A call for information

[sherfy]

Dear Black Hawk War Message Boarders,

My name is Michael Sherfy and I am completing a Ph.D. dissertation on the Black Hawk War and Historical Memory at the University of Illinois. Currently, I am finishing the penultimate chapter which concerns how people living in the region where the conflict was fought (or elsewhere for that matter, so long as they have an interest in the subject) “remember” Black Hawk and the events of war that bears his name.

So, I ask you all for assistance. Specifically, I would like to hear some responses to the following questions:

1. Why are you interested in the Black Hawk War? What inspired you to take such an interest in it?

2. How do you conceive of the Black Hawk War in terms of the region’s history? In terms of American history in general?

3. Are there aspects of the Black Hawk War that you believe other people just don’t understand? What are they? And how do you account for the misunderstandings?

4. What do you think about Black Hawk himself? Was he either a “villain” or a “victim”? Or was he something else entirely?

5. What do you think about Keokuk?

6. What about the Americans involved in the fray? As you interpret them, what motivations drove Atkinson, Andrew Jackson, Henry Dodge, John Reynolds, Antoine LeClaire, George Davenport, or any of the other individuals that you consider important? (If I have omitted any that you consider to be especially worthy of note, please mention it. This was just a sample off the top of my head, not a definitive list).

7. Most of us know the history of Black Hawk’s Autobiography. It has even been discussed on the site. But what do YOU, as informed readers, make of it? Is it authentic? Is it legitimate? Does it represent Black Hawk’s “voice” even if it does not speak in his language? More informally, do you like the book? Why / Why not?

I apologize for presenting this to you in such an impersonal and structured format. Looking back at these questions, it looks like an exam for undergraduates. I would prefer to conduct actual interviews with many of you…and may do so if any of you are willing. I thought, however, that posting such an open letter might inspire some chatter on the boards and point me in profitable directions.

I also apologize for asking such broad questions. In part this is because I do not want to unduly influence your answers more than necessary. I also am genuinely curious about hearing your ideas and wanted to make sure people could take their answers in a wide array of directions.

Also, I assure you that I will not cite any of your responses without obtaining permission. I have no desire to misrepresent your ideas nor do I wish to make enemies among the group of people most likely to purchase my eventual book.

If you would prefer to e-mail me off-list, my address is [e-mail].

Thank you very much for your assistance. I look forward to hearing your ideas.

Michael J. Sherfy
History Department
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

[Robert Braun]

sherfy said:

So, I ask you all for assistance. Specifically, I would like to hear some responses to the following questions:

1. Why are you interested in the Black Hawk War? What inspired you to take such an interest in it?

2. How do you conceive of the Black Hawk War in terms of the region’s history? In terms of American history in general?

3. Are there aspects of the Black Hawk War that you believe other people just don’t understand? What are they? And how do you account for the misunderstandings?

4. What do you think about Black Hawk himself? Was he either a “villain” or a “victim”? Or was he something else entirely?

5. What do you think about Keokuk?

6. What about the Americans involved in the fray? As you interpret them, what motivations drove Atkinson, Andrew Jackson, Henry Dodge, John Reynolds, Antoine LeClaire, George Davenport, or any of the other individuals that you consider important? (If I have omitted any that you consider to be especially worthy of note, please mention it. This was just a sample off the top of my head, not a definitive list).

7. Most of us know the history of Black Hawk’s Autobiography. It has even been discussed on the site. But what do YOU, as informed readers, make of it? Is it authentic? Is it legitimate? Does it represent Black Hawk’s “voice” even if it does not speak in his language? More informally, do you like the book? Why / Why not?

Mr. Sherfy--- my thanks for this opportunity. And welcome to the Black Hawk War board! Regarding your questions---

1. The BHW is interesting to me from a variety of viewpoints. First and foremost, it is LOCAL history, where locations and events can be followed with reasonable ease. Second, the conflict offers a variety of outlets for numerous research endeavors-- historical, social, military, archaeological, etc. Third, the conflict often engenders an emotional response in many people, and I for one am interested in understanding the causes for this response.

