Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri 24

Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri 24

Robberies of each other on any large scale are seldom attempted.

 

They would attract the notice and induce the interference of the camp

soldiers and relations of the robbed, and bloodshed would be the

consequence. Infractions of smaller rights are left to individual

settlement and are paid for. What prevents impositions in smaller

matters is the disgrace and disgust that would fall upon any man guilty

of petty infringements of personal rights.

 

With regard to the Indian of the British dominions applying to an agent

of the United States for the payment of a private debt contracted by a

north Briton, a resident of Hudson Bay, the probable operation of his

mind was as follows: “All whites are very particular in endeavoring to

collect their debts from Indians, and the richer are less generous.

White traders are interlopers. The country, game, and all else in

the territory belong to the Indians. The whites have no claims upon

our generosity; are entitled to nothing without paying for it. Now a

white man owes me, and from him I can get nothing. Indian agents are

sent expressly to see justice done the Indians, are responsible and

sensible, besides being rich and powerful. He will perhaps allow me my

claim, or interpose his authority with the Hudson Bay people to make

them pay. It is at least worthy of a trial, for if I gain nothing I

lose nothing.”

 

Most Indians of the British possessions in America, at least the Cree

and Chippewa, are a great deal farther advanced in knowledge of every

kind than those of whom we write. They have tolerably correct ideas

of right and wrong and are famed for the shrewdness they exhibit in

all kinds of dealings, to their own advantage. It is not even likely

that if this Indian claim was not settled by the agent spoken to, he

therefore abandoned it, but it is more probable that he dunned every

one of the Hudson Bay traders for years until he got some remuneration.

We have known an Indian at Fort Union to claim payment for carrying out

three bundles belonging to one of our people when the fort was on fire.

This demand was made 12 years after the circumstance happened. They

never forget a claim on whites, but never recollect one upon themselves.

 

 

TERRITORIAL RIGHTS

 

How right to territory originally accrued can perhaps be learned by

the way in which it is here discussed. None of these prairie tribes

claim a special right to any circumscribed or limited territory. Their

arguments are these, and have been before mentioned. All the prairie

or territory in the West (known to them) and now occupied by all the

Indians was created by Wakoñda for their sole use and habitation. To

maintain this they state the entire fitness of the Indian for the life

of a hunter; his good legs, eyes, and other qualifications which they

do not allow to any other persons. The suitableness of the prairie for

the support of great numbers of buffalo, and the wooded streams for

smaller game, together with the adaptness of the game to their wants in

meat, clothing, lodges, etc. All this is to prove their general right

to the whole of the hunting grounds, where buffalo are to be found and

Indians stationed. Now each nation finds themselves in possession of

a portion of these lands, necessary for their preservation. They are

therefore determined to keep them from aggression by every means in

their power. Should the game fail, they have a right to hunt it in any

of their enemies’ country, in which they are able to protect themselves.

 

It is not land or territory they seek in this but the means of

subsistence, which every Indian deems himself entitled to, even should

he be compelled to destroy his enemies or risk his own life to obtain

it. Moreover, they are well aware that the surrounding nations would

do the same and sweep them off entirely if they could with impunity,

and each claims the same right. Possession is nothing without power to

retain, and force to repel, and to defend with success they must limit

themselves to a certain extent of territory, for by separating their

force too widely they would be cut off in detail. By these different

necessary locations the country has been parceled out, each holding

what they can with safety occupy, and making any encroachments they

are able. They claim the land as theirs because that portion affords

the means of subsistence with more security than by moving elsewhere

they could procure. To sell their lands, they say, would be the same

as to sell their means of living, for by moving elsewhere large bodies

of enemies would require to be displaced, which could not be effected

without great loss and perhaps failure. Indians who cultivate, such

as the Mandan, Gros Ventres, and Arikara, only claim as their own

the small patches that they till, and their right even to these

(individually) only exists as long as they are occupied by the crops of

the cultivator.

 

Should he fence it in and work it every year no one would dispute his

right to do so, but if the land be left idle some other would plant

upon it. It is in fact merely loaned from the general district for

the purpose of him who wishes to cultivate. There being no scarcity

of land, however, no difficulties occur on this point. From this view

it would appear that their right to territory is nothing more than

defending that portion on which they are located as necessary for

their support. Invasion of a neighboring tribe’s country would only be

the consequence of famine or scarcity of game in their own and would

be looked upon by them in the light of extending their hunting after

the buffalo (which is the property of all Indians) into another part

of the great plains intended by Wakoñda for their support, being aware

at the same time that they risk their lives by so doing. The foregoing

are the outlines of the arguments they use. It is because they are

at war that their lands appear to be distinct portions assigned to

each nation, although between each there are several hundred miles of

neutral ground, the nature of their forces not admitting of closer

approximation. Were all at peace it would present the feature of one

great estate on which each would rove and hunt when and where he

pleased, and what is now neutral would become hunting grounds. But as

long as hunting was their sole occupation no claims would be set up by

any man to a certain portion of land.

 

They must become stationary, acquire property, real estate, before land

becomes of any value in their estimation, further than the space it

affords to game of all kinds to live and increase for their benefit.

 

 

PRIMOGENITURE

 

There is no general or fixed law of primogeniture. The eldest son is,

however, mostly a favorite, and although the custom is not universal

we have known instances of legacies left. If the parent be a chief

he will, if time permits, present his eldest son with his medal when

he anticipates death, if his son is of sufficient age to wear it.

