Locations of the major Southern Indian Tribes about 1790 [A larger, fully readable version opens here (1 MB).]

To McGillivray, then, the arrival of Colonel Marinus Willett in April, 1790, must have seemed as providential as the appearance of Bowles in 1788. Washington, undeceived by the biased reports of the commissioners and uninfluenced by his associates demanding war, had sent Willett as his personal envoy to invite McGillivray to New York (then the capital) to discuss peace terms. McGillivray's acceptance (after consulting his council) was not due to any reliance on Washington's professed yearning for "justice and humanity," but to his knowledge that the Doughty expedition had failed and that the United States was fa­cing an Indian war in the Northwest. The adversity of the United States was the Creek opportunity.⁠56 After writing his decision to Panton and Miró so late that he could not receive their protests, he set out overland for New York, accompanied by Willett and twenty-six chiefs.⁠57 His journey to New York was a triumphal tour, his reception, when he arrived July 21, was that of a visiting emperor, and his stay in the city was one continual ovation. None of this dulled McGillivray's innate caution nor deflected him from his purpose. He refused to make any trade concessions or any acknowledgment of United States suzerainty except over those  p86 Creeks living within the limits of the United States. He recovered that part of the Galphinton cession lying south of the Altamaha and conceded the remainder of the land in dispute in return for an annuity of $1,500 to be paid by the United States to the Creek Nation; he did this because he knew the Creek title to the land ceded at Augusta had been doubtful, and that it was impossible to dispossess Georgians of land they had already settled.

In addition to the fourteen articles of the treaty, there were six others which the Americans called "secret" and McGillivray called "separate"; they might perhaps, most properly be designated as "contingent" since they depended on the course of future developments for their validity. The first of these provided that the Creeks might have a free post for supplies through the United States in case their present supply system should be dislocated by war, and that after two years the United States might send $6,000 worth of supplies annually if it could arrange to do so. There can be little doubt that McGillivray considered this latter provision as merely a polite way of declining trade relations with the United States, since certainly the latter would never be able to "arrange" any trade without McGillivray's express approval. The free post provision had reference to the threat of war between Spain and Great Britain over the Nootka Sound affair. McGillivray learned of this only when he reached New York and the articles represented his improvisation to meet the apparent danger. Another article provided that McGillivray should have the rank of honorary brigadier general at a salary of $1,200 a year upon taking the required oath.⁠58 It is evident that this "salary" was, as McGillivray explained to Miró, merely an annuity to McGillivray in compensation for his confiscated estate, which Georgia could not be forced to restore. McGillivray, of course, realized that the payment, in whatever guise, was actually attempted bribery (as was a $100 annuity to the chiefs of Okfuskee, Tuckabatchie, Tallassie, Cusseta, Coweta, and Miccosukee) but his philosophy  p87  permitted him, as in his dealings with Bowles, to accept supplies from any source that was available.⁠59

From the standpoint of peace, certain verbal agreements made by McGillivray and Knox at New York were as important as the treaty provisions, whether absolute or contingent. Knox agreed to prevent any settlement by the Yazoo companies and to exert pressure on Georgia to revoke the grants. Washington's proclamation against them followed in August. McGillivray promised to influence Little Turkey to make peace and perhaps promised to prevent his Creek warriors from helping the Northern Indians against the Harmar expedition then under way. The logic of events, if nothing else, was forcing this change of policy on McGillivray for the creation of the Territory South of the River Ohio in May, 1790, cut the connection between Northern and Southern Indians and brought the Cherokees (and also the Chickasaws) into direct contact with federal authority. The first step in asserting this authority took the form of an "Act for Regulating Trade and Intercourse with the Indian Tribes," which was approved by Washington the day after McGillivray arrived in New York. The act, to run for two years, provided that the Indian trade should be limited to traders licensed by the superintendent or other Presidential appointee.⁠60

Although McGillivray upon his return from New York revealed to Miró both the open and secret articles of the treaty, he did not completely convince the Spaniards of his candor. When in April, 1791, he was presented with an annuity of $2,000, the gift was perhaps more an evidence of Spanish apprehension than of Spanish confidence. McGillivray, however, accepted it with his usual indifference to the origin of benefits conferred. His financial condition improved still further the following month  p88 when John Heth arrived in Little Tallassie with $2,900 in gold representing the amount due the Creeks for the first year of the treaty.⁠61 The sense of well-being induced by the monetary accessions was reflected, perhaps, in his genial hospitality to John Pope when he came through the Creek country in June.⁠62 It was reflected also in his polite manner of evading the repeated invitations to member­ship in the South Carolina Yazoo Company.⁠63 The attempt of the Tennessee Company to make a settlement at Muscle Shoals in January, 1791, aroused his wrath, but before he could move against it, the Chickamaugas by prompt action had deftly removed the source of irritation.⁠64

In the performance of this public service, the Chickamaugas found themselves acting in unwonted harmony with the United States, for, since the settlement had been denounced by Washington, Governor Blount (of the Territory South of the River Ohio) had notified the Indians to deal with it as they saw fit. One is tempted to believe that the restraint shown by the Chickamaugas in merely driving off the settlers instead of killing them was due less to any amelioration of Indian character than to a possible sympathy for any group defying the United States. For the Chickamaugas had been consistent in disregarding the truce to which they had consented, and had continued their raids with unabated enthusiasm. But when Governor Blount invited the Cherokees to meet him in Knoxville in July, 1791, for the long-delayed treaty of occurrence, the chiefs of the Lower Towns attended and took the leading part in the negotiations. The Chickamaugas were probably too well-conditioned to American diplomacy to feel any  p89 surprise when Blount introduced his peace program by demanding, in complete violation of his instructions, a cession of the Muscle Shoals region. Their automatic rejection of this demand was delivered with such emphasis that the Governor found it necessary to shift his ambitions and ask for the land between the Holston and French Broad. Since this Overhill territory was, in reality, already lost, and would serve for a battleground quite as well ceded as unceded, the Indians finally agreed to sell after protesting the price and declaring their intention of sending a delegation to the President to ask for more. They also conceded free use of the Tennessee and gave permission for a road through Cherokee territory from eastern Tennessee to the Cumberland settlements.⁠65

