THE IROQUOIS TRIBE.
THE TRIBE AS AN ORGANIZATION.—COMPOSED OF GENTES SPEAKING
THE SAME DIALECT.—SEPARATION IN AREA LED TO DIVERGENCE
OF SPEECH, AND SEGMENTATION.—THE TRIBE A NATURAL
GROWTH.—ILLUSTRATIONS.—ATTRIBUTES OF A TRIBE.—A TERRITORY AND
NAME.—AN EXCLUSIVE DIALECT.—THE RIGHT TO INVEST AND DEPOSE ITS
SACHEMS AND CHIEFS.—A RELIGIOUS FAITH AND WORSHIP.—A COUNCIL
OF CHIEFS.—A HEAD-CHIEF OF TRIBE IN SOME INSTANCES.—THREE
SUCCESSIVE FORMS OF GENTILE GOVERNMENT: FIRST, A GOVERNMENT OF
ONE POWER; SECOND, OF TWO POWERS; THIRD, OF THREE POWERS.
It is difficult to describe an Indian tribe by the affirmative elements
of its composition. Nevertheless it is clearly marked, and the
ultimate organization of the great body of the American aborigines.
The large number of independent tribes into which they had fallen by
the natural process of segmentation, is the striking characteristic
of their condition. Each tribe was individualized by a name, by a
separate dialect, by a supreme government, and by the possession of a
territory which it occupied and defended as its own. The tribes were as
numerous as the dialects, for separation did not become complete until
dialectical variation had commenced. Indian tribes, therefore, are
natural growths through the separation of the same people in the area
of their occupation, followed by divergence of speech, segmentation,
and independence.
We have seen that the phratry was not so much a governmental as a
social organization, while the gens, tribe, and confederacy, were
necessary and logical stages of progress in the growth of the idea
of government. A confederacy could not exist, under gentile society,
without tribes as a basis; nor could tribes exist without gentes,
though they might without phratries. In this chapter I will endeavor to
point out the manner in which these numerous tribes were formed, and,
presumptively out of one original people; the causes which produced
their perpetual segmentation; and the principal attributes which
distinguished an Indian tribe as an organization.
The exclusive possession of a dialect and of a territory has led to the
application of the term _nation_ to many Indian tribes, notwithstanding
the fewness of the people in each. _Tribe_ and _nation_, however,
are not strict equivalents. A nation does not arise, under gentile
institutions, until the tribes united under the same government have
coalesced into one people, as the four Athenian tribes coalesced in
Attica, three Dorian tribes at Sparta, and three Latin and Sabine
tribes at Rome. Federation requires independent tribes in separate
territorial areas; but coalescence unites them by a higher process in
the same area, although the tendency to local separation by gentes and
by tribes would continue. The confederacy is the nearest analogue of
the nation, but not strictly equivalent. Where the gentile organization
exists, the organic series gives all the terms which are needed for a
correct description.
An Indian tribe is composed of several gentes, developed from two or
more, all the members of which are intermingled by marriage, and all
of whom speak the same dialect. To a stranger the tribe is visible,
and not the gens. The instances are extremely rare, among the American
aborigines, in which the tribe embraced peoples speaking different
dialects. When such cases are found, it resulted from the union of a
weaker with a stronger tribe speaking a closely related dialect, as
the union of the Missouris with the Otoes after the overthrow of the
former. The fact that the great body of the aborigines were found in
independent tribes illustrates the slow and difficult growth of the
idea of government under gentile institutions. A small portion only had
attained to the ultimate stage known among them, that of a confederacy
of tribes speaking dialects of the same stock language. A coalescence
of tribes into a nation had not occurred in any case in any part of
America.
A constant tendency to disintegration, which has proved such a
hinderance to progress among savage and barbarous tribes, existed
in the elements of the gentile organization. It was aggravated by a
further tendency to divergence of speech, which was inseparable from
their social state and the large areas of their occupation. A verbal
language, although remarkably persistent in its vocables, and still
more persistent in its grammatical forms, is incapable of permanence.
