nations, will not eat of any young beast when it is newly yeaned; and
their old men think they would suffer damage, even by the bare contact:
which seems to be derived from the Mosaic law, that prohibited such
animals to be offered up, or eaten, till they were eight days old;
because, till then, they were in an imperfect and polluted state! They
appear, however, to be utterly ignorant of the design and meaning of
this appointment and practice, as well as of some other customs and
institutions. But as the time of circumcising the Israelitish children
was founded on this law of purity, it seems probable, that the American
Aborigines observed the law of circumcision,[52] for some time after
they arrived here, and desisted from it, when it became incompatible
with the hard daily toils and sharp exercises, which necessity must have
forced them to pursue, to support life: especially when we consider,
that the sharpest and most lasting affront, the most opprobious,
indelible epithet, with which one Indian can possibly brand another, is
to call him in public company, _Hoobuk Waske_, Eunuchus, præputio
detecto. They resent it so highly, that in the year {136} 1750, when the
Cheerakee were on the point of commencing a war against us, several
companies of the northern Indians, in concert with them, compelled me in
the lower Cheerakee town to write to the government of South-Carolina,
that they made it their earnest request to the English not to mediate in
their war with the Katáhba Indians, as they were fully resolved to
prosecute it, with the greatest eagerness, while there was one of that
hateful name alive; because in the time of battle, they had given them
the ugly name of short-tailed eunuchs. Now as an eunuch was a
contemptible name with the Israelites, and none of them could serve in
any religious office; it should seem that the Indians derived this
opprobious and singular epithet from Jewish tradition, as castration was
never in use among the ancient or present Americans.
The Israelites were but forty years in the wilderness, and would not
have renewed the painful act of circumcision, only that Joshua inforced
it: and by the necessary fatigues and difficulties, to which as already
hinted, the primitive Americans must be exposed at their first arrival
in this waste and extensive wilderness, it is likely they forbore
circumcision, upon the divine principle extended to their supposed
predecessors in the wilderness, of not accepting sacrifice at the
expence of mercy. This might soothe them afterwards wholly to reject it
as a needless duty, especially if any of the eastern heathens
accompanied them in their travels in quest of freedom. And as it is
probable, that by the time they reached America, they had worn out their
knives and every other sharp instrument fit for the occasion; so had
they performed the operation with flint-stones, or sharp splinters,
there is no doubt that each of the mothers would have likewise said,
“This day, thou art to me a bloody husband[XXIX].” However, from the
contemptible idea the Americans fix to castration, &c. it seems very
probable the more religious among them used circumcision in former ages.
Footnote XXIX:
Exod. iv. 25, 26.
Under this argument, I must observe that _Ai-ú-be_ signifies “the thigh”
of any animal; and _E-ee-pattáh Tekále_, “the lower part of the thigh,”
or literally, “the hanging of the foot.” And when in the woods, the
Indians cut a small piece out of the lower part of the thighs of the
deer they kill, length-ways and pretty deep. Among the great number of
venison-hams they bring to our trading houses, I do not remember to
{137} have observed one without it; from which I conjecture, that as
every ancient custom was designed to convey, either a typical, or
literal instructive lesson of some useful thing; and as no usage of the
old heathen world resembled this custom; it seems strongly to point at
Jacob’s wrestling with an angel, and obtaining for himself and his
posterity, the name, ישר-אל, (perhaps, _Yosher-ale_) “divine guide,” or
“one who prevails with the omnipotent,” and to the children of Israel
not eating the sinew of the thigh of any animal, to perpetuate the
memory of their ancestor’s sinew being shrunk, which was to obtain the
blessing.
The Indians always sew their maccasenes with deer’s sinews, though of a
sharp cutting quality, for they reckon them more fortunate than the wild
hemp: but to eat such, they imagine would breed worms, and other
ailments, in proportion to the number they eat. And I have been assured
by a gentleman of character, who is now an inhabitant of South-Carolina,
and well acquainted with the customs of the northern Indians, that they
also cut a piece out of the thigh of every deer they kill, and throw it
away; and reckon it such a dangerous pollution to eat it, as to occasion
sickness and other misfortunes of sundry kinds, especially by spoiling
their guns from shooting with proper force and direction. Now as none of
the old heathens had such a custom, must it not be considered as of
Israelitish extraction.[53]
ARGUMENT XIII.
The Indian MARRIAGES, DIVORCES, and PUNISHMENTS of adultery, still
retain a strong likeness to the Jewish laws and customs in these points.
