AMBUSH

[Larry Koschkee]

While examining the skirmish or battle action between Black Hawk's band and the regulars or militia does one see the classic Indian guerrilla warfare made up, in part, of premediatated ambuscade? For the most part, I see evasive maneuvers and feints to check the advance of the militia and regular.

What do you see... any ambushes?

Larry Koschkee

[Robert Braun]

Larry said:

While examining the skirmish or battle action between Black Hawk's band and the regulars or militia does one see the classic Indian guerrilla warfare made up, in part, of premediatated ambuscade? For the most part, I see evasive maneuvers and feints to check the advance of the militia and regular.

What do you see... any ambushes?

Larry Koschkee

Using Webster's definition of "ambush"--

AM'BUSH, n.

1. A private or concealed station, where troops lie in wait to attack their enemy by surprise.

2. The state of lying concealed, for the purpose of attacking by surprise; a lying in wait.

3. The troops posted in a concealed place for attacking by surprise.

Lay thee an ambush for the city. Josh. 8.

AM'BUSH, v.t. To lie in wait for; to surprise, by assailing unexpectedly from a concealed place.

AM'BUSH, v.i. To lie in wait, for the purpose of attacking by surprise.

Nor saw the snake, that ambushed for his prey.

I would observe that numerous actions involved surprise-- even ambush. William Durley was most probably ambushed, as were the militiamen/farmers at Spafford's Field, along with the unlucky Henry Apfel, who was certainly ambushed. Although not purpetrated by BH's band, the Aubrey, Force, and Green murders near Mound Fort were the result of ambush. So too were the murders near Jones' fort at Sinsinawa Mound. Once could arge I suppose that St. Vrain and his party were ambushed as well.

In my view, BH did not seem to use ambush in the way we moderns would have expected. His appears to be not a "guerrilla war" but instead concerted efforts to delay, confuse, and foil the attempts by Atkinson and others to detect the main body of his band. These tactics worked rather well, having kept his party of followers from detection until mid-July. Indeed, it "was like hunting a shadow."

Despite his initial disdain for the militia after "Stillman's RUn," BH's actions seem to display an innate understanding that once his trail was detected, it would become harder and harder to keep the main body of his followers safe from attack. The fact that Dodge's disengagement after Wisconsin Heights did not hamper subsequent operations (meaning the Sauk/Fox trail was easy enough to re-discover on the west side of the Wisconsin River) seems to support this idea.

Regards, Bob.

[Larry Koschkee]

Bob,

I acknowledge the examples you have posted could be considered ambushes, but not in the "classic" guerilla actions I have been searching for. Perhaps I have watched too many "Cowboy and Indian" or Calvary and Indian movies where part of the plot is the Indians luring the foe into a trap of some sort... such as a box canyon. My apologies for not defining this thread more explicatively.

2nd Lieut. Philip St. George Cooke of the U.S. 6th Infantry made me curious about Black Hawk's apparent restraint in not deploying tactics to check Dodge's and Henry's militia well before the battle of Wisconsin Heights and certainly slowing the advances of General Atkinson, et al between the Wisconsin River and Mississippi River. Lieutenant Cooke speaks about the latter.

Why did not the Indian chief leave a chosen body in these fastnesses, where natural obstacles could well-nigh defeat the progress of an army? That he had scouts that marked our progress, can scarcely be doubted; but why he did not avail himself of their information that we had, or act upon the strong probability that we would, venture among these morasses, dense thickets, and precipitious defiles, and oppose to us some small force, seems inexplicable: - at the Wisconsin he had covered well his passage; and when we overtook him on the Mississippi we were met by a small body of keen warriors, who accomplished much with a similar object. Here a small force could have retarded pursuit at every step; could have compelled us to condense our march, and continually make deployments on ground almost impracticable for any manner of military manoeuvre, and where the horses of the volunteers would have proved a great embarrassment; endless coverts must have kept us in constant ignorance or uneasiness, as to the movement of his force; an ambuscade might have been formed every mile...

If there were no other ambushes besides what Bob posted is there evidence of ambushes or traps set but not sprung?

