199

On August 3, 1795, Wayne concluded a treaty of peace at Greenville with the chiefs of the Wyandots, Delawares, Shawnees, Miamis, Eel Rivers, Ottawas, Pottawattamies, Chippewas, Weas, Piankishaws, Kickapoos, and Kaskaskias. By the terms of this treaty the Indians ceded to the United States the post at Detroit together with a considerable tract of land in what is now southern Ohio and southeastern Indiana. A tract of land (to measure six miles on

extend three miles back from the water of the lake or strait)* was ceded also to the north of the island on which the post of Michillimackinac stood. Besides the Chippewas ceded De Bois Blanc, or White Wood Island. After the conclusion of the treaty, goods to the amount of $20,000 were distributed among the Indians, who were also to receive $9,500 yearly.† With this treaty and with the surrender of the posts in 1796, the Northwestern Territory became peaceful, quiet, and secure. ‡

Spanish intrigues among the Westerners

While England was endeavoring to foment trouble in the Northwest,

* Moore, The Northwest Under Three Flags, pp. 359-367; Marshall, Life of Washington, vol. ii., pp. 336-340; Roosevelt, vol. iv., p. 90 et seq.

The full proceedings in connection with the negotiation of this treaty are given in Jacob Burnet, Notes of the Early Settlement of the Northwestern Territory, chaps. ix.-xii.; Stillé, Wayne and the Pennsylvania Line, pp. 337–339; Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. iv., p. 95 et seq.; Slocum, The Ohio Country, pp. 120-143; Albach, Annals of the West, p. 657; Harvey, History of the Shawnee Indians, chaps. xviii.xix.; Knapp, Maumee Valley, p. 355; American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. i., pp. 526-529, 547-550, 562-583 (proceedings and text of treaty).

Cooley, Michigan, pp. 117–118.

VOL. IV-14

Spain hoped to attach the West to her dominions. In 1763 Louisiana had been ceded to her by France, and in 1783 Florida had been returned to her by England. Spain denied the validity of the secret clause in the treaty of peace between England and the United States by which it was agreed that, if Florida were returned to Spain, the northern boundary

* Dunn, Indiana, pp. 265-266. King, Ohio, p. 257.

See Winsor, The Western Movement, chaps. xix., xx., xxii.; McLaughlin, Western Posts and British Debts, p. 413.

would be the 31st degree. Spain had seized Natchez during the war and claimed that England had no right to cede the region which was not then in her possession. England replied that, even if the simple seizure of one fort could be regarded as occupation of the whole territory, the ownership was not transferred unless expressly stipulated in the treaty terminating the war. Spain held tenaciously to the navigation of the Mississippi, and, holding both banks for 200 miles from the mouth of the river, was in a position to enforce her claim. She was willing to grant either equal privileges on the river or commercial concessions in South America, but would not grant both favors. Jay's treaty of 1786 had been defeated in the old Congress, and the Westerners, still fearful that their interests might be sacrificed, had openly courted plans whereby a separation from the East might be accomplished. Spain had coveted these rich young communities in the West, and had kept skillful agitators in the region to create sentiment among the people favorable to Spanish interests. Some of the Americans themselves were subsidized, among them James Wilkinson, who was for many years in the pay of the Spanish governor, working up public sentiment in favor of his employer. He had no scruples of con

**

"The opinion seems to have taken such root upon the Mississippi, among the people in general, that scarcely any man arrives from that neighborhood who does not bring the report along with him."- John Adams to James Wilkinson, Febru

science about accepting this Spanish retainer, even after he had attained high rank in the American army."

As has already been related, there was considerable discontent in the West. In November of 1788, at a convention in Kentucky, Wilkinson appeared with his pockets lined with Spanish gold and endeavored to place the community in such a light that Congress would act so rashly as to compel the Kentuckians to appeal to force. But this plan failed and instead of passing a passionate resolution, the Kentuckians merely asked Virginia to grant them a separate government.† Yet even Sevier was opening negotiations with the Spanish authorities, and Robertson seems to have been so well disposed toward Spain that he called the district in which his settlers had established themselves the district of Mero (or Miro), after the governor of New Orleans. Fortunately, both these dangers were averted. Virginia granted Kentucky the desired separation, and in 1790 Tennessee

ary 4, 1798, Adams, Works, vol. viii., p. 593. See also French E. Chadwick, The Relations of the United States and Spain-Diplomacy, p. 35.

