In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

37 Chapter Two settling boundaries and negotiating access As a result of competing claims by state, federal, and indigenous interests, a shifting maze of boundary lines made figuring out whose side one was on a tricky proposition. Once boundaries were agreed upon in treaty conventions and the various documents delivered to each party, there still remained the problem of how to make the newly determined lines legible to the people who lived on the southern frontiers. ‘‘Marking the land’’ was not just an expression describing the process of surveying tracts; it literally meant marking the posts, trees, and rocks that lined the boundaries and paths between the Americans and the Creeks. The hope was that a tree with the letters ‘‘cn’’ on one side and ‘‘us’’ on the other would be unmistakable to anyone who might encounter it. The Creeks also used their own symbols, like red-painted sticks and mutilated livestock, to warn squatters of their trespass and travelers of their peril. These informal markers and competing land claims augmented confusion and misunderstanding between the inhabitants of the southern borderlands. In an effort to prevent future doubts about the boundaries that separated them, most treaties of this era included a clause providing for a certain number of state and Indian leaders to attend the running of lines. Samuel Elbert, Georgia governor over 1785–1786, assured the ‘‘Kings, Head Men and Warriors of the Creek Nation’’ that he and his citizens wanted to ‘‘keep the path open and straight between our two Countries.’’ He promised that the Augusta traders would ‘‘send as many goods to your Nation as you stand in 38 boundaries and access need of,’’ but insisted that the new boundaries be delineated, and not just on paper. His speech is worth quoting at length: When our Men were considering your talk, they found that paper alone, was not sufficient to mark the Line on, between us to prevent bad people from going over it, and therefore to convince you of their sincerity and good intentions, they directed me to chuse three beloved men on our part and to request that you will chuse beloved Men on your part, to meet on the very ground and these hold a talk together and set up posts and mark trees and stones and drink out of the waters that lay on the Line which you shall agree upon to be the boundary between you and us, and when this is done, no Land on your side of that Line shall be touched by our people on any pretence whatever, and if any should have been marked or the trees blazed, it shall go for nothing and those that did it, if we can find them out shall be made examples of.∞ Elbert insisted that the mutual respect of borders between the Creeks and Americans depended upon a collaborative experience of the land itself, to ‘‘meet on the very ground,’’ ‘‘mark trees and stones,’’ ‘‘drink out of the waters,’’ emphasizing the need for Creek delegates to travel with surveyors and authorize the lines to be run according to agreement. This experiential approach to mapping and surveying was characteristic of Creek conceptualizations of space, in which knowing the land was paramount to representing it pictorially or politically, although it is unclear whether Elbert intended to honor Creek practice or accidentally converged with it.≤ With the creation of the Mississippi Territory (1798) and the massive addition of the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the drive to establish the exact boundaries of the new American states and connect their capitals in a network of roads, rivers, and ports became an engine for marking the land in accordance with the marked papers and maps that purported to represent it. The difficulty of such efforts was exemplified in the Lewis and Clark expedition and came into sharp relief in other parts of the United States as well.≥ Like Lewis and Clark, southern surveyors were heavily reliant on local Native knowledge of landscape, watercourses, and indigenous affiliations. In fact, most treaties signed in this era contained a specific provision ensuring that Indian leaders would supply a certain number of authorized individuals to assist in the expeditions to ‘‘run the lines.’’∂ For decades, Creek leaders had alternately accepted and refused treaty stipulations that required them to furnish guides, guards, and supplies to surveying parties charged with demarcating the shifting borders of the region.∑ Despite a general sense that [3.145.36.10] Project MUSE (2024...

Share