Separation of the people in area was followed in time by variation in
speech; and this, in turn, led to separation in interests and ultimate
independence. It was not the work of a brief period, but of centuries
of time, aggregating finally into thousands of years. The great number
of dialects and stock languages in North and South America, which
presumptively were derived, the Eskimo excepted, from one original
language, require for their formation the time measured by three
ethnical periods.
New tribes as well as new gentes were constantly forming by natural
growth; and the process was sensibly accelerated by the great expanse
of the American continent. The method was simple. In the first place
there would occur a gradual outflow of people from some overstocked
geographical centre, which possessed superior advantages in the means
of subsistence. Continued from year to year, a considerable population
would thus be developed at a distance from the original seat of the
tribe. In course of time the emigrants would become distinct in
interests, strangers in feeling, and last of all, divergent in speech.
Separation and independence would follow, although their territories
were contiguous. A new tribe was thus created. This is a concise
statement of the manner in which the tribes of the American aborigines
were formed, but the statement must be taken as general. Repeating
itself from age to age in newly acquired as well as in old areas, it
must be regarded as a natural as well as inevitable result of the
gentile organization, united with the necessities of their condition.
When increased numbers pressed upon the means of subsistence, the
surplus removed to a new seat where they established themselves with
facility, because the government was perfect in every gens, and in any
number of gentes united in a band. Among the Village Indians the same
thing repeated itself in a slightly different manner. When a village
became overcrowded with numbers, a colony went up or down on the same
stream and commenced a new village. Repeated at intervals of time
several such villages would appear, each independent of the other and a
self-governing body; but united in a league or confederacy for mutual
protection. Dialectical variation would finally spring up, and thus
complete their growth into tribes.
The manner in which tribes are evolved from each other can be shown
directly by examples. The fact of separation is derived in part from
tradition, in part from the possession by each of a number of the same
gentes, and deduced in part from the relations of their dialects.
Tribes formed by the subdivisions of an original tribe would possess a
number of gentes in common, and speak dialects of the same language.
After several centuries of separation they would still have a number of
the same gentes. Thus, the Hurons, now Wyandotes, have six gentes of
the same name with six of the gentes of the Seneca-Iroquois, after at
least four hundred years of separation. The Potawattamies have eight
gentes of the same name with eight among the Ojibwas, while the former
have six, and the latter fourteen, which are different; showing that
new gentes have been formed in each tribe by segmentation since their
separation. A still older offshoot from the Ojibwas, or from the common
parent tribe of both, the Miamis, have but three gentes in common with
the former, namely, the Wolf, the Loon, and the Eagle. The minute
social history of the tribes of the Ganowánian family is locked up in
the life and growth of the gentes. If investigation is ever turned
strongly in this direction, the gentes themselves would become reliable
guides, both in respect to the order of separation from each other of
the tribes of the same stock, and possibly of the great stocks of the
aborigines.
The following illustrations are drawn from tribes in the Lower Status
of barbarism. When discovered, the eight Missouri tribes occupied the
banks of the Missouri river for more than a thousand miles; together
with the banks of its tributaries, the Kansas and the Platte; and also
the smaller rivers of Iowa. They also occupied the west bank of the
Mississippi down to the Arkansas. Their dialects show that the people
were in three tribes before the last subdivisions; namely, first, the
Punkas and Omahas, second, the Iowas, Otoes and Missouris, and third,
the Kaws, Osages and Quappas. These three were undoubtedly subdivisions
of a single original tribe, because their several dialects are still
much nearer to each other than to any other dialect of the Dakotian
stock language to which they belong. There is, therefore, a linguistic
necessity for their derivation from an original tribe. A gradual spread
from a central point on this river along its banks, both above and
below, would lead to a separation in interests with the increase of
distance between their settlements, followed by divergence of speech,
and finally by independence. A people thus extending themselves along a
river in a prairie country might separate, first into three tribes, and
afterwards into eight, and the organization of each subdivision remain
complete. Division was neither a shock, nor an appreciated calamity;
but a separation into parts by natural expansion over a larger area,
followed by a complete segmentation. The uppermost tribe on the
Missouri were the Punkas at the mouth of the Niobrara river, and the
lowermost the Quappas at the mouth of the Arkansas on the Mississippi,
with an interval of near fifteen hundred miles between them. The
intermediate region, confined to the narrow belt of forest upon the
Missouri, was held by the remaining six tribes. They were strictly
River Tribes.
