THOUGH the practices connected with the institution of negro and Indian slavery in the Spanish colonies were known to the English colonists, yet at first the latter did not see fit to impose the status of slavery upon the Indians brought into the colonies by way of trade with the Spanish islands or otherwise, but were content to retain possession of the services of their subject Indians without taking possession of their persons through legal declarations imposing the status of slavery upon them.¹ Such Indians were held in the status of servitude, a condition which stood “midway between freedom And absolute subjection”, and which was the “historic base upon which slavery, by the extension and addition of incidents, was constructed.”² The right of ownership of the services of both negroes and Indians was, after all, what the colonists most desired, and appeared to promise satisfaction in this instance as it had in the case of the white indentured servants. Indian servitude not only preceded Indian slavery but even continued after the institution of slavery was fully developed. This is true of most, if not all, of the English-American colonies. It is certainly true of Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Statutory recognition of slavery in general by the English-American colonies occurred as follows:

by Massachusetts in 1641; by Connecticut in 1650; by Virginia in 1661; by Maryland in 1663; by New York and New Jersey in 1664; by South Carolina in 1682; by Pennsylvania and Rhode Island in 1700; by North Carolina in 1715; and by Georgia in 1755.¹ But the legislation of these dates did not always include the subject Indians. When such was the case, however, according to a strict legal interpretation, any subject Indian, if enslaved, had the right to demand his freedom from the colonial courts. Such an instance existed in the case of Virginia where the acts of 1655 and 1661 specifically forbade Indian slavery and guaranteed to the subject Indians all the rights of servants.²

     The recognition of Indian as well as negro slavery by customary law came somewhat earlier than by statute law. With the extension of the period of servitude to a life term, the change from servitude to slavery was practically completed so far as customary law was concerned. Only the enactment of legal provisions sanctioning the change was necessary to complete the process. The common use in subsequent law of the terms “servant for life”, “perpetual servant”, and “bond servant” as synonymous with the term “slave” shows how little change was really effected in the condition of the servant. Such change consisted chiefly, from the standpoint of the master, in the extension of his right to service, and consequently in the extension of his obligation of protection and maintenance, and what was still more important, in the acquisition of the right of possession of the offspring of his slaves. From the

standpoint of the slave, it meant little more than the loss of the right to ultimate liberty, political and civil, and the extension of his right to protection and maintenance.¹

     The legislation which marked the changing status varied in nature in the several colonies. In certain colonies the slavery status was simply recognized as being in existence by certain acts relating to slaves, without any formal declaration to the effect that Indians held in servitude should be considered slaves. In other colonies the condition of slavery as applied to Indians was legalized by general acts relating to slavery in general, and not specifying either Indians or negroes. In still other colonies the holding of Indians in a condition of actual slavery was legalized by legislative acts relating directly to Indians. An act of this latter character was passed by New York in 1678 declaring that all Indians that should come to, or be brought into the province at any time during the succeeding six months, should be sold as slaves for the benefit of the government.² South Carolina, in an act of 1712 relating to the “better ordering and governing of negroes and slaves”, provided that “all negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes or Indians which have at any time heretofore been sold, or now are held and taken to be, or hereafter shall be brought and sold as slaves, are hereby declared slaves to all intents and purposes; excepting all such negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes or Indians which heretofore have been, or hereafter shall be for some particular merit, made and declared free, either by the Governor and Council of this province, or by their respective

owners and masters; and also, excepting all such negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes or Indians as can prove they ought not to be sold as slaves”.¹ The acts, already mentioned in other connections, authorizing the enslavement of Indian captives taken in war, the holding in slavery of such captives when obtained in trade from sources outside the colony, and the enslavement of free Indians by the colonial authorities as punishment for misdemeanors and crimes, are also cases in point.

