The war with the tribes in the Northwest Territory was very dramatic, with disastrous and humiliating defeats suffered by both sides. Nevertheless, events concerning the Indians in the south, while perhaps less exciting, were as every bit as important to the Washington administration as the war with the Miamis and their allies in the Northwest.

The major war in the South was basically between Georgia and the Creek Nation of Indians. The United States military never made a formal entry into the conflict. While much blood was spilled by both sides, there were never any great military campaigns, heroic bravery, or grand conquests of territory. This is due mostly to the fact that the goals of the United States and the Washington administration were different than they were in the Northwest. Much of the land occupied by the Creek and other southern tribes was not yet desired by the United States, although many of the land hungry people in Georgia wanted it. Washington firmly believed in the Constitutional right of the United States to deal directly and exclusively with the Indians, and was not pleased with the activities of Georgia.

The land in question was occupied, in 1790 by 60,000 to 70,000 Indians. The white and black population in the area numbered nearly 200,000. The four main tribes occupying it were the Creeks, Cherokees, Choctaws, and Chickasaws.267 The Creeks were an informal collection of many different bands of Indians. This group, known collectively as the Creek, or Muskogee Nation or Confederacy encompassed many different customs, histories, and economies, etc.

The Nation existed in two different geographical areas: the Upper Creeks resided "just south of the Cherokees and the Tennessee Country," consisting of twenty five to twenty six towns. The Lower Creeks, consisted twelve towns and twenty four villages, mostly along the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers.268 The Chickasaws had a reputation as fearsome warriors. Such noted people as Sir Jefferey Amherst, John Wesley, and others described the Chickasaws as the fiercest and bravest warriors in the territory.269

During and after the Revolution, the Articles of Confederation granted Congress the sole right to regulate the Indian trade and manage all Indian affairs.270 But the United States was not the only nation to have interests with the Indians. In February, 1784, Spain accepted the Creek Nation as a protectorate.271 In June of 1784 it appointed Alexander McGillivray Commissary of the Creek Nation, salary included.272 Throughout his presidency Washington not only had to deal with the Indian problem with the United States, but with involvement of Spain in Indian affairs as well.

One of the most important reasons why the Creek issue had to be settled had to do with the so-called Yazoo affair. During the formation of the new government, Georgia had sold an immense amount of Indian land to three companies, referred to as Yazoo because of their location along the Yazoo River. The companies made no effort to control the land, they instead appointed the Irishman Dr. James O'Fallon to deal directly with the Indians, and he promptly offered to establish an independent "buffer" nation to Spain. This land, claimed both by Georgia and Spain, was to cause a great measure of trouble for Washington.273

Spain was not the only political entity to give Washington headaches over the Southern Indian question. The state of Georgia, ever desirous of Creek and other tribal lands, constantly operated independently of the interests of the United States. Georgia land grabbing started before the end of the Revolution. This led to its extra-legal 1783 Treaty of Augusta. The Indian representation at this treaty was sparse, and it was in no way a valid treaty, but Georgia used it to take a considerable portion of Indian lands.274

By early 1785, Georgia's illicit activities were causing so much of a problem that the United States decided to send commissioners directly to the Creeks to negotiate a new and binding treaty. Benjamin Hawkins, Andrew Pickens, Joseph Martin, and Lachlan McIntosh were appointed, and they proceeded south. They announced that they would be at Galphington, on the Ogeechee River, on Oct. 24, 1785.275 The commissioners did indeed arrive on time, however, the meeting was so sabotaged by greedy Georgia agents that neither McGillivray nor any Creek officials save two (accompanied by about eighty warriors, representing only two of the hundred Creek towns) actually attended the treaty negotiations. The Georgia agents signed a treaty, invalid on both sides, with the two remaining groups of Indian representatives. This treaty was invalid on the Creek side because the Creek Nation was not truly represented, and it was invalid on the white side because Georgia had no legal right to treat with the Indians.

In November the United States agents proceeded to Hopewell, South Carolina, for a meeting with over nine hundred representatives of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw. While the Georgians again tried to circumvent the United States' involvement, on November 28, 1785, the Treaty of Hopewell was signed. In it the Indians (Creeks excepted) recognized the sovereignty of the United States, the United States proclaimed protection of the tribes, presents were given, and the Indians ceded a portion of their land. To the dismay of the Georgians, the cession was a fairly small one, and Georgia did not acquire much of the land it desired.276 The Cherokees placed great faith in the Hopewell Treaty. McGillivray and the Creeks were not forgotten, however, and in the winter of 1786 Hawkins wrote to McGillivray that he would personally visit him "next fall."277 In November 1786 the Treaty of Shoulderbone was signed. Although the Creeks later denied it, it seemed to agree with the terms of the two former treaties.278

