A Brief History
On August 30, 1813, a force of about 1,000 warriors of a faction of the Creek Nation Native Americans known as the “Red Sticks” attacked Fort Mims in Alabama, killing almost all its defenders and many civilians as well. What later became known as the Fort Mims Massacre was the worst slaughter of white settlers by Native Americans in the South and probably the second worst overall. (Only the 1791 Fort Recovery Massacre in Ohio known as St. Clair’s Defeat may have been worse.)
Digging Deeper
As stated above, the Red Sticks were a faction of the Creek. Many Creek had assimilated with the white settlers and had adopted their customs. The Red Sticks refused to do this and had separated from their more accommodating tribesmen known as the White Sticks. In 1812, conflicts known as the Creek Wars erupted between the two sides.
Trouble then also began brewing between the white settlers and the Red Sticks, causing many settlers to move to the “safety” of forts like Fort Mims. They were joined by mixed-blood Creek known as Métis. At the time of the attack, a total of 517 white settlers and Métis and their slaves were in the fort. This number included 265 armed militia.
The Red Sticks were led by Peter McQueen and William Weatherford, the unlikely English names of 2 Creek chiefs.
Following an attempt to overwhelm the fort’s defenses, the Red Sticks were repelled. After convening for a war council, however, they attacked again. This time the settlers were forced into an inner building which was then set on fire by the attackers. Despite efforts of the chiefs to prevent a massacre, almost all the white people were killed, the Red Sticks taking some 250 scalps. Only 36 men, 2 women and 1 girl escaped with their lives. The Red Sticks spared many of the slaves, only to make them slaves of the Creek. Whereas roughly 400 whites and Métis died, the Red Sticks only lost about 100 warriors.
Andrew Jackson, the man who in 1815 would become the hero of the Battle of New Orleans, the final major battle of the War of 1812, and then President of the United States in 1829, led American forces against the Red Sticks, the main battle being the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814 where Jackson and his men killed 800 Creek warriors, effectively ending the Creek Wars.
Many people have noticed that when the white settlers killed Native Americans, history refers to the action as a “victory;” however, when Native Americans win a fight, the battle is referred to as a “massacre.” Only recently have attitudes been changing and the perspective of the Native American side has been receiving much more attention from historians and coverage by the media.
Question for students (and subscribers): Do you think we will ever have a person with Native American ancestry as president of the United States of America? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
For another interesting event that happened on August 30, please see the History and Headlines article: “10 Formidable Females: Women Who Killed (Or Tried To).”
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, please see…
Waselkov, Gregory A. A Conquering Spirit: Fort Mims and the Redstick War of 1813–1814 (Fire Ant Books). University Alabama Press, 2009.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="4394 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=4394">34 Comments
I agree with the article in finding it odd that when settlers kill Native Americans, it is a victory, but when Natives are the ones doing the killing, it is a massacre. The scalping the Red Sticks did does seem particularly gruesome, though.
I’m finding it increasingly disturbing that in the vast majority of cases, whenever there’s a ‘disturbance’ or conflict between folks of European descent and any other ethnicity or nationality the report is ALWAYS ‘painted’ is such a way that ultimately reflects negatively on the ‘Evil European White Boys’…, as though no other race or group is capable of generating vile behavior on their own.
It’s a ridiculously nonsensical concept.
Although I agree that when the white settlers killed Native Americans, It is referred to as a “victory,” however, when Native Americans win, the battle is referred to as a “massacre,” today it seems that Native Americans are being portrayed more accurately than in the past.
The fact that so little people got out alive is insane.
I feel like both types of attacks can be considered “massacres”. When the whites go against the Indians, they have an extremely unfair advantage. The whites fighting with guns are way better equipped than the Indians fighting with stones and sticks. This can be considered a massacre. Also, when Indians attack unarmed women and children, this becomes a massacre as well. I believe both sides had their share of unfair massacres throughout history.
N.W.
They were Indians, not cavemen. Sticks and rocks?
