|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Feb 18, 2004 12:21:35 GMT -5
My pivotal point at which time a negotiated settlement was no longer possible, and war was unavoidable has been challenged, therefore I am compelled to answer because my opinion has been misconstrued.
Bob wrote: I want to make sure I understand here... "General Henry Atkinson Caused the Black Hawk War, Under Orders from President Jackson." Wrong! My opinion was in response to the opening question in this thead, which was not framed to discuss causes or a specific cause of the BHW.
Once again, the "pivotal point," I have offered is what General Atkinson opined. He did not believe BH's band would make a pre-emptive strike on the frontier, rather in his words, "until an attempt is made to coerce them." Therefore, my opinion is when BH received and rejected Atkinson's first order to stop and return to the west side of the Mississippi River , a negotiated settlement was no longer possible.
In addition, I stated that after BH's band crossed the Miss. River to the east side, negotation or diplomacy through the U. S. Indian Agency was not the first step in resolving the volatile situation. This opinion was also challenged. My response to this... please advise event and source that indicates the U. S. Indian Agency was on the ground, engaged and negotating with BH's band subsequent to their Miss. River crossing and prior to Gratiot's encounter with Black Hawk.
Atkinson met with Keokuk's "peace band" subsequent to BH's river crossing, however I can not find a source placing him in " negotations" with BH.. only ultimatum expresses.
Larry K.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Feb 18, 2004 13:04:47 GMT -5
Thank you, Larry, for clarifying your position.  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ At the expense of being labelled "overly picky, I just want to clarify one point regarding your demand for information on the contributions, if any, of the U. S. Indian Agency... You stated on Feb. 16… You then said later on Feb. 16… I responded with information from two sources, each indicating that U. S. Indian sub-Agent Gratiot indeed met face-to-face with Black Hawk at the Prophet's Town, which I believe answered your question. However, today you stated… I think the addition of " subsequent to their Miss. River crossing and prior to Gratiot's encounter with Black Hawk" changes dramatically this segment of the previous side-bar discussion regarding the U. S. Indian Agency.  Warm regards, Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Feb 18, 2004 13:46:35 GMT -5
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 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." Does this sound familiar? 'It depends on what the defination of the word is, is."  You and Frank Stevens have used the word "embassy" or "embassies." Black Hawk said Atkinson sent "expresses" to him. Would you not agree that there is a significant difference? If Atkinson sent an embassy that would indicate it was an "ambassador." An ambassador would indicate a 'diplomatic agent of highest rank." This is word difference is one reason why I questioned you. The other reason is you said their was Agency involvement after the rebuff of the first embassy. Therefore, I wanted to know what "ambassador" encountered BH between the first and second embassy. Having said that, I would agree Gratiot was the first Agent to engage BH subsequent to his river crossing. Larry K |
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Feb 18, 2004 14:25:09 GMT -5
Regarding Atkinson's direction or orders to Gratiot - correct me if I am wrong - Atkinson asked Gratiot to engage the Rock River Winnebagoes to ascertain the Prophet's intentions, the other Winnebago chief's intentions, but did not specifically instruct him to council with Black Hawk.
This is the way I view Atkinson's orders unfolding... Gratiot called a council with the Rock River Winnebago chiefs to be held at Turtle's village. At the council the principle chiefs decided to hold a council with the Prophet to learn first hand the circumstances surrounding his invitation to Black Hawk to grow corn among the Winnebagoes. The Winnebago chief's opinions were split on the presence of BH east of the Miss. River. Some saw it as a potential federation to oppose the transgressions of the whites, others saw it as a threat to their people, because the whites would make war against all the Indians south of the Wisconsin River.
Gratiot was not prepared for the Winnebago decision to meet with the Prophet, however had little choice but to accompany them to make sure the Rock River band did not form an alliance with the Prophet and Black Hawk.
I have found no sources that indicate Gratiot plannedto meet with BH when he departed Turtle's village. apparently plans were made to meet BH when he arrived at the Prophet's village and learned BH was nearby.
