By the end of this exercise, I can… 

• describe the events of the Black Hawk War from multiple perspectives
• describe the events of the battle of Fort Dearborn from multiple perspectives
• evaluate how different perspectives on historical events connect to broader social narratives 

This exercise directly relates to:

• How different European colonies developed and expanded (1800-1830s)
• Interactions between American Indians and Europeans (1800-1830s)
• The Battle of Tippecanoe (1811)
• The War of 1812

This exercise could also be paired with teaching about: 

• Northwest Ordinance. Connect to events leading up to the Battle of Fort Dearborn. 
• The election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800. Connect to events leading up to the Battle of Fort Dearborn. 
• The Louisiana Purchase. Connect to events leading up to the Battle of Fort Dearborn. 
• Election of William Henry Harrison and “log cabin campaign.” Connect to the aftermath of the Battle of Fort Dearborn. 
• Manifest Destiny. Connect to the Black Hawk War. 
• The settlement of the West. Connect to the Black Hawk War
• Battle of Little Bighorn. Connect to other examples of armed resistance like the Battle of Fort Dearborn and the Black Hawk War. 
• Nez Perce War. Connect to other examples of armed resistance like the Battle of Fort Dearborn and the Black Hawk War. 
• Wounded Knee Massacre. Connect to the Black Hawk War, particularly the Bad Axe Massacre. 

History

• SS.9-12.H.1. Evaluate the context of time and place as well as structural factors that influence historical developments.
• SS.9-12.H.7. Identify and analyze the role of individuals, groups and institutions in people’s struggle for safety, freedom, equality and justice.
• SS.9-12.H.8. Analyze key historical events and contributions of individuals through a variety of perspectives, including those of historically underrepresented groups.
• SS.9-12.H.10. Identify and analyze ways in which marginalized communities are represented in historical sources and seek out sources created by historically oppressed peoples. 
• SS.9-12.H.11. Analyze primary and secondary historical sources from multiple vantage points and perspectives to identify and explain dominant narratives and counternarratives of historical events. 

The Battle of Fort Dearborn 

Throughout the late 1600s and 1700s, European settlers traveled through Chicago and stayed there for short amounts of time. No non-Native people lived permanently in Chicago through the mid-1700s. The Proclamation of 1763 had said that no settlers would live west of the Appalachian Mountains. This was a British rule. After the American Revolution, settlers considered this agreement over. In 1787, Congress gave itself permission for the US to expand west of the Appalachian Mountains under the Northwest Ordinance. Even though these were unceded Indigenous territories, Congress created the “Northwest Territory” and expanded the U.S. into what is now the Midwest. 

Soon after the Northwest Ordinance, the Wandat (Wyandotte), Lenni-Lenape (Delaware), Shawnee, Odawak, Ojibweg, Potawatomi, Myaamiaki, Eel Rivers, Kickapoo, and the Wea, Piankashaws, and Kaskaskias (who later became part of the Peoria tribe) signed the 1795 Treaty of Greenville. Under the treaty, they ceded 6 square miles around the mouth of the Chicago River (in addition to other land tracts throughout present-day Indiana and Ohio) in exchange for $20,000 worth of goods up front and $9,500 worth of goods on an annual basis, as well as additional cash payments ranging from $500-$1000 per tribe. Native people also retained the right to hunt, plant, and live on the land ceded, as well as move freely through the ceded lands and waters. 

The Northwest Ordinance and the Treaty of Greenville both impacted how many settlers lived permanently in the region, with increasing numbers of settlers moving to the area throughout the late 1700s and into the 1800s. As settlers expanded their land base into the Great Lakes region, they established forts to establish a military presence in the lands they had purchased. With the land acquired under the Treaty of Greenville, settlers decided to build Fort Dearborn in 1803. Their decision was influenced by the election of Thomas Jefferson and his desire to expand the United States, especially after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Still, at the time of the construction of Fort Dearborn, the region remained under Indigenous control, and settlers still had to integrate themselves into Indigenous networks for trade, kinship, and diplomacy. When the fort was completed in 1804, it was a relatively isolated outpost in Potawatomi, Ojibwe, and Odawa territory.

Not long after the construction of Fort Dearborn, Shawnee brothers Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa began their effort to establish an intertribal alliance that could stop Americans’ invasion of Native territories. Tenskwatawa was also known as the Shawnee Prophet. While he and Tecumseh are among the most famous leaders from this era, they were not alone. In fact, they were only two of the dozens of Native leaders who created an intergenerational resistance movement going back to the mid-eighteenth century. Spiritual leaders in the movement (sometimes called “prophets”) urged Native people to reject Anglo-American customs and material goods. Instead, they said that Native people should strengthen themselves by strengthening their traditional ceremonies and lifeways. They also wanted to unite people from many Native nations to protect Indigenous lands and ways of life. The movement gained support from present-day northern Florida to southern Wisconsin to central New York. At the same time, it also divided Native communities. Some Potawatomi leaders near Chicago like Main Poc and Shab-eh-nay were intrigued by the movement and built relationships with Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa, while others continued to pursue alliances with Americans. 

In the late 1800s and early 1810s, settlers attacked several Native villages in the southern Great Lakes, including Tecumseh’s own village at Tippecanoe. After these attacks, Tecumseh and his allies decided they needed a bigger military plan for resisting Americans’ illegal presence on Indigenous lands. In June of 1812, they developed a plan to attack four forts: Fort Madison in present-day Iowa, Fort Wayne and Fort Harrison in present-day Indiana, and Fort Dearborn at Chicago. The attacks would occur at the same time in August. Native fighters would coordinate their plans through wampum belts, which are made of small beads strung together to record histories and communicate messages. 

However, as Tecumseh and his allies were making their plans, war broke out between the Americans and the British. We call this the War of 1812. Many Indigenous people chose to ally with the British as a way to fight the Americans, since Americans continued to break their agreements and move into Indigenous territories illegally. Tecumseh and Potawatomi leader Main Poc, for example, joined British forces in Detroit immediately. While fighting alongside the British, Tecumseh and Main Poc sent regular messengers to their allies. They continued to monitor American activities with their planned attack in mind. 

In July of 1812, the British and their Native allies had captured Fort Mackinac. Fort Mackinac sat at an important access point between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. It was an important site for protecting and getting supplies to Fort Dearborn. Without Fort Mackinac, the U.S. did not believe it would be able to provide Fort Dearborn with supplies and support. The U.S. sent Potawatomi leader Winamek with a message for the American commander Nathan Heald. They told him to evacuate Fort Dearborn and to either destroy the fort’s weapons and ammunition or distribute them to Native people who allied with the Americans. Some Potawatomi leaders discouraged Heald from evacuating. They were worried that Native people in the region who had allied with the British might try to attack people as they left. Heald ignored this advice and proceeded with his plans to evacuate civilians. He also called a council with Potawatomi people at Chicago to inform them of the evacuation plans. Heald promised that he would distribute the weapons and other supplies to the Potawatomi if they escorted people evacuating the fort to Fort Wayne. But Heald did not keep his promise. Instead, he destroyed the supplies. Heald’s betrayal angered Potawatomi leaders. 

The night before the battle, a wampum belt was delivered to Potawatomi leader Mad Sturgeon. This signaled the war should begin. Since those at Fort Dearborn were going to evacuate the next day, it was an ideal time to attack the American troops. 