*

Winsor, Westward Movement, pp. 356, 363, 369. On Wilkinson's connection with this intrigue see also W. R. Shepherd, Wilkinson and the Beginning of the Spanish Conspiracy, in American Historical Review, vol. ix., p. 490; W. R. Shepherd (ed.), Papers Bearing on James Wilkinson's Relations with Spain, 1788-1789, in American Historical Review, vol. ix., p. 748.

Winsor, Westward Movement, p. 369.

Phelan, History of Tennessee, p. 165; Spears and Clark, History of the Mississippi Valley, p. 366.

was transferred to the National government. In 1792 Kentucky was admitted to the Union, but Tennessee remained under territorial government until her admission to statehood in 1796. The sentiment in favor of foreign annexation then began to disappear.*

Meanwhile on December 21, 1789, the Georgia Legislature had granted large tracts of land to three "Yazoo" companies, known as the South Carolina Company, the Virginia and Tennessee Companies, the grants stretching along the Mississippi from north to south.† Spain claimed part of this region, and Georgia had no clear title. to it, for whatever right the Americans had was derived from England through the Treaty of Paris. But the Georgians did not accept that view, for they held that the region had been a part of their territory under the colonial government before the crown had set it up as part of West Florida, and hence that it was now the duty of the United States to return it to them. The schemes launched at this time collapsed, however, and the dispute did not come to a climax until a decade later. Of the three companies, the Virginia Company was the only one which did not attempt to establish a settlement. The Tennessee

* Winsor, Westward Movement, p. 369; Shaler, Kentucky, chap. viii.

The act is in American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. i., p. 114.

Haskins, The Yazoo Land Companies, in Papers of the American Historical Association, vol. v., p. 396.

201

Company sent settlers into what is now northern Alabama, near the Muscle Shoals, but the settlement was broken up by the Cherokees.* The South Carolina Company, under Dr. James O'Fallon, acting for Wilkinson, entered into negotiations with the Spanish governor at New Orleans and soon announced that a colony of 10,000 men would be planted in the region allotted them under Spanish authority. O'Fallon assured the Kentuckians that the purpose was to found a state independent of Spain and which should join the Union; while Wilkinson declared to the Spanish governor that the whole affair was worked up in the interest of Spain. By this double dealing the projectors hoped to secure immunity from Spanish attack and aid from the Kentuckians, allowing the future to take care of itself. Washington considered this an invasion of the public domain and a violation of the neutrality which we ought to observe toward Spain,‡ and on March 19, 1791, he issued a proclamation in which he said that it was his "earnest desire that those who have incautiously associated themselves with the said James O'Fallon [might] be warned of their dan

* Haskins, Yazoo Land Companies, p. 413. Pickett, Alabama, pp. 408, 410, 443 (ed. 1900); Spears and Clark, History of the Mississippi Valley, pp. 370–371.

See also Jefferson's opinion in Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. v., pp. 165–167.

|| Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., pp. 101-102. See also the instructions to General St. Clair, in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., p. 284.

202

ger," declaring" that all persons violating the treaties and act aforesaid [to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes] be prosecuted with the utmost rigor of the law." This put a quietus on that enterprise, and Georgia repealed the charter.*

Thus frustrated, the Spanish started an intrigue with the Indians. At this time the Creeks, to the number of more than 3,000 warriors, lived near the junction of the Tallapoosa and Coosa rivers, and their habitations stretched from that point to the Georgia line; in the mountains of Georgia and the Carolinas were the Cherokees, with 2,500 warriors; in the southern part of what is now Mississippi were the Choctaws, 4,000 strong; and around the headwaters of the Tombigbee lived the Chickasaws, a warlike tribe, though with only about 250 effective warriors. In the furtherance of her plans, Spain sought to unite all these tribes, though for her present purpose the Creeks were the most important. In carrying out her schemes Spain found a valuable agent in Alexander McGillivray, an influential half-breed, who had been a Tory during the Revolution and who, having lost some of his property, naturally hated the Americans. He was under a large retainer from a trading house in Florida, and, to be still surer of his influence, the govern

*Haskins, Yazoo Land Companies, pp. 398-412. † Bassett, Federalist System, p. 74.

