§ 18. External causes, especially the slave-trade. Recapitulation. In the second and third chapters we have spoken of external causes. We have seen that for slavery to exist it is not sufficient that there should be some use for slave labour; it must also be possible to keep slaves; the freemen of the tribe must have a coercive power strong enough to keep the slaves subjected and prevent them from escaping. It has been shown that this coercive power is most strongly developed, where men have fixed habitations, live in large groups, and preserve food; and further, that the slave-trade greatly facilitates the keeping of slaves.
As for the first three points, it is easy to see that agricultural tribes of the higher stages are more settled, live in larger groups, and are more likely to preserve food than hunting [408] agriculturists [See above, p. 295, and Grrosse, p. 134.], so here again we find a reason why slavery is so much more frequent among the former than among the latter.
The slave-trade is of more interest to us here. It has been shown that among the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America a brisk trade in slaves was carried on, which must have greatly accelerated the growth of slavery; for it made the keeping of slaves much easier than it would have been if each of these tribes had had to procure its slaves by capture in war. It has also been remarked that among pastoral tribes slavery exists almost exclusively in those parts, were a trade in slaves with civilized or semi-civilized peoples is or was carried on, viz. in Arabia, the Caucasus, North-east and North-west Africa; whereas the pastoral tribes that live in outlying regions (Siberia, South Africa) with the only exception of the Ovaherero, do not keep slaves. We shall inquire now whether the same is the case with agricultural tribes, whether among them too slavery is of rare occurrence in those parts where the slave-trade has never been carried on.
In North America, at the time of its discovery, slavery did not exist among any agricultural tribe. Negro slavery, practised by a few of them in later times, was derived from the whites.
In South America we have found only a few slave-keeping agricultural tribes; and the slave-trade formerly carried on by the whites may go far to explain the existence of slavery in these few cases. "The Brazilian native" says Martius "sometimes sells his children to people of white races, much oftener than to those of his own colour." The principal object of warfare among the natives, in Martius' time, was to capture slaves, whom they sold either to other tribes or to colonists of Portuguese extraction. The custom of selling prisoners to white colonists has strongly influenced the native character. It was already practised very shortly after the discovery of America. Many Indians were transported to Spain and Portugal. The Mamelucos, living in San Paolo, made long and sanguinary wars upon the Indians. They are said during 130 years to have killed [409] and enslaved more than two millions of Indians. Pedro de Avila, governor of Buenos Ayres, complained that the Paulistas carried on this trade in public and from 1628 to 1630 had brought 60,000 Indians to the market at Rio Janeiro. The whites continually availed themselves of the quarrels of the several Indian tribes, to procure such Indians as had been made prisoners. Even in Martius' time this trade went on, especially in thinly peopled, outlying districts, where the Brazilian government could not prevent it. The wars of the Indians were simply marauding expeditions; their object was to procure prisoners for sale to Brazilian whites. [Martius, pp. 123, 131, 131 note, 154 note, 531-533, 772.]
In Oceania, slavery was an aboriginal institution in New Zealand and part of the Solomon group and the Bismarck Archipelago. From the lack of details concerning a system of slave labour, we must conclude that in these islands the economic use of slaves was small. Slavery further existed in the western part of New Guinea, where it probably still exists. Here foreign influence clearly appears. In the eastern part of the island, that till quite recently had not been visited by foreigners (British and German New Guinea), slavery is unknown ; and the western part (Dutch New Guinea), where slavery exists, was for a long time under the rule of the sultan of Tidore. [Robide, pp. 345 sqq.] The tribute which the inhabitants of New Guinea had to pay to the sultan consisted partly of slaves; moreover, many Papuans were captured as slaves in the hongi raids. [Robide, pp. 53,218, 221, 288,289, 232,255, 317. See also"Nieuw Guinea", pp. 186- 192.] This, however, is not sufficient to account for the keeping of slaves by Papuans themselves. But we may consider, first that several districts on the coast are inhabited by a mongrel race of Papuans and Malays (e. g. on the Gulf of Macluer), and secondly that the trade with Tidore, Serang, and other Malay countries must have thoroughly changed the natives' mode of life. Thus we are told that the Dorey people have become somewhat civilized by their intercourse with traders from the Moluccas. [Robide, p. 227.] We may notice here that all districts where slavery is carried on lie on the coast, and are therefore easiest of access to foreigners. And those districts of Dutch New Guinea of which it is stated [410] that there are no slaves, Humboldt Bay and Hattam, have never been visited by hongi fleets. [Robide, pp. 277, 242.] Accordingly, Ottow and Geissler remark that the mountain tribes do not keep slaves, but kill all their prisoners, for fear they might escape. The coast tribes, however, being able to procure slaves from a great distance, who are less likely to escape, practise slavery. [Ottow and Geissler, pp. 152, 153.]
