|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Jul 2, 2004 16:09:01 GMT -5
After 172 years, who has emerged the real "winner" of the Black Hawk War?
And WHY?
r.
|
|
|
|
Post by gorentz on Jul 2, 2004 23:37:01 GMT -5
After 172 years, all those people you listed are dead! I haven't seen a single one of them do any emerging recently.
:-)
John Gorentz
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Jul 2, 2004 23:46:27 GMT -5
I have to weigh in here and vote "Black Hawk". Why, you ask? Lets review-
1. History at large has forgotten General Atkinson
2. Lincoln's service in the conflict is not mentioned much if at all. His Civil War presidency seems to be all that matters to most people.
3. Winfield Scott is generally remembered for his exploits in 1812, the Mexican War and the beginning of the Civil War. Little else ever seems to be remarked about.
4. Most people I have met have never heard of Shabbona or the Prophet.
5. Andrew Jackson is remembered by most as an Indian hater and the man who won at New Orleans. Oh yeah and he was a president.
On the flip side- Black Hawk's "courageous" stand in the face of adversity (i.e. generally speaking- displacement by the bad white man) and so on and so forth are referred to again and again and again. Nobody knows about the conflict, but they know Black Hawk was an Indian and he fought the white man. His WHOLE TRIBE was also massacred at Bad Axe. Let's not forget that part.
This is further evinced by three Indian statues in the region of the conflict that I know of that are named after or attributed to be Black Hawk. The Black Hawk Trail state highway and rustic route, the Black Hawk lodge, the Chicago Black Hawks, The Black Hawk Helicopter, The South Wayne Black Hawk Warriors, The Black Hawk Inn, The Black Hawk Diner, The Black Hawk Chapter BSA, Black Hawk River Cruises, Black Hawk Presbytery Conference, Black Hawk Amoco, Black Hawk Forest Preserve, Black Hawk Park, Black Hawk State Recreational Area, Black Hawk Post American Legion, and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on. Need I say more?
I have been to every known Black Hawk War site and I have yet to see a "Dodge" statue.
GMC
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Jul 2, 2004 23:49:43 GMT -5
I forgot- the Black Hawk Valley Campground, the Black Hawk Credit Union, Black Hawk State Bank, Black Hawk Riverways Convention and Visitors Bureau. Lets not forget Black Hawk Down. I only mention this last one because the words "Black Hawk" on a web brouser instantaneously bring up 1,500 websites. At least 400 of them are devoted to "Black Hawk Down in one media or another."
Oops. I think I am starting to sound a bit repetitious. How is your corporocity sagaciating?
GMC
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Jul 7, 2004 9:28:44 GMT -5
After 172 years, all those people you listed are dead! I haven't seen a single one of them do any emerging recently. :-) John Gorentz True... true. So, here we are in 2004... and the question for this survey is-- "which historical figure has emerged as the 'winner' of the BHW?" r. |
|
|
|
Post by pshrake on Jul 7, 2004 10:10:29 GMT -5
I think Greg's comments says it all, in the collecticve memory of the U.S. Black Hawk certainly has weathered time to emerge as a tragic symbol of the era.
All conceptions, or misconceptions asside however, I would probably consider the real winner of the War to be Andrew Jackson. The war was a phyiscal reinforcement of his removal policies. Illinois and Wisconsin was cleared of at least one tribe and the war was a useful tool to help remove at least one other tribe (the HoChunk) and probably more from Wisconsin. After 1832 Jackson's removal policy was in full force in the old northwest.
And dispite the popular views towards Black Hawk today, It still does not change the fact that he was soundly beaten in 1832, and his effort did absolutely nothing to keep the Sauk Nation from being removed again and again.
Pete
|
|
Chris
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Chris on Jul 7, 2004 11:58:38 GMT -5
"Nobody knows about the conflict, but they know Black Hawk was an Indian and he fought the white man. His WHOLE TRIBE was also massacred at Bad Axe. Let's not forget that part."
There were survivors of his tribe. Therefore there were descendants.
"After 172 years, all those people you listed are dead! I haven't seen a single one of them do any emerging recently."
There are Sauk people today. Many believe that they receive guidance from the spirits of their ancestors in the process of seeking justice. And this time in history is the time for justice.