Larry K

[gorentz]

Larry K wrote: "I acknowledge the examples you have posted could be considered ambushes, but not in the "classic" guerilla actions I have been searching for. Perhaps I have watched too many "Cowboy and Indian" or Calvary and Indian movies where part of the plot is the Indians luring the foe into a trap of some sort... such as a box canyon."

I'm not sure that what you describe was really a "classic" behavior. In rummaging through my mind for information about Indian methods of fighting in, say, the French and Indian war, Revolutionary war, the battles in Ohio in the 1790s, War of 1812, and Black Hawk war, I can't think of a single ambush where "luring" the foe was really part of it. There may have been some, but I can't think of any offhand. Even the ambush of Braddock's army at Ft Pitt didn't involve any "luring". It was a matter of picking the best place along the route to Ft Pitt to attack.

If there is anything "classic" about the methods of fighting of Great Lakes Indians, I'd say it is that described by Black Hawk in his autobiography where he contrasted his peoples' methods with that of the British and Americans wrt the debacle at Ft Stephenson.

John Gorentz

[Greg Carter]

Weighing in here,

I have to agree with John and Bob that there aren't really any accounts of "luring" in the Sauk War, but there are many incidents that appear to go along with definition #1 of ambush, as posted above, i.e.- lying in wait for opportunity to attack. At the following points in Illinois I see this activity-

#1. The killing of William Durley
#2. The attack on Plum River's blockhouse
#3. The killing of St. Vrain, et al.
#4. The attack of the dispatch party before Apple River Fort
#5. The attack on Captain Snyder's men near Kellogg's Grove
#6. The attack on Dement's men near Kellogg's Grove
#7. The killing of several people in LaSalle County by a band of Indians independent of Black Hawk, who preyed on unaware persons traveling between Ottawa and Chicago.

GMC

[Robert Braun]

Larry... I seem to recall, but of course can't remember where I read it, that BH had set up an ambush perhaps in the classic sense on the evening of July 20. Of course, Gen. Henry's pilot suggested not navigating along the lakes in the dark, and so the commanders halted the pursuit for the night-- and BH's planning was for naught.

I would not look for the classic "ambush" in the BHW. Rather, I believe ambushes followed what we former soldiers recall as a "hasty ambush"-- where a target of opportunity is discovered, and a hasty ambush laid out and sprung once the opponant is in the ambush zone. I belive the Durley, Aubrey, and Spafford Field, and Apfel ambushes fit this definition.

And... I just have to throw this in ;D ... despite the outstanding nature of the topography at Wisconsin Heights for ambush of Dodge and his advance guard... ambush was not BH's plan at WH. Nothing in BH's autobiography or in subsequent battle reports and reminiscences point to the intention or desire to ambush the pursuing militia column at WH.

[Jeffrey]

Seems to me that what happened at Stillman's Run qualifies as an ambush under Bob's definition. Black Hawk hears the militia are coming his way, he tells 40 warriors to hide in the brush, then as the militia near, they jump out yelling like hell and firing a volley. It certainly wasn't a European style battle engagement. "Luring" tactics involve familiarity with the opponent and predictability of actions.
--Jeffrey Chown

[Robert Braun]

Dr. Chown, are you referring to this passage in BH's Autobiography, pp. 104-5:

We started in a direction toward sunrise. After marching a considerable time I discovered some white men coming towards us. I told my braves that we would go into the woods and kill them when they approached. We concealed ourselves until they came near enough and then commenced yelling and firing and made a rush upon them. About this time their chief, with a party of men, rushed up to rescue the men we had fired upon. In a little while they commenced retreating and left their chief and a few braves who seemed willing and anxious to fight. They acted like men, but were forced to give way when I rushed upon them with my braves. In a short time the chief returned with a larger party. He seemed determined to fight, and anxious for a battle. When he came near enough I raised the yell and firing commenced from both sides. The chief, who seemed to be a small man, addressed his warriors in a loud voice, but they soon retreated, leaving him and a few braves on the battle field. A great number of my warriors pursued the retreating party and killed a number of their horses as they ran.

The chief and his few braves were unwilling to leave the field. I ordered my braves to rush upon them, and had the mortification of seeing two of my chiefs killed before the enemy retreated.

