Muratori, speaking of the Indians of Paraguay and some neighbouring districts, states that they kill and eat their prisoners of war. Some tribes, however, he tells us, are more peaceful and take all pains to induce their prisoners to reside among them. Children of prisoners are sold by some of the tribes to other nations[184]. From all this it would seem that slavery did not exist. But we shall presently see, that the other information we have got does not entirely agree with Muratori’s general statement.
The principal native tribe of Paraguay were the Abipones, described at large by Dobrizhoffer. The prisoners they made were very leniently treated. They gave them the best of their food, and tended them when ill. The prisoners had daily opportunity to run away, but they did not desire it, for they were very contented. They were never beaten, nor even reproved. They hunted and fought together with the Abipones. And yet they were not merged into the nation of the Abipones; [[80]]for the Abipone women generally would marry only a man of their own people; and the men never married female prisoners, nor had they any connection with them. It appears that every captive was assigned to an individual master. So we have here to deal with the fact, that one man is the property of another beyond the limits of the family proper, i.e. slavery, though slavery of an extraordinarily mild character[185].
The Payaguas in their wars killed all adult men, and preserved the women and children. What became of the latter does not appear. The Payaguas were absolutely free and did not recognize any difference of classes. From this it is probable, though not certain, that they had no slaves[186].
The Enimagas, according to Azara, were hunters; agriculture among them was incumbent on slaves. No further particulars are given about these slaves. The Enimagas are said formerly to have held the Mbayas in a kind of slavery; but such a subjection of a tribe as a whole is not slavery in the true sense; slavery is subjection of individuals. If the “slaves” the Enimagas had in Azara’s time were of the same description, they were not slaves[187]. So we cannot arrive here at any definite conclusion.
D’Orbigny remarks, that the Charruas when at war killed all the men, and preserved the women and children, whom they made concubines and slaves[188]. As Azara’s statement is quite different, we shall translate it literally: “All are equal; nobody serves another; or it must be some old woman who, having no means of subsistence, joins some family, or assists at the burying of the dead”. In their wars they kill all they meet, preserving none but the women and the children under twelve years of age. They take their prisoners along with them, and let them enjoy their freedom; most of them marry there and get so much accustomed to this mode of life, that they but rarely wish to return to their own people[189]. Although such kind treatment is compatible with slavery, Azara’s statement about nobody serving another is positive enough to exclude all notion of slavery. Heusser and Claraz, who seem [[81]]to be well informed, make no mention of slavery[190]. This fact, together with the above-quoted positive statement of Azara, who on the whole seems to be better informed than D’Orbigny[191], and who also treats this matter much more fully, leads us to conclude that they had no slaves. The lapse of time between Azara’s and D’Orbigny’s travels (from about 30 to 50 years) might account for the difference of their descriptions; but it seems to us that so much importance need not be attached to the latter’s short remark.
The Minuanes, according to Azara, resemble the Charruas in their mode of warfare, and in acknowledging no social classes[192]. We may therefore suppose them to have had no slaves.
The Patagons or Tehuelches, according to Musters and Falkner, have slaves. The same is stated by Letourneau on the authority of Guimard[193]. And as these authors not only assert that there are slaves, but also give some particulars about them, we may be sure that slavery really exists.
About the Puelches we get some information from Azara, who calls them Pampas. “In war they kill all adult males, preserving none but the women and young boys; these they take home and treat in the same manner as the Charruas do. It is true, that they impose some kinds of work upon them, and use them as slaves or servants until they marry; but then they are as free as the others”[194]. Such men, who as soon as they marry are on a level with the members of the tribe, certainly are not slaves.
The Araucanians, according to D’Orbigny, kill their male enemies and enslave the women and children[195]. Molina says: “The prisoners of war, as is the custom of all semibarbarous nations, become tavaichi, i.e. slaves, until they are exchanged or ransomed”[196]. In his detailed description of Araucanian social life he makes no further mention of slaves, nor do the [[82]]other authors[197]. So we may suppose that the prisoners are always exchanged or ransomed, and that slavery is unknown among them.
About the Fuegians we have this positive statement of Hyades and Déniker: “They have no chiefs, no labourers who work for pay, and no slaves”[198]. This statement, already valuable in itself, is corroborated by the fact, that none of the other authors we have consulted on the subject make any mention of slavery[199].