According to James L. Hill, Creek Internationalism in an Age of Revolution “navigates the overlapping concerns of diplomacy, trade, sovereignty, and autonomy at the heart of affairs in Creek Country during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries” (4). Hill shows that sovereignty remained the central issue for the Creek. However, it was not conflicting perceptions of sovereignty that doomed Creek efforts to establish themselves as an international power. Hill identifies a lack of any clear notion of autonomy among the Creek that prevented their becoming a united entity as they sought recognition from European powers—specifically, Britain and Spain. This reality highlights the continued relevance of a question long posed by historians: Who spoke for whom when it came to Indigenous peoples’ relations with European powers?

Key to Hill’s study is his differentiation between the principal communities (talwa) and the satellite communities (talofa) and these community...

You do not currently have access to this content.