Indian slavery in colonial times within the present limits of the United StatesLauber, Almon Wheeler
History
Indian slavery in colonial times within the present limits of the United States
Lauber, Almon Wheeler
Indians of North America; Indians, Treatment of -- United States; Slavery -- United States; Thesis (Ph. D.)
Whatever may have been the number of enslaved Indian captives retained
in Massachusetts, that number was sufficiently large to cause some
uneasiness on the part of both authorities and people. On July 22,
1676, the general court of Plymouth confirmed an act of the council of
war declaring that, because of the danger to the peace and safety of
the colony incurred by having Indian captives residing there, no male
captive above the age of fourteen years of age should reside in the
colony; and that, if any such captive above that age was then resident
in the colony, he was to be disposed of out of the colony before
October 15, 1676, or be forfeited to the government.[529] It is not
likely that the act was rigorously enforced during its brief existence.
Exceptions to the law were doubtless made by the court from time to
time.[530]
Another act of similar tenor was passed March 29, 1677, when the
Massachusetts council in an order, the preamble of which shows much
alarm on the part of the people, decreed that no one within the colony
should thereafter buy or keep, more than ten days after the publication
of the council’s decree, any Indian men or women already bought, above
the age of twelve years, without allowance from authority. A fine of
£5, and the forfeit of the Indian or Indians concerned were fixed as
a penalty for violation of the law.[531] Toward the end of the year
Plymouth still further extended governmental supervision of captives
by decreeing, March 5, 1678, that no one was to buy the children of
the captive Indians taken during the late war, “without special leave,
liking and approbation of the government of this jurisdiction”.[532]
The seizure of Indians by authority of the colonial governments, and
their subsequent sale, were not always above suspicion. At the time of
the Narraganset troubles, in 1646, Plymouth gave legal sanction for
the seizure of peaceable and unsuspecting Indians whose tribes were at
peace with the English.[533] A second instance of the same character
occurred during King Philip’s War shortly after the destruction of
Dartmouth in 1675. The Dartmouth Indians had not been concerned in the
burning of the town, so the whites entered into negotiations of peace
and friendship with them, and the captains of the resident militia and
the Plymouth forces sent thither promised them protection. But through
other influences they were conducted to Plymouth, and, by order of the
council, August 4, 1675, they were sold and “transported out of the
Country, being about Eight-score Persons”.[534] On September 2, 1675,
the council took similar action in the case of “a parcel of Indians
lately come into Sandwich, in a submissive way to this colony. They
were adjudged to be “in the same condition of rebellion”, and were
condemned, fifty-seven in number, to perpetual servitude.[535]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account