Talk:Black Hawk War/Archive 2

Final confrontation
I am moving this section here for now. I believe the source is somewhere here: Most of this is too detailed for an article covering the war and belongs in Battle of Bad Axe, provided it can be cited to reliable sources.IvoShandor 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Black Hawk War of 1832, by Dr. James Lewis, including primary source material
 * "Black Hawk" entry from Encyclopedia of North American Indians

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

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

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

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

IvoShandor 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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


 * In 1804, William Henry Harrison, Governor of Indiana Territory (which then included what would become Illinois), negotiated a treaty in St. Louis, Missouri with a group of Sauk and Fox leaders, in which they ceded lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for $1,000 per year and the condition that the tribes could continue to reside there until the land was surveyed and sold by the U.S. government.


 * However, this treaty was subsequently disputed by Black Hawk and other members of the tribes, since the full tribal councils had not been consulted. After the War of 1812, in which Black Hawk had fought against the U.S., he signed a peace treaty in May 1816 that re-affirmed the treaty of 1804, a provision of which Black Hawk later protested ignorance. While Black Hawk was away during the War of 1812, Keokuk had risen in prominence, and the two men became rivals.


 * The white population of Illinois exploded after the War of 1812, exceeding 50,000 in 1820 and 150,000 in 1830. In 1825, thirteen Sauks and six Foxes signed another agreement re-affirming the 1804 treaty. In 1828, the U.S. government liaison, Thomas Forsyth, informed the tribes that they should begin vacating their settlements east of the Mississippi.

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


 * On July 15, 1830, U.S. Indian Commissioner William Clark signed a treaty with Sauk and Fox leaders at Fort Crawford in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin . The treaty ceded about 26,500,000 acres (107,000 km²) of Sauk land east of the Mississippi to the government of the United States. It also created a "Neutral Ground" boundary between the Sauk and Foxes and their traditional enemies, the Sioux, for the purpose of preventing future hostilities between the tribes. The treaty was signed by Keokuk, and in November 1830 was approved by the Dakota Sioux.

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

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


 * Thank you so much for your contributions, this was in my plan to be added. I will continue the background up to 1831 where it shifts to "Trigger" (Cause basically-headline titles are still up in the air). When I reach 1830 I will see where the above paragraph fits in and see if I can find any other corroboration of it, though you are right it seems reliable enough to include. Verifiable and all. Thanks again, a lot, it is so appreciated, you have no idea how much labor I have put in on this area of coverage thus far, it gets daunting by myself sometimes. : ) IvoShandor 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt this treaty existed, I found it again here. It would appear it fits in to the background section, it's just more of the same stuff that caused things to spiral out of control.IvoShandor 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The original battle was provoked when Black Hawk and his farmers crossed the Mississippi to do their traditional thing. This is what was viewed as an "invasion." Black Hawk's "autobiography"
 * http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4473:11.lincoln, provides evidence for this view. It includes a section offered by Elijah Kilbourn, who at the time was a captive of Black Hawk (see KILBOURN'S NARRATIVE. A REMINISCENCE OF BLACK HAWK, pp.159-169.) According to Kilbourn's testimony, p. 163,
 * "Now you must know that Black Hawk, after moving west of the Mississippi, had recrossed, contrary to his agreement, not, however, from any hostile motive, but to raise a crop of corn and beans with the Pottowattomies and Winnebagoes, of which his own people stood in the utmost need. With this intention he had gone some distance up Rock river, when an express from General Atkinson ordered him peremptorily to return. This order the old chief refused to obey, saying that the General had no right to issue it. A second express from Atkinson threatened Black Hawk that if he did not return peaceably, force would be resorted to. The aged warrior became incensed at this and utterly refused to obey the mandate, but at the same time sent word to the General that he would not be the first one to commence hostilities.


 * "The movement of the renowned warrior was immediately trumpeted abroad as an invasion of the State, and with more rashness than wisdom, Governor Reynolds ordered the Illinois militia to take the field, and these were joined by the regulars, under General Atkinson, at Rock Island...."


 * The main text of the article needs to be augmented by this perspective, providing an alternative to the hostile, ethnocentric view that Black Hawk's movements represented an "invasion." BobSchacht


 * For a more nuanced analysis of the Sac and Fox history, ecology and culture, see "Timber and Treaties: The Sauk and Mesquakie Decision to Sell Iowa Territory," by Royce Kurtz. Forest & Conservation History, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 56-64 (article consists of 9 pages). Published by: Forest History Society and American Society for Environmental History. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3983939. This article, however, does not deal with the immediate circumstances of the 1832 war.

