Treaty of Cusseta (Treaty of Washington) with the Creeks, 1832
In 1832 the Creeks ceded all land east of the Mississippi; the treaty guaranteed their western country, cited by the Supreme Court in 2020.
- Signed
- March 24, 1832
- Senate
- Ratified
- Land given up
- about 5.4 million acres
- Promises
- 1 of 1 broken or only partly kept
What happened
What happened
On March 24, 1832, Lewis Cass, authorized by the President, signed a treaty at Washington City with the Creek tribe. In Article 1 the Creeks ceded "all their land, East of the Mississippi river." The text gives no acreage.
The United States agreed to survey the land and let ninety principal chiefs each select a section, and every other head of a Creek family a half section. These tracts were reserved from sale for five years, and those who stayed would then get patents in fee simple. Other articles added an annuity of $12,000 for five years and then $10,000 for fifteen years. They also gave $100,000 to pay Creek debts and relieve their "present distressed condition," in full payment for improvements. Article 12 said the United States was "desirous that the Creeks should remove to the country west of the Mississippi," would pay removal costs and a year's subsistence, but would not compel any Creek to emigrate.
In Article 14 the United States guaranteed the Creek country west of the Mississippi. It said "nor shall any State or Territory ever have a right to pass laws for the government of such Indians." In McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), the Supreme Court cited this treaty. Its summary says "Congress has since broken more than a few promises to the Tribe. Nevertheless, the Creek Reservation persists today."
The Statutes at Large record a proclamation on April 4, 1832.
What was promised, and what happened
- Partly kept
The Creek country west of the Mississippi would be guaranteed, free of state or territorial law. (Art. 14)
Congress has since broken more than a few promises to the Tribe. Nevertheless, the Creek Reservation persists today.
supremecourt.gov
Good to know. The 2020 Supreme Court case cited this treaty, but its holding concerned the Major Crimes Act and the Creek Reservation.
Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error
What the sources say, and how this was checked
Well supported by the sources below.
The Creek tribe of Indians cede to the United States all their land, East of the Mississippi river.
Tribal Treaties Database (OSU)shall not be construed so as to compel any Creek Indian to emigrate
Tribal Treaties Database (OSU)Nevertheless, the Creek Reservation persists today.
McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) (Supreme Court)
Research notes. The treaty page does not describe how the negotiation went. McGirt's holding concerns the Major Crimes Act and the Creek Reservation.
What the treaty did to the land
About 5.4 million acres given up. Each shape is a numbered area in the federal government’s 1899 record of land cessions.
ceded to the United Statesabout 5.4 million acres
Land of the Creek in Alabama, ceded 1832 (area 172)
Ceded by the Creek in the 1832 Treaty of Cusseta, giving up all their land east of the Mississippi, in Alabama.
What happened next
Everything the record holds about this land and this treaty, in order: what earlier agreements said, what this one did, and what the United States, the courts and the nations did afterwards.
- 1832
This treaty
About 5.4 million acres ceded to the United States by the Creek
In 1832 the Creeks ceded all land east of the Mississippi; the treaty guaranteed their western country, cited by the Supreme Court in 2020.
- 1898
Promise broken
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020): the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation was never disestablished
The Court held in 2020 that Congress never disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation, so it remains Indian country for the Major Crimes Act.
- 2017
In court
Murphy v. Royal
The Tenth Circuit held Congress never disestablished the Creek Reservation, so Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to try Patrick Murphy for murder.
- 2020
In court
McGirt v. Oklahoma
Land promised to the Creek Nation by treaty remains a reservation, so Oklahoma could not prosecute a tribal member there.
- 2020
In court
Sharp v. Murphy
On July 9, 2020 the Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit in Sharp v. Murphy in one paragraph, for the reasons given in McGirt.
- 2022
In court
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
In 2022 the Supreme Court held that Oklahoma may prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country, alongside the federal government.
The law behind it
The legal ideas behind the decisions, and related records without a date. Court cases and laws with a date are in what happened next, above.
Legal doctrine
canons of construction
Courts read ambiguous treaties in favor of tribes and as the Indians would have understood them, rules the Supreme Court has repeated for more than a century.
Legal doctrine
criminal jurisdiction
Who may prosecute a crime in Indian country depends on who the offender and victim are and where it happened.
Legal doctrine
diminishment
Only Congress can shrink a reservation, and courts require a clear statement; Solem, Hagen and Parker show how that test works.
Legal doctrine
disestablishment
Disestablishment means Congress ended a reservation entirely; courts require clear intent from Congress, and McGirt (2020) held the Creek Reservation was never disestablished.
Legal doctrine
indian country
Federal law defines 'Indian country' as reservations, dependent Indian communities and Indian allotments; the definition decides which government's laws apply.
Legal doctrine
preemption
Federal law displaces state law in Indian country when state action conflicts with federal and tribal interests, under White Mountain Apache v. Bracker (1980).
Legal doctrine
state jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has swung between shielding reservations from state law in Worcester and Williams v. Lee, and allowing state prosecutions in Castro-Huerta.
Who is doing the work today
The nations connected to this treaty come first, then groups returning land and defending treaty rights. Support goes directly to them.
Who is doing the work
This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:
- Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town
- Kialegee Tribal Town
- Muscogee (Creek) Nation
- Poarch Band of Creek Indians
- Thlopthlocco Tribal Town
Native legal and land defense, nationally
- Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Native-led Litigation and legal advocacy for tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, land and resources Give on their site Website
- NDN Collective (LANDBACK Campaign) Native-led LANDBACK campaign (launched 2020; Mount Rushmore closure and return of Black Hills public lands), Indigenous… Give on their site Website
- Indian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) Native-led Land recovery and control by tribes and individual Indian landowners Website
- Decolonizing Wealth Project (Indigenous Earth Fund; California Tribal Land Return) Native-led Reparative philanthropy Give on their site Website
Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.
Sources
Sources
- digitreaties.org/treaties/treaty/124047004reference work
Research notes
Wikipedia (pointer): negotiated at Cusseta then signed in Washington; ~$350,000 paid.
Shapes are approximate and are not legal descriptions of land, title or jurisdiction.