McGillivray himself found no reason to trust the United States or Georgia. After the confusion resulting from the illegal Galphington Treaty (McGillivray had called together a congress of Indian leaders which determined to prepare for war with Georgia) McGillivray suspected that Georgia would soon declare war on the Creeks.279 This did indeed happen. Georgia began to build forts, divided itself in to three military districts, and began to gather soldiers to fight the Creeks. The Creeks also made preparations for war.280

The violence that seemed inevitable came in 1786-1787. McGillivray sent war parties against Georgia interlopers which indirectly aided Georgia's cause, for now it was able to complain of Indian atrocities.281 This kind of frontier violence was exactly what the United States did not want to happen at this time. Georgia was smarting from the attacks of McGillivray's people, and in late summer, 1786 sent the Creeks a message desiring to remove the differences between the two peoples.282 However, McGillivray was victorious in most of the conflicts, with the result that the blood did not stop flowing in 1786.283

This was the situation that George Washington faced as he assumed the presidency, a southern frontier drenched in violence, with Creek warriors fighting to expel land hungry Georgians who were illegally occupying Creek territory. Knox wanted to "civilize" the Indians, and wished for a way to inculcate the love of private property among them.284 Washington felt that a trading system, with federal protection, was the only way to protect Indians from corrupt traders. This idea, which included the establishment of trading "factories" (also called trading houses) in Indian territory, was the only way, the President believed, that the Indians could be saved from extinction.285

Deep in Creek territory lived the one person with a stature equal, in the minds of the Creeks, to Washington. That man was the half-Scotch Creek, Alexander McGillivray. He was the son of a Scottish trader, Lachlan McGillivray, who had been loyal to the British during the Revolution and had married a Creek woman. McGillivray hated Americans in general and Georgians in particular, as Georgia had confiscated his father's property, amounting to more than $100,000. McGillivray had supported the British, but, after the Revolution they had failed to support the Indians in the South, causing him to turn against them and accept Spain as an ally. McGillivray was described as having "the good sense of an American, the shrewdness of a Scotchman, and the cunning of an Indian."286

McGillivray wielded an incredible amount of power among the Creeks. He possessed so much power that he was once described as the "Talleyrand of Alabama."287 Even traders had to apply to McGillivray for licences before he let them trade in his territory.288 Washington himself regarded McGillivray as the "great chief and director" of the Creek Nation.289

McGillivray was hostile to America. Enmeshed in the frontier violence between the Creeks and Georgians, he told a Spanish official that he would soon go to the Lower Indian towns next month "& every american I find in the lower Towns Shall either be drove away or put to Death for Cowardly Murdering Villains as they are."290 In 1789, declaring to Spain that he would indeed travel to meet with the Americans he stated that one of his reasons was because "... we are threatened hard by the Americans with the displeasure of their King Washington...."291 He had earlier commented, "I have always spoken of the disposition to usurp that the Americans have if once they are allowed to establish themselves, and of a truth the Indians have a real reason to complain." He also said that many Indians often called each other "Virginians" as an insult.292 When considering whether or not to go to see the Americans, McGillivray asked the Spanish governor's advice "before I go down amongst these Americans who are a sett of crafty, cunning, republicans...."293

George Walton, the governor of Georgia, told Washington that Georgia could not keep a peace with the Creeks as Washington desired. He also said that Georgia's land thieving reputation came from but a few greedy people in public service.294 However, when, at the request of American commissioners sent to treat with the Creeks, McGillivray ordered a cease fire, the Georgians did not observe it and continued to attack the Creeks.295

Washington not only had difficulties with the Creeks and Georgians, but the Congress from time to time frustrated him. Before Knox was even confirmed as Secretary of War, Washington had drafted a treaty between the United States and the Creeks. Accompanied by Knox, he went to the Senate's chambers, requesting their "advice and consent." Some members of the Senate were offended that Washington sat in John Adams' (the vice-president and president of the Senate) chair, and, as Senator William Maclay reported, there was so much noise coming from outside that all he could make out was that the treaty "was something about Indians, but [I] was not master of one sentence of it." The sections of the treaty were read aloud, with much noise and restlessness coming from the members. Eventually, Gouverneur Morris proposed that the treaty be sent to a committee for study. Washington, Maclay reported, leapt to his feet and shouted "This defeats every purpose of my coming here!" Eventually the treaty was accepted with only a few minor changes.296

One of the problems Washington had to deal with regarding the Creeks was that the relations between the Creeks and Georgia seemed to be in a constant state of flux. Often, just when peace seemed to be in the works, violence would again break out. In June of 1789 Washington received news that the Creeks, over two thousand of them, were ready to treat with Georgia.297 However, McGillivray thought that the United States Congress would act in the interests of Georgia, and if the Creeks refused what the United States commissioners offered, "the whole was to be referred to General Washington, (who is vested with nearly royal Powers,) for his Judgment the result of which would be adopted by Congress." He felt that the designs of Georgia were to grab all the Creek land possible, and take all of its trade. Obviously, there was no way the Creeks would treat under these terms.298