Another illustration may be found in the tribes of Lake Superior. The
Ojibwas, Otawas[76] and Potawattamies are subdivisions of an original
tribe; the Ojibwas representing the stem, because they remained at
the original seat at the great fisheries upon the outlet of the lake.
Moreover, they are styled “Elder Brother” by the remaining two; while
the Otawas were styled “Next Older Brother,” and the Potawattamies
“Younger Brother.” The last tribe separated first, and the Otawas last,
as is shown by the relative amount of dialectical variation, that of
the former being greatest. At the time of their discovery, A. D. 1641,
the Ojibwas were seated at the Rapids on the outlet of Lake Superior,
from which point they had spread along the southern shore of the
lake to the site of Ontonagon, along its northeastern shore, and down
the St. Mary River well toward Lake Huron. Their position possessed
remarkable advantages for a fish and game subsistence, which, as they
did not cultivate maize and plants, was their main reliance.[77] It
was second to none in North America, with the single exception of the
Valley of the Columbia. With such advantages they were certain to
develop a large Indian population, and to send out successive bands of
emigrants to become independent tribes. The Potawattamies occupied a
region on the confines of Upper Michigan and Wisconsin, from which the
Dakotas in 1641, were in the act of expelling them. At the same time
the Otawas, whose earlier residence is supposed to have been on the
Otawa river of Canada, had drawn westward and were then seated upon
the Georgian Bay, the Manitouline Islands and at Mackinaw, from which
points they were spreading southward over Lower Michigan. Originally
one people, and possessing the same gentes, they had succeeded in
appropriating a large area. Separation in place, and distance between
their settlements, had long before their discovery resulted in the
formation of dialects, and in tribal independence. The three tribes,
whose territories were contiguous, had formed an alliance for mutual
protection, known among Americans as “the Otawa Confederacy.” It was a
league, offensive and defensive, and not, probably, a close confederacy
like that of the Iroquois.
Prior to these secessions another affiliated tribe, the Miamis, had
broken off from the Ojibwa stock, or the common parent tribe, and
migrated to central Illinois and western Indiana. Following in the
track of this migration were the Illinois, another and later offshoot
from the same stem, who afterwards subdivided into the Peorias,
Kaskaskias, Weaws, and Piankeshaws. Their dialects, with that of the
Miamis, find their nearest affinity with the Ojibwa, and next with the
Cree.[78] The outflow of all these tribes from the central seat at
the great fisheries of Lake Superior is a significant fact, because it
illustrates the manner in which tribes are formed in connection with
natural centres of subsistence. The New England, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia and Carolina Algonkins were, in all probability, derived from
the same source. Several centuries would be required for the formation
of the dialects first named, and for the production of the amount of
variation they now exhibit.
The foregoing examples represent the natural process by which tribes
are evolved from each other, or from a parent tribe established in
an advantageous position. Each emigrating band was in the nature of
a military colony, if it may be so strongly characterized, seeking
to acquire and hold a new area; preserving at first, and as long as
possible, a connection with the mother tribe. By these successive
movements they sought to expand their joint possessions, and afterward
to resist the intrusion of alien people within their limits. It is a
noticeable fact that Indian tribes speaking dialects of the same stock
language have usually been found in territorial continuity, however
extended their common area. The same has, in the main, been true of
all the tribes of mankind linguistically united. It is because the
people, spreading from some geographical centre, and maintaining an
arduous struggle for subsistence, and for the possession of their new
territories, have preserved their connection with the mother land as
a means of succor in times of danger, and as a place of refuge in
calamity.
