, RED mom REPLY TO ammo (3%ka
; common TO THE ammmmv or
, commumcmon

Thesis for the Degree of Pix. 9.
MICHIGAN STATE ‘UNWER'SWY
HARRY WILLIAM ROSIE
319}?

 

 

Uri—cu.‘ ‘.h .A _ . ,_ "u .. ., . . ~ . , -' , - -. ,fl .‘ "Hurry ,4 0w “MUN ..',".‘
W” VFW“ KIM “ Wfi‘»\i)’v‘fi‘.‘é~Jana-it?!-"-N-‘vfu' ‘ ‘ mm '.' P. 3?- '-?".-‘ n':'~‘n'-'r'~_< ' '.W ' h“ "”v- , -‘ -‘-" 9“” Hi“! , - ' ‘ , a - ' :-"-‘ “‘3
- <..p¢.. ,_ .‘- ‘ , - . .,. .‘ '
‘-. < -'. ”‘.'”1'0'. «3"» In;-Hnu-u«urn-‘3‘”F'".-.‘-Iu-II-n.,‘u"u ..‘“/ 7 “.".""'..‘. 1-w- n-mnu-nu-ysfi .' "‘ Mo-ulnnt.n'..‘ '.' """"'""""""‘
.' ‘ ..‘ _.._ ‘.un.u . In! u u..- . __ .. ,. ,

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

RED JACKET '3 REPLY TO REVEREND ORAN--
A CONTRIBUTION TO THE ANTHROPOLOGY
OF COMMUNICATION

presented by

Harry William Robie

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Speech

 

 

6649 (fig/4’

Major professor

Dateflfiéfj/ ‘6/72‘2

0-7 639

ABSTRACT
RED JACKET'S REPLY TO REVEREND CRAM—-

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE ANTHROPOLOGY
OF COMMUNICATION

By

Harry William RObie

Previous writers on the subject of American Indian oratory
have tended to classify it as colorful, quaint, and accidental in
character. It has been a matter of some surprise that the Indian
could Speak so well, even when measured against European standards.
This study contends that the speaking of at least one group of Indians,
the Iroquois, was in fact highly structured and the product of a long
and consistent tradition.

The study uses Red Jacket's reply to Reverend Cram, delivered
in 1805 near Buffalo, as its starting point. An examination of cul-
tural factors underlying this performance shows that Red Jacket
achieved prominence solely because of his speaking skill and that he
practiced techniques which had been observed for over 150 years in
other Iroquois spokesmen. His status, moreover, was derived from the
councils whose decisions he articulated. The councils themselves
possessed an intricate structure which promoted unity within the
Iroquois Confederacy.

The Iroquois councils and their Spokesman used indigenous
systems of conflict resolution and persuasion to resist white pressures

before the Revolution and to represent the Confederacy as stronger and

Harry William Robie
more united than it really was. Although their political power was
broken after American Independence, their spokesmen were often used
to resist assimilation and white encroachment. Even today, certain
of the traditional speech forms and practices are employed in main-
taining Iroquois separatism.

The study concludes that Red Jacket was merely one prac-
titioner of a complex school of rhetoric which, though different
from ours, was used to achieve many of the same ends. It suggests
other indigenous schools of rhetoric among "primitive" or non-Western
peoples which would be worthy of study. It also suggests that cross—
cultural comparisons of rhetorical systems may find constants as well

as variables among them.

RED JACKET'S REPLY TO REVEREND CRAM—-
A CONTRIBUTION TO THE ANTHROPOLOGY

OF COMMUNICATION

By
Harry William.RObie

4A THESIS
Submitted to
Midhigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of SpeeCh

1972

(;)Copyright by
' HARRY WILLIAM ROBIE

1972

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Speech,
College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of

Philosophy degree.

 

79' GEM

Director of Thesis

‘ )6 f)
Guidance Committee: MC WA, Chairmen
l I -
s A) I

l ) ’ , '/ ‘
6",” ("Z I] ,- , ' 1/:‘ K < ‘7 ~.

'62L;.’vfit: ”(.6 A '13' A...“

Iv /T I
% VI / “ ..
Lth/CC LL «AK ‘2;

 

 

 

‘-

ACKI\IOWI_.EDGMENTS

My family, most of all, deserves my gratitude. Their sacrifices,
interest, and patience have helped me to see this study through to com—
pletion. They have taught me what a family out to be, and I should like
to admit the fact here publicly.

I acknowledge also the contribution of my academic advisers ,
extending as far back as Mrs. Edith Breckon, who taught me in that little
one-room schoolhouse in Lewiston, New York, and who took me on my first
visits to Iroquois reservations. To Dr. Calvin Smith, English teacher
at Fredonia State College, goes my thanks for setting such high standards
on my Masters paper that I was forced to examine all over again my
approach to written commmication . I thank Dr . Kenneth Hance for having
the necessary faith to accept a real "pig in a poke" into the graduate
program at Michigan State University.

Most particularly, I wish to thank those who have given their
time to serve on my committee. Gratitude must be extended to Dr.

David Ralph, my first speech teacher and chief adviser over the many
years it has taken to complete my program. Two committee members who
have since left the institution, Drs. Robert Wall and Ralph Nicholas,
forced me to pay particular attention in this paper to matters of an
historical and anthropological nature. Finally, thanks are extended to
the present members of my committee: Drs. Jack Bain, Frank Rutledge,

and Gordon Thomas .

ii

There are many others who deserve my gratitude, including the
administration at Southwestern Central sohool, for providing the time
and monetary encouragement, and.the many bemused.librarians who answered
:my questions even.while bewildered by my subject. The librarians at
Midhigan State University, the Buffalo Historical Society, the Lakewood
Memorial Library, and the Library of Congress have been especially help-
ful. My most helpful "librarian," was Mr. Merle Deardorff, whose personal
collection in Warren, Pennsylvania, should be the envy of all those who
engage in Iroquois studies. Thanks also to Mrs. Ruth LangenbaCher, who
typed this study and corrected my errors within a short time period
whidh I know must have caused her~personal difficulties.

Finally, thank you to my sponsors from.the Heron clan of the

Seneca Nation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I HE KEEPS THEM AWAKE . . . . . . . . . 1
II RED JACKET'S REPLY . . . . . . . . . 17
Bemis Text of Red Jacket's Reply to

Reverend Craml. . . 35
Chronological Substance Outline of the Reply . 37
Analysis . . . . #3
III TEXT AND INTERPRETER . . . . . . . . . 56
Is the Text the Best Available? . . . . 58

To What Extent Is the Bemis Text a Faith—
ful Record? . . 67

Is the Translator of the Speedh a Person Who
WOuld Be Apt To Give an.Accurate Rendition

of the Seneca Original? . . . . . . 70
IV THE IMPORTANCE OF CONFERENCE . . . . . . . 79
The Factors Giving Rise to Iroquois
Conference . . . . 81
The Structure of the Iroquois Council . . . 93
The Individual in the Iroquois Council . . . 105
Conclusion . . . . . . . . 111
V THE ORATORICAL TRADITION . . . . . . . . 115
I. July 12,16u5—-Kiotsaeton's Speech to
Montagny and Vimont . . 123
II. September 3,1700--Conference Between
Governor de Callieres and the Iroquois . 131

III. June 10-21, l750-—Speeches Delivered
During the Journey of Brother Canmer-
hoff and David Zeisberger to the
Five Nations . . . . . . . 138

iv

Chapter Page

IV. March 6, 1768-—Conference with Sir

William Johnson . . . . . . . 1%
VI THE CONTINUING TRADITION . . . . . . . . 157
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
1. Buffalo Creek Reservation in 1805.

2 . Relationship of Buffao Creek Reservation to other
Seneca Lands at Beginning of Nineteenth Century.

3. Location of Iroquois Towns: 1600-1687.
Based on Fenton, William N. , "Problems Arising From
the Historic Northeastern Position of the Iroquois,"
in Essays in Historical Anthropolog of North America

 

("Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections," Vol. C
Washington, D.C., 191401), 202.

vi

Page

19

21

8M

CHAPT ER I

"HE KEEPS THEM AWAKE"

During the nineteenth century much of this country's signifi-
cant pUblic Speaking took place in that part of New York State
extending west from1the Finger Lakes to the shores of Lake Erie.

Known as the "burned-over district" as a result of C.G. Finney's inflame
matory preadhing, Central and.Western.New York served as the laboratory
for the development of the revival meeting, the anti-Masonry movement,
Temperance, women's suffrage, and the Grange.1 Here also was muCh of
the popular feeling and oratory on behalf of Abolition.2 The Free and
Wesleyan Methodists, the Mormons, and the Spiritualists began in the
region, and in its westermost part a summer training session fer Sunday
School teachers became the original Chautauqua.3 If popular oratory

did not always possess the formal elegance cultivated in the colleges,u

 

lWhitney R. Cross, The Burned—over District (New York: Harper 8
Row, 1965), pp. 152-153 and im passim.

2Gilbert Hobbs Barnes, The Antislavery Impulse (New York:
Harcourt, Brace 8 WOrld, 1964), imlpassim.

3Arthur E. Bestor, "Chautauqua Institution," in John P. Downs
and Fenwick Y. Hedley, eds., History ofgghautauqua County and Its
People (Boston: American Historical SoCiety, Inc., 1921), I, 32”.

LiMarie HoChmmth and Ridhard Murphy, "Rhetorical and Elocu-
tionary Training in Nineteenth Century Colleges," in Karl R. Wallace,
ed., History of Speedh Education in America (New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, Inc., 195%),'p. 156.

 

 

 

 

1

2
it was nevertheless pervasive throughout the area. Much more than his
twentieth—centtuy counterpart, the average citizen of Upstate New York
in the nineteenth century had the opportunity to form a rougi-and—
ready rhetorical system with which to judge the communicative effec-
tiveness of his contemporaries.

- When certain New Yorkers applied this system, they concluded the
region's most effective Speaker to be, not any participant in one of
the previously cited movements, but rather an American Indian named
Sa—go-ye-wat-ha, or Red Jacket. He was a Seneca, one of the six tribes
which made up the Iroquois Confederacy. Demoralized by the Revolu—
tionary War, when they had sided with the British and seen their
villages destroyed by General Sullivan, the Senecas had resettled in
Western New York by the end of the eighteenth century. Here the tribal
chiefs attempted to continue the old ways and protect their people from
further encroachments by the whites. Red Jacket was one Seneca chief
among many, but he was effectively used as the intermediary between the
tribe and the whites who had already penetrated to New York's Niagara
Frontier. According to a later historian, "the fame of Red Jacket in
the eighteen-twenties resembled that of Clarence Darrow a hundred years
later . . . . The reputation of his untutored oratory and the rebukes
he admfinistered to missionaries were part of the national folklore."5
In 1885, when Red Jacket's body was reinterred by the white community

in Buffalo's Forest Lawn Cemetery, the principal speaker at the

 

5Henry S. Manley, "Red Jacket's Last Campaign," in New York
History (August 19 50) . Unpaginated reprint in Buffalo and Erie C5unty
Publ1c Library, Buffalo, New York.

3
ceremony claimed that the Seneca Chief had "proved.himself the peer of
the most adroit and able men with whom he was confronted."6 Lewis
Henry Morgan, the major authority on the Iroquois Indians, believed
that the Senecas refused Red Jacket their'highest positions because no
one else could counteract his persuasive influence in council, and they
were afraid to grant any single man so mudh power.7 By 1857, when
Frank Moore included three of Red Jacket's Speeches in his American
Elpguence, the Indian orator had been given extended biographical
treatments by M'Kenney, Stone, and Clinton,8 and his addresses had
fermed the major sUbject of two of the first bodks to be published.in

western.New York.9 In Sutton's Speech Index, Red Jadket's name is

 

followed by twenty-two entries, more than fer any other Indian speaker.10

 

6WilliamClement Bryant, “Address at Forest Lawn Cemetery," in
Red Jacket ("Transactions of the Buffalo Historical Society," Vol. III;
Buffalo: 1885), p. 21.

7Lewis H. Mbrgan, League of the Ho—Do-No Sau—Nee or Iroquois
(New York: Dodd Mead and Company, 1901), I, 97-98.

8Moore and the three biographers are given complete citations
in the bibliography.

9See Native Eloquence (Canandaigua, N.Y.: J.D. Bemis, 1811), and
PUblic Speedhes Delivered at the Village of Buffalo (Buffalo: S.H. and
H.A. Salisbury, 1812).

10Sutton's list is restricted to Speech anthologies and is thus
not complete. Other books containing speeches by Red Jacket are listed
in Chapter III of this study. See ROberta Briggs Sutton, SpeeCh Index,
uth ed. (New York: The Scarecrow Press, 1966), p. 6H6. Red JacketTis
Challenged by the citations under Logan, whose Speech to Lord Dunmore
‘was considered by Thomas Jefferson to be suPerior to any passage in the
speedhes of Demosthenes oriCicero. Strictly speaking, however, Logan's
remarks were not a SpeeCh, since they were delivered in private to a
courier. Interestingly, Logan was also an Iroquois. See Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, reprinted in Margaret Mead
and Ruth L. Bunzel, eds., The Golden Age of American Anthropology (New
York: George Braziller, 1960), pp. 78-79.

 

 

 

 

 

 

l4
Appropriately, then, could his name be translated into English as
"He Keeps Them Awake."ll
Red Jacket did not possess the stoicism, courage, or other

qualities associated with the conventional Romantic image of the Noble
Red Man. He was an alcoholic and not always trusted by others of his
tribe. Though a member of the most warlike of the Iroquois , he ran
away from his first battle, and was given the derisive name "Cow Killer"
by Joseph Brant, his Mohawk rival.12 Even the pagan faction of the
Senecas, whom he defended in some of his most stirring speeches, ulti-
mately deposed him, and Handsome Lake , the great Iroquois prophet who
was also Red Jacket's contemporary, consigned him to the Indian Hell

13 The Senecas never be-

for his supposed land dealings with whites.
stowed on him their highest honor, that of Confederacy sachem, and only
unofficially could he represent them in the councils of the Six Nations.

Thus it was as a speaker, and for no other reason, that Red Jacket rose

to national renown. "I am an orator," he is reported to have told a
white man who had asked about his career as a warrior. "I was born an
orator."11+

Described by a man who saw him speak as "a finely built, stout,

stocky man, not tall, with a coal-black piercing eye, well set back,"15

 

llWilliam L. Stone, The Life and Times of Red—Jacket, or Sa-Go—
Ye-Wat—Ha (New York: Wiley and Putnam, 18H1) , p. 1.

lZIbid., pp. 2—3, 19-20.
13

Arthur C. Parker, "The Code of Handsome Lake , the Seneca Prophet,"
("New York State museum Bulletins," No. 163; Albany: 1912), p. 68.

1"Stone, p. 1.
15W. William Hall, letter to the Buffalo Historical Society,

 

5
Red Jacket attracted national attention even though he refused to
speak in English and was a member of a beaten minority whose effec-
tive political and military pcwer~had ceased with the American
Revolution. Moreover, his speeChes were almost exclusively attacks
upon basic white beliefs and institutions. Yet these facts were not
enough to dull the appreciation of an age which reveled in the colore
ful use of the arts of persuasion. Asher~Wright, a Quaker missionary
to the Senecas, aptly summarized Red Jacket's gifts and the source of
his persuasive power:

He was naturally possessed of an active, shrewd, and
penetrating mind, whiCh tOgether with the remarkable
powers of eloquence with whiCh he was endowed, gave
him a great influence among his own nation, which he
continued to exert to the end of his life against what
he considered the intriques of the whites. So sus-
picious was he of their designs that he could never be
brought to look with favor upon any proposition coming
fromlthem.for the improvement of the temporal or
Spiritual condition [of] his peOple.16

Wright then went on to analyze the reasons for Red Jacket's animosity:

He had no respect for the character of the Whites and
no confidence in their professions of respect for him.
He had seen little in his intercourse with themlto
excite his admiration of their virtues. Most of his
associates among them had been of suCh a Character as
to give him.very debasing views of their morality and
his perfect contempt for their principles led hiHItO
regard all the efforts of the benevolent to introduce
among his people the improvements of civilized life
together~with the rich blessings of the gospel, only
as a [---—] artifice to possess themselves of their
lands.17

 

September 2, 1862, in the Society's manuscript collection. The infer-
mation supplied by Hall purports to be based upon first—hand Observation.

16Asher wright papers, Buffalo Historical Society.

l7lpig, Dashes within the brackets represent a lacuna in the

manuscript.

6

This hatred of whites extended to all their works, including religion.
Red Jacket, the missionary concluded, "could not believe it possible
that white men could be actuated by a higher motive than a love for
money."18

Since Red Jacket's Speeches were actuated by his hatred of whites,
and since they were primarily attacks on the white man's religion, law,
and expansionist behavior, it may seem remarkable that his oratorical
gifts should become part of the mainstream of American history, but the
fact remains that they did. Like Francis Wright, Frederick Douglass ,
Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, and the Black Power advocates who followed
him, the Seneca chief is remembered chiefly because he attacked the
basic M of the American Way of Life. And because Red Jacket rose
to prominence directly after the Revolution, he may be said to be the
first orator to do so. In an age like ours , when so many traditional
values are being questioned, his words may well need re-examination.
In addition to his powers of eloquence, his very arguments in defense
of a dissenting way of life may deserve an important place in the study
of American public address.

Yet despite the interest shown in him by anthropologists and
historians, Red Jacket is cm'iously absent from standard histories of

American oratory. He appears in neither the History and Criticism of

 

American Public Address nor Oliver's History of Public Speaking in

 

 

America. The speech journals have ignored him, and he does not appear

in any major way in the few dissertations devoted to Indian speakers,

 

lBIbid.

 

7

speech texts, or rhetorical theory and practice.19 Red Jacket, there-
fore, is in the position of being a popular folk figure who has been
overlooked by scholars in the very field in which he rose to pre-
eminence. His "eloquence" has been accepted but not examined.

From the standpoint of this study, it is important to lmcw that
the writers who have mentioned Red Jacket and others like him believe ,
for the most part, that they were untutored children of the forest
whose oratorical gifts were some happy accident. Partly this belief
has been caused because Red Jacket consciously rejected major aSpects
of Western civilization, but it is also due to the fact that, Since his
Speeches have never been studied from a rhetorical point of view, nor
his historical antecedents traced, the rich tradition of which he was
a part is not generally known. Yet Red Jacket was only one of a long
line of Iroquois orators whose addresses were reported by chroniclers,
historians, and the pOpular press. Even the name "Iroquois," according
to one view, was derived from the way the Six Nations greeted the

20

excellent speaker. As this study will point out, the Iroquois had

 

19These include Nannie Flo Allen, A Study of Rhetorical Style in

Selected Messages of Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee Nation Between
1860 and 1880 (MA, Oklahoma, 19H9),Edna Bryant, Oratory of the U.S.
Indian from 1600 to 1900 (MA, Wayne, 1938), John Edward Coogan, The
Eloquence of our American Indian (Ph.D. , Fordham 193M) , and John—E-r—skine
Hawkins, Oratp_ry of the American Indian (MA, South Carolina, 1925) .
Wynn R. ReynoldE A Study of the Persuasive Speaking Techniques of the
Iroquois Indians: 1678-1776 (Ph.D., Columbia, 19577 stops at the very
threshhold of Red Jacket rs career and will be reviewed in Chapter V.
Reynold' s dissertation presents conclusions about the general nature of
Iroquois speaking which are different from those of this study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0'Ihe derivation appears to have been pOpularized by Schoolcraft ,
who received it from Charlevoix. According to Schoolcraft, the word
"Iroquois" is founded" on an exclamation, or response, made by the

8
highly developed the roles of the conferee and council spokesman.

The Iroquois confederacy was composed of the Senecas , Cayugas ,
Onondagas , Oneidas , Mohawks , and, later, the Tuscaroras . They were
variously Imam as the Five Nations , the Six Nations (after the accep-
tance of the Tuscaroras), the Iroquois, and the Longhouse people. This
last term referred both to their dwelling units and to their conception
of themselves as belonging to one extensive family that inhabited a
metaphorical "longhouse" which was coextensive with the League.
Individually weak and occupying a section of New York State that was
exposed to the attacks of others, the Iroquois had early developed a
conference procedure which enabled them to attain a degree of unity
which other Indian tribes north of Mexico were never able to achieve.21
This conference procedure was already a higily sophisticated method of
social control by the time of the first contact with the white man; it
helped the numerically inferior Iroquois maintain independence through
two centuries of white pressure and extend their influence from Illinois
to the Carolinas; and it has enabled them to maintain a high degree of

cultural autonomy deSpite their present closeness to densely populated

 

saChems and warriors, on the delivery to them of an address." See
Henry R. SChoolcraft, Notes on the Iroqpois: or Contributions to
American History, Antiquities, and General Ethnology (Albany: Erastus
H. Pease 8 Co., 18u7), p. #5.

2LThis assertion will form part of the burden of Chapter V.
George T. Hunt is one historian who believes that the Iroquois were not
as their orators led others to believe. He suggests that the unity of
the Confederacy was largely a fiction successfully maintained by Mohawk
spokesmen. Regardless of Hunt's thesis, the point is that their con-
temporaries were persuaded of the strength of the League. See Chapter V
and George T. Hunt, The Wars of thelroqpois (Madison: The University
of Wisconsin Press), 1940.

 

 

9
Eastern urban centers . Moreover, the Iroquois conference was the neces-
sary stimulus for all of Red Jacket's Speeches.

It was in this role of spokesman, an official reporter of the
results of the Iroquois conference, that Red Jacket excelled, for in
his addresses to white audiences he Spoke as the representative of his
tribe and when, as sometimes happened, he got carried away by his own
eloquence and inserted additional matter, he was corrected by his
Indian listeners.22 Throughout the centuries the Iroquois have held in
high esteem those orators who have delivered the results of their con-
sultations, and public address has been viewed as essential to both
their religious and secular life .23 This oratorical tradition was in
fact necessary to the very formation of the league of the Iroquois.
Father Louis Hennepin, La Salle's Franciscan chaplain and one of the
first Europeans to attend an Iroquois council, wrote that "the senators
of Venice do not appear with a graver countenance and do not Speak with
more majesty and solidity than these old Iroquois,"2u and it was in this
same tradition that Red Jacket Spoke nearly two hundred years later.
Though it has more recently been transformed by the rhetoric of the West,
the oratory of Iroquois spokesmen has been one of the few weapons re—
maining to the six tribes in their resistance to white culture. Now,

midway through the twentieth century, it is still true that literally

 

22Timothy Alden, An Account of Sundy Missions Performed Among
the Senecas and Munsees (New York: J. Seymour, 1827), pp. 91-92.

23Morgan, 1, 101-102.

2”Quoted in Thomas R. Henry, Wilderness Messiah (New York:
William Sloane Associates, Inc. , 1955) , p.739.

 

 

10
dozens of otherwise ordinary people on the principal reservations must

25 The belief that Red Jacket

be Skilled at speaking and oral ritual.
was "untutored," therefore, neglects a rich tradition.

These considerations lead us to believe that Red Jacket is worth
study if three important questions can be answered. First, is his
Speaking of sufficient quality, or significant enough effect, to justify
his receiving more widespread attention from students of public address?
Second, is the Speaking tradition of which he is a part novel enough,
or highly enough develOped, to warrant study by students of rhetoric?
Third, is there value to be derived from studying the commmication
systems of cultures other than our own?

The first two questions will be answered in this study. The
third question has already been answered by leaders in our field.

Recent writers in speech and communication have indicated the importance

of the cultural context in the study of rhetoric and public address.26

 

25On the Alleghany Reservation, for example, De Forrest Abrams,

current lay preacher of the Handsome Lake religion, must have memorized
his sect's entire code, which takes fom? days to recite. Henry Red Eye,
the previous preacher, never used a prompter in his recitations of the
Code, and Abrams seldom needs one. Albert Jones, another Alleghany
Seneca, needed a repertoire of a thousand songs to perform his role as
ritual singer. In addition, each medicine society, the two moieties,
and all eight clans call upon individuals who have memorized complicated
rituals or can speak in public. Political life on the reservation re-
quires still more speakers, both for internal and for League affairs.

26David K. Berlo, The Process of Communication (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1960), pp. 7, 1614-166, and Alfred G. Smith,
Communication and Culture (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. ,
19667, pp. 1, '7. This idea also forms the underlying premise of Robert
T. Oliver's Culture and Communication (Springfield, 111.: Charles C.
Thomas, 19627. On p. 85 of his book Oliver makes the statement that
"every culture has, to some degree, its own rhetoric--often very dif-
ferent from our own."

 

 

11
The 19 70 convention theme of the Speech Communication Association was

27 and an Associa—

" Intercultural—International Speech Commmrnication , "
tion resolution asserted that:

Comrmmication among ethnic, racial, cultural and

national groups is of unique importance to the future

of all peoples in the world. The Speech Association of

Americanshould assign a high priority to furthgjg develop-

ment of its contribution to this communication.
However, in spite of the high priority being given the study of com-
munication in other cultures, few Speech scholars have ventured out-
side the European tradition. As recently as 1968, Dell Hymes could
write that "an anthropology of communication does not exist"?9

This study is being written in the hopes of making a contribu-

tion to that anthropology of communication. Red Jacket began his
career at that precise point in history when the Iroquois were losing
their viability as an independent power on the North American continent.
It would not be easy for any later Indian speaker to reject the influ-
ence of Western civilization the way he did. Furthermore, there is a

great deal of material connected with Red Jacket's career, much of it

written by men who were quite conversant with the Iroquois way of life.

 

27T'he convention had not yet been held when this chapter was

being written. Among many sources, see William S. Howell, "Preview of
the Convention--l970," SEctra, VI (October, 1970), 1. Of the many
sectional sessions planned, the one which seemed most pertinent to this
study was the session on intercultural persuasion.

28mm.
29Dell Hymes, "The Anthropology of Communication," in Frank E.X.

Dance, ed. , Human Communication Theory (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1968), p. 1.

 

 

12
Finally, the Iroquois as a peOple have so interested historians and
anthropologists that they have become the most thoroughly investigated
of Indian societies.30 Since "during the expansion of the power of the
Iroquois . . . there sprang up among them a class of orators and chiefs

31 and since Red

unrivalled among the red men for eloquence in council,"
Jacket was foremost among these, he would be a suitable starting point
for those who believe an anthropology of commmication is possible.

In this study Red Jacket's Reply to Reverend Cram will be used
as the focus. A council address delivered to a missionary at Buffalo
Creek in the summer of 1805, this short statement is Red Jacket's most
anthologized speech, receiving eleven citations in Sutton's bibli-
ography. 32 It has appeared in collections made by Brewer, Depew,
Copeland, Hazeltine, Hurd, Jones, and Shoemaker.33 Although there are
problems connected with the authenticity of the text , these are less
overwhelming than the difficulties associated with many other early
Indian Speeches, and there are a number of details associated with its
delivery which cast light on Red Jacket's skill as a Speaker. Though
there are a number of other Speeches and Speech fragients delivered by

the Indian orator, or associated with his name, the Reply is a good

 

30William N. Fenton, "Problems Arising From the Historic North-
eastern Position of the Iroquois," in Essays in Historical Anthropology
of North America ("Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections ," Vol. C;
Washington: 1940), p. 1959.

31Morgan, I, 52.

32Sutton, p. 61.6.

33211.2. This writer has made an attempt to collate all the texts
listed by Sutton and compare these with other texts. See Chapter III.

 

 

13

example of his anti-missionary oratory, and it‘was this subject matter,
together'with his attacks on the white man's law and greed for land,
which called forth the best of Red Jacket's abilities.

The second Chapter of this study will be devoted to a detailed
analysis of the Reply. The third Chapter~will concern itself necessarily
with problems of translation and authenticity. In the fourth chapter
the subject will be the Iroquois council and conference procedure, for
the council was the essential base for all of Iroquois speaking, and it
was only within this base that Red Jacket would have been allowed to
make his speech. Chapter V deals with the rhetoric, that is, the per—
suasive art, of the council spokesman. Beginning with the broad survey
of Iroquois council oratory made by Roberts, the Chapter surveys the
reported Iroquois tradition whiCh preceded Red Jacket. It breaks with
RCberts, however, by attempting to find a native "systemW of persuasion
underiying this oratory, for RCbert's dissertation concludes with the
affirmation of the belief that Iroquois speaking is "untutored" and
accidental in Structure, a position.whiCh is denied by the very evidence
he has collected. In the final pages of our study we shall examine the
Iroquois speaking tradition since Red Jacket's time and generate
certain conclusions about the possible shape of an anthropology of
communication.

The researCh for these Chapters has already been done in large
part by others. This study is essentially a new synthesis of previous
investigations--it is only the synthesis which can be claimed as the
original work of this writer. .Among the documentary sources to be used

one of the most basic is the Jesuit Relations, a nearly one hundred

 

1”
volume account of French and Indian affairs during the Colonial period.

The Papers of Sir William Johnson are the records of an acute observer

 

who was also English agent to the Iroquois and perhaps the white man
with the greatest influence over them. Less careful observation is

found in in the History of the Six Nations by Cadwallader Colden, a

 

former British governor of New York. O'Callaghan's Documents Relative

 

to the Colonial History of the State of New York provides a most impor-
tant source of material because many of the documents from which it
drew were later destroyed in the New York State Library fire of 1911.
The American State Papers contain official transactions after the
Revolution. Interesting material has been collected in the accounts of
Quaker and Moravian missionaries who began working with the Iroquois
from the middle of the eighteenth century.

For the text of the Reply to Reverend Cram used in the second
chapter of this study, the writer has relied on the first published

text, that of J .D. Bemis' Native Eloquence. Of the full—length bio-

 

graphies of Red Jacket, those by Hubbard and Parker are largely deriv-

ative, and here the best source is William Stone's The Life and Times

 

of Sa-Go—Ye—Wat-Ha, or Red Jacket.

 

Valuable secondary accounts are the works of anthmpologists
who have worked extensively with the Iroquois. Still preeminent in
the field, and a classic of Amsrican social science, is Lewis Henry
Morgan's League of the Ho-Dg-No Sau—Nee or Irogpois. Other books by
Morgan develop ideas first explored in these pages, and a number of
later anthropologists supplement various of its findings . Anne Marie

Shimony's Conservatism at the Six Nations Reserve is the best

 

15
examination of the preservation of traditional elements in modern
reservation life. More useful material is found in the writings of
Hunt, Speck, Goldenweiser, and especially Fenton, dean of all modern
Iroquian researchers. Best of all recent books dealing with the Seneca

is Anthony F. C. Wallace's The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca.

 

The Iroquois themselves have written works illustrative of their

society. David Cusick's Ancient History of the Six Nations is an early

 

legendary history by a Tuscarora Indian. J .N.B. Hewitt and Arthur C.
Parker, who were anthropologists as well as Iroquois , should receive
high marks for their many scholarly endeavors . Jesse Complanter's
Legends of the Longhouse can be used as a check on some of Hewitt's

translations and on Parker's Seneca Myths and Folk Tales.

 

Among modern scholarly publications, Ethno—history and the

 

International Journal of American Linguistics have contained articles
of value. So have the books and bulletins published by the Buffalo
Historical Society, the New York State Museum, and the Bureau of
American Ethnology.

In an historical paper on the Iroquois heavy reliance must be
placed on publications like the above . In any history, however, the
author must in the end rely on his own resources, for other writers,
however thorough, leave certain details and connections incomplete.
History of the "creative imagination" must never be overdone, but as
we come to the second chapter of this study, there are certain pieces
of information that we can supply in no other way. As we project om
selves back to that council in 1805, we must imagine the feelings of

the young and enthusiastic missionary who with great difficulty has

16
been given an Opportunity to win pagan souls from the Devil and the
Quakers. We must see the setting of the council, now the Site of a
Sprawling city, as a place of Open hardwood forests, meadows, and
unpolluted streams--a place where passenger pigeons still flocked by
the millions and Whitefish and sturgeon crowded the nearby lake. We
must see as the missionary's antagonist, not a naive child of the
forest, but a representative of a proud people, a consummate Showman,
a speaker who is ignorant of Aristotle or Cicero yet who has been bred
in a centuries—old tradition for just such events as this. Above all,
we must rid ourselves of that ethnocentric bias which always molds
others in our own image. Only by such acts of the imagination, in the
absence of facts which can be supplied by others, are we able to get

close enough to the Speech which we Shall now begin to examine in detail.

CHAPTER II

RED JACKET'S REPLY

Buffalo Creek Reservation, the site of Red Jacket's Reply to
Reverent Cramu was settled by Seneca colonists shortly after they had
defeated the Neuter*Nation at the beginning of the eighteenth century.1
Mest Senecas, however, remained at their traditional village sites along
the valley of the Genesee River in central New York. After the
Revolution, the Senecas were evicted from.their central New York lands
and migrated.westward from necessity as well as Choice.2 They and
their "sons" the Tuscaroras established numerous settlements along the
portage routes and riCh bottom lands of the Niagara.Frontier. Spe-
cifically, they concentrated near the old portage route around Niagara
Falls, the.Allegheny River, and the valleys of the Buffalo, Tonawanda,
and Cattaraugus Creeks.

Of these settlements, the Buffalo Creek Reservation was the most

important.3 First surveyed in 1798 during the mapping of Western New

 

lFrederick Houghton, "History of the Buffalo Creek Reservation,"
("Publications of the Buffalo Historical Society," Vol. XXIV; Buffalo:
1920), p. nu.

2The earlier history of the Iroquois, the importance of their
orator-SpOkesmen, and the theories relating to the Significance of the
Iroquois in Colonial history will be dealt with in Chapters IV and V
of this study. Here we are concerned.with those time and place factors
necessary to an understanding of the speech.

3Houghton, p. 109.
17

18

York by the Holland Land Company, the Buffalo Creek property was the
largest Single tract still possessed by Iroquoian peoples.” Geo-
graphically, the reservation contained fertile lands and the longest
growing season in western New York. It lay at the entrance to the
Niagara River and offered a natural gateway through the Upper Lakes to
the Northwest Territory. After the Revolution, a homestead.was made at
Buffalo Creek by Sayenqueraghta, a.war chief of the Confederacy,5 and
other important Senecas soon settled there. Only Cornplanter and
Handsome Lake, fromithe Seneca towns along the Allegheny, were to
challenge the political dominance of Buffalo Creek in the affairs of the
Senecatribe.6

The Shape of this most important of Seneca reservations already
gave a hint of its future destruction in the great land grabs of the
1820's and 1830's. A tract of two square miles at the mouth of Buffalo
Creek had been deeded to the whites even before the boundaries of the
reservation had been defined.7 This two mile area.became the future
city of Buffalo, and the growth of this natural gateway to the upper
Great Lakes was already apparent at the beginning of the nineteenth

century. First white settler was Captain WilliamlJohnson, who had been

 

u
5

Ibid.
Ibid., p. 71.

