|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Apr 22, 2004 16:14:57 GMT -5
Actually, this article does not establish that connectivity between the two conflicts that you have alleged-- that the Black Hawk War was a continuation of the War of 1812. The War of 1812 played a part in the historical chronology, certainly, but only as one of the series of boirder conflicts that eruped in part because of the disputed "Treaty of 1804." The article itself sums up the issues in its concluding paragraph: This article agrees with the views of most historians: the Black Hawk War most likely traced its roots to the Treaty of 1804. Bob. |
|
Chris
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Chris on Apr 23, 2004 6:20:27 GMT -5
And so did the Indian and American conflict of 1812! Got it!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Apr 26, 2004 8:42:37 GMT -5
And so did the Indian and American conflict of 1812! Got it!! Ummm... no. Alright... one more time... The western segment of the War of 1812 did not flair up as a result of the treaty of 1804, except to the extent that the treaty caused lingering animosity. Native people sided with the British as allies, in respose to much LARGER issues between the Americans and the Crown. The War of 1812 in the west was fought mostly in an attempt by the British to form an Indian "buffer state" between America and Canada, and to preserve the fur trade that stood to be disprupted should the Americans actually gain nominal control of the territory obtained through the Louisiana Purchase. Much of the problems in the Ohio country and in present-day Indiana came because the British thought they could capitalize on weak American hegemony in the region, and so did Indian leaders like Tecumseh. So warriors like Black Hawk threw in his lot with the British and fought successfully with them through many engagements... until he decided to quit. BH's ambush of Major Zachary Taylor's batteaux on the Rock River resulted in an embarrassing defeat for Taylor-- one that I'm quite sure he never forgot some 20 years later. While the war of 1812 contributed to the chronology and added to the increasing tensions in the region--particularly after the Treaty of Ghent's "status quo ante bellum" pronopuncement, the war was not fought in the west primarily, or even secondarily over the Treay of 1804. The War of 1812 contributed to the stream of events that lead up to the BHW, but was not in and of itself a causitive factor. Certainly, the Treay of 1804 was the cause for animosity, but certainly was not the primary, or even a secondary factor in the War of 1812 in America's western frontiers. Regards, Bob. |
|
Chris
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Chris on Apr 27, 2004 8:07:06 GMT -5
This is what happens when a psychologist debates history with a (presumably) professional historian. ;D I rarely trusted history teachers, and as a result, changed my major. Sad, but true. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Apr 27, 2004 8:27:42 GMT -5
This is what happens when a psychologist debates history with a (presumably) professional historian. ;D I rarely trusted history teachers, and as a result, changed my major. Sad, but true. Chris, you would find plenty of grist for your suspicions today. A clear majority of so-called "professors" seem bent of teaching ideology, rather than history. We now face several generations coming up that don't know how to read a map, don't know the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and don't know their National History. But they can skewer Columbus and Thomas Jefferson as "bad men" with the best of them... although they're not quite sure why... Back to the subject at hand... Bob. |
|
Chris
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Chris on Apr 27, 2004 10:55:38 GMT -5
  End of that subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Apr 27, 2004 12:24:32 GMT -5
End of that subject. The subject at hand being "the origins of the term "British Band" for BH's band of followers. Bob |
|
Chris
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Chris on Apr 27, 2004 12:46:57 GMT -5
|
|
End of that subject.