"And dispite the popular views towards Black Hawk today, It still does not change the fact that he was soundly beaten in 1832, and his effort did absolutely nothing to keep the Sauk Nation from being removed again and again. "
And the cruel lesson that was repeated over and over across this country, that no matter which path the tribes/bands followed, the result was the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Jul 7, 2004 13:01:20 GMT -5
"Nobody knows about the conflict, but they know Black Hawk was an Indian and he fought the white man. His WHOLE TRIBE was also massacred at Bad Axe. Let's not forget that part." There were survivors of his tribe. Therefore there were descendants. Chris... one small observation here. If I have interpreted Greg's comment correctly, he was being sarcastic. I think close students of the Black Hawk War are aware that the whole of BH's band was not massacred at Bad Axe. Yet that is the clear indication on numerous websites and short stories in the "popular culture." The scales of justice tip both ways. Bob. |
|
Chris
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Chris on Jul 7, 2004 13:15:39 GMT -5
 Ok. Still a bit quick to anger.  The misinformation is so widespread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Jul 7, 2004 13:16:21 GMT -5
Bob, Your interpretation of my posting was correct. In the future I will make sure to clarify when I post. I don't want to come off seeming "Texian" or anything.  GMC |
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Jul 7, 2004 15:26:45 GMT -5
Assuming Robert's question is rhetorical and not a trick question, I will come down on the side of Black Hawk. I believe he has trumped all other BHW participants in ever-lasting and increasing notoriety. This was re-affirmed once again with me last evening when my Middle-School aged daughter's basketball team played the Pecatonica School - Blackhawks.
The Pecatonica School System student body is about a third the size of the Monroe, Wisconsin School System. The players wore red jerseys with black lettering "Blackhawks" and a Black Hawk insignia that resembled Charles B. King's BH portrait. The relatively short, scrappy little team fought the much larger (tall timber) Monroe Cheesemakers to a stand still in the first half. The Cheesemaker size and deep bench took its toll on the Black Hawks in the second half, however and they went down in defeat. (sound familiar) My daughter looked like she had been in a cat fight, scratched, bruised and sore. It was the first time she ever complained about a rough basketball game.
I do not totally agree with Pete's statement that " Black Hawk certainly has weathered time to emerge as a tragic symbol of the era." Frankly, I believe he has emerged as a symbol of human spirit and courage.
To cite an old cliche " lives on in the hearts and minds" of people. He is a spiritual symbol that not only haunts the tri-state area of Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin, but around the globe. Many a combatant has had the misfortune to face the blazing fire-power of a Black Hawk helicopter.
I wonder how "Old Charge 'em Boys" Dodge would respond if he learned that the calvary unit in todays U. S. Army, 1-1 Cavalry is known as the Black Hawks. This unit is Army's First Cavalry Unit, first known in 1833 as 1st Regiment of Dragoons, which Dodge commanded. Their Coat of Arms has a wing-rising black hawk with a yellow-orange dragon which is an illusion to the name Dragoon. "Animo Et Fide", Courageous and faithful.
Would Dodge be proud or is he turning over in his grave?
Finally, I would advance... Black Hawk has won in the court of public opinion. His popularity has momentum and continues to build.
Larry K.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Jul 8, 2004 9:24:14 GMT -5
Assuming Robert's question is rhetorical and not a trick question, I will come down on the side of Black Hawk. Larry K. Larry and all... Rest comfortably... my question is purely rhetorical. There is nothing hiding in the wings! Regards, Bob. |
|
josef
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by josef on Mar 5, 2005 7:17:49 GMT -5
You know Iam going to write this and some people are going to get some hurt feeling but you have to look at it from a view of the 1830's. Who won why we won. Lookat the facts after BH was wiped out, upper Illinois was opened up and a tide of settler flooded into northern Illinois. The final result as was know before the campaing was started. The Indians would lose and we would get then land. In the 1830's the Indian was counted lower then the Slaves or in Illinois indentured servants (Illinois's form of slavery) So how do you think most people felt about them. They were in the way and we shoved them aside. Sure the Indians ran the ferry at Galena and some of the mining in that area also but they were not looked upon as american citizens, by the americans.
Josef Kleffman
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on May 2, 2005 7:12:10 GMT -5
After some nine months, we've had four poll responses.
We'll lock this one up, in hopes of generating more interest on the next poll.
My thanks to all those that participated and offered comments!
(And no... I didn't vote.)
Regards, Bob.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Ayers on May 3, 2005 14:06:21 GMT -5
In response to Greg's post, I drive a DODGE stratus!
|
|
Ok. Still a bit quick to anger. 
The misinformation is so widespread. 
