IN all sections where captives in war or kidnapped Indians were purchased from the natives, such buying was closely connected with the fur trade. The general fickleness and instability of the Indian’s character, which caused the tribes to change their allegiance so readily from one white race to the other, made easy the acquisition of slaves along with other commodities. The routes along which the fur trade was carried on facilitated both the acquisition of Indians and their transportation to the markets. And the fact that furs and the agricultural products of the south were not commodities that competed with English wares eliminated opposition to the traffic in Indians.¹

     Throughout the region of the Mississippi Valley and the Great Lakes the “coureurs de bois” collected furs and purchased slaves,² both of which they sold to Carolina traders at the mouth of the Mississippi River, and in some cases they went to the Carolinas directly to effect their sales.³ Throughout the Carolinas, the Mississippi and Illinois country and the west, the fur and Indian trade was heavy. By 1720 the Carolina fur trade had reached very large dimensions, and the trade in Indians had developed proportionally, so that at “set times of the year” a flourishing

business in “dressed deer skins, furs and young Indian slaves” was carried on by the traders.¹

     In the Carolinas the custom of purchasing their prisoners from the friendly Indians, the holding of these captives in the colony as slaves, or, possibly, their subsequent sale to the West India islands, existed almost from the beginning of the colony.² But the proprietors, anxious to cultivate the friendship of the Indians, forbade, in the temporary laws sent out to Governor Sayle in 1671, that any Indian on any pretext whatever be made a slave, or without his own consent be carried out of the country.³

     Yet the traffic in Indians continued. The adventurous nature of the settlers,⁴ combined with the need for laborers which could be partially supplied by the use of Indians at home or by the negroes for whom they could be readily exchanged in the islands, and coupled with the attraction of good prices which the Indians brought when sold for cash, induced both planters and government officials to enter largely into the trade.

     To supply the ever-increasing demand for Indian slaves, the tribes of the south and southwest constantly preyed upon each other. The matter of international rivalry also entered largely into the policy of the Carolinians. The Indians of the south and west were divided in their allegiance to the three white races, Spanish, French and English. Each of these three nations sought not only to win and hold the allegiance of as many of the tribes as possible, but also to use these tribes to strike at its rival’s allies, and the readiness with which the English, especially, bought the captives for slaves served to keep up a continuous series of depredations of tribe upon tribe.¹

     The Westo, an important tribe on the southern border of South Carolina, furnished a number of such captives during the latter part of the eighteenth century in spite of their two treaties made with the proprietors, 1677 and 1678, in which they promised not to prey upon the smaller and weaker tribes who were friends and allies of the English.² In 1693, the Cherokee sent a delegation to Governor Smith of South Carolina to complain of the Esaw, Congaree, and Savannah who were preying upon those tribes and selling the captives thus obtained as slaves to the English. The Savannah, like the Westo, were so acting in violation of their treaty by which they agreed not to molest neighboring tribes.³ In 1706, English Indian allies attacked Pensacola

and carried off members of the Apalachee tribe for sale as slaves.¹ On July 10, 1708, Thomas Maine, an agent of the general assembly of South Carolina, reported to that body that the Talapoosa and the Chickasaw, incited by the good prices which the traders offered them for captives, were engaged in making slaves of the Indians on the lower Mississippi who were subject to the French. In this instance one finds the usual excuse given by the English in such cases: “some men think it both serves to lessen their number before the French can arm them, and it is a more effective way of civilizing and instructing them than all the efforts used by the French missionaries”.²

     The French asserted that the policy of the English of Carolina in setting one Indian tribe against another was a part of their plan for driving the French from Louisiana and the Mississippi River country.³ The process of obtaining Indian slaves through trade was, then, a part of a great political contest. The alliance of the leading tribes, such as the Chickasaw and the Choctaw, meant much to both English and French from the territorial and the commercial standpoints. In consequence, no effort was spared by either of the white races to obtain a dominating influence over these tribes in order to use them for their own benefit. This benefit consisted largely of the gain in trade both in furs and slaves. The French sought to dissolve this friendship by telling the Chickasaw that the English were only seeking to destroy them by having them wage war for slaves, and that when they were sufficiently weakened by war the English would fall upon them and sell them all as slaves.⁴

