Monday, January 23, 2017

Chapter II, Slavery


The Catawban peoples first saw Spanish ships in 1521. These ships were owned by Vasquez de Ayllon, and they were on a slave gathering mission. At a place called Chicora, the Spanish tricked some of the Chicora on board, then took off with them. They went back to the Caribbean where they were sold as slaves. One of the slave ships sank, and many on the other ship later died. (1) We have no way of knowing just how many slave rading voyages the Spanish made into the Carolina's. There was a band of the Catawban peoples called “Shakori” -- it is possible that they the same people. Since the Shakori people were NOT found on the coast, they might have fled inland after their encounter with the Spanish.

William Byrd and the Slave Trade
On September 19th, 1671 the Batts/Fallam expedition was said to have seen William Byrd's expedition with “a great company” in the Western regions of Virginia. Was he returning from a slave raid into western regions of Virginia? They did not write down a great deal about their slave raids. I don't think they wanted their prosterity to realize just exactly they were doing. It appears that Batts and Fallum made it to southwestern Virginia and returned to Fort Henry. This journey cleared the way for another expedition to go a little further west, and discover the Cherokee. But Byrd was coming back as Batts and Fallam were taking off on their journey westwards.

We have at interesting account that dates to the times of Abraham Wood that talks about William Byrd. While saying an elderly Abraham Wood was asked to negotiate with the Indians to sign a treaty. There was a rebellion and it was put down. The Indians surrendered, and Wood was asked to negotiate with them. Then the author breaks down, and tells a little side story.
Alvord says;

Wood's last public service, so far as known, was the conduct of negotiations with a threatening Indian war-confederacy in the winter of 1679- 1680. Nicholas Spencer wrote to the Lords of Trade and Plantations on March 18, 1680, that "Colonel Wood, a person well skilled in all Indian affairs," had been chosen by the governor and council to try to effect the desired arrangement with the hostiles. He negotiated the same with great prudence and at length arranged that the chief men of the Indian confederate hostile towns should meet at Jamestown on the 10th of this month, to be heard on behalf of their towns and to answer the charges against them. They received every assurance of safe protection but appeared not, whether kept back by the knowledge of their guilt, or misapprehensions of our sincerity (for which the Christians have given but too good reasons), or perverted by the clandestine designs of some Indian traders, who wished to upset this arrangement of Colonel Wood for their own ends, I cannot guess. I incline to think the last is the true reason. . . (2)

When we consider that Captain Byrd killed seven surrendered Indians and took away their wives and children prisoners, on the mere suspicion that they were assassins of our people, we can hardly wonder at the failure of the treaty."

Because of the lack of Wood's letters and other papers, it is impossible to give any satisfactory account of his activities as a trader; but the documents.” (3)

Consider what was just said. We have the matter of fact story of Captain William Byrd “killing” seven captured Indians, men who had surrendered, then “took away” their wives and children – which is another way of saying he sold them into slavery. It was also said that while Wood was trying to negotiate a peace, several traders were behind his back, trying to defeat his efforts. Allford then adds considering Byrd killed some Indians so he could own their families, he could see why the treaty failed. This means not only Byrd, but several of the other traders as well, wanted the treaty to fail so that they could still gather the Indians as slaves! Now we have the "Treaty of Second Plantation" dated 1677. Is this the treaty they are talking about and he just got the dates wrong. He is speaking of march 1680, 3 years after the treaty. Was a second treaty in the works? We will discuss that treaty later.  

We shall soon hear that this was common practice in South Carolina to kill the adult males and bring in their wives and children to be sold at the slave market.. We don't know how common this practice was in Virginia. But we do know many Indians “just disappeared”. We can say however that the South Carolinians practice of killing the men and taking the women and children to be sold as slaves started in Virginia. Let me read a part of the above comentary – 

Alford wrote;

“ . . . perverted by the clandestine designs of some Indian traders, who wished to upset this arrangement of Colonel Wood”, and says this just before mentioning Byrd killed seven surrendered Indians and took away their families – we know he took their families and sold them as slaves. But he also says these were the designs “OF SOME OF THE TRADERS”, not just Byrd. Wood was trying to get the Indians to sign a treaty, and “some of the traders” upset his plans with their “clandestine designs”. One can easily assume those “clandestine designs” included murder of the men and enslavement of their families. Per Gallay, this is what the South Carolinians later did. He says the word “trader” was virtually synonimous with “slave trader” (4)

Richard Thornton has written a great deal about his theories. Some of it is very interesting. I have read about the English settlers and the slave trade in South Carolina. But the English colony of Virginia had been around for many decades before the Colony of South Carolina was founded, The Virginia colony was founded in 1607 as opposed to about 1670 for South Carolina. We have proof that there had been Indian slave raids in South Carolina, but had there also been slave raids in Virginia? We have found a singular incident where some were enslaved. Alford mentions "some of the traders" as though there were several traders involved in the slave trade in Virginia. Thornton leaves an impression that there were more such incidents. I found some of his research online. I was able to contact him once through his blog. I asked him for the citations that would confirm his findings. His response to me was that I had to buy his books before he'd reveal his sources. Well I've always shared anything I found with anyone. His attitude on this is completely foreign and alien to every fiber of my being. I need his citations before am comfortable quoting him. I looked up what he had online and I found this – . It still didn't reveal his sources, nfortunately. Please look it over yourself. I've always been a big fam of the concept of Occam's razor – – it states basically that the simplest answer is the best. Don't introduce elements wich are not required to solve a problem. Now I was intrigued by some of what Thornton wrote, about the slave trade in Virginia. THAT made sense to me, as did some of the other things he wrote. But then he went on to say the Cherokees were the Rickohockans, who were the Westo. Then he said the Rickohockans came from a Dutch word . . . some how the Cherokees came from Turkey or Persia . . . this took me completely by surprise. He might have changed that by now. I quickly got disolusioned . . .  I have to disagree 100% with some of what he said -- it was total nonsense, because it was about my own family. We can trace my ancestry down one line back to a man named Nathaniel Guess/Gist. Not the famous one who's father was a friend of George Washington, but his first cousin who was also named Nathaniel Gist/Guess. Now the other Nathaniel Gist was famous – mine wasn't, but they were first cousins. Mr. Thornton told me our Gist's were Jewish. This threw me for a loop. I love Jewish people, but I have NEVER seen anyone surnamed “Guess/Guest/Gess/Gist” or any other spelling – as claiming to be being Jewish. Someone once wrote a book entitled “When Scotland Was Jewish” which I thought was a bit off the wall. There are people who sinerely believe this and I don't want to be disrespectful to them. I am thinking that maybe Thornton might have read it. So he refused to provide the correct citations and was claiming the Cherokee were Turks and Jews . . . but claiming MY "Guess/Gist"family was Jewish was a bridge too far -- I can't swallow it. It's nonsense. People in the middle East are HAIRY by the way, and I have known many Cherokee full or almost full-bloods – who have little facial and body hair like most American Indians. Some of what Thornton said, in my humble opinion, is ridiculous. I am very familiar with Gist/Guess DNA research and people with that surname ARE FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM! DNA proves it. I believe there are some Germans as well with that or a similar surname, but mostly we from the U. K. Many things can be explained without interjecting weird twists and turns into them. Per Occam's rule, a Scientific Principle used by many, we MUST reject the overtly complicated explanation for the simplest one. Cherokee are American Indians, and my Gist ancestors are NOT Jewish.

