The Mahicanni, or Mohicans.
This once great and renowned nation has also almost entirely disappeared, as well as the numerous tribes who had descended from them; they have been destroyed by wars, and carried off by the small pox and other disorders, and great numbers have died in consequence of the introduction of spirituous liquors among them. The remainder have fled and removed in separate bodies to different parts, where they now are dispersed or mingled with other nations. So early as the year 1762, a number of them had emigrated to the Ohio, where I became acquainted with their chief who was called by the whites “Mohican John.” Others have fled to the shores of the St. Lawrence, where numbers of them incorporated themselves with the Iroquois, and where their descendants live at the present time, a mixed race, known by the name of the Cochnewago Indians. Upwards of one hundred of them, who lived in the colonies of Connecticut and New York, having through the labours of the United Brethren embraced Christianity, emigrated to Pennsylvania, some time between 1742 and 1760, where they afterwards became incorporated with the Delawares.[104] A considerable number migrated from Hudson’s river about the year 1734, and settled at Stockbridge, in Massachusetts; between the year 1785 and 1787, they removed to Oneida, in the country of the Six Nations, and gave to their settlement the name of New Stockbridge. Before their removal their numbers had gradually diminished. In 1791, they were reduced to 191 persons.[105] They were once very numerous in Connecticut, and in the year 1799, there still were 84 individuals of them, in the county of New London,[106] the remains of a once large and flourishing settlement. It is probable that by this time they are nearly if not entirely extinct.
It is believed that the Mahicanni are the same nation who are so celebrated in the History of New England, under the name of Pequods or Pequots.[107] The Rev. Jonathan Edwards, late President of Union College at Schenectady, in the State of New York, published in the year 1788 in a pamphlet form, some observations on their language, which were republished at New York in 1801. This small tract, as well as the translation of the Bible into the Natick, by the venerable Eliot, and his grammar of that language, put it beyond a doubt that the idiom of the Mohicans and those of the other New England Indians proceeded from the same source with that of the Lenni Lenape.
CHAPTER V.
THE IROQUOIS.
The most intelligent and credible Indians of the Lenape stock, including the Mohicans, have ever asserted, that in the whole country bounded on the north by the river St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes (including what is now Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), on the west by the Mississippi, on the east by the Great Salt-water Lake,[108] and on the south by the country of the Creeks, Cherokees, and other Florida Indians, there were but two nations, the Mengwe, and themselves. Theirs was by far the most numerous and the most extensively settled, for their tribes extended even beyond the Mississippi. On the other side of the St. Lawrence, the Algonquins, the Killistenos or Knisteneaux, and others, speaking dialects of their language, prove their origin from the same stock. The Mengwe, on the contrary, were comparatively few, and occupied a much less portion of territory, being almost confined to the vicinity of the great lakes. But few tribes are known to be connected with them by descent and language; the principal ones are the Wyandots, otherwise called Hurons, and the Naudowessies. Almost every other nation within the boundaries described, is of the Lenape family.
Each of these two great nations, say the Delawares, had an ancient national name, and a tradition of their respective origin, handed down to them by their ancestors, and diffused among all the kindred tribes. By whatsoever names those tribes might be called, and whatever their numbers were, still they considered themselves, and were considered by others, as the offspring of the same original stock. All the tribes who had sprung from the Lenape called the mother nation grandfather, and received, in return, the appellation of grandchildren. They were all united by the strongest ties of friendship and alliance; in their own expressive language, they made but one house, one fire, and one canoe, that is to say, that they constituted together, one people, one family. The same thing took place between the Mengwe and the tribes descended from them. They and the Lenape had no relationship with each other, though they came over the Mississippi together at the same time. They considered each other as nations entirely distinct.
The Mengwe or Iroquois were always considered by the Lenape as only one nation, consisting of several confederated tribes. The name of Five and afterwards Six Nations, was given to them by the English, whose allies they were, probably to raise their consequence, and magnify the idea of their strength; but the Indian nations never did flatter them with that high sounding appellation, and considered them merely as confederated tribes.
The late Rev. Mr. Pyrlæus, in a large volume of MS. notes which he wrote between the years 1740 and 1760 (upwards of 70 years ago), has taken down on this subject the account given by the Iroquois themselves, as he had it from the mouth of an intelligent Mohawk chief,[109] whose veracity might be depended upon. After giving some details respecting the origin of their confederation, the time about which it took place, the names of the delegates from each of the confederated tribes, &c., he proceeds thus: “They then gave themselves the name Aquanoshioni, which means one house, one family, and consisted of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagoes, Cayugas, and Senecas. This alliance having been first proposed by a Mohawk chief, the Mohawks rank in the family as the eldest brother, the Oneidas, as the eldest son; the Senecas, who were the last who at that time had consented to the alliance, were called the youngest son; but the Tuscaroras, who joined the confederacy probably one hundred years afterwards, assumed that name, and the Senecas ranked in precedence before them, as being the next youngest son, or as we would say, the youngest son but one.”
