INTERCOURSE WITH EACH OTHER.
It is a striking fact, that the Indians, in their uncivilised state,
should so behave towards each other as though they were a civilised
people! I have in numerous instances witnessed their meeting together,
their doing business and conversing with each other for hours, their
labouring together, and their hunting and fishing in bodies or parties;
I have seen them divide their game, venison, bear’s meat, fish, &c.,
among themselves, when they sometimes had many shares to make, and
cannot recollect a single instance of their falling into a dispute or
finding fault with the distribution, as being unequal, or otherwise
objectionable. On the contrary, on such occasions they even receive
what is allotted to them with thanks; they say “_anischi_” I am
thankful! as if it was a present given to them.
They certainly (I am here speaking of the men) show a reverence for
each other, which is visible on all occasions; they often meet for
the purpose of conversation, and their sociability appears to be
a recreation to them, a renewal of good fellowship. Their general
principle, that good and bad cannot mingle or dwell together in one
heart, and therefore must not come into contact, seems to be their
guide on all occasions. So, likewise, when travelling, whether they
are few, or many, they are cheerful, and resigned to the accidents
which may befal them; never impatient, quarrelsome, or charging any
one, or one another, with being in fault, or the occasion of what
had happened; even though one should lose his all by the neglect or
carelessness of the other, yet they will not fly into a passion, but
patiently bear with the loss, thinking within themselves that such a
one feels sorry enough already, and therefore it would be unreasonable
to add to his pain. They judge with calmness on all occasions, and
decide with precision, or endeavour so to do, between an accident and a
wilful act;--the _first_ (they say) they are all liable to commit, and
therefore it ought not to be noticed, or punished;--the _second_ being
a wilful or premeditated act, committed with a bad design, ought on the
contrary to receive due punishment.
To illustrate this subject, I shall relate a few of the cases of this
description which have come within my knowledge. One morning early, an
Indian came into the house of another who was yet abed, asking for the
loan of his gun for a morning hunt, his own being out of repair; the
owner readily consented, and said: “As my gun is not loaded, you will
have to take a few balls out of your[160] pouch!” In taking the gun
down, it, however, by some accident went off, and lodged the contents
in the owner’s head, who was still lying on the bed, and now expired.
The gun, it appeared, was loaded, though unknown to him, and the lock
left in such a condition that by a touch it went off. A cry was heard
from all sides in the house: O! the _accident_! for such it was always
considered to have been, and was treated as such.
A hunter went out to kill a bear, some of those animals having been
seen in the neighbourhood. In an obscure part of a wood, he saw at a
distance something black moving, which he took for a bear, the whole of
the animal not being visible to him; he fired, and found he had shot a
black horse. Having discovered the mistake, he informed the owner of
what had happened, expressing at the same time his regret that he was
not possessed of a single horse, with which he could replace the one
he had shot. What! replied the Indian whose horse had been killed, do
you think I would accept a horse from you, though you had one to give,
after you have satisfied me that you killed mine _by accident_? No,
indeed! for the same misfortune might also happen to me.
An aged Indian who had gone out to shoot a turkey, mistook a black hog
in the bushes for one of those birds, and shot him; finding out by
enquiry to whom the hog belonged, he informed the owner of the mistake
he had made, offering to pay for the hog; which the other, however,
not only would not accept of, but having brought the meat in, gave
him a leg of the animal, because he thought that the unfortunate man,
as well on account of his disappointment, in not feasting on turkey
as he expected soon to do when he shot the hog, as for his honesty in
informing of what he had done, was _entitled_ to a share of what he had
killed.
Two Indians with a large canoe, going down the Muskingum river to
a certain distance, were accosted by others going by land to the
same place, who requested them to take their heavy articles, as
kettles, axes, hoes, &c. into their canoe, which they freely did, but
unfortunately were shipwrecked at the rocks of White Eyes’s falls (as
the place is called,) where the whole cargo was lost, and the men saved
themselves by swimming to the shore. The question being put and fully
discussed, whether those men with the canoe, who had taken charge of
the property of the others, and by this neglect lost the whole, were
not liable to pay for the loss? it was decided in the negative, on the
following grounds:
1. That the canoe men had taken the articles on board, with the
pleasing hope that they thereby would oblige their fellow men, and did
not expect any recompense for that service.
2. That although they might have avoided the danger and the loss, by
unloading the canoe at the head of the fall, and carrying the cargo by
land below it, (which was but a short distance,) as was customary, when
the river was not in a proper state to run through, yet that, had those
who travelled by land been in the place of those in the canoe, they
might, like them, have attempted to have run through, as is sometimes
done with success, and been equally unfortunate.
3. That the canoe men having had all their own property on board, which
was all lost at the same time, and was equally valuable to them, it
was clear that they had expected to run safely through, and could not
have intentionally or designedly brought on themselves and others the
misfortune which had happened, and therefore the circumstance must be
ascribed entirely to _accident_.
Such is the disposition of the Indians with regard to those who
inadvertently meet with a disaster, whereby others are injured.
They are ready to overlook a fault, and more disposed in such cases
to commiserate, than to punish; but with those who wilfully and
intentionally commit aggressions and injure others, they think and act
quite differently; a malicious person is generally despised, and if he
intrudes himself into good company, they will, without saying a word,
steal off one by one, and leave him alone to suffer the mortification
which it is intended he should feel. For murderers and thieves they
have no compassion, and punish them according to the nature of their
crimes, if not publicly, still privately, for they are considered as
a nuisance, and a disgrace to the nation, and so much so were persons
of this description considered and despised in former times among the
Delawares, before the white people came, that it was a rare thing to
hear of any such being among them. This I have repeatedly been told,
between the years 1770 and 1780, by Indians of that nation; one of
whom, when a boy, resided on the spot where Philadelphia now stands,
when the first house was building there, and assisted in furnishing
the workmen with fish, and caught rabbits for them; the other, who was
still older, lived with his parents on the spot where afterwards was
built Perth Amboy in New Jersey: both were respectable men, highly
esteemed by all who knew them.
I do not believe that there exists a people more attentive to paying
common civilities to each other than the Indians are; but this, from
a want of understanding their language, as well as their customs and
manners, generally escapes the notice of travellers, although some of
them, better observers than the rest, have touched upon this subject.
In more than one hundred instances, I have with astonishment and
delight witnessed the attention paid to a person entering the house of
another, where, in the first instance, he is desired to seat himself,
with the words, “sit down, my friend!” if he is a stranger, or no
relation; but if a relation, the proper title is added. A person is
never left standing, there are seats for all; and if a dozen should
follow each other in succession, all are provided with seats, and the
stranger, if a white person, with the best. The tobacco pouch next is
handed round; it is the first treat, as with us a glass of wine or
brandy. Without a single word passing between the man and his wife,
she will go about preparing some victuals for the company, and having
served the visiters, will retire to a neighbour’s house, to inform the
family of the visit with which her husband is honoured, never grumbling
on account of their eating up the provisions, even if it were what she
had cooked for her own family, considering the friendly visit well
worth this small trouble and expense.
It is true, that among themselves, they expect the same attention and
hospitality paid to them in return; yet that is not their main object,
for I have seen a number of instances in which a return was out of the
question, where poverty would not admit of it, or distance of abode
put it out of the power of the visiter to return the same civilities
to his host: when white people are treated in this way, with the best
entertainment the house affords, they may be sure it is nothing else
than a mark of respect paid to them, and that the attentions they
receive do not proceed from any interested view.