OT: "God Willing and the Creek Don't Rise"

[Canoerebel]

To avoid hijacking another thread, I'm posting here a website excerpt contending that "God willing and the creek don't rise" is a reference to a watercourse ("creek") and not to the Creek Indians "rising."

I found this excerpt at: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-god1.htm

I'm not familiar with the author, Bob Scala, but I find his reasoning persuasive. I've always heard that the saying refers to creek, which makes sense. All Americans who traveled by foot, horse or wagon in the 1700s and 1800s would have to deal with rain-swollen creeks and rivers. It was a universal challenge that leant itself to a widely used saying. On the other hand, the Creek Nation was confined to a a portion of the Southeast and, with the exception of a period in the late 1700s and early 1800s, weren't on the warpath over extensive areas at any one time.

[BillBrown]

That is interesting, I guess since I was born on the Left Coast of the USA, I always assumed it was a reference to a watercourse.

[RangerJoe]

I believe that you are correct.

On Fort Hood, I saw that there were rulers on the sides of the bridges to show how deep the water is and a sign stating how many solders had died crossing them during flooding. I hope that they updated the signs and improved the s****y training at this unitL

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-arm ... fort-hood/

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

That is interesting, I guess since I was born on the Left Coast of the USA, I always assumed it was a reference to a watercourse.

... I did also.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

To avoid hijacking another thread, I'm posting here a website excerpt contending that "God willing and the creek don't rise" is a reference to a watercourse ("creek") and not to the Creek Indians "rising."

I found this excerpt at: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-god1.htm

I'm not familiar with the author, Bob Scala, but I find his reasoning persuasive. I've always heard that the saying refers to creek, which makes sense. All Americans who traveled by foot, horse or wagon in the 1700s and 1800s would have to deal with rain-swollen creeks and rivers. It was a universal challenge that leant itself to a widely used saying. On the other hand, the Creek Nation was confined to a a portion of the Southeast and, with the exception of a period in the late 1700s and early 1800s, weren't on the warpath over extensive areas at any one time.

I think it's a waterway too, but . . .

An argument the other way can be made that "don't" would properly be used with a collective proper noun such as Creek. "Doesn't" with the singular (wet) creek. Capitalization rules in American English changed markedly between the late 18th C. and the early 19th C.; take a look at the Constitution for examples. I "think", however, in all cases, the Creek Indians were always capitalized by educated writers in every generation. But an educated writer wouldn't have used "don't" for a wet creek either.

Even today, and somewhat regionally, don't is used in place of the proper doesn't in dialect, but in every region it evidences a hick/hayseed/redneck-type of speaker. It became more common on the frontier than it would have been in the coastal colonies in the, say, mid-1700s. If your author has sources that go back that far he might check his sources, since, as has been said, the Creek Indians were not yet present in American culture in the early or really mid-1700s.

[Canoerebel]

It's always been a colloquial statement, very informal, mainly early-American, rural origin. So the derivation most likely was hick/hayseed and most of the time it was probably said in some variation like this: "Lawd willin' and the crick don't rise, we'uns'll be thar."

It's still said that way here.

[rockmedic109]

I live in California where the PC culture is so extreme that if any word, phrase, sentence or idea can possibly be misconstrued as racial, hate or bigotry, it will. Despite my living nearly 55 years in this culture and growing up through the public education system, I have never thought it was anything other than a reference to a tiny river overflowing it's banks and flooding someone's living room. Maybe I'm an insensitive lout because the idea that it stems from anything pertaining to a Native American tribe just never entered my mind.

[Canoerebel]

The "Creek Nation" version has become increasingly common in the past ten years. I hear it pretty commonly now. I think those who buy into it are simply drawn to the possibility of something novel - a twist on what they always thought the saying meant. So they repeat it, assuming that the source they heard it from was knowledgeable. So this idea is increasing but it's wrong.

In the eastern USA, there's a wildly growing idea that "bent trees" are artifacts of American Indians using them to mark trails or other landmarks. They aren't and the American Indians didn't do so, at least to any real extent. But the idea is growing, is routinely believed, is reported as fact by the press, and has now made it into historic markers and the like. And it's all 100% bogus. The adherents are well-meaning. They are just wrong.