The Rev. David Zeisberger also says: “That the Iroquois call themselves Aquanoschioni, which means united people, having united for the purpose of always reminding each other that their safety and power consist in a mutual and strict adherence to their alliance.”[110] He adds, that Onondago is the chief town of the Iroquois.
Thus, in the different translations of the name which these people gave themselves, we find nothing that conveys the ideas of nations, it implies no more than a family, an united people, a family compact. The different sections take ranks in this family, of which the Onondagoes are the head, while the others are brothers and sons; all which tends clearly to prove, that they were originally but tribes, detached bodies of the same people, who, when brought together in close union, formed a complete family and became entitled to the name of a Nation.
We also see that self-preservation was the cause of their uniting, and that they were compelled by necessity to this measure, on which their existence depended. And though we have a right to suppose that that tribe which always takes the lead in the government of an Indian nation (the Turtle tribe), existed among them, yet it is evident that its authority at that time was either wholly disregarded, or at least, was too weak to give complete efficacy to its measures.
If, then, we believe the information given us by both Pyrlæus and Zeisberger to be correct, we must be fully convinced that the Iroquois confederacy did not consist of Five or Six Nations, but of as many tribes or sections of the same people, forming together one nation. These two Missionaries are known to have been men of the strictest veracity; they were both, I may say, critically acquainted[111] with the Mengwe idiom, and they had their information from the most respectable and intelligent men among that nation, the former from the Mohawk, the latter from the Onondaga tribe. There is no reason, therefore, why the truth of their statements should be doubted.
The Lenape and their kindred tribes never have called the Iroquois “the Five or Six Nations.” In conversation, they call them the Mengwe, and never make use of any other but this generic name when speaking of them. In their councils, however, they occasionally distinguished them by the name Palenach endchiesktajeet.[113] These two words, literally translated mean “the five divisions, sections or parts together,” and does not in any manner imply the idea of nations. Had they meant to say “the Five Nations,” they would have expressed it by the words Palenach ekhokewit; those which they used, on the contrary, expressly imply sectional divisions, and leave no doubt about their meaning.
The Iroquois themselves, as we have already seen, had adopted a name, Aquanoschioni, merely indicative of their close union. After, however, they came to be informed of the meaning of the name which the English had given them, they were willing to let it pass as correct. The Indians are very fond of high sounding names; I have known myself chiefs who delighted to be called Kings, after they had learned from us that the rulers of the English and French nations were distinguished by that title.
Thus the proper name of those six united tribes is in their own language Aquanoschioni. By other nations they are called Mengwe, Maquas, Mingoes, and Iroquois. The Lenape call them by the first, the Mohicans and Dutch by the second, the English and Americans by the third, and the French by the fourth. I employ these different names indiscriminately in the course of this work.
As detached bodies or tribes, their names with the Lenape are the following:
1. Sankhícani, the Mohawks, from Sankhican, a gunlock, this people being the first who were furnished with muskets by the Europeans, the locks of which, with their effect in striking fire, was a subject of great astonishment to them; and thus they were named, as it were, the fire-striking people.
2. W’Tássone, the Oneidas. This name means the stone-pipe makers, and was given to them on account of their ingenuity in making tobacco pipes of stone.
3. Onondágoes, the Onondagoes. This name signifies in their own language on the top of the hill, their town being so situated.
4. Queúgue, Cayugas, thus called after a lake of the same name.
5. Mæchachtínni, the Senecas. This name means Mountaineers, and was given them because they inhabited the hilly parts of the country.
6. The Tuscaroras, the sixth and last tribe in the league, they call by the same name, yet I have never heard the Lenape speak of the six divisions or tribes; when they describe them in that manner, it is always by the number Five.
CHAPTER VI.
GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE INDIANS.
The Indian considers himself as a being created by an all-powerful, wise, and benevolent Mannitto;[114] all that he possesses, all that he enjoys, he looks upon as given to him or allotted for his use by the Great Spirit who gave him life: he therefore believes it to be his duty to adore and worship his Creator and benefactor; to acknowledge with gratitude his past favours, thank him for present blessings, and solicit the continuation of his good will.[115]
As beings who have control over all beasts and living creatures, they feel their importance; before they saw white people or men of a different colour from their own, they considered themselves as God’s favourites, and believed that if the Great Mannitto could reside on earth he would associate with them and be their great chief.
