How Is William Mcinntosh Assassination Justified

Although credible sources acknowledge the death of William McIntosh as an assassination commandeered by rival Chief Menwana, Creek law divulges that Chief Menwana was not only justified, but also encouraged by Creek law to kill Chief McIntosh. Chief McIntosh was a controversial Creek leader whose strong relationship with the United States government cast suspicion about his loyalty to the Creeks. In the years prior to his death, William McIntosh attempted to remain a trusted Creek leader while supporting the United States of America. According to Melissa Stock, he was “instrumental” in several wars that helped the United States gain the territory of Native Americans, including the Creek War of 1813, where he led the lower Creeks against the Upper Creeks, despite the results being both the upper and lower Creeks ceding 22 million acres of land.(para. 5) The key event that truly demonstrated that McIntosh abandoned his nation was when he, as
well as six other Creek Leaders rallied by McIntosh, signed the Treaty of Indian Springs in 1821, thus ceding all Creek land to the states of Georgia and Alabama. “For his role in the Treaty of Indian Springs in 1821, McIntosh received 1,000 acres of land...and $400,000.”(Bullman, pg. 2) Consequently, a large group of Creek Indians led by his rival from the Creek war, Chief Menwana, “assassinated” William McIntosh after burning down his house and all of his family’s possessions. Instead of focusing on whether or not killing William McIntosh was justified, for McIntosh sold his nation for personal gain, thus giving Chief Menwana indisputable justification, the focus of this paper is to discuss whether or not the “assassination” should even be classified as an assassination.
Even google references the death of William McIntosh as an assassination by chief Menwana; however, further investigation provided information proving that the death of William McIntosh was an execution certainly justified and supported by Creek law. Several reliable sources such as that of James Bullman’s claim that William McIntosh signed the treaty ceding Creek land despite a Creek law that he supported stating that “anyone who sold or gave away Creek land would be killed.”(pg.2) Furthermore, “the chiefs(of the Creek nation), in session at the National Council had determined to execute William McIntosh.”(Wright Jr., pg. 263), thus proving that the justified “assassination” of William McIntosh was a government supported
execution. While the evidence supporting that the death of William McIntosh was not an assassination is very strong, there is also worthy counter evidence. Amos Wright’s book, claims that after William McIntosh’s death, a delegation of chief Creeks including Chief Menwana went to Washington and returned with $135,000 (pg. 255), suggesting that the Creeks who stormed William McIntosh’s house and “assassinated” him received a payment by an unknown source for their actions. However, this claim is improbable for these leaders could have received payment for numerous other reasons, including as a repayment from the government for being cheated of their land. The strongest counter-evidence is the fact that although the group of Creeks led by chief Menwana was a mix of Lower Creeks and Upper Creeks, the two separated after the Creek war thus lower Creek rules wouldn't abide to chief Menwana. However, this statement has it’s flaws as well, for even if the upper Creeks didn’t have a specific law justifying the killing of William McIntosh (which no source shows they didn’t keep the same rules when separating), the whole Upper Creek nation supported the execution of William McIntosh thus still making the “assassination” a government decided execution. In recap, although the death is recognized to be an assassination by most sources, several factors support that the “assassination” is mislabeled and is instead a justified execution supported by a nation of Creeks and Creek law.