THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
CONFEDERACIES NATURAL GROWTHS.—FOUNDED UPON COMMON GENTES,
AND A COMMON LANGUAGE.—THE IROQUOIS TRIBES.—THEIR SETTLEMENT
IN NEW YORK.—FORMATION OF THE CONFEDERACY.—ITS STRUCTURE
AND PRINCIPLES.—FIFTY SACHEMSHIPS CREATED.—MADE HEREDITARY
IN CERTAIN GENTES.—NUMBER ASSIGNED TO EACH TRIBE.—THESE
SACHEMS FORMED THE COUNCIL OF THE CONFEDERACY.—THE CIVIL
COUNCIL.—ITS MODE OF TRANSACTING BUSINESS.—UNANIMITY NECESSARY
TO ITS ACTION.—THE MOURNING COUNCIL.—MODE OF RAISING UP
SACHEMS.—GENERAL MILITARY COMMANDERS.—THIS OFFICE THE GERM OF
THAT OF A CHIEF EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE.—INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY OF
THE IROQUOIS.
A tendency to confederate for mutual defense would very naturally
exist among kindred and contiguous tribes. When the advantages of a
union had been appreciated by actual experience the organization, at
first a league, would gradually cement into a federal unity. The state
of perpetual warfare in which they lived would quicken this natural
tendency into action among such tribes as were sufficiently advanced
in intelligence and in the arts of life to perceive its benefits. It
would be simply a growth from a lower into a higher organization by an
extension of the principle which united the gentes in a tribe.
As might have been expected, several confederacies existed in different
parts of North America when discovered, some of which were quite
remarkable in plan and structure. Among the number may be mentioned the
Iroquois Confederacy of five independent tribes, the Creek Confederacy
of six, the Otawa Confederacy of three, the Dakota League of the
“Seven Council-Fires,” the Moqui Confederacy in New Mexico of Seven
Pueblos, and the Aztec Confederacy of three tribes in the Valley of
Mexico. It is probable that the Village Indians in other parts of
Mexico, in Central and in South America, were quite generally organized
in confederacies consisting of two or more kindred tribes. Progress
necessarily took this direction from the nature of their institutions,
and from the law governing their development. Nevertheless, the
formation of a confederacy out of such materials, and with such
unstable geographical relations, was a difficult undertaking. It was
easiest of achievement by the Village Indians from the nearness to each
other of their pueblos, and from the smallness of their areas; but it
was accomplished in occasional instances by tribes in the Lower Status
of barbarism, and notably by the Iroquois. Wherever a confederacy was
formed it would of itself evince the superior intelligence of the
people.
The two highest examples of Indian confederacies in North America
were those of the Iroquois and of the Aztecs. From their acknowledged
superiority as military powers, and from their geographical positions,
these confederacies, in both cases, produced remarkable results. Our
knowledge of the structure and principles of the former is definite and
complete, while of the latter it is far from satisfactory. The Aztec
confederacy has been handled in such a manner historically as to leave
it doubtful whether it was simply a league of three kindred tribes,
offensive and defensive, or a systematic confederacy like that of the
Iroquois. That which is true of the latter was probably in a general
sense true of the former, so that a knowledge of one will tend to
elucidate the other.
The conditions under which confederacies spring into being and the
principles on which they are formed are remarkably simple. They grow
naturally, with time, out of pre-existing elements. Where one tribe had
divided into several and these subdivisions occupied independent but
contiguous territories, the confederacy re-integrated them in a higher
organization, on the basis of the common gentes they possessed, and
of the affiliated dialects they spoke. The sentiment of kin embodied
in the gens, the common lineage of the gentes, and their dialects
still mutually intelligible, yielded the material elements for a
confederation. The confederacy, therefore, had the gentes for its
basis and centre, and stock language for its circumference. No one has
been found that reached beyond the bounds of the dialects of a common
language. If this natural barrier had been crossed it would have forced
heterogeneous elements into the organization. Cases have occurred where
the remains of a tribe, not cognate in speech, as the Natchez,[84] have
been admitted into an existing confederacy; but this exception would
not invalidate the general proposition. It was impossible for an Indian
power to arise upon the American continent through a confederacy of
tribes organized in gentes, and advance to a general supremacy unless
their numbers were developed from their own stock. The multitude of
stock languages is a standing explanation of the failure. There was no
possible way of becoming connected on equal terms with a confederacy
excepting through membership in a gens and tribe, and a common speech.
It may here be remarked, parenthetically, that it was impossible in the
Lower, in the Middle, or in the Upper Status of barbarism for a kingdom
to arise by natural growth in any part of the earth under gentile
institutions. I venture to make this suggestion at this early stage of
the discussion in order to call attention more closely to the structure
and principles of ancient society, as organized in gentes, phratries
and tribes. Monarchy is incompatible with gentilism. It belongs to the
later period of civilization. Despotisms appeared in some instances
among the Grecian tribes in the Upper Status of barbarism; but they
were founded upon usurpation, were considered illegitimate by the
people, and were, in fact, alien to the ideas of gentile society. The
Grecian tyrannies were despotisms founded upon usurpation, and were
the germ out of which the later kingdoms arose; while the so-called
kingdoms of the heroic age were military democracies, and nothing more.
The Iroquois have furnished an excellent illustration of the manner in
which a confederacy is formed by natural growth assisted by skillful
legislation. Originally emigrants from beyond the Mississippi, and
probably a branch of the Dakota stock, they first made their way to the
valley of the St. Lawrence and settled themselves near Montreal. Forced
to leave this region by the hostility of surrounding tribes, they
sought the central region of New York. Coasting the eastern shore of
Lake Ontario in canoes, for their numbers were small, they made their
first settlement at the mouth of the Oswego river, where, according to
their traditions, they remained for a long period of time. They were
then in at least three distinct tribes, the Mohawks, the Onondagas, and
the Senecas. One tribe subsequently established themselves at the head
of the Canandaigua lake and became the Senecas. Another tribe occupied
the Onondaga Valley and became the Onondagas. The third passed eastward
and settled first at Oneida near the site of Utica, from which place
the main portion removed to the Mohawk Valley and became the Mohawks.