On the same day that some of the Chickamauga chiefs were making peace on the Holston, others were meeting on the Miami with Northern Indians planning war. Their agreement to make peace was taken probably on the advice of McGillivray, whom Knox had consulted on the matter at New York; their participation in the Miami war council was a result of a close accord with the Shawnees existing since 1777. In confirmation of this friendship a group of Chickamaugas had gone north at the close of the Revolution to live on the Scioto, while a number of Shawnee families had moved south to live at Running Water.⁠66 Using the liaison services of these groups, Dragging Canoe had maintained contact with the British Indian officials at Detroit, while the British Indian agent, Alexander McKee, had a representative among the Chickamaugas in the person of George Welbank, through  p90 whom he sent letters and supplies to Dragging Canoe.⁠67 As a result of these influences a considerable number of Chickamaugas participated in the defeat of St. Clair and were so inflamed by their success that they abandoned whatever pretense they had previously made of observing the Holston agreement.⁠68

The restlessness of the Southern Indians engendered by the war in the Northwest furnished the setting, and perhaps the occasion, for the reappearance of Bowles among the Creeks. Although it is impossible to speak with precision of his aims and purposes, it is certain that he desired to prevent the execution of the New York treaty. His evident collusion with Welbank indicates a prearranged co-operation with the Northern Indians and with the British agents in Canada. His designs required the overthrow of McGillivray and, probably, the elimination of Panton, Leslie and Company, which, although it saw eye to eye with Bowles on the treaty, would certainly oppose any attempt against McGillivray. If Bowles could have secured the support of Panton, it is not likely that he would have been deterred by any consideration for the firm of Miller and Bonamy (Nassau), which had outfitted him.

Late in September, 1791, Bowles, anchoring his ship (in which he had come from New Providence) at the mouth of the Ochlocknee, went on overland to Oussitchie (Osochi) on the Flint, where his father-in‑law, Perryman, was chief. Here, by distributing presents and promises, he gained the support of the villagers, who listened with apparent approval to his denunciation of the treaty and presently proclaimed him "General and Director of the Affairs of the Nation." The turmoil caused by his few but noisy followers forced McGillivray to postpone the running of the treaty line and to send Heth away with his mission uncompleted. Unable on account of Indian custom to seize Bowles while protected by his father-in‑law, McGillivray put a price on his head  p91 and, confident that Bowles' support would not survive the exhaustion of his supplies, set off unperturbed on a prearranged visit to New Orleans. As a matter of fact, the supplies of the "General and Director" soon came to an end, and his seizure of Panton's store near St. Marks, whether in hostility or as an emergency measure, only postponed the day of reckoning. On February 26 the director, at the end of his resources, accepting an invitation from the Spanish governor, boarded a Spanish ship for New Orleans. The new Spanish governor, the Baron de Carondelet, opposing the New York treaty, was apparently hoping to use Bowles to supplant McGillivray, whom Carondelet distrusted and whose authority he was seeking to destroy.⁠69

The withdrawal, or abduction, of Bowles did not end or even ease the tensions among the Southern Indians. Throughout the year 1792 they were continually pulled and hauled by the sundry outside agencies into antagonistic courses. One of these external pressure groups was the Northwest Indians, who, elated by their victory over St. Clair, were urging a general alliance of Southern Indians for the purpose of completing a work so auspiciously begun. The most avid missionaries in this movement were the mingled Shawnee, Creek, and Chickamauga warriors who had drifted back to Running Water after the campaign ended. Welbank, now living among the Lower Creeks as the political heir of Bowles, advocated the alliance, and Dragging Canoe devoted to it the final energies of his failing life. Since there could be no alliance unapproved by McGillivray, Dragging Canoe went to Little Tallassie to see his old ally, and McGillivray, whether in evasion or in assistance, advised him to visit the Chickasaws. It would be difficult to say whether the rivalry of Piomingo and Taski Etoka was the result of their different attitudes toward Spain and the United States or whether their different attitudes reflected their rivalry. At any rate, the tribe was so evenly divided  p92 that the only common action it could take was the negative one of preserving the status quo. Apparently, however, Dragging Canoe converted Taski Etoka to his view, with the result that from this time on the latter became the leading advocate of Indian confederation in the South. Shortly after his return from the Chickasaws, Dragging Canoe died at Lookout Mountain Town, March 1, 1792, as a result, it is said, of a too vigorous celebration of certain success­ful Chickamauga depredations near Nashville.⁠70 As his successor, the Chickamaugas elected John Watts, the nephew of Old Tassel.

Directly opposed to the policies of Dragging Canoe and Taski Etoka were the efforts of the Americans to enlist the Southern Indians in a projected campaign against the Northern tribes. Their insistence that they were doing this, not because they needed help, but because otherwise the restless Indians would enlist with their Northern brethren, reveals a commendable knowledge of Indian psychology and an impossible plan for dealing with it. In January, 1790, President Washington took the first step (as yet unauthorized by law) in this course by appointing temporary agents to reside among the Indians, thus resuming the practice that had lapsed with the ending of Martin's agency. Leonard Shaw became agent to the Cherokees, James Seagrove to the Creeks, and (in March) James Robertson to the Chickasaws and Choctaws.⁠71 Each of these was instructed to recruit the Indians of his agency for service in Wayne's army: six hundred Indians were to be secured, and they were to be armed and supplied by the United States, to be led by General Pickens, and to rendezvous at Fort Washington (Cincinnati) in June. As a supplement to the evangelical campaign by the agents, Blount was authorized to hold a  p93 conference with the Chickasaws and Choctaws at Nashville in July.⁠72

The mutually antagonistic plans of the Northern Indians and the United States were checkmated by the activities of Carondelet, who opposed all Indian collaborations with the United States and distrusted an Indian confederation dominated, in all probability, by the British. With the immediate purpose of undoing the treaty of New York, he sent a trusted agent, Pedro Olivier, in February, 1792, to live among the Creeks as commissary while he dallied with the idea of supporting Bowles against McGillivray. But it soon became evident that Olivier could do nothing to lesson the authority of McGillivray over the Creeks or to prevent him from carrying out the treaty as he seemed determined to do. Nor was Carondelet able to supplant McGillivray with Bowles unless he were prepared also to discard Panton, whose loyalty to McGillivray was beyond question. The one course open to Carondelet was to continue Miró's policy of supporting McGillivray while attempting by Panton's influence to lure him away from his present course. Accordingly, in the spring of 1792, Carondelet sent Panton to Little Tallassie. Panton arrived April 30 just as McGillivray was preparing to set out for Rock Landing to help mark the treaty line fixed by the Treaty of New York. What passed between the two men is not known, but whatever it was, it caused McGillivray to abandon his trip to Rock Landing and to go instead to New Orleans to see Carondelet.⁠73

