captives were tortured there.1 Among the Iroquois, says Lafitau, "The warriors have also a separate council for matters which are in their line." 2 The commander-in-chief of the warriors was nominally the Head Chief of the gens. Lafitau says, "The chiefs of the gentes are ordinarily at their head, when they have given proof of prowess in military affairs, and when they are capable of taking command." Nevertheless, the Head Chiefs were, as a usual thing, only the connecting link between the warriors' and the women's clans. Practically, the former recognized as military chiefs those who rendered themselves worthy of the position, being conspicuous for feats of valor, for good conduct, and service. Before the formation of the confederacy, at any rate, no man was recognized as the war chief par excellence, though the common chiefs, who took part in the tribal council, were generally recognized to be conspicuous military leaders. Cusick says that after the formation of the confederacy, when a war was undertaken which involved the whole country, the Bear clans selected the Great Warrior" or commander.5 Mr. Morgan says that there were two permanent war chiefs of the confederacy; one selected from the Wolf, the other from the Turtle Clan of the Senecas." In general, however, Mr. Morgan further says that' “Military operations were usually left to the action of the voluntary principle. . . . Any person was at liberty to organize a war party and conduct an expedition wherever he pleased. He announced his project by giving a war dance and inviting volunteers. This method furnished a practical test of the popularity of the undertaking. If he succeeded in forming a company, which would consist of such persons as joined him in the dance, they departed immediately, while enthusiasm was at its height. When a tribe was menaced with an attack, war parties were formed to meet it in much the same manner. When forces thus raised

66

were united in one body, each was under its own war-captain, and their joint movements were determined by a council of these captains. If there was among them a war chief of established reputation, he would naturally become their leader." Once made up, a war party, whether enlisted for a few days or for several years, formed a most rigid organization. Obedience to their chosen leaders was absolute, and desertion was punished by death.1

On the hunting expedition, the same principle prevailed as upon the warpath. The men's clan in each case was the sovereign body. Government was carried on by a council of the hunters. If any leader was needed, he was chosen for his merits as a hunter. Women, if they accompanied the party, were entirely subordinate to the men.

Evidently, the government of the Iroquois was a government for and by the clans, acting in an assembly composed either of representatives or of all the members of a clan. The latter was so often the case that according to Mr. Morgan :2 "It may be said that the life of the Iroquois was either spent in the chase, on the war path, or at the council-fire. They formed the three leading objects of his existence, and it would be difficult to determine for which he possessed the strongest predilection." "Practically considered," says Schoolcraft, "a purer democracy perhaps never existed. The chiefs themselves had no power in advance of public sentiment."3

The conception of absolute sovereignty resting in the clans need be disturbed in no way by the fact that some authorities speak frequently of the existence of an aristocracy among the Iroquois. Lafitau, for instance, speaks of the order of the "Qesendouáns,' that is to say, noble families." 4 A Jesuit chronicler says, too, that "they have the nobility here as well as in France, and are as proud of it. Again, we find mention of a woman who

...

1 Lafitau, II, 162.

995

66

...

by her noble birth is one of the chief women of Annié . . . one of those who are noble and of high station." The "nobility" here spoken of were, in fact, only the governmental officials of the clans. The offices of chief and councillor, it will be remembered, were usually occupied by members of some particular family. These people inherited office, however, only in the sense that their birth made them ipso facto candidates, but their candidacy had to be approved by the clans and confirmed by an election: before that occurred, their position in the community in no way differed from that of any other member of a clan.

Nevertheless, the Iroquois village was by no means so complete a democracy as Mr. Morgan and others like to picture it. In every Iroquois tribe, a large part of the population was practically disfranchised. It has been shown that sovereignty was in the hands of the clan organization. Now, though every one in the village was associated with some gens, not everyone was a member in full standing of either the male or the female clan of that gens. On the contrary, in every gentile group there were always numbers of captives who, though destined perhaps to full membership in one of the clans, were as yet still in the slave status. About 1680, within a year or two, thirteen hundred such captives were brought in from neighboring tribes.2 Most of these additions to the population were boys and young women and girls. They were given to such gentes as wished to increase their numbers, and in future were regarded as belonging to that particular group, rather as chattels, however, than as members of the organization. The position of these captives was, for a time at least, not at all enviable. The gens to which they belonged would probably protect them from injury from outsiders, but within the gens there was absolutely nothing to guarantee their safety. Possessing no voice in council, and no rights of any kind, they spent their whole time producing for the benefit of their masters. return they received food and shelter as long as they were capable,

