Thanks for taking the time to explain this, Rapaire. There are differences in the way the two cultures related to their "Chiefs". For the whites, a "Chief" holds ultimate authority, is expected to give orders which the people are then forced to obey, whether they agree with the "Chief" or not. From what I've studied to date, it was different for the Indians. Their culture "sanctified" the individual, and no one - even a Chief - gave orders to another. A leader or elder was expected to share wisdom, experience, opinions, insights etc - but certainly NOT to give "orders". ANd even if such orders were given, it was no dishonour or "crime" for those who might disagree to do their own thing instead. Rather, it was expected.

In light of this, it seems odd that Tecumseh's 'permission' would have been required in the first place - especially over such a relatively common 'problem' as what to do about war captives. But then again, Tecumseh had formed an Indian federation the extent of which had never been seen before on this continent - so probably the customs and mores around war practices were changing as well.

Thanks for the insights!