Those who remained became the Oneidas. A portion of the Onondagas or
Senecas settled along the eastern shore of the Cayuga lake and became
the Cayugas. New York, before its occupation by the Iroquois, seems
to have been a part of the area of the Algonkin tribes. According to
Iroquois traditions they displaced its anterior inhabitants as they
gradually extended their settlements eastward to the Hudson, and
westward to the Genesee. Their traditions further declare that a long
period of time elapsed after their settlement in New York before the
confederacy was formed, during which they made common cause against
their enemies and thus experienced the advantages of the federal
principle both for aggression and defense. They resided in villages,
which were usually surrounded with stockades, and subsisted upon fish
and game, and the products of a limited horticulture. In numbers
they did not at any time exceed 20,000 souls, if they ever reached
that number. Precarious subsistence and incessant warfare repressed
numbers in all the aboriginal tribes, including the Village Indians
as well. The Iroquois were enshrouded in the great forests, which
then overspread New York, against which they had no power to contend.
They were first discovered A. D. 1608. About 1675, they attained
their culminating point when their dominion reached over an area
remarkably large, covering the greater parts of New York, Pennsylvania
and Ohio,[85] and portions of Canada north of Lake Ontario. At the
time of their discovery they were the highest representatives of the
Red Race north of New Mexico in intelligence and advancement, though
perhaps inferior to some of the Gulf tribes in the arts of life. In
the extent and quality of their mental endowments they must be ranked
among the highest Indians in America. Although they have declined in
numbers there are still four thousand Iroquois in New York, about a
thousand in Canada, and near that number in the West; thus illustrating
the efficiency as well as persistency of the arts of barbarous life in
sustaining existence. It is now said that they are slowly increasing.
When the confederacy was formed, about A. D. 1400-1450,[86] the
conditions previously named were present. The Iroquois was in five
independent tribes, occupied territories contiguous to each other, and
spoke dialects of the same language which were mutually intelligible.
Beside these facts certain gentes were common in the several tribes as
has been shown. In their relations to each other, as separated parts
of the same gens, these common gentes afforded a natural and enduring
basis for a confederacy. With these elements existing, the formation of
a confederacy became a question of intelligence and skill. Other tribes
in large numbers were standing in precisely the same relations in
different parts of the continent without confederating. The fact that
the Iroquois tribes accomplished the work affords evidence of their
superior capacity. Moreover, as the confederacy was the ultimate stage
of organization among the American aborigines its existence would be
expected in the most intelligent tribes only.
It is affirmed by the Iroquois that the confederacy was formed by a
council of wise-men and chiefs of the five tribes which met for that
purpose on the north shore of Onondaga lake, near the site of Syracuse;
and that before its session was concluded the organization was
perfected, and set in immediate operation. At their periodical councils
for raising up sachems they still explain its origin as the result of
one protracted effort of legislation. It was probably a consequence of
a previous alliance for mutual defense, the advantages of which they
had perceived and which they sought to render permanent.
The origin of the plan is ascribed to a mythical, or, at least,
traditionary person, _Hä-yo-went′-hä_, the Hiawatha of Longfellow’s
celebrated poem, who was present at this council and the central
person in its management. In his communications with the council he
used a wise-man of the Onondagas, _Da-gä-no-we′-dä_, as an interpreter
and speaker to expound the structure and principles of the proposed
confederacy. The same tradition further declares that when the work
was accomplished _Hä-yo-went′-hä_ miraculously disappeared in a white
canoe, which arose with him in the air and bore him out of their sight.
Other prodigies, according to this tradition, attended and signalized
the formation of the confederacy, which is still celebrated among them
as a masterpiece of Indian wisdom. Such in truth it was; and it will
remain in history as a monument of their genius in developing gentile
institutions. It will also be remembered as an illustration of what
tribes of mankind have been able to accomplish in the art of government
while in the Lower Status of barbarism, and under the disadvantages
this condition implies.
Which of the two persons was the founder of the confederacy it is
difficult to determine. The silent _Hä-yo-went′-hä_ was, not unlikely,
a real person of Iroquois lineage;[87] but tradition has enveloped his
character so completely in the supernatural that he loses his place
among them as one of their number. If Hiawatha were a real person,
_Da-gä-no-we′-dä_ must hold a subordinate place; but, if a mythical
person invoked for the occasion, then to the latter belongs the credit
of planning the confederacy.
The Iroquois affirm that the confederacy as formed by this council,
with its powers, functions and mode of administration, has come down
to them through many generations to the present time with scarcely
a change in its internal organization. When the Tuscaroras were
subsequently admitted, their sachems were allowed by courtesy to sit as
equals in the general council, but the original number of sachems was
not increased, and in strictness those of the Tuscaroras formed no part
of the ruling body.
The general features of the Iroquois Confederacy may be summarized in
the following propositions:
I. The confederacy was a union of Five Tribes, composed of common
gentes, under one government on the basis of equality; each
Tribe remaining independent in all matters pertaining to local
self-government.
II. It created a General Council of Sachems, who were limited in
number, equal in rank and authority, and invested with supreme powers
over all matters pertaining to the Confederacy.
III. Fifty Sachemships were created and named in perpetuity in certain
gentes of the several Tribes; with power in these gentes to fill
vacancies, as often as they occurred, by election from among their
respective members, and with the further power to depose from office
for cause; but the right to invest these Sachems with office was
reserved to the General Council.
IV. The Sachems of the Confederacy were also Sachems in their
respective Tribes, and with the Chiefs of these Tribes formed the
Council of each, which was supreme over all matters pertaining to the
Tribe exclusively.
V. Unanimity in the Council of the Confederacy was made essential to
every public act.
VI. In the General Council the Sachems voted by Tribes, which gave to
each Tribe a negative upon the others.
