|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Feb 23, 2004 12:11:04 GMT -5
Black Hawk's autobiography was a conscious effort, in his words: to give my motives and reasons for my former hostilities to the whites, and to vindicate my character from misrepresentation. Reasonable people debate and agree or disagree that the autobiography accomplishes BH's intent.
Putting that aside, can we say with certainity, that the dedication of the autobiography to General Henry Atkinson helped vindicate Atkinson from the harsh criticisim regarding the conduct of his campaign in the BHW?
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Feb 23, 2004 15:23:30 GMT -5
Black Hawk's autobiography was a conscious effort, in his words: to give my motives and reasons for my former hostilities to the whites, and to vindicate my character from misrepresentation. Reasonable people debate and agree or disagree that the autobiography accomplishes BH's intent. Putting that aside, can we say with certainity, that the dedication of the autobiography to General Henry Atkinson helped vindicate Atkinson from the harsh criticisim regarding the conduct of his campaign in the BHW? I think that for people willing to try to connect the dots, BH's dedication in his autobiography is certainly not a "take-away." I also think that the fact that the campaign eventually succeeded did much to reduce the amount of angst rightfully levelled at Atkinson. Straying slightly from the original question, the BHW was perhaps the only blemish on Atkinson's otherwise honorable Army career. That being said, a reasonable assessment might find that, while the administrative aspects of Atkinson's campaign were adequately handled, the tactical aspects of his campaign were abysmal. I know there are those that disagree, but I maintain that the Black Hawk War was won despite General Atkinson, and not because of him. Regards, Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Feb 23, 2004 16:43:30 GMT -5
Is there a historical account indicating Atkinson acknowledged and accepted his honorable recognition in Black Hawk's autobiography?
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Feb 24, 2004 12:59:14 GMT -5
Is there a historical account indicating Atkinson acknowledged and accepted his honorable recognition in Black Hawk's autobiography? Larry, I have found that there's simply not much information out there regarding General Atkinson. It's been quite a while since I've read Dr. Nichol's biography on Atkinson. My thinking is that if there is such an account, it most likely would be quoted or referenced in this work. Warm regards, Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Feb 25, 2004 9:52:29 GMT -5
Perhaps Black Hawk's book dedicaiton should have been posted here in the beginning of this thread for a quick reference.
"TO BRIGADIER GEN'L. H. ATKINSON.
Sir, -- The changes of fortune, and vicissitudes of war, made you my conqueror. When my last resources were exhausted, my warriors worn down with long and toilsome marches, we yielded, and I became your prisoner.
The story of my life is told in the following pages; it is intimately connected, and in some measure, indentified with a part of the history of your own: I have, therefore, dedicated it to you.
The changes of many summers, have brought old age upon me, -- and I cannot expect to survive many moons. Before I set out on my journey to the land of my fathers, I have determined to give my motives and reasons for my former hostilities to the whites, and to vindicate my character from misrepresentation. The kindness I received from you whilst a prisoner of war, assures me that you will vouch for the facts contained in my narrative, so far as they came under your observation.
I am now an obscure member of a nation, that formerly honored and respected my opinions. The path to glory is rough, and many gloomy hours obscure it. May the Great Spirit shed light on your's -- and that you may never experience the humility that the power of the American government has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself.
BLACK HAWK.
10th Moon, 1833.
A few contemplative thoughts here....
Is it apparent that BH was holding to Indian custom or tradition of honoring their enemies? In that custom they judged their individual or tribual greatness commensurate with the bravery or great battle deeds of their foe.
In honoring Atkinson as a Great War Chief, could BH view this, in some sense, as maintaining or even elevating his stature as a "Great War Chief?"
Another thing to consider... is the book dedication, specifically, and the autobiography in general a subtle statement of defiance that although Black Hawk may have surrendered, he was never defeated in battle?