The Hebrews had sponsalia de presenti, and sponsalia de futuro: a
considerable time generally intervened between their contract and
marriage: and their nuptial ceremonies were celebrated in the night. The
Indians observe the same customs to this day; insomuch, that it is usual
for an elderly man to take a girl, or sometimes a child to be his wife,
because she is capable of receiving good impressions in that tender
state: frequently, a moon elapses after the contract is made, and the
value received, before {138} the bridegroom sleeps with the bride, and
on the marriage day, he does not appear before her till night introduces
him, and then without tapers.
The grandeur of the Hebrews consisted pretty much in the multiplicity of
their wives to attend them, as a showy retinue: as the meaner sort could
not well purchase one, they had a light sort of marriage suitable to
their circumstances, called by the scholiasts, _usu capio_; “taking the
woman for present use.” When they had lived together about a year, if
agreeable, they parted good friends by mutual consent. The Indians also
are so fond of variety, that they ridicule the white people, as a tribe
of narrow-hearted, and dull constitutioned animals, for having only one
wife at a time; and being bound to live with and support her, though
numberless circumstances might require a contrary conduct. When a young
warrior cannot dress _alamode America_, he strikes up one of those
matches for a few moons, which they term _Toopsa Táwah_, “a make haste
marriage,” because it wants the usual ceremonies, and duration of their
other kind of marriages.[54]
The friendliest kind of marriage among the Hebrews, was eating bread
together. The bridegroom put a ring on the fourth finger of the bride’s
left hand before two witnesses, and said, “Be thou my wife, according to
the law of Moses.” Her acceptance and silence implying consent,
confirmed her part of the marriage contract, because of the rigid
modesty of the eastern women. When the short marriage contract was read
over, he took a cake of bread and broke it in two, for himself and her;
or otherwise, he put some corn between their hands: which customs were
used as strong emblems of the necessity of mutual industry and concord,
to obtain present and future happiness. When an Indian makes his first
address to the young woman he intends to marry, she is obliged by
ancient custom to sit by him till he hath done eating and drinking,
whether she likes or dislikes him; but afterward, she is at her own
choice whether to stay or retire[XXX]. When the bridegroom marries the
bride, after the usual prelude, he takes a choice ear of corn, and
divides it in two before witnesses, gives her one half in her hand, and
keeps the other half to himself; or otherwise, {139} he gives her a
deer’s foot, as an emblem of the readiness with which she ought to serve
him: in return, she presents him with some cakes of bread, thereby
declaring her domestic care and gratitude in return for the offals; for
the men feast by themselves, and the women eat the remains. When this
short ceremony is ended, they may go to bed like an honest couple.
Footnote XXX:
Cant. iii. 4. I held him and would not let him go, until I had brought
him to my father’s house, and into the chambers of her that conceived
me: See Gen. xxiv. 67. Such was the custom of the Hebrews.
Formerly, this was an universal custom among the native Americans; but
this, like every other usage of theirs, is wearing out apace. The
West-Floridans, in order to keep their women subject to the law of
adultery, bring some venison or buffalo’s flesh to the house of their
normal wives, at the end of every winter’s hunt: that is reckoned a
sufficient annual tye of their former marriages, although the husbands
do not cohabit with them. The Muskóhge men, if newly married, are
obliged by ancient custom, to get their own relations to hoe out the
corn-fields of each of their wives, that their marriages may be
confirmed: and the more jealous, repeat the custom every year, to make
their wives subject to the laws against adultery. But the Indians in
general, reckon that before the bridegroom can presume to any legal
power over the bride, he is after the former ceremonies, or others
something similar, obliged to go into the woods to kill a deer, bring
home the carcass of venison, and lay it down at her house wrapt up in
its skin; and if she opens the pack, carries it into the house, and then
dresses and gives him some of it to eat with cakes before witnesses, she
becomes his lawful wife, and obnoxious to all the penalties of an
adultress.
The Hebrews had another sort of marriage—by purchase: the bridegroom
gave the father of the bride as much as he thought she was worth: and
according to the different valuation, so sooner or later she went off at
market. The only way to know the merit of a Hebrew lady, was to enquire
the value for which her father would sell her, and the less rapacious he
was, the sooner she might get an husband. Divine writ abounds with
instances of the like kind; as Gen. xxxiv. 12. “Ask me never so much
dowry and I will give it.” David bought Michal, and Jacob dearly
purchased Rachel, &c. The women brought nothing with them, except their
clothes, rings and bracelets, and a few trinkets. When the Indians would
express a proper marriage, they have a word adapted according to their
various dialects, to give them a suitable idea of it; but when they are
{140} speaking of their sensual marriage bargains, they always term it,
“buying a woman;” for example—they say with regard to the former,
_Che-Awalas_, “I shall marry you,” the last syllable denotes the first
person of the future tense, the former, “I shall make you, as _Awa_, or
_Hewa_ was to _Ish_,” which is confirmed by a strong negative similar
expression, _Che-Awala Awa_, “I shall not marry you.” But the name of
their market marriages, is _Otoopha, Eho Achumbàras, Saookcháa_, “In the
spring, I shall buy a woman, if I am alive.” Or _Eho Achumbàra Awa_, “I
shall not buy a woman,” _Sàlbasa toogat_, “for indeed I am poor:” the
former usage, and method of language is exactly calculated to express
that singular custom of the Hebrews, per coemptionem.
