
idea that baptism conferred freedom upon a slave even then existed in
the colony, since one of the reasons given for the disallowance of the
sale of an Indian boy by “The Kinge of Waineoke” to Elizabeth Short in
1659 was that the boy was desirous of baptism.[1034] The above action
of the legislature probably contributed to the enactment of the law of
1667 which decreed that the baptism of a slave did not confer freedom
upon him or in any way change his condition. The act naively declared
the reason for this legislative action to be that masters freed from
this doubt might the more carefully encourage the propagation of
Christianity by permitting the conversion of slaves.[1035] The act of
1670, when slaves were for the first time legally designated as such
in Virginia, decreed that freedom resulting from Christianity was
limited to servants imported by shipping. Consequently Indian servants
or slaves, since they generally came into the colony by land, were not
eligible to become freemen by the provision.[1036] The act of 1670 was
repealed in 1682 and a new act removed the possibility of conversion
to Christianity conferring freedom upon any slaves, negro, mulatto or
Indian, by decreeing that whether converted to Christianity before or
after being brought to the colony, they should remain slaves.[1037]
Finally, in 1712, Virginia passed a law requiring that the parents of
free-born children and the owners of slave-born children, within twenty
days after the birth of a child, should give notice in writing of the
birth, with name and sex, the names of the parents of a free-born
child, and the name of the owner of a slave-born child. The death of
a slave was to be reported to the minister of the parish in the same
way, and the minister was required to keep a record of all births and
deaths in his parish.[1038] Virginia parish registers after this date
contain records of the death of Indian slaves.[1039] Maryland, also, by
the acts of 1692,[1040] 1694,[1041] 1704[1042] and 1715[1043] sought
to encourage the baptism of “negroes and other slaves” by asserting
that baptism did not confer freedom upon slaves or their offspring. In
accordance with the instructions of Queen Anne to Governor Cornbury,
1702, New Jersey passed an act in May, 1704, declaring that baptism of
any negro, Indian or mulatto slave should not be considered reason or
cause for his freedom.[1044]
The amended “Duke’s Laws” published about 1674, decreed that turning
Christian should not set at liberty any negro or Indian servant in New
York who had been bought by any person.[1045] Evidently the colonists
put but little faith in this provision, for Governor Dongan reported in
1687 that they “take no care of the conversion of their slaves.”[1046]
The old idea that conversion conferred freedom upon slaves prevailed,
and was doubtless strengthened by an order of the council, October 11,
1687, that Christian Indians and children of Christian parents brought
from Campeachy and Vera Cruz as slaves should be set free,[1047] and
by a similar order in the following year that Spanish Indian slaves
professing Christianity were to be released and sent home.[1048] This
last order was accompanied by a decree of the council, July 30, 1688,
that the Spanish Indian slaves of certain persons be brought before
it with a view of liberating them if they were able to say the Lord’s
Prayer.[1049] A report of Governor Bellomont, April 27, 1699, also,
states that a “Bill for facilitating the conversion of negroes and
Indians ... would not go down with the assembly; they having a notion
that the negroes being converted to Christianity would emancipate
them from their slavery, and loose them from their service.”[1050]
But an act of October 24, 1706, “to encourage the Baptizing of Negro,
Indian and Mulatto slaves” stated that the baptism of slaves did not
confer freedom upon them.[1051] This partially calmed the fears of the
slave owners, and the baptism of slaves became more frequent;[1052]
but it did not lead the owners in all cases to favor the work of the
missionaries among the slaves. In 1724, Mr. Jenney reported to the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts: “There
are a few negroes and Indian slaves ... in my parish: the catechist,
a school-master from the honorable society, has often proposed to
teach them the catechism, but we cannot prevail upon their masters
to spare them from their labor for that good work.”[1053] Again, in
1728, Mr. Wetmore reported the opposition of Quaker, Presbyterian
and Episcopalian masters to the instruction and baptism of their
slaves,[1054] but in 1734 he alluded to the baptism of one adult Indian
slave.[1055]
In New England the earliest action taken by the colonial government
with regard to the religious instruction of slaves occurred in 1677
in connection with the disposal as slaves of the captives taken in
King Philip’s War, when it was decreed that all the Indian slaves
distributed among the inhabitants of the colony should “be taught and
instructed in the Christian religion.”[1056] How far such religious
training was carried out would be difficult to ascertain. Occasional
glimpses of the situation can be obtained. Experience Mayhew lamented
that all the English did not instruct their servants in the “principles
of the true religion”;[1057] though he cited instances when Indian
servants, some of whom may have been slaves, were so instructed.[1058]
Just how much missionary work was done in the homes of Massachusetts
or elsewhere for the conversion of Indian servants and slaves is not
known. Indian slaves were owned by ministers of the gospel, and it
may be supposed that some attention was given to their instruction.
