Black Hawk War unavoidable?

[Robert Braun]

Based on your readings on the 1832 Black Hawk War, at what point do you think that a negotiated settlement (like that which ended the 1831 incursion) was no longer possible, and war was inevitable?


Regards,

Bob Braun.

[pshrake]

I would have to say that once Black Hawk crossed the Mississippi, some form of conflict was going to happen. Given Black Hawks own past as a war chief, and given the popular mentality towards Indians by many in Illinois from the Governor on down, I find it difficult to believe that any peaceful solution could have been found.

Saying that, and since we are indulging in "what if" senarios, it is possible that had Major Thomas Forsyth been retained as agent to the Sauk Fox and not removed that some form of peaceful solution could have been found. Many Indian Agents had a considerable influence among their respective tribes at this time. Such agents as Nicholas Boilvin, Joseph Street, John Kinzie, and others were known to be held in great regard and trust by the tribes. Forsyth had been a presence in the Indian Field Service since 1812. He was well known amongst the Sauks and apparently had much influence amongst them. At least one historian, Lyman C. Drapier has stated that had Forsyth been retained as Agent the war might not have happened. He was removed just priror to the war, quite possibly for political reasons, though I have yet to find the specific reason for his dismissal. As it was he did not long out of office. He died in 1833.

So, my theory is that had Forsyth been on the scene in 1832, he might have been able to convince Black Hawk to return across the Mississippi....maybe.


Pete

[Jeffrey]

Just this morning I was looking at an old Boston newspaper on sale on E-Bay from, I think, September of 1832. It was a report written from Detroit that detailed the interrogation of Neopope. He commented that he had advised Black Hawk to take the people into Illinois to plant corn in traditional areas but that he had told Black Hawk if he encountered any whites to just shake their hands and turn around and go back.
Now of course Neopope would be careful about what he says at the end of the war to avoid the appearance of being antagonistic to the winning side. Also journalists might have been already cranking up a sympathetic-to-the-Indians angle. Still, I wonder if there was a bit of brinksmanship going on with the Sauk-Fox. They had crossed over in 1831 and gotten away with it, why not try it again? However, once the shooting started at Stillman's Run, they were in over their heads. I would subscribe to the theory that had Atkinson's regulars gotten to Black Hawk before the loosely-trained militia got there, then military protocol and proper interpreters might have produced a peaceful escort of the band back to Iowa. Then again, young militants in Black Hawk's band might have looked for a provocation to violence sooner or later.
--Jeffrey Chown

[Mike Thorson]

Jeffrey said:

Just this morning I was looking at an old Boston newspaper on sale on E-Bay from, I think, September of 1832. It was a report written from Detroit that detailed the interrogation of Neopope. He commented that he had advised Black Hawk to take the people into Illinois to plant corn in traditional areas but that he had told Black Hawk if he encountered any whites to just shake their hands and turn around and go back.
Now of course Neopope would be careful about what he says at the end of the war to avoid the appearance of being antagonistic to the winning side. Also journalists might have been already cranking up a sympathetic-to-the-Indians angle. Still, I wonder if there was a bit of brinksmanship going on with the Sauk-Fox. They had crossed over in 1831 and gotten away with it, why not try it again? However, once the shooting started at Stillman's Run, they were in over their heads. I would subscribe to the theory that had Atkinson's regulars gotten to Black Hawk before the loosely-trained militia got there, then military protocol and proper interpreters might have produced a peaceful escort of the band back to Iowa. Then again, young militants in Black Hawk's band might have looked for a provocation to violence sooner or later.

Hi Jeffrey, I'm very glad you are here contributing! Per the message board guidelines make sure to sign all of your posts with your first and last name. You've probably already noted that everyone else has their posts signed. Any questions or concerns feel free to let me know. And once again - welcome!

[sparrow]

The whites could have prevented the Black Hawk War but I believe they basically overran the tribes fertile grounds and it was a little too late to give it back. Can somebody give me any figures on casualties on both sides during the War and the dates of the War?
Tom Peters

[Larry Koschkee]

The pivotal point, IMHO, that lead to the outbreak of this conflict was President Andrew Jackson's knee-jerk reaction to the news of Black Hawk's band crossing the Mississippi River. Negotation or diplomacy through the Indian Agency system was not considered as a first step in resolving the situation, rather he instructed his Secretary of War, Lewis Cass to mobilize General Atkinson and his regulars with specific orders to threaten Black Hawk with a "cease and desist" directive and then remove him and his followers from the east side of the Mississippi.