After his conversation with McGillivray, Panton went on to the Chickamaugas. He arrived while the chiefs were away conferring with Blount at Coyatee, receiving the annuity due under the treaty of Holston, and blandly denying any knowledge of the forty murders and two hundred cases of horse stealing which had  p94 occurred on the territorial frontier since the treaty.⁠74 Staying at the home of John McDonald, the former commissary, Panton summoned Watts from the conference, delivered to him O'Neill's invitation to come to Pensacola for a free supply of ammunition, and added that if he needed anything more, he could get it from Panton at cost. To these fair prospects Watts promptly surrendered and set out at once with Panton, several Chickamaugas, and the largest pack train the tribe was able to improvise. Arriving at Little Tallassie about the first of June, Watts and Panton had a conference with McGillivray, after which McGillivray set out for New Orleans while Panton, Watts, and the others went on to Pensacola.⁠75

What McGillivray did at New Orleans he did not do because he was forced by Carondelet, but because he had been persuaded by Panton, whom Seagrove, in one of his infrequent moments of insight, had declared to have more influence with McGillivray than any man living. In the resulting brief treaty of July 6, 1792, the Spaniards guaranteed all the lands "belonging to and actually possessed by the Creek nation" in 1784 and promised to furnish the Creeks ample and sufficient supplies not only to defend their country but also to regain their "encroached lands." In return, McGillivray guaranteed the territory of Spain in Louisiana and West Florida. In addition to these obligations the treaty recommended that the Creeks give (at a time unspecified) to all white people living within the Creek limits of 1773 a demand that they withdraw in two months; there was no commitment by McGillivray to remove them by force. The treaty was to be in effect only until his Most Gracious Majesty's pleasure was known, and McGillivray probably had no difficulty in foreseeing what the reaction of His Majesty would be to a treaty which bound Spain rigidly but left the Creeks free. In return, apparently, for his complaisance in signing a treaty so favorable to himself, McGillivray received an increase of his pension to $3,500 a year.⁠76

 p95  Hardly had McGillivray returned home when he received a letter from Carondelet asking him to influence the Chickasaws and Choctaws against attending a conference with the Americans in Nashville. As a matter of fact, the Creeks, even before Carondelet wrote, had already exercised their "influence," perhaps at the suggestion of Taski Etoka, who had visited the Creek country while McGillivray was absent. In the Choctaw conference called on June 23 to hear the American talks, certain Creek warriors appeared, and by pretending drunkenness broke up the meeting. They then finished their work by driving the Americans out of the country and issuing to the conniving Choctaws a warning against going to Nashville.⁠77 As a result of their efforts only 110 Choctaws attended the conference, which, as McGillivray tolerantly commented, was a small number considering the ingrained Indian yearning for the food and presents at these meetings. The Chickasaw delegation was much larger, comprising the entire Piomingo faction of the tribe with an addition of the usual number attracted by entertainment. Taski Etoka boycotted the meeting, but some of his followers were present as spies: Tinebi (Chananby), his nephew and heir apparent, and Ugula Yacabe (Wolf's Friend), second warrior of the nation, a rival of Piomingo's devoted to Spanish interests, and others. The Piomingo faction had its ardor for the Americans considerably cooled by the time it reached Nashville, for at a council on Duck Creek, Captain George convinced them that the Americans were trying to involve them in the northwestern war in order to kill off all the Indians and take their land. Happily, Blount's announcement that Wayne's campaign had been postponed left the Chickasaws free to proclaim their martial ardor without the inconvenience of displaying it. Ugula Yacabe protested so vigorously against any Muscle Shoals trading post that Blount promised to abandon the plan. It is uncertain whether the precision with which Piomingo outlined the Chickasaw boundaries was meant as a hint to the Americans or to the Cherokees.⁠78

 p96  The twenty-three Cherokees in attendance at the Nashville conference were there primarily as spies for their nation, always uneasy at any conjunction of its unpredictable neighbors. Upon their return they stirred the nation by reporting that James Robertson was threatening to destroy the Five Towns in retaliation for the continued outrages emanating from that source. While the Five Towns were making preparations to deal with this coming invasion, John Watts arrived opportunely at his home at Willstown (near Fort Payne, Alabama) and summoned the chiefs of the nation to that place in September to hear his report.

When the chiefs gathered at Willstown, they found that Watts had brought back a letter from O'Neill pledging Spanish support for the Cherokees in defending their homes; as an earnest of which support the Spaniards had given Watts ammunition requiring seven pack horses to carry and accoutrement for two hundred horsemen. Not all of Watts' three months' trip had been spent at Pensacola; on his return he spent some time among the Creeks, a large delegation of whom had accompanied him home. It was Watts' suggestion that since they had plentiful supplies, they might well now begin their defensive warfare, to which the promise of Spanish support was limited, by an anticipatory attack on the Holston country. To this measure the upper Cherokees, being most exposed to a Holston reprisal, raised the objection that the failure of their corn crop had left them destitute of food. The result of the deliberations at Willstown was that the Lower Cherokees declared for war, in which it was understood the Upper Cherokees would have no official participation.

In a meeting at Lookout Mountain Town a few days later, the Lower Cherokees after planning their campaign against the Holston country, became so drunk in the subsequent celebration that they were unable to go on the campaign they had planned. This was perhaps just as well, for Blount, warned by Agent Shaw, Interpreter Carey, and others, had mobilized the militia.⁠79 Learning  p97 this, Watts put Blount off his guard by conciliatory letters, secretly changed his plans to an attack on the Cumberlands, and on September 30, 1792, made a sudden (and un­success­ful) attack on Buchanan's Station, near Nashville. The war thus begun continued with flourishing fortunes until February 6, 1793, when Watts and Blount arranged a three-weeks' truce until the meeting of the Cherokee council.

