Dodge, "The Old Roman."

[pshrake]

I echo the question posed by Larry,

Bob, I have to disagree with your statement from a number of different points.

Your point #1 to me does not apply in this case. Dodge negotiated for the use of land for the purposes of mining lead. You can not compare this to the exchange of goods, it is like comparing apples to oranges. the Trade and Intercourse act of 1802 as did the Office of Indian Affairs clearly outlined the relationship between whites and Indians living on the frontier. Trading for goods like furs is covered by this law. Section 5 and section 7 of the act specificaly states that only individuals with the proper liscence can reside in Indian territory. Section 12 to me really says it all. "And be it further enacted, that no purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian, or nation, or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity,in lawor equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention, entered into pursuant to the consititution...."


Your assertion that Atkinson dispatched troops at will also to me does not hold up. His excursion into HoChunk Territory in 1827 was a major undertaking. In fact nearly the entire military resources of the U.S. were mobilized that summer. It was a major effort. Atkinson could not move his entire force from St. Louis on a whim. As it was when he did move his force up river in 1827 he met with difficulty. Street wrote at least two letters complaining about Dodge, one on January 8, 1828, the other of February 17 , 1828. From his letter of February I quote "I made a requisition on the commander of Fort Crawford for one hundred and eighty men, to enable me to sieze the trespassers (He is referring to Dodge here) and thier property. This, from the state of the garrison could not be granted; and, after reporting the case to William Clark the Superintendant of Indian Affairs at St. Louis, I can do nothing but await further instructions."

At the time Street was writing the situation with the HoChunk was quite tense. Only the tenuous peace negotiated by Atkinson the previous summer held the HoChunk at bay.

You state "As we have discussed elsewhere, it sure looks like the lack of ability or will to enforce a policy means "there is no policy." I could not disagree more. Though Federal Indian Policy at the time was imperfect, and often vague and flawed, there was established law. The Act of 1802 defined the interrelationship between Indians and whites along the frontier. This law had been in effect for 17 years. Reguardless of the periodic inability to enforce that law, it was the law of the land and Dodge had to know it. Street and other Indian Agents tried to enforce it but did not always have the military authority to back them up. This points to a failure of the federal government to meet its obligations but it does not excuse Dodge, and it does not mean that no relevant policy or law existed.

I will admit, I cannot speak on Gratiot. John Connelly the agent at Galena also was making complaints to Clark. Perhaps he was referring to Gratiot, I do not know.

I am not attacking Dodge's character, or his reputation. I do find him a facinating character. However, All of us make mistakes from time to time. I contend that Dodge made a mistake in establishing mining operations in Wisconsin in 1827-28. He was lucky, his actions ultimately did not have serious consequences for settlers on the frontier, but it easily could have.

Pete Shrake

[Robert Braun]

Pete...

You have indicated that Dodge 'knew or should have known' all about the "Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802?" I submit that MAYBE he knew enough to be a challenge to authorities, but it remains to be established that he was familiar with the various governing Federal acts as you suggest. My goodness... I pay taxes every year, but don't ask me to quote a single paragraph of the Federal IRS tax code!

I submit that there had to be a REASON or reasons to move into Winnebago territory! There had to be a compelling reason for Dodge and others to--as you suggest-- "push" the issue. Could it have been the onerous and ever-changing restrictions placed on lead digging by the Federal authorities? Could it have been a run-in with a surly licensing agent? Could it have been the 10% tax imposed--- universally despised by those forced to pay it?

Who is ultimately responsible-- the child who challenges the rule or the parent that neglects to enforce the rule?

I submit that perhaps Street engaged in "selective enforcement"-- seeking to remove some, while ingoring others that were allegedly engaged in similar acitivites, and for a longer period of time. I further submit that many modern authors have latched on to this as the SOLE reason for debasing Dodge--- refused to dig deeper into these issues and connecting circumstances (this of course excludes you, Larry, Cliff, and others who have done so very well in advancing knowledge and understanding in these threads!

Proof: Dr. Lucy Eldersvelt Murphy, in her A Gathering of Rivers, devotes many paragraphs to the so-called "tresspassing" miners. Yet she gives the Gratiots a pass for negotiating and trading with Indians and living peacably among the Indians. So far as can be determined, no Indian died violently at Gratiot's Grove. The very same could be said for "Dodge's Camp;" Dodge having negotiated his diggings in very much the same way as the Gratiots. Yet her research into the matter stops here.

