The women taken prisoners in war are frequently married into the tribe that captured them, but never to the captors, who stand in the relation of brothers to them, and by whom they are protected from insult. A warrior who has taken a female prisoner usually makes an exchange with another who has had the same fortune, each being thus accommodated without infringing upon custom. If a man has seized more than he can dispose of in that way, he generally gives them to any man who will accept them.[346] In the same manner, a woman whose husband has been killed in battle will ask a warrior for a male prisoner, who accordingly becomes the successor of one whom he has probably slain. In these cases the man is adopted as one of the tribe, is kindly treated, and entitled to his share of all their advantages.[347]
The marriages are without ceremony of any kind; the parties agree to live with each other as long as they can do so with mutual satisfaction, and the man conducts his bride to his hut at once, or resides with her at her father’s cabin. It must not be supposed that the ordinary requirements of a married life are systematically unheeded, for, as a general rule, the squaws are faithful to their husbands, who, upon their part, rigidly exact this fidelity, even if they do not practice it themselves.
The general description of the position of Indian women already given applies equally to their state after marriage. They continue sometimes the abject slaves, otherwise the patient servants of their husbands. While he eats the food she has cooked, and probably caught herself, she must wait in submissive silence. At all times she approaches him with the deference due to a superior being. An Indian will never evince the slightest symptom of tenderness toward his wife; this would be opposed to his idea of manly dignity; but the eagerness with which he will revenge her wrongs proves that his apparent apathy springs only from pride, or a fancied sense of decorum.[348] When Catlin proposed to paint the portrait of the wife of a Sioux chief, his offer was ridiculed, and it was considered marvelous that he should honor a woman in the same manner he had honored the warriors, as the former had never taken any scalps, never done any thing but make fires, dress skins, and other servile employments.
To infer from these facts that there is no conjugal affection among this people would be erroneous. Notwithstanding their assumed indifference, instances are not rare of strong mutual attachment. To an Indian there is nothing inconsistent with affection in his indolently walking through the forest, while his wife follows him bearing the heavy wigwam poles, his ideas never having been led to consider this as other than her natural duty. Many pictures of domestic happiness are exhibited among the Indians, and the Blackfeet, Sanee, and Blood tribes strongly desire that their wives may live long and look young. Heckewelder relates a singular instance of indulgence. In 1762 there was a scarcity of food among many tribes, and during the prevalence of this famine a sick woman wished for a mess of Indian corn. Her husband rode about a hundred miles to obtain it, gave his horse in exchange for a hatful, and returned home on foot with the coveted dainty.[349]
These “lords of creation” attempt to enforce their marital rights with much severity, and, if their suspicions are excited against their wives, become very indignant, and punish them by beating, biting off the nose, dismissing them in disgrace, or even killing them. The wife of a Mandan Indian ran away from him in consequence of a quarrel. By so doing she forfeited her life, which custom would have justified the husband in taking, and he would have murdered her but for the interposition of the travelers, who “gave him a few presents, and persuaded him to take his wife home; they went off together, but by no means in a state of much apparent love.” This trouble arose from jealousy.[350] In another case, a Minnetaree had much abused his wife for the same reason, and she sought refuge in the camp. Her husband followed and demanded her, and she “returned with him, as we had no authority to separate those whom even Indian rites had united.”[351]
Since an Indian considers his wife as so much property, equally valuable as his horse, and for the same reason—for the labor she can perform—we can easily understand that polygamy is universally allowed, though it is not generally practiced, being confined to great chiefs and medicine-men, as the rank and file are often too poor to buy a second wife. Many follow the custom for the mere purpose of amassing wealth, but others of the stoic warriors delight in the harem from the same sensual motives as a Turk or Hindu. Among the communities that Catlin had an opportunity of visiting, it was no uncommon thing to find from six to fourteen wives in the same lodge. He mentions an instance in which a young chief of the Mandans took four wives in one day, paying a horse or two for each. These brides were from twelve to fourteen years of age. An Indian marriage at this age is far from uncommon, and, indeed, it appears from good testimony that celibacy beyond the age of puberty is very rare. Some of the females are mothers before they are twelve years old. It is not universal for the wives to live all in one hut, some tribes requiring separate lodgings for each. This custom is in force among the Crows, and Beckwourth relates that, on returning from one of his excursions, he made a round of visits to his wives, some of whom he had not seen for months.[352]
It is not uncommon for a man to marry his wife’s sister, and, indeed, the whole family of girls, on the supposition that his household will thus be rendered more harmonious.[353] For the same reason, a Cherokee will marry a mother and her daughter at one time, though he will not, upon any account, take a wife from his own kindred. Among the Oregon tribes it is strictly required that each wife should be purchased from a different family.