VII. The Council of each Tribe had power to convene the General
Council; but the latter had no power to convene itself.
VIII. The General Council was open to the orators of the people for the
discussion of public questions; but the Council alone decided.
IX. The Confederacy had no chief Executive Magistrate, or official
head.
X. Experiencing the necessity for a General Military Commander they
created the office in a dual form, that one might neutralize the other.
The two principal War-chiefs created were made equal in powers.
These several propositions will be considered and illustrated, but
without following the precise form or order in which they are stated.
At the institution of the confederacy fifty permanent sachemships
were created and named, and made perpetual in the gentes to which
they were assigned. With the exception of two, which were filled but
once, they have been held by as many different persons in succession
as generations have passed away between that time and the present.
The name of each sachemship is also the personal name of each sachem
while he holds the office, each one in succession taking the name of
his predecessor. These sachems, when in session, formed the council
of the confederacy in which the legislative, executive, and judicial
powers were vested, although such a discrimination of functions had not
come to be made. To secure order in the succession, the several gentes
in which these offices were made hereditary were empowered to elect
successors from among their respective members when vacancies occurred,
as elsewhere explained. As a further measure of protection to their own
body each sachem, after his election and its confirmation, was invested
with his office by a council of the confederacy. When thus installed
his name was “taken away” and that of the sachemship was bestowed upon
him. By this name he was afterwards known among them. They were all
upon equality in rank, authority, and privileges.
These sachemships were distributed unequally among the five tribes; but
without giving to either a preponderance of power; and unequally among
the gentes of the last three tribes. The Mohawks had nine sachems, the
Oneidas nine, the Onondagas fourteen, the Cayugas ten, and the Senecas
eight. This was the number at first, and it has remained the number
to the present time. A table of these sachemships is subjoined, with
their names in the Seneca dialect, and their arrangement in classes to
facilitate the attainment of unanimity in council. In foot-notes will
be found the signification of these names, and the gentes to which they
belonged.
Table of sachemships of the Iroquois, founded at the institution of the
Confederacy; with the names which have been borne by their sachems in
succession, from its formation to the present time:
_Mohawks._
I. 1. Da-gä-e′-o-gă.[88] 2. Hä-yo-went′-hä.[89]
3. Da-gä-no-we′-dä.[90]
II. 4. So-ä-e-wä′-ah.[91] 5. Da-yo′-ho-go.[92] 6. O-ä-ä′-go-wä.[93]
III. 7. Da-an-no-gä′-e-neh.[94] 8. Sä-da′-gä-e-wä-deh.[95]
9. Häs-dä-weh′-se-ont-hä.[96]
_Oneidas._
I. 1. Ho-däs′-hä-teh.[97] 2. Ga-no-gweh′-yo-do.[98]
3. Da-yo-hä′-gwen-da.[99]
II. 4. So-no-sase′.[100] 5. To-no-ä-gă′-o.[101]
6. Hä-de-ä-dun-nent′-hä.[102]
III. 7. Da-wä-dä′-o-dä-yo.[103] 8. Gä-ne-ä-dus′-ha-yeh.[104]
9. Ho-wus′-hä-da-o.[105]
_Onondagas._
I. 1. To-do-dä′-ho.[106] 2. To-nes′-sa-ah. 3. Da-ät′-ga-dose.[107]
II. 4. Gä-neä-dä′-je-wake.[108] 5. Ah-wä′-ga-yat.[109]
6. Da-ä-yat′-gwä-e.
III. 7. Ho-no-we-nă′-to.[110]
IV. 8. Gä-wă-nă′-san-do.[111] 9. Hä-e′-ho.[112]
10. Ho-yo-ne-ä′-ne.[113] 11. Sa-dä′-kwä-seh.[114]
V. 12. Sä-go-ga-hä′.[115] 13. Ho-sa-hä′-ho.[116]
14. Skä-no′-wun-de.[117]
_Cayugas._
I. 1. Da-gä′-ă-yo.[118] 2. Da-je-no′-dä-weh-o.[119]
3. Gä-dä′-gwä-sa.[120] 4. So-yo-wasé.[121]
5. Hä-de-äs′-yo-no.[122]
II. 6. Da-yo-o-yo′-go.[123] 7. Jote-ho-weh′-ko.[124]
8. De-ä-wate′-ho.[125]
III. 9. To-dä-e-ho′.[126] 10. Des-gä′-heh.[127]
_Senecas._
I. 1. Ga-ne-o-di′-yo.[128] 2. Sä-dä-gä′-o-yase.[129]
II. 3. Gä-no-gi′-e.[130] 4. Sä-geh′-jo-wä.[131]
III. 5. Sä-de-a-no′-wus.[132] 6. Nis-hä-ne-a′-nent.[133]
IV. 7. Gä-no-go-e-dä′-we.[134] 8. Do-ne-ho-gä′-weh.[135]
Two of these sachemships have been filled but once since their
creation. _Hä-yo-went′-hä_ and _Da-gä-no-we′-da_ consented to take the
office among the Mohawk sachems, and to leave their names in the list
upon condition that after their demise the two should remain thereafter
vacant. They were installed upon these terms, and the stipulation has
been observed to the present day. At all councils for the investiture
of sachems their names are still called with the others as a tribute of
respect to their memory. The general council, therefore, consisted of
but forty-eight members.
Each sachem had an assistant sachem, who was elected by the gens of
his principal from among its members, and who was installed with the
same forms and ceremonies. He was styled an “aid.” It was his duty to
stand behind his superior on all occasions of ceremony, to act as his
messenger, and in general to be subject to his directions. It gave to
the aid the office of chief, and rendered probable his election as the
successor of his principal after the decease of the latter. In their
figurative language these aids of the sachems were styled “Braces in
the Long House,” which symbolized the confederacy.
