Of the Political state and Institutions of the American Indians.
Among savage nations there is generally a degree of individual independence which is highly unfavourable to the establishment and consolidation[18] of regular government. Men accustomed to victory and the use of arms, and inured to danger and fatigue, are not likely to submit to those restraints of law and jurisprudence which exist in civilized communities. The will of the savage is, in most cases, the only law which he acknowledges or submits to. It is only when the tribe to which he belongs is menaced by some foreign foe that he submits to follow a leader to the field and to be controuled by his mandates. Even then, his actions are not constrained, but voluntary. His natural ardour, and warlike disposition, hurry him on to battle more than any compulsory edict issued by the council of his nation. But in a season of peace he is his own master. Scarcely any rule except that of custom does he deign to follow; hence his actions spring spontaneously from the impulses of his own mind.
In considering the political institutions of any people, our first enquiry should relate to their mode of subsistence. “According as that varies,” to use the language of Robertson, “their laws and policy must be different. The institutions suited to the ideas and exigencies of tribes which subsist chiefly by fishing or hunting, and which have as yet acquired but an imperfect conception of any species of property, will be much more simple than those which must take place when the earth is cultivated with regular industry, and a right of property, not only in its productions but in the soil itself, is completely ascertained.”
The American nations live chiefly by hunting, fishing, and the spontaneous products of their bountiful soil. Agriculture is but little practised amongst them. A large tract of territory, therefore, is requisite for the support of a tribe. “The chase,” observes Robertson, “even where prey is abundant, and the dexterity of the hunter much improved, affords but an uncertain maintenance; and at some seasons it must be suspended altogether. If a savage trusts to his bow alone for food, he and his family will be often reduced to extreme distress. Hardly any region of the earth furnishes man spontaneously with what his wants require. In the mildest climates and most fertile soils, his own industry and foresight must be exerted in some degree to secure a regular supply of food. Their experience of this surmounts the abhorence of labour natural to savage nations, and compels them to have recourse to culture as subsidiary to hunting. In particular situations, some small tribes may subsist by fishing, independent of any production of the earth raised by their own industry. But throughout all America we scarcely meet with any nation of hunters which does not practice some species of cultivation.”
This is the condition of most of the American tribes at the present time. Their agriculture, however, is neither extensive nor laborious. Among some tribes as the Oneidas and Senecas, agriculture prevails more than among others. This is to be attributed to the benevolent efforts of the Quakers, which shall be described in a subsequent part of this work. The Indians in the interior of America, who are less exposed to the influence of the whites, subsist chiefly by hunting and fishing. Agriculture is only accounted subsidiary to these. It is adopted as a resource against famine, and to supply the deficiency of game. It is not pursued as the chief mode of obtaining subsistence, and as a consequence has not risen to that state of perfection among the Indians, as among civilized nations. Hunting and fishing may be said to be the staple business of life among the more primitive tribes in North America. The character, therefore, of their political institutions, may be deduced from their peculiar mode of obtaining subsistence.
Robertson, in treating this subject has expressed himself with such clearness,[19] and reasoned upon facts with such accuracy, that it would be impossible for us to do better than to quote his remarks.
He observes, “They were divided into small independent communities. While hunting is the chief source of subsistence, a vast extent of territory is requisite for supporting a small number of people. In proportion as men multiply and unite, the wild animals, on which they depend for food, diminish, or fly at a greater distance from the haunts of their enemy. The increase of a society in this state is limited by its own nature, and the members of it must either disperse, like the game which they pursue, or fall upon some better method of procuring food, than by hunting. Beasts of prey are by nature solitary and unsocial; they go not forth to the chase in herds, but delight in those recesses of the forest where they can roam and destroy undisturbed. A nation of hunters resembles them both in occupation and in genius. They cannot form into large communities, because it would be impossible to find subsistence; and they must drive to a distance every rival who may encroach on those domains which they consider as their own. This was the state of all the American tribes: the numbers in each were inconsiderable, though scattered over countries of great extent; they were far removed from one another, and engaged in perpetual hostilities or rivalship. In America, the word nation is not of the same import as in other parts of the globe. It is applied to small societies, not exceeding perhaps, two or three hundred persons, but occupying provinces greater than some kingdoms in Europe. The country of Guiana, though of larger extent than the kingdom of France, and divided among a greater number of nations, did not contain above twenty-five thousand inhabitants.[12] In the provinces which border on the Orinoco, one may travel several hundred miles in different directions, without finding a single hut, or observing the foot steps of a human creature.[13] In North America, where the climate is more vigorous, and the soil less fertile, the desolation is still greater. There, journeys of some hundred leagues have been made through uninhabited plains and forests.[14] As long as hunting continues to be the chief employment of man to which he trusts for subsistence, he can hardly be said to have occupied the earth.