6Cornplanter, the other Confederacy war chief, was perhaps the
most respected Seneca during the period. Handsome Lake, a Confederacy
saChem, was the impetus behind the religious reform movement which bore
his name.

7Wilma Laux, The Village of Buffalo, 1800—1832 (Buffalo: Buffalo

and Erie County Historical Society, 1960), p. H.

 

 

19

[ Buffalo I

I ‘

I. '.n .. o Cree

‘ Uservv ion

\7\

Figure 1. Buffalo Creek Reservation in 1805.

 

 

 

 

 

8

given the land at the mouth of Buffalo Creek by his wife's Seneca rela-
tives.9 Later arrivals were Joseph Ellicott, a developer for the
Holland Land Company, the traders Cornelius Winney and Joseph Hodge,
and the cooper Martin Middaugh.10 By 1805 the village of Buffalo had
grown enough to have received its first doctor and postmaster.11 By
1806 there were sixteen private homes, two stores, two taverns, and a
drugstore.12

The acculturation of the Senecas in the direction of white ways
had proceeded at such a rapid pace during the previous century that
this early white community at the mouth of the creek was not much

different from the settlements on the neighboring reservation. Here too

 

8Houghton, p. 110.

 

9Laux, p. 1+.
lOIbid.
llIbid., p. 6.
12‘”"

Ibid. , p. 7.

20

there was a.heavy reliance on trade goods and cottage industry. Skin
clothing and bone cmnaments had given way to glass beads and woven
cloth, as well as any ready—made garments that struck the Seneca
fancy.13 Primitive agricultural implements had given way to iron tools,.
and the united States government had induced the blaCksmith David Reese
to settle in the Buffalo area so that these tools could be kept
repaired.11+ In 1805 the interpreter JaSper Parrish employed David Eddy
to build a sawmill on Cazenovia Creek, within the reservation itself.15
Partly because of this readily available source of cut timber, partly
because of the weakening of traditional clan ties, the Senecas were
moving out of their communal longhouses to occupy family sized frame
buildings surrounded by individual garden plots.16

There was no need for the newly arrived Senecas at Buffalo Creek
to make a transition to an agricultural economy because they had always
been farmers, relying heavily on such staples as beans, squash, and
corn.17 The area.was still wild enough that these basic foods could be
supplemented without the necessity of raising domestic animals. Within

the reservation itself deer, bear, and squirrels were abundant, and fish

 

l3Houghton, pp. 123-127.

ll“Laux, p. 5.

15Frank J. Lankes, The Senecas on Buffalo Creek Reservation (West

Seneca, N.Y.: west Seneca HiStorical Society, 19697jip. 13.
16Houghton, pp. 117—119.
17Ibid., p. 120. .A more thorough analysis of the interrelation-
ships between Iroquois culture and agricultural practice is contained
in the fourth Chapter of this study.

 

21
could be netted in any of the numerous streams. Passenger pigeons

were still extremely common and were frequent additions to the Seneca

diet. 18

 

 

 

Lake Ontario
:3
Ontario " ‘fiiigzanda
ll
. .‘: . .Er
lake Erie a
‘. :auraugus
O
r4557=<t§%leghany
PennSylvania :3

 

Cornplanter Tract

Figure 2. Relationship of Buffalo Creek Reservation to

other Sepgca Lands at Beginning of Nineteenth
Century.

Possessed of a teChnology the equal of their'white neighbors,

and surrounded by a readily available food supply, the Senecas of Buffalo

Creek were at least as well off as they had been on their traditional
lands along the Genesee River. If any change in their way of life

could be noted, it was the increasingly common predilection fer a frame

 

18Ibid. , pp. 122-123.

lgAnthony F.C. wallace, The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970), from a map preceding the IntroductiOn.

 

22

house just large enough for a nuclear family. In spite of this, how-
ever, and admitting the fact that little individual clearings were
scattered all over the reservation, the Senecas still largely chose to
cluster their homes in clan groupings or around the houses of prominent
members of the tribe. Of these clusters of homes, Houghton writes,
"the most prominent seems to have been that which surrounded the home
of Red Jacket."20

This physical arrangement of dwellings was more significant than
it might first appear, for it was an indication that Seneca society was
under severe pressure. The traditional patterns, threatened since the
first appearance of the white man, had been greatly strained by the
Revolutionary War, when ten percent of the able-bodied Seneca adult

males were killed in battle.21

Equally damaging was the total destruc—
tion of Seneca communities during retaliatory raids by American troops
during 1779. Led by Sullivan, Van Schaick, and Brodhead, Colonial
forces attempted to blunt Iroquois attacks by systematically destroying
two dozen Seneca villages, burning over a million bushels of corn, and
uprooting all orchards and growing crops .22 Although these search—and—

destroy missions did not stop Indian raids on the border, and may even

have encouraged them, the Senecas suffered immeasurably, not so much from

immediate loss of life as from subsequent famine and the severe winter

of 1779—80.23 Although the physical condition of the Senecas had

 

20Houghton , p . llS .
21wailace, p. 19a.
22Ibid.

 

23
improved by the turn of the century, they had been visited by a series
of disease epidemics and.had lost most of their land.holdings.2u
Wallace believes that certain behavior common to Seneca reservations
at the beginning of the nineteenth century, specifically alcOholism,
violence, fear‘of witches, and disunity, was clear evidence of the
kind of social pathology which accompanies cultural disintegration.25

Beset with the effects of war and disease, the Senecas now had
to devise policies which would unify them in such a.way that they could
better‘resist the inroads of white settlers. Under the divided leader~
ship which arose at the scattered reservations, a number of different
responses were made. In general terms, however, two points of view
were develOped among the Senecas, "one advocating the assimilation of
white culture and the other the preservation of Indian ways."26 These
two reactions to white culture would be repeated by tribes throughout
the United States.

Although their'brother Iroquois tribes tended to opt for a pro—
gressive acculturation policy, the Senecas proved to be largely con—
servative. Partly this tendency was due to the historic isolation of
the Senecas as the westernmost Iroquois tribe, but it was also due to
certain of their leadership. While Handsome Lake was rallying the

Indians at Allegheny Reservation through prophecies reformulating their

 

2M
25
’26

Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 199-202.
Ibid., p. 202.

 

2H
ancient religion,27 Red Jacket was being used by the chiefs at Buffalo
Creek to advance a similar point of view. Although their approaChes
were different, the effect adhieved by both men was the advance of con—
servativism.as an effective counterbalance to white culture, including
white religion.
Born sometime around 1758 in what is now Seneca County, New

York,28 Red Jacket was by 1805 the natural Choice of the Buffalo Creek

Senecas when they wished to reply to visiting missionaries.29 There

seems to be no record of his original name, his adult Indian name,

Sa-go-yeewat—ha, having been given himlwhen he assumed the Chieftain—

30

ship of the WOlf clan. Among the whites he was called Red.Jacket

because, according to the Reverend JOhn Breckenridge, a British officer
had once

presented.him1with a ridhly embroidered scarlet jacket

which he todk great pride in wearing. When this was

worn out, he was presented.with another; and.he con-

tinued to wear'this peculiar‘dress until it became a

mark of distinction, and gave himlthe name by Which he

was afterwards best known.31

Later, another red jacket was given himlby the American interpreter,

Jasper Parrish, in order "to perpetuate the name to whiCh he was so muCh

 

27Ibid. , _i_I.n_ passim. See also Chapter VI of this study.

 

28Dictionary of American Biography (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1935),—XV, D37.

29wallace, p. 20H.

30% .1219
31JOhn Breckenridge, cited in George S. Conover, The Birthplace

of Saegoeye-wat—ha.(waterloo, N.Y.: Seneca County New Book and JOb
Printing House, 188”), p. 11.

 

 

25

attached."32

Adways a showman, Red Jacket was probably perfectly aware of the
visibility sudh a garment gave him. Also, it was not impossible that
he found a certain shock value to be derived from wearing something
whiCh his listeners would immediately associate with their'recent antag-
onists during the Revolutionary warn On fOrmal Speaking occasions,
although he infrequently wore a blue or deer-skin coat cut in the
Indian manner, he was most often seen wearing the scarlet jacket.33
Completing his Speaking costume were two other marks of his position-—
a tomahawk and the large silver medallion, now in the Buffalo Historical
Society, whiCh had been given to himlpersonally by George Washington.31+

On that summer morning in 1805, Red Jacket was prdbably already
preparing his reply before the council had even convened. He knew, for
example, that the council was being held so that a missionary could be
introduced to the Seneca. He knew that this meeting was important
enough to require the presence of the government agent and public inter»
preteru These men would not have traveled fifty miles overland unless
the government felt that important business was going to take place.
The principal chiefs of the Seneca would not be called together if they
were only to listen to a few remarks from a visiting dignitary. The

conclusion could be none other than that the government wanted to plant

this missionary permanently on the Buffalo Creek reservation fOr the

 

32Ibid.

33Conover, ibid.

31*Ibid.

 

 

26
purpose of converting the Seneca. As Spokesman for the conservative
faction, Red Jacket would be expected to reply to this request.

Just one account of Red Jacket's speech preparation has been
preserved. Although it is a description of an address he delivered
thirteen years later, what he was doing was recognizable enougi to be
commented upon by one of the white observers . We can assume, therefore,
that what Red Jacket did on this later occasion was fairly typical of
his Speech preparation in general. We are probably justified, then,
in quoting W. William Hall at some length:

I was invited by a friend (the late Gen. Brooks of Mount

Morris), to take a walk with him, as he saw some Indians

not far off. On reaching the Spot, we found a large

number, mostly lying down in a beautiful grove of plum

trees. They were mostly chiefs, Red Jacket being con-—

spicuous, and, with the rest, lying on the grass. My

friend, knowing him, pointed him out to me. He appeared

to be intently engaged and absorbed, and did not look up

or take any account of us. He had before him two piles

of little sticks, three or four inches long. He would

take up a stick and hold it in his fingers a few moments,

and then toss it on the other pile. Presently my friend

says: 'we must go away--Red Jacket is studying his

speech!—-'35
Hall's description is valuable for a number of reasons. First, it puts
us on the alert when we observe preliterate peOples engaged in the act
of formal oral communication. In a later chapter we shall comment on
an earlier researcher in the field of Iroquois public address who
assumed that, because the Iroquois could not write, they did not really

prepare. Yet even though we no longer make much use of the canon of

 

35W. William Hall, manuscript letter to the Buffalo Historical
Society, September 2, 1862.

27
memory, we Should not deny its usefulness to others. In Hall's
account, Red Jacket is obviously rehearsing. Second, we should note
his use of sticks as mnemonic devices. We can guess that each stick
represented a point he wished to remember. Later, we shall see wampum
used in this manner. Presumably such a method might affect the actual
composition of the speech itself. We might expect such a Speech to
contain a number of discrete points not necessarily related to each
other. In addition, it could very well make use of formula "common—
places" particularly suited for insertion into a number of different
addresses. If these are indeed characteristics of Iroquois public
address, and we shall shortly see that they are, then they may be the
result of a Speech preparation method practiced by Iroquois Speakers in
general, and not just by Red Jacket.

But if records describing Red Jacket's speech practices are scant,
they are virtually non—existent for the other principal Speaker at the
conference-~the Reverend Cram. According to Stone , Reverend Cram was a
36

representative of the Evangelical Missionary Society of Massachusetts.

If so, the Society forgot to mention him in its Brief History,37 and

 

the standard geneological sources have also been unproductive. Even
Timothy Alden, founder of Allegheny College and familiar with the entire
evangelical movement on the frontier, left no mention of him in his

published work or preserved papers. Beyond the fact that the Reverend

 

36William L. Stone, Life and Times of Sa-Go—Ye-Wat-Ha, or Red
Jacket (Albany: J. Munsell, 1866), p. 187.

37A Brief History of the Evangelical Missionary Society of
Massachusetts (Boston: 1819).

 

 

 

 

28
Cramlwas "young,"38 we have no definite information about himu although
Stone goes on to add that "his design was to plant a missionary station
among the Senecas, and a council of their Chiefs was convoked at Buffalo
Creek to hear his propositions."39
Only circumstantial evidence ties this missionary to the Reverend
JOhn CIBHlOf Exeter, New Hampshire. His ancestor JOhn Cram was one of

the village's first settlers.”0

In 1755 his father, Wadly Cram, was
listed as a member of the Second Church of Exeter.1+1 Sometime around
the turn of the century this particular Reverend.Cram.married Mary Poor,
the daughter of EnoCh Poor, a.brigadier general in the Continental army.”2
After this, the Reverend Cram.dropped out of sight, but he was still of
the age that he could be described as "young" in the summer of 1805.

we cannot relate the two Reverend Crams with any certainty, how—
ever. Fortunately, we are on more solid ground when listing the other
white participants at the council. Israel Chapin, government agent for
Indian Affairs, was present, as was Jasper Parrish, the government

interpreter.”3 Erastus Granger, a Buffalo resident who served as sUb-

agent for the Buffalo Creek Reservation, was also prdbably present.”Ll

 

38
39

Stone, ibid.
Ibid.

uoCharles Henry Bell, Men and Things of Exeter (Exeter: The News-
Letter Press, 1871), p. 2”.
“Ibid. , p. 66.
. ”zEzra S. Stearns, Genealogical‘and Family History of the State
of New Hampshire (New YOrk: The Lewis PubliShing’Company, 1808), III,
1272—3.

”3Stone, pp. 187-8.
h

 

 

 

LiAt least, this is asserted by a marginal notation contained in

29
The government agent introduced Cram to the assembled Senecas
in the following words:

Brothers of the Six Nations: I rejoice to meet you at
this time, and thank the Great Spirit that he has pre—
served you in health, and given me another Opportunity
of taking you by the hand.

Brothers: The person who site by me is a friend who has
come a great distance to hold a talk with you. He will
inform you what his business is, and it is my requegt
that you would listen with attention to his words .”

In this introduction, Chapin made use of two formulas which we will
find common to Iroquois oratory. First he thanks the Great Spirit for

allowing the council to be held.Ll6

Second, he requests the attention of
the council. He introduces each section with the expression "Brothers,"
a device used to indicate the major divisions of an Iroquois speech,
much as we use paragraphing in our written communications. In doing so
he performs the ritual function of sponsor, for unauthorized persons
cannot address the council Lmless, as in this case, they do it through

an intermediary . ”7

 

the manuscript box entitled "Indian Speeches," in the collection of the
Buffalo Historical Society. The same anonymous writer adds that Chapin
arranged the audience with Cram with difficulty and asserts that he was
the one who wrote down Red Jacket's speech. For Chapin's relationship

with J .D. Bemis, the subsequent printer of the Speech, see Chapter III

of this study.

”SStone, p. 188.

”BThat it really is a formula seems obvious when we stop to
think how incongruous a reference to the Great Spirit is in the intro—
duction of a Christian missionary. Note how this formula is changed
when used next by Cram and after that by Red Jacket.

wRed Jacket himself frequently served as Sponsor or spokesman
for the warriors and women. See the diagram of communication flow in
council meetings, after Shimony, in Chapter IV of this study. Although
the political structure of the Seneca Nation is considerably different
at the present time, the custom still obtains at ceremonial occasions.
At the Midwinter Festival at Allegheny this year, a number of women,

30
After Chapin's introduction, Cram stated his business:

My friends: I amlthankful for the Opportunity afforded
us of uniting together at this time. I had a great
desire to see you, and inquire into your state and
welfare. For this purpose I have travelled a great
distance, being sent by your old friends, the Boston
Missionary Society. You will recollect they formerly
sent missionaries among you, to instruct you.in religion,
and labor for your good. Adthough they have not heard
from.you for a long time, yet they have not fOrgotten
their brothers, the Six Nations, and are still anxious
to do you good.

Brothers: I have not come to get your lands or your
money, but to enlighten your minds, and to instruct you
how tO‘worship the Great Spirit agreeably to his mind
and will, and to preach to you the gOSpel Of his son
Jesus Christ. There is but one religion, and but one
way to serve God, and if you do not embrace the right
way you cannot be happy hereafter. You have never
worShipped the Great Spirit in a manner acceptable to
himu but have all your lives been in great errors and
darkness. To endeavor to remove these errors, and open
your eyes, so that you might see clearly, is my business
with you.

Brothers: I wish to talk with you as one friend talks
with another; and if you have any objections to receive
the religion which I preach, I wish you to state them;
and I will endeavor to satisfy your minds and remove the
Objections.

Brothers: I want you to Speak your minds freely: for I
wish to reason with you on the subject, and, if possible,
remove all doubts, if there be any on your’minds. The
subject is an important one, and it is of consequence that
you give it an early attention.while the offer is made
you. Your friends the Boston Missionary Society will
continue to send you good and faithful ministers, to
instruct and strengthen you in religion, if, on your part,
you are willing to receive them.

Brothers: Since I have been in this part of the country,
I have visited some Of your small villages, and talked
with your people. They appear‘willing to receive instruc—
tion, but as they look up to you as their older brothers
in council, they want first to know your Opinion on the
subject. You have now heard what I have to propose at

 

particularly clan mothers, had business to present to the group. How—
ever, they never spoke directly. Instead they whispered the information
to a male, who then presented it aloud.

31

present. I hope you.wi11 take it into consideration,
and give me an answer befOre we part.

Before we pass on to a brief analysis Of Cramfs remarks, it
should be noted that he was not the first to urge the Senecas to adopt
the blessings of the Christian religion. French missionaries had.had
a limited success in converting other‘Iroquois tribes 150 years pre—
viously.”9 In 1789, Secretary Of War Henry Knox made it a cornerstone
of Federal policy to include missionaries as part of the government's
"civilization" process on the reservations.50 Short of its own fUnds
for the purpose of meeting treaty commitments with the Iroquois, the
government turned to missionaries frcmlexpediency as well as choice.51

Except for the soft-sell tactics of the Society of Friends, how—
ever,52 the efforts of the missionaries were not particularly suc-
cessful. .A major reason for this was that the Iroquois were generating
new religious responses of their own to cope with the problems caused
by the disintegration of their traditional society. In the fall of
1798, a young MOhawk on the Grand.River Reservation in Canada fell into
a trance and.SpOke with the Great Spirit. Awakening, he renewed the Old
white-dog ritual, whiCh had fallen into disuse.53 The revival of the
ceremony spread to many other Iroquois reservations and.was widely cele—

brated even by apostates from the Christian faith.Bu Three years later,

 

”83tone, pp. 18809.

ugSee Chapter III for some of their accounts.

50Wa11aoe, p. 218.

51Ibid., p. 219—20.
52Stone, p. 185.
SHWflJace,IL 207.

5”Ibid., p. 208.

32
a Seneca council at Buffalo Creek granted almost dictatorial powers
in matters of religion to the Allegheny Reservation prophet , Handsome
Lake.55 In religion, at least, "a true renaissance occurred on many

of the reservations in the years between 1799 and 1815."56

Any mis—
sionary who discounted the fOrce Of paganism.during this period would
be making a mistake.
The Reverend Cram, it seems, made precisely this kind of mistake.

"There is but one religion, and but one way to serve God," he tells the
council, "and if you do not embrace the right way, you cannot be happy
hereaftern You.have never worshipped the Great Spirit in a manner
acceptable to himu but have all your lives, been in great errors and
darkness." Such words were anything but conciliatory and cannot have
set well with the Senecas, especially in the wake Of the new pagan
revival. Nor did the words deal adequately with the thrust Of the new
paganism. Handsome Lake was telling his peOple that they could not
worship the same as the white men because they were SO different from
the White men. Over and over again, this argument appeared in the
speeches Of Red Jacket. According to Stone,

his language was, that the Great Spirit had formed

the red and white men distinct——that there was no

more reason why the two races Should profess the

same religious creed, than that they should be the

same color. The Indians, he held, could not be

civilized; and he had now become anxious not only

to resist all farther‘innovations upon their manners,
but that their ancient customs Should be restored.5

 

55Ibid., pp. 259-60.
5611mm, p. 303.

57Stone, p. 185.

33
As Red Jacket was later to say to the Reverend Alexander from the New
York Missionary Society, "We believe that forms of worship are indif-
ferent to the Great Spirit-—it is the Offering Of a sincere heart that

pleases him. "58

And, as we shall see later when we examine his Speech,
Red Jacket was convinced that the white man could never be sincere.
Along with the mistake he made regarding the strength and direc—

tion of the Seneca religion, the Reverend Cram also gave evidence in
his Speech of the commission Of an impropriety. He had already tried
to preach at Buffalo Creek before receiving permission from the council.
"I have visited some of your small villages, and talked with your
people," he says. Yet he has been rebuffed--"as they look up to you as
their Older brothers in council, they want first to know your Opinion on
the subject." It seems, then, that the ordinary Seneca was not going to
listen without Cram's receiving permission from their chiefs, and per-
haps by not receiving this permission in the first place, he had
alienated certain council members. Certainly, if we can believe Stone's
anonymous informant, this earlier preaching had done no good:

It has been asserted Of Mr. Cram that his first, or

at least an early sermon to the Indians, was exactly

such as a wise man would never have preached to such

a congregation. Instead of being a Simple discourse,

brought down to the level of their . . . minds, pre-

senting to them the elementary principles of Chris-

tianity in their Simplest and most winning forms, the

missionary, according to tradition, gave them a long
argumentative sermon upon the doctrine Of divine

 

58Bemis, "Speech of Red Jacket in Answer to a Speech of the
Rev. Mr. Alexander . . ." ibid.

 

31+

decrees, and thE deep mysteries of fore—knowledge and
predestination. 9

If this recollection is accurate, concludes Stone, then
a more repulsive theme, even for many enlightened
congregations reared in the bosom of the church, could
have hardly have been selected; but that it was chosen
as the ground-work of an introductory discourse to
these simple children of the forest, argues a want Of
common sense almost too great for human credulity.

One must also wonder about Cram's invitation to debate the merits
of the Christian faith. It is a bit of folk wisdom which suggests that
politics and religion are not debatable. Luther did not have much
success with the same strategy, nor did the Jesuit Desideri, who had
tried the same ploy with the Tibetans during the eighteenth century.

In any case, the Iroquois council was no place to engage in debate on
any issue.61 Red Jacket, in his reply to Cram, would issue a final
statement, not an invitation to argument.

After Chapin's Opening speech and Chapin's rehearsal of his
reasons for asking the council tO be called together, it was Red jacket's
turn to answer for the Senecas. "After about two hours consultation

among themselves ,"62

the chiefs permitted him to Speak. The text of
that Speech occupies the next pages of this study. It is printed in

two forms: first, a reproduction of the Bemis text of the speech; and

 

 

5gThis informant was "a distinguished gentlemen, of high char-
acter and intelligence, then a resident of the Seneca country." Stone,
p. 195.

60Ibid.

61

In fact, the council had many constraints built into it whose
purpose was to minimize debate. See Chapter IV of this study.

62Bemis .

35

63

second, a chronological substance outline of that text. The remainder

of this chapter will then be devoted to an analysis Of the Speech.

Bemis Text of Red Jacket's Reply to Reverend Cram

 

Friend and Brother; it was the will of the Great Spirit that we
Should meet together this day. He orders all things, and has given us a
fine day for our Council. He has taken His garment from before the sun,
and caused it to Shine with brightness upon us. Our eyes are opened,
that we see clearly; our ears are unstopped, that we have been able to
hear distinctly the words you have Spoken. For all these favors we
thank the Great Spirit; and Him only.

Brother; this council fire was kindled by you. It was at your
request that we came together at this time. We have listened with
attention to what you have said. You requested us to Speak our minds
freely. This gives us great joy; for we now consider that we stand up
right before you, and can Speak what we think. All have heard your
voice, and all speak to you now as one man. Our minds are agreed.

Brother; you say you want an answer to your talk before you
leave this place. It is right you Should have one, as you are a great
distance from home, and we do not wish to detain you. But we will first
look back a little, and tell you what our fathers have told us, and what
we have heard from the white people.

Brother; listen to what we say.

There was a time when our forefathers owned this great island.
Their seats extended from the rising to the setting sun. The Great
Spirit had made it for the use of Indians. He had created the buffalo,
the deer, and other animals for food. He had made the bear and the
beaver. Their skins served us for clothing. He had scattered them over
the country, and taught us how to take them. He had caused the earth
to produce corn for bread. All this He had done for His red children,
because He loved them. If we had some diSputes about our hunting ground,
they were generally settled without the Shedding of much blood. But an
evil day came upon us. Your forefathers crossed the great water, and
landed on this island. Their numbers were small. They found friends
and not enemies. They told us they had fled from their own country for
fear Of wicked men, and had come here to enjoy their religion. They
asked for a small seat. We took pity on them, granted their request;
and they sat down amongst us. We gave them corn and meat; they gave us
poison in return.

 

63The next chapter of this study explains why this is the best
available version Of the Speech.

36

The white people had now found our country. Tidings were
carried back, and more came amongst us. Yet we did not fear them. We
took them to be friends. They called us brothers. We believed them,
and gave them a larger seat. At length their numbers had greatly
increased. They wanted more land; they wanted our country. Our eyes
were Opened, and our minds became uneasy. Wars took place. Indians
were hired to fight against Indians, and many Of our people were
destroyed. They also brought strong liquor amongst US. It was strong
and powerful, and has slain thousands.

Brother; our seats were once large and yours were small. You
have now become a great people, and we have scarcely a place left to
spread our blankets. You have got our country, but are not satisfied;
you want to force your religion upon us.

Brother; continue to listen.

You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the
Great Spirit agreeably to his mind, and, if we do not take hold Of the
religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter.
You say that you are right and we are lost. How do we know this to be
true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it
was intended for us as well as you, why has not the Great Spirit given
tO us, and not only to us, but why did he not give to our forefathers,
the knowledge of that book, with the means Of understanding it rigitly?
We only know what you tell us about it. How Shall we lmow when to
believe, being so Often deceived by the white people?

Brother; you say there is but one way to worship and serve the
Great Spirit. If there is but one religion; why do you white people
differ SO much about it? Why not all agreed, as you can all read the
book?

Brother; we do not understand these things.

We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers,
and has been handed down from father to son. We also had a religion,
which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us
their children. We worship in that way. It teaches us to be thankful
for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united.
We never quarrel about religion.

Brother; the Great Spirit has made us all, but He has made a
great difference between his white and red children. He has given us
different complexions and different customs. To you He has given the
arts. To these He has not Opened our eyes. We know these things to be
true. Since He has made so great a difference between us in other
things; why may we not conclude that He has given us a different
religion according to our understanding? The Great Spirit does right.
He knows what is best for his children; we are satisfied.

37

Brother; we do not wish to destroy your religion, or take it
from you. We only want to enjoy our own.

Brotherg we are told that you.have been preaChing to the white
peOple in this place. These peOple are our neighbors. we are
acquainted with themh we will wait a little while, and see what
effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good,
makes themthonest, and less disposed to cheat Indians; we will then
consider again of what you have said.

Brother; you have now heard our answer‘to your talk, and this
is all we have to say at present.

As we are going to part, we will come and take you by the hand,
and hOpe the Great Spirit will protect you on your journey, and return
you safe to your friends.

Chronological Substance Outline of the Reply6H

 

Introduction

 

A. Friend and Brother:

I. It was the will of the Great Spirit that we Should
meet together this day.

II. He orders all things and has given us a fine day
for our Council.

a. He has taken his garment from before the
sun, and caused it to Shine with bright—
ness upon us.

b. Our eyes are Opened, that we see clearly;
c. our ears are unstopped, that we have been

able to hear distinctly the words you have
Spoken.

 

6”This chronological substance outline is a rewriting Of the
Bemis text in such a way that its organization becomes more obvious.
In the analysis which fOllows, various phrases will be referred to
according to the numbers in the right hand column.

38

III. For all these favors we thank the Great Spirit; and
HIM gnly.
B. Brother;
I. this council fire was kindled by you. It was at
your request that we came together at this time.
II. we have listened with attention to what you have
said.
III. You requested us to speak our minds freely. This
gives us great joy;
a. fOrvwe now consider that we stand up
right before you,
b. and can Speak what we think.
TV. All have heard your voice,
a. and all speak to you now as one man.
b. Our minds are agreed.
C. Brother;
I. you say you‘want an answer to your talk before you
II. It is right you should have one,
a. as you are a great distance from home,
b. and we do not wish to detain you.
III. But we will first look back a little Transition

 

a. and tell you.What our fathers have told us,

b. and.what we have heard from the white
peOple.

Body

Brother; listen to what we say.

A. There was a time when our fOrefathers owned this great
island. Their seats extended from.the rising to the
setting sun.

1.

The Great Spirit had made it for the use of Indians.

10

ll

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

29

25

26

39

a. He had created the buffalo, the deer, and other
animals for food.

b. He had made the bear and the beaver.
1. Their skins served us for clothing.

11. He had scattered them over the country,
and taught us how to take them.

c. He had caused the earth to produce corn for
bread.

d. All this He had done for his red children,
because He loved them.

If we had some diSputes about our hunting ground, they
were generally settled without the shedding Of much
blood.

But an evil day came upon us. Your forefathers crossed the
great water, and landed on this island.

1.

2.

Their numbers were small.

They found friends and not enemies.

They told us they had fled from their own country
for fear of wicked men, and had come here to enjoy
their religion.

They asked for a small seat.

We took pity on them, granted their request; and they
sat down amongst us.

We gave them corn and meat; they gave us poison in
return.

The white people had now found our country.

1.

2.

Tidings were carried back, and more came amongst us.
Yet we did not fear them.

a. We took them to be friends.

b. They called us brothers.

c. We believed them, and gave them a larger seat.

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

39

35

36

37

38

39

1+0

1&1

1+2

H3

Lw.

1+5

1+6

D.

E.

1+0

3. At length their numbers had greatly increased. They
wanted our country .

Our eyes were Opened, and 01m minds became uneasy.
1. Wars took place.
a. Indians were hired to fight against Indians,
b. and many Of our people were destroyed.
2. They also brought strong liquor amongst us.
a. It was strong and powerful,
b. and has Slain thousands.
Brother;

1. our seats were once large Internal Summary
and yours were small.

 

2. You have now become a great people, and we have
scarcely a place to spread our blankets.

3. You have got our country, , Transition
but are not satisfied;

 

11.. you want to force your religion upon us.

II. Brother; continue to listen.

A.

You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship
the Great Spirit agreeably to his mind,

and, if we do not take hold of the religion which you
white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter.

1. You say that you are right and we are lost.
2. How do we know this to be true?
We understand that your religion is written in a book.

1. If it was intended for us as well as you, why has
not the Great Spirit given

a. to us,

b. and not only to us, but why did he not give
to our forefathers ,

“:7

ma

119

50

51

52

53

51+

55

56

57

58

59

6O

61

62

63
61+
65

66

67

68

H1

the knowledge of that book, with the means of
understanding it rightly?

2. we only know what you tell us about it.

3. How shall we know when to believe, being so Often
deceived by the white people?

Brother;

1. you say there is but one way to worship
and serve the Great Spirit.

2. If there is but one religion; why do you white
people differ so muCh about it?

3. Why not all agreed, as you can all read the book?
Brotherg we do not understand these things.

we are told that your religion was given to your
fOrefathers, and has been handed down from.father

to son.

1. We also had a religion,

a. which was given to our fOrefathers,

b. and has been handed down to us their
Children.

2. we worship in that way.
3. It teaches us

a. to be thankful fOr all the favors we
receive;

b. to love each other,

c. and to be united.
H. we never quarrel about religion.
Brother;
1. the Great Spirit has made us all,

a. but He has made a great difference
between his white and red Children.

69

7O

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

8Q

85

86

87

88

U2

b. He has given us different complexions
and different customs.

I. To you he has given the arts.
II. To these he has not Opened our eyes.
c. We know these things to be true.

2. Since He has made so great a Internal Summary

 

difference between us in other

things, why may we not conclude

that He has given us a different

religion according to our understanding?
3. The Great Spirit does right.

a. He knows what is best for is Children;

b. we are satisfied.

 

H. Brother;
1. we do not wish to destroy Purpose Sentences
your religion, or take it
from.you.

2. We only want to enjoy our own.

Conclusion

 

Brother;

I. We are told that you have been preaching to the
white people in this place.

a. These people are our neighbors.
b. We are acquainted with them.

11. We will wait a little while, and see what
effect your preaChing has upon them.

III. If we find it does them good,
a. makes them honest
b. and less disposed to Cheat Indians;

we will consider again of what you have said.

89

90

91

92

93

9M

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

100

105

106

107

108

93

B. Brother; 109
I. you have now heard our answer to your talk, 110
II. and this is all we have to say at present. 111
III. As we are going to part, we will 112
a. come and take you by the hand, 113
b. and hope the Great Spirit will 11a
1. protect you on your journey, 115
2. and return you safe to your friends. 116
Analysis

Red Jacket's Reply to Reverend Cram contains parts which could
have been prepared in advance. we shall see later that certain
passages are fOrmulas whiCh may have been used with only minor variations
in nearly every speaking Situation. Other sections, however, must have
required considerable discussion in the twoéhour council whiCh preceded
the SpeeCh. To see why, we Should look briefly at the history of Chris-
tian missionary activity among the Senecas.

As the westernmost Iroquois tribe, the Senecas were not exposed
to as muCh missionary influence as the other members of the Confederacy.
FrenCh Jesuits were the first to reaCh them. In 1657 Father Chaumonot
was assigned to their territory but Spent most Of his time among the

65

Hurons and Wenroes whom the Senecas had captured. Two other Jesuits

66

lived among themlbriefly but were expelled in 1680. From this point

 

65Houghton, p. 132.
66

Ibid.

 

an
on FrenCh influence was at an end.

