McIntosh & Treaty of Indian Springs: Legacy

The Creek Nation, a prominent indigenous group, experienced profound internal conflict, a direct consequence of shifting geopolitical landscapes. George Troup, then Governor of Georgia, aggressively pursued Indian removal policies, thereby increasing tensions. These tensions reached a critical point when William McIntosh signs the Treaty of Indian Springs in 1825, a controversial agreement ceding Creek lands to the United States government. This treaty, negotiated without the full consent of the Creek National Council, ignited outrage within the Creek Nation, leading to McIntosh’s assassination and further complicating the already fraught relationship between the Creeks and the expanding United States.

A Treacherous Agreement: The Treaty of Indian Springs

The Treaty of Indian Springs, signed in 1825, stands as a pivotal, and deeply troubling, moment in the history of Native American displacement. It represents a stark example of the policies enacted to dispossess Indigenous peoples of their ancestral lands.

The Treaty of Indian Springs (1825): A Definition

This agreement, ostensibly a legal transaction, served as a tool to wrest vast territories from the Creek Nation. It was a key instrument to further westward expansion, but achieved through coercion and disregard for established Creek law.

Indian Removal, Manifest Destiny, and the Treaty

The Treaty of Indian Springs cannot be understood outside the context of Manifest Destiny, the 19th-century belief that the United States was divinely ordained to expand its dominion across the North American continent. This ideology fueled a relentless drive for land acquisition.

This ambition directly targeted Native American territories. The treaty became a vehicle for Indian Removal, a systematic policy aimed at relocating Native American tribes from their homelands to areas west of the Mississippi River.

Key Figures: Troup and Jackson

Two figures loom large in this narrative: Governor George Troup of Georgia, and General Andrew Jackson. Troup, a fervent advocate of states’ rights and Indian removal, relentlessly pursued the acquisition of Creek lands, often defying federal authority in the process.

Andrew Jackson, who later became President, embodied the expansionist spirit of the era. His policies, both as a general and as president, actively facilitated the removal of Native Americans, solidifying the treaty’s enforcement.

A Thesis of Illegality and Tragedy

This examination argues that the Treaty of Indian Springs was inherently illegal, born of deceit and disregard for Creek sovereignty. Driven by the ambitions of Troup and tacitly supported by Jackson, the treaty triggered a series of tragic events.

These events encompassed the unlawful cession of Creek lands, violent internal strife within the Creek Nation, the controversial execution of William McIntosh, and the ultimate forced removal of the Creek people from their ancestral homes. The consequences were devastating and irreversible.

The Creek Nation Before 1825: A Society Under Pressure

Before the Treaty of Indian Springs cast its long shadow, the Creek Nation, or Muscogee Nation, existed as a complex and dynamic society. However, this society was increasingly strained by internal divisions and external pressures that would ultimately contribute to the tragic events of 1825 and beyond. Understanding the Creek Nation’s structure, previous interactions with the United States, and the ideological rifts within it is crucial to understanding the context of the treaty and its devastating consequences.

Creek Political and Social Organization

The Creek Nation was not a monolithic entity but rather a confederacy of towns and villages, each with its own distinct identity and leadership.

This loose structure allowed for a degree of autonomy, but it also made it difficult to achieve unified action, especially in the face of external threats.

Politically, the Creek Nation operated under a system of governance that balanced local autonomy with centralized decision-making.

Social Structure and Clans

Socially, the Creek were organized into clans, each with its own traditions, responsibilities, and allegiances. These clans played a crucial role in determining social status, kinship ties, and inheritance.

The clan system provided a framework for social cohesion and mutual support, but it could also be a source of conflict, especially when clans had competing interests or loyalties.

The Creek Nation’s economy was based on a combination of agriculture, hunting, and trade. Land was held communally, and resources were shared among members of the community. This system ensured that everyone had access to basic necessities, but it also limited individual accumulation of wealth and power.

The Impact of Previous Treaties

The Treaty of Indian Springs was not the first agreement between the Creek Nation and the United States, and it was not the first instance of land cession. Previous treaties had already eroded Creek land holdings and undermined their sovereignty.

As the United States expanded westward, it increasingly pressured the Creek to cede more and more of their territory. These treaties were often negotiated under duress and were seen by many Creek people as unjust and illegitimate.

Each treaty chipped away at the Creek Nation’s territory and autonomy. These treaties further inflamed tensions between those who believed that accommodation was the only path to survival and those who advocated for resistance.