“Nations which depend upon hunting are, in a great measure, strangers to the idea of property. As the animals on which the hunter feeds are not bred under his inspection, nor nourished by his care, he can claim no right to them, while they run wild in the forest. Where game is so plentiful that it may be catched”—[caught] “with little trouble, men never dream of appropriating what is of small value, or of easy acquisition. Where it is so rare, that the labour or danger of the chase requires the united efforts of a tribe, or village, what is killed is a common stock, belonging equally to all, who, by their skill or their courage, have contributed to the success of the excursion. The forest, or hunting grounds are deemed the property of the tribe, from which it has a title to exclude every rival nation. But no individual arrogates a right to any district of these, in preference to his fellow-citizens. They belong alike to all; and thither, as to a general and undivided store, all repair in quest of sustenance. The same principle by which they regulate their chief occupation, extends to that which is subordinate. Even agriculture has not introduced among them a complete idea of property. As the men hunt, the women labour together; and after they have shared the toils of the seed time, they enjoy the harvest in common.[15][20] Among some tribes, the increase of their cultivated lands is deposited in a public granary, and divided among them at stated times, according to their wants.[16] Among others, though they lay up separate stores, they do not acquire such an exclusive right of property, that they can enjoy superfluity, while those around them suffer want.[17] Thus the distinctions arising from the inequality of possessions are unknown. The term rich or poor enter not into their language; and being strangers to property, they are unacquainted with what is the great object of laws and policy, as well as the chief motive which induced mankind to establish the various arrangements of regular government.[18]
“People in this state retain a high sense of equality and independence. Wherever the idea of property is not established, there can be no distinction among men, but what arises from personal qualities. These can be conspicuous only on such occasions as call them forth into exertion. In times of danger, or in affairs of intricacy, the wisdom and experience of age, are consulted, and prescribe the measure which ought to be pursued. When a tribe of savages takes the field against the enemies of their country, the warrior of most approved courage leads the youth to the combat.[19] If they go forth in a body to the chase, the most expert and adventurous hunter is foremost, and directs their motions. But during seasons of tranquility and inaction, when there is no occasion to display those talents, all pre-eminence ceases. Every circumstance indicates that all the members of the community are on a level. They feed on the same plain fare. Their houses and furniture are exactly similar. No distinction can arise from the inequality of possessions. Whatever forms dependence on one part, or constitutes superiority on the other, is unknown. All are freemen; all feel themselves to be such, and assert with firmness the rights which belong to that condition.[20] This sentiment of independence is imprinted so deeply in their nature, that no change of condition can eradicate it, and bend their minds to servitude. Accustomed to be absolute masters of their own conduct, they disdain to execute the orders of another; and having never known control, they will not submit to correction. Many of the Americans, when they found that they were treated as slaves by the Spaniards, died of grief; many destroyed themselves in despair.[21]
“Among people in this state, government can assume little authority, and the sense of civil subordination must remain very imperfect. While the idea of property is unknown or incompletely conceived; while the spontaneous productions of the earth, as well as the fruits of industry, are considered as belonging to the public stock, there can hardly be any such subject of difference or discussion among the members of the same community, as will require the hand of authority to interpose, in order to adjust it. Where the right of separate and exclusive possession is not introduced, the great object of law and jurisdiction does not exist. When the members of a tribe are called into the field, either to invade the territories of their enemies, or to repel their attacks; when they are engaged together in the toil and dangers of the chase, they then perceive that they are a political body. They are conscious of their own connexion with the companions in[21] conjunction with whom they act; and they follow and reverence such as excel in conduct and valour. But, during the intervals between such common efforts, they seem scarcely to feel the ties of political union.[22] No visible form of government is established. The names of magistrate and subject are not in use. Every one seems to enjoy his natural independence almost entire. If a scheme of public utility be proposed, the members of the community are left at liberty to choose whether they will or will not assist in carrying it into execution. No statute imposes any service as a duty, no compulsory laws oblige them to perform it. All their resolutions are voluntary, and flow from the impulse of their own minds.[23] The first step towards establishing a public jurisdiction has not been taken in these rude societies. The right of revenge is left in private hands.[24] If violence is committed, or blood is shed, the community does not assume the power either of inflicting or of moderating the punishment. It belongs to the family or friends of the person injured or slain to avenge the wrong, or to accept of the reparation offered by the aggressor. If the elders interpose, it is to advise, not to decide, and it is seldom their councils are listened to; for as it is deemed pusillanimous to suffer an offender to escape with impunity, resentment is implacable and everlasting.[25] The object of government is rather foreign than domestic. They do not aim at maintaining interior order and police by public regulation, or the exertions of any permanent authority; but labour to preserve such union among the members of their tribe, that they may watch the motions of enemies, and act against them with concert and vigour.