Agent Street, Dr. Murphy, and many modern writers have stopped well short of resolving this discrepancy-- and the precident it set in the region. However, as long as the issue is never challenged, there is no need to resolve it. They have found their white Anglo Euro-American "boogeyman" and need not look any further-- nor dig any deeper. Peter Parkinson be hanged!

Regards, Bob.

[pshrake]

Yes he should have known about the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802! As I stated before it was the law for 17 years. What is more, every federal official in the region including army officers knew about the law and knew it well. Even if he did not know all of the particulars of the Act the fact of the matter is, anyone who wanted to have buisness in Indian Territory had to have a liscense. They had to deal with the local Indian agents who oversaw and regulated the Indian trade in the field, or a local army officer in leiu of an agent. The regular interaction between Indian agents and traders is well established in the correspondance of the agents at any number of agencies through out the region.

Dodge would have had to had contact with an agent, or he would have been clearly avoiding the law enforceing authorities of the frontier. In his contact with the agents he would have been informed of the various details of the Act. I am not writing this on any assumption. This all comes from examining the correspondance of a number of Indian Agents through out this region.

You state there had to be a compelling reason to move into the territory. What compelling reason could there have been other than the mining of lead. So if it is profitable to break a law just because you disagree with it that makes it ok? That is the only assumption that I can draw from your remarks. I have said before, that federal Indian law at the time was imperfect, and often itself quite flawed. Reguardless of its imperfection does any citizen of the U.S. have the right to break any law simply for "Compelling" reasons, such as personal profit, or simply because they disagree with it?

You state that Street purposely singled out Dodge, what evidence to you have to support this assertion? My knowlege of Streets anxiety over Dodge directly refer to the extremly tense situation that existed in Wisconsin after the uprising of 1827.

Like I said before, I do not know why Gratiot has not been equally condemed for his actions, Perhaps there is relevant correspondance somewhere that does mention him by name and try to call him to task for his actions, I for one am intreaged and am looking for such material.

As for other modern day historians, that is for me another topic for another time. My concern is Dodge, in Wisconsin in 1827-1828. I have said before, and say again, I do not attack all of Dodges actions. But no person is beyond reproach. I still maintian, that given the situtation at that time, Dodge had no buisness to be on HoChunk territory, he did "push" a dangerous situation. He should be criticized for it. Does this mean he was an evil person and ought to be damed for eternity...no...But in 1827-1828 he was wrong.

Pete Shrake

[Robert Braun]

Pete, you stated

You state that Street purposely singled out Dodge, what evidence to you have to support this assertion?

In fact, I said: "I submit that perhaps Street engaged in "selective enforcement"-- seeking to remove some, while ingoring others that were allegedly engaged in similar acitivites, and for a longer period of time."

My evidence for my statement is directly from Street's and Marsh's own correspondence in the early Spring of 1828... and coupled with the reality that absent from their correspondence are concerns, allegations, or charges of other alleged "trespassers" in the region, who had brokered their own arangements earlier and had mined lead longer than say Dodge.

=====================================

Sidebar: In response to Larry's and Pete's query regarding "are we not a nation of laws?" may answer is of course in the affirmative. This being said... challenging or outright breaking of laws that people find onerous, unpopular, or rediculous is in truth the "American way!" Does that make it right? Hmmmm.... answer that one with caution!

=======================================

Please allow me to address some specific points.

1. Pete quoted from Section 12 of the "Intercourse Act":

"And be it further enacted, that no purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian, or nation, or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity,in lawor equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention, entered into pursuant to the consititution...."

Standing alone, Pete's arguement has validity, because, as Dodge biographer William Salter indicated, Dodge rented mineral rights from Bear, a local Winnebago chief. Now.. before readers of this thread leap all over me, screaming "You have just stipulated that Dodge was wrong!" allow me to add that legislation is rarely static. It changes, twists, and turns as governed by case law, which amends, changes, or even nullifies existing laws when it can be argued that rights, duties, precidents, or emergin issues are found to be applicable.

2. Please note that Section 12's jurisdiction is limited to "within the bounds of the United States." In 1827, where did that boundary line begin... and where did it end? Clearly, even Dodge's July 8, 1831 electioneering letter stipulated that such boundaries were far from defined. Despite the philosophy of "Manifest Destiny," Indain tribes were still regarded by the US as sovereign, and it could be argued-- as I'm pretty sure many did-- that American jursidiction ended at the boundary line.

