Chapter XI: Appendix (7)

The _Dark-lanthorn_, (which was the name of the bride) became very uneasy, both by the delay of time, and the various passions she attentively read in the bridegroom’s face and speech, and she asked him sharply the meaning of such a long discourse. He instantly cried out, that the whole affair was spoiled, unless it was brought to a speedy conclusion: but the religious man insisted upon her belief of that article, before he could proceed any farther. But by way of comfort, he assured him it should be the very last question he would propose, till he put the holy water on her face, and read over the marriage ceremony. The bridegroom revived at this good news, immediately sent the bowl around, with a cheerful countenance; which the bride observing, she asked him the reason of his sudden joyful looks.—But, what with the length of the lecture, the close application of the bowl, and an over-joy of soon obtaining his wishes, he proposed the wrong question; for instead of asking her belief of the mysterious union of the tri-une deity, he only mentioned the manly faculties of nature. The bride smiled, and asked if the beloved man borrowed that speech from his beloved marriage-book? Or whether he was married, as he was so waggish, and knowing in those affairs.—The priest imagining her cheerful looks proceeded from her swallowing his doctrine, immediately called for a bowl of water to initiate his new convert. As the bridegroom could not mediate with his usual friendly offices in this affair, he persuaded her to let the beloved man put some beloved water on her face, and it would be a sure pledge of a lasting friendship between her and the English, and intitle her to every thing she liked best. By the persuasive force of his promises, she consented: and had the constancy, though so ignorant a {128} novitiate in our sacred mysteries, to go through her catechism, and the long marriage ceremony,—although it was often interrupted by the bowl. This being over, she proceeded to go to bed with her partner, while the beloved man sung a psalm at the door, concerning the fruitful vine. Her name he soon entered in capital letters, to grace the first title-page of his church book of converts; which he often shewed to his English sheep, and with much satisfaction would inform them how, by the co-operation of the Deity, his earnest endeavours changed an Indian _Dark-lanthorn_ into a lamp of christian light. However, afterward to his great grief, he was obliged on account of her adulteries, to erase her name from thence, and enter it anew in some of the crowded pages of female delinquents.

When an Israelite died in any house or tent, all who were in it, and the furniture belonging to it contracted a pollution, which continued for seven days. All likewise who touched the body of a dead person, or his grave, were impure for seven days. Similar notions prevail among the Indians. The Choktah are so exceedingly infatuated in favour of the infallible judgment of their pretended prophets, as to allow them without the least regret, to dislocate the necks of any of their sick who are in a weak state of body, to put them out of their pain, when they presume to reveal the determined will of the Deity to shorten his days, which is asserted to be communicated in a dream; by the time that this theo-physical operation is performed on a patient, they have a scaffold prepared opposite to the door, whereon he is to lie till they remove the bones in the fourth moon after, to the remote bone-house of that family: they immediately carry out the corpse, mourn over it, and place it in that dormitory, which is strongly pallisadoed around, lest the children should become polluted even by passing under the dead. Formerly when the owner of a house died, they set fire to it, and to all the provisions of every kind; or sold the whole at a cheap rate to the trading people, without paying the least regard to the scarcity of the times. Many of them still observe the same rule, through a wild imitation of a ceremonial observance of the Israelites, in burning the bed whereon a dead person lay, because of its impurity. This is no copy from the ancient heathens, but from the Hebrews. {129}

ARGUMENT XII.

Like the Jews, the greatest part of the southern Indians _abstain_ from most things that are either in themselves, or in the general apprehension of mankind, loathsome, or _unclean_: where we find a deviation from that general rule among any of them, it is a corruption—either owing to their intercourse with Europeans, or having contracted an ill habit from necessity. They generally affix very vicious ideas to the eating of impure things; and all their prophets, priests, old warriors and war-chieftains, before they enter on their religious duties, and while they are engaged in them, observe the strictest abstinence in this point. Formerly, if any of them did eat in white people’s houses, or even of what had been dressed there, while they were sanctifying themselves, it was deemed a dangerous sin of pollution. When some of them first corrupted their primitive virtue, by drinking of our spirituous liquors, the religious spectators called it _ooka hoome_, “bitter waters;” alluding, I conjecture, to the bitter waters of jealousy, that produced swelling and death to those who committed adultery, but had no power over the innocent. That this name is not accidental, but designedly pointed, and expressive of the bitter waters of God, seems obvious, not only from the image they still retain of them, but likewise when any of them refuse our invitation of drinking spirituous liquors in company with us, they say _Ahiskola Awa, Ooka Hoomeh Ishto_, “I will not drink, they are the bitter waters of the great One.” Though _Ishto_, one of the names of God, subjoined to nouns, denotes a superlative degree, in this case they deviate from that general rule—and for this reason they never affix the idea of bitter to the spirituous liquors we drink among them. _Hoomeh_ is the only word they have to convey the meaning of bitter; as _Aneh Hoomeh_, “bitter ears,” or pepper.

