It need hardly be said, that a chief may keep slaves like any other freeman. The public power as such, the state, also sometimes keeps slaves (e.g. the servi publici in Rome). But these slaves are quite distinct from the main body of citizens.
Sometimes it is stated, that the chief, or the public power, has slaves, whereas no mention is made of any other slaves. In such cases the slaves generally become such as a punishment for some offence. Where such a state of things exists, we may not speak of a slave-keeping people. For here the power of the government is so great, that it can avail itself of the labour of the citizens; whether this is done by imposing an equal amount of labour on all of them, or by selecting a few persons for this purpose and keeping them in a slave-like state, does not make much difference. Besides, slavery here cannot have the same influence on social life it generally has; for every freeman has to work for himself. This kind of slavery may be compared with the tread-mill and other kinds of penal servitude existing in more civilized societies. And we may not speak of a slave-keeping people, where the only slaves are criminals, who become the slaves of him who represents the public power, any more than we can say that slavery exists in those civilized countries, where penal servitude is still practised.
One more remark has to be added here. Hitherto we have used the terms “possession” and “property” synonymously as indicating the nature of slavery. In this paragraph it has been shown, that an essential feature of slavery is its being recognized by the community. Therefore we prefer the term “property”, that, better than the other term, conveys the notion, not only of a virtual subjection, but of a subjection considered legal in those communities where it exists. [[33]]
§ 7. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena.
IV. Subjected tribes; tributary provinces; lower classes; free labourers.
We shall meet with instances of tribes, the members of which are bound to perform some kind of labour for other tribes or for the members of the latter.
This is not slavery; for slavery is subjection of one individual to another, and a subjection that absorbs the whole personality of the subjected; and under such circumstances it is not possible that the subjected lead a tribal life. Therefore, where the subjected are described as forming a separate tribe, we may be sure that they are not slaves. Ingram justly remarks that “the lowest caste may be a degraded and despised one, but its members are not in a state of slavery; they are in collective, not individual, subjection to the members of the higher classes”[46]. What Ingram says here of the lowest caste, often applies to subjected tribes.
That conquered districts, bound to pay a tribute in kind or money, do not consist of slaves, is clear.
The foregoing remarks would be almost superfluous, were it not that some ethnographers in such cases spoke of “slave tribes” and “slave districts”. This may partly be caused by the natives themselves making an incorrect use of the term “slavery”. In North Africa the coast tribes call the inland tribes their slaves, because they keep them bound by a trade monopoly. In the same regions a chief calls himself the slave of another chief, to whom he has to pay a tribute[47]. As in some cases the slaves live together in separate villages[48], it may be difficult to decide whether we have to deal with slave villages or with subjected groups. The criterion then is, whether the subjected people have each an individual master. When we are informed that such is the case, or that they are bought and sold, we may be certain that they are slaves.