1

1 Jes. Rel., LV, 261-263. Cf. XLIII, 299; LVIII, 185.

In

2 Jes. Rel., LXII, 71; XXXVI, 177; XXXIX, 219.

Jes. Rel., XXXI, 53; XXIV, 285.

healthy, and obedient. An unskillful slave was sold for a song,1 and a sick slave was either abandoned or killed outright. The least cause of irritation often resulted in the death punishment. Young women slaves especially were "constantly exposed to danger through the brutal lechery or cruelty of their masters or mistresses The only punishment for even their slightest faults is death," says a Jesuit chronicler. Yet if she escaped all these dangers, a young female captive might in the end hope to marry an Iroquois, and become a matron of equal standing with any other. Similarly, a male captive, after the death of his first owners, might become a freeman, might marry and have children, and in case of great ability, might even become a leader in the community. The Jesuit Relations mention one instance of the latter sort, when speaking of a man " formerly a captive of the Iroquois, and now a captain among them." Just what was the final status of the ordinary captive blessed with no marked ability, is a question hard to decide. Testimony rather goes to show that he never became a clansman in the full sense of the word, since he was never allowed to vote in the council.5 If this is so, then the number of disfranchised among the Iroquois must have been comparatively large. It must be remembered, too, that captive slaves were not the only individuals in an Iroquois village who possessed no share in sovereignty. With the captives must be classed all males who through laziness or some other infirmity of body or of will had fallen out of the warriors' organization

1 Father Bressani says that he was sold cheap (3,000 porcelain beads), because of his lack of skill as a laborer and his ailments. Jes. Rel., XXXIX, 77.

2 Jes. Rel., XLIII, 303.

'Jes. Rel., XLIII, 295. Cf. XLII, 137; XLIII, 299; XLIII, 295"When a Barbarian splits the head of his slave with a hatchet, they say: 'It is a dead dog; there is nothing to be done but to cast it upon the dunghill.''

'Jes. Rel., XLII, 57.

5 Jes. Rel., XLIII, 293: ... those who, having willingly submitted to the yoke of the conquerors . . . have become heads of families after the death of their masters, or have married. Although they lead a tolerably easy life, they are looked upon as slaves and have no voice, either active or passive, in the public councils."

and taken to doing women's work. These effeminate men were not received into the women's clan, but were merely classed with the slaves, and not permitted to exercise the right of suffrage. 1 A sort of temporary slavery was sometimes the fate of the unsuccessful gambler. A man might stake his freedom for two or three years, during which time the other party in the game employed him as a servant. Such a slave was generally well treated and set free again at the end of his term.2

It is clear that all that large portion of the Iroquois population which was debarred from free access to the social surplus, a privilege controlled by clans of which they were not members, were at the same time, ipso facto, kept" without the state." They were a disfranchised class having no share of sovereign power, and no voice in the government of the group to which they belonged. The fact that they were gentiles made no difference in their lot: the essential fact was that they were not members of clans. The clan, then, and not the gens as such seems to have been the political unit in the Iroquois village; that is to say, economic conditions, rather than ties of kinship or religion, decided the form of state and government among the Iroquois.

The position of the Jugglers or Medicine-men in the community, strengthens the hypothesis just stated. These men controlled the access to the supernatural powers without whose favor no activities of the clans could succeed in their purpose; hence, it will be remembered,3 the Jugglers were able to form a separate income class, taking from the clans a part of their surplus; hence, also, they controlled political life to a certain extent, and were able to force their decisions upon the clans. According to the Jesuit Relations, it was "the highest duty of the Captains to obey these impostors."4

1Jes. Rel., XLIII, 293; LVII, 85; Carr, "Mounds," Sm. Inst. Rep., 1891, P. 517.

2 Jes. Rel., XVI, 201.

3 Cf. Ante, Distribution.

4 Jes. Rel., XXIII, 45; XXX, 205.