In October, 1792, in order to assure themselves of continued Spanish support, the Lower Cherokees had sent to New Orleans a six-man delegation including Bloody Fellow and Bold Hunter. After the Cherokees arrived in New Orleans (in December), Taski Etoka and Franchimastabe appeared, the former bringing proposals from the Shawnees for a general confederation and the latter accompanied by several hundred half-famished fellow-citizens. The relations of Spain with the Choctaws and Chickasaws had been peaceful since Panton had taken over the their monopoly. There had been stirrings of discontent among the apprehensive Choctaws when Spain established a fort in the triangular cession of 1777, but the matter had been amiably settled by a formal treaty May 14, 1790, by which the Choctaws and Chickasaws agreed that the Spanish rightfully had title to the land in question as heirs of the British.⁠80 At the New Orleans conference, Taski Etoka, who was making himself the spiritual heir of Dragging Canoe, suggested to Carondelet that Spain make a defensive alliance with the Southern Indians, and Bloody Fellow asked that the Spaniards build forts on the Tombigbee and at Muscle Shoals so as to insure their line of communication with the Cherokees.⁠81 It was suggested by the gratified but cautious Carondelet that the Indians should lay these proposals before their tribal councils and return to New Orleans in the spring of 1793 for final action  p98 on them. Since the Piomingo faction had not been represented at the New Orleans meeting, Bloody Fellow and two of his companions went home through the Chickasaw country with the purpose of persuading them to unite with the other Southern Indians. Before the Chickasaw council on February 13, 1793, the Cherokee ambassadors presented their arguments reinforced by talks sent to Piomingo and Ugula Yacabe by Carondelet and by McGillivray to the nation. But Piomingo was not to be placated; the Chickasaw council, dominated by him, not only rejected the plan for a confederation but even declared war on the Creeks.⁠82

It is unlikely that McGillivray had expected his advice (sent at the solicitation of Carondelet) to be accepted by the Chickasaws or was sorry to have it rejected He had little faith now in a general alliance, however great his zeal had been five years before. He wanted only to preserve the status quo as long as possible; having made two incomparable treaties, he could preserve his integrity only by failing to execute either. After his treaty with Carondelet, he never began war against the Americans, nor did he ever give them notice to withdraw within their limits of 1773. The treaty placed him under no obligation to do either, and he resisted Carondelet's timid urgings by pleading the lack of arms. He gave up his "salary," much to the consternation of Knox; he refused all Seagrove's importunities for marking the boundary, asserting that the Creek council had rejected the proposed bounds (which was quite true) and that the ill will resulting from mutual depredations made it unsafe for any surveying party to take the field (which was also quite true).⁠83 This course left the Georgians in possession of the ceded land quite as effectively as if the boundary  p99 had been marked. But McGillivray knew he could not remain indefinitely resting on his oars, and so, as he confided to Panton, he was "approaching to a despondency." In addition to his mental worries, his health seems to have been shattered by the fatigues, and perhaps the dissipations, incident to the New York trip. The "cursed gout" kept him chained to his fireside with his legs paralyzed from the knees down. Thus sore beset in mind and body he continued to rule the Creeks, satisfy Carondelet, and placate the United States until finally in December, 1792, he summoned his weary fleet and spirit for a visit to Panton in Pensacola. There, at eleven o'clock on the night of February 17, in the house of his friend and his father's friend, he died.

"Poor fellow," said the sorrowing Panton, "he has left us at an untoward time."⁠84

---

The Author's Notes:

1 It is only fair in judging this act of May 17, 1783, to note that it was the expressed intention of North Carolina to follow this confiscation with treaties in which provision would be made for compensating the Indians for the land taken. Such treaties were not held, partly because North Carolina could not secure the necessary supplies and partly because of the rise of Franklin. For the overrunning of Chickasaw lands after the passing of the act see Samuel C. Williams' Beginnings of West Tennessee in the Land of the Chickasaws, 1541‑1841, 40‑46.

2 Milling, op. cit., 322‑23. Oconostota had died in 1781 after an abortive attempt to resign in favor of his son Tuckasee, but the Cherokee council elected Old Tassel (Corn Tassel or Tassel) as head chief (Calendar of Virginia State Papers, III, 234; ibid., IV, 176, 341).

3 The Georgia account of this treaty is given in Indian Affairs I, 13; the Creek version is set forth in letters by McGillivray in May, 1786, to Miró and O'Neill in J. W. Caughey's McGillivray of the Creeks, 105‑107. It can not be said with any degree of positiveness whether the right to alienate land lay in the tribe as a whole or in that portion which had occupied it. In a later treaty the tribal chieftain pleaded inability to cede because the portion of the tribe owning the land was absent. In view of the previous and future conduct of the Fat King and the Tame King, one must conclude that coercion was unnecessary to secure their signatures at Augusta.

4 No record of the proceedings at this purchase seems to be extant. The only record of the Virginia-Chickamauga treaty (which Martin negotiated, in his public capacity, immediately before making the purchase in his private capacity) is in Draper MSS, IXX,º 55. This is an invoice of the presents given at the treaty; they went to four chiefs, twelve young men, and six women.

5 For this treaty and its preliminaries see R. S. Cotterill's "The Virginia-Chickasaw Treaty of 1783," The Journal of Southern History, Vol. VIII, 483‑96.

6 The proceedings of this conference and the text of the treaty have been consulted in the Mississippi Provincial Archives, Spanish Dominion, II, 162‑70 (hereafter cited as Miss. Prov. Ar., Spanish Dominion). The treaty was signed by the Chickasaw king (Mingo Homa or his successor), Piomingo, and about ten other chiefs. For the Kickapoo war see Papers of the Continental Congress, III, 56.

7 Archives of Georgia, Creek Indian Letters, 1705‑1793, pt. I, 56, 58, 59‑60. The Choctaw delegation to Georgia was led by Mingohoopa, second chief of the Choctaws. It is probable that at this meeting the Georgians laid the foundations for their later Bourbon County venture.

8 The text of this treaty, with the names of the signers, has been published in Manuel Serrano y Sanz, España y Los Indios Cherokis y Choctas en la Segunda Mitad del Siglo XVIII, 82‑85.

