swakton] BARI/i EISTORY OF THE CREEK INDIANS 77 
such a meeting is commonly called. If no persoD appears on the side of the aggres- 
sors, the injured cation deputes one of their warriors to go to them, and, Ln [the] name 
of the whole tribe, to demand satisfactions. If this is refused, and they think them- 
selves able to undertake a war againsl the aggressors, then a number of warriors, 
commonly the relations of the deceased, take the field for revenge, and look upon it 
as a point of honor never to leave it till they have killed the same Dumber of the 
enemy that had been slain of their kinsmen. Saving accomplished this, they return 
home with their scalps, and by some token let their enemy know that they are satis- 
fied. But when the nation to whom the aggressors belong happen to he disposed to 
peace, they search for the murderer, and they are, by the general judgment of the 
nation, capitally punished, to prevent involving others in their quarrel, which act of 
justice is performed often by the aggressor's nearest relations. The criminal never 
knows of his condemnation until the moment the sentence is put into execution, 
which often happens while he is dancing the war dance in the midst of his neighbors, 
and bragging of the same exploit for which he is condemned to die. . . . 
The American savages almost universally claim the right of private revenge. It is 
considered by them as a point of honor to avenge the injuries done to friends, par- 
ticularly the death of a relation. Scalp for scalp, blood for blood, and death for 
death, can only satisfy the surviving friends of the injured party. . . . But should the 
wife and aged men of weight and influence among the Indians interpose, on account 
of the aggressor, perhaps satisfaction may be made by way of compensation. In this 
case some present made to the party aggrieved serves to gratify their passion of revenge, 
l>y t he loss the aggressor sustains, and the acquisition of property the injured receives. 
Should the injured friends refuse this kind of satisfaction, which they are entirely 
at liberty to do, then the murderer, however high his rank may be, must be delivered 
up to torture and death, to prevent the quarrel spreading wider through the nation . . . 
When war is the result of their councils, and the great leader takes the field, any 
one may refuse to follow him, or may desert him without incurring any punishment; 
but by such ignominious conduct he loses his reputation, and forfeits the hopes of 
distinction and preferment. To honor and glory from warlike exploits the views of 
every man are directed, and therefore they are extremely cautious and watchful against 
doing any action for which they may incur public censure and disgrace. 1 
Regarding marriage, another writer says: 
Polygamy is permitted among them, yet few have more than one wife at a time, 
possibly on account of the expense of supporting them, for he is accounted a good 
gunsman that provides well for one; besides the Indians are not of an amorous com- 
plexion. It is common with them, however, to repudiate their wives, if disobliged by 
them or tired of them; the rejected woman, if with child, generally revenges herself 
for the affront by taking herbs to procure an abortion — an operation that destroys 
many of them, and greatly contributes to depopulate them. 2 
The Spanish missionary Rogel remarks on the monogamous condi- 
tion of the Cusabo of his time as presenting a pleasing contrast to 
the state of the Calusa of southern Florida, from whom he had just 
come. 3 
Regarding adultery, Hewat says: 
In case of adultery among Indians, the injured husband considers himself as under 
an obligation to revenge the crime, and he attempts to cul off the ears of the adulterer, 
' Carroll, op. cit., i, pp. 66-68, 69. 
• Ibid., pp. 517-518. Locke notes, however, that they were ''kind to their women." — (S. Car. Hist. Sue 
Colls., v, p. 462.) 
•See p. 57. 
