Black Hawk's "surrender" at Old Man Creek

[Robert Braun]

Much of the popular literature contains the assertion that Black Hawk tried to surrender three times during the 1832 war. Reportedly, the first time was at "Old Man Creek."

Here's what Black Hawk himself said in his Autobiography:

When the ceremony was about ending, I received news that three or four hundred white men on horse-back had been seen about eight miles off. I immediately started three young men with a white flag to meet them and conduct them to our camp, that we might hold a council with them and descend Rock river again. I also directed them, in case the whites had encamped, to return, and I would go and see them.

It would seem that Black Hawk, by his own admission, was not surrendering. Indeed, he was not!

Black Hawk used the white flag as an attempt at parley. "Parley" is defined as a conference, nothing more. According to BH's own testimony, this is exactly what he had on his mind.

As a veteran of the War of 1812 on the side of the British, BH clearly knew about white flags, their symbolism and purpose. He observed the use of the white flag at Frenchtown by the Americans, requesting parley from the British. BH knew what he was doing.

Unfortunately, American writers too often mistake the white flag for immediate surrender. While it is historically true that parely often resulted in surrender, the actual use and request, as intended by BH,  was
for conference.

So... today's writers need to get away from the mythology that BH was surrendering at Old Man Creek. He was not. Neither did he attempt to surrender at Wisconsin Heights... but that's another story.

A better point for analysis and debate would be: who sent the white flag and the party of armed warriors to oversee the three-Sauk delegation sent to Stillman and Baily? There is evidence to suggest that Na-pope sent the white flag, while Black Hawk dispatched the look-out party.

[Greg Carter]

Bob,

On the part of BH sending the flag as an invitation to parley I agree with you. It would seem by BH's conduct preceeding the Sycamore Creek incident (when he met with the Indian Agent H. Gratiot) that he had no intention of surrender in mind. His operations following the massacre are also to me indicative of no desire to surrender or concede to the whites in any way. As for the part about who sent the messengers and sentinels, I can't comment because I am not knowledgeable on the subject.

GMC

[Gene]

I was recently engaged in a conversation with a young student who had read something about Stillmans engament. I was dismayed to hear that the history channel had aired a pice on the BHW and called the action there a "sham" on the part of Stillmans soldiers. I also found a passage (I believe in the intro to Whitneys?) Where the narrator blames the entire conflict on the event at Old Man Creek.

I did a little reading on this, primarily in Black Hawks account.
This WAS NOT A SURRENDER.

I think there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened here. And, perhaps the record needs to be set straight with some further research.

The balatant truth is, that the Black Hawk War as history remembers it, was caused by Chief Black Hawk and his bad decisions.

[DZucker]

I absolutely disagree with Gene. To speak on the Causes of the war having been Black Hawk's is wholly in ere. The war cannot be blamed on a single individual, but must be seen more objectively. I beleive the war and its beginnings can be traced back as far as the 1804 with the signing of Harrison's Treaty by a drunken Quashquame (not a chief with the appropriate authority). In the same way Stillman's failure to "parley" (not accept a surrender) with Black Hawk is likely the result of drunkeness as well. Does that mean we blame he war on rum? No...what I ultimately beleive is that we blame the war on failed communication and control of circumstances such as squatters and having to eat bolied tree bark. David

[Robert Braun]

DZucker said:

I absolutely disagree with Gene. To speak on the Causes of the war having been Black Hawk's is wholly in ere. The war cannot be blamed on a single individual, but must be seen more objectively. I beleive the war and its beginnings can be traced back as far as the 1804 with the signing of Harrison's Treaty by a drunken Quashquame (not a chief with the appropriate authority). In the same way Stillman's failure to "parley" (not accept a surrender) with Black Hawk is likely the result of drunkeness as well. Does that mean we blame he war on rum? No...what I ultimately beleive is that we blame the war on failed communication and control of circumstances such as squatters and having to eat bolied tree bark. David

Hello and welcome to the Black Hawk War Board!

Some interesting points here...

• Regarding BH being the sole cause... I agree with you that there are numerous persons and documents that fed into the ultimate conflict. It can be argued, however, that BH's return across the Mississippi-- in violation of the 1831 "Corn Treaty" agreement which he himself signed, stands as a significant contributing factor to the outbreak of 1832 hostilities.
  
• Whether or not Quashquame was drunk during the 1804 treaty meetings is in my mind a matter of continued debate. He changed his story so many times that its hard to know what he believed actually happened.
  
• Stillman DID initially accept the parley. Things got out of hand when the seven warriors sent by BH to the nearby ridgeline to "observe" were viewed by the militia as a "trap."
  
• While whiskey was present at the militia camp, and participants confirm its consumption by some of the men, another thread on this topic has I think successfully debunked alcohol as having the kind of roll at Stillmans that some moderns feel it should have had.
  

Regards,

Bob Braun
Moderator.

[DZucker]

Hi Bob- I think you are correct. I will take a crack at each of your points as I find time, etc. looking at some research this afternoon...Joseph I. Lambert in his article The BlackHawk War: A Military Analysis syntheseizes Wakefield and Armstrong and the autobiography concluding "The rangers while engaging in preparing camp in an irregular picnic fashion, many of them imbibing freely on liquor", while Frank Stevens in his book states "It is said and written that whiskey was the cause of this unfortunate route, but this is hopelessly improbable in the face of the fact that but two casks were taken with the baggage train to be consumed by 275 men, who lived in a whiskey drinking age, when five or ten drinks, more or less, made little difference in a daily average." Thus I am inclined to agree more with Mr. Stevens. Just more logical. What is the thread I missed entitled? Thanks for the thoughts...this is fun- David

[Robert Braun]

Check out the thread entitled "The whiskey claim at Old Man Creek in the Sycamore Creek sectio.

Noone denies that whiskey was indeed present, being still a part of the customary Army ration. I think the record shows that it did not have the widespread role some modern writiers would otherwise wish.

Regards, Bob.

[adjutant7inf]

Having just returned to Illinois history after a 25 year absence, but having never lost the interest, I seem to remember something a couple of years ago that someone was trying to have the State of Illinois remove the marker at Stillman Valley because the "battle was a sham."

Bloomington did a history walk this October at their main cemetery (where you meet costumed characters at their gravesite). Stillman was one. "He" gave the events at Sycamore Creek from his point of view.

[Robert Braun]

Hmmm... I haven't hear THAT story. I did hear one somewhat like it, which I discussed in another thread in this section.

A fellow by the name of Dr. R. David Edmunds, professor of American History at the University of Texas-Dallas at the time the HistoryChannel filmed the episode "Black Hawk's War" for its series entitled "Frontiers: The Decisive Battles" made the following statement towards the end of the episode:

“There is a great monument at Stillman’s Run to the nine or ten men who died there.” In the next breath, he said, "It's a... a farce.”



Dr. Edmunds neither explained or qualified his amazing statement on camera. Hopefully, this one statement is not indicative of a classroom experience with Dr. Edmunds-- in which unqualified personal opinion is offered as historical fact.

I assert that the statement underscores the reality that Dr. Edmunds has little idea and certainly no appreciation for the ORIGINAL reason the monument was erected.

Kind regards,

Bob.