The "whiskey" claim at "Old Man Creek."

[Robert Braun]

Numerous modern writers, and commentators in film and video productions, notably the "History Channel" have claimed that the presence and consumption of whiskey in the stores of Stillman's and Bailey's commands was a principle contributor to the fragmentation and rout of the militia companies on May 14, 1832.

I say... nuts!

I submit that, while whiskey was present in the commands' modest wagon train, and accounts point to its consumption during the march, the amount of whiskey was insufficient to produce the kind of drunken rout commonly claimed by modern commentators.

I suggest that the stories about the whiskey are just that... stories... and too good for succeeding generations of writiers to ignore. If they had engaged in some serious investigation, they would have found that the whiskey "angle" was a contributing factor in the disaster...

...but certainly NOT to the degree that modern writers on the subject would have us believe.

Clearly, if whiskey did not play a major role in the rout, then that would not have been as good a story as the "drunken militia" angle. So... is it reasonable to conclude that modern investigators never bothered to look into what has become another enduring myth of Black Hawk's War?

[Mike Thorson]

All armies, especially those in the 15th - 19th centuries had access to spirits in varying degrees and I submit that usually it is only a crucial factor if people in command are seriously drunk.

at Old Man creek it appears it was a contributing factor but most likely the MAIN factor was that most of these troops just panicked and ran which is, to me, a bigger "embarrassment" to the militia than just saying "oh, they were drunk".

[Robert Braun]

Mike, you are indeed correct. The U. S. Army still recognized a gill of spirits, usually whiskey, as part of the daily ration.

This ration was changes after the BHW, circa December, 1832, to address concerns regarding excesses at Army posts. The War Department eventually dropped spirits from the ration, and substituted coffee and sugar.

Thre are clues that the Army adhered to the government ration requirements for the militia as well. There is one account that indicates Atkinson personally intervened and ordered coffee being issued and consumed by one garrison militia company be deleted, because it was not part of the prescribed ration.

That being said, the opposite must be true. Since whiskey WAS as much a part of the government ration as pork or flour, its presence among Stillman and Bailey's men would hardly have been considered unusual.

I am not excusing the dilaterious effects of ardent spirits on fighting men. This was a fact known to every Army commander throughout history. What I am saying, is that alcohol, while a contributing factor to the "events" at Old Man Creek, was certainly not THE primary factor for the rout, as other writers have intimated.

On that point, I believe we agree!

[[e-mail]]

Bob,

I agree with you on the point that the spirits consumed were most likely not the cause of the rout of the militia. I can't quote James Atwood's book exactly however I remember a reference to the fact that the group of militia who stood behind with Captain Adams, one of the only "true" military men in the unit there, were disciplined enough to fight to the death to stall the attacking Sauks, which I believe points to either extremely strong character or some good degree of sobriety. I don't believe this brave and selfless conduct would have been conveyed by a drunken mob. I believe the remainder of the men who fled for their lives were could probably owe their cowardice to being untested, not to being intoxicated beyond all reason.

[Joe Kleffman]

after having read you article on the fight at stillman's valley, i noticed that most people would agree that the whiskey didnt play a large part on the rout of the militia.
I would have to agree with this.  The reason the militia ran well 1st they were militia and not regulars.  These men were not trained to fight in a group as the regular army of the period had been, and when a field problem arose they acted like what they were untrained raw miltia.

[Robert Braun]

Waaal! How do. Cap'n Bowman?

Joe... I think that, like you, the people reviewing this thread understand the difference between the effects of whiskey and the ability to stand against the attack of a determined agressor--by virtue of training, discipline and elan.

I don't think anyone disagrees with your assertion that Stillman's troops were conspicuouly lacking in terms of training and discipline. The presence of whiskey certainly had some effect in eroding the unit further.

However, my basic premise is to note to all those researchers and authors out there that the "whiskey angle" at Stillman's Run--much like the "sharpshooter thing at Gettysburg--- had far less of an impact in the general scheme of things than the popular literature would suggest today.

I would also point out that the example of Stillman's and Baily's men was by no means the "norm" in either the Illinois militia or the Michigan Territory volunteer companies during the BHW... as too many authors suggest today with the derisive adjectives in their writings that inevitably accompany the noun "militia."

r.

[Greg Carter]

You make a good point about the general misrepresentation of the quality of the militia. I think that the militia in the Sauk War in general proved themselves quite battleworthy.

GMC

[Robert Braun]

J. A. Atwood in his The Story of the Battle of Stillman's Run: Fought at Stillman Valley, Ill., May 14, 1832 wrote, p. 10--

Some writers give credence to the story that Stillman's soldiers were intoxicated and because of their being drunk the fight was precipitated. Armstrong's History of Illinois in discussing this point says: "Some of the men were drunk, but there were many exceptions, for some never touched, tasted or handled the souldamning stuff." It must be remembered, however, that our men were raw and undisciplined soldiers, that less than thirty days had intervened since their enlistment, and that it is not an unusual thing for men unaccustomed to war to become stampeded in times of imminent danger. The warwhoop of a single painted savage will bring consternation to an entire community and the blood-curdling yell of a hundred savages in the gathering twilight is sufficient to bring terror to the stoutest hearts and may apear to the excited imagination to number a thousand.

[Larry Koschkee]

The much maligned premise of drunken Militia has been refuted quite sufficiently here on this thread.

In Black Hawk's autobiography he comments on the subject and gives us a clue to the quanity on hand. "We found, also, a variety of saddle-bags, (which I distributed among my braves,) and a smallquanity of whisky! and some littlebarrels that had contained this bad medicine; but they were empty!."

This suggests there was not a sufficient amount of whiskey available to put two battalions of men in a drunken state...Accounts of the period also suggest that many of the volunteers were probably habitual users of whiskey with hearty consumption or imbibing abilities.

Can one find courage in a bottle? If that is true,certainly what little whiskey there appears to have been available should have stiffened back bones rather than triggering flight anxieties.