3

Western Removals, 1800–1840

Iroquois Influence on the U.S. Constitution, 1789

Rhianna C. Rogers and Menoukha Case

Chronology

1142 August 31. Iroquois Confederacy’s body of law is adopted.

1490s Columbus brings back reports of egalitarian indigenous cultures.
1500s Montaigne and other writers cite sixteenth-century Iroquois visitors to Europe as pointing out
injustices of class inequality, something Europeans had taken as natural.
1754 The 1754 Albany Congress, or “The Conference of Albany,” held between June 19 and July 11,
1754, illustrates Haudenosaunee/Iroquois influence on colonial U.S. government.
1775 When the 1775 Continental Congress debates independence, Haudenosaunee/Iroquois chiefs are
formally invited.
1787 John Rutledge, a Constitutional Convention member and the drafting committee chair, uses the
Iroquois Confederacy’s structure to argue that political power works best with joint rule.
1788 June 21. New Hampshire becomes the last necessary state to ratify the U.S. Constitution.
1988 October. The Haudenosaunee contribution is officially recognized as the 100th U.S. Congress
passes a resolution that acknowledges “the historical debt which this Republic of the United States of
America owes to the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian Nations for their demonstration of
enlightened, democratic principles of government and their example of a free association of independent
Indian Nations” (H.R. Res. 311, 100th Cong. 1988).

Approaches to History

European thinking has had a major impact on mainstream American understanding of Native
peoples in general, and U.S. and Native history in particular. Therefore, understanding of
Iroquoian influences on the U.S. government is extremely limited. Yet, the Haudenosaunees, the
Native name for the Iroquois, played a profound historical role in European liberation from
monarchy, culminating in creation of the U.S. Constitution and its associated governmental
systems. Their influence has continued to shape American history.
 Although the U.S. Congress acknowledged the influence of the Haudenosaunee
Constitution on the U.S. Constitution in 1988, for the better part of U.S. history very few outside
of Indian country, academia, and the federal government were aware of the Haudenosaunees’
influence on the development of American governmental systems. In fact, much foundational
work in the field of American government has, consciously or unconsciously, excluded
references to Haudenosaunee contributions (Payne 1996, 605–06). Noted scholars and respected
Native American leaders have argued for the revision of current historical narratives to include a
broader spectrum of non-European influences on the development of the U.S. government
(Deloria, ed. 1992, 1–12). Despite ongoing conversations, this knowledge still remains obscured
from public consciousness. Seneca scholar John Mohawk suggests people seek clues as to why
this is still the case within the development of Euro-American worldviews expressed in histories,
media, and ideologies of the American Indian:
Historians have been powerfully influenced by the ideas and attitudes the West has constructed to
explain who the Indian was/is in relation to the European. Most of the history has been created to
tell a story, not of the Indian, but of the European . . . There has been a strong tendency among
historians to examine the record and, where the evidence is inconsistent with the story they wish
to tell, to construct motives, to omit inconvenient facts, and to draw conclusions based more on
their constructions than on the available evidence (quoted in Deloria, ed. 1992, 44, 47).
Due to Western history’s reliance on written words, oral histories long remained outliers
within mainstream historical discourse, but awareness of them is growing. J. Frederick Fausz
notes in his article “Patterns of Anglo-Indian aggression and accommodation along the mid-
Atlantic coast, 1584–1634”: “Since 1975 a virtual revolution in scholarship has transformed and
informed the interpretation of Anglo-Indian relations in colonial North America . . . The
historian’s unflagging fascination with the origins and evolution of English colonial institutions
and societies produced two mature ‘schools,’ or broad overviews, for interpreting the period. But
while both the England-focused Frontier school increased our knowledge of Whites in the
colonial era, each approach ignored or distorted the considerable contributions of Native
Americans who had strongly influenced London policy-makers and New World frontiersmen
alike over the centuries” (quoted in Deloria, ed.1992, 62). Such gaps and distortions can be
addressed through studying the period and process through Haudenosaunee eyes. Therefore,
several sections below contain oral histories; please refer to them as you read.
Through Their Own Eyes: The Haudenosaunee/Iroquois
Confederacy

By the time Europeans made contact with the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois, their Confederacy was a
long established, sophisticated political and social system that united the territories of six nations
in a symbolic longhouse that stretched across what is now the state of New York.

