Fort Winnebago - No Fortification

[Larry Koschkee]

What was the Federal Government thinking? This military outpost on the Nortwest frontier was defenseless until about the time of the Battle of Wisconsin Heights on July 21, 1832.

Juliette M. Kinzie had this to say about the defense of Fort Winnebago in her book Wau-Bun.

"Among other rumors which at this time reached us, was one that an attack upon Fort Winnebago was in contemplation among the Sauks. That this was in no state of defence the Indians very well knew. All the effective men had been withdrawn, upon a requistion from General Atkinson, to join him at his newly-built fort at Kosh-ko-nong.
Fort Winnebago was not picketed in; there were no defences to the barracks or officers' quarters, except slight panelled doors and Venetian blinds - nothing that would long resist the blows of clubs or hatchets. There was no artillery, and the Commissary's store was without the bounds of the Fort, under the hill.
Mr. Kinzie had, from the first, called the attention of the officers to the insecurity of their position in case of danger, but he generally received a scoffing answer..."

Mrs. Kinzie went on to say: "In a few days our friends waked up to the conviciton that something must be done at once. The first step was to forbid any Winnebago coming withing the garrison, lest they should find out what they had known as well as ourselves for three months past - namely, the feebleness of the means of resistance. The next was to send fatigue-parties into the woods, under the protection of a guard, to cut pickets for inclosing the garrison."

Are there sources that confirm Mrs. Kinzie's observation?

[Robert Braun]

As I had it drummed into my skull when serving Uncle Sam... a "fort" doesn't necessarily mean a log or stone palisade.

"Fort" often refers to a "military reservation"-- of which forts like Winnebago, Laramie, et. cet. serve as examples, at least early on, of military reservations without the classic "fort" walls.

Regards, Bob.

[Larry Koschkee]

I remain puzzled that Fort Winnebago was an exception compared to other military forts of its day, such as Dearborn, Armstrong, Howard, Crawford and Kosh-ko-nong.

If for no other reason, it should have been fortified to secure the Indian annuities that were distributed there.

[Robert Braun]

Larry said:

I remain puzzled that Fort Winnebago was an exception compared to other military forts of its day, such as Dearborn, Armstrong, Howard, Crawford and Kosh-ko-nong.

If for no other reason, it should have been fortified to secure the Indian annuities that were distributed there.

Agreed. For years, the interpretation and explaination at the Surgeon's Quarters in Portage was that the "fort" was a "military reservation," and hence had no stockade until the BHW. Frequent references to "fort land" underscored this assertion.

I suggest that forts like Dearborn and Crawford may well have been stockaded by reason of their War of 1812 experiences and history. Fort Armstrong, I am informed, was stockaded to form an imposing demonstration of military strength in the very shadow of Saukenuk and Mesquakenuk. Fort Kosh-ke-nong was stockaded as a military post during an active armed conflict.

There may have been less reason (i. e. no active or percieved local military threat) to construct a stockade at Fort Winnebago. I don't believe Fort Howard in Green Bay was stockaded either... that is until the BHW.

Your point about the security of the annuities is well-founded. I get the impression, however, from reading Juliette Kinzie's writings, that theft or otherwise disruption of the large amount of specie used in the annuity payment didn't seem to be an overriding concern. Strange. The most reasonable explaination appears to be that the presence of several companies of Regular infantry was deterrance enough!

Warm regards,

Bob.

[Greg Carter]

Larry,

I echo your confusion here. One has only to look at the architecture of Fort Dearborn, Fort Crawford, Fort Armstrong, Fort Howard, Fort Snelling or a host of others established pre-1832 to get a firm grasp on the US Army practice of building sturdy, if not always well-placed, fortifications.

Could it be that since Fort Winnebago was placed on the Portage among the generally friendly HoChunk Indians that they appreciated no danger when construction was carried out?

GMC

P.S.- Editing my post here- I noticed a contradiction among my statements above- when Fort Snelling, or St. Peter, rather, was built, the Indians in the area were Sioux, and friendly to the US at the time. Still, that fort is quite literally an almost-impregnable citadel. Curious.

[Larry Koschkee]

I would like to expand on Bob and Greg's similar points.

Bob... The most reasonable explaination appears to be that the presence of several companies of Regular infantry was deterrance enough.

