|
Post by Greg Carter on Dec 8, 2003 15:12:05 GMT -5
I don't think defending General Henry is appropriate in a thread about Henry Dodge. It rather changes the issue (or subject, rather) now at hand in this thread, as I see it.
GMC
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Dec 8, 2003 15:42:37 GMT -5
If there ever was a time and place to challenge Robert Braun's statement: ...and... (dare I say it?... the principal figure in the defeat of Black Hawk an his band, it is now.
He created the branch in this thread and if someone wants to walk out on that limb, it is entirely appropriate.
But of course, we will look forward to your NEW thread on James D. Henry.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Dec 8, 2003 15:48:30 GMT -5
Larry,
I have no intentions of starting an argument on another thread. I just noticed that several of you were discussing Dodge in particular and that at one point Cliff asked for a clarification about some points to do with "connecting the dots" and "the Confederacy", which was followed by a clarification by Bob, and what appeared to be a change of subject by you. Not meaning offense or anything.
I will be the first to admit I don't know enough about General Henry to be an advocate in the first place, however I think that if this thread is about Dodge, it should stay on Dodge, or at least on the present argument, not a change of subject when a challenge or question is raised.
Greg Carter a "lurker" from Illinois
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Dec 8, 2003 18:33:54 GMT -5
Apparently I have been caught by the thread police, Mr. Carter. I read back through the thread to determine where I went wrong and he is right, I was remiss.
Cliff and Robert, my apologizes for not answering your questions in a timely manner. It was not intentional. The month of November is the busiest month of the year for me when I prepare for the long Wisconsin winter months... cutting, splitting, hauling and stacking firewood for a cookstove, heating stove and fireplace... also filling the larder with moose, elk and deer.
Cliff asked: 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.
This subject goes back to an American History class I attended at a local State College. The essay question for extra credit was framed as such. "What connection did some of the prominent people of the Upper Mississippi Valley region have with the Confederacy?" Today it is interesting research in respect to the national politics of the Mineral District from the 1820s through the 1860s.
Robert Braun gave a very good synopsis of the westward movement of what a professor acquaintance termed "southern culture and attitude" and I agree with most of what Mr. Braun outlined.
The dotted line starts in the southern states and moves west after the 1808 United States Slave Trade Act that outlawed the importing of African slaves. The "highland Southerners" were probably not fully aware that they were part of the avant-garde of slavery in antebelium U. S. Many prominent Michigan Territory citizens had prior and subsequent Black Hawk War ties to pro-slavery officials in Washington and southern states. It is interesting to view the politics when pro-slavery advocates met egalitarian or abolitionists in the course of state and nation building.
2) Cliff's second question: Lastly, you state "Hell, some people in Dixie can still smell the gunpowder." To what are you referring?
The answer is simply Neo-Confederates. Many acquaintances I have in the Southern States, including business clients have deep resentments about the outcome of the Civil War. When one ventures deep into the bowels of the South you can come across some very serious anti-Northerner or "carpet bagger" sentiments.
Robert Brown's question: Larry, you wrote "You have focused a bright light on the people and activities and many of us do not like what we see." I might ask... who are "many of us?"
Answer: A network of personal acquaintances and colleagues as well as www. correspondents interested in the advancement of truth in history.
Officer Carter will it be a fine or jail time?
Larry Koschkee
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Dec 9, 2003 3:13:33 GMT -5
Not the thread police, Larry. Those guys can be found at "authentic-campaigner.com"! ;DI am just an avid lurker enjoying the argument from all sides here. In the mean time, since both of your tail lights appear to be working, I guess you will have to get off with a warning! GMC
|
|
|
Post by Dan Brunner on Dec 15, 2003 14:41:27 GMT -5
Interesting background on Henry Dodge's life as a youth appears in this thread from the "Iowa Historical Record Vol. II Apr, 1886" A bio of Nancy Ann Hunter, the mother of Henry Dodge. Offers a little insight into what may have formed the character of this man. The most I have ever learned about the young "Henry Dodge and his family. Truly a child of the times. iagenweb.org/Go to Archives, under the Iowa History Project, go to Biographical sketches: Nancy Hunter Most Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Dec 15, 2003 15:18:17 GMT -5
Hello Dan, and welcome to the Black Hawk War Discussion board!