The Indian also believes, that he is highly favoured by his Maker, not only in having been created different in shape and in mental and bodily powers from other animals, but in being enabled to controul and master them all, even those of an enormous size and of the most ferocious kinds; and therefore, when he worships his Creator in his way, he does not omit in his supplications to pray that he may be endowed with courage to fight and conquer his enemies, among whom he includes all savage beasts; and when he has performed some heroic act, he will not forget to acknowledge it as a mark of divine favour, by making a sacrifice to the great and good Mannitto, or by publicly announcing that his success was entirely owing to the courage given him by the all-powerful Spirit. Thus, habitual devotion to the great First Cause, and a strong feeling of gratitude for the benefits which he confers, is one of the prominent traits which characterise the mind of the untutored Indian.
Not satisfied with paying this first of duties to the Lord of all, in the best manner they are able, the Indians also endeavour to fulfil the views which they suppose he had in creating the world. They think that he made the earth and all that it contains for the common good of mankind; when he stocked the country that he gave them with plenty of game, it was not for the benefit of a few, but of all. Every thing was given in common to the sons of men. Whatever liveth on the land, whatsoever groweth out of the earth, and all that is in the rivers and waters flowing through the same, was given jointly to all, and every one is entitled to his share. From this principle, hospitality flows as from its source. With them it is not a virtue but a strict duty. Hence they are never in search of excuses to avoid giving, but freely supply their neighbour’s wants from the stock prepared for their own use. They give and are hospitable to all, without exception, and will always share with each other and often with the stranger, even to their last morsel. They rather would lie down themselves on an empty stomach, than have it laid to their charge that they had neglected their duty, by not satisfying the wants of the stranger, the sick or the needy. The stranger has a claim to their hospitality, partly on account of his being at a distance from his family and friends, and partly because he has honoured them by his visit, and ought to leave them with a good impression upon his mind; the sick and the poor because they have a right to be helped out of the common stock: for if the meat they have been served with, was taken from the woods, it was common to all before the hunter took it; if corn or vegetables, it had grown out of the common ground, yet not by the power of man, but by that of the Great Spirit. Besides, on the principle, that all are descended from one parent, they look upon themselves as but one great family, who therefore ought at all times and on all occasions, to be serviceable and kind to each other, and by that means make themselves acceptable to the head of the universal family, the great and good Mannitto. Let me be permitted to illustrate this by an example.
Some travelling Indians having in the year 1777, put their horses over night to pasture in my little meadow, at Gnadenhütten on the Muskingum, I called on them in the morning to learn why they had done so. I endeavoured to make them sensible of the injury they had done me, especially as I intended to mow the meadow in a day or two. Having finished my complaint, one of them replied: “My friend, it seems you lay claim to the grass my horses have eaten, because you had enclosed it with a fence: now tell me, who caused the grass to grow? Can you make the grass grow? I think not, and no body can except the great Mannitto. He it is who causes it to grow both for my horses and for yours! See, friend! the grass which grows out of the earth is common to all; the game in the woods is common to all. Say, did you never eat venison and bear’s meat?—‘Yes, very often.’—Well, and did you ever hear me or any other Indian complain about that? No; then be not disturbed at my horses having eaten only once, of what you call your grass, though the grass my horses did eat, in like manner as the meat you did eat, was given to the Indians by the Great Spirit. Besides, if you will but consider, you will find that my horses did not eat all your grass. For friendship’s sake, however, I shall never put my horses in your meadow again.”
The Indians are not only just, they are also in many respects a generous people, and cannot see the sick and the aged suffer for want of clothing. To such they will give a blanket, a shirt, a pair of leggings, mocksens, &c. Otherwise, when they make presents, it is done with a view to receive an equivalent in return, and the receiver is given to understand what that ought to be. In making presents to strangers, they are content with some trifle in token of remembrance; but when they give any thing to a trader, they at least expect double the value in return, saying that he can afford to do it, since he had cheated them so often.
