Miss Olive Oatman, who had been detained among the Mohaves or Mojaves, says: “They invented modes and seemed to create necessities of labour that they might gratify themselves by taxing us to the utmost, and even took unwarranted delight in whipping us on beyond our strength. And all their requests and exactions were couched in the most insulting and taunting language and manner, as it then seemed, and as they had the frankness soon to confess, to fume their hate against the race to whom we belonged. Often under the frown and lash were we compelled to labour for whole days upon an allowance amply sufficient to starve a common dandy civilized idler”[125]. Though such prisoners are held in a slave-like state, yet evidently the object of the masters in imposing disagreeable work upon them is not to get useful labourers, but to “fume their hate”. This account may warn us against attaching too much value to statements about slavery among similar tribes, especially where the “slaves” are whites. For such tribes as the Apaches, who are always ready to exchange their prisoners for some [[67]]property, will be very apt to take prisoners, especially whites, who are likely to offer a better ransom than Indians. In such cases the prisoners are not killed; for by killing them the Indians would lose their ransom; but they may safely, as in Miss Oatman’s case, be treated as slaves by way of vengeance. But where these are the only slaves existing, a regular slave-system does not prevail. As for the Mohaves, no more particulars being given, we do not know whether they have slaves.
In Bancroft’s account of the Pueblo tribes no mention is made of slavery. On the Pimas he informs us: “If prisoners are taken, the males are crucified or otherwise cruelly put to death, and the women and children sold as soon as possible”[126].
In Parker Winship’s article it is quoted from Mendoza’s letter, that the Cibola Pueblo “keep those whom they capture in war as slaves”[127]. This being the only reference made to slavery, we are unable to decide whether it really existed.
Ten Kate in his detailed account of the Zuñi (a Pueblo tribe) makes no mention of slavery; so they probably have no slaves[128].
Bancroft, describing the Lower Californians, has nothing about slavery. Although their battles are described at some length, no mention is made of captives; probably they took no prisoners[129]. We may therefore safely infer, that slavery did not exist among them.
| Result. Positive cases: | Aleuts,[130] |
| Athka Aleuts, | |
| Koniagas, | |
| Tlinkits, | |
| Haidas, | |
| Tsimshian, | |
| Kwakiutl, | |
| Bilballas, | |
| Ahts, | |
| Tribes about Puget Sound, | |
| Fish Indians,[[68]] | |
| Tacullies, | |
| Atnas on Copper River, | |
| Similkameem, | |
| Chinooks, | |
| Atnahs on Fraser River and allied tribes, | |
| Sahaptins or Nez Percés, | |
| Southern Californians, | |
| Klamaths, | |
| Navajos, | |
| Cibola Pueblos. | |
| Negative cases: | Greenlanders, |
| Central Eskimos, | |
| Eskimos of Labrador, | |
| Frobisher Bay and Field Bay Eskimos, | |
| Kinipetu Eskimos, | |
| Tchiglit Eskimos, | |
| Eskimos of the Ungava District, | |
| Western Eskimos or Eskimos of Alaska, | |
| Eskimos of Point Barrow, | |
| Kutchins or Loucheux, | |
| Chepewyans or Athabascas, | |
| Lenape or Delawares, | |
| Montagnais, | |
| Ojibways or Chippeways, | |
| Ottawas, | |
| Shahnees, | |
| Potawatomi, | |
| Crees or Knisteneaux, | |
| Cheyennes, | |
| Blackfeet nation, | |
| Abenakies, | |
| Iroquois, | |
| Hurons or Wyandots, | |
| Katahbas, | |
| Cherokees, | |
| Muskoghe, | |
| Choctaws, | |
| Chickasaws, | |
| Creeks,[[69]] | |
| Seminoles, | |
| Natchez, | |
| Dacotahs or Sioux, | |
| Hidatsas, | |
| Omahas, | |
| Osages, | |
| Kansas Indians, | |
| Assiniboins, | |
| Hupas, | |
| Apaches, | |
| Pimas, | |
| Zuñi, | |
| Lower Californians, | |
| Okanagans, | |
| Karoks, | |
| Central Californians, | |
| Nishinam, | |
| Shoshones, | |
| Utahs, | |
| Comanches, | |
| Kioways. | |
| No conclusion: | Menomini, |
| Attakapas, | |
| Inhabitants of Virginia, | |
| Mandans, | |
| Flatheads, | |
| Killamucks, | |
| Shastika, | |
| Mohaves. |
We may add here a short account of Negro-slavery among the Indians.
According to the census of 1860, several Indian tribes had Negro-slaves. Our informant enumerates the Choctaws, Cherokees, Creeks and Chickasaws. Slavery was carried on to a great extent; some owners had from 50 to 200 slaves[131]. We may remember that all these tribes originally had no slaves.
The Creeks already in Bartram’s time (1789) had slaves. [[70]]He tells us of a chief who kept 15 Negroes; they were slaves until they married Indian women, and then acquired the privileges of the tribe. Schoolcraft informs us that “if an Indian should murder a Negro, the law is satisfied with the value of the Negro being paid to the owner”[132].
The Seminoles also had Negro-slaves, according to Roosevelt and Gregg[133]. But Maccauley is not quite certain about it. He observed a few Negroes living with them. It had been said that they were slaves; but our informant is not of that opinion[134]. Maccauley’s account, however, dates from a later period than the other statements.