The Chinooks had slaves. Bancroft says: “Slavery, common to all the coast families, is also practised by the Chinooks; … the slaves are obliged to perform all the drudgery for their masters, and their children must remain in their parents’ condition, their round heads serving as a distinguishing mark from freemen”. Kane also gives many particulars about their slave system[91]. Equally Swan, describing the Chinooks and neighbouring tribes, makes mention of slavery as practised by them[92]. Lewis and Clark speak of a war, in which the Killamucks took several prisoners. “These, as far as we could perceive, were treated very well, and though nominally slaves, yet were adopted into the families of their masters, and the young ones placed on the same footing with the children of the purchaser”. This short note is not sufficient for us to arrive at any definite conclusion, the less so, as these writers themselves declare that they had not the opportunity of making a close study of the tribes of the Pacific Coast[93].
“The Shushwaps,” Bancroft remarks, “are said to have no slaves”[94]. Among the Okanagans, a division of the Shushwaps, according to Ross, “there are but few slaves … and these few are adopted as children, and treated in all respects as members of the family”[95]. From this it would seem that slavery proper does not exist.
Another division of the Shushwaps are the Atnahs on Fraser River (not to be confused with the Atnas on Copper River). Mackenzie describes a division of Indians, whom he does not mention under a separate name; but they seem to be akin to the Atnahs. “The Atnah and Chin tribe,” says Mackenzie, “as [[61]]far as I can judge from the very little I saw of that people, bear the nearest resemblance to them.” On these Indians he remarks: “The strangers who live among these people are kept by them in a state of awe and subjection”[96]. These strangers perhaps are slaves; but the lack of further details prevents our arriving at any positive conclusion.
Bancroft, after describing the manner in which some tribes put their prisoners to death, adds: “Among the Sahaptins some survive and are made slaves.… The Nez Percé system is a little less cruel in order to save the life for future slavery”[97]. So the Sahaptins or Nez Percés seem to have kept slaves, though we should wish for some more particulars that would exclude all doubt.
Powers states, that female slaves are more numerous among the Shastika than among the Californians[98]. This short note is the only evidence we have been able to collect on the subject.
Kane makes mention of slavery as practised by some other tribes, about which we could not collect further information (perhaps they are subdivisions of the tribes already enumerated) viz. the Macaws, Babines or Big-lips, Nasquallies and Kye-uses[99].
9. Californians.
Of the Northern Californians Bancroft tells us: “Although I find no description of an actual system of slavery existing among them, yet there is no doubt that they have slaves. Illegitimate children are the life-slaves of some male relative of the mother, and upon them the drudgery falls; they are only allowed to marry one in their own station, and their sole hope of emancipation lies in a slow accumulation of allicochick (shell-money), with which they can buy their freedom”[100].
Powers gives some more particulars about two North Californian tribes. Among the Karoks it is thought ignominious for a man to have connection with a female slave. When the [[62]]purchase-money for the wife has not been paid, the children are looked upon as bastards; they live as outcasts and marry none but persons of their own condition. Among the Hupas a similar system prevails. A bastard is much despised; when old enough he is taken from his mother and becomes the property of one of her male relatives; he is not a slave, and yet has no share in the privileges of the family. The produce of his labour belongs to his master; he may marry only a person of his own condition, and is treated with ignominy. What he wins by gaming is his own; when this amounts to 15 or 20 dollars, he is free. His children are of the same rank[101].
Although these bastards present a close resemblance to slaves, Powers explicitly says that they are not slaves. Probably they are only a despised class; for social status, among these tribes, depends largely upon wealth. The chief “obtains his position from his wealth, and usually manages to transmit his effects, and with them his honours, to his posterity”[102]. “The ruling passion of the savage seems to be love of wealth; having it he is respected, without it he is despised”[103]. We may therefore suppose, that these bastards are despised because penniless, and as soon as they possess 15 or 20 dollars, respected for their wealth. And as we “find no description of an actual system of slavery existing among them,” slavery probably does not exist[104].