They treat each other with civility, and shew much affection on meeting after an absence. When they meet in the forenoon, they will compliment one another with saying, “a good morning to you!” and in the afternoon, “a good evening.” In the act of shaking hands with each other, they strictly attend to the distinguishing names of relations, which they utter at the time; as for instance, “a good morning, father, grandfather, uncle, aunt, cousin,” and so down to a small grandchild. They are also in the habit of saluting old people no ways related to them, by the names of grandfather and grandmother, not in a tone of condescending superiority or disguised contempt, but as a genuine mark of the respect which they feel for age. The common way of saluting where no relationship exists, is that of “friend;” when, however, the young people meet, they make use of words suitable to their years or stage in life; they will say “a good morning, comrade, favourite, beloved, &c.” Even the children salute each other affectionately. “I am glad to see you,” is the common way in which the Indians express themselves to one another after a short absence; but on meeting after a long absence, on the return of a messenger or a warrior from a critical or dangerous expedition, they have more to say; the former is saluted in the most cordial manner with some such expression: “I thank the Great Spirit, that he has preserved our lives to this time of our happily meeting again. I am, indeed, very glad to see you.” To which the other will reply: “you speak the truth; it is through the favour of the great and good Spirit that we are permitted to meet. I am equally glad to see you.” To the latter will be said: “I am glad that the Great Spirit has preserved your life and granted you a safe return to your family.”
They are not quarrelsome, and are always on their guard, so as not to offend each other. When one supposes himself hurt or aggrieved by a word which has inadvertently fallen from the mouth of another, he will say to him: “Friend, you have caused me to become jealous of you,” (meaning that he begins to doubt the sincerity of his friendship,) when the other explaining and saying that he had no bad intention, all is done away again.
They do not fight with each other; they say that fighting is only for dogs and beasts. They are, however, fond of play, and passing a joke, yet very careful that they do not offend.
They are ingenious in making satirical observations, which though they create laughter, do not, or but seldom give offence. For instance, seeing a bad hunter going out into the woods with his gun, they will ask him if he is going out for meat? or say to one another: “now we shall have meat, for such a one is gone a hunting,” (not believing any such thing.) If they see a coward joining a war party, they will ask him ironically at what time he intends to come back again? (knowing that he will return before he has met the enemy,) or they will say to one another: “will he return this way with his scalps?”
Genuine wit, which one would hardly expect to find in a savage people, is not unfrequent among them. I have heard them, for instance, compare the English and American nations to a pair of scissors, an instrument composed of two sharp edged knives exactly alike, working against each other for the same purpose, that of cutting. By the construction of this instrument, they said, it would appear as if in shutting, these two sharp knives would strike together and destroy each other’s edges; but no such thing: they only cut what comes between them. And thus the English and Americans do when they go to war against one another. It is not each other that they want to destroy, but us, poor Indians, that are between them. By this means they get our land, and, when that is obtained, the scissors are closed again, and laid by for further use.
They are remarkable for the particular respect which they pay to old age. In all their meetings, whether public or private, they pay the greatest attention to the observations and advice of the aged; no one will attempt to contradict them, nor to interfere in any manner or even to speak, unless he is specially called upon. “The aged,” they say, “have lived through the whole period of our lives, and long before we were born; they have not only all the knowledge we possess, but a great deal more. We, therefore, must submit our limited views to their experience.”
In travelling, one of the oldest will always take the lead, unless another is specially appointed for that purpose. If such a one stops to hunt, or in order to stay and encamp at the place for some time, all halt together, all are pleased with the spot and declare it to be judiciously chosen.
I shall expatiate further on this interesting part of the Indian character, in the sequel of this work.
They have a strong innate sense of justice, which will lead them sometimes to acts which some men will call heroic, others romantic, and not a few, perhaps, will designate by the epithet barbarous; a vague indefinite word, which if it means anything, might, perhaps, be best explained by something not like ourselves. However that may be, this feeling certainly exists among the Indians, and as I cannot describe it better than by its effects, I shall content myself with relating on this subject a characteristic anecdote which happened in the year 1793, at an Indian village called La Chine, situated nine miles above Montreal, and was told me in the same year by Mr. La Ramée, a French Canadian inhabitant of that place, whom I believe to be a person of strict veracity. I was then on my return from Detroit, in company with General Lincoln and several other gentlemen, who were present at the relation, and gave it their full belief. I thought it then so interesting, that I inserted it in my journal, from which I now extract it.
