Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights
All treaties and agreements

Treaty

Creeks at Fort Gibson, Arkansas River (1833)

At Fort Gibson in 1833 the Creeks and Cherokees settled their boundary, and the treaty fixed a Creek country west of the Mississippi.

Signed
February 14, 1833
Senate
Ratified
Promises
1 of 1 broken or only partly kept
The land in this treaty’s record. Open on the map

What happened

On February 14, 1833, commissioners Montfort Stokes, Henry L. Ellsworth and John F. Schermerhorn signed an agreement at Fort Gibson for the United States. The other parties were the chiefs and head men of the Muskogee, or Creek, nation. The preamble explains the trouble. The 1826 treaty had provided for a country west of the Mississippi, and Creek delegates picked land along the Verdigris, Arkansas and Canadian rivers. But a 1828 Cherokee treaty assigned the Cherokees land that included part of it. Cherokees then settled on land the Creeks claimed, and the two nations appealed to the President.

The commissioners heard both sides in council and fixed boundary lines "acknowledged, in open council, this day, to be mutually satisfactory to both nations." Article 2 described the Creek country by rivers and survey lines. Article 3 promised a patent in fee simple whenever the treaty was ratified. Article 4 made the land the property of the whole Creek nation, including those still east of the Mississippi, and located the Seminoles on part of it.

Improvements the Creeks had to leave because of the new line would be valued and paid for. The United States also agreed to provide $1,000 a year for education, blacksmiths and mills. Article 8 said the new country replaced the one intended under the 1826 treaty.

In McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), the Supreme Court said this 1833 treaty "fixed borders for a 'permanent home to the whole Creek Nation of Indians.'" It held that the reservation persists.

What was promised, and what happened

  • Partly kept

    A patent in fee simple for the assigned Creek country, kept as long as the nation exists and occupies it. (Art. 3)

    Congress has since broken more than a few promises to the Tribe. Nevertheless, the Creek Reservation persists today. supremecourt.gov

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.

  1. a fair and reasonable price paid for the same by the United StatesTribal Treaties Database (OSU)
  2. acknowledged, in open council, this day, to be mutually satisfactory to both nationsTribal Treaties Database (OSU)
  3. An 1833 Treaty fixed borders for a “permanent home to the whole Creek Nation of Indians,”McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) (Supreme Court)

Research notes. The treaty gives no acreage or price. McGirt is cited from the Court's syllabus.

What the treaty did to the land

Each shape is a numbered area in the federal government’s 1899 record of land cessions.

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.

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.

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Sources

  1. treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-creeks-1833-0388reference work
    Feb. 14, 1833. | 7 Stat., 417. / scan: 388 TREATY WITH THE CREEKS, 1833.

Shapes are approximate and are not legal descriptions of land, title or jurisdiction.