In July 1789 Henry Knox had determined, after studying several relevant papers and all three treaties signed with the Southern Indians, that "the Cause of the War is an utter denial on the part of the Creeks of the validity of the three treaties stated to have been made by them with the State of Georgia." Consequently, if the Creeks refused to enter into a "treaty upon reasonable terms," the United States would send forces south to "protect the frontier."299 Knox had two recommendations to give the president: either a large detachment of troops be sent to Creek territory to force them to stop their attacks, or a group of three commissioners be sent to establish a new treaty between the United States and the Creeks. Even though he blamed the Creeks for causing the war, Knox favored the idea of commissioners. Numerous violations of the treaty of Hopewell by Georgia gave Knox good reason to mistrust that state. Knox, however, thought that due to the nature of the proximity of the Creeks and the Georgians, troops should be permanently stationed along the frontier.300 The motivating cause of the drive to send commissioners rather than a fighting force was that Georgia was openly thwarting the constitutional powers of the United States.

The president also favored the idea of commissioners over force. Perhaps the fact that at the same time a war with the United States and Indians was fermenting in the Northwest gave added impetus to the desire for negotiation. Or perhaps, it was that the United States did not desire the lands that Georgia so desperately wanted. In any event, Washington decided that negotiation was the proper course. In July 1789, Washington reported to James Jackson, a representative from Georgia, that he had been informed by the United States representatives already in Creek territory that the Indian matters were in a "favorable train."301 Knox believed that it was extremely important that the United States embrace the peaceful disposition of the Creeks, and that the three proposed commissioners should be given full powers

to enquire into and decide on all causes of complaint between the citizens of the United States and the Southern Nations and tribes of Indians and to negociate and conclude with them firm treaties of peace, on principles consistent with the national justice and dignity of the United States.302

A plan for the commissioners to conduct the treaty was soon passed by the Congress, and Washington began to select the people he wanted for the job. The need for a treaty was becoming ever more pressing, it seemed, as McGillivray was believed to be forming a league among the four major Indian tribes in the south, possibly aided by the British. McGillivray apparently hoped to separate himself from both the United States and Spain.304

The president made an important statement to the Senate on August 22, 1789. In this statement, he explained the situation in the south and discussed the the validity of the Creek Treaties. Washington then proposed an investigation of the treaties. He said that if the treaties were indeed found to be invalid, as this would be "embarrassing" to Georgia, a new treaty, giving Georgia legal title to the disputed lands would have to be struck.305 It is interesting that the president who proclaimed such a regard for the rights of Indians would not, if it were indeed determined that the treaties were invalid, attempt to remove the violating citizens of Georgia, but would instead try to acquire the stolen land by treaty.

Washington had very explicit instruction for the commissioners. If they discovered that the three treaties were valid, then they were to inform the Creeks that the United States would use force to protect the land. However, if the treaties were determined to be invalid, they should try, but not force, the Creeks to sell the land. The president also told the commissioners to try to convince McGillivray to come over to the side of the United States. "The United States do not want the Creek lands they desire only to be friends and protectors of the Creeks and treat them with humanity and Justice."306

The three commissioners, Benjamin Lincoln, Cyrus Griffin, and David Humphreys set out on their journey immediately, and arrived at Rock Landing in mid September, replacing the current United States representatives. McGillivray, along with several other Creek representatives, led the Creek delegation. Sadly, the commissioners' mission did not succeed. McGillivray and the Creeks rejected the treaty offered by the United States representatives. McGillivray's main objection was that the treaty stipulated that the Creek Nation acknowledge that it was under the protection of the United States. It also declared that the Creeks could hold no treaties with any other nation or state, thus forcing them to abandon their treaty with Spain. McGillivray had always asserted the Creeks were independent. The treaty did not remove any of the causes of the Creeks' discontent, but rather sought to legitimize the lands that Georgia had taken from the Creeks.307 McGillivray blamed Georgian influence for the failure of the treaty negotiations.308 The commissioners were, needless to say, displeased. They asserted that the three treaties were in fact legally binding, and they itemized the destruction the Creeks had caused over the years, and declared that the Creek Nation be deemed "the enemies of the United States." Fortunately, this out and out condemnation of the Creek Indians came from neither the president nor the Congress.309

The reaction from the president was fairly calm. He suspected that the treaty negotiations had failed because of the Spanish connections of McGillivray. The president also warned that if all peaceful means failed, he would resort to military action.310 Washington, in response to a message from the Georgia legislature, expressed regret at the failure of the treaty negotiations, but he also said that he thought that the new government, along with the help of Georgia, could eventually secure a peaceful agreement with the Creeks.311 With the current negotiations a failure, the administration looked towards a new solution to the problem.

