Dodge, Hamilton And Pistols

[Larry Koschkee]

4) Bob said: "I'm confused here. You are equating "concerns" with Dodge's alleged command of Hamilton's Indian company with "concerns" expressed by Posey's command..."

Perhaps I should re-phrase my statement: "Dodge took command of the greatest part of Hamilton's 200 plus company." -- Re-phrase: Dodge reduced Hamilton's company to "The Winnibagoes from Prairie Le Cross." The source from which this came does not explain further what Dodge's intentions were to provide another leader or commander for the remaining Indians from Hamilton's command. I would refer you to Whitney's BH, pages 623-624 and invite further comment.

5) Bob said: Finally, we really need to address this continual charge of "recklessness." If Dodge was 'reckless' during the Winnebago War of 1827, where there was no fighting and Dodge reportedly saved from needless shooting the fifteen year-old son of Chief Winneshiek, I would like to learn about the facts that point to that conclusion."

Pete Shrake addressed the charge of "recklessness" admirably, however I part ways with Pete when he asserts Dodge's reckless actions were solely post Red Bird surrender. I have reason to believe there was "recklessness" pre-Red Bird surrender as well. The incident of Dodge and Chief Winneshiek's son is one case in point. Another is the demeanor of Dodge and his apparent ability to take charge of a situation and make people see things his way.

The first point -- There is more to the story of Dodge saving the Winnebago boys life. The boy was also a prisoner. Ellen Whitney researched this incident and indexed same in her Appendices and Index, Part III, page 1529. "as prisoner of Dodge, 1056, 1057 n3. Clear evidence that Dodge was running around the neighborhood flexing his muscle and incarcerating peaceful Indians.

In addiiton, a quote from the elder Chief Winneshiek:

"When I went to the President's, I was not ashamed for I have been ever faithful to his government. In the time of Red Bird a Chief from the Fever came among us with the red fire in his eyes. His hands were made strong by the White Beaver. We asked the Father of light to show this Chief we love our home and have done no bad deeds."

(Clarification - Winneshiek and other Winnebagoes went to Washington in 1828.)

Source: Ethel Pearl Clough, The Winnebago Indians between 1820 and 1835, Madison, Wisc., B. A. thesis, Univ. of Wisc., 1907. Found at Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, catalog # 2077, Vol IX, (Hon. T. Hartley Crawford, Commissioner of Indians Affairs, Ancillary Treaties Through 1840, Washington City, D. C., 1840)

"Red fire in his eyes" - I do not believe this was a compliment paid to Old Dodge.

Second point -- What was Dodge's demeanor, you say? I insert a letter from General Dodge to General Atkinson, Galena, August 26, 1827.

Dear General:

Capt. Henry, the chairman of the committee of safety, will wait on you at Prairie du Chien, before your departure from that place. Capt. Henry is an intelligent gentleman, who understands well the situation of the country. As the principal part of the efficient force is preparing to accompany you on your expedition up the Quisconsin, it might have a good effect to send a small regular force to this part of the country, and in our absence they might render protection to this region.

I feel the importance of your having as many mounted men as the country can afford, to aid in punishing those insolent Winnebagoes who are wishing to unite, it would seem, in common all the disaffected Indians on our borders. From information received last night, some straggling Indians have been seen on our frontier.

Your friend and obedient servant,

H. Dodge.

Which "insolent Winnebagoes" would he punish. I would say the man had no clue. Harrass and punish them all would be his frontier justice and motivation to his followers.

6) Bob said: I submit that Dodge was well familiar with Indian tensions from his past and present life, and was not going to take chances with the protection of his large family. (Notice that it was his home that was fortified, and not necessarily a "fort" for the general protection diggers in the locale.)"

Bob, you may have forgot about Dodge's 1827 fortification efforts found on page 465 of History of Iowa County, WI, 1881.