Larry K.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Feb 18, 2004 16:45:39 GMT -5
Hmmmm... a couple of points that need to be addressed.
1. Embassy. Certainly today's usage of "embassy" might imply the definitions you describe. However, according to Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, I may be within bounds for borrowing the use of the word "embassy," towit:
2. Gratiot. To begin, several replies to messages sent by General Atkinson indicate a fact-finding mission on the part of the General to ascertain just what Black Hawk and his band was up to. One reply was from George Davenport:
Another reply was sent by General Hughes, at that time apparently serving (interestingly enough) as a U. S. Indian sub-Agent:
Regarding whether or not Gratiot stumbled into a meeting with BH, or did so at the behest of General Atkinson, an examination of Wakefield's book, pp 38-40, provides some insight:
On the 16th day of April, Mr. Gratiot, Indian Agent for the Rock river band of Winnebagoes, received a letter from Gen. Atkinson, informing him of the movements of Black Hawk's band of hostile Indians, and requesting him, if possible, to ascertain the disposition of them. On the receipt of this information, Mr. Gratiot proceeded down Rock river, and on the 19th arrived at the Turtle Village of Winnebagoes -- found them at the exercise of their religious ceremonies, and consequently could not have a hearing with them until the 22d. He then held a talk with them, and learned from them that the Sacs had, at three different times, sent them the wampum, and that the last was painted red, thereby indicating war. The last wampum was not returned. They also informed Mr. Gratiot, that it was their determination not to join the hostile Sacs -- that there were some Winnebagoes living at the Prophet's Village who were friendly to the whites -- and that they requested them to leave it and come to their village to reside until all the difficulties were settled.
In order to accomplish this object, Mr. Gratlot took twenty four men of the Turtle Village to accompany him to the Prophet's Town, at which place they arrived on the 25th, and hoisted his flag of truce. He was received with much attention by the Winnebagoes, who made him a large lodge, eighty feet long, for himself and their visiting brethren. In this village he found between two and three hundred men, women and children, belonging to the Prophet's band. These Indians manifested no hostile disposition, but severally remonstrated against the conduct of the Prophet, who was at that time with the hostile band of Sacs, a few miles below, leading them on to his village. Mr. Gratiot advised these Indians to go up Rock river on their own lands, and make a village, where they might rest in peace. This they promised to do.
On the 26th, Mr. Gratiot saw at a distance, about two miles down Rock river, the army of the celebrated Black Hawk, consisting of about five hundred Sacs, well armed, and mounted on fine horses, moving in a line of battle. -- Their appearance was terrible in the extreme. Their bodies were painted with white clay, with an occasional impression of their hands about their bodies, colored black. Around their ankles and bodies they wore wreaths of straw, which always indicate a disposition for blood. They moved on with great regularity, performing many evolutions; wheeling every few minutes, and firing towards Fort Armstrong; turning, flanking, and then forming into solid columns, from which they would form their line of march. In that way they marched to the beating of a drum till they came to the village.
They marched up to Gratiot's lodge, where was flying the neutral flag; formed a circle around it; took down his flag, and tauntingly hoisted the British colors in its place. They then fired into the air toward his lodge, sounded the war-whoop around it, and made several motions toward attacking Mr. Gratiot and the friendly Winnebagoes. They afterward dismounted, entered his lodge, shook hands with Mr. Gratiot and Mr. Cubbage, a gentleman who accompanied him. They then formed a circle within his lodge, holding their spears and other implements of war, and evincing, by their actions and countenances, an unfriendly feeling. After holding a consultation among themselves, a friendly Winnebago Chief, ( "White Crow," ) who went with Mr. Gratiot from the Turtle Village, arose, went to his blanket, took out two plugs of tobacco, and gave them to the war-chief of the hostile band; after which the war party left the lodge leaving only Black Hawk.
