Black Hawk - Defeated or Undefeated?

[Larry Koschkee]

Questions:

1) In what historians call "The Black Hawk War" was Black Hawk actually defeated?

2) If so, by what generally accepted "war" standard was he defeated?

3) Is that standard only applied to Black Hawk or is it applied to Black Hawk and followers (Black Hawk's Band), or is it applied to just some of Black Hawk's followers?

4) Can we apply "war" standards in this case if war was never declared by Congress?

5) If we can only describe this military event as action against a insurrection is there a different standard to be met for defeat?

[pshrake]

Interesting questions Larry!

I would argue that he was defeated.

His goal was to return and resettle old Sauk lands in Illinois, in this he failed. Whether he initiated the conflict or not, the result, the nearly complete destruction of his band, and his eventual surrender, and his tour of east as a prisoner, would in my opinion classify him as defeated.

Questions relating to standards and war raise the greater question of what is war? In the case of the United States does every war require the action of Congress? Certainly this is a relevant question in today's world. Are we at war in Iraq? Consider the smaller military actions of the 1980s and 90s. I do not reccollect that Granada or Panama required Congressional action. But even if applied to the 19th century, is not "war" any armed conflict?

Websters Compact Dictionary defines war as 1. armed fighting between nations, 2. a state of hostility or conflict, 3. A struggle between opposing forces for a particular end. If this is indeed the definition of war, then Black Hawk must surely have been defeated because his band, under his leadership, lost the armed conflict which took place the summer of 1832.

Considering your question No. 2 I would have to ask -under what standards could he be considered not defeated?

Pete

[Larry Koschkee]

Thank you, Pete. Your case for defeat is a strong one and when you examine the definition of defeat you cited and other definitions that can be found elsewhere along with synonyms for the word it is difficult to dispute the defeat of Black Hawk.

However, I will use an excerpt here taken from the days of Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings... "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Wait a minute perhaps I should not go there...

Answering this nagging question of defeat vs un-defeated can we consider the following?

1) After the battle of Wisconsin Heights did Black Hawk and followers have the opportunity to fight another day? Yes

2) After the battle of Bad Axe did Black Hawk and followers have the opportunity to fight another day? Yes

3) In the military sense of the word, defeat, and seperating Black Hawk from his followers was Black Hawk captured by his adversaries - the militia or regulars? No

5) Did Black Hawk surrender at the point of a gun or sword? No

6) Did Black Hawk surrender to the militia or regular Army? No, he surrendered under his own free will to Indian Agent Joseph Street.

7) One last question: can you loose the battle and still win the war?

[Robert Braun]

I hope I don't seem intrusive into your excellent discussion... but here I go again..!

1. Pete's observations on the definition of "war" and the discussion on "declared" vs. "undeclared" war is instructive. I dare say in modern times, the United States has not had a "declared war" in the Congressional sense, since WW2. When we look at hisotry, there are numerous examples of conflict that, while they exhibited varying degrees of violence, there were not the marching armies and mass destruction modern people usually associate with the word "war." In the Catskill Mountians of update New York after the American Revolution, numerous rentors rebelled against their landlords in a series of uprisings known collectively as the "Anti-Rent War." There was the "Toledo War" of 1833, the "Aroostook War" of 1838-9," "Griffin's Pig War" of 1859 and so forth. Closer to home, we have the 1827 "Red Bird War." Historians generally and historically have not questioned the taxonomy of these conflicts-- although there is no doubt that these "wars" blanch to white when compared to significant shooting conflicts like the War of 1812, the War of the Rebellion, etc.

2. The answer to Larry's question-- "Can you lose the battle and still win the war" is I think clear from history. During the American Revolution, General Nathaniel Greene lost nearly every tactical conflict in which his "Southern Department" army fought against Cornwallis, yet won the larger strategic victory by tying up and wearing down large numbers of British troops in the Carolinas. The larger example of George Washington, which started with a mix of the dismal and triumphant in 1776 and 1777, ended with the victory at Yorktown that eventually secured American Independence. Similarly, General Rosecrans lost the opening gamit at Stones River, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, yet regained the tactical advantage many days later and eventually triumphed in a force of arms against his Confederate opponant. Accordingly, I would answer "yes" to the question.