But some of what he said sounded interesting. I'd like to share a little bit of what he said, but I have to say in doing so, I don't want people to think I believe all of what he said.

Almost forgot, he said, paraphrasing, that Creek Indians in Alabama/Georgia today have gorgotten their ceremonies while Creek Indians in Oklahoma have forgotten their history and knew NOTHING about their history before they came to Oklahoma. Well I was born in Okmulgee, Oklahoma, myself. I have one Creek friend who worked beside me for many years, same job I had. I know for a fact, from talking to my friend (who is 71 years old as of 2016) – he knows his Creek history VERY WELL, I have heard him mention it! I know for a fact what Thornton said about Oklahoma Creeks not knowing their history was dead wrong. Even so, I think it is possible that Thornton might have gotten some things right. I don't know. Having said all this and warning about it, I'd like to share a little of what Thornton said. Now I am talking about what he had written online -- I'm not going to "buy" his book and/or books because he refused to properly cite his findings
This is excerpts from “People From One Fire”, by Richard Thornton, as it was found online late in 2016, Web, Georgia, digital rights (c) 2010-2013, by Access

Richard Thornton, author/researcher online has come up with some very interesting ideas. He states that . . .

“Beginning in 1610, Virginia planters began increasingly relying on Native American war captives and later, African bond servants to do the drudgery on tobacco plantations. Between 1661 and 1665, Governor William Berkeley put through a series of bills in the House of Burgesses, which changed the status of indigenous peoples and Africans in bondage, from human servants to sub-human personal property with virtually no civil rights. It was the first time in the history of the English-speaking peoples that slavery had been institutionalized and based on race. (5)

“Since the mid-1640s, Berkeley had been purchasing indigenous slaves from tribes living to the west of Tidewater Virginia. He used them on his James River plantations or sold them to other planters. Around 1662, Governor Berkeley signed a treaty with the fierce Rickohockens of southwest Virginia in which the colonial government would furnish them firearms and munitions in return for the delivery of an unlimited number of Native American slaves. In 1663, Berkeley was named one of eight Lord Proprietors of the new Province of Carolina. Within two decades, vast areas of the Southeast would be virtually uninhabited.”


Thornton makes all these claims online without providing a single source for his material. I found a place online to make comments, and I asked him for the sources of his claims and his reply was NO! He said I had to buy his books if I wanted to know. Well talking to me like that is not going to make me want to purchase his book and/or books. He didn't tell where I could purchase it, either. I am just liable to do the opposite. I have often been asked about the sources of my material and I have without question, provided it on every occasion. I will continue to be as helpful as I can to anyone.

I had thought that the Northern Carolinian and Virginian Siouan people had been enslaved. NOW, if Thornton's guess is correct (I can only call it a guess since he wouldn't provide his sources), we know what happened to the Monacan, the Monahaok, the Saponi and others. If Virginia Governor Berkeley enslaved these tribes, using the Rickohockans to capture them, that would explain their disappearance. In two decades, these people were mostly gone, and the Rickohockans moved south, per Thornton. However really all we can ACTUALLY say is they just disappeared from the history books. We can say the Westo just appeared several hundred miles to the south. I can say that might or might not be more than a coincidence. To say more than that is wild speculation without the a citation to back up those words. Note Thornton said Berkeley purchased slaves from "west of tidewater Virginia". This is EXACTLY where these Siouan tribes were, and it the exact time frame the Saponi, Manahaok and Monacan disappeared from history. Perhaps far from being a friend to these Indians, he used them as slaves. Then we can look at Bacon's rebellion in a new light.

Berkeley was one of the original eight Proprietors to the new colony of Carolina, and low-and-behold, his Indian slavers came with him, the Rickohockans, according to Thornton, who now would become known as the Westo. Is this true, or just in Thornton's imagination? I don't know. Noone really knows who the Rickohockans or the Westos were.

Below is the Moxon map Commissioned by order of the Lords Proprietor of [South] Carolina in 1673. I don't know how well this will print out. It shows Monacan, and Mahook (also called Manahoak) in the North. To their south is Sapon, Nahison, Akenatzy (Occoneechi), Enock (Eno, also called Stuckenock), and Sabor (?Shakori?). To the east of these cities and across a river are the Tuscarora. To the west near the mountains are the Sauna (Shawnee). West of the mountains are the Rickohockans, a mysterious people of unknown origin.  So we have several nations wedged together in a narrow space. In the south are Watery, Sara, Wisack (Waxhaw). We know from the Monacan to the Shakori in the above paragraph, these are the same people. These are the same people as the Sara, Wateree and Waxhaw. It is the Shawnee and the Rockohockans that don't belong. The Shawnee had to leave the area eventually. All records of the Rickohockans vanishes from history with no one knowing what became of them.

Map 6. The Moxon Map 1673

The Westo
An explanation of The origin of the Westo is given online. Even though it is uncited, it is listed on the “access genealogy” website. This is the only origin story of the Westo I have seen that might make sense. However the author's explanation lacks rigor, so – it isn't trustworthy . . . It is my hope the author (Thornton) will cite sources which can tell us how trustworthy the material actually is. It states – “During the later half of the 16th Century, the indigenous population of the Lower Southeast declined by about 90-95% – primarily due to Spanish-borne diseases, but in some cases, Spanish weapons. The survivors ceased to build mounds, became more egalitarian societies, and generally moved farther away from the Spanish garrisons and missions in Coastal Georgia, South Carolina and Florida. By the mid-17th Century indigenous populations were rebounding, primarily due to the greater per capita availability of animal protein and fertile bottom land fields. (6)

Thornton continues, (paraphrasing), that catastrophe struck in 1660. Out of nowhere, Algonquian-speaking raiders, armed with British arquebuses, attacked the Muskogean farmers in Tennessee, Carolina and Georgia. The adult males and infants were killed or tortured outright. Young women and children old enough to walk, were shackled, and marched back to Virginia to be sold at slave markets. According to Thornton, the native peoples along the coast of what is now South Carolina called them, “Westo,” which means “people with scraggly hair. After arriving in 1674, English colonists called the slave-raiders, “Westos.” The Westos were most likely a band of Rickohockens, since the name of their main village near Augusta, GA was recorded as “Hickohocken” by South Carolina mapmakers. This is what Thornton says and thinks But you just can't put your thoughts down and start calling them facts. You must provide evidence. You must subject that evidence to peer reviews, and it must be open to discussion.