Spears and Clark, History of the Mississippi Valley, p. 363.

ment appointed McGillivray commissioner at a good salary. Later he became involved in double dealing, taking American money as well as Spanish.* In 1784 the Spaniards concluded a treaty with the Creeks guaranteeing them protection if the Indians would not permit Americans to come among them without a Spanish permit, it being agreed also that the Creeks would endeavor to establish permanent peace with the other great tribes.t

The Indians soon beginning to attack the western settlements, the Westerners applied for protection to, the National government. In order to avoid war with Spain, Washington resorted to diplomacy and sent commissioners to the Creeks. Shortly after his return to New York in 1789, however, he learned that General Lincoln, Cyrus Griffin and David Humphreys, who had been deputed to treat with the Creeks, had failed in their negotiations. The commissioners had met McGillivray, with other chiefs and about 2,000 warriors, at Rock Landing, on the frontier of Georgia; but, probably because of his connection with the Spanish, McGillivray abruptly terminated the proceedings and broke off all further

* Winsor, Westward Movement, pp. 329, 346; Pickett, Alabama, pp. 344-346, 385-407 (ed. 1900).

American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 278-279; Phelan, Tennessee, p. 167; Winsor, Westward Movement, p. 329.

Their instructions are in American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. i., pp. 65-68.

negotiations.* Determined to make another effort, however, Washington sent Colonel Marinus Willett, ostensibly on private business, but with a letter of introduction to McGillivray, in which the latter was requested to come to New York for conference with the government officials, with the object of affecting a lasting peace. Willett performed his duty with much dexterity, and McGillivray, who was not loath to put himself in the way of anything of advantage to himself, came to New York with several other chiefs.† There fresh negotiations were commenced which terminated on August 7, 1790, in the establishment of a permanent peace. After being duly confirmed by the Senate, the treaty was publicly ratified in Federal Hall in the presence of a large number of spectators (including many government officials) the day after Congress adjourned. The treaty was read aloud and interpreted clause by clause, the Indians signifying assent after their usual custom. Washington then signed the document and, in token of perpetual friendship, presented to McGillivray a string of beads and a paper of tobacco. The

See the reports in American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. i., p. 68 et seq.; the letters from Humphreys in Sparks, Correspondence of the Revolution, vol. iv., pp. 272-283; White, Historical Collections of Georgia, pp. 158-160. See also Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., pp. 87-88.

For their reception in New York, see Lamb, City of New York, vol. ii., pp. 363-364.

Brooks, Life of Knox, p. 223; White, pp. 160161; Lodge, pp. 88-89. The treaty is in American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. i., pp. 81-82.

203

ceremonies closed ceremonies closed with the Creek song of peace.* The government allowed McGillivray $100,000 for the goods which the Whigs had confiscated,† ceded back certain lands which Georgia had purchased from the Creeks, gave McGillivray full control of the Creek trade, and appointed him a brigadier-general in the army at a salary of $1,200 per year. In return, the Indians agreed to maintain peace.‡ McGillivray pocketed the money, but hardly was he back in Alabama before the old outrages were renewed, continuing for some time. In his message of August 7, 1790, transmitting this treaty to Congress, Washington said:

"While I flatter myself that this treaty will be productive of present peace and prosperity to our Southern frontier, it is to be expected that it will also in its consequences be the means of firmly attaching the Creeks and the neighboring tribes to the interests of the United States.

"At the same time it is to be hoped that it will afford solid grounds of satisfaction to the State of Georgia, as it contains regular, full, and definite relinquishment on the part of the Creek nation of the Oconee land in the utmost extent in which it has been claimed by that State, and thus extinguishes the principal cause of those hostilities from which it has more than once experienced such severe calamities.

"But although the most valuable of the disputed land is included, yet there is a certain claim of Georgia, arising out of the treaty made by that State in November, 1785, of land, to the eastward of a new temporary line from the forks of the Oconee and Oakmulgee, in a southwest direction to the St. Mary's river, which tract of land the Creeks in this city absolutely refused to yield.

This land is reported to be generally barren,

Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 172. Pickett, Alabama, p. 367 (ed. 1900). Winsor, Western Movement, p. 385. Cf. Putnam's Middle Tennessee.