Black Hawk: The Misconceptions of the Treaty and White Encroachment of Indian Land - Research Paper Example

Black Hawk: The misconceptions of the Treaty and White Encroachment of Indian Land Introduction In the spring of 1832, a protest was made by eleven hundred Native Americans from regions in Illinois against the taking of their lands under a treaty that they did not believe truly represented their interests. Under the leadership of Black Hawk, from the Sauk tribes, a gathering of protest that was intended to be primarily peaceful broke out into a war. The fighting raged on for months, but finally a battle was fought that left half of the Native Americans having perished and the United States military as victorious (Jung 3). A seminal event within the histories of the Native Americans had taken place, one of many conflicts that had arisen over the usurpation of tribal lands. Black Hawk Black Hawk had no right to leadership that has been explained to Western storytellers. His leadership did not seem to have an explanation. Trask describes him as a thin, severe looking man “with a grand, roach-cut crest of hair bristling down the middle of his otherwise bald head” (2). He had trade-silver rings studded through his ears and a large round medal that hung around his neck which bore the likeness of a British king. He was no taller than five feet tall and weighed about 125 pounds. He was approximately 65 years of age at the time of the conflict (Trask 2). He held no office with his tribe that Western knowledge understands and his leadership defies what Western knowledge allows for explanation. He was no towering warrior and did not seem to be an orator of charismatic appeal. Still, his beliefs gave him the status to lead his people towards goals that he would not, ultimately, achieve, but would leave a history of greatness in their wake. What Black Hawk was not was a recognized chief or shaman. What he was, however, was a staunch traditionalist, defying Westernization as he held proudly to his nations culture and traditions. He did not drink the alcohol that was provided by the Western settlers, he did not wear pieces of their clothing, nor did he believe that the encroachment of the West was healthy for his people. He was an ascetic, highly disciplined where he would fast for long periods and have dreams that were of great importance for his people. These dreams were believed to be spiritual in nature, revealing important information to him from supernatural sources. Despite the cultural confusion that was growing because of the Western influence, he stood as a personification of the identity of his culture which might be the foundation for his leadership (Trask 3). Above all, Black Hawk presented himself in such a way that he seemed a man of honor, his defeats taken with grace and his intentions filled with nobility. In the dedication to his autobiography he addresses the man who led the forces against his people. He begins his dedication by acknowledging the victory of Brigadier General H. Atkinson by saying “Sir - the changes of fortune, and vicissitudes of war, made you my conqueror. When my last resources were exhausted, my warriors worn down with long and toilsome marches, we yielded and I became your prisoner”: from which he ends his dedication by saying “May the Great Spirit shed light on your’s (referring to the path to glory that Black Hawk makes mention of having left his feet) - and that you may never experience the humility that the power of the American government has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself” (Black Hawk and J. B. Patterson 8). Through this dedication, he introduces himself as a man of honor, though diminished from his former self and with the regrets that a man has once defeated. The Treaty President Thomas Jefferson was a humanitarian who saw the benefit of treating the Native American nations with respect, but he also realized that they had lands that were fertile and economically useful if acquired by the United States. He pushed for the creation of debt by Native Americans so that their lands would be more readily given to the Western nation. He said “because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands” (Hagan 16). After the acquisition of the lands through the Louisiana Purchase, the United States held territories that encompassed the Sauk lands. The treaty was negotiated by William Henry Harrison and the Sauk and Fox tribes, with Quashquame acting as chief of the Sauk and Fox tribes. He gave up a large portion of their lands from Missouri through Illinois in exchange for an annuity of $1000 per year with $600 going to the Sauk and $400 going to the Fox. The act of acting as a representative for the people by Quashquame was in dispute, thus prompting Black Hawk to not see the treaty as valid. Plus, the treaty was not a favorable one for the tribes, thus Quashquame was left in shame for his part in the negotiation (Owens 88). However, the full story of how the treaty was signed was more complicated than simply a decision based upon an exchange of