There were in the said village of La Chine two remarkable Indians, the one for his stature, being six feet four inches in height, and the other for his strength and activity. These two meeting together one day in the street, (a third being present,) the former in a high tone made use of some insulting language to the other, which he could not well put up with: he called him a coward, said he was his inferior in every respect, and so provoked his anger, that unable any longer to contain himself, the latter instantly replied: “You have grossly insulted me; but I will prevent you from doing the like again!” and at the same moment stabbed him through the body with his knife, so that he dropped down dead by his side. The alarm being immediately spread through the village, a crowd of Indians assembled, and the murderer having seated himself on the ground by the side of the dead body, coolly awaited his fate, which he could not expect to be any other than immediate death, particularly as the cry of the people was, “Kill him! Kill him!” But although he placed his body and head in a proper posture to receive the stroke of the tomahawk, no one attempted to lay hands on him; but after removing the dead body from where it lay, they left him alone. Not meeting here with his expected fate, he rose from this place for a more public part of the village, and there lay down on the ground in the hope of being the sooner despatched; but the spectators, after viewing him, all retired again. Sensible that his life was justly forfeited, and anxious to be relieved from a state of suspense, he took the resolution to go to the mother of the deceased, an aged widow, whom he addressed in these words: “Woman, I have killed thy son; he had insulted me, it is true; but still he was thine, and his life was valuable to thee. I, therefore, now surrender myself up to thy will. Direct as thou wilt have it, and relieve me speedily from misery.” To which the woman answered: “Thou hast, indeed, killed my son, who was dear to me, and the only supporter I had in my old age. One life is already lost, and to take thine on that account, cannot be of any service to me, nor better my situation. Thou hast, however, a son, whom, if thou wilt give me in the place of my son, whom thou hast slain, all shall be wiped away.” The murderer then replied: “Mother, my son is yet but a child, ten years old, and can be of no service to thee, but rather a trouble and charge; but here am I, truly capable of supporting and maintaining thee: if thou wilt receive me as thy son, nothing shall be wanting on my part to make thee comfortable while thou livest.” The woman approving of the proposal, forthwith adopted him as her son, and took the whole family to her house.
But we must now look to the other side of the picture. It cannot but be acknowledged that the Indians are in general revengeful and cruel to their enemies. That even after the battle is over, they wreak their deliberate revenge on their defenceless prisoners; that in their wars they are indifferent about the means which they pursue for the annoyance and destruction of their adversaries, and that surprise and stratagem are as often employed by them as open force. This is all true. Deprived of the light of the only true Christian Religion, unchecked by the precepts and unswayed by the example of the God of peace, they indulge too much, sometimes, the violence of their passions, and commit actions which force the tear from the eye of humanity. But, upon the whole, are we better than they are? I reserve this question for a separate chapter.
CHAPTER VII.
GOVERNMENT.
Although the Indians have no code of laws for their government, their chiefs find little or no difficulty in governing them. They are supported by able experienced counsellors; men who study the welfare of the nation, and are equally interested with themselves in its prosperity. On them the people rely entirely, believing that what they do, or determine upon, must be right and for the public good.
Proud of seeing such able men conduct the affairs of their nation, the Indians are little troubled about what they are doing, knowing that the result of their deliberations will be made public in due time, and sure that it will receive their approbation. This result is made known to them by the chief through the orator, for which purpose they are called together and assemble at the council-house; and if it be found necessary to require a contribution of wampum, for carrying the decision of the chiefs into effect, it is cheerfully complied with by the whole assembly.
The chiefs are very careful in preserving for their own information, and that of future generations, all important deliberations and treaties made at any time between them and other nations. Thus, between the years 1770 and 1780, they could relate very minutely what had passed between William Penn and their forefathers, at their first meeting and afterwards, and also the transactions which took place with the governors who succeeded him. For the purpose of refreshing their own memories, and of instructing one or more of their most capable and promising young men in these matters, they assemble once or twice a year. On these occasions they always meet at a chosen spot in the woods, at a small distance from the town, where a fire is kindled, and at the proper time provisions are brought out to them; there, on a large piece of bark or on a blanket, all the documents are laid out in such order, that they can at once distinguish each particular speech, the same as we know the principal contents of an instrument of writing by the endorsement on it. If any paper or parchment writings are connected with the belts, or strings of wampum, they apply to some trusty white man (if such can be had,) to read the contents to them. Their speaker then, who is always chosen from among those who are endowed with superior talents, and has already been trained up to the business, rises, and in an audible voice delivers, with the gravity that the subject requires, the contents, sentence after sentence, until he has finished the whole on one subject. On the manner in which the belts or strings of wampum are handled by the speaker, much depends; the turning[116] of the belt which takes place when he has finished one half of his speech, is a material point, though this is not common in all speeches with belts; but when it is the case, and is done properly, it may be as well known by it how far the speaker has advanced in his speech, as with us on taking a glance at the pages of a book or pamphlet while reading; and a good speaker will be able to point out the exact place on a belt which is to answer to each particular sentence, the same as we can point out a passage in a book. Belts and strings, when done with by the speaker, are again handed to the chief, who puts them up carefully in the speech-bag or pouch.