They sometimes marry by deputation or proxy. The intended bridegroom
sends so much in value to the nearest relations of the intended bride,
as he thinks she is worth: if they are accepted, it is a good sign that
her relations approve of the match, but she is not bound by their
contract alone; her consent must likewise be obtained, but persuasions
most commonly prevail with them. However, if the price is reckoned too
small, or the goods too few, the law obliges them to return the whole,
either to himself, or some of his nearest kindred. If they love the
goods, as they term it, according to the like method of expression with
the Hebrews, the loving couple may in a short time bed together upon
trial, and continue or discontinue their love according as their fancy
directs them. If they like each other, they become an honest married
couple when the nuptial ceremony is performed, as already described.
When one of their chieftains is married, several of his kinsmen help to
kill deer and buffalos, to make a rejoicing marriage feast, to which
their relations and neighbours are invited: there the young warriors
sing with their two chief musicians, who beat on their wet deer skin
tied over the mouth of a large clay-pot, and raise their voices, singing
_Yo Yo_, &c. When they are tired with feasting, dancing, and singing the
Epithalamium, they depart with friendly glad hearts, from the house of
praise.
If an Israelite lay with a bond woman betrothed, and not redeemed, she
was to be beaten, but not her fellow criminal; for in the original text,
Lev. xix. 20. the word is in the fœminine gender. When offenders were
beaten, they were bowed down, as Deut. xxv. 2.—so that they {141}
neither sat nor stood, and their whip had a large knot to it, which
commanded the thongs, so as to expand, or contract them; the punishment
was always to be suited to the nature of the crime, and the constitution
of the criminal. While the offenders were under the lash, three judges
stood by to see that they received their full and just due. The first
repeated the words of Deut. xxviii. 58. the second counted the stripes,
and the third said, “Hack, or lay on.” The offender received three
lashes on the breast, three on the belly, three on each shoulder, &c.
But adultery was attended with capital punishment, as Deut. xxii. 22.
The parties when legally detected, were tried by the lesser judicatory,
which was to consist, at least of twenty-three: the Sanhedrim gave the
bitter waters to those women who were suspected of adultery. The former
were stoned to death; and the latter burst open, according to their
imprecation, if they were guilty: the omnipotent divine wisdom impressed
those waters with that wonderful quality, contrary to the common course
of nature. The men married, and were divorced as often as their caprice
directed them; for if they imagined their wives did not value them,
according to their own partial opinion of themselves, they notified the
occasion of the dislike, in a small billet, that her virtue might not be
suspected: and when they gave any of them the ticket, they ate together
in a very civil manner, and thus dissolved the contract.
I have premised this, to trace the resemblance to the marriage divorces
and punishments of the savage Americans. The middle aged people of a
place, which lies about half-way to Mobille, and the Illinois, assure
us, that they remember when adultery was punished among them with death,
by shooting the offender with barbed arrows, as there are no stones
there.[55] But what with the losses of their people at war with the
French and their savage confederates, and the constitutional wantonness
of their young men and women, they have through a political desire of
continuing, or increasing their numbers, moderated the severity of that
law, and reduced it to the present standard of punishment; which is in
the following manner. If a married woman is detected in adultery by one
person, the evidence is deemed good in judgment against her; the
evidence of a well grown boy or girl, they even reckon sufficient,
because of the heinousness of the crime, and the difficulty of
discovering it in their thick forests. This is a corruption of the
Mosaic law, which required two evidences, and exempted both women {142}
and slaves from public faith; because of the reputed fickleness of the
one, and the base, groveling temper of the other. When the crime is
proved against the woman, the enraged husband accompanied by some of his
relations, surprises and beats her most barbarously, and then cuts off
her hair and nose, or one of her lips. There are many of that sort of
disfigured females among the Chikkasah, and they are commonly the best
featured, and the most tempting of any of their country-women, which
exposed them to the snares of young men. But their fellow-criminals, who
probably first tempted them, are partially exempted from any kind of
corporal punishment.
With the Muskohge Indians, it was formerly reckoned adultery, if a man
took a pitcher of water off a married woman’s head, and drank of it.[56]
But their law said, if he was a few steps apart, and she at his request
set it down, and retired a little way off, he might then drink without
exposing her to any danger. If we seriously reflect on the rest of their
native customs, this old law, so singular to themselves from the rest of
the world, gives us room to think they drew it from the Jewish bitter
waters that were given to real, or suspected adulteresses, either to
prove their guilt, or attest their innocence.
