Hiawatha and the Iroquois Confederation: A Study in Anthropology. A Paper Read at the Cincinnati Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in August, 1881, under the Title of "A Lawgiver of the Stone Age." — John Shaqi
Hiawatha and the Iroquois Confederation: A Study in Anthropology. A Paper Read at the Cincinnati Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in August, 1881, under the Title of "A Lawgiver of the Stone Age."Hale, Horatio
History
Hiawatha and the Iroquois Confederation: A Study in Anthropology. A Paper Read at the Cincinnati Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in August, 1881, under the Title of "A Lawgiver of the Stone Age."
Hale, Horatio
Hiawatha, active 15th century; Iroquois Indians
The six national leaders who have been mentioned--Dekanawidah for the
Mohawks, Odatshehte for the Oneidas, Atotarho for the Onondagas,
Akahenyonk for the Cayugas, Kanyadariyo and Shadekaronyes for the two
great divisions of the Senecas--met in convention near the Onondaga Lake,
with Hiawatha for their adviser, and a vast concourse of their followers,
to settle the terms and rules of their confederacy, and to nominate its
first council. Of this council, nine members (or ten, if Dekanawidah be
included) were assigned to the Mohawks, a like number to the Oneidas,
fourteen to the lordly Onondagas, ten to the Cayugas, and eight to the
Senecas. Except in the way of compliment, the number assigned to each
nation was really of little consequence, inasmuch as, by the rule of the
league, unanimity was exacted in all their decisions. This unanimity,
however, did not require the suffrage of every member of the council.
The representatives of each nation first deliberated apart upon the
question proposed. In this separate council the majority decided; and
the leading chief then expressed in the great council the voice of his
nation. Thus the veto of Atotarho ceased at once to be peculiar to him,
and became a right exercised by each of the allied nations. This
requirement of unanimity, embarrassing as it might seem, did not prove to
be so in practice. Whenever a question arose on which opinions were
divided, its decision was either postponed, or some compromise was
reached which left all parties contented.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account