It required special advantages in the means of subsistence to render
any area an initial point of migration through the gradual development
of a surplus population. These natural centres were few in number in
North America. There are but three. First among them is the Valley of
the Columbia, the most extraordinary region on the face of the earth
in the variety and amount of subsistence it afforded, prior to the
cultivation of maize and plants;[79] second, the peninsula between
Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan, the seat of the Ojibwas, and the
nursery land of many Indian tribes; and third, the lake region in
Minnesota, the nursery ground of the present Dakota tribes. These are
the only regions in North America that can be called natural centres
of subsistence, and natural sources of surplus numbers. There are
reasons for believing that Minnesota was a part of the Algonkin area
before it was occupied by the Dakotas. When the cultivation of maize
and plants came in, it tended to localize the people and support them
in smaller areas, as well as to increase their numbers; but it failed
to transfer the control of the continent to the most advanced tribes
of Village Indians, who subsisted almost entirely by cultivation.
Horticulture spread among the principal tribes in the Lower Status of
barbarism and greatly improved their condition. They held, with the
non-horticultural tribes, the great areas of North America when it was
discovered, and from their ranks the continent was being replenished
with inhabitants.[80]
The multiplication of tribes and dialects has been the fruitful source
of the incessant warfare of the aborigines upon each other. As a rule
the most persistent warfare has been waged between tribes speaking
different stock languages; as, for example, between the Iroquois and
Algonkin tribes, and between the Dakota tribes and the same. On the
contrary the Algonkin and Dakota tribes severally have, in general,
lived at peace among themselves. Had it been otherwise they would
not have been found in the occupation of continuous areas. The worst
exception were the Iroquois, who pursued a war of extermination against
their kindred tribes, the Eries, the Neutral Nation, the Hurons and the
Susquehannocks. Tribes speaking dialects of the same stock language are
able to communicate orally and thus compose their differences. They
also learned, in virtue of their common descent, to depend upon each
other as natural allies.
Numbers within a given area were limited by the amount of subsistence
it afforded. When fish and game were the main reliance for food, it
required an immense area to maintain a small tribe. After farinaceous
food was superadded to fish and game, the area occupied by a tribe was
still a large one in proportion to the number of the people. New York,
with its forty-seven thousand square miles, never contained at any time
more than twenty-five thousand Indians, including with the Iroquois
the Algonkins on the east side of the Hudson and upon Long Island, and
the Eries and Neutral Nation in the western section of the state. A
personal government founded upon gentes was incapable of developing
sufficient central power to follow and control the increasing numbers
of the people, unless they remained within a reasonable distance from
each other.
Among the Village Indians of New Mexico, Mexico, and Central America
an increase of numbers in a small area did not arrest the process of
disintegration. Each pueblo was usually an independent self-governing
community. Where several pueblos were seated near each other on the
same stream, the people were usually of common descent, and either
under a tribal or confederate government. There are some seven stock
languages in New Mexico alone, each spoken in several dialects. At
the time of Coronado’s expedition, 1540-1542, the villages found were
numerous but small. There were seven each of Cibola, Tucayan, Quivira,
and Hemez, and twelve of Tiguex;[81] and other groups indicating a
linguistic connection of their members. Whether or not each group was
confederated we are not informed. The seven Moqui Pueblos (the Tucayan
Villages of Coronado’s expedition), are said to be confederated at the
present time, and probably were at the time of their discovery.
The process of subdivision, illustrated by the foregoing examples, has
been operating among the American aborigines for thousands of years,
until upwards of forty stock languages, as near as is known, have been
developed in North America alone; each spoken in a number of dialects,
by an equal number of independent tribes. Their experience, probably,
was but a repetition of that of the tribes of Asia, Europe and Africa,
when they were in corresponding conditions.
From the preceding observations, it is apparent that an American Indian
tribe is a very simple as well as humble organization. It required but
a few hundreds, and, at most, a few thousand people to form a tribe,
and place it in a respectable position in the Ganowánian family.