From its inception, political activity within the Confederacy reflected a true democracy of
multiple local councils with assigned representatives to the Confederacy’s council. However,
proceedings and the policies at which the Confederacy arrived were recorded in non-Western
ways. Unlike Western political documents, Haudenosaunee/Iroquois political narratives are rich
with folktales, origin stories, legends, and rituals. Many of the Confederacy’s foundational
narratives were recorded in wampum and conveyed orally from person to person as a way to
encourage camaraderie, teach morals, impart wisdom and respect, and promote proper societal
behaviors.
The Haudenosaunee people’s principal governing authority is the Grand Council of
Chiefs appointed by the Clan Mothers, which operates under the tenets of the Great Law of
Peace. Each nation has its own representative governments to govern daily activities; the Grand
Council oversees issues that apply to the Confederacy as a whole. The Grand Council is
composed of members of the Six Nations. As Bruce Johansen states, “[The Grand Council’s]
decision-making process somewhat resemble[s] that of a two-house congress in one body, with
the ‘older brothers’ and ‘younger brothers’ each comprising a side of the house. [The Onondaga
occupy] an executive role, with a veto that could be overridden by the older and younger
brothers in concert” (1982, 23). In essence, each tribe retains autonomy to deal with its internal
affairs; simultaneously, the Grand Council deals with the problems that may affect all the nations
within the Confederacy, meeting to discuss matters of common concern, such as war, peace, and
making treaties. Though the Grand Council cannot interfere with each tribe’s internal affairs,
unity for mutual defense, represented by a bundle of five arrows tied together, is central to the
unbroken strength that such unity implies.
 The Haudenosaunee/Iroquois Confederacy is a direct reflection of the integration of oral
traditions, morals, culture, and religion in government. Unlike European systems of government,
which attempt to make a distinction between laws and culture, the Haudenosaunee system
encompasses a holistic approach to life and society. (See “The Haudenosaunee Confederacy:
Natural Law, Clan Mothers & Elders” in Sidebar below.) As the Haudenosaunees describe it,
“What makes [the Confederacy] stand out as unique to other systems around the world is its
blending of law and values” (Haudenosaunee Confederacy 2014c).

Settlers and Indians: Crafting a Nation

As described in the Chronology, democracy was not an entirely new idea to the colonists, since
shocked and amazed stories about egalitarian Native cultures had been drifting across the ocean
to Europe since Columbus’s time. As the British settled into the hills of New England and the
southern east coast, actions such as convening the Albany Congress indicated their respect for
Haudenosaunee agency and power (see “Colonial Era Haudenosaunee Figures” in Biographies of
Notable Figures):

The founding fathers of the United States had ample opportunity to study and learn from the
Haudenosaunee. During the 1730s and 1740s English allegiance with the Haudenosaunee was
essential if the English hoped to prevent the French from encroaching on the territory. During this
time colonists intermingled with the Haudenosaunee in an attempt to build trust and establish
treaties that would ensure their alliance (Haudenosaunee Confederacy 2014c).

The settlers also turned to the Haudenosaunee to find inspiration for the American
Revolution, using Native Americans as their model for freedom. (See “Colonial American
Figures” in Biographies of Notable Figures.) As exemplified by their dressing as Mohawks
during the Boston Tea Party, the colonists “adopted the Indian as their symbol . . . Popular
engravings showed colonists—portrayed as Indians—being oppressed by British . . . [They
declared they] could live without England, surviving on ‘Indian corn’” (Hurst Thomas 2000,
xxvii, 11–3, 199). The Haudenosaunee/Iroquois Confederacy’s influence on the U.S. goes
beyond inspiration to key aspects of governance. As the Chronology describes, it is well
documented that the Haudenosaunee Great Law served as a blueprint for the U.S. democracy, the
Constitution, and American governmental structure (Johansen 1982; Payne 1996).
 The 1789 U.S. Constitution arose from a long process of intercultural exchange marked
by tenets that were at odds from the outset. American exposure to indigenous peoples began
through quests for wealth, power, and cultural expansionism. The indigenous peoples’
impressively egalitarian lifestyle captured European imagination and initiated thirst for broader
powers than monarchy and feudalism permitted. Still, American settlers resisted true
egalitarianism, which would have required them to eschew the patriarchy and racialism that
allowed them to accumulate the wealth for which they had ventured forth. To negotiate the
quandary of how to gain power without giving it away to everyone, and having no other model
of broader governance, they adapted a Haudenosaunee/Iroquois governmental structure designed
for inclusiveness. Drafting and re-drafting the Constitution to accommodate vested interests
culminated in a paradoxical document that, on the one hand, limited privilege to select groups
and, on the other hand, carried egalitarian sensibilities that would lay the groundwork for the
U.S. Constitution.