This Chief (Black Hawk) then told Mr. Gratiot that he had received a letter from General Atkinson, but refused to let him read it at the time, but said that he would show it to him when he got to the end of his march, which was about sixty miles above. Mr. Gratiot replied, that he was not going that way; but he was answered by Black Hawk, that he would let him know about it on the next day. So it appeared that Mr. Gratiot was then considered their prisoner of war; which the development of other facts that afterwards occurred, conclusively proved. Black Hawk shortly afterwards left Mr. Gratiot, under a promise to visit him again the next morning.
The hostile band were all night engaged in holding a council among them selves. On the following morning, the Prophet, at the head of about forty warriors, came into Mr. Gratiot's lodge, presented General Atkinson's letter, and told him, he might take the letter back to General Atkinson. Mr. Gratiot insisted on reading the letter to them; upon which request. Black Hawk and Na-a-pope were sent for, and the letter read. The substance of which was, to advise the hostile Chiefs to desist from their evil designs -- recross the Mississippi river, settle down in peace, and plant their corn, &c. In reply to which, they requested Mr. Gratiot to hand back the letter, and inform General Atkinson, that their hearts were bad, and that they would not return; but to the contrary, that if he brought his troops among them they would fight.
Warm regards, Bob.
|
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Feb 18, 2004 17:30:13 GMT -5
Bob,
I for one, will look forward to your rigorous, annotated analysis of Black Hawk's autobiography.
Best regards,
Larry K.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey on Feb 18, 2004 22:15:50 GMT -5
Cecil Eby has some interesting interpretations of Gratiot's role at Prophetstown. I'll quote him from page 117, when he describes Gratiot going to Rock Island on April 27 just after the meeting with Black Hawk:
"The arrival of Gratiot touched off such a complicated and contradictory chain of rumors and reports that it is impossible to account for them all. Keokuk, after hearing the agent's story, explained that by Sauk custom the two whites had actually been prisoners and had been freed by White Crow's gift of tobacco. Gratiot, who understood no Sauk, seemed uncertain about this; but on reflection he admitted that his Winnebago custodians had appeared alarmed about a situation he did not quite understand. Though he made no mention of the encounter in his diary, Gratiot told General Atkinson that before leaving Prophetstown Black Hawk showed him the general's letter, which the agent read to him. The Hawk then dictated a reply, which Gratiot paraphrased: 'He returns you the letter, and in answer to it says, that his heart is bad--that he intends to go farther up Rock River--and that if you send your officers to him he will fight them.' Did Gratiot, whose holdings in the Lead Region were second in size to Dodge's, lie to stir up a war which would inevitably eject another tribe of Indians west of the Mississippi? Had he misunderstood what Black Hawk had said? Or had the Hawk's attitude truly undergone such a change between the visit of the sauk envoys and Gratiot's visit just twenty-four hours later?"
I should add in explanation that Eby had earlier described Atkinson's first message to Black Hawk on April 24th and that: "Two days later the messengers returned reporting that Neapope was now the principal chief and that he had said, 'We have no bad feelings, why do they send to us to tell us to go back--we will not go back--we will go on.' Black Hawk, on the other hand, had become much less confident. When asked for his opinion the old man had replied, 'I do not command the Indians. The village belongs to the chiefs...I have no bad feelings. My opinion goes with my chiefs.'"
Eby, writing this during the Vietnam War, is also highly skeptical of Davenport and Reynolds, feeling that they had much to gain by whipping up sentiment for the militia coming in to rout the British Band. As I read the various accounts, I wonder how much bluffing was going on with the British Band. Certainly they hope that a lot of other Indian groups will come and join them, but once they understand that this isn't going to happen, how much is posturing versus authentic belligerance?
