Part 12

The usual cause of war among the prairie tribes is the stealing of horses. Indians must have horses, can not well live without them, and will risk everything to obtain them. Moreover, horses are looked upon in a measure as public property; that is, those nations who have few think they have a right to take them from those who have many. Whether it is a right or not they do it, and in these expeditions frequently men are killed on both sides. This produces an obligation on the part of the relatives of the deceased to revenge their deaths, and war continues with various successes on both sides. The occupation of war is also the most honorable an Indian can follow. The young men are not noticed, neither can they aspire to the hand of a respectable young woman, without having distinguished themselves in war excursions. They are taught this when young, and as things now stand, it is difficult to change. Nevertheless it can be done. Not immediately, but in the course of a few years. There is always an opening to the heart of the Indian through his love of gain. Most chiefs, soldiers, and heads of families are open to bribes. The object of war in the first place is gain, and the dangers attending it make it honorable.

This object (gain) must be superseded by an equivalent and the idea of honor transferred to other sources. Take, for instance, the Blackfeet, who are the most numerous and bloodthirsty nation on the upper Missouri. Assemble them in treaty and make a distribution of $25,000 or $30,000 in merchandise among them and the deputations of other nations with whom a peace is to be concluded. How would this operate? The soldiers of the camp who would be appointed to distribute this merchandise are the most powerful party, have generally the raising and leading of war parties, and would take a liberal share of the presents for themselves. The chiefs and heads of families would also receive a large amount and the rest be divided among the young men, warriors, women, etc. The peace would be made, all would be satisfied for the present; but unless these payments were continued for a number of years, or until the benefits of peace were realized and acknowledged, nothing would be gained. An Indian does not reflect upon what he has received but what is yet in store for him. The prospects of an annual repetition of these presents would induce them to keep the treaty stipulations. Why and how? The soldiers, chiefs, and heads of families, whose voices only could make war, are held in check by the prospects of gain, and should any parties be raised would be paid to stop, or if they continued and stole horses, or killed a few of the nation with whom peace had been made, the affair would be paid for and hushed up on both sides, on account of the coming presents.

The reason why persons killed in time of peace between two nations can be paid for, and privately not, is that in the former case the voices of all, except the immediate relations of the slain, are against revenge, inasmuch as it would affect their interests with regard to the presents granted by the treaty. This operation going on in both nations at the same time leaves the relatives too few to effect a revenge, and the dishonor is evaded by the compulsion. In the course of a few years all old causes for revenge would be forgotten. By visiting each other and exchanging property, horses (the usual cause of war) would become more equally divided, by being bought by those who wish them, instead of stolen. Acquaintance with each other’s language, intermarriages, and other ties would follow, and the advantage of receiving a large supply of merchandise without the labor of hunting skins for it, together with the honor and increase of power of the soldiers, by having the distribution of this merchandise, must effectually throw the popular voice against war. The voices of the women, though not consulted, would be felt. They are vain, fond of dress, and would, of course, be in favor of the treaty which enables them to gratify this passion in a greater degree by furnishing them with clothing gratis. Therefore war would be discontinued by them, and the hand of a peaceable man preferred to one whose conduct militated against their own interests and those of their parents. For we apprehend that the favor warriors find in the eyes of the women and their parents is the result of their success, not the glory in their bravery.

It is the horses stolen from their enemies that gives them wealth to purchase any woman they please, and the father-in-law is anxious to have a son-in-law who can at any time replace his loss in horses. Indians are poor; that is, they are always in need of articles they can not purchase, and getting a supply gratis is of great advantage to them. The power of these annuities is great, and could be wielded with sufficient force to bring different bands to war upon their own people, and compel them to preserve the treaty stipulations.

We do not think that the display of military force on treaty grounds is either necessary or politic. If to inspire a feeling of fear be the object, it would require the presence of three or four thousand men to effect it with the Blackfeet, and even then, there would be great danger of collision with the troops who would endeavor to enforce military regulations when they can not be understood and are not required. Neither would Indians be induced to assemble when such a body of armed men are brought without their consent, or if they did, it would be with hostile feelings, and they could give no assistance to the commissioners. A lesser force, or one inadequate to present the idea of coercion, would incur their contempt, as they would necessarily conclude that the Government had sent all the men they could raise, and the few present would be imposed upon.