equity. Upon claims that Sauk warriors had attacked a settlement on the Cuivre River, a delegation of Sauk warriors came to St Louis, claiming that they had one among them who had committed the murders. He was handed over and Governor Harrison said that he would pardon any others involved if they would come forward and testify against the one. He was in a precarious position as he was trying to not harm the relationship between his people and those of the Sauk, just as much as the Sauk intended to make a peaceful resolution over the deaths at the river by handing over on of their own. They had hoped to pay for the deaths, using a Native American tradition of “wiping away the tears” by compensating the loved ones of the lost through money and services. However, their scapegoat was taken into custody. In the process, Harrison petitioned President Jefferson citing that since the territories were still technically still under Spanish rule while the acts were committed, thus the prisoner should be pardoned. In order to preserve relations, the pardon was granted (Hagan21). The result of the tale has two sides. According to the story that Black Hawk is reported to believe, the warrior was released, but just before he reached his brethren, the Americans shot him. According to Western telling of the story, the warrior tried to escape and before the pardon reached his place of incarceration, he was killed (Hagon 22). Regardless of the truth of the story, the Treaty of 1804 was created during this incident and was most likely signed because the Native Americans were trying to secure the release of their man. There had been no intent to sign a treaty during this meeting, but Harrison had brought it to the table during negotiations for the release of the Sauk warrior. As with all tales of such emotional political weight, the story has two sides from which the resulting actions would reveal the heaviness of the consequences. The lands that were given over to the United States were important hunting grounds for the Sauk and the negotiations were not considered valid as they did not feel that Quashquame had the right to sign such agreements on their behalf. This began the path towards trying to re-negotiate the deal with the white people, their lands disrupted by a deal that was wrought through a great amount of stress and possibly perceived coercion. Conditions of the Treaty The treaty provided protection of the Sauk, the Fox, and the Osages all under the umbrella of the United States government. The Sauk and the Fox were to end their conflicts with the Osages, a circumstance that did not make them very happy. Along with the negotiated annuity that was promised to the Sauk and the Fox, $2234.50 in gifts were presented to the leaders present. The lands that were given up included all of their land east of the Mississippi River and part of their hunting grounds to the west. The land included Illinois north and west of the Illinois River, a part of Wisconsin, and a part of Missouri, all the boundaries of those states had not yet been determined. Article IV of the treaty stated that the lands could still be used by the Native American nations, thus their lack of ownership of those lands was merely a technicality against their use. Part of the treaty provided that factories could be put upon those lands as needed (Hagan 24). One of the problems that gave cause to the Sauk and the Fox was that their issues with the Osage was being interfered with by the United States representatives through the call for their ending their disputes through the treaty. In order to enforce the end of these disputes, a fort at Prairie du Chien would be erected to keep the peace. The interference of the United States government and the belief that their representatives, Quashquame, Pashepaho, Outchequaka, and Hashequarhiqua, who had all been present and had signed the treaty, were coerced and not of a power to make such a treaty, created a void in which the treaty was disputed (Hagan 25). Article VII of the treaty was the central core issue that provided for problems down the line. Since the people of the Native American nations had been given the rights to continue to hunt, fish and use the lands, they felt that their ownership of those lands had not truly been given to the United States (Hagan 24). The article read “As long as the lands which are now ceded to the United States remain their property, the Indians belonging to the said tribes, shall enjoy the privilege of living and hunting upon them”(Owens 89). In other words, the section reads as if the ‘ownership’ of the lands, while in theory belonged to the United States, in use still belonged to the Sauk and the Fox. To the Native Americans, this concept of ‘ownership’ would mean nothing and should have had no impact on their lives. A previous treaty, the Greenville Treaty, had given Native American nations involved the right to use the lands until they were settled by white settlers. This article read differently (Owens 89). The tale of the circumstances of the treaty was also an issue that would haunt