If so... the chronology of this apparent "hasty ambush" was after the Apple Rvier Fort fight-- and possibly refers to the action at Kellogg's Grove.

I would characterize "Stillman's Run" less as an ambush, and more like a stand-up fight that went quite poorly for the militia.

Bob.

[Jeffrey]

No, I was thinking of the passage where Black Hawk says: "In a little while we discovered the whole army coming towards us in full gallop! We were not confident that our first party had been killed! I immediately placed my men in front of some bushes, that we might have the first fire, when they approached close enough. They made a halt some distance from us. I gave another yell, and ordered my brave warriors to charge upon them--expecting that we would all be killed! They did charge! Every man rushed and fired, and the enemy retreated! in utmost confusion and consternation, before my little, but brave band of warriors."
I guess I am puzzed about his description "in front of some bushes." My earlier thinking was that this meant they were concealed, therefore an ambush, but maybe that was my own projection, he should have put them behind the bushes. Why does he need to describe the bushes being there unless it has something to do with concealment? Two pages later he says: "We attacked them in the prairie, with a few bushes between us, about sundown..." Bushes don't afford the cover that trees do--they don't stop a bullet--maybe that's why Black Hawk mentions them.
Do any of the militia accounts describe the comportment of the 40 Braves when the encounter begins? Do they make eye contact the Sauk before the charge begins?
--Jeffrey Chown

[Larry Koschkee]

Can we say with reasonable certainity, White Crow or The Blind was the bait or lure in a Black Hawk trap? The Parkinsons', Daniel and Peter, Jr., and Charles Bracken had suspicions that White Crow was, indeed, luring the enemy to an ambush.

1) Daniel M. Parkinson ...when Col. Hamilton and his scouts reconnoitered Black Hawk's camp, it was ascertained that he had decamped, with his whole force. It was discovered that he had occupied a most advantageous position for defense, a high declivity sloping to the river, whicht at that point was full of large boulders, rendering its passage extemely difficult; and from the apparent anxiety of the White Crow and his party to lead us there, it was, with much reason, supposed that he was acting in concert with Black Hawk, to bring on an engagement at that point, with the left wing of the army. Had this succeeded, the volunteers must, if not beaten, at least have suffered severely.

Source: "Pioneer Life in Wisconsin," Wisconsin Historical Collections, Volume II, p 354. Daniel M. Parkinson

2) Peter Parkinson, Jr. It was found that Black Hawk had, during the preceeding night, abandoned his encampment. It proved to be a very advantageous position for him, in case he had been attacked from the opposite or west side of the river, which was thought to have been the pre-arranged plan between him and White Crow; and it was believed by many, that in case Dodge and Alexander had under the guidance of White Crow, attacked Black Hawk, in this almost unapproachable position, they would have been defeated. It was in this view of the case, that suspicions of treachery were enertained against White Crow.

Source: "Notes on the Black Hawk War," Wisconsin Historical Collections, Volume X, page 207. Peter Parkinson, Jr.

3) Charles Bracken It appeared afterward, by discovery of the Indian trail, and other evidences, by the scouting parties, that a considerable ambush had been formed on the bank of Rock River, on the east side, at a point where the army would have to cross, at a very rocky ford, consequently dangerous for horses; it was with some reason supposed that the 'Blind" was acting in concert with Black Hawk, and was treacherously guiding the army to this dangerous ford.

Source: The History of Wisconsin, Volume 3, pp 218-219

Larry K

[Larry Koschkee]

The more we discuss the term ambush, the more blurred it becomes. It is apparent their are no rules of engagement we can consult to bring clarity to the term and is subject to varied interpretation... One man's attack is another man's ambush, or vice versa. We even have degrees of ambush, viz. "hasty ambush."

Greg listed Dement's "Run" near Kellogg's Grove as an ambush so I revisited the material pertaining to the incident. I conclude that the fight may have been a "classic" case of luring the enemy into a trap. Dement and several militia men left their encampment to search the neighborhood for Indians. A small group of "front men scouting in advance of his party discovered seven Indians" and immediately pursued them towards some woods on the prairie. The woods were full of secreted Indians and all hell broke loose.

