The Creek confederacy, or "league of the Muscogulgee" was a purely
political organization connecting the various and disparate elements,
which composed it, for common action against external aggression. It
had no direct influence on the _social_ organization of the tribes,
and the most appropriate term for this, and other Indian confederacies
as well, is that of war-confederacy, war-league or symmachy. In Creek
the Maskoki confederacy is called ísti Maskóki imitihalátka.
To call this _loose assemblage_ of towns and tribes a military
democracy, in the sense that the majority of the votes decided a
question brought before the people in a manner that was binding for
the citizens, is entirely wrong and misleading, for Indians regard
their actions subject to their own decisions only, or, at the utmost,
to those of their individual _gens_. Every Creek town or individual
could go on the warpath or stay at home, in spite of any wish or
decree issued by the chiefs or assembled warriors. The young warriors,
anxious to obtain fame and war-titles, joined the war-parties on the
call of a leader. In questions of war unanimity was seldom attained in
the council of a town, much less in the whole nation; "it is not
recollected by the oldest man, that more than one-half of the nation
went to war at the same time or 'took the war-talk.'"
"When the míko and his councillors are of opinion that the town has
been injured, the Great Warrior lifts the war-hatchet, átăsi,
against the offending nation. But as soon as it is taken up, the míko
and his council may interpose, and by their prudent counsels stop it,
and proceed to adjust the misunderstanding by negotiation. If the
Great Warrior persists and 'goes out,' he is followed by all who are
for war."
These words, quoted from the "Sketch" of the United States agent, B.
Hawkins, plainly show, that the _initiative_ for war rested with the
civil authority, and not with the military. But it is possible that
Hawkins speaks of white or peace-towns only, and not of the red towns
(p. 72). He continues as follows:
"Peace is always determined on and concluded by the míko and
councillors, and peace-talks are always addressed to the cabin of the
míko. In some cases, where the resentment of the warriors has run
high, the míko and council have been much embarrassed."
All this proves that every town had the privilege to begin warfare for
itself, independent of the confederacy, provided that the civil
government consented to the undertaking. This fact plainly shows the
perfect independence of the Indian tribe from the war-confederacy, and
forms a striking contrast to our ideas of a centralized state power.
In some instances the Creek towns left their defensive position to act
on the offensive principle, but they were not sustained then by the
Maskoki confederacy.
The chief of the confederacy had to advise only, and not to command;
he was of influence only when endowed with superior talent and
political ability. The chief and principal warriors had annual
meetings in the public square of some central town, on public affairs;
they drank ássi, exchanged tobacco, and then proceeded to debate. Time
and place of these conventions were fixed by a chief, and the space of
time between warning and that of assembly was called "broken days."
Major C. Swan, after whose report this passage is quoted (Schoolcraft
V, 279) states that the title of the chief of the confederacy was the
_great beloved man_, while Milfort, who was himself invested with the
charge of great warrior of the nation, styles him "Le Tastanégy ou
grand chef de guerre," adding, however, that in his time he was the
highest authority in _civil and military_ affairs (Mémoire, Note to p.
237). The English, French and Spaniards frequently called him the
_Emperor_ of the Upper and Lower Creeks, a term which is not entirely
misapplied when taken in its original sense of "military commander,"
the _imperator_ of the Romans.
At a later period the meeting of the confederacy usually took place at
Tukabatchi, which had become the largest community. From the above it
results, however, that the Creeks had no _capital_ town in the sense
as we use this term. Col. B. Hawkins, who attempted to introduce some
unity among the towns for the purpose of facilitating the transaction
of business of the nation, and their intercourse with the United
States Government, proposed various measures, as the classing of the
towns into nine districts; these were adopted at Tukabatchi by the
chiefs of the nation, on November 27th, 1799.[107]
[Footnote 107: Cf. his Sketch, pp. 51. 52. 67. 68.]
The small degree of respect which the Creek towns paid to
international treaties (sitimfátchita) or other solemn engagements
made with the whites, as sales of territory, etc., is another proof
for the looseness of the "powerful Creek confederacy." After giving a
list of six influential headmen of different towns, Major C. Swan
declares that a treaty made with these chiefs would probably be
communicated to all the people of the country, and be believed and
relied upon (Schoolcraft V, 263). Subsequent events have shown this to
be founded on a misapprehension of the Indian character, which is that
of the most outspoken individuality.
Major C. Swan, who only traveled through the country to leave it
again, makes the following interesting statement concerning the
political and social status of the disparate tribes composing the
Creek confederacy (1791; in Schoolcraft V, 259. 260):
"Their numbers have increased faster by the acquisition of foreign
subjects than by the increase of the original stock. It appears long
to have been a maxim of their policy to give equal liberty and
protection to tribes conquered by themselves, as well as to those
vanquished by others, although many individuals taken in war are
slaves among them, and their children are called of the slave race,
and cannot arrive to much honorary distinction in the country, on that
account."