They reckon all birds of prey, and birds of night, to be unclean, and unlawful to be eaten. Not long ago, when the Indians were making their winter’s hunt, and the old women were without flesh-meat at home, I shot a small fat hawk, and desired one of them to take and dress it; but though I strongly importuned her by way of trial, she, as earnestly refused it for {130} fear of contracting pollution, which she called the “accursed sickness,” supposing disease would be the necessary effect of such an impurity. Eagles of every kind they esteem unclean food; likewise ravens (though the name of a tribe with them) crows, buzzards, swallows, bats, and every species of owls: and they believe that swallowing flies, musketoes, or gnats, always breeds sickness, or worms, according to the quantity that goes into them; which though it may not imply extraordinary skill in physic, shews their retention of the ancient law, which prohibited the swallowing of flies: for to this that divine sarcasm alludes, “swallowing a camel, and straining at a gnat.” Such insects were deemed unclean, as well as vexatious and hurtful. The God of Ekron was _Beelzebub_, or the God and ruler of flies.

None of them will eat of any animal whatsoever, if they either know, or suspect that it died of itself. I lately asked one of the women the reason of throwing a dung-hill-fowl out of doors, on the corn-house; she said, that she was afraid, _Oophe Abeeka Hakset Illeh_, “it died with the distemper of the mad dogs,” and that if she had eaten it, it would have affected her in the very same manner. I said, if so, she did well to save herself from danger, but at the same time, it seemed she had forgotten the cats. She replied, “that such impure animals would not contract the accursed sickness, on account of any evil thing they eat; but that the people who ate of the flesh of the swine that fed on such polluting food, would certainly become mad.”

In the year 1766, a madness seized the wild beasts in the remote woods of West-Florida, and about the same time the domestic dogs were attacked with the like distemper; the deer were equally infected. The Indians in their winter’s hunt, found several lying dead, some in a helpless condition, and others fierce and mad. But though they are all fond of increasing their number of deer-skins, both from emulation and for profit, yet none of them durst venture to slay them, lest they should pollute themselves, and thereby incur bodily evils. The head-man of the camp told me, he cautioned one of the _Hottuk Hakse_, who had resided a long time at Savannah, from touching such deer, saying to him _Chehaksinna_, “Do not become vicious and mad,” for _Isse Hakset Illehtàhah_, “the deer were mad, and are dead;” adding, that if he acted the part of _Hakse_, he would cause both himself,{131} and the rest of the hunting camp to be spoiled; nevertheless he shut his ears against his honest speech, and brought those dangerous deer-skins to camp. But the people would not afterward associate with him; and he soon paid dear for being _Hakse_, by a sharp splintered root of a cane running almost through his foot, near the very place where he first polluted himself; and he was afraid some worse ill was still in wait for him.

In 1767, the Indians were struck with a disease, which they were unacquainted with before. It began with sharp pains in the head, at the lower part of each of the ears, and swelled the face and throat in a very extraordinary manner, and also the testicles. It continued about a fortnight, and in the like space of time went off gradually, without any dangerous consequence, or use of outward or inward remedies: they called it _Wahka Abeeka_, “the cattle’s distemper,” or sickness. Some of their young men had by stealth killed and eaten a few of the cattle which the traders had brought up, and they imagined they had thus polluted themselves, and were smitten in that strange manner, by having their heads, necks, &c. magnified like the same parts of a sick bull. They first concluded, either to kill all the cattle, or send them immediately off their land, to prevent the like mischief, or greater ills from befalling the beloved people—for their cunning old physicians or prophets would not undertake to cure them, in order to inflame the people to execute the former resolution; being jealous of encroachments, and afraid the cattle would spoil their open corn-fields; upon which account, the traders arguments had no weight with these red Hebrew philosophers. But fortunately, one of their head warriors had a few cattle soon presented to him, to keep off the wolf; and his reasoning proved so weighty, as to alter their resolution, and produce in them a contrary belief.

They reckon all those animals to be unclean, that are either carnivorous, or live on nasty food; as hogs,[49] wolves, panthers, foxes, cats, mice, rats. And if we except the bear, they deem all beasts of prey unhallowed, and polluted food; all amphibious quadrupeds they rank in the same class. Our old traders remember when they first began the custom of eating beavers: and to this day none eat of them, except those who kill {132} them; though the flesh is very wholesome, on account of the bark of trees they live upon. It must be acknowledged, they are all degenerating apace, insomuch, that the Choktah Indians, on account of their scantiness of ammunition while they traded with the French, took to eat horse-flesh, and even snakes of every kind; though each of these species, and every sort of reptiles, are accounted by the other neighbouring nations, impure food in the highest degree. And they ridicule the Choktah for their cannibal apostacy, and term them in common speech, “the evil, ugly, Choktah.”

They abhor moles so exceedingly, that they will not allow their children even to touch them, for fear of hurting their eyesight; reckoning it contagious. They believe that nature is possest of such a property, as to transfuse into men and animals the qualities, either of the food they use, or of those objects that are presented to their senses;[50] he who feeds on venison, is according to their physical system, swifter and more sagacious than the man who lives on the flesh of the clumsy bear, or helpless dunghill fowls, the slow-footed tame cattle, or the heavy wallowing swine. This is the reason that several of their old men recommend, and say, that formerly their greatest chieftains observed a constant rule in their diet, and seldom ate of any animal of a gross quality, or heavy motion of body, fancying it conveyed a dullness through the whole system, and disabled them from exerting themselves with proper vigour in their martial, civil, and religious duties.

