|
|
THE HISTORY OF STRATFORD
Golden Hill Indians THE HISTORY OF STRATFORD
Wm. Howard Wilcoxson Establishing
Title to the Land FORREST MORGAN
Lifestyles, Government, Religion and War Indian Titles and Mohegan Land Troubles Sowheag, Uncas, and Miantonomo Owenoco, the Son of Uncas THE
HOUSATONIC CHARD POWERS SMITH The Promised Land ALEXANDER JOHNSTON
|
THE HISTORY OF STRATFORD SAMUEL ORCUTT Indian
Slaves Through
several documents still preserved there come before us certain Derby Indians
in the peculiar character of Slaves. To students of colonial
history it is a known fact that not only negroes but Indians were held as
slaves in New England. That slavery should have existed in the colonies was
almost a matter of course, in view of its recognition by the mother country.
The Massachusetts code, adopted in 1641, known as the Body of Liberties,
recognized it, and provided for its regulation and restriction; and
Connecticut, in its code of 1650, followed in the same path. The ninety-first
article of the Massachusetts code is as follows: There shall never be any
bond-slavery, villanage, or captivity among us, unless it be lawful captives
taken in just wars, or such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are
sold to us. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by
authority. According to this, persons might be sold onto slavery for crime;
might be purchased in the regular course of trade; or might be enslaved as
captives taken in war; and it will be observed that no limitation is made in
reference to color or race. Probably, however, the English distinction was
tacitly recognized, which allowed the enslavement of infidels and heathen,
but not of Christians. The Massachusetts Court, did decide that certain
persons, for giving shelter to certain Quakers, should be sold into slavery,
and sent out of the colony, but among English people. Of the fact that
Indians became slaves in the different ways here mentioned, there is abundant
evidence. In Sandwich, Massachusetts, three Indians were sold in 1678 for
having broken into a house and stolen; they being unable to make recompense
to the owner, the General Court authorized him to sell them. In 1660 the
General Court of Connecticut was empowered by the United Colonies to send a
company of men to obtain satisfaction of the Narragansetts, for an act of
insolence they had committed upon the settlers. Four of the malefactors were
to be demanded; and in case their persons were delivered, they were to be
sent to Barbadoes and sold as slaves. In 1677 it was enacted by the General
Court that if any Indian servant captured in war and placed in service by the
authorities should be taken when trying to run away, it should be in the
power of his master to dispose of him as a captive, by transportation out of
the country. That the regular slave trade included traffic in Indians as well
as negroes appears from several enactments of the General Court that if any
Indian servant captured in war and placed in service by the authorities?
should be taken when trying to run away, it should be in the power of his
master to dispose of him as a captive, by transportation out of the country.?
That the regular slave trade included traffic in Indians as well as negroes
appears from several enactments of the General Court. For instance, it was
ordered in May, 1711, that all slaves set at liberty by their owners, and all
negro, mulatto, or Spanish Indians who are servants to masters for time, in
case they come to want after they be so set at liberty, or the time of their
service be expired, shall be relived by such owners or masters respectively.
At a meeting of the Council in July, 1715, it was resolved that a prohibition
should be published against the importation of any Indian slaves whatsoever.?
The occasion of this was the introduction of a number of such slaves from
South Carolina, and the prospect that many more were coming. In the October
following, the General Court adopted an act in relation to this matter, which
was a copy of a Massachusetts act of 1712, prohibiting the importation into
the colony of Indians servants or slaves, on the ground of the numerous
outrages committed by such persons. Of Indians captured in war, a
considerable number were sold into slavery, but what proportion it would be
impossible to say. It was a defensive measure, to which the colonists were
impelled by the fact that they were contending with a foe who recognized none
of the laws of civilized warfare. It was resorted to in the war with the
Pequots, and again in the war with King Philip. In a manuscript, sold with
the library of the late George Brindley of Hartford, namely, the account-book
of Major John Talcott (1674-1688), which includes his accounts as treasure of
the colony during King Philip's war, there were some curious entries,
indicating how the enslavement of Indians in certain cases originated. The
following account stands on opposite pages of the ledger: 1676. Capt. John Stanton of Stonington, Dr., To Sundry commissions gave Capt. Stanton to proceed against the Indians, by which he gained much on the sales of captives. Contra. 1677, April, 30.