Thank you very much for this excellent resource!
Cordially,
Bob Braun Moderator.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Thorson on Dec 16, 2003 9:38:38 GMT -5
From the official thread police.... The "direction" of the thread appears fine. Discussions go places. Don't worry about it people. We don't want to discourage anyone from getting into the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Brunner on Dec 16, 2003 14:38:21 GMT -5
I have tried to follow this thread in its many twists and turns. It seems to me too much credit is given to the men of that period as being well read and understanding completely the federal governments legislation with regards to public or indian lands. What was dictated in Washington DC was far removed with what was really happening on the frontier. Men like Dodge who were raised on the western border and being of pioneer stock believed their future sucesses were limited only by their personal ambition, bravery, and panache. At least Dodge did to make his own deal with the Winnebagoes as the lords of the land. He may have not been aware of the legality of this. Officially he was a squatter, land grabber or whatever moniker present day historians choose to label him. I doubt that in his day that label was applied to him. At least not by any of his contemporaries. I can see no evidence of overly harsh dealings with the Native American tribes. Forceful yes. You have to remember his memory was alive with the bloody bodies of his family on another frontier and I believe he preferred the "hit him before he hits me" philosophy ingrained in him as a youth.
A man in this period of our history would not have had the successes he enjoyed without a huge amount of respect by the people. Also, the federal goverment had a propensity to looked the other way a great deal as the nation progressed along the road of "Manifest Destiny. As long as men like Dodge were Moving and Shaking the frontier.
Just a ramble. I don't pretend to be as nearly as knowledgeable as the posters here. It may be a simplistic view but nonetheless it is my own. I think if I was alive in 1832 I would have very much like to have known Henry Dodge.
Not sure if he should be considered a "Highland Southerner" at all.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Dec 16, 2003 17:30:15 GMT -5
Interesting perspective here. I think the notations made by Agent Street in February 1828 about the potential for the remove of Dodge "as a precaution" indicates the indefinate disposition of the government towards Dodge's so-called "squatting." My read of the correspondence indicates that any federal action to remove Dodge was certainly not a "given." I have argued that for those who insist on a strict interpretation of the federal acts, Street and Captain Loomis were clearly in the wrong for not exercising their enforcement duties. Should these fellows get a "pass" in favor of the "knew or should have known" arguement regarding Henry Dodge?
As for Dodge not being a "highland Southerner"-- short of his birth to a so-called "Yankee" father, Dodge grew up among, lived with, and circulated among the highland Southern element. He followed their practices, engaged in their lifestyle, and dabbled in their politics. At the very minimum, he was Southern by avocation.
Regards, Bob.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Dec 21, 2003 18:19:41 GMT -5
In response to Mr. Dan Brunner's and Mr. Braun's postings on this thread, the two seem to be in agreement that Dodge and his ilk were not capable of understanding or following the laws regarding Indian lands and the Federal Mining District. This argument appears rather odd when you consider the make up of some of the early successful miners. In the group were savvy merchants, traders, doctors, sheriffs, etc., and many went on to be judges, senators, etc.
The Federal government established district mining offices and agents in the "Five League Square" mining district to oversee permiting, licensing and tax collection. I am sure the agents could provide exact details on where or when to mine. Dodge and et al did not just walk or ride into the frontier one day and start picking lead. I would say most arrived at Galena, the business center of the lead region, took in the lay of the land, counseled with agents and miners, and then made decisions to buy existing claims or prospect and apply for their own lease. Some, like Dodge, chose to circumvent or ignore the legalities.
A series of Indian treaties established and ratified the initial lead mine district..."Five League Square." This designation was not all of sudden sprung on the mining community. The Indian Treaty of 1804, established the district and treaties of 1816 and 1825 ratified. The commoner may have not got a copy of the exact terms and conditions, but newspapers and word of mouth would have provided the basics and surely the mining agency had the particulars.