On the morning of August 15, Potawatomi, Kickapoo, Sauk, and Ho-Chunk fighters attacked the evacuating Americans and their Myaamia allies. The battle was brutal, and many soldiers and civilians on both sides lost their lives. Following the battle, the Potawatomi, Kickapoo, Sauk, and Ho-Chunk fighters burned Fort Dearborn to the ground.  It is important to remember that the attack was part of a larger resistance movement to American invasion, not a random act of violence. During the battle, Potawatomis like Leopold Pokagon, Chechepinquay (or Alexander Robinson), Black Partridge, Shab-eh-nay, Wabaunsee, Sauganaush, or Billy Caldwell, and Archange Ouilmette all protected those settlers they had built relationships with as part of the fur trade. The white settlers who had integrated themselves into Native kinship networks and who were living in accordance with Native protocols were not a threat to Native lands or ways of life. The attack was meant to stop the soldiers and settlers who had begun to farm and settle illegally on unceded land. The related attacks on Forts Madison, Harrison, and Wayne were also carried out just a few weeks later. 

The Battle of Fort Dearborn is the first star on the Chicago flag. It is a significant part of how many people narrate Chicago’s founding, and for many years it was called the “Massacre of Fort Dearborn.” Settler narratives show  the battle as an unprompted and unexpected attack on innocent settlers. While civilians did die during the attack, it was actually a battle within a larger resistance movement. It wasn’t unprompted: it emerged from several decades of conflict between the British, Americans, and Indigenous people over territory in Neshnabewaki. And it wasn’t unexpected: Americans were warned by their Potawatomi allies Winamek and Mucktypoke (Black Partridge). 

In the decades leading up to the battle, many Native people, including some Potawatomis, had developed trade and military alliances with British partners. These partnerships predated American partnerships, and the British often better understood the protocols of the fur trade world. They were also often more generous than their American counterparts. By the start of the War of 1812, many Native people in the region saw Americans as untrustworthy partners and Fort Dearborn as a symbol of American military aggression. Nathan Heald’s broken promise was one in a long line of betrayals by American officials that in many respects continue to shape the federal government’s relationships with Native nations today. The attack on Americans leaving Fort Dearborn was a response to this betrayal and the ongoing invasion of Indigenous territories.

The Black Hawk War

Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak, or Black Hawk, was a Sauk leader born in 1767. In 1804, the U.S. government signed a treaty with the Sauk and Meskwaki (Sac and Fox) at St. Louis that ceded land between the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers on the west side of what is now Illinois. However, the U.S. negotiated the treaty with a small group of Sauk and Meskwaki leaders who did not have the authority to cede this land. (In some cases, the U.S. picked negotiators when it wanted land but didn’t think the real negotiators would agree to the treaty. In others, the U.S. specifically chose leaders who were more open to working with them.) Black Hawk and others disputed the treaty. The treaty was one factor in Black Hawk siding with the British in the War of 1812. While leaders like Black Hawk, Tecumseh, and Tenskwatawa opposed any invasion of their homelands, they saw the British (as opposed to the Americans) as more likely to keep their promises. 

In 1828, the US government ordered Sauk people to leave their village of Saukenuk (present-day Rock Island, IL) and move across the Mississippi River. Sauk leader Keokuk led some people west. However, Black Hawk refused to accept the removal because he did not believe the Treaty of 1804 was valid. Instead, his community continued to live as they always had: they traveled seasonally as part of a sustainable cycle of seasonal rounds. In 1828, his followers left for their winter hunting grounds. They returned in the spring to find white squatters living on their land. This caused significant issues for his community, especially for their access to food and their ability to plant corn. 

Black Hawk tried several diplomatic solutions between 1829 and 1830. However, white leaders told him his village’s land was already being sold off to white individuals. They said there was nothing they could do. Upon returning to find white settlers in his village for a third time in the spring of 1831, Black Hawk agreed to sign what has become known as “the Corn Treaty.” Under this treaty, he and his community agreed to remove to Iowa Territory and never return to Saukenuk without explicit permission from the federal government. In exchange, the U.S. government would provide replacement corn for the corn his people wouldn’t be able to grow, and they promised Black Hawk that his community would be able to grow corn in their new home. 

The corn that the United States issued to Black Hawk’s community as its part of the treaty was not edible, and the land his community was assigned had poor soil that could not grow corn well. Black Hawk saw this as the U.S. breaking its promise and the treaty, so the conflict continued. 

Facing starvation and harassment from settlers in Iowa Territory, Black Hawk decided again in 1832 to reclaim his village. Sauk leader Neopope and Sauk/Ho-Chunk spiritual leader Wabokieshiek (referred to as the prophet in Black Hawk’s autobiography) told Black Hawk that the British, Odawa, Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Ho-Chunk would support his cause. With this guidance, Black Hawk decided to return to Saukenuk for a fourth time. He led a group of 400 of his people back to their village so that they could plant corn for the following year. Though Black Hawk repeatedly told General Atkinson (who he refers to as White Beaver in his autobiography) that his community was there in peace to plant corn, the Illinois militia still murdered three Sauk men who approached the militia under a white flag. 

This violence sparked what has come to be known as the Black Hawk War, a series of battles between Black Hawk, his followers, and US forces. In the end, Black Hawk surrendered. Many of his followers were brutally murdered during the war. The United States military then set out to exterminate all Sauk people. Settler fear and hatred of Sauk people – and Native people more broadly – shaped the violence Native people experienced during and after the Black Hawk War. One American participant in the Bad Axe Massacre, for example, killed a Sauk infant and justified his actions by saying “Kill the nits, and you’ll have no lice.” American officials later cited Black Hawk and his followers as a reason for needing to remove all Native people from Illinois.

Black Hawk tried to return to his home village repeatedly to plant crops that would feed his people. Like many other Native people, he and his community resisted US policies to remove Native people and end their relationships with their homelands. Women also had an important part to play in resisting American expansion: as people who tended fields, they sustained their communities and land claims through their agricultural labor. In fact, it was the women in Black Hawk’s community who told him that the corn in the area they were removed to was inadequate. They urged him to lead the community home. The attempts of Black Hawk and his community to return home were fundamentally about survival. He and his people faced a choice between remaining on new land where they were being harassed and had no food, or attempting to return home where they could plant crops and continue to take care of the land as they always had. 

Though most of the events of the Black Hawk War took place in western Illinois and southern Wisconsin, Native people in Chicago were also impacted by the conflict. While some Neshabék fought alongside the Americans, other Neshnabé people with no connection to the war were ordered by the federal government to flee their homes and live in a refugee camp in Chicago. They were told they would be identified as “hostile Indians” and killed if they did not follow the order. During the war, Congress also passed “An Act to Enable the President to Extinguish Indian Land Title within the State of Indiana, Illinois, and the Territory of Michigan,” which set aside $20,000 (over $600,000 in today’s dollars) to pay for treaty negotiations to get Native land. The act led to the Treaty of Chicago in 1833 that ended the remaining Native land titles in the state of Illinois.

Many historians believe that the Americans’ brutal massacre of so many of Black Hawk’s followers left other Indigenous communities feeling vulnerable. This might have made them more willing to agree to land cessions like those in the Treaty of Chicago. Their fear was not an exaggeration: American officials referenced the violence Black Hawk’s people experienced during treaty negotiations. They threatened that similar things would happen if Native leaders did not agree to cede their lands. Under these circumstances, many Native leaders agreed to outcomes that were less than ideal. They thought these choices would give their relatives and descendants the best chance for survival. 

Sources

Black Hawk, with J.B. Patterson, “Autobiography of Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak, or Black Hawk, embracing the traditions of his nation, various wars in which he has been engaged, and his account of the cause and general history of the Black Hawk war of 1832, his surrender, and travels through the United States.” (St. Louis: Press of Continental Printing Co., 1882). 

Hall, John. Uncommon Defense: Indian Allies in the Black Hawk War. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009. 

Keating, Ann Durkin. Rising Up From Indian Country: The Battle of Fort Dearborn and the Birth of Chicago. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012). 

