SINCE the English never made long journeys of exploration into the interior, as the Spanish and French did in the earliest days of their occupation of America, their use of Indian slaves as hunters, fishermen and guides was relatively limited. With the forming of settlements and the growth of institutional life this use became more prominent. In Carolina it appears that the Indian slaves were occupied chiefly in hunting and fishing for their masters, whereas the greater part of the harder field work was left to the negroes.¹ The Indians were expert hunters, and as the woods abounded in game, such a hunter “was of great service in a plantation, and could furnish a family with more provisions than they could consume”.² In New England, also, there is occasional mention of Indian slaves used as guides.³ It seems probable, however, that this service was more largely confined to the south where Indian slaves were less expensive and more easily procured than in the north, for such an occupation offered more opportunity for escape than any other.

     In New England the Indians retained in the colonies as

slaves after the Pequot and King Philip Wars were chiefly women and children. In the early history of Massachusetts some of the leading families in wealth and importance unable to obtain other help, employed Indians as cooks.¹ After the wars in question the Indian slaves were put to the same use by both Massachusetts and Connecticut.²

     The colonial newspapers of New England attribute much domestic ability to the Indian slaves advertised in their columns: “An Indian woman who is a very good cook, and can wash, iron and sew”;³ “A likely Indian wench about nineteen years of age fit for any business in town or country”;⁴ “An Indian woman . . . fit for all manner of household work either in town or country, can sew, wash, brew, bake, spin and milk cows”;⁵ “A lusty Carolina Indian woman fit for any daily service”.⁶ The newspapers of the middle colonies furnish a similar record: “A young Spanish Indian woman, fit for all manner of household business”;⁷ “An Indian woman and her child . . . she washes, irons and starches very well, and is a good cook”.⁸

     The agricultural system of New England was not favorable to the use of slaves in the fields, yet there are occasional glimpses of Indian slaves employed in agricultural pursuits. In the account book of Lieutenant Stephen Longfellow, 1710, appears the item: “Bouston one day to plant”. Bouston was his Indian slave.¹ It has been considered probable, judging from the number of negro and Indian slaves in Rhode Island, that both were an important factor in developing the stock farming of the colony.² The newspaper advertisements of the day offer some information on this point: “A Carolina Indian man fit for any service within doors or without”;³ “An Indian boy about sixteen years old, fit for either sea or land service”;⁴ “An Indian man . . . fit for any service”;⁵ “A Survanam Indian man, twenty-five years of age, who has been in the country thirteen years, fit for service in either country or town, and who can mow well”.⁶

     In all the southern colonies Indian slaves worked in the fields side by side with the negroes up to the time of the Revolution.⁷ The discovery, about 1693, of rice as a profitable staple for export, made necessary a large supply of labor in South Carolina; hence along with the negroes so largely imported to meet the demand, the Indian slaves

worked also as the plantation system grew. In South Carolina, Governor Moore employed some of his Indian slaves in tilling his fields.¹

     The instances of Indian slaves employed by their owners in manual occupations are more numerous in New England than elsewhere. The newspapers furnish instances like the following: “An Indian lad about eighteen years old, a cooper by trade”² “ . . . can do anything at the carpenter’s trade”;³ “An Indian lad . . . he can work at the weaver’s trade”.⁴ Similar advertisements are found in the New York papers: “An Indian man . . . a good carpenter, wheelwright, cooper and butcher”.⁵

     Such instances are to be found even in the south.⁶ The training of Indian slaves to skilled labor was not generally considered politic, however, since it interfered with the coming to the colonies of white craftsmen who were so much desired. In 1743 or 1744, a committee in South Carolina, appointed to consider the most effectual means of increasing immigration to the province, included in the bill which it originated, a clause prohibiting the bringing up of negroes and other slaves to those mechanical trades in which white persons are usually employed.⁷

     Indian slaves were made a source of income to their owners by hiring them out to work in the same way as negroes and indentured white servants. The colonial laws in some instances made provision for such use. A South

Carolina law of 1712 permitted an owner to hire out his slaves by the year or for a shorter time, and receive their earnings.¹ The provision was repeated in acts of 1735² and 1740.³ Maryland, in 1753, provided that masters of ships might hire servants or slaves from their owners.⁴ New York City, in 1731, made provision for owners hiring out negro and Indian slaves.⁵ Since the custom was common in its application to other servile classes, one may believe that it was followed in other colonies besides those which made legal provision regarding it.