Charles Bracken verified the fact that the miners were knowledgeable of the do's and don'ts. It may be assumed, that, although there was no record kept, as the surveys were made under the direction of the President, and had metes and bounds regularlyl established, they must necessarily be considered as a part of the reserve under the treaty; yet, that position would not affect the miners' claims seriously, for in no instance was the mineral smelted taken from the timbered surveys; it was taken from the adjoining prairie lands, which were undoubtedly the property of the Indians. So well was this understood by the miners and smelters that, at a very early day, they refused to pay rent for the lead dug and smelted from the Indian lands.
For sake of further argument... is ignorance of the law grounds to dismiss wrong doing or illegal activities? I think not - not in a "nation of laws." In a state of anarchy - probably.
Clearly, it was Dodge's intent to ignore the gov't and its regulations and also ignore the sovereign rights of the Winnebago. Dodge cut his own deal with the Winnebago, marched onto their lands with his small army of miners, established a fortified position and arrogantly told the Winnebago if they did not behave (on their own land) they would be dealt with severly.
Regarding Street and Captain Loomis not willing to enforce the law of the land-- I believe you must consider the circumstances that Mr. Shrake pointed out. Street made the calculation that Dodge's threat or defiance could only be answered with force, which he did not have. Fort Crawford was essentially abandoned at the time, with only a skeleton miltary presence left. Dodge's fate would have been altered if the troops from Fort Armstrong (Rock Island) had been ordered into the mining district, such as the case in the spring of 1825.
With that said... Bob, you lament the fact scholars and historians pick on old Dodge. Dodge actions were a case of blatant mis-conduct, and above the law, therefore drawing a lot of attention. Dodge was not the victim here - the Winnebago people were.
Respectively... Larry Koschkee
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Dec 21, 2003 19:22:47 GMT -5
Mr. Brunner's quote: You have to remember his memory was alive with the bloody bodies of his family on another frontier and I believe he preferred the "hit him before he hits me' philosophy ingrained in him as a youth." There is a plethora of stories like this in America's past and is another example of Dodge portrayed as a victim. To what extreme must we carry this "victim" defense? There are many questions to be answered with this victim approach - such as what right did Dodge's family have to be there in the first place? What did the family do to the Indians to provoke them, etc.? You get the picture.
In addition, Mr. Brunner stated I can see no evidence of overly harsh dealings with the Native American tribes."... I just gave one example in the previous post. In both the "Winnebago Fuss" and the BHW, Dodge inflicted his rath on the Winnebago, capturing and implemented severe interrogation and imprisonment. Dodge was at the Pecatonica River massacre, battle of Wisconsin Heights and Bad Axe massacre - was that not "harsh dealing?"
Well you say - he did not kill all that many Indians... Well I say - today and in the history of this world many despots were murderers and butchers - not by their own hand but by their leadership.
Another statement by Mr. Brunner I would like to address. Also, the federal government had a propensity to look the otherway a great deal as the nation progressed along the road of "Manifest Destiny" as long as men like Dodge were Moving and Shaking the frontier. I can find agreement with that, however is this "a wink is good as a nod" frontier justice something we should salute and hold in high esteem?
BTW, Mr. Brunner thank you for your opinion... Respectively yours,
Larry Koschkee
The scythe of what is called "civilation" is in motion, and everything will fall before it - George William Featherstonaugh
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Dec 22, 2003 1:11:09 GMT -5
Facinating perspective here. Dodge made wholly and totally culpable for the twists and turns in the decision making of the Bear, Agent Street, Captain Loomis, et. al He must also have has the power to cloud men's minds and atomize their weapons and fortifications to dust.
I am truly amazed at the neat and tidy package we have assimulated for the Mineral District! What a highly informed, literate, and knowledgable mining population we have! And they simply LOVED the local officials, and LOVED to pay the government taxes, and LOVED the meddling of local agents and in 1829 they LOVED the federal agents circulating through the region looking to collect not just lead taxes but LAND taxes too! I regret that the complexities in the region was certainly not so neat and handsome as we might think.