     In consequence of the unstable nature of the Indian and the influence brought to bear upon the tribes by both French and English, it was but natural that Indian relations in the section east of the lower Mississippi should be kaleidoscopic in character.¹ As each tribe gave, or refused to give, allegiance to the English it was in turn preyed upon by the English allies. If one is to accept the assertions of the French in the early eighteenth century, the Chickasaw during their eight or ten years intercourse with the English lost five hundred prisoners, and the Choctaw, eight hundred, sold as slaves by the English.²

     The opening of the War of the Spanish Succession increased the activity of both English and French among the Indians and the consequent preying of tribe upon tribe. The French asserted that they established their colony at Mobile for the purpose of keeping the savages of the neighborhood as allies of the French and Spanish against the English and Chickasaw whose purpose, in their opinion, was to win them over or else destroy them by enslavement.³ By 1700 the English of Carolina had crossed the Mississippi River and on the west bank pursued the same tactics with the Indians as elsewhere.⁴ Slaves were obtained by the English and Chickasaw from nations as far distant as the

Taensa.¹ In furtherance of their scheme to win the friendship of the warlike Chickasaw, and so strike a blow at the English and protect their allies from the slave raids of the former, the French repeatedly sought to make peace between the Chickasaw and Choctaw.² But the English influence was too strong for such a peace to be permanent so long as the Choctaw remained allies of the English. The peace arranged by Bienville in 1703 was broken in 1705 by the Chickasaw making an irruption into the territory of the Choctaw, capturing a number of their people and selling them to the English of Carolina.³ A later peace arranged by Bienville was no more permanent, for in 1711 the Chickasaw, at the instigation of the English, fell upon the Choctaw and word was brought to Bienville that three hundred Choctaw women and children had been carried off as slaves by the Indian allies of the English and Chickasaw, and that the Chickasaw themselves had carried off one hundred and fifty.⁴ By 1713 English traders and agents were among the Natchez Indians to purchase Indians whom the French accused them of obtaining by exciting the tribes against each other.⁵

     In their relations with the Indians the Carolina proprietors appear to have been playing a double game. They posed as protectors of the tribes and made treaties to insure the peace and safety of their allies. Consistently with such action, also, they opposed the purchase by the colonists of

captives taken in various intertribal difficulties. On the other hand, it was the proprietors themselves who gave permission to sell in the West Indies the Indian captives taken by the colonists in wars against the tribes.¹ The distinction, if any existed, between the classes of captives obtained in various ways and held as slaves, was too fine a one for the colonists to appreciate; hence the purchase and sale of Indians continued.

     In short, the whole attitude of the proprietors on the subject came primarily from jealousy for the colonial officials, and not from feelings of humanity or sympathy with the Indians. They opposed any action of the colonial officials which tended to make them independent of the proprietors’ authority. This explains why they removed the deputies, Mathews, Moore and Middleton, and Governor West, also, in 1683, for selling Indians to the West Indies.² News, in fact, had reached the proprietors that the dealers in Indians were the “greatest sticklers” against having the parliament elected according to the proprietors’ instructions, so drastic measures were necessary. The fact that the proprietors chose to succeed West, Sir John Yeamans, a man filled with the slave sentiment of Barbadoes,³ is sufficient evidence that they entertained no hostile feelings against the system of slavery in general.

     A secondary reason for the opposition of the Carolina proprietors to Indian slavery lay in the fact that the stirring up of the tribes by the colonists in order to obtain captives for slaves resulted in danger and damage to the colony, which necessarily meant financial loss to the proprietors. To carry out the idea of protecting the Indians, the grand council, in accordance with previous instructions from its superiors, sent two agents to visit the plantations in 1680 and bring to Charleston all Indian slaves whom the Westo had sold to the planters. These slaves were set at liberty.¹ In the same year, the proprietors appointed a commission to prevent the trade in Indians and to decide all cases arising in future between Indians and English.² The commission proved a failure and was abolished in 1682 on the ground that it was used for the oppression instead of the protection of the natives.³

     The proprietors continued their directions to the governors regarding the sale of Indians. On May 10, 1682, they instructed Governor Joseph Moreton that upon no pretense or reason whatsoever was he to suffer any Indian to be sent away from Carolina, asserting that they had taken into their protection as subjects of England all the Indians within four hundred miles of Charleston. Hence the Indians must not be made slaves in war, or in any way injured by the colonists without proprietary permission.⁴ Additional instructions, September 30, 1683, forbade the governor and council to allow the transportation of any Indians without the consent of the parliament, and gave the

palatine’s court, to be assembled by the governor and council for the purpose, the privilege of proposing such an act to the parliament. Any officer commissioned by the council or chosen by the palatine’s court who transported Indians without a license was to be at once dismissed.¹

