The Second Creek War: Interethnic Conflict and Collusion on a Collapsing Frontier

8. Recriminations

297 Despite the fears of an even larger war with Creeks and Seminoles in southern Georgia and Alabama, the late summer and fall of 1836 brought a temporary cessation of armed hostilities—a lull in the eye of the storm. Yet conflict did not end. In the aftermath of fighting between Indians and whites, the whites continued to engage in an intraethnic conflict, arguing constantly among themselves. Revealing once again the economic and political competitiveness that had helped bring on the Indian war, the whites now clashed with each other on issues rising out of the Creek rebellion. The conduct of the Creek removal, the punishment of rebel leaders and warriors, the disposition of the remaining Creek lands, and the assignment of blame for a war all thought disgraceful continued to be topics of hot dispute even after the shooting died down. The debate showed that many Georgians and Alabamians viewed the Creek war and removal as negative experiences, not as triumphs. They knew that something had gone awry. Some felt guilty for the injustices done to the Natives. Many even pitied the Creeks as they marched from their ancient homeland. Most were ashamed of the conduct of the war, knowing they had not performed well. Yet few citizens assumed personal responsibility for the situation. They blamed others for the debacle, or they passed the whole sorry state of affairs off as one of the mysteries of history. They saw the sad dispossession and removal 8. Recriminations recriminations 298 of the Creeks as an unfortunate yet somehow unavoidable episode in the ongoing struggle between “savagery” and “civilization.” They even wrote it all off as the unfathomable will of their God. They could not acknowledge that their economic system repeatedly produced such results. They also could not admit that they were both products and creators of such a system, which had been in operation so long and had become so powerful that it seemed to be an uncontrollable force of nature rather than a mere creation of humankind. Indeed, the system that had been imposing itself on the Creeks since the sixteenth century seemed omnipotent and had become a source of worship for many European Americans, whether they would admit it or not. Still, the fact that so many southerners lamented the course of events and did not seek to glorify the Creek war and removal is surprising. While many historians have detailed the negative impact of the removal era on Native Americans, few if any have studied the impact on whites at the grassroots level where the removals took place. The view implicit in most historical accounts is that a united body of aggressive, remorseless white southerners pushed for removal, were relieved and happy when it happened, and benefited economically as a result. After all, the Indian removals facilitated the expansion of cotton cultivation into the Deep South, and as a consequence, cotton production became not only the South’s leading industry but the cornerstone of the nation’s “market revolution.” Given this situation, one would expect that southerners would have extolled the removals after the fact and even mythologized events like the Second Creek War. But this did not happen. The Creek case reveals that whites were not so united in purpose, not so remorseless , and definitely not all happy to see the Natives go the way they did. And far from dressing up the Creek war, most local observers saw it for what it was: a failure. They did not, however, take the next logical stop and admit that this failure was an indictment of the acquisitive and competitive nature of their entire society and its economic system. Once the smoke of battle cleared in the late summer and early fall of 1836, the citizens of Alabama and Georgia had time to stop and think more about the causes of the stunning Creek rebellion and war. Naturally, they were angry and wanted to punish those responsible recriminations 299 for the costly and humiliating affair. Yet they could not agree who the responsible parties actually were. Two schools of thought arose. Governor Schley and many Georgians simply blamed the rebel warriors and chiefs and wanted to chastise them with executions and prison terms. Governor Clay and the Alabamians, however, seemed more interested in bringing the land speculators and liquor dealers before the bar of justice. When the fighting temporarily ended and the Creek...