Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri 18

Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri 18

We take the custom of wearing medals to be a modern one, at least they

say so, introduced by the whites. The ancient mark of distinction

was, and still is, the feathers of the eagle’s tail, wrought into

headdresses of various forms, which to this day is the badge denoting

the chief and great warrior, and are not allowed the ordinary class to

wear. Tattooing also is a mark of dignity.

 

We have already named the principal chiefs of bands, though there are

others, but by no means a numerous body. But few Indians go through

war enough to arrive at that position, more especially as the same

individual must be possessed of other natural talents and wisdom. The

number is not limited but is from 3 to 6 or 8 in bands respectively of

50, 100, and 200 lodges. It makes no difference in their government

whether they be few or many; if many, so much the better, as they are

wise, brave, and responsible men.

 

POWER OF THE WAR CHIEF.—No chiefs are war chiefs in contradistinction

to their being civil chiefs. If it is desirable to go to war and so

decided, any chief, soldier, or brave warrior has a right to raise

and lead a war party, provided he can get followers. He then comes

under the head of partisan or captain of the expedition, his powers in

this capacity only lasting during the excursion and terminating on his

return to camp and resuming his civil place and duties. The powers of

war and civil chief are united in the same, also those of warrior and

hunter, soldier and hunter, soldier and partisan, chief and partisan.

The leading chief could also and often does guide the whole band to

war; in fact in the event of any general turnout, he must be the head.

Any man, however, in whom the young men have confidence to follow,

may raise and lead a war party, if war is going on and the time suits

the chiefs and soldiers in council assembled. But as the chiefs and

soldiers are the most experienced in this occupation, and are better

acquainted with their enemies’ country, they are generally chosen

as leaders in these expeditions. Yet from among the warrior class,

occasionally a young partisan arises who is neither chief nor soldier,

but whose character for bravery, caution, and all the necessary

talents is established. There is no specified age when a young man may

rightfully express his opinion. This depends on his success in war,

his general good behavior, activity in hunting, etc. When he becomes

remarkable for these things he is noticed by the soldiers, invited to

feasts, to councils, where being of sufficient consequence his opinion

is asked and is given. We have known men not over 22 to 24 years of age

being called upon to speak in council, and others to arrive at extreme

old age without ever opening their lips there. An Indian soon sees

and feels his standing with the others, and acts accordingly; to do

otherwise, or force his presence and opinions prematurely, would only

incur ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.

 

POWER OF THE PRIESTS IN COUNCIL.—The power of priests is conjoined

with that of doctors, sorcerers, and prophets, to which is occasionally

added that of councillors, as they are sometimes shrewd old men and

somewhat feared on account of their supposed supernatural powers; but

they do not influence councils in any great degree, seldom attending at

all. Whatever influence they have on public questions must be exercised

in council, and not as a separate body. They do not constitute a body

and only rank as councillors when their former exploits have been of

a nature to entitle them to that position, and their age is not too

far advanced. Being generally very old, their opinions in council are

not much regarded. Their forte is at the bed of the sick or in other

operations where something is to be gained. In making war or peace they

would have little to say, in a cession of lands still less, and in

conducting war parties nothing at all. The old Gauché mentioned before,

although a divining man, was a warrior, not old at that time, and

feared because he had the power over their lives by the use of poisons

which he made no scruple to administer; besides he was no doctor nor

sorcerer on other occasions, and was one of the greatest chiefs the

Assiniboin ever had. He was uniformly successful in his young and

middle time of life, although he failed in age and died as recorded.

This extraordinary man does not present a correct sample of a priest or

sorcerer as now considered, and is an anomalous case.

 

MATRONS IN COUNCIL.—Neither matrons nor any other women whatever sit

in council with the men of any of the Missouri tribes, nor have they

privately any influence over men in their public affairs, and take but

little interest in them. Their domestic duties occupy most of their

time and their social position is inferior to that of men in every

respect. We have heard of only one instance where a woman was admitted

in council, during a period of 21 years’ constant residence with all

these tribes.

