A Clash of Worlds in Post-Revolutionary America

The American Revolution created not one nation but two competing visions for North America’s future. While the United States emerged victorious against British rule, another population found itself facing an existential threat. Approximately 100,000 Native Americans living between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River suddenly confronted a new reality where their centuries-old territorial rights were effectively erased by diplomatic agreements made in distant European capitals. The Treaty of Paris in 1783, which formally ended the Revolutionary War, transferred control of vast territories from Britain to the United States without consultation with or consideration for the indigenous peoples who had called these lands home for generations.

This diplomatic arrangement represented a fundamental shift in North American power dynamics. Where British authorities had previously attempted to regulate westward expansion through measures like the Royal Proclamation of 1763—which established boundaries between colonial settlements and Indian territories—the new American government faced no such constraints from their former colonial masters. The victory over Britain unleashed a torrent of westward migration as American settlers, empowered by revolutionary rhetoric about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” interpreted these ideals through the lens of land ownership and expansion.

The Illusion of Security and Sovereignty

For many Native American tribes, the change from British to American control initially appeared to be merely a shift from one European power to another. Most tribal leaders operated under the assumption that their territorial rights would continue to be respected through established diplomatic channels and treaty processes. The concept that their lands could be unilaterally transferred by agreement between foreign powers contradicted their understanding of sovereignty and territorial rights.

The Iroquois Confederacy, known as the Six Nations, stood as a notable exception to this general perception. Having allied with the British during the Revolutionary War, they had suffered devastating military campaigns against their territories, particularly the Sullivan Expedition of 1779 that destroyed dozens of villages and food supplies. This experience provided them with a sobering preview of American expansionist ambitions. Further west, however, tribes including the Shawnee, Creek, Cherokee, and Chickasaw maintained a more optimistic outlook. Shawnee leaders referred to their territories as “our little island,” believing it remained secure against the encroaching tide of American settlement.

The Federal Government’s Contradictory Vision

The newly established federal government under the Constitution presented a surprisingly progressive—at least in theory—approach to Indian affairs. President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and War Secretary Henry Knox developed a policy framework based on two fundamental principles. First, they maintained that Indian policy should be treated as a branch of foreign policy, with tribes recognized as independent nations rather than subjects of individual states. This position reinforced federal authority over interstate matters while acknowledging tribal sovereignty.

Second, these founding fathers explicitly recognized Native Americans as the original inhabitants with legitimate claims to their lands. Knox articulated this position most clearly when he stated that indigenous peoples were “the prior occupants of the soil” and that dispossessing them would constitute “a gross violation of the fundamental laws of nature” and contradict “the distributive justice which is the glory of a nation.” Washington himself declared that establishing a fair Indian policy represented one of his administration’s highest priorities, stating that failure would damage both his personal reputation and “stain the nation.”

This philosophical framework suggested the possibility of a different relationship between the expanding United States and Native nations—one based on mutual recognition of rights and negotiated agreements rather than forced displacement.

Alexander McGillivray: The Creek Diplomat

The complex dynamics of post-revolutionary Indian policy found their most compelling embodiment in Alexander McGillivray, a mixed-race Creek leader who emerged as perhaps the most skilled Native diplomat of his era. Born to a Scottish trader father and a Creek French-Huguenot mother, McGillivray moved fluidly between European and Native American worlds. He served as the principal chief of the Upper Creeks while maintaining business connections with British trading firms.

McGillivray’s diplomatic efforts reflected the sophisticated political maneuvering occurring within Native nations during this transitional period. In 1784, he negotiated the Treaty of Pensacola with Spanish officials, securing trading rights and military protection against American expansion. His subsequent negotiations with the Washington administration led to the Treaty of New York in 1790, which established boundaries between Creek lands and American settlements while guaranteeing Creek sovereignty. These achievements demonstrated that skilled Native leadership could temporarily check American expansion through diplomatic channels.

The Irresistible Tide of Settlement

Despite the federal government’s professed commitment to fair treatment and negotiated agreements, practical realities on the frontier undermined these ideals. The demographic pressure of American migration proved overwhelming. Between 1790 and 1800, the United States population grew from approximately 3.9 million to 5.3 million, with much of this increase pushing westward across the Appalachian Mountains.

State governments, particularly in the southern states where land speculation represented a major economic activity, frequently challenged federal authority regarding Indian affairs. The State of Georgia, for instance, continued to claim jurisdiction over Creek territories despite federal treaties recognizing tribal sovereignty. This tension between state and federal authority created legal ambiguities that settlers exploited to justify encroachment on Native lands.

The economic incentives for westward expansion proved irresistible to many Americans. Land represented not just agricultural opportunity but also speculative wealth. Companies like the Ohio Company and various land speculation syndicates actively promoted settlement in territories nominally protected by treaties with Native nations. This economic pressure created a self-reinforcing cycle: as more settlers moved west, they demanded greater protection from perceived Indian threats, which justified military actions that further displaced Native populations.

The Failure of Good Intentions

The founding generation’s inability to implement their professed principles regarding Native Americans represents one of the early Republic’s most significant failures. These were men who had demonstrated remarkable political creativity in overcoming seemingly insurmountable challenges—defeating the world’s most powerful military, creating a constitutional framework from thirteen sovereign states, and establishing a new nation against tremendous odds.

