Western Characters | Page 9

expected in any but a savage. "Logan
never knew fear," he says; "he would not turn on his heel to save his
life." This species of boasting is perfectly in keeping with the Indian
character; but the pathetic reason for this carelessness, which
follows--"There is no one to mourn for Logan"--is one not likely to
have occurred to an Indian, even in his circumstances. And, granting
that the expression was used by the orator, and not (as it seems
probable it was) added by Jefferson, it is, I believe, the only example
on record of poetical feeling in any Indian speech.
The religion of the Indian has given as much troublesome material to
the builders of systems, as has been furnished by all his other
characteristics combined. The first explorers of America supposed that
they had found a people, quite destitute of any religious belief. But
faith in a higher power than that of man, is a necessity of the human
mind; and its organization, more or less enlightened, is as natural, even
to the most degraded savage, as the formation of his language. Both
depend upon general laws, common to the intellect of all races of men;
both are affected by the external circumstances of climate, situation,
and mode of life; and the state of one may always be determined by
that of the other. "No savage horde has been caught with its language in
a state of chaos, or as if just emerging from the rudeness of
indistinguishable sounds. Each appears, not as a slow formation by
painful processes of invention, but as a perfect whole, springing
directly from the powers of man."[22] And though this rigor of
expression is not equally applicable to the Indian's religion, the fact is
attributable solely to the difference in nature of the subjects. As the
"primary sounds of a language are essentially the same everywhere,"
the impulses and instincts of piety are common to all minds. But, as the
written language of the Indian was but the pictorial representation of
visible objects, having no metaphysical signification, so the symbols of
his religion, the objects of his adoration, were drawn from external
nature.[23] Even his faith in the Great Spirit is a graft upon his system,
derived from the first missionaries;[24] and, eagerly as he adopted it, it

is probable that its meaning, to him, is little more exalted, than that of
the "Great Beaver," which he believes to be the first progenitor, if not
the actual creator, of that useful animal.
We often see the fact, that the Indian believes in his manitou, cited as
an evidence, that he has the conception of a spiritual divinity. But the
word never conveyed such a meaning; it is applicable more properly to
material objects, and answers, with, if possible, a more intense and
superstitious significance, to the term amulet. The Indian's manitou
might be, indeed always was, some wild animal, or some part of a beast
or bird--such as a bear's claw, a buffalo's hoof, or a dog's tooth.[25]
And, though he ascribed exalted powers to this primitive guardian, it
must be remembered that these powers were only physical--such, for
example, as would enable it to protect its devotee from the knife of his
enemy, or give him success in hunting.
Materialism, then, reigns in the religion, as in the language, of the
Indian; and its effects are what might be expected. His whole system is
a degraded and degrading superstition; and, though it has been praised
for its superior purity, over that of the ancients, it seems to have been
forgotten, that this purity is only the absence of one kind of impurity:
and that its cruel and corrupting influences, of another sort, are ten-fold
greater than those of the Greek mythology. The faith of the Greek
embodied itself in forms, ceremonies, and observances--regularly
appointed religious rites kept his piety alive; the erection of grand
temples, in honor of his deity, whatever might be his conception of that
deity's character, attested his genuine devotion, and held constantly
before his mind the abstract idea of a higher power. The Indian, before
the coming of the white man, erected no temples[26] in honor of his
divinities; for he venerated them only so long as they conferred
physical benefits[27] upon him; and his idea of beneficence was wholly
concrete. He had no established form of worship; the ceremonies,
which partook of a religious character, were grotesque in their
conception, variable in their conduct, and inhuman in their details.
Such, for example, are the torturing of prisoners, and the ceremonies
observed on the occasion of a young Indian's placing himself under his
guardian power.

The dogmas of the Indian religion, until varied by the teaching of
missionaries, were few and simple--being circumscribed, like
everything else belonging to him,