The “Souiaon farmers” above MUST BE the Indians of the interior, the Monacan, Mahaok, Saponi and others. From 1674 onwards is the time-frame the people from this region vanished. This might make sense. Another failure of Thornton is that he never metions the ORIGINAL peoples of Western Virginia and the Carolinas -- the bands of Siouan, or Catawban peaking peoples who inhabited these regions.

He says – In 1634, 200 Rickohocken warriors left their “capital” near the Peaks of the Otter in southwestern Virginia and participated in the Powhatan War on the side of the Powhatans. The principal Rickohocken village was named “Ottari” which means “high place” in a Cherokee dialect. The Virginians knew nothing about them, but were terrified by their military skills. In 1656 the Rickohockens sent a much larger force that ravaged many of the farmsteads of the James River Valley all the way to the coast. They were eventually defeated because of depleted food supplies and the superiority of the English firearms over arrows. I do know there was a town mentioned by the Spanish explorers as “Ottari” living up next to the Catawban bands on the eastern side of the Southern Appalachians in North Carolina. But "Otari" is next to "Yssa" on Spanish maps (see map 3 in chapter 1). Juan Pardo passed through the town in his journies. Yssa is spelled many different ways -- Issa, Iwsa, Esaw, Yesah, et cetera. This was the heart of the Catawan and Eastern Siouan speaking peoples, not the Algonquin. So there are a lot of holes in Thornton's writings. I sincerely hopes he can explain them. If he can, I will listen.

Rickohockan DOES “sound” Algonquin. But remember, this is what they were called by the Powhattans, an Algonquin tribe. However the author of this article tries to equate them with the Cherokee, and their language is NOT Algonquin! It is Iroquoian. Thornton has a lot of explaining to do. I wish him success with that. I also wish he wouldn't make claims that he can not defend with great rigor.

The Middle Plantation Treaty of 1677
Between Virginia's Indian Head Chiefs and Charles II
(The King of Great Britain, France and Ireland)
About the same the bands of Siouan speakers were disappearing, the Saponi and the Monacan were treating with the English and Algonquin and Iroquoian tribes of Virginia. While Allford was talking about an unsuccessful treaty about 1679-1680, a successful treaty was signed in 1677. While William Byrd was killing captured prisoners and selling their families as slaves, other Indians had just negotiated a treaty that provided them some protection from such slave raids at the hands of some of the more tyranical traders. There were really already very few few Indians in Virginia by this time anyhow. English traders would have to move further south to the Carolina's to obtain more slaves. And they had just founded the colony of [South] Carolina . . . Anyway, this treaty might have saved the last few indigenous peoples of Virginia from becoming enslaved as well, so it is an important treaty. The text of it is below --

"With the several Indian Kings and Queens and Assignors and Subscribers hereunto made and Concluded at the Camp of Middle plantation, the 29th day May, 1677; being the day of the most happy birth and Restoration of our said Sovereign Lord, and  in the  XXIX year of his said Majesties Reign.

"By the Right Honorable Herbert Jeffreys Esquire Governor and Capt. General of his Majesties Colony of Virginia; Present the Honorable Sir John Berry, Knight and Francis Morrrison, Esquire his most Sacred Majesties Commissioners appointed under the great Seale of England for the Virginia affairs, And the Honorable Council of State of the said Colony.

"Whereas his most Sacred Mantle hath of his own Royal grace and mere motion entrusted to my care and endeavors the Renewing management and concluding a good peace with the Neighbor Indians in order whereunto with the advice and Assistance of the honorable Sir John Berry, Knight and Francis Morrison, Esquire I have here caused to be drawn up these ensuing Articles and Overtures for the firm grounding and sure establishment of a good and just Peace with the said Indians, and that it my be a Secure and homing one founded upon the strong Pillars of Reciprocal Justice by confirming to them their just Rights and by Redress of their wrongs and injuries that so the great God who is god of peace and Lover of Justice may uphold and prosper this out mutual League and Amity. It is hereby Concluded, consented to and mutually agreed as follows:"

[The following is an abbreviation of the 22 agreements between the Indians and the English] 

"[I.] That the respective Indian kings and queens acknowledge their immediate dependency on and their subjugation to the great King of England, his heirs and successors when they pay tribute to the governor for the time being.

"[II.] That the said kings and queens and their subjects shall hold their land and property by patent under the seal of his majesties colony, without any fee gratuity or reward for the same in the manner of his majesty’s subjects, and paying yearly, three arrows for the same.

"[III.] That all in agreement with us (the English) the Indians shall have sufficient land on which to plant and shall never have this land taken from them or disturbed therein so long as they maintain obedience and subjugation to his majesty, his governor and government and remain in friendship to the English.

"[IV.] The mutual discontentment, complaints, jealousies between the English and Indians caused by violent intrusions of various English into their lands, forcing the Indians to seek revenge by killing English cattle and hogs, whereby both sides offended and injured each other and caused the peace to be broken. The late unhappy rebellion caused so much ruin and misery, that there must be as much as possible the prevention of injuries and evil consequences. So we conclude and enact that no English shall seat or plant within three miles of any Indian town. Anyone who encroaches on Indian lands shall be removed, and proceedings shall be brought against them by the Governor and the laws enacted by the Assembly.

"[V.] That the said Indians shall be protected, their persons and goods defended from injuries by the English. The aggrieved Indians should first address themselves to the governor without rashly taking hostile action themselves.

"[VI.] That no Indian king or queen shall be imprisoned without a special warrant from his majesty’s governor and two of the Council. That no other Indian shall be imprisoned without a warrant from a Justice of the Peace and without sufficient cause of commitment.

"[VII.] That the said Indians have and enjoy the convenience of oystering, fishing and gathering Tuckahoe, wild oats, rushes, pecans, or anything else for their natural support that is not useful to the English or from which the English obtain revenues. For any lawful occasion, to always obtain a certificate from a magistrate, to return the certificate when they are through with their business, to then go directly home, not to wear or carry any weapon during the conducting of business, or not to lodge in any Englishman’s house at night.

"[VIII.] That no foreign Indian comes to an Englishman’s plantation without a friendly neighborhood Indian in his company and without the previously mentioned certificate. And that no Indian king refuses to send a safe conduct with the foreigner upon the lawful occasion.  And that no Indian paint or disguise themselves when they come in.

"[IX.] That all Indian Kings and Queens tributary [NOTE: the tribes that signed this treaty become called “The Tributaty Tribes”] to the English having notice of any march of strange Indians near the English quarters or plantations do forthwith repair to some of the next officers of the militia and acquaint him of their nation, number and design and which way they bend their Course.

"[X.] That if necessary a convenient party be presently sent out by the next Militia to aide and strengthen and join with Friendly Indians against any foreign attempt, incursion, or depredation upon the Indian town.

"[XI.] That every Indian fit to bare arms of the neighboring Nations in peace with us, have such quantity of powder and shot allotted him as Right Honorable the Governor shall think fit on any occasion, and that such members of them be ready to go out with our forces upon any march against the enemy and to Receive such pay for their good services, as shall be thought fit.