(talk) 06:38, 28 July 2010, revised 30 July 2010 (UTC)BobSchacht BobSchacht

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Note on prose
I just wanted to note I have been trying to preserve as much of the original prose here as possible, integrating it into what I have added. The fact is, this article's writing was good, it was very well written. It was just lacking proper referencing. IvoShandor 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the article is much better now so have upped the rating to a "B". Here is to getting it to GA then FA!--Kranar drogin 10:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * Although federal army troops were also involved, the militia were the majority . -Ref added. IvoShandor 23:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some rock solid numbers would be nice . -Rock solid numbers added. IvoShandor 23:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Winfield Scott arrived too late for military action, but he played an important part in drafting the terms of peace . -Ref found. IvoShandor 20:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the part about playing a role in drafting of peace terms that I cannot find.


 * The two following should be pretty easy, both are from the Stillman's Run section. -Both referenced. IvoShandor 21:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The first named confrontation of the Black Hawk War occurred on 14 May 1832 and resulted in an unexpected victory for Black Hawk's band of Sauk and Fox warriors.
 * When the militia killed a member of a three-man parley that had been sent by Neapope, Black Hawk rallied 40 mounted warriors and attacked the militia camp at dusk.
 * This is a really detailed account, it has to be referenced.


 * The Black Hawk War of 1832 resulted in the deaths of 70 settlers and soldiers, and hundreds of Black Hawk's band.
 * This one still needs a ref for the militia casualties. IvoShandor 03:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As well as the combat casualties of the war, a relief force under General Winfield Scott suffered dozens dead and hundreds deserted, among whom the casualties are unknown.
 * I have altered and referenced this statement. IvoShandor 03:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Black Hawk War was responsible for the end of conflict between settlers and Indians in these states.
 * Moved this one to the talk page, it just seems wrong and I cannot find a source on it yet. IvoShandor 03:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * In addition two teenage girls were kidnapped and held until they were ransomed almost two weeks later, and released at Fort Blue Mounds
 * The part about Blue Mounds.


 * Though the battle was bloodless, it was one of many incidents that contributed to the atmosphere of fear
 * Plum River raid and fear.


 * Arriving at Fort Hamilton on 16 June, Dodge gathered a force of 29 mounted volunteers and set out in pursuit of the band of Kickapoo warriors responsible for the massacre
 * The Battle of Horseshoe Bend was the first real victory for the militia and a major turning point in the conflict
 * The clash helped restore public confidence in the volunteer force
 * The Black Hawk War of 1832 resulted in the deaths of 70 settlers and soldiers, and hundreds of Black Hawk's band
 * Settlers numbers: update and cite

IvoShandor 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


 * All very good suggestions that are going to be added in the future soon. Ivo I know has been busy working out the battles and a few of the people, while I have been gathering sources for maps and for some of the other articles. Glad you started that article on White Cloud!--Kranar drogin 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Based upon what I have read there are principally five or six people who have shared the brunt of the historical blame for the conflict. First and foremost, Black Hawk, though his earlier lambasting in 19th century histories frittered away over the course of 175 years and he is no longer seen as the primary cause. William Clark supported a "war of extermination" during the conflict, and has been characterized as blissfully ignorant of some obvious points, that his experience should have taught him, mainly who goes to war with women, children and old people? John Reynolds and Henry Atkinson have also received a historical talking to. Atkinson, for his part, was relegated to frontier duty at Jefferson Barracks for the rest of his career and life (he only lived 10 years following the war). On Black Hawk's side of the conflict, historians seem to be in disagreement about whether he was intentionally misled by White Cloud and Neapope (it was White Cloud who "prophecized" the help of the Ho-Chunk and Neapope who erroneously told him the British would come to their aid). Either way, what they said didn't come to fruition and thus, they have bore some of the historic culpability.


 * That's the short of it, as I understand it, based upon the loads of research I have done thus far. As Kranar said, this is a work in progress, feel free to add underconstruction if you think it would help readers realize that stuff may be missing right now. IvoShandor 08:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