     A battle royal was now on between the proprietors, with perhaps a small number of sympathizers in the parliament, on the one hand, and the council and traders on the other. The proprietors made inquiries regarding the selling of Indians both from the council and from private individuals.² In a letter, September 30, 1686, also, they set forth their dissatisfaction with the condition of affairs and asserted their belief that “the private gains made by some by buying slaves of the Indians had more to do with the opinion that they ought to be transported than any consideration of public safety or benefit.”³

     The dealers in Indians stated three reasons for the traffic: that the Savannah, having united all their tribes, had become so powerful that it was dangerous to disoblige them; that South Carolina was at war with the Waniah in which the Savannah assisted; that humanity decreed the buying of their slaves to keep them from “a cruel death”. These reasons for the traffic were held by the proprietors to be unsound. They declared the buying of slaves from the Savannah alone, and the forbidding of such buying from the other Indians would serve not only to keep the Savannah united, but would join the other tribes to them and so strengthen them that they would be a danger to the colony. The war with the Waniah, they thought, had been the result of a quarrel that the whites picked for the purpose of obtaining Indians to transport. If the Savanna were to take captive the Waniah and sell them to the dealers in Indians, it was only to those few dealers who had a share in the government. These dealers had resorted to subterfuge in order to force the Savannah to sell only to them. The emissaries of peace sent by the Westo and the Waniah to the Savannah, declared the proprietors, had been seized by the last named and sold to the dealers, thus prolonging both the Waniah and the Westo wars, and likely to cause other wars. By purchasing slaves from the Savannah, also, these Indians were encouraged to make raids upon their weaker neighbors. Such activities when discussed in England prevented settlers from going to South Carolina, fearing lest the runaway negroes could not be brought back on so large a continent unless the Indians were preserved. Finally, said the proprietors, God’s blessing could not be expected on a government so managed.¹

     The proprietors, however, did not wish to forbid the

selling of Indians. They recognized the usefulness, as West had done, of permitting “soldiers for their encouragement, to make the best advantage that they can out of their prisoners”; but they wanted the initiative in the matter to rest with themselves. Accordingly they authorized the parliament to pass acts for the exportation of “such Indians as they should decide upon”, the said Indians to be shown in the house and examined by sworn interpreters as to their capture, name and station. The license issued by the parliament was to specify the person to whom the leave of exportation was granted. The decision of the parliament was to be rendered by a majority of the house. This license was not granted by a standing order, but for “each batch”. Anyone exporting Indians without such a license was to receive the utmost punishment prescribed by law.¹ During his administration, John Archdale, consistent with his religious persuasion of Quaker and his political position of proprietor, did what he could to check the traffic in Indians. In 1695, a party of Yamasee (English Indians) fell upon a party of Spanish Indians not far from St. Augustine, took them prisoners and brought them to Charleston for sale to the English islands as slaves. On examining the captives and finding that they were Christians, Archdale ordered the chief of the Yamasee to return them to the Spanish governor. The difficulty of restraining Indian tribes from revenging themselves upon their enemies and selling their captives as slaves, Archdale himself records.²

     In 1700, James Moore forced the council to annul the election of Moreton as governor, and was himself chosen for the office. He then packed council and assembly with his associates and followers. These persons at once proceeded to use their offices for their own financial benefit, and one of the means practiced to that end was the selling of Indians to the islands of the West Indies. Moore issued commissions to persons to capture all the Indians they could for his own profit.¹ At his instigation the Apalachee attacked the missions of Santa Catalina, on the island of that name off the coast of the present state of Georgia, and the mission of Santa Fe in Florida, burned the villages, massacred many Christian Indians and carried off others to be sold as slaves in Carolina.² The members of the assembly and other inhabitants of the colony, June 26, 1705, complained to the proprietors of Moore’s enslaving Indians, not on the grounds of justice and humanity, but of expediency. His action was ruining the Indian trade by creating confusion among the Indians, and would, they feared, arouse an Indian war.³ The proprietors denounced the governor but did not stop the practice.

