The chief of the confederacy had to advise only, and not to command; he was of influence only when endowed with superior talent and political ability. The chief and principal warriors had annual meetings in the public square of some central town, on public affairs; they drank ássi, exchanged tobacco, and then proceeded to debate. Time and place of these conventions were fixed by a chief, and the space of time between warning and that of assembly was called "broken days." Major C. Swan, after whose report this passage is quoted (Schoolcraft V, 279) states that the title of the chief of the confederacy was the great beloved man, while Milfort, who was himself invested with the charge of great warrior of the nation, styles him "Le Tastanégy ou grand chef de guerre," adding, however, that in his time he was the highest authority in civil and military affairs (Mémoire, Note to p. 237). The English, French and Spaniards frequently called him the Emperor of the Upper and Lower Creeks, a term which is not entirely misapplied when taken in its original sense of "military commander," the imperator of the Romans.
At a later period the meeting of the confederacy usually took place at Tukabatchi, which had become the largest community. From the above it results, however, that the Creeks had no capital town in the sense as we use this term. Col. B. Hawkins, who attempted to introduce some unity among the towns for the purpose of facilitating the transaction of business of the nation, and their intercourse with the United States Government, proposed various measures, as the classing of the towns into nine districts; these were adopted at Tukabatchi by the chiefs of the nation, on November 27th, 1799.[107]
The small degree of respect which the Creek towns paid to international treaties (sitimfátchita) or other solemn engagements made with the whites, as sales of territory, etc., is another proof for the looseness of the "powerful Creek confederacy." After giving a list of six influential headmen of different towns, Major C. Swan declares that a treaty made with these chiefs would probably be communicated to all the people of the country, and be believed and relied upon (Schoolcraft V, 263). Subsequent events have shown this to be founded on a misapprehension of the Indian character, which is that of the most outspoken individuality.
Major C. Swan, who only traveled through the country to leave it again, makes the following interesting statement concerning the political and social status of the disparate tribes composing the Creek confederacy (1791; in Schoolcraft V, 259. 260):
"Their numbers have increased faster by the acquisition of foreign subjects than by the increase of the original stock. It appears long to have been a maxim of their policy to give equal liberty and protection to tribes conquered by themselves, as well as to those vanquished by others, although many individuals taken in war are slaves among them, and their children are called of the slave race, and cannot arrive to much honorary distinction in the country, on that account."
THE PUBLIC SQUARE.
All the Creek towns, viz., the more populous settlements, had laid out a square-shaped piece of ground in or near their central part. It contained the only public buildings of the town, the great house and the council-house, and, as an appurtenance, the play-ground. The square was the focus of the public and social life of the town; its present Creek name, intchúka `láko, is taken from the "great house" as its principal portion.
From the eighteenth century we possess three descriptions of the square and the ceremonies enacted in it, which are entering into copious details; that of W. Bartram, describing the square of Átasi town (about 1775); that of C. Swan, describing that of Odshi-apófa, or the Hickory Ground (1791), and last, but not least, the description of the square at Kawíta, by B. Hawkins (1799). All the towns differed somewhat in the structure of the great house and of the council-house, but in the subsequent sketch we shall chiefly dwell upon those points in which they all seem to agree. Public squares still exist at the present time in some of the pure-blood towns of the Creek nation, Indian Territory, and the busk, in its ancient, though slightly modified form, is annually celebrated in them. The ground-plan of the square at the Hickory Ground is represented in Schoolcraft's Indians V, 264.
Of other buildings destined for public use I have found no mention, except of granaries or corn-cribs, which were under the supervision of the míko.
The great house, tchúku `láko, also called "town-house," "public square," like the square in the midst of which it was placed, was formed by four one-story buildings of equal size, facing inward, and enclosing a square area of about thirty feet on each side.[108] They were generally made to face the east, west, north and south.