Teaching In Schools
I am a high school student thinking of majoring in history for college. I was wondering why high schools don't teach about these conflicts between the United States and the Native Americans. The major events are covered, but this more interesting wars, Especially the Black Hawk War, are not taught in high school (at least not my high school). 24.160.165.101 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think your question may be better answered at Reference desk, but I will attempt something of a coherent reply. There are probably several reasons that combine to result in the lack of coverage. For a long time many history texts have been largely biased toward a pro-U.S.A. view point, history has been glossed over, see Lies My Teacher Told Me or, for a more controversial take depending on who you talk to: A People's History of the United States. Another reason, is time, history is a topic with so much depth that a mere two semester high school, or college for that matter, course, can barely touch the surface of many events. The Indian Wars themselves are an immense topic, and comparitively, the Black Hawk War is fairly minor conflict, though completely and thoroughly interesting, trust me, I researched and wrote most of the content on Wikipedia concerning the topic. These are all reasons why this topic, and others like it might be lacking in coverage in history classrooms across the United States. Hope that helps. IvoShandor 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are really interested in the Black Hawk War, the page Template:Black Hawk War (1832), which is actually at the bottom of this article, has all of the related topics, don't mind the red ones, they will be created eventually, when I get to them, there used to be a lot more, so enjoy. :) IvoShandor 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blue Mounds Fort article
I made some minor corrections to the Blue Mounds Fort article, but no major changes. Is there any other changes that should be made?Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Two suggestions
Congrats on the recent GA. Before going on to FAC, there is a recent book on this war "The Black Hawk War of 1832 (Campaigns and Commanders)" by Patrick J. Jung which should be consulted and used as a source here. There is also the interactive map I have pasted here that shows the major battles, settlements and forts, and Native villages that is included in most of the other articles on the war, but not here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tks. Jung is already used as a ref and is in googlebooks. So I'll look at it more. I'll add the map, will prob have to cut a pic or two out though ;-(. ;-)  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jung is cited exactly once that I can see - I have not read the book, but I looked at the Bad Axe chapter and it had a fair amount of material that was not in that article. Adding material makes more room for images. Perhaps some of the pix could be moved to the Aftermath section, or the vertical format ones could be made narrower with the "upright" parameter. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I just started working on the refs, ref fmt consistency, and expansion tonight. It'll take me a bit of time but I'll get it done. Help is welcome of course!  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A map! How could I not have asked you to include a map? Great idea. And more text is of course an extra benefit.·Maunus· ƛ · 03:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oooooo. A GA now. Nice, I put a lot of work in on this one myself, way back. I have a lot of stuff compiled about the war and the various offshoot topics at User:IvoShandor/Black Hawk War, if anyone who worked on getting this to GA wants to collaborate let me know. I am very willing to help out in writing and researching.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm still working on the ref consistency. Then I plan to take a look at the Jung book, esp re the legacy section. Then I plan to have two certain people look at the copyedit for a FAC, then file a FAC.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 09:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In final stages of FAC prep now. Help appreciated.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look at it as if it were at FAC (or PR) in a day or two. Thanks for letting me know, will make the comments below. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

More work to do
I find it interesting that this FAC basically failed because the editors doubted the veracity of the sources, or that the "academic sources", as was put on the FAC, were read. I own the Trask book, and it is hardly the definitive history of the conflict, though pretty decent numerous errors have been found by scholars of the war. Jung's book is actually much better, I have read it but don't own it. I would be willing to grab it from the library again and do some future work here if anyone is interested. I wasn't around to defend myself during the FAC but I did the majority of the research and writing on this article, and was pretty offended that some editors thought the sources were just parsed on Google Books, which is nonsense, simply because the sources weren't used as much as they like. I wonder, did those editors read Trask or Jung's book? Probably not, but they comment as if experts. This is and always has been a major problem with Wikipedia, arm chair experts. Gah. And it's a big part of the reason why I have never put much stock in the featured article process around here. Anyway, anyone willing to help out? Maybe we can reach the arbitrary standards set forth by some person with no knowledge of this conflict. IvoShandor (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your defensiveness is understandable, but your comments are far off the mark. I urge you to reread the objections less defensively and take the comments more seriously. The FAC failed with good reason, and was an example of the process working correctly. The editor who nominated this article recently left Wikipedia after a plagiarism scandal. He had managed to get a poorly sourced article promoted to featured and onto the main page, using the same problematic approach to citations that he used in this article. This would not have happened had the reviewers of the plagiarized article examined the sources with the same scrutiny used here. He added one section of arguably plagiarized material to this article, which I have removed.


 * You appear to be unfamiliar with the term "academic sources". An academic history is usually a book or article written by a history professor or acknowledged expert and often published in a scholarly journal or by a university press. It's the type of source we should rely on the most, as related in identifying reliable sources: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." This excludes web sites like this, something the FAC nominator couldn't seem to grasp. People sometimes get the mistaken notion that good research is measured by the number of sources instead of their quality, and so we get numerous citations to web sites like this, and to old history books simply because they're available online. This is presumably why this article currently cites a biography of Winfield Scott that is more than 150 years old, rather than one of the modern scholarly biographies.


 * Given the relative obscurity of the Black Hawk War, it's surprising and fortunate that there is a good selection of modern academic histories about it. The bulk of the article should be written with citations from Trask, Jung, Roger Nichol's Black Hawk and the Warrior's Path (1992), John W. Hall's Uncommon Defense: Indian Allies in the Black Hawk War (2009), and perhaps Jay Buckley's William Clark: Indian diplomat (2008). A featured article could be written using nothing more than those books, the most reliable sources on the subject (as defined by Wikipedia guidelines). You may have read Trask and Jung, but the footnotes do not reflect this. Research must be demonstrated, not asserted.