     From the standpoint of English law the action of the colonial legislatures enacting the slavery status had no legal sanction. It was based on the interpretation of the common law of nations, that is, it was carried on in accordance with a “law not promulgated by legislation, and rested upon prevalent views of universal jurisprudence, or the law of nations supported by the express or implied authority of the home government” concerning the institution of slavery.² So the colonies, by a gradual process of changing conditions and legal enactments, substituted the slavery status for the servitude status without molestation from the home government, which was interested in colonial slave conditions and legislation only when the African slave trade was involved. So long, therefore, as the enactment of colonial laws decreeing the slavery status did not interfere with that trade, the home government gave no attention to the matter. As for Indian slavery per se, if England had given it any attention whatever, she would probably have considered it a purely colonial matter. Since

it was never sufficiently extensive to interfere with negro slavery and the slave trade, it never received any attention from the home government, and so existed as legal because never declared illegal. An authority on the legal status of early American slavery states: “It may be laid down as a legal axiom, that in all governments in which the municipal regulations are not absolutely opposed to slavery, persons already reduced to that state may be held in it, and we also assume, as a first principle, that slavery has been permitted and tolerated in all the colonies established in America by European powers, as relates to blacks and also as relates to Indians in the first periods of conquest and colonization. This accounts in a measure for the absence of any legislative act of European powers for intruding slavery into the American dominions.”¹ Hence it followed that the English colonial charters authorizing the colonial legislatures to make laws, gave no license as such to enslave.²

     With the change from the status of servitude to the status of slavery, certain of the attributes of the former condition were continued and connected with the latter. Chief of these, and the fundamental idea on which the change was effected, was the conception of property right which, from the idea of the ownership of an individual’s service resting upon contract implied or expressed, came to be that of the ownership of an individual’s person.

     Indian slaves were recognized as property in all the English colonies, and were openly bought and sold at both public and private sales like negroes and other property.¹ They were advertised in the colonial newspapers with statements of their qualifications and ability for work, their ages, and sometimes descriptions of their personal appearance. From the New England newspapers it is apparent that for a time dealers advertised such slaves for sale openly in their own names.² Later the possible purchaser was directed by the advertisement to “inquire of the Printer and know further”, or to “inquire at the Post Office”.³ It was not uncommon for slaves offered for sale to choose their future owner from those who desired to purchase them,⁴ or to approve the bill of sale.⁵

     Like other property, real or personal, Indian slaves could be given away by word of mouth or by “last will and testament”. One of the earliest of such wills on record is that of Governor John Winthrop of Massachusetts, made in 1639, by which he gave to his son Adam, Governor’s Island and with it “also my Indians thereon”.⁶ In South Carolina

where Indian slaves were most numerous, the records of their disposal by will are frequent.¹ The custom, in fact, was universal in the colonies.²

     Indian slaves were listed in the various colonies in the inventories of estates along with indentured servants of unexpired terms³ and negro slaves.⁴ They were taken like other chattels in payment for debt, and in certain of the colonies provision was made by law regarding the matter. South Carolina, February 7, 1690, decreed that a slave was to be taken like any other chattel as payment for debt.⁵ Maryland, 1729, passed an act to the effect that no slave should be taken for any debt due from the deceased so long as there should be any other goods sufficient for the purpose.⁶ In those colonies where legislation makes no mention of the matter, it is known from the history of negro slavery that the custom was similar to that of Carolina.

     The proximity of the Indian tribes to the colonists, furthermore, afforded a condition most suitable for the escape of Indian slaves. Individual testimony, frequent advertisements in the colonial newspapers giving descriptions

of fugitive Indian slaves and offering rewards for their capture and return, and the amount of colonial legislation concerning both negro and Indian runaway slaves, show that Indians held in servitude took frequent advantage of the opportunities at hand for their escape, and that their owners used all possible means to regain their lost property. At the time following the Pequot War, Mason complained of the tendency to run away shown by the Pequot slaves in the colonies.¹ The Indians enslaved after King Philip’s War likewise escaped. Mayhew tells of runaway Indian slaves in Massachusetts in 1690.² In this same year, one Isaac Morrill of New Jersey was arrested at Newbury, Massachusetts, for enticing Indian and negro slaves to run away.³

     The Boston News Letter came into existence, 1704,⁴ at about the time when Indian slaves began to be brought into the northern colonies from the Spanish islands and from the Carolinas. Rarely was there an issue of that or the other Massachusetts newspapers from that time down to the Revolutionary period which did not contain an advertisement for a runaway Indian slave. Sometimes the same advertisement was repeated in two or three successive issues,⁵ and was often inserted in more than one newspaper. For the capture and return of the fugitives, rewards were offered, sometimes indefinite in nature as “suitable rewards”,⁶ sometimes of stated amounts as £3,⁷ forty

shillings,¹ twenty shillings,² £6,³ £20,⁴ £5,⁵ £7,⁶ £15,⁷ four pistoles,⁸ fifty shillings.⁹ These advertisements relate for the most part to fugitive men and boy Indian slaves, but advertisements relating to runaway women Indian slaves are not lacking.¹⁰ The escapes appear for the most part, though not always, to have been made singly. One advertisement shows two Indian men, two Indian women and an Indian boy belonging to different persons to have escaped together.¹¹ Captains of vessels were often cautioned in the advertisements against carrying away such fugitive slaves, and any person harboring then or aiding them to escape was threatened with full penalty of the law.