“Such was the form of political order established among the greater part of the American tribes. In this State were almost all the tribes spread over the provinces extending eastward of the Mississippi, from the mouth of the St. Lawrence to the confines of Florida. In a similar condition were the people of Brazil, the inhabitants of Chili, several tribes in Paraguay and Guiana, and in the countries which stretch from the mouth of the Orinoco to the Peninsula of Yucatan. Among such an infinite number of petty associations, there may be peculiarities which constitute a distinction, and mark the various degrees of their civilization and improvement. But an attempt to trace and ennumerate these would be in vain, as they have not been observed by persons capable of discerning the minute and delicate circumstances, which serve to discriminate nations resembling one another in their general character and features. The description which I have given of the political institutions that took place among those rude tribes in America, concerning which we have received most complete information, will apply, with little variation, to every people, both in its Northern and Southern division, who have advanced no farther in civilization than to add some slender degree of agriculture to fishing and hunting.[26]
“But these political institutions, however defective, did not exist among all the American tribes. The system of government adopted by some of them approximated more closely the system which prevails in civilized communities. Thus, “among the Natchez, a powerful tribe, (now extinct,) formerly situated on the banks of the Mississippi, a difference of rank took place with which the Northern tribes were altogether unacquainted. Some families were reputed noble, and enjoyed hereditary dignity. The body of the[22] people was considered as vile, and formed only for subjection. This distinction was marked by appellations which intimated the high elevation of the one state, and the ignominious depression of the other. The former were called respectable; the latter the stinkards. The great chief, in whom the supreme authority was vested, was reputed to be a being of a superior nature—the brother of the sun, the sole object of their worship. They approached this great chief with religious veneration, and honoured him as the representative of their deity. His will was law, to which all submitted with implicit obedience. The lives of his subjects were so absolutely at his disposal, that if any one had incurred his displeasure, the offender came with profound humility and offered him his head. Nor did the dominion of the Chiefs end with their lives: their principal officers, their favourite wives, together with many domestics of inferior rank, were sacrificed at their tombs, that they might be attended in the next world by the same persons who served them in this; and such was the reverence in which they were held, that those victims welcomed death with exultation, deeming it a recompence of their fidelity and a mark of distinction, to be selected to accompany their deceased master. Thus a perfect despotism, with its full train of superstition arrogance and cruelty, was established among the Natchez; and by a singular fatality, that people tasted of the worst calamities incident to polished nations, though they themselves were not far advanced beyond the tribes around them in civility and improvement.”[27]
In the political institutions of the Natchez, however despotic and imperfect they may be considered, we discover a bond of union which did not exist among other tribes who trusted for subsistence to hunting and fishing without any species of cultivation. Their wants were few and simple; they therefore formed into separate tribes, and acted together from instinct or habit rather than from any formal concert or contract. Hence their political institutions were as simple as their wants; and hardly any appearance of regular government could be discerned among them.
From the foregoing statements it may be inferred that the political institutions of the American Indians arise from the peculiarity of their condition. Their military tactics, their form of government, their peculiar religious opinions, and their unconquerable spirit of revenge, all spring out of their peculiar state of semi-civilization. That the circumstances around them determine the character of their political and other institutions will be fully proved by us when we come to speak of the efforts of the Quakers in civilizing the Oneidas and Senecas of the Five Nations. The Socialist will readily perceive how the foregoing statements, respecting the political institutions of the American Aborigines confirm and illustrate the truth of his principles.