     The use of Indian slaves in military operations was not infrequent. In the New England wars Captain Church employed Indian captives against the enemy, a plan which he found serviceable on several occasions.⁶ This use of Indian as well as negro slaves for military purposes was advocated in 1666 in a narrative addressed to the Duke of Albemarle.⁷

     In the intercolonial wars both negro and Indian slaves were captured by the French from the English army. In French records dealing with occurrences in Canada, under date of November 11, 1747, “four negroes and a Panis who were captured from the English during the war . . . .” are mentioned.⁸ Still another possible proof of the

use of Indian slaves by the English army is found in the Articles of Peace drawn up at Niagara, July 18, 1764. They contain the following: “Article 2nd. That any English who may be prisoners or deserters, and any negroes, Panis, or other slaves who are British property, shall be delivered up within a month to the commandant of Detroit, and that the Hurons use all possible endeavors to get those who are in the hands of the neighboring nations, engaging never to entertain any deserters, fugitives or slaves, but should any fly to them for protection, they are to deliver them up to the next commanding officer.”¹

     That such slaves were put to practical use in the military preparations of the colonies, is seen in the New York City ordinances of 1693 and 1694 which provided that all persons, and all negro and Indian slaves that were not listed, should work on the fortifications.² Such a town action was not unusual. In 1638, the townsmen of Hartford, Connecticut, voted to levy on the cattle and slaves of the townspeople when needed for public service.³

     South Carolina on different occasions offered inducements for slaves to serve in the war. Some of these acts mentioned Indian slaves. In 1704, an act was passed “for raising and enlisting such slaves as shall be thought serviceable to this province in time of alarms”. It provided for making a list of all negro, mulatto and Indian slaves in the province fit for service. The masters of the slaves were to be notified of such listing and given a chance to show cause why it should not be done. In case the slaves were called upon for service, the master must furnish

weapons according to specifications. If the slave were maimed or killed in the service, the owner should be compensated out of the public treasury.¹

     To provide still further for the use of slaves in war, it was decreed by a South Carolina act of 1719 that the captains, lieutenants, and ensigns of the militia companies should form a list of negro, mulatto, mustee and Indian slaves from sixteen to sixty years of age fit for military service. Owners were given a chance to show why such slaves should not serve. These slaves when enlisted were to be armed and equipped by the captain of the division, or they might be armed by their owners, the latter to be compensated for loss or damage to their arms. A fine of £20 was fixed for neglect of any owner to send his slave in time of alarm to the usual place of rendezvous of the various divisions. Any officer neglecting to carry out the terms of the act was to be fined £5. A slave serving in war was to be allowed £10 reward if, on the testimony of a white person, he could prove that he had killed one of the enemy in time of invasion. The owner was to be indemnified from the public funds for a slave killed or wounded.²

     In 1778, when Washington proposed to enlist slaves in the battalions raised by the State of Rhode Island, the assembly voted that every able bodied negro, mulatto or Indian man slave in the state might enlist in either battalion to serve during the continuance of the war. Such slave was to receive all the bounties, wages and encouragements allowed by the Continental Congress to any soldier enlisting

in the service, and in addition was immediately to be set free.¹

     It is noticeable that in this legislation regarding the use of slaves in war, no provision was made for their military training. Such training would require too much time, and besides being a loss to the owners, might prove dangerous to the colony if the slaves were sufficiently numerous. Maryland recognized this fact and in 1715 voted to exclude slaves from such training.²

     Just as the Spanish and the French made diplomatic and military use of their Indian slaves by returning them to their own tribes and thus winning friendship and peace, so the English followed the same practice. In 1715, in order to secure the aid of the Tuscarora, the assembly of South Carolina voted that, for every one of these allies killed in actual warfare by the enemy, a Tuscarora slave then in servitude among the whites should be given them for the loss, and that to every Tuscarora taking an Indian enemy captive, a slave of his nation should similarly be assigned as a reward.³