9 McGillivray's reforms are briefly alluded to in Caleb Swan, "Position and State of Manners and Arts in the Creek or Muscogee Nation in 1791" in Henry R. Schoolcraft's Historical and Statistical Information Regarding the History, Condition and the Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States, V, 251‑83.

10 Panton's responsibility for McGillivray's decision to deal with the Spaniards is evident in Panton's letter to Lachlan McGillivray, April 10, 1794 (Caughey, McGillivray, 362‑63). The Florida Historical Society possesses an unrivaled collection of material on Panton, Leslie and Company, of which students of the period have up to now made little use.

11 This letter, written January 1, 1784, from Little Tallassie, is given in Caughey, McGillivray, 64. This book is the chief printed source on McGillivray, and the account of McGillivray's activities here given is drawn from it unless other reference is cited. R. C. Downes, in "Creek-American Relations, 1782‑1790," Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. XXI, 142‑184, deals fully with this period.

12 The salient provisions of this treaty are given in Caughey, McGillivray, 75‑76. The full text is in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, I, 278‑79. McGillivray negotiated this treaty for the Upper Creeks, Lower Creeks, and Seminoles. The Spaniards made a treaty later at Mobile with the Alabamas, at the same time as with the Choctaws.

13 The Spaniards entrusted the Chickasaw-Choctaw trade to the firm of Mather and Strother, in which McGillivray accepted a one-sixth share.

14 A. P. Whitaker, "The Muscle Shoals Speculation, 1783‑1789, Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. XIII, 365‑86; Oliver D. Street, "Houston County in the Great Bend of the Tennessee," Alabama Historical Quarterly, Vol. VI, 50‑59.

15 According to the decision of the United States Supreme Court, Harcourt v. Gaillard, 12 Wheaton 716, the United States in 1783 contained no land other than that belonging to the individual states. The relative power of the states and United States over Indian affairs under the Articles of Confederation is discussed ex parte in a report of the Committee on Southern Indians, Continental Congress Papers, II, 311.

16 In October, 1783, Congress appointed a committee to consider Indian affairs in the South, and this committee on April 19, 1784, recommended that conferences be held with the Southern tribes to fix boundaries without regard to state treaties and private purchases. On January 17, 1785, Congress appointed a committee to draw up an ordinance on Indian trade. The commissioners appointed in March were Benjamin Hawkins of North Carolina, Lachlan McIntosh of Georgia, Governor Pickens of South Carolina, Joseph Martin, and W. Perry. Acting on instructions from Congress, Hawkins, Pickens, and Martin held a preliminary meeting in Charleston to perfect their arrangements.

17 McGillivray's account of the Galphinton meeting is in Caughey, McGillivray, 107. The Georgia treaty at Galphinton is given in Indian Affairs, I, 17. The treaty was signed November 12, 1785, by seventeen Creeks (Colonial Records of Georgia, XXXIX, 506‑509). Navarro's decree admitting McGillivray to Pensacola was dated September 16, 1785 (D. C. Corbitt, ed. and trans., "Papers Relating to the Georgia-Florida Frontier, 1784‑1800," Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. XXI, 77).

18 For the Dumplin Creek treaty see S. C. Williams, The Lost State of Franklin, 77‑78. The proceedings at the Hopewell meetings are given in Indian Affairs, I, 40‑52; the text of the three treaties made at Hopewell are in Charles J. Kappler's Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties, II, 8‑16. For all Indian land cessions and treaty lines the maps in Charles C. Royce's Indian Land Cessions in the United States, B. A. E. Eighteenth Annual Report, pt. 2, are indispensable. By the Cherokee treaty there was a small land cession in North Carolina. In the description of the Cherokee northern boundary the treaty text contained an ambiguity of which the Americans later took full advantage. For a discussion of this point see Charles C. Royce, in The Cherokee Nation of Indians, B. A. E. Fifth Annual Report, 153‑54.

19 For Bourbon County see E. C. Burnett, ed., "Documents Relating to Bourbon County," American Historical Review, Vol. XV, 66. The Choctaws always denied that they had made any cession to Wood (Miss. Prov. Ar., Spanish Dominion, IV, 437).

20 Trade conditions among the Choctaws and Chickasaws at this time are discussed in Serrano y Sanz, op. cit., 31ff. The Choctaw version of the Hopewell proceedings is given in a letter by McGillivray to Miró, May 1, 1786, in D. C. and Roberta Corbitt, eds., "Papers from the Spanish Archives Relating to Tennessee and the Old Southwest, 1783‑1800," East Tennessee Historical Society Publications, Vol. X, 131, and in a letter by Miró to Gálvez, June 28, 1786, Miss. Prov. Ar., Spanish Dominion, II, 739‑40. For Franchimastabe's responsibility for the Choctaw delegation to Hopewell see Serrano y Sanz, op. cit. 36, and Burnett, "Documents Relating to Bourbon County," loc. cit., 337, Long, Davenport, and Christman to Elbert, September 13, 1785. John Pitchlynn, born in 1756, had lived among the Choctaws since 1775.

21 For the Chickasaw conference and treaty see n. 12 above. McGillivray in his letter of May 1, 1786, to Miró (n. 20 above) says that the Chickasaws were bribed to cede the trading-post site.

22 Ramsey, op. cit., 344‑45; Brown, op. cit., 254‑55.

23 Ramsey, op. cit., 377‑79; Brown, op. cit., 251; Street, "Houston County," loc. cit. These men had accompanied the commissioners of the District of the Tennessee as a guard to Long Island Town, where they had opened a land office and issued land warrants.

24 It was probably at the hands of one of these raiding parties that John Donelson met his death April 11, 1786. Donelson in the spring of 1781 had moved from French Lick to Daviess Station in Lincoln County, Kentucky. In 1785 he moved his family again to French Lick, while he was at Muscle Shoals in connection with his land speculation. In the fall of that year he went to Virginia and in the spring of 1786 was returning to French Lick through Kentucky with two companions, Tilly and Leach, when he was killed near the Big Barren River. He was buried there (Draper MS Notes XXXII, 309‑13; Calendar of Virginia State Papers, IV, 120).

