Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri / Edited with Notes and Biographical Sketch

by Edwin Thompson Denig

Private Right to Take Life.—Every Indian believes he has a right to his own life and consequently to defend it. There being no persons or body whose duty it is to punish crime, trespass, or insult, each individual is taught when a boy, and by experience when a man, to rely entirely on himself for redress or protecting his person, family, and property. Every one is thus constituted his own judge, jury, and executioner. Whether the person wronged is right in his means of redress does not matter. He thinks he is right and risks the consequences of retaliation. Every Indian being armed induces the necessity of each using arms; therefore when an Indian strikes, stabs, shoots, or attempts to do these things it is always with an intent to kill, knowing if he misses his aim or only wounds, the other revenges either on the spot or after, as occasion requires or opportunity offers. Therefore he can not act otherwise. This being the state of things, quarrels are not so common as might be supposed. When it is universally known that a blow or a trespass would entail death as its consequence they are avoided, or if unavoidable each endeavors to gain an advantage over the other by acting treacherously or waiting a favorable time when he least expects it to kill or strike him, stating for his reason that if he had not killed him the other only waited the same opportunity against himself. A fair chance to kill or strike does not always present itself. The relations may be too numerous on one side, and the object of contention (be it a horse or a woman) is given up for the time by the weaker party, apparently willingly, yet he only waits until their situations are reversed to seek redress. When a man has killed another, if the relatives of the deceased are more numerous than his own, he flies to a distant part of the country, joins another band and seeks protection there, where he is not sought by the next of kin at the time, but will be killed whenever they meet. In the meantime the relatives of the offender pay much to stop the quarrel.

If the killed and the killer are both of the same band and equally strong in relationship perhaps nothing would be done at the time as the rest of camp would endeavor to stop a skirmish, and a good many guns, horses, and other property would be raised and presented the relatives of the deceased to stop further bloodshed. This generally concludes an amnesty or respite for the time, but the revenge must be accomplished at some time by the next of kin, otherwise it would be a great disgrace to him or them. An opportunity to kill the offender with comparative safety is then sought, perhaps for years, or as long as any of that generation lives. Time and absence may have the effect of giving the murderer a chance to die in some other way or of diminishing the force of the revenge so that he does not find himself in a position to act with any degree of safety when an occasion offers. Yet, if of standing in camp, and a brother, father, or brother-in-law to the deceased, he is bound to revenge at some time, though they make no scruple to receive presents of horses, etc., to refrain in the meantime. Thus the death of a man is never paid for by that generation, though by that means the revenge may be delayed for some years, which is all they can do except surrendering up their relative to the incensed party, which would not for a moment be thought of. We have known three or four horses to be given on the instant by the friends of the offender to those of the deceased and the same to be repeated yearly for two to six years and more, yet still revenge was consummated. On one occasion I asked the man why he killed the other after so long a time and taking property as payment from his relatives and friends. He answered that the pay was well enough as long as the culprit kept out of his sight; that remuneration only destroyed the disposition to seek him out and kill him, although it did not affect the right to revenge if he was fool enough, to thrust himself in his way.

When he saw him his blood boiled, his heart rose up, and he could not help it. Besides (he observed) he was obliged to kill him, as the other, being afraid of him, would do the same to him to save his own life. Thus the killing of one induces the necessity of killing another, and there is no end to the affair. The other party are obliged to retaliate and so on through several generations. In this way a good many of the family of the chief, Wah-he´ Muzza, have been killed, and the smallpox settled the affair by taking off the offenders on the other side. It will be inferred from this that vengeance is not appeased by payment, absence, or the lapse of time, and in the instances where retaliation has not followed after payment we believe they may be ascribed to a decrease in the relationship of the deceased or other domestic changes or reverses which render vengeance out of their power, or too dangerous to accomplish, in which case the relatives get over it by saying they have been paid or forgotten it, yet at the same time would revenge, could they act with safety, or even a chance of comparative safety. Sometimes, however, large offers of recompense are rejected by the father or brothers of the deceased, and the tender is then made to relatives not so closely connected, who generally accept. Herein the cunning of the Indian is manifest. This is a point gained. A negotiation is opened in the family of the deceased and a difference of feeling established with regard to the offender, slight to be sure, but it is there, and is worked by these distant relatives to his advantage and their own, and opens a way through which presents and overtures of compromise may be offered the brothers, etc. But there is no dependence to be placed on anything a wild Indian does.

Neither do they depend on one another. They are suspicious in everything, and more particularly so when life is at stake. In these compromises no one is deceived—either he who takes or he who receives—the minds of both are perfectly known to each other, the object of the one party being to gain time, and of the other to lull suspicion and make the offender and his relatives poor by accepting their property.

