• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

“THE INDIANS MAY BE LED,BUT WILL NOT BE DROVE” THE CREEK INDIANS STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL OF ITS OWN DESTINY, 1783-1794 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science By William David Cummings In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Major Department: History, Philosophy, and Religious Studies March 2016 Fargo, North Dakota North Dakota State University Graduate School Title “THE INDIANS MAY BE LED,BUT WILL NOT BE DROVE” THE CREEK INDIANS STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL OF ITS OWN DESTINY, 1783-1794 By William David Cummings The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Thomas D. Isern Chair John Cox Mark Harvey Jo Ann Miller William Caraher Approved: March 30, 2016 John Cox Date Department Chair ABSTRACT History tends to portray the interactions between Euro-American settlers and native Indian Nations as one in which Euro-American settlers imposed dominance on the Indians. This work takes an in-depth look at the relationship between the Creek Nation and the Euro-American settlers of Georgia in the early years of the American republic and shows the Creeks in control of their own destiny, as well as the destiny of Georgia and the young republic. The core argument is that the nature of the Creek nation allowed them to maintain autonomy while affecting the physical development of the United States From Massachusetts to Carolina various Native American nations had tried to fend off Euro-American expansion but were forced off their land in short order. The Creek Nation considered Georgia and its settlers to be usurpers without valid claim to Indian land, and put forth a near impenetrable defense of their claim for over a decade. The Creeks steadfastly maintained their claim to the land between the Ogeechee River and the Oconee River, and declared war to enforce the boundary on their terms. In their struggle, primarily with the state of Georgia, new leaders emerged and new polities replaced old traditions. This was a significant accomplishment when one considers the lack of any form of political unity around which to take a stand against the expansionist plans of Georgia. This study will show that the Creeks succeeded because a common determination united the nation in its opposition to Georgia’s attempts to take their land, while its political disunity prevented any group less than the whole from negotiating effectively concerning their land. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As with any endeavor of this magnitude I owe a great debt to many who have selflessly supported me. I wish to first thank my Committee who helped me understand that what is on the surface can be an illusion, and that deeper investigation exposes a more profound understanding of reality. To the research assistants at the Georgia Historical Society, The Georgia State Archives, the University of Georgia Library Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Collection, The Library of Congress, the University of Virginia Library, The International Center for Jefferson Studies, the Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. To my Advisor, Dr. Tom Isern who spent many hours directing me to look at different angles and to narrow my focus. To my family and friends who have put up with my eccentricities as I submerged myself in the research and writing of this document. And especially to my wife, Diana, who put up with long periods of absence, both while I was on the road, and while I disappeared into my office. iv PREFACE The Creek nation, in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, spread over most of the present-day states of Georgia and Alabama. Politically disunited, the nation was comprised of some one hundred towns, each of which operated fairly independently of the others. They did not all speak the same language, and there were distinct differences in culture and spiritual beliefs. Yet, they still considered themselves one nation, and shared many cultural elements that formed the basis of a common identity. Following the American Revolutionary War, during which many towns fought with the British, the newly formed state of Georgia made demands of land as reparations for damage done by Creeks during the war. The Creeks refused to cede the required land, and a group of towns declared war to prevent Georgia from taking it. This amplified the disunity between the towns over how to maintain control of their lands, some committing acts of war, while others tried to negotiate treaties. Yet, despite the changing positions of towns and leaders throughout the struggle, the Creeks shared one common motivator; they would not part with their land. They maintained this motivation with varying degrees of success for nearly sixty years. Two centuries later, while traveling across the Georgia back roads in 2004, I happened upon a historical marker placed in memory of the so-called “Trans-Oconee Republic,” a political entity created out of the convoluted Georgia political scene during the early republic era. Further investigation led me to the Oconee War. As I researched this war, I found plenty of mention, and plenty of documents, but no full treatment of the topic. I continued to read on these topics casually, but had other priorities. During this period of study I wrote a paper on the Lenape nation, also known as the Delaware nation, examining the relationship between that nation and the Euro-American v authorities from the colonial period through the nineteenth century. The Delaware were one of the largest and most powerful indigenous nations at the time of colonization, controlling the Delaware watershed and parts of the lower Hudson River Valley. It was they who sold Manhattan to Peter Minuit. From that point on the history of the Delaware is one of constant cessions of land to the colonists and the United States. They were the first Native American nation to sign a treaty with the United States. By the late twentieth century, tribal holdings were reduced to a single house on Barbara Street in Bartlesville, Oklahoma (which remains their only real property holding). Similarly, the histories of other Native American nations followed a similar suite. Like the Creek Nation, many fought to maintain control of their lands and their destiny. But virtually all others were forced off of their ancestral lands, or what they claimed as ancestral lands, within one or two decades. As I continued my studies, formal and informal, I came to realize that this story, the story of the war between the Creek Nation and Georgia during the first years of the American republic, was different, and had never been addressed fully. The Creek Nation was able to withstand the onslaught of settlers clamoring for extinguishment of their title for nearly sixty years. While nearly all of the Native Americans nations previously living in the northern states had their titles extinguished by 1840, the Creeks still controlled their land in western Georgia and nearly half of Alabama. Additionally, by the nature of the Creek actions to prevent further western expansion into their territory, they maintained a buffer so that the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations were still in control of most of their ancestral lands, as well. Indeed, the three tribes lands would be apportioned, and members of all three still held title nearly to the Civil War. vi I heard, more than once, that if the story hasn’t been told in two hundred years then maybe no one has thought it worth telling. My reaction to that line of thought is that this narrative forms the basis for understanding relations between Native Americans and Euro- Americans from the beginning of our country at least through end of the Plains Indian Wars. The precedents set on the frontier between Georgia and the Creek Nation cannot simply be over-looked. While this research focuses only on the years 1783-94, this particular confrontation would last for nearly five more decades. These events would lead, eventually, to the infamous Indian Removal Acts, and further, to the reservation system imposed on all Indian nations. Tribes had been forced off their lands before, in the north and east, and some had been virtually eradicated. But what happened in the Old Southwest in the 1780s was different in nature and outcome from what happened in the north. This conflict started the march toward removal and to reservations. Understanding what happened in Georgia, then, is just as important as understanding the conflicts in the Ohio River Region. The initial purpose of this study is to present the narrative of the events that occurred during the period presented. Subsequently, the narrative can be used as a basis for comparative study of Native American tactics in opposing Euro-American expansion, processes used in treaty-making, or long-term analysis of the development of social attitudes based on confrontational diplomacy. Discovering the narrative is the first step in understanding and presenting the historical truths from any period. In fact, trying to interpret or apply the lessons contained in an event without first establishing the narrative is, to borrow a term from homiletics, proof-texting, i.e., presenting an opinion, then finding texts to support that opinion. vii This leads to concerns about the nature of narrative. The same problems that can occur in proof-texting can occur in the creation of a narrative, especially when so much documentation must be omitted. Whereas some branches of historical study are plagued by a lack of documents, or documents whose veracity are highly suspect, the modern historian faces a flood of evidence that must be carefully considered and sifted, and editorial choices must be made.

Load more

  276

Copy Link