25 For John McDonald as a trader see P. M. Hamer, "The British in Canada and the Southern Indians," East Tennessee Historical Society Publications, Vol. II, 107‑34 and A. P. Whitaker, "Spain and the Cherokee Indians, 1783‑1795," North Carolina Historical Review, Vol. IV, 83‑98, 252‑69. For the French at Muscle Shoals, see Cherokee Indians, Talks and Treaties, I, 4, Martin to Telfair, October 16, 1786, and I, 128, Davenport to Sevier, July 28, 1786, Papers of the Continental Congress, II, 185, Martin to Thompson, January 5, 1787. Corbitt, "Papers from the Spanish Archives," loc. cit., Vol. XI, 65, Kelley to Panton, January 23, 1787. It was Martin's opinion that the French traders had more supplies at Muscle Shoals than all the Southern Indians could buy in three years.

26 Although the Spaniards affected to disdain this letter, it caused them considerable worry since it revealed that their aid to the Creeks had not remained secret, as they had tried to keep it.

27 The activities of McMurphy are described in Caughey, McGillivray, 118‑24 and 127‑28. See also McMurphy's report in Cherokee Indians, Talks and Treaties, I, 129.

28 The Cumberland envoys to McGillivray were Ewing and Samuel Hogg (Indian Office Records, Retired Classified Files, Ewing to Coffee, December 30, 1815).

29 McGillivray's comments on the Shoulderbone proceedings are given in Caughey, McGillivray, 139‑41. There is a copy of the Shoulderbone treaty in the Colonial Records of Georgia, edited by Allen D. Candler, XXIX, 524; the treaty was signed by fifty-nine Creeks, chiefly from Tallassie, Broken Arrow, Cusseta, and Coweta.

30 Dr. James White was connected with the Blount group of speculators, and it was probably through their influence that he was chosen a delegate to Congress in December, 1785. He had no knowledge of Indian affairs, and at the time he was chosen superintendent had already begun negotiations with Gardoqui, looking, ostensibly, toward the union of the western country with Spain. His career as a conspirator is described in T. B. Abernethy, Western Lands and the American Revolution, and in A. P. Whitaker, Spanish-American Frontier, 1783‑1795. He is often confused with the Colonel James White who founded Knoxville.

The United States Congress on August 7, 1786, had established two Indian districts, one of which included all the tribes south of the Ohio. A superintendent was to have charge of each district, and provision was made for the licensing of traders. On October 6, Dr. James White had been appointed superintendent of the southern district and four days later instructed to visit the Southern tribes and report.

31 White's report on his Creek mission is in Indian Affairs, I, 21; McGillivray's comments in Caughey, McGillivray, 148‑51. According to the report, McGillivray offered to cede the Oconee land provided the United States would set up a buffer state there. In none of his correspondence does McGillivray allude to any such offer.

32 Clark, op. cit., XX, 730, Robertson to Caswell, July 2, 1787.

33 The killing of Davenport is described in Corbitt, "Papers from the Spanish Archives," loc. cit., Vol. XI, 84, 87, and 88, Ben James to Mather and Strother and to John Joyce, July 23, 1787, McGillivray to Miró, July 25, 1787. From these it is to be gathered that the Creek party was from Coosada and numbered twelve men and a boy. They found Davenport at the home of William Kemp on Wolf Creek, killed both Davenport and Kemp, as well as two of Kemp's boat crew, wounded six other men, and carried off a white boy. After this they plundered the store, carrying off seventy rifles and twelve blankets. There were fourteen Americans present. One Creek was killed.

34 Serrano y Sanz, op. cit., 31, note 2.

35 Williams, Lost State, 141; Corbitt, "Papers from Spanish Archives," loc. cit., Vol. XIV, 101, Fraser to Miró, April 15, 1788; Miss. Prov. Ar., Spanish Dominion, III, 223‑55. The delegation was headed by Toboka of the Choctaws and included Cabosa, Mingotaska, John Woods, "Chamby" (Tinebe), and Indies, They brought back presents to Piomingo, Franchimastabe, and other chiefs.

36 Corbitt, "Papers from the Spanish Archives," in loc. cit., Vol. XII, 103, O'Neill to Miró, September 8, 1787.

37 Serrano y Sanz, op. cit., 31‑34.

38 Ibid., 37‑40.

39 Corbitt, "Papers from the Spanish Archives," in loc. cit., Vol. XI, 82, McGillivray to Miró, June 20, 1787. McGillivray said that the conference had met to restore the union of 1777 and 1779, and that the delegations would return in November to co-ordinate their warfare with that of McGillivray and Dragging Canoe.

40 The Spanish officials were disturbed, too, by McGillivray's growing power (which they thought would render him less dependent on Spain) and by his plans for a confederation of Northern and Southern Indians, which they feared would be dominated by the British in Canada. A very revealing letter in this latter respect is that by Zéspedes (Spanish governor of East Florida) to Valdés, March 24,178, in Corbitt, "Papers from the Spanish Archives," loc. cit., Vol. XIV, 86.

41 North Carolina did not appoint a commissioner; South Carolina and Georgia appointed Pickens and Matthews. Their letter of March 29, 1788 to McGillivray and his reply are in Caughey, McGillivray, 174, 180.

42 Bowles, like Panton, still awaits a biographer. For his 1788 venture see Caughey, McGillivray, 185‑226; Corbitt, "Papers from the Spanish Archives," loc. cit., Vol. XV, 95‑101; and Lawrence Kinnaird, "International Rivalry in the Creek Country," Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. X, 67. Any account of Bowles not based on the Spanish Archives is of little value. D. C. Corbitt and John Tate Lanning's "A Letter of Marque issued by William Augustus Bowles as Director-General of the State of Muscogee," The Journal of Southern History, Vol. XI, 246‑61 is an excellent summary of his career.

McGillivray never withdrew his resignation and never again drew a salary from Spain.

43 Indian Affairs, I, 26, Governor Johnston to the governor of South Carolina, March 19, 1788.

44 Papers of Continental Congress, III, 425, Talk of the Prince of Notaly, June 5, 1788, ibid., 438, Justices of Abbeville to people on Nolichucky, French Broad, and Holston, September 9, 1788.

