Indian Slaves

These are accounts from one small area in one of the smallest states in the country. Surely more documentation could easily be found,and surely there are worse stories than this. Yet, the story of Dinah is so sadly inhumane that it easily stands alone to bring awareness of the enslavement of Native people.

From the book:
Indian of the Housatonic and Naugatuck Valleys
By Samuel Orcutt
Case, Lockwood, and Brainard Co, Hartford, CT , 1882

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, know 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 authority."

According to this, persons might be be sold into slavery for a crime; might be enslaved as captives in war; and it will be 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 the 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; their being unable to make recompense to the owner, the General Court authorized 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 Narragansett's for an act of insolence they had committed upon the settlers. Four of the malefactors were to be demanded; and in case the 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's 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 said service be expired, shall be relieved 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 Indian servants or slaves on the grounds 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." (See the Pequot War for the differences in war styles. CR) 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 Brinley of Hartford, namely, the account-book of Major John Talcott (1674-1688), which includes his accounts as treasurer of the colony during King Philip's war, there are some curious entries, indicating how the enslavement of Indians in certain cases originated. The following account stands on opposite pages of the ledger (PP- 54, 55)

1676. Capt. John Stanton of Stonington, Dr., To Sundrey 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 yearsold, which he gave me for commission on the other side, or, at best, out of goodwill for my kindness to him.

Further light is thrown on this matter by the following documents, which are interesting also in themselves .2 The first is a deed drawn in Stratford, June 8, 1722:

Know all men by these presents, that I, Joseph Gorham of Stratford, in the county of Fairfield, in the colony of Connecticut, for and in consideration of sixty pound money in hand received, and well and truly paid by Col. Ebenezerzer Johnson of Derby, in the county of New Haven and colony aforesaid, to my full satisfaction and content, 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 own 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

Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of us.

John Curtis

John Leavenworth

The second document traces Dinah's history a little further. It is dated at 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 considerations me theretunto 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 John-son, do give, grant, and confirm and firmly make over the above named Dinah and feather 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, and administrators, covenant and promise to and with the said Timothy Johnson, his heirs and assigns, that we will forever warrant and defend him, the said Timothy Johnson, his heirs and assigns, in the peaceable and quiet possession and enjoyment of the above named Dinah and feather bed and 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 22d 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 twenty-eight.

Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of HANNAH JOHNSON.

JOSEPH HULLS,

CHARLES Johnson

This day Hannah Johnson, the subscriber of the above written instrument, personally appeared and acknowledged this to be her own free act and deed, before me.

JOSEPH HULLS, justice of the Peace.

At no time in the history of American slavery has the recognition of human beings as chattels been more complete than it is in this old document, in which " the Indian woman Dinah " and " the fether bed" are classed together in so unceremonious a way.

That the purchase of Dinah in 1722 was not Col. Johnson's first experience in slaveholding, is evidenced by another document pertaining to the Indian literature of the Naugatuck valley, also in the possession of Judge Gillett. It is a brief paper from the hand of Colonel Johnson, relating to an Indian named " Tobe," and certifying to his manumission. It is given just as recorded :

these may certifi whome it may consarn that tobee a Ingan that lived with me I had of a Mohheg Indian at new london 307 years agoo he lived with me 12 year and is now and has bin a free man ever senc. october the 6 1713. Ebenezer Johnson.

This paper informs us that thirty-seven years before the date of it, Col. Johnson obtained this Indian, that is in 1676; kept him as a slave twelve years, and then made him a free man.

There is a deed given by Cockapatana and Ahuntaway, as sachems, and six other Indians, of land at the place still known as Toby's Rock, deeded to this same Toby, in which he is said to be " a Narragansett Indian, formerly servant unto Capt. Ebenezer Johnson of Derby." The deed is dated September 7, 1693.

The whole record therefore shows that Toby was taken in the time of King Philip's war, 1676; that he was held as a slave twelve years, and made free in 1688 ; received the tract of land in 1693 from the Naugatuck Indians, " in consideration of ten pounds and a barrel of cider," and in 1713 the certificate was given. What circumstances called for such a paper as that, is very uncertain, but possibly the fact that he had petitioned or was about to petition the legislature for a patent of his land, in the same manner as the town had petitioned for one. In such a matter proof that he was a free man was of importance.

And what reason the town had for opposing Toby's petition, as it did, is not manifest.

The traditional account of Toby is, that, Capt. Ebenezer Johnson being sent in command of a squad of soldiers to subdue some Indians, did his work so thoroughly, as was his custom, that not an Indian was left except the dead on the battlefield. The fight, it is said, ended at dusk, and the Captain and his company slept that night on the field where the conflict had taken place during the day. Early the next morning he walked out upon the battlefield and while he stood viewing the scene he felt something clinging to his feet, and looking down he saw a little Indian boy looking up in a most pitiful manner. This was Toby, and the Captain took him and kept him as his slave.

The deed says he was a Moheagan Indian, and Capt. Johnson says he obtained him of a " Moheg Indian." The Captain was probably sent in the Indian war to New London or its vicinity, and there obtained the boy, who grew to be an honor to himself, his tribe, his benefactor, and his adopted town.

But Toby did not tarry long in the land of the living although long enough to engrave his name high on what is called " Toby's Rock," on the west side of Naugatuck River, near " High Rock Grove." His kindred were, no doubt, lost to him on some battlefield, and the time of his orphan sojourn was filled with honor and manly work, when he went forward to the unknown country to find those who had gone before him ; and he gave his land, which was divided according to his will, in 1734, to Timothy Wooster, Peter Johnson, Ebenezer Johnson, and Timothy Johnson ; all but Wooster being sons of Capt. Ebenezer Johnson. These were to him as kindred. If there be no future awards, what a world of injustice, inequality and unrequited suffering the present one is.

The will of Toby was contested by the selectmen of the town, which seems very strange, since if the Indian deeds given to the town were good, the one given to Toby was just as good.