     By 1707 the activities of the traders in Indian slaves had become so notorious that the South Carolina assembly took up the consideration of means to remedy the matter. A board of commissioners, nine in number, was appointed to have entire charge of the subject. By them it was declared that one condition of a trader’s license and bond should provide against the seizure of free Indians. Provision was also made for the appointment of Indian agents with residence (except a vacation of two months) among the Indians, said agents to give a bond of £200 and receive a yearly salary of £250. Their term of office was limited to one year.¹ But conditions became worse after the appointment of the board than before.² Indian slaves were constantly brought to Charleston and sold openly in the market place. Unprincipled men were granted trading privileges and made Indian agents.³ A report on the condition of the colony in 1708 shows that these slaves were sold in Boston, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and the West Indies.⁴

     It was the purpose of the assembly to have the board regulate the trade and keep it in the hands of the government. Its agents were required to take the following oath “I, A. B., do promise and declare that I will well and truly observe and perform all the powers, orders and instructions,

as shall be from time to time given or sent to me by the present commissioners, and that I will not embezzle or make away with any goods, wares, merchandise, skins, furs, slaves, or other good or liquors whatsoever, that shall be entrusted or given in charge to me or come into my hands, belonging to the public, and that I will not directly or indirectly trade with any Indian whatsoever for any skins, furs or slaves, but for the sole use of the public; and that I will keep secret and not divulge the debates and resolutions of this Board, so help me God.”¹

     Further directions required that the agents buy no male slaves above the age of fourteen years;² that they should “not buy knowingly any free Indian for a slave, nor make a slave of any Indian that ought to be free, that is to say, an Indian of any nation that is in amity and under the protection of this government”;³ and that they should not buy an Indian as slave until such had been at least three days in the town of the warrior who had captured him.⁴ Any Indian trader who, by his own confession or by verdict of a jury, should be found guilty of selling any free Indian as a slave, at any time after the ratification of this act,

should forfeit the sum of £60 current money of the province, and failing to pay such fine, was to receive such corporal punishment as the judges of a General Session might decree, not extending to life or limb; and upon conviction for such offense the Indian slave so sold was declared free. The directions further urged the agents to aim constantly to promote peace and good will among all nations of Indians with whom South Carolina was accustomed to trade, and to engage as many others as possible to embrace the friendship and amity of the English.¹

     In the enactment of these measures it was not the purpose of the assembly to stop the traffic in Indians, but only to regulate it by preventing the illegal acquisition of Indians by the traders and by requiring the traders to dispose of their Indians to the board itself which would then sell the Indians as it chose.² Their action was dictated by a double purpose: to prevent the traders kidnapping Indians belonging to the tribes friendly to the colony and so bring on dangerous Indian uprisings; and to obtain the profits of the trade for the colonial exchequer, which not infrequently meant for their own profit. Humanitarian feeling for the Indians played no part in their action. The matter was made more complicated by the governor neglecting to sustain the action of the assembly. The explanation of his attitude is not difficult. He was accustomed to obtain substantial perquisites from the sale of Indians. Valuable gifts were presented him by the traders for allowing them to remain unmolested. On one occasion Governor Nathan

Johnson refused £200 offered by the assembly for his Indian perquisites.¹

     As already observed, the check on the traders by the creation of the board of commissioners was so slight that they continued as before to traffic in Indians with impunity. Unprincipled traders were licensed and obtained Indians wherever and however they could. Some traders went so far as to keep a body of slaves with them in the Indian nation where they traded, whom they sent out to attack other tribes for the purpose of obtaining captives.² Attempts, of course, were made by the board to check the traffic. At its meetings Indian agents were tried for illegally reducing Indians to slavery,³ and on one occasion it was ordered that a woman and child should be brought back from New York where they had been sold as slaves.⁴ In 1711, an attempt was made to check the practice of the traders employing Indian slaves in the manner above mentioned, by issuing the following order to all traders: “You shall permit none of your slaves to go to war on any account whatsoever.”⁵ This order had as little effect as those which preceded it. The influence of the traders, indeed, among the friendly tribes could accomplish the same result by stirring them up against other tribes.⁶

     These and other efforts at regulation of the Indian slave

trade were alike fruitless. The general weakness of the province made it impossible to control the action of the traders on the frontier and outside the boundary of the province. Reports to the English Board of Trade made frequent mention of the state of affairs but conditions were not remedied.¹ On October 27, 1720, several merchants suggested to the Board of Trade, as a means of improving conditions in South Carolina, “to prohibit by still greater penalties the selling as a slave of any person of the nations in amity with us throughout the continent and to prevent abuse therein”, and declaring that “none but deputies from the public should have power to buy Indian slaves from those Indians in alliance with us as taken in war, which deputies on public account should be obliged to transfer them to the Islands there to be sold on condition not to be sent to the province again”.²