A message of importance is generally sent on to the place of its destination, by an inferior chief, by a counsellor, or by the speaker, especially when an immediate answer is expected. In other cases, where for instance only an answer to a speech is to be sent, two capable young men are selected for the purpose, the one to deliver the message or answer, and the other to pay attention while his companion is delivering it, that no part be forgotten or omitted. If the message be of a private nature, they are charged to draw or take it under ground, that is, not to make it known to any person whatsoever, except to him to whom it is directed. If they are told to enter into the earth with the message or speech, and rise again at the place where they are to deliver it, it is to desire them to be careful not to be seen by the way by any person, and for that purpose to avoid all paths, and travel through the woods.
No chief pays any attention to reports, though they may carry with them the marks of truth. Until he is officially and in due form apprised of the matter, he will, if questioned on the subject, reply that he had not heard it. It will, until then, be considered by him as the song of a bird which had flown by; but as soon as he is officially informed, through a string of wampum from some distant chief or leading man of the nation, whose situation entitles him to receive credit, he then will say: “I have heard it;” and acts accordingly.
The Indians generally, but their chiefs more particularly, have many figurative expressions in use, to understand which requires instruction. When a nation, by message or otherwise, speaks to another nation in this way, it is well understood; but when they speak to white people after this manner, who have not been accustomed to such language, explanations are necessary.
Their belts of wampum are of different dimensions, both as to the length and breadth. White and black wampum are the kinds they use; the former denoting that which is good, as peace, friendship, good will, &c., the latter the reverse; yet occasionally the black also is made use of on peace errands, when the white cannot be procured; but previous to its being produced for such purpose, it must be daubed all over with chalk, white clay, or any thing which changes the colour from black to white. The pipe of peace, being either made of a black or red stone, must also be whitened before it is produced and smoked out of on such occasions.
Roads from one friendly nation to another, are generally marked on the belt, by one or two rows of white wampum interwoven in the black, and running through the middle, and from end to end. It means that they are on good terms, and keep up a friendly intercourse with each other.
A black belt with the mark of a hatchet made on it with red paint, is a war belt, which, when sent to a nation together with a twist or roll of tobacco, is an invitation to join in a war. If the nation so invited smoke of this tobacco, and say it smokes well, they have given their consent, and are from that moment allies. If however they decline smoking, all further persuasion would be of no effect; yet it once[117] happened, that war messengers endeavoured to persuade and compel a nation to accept the belt, by laying it on the shoulders or thigh of the chief, who, however, after shaking it off without touching it with his hands, afterwards, with a stick, threw it after them, as if he threw a snake or toad out of his way.
Although at their councils they do not seat themselves after the manner of the white people, yet the attitude they place themselves in is not chargeable to them as a want of respect. Faithful to the trust committed to them, they are careless of ceremonies, from which the nation cannot derive any benefit. They seat themselves promiscuously around a council fire, some leaning one way, some another, so that a stranger on viewing them, might be led to conclude they were inattentive to what was said, or had become tired of attending. Not so! even sitting in this posture gives them the opportunity of being intent on what is said, and attentive to the subject under their consideration. They have no object to look at, which might draw off their attention. They are all ears, though they do not stare at the speaker! The fact is, that nothing can draw their attention from the subject they are deliberating on, unless the house they are sitting in should take fire or be attacked by an enemy.
To prove the correctness of the above assertion, I shall relate the following fact, which happened at Detroit in the winter of 1785 and 1786.
When two most audacious murderers of the Chippeway nation, who, for many months, had put the town and whole country in fear, by the threats and the daring murders they had committed in the settlement, were taken, and brought before the commandant (their chiefs having been previously sent for, and being now assembled in the council house), heard him pronounce the words: “that according to the laws of their Father (the English) they should[118] be punished with death,” the younger of the two, who was the son of the other, sprang from his seat, and having forced his way to[119] the door, endeavoured with a knife or dagger he had hidden under his blanket, to work his way through the strong guard placed outside of the door and[120] in the street to prevent their escape; in this attempt, however, he was stabbed and fell; all which occasioned much noise and commotion without, and not a little fear and uneasiness within, among the spectators and officers of government; yet, not one of the chiefs, who were many in number, either moved from his seat, nor looked around, or even at one another; but they all remained sitting in the same posture as before, smoking their pipes as if nothing had happened.
Though there are sometimes individuals in a nation, who disregard the counsel and good advice given by the chiefs, yet they do not meet with support so as to be able to oppose the measures of government. They are generally looked upon as depraved beings, who not daring to associate with the others, lurk about by themselves, generally bent on mischief of a minor kind, such as pilfering small articles of goods and provisions. As soon, however, as they go a step further, and become known thieves and murderers, they are considered a disgrace to the nation, and being in a manner disowned by it, they are no longer entitled to their protection.