The names bestowed upon the original sachems became the names of their
respective successors in perpetuity. For example, upon the demise of
_Gä-ne-o-di′-yo_, one of the eight Seneca sachems, his successor would
be elected by the Turtle gens in which this sachemship was hereditary,
and when raised up by the general council he would receive this name,
in place of his own, as a part of the ceremony. On several different
occasions I have attended their councils for raising up sachems both
at the Onondaga and Seneca reservations, and witnessed the ceremonies
herein referred to. Although but a shadow of the old confederacy now
remains, it is fully organized with its complement of sachems and aids,
with the exception of the Mohawk tribe which removed to Canada about
1775. Whenever vacancies occur their places are filled, and a general
council is convened to install the new sachems and their aids. The
present Iroquois are also perfectly familiar with the structure and
principles of the ancient confederacy.
For all purposes of tribal government the five tribes were independent
of each other. Their territories were separated by fixed boundary
lines, and their tribal interests were distinct. The eight Seneca
sachems, in conjunction with the other Seneca chiefs, formed the
council of the tribe by which its affairs were administered, leaving
to each of the other tribes the same control over their separate
interests. As an organization the tribe was neither weakened nor
impaired by the confederate compact. Each was in vigorous life within
its appropriate sphere, presenting some analogy to our own states
within an embracing republic. It is worthy of remembrance that the
Iroquois commended to our forefathers a union of the colonies similar
to their own as early as 1755. They saw in the common interests
and common speech of the several colonies the elements for a
confederation, which was as far as their vision was able to penetrate.
The tribes occupied positions of entire equality in the confederacy,
in rights, privileges and obligations. Such special immunities as
were granted to one or another indicate no intention to establish an
unequal compact, or to concede unequal privileges. There were organic
provisions apparently investing particular tribes with superior power;
as, for example, the Onondagas were allowed fourteen sachems and
the Senecas but eight; and a larger body of sachems would naturally
exercise a stronger influence in council than a smaller. But in this
case it gave no additional power, because the sachems of each tribe had
an equal voice in forming a decision, and a negative upon the others.
When in council they agreed by tribes, and unanimity in opinion was
essential to every public act. The Onondagas were made “Keepers of the
Wampum,” and “Keepers of the Council Brand,” the Mohawks, “Receivers of
Tribute” from subjugated tribes, and the Senecas “Keepers of the Door”
of the Long House. These and some other similar provisions were made
for the common advantage.
The cohesive principle of the confederacy did not spring exclusively
from the benefits of an alliance for mutual protection, but had a
deeper foundation in the bond of kin. The confederacy rested upon the
tribes ostensibly, but primarily upon common gentes. All the members
of the same gens, whether Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, or
Senecas, were brothers and sisters to each other in virtue of their
descent from the same common ancestor; and they recognized each other
as such with the fullest cordiality. When they met the first inquiry
was the name of each other’s gens, and next the immediate pedigree of
their respective sachems; after which they were usually able to find,
under their peculiar system of consanguinity,[136] the relationship
in which they stood to each other. Three of the gentes, namely, the
Wolf, Bear and Turtle, were common to the five tribes; these and
three others were common to three tribes. In effect the Wolf gens,
through the division of an original tribe into five, was now in five
divisions, one of which was in each tribe. It was the same with the
Bear and the Turtle gentes. The Deer, Snipe and Hawk gentes were common
to the Senecas, Cayugas and Onondagas. Between the separated parts of
each gens, although its members spoke different dialects of the same
language, there existed a fraternal connection which linked the nations
together with indissoluble bonds. When the Mohawk of the Wolf gens
recognized an Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga or Seneca of the same gens as a
brother, and when the members of the other divided gentes did the same,
the relationship was not ideal, but a fact founded upon consanguinity,
and upon faith in an assured lineage older than their dialects and
coeval with their unity as one people. In the estimation of an Iroquois
every member of his gens in whatever tribe was as certainly a kinsman
as an own brother. This cross-relationship between persons of the same
gens in the different tribes is still preserved and recognized among
them in all its original force. It explains the tenacity with which the
fragments of the old confederacy still cling together. If either of the
five tribes had seceded from the confederacy it would have severed the
bond of kin, although this would have been felt but slightly. But had
they fallen into collision it would have turned the gens of the Wolf
against their gentile kindred, Bear against Bear, in a word brother
against brother. The history of the Iroquois demonstrates the reality
as well as persistency of the bond of kin, and the fidelity with which
it was respected. During the long period through which the confederacy
endured, they never fell into anarchy, nor ruptured the organization.
The “Long House” (_Ho-de′-no-sote_) was made the symbol of the
confederacy; and they styled themselves the “People of the Long House”
(_Ho-de′-no-sau-nee_). This was the name, and the only name, with which
they distinguished themselves. The confederacy produced a gentile
society more complex than that of a single tribe, but it was still
distinctively a gentile society. It was, however, a stage of progress
in the direction of a nation, for nationality is reached under gentile
institutions. Coalescence is the last stage in this process. The four
Athenian tribes coalesced in Attica into a nation by the intermingling
of the tribes in the same area, and by the gradual disappearance of
geographical lines between them. The tribal names and organizations
remained in full vitality as before, but without the basis of an
independent territory. When political society was instituted on the
basis of the deme or township, and all the residents of the deme became
a body politic, irrespective of their gens or tribe, the coalescence
became complete.
The coalescence of the Latin and Sabine gentes into the Roman people
and nation was a result of the same processes. In all alike the gens,
phratry and tribe were the first three stages of organization. The
confederacy followed as the fourth. But it does not appear, either
among the Grecian or Latin tribes in the Later Period of barbarism,
that it became more than a loose league for offensive and defensive
purposes. Of the nature and details of organization of the Grecian and
Latin confederacies our knowledge is limited and imperfect, because
the facts are buried in the obscurity of the traditionary period. The
process of coalescence arises later than the confederacy in gentile
society; but it was a necessary as well as vital stage of progress by
means of which the nation, the state, and political society were at
last attained. Among the Iroquois tribes it had not manifested itself.