45 Ibid., III, 429, 435, Talks given at Oostanaula, June 20 and 30, 1788.

46 Indian Affairs, I, 45, Winn to Knox, October 13, 1788.

47 Ibid., I, 45. Cherokees to Winn, November 20, 1788. On November 1, the chiefs had sent a similar talk to Martin.

48 For the Drumgoole mission see Clark, op. cit., XXVI, 507, 508, 529 and 542. Drumgoole arrived at Oostanaula, January 18, met the Cherokees at Coosawatee, February 6, 1789, and then went on to the Creek country. McGillivray had gone to Pensacola two days before, but Dan McGillivray took the Governor's letter and promised an answer when the chiefs returned from hunting about May 1.

49 Ibid., XXI, 522 and 527, Martin to Johnston, February 2, 1789, and Steele to Johnston, February 19, 1789; Indian Affairs, I, 31, Winn to Knox, March 1, 1789.

50 Draper MSS, Tennessee Papers, 2XX30, Martin to Henry, July 2, 1789. Martin was present on the French Broad as United States agent for the Cherokees and Chickasaws, to which position he had been appointed by Congress on August 20, 1788. In consequence of White's appointment as superintendent, Virginia had closed down her Indian agency on January 31, 1787. McGillivray asserted (Caughey, McGillivray, 245) that the Cherokees boycotted French Broad on his advice. The Cherokee officials had attended the Lower Creek council in April and asked his protection (Caughey, McGillivray, 230). The Cherokees' obstinacy in preferring Hopewell to the French Broad was on account of their fear of Sevier, who in March, 1789, had again raided the Overhill towns. On August 22 a trader named Bellew appeared in New York and presented to President Washington a document purporting to be a memorial adopted at Echota, May 19, by the chiefs of twenty-one Overhill and Valley towns, asking that the intruders on their land be removed and offering to cede to the United States land in the angle of the French Broad and Holston. Suspecting fraud, Washington sent a reply that the United States could do nothing about the matter while North Carolina remained out of the Union (Indian Affairs, I, 56‑57). There is no doubt that the memorial was a forgery (Draper MSS, Tennessee Papers, 2XX30, Martin to Henry, July 2, 1789).

51 Caughey, McGillivray, 245, McGillivray to Panton, August 10, 1789. In this letter McGillivray said that the commissioners had "for some time past been endeavoring to stop my mouth and hands with my family estate . . . ."

52 There are numbers of discrepancies between McGillivray's account of the conference (Caughey, McGillivray, 251‑54) and that given by the commissioners (Indian Affairs, I, 65‑69). The day before he started to the conference McGillivray had heard from Miró that the king of Spain had confirmed the treaty of 1784. This "made me stout in my heart and strong in my mouth" at the meeting (Caughey, McGillivray, 254‑55, McGillivray to Leslie, October 12, 1789).

53 Caughey, McGillivray, 239, McGillivray to Miró, June 24, 1789; Ayer Collection, No. 722, Piomingo's talk to Martin, September 20, 1789; Indian Affairs, I, 77. The Chickasaws had been killed while on their way to the conference on the French Broad. In the fall Piomingo went to New York to see the President, stopped off on Long Island to give Martin a talk for Governor Johnston, and on his way home met the commissioners at Richmond, who sent talks by him to Choctaws and Chickasaws.

54 Colton Storm, ed., "Up the Tennessee in 1790: The Report of Major John Doughty to the Secretary of War," The East Tennessee Historical Society Publications, Vol. XVII, 119‑32. Doughty's small force was attacked by Creeks and Chickamaugas on the Tennessee near Bear Creek and driven back down the river, finally taking refuge with the Spaniards at New Madrid. He reported to Knox that it would be impossible to maintain a trading post at Muscle Shoals. The expedition was sent as a result of Piomingo's plea for trade.

55 C. H. Haskins, "The Yazoo Land Companies," Papers of the American Historical Association, Vol. V, 395‑437 is the standard treatment of the subject, but was written from insufficient sources and is misleading in numerous respects. See also J. C. Parish, "The Intrigues of Dr. James O'Fallon," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. XVII, 230‑63.

56 William Willett, in A Narrative of the Military Actions of Colonel Marinus Willett, 96‑113, describes the visit of Willett to the Creeks. He brought McGillivray a letter from Benjamin Hawkins (then senator from North Carolina) referring to the unfavorable report by the Rock Landing commissioners and urging him to come to New York. Apparently the plan for a New York conference originated with Hawkins. McGillivray in a letter to Panton, May 8 (Caughey, McGillivray, 259) outlines Willett's arguments and his own reasons for accepting them.

57 McGillivray rode horseback the greater part of the journey, the chiefs and warriors were in wagons, and Willett in a sulky. They traveled by way of Stone Mountain, Seneca, Guilford Court House, Richmond, Fredericksburg, Washington, and Philadelphia. Governor Zéspedes of St. Augustine sent Carolus Howard to New York to counsel with McGillivray, which he succeeded in doing despite the vigilance of the Americans. The British officials in Canada sent two agents to New York ostensibly to learn from McGillivray more about Bowles, who was then in Canada appealing to the authorities.

58 In a letter to Miró, February 26, 1791 (Caughey, McGillivray, 290) McGillivray explicitly said that when he found that the required oath was one of allegiance to the United States he refused to take it. But in the Knox Papers, XXVI, folio 145 (Massachusetts Historical Society) is his signed oath of allegiance witnessed by Justice John Blair of the United States Supreme Court.

59 The so‑called secret articles are given in Hunter Miller, Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of North America, I, 344. There is no record that any of the secret articles were ever ratified by the Senate except the trade provision, concerning which the Senate was consulted in advance. The open treaty is given in Kappler, op. cit., II, 25‑28. The treaty was signed by McGillivray and twenty-four chiefs on August 7, 1790.

60 Annals of Congress, 1 Cong., 2 sess., II, 2241. This act, repeatedly extended and modified, remained the basic regulation for private traders as long as there were any private traders to be regulated.

61 The account of the United States with the Creeks from August 7, 1790, to August 7, 1791, is given in Indian Affairs, I, 127. The total payment to the Creeks was $3,700, comprising $1,500 annuity, $1,200 for McGillivray's salary, $600 for the six chiefs, and $400 for two interpreters. Of this amount $600 had been advanced to McGillivray in New York and $200 to Cornell for interpreting.

62 Pope's observations on the Creeks were incorporated in his well-known Tour through the Southern States and Western Territories of North America, 46‑52.