     But the provincial authorities could not enforce these decrees, so the action of the traders continued unmolested until checked by other causes. Government officials continued to league with the traders. As late as 1754, a Catawba trader wrote to the board of commissioners as follows: “The Catawbas held a council yesterday in the king’s house, and have resolved to go with the English against the French. They want me and my people to go with them,

and we are willing to do so, even without pay, on one condition: that we be allowed to keep as our own property whatever plunder in the way of Indian slaves we may be able to capture.” There are frequent intimations in the records that Indian slaves were still being held in South Carolina at this time, though their wholesale delivery and sale in Charleston had ceased.¹

     In Virginia trade with the Indians began at an early date, and the traffic in Indians became later a part of it.² The French reported, in 1701, that the English from Virginia, established among the Chickasaw, had armed the savages with guns, joined with them in their expeditions against other people, especially the “Colipissas” (Acolapissa), and had sent the prisoners to be sold as slaves in the West Indies, keeping the children as slaves for themselves.³

     For some time the Virginia authorities did not recognize the right of the whites to enslave an Indian, no matter how obtained. In the session of 1657-1658, the assembly passed an act forbidding the stealing of Indian children or the buying of them from Indians or others for traffic, or the selling of them under any condition by the English, on penalty of 500 pounds of tobacco.⁴ In 1662, the assembly passed an act declaring that if any Englishman should bring in any Indians as servants and assign them to any one else he should not sell them as slaves or for any longer time

than English servants of like age should serve by act of assembly.¹ The assembly evidently intended to enforce these acts, for in the session of 1662 it ordered a Powhatan Indian to be freed who had been sold to the English by the chief of another tribe who, according to the assembly, had no right thus to sell him.²

     By 1670 the assembly appears to have modified in a measure its opinion regarding Indian slaves. An act of that year declared Indians taken in war by any other nation and sold by such nation to the English to be servants for life, if brought in by sea—if boys or girls, till thirty years old; if men or women, twelve years and no longer.³ By a later act of 1682 the legislature repealed the act of 1670 and definitely decided who should be slaves. Among those specified were all Indians obtained by purchase, in case they and their parents were not Christians at the time of their first being purchased by a Christian, although afterwards and before their importation into Virginia, they might have become converted to the Christian faith; and all Indians thereafter sold by the neighboring Indians or any other trafficking in slaves. But in 1691 these acts in turn were repealed and after that date no Indian could legally be bought or sold as a slave in Virginia.⁴

     Legislation, however, did not end the bringing of Indian slaves into the colony. Lawson records the sale in Virginia before 1700 of a young Indian woman brought from beyond the mountains.⁵ In 1715, the Carolina settlers reported to the home government that the Sarrow Indians were selling in Virginia among other commodities slaves

(presumably Indian as well as negro) taken from the Carolina colonists.¹

     Yet the Indian slaves brought into Virginia through the process of trade were never so numerous as in the Carolinas or the New England colonies, because the trade of Virginia with the Indian country was never so extensive as that of the Carolinas, or with the Carolinas so extensive as that of New England. Neither was the industry of the Virginia colonists in the early days such as to require Indian slaves from the traders. The export trade was largely carried on with the mother country instead of with the colonies. The whole system of trade was not conducive to traffic in Indians.

     In New England there was no direct traffic with the Indian tribes such as existed in the south. Instead, Indian slaves were obtained by trade with the other colonies, notably the Carolinas. Commerce of this sort, abundant evidence of which is furnished by the newspapers of the time, flourished from the opening of the eighteenth century² until some time after the Tuscarora War.