any possibility of it being a successful agreement. According to Black Hawk, the following is the story that he and the other people of the nations were told by Quashquame when he came back from the negotiations in St. Louis: On our arrival at St Louis we met our American father and explained to him our business, urging the release of our friend. The American chief told us he wanted land. We agreed to give him some on the West side of the Mississippi, likewise more on the Illinois side opposite Jeffreon. When the business was all arranged we expected to have our friend released to come home with us. About the time we were ready to start our brother was let out of prison. He started and ran a short distance when he was SHOT DEAD! (Black Hawk 16). The telling of this story makes it clear that the point of view of the Sauk was that the white Americans had abused them through holding their friend hostage and when they got what they wanted from them, shot him before he could reach the safety of their number. Whether this was the truth or not, this was the story that was believed by the Sauk, thus inflaming their rage and galvanizing their anger against the white Americans. Black Hawk states himself that “I could say much more respecting this treaty, but I will not at this time. It has been the origin of all our serious difficulties with the whites”(Black Hawk 16). The Autobiography of Black Hawk The autobiography of Black Hawk tells the story of the period of history that Black Hawk participated in from his point of view. Therefore, the stories as they are related have his own truth to them, but may or may not reflect the overall truth of the history of that time. According to the forward in the version with J. B. Patterson as a co-writer “Several accounts of the late war having been published, in which he thinks justice is not done to himself or nation, he determines to make known to the world, the injuries his people have received from the whites - the causes which brought on the war on the part of his nation, and a general history of it throughout the campaign” (Hawk and Patterson 9). Black Hawk speaks in a spiritual fashion, his words reflecting a similarity to the stereotypes one sees on Hollywood movies, his thoughts filled with references to his dreams and to the Great Spirit. He speaks with reverence about those he has encountered from other cultures, speaking of his American and British fathers. He speaks with no general disrespect of those who he has been involved with and he presents a greatness through his ability to speak of these things and the people with whom he has both stood beside and those with whom he has waged battle in a way that denotes humility and respect. Black Hawk questions his spiritual world for the events that have taken place. He asks why the whites have come to his world, why his traditions have been disturbed and to what end his supernatural influences believe will happen with the events that have taken place. Black Hawk states: Why did the Great Spirit ever send the whites to this island to drive us from our homes and introduce among us poisonous liquors, disease, and death? They should have remained in the land that the Great Spirit allotted them. But I will proceed with my story. My memory, however, is not very good since my late visit to the white people. I have still a buzzing noise in my ear from the noise and bustle incident to travel. I may give some parts of my story out of place, but will make my best endeavors to be correct (Black Hawk 22). The purpose of all that would fall on the people of the Sauk does not seem clear to Black Hawk, as well it would not be clear. The tragedies brought by the white people who came and took their lands, thus taking parts of the culture that had thrived for so many generations would come as a blow to one whose identity was so enriched and complete in its harmony with that of the Sauk. Black Hawk was not westernized, thus his feelings about the invasion of Western ideals would not be good. It is clear that Black Hawk has clearly seen the ways in which the white Americans have deceived himself and his people. He mentions several times their ways of deception and that it caused a lack of trust to build between the Sauk and the white Americans. Clearly, the British used the tainted relationship that had developed between the Sauk and the Americans to promote their own interests, and often their own deceptions. Colonel Dixon said to Black Hawk, “Your English father has found out that the Americans want to take your country from you and has sent me and my braves to drive them back to their own country”(Black Hawk 26). However, through the lens of historical perspective, one has to wonder of the sincerity of such a statement coming from a European military leader. Was this just a ploy to gain the resources that the Native Americans had that were vital to a war effort? Since the British did not win, the intent is not clear, although it is probable that this was not going to be the result of their participation. The War of 1832 The Treaty of 1804 