3. In her writings, Adele de Perdreauville Gratiot indicated that the Gratiot brothers bartered mineral rights from the Winnebago for "a large amount of goods and supplies." So, too, did Ebenezer Brigham, Thomas Parish and certainly others. I keep harping on this point because it is key to the issue-- a precident in the region which had the effect of modifying the Intercourse Act as a practical matter had been right and truly set before Dodge emigrated into Winnebago country.

4. What is more... I submit that Street KNEW about this precident, subscribed to it, and supported it so long as the Indians didn't complain about the specific arrangement! According to Salter, Street reacted to complaints that reached his Prairie du Chein office regarding the presence of "Dodge's Camp." I quote from Street's January 15, 1828 letter to General William Clark:

Should the tribe disappove of the of the bargain of the Bear with Gen. Dodge, mischief might ensue. The cupidity of the Indians may also be awakened and serious difficulties thrown in the way of any contemplated purchase of this section of the country by our Government. Should his removal as a precautionary measure be contemplated, I have no force adequate to the accomplishment of the object..."

5. I read from Street's letter the following:

• The deal struck by the Bear and Dodge was apparently alright if the tribe approved of it;
  
• The land was part of a purchase deal the US Government was still trying to broker, which means the ground was outside the boundaries of the United States
  
• Using Street's own words, the removal of Dodge was contemplated as a "precaution." Not as a matter of tresspass; not as a matter of an alledged violation of the "Intercourse Act;" but as a "precaution?" Because, according to Agent Street, if the Winnebago get angry it's going to mess up next year's land deal with the tribe?

My object here is to assert that the case against Dodge the "squatter" is far from 'open and shut.' Government officials in the region, mindful of Federal acts and rules governing people and commerce in the region, made decisions (or not) and took actions (or didn't) which formed a practice which had the effect of modifying these same acts and rules. I would concede the points made by Pete in his informed and interesting posts IF officials had been following cleanly and fairly the acts and rules they were appointed and paid to enforce. Unfortuately, as Pete has correctly pointed out, it just wasn't so neat and handsome as that on the frontier. By emigrating to Winnebago country and bartering his own deal with the Bear, Dodge appears to have been following an established and (dare I say it?) accepted practice.

I will close for now by challenging Pete in a friendly way to provide evidence for his assertion that Dodge knew or should have known all about the "Intercourse Act."

Regards, Bob.

[Larry Koschkee]

The whole bunch, Dodge and all were outlaws and thieves. You can not cut it any other way.

What Dodge and others did was a predictable pattern exhibited further in the gold fields of California and the Black Hills of South Dakota. Look for loop holes in the law or ignore it completly. The motivating factor to commit anarchy is a chance to make a fast buck. Fortune hunters... did they come to the region to live peacefully side by side with the Indians, establish farms and villages, participate in nation building? I think not... they came to rape and exploit the land for all its worth.

As Mr. Braun inferred... a nerve was struck regarding encroachment on tribual lands and may be the major objection to Dodge. I can not speak for others but, I have a lot of objections to Dodge's activities in the Mineral District during the 1820s and 1830s. I do not admire him, but I can feel respect the man.

I come down on the side of Pete's well stated positions and definately agree that Dodge "was lucky, his actions ultimately did not have serious consequences for settlers on the frontier, but it easily could have." My colleagues and I are perplexed why the Winnebago exhibited so much restraint in dealing with the antics of Dodge. He definately dodged a bullet (excuse the pun) because all signs of Winnebago tension pointed to a potential explosion of murder and mayhem along the frontier. Many agree that the militia deaths near Fort Blue Mound were the result of Dodge's actions.

Do not despair Bob, Dodge was a highly visible figure and thus naturally attracted attention, good and some deservedly bad. A bull in the woods attracts alot of attention, more so than the Gratiots, Meeker, Hamilton, Shull, etc.

I noted your open ended question/analogy " who is ultimately responsible - the child who challenges the rule or the parent that neglects to enforce the rule?"

In the past when my children have done something wrong and use the excuse that Jack or Jill did it to... I just cringe and ask them does that really make it right.

Bob, I ask you... just because others crossed the line and committed anarchy does that justify Dodges lawlessness?

Larry from Lewiston, MT

[Robert Braun]

Larry... as usual an excellent and thought-provoking post.

And you're writing from Montana? MONTANA?? I'm insanely jealous! I wanna visit Montana, too! Take me with you! Waaaaaah!