English-Speaking, Protestant missionaries arrived.mmch later.
In 1788 the Reverend Samuel Kirkland.was flatly refused permission to
pieaCh by Seneca leaders.67 In the fall Of 1800 Elkanah Holmes made a
more concerted effort, and he actually was sponsored by Red Jacket in
his first sermon befOre a large group of Senecas at Buffalo Creek.68
At first glance, Holmes would have seemed to have had every Opportunity
for success, because the Indians were still reeling from the pressures
Of war, deportation, famine, Sickness, and social disintegration, and
presumably they would.have been attracted to a redemptive, integrating
religious belief. By 1803, however, when Holmes established his perk
manent missionary station in western New York, he placed it on the

69 Most of the

Tuscarora reservation instead of at Buffalo Creek.
Senecas were no longer'willing to listen to him. Two reasons can be

advanced for this change in policy.

First, most members of the tribe were incapable of separating
the white man from the white man's religion. When Holmes first visited
Buffalo Creek, he was confronted at a public meeting by Farmer's
Brother, at that time the most influential Chief on the reservation.

At the close Of the meeting, Farmer”s Brother

made a long speech in whiCh he spoke in a very
discouraging manner Of the attempts which had been

 

67Ibid.

68Ibid., p. 191. This did not mean, however, that Red Jacket
was originally inclined toward Christianity. He was pertOrming a
function, not stating a conviction.

69Ibid., p. 1H2.

 

us

made to educate his grandson after the white man's
fashion. The boy had been sent to Philadelphia
where he was to have remained for five years,
learning the ways of white men. His grandfather
visited himlthere at the end Of two years when the
boy was about thirteen years Old, and he was

Shocked to find.him gambling there in a tavern in
company with lewd women. He considered this an
example Of what might be expected should the Senecas
decide to receive missionaries. 0

But the Senecas Of course had more evidence than that provided by
Farmer's Brother's precocious grandson. Government policy seemed SO
intertwined.with missionaries that Cramthimself'had to tell the Council
of 1805 that he had not come for their lands or their'money. Buffalo
Creek residents, however3 remained largely unconvinced. It was the
white men and not the Senecas, they felt, who needed salvation. As Red
Jacket later~remarked to Dr. Breckenridge,

if you.white men murdered the Son of the Great

Spirit, we Indians had nothing to do with it,

and it is none of our affair. If he had come

among us, we would not have killed himu we

would have treated.him1well; and the white

people who killed him ought to be damned for

doing it. Ypu.mmst make amends fOr that crime

yourselves.
If Red Jacket missed the point of Christ's suffering, he and other
Senecas were essentially correct in viewing Christianity as something
that would corrode Indian patterns of living. Time and again, mission—
aries were the first step in a sequence whiCh led to increasing fac-
tionalism, a breakdown in unified tribal policy, and eventual land

grabs.72

 

7OIbid. °
71Stone, p. 197.
72Among others see Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr., "Protestants, Pagans,

 

#6

Eventually this same sequence would.reaCh the Senecas, when converted
tribal members voted against the others to sell Buffalo Creek.73

Equally important as a block to missionary success was the
Spreading of the Good News by Handsome Lake. Possessed of the most
prestigious name in the Seneca tribe,7u Handsome Lake was nevertheless
a ne'erudo-well who suffered fromlboth Chronic alcOholismland a.wasting
disease which was probably tuberculosis. In 1800 he died, but in pre-
paring his body fOr burial one of his relatives noticed that he was not
yet cold. During the next twenty-four hours this warmth gradually
spread.throughout'his whole body, and he awoke to tell his auditors Of
a vision involving fOur messengers, sent frtmlthe Great Spirit, who
saved his life so that he could tell all Indians how they should order
their lives.75 Though it met pockets of resistance, the Good News
preached by Handsome Lake Spread like wildfire among the Iroquois. It
gave them a means to re-order their society and a doctrine which could
serve as a viable alternative to Christianity and white culture. Today
half the Iroquois are still adherents of Handsome Lake.

In his reply to Reverend Cram, Red Jacket reflects both mistrust

Of white religion and pride in a separate Indian religious practice.76

 

and Sequences Among the North American Indians, 1760-1860," Ethnohistory,

x (Summer, 1963), 201-232.
73Houghton, p. 199.
79

Ibid., p. 139.
75

Arthur*C. Parker's translation Of the Code of Handsome Lake is
printed in New York State Museum Bulletin NO. 163, previously cited in
this study. Also cited have been two full length treatments of Handsome
Lake: Thomas R. Henry's Wilderness Mgssiah and Anthony F.C. Wallace's
The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca.

76

 

 

 

Once again, however, remember he is a spokesman, reflecting the

H7
Handsome Lake's refOrms over the previous five years had revitalized
the Old beliefs. It was fromlwithin this framework that Red Jacket
Spoke. The Good News is implied not only in the ideas expressed, but
in the very structure Of the Speech.

Cramlpicbably recognized that Red Jacket's introduction and
conclusion were Old formulas, or commonplaces, in which the Speaker
invoked the Great Spirit, thanked Him.fOr allowing the participants tO
meet in council, and asked for the protection of the participants on
their return.home. The religious systemlwhich Red Jacket defended, in
other'words, was implicit in the very structure of the SpeeCh. Earlier,
when Chapin had introduced.Cram1to the council, he had made use of this
same formula. Cram, however, had not—-instead Of invoking a diety he
had merely expressed gratitude at being present at the meeting. Since
Cram did not use the Obligatory opening, and Red Jacket persisted in
doing SO, the missionary was probably aware fromtthe very beginning that
his requests were going to be rejected.

Prayers of gratitude were deeply ingrained in the Seneca. In
every day life they greeted eaCh other'with an expression meaning, "I
thank the Great Spirit I see you alive and in health," and every meeting
began and ended with prayer.77 In the context of Red Jacket's reply use
Of these commonplaces took on added meaning. The debate whiCh Cram had
wanted would be fruitless because the two Speakers were operating with

two entirely different sets of premises. Anyone who invoked the Indian

 

consensus Of the council.
77Houghton, pp. 129—130.

48
God could hardly be expected to admit later that he did not exist.

The other formula appearing in Red Jacket's Reply was the use
Of the word "Brother." This served two purposes: first, it established
the degree of social distance desired between speaker and audience;78
and second, it signified the important divisions in the Speech itself.
Red Jacket uses it to point out the three major sections of the intro—
duction: (1) the formula thanking the Great Spirit, lines 1 through 7;
(2) the reason why the council was convened, lines 8 through 15; and
(3) the type of answer which should be expected, lines 16 through 23.
"Brother" is used nine more times in the course of the speech, in each
instance to indicate a major thought division. AS function words are
used in language to indicate the uses to which other words are put, so
does "Brother" serve as a rhetorical marker. It points out to the
auditor that a major transition or new idea is about to occur.

The body of Red Jacket's Speech is in two major sections, each
followed by an internal summary. In the first, extending from line 24
through line 54, he traces the historical relationships between Indians
and whites . Here he points out that the country was originally intended

by the Great Spirit "for the use of Indians.”9 But because they were

 

78"Brother" implies a social equal. In council the Iroquois
moieties and tribes were divided into "elder" and "younger" brothers.
Client tribes often addressed the Iroquois in council as "uncle." A
more thorough discussion of ritual use of kinship terms is contained
in Chapter IV of this study.

7gCram tries to anticipate this argument, but it is virtually
impossible to disassociate the land from a discussion of religion. The
Indians who follow Handsome Lake believe the Earth is 01m mother as
strongly as Christians believe Christ died for our Sins. When Robert
Moses or the Army Corps of Engineers takes a piece of reservation

1+9
unselfish and trusting, Indians Shared their 1and.with the Whites, who
turned out to be selfish and devious. The whites have stolen the land.
In return fOr food, they have given the Indians liquor, WhiCh has
"Slain thousands." In the second section (lines 60 through 92) Red
Jacket answers Cramis Specific claims. Since white men have proven they
cannot be trusted, he argues, how can Cramibe believed.when he says there
is but one way to worShip God? Further, the Great Spirit would have
provided this religion to the Indians had they needed it, just as He has
provided everything else. Finally, even White men disagree about religion,
even though they have received it frcmlthe same book. In contrast, Indian
religion, which teaches thankfulness and love, does not cause disagreement.
The Great Spirit has provided a different religion fOr'white men and
Indians, just as he has made differences in other things. Since the Great
Spirit "knows what is best fOr~hiS children," we Should be satisfied with
what he has done.

In his conclusion Red Jacket tells Cram that the Senecas will
wait to see what kind Of impression the missionary's words have on the
white people who surround the reservation. If the white people Show any
improvement, then the Indians will listen again to what the missionary
has to say. At the very end of the SpeeCh (lines 109 through 116) Red
Jacket reverts to the traditional closing formula and asks the Great
Spirit to protect Cram on his journey home.

Throughout his SpeeCh Red Jacket advanced five major claims of his

own and sought to refute the one major claim earlier presented by Cram.

 

property, it is viewed quite literally as rape. Monetary compensation
fti1the property, Obviously, cannot assuage this feeling.

50
In order Of their appearance, they are:

First claim: it was the will of the Great Spirit that we
should meet together this day.

Second claim: you have asked us to Speak our minds freely.

Third claim: this island was given to the Indians by the
Great Spirit.

Fourth claim: the whites unjustly took the land from the
Indians.

Fifth claim: Cram's claim that there is but one true
religion is incorrect.

Sixth claim: it is best for Indians to maintain their
own religion.

leaving aside the fifth claim for the moment, we find that Red Jacket's
arguments fall into two major classes: (1) those which presume from
the very beginning that the Indian cause is just, and (2) those which
advance this cause.

The first class includes the first and second claims. By
assuming that the council could only be held under the auspices of the
Great Spirit, and that the Indians did not have to conciliate, but only
speak what they really felt, Red Jacket won for himself the right to
uphold the Seneca position by a direct attack on the credibility of
white Speakers and the white religious system. In other words, the
ground Of argument was already possessed by the Indians, and any defense

of their position was really unnecessary.80

 

80By using terms like presumption and ground of argument the
writer does not mean to suggest that Red Jacket had read Bishop Whately,
who in fact did not publish until years later. The terms are used here
to describe what Red Jacket did and not to describe how he felt about
what he was doing.

5.1

The claims Of the second class derive during the course Of Red
Jacket's speech from his historical review, and illustrate his conten-
tion that both the land and their present religious system were gifts
to the Indians from the Great Spirit . The Indian was happy when he
possessed both Of these gifts. Then the Great Spirit's goodness is
contrasted with the whites . Not only have they stolen the first of
these gifts, but now they are trying to steal the second.

Red Jacket's major refutation of Cram does not occur until his
development of the fifth claim in the middle Of the address. This is
sensible Since Cram's arguments can best be attacked after the general
untrustworthiness of the whites has been established. If this is _a_d_
hominum argument, Red Jacket can use it with impunity because only
white actions, not white testimony, can demonstrate the validity Of the
Christian religion. Then, although Red Jacket has already asserted the
benefits of the Indian religion, he goes on to attach three qualifiers
to Cram's claim about the truth of Christianity. First, Christianity
is not true just because a white man says it is true. Second, Christi—
anity is not true just because it is in a book, or if true for that
reason, it cannot be applicable to those who have not been given the
art of literacy. Third, Christianity cannot be true if those who pro-
fess it cannot agree on what it is.

In light of these arguments, it is interesting to see Red Jacket's
use Of personal proof in his Speech. Recall those two factors which
would diminish his ethos-~his rumored cowardice and. his occasional
public drunkenness. Although Red J acket's bravery is not a factor here,

his drinking habits certainly are, because throughout his Reply he is

52
contrasting Indian purity with white depravity. Twice during his
remarks, therefore, he Shifts the blame by referring to drunkenness as
the result of what happens when Indians fall under white influence.
Beyond this one issue, there is no personal reference to himself in the
Speech. There are many indirect uses Of personal proof, however, and
these involve his position as spokesman for the council. Devices of
this nature include the stress on the concensus reached in council, the
references to himself in the plural, utilization of traditional formulas,
and emphasis on the reasonableness Of the position taken by the council
and himself.

The reasonableness of the Indian position was remarked upon
througlout the Speech. The Indians had listened attentively to what the
missionary had said, just as he had reqtested. They had carefully con-
sidered their response to his words. In the past they had believed
other white men. They could not believe Cram now, because of earlier
white perfidy, but if his words had a demonstrable effect on the whites
who surrounded them, then they would reconsider. Thus , argues Red Jacket,
the Indian position is flexible, and requires only good faith and a
change of behavior on the part of the whites.

Red Jacket's use Of the materials Of experience can be correctly
evaluated if we accurately identify his primary audience. The notion
that he was speaking chiefly to Cram can be dispelled if we consider
that in this case a Simple refusal was all that was necessary and that
the Speech was anything but conciliatory. Further, neither the warrants
which led to the claims advanced by the Speaker nor his personal proof

were calculated to be acceptable to a white missionary. We seem

53
justified, therefore, in looking elsewhere for our primary audience.

If instead of Cram we choose the other Indians at the council as
the principal auditors , the direction of Red J acket's address becomes
plain. Making even the occasion of his speech a pathetic appeal to
religious authority, Red Jacket segregates his audience into two Opposing
groups by the end Of his introduction. During the rest of his Speech he
points out the goodness Of Indians, or if they are not, how it is the
white man's fault. By the close of the speech Cram is identified with
these other white men.

In following this particular strategy, Red Jacket directs his
materials Of experience toward his fellow Senecas and against the mis-
sionary. He appeals to the traditional Indian beliefs and plays upon
their sense Of pride. He tries to dispel any sense of inferiority by
showing the Indian as the more moral agent in previous encounters with
the whites. Conversely, the mites cannot be trusted and, since they had
lied before, can be expected to lie again. This can be expected because
present white neighbors are no better than whites have ever been, and
Cram's brand of religion gives no evidence of improving them. Cram is
demonstrably ineffective, Red Jacket tells his listeners, and is probably
lying like the others; moreover his authority is a book the Indians
cannot read and about which the non-Indians cannot agree.

Twice Red Jacket refers to the forefathers who had lived moral
lives and had passed the religion they had received from the Great Spirit
on to Indians Of the present day. These ancestors deserve to be believed
more than Cram and his book. In addition there is the added testimony

Of the goodness Of the Great Spirit to be found in the nature He had

5'4
created expressly for the use Of Indians. Finally, there is the un-
disputable fact that the Indians are different from whites. These
appeals can only strengthen the impression that Indian ways are best.
By the end of the speech Red Jacket's apparent reasonableness

and friendliness have been completely overshadowed by his adamant refusal
to listen to anything more that the missionary has to say. The mis—
sionary was anything but pleased with this result to his arduous jom'ney.
Red Jacket ends his Speech by saying, "As we are going to part, we will
come and take you by the hand, and hope the Great Spirit will protect
you on your journey, and return you safe to your friends." What an
ironic close, to invoke the Indian God to take care of the Christian
missionary as he returns defeated from his mission. The Bemis text Of
Red Jacket's Reply goes on to say,

As the Indians began to approach the missionary, he

rose hastily from his seat and replied, that he could

not take them by the hand; that there was no fellow-

ship between the religion of God and the works of the

devil. This being interpreted to the Indians, they

smiled, and retired in a peaceable manner.
Thus the Indians had plainly won, since at the end they could be seen
to behave better than the man who sought to convert them. Cram later
saw that he had been put into this position.

It afterwards being suggested to the missionary that

his reply to the Indians was rather indiscreet; he

Observed, that he supposed the ceremony Of Shaking

hands would be received by them as a token that he

assented to what they had said. Being otherwise
informed, he said he was sorry for the expressions.

 

81
82

Bemis, "Reply to Reverend Cram."
Ibid.

 

55
Regardless, the pagan cause on the Buffalo Creek reservation had
plainly triumphed. Although Red Jacket had Changed no attitudes, he
had clearly and fOrcibly expressed the views of the council. He had
demonstrated that the Senecas had rational grounds for their rejection
of Christianity. He had given a certain intellectual respectability
to the adherents of the Handsome Lake religion. And he had pointed
out to whites that in the fUtuie they would be able to win converts only
by practicing themselves what they preached. we now turn to examine

how accurate are the words he is supposed to have said.

CHAPTER III

TEXT AND INTERPRETER

The analysis of the previous Chapter~would be fairly complete
were it not for the fact that the SpeeCh is a translation whiCh first
appeared in book fOrmlsix:years after its supposed delivery. we are
certainly justified in asking a number Of questions concerning the
authenticity of the text. The necessity for doing SO becomes apparent
when we remember that accurate reporting of public speeches has been
difficult even in.modern times. Thonssen and Baird tell us that
"reporters of SpeeCh were not provided space in the House Of Commons
until 1839, and nothing approaChing accurate reporting was authorized
in the United States Congress until 1873."1 ElseWhere they make the
statement that "even the great speeChes of the eighteenth century——
models upon which we rely heavily-~are without doubt inaccurate, in—
complete, and, occasionally, misleading."2 If these statements hold
true of deliberative oratory in the most important legislative bodies

of England and the United States during the eighteenth and nineteenth

centuries, then a speech delivered in an obscure language on the

 

lLester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speegh Criticism (New York:
The Ronald Press Company, 1948), p. 299.

2Ibid., p. 298.

 

56

57
American frmtier must be examined closely.

The wisdom Of examining authenticity becomes even more apparent
when we turn to some Of the things which have happened in the field of
Iroquois studies . Perhaps the worst example of textual inaccuracy is
the celebrated address by Hiawatha at the formation of the league Of the
Iroquois. This "speech" was excerpted and reworded by Longfellow, who
had taken it from Schoolcraft, who had copied it from J .V.H. Clark, who
had made up every word. 3 Even the great eighteenth century translator
Joseph Nicholson once interpreted "Buffalo Creek" as "Beaver Creek" on
an important land treaty.” Roberts, who has written the only major
thesis on the subject of Iroquois oratory, may have been led astray when
he took some of his texts from Cadwallader Colden, a former governor of
Colonial New York. Colden, it seems, may have modeled his style on
Thucydides and Clarendon. He may very well have followed the classical
tradition of making up suitably dramatic Speeches to insert at appro-
priate places in his history of the Iroquois.

It is important, then, that we ask three questions concerning the
Reply to Reverend Cram. First, is the text upon which we have based our
analysis the best available? Second, are the circumstances attending
the publication Of the text such that we can expect it to be a responsible

attempt to record accurately an actual event? Third, is the translator

 

3William M. Beauchamp, A History of the New York Iroquois (Port
Washington, N.Y.: Ira J. Friedman, 1962), p. 31.

“William Ketchum, An Authentic and Comprehensive History of
Buffalo (Buffalo: Rockwell, Baker, 8 Hill, 1865), I, 1.09,

 

 

58
of the SpeeCh a person who would be apt to give an accurate rendition
of the Seneca original? The remainder of this chapter‘will be devoted

tO answering these three questions.

IS the Text the Best Available?

 

The version being used in this study is from Native Eloquence,

 

published by J.D. Bemis in Canandaigua, New York, in 1811. The book is
an anthology Of speeChes which the publisher claims were made by the
Seneca chiefs Farmer”s Brother and Red Jacket. Arguments that the

Native Eloquence text is an authentic reproduction of an actual SpeeCh

 

event will be given later in this Chapter, but first there is the possi-
bility that another version exists whiCh has Similar or better claims to
authenticity. Before we go on, therefore, we must Choose between two

hypotheses: (1) that Native Eloquence contains the best available text;

 

(2) that there is an equal or superior version. There are three reasons
for Choosing the first Of these.
1. A fairly extensive searCh has failed to locate an earlier

printed copy.5 The version of the SpeeCh contained in Native Eloquence

 

remains the earliest of those examined and thus has priority as the
basic text.
2. The histories Of those churChes carrying on missionary

activities in the area between 1800 and 1820 have been examined and

5Bemishimself may have printed the SpeeCh in his newspaperu The
Ontario Repository, before it appeared in book form. If so, the par—'.—
tiEular newspaper is no longer available. Jasper Parrish's papers in
the Huntington library38an Marino, California, may contain leads, but
they have not been examined by the author. See bibliography.

 

59
have revealed no information about the SpeeCh. Indeed it would seem
unlikely that a denomination would wish to print remarks so detrimental
to its interests. The government records contain nothing about the
event, either because the reports were burned with so many Indian papers
during the war of 1812 or because the visit did not technically involve
government business. Red Jacket, Of course, was illiterate, and could
hardly have made a copy of the Speech himself. Since neither the
ChurChes, the government, nor the Indians have left other'records, it

seems fair to assume that the version in Native Eloquence, as prepared

 

"under the revision of the pUblic interpreter," is the only one

available.6
3. The differences which appear in the later versions of the
SpeeCh are so minor that they can all be traced without difficulty to
the Native Eloquence text. Here our procedure will involve listing the
printed texts, examining the differences among them, and establishing
the source for eaCh.
The texts to be examined here, in their order of pUblication,
are the fOllowing:
J.D. Bemis, Native Eloquence, 1811
Samuel Gardner Drake, Book of the Indians, 183M
B.B. Thatcher, Indian Biography, 1837
Philip Tome, Indian Life, 1854
Frank MOore, American Eloquence, 1857

William L. Stone, Life and Times Of Sa—GO-Ye—Wat-Ha or
Red JaCket, 1866

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6It would also be logical to entertain the possibility that, in

the absence of any independent verification, the Reply is as muCh a
fOrgery as some of the other "Speeches" we have mentioned. This issue
will be dealt with toward the end Of the chapter.

60

Chauncey Depew, The Library of Oratory, 1902
William Jennings Bryan, The World"s Famous Orations, 1906
David J. Brewer, The World's Best Orations, 1923

Henry Beston, American Memo , 1937
lewis Copeland, The World's Great S eches, 1942
Ann G. Shoemaker, The Red Maj Speék‘s, 139117
Lewis Copeland, The World‘s Eeat S eches, 19LL9
lewis Copeland, The World' S Great fiSeaies, 2nd rev.
ed., 1958
Charles Hurd, A Treasury Of Great_American Speeches, 19 59
Lewis Thomas Jones, Aboriginal American Oratory, 1965

Anthony7F.C. Wallace, The Death and W o'frthe Seneca,
1970

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In some instances, the authors or editors Of these books give the source
of their text; in most cases they do not. Bemis asserts that he
received the text "from a gentleman who was present when it was
delivered, and wrote it sentence by sentence, as translated at the time
by the interpreter." On the frontispiece of the same book, Bemis
asserts that the edition was prepared "under the revision Of the public
interpreter." In none of the other books does an author claim to
receive his text from a person present at the event. Stone indicates
three sources for his text--Bemis, Thatcher, and Drake--but lists Bemis
as "the first edition." Brewer gives Moore as his source, Beston cites

Bemis , Jones cites Stone, and Shoemaker cites Tome.

 

7Complete citations for these books are given in the bibliography.
All books cited in Sutton's Speech Index (New York: The Scarecrow Press,
Inc. , 1966) are listed with the exception of two secondary, twentieth
century anthologies by Hazeltine, which could not be fOLmd in the
libraries where research was being done. In addition, eight other texts,
not listed in Sutton, are included. TWO manuscript versions , one in the
Buffalo Historical Society library and the other in the Library of
Congress, have not been included here. The first follows the Bemis text,
except for certain punctuation details and the ungrammatical expression,
". . . your religion is wrote in a book." The other manuscript, by
Hodson, is dated 1921 and follows Thatcher.

 

61

These external indications give us some grounds for believing
the Bemis version to be the basic text. He is the only person to claim
receiving the speech from eye witnesses. Second, the careful biographer
Stone believes the Bemis text to be the first. Third, as we shall see,
no other writer cites a version of the Reply that cannot be traced
through the Bemis text.

This third point can be made clear only if we go on to examine
internal variations in the different printed versions. Doing so, we
find the texts varying in five ways:

1. In the introduction to the Reply, some texts
emphasize "only" to indicate that Red Jacket is
thanking the Great Spirit, not the Christian God,
for allowing the meeting to take place.

2. Some texts capitalize pronouns referring to the
Great Spirit.

3. Some texts capitalize "a Boo " when referring to
the Bible.

1+. Some texts indent the paragraph beginning with
"But an evil day came upon us."

5. Some texts include a paragraph beginning with
"Brother, you say you have not come to get our
land . . . ."

If we compare the texts on the basis of these five Character—
istics , the relationships among the various books become more apparent.
The following tables list each internal characteristic and indicate

which books contain it and which do not .

62

RelationShips Among Texts--Internal Characteristics

Characteristic

 

1. Emphasis on Him.only

2. Capitalization of
pronouns referring
to the Great Spirit

3. Capitalization of
"a Boo ," alluding
to the Bible

8Wallace uses just part Of the speech.

Present in

Bemis
Stone
Jones

Bemis
Meore
Stone
Bryan
Copeland
Hurd

Absent in

Drake
ThatCher
Tome
MOore
Depew
Bryan
Brewer
Beston
Copeland
Shoemaker
Hurd

Drake
ThatCher
Tome
Brewer
Beston
Shoemaker
Jones
Wallace

Bemis
Drake
ThatCher
Tome
Moore
StOne
Depew
Brewer
Beston
Shoemaker
Jones
Wallace

His excerpt does not

include those passages which would have indicated characteristics 1
and 8. He cites Drake as his source.

63

Indentation of para- Bryan Bemis
graph beginning with COpeland Drake
"But an evil day came Hurd. ThatCher
upon us." Tome

Mcore
Stone
Depew
Brewer
Beston
Shoemaker
Jones

Contents of following Drake Bemis
paragraph: "Brother, ThatCher Beston
you say you have not Tome Hurd10
come to get our land Meore Jones10
or our money, but to Stone9
enlighten our minds. Depew
I will now tell you Bryan
that I have been at Brewer
your meetings , and Copeland
saw you collect money Shoemaker
at your meeting. I Wallace

cannot tell what this
money was intended
for your ministery
and if we should con-
form tO your way of
thinking, perhaps
you may want some
from us."

As we look at the preceding list, we see that, in general, Copeland,
Bryan, and Hurd are closely related in those characteristics whiCh they
do or do not include. So are the following:

Depew and Brewer

Drake, Thatcher, Moore, Tome, and Shoemaker
Bemus and Stone

Beston and Jones

9While including this paragraph, however, Stone writes that he
believes it to be an interpolation.

10These are both condensed versions of the SpeeCh, and their

exclusion Of this paragraph may reflect merely the editorial Choice of
their particular editors.

69
Combining this information with external information concerning sources,

provided by certain Of the authors, we Obtain the table as Shown below:

Reconstruction of Text Variation

 

Date of Pub-
licatiOn Text

 

 

1811 Bemis

1839 Drake
1837 Tha Cher

I

Tome
1859 ‘
1857 Moore

Stone
1866

1902 B
1906 ryan

Brewer
1923

 

 

 

i333 Copeland i Beston
Shoemaker

1997
1999 COpeland

1958 giggland
1959

 

Jones
1965

19 70 Wallace

 

This table cannot be fully accepted, however, without some
additional discussion. TO begin with, notice that Drake appears to be

the source of the fifth characteristic, the paragraph which Stone

65

includes but believes to be an interpolation. Drake adds this para-
graph without any indication as to source. ThatCher and Moore pick up
the paragraph, and all sUbsequent SpeeCh anthologies include it (with
the exception of Hurd, who prints the SpeeCh, however, in a very con-
densed version). It seems quite natural that the SpeeCh anthologies
have gathered their materials from earlier Speech collections instead
of books in an anthropological orihistorical tradition.

Within the group of SpeeCh anthologies which derive from MOOre,
and through himlfromtDrake, there are two Schlasses: (1) those which
possess the second, third, and fOurth Characteristics and (2) those
whiCh do not. Bryan, Copeland, and Hurd belong to the first Subclass,
While Depew and Brewer'belcng to the second. These Characteristics
could be purely the result Of printer's conventions, but there is also
a striking Similarity in the use Of punctuation within eaCh group.
Unlike Brewer, Bryan does not follow Depew in these three areas, perhaps
because the compilers of the Bryan anthology did not want to follow too
slavishly the conventions of a major SpeeCh collection published only
fOur years previously. Approximately half a century lateru however,
neither COpeland nor Hurd felt the same compunctions about taking these
Characteristics from Bryan. And Bryan, by retaining without question
the first and fifth characteristics, demonstrated his connection with
the Drake-—ThatCher—-Moore tradition.

In the same way that the books derived from Moore are unaware of
the books in the historical or anthrOpOlogical tradition, so also, in
their elimination of that fifth Characteristic whiCh is the one really

substantive Change in the Reply, do Beston and Jones demonstrate their

66

reliance on Stone or Bemis instead of on the SpeeCh anthologies. The
close similarities among the texts Of these fOur books substantiates
the claimxby Jones that his version is based upon Stone, and the claims
by Stone and Beston that theirs are based upon Bemis. Our exception
here is Wallace, who Chooses Drake as his source.

TO summarize, the Reply to Reverend Cram Shows only one major
Change in its textual history. This is the addition of a paragraph
concerning the practice of taking collections in ChurCh. It occurs
first in the text provided by the antiquarian Drake and subsequently in
those texts presumably derived fromlhimh Drake himself makes a Special
point Of providing a correct version, "as some omissions and errors were

contained in it as publiShed at the time."11

Perhaps Drake Specifically
means this particular paragraph, because the expression, "as published
at the time," probably refers to Bemis, but there is nothing more than
this one line to indicate that Drake has another source. At any rate,
Drake implies that he has inside information never befOre pUbliShed.

If he had not made this claim of greater accuracy, it would be easy to
dismiss the paragraph, Since the books in the historical and anthropo—
logical tradition do not contain it, and Since the Bemis text is the
earliest available. As it is, Drake's comment does not damage our

reconstruction of the printed textual history. Laterrwe Shall come back

to the question he raises about textual accuracy.

llSamuel G. Drake, Biography and History of the Indians Of North
America, 3rd ed. (Boston: O.L. Perkins and Hillard, Gray 8 Co., 1839),
bk. v, p. 78.

 

67

TWO final difficulties lie with our proposed reconstruction.
First, Hurd's text may be derived directly from Bryan instead of
descending through Copeland. Both anthologies were almost certainly
known to him. Second, Brewer may be derived directly from Moore instead
of descending through Depew. In either case, however, the fundamental
structure of the reconstruction is not seriously challenged. It is
clear that all versions, even Drake, have directly or indirectly stemmed
from Bemis. Further, it is clear that the speech anthologists have
relied upon earlier anthologies and historians have relied on earlier
histories. Finally, it is clear that the text has been passed on with
only a few minor variations to the present day. Just one paragraph,
whose content does not really affect the rest of the Speech, creates
any real trouble. That paragraph needs to be returned to, but it does
not disturb the conclusions we have drawn so far.

We are justified, then, in going on to ask a second major
question. We know that the Bemis text has been passed down rather
faithfully through a succession of later histories and speech anthologies.

We must now find out how accurate that Bemis text really is.

To What Extent Is the Bemis Text a Faithful Record?

 

Since Bemis claims to have received his speech from one of the
actual participants at the council, and then to have checked the speech
with the public interpreter, we should find out two things. First, is
Bemis considered a trustworthy, reliable printer? Second, would those
first-hand sources he writes about be readily available to him? If we

can answer both of these questions affirmatively, then his statements

68

can probably be taken as truth, and.we shall be able to accept the
authenticity of the speech in so far as its initial publication is
concerned.

Beginning, then, with the prOblem of Bemis' reputation, we
discover that his contemporaries regarded the printer quite highly.
The first man of his profession in Western New York, he ran a thriving
business and retired over forty years later as the oldest editor in the
region.12 Not only was he toasted by his colleagues at the Printers'
Festival of 18H? as "the father of the Press in Western New York,"13
but he was asked by his community to serve in a number of trusted
capacities. At various times he was a director of the Ontario Bank,
first president of the Auburn and Rodhester Railroad, treasurer of the
Ontario Agricultural Society, trustee of the Ontario Female Seminary,
and president of the village of Canandaigua.lu

Bemis appeared to value the trust his contemporaries placed in
him. "My weakness," he was later to write, "was I did not value money.
I did value the reputation of an honest and independent editor."15
SuCh a man, it would seem, would not willingly damage this reputation

by fictionalizing about events well known to his readerShip. In fact,

Bemis was to find an enduring place in printing circles because of his

12Madeline Stern, "James D. Bemis: Country Printer," New York
History, XXIX (OctOber, 1948), H24.

13Ibid.
luIbid., p. u09.

15Thomas Draper, The Bemis History and Geneology (San Francisco:
Stanley Taylor Company, 19007, p. 135.

 

 

69
interest in authentic Indian materials. He was the first publisher of

The Narrative of the Life of Mary Jemison, and was influential in
16

 

arranging the interviews whiCh led to its compilation. Thus Bemis,
who had used the Speeches of Farmer's Brother and Red Jacket to form
western.New York's first book, was also reSponsible, in his publication
of the life of Mary Jemison, for one of the most impcmtant pieces of
.Americana ever to have come from.the region.

No matter~how trustworthy and reliable the printer‘was, however,
it was still necessary for hiHltO have access to reliable witnesses to
Red Jacket's speech. Fortunately, he did not have to go very far to
find them. Canandaigua, the village in which he lived, was also the
home of Israel Chapin and JaSper Parrish, the government agent and
public interpreter mentioned in the previous chapter.17 Since both
were permanent residents of the community, it would be surprising indeed
had the enterprising editor not availed himself of their services.

Chapin and Parrish were the very men needed to check the manuscript

before Native Eloquence went into print; indeed they were probably the

 

sources for the materials in the first place. At the very least, no
publisher‘who valued his reputation as Bemis did would have printed suCh
a book without consulting the neighbors who were first—hand witnesses

to the SpeeCh.

lBStern, p. H21.

17Of the many records placing the two men in Canandaigua during
the first decade of the century, see especially U.S. National ArChives:
U.S. Census Population Sohedules, Oneida and Ontario Counties, New York
(Lansing: Midhigan State Microfilm Collection, Microcopy no. M252, Roll
no. 33).

70

There is also some evidence that Bemis and Chapin were more than
just neighbors. When Bemis first passed through the town of Canandaigua,
the Chapins were among the peOple who encouraged him to set up business
there, and indeed the first building he rented belonged to one of the
Chapins.l8 Later, some time before the 1810 census was compiled, Bemis
bought a corner of Israel Chapin's garden and erected a two storey
building for use as his home and book bindery.19 Thus the two men were
next door neighbors , and a short walk across the lot would bring Bemis
fact: to face with the man who could provide him with transcriptions of
Red Jacket's Speeches, transcriptions which he could later verify with
the man reSponsible for their translation. Bemis' claims as to the
authenticity of his materials thus seem validated.