In the year 1785, an Indian of this description, murdered a Mr. Evans at Pittsburg; when, after a confinement of several months, his trial was to be brought on, the chiefs of his (the Delaware nation,) were invited to come to be present at the proceedings and see how the trial would be conducted, and, also, if they chose, to speak in behalf of the accused. These chiefs, however, instead of coming, as wished for, sent to the civil officers of that place the following laconic answer: “Brethren! You inform us that N. N. who murdered one of your men at Pittsburg, is shortly to be tried by the laws of your country, at which trial you request that some of us may be present! Brethren! knowing N. N. to have been always a very bad man, we do not wish to see him! We, therefore, advise you to try him by your laws, and to hang him, so that he may never return to us again.”
I shall conclude this subject with another anecdote. When in the winter of 1788 and 1789, the Indian nations were assembling at Fort Harmer, at the mouth of the Muskingum, where a treaty was to be held, an Indian of the Seneca nation was one morning found dead on the bank of the river. The Cornplanter, chief of this nation, observing some uneasiness among the officers and people of the place, and fearing the murder at this time and place, might perhaps create much disturbance, waited in the morning on the Governor, whom he desired “not to be uneasy about what had happened the preceding night, for the man who had been killed was of no consequence.” This meant in other words, that he was disowned for his bad conduct by his countrymen, and that his death would not be a loss to his nation.
CHAPTER VIII.
EDUCATION.
It may justly be a subject of wonder, how a nation without a written code of laws or system of jurisprudence, without any form or constitution of government, and without even a single elective or hereditary magistrate, can subsist together in peace and harmony, and in the exercise of the moral virtues; how a people can be well and effectually governed without any external authority; by the mere force of the ascendancy which men of superior minds have over those of a more ordinary stamp; by a tacit, yet universal submission to the aristocracy of experience, talents and virtue! Such, nevertheless, is the spectacle which an Indian nation exhibits to the eye of a stranger. I have been a witness to it for a long series of years, and after much observation and reflection to discover the cause of this phenomenon, I think I have reason to be satisfied that it is in a great degree to be ascribed to the pains which the Indians take to instill at an early age honest and virtuous principles upon the minds of their children, and to the method which they pursue in educating them. This method I will not call a system; for systems are unknown to these sons of nature, who, by following alone her simple dictates, have at once discovered and follow without effort that plain obvious path which the philosophers of Europe have been so long in search of.
The first step that parents take towards the education of their children, is to prepare them for future happiness, by impressing upon their tender minds, that they are indebted for their existence to a great, good and benevolent Spirit, who not only has given them life, but has ordained them for certain great purposes. That he has given them a fertile extensive country well stocked with game of every kind for their subsistence, and that by one of his inferior spirits he has also sent down to them from above corn, pumpkins, squashes, beans and other vegetables for their nourishment; all which blessings their ancestors have enjoyed for a great number of ages. That this great Spirit looks down upon the Indians, to see whether they are grateful to him and make him a due return for the many benefits he has bestowed, and therefore that it is their duty to show their thankfulness by worshipping him, and doing that which is pleasing in his sight.
This is in substance the first lesson taught, and from time to time repeated to the Indian children, which naturally leads them to reflect and gradually to understand that a being which hath done such great things for them, and all to make them happy, must be good indeed, and that it is surely their duty to do something that will please him. They are then told that their ancestors, who received all this from the hands of the great Spirit, and lived in the enjoyment of it, must have been informed of what would be most pleasing to this good being, and of the manner in which his favour could be most surely obtained, and they are directed to look up for instruction to those who know all this, to learn from them, and revere them for their wisdom and the knowledge which they possess; this creates in the children a strong sentiment of respect for their elders, and a desire to follow their advice and example. Their young ambition is then excited by telling them that they were made the superiors of all other creatures, and are to have power over them; great pains are taken to make this feeling take an early root, and it becomes in fact their ruling passion through life; for no pains are spared to instill into them that by following the advice of the most admired and extolled hunter, trapper or warrior, they will at a future day acquire a degree of fame and reputation, equal to that which he possesses; that by submitting to the counsels of the aged, the chiefs, the men superior in wisdom, they may also rise to glory, and be called Wisemen, an honourable title, to which no Indian is indifferent. They are finally told that if they respect the aged and infirm, and are kind and obliging to them, they will be treated in the same manner when their turn comes to feel the infirmities of old age.
