Part 2 — CHAPTER IV
Reading edition
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.