However, these examples do not not apply in Black Hawk's case. If we agree on BH's basic premises (objectives) for the return of BH and his band to Illinois in April 1832 (which included the reoccupation of claimed lands and the planting of corn, thereby restoring some semblance of previous tribal life) then look at his military achievements in 1832, or lack thereof, one cannot reasonably conclude that the historical Black Hawk "lost the battle but won the war."

The fact that BH did not surrender at the point of a gun or sword, and did not surrender except to a civilian Indian Agent does not dilute the inescapable conclusion that the so-called "Black Hawk War" was an abbysmal failure.

In the end, the historical Black Hawk lived, and because of his leadershoip and decisions most of his followers died. Even on its face, this is simply not the stuff of an "undefeated hero."

Today, it sure looks like some are content to ignore the historical Black Hawk, and frame the conflict in purely modern terms by embracing instead the mythical Black Hawk.

Best,

Bob.

[Larry Koschkee]

My overall objective in starting this thread was to examine the criteria of defeat in a military context as well as in the context of a human condition. - What I mean by a human condition is a culture war. I have been pondering this subject since I reported an interview with a Ho-Chunk in a thread on this message board titled "Black Hawk statue - Prairie du Chien."

Quote from that thread: "...I asked two Native Americans in the crowd if they knew the focus or theme of Lonetree's benediction. Edward Pettibone, a Ho-Chunk replied: "Waskski Te Hikpa Wira." The human beings and long knives meet - a collision of cultures."

Rather than pigeon-hole this thread into a "historical" black Hawk, a "mythical" Black Hawk or "undefeated hero," consider the fact that Black Hawk could not win the war while alive, but maybe is winning the battles of culture war in death.

In closing this post, I would like to submit that it is unjust to lay the results of the BHW exclusively at the feet of BH. Historians have a tendency to make the war all about BH. BH was not alone in leadership and decision making. His lieutentants and band of followers were for the most part willing participants of their cause.

[pshrake]

I still stand by my oringinal statement that Black Hawk was defeated, for the same reasons I stated above. But Larry made some very good points in the last post. I think we are talking about two seperate historical subjects, The Black Hawk War and the larger Indian/White culture conflict.

Maybe it is more accurate to say that the British Band of Sauk/Fox were defeated. Black Hawk as the primary leader of that band was then defeated along with the rest of his people. However, any way you look at it, Black Hawk was defeated in the summer of 1832.


Larry wrote:

"...I asked two Native Americans in the crowd if they knew the focus or theme of Lonetree's benediction. Edward Pettibone, a Ho-Chunk replied: "Waskski Te Hikpa Wira." The human beings and long knives meet - a collision of cultures."

I have always seen Indian/White relations as a culture war, somewhat akin a cold war that has periodically turned hot. The violence of the 19th century Indian wars may be past but the culture war between Indians and whites has never been resolved and is very much alive today. The second battle at Wounded Knee in the late 1960's and the violent outbreaks during the spear fishing/treaty rights controversy of the late 1980s prove that it still turns hot from time to time.

In this larger unresolved cultural war Black Hawk has clearly emerged as a symbollic figure. He is remembered, whether or not it is true, as a undefeated leader who defied the U.S. Government. Considering that this undefeated image of Black Hawk has emerged more since the 1950s one can argue that the current popular image of Black Hawk is then as much a creation of the charged political atmosphere of post WWII America.

Which all boils down to my favorite outlook on history. History always proves never to be clear cut but rather more often is messy, complicated, and contain many factors. It is not black and white so to speak but a hazy shade of grey.


So Rather than saying that Black Hawk was defeated in 1832 and leave it at that, I will modify my oringial statement and say that -- Black Hawk and the British Band were defeated in 1832 yet Black Hawk, either the mythical or historical person, continues to be a potent heroic presense in the current cultural war between Indians and whites today.

Pete

[Robert Braun]

larrykoschkee said:

My overall objective in starting this thread was to examine the criteria of defeat in a military context as well as in the context of a human condition. - What I mean by a human condition is a culture war. I have been pondering this subject since I reported an interview with a Ho-Chunk in a thread on this message board titled "Black Hawk statue - Prairie du Chien."