     In Massachusetts the number of Indians imported from the south increased so rapidly that the colonial authorities

feared certain disastrous effects upon the colony from their presence. Accordingly, August 23, 1712, an act was passed, the preamble of which set forth four reasons for its enactment: the Indian slaves imported from the south were “malicious, surly and revengeful”; the industry of the colony was unlike that of the West Indies; with savage enemies at hand, it was dangerous to have bondsmen of a kindred race; the influx of the slaves discouraged the importation of Christian servants. Accordingly it was forbidden to import “any Indian, male or female, by land or sea from any part or place whatever, to be disposed of, sold or left within the province”, on pain of forfeit to her Majesty’s government, unless the offender “importing such Indians give security at the Secretary’s office at £50 per head, to transport or carry out the same again within the space of one month next after their coming in, not to be returned back to this province”. It was also provided that the captain or commander of any ship bringing such Indians into the province should, within twenty-four hours after the arrival of such ship, report the names, number and sex of such Indians, and give security of £50, under penalty of £50 for neglect to do so.¹

     On December 28, 1725, Massachusetts passed an act regarding the exportation of Indians. This measure, like that of 1712, was not humanitarian but self-protective. The act forbade the carrying of any Indian out of the province except by legal authority, or on condition of giving

£100 security for the safe return of such Indian, due allowance being made for unforeseen exigencies.¹

     New Haven, also, in 1656, passed a general law ordering that no person should sell “any servant male or female of what degree soever”, out of the colony unless into some of the other three colonies belonging to the New England Confederation, without leave and license from the authorities of that plantation to which such servant belonged, under penalty of a fine of £10 for each offense.² The measure could be applied to Indian slaves, though not intended specifically for that purpose.

     After the Tuscarora War the importation of “revengeful, warlike savages” alarmed the Connecticut colonists and led to definite legislative action regarding the matter. In view of the fact that several persons had brought into the colony Carolina Indians, “which have committed many cruel and bloody outrages” there, and “may draw off our Indians” to the extent of arousing hostilities if their importation were continued, in July, 1715, the governor and council decided to prohibit the importation of Indian slaves until the meeting of the assembly, and to require each ship entering port with Indians on board to give a bond of £50 to remove them from the colony within twenty days. Further they decided that Indians brought into the colony thereafter should be “kept in strictest custody”, and “prevented from communicating with other Indians”, unless the owner gave the same bond as above to take them out of the colony within twenty days.³

     The following October, the general court, copying

the Massachusetts act of 1712, made permanent the prohibition to import Indian slaves, since “divers conspiracies, outrages, barbarities, murders, burglaries, thefts, and other notorious crimes at sundry times, and especially of late, have been perpetrated by Indians and other slaves, . . . being of a malicious and vengeful spirit, rude and insolent in their behavior, and very ungovernable, the overgreat number of which, considering the different circumstances in this colony from the plantations in the islands and our having considerable numbers of Indians, natives of our country, . . . may be of pernicious consequence.” An act was then passed decreeing the forfeiture of all Indians thereafter imported, and the payment of a fine of £50 by the shipmaster or any other person who might bring them.¹ Since this act did not stop the importation, another was enacted in 1750 providing that “all Indians, male or female, of what age soever, imported or brought into this colony by sea or land, from any place whatever, to be disposed of, left or sold within this colony, shall be forfeited to the treasury of this colony, and may be seized and taken accordingly; unless the person or persons importing or bringing in such Indian or Indians shall give security to some naval officer of this colony of £50 per head, to transport or carry out of the same again, within the space of one month after their coming, not to be returned back again to this colony”.²

     A similar act passed in 1774 forbade the importation of Indian, negro or mulatto slaves. The act stated that the cause of this legislation was the fact that the “increase of slaves in this colony is injurious to the poor and inconvenient”. Any person, therefore, importing Indian, negro or mulatto slaves or knowingly bringing them as such, should

forfeit to the treasurer of the colony the sum of £100 for each slave so imported or purchased.¹

     Rhode Island, in August, 1676, decreed that any person importing Indians into the colony without permission of the colonial authorities, should forfeit all right to them and pay a fine of £5 to the colony. Certain persons allowed to import such Indians were directed to pay half the sum of the sale to the treasurer or forfeit the Indians; and all persons were forbidden to carry any Indians out of the colony without permission of the government, under penalty of £5.²

     As a special measure of protection against internal disturbances, the general assembly of Rhode Island, also, passed an act, January 4, 1704, forbidding, under penalty of forfeiture, the importation of Indians either to be kept or sold. And if any person brought Indians into the colony and set them at liberty under the pretense of bringing them as servants, such person would have to carry such Indians out of the colony at his own expense. If the person importing Indians failed to remove them, he should be seized by the authorities and dealt with according to law, as should also the person having them in his possession.³