In the Malay Archipelago Mohammedanism already prevailed to a great extent before the conquista, and had even advanced as far as the Philippines. [See Blumentritt, Conquista.] Wherever slavery exists in the Archipelago, we are not certain that we have to deal with a phenomenon of unadulterated savage life. The influence of semi-civilized Mohammedans spreads over nearly the whole of the Archipelago.
In India the slave-trade with semi-civilized countries is, or was, also carried on by the natives. Cooper states that the Meshmees sell slaves to Tibet. [Cooper, p. 183.] According to Colquhoun the Karen-nee sell many slaves to the Shans of Zimme and these again to the Siamese. [Colquhoun, p. 70.] And Rousselet tells us that among the Kafirs "slavery exists within certain limits, but this criminal commerce would cease altogether if there were not such a ready sale for slaves at Djalalabad, Kounar, Asmar and Tchitral". [Rousselet, p. 223.] From the Caucasus, as we have already seen, slaves are exported to Turkey on a large scale. [Rousselet, p. 287.]
Africa is the classical country of the slave-trade. Egypt and Ethiopia furnished a certain number of slaves to ancient Greece, and at Rome there was a regular importation of slaves, some of whom were brought from Africa. [Ingram, pp. 19, 38.] Herodotus speaks of slaves sent to ancient Egypt as tribute from Ethiopia. [Ingram, p. 268.] That in later times the African slave-trade, carried on by Arabs in East Africa and by Europeans in West Africa, assumed enormous proportions, need scarcely be said. In the later half of the 19th century the Mohammedan East still received a large supply of slaves from Africa. Ingram remarks: "The principal centres from which in recent times the supply has been furnished to Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Arabia, and Persia, are three in number. 1. The Soudan, south of the Great Sahara, [411] appears to be one vast hunting-ground. Captives are brought thence to the slave-market of Kuka in Bornu . . . . Negroes are also brought to Morocco from the Western Soudan, and from Timbuktu . . . . 2. The basin of the Nile, extending to the great lakes, is another region infested by the slave trade . . . 3. There has long been a slave-trade from the East African coast. The stream of supply came mainly from the southern Nyassa districts by three or four routes to Ibo, Mozambique, Angoche, and Kilimane. Madagascar and the Comoro Islands obtained most of their slaves from the Mozambique coast . . . . There are other minor branches of the trade elsewhere in Africa. Thus from Harar in Somaliland caravans are sent to Berberah on the coast, where there is a great annual fair. The slaves are collected from the inland Galla countries, from Guragwe, and from Abyssinia, the Abyssinians being the most highly esteemed". [Ingram, pp. 224, 225, 230-233. On the African slave-trade, see also Ratzei, Anthropogeographie II (1891), pp. 386, 387.]
We see that in most parts of the world inhabited by slave-keeping agricultural savages, slaves are, or were, purchased or captured by civilized or semi-civilized peoples; whereas in those parts where the slave-trade has always been unknown, slavery has never prevailed to any considerable extent.