Often times Native Americans were armed with firearms as well as indigenous weapons. They also had metal hatchets and knives obtained from white men, just like the guns. Contrary to television and movies, it was not considered illegal to sell “Indians” guns, and a lively trade for “Indian Trade Guns” started from the very beginning of European/Native American interaction (with English and French, not so much Spanish). The bows and arrows of Native Americans were not toys, but carefully crafted weapons quite capable of killing people (and game) and could be loaded and fired (loosed) much more rapidly than flintlocks and other muzzle loading guns. It comes as a surprise to many people today to hear that Lt. Colonel George A. Custer and his 7th Cavalry that were “massacred” at the Little Big Horn in 1873 were up against warriors that had a preponderance of repeating rifles (Henry, Spencer, Winchester and the like) while the troopers were armed with single shot “Trapdoor” Springfields. A war club or spear was often a better weapon than a gun that had been fired and was not reloaded. Sticks and stones does not describe Native American weapons!
I have Native American heritage on my dad’s side so this is crazy to me. I don’t understand battle and war because whether you are killing or being killed, it is wrong. It shouldn’t be considered a victory when you kill a ton of people. Whether that person is white, African American, Asian, or Native American, it is wrong to kill others.
So much death, for what? I had not known much about this massacre, but it’s so gruesome. Our history as a whole is certainly not a pleasant one. GW
Any kind of war can be classified as a massacre, but remember, history is written by the victor.
As interesting as it is to read about, it is always to hear about so many people losing their lives for silly reasons. Massacres are sad to hear about.
It’s sad that when the white settlers killed Native Americans, history refers to the action as a “victory” and when Native Americans win a fight it is referred to as a “massacre.”
The choice of massacre will never be wrapped around my brain, when so many people are killed, couldnt there be any other alternative? It doesnt make sense, it is just terrible.
Really you should look at the total death toll of how many Native Americans were killed compared to how many Americans were. Seriously it was theirs before us.
It’s such a shame how many Natives had to be killed in order for our nation to become what it is today. Very sad.
It is really sad how many people had their lives taken form them just because they felt someone else’s life also mattered.
It is astounding that so many lives has been lost in this country over the smallest things. Different views or looks could make you have the possibility of being killed
When reading all about these past events all you originally think about is that the whites tried to swing all of the battles to sound good for their side praising their victories and calling their loses massacres
It is really sad to think about how many people lost their lives.
Scalping so many people seems a bit aggressive, but I suppose that is just how the Red Sticks did things back then. Also, it’s interesting that I’ve lived in Ohio my entire life, but I’ve never even heard of St. Clair’s Defeat.
Very true point brought up about how white settlers were always referenced as the victors and natives as bad guys. Much of history has been biased to white settlers. This happens in news today, the media can have a serious impact on how the audience’s views.
its amazing how many lives have been taken just for viewing things differently than something else
They bring up an interesting point about how battles won by
the white settlers are considered victories while the battles won by the Native
Americans are considered massacres.
Can you blame them for attacking the settlers after how violently the American settlers had treated the Indians and people that had already lived there? Sounds bad but it’s true. As a few other people have said, there has been a lot of white bias towards the settlers.
Injuns were crappy from the get-go. They were horrible neighbors.
Had us Muslims been there, them Injuns would have been wiped out and the settlers converted!
I think it’s interesting how two groups could have had so many similarities and still want to cause all the casuals that come along with the lifestyle they have.
I can’t find anywhere how many Indians were killed by Indians.
How’s this for a concept? White settlers murdering Native Americans/Indians was **bad.** Native Americans murdering white settlers was **bad.** Native Americans murdering other Native Americans was **bad.** There’s no moral high ground here on any side. This needs to be taught in history classes in all its complexity, rather than in simplistic terms in an effort to shame one group of people on behalf of another. No ethnic or cultural group is immune from victimization, nor is it immune from becoming the victimizer of others. We all need to evolve and recognize our common humanity.
It’s nice to see that attitudes have been changing on the terminology of people killed during these times…Indians killing whites referred to as a “massacre” and whites killing Indians as a “victory.” Neither are a victory and both are unfortunate. If I were Native American, referring to my ancestors deaths as a “victory” in the country where I reside would be nauseating and hurtful.
