What do you think?
Rate this book
In Bitterness And In Tears: Andrew Jackson's Destruction Of The Creeks And Seminoles
“Very highly recommended . . . a wealth of details and insight. In Bitterness and in Tears is an impressive contribution to American history and Native American studies reading lists.” --Midwest Book Review
The Creek War of 1813–1814 and its extension, the First Seminole War of 1818, had significant consequences for the growth of the United States. Beginning as a civil war between Creek factions, the struggle escalated into a war between the Creeks and the U.S. after insurgent Red Sticks massacred over 250 whites and mixed-bloods at Fort Mims on the Alabama River on August 30, 1813—the worst frontier massacre in U.S. history.
After seven months of bloody fighting, U.S. forces inflicted a devastating defeat on the Red Sticks at Horseshoe Bend on the Tallapoosa River on March 27, 1814. It was the most disastrous defeat ever suffered by Native Americans.
The defeat of the Creeks, the only serious impediment to U.S. westward expansion, opened millions of acres of land to white settlers, and firmly established the Cotton Kingdom and slavery in the Deep South. For southeastern Native Americans, the war resulted in the destruction of their civilization and forced removal west of the Mississippi. O’Brien presents both the American and Native American perspectives of this important episode in U.S. history. He also examines the roles of the neighboring tribes and African-Americans who lived in the Creek nation. In Bitterness and in Tears is a tale for the ages, thrilling and
moving, a pivotal point in the tragic and heroic saga that is our national history.
The Creek War of 1813–1814 and its extension, the First Seminole War of 1818, had significant consequences for the growth of the United States. Beginning as a civil war between Creek factions, the struggle escalated into a war between the Creeks and the U.S. after insurgent Red Sticks massacred over 250 whites and mixed-bloods at Fort Mims on the Alabama River on August 30, 1813—the worst frontier massacre in U.S. history.
After seven months of bloody fighting, U.S. forces inflicted a devastating defeat on the Red Sticks at Horseshoe Bend on the Tallapoosa River on March 27, 1814. It was the most disastrous defeat ever suffered by Native Americans.
The defeat of the Creeks, the only serious impediment to U.S. westward expansion, opened millions of acres of land to white settlers, and firmly established the Cotton Kingdom and slavery in the Deep South. For southeastern Native Americans, the war resulted in the destruction of their civilization and forced removal west of the Mississippi. O’Brien presents both the American and Native American perspectives of this important episode in U.S. history. He also examines the roles of the neighboring tribes and African-Americans who lived in the Creek nation. In Bitterness and in Tears is a tale for the ages, thrilling and
moving, a pivotal point in the tragic and heroic saga that is our national history.
254 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
1 person is currently reading
25 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
November 3, 2025
H-Net
Much has been written about Andrew Jack‐son's treatment of Native Americans who resided in the Southwest. There are at least a few items that historians know for certain: Jackson led a series of campaigns against the Creek Indians in 1813-14, and against the Seminoles in 1818.
In all of these engagements, Jackson and his troops, though meeting a determined and tough foe, achieved victory and crushed their opponents.
The Battle of Horseshoe Bend was, quite literally, a slaughter. At the Treaty of Fort Jackson in 1814, the iron general forced both enemy and allied Creeks to turn over vast amounts of land that fueled the future cotton kingdom. Andrew Jackson's victories signaled the end of the Native American way of life in this region. Few historians will argue over these points.
The disputed question is one of motivation.
Was Jackson a malevolent Indian hater, a destroyer of Indian culture who was bent on extinguishing Native Americans from the earth? Was he a prototype Hitler engaged in his own American Holocaust? Was his dual intent to steal valuable lands so that whites could resettle them and grow rich?
Essentially, did Jackson care for the Indians at all? Some historians say no to the latter, and yes to all of the previous questions.
The other side of the motivation debate insists that to understand Jackson, one must consider historical context.
Some authors assert that Jackson did not start the generational conquest of Native Americans. Rather, like many westerners, he took part in what was an already flourishing movement. He did not hate Indians, they argue, but he was certainly a racist of the time and considered Indians savages who both wasted useful land and threatened the security of white society.