[MakeeLearn]

The term Creek for a people was used as early as late 1600s/early 1700s. the term Creek is a nebulous name that covered a lot of different tribes that changed over time. Another term would be Creek Confederacy. It was a very generic term used by others to call a group of peoples and not specifically what they called themselves.


"As was frequently the case, the stream took the name of the folk, so that the Ocmulgee river above the approximate site of Macon, Georgia, was known to the English as "Ochese Creek." Thus in January, 1702, Governor James Moore counselled the assembly to "think of some way to confirm the Cussatoes live on Ocha-sa Creek & the Savannos in the Place they now live in, and to our friendship they being the only People by whom we may expect Advice of an Inland Invasion"


In consequence the term " Ochese Creek Indians " often became, by abbreviation, often simply Creeks.

Soon, however, the western Muskogee, with whom the English were in close alliance against the French and their allies in the period of Queen Anne's war, came to be included in the popular designation of Creeks. Apparently the complaint of Captain Musgrove in 1710 "that the Creek Indians owe him" [for ammunition] "since they went to war against the Choctaw Indians" was directed against the western group.

"As early as 1712 a distinction in term was made between the western and eastern Creeks, which became thereafter the stereotyped English usage, when the Indian commissioners instructed their agent to adjust affairs among "the upper and lower Creeks."


Later middle was added. At one time it was about every Tribe between South Carolina and Louisiana.

Learning of the Creek ... People of One Fire... would be a study of it's own.





After all that...

The term "God willing and the creek don't rise" was around way before Hawkins was born. And one truly understands it's meaning if you live in such enviroments.

So...Benjamin Hawkins wrote to President Jefferson "God willing and the Creek don't rise"... if the supposed letter was ever written, it doesn’t now exist

https://ia902205.us.archive.org/2/items ... 00hawk.pdf



Looking at his letters, his style

"...crossed the river and went on thro' a vale between the mountains 1 mile to Warwoman's Creek, crossed it 2 miles further, traveling thro' better land, crossed it again..."

"8 miles farther I crossed a small creek and 4 more arrived at William Richard's, a trader who lives at the station."

"I this day arrived at Hopewell on the Koowee, the seat of Maj. General Andrew Pickins, on my way to the Creeks as principal temporary agent for Indian affairs south of the Ohio."


His style would indicate a capitalize Creek for people. A look at the sentences before and after "God willing and the creek don't rise" could shed light on this.




Was Benjamin Hawkins the first to use "God willing and the creek don't rise". NO

Could he have written a letter in which "God willing and the Creek don't rise" was referring to a potential uprising by Creek tribes. YES


Would that not be a great pun/wink.


Or, at the time, was "Benjamin Hawkins wrote to President Jefferson "God willing and the Creek don't rise"" a joke that was told around campfires .

[btd64]

Great, English class all over again.[:'(]....GP

[rsallen64]

I grew up in Pennsylvania, lived there 30+ years, and have lived in the Pacific Northwest for 20 years now. This is the first time I ever heard this expression in any possible relation to the Creek Indians. And I never heard anything about "bent trees" either. I've hiked parts of many trails in PA and saw many "bent trees" and never had anyone make a connection to Indian markers. People are losing their damn minds nowadays. [:D]

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

I grew up in Pennsylvania, lived there 30+ years, and have lived in the Pacific Northwest for 20 years now. This is the first time I ever heard this expression in any possible relation to the Creek Indians. And I never heard anything about "bent trees" either. I've hiked parts of many trails in PA and saw many "bent trees" and never had anyone make a connection to Indian markers. People are losing their damn minds nowadays. [:D]

Also, the bent trees as a marker for trails thing is an urban (woodsy?) legend.

Trees grow bent on their own all the damn time. I can show you at least a half dozen on my property alone that basically look like one of those Z-shaped Tetris pieces, or an upside-down L. Nobody bent those trees.


"Don't" in place of "doesn't" is very common in colloquial English, as CR mentions. Especially for sayings like these.

[Bearcat2]

Around here it is "God willing and the crick don't rise"

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It's always been a colloquial statement, very informal, mainly early-American, rural origin. So the derivation most likely was hick/hayseed and most of the time it was probably said in some variation like this: "Lawd willin' and the crick don't rise, we'uns'll be thar."