It remains to present the functions and attributes of an Indian tribe,
which may be discussed under the following propositions:
I. _The possession of a territory and a name._
II. _The exclusive possession of a dialect._
III. _The right to invest sachems and chiefs elected by the gentes._
IV. _The right to depose these sachems and chiefs._
V. _The possession of a religious faith and worship._
VI. _A supreme government consisting of a council of chiefs._
VII. _A head-chief of the tribe in some instances._
It will be sufficient to make a brief reference to each of these
several attributes of a tribe.
I. _The possession of a territory and a name._
Their territory consisted of the area of their actual settlements, and
so much of the surrounding region as the tribe ranged over in hunting
and fishing, and were able to defend against the encroachments of
other tribes. Without this area was a wide margin of neutral grounds,
separating them from their nearest frontegers if they spoke a different
language, and claimed by neither; but less wide, and less clearly
marked, when they spoke dialects of the same language. The country
thus imperfectly defined, whether large or small, was the domain of
the tribe, recognized as such by other tribes, and defended as such by
themselves.
In due time the tribe became individualized by a name, which, from
their usual character, must have been in many cases accidental rather
than deliberate. Thus, the Senecas styled themselves the “Great
Hill People” (Nun-da′-wä-o-no), the Tuscaroras, “Shirt-wearing
People” (Dus-ga′-o-weh-o-no′), the Sissetons, “Village of the Marsh”
(Sis-se′-to-wän), the Ogalallas, “Camp Movers” (O-ga-lal′-lä), the
Omahas, “Upstream People” (O-mä′-hä), the Iowas, “Dusty Noses”
(Pa-ho′-cha), the Minnitarees, “People from Afar” (E-năt′-zä), the
Cherokees, “Great People” (Tsä-lo′-kee), the Shawnees, “Southerners”
(Sä-wan-wä-kee′), the Mohegans, “Sea-side People” (Mo-he-kun-e-uk),
the Slave Lake Indians, “People of the Lowlands” (A-cha′-o-tin-ne).
Among the Village Indians of Mexico, the Sochimilcos styled themselves
“Nation of the Seeds of Flowers,” the Chalcans, “People of Mouths,”
the Tepanecans, “People of the Bridge,” the Tezcucans or Culhuas, “A
Crooked People,” and the Tlascalans, “Men of Bread.”[82] When European
colonization began in the northern part of America, the names of Indian
tribes were obtained, not usually from the tribe direct, but from other
tribes who had bestowed names upon them different from their own. As a
consequence, a number of tribes are now known in history under names
not recognized by themselves.
II. _The exclusive possession of a dialect._
Tribe and dialect are substantially co-extensive, but there are
exceptions growing out of special circumstances. Thus, the twelve
Dakota bands are now properly tribes, because they are distinct in
interests and in organization; but they were forced into premature
separation by the advance of Americans upon their original area which
forced them upon the plains. They had remained in such intimate
connection previously that but one new dialect had commenced forming,
the _Tecton_, on the Missouri; the _Isauntie_ on the Mississippi being
the original speech. A few years ago the Cherokees numbered twenty-six
thousand, the largest number of Indians ever found within the limits
of the United States speaking the same dialect. But in the mountain
districts of Georgia a slight divergence of speech had occurred, though
not sufficient to be distinguished as a dialect. There are a few
other similar cases, but they do not break the general rule during
the aboriginal period which made tribe and dialect co-extensive. The
Ojibwas, who are still in the main non-horticultural, now number about
fifteen thousand, and speak the same dialect; and the Dakota tribes
collectively about twenty-five thousand who speak two very closely
related dialects, as stated. These several tribes are exceptionally
large. The tribes within the United States and British America would
yield, on an average, less than two thousand persons to a tribe.
III. _The right of investing sachems and chiefs elected by the gentes._
Among the Iroquois the person elected could not become a chief
until his investiture by a council of chiefs. As the chiefs of the
gentes composed the council of the tribe, with power over common
interests, there was a manifest propriety in reserving to the tribal
council the function of investing persons with office. But after the
confederacy was formed, the power of “raising up” sachems and chiefs
was transferred from the council of the tribe to the council of the
confederacy. With respect to the tribes generally, the accessible
information is insufficient to explain their usages in relation to
the mode of investiture. It is one of the numerous subjects requiring
further investigation before the social system of the Indian tribes
can be fully explained. The office of sachem and chief was universally
elective among the tribes north of Mexico; with sufficient evidence, as
to other parts of the continent, to leave no doubt of the universality
of the rule.
