It may be doubted whether slavery, though so widespread as to have been
almost universal, existed anywhere among very primitive peoples, since
society must reach a certain state of organization before it can find
lodgment (see Social organization). It appears, however, among peoples
whose status is far below that of civilization.
Among the Eskimo, slavery appears to have been
wholly unknown, although in the part of Alaska immediately N. of the
Tlingit, where the Eskimo borrowed much of Indian culture and arts, it
is possible that it existed in some form, as Bancroft affirms. Dall
discovered no traces of slavery in Alaska, and doubts if it ever existed
there. If the institution ever gained a foothold among the Eskimo it was
foreign to their own culture and habits, was of comparatively recent
introduction, and was practiced only in a much modified form.
Beginning with the Tlingit, slavery as an institution
existed among all the northwest coast Indians as far as California. It
practically ceased with south Oregon, although the Hupa, of Athapascan
stock, and the Nozi (Yanan), both of northern California, practiced it
to some extent, according to Powers. Among the former, a bastard became
the slave for life of one of the male relatives of the mother and was
compelled to perform menial service; nor could he or she marry a free
person. Such slaves seem to have been entitled to purchase freedom,
provided they could accumulate sufficient wealth.
Both the Klamath and
the Modoc seem to have had slavery in some form. The Klamath word for
slave is lugsh, from luktha, 'to carry a load,' indicating that the
slaves were the carriers of the tribe (Gatschet). The institution had
found its way up Columbia River also, at least as far as Walla Walla
River, where it was known to the Cayuse of Waiilatpuan, and to the Nez
Percé of Shahaptian stock. From the west coast it appears to have passed
far into the interior, where it was practiced, probably in a much
modified form, by the Indians of the Mackenzie river region. It is said
that the Etchareottine were called Awokànak, 'slaves', by their Cree
neighbors, an epithet which in its French and Indian forms came to be
the name (Slave or Slavey) under which they are best known.
The northwest region, embracing the islands and coast
occupied by the Tlingit and Haida, and the Chimmesyan, Chinookan,
Wakashan, and Salishan tribes, formed the stronghold of the institution.
As we pass to the eastward the practice of slavery becomes modified, and
finally its place is taken by a very different custom. Among the tribes
mentioned, slavery seems to have existed long enough to have secured a
prominent place in mythology and to have materially modified the habits
and institutions of the people. It was no doubt the origin of ideas of
caste and rank widespread among tribes of the northwest coast, but
comparatively unknown elsewhere among our Indians. It varied
considerably among different tribes, the most essential characteristics,
however, being similar, as was the general mode of life of the peoples
practicing it.
The above named were fishing tribes and expert canoe men,
depending for food far more on the products of sea fisheries than on
game. All lived in settled villages. With all, the essential condition
of rank and position was wealth, not renown gained in war. The slaves
consisted of prisoners taken from neighboring tribes, chiefly women and
children; and, among most tribes, of their descendants. Over most of the
area in question there appears to have been a regular traffic in slaves,
the source of a considerable part of the private wealth. Jewett states
in his Narrative (1815) that a Nootka chief had in his house "nearly
fifty male and female slaves, no other chief having more than twelve."
Simpson estimated that slaves formed one-third of the population of the
Tlingit. The price of an adult slave was about $500 in blankets; of a
child, 50 blankets, about $150:
Servitude in the northwest appears to have been of a
rather mild type. Slaves, as a rule, were well fed and well treated, as
was natural with valuable property. The condition of the bondman indeed
seems generally to have been little inferior to that of his master, whom
he assisted in paddling, fishing, and hunting, even in making war on
neighboring tribes. Expeditions were often undertaken for the primary
purpose of slave catching. The slaves made or helped make canoes, cut
wood, carried water, aided in building houses, etc.
Enslaved women and
children were household drudges, performing the laborious and menial
tasks which elsewhere fell to the lot of free women. The distinction
between the slave and the free man was especially sharply drawn in all
ceremonial practices, from which slaves were rigidly excluded, and
generally also with regard to marriage, for the slave usually could not
mate with a free man or woman, though the Makah men, Swan asserts,
frequently married female slaves. The male offspring of such marriages
seem to have occupied an equivocal position between freemen and slaves.
Slaves seem to have had no well-defined rights; they could not own
property and were subject to the caprices of their owners, who had power
of life and death over them.