The valley of Onondaga, as the seat of the central tribe, and the place
where the Council Brand was supposed to be perpetually burning, was the
usual though not the exclusive place for holding the councils of the
confederacy. In ancient times it was summoned to convene in the autumn
of each year; but public exigencies often rendered its meetings more
frequent. Each tribe had power to summon the council, and to appoint
the time and place of meeting at the council-house of either tribe,
when circumstances rendered a change from the usual place at Onondaga
desirable. But the council had no power to convene itself.
Originally the principal object of the council was to raise up sachems
to fill vacancies in the ranks of the ruling body occasioned by death
or deposition; but it transacted all other business which concerned
the common welfare. In course of time, as they multiplied in numbers
and their intercourse with foreign tribes became more extended, the
council fell into three distinct kinds, which may be distinguished as
Civil, Mourning and Religious. The first declared war and made peace,
sent and received embassies, entered into treaties with foreign tribes,
regulated the affairs of subjugated tribes, and took all needful
measures to promote the general welfare. The second raised up sachems
and invested them with office. It received the name of Mourning Council
because the first of its ceremonies was the lament for the deceased
ruler whose vacant place was to be filled. The third was held for the
observance of a general religious festival. It was made an occasion
for the confederated tribes to unite under the auspices of a general
council in the observance of common religious rites. But as the
Mourning Council was attended with many of the same ceremonies it came,
in time, to answer for both. It is now the only council they hold, as
the civil powers of the confederacy terminated with the supremacy over
them of the state.
Invoking the patience of the reader, it is necessary to enter into some
details with respect to the mode of transacting business at the Civil
and Mourning Councils. In no other way can the archaic condition of
society under gentile institutions be so readily illustrated.
If an overture was made to the confederacy by a foreign tribe, it might
be done through either of the five tribes. It was the prerogative of
the council of the tribe addressed to determine whether the affair
was of sufficient importance to require a council of the confederacy.
After reaching an affirmative conclusion, a herald was sent to the
nearest tribes in position, on the east and on the west, with a belt of
wampum, which contained a message to the effect that a civil council
(_Ho-de-os′-seh_) would meet at such a place and time, and for such
an object, each of which was specified. It was the duty of the tribe
receiving the message to forward it to the tribe next in position,
until the notification was made complete.[137] No council ever
assembled unless it was summoned under the prescribed forms.
When the sachems met in council, at the time and place appointed,
and the usual reception ceremony had been performed, they arranged
themselves in two divisions and seated themselves upon opposite sides
of the council-fire. Upon one side were the Mohawk, Onondaga and Seneca
sachems. The tribes they represented were, when in council, brother
tribes to each other and father tribes to the other two. In like
manner their sachems were brothers to each other and fathers to those
opposite. They constituted a phratry of tribes and of sachems, by an
extension of the principle which united gentes in a phratry. On the
opposite side of the fire were the Oneida and Cayuga, and, at a later
day, the Tuscarora sachems. The tribes they represented were brother
tribes to each other, and son tribes to the opposite three. Their
sachems also were brothers to each other, and sons of those in the
opposite division. They formed a second tribal phratry. As the Oneidas
were a subdivision of the Mohawks, and the Cayugas a subdivision of
the Onondagas or Senecas, they were in reality junior tribes; whence
their relation of seniors and juniors, and the application of the
phratric principle. When the tribes are named in council the Mohawks
by precedence are mentioned first. Their tribal epithet was “The
Shield” (_Da-gä-e-o′-dä_). The Onondagas came next under the epithet of
“Name-Bearer” (_Ho-de-san-no′-ge-tä_), because they had been appointed
to select and name the fifty original sachems.[138] Next in the order
of precedence were the Senecas, under the epithet of “Door-Keeper”
(_Ho-nan-ne-ho′-ont_). They were made perpetual keepers of the western
door of the Long House. The Oneidas, under the epithet of “Great
Tree” (_Ne-ar′-de-on-dar′-go-war_), and the Cayugas, under that of
“Great Pipe” (_So-nus′-ho-gwar-to-war_), were named fourth and fifth.
The Tuscaroras, who came late into the confederacy, were named last,
and had no distinguishing epithet. Forms, such as these, were more
important in ancient society than we would be apt to suppose.
It was customary for the foreign tribe to be represented at the council
by a delegation of wise-men and chiefs, who bore their proposition
and presented it in person. After the council was formally opened and
the delegation introduced, one of the sachems made a short address,
in the course of which he thanked the Great Spirit for sparing their
lives and permitting them to meet together; after which he informed the
delegation that the council was prepared to hear them upon the affair
for which it had convened. One of the delegates then submitted their
proposition in form, and sustained it by such arguments as he was able
to make. Careful attention was given by the members of the council that
they might clearly comprehend the matter in hand. After the address
was concluded, the delegation withdrew from the council to await at
a distance the result of its deliberations. It then became the duty
of the sachems to agree upon an answer, which was reached through the
ordinary routine of debate and consultation. When a decision had been
made, a speaker was appointed to communicate the answer of the council,
to receive which the delegation were recalled. The speaker was usually
chosen from the tribe at whose instance the council had been convened.
It was customary for him to review the whole subject in a formal
speech, in the course of which the acceptance, in whole or in part,
or the rejection of the proposition were announced with the reasons
therefor. Where an agreement was entered upon, belts of wampum were
exchanged as evidence of its terms. With these proceedings the council
terminated.
“This belt preserves my words” was a common remark of an Iroquois chief
in council. He then delivered the belt as the evidence of what he had
said. Several such belts would be given in the course of a negotiation
to the opposite party. In the reply of the latter a belt would be
returned for each proposition accepted. The Iroquois experienced the
necessity for an exact record of some kind of a proposition involving
their faith and honor in its execution, and they devised this method to
place it beyond dispute.
