other men of note on the border, both from Virginia and North Carolina,
wrote likewise. To these letters McGillivray responded promptly in a
style rather more polished though less frank than that of his
correspondents. His tone was distinctly more warlike and less
conciliatory than theirs. He avowed, without hesitation, that the Creeks
and not the Americans had been the original aggressors, saying that "my
nation has waged war against your people for several years past; but
that we had no motive of revenge, nor did it proceed from any sense of
injuries sustained from your people, but being warmly attached to the
British and being under their influence our operations were directed by
them against you in common with other Americans." He then acknowledged
that after the close of the war the Americans had sent overtures of
peace, which he had accepted--although as a matter of fact the Creeks
never ceased their ravages,--but complained that Robertson's expedition
against the Muscle Shoals again brought on war. [Footnote: State
Department MSS., No. 71, vol. ii., p. 620. McGillivray to Bledsoe and
Robertson; no date.]

There was, of course, nothing in this complaint of the injustice of
Robertson's expedition, for the Muscle Shoal Indians had been constantly
plundering and murdering before it was planned, and it was undertaken
merely to put a stop to their ravages. However, McGillivray made adroit
use of it. He stated that the expedition itself, carried on, as he
understood it, mainly against the French traders, "was no concern of
ours and would have been entirely disregarded by us; but in the
execution of it some of our people were there, who went as well from
motives of curiosity as to traffic in silverware; and six of whom were
rashly killed by your men" [Footnote: McGillivray's Letter of April 17,
1788, p. 521.]; and inasmuch as these slain men were prominent in
different Creek towns, the deed led to retaliatory raids. But now that