 

GENERAL COUNCILS.—The roving tribes call no general councils with

other nations. Even those with whom they have for a long time been at

peace they look upon suspiciously and seldom act together in a large

body. We have known, however, a combination of Cree, Chippewa, and

Assiniboin, consisting of 1,100 men, who, having met in council, went

to war upon the Blackfeet. The council was formed by the Cree and

Chippewa sending tobacco to the Assiniboin during the winter, to meet

them at a certain place the ensuing spring, where, after deliberating

the matter at home, they went and formed the above-named expedition. It

is the misfortune of all large bodies of Indians formed of different

nations to meet with failure. They can not act in a body. Jealousies

arise between the soldiers of the different nations, often quarrels,

and always separations and defeat of the object. The evil appears to

be the want of a commander in chief whom all are content to follow and

obey; also their ignorance and unwillingness to submit to discipline,

restraint, or subordination. Opinions clash, rank is interfered with,

rebellion, dissatisfaction, and consequent separation follows; or

should any considerable body keep on, their march is conducted in such

a disorderly manner that their enemies have time and notice to enable

them to hide or prepare for them. These tribes are not yet far enough

advanced in civil organization to enable them to unite for any great

purpose, excepting their mutual and general interest require it. The

only way they could and do accomplish anything of importance at war by

combination is by each nation, being headed and commanded by their own

leaders and going to war upon the general enemy at different times and

entirely independent of each other. This increases the number of war

expeditions and annoys the enemy from different quarters, but does not

give them the advantage of bringing large armies into the field.

 

PRIVATE RIGHT TO TAKE LIFE.—Every Indian believes he has a right to

his own life and consequently to defend it. There being no persons

or body whose duty it is to punish crime, trespass, or insult, each

individual is taught when a boy, and by experience when a man, to

rely entirely on himself for redress or protecting his person,

family, and property. Every one is thus constituted his own judge,

jury, and executioner. Whether the person wronged is right in his

means of redress does not matter. He thinks he is right and risks the

consequences of retaliation. Every Indian being armed induces the

necessity of each using arms; therefore when an Indian strikes, stabs,

shoots, or attempts to do these things it is always with an intent to

kill, knowing if he misses his aim or only wounds, the other revenges

either on the spot or after, as occasion requires or opportunity

offers. Therefore he can not act otherwise. This being the state of

things, quarrels are not so common as might be supposed. When it is

universally known that a blow or a trespass would entail death as its

consequence they are avoided, or if unavoidable each endeavors to

gain an advantage over the other by acting treacherously or waiting a

favorable time when he least expects it to kill or strike him, stating

for his reason that if he had not killed him the other only waited the

same opportunity against himself. A fair chance to kill or strike does

not always present itself. The relations may be too numerous on one

side, and the object of contention (be it a horse or a woman) is given

up for the time by the weaker party, apparently willingly, yet he only

waits until their situations are reversed to seek redress. When a man

has killed another, if the relatives of the deceased are more numerous

than his own, he flies to a distant part of the country, joins another

band and seeks protection there, where he is not sought by the next of

kin at the time, but will be killed whenever they meet. In the meantime

the relatives of the offender pay much to stop the quarrel.

 