They are anxious to be succeeded in their office by some of their

children, and the eldest would soonest be of sufficient age to take

upon himself the responsibility. But unfortunately for the wishes of

the parent the office or station of chief does not depend upon the

law of primogeniture, or any other, but upon the will of the greater

part to be ruled by him who is thus designated, and the capacities

and standing of the applicant. The chief whose speech is recorded on

page 598 presented his medal to his eldest son when on his death bed

in the presence of 20 or 30 persons of his band, intimating his desire

that his son should take his place and “follow in the footsteps of his

father.” The son not being the popular choice, another was appointed

and the medal was left in our possession, where it yet remains, though

his son was of age at his father’s (la-Chef-qui-parle) death six years

ago, and is living yet, and has progressed no further than becoming a

camp soldier.

 

Most of these Indians die violent deaths, either by war, accidents of

the chase, or rapid diseases, and thus have no opportunity to dispose

of their property, yet even when they have time do not often do it,

owing to the difficulty of having these requests fulfilled after their

demise. The dying request of a chief or warrior, if he makes any, is

that his favorite horse, or sometimes two or three horses, shall be

killed at his grave. Other horses, his gun, etc., are sometimes given

to his relatives as bequests, and this gift contains an intimation to

go to war after his death. The death of a warrior entails revenge,

from, whatever cause his death arises—sickness or accident. The

horses, therefore, there bequeathed are put in mourning by having their

mane, tail, and ears cut off and their body smeared over with white

clay. These, with the guns and other weapons bequeathed, are taken on

the first war expedition by the persons who received them. We have been

appointed executor of the will of an Indian who died at Fort Union

some years since from a wound through the bowels. A short time before

his death (about three hours) he called us to his bedside and made

a distribution of some horses and other property to be kept for his

children’s use, and desired his best running horse to be shot on the

spot where he was to be buried, while he was yet living, which with the

other requests were attended to.

 

There can be no doubt that if they were certain their dying requests

would be fulfilled the custom of bequeathing their property when the

circumstances of their death admitted it would be more general; but

they know that the customs are such that after death all property must

pass into the hands of strangers, as will be stated under the head of

Death and Its Consequences. Even when dying bequests are made they are

not always carried out. The horses and other property thus given to

their families are given to others who cut their legs and bodies and

cry a great deal at the interment, or rather on the occasion of their

placing the body in a tree, as they usually do. When the great chief

of the Crows, Long Hair, died no less than four hands were held out

by four different Crow Indians, each offering to cut off two fingers

to obtain the chief’s war horse that he ordered to be killed upon his

grave, but their offers were rejected and the horse was killed.

 

 

CRIME

 

Crime of any and all kinds among them is considered an offense to the

individual and as such liable to punishment by the person offended.

But no idea of a moral offense toward the Great Spirit is exhibited

or consequent future punishment feared. All our endeavors to extract

from them even an acknowledgment of the greatest crimes being morally

wrong have been unavailing. They can not see that any act of theirs

should meet with punishment after death because they think they have

just cause for these acts, and also they do not believe in future

punishments at all. To illustrate the first position, we will present

their arguments on the greatest of crimes, murder. An Indian never

commits what in his mind would be equal to murder in our estimation.

There is no inducement in any case for them to murder a man for his

horses, wife, or any other property they possess, for this step,

instead of securing these advantages, would operate in quite an

opposite direction, making it necessary for the murderer to relinquish

his own property and that of his nearest relatives to pay the damage;

also forfeiting his own life and becoming an outcast. And this is the

reason why their disputes so seldom terminate in bloodshed, as the

prospect of loss is far greater than that of gain. When they do kill

among themselves it is in consequence of some quarrel about property,

or about something, and this they are then in a manner obliged to do,

to save their own life. It then becomes self-defense or a necessary

action induced by the principle of fear and their constant habit of

carrying and raising arms. In no instance does an Indian take life,

except that of his enemies, without provocation.

 

A horse, a woman, a gun, or any other article may be the cause of

a quarrel, and threats and menaces pass which place each under the

necessity of destroying the other to save himself. They say they can

not do otherwise, and often regret the necessity. To kill an enemy,

instead of being reckoned an act ungrateful to Wakoñda, is thought by

them to be highly pleasing, therefore his aid to accomplish this and

even private revenge is sought in prayers, fasts, sacrifices, etc. All

mankind have, they think, an equal right to live, and an equal right

to preserve that right, and it is the sense of this self-preservation

that compels them to remove any danger in their way, such as wild

beasts, enemies, or any of their own people whom they are aware are

only waiting an opportunity against themselves; and it is also this

right to life and fear of being assassinated that compels them to take

every advantage to accomplish the destruction of the danger pending. We

have questioned several Indians on this subject who have killed their

own people and all have led to the same subject, viz., the necessity

imposed upon them by quarrels to kill or be killed. To act otherwise

when all peaceful means have failed would be considered as the height

of foolishness and cowardice. An Indian does not take life from mere

thirst for blood, nor, as has been stated, to acquire property, as in

either case no advantage would be gained. When they waylay and murder whites they believe they are doing right; that whites have no business in their country, and are therefore looked upon in the light of enemies.