Ratification Struggles: Shifting Identity

There are key similarities between Haudenosaunee and U.S. governance structures. Parts of the
U.S. Constitution contain word-for-word replication of concepts from the Great Law
(Kanatiyosh 1991). Along with the very idea of freedom, the U.S. adopted the retention of rights
by member units (Six Nations or U.S. states) and a tripartite separation of powers. For example,
the Clan Mothers form a Council of Matrons, an executive branch that assigns many other roles
and determines general policy. Village, tribal, and confederacy councils are legislative branches,
implementing those general policies. A joint matrons’ council and men’s council oversees the
judicial branch of governance. As the Haudenosaunees note, there are a variety of similarities
between these documents:

Both models stress the importance of unity and peace and provide freedom to seek out one’s
success. Similarities can also be seen in the symbols of each nation. While the Great Law features
five arrows bound together as a symbol signifying the unity and strength of the five nations, the
seal of the United States uses an eagle clutching a bundle of thirteen arrows signifying the
thirteen original colonies.
The way the US Congress operates is also similar to the actions made by the Grand
Council as outlined by the Peacemaker. Within [the] Grand Council meet the Chiefs of each
 nation which then divide into sections of Elder Brothers and Younger Brothers. This model is
very similar to the US Constitution’s two-house congress (Haudenosaunee Confederacy 2014c).

There are also clear differences between the Haudenosaunee and U.S. constitutions.
Three main differences are: (1) while both provide for freedom of religion, the Haudenosaunee
constitution remains spirit-based, and the U.S. constitution separates the spiritual from the
secular; (2) the Haudenosaunee constitution is matriarchal, while the U.S. Constitution is
patriarchal; and (3) assignment of roles by the Council of Matrons follows clan lines and,
therefore, matrilineal bloodlines. The Haudenosaunee constitution states that “the body of our
mother, the woman, [is] of great worth and honor . . . [S]he shall have the care of all that is
planted by which life is sustained and supported and the power to breathe is fortified: and
moreover that the warriors shall be her assistants” (Gunn Allen 1986); whereas the original U.S.
Constitution followed patrilineal lines of power and only extended the right to govern to men.
Interestingly enough, the Matron’s Council has economic power equivalent to redistributing
taxes for sustaining the populace, and also carries responsibility similar to that of the U.S. role of
commander in chief. Some could say, therefore, that the Iroquois Confederacy influenced not
only the U.S. Constitution, but also early feminist movements to counter that constitution’s
patriarchal nature (Gunn Allen 1992).
The ratification debate in which these differences were wrangled, and the document
containing its outcome, known as the U.S. Constitution, register critical differences between
European and Native worldviews. Perhaps it comes down to motivation. Seventeenth-century
Puritan narratives about religious freedom notwithstanding, the majority of Europeans came to
Turtle Island for opportunity rather than equality; they wanted to ameliorate the feudal system, to
displace bloodline birthright with a broader category of “earned” wealth. But this wealth was
established at the expense of unpaid labor (that of women and slaves) and land “redeemed” from
the very “savages” whose constitutional model allowed the colonists to unite and fight England.
The very idea of the kind of equality enjoyed by Native Americans had been unknown to them;
they found it exhilarating and inspiring, but only partially adopted it. Thomas Jefferson, one of
the “Founding Fathers” of the US, illustrates this:
Jefferson believed that freedom to exercise restraint on their leaders, and an egalitarian
distribution of property secured for Indians in general a greater degree of happiness than that to
be found among the superintended sheep at the bottom of European class structures. Jefferson
thought enough of happiness to make its pursuit a natural right, along with life and liberty. In so
 doing, he dropped “property,” the third member of the natural rights trilogy generally used by
followers of John Locke . . .
. . . To place “property” in the same trilogy with life and liberty . . . would have been a
contradiction. . . . Jefferson composed some of his most trenchant rhetoric in opposition to the
erection of a European-like aristocracy on American soil. . . . [He] often characterized Europe as
a place from which to escape—a corrupt place, where wolves consumed sheep regularly, and any
uncalled for bleating by the sheep was answered with a firm blow to the head (Johansen 1982,
103).