Greg... Could it be that since Fort Winnebago was placed on the Portage among generally friendly HoChunk Indians that they appeciated no danger when construction was carried out.

I think these two points speak to the "brilliant" Military minds of the day who were planning strategy on the frontier. A lot of there attitude was arrogance and complacency and they miscalculated conditions in the tribual community.

Example: Just prior to the Winnebago uprising in 1827 the military essentially abandonded Fort Crawford; an action that many scholars and historians assert was a major mistake. The uprising was put down and the Winnebago lost some valuable land and were forced out of the lead region. Still smarting from their losses many Winnebago relocated north of the Wisconsin River and near the Portage.

The building of Fort Winnebago began in 1828 right in the middle of the "whipped" Winnebago. No stockade defense was built. Hello! What were they thinking? The frontier was still a volatile place and the pressure of Indian removal policies were still present.

Does anyone besides me get the idea that Fort Winnebago was somewhat of a step-child in the military world?

Larry K.

[Larry Koschkee]

Side bar to this thread...

Danger or risk on the frontier may have been perceived differently by those who lived in that era than what members of this board perceive it to be. What may seem risky to us may not have been a big deal to our forefathers. This is something to ponder.

Without going into a lot of psychological babble, perhaps the environmental conditions within which our ancestors lived and died desenitized or hardened them, therefore giving them a higher tolerance level in dealing with or being conscious of danger.

Maybe this is also an explanation for what seems to be the lack of firearms in the civilian population during the time frame that this message board addresses.

While reading history, so many times we learn of accounts were people have placed themselves in harms way. Fearless or foolish?

Larry K.

[gorentz]

Larry wrote: "Danger or risk on the frontier may have been perceived differently by those who lived in that era than what members of this board perceive it to be.... ...lack of firearms in the civilian population... accounts were people have placed themselves in harms way. Fearless or foolish?"

(I'm not using the built-in quote function on this web site because my old eyes have no chance of being able to read the teensy font it uses. If I want to read any of the quoted stuff, I have to cut and paste it into a word processor or something where I can enlarge the font.)

But I think you're on the right track. Behaviors like this can give us a way of getting inside the heads of the people who lived at the time. We see that they didn't always feel the need to go about armed and fortified to the detriminent of other life activities. That can move us a notch closer to understanding the relationship between Euro-American settlers and native peoples.

At least out in Michigan, the settlers and native peoples interacted with each other all the time. They learned enough of each others' languages to buy and sell food and other items. There were attempts to socialize with each other and be hospitable, though the attempts were not always received in the way intended. There were misunderstandings, too. Sometimes bad intentions were mistaken for mere misunderstandings, and vice versa. Sometimes good intentions were mistaken for bad. The relationship was sometimes uneasy, but for most people on each side, it wasn't hostile.

Then, when news of the Black Hawk war came, all the suspicions came to the fore. Native peoples avoided the Euro-Americans for fear of what they might do, and vice versa, which further fed the suspicions. Forts were built or started. In some cases the situations nearly resulted in violence. But usually calmer heads prevailed and defused them.

But the point is, at this time the normal state of affairs was not one of overt hostility. People got along.

Regarding government forts, we also have to keep in mind that these things were very expensive. It was a big, expensive deal to built the one on the Minnesota River. The U.S. government was a lot smaller then than now. Taxes were low. The U.S. had to be very careful in how it spent its military resources.

And settlers and native peoples couldn't live in a state of 24/7 hostility. They had to plant crops, weed them, harvest them, go hunting, collect firewood, and consume a lot of time just staying alive and making sure they could live through the next winter. It was very costly for them to drop their life activities and hole up in a fortification.

In summary, I think it's good to ask these questions about "why didn't they" if we let it lead us to understand life as it was for the people of the time. There is much that can be learned if we don't insist on pigeonholing their behaviors into a limited number of modern categories.

John Gorentz

[pshrake]

There are a couple of things to consider as well.