---Jeffrey Chown
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Feb 19, 2004 11:57:01 GMT -5
Bob, I for one, will look forward to your rigorous, annotated analysis of Black Hawk's autobiography. Best regards, Larry K. Larry... I am most flattered! Unfortunately, you flatter me beyond my ability to produce.  I am afraid such a lofty and valuable project is most likely beyond my ken. Regrets, Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Feb 19, 2004 12:05:25 GMT -5
Eby, writing this during the Vietnam War, is also highly skeptical of Davenport and Reynolds, feeling that they had much to gain by whipping up sentiment for the militia coming in to rout the British Band. As I read the various accounts, I wonder how much bluffing was going on with the British Band. Certainly they hope that a lot of other Indian groups will come and join them, but once they understand that this isn't going to happen, how much is posturing versus authentic belligerance? ---Jeffrey Chown Dr. Chown--- I think your point about "bluffing" is a most interesting and perceptive observation. Perhaps all we can do is surmise... however this observaton regarding posturing on BOTH sides, also alluded to by Larry, would and should be fuel for continued analysis and debate. With respect to Dr. Eby, I sometimes wonder how much of his prose are his own personal opinions and speculation, and how much are prose derived from and supported by the writings and accounts of the period. His jaundiced eye towards all things "chemokemon" colors an otherwise interesting study, and in my mind calls into question some of his suppositions--- like, for example, the skepticism of Reynolds and Davenport to which you alluded. Regards, Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey on Feb 19, 2004 14:44:25 GMT -5
Bob,
Eby is certainly biased. He told me he was angry about Vietnam when he was writing the book and was looking for connections between My Lai and Bad Axe. However, I'm often more comfortable with someone who admits to bias. I don't know if Wakefield and Stevens understand their own blinders. Eby also has a jaundiced view of Black Hawk. Somewhere in his notes he writes with disgust about how Vietnam era people went to Black Hawk looking for a hippie who was against the white power structure. Black Hawk was raised in a warrior culture where you were taught to laugh at your enemy while he was torturing you. Black Hawk was no New Age flower child. In his auto-biography, Black Hawk has a photographic memory for every battle he was in, every scalp he took, and he narrates this with a pronounced relish. That's what it took to survive and prosper in his culture, and we should be very careful about value judgments we make from our own culture. Nonetheless, it's always interesting to see how writers from different eras describe a story that happened in 1832.
Jeffrey Chown
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Feb 20, 2004 11:15:34 GMT -5
Bob, Eby is certainly biased. He told me he was angry about Vietnam when he was writing the book and was looking for connections between My Lai and Bad Axe. However, I'm often more comfortable with someone who admits to bias. I don't know if Wakefield and Stevens understand their own blinders. Eby also has a jaundiced view of Black Hawk. Somewhere in his notes he writes with disgust about how Vietnam era people went to Black Hawk looking for a hippie who was against the white power structure. Black Hawk was raised in a warrior culture where you were taught to laugh at your enemy while he was torturing you. Black Hawk was no New Age flower child. In his auto-biography, Black Hawk has a photographic memory for every battle he was in, every scalp he took, and he narrates this with a pronounced relish. That's what it took to survive and prosper in his culture, and we should be very careful about value judgments we make from our own culture. Nonetheless, it's always interesting to see how writers from different eras describe a story that happened in 1832. Jeffrey Chown I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with Dr. Eby's work being biased, as long as readers and researchers understand that the work IS based. Problems crop in when academic works are touted as scholarly research, when they clearly are not. Recognizing the biases of Wakefield or Stevens is an important step, as these are documents of and by men as representatives of their times. So, too is Black HAwk's autobiography... which retains its own set of latent biases. Again... there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, PROVIDED the reader understands that bias exists and can work within that framework. Unfortunately, I have observed that very few readers recognize that BH's autobiography IS biased! Many take it as gospel-- chapter and verse-- much like the accounts of Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and his 20th Maine on Little Round Top at Gettysburg. I've run into too many souls in the last ten years who freely admit that "If Chamberlain said it, by God it's true!"  I think my major dissappointment with Dr. Eby's work relates to the very issues you have described. As a professional academian, he had had training and education to prepare him to sift the available data, and to examine and account for discrepancies and biases where possible, in order to present the history of the Black Hawk War as the "story of what happened." Unfortunately, he listened less to his professional training and more to his inner political voice--- and turned a potentially excellent book into a confusing mish-mash of historical prose and modern political pronouncements. As for BH's "photographic memory," I agree with you that he was a pretty saavy guy. I suspect he had a pretty good handle on what audiances would be reading his translated words, and ensured the story HE wanted to get out was what in fact got out. And that's not necessarily a FAULT, mind you. Readers just need to keep in mind that in some cases BH and/or his editors spoke very carefully, and in other cases spoke in a manner that was less than forthcoming. Regards, Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Feb 21, 2004 15:48:11 GMT -5
While I find Jeffrey and Bob's literary critique's interesting and informative, I do not find their points surprising or alarming. These same examinations should be applied to any and all Black Hawk War historical documentary works we encounter whether it be Ford, Wakefield, Stevens, Eby, Salter or Peter Parkinson, Jr., just to name a few.