Yet when confronted with the question of how to reconcile American expansion with Native American rights, they found themselves powerless against demographic and economic forces they had helped unleash. Washington himself acknowledged this failure late in his presidency, expressing frustration that his administration had been unable to prevent frontier violence and land seizures despite his personal commitment to fair treatment.

This failure stemmed from several structural factors. The federal government lacked sufficient administrative capacity to enforce treaties in remote frontier regions. The military resources required to protect Native territories from encroaching settlers would have been prohibitively expensive and politically unpopular. Perhaps most fundamentally, the revolutionary generation’s vision of an expanding “empire of liberty” ultimately proved incompatible with meaningful recognition of Native sovereignty.

Cultural Transformations and Adaptations

The pressure of American expansion accelerated significant cultural changes within Native societies. Many tribes increasingly adopted agricultural practices, animal husbandry, and other elements of European-American culture while maintaining distinct political and social structures. The Cherokee Nation, for instance, developed a written language, established a constitutional government, and created a bilingual newspaper—adaptations intended to demonstrate their “civilization” and thus their right to maintain sovereignty.

These cultural adaptations reflected a strategic calculation that adopting certain European-American practices might secure their position within the expanding United States. The federal government actively encouraged such transformations through programs often described as “civilization efforts,” which provided farming equipment, vocational training, and education to Native communities. While ostensibly benevolent, these programs also served assimilationist goals that ultimately undermined tribal sovereignty.

Simultaneously, religious revitalization movements emerged among various tribes, advocating for rejection of European influences and a return to traditional practices. These movements often contained nativist elements that explicitly opposed accommodation with American settlers and the federal government, creating internal divisions within tribal communities about how best to respond to expansionist pressures.

The Legal Framework of Dispossession

The early Republic witnessed the development of legal doctrines that would ultimately facilitate large-scale Native dispossession. The concept of “right of discovery”—the idea that European nations had acquired sovereignty over North America through exploration and settlement—provided the foundation for denying full sovereignty to Native nations. This doctrine maintained that while indigenous peoples retained rights of occupancy, ultimate title to the land resided with the discovering European power and subsequently with the United States.

The Trade and Intercourse Acts passed between 1790 and 1834 attempted to regulate relations between Native Americans and settlers by establishing federal control over land purchases and trade. These laws theoretically protected Native lands by requiring that all purchases be conducted through federal officials rather than directly with states or individuals. In practice, however, enforcement proved inconsistent, and states frequently challenged federal authority in this arena.

The Marshall Court decisions of the 1820s and 1830s—particularly Johnson v. M’Intosh —established the foundational legal principles governing federal Indian law. These decisions created the contradictory concept of “domestic dependent nations,” acknowledging tribal sovereignty while simultaneously affirming federal supremacy. This legal framework provided the justification for later removal policies while establishing principles that would eventually support tribal self-determination.

The Long Shadow of Broken Promises

The failure to establish a equitable relationship between the United States and Native nations in the early Republic established patterns that would continue throughout American history. The displacement of eastern tribes culminated in the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the subsequent Trail of Tears, which forced the relocation of thousands of Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole people to territories west of the Mississippi River.

This history continues to resonate in contemporary discussions about tribal sovereignty, land rights, and historical justice. Legal battles over treaty rights, natural resource management, and cultural preservation often reference agreements and principles established during the early national period. The federal trust responsibility—the government’s obligation to protect tribal lands and resources—traces its origins to the same philosophical commitments expressed by Washington, Knox, and Jefferson, even as their administration failed to implement them effectively.

The story of Native American relations in the early Republic serves as a powerful reminder that nations are often shaped as much by their failures as their successes. The gap between professed ideals and practical implementation, the tension between central authority and local interests, and the conflict between expansionist ambitions and ethical commitments—all these dynamics evident in the early Republic continue to influence American Indian policy today. Understanding this history provides essential context for contemporary discussions about reconciliation, sovereignty, and the ongoing relationship between the United States and Native nations.

Conclusion: The Legacy of What Might Have Been

The post-revolutionary period represented a critical juncture when different outcomes remained possible. The founding generation’s expressed commitment to fair treatment of Native Americans, however imperfectly implemented, suggested the potential for a relationship based on negotiation and mutual recognition rather than displacement and subjugation. That this alternative path was not realized reflects the powerful forces of demography, economics, and expansionist ideology that ultimately overwhelmed good intentions.

This history challenges simplistic narratives about American expansion as either inevitable triumph or unrelenting tragedy. Instead, it reveals a complex interplay of principles and practicalities, of genuine ethical concerns undermined by structural realities. The founding generation’s failure to reconcile their revolutionary ideals with the reality of westward expansion established patterns that would continue to shape American Indian policy for centuries.

The story of Native Americans in the early Republic is ultimately about the tension between possibility and reality, between what might have been and what was. It reminds us that historical outcomes are never predetermined but emerge from the complex interaction of ideas, interests, and individuals—a lesson with enduring relevance for how nations confront the ethical challenges of expansion, diversity, and justice.