One final issue remains to be examined. We have already seen why

Native Eloquence should be regarded as the best available text. We have

 

demonstrated that Bemis had a high reputation as a printer and an easy
access to materials. We must now ascertain how accurate those materials
really were.

Is the Translator of the Speech a Person Who Would Be Apt To Give an
Accurate Renthfin of the Seneca Original?

 

 

We have already referred to the fact that Red Jacket did not
Speak English; indeed, he refused to do so. Since translation from the
Seneca was therefore essential, we should examine Jasper Parrish's cre-

dentials as a public interpreter.

18Stem, p. ”06.

19Draper, p. 1311. .

71

It might be necessary at this point to digress long enough to
illustrate the kinds of problems EurOpeans had generally with the
Iroquoian language family, because ladk of understanding frequently
went beyond language to the very concepts embodied in those languages.
In this connection, McKenney's old story about the missionary and.his
interpreter is not out of place:

'What have you said to them?‘ inquired.a missionary
once, of the interpreter~who had been expounding
his sermon. 'I told them1you.have a message to
them from the Great Spirit,’ was the reply. 'I said no
sudh thing,’ cried the missionary. 'Tell themlI have
come to speak to them of the only living and true God,
and of the life there is to be hereafter:- well, what
have you said?‘ 'That you will tell themlabout Manito,
and the land of spirits.‘ 'Worse andsworse,’ exclaimed
the embarrassed preadher; and sudh is doubtless the
history of many sermons that have been delivered to
the bewilderedheathen.20
Let us look briefly, then, at the problemlof translation as it was COped
with by the FrenCh, the British, and the Americans.

The FrenCh Jesuit missionaries were the first European recorders
of Iroquois SpeeCh materials, and they made a concerted effort to over-
come both language and conceptual barriers. By as early as the second
decade of the seventeenth century, Jesuit Soholars were intensively
studying the Indian languages,21 and.by 1635 they had established a

college for the instruction of the Hurons, who were speakers of an

Iroquoian language.22 Commencing in this period, the intimate contact

 

20Stone, p. 196

21Thomas Hughes, Historygof the Society of Jesusyin North America
(London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1917), II, 231—2.

22Ibid. , pp. 23u—6.

 

72

between the Jesuits and the Hurons provided an entry by means of which
the former could learn the languages of the Iroquois Confederacy.
The progress made by the Jesuits was at first quite slow.

Perhaps no account is more touching than Paul 1e Jeune's Relation of

 

What Occurred in New France in the Year 163H, in WhiCh he described his
efforts to learn the language of the Mentagnais, an Algonquian group.
Understandably applying What he knew from.the study of FrenCh, Latin,
and Greek, 1e Jeune feund that

when you know all the parts of speech of the languages
of our EurOpe, and know how to combine them, you know
the languages, but it is not so concerning the tongue
of our Savages. Stock your memory with all the words
that stand for each particular thing, and you are still
only an ignoramus; with that you can indeed make your—
self understood by the Savages, although not glways,
but you will not be able to understand them.2

One day when his hosts had a feast, 1e Jeune went on to report,

the guests made me a Sign that I should make them a
SpeeCh in their language, as they wanted to laugh; for
I pronounce the Savage as a German pronounces French.2”

By hard application, however, le Jeune felt that he would some day

master Mentagnais Speech. "I talk a jargon," he commented, "and, by

dint of shouting, can make myself understood."23

Jean de Brebeuf, writing the next year from the land of the
Hurons, reported greater progress in learning that Iroquoian language.

He found that it was "very complete and very regular, contrary to the

23Edna Kenton, ed., Black Gown and Redskins (London: Longmans,

Green and Co., 1956), p. 72.
21*Ibid. , p. 81+.
25

Ibid., p. 74.

 

73

opinion of many,"26

and "that this language is common to some Twelve
other Nations, all settled and numerous. The Hurons are friends of
all these peOple, except the Sonontoerrhonons, Ontontaerrhonons,
Quioenrhonons, OnoioChrhonons, and.Agnierrhonons, all of whom we com—
prise under the name Hiroquois."27 Though the Iroquoian languages
were not as similar to one another as de Brebeuf thought, Huron did
prove to be close enough to the Confederacy languages so that a knowl—
edge of the one unlocked the mystery of the other. As Father SCbastien
Rasles was to write later:

The Huron language is the chief language of the

Savages, and, when a person is master of that, he

can in less than three months make himself under—

stood by the five Iroquois tribes.28
The Jesuits had three other advantages in learning the Confederacy
languages. First, those Iroquois who converted to Christianity were
removed to FrenCh Canada. Second, Jesuit missionaries began to take up
long residences within the Iroquois heartland. Last, many Hurons became
bilingual as captives of Iroquois tribes. When Father Simon 1e Moyne
journeyed to the principal village of the Onondaga nation, he was not

only conversant with Onondaga Speech but had converted himself into an

accomplished orator in the Iroquois tradition.29 The account of le Meyne,

26Ibid. , p. 111.

27Ibid. The tribes listed.by de Brebeuf are the Huron names for

the five tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy.

28BernardG. Hoffman, "Iroquois Linguistics Classification From

Historical Materials," Ethnohistory, VI (Spring, 1959), 165.

9This account, because it is the first example we have of a
white man attempting to Speak in the Indian manner, is very valuable.
Le Mbyne and the Onondaga Chiefs were eaCh fascinated by the other's

 

7H
together~with other documents in the Jesuit Relations, substantiates
the claim that at least some FrenCh were fluent in the Iroquois
languages by the 1650's. Because the Confederacy was an Obstacle to
Jesuit missionary activity and French political advancement in the New
World, it is not surprising that fluency in Iroquois tongues was given
high priority.

Early English and American accounts of Iroquois oratory do not
seem to be as even in quality as those of the FrenCh. In an address
delivered to the New York Historical Society in 1811, De Witt Clinton
discussed both poor translation and the reasons for its existence:

Considering the interpreters who have undertaken to
give the meaning of Indian speeches, it is not a

little surprising that some of them.should approach

so near to perfection. The major part of the inter-
preters were illiterate persons, sent among themlto
conciliate their favor, by making useful or ornamental
implements; or they were prisoners who learnt the
Indian language during their captivity. The Reverend
Mr. Kirkland, a missionary among the Oneidas, and some-
times a public interpreterg was indeed a man of liberal
education; but those who have seen him officiate at
public treaties must recollect how incompetent he was
to infuse the fire of Indian oratory into his expressions;
how he labored for~words, and how feeble and inelegant
his language.30 '

Clinton then went on to point out that a good translation is sometimes

difficult even for a person familiar-with the language:

histrionic and oratorical exploits, according to the account. Le Moyne
will be cited again in the fifth Chapter of this study, but for a full
description see Reuben Gold Thwaites, ed., The Jesuit Relations and

.Allied Documents (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1899), XLIZI109—121.

30De Witt Clinton, Address Delivered Before the New York
Historical Society, December 6, 1811, in William1Wh Campbell, ed., The
Life and writings of De Witt Clinton (New York: Baker and Scribner3_-—'
18H9), pp. 238—9.

 

 

 

75

Oral is more difficult than written interpretation
or translation. In the latter case, there is no
pressure of time, and we have ample opportunity to
weigh the most suitable words, to select the most
elegant expressions, and to fathom.the sense of the
author; but in the former case, we are called upon
to act immediately; no time fOr deliberation is
allowed; and the first ideas that occur must be
pressed into the service of the interpreter.

In spite of the difficulties involved in the translation of oral
materials, however, the fact remains that there were some highly quali—
fied interpreters available who could accurately render the sense, if
not all the verbal fancies, of Iroquois oratory. To give one example,
the principal British agent to the Iroquois during the major part of
the eighteenth century, Sir‘WilliamlJohnson, immersed.himself in their
culture to the extent of "going native." There were other examples of
men, both white and Indian, Who had this bilingual proficiency. Con—
sidering the importance of the Iroquois to the managers of Colonial
affairs, it was necessary to the British, and later the Americans, to
have accurate descriptions of Iroquois council proceedings.

Let us illustrate this by turning Specifically to the qualifica—
tions of JaSper ParriSh. In his history of the early settlers of western
New York, Turner writes that

soon after the Massacre of Wyoming, when only eleven
years old, he was taken captive by a party of Delawares,
and carried by thenlfTOthiS home. During the seven
years of his captivity, he was often transferred from
one tribe to another among the Six Nations, and exposed
to all the hardships and privations of Indian life .

He learned and became familiar~with the language of five
different nations, and he could speak them.all with
fluence and correctness . . . . He was appointed Indian
Interpreter, and afterwards a subagent of Indian affairs,
by the government of the United States. He discharged

the duties of these offices in a manner entirely satis—
factory to his own government and the Indians for‘more

31Ibid., p. 239.

76

than thirty years.32

Parrish not only possessed the necessary knowledge about the Seneca
language and way of life, but also had in Farmer"s Brother and Red
Jacket two men Whowere extremely anxious to hear'their1words trans—
lated well. According to Stone's report of a conversation between

Parrish and General Erastus Root,

the General inquired of'himlwhether it was not the
habit of the interpreters to embellish the speeChes
of the Indian orators. His reply was an exclamation
of surprise at the suggestion. So far from it, Pun
Parish [Sic.] averred that it was altogether impos-
sible forrhim to impart to the translations anything
like the force and beauty of the originals.

But despite his disclaimer of the quality of his own translations,

he also stated that on great occasions, the Indian
orators, Red—Jacket and Farmer's Brother in par—
ticular, not only studied their speeches, and conned
themlwell, but would send for him.for rehearsals, in
order that they might be assured that he understood
them fully, and could translate themlwith accuracy.
They were alike vain and ambitious of appearing well
in the reports of their speeches.31+

Since both Senecas knew English, their use of a translator thus seems
only a special kind of motive appeal, a.way of appearing more "Indian"
in the presence of their auditors. For although they were not literate,
and perhaps did not have a complete grasp of the white man's language,

they did appear to know enough to make sure the translation was delivered

to their satisfaction.

32O. Turner, Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase of Western

New York (Buffalo: Jewett, Thomas 8 Co., l8u9), p. 292.

33Stone, p. 372.
3

”Ibid.

 

77

As early as 179M, Parrish had been used as Red Jacket's interb
preter.35 Later government records would Show that his services were

6 The available evidence shows that the Senecas

constantly in demand.3
were pleased with his services. Stone calls himltheir favorite inter—
preter,37 and the Senecas transferred to him a valuable piece Of land

near the Opening of the Niagara River in recognition of his services

on theirbehalf.38 The American State Papers record.his translations
39

 

of Red Jacket's speeChes at the Buffalo Creek Reservation in 1802

and in Washington in 1810.”0

It would be hard to imagine a man better
qualified for~his position than this fOrmer'captive who spent suCh a
large portion of his life in the Indian's world.

To summarize, Stone writes that the government agent and public
interpreter~were present at the delivery of the Reply. Israel Chapin
and Jasper Parrish were these men. Bemis, a respected editor, asserts
that he received the Speech from a gentleman who was present at the
event and had his book Checked by the public interpreter. Again, Chapin

and Parrish must have been those men. Since Parrish appears to have

been well qualified in his role as interpreter as Bemis in his role as

 

35U.S. Congress, American State Papers, Class II: Indian Affairs,
Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1832), II, #79.

36Letter of T.J. Morgan, Commissioner Department of the Interior,
Office of Indian Affairs, to the Honorable Charles Baker, RoChester,
New York, June 9, 1891.

37Stone, ibid.

 

38Among other sources, see NativegEquuence.
3gAmerican State Papers, I, 66H.
”Orbid., II, 80H.

 

 

78

printer, we can be certain that the text Of the Reply is an actual
record of an actual event. There are few if any other Indian records
which we can approach with this degree of certitude. Indeed, there
may be few white records, fromlthe same time period, to which we can

get so close.

CHAPTER IV

THE IMPORTANCE OF CONFERENCE

In the previous two chapters we have concentrated upon Red
Jacket and his Speech. Remarkable as that man and SpeeCh might be,
however, we would miss an important element Of Iroquois rhetoric were
we not to go on to examine the conference whiCh occurred between Cram's
request and Red Jacket's reply. As we shall see, that conference must
be considered as part and parcel of the total SpeeCh occasion.

The importance Of conference will become clearer as this Chapter
progresses. It rests upon the distinction between the Western advocate
and the Iroquois spokesman. In our own culture we maintain the position
that the Speaker should be the source Of the message he delivers to his
audience, and we go to considerable lengths to hide the identity of
coaChes, ghost writers, and others involved in message preparation.

By contrast, the Iroquois speaker'was not expected to be an original
stylist, and the group was the source of the message he delivered. Only
in matters of delivery could he be considered the creator of a message,
and even here he fOllowed a traditional pattern set by previous Spokes—
men. Thus Ketchum.notes that Red Jacket's position among the Iroquois

was rather'that of a fluent speakerg the utterer

of the Opinions of others, or the mind of his

nation. Other than that, his influence among

his own people was not great, and the importance

whiCh he ultimately attained, grew out of the

79

8O

fact Of his usefulness in communicating with the
whites.

Red Jacket, in other words, shared.what we consider the duties of the
speaker'with the council that advised himh He was an "actor,"2 impro-
vising only slightly fromla.script prepared by others. As actors
occasionally do, he sometimes exceeded the script and was corrected.
At a meeting during June, 1818, for example,

Red Jacket was appointed to reply to the United
States' commissioner. The orator, with his
accustomed acumen, acted well his part, with the
exception, that he exceeded the limits of his
commission. In the warmth Of his eloquence . .
he took the liberty, which had not been delegated
to him, to announce that they would have nothing
to do with ministers of the gospel, sChoolmasters,
quakers, nor any white peOple, and that they would
no more suffer themlto reside on their lands.

Some time after the delivery of Red JaCket's
SpeeCh, Which will not soon be forgotten, so muCh
did it abound with genius and wit, the Chiefs
requested that what he had said about the gospels
and schools might not be sent to their father, the
President of the U.S., as he had uttered more than
he was authorized by themlto do.

AS long as he was felt able to perform his duties as Spokesman, Red
JaCket held his status among the Senecas. Atter'he was removed, how—
ever, the other Chiefs carefully pointed out to the United States
government that he was no longer "our agent" and, instead Of repre—

senting the tribe, spOke only as "a private man and a very bad one

 

lWilliam Ketchum, An Authentic and Comprehensive History of
Buffalo (Buffalo: Rockwell, Baker 8 Hill), II, 31.

2Henry S. Manley, "Red Jacket's Last Campaign," New York
History (August 1950). Unpaginated reprint in Buffalo Public Library,
B falo, New York.

3Timothy Alden, An Account of Sundrerissions Performed Among the
Senecas and Munsees (New York: J. Seymour, 1827), p. 91—2.

 

 

81

too. 11

The Iroquois council spokesman, then, derived both his materials
and his position from the council group whom he represented. True in
Red Jacket's time, this condition existed even more strongly before the
Revolution, when Iroquois society had not yet begun to lose its coherence.
For this reason, it becomes important that we look more closely at
Iroquois conference procedures and the relationship between the spokes-
mm and the council which gave him his instructions. In this chapter
we Shall examine those factors which gave rise to the Iroquois conference,
the structure of the Iroquois council, and the restraints it imposed

upon those individual communicators, like Red Jacket, who participated

within its conventions .

The Factors Giving Rise to Iroquois Conference

 

The rarity of confederations among North American Indian tribes,
and the contrasting permanence of the League of the Iroquois , make us
suspect that there were Special conditions which led to its establishment
and to the conference procedure which was the mechanism by which the
League, from the clan to the interstribal level, communicated with its
members.

Traditional accounts made by the Iroquois themselves5 state that

the league was the creation of two individuals , Dekanawida and Hiawatha,

 

L'Letter of J. Jimeson to Jasper Parrish, February 27, 1828.
Parrish papers (Hungtington MSS 1801428) in Henry Huntington Library,
San Marino, California. From a copy made by William Fenton in the
Collection of M.H. Deardorff, Warren, Pennsylvania.

5Two versions collected by Arthur C. Parker have been reprinted
in Fenton, William N. , ed. , Parker on the Iroquois (Syracuse: Syracuse
University Press, 1968).

 

82

who conceived a need to bind the Iroquoian tribes together in a lasting
peace . According to the accounts , the Iroquois had originally been one
peOple who had split apart after arriw'ng in what is now New York State .
After years of fighting one another, they eagerly adopted the League
structure Offered by the two founders and reunited.

First white contact with Iroquoian peOples was established by
Cartier when he encountered one Of their fishing parties on the lower
St. Lawrence in the summer Of 15211.6 This group soon dispersed, and
whether or not any Of these Laurentian Iroquois became part of the
Iroquois league has not been established. By the beginning of the 1600's,
however, Algonquin peoples had taken over the St. Lawrence river valley,
and the five tribes that were to be the members of the league had already
confederated and were established in central New York State . Whether
they migrated from other regions or were a climax culture of groups who
had always lived in the area,7 the Iroquois spread their villages out
along the lake plain. To the west they extended as far as the Genesee
River; to the east they penetrated the Mohawk River valley.
Morgan, relying on native traditions , dated the formation of their

8

league to between 11400 and lHSO A.D. Wallace dates the formation at

 

6William N. Fenton, "Problems Arising from the Historic North-

eastern Position Of the Iroquois," in Essays in Historical Anthropology
of North America ("Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections ,TPVol. C
washington, D.C.: 19u0>, 159.

7James A. Tuck, "The Iroquois Confederacy," Scientific American,
ccxxrv (February, 1971), 32.

8Lewis H. Morgan, Houses aild House-Life of the American Aborigines
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 26.

 

 

83
lHSl because of references to a solar eclipse.9 Other anthropologists,
relying mainly on recent anthrOpological evidence, have decided that the
League may have been founded as late as the 1590's, because the Iroquois
settlements in the Mohawk River valley indicate a relatively recent
occupation.10

The League members were not the only Iroquoian peoples in the
general area, nor‘were they the only tribes to confederate. The Hurons,
Eries, Neutrals, and the Tobacco Nation inhabited western.New York and
Ontario. There were other Iroquoian peoples in Pennsylvania, and still
further south were Iroquoian speaking tribes suCh as the Tuscarora.and
Cherokee. Some Of these tribes fOrmed temporary alliances, as did many
of the Algonquin.tribes in the area. The League of the Iroquois, how—
ever, was stronger and more permanent. Since the League was essentially
a communication systemldesigned to resolve conflict among the tribes,
and since the conference format it used was employed on all levels of
League society, it becomes imperative that we examine those factors
which allowed it to succeed while other conferation attempts failed.

At least part of the League's success is due to certain environ-
mental factors. At first glance the physical environment of central
New York does not seem muCh different from other parts of the Northeast,
because "the territory south Of Lake Ontario is one vegetational as

well as physiographic unit with the country just north of Lake Ontario,

'gPaul AmW. wallace, "The Return of Hiawatha," New York History,

XXIX (19148) , uoo.
10

 

Fenton, p. 199.

81}

.Nom .wmoaafi
. .od .courmcwnmmmzw o 40> thwcofieooflnoo moomcmflmomfiz coaCOmQfiEmi nuance/a.
fihoz mo enwoaomgficaa @30me 5 gummm G.” :.mwooco.uH m5. mo coapamOi
Emvmmmfihoz OHpOpmHm m6, 69E wfimwaa 983$: . .2 stages acoscom :0 power
.smealoowa ”mazes whoaaopH so coeemooa .m enemas

 

 

.

MUmflmw
o 0o. c o 00 o a o . c a.
gameoz .
.0 I/ O
’ mmamu
835

LMN oahmpco axes

 

 

85

Lake Erie, and southeast of lake Huron,"ll

and Iroquoian peOples in
these other areas felt no compulsion to confederate . In spite of
these Similarities, however, the central New York area possesses three
geographical characteristics which would have made alliance desirable:
(l) a set of waterways brought the five tribes into close proximity;
(2) the tribes all inhabited a continuous plain; (3) the area was
vulnerable to attack from all directions and had few easily defensible
sites. let us examine each of these geographical characteristics in
more detail.

First, the natural climax birch-beech—maple forest which covered
the area was made easier to penetrate by a series of lakes and rivers
which extended across the whole of the league territory from Schoharie
Creek on the East to the Genesee River of the West. These waterways ,
which later were to form the basis of the Erie Canal system, made it
possible to traverse the whole area with a minimum of portaging. Any
tribes along these bodies of water would inevitably have come into
contact with one another, and it thus became only a matter of what
form that contact would take. If such contiguous tribes had not estab—
lished an alliance, they would have raided each other instead.

The continuity established by the waterways was heightened by
the fact that the area was relatively flat, especially along the shores
of Lake Ontario but even to some degree as far as the Hudson. This
characteristic added to the ease of travel. One feature of the Ontario

plain, the escarpment which marked the shoreline of the lake in early

llIbid.

 

86
post-Glacial times, made landmarks unnecessary in overland travel.
Once again, the tribes were joined even closer by the Characteristics
Of the land.

If the tribes did not confederate for these reasons, there was
still a third geographical characteristic of the terrain whiCh would
have made that move desirable. The Iroquois were Open to invasion
fromlthe North through either Lake Ontario or the Lake Champlain valley,
home Of their'traditional enemies. Lake Ontario also connected to the
West through the Niagara River and the Great Lakes Chain. To the East
ran the Hudson River. TO the South, short portages would reaCh the
Delaware, Susquehanna, and.Allegheny. These rivers entered not only
Pennsylvania, but opened up the whole Mississippi watershed. The New
York Iroquois could either remain separate and Open to attaCk, or else
confederate and turn this geographical vulnerability into an advantage.

A.reason for confederation that was just as compelling as these
geographical factors was the low population of the five tribes. Given
the style Of Indian warfare, the only way to improve one's fighting
force would be to increase the available manpower, yet with the possible
exception Of the Senecas the number of warriors possessed by the Iroquois
tribes was relatively few. Since the Senecas were kept busy with
hostile groups to the West, the remaining Iroquois tribes would have
been piCked off one by one had they not united. By joining eaCh other
instead, they added greatly to their strength.

Although it was sometimes necessary that the League be able to
field this unified fighting force, there were many instances When the

necessity for League unanimity in Council made it impossible for themx

87
to do so. Yet in their council oratory the very existence Of the League
enabled Iroquois speakers to convince their enemies that the united
might Of the Confederation was behind themu and in these cases their
plausible fictions were as powerful as the actual truth. When they did
combine forces, the Iroquois demonstrated the amazing;mobility Lake
Ontario and the rivers gave them. By 1675 they had entered New England

and were sending raiding parties into Ontario, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.12

Later they would penetrate even fUrther to the west and south.13 By

straddling the Great Lakes, they would come to monOpolize the fur trade
during the Colonial period. "It was this 'league of ragged villages,'"
writes Fenton, "that for~two centuries held off two great empires of
Europe."lu
Another~way that the Iroquois could add to their fighting
strength was through adOption. According to Snydermam, "it is generally
conceded that adoption was the crucial social practice which particularly

"15

characterized Iroquois society and initiated many social Changes. He

notes that adoption is deeply enough engrained among the Iroquois to be
incorporated into many of their folk tales. He goes on to say that

by the time the white man arrived on the scene, the
policy of adoption of prisoners had already been
extended.from1the individual to the group-~and
remnants of whole nations were being swallowed up

in the Iroquois 'melting pot.' It is quite possible
that a primary motive for adOpting Sizeable groups

12

Fenton, p. 26.
13Tuck, p. 32.
1L'F‘enton, p. 200.
15

George S. Snyderman, Behind the Tree of Peace (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, 191787, p. 13.

 

88

mast/385a Lo beeper/E: "Mafiampmgr

.mamH ,Qoaocgfica. Cum soapmfiommflo

 

.momom mo can. one 9&me .m owhoow .cgfimoencm co ommmm

 

 

omoH com com 0mm owe oma.a cowaaos as; make
-u- .u. -u- -n- In- ooo.ma smanaam awed
oak oom Com 00H 00H ems.a emmemz maumaka
0mm ewe com 00H om OOH.H meamocoa mmea
Dos emH 0mm com sea omm.a smapaa .a awed
OOQH --- -u- -u- as ooo.~ smaonmm .>me ease
--- -u- 1-- --- --- OHH.H encamafimm mama
see sow arm as OHH omm.a mamemo same
--- --- --- --- -u- oom.a emeeeefii .Hoo ease
some com com owe gem oom.m amamemo mama
OQNH com com one saw oofi.m nausea
engage mama
some some some some some oom.e amazes ma mama
QOQH oem 0mm com com oma.m emaeecmmhw
espozpcmz knee
ease Dom 0mm com com omH.N semeaoo .Hoo heme
some --- --- --- -u- --- emeeamw some
coma com com --- oaa oam.H a mm-amea
some com --- --- --- --- peaches ma ma-aeaa
--- --- -I- --- --- coo.m newsmama He-oema
QQQH com com OOH com aom.~ peeemama om-mme
--- --- --- --- Dem --- pagea> ma-maea
oooe some see: comm ooom ooo.mm enemas aomma
moocmm mmfimo mmmococo moflmco Marco: pogo Loamfipmm stow
Hayes

momsooomcoo mfioooowH o5 our
Engage. €38ch mo .6952 fleece m6. mo mopmfivmm

89

was not only the 'replacement of a dead person'

but also the strengthening of the nation . .

It is also quite possible that another motive

for adOption was one of defense. Unquestionably,

some of the conquered peOple were settled in

strategic Spots to function as "buffers" against

wouldébe attaCkers.l
Besides the sources cited by Snyderman, there were other‘writers who
saw adoption as a means of strengthening the League. In the middle of
the eighteenth century, JOhn Bartramtwrote that "they very politically
strive to strengthen themselves not only by alliances with their
neighbors, but the prisoners they take."17

This consideration of Iroquois population during the Colonial

period leads not only to a fUrther'reason for confederation among the
five tribes, but also to a need for the unification Of the disparate
elements within each tribe, because wholesale adoption made strangers
of many individuals on the community level. Unity was necessary, there—
fore, on all levels of society, and it was the council that provided
this unity. There is another factor'we must examine befOre we analyze
that conference procedure, however. This factor involves the inter—
relationships among the land, the population, and the type Of agri-
culture practices by the Iroquois.

In spite Of the wholesale adoption practices just mentioned, the

Iroquois were always thinly scattered over their territory.

16Ibid., p. 1H.

l'JOhn Bartramn Observations on the Inhabitants, Climate, Soil,

Rivers, Productions, Animals, and Other Matters Worthy of Notice
(London: J. Whiston and B. White, 1751), p. 78.

 

90

Their population density per 100 kilometers was 7.149 while the Southern

18

Great Lakes area as a whole had a density of 9 .61. Ordinarily this

low population density would not have required a highly developed
agriculture, but we must remember that if the Iroquois had spread
themselves evenly over the land they would have become even more highly
vulnerable to attack. By historic times, then, the customary mode of
Iroquois life involved the organization of the population into a dozen

large villages, while "the greater part of their domain was devoid of

"19

habitation. That these "enclaves" were established for defensive

purposes becomes evident if we look closely at the Onondaga village
attacked by Champlain in 1615, long before the Iroquois building prac—
tices could have been seriously affected by Western influences.

Covering about Six acres in area, the village bordered a small
pond and was surrounded on three sides by water. In his account
Champlain wrote that their

village was enclosed with strong quadruple palisades
of large timber, thirty feet high, interlocked the
one with the other, with an interval of not more
than half a foot between them, with galleries in the
form of parapets, defended with double pieces of
timber, proof against our arquebuses, and on one
side they had a pond with a never—failing supply of
water, from which proceeded a number of gutters
which they had laid along the intermediate space,
throwing the water without, and rendering it effec-
tual inside for the purpose of extinguishing the
fire. Such was their mode of fortification and
defense, which was much stronger than the villages

 

18A.L. Kroeber, Cultmal and Natural Areas of Native North
America (Berkeley: University of California Press, E39), pp. 140,
1H2.

lgFenton, p. 199.

 

91

of the Attigouatuans (Hurons) and others.20
These concentrated, defensive villages made it impossible for the
Iroquois to subsist without an agriculture which could fully exploit
the countryside within easy walking distance. They would further find
it to their advantage to have an easily stored food supply. These
advantages were received when the Iroquois , somehow, adopted maize

culture from the Southeast. It was now possible for an Indian to raise

with primitive methods between 15 to 20 bushels Of corn on an acre of

ground.21

There were two ways in which the introduction of maize influenced

the manpower available to the Iroquois. According to Eggan,

given maize agriculture, which they may have brought

with them or received by diffusion, a greater con-

centration of pOpulation would result. Greater

emphasis on agriculture in favorable environment

might well lead to the further organEation of

women for agricultural co—Operation .
In other words, the agricultural practices Of the Iroquois enabled them
to concentrate their population in easily defensible positions and free
their men for warfare. In Spite Of their weakness in numbers, they
were able to rather efficiently deploy their human resources. Parker

concludes that "the Iroquois by dividing the labors necessary to sustain

life in the manner in which they did contributed much to the strength

20Morgan, pp. 130-3.

2lKroeber, p. 1146.

22Fred R. Eggan, "The Ethnological Cultures and their Archeo-
logical Backgrounds," in James B. Griffin, Archeology of Eastern United
States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), p. 1+3.

 

92

of their nation and its arms."23

However, maize agriculture is possible only under a given set
of conditions. The length of the growing season, the acidity and fri—
ability of the soil, and the SIOpe Of the land are all factors which
enter into its culture. Maize requires a 120 day growing season?”
if the soil dries out Slowly in the spring, the season must be even
longer in order to avoid rotting of the seed. If the soil is heavy
clay, even the traditional hill planting culture of the Indians becomes
tedious, especially when we consider that the planting was done by
women, who used nothing more than pointed sticks. Finally, if the land
is too sloping, the soil will wear out very quickly.

The Iroquois were fortunate in occupying level lands which in
some sections were sandy and in others were not particularly hard to
work. There was lime in the soil, and this was augmented by the prac-
tice of burning Off the hardwood forest to make suitable clearings.

The growing season was more than sufficient, even if one allowed for
the drying up of excess water in the spring.25' Thus women could provide
for the needs of the whole community, and "the fact that women took care
both of subsistence activities and the home made it possible for the

men to keep going off to war."26 Further, the concentration of large

 

23Arthur C. Parker, "Iroquois Uses of Maize and Other Food Plants,"
in Fenton, Parker on the Iroquois, p. 22.

zuKroeber, p. 211.
25

Martin G. Cline, Soils and Soil Associations Of New York
("Cornell Extension Bulletins," no. 930 (Itlfica, 19557, 7 andim passim.

26Morris Freilich, "Cultural Persistence Among the Modern
Iroquois," AnthroEs, LIII (1958), l+75.

 

 

93
numbers of people in fortified villages required effective means of
conflict resolution when differences arose among themn
These factors of physical location, population, and agricul—

tural practice, then, created the conditions for confederation, con-
ditions largely absent from the other Northeastern tribes. Other
factors, suCh as mutual suSpicion, tribal size, and linguistic dif-
ferences, worked against unity. It was the structure of Iroquois
conference whiCh took advantage of the drives toward unity and mini-

mized the forces that would otherwise separate the tribes.

The Structure of the Iroquois Council

 

The council was an extremely important institution in Iroquois

life. According to Morgan,

it is a singular fact, resulting fromlthe structure
of Indian institutions, that nearly every trans-
action, whether social or political, originated or
terminated in a council. This universal and favorite
mode Of doing business became interwoven with all the
affairs of public and private life. In council,
pUblic transactions of every name and Character'were
planned, scrutinized, and adopted. The succession
Of their rulers, their athletic games, dances,
religious festivals, and their social intercourse,
were all alike identified.with councils.

These councils took three major forms: civil, mourning, and relig—
ious.28 Civil councils were used to handle the internal buSiness and

external diplomacy of the Iroquois. The mourning councils "raised up"

 

27Lewis H. MOrgan, League of the Ho-De—NO Sau—Nee or Iroquois
(New York: Dodd Mead and Company, 1901),II, 102.

28Ibid. The remainder of the paragraph is also drawn from the

same source, whiCh has been accepted by later'historians and anthro—
pologists with little if any qualification.

 

9n
chiefs to replace those who had died or for some other reason had to
be replaced. Religious councils, as the name indicates, involved group
ceremonial and religious rites. In actual practice the ftmlctions of
the councils overlapped, because civil councils were permeated with
religious sanctions, mourning councils "raised up" those who would
then serve on civil councils, and religious councils made use of many
practices used in the other two, while serving as a training ground for
those Iroquois who would later assume positions enabling them to trans—
act important secular business.

Councils, Of whatever sort, were modeled upon the family.
Among themselves, the Iroquois referred to each other as "brother."
This was an extension by analogy of the idea that each of the five
confederated tribes was a member of the same extended family, that the
league itself was a metaphorical longhouse, with the thadks and Senecas
guarding its doors and the Onondagas its fire keepers. Pyrlaeus, a
missionary among the Mohawks from 17110 to 1760, wrote in his notes that

the name for the league meant "one house, one family."29 In Seneca,

Iroquois means literally "house builders."30

According to Morgan,
the several nations of the Iroquois, united con—
stituted one Family, chlelling together in one

Long House; and these ties of family relationship

were carried througiout their civil and social

system, from individuals to tribes, from tribes

 

29John Heckewelder, History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian
Nations ("Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvanfiia,‘r Vofi XII
Philadelphia, 1876), 96.

30wa11aoe L. Chafe, Handbook of the Seneca Language_("New York
State Museum and Science Service Bulletins?r NO. 388 Albany, 1963) , 56.

 

 

95
to nations, and from the nations to the League itself,
and bound thgril together in one common, indissoluble
brotherhood.