Growing Internal Divisions: Assimilation vs. Tradition

The Creek Nation was increasingly divided between those who advocated for assimilation into American society and those who sought to maintain traditional ways of life.

This divide reflected a broader debate about the future of the Creek Nation and its relationship with the United States.

Assimilationists believed that adopting American customs, such as private property and formal education, was the best way to protect Creek interests.

Traditionalists, on the other hand, argued that maintaining their cultural identity and resisting American encroachment was essential to preserving their sovereignty.

Creek Nationalism

Amidst these growing divisions, a nascent sense of Creek nationalism began to emerge.

This movement sought to unify the Creek Nation and assert its independence in the face of American expansion.

Figures such as Little Prince and Menawa became vocal advocates for Creek sovereignty and called for resistance to further land cessions.

However, the divisions within the Creek Nation made it difficult for this movement to gain widespread support.

The Role of the National Creek Council

The National Creek Council served as the central governing body of the Creek Nation, responsible for making decisions on behalf of the entire confederacy.

The Council was composed of representatives from each of the Creek towns and villages, and its members were typically respected elders and leaders.

The National Creek Council was responsible for negotiating treaties with the United States, regulating trade, and resolving disputes between towns and clans.

However, the Council’s authority was often challenged by individual towns and leaders who pursued their own agendas.

Ultimately, the Creek Nation before 1825 was a society under immense pressure. The weight of American expansion, coupled with internal divisions, set the stage for the events surrounding the Treaty of Indian Springs. The actions of the National Creek Council, and the diverging views within the nation, would prove to be consequential.

Key Players: Ambition, Betrayal, and Resistance

Before the events at Indian Springs unfolded, several key figures shaped the tragic narrative. Their ambitions, betrayals, and acts of resistance defined the conflict and its devastating consequences for the Creek Nation. Examining their roles provides a crucial lens through which to understand the complexities of this period.

William McIntosh: A Complex Figure of Division

William McIntosh (Tustunnuggee Hutkee), a man of mixed Creek and Scottish heritage, remains a deeply controversial figure. His role as a prominent chief and brigadier general in the U.S. Army placed him at the intersection of two cultures, creating a tension that ultimately led to his downfall.

His advocacy for a more centralized Creek government and his embrace of certain aspects of American culture, such as plantation agriculture and slaveholding, alienated him from many traditionalists. McIntosh’s motivations were likely a complex mix of personal ambition, a belief that assimilation was the only path to survival for his people, and genuine attempts to secure favorable terms for his faction within the Creek Nation.

However, his willingness to cede Creek land without the consent of the National Council, a direct violation of Creek law as codified in the Blood Law, sealed his fate. His execution, mandated by the Creek National Council, underscores the profound divisions within the nation and the high stakes involved in the struggle for its future.

Governor George Troup: Champion of States’ Rights and Removal

Governor George Troup of Georgia was an ardent advocate for states’ rights and a staunch proponent of Indian removal. His belief in the supremacy of state authority over federal treaties and his unwavering commitment to acquiring Creek lands for white settlers drove his actions.

Troup viewed the Creek Nation as an impediment to Georgia’s progress and actively sought ways to undermine their sovereignty. His correspondence reveals a calculated strategy to pressure the federal government and manipulate events to achieve his desired outcome: the complete removal of the Creek people from Georgia.

Andrew Jackson: The Architect of Removal Policy

Andrew Jackson’s influence on the events surrounding the Treaty of Indian Springs cannot be overstated. As a military hero and later as President, Jackson embodied the expansionist spirit of the age and championed the policy of Indian Removal.

His personal experiences fighting against Native American tribes, coupled with his belief in the superiority of American civilization, hardened his resolve to remove Native Americans from their ancestral lands. Jackson’s unwavering support for Governor Troup and his administration’s lax enforcement of federal treaty obligations emboldened Georgia to act with impunity.

His actions set a dangerous precedent for the disregard of Native American rights and paved the way for the forced removal of thousands of people from their homes.

Little Prince and Menawa: Leaders of Creek Resistance

In the face of mounting pressure and the betrayal of figures like McIntosh, resistance emerged within the Creek Nation. Little Prince (Tustunnuggee Thlucco) and Menawa were among the leaders who rallied opposition to the illegal cessions and sought to uphold Creek sovereignty.

These leaders represented the traditionalist faction within the Creek Nation, those who clung to their ancestral ways and resisted assimilation. They understood the devastating consequences of ceding land and fought to preserve their people’s cultural identity and territorial integrity. Although their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful in preventing removal, their resistance stands as a testament to the enduring spirit of the Creek people.