Evidently the religious spirit of the Massachusetts colonists was
sufficiently strong to include Indian slaves and servants, for in
some churches negroes and Indians had a special location assigned
them in the church[1059] and occasional reference is found to Indian
slaves being church members. According to the baptismal records of
November 19, 1727, for example, the Indian slave of Lieutenant Stephen
Longfellow, great-great-grandfather of the poet, was his fellow member
in the Byfield church.[1060] In this same year the Reverend Timothy
Cutler reported from Boston: “Negro and Indian slaves belonging to my
parish are about thirty-two, their education is according to the houses
they belong to. I have baptized but two. But I know of the masters of
some others who are disposed to this important good of their slaves and
are preparing them for it; however, there is too great a remissness
upon this article”.[1061] In Rhode Island, also, for a long period the
slaves were excluded from the church because their owners considered
church membership to be inconsistent with their position. Finally in
1721 James MacSparran, pastor of Narragansett, protested against
denying slaves the benefit of religious instruction and activities,
and carried his point.[1062] After that date Indian and other slaves
could belong to the churches, though baptism and membership were still
held in disfavor by the slave owners.[1063] Connecticut, too, in 1727,
favored the work of the church by enacting that masters and mistresses
of Indian children were to use their utmost endeavors to instruct them
in the Christian faith.[1064]
The popular idea that baptism conferred freedom upon slaves aroused
eventually so much discussion among both the colonists and the
representatives of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel
in Foreign Parts, and so many inquiries were addressed to the home
government concerning the matter, that in 1729 the opinions of Talbot
and Yorke, the attorney and solicitor generals of England, were
expressed on the subject. Their decision was in accord with the acts
of the various colonial legislatures to the effect that baptism did
not confer freedom upon slaves. The declaration of Gibson, Bishop of
London, about the same time, also, that “Christianity and the embracing
of the Gospels does not make the least alteration in civil property”,
practically ended the discussion.[1065]
Turning now to a consideration of the question of manumission, it
may be said that an Indian slave, like a negro of like condition,
might obtain freedom during the latter’s lifetime, or by testamentary
disposition at the owner’s death. His freedom might be purchased
either by himself or others. A colonial court might declare him free
if it were found that he was illegally held or misused. A colonial
government, also, might grant him freedom for some special service
rendered.
Action of the owner was naturally the most common way of conferring
freedom.[1066] When freedom was bestowed during the owner’s lifetime,
a deed of manumission was usually given in order to avoid future
complications.[1067] Occasionally in special instances the colonial
government recognized such action of the slave owners as legal. For
instance, the South Carolina Board of Counsel, August 3, 1711, in
its directions to the Indian traders provided that any Indians taken
captive in war and declared free by their respective masters who had a
right so to act, should be deemed free men.[1068]
Record exists of Indian slaves purchasing their freedom from two
sources, viz.: the colonial governments that held them before they
were transferred to individual owners, and the individual masters
themselves. In Plymouth, March 5, 1668, it was ordered that a certain
Indian held at Boston “for matter of fact”, since there was “a
probability of a tender of some land for his ransom from being sent
to Barbadoes”, should be freed from such slavery on the tender of the
land in question.[1069] A similar instance occurred in Connecticut. One
of the earliest land grants of that colony was conveyed to its owner
by the Indian chief, Uncas, in 1678, in exchange for Betty, an Indian
woman taken captive in King Philip’s War.[1070] Experience Mayhew
relates the instance of an Indian slave who, after his master’s death,
purchased his freedom from his mistress on easy terms, “his master
having never designed to keep him a slave all his days”.[1071] Another
instance, in 1709, shows an Indian slave woman sold to a free Indian to
become his wife, in return for certain land.[1072]
By South Carolina law, an Indian slave was given a chance to prove his
right to freedom. According to the act of 1712, any negro, mulatto,
mustee or Indian slave, claiming freedom for certain reasons specified
in the act, had the right to have his case heard and determined by
governor and council.[1073] The act was repeated in 1722.[1074] By the
terms of the acts of 1735[1075] and 1740,[1076] any slave might apply
to the justices of the Court of Common Pleas by petition or motion. The
court would then appoint a guardian for “said negro or Indian, mulatto
or mestizo”; and, after hearing evidence, would render decision. The
alleged owner might defend himself, and if the plaintiff were declared
free, the jury might award damages to the defendant. If the defendant
should win the case, the court might inflict such corporal punishment
on the plaintiff as it should see fit, not extending to danger to
life or limb. The burden of proof was to lie with the plaintiff, and
any such negro, Indian, etc., was to be considered a slave until the
contrary was proved. Other courts of the province besides the one
mentioned, were to have similar jurisdiction in the matter.
Certain of the colonies specified how slaves might be emancipated. In
1723, Virginia declared that no negro, mulatto or Indian slave was to
be set free upon any pretense whatever except for some meritorious
service, to be adjudged and allowed by the governor and council for the
time being, and a license therefor first obtained. If any slave should
be set free by his owner in any other way, it was declared lawful for
the churchwardens of the parish wherein such slave should reside for
the space of one month following his being freed, to take up and sell
the said negro, mulatto or Indian as a slave at the next court held for
the county.[1077] North Carolina, similarly, in 1741, provided that no
slave was to be freed except for meritorious service, to be adjudged
and allowed by license of the county court. If any owner should free
his slave in any other way, the church wardens of the parish wherein
such “negro, mulatto or Indian” should be found at the expiration of
six months after the manumission, were authorized and required to sell
the said negro, mulatto or Indian as a slave at the next session of the
county court.[1078]
The colonial governments themselves granted freedom to Indian slaves
on special occasions. By an act passed in 1660, Virginia provided that
an Indian sold by another Indian, or an Indian who spoke the English
language and who might desire baptism, should be given his or her
freedom.[1079] In 1675, also, the Massachusetts general court freed the
sister of an Indian whose friendship it wished to assure. The alleged
owner of the slave being able to prove his title, the court ordered
that £5 be paid for the slave’s liberty.[1080]
At the time of King Philip’s War the general courts of Massachusetts
Bay and Plymouth reserved the privilege, not only of disposing of
captives as slaves, but also of taking these slaves away from their
owners and giving them their liberty if such action seemed advisable.