     All the colonies enacted fugitive slave laws. Some of these laws were applied to slaves in general, some to negroes and “other slaves,” still others to negro, mulatto and Indian slaves. The colonies where slavery was of greatest extent had the most extensive and elaborate laws on the subject, and those colonies where Indian slavery existed to any considerable extent included the term “Indian slaves” in their laws. Pennsylvania made but little provision regarding runaway slaves. Maryland concerned itself more largely with servants.

     Some of these laws did not define the term “runaway slave”. Others in an attempt to avoid confusion gave clear explanations of the term. Such an act was passed by Connecticut in 1690, specifying that any Indian, mulatto or negro servants and slaves wandering outside the place to which they belonged without a ticket of leave or pass in writing from some assistant or justice of the peace or from their owner, were to be considered runaways and treated as such.¹ New Jersey, in 1713, considered as runaways any negro, mulatto or Indian slave who was five miles from his master’s habitation without written leave of absence from his owner, and any such slave found in New Jersey but belonging to another province was declared a runaway.² South Carolina, by the act of 1690, considered as a runaway any negro or Indian slave absent from his master’s plantation (no distance specified), without a written ticket of leave unless in company with a white man.³

     To discourage aid and assistance being given fugitive slaves, the colonies specified by legislative acts the punishment to follow such offense. On June 14, 1705, Lord Cornbury,

in his opening speech to the New York assembly, expressed his opinion regarding the necessity for passing an act to prevent negro, Indian and mulatto slaves running away from their masters.¹ An act of the common council of Albany, 1686, forbade all persons harboring negro or Indian slaves in their houses without the owners’ consent.² Pennsylvania, 1726, decreed a fine of five shillings for the first hour and one shilling for every hour afterward that any person should harbor or entertain any runaway negro, Indian or mulatto slave.³ Virginia, by the act of 1705, specified a fine of £1000 for any shipmaster transporting any negro, mulatto or Indian slave out of the colony without permission of the owner.⁴ South Carolina, also, by an act of 1690, levied forty shillings fine on any one not attempting to apprehend a negro or Indian slave coming into his plantation without a ticket of leave from his master or not accompanied by a white man.⁵

     Not infrequently the colonial authorities were called upon to furnish protection to the owners of Indian slaves against their seizure by the free Indians, or against fugitive Indian slaves being hidden and retained by the tribes. To effect the return of such slaves special inducements were offered by the colonial government from time to time. At the close of the Pequot War an agreement was made by the chief, Miantonomo, and the Massachusetts government, by which the former promised to seize such Pequot slaves as escaped, and return them to their owners.⁶ On June 2,

1641, the general court of Massachusetts made a similar agreement with Lieutenant Willard of Concord, Ensign Holman of Dorchester, and Sergeant Collacot of Dorchester. As a partial return for the monopoly of the Indian trade granted them, these men agreed to demand, wherever they should find them, all fugitive Pequot slaves that belonged to the English.¹ A similar request for protection is found in New York, where two widows petitioned governor and council, May 16, 1717, regarding two Indian slaves who were secreted by the Indians of Pekkemeck.² Events in North Carolina, following the Tuscarora War, offer numerous illustrations of colonial action taken to secure the return of such fugitives. The Indian slaves in the colony, consisting largely of the captive Tuscarora, frequently escaped and tools refuge with the free Indians of their tribe. The Indians neglected to return these runaways, and the council was compelled to call many times upon “King Blount” to compel his people to return the slaves according to his agreement with the Carolina government. Such action is recorded as late as 1731.³