"[XII.] That each Indian King and Queen have equal power to govern their own people, except the Queen of Pamunkey to whom several scattered Indians do now again own their ancient Subjection and are agreed to come in and plant themselves under power and government who with her are also hereby included in this present League and treaty of peace and are to keep and observe the same towards the said Queen in all things as her subjects as well as towards the English.

"[XIII.] That no person whatever shall entertain or keep any Neighbor Indian as Servant or otherwise, but by license of ye Governor and to be upon the obligation answerable for all injuries and damages by him of them happen to be done on any English.

"[XIV.] That no English harbor or entertain any vagrant or Runaway Indian, but convey him home by way of pass from Justice to Justice to his own town under penalty of paying so much per day for harboring him as by the Law for entertaining Runaways is Recoverable.

"[XV.] That no Indian of those in Amity with us shall serve for any longer time than English of the like Ages should serve by act of Assembly, and shall not be sold as Slaves.

"[XVI.] That every King and Queen in the month of March every year with some of their great men tender their obedience to the Right Honorable his Majesties Governor at the place of his residence, whenever it shall be, and then and there pay the accustomed rent of twenty beaver skins, to the Governor and also their quit rent aforesaid, in acknowledgement that they hold the Crowns, and Lands of the great King of England.

"[XVII.] That due care be had and taken that those Indian Kings and Queens their great men and attendants that come on any public business to the Right Honorable Governor Council of Assembly may be accommodated with provisions and houseroom at the public charge. And that no English Subject shall abuse, revile, hurt or wrong them at any time in word or deed.

"[XVIII.] That upon discord or breach of Peace happening to arise between any of the Indians in amity with the English upon the first appearance and beginning thereof, and before they open Acts of hostility or war one against another they shall repair to his Majesties Governor by whose justice and wisdom it is concluded such difference shall be made upon and decided, and to whose final determination the said Indian shall Submit and conform themselves.

"[XIX.] That for preventing the frequent mischiefs and mistakes occasioned by unfaithful and corrupt interpreters , and for more Safety satisfaction, and advantage both of the Indians and the English, that there be one of each nation of our neighboring Indians, that that already can or become capable of speaking English, admitted together with those of ye English to their own interpreters.

"[XX.] That the several Indians concluded in this peace forthwith restore to the Respective English parents and owners, all such children servants, and horses, which at any time taken from them, and now remaining with them ye said Indians, or which they can make discovery of.

"[XXI.] That the trade with the said Indians be continued, limited, restrained, or laid open, as shall make best for ye peace and quiet in the Country, upon which affair the Governor will consult with the Council and Assembly, and conclude thereon at their next meeting.

"[XXII.] That it is further agreed that all Indians and English in the Province of Maryland are included in these Articles of peace, And that neither party shall offend the other without breach of his Majesties peace.

"The Signe of the Queen of Pomunkey on behalf of herself & the severall Indians under her Subjection. The Signe of the King of the Nottowayes.
The Signe of Capt. John West, sonne of the Queen of Pomunkey.
The Signe of Peracuta, King of Appomattux.
The Signe of the Queen of Wayanoake.
The Signe of the King of the Nanzomond Indians
The marke of Pattanochus, King of Nansaticoen.
The Signe of Shurenough, King of the Manakins.
The Signe of Mastegone, young King of the Sappones.
The Signe of Tachapoake, Chiefe man of the Sappones.
The signe 0f Chief Vnuntsquero of the Maherians*
The signe of Norehannah, next Chiefe man of the Meherians."

There are a couple of things that are interesting about the treaty. First, see that the Virginia tribes who sign the agreement are called “Tributary Tribes”. Also note Article fifteen, which states no Indian of those whose nations signed this treaty, shall be enslaved. This article implies that Indian slave trading HAD taken place, else there was no need for it. The Manakins and Saponi's that signed it must have hoped that the slave raids upon them would come to an end. This explains why Byrd and other traders wanted the failure of such treaties -- they wanted to still raid Indian towns for slaves! Thirdly, notice three chiefs of the Catawba peoples signed; Chief Shurenough of the Manakins (Manakin), and two Saponi chiefs, Mastegone their king, and Tachapeoke, listed as one of their chief men.

As an addendum, I have just found the following.  (7) When discussing the signatures of the many chiefs who signed the treaty, Wikipedia says "According to Helen Rountree, these signatories were added in an annex between April and June 1680. (8) So although this treaty is called the "Treaty of 1677", it was still in the process of being signed in 1680, and therefore must be the treaty referred to in the Wood/Byrd comments made in the Alford book, 

Why was a treaty of 1677 needed? (9) Back to wikipedia, which says "Berkeley enacted friendly policies toward the Native Americans that led to the revolt by some of the planters in 1676 which became known as Bacon's Rebellion. In the aftermath, King Charles II was angered by the retribution exacted against the rebels by Berkeley, and recalled him to England." 

So we have another disagreement with Thornton. Governor Berkeley had been appointed governor in Virginia during the reign of King Charles the First. In England, Oliver Cromwell led a rebellion against the King and in 1649 the king was executed. Berkeley lost the governorship as he was a supporter of the King. When the monarchy was restored and Charles II became king, Berkeley was restored as governor of Virginia. The king however, didn't like how he dealt with Bacon's Rebellion, and his governorship was given to another. It was during these stormy this time, in 1677, the treaty with the Indian Tribes was signed.

One thing we can agree on is that by this time, the 1670s, the Northern branch of the Eastern Siouan peoples numbers had been greatly reduced, and they signed a treaty that would end the days when they had to fear the slave traders.

Most of Virginia was abandoned by the Saponi and Monacan, and small parts of it retaken after the abandonment of Fort Christanna, resulting in the Monacan peoples in Amherst County, and the Melungeons on the Virginia/Tennessee frontier.

Below is a map (map 7) dated about 1650. Between 1650 and 1700 some major catastrophe must have befallen the northern Siouan bands. The Manahoak, Saponi, Monacan, Tutelo and others flee from the Western portions of Virginia to take refuge granted by Governor Spotswood of Virginia at Fort Christanna by the early 18th century. If you will look at map 7 below, you will see only the Manahaok, Saponi, and Monacan block the way to the settlement of the western half of the state. With them no longer in their ancestral lands, the settlement of the interior of Virginia can commence.

Map 7. Eastern United States, Selected Indian Groups

Here is a map compiled from data dating to about 1650. It was taken from page 10, 'The Catawba Nation', by Charles Hudson. Notice the Wateree have moved further south. Notice to the South of the Wateree are the Congaree Indians. It was said of the Wateree and the Congaree, that they couldn't understand each other. I have thought about that. How could this be? Unfortunately, Hudson says of the Congaree and others in 'The Southeastern Indians; 
For some of these cultures, such as [Hudson names several cultures in the Southeast, including the Congaree of South Carolina] we know little more than their names. There is much we will never know. I like this map because it shows all the Eastern Sioans, from the Manahoac in the North to the Sewee in the South. This is one of the few maps I have seen that also contains both the Northern and Southern Siouan Bands. We have dealt with the slave trade in Virginia, now let us look at the Indian slave trade in the Carolinas.