I quite agree that Dodge challenged the authorites, the laws, and the status-quo, and as such he drew more than the usual attention. But it wasn't as if many of the other gypsies, tramps, and thieves in the District were flying under the radar. It seems reasonable to presume that the authorities at the very least suspected encroachment on native lands. Which... of course... returns me to my question/analogy " who is ultimately responsible - the child who challenges the rule or the parent that neglects to enforce the rule?"

Larry, I think the comparison is not Dodge compared to his fellow smelters, but rather Dodge and his fellow smelters compared to the representatives of National authority in the region.

Finally, I respectfully disagree with your collegues regarding the reasons behind the murders at the Blue Mounds. Well... at least the Aubrey murder. The evidence suggests that, while the murder was most likely committed by a Winnebago party, the reason for the murder was revenge for individual insult or reproach.

I believe that if the Winnebago wished to make a strong statement under the "law of Indian retaliation" they could have easily struck the very heart of the matter--- Dodge's family at Fort Union. While Christiana and children had the protection of a stockade... in 1832 the fort was but lightly defended by a few diggers and associates, and Dodge was frequently absent from his homestead-- meaning his family was truly and particularly vulnerable. The quote ascribed to Mrs. Dodge seems to say just that: “My husband and sons are between me and the Indians. I am safe so long as they live.”

Oh all right! I guess you don't have to take me as far as Montana. Western Wyoming will do in a pinch!

Regards, Bob.

[pshrake]

Bob

I willingly accept your challange to prove that Dodge knew about the act ;D

I will state however, and perhaps this will blow my case, I do not think we will ever find such a "Smoking Gun" to prove in writing that Dodge knew about the law. Many of us on this discussion page have sifted through the vast correspondance of the period and to date no one has produced such a paper.

But I ask the question, as a man of consequence on the frontier, how could he not have known about it?

The law was in effect in practically a unchanged state for 17 years! To use your analogy about the IRS, sure, I do not know a great deal about tax laws but I know they exist and I pay my taxes.

Dodge as a active and well known resident of the region, simply had to know about the law. Maybe not every detail but enough to know that he was taking a risk in moving into the HoChunk territory. If he knew about the exisence of the law, and I would go as far as to say He probably knew several points of it, He could easily have gone to any number of federal officials for clarification.

But to adress your points,

Point 1.

"allow me to add that legislation is rarely static. It changes, twists, and turns as governed by case law, which amends, changes, or even nullifies existing laws when it can be argued that rights, duties, precidents, or emergin issues are found to be applicable."

True - but I do not believe there was any significant case, or change that was added to the Intercourse law reguarding settlement on Indian lands. I have Correspondance from John Kinzie in 1829 that is directly referring to enforcement of the Act in its original form.

It still does not settle the fact that he did not have the authority as a private citizen to trade for land. That was specificaly a Federal right, and no subsequent court case ever changed that.

Point 2. reguarding the territory of the U.S. I belive it was the Treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812 that gave the U.S. the right to claim the lands in Wisconsin. The same could be said for lands obtained in the Louisiana Purchase, We bought that land from Napoleon, True there were boundary disputes with Britain, Spain, and there were many tribes living in that land mass but that purchase extended the boundaries of the United States all the way to the Pacific.

That being said, there was still the messy problem of Indian Ownership. I agree that the Indian Territories were a definate grey area, outside the organized boundries of the U.S. but those lands were still subject to federal law especially in reguard to U.S. Citizens, this was the whole point of the Trade and Intercourse act of 1802. The Feds relaized that there had to be some governing law to regulate affairs in this unorganized territory.

You raise an interesting philosophical quesiton:
"This being said... challenging or outright breaking of laws that people find onerous, unpopular, or rediculous is in truth the "American way!" Does that make it right?"

It depends on the situation, if the law is inhibiting freedom, or opressing the citizenry, yes it should be challenged. If it is broken for the sake of comercial profit, or for personal gain, no it should not.

Dodge challenged federal authority so he could mine lead for personal gain. The Trade and Intercourse Act was established so that the touchy and dangerous relationship between whites and Indians have some codefied law. Whether one liked or approved of the enforcing officicals that law still existed. It did not exist for any restrictive opressive purpose. The Federal Government was steadily aquireing lands in the region, All Dodge, and other miners, had to do was wait, perhaps a year or two and the Federal Government would have aquired the land in treaty. In fact that is exactly what it did in 1829. The Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802 was a broad set of regulations that covered everything from whiskey trading, to land ownership, to prosecution of crimes. It was designed not to restrict those living on the frontier, but to create a framework in which to keep a difficult peace until lands could be purchased by treaty. Dodge jumped the gun, he refused to wait for the federal officials to do thier job, and he did it in a particulary dangerous time.