In several letters after Black Hawk's river crossing General Henry Atkinson expressed the opinion that he did not believe Black Hawk's band would make a pre-emptive strike on the frontier, rather, in his words until an attempt is made to coerce them. Atkinson retained this optimisim until he received an answer to his "cease and desist" letters directed to Black Hawk and the Chiefs & Braves of his Band.

Essentialy what BH told Atkinson was he and his band were not returning to Saukenuk, but accepted the invitation to grow corn on Winnebago land and had the right to be there peaceably. ..."if he wished to fight us, he might come on!" This defiant position echoed across the frontier and I am of the opinion was on the minds of Stillman's Illinois Militia on that fateful day in May when the Sac showed up at their camp with a white flag. Shoot first and ask quesitons later.....

As a side note, I would say that I subscribe to Pete Shrake's theory of perhaps a different outcome subsequent to Black Hawk's Mississippi River crossing had Thomas Forsyth been the Indian Agent to the Sac and Fox. Indian agent influence on the frontier was underestimated and it is clear many tragic conflicts could have been avoided had the politicians and military heeded their common sense and knowledge.

Pete said: He was removed just prior to the war, quite possibly for political reasons though I have yet to find the specific reason for his dismissal. For some time Forsyth was perplexed about his removal as Indian Agent to the Sac & Fox, however in 1832, a year before he died, Forsyth learned of the grounds for his dismisal. I have always had good reasons to believe that Genl. Clark was inimical to me, but I was much ashtonished when I heard the nature of the charges which it is said he has made against me at Washington... it was currently reported at Washington City, that G. Clark had charged me with being friendly and holding communication with the British in Canada, that I sent letters by Indians visiting there or in short that I was a Traitor to the United States.

[Larry Koschkee]

Mr. Shrake's observation or "theory" about Thomas Forsyth's credentials as an effective and trusted Indian agent with the potential to have influenced the British Band towards a peaceful resolution deserves further examination. I agree with Pete's position and want to introduce John Connolly in this discussion as germane to this thread.

Connolly, of Irish descent, married a Sauk woman and was employed in the U. S. Government factor trading system for a number of years and was a Indian sub-agent and interpreter for the Sac and Fox headquartered at Galena between 1824 and 1828. From 1829 until 1833, the year he died, Connolly worked for the American Fur Company. A direct descendant, Mr. George Connolly, brought my attention to a obscure manuscript located in the Minnesota Historical Society archives that John Connolly wrote regarding Indian Affairs leading up to the Black Hawk War.

This rare, primary history source gives scholars a remarkable glimpse of Indian/White relations through the eyes of a man with one foot in the Indian world and the other foot in the white man's world.

Connolly's introduction to his manuscript reads as follows: I beg leave to press on your attention the purport of the enclosed sheets. The _____ principally serve to throw some light upon the causes of the disaffection and predatory warlike character which a portion of the Sac indians have assumed. The only apology I can offer for obtruding my views and opinions is simply this, a residence of 17 years near them, both in a publich and private capacity, a tolerable knowledge of their language and a general acquaintance, gave me ample opportunities of knowing their grievances, internal and external, real or imaginary. Connolly goes on to list several valid points leading up to the BHW. The most significant point germane to Pete Shrake's position is:

It is my sincere opinion their petty inglorious little war never would have been heard of, had the proper person been there to have managed it. Had Mr. Forsyth been allowed to remain as the agent of those people he could have compromised it for a mere triffle. ( Just a note here... when Connolly said "their petty" he is refering to the British Band.)

This may be straying to far from the object of this thread and perhaps should be addressed in Mr. Braun's thread "William Clark responsible?" Clark or "Red Thunder" replaced Forsyth with a light weight... Felix St. Vrain. My questions have always been.... where was St. Vrain when Black Hawk's band crossed the river?...why didn't St. Vrain engage the band immediately on their turf?

Larry K.

[Robert Braun]

Some excellent discussion points here.

Larry wrote:

Negotation or diplomacy through the Indian Agency system was not considered as a first step in resolving the situation, rather he instructed his Secretary of War, Lewis Cass to mobilize General Atkinson and his regulars with specific orders to threaten Black Hawk with a "cease and desist" directive and then remove him and his followers from the east side of the Mississippi.

Black Hawk recalled several embassies sent by General Atkinson in his autobiography, pp. 93-95:

Having met with no opposition, we moved up Rock river leisurely for some distance, when we were overtaken by an express from White Beaver, with an order for me to return with my band and recross the Mississippi again. I sent him word that I would not, not recognizing his right to make such a demand, as I was acting peaceably, and intended to go to the prophet's village at his request, to make corn.