Quote from that thread: "...I asked two Native Americans in the crowd if they knew the focus or theme of Lonetree's benediction. Edward Pettibone, a Ho-Chunk replied: "Waskski Te Hikpa Wira." The human beings and long knives meet - a collision of cultures."

Rather than pigeon-hole this thread into a "historical" black Hawk, a "mythical" Black Hawk or "undefeated hero," consider the fact that Black Hawk could not win the war while alive, but maybe is winning the battles of culture war in death.

In closing this post, I would like to submit that it is unjust to lay the results of the BHW exclusively at the feet of BH. Historians have a tendency to make the war all about BH. BH was not alone in leadership and decision making. His lieutentants and band of followers were for the most part willing participants of their cause.

All--

1. From the first post, this thread was framed in the context of the "military," and not the cultural. ANOTHER thread covering the dedication of the Black Hawk statue at PdC touched on the cultural. When Larry says "My overall objective in starting this thread was to examine the criteria of defeat in a military context as well as in the context of a human condition" I beleive he has hessentially changed the original direction of his thread. There's nothing wrong with this directional change, I am noting the change, as a change in the direction of the discussion tends to re-frame the debate.

2. Larry wrote: "In closing this post, I would like to submit that it is unjust to lay the results of the BHW exclusively at the feet of BH. Historians have a tendency to make the war all about BH. BH was not alone in leadership and decision making. His lieutentants and band of followers were for the most part willing participants of their cause." I would ask in response, "They why is the conflict known as "The Black Hawk War" or "Black Hawk's War?"

Certanly there was involvement by lieutenants and followers, but more than any other individual involved... Black Hawk was the conflict's framer and architect. It ws his viewpoints, his deep loathing of the Americans, his arrogance, his faulty judgement and his council that caused a disaffected segment of the Sauk/Fox people to cross the Mississippi (twice) to their eventual distruction.

If Black Hawk is winning any cultural debate today, it is because (frankly) there is no debate. Conventional wisdom has bowed to a BH "construct" that has little to do with the historical figure and the chronology of events.

That's the major reason why we created this board. This is the one place on earth where such issues can be openly and constructively debated.

Regards to all....

Bob.

[Larry Koschkee]

Bob -

You are correct in noting a change in the original talking point. This was not inadvertent on my part. it was my hope that the message board could define the war standards by which Black Hawk was defeated - then - look at a second dimension - another war that BH was emeresed in - a culture war. Only the viewers of this board can determine if I was successful in pointing out this second dimension.

Once again I was very pleased with the articulate response received from Pete and yourself.

Just the name or image of Black Hawk has done more to improve the relations between Indian and white than all the well intentioned government programs to come out of Washington, DC.

Does the word "defeated" first come to mind when we look upon the name or image of Black Hawk?

Best to you all

Larry

[Robert Braun]

larrykoschkee said:

Bob -

You are correct in noting a change in the original talking point. This was not inadvertent on my part. it was my hope that the message board could define the war standards by which Black Hawk was defeated - then - look at a second dimension - another war that BH was emeresed in - a culture war. Only the viewers of this board can determine if I was successful in pointing out this second dimension.

Once again I was very pleased with the articulate response received from Pete and yourself.

Just the name or image of Black Hawk has done more to improve the relations between Indian and white than all the well intentioned government programs to come out of Washington, DC.

Does the word "defeated" first come to mind when we look upon the name or image of Black Hawk?

Best to you all

Larry

As I indicated earlier, there is no problem with the "redirect" on this thread. New readers may note that the discussion has switched from an examination of the military "war" to a cultural "war."

There is, or should be, no doubt that the BHW was a cultural conflict, as well as a military conflict. The issues surrounding the chronology and events in 1831-2 are very different than those same issues bantered about in popular culture today.

As I have indicated numerous times before, the modern "Black Hawk" has been sympathetically re-cast as a political figure, not an historical one. Black Hawk is not subject to the same scruitiny that his contemporaries and antagonists; his Autobiography is many times considered sacrosanct and thereby immune from rigorous analysis; the story of Black Hawk is narrowly told and universally favorable to him and his lieutenants/followers.

Black Hawk is another addition to the litany of historical "underdogs" for whom America roots-- "whether they deservie it or not." As my history professor from college stated: this is America's greatest strength; and its greatest weakness.

Best to all,

Bob.