We think we have presented their customs in this respect in their true light, viz., that although the compromise be effected and vengeance for the time suspended, yet the feeling is not changed or the right to punish relinquished; but time may make such a change on either part as to render revenge impracticable. There is no recognized principle or means of escape for the murderer unless it be to flee and join another nation with whom they are at peace, marry and remain there.

It will now be necessary to state that the Crow Indians are better regulated in this respect than any of the prairie tribes. Private murders are nearly unknown among them. Our knowledge of this nation from certain sources extends through a period of 40 years and in all that time but one Indian was killed by his own people. The offender absconded and remained with the Snake Nation for 12 years, when he returned, but was obliged again to leave, and since has not been heard of. Stealing women or otherwise seducing others’ wives is revenged by the party offended taking every horse and all private property the offender owns, and in this he meets with no contention. It is considered a point of honor to let everything be taken but keep the woman. Now this nation has from 40 to 80 and sometimes 100 horses to a lodge, and a large haul is made by the husband of the woman, in company with his relatives. If the transgressor has no property that of his nearest relatives is taken, and is suffered to be taken away unmolested. After the excitement is somewhat over, these horses are bought back by the relatives of the offender, each giving two, three, or more as the case happens, which they hand over to him, who in the course of time gets the most of his property returned.

All smaller quarrels or misdemeanors are paid in the same way, though not so high, but they never strike or kill each other, yet are addicted to using personal abuse and invective freely. Our gentleman in charge of that nation states that he has seen the two principal bands of Crow Indians, over 200 lodges, abusing and throwing stones at each other all day, the Yellowstone River being between them. No damage could happen, as the missiles could not be thrown a fourth of the distance, yet not a shot was fired, although balls would reach, and this force was headed by the two principal chiefs of that nation. In all the regulations of these Indians (the Crows) we can discern great natural goodness of heart, and absence of any useless barbarity and bloodshed except with regard to their enemies, the males of whom they kill and cut to pieces, but never kill women and children, whereas the Assiniboin, Sioux, and Blackfeet kill everything. Very few feuds from polygamy result in death, but should it so happen the other would be punished. If the favorite wife had been killed, the least the other wife expected would be a tomahawking, or an arrow shot into her, perfectly regardless as to whether death would be the consequence or not. Women among Indians are bought, paid for, and are the property of the purchaser the same as his horses. Their lives are of course more valuable than those of animals, and every Indian regrets the loss of his woman. Yet when he has bought them he expects them to do their duty, not quarrel nor render his lodge disagreeable, or if so they must expect to be severely punished.

Their lives are not, however, considered as valuable as men, nor are they ever so much mourned for. When not bought, or unmarried, the killing of a woman never happens and would be a great disgrace to any man, though after marriage they are subject to the penalty of death from different causes in which the man thinks he is justified.

Private debts are never settled by the chief, nor private disputes by council. Advice may be given and taken, frequently is, though the usual mode of settling trivial quarrels is by payment, and an invitation to a feast. Everything except loss of life or personal chastisement can be paid for among these Indians.

Game Laws, or Rights of the Chase.—The roving tribes subsist by hunting buffalo, and these animals being constantly on the move, they are obliged to move after them. Therefore no particular section of country is appointed to each as a hunting district.[14] There are, however, certain regulations with regard to the hunting of these animals which may as well be recorded here. A lodge or a few lodges have no right to establish and hunt within 6, 8, or 10 miles from a large camp, as by this the buffalo would be continually kept out of the range of the latter, and a few people be the cause of distress and starvation to the many. Therefore these obstructions are removed by the soldiers. When hunting by surround has been agreed upon, individual hunting is stopped for the same reason, and has met with explanation. This is also the duty of the soldiers. Hunting deer, elk, beaver, etc., being of little consequence to these Indians, each one exercises his pleasure in regard to these occupations. No right to any section of country is claimed by any person to the exclusion of others. Should an Indian wound a deer and not follow, and another pursue and kill it, the former would have no right to either skin or meat, having relinquished that right by abandoning the wounded animal. But should he be following and arrive where the other has killed it, the hide and half the meat would be his share. As a general rule he who draws the first blood of the animal is entitled to the hide. This is often difficult to settle when large buffalo surrounds are made on horseback with the bow and arrow. Several hundreds of animals are slain in the course of an hour or so, and some have the arrows of different Indians in them. Each Indian, by his own mark, knows his arrow, but the matter of dispute is whose arrow struck first? Therefore who is entitled to the hide?