i^i On InJ'idn Dogs. 



toils, they requ'lte iheir fervlces with negleft, feklom feed and 

 never carefs them *." 



It would, T believe, be a much eafier tafk to prove that 

 Dr. Robertfon was uiiqualified to write the hiftory of Ame- 

 rica ; to prove that the Indian Americans are not the infe- 

 riors of the people of the old world in the nicafure of their 

 intelleft\ial endowments ; and to fliow that more than one- 

 half of the charcrcs which have btcn brought againft tiiele 

 people are charges refulting from ignorance or from fyftem- 

 atic zeal, than to prove that the Indians are peculiarly en- 

 titled to the charafter of kind and tender dog-mafters. After 

 fome attention to this fabjeil, I mult candidly confefs that I 

 poflefs not materials for a falisfying defence of the Indian. 

 The charges which have been brought againflhlm by the 

 writers whom I have mentioned will be convidive. But 

 why, in this inquiry, if the hiftorian will condefcend to 

 mention the fa6t, and to interweave it with his eloquence, 

 fliould he forget the hardfldps of the favage life ? Where the 

 mafter labours under a fcarcity of food, his fervants, the ani- 

 mals which depend upon him for their fubfidence, muft fliare 

 in the hardlhips and the evils of his (late. The miferable 

 condition of the Indian dogs is a necelTitry refult of the mi- 

 ferable condition of the Indians thcmfelves. This is certain; 

 though the Indians tell us that they keep their dogs poor tliat 

 they m.ay be light and nimble, and therefore the better fitted 

 for the purpofes of hunting. 



Dr. Robertfon, however, might have found, in the writings 

 of fome of the authors whom he has repeatedly quoted, men- 

 tion made of the tendernefs which the Indians manifelted to- 

 wards their dogs in fome parts of America. The following 

 paflage in Acolla fliould not have efcaped the hiftbrian's no- 

 lice. Speaking of the alco^ the learned jefuit fiiys : " The 

 Indians doe fo love thefe little dogges that they will fpare 

 their meatc to feede them, i'o as when they travell in the 

 countvie tliey carrie them with them upon their flioulders or 

 in their bofomes, and when they are ucke they kcepe them 

 with them, without any ufe, but only for company-}-." 

 Hence it appears, that of one fpecies or variety of their 

 dogs, the Indians, in (ome parts of the new world, v^ere pe- 

 cuFiarly careful, and even folicitouily tender. 



The Wunamneeh Indians call the dog allum, al-hoiUy 

 mo-e-kan-veh, and me-kan-ne: the Monlees, al-liivi: the 

 Mahicans, dee-a-oo, de-a-oo, and an-nun-7iccn-dee-a-oo : the 

 Chippewas, a-Iim, anu-mofch : the Mcflifaugers, an-nee- 



* The Hiftdry of America, vol. ii. p. 216, 217: London 17S8. 



T Ti-.e NatU'all and Mor»li Hilloiic, p. 30X, 321. 



moofh : 



