Talk:Black Hawk War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Archive
Archives

Archive 1 August 2005–July 2007

Contents

[edit] Final confrontation

I am moving this section here for now. I believe the source is somewhere here:

Most of this is too detailed for an article covering the war and belongs in Battle of Bad Axe, provided it can be cited to reliable sources.IvoShandor 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

From the end of June to the beginning of August, the federal troops pursued Black Hawk and his group throughout northern Illinois, and into part of the Michigan Territory which is now Wisconsin. They remained on his trail but always seemed to be two to three days behind. A brigade of Illinois militia and a squadron of Michigan Territory militia collectively lead by Gen. Henry and Col. Henry Dodge caught up with the British band at the Wisconsin Heights where a battle ensued. Despite high casualties (about 70 killed) among the warriors, the majority of the band safely crossed the Wisconsin River. Milita casualties were low (one dead and perhaps 7 or 8 wounded) and the victory at the Battle of Wisconsin Heights restored the morale among many of the troops who had traveled hundreds of miles without even seeing the foe. Neapope, the Civil Chief of the band, left Black Hawk before the battle and Black Hawk split the remaining group, sending many of the less capable downriver in hastily built canoes. This group was intercepted by U.S. troops and hostile Indians, and many were killed. The remainder continued an overland retreat towards the west.

On 1 August, with his people depleted and hungry, Black Hawk reached the Mississippi River several miles south of the confluence of the Mississippi and Bad Axe River. The steamboat Warrior, a vessel which had been chartered by the U.S. Army to communicate with Sioux tribal leaders north of present-day La Crosse, Wisconsin, discovered them quite by accident.

Black Hawk waved a white flag of surrender, but the steamboat captain feared a ruse; he believed warriors were readying their weapons in the woodline. He opened fire with the boat's single cannon. Leaving several dead, the steamboat returned to Prairie du Chien for more fuel. Black Hawk and his family along with about a dozen followers left during the night, heading north to hide among Winnebago. Those left on the banks of the Mississippi prepared to cross the river the next morning. On 2 August, the army finally reached the heights near the river. A small party of Indians decoyed Atkinson's main attack north from the main band on the river bank. General Henry's brigade, which was in the rear of Atkinson's column, discovered the main trail of the Black Hawk's group by accident and followed it down to the crossing site. Atkinson's troops killed the decoy party, then quickly marched to the sound of Henry's volleys. The U.S. Regulars, by now exhausted, ragged and many shoeless, lost their sense of discipline and pitched into the fighting with a will. The battle dissolved into a massacre. At least 150 of Black Hawk's people were killed, with hundreds more taken prisoner. Eight American soldiers were killed. Those that did escape across the river were soon attacked by the Sioux, an old enemy of the Sauk.

On 27 August, Black Hawk surrendered to the Winnebago. He was dressed in new clothes of white deerskin and was delivered to the Indian Agent at Prairie du Chien. On 21 September, a peace treaty was signed with the Sauk and Fox Tribes and Black Hawk. Black Hawk never again attempted to regain his homeland.

IvoShandor 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further background on treaties, connection with war of 1812

I had added the following information a couple years ago, summarizing the NIU articles by Dr. Lewis [1], but it got deleted at some point (perhaps it wasn't clear what the source was?). The current article only mentions the 1804 treaty. Some key information that now seems to be missing: the reason why Black Hawk et al disputed the 1804 treaty, the subsequent treaty of 1816 (also disputed), and the treaty of 1825, and the role of the war of 1812 in opening Illinois to white settlers and the de-facto change of ownership that they instigated.

In 1804, William Henry Harrison, Governor of Indiana Territory (which then included what would become Illinois), negotiated a treaty in St. Louis, Missouri with a group of Sauk and Fox leaders, in which they ceded lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for $1,000 per year and the condition that the tribes could continue to reside there until the land was surveyed and sold by the U.S. government. [1]
However, this treaty was subsequently disputed by Black Hawk and other members of the tribes, since the full tribal councils had not been consulted. After the War of 1812, in which Black Hawk had fought against the U.S., he signed a peace treaty in May 1816 that re-affirmed the treaty of 1804, a provision of which Black Hawk later protested ignorance. While Black Hawk was away during the War of 1812, Keokuk had risen in prominence, and the two men became rivals.
The white population of Illinois exploded after the War of 1812, exceeding 50,000 in 1820 and 150,000 in 1830. In 1825, thirteen Sauks and six Foxes signed another agreement re-affirming the 1804 treaty. In 1828, the U.S. government liaison, Thomas Forsyth, informed the tribes that they should begin vacating their settlements east of the Mississippi.