Note to teachers: We invite you to use the components of the Indigenous Chicago curriculum that best align with the needs of your classroom. The following suggested steps can be modified as needed, and we invite you to use the teacher’s history brief to inspire new exercises that best meet the needs of your students. Please note that we suggest shortening, rather than modifying, the language of historical sources to best reflect the original source’s context, intention, and voice. 

This exercise is particularly long, as it examines two major historical events that impacted Chicago. Please feel free to break this exercise up over multiple days or to teach one historical event at a time.

1. By the early 1800s, Native people in the Chicago region had experienced two major treaties (the 1795 Treaty of Greenville and the 1804 Treaty of St Louis). Both of these treaties were supposed to set hard boundaries for how far settlers would move into Native territories. And yet, both treaties were broken. Settlers continued to ignore the agreed-upon boundaries and move onto Indigenous lands. And while the treaties allowed for the construction of Fort Dearborn in 1804, the land on which it sat was still largely Indigenous-controlled. Review the Background section above. As you read, note: By the early 1800s, what were Native people fighting for? What were settlers fighting for? How did these goals conflict with one another?

2. To prepare for the primary sources you’re about to look at, create a chart like the one below (adapted from Nokes, 2022, p. 130):

3. Let’s start by thinking about the Battle of Fort Dearborn. What have you heard about the battle, either from the Background section or from your knowledge outside of class?

4. So much of history is about memory. In this exercise, we’re going to look at memories of the battle of Fort Dearborn in two places: in a Chicago city sculpture and in the recollections of Potawatomi leader Simon Pokagon. A graphic organizer can help you track the differences in their perspectives on this event. The following example is one option:

5. Let’s turn to the memories of Simon Pokagon, a Potawatomi tribal leader and published author. Pokagon’s 1899 essay in Harper’s Magazine (Source 1, reprinted at the end of this document with context on Pokagon) reflects Potawatomi perspectives on the battle of Fort Dearborn. 

• • Looking at the source, who was Simon Pokagon?
  • Who was an article in Harper’s Magazine likely to reach in 1899? Why might Pokagon have chosen to write in this format and magazine? 
  • Look at the social context Simon Pokagon laid out starting on p. 649-650. What does he identify as prior problems impacting his community relative to white settlement?

6. Some Indigenous people in the region saw Fort Dearborn as a threat not only to their lifeways but also to the lands and waters that they depended on to live. Indigenous leaders like Tecumseh (Shawnee) warned of the potential dangers of the fort. Look closer at the speech from Shawnee leader Tecumseh on p. 650. Pokagon quotes Tecumseh as saying:

“The Great Spirit in His wisdom gave [this beautiful land] to you and your children to defend, and placed you here. But ä-te-wä! [alas!] the incoming race, like a huge serpent, is coiling closer and closer about you. And not content with hemming you in on every side, they have built at She-gog-ong [Chicago], in the very centre of our country, a military fort, garrisoned with soldiers, ready and equipped for battle. As sure as waw-kwen-og [the heavens] are above you they are determined to destroy you and your children and occupy this goodly land for themselves. 

Then they will destroy these forests, whose branches wave in the winds above the graves of your fathers, chanting their praises. If you doubt it, come, go with me eastward or southward a few days’ journey along your ancient mi-kan-og [trails], and I will show you a land you once occupied made desolate. There the forests of untold years have been hewn down and cast into the fire! There be-sheck-kee and waw-mawsh-ka-she [the buffalo and deer], pe-nay-shen and ke-gon [the fowl and fish], are all gone. There the woodland birds, whose sweet songs once pleased your ears, have forsaken the land, never to return; and waw-bi-gon-ag [the wild flowers], which your maidens once loved to wear, have all withered and died.”

• • What fears and grievances did Tecumseh raise about the fort? Add them to “causes” above. 
  • What impact did Tecumseh predict the fort might have on Potawatomi people, lands, waters, and the plants and animals they relied on? 
  • Tecumseh represented a larger Indigenous resistance movement and alliance with the British that many Potawatomi leaders had joined. What does Tecumseh’s narrative tell us about networks of Indigenous people sharing information about their experiences with settlers? 

7. On p. 651, Pokagon examines the War of 1812 as a further factor leading to the battle. 

• • What additional causes for the battle of Fort Dearborn emerge from this section of the narrative?

8. Now that you’ve listed a number of causes, let’s take a look at the events. In several places, Pokagon raises the issue of perspective in how we remember and talk about historical events. Check out his notes on perspective on pages 652, 654, and 656. On p. 652, for example, notice how Pokagon confronts the already circulating misinterpretations of the events at Fort Dearborn (“I have heard it said…”). 

• • How does Pokagon bring his perspective as a Potawatomi person to bear on the events at the fort? 
  • Why might non-Native people want to remember it differently? 
  • How does Pokagon use the history as shared with him by his father to confront settler narratives? 

9. On p. 654, Pokagon identifies the purpose of the attack as taking prisoners, rather than killing. The planned attack had specific objectives: The fighters specifically sought out settlers who had violated expectations for co-existing in the region. They intended to leave the fur-trading families who followed Indigenous protocols for land use alone.

• • How does this narrative differ from more commonly circulated interpretations of the battle?

10. Notice that on p. 655, Pokagon writes, “The massacre of the Fort Dearborn garrison was but one link in the chain of civilized warfare, deliberately planned and executed.” 

• • What is the longer chain that Pokagon references here?
  • Drawing on what you know about conflicts between the English, Americans, and various Native nations, where does Fort Dearborn fit within this history? 

11. Warning: the following step involves an image of warfare, including the death of Native people. Please proceed with caution. If you choose to skip this step, you can replace it by thinking about settler imaginations about Indigenous violence more broadly. 

Having read Pokagon’s perspective, let’s take a look at one representation of settler narratives about the battle. You might have seen the DuSable Bridge downtown, which has a frieze on it called “The Defense.” Look closely at the image. Remember that in the early 1800s, settlers had developed a set of false stereotypes of Native people, including that Native people were primitive and violent. 

• • In the image, how are the white settlers shown? How are the Native people shown? 
  • Notice that the title is “The Defense,” which implies settlers defending Fort Dearborn. What does an image like this suggest about settler memories of the Battle of Fort Dearborn?
  • Public art shapes public memory and a shared sense of our shared past. For a general audience that doesn’t know the deep history of Fort Dearborn, what does this frieze teach people to believe about Native people in Chicago’s history? About the battle at Fort Dearborn?

12. Reflect on what Pokagon’s account and the frieze tell us about perspective in telling history. 

• • How do Indigenous and settler perspectives differ on this historical event? 
  • How might some narratives be seen as advantageous to certain groups in justifying their actions at the time of the event or later? 

13. Now, let’s move into thinking about the Black Hawk War. The Black Hawk War, and Black Hawk himself, has a large place in the memory of Chicago. This story does not take place in Chicago – instead, a lot of it happens across what is currently northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin. Several specific events occurred in what is currently Rock Island, Illinois. Even so, American officials later used the events of the war to justify extreme violence against Indigenous people in the region. What have you heard about Black Hawk or the Black Hawk War before? Where do your understandings of Black Hawk or the war come from?

14. Like with the Battle of Fort Dearborn, a graphic organizer can help you think about memory and perspective. 

15. Then, turn to the excerpts from Source 2, Black Hawk’s autobiography (printed at the end of this document). Beginning with section 1:

• • What is the core problem Black Hawk and his community members are confronting? 
  • What strategies does Black Hawk use to address them?

16. In the second section:

• • What were Black Hawk and his people promised in exchange for leaving their homelands? 
  • Why did this agreement fail?

17. In the third section:

• • Why do Black Hawk and his people decide to return to their village? 
  • How does the broken treaty play into their decision? 
  • How does Black Hawk communicate with American military leaders (including White Beaver, or General Atkinson) about his plans? 
  • What happens when Black Hawk sends a section of his men to surrender? 
  • How do American soldiers trigger the outbreak of what would become the Black Hawk War?