I have already shewn their aversion to eating of unsanctified fruits; and in this argument, that they abstain from several other things, contrary to the usage of all the old heathen world. It may be objected, that now they seldom refuse to eat hogs flesh, when the traders invite them to it; but this proceeds entirely from vicious imitation, and which is common with the most civilized nations. When swine were first brought among them, they deemed it such a horrid abomination in any of their people to eat that filthy and impure food, that they excluded the criminal from all religious communion in their circular town-house, or in their quadrangular holy ground at the annual expiation of sins, equally as if he had eaten unsanctified fruits. After the yearly atonement was made at the temple, he was indeed readmitted to his usual privileges. Formerly, none of their beloved {133} men, or warriors, would eat or drink with us on the most pressing invitation, through fear of polluting themselves, they deemed us such impure animals. Our eating the flesh of swine, and venison, with the gravy in it, helped to rivet their dislike, for this they reckon as blood.

I once asked the _Archimagus_, to sit down and partake of my dinner; but he excused himself, saying, he had in a few days some holy duty to perform, and that if he eat evil or accursed food, it would spoil him,—alluding to swine’s flesh. Though most of their virtue hath lately been corrupted, in this particular they still affix vicious and contemptible ideas to the eating of swine’s flesh; insomuch, that _Shúkàpa_, “swine eater,” is the most opprobious epithet they can use to brand us with: they commonly subjoin _Akanggàpa_, “eater of dunghill fowls.” Both together, signifying “filthy, helpless animals.” By our surprising mismanagement in allowing them a long time to insult, abuse, rob, and murder the innocent British subjects at pleasure, without the least satisfaction, all the Indian nations formerly despised the English, as a swarm of tame fowls, and termed them so, in their set speeches.

The Indians through a strong principle of religion, abstain in the strictest manner, from eating the BLOOD of any animal; as it contains the life, and spirit of the beast, and was the very essence of the sacrifices that were to be offered up for sinners. And this was the Jewish opinion and law of sacrifice, Lev. xvii. 11. “for the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood, which maketh an atonement for the soul.” When the English traders have been making sausages mixt with hog’s blood, I have observed the Indians to cast their eyes upon them, with the horror of their reputed fore-fathers, when they viewed the predicted abomination of desolation, fulfilled by Antiochus, in defiling the temple.

An instance lately happened, which sufficiently shews their utter aversion to blood. A Chikkesah woman, a domestic of one of the traders, being very ill with a complication of disorders, the Indian physician seemed to use his best endeavours to cure her, but without the least visible effect. {134} To preserve his medical credit with the people, he at last ascribed her ailment to the eating of swine’s flesh, blood, and other polluting food: and said, that such an ugly, or accursed sickness, overcame the power of all his beloved songs, and physic; and in anger, he left his supposed criminal patient to be punished by Loak Ishtohoollo. I asked her some time afterwards, what her ailments were, and what she imagined might have occasioned them? She said, she was full of pain, that she had _Abeeka Ookproo_, “the accursed sickness,” because she had eaten a great many fowls after the manner of the white people, with the _Issish Ookproo_, “accursed blood,” in them. In time she recovered, and now strictly abstains from tame fowls, unless they are bled to death, for fear of incurring future evil, by the like pollution.

There is not the least trace among their ancient traditions, of their deserving the hateful name of cannibals, as our credulous writers have carefully copied from each other. Their taste is so opposite to that of the Anthrophagi, that they always over-dress their meat whether roasted or boiled.[51]

The Muskoghe who have been at war, time out of mind, against the Indians of Cape-Florida, and at length reduced them to thirty men, who removed to the Havannah along with the Spaniards; affirm, they could never be informed by their captives, of the least inclination they ever had of eating human flesh, only the heart of the enemy—which they all do, sympathetically (blood for blood) in order to inspire them with courage; and yet the constant losses they suffered, might have highly provoked them to exceed their natural barbarity. To eat the heart of an enemy will in their opinion, like eating other things, before mentioned, communicate and give greater heart against the enemy. They also think that the vigorous faculties of the mind are derived from the brain, on which account, I have seen some of their heroes drink out of a human skull; they imagine, they only imbibe the good qualities it formerly contained.

When speaking to the _Archimagus_ concerning the Hottentots, those heterogeneous animals according to the Portuguese and Dutch accounts, he asked me, whether they builded and planted—and what sort of food they {135} chiefly lived upon. I told him, I was informed that they dwelt in small nasty huts, and lived chiefly on sheep’s guts and crickets. He laughed, and said there was no credit to be given to the far-distant writers of those old books, because they might not have understood the language and customs of the people; but that those, whom our books reported to live on such nasty food, (if they did not deceive us) might have been forced to it for the want of better, to keep them from dying; or by the like occasion, they might have learned that ugly custom, and could not quit it when they were free from want, as the Choktah eat horse-flesh, though they have plenty of venison: however, it was very easy, he said, to know whether they were possessed of human reason, for if they were endued with shame to have a desire of covering their nakedness, he concluded them to be human. He then asked me, whether I had been informed of their having any sort of language, or method of counting as high as the number of their fingers, either by words or expressive motion; or of bearing a nearer resemblance to _Yáwe_, the human creature, in laughter, than _Shawe_ the ape bore; or of being more social and gregarious than those animals of the country where they lived. If they were endued with those properties, he affirmed them to be human creatures; and that such old lying books should not be credited.