     Sometimes this protection of slave owners in their property rights assumed intercolonial importance. Such a recognition of property rights occurred in the articles of federation of the United Colonies of New England, 1643, in the provision: “If any servant run away from his master into any of these confederated jurisdictions, . . . in such case, upon certificate of one magistrate in the jurisdiction of which the said servant fled, or upon other due proof, the

said servant shall be delivered, either to his master or any other that pursues and brings such certificate or proof”.¹

     Since it was found that certain Indian villages harbored fugitive Indians, the Confederation, September 5, 1646, decided that such villages might be raided and the inhabitants carried off, women and children being spared as far as possible, and declared that “because it will be chargeable keeping Indians in prison and, if they should escape, they are liable to prove more insolent and dangerous after, it was thought fit that upon such seizure . . . the magistrates of the jurisdiction deliver up the Indian seized to the party or parties indamaged, either to serve or to be shipped out and exchanged for negroes, as the cause will justly bear.”² In the same year the commissioners of the United Colonies sent a letter to Governor Kieft of New Netherland demanding the return of an Indian captive “fled from her master at Hartford” and “entertained in your house at Hartford and, though required by the magistrate, . . . under the hands of your agent there denied . . . and said to have been either married or abused by one of your men”. “Such a servant,” they declared, “is part of her master’s estate and a more considerable part than a beast.” Kieft refused to give up the Indian woman, and replied: “as concerns the barbarian handmaid”, it is “apprehended by some, that she is no slave, but a freewoman, because she was neither taken in war, nor bought with price, but was in former times placed with me by her parents for education”.³ By the intercolonial treaty of September 19, 1650, the provision of the articles of confederation concerning

fugitive slaves was extended so as to include the intercourse of the New Englanders and the Dutch.¹ Another fugitive slave law similar to that of 1643 was contained in the articles of confederation of the United Colonies in 1672.²

     Similar events involved New York and Pennsylvania. In 1723, some Seneca Indians trading in South Carolina carried away an Indian slave boy belonging to an Englishman there. The governor of New York charged the Seneca with the act and demanded that the slave boy be returned. The Seneca acknowledged that they were among the party who tools the slave boy, said that he had been given to some Susquehanna Indians, and requested the governor to ask for him there.³ An undated letter of William Penn to the Susquehanna Indians regarding some Indian slaves taken from the people of New York by them, refers to a similar incident. In it Penn mentions the people of New York having twice appealed to him regarding an Indian woman and boy, both slaves, bought in New York from the governor of Carolina, which the Susquehanna Indians had taken away. Penn urged the Susquehanna to deliver the slaves to his messenger that they might be put on board a vessel and returned to New York.⁴

     In July, 1682, Plymouth provided that if any Indian who was a servant of the English should run away, “such Indians where such a runaway Indian is come, shall forthwith give notice of the runaway to the Indian constable, who shall immediately apprehend such Indian servant and carry him or her before the overseer or next magistrate.”⁵

     At a meeting, January 9, 1713, the council of North Carolina considered the matter of two Indian slaves sent to the colony from Virginia, and found that they belonged to two residents of South Carolina from whom, presumably, they had been stolen. The council, acknowledging the owners’ claim to the right of possession, ordered that the Indians be delivered to Colonel James Moore “for the use and on behalf of the owners.”¹

     A case in Massachusetts shows a colonial government remunerating a citizen for an Indian slave taken from him by governmental authority. During King Philip’s War, one George Speere bought an Indian from Captain Hull who had been empowered by the council to make sale of Indian captives at that time. The council, by warrant of the constable of Braintree, took away the Indian boy for some reason. Speere complained of the loss of his property, after, as he said, he had brought it to a “very tractable and profitable state”, and petitioned to have his Indian boy returned to him, or to be given his value. The council accordingly granted him the value.²

     As in the case of other property, the colonial courts were sometimes called upon to settle disputes regarding the ownership of Indian slaves. Two events in Massachusetts and North Carolina are cases in point. In 1684, the Massachusetts Court of Assistants was called upon to settle a case of disputed ownership which had been appealed from the County Court of Salem.³ On November 24, 1777, complaint was made to the North Carolina House of Commons by a slave owner who had been dispossessed of his Indian slave by two other Carolinians. The House appointed

a committee to investigate the matter.¹ Similar instances in other years are recorded in connection with North Carolina.²

     With the growth of the idea of property incident to the slavery status, the “early transition of the slave from personal estate to a chattel real, or real estate with accompanying incidents, was easy and natural.”³ Under the caption of “property” both negro and Indian slaves were subject to taxation like other property, either for colonial revenue in general or to meet local expenses. Moreover in certain colonies both Indian and negro slaves were assigned the double character of persons subject to a poll tax and property subject to a property tax.

