Iroquois Great Law of Peace...USA Copied?

the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois (or Haudenosaunee) Six Nations (Oneida, Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, the Seneca and Tuscarora) is the oral constitution whereby the Iroquois Confederacy was bound together. The law was written on wampum belts, conceived by Deganwidah, known as The Great Peacemaker, and his spokesman Hiawatha. The original five member nations ratified this constitution near present-day Victor, New York, with the sixth nation (the Tuscarora) being added in ca. 1720.

Historians once thought the Iroquois Confederacy started in the 16th century, but a more recent estimate dates the confederacy and its constitution to between 1090 and 1150 CE. These estimates were based on the records of the confederacy leadership and astronomical dating related to a total solar eclipse that coincided with the founding of the Confederacy.

Its crazy because I looked up the Concurrent Resolution 331 and it does address the fact that the US Constitution was influenced by the Iroquois Great Law of Peace. No credit is really given to the Irouois in popular culture 

Edited by Fula - 19-Dec-2011 at 21:43

Originally posted by lirelou In re:  " Historians once thought the Iroquois Confederacy started in the 16th century, but a more recent estimate dates the confederacy and its constitution to between 1090 and 1150 CE. These estimates were based on the records of the confederacy leadership and astronomical dating related to a total solar eclipse that coincided with the founding of the Confederacy." And how are these 'records' dated and 'read'?  So, there is a collection of wampum belts dating back to 1009 CE?  I'd have to have much more information on that in order to accept that as 'fact'. As to 1090CE, the Islandic Althing was established about a  hundred years earlier.   As for concurrent resolutions of congress, such would hardly be accepted as evidence of fact. They merely express opinions and can be passed for such mundane reasons as congratulating a favorite sports team, or lauding an otherwise obscure public figure, such as Army Lieutenant Colonel Sava Steppanovitch upon his retirement.

I applaud you for taking it that deep but Im sorry its not that deep...I was only sharing some info. If you noticed the heading there is a question mark. I respect your opinion but I think your missing the point. The point is that "savages" had there own form of Democracy and Order Which could have possibly influenced the constitution. Our Government clearly recognizes it, hopefully you will appreciate the possibility as well. Every Historian on the Planet agrees and Disagrees on many topics... this doesnt completely destroy the validity of the claim...When Did I say "Historians Accept"?When I say "they" Im referring to our current government. Your acting as tho Im making some Dogmatic unchallengeable claim. Simply putting it out there...Notice the Question marks notice the title etc.

Originally posted by lirelou Fula, yes, a very pointed post, and your points are well taken. As for the Savages, a word that properly describes the Iroquois of that time, as it would the Icelanders of 937 CE, assuming that they still had a foot in the Viking age, and perhaps the English of the Elizabethan age, as it would have the Canadian coureurs des bois and American frontiersmen who lived among the tribes. The point being that various human groups can and do develop their own forms of group decision making (democracy?) and order.  But to state that the "government" recognizes  that the Iroquois Great Law of Peace 'possibly' influenced our own Constitution is the same as saying that the "government" recognizes that 'possibly' it did not.  My real point is that 'the government' did no such thing. A single branch of our government, i.e. the Legislature, passed a non-binding resolution, which was not signed off on by the President, and thus did not become law subject to a challenge by the Supreme Court.   Ergo: Our "Government", the government, as opposed to a few Congresspersons and a single Senator (Ben Nighthorse Campbell), recognizes no such 'possibility'.  Common sense says: Of course it's possible. But is also asks the question: What is the probability? As for that, you might be interested in the link below:   http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9703/fn9703.html

Edited by Fula - 21-Dec-2011 at 12:41

Fula, in re:  " Since its not called "Sense of the Congress" resolution im guessing one can assume its not an opinion but can be considered fact or principle."

In fact, Levy counters, Jefferson predicted, but did not promote, intermarriage - and it was because the Indians had inferior laws, not better ones, that Jefferson foresaw such unions as inevitable. As for Madison, writes Payne, he was exposed to the Iroquois but never spoke of any influence; the mistake originates in a 1948 biography of Madison. Payne points out that Madison cites numerous influences for the Constitution in The Federalist Papers, including the Amphictyonic council, the Achaean league, and the Swiss Confederacy - but never mentions the Iroquois Confederacy. And while Franklin certainly had respect for the Iroquois, says Payne, he never connected them directly with the 1754 Albany Plan of Union (the colonies' early confederation plan), as Grinde and Johansen aver. What Franklin actually wrote was: "It would be a strange Thing, if Six Nations of ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies" - in context, hardly a ringing endorsement.

In a fifteen-page reply, Grinde and Johansen do not challenge Levy's assertion about Jefferson, or Payne's about Madison. They concede another of Levy's points - that John Adams could not have met with Joseph Brant in Boston because Adams was in London at the time - and promise that "the error will be remedied" in future editions of their book. But they continue to maintain that Franklin encouraged the colonists to emulate the Iroquois model. Their strongest remonstration: that Levy and Payne "suffer from imprecision in the delineation of our case"; and that, "having demanded proof," Levy "fails to define his term."

Be that as it may, the scholarly community is unswayed by the reply. Wilcomb Washburn, former director of American studies at the Smithsonian Institution, emphasizes that Indian influence, while real, was limited. "Grinde and Johansen built this incredible superstructure on inferences, suggestions, and leaping to conclusions. I'm more sympathetic to Indian influence than a lot of scholars, but I simply can't go along with it./[QUOTE]

The "it" referred to is the idea that the Great Iroquois Law of Peace influenced the U.S. Constitution.