Jackson saddled his horse and brought war to the Creeks only after the massacre at Fort Mims and ultimately forced them from their lands to create a much-needed buffer zone between the Natives and the troublesome Spanish and English forces that fomented Indian uprisings. Jackson of course knew that removal of the Indians would enrich whites, but that was not his primary goal in going to war, these historians conclude.
The lines on these two points of view are well documented and rigidly drawn. They extend on one side from Michael Paul Rogin's often-quoted Fathers & Children (1975) to Jeanne and David Heidler's Old Hickory's War (1996), as well as the recently released Passions of Andrew Jackson (2003) by Andrew Burstein.
On the other side comes the ubiquitous Robert Remini, The Legacy of Andrew Jackson: Essays on Democracy, Indian Removal, and Slavery (1988), and more recently Remini's Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars (2001), as well as John Buchanan's Jackson's Way: Andrew Jackson and the People of the Western Waters (2001).
Entering this historiographical battleground is Sean Michael O'Brien's In Bitterness and in Tears: Andrew Jackson's Destruction of the Creek and Seminoles.
Not to judge a book by its cover, but my first assumption from the title was that it would be another work on "Jackson as Indian hater."
Yet upon turning to the prologue, "A Most Bloody Butchery," I was confronted with a detailed account of the Fort Mims Massacre and began to surmise that the book might be a pro-Jackson, do-not-forget-the-historical-context, account.
To my surprise, O'Brien's book is neither.
In Bitterness and in Tears is really a narrative account of the Creek Wars and Seminole conflict. My im‐pression after reading the prologue and finding no argument whatsoever was confusion. I wondered where O'Brien would ultimately enter the foray of historigraphical debate. He does not.
The work is based mainly on secondary sources and the first citation of a primary source does not oc‐cur until some fifty-five pages into the book. O'Brien does quote from some primary sources prior to this, but these are gleaned entirely from secondary sources. (O'Brien uses an MLA citation format.)
The book is not all about Jackson, who is absent from the first sixty-two pages. Instead, O'Brien attempts to give a good overview of the many figures, both Indian and white, who were involved in the back-and-forth bloodshed that rampaged across the Southwest.
In the process, Jackson is portrayed in a dual context: he is both the killer of savages (see the description of Horseshoe Bend, p. 150), and a compassionate, humane general who treated Indians well when moved by some particular act (p. 151). Thus there is much left for a reader to infer.
Some scholars may wonder about the value of such a book. We generally scoff at "mere" narrative histories, looking instead for original research, as well as arguments and theories that can add to our collective understanding of a subject. We especially expect these things from publishers such as Praeger Press (a division of Greenwood) that have a reputation for producing some good academic works.
Yet O'Brien's book does not fit into the above-perceived values. He is not an academic, but rather an independent author. His sources are standard, and most of the secondary ones have been published fairly recently, in the last twenty to thirty years or so.
Even though Praeger recently advertised the book in one of its catalogs by referring to "the seldom-recalled Creek War," historians know that the war is often recalled. There is not a gap in our knowledge.
O'Brien's own bibliography bears this out. Thus, if all of this is true, why did Sean Michael O'Brien write this book? Again, what is its value?
Answering these questions is not simple because O'Brien does not give a reader much to go on. There is no statement of focus or purpose, which is not the normal academic model.
My tentative assessment is that O'Brien was attempting to avoid argument for argument's sake and provide a balanced, narrative account of both white and Indian actions.
As stated previously, there is much left to infer from such an approach. Readers will have to determine for themselves whether Jackson was the monster or the hero portrayed by some historians. Yet such an exercise may in and of itself be enlightening.
Imagine assigning this book as the first in an upper-level undergraduate or graduate course and letting the students debate the issue of culpability.
Are whites or Native Americans more responsible for the outcome of the Creek War? I can already imagine the rising hackles among historians who read that question.
It is an explosive topic, but one that could be well served by O'Brien's work, which is written well and fairly presented. The more standard academic accounts of Jackson and Indian relations could be used to follow up O'Brien's and thereby add historiography to the debate.
It is unclear whether O'Brien entertained such an exercise when producing this book, but it would be a valuable use.
Additionally, those who are merely history buffs and not familiar with the Creek and Seminole story will find O'Brien's account both interesting and shocking. The killing on both sides of the war was horrific, and O'Brien tells the story with graphic reality. One gets a good sense of intent, strategy, fear, heroism, hatred, be‐ grudging respect, and outcome for all involved.
