The decades following the American Revolution were a critical period for Native peoples in the southeastern United States. With the loss of British support, Native Americans had to establish relations with the Spanish, who had regained Florida, while grappling with expansionist Americans. The Creeks, as Kevin Kokomoor describes in Of One Mind and of One Government: The Rise and Fall of the Creek Nation in the Early Republic, eventually chose an accommodationist policy toward Americans. The result, Kokomoor argues, was an unprecedented unification of the Creeks under the National Council, which for several years managed to maintain Creek sovereignty against American encroachment.Before the revolution, the Creeks, apart from their geographical grouping into upper and lower communities, generally identified with their towns and clans rather than any larger polity. Yet all Creeks shared a commitment to retaining their land, as Kokomoor demonstrates with a discussion of the Ceded Lands Crisis of 1773. This conflict nearly precipitated a Creek war with Georgia. During the revolution, Creek divisions were reinforced by connections to pro-American or pro-British traders who lived among them. With the defeat of the British, the pro-American faction gained influence and sought to curry favor with Georgians by means of a land sale.The treaty angered many Creeks, and with Spanish support Alexander McGillivray emerged as the leader of the faction opposing the cession. Georgia’s aggressive policies strengthened McGillivray, and Creek successes in the resulting Oconee War forced Georgia to moderate its demands. McGillivray undermined Creek achievements, however, when he accepted the earlier cession in the 1790 Treaty of New York. McGillivray’s influence subsequently collapsed as numerous Creeks repudiated the agreement. This, along with Spain’s more conciliatory policy toward the United States and the continued violence along the Georgia frontier, created the conditions for an incipient Creek nationalism. Pro-American Creeks managed to harness this nationalism to create a unified Creek nation in the mid-1790s.Kokomoor argues that while the new Creek National Council adapted some Native traditions, it was primarily a response to American expansionism, and was heavily influenced by federally appointed Indian agents James Seagrove and Benjamin Hawkins. Under pressure from these agents, the council sought to avoid conflict by complying with American demands, including the punishment of Creeks who raided settlements or stole horses. However, Creek efforts to accommodate Americans were never reciprocated, as new land cessions were demanded, crimes committed by Georgians against Creeks went unpunished, and roads and forts were built in Creek territory. When the council opposed American demands, it was ignored, and by the early 1810s, Kokomoor shows, the United States had reduced the body to little more than a “puppet government” (324).The growing ineffectiveness of the National Council encouraged militant Red Stick Creeks to fight against both the council and the United States, and in a display of its dependence on the Americans, the council welcomed military forces sent to crush the Red Sticks. Although the council reasserted its leadership after the conflict, and complied with every American demand, its concerns were ignored as the United States ultimately imposed its removal policy on the Creeks. The story of the National Council is a tragedy in which the Creeks, compliant to the point of executing their own people to appease the Americans, failed to avoid destruction. Kokomoor convincingly shows that the council could govern effectively, but that no level of accommodation could satisfy its expansionist neighbors.This volume is comprehensive in scope, thoroughly researched, and well written. It is a valuable resource for scholars of Native American history and of the Early National period and should also interest general readers interested in those subjects.