Among the Delawares each gens had one sachem, (Sä-ke′-mä), whose
office was hereditary in the gens, besides two common chiefs, and two
war-chiefs—making fifteen in three gentes—who composed the council of
the tribe. Among the Ojibwas, the members of some one gens usually
predominated at each settlement. Each gens had a sachem, whose office
was hereditary in the gens, and several common chiefs. Where a large
number of persons of the same gens lived in one locality they would
be found similarly organized. There was no prescribed limit to the
number of chiefs. A body of usages, which have never been collected,
undoubtedly existed in the several Indian tribes respecting the
election and investiture of sachems and chiefs. A knowledge of them
would be valuable. An explanation of the Iroquois method of “raising
up” sachems and chiefs will be given in the next chapter.
IV. _The right to depose these sachems and chiefs._
This right rested primarily with the gens to which the sachem and chief
belonged. But the council of the tribe possessed the same power, and
could proceed independently of the gens, and even in opposition to its
wishes. In the Status of savagery, and in the Lower and also in the
Middle Status of barbarism, office was bestowed for life, or during
good behavior. Mankind had not learned to limit an elective office
for a term of years. The right to depose, therefore, became the more
essential for the maintenance of the principle of self-government. This
right was a perpetual assertion of the sovereignty of the gens and
also of the tribe; a sovereignty feebly understood, but nevertheless a
reality.
V. _The possession of a religious faith and worship._
After the fashion of barbarians the American Indians were a religious
people. The tribes generally held religious festivals at particular
seasons of the year, which were observed with forms of worship, dances
and games. The Medicine Lodge, in many tribes, was the centre of these
observances. It was customary to announce the holding of a Medicine
Lodge weeks and months in advance to awaken a general interest in its
ceremonies. The religious system of the aborigines is another of the
subjects which has been but partially investigated. It is rich in
materials for the future student. The experience of these tribes in
developing their religious beliefs and mode of worship is a part of the
experience of mankind; and the facts will hold an important place in
the science of comparative religion.
Their system was more or less vague and indefinite, and loaded with
crude superstitions. Element worship can be traced among the principal
tribes, with a tendency to polytheism in the advanced tribes. The
Iroquois, for example, recognized a Great, and an Evil Spirit, and a
multitude of inferior spiritual beings, the immortality of the soul,
and a future state. Their conception of the Great Spirit assigned
to him a human form; which was equally true of the Evil Spirit, of
_He′-no_, the Spirit of Thunder, of _Gă′-oh_, the Spirit of the
Winds, and of the _Three Sisters_, the Spirit of Maize, the Spirit
of the Bean, and the Spirit of the Squash. The latter were styled,
collectively, “Our Life,” and also “Our Supporters.” Beside these
were the spirits of the several kinds of trees and plants, and of
the running streams. The existence and attributes of these numerous
spiritual beings were but feebly imagined. Among the tribes in the
Lower Status of barbarism idolatry was unknown.[83] The Aztecs had
personal gods, with idols to represent them, and a temple worship. If
the particulars of their religious system were accurately known, its
growth out of the common beliefs of the Indian tribes would probably be
made apparent.
Dancing was a form of worship among the American aborigines, and formed
a part of the ceremonies at all religious festivals. In no part of
the earth, among barbarians, has the dance received a more studied
development. Every tribe has from ten to thirty set dances; each of
which has its own name, songs, musical instruments, steps, plan and
costume for persons. Some of them, as the war-dance, were common to all
the tribes. Particular dances are special property, belonging either to
a gens, or to a society organized for its maintenance, into which new
members were from time to time initiated. The dances of the Dakotas,
the Crees, the Ojibwas, the Iroquois, and of the Pueblo Indians of New
Mexico, are the same in general character, in step, plan, and music;
and the same is true of the dances of the Aztecs so far as they are
accurately known. It is one system throughout the Indian tribes, and
bears a direct relation to their system of faith and worship.