2. The BHW was more of an annoyance in the national situation in 1832 that a conflict that was be taken seriously. President Jackson seemed to be more involved in Bank issues, the Nullification Crisis, and Indian Relocation. Locally, the conflict remains of significant interest, as a conflict begun in Illinois, and essentially waged in present-day Wisconsin. The echoes of this short "war" echo to this very hour... as a significant moment in early Illinois history and a defining moment in pre-territorial Wisconsin history. It was equally a sad, regrettable, and tragic episode in native people vs. American relations.

3. One of the basic truths about virtually ANY modern short history of the BHW was uttered several years ago by our webmaster Mike Thorson-- "The Black Haw War is all about Black Hawk." Read any short history of the conflict on nearly ANY website, and you will see this truth bourne out. Generations of schoolchildren NOW carry the entire knowledge of the conflcit this way: Black Hawk disputed the Treaty of 1804, returned with his followers to Illinois in 1832, and that Americans were drunken doofs at "Stillman's Run, and murdering drunken doofs at "Bad axe." Why is this descritpion the preeminant lesson taught to our youth? Why... because today's educators sympathize with the historical BH, and the BHW is "all about "Black Hawk."

4. After years of trying to dessect out Black Hawk "the man" from all the carefully cultivated mythology... the best I have come up with so far is that BH exhibited very HUMAN traits of concerns for his fellows, a strong attachment to traditions and sense of place, and an abiding hatred of Americans. His angst against American incursions into claimed Sauk lands was fueled by his successes against Americans as a strong British ally during the War of 1812. He listened to those with whose counsel he agreed, and this counsel was aften not based in reality. His contempt for the Americans and his desire to restore the traditions he enjoyed as a youth ended with dragging a thousand souls into an unwinnable conflict, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds.

5. Keokuk is one of the great forgotten figures of the emerging conflict. Having visited American cities prior to the BHW, he had a better understanding of American culture, and the implications for the Sauk and Fox people should they resort to armed resistance. While some historians indicate that they think K. "sold out," I think that K. in fact tried to negotiate the best deals he could, despite the irresistable onrush of American settlement. His "generationality" is an important part of the Keokuk story... and one perennially overlooked by modern commentators. In my mind, he deserves a higher place in hisotry than merely being relegated to an antagoniost of BH.

6. Most American participants are overlooked or marginalized in the modern story of the BHW... unless they can be made out as doofs. General Atkinson gets wide play because he essentially couldn't locate the wiley BH and his followers. Jackson is ignored because noone seems to remember WHO was president during the conflict. Governor Reynolds gets a modest hand because he comes across like a doof, too. So does Stillman. Dodge is glossed over because the successes earned through his leadership dilutes the rush to get the story to the "Bad Axe" episode. Likewise, the leadership of General Henry and his short brigade of Illinois volunteers is an essential part of the story-- now forgotten. The discussion of the part many American leaders played and their motivations is grist for verbiage far in excess of this posting.

7. I agree with the analysis done by a university professor some years back that indicated numerous editorial "changes" were made in the two editions of the autobiography... changes made by probably well-meaning editors on what was unquestionably BH's own words. I agree with the comments made by other posters on this board that the book remains "a remarkable account by a remarkable individual." This being said, BH's autobiography has defied competent historical analysis since 1834. Why? because BH comes through as HUMAN in his account: he makes mistakes, offers opinions and his own personal biases, even parses some historical episodes. Yet to point these realities out seems to relegate the inquirer to the realm of rank heresy in the academic community-- a community quite comfortable in pointing out the mistakes, biases and parsing of non-Indian BHW accounts. Please do not mistake my words--the book remains a remarkable account by a remarkable individual.

Regards,

Bob Braun
BHW Message Board Moderator.

[Robert Braun]

So.... how did the dissertation go?

Regars, Bob.