18. Looking back on what you knew about Black Hawk or the war before today:

• • How has your perspective on Black Hawk as a leader of his community changed? 
  • What does his story tell us about Indigenous fights to maintain access to their traditional homelands and foodways? 

19. Black Hawk’s narrative differs from how settler narratives often frame the Black Hawk War. Read Source 3, a contemporary account of the war from the History Channel from April 2024 (printed at the end of this document).

• • Draw out the details about causes, events, and aftermath of the conflict. Let’s look again at your chart, starting with causes.  

• • • Black Hawk’s narrative frequently mentions corn. Most settler accounts leave out issues of food and land entirely. Instead, Black Hawk is said to simply be opposed to the increasing number of white settlers in his territory. He is described as “fierce” and “angry.” How does this reflect settler narratives about Indigenous people?

• • • Native people were not necessarily opposed to white settlement – remember, for example, that Native fighters at the battle of Fort Dearborn did not target settlers who followed Native protocols. What is Black Hawk’s specific frustration with white settlers? How are they impacting his community and their homelands?

• • Now, let’s look at the events.

• • • Note how the History Channel account frames the murder of one of Black Hawk’s fighters as “confusion.” This erases American soldiers’ role leading to the violent events that would follow. While the History Channel narrative names the high number of Sauk casualties, what details about the several massacres of surrendering Native fighters does it leave out?

• • Finally, let’s think about the aftermath of the event. The History Channel narrative talks about Black Hawk’s capture and tour around the United States. It says the tour demonstrated “the futility” of resistance to American settlers. This version of the story says Black Hawk failed because he didn’t cooperate with the U.S. government. 

• • • What does this perspective on the Black Hawk War imply about conflicts between Indigenous peoples and the United States? 

• • • How might this version of the story connect to the concept of Manifest Destiny (that God ordained the US’s right to this continent)?

• • • How does this version of the story compare to the one in Black Hawk’s autobiography?

20. As you now know, settler narratives about the Black Hawk War often describe the war as Native-driven violence against white settlers. War is violent, and each side may try to justify their actions by saying the other side is more violent or doing worse things. Examine Source 4, an excerpt from the History of Crawford and Clark Counties, Illinois (printed at the end of this document). In the source, an American soldier murders a Sauk child as part of the events of the war. 

• • What does the soldier’s comments about Native people tell you about racism as a factor in settler military attacks on Native people?
  • How does this source complicate historical narratives of the war as purely about Native aggression towards settlers?

21. Historians identify what happened in the past by pulling together different memories of and perspectives on an event. Now that your graphic organizers are complete, compare Black’s Hawk’s narrative and white settler narratives of the war. 

• • What do these narratives tell us about the causes, events, and aftermath of the war?
  • Using details in the History Brief, how do you anticipate that the Black Hawk War of 1832 might have shaped the 1833 Treaty of Chicago? 

22. Our analysis of these sources so far has largely focused on cause and effect, as well as on differing perspectives. Now, return to the supporting question: “How have Indigenous people organized to protect their homelands against colonial invasion?” Look back over the causes and events of both the battle of Fort Dearborn and the Black Hawk War:

• • What strategies did you notice for how Indigenous peoples protected their homelands? 
  • What forms of diplomacy, solidarity, strategic alliances, mutual aid, etc. did you notice? 

23. Summing it up! These two stories tell us about how Native nations responded when settlers violated territorial boundaries and failed to follow protocols for land use within Indigenous lands in the 19th century. Build a new diagram or visualization of what led to the violence at Fort Dearborn and in the Black Hawk War. Note Indigenous strategies for protecting their homelands that emerge across both cases!

You can see the essay in full here.

Simon Pokagon was a Potawatomi writer and activist. He is the son of Potawatomi leader Leopold Pokagon. Throughout his life, he consistently advocated for his community and their connection to Chicago. His most famous publication was The Red Man’s Greeting, a critique of the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition that he published on birch bark and passed out at the event. However, he also published several other texts, and met with U.S. government officials on numerous occasions to petition for unpaid treaty payments. Across his writing, Pokagon was known for using vocabulary that appealed to white audiences. While we might think it’s strange to see him use the term “massacre” here – he was likely being intentional. He sought to appeal to his audience through familiar terms while still communicating an important message. 

Source citation: Simon Pokagon, “The Massacre at Fort Dearborn.” Harper’s Magazine. March 1899.

THE MASSACRE OF FORT DEARBORN AT CHICAGO

GATHERED FROM THE TRADITIONS OF THE INDIAN TRIBES ENGAGED IN THE MASSACRE, AND FROM THE PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS

BY SIMON POKAGON

Chief of the Pokagon Band of Pottawatomie Indians. 

My father, Chief Leopold Pokagon, was present at the massacre of Fort Dearborn in 1812, and I have received the traditions of the massacre from our old men. Since my youth I have associated with people of the white race, and sympathize with them as well as with my own people. I am in a position to deal justly with both. … In order to present the facts as nearly as possible, I shall rely on the written history; but the earliest detailed account I have been able to find was written by a woman who claimed the story was told her by an eye-witness twenty years after occurrence, and she did not publish it until twenty-two years later. … 

In considering the real causes we must bear in mind that during the settlement of this country, up to the time of the Chicago massacre, the great Algonquin [sic] tribe, with others, were slowly but surely being pushed before the tidal wave of civilization towards the setting sun. Our rights were not respected; we saw no sympathy being shown for us, for our love of home; no respect paid to the graves of our fathers. At the close of the eighteenth century numerous tribes, numbering many thousand people, found themselves crowded into what is now known as western Ohio, northern Indiana, northern Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Our tribe, the Pottawatomies[1], occupied western Wisconsin, the country around Chicago, and the valley of the river St. Joseph in Michigan and Indiana. While we were being pushed westward another tidal wave of pale-faced humanity came moving against us from the south, driving before it the red man, like buffaloes before the prairie on fire. Our fathers saw it, and trembled at their fate. Anxiously they inquired of each other, If we stand still with folded arms until the two advancing columns meet, where will our country and the red man be? In our ignorance we did not comprehend the mighty ocean of humanity that lay back and of the advance-waves of pioneer settlement. But being fired by as noble patriotism as ever burned in the hearts of mortals, we tried to beat back the reckless white men who dared to settle within our border–and vast armies were sent out to punish us. We fought most heroically against overpowering numbers for home and native land; sometimes victory was ours, as when, during the last decade of the eighteenth century, after having had many warriors killed, and our villages burned to the ground, our father arose in their might, putting to flight the alien armies of Generals Harmar and St. Clair, hurling them in disorder from the wilderness across our borders into their own ill-gotten domain. But only four years after, while yet we were rejoicing over our success, the white man under General Wayne, with “wasplike venom,” swept our land. During  1803 our jealousy was aroused almost to the war pitch by the building of Fort Dearborn, strongly garrisoned and equipped, in the very heart of our territory. We looked upon it as a dangerous enemy without our camp. 

About this time Tecumseh, a great orator and hero in war, visited the different tribes, unfolding to them his plan to unite them as one nation and make a desperate effort to regain and hold their ancient lands. He sent out runners before him to announce the time he would meet each tribe at their council fires and make known his plans. He and two other chiefs went from tribe to tribe, riding spirited black ponies finely equipped, and themselves gayly dressed. When he arose in the council-house his bearing was so noble that cheer on cheer would be given before he would open his mouth to speak. My father and many others who listened to the speeches of Tecumseh many times repeated to me his words when I was a boy, but it was impossible to give an idea of their spirit and power. He generally spoke as follows: 

“Before me stands the rightful owners of knaw-motchi-we-au-kee [this beautiful land]. The Great Spirit in His wisdom gave it to you and your children to defend, and placed you here. But, ä-te-wä! [alas!] the incoming race, like a huge serpent, is coiling closer and closer about you. And not content with hemming you in on every side, they have built at She-gog-ong [Chicago[2]], in the very centre of our country, a military fort, garrisoned with soldiers, ready and equipped for battle. As sure as waw-kwen-og [the heavens] are above you they are determined to destroy you and your children and occupy this goodly land themselves. 