was not recognized by most Sauk leaders. While this did not directly cause the conflicts that would come to pass within the next years, the animosity that existed between the Sauk nation and the United States provided a framework from which decisions would be made. As the United States and Britain went to war, the Native American nations would be drawn into the conflict, causing further separations of their interests and a deepening chasm between diplomatic relations. However, it was practical considerations that led Black Hawk and his people to ally with the British. The relationships of trade with the British brought about the eventual alliance that the Sauk made in supporting the British during the War of 1812 (Bowes 31). While the War of 1812 ended in 1814, it was not until 1816 that hostilities and raids ended between the Sauk and American settlements (Bowes 33). As settlers began to come to the lands that had been under question in the Treaty of 1804, the Sauk were unhappy and made this clear in the antagonistic relationship that developed with those invading people. Jung states that “The Sauks and Foxes revealed that they were all well aware of the stipulations of the 1804 treaty by this time and collectively believed that the treaty was illegitimate”(52). The white settlers were not behaving either in a way that suggested that cohabitation was desired. The tribes had been told that they would be moved to the Iowa river valley, and a resistance began to emerge. Therefore, retribution from settlers and incidents that ignited response were beginning to occur. “A group of whites took all the pelts of one Sauk warrior in retaliation for him cutting down a tree filled with honey that the settlers claimed was theirs. Another group accused Black Hawk of killing three hogs and beat him so severely and left him so bruised that he was unable to sleep for several nights”(Jung 52). Terrible rumors and continued poor relationships would lead to the war tat was the inevitable outcome of the displacement of the Sauk people from their fertile agricultural grounds and established hunting grounds. One of the rumors that circulated was that it was intended by the white population that the Sauk men would be castrated and that their women would be bred with African American men in order to create a new race of slaves (Jung 72). Such terrible rumors, whether fueled by the dark thoughts of the white authorities or through the fears of the tribes did nothing but create resole in the heart of Black Hawk and his followers. The War of 1832 was the result of two cultures who could not define an amicable relationship as the invading European settler were taking over lands that belonged to a people who had long established their sovereignty over them. Conclusion The Treaty of 1804 was done through miscommunication of intent, starting with the liberties that Harrison took from his instructions from President Jefferson, and ending with conflicting interpretations of the events of the death of the warrior who had been taken into custody on charges of murder. Hostilities occurred because the two groups of people were at adverse odds, the ownership of lands in question where the Sauk were clear that they had used those lands for generations, and the white population was determined to make those lands their own. The Treaty provided for the Sauk to retain use of those lands, despite the shady development of the agreement, thus the entire episode still consists of violations of those agreements by the United States when they intended to remove the Sauk. The way in which the white settlers laid claim to lands that belonged to other nations can be interpreted as acts of war. Black Hawk, in his autobiography, shows respect for his adversaries, but distinctly reveals them for their dark deeds towards his people. From his perspective, he is clear that the white usurpers were not acting in any sense with a desire to create harmony with his people. As shown through his own interpretation of the events of the death of the warrior whose incarceration was the coercion that led to the Treaty of 1804, he was clear that he and his people had not been treated fairly. Works Cited Black, Hawk. Black Hawk: An Autobiography. S.l.: Filiquarian Publishing, LLC, 2006. Print. Black, Hawk, and J B. Patterson. The Autobiography of Black Hawk. New York: Cosimo Classics, 2007. Print. Bowes, John P. Black Hawk and the War of 1832: Removal in the North. Landmark events in Native American history. New York: Chelsea House, 2007. Print. Hagan, William T. The Sac and Fox Indians. The civilization of the American Indian series, 48. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980. Print. Jung, Patrick J. The Black Hawk War of 1832. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008. Print. Owens, Robert M. Mr. Jefferson's Hammer: William Henry Harrison and the Origins of American Indian Policy. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2007. Print. Trask, Kerry A. Black Hawk: The Battle for the Heart of America. New York: Henry Holt, 2007. Print. Read More