Unanimity among the sachems was required upon all public questions, and
essential to the validity of every public act. It was a fundamental
law of the confederacy.[139] They adopted a method for ascertaining
the opinions of the members of the council which dispensed with the
necessity of casting votes. Moreover, they were entirely unacquainted
with the principle of majorities and minorities in the action of
councils. They voted in council by tribes, and the sachems of each
tribe were required to be of one mind to form a decision. Recognizing
unanimity as a necessary principle, the founders of the confederacy
divided the sachems of each tribe into classes as a means for its
attainment. This will be seen by consulting the table, (_supra_ p.
130). No sachem was allowed to express an opinion in council in the
nature of a vote until he had first agreed with the sachem or sachems
of his class upon the opinion to be expressed, and had been appointed
to act as speaker for the class. Thus the eight Seneca sachems being in
four classes could have but four opinions, and the ten Cayuga sachems,
being in the same number of classes, could have but four. In this
manner the sachems in each class were first brought to unanimity among
themselves. A cross-consultation was then held between the four sachems
appointed to speak for the four classes; and when they had agreed, they
designated one of their number to express their resulting opinion,
which was the answer of their tribe. When the sachems of the several
tribes had, by this ingenious method, become of one mind separately,
it remained to compare their several opinions, and if they agreed the
decision of the council was made. If they failed of agreement the
measure was defeated, and the council was at an end. The five persons
appointed to express the decision of the five tribes may possibly
explain the appointment and the functions of the six electors, so
called, in the Aztec confederacy, which will be noticed elsewhere.
By this method of gaining assent the equality and independence of
the several tribes were recognized and preserved. If any sachem was
obdurate or unreasonable, influences were brought to bear upon him,
through the preponderating sentiment, which he could not well resist;
so that it seldom happened that inconvenience or detriment resulted
from their adherence to the rule. Whenever all efforts to procure
unanimity had failed, the whole matter was laid aside because further
action had become impossible.
The induction of new sachems into office was an event of great interest
to the people, and not less to the sachems who retained thereby some
control over the introduction of new members into their body. To
perform the ceremony of raising up sachems the general council was
primarily instituted. It was named at the time, or came afterwards to
be called, the Mourning Council (_Hen-nun-do-nuh′-seh_), because it
embraced the twofold object of lamenting the death of the departed
sachems and of installing his successor. Upon the death of a sachem,
the tribe in which the loss had occurred had power to summon a general
council, and to name the time and place of its meeting. A herald was
sent out with a belt of wampum, usually the official belt of the
deceased sachem given to him at his installation, which conveyed this
laconic message;—“the name” (mentioning that of the late ruler) “calls
for a council.” It also announced the day and place of convocation.
In some cases the official belt of the sachem was sent to the
central council-fire at Onondaga immediately after his burial, as a
notification of his demise, and the time for holding the council was
determined afterwards.
The Mourning Council, with the festivities which followed the
investiture of sachems, possessed remarkable attractions for the
Iroquois. They flocked to its attendance from the most distant
localities with zeal and enthusiasm. It was opened and conducted with
many forms and ceremonies, and usually lasted five days. The first was
devoted to the prescribed ceremony of lamentations for the deceased
sachem, which, as a religious act, commenced at the rising of the
sun. At this time the sachems of the tribe, with whom the council was
held, marched out followed by their tribesmen, to receive formally
the sachems and people of the other tribes, who had arrived before
and remained encamped at some distance waiting for the appointed day.
After exchanging greetings, a procession was formed and the lament was
chanted in verse, with responses, by the united tribes, as they marched
from the place of reception to the place of council. The lament, with
the responses in chorus, was a tribute of respect to the memory of
the departed sachem, in which not only his gens, but his tribe, and
the confederacy itself participated. It was certainly a more delicate
testimonial of respect and affection than would have been expected
from a barbarous people. This ceremonial, with the opening of the
council, concluded the first day’s proceedings. On the second day, the
installation ceremony commenced, and it usually lasted into the fourth.
The sachems of the several tribes seated themselves in two divisions,
as at the civil council. When the sachem to be raised up belonged to
either of the three senior tribes the ceremony was performed by the
sachems of the junior tribes, and the new sachem was installed as a
father. In like manner, if he belonged to either of the three junior
tribes the ceremony was performed by the sachems of the senior tribes,
and the new sachem was installed as a son. These special circumstances
are mentioned to show the peculiar character of their social and
governmental life. To the Iroquois these forms and figures of speech
were full of significance.
Among other things, the ancient wampum belts, into which the structure
and principles of the confederacy “had been talked,” to use their
expression, were produced and read or interpreted for the instruction
of the newly inducted sachem. A wise-man, not necessarily one of the
sachems, took these belts one after the other and walking to and
fro between the two divisions of sachems, read from them the facts
which they recorded. According to the Indian conception, these belts
can tell, by means of an interpreter, the exact rule, provision or
transaction talked into them at the time, and of which they were
the exclusive record. A strand of wampum consisting of strings of
purple and white shell beads, or a belt woven with figures formed by
beads of different colors, operated on the principle of associating
a particular fact with a particular string or figure; thus giving a
serial arrangement to the facts as well as fidelity to the memory.
These strands and belts of wampum were the only visible records of
the Iroquois; but they required those trained interpreters who could
draw from their strings and figures the records locked up in their
remembrance. One of the Onondaga sachems (Ho-no-we-nă′-to) was made
“Keeper of the Wampum,” and two aids were raised up with him who were
required to be versed in its interpretation as well as the sachem.
The interpretation of these several belts and strings brought out, in
the address of the wise-man, a connected account of the occurrences
at the formation of the confederacy. The tradition was repeated in
full, and fortified in its essential parts by reference to the record
contained in these belts. Thus the council to raise up sachems became a
teaching council, which maintained in perpetual freshness in the minds
of the Iroquois the structure and principles of the confederacy, as
well as the history of its formation. These proceedings occupied the
council until noon each day; the afternoon being devoted to games and
amusements. At twilight each day a dinner in common was served to the
entire body in attendance. It consisted of soup and boiled meat cooked
near the council-house, and served directly from the kettle in wooden
bowls, trays and ladles. Grace was said before the feast commenced.