            “Then they will destroy these forests, whose branches wave in the winds above the graves of your fathers, chanting their praises. If you doubt it, come, go with me eastwards or southward a few days’ journey along your ancient ki-kan-og [trails], and I will show you a land you once occupied made desolate. There the forests of untold years have been hewn down and cast into the fire! There be-sheck-kee and waw-mawsh-ka-she [the buffalo and deer], pe-nay-shen and ke-gon [the fowl and fish], are all gone. There the woodland birds, whose sweet songs once pleased your ears, have forsaken the land, never to return; and waw-bi-gon-ag [the wild flowers], which your maidens once loved to wear, have all withered and died. 

          …

            “When we were many and strong, and they were few and weak, they reached out their hands for wido-kaw-ké-win [help], and we filled them with wie-aus and maw-daw-min [meat and corn]; we lived wa-naw-kiwen [in peace] together; but now there are many and strong and we are getting few and weak, they waw nen-dam [have forgotten] the deep debt of momo-i-wendam [gratitude] they owe us, are now scheming to drive us towards ke-so [the setting sun], into desert places far from ke-win [home] and da-na ki aukee [our native land]. Eh [yes], they come to us with lips smoother than bi-me-da [oil], and words sweeter than amose-póma [honey], but beware of them! The venomous amo [wasp] is in their odaw [heart]! and their dealing with us, when we have not tamely submitted, has ever been maw-kaw-te and ashki-koman [powder and lead]; against such mau-tchi au-nene [wicked men] our only pagos-seni-ma [hope], our only inin-ijim [safety], is in joining all our tribes, and then, and not until then, will we be able to drive the soulless invaders back! Fail in this, and awak-ani-win [slavery] and ne-baw [death] are ours!

            And lastly, do not forget that what peace you have enjoyed the past fifty years in your homes and on your hunting-grounds you entirely owe to the brave Pontiac, who at the risk of his own life, destroyed the forts of your enemies around the Great Lakes, driving the white invaders back.” 

Not one tribe refused to unite in the great Algonquin [sic] confederacy. While Tecumseh was at work night and day preparing for the inevitable struggle between the two races, General Harrison, quiet as the wolf, invaded our territory with a vast army, defeating Elks-wa-ta-wa, an Indian prophet twin brother of Tecumseh, at Tippecanoe, Indiana. He slew many warriors, women, and children, burned our villages and supplies, leaving us and our little ones naked and destitute. This was the fourth time, in a few years, our country was invaded in autumn-time, near cold weather, and all our supplies for winter’s use burned or destroyed which created a feeling of revenge in the hearts of our people. 

            These outrages portrayed by the eloquence of Tecumseh, who was holding daily councils with the different tribes, fanned the slumbering embers of the war spirit into a blaze that could not well be quenched. 

            In June, 1812, war was declared by the United States against Great Britain. One year before, and during that summer, British emissaries came among our fathers, enlisted sympathy, and stirred up their prejudices against the United States by telling them it was the intention of their government to destroy them and take their lands for their own children. They said that their King, who ruled beyond the ocean and the Great Lakes, would defend them and fight for them from generation to generation. They said that his warriors outnumbered the stars in the heavens and when the sun rose and set red, it was but to remind them of the King’s warriors. Our young men confided in these emissaries, and calling to mind the long death-roll of the warriors killed at Tippecanoe the previous autumn, many of them began to talk of driving the white men out of the Indian territory. 

            On August 1st of that year a white man who had formerly been a fur-buyer, and could speak our language well, came among us from northern Michigan. He appeared much excited, saying that he was a messenger sent by the British chief to inform the Pottawatomies[4] that he had joined his forces with their brave Tecumseh to help save their native land. He also informed us that Mackinaw Island, the fort of Mackinaw and its garrison, had surrendered to the British and Indians the day before he left; that in all probability Detroit and the United States fort there had shared the same fate; and that it was necessary, in order to secure our ancient lands and liberty, Fort Dearborn, the only stronghold remaining in the Northwest, should be taken at once. He admonished us, furthermore, that if we had one spark of sa-ka-i (love) for our homes and hunting-grounds, we should consider it a duty we owed ourselves, our wives, and children to sound at once the war-whoop and besiege the fort. 

            A few days after this, Captain Heald, commander at Fort Dearborn, called the head men of our people together to meet him in council. To their surprise, he told them he intended to evacuate the fort the next day, August 15, 1812; that he would distribute the fire-arms, ammunition, provisions, whiskey, etc., among them; and that if they would send a band of Pottawatomies to escort them safely to Fort Wayne, he would there pay them a large sum of money. To this the Indians agreed, apparently well satisfied. Some goods were given them, but the fire-arms and ammunition were secretly destroyed, and, worst of all for some, the whiskey too, which was poured into the river. …

The day before the massacre a white man came into the fort with twenty Miami Indians to escort the garrison to Fort Wayne. This aroused the jealousy of the Pottawatomies, who took it for granted their services would not be appreciated. Furthermore, the white man was Captain Wells[5], who, having been brought up with Indians, and having fought with them several years against the white man, afterwards joined his own race and fought against the Indians most desperately; many of the Pottawatomie knew him, and regarded him as a base traitor. 

I have heard it said that when the fort was evacuated the Pottawatomies pretended to be acting as escorts for the soldiers, when, in fact, they were luring them to their death. This I regard as untrue. I have many times heard old warriors say that they were led by this Captain Wells and his Miami Indians, some in front and some in the rear. This seems probable, in view of the fact that on the day before the evacuation they gave Captain Heald to understand they were dissatisfied because the whiskey, fire-arms, and ammunition were destroyed, and in view of the fact that Captain Heald was informed the night before that there was serious trouble ahead, under which circumstances Captain Heald would not have dared to trust them. 

            On August 15, 1812, the fort was evacuated, and the line of march commenced southward along the shore of Lake Michigan. The Indian warriors stationed themselves about two miles south of the fort, and on the right of the line, placing it between themselves and the lake. When they were discovered a halt was made, and an order given by Captain Wells to charge them on the right of the line of march. Then, more like a herd of buffaloes at bay then trained soldiers, headlong they plunged through the Indian line on the right which was broken. They fought most desperately, on right and left, what old warriors called a rough-and-tumble fight, until hemmed in on every side by overpowering numbers. They finally surrendered, with the proviso that their lives should be spared. 

            Captain Wells was forsaken by his Miamis, who fled at the sound of the first war-whoop; but he fought one hundred more single-handed, on horseback, shooting them down on right and left in front and rear, until his horse fell under him and he was killed. … Out of nearly one hundred of the garrison, two thirds at least were killed or badly wounded, while the Indian loss must have been twice as great. 