The Slave Trade by Alan Gallay
Here are a few excerpts about capturing Indian slaves from “The Indian Slave Trade” by Alan Gallay. Every serious researcher of the Indians in the American Southeast should read this book. I should also warn you that it might make you cry. One reason there was so much warfare is that slave traders demanded this trade in slaves as a means for the Indians to pay off their debts. In a typicial slave raid, the men would be killed, and the women and children taken to the traders, who in turn sold these women and children on the slave markets of Charleston. The Indian slaves were sold to plantations in the Caribbean, while the plantations in South Carolina were buying slaves from Africa. They said Indian slaves ran away too often, and went back home. Africans were afraid of the Indians, so they rarely ran away, in the beginning.

p. 60. The proprietors rhetorically asked governor Joseph Morton (September 1682-August 1684; October 1685-November 1686) why the colony had no wars with Indians when it was first founded and weak and then had warred with the Westo “while they were in treaty with that government . . . The proprietors astutely recognized the Carolinians turned them [the Westo] into enslaving Indians.” Reprehensibly then, the colony began a war with the Waniah, a group of Indians who lived along the Winyah River, “under pretense they had cut off a boat of runaways.” The Savannah [Shawnee] then captured [the] Waniah and sold them to an Indian trader who shipped them to Antigua. . . . [The proprietors] learned that the Savanah were at first not going to sell the Waniah but had been intimidated by slave traders into doing so. (10)

p. 61. The proprietors also received word that the surviving Westo had wanted peace with Carolina . . . but the messengers were sent away to be sold. The same fate befell the messengers of the Waniah. Sarcastically the proprietors rued, “but if there be peace with the Westohs and Waniahs, where shall the Savanahs get Indians to sell the Dealers in Indians”? The proprietors were sure that the cause of both the Westo and Waniah wars, and the reason for their continuance, lay in the colonists desire to sell Indians into slavery. . . . (11)

Even some of the Indian dealers wrote privately to the proprietor of the greed that had led to the enslavement of friendly Indians. . . . You have repaid their kindness by setting them to do all these horid wicked things to get slaves to sell to the dealers in Indians and then call it humanity to buy them and thereby keep them from being murdered. The proprietors questioned the morality of attacking all the Waneah for the crimes of a few . . .

p. 62. In 1680, they [the proprietors] limited enslavement of Native Americans to those who lived more than 200 miles from Carolina, though they left the door open to abuse by stipulating this applied only to Indians in league or friendly to the colony. This law might explain why the Saura moved from the Dan River to the Pedee. It would have been harder for the slave raiding Shawnee and Seneca to get to them. And being nearer Charleston, they were within he 200 mile range spoken of in this law. (12)

p. 210-211. The Catawba was a name the English used to describe many of the Piedmont Indian groups of both North and South Carolina .. . . .The Catawba, under Carolinian beckoning, official or otherwise, had prayed on the Savannah (Shawnee) . . . The Savannah, probably in revenge, then attacked some of the Northward Indians, a designation the colony used to describe the Catawba and other Indians of the Piedmont.. They also carried away several of our Indian slaves with them (about 1703). Bull appeared in October 1707 and reported that he had learned from the Shutteree, a Piedmont group, that 130 Indians calling themselves Savannah and Senatuees (Santees?) [Vance's note: The author is wrong – has to be Seneca's. The Santees were allied to the Piedmont Indians whereas the Seneca were their enemies] fell on them. . . . The force carried away 45 women and children, but mostly children. A Cheraw Indian (from a group then in the Piedmont) informed Bull that the attackers traded with the white men at their own homes and that they lived but 30 days journey from us. Apparently, if this report was correct, the Savannah were selling their captives in Virginia, Maryland, or Pennsylvania. . . . as for the Savannah, not all of them would leave the colony. About a third of the population remained in their settlements along the Savannah River. (27-28) Those who left would continue their attacks on the Piedmont Peoples. (13)

p 239. One of the evils he noted in this and other letters concerned the enslavement of peaceful Indians, which threatened the harmony of the province. One can almost hear him sigh with resignation when he recorded: “I hear that our confederate Indians are now sent to war by our traders to get slaves.” (14)

p. 242-3. The commission of the Indian trade met first on September 20, 1710 in Charles Town. . . . The commission undertook a flurry of business, mostly hearing complaints against traders for illegal enslavement of free Indians . . . The establishment of the commission opened a floodgate of grievances against the traders for crimes against the traders for crimes ranging from assault and battery to kidnapping, rape and the enslavement of free people. (15)

Heard enough yet? Well I have. Now to the statistics Gallay brings out. He goes on to say after the Yamasee war, Indian slavery gradually died out by 1720. I suspect the reason is that there just were no more easily obtained Indians to enslave. At one point in the book the traders boast that there are no more Indians in Florida, as they have all been taken as slaves. When Gallay speaks of Piedmont or low country Indians, he is talking of the Eastern Siouan peoples, the Catawba and members of the soon to be Catawba Confederation. He continues;

p. 298-299. There is no telling how many Piedmont and low country Indians . . . were enslaved . . . and there is evidence all members of these groups were enslaved, but there are no numbers . . . The Lord Propritors frequently complained of illegal enslavement . . . all told, 30,000 to 50,000 is the likely range of Amerindians captured directly by the British, or by Native Americans for sale to the British., and enslaved before 1715.

Gallay says the numbers enslaved ranged from a low range of 24,000 to 32,000, to a high range of 51,000. He also adds that excluding the Creek, Cherokee, Savannah, and Piedmont Indians, 25,000 to 40,000 were enslaved. Doing the math, knowing there were few Creek and Cherokee enslaved, we have a low range of between 5,000-7,000, to an upper range of 10,000-11,000 of these Piedmont Indians were enslaved, from the period of 1670-1720, per Gallay. Per thornton, raiding for Indian slaves started at least twenty years earlier in Virginia.. Various Indian tribes went to war to capture enemy Indians, and sell them to the English, who in turn exported them to the Caribbean, exchanging them for African slaves. If Thornton was right about this, I suspect the English started taking slaves in Virginia at a much earlier date, at least 1650 and perhaps earlier. By the 1680s or 90s there were far fewer Indians to enslave. But Carolina and Charles Town were established by the 1670s, and there was another batch of Indians to enslave further south.

He continues on page 299, to say What is surprising about these figures is that Carolina exported more slaves than it imported before 1715.” (16)

Map 8 below portrays the Catawba and Assiciated Bands closer to the time of Lawson, about 1700. Here is an interesting note on Indian slavery. Hudson tackles this topic a little more than Blumer. He states; While warfare or raiding was definitely important in the Southeast, early colonial references to continual Indian wars were often rationalizations for enslaving the Indians. . . . we shall see presently that in early colonial times most of this Indian warfare was stimulated by Charleston traders as a means of acquiring slaves.” (17)

Hudson makes comments about the hill tribes of the Piedmont as being more backwards than their Cherokee or Creek neighbors. But what we know of the Creek and Cherokee runs forward from 1750 to the present, whereas all our knowledge about the Eastern Siouan 'hill tribes' flows from 1670 only up to 1720, by which time many of these hill tribes becomes extinct, or their numbers have been assimilated into the local populations. We could say the same about the colonists, that is, the colonists before 1750 were more primitive than those who came afterwards.