The following information on a supposed 1830 treaty (which some people disputed above) was added by someone else:

On July 15, 1830, U.S. Indian Commissioner William Clark signed a treaty with Sauk and Fox leaders at Fort Crawford in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin [2]. The treaty ceded about 26,500,000 acres (107,000 km²) of Sauk land east of the Mississippi to the government of the United States. It also created a "Neutral Ground" boundary between the Sauk and Foxes and their traditional enemies, the Sioux, for the purpose of preventing future hostilities between the tribes. The treaty was signed by Keokuk, and in November 1830 was approved by the Dakota Sioux.[3]
  1. ^ INDIAN AFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES. Vol. 2, Treaties. Retrieved on 2005-12-23.
  2. ^ INDIAN AFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES. Vol. 2, Treaties. Retrieved on 2005-12-23.
  3. ^ Hurt, R. Douglas, The Indian Frontier: 1763-1846 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002), pp. 176-7.

At least the information in "my" three paragraphs seems like it should go in, in some form; all of it can be directly sourced to the Lewis article at NIU. Regarding the alleged 1830 treaty, it does cite three credible-looking sources; someone should definitely resolve the earlier disputes as this seems like an important bit of information if true.

—Steven G. Johnson 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your contributions, this was in my plan to be added. I will continue the background up to 1831 where it shifts to "Trigger" (Cause basically-headline titles are still up in the air). When I reach 1830 I will see where the above paragraph fits in and see if I can find any other corroboration of it, though you are right it seems reliable enough to include. Verifiable and all. Thanks again, a lot, it is so appreciated, you have no idea how much labor I have put in on this area of coverage thus far, it gets daunting by myself sometimes. : ) IvoShandor 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt this treaty existed, I found it again here. It would appear it fits in to the background section, it's just more of the same stuff that caused things to spiral out of control.IvoShandor 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More for troops strength

This paragraph-once referenced-will be included in the section titled "Troop strength" which may need a change to "Combatants" or the like.

American forces were comprised mostly of Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin state militias, all volunteer forces. On both sides of the conflict alliances were formed, the British Band had sympathetic followers within Ho-Chunk Nation, despite the fact that most Ho-Chunk sided with the United States during the war. Other Native American groups sided with the United States as well, including Menominee, and the Potawatomi.[1] During the Battle of Wisconsin Heights men from all three nations acted as guides.[1] After the war ended, however, Ho-Chunk leaders indicated that some of their own had acted against the interests of the settlers, even killing them in some cases.[citation needed]

This is just a start, most of the references are in other articles or maybe even here I just need to track them down. This will be expanded as well. IvoShandor 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

The governor, considering this an invasion, mobilized 16,000 men and called for additional support from U.S. federal troops.[citation needed]

I decided that this needed to be removed. I can't find a reference that says this and it seems wrong, it almost must be wrong. This is something like almost a third of the population of the state at the time. IvoShandor 14:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Black Hawk War was responsible for the end of conflict between settlers and Indians in these states.[citation needed]

This one too, it just seems incorrect and I haven't been able to find a citation for it. IvoShandor 03:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on prose

I just wanted to note I have been trying to preserve as much of the original prose here as possible, integrating it into what I have added. The fact is, this article's writing was good, it was very well written. It was just lacking proper referencing. IvoShandor 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is much better now so have upped the rating to a "B". Here is to getting it to GA then FA!--Kranar drogin 10:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The quote "sweeping all Northern Illinois with the bosom of destruction" in the section on "Stillman's Run" under "Hostilities Begin": shouldn't the word 'bosom' be 'besom,' the archaic English word for broom? cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besom_broom . I couldn't find the original source cited for the quoted phrase, so I hesitated to change it in the article. Glane23 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still needs referenced

Besides the statement a couple threads above there are very few statements that still require a reference. Some are from the original prose some are things I added in haste. They are listed below.