Among the Tlingit it was customary to kill
slaves and to bury their bodies beneath the corner-posts of the chiefs'
houses at the time when they were erected; but this does not appear to
have been done by the Haida. At other times they were given away or
freed to show that their owner was so wealthy he could easily afford to
part with them. Swan states that when a chief died among the Makah his
favorite slaves were killed and buried with him.
Punishment for short comings was sometimes severe, the
owner of a slave being responsible to no one. Occasionally slaves were
killed outright in moments of passion.
Investigation of slavery among the tribes of the Great
Plains and the Atlantic slope is difficult. Scattered through early
histories are references to the subject, but such accounts are usually
devoid of details, and the context often proves then) to be based on
erroneous conceptions. Had slavery existed among the Eastern and
Southern tribes, we should find in the mass of documentary history as
full accounts of the practice as there is concerning the less-known
tribes of the northwest coast. The unsatisfactory character of the
references should make us cautious in accepting statements regarding the
existence of slavery.
The early French and Spanish histories, it is
true, abound in allusions to Indian slaves, even specifying the tribes
from which they were taken, but the terms "slave" and "prisoner" were
used interchangeably in almost every such instance. Hennepin, in his
account of his own captivity among the Sioux, uses these terms as
equivalent, and speaks of himself as a slave, though his story clearly
shows that he had been adopted by an old chief in the place of a lost
son. With the exception of the area above mentioned, traces of true
slavery are wanting throughout the region north of Mexico. In its place
is found another institution that has often been mistaken for it.
Among
the North American Indians a state of periodic intertribal warfare seems
to have existed. Disputes as to the possession of land, retaliation for
acts of violence, and blood revenge were the alleged causes; but
underlying all was the fierce martial spirit of the Indian which ever
spurred him from inglorious peace to stirring deeds of war. In
consequence of such warfare tribes dwindled through the loss of men,
women, and children killed or taken captive. Natural increase was not
sufficient to make good such losses; for while Indian women were
prolific, the loss of children by disease, especially in early infancy,
was very great.
Hence arose the institution of adoption. Men, women, and
children, especially the latter two classes, were everywhere considered
spoils of war. When a sufficient number of prisoners had been tortured
and killed to glut the savage passions of the conquerors, the rest of
the captives were adopted, after certain preliminaries, into the several gentes, each newly adopted member taking the place of a lost husband,
wife, son, or daughter, and being invested with the latter's rights,
privileges, and duties. It sometimes happened that small parties went
out for the avowed purpose of taking captives to be adopted in the place
of deceased members of families. John Tanner, a white boy thus captured
and adopted by the Chippewa, wrote a narrative of his Indian life that
is a mine of valuable and interesting information.
Adoption occasionally
took place on a large scale, as, for instance, when the Tuscarora and
the Tutelo, on motion of their sponsors in the federal council, were
formally adopted as offspring by the Oneida, the Delaware as cooks (an
honorable position) by the Mohawk, and the Nanticoke, as offspring by
the Seneca. In this way these alien trbes acquired citizenship in the
Iroquois League; they were said to be "braces" to the "Extended Cabin,"
the name by which the Iroquois designated their commonwealth. (See
Adoption, Captives).
Nor is it impossible that slaveholding tribes might
have substituted adoption. Indications of the manner in which such
change might have been effected may be found among the Tlingit and other
northwest Coast tribes, who not only freed their slaves on occasions,
but made them members of the tribe. They also sometimes married slaves,
which was tantamount to adoption. Wherever slavery did not exist,
adoption seems to have been universally practiced.
Except that prisoners
of war were necessary to recruit both institutions, the two are very
unlike. The slave of the northwest coast held absolutely no status
within the tribe, whether he came into possession of the individual as
the result of war or was bought as a slave from a neighboring tribe.
Whatever privileges were his were granted as a favor, not as a right. On
the other hand, the adopted person was in every respect the peer of his
fellow-tribesmen. If he proved equal to the position assigned him in the
tribe, and improved his opportunities, his advancement was sure, and he
might aspire to any office attainable by the individual into whose place
he had been adopted.
If the new member of the tribe proved a poor
hunter, a poor provider, or, above all, if he lacked courage, his
position was not enviable: he was despised, and treated according to his
demerits, probably worse than if he had been born a member of the tribe.