The more religious, or the least corrupted, of the various remote Indian nations, will not eat of any young beast when it is newly yeaned; and their old men think they would suffer damage, even by the bare contact: which seems to be derived from the Mosaic law, that prohibited such animals to be offered up, or eaten, till they were eight days old; because, till then, they were in an imperfect and polluted state! They appear, however, to be utterly ignorant of the design and meaning of this appointment and practice, as well as of some other customs and institutions. But as the time of circumcising the Israelitish children was founded on this law of purity, it seems probable, that the American Aborigines observed the law of circumcision,[52] for some time after they arrived here, and desisted from it, when it became incompatible with the hard daily toils and sharp exercises, which necessity must have forced them to pursue, to support life: especially when we consider, that the sharpest and most lasting affront, the most opprobious, indelible epithet, with which one Indian can possibly brand another, is to call him in public company, _Hoobuk Waske_, Eunuchus, præputio detecto. They resent it so highly, that in the year {136} 1750, when the Cheerakee were on the point of commencing a war against us, several companies of the northern Indians, in concert with them, compelled me in the lower Cheerakee town to write to the government of South-Carolina, that they made it their earnest request to the English not to mediate in their war with the Katáhba Indians, as they were fully resolved to prosecute it, with the greatest eagerness, while there was one of that hateful name alive; because in the time of battle, they had given them the ugly name of short-tailed eunuchs. Now as an eunuch was a contemptible name with the Israelites, and none of them could serve in any religious office; it should seem that the Indians derived this opprobious and singular epithet from Jewish tradition, as castration was never in use among the ancient or present Americans.

The Israelites were but forty years in the wilderness, and would not have renewed the painful act of circumcision, only that Joshua inforced it: and by the necessary fatigues and difficulties, to which as already hinted, the primitive Americans must be exposed at their first arrival in this waste and extensive wilderness, it is likely they forbore circumcision, upon the divine principle extended to their supposed predecessors in the wilderness, of not accepting sacrifice at the expence of mercy. This might soothe them afterwards wholly to reject it as a needless duty, especially if any of the eastern heathens accompanied them in their travels in quest of freedom. And as it is probable, that by the time they reached America, they had worn out their knives and every other sharp instrument fit for the occasion; so had they performed the operation with flint-stones, or sharp splinters, there is no doubt that each of the mothers would have likewise said, “This day, thou art to me a bloody husband[XXIX].” However, from the contemptible idea the Americans fix to castration, &c. it seems very probable the more religious among them used circumcision in former ages.

Footnote XXIX:

Exod. iv. 25, 26.

Under this argument, I must observe that _Ai-ú-be_ signifies “the thigh” of any animal; and _E-ee-pattáh Tekále_, “the lower part of the thigh,” or literally, “the hanging of the foot.” And when in the woods, the Indians cut a small piece out of the lower part of the thighs of the deer they kill, length-ways and pretty deep. Among the great number of venison-hams they bring to our trading houses, I do not remember to {137} have observed one without it; from which I conjecture, that as every ancient custom was designed to convey, either a typical, or literal instructive lesson of some useful thing; and as no usage of the old heathen world resembled this custom; it seems strongly to point at Jacob’s wrestling with an angel, and obtaining for himself and his posterity, the name, ישר-אל, (perhaps, _Yosher-ale_) “divine guide,” or “one who prevails with the omnipotent,” and to the children of Israel not eating the sinew of the thigh of any animal, to perpetuate the memory of their ancestor’s sinew being shrunk, which was to obtain the blessing.

The Indians always sew their maccasenes with deer’s sinews, though of a sharp cutting quality, for they reckon them more fortunate than the wild hemp: but to eat such, they imagine would breed worms, and other ailments, in proportion to the number they eat. And I have been assured by a gentleman of character, who is now an inhabitant of South-Carolina, and well acquainted with the customs of the northern Indians, that they also cut a piece out of the thigh of every deer they kill, and throw it away; and reckon it such a dangerous pollution to eat it, as to occasion sickness and other misfortunes of sundry kinds, especially by spoiling their guns from shooting with proper force and direction. Now as none of the old heathens had such a custom, must it not be considered as of Israelitish extraction.[53]

ARGUMENT XIII.

The Indian MARRIAGES, DIVORCES, and PUNISHMENTS of adultery, still retain a strong likeness to the Jewish laws and customs in these points.

The Hebrews had sponsalia de presenti, and sponsalia de futuro: a considerable time generally intervened between their contract and marriage: and their nuptial ceremonies were celebrated in the night. The Indians observe the same customs to this day; insomuch, that it is usual for an elderly man to take a girl, or sometimes a child to be his wife, because she is capable of receiving good impressions in that tender state: frequently, a moon elapses after the contract is made, and the value received, before {138} the bridegroom sleeps with the bride, and on the marriage day, he does not appear before her till night introduces him, and then without tapers.