I will concede that the fact that others also jumped the line into Indian lands. What they did should have been at the time and certianly now should be condemed in the same manner. It does point to a failure of the federal Indian Policy, and that policy has often been criticized by many other historians, but...

It still does not exhonerate Dodge, my main issue with him comes down to timing. He did it in a time that could have rekindled the fires of the preceeding summer. Street in many of these same letters expressed great concern for the state of affairs on the frontier.

Atkinson negotiated a very tenouous peace at the Portage in the summer of 1827. The leaders of the tribe were promised that commissioners would be sent to the region the next summer to resolve the boundary issue in the lead region. In the course of the winter Red Bird Died and HoChunk frustrations steadily grew through out the spring of 1828 to near a boiling point. The HoChunk had promised not to molest any miner who happened upon thier land until the arrival of commissioners the next summer. There was a very real threat of violence erupting before that time. And this is the period that Dodge moved into HoChunk Territory.



In the end though, I think that perhaps we are going to simply have to agree to disagree on this subject. This is at least the second time we have analyzed this issue to great detail. As I remember our previous conversation did not conclusivly resolve this issue. I think that we both have made some good points here, but I also get the impression that you can not be convinced that Dodge did wrong in 1827, and I can not be convinced that he did right.

Pete Shrake

[Robert Braun]

At the expense of being accused of trying to get in the last word... ... I would like to reiterate that the extended practice by Government officials of failing to enforce the various acts, laws and rules in the region amounted to a de facto amendment to the acts. Given the number of individual precidents that could be brought to bear, I doubt the government would have been able to win its case in court for singling out Dodge out of dozens, if not hundreds, of others who did the same thing. (I can recall numerous court cases where the defendant prevailed because of a lack of due diligence on the part of Federal officials in either porperly enforcing Federal rules or providing mixed or muddled interpretation of the law.)

A further point of clarification--- Biographer William Salter, author Pelzer, and the text of History of Iowa County Historical Society each indicate that Dodge did not negotiaite a land purchase from the Bear. Rather, he traded goods for the priviledge of renting land... thereby securing mineral rights. If the 1082 Intercourse Act had been failry and consistently administered, I would concede that Dodge probably acted outside of the law. Given the prevailing practice of the day in the Lead Region, however, I would argue that the issue of "legality" is not as black and white as some have indicated.

Substitute Federal regulations like the lead mining rules and the Intercourse Act of 1802 for today's "Patriot Act" and the resulting, swirling controversy--even civil disobedience-- and we can and should see the 1827 emigrants in a slightly different light.

Pete... your comments on "personal gain" may conjure up visions in modern reader's minds of an Enron-type scandal involving huge sums of money. In truth and in fact, the West was the only place that poor people could go for a fresh start. Digging lead was one means by which to start one's life anew. This is what brought Dodge and his large family to the region... having failed in making a go of lead digging and salt production in Missouri. True-- some were lured by the thought of easy wealth. I think that accounts point to the fact that the Lead Region was populated by mostly highland Southerners of humble origins and means.

They were a wild, often reckless, and tough lot... imbued with the freedon inspired and fostered by their new Republic, and chafed mightly at anything that smacked of authority, rules, and regulations. They hated the lead mining licensing arrangements, they hated the constantly changing regulations, and they despised the Federal tax on 10% of their production. And because Dodge challenged all this and more, they regarded him as their hero and champion of their rights.

Unlike some folks in the region like H. H. Gear, Dodge never got rich digging lead. When not electioneering or serving in the west or in Washington D. C. , he lived humbly in a single story log home at "Dodge's Camp" for many years. In their declining years, Dodge and spouse Christiana lived with their son Augustus in Burlington, Iowa, where both passed away. If Dodge entered Winnebago land for "personal gain," it certainly wasn't substantial.

==================================

To return to the object of this thread--- IMHO, some modern investigators and academians need to do a better job of investigating and assessing the situation in 1827 by digging a little deeper, making balanced determinations, painting with a less-broad brush, and imposing a little less of their own 21st Century values systems into early 19th Century situations.

Regards, Bob.

[Larry Koschkee]

Poor "highland Southerners of humble origins and means." This is another excuse for greed and anarchistic activities demonstrated by the fortune seekers? Bob, please! Your defense of Dodge and his ilk is taking on a familiar ring... that of a Hollywood screen writer makeover of some questionable characters and activities.

I have welcomed this thread because in your characterization of the time period, people and events has reaffirmed my viewpoints, which are for the most part in opposition to yours, on what really took place in the mining district. You have focused a bright light on the people and activities and many of us do not like what we see. It is not shocking, as we have seen it before in history.

Painting a bucolic picture here of the "highland Southerners" and their traditions or origins can not color over some of their characteristics others may find objectionable. Many of us have connected the dots between these "highland Southerners" and the individuals who advocated the Confederacy that plunged the Union into a devastating civil war.
Hell some people in Dixie can still smell the gunpowder.

So keep it up Bob, you are doing a magnificient job of reinforcing my position... the more you defend Dodge and his band of miners the better my case looks.

The best to you,

Larry K.

[Cliff Krainik]

Could Robert Braun and Larry Koschkee please defiine their term "highland southerners of humble origins and means" - of whom exactly are you speaking?

Larry, can you please explain yourself when you say "Many of us have connected the dots between these 'highland southerners' and individuals who advocated the Confederacy...." I would appreciate your thoughts and your dot-connecting devices. Lastly, you state "Hell, some people in Dixie can still smell the gunpowder." To what are you referring?

I appreciate the exchange between Bob, and Larry & Pete. I think you have established that Henry Dodge was a man composed of rightous intentions, great accomplishments, and actions open to critical reveiw - deeds of questionable moral turpitude. So, the last word should be Dodge was neither a villian nor a super hero - it's important that a fuller understanding of the complexity of the man AND his time should be examined and understood. We're looking for a fuller finished portrait, not a cartoon. You gentlemen have, through your discussion, provided this valuable service. Shall we move on? Or, is that a mole I see on Dodge's left cheek?

Cliff Krainik

[Robert Braun]

Points well stated, Mr. Hawthorne!

I would be happy to respond to my assigned portion of your query after my discharge from the "orange army!"

ADIOS! Bob.

[Robert Braun]

To answer Cliff's query, the "highland Southerners of humble origins and means" to whom I refer were the majority of emigrants to the U. S. Mineral District from 1826-29. In defining our terms, Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defined “humble” as “1. Low; opposed to high or lofty. 2. Low; opposed to lofty or great; mean; not magnificent; as a humble cottage.”

Highland Southerners...
In the introduction to A Woman’s Story of Pioneer Illinois, Milo Quafe of the Wisconsin State Historical Society noted on p. xiv: “…the society known and described by Mrs. Tillson was preeminently southern in origin and in sentiment. In 1818, in a population of some 35,000, four persons out of six were of southern stock, one was of foreign origin, and one of northern (new England or Mid Atlantic) antecedents.” Likewise, on p. xxiii, Dr. Kay J. Carr wrote: “In the 1820s, most of the inhabitants of the state [of Illinois] were from southern parts of the country, and particularly from Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky. These settlers brought with them the economic and social attitudes that prevailed among their populations…”

One typical emigrant was Elijah Iles, who wrote of his own highland Southern origins in his 1888 Sketches of Early Life and Times in Kentucky, Missouri and Illinois :

My father, Thomas Iles, was born in Pennsylvania in the year 1766. After the death of his mother, his father having married a second time, he became restless, and determined to leave his father, depend on himself for the future, and hoe his own row. At the age of seventeen years an opportunity presented itself. His father furnished him with a good horse and outfit of clothing, and sent him on a trip to collect money. He got the money, and thinking himself amply provided put out to Virginia, and emigrated to Kentucky with a family by the name of Trumbo, in the year 1788. When he got to Kentucky, the Indians were stealing horses and killing the inhabitants, and for a while his time was occupied in skirmishes after the Indians, driving them across the river into the then territory of Ohio.

…After his marriage, my father, with two of my mother's brothers, John and Robert Crockett, and others, formed a colony and settled on the border, in Eastern Kentucky, in a rough, hilly section, on Slate Creek, one of the headwaters of the Licking, now comprised in the county of Bath.

My earliest recollections bring to my view a Buck-eye cabin of one room, in which we lived, that stood on the bank of a clear stream of water, the bed of which was of flat limestone rock and pebbles. The bottom-land surrounding the cabin was covered with a heavy growth of beech timber, so thick that it darkened the sunlight. The upland was a varied growth of timber, not so thick, but covered with a dense thicket of cane. Our neighbors were not so near that we could see the smoke from each other's cabins. This district, at that day, was truly a wild and backwoods country. Bear and deer were so plentiful that we could often see them from the door of our cabin. We could not raise hogs until the bear and panther were thinned out, as they would kill and eat the pigs. But we made good use of the bears by killing them and using the meat as we do pork.