The express returned. We moved on and encamped some distance below the prophet's village. Here another express came from the White Beaver, threatening to pursue us and drive us back, if we did not return peaceably. This message roused the spirit of my band, and all were determined to remain with me and contest the ground with the war chief, should he come and attempt to drive us. "We therefore directed the express to say to the war chief "if he wished to fight us he might come on." We were determined never to be driven, and equally so, not to make "the first attack, our object being to act only on the defensive. This we conceived to be our right.

Soon after the express returned, Mr. Gratiot, sub-agent for the Winnebagoes, came to our encampment. He had no interpreter, and was compelled to talk through his chiefs. They said the object of his mission was to persuade us to return. But they advised us to go on—assuring us that the further we went up Rock river the more friends we would meet, and our situation would be bettered. They were on our side and all of their people were our friends. We must not give up, but continue to ascend Rock river, on which, in a short time, we would receive reinforcements sufficiently strong to repulse any enemy. They said they would go down with their agent, to ascertain the strength of the enemy, and then return and give us the news. They had to use some stratagem to deceive their agent in order to help us.

During this council several of my braves hoisted the British flag, mounted their horses and surrounded the council lodge. I discovered that the agent was very much frightened. I told one of his chiefs to tell him that he need not be alarmed, and then went out and directed my braves to desist. Every warrior immediately dismounted and returned to his lodge. After the council adjourned I placed a sentinel at the agent's lodge to guard him, fearing that some of my warriors might again frighten him. I had always thought he was a good man and was determined that he should not be hurt. He started with his chiefs to Rock Island.

Having ascertained that White Beaver would not permit us to remain where we were, I began to consider what was best to be done, and concluded to keep on up the river, see the Pottowattomies and have a talk with them. Several Winnebago chiefs were present, whom I advised of my intentions, as they did not seem disposed to render us any assistance. I asked them if they had not sent us wampum during the winter, and requested us to come and join their people and enjoy all the rights and privileges of their country. They did not deny this; and said if the white people did not interfere, they had no objection to our making corn this year, with our friend the prophet, but did not wish us to go any further up.

My reading of BH indicates that Atkinson didn't ratchet up the "Jackson knee-jerk" until after BH's rebuff of Atkinson's first embassy. Then, it appears that the U. S. Indian Agency was then involved in diplomacy (albiet at the request of the Army) with the intent of a peaceful settlement. And why not? It worked with BH in 1831!

Daring to use Frank Stevens' The Black Hawk War pp. 113-115 in contrast to Larry's assertion, we find the following:

On the 19th, General Atkinson met the friendly Sacs and Foxes, who in the meantime had brought in three young men engaged in the Menominee murders. Wapello, who delivered them up, said: "There are the young men who have taken pity on the women and children. There are three of them. These are my chiefs. These are the men who went into the braves' lodge to give themselves up. Father, I have received these young men. I now deliver them to you."

Keokuk spoke in the same strain, and received assurances that the young men should receive generous treatment.

Until the 24th, General Atkinson had sent embassies to Black Hawk to dissuade him from his enterprise, but hearing nothing from them, he dispatched two young Sacs with a mild talk. On the 26th they returned, bringing Black Hawk's answer that "his heart was bad and that he was determined not to turn back."

During these negotiations occurred one of the most daring and heroic incidents of the campaign. Col. Henry Gratiot, father-in-law to the late Hon. E. B. Washburne, had early established smelting works at Gratiot's Grove, just over the line into the present county of LaFayette, Wisconsin. By his humane and honorable treatment of the Winnebagoes he had secured their unbounded confidence, and the Government had made him agent for the Winnebagoes, under the celebrated John Kinzie, then at Fort Winnebago. Upon him General Atkinson relied as the one man above all others who could gain the ear of the Winnebago "Prophet," who was in his agency, and Black Hawk's evil genius, and turn the deluded British band back to its Iowa reservation. From Fort Crawford General Atkinson had dispatched a request to undertake this perilous mission. Colonel Gratiot received the same April 16 and started, taking one white man. On the 19th he arrived at the Turtle village of the Winnebagoes, where, in order to secure a hearing, he was delayed until the 22d. There twenty-four Winnebago chiefs and head men were added to his embassy, including Broken Shoulder, Whirling Thunder, White Crow, Little Medicine Man and Little Priest among the number. He hurriedly rode to Dixon's Ferry, where canoes were taken and the journey completed to the Prophet's village on the 25th. There, despite his flag of truce, Colonel Gratiot was surrounded by hostile Sacs, who, with every demonstration of violence, made him prisoner, Black Hawk himself, who had hoisted the British flag in camp, supervising the incident, and evil times had certainly fallen upon the head of Colonel Gratiot had not the Prophet, seeing the danger of his agent, rushed to his rescue, crying, "Good man, good man, my friend. I take him to my wigwam. I feed him. He be good friend of my Indians."