VI. _A supreme government through a council of chiefs._
The council had a natural foundation in the gentes of whose chiefs
it was composed. It met a necessary want, and was certain to remain
as long as gentile society endured. As the gens was represented by
its chiefs, so the tribe was represented by a council composed of the
chiefs of the gentes. It was a permanent feature of the social system,
holding the ultimate authority over the tribe. Called together under
circumstances known to all, held in the midst of the people, and open
to their orators, it was certain to act under popular influence.
Although oligarchical in form, the government was a representative
democracy; the representative being elected for life, but subject
to deposition. The brotherhood of the members of each gens, and the
elective principle with respect to office, were the germ and the basis
of the democratic principle. Imperfectly developed, as other great
principles were in this early stage of advancement, democracy can boast
a very ancient pedigree in the tribes of mankind.
It devolved upon the council to guard and protect the common interests
of the tribe. Upon the intelligence and courage of the people, and
upon the wisdom and foresight of the council, the prosperity and
the existence of the tribe depended. Questions and exigencies were
arising, through their incessant warfare with other tribes, which
required the exercise of all these qualities to meet and manage.
It was unavoidable, therefore, that the popular element should be
commanding in its influence. As a general rule the council was open to
any private individual who desired to address it on a public question.
Even the women were allowed to express their wishes and opinions
through an orator of their own selection. But the decision was made by
the council. Unanimity was a fundamental law of its action among the
Iroquois; but whether this usage was general I am unable to state.
Military operations were usually left to the action of the voluntary
principle. Theoretically, each tribe was at war with every other tribe
with which it had not formed a treaty of peace. Any person was at
liberty to organize a war-party and conduct an expedition wherever he
pleased. He announced his project by giving a war-dance and inviting
volunteers. This method furnished a practical test of the popularity
of the undertaking. If he succeeded in forming a company, which would
consist of such persons as joined him in the dance, they departed
immediately, while enthusiasm was at its height. When a tribe was
menaced with an attack, war-parties were formed to meet it in much the
same manner. Where forces thus raised were united in one body, each was
under its own war-captain, and their joint movements were determined
by a council of these captains. If there was among them a war-chief of
established reputation he would naturally become their leader. These
statements relate to tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism. The
Aztecs and Tlascalans went out by phratries, each subdivision under its
own captain, and distinguished by costumes and banners.
Indian tribes, and even confederacies, were weak organizations for
military operations. That of the Iroquois, and that of the Aztecs, were
the most remarkable for aggressive purposes. Among the tribes in the
Lower Status of barbarism, including the Iroquois, the most destructive
work was performed by inconsiderable war-parties, which were constantly
forming and making expeditions into distant regions. Their supply of
food consisted of parched corn reduced to flour, carried in a pouch
attached to the belt of each warrior, with such fish and game as the
route supplied. The going out of these war-parties, and their public
reception on their return, were among the prominent events in Indian
life. The sanction of the council for these expeditions was not sought,
neither was it necessary.
The council of the tribe had power to declare war and make peace, to
send and receive embassies, and to make alliances. It exercised all the
powers needful in a government so simple and limited in its affairs.
Intercourse between independent tribes was conducted by delegations of
wise-men and chiefs. When such a delegation was expected by any tribe,
a council was convened for its reception, and for the transaction of
its business.
