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.¹ 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.¹

     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”;² “a grey coat with pewter buttons, with leather breeches, an old tow shirt, grey stockings, good shoes and felt hat”;³ “a green hat and yellow breeches”;⁴ “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”;⁵ “an old blue coat, striped flannel jacket, pretty good hat, black wig, linen trousers, white yarn stockings, and an old pair of mended shoes”;⁶ “a good felt hat, orange colored jacket, thick leather breeches, checked wool shirt, light grey stockings and pretty good shoes”;⁷ “pea-jacket of light brown, leather breeches, shoes, stockings and hat”;⁸ “a drugat waistcoat and kersey petticoat of a light color”.⁹ 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.¹

     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.² 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.³ 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.⁴

     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 £50.¹ A later act of 1741 provided a fine of £50 for the marriage of any white than 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 £50.² 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.³

     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 1702,⁴ did occur, however, in New England,⁵ 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.¹ 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.”²

     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.³ South Carolina, by the acts of 1712,⁴ 1722⁵ and 1735,⁶ 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”.⁷ 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”.¹ 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.² 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.³ 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.⁴ 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.⁵ 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.⁶ 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.¹ 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.² 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.³ In accordance with these provisions one finds the Earl of Dumnore 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.⁴

     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.¹ 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.²

     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.³ The act was repealed in 1768.⁴

     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.¹ 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.²

     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 1713,³ to £50 in a South Carolina act of 1717.⁴ In other colonies the amount to be paid the slave

owner was left to the decision of the court. The Maryland act of 1717¹ 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;² the possession of fire arms;³ and engaging in certain kinds of

traffic.¹ Boston decreed, 1728, that no Indian, negro or mulatto should carry stick or cane within the town.² In 1778, when forming its first proposed constitution, Massachusetts excepted from the franchise “negroes, Indians and mulattoes, bound and free”.³ In an act of 1660 the Connecticut general court declared that neither negro nor Indian servants should be required to “train, watch or ward”.⁴ 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.⁵ An ordinance of the Albany city council, 1686, forbade any negro or Indian slave to drive a cart within the city.⁶ A New York act of 1731, also, provided for regulating the conduct of negroes and Indians in the night time.⁷

     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:¹ by North Carolina, in 1741, for the second offense of killing horses, cattle or hogs, and for stealing, mismarking or misbranding such animals;² by New Jersey, in 1713, for murder, or conspiracy, or attempt to murder,³ 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.⁴

     Branding as a punishments [sic] for Indian slaves was decreed by the Massachusetts general court. Runaway Pequot slaves were so punished.⁵ 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.⁶

     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;¹ by Pennsylvania, in 1721, for making, selling or using any fireworks or firearms in Philadelphia,² 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;³ by New Jersey, in 1713, for stealing to the value of six pence;⁴ by New York City, in 1682, for absence from their owners’ homes or plantations without ticket of leave in owners’ handwriting,⁵ 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,⁶ in 1713⁷ and 1731,⁸ thirty-nine lashes for being found in the city streets, if above the age of fourteen years, later than one hour after sunset, in 1721,⁹ and 1731,¹⁰ for gambling, in 1731, for attending a funeral in groups of more than twelve,¹¹ for disorderly riding

through the streets,¹ and for selling “the Fish Commonly Called and known by the name of Bass” in the months of December, January and February,² and in 1759, for committing any nuisance in the streets;³ 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,⁴ and for being abroad after nine o’clock at night;⁵ and by Massachusetts, in 1693, for dealing in stolen goods.⁶ 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.⁷ Block Island, finally, in 1709, provided ten lashes as punishment for any negro or Indian slave abroad after nine o’clock at night.⁸

     Punishment by mutilation was sometimes used, especially in the southern colonies.⁹ 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.¹

     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.² New Hampshire, 1686, passed a similar act.³ In the same year the common council of Albany prohibited the selling of liquor to Indian slaves without the owners’ permission.⁴

     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”.⁵ 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.¹

     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.² This conditions of affairs appealed strongly to the missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts³ 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.¹ 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;² 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.³ 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.⁴ In 1710, he reported that there was several unconverted Apalachee slaves in his parish whom he was especially anxious to baptize.⁵ 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”.⁶ In the same year he reported many Indian and negro slaves instructed and on probation for baptism.⁷

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.¹ In 1711, one Indian slave and thirty negro slaves had joined the church in his parish,² and he was catechizing “negroes and other slaves” with their masters’ consent,³ though then, and even at a later period, other masters in the same parish (Goose Creek) opposed his work among the slaves.⁴ 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.⁵ 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.⁶ He met with some success, for another letter of the same year recorded the baptism of two negroes and an Indian slave.⁷ As late as 1730, however, he reported that the religious instruction of Indian and negro slaves was obstructed by irreligious and worldly people.⁸ 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.⁹

     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.¹ Neau of New York reported much opposition of masters to his work among the slaves.² But Governor Cornbury promised to help him,³ 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.⁴

     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.⁵ 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,⁶ 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.⁷

     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.¹

     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.² But by the so-called “Church Act” of 1706 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.³ The law suited the times and was accordingly followed.⁴ 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.¹

     As early as 1655, the Virginia assembly had voted that Indian servants should be educated and brought up in the Christian faith.² 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.³ 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.⁴ 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.⁵ 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.¹ 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.² Virginia parish registers after this date contain records of the death of Indian slaves.³ Maryland, also, by the acts of 1692,⁴ 1694,⁵ 1704⁶ and 1715⁷ 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.⁸

     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.¹ 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.”² 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,³ and by a similar order in the following year that Spanish Indian slaves professing Christianity were to be released and sent home.⁴ This last order was accompanied by a decree of the council, July 30, 1688, that the Spanish Indian slaves of certain persons he brought before it with a view of liberating them if they were able to say the Lord’s Prayer.⁵ 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.”⁶ 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.⁷ This partially calmed the fears of the slave

owners, and the baptism of slaves became more frequent;¹ 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.”² Again, in 1728, Mr. Wetmore reported the opposition of Quaker, Presbyterian and Episcopalian masters to the instruction and baptism of their slaves,³ but in 1734 he alluded to the baptism of one adult Indian slave.⁴

     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.”⁵ 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”;¹ though he cited instances when Indian servants, some of whom may have been slaves, were so instructed.² 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 church³ 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.⁴ 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”.⁵ 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.¹ 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.² 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.³

     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.⁴

     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.¹ When freedom was bestowed during the owner’s lifetime, a deed of manumission was usually given in order to avoid future complications.² 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.³

     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.¹ 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.² 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”.³ Another instance, in 1709, shows an Indian slave woman sold to a free Indian to become his wife, in return for certain land.⁴

     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.⁵ The act was repeated in 1722.⁶ By the terms of the acts of 1735⁷ and 1740,⁸ 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.¹ 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.¹

     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.² 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.³

     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.⁴ 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.⁵ 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.⁶ 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”.¹ 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.²

     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.³ Both New York by the act of 1712,⁴ and New Jersey by the act of 1713,⁵ 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.¹ 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.² 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.³

     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.⁴ The act was renewed by the court in 1703.⁵ Another act of practically the same tenor and including “Spanish Indians” was passed in 1711.⁶ 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.¹

     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.² 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.³

     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.⁴ 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.⁵