Still there was nothing in his position or treatment to justify the
statement that he was a slave, and his ignominy and shame were probably
not greater than were usually incurred by the poor and worthless. It was
the usual custom to depose the coward from man's estate, and, in native
metaphor, to "make a woman" of him. Such persons associated ever after
with the women and aided them in their tasks.
Such was the custom among
the Pawnee, as recorded by Grinnell (Pawnee Hero Stories, 26, 1893), who
also gives a still more curious custom, by which young men who had not
attained any special standing in the tribe lived as servants in the
families of men of position and influence, and performed many offices
almost menial. Dunbar speaks of these servants as being parasites and as
usually being the must worthless members of the tribes (Pawnee Indians,
1880).
In most tries polygamy was permitted, and it was a
common practice for men to take to wife female captives. As a legal wife
such a woman was entitled to the same privileges as her married sisters
in the tribe, but her actual treatment depended largely upon her
capacities and her personal popularity. When she was introduced into a
family where there already were several wives, jealousy was easily
aroused, and the new wife was likely to be abused and driven to menial
tasks. No doubt such women were often assumed to be slaves by the casual
observer.
European influence materially modified almost
every art and practice of the Indian. No sooner had the border wars
begun than the natives discovered a higher value for the white prisoners
of war than adoption. Although white men and children were adopted into
Indian tribes and lived and died with them, the ransom offered in ready
money, in whisky, or in powder and guns changed the status of the white
captive.
He was very generally held in captivity for ransom, or taken to
the French, English, or Spanish, according to his nativity, and disposed
of for a cash payment. Cases were not rare in which white captives were
redeemed and sent back to their friends even after formal adoption into
a tribe. The practice of redeeming captives was favored by the
missionaries and settlers with a view of mitigating the hardships of
Indian warfare. The spread of Indian slavery among the tribes of the
central region was due in part to the efforts of the French missionaries
to induce their red allies to substitute a mild condition of servitude
for their accustomed practice of indiscriminate massacre, torture, and
cannibalism (see Dunn, Indiana, 1905).
During the interval between his
captivity and redemption, usually lasting months, occasionally several
years, the white captive, unless adopted, was made to do menial tasks,
and his lot was hard. The white prisoner, indeed, unless very young,
rarely proved satisfactory as an adopted member of the tribe. He did not
often take kindly to Indian life, was quick to seize an opportunity to
escape, and was always welcomed back by his friends, whereas in the case
of the Indian, adoption severed all former social and tribal ties. The
adopted Indian warrior was forever debarred from returning to his own
people, by whom he would not have been received. His fate was
thenceforth inextricably interwoven with that of his new kinsmen.
The Southeastern Indians, Cherokee, Creeks, Choctaw,
and Chickasaw, soon after the settlement of the country by Europeans
carne into possession of runaway Negro slaves. The Indians were quick to
perceive their value as servants, and we soon find them buying and
selling black slaves. There is nothing to show that this introduction of
black slaves among the Muskhogean tribes and others materially changed
the status of the Indian prisoner of war. The Seminole of Florida
married many Negro runaways, whose position seems to have been in all
respects like that of other members of the tribe. There were, indeed,
among the Seminole several settlements of runaway negro slaves who had
their own chiefs and seem to have been a recognized part of the tribe.
Europeans made a practice of enslaving or selling into
slavery captive Indians. Carolina was early made by the Spaniards a
hunting ground for Indian slaves, who were deported to Cuba. Numbers of
the male children of the conquered Pequot were transported to the West
Indies from Massachusetts and sold into slavery, while the women and
girls were scattered among white families (Bradford in Coll. Mass. Hist.
Soc., III, 360, 1856).
The English settlers of South Carolina practiced
the enslavement of Indians on a large scale, and during the years
1702-1708 sent out three expeditions against the Yamasee, Apalachee, and
Timucua, of north Florida. They carried back to Charleston almost the
entire population of 7 large towns, in all, some 1,400 persons, who were
sold as slaves to the Carolina settlers or distributed among the Creeks,
who assisted in the enterprise. Indeed, in the early days of the
colonies the enslavement of Indians by settlers seems to have been
general. See Adoption, Social Organization.
Handbook of American Indians, Frederick W. Hodge,1906
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/history/indianslaves.htm
BACK TO ARTICLE/CHAPTER LIST
NEXT >> |