Within the family all were brothers, although the Senecas,
Onondagas, and Mohawks were considered "Older" than the two smaller
tribes, the Oneidas and Cayugas.32 This slight distinction, however,
apparently had little effect on the decision-making process. All
tribes, as ritual brothers, had an equal voice in deciding issues,
and the votes of all were essential. Morgan and others note that

all the sachems of the league, in whom originally

was vested the entire civil power, were required

to be of. 'One mind, ' .to give efficacy to their33

legislation. Unanimity was a fundamental law.
Although this need to speak with "one mind" has been thought by some
as a weakness in the league, it may be only ethnocentrism which looks
upon unanimity as a cumbersome or inefficient mechanism in the com-
ication process. Often, as in the Society Of Friends, unanimity may
have two valuable features: extremely subtle forms of persuasion are
adopted during the deliberation, and a rare feeling of unity emerges
after the members have reached a decision. The council of the league,
therefore, was a means by which participants and observers could develop
rhetorical skills , and, during at least the Colonial period, councils

led to high group integration. Nor can unanimity as practiced among

the Iroquois be considered particularly Lmusual. F.G. Bailey has

 

3J'Morgan, leagpe, pp. 56—7.
32Fenton, p. 199
33Morgan, ibid., p. 106.

96

generalized from his Observations of councils in Britain and India
that

councils lean toward consensus when they have one

of the following Characteristics: (1) an admin-

istrative function, especially when they lack

sanctions, or (2) an elite position in Opposition

to their publiga or (3) concern with external

relationships.
Since, as we shall see, the Iroquois council possessed all three of
these features in some degree or another, unanimity does not SEEHI
foreign to its nature.

The communication pattern leading to that consensus can be
traced by examining Shimony's description Of the workings of the civil
council at Grand River Reserve.35 Her material agrees with the earlier
findings of BeauChamp,36 Parker,37 and Goldenweiser,38 and can serve
as a model.from1which we can generalize certain conclusions about
earlier'lroquois council practice. AS‘Will be shown later, a further
justification for the extension Of Shimony's model to the historical

Iroquois rests on the kinds of restraints it places upon its partici-

pants.

 

3L'F. G. Bailey, "Decisions by Consensus in Councils and Committees,"
in Political Systems and the Distribution ongower ("MOnographs of the
Association of Social Anthropologists," NO. 2 [1963]), 13.

3SAnnemarie Anrod Shimony, Conservatism Among the Iroquois at the
Six Nations Reserve ("Yale University Publications in Anthropology,"
No. 65 [New Haven, 1961]), 122.

36WilliamN'. BeauChamp, Civil, Religious and MOurning Councils
and Ceremonies of the New York Indians ("New York State Museum.Bulletins,"
NO. 113 [Albany, 1906]), #231

37Parker, Parker on the Iroquois, imLEassimh

38AlexanderA. Goldenweiser, Early Civilization (New York:
F.S. Crofts and Co., 1935), p. 76.

 

 

97
At Grand River the sachems of the various tribes take their
places according to a certain prescribed pattern, The MOhawks and
Senecas sit together facing the Oneidas and Cayugas. The Onondaga

saChems sit between the two groups.

Females Males
MOhawk-Seneca
stove stove Onondaga

Oneida-Cayuga

According to Shimony, an issue befOre the Confederacy saChems involved
the consensus of two subdivisions within the League.39 These sub—
divisions whiSpered within their own group but Spoke out loud to the
other group. .After the saChems of the Onondaga tribe had presented the
issue to the council, it was discussed among themselves by the Seneca —
MOhawk or "elder brother" division, who then announced their group
decision to the Oneida - Cayuga, or "younger brothers." If this second
group consented, their decision was announced to the "elder'brothers."
They in turn relayed the combined decision back to the Onondaga, who
either delivered the consensus to the outsiders or Chose a speaker to
do this task fOr’themn Where unanimity could not be reached, the con-
sultative process either continued until the Opposition was worn down
or the issue ended in impasse.

This description of Iroquois conference permits us to chart the

direction of consensus in the fOllowing form:

 

39Shimony, pp. 120-2.

98
"Elder Brothers" "Younger Brothers"

MOhaWk H > Oneida

 

l

Seneca \ 5 ---- Cayuga

Onondaga
"fire keepers"
+
2 l
7

4'
(Spokesman)

i

1 A

l +
Outsiders ,

The spokesman himself did not participate in the decision-making process
unless he was also a Confederacy saChem. A member of either the Mohawk,
Seneca, or Onondaga tribe, he served in his capacity fOr only one day,
after*whiCh he had to be reappointed or else another speaker appointed
in his place.”0 His function was to serve as a go-between to those
outside the council.”1 The Onondagas, if they wiShed, could take over
this function for themselves.

Shimony's model of the civil council applies to other kinds of
councils on the tribal and inter-tribal level. At the Allegheny
Reservation during the Midwinter Festival this year, the ceremonies

were held in a brand—new Longhouse built by the Federal government

 

HOParker, p. 33.
ulIbid.

 

99

because the old one had been flooded by the Kinzua dam, Yet the new
building retained the same Shape as the old, and its benChes and
stoves were the same. Because the ceremony only involved the Senecas,
there were no divisions along tribal lines. The same pattern emerged,
however, in the arrangement by clan memberShip. The women were sep—
arated from.the men, as in Shimony's model, but participated actively
in the ceremonials. When they had business Of their~own to bring
before the group, one Of the clan mothers went to the other Side and
whispered instructions. Speaking was done through designated Spokesman,
never~women or outsiders. In fact, the two societies who were most
prominent during the ceremonies, the False Faces and Husk Faces, were
composed Of beings who could not talk at all. When the Husk Faces
wished to address the group, they abducted one of the men, took him
outside, and somehow conveyed to himlwhat they wanted him to say when
he returned.

Certain behavior Observed at this council-~ceremonial seemed to
contradict the idea that only mature males holding a Specified rank
could participate in the meeting. Babies and young Children were very
muCh in evidence. Obviously, the Midwinter festival and other ceremonies
like it must serve as a training ground in conference procedure. Also,
the clan mothers, though they never spoke out loud, must have had a
profOund influence, for in virtually every part of the ceremony that
improvised from the set, traditional formulas they could be seen con—
sulting with the male speakers in advance. Many writers have remarked
upon the fact that the Iroquois Confederacy is an economic matriarChate.

AS we have already pointed out, women have been in control of the fOod

100

supply since the introduction of maize culture. On marriage, the male
enters the clan of the wife. The clan mother is the one who appoints

the Chiefs. The division Of the Longhouse into male and female Sides,
then, does not imply an economic or political subordination of women,

but rather a division of labor.

Remembering, therefore, that all ages and both sexes are present
at Iroquois councils, and remembering also that these non-speaking
groups may have an effect on council deliberations, let us return to
Shimony's model. Doing so, we notice that it has a number of interesting
features. First of all, the whiSpering which occurs within eaCh group
allows the MOhawk-Seneca or the Oneida-Cayuga "side" to work out dis-
agreements without bringing them to the attention Of the others.
Unanimity, or at least the outward.face of unanimity, can be preserved
because disagreements cannot be brought out in the Open or passed along
the communication chain. Because there were fifty saChems in the tra—
ditional civil council, secret deliberations would have been difficult
fOr purely structural reasons, but by dividing the council into two
conference groups of seventeen (the number of MOhawk and Seneca saChems)
and nineteen (the number Of Oneida and Cayuga sachems) and placing the
fourteen Onondaga chiefs as a separate, mediating body, conference size
was brought down to manageable limits and the chances fOr more private
deliberation and small group interaction increased. WhiSpering also
enabled each side to maintain a certain amount of "family" solidarity
with respect to those outside the group and allowed discussion to be

handled on a freer basis.

101
Second, the division into MOhawk—Seneca and Oneida—Cayuga cut

across a number of natural divisions among the five tribes. Hicker-
son”2 and Hoffman!+3 have pointed out that there have been three his-
torically separate speech communities within the Confederacy. Applying
a test WhiCh required modern-day Iroquois to translate materials from
other SpeeCh communities, Hickerson, Turner, and Hickerson prOposed six
languages within the Iroquoian family. Three Of these were represented
by the League members. According to the authors of the study,

Senecas and Cayugas understood all or almost all

of the Seneca and approximately oneehalf of the

Onondaga; this was reciprocal with the Onondagas;

MOhawks and Oneidas in general (but not all)

claimed better understanding of Onondaga. ”
In other words, modern Senecas and Cayugas, and modern.MOhawkS and
Oneidas, are mutually intelligible. The Onondagas occupy an intermedi—
ate position——their language is intermediate between the other two speech

communities. Putting this information into sChematic fOrmn

Seneca Mohawk
Onondaga
Cayuga Oneida

we see a pattern emerging which is remarkably similar to the structure

of the Iroquois council,

 

”ZHarold Hickerson, Glen D. Turner, and Nancy P. Hickerson,
"Testing Procedures for Evaluating Transfer of Information Among
Iroquois Dialects and Languages," International Journal of American
Linguistics, XVIII (January, 1952).

u3Bernard G. Hoffman, "Iroquois Linguistic Classification From
Historical Materials," Ethnohistory, VI (Spring, 1959).

DruHickerson, pp. 6—7.

 

 

 

102
Mohawk Oneida
Onondaga

Seneca Cayuga
but with one important difference. In the council situation the two
languages with the least in common (Mohawk-Oneida and Seneca—Cayuga)
have been split and, though the tribes which speak the same language
are face to face with one another, they are on Opposite sides of the
fire. Disputes or differences whiCh might arise from linguistic
separation are kept within eaCh whispering "side." The Onondagas,
whose language occupies a middle position between Seneca—Cayuga and
Mohawk—Oneida, are the mediators between the two "sides." The struc-
ture Of the League council, whether on purpose or not, serves to mini—
mize linguistic differences.

These linguistic differences were always with the Confederacy,
though not to the same extent as today. Generally Speaking, the dif—
ferences between two languages with a common ancestor are related to
their degree of geographical separation and the number of years since
the separation has taken place. Thus the languages with which we are
concerned were closer together a hundred or'two hundred years ago.
Further, the fact that there were three languages in the Iroquois Con-
federacy does not mean that they are as far apart, say, as English is
from DutCh or German. Chafe points out a common retention of basic
vocabulary between Seneca and Oneida of 65 percent.1+5 Since lexical

Change occurs the most readily, we may suppose the two languages to be

 

”Swallace L. Chafe, "Seneca Morphology I: Introduction,"
International Journal of American Linguistics, XXVI (January, 1960), ll.

103
even more closely related in the areas of phonemics, morphology, and
syntax; and if the relationships between Seneca and Oneida are this
close, the inter—relationships between Seneca and Onondaga, or between
Onondaga and Oneida, are closer still. In earlier times, of course,
the languages would have been even nearer to each other. Hoffman, in
his study of early historical records, found an 80 to 90 percent rela-
tionship between the words of each Confederacy language that were

“'6 With the existence Of certain

cognate with the words of the others .
non—linguistic factors, such as elaborate gesture, the highly structured
context of the council, and a common ideology, the language barriers in
the league councils were not insurmountable. It would also not be
outrageous to the existence of a number of bilingual or even polylingual
individuals within the Confederacy. There are a number of such people
today, and the existence of intermarriage among the tribes , their phy-
sical continguity, and the high degree of COOPeration they manifested
would almost dictate that this was the condition in the past. The
linguistic differences, where they did remain, were mitigated by council
structure.

Other differences which might have caused dissension among the
tribes were also at least partly alleviated by the council arrangement.
The tribes who were the farthest separated, in terms of actual physical
distance, were placed on the same "side," Opposite the two interior

tribes. Thus the Mohawks and Senecas found their natural allies, the

Oneidas and Cayugas respectively, on the other side of the fire, and

 

usHoffman, p. 171+.

101+
the two real powers of the League were forced to resolve their dif-
ferences in whiSpering sessions between themselves. At least to the
outsider, the facade of League unity could be preserved even when real
differences existed. Most important, divisions whiCh might have arisen
fromxthe possession of different amounts of power~were nullified. The
two numerically weakest tribes (the Oneida and Cayuga) were given
equal dicision-making status with the two most powerful tribes, because
eaCh side had to give its assent to proposals befOre they could become
legislation. Of course, the two sides were not equal in ceremonial
position, for the "elder brothers (MOhawk, Onondaga, Seneca) are
addressed as 'my father's kinsmen' by the younger brothers (Oneida and
Cayuga), who are 'sons' to the former.”7 In spite of this formal
distinction, however, the tripartite council rendered all five tribes
equal in terms of real power.

To summarize the effect of council structure on the five member
tribes, we can see the unconscious application of Max GluCkman's notion
that "conflicting loyalties and divisions of allegiance tend to inhibit
the develOpment of Open quarreling."LLB Linguistic and territorial
differences which might have divided the tribes were cut across in the
council. While numerical strength was not thus divided, it was nullified

by the requirement for unanimity and by the placing of tribes with equal

 

u7William.N. Fenton, "The Iroquois Confederacy in the Twentieth

Century: .A Case Study of the Theory of Lewis H. Morgan in 'Ancient
Society,'" Ethnology, IV (July, 1965), 258—9.

”8Max Gluckman, Custom.and Conflict in Africa (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1965), p. 25.

 

105

strength in mutual relation and ritual Obligation to eaCh other. The
two tribes with the fewest common concerns and the most differences--
the MOhawk and the Seneca-—were placed together in their own whispering
conference and fOund themselves in structural Opposition to their
natural allies, their "brothers across the fire." The natural causes
for division among the tribes, then, were not paralleled.by a "natural"
Council arrangement. Instead, the balancing of various differences
argues strongly for the theory that the structure was deliberately
designed. Thus, Wallace's view that the Iroquois Confederacy is an
artificial institutionalization of prOhibition against interetribal
blood feud seems plausible, even though he has based his Opinion on

the myth surrounding the fOrmation of the Confederacy, and not on Con-
federacy structure.”g Certain other~writers, who argue that the League
is a set of formal restraints on Iroquois male competitiveness,50 are
also supported by the evidence whiCh suggests a deliberate structuring

of the League.

The Individual in the Iroquois Council
To see the full extent Of the structural restraints on the indi—
vidual, however, we must trace the Obligations and responsibilities of

the sachems from.the League council back to their extended households.

 

LigAnthony F.C. Wallace, "The Dakanawideh Myth Analyzed as the
Record of a Revitalization MOvement," EthnOhistory, V (Spring, 1958)
12H.

 

5001?. Morris Frielich, p. 1175, and Margaret Mead, ed., 99.-
Operation and Competition_Among Primitve Peoples (New York: McGraw-Hill
Bock Company, 1937), p. 477.

 

IUD

As we have already indicated, "the League was established upon the

principles, and was designed to be but an elaboration, of the Family

51

Relationships." Linton felt this extension of family relationships

to be essential to the League:

The patterns of confederate governments are,
almost without exception, projections Of those

of the tribal governments with which their members
are familiar. While these patterns always have to
be somewhat modified to meet the new conditions,
there is a clearly recognizable continuity. Thus
the Iroquois has a single basic pattern of formal
control which extended from the household through
clan, village, and tribe to the league itself.
They themselves recognized this continuity,
referring to the league as the Long House and empha—
sizing its similarity to a household.52

To phrase it another way, the individual sachem in Council was in
ritual relation to the other sachems in the same way that he was in
actual relation to the members of his extended family.

This extended family was the basic building block in Iroquois
society. Descent was traced through the females and, around the head
mother of each family, there were connected a large number of individuals
representing many generations. Men, when they married, entered their
wives' families. Property that was not owned by the whole tribe
decended through the female line.53

Because the Iroquois were matrilineal, sachemships did not

automatically pass down from father to son, but were instead the property

 

5lMorgan, leaglg, p. 56.

52Ralph Linton, The Study of Man (New York: Appleton—Century-
Crofts, Inc., 1936), p. 2H2.

53Goldenweiser, p. 71+.

 

107

Clan and Tribal Affiliations of Iroquois Sachems

 

Total
Tribe chiefs
Clan\ Mohawk Seneca Onondaga Oneida Cayuga in clan
Turtle 3 2 1+ 3 2 1‘4
Wolf 3 l l 3 8
Bear 3 l 3 3 2 12
Snipe 3 l 2 6
Deer 3 l 1+
Heron 2 2
Hawk 1 l
Unidentified 2 l 3

Total of clans
in tribes 9 8 1'4 9 10

 

Based on Morgan, Lewis H. League of the Ho—De—No Sau—Nee or Iroquois.
2 vols. New York: Dodd Mead and Company, 1901.

 

of the wife's extended family, or lineage. A number of lineages were
combined into exogamous clans, and these clans were in turn represented,
usually, in a number of the five tribes. The son, therefore, was never
a member of the same clan as his father. Yet at the same time he might
be related by clan affiliation to other Iroquois from different tribes.
Tracing one League sachem, we find him representing a lineage containing
his mother, mother's brothers, sisters, and brothers. He is also "bro-
ther" to members of other lineages within his clan. He is linked to a
second clan (across moiety lines in the tribes where they exist) by
means of his father. Sitting in council, the sachem is joined by other

members of his clan who come from other villages and other tribes.

108
These clans cut across the tripartite arrangement of the Council. 'lhen
this tripartite arrangement forms yet another set of relationships ,
for the sachem is "brother" to all the other sachems on his side of the
fire and either "son" or "father's kin" to those on the other side.

Morgan's classification of the clan relationships, shown on the
preceding page, allows us to see the full complexity of these inter-
locking kinship groupings . Only the sachems of the Hawk and Heron clans
did not have clan brothers on the other side of the fire. The two most
well—represented clans (the Bear and Turtle) had members in all five
tribes. The Onondagas, as mediating tribe, had clan affiliations with
all but three or four of the sachems from other tribes. The clan
affiliations, therefore, cut across tribal lines, and sachems separated
on one level were united on the other. To the extent that clan affil—
iations had psychological reality for the individual, his membership in
that clan restricted his behavior, for he possessed a commonality of
interest with certain other council participants and owed them a number
of obligations.

The extended household of the League sachem was important in
another way. The names of the original chiefs of the Confederacy had
been preserved in the oral tradition, and when an old chief died another
person from the same lineage assumed both his role and his name. Thus,
not only were the sachems members of one "family" sitting around the
fire of a symbolic Long House which was co-extensive with the League ,
but they were members of a "family" whose original members had never
died. Upon the death of any sachem, the League Condolence Council

raised him from the dead in the person of his successor.

109

At the Condolence Council, the tribes arranged themselves, not
in the tripartite arrangement of conference, but in a dual or moiety
arrangement , with the Onondagas joining the other elder brother tribes .
The ceremony was an installation, not an election,“ for the chief had
already been chosen by his lineage and ratified by his clan and tribe.
After the mourning for the old chief, the new sachem was given his name
and his place in council. While we must be carerl how far'we draw
implications from the Condolence Council, the induction ceremony must
have had a profound effect on the newly installed sachem, for sanctions
of both a.religious and traditional nature were applied. These are
succinctly noted by Goldenweiser:

This was a great intertribal festival which was

attended by all the Chiefs of the League who were

able to be present, and to which all the people

were invited. Prayers were recited, the names of

the chiefs enumerated; the duties of chieftainship

were once more called to the minds 8; the people,

and a new chief entered the League.
Even today, these sanctions retain their power on the newly installed
sadhem.56

One feature of the sachem's office that demonstrated his new
status and indicated his membership in a cooperative group'was the fact
that he was denied participation in war. Wright indicated that the

women whose lineage they represented had to remove their "horns" of

office if they went to war and re—install them after the termination of

 

5”Beauchamp, p. 34”.
55Goldenweiser, p. 78.

56M.H. Deardorff. Private conversation with the author,
September 6, 1969.

110
hostilities.57 War chiefs had no part in Council business and no
sachem could also be war chief ;58 somehow, there was felt to be inherent
in the office of sachem an inability to pmsue this most competitive of
Iroquois activities. In this respect, the ordination ceremony marked
the setting apart of a man from the others in his tribe.

This feature leads us to infer that it was the Condolence Cere-
mony, the very act of becoming a sachem, which led to a conscious
adoption by the Council members of a different pattern of behavior.59
To Wallace, the Condolence ritual was the "strategic innovation" which
activated the myth of the Great Tree of Peace and brought the Leage to—
gether in cocperative activity.60 The operation of the myth may very
well have required "new" men, individuals who had been reborn in such
a way that they were more peace—loving and cooperative. In those cases

where an individual possessed too much personal influence or persuasive

 

57Asher Wright, "Seneca Indians," reprinted by Fenton, William N. ,
ed. , "Documents; Seneca Indians by Asher Wright," Ethnohistory, IV
(Summer, 1957), 311-2.

58Parker, pp. Lil, SA.

59The sachem quite literally might have become a different person.

For example, at a ceremony attended by the author, a Seneca was asked
how one became a member of the Bear Society, which was dancing at the
moment. One does not join, he was told; one just is a bear. The Bears
were still human beings, of course, but they were either once bears or
had their destiny controlled by the bears. They were no longer strictly
themselves. Asked if this conformed to the old idea of being "called"
to a particular vocation, the informant said this was close to the idea,
but that actually there were no words in English which could explain

the concept. The Bears, of course, are not elected, but join when they
perceive this identification themselves.

BOWallace , p. 12a.

 

111
power, as in the cases of Joseph Brent and RedJacket,61 he was denied
the office of sadhem1(though not necessarily that of lesser Chief) be-

cause this delicate cooperative balance would.have been disturbed.

Conclusion

 

In this chapter'we have seen how the five Iroquois tribes banded
together out of common needs and made use of religious and traditional
sanctions to ensure cooperation in the conduct of League affairs. In
place of natural divisions arising out of language, area of residence,
and numberical strength, the League sUbstituted a new division.whiCh cut
across the natural ones and.whidh was modeled on the pattern.of the
extended family. The new sachemu taking on the name of one of the
founders of the League, had restraints placed upon his individual be-
havior because of the Obligations he owed to his lineage, his clan, his
village and tribe, the brothers on his side of the fire, and the League
as a whole. Perhaps like certain religious figures of the East, he
also felt reborn as a new person when he took the name of a founder.

At any rate, every individual in council had his communicative behavior
shaped by these restraints. The extended family on the one hand and
the League structure on the other represented the two extremes of a
continuum along which all the other'councils so prevalent in Iroquois
life could be placed.

This model for communicative behavior, and the set of restraints
it embodied, was intricate, and it was also fragile. After*the Revolu—

tion the introduction of Christianity and the loss of tradition

 

61MOrgan, p. 97.

112
seriously weakened League sanctions. The reservation system and the
elimination of war as an outlet for competitive activity forced basic
realignments in the conduct of affairs. Differing rates of accultura—
tion also introduced new problems. If Nicholas is correct in seeing
current factions as being entirely different from the old divisions of
language, territory, and military power,62 then the delicate balance
achieved by the old League in nullifying these distinctions is no longer
valid when applied to present Iroquois allignments. If Fenton is
correct in viewing the old League as peace-keeping machinery rather than
civil administration,63 the League loses much of its current relevance,
even though it continues to persist. Applying material dram from
Fortes and Evans-Pritchard, Nicholas reasons that factions in a society
like the Iroquois are controlled when there is "an equilibrium between
a number of segments, spatially juxtaposed and structurally equivalent,
which are defined in local and lineage, and not in administrative
terms."6u These conditions were met in early post—Contact Iroquois
society, but the coming of the white man brought new problems and made
competition, not cooperation, the rule in Iroquois politics after the
Revolution. In turn, this process could only have occurred with the
erosion of the interlocking obligations which bound the sachems of the

League and the lineages they represented. And once these restraints

 

62Ralph W. Nicholas, Iroquois Factions, A Case of Seqmentary

O osition, preliminary version of Master of Arts research paper
(University of Chicago, November 21+, 1958), passim.

63Fenton, pp. 258—63.
suNicholas, p. 3.

 

113
were weakened, the factionalismxmore natural to the Iroquois and
American Indians generally could.replace the ritually imposed cooper—
ative behavior of the League Council.65
In describing the effect of the Council on Iroquois affairs

during the Colonial period, Wallce concludes that

a true steady state of Iroquoian culture is not,

of course, achieved, if for not (sic) other

reason than that the arrival of Europeans created

new stresses and distortions.66
But, he goes on to say, the elimination of the competition that would
have otherwise existed within and among the five tribes gave the Iroquois

a sufficient degree of unity (in spite of the

League's essentially non-military Character) to

promote the efficiency of external war; to permit

the peaceful joint use of large hunting terri—

tories . . ., to allow an extremely effective

policy of admitting 'dependent' tribes to settle

on their territory, and to facilitate the develOp-

ment of a.fairiy well—coordinated policy of

playing off contending European powers against
eaCh other for nearly a century. 7

At the time of the Revolution, the League Council was losing this
effectiveness, and it was no longer a sufficiently powerful restraint on
individual behavior. Designed to keep the peace within the Confederacy,
it was not equipped to handle the situation when its members fought on
both sides of the Revoltuion and Indians as individuals were adopting
the ways of white men. As Linton reminds us, "under conditions of rapid

cultural Change, the patterns whiCh limit individual aChievement always

 

5For a general description of Indian factionalism, see Linton,
p. 229.

66Wallace, p. 12m.
67mm.

 

111;
tend to break down."68 By the beginning of the nineteenth century,
it was the individual faction leader, and not the Council as a whole ,
who was directing the course of Iroquois policy. Red Jacket could

rise to prominence because traditional structures had weakened, but he

still had to operate within their conventions.

 

68Linton, p. 202.

CHAPTER V

THE ORATORICAL TRADITION

The orator—spokesmen used by the councils of the Iroquois to
express their views had abundant opportunity to practice their craft,
and to have their craft recorded by whites, in the two hundred.year
period before Red JaCket's reply to Reverend Cram. They considered

themselves to be "the mouths of the Iroquois."1

They claimed to speak
for a united nation.2 They engaged in a clever'balancing act between
the competing European powers on this continent. As we shall see in
this Chapter, their speeChes were important instruments in the artic—
ulation of Iroquois policy. Above all, they succeeded in flimrflamming
not only their contemporaries but generations of future historians as
well.

According to Hunt, who appears to be outraged over previous
theories of Iroquois "supremacy," no previous explanation of the
Iroquois phenomenon is really satisfactory. The first of these "is the
theory that they were possessed of an 'insensate fury' and 'homicidal

tn3

frency. The second is "that a superior political organization, the

League of the Iroquois, produced by a superior Iroquois intellect,

 

1George T. Hunt, The Wars of the Iroquois (Madison: The University
of Wisconsin.Fress, 19u0), p. 3.

2Ibid.
3Ibid. , p. 6.

 

 

115

116
rendered the Five Nations invincible."u The third is "that a great
supply of firearms . . . gave rein to a natural passion for conquest
and butchery, which they indulged at random but with mimaginable
enthusiasm. "5
Hunt finds none of these answers "in the least convincing."6
In his examination of the first he points out that neighboring and
related tribes did not possess any "innate fury," so ethnic and racial
explanations do not seem to hold; moreover, the blood of the Iroquois
was anything but pure.7 As to the second theory, Hunt believes the
Confederacy was no more effective as a political organization than a
mmber of neighboring Indian alliances. To prove this, he cites
instances when the League failed to unite in matters of defense and
aggressive war. "DeSpite the bluster of Mohawk orators," he writes,
"there is not a single recorded instance of unanimous or anywhere near
unanimous action by the League prior to 1653, and none save in peace
treaties thereafter."8 As to the third theory, Hunt offers evidence to

prove that the Iroquois were no better armed than their neighbors . Even

had they possessed the weapons , they would have been unable to use them

 

 

 

LiIbid.

5I'b___i_d,p. 7.
6D)__i_.d,p. 6.
:Ibid.,p. '7.

Ibi d. , pp. 7- 8. The date of 1653 is meaningless, of course, be—
cause there are virtually no "recorded" instances of Iroquois activity
before that date. Hunt does not seem to realize that the League was
only peace—keeping machinery in the first place, Confederacy sachems
being denied the right to wage war. In this section Hunt faults Lewis
Henry Morgan because he is "not a historian." In this Specific instance
Hunt proves he is not an anthropologist.

ll7

effectively because of their limited mmbers. Surveying the same
literature twenty years after Hunt did, the historian Allen Trelease
reaches the same conclusion. He believes that "the tremendous military
power of the Iroquois and the widespread influence which resulted from
it were out of all proportion to the league's population."9 Because
these theories do not explain the influence of the Iroquois in Colonial
times, Hunt and Trelease offer their own.

Their thesis is this. The Iroquois, through an accident of
geography , lay across the major trade routes to the interior and between
the colonizing major powers. Because of their favorable position, the
Iroquois could stop other tribes from participating in the fur trade
and control it for themselves. According to Hunt,

it follows that unless the Iroquois were themselves
peculiar, it must have some connection with geog-
raphy and climate; and when it is recalled that the
rise of the Iroquois to power coincided with the
spread of the white trade throughout their region

and the regions beyond them, a second inference
follows, namely that some peculiarity of the Iroquois
position and the Spread of the white trade may well
have combined to produce a motivation sufficiently
pmerful to drive the Iroquois through a half century
of inter—tribal conflict with their brother tribesmen,
the closely related peoples that almost surrounded
them. The inference gains in strength when it is
recalled that throughout the wars there nms cease-
lessly the theme of trade and commercial arrangement,
and that even the merciless Indian oratory, pmctuated
by gifts made in frank expectation of counter-gifts,
is wound tightly about a core of commercial negoti—
ation--of proposal and comter—proposal . 10

 

9Allen W. Trelease, Indian Affairs in Colonial New York (Ithaca:

Cornell University Press, 1960), p. 16.

loHunt , pp. 10—11.

 

118

This theory is attractive, and it is well documented by Htmt and
Trelease, but to this writer at least it is subject to the same kind of
error as the previous explanations. The geographical position of the
Iroquois could as easily have led to extinction as to conquest. We
have remarked in the last chapter that lakes and river systems are open
to two-way traffic—-one can be invaded as well as invade. Had Hmt
waited a few months before publishing his book he would have discovered,
in the cases of Poland and Belgium, that mere geographical placement
between great powers does not guarantee survival or influence. The
Stockbridge Indians, the Mohegans , and the Hurons also lay between the
European powers and the sources of fur, yet they were annihilated. No
other Eastern tribes made geographical accident or the economics of the
fur trade work to their advantage. No other Eastern tribes, with the
exception of scattered bands of Seminoles who took refuge in the in—
accessible swamps of Florida, managed to resist extermination, absorp-
tion, or forced deportation to the West. Economics and geography, in
other words, are still only partial answers to the Iroquois question.

For the moment , then, let us look beyond the various theories
to the men who made them. What is it that led Parkman and other his-
torians to believe that the Iroquois were possessed by an innate blood
lust? Why did Morgan and others believe that they were governed by a
superior political organization? What factors caused chroniclers to
grossly overestimate their firepader and fighting force? We have seen
that the t__op_c_>_i_ developed in the Iroquois council involved much more
than "commercial negotiation." Then why does Hunt believe that eco-

nomics is their major motivation? The answer lies in something Hunt

119
says in another connection shortly after he first proposes his economic
thesis. "What is true is never so important historically," he says,

"as what peOple think is true."11

If we ponder this statement to any
extent at all, we find a common thread running through 01m questions

and an answer to them. It is here that we find the true importance of
Iroquois orator-spokesmen. It was they who told others that only with
the greatest difficulty were warriors being kept off the warpath, they
who spoke of the combined force of a united League, they who gave the
numbers of guns and fighting men. It was they who, with "merciless .
oratory" made "proposal and counter—proposal" to the Eastern traders .

It was their duty to interpret the League to outsiders. If they pre-
sented the Five Nations as vindictive towards its enemies, united and
strong, canny in trading relations, we can hardly expect them to have
done otherwise. Regardless of what the facts were, outsiders would know
little about their forest "empire" beyond what the orator—Spokesmen told
them. It is a measure of their success that their contemporaries, and
future historians, believed them.

Since we are mounting here still another theory to explain the
effectiveness of the Iroquois, let us consider a few examples. First,
explore the "do one thing but tell something else to the anthropologist"
syndrome. The Code of Handsome Lake is not written down, some writers
maintain, because to do so would be un—Indian. Yet the Code has been
passed down with remarkable consistency through the generations.
Handsome Lake preachers must recite the whole Code from memory, to us

a prodigious feat. You are led to believe that they can do this because

 

llIbid.

 

120

they have received a Special gift from the Great Spirit. Yet before
his death Merle Deardorff told this writer that he once found a well—
worn c0py of New York State Museum Bulletin No. 163 by the bedside of
a Handsome Lake preaCher. Or consider Red Jacket himself, who tells
the Reverend Cram, "We never quarrel about religion." Or the old
confederacy sachemlwho describes to Lewis Henry Mergan a.great League
dedicated to the furtherance of peace. Or the orators who tell those
French writers who are Parkman's principal sources about the large
numbers of ferocious warriors back home'who must be placated to end a
war.12 Surely those of us who have lived through the U-2 incident,
the Bay of Pigs, and the Gulf of Tonkin must be familiar~with the pro—
cess taking place. It is called "the art of finding in every given
case the available means of persuasion." It is the ability to make
the probable appear to be the truth itself. It is rhetoric.

This is not to say that the explanations offered by Hunt and
the others are incorrect. Indeed, we may never know the truth about
these explanations if fabrications prove skillful enough to hide the
true state of affairs. Yet to themlwe can add a fifth theory, involving
a group of skillful speakers whose deliberate policy was the diplomatic
lie. The rest of this chapter'will seek to demonstrate that suCh
Speakers existed, orators so capable that they could compete on at

least equal terms with those on the other side of the council fire.

 

12Someone must explain to this writer why there was always one
FrenChman left to return to his companions and describe the unspeakable
atrocities visited on the rest of his party by the Iroquois. Once
again, was this the result of a deliberate policy?

121
BefOre we do so, however, we must diSpose of an assumption contained in
a previous dissertation on Iroquois oratory.

Wynn Reynolds maintains in his Persuasive Speakingpof the Iroquois

 

Indians at Treaty Councils: 1678-1776 that Confederacy spokesmen were
frequently very good, but he argues that this result came about by
accident, not through any purposeful behavior on their part:

A critical analysis of the official transcripts
discloses that several of the orators gained a
reputation for eloquence, vocal quality, and the

use of appropriate gestures. With but one excep-
tion, however, none of the Speakers expressed an
awareness of the need to employ rhetorical teChniques,
although it is apparent from1the widespread and
continuous utilization of acceptable techniques,

and from the deliberate misuse of them, that indi—
vidual speakers, observing what teChniques had been
effective in previous Speaking situations, had
constructed certain rhetorical formulas on the basis
of trial and error, apg on the basis of their knowl-
edge of human nature.