The connectivity here is that many highland Southern settlers in Illinois, of which Iles' experience was but one example, eventually chose to venture north or northwest to dig lead. Iles personally did not, but many others did... and were dubbed "Suckers."

...of humble means and resource
Were Iles' humble origins unique? Alexis de Tocqueville recorded his encounter with a Kentuckian in his Democracy in America p. 586:

"It was in one of the many forested valleys of the region, he wrote, that we discovered one evening a cabin, made of wood, whose poorly joined walls allowed one to see a great fire flaming in the interior. We knock: two great roguish dogs, big as donkeys, come first to the door. Their master follows close, grips us hard by the hand, and invites us to enter. You push open a door hung on leather hinges and without a lock...Here you find a family of poor people leading the lazy life of the rich...Not event the most miserable planter of Kentucky or Tennessee but represents marvelously the country gentleman of old Europe. A fireplace as wide as half the room and with an entire tree burning in it, a bed, a few chairs, a carbine six feet long, against the walls of the apartment, a few hunter's accouterments which the wind was bowing about as it chose, and the picture is complete. Near the fire is seated the mistress of the lodge, with the tranquil and modest air that distinguishes American women, while four or five husky children rolled on the floor, as lightly clad as in the month of July. Under the mantel of the chimney two or three squatting Negroes still seemed to find that it was less warm there than in Africa. In the midst of this collection of misery, my gentleman did not do the honors of his house with the less ease and courtesy. It's not that he forced himself to move in any way; but the poor blacks, soon perceiving that a stranger had entered the house, one of them by orders of the master presented us with a glass of whisky, another, a corn cake or plate of venison; a third was sent to get wood. The first time I saw this order given I supposed that it was a question of going to the cellar or woodhouse; but the axe strokes that I heard ringing in the wood told me soon that they were cutting down the tree that we needed. It's thus they do everything. While the slaves were thus occupied, the master, seated tranquilly before a fire that would have roasted an ox to the marrow of his bones, enveloped himself majestically in a cloud of smoke, and between each puff related to his guests, to make their time seem less long, all the great exploits that his hunter's memory could furnish him.”

Based on such observations, de Tocqueville summed up Kentucky and Tennessee peculiarities, "They are southerners, masters of slaves, made half wild by the solitude, and hardened by the hardships of life."

Why did they emigrate? Just as he reached young manhood, Elijah Iles felt the need to move on. His recollection of that event provides us with a clue:

I now heard of a new country in Missouri called the Boone's Lick, about six hundred miles distant, represented to be very fine. By this time I felt well weaned, and determined to emigrate to this new country, where I expected I would have to depend on myself for the future, and that, too, among strangers, far away from all my kin. This was before the government had offered the land in Missouri for sale.

More about Southerners in the Mineral District
A writer named “Gillens” toured the Mineral District in September 1831. He wrote an account of his adventure in the New England Magazine, September 1831 edition:

About one fourth of the settlers were foreigners, principally Irish. The rest, as classified by themselves, were Missourians, Suckers, and Pukes—the latter name implying natives of Kentucky. …Here were seen the extremes of society. The scholar and the gentleman were seen at the same table with the blacklegs and the half-horse, half-alligator, vulgar, fierce, overbearing, and scare farther advanced in civilization than the Winnebago, with whom he was like to contend for a home.

Charles Whittlesey toured the region a year after the publication of the report of “Gillens” and after the conclusion of the Black Hawk War. He recorded his findings of the mining areas west of the Four Lakes region in his Recollections of a Tour Through Wisconsin in 1832 p. 80:

"The country is still prairie, with scattering tufts of inferior timber. The huts of the miners had been deserted on account of the difficulties now terminated, and the business of making lead was about to re-commence. Occasionally a farm might be seen running out from an island of timber, and supplied with comfortable buildings. But most of the improvements were of a temporary nature, consisting of a lead furnace and the cabins adjacent.”

The pronounced Southern influence remained in the District for some time. A self-described Massachusetts Yankee named William P. Ruggles emigrated to the Lead Region in the spring of 1836. He eventually linked up with George Wallace Jones (a Kentuckian) and recorded his initial impressions (later reprinted in the History of Iowa County, Wisconsin):

“At this time, the strangeness of my situation struck me very forcibly. The people and their ways and of doing and speaking were very different from what I had been accustomed to. …I remained in the vicinity of Dubuque and Galena for two years working for Mr. Jones, and during that time and, I never saw more than two or three Yankees. Nearly every body and thing was Southern.”