Some of us history buffs go beyond the written word and research and corroborate what we have absorbed. I like to believe this in some way keeps history fluid and fresh, therefore, I admire and respect the opinions of not only Jeffrey and Bob but all message board contributors.
Before I come back to the premise of this thread, I would like to comment on the general lack of another side to the Black Hawk War story, the Indian side. Other than Black Hawk's autobiography there is little else. Sure, there are recorded speech's, conversations and interrogations that give us a glimpse of the Indian perspective. Recently, more information is coming to the forefront because Indian tribes are sueing to recover treaty land and for rights to hunt, fish and gather on public lands. Armies of lawyers, government and private, are scouring local, state and federal archives to build a case or defend a case. In addition, many individuals have been researching the Lewis and Clark Exploration for the 2004 celebrations and documentaries. A side benefit of all this activity is, the dust has been blown off some obscure documents.
If a person hangs around the U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs long enough you may just come away with some "nuggets' of history. For example, Jeffrey in his post "Muddy" expresses a fascination with two opposing accounts of saving Gratiot and Cubbage from death... The Prophet or Black Hawk? A sworn affidavit from the Winnebago Mixed-Blood Claim Commission, 1838-1839 states a metis, intervened on behalf of Gratiot and Cubbage with an exchange.... her life for theirs.
Other affidavits provided insight into the council proceedings at Turtle's village. Some of the results I have posted on this thread previously. In addiiton, the "two plugs of tobacco" that White Crow gave Black Hawk's band during a council at the Prophet's village were painted red... WAR
Now returning to the premise of this thread. Any chance we could coax a "turning point" opinion from Bob and Jeffrey?
Best regards,
Larry K.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey on Feb 22, 2004 21:54:08 GMT -5
Well, I always like to be "coaxed." My simple opinion would be that the war is unavoidable once the shooting starts at Sycamore Creek. There's no way the British Band can get out of it once a dozen whites are dead and scalped and hysteria is reigning on the frontier. You're suggesting Jackson wanted the war to happen, Eby says Reynolds, Davenport, maybe even Gratiot want the war to happen, all of which sounds plausible to me. Everybody knew that white settlement in Illinois was only going to increase and cause more friction with native tribes.
I just wonder about the moment when Black Hawk and the other chiefs realize that the Winnebago and others are not going to join them in a big uprising. If they were to get a proper note off to Atkinson saying, ok, we're going back to Iowa, is all forgiven? Black Hawk's autobiography is a wonderful document, but it's a tale told from hindsight and he's being careful to not antagonize the victors. I suspect there are elements in the British band who do want a violent confrontation--that's backed up by the red wampum you mention. Still, if they are really committed to a war situation, why do they drag all the women and children along? Black Hawk is their military leader--he must have some sense of the hopelessness of a military confrontation, but there seem to be forces at work more powerful than his control of the situation.
Working purely from the hypothetical, I would say that had the British band gotten back to Iowa in 1832 without a fight, the war was still coming. Maybe in 1833, maybe later, but the Sauk and Fox were not going to be moved off to Oklahoma just on the basis of bad treaties. And the whites were not going to stop coming.
---Jeffrey
|
|
I am afraid such a lofty and valuable project is most likely beyond my ken.