  • Although federal army troops were also involved, the militia were the majority.[citation needed] -Ref added. IvoShandor 23:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Some rock solid numbers would be nice. -Rock solid numbers added. IvoShandor 23:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Winfield Scott arrived too late for military action, but he played an important part in drafting the terms of peace.[citation needed] -Ref found. IvoShandor 20:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's the part about playing a role in drafting of peace terms that I cannot find.
  • The two following should be pretty easy, both are from the Stillman's Run section. -Both referenced. IvoShandor 21:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The first named confrontation of the Black Hawk War occurred on 14 May 1832 and resulted in an unexpected victory for Black Hawk's band of Sauk and Fox warriors.[citation needed]
  • When the militia killed a member of a three-man parley that had been sent by Neapope, Black Hawk rallied 40 mounted warriors and attacked the militia camp at dusk.[citation needed]
  • This is a really detailed account, it has to be referenced.
  • The Black Hawk War of 1832 resulted in the deaths of 70 settlers and soldiers, and hundreds of Black Hawk's band.[citation needed]
  • This one still needs a ref for the militia casualties. IvoShandor 03:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As well as the combat casualties of the war, a relief force under General Winfield Scott suffered dozens dead and hundreds deserted, among whom the casualties are unknown.[citation needed]
  • I have altered and referenced this statement. IvoShandor 03:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Black Hawk War was responsible for the end of conflict between settlers and Indians in these states.[citation needed]
  • Moved this one to the talk page, it just seems wrong and I cannot find a source on it yet. IvoShandor 03:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's it, I have mostly referenced everything that needed it so any help along the lines above would be great, if it is a link, just post it here and I will insert it. Thanks. IvoShandor 20:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

I reorganized the article. It still needs some work, flow problems basically. The time in between the battles needs to be filled out with details. Also there needs to be more focus on Black Hawk's movements. Below are sentences I added fact tags to during the reorganization.

  • In addition two teenage girls were kidnapped and held until they were ransomed almost two weeks later, and released at Fort Blue Mounds
  • The part about Blue Mounds.
  • Though the battle was bloodless, it was one of many incidents that contributed to the atmosphere of fear
  • Plum River raid and fear.
  • Arriving at Fort Hamilton on 16 June, Dodge gathered a force of 29 mounted volunteers and set out in pursuit of the band of Kickapoo warriors responsible for the massacre
  • The Battle of Horseshoe Bend was the first real victory for the militia and a major turning point in the conflict
  • The clash helped restore public confidence in the volunteer force
  • The Black Hawk War of 1832 resulted in the deaths of 70 settlers and soldiers, and hundreds of Black Hawk's band
  • Settlers numbers: update and cite

IvoShandor 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All citations are done except for the numbers on the last one, but will wait until you have everything done. Looking good!--Kranar drogin 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role of White Cloud, and Denouement?

We were missing an article on Wabokieshiek (White Cloud), so I wrote up a short placeholder article on him using what few online sources I could quickly find on him. Along the way, I got the feeling that the what this article says is not quite accurate. This article says:

Ho-Chunk prophet White Cloud contributed to the outbreak of war by promising Black Hawk the support of the Ho-Chunk Nation, when in fact he could only speak for his tribe.

However, several of the sources explain it a bit differently. First, Black Hawk was not only told (from what I recall reading) that the Ho-Chunk would support him, but also apparently that the British and other tribes such as the Potawatomi. On the other hand, most of the sources seem to phrase White Cloud's message to Black Hawk as a "prophesy" or a "prediction", as opposed to implying (as our article does) that White Cloud falsely claimed authority to "speak for" other tribes. (The article should also mention that White Cloud, his son, and many members of his village and family did, in fact join Black Hawk.) Anyway, it would be good to look at a few reputable sources more carefully to see what they say about this matter.

(Also, it seems the article ends a little bit too early. In some sense, the war didn't really end until Black Hawk, White Cloud, and their few remaining followers finally surrended on August 27, almost a month after the battle of Bad Axe. It should also mention that the captured leaders were paraded around the country for another year afterwards.)

Just a couple of suggestions; thanks for all the work that you editors have been doing on the article recently.

