|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Sept 24, 2002 9:05:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Marge Smith on Sept 24, 2002 22:29:07 GMT -5
The Jo Daviess County History of 1878 blames George Davenport. Claims he was owed a large amount by the Sacs & Foxes. Only if there was a new treaty could Davenport get his money back, so induced Black Hawk to cross the Mississippi so the military would be called out and another treaty could be made. They quote a letter from Davenport to Gen. Atkinson of April 13, 1832 "I have been informed that the British band of Sac Indians are determined to make war on the frontier settlements ... From every information that I have received I am of the opinion that the intention of the British band of Sac Indians is to commit depredations on the inhabitants of the frontier."
True or False?
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Sept 24, 2002 23:04:16 GMT -5
Black Hawk's clear and persistant hatred of Americans makes me doubt that Davenport held the proverbial cocked pistol to his head in order to induce the warrior to bring his band across the Mississippi.
What possible power would Davenport have over BH that would convince BH to hold Davenport's council more dear than the opinions and assertions of both the Winnebago Prophet and Na-pope, the No. 1 Civil Chief of the British Band??
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Sept 25, 2002 8:44:25 GMT -5
This article looks to me like another swipe at the white man. I don't exactly remember any accounts of Mr. Clark standing on the western side of the Mississippi saying "Come on over, Mr. Hawk, and see what we have in store for you!" Of course, I did forget about the hobnails and heelplates in the uniform guidelines, so maybe I skipped a page.
GMC
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Shrake on Sept 26, 2002 8:49:19 GMT -5
I am not an expert on William Clark, or his role in the origins of the Black Hawk War, however, there are several discrepancies in this article that are, to me, quite obvious.
1. “Clark sent an execution order to the Secretary of War” This is impossible since Clark as Superintendent of Indian Affairs at St. Louis was subordinate to the Secretary of War. His letter suggested a course of action but cannot be interpreted as an order.
2. “The Sioux, operating under the request of the government, intercepted any survivors escaped back across the Mississippi” This statement and in fact the whole article seems to ignore the fact that the Sauk/Fox and Sioux were bitter longtime enemies, chances are the Sioux would have done this regardless of any request from the government. It also ignores the fact that quite often, in the history of Indian/white relations, tribes would take advantage of such wars to gain revenge themselves, the actions of the Menominee in the Black Hawk War follows this pattern.
3. “During the War of 1812, the tribe sided with the British” This seems to be the only real statement that points to the fact that the Sauk were involved in the war of 1812 and ignores the fact the tribe sent quite a few warriors including Black Hawk to fight and that they were very involved in a number of bitter fights including the actions along the River Raisin.
4. “In 1814 Clark led a military operation that resulted in a military campaign in which the United States lost all its territory in the Mississippi valley north of the Des Moines.” I am assuming the author is referring to the campaigns against Prairie du Chien. If this is the case this is an oversimplification of that campaign. As the regional governor Clark led the expedition to capture the village. After securing the site, he returned to St. Louis and left a garrison, a contingent of the 7th U.S. Regulars, with orders to construct a fort. He also left a gunboat with at least 14 cannons and cohorn mortars. Almost immediately upon return to St. Louis Clark wrote the Secretary of war John Armstrong requesting reinforcements for the post. Armstrong, lukewarm to the idea of a post at Prairie du Chien, seemed to have hesitated in doing so and the post was never reinforced. One should also remember that Armstrong was heavily criticized for his lack of leadership in the war going as far as to be considered a significant factor in the loss of Washington D.C. later that year. My point is that whereas Clark was in overall command, his actions in taking Prairie du Chien was not a bad move and the surrender of the post to the British later that year were the result of a number of factors, not Clarks leadership.
Concerning the relationship with Clark and Forsyth, I am embarrassed to say I cannot state for sure what prompted the governor to fire the agent. This would indeed be an interesting story to pursue.
In the end my overall impression of this article is that it is a distortion of the facts, aimed at evicting an emotional response to the Black Hawk War. Either that or it was simply written by someone who did not do a good job of researching their facts. Lets face it, the Black Hawk War, or for that matter the whole history of Indian/white relations, is not a pleasant part of our past. I do not think anyone will dispute that point. But it is still a part of our past and should not be looked at in simplistic terms of black and white but rather a hazy, gray, complex series of events that displays the best and the worst of human nature. What disappoints me the most, is that this complexity is actually more fascinating and more revealing than simply pointing fingers and calling names as this article seemingly does.
Pete
|
|