     South Carolina, in the act of 1690, provided “that all slaves . . . as to the payment of debts shall be deemed and taken as all other goods and chattels, . . . and all negroes and slaves shall be accounted as freehold in all other cases whatsoever and descend accordingly”.⁴ Middleton, president of the council, consequently declared, in 1725, that negroes were real property, such as houses and lands, in Carolina.⁵ Yet they were always returned as personal property in the inventories of intestates.⁶ This condition continued until 1740, when it was declared that negroes and Indian slaves should be reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors and their executors, administrators and assigns.⁷

Various tax acts were passed from time to time for special reasons, and in some of these Indian slaves, along with negroes, were a part of the basis of taxation, being rated as property without specification as to real or personal, along with goods, lands, cattle and white servants. Such an act was passed in 1703.¹ The act contained the general term “slaves”, which, of course, included Indian slaves by implication.

     A tax on polls was generally selected by the colonies as the chief source of revenue. In accordance with this idea of taxation North Carolina during the eighteenth century regarded Indian slaves as taxables. In the earliest legislative action of the colony taxables were declared to be every white male aged sixteen years, and every slave, negro, mulatto, or Indian, male or female, aged twelve years.² By the act of 1750, furthermore, a taxable was every white man of sixteen years of age, every negro, mulatto or mustee, and every other person of mixed blood to the fourth generation, twelve years of age.³

     In Virginia, especially, there was much confusion regarding the position of the slave as a person and as property. Until after the Revolution, taxes were chiefly imposed according to the number of tithables in each county, i. e., persons assessed for a poll tax.⁴ The act of 1649 declared all imported male servants to be tithables. Indians,

imported into the colony as servants were included by implication. Since in the preceding year an act had declared that a specified poll tax should be levied only on the tithables, Indian servants, as they must be called before 1670,¹ were attributed a legal personality or a membership in the social status inconsistent with the condition of a chattel or property. By the act of March, 1658, Indian servants, male and female, sixteen years of age, were included among the tithables by specific mention.² The same provision was repeated in the acts of March, 1662.³ Some doubt having arisen as to whether this law applied to female Indian servants as well as to male, acts were passed in December, 1662,⁴ September, 1672⁵ and November, 1682,⁶ to settle the matter. The former act related to women servants commonly employed in “working in the crop”; the latter declared that “all Indian women are and shall be tithables, and ought to pay levies in like manner as negro women, brought into this country do, and ought to pay.”

     In 1682, the gradual process of change from the status of Indian servitude to that of Indian slavery was completed. The Virginia act of 1670 had decreed a condition of slavery for all Indians imported into the colony by sea.⁷ But the great body of subject Indians were natives of the country. Such Indians remained servants up to 1676, when at the beginning of the Indian war, one of Bacon’s laws made all Indian captives slaves.⁸ In 1682, slavery was extended to

captives sold by tributary Indians “in the hope of mitigating their condition as it was certain that they would be held in slavery by their captors.”¹ These acts did not make provision for changing the condition of Indian servants that existed in the colony before 1670. Such a change had come about through a gradual and natural process with the passage of the laws mentioned and the changed attitude toward the subject Indians, so that in fact all subject Indians were not considered slaves. Hence, in 1682, all Indian slaves were considered in law as persons inasmuch as they were tithables. By 1705 it was found necessary, for legal purposes, to “advance the property notion of the slave from personalty to realty,”² though certain incidents of personalty were still retained. The statute of that year by which the change was effected provided that in future “all negro, mulatto or Indian slaves in all courts of jurisdiction and other places within this dominion shall be held, taken and adjudged to be real estate and not chattels”.³ As a part of real estate property slaves were subject to taxation. An act of 1748 again made slaves personal estate, but was repealed by the king, October 31, 1751.⁴ By the acts of 1779 and 1781 slaves were still liable to a poll tax of £5 and 10s. respectively, to be paid by the owner.⁵ So it may be seen that from 1649 until after the Revolution

Indian servants and slaves either as persons or as property were used as a basis for taxation in Virginia.

