Inability to look facts in the face did not alter the facts.  The Indian ravages in the Southern Territory grew steadily more and more serious.  The difficulties of the settlers were enormously increased because the United States strictly forbade any offensive measures.  The militia were allowed to drive off any war bands found among the settlements with evidently hostile intent; but, acting under the explicit, often repeated, and emphatic commands of the General Government, Blount was obliged to order the militia under no circumstances to assume the offensive, or to cross into the Indian hunting grounds beyond the boundaries established by the treaty of Holston. [Footnote:  Robertson MSS., Blount to Robertson, April 1, 1792.] The inhabitants of the Cumberland region, and of the frontier counties generally, petitioned strongly against this, stating that “the frontiers will break if the inroads of the savages are not checked by counter expeditions.” [Footnote:  Do., Feb. 1, 1792.]

    Blount’s Good Conduct.

It was a very disagreeable situation for Blount, who, in carrying out the orders of the Federal authorities, had to incur the ill-will of the people whom he had been appointed to govern; but even at the cost of being supposed to be lukewarm in the cause of the settlers, he loyally endeavored to execute the commands of his superiors.  Yet like every other man acquainted by actual experience with frontier life and Indian warfare, he knew the folly of defensive war against Indians.  At this very time the officers on the frontier of South Carolina, which was not a State that was at all inclined to unjust aggression against the Indians, notified the Governor that the defensive war was “expensive, hazardous, and distressing” to the settlers, because the Indians “had such advantages, being so wolfish in their manner and so savage in their nature,” that it was impossible to make war upon them on equal terms if the settlers were confined to defending themselves in their own country, whereas a speedy and spirited counter-attack upon them in their homes would probably reduce them to peace, as their mode of warfare fitted them much less to oppose such an attack than to “take skulking, wolfish advantages of the defenceless” settlers. [Footnote:  American State Papers, IV., Robert Anderson to the Governor of South Carolina, Sep. 20, 1792.]

    Doublefaced Conduct of the Creeks and Cherokees.

The difficulties of Blount and the Tennessee frontiersmen were increased by the very fact that the Cherokees and Creeks still nominally remained at peace.  The Indian towns nearest the frontier knew that they were jeopardized by the acts of their wilder brethren, and generally strove to avoid committing any offense themselves.  The war parties from the remote towns were the chief offenders.  Band after band came up from among the Creeks or from among the lower Cherokees, and, passing through the peaceful villages of the