Bonnefoy’s Folly: Captive Slavery in Cherokee Country
By: Robert Armstrong, M.D., Western Carolina University
The Journal of Antoine Bonnefoy (1741-1742) is an oft quoted resource for illustration of Indian captivity practices in the eighteenth century.[1] His account from November 1741 to June 1742 in Indian Country is a classic captivity narrative commencing with his initial subjugation by “savages” on the Ohio River. This is followed by colorful native rituals, auspicious discoveries, clever planning, and ultimately escape from the grasp of his captors to arrive back amongst the French at Fort Toulouse at the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers in Alabama. Bonnefoy’s observations regarding Indigenous behavior and ceremonies have been a window into this tumultuous period in the lives of his Cherokee captors. However, the value of Bonnefoy’s journal is understated as an instructional tool for learning about the heterogenous nature of the practice and attitudes regarding slavery in the North American continent just prior to the American Revolution.
Within Bonnefoy’s journal, there exists a tension between the principles of chattel slavery and Indigenous captive slavery. It is equally important for what it does not say as for its lively observations of Indigenous captivity traditions. Bonnefoy’s time with the Cherokee corresponded to the last few decades before chattel slavery practices became more pervasive in “Indian country.” His account documents a more classic form of Native American captivity and slavery as it had been practiced for centuries preceding European colonization of the Americas. This is not to be confused with enslavement of Native Americans for sale to Europeans or participation in the Atlantic slave trade which was practiced by many Indigenous groups both prior to and after Bonnefoy’s captivity. Furthermore, neither racial theories nor racial subjugation played a role in Bonnefoy’s enslavement. Indeed, historian Christine Snyder suggests that “not until the late eighteenth century did Southern Indians begin to graft ideas about race onto their pre-existing captivity practices.” [2] The key difference is the slave as property versus the slave as a kinless captive. With Bonnefoy as our protagonist, we can juxtapose Native American captive slavery practices to those introduced by colonial Europeans.
Bonnefoy’s statements in his journal indicate miscalculation or ignorance of his status during his journey as a captive. By his account, he was treated surprisingly well and almost as an equal to his Cherokee captors which was nothing like the chattel slavery with which he was likely familiar. The central point which Bonnefoy misses in his account is that despite his seemingly friendly treatment, he was still a captive slave to the Cherokee throughout his time with them. This is a product of his misunderstanding of slavery as a white Frenchman and the dramatic differences in the practice among Native Americans. Taking this further, not only is Bonnefoy’s point of view regarding captive slavery misguided, but our own evaluation of captivity and slavery in the Americas is constrained by the prominence of the comparatively rigid practice of chattel slavery of the American South and Caribbean. Our full understanding of the heterogeneity of slavery in the Americas is potentially tainted as a byproduct of a myopic view of slavery being only defined as the practice of chattel slavery. In reality, captive slavery practiced by the Native Americans was more in line with ancient forms of slavery and was the dominant form of bondage for centuries in the Americas.[3] Like Bonnefoy, we also need to develop a better awareness of his position as an enslaved European to Indigenous masters in Cherokee country. His folly may be our folly in achieving successful analysis and proper recognition of captive slavery among Native Americans in the eighteenth century.
The Journey Begins
Who was Antoine Bonnefoy? Other than his journal, no other record of his life remains. At some point prior to his adventure, he was a French soldier. At the end of his adventure, he was recognized by his former chief officer who was then the commanding officer of the French outpost, Fort Toulouse, indicating his military pedigree.[4] Nothing indicates if he was native French or creole. His journey originates in French Louisiana, but his origins were otherwise unstated. In 1741, he was a member of a convoy “destined for the Illinois” which left New Orleans on August 22, 1741. Several bateau and pirogues made up the convoy with a mix of “officers and traders” and several Africans.[5] At this point, it is unclear if he remains in the French military or had transitioned to a trader. The leader of the expedition is Sieur de Villars but the final goal of the voyage up the Mississippi River is not described. Bonnefoy rode in one of the pirogues through the convoy’s trek from New Orleans and arrived near the “River Oubache” on November 14, 1741.[6] It is here that his adventure truly began.
