In 1784, Alexander McGillivray, the Great Beloved Man of the Creeks,
wrote that "Indians will attach themselves to and Serve them best who
Supply their Necessities." McGillivray's opinion was shared by every-
one, Indian and white, who was involved in the complex business of poli-
tics and diplomacy in the eighteenth-century Southeast. Native leaders ex-
changed gifts to ritually cement agreements, and Europeans were expected
to do the same. But on a grander scale, Indians and Europeans traded their
products in marketplaces and trading posts planted throughout the region.
The ritual significance of gift exchange remained, but the desire for profits
and goods soon began to dominate the trade.

Europeans and Indians both prospered as they adapted to the styles and
interests, as well as the valuables, of the other. Captives for the slave markets
and deerskins for English tanners purchased tools, utensils, weapons, and
clothing. Creek men and women valued these goods and incorporated them
into their daily lives. As these products of English industry became ever
more commonplace, they ceased to be luxuries and instead became "Neces-
sities." Necessity, along with the pernicious qualities of rum, changed the
trade in ways both subtle and profound. Never a simple economic affair,
trade became political and jeopardized the autonomy of the Creek Nation.
The challenge for McGillivray and other Creek leaders was to figure out a
way to guarantee the flow of goods at the lowest political cost.

Scholars have long known what McGillivray knew, that trade defined
peace, bound peoples together, and provided the foundation for political
relationships. Through economic dependence, trade also threatened the po-
litical autonomy of Native American nations. It is surprising, therefore, that

-xi-