Per received an Indian girl of him, about seven years old, which he gave me
for commission on the other side, of, at best, our of the goodwill for my
kindness to him. Further
light is thrown on this matter by the following documents, which are
interesting also in themselves.? The first is a deed drawn in Stratford, June
8, 1722: Know all men by these
presents, that I, Joseph Gorman of Stratford, in the county of Fairfield, in
the colony of Connecticut, for and in consideration of sixty pond money in
hand received, and well and truly paid by Col. Ebenezer Johnson of Derby, in
the county of New Haven and colony aforesaid, to my full satisfaction and
contents, have sold and made over to the said Ebenezer Johnson and to his
heirs, executors, and assigns forever, one Indian woman named Dinah, of about
twenty-six years of age, for him, the said Johnson, his heirs, executors, and
assigns, to have, hold, and enjoy the said Indian woman Dinah as his and
their won proper estate from henceforth forever, during the said Dinah's
life; affirming the said Dinah to be my own proper estate, and that I have in
myself full power and lawful authority to sell and dispose of the said Dinah
in manner as aforesaid, and that free and clear of all incumbrances
whatsoever. In witness I set to my hand and seal in Stratford, this eighth
day of June, in the year of our Lord God, 1722. SAMUEL FRENCH Attorney for
Capt. Gorham
The second document traces Dinah’s history a little further. It is dated Derby, November 22, 1728. before this date Col. Johnson had died, and this is the deed by which his widow disposes of a part of the estate to her son Timothy: Know all men by these
presents, that I Hannah Johnson, widow of the late deceased Colonel Ebenezer
Johnson of Derby, in the county of New Haven, in the colony of Connecticut,
in New England, for the parental love and good-will which I have towards my
beloved son, timothy Johnson of Derby, in the county and colony aforesaid,
and for divers other good and well-advised consideratons me thereunto moving,
have given and do by these presents fully, freely, and absolutely give,
grant, and confirm unto my beloved son, timothy Johnson, him, his heirs and
assigns forever: that is to say, one Indian woman called Dinah, and also a
feather bed that he hath now in possession, and by these presents I, the said
Hannah Johnson, do give, grant, and confirm and firmly make over the above
named Dinah and fether bed, with all their privileges and profits; and unto
him the said timothy Johnson, his heirs and assigns forever, to have and to
hold; to occupy, use and improve, as he, the said timothy Johnson, his heirs
and assigns, shall think fit, without any interruption, trouble, or
molestation any manner of way given by me, the said Hannah Johnson, or any of
my heirs, executors, or administrators, or any other person or persons from,
by or under me. And furthermore, I, the said Hannah Johnson, do by these
presents, for myself, my heirs, executors, or administrators, covenant and
promise to and with the said timothy Johnson, his heirs and assigns, in the
peaceable and quiet possession and enjoyment of the above named Dinah and
feather bed against the lawful claims and demands of all persons whomsoever.?
In confirmation of all the above mentioned particulars, I the said Hannah
Johnson, have hereunto set my hand and seal this 22nd day of
November, in the second year of the reign of our sovereign Lord, King George
the Second, and in the year one thousand seven hundred and twenty-eight. HANNAH JOHNSON. Signed, sealed, and
delivered in the presence of Joseph Hulls, Charles Johnson. If you
have any questions email me at: |
ALEXANDER JOHNSTON
SOUTHPORT SWAMP Colonial History of Pequot Swamp COLONIAL INDIAN ARCHIVES Hon. Ralph D.
Smith David D. Fields Sarah
Day Woodward Winthrop’s Journal |