The grandeur of the Hebrews consisted pretty much in the multiplicity of their wives to attend them, as a showy retinue: as the meaner sort could not well purchase one, they had a light sort of marriage suitable to their circumstances, called by the scholiasts, _usu capio_; “taking the woman for present use.” When they had lived together about a year, if agreeable, they parted good friends by mutual consent. The Indians also are so fond of variety, that they ridicule the white people, as a tribe of narrow-hearted, and dull constitutioned animals, for having only one wife at a time; and being bound to live with and support her, though numberless circumstances might require a contrary conduct. When a young warrior cannot dress _alamode America_, he strikes up one of those matches for a few moons, which they term _Toopsa Táwah_, “a make haste marriage,” because it wants the usual ceremonies, and duration of their other kind of marriages.[54]

The friendliest kind of marriage among the Hebrews, was eating bread together. The bridegroom put a ring on the fourth finger of the bride’s left hand before two witnesses, and said, “Be thou my wife, according to the law of Moses.” Her acceptance and silence implying consent, confirmed her part of the marriage contract, because of the rigid modesty of the eastern women. When the short marriage contract was read over, he took a cake of bread and broke it in two, for himself and her; or otherwise, he put some corn between their hands: which customs were used as strong emblems of the necessity of mutual industry and concord, to obtain present and future happiness. When an Indian makes his first address to the young woman he intends to marry, she is obliged by ancient custom to sit by him till he hath done eating and drinking, whether she likes or dislikes him; but afterward, she is at her own choice whether to stay or retire[XXX]. When the bridegroom marries the bride, after the usual prelude, he takes a choice ear of corn, and divides it in two before witnesses, gives her one half in her hand, and keeps the other half to himself; or otherwise, {139} he gives her a deer’s foot, as an emblem of the readiness with which she ought to serve him: in return, she presents him with some cakes of bread, thereby declaring her domestic care and gratitude in return for the offals; for the men feast by themselves, and the women eat the remains. When this short ceremony is ended, they may go to bed like an honest couple.

Footnote XXX:

Cant. iii. 4. I held him and would not let him go, until I had brought
him to my father’s house, and into the chambers of her that conceived
me: See Gen. xxiv. 67. Such was the custom of the Hebrews.

Formerly, this was an universal custom among the native Americans; but this, like every other usage of theirs, is wearing out apace. The West-Floridans, in order to keep their women subject to the law of adultery, bring some venison or buffalo’s flesh to the house of their normal wives, at the end of every winter’s hunt: that is reckoned a sufficient annual tye of their former marriages, although the husbands do not cohabit with them. The Muskóhge men, if newly married, are obliged by ancient custom, to get their own relations to hoe out the corn-fields of each of their wives, that their marriages may be confirmed: and the more jealous, repeat the custom every year, to make their wives subject to the laws against adultery. But the Indians in general, reckon that before the bridegroom can presume to any legal power over the bride, he is after the former ceremonies, or others something similar, obliged to go into the woods to kill a deer, bring home the carcass of venison, and lay it down at her house wrapt up in its skin; and if she opens the pack, carries it into the house, and then dresses and gives him some of it to eat with cakes before witnesses, she becomes his lawful wife, and obnoxious to all the penalties of an adultress.

The Hebrews had another sort of marriage—by purchase: the bridegroom gave the father of the bride as much as he thought she was worth: and according to the different valuation, so sooner or later she went off at market. The only way to know the merit of a Hebrew lady, was to enquire the value for which her father would sell her, and the less rapacious he was, the sooner she might get an husband. Divine writ abounds with instances of the like kind; as Gen. xxxiv. 12. “Ask me never so much dowry and I will give it.” David bought Michal, and Jacob dearly purchased Rachel, &c. The women brought nothing with them, except their clothes, rings and bracelets, and a few trinkets. When the Indians would express a proper marriage, they have a word adapted according to their various dialects, to give them a suitable idea of it; but when they are {140} speaking of their sensual marriage bargains, they always term it, “buying a woman;” for example—they say with regard to the former, _Che-Awalas_, “I shall marry you,” the last syllable denotes the first person of the future tense, the former, “I shall make you, as _Awa_, or _Hewa_ was to _Ish_,” which is confirmed by a strong negative similar expression, _Che-Awala Awa_, “I shall not marry you.” But the name of their market marriages, is _Otoopha, Eho Achumbàras, Saookcháa_, “In the spring, I shall buy a woman, if I am alive.” Or _Eho Achumbàra Awa_, “I shall not buy a woman,” _Sàlbasa toogat_, “for indeed I am poor:” the former usage, and method of language is exactly calculated to express that singular custom of the Hebrews, per coemptionem.

They sometimes marry by deputation or proxy. The intended bridegroom sends so much in value to the nearest relations of the intended bride, as he thinks she is worth: if they are accepted, it is a good sign that her relations approve of the match, but she is not bound by their contract alone; her consent must likewise be obtained, but persuasions most commonly prevail with them. However, if the price is reckoned too small, or the goods too few, the law obliges them to return the whole, either to himself, or some of his nearest kindred. If they love the goods, as they term it, according to the like method of expression with the Hebrews, the loving couple may in a short time bed together upon trial, and continue or discontinue their love according as their fancy directs them. If they like each other, they become an honest married couple when the nuptial ceremony is performed, as already described. When one of their chieftains is married, several of his kinsmen help to kill deer and buffalos, to make a rejoicing marriage feast, to which their relations and neighbours are invited: there the young warriors sing with their two chief musicians, who beat on their wet deer skin tied over the mouth of a large clay-pot, and raise their voices, singing _Yo Yo_, &c. When they are tired with feasting, dancing, and singing the Epithalamium, they depart with friendly glad hearts, from the house of praise.

If an Israelite lay with a bond woman betrothed, and not redeemed, she was to be beaten, but not her fellow criminal; for in the original text, Lev. xix. 20. the word is in the fœminine gender. When offenders were beaten, they were bowed down, as Deut. xxv. 2.—so that they {141} neither sat nor stood, and their whip had a large knot to it, which commanded the thongs, so as to expand, or contract them; the punishment was always to be suited to the nature of the crime, and the constitution of the criminal. While the offenders were under the lash, three judges stood by to see that they received their full and just due. The first repeated the words of Deut. xxviii. 58. the second counted the stripes, and the third said, “Hack, or lay on.” The offender received three lashes on the breast, three on the belly, three on each shoulder, &c. But adultery was attended with capital punishment, as Deut. xxii. 22. The parties when legally detected, were tried by the lesser judicatory, which was to consist, at least of twenty-three: the Sanhedrim gave the bitter waters to those women who were suspected of adultery. The former were stoned to death; and the latter burst open, according to their imprecation, if they were guilty: the omnipotent divine wisdom impressed those waters with that wonderful quality, contrary to the common course of nature. The men married, and were divorced as often as their caprice directed them; for if they imagined their wives did not value them, according to their own partial opinion of themselves, they notified the occasion of the dislike, in a small billet, that her virtue might not be suspected: and when they gave any of them the ticket, they ate together in a very civil manner, and thus dissolved the contract.

I have premised this, to trace the resemblance to the marriage divorces and punishments of the savage Americans. The middle aged people of a place, which lies about half-way to Mobille, and the Illinois, assure us, that they remember when adultery was punished among them with death, by shooting the offender with barbed arrows, as there are no stones there.[55] But what with the losses of their people at war with the French and their savage confederates, and the constitutional wantonness of their young men and women, they have through a political desire of continuing, or increasing their numbers, moderated the severity of that law, and reduced it to the present standard of punishment; which is in the following manner. If a married woman is detected in adultery by one person, the evidence is deemed good in judgment against her; the evidence of a well grown boy or girl, they even reckon sufficient, because of the heinousness of the crime, and the difficulty of discovering it in their thick forests. This is a corruption of the Mosaic law, which required two evidences, and exempted both women {142} and slaves from public faith; because of the reputed fickleness of the one, and the base, groveling temper of the other. When the crime is proved against the woman, the enraged husband accompanied by some of his relations, surprises and beats her most barbarously, and then cuts off her hair and nose, or one of her lips. There are many of that sort of disfigured females among the Chikkasah, and they are commonly the best featured, and the most tempting of any of their country-women, which exposed them to the snares of young men. But their fellow-criminals, who probably first tempted them, are partially exempted from any kind of corporal punishment.

With the Muskohge Indians, it was formerly reckoned adultery, if a man took a pitcher of water off a married woman’s head, and drank of it.[56] But their law said, if he was a few steps apart, and she at his request set it down, and retired a little way off, he might then drink without exposing her to any danger. If we seriously reflect on the rest of their native customs, this old law, so singular to themselves from the rest of the world, gives us room to think they drew it from the Jewish bitter waters that were given to real, or suspected adulteresses, either to prove their guilt, or attest their innocence.

Among those Indians, when adultery is discovered, the offending parties commonly set off speedily for the distant woods, to secure themselves from the shameful badge of the sharp penal law, which they inevitably get, if they can be taken before the yearly offering for the atonement of sin; afterward, every crime except murder is forgiven. But they are always pursued, and frequently overtaken; though perhaps, three or four moons absent, and two hundred miles off, over hills and mountains, up and down many creeks and rivers, on contrary courses, and by various intricate windings—the pursuers are eager, and their hearts burn within them for revenge. When the husband has the chilling news first whispered in his ear, he steals off with his witness to some of his kinsmen, to get them to assist him in revenging his injury: they are soon joined by a sufficient number of the same family, if the criminal was not of the same tribe; otherwise, he chuses to confide in his nearest relations. When the witness has asserted to them the truth of his evidence by a strong asseveration, they separate to avoid suspicion, and meet commonly in the dusk of the evening, near the town of the adulterer, {143} where each of them provides a small hoop-pole, tapering to the point, with knobs half an inch long, (allowed by ancient custom) with which they correct the sinners; for as their law in this case doth not allow partiality, if they punished one of them, and either excused or let the other escape from justice, like the Illinois, they would become liable to such punishment as they had inflicted upon either of the parties.

They commonly begin with the adulterer, because of the two, he is the more capable of making his escape: they generally attack him at night, by surprise, lest he should make a desperate resistance, and blood be shed to cry for blood. They fall on eager and merciless, whooping their revengeful noise, and thrashing their captive, with their long-knobbed hoop-flails; some over his head and face; others on his shoulders and back. His belly, sides, legs, and arms, are gashed all over, and at last, he happily seems to be insensible of pain: then they cut off his ears[XXXI].

Footnote XXXI:

Among these Indians, the trading people’s ears are often in danger, by
the sharpness of this law, and their suborning false witnesses, or
admitting foolish children as legal evidence; but generally either the
tender-hearted females or friends, give them timely notice of their
danger. Then they fall to the rum-keg,—and as soon as they find the
pursuers approaching, they stand to arms in a threatning parade.
Formerly, the traders like so many British tars, kept them in proper
awe, and consequently prevented them from attempting any mischief. But
since the patenteed race of Daublers set foot in their land, they have
gradually become worse every year, murdering valuable innocent British
subjects at pleasure: and when they go down, they receive presents as
a tribute of fear, for which these Indians upbraid, and threaten us.
The Muskohge lately clipt off the ears of two white men for supposed
adultery. One had been a disciple of _Black Beard_, the pirate; and
the other, at the time of going under the hands of those Jewish
clippers, was deputed by the whimsical war-governor of Georgia, to awe
the traders into an obedience of his despotic power. His successor
lost his life on the Chikkasah war-path, twenty miles above the
Koosah, or uppermost western town of the Muskohge, in an attempt to
arrest the traders; which should not by any means be undertaken in the
Indian country.

They observe, however, a gradation of punishment, according to the criminality of the adulteress. For the first breach of the marriage faith, they crop her ears and hair, if the husband is spiteful: either of those badges proclaim her to be a whore, or _Hakse Kaneha_, “such as were evil in Canaan,” for the hair of their head is their ornament: when loose it commonly reaches below their back; and when tied, it stands below the crown of the head, about four inches long, and two broad. As the {144} offender cuts a comical figure among the rest of the women, by being trimmed so sharp, she always keeps her dark winter hot house, till by keeping the hair moistened with grease, it grows so long as to bear tying. Then she accustoms herself to the light by degrees; and soon some worthless fellow, according to their standard, buys her for his _And_; which term hath been already explained.

The adulterer’s ears are slashed off close to his head, for the first act of adultery, because he is the chief in fault. If the criminals repeat the crime with any other married persons, their noses and upper lips are cut off. But the third crime of the like nature, is attended with more danger; for their law says, that for public heinous crimes, satisfaction should be made visible to the people, and adequate to the injuries of the virtuous,—to set their aggrieved hearts at ease, and prevent others from following such a dangerous crooked copy. As they will not comply with their mitigated law of adultery, nor be terrified, nor shamed from their ill course of life; that the one may not frighten and abuse their wives, nor the other seduce their husbands and be a lasting plague and shame to the whole society, they are ordered by their ruling magi and war-chieftains, to be shot to death, which is accordingly executed: but this seldom happens.

When I asked the Chikkasah the reason of the inequality of their marriage-law, in punishing the weaker passive party, and exempting the stronger, contrary to reason and justice; they told me, it had been so a considerable time—because their land being a continual seat of war, and the lurking enemy for ever pelting them without, and the women decoying them within, if they put such old cross laws of marriage in force, all their beloved brisk warriors would soon be spoiled, and their habitations turned to a wild waste. It is remarkable, that the ancient Egyptians cut off the ears and nose of the adulteress; and the prophet alludes to this sort of punishment, Ezek. xxiii. 25. “They shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears.” And they gave them also a thousand stripes, with canes on the buttocks[XXXII]. The Cheerake are an exception to all civilized or savage nations, in having no laws against adultery; they {145} have been a considerable while under petticoat-government, and allow their women full liberty to plant their brows with horns as oft as they please, without fear of punishment. On this account their marriages are ill observed, and of a short continuance; like the Amazons, they divorce their fighting bed-fellows at their pleasure, and fail not to execute their authority, when their fancy directs them to a more agreeable choice. However, once in my time a number of warriors, belonging to the family of the husband of the adulteress, revenged the injury committed by her, in her own way; for they said, as she loved a great many men, instead of a husband, justice told them to gratify her longing desire—wherefore, by the information of their spies, they followed her into the woods a little way from the town, (as decency required) and then stretched her on the ground, with her hands tied to a stake, and her feet also extended, where upwards of fifty of them lay with her, having a blanket for a covering. The Choktah observe the same savage custom with adulteresses. They term their female delinquents, _Ahowwe Ishto_; the first is a Cheerake word, signifying, “a deer.”—And through contempts of the Chikkasah, they altered their penal law of adultery.

Footnote XXXII:

When human laws were first made, they commanded that if the husband
found the adulterer in the fact, he should kill them both. Thus the
laws of Solon and Draco ordained: but the law of the twelve tables
softened it.

The Muskohge Indians, either through the view of mitigating their law against adultery, that it might be adapted to their patriarchal-like government; or by misunderstanding the Mosaic precept, from length of time, and uncertainty of oral tradition, oblige the adulteress under the penalty of the severest law not to be free with any man, (unless she is inclined to favour her fellow sufferer) during the space of four moons, after the broken moon in which they suffered for each other, according to the custom of the Maldivians. But her husband exposes himself to the utmost severity of the marriage law, if he is known to hold a familiar intercourse with her after the time of her punishment.

ARGUMENT XIV.

Many other of the INDIAN PUNISHMENTS, resemble those of the Jews. Whosoever attentively views the features of the Indian, and his eye, and {146} reflects on his fickle, obstinate, and cruel disposition, will naturally think on the Jews. English America, feelingly knows the parity of the temper of their neighbouring Indians, with that of the Hebrew nation.

The Israelites cut off the hands and feet of murderers, 2 Sam. iv. 12.—strangled false prophets—and sometimes burned, stoned, or beheaded those malefactors who were condemned by the two courts of judgment. The Indians either by the defect of tradition, or through a greedy desire of revenge, torture their prisoners and devoted captives, with a mixture of all those Jewish capital punishments. They keep the original so close in their eye, as to pour cold water on the sufferers when they are fainting, or overcome by the fiery torture—to refresh, and enable them to undergo longer tortures. The Hebrews gave wine mixt with the juice of myrrh, to their tortured criminals, to revive their spirits; and sometimes vinegar to prevent too great an effusion of blood, lest they should be disappointed in glutting their greedy eyes, with their favourite tragedy of blood: which was eminently exemplified in their insulting treatment of Christ on the cross.

The Indians, beyond all the rest of mankind, seem in this respect to be actuated with the Jewish spirit. They jeer, taunt, laugh, whoop, and rejoice at the inexpressible agonies of those unfortunate persons, who are under their butchering hands; which would excite pity and horror in any heart, but that of a Jew. When they are far from home, they keep as near to their distinguishing customs, as circumstances allow them: not being able formerly to cut off the heads of those they killed in war, for want of proper weapons; nor able to carry them three or four hundred miles without putrefaction, they cut off the skin of their heads with their flint-stone knives, as speaking trophies of honour, and which register them among the brave by procuring them war titles. Though now they have plenty of proper weapons, they vary not from this ancient barbarous custom of the American aborigines: which has been too well known by many of our northern colonists, and is yet shamefully so to South-Carolina and Georgia barriers, by the hateful name of scalping.

The Indians strictly adhere more than the rest of mankind to that positive, unrepealed law of Moses, “He who sheddeth man’s blood, by {147} man shall his blood be shed:” like the Israelites, their hearts burn violently day and night without intermission, till they shed blood for blood. They transmit from father to son, the memory of the loss of their relation, or one of their own tribe or family, though it were an old woman—if she was either killed by the enemy, or by any of their own people. If indeed the murder be committed by a kinsman, the eldest can redeem: however, if the circumstances attending the fact be peculiar and shocking to nature, the murderer is condemned to die the death of a sinner, “without any one to mourn for him,” as in the case of suicide; contrary to their usage toward the rest of their dead, and which may properly be called the death or burial of a Jewish ass.

When they have had success in killing the enemy, they tie fire-brands in the most-frequented places, with grape vines which hang pretty low, in order that they may be readily seen by the enemy. As they reckon the aggressors have loudly declared war, it would be madness or treachery in their opinion to use such public formalities before they have revenged crying blood; it would inform the enemy of their design of retaliating, and destroy the honest intention of war. They likewise strip the bark off several large trees in conspicuous places, and paint them with red and black hieroglyphics, thereby threatening the enemy with more blood and death. The last were strong and similar emblems with the Hebrews, and the first is analogous to one of their martial customs; for when they arrived at the enemies territories, they threw a fire-brand within their land, as an emblem of the anger of _Ash_, “the holy fire” for their ill deeds to his peculiarly beloved people. To which custom Obadiah alludes, when he says (ver. 18.) “they shall kindle in them and devour them, there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau, &c.” which the Septuagint translates, “one who carries a fire-brand.” The conduct of the Israelitish champion, Sampson, against the Philistines, proceeded from the same war custom, when he took three-hundred _Shugnalim_, (which is a bold strong metaphor) signifying _Vulpes_, foxes or sheaves of corn; and tying them tail to tail, or one end to the other in a continued train, he set fire to them, and by that means, burned down their standing corn.

In the late Cheerake war, at the earnest persuasions of the trading people, several of the Muskohge warriors came down to the barrier-settlements of Georgia, {148} to go against the Cheerake, and revenge English crying blood: but the main body of the nation sent a running embassy to the merchants there, requesting them immediately to forbear their unfriendly proceedings, otherwise, they should be forced by disagreeable necessity to revenge their relations blood if it should chance to be spilt contrary to their ancient laws: this alludes to the levitical law, by which he who decoyed another to his end, was deemed the occasion of his death, and consequently answerable for it. If an unruly horse belonging to a white man, should chance to be tied at a trading house and kill one of the Indians, either the owner of the house, or the person who tied the beast there, is responsible for it, by their lex talionis; which seems to be derived also from the Mosaic precept,—if an ox known by its owner to push with its horn, should kill a person, they were both to die the death. If the Indians have a dislike to a person, who by any casualty was the death of one of their people, he stands accountable, and will certainly suffer for it, unless he takes sanctuary.