Samuel Hawkins: The U.S. Indian Agent

Samuel Hawkins served as the U.S. Indian agent, a position that placed him in a complex role mediating between the U.S. government and the Creek Nation. While ostensibly tasked with protecting Creek interests, Hawkins’ actions often aligned with the agenda of the U.S. government and those pushing for land acquisition.

His involvement in the treaty negotiations raises questions about his impartiality and his commitment to upholding Creek treaty rights. The ambiguity surrounding Hawkins’ role highlights the inherent conflict of interest within the U.S. government’s approach to Native American affairs during this period.

Divisions Among Other Creek Chiefs

Beyond the prominent figures of McIntosh, Little Prince, and Menawa, the Creek Nation was further fractured by divisions among other chiefs and leaders. Some, like McIntosh, saw accommodation with the U.S. government as the only viable option. Others remained steadfast in their opposition to any further land cessions.

These divisions reflected the deep-seated tensions within Creek society, the conflicting pressures of assimilation and resistance, and the struggle to maintain unity in the face of overwhelming external forces. The inability of the Creek Nation to present a united front weakened their position and made them more vulnerable to manipulation by the U.S. government and its representatives.

Key Players: Ambition, Betrayal, and Resistance
Before the events at Indian Springs unfolded, several key figures shaped the tragic narrative. Their ambitions, betrayals, and acts of resistance defined the conflict and its devastating consequences for the Creek Nation. Examining their roles provides a crucial lens through which to understand the controversial treaty at the center of this tragic historical event.

The Treaty of Indian Springs: A Violation of Trust

The Treaty of Indian Springs, signed on February 12, 1825, stands as a stark example of the abuse of power and disregard for Indigenous sovereignty that characterized much of U.S. expansion. The circumstances surrounding its creation, coupled with its blatant violation of Creek law, render it an illegitimate and profoundly damaging agreement.

The Setting: Indian Springs, Georgia

The treaty was negotiated and signed at Indian Springs, Georgia, a location chosen to exert maximum pressure on the Creek delegation. The setting itself was inherently coercive, as it removed the Creek representatives from their own territory and placed them within the sphere of influence of Governor George Troup, a staunch advocate for Creek removal.

Provisions: The Cession of Alabama Lands

The treaty’s central provision involved the cession of a vast tract of Creek land in Alabama, territory west of the Chattahoochee River. This land was highly valued by the Creeks for its agricultural potential and strategic importance. The sale of this land to the United States opened it up for settlement by white settlers.

This effectively bisected the Creek Nation and further eroded their ability to maintain their traditional way of life. The agreement was presented as a beneficial exchange, but the Creeks received a pittance in return for land worth far more.

Illegality: Violations of Creek and U.S. Law

The Treaty of Indian Springs was fundamentally illegal, violating both Creek law and the existing treaties between the U.S. government and the Creek Nation. The treaty was not negotiated or ratified by the full National Creek Council. This made it illegitimate under Creek governance structures.

The Blood Law

A crucial element underscoring the treaty’s illegitimacy is the Creek Blood Law. This law, deeply ingrained in Creek culture and governance, prohibited any individual from selling communal land without the explicit consent of the National Council. William McIntosh, the signatory of the treaty, acted in direct contravention of this law. His actions were deemed treasonous.

His subsequent execution was carried out in accordance with Creek legal tradition. This emphasized the gravity of his transgression against the Creek people.

Treaty Rights

Moreover, the treaty undermined previous agreements between the U.S. and the Creek Nation. These agreements had guaranteed Creek sovereignty and land rights. By negotiating a separate, unauthorized agreement with McIntosh, Governor Troup and the U.S. government disregarded their own legal obligations.

The National Creek Council’s Response

The National Creek Council vehemently opposed the Treaty of Indian Springs, denouncing it as fraudulent and illegitimate. They dispatched representatives to Washington D.C. to plead their case before the U.S. government.

However, their appeals were largely ignored by President Andrew Jackson, who supported the treaty and pushed for its enforcement. This disregard for the Creek’s legal and moral claims underscores the profound injustice perpetrated through the Treaty of Indian Springs.

Consequences: Internal Conflict and Federal Intervention

Before the events at Indian Springs unfolded, several key figures shaped the tragic narrative. Their ambitions, betrayals, and acts of resistance defined the conflict and its devastating consequences for the Creek Nation. Examining their roles provides a crucial lens through which to understand the complex and often contradictory forces at play.

