Before passing to the Ottawas, Tanner had been a captive amongst the Shahnees. He was very cruelly and ignominiously treated. Yet he was not a slave, for he had been adopted by a married couple on the grave of their youngest son, whose place he was to fill[53]. As this agrees with the general customs of this group, in which there are no slaves, we may suppose that here also slavery was unknown.
The Potawatomi also very probably had no slaves; for none of their describers make any mention of slavery[54].
Amongst the Crees or Knisteneaux, according to McLean, adoption of aliens was practised. A missionary, who had unintentionally killed a Cree boy, offered himself in his stead, and was adopted. Kane speaks of “the universal custom of Indian mothers eagerly seeking another child, although it may be of an enemy, to replace one of her own, whom she may have lost.… This child is always treated with as great, if not greater, kindness than the rest.” The existence of this custom, together with the fact that none of their describers makes mention of slaves, renders it most probable that they did not keep slaves[55].
The Cheyennes very seldom captured adult males; when they did, they generally put them to death. Children were adopted and treated like their own children; women became the wives of their captors[56]. Slavery is not mentioned.
The Blackfeet nation consisted of four tribes: Piegans, Blackfeet, Bloods, and Gros Ventres. We are told that once when at war against the Crows, the Gros Ventres “rushed upon them and killed the whole number”[57]. Grinnell, speaking of a Piegan [[55]]chief, says: “He told his men not to kill the captured women. They also captured … many children. The chief selected a wife for himself from among these women.” As a rule they spare none of their enemies, killing alike men, women and children. Sometimes they spare a captive for his bravery or from dread of sorcery; he is then provided with food and dismissed to his home[58]. These particulars being given, and no mention made of slavery by any of our informants[59], we may safely infer that slavery did not exist among these tribes.
Among the Abenakies, according to Maurault, prisoners of war were either tortured to death or adopted into the tribe. Hence we may infer that slavery, of which this writer makes no mention, was unknown among them[60].
Hoffman, in his description of the Menomini Indians, referring to Grignon, says that he does not know whether they had captive slaves; but certainly they had purchased slaves. Our informant saw 6 male and 8 female slaves, most of whom had been enslaved when young. The female slaves had been sold for 100 dollars each. The slaves were called Pawnees, though some of them belonged to other tribes[61]. This statement sufficiently proves, that in the time of this description the Menomini had slaves. But in Hoffman’s time they were already very much under the influence of European civilization. Whether at the more remote period from which most of our information on the Algonquin tribes dates slavery existed among them, we do not know.
5. Iroquois group.
The Iroquois had no slaves. This is stated by Morgan, who was intimately acquainted with them. “Slavery”, says Morgan, “which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period.” And the Iroquois are his typical instance of this “Lower Status”: “When discovered the Iroquois [[56]]were in the Lower Status of barbarism.” Captives were either put to death or adopted[62]. Charlevoix states, that “most of their captives are condemned to death, or to a state of abject slavery in which they were never certain of their lives”[63]. But he gives no more particulars about this slave state, nor do our other informants[64]. On the contrary, Lafitau informs us, that the condition of prisoners, whose life is rather hard amongst the Algonquin tribes, amongst the Iroquois and Hurons is very easy[65]. The descriptions given by the authors of the fate of captives justify Morgan’s statement: they were either killed or adopted[66]; and though Lafitau calls the prisoners “esclaves”, their state, as he describes it, is not at all like that of slaves. So we may safely infer, that slavery did not exist among them, and that Charlevoix’s above quoted statement is erroneous.
Among the Hurons or Wyandots, according to Powell, the captives were either killed or adopted[67]. Lafitau’s and Charlevoix’s accounts of the fate of captives among the Iroquois apply also to the Hurons. So it is probable that they had no slaves.