In March, 1679, the Massachusetts general court made reparation in
money to the master of an Indian slave, when for some reason the
court freed the slave.[1081] The Plymouth general court, June 3,
1679, ordered the release of a certain Indian woman and her husband
upon the payment by the woman’s brothers of £6 in New England silver
money.[1082] The same order provided in the case of a “younger Indian”
that he should remain with his master until twenty-four years old,
and then be given his freedom.[1083] Like action was taken in 1714
when the owner of an Indian slave petitioned the Massachusetts
general court for the payment of £25, “the prime cost which he paid
for an Indian boy lately called out of his hands to be returned to
the Indians at the time of the late pacification, besides charges in
keeping and clothing of him and for doctors”.[1084] Just prior to
Church’s expedition in King Philip’s War, furthermore, as a military
measure to prevent conspiracy among the Indians in the colony and their
union with the warring tribes, Massachusetts decreed that any Indian
servant discovering any dangerous plot or conspiracy of Indians should
be emancipated, and his master be paid out of the public treasury a
reasonable price for his services.[1085]
Some of the colonies considered it advisable to make regulations
regarding the Indians after emancipation. A Virginia act of 1670
specified that former Indian slaves “though baptized and enjoined their
own freedom” could not purchase Christian white servants. The law did
not debar them, however, from buying any of their own race.[1086]
Both New York by the act of 1712,[1087] and New Jersey by the act of
1713,[1088] decreed that no freed Indian could hold any real estate
property in the colony concerned. South Carolina and North Carolina,
also, regarded the presence of manumitted Indians in the colony as
undesirable. The possibility that freedmen of this sort might stir up
disturbance among their fellows who remained in slavery was too great
a risk. A South Carolina act of 1722 decreed that, if owners freed any
slave, they must make provision for his passage out of the province.
Such freedman, if he did not leave the province within twelve months
after his manumission (being at liberty to do so) would lose the
benefit of his emancipation, and continue to be a slave, unless the
manumission were confirmed by both houses of the legislature.[1089] A
further act of 1735 required that the slave when manumitted should quit
the province within the period of six months following his manumission,
and not return within seven years.[1090] The North Carolina act of 1741
specified that, if any freedman did not depart from the province within
six months following his manumission, or should thereafter return to
the province, the church wardens of the parish where he might be at the
end of one month after his return, were to sell him at public auction
at the next session of the county court.[1091]
The freeing of slaves who after their manumission might possess no
means of support and in consequence become a burden upon the community,
presented a problem that often needed attention. Connecticut understood
the value of freeing worn-out slaves so as to avoid supporting them in
their time of uselessness; hence in 1702 the general court enacted that
every slave owner who freed his slave should in the years following
manumission, if the former slave came to want, meet the expense which
the local government encountered in caring for the freedman.[1092]
The act was renewed by the court in 1703.[1093] Another act of
practically the same tenor and including “Spanish Indians” was passed
in 1711.[1094] An act of 1777, also, relieved the former owner of a
freedman from any obligation to contribute to his support if the act
of manumission had been sanctioned in due form by the selectmen of the
former owner’s town.[1095]
A New York law of 1712, on the other hand, provided that any one
manumitting “any negro, Indian or mulatto slave” should give security
of not less than £200 to pay yearly to such freed slave the sum of
£20 lawful money of the colony. If the slave were freed by will
and testament, the executors of the deceased person were required
to give the same security after probate. If such security were not
given, the manumission should be void.[1096] Since the law proved to
be unsatisfactory, in 1717 it was amended so as to provide that any
master or other person manumitting an Indian or negro slave should give
security at the General Sessions of the Peace for city and county where
such freed Indian or negro should reside, to keep such freedman from
becoming a charge on the city, town or place.[1097]
New Jersey, too, in 1713, passed an act declaring that no negro or
mulatto slave could be manumitted unless the slave’s master gave surety
to pay such freed slave £20 yearly.[1098] This is the only section
of the act which did not include Indian slaves in its provisions.
Evidently the omission was unsatisfactory, for a later act, November
16, 1769, repealed the section and provided that, if any owner should
by will or otherwise free “any negro, Indian or mulatto slave”, then
such owner, his heirs or executors, at the next session of the Court of
General Quarter Sessions of the Peace in the county where such owner
resided, must give a bond of £200, so as to indemnify the community if
such freedman became a pauper.[1099]