H-Tennessee
Much has been written about Andrew Jack‐son's treatment of Native Americans who resided in the Southwest. There are at least a few items that historians know for certain: Jackson led a series of campaigns against the Creek Indians in 1813-14, and against the Seminoles in 1818.
In all of these engagements, Jackson and his troops, though meeting a determined and tough foe, achieved victory and crushed their opponents.
The Battle of Horseshoe Bend was, quite literally, a slaughter. At the Treaty of Fort Jackson in 1814, the iron general forced both enemy and allied Creeks to turn over vast amounts of land that fueled the future cotton kingdom. Andrew Jackson's victories signaled the end of the Native American way of life in this region. Few historians will argue over these points.
The disputed question is one of motivation.
Was Jackson a malevolent Indian hater, a destroyer of Indian culture who was bent on extinguishing Native Americans from the earth? Was he a prototype Hitler engaged in his own American Holocaust? Was his dual intent to steal valuable lands so that whites could resettle them and grow rich?
Essentially, did Jackson care for the Indians at all? Some historians say no to the latter, and yes to all of the previous questions.
The other side of the motivation debate insists that to understand Jackson, one must consider historical context.
Some authors assert that Jackson did not start the generational conquest of Native Americans. Rather, like many westerners, he took part in what was an already flourishing movement. He did not hate Indians, they argue, but he was certainly a racist of the time and considered Indians savages who both wasted useful land and threatened the security of white society.
Jackson saddled his horse and brought war to the Creeks only after the massacre at Fort Mims and ultimately forced them from their lands to create a much-needed buffer zone between the Natives and the troublesome Spanish and English forces that fomented Indian uprisings. Jackson of course knew that removal of the Indians would enrich whites, but that was not his primary goal in going to war, these historians conclude.
The lines on these two points of view are well documented and rigidly drawn. They extend on one side from Michael Paul Rogin's often-quoted Fathers & Children (1975) to Jeanne and David Heidler's Old Hickory's War (1996), as well as the recently released Passions of Andrew Jackson (2003) by Andrew Burstein.
On the other side comes the ubiquitous Robert Remini, The Legacy of Andrew Jackson: Essays on Democracy, Indian Removal, and Slavery (1988), and more recently Remini's Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars (2001), as well as John Buchanan's Jackson's Way: Andrew Jackson and the People of the Western Waters (2001).
Entering this historiographical battleground is Sean Michael O'Brien's In Bitterness and in Tears: Andrew Jackson's Destruction of the Creek and Seminoles.
Not to judge a book by its cover, but my first assumption from the title was that it would be another work on "Jackson as Indian hater."
Yet upon turning to the prologue, "A Most Bloody Butchery," I was confronted with a detailed account of the Fort Mims Massacre and began to surmise that the book might be a pro-Jackson, do-not-forget-the-historical-context, account.
To my surprise, O'Brien's book is neither.
In Bitterness and in Tears is really a narrative account of the Creek Wars and Seminole conflict. My im‐pression after reading the prologue and finding no argument whatsoever was confusion. I wondered where O'Brien would ultimately enter the foray of historigraphical debate. He does not.
The work is based mainly on secondary sources and the first citation of a primary source does not oc‐cur until some fifty-five pages into the book. O'Brien does quote from some primary sources prior to this, but these are gleaned entirely from secondary sources. (O'Brien uses an MLA citation format.)
The book is not all about Jackson, who is absent from the first sixty-two pages. Instead, O'Brien attempts to give a good overview of the many figures, both Indian and white, who were involved in the back-and-forth bloodshed that rampaged across the Southwest.
In the process, Jackson is portrayed in a dual context: he is both the killer of savages (see the description of Horseshoe Bend, p. 150), and a compassionate, humane general who treated Indians well when moved by some particular act (p. 151). Thus there is much left for a reader to infer.
Some scholars may wonder about the value of such a book. We generally scoff at "mere" narrative histories, looking instead for original research, as well as arguments and theories that can add to our collective understanding of a subject. We especially expect these things from publishers such as Praeger Press (a division of Greenwood) that have a reputation for producing some good academic works.
Yet O'Brien's book does not fit into the above-perceived values. He is not an academic, but rather an independent author. His sources are standard, and most of the secondary ones have been published fairly recently, in the last twenty to thirty years or so.