Hudson talks quite a bit about Lawson's observations of 1701. He states, As Lawson journeys up the Catawba River, he successfully passed through the territories of the Waxsaw's, Esaw's, Sugaree's, and Catawba's . . . Unlike the hill tribes, all these groups were populous. In every village, beginning with the Waxsaw, Lawson saw a “townhouse” . . . Lawson said the last town house he saw was at Saponi, situated northeast of the Catawbas, on the Upper Pedee River . . . at Saponi, Lawson first mentions seeing protective palisades that were common in the Northern Piedmont. At the time of Lawson's visit, the Saponi were considering confederation with two other hill tribes, the Tutelo and the Keyauwee. The three, being small . . .thought they should strengthen themselves . . . and become formidable . . . (18). Some of the Catawba tribes are said to have practiced skull deformation. Hudson says; . . .the Catawba were sometimes called “Flat Heads, but this usage was generally limited to the Iroquois, who referred to the entire Catawba Confederacy by this designation.” (19)

Interestingly, Hudson says the Indians living on the Catawba River were called “Esaws” until about 1710. After that time to the present, they were called “Catawbas”. He offers no reason for this change. Now the Esaw were also called Iswa, and Yesah. (20) The Esaw town is always, on maps, near the Waxhaw village. Both towns dissapear about the same time. They both end in the "saw" sound.

Little is known about the history and culture of the Piedmont Indians. Only the Virginia traders knew them at all, and they left us very little information about them. Hudson says that according to Lawson, the Eastern Siouans were middle men in trade with other Indians. Hudson says, Lawson, for example, met a man named John Stewart, a Virginia trader residing with the Catawba King, who had traded there for many years.”

Quite a bit is suspected about these traders relationships with the Piedmont Catawba. For instance, Hudson says; When discussing Lawson who seemed to be paraphrasing Stewart; They set apart the youngest and prettiest faces for trading girls. These are remarkable for their hair, having a particular tensure by which they are known and distinguished from those engaged to husbands. They are mercenary, and whoever makes use of them, first hires them, the greatest share of the gain going to the King's purse, who is the chief bawd, exorcizing his prerogative over all the stews of the nation, and his own cabin very often being the chiefest brothel-house.” But at best this is heresay. Once I visited Hawaii. From that one visit I could have concluded their me are all giants and they hated mainlanders. Dad was in Hawaii durng and before WW2 and he thought their peopole were wonderful. He was also there for several years. The point I am trying to make is during a short visit, you might conclude things that are far from the truth. Some of what Lawson says should carry the weight of any “gossip”, meaning it may or may not be your experience.

I have seen others write of the influence of the South Carolina traders. Hudson however, speaks of the Virginia traders., saying in the late 17th century the Virginia traders influenced the Catawba and Piedmont Catawba. After the Ochonocanough massacre in 1644, a serious of forts were built in Virginia. These forts became jumping off points for expeditions into the interior of Virginia and nearby regions by the commanders of these forts.

Per Hudson, Abraham Wood was perhaps the most successful of of these Virginia explorers. He commanded Fort Henry at the falls of the Appomattox River. It was located near present day Petersburg, Virginia. Her Hudson, the Occaneechi Trading Path first went to Occoneechi Island on the Roanoke River, which ran straight to the Catawba, and from there to the Lower Cherokee towns. He also says.It was called the Catawba Trading Path.” If this trail was known by both names, this tells us something about the relationship between the Occoneechi an the Catawba. Also ending with the “ee” or “i” sound is a characteristic shared by most of the bands of the Catawba.. Hudson speaks of a second route from Fort Henry to the Kanawha River, then south to the Cherokee. Hudson speaks of a report by one Edward Bland, a trader who in 1650 made a trip to the falls of the Roanoke River, mentioned that Abraham Wood was with him. Upon haring a musket go off, Wood's Appamattuck guide reportedly said that it was “Wainoake spies”. If you remove the beginning and end of that word, you have “Ainoa”, or “Eno”. It appears these “Appamattock” Indians apparently, were NOT affiliated with the Catawba. It is the Algonquin tribes that have words that end in the consonant sound. All Cherokee words end in the vowel sound, and it appears that so do many of the Eastern Siouan words (21).

Map 8. Carolina and Virginia @ 1700

The map above is compiled from information dating to about 1700 (map taken from The Indians New World, by James H. Merrell. It is captioned “Carolina and Virginia. Colonial settlement distribution adapted by Herman R. Friis, A series of population maps of the Carolinas and the United States, 1625-1790”, rev. ed., New York 1968. Drawn by Linda Merrell'). Notice most of the bands have not moved a great deal since Spanish times, although some in the interior have.. Other than the Shakori having gone inland since Spanish times, and we see the Saponi have moved further south, most of the rest as in virtually the same place. However much of interior Virginia has been abandoned. Moth Monakin Town and Upper and Lower Saura Towns are abandoned about 1700, give or take a short time. The Monakin's soon unite with the Saponis while the Saura move to the south and east and in South Carolina become known as Cheraw. These Eastern Siouan Peoples are still fairly numerous, but their northern cities in central and western Virginia have vanished entirely, making the way for settlers to claim the interior of Virginia. The Saponi, Tutelo, Monacin, and Keyauwee's unite to make them stronger probably near where Salisbury is today, in North Carolina. Together, these four bands can more easily defend themselves from the slave traders, and other enemies who seek them out.

In “The Indians of North Carolina and their Relations with the Settlers” by James Hall Rand, the author names the sixteen Tuscarora cities before the Tuscarora War. On page 8, he says of the Tuscarora; They had the following sixteen important villages: Haruta, Waqni, Contahnah, Anna Oaka, Conaugh Kari, Herooka, Una Nauhan, Kentanuska, Chunaneets, Kenta, Eno, Naurheghne, Oonossura, Tosneoc, Nanawharitse, Nursurooka.” Were the Eno originally a band of the Tuscarora? They appear on the 1650 map in the same location as they are living in 1700. Where the Eno are concerned, Rand was probably wrong. Most consider them to have been a Siouan people, not Tuscaroran. But we see we must test what we read, and not simply accept what is written.

The Shakori lived in close proxemity to the Eno, Keeauwee, Occoneechi, and Saxapahaw, between 1650 and 1700. By 1715 they are called the 'Chickanee' and have moved westward closer to the Catawba. Map 13 shows this movement closer to the Catawba, and calls them 'Shoccoree'. They could be the 'Sutterie' of map14, about 1725. I haven't found them after that date. They, like several others, just vanish from history shortly after the end of the Yamassee War. Note the Saras and Tutelo have changed places, and the Cherokee are where the Chiaha civilization was located in Spanish times, one or two hundred years earlier.