63 For the invitation given McGillivray to join the company see the letter of Alexander Moultrie to McGillivray, February 19, 1790, in Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. XVI, 391‑92. McGillivray's rejection of this and other overtures is indicated in Caughey, McGillivray, 280‑81.

64 Brown, op. cit., 318‑19; Ramsey, op. cit., 560.

65 Indian Affairs, I, 203‑206. Blount's instructions for this treaty have been lost; it seems probable that he had been instructed to secure the land on the Holston, which the forged memorial of 1789 had represented the Cherokees as willing to cede. In December, 1791, a delegation of four Cherokees (led by Bloody Fellow) with two interpreters went to Philadelphia to solicit an increase in the annuity fixed by the treaty at $1,000. They arrived December 28, and as a result of conferences with Knox secured an increase to $1,500. The Cherokees argued that they had never received any payment for the land taken at Hopewell.

66 Carter, op. cit., II, 193; Royce, "The Cherokee Nation," loc. cit., 165; Indian Affairs, I, 264; Papers of Continental Congress, II, 531. There were about seventy of the Chickamaugas settled in Ohio on Paint Creek, from which location they made continual raids against northern Kentucky. The Shawnees at Running Water numbered about one hundred.

67 The best account of Welbank's activities is Hamer's "The British in Canada," loc. cit., 117ff.

68 Piomingo led a small force of Chickasaws to assist St. Clair. Affronted by St. Clair's apparent neglect, the Chickasaws left the day before the defeat, alleging that they had news of an invasion of the Chickasaw country by the Creeks (W. H. Smith, ed., St. Clair Papers, II, 250, 254, 256, 302; Indian Affairs, I, 266‑91; A. W. Putnam, History of Middle Tennessee, 363).

69 In addition to the references on Bowles given in n. 42 above see Lawrence Kinnaird, "The Significance of William Augustus Bowles' Seizure of Panton's Apalachee Store in 1793," Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. IX, 156‑91; Corbitt, ed., "Papers Relating to the Georgia-Florida Frontier," loc. cit., Vol. XXII, 186‑89; Caughey, McGillivray, 305‑306, 307‑309. An account of Bowles' "capture" is in Miss. Prov. Ar., Spanish Dominion, III, 765ff.

70 The date of Dragging Canoe's death is given by Brown, op. cit., without citation of authority. A letter from Welbank to McKee January 16, 1793 (Hamer, "British in Canada," loc. cit.), refers to Dragging Canoe as having recently died.

71 The appointment of agents was suggested by the Cherokee delegation in Philadelphia asking for an increase in annuity. Shaw accompanied the delegation back to the Cherokee country, bringing with him talks for the Chickasaws and Choctaws, which were forwarded to them by Blount when he invited them to the Nashville conference. Robertson's appointment was a compensation for damages received from Chickamaugas and Creeks.

72 The government's desire to enlist the Southern Indians is evident in its instructions to Shaw and Seagrove at the time of their appointment and in the correspondence of Knox with Blount, Seagrove, and McGillivray, during February, March, and April (Indian Affairs, I, 253‑66, and in I. O. R., Old Records Division, Adjutant General Division, War Department (MSS)).

73 McGillivray's letter to White, May 6, 1792 (Caughey, McGillivray, 321) makes it clear that it was Panton's influence which induced him to abandon his trip to Oconee and to go to New Orleans instead. Panton's unexpected visit would have missed McGillivray had the latter not been detained by high waters.

74 Blount's report of the Coyatee conference is in Indian Affairs, I, 267‑69.

75 Details of Panton's visit with the Chickamaugas are given in the statements of James Leonard and Richard Finnelson, ibid., 191‑95, 288‑89. It is evident from McGillivray's letters to White (n. 73 above) that Leonard was mistaken in saying that McGillivray accompanied Panton to the Chickamaugas.

76 The text of this treaty is given in Caughey, McGillivray, 329‑30.

77 Ibid., 332‑33, McGillivray to Carondelet, July 22, 1792; Indian Affairs, I, 278.

78 Indian Affairs, I, 284‑88. During the conference Piomingo referred to Chenanbe (Tinebe) as king of the Chickasaws. As a matter of fact Taski Etoka was still king, but McGillivray describes him as wandering in exile among the Choctaws (Caughey, McGillivray, 346‑49, McGillivray to Panton, November 28, 1792).

79 The Cherokees ascribed their war preparations to Robertson's threat (Indian Affairs, I, 280) and there is no good reason for thinking they were dissembling. The proceedings at Willstown were reported to Blount by the traders Finnelson and Deraque and by James Carey (ibid. I, 289‑91, 328). At this meeting Shaw, because it became known he was warning Blount, was threatened with death by the Creek delegation and was sent under guard of friendly Upper Cherokees to Seneca.

80 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, I, 280.

81 A full account of this meeting is to be found in Miss. Prov. Ar., Spanish Dominion, IV, 611ff. See also Caughey, McGillivray, 343‑44, Carondelet to McGillivray, November 11, 1792.

82 Indian Affairs, I, 441.

83 McGillivray himself never had a meeting with Seagrove, who for fear of assassination, refrained from visiting the Creek country. In May, 1792, while waiting for Panton to return from the Chickamaugas, McGillivray sent some of the Creek chiefs to meet Seagrove at Rock Landing and in November permitted some of the Lower Creeks to visit him for the sake of receiving supplies which the United States was donating because of Creek famine conditions caused by a prolonged drouth (Downes, "Creek-American Relations," loc. cit., 350‑73; Indian Affairs, I, 314, Seagrove to McGillivray, October 8, 1792). The United States contributed some $10,000 worth of supplies for famine relief. These the Creeks received with gratitude but without commitments about ending their raids or running the line.

84 Caughey, McGillivray, 354, Panton to Carondelet, February 20, 1793.

◂ previous						next ▸
Images with borders lead to more information. The thicker the border, the more information. (Details here.)
UP TO:		The Southern Indians	Native American History	History of the Americas	Home
			American & Military History
A page or image on this site is in the public domain ONLY if its URL has a total of one *asterisk. If the URL has two **asterisks, the item is copyright someone else, and used by permission or fair use. If the URL has none the item is © Bill Thayer. See my copyright page for details and contact information.