Post by Robert Braun on May 17, 2002 9:51:21 GMT -5
Apparently, not even a modest description of the Black Hawk War is complete without the mention of the massacre of British Band people on the banks of the Mississippi on August 2, 1832.
Frank Stevens, in his 1903 work The Black Hawk War , p. 224 wrote:
The Indians fought desperately from tree to tree, falling back step by step until the river was reached, when by a bayonet charge they were driven into the river. Some tried to swim; others took shelter in a small willow island near by. This charge practically ended the battle, when Atkinson, Dodge, Posey and Alexander, hearing the continued heavy firing, and receiving Major McConnel's message, came up, and while Henry's men were finishing the fight, poured a galling fire into the vanishing remnant, which killed many women and children, to the sincere regret of all, but as many of the squaws were dressed as men and mingled freely with them, it was a misfortune none could have foreseen or avoided.
To put the finishing strokes to Black Hawk's power, Dodge, Fry and Ewing, with the regulars under Taylor, Bliss, Harney and Smith, plunged breast deep into the water to the willow island, where most of the remaining Indians had taken a last stand and where in the face of a heavy fire the whites either killed, captured or drove them into the river. It was there in that little side contest that the greatest loss was supposed to have occurred to the whites, whose casualties in the engagement were twenty-four killed and wounded, while that of the enemy were upward of one hundred and fifty, forty captured, mostly women and children, and about forty or fifty horses taken. The loss to the regulars was five killed and four wounded; to Dodge six wounded; Posey one wounded; Alexander one wounded, and Henry seven killed and wounded.
In 1855, Benjamin Drake (pp. 170-171) wrote:
The destruction of life in the battle of the Bad-axe, was not confined to the Indian warriors. Little discrimination seems to have been made between the slaughter of those in arms and the rest of the tribe. After they had sought refuge in the waters of the Mississippi, and the women, with their children on their backs, were buffeting the waves, in an attempt to swim to the opposite shore, numbers of them were shot by our troops. Many painful pictures might be recorded of the adventures and horrors of that day. One or two cases may be cited. A Sac women, named Na-ni-sa, the sister of a warrior of some note among the Indians, found herself in the hottest of the fight. She succeeded at length in reaching the river, and keeping her infant child, close in its blanket, by force of her teeth, plunged into the water, seized hold upon the tail of a horse, whose rider was swimming him to the opposite shore, and was carried safely across the Mississippi. When our troops charged upon the Indians, in their defiles near the river, men, women and children were so huddled together, that the slaughter fell alike upon all of them. A young squaw was standing in the grass, a short distance from the American line, holding her child, a little girl of four years old, in her arms. In this position, a ball struck the right arm of the child, just above the elbow, and shattering the bone, passed into the breast of its young mother, and instantly killed her. She fell upon the child and confined it to the ground. When the battle was nearly over, and the Indians had been driven from this point, Lieutenant Anderson of the United States army, hearing the cries of the child, went to the spot, and taking it from under the dead mother, carried it to the place for surgical aid. The arm was amputated, and during the operation, the half starved child did not cry, but sat quietly eating a piece of hard biscuit. It was sent to Prairie des Chiens, and entirely recovered from its wound.
Additional accounts, preserved by Crawford Thayer and others, indicate a viciousness on the part of some army combatants that exceeds what many resonable people would consider "reasonable."
My question is: [glow=green,2,300]WHY was the fighting along the banks of the Mississippi so vicious?[/glow]
Frank Stevens, in his 1903 work The Black Hawk War , p. 224 wrote:
The Indians fought desperately from tree to tree, falling back step by step until the river was reached, when by a bayonet charge they were driven into the river. Some tried to swim; others took shelter in a small willow island near by. This charge practically ended the battle, when Atkinson, Dodge, Posey and Alexander, hearing the continued heavy firing, and receiving Major McConnel's message, came up, and while Henry's men were finishing the fight, poured a galling fire into the vanishing remnant, which killed many women and children, to the sincere regret of all, but as many of the squaws were dressed as men and mingled freely with them, it was a misfortune none could have foreseen or avoided.
To put the finishing strokes to Black Hawk's power, Dodge, Fry and Ewing, with the regulars under Taylor, Bliss, Harney and Smith, plunged breast deep into the water to the willow island, where most of the remaining Indians had taken a last stand and where in the face of a heavy fire the whites either killed, captured or drove them into the river. It was there in that little side contest that the greatest loss was supposed to have occurred to the whites, whose casualties in the engagement were twenty-four killed and wounded, while that of the enemy were upward of one hundred and fifty, forty captured, mostly women and children, and about forty or fifty horses taken. The loss to the regulars was five killed and four wounded; to Dodge six wounded; Posey one wounded; Alexander one wounded, and Henry seven killed and wounded.
In 1855, Benjamin Drake (pp. 170-171) wrote:
The destruction of life in the battle of the Bad-axe, was not confined to the Indian warriors. Little discrimination seems to have been made between the slaughter of those in arms and the rest of the tribe. After they had sought refuge in the waters of the Mississippi, and the women, with their children on their backs, were buffeting the waves, in an attempt to swim to the opposite shore, numbers of them were shot by our troops. Many painful pictures might be recorded of the adventures and horrors of that day. One or two cases may be cited. A Sac women, named Na-ni-sa, the sister of a warrior of some note among the Indians, found herself in the hottest of the fight. She succeeded at length in reaching the river, and keeping her infant child, close in its blanket, by force of her teeth, plunged into the water, seized hold upon the tail of a horse, whose rider was swimming him to the opposite shore, and was carried safely across the Mississippi. When our troops charged upon the Indians, in their defiles near the river, men, women and children were so huddled together, that the slaughter fell alike upon all of them. A young squaw was standing in the grass, a short distance from the American line, holding her child, a little girl of four years old, in her arms. In this position, a ball struck the right arm of the child, just above the elbow, and shattering the bone, passed into the breast of its young mother, and instantly killed her. She fell upon the child and confined it to the ground. When the battle was nearly over, and the Indians had been driven from this point, Lieutenant Anderson of the United States army, hearing the cries of the child, went to the spot, and taking it from under the dead mother, carried it to the place for surgical aid. The arm was amputated, and during the operation, the half starved child did not cry, but sat quietly eating a piece of hard biscuit. It was sent to Prairie des Chiens, and entirely recovered from its wound.
Additional accounts, preserved by Crawford Thayer and others, indicate a viciousness on the part of some army combatants that exceeds what many resonable people would consider "reasonable."
My question is: [glow=green,2,300]WHY was the fighting along the banks of the Mississippi so vicious?[/glow]