People in 1830s America didn't have the luxury of paying jobs with companies and corporations. They had to eke out their owen living... scratch it from the soil, build in on their settlements, or grub it from the earth. And if they failed, they and their families starved. And we, sitting in our central heated homes, with full stomachs and a fully integrated high speed information librarty at our fingertips have the luxury of picking and choosing which historical figures were right and which were "wrong." That is... they were right yesterday, but WRONG today, based on the shifting sands of judgement and the winds of prevailing sentiment of so-called popular thought. MODERN popular thought. Modern perhaps, but hardly enlightened. Why, today's Sunday paper just reported that Thomas Jefferson was covicted by a mock court regarding his purchase of Louisiana. WRONG on the Louisiana Purchase? Why.. because he allowed for the expansion of slavery and didn't give Louisiana citizens their full "rights." Now what this argument has to POSSIBLY do with the Louisiana Purchase is beyond me, but all that apparently matters is we get to stick a sword into the gullet of yet another American icon.
I will respond to a few of the MANY points presented before offering my concluding remarks:
1. Dodge and et al did not just walk or ride into the frontier one day and start picking lead. I agree. So what was the chronology of Dodge and his family's arrival into the District? I think an examination of that chronology provies clues to what he might and might not have known about all the intracacies and legalities many writers had stretched to presume that Dodge automatically knew.
2. Clearly, it was Dodge's intent to ignore the gov't and its regulations and also ignore the sovereign rights of the Winnebago. I have demonstrated over and over, by Agent Street's own words, by the precidents allowed by Agent Street and other minung agents in the district, and other examples, that this contention is hardly open and shut. Remember... Street discussed removing Dodge as a "precaution." This and other language by Street unquestionably indicates that Dodge's presence in at least his mind (and who would know better?) was hardly an issue of downright anarchical law breaking. If is was such a neat and handsome situation, Street would have said as such. I again submit that the REASON for his Streets writing is because he KNEW, or at least suspected, that the exceptions, deviations, and "looking the other way" he and other officials had already made regarding the several acts and treaties that they were charged to enforce rendered those acts and treaties modified to the point where they were unenforcable. Therefore, continued claims of illegality are in many ways moot.
"Sovereign rights of the Winnebago?" I have argued that Dodge's deal was apparently fine with the Bear and local Winnebages with whom he dealt. Street's own language indicated that it (amazingly) was a tolerable situation provided the local Winnebago didn't complain. Strange viewpoints indeed for someone so well up on the Intercourse Act!
3. The Indian Treaty of 1804, established the district and treaties of 1816 and 1825 ratified. The commoner may have not got a copy of the exact terms and conditions, but newspapers and word of mouth would have provided the basics and surely the mining agency had the particulars. I am continually amazed with the communication and literacy we 21st Century people ascribe to antebellum Americans. I submit that the best a good portion of these folks would have was a knowledge that some acts and treaties existed. But what was fact, and what was "word of mouth" to them? Proof: Again...we all pay our taxes. We all know the IRS code exists. We've all heard stories about what can happen to you if you don't. But who RIGHT NOW can quote one sentence from the Internal Revenue Code? Yet when it comes to 1827, we expect hundreds of people, the majority semi-literate or less so, to be conversant with reams of federal acts, treaties, and mining regulations.
4. Fort Crawford was essentially abandoned at the time, with only a skeleton miltary presence left. With respect, we need to lay this assertion to rest-- because I believe it to be inaccurate. The Fifth U. S. Infantry Regiment-- like the 1st and the 6th-- were scattered throughout numerous posts on the frontier. While one post, Like Fort Howard, might be designated as "headquarters" for the regiment, Howard rarely if ever maintained a complement of more than four companies, or about 250 men. Posts like Winnebao, Crawford, Snelling, and others rarely had more than three companies as its standard garrison. Salter wrote (p. 352) "...Gen. Street called upon the commanding officer of Fort Crawford for a detachment of one hundred and eighty troops to remove the tresspassers, who replied that as he had only 147 men in his command, and but 130 of them were fit for duty, it would be out of his power to comply with the request." So, rather than being nearly abandoned, Fort Crawford's Captain Loomis directed at least two full companies of infantry... very likely the number he was supposed to maintain at the post.
Contined....
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Dec 22, 2003 1:17:37 GMT -5
...continued...
5. Dodge cut his own deal with the Winnebago, marched onto their lands with his small army of miners, established a fortified position and arrogantly told the Winnebago if they did not behave (on their own land) they would be dealt with severly. I have stipulated that Dodge indeed established his own deal with the Winnebago chief Bear. However, what evidence indicates that Dodge arrived on October 3, 1827 with any except his family and the several familes of slaves and free blacks in his party? (It may be questionable that Christiana his spouse was even there at this date.) I submit that the first time we learn about more people than this at Dodge's Camp was Street's letter to Superintendent Clark dated January 15, 1828: "Gen. Dodge with about fifty men... is near the English Prairie..." In three month's time he's only amassed fifty men? Is this the "small army" to which you referred?
Secondly, I have serious doubts about the origins of both the "sore-shinned Regulars" quote, and the "if they wanted trouble they could have it on cheap terms" quotes ascribed to Dodge. We have already seen where Dodge MIGHT have said the former, but certainly not in public and unquestionably not in an offical letter. So what are the origins of the other so-called 'quote?'
6. In both the "Winnebago Fuss" and the BHW, Dodge inflicted his rath on the Winnebago, capturing and implemented severe interrogation and imprisonment. Dodge was at the Pecatonica River massacre, battle of Wisconsin Heights and Bad Axe massacre - was that not "harsh dealing?" Dodge, as has been argued in previous posts, seems to be one of the very few leaders during the Black Hawk War that understood that to win an armed conflict means that you must destroy the enemy's will to fight. The fight at "Bloody Pond" was no more a massacre than the killings of Captain Adam's 'forlorn hope' at Stillman's Run. Both 'commands' were killed in a stand-up fight. (Since we MODERN people content ourselves with no longer calling the outcome of the Little Big Horn a 'massacre,' we shall employ this same definition here.) Likewise, DOdge and Henry inflicted enormous losses on the native soldiers at Wisconsin Heights... losses BH probably considered regrettable but necessary given the tactical and strategic movements. Again, this is war.
Dodge's dealing with the Winebago show numerous peacefully-conducted councils. He dealt severely with those with whom he found to be a threat after just one of these... by taking them captive and not killing them. The effect was... to lessen the possibility of widening the conflict, which would certainly result in MORe deaths on BOTH sides! Rather than indicating a "harsh dealings," I see this as rather consistent with many of Dodge's dealing with the Indians... from the Miamis to the Comanche, Pawnee and the Arikara.
7. I say - today and in the history of this world many despots were murderers and butchers - not by their own hand but by their leadership. True and I agree. However, this thesis does not apply to Dodge.
=============================
In conclusion and reply to the comment Bob, you lament the fact scholars and historians pick on old Dodge----
Unlike contributors to this thread, who HAVE made a concerted effort to examine and explore reasons for their contentions, I argue that scholars and hisotrians don't even do that. I have stated not once but several times in this thread and elsewhere, that the sqalid, lazy, "bash America first" high priests and priestesses of political correctness that pass for academians at some (many?) of our so-called "institutions of higher learning" dig no further than the facts necessary to support their own pre-determined conclusions. And no-one called them on it, because the very people who grade their tests , approve their dissertations and referree their journals agree with them. That's not history! That's not research! That's the spewing of 'opinion as fact' ideology!
Dodge, like Black Hawk, should be subjected to similar levels of constructive criticism for their views and actions, placed in the context of their time. But we don't--because we CAN criticize white man Dodge, but our whishy washy intellectual laziness refuses us to even begin to critically examine the red man Black Hawk. We are content to re-spew 1970's ideology.
This thread has poven my base contention: Dodge's high crime and misdemeanor was not that he was a Southerner, or a slave-holder, or a gun-toting white guy. Rather he dared to allegedly "tresspass" on Indian lands! Good thing he didn't kill anybody!
Regards, Bob.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Dec 22, 2003 10:30:24 GMT -5
Bob, Why don't you tell us how you really feel? ADIOS - Larry K.
|
|