| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
"Then came, Oscar, the time of the guns.
And there was no land for a man, no land for a country,
| | | The General Assembly heeded Smith's warning. In 1633 it ruled that any person who shall "sell or barter any guns, powder, shott or any armes or ammunition unto any Indian or Indians within the territorie," shall "forfeite to publique uses all the goods and chattells that he or they then have to theire owne use, an shall also suffer imprisonment duringe life." In order to incentivize reporting, the law provided that half of any such forfeiture shall go to the informant. In 1639, the prior act making it a felony to barter with Indians was repealed, "and enacted that for trading with them for arms and amunition shall be felony, and for other commodities imprisonment at discretion of the Governor and Council." At the time, the standard punishment for a felony conviction was death. [see Vol. 1, 255]. The legislature later retreated a bit from this harsh penalty, enacting revisions in 1642 which restored the original sentence of half of the convict's estate. The 1642 act also made it a crime to furnish Indians with arms for the purposes of hunting game, in the process of which "not onely the Indians (to the great indangering of the collony) are instructed in the use of our arms, but have opportunity given them to store themselves as well with arms as powder and shott." Anyone encountering such and Indian so furnished could lawfully "take away either peece, powder or shott . . . [and] carrie the same to the comander of the county," who was instructed to make a "a strict inquire and examination to find out such person that did lend or give such peece, powder or shott to the Indians." The guilty party must forfeit two thousand lbs. of tobacco for his first offense, and his entire estate for his second. [Vol. 1, 255-256]
Notes
:
:
| |
<
< | The colonists' changing relationship with the Indian natives is reflected in the progression of their arms regulation. In 1645, the House of Burgesses passed an Act establishing Fort Henry and instructing the inhabitants of the Norff counties and the Isle of Wright to "undertake the warr against the Nansimum Indians, or any other neighbouring Indians, by cutting up their corne and doing or performing any act or acts of hostility against them."[Vol. 1, 315 at XIII] Another act passed during the same legislative session "prohibit[ed] any terms of peace to be entertained with the Indians."[Vol. 1, 333, XVII] By 1656, however, hostilities with the Indians had cooled. The legislature's first act of that year dramatically decreased the anti-Indian regime, repealing the law which allowed for the killing of trespassing Indians and declaring that an Indian may only be lawfully killed when committing an act that would be a felony for an Englishman (who would also face death for such a crime). It also allowed unarmed Indians to gather fruits and berries within the colony grounds, and declared that all free men could trade non-restricted items (that is, not guns) with the Indians. [Vol. 1, 415 (add this to pdf!)] | >
> | The colonists' changing relationship with the Indian natives is reflected in the progression of their laws. In 1645, the House of Burgesses passed an Act establishing Fort Henry and instructing the inhabitants of the Norff counties and the Isle of Wright to "undertake the warr against the Nansimum Indians, or any other neighbouring Indians, by cutting up their corne and doing or performing any act or acts of hostility against them."[Vol. 1, 315 at XIII] Another act passed during the same legislative session "prohibit[ed] any terms of peace to be entertained with the Indians."[Vol. 1, 333, XVII] By 1656, however, hostilities with the Indians had cooled. The legislature's first act of that year dramatically decreased the anti-Indian regime, repealing the law which allowed for the killing of trespassing Indians and declaring that an Indian may only be lawfully killed when committing an act that would be a felony for an Englishman (who would also face death for such a crime). It also allowed unarmed Indians to gather fruits and berries within the colony grounds, and declared that all free men could trade non-restricted items (that is, not guns) with the Indians. [Vol. 1, 415 (add this to pdf!)] | | | | |
<
< | In this climate of improving relations between the Indians and the settlers, the General Assembly even acknowledged that there existed certain threats more hazardous than an Indian with a gun. In 1657, recognizing that "of late yeares the wolves have multiplied and increased exceedingly to the greate losse and decrease of cattell and hoggs," the Assembly empowered the county commissioners to take initiative to destroy the wolves "in what way they shall best agree, by imploying Indians or otherwise, Provided they arme not the Indians with English armes and gunns contrary to act of Assembly." [Vol. 1, 457] Notably, an act passed during the same legislative session reiterated the ban on selling, bartering or lending arms to Indians, and even increased the penalties for doing so. [* 1657, Act XVII, Vol. 1, 441] Thus, the county commissioners were permitted to hire armed Indians to hunt the menacing wolves, but only if those Indians had somehow acquired their guns in a way that did not violate this ban. The explanation for this seemingly contradictory set of laws can be found in the statutes from the following year. As the preamb law allowing free trade with the Indians, citing as their | >
> | In this climate of improving relations between the Indians and the settlers, the General Assembly even acknowledged that there existed certain threats more hazardous than an Indian with a gun. In 1657, recognizing that "of late yeares the wolves have multiplied and increased exceedingly to the greate losse and decrease of cattell and hoggs," the Assembly empowered the county commissioners to take initiative to destroy the wolves "in what way they shall best agree, by imploying Indians or otherwise, Provided they arme not the Indians with English armes and gunns contrary to act of Assembly." [Vol. 1, 457] Notably, an act passed during the same legislative session reiterated the ban on selling, bartering or lending arms to Indians, and even increased the penalties for doing so. [* 1657, Act XVII, Vol. 1, 441] Thus, the county commissioners were permitted to hire armed Indians to hunt the menacing wolves, but only if those Indians had somehow acquired their guns in a way that did not violate this ban. The explanation for this seemingly contradictory set of laws can be found in the statutes from the following year. In 1658 the legislature enacted a law allowing free trade with the Indians. The preamble to that law explained that | | |
- 1658, Act IV - "Whereas there is an act in force prohibiting the lending of gunns or ammunition to the Indians, by vertue of which many quarrells have arisen between English and Indians caringe their owne gunns, which might, vnless prevented, prove a disturbance of the peace now made between the two nations, It is enacted and ordained that it shall be lawfull for the Indians to make vse of their owne gunns and amunition without the lett or molestation of any person or persons whatsoever within theire owne limitts." [Vol. 1, 581]
|
|