            Turning from the slaughter, where the Angel of Mercy seems to have been asleep, let us recall individual efforts made, showing that pity and mercy yet lived in some of our race. The night before the massacre, Chief Maw-kaw-be-pe-nay (Black Partridge) came into the fort, and in tears said to Captain Heald: “Great Chief, I have come here to give you this medal that I wear. It was given me by your people, as a token of good-will between us. I am sorry, but our young men declare they will shed the blood of your people. I cannot restrain them. And I will not wear this medal as a friend while I am forced to act as an enemy.” As the captain reluctantly received the medal in silence and surprise, the old chief said: “As you march away from here, be on your guard. Linden-birds have been warbling whispers in my ears to-day.” Captains Wells and Heald both personally knew the old chief as an honest, truthful man, and it would seem such timely and pathetic warning as that, from such a reliable source as that, couched in such heart-eloquence as that should not have gone unheeded by any reasonable, sober men. …

At the close of the fight, my father and the two chiefs who were with him from Michigan were counseled regarding the terms of surrender. The lives of the survivors were all to be spared except the officer of the fort. With regard to him, Sa-naw-waw-ne, the war chief, and his warriors, most of whom were from Green Bay, Wisconsin, and many of whom were Winnebagoes, declared “that if he did not die of his wounds before a-bit a-tib-i-kad [midnight], his life should be taken.” The war chief revengefully charged the officer with breaking his pledge in not turning over the provisions, fire-arms, and whiskey in the fort, which he maliciously destroyed. He protested emphatically that it had not been their intention, or even desire, to take lives of any of the garrison, but only to take them as prisoners of war, that they might control Fort Dearborn, and Chicago as well, believing that against such overpowering numbers, the garrison would surrender without fight, as did that at Fort Mackinaw a few days before. …

… my father and his two friends, under cover of darkness, quietly stole away the wounded officer, carried him down the terrace to the shore of Lake Michigan, where he and his relatives, with some other friendly Indians, put him into a boat, where they had secure some more of the unfortunates, and rowed them across Lake Michigan to St. Joseph, then up the St. Joseph River to the old Pokagon village, near the present site of the city of Niles, to my father’s wigwam, where they were kindly cared for until their wounds were nearly healed.[8]

A few days after their arrival, an Indian came across the lake and reported that Winnebago warriors were coming to Pokagon village to retake the prisoners, whereupon they were taken down the lake in a boat to Mackinaw Island, three hundred miles away, and delivered over to the British as prisoners of war. This was done by the advice of the wounded officer, who told the friendly Indians that was the safest course. All the prisoners promised before their God that they would reward us richly for our kindness, but they were never heard from after. 

I have read several times in history that the Indians treacherously killed several men after the terms of surrender were consummated, and in after-years my father was charged by white men with having done this. He declared to the day of this death that the accusation was false; and that the only charitable excuse he could surmise for the whole story was that the survivors of the battle who reported it thought the terms of surrender were agreed upon before they were, or else that some Indian warriors, having no knowledge of the surrender, may have pressed the fight at some point of the battle-field. This was the case of the last great battle fought between the English and Americans, at New Orleans, which was fought weeks after the two powers had signed a treaty of peace. 

…

They who call themselves civilized cry out against the treachery and cruelty of savages, yet the English generals formed a league with Tecumseh and his warriors, at the beginning of the war of 1812, with a full understanding that they were to take the forts around the Great Lakes, regardless of consequences. The massacre of the Fort Dearborn garrison was but one link in the chain of civilized warfare, deliberately planned and executed. Disguise the fact as the pride of the white man may, when he joins hands with untutored savages in warfare he is a worse savage than they. 

… All our traditions and the accounts published by the dominant race show conclusively that the white man’s dealing with our fathers was of such a character that they were made much worse, instead of better; and Pokagon calls on Heaven to witness that in many battles before and after the Chicago massacre there was far less mercy and justice shown our race than our fathers exhibited towards the garrison of Fort Dearborn. 

…

[1] There are now a few Pottawatomies in Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, and the Indian Territory, but a majority of the tribe are on a reservation ten miles square in Jackson county, Kansas, where the United States sustains an Indian school. 

[2] Chicago is derived from She-gog-ong, the locative of the Indian word She-gogo, meaning skunk. Example—locative case: She-gog-ong ne-de-zhaw (I am going to Chicago.) Objective case: She-gog-ne-ne-saw (I killed the skunk). 

…

[4] The Pottawatomies must have learned from the surrender of Fort Mackinaw to the British and Indians at least a week before Captain Heald received the news from Detroit, by way of General Hull, commander-in-chief of the Northwestern Territory, Detroit was surrendered to the British and Indians, the day after the evacuation of Fort Dearborn of Chicago, and Fort Meigs the day after, which points to the fact that there must have been an understanding between the British and Indians to take all the forts of the Northwest as near the same time as possible. 

[5] Captain Wells was kidnapped by the Indians when a boy, and adopted by Chief Me-che-kau-nah-qud (Little Turtle) —so called by the whites—whose name should be Great Turtle. He married the old chief’s daughter, and fought for the Indians against General Harmar and General St. Clair in 1790 and 1791; afterwards , being identified by his relations, he was persuaded to join his own people. He was captain in General Wayne’s army, who defeated the Indians in 1794. Captain Heald’s wife was his niece. It appears he went to Fort Dearborn on his own account, through fear of trouble there. He was well known by many of the Pottawatomie Indians at the form, and known as a desperate fighter.  

…

[8] It is supposed the wounded officer and others taken care of by the elder Pokagon and his friends were Captain Heald, commander of the fort, his wife and other woman, and three or four men whose names they did not know. The wounded officer was called by the bad Bim-waw-gan-wi Waw-be-o-gi-maw (the White Wounded Chief). 

…

You can access the full book here.

Hawk was a Sauk leader who consistently fought American settlement and removal from his homelands. After the Black Hawk War, he was captured by U.S. forces and taken to the eastern United States, where he was toured around various cities. During this time, an interpreter also recorded his life story, which was published as his autobiography. In the first section of this text, which occurs between 1829 and 1830, Black Hawk relays the arrival of American settlers in his village, the diplomatic strategies he attempted to find a solution, and the problems that white settlement caused for his people’s ability to grow their crops. The second section documents the Corn Treaty of 1831. In the third section, which occurs in 1832, Black Hawk comments on the decision to return to their community, communication with the Americans about peace and corn, his attempts to retreat under a white flag, and how aggression from American soldiers led to the outbreak of the war. 

In his oral telling of his life history, Black Hawk used terms like “Great Father” and “Great War Chief” to refer to white leaders. This was common among Native leaders at the time, dating back to at least the 17th century when European leaders introduced themselves to Native communities at the “Great Father,” establishing a paternalistic relationship between themselves and Native people. Black Hawk mentions three other individuals in these sections: Neopope, who was a Sauk leader, “the prophet,” which refers to Sauk/Ho-Chunk spiritual leader Wabokieshiek, and White Beaver, which is a name given to General Henry Atkinson. 

Source citation: Black Hawk, with J.B. Patterson, “Autobiography of Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak, or Black Hawk, embracing the traditions of his nation, various wars in which he has been engaged, and his account of the cause and general history of the Black Hawk war of 1832, his surrender, and travels through the United States.” (St. Louis: Press of Continental Printing Co., 1882). 

Section 1

In consequence of the improvements of the intruders on our fields, we found considerable difficulty to get ground to plant a little corn. Some of the whites permitted us to plant small patches in the fields they had fenced, keeping all the best ground for themselves. Our women had great difficulty in climbing their fences, being unaccustomed to the kind, and were ill treated if they left a rail down.

One of my old friends thought he was safe. His cornfield was on a small island in Rock river. He planted his corn, it came up well, but the white man saw it; he wanted it, and took his teams over, ploughed up the crop and replanted it for himself. The old man shed tears, not for himself but on account of the distress his family would be in if they raised no corn. The white people brought whisky to our village, made our people drink, and cheated them out of their homes, guns and traps. This fraudulent system was carried to such an extent that I apprehended serious difficulties might occur, unless a stop was put to it. Consequently I visited all the whites and begged them not to sell my people whisky. One of them continued the practice openly; I took a party of my young men, went to his house, took out his barrel, broke in the head and poured out the whisky. I did this for fear some of the whites might get killed by my people when they were drunk.  