In the early morning of November 15, 1741, the convoy moved upriver and Bonnefoy’s pirogue was beset by “savages” of an unknown Indigenous group. Indians in their own boats and on shore opened fire on Bonnefoy’s pirogue. After the initial volley, “the shore was lined with savages, who were aiming at us. The surprise, and the death of our skipper and two of our oarsmen, having put us out of condition to defend ourselves, we surrendered at discretion.”[7] Here began Bonnefoy’s captivity as they “were seized, each by one of the savages, who made him his slave.”[8] Several sources suggest that captives were the most prestigious war prizes. Far more individual recognition was given to those who returned with captives rather than those who boasted of killing an enemy. Taking scalps of dead enemies served as a substitute for live captives. Bringing back scalps was indeed an honor but the return of live captives was the captors’ “height of glory” among his village, kin, and clan.[9] The designation for the responsible captor was simply the first to touch the potential captive. He would be the one to gain credit and associated glory at the home village. The manner in which the Indians took Bonnefoy’s company resembled many raids in the early to mid-eighteenth century where Indian groups would seek smaller bands of enemies, cut them off from the larger group, capture them, and subsequently withdraw before reprisal.[10]
Bonnefoy’s narrative indicates no understanding for the motive of his group’s capture. Captive slavery among Native American cultures extended back several centuries and was a well-recognized institution throughout Eastern and Southern North America. Captives served a variety of functions in Indigenous cultures. Symbolically, they were meant to replace lost members of the captor’s community or clan. Losses may have been related to previous altercations or other perceived onerous acts by the captives’ community. Killing an enemy constituted a loss of power for the aggressor and created “crying blood” which allowed the deceased relatives to cry out for vengeance, further inflaming the conflict. Native Americans found it far more desirable to capture enemies rather than kill them for this reason. The captives’ role was to physically or spiritually replace lost clan and community members instead of creating further concern over added “crying blood.”[11] Some Indigenous groups would use eventual captive adoption practices to partly replace village members lost to murder or warfare.[12] After the initial devastation of the Indigenous population by disease in the early colonial period, captivity became a device to boost populations within villages to maintain viability. Smaller villages could be taken up by larger ones.[13] Lastly, captives were a cornerstone for diplomacy among Indian groups in Eastern North America. Sometimes the most important role of an enslaved captive was in diplomatic relations with neighbors, either as an agent of diplomacy or an object of exchange to maintain relationships.[14]As he would later discover, Bonnefoy had been taken by the Cherokee who had been allies of their English colonial foes for several decades. He may have initially thought that revenge against the French was a motive for his captivity, but in the end his account lacks insight into the motivations of his Cherokee captors.
Being French, Bonnefoy may have thought that he was about to enter a very dark time for himself and his colleagues. Historian Brent Rushforth notes “French colonists still considered captives (of Native Americans) to live in misery, ’groaning under a bondage more grievous than death.’”[15] They may have initially equated Indian captivity to the permanence of colonial chattel slavery in Louisiana or the West Indies despite knowing some key differences about the Indian captivity process. Furthermore, European colonists commonly viewed Native Americans as a free ranging group of “others.” Alan Gallay describes them in colonist eyes as “savage heathens inhabiting a dangerous wilderness that threatened the souls and bodies of Euro-Americans.”[16] Indeed, once captured, Bonnefoy and his colleagues (Bonnefoy, three other Frenchman and an African were taken from the initial capture site) “were tied separately, each with slaves’ collar around the head and arms” to make the initial journey back to their captors home.[17] Restraints were not uncommon for the initial captive experience and captors used collars as Bonnefoy described or “slave strings” and “stocks.” Prisoners were initially treated with great disrespect in many Indigenous cultures, with these symbolic acts of humiliation designed to strip captives of their former identities and make them willing subordinates in their new lives as captive slaves.[18] At this point in his captivity story, Bonnefoy’s long term outlook appeared grim.
As Bonnefoy journeyed from his point of capture back to Cherokee country, he began to see the condition of his captivity differently than the inevitable torture and death he may have first imagined. Bonnefoy and his colleagues remained “bound in the manner I described.” However, they found the so-called “savages,” as he terms his captors throughout the narrative, surprisingly generous with rations. “They gave us (as they always did) a portion equal to theirs, after which they resumed their paddles.”[19] Before the two-and-a-half-month journey to the home village was complete, “my savage took off my slave’s collar.” His companions “Rivard and Potier kept theirs a fortnight, and Coussot a month.”[20] This treatment would be quite atypical in the European administered Atlantic slave trade where reminders of one’s slave status –in the form of physical and psychological abuse– were key fixtures. His current fortune and seemingly generous treatment must have come as a surprise to Bonnefoy. However, the early phase of the captive process was not without its perils. Raiding parties often left the wounded behind as was the case for the African with Bonnefoy’s party “whose wounds had grown worse, was set at liberty and the headman of the party told him to return to the French.” When the African persisted in following the raiding party as he had no knowledge of how to get back to the original French trading post; “tired of seeing him, (the Cherokee) gave him over to the young people who killed him and took his scalp.”[21] Indigenous captive slavery thus far was no compassionate enterprise, but to Bonnefoy, he was better off than his initial perceptions suggested.
Bonnefoy did not appear to grasp the true nature of Native American captive slavery nor his position as a captive of the Cherokee. Had he been of another Native American group, he would have realized that he was now an outsider and that single fact would be the most concerning aspect of his new position. For Indigenous groups of North America, kinship and clan membership were often the most important societal network and organizing principles. These bonds united more than nation, tribe, or town and reached across those boundaries to produce strong and meaningful social connections. Captives were held outside the kinship network.[22] Native American captive slaves may have been made to perform labor for their masters just as those involved in the Atlantic slave trade, but first and foremost they were people without kin. Kinship gave a Native American an ordered place in society. As captive slaves, they were kinless and disconnected in their new home.[23] Rushforth notes “because they (captives) had no actual kin but were attached to a household at the master’s pleasure, they were bound to the family at a single point rather than through the multiple lines created by kinship.”[24] At this point, Bonnefoy had no defined kinship concerns and celebrated that he was in much better situation than he could have ever imagined given his previous notions on being a captive of “savages.”
Bonnefoy’s views of slavery were most likely drawn from his colonial French experiences and observations of slavery in the Louisiana colony. In Louisiana, The1685 Code Noir dictated rules to regulate the condition of slaves in the colony. Within the Code Noir, slavery was an inherited condition and specifically determined by the mother. Slaves could not carry arms, assemble, or move freely. Their masters were directed to ensure that slaves were baptized within the Catholic church soon after purchase. A master’s consent had to be provided for marriage (slave to slave) and there could be no fraternization between white people and slaves. Slaves had no ability to have their own possessions and all they received is the property of their master.[25] While Native American captive practices seemed to have some fluidity, chattel slavery managed by the French had defined characteristics. Foremost of these was the slave as property and the inherited nature of the condition. As the narrative unfolds, Bonnefoy observes familiar features of slavery from his European background, but he also witnessed other elements which surprise him. The flexibility of Indigenous captive traditions was not something he was prepared for given the rigid principles outlined in the Code Noir.
During the trek back to Cherokee country, Bonnefoy felt he had made a step up from his initial capture. “I was adopted as a brother by a savage who bought me of my master, which he did by promising a quantity of merchandise.”[26] He had been sold, perhaps not in the fashion of the African slaves in New Orleans but sold as property, nonetheless. It seems that the conditions and relative comfort of his situation obscured the reality, as he was still property and his fate remained in doubt. He further noted “my companions were adopted by other savages, whether as nephews or as cousins, and treated in the same manner by their liberators and all their families.”[27] Again, Bonnefoy’s elation over the perceived change in his condition would be less celebrated by a Native American captive as they would be entering into a spiritually kinless state and uncertain future. Bonnefoy and his colleagues felt they may be spared hard labor and death which may have been their initial impression of their future. They did not know their paths had yet to be determined within the ritual of capture and captivity.
There are French accounts of Indigenous capture practices in the Louisiana region or Canada involving Europeans. Diron D’Artaguette, Inspector General of Louisiana in the 1720’s chronicles an instance of French captives among the Chickasaw, close neighbors of the Cherokee.[28] Bonnefoy seems to have taken an optimistic leap toward his “adoption” by his Cherokee captors. European adoption into Indigenous cultures was reported in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and such stories may have circulated through the French military and traders. Slave integration was a notable departure from the Atlantic slave trade making it a curiosity for European examinations of Indigenous culture. In some ways, Native American captive slavery practices had much more in common with other eras and other world cultures, past and present, such as ancient Greece and Rome.[29] The Atlantic slave trade may have been more the outlier in world history. Bonnefoy’s seemingly friendly treatment and potential stories of selected others may have lulled him to a false sense of security. He emphasizes the positives and fails to realize the significance of the kinless stigma and vulnerability of the captive slave. At any moment during his time with the Cherokee, he could be relocated to another Native American group as a peace offering or even worse, be given over to the English as a show of good will. As Rushforth notes “emphasizing this aspect of captivity (potential adoption) to exclusion of all others flattens and romanticizes the experience of Indigenous slaves.”[30]
Arrival in Talekoa
In February of 1742, Bonnefoy’s captors arrived home to Talekoa in the Overhill Cherokee country.[31] The initial days in Talekoa are the most colorful of Bonnefoy’s descriptions of his captive experience. His accounts provide great insight into Indigenous practices, but they also contain glaring omissions. When Bonnefoy and his colleagues came to the Talekoa:
“At first sight of our savages, all the men ran out of the place where we were, for the customary ceremony among this nation. Our clothes were taken off, and a stock was made for each of us, without, however, putting us in it; they merely put on us our slave’s collar. Then the savages, putting in each one’s hand a white stick and a rattle, told us we must sing, which we did for the space of more than three hours, singing, both French and Indian songs.”[32]
The Cherokee ceremony described has great similarities to accounts of ceremonies from other indigenous groups in Eastern North America.[33] Rushforth describes similar ceremonies in the Algonquian and Siouan groups around the Great Lakes Region. These ceremonies could be quite demeaning with captives frequently taunted and tortured. The captors inflicted cuts and other disfiguring marks (finger amputation, nail removal) to celebrate the captives lack of kinship with their captors.[34] Bonnefoy and his companions seemingly escaped physical harm and may not have recognized the verbal taunts if they occurred. The next day, the ceremony continued with the captives having their bodies painted and then they:
“made the entry into the village in the order of a troop of infantry. They made us march in this order, singing, and having, as we had before, a white stick and a rattle in our hands, to the chief square around a great tree which is in the middle of that place. Then they buried at the foot of the tree a parcel of our hair from each one of us, which the savages had preserved from the time when they cut our hair off.”[35]
This ceremony put the new captives on display and began the process of erasing their previous identities. Bonnefoy and his comrades seemed to have survived the initial encounter in the village. However, their new lives within Cherokee society were far from decided.[36]
Captives had two possible fates once they returned to the captor village, death or a path to adoption. Adoption did not mean full rights of kinship, only slavery with a possibility of acquiring kinship over time to be determined by their new community and master. Bonnefoy was accustomed to slavery being the binary existence of slave and master, he and his French counterparts were still trying to grapple with the fluidity and ambiguity of the Native American enslaving practices. Captive slavery was a flexible institution in Indigenous cultures. The captors used the captives to advance their own economic, spiritual, and social prospects.[37] This was in many ways no different from chattel slavery in Louisiana. However, one key purpose of captives was to replace lost kin and sometimes that spiritual replacement meant death. Additionally, captive slaves could provide a galvanizing symbol to the current Cherokee villagers of what they were not, “kinless others.” As opposites of their kin-linked Cherokee captors, the captives were a consistent daily reminder to their masters of their favored Cherokee’s clan and kin identity.[38]
Warriors may have made early claims on the captives but the ultimate decision on their fate rested on a new body, unknown to the French captives. Here Bonnefoy appears to have made a serious oversight in his captivity narrative. Perhaps as a European soldier (or ex-soldier), he carried an entirely male centric view throughout his narrative with very few mentions of women being present or as players in his captivity destiny. His interactions in Talekoa are entirely with male Cherokee and in turn he indicates that they make the decisions regarding his fate. It is true the raiding parties and war were a key part of male duties in Cherokee life. However, the Cherokee were a matrilineal society and women made the decision regarding a captive’s future. Captives were “war offerings to the women from their clan’s warriors who had acted on behalf of the clan’s honor.” They did, as Bonnefoy had gathered, belong to their captor but only until they had been presented to the women of the clan.[39]
In fact, in Cherokee society, women played a significant role in initiating (or preventing) the actual war parties which might return captives. It was their duty to determine the fate of captives based on the village and clan’s psychological and social needs as well as the individual captives’ gender, age, and personality. Specifically, in Cherokee communities, the belief was that the spirit of those killed by foes could not rest until their death was avenged which made the “Beloved Women” obliged to seek “crying blood.”[40] Male captives were those most likely to be put to death as they were more difficult to control and may have been closer to the likely protagonist in creating a need for “crying blood.” Women and children were much more valuable to incorporate into village life and subsistence activities. Bonnefoy simplifies his fate by noting “they brought us into the council house, where we were obliged to sing four songs. Then the savages who had adopted us came and took away our collars.”[41] He makes no mention of the “Beloved Women” or any other similar council which spared Bonnefoy or his compatriots from repaying the “crying blood” with their lives and defined their roles in Talekoa. Frenchman preceding Bonnefoy had made observations of the importance and strong leadership presence of Native American women in the groups near the Louisiana Territory.[42] Bonnefoy did not seem to be such a keen observer to those likely responsible for his fate.
Had he been tortured, maimed, or put to death after the initial capture; Bonnefoy probably would not have been surprised. French colonials knew of captive death.[43] That had been the fate of many before him, and likely many to follow. From his European background, discipline was also a hallmark of chattel slavery in colonial North America to maintain order. If death was the judgement of the “Beloved Women,” fire was the most likely method. Death by burning was the most common fate for captives designated to redeem the “crying blood” from the loss of Indigenous kin. Each village would have a “death pole or blood pole” and the captive would be bound to the pole and burned. Snyder notes for Southeastern Native Americans, burning pitch pine splinters would be placed in the captive’s skin and a slow execution by fire would ensue. Only adult males were chosen for this fate. The victims would often be mocked and threatened during the ritual and it was great shame for the captive to show emotion while burning.[44] As noted, non-lethal torture was also a frequent occurrence to remind captives of their kinless status and “otherness” among the village. For the Indigenous communities, the torture (lethal and nonlethal) was meant to “quiet crying blood,” augment captor power, and address cosmic balance in kin losses. Torture could restore the social order which had become unbalanced through a perceived unjust death. Bonnefoy and his colleagues may have expected torture, but they would have felt that it was a prerogative of the captor to maintain domination over the captured, as Louisiana slaveowners would.[45] If he did receive any taunting or abuse, he neither reported it nor recognized it when it occurred. With his path of an adopted, yet kinless slave as his new vocation, Bonnefoy embarked on his new life in Cherokee country.
Bonnefoy Triumphant?
Bonnefoy’s “kinless otherness” had little effect on his general demeanor and outlook for the future. Rather, he was happy with his situation compared to reports he may have received prior to his capture or his conception of slavery in general. After his ceremony at the council house, “I followed my adoptive brother who, on entering his cabin, washed me, then after he told me the way was free before me, I ate with him, and I remained there two months, dressed and treated like himself, without other occupation than go hunting twice with him.”[46] Although he seemed free to roam the village, he was still a slave with no clear clan or kin identity. Clan membership was central to social identity in Cherokee culture. He did seem to be on the path to adoption, as his captors made attempts to “purify” Bonnefoy and bring him into the villages’ society with the ritual bathing, redressing, and burial of his hair.[47] Even adopted slaves were owned and controlled by a master and still dishonored by all within the village even after incorporation.[48] As a captive, his situation was unpredictable, and his fortune could change at any time. Bonnefoy was familiar with the role of a slave as bound laborer and societal inferior. He was perhaps less familiar with captive slavery’s most damning aspect, that of societal outcast.[49] He was still a kinless outsider, but also a skilled outsider. As a European military (or ex-military) man, perhaps the Cherokee felt his familiarity with rifles offered some use for hunting. Most likely, his greatest value to Talekoa might have been his potential diplomatic knowledge and subsequent use for their benefit.
Rushforth designates the Indigenous captive as an “agent of diplomacy” and finds this to be a key use of captive slaves both prior to and during the colonial era. Enslaved captives could link former enemies by creating kinship ties or providing the means to establish dialogue. They could be an object of trade or a peace offering. They might even become a gift to a third party who could broker peace (or incite war) with another indigenous group.[50] Language skills, both as teachers and translators, were key for trade and diplomacy given the wide variety of dialects within North America. The Cherokee were allies of the English in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century. They witnessed their Creek neighbors (and often foes) having ongoing beneficial relationships with both the French and the English. Native Americans did not trade with enemies, so creating a social relationship or kinship tie was critical to create trade bonds and agreements.[51] Bonnefoy notes “the savage with whom I lived, who was one of the principal men of the nation, and other chiefs, sometimes asked me in what manner they could appease the French and bring them to their place to trade.”[52] The Cherokee needed to understand the world around them and Bonnefoy could be a useful conduit.[53] Despite the fact that European enslaved captives had undeniable worth to their Native American captors as laborers and potential commodities, their social and political value mattered just as much and perhaps more.[54] Chattel slavery often built the individual slaveowner’s societal and economic status just as captives might for their Native American masters. However, the European enslaved captives of the Cherokee could bolster the entire town or nation with their knowledge and information regarding the complexities of the colonial world. Archaeologist Catherine Cameron notes that in evidence seen throughout captive narratives, small scale societies such as the Cherokee were highly receptive to knowledge brought in by outsiders. Native Americans seemed to immediately see colonists as opportunities for trade and alliance as well as acquisition of novel goods, skills and intelligence. Even if captives were abused or humiliated in some fashion, they were mined for useful information and exploitable abilities.[55]
Gendered work roles and emphasis on lack of kin ties were essential in Indigenous captive slavery. Classically, captive slaves assisted in subsistence activities and basic functions of the village. Captors utilized kinless slave labor in agriculture, building projects, and hunting to augment village efforts. Some situations forced captors to utilize male captives in war efforts. Although it was the male warriors who made the initial capture “in the long run most Indigenous slaves spent much time supervised by women.”[56] A characteristic of Indigenous captive slavery as a whole was the frequent attempts throughout the captives’ labors to emphasize their “kinless otherness” by alterations to their appearance and the tasks they were forced to perform. Changes in hair style, dress, and other body modifications would highlight “otherness” to the village.[57] Captors emphasized kinlessness on a daily basis by having male slaves perform tasks outside their usual gender roles such as serving food, preparing skins, farm labor, and carrying packs on hunting expeditions.[58] Women and children had a better chance of being incorporated into the societal network, women for their reproductive abilities and children for their easy integration in a new Indigenous society.[59] Bonnefoy seemed to have escaped work in the fields or he neglected to mention participation in any of these activities. From his European background, many of these agrarian activities may have seemed less demeaning or not worthy of comment in his narrative.