Greg listed the attack on the Plum River blockhouse as an ambush and got me to thinking once again about the term ambush. Would it make sense in military or war action to define ambush as an act where upon the unsuspecting foe is not bringing the fight to the opposite side or in another instance, if the unsuspecting foe is occupying a fort, blockhouse or some form of fortification and suffers an menacing act by the enemy, that would be considered an attack rather than an ambush.... Splitting hairs here, I know.

To further my thought process along here, lets take for example the massacre at Spafford's Field that Bob mentioned in his post.... If a group of Indians were travelling through the countryside and came upon the "sod-busters" working in the field and did not "lie in wait", but immediately fired upon or charged the workers. Would that be considered an attack or an ambush? Would it make a difference in the interpretation if both Indians and "sod-buster's made eye contact simultaneously?

No one has mentioned "The Battle of Pectatonica River."

Henry Dodge and his militia knew the general vicinity of the Kickapoo Indians, surrounded the area, and proceeded to engage them. The Indians were lying in wait and fired the first volley. Was that considered an ambush or attack.

This last example speaks to Jeffrey's excellent, thought provoking reference to eye contact. Also, Jeffrey brings up a new dimension in this discussion when he talks about simply taking cover when your foe is approaching. Is that considered lying in an ambush state?

[Robert Braun]

Larry... In our attempy to find clarity regarding "ambush" I opened my initial post with definitions of the term from Webster's 1827 dictionary. Two elemts run consistently through these definitions-- concealment and surprise.

IMHO ambush in the classic sense of "ambush" requires a concealed force, entraping an unsuspecting enemy in overwealming firepower. One can set up a "hasty" ambush against a previously unknown target of opportunity, i. e. a previously unknown and unaware enemy force appearing in one's area of operation.

The attacks on Durley, Aubrey, Apfel, et. al fit this classical definition--- the war-party was concealed and attacked suddenly an unsuspecting opponant.

Conversely, the action at Pecatonica does not specifically quality as "ambush"-- and here's why. The action at Pecatonica was a pursuit that culminated in a stand-up fight. While cover and concealment was used (and certaily would expect it to be used) there is no element of surprise per se Both pursuer and pursued are aware of the enemy presence, if not the specific location and are aware, ready and in anticipation of some kind of combat action.

In terms of "ambush," the ambushing force is prepared, concealed, and employign the elements of shock and surprise. Conversely, the opponant MAY suspect ambush, but is unprepared when it occurs at the time and place the trap is finally sprung.

Regarding Plum Run, I would opine that a fort cannot be ambushed, as it is a stationary strong point. It certainly could be attacked by surprise... but such an action strikes me as different from the classic definition of "ambush."

Now that I have totoally confused the issue, I will take a moment to agree with Larry's well-reasoned analysis of White Crow (or "The Blind.")

Bob.

[Larry Koschkee]

Thanks for your input and insightful comments everyone. Perhaps I should retreat back to my "Cowboy and Indian" movies for some "luring" adventures.

Best regards,

Larry Koschkee

[Chris]

;D

I guess I'll request InterLibraryLoan on you guys' "standard texts" for this subject.

[Jeffrey]

I love definitional discussions, so maybe I'll belabor this just a bit more. When I think of "ambush," there is a component of predictability on the side being ambushed. I've read that during the Viet Nam war, you did not want to go out on patrols with a lieutenant who did it at the same time, same path every day, because the enemy would be looking for you. Vary your routine for safety.
In the case of the Black Hawk war, the militia was called up as the situation demanded and was probably something of a wild card in the field. Atkinson's regular military was a presence, but the "war" ranges over a wide swath of territory. I don't know that routines get established that would invite ambush.
Finally, Black Hawk's tactics seem heavily influenced by his need to conceal and protect the 1000 or so non-combatants he is dragging along. He isn't fighting an aggressive, guerilla war. He's trying to drag this group of people back to the west of the Mississippi. The ambushes we've described seem like rear guard maneuvers, local scores that needed settling, ploys to gain provisions, individual actions by hothead sympathizers, etc. They seem a far cry from the sort ambushes practiced in more full blown military engagements.
--Jeffrey