Notice the extensive use of qualifiers here. Reynolds believes that
Iroquois Speakers constructed "certain rhetorical formulas"; he sees
"widespread and continuous utilization of acceptable techniques"; but
he will not draw the conclusion which these facts point to. "What is
not apparent," he continues, "is the existence of a comprehensive body
of rhetorical knowledge common to all speakers."1H
This conclusion puts us in a quandary. We cannot claim that

Iroquois Speakers over a two hundred year period could persuade Euro—

peans to believe what they wanted them to believe, we cannot claimlthat

 

13Wynn Robert Reynolds, Persuasive Speaking of the Iroquois
Indians at Treaty Councils: 1678—1776; a Study_of Techniques as Evi—
denced in the Official Transcripts of the InterpreterST'Translations,
unpublished doctoral dissertation (Columbia University, 1957), abstract.

luIbid.

 

 

 

 

122
orator—spokesmen continuously served as effective instnments of
Iroquois policy, if the Skill they displayed was accidental. True, a
Single communicator may arise who, without training of any kind, may
be able to diSplay effective methods of persuasion, but to expect a
large number of such peOple, from a limited population base, would be
to stretch credulity too far. Either a great many Iroquois knew exactly
what they were doing when they rose to Speak for their councils, or they
did not. Either we are wrong, or Reynolds is. It thus is necessary to
go back and examine the Speech events themselves in order to prove
whether or not our theory can be maintained.

In the next pages of this Chapter IV such speech events will be
examined. They have been selected because (1) they are witnessed by
competent white observers, (2) they cover the entire time Span between
first white Contact and the Revolution, (3) they are relatively detailed,

15 The first

and (1+) they are addressed to a variety of audiences.
speech was delivered by Kiotsaeton, a Mohawk Speaker, in the presence
of Vimont, the Jesuit Superior General of Canada, on July 12, 16145. The
second Speech was delivered by a combined Iroquois delegation on
September 3, 1700, and was witnessed by two French linguists who had

extensive experience with the Five Nations. The third Speech is extrac-

ted from the journals of Brother Canmerhoff and David Zeisberger,

 

15Ideally, we should examine all Iroquois Speech events in this
period, however fragmentary. To do so, however, would take us away
from the major thrust of this paper. And as there are a large number
of such Speeches, we would be overwhelmed by just the problem of
determining textual authenticity. This writer believes the four Speeches
chosen constitute a fairly representative sample, at least enough of
one to test our theory.

123
two Moravian missionaries who tom'ed the Central New York area in the
company of some Indian converts during 1750. The last Speech was
delivered to Sir William Johnson, the famous English agent to the
Iroquois, on March 6, 1768. Our procedure will be to present a detailed
description of each Speech event and then describe the rhetorical tech—
niques employed. At the end of the chapter, we shall return to our
basic contention in this chapter, and see if in fact there was an

Iroquois rhetorical tradition of which Red Jacket was the heir.

I. July 12, 16L+5-—Kiotsaeton's Speech to Montagny and Vimont

 

Our first example of Iroquois oratory was delivered by Kiotsaeton
to the Chevalier de Montagry, Viceroy of New France, at Three Rivers,
Quebec. Reported by Father Barthelemy Vimont in the Jesuit Relation of

161+H-16u5,16 it is the earliest extensive description of Confederacy

 

Speaking practice. Attending the council with Montagny and Vimont was

17

Father Isaac Jogues, former missionary to the Mohawks. The account

follows :18

 

16Reuben Gold Thwaites, ed. , The Jesuit Relations and Allied
Documents, Vol. XXVII (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1898), pp.
247-273.

l7Montagny may have understood the Mohawk language. If he did
not, it was in his interests to have a Skilled interpreter, Since the
occasion involved matters that could have plunged the whole southern
border of New France into war. Vimont and Jogues knew Mohawk, and many
Hurons , allies of France, were also present at the proceedings and could
follow Kiotsaeton's speech without much difficulty. Vimont and Jogues
also had extensive education in rhetorical principles. See Robert Lang,
"The Teaching of Rhetoric in French Jesuit Colleges," peech Monographs,
XIX (November, 1952), passim.

 

 

8To conserve Space we are using the excellent digest of Vimont's
original account which appears in Francois De Creux, The History of
Canada or New France, II (Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1951), I408—

 

 

12‘}

The envoy set out in the end of May and returned in the
beginning of July accompanied by two other ambassadors
from the Annierronons (Mohawks) , who come to discuss

peace with Montagny. They were accompanied by Guillaume
Couture, who, as we have narrated already, having been
captured along with Isaac Jo ues, had suffered cruelly

at their hands. When he appeared all the French rushed
to embrace him and to congratulate him on his return,
receiving him as if he had risen from the dead. They
learned from him that peace envoys had been sent, and,
while the news was being forwarded to Montagny at Quebec,
Champfleur, the commandant of the fort at Three Rivers,
treated the envoys with every attention and permitted

the two prisoners, who had not yet been granted their
liberty, to go where they liked with them. An amusing
incident took place when Champfleur, Speaking through an
interpreter, kept telling the envoys to make themselves

at home , that the lodge was theirs . In reply, Kiotsaeton,
the chief envoy, told the interpreter to say to Champfleur
that he was a good liar, at any rate his words were far
from the truth; then, leaving his audience in suspense
for a few moments, Kiotsaeton remarked: 'He tells me that
this is like being in my own country; there is no honour
or elegance there. He says this is just like my own lodge;
far from it; when I am at home I have only frugal fare,
but here there is one unending feast. '

Meantime Montagny arrived from Quebec, and invited
the chiefs to a conference on July 12. The heat was
intense and the Governor caused a canOpy composed of
large sails to be set up, which excluded the burning rays
of the sun. The enclosure within the fort had been
selected for the occasion, which was to be marked by some
ceremony. Montagny , accompanied by Barthelemy Vimont ,
the Superior of the Jesuits in Canada, was the first to
take his seat; the garrison ranged themselves around him;
the envoys disposed themselves at his feet, where some bark
had been Spread Upon which they squatted in the fashion of
their tribe. Opposite the envoys were placed the Algonquins,
the Montagnais, and the Attikamegues; while the remaining
sides of the square were occupied by mingled groups of
Hurons and French . In the centre of the moccupied space
two poles had been set up upon which the Annierronons sus-
pended the presents that they had brought, consisting of
seventeen wampum belts . As soon as there was Silence
Kiotsaeton, who was a tall man, stood up, raised his eyes
to the sun, and then surveyed the spectators. Taking one

 

l+13. This book was an attempt to write an official Jesuit history of New
France during the lifetimes of the men who participated in the original
events. The digest may be compared by the reader with the original
version in Thwaites, previously cited.

12'.)

of the wampum belts in his hands he concluded with these
words: 'Listen, Onontio; I speak for all my tribe; when
you hear me, you hear all the Annierronons. In my country
we have many war-songs; we sing them no more; we Sing only
songs of happiness.‘ At this point Kiotsaeton began to
Sing, while the other Annierronons replied, and the leader
wandered about over the open Space as if it had been a
stage; he would look up at the sky, gaze at the sun, press
his arms and his wrists with his fingers as if to expel
from them all their natural vigorm. When the song was over
he addressed Montagny again; taking one of the presents in
his hands he declared that this present was because Montagny,
the previous autumn, had rescued his countryman Tokhrahenehiaron
from the teeth of the Algonquins after they had doomed him to
the stake; this was the name of the Iroquois prisoner who had
been sent back to his own country by the Governor, as we have
related. Kiotsaeton at the same time made a protest, which
was quite reasonable; the prisoner had been sent back alone.
'What would have happened if his canoe had been Upset by the
wind and he had been drowned?‘ he said. 'Would you not have
had to wait a long time for his return? You would have
blamed us for what was your fault.‘ Placing this belt in
the place indicated, and comparing his way with the French
way, he bound a second belt to the arm of Guillaume Couture
with the words: 'This belt gives you back this prisoner. In
our country I would not say to him, "Go, my nephew, take your
canoe and return to Quebec." If I had done that my mind
would have had no rest; I should have been tormented by the
thought, 'Has he perished?‘ Had I done so I Should have
lacked sense; the man you sent back had many difficulties on
the trail.’ And at this point he made a pantomime of these
difficulties, turning with great agility in all directions,
quite like an actor; he advanced, he receded, he halted, he
worked his arms as if he were paddling, he became exhausted,
he recovered. 'This was not my way,’ he added, 'I said to my
friend here, "Let us go, my nephew, I have made up my mind
even at the risk of my life to restore you to your people."'
The third belt was to Show that the Annierronons had
added to the presents which the French had given to Tokhrahen—
ehiaron to be distributed among the other Iroquois tribes;
this had now been done and the hatchet was buried. The fourth
belt indicated that the Annierronons had abandoned all thought
of avenging those of their countrymen Slain by the Algonquins
the previous Spring. 'On may way here,’ said Kiotsaeton, 'I
passed the spot where the fight took place and where the two
prisoners were captured. I went by as fast as I could, so as
not to see the blood of my countrymen, whose bodies are still
unburied, and averted my eyes to prevent my anger overcoming
me; nay I listened to the words of my ancestors who had been
slain by the Algonquins; for when they saw me too anxious for
revenge, they called to me with gentle voices, full of love.

126

"Be good, my son, be good," they said; "give not way to
madness. It is vain to try to bring us back; think of

the living; your thoughts must be of them; save their

throats from the knife and their bodies from the flames;

life and breath are better than death." I agreed with

this, and I have come down to you to bring freedom to

those who are still in yomr hands.‘ The fifth belt was

to cpen the river, and to banish enemy canoes; the Sixth

was to smooth the rapids; which the traveller encounters

on his way to the Iroquois country; the seventh was to

calm Lake St. Louis, which has to be crossed; the eighth

was to smooth all the trail so that the smoke from the

lodges of the Annierronons could be seen in Quebec; the

ninth indicated that as often as the FrenCh and their

allies the Algonquins and the Mbntagnais Should come to

the Annierronons, a fire would be ready for them, for

whiCh they would not have to collect wood, for it would

not go out night or day; the tenth belt, which was muCh

more beautiful and costly than the rest, bound the FrenCh

the Algonquins and the Annierronons together. In order

to represent this Kiotsaeton grasped one of the French by

one arm and an Algonquin by the other and drew themlclosely
to him to Show that he would never let them go. The eleventh
belt was an invitation to feast with him. 'we have,‘ he
said, 'much fish and game; our woods are full of deer and
moose and beaver; say good-bye to these foul swine that run
about your streets; they live on filth; you will dine on
Choicer food in our country; the trail is open; fear no
danger.‘ The twelfth belt he lifted up to scatter the
clouds, that they might be able to see in all directions,

and that the sun and the light of truth might illumine the
world, that is to remove the mutual suspicion of the tribes;
the thirteenth told the Hurons to remember their'resolution
to make peace with the Annierronons. 'Five days ago (that is
five years ago, according to the writer of the Relation) you
had a bag full of wampum and other presents to make peace;
why, alas, did you change your minds? There will be no bag,
no presents; they will be crushed and scattered, and you will
be in despair.‘ The fourteenth urged the Hurons to Speak
quickly, not to be kept back by womanly Shame, but to go to
the Annierronons; with the fifteenth the Speaker did his best
to try to persuade his hearers that the Annierronons had
always intended to restore Isaac Joges and Joseph Bressani to
the French; they had been prevented from doing so because
JogueS had been taken out of their hands, and because they had
surrendered Bressani of their own accord to the Dutch in com-
pliance with his earnest wish; the Speaker said that he was
sorry that they had done so, not because they grudged him his
freedom, but because he did not know what had become of him,
and perhaps while he was yet Speaking Bressani had been drowned
or had perished in some other way; the Annierronons at least

127

had never intended to kill himu Fortunately Jogues was
present; after Spending a few months in France, and giving
his account in person to his superiors and bearing about with
himlwherever'he went in his mutilated fingers, the traces of
his suffering——I saw those fingers myself at Angouleme--he
had returned to New France during the month of May in the
preceding year in company with Le Jeune, who during;the
captivity of Jogues had.crossed to France on business. On
the arrival of the envoys of the Annierronons Jogues had

been summoned from Montreal to Three Rivers, and at this
remark of Kiotsaeton he smiled. 'Yes,’ he remarked, ‘the

fire was all ready for me; had not the Lord God.been with me,
they would have taken my life many times; but let the envoy
say what he likes.‘ The Sixteenth belt was to provide a good
reception for the Annierronons whenever they visited the
FrenCh, and to protect themlfromlthe tomahawks of the Algon—
quins. 'Some years ago,‘ said the envoy, 'we came down to
surrender our prisoners to you; we came on a friendly errand
and.we thought that you.would treat us as friends; we were
mistaken; as we approached bullets and even cannoneballs
whistled about our ears; this we did not expect; we were
frightened and we withdrew; we have plenty of courage , and of
course we decided to take the warpath in the Spring; we did
so; we came armed; we captured your Jogues and some of the
Hurons.‘ The seventeenth belt was Specially connected with
Honatteniata. This young man, who was one of the two prisoners
whom Montagny had detained.when he sent the emissary to the
Iroquois, was the son of the old woman with Whom.Jogues had
spent most of those miserable months among the Annierronons.
Jogues had been given to her to take the place of her other
son Whom.she had lost, and.when the old woman had learned that
her younger son was alive, she sent by Kiotsaeton the very belt
that her son had been accustomed to wear in his own country as
a gift to his preserver.

These ceremonies were concluded with the best of good feeling
on both sides, and the next day Mbntagny entertained the envoys
and.as many of the Hurons, the Algonquins, the Montagnais, and
the Attikamegues as were present at Three Rivers. On July 1”
the Governor in his turn presented fourteen presents to the
Iroquois, and as he presented eaCh gift he explained, just as
Kiotsaeton had done, what was the object of eaCh. Vimont tells
us that the converts at Sillery also made presents, and that
when Vimont himself added some trifles including some tobacco
and one of the pipes commonly used by the FrenCh and the
natives, Kiotsaeton with unusual esprit for a savage replied:
'When I left my country in order to come here I felt that I
was risking my life; I have you to thank that I still see the
light of day; we have been loaded down, and covered from head
to foot with presents; all but our mouths and now the mouth
too is to have its gifts and you.have given us these pipes and

128

the pleasant odour of the delightful weed. I leave you for
a time; and should it happen that our canoes Should sink in
the waves, the very elements would tell our’people of your
kindness; nay I am.sure that a good spirit has gone on ahead
and already told our peOple and that they have had a taste of
the good things WhiCh we are carrying to themu'

The next day the envoys took their departure; they were
accompanied.by two young FrenChmen whomeontagny sent with
themlto help with the paddling and portaging and to Show his
confidence in the Annierronons. Kiotsaeton embarked in his
canoe and then turned and faced the French and the Indians
looking down at him from the bank of the Great River. Raising
his voice he exclaimed, 'Farewell, brothers; I anlnow your
kinsman; I go my own country to tell them good news.‘ And
to MOntagny he said, 'Your'name, Onontio, will be famous far
and wide through all the world; I have risked my life and I
am returning to»my'own country loaded with honour and presents
and kindness.’ At this point the natives disCharged their
arquebuses and the joyous thunder'of the heavy cannon from
the citadel concluded the conference.

A perusal of this passage Should indicate that Kiotsaeton was
actuated by more than "trial and error" in the delivery of his SpeeCh,
fOr it was a poliShed performance, no matter how muCh it differed from
the speaking to WhiCh Vimont and Jogues were accustomed. In his original
account Vimont writes that "every man admitted that this man was impas—

sioned and eloquent."lg Elsewhere he states that Kiotsaeton "indulged

in many other repartees which clearly showed that he hadwit"20 and

21 and "grea."22 There was certainly no reason for

calls him1"noble"
Superior General to use suCh words to describe the envoy of the Monawks,

unless of course he meant them. The Mohawks after all were "the

 

lgThwaites, p. 265.

201bid., p. 251.
2lIbid., p. 269.

221bid., p. 265.

 

129

inveterate enemies of the allies of the French;"23 they were "a
treacherous race, Skilled in dissembling and without stability;"2u they
had martyred members of Vimont's own order. If anyone could be called
a hostile witness it would have to be Vimont, yet although he was not
persuaded by the content of Kiotsaeton's speech, he admired its
delivery.

As we ourselves examine the SpeeCh we notice a number of highly
structured events. The council ring is carefully prepared. Before he
begins to Speak, Kiotsaeton rises to his full height and Slowly surveys
the audience. He uses the Space in the center of the ring as an actor
would a stage, and frequently pantomimes the events he is describing.
At the beginning of the SpeeCh he Sings a song which is answered.respon-
sively by the other MChawkS, and at other places he actively involves
the audience. Throughout, he uses wampum belts for'mnemonic purposes;
in addition the belts divide his SpeeCh into its major parts and are
"gifts" Which, when accepted.by the FrenCh, carry his words with them.
SuCh structured activity can hardly be an accident.

The content of his remarks also seems carefully planned. Before
the council even begins Kiotsaeton establishes a high degree of personal
proof by being Charming and flattering to his hosts, and his reporters,
no matter how distrustful they may be of the Mbhawks, are drawn to

their envoy. At the beginning of his SpeeCh he points out that the

 

23Du Creux, p. 006.

21+Ibid., p. H13.

130
Mohawks are mited behind his desire for peace. Perhaps he then

attempts to throw his hosts off balance by stating that Tokhrahenehiaron
Should never have been sent home alone, a claim his reporter agrees is
"reasonable." But with the presentation of the third belt, Kiotsaeton
seeks to conciliate the French. To advance this strategy, his most
difficult problem is to minimize the torture received by the two
captured Frenchmen. Though he is not believed, his explanation is
received by Jogues, one of the men involved, with a smile. More suc-
cessful is Kiotsaeton's attempt to build a community of interest between
the Mohawks and the French. He literally binds them to him with his
belts. He returns a prisoner. He utilizes a great deal of pathetic
proof, extending to an invocation to his ancestors, in order to Show
the necessity for peace. He shakes the strength from his body. In the
case of the Frenchman who has suffered most from the hands of the Mohawks,
he issues a specific appeal based on the ties of adOpted kinship.
However much he tries to conciliate the French, Kiotsaeton adopts
an opposite strategy with respect to the other Indian tribes. It is
they, not the Mohawks, who have caused war to occur. Over and over he
comments on the treachery of the Algonquins. He levels the ultimate
insult at the bravery of the Hurons when he compares their chiefs and
warriors to women. He refers to Specific incidents over the past two
years and cites sneak attacks and broken treaties. He promises the
other tribes, in the tones of friendship, that should they visit the
Mohawk country they will find it mmecessary to gather their own fire-

wood .

131

At first glance, Kiotsaeton's words to these two different
audiences seem.presented in a very episodic faShion. Yet there is
some method to the speech. His introduction, like Red Jacket's,states
the purpose of the meeting and stresses unanimity of view. Utilizing
song he invokes the Great Spirit. Like Red Jacket, he proceeds to an
historical narration before presenting his major arguments. Like Red
Jacket, he ends by referring to the return journey and gives expres-
sions of friendship.

More important for the purposes of testing the validity of our
theory, Kiotsaeton appears to be mollifying the French while infuriating
their Indian allies. His personal proof, pathetic appeals, SpeeCh
delivery, content, and organization all help to support this end.
Whatever the French might have thought was the actual state of affairs,
they at least hOped there would be peace. Kiotsaeton reinforces this
hOpe. Before the year was out, however, the Iroquois were on the wars
path again, not with the French who sat in Quebec hoping that peace

25 If the basic theme

would prevail, but with the Algonquins and Hurons.
of Kiotsaeton's SpeeCh appears to be "divide and conquer," then the
theme became actualized as the Iroquois over the next years picked off
France's Indian allies one by one.

II. September 3, 1700——Conference Between Governor de Callieres and
the Iroquois.

 

 

One example, howevery will not prove our point. We therefore

present another example: a council of 1700 which was attended by all

 

25Ibid., p. H06 and passim.

132
the Iroquois tribes except the Oneidas , for whom excuses were made by
the principal Spokesman. The council was attended by the French
Governor and a ntmrber of his officials, including the explorer Joncaire.
It was witnessed by Reverend Francois Belmont, a Skilled linguist in
charge of the Iroquois mission school in Montreal, and Reverend Jacques

Bruyas, a missionary with extensive eXperience and "the best phil-

ologist of the Mohawk language."26

They Spoke to Chevr de Callieres Governor, 8c. as follows:
By a string of wampum.

Father Onontio. You see before you, on this occasion all
these Iroquois Nations; 'tiS true you do not see the face
of the Oneida here, because he who was a delegate has

fallen Sick; we are not masters of sickness or death; but
he has assisted at all the councils which have been held,
and we express his word as if he were here.

let belt.

We already stated when last here , that the Far Nations had
struck us; that we did not wish to defend ourselves, because
you and the English Governor had told us that it was a
General Peace. If we did not defend ourselves it was not
because we were afraid; on our return to our villages, there
were two hundred men ready to set out to avenge us, but when
they saw the Rev. Father Bruyas and Sieurs de Maricourt and
de Joncaire they stOpped. We now tell you that there is not
any one on the war path, nor desirous to go on it , and we
have laid all the hatchets aside.

2nd belt.

When we came here last, we planted the tree of Peace; now we
give it roots to reach the Far Nations , in order that it may
be strengthened; we add leaves also to it, so that good
business may be transacted Lmder its shade. Possibly the

 

26This assessment is made by E.B. O'Callaghan, ed., Documents
Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, IX (Al—bany:
Weed, Parsons and Company, 1856-1887), p. 720. The fifteen volumes in
this series are an excellent example of the kinds of work done by nine-
teenth century archivists and are even more valuable because of the
subsequent New York State Library fire, which destroyed many of the
original documents . The series includes much material relating to the
Iroquois . The council report reproduced as Shown above comes from
Documents, IX, 715—720.

 

133

Far Nations will be able to cut some roots from this Great
Tree, but we will not be responsible for that nor its con-
sequences.

3rd belt.

The best proof of Peace is the surrender of Prisoners; we
afford such proof to you in bringing you back thirteen whom
we present you, though we have experienced considerable pain
in witnessing their separation from us, having long Since
adopted them as our nephews. We also ask you to restore to
us, as you promised, all the prisoners that are among the Far
Nations and neighboring tribes here. It will afford great
joy to all our Villages.

By a string of wampum.

You and the Onontio of Orange have made Peace; you have told
us that we should Oppose him who would violate it . Corlard,
notwithstanding, seems desirous of creating disturbance. Come,
then, to some arrangement, both of you, and let me know what
conclusion you will have agreed to, because when the Rev.
Father Bruyas and Sieurs de Maricourt and de Joncaire were at
Onncntae, a Dutchman came to tell us, by a string of Wampum,
that Corlard forbad us listening to the Word of Onontio, and
in case he Spoke, not to mind him but to depart immediately
to repair to Albany within ten or twelve days. We were so
indignant at this, that Teganisorens told him, he was aston—
ished that Corlard would treat us as Slaves; who were his
Brothers, not his Vassals, and after having told us that the
Peace was general, that he seemed desirous to induce us to
fight against our father, which we were unwilling to do; that,
as for the rest, we Should despite his prohibition, not fail
to go down to Montreal where our Father Onontio had lighted
the fire of Peace, and in order that he may not plead igiorance
thereof, we shared him these belts we were bringing. All the
Nations that were assembled approved what Teganisorens said.
By a string of wampum.

When J cncaire was in our country, the father of this youth
whom we restore, was his master; but now it is Joncaire who
is master of this young man. We give him in order that if
Joncaire should happen to die, he may be regarded as his
nephew and may take his place. Therefore it is that we give
him up to Onontio, whom we beg, with the Intendant, to take
care of him, and to confine him should he become wild.

L+th belt.

We should like to take a smith back with us to Fort Frontenac,
and that you would also send some goods thither, so that those
of our people who do not come down here by the river may, by
placing things as they were before the war, find what they
want there; and let them be furnished us at a cheap rate and
at Montreal prices; Corlard is becoming ill humored; he may
indeed create disturbance; we would, therefore, wish to have
recourse to that fort.

IBM

You appointed a Commandent to Fort Frontenac whom also we
called Onontio; I perceive, notwithstanding, that you have
made him come back and have confined him in a house. This
causes us pain. He supplied our wants; 'tis true he
supplied them at a somewhat high rate, but he afforded us
pleasure for we were all naked, and were at liberty to take
the goods or leave them; It would gratify us much to see
him at liberty before going away.
6th belt.
The last time we Spoke here we gave some presents to the
Algonquin because he made us some during winter, when
hunting; he spoke to us again afterwards, and told us that
Since Onontio united us by the peace , we would eat together
when we Should meet. He said he would be here on our return,
but as this is not the case, I lay this belt on the ground
to thank him and to tell him that we ask nothing better than
to make one joint kettle when we shall meet. We have not
been able to bring back his two little girls whom you demanded
and who were prisoners in our parts, because one of them is
dead and the other was at the hunting grounds when we left
our villages; but we promise you to bring her back next
summer.

Answer of the Chevalier de Callieres, Knight of

the Order of St . Louis , Governor and Lieutenant-

general for the King throughout all Northern

France to the Words which the Iroquois deputies

brought him.
By a string of wampum.
I am very glad, my Iroquois children, to see you returned with
the Rev. Father Bruyas and Sieurs de Maricourt and de J oncaire ,
and that you have kept the promise you gave me long ago, by
bringing me some deputies from your villages. As your good
treatment of the Rev. Father and of Sieurs de Maricourt and
de J oncaire affords me evidence of the sincerity with which
you acted, I am happy to cpen my arms to you in order to
receive you as a good father, who is always disposed to for-
get the past in regard to his Children, and to emply himself
in making a general peace between all my allies and you.
lst belt.
'Tis true, you told me of the blows which the Nations
inflicted on you since the Great Onontios of France and of
England made peace, which they wished you to enjoy as well as
the other Nations , my allies , with whom you were at war; where-
unto I answered you as I again do, that your long delay in
coming to see me with Deputies from each Village, in conjunc-
tion with the blow you struck on the Miamis a year ago, has
been the case of what you experienced, which I regret, as I
would rather have wished entirely to terminate the war which
must not be thought of any more, forgetting on both Sides what
has occurred whilst it continued. You have done well in
stopping all the parties who were prepared to march, and in

135

having laid the hatchets aside.

2nd belt.

I bewail the Dead whom you have lost in these last encon—
tres, whilst we were engaged in negotiations of peace, and
clean the ground that has been reddened by blood.

3rd belt.

I seize your hatchets and those of my allies to place them
with my own and all other weapons of war, in a trench that

I dig deep, whereupon I lay a large rock and turn a river
over that, in order that peOple may not find those arms again
to use them against each other.

l+th belt.

I make firm, like you, the Great Tree of Peace, which you have
planted, with all its leaves, and you need not entertain any
apprehension that any of the roots will be cut off by the Far
Nations, my allies. Here are some of their Chiefs . . . they
assure me that the Peace I now conclude with you for all my
allies, shall be punctually respected by them .

5th belt.

You afforded me pleasure in bringing back the thirteen French
prisoners whom I see here; but I again ask you to bring me
back the remainder and, generally, all those of my allies whom
you have in yOLr country, by the beginning of next August
which is the time I fix for all the nations to bring back also
to you all your people whom they retain, so that a mutual
exchange may take place in my presence, and in order that
every thing be replaced in the same condition it was in before
the War; and in regard to your prisoners among the Indians
domiciled in this neighborhood, you can speak to them and
cpen the door to them by the Peace I conclude, to return home
if they think proper.

6th belt.

In order that this Peace which I grant you in the King's name
may be stable, Should any difference occur, or any blow be
struck on one Side or the other, he who may feel aggrieved
shall not seek vengeance either by himself or his nation; but
he shall come to me that I may have satisfaction done him;

and in case the aggressor refuse to give the satisfaction I
may have decreed, I shall oblige him to it by uniting myself
to those who will have been insulted, and I shall ask the
Governor of the English to join me in like manner to chastise
the rebels, pursuant to the order we have-—he and I-—from our
two Great Onontios of France and England, and there remains
no other agreement to be made between me and Corlard on that
point to execute the orders of the Kings, our masters, for the
maintenance of the peace.

By a string of wampum.

I willingly accept the recommendation you give the Intendant
and me to take care of the young man whom you have given Sieur
Joncaire, and we will furnish him every thing he shall require
to qualify him for filling some day said Sieur Joncaire's place.

136

7th belt.

For the purpose of encouraging Peace , I Shall ask his
Majesty's permission to grant your request as regards Fort
Frontenac, and whilst awaiting his orders will immediately
have a Smith sent up thither, together with some goods for
your most urgent necessities, which will be furnished you

at the lowest rates possible, but I recommend you to pre-
vent your young men touching either the Cattle or any other
things belonging to the Fort.

8th belt.

I Shall give the Algonquins the Belt you have left with me for
them, and explain to them its contents; but again recommend
you not to omit bringing me their little girl that is still
alive in your Country, at the time I indicated for your
bringing me the other prisoners .

After the Iroquois had heard these answers, they spoke as
follows:-

We thank you, Onontio, for the treatment we have received
from you. You must have examined all the old affairs to Speak
as you have done . Such is the way to act when there is a
sincere desire to bring matters to a happy termination. For
ourselves, we promise to obey your voice, and so much the
worse for those who will not do likewise.

In this our second example we notice that in spite of a lapse of
fifty—five years there is a remarkable carryover of technique and struc-
ture. The strings and belts of wampum are still used to aid memory,
divide major sections, and "carry" the Spokesman's message to his
listeners. There is a similar use of kinship terminology, although
Onontio, the French governor, is now a "father" instead of a' "brother"
to the Iroquois. There is still at the beginning of the Speech a stress
on the unanimity of view for which the Spokesman Speaks. There is still
an historical narration, an emphasis on peaceful intentions, a proof of
good will by means of a return of prisoners, an attempt to bind the
other party with the bonds of kinship, a transference of guilt or
reSponsibility for the commission of certain acts. There is even the
use of the "divide and conquer" strategy, as the Spokesman tries to play

off the English against the French.

137

As in our first example we find the striking use of metaphor, a
characteristic of Indian oratory mentioned by many other writers . How-
ever, in this instance, we must be careful about the conclusions we
draw. Languages which are relatively limited in vocabulary27 are
forced to use metaphor in order to express their ideas. What then is'
a matter of art for a group with an extensive vocabulary from which to
choose its words becomes a matter of necessity for those with a more
restricted vocabulary choice. Yet even through the veil of translation
we can appreciate the symbol of the Great Tree of Peace, a symbol the
Iroquois have traditionally used to describe the League itself and thus
an expression which would come naturally to the Spokesman. Nor is this
symbolic treatment restricted to the Iroquois. In his turn the French
governor vividly describes the burying of hatchets.

But we find in our second example more than this imitation of
metaphor. Not only do we see a continuity of rhetorical technique
followed by the Iroquois Spokesman, but we see a conscious effort on
the part of the French governor to follm that pattern himself. An
important part of listener analysis is the capacity to conform subse-

quently to the expectations of that audience. In our first example we

 

27Of course we are not committing the fallacy of saying here
that the Iroquois languages are therefore "Simpler" or more "primitive"
than our ovm. In fact, because they are agglutinative in structure, the
grammar of the Iroquian languages is hideously complex. In Chapter III
we dealt with the difficulty Europeans had learning these tongues. In
subsequent pages we shall refer to effect they have on Europeans who
cannot interpret their sense but are still able to appreciate sound
and intonation patterns.

138
read that Vimont reSponded to Kiotsaeton by interpreting his belts in
the Indian manner. Later French officials continued the practice.
Commenting on a Speech he delivered to the Onondagas in 1651}, Father
Simon Le Moyne wrote that "I was full two hours making my whole Speech,
talking like a Chief, and walking about like an actor on a stage, as is

their custom. "28

Lafiteau offered his French readers additional snip-
pets of information about Indian Speaking practice. "An Iroquois must
not be addressed by his name," he wrote. "You must say 'my brother'

or 'my uncle.”29 In the example we have just cited, de Callieres con-
tinues this practice of SpeeCh adaptation.

III. June 10-21, l750--Speeches _Delivered During the Journey of Brother
Canmerhoff and David Zeisberger to the Five Nations

 

Our third example takes place fifty years later in Central New
York. Two Moravian missionaries toured the Oneida and Onondaga country
from May through August of 1750, and it is from their journal that we
print the following extracts: 30

After we had been Silent for a little while, I began
to Speak as follows: Brethren, we have come here to visit
you, as we promised in Philadelphia, and gave you a fathom
of wampum as a pledge that we would come. We have been
sent by our brethren in Bethlehem to bring you a message,
and have arrived safe and well at your fire in Onondago.

 

28B.B. O'Callaghan, ed. , The Documentary History of the State of
New York (Albany: Weed, Parsons 6 Co., 1819), I, 39.

29Previously cited in Chapter IV of this study from Morgan,
Leagge, II, 2u0.

30William M. Beauchamp, ed. , "Diary of the Journey of Br.
Camrerhoff and David Zeisberger to the Five Nations from May 3-1” to
August 6-17, 1750," Moravian Journals Relating to Central New York,
l7l+5~66 (Syracuse: The Dehler Press, 1916T, pp. 1+8-56.

 

 

139

We are glad to meet you here all together. We wish, first
of all, to rest one or two days from our journey, which,
as you know, has been long and dangerous, and then we will
meet with you again, and tell you the object of our coming.
David then translated this message into the Maqui language.
My words were received with great applause , accompanied by
the usual exclamations of affirmation, in which the voice
of Ganassateco was particularly loud, and he Showed by his
appearance how pleased he was .

We told them that the Gaj uka, Hahotschaunquas , was here
in the house with us, that he had acted as our traveling com—
panion from Wajomik. . . . We told them what route we had
taken on our companion's account. They were much interested.
Many old men, some very venerable in appearance, who saw us
for the firsttime, smiled to us very kindly. We presented
them with a pipe of tobacco, a valuable gift.

Thereupon, to our astonishment, an old Oneida began to
Sing the message which he had for the Council, in a very
high tenor voice. He continued for more than half an hour.
It was a message from . . . the Nanticokes in Wajomik;
firstly, concerning the renewal of their covenant, and their
gratitude for permission to remain and plant on their land
at Wajomik. Secondly, it referred to the land they still
own in Maryland among the whites. The belts were only white,
and very poor compared to ours. The Oneida repeated his
message and handed over the belts to Ganassateco, who made
some remarks and then delivered them to the Council. . . .