VII. _A head-chief of the tribe in some instances._
In some Indian tribes one of the sachems was recognized as its
head-chief; and as superior in rank to his associates. A need existed,
to some extent, for an official head of the tribe to represent it
when the council was not in session; but the duties and powers of
the office were slight. Although the council was supreme in authority
it was rarely in session, and questions might arise demanding the
provisional action of some one authorized to represent the tribe,
subject to the ratification of his acts by the council. This was
the only basis, so far as the writer is aware, for the office of
head-chief. It existed in a number of tribes, but in a form of
authority so feeble as to fall below the conception of an executive
magistrate. In the language of some of the early writers they have been
designated as kings, which is simply a caricature. The Indian tribes
had not advanced far enough in a knowledge of government to develop the
idea of a chief executive magistrate. The Iroquois tribe recognized
no head-chief, and the confederacy no executive officer. The elective
tenure of the office of chief, and the liability of the person to
deposition, settle the character of the office.
A council of Indian chiefs is of little importance by itself; but as
the germ of the modern parliament, congress, and legislature, it has an
important bearing in the history of mankind.
The growth of the idea of government commenced with the organization
into gentes in savagery. It reveals three great stages of progressive
development between its commencement and the institution of political
society after civilization had been attained. The first stage was the
government of a tribe by a council of chiefs elected by the gentes. It
may be called a government of _one power_; namely, _the council_. It
prevailed generally among tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism. The
second stage was a government co-ordinated between a council of chiefs,
and a general military commander; one representing the civil, and the
other the military functions. This second form began to manifest itself
in the Lower Status of barbarism, after confederacies were formed, and
it became definite in the Middle Status. The office of general, or
principal military commander, was the germ of that of a chief executive
magistrate, the king, the emperor, and the president. It may be called
a government of _two powers_, namely, _the council of chiefs_, and _the
general_. The third stage was the government of a people or nation by a
council of chiefs, an assembly of the people, and a general military
commander. It appeared among the tribes who had attained to the Upper
Status of barbarism; such, for example, as the Homeric Greeks, and the
Italian tribes of the period of Romulus. A large increase in the number
of people united in a nation, their establishment in walled cities, and
the creation of wealth in lands and in flocks and herds, brought in
the assembly of the people as an instrument of government. The council
of chiefs, which still remained, found it necessary, no doubt through
popular constraint, to submit the most important public measures to an
assembly of the people for acceptance or rejection; whence the popular
assembly. This assembly did not originate measures. It was its function
to adopt or reject, and its action was final. From its first appearance
it became a permanent power in the government. The council no longer
passed important public measures, but became a pre-considering council,
with power to originate and mature public acts, to which the assembly
alone could give validity. It may be called a government of _three
powers_; namely, _the pre-considering council_, the _assembly of the
people_, and _the general_. This remained until the institution of
political society, when, for example, among the Athenians, the council
of chiefs became the senate, and the assembly of the people the
ecclesia or popular assembly. The same organizations have come down
to modern times in the two houses of parliament, of congress, and of
legislatures. In like manner the office of general military commander,
as before stated, was the germ of the office of the modern chief
executive magistrate.
Recurring to the tribe, it was limited in the numbers of the people,
feeble in strength, and poor in resources; but yet a completely
organized society. It illustrates the condition of mankind in the
Lower Status of barbarism. In the Middle Status there was a sensible
increase of numbers in a tribe, and an improved condition; but with
a continuance of gentile society without essential change. Political
society was still impossible from want of advancement. The gentes
organized into tribes remained as before; but confederacies must have
been more frequent. In some areas, as in the Valley of Mexico, larger
numbers were developed under a common government, with improvements in
the arts of life; but no evidence exists of the overthrow among them
of gentile society and the substitution of political. It is impossible
to found a political society or a state upon gentes. A state must rest
upon territory and not upon persons, upon the township as the unit
of a political system, and not upon the gens which is the unit of a
social system. It required time and a vast experience, beyond that of
the American Indian tribes, as a preparation for such a fundamental
change of systems. It also required men of the mental stature of the
Greeks and Romans, and with the experience derived from a long chain of
ancestors to devise and gradually introduce that new plan of government
under which civilized nations are living at the present time.
Following the ascending organic series, we are next to consider the
confederacy of tribes, in which the gentes, phratries and tribes will
be seen in new relations. The remarkable adaptation of the gentile
organization to the condition and wants of mankind, while in a
barbarous state, will thereby be further illustrated.