@KS. The reason it was considered a massacre by Indians is that the whites, most of who were Christians at the time, were not waging war on them, but simply trying live in peace, side-by-side, and trying to convert them from satanic demonic pagan shamanistic (witchcraft) evils to the Good news gospel of love with salvation through Jesus The Indians on the other hand would attack for minor reasons and do horrific tortures like scalping, Death by it was painful and terrible. Also, Indians were often contaminated with Nephilim DNA and if they were not, the Indian tribes were happy the Christian Europeans caused the evil giants and evil little people, who wreaked havoc on their lives for centuries, to die off or run away because of their Christianity which the hybrids like the giants hated. Lastly there is tons of evidence whites were in the America’s first. Near where I live some of the oldest petroglyphs in America have a Celtic heart and a Phoenician sailing ship and Scandinavian markings. With Paganism again rising as well as increased Commie/socialist brainwashing in schools and Christianity waning before the pre-trib rapture occurs where Jesus takes his people home to heaven, bizarre comments like yours are to be expected. See more at http://www.zamzummim.org
Zeke, you be trippin’, brother.
Boy, is he!
“satanic demonic pagan shamanistic (witchcraft) evils”, “Indians on the other hand would attack for minor reasons and do horrific tortures like scalping”. Really?
I have a very unique perspective on this event because I descend from all 3 factions: settlers, White Sticks (peaceable Creeks) and Red Sticks. I was brought up learning the story from each point of view, as well as having been a historian and genealogist for 40 years. I was born and raised in the area of the Action (that by the way, and I believe Maj. Dan will concur, is the proper term for engagement of opposing factions in combat-and this WAS combat) and the majority of my family from all 3 sides still live in the area.
ezekiel33, let me disabuse you of the notion that Native Americans, in this case the Creeks (or as we are properly known Mvskoke) do not practice “satanic demonic pagan shamanistic (witchcraft) evils”. If you actually knew anything about the culture/religion, you would know that Native worship is in many ways parallel to Christianity. I won’t go into that because you have obviously been indoctrinated with erroneously preconceived notions. If you actually want to be educated on the subject, sit down with a Native American, you just might find that they are Christians who keep Native traditions as well (You do know that is where a great majority of today’s medicine is based don’t you? Not to mention the source of many popular foods.)
You are sorely mistaken about the ‘whites’ wanting to live peaceably. What the “settlers” wanted to do, is take over land that did not belong to them; it wasn’t the Natives that started the war. They reacted to thievery, barbarism (I’ll come back to that) and murder by the “settlers” trying to take over their land. The “barbarism” came at the behest of “settlers” urging on Natives that lived among them, beginning with the practice of scalping, which was first recorded of being done by New Hampshirans upon encountering a band of Natives (for $100 a scalp, I might add), a practice with it’s roots not in the Americas, but instead in Europe or Asia and was an act taught to Native Americans by Europeans, not the other way around.
Had you been faced with losing your home, hunting grounds/sources of food, etc. that had been such for your ancestors for millennia, I’m sure you would have used whatever means necessary to protect what was yours. Is murder acceptable, no, but sometimes it is necessary and justifiable. I’ll tell you what is NOT acceptable: slaughtering women, children/infants, the infirmed, starving and old men while their stronger, better adept men hunt for food, leaving them tortured, mutilated, lying in the cold winter weather that comes when you are bound on 2 or 3 sides by a major river, on the other a mountain so that if they survive the attack, they are left to slowly die from the effects. What’s NOT acceptable is when asked by a soldier upon finding a crying infant at the breast of his bloodied & dead mother “what do I do with the baby”, the commanding officer rejects the instruction of a lesser officer saying kill it, saying he will take it home for his wife to care for as if the child were a pet. That is exactly the kind of thing that happened, indeed, true historians will recognize the story for the historical truth that it is. Yes, there were instances where some tribes lived in harmony with Europeans, but that was not the norm. Had it been the death march of the Native Americans in 1838-39.
“Bizarre comments”? I believe those came from you.