A servant was told to bring us something to eat. While we
were enjoying it they conversed much with us. We then took
leave of them and went to our quarter.

The news of our arrival soon Spread through the whole
town. It is a very unuSLal occurrence for white peOple to
visit Onondago , but no one asked us whether we were traders ,
or what our business was. All seemed to lmow us and greeted
us kindly.

On our return home in the evening we again found a meal
prepared. Ganassateco came in soon after and talked very
freely with us. The man who served as our messenger to the
Council also came. He explained to us that he held the office
of assistant to the Council. He then asked us many questions
about our Brethren, where we lived, and how far we were from
Philadelphia. We answered him at length. . . .

This morning, soon after we arose, we were served with
a bountiful meal. On the whole they were very particular, in
Onondaga, that we Should not feel the need of anything, and
were anxious for uS to relish their fare. Ganassateco's
manner was very kind and cheerful; he considered it an honor
to entertain us in his house. Later I took a walk, and thought

190

prayerfully of all our matters, asking the Lord to Show us
His will clearly in perplexities . Upon my return the Council
had begun to assemble in our hut. Soon after Ganassateco
brought in a scalp of a Gataber; it was skillfully painted
and tied to a stick, and had been taken by some warriors who
had recently returned from war. It was the subject of a long
discourse. David then told Ganassateco that, first of all,
we would like to talk over our matters with him alone, so
that we might give him a clear idea of our wishes, and that
he might then propose them to the Council for us, as we were
not perfectly familiar with their language and customs. He
consented and immediately arose and left the Council with us.
We seated ourselves on a tree, not far from his house,
and made this our Council chamber. We then spoke as follows:
Brother, I , Gallichwio and Ganousseracheri, have been sent to
you by our Bretheren . . . and all who live in our settlements,
as messengers to you and your Council, and to our Brothers,
to Aquanoschioni (Iroquois), to bring you kind greetings, and,
as a token of their feelings towards you, they send you this
fathom of wampum. He examined the string closely, and asked
whether the message we brought came also from our Brethren
across the seas; and when we said that it did, and that we had
received letters from Tgarilnontie and the other Brethren, our
words seemed doubly important, and he seemed much astonished.
Thereupon I brought forward the belt of wampum took it in
my hand, and first told David its signification, say: Bre-
thren! Our Brethren on both Sides of the sea send this belt
of wampum to our Bethren, the Aquanoshioni, to renew,
strengthen, and prolong our bond of fellowship with them.
Then I related, very circumstantially, how 8 years ago,
J ohanan had Spoken with the great men of the nations , who had
been in Philadelphia, when he met them in Conrad Weisser's
house in Tulpehocken. He had made a covenant with them, and
had also received a fathom of wampum from them. I set forth
the conditions of the covenant, viz. , that we were no traders,
and did not come to them from love of gain, or desire to seize
or buy their lands , neither had we come to the Indians like
the priests in the land of the Maquais. I explained briefly
what Johanan had then said to the Nations, and told them that
in consequence we had traveled to their Brethren on the Sus-
quehanna at Waj omik , Shomoko , and Long
received by them as Brethren. A result of this covenant was
that 5 years ago Tgirhitontie had come here to Onondago and
had visited them, but as none of our Brethren were familiar
with their language, they could not speak to them. In accor-
dance with this covenant we had, with their lmowledge and con-
sent and the desire of Shikellimy and other Indians, sent one
of our Brethren to Shomoko as blacksmith , in order to work for
the Indians. He was still living there and would remain longer.
All this was to be confirmed by the belt of wamptmn, while it
declared, at the same time, that we asked permission for

191

several of our Brethren to dwell among them for a number

of years, in order to learn their language thoroughly, and
thus make known to them our intentions . Thereupon I handed
over the Belt to David, who translated all my words into the
Maquai language, and he then presented it to Ganassateco.

He accepted it and examined it very carefully, and we could
perceive that he considered it of great value.

I then brought forward a fathom of wampum and said:
Brethren, on ctr journey here we halted for 8 days in Wajomik.
Several of yomn Brethren from among the . . . Nanticokes
visited us, and said they would like one of our Brethren, a
blacksmith, to dwell among them, to make their guns and axes,
and whatever work of that kind was to be done. We answered
them, saying: that the land on which they lived belonged to
the 5 Nations , and that they had authority to decide in cases
of this nature. We were unable to take any steps in this
matter, for we were a people who did not wish to gain an en-
trance to the Indians in any underhanded manner, and therefore,
if they wished a blacksmith, they must ask permission of our
Brethren, the Aquanoschioni. They granted the justice of our
remarks, and expressed themselves unwilling to do anything
without the consent of the 5 Nations, and commissioned us to
mention their wishes to the Council here in Onondaga, and
hear their Opinion on the subject. I said: For this reason,
Brethren, we give you this fathom of wampum, in order that
you may deliberate on this subject, with your brethren, and
give us an answer. David translated all this, and gave them
the fathom of wampum.

I then took another fathom of wampum and said: Brethren,
last summer when you were in Philadelphia, we made the
acquaintance of our Brethren, the Sennekas, and especially
of the 3 chiefs, Achsochqua, Hagastaes and Garontianechqui,
who live in Zonesschio. They invited us to visit their land
and city on our journey hither, and therefore we give you
this fathom of wampum. We then said that these were the words
and message we had been charged to bring from our Brethren to
the Aquanosclnioni. All these propositions we wished him to
lay before the Council, in order that they might discuss them
and give us an answer. We also told him that we had brought
with us some gifts from our Brethren to the Council, and that
we desired them to make known to us when they were assembled,
so that we might present them.

Thereupon he took the wamptmm, string by string, into his
hand, and began to repeat what we had said, in order to see
whether he had fully mderstood us. When he came to the belt
he clasped his hands, and asked whether such were not our
wishes, viz. , that we and the Aquanoschioni Should be united.
We said, yes, and that we should continue to be more closely
united and never be separated. We were astonished to see hm
well he had comprehended all, especially what concerned our
. mission to the Indians, and the reason of our coming to them.

192

After he had said that he would make known our propo—
sitions to the Comcil we went home to his house. Many of the
chiefs were still there. He told them that we had Spoken with
him alone, because David was not perfectly familiar with their
language, and that we had therefore explained our message to
him, so that he might announce it to them. He at once showed
them the fathom of wampum and belt and intoned, in the usual
Indian fashion, the signification of each, and we saw and
heard that he had well understood our words . He laid
special emphasis on our not being traders, who come to the
Indians to trade with them for furs, or to gain their lands.
Neither were we like the priests in Schenectady, (of whom the
Indians appear to have a very poor opinion); he said that we
had priests among us; indeed he believed that most of our
Brethren were priests, but quite a different class of people.
In order to express this he made use of a word intended to
convey the idea that we were good and true Christians. All
present were attentive to this explanation, and afterward
held a meeting in another house.

Whereas in our first and second examples we found spokesmen used
to deliver the results reached by the council, in these extracts
Ganassateco serves as the Sponsor and Spokesman for the outside delega—
tion. Canmerhoff and Zeisberger, his interpreter, did not feel they
were sufficiently fluent in the Onondaga language to deliver their
message themselves. It was therefore necessary for them to engage in
a tortuous exercise in translation. First, Canmerhoff had to deliver
his Speech to Zeisberger, who then translated his address into what was
probably one of the Algonquin languages. Ganassateco then delivered
their speech back to them and subsequently presented the message to
Council. Earlier, Canmerhoff and Zeisberger had observed the same pro-
cess occur when an Oneida Spokesman delivered a message from the "Nanti—

cokes , "

an Iroquois client tribe which lived along the Susquehanna River.
Both external and internal evidence indicate that this was a fairly

common procedure .

143
According to Morgan,

it was customary for the foreign tribe to be represented
at the council by a delegation of wise men and chiefs,
who bore their proposition and presented it in person.
After the council was formally opened and the delegation
introduced, one of the sachems made a short address , in
the course of which he thanked the Great Spirit for
sparing their lives and permitting them to meet together;
after which he informed the delegation that the council
was ready to hear them upon the affair for which it had
convened. One of the delegates then submitted their
proposition in form, and suStained it by such arguments as
he was able to make. Careful attention was given by the
members of the council that they might clearly comprehend
the matter at hand. After the address was concluded, the
delegation withdrew from the council t3 await at a diS-
tance the result of its deliberations. 1

Essentially, this was the same format followed in the council attended
by Canmerhoff and Zeisberger and the council which was later to delib-
erate upon the propositions of the Reverend Cram. Ganassateco, in the
former instance, was perfectly familiar with the role he needed to play.
He had Canmerhoff present his proposals in the form of a Speech, he
examined the wampum carefully, he went over sections to make sure he
understood them. Canmerhoff professed himself amazed at Ganassateco's
powers of recall. Later he noticed particularly Ganassateco's attempt
before the council to present his points in their most favorable light.
As we examine the extracts further, we note that Canmerhoff
seemed perfectly familiar with Iroquois Speech practice, andtwe must
conclude either that he had been thoroughly briefed or else that this
style of speaking was diffused beyond the borders of the Confederacy.

Canmerhoff knows the use of wampum, and he compares the richness of his

 

31Lewis H. Morgan, Ancient Society (New York: Henry Holt and
Company, 1877), p. 139.

 

141+
own belts with those presented by other groups. He implies, at least,
that the value of the belt increases the presuasiveness of the message.
He knows the use of kinship terminology. He opens with a description
of his trip and historical narration, and he closes with references to
common acquaintances. He is aware of the function of the conference
whiCh will follow his SpeeCh.

More so than in our second example, Canmerhoff's diary stresses
the unique vocal delivery of the council Spokesman. He Speaks of the
Oneida Spokesman Singing in a high tenor voice; later Ganassateco
"intones" his message in "the usual Indian fashion." we are reminded
of Kiotsaetcn's use of music and dance, or 1e Moyne's statement that he
had to talk "like a Chief." The Iroquois language, Bryant tells us,
was suCh that the sense depended on inflection, and the orators prac—
ticed greater and more sudden variations in pitCh than is permitted in
English oratory.32 AS we shall see later in this study, the Iroquois
did not make the same distinctions as we do between SpeeCh, song, and
the dance. The SpeeCh of council.was different fromtthe SpeeCh of con-
versation. Their language, "except in council, where eloquence was in
order, was terse, undemonstrative, trenChant. There are almost no
labialS in the Iroquois languages, and they talked without moving their

33

lips." As the spokesman used language differently than he would in

ordinary life, so he used gesture. we see Ganassateco clasping his hands

 

32WilliamClement Bryant, "Address at Forest Lawn Cemetery," in
Red Jacket ("Transactions of the Buffalo Historical Society," Vol. III:
the Courier Co., 1885), p. 17.

33Edmund Wilson, Apologies to_the Iroquois (New York: Farrar,

Straus and Cudahy, 1960), p. 75.

 

 

1145
to convey a certain meaning to Canmerhoff. Later he would Speak in
such a way before the comcil that Canmerhoff and Zeisberger would be
able to follow him and confirm the fact that he was correctly inter-
preting their remarks.

Finally, our third example stresses the importance of the art
of memory as practiced by the orator—Spokesman. True, Kiosaeton and
the Iroquois delegates of 1700 seem to have no trouble remembering
their instructions, but they have their wampum to help them and we have
no way to verify that they are speaking what their councils wish them
to say. But here Ganassateco appears to take great pains in learning
the rather complicated message he is asked to deliver, and recall Hall's
observation, cited in Chapter II of this study, in which he recalled
Red Jacket using sticks instead of wampum as memory aids. It was in
fact part of the duty of spokesmen to remember the diplomatic history
of their tribe. In our second example we find the spokesmen of the
Iroquois congratulating de Callieres on his knowledge of their past
relations with each other. Red Jacket, of course, demonstrated Similar
powers:

On a certain occasion, in a council at which Gov.
Tompkins was present, a diSpute arose as to the terms
of a certain treaty. 'You have forgotten,’ said the
agent; 'we have it written down on paper. ' 'The paper
then tells a lie,’ rejoined Red Jacket. 'I have it
written down here,’ he added, placing his hand with
great digiity upon his brow. 'This is the book the
Great Spirit has given the Indian; it does not lie;'
A reference was made to the treaty in question, when,

to the astonishment of all present, the docurent con-

firmed every word the unlettered statesman had uttered.Bu

 

3L*Bryant , ibid.

1H6
Ganassateco then appears to be practicing a skill that was common to
his fellow spokesmen. It was a necessary part of his craft that he
know other languages, that he could remember the results of conference,

and that he could reproduce this concensus with accuracy and passion.

IV. March 6, l768-—Conference with Sir William Johnson

 

Our final example of Iroquois Speaking is taken from the papers
of Sir William Johnson.35 The grammar and punctuation in the extract
are Sir William's own:

In the morning the Indians all Assembled, the Six
Nations Cognnawageys 8ca being desireous to Condole
with the Mohawks for the Loss of Onaharrissa one of their
Chiefs lately deceased—-being met Conoghquieson of Oneida
on behalf of the three younger Branches of the Confederacy
namely the Oneidas , Tuscaroras and Cayugas went thro' the
whole ceremony of Condolance with the Elder Branches
namely the Mohawk , Onondagas and Cenecas which done the
latter, by the speaker of Onondaga in a set speech gave
them thanks for their Condolence, and for their adherence
to the Customs of their forefathers

Sir William then called together to Chiefs of the
Six Nations Sca, 8 addressed them as follows
Brothers

I think it extremely necessary at this time to speak
to you on the Subject of several Reports I have lately
received and I desire you will give full attention to
what I Shall say, and that you will answer me ingeniously,
and honestly from your hearts.
Brothers

We are not ignorant of some private Conferences you
have held, and of others, which are intended shortly, we
have heard of the loss of some of our own PeOple and of

 

35O'Callaghan, Documents, VIII, 145-118. During the colonial
period Johnson had probany more influence with the Iroquois than any
other white man. Materials by Johnson which do not appear in O'Callaghan's
Documents or DocuIentary History are contained in the thirteen volure
set entitled The Papers of Sir William Johnson (Albany: The University
of the State of New York, 1921—1962).

 

 

1H7

the threats of yours . We acknowledge that some of the
English have lately injured you, but these whenever
apprehended will meet with Just punishment of this I
have already Spoke and shall say much more to you
tomorrow, and as I hOpe Quiet your minds thereon--At the
same time let me observe to you that it is the duty of
all those who are bound by the same Chain in the Bond of
friendship to communicate their Grievances without taking
any private resolutions of their own, this I hope you will
do ingeniously and I believe I partly know all that you can
say, and at the same time be assured that the Great King
and his people are Sincerely disposed to promote your Wel—
fare and not Suffer you to be injured and that your several
Grievances are now before the King who has fallen upon
Measures for your redress and for the future Security of
your persons and property's, but the misconduct of many of
your people and the Nature of your Complaints have made it
a Work of time before such steps could be taken as would
effectually Guard us both from injury. In proof of the
truth of what I now say to you and on which you may firmly
rely, here is a letter which I have just received from the
Earl of Shelburne, one of the Kings first Ministers wherein
he assures me of it, and likewise desires that you may have
Notice to attend early in the Spring in Order to settle the
Boundary line as a farther security to your propertys.

Here shewed and EXplained the Necessary parts of Lord
Shelburnes Letter then proceeded
Brothers

You see that you are not forgotten, but that everything
is intended that can be possibly done for your interest and
I make no doubt you will soon feel its effect, and express
your sincere thanks for these tokens of friendship and
justice 'till when I desire you to do Justice to the Good
intentions of the English by a pacific conduct, and to cast
away from this Moment any Sparks of resentment which may
remain in your hearts together with all misgrounded Jealousys
or Suspicions of our integrity Gave a Large Belt

P.M. The Indians having had a private Conference
amongst themselves Assembled and by their Speaker answered
the Speech of this Morning as follows
Brother

We thank the Great Spirit above for the present Meeting
and we shall honestly answer You on the Subject of Your Speech,
and declare the Causes of our uneasyness which we confess to
have arrived at a great Pitch-—and we beg in our turn You
Open Your Bars and hearken to what we have to say, and
endeavour to obtain that redress for us which is the only sure
way of securing the peace
Brother

We have often put in Mind of the many promises which were
made to us at the beginning of the late War by the Generals ,

1H8

Governors, and by yourself, from all which we had the
strongest reason to expect that the event of your Success
would have proved greatly to our benefit, That we Should be
favored and noticed, That we Should not be wronged of our
Lands or of our Peltry, that every enchroachment Should be
removed and that we should live in peace and travel about .
without Molestation or hindrance at the same time the French
told us that what was said was not true , nor from your hearts
and that the day you got the better of them would be the

first day of our Misfortunes--You persuaded us not to believe
them, but we have found it since too true, We soon found
ourselves used ill at the Posts, on the Frontiers, and by

the Traders. The people who had formerly wronged us and who
did not choose to Venture before to take possession of our
Rights then rose up to crush us, The Run Bottles hung at
every door to Steal our Lands, and instead of the English
protecting us as we thought they would do they employed their
Superior Cunning to wrong us, they murdered our people in
Pensilvania, Virginia and all over the Country, and the
Traders began more and more to deceive, and now neither
regard their own Character, or the Officer sent to take care
of the Trade, so that if we are wronged who is to help us

We cant ramble over the Country for Justice and if we did,

we begin now to grow Old, and wise we see that your Wise Men
in the Towns will be always against us . Your people came
from the Sun rising up our Rivers to the West, and now they
begin to come upon us from the South, they have got already
almost to Fort Pitt but nothing is done to drive them way
You cant say that we have not often complained of this , and
if you are not able or willing to do it we can, and must do
so soon or they will eat us up, for your people want to chuse
all the best of our Lands tho' there is enough within your
part with your own mark upon it without any Inhabitants,
Brother this is very hard upon us, but it is not all, for the
Road thro' the Country is no longer safe, the Pensilvanians
and Virginians murder all those of our peOple they can meet,
without any reason, and instead of leaving off as you told us
they would, they have Murdered ten the othere day, two of
which are our own peOple, the rest are our Younger Brothers
and Nephews that depend upon us yet you wont take the Murderer
or do any thing to him. You are wise You have a Government
and Laws , but you dont prevent this , you often tell us we dont
restrain our people and that you do so with yours , but Brother
your words differ more from your Actions than ours do, We have
large Wide Ears and we can hear that you are going to Settle
great nurbers in the heart of our Country, and our Necks are
stretched out, and our faces set to the Sea Shore to watch
their motions. Brother you that are wise and have Laws and
say you can make your people do what they are desired Should
prevent all this and if they wont let us alone you should shake
them by the head. we beleive that you are wise and that you can

1'49

do all this, but we begin to think you have no mind to hinder
them; If you will say you cant we will do it for you, our Legs
are long, and our sight so good that we can see a great way
thro' the Woods, we can see the Blood you have spilled and the
fences you have made, and surely it is but right that we
should punish those who have done all this Mischief. Brother
this is the truth, it comes from our hearts. Why Should we
hide it from you. If you wont do justice to our Fathers the
Mohadks who are going to Lose the Land at their very doors ,
If you wont keep the people aday from the Rivers near Ohio,
and keep the Road open making Pensilvania and Virginia quiet
we must get tired of looking to you, and turn our faces
another way.
Gave a Large Belt
Brother

We heartily thank the Great King for his intentions and
for what he is going to do about the Boundary Line, but Brother
we hear bad News the Cherokees have told us that the line was
mm in their Country last year, and that it as surrounded them
so that they cannot Stir; We beg that you will think of this
for our heads will be Quite turned if that is to be our Case,
We therefore think that the line we talked of last should not
go beyond Fort Augusta

Sir William answered them
Brothers

I have heard what you said, and I am sorry to find you
enlarge so much upon these Subjects after all I have said to
you as well in public as in private. The redress of your
Grievances is an object of much more attention both to the
King and his people than you imagine and you will have no
reason to doubt of the sincerity of the English as soon as
the Salutary Measure now under consideration can be put in prac—
tice. As I have a good deal to say to you tomorrow I shall
defer adding any thing farther at this time, than to desire you
to remove these unjust SuSpicionS from your breasts, as they
make you unhappy in a great measure without reason, and give
pain to your Brothers the English who are just now studying
your Welfare and happiness

then Adjourned till Morning.

This last example provides us with further evidence of the continu—
ity to be seen in Iroquois Speaking practice. As we read it, we see once
again an attempt on the part of a white man to adapt his presentation
to his audience. We find the Iroquois Spokesman, in turn, making use of
a formula opening, an historical narration, an episodic presentation of

major claims reinforced by wampum, and kinship terminology. Although

150

our example is only a factual report of a conference, we have every
right to feel that there is a similar continuity in delivery, for
"analogizing from one situation to another is a basic cultural mecha-
nism among the Iroquois," and when one needs to know how to handle a
new Situation among them, he is expected to follow an established
pattern already applied to something similar.36

There is also an attempt on the part of the Iroquois spokesman
to "turn the tables" and "divide and conquer," techniques we have seen
them use earlier with such good effect in their dealings with the
English and French. Now, after the French and Indian War, the familiar
arguments have lost their strength, and the Spokesman can only use the
weaker strategy of playing the English Indian Superintendent off against
the Cononial governments. It is a sign of the beginning of the end of
the effective Iroquois tight-rope act. Although "their policy of non-
involvement in colonial wars helped to preserve them as a major power

in North America until the Revolutionary War,"37

in less than ten years
the Iroquois would no longer be able to throw their weight on one side
or the other of the fulcrum. There would no longer be a balance of
power for them to exploit in the New World. They themselves would Split
over whom to support in the Revolution. In doing so, the myth of their
power would be destroyed. The spokesman of this conference with Johnson
would be one of the last to be able to use the threat of force with any

persuasiveness .

 

36Annemarie Anrod Shimony, Conservatism Among the Iroquois at
the Six Nations Reserve ("Yale University Ptblications in Anthropology,"
No. 65 fNew Haven, 1961]), 139.

37T‘release , p . 36 3 .

 

 

151

To recapitulate, then, we have seen, over a 123 year period, a
Speaking tradition continuous both in matters Of content and presenta—
tion. Reynold's thesis that there was a lack of a formalized system
of rhetoric among the Iroquois does not seem to hold. Rather, the
Opposite is true. In matters of invention, they made use of ethical
appeals revolving around their positions as spokesmen for a united
council, as well as kinship terms which presupposed an imagined or
adOptive relationship, as equals , with the other party. They made use
of pathetic appeals directed toward pride, blood and tribal relation—
ships, fear, greed, and fair mindedness. Their logical reasoning
freqLently involved "turning the tables," by taking the argument
advanced by the other party and turning it against him. Reliance was
also made to historical precedent, and major arguments were further
buttressed by "gifts," the presentation of wampum?8 While we cannot
speak with certainty about matters of style, because of translation
difficulties, the Iroquois spokesmen appeared to make extensive use of
metaphor, even when the nature of their languages did not force them to
do so. In matters of organization, they seemed to vary little from a

five—part structure: invocation of the Great Spirit and statement of

 

38Consider Heckewelder: "No chief pays any attention to reports,
though they may carry with them the marks of truth. Until he is
Officially and in due form apprised of the matter, he will . . .reply
that he had not heard it. . . . As soon as he is officially informed,
through a string of wampum from some distant chief or leading man of the
nation . . . he will then say: 'I have heard it'; and acts accordingly."
John Heckewelder, Histogy, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations
("Memoirs of the Hist6r71cal Society of Pennsylvania ,"' Vol. XII
Philadelphia, 1876), 109.

 

152
purpose , description of the journey, historical narration , presenta—
tion of major claims, and appeals to kinship ties. In matters of
delivery, they were much more stylized than they were in ordinary dis-
course. Their vocalization was artifical and declamatory, their
gesture frequently pantomimic. Above all, they were skilled in appli—
cation of the canon of memory. Finally, their performances, physically
delivered within a council ring that permitted them free and varied
movement, took place within a larger social context involving the
council for which they spoke.

In fact, it just might be possible to argue that the Iroquois
were too highly structured, too rigidly attached to their own rhetorical
formulas . They were faced by white men who attempted to adapt to their
methods of speaking, but they did not try to do the reverse. For a
while, this rigidity was not a problem. As the Revolution approached,
however, the persuasive strategies that had worked so well to neutralize
French aid to its Indian allies, and balance the French off against
first the Dutch and later the English, no longer were sufficient. Indeed
nothing would be sufficient. White pressures would grow too strong.
Finally the Iroquois would have to direct their resources , not to dom—
inate, not to balance, but merely to survive.

How was this rhetorical tradition to survive the rigors of the
Revolutionary War? This question will be answered, for the most part,
in the next chapter. There we Shall explore the probability that the
Revolution was so traumatic that the rhetorical tradition was broken com-
pletely. But one part of the question remains our concern in this

chapter. If there was an unbroken speaking technique in practice over

153
a Span of five generations, such as we have prOposed, then there must
have been procedures for perpettating it. However unlikely it was that
the structured activity we have seen was an independent rediscovery by
eacln succeeding generation , we have yet to prove that the art of the
council spokesman was of such a nature that it could be easily trans—
mitted, given the available mechanisms in Iroquois culture. Without
the possibility of transmission, there would be no opportunity for the
development of a tradition. In the rest of this chapter we shall offer
three arguments in favor of the transmission of the rhetorical craft
within the Confederacy.

Recall first the many opportunities which existed for someone to
observe the orator-spokesman practice his craft. In Chapter IV we have
remarked upon the frequency of civil, mourning, and religious councils
among the Iroquois. They were so frequent that Sir William Johnson,
in our fourth example, was perfectly aware of the fact when the Onondaga
spokesman rose to give a "set Speech" that would condole the Mohadks for
their loss of a chief. According to Morgan,

in those warlike periods , when the Conferacy
was moving onward amid incessant canflicts with
contiguous nations, or, perchance, resisting sudden
tides of migratory population, there was no dearth
of those exciting causes, of those emergencies of
peril, which rouse the spirit of the people,
and thus
oratory . . . was necessarily brought into high repute.39

Nor was council activity restricted to the tribal and inter-tribal level.

 

39Lewis H. Morgan, League of thiHo;De;—flg Sau—Nee or Iroquois

(New York: Dodd Mead and Company, 1903, I, 101.

15A

The same procedure was followed on all levels when unanimity was
desired and needed to be reported. Fenton tells us that

an individual desiring to bring a proposition

before the general council must gain the assent of

family, clan, his moiety, the nation, and in due

course the business went before the representatives

of the Confederacy. In reverse measures of the League

Council requiring safistion were sent down to the

peOple for approval .
Since, as we have indicated in previous chapters, such Special interest
groups as the warriors and the women also had their spokesmen, there
were a plethora of models for the aspiring Spokesman to observe. And
in like manner there existed numerous Opportunities to practice Should
he wish to do so.

Second, the Iroquois who chose to become an orator-Spokesman
was not stopped by an accident of birth. True, the positions of dnief
and saclnem were elective, but they ran in certain families. The spokes-
man, however, was nct Similarly restricted. All he need exhibit was
skill, and if he did so his status within the tribe increased consider-
ably. Morgan points out that

by the cultivation and exercise of this capacity

has Opened the pathway to distinction; and the chief
or warrior gifted with its magical power could elevate
himself as rapidly, as he who gained renown upon the
war-path. With the Iroquois , as with the Romans , the

two professions, oratory and arms, could establisli men
in the highest degree of personal consideration."L

 

U'OWilliam N. Fenton, "Toward the Gradual Civilization of the
Indian Natives: The Missionary and Linguistic Work Of Asher Wrigh ,"
Proceedings of the American Philo_s‘0phical Society, C (December, 1956),
572.

1”Morgan, p. 102 .

155
Third, because of the importance of the position, there may

have been formal training procedures for perpetuation of the craft.

The Iroquois have long had a penchant for "secret learning,’ a subject

we shall deal with in the next chapter. In spite of the bad form that
would be displayed if one consciously showed he was trying to learn
something, however, some of the people we have met in our four examples
may have been doing precisely that. We recall the other Mohawks who
accompanied Kiotsaeton to the council at Three Rivers . We recall the
many others who accompanied the Spokesman to their meetings with de
Callieres and Johnson. We recall the council "assistant" mentioned in
the Moravian journal . Finally we have the word of one author who
writes of a training session in oral history, a skill that needed to be
mastered by every council spokesman. Recalling that between 1770 and

1780 the Indians "could relate very minutely what had passed between

142

William Penn and their fore fathers," Heckewelder describes the pro-

cess by means of which they were able to do so:

For the purpose of refreshing their om memories,

and of instructing one or more of their most capable
and promising young men in these matters, they

assemble once or twice a year. On these occasions they
always meet at a chosen Spot in the woods, at a small
distance from the town, where a fire is kindled, and at
the proper time provisions are brought out to them;
there, on a large piece of bark or on a blanket, all the
documents are laid out in such order, that they can at
once distinguish each particular speech, the same as we
know the principal contents of an instrument of writing
by the endorsement on it. If any paper or parchment
writings are connected with the belts , or strings of
wampum, they apply to some trust white man (if such can
be had) to read the contents to them. Their speaker
then , who is always chosen from among those who are
endowed with superior talents, and has already been

 

”Heckewelder, p. 108.

156

trained up to the business, rises, and in an audible
voice delivers , with the gravity that the subject
requires, the contents , sentence after sentence , until
he has finished the whole on one subject. On the manner
in which the belts or strings of wampum are handled by
the Speaker much depends . . . and a good speaker will
be able to point out the exact place on a belt which is
to answer to each particular sentence, the same as we
can point out a passage in a book. Belts and strings,
when done with by the speaker, are again handed to the
chief, who puts them up carefully in the speech-bag or
pouch.”3

If such training sessions were also accompanied by exposure to oratory,
including the "set Speeches" of the condolence ceremony, and the novice
was given every opportunity to practice his skill on successively more
important levels of society, from the family to the inter-tribal level,
if moreover such speaking increased his status and was necessary to the
maintenance of his tribe, then it is no wonder that there would be a

continuity of technique in the craft of the orator—spokesman. We must
conclude that this continuity did in fact exist. We now proceed to

determine how much of the tradition was passed on to Red Jacket.

 

”3Ibid.

 

CHAPTER VI

THE CONTINUDIG TRADITION

In the last two chapters we have explored two factors which
may help to explain Red Jacket the speaker. The first of these factors
was the existence of an elaborate system of intra-group communication,
founded Upon concensus, which required Spokesmen both to inform the
council and report upon its deliberations. The other factor was a
set of rules and procedures which these spokesmen followed and passed
dam to succeeding generations. We have made the claim that this system
of council and spokesman enabled the Iroquois to maintain a high degree
of social cohesion and resist, to a greater degree than other Eastern
tribes, the mounting pressures of white colonization. We have raised
the possibility that the council allowed a freer flow of information
within the Confederacy, while the spokesmen, operating under its direc—
tives, were free to spread a great deal of misinformation to outsiders.
To the other theories explaining Iroquois influence during the Colonial
period we have added a fifth, namely that the communication system we
have described managed to convince whites that the Iroquois were more
powerful than they really were, Lmtil with the fall of the French the
balance of power game played by the Iroquois Spokesman lost its
viability. Finally we have argued that this communication system
remained relatively mehanged over the years, at least until the

157

158
Revolution.

Howeveru what effects did these two factors we have discussed
‘have upon the Reply to Reverend Cramfl In Chapter II of this study we
'have pointed out the great amount of social disintegration prevalent
among the Senecas after the Revolution. It is quite possible that
Red JaCket was not a product of his tradition, and if so we are not
justified in drawing conclusions about himlfromlit.

we shall try to answer our question by doing two things: (1)
by proving that the rhetorical tradition of the Iroquois still exists
at the present time, and (2) by showing that Red Jacket followed the
major conventions of the tradition in his reply. At the end of the
Chapterg we Shall go on to explore the ramifications of our conclusion
that a traditional, structured system of rhetoric does in fact exist
among the Iroquois.

Let us begin by taking a look at the one Iroquois group that
does not talk at all-—the Husk Face medicine society.l Every year
toward the end of the MidWinter Ceremony, the HUsk Faces enter the Long-
house to review the previous year's events. They are not Iroquois, but
rather~beings who are friends of the Iroquois and who inhabit a country
Where the crops are plentifUl and the weather is always warmn Their

arrival is announced by a pounding on the outside of the Longhouse,

 

1The description of the Husk Face Ceremony is the author's own,
based on experiences at the Alleghany Reservation. Another description
of the Hrsk Face ceremony is contained in Bdmmnd.Wilson, Apologies to
the Iroquois (New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1960), pp. 2u2—2u3.

 

159
pounding that is so severe that to someone in the darkened interior
the very building seems to shake. Then through one of the two doors
the Husk Faces enter the building. Each appears , to the white man at
least, to be wearing a mask made out of corn husks, but everyone
maintains the fiction that they are what they seem to be. Each is
carrying a walking stick, and their clothes suggest they have taken a
long hard journey in order to be at the ceremony. They are of all ages,
and even the youngest suggests by his movements that he is exhausted
from the trip.
But though the Husk Faces are tired and cannot talk, only make
a strange sound like blowing on a bottle, they still can dance. After
promenading around the Longiouse and surveying the audience, they begin
their characteristic patterns around the central drummer's bench. It
is then time for them to deliver a message to the Senecas; to do so
they must conscript a member of the audience to be their Spokesman.
Observing an earlier Midwinter Ceremony, Wilson writes that

they are obliged to commandeer an orator in order to

deliver their message, which in some mysterious way they

manage to communicate to him. The orator is said to be

Kidnapped. He is taken outside and briefed. I was told

by Nicodemus Bailey that this had several times happened

to him. The oration of the Huskfaces' Spokesman is

supposed to be satiric and witty, and I imagine that he

was excellent at this. . . . But the Kuskfaces of

Allegany had evidently no eligible satirist, and they

conscripted the master of ceremonies , whom they summoned

outside the door. When he returned, unaccompanied by

the Huskfaces, he delivered a long homily, which was
apparently less witty than moralistic.

 

2Wilson , ibid.

160
The situation now, regettably, remains the same. The spokesman of
course delivers his Speech in Seneca, but a person unfamiliar with the
language can observe interest on the faces of those who are listening.
Accompanying this , however, is no excitement or laughter. Evidently
the Speaker is being chosen for his knowledge of ritual and the Seneca
language, not for his capacity to delight his audience.

