The encampments for the night (hápu) were round-shaped, every man lying in contiguity to another in a circle, and leaving only a small issue, which was guarded by the commander. After the commander's signal no one was allowed to move from his place. The same order was observed when the army halted during the day, and the same arrangement is conspicuous in the campings of the Southern Dakota tribes, as Iowa, Ponka, Ugáχpa, etc.
A graphic description of southern war-camps is found in B. Romans, Florida, p. 65: "A Choctaw war-camp is circular, with a fire in the centre, and each man has a crutched branch at his head to hang his powder and shot upon and to set his gun against, and the feet of all to the fire; a Cherokee war-camp is a long line of fire, against which they also lay their feet. A Choctaw makes his camp, in traveling, in form of a sugar loaf; a Chicasa makes it in form of our arbours; a Creek like to our sheds or piazzas, to a timber-house." The Creek war-camps in the woods were constructed in such a manner that the exact number of the party could at once be ascertained.[105]
After their return the warriors placed the scalps in the public square, or divided them among their acquaintances. Anciently the privilege of raising the scalp-pole (itu tcháti) belonged to two tribes only, the Kasíχta and the Kawíta.[106] The cause for this is shown in our half-mythic migration legend. The tradition that the custom of scalping was but recently imported among the Creeks from the Northern Indians was manufactured for a purpose, and invented by many other tribes also, to appear more human in the eyes of the white settlers. Scalping and the drying of scalps had been observed in Florida as early as 1564 by René de Laudonnière.
ORGANIZATION OF THE CONFEDERACY.
The Creek confederacy, or "league of the Muscogulgee" was a purely political organization connecting the various and disparate elements, which composed it, for common action against external aggression. It had no direct influence on the social organization of the tribes, and the most appropriate term for this, and other Indian confederacies as well, is that of war-confederacy, war-league or symmachy. In Creek the Maskoki confederacy is called ísti Maskóki imitihalátka.
To call this loose assemblage of towns and tribes a military democracy, in the sense that the majority of the votes decided a question brought before the people in a manner that was binding for the citizens, is entirely wrong and misleading, for Indians regard their actions subject to their own decisions only, or, at the utmost, to those of their individual gens. Every Creek town or individual could go on the warpath or stay at home, in spite of any wish or decree issued by the chiefs or assembled warriors. The young warriors, anxious to obtain fame and war-titles, joined the war-parties on the call of a leader. In questions of war unanimity was seldom attained in the council of a town, much less in the whole nation; "it is not recollected by the oldest man, that more than one-half of the nation went to war at the same time or 'took the war-talk.'"
"When the míko and his councillors are of opinion that the town has been injured, the Great Warrior lifts the war-hatchet, átăsi, against the offending nation. But as soon as it is taken up, the míko and his council may interpose, and by their prudent counsels stop it, and proceed to adjust the misunderstanding by negotiation. If the Great Warrior persists and 'goes out,' he is followed by all who are for war."
These words, quoted from the "Sketch" of the United States agent, B. Hawkins, plainly show, that the initiative for war rested with the civil authority, and not with the military. But it is possible that Hawkins speaks of white or peace-towns only, and not of the red towns (p. 72). He continues as follows:
"Peace is always determined on and concluded by the míko and councillors, and peace-talks are always addressed to the cabin of the míko. In some cases, where the resentment of the warriors has run high, the míko and council have been much embarrassed."
All this proves that every town had the privilege to begin warfare for itself, independent of the confederacy, provided that the civil government consented to the undertaking. This fact plainly shows the perfect independence of the Indian tribe from the war-confederacy, and forms a striking contrast to our ideas of a centralized state power. In some instances the Creek towns left their defensive position to act on the offensive principle, but they were not sustained then by the Maskoki confederacy.