The solution came to be the invitation of McGillivray to the capital in New York to personally negotiate a new treaty. Benjamin Hawkins, at this point a senator, proposed the idea to McGillivray in March, 1790. He said he regretted that the treaty negotiations had not succeeded, but he blamed McGillivray and the Creeks for the failure. He suggested, after stating that the United States would not tolerate attacks on Georgia citizens, that to resolve the situation, McGillivray himself had to come to New York to settle all the business between the Creeks and the United States.312

The need for a treaty was accelerated by the everpresent designs of the Spanish on the Southwest. Washington feared that a war with Spain would result if Spain sponsored a new independent state bordering the United States. If Spain decided to protect its territorial claims and forcibly remove United States settlers, a war would logically be the result. After long discussions with several members of his cabinet, Washington issued a proclamation in August 1790 saying that the Georgia land grants to the settlers and land companies in the Cherokee and Choctaw lands were not valid. However, with only an extremely small military force at his disposal, he had no power to enforce his decree, which made the need for a visit from McGillivray, the most powerful Indian leader in the area, all the more pressing.313

Spain was not happy at the idea of McGillivray journeying to see Washington. An important trader, Leslie Panton, who dealt with both the Creeks and Spain, was unsure as to the wisdom of McGillivray's journey to New York, suspecting that, correctly, the United States wanted to reject all the land grants made to Georgia. He believed that the United States wanted that land for itself, saying that the United States' "pretension to Justice and humanity is all a buble and it is obvious to me that McGillivray will find it so before he returns."314

Washington desperately needed a peaceful agreement with McGillivray and the Creeks. The Spanish were not sure that Washington's motivation for holding the Treaty of New York were designed just to keep the peace. Certain Spanish officials thought that the treaty negotiation was a plan by the Americans and the British to get McGillivray to renounce his ties with Spain.315

Once he had decided to journey to the American capitol, McGillivray later said that he agreed to come to the treaty because he felt that if he did not, the United States would attack the Creek lands with such overwhelming force that the Creeks could not hope to emerge victorious.316 The treaty meetings were an unusual spectacle, the most powerful man in the United States holding negotiations with the most powerful man in the Creek Nation (although Knox actually conducted most of the proceedings). With great and grand ceremony, on August 7, 1790, both McGillivray and Washington signed the Treaty of New York. The Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advisor reported:

At 12 o'clock the President of the United States and his suite- general Knox, the commissioner; the clerks of the departments of the secretary of war; colonel M'Gillivray, and the kings, chiefs, and warriors of the Creek nation being assembled, the treaty was read by the secretary of the president of the United States.

The President then addressed colonel M'Gillivray, the kings, chiefs and warriors; he said that he thought the treaty just and equal; and stated the mutual duties of the contracting parties; which address was communicated sentence after sentence, by Mr. Cornell, sworn interpreter, to all of which the Creeks gave an audible assent.

The president then signed the treaty, after which he presented a string of beads as a token of perpetual peace, and a paper of tobacco to smoke in remembrance of it; Mr. M'Gillivray rose, made a short reply to the president, and received the tokens.

This was succeeded by the shake of peace, every one of the Creeks passing this friendly salute with the president; a song of peace, performed by the Creeks, concluded this highly interesting, solemn and dignified transaction....317

Washington believed that the newly signed treaty would truly establish peace. In presenting the treaty to the Senate, Washington commented that the prospects for a lasting peace were good, although a portion of land which was granted to Georgia in the Galphington Treaty of 1785 was not included in the new treaty. This land, however, Washington stated, was barren and not useful, but it was very important to the Creeks, and they were allowed to keep it.321

Even though peace was apparently concluded, trouble was just on the horizon. In August of 1790, Washington reported to the Senate that over five hundred families had settled in Cherokee land protected by the Treaty of Hopewell, and he asked the Senate if they should be removed or if a new treaty should be negotiated with them.322 For the time being, Washington decided that the settlers should leave the Cherokee lands. On August 14, 1790, Washington issued a proclamation enjoining United States citizens to respect Indian lands and treaties.323

Troubles were also brewing on the Creek front. In the fall of 1790, McGillivray complained of a Georgia group calling themselves a "Combined Society of friends" whose schemes, if successful, would "assuredly Compel us again to take up the red hatchet of war against them in defence of our Territory."324 In 1790 the new governor of Georgia, William Blount, prepared a list of Indian depredations against Georgia. He accepted as fact any report, whether it was true or not. He used these depredations, real or imagined, to justify sending out parties of his own to punish Indians. He thirsted for news of Indian attacks, knowing all the while that it only strengthened his cause against the natives.325