Nevertheless, Jefferson built his Virginia estate on Cherokee land and acquired wealth through
slavery. He was also known by some as one of “The Fathers of American Archaeology,” a
reputation gained in part by measuring African and Native Americans’ skulls to prove
Haudenosaunee inferiority. It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. Constitution holds an
African to be three-fifths of a person and that the Declaration of Independence refers to
“merciless Indian savages.”

Before the American Revolution, the term “American” referred only to indigenous
peoples; afterwards, the settlers adopted it to express their own identity. The appropriation of
“Indianness” in colonial times, therefore, is both hidden in and central to U.S. democracy. Its
final expression in the Constitution is a fascinating register of what “Indianness” the colonists
accepted and rejected, and why. As Gunn Allen states, “American colonial ideas of self-
government came as much from the colonists’ observations of tribal governments as from their
Protestant or Greco-Roman heritage. Neither . . . had the kind of pluralistic democracy that has
been understood in the United States since Andrew Jackson, but the tribes, particularly the
gynarchical tribal confederacies, did” (1992, 218). Greco-Roman tradition was carried on in
oligarchic values, such as restriction of citizenship to white property-owning males over 21years
old, and English patriarchal feudalism lingered both through those citizenship parameters and the
retention of slavery. One of the most notable changes that the European-Americans made, as
Gunn-Allen (1982) indicates, was to reject bloodline aristocracy and monarchy; Gunn purports
that all other changes were adopted from Native Americans.

The Arc of United States History and Contemporary

Questions

In sum, while the Haudenosaunees have encouraged a voice for everyone, the U.S. Constitution
originally restricted representation. The seed of egalitarianism, however, has borne fruit. Phrases,
words, and the very spirit of liberty embedded in the U.S. Constitution’s rhetoric have become
effective tools in a continual quest for equality in America. Highlights from the history of
suffrage offer an example:

 1776: white male landowners can vote

 1856: all white men can vote
 1868: African men can vote
 1920: White and African-American women can vote
 1947: Native Americans can vote (Northern California Citizenship Project, 2004).
Faithkeeper Oren Lyons, Chief of the Onondaga Nation, has called the Haudenosaunee
influence on the U.S. Constitution “an ember. . . from [Haudenosaunee] fire.” That ember ignited
both suffrage and all kinds of struggles for rights. Still, the original rift is registered in ongoing
debates about what, exactly, the American ethos is. What is the American concept of liberty and
justice? Is individual liberty paramount, no matter the cost to lands, waters, and society? Just
how should Americans apply the concept of “justice” to contemporary issues, from ecological
degradation to human rights? For what purpose did Americans unite, and to what ends should
U.S. collective taxes be distributed? Should Americans practice the values of equity and
reciprocity, caring for all members of society, like the Haudenosaunee Matron Council does in
distributing corn? Oren Lyons continues:
So we are now facing another situation. Can we get . . . this great light to come again? And that’s
up to this generation . . .we’re elders, you and I now. I mean, we can say from our older position,
“It looks like a lost cause.” But if you were to speak to the young man, the young person, the
young woman, she’d say, “No. This is my life. I shall survive. You can’t tell me that it’s lost.
That’s my determination.” She will say, and he will say that, and they are saying it.
So we can say, “Well, it looks bad from here.” And from there they say, “Well, it looks tough, but
it isn’t lost.” And that’s the law that they were talking about from Gunyundiyo, when he said,
“Don’t let it be your generation.” And the law prevails, what we call the Great Law, the common
law, the natural law (Lyons 1991).
Lyons’s words are reminders of another one of those tenets at odds from the outset: Indigenous
constitutions accord rights to nature, while Western constitutions accord “natural rights” to
human beings. Indigenous concepts of mutual reciprocity and natural law become ever more
relevant as people face the ecological crisis that has developed under the dominance of Western
law. Some might suggest that this is the time, when the ember is still lit, to broaden recognition
of native influences and look to indigenous peoples for insights moving forward.