The Saxapahaw are also found with the Eno and Shakori on Map 7 (c) 1700, but they are not found on map 6 (abt. 1657). According to this map, they are living very close to the Tuscarora. According to map 8, Saxapahaw is a Tuscarora village passed through by Barnwell and his Eastern Siouan allies in the Tuscarora War of 1711. It was also passed through in the second Tuscarora War according to map 9. Were Saxapahaw and Eno actually Tuscarora towns? Map makers and historians and writers, well – make mistakes. You just have to work through these things, and maybe make mistakes, yourself. If (or more accurately 'when') I make mistakes, I hope others will correct me. That's life. Map 12 shows the former Tuscarora lands, and they are empty of inhabitants by 1725. Even the Eastern Siouan Bands that were nearby, are no longer living in the area. This opened the land up for White settlements. So most of Virginia's Indians in the interior had vanished by 1700, the same is true for much of North Carolina in 1725. Settlers can just walk in, unopposed. The Eno, the Saxapahaw, the Shakori, have all moved or vanished. In attampting to find the Saxapahaw, we find them on map 16, the deer skin drawing by an Indian chief dated about 1725. It has a small circle, smaller than the others, where the Saxapahaw are mentioned living with the Catawba. No map of a later time frame that I have found, mentions them after this date. I suspect these Saxapahaw might be the people mentioned by Carlson as being at the headwaters of the Flatt River by 1732, which is very close to the location of several state recognized Saponi Bands, today. It is possible that they disappeared and returned, that newcomers repembered the old fields, and returned to reclaim them.

The Keyauewee are on the map dated 1650 (map 7) near the Tuscarora. On the 1700 map (map 8) they have moved westwards and are near the Saponi, to the north of the Catawba. Map 12, dated about 1720, has the Keeauwee on the Pee Dee River with the Cheraw. Perhaps they left the Saponi to live with the Cheraw. As with the other Siouan bands from this region, they disappear after the dates corresponding with the end of the Yamasee War. The Saponi were near Salisbury, NC before moving to Fort Christanna, and returned to live south of that region, to be near the Catawba in 1729. But the settlers were now pouring into the area, and it wasn't the same upon their return.

The Yamassee as Indian Slave Traders
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology University of South Carolina Chester B. DePratter Ph.D.

The Yamasee settled on the South Carolina coast in 1683 following their flight from the Spanish coastal Georgia Guale missions. The newly arrived Yamasee first settled on the islands around Port Royal Sound including St. Helena, Parris, and Hilton Head Islands. In 1686, the Spaniards attacked and destroyed both the Yamasee towns and Stuart’s Town, a nearby settlement of Scots. The Yamasee relocated their settlements closer to Charles Town on the banks of the Ashepoo and Combahee Rivers. They returned to the area around Port Royal Sound in the 1690s. A 1707 Act established the Yamasee lands on the mainland in the upper part of Port Royal. Within this Yamasee territory, the Yamasee were settled in two distinct clusters. The Upper Yamasee towns, Pocotaligo, Pocosabo, Huspah, Tomatley, and Tulafina, were occupied primarily by Guale who had been part of the Spanish mission system on the Georgia coast. The Lower Yamasee towns included Altamaha, Ocute or Okatee, Ichisi or Chechessee, and the Euhaw. These Lower Towns were formerly residents of interior Georgia (the Spanish province of La Tama) who had sought refuge among the Guale missions following devastating slave raids by the Westo. Many of the Yamasee towns have been excavated by archaeologists.

There is an interesting comment here. Notice there is a Yamassee town named “Tomaltey”. There is another interesting comment found in “A guide to Cherokee Documents in Foreign Archives” we have, on page 269, the following, “24-25 Jan 1727 – Yamassee speak the same language as the Lower Cherokee, but they picked up a second language when driven out of the Carolinas . . .” We also have a Cherokee town named “Tomaltey” that dates back to the middle of the 18th century. Thornton says the Lower Cherokee spoke the same language as the Creek. However he just says this without offering a single bit of evidence to back it up. If he would provide some evidence of his statements I might believe it. We learn and grow by collaborating with and reaching out to other reearchers, not by running and hiding from them.

The Carolina slave-traders
In an effort to try to explain the Yammassee, there is an author who first speaks of the Westo. His writing is found at the link below. You might wonder why I discuss these slaving tribes. It is they who plundered and enslaved many of the Piedmont Siouan tribes, or bands of the Catawba. Their raids on the Florida Indians are somewhat documented. The Florida Indians were subjects of Spain and it was easier to explain raids into Spanish Florida than it was to explain raids into the interior of the Carolinas and Virginia. We can only measure the effects of these raids, as the raids are not documented. Below is a little of what Worth says of these Westo.

Yamassee Origins and the Development of the Carolina-Florida Frontier John E. Worth The Coosawattee Foundation

No one knows the origin of the word “Westo”. By 1609, the name Orista had already been attached to Edisto Island, and was said to be some 6 leagues (about 16 miles) north of Santa Elena. Orista there became one of three principal chiefs along the lower South Carolina coastline, including Santa Elena-Escamaçu, Orista, and Kiawa. Perhaps it was a small confederation of “city-states” so to speak, that had one time lived near “Edisto Island”. It doesn't take much imagination for us to see “ED”isto morph into “W”esto – or Westo, are similar in many ways. Just a thought, take it or leave it. Worth has offers another suggestion. He first speaks of the Westo as destroying those costal towns in slave raids, saying, “In any case, these few surviving coastal towns would soon feel the effect of the Southeastern firearms revolution, presaged by the arrival of armed Indian slave raiders from Virginia in the deep Georgia interior after 1659.” He doesn't thinks the Westo were from those costal towns, but rather that they destroyed those towns. He suspects they simply “came from” the interior. The province of Carolina came into existence in 1670, and the Westo appeared before that date with firearms, firearms that could have only been obtained from Virginia. If this is the case, it agrees with a part of what Thornton said. If these Westo were related to the Cherokee, it might explain the Yamasee as speaking the same language as the Cherokee.

Later, when the Westo were destroyed, the Yamassee came in to take their palce on the Savannah River as one of the major slaving tribe. Worth starts his paper on the Yamassee by talking a little about the people known as the Westo to the Carolinians, whom the Spanish knew as the Chichomicco. The “Micco” ending implies the word is of Muscogeean origin. Contrary to Thornton's words, this does NOT mean the people were of Creek origin. All it means is that the Spanish asked someone of Muscogeean descent, and they were told the Muscogeean word for them. It only means the Spanish were told of these people by the Muscogeean people, so they used their own term for them. Perhaps the Carolinians heard of them from the Catawba speakers. So another explanation for the word“Westo” and its similarity to “Edisto.” The origin of the term “Westo” might be of Catawban origin and has been lost through the years. They may have nothing at all to do with the Cherokee. We can simply say this or that is possible, but there is just not enough proof to claim more.
Worth goes on to say the following about the Westo; The decline of old Escamaçu was only accelerated with the arrival of the ChichimecoWesto slave-raiders on the middle Savannah River about 1662.