     The Indian wars in the southern colonies brought the same action in Rhode Island as in the other New England colonies. In July 5, 1715, an act was passed to prohibit the importation of Indian slaves. The preamble of the act states that in both Rhode Island and the neighboring colonies, “conspiracies, insurrections, rapes, thefts and other execrable crimes” had been perpetrated by the Indian slaves,” and the increase of them in this colony daily discourages

the importing of white servants from Great Britain, etc., into this colony, which if not immediately remedied may prove very pernicious and troublesome to this government”. The act, therefore, provided that within three months after its publication, all Indians, male or female, of whatever age, brought by land or sea, from any part or place, to be disposed of, sold or left within the colony, should be forfeited to his majesty, for and toward the support of the colony, unless the person who brought in such Indian or Indians, should give security of £50 per head to carry them out within the period of one month. All masters of ships, and others engaged in the traffic, were to record in the secretary’s office within twenty-four hours after arrival the names, number and sex of the Indians and give security of 150 per head. Failure to meet this requirement was to be punished by the confiscation of the Indians.¹ This act was continued in force and was reënacted in the Digest of Laws in 1766.

     In New Hampshire a law was passed in 1714 forbidding the importation or bringing into the province, by sea or land, of any male or female Indian to be used as a servant or a slave. This was done because of the fact that “notorious crimes or enormities have of late been perpetrated and committed by Indians or other slaves, within several of her Majesty’s plantations in America”, and because the use of Indian slaves was considered “a discouragement to Christian servants”.² By the terms of the act, “Indians, male or female, of what age soever, that shall be imported or brought into this province by sea or land, every master of ship or other vessel, merchant or

person, importing or bringing into this province such Indians, male or female, shall forfeit to her Majesty, for the support of the government, the sum of £10 per head, to be sued for and recovered in any of her Majesty’s courts of record, . . . to be paid into the treasury for the use of the aforesaid”. The occasion for this act was the same as that for the Massachusetts act of 1712, namely, the bringing of southern Indian slaves to the northern colonies. The influence of Massachusetts is readily seen, for Indian slaves could not have been so numerous as to have been a serious menace in a province of fewer than 10,000 inhabitants.

     A part of the small number of Indian slaves in the colony of New York came through the process of trade.² Indians from the Carolinas, for example, were sold there.³ Since New York took certain legislative action regarding other Indians but never considered the importation of the southern Indians, it may be concluded that the number imported during the southern wars was never sufficiently large to cause any concern in the colony. Probably very few, if any, came into the colony through direct trade with the Indians themselves.

     Though the number of Indians imported into Pennsylvania was also small, it was large enough to lead to legislation concerning it. January 12, 1706, the general assembly passed an act to prevent the importation of Indian slaves from any other province or colony of America after March 25, 1706. The preamble of the act stated that the importation of Indians from Carolina and other places had given offense to the Indians of the province and caused

them to become suspicious and dissatisfied. Perhaps a fellow feeling, or perhaps the fear that the custom of the whites using Indian slaves might affect their liberty, led the Indians, already in a state of disturbance, to protest against such importation. At the same time, the act declared “that no such Indian slave, as deserting his master’s service elsewhere shall fly into this province, shall be understood or construed to be comprehended within this act.” A further exception was made in the case of those slaves with their children who, for the space of one year before such importation, could be proved to have been menial servants in the family of the importer. Any slave brought into the province contrary to this law was declared forfeited to the government, and was to be set free or otherwise disposed of according to the will of the governor and council.¹

     The law of 1706 proved to be inadequate.² The continued importation of Indians and the still existing fear of having ungovernable and dangerous slaves in the colony, led to the passage in 1712 of a second act, already mentioned, which levied a duty of £20 on every negro or Indian imported.³ Masters of vessels bringing them in

were required to state their number and the name of the importer. Any negro or Indian in whose case these provisions were violated was to be seized and sold by provincial officers, and the money obtained from their sale paid to the treasurer for the use of the government. Duties paid upon any negro or Indian imported, but exported again within twenty days, however, were to be returned. One Samuel Holt was appointed to put the act into execution, and was given the necessary powers to use force, if necessary, to find concealed negroes and Indians whose owners had not complied with the terms of the act, and to dispose in public sale of those so captured. Owners could bring back their runaway negro or Indian slaves, and “gentlemen and strangers” traveling in the province were allowed to retain their negro or Indian slaves for a time not exceeding six months.¹ But the act was not put into operation, for it was repealed by the queen in council, February 20, 1714.²