Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights
All treaties and agreements

SoutheastTreaty

Reconstruction Treaty with the Creeks, 1866

In 1866, after the Creeks' Confederate treaty, the Creek Nation ceded the western half of its domain at thirty cents an acre.

Signed
June 14, 1866
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 June 14, 1866, in Washington, the United States and the Creek Nation signed a treaty. Its preamble says the Creeks had made a treaty with the "so-called Confederate States" in 1861. By doing so, it says, they made themselves "liable to forfeit to the United States all benefits and advantages enjoyed by them in lands, annuities, protection, and immunities." It continues: "in view of said liabilities the United States require of the Creeks a portion of their land whereon to settle other Indians."

In Article 3 the Creeks ceded the west half of their domain, estimated at 3,250,560 acres. The United States agreed to pay thirty cents an acre, $975,168. The land was "to be sold to and used as homes for such other civilized Indians as the United States may choose to settle thereon." The eastern half would "be forever set apart as a home for said Creek Nation." Article 2 gave persons of African descent among the Creeks the rights and privileges of native citizens.

In McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), the Supreme Court noted that this treaty reduced the Creek lands but that Congress "explicitly restated its commitment" to the remaining land as a home for the Creek Nation. Because Congress had not said otherwise, the Court held that land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains "Indian country" under the federal Major Crimes Act.

What was promised, and what happened

  • Partly kept

    The eastern half of the Creek domain would be forever set apart as a home for the Creek Nation. (Art. 3)

    For MCA purposes, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains "Indian country." law.cornell.edu

Summarized with AI assistance from 5 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. in view of said liabilities the United States require of the Creeks a portion of their land whereon to settle other IndiansTribal Treaties Database (Oklahoma State University): Treaty with the Creeks, 1866
  2. to be sold to and used as homes for such other civilized Indians as the United States may choose to settle thereonTribal Treaties Database (Oklahoma State University): Treaty with the Creeks, 1866
  3. the United States agree to pay the sum of thirty (30) cents per acreTribal Treaties Database (Oklahoma State University): Treaty with the Creeks, 1866
  4. Congress explicitly restated its commitment that the remaining land would "be forever set apart as a home for said Creek Nation,"McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. (2020)
  5. For MCA purposes, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains "Indian country."McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. (2020)

Research notes. No Muscogee (Creek) Nation source is cited, so the Nation's own account is not described. The preamble says the United States required a portion of Creek land after the Creeks' Confederate treaty; this account uses the treaty's own words for that. Later cases on Creek jurisdiction other than McGirt are not described here.

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.

  1. 1866

    Promise broken

    Creek (Muscogee) 1866: punitive cession of the western half of the Nation

    The 1866 Creek treaty required cession of the nation's western half, citing its 1861 Confederate treaty, at 30 cents an acre.

  2. 1866

    This treaty

    Signed

    In 1866, after the Creeks' Confederate treaty, the Creek Nation ceded the western half of its domain at thirty cents an acre.

  3. 1898

    Law

    Curtis Act

    The 1898 Curtis Act abolished tribal courts in Indian Territory and ordered the Dawes Commission to allot Five Tribes land.

  4. 1898

    Promise broken

    Curtis Act (1898) and Oklahoma statehood (1907): Five Tribes governments dismantled and lands allotted

    The 1898 Curtis Act let allotment of Five Tribes land proceed without tribal consent and weakened their governments.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

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. digitreaties.org/treaties/treaty/177989811reference work
Research notes

Stat. page per Stat. vol. 14 OCR index; Kappler page.

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