At least initially, at the time of the construction of the post there was some concern by Major Twiggs of the temperment of the HoChunk in the area. "The Indians I am told, are very much dissatisfied with the location of the troops here; as yet I have not been able to see any of the chiefs, consequently cannot say with any certainty what their dispositions are"

Taken with Larry's good point of the fort being built in the shadow of the Red Bird Scare of the year before, it would seem very unwise to not construct some sort of palisade. However, if one looks at the Treaty of 1827, negotiated by Atkinson at the portage, and the Treaty of 1828 at Green Bay, both agreements specifically stated that the HoChunk agreed to leave alone any Americans who were in their territory. In essence the HoChunk agreed to not cause any trouble. When taken with the results of the Council at Buttes des Morts in 1827 where the HoChunk leaders were, at least in my opinion, psychologically beaten down, and had only recently witnessed a massive mobilization, at least for the army at that time, of militia and regualar troops into thier territory, I do not think the HoChunk had any desire to attack any fort and the Army probably suspected as much.

But there are a few other things to consider as well. One, the fort was not entirely defenseless, it did have two block houses built in 1828, not palisades I know, but some means of fortification.

Another possible explaination for lack of walls could also be economy. It must not be forgotten that this is the time of Andrew Jackson, who paid off the national debt during his administration. This man pursued a reduction of expenditures with near religious drive. Woe to the officer or official who incurred anything that might be considered a firvilous expense or someting beyond the bugdet. As it is, the Army expended $10,000.00 in 1829 for the erection of two barracks for two companies. Perhaps the outlay of supplies, whatever they might have been, was just not worth it.

Another reason might actually lie with the location of the post. sitting on a hill with a river to one side and open landscape all around. It was a hard place to sneak up upon. When Major Whistler was at the portage, waiting for Red Bird to surrender he was encamped upon the same ground, or nearly the same ground as the fort. When Red Bird approached the fort, his large congregation of followers could be seen for some distance, giving Whistler and his command plenty of time to get into formation.

So I would have to say that legal agreements with the HoChunk, mixing with the psychological effects of Red Bird's war, combined with a tight budget and a good location and the existance of two blockhouses all made it not worth the effort to construct a wall around the fort.

Pete

[pshrake]

Another possible clue,

In a letter written to Quartermaster General Thomas Jesup dated June 1, 1831 Lieutennant J.F. Davis states,

"I had not been informed of an additional appropriation for this post before the reciept of yours of the above date and have made no expenditures on account of new Barracks since I learned that the appropriation originally made to that object [is] exhausted, consequently no picketing timber or hair for plastering has been procured, as I expected they would when I made may last report on the state of the Barracks."


Pete

[Chris]

Sometimes there is a delicate balance between two parties that have been at war.

1. Both sides take care not to offend each other. This includes action taken by each side against their own outlaws. Forts should also have been used to defend and protect the Indians against outlaw white aggressors. And, traditionally, whites were not particularly concerned with protecting any money set aside for distribution to the Indians.

2. No side take action that might be construed as planning a renewal of hostilities.

3. Neither side take action that might indicate a lack of trust, or expecting of offensive action from the other side.

4. Care is taken that limits and boundaries are very specifically defined.

5. Trade between the two sides becomes valued, as each group becomes dependent on the products of the other side. Thus, a fort becomes a trading post. A specific example here: Down in the daily living area, there is discussion of the food that the settlers ate. Rice was mentioned. I would be almost certain that this is wild rice, not the Asian form of rice. And it would almost certainly have purchased from the Indians. The Ho-Chunk and other tribes were so dependent on wild rice as a part of their diet, that they regarded it as sacred.

The way you set out the situation, a lack of funding for fortification had to be a motivating factor in keeping the peace.

[Chris]

Some basic principles of Indian justice might have been used here. Disputes between tribes and families were often settled peacably. If person A from group I kills person A from group II, compensation is expected by group II. Group I gives person B, preferably a child closely related to I-A, to group II as compensation, to be adopted by II-A's family. The settlements may have not been quite as radical, and may have taken the form of goods. It certainly makes more sense than other forms of justice, especially when inequitably applied.

Indian taking of "captives" may have been their way of collecting compensation from people who did not understand this form of justice.

In sum, the Ho-Chunk and the whites had a good thing going for them, and they didn't want any war between the settlers and the Sauks fouling things up. Especially if they thought that Girty's river pirates were involved with fomenting the hostilities. The Shawnee had had many difficulties with Girty's river pirates in a previous generation, on the Ohio River, and were well aware of how evil they were.

[pshrake]

I am not sure that one can place such a formal set of rules regarding the relationship between the HoChunk (or any tribe for that matter) and the United States, after a war.

