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 consult............