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Feb 25, 2004 11:44:05 GMT -5
Perhaps Black Hawk's book dedicaiton should have been posted here in the beginning of this thread for a quick reference. "TO BRIGADIER GEN'L. H. ATKINSON. Sir, -- The changes of fortune, and vicissitudes of war, made you my conqueror. When my last resources were exhausted, my warriors worn down with long and toilsome marches, we yielded, and I became your prisoner. The story of my life is told in the following pages; it is intimately connected, and in some measure, indentified with a part of the history of your own: I have, therefore, dedicated it to you. The changes of many summers, have brought old age upon me, -- and I cannot expect to survive many moons. Before I set out on my journey to the land of my fathers, I have determined to give my motives and reasons for my former hostilities to the whites, and to vindicate my character from misrepresentation. The kindness I received from you whilst a prisoner of war, assures me that you will vouch for the facts contained in my narrative, so far as they came under your observation. I am now an obscure member of a nation, that formerly honored and respected my opinions. The path to glory is rough, and many gloomy hours obscure it. May the Great Spirit shed light on your's -- and that you may never experience the humility that the power of the American government has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself. BLACK HAWK. 10th Moon, 1833. A few contemplative thoughts here.... Is it apparent that BH was holding to Indian custom or tradition of honoring their enemies? In that custom they judged their individual or tribual greatness commensurate with the bravery or great battle deeds of their foe. In honoring Atkinson as a Great War Chief, could BH view this, in some sense, as maintaining or even elevating his stature as a "Great War Chief?" Another thing to consider... is the book dedication, specifically, and the autobiography in general a subtle statement of defiance that although Black Hawk may have surrendered, he was never defeated in battle? Larry, and the Board, In response to your contemplatives-- 1. Is it apparent that BH was holding to Indian custom or tradition of honoring their enemies?Certainly BH holds some level of connectivity with Atkinson, which I surmise from the dedication. I get the sense that this connectivity is more from the post-war association between the two men, and less from a sense of respect for Atkinson's "prowess" in battle. Since BH never faced Atkinson in open combat, I suspect that any respect BH holds for Atkisnon, is laregly due to Atkinson's rank and stature. 2. In honoring Atkinson as a Great War Chief, could BH view this, in some sense, as maintaining or even elevating his stature as a "Great War Chief?"I don't get the sense from BH's dedication that he honors Atkinson as a war chief at all. He doesn't even use the word. 3. ...is the book dedication, specifically, and the autobiography in general a subtle statement of defiance that although Black Hawk may have surrendered, he was never defeated in battle?That BH's autobiography is a subtle statement of defiance is an astute observation, and one that I am 100% in agreement. However, I disagree that BH "surrendered" in the classic sense. That he was never defeated in battle is also open to question... mindful that Indian people look upon warfare differently than say Atkinson, and certainly folks like us. For example, there is no doubt that Ne-a-pope and his read-guard of soldiers deserted BH and his followers at a critical juncture prior to the ensuing Battle of Wisconsin Heights. Yet BH's autobiography does not censure Ne-a-pope for this action; it merely comments on those soldiers who eventually returned to BH's band. I wonder if phrases like "vicissitudes of war" and "vindicate my character from misrepresentation" were common to Black Hawk, who apparently still counted the passage of weeks by the phases of the moon.... Warm regards, Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey on Feb 27, 2004 18:43:18 GMT -5
I think the dedication to Atkinson is rather puzzling insofar as Black Hawk also complains about Atkinson's treatment of him in the Jefferson Barracks. Atkinson ordered that he be put in ball and chains, to which Black Hawk says "Was the White Beaver afraid that I would break out of his barracks and run away?" He also says: "If I had taken him prisoner on the field of battle, I would not have wounded his feelings so much, by such treatment--knowing that a brave war chief would prefer death to dishonor."
So should we take the dedication seriously while Black Hawk is making these remarks in the text? A couple of speculations: I like the theory that Indians always used the rhetorical ploy of building up their enemies via flattery so it was then easier to complain about them. But I am also wondering if Black Hawk understood rank distinctions between Winfield Scott and Atkinson? Would he dedicate it to the person he thought most likely to help him out? Is it possible that there is a Sauk sarcasm here that we don't understand? Is it possible that LeClaire/Patterson just thought it good form to add the dedication so as to show the old Indian warrior had learned his lesson and was therefore worth our attention? Were there commercial considerations? It's very interesting.
Another detail I am curious about occurs when Catlin comes to paint a group of Sauk at the Jefferson Barracks. The Prophet insists that they be painted with the ball and chains. In such a gesture, did they understand this as a public relations move? A way to shame the whites? A way to improve their negotiating position? Did they perceive that whites would be offended by such an image? Why wouldn't they assume that whites couldn't care less about whether Indians were in ball and chains? (particularly with the memory of Bad Axe still fresh in their minds)
--Jeffrey Chown
|
|
