The narrative of early Georgia is inextricably linked to the history of the Georgia Creek Indians. For a significant portion of Georgia’s colonial era, the Creeks held a dominant position, both demographically and geographically. Their population exceeded that of European colonists and enslaved Africans combined, and they controlled a larger expanse of territory than these newcomers. This balance of power, however, was destined to shift.
The 1760s marked a turning point, as the Creek population became a minority within Georgia. The inexorable expansion of the fledgling state in the 19th century led to the gradual cession of their ancestral lands, forever altering their relationship with the region.
The Creek Indians Nation, as it is understood today, represents a relatively recent political development in the broader sweep of history. Prior to the arrival of Europeans on the shores of the Americas, no such unified entity existed. Instead, the landscape of the Southeast was populated by a diverse array of indigenous groups, each with its own distinct identity and social structure.
These Southeastern natives, before European contact, largely organized themselves into centralized mound-building societies. These societies, flourishing centuries before European arrival, left behind lasting testaments to their architectural prowess. Sites such as the Etowah Mounds near Cartersville and the Ocmulgee National Monument in Macon stand as enduring reminders of their sophisticated engineering and communal organization. These impressive earthen structures served as platforms for temples, residences for chiefs, and centers for ceremonial and political life. The mounds represent a tangible link to a complex and vibrant past.
Around the year 1400 A.D., a period of significant transformation swept across the region. The reasons for this upheaval remain a subject of ongoing debate among historians and archaeologists. These once-powerful chiefdoms, for reasons potentially involving environmental stress, internal conflict, or changing trade dynamics, underwent a process of fragmentation and reorganization. They dissolved into smaller, more dispersed chiefdoms, scattering across the fertile river valleys of what is now Georgia, including the Ocmulgee and Chattahoochee. This period marked a significant shift in the political and social landscape of the Southeast.
The arrival of the Spanish in the 16th century brought further devastation to these indigenous populations. The introduction of European diseases, against which the natives had no immunity, triggered catastrophic epidemics. Smallpox, measles, and influenza swept through the region, decimating entire communities. It is estimated that these diseases may have wiped out 90 percent or more of the native population, leaving a profound and lasting impact on their societies. The survivors faced the daunting task of rebuilding their communities and adapting to a radically altered world.
Despite these immense challenges, the Southeastern Indians demonstrated remarkable resilience. By the end of the 17th century, they began a slow but steady process of recovery. They forged new alliances and adapted their social structures to the changing circumstances.
The Creek Indians formed a complex political alliance, uniting native peoples from the Ocmulgee River westward to the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers in present-day Alabama. This alliance brought together groups speaking a variety of languages, including Muskogee, Alabama, and Hitchiti. While linguistic differences existed, a shared desire for peaceful coexistence served as a unifying force. This alliance laid the foundation for the emergence of the Creek Nation as a distinct political entity.
By 1715, English newcomers from South Carolina had begun to refer to these allied peoples as "Creeks." The term originated as shorthand for "Indians living on Ochese Creek" near Macon. However, traders soon broadened its application, using it to refer to virtually any native resident of the Deep South. At this time, the Creek Indians population numbered approximately 10,000.
Creek Relations with the English
By the time General James Oglethorpe and his Georgia colonists arrived in 1733, a complex web of relationships already existed between the Creeks and the English. These interactions, driven by economic and political considerations, shaped the early history of the colony.
Early interactions between the Creeks and colonists primarily revolved around the exchange of goods. The Creeks traded slaves and deerskins for foreign products such as textiles and kettles. This exchange, while seemingly mutually beneficial, laid the groundwork for future conflicts and misunderstandings.
Soon after the establishment of South Carolina in 1670, the Creeks engaged in a lucrative business capturing and selling Florida Indians to their new neighbors. This trade in human beings fueled the expansion of the plantation economy and had devastating consequences for the victims. By 1715, this segment of the trade had largely disappeared due to dwindling supply and shifting demand. Deerskins then emerged as the primary currency of exchange.
By the 1730s, tens of thousands of deerskins were shipped annually from the port of Charleston, South Carolina, to English factories. These skins were transformed into a wide array of products, including breeches, book covers, and gloves, fueling a burgeoning industry.
Savannah, Georgia, later joined Charleston as a leading port in the deerskin trade. In the 1750s, it may have exported more than 60,000 skins annually, highlighting the economic importance of this trade to the colony.