"...The second day after their arrival, lots were staked off, and every individual of the party engaged in the construction of a double log cabin for common use (emphasis mine) The modus operandi followed was to excavte a hollow in the hillside, and then to erect on the outside a wall of logs, and roof in the inclosed space by roughtly hewn logs, resting one end on the outer wall and the other end buried in the hill... the new-comers warily proceeded to insure their own safety by constructing a block-house on the hill above the hut. Inclosing both buildings and an are not exceeding seventy-five feet square, was a stockade composed of palisades set in the ground to a depth of two feet, and standing eight or ten feet above the surrounding surface. This afforded a shelter and protection and was at least a warm if not comfortable domicile. The only other improvement was to build a few miners' cabins at this point."

-- to be continued --

Best regards,

Larry

[Larry Koschkee]

7) Bob said: I have made the observation in other threads that the Federal Government agents knew of these transactions, and did little to stop them -- Dodge being the lone exception, as far as we can determine. I maintain that the government's indifference or inability to enforce established treaty agreements and treaty law CHANGED the de facto nature of treaty law in the Mineral District. It makes no sense to allow say Billy Hamilton to establish himself with a 1,000 acre claim across the boundary (whereever it might be) just because "we like him" and then go after Dodge and his established claim just because "we can make of him an example."

It is clear that we continue to do pirouettes on the issue of governing treaty law in the Mineral District.

A law, or treaty law in this case, does not change because of lack of enforcement. A law can only be changed by edict of a governing body. One can debate the fairness or merit of a law, but it remains the law with or without enforcement.

We can not be certain that Dodge was singled out or made an example of by governing authorities. There may be documents undiscovered, lost or destroyed that would show other miners were told to vacate Indian land. With that said; if documents were uncovered that indicated Gratiot, Hamilton, Parish, Rountree and others were served notice to vacate would that satisfy you that indeed they were all trespassing? If the same miners were escorted off Indian lands in chains or at the point of gun by U. S. Regulars, would you agree they were guilty of trespassing?

The U. S. Government assessed a tax on smelted lead obtained within the reserve (Five Leagues Square) but could not tax smelted lead obtained from Indian land. Utilizing your legal criteria there was no treaty law because of government indifference or lack of enforcement, therefore the government would be entitiled to a tax assessment because there is no boundary or Indian land.

Finally --- Bob said: "I believe we've plowed some of this same ground before..." Oh but it is fertile ground, Bob and a ideal medium for the sown seeds of dissent.

Pete and Bob, thanks for the interesting comments...

Larry

[Robert Braun]

I really must compliment Larry and Pete for presenting some excellent material in this particular thread!

One of the things that keeps my "juices flowing" is not just the quality of the materials you present, but that opposing arguements are presented in a very cordial fashion!

(BTW... I reserve the opportunity to discuss the Dodge "fort" item, and other matters in more detail later....)

Bob.

[pshrake]

I agree with Bob. It is great we can discuss such issues as this in respectful and friendly discourse. I would further submit that it is in our disagreements that we learn more and get closer to the truth of the matter.

I am coming to the conclusion that perhaps the best summation of this argument is that federal policy failed. I have recently come across two old but scholarly articles that touch on this very subject.

“Confrontation at the Fever River Lead Mining District” written by Ronald Rayman in the “Annals of Iowa,” 1978 does not absolve Dodge of reckless behavior but it does point to the failure of Street and his superiors in both removing him and maintaining the boarder between the miners and the Indians. The author goes on to state that the federal government then became complicit in the matter when it changed the rules after the fact to basically make Dodge’s actions legal. This references not only the Treaty of 1828 and 29 but also the actions of Governor William Clark. When faced with a potential showdown with Dodge, Clark ordered a “reexamination” of the boundary line with the Ho-Chunk. Dodge’s diggings were found to be within a tract of land that could be leased by the federal government.

The other article, "Civil Disobedience on the Mining Frontier" written by Ann Keppel for the Wisconsin Magazine of History in 1958, does not touch specifically on Dodge but discusses to general issue of miners in the lead region and their inability to follow federal law. Keppel states that the federal leasing system regulating lead mining was out of step with the situation on the ground. The flood of miners outnumbered the few federal officers and made any enforcement impossible. In addition, Keppel points out that in the 1820’s and early 1830’s Wisconsin was not yet surveyed and it was difficult for federal agents to determine which sections of land were mineral bearing and which were not. Keppel also noted Governor Ninian Edwards and the Illinois legislature passed an act “exempting Illinois courts from all cases which the [federal] agent might press against delinquent taxpayers or trespassers on federal land.” The chaotic situation of the lead rush therefore made the federal leasing system impractical at best and unenforceable at worst. Keppel argues that those who disregarded federal law were in a way then committing “civil disobedience” by operating on their own rules. At one point she goes as far as comparing the miners in Illinois and Wisconsin to those who disregarded the prohibition laws in the 1920’s and 30’s.

I am not an expert in the Lease System but I do not necessarily agree with all of Keppel’s assertions. Yet I must confess that I too feel that, at least in regards to Indian policy, the federal government was often its own source of failure in its goals to regulate relations between Whites and Indians. If they failed with their Indian Policy it is easy to see where they could also fail with the land policy in the lead region.

Perhaps we can then say that Dodge and others, frustrated by the chaotic and unrealistic laws regulating the frontier, bucked the system and struck out on their own. Federal officials, unable or unwilling to force Dodge and others to comply with the regulations, changed the rules as the situation required.

So perhaps rather than trying to figure out who was right or wrong, the story should be seen as emblematic of the times. Disturbing, but emblematic nevertheless.

Pete

[Larry Koschkee]

Excellent post here, Pete. I find many instances of agreement with your insightful points, the most significant being the disturbing actions of federal representatives, miners and squatters in the Mineral District. A very sad commentary, indeed. The white men have been sneaking up on the First Americans on this continent for centuries. Secondly, the determination of right or wrong is a excercise in futility when dealing with trying to make sense of fairness and equity when the U. S. Government convenientely changes the rules as it moved forward with a manifest destiny doctrine.

However, at the very least, I would not concede to the avocation of lawlessness and anarchy under any circumstances. I believe I have made that clear in another thread that touched on some of the same issues addressed in this thread.

I have responded to the challenge of labeling Dodge as "reckless" and will not withdraw on that account. There is sufficient evidence to show he was a loose cannon on the Michigan Territory frontier and could very well have ignited a multiple tribe uprising. Historians have held favorable views of Dodge, and for the most part it is well deserved, however they have turned a blind eye to other aspects of Dodge's life. We should have no fear in a constructive examination of the controversial aspects of Dodge.

Pete, you cited material from Annals of Iowa which shows you are casting a wide net for history. I too have done the same the last two years and have had some success in gaining meaningful information on several subjects of interest on this message board.

Larry

[Robert Braun]

Larry said:

4) Bob said: "I'm confused here. You are equating "concerns" with Dodge's alleged command of Hamilton's Indian company with "concerns" expressed by Posey's command..."

Perhaps I should re-phrase my statement: "Dodge took command of the greatest part of Hamilton's 200 plus company." -- Re-phrase: Dodge reduced Hamilton's company to "The Winnibagoes from Prairie Le Cross." The source from which this came does not explain further what Dodge's intentions were to provide another leader or commander for the remaining Indians from Hamilton's command. I would refer you to Whitney's BH, pages 623-624 and invite further comment.

5) Bob said: Finally, we really need to address this continual charge of "recklessness." If Dodge was 'reckless' during the Winnebago War of 1827, where there was no fighting and Dodge reportedly saved from needless shooting the fifteen year-old son of Chief Winneshiek, I would like to learn about the facts that point to that conclusion."

Pete Shrake addressed the charge of "recklessness" admirably, however I part ways with Pete when he asserts Dodge's reckless actions were solely post Red Bird surrender. I have reason to believe there was "recklessness" pre-Red Bird surrender as well. The incident of Dodge and Chief Winneshiek's son is one case in point. Another is the demeanor of Dodge and his apparent ability to take charge of a situation and make people see things his way.

The first point -- There is more to the story of Dodge saving the Winnebago boys life. The boy was also a prisoner. Ellen Whitney researched this incident and indexed same in her Appendices and Index, Part III, page 1529. "as prisoner of Dodge, 1056, 1057 n3. Clear evidence that Dodge was running around the neighborhood flexing his muscle and incarcerating peaceful Indians.

In addiiton, a quote from the elder Chief Winneshiek:

"When I went to the President's, I was not ashamed for I have been ever faithful to his government. In the time of Red Bird a Chief from the Fever came among us with the red fire in his eyes. His hands were made strong by the White Beaver. We asked the Father of light to show this Chief we love our home and have done no bad deeds."

(Clarification - Winneshiek and other Winnebagoes went to Washington in 1828.)

Source: Ethel Pearl Clough, The Winnebago Indians between 1820 and 1835, Madison, Wisc., B. A. thesis, Univ. of Wisc., 1907. Found at Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, catalog # 2077, Vol IX, (Hon. T. Hartley Crawford, Commissioner of Indians Affairs, Ancillary Treaties Through 1840, Washington City, D. C., 1840)

"Red fire in his eyes" - I do not believe this was a compliment paid to Old Dodge.

Second point -- What was Dodge's demeanor, you say? I insert a letter from General Dodge to General Atkinson, Galena, August 26, 1827.

Dear General:

Capt. Henry, the chairman of the committee of safety, will wait on you at Prairie du Chien, before your departure from that place. Capt. Henry is an intelligent gentleman, who understands well the situation of the country. As the principal part of the efficient force is preparing to accompany you on your expedition up the Quisconsin, it might have a good effect to send a small regular force to this part of the country, and in our absence they might render protection to this region.

I feel the importance of your having as many mounted men as the country can afford, to aid in punishing those insolent Winnebagoes who are wishing to unite, it would seem, in common all the disaffected Indians on our borders. From information received last night, some straggling Indians have been seen on our frontier.

Your friend and obedient servant,

H. Dodge.

Which "insolent Winnebagoes" would he punish. I would say the man had no clue. Harrass and punish them all would be his frontier justice and motivation to his followers.

6) Bob said: I submit that Dodge was well familiar with Indian tensions from his past and present life, and was not going to take chances with the protection of his large family. (Notice that it was his home that was fortified, and not necessarily a "fort" for the general protection diggers in the locale.)"

Bob, you may have forgot about Dodge's 1827 fortification efforts found on page 465 of History of Iowa County, WI, 1881.

"...The second day after their arrival, lots were staked off, and every individual of the party engaged in the construction of a double log cabin for common use (emphasis mine) The modus operandi followed was to excavte a hollow in the hillside, and then to erect on the outside a wall of logs, and roof in the inclosed space by roughtly hewn logs, resting one end on the outer wall and the other end buried in the hill... the new-comers warily proceeded to insure their own safety by constructing a block-house on the hill above the hut. Inclosing both buildings and an are not exceeding seventy-five feet square, was a stockade composed of palisades set in the ground to a depth of two feet, and standing eight or ten feet above the surrounding surface. This afforded a shelter and protection and was at least a warm if not comfortable domicile. The only other improvement was to build a few miners' cabins at this point."

-- to be continued --

Best regards,

Larry

To re-start the discussion:

1. Despite what we might read into the discussion today, the facts support my contention that during the Winnebago War, Dodge acted within the scope of the direction he was given by Atkinson. He mounted squadrons patrolled both sides of the Wisconsin from PDC to the Portage, essentially looking for "insolent Winnebagos" that might join Red Bird. I note that there is no evidence that this patrol was what we moderns might term a "punative expedition"-- where punishment was exacted by the indiscriminate murder and the buring of homes and villages. In point of fact, Larry's claim that Dodge's intent was to "harrass and punish them all would be his frontier justice and motivation to his followers" was clealry NOT how Dodge conducted the Wisconsin River patrol in 1827. Neither was this Dodges' modus during the Black Hawk War five years later.

2. Far from being a "punative expedition," we note only that Dodge detained the fifteen-year-old son of Chief Winneshiek. My undertsanding of this detention was that the young man was discovered sitting on his horse with a cocked rifle. I would think that this discovery might lead reasonable people to conclude an "intent" to use the rifle-- which would generally be considered a hostile act. Rather than allow his men to respond to this act by killing the lad, which they apparently wanted to do, Dodge ordered his men not to shoot. Instead, Dodge wrenched the gun from his hands and detained him, then later released him. How can this action has been determined to be "reckless" on the part of Dodge?

3. If Dodge truly had "red fire in his eyes," perhaps we should review the details of the murders and the scalping of an infant later discovered alive at PDC that sparked the frontier panic in the first place. My take is that the issue of "red fire in his eyes" is not so much one of "compliment," but one of determination. Dodge's determination to protect the otherwise vulnerable frontier settlements is a recurrant theme in his correspondence.

4. Larry's very cordial reminder of the Dodge double log home citation in the History of Iowa County is appropriate. It remains a troubling citiation for me, as it doesn't square with other descriptions and accounts of the fort, particularly one recalled by Dodge's daughter late in her life. Nowhere else is this "double log home" described as a fortification for the common defence of "Dodge's Camp." That Dodge himself personally resided in a fortified log home was confirmed by at least two observers, one of them sub-agent John Marsh. In his February 7, 1828 correspondence, Marsh wrote: "Gen. Dodge resides in a small stockade fort near the principal mine."

Regards, Bob

[Robert Braun]

Larry said:

7) Bob said: I have made the observation in other threads that the Federal Government agents knew of these transactions, and did little to stop them -- Dodge being the lone exception, as far as we can determine. I maintain that the government's indifference or inability to enforce established treaty agreements and treaty law CHANGED the de facto nature of treaty law in the Mineral District. It makes no sense to allow say Billy Hamilton to establish himself with a 1,000 acre claim across the boundary (whereever it might be) just because "we like him" and then go after Dodge and his established claim just because "we can make of him an example."

It is clear that we continue to do pirouettes on the issue of governing treaty law in the Mineral District.

A law, or treaty law in this case, does not change because of lack of enforcement. A law can only be changed by edict of a governing body. One can debate the fairness or merit of a law, but it remains the law with or without enforcement.

We can not be certain that Dodge was singled out or made an example of by governing authorities. There may be documents undiscovered, lost or destroyed that would show other miners were told to vacate Indian land. With that said; if documents were uncovered that indicated Gratiot, Hamilton, Parish, Rountree and others were served notice to vacate would that satisfy you that indeed they were all trespassing? If the same miners were escorted off Indian lands in chains or at the point of gun by U. S. Regulars, would you agree they were guilty of trespassing?

The U. S. Government assessed a tax on smelted lead obtained within the reserve (Five Leagues Square) but could not tax smelted lead obtained from Indian land. Utilizing your legal criteria there was no treaty law because of government indifference or lack of enforcement, therefore the government would be entitiled to a tax assessment because there is no boundary or Indian land.

Finally --- Bob said: "I believe we've plowed some of this same ground before..." Oh but it is fertile ground, Bob and a ideal medium for the sown seeds of dissent.

Pete and Bob, thanks for the interesting comments...

Larry

We're now a bit off-topic, but in order to restart the discussion:

1. It may be a piddling point, but to claim a "law is a law" without means or intent of inforcement effectively negates the law for all practical purposes. If the city of Fort Atkinson never enforces its 30 m.p.h. speed limit on Janeville Avenue, then people can pretty much drive at whatever speed they wish. Could someone later claim "Hey! They're all speeders and law breakers!" Yes someone could claim that... but to what avail?

2. Based on the available information, there is no evidence that Dodge did anything different than the Gratiots--- both negotiated a land use agreement with native people for mineral rights. There is plenty of evidence that Dodge was indeed singled out... as indicated by the Iowa Historical Society research cited by Pete. I have made the comment in another thread that had the case gone to court, Dodge could have presented at least three cases where the government knew or should have known about alledged "squatting" and did nothing. "Selective enforcement" would have meant that Dodge would have likely prevailed in his court challenge, regardless of what laws and what treaties were or were not on the books.

3. Larry's observation that "Bob can't have it both ways" regarding treaty laws and boundaries verses no treaty laws and no boundaries is interesting. I submit that the government's problems bound itself into knots... and hope to unravel at least a few of them during the boundary discussions that ensued in the summer of 1828. Prior to that time, as Mr. Marsh reported: "Gen. Dodge addressed the people, and explained to them his views of the subject He insisted principally that there was no definite line of demarcation between the lands of the Winnebago Indians and those of the Chippeways, Pottawattamies and Ottaways of the Illinois, on which the citizens of the United States had a right to dig for lead ore, and that until such line should be definitely marked and established it was by no means certain that the place where they were was on the lands of the Winnebagoes."

Get away without paying their taxes? Late in 1831, Dodge wrote a memoriam to Secretary Lewis Cass. In this memoriam he wrote:

In 1827, when the Indians commenced hostilities, the inhabitants being wholly dependent on themselves for protection abandoned their mining operations, and prepared themselves to resist the Winnebago Indians who were located in the immediate vicinity of the mines, and who were actually at war. The loss of one season from working the mines, and the expenses incurred by the people during the winter of 1827-8, left them without the means of returning whence they had emigrated. In this situation they settled that portion of the mining country which they now occupy. In June, 1828, the Superintendent of the United States lead mines located that portion of country at that time occupied by your memorialists, and from that period until the extinguishment of the Indian title at Prairie du Chien, in 1829, a period of nearly fourteen months, and before the Government acquired a right from the Indians for the country, the people of the mining country paid upwards of a million pounds of rent lead[/u] (emphasis mine.)

Regards, Bob.

[Larry Koschkee]

A rebutal to some or all of Mr. Robert Braun's contentious points is forthcoming.

Thank you...

[Robert Braun]

Larry wrote:

I have responded to the challenge of labeling Dodge as "reckless" and will not withdraw on that account. There is sufficient evidence to show he was a loose cannon on the Michigan Territory frontier and could very well have ignited a multiple tribe uprising. Historians have held favorable views of Dodge, and for the most part it is well deserved, however they have turned a blind eye to other aspects of Dodge's life. We should have no fear in a constructive examination of the controversial aspects of Dodge.

I completely agree with Larry that "we should have no fear in a constructive examination of the controversial aspects of Dodge." I am completely in favor of constructive examination of any Black Hawk War figure or event.

However, I don't think that historical figures should be held to account for events that MIGHT have happened, or things that COULD have occured.

Further, I respectfully disagree with Larry's assertion that a.) "historians have held favorable views of Dodge" and b.) "they have turned a blind eye to other aspects of Dodge's life."

Bearing in mind the positive aspects of constructive examination to which I have already stipulated, I respectfully submit that no such constructive analysis has been offered by any historian ("professional" or otherwise) since the 1970s. There can be little doubt that Dodge remains the perennial "boogyman" of the Black Hawk War... either marginalized or reviled by historians, authors, and some filmmakers that are either too ignorant or too steeped in "politically correct" conventional wisdom to allow the facts to lead them to any other conclusions.

Example: Pete mentioned “Confrontation at the Fever River Lead Mining District” written by Ronald Rayman. Dr. Rayman did an admirable job of researching Joseph Street's original papers, yet fell woefully short of examining Dodge's position by apparently failing to similarly examine Dodge's papers. In fact, it could be argued that Dr. Rayman quite possibly had decided the thrust of his thesis---and, dare I say it, his "conclusions?"-- before the reseach was fairly begun. I have offered examinations of other modern authors who have done likewise-- Dr. Lucy Eldersveld Murphy to name one. I have difficuly viewing such transparently slanted writings as competent "history."

Readers of this thread are cordially invited to prove me wrong by citing, or otherwise directing us to competent historical analysis in historical works written after 1970.

Regards, Bob

[Larry Koschkee]

In response to some of Bob's latest points, I would like to first of all say there are no more rebutal points from me regarding his truly unique perspective on law and law enforcement. I am convinced that Pete Shrake, Bob and I have kicked this can down the street far enough. It is my hope that a dean from the law schools at the University of Wisconsin or Marquette University notice his postings and invite Bob to lecture the merits of his perspective. ;D

To speak once again to my point that Dodge's domestic and military actions in 1827-1828 were "reckless," I am inserting a reference that supports the fact that Dodge was "loaded for bear" (Bear), fortified, backed by a small army and as Pete Shrake queried "Why would he expect trouble from the very Indians from which he claimed to have legally purchased the land?"

Morgan L. Martin visited Dodge's mining camp in 1828 and reported: "Our first objective point was Dodgeville, where Henry Dodge had started a diggings. We found his cabins surrounded by a formidable stockade, and the miners liberally supplied with ammunition. The Winnebagoes had threatened to oust the little colony, and were displaying an ugly disposition. Dodge entertained us at his cabin, the walls of which were covered with guns. He said that he had a man for every gun, and would not leave the country unless the Indians were stronger than he."

Does that last sentence sound like a man confident that he was mining legally?

In several posts Bob has maintained Dodge was unfairly singled out and made an example of regarding the un-lawful mining on Indian treatied lands. Old Dodge was lucky when compared with the likes of Lucius H. Longworthy and his three brothers. Lucius and a younger brother, Edward made a significant lead strike west of the Mississippi near present day Dubuque, Iowa in the winter of 1827. The brothers were subsequently removed from the Indian land by U. S. Regulars commanded by Lieutenant Jefferson Davis with direct cease and desist orders from Zachary Taylor.

Undaunted, Lucius and another brother, James L. returned to the same region in 1830 to open a mine. Unlike Dodge, Lucius Langworthy admited their illegal activity. As stated in a Langworthy biography: "James and I began illegally mining at the site of the present day Dubuque in 1830. Other miners followed them." In that summer of 1830 the Langworthy's were once again ousted by U. S. Regulars.

A third time was not a charm! "James, Lucius and Edward, demonstrating the peristence of the early settlers, again set up shop at the Mines of Dubuque after the war ended in 1832 and the U. S. troops again rousted them out. They spent the winter of 1832-33 on an island in the Mississippi River near Dubuque."

[Larry Koschkee]

For purposes of this discussion, I refer viewers, to Robert Braun post "Talking Points - Part III, Feb 1, 2005.

In this segment I was applying Bob's legal criteria, which is essentially, if there is no enforcement of a law, the law is negated or null and void. (i.e. Bob's speed zone enforcement analogy cited in this and another thread). I framed my argument as follows: "The U. S. Government assessed a tax on smelted lead obtained withing the reserve (Five Leagues Square) but could not tax smelted lead obtained from Indian Land. Utilizing your legal crieria there was no treaty law because of government indifference of lack of enforcement, therefore the government would be entitiled to a tax assessment because there is no boundary or Indian land." Bob's criteria renders the Indian treaties null and void due to lack of U. S. enforcement of the boundaries, therefore Dodge and et al were subject to a tax on every pound of lead.

With Bob's law criteria in play... Dodge should have paid a tax on lead mined from October, 1827 until June, 1828 because Bob argues Dodge was on legal grounds. However he did not not... refer to Dodge's 1831 memoriam to Secretary Lewis Cass. Dodge said he did not pay tax until June of 1828.

Reverse back to a Robert Braun post dated December 29, 2003 titled "The Old Roman" et al, third paragraph:
Did they have mineral licenses, and did the government take the 10% tax? Since Sub-Agent Marsh did not dwell on this fact, we can infer little. I doubt that any 10% was taken, because the land was not then considered part of the government reserve.

This last sentence does not square with Bob's contention that due to lack of enforcement Dodge was legally mining on treatied land from the beginning.

In closing, please keep in mind when pondering law enforcement or lack of it in the context of paying lead taxes the following source.

Charles Bracken verified that 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 regularly 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.