When the Prophet had him securely in the wigwam, Colonel Gratiot explained the peaceful object of his mission and the perfidy of the Indians if they refused to deal honorably with him. He further sought, with all the eloquence and logic he could master, to dissuade the Prophet and Black Hawk from their unrighteous expedition. The Prophet listened attentively, but if any impression had been made upon him it was not noticeable in word or action, and neither could he be persuaded to try to influence Black Hawk to give up his mad enterprise. However, as a friend, the Prophet was determined to save Colonel Gratiot's life, if such a thing were possible. He kept him in the wigwam for two or three days, watching an opportunity to free them. The ferocious Sacs clamored louder each hour for scalps, and no doubt would have succeeded in them had not the Prophet seduced them away temporarily by promises until the desired opportunity should arrive. Returning hastily on the 27th, he said to Colonel Gratiot: "Chouteau, you have always been my friend and the friend of my people, and you and your party must not be harmed, but there is great trouble. My young men will never consent to give you up and so you must leave without their knowledge. Your canoes are on the shore; go to them at a moment when I shall indicate and leave instantly, and go with all speed--like wild fire--for the young men will give you chase. All will depend on the strength of your arms."

The signal was given, and scarcely had the canoes been launched when an alarm in the village brought the Sacs and young Winnebagoes to the river, where a wild war-whoop was sounded and an exciting chase down Rock River was begun to capture and kill Colonel Gratiot. Gratiot's men pulled for their lives, first losing and then gaining. The maddened Sacs whooped and shrieked with anger at the possible miscarriage of their plans as they lent renewed vigor to their strokes, but a sense of their overwhelming danger put courage and strength into the oars of the pursued and they finally distanced their pursuers, arriving safely at Fort Armstrong on April 27th, unnerved and exhausted, to report that nothing could be done by moral suasion to prevent the advance of Black Hawk and that nothing but force would avail.

While captive in the Prophet's tent Black Hawk came to see him, and in response to the appeal of Gratiot to return, replied that his heart was bad; that he was going sixty miles up the river, and if molested would fight.

Was it this episode at the Prophet's Town that led to the "point of no return"? Or some other incident?

[Larry Koschkee]

Bob, I have stated my pivotal point of no return previously here and that point in time is what Atkinson was fearful of; the precise moment the U. S. Government or the "Great Father" challenges the British band and demand that the band stop and return to the west side of the Mississippi River. This occured when Black Hawk received Atkinson's firstorder. I am sure in the first order he did not simply discuss pleasantries and well wishes. (I am at a disadvantage here I do not have a copy of Atkinson's order to Black Hawk found in Whitney's volumes with me on this business trip. I do not know if this letter was first or last)

Frank Stevens wrote: Until the 24th, General Atkinson had sent embassies to Black Hawk to dissuade him from the enterprise, but hearing nothing from them, he dispatched two young Sacs with a mild talk. I have never been able to determine who these "embassies" were.

Bob wrote: "My reading of BH indicates that Atkinson didn't ratchet up the "Jackson knee-jerk" until after BH's rebuff of Atkinson's first embassy. Then it appears the U. S. Indian Agency was then involved in diplomacy (aleit at the request of the Army) with the intent of a peaceful settlement." ... this is part of my point " after the horse is out, they shut the barn door" or in other words the Indian Agent St Vrain should have been out in front of the situation and got to the band before the Military orders did.

What do you mean it appears the U. S. Indian Agency got involved after Black Hawk's rebuff of the first embassy? I have found no evidence that the Agency was on the ground, face to face, engaged with Black Hawk.

Larry

[Robert Braun]

I want to make sure I understand here...