It was a prolonged exclamation by a single person on a high shrill
note, falling down in cadences into stillness, followed by a response
in chorus by the people. The evenings were devoted to the dance. With
these ceremonies, continued for several days, and with the festivities
that followed, their sachems were inducted into office.
By investing their sachems with office through a general council, the
framers of the confederacy had in view the threefold object of a
perpetual succession in the gens, the benefits of a free election
among its members, and a final supervision of the choice through the
ceremony of investiture. To render the latter effective it should carry
with it the power to reject the nominee. Whether the right to invest
was purely functional, or carried with it the right to exclude, I am
unable to state. No case of rejection is mentioned. The scheme adopted
by the Iroquois to maintain a ruling body of sachems may claim, in
several respects, the merit of originality, as well as of adaptation
to their condition. In form an oligarchy, taking this term in its best
sense, it was yet a representative democracy of the archaic type. A
powerful popular element pervaded the whole organism and influenced its
action. It is seen in the right of the gentes to elect and depose their
sachems and chiefs, in the right of the people to be heard in council
through orators of their own selection, and in the voluntary system in
the military service. In this and the next succeeding ethnical period
democratic principles were the vital element of gentile society.
The Iroquois name for a sachem (_Ho-yar-na-go′-war_), which signifies
“a counselor of the people,” was singularly appropriate to a ruler
in a species of free democracy. It not only defines the office well,
but it also suggests the analogous designation of the members of the
Grecian council of chiefs. The Grecian chiefs were styled “councilors
of the people.”[140] From the nature and tenure of the office among the
Iroquois the sachems were not masters ruling by independent right, but
representatives holding from the gentes by free election. It is worthy
of notice that an office which originated in savagery, and continued
through the three sub-periods of barbarism, should reveal so much of
its archaic character among the Greeks after the gentile organization
had carried this portion of the human family to the confines of
civilization. It shows further how deeply inwrought in the human mind
the principle of democracy had become under gentilism.
The designation for a chief of the second grade, _Ha-sa-no-wä′-na_,
“an elevated name,” indicates an appreciation by barbarians of the
ordinary motives for personal ambition. It also reveals the sameness of
the nature of man, whether high up or low down upon the rounds of the
ladder of progress. The celebrated orators, wise-men, and war-chiefs of
the Iroquois were chiefs of the second grade almost without exception.
One reason for this may be found in the organic provision which
confined the duties of the sachem to the affairs of peace. Another may
have been to exclude from the ruling body their ablest men, lest their
ambitious aims should disturb its action. As the office of chief was
bestowed in reward of merit, it fell necessarily upon their ablest men.
Red-Jacket, Brandt, Garangula, Cornplanter, Farmer’s Brother, Frost,
Johnson, and other well known Iroquois, were chiefs as distinguished
from sachems. None of the long lines of sachems have become
distinguished in American annals, with the exception of Logan,[141]
Handsome Lake,[142] and at a recent day, Ely S. Parker.[143] The
remainder have left no remembrance behind them extending beyond the
Iroquois.
At the time the confederacy was formed _To-do-dä′-ho_ was the most
prominent and influential of the Onondaga chiefs. His accession to
the plan of a confederacy, in which he would experience a diminution
of power, was regarded as highly meritorious. He was raised up as one
of the Onondaga sachems and his name placed first in the list. Two
assistant sachems were raised up with him to act as his aids and to
stand behind him on public occasions. Thus dignified, this sachemship
has since been regarded by the Iroquois as the most illustrious of the
forty-eight, from the services rendered by the first _To-do-dä′-ho_.
The circumstance was early seized upon by the inquisitive colonists
to advance the person who held this office to the position of king of
the Iroquois; but the misconception was refuted, and the institutions
of the Iroquois were relieved of the burden of an impossible feature.
In the general council he sat among his equals. The confederacy had no
chief executive magistrate.
Under a confederacy of tribes the office of general,
(_Hos-gä-ä-geh′-da-go-wä_) “Great War Soldier,” makes its first
appearance. Cases would now arise when the several tribes in their
confederate capacity would be engaged in war; and the necessity for a
general commander to direct the movements of the united bands would
be felt. The introduction of this office as a permanent feature in
the government was a great event in the history of human progress.
It was the beginning of a differentiation of the military from the
civil power, which, when completed, changed essentially the external
manifestation of the government. But even in later stages of progress,
when the military spirit predominated, the essential character of the
government was not changed. Gentilism arrested usurpation. With the
rise of the office of general, the government was gradually changed
from a government of one power, into a government of two powers. The
functions of government became, in course of time, co-ordinated between
the two. This new office was the germ of that of a chief executive
magistrate; for out of the general came the king, the emperor, and the
president, as elsewhere suggested. The office sprang from the military
necessities of society, and had a logical development. For this reason
its first appearance and subsequent growth have an important place
in this discussion. In the course of this volume I shall attempt to
trace the progressive development of this office, from the _Great War
Soldier_ of the Iroquois through the _Teuctli_ of the Aztecs, to the
_Basileus_ of the Grecian, and the _Rex_ of the Roman tribes; among
all of whom, through three successive ethnical periods, the office was
the same, namely, that of a general in a military democracy. Among
the Iroquois, the Aztecs, and the Romans the office was elective,
or confirmative, by a constituency. Presumptively, it was the same
among the Greeks of the traditionary period. It is claimed that the
office of _basileus_ among the Grecian tribes in the Homeric period
was hereditary from father to son. This is at least doubtful. It is
such a wide and total departure from the original tenure of the office
as to require positive evidence to establish the fact. An election,
or confirmation by a constituency, would still be necessary under
gentile institutions. If in numerous instances it were known that the
office had passed from father to son this might have suggested the
inference of hereditary succession, now adopted as historically true,
while succession in this form did not exist. Unfortunately, an intimate
knowledge of the organization and usages of society in the traditionary
period is altogether wanting. Great principles of human action furnish
the safest guide when their operation must have been necessary. It is
far more probable that hereditary succession, when it first came in,
was established by force, than by the free consent of the people; and
that it did not exist among the Grecian tribes in the Homeric period.