The purpose of the Husk Face Spokesman's address is to review
the previous year. He explains who the Husk Faces are and describes
their long, tedious journey. He narrates the previous year's activities
on the reservation. He advances various claims directed to improving
the behavior of the Longhouse people . But though he intones his Speech
in presumably the preper manner, we are disappointed if we have come
looking for exciting oratory, Flat-footed, with one hand in his pocket
and the other holding his cap, he stands in front of the stove at the
women's end of the Longhouse, his vocal variety non—existent, his face
expressionless. He is not the man we hoped to find.

In other parts of the Midwinter Ceremony, however, we find
glimpses of what we are looking for. As we enter early in the evening,
the Handsome Lake preacher is standing over on the men's side and
declaiming the Thanksgiving Address to the Great Spirit. It is a set
speech--every part of it is traditional and delivered without change
from one year to the next. In the items for which the Great Spirit is
thanked, even in the order in which these items are presented, we find
an echo of Red Jacket's opening remarks. The only difference is that
the Thanksgiving Address takes these items and amplifies them. Later,

as the dancing takes place, we note the Iroquois gift for pantomine.

161
One of the members of the Bear Society is especially funny as he sniffs
around the berries on the drummer's bench. A member of the False Faces
dances for the writer's children after they have given him gifts of
chewing gum; we discover later that the is an art student at Buffalo
State University and a subject of much Speculation by the young women
of the reservation. He is a superb dancer and pantomimist, and when
one of the writer's children fails to beat the turtle rattle in a
coherent rhythm, he dissolves the audience into laughter by registering
an attitude of infinite surprise. Throughout the evening everyone dances
with the others around the drummer's bench. If someone is too young to
participate--and all ages are present at the meeting——then the child is
handed to someone who is not participating in this dance, and then later
retrieved. Scattered among the dances and sacred songs are a number of
impromptu conferences, often initiated by the clan mothers. Afterwards
one of the men will rise to greet a guest, ask the group to consider
someone's personal problem, or make an announcement concerning upcoming
activities . The whole Midwinter Ceremony unfolds leisurely over the
four hour period. When it is the turn of a particular individual or
group, they perform their portion of the ceremony without self-con—
sciousness or hesitation. There are frequent pauses until the next group
is "ready," but no one seems to mind.

This description of the Midwinter Ceremony at Allegheny is quite
different from the political councils we have examined in earlier
chapters, but while there are differences there are also similarities.
We have already mentioned the parallels between the Thanksgiving Address

and Red Jacket's Opening, with its stress on unity and its enumeration

162
of the Great Spirit's, gifts to the Indians. We notice traditional
formulas interspersed with extemporized material. We notice the short
conferences which precede the speaking of the Spokesman. We notice
the "intoning" which caught the attention of Canmerhoff . We see the
emphasis upon mime, though it occurs in dance and not in oratory.

In her study of the most conservative of all Iroquois groups, the
Longhouse peOple of the Six Nations Reserve, Shimony reaches Similar
conclusions. She differentiates between two forms of speaking in their
religious speaking: the recitation from memory of traditional addresses,
and the "extemporaneous but patterned moral exhortations."3 The
speakers are not elected or appointed because "'the ability to Speak'
is considered preordained, a gift to the individual from the Great
Creator,” but they must be male and present their material with a
certain degree of Skill.

Shimony does not find a comprehensive training program for these
individuals because "clandestine acquisition of knowledge is a recognized
pattern among the Iroquois,"5 and if a person demonstrated too great an
eagerness to possess the Skill, then he might not be pre—ordained to
have it or else offend the Spirits who have given it to him. Yet older
members are expected to encourage those who Show glimmers of interest

and work them into the ceremonials. An individual practices in secret,

 

3Annemarie Anrod Shimony, Conservatismflrong the Iro_quois at the
Six Nations_Reserve ("Yale University Publications in Anthropology ,"
No. 65New7iaven, 1961), 90.

”Ibid., p. 89.
5Ibid., pp. 128—129.
Bflfid.

 

 

 

163
partly out of respect to his elders,7 partly out of the belief that
"volunteering is bad form and impudent."8 At his first performance
the speaker or other public performer is usually nervous or ill at

ease.9 Fortunately, should he falter, the keepers of the faith will

10
serve as prompters .

Shimony observes the same phenomena present at the council of
traditional chiefs at Grand River:

Accepting a chieftainship is an onerous duty for which
one has been designated by the Great Creator .

one notes a religious tone in Speaking of the office,
but in this case it is probably rather an old trait,
since the theme of predestination for a position is very
widespread in Iroquoian culture. The onerousness of
leadership is also felt by the more responsible of the
elected councilors, one of whom told me: 'They twist you
in knots in the council, no matter how good and true; it
was a thankful day when I got out; I didn't know whom to
face.‘

We recall Red Jacket's words: "I was born an orator." An Iroquois does
not have to want to perform a particular function; if he is called upon

to do it he must do 80.12

And literally hundreds of Iroquois perform
orally for their clans, moieties, tribes, and Confederacy at the present

day. It is their duty.

 

7Ibid.
8mm.
9mm.
lomwis H. Morgan, League of the Ho-De—No Sau—Nee or Iroquois (New
York: Dodd Mead and Company, 1901), I, 119.
llShimony, p. 123.

12For example, a warrior must be brave and unflinchingly face danger.
The Iroquois have a virtual monOpoly on high steel work in this country
because they are not supposed to be afraid of heights. Yet Freilich
claims that when Iroquois steel workers are drunk enough, they will admit
to be as terrified as the next man. See Morris Freilich, "Cultural Per-
sistence Among the Modern Iroquois," Anthms, LIII (1958), 1473-1483.

 

 

 

 

161+

From this survey of speaking practiced in the conservative
enclaves of present-day Iroquois society, we return to Red Jacket and,
in doing so, we present an admittedly tortuous argument. It is this:
if there is a discernible Speaking tradition before Red Jacket's time,
and traces of that tradition still exist, then, presumably, Red Jacket
was a product of that tradition. This argument is an important one.
Its acceptance is necessary if we are to see Indian oratory as something
more than merely "quaint" and colorful. Its acceptance will lay to
rest the assumption that Indian spokesmen were innocent children of the
forest who Spoke well by accident. This assumption has been with us
from the beginning of our nation. Witness the exhortation from T333

American Speaker, dated 1811+:

 

And Shall he not have strong attachments to his country,
where the finest flowers are found in the wilderness?—-
Where man in his rude state, speaks with more strength of
eloquence, than he has been able to attain in the most
polished and cultivated society?13
But of course the question is meaningless, for Red Jacket was "polished"
and "cultivated" as a Speaker. He was not like the chimpanzee who by
chance creates a beautiful painting. He was a conscious artist. And
art requires work.
However, though the presumption lies in our favor, we need to
spend a little more time with our argument before we can consider it

proven. Let us focus more closely on that art of which we claim Red

Jacket was a master, the art of rhetoric.

 

13The American Speaker; a Selection of Popular, Parliamentary,
and Forensic Eloquence, 2nd. ed. TPhiladelphia: Abraham Small, 1810,
p. vi.

 

 

165

For the purposes of discussion let us say that the people
involved in a communication Situation have a set of "filters" by which
they relate to their external world. The recipient of a message
filters the stimuli he receives through a series of processes known as
perception. This perception is determined partially by the built-in
capabilities and codes of his neuro-physiological system, partially
by the learning provided through the physical and social conditions in
which he has lived. The recipient's perception, his filtered stimuli,
add to or modify his view of the external world. Of course, the
recipient of a communication reSponds to his perception of it in a
selective way, because to the degree that man is a goal-directed animal,
he sets priorities on his goals. His behavior is either blocked or
passed through another set of filters which have been called variously
his "hierarchy of attitudes" or "goal-complex." To the extent that his
responses filter through in the direction and intensity desired by the
originator of the communication, or stimuli, he is persuaded.

On the other hand, the originator of the communication , equipped
as he is with his own sets of perceptions and attitudes, has learned
that he can influence his external world by modifying the behavior of
other persons. If he can modify the recipient's perception, he informs;
if he alters the recipient's goal—complex, he persuades. As he develOps
a set of rules or an operational procedure for doing this, he may be
said to have developed a "rhetoric." Following his set of rules, his
rhetoric, modifies the originator's behavior so that he can more
effectively modify the perception and/or the goal-complexes of the

recipient of the communication.

166

It follows that there are different "rhetorics" for different
individuals, because each originator will develop a set of rules
according to his own perceptions and attitudes. And to the degree
that one's perceptions and attitudes are shaped by his culture, each
culture will also have its own rhetoric. When we say that Red Jacket
uses rhetoric we mean that he uses a set of rules, determined by his
culture and himself, to modify the perception and goal—complexes of
others. He is an effective rhetorician to the degree that his commun—
ications inform or persuade their recipients.

We have already Shown that Red Jacket used a set of rules which
was fairly elaborate in nature. He operated within the rigid frame of
council and Spokesmen. He employed traditional commonplaces or formmdas
within his Speech. He utilized a received SpeeCh organization. His
ethical and pathetic appeals were the same as those used previously by
his fellow Iroquois. Even his logical arguments——"turning the tables"
by asking the Christians themselves to practice what they preached and
"dividing and conquering" by emphasizing the differences between Chris—
tian groups-—were common rhetorical strategies. In fact there was
nothing in his Speech, fromIOpening formula to closing expression of
good will, that we have not seen delivered on other occasions by other
Spokesmen.

we cannot be as sure about the delivery of the speech. Granted,
the Bends text emphasizes the expression, "HIM only," to indicate that
Red Jacket made emphatically clear the fact that he was Speaking of the
Great Spirit, not the Christian God. We are also told Red Jacket iron-

ically moved to Shake Cram's hand in a visible eXpression of farewell.

167

Beyond this , however, we have no indications of how the Speech was
delivered, or how closely Red Jacket conformed to the presentational
style of previous spokesmen. Certain sources tell us that, when Red
Jacket spoke,

his very tones, his gestures, and his pauses conveyed

the vigor of his words. His voice was vibrant, modu-

lated, and rhythmic and f‘lewed with a cadence that held

his listeners Spellbound.
We are told that he was "overwhelming in argument, and entirely unsur-
passed in his inimitable wit and powers of sarcasm."15 But these
observations are the same that were made about many nineteenth century
orators . Actually, in all that has been written about Red Jacket , only
one first-hand observation has been found. It is offered here for what
it is worth:

In a few minutes, Red Jacket arose with a great deal

of native dignity, (-he was a finely built, stocky,

stout man, not tall, with a coal-black piercing eye,

well set back). He first adjusted his wampum,

perfectly unembarrassed, and, looking directly up,

deliberately uttered a sentence, which Mr. Parish (sic.),

now standing again, then interpreted. 6
It is not enough to reconstruct how Red Jacket Spoke on a previous
occasion to Reverend Cram, but combined with the other statements about

the effectiveness of his delivery, it seems to tell us that in matters

of presentation Red Jacket also followed in the footsteps of his

 

1”Arthur G. Parker, Red Jacket, Last_o_i: the Senecas (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952), p. I86.

15Asher Wrig'lt papers in the manuscript collection of the Buffalo
Historical Society.

16w. William Hall, letter to the Buffalo Historical Society,
September 2, 1862, in the manuscript collection of the Society.

 

168
ancestors . Red Jacket , in other words , was a practitioner of Iroquois
rhetoric, a set of rules or operational procedures that was indigenous
to his culture.

How effective was he as a practitioner? We have cited his con—
temporaries who admired his skills. We have pointed out that he rose
to a position of high status within his tribe because of his Speaking
ability. Specifically, we find in his Reply to Reverend Cram that he
succeeded in infuriating the missionary and blocked his further acti-
vities on the reservation. For at least another decade, in spite of a
number of attempts, Christian missionaries failed to make serious
inroads at Buffalo Creek. Although we must always remember that he was
speaking for his council, and not necessarily stating personal beliefs,17
his words reflected a policy that would be followed by the reservation
for at least the next ten years and by some Of the Senecas until the
present day.

Arthur C. Parker, New York State anthropologist and Seneca
Indian, once wrote a passage about the Iroquois that, had we offered it
earlier in the study, might have invited ridicule, for he assumed that
the Iroquois once practiced the art of rhetoric in the same way that
the Greeks and Romans did. Parker said that

among the noble arts was that of oratory. Young men
with ability were trained to Speak. Not only must

 

17g. Breckenridge: "Though a pagan, yet his Opposition was
political, and he cared little for any religion except so far as it
seemed to advance or endanger the glory and safety of the tribe." Cited
in William L. Stone, Life and Times of Sa-Go-Ye;Wat_—:Ha or Red Jacket
(Albany: J. Munsell, 1866), pp. 3'41—3u2.

 

169
They memorize the rituals, but perfect themselves in
extemporaneous speaking. By debates held under-the
instruction of the old men, they learned.how to become
quick at repartee and how to trip their adversaries. .
An endeavor‘was made to make the address rhetorical and
filled with apt metaphor.l8
Now, nearing our conclusion, we cannot dismiss Parker so lightly.
When we began, we wrote that Red Jacket and the Iroquois speaking tra—
dition would have to demonstrate an effectiveness and manifest a devel-
Oped structure if they would be worth the study by students of public
address. Our study seems to Show this. The Iroquois did in fact have
a set of rules or Operational procedures worth.investigation. We can
no longer'smile when Parker tells us that there were places in our
country three hundred.years ago where men were receiving training in
fOrmal debating practices. we know it must have been so.

Yet if we accept this, we find our'work has just begun, for‘we
have thrown our discipline wide Open into an area.which we may call
"rhetorical" anthropology. Consider, for a moment, just the Iroquois.
This study has argued that Iroquois speaking had an effect on Colonial
history, but someone needs to go on to prove that a Specific Speech did
indeed lead to a particular~historical event. Nor have we adequately
dealt in these pages with.Ircquois rhetoric Since Red Jacket's time.
What has happened to Iroquois spokesmen since 1805? When William.Seneca,

President of the Seneca Nation, speaks to a Congressional committee,

what factors have caused hiflltO alter'his speaking style? When Mad Bear

 

lBArthur G. Parker, "The Civilization Of the Red Man," in Flick,

Alexander C., ed., History of New York (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1933), I, 119-120.

 

170
Anderson and other leaders of the Red Power movement attempt to influ—
ence their'audiences, how mush do they reflect their~heritage? To what
extent do modern political practices among the Iroquois draW'upon the
mechanisms of the traditional hereditary council?

Or'consider~other cultures. Our fourth example in Chapter V
suggests that the Iroquois were at that time involved in extensive
negotiations with the Cherokee. Since Iroquois rhetorical practices
were originally developed to communicate effectively with Indians, not
whites, to What extent do Iroquois practices reflect those Of other
tribes and how effective were they When directed to these different
audiences? GO farther afield. What may we learn of value fromlspeaking
traditions as different as village councils in Pakistan or the Eskimo
utilization of ridicule in legal argument? What indeed might be worth
knowing about speeOh practices in the medieval kingdoms Of.Africa or

universities Of India?19

What might be gathered from cross—cultural
comparisons Which.would investigate oral rhetorics in pre-literate and
literate cultures?

Finally, consider our own Speech tradition. The Greeks are the

source of our knowledge about and interest in the discipline of rhetoric.

When Lewis Henry MOrgan, the pioneer American anthIOpologist whose name

 

19For the student of public address, two of the most suggestive
pages in all history are contained in Will Durant's Our Oriental Heritage.

 

He writes of "sOhools of discussion" in ancient India enrolling thousands
of students, and possessing vast libraries dedicated to "the Goddess of
SpeeCh." .After these tantalizing remarks, he abruptly drOps the subject.
Yet these same Indians fOunded the modern science of philology and fOrmed
perhaps the world's most extensive body of oral literature. See Will
.Durant, Our Oriental Heritage (New York: Simon and SOhuster, 1935),

pp. 556-557.

 

171

is mentioned frequently in these pages, went on from.the Iroquois to
generalize about other cultures, he found extensive parallels between
the Confederacy and the ancient Greeks. we date our own knowledge Of
Greek Speaking practice from Corax and Tisias, but perhaps somewhere
here there may be hints or suggestions about how to puSh our knowledge
back even fUrther'intO the past. Or let us risk being completely out—
rageous, since we are rarely allowed to be so in studies Of this kind.
The writer once had an anthropology professor in undergraduate sOhool
who asserted that the only constant in human culture was the incest
taboo. Yet the Iroquois spokesmen are not all that different frmmlrs.
Might we dare to hope that cross—cultural studies would show us other
constants in the processes of human communication? Perhaps college
sophomores need not be our primary Objects of study. There may be

ridher fodder in other pastures.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS RELATING TO SPEECH, ORATORY, AND COMMUNICATION

A Long-lost Speech Of Red Jacket. Friendship, N.Y.: John W. Sanborn,
1912.

 

Berlo, David K. The Process of Communication. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1960.

 

Brewer, David J., ed. The World's Best Orations. Vol. VII.
Chicago: Ferd. P. Kaiser Publishing Co., 1923.

 

Bryan, WilliamlJennings, ed. The World's Famous Orations. Vol. VIII.
New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1906.

 

Copeland, Lewis, ed. The WOrld's Great Speeches. New York: The Book
League Of America,fil9u2.

 

. The WOrld's Great_Speoohes. Garden City: Garden City
Publishing Co., Inc., 19h91

 

The WOrld's Great SpeeOhes. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Dover
PUincations, Inc., 1958.

 

Dance, Frank E.X., ed. Human Communication Theogy. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968.

 

Depew, Chauncey M., ed. The Libragy Of Oratory. Vol. III. New York:
Merrill A. Baker Publishers, 1902.

 

Hurd, Charles. A Treasugy of Great American Speeches. New York:
Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1959.

 

Jones, Louis Thomas. Aboriginal American Oratory. LOS Angeles:
Southwest Museum, I965.

 

Meore, Frank. American Eloquence: A Collection Of Speoohes and
.Addresses by the MO8t Eminent Orators of America. 2 vols.
New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1857.

 

 

Native Eloquence, Being PUblic Speeches Delivered by Two Distinguished

Chiefs Of the Seneca Tribe of Indians. Canandaigua, N .Y.:
J.D. Bemis, 1811.

 

172

173

Oliver, Robert T. Culture and Communioation. Springfield, Ill.:
Charles C. Thomas, 1962.

 

PUblic Speeches Delivered at the Village of Buffalo . . . Respecting
the Part the Six NationsW ouIdfiTake in the Present warmAgalnst
Greathritaln. Buffalo: S. H. and HTAT. Salisbury, 1812.

 

 

 

Shoemaker, Ann G. The Red Man Speaks. Doylestcwn, Pa.: The Doylestown
Printing ShOp, 19u7.

 

Smith, Alfred G. Communication and Culture. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and.Winston, Inc., 1966.

 

Sutton, ROberta Briggs. SpeeCh Index. Nth ed. New York: Scarecrow
Press, Inc., 1966.

 

The American Speaker; a Selection of POpular, Parliamentary, and
FOrensic Eloquence. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 181%.

 

 

Thonssen, Lester and Baird, A. Craig. SpeeCh Criticism, New York:
The Ronald Press Company, 19u8.

 

Wallace, Karl R., ed. History of SpeeCh Education in America. New
York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, Inc., 195H.

 

BOOK AND MONOGRAPHS RELATING TO HISTORY AND ANTHROPOLOGY

A Brief History Of the Evangelical Missionary Socioty of Massachusetts,
With the Last Report Of the Trustees (Boston: 1819).

Alden, Timothy. An Account of Sundry Missions Performed Among the
Senecas and Munsees. New York: J. Seymour, 1827.

 

 

Bailey, F.G. "Decisions by Consensus in Councils and Committees," in
Political Systems and the Distribution Of Power ("MOnographs
of the AssociatiOn of SOOial AnthropologiStS,“INO. 2 [1963]).

 

Barnes, Gilbert Hobbs. The Antislavegy Impulse. New York: Harcourt,
Brace 8 World, 1969.

 

Bartramu JOhn. Observations on the Inhabitants, Climate, Soil, Rivers
Productions, Animals, and Other Matters Worthy Of Note.
London: J. Whiston and B. White, 1751.

 

 

Beauchamp, William M. Civil, Religious and Mourning Councils and
Ceremonies of Adoption Of the New York Indians ("New York State
Museum Bulletins,"7No. 113 [Albany, 1906]).

 

 

.A History of the New YQ§E_I£992913- Port Washington, N.Y.:
Ira J. Friedman, 1962.

17H

Beauchamp, WilliamlMg, ed. Moravian Journals Relating to Central New
York, 17H5-66. Syracuse: The Delher‘Fress, 1916.

 

 

Bell, Charles H. History of the Town of Exeter. Boston: J.E. Farwell
8 Co., 1888.

 

Bell, Charles Henry. Men and Things of Exeter. Exeter: The News—
Letter Press, 1871.

 

Bryant, William Clement. Address at Forest Lawn Cemetery, in Red
Jacket ("Transactions of the Buffalo Historical Society," III
lBuffalo, 1885]).

Campbell, William W., ed. The Life and Writings of De Witt Clinton.
New York: Baker and Scribner, 1889.

 

Chafe, Wallace L. Handbook Of the Senoca Language ("New York State
Museum.and SOience Service Bulletihs," NO. 388 [Albany, 1963]).

 

Cline, Martin G. Soils and Soil Associations of Ney_York ("Cornell
Extension Bulletins ," NO. 930 flthaca, 1955]).

 

Conover, George S. The Birthplace of Sa:gO-ye-wa:fha or the Indian
Red Jacket. waterioo, N.Y.: Seneca County News Book and JOb
Printing House, 188%.

 

 

Cross, Whitney R. The Burned-over District. New York: Harper 8 Row,
1965.

 

De Creux, Francois. The Hiotopy Of Canada or New France. 2 vols.
Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1951.

 

Downs, John P., and Hedley, Fenwick Y., eds. Histopy Of Chautauqua
County and Its People. Boston: American Historical SOEiety,
Inc., 1921.

 

Drake, Samuel G. Biogrophy and History of the_1ndians Of North America.
3rd ed. Boston: O.L. Perkins and Hillard, Gray 8 Co., l83u.

 

Draper, Thomas. The Bemis History and Genealogy. San Francisco: The
Stanley Taylor’Co., 1900.

 

Durant, Will. Our Oriental Heritage. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1935.

Eggan, Fred R. "The Ethnological Cultures and Their ArCheological
Backgrounds," in Griffin, James 8., ed. Archeology Of Eastern
United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.

 

it'll- i. i I! [If

175

Farb, Peter. Man's Rise to Civilization As Shown by_the Indians of
North America and Primeval Times to the (:0ng of tie Industrial
State. INew YOrk:IEIP} Dutton EPCO., Inc., 1968.

 

 

Fenton, William N. "Problems Arising From the Historic Northeastern
Position Of the Iroquois," in Essayo in Historical Anthropology
of North America ("Smithsonian MiScellaneous Collections?" Vol.
C IWashington, D.C., 19H01).

 

 

Fenton, William.N., ed. Symposium.on Local Diversity in Iroquois
Culture ("Bureau Of American Ethnology Bulletins," NO. 199
IWashlngton, D.C., 1951]).

 

FliCk, Alexander C., ed. Histopy Of the State Of Nequork. 10 vols.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1933.

 

GluCkman, Max. Custom and Conflio:_in Africa. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1965 .

 

Goldenweiser, Alexander A. Early Civilization. New York: F.S. Crofts
and Co., 1935.

 

Heckewelder, John. History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Tribes
Who Once Inhabited Pennsylvania and the_Noighpoping States
("Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvafiiaj" Vol. XII
[Philadelphia, 1876]).

 

 

Henry, Thomas R. Wilderness Messiah. New York: William Sloane
Associates, Inc., 1955.

 

Wmfimam,Jdm1L PaemalfiyinCthe. Mmlbfiafhmeralhw,
1967.

 

Houghton, Frederick. History of the Buffalo Creek Reservation ("Publi—
cations of the Buffalo Historical SOEiety," Vol. XXIV IBuffalo:
1920]).

 

Hubbard, J. Niles. An Account of Sa—gO—yeawatéha or Red Jacket and
His People. Aibany: John Munsell's SOns, 1886.

 

 

Hughes, Thomas. History Of the Society of Jesus in North America. Vol.
II (Text). London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1917.

 

Hunt, George T. The Wars of the Iroquois. Madison: The University of
Wisconsin Press, 1940.

 

Johnson, William. The Papers ofySir~William1Johnson. 13 vols.
Albany: The University of the State of New York, 1921—1962.

 

Kenton, Edna, ed. Black Gown and Redskins. Lodnon: Longmans, Green
and Co., 1956.

 

176

Ketchum, William. An Authentic and Comprehensive History Of Buffalo.
2 vols. Buffalo: Rockwell, Baker 8 Hill, 1861+.

 

Kroeber, A.L. Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America.
Berkeley: University Of California Press, 19 39 .

 

Lankes, Frank J. The Senecas on Buffalo Creek Reservation. West
Seneca, N.Y.: West SEneca Historical SOciety, l96u.

 

Laux, Wilma. The Village Of Buffalo, 1800-1832. Buffalo: Buffalo and

-_—_ _.

Erie County Hisiorical Society, T360.

Linton, Ralph. The Study of Man. New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts,
Inc. , 19 36.

 

Maine, Henry Sumner. Ancient Law. New York: Henry Holt and Company,
1887.

 

Malone, Dumas, ed. Dictionary Of American Biography. Vol XV. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935.

 

Mead, Margaret, ed. CO—Operat_i_on and Competition Among Primitive
PeOples. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 19 37.

 

Mead, Margaret, and Bunzel, Ruth L., eds. The Golden Age of American
Anthropology. New York: George BraziIler, 1960.

 

 

Milliken, Charles F. A History of Ontario Countyl New York, and its
People. 2 vols. New York: Lewis HistOFical Filblishing CO. , 1911.

 

Morgan, Lewis H. Ancient Society. New York: Henry Holt and Company,
1877.

 

Houses and House—Life of the American Aborigines. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1965.

 

. League Of the HO—DO—NO Sau—Nee or Iroquois. 2 vols. New York:
Dodd Mead and Company, 1901.

 

O'Callaghan, Edmund B. , ed. The Documentary Histoq of the State of
New York. Albany: Weed, Parsons 8 Co. , 1899.

 

O'Callaghan, Edmund B. , and Fernow, Berthold, eds. Documents Relative
to the Colonial History of the State Of New York. 15 vols.
Albany: Weed, Parsons and Company, 1856-1887.

 

 

Oswalt, Wendell H. This Land Was Theirs. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons,
1966.

 

Parker, Arthur C. "The Civilization of the Red Man," in Flick, Alexander
C., ed., History of the Stat_e_ Of_New York. Vol I. New York:
Columbia University Press, 19 33.

 

177

Parker, Arthur C. The Code Of Handsome Lake, the Seneca Prophet
("New York State Museum.Bulletins," No. 163 [Albany: 1912]).

 

Red JaCket, Last of the Seneca. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company,_Inc., 1952.

 

. Seneca Myths and Folk Tales ("Buffalo Historical Society
PUblicationS,"’Vol. VI [Buffalo, 1923]).

 

Resek, Carl. Lewis Henry Morgan, American Scholar. Chicago: The
Universiiy of Chicago Press,41960.

 

Rider, Fremont, ed. The American_Genealogical—Biogrophical Index to
American Genealogical, BiOgraphicgl ana Local History Materials.
Vol. 35. Middletown, Conn.: The Godfrey Memorial Library, 1952.

 

 

Schoolcraft, Henry R. Notes on the Iroquois; or Contributions to
American History, Antiquities, and General Ethnology, Albany:
ErastusIHZ Pease 8 Co., 1897.

 

 

Shimony, Annemarie Anrod. ConservatismlAmong the Iroquois at the Six
Nations Reserve ("Yale University Publications'ih Anthropology,"
NO. 65 [New Haven: 1961]).

 

 

Snyderman, George S. Behind tho Tree of Peace. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Dissertation in AnthrOpology, 1998.

 

Stearns, Ezra S. Genealogical and Family Histogy of the State of New
Shire. Vol. 3. New York: The LeWis Publishing Company,
1908.

 

Stone, William L. Life and.Times of Sa—GoéYejwat-Hal or Red Jacket.
Aibany: J. Munsell, 1866.

 

Thatcher, B.B. Indian Biography. Vol. II. New York: Harper 8
Brothers, 1837?

 

"The Story Of Captain Jasper Parrish," in Buffalo Hisporical Society
Publications, Vol. VI (Buffalo, 19037, 5274538}

 

 

Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents.
Vol. XVI. Cleveland: The’Burrows Company,I1899}

 

Thme, Phillip. Pioneer Life; or, Thirpy Years a Hunter. Reprint of

‘_-___‘

1859 ed. HarriSburg, Pa.: The Gurand Press, 1928.

Trelease, Allen W. Indian Affairs in Colonial New York. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1960.

 

Turner, 0. Pioneer History of the Holland Land PurChase Of Western New
York. Buffalo: Jewett, Thomas 8 Co., 1899.

 

178

U. 8. Congress. American State Papeps; Documents, Legislative and
Executive, of the Congress of Eye United States. Class II -

Indian Affairs. 2 vols. wasHington: Gales and Seaton, 1832.

 

wallace, Anthony F.C. The Death and Rebirthpof_the Seneoo. New York:
Aifred.A. Knopf, 1970.

 

Wallace, Paul A.W} The White Roots Of Peace. Port washington, N.Y.:
Ira T. Friedman, 1968.

 

Wilcox, Ray. Feathers in a Dapk Sky. Woodstock, N.Y.: Woodstock
Press, 1991.

 

Wilson, Edmund. AApologieS to the_Ipoquois. New York: Farrar, Straus,
and Cudahy, 1960.

 

Winsor, Justin, ed. Narrative and Critical History of America. Vol. I:
Aboriginal America. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1889.

 

 

PERIODICALS

Berkhofer, RObert P.,thm "Protestants, Pagans, and Sequences Among
the North American Indians, 1760-1860," Ethnchistory, X (Summer,
1963), 201—232.

 

Chafe, Wallace L. "Seneca MOrphOlogy I: Introduction," International
Journal Of American Linguistics, XXVI (January, 1960), 11—22.

 

 

Fenton, WilliamlN. "The Iroquois Confederacy in the Twentieth Century:
a Case Study of the Theory of Lewis H. Morgan in 'Ancient Society,'"
Ethnolog, IV (July, 1965), 251-265.

"Toward the Gradual Cilivization Of the Indian Natives: The
Missionary and Linguistic WOrk of Asher'Wright," Proceedings Of
the AmericangEhilogosphical Society, C (December, 1956), 567—573.

 

 

Freilich, MOrris. "Cultural Persistence Among the MOdern Iroquois,"
Anthropos, L111 (1958), 973—983.

Hewitt, J.N.B. "Era of the Formation of the Historic League of the
Iroquois," American Anthropologist, VII (January, 1899), 61-67.

 

Hickerson, Harold, Turner, Glen D., and Hickerson, Nancy L. "Testing
Procedures fOr Estimating Transfer of Information Among Iroquois
Dialects and Languages," International Joupnal Of American
Linguistics, XVIII (January, 1952), 1—8.

 

 

179

Hoffman, Bernard G. "Iroquois Linguistics Classification From
Historical Materials," Ethnohistopy, VI (Spring, 1959), 160-185.

 

Howell, William C. "Preview Of the Convention——1970," SEctra, VI
(OctOber, 1970), l.

Lang, Robert. "The Teaching of Rhetoric in French Jesuit Colleges,"
' Speech Monographs, XIX (November, 1952), 286-298.

 

Manley, Henry S. "Red Jacket's Last Campaign," New York History
(August, 1950). Unpaginated reprint in Buffalo and Erie County
Public Library, Buffalo, New York.

 

Stern, Madeline. "James D. Bemis: Country Printer," New York Histogy,
XXIX (October, 1998), 909-927.

 

Tuck, James A. "The Iroquois Confederacy," Scientific American,
CCXXIV (February, 1971), 32-92.

 

Wallace, Anthony F.C. "The Dekanawideh Myth Analyzed as the Record of
a Revitalization Movement," Ethnohistogy, V (Spring, 1958), 118-130.

 

Wallace, Paul AJW. "The Return Of Hiawatha," New York History,
XXIX ( , 1998),

 

Wright, Asher. "Seneca Indians," Reprinted in Fenton, William N. , ed.,
"Documents; Seneca Indians by Asher Wright," Ethnohistory, IV
(Summer, 1957), 302-321.

 

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Buffalo Historical Society. MSS box titled "Indian Speeches." Includes
speech to Reverend Cram. Another paper gives date of Speech as
1805, says Col. Chapin (U.S. Agent?) arranged the audience with
Cram with difficulty and Dr. Chapin wrote down the Speech.
Erastus Granger was present.

Hall, W. William. Manuscript letter to the Buffalo Historical Society,
September 2, 1862. Manuscript collection Of the Library of
Congress.

Hodson, Clarence. "American Indians as Orators." Unpublished address
delivered at Washington College, Chestertown, Md. , October 12,
1921. Mansucript collection of the Library of Congress.

Jimeson, J. Letter of J. Jimeson to JaSper Parrish, February 27, 1828.
COpy Of a letter, in the Huntington Library, San Marino, California,
made by William Fenton. Collection of Mark H. Deardorff,

Warren, Pennsylvania.

180

Maffin, Clyde (Curator and County Historian, Ontario County Historical
Society, Canandaigua, New York). Letter to the author, June 1,
1967.

Nicholas, Ralph W. "Iroquois Factions, A Case of Segmentary Opposition."
Preliminary version of unpublished Master of Arts research paper.
Univeristy Of Chicago, November 29, 1958.

Reynolds, Wynn R. "A Study of the Persuasive Speaking Techniques of the
Iroquois Indians: 1678-1776." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Columbia University, 1957.

Wright, Asher. Asher Wright papers. Manuscript collection of the
Buffalo Historical Society.

U. S. National Archives. U.S. Census Population Schedules, Oneida and
Ontario Counties, New York (Lansing: Michigan State Microfilm
Collection, Microcopy no. M252, Roll no. 33).

    
  

 

UUUUU

TWilli“ultigliwifllflas