     Massachusetts was the only other colony that assigned the double status of personalty and real property to its slaves. There, as in Virginia, the status varied from time to time. Under the earliest laws of taxation in that colony, slaves must have been rated, if taxed at all, as polls, the owners paying for them as for other servants and children, “such as take not wages”. This continued until 1692, when “every male slave of sixteen years old and upwards” was rated at “£20 estate”.¹ But in 1694 “all negroes, mulattoes and Indian servants, as well male as female, of sixteen years old and upwards”, were assigned a status of personalty by being rated at 12d. per poll, the same as other polls.² In 1695, “all negro, mulatto and Indian servants” again became a property basis for taxation by an act valuing negro, mulatto and Indian male servants fourteen years of age and upward at £20 estate, and similar female servants at £14 estate, unless disabled by infirmity.³ They were subsequently, in 1696,⁴ rated as “other personal estate”, which rating was continued in 1697⁵ and 1698,⁶ in the latter year “according to the found judgment and discretion of the assessors, not excluding faculties”, i. e., trades or professions. This rating for faculties was common throughout the early tax laws of Massachusetts, and continued into the nineteenth century. It was applied to white men from the beginning,⁷ but the law of 1698 appears to have been the

first and only one in which the feature was applied to the negroes, mulattoes and Indians who were slaves. There was little variation in the tax laws during the remainder of the colonial period. All Indian, negro and mulatto servants continued to be rated as personal property in the usual yearly levies.¹ Occasionally, as in the earlier period, some of those who were servants for a term of years, but not for life, were numbered and rated as polls.² Other exemptions were made in the case of slaves “disabled by infirmity”.³

     In 1716, an attempt was made to modify this feature of property status for slaves in Massachusetts. In that year Judge Sewall was a member of the council, and on June 22, 1716, proposed to that body that negro and Indian slaves be no longer rated with horses and hogs as personal property. The council agreed to the proposition, and its decision was sent down to the deputies for concurrence. But the members of the house refused assent on the ground that they were just going to make anew valuation. In the preceding valuations of the property of their constituents, Indian, negro and mulatto slaves were regarded as property, and the owners of it should be taxed accordingly.⁴

     In the remaining colonies that taxed Indian and other slaves, such taxation was levied on the basis of property, sometimes personal and sometimes real. The annual tax in South Carolina included slaves among the taxable

property.¹ A law of 1719 provided that since Indian slaves were commonly reputed to be of less value than negro slaves, all persons possessing them should pay for each Indian in proportion to half the value of whatever might be rated and imposed for each negro, and no more.²

     In New York Indian and negro slaves entered but little into the system of taxation, since slaves were not numerous in the colony and therefore would furnish but a poor basis for taxation, and the finances of the colony were provided for more largely by income taxes than otherwise. In 1709, however, along with a tax on chimneys, fireplaces and stoves, a tax of two shillings was levied on every negro or Indian slave from fifteen to sixty years of age, with directions for collecting the same, and provision for fine and punishment if such tax were not paid.³ Again, in 1734, when arrangement was made to raise a certain amount yearly for a period of ten years, one source of revenue was to be a tax of “two pennyweight and twelve grains of Sivil Pillar or Mexican Plate, or the sum of one shilling in Bills of Credit made current in this colony” on every Indian or mulatto slave who was above the age of fourteen and under the age of fifty years.⁴

     An instance of Indian slaves serving as a basis of taxation in a local levy is found in the history of Rye, New York. At a town meeting in 1703, to raise the assessment for the ensuing year, it was decided that a portion of the

sum should be obtained by the tax on £12 valuation of all slaves of sixteen years old and upward.¹ Though Indian slaves were not mentioned in the town action, they were doubtless included by implication, for in 1711 the people of the town were called upon to pay taxes under “an act for raising one shilling on every Indian and negro slave.”²

     In most of the colonies import duties, and in at least one instance export duties, were levied on Indian slaves, brought into or taken from the colonies. Such duties were generally levied for self-defense, though occasionally for revenue. During the colonial period England’s interest in the African slave trade led her to take effective measures to dispose of as many negroes as possible in the American colonies. In course of time the colonists awoke to the danger which might result from an excess of an ignorant servile class which in some sections outnumbered the white population. Frequent attempts were made in various colonies to check the importation of negroes by levying import duties. At times Indians as well as negroes were included in these laws. In their enactment it seems probable that the colonial legislatures had a double purpose: to shut out undesirables of both races, and to prevent the importation of negroes in the guise of Indians. Real danger threatened the colonies from an excessive importation of Indians as slaves, and an attempt was therefore made to check it. In those colonies where import duties furnished a substantial part of the colonial revenue, such duties were levied on Indian slaves as well as on other property.