When this first and most important lesson is thought to be sufficiently impressed upon children’s minds, the parents next proceed to make them sensible of the distinction between good and evil; they tell them that there are good actions and bad actions, both equally open to them to do or commit; that good acts are pleasing to the good Spirit which gave them their existence, and that on the contrary, all that is bad proceeds from the bad spirit who has given them nothing, and who cannot give them any thing that is good, because he has it not, and therefore he envies them that which they have received from the good Spirit, who is far superior to the bad one.
This introductory lesson, if it may be so called, naturally makes them wish to know what is good and what is bad. This the parent teaches him in his own way, that is to say, in the way in which he was himself taught by his own parents. It is not the lesson of an hour nor of a day, it is rather a long course more of practical than of theoretical instruction, a lesson, which is not repeated at stated seasons or times, but which is shewn, pointed out, and demonstrated to the child, not only by those under whose immediate guardianship he is, but by the whole community, who consider themselves alike interested in the direction to be given to the rising generation.
When this instruction is given in the form of precepts, it must not be supposed that it is done in an authoritative or forbidding tone, but, on the contrary, in the gentlest and most persuasive manner: nor is the parent’s authority ever supported by harsh or compulsive means; no whips, no punishments, no threats are even used to enforce commands or compel obedience. The child’s pride is the feeling to which an appeal is made, which proves successful in almost every instance. A father needs only to say in the presence of his children: “I want such a thing done; I want one of my children to go upon such an errand; let me see who is the good child that will do it!” This word good operates, as it were, by magic, and the children immediately vie with each other to comply with the wishes of their parent. If a father sees an old decrepid man or woman pass by, led along by a child, he will draw the attention of his own children to the object by saying: “What a good child that must be, which pays such attention to the aged! That child, indeed, looks forward to the time when it will likewise be old!” or he will say, “May the great Spirit, who looks upon him, grant this good child a long life!”
In this manner of bringing up children, the parents, as I have already said, are seconded by the whole community. If a child is sent from his father’s dwelling to carry a dish of victuals to an aged person, all in the house will join in calling him a good child. They will ask whose child he is, and on being told, will exclaim: what! has the Tortoise, or the little Bear (as the father’s name may be) got such a good child? If a child is seen passing through the streets leading an old decrepid person, the villagers will in his hearing, and to encourage all the other children who may be present to take example from him, call on one another to look on and see what a good child that must be. And so, in most instances, this method is resorted to, for the purpose of instructing children in things that are good, proper, or honourable in themselves; while, on the other hand, when a child has committed a bad act, the parent will say to him: “O! how grieved I am that my child has done this bad act! I hope he will never do so again.” This is generally effectual, particularly if said in the presence of others. The whole of the Indian plan of education tends to elevate rather than to depress the mind, and by that means to make determined hunters and fearless warriors.
Thus, when a lad has killed his first game, such as a deer or a bear, parents who have boys growing up will not fail to say to some person in the presence of their own children: “That boy must have listened attentively to the aged hunters, for, though young, he has already given a proof that he will become a good hunter himself.” If, on the other hand, a young man should fail of giving such a proof, it will be said of him “that he did not pay attention to the discourses of the aged.”
In this indirect manner is instruction on all subjects given to the young people. They are to learn the arts of hunting, trapping, and making war, by listening to the aged when conversing together on those subjects, each, in his turn, relating how he acted, and opportunities are afforded to them for that purpose. By this mode of instructing youth, their respect for the aged is kept alive, and it is increased by the reflection that the same respect will be paid to them at a future day, when young persons will be attentive to what they shall relate.
This method of conveying instruction is, I believe, common to most Indian nations; it is so, at least, amongst all those that I have become acquainted with, and lays the foundation for that voluntary submission to their chiefs, for which they are so remarkable. Thus has been maintained for ages, without convulsions and without civil discords, this traditional government, of which the world, perhaps, does not offer another example; a government in which there are no positive laws, but only long established habits and customs, no code of jurisprudence, but the experience of former times, no magistrates, but advisers, to whom the people, nevertheless, pay a willing and implicit obedience, in which age confers rank, wisdom gives power, and moral goodness secures a title to universal respect. All this seems to be effected by the simple means of an excellent mode of education, by which a strong attachment to ancient customs, respect for age, and the love of virtue are indelibly impressed upon the minds of youth, so that these impressions acquire strength as time pursues its course, and as they pass through successive generations.
CHAPTER IX.
LANGUAGES.
In all the North American territories bounded to the north and east by the Atlantic ocean, and to the south and west by the river Mississippi, and the possessions of the English Hudson’s Bay company, there appears to be but four principal languages, branching out, it is true, into various dialects, but all derived from one or the other of the four mother tongues, some of which extend even beyond the Mississippi, and perhaps, as far as the Rocky Mountains. These four languages are: