Origin of the designation "British Band?"

[Chris]

"Native American, Amish, and other European-American communities. There are (to me) some interesting points about individualism, communitarianism, collectivism, and central authority."

There are certainly some parallels, and NativeAmerican and collectivist communities had extensive contact because of cultural similarities and understandings. This is a case-in-point.

The first contact that the Shawnee had with that particular type of Christianity was back in the 1700's.

Gathering at the Hearth:
Stories Mennonites Tell

A collection of twenty-eight stories from Mennonite history, edited by John E. Sharp

Order from Provident Bookstores
or call 800-759-4447

One chapter tells that story, which is similar in some aspects to the Hall girls story. Tecumseh probably picked up some of his theology from that contact.

At the beginning of the Revolution, a large group of Pennsylvania Dutch who disagreed with the war moved to Ontario. Again, the friendly relationship probably bloomed. I have met several people of mixed ancestry from Ontario, and they have told me of friendly relations, and two-way assimilation. It was a whole world of difference from Illinois history.

Again, read Diedrich's story of Whirling Thunder and see what you see in it.

Some of my mother's ancestors were listed in Huntley in the 1850 census, so my other evidence is rather subjective. ;D

[Robert Braun]

Chris said:

;D Exactly.

Thank you for the clarification of my statements.

The remnants of Tecumseh's army were said to have fled deeper into Ontario after the battle of the Thames.

I think that history might be more easily found in the older communities in Ontario, than in Ottawa. To be specific, I think that the culture of Prophetstown had a Mennonite flavor.

I'm sorry. I still don't understand your statements.

1. You stated "I consider the BlackHawk war to have been a continuation of that conflict"

-- Could you indicate which causes and circumstances surrounding the 1832 Black Hawk War were the same as the causes and circumstances that started the War of 1812?

2. You stated "Tecumseh and his alliance, I think, fought with the British as a matter of convenience, and because they were in agreement on certain issues"

-- I understand that Tecumseh and his allies generally hated the Americans. But what do you mean by Tecumseh fought with the British as a "matter of convenience?"

Regards, Bob.

[Chris]

Point one---- see the Hall Girls thread.

Point two----there couldn't have been full trust between Tecumseh and the Brits. Can we see it as "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

I am sure that some of the Brits in the War of 1812 saw it as an issue of Indian rights, but that was not general.

Unless, I am mistaken. Exactly what issues were citical the War of 1812?

[pshrake]

Chris,

I share Bob's question about the link of the Black Hawk War to the War of 1812.

Cetainly there was a lingering resentment and mistrust by most tribes towards the Americans after the war of 1812 and perhaps there was a lingering overreliance of an old alliance to the British. I would also argue that the War of 1812 created an environment in which greatly influenced Indian White relations in the Great Lakes Region. But beyond that I do not see any real evidence linking the Black Hawk War as a direct extention of the war of 1812.

Your comments on the Mennonite connection is intreagueing and provide a different perspective on at least one aspect of Indian/White relations of the region. However I would also be interested in a detailed comentary on your reading of Diedrich's essay on Whirling Thunder. You mention the essay in several threads. I just was looking it over, and I must admit, I do not see what you are driving at.

Pete

[Chris]

Cetainly there was a lingering resentment and mistrust by most tribes towards the Americans after the war of 1812

And, in the context of what happened after, do you consider that resentment and mistrust justified? ;D

I don't have access to it at the present moment, but there are some points in that article that can become clear at a later time, should the opportunity present itself. The entire article illustrates his use of nonviolent strategies in the struggle. The specific one that is relevant to this discussion is his use of the Bible to confront the Americans with their hypocrisy.

I would rather gently allow people to become open to the consideration of possibilities, than hammer in the way I view things, and risk the possibility of alienating people. Also I know that there are some people who will never attempt to look at things from my perspective.

[Robert Braun]

Chris said:

And, in the context of what happened after, do you consider that resentment and mistrust justified? ;D

I don't have access to it at the present moment, but there are some points in that article that can become clear at a later time, should the opportunity present itself. The entire article illustrates his use of nonviolent strategies in the struggle. The specific one that is relevant to this discussion is his use of the Bible to confront the Americans with their hypocrisy.

I would rather gently allow people to become open to the consideration of possibilities, than hammer in the way I view things, and risk the possibility of alienating people. Also I know that there are some people who will never attempt to look at things from my perspective.

Chris.. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

You have been asked to provide proof or support for your assertion that the Black Hawk War was a continuation of the War of 1812. That's all. Now you seem to be dodging the question entirely.

Rest assured...there is no discussion board anywhere that is MORE open to the flow of ideas and discussions regarding the Black Hawk War, however controversial, than this board. However, participants should be able and fully prepared to back their statements and opinions with facts. Even a casual reading of the threads on this board will bear out the reality of this practice.

Please consider this another friendly opportunity to prove your statement "I consider the BlackHawk war to have been a continuation of that conflict"

Regards,

Bob.

[Chris]

I am only checking out a theory. The same conditions, the same tribes. The fact that BlackHawk did not fully understand the reasons for 1812 at that time, but later had a full understanding. I have backed it up with as many facts as are available to me at this time.

Another aspect of the war is that the Rock River is on the EAST side of the Mississippi. The fishing is better on the side of a river where there is a major tributary. These tribes, originating on the Great Lakes, more particularly, at GreenBay, were fisherpeople.

Keokuk was very happy to get a reservation in the SouthEastern corner of Iowa, along the Des Moines River.

[Robert Braun]

Chris said:

I am only checking out a theory. The same conditions, the same tribes.

Per Pete's observations earlier, I think it would be most difficult to prove that the same "conditions" existed in 1810-12 that existed in 1831-32. Clearly the largest change was a dramatic reduction in British hegemony in the region. Further, the BHW is occured a full generation after the start of the War of 1812.

There IS some connectivity between the two conflicts, primarily the animosities American/Indian left largely to smoulder as a result of the indian wars in the west during the War of 1812-- wars that the native people largely won. There seems little doubt that the good feelings BH harbored for the British After the War of 1812 lingered on in his "British Band," as evidenced by the Sauk missions to Fort Malden, and the British ensign flown over BH's camps.

While I no direct evidence, my guess is that a certain Major Zachary Taylor well-recalled the embarrassing ambush of his batteaux during the War of 1812 by Black Hawk and his war-party. Perhaps this thought might in part explain the Regulars' conduct and then-LTC Taylor's lack of control of his troops at Bad Axe, August 2, 1832.

Regards, Bob.

[Greg Carter]

Well admittedly being the least educated here on the War of 1812, I have two points or questions to add.

#1. In 1780 G.R. Clark dispatched a force of men to destroy Saukenuk in retailiation for the Sauk aiding the British attempt to recapture St. Louis and Cahokia. So, does that mean that the War of 1812 was just a continuation of the American Revolution following a 28-year hiatus?

#2. The British and Indians were quite successful in the western campaigns of the War of 1812, then the British pulled out and left the Indians from several tribes to fend for themselves. Why would this create animosity towards the Americans and not the British?

#3. The sale of Sauk lands about Rock River and Mississippi is directly linked to settlement related to the lead rush. Black Hawk attacked Americans in 1832 in an abortive attempt to regain his lands. In 1812, the Sauk and several other tribes were practically bought by the British to make war on the frontier settlements. At the time there was virtually no settlement in Sauk lands.

Greg Carter

[Robert Braun]

Returning to the original question posed in this thread, and mindful of the treaty language offered by Larry which appears to establish an 1831 benchmark, there is evidence that suggests an earlier date.

On November 25, 1832, the Secretary of War Lewis Cass, in his annual report to the President, Cass indicated the following:

"In this state of feeling, and with these incitements to war, the Sacs and Foxes claimed the right of occupying a part of the country on Rock river, even after it had been sold to citizens of the United States, and settled by them. In 1829 and in 1830, serious difficulties resulted from their efforts to establish themselves in that section, and frequent collisions were the consequence. Representations were made to them, and every effort, short of actual hostilities, used by the proper officers, to induce them to abandon their unfounded pretensions, and to confine themselves to their own country on the west side of the Mississippi river. These efforts were successful, with the well disposed portion of the tribes, but were wholly unavailing with the band known by the name of the "British party."

In 1831, their aggressions were so serious, and the attitude they assumed, so formidable, that a considerable detachment of the army, and of the militia of Illinois, was called into the field; and the disaffected Indians, alarmed by the preparation for their chastisement, agreed to reside and hunt, "upon their own lands west of the Mississippi river," and that they would not re-cross this river to the usual place of their residence, nor to any part of their old hunting grounds east of the Mississippi, without the express permission of the President of the United States, or the Governor of the state of Illinois.

The language in this section of the report seems to indicate a pre-1831 origin of the "British party," or "band."

Source: Benjamin Drake, The Great Indian Chief of the West: or, Life and Adventures of Black Hawk, United States Book Company, 1848, pp. 192-3.

[Chris]

#2. The British and Indians were quite successful in the western campaigns of the War of 1812, then the British pulled out and left the Indians from several tribes to fend for themselves. Why would this create animosity towards the Americans and not the British?

I hate to be blunt here and risk being flamed at for my opinions, but here goes:

Because they knew from the beginning that the Brits were fickle friends. Given their treatment of the Irish, defense of minority groups is not in character for Brits. Their motivation for another war to reclaim the States would have been colonialism. [edit]

There are also quite a few incidents, particularly in Minnesota and the Dakotas, where Canada has welcomed Indian refugees from the United States. Indians know which country has generally been more friendly.

[Jeffrey]

Like Greg, I wish my knowledge of the War of 1812 was better, but I don't think it was about a colonial re-conquering of the U.S. By that point I would think that the British Government understood that the U.S. population had gotten large enough to make any such notions potentially disastrous to the British treasury. I think there's a theory that they viewed the currying of Tecumseh and native people in the Northwest Territory as a way of creating a buffer zone between American expansion and British interests in Canada.
As to how the Sac and Fox viewed this: the Americans were crowding them with new settlers arriving to compete for game and land every year. The British were more interested in trade, particularly furs, and thus weren't so threatening to their culture.
Initially I was doubtful about your contention that British treatment of the Irish, Scottish, Africans, or anybody else had much to do with Indians' estimation of the British--it was simply too far away. However, there's an interesting story about Indian survivors of the Trail of Tears hearing about the Irish Potato famine and collecting something like $200 to send as relief to the Irish in 1845. Also, Daniel O'Connell spoke often about the conditions of American slaves and corresponded with Frederick Douglas. Maybe there was more consciousness about world problems back then we moderns are willing to grant.

[Robert Braun]

Chris said:

I hate to be blunt here and risk being flamed at for my opinions,

Chris... I'm ging to use your comment as an opportunity to clarify how this discussion board is moderated.

This board is perhaps the ONLY board out there that actively solicits, discusses and hashes out the details and the history of the Black Hawk War and its participants. We don't yield to political correctness, nor do we shrink from the controversial. And we welcome and continue to welcome diverse views and opinions.

Having said this, this discussion board is not "ABC Nightly News" where people get to say whatever they want without having to back up their views or provided substance to their opinions. Here, opinions can and often ARE challenged-- usually as a means of clarification/understanding or additional discussion. Each participant knows or should know that their statements, comments, and opinions are fair game for others to "challenge" appropriately.

Such "challenges" should of course embrace the tenants of decency and good taste. Flamers, trolls, and their ilk are not welcome, and get fair warning as such. The good news is... we almost never have had such persons here. If there were, the Administrator (who is not ME, BTW! would deal with them appropriately.

So we invite you to post away...

... with the understanding that occasionally you may be call on to 'back up' or otherwise support your comments or statements.

Regards,

Bob Braun
Moderator.

[Chris]

No hurts here. I understand.

However, since the perspective I am working from is not as heavily documented because the participants were not able to write, sometimes it gets difficult. And, sometimes, what is written is not truth, either.

I have difficulty avoiding a flame-war at times because these issues are significant in my family history and cultural heritage. There are others here who also have the same difficulty--- from the other perspective.

That is why I appreciate this board-- all are aware of the potential for major flame-war, and try to avoid it, in the effort to untangle history.

[Chris]

Here is a site that illustrates the connection between the War of 1812 and the BlackHawk War.

usregular0.tripod.com/saukfox/