     As early as 1698 the importation of negroes into South Carolina had reached such proportions that the safety of

the province was considered endangered.¹ Attempts to check such importation were accordingly made throughout the colonial period by levying import duties. As the number of Indian slaves in the colony increased, they too were included as a basis for duties. By the act of 1721, the importation of negro, mulatto, mustee and Indian slaves (Spanish Indians excepted) by their owners was permitted without duty, provided such owner intended to settle in the colony and employ the slaves in his own service. He was required, however, to take an oath that in case he sold any of these slaves within twelve months after bringing them into the colony, he would pay certain required duties.²

     The Spanish Indians were considered especially undesirable. Accordingly, an act of 1722 imposed upon all such Spanish Indians, negroes, mulattoes and mustees imported, a duty of £50 current money of the province.³ The duty on Indian slaves was levied without regard to age, while that on negro slaves was graduated according to age. A report to the Board of Trade, February 2, 1736, gave the duty on negro slaves imported from Africa above ten years old as £10; under ten years old, £5; and on all Indians imported, £50 each.⁴ The following was the tariff schedule on negroes and Indians in force in 1775.⁵ “Indians imported as slaves, each £50. Negroes or slaves, four feet two inches or more in height, each £10. Negroes, under four feet two, and above three feet two inches, each £5. Negroes, under four feet two, and above three feet two inches, sucking children

excepted, each 2£ 10s. Negroes or slaves from any of his Majesty’s plantations in America, where such slaves have been for six months or more, unless imported by the owners with design to be employed on their own account, besides the above £10, £5, and £2 10s., each slave, £50.”

     The earliest act passed in Virginia to check the importation of negroes, that of 1699, imposed a duty of fifteen shillings per poll upon every servant not born in England or Wales, and twenty shillings for every negro or other slave imported into the colony. This duty was continued or increased by a number of temporary acts between 1669 and 1776.¹ The acts were worded “all slaves” or “negroes and other slaves”. Thus import duties were levied upon Indian as well as negro slaves. A statute of 1710 advanced the duty on negroes to £5 per head, and placed a duty of twenty shillings on Indians imported by land.² The difference in the amount of the duties is indicative of the relative amount of danger attached by the colonists to the presence of the two classes of slaves in the colony.

     At the time of the Tuscarora War, the northern colonies realized fully the possible results of the importation of the captives sold in their communities. Some of them in consequence passed laws to ward off danger from this source. In 1712, Rhode Island passed an act levying a duty of forty shillings on every Indian brought into the colony. The act was enforced by severe penalties, and every ship owner was required to give bond to the amount of £50 for observing

it.¹ New Hampshire, in 1714, levied the heavy duty of 110 on the importation of any Indian into the province.²

     Pennsylvania, also, June 7, 1712, voted to levy a duty of £20 on all negroes and Indians brought into the colony by land or water, certain negroes from the West Indies excepted. Exception was also made in the case of negro and Indian slaves brought in by their owners with the intention of taking them out again within the space of twenty days, and in the case of Indians or negroes belonging to persons in the province and sent out of it on their masters’ business with intent to return again.³

     A duty of £10 was levied by New Jersey in 1713.⁴ In January, 1739, the New Jersey assembly presented

to the council for concurrence a bill entitled “An act for laying a duty on negro, Indian and mulatto slaves imported into this province.”¹ The bill did not appeal favorably to the council and was rejected.² The reason for rejection was the need of laborers in the province, owing to the decrease in the number of white indentured servants, and the check that this bill would give to the importation of negroes.³ But in November, 1769, a bill setting forth as its purpose the encouragement of the coming of white servants by limiting the importation of blacks, was passed. The duty in this case was higher than that proposed in 1739, being £15 on all slaves imported, negro, Indian or mulatto. Punishment for refusal or neglect to pay was specified. Purchase of a slave “made upon the Water or Waters along the Seacoast” of the province, or on those between the province and the provinces of New York, Pennsylvania and the Lower Counties of the Delaware, was, by section VII of the act, declared a “purchase within the county” of New Jersey “opposite to such Water”, and so was exempt from duty.⁴

