American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies in the Founding of the Republic Paperback – October 14, 2008

I highly recommend this book.
Ellis gives us a refreshingly new and comprehensive view of the early U.S. Indian policy formulated primarily by Knox and then Washington, leaving the dirty work to Jefferson to make legal the secret articles of the Treaty of 1790 . I think Jefferson resented this and reversed course later. Ellis points out this was strictly a "top down" policy based on a sincere humanitarian treatment of the Indians but it just didnt stick with the common man on the frontier.The country was not ready for "top down" policies.
McGillivray, the Creek Chief and negociator, demanded recognition as a nation and the integrity of its borders and both Washington and Knox wholeheartedly agreed with this. This was a tremendous coup for the Creeks.
One of the key features of this treaty is that the US will provide U.S. troops to defend the integrity of the Creek Borders against white intruders mainly from Georgia, the arch enemy of the Creeks. This is unprecedented. Of course, the Georgians were furious.

I have read a dozen accounts of the Treaty of 1790 with the Creek Indians but Ellis rolls this out in the best fashion I have seen.

McGillivray is a highly controversial figure in Creek history but Ellis sizes him up properly and for the most part is very complimentary. He dedicates more pages to this subject (about 20) than most writers who specialize in Creek History. Ellis sees this from the view point of Knox and Washington which is missed by those who write from a "Southern" viewpoint. When this treaty failed and McGillivray died 3 years later, the game was over. When the literate, politically savvy Secretary of State and Ambassador at Large McGillivray dies,,, there was never another person to fill his shoes. His absence created political chaos.This widely opens the door to the US agent of Indian Affairs Benjamin Hawkins with the "civilization" plan. In short, this fails.

Dr Greg Waselkov has written the best piece ever on the next turning point in Creek History which was the massacre at Fort Mims. see (A Conquering Spirit) After McGillivray died the Creek Nation's political power crumbled quickly and then came the massacre of Fort Mims by the Redstick Movement which was the final blow, ironically co-led by a nephew of McGillivray, William Weatherford. Waselkov uses the term "Conquering Spirit" referring to the Redstick attack on Fort Mims. Bejamin Hawkins commented there was a "New Conquering Spirit" among a small group of very unhappy Creeks who became known as Redsticks. They were fed up with the invaders. This pent up emotion erupted like a volcano at Fort Mims. There is much controversy still over why this happened. Dr Waselkov covers this well. Once the massacre of Fort Mims occurred it brought disaster to the Creeks and a war it could not win. The military and economic power of the southern US in 1813 had much improved over 1790. The Creek civil war and the massacre at Fort Mims instantly drew military power from Mississippi, Tennessee, And Ga, The only escape route was Spanish Florida and that is where many Redsticks fled to.

The tide of white settlers on the borders of Ga and Tn was more menacing and powerful than any Army that the US could assemble and there is ample proof of this. Even Washington wrote that only a "Chinese wall" could stop these invaders. According to Ellis a "500 mile arc" had to be defended to stop this invasion of white frontier settlers. If you examine the maps and geography he is correct. Many are offended with the idea that this was inevitable. It is not PC. It somehow denigrates the culture. Writers such as Saunt say that people like McGillivray who were Mestizo corrupted the culture unfairly. He speaks of the "loss of male identity" leading to the attack on Fort Mims. He lays blame on McGillivray and his ilk for the loss of culture, although Ellis states that McGillivay does a very good job with the Treaty protecting the Creek Nation and gaining the status of a "nation".The great Washington personally endorses what McGillivray is doing and that is not a small thing for Washington nor a small compliment to McGillivray. Washington was used to getting his way and rarely lost. Washington called McGillivray a "friend" after seeing his obituary and that is a huge compliment considering the source.

The story of the external pressures along this "Chinese Wall" by land hungry whites is only part of the story. There is decay from within. Saunt clearly points the way here to the evils within the Nation (The New Order) however he oversimplifies . He points to the many slave holding Mestizos who adopt a White Plantation culture with cattle and slaves, creating a very uneven distribution of wealth.(Yes they discovered Capitalism) A large factor in the Creek civil war was economic division. He demonizes both McGillivray and Hawkins for corrupting Creek culture which is not "fair and balanced" to use the Fox term.Both of these men left a large body of work in the form of letters and journals. If one studies them, most of their efforts were to encourage and protect the integrity of the Creek Nation and its borders. True, the Treaty of New York failed and the Civilization plan failed, but one has to examine why.

Ellis makes this point emphatically: maybe Washington and Knox on the one side and McGillivray on the other side both failed to make the treaty of New York work ,however they were the best and most able people available to do the job.The Yazooists were stopped at least temporarily and McGillivray writes about that with pride.

Its ironic we are now trying to build a "Chinese Wall" on the Mexican border and it doesnt work. When the tide rises there is no stopping it.It takes political will not bricks.

Washington and Knox, with very good intentions, simply did not have the power to stop this flow of people and the will power down the political food chain was not there. The greed for land in Ga was almost beyond belief. The Yazoo land frauds were incredibly perpetrated by the State of Georgia!

I could not put this book down because I became captured by it's presentation of this era of our country's founding. It covers the time from the Declaration of Independence to the Louisiana Purchase, a period almost unknown to most folks today, and covers the period in a way that for me at least put so many things regarding our founding in perspective. I strongly endorse this book as one of the ones that every American shoud read to understand where we came from.

The author is the Pulitzer prize winning history professor who has also written Founding Brothers and American Sphinx, among others. The book gave me a better understanding of some of the issues and personalities involved in the creation of our country. It makes the subject come alive in a way that was more interesting than a dry history book.

This work is especially descriptive of the apparently inescapable consequences of creating a union of states with disparate values, as well a a mutual desire to expand geographically, independent of the havoc created on the indigenous peoples.

While many of the "founding fathers" disapproved of slavery since this institution was fundamentally in disagreement with the principles upon which the war for independence was based, this did not deter them from compromising these principles in the need to form the initial union of 13 states. As is well known, this compromise, while apparently unavoidable at the time, ultimately resulted in a terrible civil war many years later, the aftermath of which is still apparent in many respects.

What was especially interesting to me was this book's description of the initial efforts of George Washington and others in the government to attempt to effect some sort of respect for the rights of the native Indian tribes to maintain ownership over there own land. In spite of these attempts by the early government leaders the uncontrollable push westward by white settlers eventually resulted in the near-holocaust destruction of most of the Indians. This hypocrisy remains a historical stain on our nation.

Another interesting point brought out by the author was the changing political views of the early government leaders, many of whom reversed there politics to suit the situation. Thomas Jefferson, for example, who claimed to be an anti-Federalist, probably assumed the greatest federal authority in our history when he authorized the purchase of the vast Louisiana Territory, an obvious coup of immeasurable importance.

Ellis chooses a half dozen seminal moments in the period from 1776-1803. He offers details about the winter at Valley Forge, the fallible but well-intentioned men who forged a new government, the treaty with the Creek Indians that was compromised before the ink was barely dry, the importance of the Louisiana Purchase. Although most of the events rang a distant bell, Ellis's analysis made them more relevant, and revealed, at the same time, some of the flaws that haunt us even today. A first-rate, well-documented account.