Indians do not like to be forced into measures, the utility of which has yet to be made apparent. Besides, the spirit of treaty is compromise, not force, as would be implied by these proceedings. It must be a voluntary act on the part of the Indians, for and in consideration of a certain sum, to obtain the stipulations. Again it is entirely on the present state of the Indian and their government to carry out this treaty we depend after the military force be withdrawn. Their organization as pointed out in these pages shows them capable of preserving order among themselves on these occasions, and a few good, patient commissioners and sensible traders and interpreters would secure what is necessary when force or appearance of it would fail. If anything more was added it might be a few military officers in full uniform and a good band of music. After satisfaction the treaty would operate in detail as has been mentioned, and the next best thing would be to take deputations of the principal men of each nation to Washington, where they could council with their Great Father (the President), and at this time the power and disposition of the Government could be exhibited without giving offense, which in their return among their people would be made public and the proper feeling instilled. But Indians should never be treated with at the seat of Government for many reasons.

The principal is that no deputation of prairie tribes could be taken as the general voice, and even then would not think themselves treated with on fair grounds—would agree to any and everything and afterwards say they were forced to do it. Large bodies of whites in the interior and on treaty grounds would necessarily be very expensive, and are inexpedient, as pointed out, though the support of a great many Indians would be very little. They bring their supplies along, hunt their way back, and but a few groceries would be sufficient to feed them during the short stay the business required. Another thing not to be overlooked is that the assembling of different nations in a body at a certain point is a great affair to them. It forms an epoch, a date, an event, to be talked of for years. Each nation on these occasions feel themselves bound to be polite, liberal, and attentive to strangers. Hostilities for the time are laid aside or forgotten, and the whole active force of the nations on whose ground the treaty is held is put in motion to keep order. If the question of buying their lands is not introduced, all goes on well, but on this subject they are jealous and suspicious to a great degree.

In no instance should the principal of an Indian fund be placed in the hands of any member of these prairie tribes to be distributed by him to his people. They can not appreciate the use and expenditure of money; neither could they with safety be placed in charge of any large amount of goods for distribution.

If handed to the chief, they would be given by him to a few of his immediate relations and friends, and the rest of the camp would get nothing. The present way of distributing annuities is the best, if not the only one that could give general satisfaction, and is thus conducted. The whole amount of merchandise is separated into as many portions as there are bands in the nation, according to the number of lodges in each band. One of the bands is then visited by the Indian agent, who, with the advice and consent of the chief of the nation, chooses therefrom four to six soldiers and dresses them. The whole band, men, women, and children, are formed into a semicircle with these soldiers in front, and that portion of the annuities intended for the band is laid in front of the soldiers, who separate it equally among all, retaining, however, a reasonable share for themselves. This appears to give general satisfaction. We can suggest no change in the existing laws that might benefit the Indians, unless it be that Indian agents should be people who have a correct knowledge of Indian character. If it be really the object of the Government to benefit this race of people their agents should be chosen from experienced traders or others who have and still reside with them and are well acquainted with their manners and customs.

How can a stranger who perhaps never saw an Indian, merely by counseling with a few during his short annual visit, know their wants, study their welfare, or make satisfactory reports to headquarters? Besides, so much being dependent on these agents, their term of office should not be limited to a change in the administration, as at present. It is unlike other offices and requires many years’ close application and constant residence among Indians to be of any real benefit to learn in what manner they can be better regulated or to carry out any series of measures the Government may wish to introduce. The pay of these agents is also inadequate, and there are too few to be of much service. The Sioux Nation alone is numerous and widely extended enough to admit of an agency; the Mandan, Gros Ventres, and Arikara another; the Assiniboin and Crows a third, and the Blackfeet a fourth. As it at present stands, one man is appointed for all this, and the consequence is some of them are neglected, if not the greater number. It can not be otherwise. The nations are situated hundreds of miles apart and each scattered over an immense district. Even one nation can not be collected, consulted with, annuities distributed, and all business settled in a less time than six months and often more. Should the present officer do nothing but travel he could not make the round of the whole in a year.