We shall try to account for this fact. But we must first reply to a question which the reader may perhaps have asked, viz. why we have not at the beginning of this second Part discussed the question as to whether slavery is ever a phenomenon of genuine savage life, or has always been due to intercourse with higher races. We have not done so, because it seems to us that this question is one of secondary interest. When we see that among a savage tribe slavery is an institution playing a great part in native life and slave labour is of much use, we must come to the conclusion that slavery is perfectly consistent with the economic and social state in which this tribe lives, whether intercourse with superior races gave rise to it or it already existed before any such intercourse had taken place. And the conclusions we have arrived at in this and the foregoing chapters, as to the various circumstances [412] which further or prevent slavery, remain the same in both cases. Moreover, there are some savage tribes which at the time of their discovery kept slaves without, so far as we know, having had any intercourse with superior races: the New Zealanders and the fishing tribes of Kamchatka and the North Pacific Coast of North America.
Yet, as we have already said, those parts of the world where we have found most of our positive cases are exactly those where the slave-trade has been carried on by civilized and semi-civilized peoples. Going on to account for this fact, we may remark first that it need not have been the slave-trade only that furthered the growth of slavery. The general intercourse with superior races may go far to account for the rise of slavery, irrespectively of the slave-trade. We have seen that commercial tribes are more likely to keep slaves than others; and a savage tribe can engage in commerce with superior peoples, who buy large quantities of native produce and introduce foreign manufactures, to a far greater extent than with neighbouring savages who have not much to exchange, as their own and their neighbours' mode of life and industrial development are nearly the same. A remarkable instance of the influence of commercial intercourse with Europeans on the slave system of a savage race is afforded by Polack's description of the Maori. Formerly, he says, "for a chief to enter his new abode [in the world of spirits], without being ushered by a number of slaves and wives [who were sacrificed], was accounted the greatest indecorum that could possibly exist, but from the scarcity of slaves during late years [Polack wrote in 1840], or rather from the profits accruing from their employment in rearing pigs, and planting provisions, cutting timber, and cleaning flax for their numerous European visitors (their services being at a premium), these butcheries . . . . . have ceased". [Polack, I pp. 78, 79.] Something similar to this may often have taken place.
Probably, however, the slave-trade has also had considerable influence. The mere fact that foreigners purchase or capture slaves from savage tribes cannot, of course, account [413] for the existence of slavery among these savages; it may even result in the disappearance of slavery among them, if they find it more profitable to sell their slaves than retain them. But the slave-trade will often augment the opportunities of acquiring slaves. Slave-traders generally trade in other articles besides slaves; therefore they will often exchange some of the slaves they may have procured for something else. If some slaves are too weak to perform the journey to the coast, it is more profitable to sell them in the interior than to leave them behind. Moreover, the slave-traders often induce savages to make raids upon their neighbours and sell the captives they may secure; and if a savage chief has once learned in this way to kidnap slaves, he will perhaps continue to do so though there be not always a ready sale for them. In a word, the procuring of slaves becomes much easier.
Now we must bear in mind that an institution does not always exist in all countries wrhere it would be economically useful. Not only is an institution which would further the public welfare often wanting, because the immediate interests of individuals are not concerned, but the individuals are not always aware even of their own immediate interests. Such may also be the case with slavery. It may be that, if slavery were introduced into some savage tribe, the tribe, or at least some members of the tribe, would profit by it, and that yet no slaves are made because there are not sufficiently strong motives for doing so, or because there are stronger motives working in the opposite direction. Tribes which have never kept slaves and are unacquainted with slave-keeping tribes, do not know the use of slavery; therefore they have to come to it gradually. Taking for granted that the first source of slavery, as seems very likely, was captivity in war, and that the captives, at first adopted, were afterwards differentiated from the main body of citizens, we can understand why slavery does not exist in all countries where the keeping of slaves would be profitable. It may be that it is the custom to eat the prisoners, or to sacrifice them, or to restore them when peace is concluded. It may also be that the adopted prisoners have from times immemorial been regarded as the equals of the tribesmen. In all these cases the new motive, [414] the want of slaves, must be strong if it is to break through the established custom. The vis inertiae plays a great part in the history of mankind.