So well established among Indians is the custom of polygamy, that civilization meets the greatest difficulty in opposing it, and, if ever abolished, it will overthrow their whole social system, and, in changing their national character, tend to their speedy extinction. Sir George Simpson relates an amusing anecdote of an Indian who came into the settled districts of British North America, learned to read and write, and adopted the principle of monogamy. Returning to his tribe, he endeavored to persuade them to the same course. Long and earnest were the debates on the question, and the finale was, instead of converting them, they reconverted him. He took a great number of wives, foreswore books, and never again appeared in the character of a social reformer. Another chief offered to renounce polygamy, he having five wives, and a large fortune in horses and cattle. Falling in love with the daughter of a gentleman in the service of the Hudson’s Bay Company, he dismissed his harem, and presented himself, with great parade and confidence, to make his matrimonial proposal to the lady’s family. To his extreme disgust and mortification, they rejected the honor of his distinguished alliance. He revenged himself by refilling his hut with women as quickly as possible.
If the obligation of marriage is easily contracted, divorce is effected with as little trouble. It is not often that a separation takes place, for it is held dishonorable to forsake a wife for a trifling cause, particularly if she has borne children. When it does occur, the offspring are usually permitted to decide which of the parents they will accompany, although usage gives the mother the right to take charge of them. In some instances the form of divorce is simply for the husband to bid his wife go; in others he will not take the trouble to give her notice of his discontent, but will quietly put his gun on his shoulder and move off himself.[354] There are a few instances of this being done for very slight reasons; but, in addition to the restraint of custom just mentioned, the actual value of the wife is a subject of consideration. Where a separation does take place, the man will often endeavor to renew the connection. A missionary mentions a woman who contracted a new marriage after her husband left her. He returned and claimed her. The dispute was referred to a chief, and he, either wanting a precedent or distrusting his judicial capacity, could think of no better expedient than placing the woman at an equal distance from each claimant, and then ordering the men to run, promising that the one who first reached her should retain possession of the prize.[355] In some tribes divorce renders it impossible for the woman to marry again, but in others she can make a new alliance as soon as free from the old one.
It is difficult to form any opinion as to the morality of females among a people where marriages are contracted and dissolved so easily. We may safely say that they have very little idea of chastity as a positive virtue, notwithstanding their general, although not invariable fidelity when married, which may probably be induced more by fear of consequences than sense of duty. Of prostitution for a price, as known in civilized communities, we find no trace in the Indian nations while in a normal condition; but if we assume Webster’s definition, “the act of offering the body to an indiscriminate intercourse with men,” it can scarcely be claimed that they are free. The predominant motive seems to be an inordinate sexual appetite, which must be gratified, if not in legitimate marriage, then by illicit intercourse. We are told that in most large assemblies of Indians there are to be seen voluptuous looking females, whose passions urge them to this; and Carver, in his “Travels in North America,” says that among the Manedowessis it was a custom, when a young woman could not get a husband, for her to assemble all the leading warriors of the tribe at a feast, and, when their hunger was appeased, to retire behind a screen, and submit to the embraces of each in succession. This gained her great applause, and always insured her a husband. Though the custom is now almost obsolete, the principle still exists, and prostitution is regarded by many as the shortest road to marriage.