Gatschet, describing the Klamath Indians, makes mention of slaves. Once they attacked the Pit River Indians, “killed the men, abducted the women and children to their homes, or sold them into slavery at the international bartering place at The Dalles.” According to Judge E. Steele “they had been selling to whites and others Indian children of their own and other tribes, and also squaws, the latter mainly for the purpose of prostitution”[105]. Whether all slaves were sold abroad, or any slaves were kept by them, does not appear. According to Bancroft “Mr. Drew asserts that the Klamath children of slave [[63]]parents, who, it may be, prevent the profitable prostitution or sale of the mother, are killed without compunction”[106]. Altogether the notes given by our informants are insufficient for us to decide, whether slavery really exists here.
On the Central Californians Bancroft remarks: “Slavery in any form is rare, and hereditary bondage unknown.” “They do not appear to have kept or sold prisoners as slaves, but to have either exchanged or killed them”[107]. Here “rare” is perhaps a synonym for “absent”; at any rate the existence of slavery here is doubtful.
As for the Southern Californians, according to Bancroft, “Hugo Reid affirms of the natives of Los Angeles County that all prisoners, after being tormented in the most cruel manner, are invariably put to death.… Female prisoners are either sold or retained as slaves”[108]. From Boscana’s narrative also it would appear, that there were formerly slaves among them. “No quarter” he says “was ever given, and consequently, no prisoners were ever made among the men, excepting of such as were killed, or mortally wounded. These were immediately decapitated.… The women and children taken prisoners, were either disposed of by sale or detained by the captain as slaves.… The women and children were never released,—ever remaining as slaves to their enemies”[109]. But as no more details are added and as Boscana describes a state of things which in his time had already ceased to exist, we are not quite sure whether slaves were really kept by these Indians.
The Nishinam, according to Powers, killed their male prisoners. Women, after being flogged, were married; but sometimes they were also killed[110]. So it seems that they had no slaves.
10. New Mexicans.
On the Shoshones and Utahs we are not very well informed. “An act which passed the legislature of Utah in 1852 … [[64]]set forth that from time immemorial slavery has been a customary traffic among the Indians.” But we are not told who bought and who sold the slaves. It is only stated that the Utahs sold their wives and children into slavery to the Navajos[111]. It is not probable that the Shoshones and Utahs themselves had slaves; for Bancroft states that prisoners of war were killed, or in some cases dismissed unhurt, and Meline tells us, that the Utes and Pueblos almost invariably sold their prisoners to the Mexicans for slaves[112].
Bancroft, describing the Apache family (including Apaches, Comanches, Navajos, Mojaves, etc.), says: “All the natives of this family hold captives as slaves”[113]. But his account of the Comanches does not quite agree with this general statement: “Prisoners belong to the captors and the males are usually killed, but women are reserved and become the wives or servants of their owners, while children of both sexes are adopted into the tribe”[114]. According to Schoolcraft, “prisoners of war belong to the captors and may be sold or released at their will”. Captive children are adopted and afterwards are on a level with the members of the tribe[115]. Gregg speaks of prisoners being enslaved and ill-treated by the conquerors. But whether he means to say that they remained slaves is not clear[116]. Cessac also speaks of slaves. “If, among the captives of the deceased, one was particularly loved by his master, he is sacrificed and buried with him.” “If a favourite slave is sacrificed, it is to give the master a fellow-traveller.” No more particulars about these slaves are given. In their wars against the Mexicans they spare none but the children, whom they treat as their own. “These captives forget their origin and later on, when full-grown, become an integral part of the tribe”[117]. It is not clear whether the slaves Cessac speaks of are identical with these adopted children; he would not have used then the term “slave” in its proper sense. Ten Kate, a careful observer, states that a number of Mexican captives, altogether about fifty, live among the Comanches and Kioways; they have almost entirely adopted [[65]]the manners and customs of the Indians and are regarded by the latter as members of their tribes[118]. Another author tells us of a Mexican boy and girl, taken prisoners by the Comanches. The boy was afterwards sold to the Cherokees, the girl was married against her will by a Comanche. Another captive Mexican woman was married to a Comanche chief[119]. Comparing these several statements, we think it probable, though not quite certain, that the Comanches did not keep slaves, but adopted their prisoners.
Ten Kate’s above-quoted statement applies also to the Kioways. Möllhausen met with two young Mexican prisoners among them, a man and a woman. The young man declared, that he did not want to exchange his present abode for another. The woman, though married to a chief and mother of a young chief, expressed the wish to return to her own country; but the chief would not let her and her child go[120]. We may suppose, that the same state of things prevailed here as among the Comanches.
Of the Apaches proper Bancroft (besides his above-quoted general statement) says: “They treat their prisoners cruelly; scalping them, or burning them at the stake; yet, ruled as they are by greediness, they are always ready to exchange them for horses, blankets, beads, or other property. When hotly pursued, they murder their male prisoners, preserving only the females and children, and the captured cattle”[121]. This is not very suggestive of slavery; and Bancroft’s general statement about the Apache family appears rather strange. Schoolcraft tells us: “These [the chiefs] can have any number of wives they choose; but one only is the favourite. She is admitted to his confidence, and superintends his household affairs; all the other wives are slaves to her; next come his peons, or slaves, and his wife’s slaves, and the servants of his concubines; then the young men or warriors, most generally composed of the youth who have deserted other tribes on account of crimes, and have fled to the protection of the chief of this tribe.… Then come the herdsmen, and so on”[122]. These [[66]]“slaves”, ranking even above the warriors, very probably were not slaves in the true sense of the word. According to Bourke, the Mexican captives, living among the Apaches, were treated very kindly and often rose to positions of great influence. It does not appear that these captives were kept in a slave-like state. Fremont and Emory say: “Women, when captured, are taken as wives by those who capture them, but they are treated by the Indian wives of the capturers as slaves”. It is evident that we have not to do here with slaves in the true sense. Taking into consideration all the foregoing statements, we may suppose that slavery did not exist among the Apaches[123].
In an above-quoted passage Bancroft states that the Utahs frequently sell their wives and children as slaves to the Navajos. According to Bent, the Navajos, “have in their possession many prisoners, men, women and children, … whom they hold and treat as slaves”[124]. But these statements are not sufficient for us to go upon; these prisoners may be adopted, or intended to be sold, as well as kept as slaves.