• Black Hawk re-crosses Mississippi River in 1831;
  
• Black Hawk signs the "Corn Treaty" of 1831, in which he acknowledges the disputed Treaty of 1804 and agrees to remove to Iowa;
  
• Black Hawk re-crosses Mississippi River in 1832;
  
• Black Hawk rebuffs an embassy from Atkinson ( "White Beaver" ) to return across the Mississippi;
  
• At Prophet's Town, Black Hawk's warriors tear down a white flag carried by sub-Agent Gratiot, leading another embassy to meet with Black Hawk. Gratiot is kept a virtual prisoner at Prophet's Town. He delivers Atkinson's "talk," soon after which he and Cubbage are forced to flee for their lives downriver to Fort Armstrong.
  

All this considered, it is your position that Atkinson's temerity to insist that Black Hawk abide by the treaty (that BH himself signed in 1831) was the line of "no return?" Meaning:

"General Henry Atkinson Caused the Black Hawk War, Under Orders from President Jackson."

[Larry Koschkee]

I repeat... What do you mean it appears the U. S. Indian Agency got involved after Black Hawk's rebuff of the first embassy? I have no evidence that the Agency was on the ground, face to face, engaged with Black Hawk.

[Jeffrey]

I'm sorry if I'm getting a little off the subject here, but the contrasting accounts of the meeting with Gratiot are really fascinating to me. Both accounts suggest danger in the air for Gratiot from young hot-head warriors who are stirred up about the treaty. However, Black Hawk's account suggests that he is the peace-maker who saves Gratiot from death. Stevens, on the other hand, claims it is the Prophet who saves Gratiot , and this seems to go along with Stevens' portrait of Black Hawk as a "evil genius." (I can't believe he used that term.)

Just to muddy things a little further regarding Black Hawk's character and motives, I would like to recommend the Augustana College website about the Black Hawk war. This fellow Hauberg did a lot of interviews and visits with Black Hawk's descendants and relatives between about 1915 and 1940. His work is on the web and it constitutes a Sauk oral history project with some interesting photographs. One of the interviews that sticks out in my mind is with Fanny Nadeu, the daughter of a woman who had been in the original British Band. I'll see if I can post it here:
"""Interview with Fanny Nadeu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prague, Oklahoma, Nov. 21, 1918.
In the midst of the present Sauk & Fox country.
Mrs. Fanny Nadeau (pronounced Neddo) tells of the olden indian times. She is Sauk indian [with some white blood]; speaks english perfectly, and her home too, is a model of American form.

"My mother [Julia Goodell] was a very interesting woman, and she used to tell a great deal about the early times and of the Black Hawk War. She spent some of her days at Prairie du Chien in Wisconsin, on account of her daughter Mary, who is now the widow of Moses Keokuk. I remember mother telling when they crossed the Wisconsin river in the Black Hawk War, and she told of the beginning of the Black Hawk War. She said some of the Indians were sent with a white flag to meet the soldiers and make peace with them, and as they were going toward the soldiers, two of the Indians ran ahead of the flag of truce and said they were going to be the first ones to shake hands with the white men, but they were shot by the white men. Black Hawk still insisted that they must not go to war, but his young men said they would not make peace now. Black Hawk's sons would take their father and throw him down on the ground and hold him down, insisting that he should not make peace, that now they wanted war. Black Hawk seemed to know that the white men would be too much for them. The young men threw him down twice and would not let him hold up the white flag of truce."""

I think the event the story refers to is probably Stillman's Run and I'm sure the account got mangled over eighty years of telling and re-telling. However, I am struck by the image of Black Hawk's sons pushing the old chief to the ground and telling him he can't surrender. It sure doesn't sound like Stevens' "evil genius."
---Jeffrey Chown

[Robert Braun]

Larry said:

I repeat... What do you mean it appears the U. S. Indian Agency got involved after Black Hawk's rebuff of the first embassy? I have no evidence that the Agency was on the ground, face to face, engaged with Black Hawk.

My apologies. I had understood that Henry Gratiot was sent to the Prophet's Town in his capacity as a U. S. Indian sub-Agent, along with his secretary Henry Cubbage.

Perhaps you have information which indicates otherwise.

As Frank Stevens recorded, the "U. S. Government had made him [Gratiot] agent for the Winnebagoes, under the celebrated John Kinzie, then at Fort Winnebago." His garnered support for the embassy to Prophet's Town-- in the guise of numerous Winnebago chiefs and head-men from the Turtle's Village-- seemed to support this appointment.

Both Black Hawk's autobiography, and Frank Stevens' narrative speak to Agent Gratiot indeed being "on the ground" and "face-to-face" with Black Hawk, himself, while at the Prophet's Town. If such was the case, it would appear that General Atkinson at first sought (and continued to seek) not a military solution, but a negotiated settlement.