. . . In 1674, Henry Woodward had finally established direct contact with the Westos on the Savannah River, effectively redirecting the Indian slave trade from Virginia to Carolina, and simultaneously establishing a nominal peace between the Westo and all English-allied Indians. Just five years later, the Westo were reported by Spanish authorities to have allied themselves with both the Chiluques (known as the St. Helena Indians by the English) and the Uchises, possibly representing a fragment of the original Ichisi chiefdom of middle Georgia that had not attached itself previously to the Yamassee. End of quote. I can't help but see the resemblence of the word “Chiluques” and “Cherokees”. There is mention of the “Ucheries” at one point living near the Catawban peoples, and a people known as “Uchees” or “Yuchi's”, when I see mention of these people called “Uchises”. There are also the “Yssi” known also as “Esaw”. We know from the last of the Tutelo speakers in Six nations that they called the collection of all their peoples, the “Yesaw”. All of these terms have gramatical similarities to one another. Please know I am not claiming PROOF of a relationship between these various peoples. I am just stating the obvious, that these terms are similar, nothing more.

Back to Worth's narrative –

Curiously, negotiations between Carolina colonists and the aggressive Westo broke down that very same month of April, ultimately leading to what was known as the Westo War, in which the Westo were largely destroyed with the help of immigrant Savano Indians, who soon replaced them as the principal slavers in the interior after 1681. But the power of the Westo was broken, opening the door to contact and trade with the deep interior. The frontier dynamic had changed, effectively removing the threat from the interior. In 1682, the chiefs and leaders of all coastal Carolina Indians, including Santa Elena and Ashepoo, signed a land cession with Carolina colonist Maurice Matthews, ceding massive tracts of lands to the English. Nevertheless, Escamaçu remained populated, if only with about 160 Indian residents in and around Santa Elena by English estimates.
From 1659 until 1681 the Westo terrorized the Indian population from Florida through the Carolinas, on enslaving raids. They sold their slaves to the Carolinians,

The Savano Indians

These Indians are more commomly known as the Shawnee Indians. From the same link found here –

The above is Thornton's research, but it does vreify some of what I discovered independently. The Westo raids became increasingly disruptive to the expansion of the colony in the late 1670s. Around 1680 the South Carolina government cut a deal with the Savano Indians (Shawnee) living at the lower end of the Savannah River. They armed and reinforced the Savano’s, while cutting off the supply of munitions to the Westo’s. The Savannah’s destroyed the Westo villages and killed many of the Westo warriors. The surviving Westo’s established a village on the Chattahoochee River and joined the Creek Confederacy. The name of the village continues to show up on maps until after the War of 1812.

The Yamassee
Worth continues with his discussion of the Yamassee. He continues; Anyone familiar with the English documentary record for the early 18th century Yamassee towns of coastal Carolina will note that there are significant differences between the town names of the mission Yamassee and those of the later period. Some of these differences may be explained by the arrival of a number of new towns and groups during the winter of 1684- 1685, following the destruction of the Guale mission chain. Most if not all of the Yamassee towns with Guale derivation probably arrived at this time, including Sapala and presumably Huspah, both of which were noted at that time to have been recent fugitives from the Spanish. The Uchise, or Chachise, may have joined the flood of Yamassee from the deep interior at this time. Still other towns arrived later, including the Euhaw in 1703, the Tomatley, the Chehaw, and the Tuskegee, the latter two of which did not ultimately remain with the Yamassee, but rather relocated farther back into the interior. End of quote of Worth. We remember that Tomatley and Tuskegee are also the names of Cherokee towns, which we know, would have been “in the interior”.

Clearly, the Yamassee were not a static confederacy throughout their brief history. Their formation during the early 1660s brought many groups together as refugees, centering on the remnants of the old Altamaha and Ocute chiefdoms from the Georgia Fall Line region, the former of which seems to have retained relative political supremacy over the rest of the Yamassee for several decades. After their short-lived migration into the missions, their number was once again augmented substantially by other fugitives and refugees after 1684. This process only continued during their stay in Carolina. What is perhaps most intriguing of all is the fact that the Yamassees ultimate returned to their birthplace in old Escamaçu along the CarolinaFlorida frontier, where their formation and growth continued for several decades more. In this sense, the Yamassee truly were a sort of borderlands confederacy, thriving and growing precisely in the context of the colonial frontier between competing European powers. Escamaçu's geographic location provided fertile ground during the late 17th century for a diversity of refugees and splinter groups to aggregate, forming the first in a long line of new Southeastern societies that emerged from the ruins of the old chiefly order. The Yamassee may therefore be viewed as a product of the early colonial era. Their ancestral towns and chiefdoms, destabilized by the effects of disease and forced into flight by the firearms revolution, banded together not once but twice in old Escamaçu along the colonial frontier, where they attempted to strike an uneasy balance between competing colonial powers in one of the most hostile zones of the Spanish borderlands. While they were ultimately consumed and defeated by these same forces,

All these groups were constantly at war with one another, and the traders made sure they did. The Indians would buy somehting rfom the traders then not be able to pay for it. The traders would tell them their debt could be repaid by bringing in so many slaves. This is a sad story that has never been fully told, and probably never will be, as evidenc of it is scarce. These early traders were ashamed of their actions, or they would have better documented them. The slave trade would have to come to an end after the Tuscarora and yamassee Wars we are about to cover, as they just ran out of Indians to enslave. The people were all gone.

(1) The Juan Pardo Expeditions, by Charles Hudson, University of Alabama Press, (c) 2005. Originally published by Smithsonian Institute Press.
Harvard University Library of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology GIFT of Lombard C. Jones; Falmouth, Massachusetts ; The First Explorations of the Trans- Allegheny Region by the Virginians 1650-1674; By Clarence Walworth Alvord and Lee Bidgood; The Arthur H. Clark Company; (c) 1912
(3) Ibid.
(4) “The Indian Slave Trade” by Alan Gallay, (c) 2002 Yale University
(5), Richard Thornton
(6) , by Richard Thornton
(8) Helen Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 100.
(10) “The Indian Slave Trade” by Alan Gallay, p.60
(11) “The Indian Slave Trade” by Alan Gallay, p. 61
(12) “The Indian Slave Trade” by Alan Gallay, p.
(13) “The Indian Slave Trade” by Alan Gallay, p. 210-211
(14) “The Indian Slave Trade” by Alan Gallay, p. 239
(15) “The Indian Slave Trade” by Alan Gallay, p. 242-243
(16.) “The Indian Slave Trade” by Alan Gallay, p. 298-299
(17) The Catawba Nation, by Charles M. Hudson, after 7, before p. 26
(18) The Catawba Nation, by Charles M. Hudson, p. 26
(19) “The Catawba Nation, by Charles M. Hudson, p. 27
(20) “The Catawba Nation, by Charles M. Hudson, p. 28
(21)The Catawba Nation, by Charles M. Hudson, p. 31-32

No comments:

Post a Comment