Biographies

Pre-Contact Haudenosaunee Figures

Early Haudenosaunee figures must be addressed collectively to reflect the cultural norms of that
time. The stories of Peacemaker, Hiawatha, Tadodaho, and Jigonsaseh are intertwined. That said,
two of the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois oral tradition’s most notable figures are the Great
Peacemaker (also known as Deganawida or Dekanawida) and the visionary Hiawatha. There is
great debate about both men’s origins and their affiliated status within the Six Nations; however,
it is universally believed, among natives and non-natives alike, that their interactions formed the
foundations of the Great Law seen within the Six Nations today. Peacemaker is credited with
spreading peace and unity through the Haudenosaunee peoples. He did so by introducing the
Great Law of Peace, or Gayanesshagowa, and its three central principles (i.e., righteousness,
justice, and health) across the five original nations (National Museum of the American Indian-
Education Office 2009, 4). Hiawatha, who may have been either a pupil or contemporary of the
Great Peacemaker, continued the unification of tribes and ultimately established the foundations
for what would become the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Haudenosaunee traditions describe
Hiawatha as residing with either the Onondagas or the Mohawks after having descended from his
dwelling in the skies. The Haudenosaunees believe that Hiawatha taught their ancestors the
principles that the Great Peacemaker brought with him. Both men helped establish the
Confederacy’s core values: the art of good living; the value and strength of mutual friendship
and goodwill; the end of cannibalism; the advantages of sedentary living; and the mutual
cultivation of the environment.
 Either during or shortly after Hiawatha and Peacekeeper’s mission of peace, the people of
the Confederacy selected their first leader. They chose Tadodaho, a chief of the Onondagas, for
his power, valor, and control over his people. His title, Grand Sachem of the League, was
conferred upon him by a delegation of the Mohawks who, as tradition indicates, found him
seated in a dark swamp with snakes in his hair, smoking his pipe among drinking vessels made
of his enemies’ skulls. Tradition states that after the Mohawks announced their mission, they
offered Tadodaho the position; it is said that Tadodaho arose and accepted the office, and some
versions indicated that Hiawatha and/or Peacekeeper combed the snakes out of his hair, making
him more compassionate and less evil toward others. This act transformed Tadodaho into a
compassionate leader, which affirmed the Onondagas’ place as the “firekeepers” of the new
Confederacy (Grinde Jr. & Johansen 2001, 89).
Additionally, Jigonsaseh (known as Peace Queen and Mother of Nations, among other
titles), who is said to have been a contemporary of Hiawatha and Peacemaker, was also
instrumental in the pacifying of Tadodaho. She helped to cofound the Peace Confederacy, unite
the Nations, and establish a strong female role within the Haudenosaunee political system
(Johansen & Mann 2000, 176–77).

Colonial-Era Haudenosaunee Figures

In 1744, envoys from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia met in Lancaster, Pennsylvania,
with delegates, or sachems, from the Six Nations. During their discussions, the Iroquois leader
Canassatego advocated the American colonies’ federal union, exhorting the colonists: “Our wise
forefathers established a union and amity between the [original] Five Nations. This has made us
formidable. This has given us great weight and authority with our neighboring Nations. We are a
powerful Confederacy and by your observing the same methods our wise forefathers have taken
you will acquire much strength and power; therefore, whatever befalls you, do not fall out with
one another” (Ibid). One Haudenosaunee account states, “Canassatego, the then Chief of the
Onondaga, impress[ed] upon the colonists the importance of [the settlers also] forming a union
of all the colonies. Canassatego expressed the difficulty [the Nations] had faced in dealing with
each separate colony and how forming one union could repair the problem. The Haudenosaunee
did not want to cement a union [with the settlers] until the colonies were united”
(Haudenosaunee Confederacy 2014c).

Colonial British-American Figures

Among the Founding Fathers, Franklin may best illustrate the influence the
Haudenosaunee/Iroquois had on newly formed American mindset. As the Haudenosaunees tell it,

In 1744 Benjamin Franklin ran a successful printing company in Pennsylvania running

newspapers, money, and legal documents. It was during this period he began to become
immersed in the treaty councils which were brought to him by Conrad Weiser, a man who had
gained the respect of the Haudenosaunee and had even been adopted into the Mohawk nation.
The treaty council proceedings were of high interest in Europe making them a profitable venture
for Franklin. (Haudenosaunee Confederacy, 2014c)

The colonists’ need for alliance with the Haudenosaunee to further their revolution thus initiated
consideration of the very idea of uniting states. For this reason, “the colonists’ ideals were
beginning to diverge from those of Europe and Franklin began to look at a new system of
government” (Ibid.).