It's still said that way here.

I get that. (I grew up in the South.) My point was that "don't" for "doesn't" wasn't, to my knowledge, common in the colonies. They were more traditionally English in speech, and for those few who were fully literate, even more so. Only when the frontier really opened up after the French and Indian Wars (and the Scotch-Irish began to flood into the South and Appalachia), did the hick/hayseed "don't" come into American dialect. So if your source has found the subject idiom before the mid-1700s I'd question that it must mean a waterway.

[Canoerebel]

Hey, Moose, I don't think that's right. While a fair percentage of colonists spoke excellent English, within a generation or two, a majority had probably developed a colloquial form of language - especially those who lived away from the main settlements. And, that early in time, when the settlements were mainly at Jamesetown and Plymouth and then Boston and Charleston and Philadelphia and New York....the Creek Confederation was basically unknown.

I'm as positive as I can be without turning this into a PhD exercise that the saying refers to water.

"Redneck" doesn't fit in a discussion of colonial or early American language. It's of relatively recent origin - late 19th century, I think.

[JeffroK]

I dont think the original settlers in the US spoke excellent English, there would have been a multitude of accents amongst the arriving British settlers.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JeffroK

I dont think the original settlers in the US spoke excellent English, there would have been a multitude of accents amongst the arriving British settlers.

True, but this is an issue of grammar, not accent.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Hey, Moose, I don't think that's right. While a fair percentage of colonists spoke excellent English, within a generation or two, a majority had probably developed a colloquial form of language - especially those who lived away from the main settlements. And, that early in time, when the settlements were mainly at Jamesetown and Plymouth and then Boston and Charleston and Philadelphia and New York....the Creek Confederation was basically unknown.

I'm as positive as I can be without turning this into a PhD exercise that the saying refers to water.

"Redneck" doesn't fit in a discussion of colonial or early American language. It's of relatively recent origin - late 19th century, I think.

I'm not speaking of the early 17th C. Jamestown was founded in 1607, but was a backwater after 1700 when the capital was moved to Williamsburg. Boston was old, as was New York (1624?), but those metros stayed very English in culture. Georgia was a prison colony I think, and I don't recall the founding year. 1720s maybe?

There were American colloquial phrases to be sure, and "don't" for "doesn't" happened sometime. I'm just not sure when. The treaty that ended the F&I War (Seven Years War to everybody else) opened the frontier, especially through the Cumberland Gap. The US got a lot more rural a lot faster after that. Kentucky, Ohio Valley, etc.

Why did the adoption of don't for doesn't happen? I don't know. There's a one-syllable time saving in speech, but English, being a stress-timed language, reduces both of them to a grunt more or less. As you say, we'd need a linguistic historian.

But. The main argument for creek being a waterway is the capitalization. The main argument against is the use of "don't", which fits with the proper noun, capitalized or not. An additional area of inquiry might be, I suppose, choice of the verb "rise." That's a n odd verb for an Indian revolt. "Rise" at the time was more commonly used as an assault on a monarchy. "Uprising" would have been more common for Indians or slaves. Or, for Indians, maybe, "the Creek don't attack." To "rise" the risers need to at least somewhat respect and recognize the government in question. Murdering settlers wouldn't be "rising." Rising implies against constituted authority, not civilians.

[RangerJoe]

Not only all of what has already been said, without modern weather forecasting and communications, people using road and trails without bridges were even more affected by flooding - especially flash flooding in certain areas. They would tend to cross a waterway, filled with water or not, so they would not be caught on the wrong side if it rained where they were or if it rained upstream of them and the water rose. You would not even want to be camping next to a waterway (dry or wet) in case it rained upstream and a flash flood came down to where they were.

[rustysi]

It's still said that way here.

And that's how this Yankee knows when he's gone too far or too 'deep' south.[:D]

I live in California where the PC culture is so extreme that if any word, phrase, sentence or idea can possibly be misconstrued

It ain't just Cali my friend.[:(]

saw many "bent trees" and never had anyone make a connection to Indian markers.

No, but 'bent trees' may still be used as a reference in some environs. Take Oklahoma and surrounding areas. Wind is generally form the south, trees 'bend' to the north. Its a compass.[:D]