===================

Tracing the history of the migration of people to America, the segment from whom so-called "highland Southerners" descended came in a wave of early migration from the border country between Britian and Scotland. These were people from the lower social order, looking for a fresh start in a new land. They were regarded as "low types" by their Colonial coastal bretheren and, having little money or resources, emigrated to the western reaches of the colonies. With succeeding generations. the westward push continued, each generation hoping to make a go of it in new land... the cheapest of which could be found on the very fringes of the frontier. GENERALLY speaking, emigration within America and immigration to America was an errand of the poorer segments of society... each looking for a new start in the "West." (Source: Albions Seed by David Hackett Fischer.)

[Robert Braun]

Larry said:

Poor "highland Southerners of humble origins and means." This is another excuse for greed and anarchistic activities demonstrated by the fortune seekers? Bob, please! Your defense of Dodge and his ilk is taking on a familiar ring... that of a Hollywood screen writer makeover of some questionable characters and activities.

I have welcomed this thread because in your characterization of the time period, people and events has reaffirmed my viewpoints, which are for the most part in opposition to yours, on what really took place in the mining district. You have focused a bright light on the people and activities and many of us do not like what we see. It is not shocking, as we have seen it before in history.

Larry, a couple of points here may be worth noting in my "explaination"-- not defense or excusation-- of Henry Dodge.

1. To your first point, about a Hollywood make-over... I contend, and have so stated in numerous threads, that this is precisely what has happened to Dodge's reputation since Dr. Eby's Vietnam-era, anti-"military industrial complex" work This Disgraceful Affair. And for the next 30+ years enough authors and scholars have picked up this thread and run with it--making rampant negativity (reinforced by a nonsensical devotion to 'political correctness') acceptable as scholarly investigation. In short-- a make-over.

I have discussed elsewhere that critical acclaim often accompanies academic writings that "toe the mark" regarding what is held to be "acceptable"--regardless of the value and validity of the facts used. That I dare challenge such interpretations seems to have touched a nerve. But that was the purpose of this board from the very beginning-- to challenge previously-held and long-held notions, findings, and conclusions! In a politically correct world gone stark raving mad... this board may be the last bastion of open discussion on a potentially politically-charged topic like the Black Hawk War!

2. Larry, you wrote "You have focused a bright light on the people and activities and many of us do not like what we see." If I might ask... who are "many of us?"

Continued warm personal regards,

Bob.

[Cliff Krainik]

Bob,

Thank you for your excellent definition and in-depth analysis of the "highland southerners of humble origins and means" - the occupants of the Lead Region during the 1820-1830s era.

Cliff

[Larry Koschkee]

Still waiting for the "lurkers" out there from the State of Illinois to defend their favorite son, General James D. Henry. Mr. Braun would have us believe the "Old Roman" and his small "Mining Regiment" defeated Black Hawk in "One of the most discreditable punitive expeditions in the long and checkered history of American relations with the aborigines." (Reuben Gold Thwaites)

Some things to consider:

1) How many men did Dodge actually lead? 150, maybe upwards of 200 atmost.

2) How many did Henry lead in the Third Brigade? Approximately 1200.

3) Dodge was a slave-holder, fortune hunter, "southern highlander" that lived by a punctilio sense of ethics made up of duels and confrontational tactics.

4) Henry, originally from Pennsylvanic, was a Illinois sheriff/shoemaker remembered for his gentle and courteous, but firm ways. A contemporary described him as "modest and retiring," until his temper was raised. Govenor Ford, in his "History of Illinois" spoke of Henry as the idol of the people: "If he had lived (Henry died March 4, 1834 from the apparent rigors and hardships of the campaign causing lung disease) he would have been elected Governor of the State in 1834 by more than twenty thousand majority: and this would have been done against his own will, by the spontaneous action of the people."

Theodore Calvin Pease in his "The Story if Illinois" says: claims to the honors of the Black Hawk War were disputed by the Dodges of Wisconsin and by regular officers, but any careful student must concede to Henry much of the credit for the battles of the Wisconsin and the Bad Axe which reduced Black Hawk and his band to abject submission."

5) Posey's Illinois militia did not want to have anything to do with Dodge when Atkinson instructed them to take orders from Dodge. They rejected his leadership in a subsequent vote of leadership reaffirming Posey, leaving Dodge with his little "Mining Regiment.

Larry K.