Regards, Bob.

[pshrake]

One of the problems Gratiot might have had in his unsuccessful talks was the fact that he had only recently been appointed agent. I may be incorrect, but I believe he did not hold the office before 1831.

Gratiot as we all know, was a lifetime resident of the Upper Mississippi Valley primarily involved in the fur trade and in lead mining operations. Though certainly he had to have been known by the Sauk, he perhaps did not have the rapport that someone like Forsyth clearly had.

So maybe the issue is, who was the right person to have approached the Sauk? Again I raise my previous "what if" idea, what if Forsyth had been present instead of Gratiot.

Pete

[Robert Braun]

Jeffrey said:

I'm sorry if I'm getting a little off the subject here, but the contrasting accounts of the meeting with Gratiot are really fascinating to me. Both accounts suggest danger in the air for Gratiot from young hot-head warriors who are stirred up about the treaty. However, Black Hawk's account suggests that he is the peace-maker who saves Gratiot from death. Stevens, on the other hand, claims it is the Prophet who saves Gratiot , and this seems to go along with Stevens' portrait of Black Hawk as a "evil genius." (I can't believe he used that term.)

Just to muddy things a little further regarding Black Hawk's character and motives, I would like to recommend the Augustana College website about the Black Hawk war. This fellow Hauberg did a lot of interviews and visits with Black Hawk's descendants and relatives between about 1915 and 1940. His work is on the web and it constitutes a Sauk oral history project with some interesting photographs. One of the interviews that sticks out in my mind is with Fanny Nadeu, the daughter of a woman who had been in the original British Band. I'll see if I can post it here:
"""Interview with Fanny Nadeu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prague, Oklahoma, Nov. 21, 1918.
In the midst of the present Sauk & Fox country.
Mrs. Fanny Nadeau (pronounced Neddo) tells of the olden indian times. She is Sauk indian [with some white blood]; speaks english perfectly, and her home too, is a model of American form.

"My mother [Julia Goodell] was a very interesting woman, and she used to tell a great deal about the early times and of the Black Hawk War. She spent some of her days at Prairie du Chien in Wisconsin, on account of her daughter Mary, who is now the widow of Moses Keokuk. I remember mother telling when they crossed the Wisconsin river in the Black Hawk War, and she told of the beginning of the Black Hawk War. She said some of the Indians were sent with a white flag to meet the soldiers and make peace with them, and as they were going toward the soldiers, two of the Indians ran ahead of the flag of truce and said they were going to be the first ones to shake hands with the white men, but they were shot by the white men. Black Hawk still insisted that they must not go to war, but his young men said they would not make peace now. Black Hawk's sons would take their father and throw him down on the ground and hold him down, insisting that he should not make peace, that now they wanted war. Black Hawk seemed to know that the white men would be too much for them. The young men threw him down twice and would not let him hold up the white flag of truce."""

I think the event the story refers to is probably Stillman's Run and I'm sure the account got mangled over eighty years of telling and re-telling. However, I am struck by the image of Black Hawk's sons pushing the old chief to the ground and telling him he can't surrender. It sure doesn't sound like Stevens' "evil genius."
---Jeffrey Chown

Very interesting observations here!


++++++++ sidebar to this thread discussion ++++++++

I have stated in numerous threads that-- while conceding BH's autobiography as a remarkable and wholly unique account among historical documentation of the period-- that professional historians particularly, and Black Hawk enthusiasts generally, have shrunk from a rigorous analysis of the document.

Why?

Could it be that such an analysis might reveal that Black Hawk was human after all? And while a staunch believer in traditions and his causes, and a man of unquestioned bravery and ability... he might have exhibited some lapses in memory, occasional exaggeration, parsing of his words, and a tendancy to overstate his position, while understating that of his opponants? Maybe he even.... fibbed?

Black Hawk is deserving of the same rigorous analysis to which we see academia and segments of the media submit many historical figures. Not more... and certainly not less. But the same.

Rather than lessen his standing in history... I believe such an analysis would compare him favorable to many more of us, who feel deeply about traditions and causes, and at the same time possess imperfect human tendancies to varying degrees. At least we would move some persons -- not on this board --- from a blind adherance to the legendary Black Hawk, to some semblance of understanding of the historical Black Hawk.

++++++++++++ side bar ends. ++++++++++++++



We now return you to the thread discussion which covers the thoughts on the "point of no return" for the Black Hawk War... already in progress!


Bob.