Franklin also became the historian of this process:

Franklin, who owned a thriving printing business in Philadelphia, started printing small books
containing proceedings of Indian treaty councils in 1736 . . . the books, the first distinctive forms
of indigenous American literature, sold quite well, and he continued publishing such accounts
until 1762. [Based on his interests in native teachings,] in 1754, Franklin carried the Iroquois
concept of unity to the critical Albany Congress, where he presented his plan of union loosely
patterned after the Iroquois Confederation. An aging Mohawk sachem called Hendrick had
received a special invitation from the acting governor of New York, James DeLancey, to attend
the Albany Congress and provide information on the Iroquois government’s structure. After
Hendrick spoke at the Albany Congress, DeLancey responded, ‘I hope that by this present Union,
we shall grow up to a great height and be as powerful and famous as you were of old.’ (Feathers
& Feathers, 2007)

During the debates over the plan for the newly formed union, Franklin noted the Iroquois
Confederacy’s strength and stressed the fact that the Nations maintained internal sovereignty,
managing their own affairs quite effectively, without interference from the Grand Council. The
Haudenosaunee supported this narrative, stating:
 Following the Albany Congress Franklin drew up a plan that had all the British American
colonies federated under a single legislature with a president-general who would be appointed by
the Crown, a very similar model to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Like the confederacy all
states had to agree on a course of action before it could be implemented. Unfortunately, at the
time the colonies were not ready to unite and the crown disapproved of the freedom it provided
and the plan failed. (Haudenosaunee Confederacy 2014c)

Image 3. The Albany Congress, ca. 1771-1772.

Source: Ally Cox. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flickr_-_USCapitol_-
_The_Albany_Congress,_1754.jpg