Our people were treated very badly by the whites on many occasions. At one time a white man beat one of our women cruelly, for pulling a few suckers of corn out of his field to suck when she was hungry. At another time one of our young men was beat with clubs by two white men, for opening a fence which crossed our road to take his horse through. His shoulder blade was broken and his body badly bruised, from the effects of which he soon after died.  

Bad and cruel as our people were treated by the whites, not one of them was hurt or molested by our band. I hope this will prove that we are a peaceable people—having permitted ten men to take possession of our corn fields, prevent us from planting corn, burn our lodges, ill-treat our women, and beat to death our men without offering resistance to their barbarous cruelties. This is a lesson worthy for the white man to learn: to use forebearance [sic] when injured.   

We acquainted our agent daily with our situation, and through him the great chief at St. Louis, and hoped that something would be done for us. The whites were complaining at the same time that we were intruding upon their rights. They made it appear that they were the injured party, and we the intruders. They called loudly to the great war chief to protect their property.

How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right.

During this summer I happened back at Rock Island, when a great chief arrived, whom I had known as the great chief of Illinois, (Governor Cole) in company with another chief who I have been told is a great writer (Judge James Hall.) I called upon them and begged to explain the grievances to them, under which my people and I were laboring, hoping that they could do something for us. The great chief however, did not seem disposed to council with me. He said he was no longer the chief of Illinois; that his children had selected another father in his stead, and that he now only ranked as they did. I was surprised at this talk, as I had always heard that he was a good brave and great chief. But the white people appear to never be satisfied. When they get a good father, they hold councils at the suggestion of some bad, ambitious man, who wants the place himself, and conclude among themselves that this man, or some other equally ambitious, would make a better father than they have, and nine times out of ten they don’t get as good a one again.  

I insisted on explaining to these chiefs the true situation of my people. They gave their assent. I rose and made a speech, in which I explained to them the treaty made by Quashquame, and three of our braves, according to the manner the trader and others had explained it to me. I then told them that Quashquame and his party positively denied having ever sold my village, and that as I had never known them to lie, I was determined to keep it in possession. 

I told them that the white people had already entered our village, burned our lodges, destroyed our fences, ploughed up our corn and beat our people. They had brought whisky into our country, made our people drunk, and taken from them their homes, guns and traps, and that I had borne all this injury, without suffering any of my braves to raise a hand against the whites.  

My object in holding this council was to get the opinion of these two chiefs as to the best course for me to pursue. I had appealed in vain, time after time to our agent, who regularly represented our situation to the chief of St. Louis, whose duty it was to call upon the Great Father to have justice done to us, but instead of this we are told that the white people wanted our country and we must leave it for them! 

I did not think it possible that our Great Father wished us to leave our village where we had lived so long, and where the bones of so many of our people had been laid. The great chief said that as he no longer had any authority he could do nothing for us, and felt sorry that it was not in his power to aid us, nor did he know how to advise us. Neither of them could do anything for us, but both evidently were very sorry.  It would give me great pleasure at all times to take these two chiefs by the hand. 

That fall I paid a visit to the agent before we started to our hunting grounds, to hear if he had any good news for me.  He had news. He said that the land on which our village now stood was ordered to be sold to individuals, and that when sold our right to remain by treaty would be at an end, and that if we returned next spring we would be forced to remove.  

We learned during the winter, that part of the land where our village stood had been sold to individuals, and that the trader at Rock Island, Colonel Davenport, had brought the greater part that had been sold. The reason was now plain to me why he urged us to remove. His object, we thought, was to get our lands. We held several councils that winter to determine what we should do. We resolved in one of them, to return to our village as usual in the spring. We concluded that if we were removed by force, that the trader, agent and others must be the cause, and that if they were found guilty of having driven us from our village they should be killed. The trader stood foremost on this list. He had purchased the land on which my lodge stood, and that of our graveyard also. We therefore proposed to kill him and the agent, the interpreter, the great chief at St. Louis, the war chiefs at Forts Armstrong, Rock Island, and Keokuk, these being the principal persons to blame for endeavoring to remove us. Our women received bad accounts from the women who had been raising corn at the new village, of the difficulty of breaking the new prairie with hoes, and the small quantity of corn raised. We were nearly in the same condition with regard to the latter, it being the first time I ever knew our people to be in want of provisions. 

I prevailed upon some of Keokuk’s band to return this spring to the Rock river village, but Keokuk himself would not come. I hoped that he would get permission to go to Washington to settle our affairs with our Great Father. I visited the agent at Rock Island. He was displeased because we had returned to our village, and told me that we must remove to the west of the Mississippi. I told him plainly that we would not. I visited the interpreter at his house, who advised me to do as the agent had directed me. I then went to see the trader and upbraided him for buying our lands. He said that if he had not purchased them some person else would, and that if our Great Father would make an exchange with us, he would willingly give up the land he had purchased to the government. This I thought  was fair, and began to think that he had not acted so badly as I had suspected. We again repaired our lodges and built others, as most of our village had been burnt and destroyed. Our women selected small patches to plant corn, where the whites had not taken them in their fences, and worked hard to raise something for our children to subsist upon.  

Section 2

We crossed the river during the night, and encamped some distance below Rock Island. The great war chief convened another council, for the purpose of making a treaty with us. In this treaty he agreed to give us corn in place of what we had left growing in our fields. I touched the goose quill to this treaty, and was determined to live in peace.

The corn that had been given us was soon found to be inadequate to our wants, when loud lamentations were heard in the camp by the women and children, for their roasting ears, beans and squashes. To satisfy them, a small party of braves went over in the night to take corn from their own fields. They were discovered by the whites and fired upon. Complaints were again made of the depredations committed by some of my people, on their own corn fields.  

Section 3

Having met with no opposition, we moved up Rock river leisurely for some distance, when we were overtaken by an express from White Beaver, with an order for me to return with my band and re-cross the Mississippi again. I sent him word that I would not, not recognizing his right to make such a demand, as I was acting peaceably, and intended to go to the prophet’s village at his request, to make corn.  

The express returned. We moved on and encamped some distance below the prophet’s village. Here another express came from the White Beaver, threatening to pursue us and drive us back, if we did not return peaceably. This message roused the spirit of my band, and all were determined to remain with me and contest the ground with the war chief “if he wished to fight us he might come on.” We were determined never to be driven, and equally so, not to make the first attack, our object being to act only on the defensive. This we conceived to be our right.

Soon after the express returned, Mr. Gratiot, sub-agent for the Winnebagoes, [Ho-Chunk] came to our encampment. He had no interpreter, and was compelled to talk through his chiefs. They said the object of his mission was to persuade us to return.  But they advised us to go on—assuring us that the further we went up Rock river the more friends we would meet, and our situation would be bettered. They were on our side and all of their people were our friends. We must not give up, but continue to ascend Rock river, on which, in a short time, we would receive reinforcements sufficiently strong to repulse any enemy. They said they would go down with their agent, to ascertain the strength of the enemy, and then return and give us the news. They had to use some stratagem to deceive their agent in order to help us.  

During this council several of my braves hoisted the British flag, mounted their horses and surrounded the council lodge. I discovered that the agent was very much frightened. I told one of his chiefs to tell him that he need not be alarmed, and then went out and directed my braves to desist. Every warrior immediately dismounted and returned to his lodge. After the council adjourned I placed a sentinel at the agent’s lodge to guard him, fearing that some of my warriors might again frighten him. I had always thought he was a good man and was determined that he should not be hurt. He started with his chiefs to Rock Island.

Having ascertained that White Beaver would not permit us to remain where we were, I began to consider what was best to be done, and concluded to keep on up the river, see the Pottowattomies [sic] and have a talk with them. Several Winnebago [Ho-Chunk] chiefs were present, whom I advised of my intentions, as they did not seem disposed to render us any assistance. I asked them if they had not sent us wampum during the winter, and requested us to come and join their people and enjoy all the rights and privileges of their country. They did not deny this; and said if the white people did not interfere, they had no objection to our making corn this year, with our friend the prophet, but did not wish us to go any further up.  

The next day I started with my party to Kishwacokee. That night I encamped a short distance above the prophet’s village. After all was quiet in our camp I sent for my chiefs, and told them that we had been deceived. That all the fair promises that had been held out to us through Neapope were false. But it would not do to let our party know it. We must keep it secret among ourselves, move on to Kishwacokee, as if all was right, and say something on the way to encourage our people. I will then call on the Pottowattomies [sic], hear what they say, and see what they will do.  

We started the next morning, after telling our people that news had just come from Milwaukee that a chief of our British Father would be there in a few days. Finding that all our plans were defeated, I told the prophet that he must go with me, and we would see what could be done with the Pottowattomies [sic]. On our arrival at Kishwacokee an express was sent to the Pottowattomie [sic] villages. The next day a deputation arrived. I inquired if they had corn in their villages. They said they had a very little and could not spare any. I asked them different questions and received very unsatisfactory answers. This talk was in the presence of all my people. I afterwards spoke to them privately, and requested them to come to my lodge after my people had gone to sleep. They came and took seats. I asked them if they had received any news from the British on the lake. They said no. I inquired if they had heard that a chief of our British Father was coming to Milwaukee to bring us guns, ammunition, goods and provisions. They said no. I told them what news had been brought to me, and requested them to return to their village and tell the chiefs that I wished to see them and have a talk with them. 

After this deputation started, I concluded to tell my people that if White Beaver came after us, we would go back, as it was useless to think of stopping or going on without more provisions and ammunition. I discovered that the Winnebagoes [Ho-Chunk] and Pottowattomies [sic] were not disposed to render us any assistance. The next day the Pottowattomie [sic] chiefs arrived in my camp. I had a dog killed, and made a feast. When it was ready, I spread my medicine bags, and the chiefs began to eat. When the ceremony was about ending, I received news that three or four hundred white men on horseback 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. After this party had started I sent five young men to see what might take place. The first party went to the camp of the whites, and were taken prisoners. The last party had not proceeded far before they saw about twenty men coming toward them at full gallop. They stopped, and, finding that the whites were coming toward them in such a warlike attitude, they turned and retreated, but were pursued, and two of them overtaken and killed. The others then made their escape. When they came in with the news, I was preparing my flags to meet the war chief. The alarm was given. Nearly all my young men were absent ten miles away. I started with what I had left, about forty, and had proceeded but a short distance, before we saw a part of the army approaching. I raised a yell, saying to my braves, “Some of our people have been killed. Wantonly and cruelly murdered!  We must avenge their death!” 

Determined to resist the growing presence of Anglo settlers on traditional tribal lands, the Sauk warrior Black Hawk is drawn into war with the United States.

Called Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak by his people, Black Hawk was born in 1767 in the village of Saukenuk in the present-day state of Illinois. He quickly earned a reputation as a fierce and courageous fighter in the frequent skirmishes between the Sauk and their principle enemy, the Osage. By the early 1800s, however, Black Hawk began to realize that the real threat to his people was the rapidly growing numbers of white people streaming into the region.

In 1804, representatives of the Sauk and Fox (Mesquakie) Indians signed a treaty that ceded all of their territory east of the Mississippi River to the United States. Black Hawk, however, maintained the treaty was invalid and had been signed by drunken Indian representatives. In 1816, he reluctantly confirmed the treaty with his own signature, but he later said he did not understand that this meant he would someday have to cede his home village of Saukenuk on the Rock River.

As the U.S. Army built more forts and droves of settlers moved into the territory during the next 15 years, Black Hawk grew increasingly angry. Finally, in 1831, settlers began to occupy the village of Saukenuk, an area that would later become Rock Island, Illinois. Regardless of the provisions of the 1804 treaty, Black Hawk refused to leave his own home. He began to prepare for war.

Early in 1832, General Edmund P. Gaines arrived in the area with a sizeable force of U.S. soldiers and Illinois militiamen. Initially, Black Hawk withdrew his large band of warriors, women, and children to the west side of the Mississippi. On April 5, however, he led them back into the disputed territory, believing that other Indian forces and the British to the north would support him in a confrontation. The following day, a large army of soldiers caught up to Black Hawk and his followers near the Rock River of northern Illinois. When neither the British nor his Indian allies came to his support, Black Hawk attempted to surrender. Unfortunately, one of his truce bearers was killed in the confusion, and the Black Hawk War began.

In May, Black Hawk’s warriors won a significant victory that left the Americans badly demoralized. As subsequent generations of Indian fighters would learn, however, the mighty force of the U.S. government was relentless. On August 2, U.S. soldiers nearly annihilated Black Hawk’s band as it attempted to escape west across the Mississippi, and Black Hawk finally surrendered.

Casualties in the 15-week war were grossly one-sided. An estimated 70 settlers or soldiers lost their lives; estimates for the number of Indians killed are between 442 and 592. Black Hawk was captured and incarcerated for a time in Fortress Monroe, Virginia. In order to demonstrate the futility of further resistance to the American settlers, Black Hawk was taken on a tour of the major eastern cities before being relocated to an Iowa Indian agency. He lived the remaining six years of his life under the supervision of a Sauk chief who had once been his enemy. Unlike Black Hawk, the Sauk chief had cooperated with the United States government.

You can access the full book here.

William H. Perrin was the author of several books about various states and counties. This text contains a short section in which a soldier murders a Sauk child as part of the events of the war. Please note that this source, while brief, is very graphic. Teachers should exercise discretion based on their understanding of their students before sharing this source. 

Source citation: William H. Perrin, History of Crawford and Clark Counties, Illinois. (Chicago: O.L.Baskin & Co., 1883). 

Excerpt 1, providing context for the Black Hawk War from a settler perspective:

In November, 1804, by a treaty made by Gen. Harrison with the chiefs of the Sac and Fox nations of Indians, all their lands, Rock river, and much more elsewhere, were ceded to the government. This treaty was afterward ratified by portions of the tribes in 1815 and 1916. But there was one old turbulent Sac chief who always denied the validity of these treaties, and by his wild and stirring eloquence at times, though usually gloomy and taciturn, incited the Indians to hostilities. He was distinguished for his courage, and for his clemency to prisoners. He was firmly attached to the British; had been an aid to the famous Tecumseh and cordially hated the Americans. This chief was Mucata Muhicatah or Black Hawk. Under pretense that the treaties before referred to were void, Black Hawk, in the spring of 1831, with three hundred warriors, invaded the State, drove off the white settlers, destroyed their crops, killed their stock, and other violent depredations, besides committing several murders. By the promptness of the military he was quickly checked, and compelled to sue for peace, and ratified the original treaty of 1804. Notwithstanding this treaty, Black Hawk, with about six hundred warriors, again entered the state in the spring of 1831, and committed many acts of vandalism. Great alarm prevailed, and Governor Reynold’s (sic) issued his call for two thousand troops which was promptly answered (258).

Excerpt 2, describing a settler named John House, who lived in Clark County: 

He enlisted in the Black Hawk War, and was in the memorable engagement on the banks of the Mississippi, of August 2, 1832 [the Bad Axe Massacre], in which the Indians were routed and which terminated the war. During the battle, a Sac mother took her infant child, and fastening it to a large piece of cottonwood bark, consigned it to the treacherous waves rather than to captivity. The current carried the child near the bank, when House cooly loaded his rifle, and taking deliberate aim, shot the babe dead. Being reproached for his hardened cruelty, he grimly replied, ‘Kill the nits and you’ll have no lice’” (231-232).