     The second cause for levying duties on Indians and other slaves was to obtain revenue. Virginia in its legislation on the subject had pretended at least that such was its purpose, and to carry out the pretense had devoted the amounts thus obtained to meeting colonial expenses.⁵ Other colonies sought directly for revenue.⁶ New York was a striking

example of such colonies. Import duties formed a chief source of the colonial revenue, and slaves were enumerated among the other commodities. The act of May 1, 1702, the first specifically to mention Indian slaves, placed a duty of fifteen shillings on every negro or Indian slave imported into the colony directly from their place of residence, and thirty shillings upon every negro or Indian slave not so imported.¹ The act which was to continue but two years was found to be “of great use in this colony” and was accordingly repeated on August 4, 1705, to continue seven years.² On June 24, 1719, it was again repeated to remain in effect from July 1, 1720, to July 1, 1726.³ Still other acts imposing similar duties were passed as follows: in 1709, levying a duty of £3 on every negro imported into the colony not directly from Africa and £3 on every other slave or slaves not directly imported into the colony from Africa, the act to continue till May 1, 1711;⁴ on June 21, 1714, levying “a duty of ten ounces of good plate” to be paid by the master or commander of any vessel, or any other person importing slaves;⁵ and on September 1, 1716, levying a duty of “ten ounces of good plate” on each negro, Indian or mulatto slave imported into the colony from Africa in any vessel not wholly owned by the people of the colony, and a like duty on every negro, Indian or mulatto slave imported into the colony from any part of the West Indies or any of the neighboring colonies, negroes or other slaves going to and fro on their owners’ business excepted.⁶ On

October 16, 1718, furthermore, it was decreed that no greater duty was to be demanded on any slave brought into the colony directly from Africa by a ship of Great Britain, than was to be demanded from vessels wholly owned by inhabitants of the colony.¹ In June 17, 1726, on every Indian, negro or mulatto slave (male or female) of four years of age or upwards imported by land or water from all places other than Africa, a duty of £4 was laid.² On October 14, 1732, a similar duty, regardless of the place from which the slave was imported, was laid.³ On November 28, 1734, on every negro, Indian or mulatto slave above the age of fourteen and under the age of fifty, during the period of ten years, the duty was fixed at “the quantity of two pennyweight and twelve grains of Sivil pillar or Mexican plate, or the sum of one shilling in Bills of Credit made current in this colony.”⁴ On December 16, 1737, finally, every negro, Indian or mulatto slave above the age of four years imported directly from Africa was made dutiable at the rate of five ounces of “Sivil pillar or Mexican plate” or forty shillings in bills of credit current in the colony; and for every such slave imported from all other places by land or water, the sum of £4 in like money was exacted.⁵ All slaves belonging to the crew of any vessel, and slaves coming into the colony from the neighboring colonies upon the service of their masters, and all slaves under fourteen years of age were to be admitted free of duty.⁶ Any person coming into the colony alone, or with his or her family to reside or visit in the colony, was allowed to bring slaves for personal service,

provided the owner gave sufficient security to the treasurer within four days after the importation thereof, that, whenever such slaves should be sold, the duty imposed by the act should be paid within two days after such sale. Upon failure to pay such duty, the owner or disposer of such slaves was to forfeit the sum of £10, the slave or slaves, nevertheless, to be subject to the duty in question. The duties provided for by the act were to remain in existence for the period of one year.¹ At the expiration of the act it was continued for another year, with certain amendments which did not relate to slaves.² At the expiration of the specified period it was again continued for another year or until the close of 1740,³ when it was again continued until December, 1741.⁴ Such acts were then passed by New York each year until the opening of the troubles of the Revolutionary period.⁵

     The number of Indians exported as slaves from South Carolina was larger than that from any other colony. As a means of obtaining revenue, as well as of attempting to check the business of the Indian traders, the colony passed an act in 1703 which placed a duty upon Indian slaves exported

from the colony.¹ The traders were carefully instructed not to attempt any such exportations without first paying at Charleston the required duties, twenty shillings for each Indian exported.²