The main point at issue here is that the HoChunk were, for lack of a better term, subjugated, both psychologically and militarily in 1827. They were beaten the U.S. were the winners.

It must also be considered that in the eyes of the Federal Government though the HoChunk were soverign, they were under the "protection" of the United States, in essence they were independent but clearly under the authority of the U.S. I know that this sounds convoluted but Federal Indian Policy is usually anything but logical or consistent.

There were several reasons for the construction of Fort Winnebago. The primary one was to have a means of watching over the HoChunk, and remind them that the military power of the "Great Father was not far away. The very location of the fort, in the heart of HoChunk Territory (as defined by the Treaty of 1825), can be seen as proof of that. The HoChunk had a history of disregard of American Authority. A regular presence of American military power, however small, might serve to remind the nation of the events of 1827.

I do think you are correct though in your statement:

"Forts should also have been used to defend and protect the Indians against outlaw white aggressors."

The U.S. Army did indeed serve as a police force along the entire fronteir trying to enforce the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802.

But I would also disagree with your statement:

"traditionally, whites were not particularly concerned with protecting any money set aside for distribution to the Indians"

I think this is too general an assesment. If the money was lost or in any way unaccounted for prior to the distribution to tribes, the Agent or Officer charged with its care was in serious trouble.

I would also disagree with your statement:

"a lack of funding for fortification had to be a motivating factor in keeping the peace"

It is true that the fort may seem exposed, but consider the consequences should the HoChunk attack the fort. There were garrisons at Green Bay and Prairie du Chien which could move upon the Nation immediately if the post was attacked. Also remember that in 1827 a large force came up the Mississippi and Wisconsin from St. Louis right to the Portage. I do not think that the U.S. Army was concerned with keeping the peace because they could not afford to build a wall. If the fort was attacked, you would have seen a repeat of the mobilization of 1827.

Rather the walls were not built, among other reasons, because the army had a budget, and under the Presidency of Andrew Jackson, you did not stray too far from your appropriated funds.

Pete

[Larry Koschkee]

Thanks to Pete for coming up with that excellent account ...Lieut. Davis to Quartermaster Jesup that offers a plausible explanation for lack of a stockade until the summer of 1832.

It would be interesting to know if the original construction plans and budget actually called for a picket enclosure. There may be a possibility the military underestimated costs or went over budget. (Does that sound familiar?) Some accounts suggest boastfulness in the appearance of the "fort"... something to the fact that it was a "shining light in the wilderness" and was the "pride of all western forts." Maybe the military spent too much money on creature comfort and looks instead of the principle function of a fort... that being security and protection.

Would like to comment on Pete's statement... "It is true that the for may seem exposed, but consider the consequences should the HoChunk attack the fort. There were garrison's at Green Bay and Prairie du Chien which could move upon the Nation immediately if the post was attacked."

Exposed Juliette Kinzie wrote: "Among other rumors which at this time reached us, was one that an attack upon Fort Winnebago was in contemplation among the Sauks. That this was in no state of defence the Indians very well knew." Apparently the Indians could sense the lack of defense at this place.

Disrespect button turned off here, Pete... As a private in the Andy Jackson Army stationed at Fort Winnebago in the 1820s - 1830s, I would find little comfort in your words... no worries if the fort is attacked - help is just a two day march away. Private Koschkee would prefer a wall to defend, Sir, and my widow would have wanted a wall. (Post Script - I may give the impression that I like "walls" well that is correct... stood watch and defended a few.)

Both John and Chris spoke of idylic harmony on the frontier between whites and Indians. I would submit that it was perhaps more the exception than the rule during the time period, lets say... 1825 - 1840, Western expansion and Andy Jackson's Indian removal policies did not bode well for Indian/White relations. The government was moving rapidly to clear the land of Indian title.

[Chris]

I would definitely agree with you that it was the exception. And it certainly wasn't idyllic. It was tense at times, as illustrated by the Hall girls situation.

Money was important in Government-Indian relations, because the goal was to make the Indians dependent on the whites, to prepare them for relocation.

Ho-Chunk were too independent to fall for it, as evidenced by their willingness to walk away from wherever the government moved them, and their walking away during the relocation. Those who were metis, and I believe that there were many, were particularly lucky.