The Albany Congress–1794, a mural located in the U.S. Capitol building, depicts some of
the meeting’s delegates (from left to right, excluding the blacksmith and farmer): William
Franklin and his father Benjamin (Pennsylvania); Governor Thomas Hutchinson
(Massachusetts); Governor William Delancey (New York); Sir William Johnson
(Massachusetts); and Colonel Benjamin Tasker (Maryland). The blacksmith, on the left,
symbolizes the importance of ironworking in the mid-eighteenth century, and the farmer with his
scythe, on the right, represents the growth of agriculture in the colonies. Significantly, there are
no Natives portrayed in this painting, though Franklin discussed them in his writing. Some might
argue that this omission further perpetuates the dismissal of Native contributions to the formation
of the United States and its Constitution.
DOCUMENT EXCERPTS
Oral History of Hiawatha’s Speech
You (Mohawks) who are sitting under the shadow of The Great Tree whose roots sink deep into
the earth, and whose branches spread wide around, shall be the first nation, nearest the rising of
the sun, because you are warlike and mighty. You (Oneidas) who recline your bodies against The
Everlasting Stone, emblem of wisdom, that cannot be moved, shall be the second nation, because
you always give wise counsel. You (Onondagas) who have your habitation at the foot of The
Great Hills, and are overshadowed by their crags, shall be the third nation, because you are all
greatly gifted in speech. You (Cayugas) the people who live in The Open Country, and possess
much wisdom, shall be the fourth nation, because you understand better the art of raising corn
and beans, and making houses. You (Senecas) whose dwelling is in The Dark Forest nearer the
setting sun, and whose home is everywhere, shall be the fifth nation, because of your superior
cunning in hunting. Unite, you five nations, and have one common interest, and no foe shall
disturb or subdue you. You, the people, who are as the feeble bushes, and you, who are a fishing
people (addressing some who had come from the Delawares, and from the sea-shore), may place
yourselves under our protection, and we will defend you. And you of the South and West may do
the same—we will protect. We earnestly desire the alliance and friendship of you all. Brothers, if
we unite in this great bond, the Great Spirit will smile upon us, and we shall be free, prosperous,
and happy. But if we remain as we are we shall be subject to his frown. We shall be enslaved,
ruined, perhaps annihilated. We may perish under the war-storm, and our names be no longer
remembered by good men, nor repeated in the dance and song. Brothers, these are the words of
Hi-a-wat-ha. I have said it. I am done.
Tradition continues that Hiawatha then ascended into the heavens in a mysterious canoe
and vanished. The five original Nations established the Confederacy the following day.
Source: Henry R. Schoolcraft. Information Respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of
the Indian Tribes of the United States, Volume 3. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company,
1853, 317.
A Congressional Resolution Affirming Haudenosaunee Influence on the United States
Constitution
In 1988, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution acknowledging that the ideas and principles
expressed by the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations influenced the men who had developed the
U.S. Constitution, nearly 200 years earlier.
Resolution, 311, 100th Congress, 1988
To acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of
the United States Constitution and to reaffirm the continuing government-to-government
relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution.
Whereas, the original framers of the constitution, including, most notably, George
Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have greatly admired the concepts of the Six
Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy;
Whereas, the Confederation of the original Thirteen colonies into one republic was
influenced by the political system developed by the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the
democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself . . Now, therefore, be
it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
1. the Congress, on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of the signing of the
United States Constitution, acknowledges the contribution made by the Iroquois
Confederacy and other Indian Nations to the formation and development of the United
States;
2. the Congress also hereby reaffirms the constitutionally recognized government-to-
government relationship with Indian Tribes which has been the cornerstone of this
Nation’s official Indian policy;
3. the Congress specifically acknowledges and reaffirms the trust responsibility and
obligation of the United States Government to Indian Tribes, including Alaska Natives,
for their preservation, protection, and enhancement, including the provision of health,
education, social, and economic assistance programs as necessary, and including the duty
to assist tribes in their performance of governmental responsibility to provide for the
social and economic well-being of their members and to preserve tribal cultural identity
and heritage; and
4. The Congress also acknowledges the need to exercise the utmost good faith in upholding
its treaties with the various tribes, as the tribes understood them to be, and the duty of a
great Nation to uphold its legal and moral obligations for the benefit of all its citizens so
that they and their posterity may also continue to enjoy the rights they have enshrined in
the United States Constitution for time immemorial.
Source: (H.R. Res. 311, 100th Cong. 1988).
Sidebar 1: Wampum and Oral History
Wampum belts are composed of long cylindrical beads made from quahog clamshell (purple)
and Atlantic whelk (white). The Europeans called this wampum, from wampumpeag, an
Alogonquin word. Kanatiyosh (1991) explains that the Iroquois used them as memory aids. For
example, if a problem arose, a tribe would introduce it to the Confederacy for consideration. The
Council would reach a decision and report to the Onondaga Council leader; if he agreed, the
decision became unanimous and would be recorded in a wampum belt.

Image 2. Wampum belt commemorating the Iroquois Confederacy, ca. 1885-1886.

Source: Popular Science Monthly Magazine 28 (1886).
The Hiawatha Belt, consisting of four squares with a tree in the middle, represents the
unity of the original Five Nations. The first square represents the Mohawk Nation; the second the
Oneida Nation; the central heart or the tree represents the Onondaga Nation; the square left of the
tree represents the Cayuga Nation; and the last square represents the Seneca Nation. White lines
leading away from the Seneca and Mohawk Nations represent paths welcoming new tribes who
agree to follow the Great Law of Peace.
Each of the Nations has a special role, with responsibilities particular to their situations.
As Barbara Barnes (1984) recounts in Tuscarora oral history:
The “Twenty-Second Wampum” illustrates that after all of the Chiefs have debated, there is one
Onondaga Chief, Hononwiretonh, whose duty it is to sit and listen to all of the debate; the matter
is then turned over to him for final approval, if all are in consensus. If he refuses to sanction the
solution, then no other chief has the authority to pass the legislation. Hononwiretonh is not
allowed to refuse sanctioning the matter unless there is a strong basis for his refusal. As can be
seen, the Great Law provides for numerous checks and balances of power and depends on
consensus of all fifty chiefs for its decision making. (quoted in Kanatiyosh 1991)

Sidebar 2: The Haudenosaunee Confederacy: Natural Law, Clan Mothers & Elders
For the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois, “law, society and nature are equal partners and each plays an
important role” (Haudenosaunee Confederacy 2014a). Since they are intertwined, concepts about
nature affect political decisions, wisdom, faith keeping, and customs. Thus, governance is based
on the principle of mutual reciprocity, a respect and alignment between human law and natural
law expressed in all decisions and behaviors. As such, each individual plays a unique role in the
ultimate fulfillment of collective spiritual and political goals. This moral integration is
exemplified through religious ceremonies enumerated under the Haudenosaunee Constitution’s
Articles 99–104, which state, “freedom of religion is also simultaneously protected by allowing
each Nation to keep its own rituals” (Ibid.). This clause is a strong indication of spirituality’s
integral nature in Haudenosaunee life and politics.