—Steven G. Johnson 03:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All very good suggestions that are going to be added in the future soon. Ivo I know has been busy working out the battles and a few of the people, while I have been gathering sources for maps and for some of the other articles. Glad you started that article on White Cloud!--Kranar drogin 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Based upon what I have read there are principally five or six people who have shared the brunt of the historical blame for the conflict. First and foremost, Black Hawk, though his earlier lambasting in 19th century histories frittered away over the course of 175 years and he is no longer seen as the primary cause. William Clark supported a "war of extermination" during the conflict, and has been characterized as blissfully ignorant of some obvious points, that his experience should have taught him, mainly who goes to war with women, children and old people? John Reynolds and Henry Atkinson have also received a historical talking to. Atkinson, for his part, was relegated to frontier duty at Jefferson Barracks for the rest of his career and life (he only lived 10 years following the war). On Black Hawk's side of the conflict, historians seem to be in disagreement about whether he was intentionally misled by White Cloud and Neapope (it was White Cloud who "prophecized" the help of the Ho-Chunk and Neapope who erroneously told him the British would come to their aid). Either way, what they said didn't come to fruition and thus, they have bore some of the historic culpability.
That's the short of it, as I understand it, based upon the loads of research I have done thus far. As Kranar said, this is a work in progress, feel free to add {{underconstruction}} if you think it would help readers realize that stuff may be missing right now. IvoShandor 08:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major accuracy problem

I have a friend that works at a local newspaper, he was talking to the President of Northern Illinois University and somehow the Black Hawk War came upon, I guess he is quite the Black Hawk War buff. In this conversation he called the Wikipedia article on the war "blatantly wrong." This is really bothering me, as I strive for accuracy because I think the dissemination of knowledge is only useful if it is correct, with history especially. I have poured over hundreds upon hundreds of pages of text on the internet, in books, on microfiche etc, to make this article move toward shining. I don't know if this person read an older version weeks ago or came upon yesterday, I just don't and can't know that, but the fact that he pointed out an article that I have put so much energy into has really discouraged me. What I am wondering is, can someone, anyone, take a look at the article, maybe together we can flesh out any inaccuracy. It doesn't seem to me that the article is in any way "blatantly wrong." At least not based on everything I have read and studied thus far. If this article is truly inaccurate then I give up, my days on Wikipedia are over. Unfortunately, I don't know any historians on the Wiki, which would be a great thing if I did and had a professional with knowledge on the topic help flesh it out, but we make do around here with what we have. I am no stranger to historical research and don't think I have made any missteps along the way, I am very careful to consult multiple sources before writing, sometimes they disagree but I almost always note this unless I think it's just too trivial or the source too biased to be useful. Basically disregard the stray point on the graph, you know?

If anyone can help flesh this article out with me, please do. IvoShandor 07:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty spot on with the books I have read. I am sure it was an older version. Plus people are quick to critize, but not help.--Kranar drogin 11:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Teaching In Schools

I am a high school student thinking of majoring in history for college. I was wondering why high schools don't teach about these conflicts between the United States and the Native Americans. The major events are covered, but this more interesting wars, Especially the Black Hawk War, are not taught in high school (at least not my high school). 24.160.165.101 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think your question may be better answered at Wikipedia:Reference desk, but I will attempt something of a coherent reply. There are probably several reasons that combine to result in the lack of coverage. For a long time many history texts have been largely biased toward a pro-U.S.A. view point, history has been glossed over, see Lies My Teacher Told Me or, for a more controversial take depending on who you talk to: A People's History of the United States. Another reason, is time, history is a topic with so much depth that a mere two semester high school, or college for that matter, course, can barely touch the surface of many events. The Indian Wars themselves are an immense topic, and comparitively, the Black Hawk War is fairly minor conflict, though completely and thoroughly interesting, trust me, I researched and wrote most of the content on Wikipedia concerning the topic. These are all reasons why this topic, and others like it might be lacking in coverage in history classrooms across the United States. Hope that helps. IvoShandor 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are really interested in the Black Hawk War, the page Template:Black Hawk War (1832), which is actually at the bottom of this article, has all of the related topics, don't mind the red ones, they will be created eventually, when I get to them, there used to be a lot more, so enjoy. :) IvoShandor 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)