Post by Robert Braun on Mar 28, 2002 15:07:28 GMT -5
We occasionally receive queries on the Black Hawk War militia website, and every now and then address the concerns of folks that claim we are somehow “biased” or not presenting both sides of the issue. Aside from being one of the only (if not THE only) website devoted to mature discourse and debate on the various topics surrounding the war, we designed and presented the website to present topics, issues, and inquiry literally available NOWHERE ELSE. And these topics regarding the Illinois and Michigan Territory militia are crucial to an understanding of the history of the Sauk War of 1832.
Interestingly enough, we didn’t start with this premise.
In 2000, Mike Thorson and I started an inquiry into Black Hawk’s War. The reasons were the same as most peoples’: the conflict is interesting from a military, social, and political points of view; it covers a popular segment of Wisconsin and Illinois history, and many of the antagonists marched and in some cased fought literally in our own back yards.
So we began where most folks begin—in the popular literature (defined generally as those books carried in public libraries, on websites, in newspapers, magazines, and so forth.) Much has been written since the 1970’s on the conflict. The more we read, the more that one underlying theme began to emerge. As Mike Thorson, our webmaster, observed, most modern investigators have taken the stance that the war was “all about Black Hawk.”
So, with a plethora of information that was “all about Black Hawk,” we asked questions about the other side. While mindful of the presence and contributions of the U. S. Regulars, we focused our inquiry on the militia.
No one seemed to have written much about them, aside from some of the principal leaders. So we asked questions like ‘What were the militia volunteers like?” “What did they wear?” “How were they organized, equipped, and led?” And “What kind of soldiers were they?” and then dug into the literature. Do you know what we found?
[glow=red,2,300]Nothing.[/glow]
There seemed to be only two explanations for this. Either a) we were looking in the wrong places or b) modern authors have never bothered with a reasoned examination of the militia… because in their eyes the Black Hawk War was, after all, “all about Black Hawk.”
We found out that both explainations were true.
The material WAS out there, but not in the popular literature. Since many modern writers failed to list these more esoteric sources in their bibliographies, one could conclude either a) the authors didn’t know about them or b) the subject of the militia was not important to them except to the extent that it told the story about Black Hawk. However, authors that did list these sources also failed to provide even a modest analysis of the militia contributions… except to quote from earlier investigators like Smith and Frank Stevens.
So, if we wanted to learn about the militia, we’d have to reconstruct their story ourselves. And that’s what we set out to do.
And every now and then, we’ll get a sour note from one of the “it’s all about Black Hawk” crowd—particularly when we challenge with facts, quotations, and reasoned research some of the popular notions and myths that too many authors continue to report as facts. That’s OK.. we’re here to challenge popularly held conventions, and debunk mythology. We’re also here to learn from others and pass on our learnings to others.
We’re happy to address concerns.. including the charge that we’re somehow “biased.” We intend to continue to investigate the issues and get to the truth, regardless of “who’s right” and “who’s wrong.” And to be fair, you probably won’t read about Gen. Atkinson’s firing or Gen. Henry’s and Col. Dodge’s failure to follow-up after Wisconsin heights here. Why? Because those and plenty of other stories are available everywhere else.
But what you WILL find are clues as to how the militia was raised, armed, equipped, drilled, and led. You’ll find us debunking some of the purulent myths out there: Black Hawk was a chief; Jefferson Davis fought in the BHW; the militia were a drunken rabble; Black Hawk tried to surrender three times, and so forth. And you’ll find this discussion literally nowhere else.
In many ways-- given the unabashed pro-Black Hawk authorship in the last 30+ years-- we consider this site "equal time."
Interestingly enough, we didn’t start with this premise.
In 2000, Mike Thorson and I started an inquiry into Black Hawk’s War. The reasons were the same as most peoples’: the conflict is interesting from a military, social, and political points of view; it covers a popular segment of Wisconsin and Illinois history, and many of the antagonists marched and in some cased fought literally in our own back yards.
So we began where most folks begin—in the popular literature (defined generally as those books carried in public libraries, on websites, in newspapers, magazines, and so forth.) Much has been written since the 1970’s on the conflict. The more we read, the more that one underlying theme began to emerge. As Mike Thorson, our webmaster, observed, most modern investigators have taken the stance that the war was “all about Black Hawk.”
So, with a plethora of information that was “all about Black Hawk,” we asked questions about the other side. While mindful of the presence and contributions of the U. S. Regulars, we focused our inquiry on the militia.
No one seemed to have written much about them, aside from some of the principal leaders. So we asked questions like ‘What were the militia volunteers like?” “What did they wear?” “How were they organized, equipped, and led?” And “What kind of soldiers were they?” and then dug into the literature. Do you know what we found?
[glow=red,2,300]Nothing.[/glow]
There seemed to be only two explanations for this. Either a) we were looking in the wrong places or b) modern authors have never bothered with a reasoned examination of the militia… because in their eyes the Black Hawk War was, after all, “all about Black Hawk.”
We found out that both explainations were true.
The material WAS out there, but not in the popular literature. Since many modern writers failed to list these more esoteric sources in their bibliographies, one could conclude either a) the authors didn’t know about them or b) the subject of the militia was not important to them except to the extent that it told the story about Black Hawk. However, authors that did list these sources also failed to provide even a modest analysis of the militia contributions… except to quote from earlier investigators like Smith and Frank Stevens.
So, if we wanted to learn about the militia, we’d have to reconstruct their story ourselves. And that’s what we set out to do.
And every now and then, we’ll get a sour note from one of the “it’s all about Black Hawk” crowd—particularly when we challenge with facts, quotations, and reasoned research some of the popular notions and myths that too many authors continue to report as facts. That’s OK.. we’re here to challenge popularly held conventions, and debunk mythology. We’re also here to learn from others and pass on our learnings to others.
We’re happy to address concerns.. including the charge that we’re somehow “biased.” We intend to continue to investigate the issues and get to the truth, regardless of “who’s right” and “who’s wrong.” And to be fair, you probably won’t read about Gen. Atkinson’s firing or Gen. Henry’s and Col. Dodge’s failure to follow-up after Wisconsin heights here. Why? Because those and plenty of other stories are available everywhere else.
But what you WILL find are clues as to how the militia was raised, armed, equipped, drilled, and led. You’ll find us debunking some of the purulent myths out there: Black Hawk was a chief; Jefferson Davis fought in the BHW; the militia were a drunken rabble; Black Hawk tried to surrender three times, and so forth. And you’ll find this discussion literally nowhere else.
In many ways-- given the unabashed pro-Black Hawk authorship in the last 30+ years-- we consider this site "equal time."