The immediate aftermath of the Treaty of Indian Springs plunged the Creek Nation into turmoil. The internal divisions that had been simmering for years boiled over, exacerbated by the controversial actions of William McIntosh and the subsequent response from both Creek traditionalists and the U.S. Federal Government.

The Execution of William McIntosh

The execution of William McIntosh (Tustunnuggee Hutkee) stands as a stark symbol of the deep rifts within the Creek Nation. McIntosh, a man of mixed Creek and Scottish heritage, had long advocated for a policy of assimilation, believing that adapting to the ways of the encroaching white settlers was the only path to survival.

His decision to sign the Treaty of Indian Springs, ceding vast tracts of Creek land without the consent of the National Council, was viewed as a grave betrayal by many. Under the Creek Blood Law, which prohibited the unauthorized sale of tribal lands under penalty of death, McIntosh’s actions were considered a capital offense.

A delegation of Creek warriors, acting on the authority of the National Council, carried out the sentence. This act, while rooted in traditional Creek law, further inflamed tensions and deepened the divisions within the nation. McIntosh’s supporters viewed his execution as a barbaric act. They saw it as an impediment to progress and amicable coexistence with the United States.

Internal Conflict and Factionalism

The execution of McIntosh ignited a period of intense internal conflict. The Lower Creeks, who had largely supported McIntosh, clashed with the Upper Creeks, who were more aligned with traditional ways and vehemently opposed land cessions.

This internal strife weakened the Creek Nation considerably, making them even more vulnerable to the designs of the U.S. government. The conflict exposed deep-seated factionalism. It revealed different visions for the future of the Creek people, creating a climate of mistrust and instability.

Further exacerbating the situation was the fact that the murdered McIntosh was, despite his transgression, a decorated General and a highly respected warrior.

Federal Response Under Andrew Jackson

The U.S. Federal Government’s response to the Treaty of Indian Springs and its aftermath was largely shaped by the policies of President Andrew Jackson. Jackson, a staunch advocate of states’ rights and westward expansion, viewed Native American removal as essential to the nation’s progress.

Despite the controversy surrounding the treaty and its questionable legality, Jackson and his administration chose to enforce it vigorously.

His support for the treaty stemmed from his long-held belief that Native Americans could not coexist with white settlers and that their removal was both inevitable and beneficial.

Jackson’s unwavering support emboldened the state of Georgia.
It encouraged Governor Troup’s aggressive policies and further marginalized the Creek Nation.

The Role of the U.S. Army

The U.S. Army played a critical role in enforcing the Treaty of Indian Springs. Federal troops were deployed to oversee the survey and seizure of Creek lands. They were there to suppress any resistance. The presence of the military served as a constant reminder of the U.S. government’s power and its determination to carry out its removal policy.

Moreover, the involvement of the U.S. Army extended beyond mere enforcement. It was used to intimidate and forcibly remove Creek people from their homes. This paved the way for white settlers to claim the land. The army’s actions were often brutal and inhumane. They contributed significantly to the suffering and displacement of the Creek people.

The combination of internal conflict within the Creek Nation and the forceful intervention of the U.S. Federal Government created a perfect storm of tragedy. It led inexorably to the forced removal of the Creek people from their ancestral lands.

Forced Removal: The Trail of Tears for the Creek People

The Treaty of Indian Springs, whether legitimate or not, irrevocably altered the course of Creek history. Its aftermath witnessed the tragic displacement of an entire nation. This forced removal, often referred to as the "Trail of Tears" for the Creek people, stands as a stark reminder of the brutal realities of U.S. expansion and its devastating impact on Native American communities.

The Exodus from the Homeland

The removal of the Creek Nation (Muscogee Nation) was not a singular event. Instead, it was a series of forced migrations that unfolded in the years following the contested treaty. U.S. Army soldiers, along with state militias, rounded up Creek families, often with little to no warning, forcing them to abandon their homes, farms, and ancestral lands.

This violated the sovereignty of the Creek people and disregarded their inherent right to self-determination. They were herded into overcrowded stockades, awaiting their turn to embark on the arduous journey westward.

Hardships and Suffering on the Trail

The conditions during the removal process were deplorable. The Creek people were subjected to extreme weather conditions, inadequate food and water, and rampant disease. Many perished along the way, their graves marking the tragic path of forced migration.

The journey was particularly devastating for the elderly, the sick, and young children, who were especially vulnerable to the harsh elements and disease. Families were often separated, adding to the emotional toll of the displacement. The trauma inflicted during this period left an indelible scar on the Creek people, shaping their collective memory and identity for generations to come.