In Creek towns, the profits from the trade brought access to cloth, kettles, guns, and rum. These items became increasingly integrated into Creek culture, easing some of the burdens of daily life. However, the uneven distribution of wealth generated by the trade also sowed the seeds of conflict, creating divisions within Creek society.
The trade also fostered closer cultural ties between natives and newcomers. Some Georgia traders established residences among the Creeks, settling in towns along the Chattahoochee, Coosa, and Tallapoosa rivers.
These traders often married Creek women and had children, some of whom rose to prominence as important Creek leaders. Figures such as Alexander McGillivray and William McIntosh, born of these intercultural unions, played significant roles in shaping Creek policy and negotiating with the United States. They, along with others, encouraged Georgia’s native peoples to embrace the plantation economy that was rapidly expanding across the South.
The presence of African slaves among the Georgia newcomers also led to complex interactions with the Creek Indians. Over the course of the 18th century, hundreds of fugitive slaves sought refuge in Creek towns. These runaway slaves shaped Creek society, notably by encouraging them to oppose slavery.
The Road to Removal
The Creek Indians largely avoided direct involvement in the American Revolution (1775-83), but their lives underwent profound changes in the aftermath of the conflict. The deerskin trade, which had been a cornerstone of their economy, collapsed due to a decline in the white-tailed deer population.
The newly formed state of Georgia increasingly viewed the Creeks not as trading partners but as obstacles to the expansion of plantation slavery. This shift in perspective set the stage for a period of escalating conflict and dispossession.
Under mounting pressure from Georgia, the Creeks were compelled to cede their lands east of the Ocmulgee River in a series of treaties: the Treaties of New York (1790), Fort Wilkinson (1802), and Washington (1805). These treaties marked a significant erosion of Creek sovereignty and territorial control.
The Treaty of New York solidified Alexander McGillivray’s position as a national leader of the Creeks, who were often hampered by a decentralized political system. McGillivray attempted to navigate the complex political landscape and protect Creek interests in the face of encroaching American expansion.
At the same time, the United States initiated a program aimed at transforming Creeks into ranchers and planters. This policy, intended to assimilate the Creeks into American society, met with mixed reactions. While some Creeks willingly adopted the new practices, many others resisted the efforts to change their traditional way of life.
Tensions between these factions escalated to the point of civil war in 1813. U.S. troops and state militias intervened in the conflict, culminating in a decisive battle at Horseshoe Bend in Alabama in March 1814. General Andrew Jackson led a force that inflicted a devastating defeat on the Creeks, killing an estimated 800 warriors.
The Red Stick War, as it became known, officially ended in August 1814 with the Treaty of Fort Jackson. In this agreement, the Creeks were forced to cede a staggering 22 million acres of land, including a vast tract in southern Georgia. This loss of territory further weakened the Creek Nation and paved the way for their eventual removal.
The remaining Creek lands were soon targeted for acquisition. In the Treaty of Indian Springs (1825), Georgia agents resorted to bribery, persuading Creek leader William McIntosh to sign away all remaining Creek territory in the state in exchange for plantation land along the Chattahoochee River. This act of treachery ignited outrage among the Creeks, who had already been angered by McIntosh’s alliance with General Jackson during the Red Stick War. They formally voted to execute McIntosh for his betrayal.
Although the United States initially rejected the fraudulent Treaty of Indian Springs, the Creeks recognized that the Georgia government would not relent in its pursuit of their land.
The following year, Creek representatives signed the Treaty of Washington, ceding their remaining Georgia land. This marked the end of Creek territorial control within the state.
Georgia citizens played a central role in the removal of the 20,000 Creeks who still resided in Alabama. In 1832, the Creeks signed a treaty agreeing to their relocation to Indian Territory (later known as Oklahoma).
Land speculators based in Columbus, Georgia, saw an opportunity to profit from the Creeks’ misfortune. They engaged in the illegal purchase of Creek lands and secretly encouraged hostilities between whites and Indians, hoping to instigate a war that would clear the Southeast of its native inhabitants once and for all.
Their efforts proved successful in a brief conflict between the United States and the Creeks in 1836. At the conclusion of the conflict, U.S. troops, assisted by Georgia and Alabama militia and led by General Winfield Scott, forcibly rounded up Creeks and sent them to Indian Territory.
Many were transported in chains, under the watchful eyes of armed soldiers. The Creeks were forced to begin life anew in the designated lands west of the Mississippi, leaving behind their ancestral homes and enduring a legacy of displacement and loss.