Among those Indians, when adultery is discovered, the offending parties
commonly set off speedily for the distant woods, to secure themselves
from the shameful badge of the sharp penal law, which they inevitably
get, if they can be taken before the yearly offering for the atonement
of sin; afterward, every crime except murder is forgiven. But they are
always pursued, and frequently overtaken; though perhaps, three or four
moons absent, and two hundred miles off, over hills and mountains, up
and down many creeks and rivers, on contrary courses, and by various
intricate windings—the pursuers are eager, and their hearts burn within
them for revenge. When the husband has the chilling news first whispered
in his ear, he steals off with his witness to some of his kinsmen, to
get them to assist him in revenging his injury: they are soon joined by
a sufficient number of the same family, if the criminal was not of the
same tribe; otherwise, he chuses to confide in his nearest relations.
When the witness has asserted to them the truth of his evidence by a
strong asseveration, they separate to avoid suspicion, and meet commonly
in the dusk of the evening, near the town of the adulterer, {143} where
each of them provides a small hoop-pole, tapering to the point, with
knobs half an inch long, (allowed by ancient custom) with which they
correct the sinners; for as their law in this case doth not allow
partiality, if they punished one of them, and either excused or let the
other escape from justice, like the Illinois, they would become liable
to such punishment as they had inflicted upon either of the parties.
They commonly begin with the adulterer, because of the two, he is the
more capable of making his escape: they generally attack him at night,
by surprise, lest he should make a desperate resistance, and blood be
shed to cry for blood. They fall on eager and merciless, whooping their
revengeful noise, and thrashing their captive, with their long-knobbed
hoop-flails; some over his head and face; others on his shoulders and
back. His belly, sides, legs, and arms, are gashed all over, and at
last, he happily seems to be insensible of pain: then they cut off his
ears[XXXI].
Footnote XXXI:
Among these Indians, the trading people’s ears are often in danger, by
the sharpness of this law, and their suborning false witnesses, or
admitting foolish children as legal evidence; but generally either the
tender-hearted females or friends, give them timely notice of their
danger. Then they fall to the rum-keg,—and as soon as they find the
pursuers approaching, they stand to arms in a threatning parade.
Formerly, the traders like so many British tars, kept them in proper
awe, and consequently prevented them from attempting any mischief. But
since the patenteed race of Daublers set foot in their land, they have
gradually become worse every year, murdering valuable innocent British
subjects at pleasure: and when they go down, they receive presents as
a tribute of fear, for which these Indians upbraid, and threaten us.
The Muskohge lately clipt off the ears of two white men for supposed
adultery. One had been a disciple of _Black Beard_, the pirate; and
the other, at the time of going under the hands of those Jewish
clippers, was deputed by the whimsical war-governor of Georgia, to awe
the traders into an obedience of his despotic power. His successor
lost his life on the Chikkasah war-path, twenty miles above the
Koosah, or uppermost western town of the Muskohge, in an attempt to
arrest the traders; which should not by any means be undertaken in the
Indian country.
They observe, however, a gradation of punishment, according to the
criminality of the adulteress. For the first breach of the marriage
faith, they crop her ears and hair, if the husband is spiteful: either
of those badges proclaim her to be a whore, or _Hakse Kaneha_, “such as
were evil in Canaan,” for the hair of their head is their ornament: when
loose it commonly reaches below their back; and when tied, it stands
below the crown of the head, about four inches long, and two broad. As
the {144} offender cuts a comical figure among the rest of the women, by
being trimmed so sharp, she always keeps her dark winter hot house, till
by keeping the hair moistened with grease, it grows so long as to bear
tying. Then she accustoms herself to the light by degrees; and soon some
worthless fellow, according to their standard, buys her for his _And_;
which term hath been already explained.
The adulterer’s ears are slashed off close to his head, for the first
act of adultery, because he is the chief in fault. If the criminals
repeat the crime with any other married persons, their noses and upper
lips are cut off. But the third crime of the like nature, is attended
with more danger; for their law says, that for public heinous crimes,
satisfaction should be made visible to the people, and adequate to the
injuries of the virtuous,—to set their aggrieved hearts at ease, and
prevent others from following such a dangerous crooked copy. As they
will not comply with their mitigated law of adultery, nor be terrified,
nor shamed from their ill course of life; that the one may not frighten
and abuse their wives, nor the other seduce their husbands and be a
lasting plague and shame to the whole society, they are ordered by their
ruling magi and war-chieftains, to be shot to death, which is
accordingly executed: but this seldom happens.