Establishing New Communities in the West

Upon reaching their designated territories in present-day Oklahoma, the Creek people faced the daunting task of rebuilding their lives and communities. They were forced to adapt to a new environment, with different resources and challenges.

The initial years were marked by hardship and uncertainty, as they struggled to establish farms, build homes, and re-establish their traditional governance structures. Despite the challenges, the Creek people demonstrated remarkable resilience, drawing on their cultural heritage and community bonds to overcome adversity.

The Enduring Impact on Creek Culture and Identity

The forced removal had a profound and lasting impact on Creek culture, society, and identity. The loss of their ancestral lands, sacred sites, and traditional way of life created a deep sense of cultural disruption.

The Creek language, customs, and spiritual beliefs were threatened, as they were forced to assimilate into a new and often hostile environment. Despite these challenges, the Creek people have worked tirelessly to preserve their cultural heritage, passing down their traditions to future generations.

Today, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation stands as a testament to the resilience and determination of its people. They continue to honor their ancestors and maintain their unique cultural identity, even in the face of ongoing challenges.

The "Trail of Tears" serves as a powerful reminder of the injustices inflicted upon Native American communities and the importance of upholding treaty rights and respecting tribal sovereignty.

A Wider Context: The Era of Indian Removal and Its Legacy

The Treaty of Indian Springs, whether legitimate or not, irrevocably altered the course of Creek history. Its aftermath witnessed the tragic displacement of an entire nation. This forced removal, often referred to as the "Trail of Tears" for the Creek people, stands as a stark reminder of a broader, systematic policy of Indian Removal that defined an era in American history.

Understanding the true significance of the Treaty of Indian Springs necessitates situating it within the wider context of the Indian Removal policy. This policy, driven by expansionist desires and racial prejudice, had far-reaching consequences for numerous Native American tribes across the southeastern United States and beyond.

The Indian Removal Act and its Objectives

The Indian Removal Act of 1830, signed into law by President Andrew Jackson, formalized the government’s policy of forcibly relocating Native American tribes from their ancestral lands to territories west of the Mississippi River. The stated goals were ostensibly to protect Native Americans from the perceived negative influences of white settlers and to allow for westward expansion and economic development.

However, the underlying motivations were far more sinister. The relentless demand for land, fueled by the cotton boom and the ideology of Manifest Destiny, drove the relentless pursuit of Native American removal. The government sought to exploit the resources and fertile lands occupied by the Five Civilized Tribes – the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole.

The Cherokee Nation: A Parallel Tragedy

The impact of the Indian Removal policy extended far beyond the Creek Nation. The Cherokee Nation, particularly, experienced a similar, if not more widely known, tragedy. The Cherokee, having made significant strides in adopting European-American customs and establishing a written language and a constitutional government, believed they could coexist peacefully with the United States.

However, their efforts proved futile. The discovery of gold on Cherokee land in Georgia in 1829 intensified calls for their removal. Despite legal challenges and Supreme Court rulings in their favor, the State of Georgia, backed by the federal government, persisted in its efforts to dispossess the Cherokee of their land.

John Ross and Cherokee Resistance

Led by Principal Chief John Ross, the Cherokee Nation mounted a vigorous legal and political resistance to removal. Ross tirelessly advocated for Cherokee rights, appealing to the U.S. government and public opinion. However, their pleas were ultimately ignored. The infamous Trail of Tears, the forced march of the Cherokee to present-day Oklahoma, resulted in the deaths of thousands due to starvation, disease, and exposure.

Georgia’s Role in Advocating for Removal

The State of Georgia played a pivotal role in advocating for Indian Removal. Driven by a relentless desire for land and resources, Georgia officials actively undermined federal treaties with Native American tribes and enacted discriminatory laws designed to pressure them into ceding their lands. Governor George Troup, a staunch advocate for states’ rights and Indian Removal, exemplified this aggressive stance.

Georgia’s defiance of federal authority in the Cherokee case, particularly its disregard for Supreme Court rulings, underscored the deep-seated tensions between state and federal power in the early 19th century. This defiance set a dangerous precedent, demonstrating the willingness of states to disregard federal law in the pursuit of their own interests, particularly when it came to exploiting Native American lands. The actions of Georgia, and similar states, underscored the inherent injustices and moral failings of the Indian Removal policy.

So, while the story of William McIntosh signs the Treaty of Indian Springs isn’t a simple one of heroes and villains, understanding it is vital to grasping the complex history of the Muscogee Creek Nation and the state of Georgia. It’s a difficult legacy, filled with betrayal and loss, but one that continues to shape the landscape and the lives of people today.