Image 1. Iroquois Five Nations, ca. 1650.

Source: R.A. Nomenmacher, Image:Iroquois 5 Nation Map c1650.png

The Great Law proposes that all life is interconnected spiritually, environmentally, and
communally. In essence, the system cannot work well if all aspects are not kept in balance
autonomously, and that includes resource and gender balance. Haudenosaunee administration
relies heavily on women in matrilineal political positions, known as Clan Mothers, who appoint
male delegates to speak for each clan. The Great Law bans bloodshed and ensures peace as a
way of life. Peace is reliant on equity, and the Clan Mothers are also responsible for the equitable
distribution of corn.
The original Five Nations were divided into elders (Mohawk, Onondaga, and Seneca) and
youngers (Oneida and Cayuga). Despite the deference owed to elders, all Council decisions had
to be unanimous. A sixth tribe, the Tuscaroras, migrated to the area in approximately 1714. They
are known as Iroquois (externally) and Haudenosaunees (internally). Today, the Six Tribal
Nations of the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee Confederacy is still a matriarchy, still defends natural
law, and still holds Council.
Further Reading

Deloria, Vine, ed. 1992. Exiled in the Land of the Free. Clear Light Publishers.

Feathers, Cynthia & Feathers, Susan. 2007. “Franklin and the Iroquois Foundations of the
Constitution. The Pennsylvania Gazette. http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0107/gaz09.html

———. 1784. Two tracts: information to those who would remove to America, and remarks
concerning the savages of North America. J. Stockdale.
http://mith.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=franklin_bagatelle3.xml

Grindle Jr., Donald A. & Johansen, Bruce E. 2010. “Perceptions of America’s Native
Democracies: The Societies Colonial Americans Observed,” in Native American Voices,
3rd Ed., Susan Lobo, Steven Talbot & Traci L. Morris eds.; 62–69.
http://faculty.ithaca.edu/kbhansen/docs/namindians/grindejohansen.pdf

Gunn Allen, Paula. 1986. “Who Is Your Mother?: Red Roots of White Feminism.”
http://spot.colorado.edu/~wehr/491R9.TXT

Haudenosaunee Confederacy. 2014a. “About the Haudenosaunee Confederacy,” internal links

http://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/aboutus.html.

Johansen, Bruce E. 1997. “Native American Political Systems and the Evolution of Democracy:
An Annotated Bibliography.” The Six Nations: The Oldest Living Participatory
Government on Earth. http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/NAPSnEoD.html

———. 1982. Forgotten founders: Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois, and the Rationale for the
American Revolution. Harvard Common Press.
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/FFchp2.html

———. 2009. “Native American Ideas of Governance and U.S. Constitution.”

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2009/06/20090617110824wrybakcu
h0.5986096.html#ixzz3Zv0CWsZQ.

Johansen, Bruce Elliott, and Barbara Alice Mann, eds. 2000. Encyclopedia of the
Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy). Greenwood Publishing Group.
Kanatiyosh. 1999. “The Structure of the Great Law of Peace,” Me and U, Mother Earth and Us:
A Haudenosaunee Perspective. http://tuscaroras.com/graydeer/influenc/page2.htm.

Lyon, Oren. 1991. “Oren Lyons—The Faithkeeper: Interview with Bill Moyers.” By Bill
Moyers. A World of Ideas, Public Affairs Television, July 3. Transcript.
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/OL070391.html.

Murphy, Gerald. 2001. Haudenosaunee Constitution. Portland State University.

http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/html/greatlaw.html

Payne, Samuel B., Jr. 1996. “The Iroquois League, the Articles of Confederation, and the
Constitution.” Special issue: “Indians and Others in Early America,” The William and
Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 53 (3]): 605–20.
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rrath/hist460/IroqInf-Payne.pdf.

Wallace, Paul AW, & Ka-Hon-Hes. 1994. White Roots of Peace: The Iroquois Book of Life.
Clear Light Publishers.