Even though Praeger recently advertised the book in one of its catalogs by referring to "the seldom-recalled Creek War," historians know that the war is often recalled. There is not a gap in our knowledge.
O'Brien's own bibliography bears this out. Thus, if all of this is true, why did Sean Michael O'Brien write this book? Again, what is its value?
Answering these questions is not simple because O'Brien does not give a reader much to go on. There is no statement of focus or purpose, which is not the normal academic model.
My tentative assessment is that O'Brien was attempting to avoid argument for argument's sake and provide a balanced, narrative account of both white and Indian actions.
As stated previously, there is much left to infer from such an approach. Readers will have to determine for themselves whether Jackson was the monster or the hero portrayed by some historians. Yet such an exercise may in and of itself be enlightening.
Imagine assigning this book as the first in an upper-level undergraduate or graduate course and letting the students debate the issue of culpability.
Are whites or Native Americans more responsible for the outcome of the Creek War? I can already imagine the rising hackles among historians who read that question.
It is an explosive topic, but one that could be well served by O'Brien's work, which is written well and fairly presented. The more standard academic accounts of Jackson and Indian relations could be used to follow up O'Brien's and thereby add historiography to the debate.
It is unclear whether O'Brien entertained such an exercise when producing this book, but it would be a valuable use.
Additionally, those who are merely history buffs and not familiar with the Creek and Seminole story will find O'Brien's account both interesting and shocking. The killing on both sides of the war was horrific, and O'Brien tells the story with graphic reality. One gets a good sense of intent, strategy, fear, heroism, hatred, be‐ grudging respect, and outcome for all involved.
H-Tennessee
February 22, 2018
I will start by saying that everything in this books seems to be in accordance with other historical records with which I’m familiar. That being said, I think there are other books that handle this topic with more perspective. Much of the text is dedicated to the military maneuvers and strategy of the Creek war, which, while surely important, are not what I would consider its primary historic lesson. There are portrayals of much of the bloody gory details on both sides of the conflict, and the author does not begrudge Andrew Jackson his pivotal role in the removal of the southeastern First Nations and dehumanizing of these tribes, but also makes sure to note those infrequent moments where Jackson acted like he might not be completely intent on genocide. Also, native fighting forces are consistently referred to as “warriors” or “red men” while white forces are referred to as “soldiers”, and not as direct quotes from historical texts. In fact, most of the sources listed are secondary translations or compilations. The book also ends by stating that the war ended the Muskogee nation, but in truth they did survive removal to Indian territory and are actually the fourth largest tribe in the US today. While this phrase may have been meant as symbolic of the death of the tribe’s customs and way of life as it was known previously, it does smack of a narrow view that Indian history is only relevant in a historical and anthropological context, when in fact the consequences of this war are still felt today. As a tandem, if you are interested in this era and looking for a place to start, I would recommend John Ehle’s Trail of Tears, which is actually cited frequently in this book. And please do also check out the Muskogee nation’s website http://www.mcn-nsn.gov for more context.
November 28, 2021
7/10
This book was definitely helpful in researching my history project and lays out clearly the purpose behind the stealing of native land by the United States. Well it could provide more organization for the content and contains a few factual errors here and there, it does make a good account of the creek war of 1813-1814 and its aftermath. This is the only decent book on this very important subject of indigenous history, considering the only other full length book I could find on the subject was openly apologizing for the war crimes and genocidal actions of Jackson.
This book was definitely helpful in researching my history project and lays out clearly the purpose behind the stealing of native land by the United States. Well it could provide more organization for the content and contains a few factual errors here and there, it does make a good account of the creek war of 1813-1814 and its aftermath. This is the only decent book on this very important subject of indigenous history, considering the only other full length book I could find on the subject was openly apologizing for the war crimes and genocidal actions of Jackson.
April 7, 2025
I read this book in preparation for writing my Senior Thesis. I thought it was a very easy read and provided an in-depth look into the period between the War of 1812 and the Nullification Crisis of 1837, a crucial period in terms of Andrew Jackson’s rise and retirement from the military and politics, alongside America’s brutal
history as it relates to the displacement of Native Americans across the Southeast US
history as it relates to the displacement of Native Americans across the Southeast US
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 10, 2025
Couldn't finish - just didn't care for all the detail
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews