OCR Text |
Show 34 THOMAS] VIRGINIA'S POLICY TOWARD THE INDIANS 563 suits which arose out of these claims. It is next to impossible at this day to ascertain all these individual purchases; moreover, it is not apparent that it would serve any good purpose in this connection to give them were it possible to do so. It has been stated repeatedly that the policy of the colonies was the same as that afterward adopted by the United States. While this may be true in a broad sense, there were differences in method which had important bearings on the history of the different provinces. In fact, the theory in regard to the Indian tenure was not precisely the same throughout, as will become evident from a perusal of what is presented. It will also be seen that the idea on which the authorities based their proceedings was not always the same, those of one colony looking chiefly to meeting the claims of the Indians, while the main object in other cases was to obtain as much land as possible, thus differing, though dealing fairly. VIRGINIA Although the letters patent of James I to Sir Thomas Gage and others for " two several colonies," dated April 10, 1G0G, and his second charter, May 23, 1G09, to "the Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Planters of the City of London for the first Colony of Virginia," granted full and complete right in the land, "in free and common socage," yet neither contains any allusion to the rights or title of the natives. The third charter, granted the last-named company March 12, 1G11-12, also fails to make any allusion to the title of the Indiana or to the mode of dealing with them. The "instructions" given by the council of the London Virginia Company to the first adventurers (160G) contains the following very slight indication of the policy to be adopted in dealing with the Indians: "In all your passages you must have great care not to offend the naturals, if you can eschew it; and employ some few of your company to trade with them for corn and all other lasting victuals if you {theyt) have any: and this you must do before that they perceive you mean to plant among them."1 Burk,2 speaking of the London Company and the nature of its government, summarizes its dealings with the Indians as follows: At the coming of tho English, the Indians naturally enjoyed the boat and most convenient stations for fishing, and the most fertile lands: But iu proportion aa new settlers came iu, they rapidly lost those advantages. In some cases tho colonists claimed by tho right of conquest, and the imaginary title conferred by the king's charter. In general however, they acted on better principles, anc' purchased from tho h.-ads of tribes, the right of soil, m a fair and (as far as was practicable) in a legal manner. In the treaty entered into between sir G. Yeardley and Opechancanough, we hnd a sweup.ng clause, granting to the English permission to reside and inhabit at such places on the banks of certain rivers, which were not already occupied by E ^ l S ^ ^^-WdUion, The •History of Virginia (1804), vol., I, p. 312, appendix. |