1. The previous Saturday was 23 July.

2. The letters from James Seagrove and Benjamin Hawkins have not been identified.

3. The commissioners wrote McHenry from Colerain, Ga., on 1 July that the Creek Indians had come to the treaty determined “not to part with any of their lands” because they viewed the conduct of Georgia officials “as inimical to them; they complain of unfairness in all their intercourse with them; of the recent murders and promise to punish the murderers, as being of a piece with former conduct. …

“Finding that the expectations of the commissioners of Georgia were at an end, we entered on the other objects of our mission. …

“We find, in the present temper of the citizens of this country, that it is indispensably necessary, that the posts and garrisons should be out of the jurisdiction of the State, and solely under that of the United States. Without obtaining this, we saw no prospect of peace on the frontiers; and the jealousy of the Creeks, is all alive on the least mention of an acquisition of land from them. … Since the signing of the treaty, several of the chiefs have urged that the President should cause the line to be run, as soon as possible, and make choice of the places for the posts.” The commissioners promised a response “from the President in four months.”

The Indians also wanted “the advice of the President” on punishment for those who had murdered Indians.

“The line with Spain, we explained fully, and they acquiesced; yet some further explanations will be necessary, to remove the jealousy attached to every act, relative to their boundary. They have asked that this explanation may be sent from the President, with the plan of trade; and that, after he has seen what is done here, that he will have the whole explained in their land.

“We have preferred, instead of an increase of the annuity, as contemplated in our instructions, to give the sum mentioned in the treaty. The situation of the chiefs required some attention in this way; yet they were desireous, that we, during the negotiation, should keep every thing of this sort out of view, until they had fully comprehended us. …

“When we mentioned the sum, the chiefs expressed themselves satisfied. We had another motive in this business for satisfying the Indians with the small sum contemplated in the treaty. We were not certain that the chiefs can restore all the property taken from the citizens, according to the stipulations in the treaty, and eventually it may be deemed advisable, in the General Government, to pay up the deficiency, rather than incur the resentment of the Creeks, which they would do, by insisting on a cession of lands” (ASP description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , Indian Affairs, 1:610–11). For the treaty, see ASP description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , Indian Affairs, 1:586–87; see also Pound, Benjamin Hawkins, description begins Merritt B. Pound. Benjamin Hawkins—Indian Agent. Athens, Ga., 1951. description ends 81–98.

The protest of the Georgia commissioners, dated 28 June at Colerain, specified seven complaints, primarily onerous rules for the conduct of treaty negotiations and procedures that infringed “civil and actual jurisdictional rights of the State.” The fifth item protested “any cession of land within the territorial limits of the State of Georgia, by the Creek Indians, to the United States, whether for the purposes of posts, trading houses, or otherwise, without the consent of the State of Georgia, as contrary to the eighth section of the first article of the United States’ constitution. …” The final item protested “the payment, or liability of payment, of any share of the enormous and unnecessary expense attending the present treaty, by the State of Georgia; which, so far from being conducted in a fair, open, and honorable manner, the answer of the Indians, one party thereunto, if so it can be called, has been dictated to them in secret council, by undue influence, and cannot be considered their answer; and for that the State of Georgia has not had a fair and open opportunity to contract for the lands.” If reports were true that the Indians had come with instructions not to cede land, then the treaty “is a fraud on the State, and a trick, unworthy the dignity and honor of the United States, transacted through their Superintendent, to fling one-half of the expense of a treaty, to serve their own purposes, on an individual State, which would possibly reap no benefit thereby” (ASP description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , Indian Affairs, 1:613–14).

4. GW replied to McHenry from Mount Vernon on 29 July: “Your letter of the 25th instant, enclosing the Treaty with the Creek Indians, and other Papers relative thereto, has been received.

“The Papers are returned, & due consideration, it is expected, will be given them; and a report thereof made.

Four months (the time allowed by the above Treaty; for running the boundary line between that Nation and the United States) seems, under any circumstances, to be hardly sufficient to arrange matters for such a Work; but if it is to be done under the Authority of the Treaty newly entered into, and the Senate are to have an Agency in the appointment of the Surveyor &ca—The Commissioners (on the part of the United States) have agreed to a measure, the execution of which is impracticable; as there is an interval of more than five Months between the date of the Treaty and meeting of the Senate; consequently, no ratification of it in that period; nor appointments, if the advice & consent of the Senate to them, be necesary, can be obtained without convening that body.

“Conformably to the Treaty of New York, with the Creeks, a Mr Ellicot was empowered to run the line; but whether any person on behalf of the United States was commissioned to see it done, or whether the appointment of Mr Ellicott was made with, or without the participation of the Senate, my memory does not enable me to pronounce. Be this however as it may, the Constitution & Laws must govern in this case” (LS [retained copy], DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW). GW confused time allowed in the treaty for running a boundary line with the promise given the chiefs to hear a response on the subject in four months (see n.3 above). For the appointment of Joseph and Andrew Ellicott to run the boundary line described in Article IV of the 1790 Treaty of New York, see Tobias Lear to Henry Knox, 1 Sept. 1791, and n.2; see also Kappler, Indian Treaties, description begins Charles J. Kappler, ed. Indian Affairs. Laws and Treaties. 5 vols. Washington, D.C., 1903–41. description ends 2:25–29. For McHenry’s reply, see his first letter to GW on 3 Aug.; see also McHenry’s second letter to GW on that date.