Returning to the slave-trade, we may remark that this entirely overturns the existing state of things. It enables the tribe to procure slaves who are not captives, and regarding whom therefore no custom has been established. Moreover, the tribe becomes acquainted with the institution of slavery, which it had not seen practised before. Now there is no longer any reason why the members of such a tribe should not purchase the slaves offered to them and set them to work. An external cause has sufficed to disturb the former equilibrium.
We have remarked before that the slave-trade facilitates the keeping of slaves, because purchased slaves are less likely to escape than captives. [In ancient Wales "the price of a slave was one pound, but of one brought across the sea, a pound and a half. The slave who was brought from a distance was much less likely to escape, or even to attempt it, and was therefore a more valuable property; this principle still holds good among slave-owners." Cunningham, English Industry, I p. 117 note 6.] Here too we have to deal with the vis inertiae rather than with an impossibility in the strict sense of keeping slaves. It will not, probably, often be the case that agricultural savages would be quite unable to retain their slaves, if they were really very anxious to keep them; but it may often occur that they are not yet fully aware of the use of slaves, and therefore do not want to take the pains of supervising them, though, if slavery were thoroughly established, it would prove very profitable; in such case the objective want exists, but the subjective want is not yet felt. In this case, too, the slave-trade, by rendering escape of the slaves more difficult, will tend to establish the custom of keeping slaves.
Our conclusion is that slavery existed among some savages who had never had any intercourse with superior races, but that this intercourse, especially where the slave-trade was carried on, has often greatly furthered the growth of slavery.
In our chapter on pastoral tribes we have remarked that a tribe living in the vicinity of inferior races is more likely to keep slaves than one surrounded by tribes of the same or a higher level of culture. Enslavement of lower races also [415] frequently occurs among agriculturists; but the agriculturists of the higher races (e. g. Malays in the restricted sense, inhabitants of North Africa, etc.) are to be called barbarians rather than savages and have therefore been excluded from the survey of slavery given in our first Part.
Briefly recapitulating the conclusions we have arrived at with regard to agricultural tribes, we have to remark that the general character of their economic and social life is favourable to the existence of slavery: subsistence is easy to procure, and independent of capital, except where cattle are kept.
This applies especially to true agriculturists (agriculturists of the higher stages) as opposed to hunting agriculturists. The latter bear much resemblance to true hunters, who hardly ever keep slaves, accordingly slavery is not so frequent among them as among true agriculturists.
Our general rule, however, requires an important qualification. Where all land has been appropriated, a class of free labourers commonly exists, and slaves are not wanted.
We have not entered into a thorough investigation of the influence of secondary or additional causes. A closer study of this matter will perhaps yield important results. What we have found with regard to these secondary causes is the following.
Slaves often perform female labour; on the other hand female labour sometimes serves as a substitute for slave labour.
Commercial agricultural tribes are far more likely to keep slaves than agricultural tribes among which commerce holds a very subordinate place.
Slaves are sometimes kept for military purposes, or as a mere luxury. These two circumstances, however, though they often lead to the keeping of a larger number of slaves than would otherwise be required, have not probably ever given rise to slavery.
Subjection of tribes as such, which among some pastoral tribes serves as a substitute for slavery, hardly ever occurs among agricultural tribes, except in Oceania, where slavery is already absent for the general cause mentioned above, the non-existence of free land.
Some external causes we had found before: fixed habitations, [416] living in large groups, preserving of food, and the neighbourhood of inferior races, call for no special notice here.
Intercourse with superior races, especially where these carry on the slave-trade, proves to be a factor greatly furthering the growth of slavery.
We shall not give here a list of the causes found up to the present. We think it more convenient to place such a list at the end of our general survey.