When the Iroquois confederacy was formed, or soon after that event,
two permanent war-chiefships were created and named, and both
were assigned to the Seneca tribe. One of them (_Ta-wan′-ne-ars_,
signifying needle-breaker) was made hereditary in the Wolf, and the
other (_So-no′-so-wä_, signifying great oyster shell) in the Turtle
gens. The reason assigned for giving them both to the Senecas was the
greater danger of attack at the west end of their territories. They
were elected in the same manner as the sachems, were raised up by a
general council, and were equal in rank and power. Another account
states that they were created later. They discovered immediately after
the confederacy was formed that the structure of the Long House was
incomplete because there were no officers to execute the military
commands of the confederacy. A council was convened to remedy the
omission, which established the two perpetual war-chiefs named. As
general commanders they had charge of the military affairs of the
confederacy, and the command of its joint forces when united in a
general expedition. Governor Blacksnake, recently deceased, held the
office first named, thus showing that the succession has been regularly
maintained. The creation of two principal war-chiefs instead of one,
and with equal powers, argues a subtle and calculating policy to
prevent the domination of a single man even in their military affairs.
They did without experience precisely as the Romans did in creating two
consuls instead of one, after they had abolished the office of _rex_.
Two consuls would balance the military power between them, and prevent
either from becoming supreme. Among the Iroquois this office never
became influential.
In Indian Ethnography the subjects of primary importance are the
gens, phratry, tribe and confederacy. They exhibit the organization
of society. Next to these are the tenure and functions of the office
of sachem and chief, the functions of the council of chiefs, and the
tenure and functions of the office of principal war-chief. When these
are ascertained, the structure and principles of their governmental
system will be known. A knowledge of their usages and customs, of
their arts and inventions, and of their plan of life will then fill
out the picture. In the work of American investigators too little
attention has been given to the former. They still afford a rich field
in which much information may be gathered. Our knowledge, which is
now general, should be made minute and comparative. The Indian tribes
in the Lower, and in the Middle Status of barbarism, represent two
of the great stages of progress from savagery to civilization. Our
own remote forefathers passed through the same conditions, one after
the other, and possessed, there can scarcely be a doubt, the same, or
very similar institutions, with many of the same usages and customs.
However little we may be interested in the American Indians personally,
their experience touches us more nearly, as an exemplification of
the experience of our own ancestors. Our primary institutions root
themselves in a prior gentile society in which the gens, phratry and
tribe were the organic series, and in which the council of chiefs was
the instrument of government. The phenomena of their ancient society
must have presented many points in common with that of the Iroquois
and other Indian tribes. This view of the matter lends an additional
interest to the comparative institutions of mankind.
The Iroquois confederacy is an excellent exemplification of a gentile
society under this form of organization. It seems to realize all the
capabilities of gentile institutions in the Lower Status of barbarism;
leaving an opportunity for further development, but no subsequent plan
of government until the institutions of political society, founded
upon territory and upon property, with the establishment of which
the gentile organization would be overthrown. The intermediate stages
were transitional, remaining military democracies to the end, except
where tyrannies founded upon usurpation were temporarily established
in their places. The confederacy of the Iroquois was essentially
democratical; because it was composed of gentes each of which was
organized upon the common principles of democracy, not of the highest
but of the primitive type, and because the tribes reserved the right
of local self-government. They conquered other tribes and held them in
subjection, as for example the Delawares; but the latter remained under
the government of their own chiefs, and added nothing to the strength
of the confederacy. It was impossible in this state of society to unite
tribes under one government who spoke different languages, or to hold
conquered tribes under tribute with any benefit but the tribute.
This exposition of the Iroquois confederacy is far from exhaustive of
the facts, but it has been carried far enough to answer my present
object. The Iroquois were a vigorous and intelligent people, with a
brain approaching in volume the Aryan average. Eloquent in oratory,
vindictive in war, and indomitable in perseverance, they have gained a
place in history. If their military achievements are dreary with the
atrocities of savage warfare, they have illustrated some of the highest
virtues of mankind in their relations with each other. The confederacy
which they organized must be regarded as a remarkable production of
wisdom and sagacity. One of its avowed objects was peace; to remove
the cause of strife by uniting their tribes under one government, and
then extending it by incorporating other tribes of the same name and
lineage. They urged the Eries and the Neutral Nation to become members
of the confederacy, and for their refusal expelled them from their
borders. Such an insight into the highest objects of government is
creditable to their intelligence. Their numbers were small, but they
counted in their ranks a large number of able men. This proves the high
grade of the stock.
From their position and military strength they exercised a marked
influence upon the course of events between the English and the
French in their competition for supremacy in North America. As the
two were nearly equal in power and resources during the first century
of colonization, the French may ascribe to the Iroquois, in no small
degree, the overthrow of their plans of empire in the New World.
With a knowledge of the gens in its archaic form and of its
capabilities as the unit of a social system, we shall be better able to
understand the gentes of the Greeks and Romans yet to be considered.
The same scheme of government composed of gentes, phratries and tribes
in a gentile society will be found among them as they stood at the
threshold of civilization, with the superadded experience of two entire
ethnical periods. Descent among them was in the male line, property
was inherited by the children of the owner instead of the agnatic
kindred, and the family was now assuming the monogamian form. The
growth of property, now becoming a commanding element, and the increase
of numbers gathered in walled cities were slowly demonstrating the
necessity for the second great plan of government—the political. The
old gentile system was becoming incapable of meeting the requirements
of society as it approached civilization. Glimpses of a state, founded
upon territory and property, were breaking upon the Grecian and Roman
minds before which gentes and tribes were to disappear. To enter upon
the second plan of government, it was necessary to supersede the gentes
by townships and city wards—the gentile by a territorial system. The
going down of the gentes and the uprising of organized townships
mark the dividing line, pretty nearly, between the barbarian and the
civilized worlds—between ancient and modern society.