If the killed and the killer are both of the same band and equally

strong in relationship perhaps nothing would be done at the time as the

rest of camp would endeavor to stop a skirmish, and a good many guns,

horses, and other property would be raised and presented the relatives

of the deceased to stop further bloodshed. This generally concludes an

amnesty or respite for the time, but the revenge must be accomplished

at some time by the next of kin, otherwise it would be a great disgrace

to him or them. An opportunity to kill the offender with comparative

safety is then sought, perhaps for years, or as long as any of that

generation lives. Time and absence may have the effect of giving the

murderer a chance to die in some other way or of diminishing the force

of the revenge so that he does not find himself in a position to act

with any degree of safety when an occasion offers. Yet, if of standing

in camp, and a brother, father, or brother-in-law to the deceased,

he is bound to revenge at some time, though they make no scruple to

receive presents of horses, etc., to refrain in the meantime. Thus the

death of a man is never paid for by that generation, though by that

means the revenge may be delayed for some years, which is all they can

do except surrendering up their relative to the incensed party, which

would not for a moment be thought of. We have known three or four

horses to be given on the instant by the friends of the offender to

those of the deceased and the same to be repeated yearly for two to six

years and more, yet still revenge was consummated. On one occasion I

asked the man why he killed the other after so long a time and taking

property as payment from his relatives and friends. He answered that

the pay was well enough as long as the culprit kept out of his sight;

that remuneration only destroyed the disposition to seek him out and

kill him, although it did not affect the right to revenge if he was

fool enough, to thrust himself in his way.

 

When he saw him his blood boiled, his heart rose up, and he could

not help it. Besides (he observed) he was obliged to kill him, as

the other, being afraid of him, would do the same to him to save his

own life. Thus the killing of one induces the necessity of killing

another, and there is no end to the affair. The other party are

obliged to retaliate and so on through several generations. In this

way a good many of the family of the chief, Wah-he´ Muzza, have been

killed, and the smallpox settled the affair by taking off the offenders

on the other side. It will be inferred from this that vengeance is

not appeased by payment, absence, or the lapse of time, and in the

instances where retaliation has not followed after payment we believe

they may be ascribed to a decrease in the relationship of the deceased

or other domestic changes or reverses which render vengeance out

of their power, or too dangerous to accomplish, in which case the

relatives get over it by saying they have been paid or forgotten it,

yet at the same time would revenge, could they act with safety, or

even a chance of comparative safety. Sometimes, however, large offers

of recompense are rejected by the father or brothers of the deceased,

and the tender is then made to relatives not so closely connected, who

generally accept. Herein the cunning of the Indian is manifest. This is

a point gained. A negotiation is opened in the family of the deceased

and a difference of feeling established with regard to the offender,

slight to be sure, but it is there, and is worked by these distant

relatives to his advantage and their own, and opens a way through which

presents and overtures of compromise may be offered the brothers, etc.

But there is no dependence to be placed on anything a wild Indian does.

 

Neither do they depend on one another. They are suspicious in

everything, and more particularly so when life is at stake. In

these compromises no one is deceived—either he who takes or he who

receives—the minds of both are perfectly known to each other, the

object of the one party being to gain time, and of the other to lull

suspicion and make the offender and his relatives poor by accepting

their property.

 

We think we have presented their customs in this respect in their true

light, viz., that although the compromise be effected and vengeance for

the time suspended, yet the feeling is not changed or the right to

punish relinquished; but time may make such a change on either part as

to render revenge impracticable. There is no recognized principle or

means of escape for the murderer unless it be to flee and join another

nation with whom they are at peace, marry and remain there.

 

It will now be necessary to state that the Crow Indians are better

regulated in this respect than any of the prairie tribes. Private

murders are nearly unknown among them. Our knowledge of this nation

from certain sources extends through a period of 40 years and in all

that time but one Indian was killed by his own people. The offender

absconded and remained with the Snake Nation for 12 years, when he

returned, but was obliged again to leave, and since has not been heard

of. Stealing women or otherwise seducing others’ wives is revenged

by the party offended taking every horse and all private property

the offender owns, and in this he meets with no contention. It is

considered a point of honor to let everything be taken but keep the

woman. Now this nation has from 40 to 80 and sometimes 100 horses to

a lodge, and a large haul is made by the husband of the woman, in

company with his relatives. If the transgressor has no property that

of his nearest relatives is taken, and is suffered to be taken away

unmolested. After the excitement is somewhat over, these horses are

bought back by the relatives of the offender, each giving two, three, or more as the case happens, which they hand over to him, who in the course of time gets the most of his property returned.