7. Dacotah group.
Owen Dorsey, describing the Dacotahs or Sioux, says: “There are no slaves among the Siouan tribes”[79]. This assertion is strengthened by the other authors[80] making no mention of slaves. Mrs. E. G. Eastman tells us, that captive women and children were well treated and restored on the conclusion of peace; but often they preferred to remain with their new husbands and adopted parents. Copway and Neill also speak of captive children being adopted[81].
Mathews states, that the Hidatsas generally adopt the children captured in war, and treat them like their own. When grown-up they sometimes return to their own tribe, but most often remain where they are[82].
Owen Dorsey informs us that among the Omahas “Slavery was not known”. “Captives were not slain by the Omahas and Ponkas. When peace was declared, the captives were sent home, if they wished to go. If not they could remain where they were, and were treated as if they were members of the tribe; but they were not adopted by any one”[83]. This positive statement is not weakened by James’s assertion about captive women becoming slaves[84]. [[59]]
Hunter states that among the Osage and Kansas Indians prisoners were adopted into the conquering tribe, as husbands, wives and children[85].
Of the Assiniboins we are told: “Chiefs never receive a gift, considering it a degradation to accept anything but what their own prowess or superior qualities of manhood acquire for them. Their hearts are so good and strong that they scorn to take anything, and self-denial and the power to resist temptation to luxury or easily acquired property is a boast with them”[86]. Where even the chiefs rely only on their own prowess, the existence of slavery is improbable.
Lewis and Clark, describing the Mandans, speak of prisoners living among them. One of their chiefs had been taken prisoner and adopted by them, “and he now enjoys great consideration among the tribe.” In another place they tell us of a woman, who was sold as a slave to a Mandan chief, who brought her up and afterwards married her[87]. The evidence is not sufficient to decide, whether their prisoners were held as slaves or were adopted into the tribe.
8. Oregon group.
Gibbs describes the tribes of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon in general. The principal of these tribes are the Chinooks and the tribes about Puget Sound. “Slavery,” says Gibbs, “is thoroughly interwoven with the social policy of the Indians of the coast section of Oregon and Washington Territory. East of the Cascades, though it exists, it is not so common.… Southward it ceases, so far as my observation has gone, with the Siskiou Mountains, which divide Oregon from California”[88].
“By the Flatheads,” says Bancroft, “captives are generally killed by their sufferings.” McLean, speaking of their wars, remarks: “When one party lost more than the other, compensation [[60]]was made in slaves or some other kind of property”[89]. This statement does not, however, prove that slavery existed among them; these “slaves” might be members of the tribe, delivered up either to be killed or adopted. So we are left in doubt as to the existence of slavery[90].