The Cherokee had additional uses for captives at this time in their history. A primary goal for captives in the mid-eighteenth century was to help restore a decimated population. In 1685, the Cherokee population was between 30,000 to 35,000. By 1730, it had shrunk to just greater than 10,000.[60] Bonnefoy himself noted the multi-cultural feel of Talekoa during his time there, observing other Europeans and Africans among the village inhabitants. Incorporating outsiders, both Native Americans and other groups, was key to maintaining population and survival of individual villages.[61] Captivity bolstered village populations with either small scale raids like Bonnefoy’s capture or large-scale capture of smaller indigenous villages. Several scholars have noted that many of the larger Native American groups of Southeastern North America (Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw) practiced “coalescence” to stem the tide of significant population loss, social disruption, and potential obsolescence.[62] Captives filled in roles within the community to keep the village viable with the potential option of a path to kinship which was a feature of Indigenous captivity practices which distinguished it from chattel slavery. Africans and Europeans were also included in this “coalescence” and came to be part of village via capture, refugees, or even purchases of classic chattel slavery. These individuals also might be accepted into the village clan and kinship network, via marriage or adoption.[63] The growth of status and flexibility of purpose within the Indigenous captivity system was very different than the chattel slavery seen in colonial Louisiana.
New World Introspection
Throughout Bonnefoy’s narrative, he comments frequently about his treatment as a captive slave in Cherokee country. In the chattel slavery practices of Louisiana, slaves had an economic value based on their potential to earn capital for their owner via their labor. Yet, Bonnefoy had performed very little hard labor for his Cherokee master or neglects to describe it. Enslaved captives of the Native Americans provided a wide variety of functions within the village, rather than serving a single master. Perhaps his prowess on the hunt and information about French trading possibilities served his Cherokee masters’ aims for the time being. Chattel slavery, as seen via the Code Noir, was an inflexible inherited condition depending on the status of the mother. Native American captive slavery was more of a political and social phenomenon with the only designation of participants being kinless captive and captor.[64] Furthermore, permanent escape from bondage in Atlantic slavery was an unlikely proposition at best, while fluidity and a path to kinship was possible within Indigenous captivity. Cherokee contemporaries of Bonnefoy’s captors summed it up best in their response comparing captive slavery compared to colonial chattel slavery in “this small rope which we shew you, is all we have to bind our slaves with, and it may be broken, but you have iron chains for yours.”[65] It seems Bonnefoy was waiting for the iron chains but was continually surprised by his very limited leash.
Given his freedom to move around the village, Bonnefoy and his French colleagues made plans to make their escape. They felt threatened by intermittent English traders passing through the village. The need to escape reveals that Bonnefoy and his fellow captives understood at some level they were still not free men in Talekoa, despite their perceived successful adoption and good fortune to date. They bided their time and made their escape on April 29, 1742. [66] From then until May 27, 1742, he traveled through the modern-day Tennessee and Alabama foothills until he arrived at a village of the Alabama Indians.[67] His persisting value as captive slave may have been low, or perhaps the Cherokee had felt they had utilized him to his maximum capacity as there is no suggestion that the Cherokee aggressively pursued after his escape. Ironically, he was again taken as a captive by the Alabamas but he managed to convince them to take him to nearby Fort Toulouse at the edge of Alabama country. This was a common rescue point within the southeast for French and French allies lost in Indian Country as well as trading point for those who wished to engage the French for business.[68] He arrived at Fort Toulouse on June 1, 1742 to be reunited with his former commander. Here, Antoine Bonnefoy leaves us with no further entries in his journal and nothing further known about his life after his repatriation at Fort Toulouse.
Bonnefoy’s Folly: Our Chance for Discovery
The story of Antoine Bonnefoy, French adventurer and captive Cherokee slave offers us a brief but powerful window into the world of Native American captive slavery in the mid-eighteenth century. As with many topics in Native American study, sources on captive slavery are limited and dependent on European descriptions with potential for misinterpretation and bias. This account is much more important than mere descriptions. Bonnefoy’s reaction to events and silences speak just as loudly as his colorful depictions of ceremony and life within Talekoa. Bonnefoy provides history a valuable firsthand account of an alternative form of slavery on the North American continent in the 1700’s.
Native American captive slavery was an aged form of slavery practiced centuries before the much more recognized American slavery, chattel slavery. However, the domineering presence of chattel slavery in the Americas impedes discovery of captive slavery practices. Chattel slavery was a key to the economic success of the American colonies and thus commands attention in studies of colonial society and economic growth in the Americas as well as the United States after the American Revolution. The attention brought to chattel slavery in the Americas as a highly rigid form of bondage consistently narrows our understanding and makes other forms of American slavery difficult to evaluate and discuss.[69] Like Bonnefoy, students and scholars of history of the Americas might attempt to apply chattel slavery principles to a tradition which certainly had similar features. However, the fluidity and ultimate goals of captive slavery were in many ways at odds with the core principles of chattel slavery in the Americas.
Native American captive slavery fulfilled a variety of benefits to the captor in addition to the production of commodities and financial enrichment. It was a system of symbolic dominion which appropriated power and productivity from enemies but at the same time could help rebuild Indigenous societies and create alliances.[70] For the enslaved, it could be just as brutal as Atlantic chattel slavery but could also change over time and potentially offer a path to integration with the captor. Captive slavery provided for a highly adaptable cultural institution able to address changing social and economic needs from precolonial times until several decades after Bonnefoy’s sojourn.[71] Bonnefoy, via his keen observations, surprised reactions, and omissions invites us to consider the flexibility of his Cherokee captive slavery in 1741-1742 for a more comprehensive consideration of slavery in the Americas in the eighteenth century. His folly and misunderstanding of his captive slavery risks also becoming our folly if we fail to recognize this form of bondage and acknowledge its importance in American society for centuries prior to and during colonial times.
[1] His narrative features prominently in several of Christine Synder’s works including her contribution entitled “Native American Slavery in Global Context,” in What is a Slave Society? The Practice of Slavery in Global Perspective, edited by Catherine Cameron and Noel Lenski, 169-190. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018 as well as her book Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010).
[2] Christine Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 5.
[3] Christine Snyder, “Native American Slavery in Global Context,” in What is a Slave Society? The Practice of Slavery in Global Perspective, edited by Catherine Cameron and Noel Lenski (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 170-172.
[4] Antoine Bonnefoy, “Journal of Antoine Bonnefoy, 1741-1742,” edited by J. Franklin Jameson in Travels in the American Colonies, edited by Newton Mereness (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916), 255. “Mounsier Derneville, captain, commanded the post who, though I had served under him not long before my journey, did not recognize me until after I had been named to him, so much I was disfigured.”
[5] Bateau (or bateuax) were flat bottomed river boats within Bonnefoy’s convoy which carried 28 men by his estimation and pirogues were long narrow canoes, often carved out of a single tree trunk which carried 8-9 men
[6] The “River Oubache” is thought to represent the Ohio River (direct tributary of the Mississippi) by the translator, Dr J. Franklin Jameson.
[7] Bonnefoy, 242.
[8] Bonnefoy, 242.
[9] Brett Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2012), 39-40, and Synder, Slavery in Indian Country, 35-41.
[10] Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 85-92.
[11] Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 80-81.
[12] Brett Rushforth, “A Little Flesh We Offer You: The Origins of Indian Slavery in New France,” The William Mary Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 4 (October 2003): 784.
[13] Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 114.
[14] Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance, 19-20.
[15] Rushforth, “A Little Flesh We Offer You,” 780.
[16] Gallay, Alan. “Introduction: Indian Slavery in Historical Context,” In Indian Slavery in Colonial America, ed Alan Gallay (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska,2009), 3.
[17] Bonnefoy, 242.
[18] Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 87 and Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance, 35.
[19] Bonnefoy, 243.
[20] Bonnefoy, 244.
[21] Bonnefoy, 244.
[22] Catherine M. Cameron, Captives: How Stolen People Changed the World (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2016), 107. In Cherokee society within the eighteenth century, clan and village were much more important than tribe or nation. This is better examined in Tyler Boulware, Deconstructing the Cherokee Nation: Town, Region, and Nation Among Eighteenth Century Cherokees (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2011), 10-32.
[23] Gallay, “Introduction,” 8.
[24] Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance, 49.
[25] Code Noir (1685) in Louisiana, in Slavery, Stanley Engerman, Seymour Drescher, and Robert Paquette, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), Chapter 44.
[26] Bonnefoy, 244.
[27] Bonnefoy, 244.
[28] D’Artaguiette, Diron, Journal of Diron D’Artaguiette, 1722-1723. edited by Georgia Sanderlin in Travels in the American Colonies, edited by Newton Mereness (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916), 31. D’Artaguiette was the Inspector General of the Louisiana Colony and surveyed the Mississippi River in his report which contains frequent observations of native American groups trading along the river.
[29] Christine Snyder, “Native American Slavery in Global Context.” 169.
[30] Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance, 65-66.
[31] “Talekoa” was likely Tellico, a major Cherokee village along a tributary of the Little Tennessee River in modern eastern Tennessee.
[32] Bonnefoy, 245
[33] Alexander Moore, ed., Nairne’s Muskogean Journals: The 1708 Expedition to the Mississippi River (Oxford, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1988), 62. This account describes similar Chickasaw purification procedures.
[34] Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance,17 and 41-42 and Rushforth, “A Little Flesh We Offer You,” 782.
[35] Bonnefoy, 246.
[36] Snyder, “Native American Slavery in Global Context,” 174.
[37] Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 6 and 44-45.
[38] Cameron, 114-115.
[39] Susan Abram, “Real Men: Masculinity, Spirituality, and Community in Late Eighteenth-Century Cherokee Warfare,” in New Men: Manliness in Early America, edited by Thomas A. Foster (New York: NYU Press, 2011), 82.
[40] Denise Bossy, “Indian Slavery in Southeastern Indian and British Societies, 1670-1730,” in Indian Slavery in Colonial America, edited by Alan Gallay (Lincoln, NE: university of Nebraska Press, 2009), 210-211.
[41] Bonnefoy, 246
[42] D’Artaguiette, 47-48. This is a description of powerful women within the Natchez Tribe who resided along the Mississippi River in modern Mississippi.
[43] D’ Artaguiette, 83-88. Diron D’Artaguiette notes on two separate occasions death and burning of Indigenous captives by Native American groups along the Mississippi River as he surveys the Louisiana colony in 1722-23.
[44] Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 95-96.
[45] Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 98-99 and Christine Snyder, “Conquered Enemies, Adopted Kin, and Owned People: The Creek Indians and Their Captives,” The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 73, No. 2 (May 2007), 265.
[46] Bonnefoy, 246.
[47] Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 105 and Snyder, “Native American Slavery in Global Context,” 174-175. Snyder asserts that Bonnefoy attained near full kin ties very soon after his arrival based on his report in her Native American Slavery in Global Context chapter but other sources such as Rushforth suggest that full kin status would usually take much more time
[48] Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance, 51.
[49] Bossy, 211-213.
[50] Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance, 61-64.
[51] Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 55-56.
[52] Bonnefoy, 250.
[53] The Cherokee were divided during this time in regard to their ties and loyalties to the English with whom they had been aligned with for several years and looking at their options. Bonnefoy himself did make some note of this division in his report with “of the 52 villages which compose the nation of the Cherakis, only eight are our (the French) enemies” on 250-251 of his account. David H. Corkran, The Cherokee Frontier: Conflict and Survival, 1740-62 (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962) outlines these struggles and divisions in this time period.
[54] Snyder, “Native American Slavery in Global Context,” 179.
[55] Cameron, 134 and 146.
[56] Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance, 57.
[57] Cameron, 112.
[58] Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance, 60-61.
[59] Snyder, “Conquered Enemies,” 271-274
[60] Peter H. Wood, “The Changing Population of the Colonial South: An Overview by Race and Region, 1685-1790,” in Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, edited by Gregory Waslekov, Peter H. Wood, and Tom Hatley (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1989/2006), 88.
[61] Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 109-110.
[62] Cameron, 123. This process is noted as the principle behind the Creek confederacy to the south of the Cherokees and is highlighted by Cameron as well as detailed in Claudio Saunt, A New Order of Things: Property, Power, and the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 18-19.
[63] In Bonnefoy’s narrative, he makes note of English traders, additional captured Frenchman, Africans, and a French speaking German named “Pierre Albert” who was Christian Priber thought to be an agent of the French in Cherokee Country
[64] Bossy, 213-215.
[65] Bossy, 235
[66] Bonnefoy, 251.
[67] Bonnefoy’s Journal (251-253) details his one month journey where he loses his colleagues as their boat goes over a waterfall and he is forced to make a solo trek to Alabama country. In addition, his brief time with the Alabama Indians is another good example of captive ownership designation as the village wanted to give him over to the English but his initial captor claimed ownership and spoke on his behalf “as none of them had been brave enough to go and seek me when I called (upon his arrival to the village).”
[68] Daniel H. Thomas, Fort Toulouse: The French Outpost at the Alabamas on the Coosa (Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1989), 48-49.
[69] Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 7.
[70] Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance, 70.
[71] Snyder, “Conquered Enemies’” 258.