PROPERTY

The personal property of these tribes consists chiefly of horses. A man’s wealth is estimated by the number of these animals he owns. Besides which they have their lodges, guns, clothing, and cooking utensils. Possession of an article of small value is a right seldom disputed, if the article has been honestly obtained, as their laws of retaliation are too severe to admit of constant quarrels. But horses being their principal aim, possessing them is nothing without force to defend. To explain this fully it will be necessary to give a few examples of the different kinds of rights and their tenure. Rights to property are of the following description: Articles found, articles made by themselves, stolen from enemies, given them, and bought. Two Indians traveling together, one discovers a lost horse and points it out to the other, who pursues and succeeds in catching it. Now the one who made the discovery claims a portion of the horse on the ground that had he not seen it or not shown it to the other most likely it would not be in his possession. The other, therefore, to extinguish this claim, would be obliged to pay some article equivalent to half the value of the horse, which in case he refused to do would end in the horse being killed on the spot, and the dispute terminated. The same rule would apply to finding a gun, but smaller articles would not attract attention enough to produce a quarrel. An article is considered lost when the owner has abandoned the search.

All clothing, skins, arms, etc., made by themselves are the sole property of those who made them, and this is the only general right among them that admits of no dispute. To take away such things by force would be reckoned a mean action; would be discountenanced individually by all; and the perpetrator would fall into general disgrace, among both men and women. When horses are stolen from enemies the case is different. Suppose seven Indians conjointly steal 45 horses in the night from their enemies. They would drive them off in a body until beyond reach of pursuit and then each would lay claim, catch, and keep as many as he could manage and defend. No equal division or anything like it would take place. Men of desperate character would take the greater part and leave milder or less strongly supported Indians with one or two and some would get none. To do this sometimes two to four will combine against the others and take the largest share, but one or two men seldom carry this so far as to incur the resentment of the rest of the party. It generally depends upon the number of relatives each has with him, or his force in camp, before either of which those not so strongly supported must give way. Quarrels often occur about these divisions, and horses in dispute are killed or stolen in the night by those who have few from those who have many before their return home.

An Indian never gives away anything without some expectation of a return or some other interested motive. If one observes another in possession of a fine horse he would like to have he will take the occasion of some feast or dance and publicly present him with a gun or something of value, flattering his bravery, praising his liberality, and throwing out general hints as to his object, though not directly mentioning it. He will let the matter rest thus for some days, and if the other does not present him with the horse will demand his gift returned, which is done.

One will sometimes give a horse to another for some purpose or equivalent and allow him to keep it; but should the receiver give the horse to a third person the original owner will often claim him and take him back, giving for his reason that he did not bestow him on that person, and although he had presented him to the first, he should have kept him and not given him away to another. Smaller gifts are regarded in the light of loans and generally paid for in some way. They may be considered as exchanges of necessities which they take this way to effect.

One would think that an article bought by them or of them should be the property of the purchaser, but this is not always the case. If an Indian buys a horse from another and it is stolen the first night or two afterwards, or lamed the first race, part, and sometimes the whole, of the payment must be returned to pacify the loser.

If a gun is bought and it bursts or is broken shortly afterwards, in like manner a refund of a portion of the purchase money would be required. And worse still if the gun in the act of bursting had crippled the man’s hands, which is often the case, the accident would also be paid for by him who sold the gun. These things are so well known and anticipated among them that the vendor immediately after the accident or loss invites the loser to a feast and by the payment of something settles the matter. This has the effect of their having but few bargains or dealings with each other, so much so that a horse bought and paid for by us from them can not be resold to one of their own people if they know it, because the original owner will take it if he sees it in the hands of one of his own people and that person is in a situation to be thus imposed upon. Most of their horses having had several owners, they are always a precarious gift or purchase. Property obtained by gambling is also held by a very slight tenure, so much so that the loser has many chances in his favor and these operations are much fairer among them than among whites.

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