 * The article needs improvement in areas other than sourcing. The lead, for example, doesn't mention Indian removal or Keokuk, but gives us irrelevant trivia like that Jefferson Davis became president of the Confederacy. The "Background" section is a bit of a mess, jumping from the Fox Wars to the Indian Removal Act of 1830 to the treaty of 1804 and then back to the 1820s. Because of the jumbled wording, the article incorrectly implies that the land that included Saukenuk was purchased in 1824. We don't have enough background on the intertribal warfare that was going on at the time and which was a major concern for everyone involved. The article has too many details about minor raids. (E.g. In 1910 a memorial to Durley and the Buffalo Grove ambush was erected by the Polo, Illinois Historical Society. At that time Durley's remains were reinterred beneath the memorial.) With such trivia, the article loses track of the main action, which is the pursuit of Black Hawk's band and the difficulty the Americans had in finding him. These issues, among others, will probably be resolved as the sourcing is improved. I'll be happy to help as time allows. —Kevin Myers 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/blackhawk/page2d.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. —Kevin Myers 03:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC), via Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232

Indian Removal and the historical frame of the Black hawk War
In the series of changes by User:Kevin Myers the article's explanation of the historical background of the notion of Manifest destiny and the Indian Removal policy of Andrew Jackson has been lost. This is not good - it is essential to set the Black Hawk War into its historical context to know the political and ideological background that the treaties and land purchases that motivated the war rest on. The section as it was was well sourced and can be read here in the version from october. That version gave a much better treatement to the demographic and legal-political background of the war. ·Maunus· ƛ · 03:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My revisions are not complete, so stay tuned. The version you like is, in my opinion, an inaccurate mess. An example from the "Background" section: "The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 26, 1830.[4] This led to the purchase of Sauk, Fox, and Kickapoo lands." This is a highly misleading statement. The source for footnote #4 is not really a source for this topic at all, since it doesn't say anything about the Black Hawk War. This is because the controversial treaties that led to the Black Hawk War predate the Indian Removal Act and Jackson's presidency. Jackson's policy really becomes important after the Black Hawk War, when tribes were forced to cede lands because of the conflict. All of this will become clearer when we have a more accurate and detailed "Aftermath" section. —Kevin Myers 04:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are definitely making improvements - that is not what I am questioning. I disagree that Jackson's signature in 1830 is not relevant - this is part of the political climate in which the Black Hawk war was fought. Sources do not need to adress the Black Hawk War directly they can also adress the general historical period. The concept of manifest destiny, and Jeffersons endorsement of moving indians west of the mississippi is a part of that. I think the current version fails to put the war into its complete historico-ideological background. The Black Hawk War wasn't just about some old treaties it was also about the particular political climate of the 1820'es and 30'es - Jackson's Indian Removal policies are definitely relevant also before the Black Hawk War. You are definitely doing good work - I just don't agree with your very narrow approach on this particular issue, I like to also maintain the big picture. ·Maunus· ƛ · 04:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your claim that "Sources do not need to adress the Black Hawk War directly they can also adress the general historical period" is a contradiction of the Wikipedia policy of no original research. Here's what that policy says: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." (emphasis in original) This is the opposite of your statement.


 * What this means is that we cannot add anything to the "Background" section about Jackson signing the Indian Removal Act unless the reliable sources specifically say that it was important to the background of the Black Hawk War. To the best of my knowledge, reliable sources on the Black Hawk War don't usually mention the Removal Act in discussions of the origins of the war. Hurt, in his chapter on the Black Hawk War in The Indian Frontier (2002), only brings up the Removal Act to note that it wasn't particularly relevant. He writes: "In many respects the Indian Removal Act did not change the relationship between the northern Indian nations and the federal government, because both had entered into cession treaties for a long time." (p. 165)


 * Your belief that the Removal Act was a cause of the Black Hawk War may be an error, but I agree with you that the article needs more background information, particularly on American policy. As I said, stay tuned. Some of the most important background information on the war has apparently never been added to Wikipedia, but will show up in the near future. —Kevin Myers 15:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are twisting my words. I did not say that the removal act was a cause of the war but that it was part of the cultural and political athmosphere in which the war was played out. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * John Bowes 2007 "Black Hawk and the War of 1812: Removal int he North" has the entire first chapter dedicated to the historical background of Indian Removal, including of course the Indian Removal Act. The chapter starts by quoting at lenght Jackson's speech of and ends by concluding that "Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in May 1830. The vote was a close one. Several congressmen spoke out passionately against the legislation. Thousands of American men and women also protested this decision to make removal an official policy. However, this opposition did not change the outcome. The federal government had the authority to negotiate with Indians for their lands east of the Mississippi River, and treaty commissioners could arrange for Indian relocation to the western territories. Support for removal had diff erent origins in the Old Northwest and the Southeast. Th e policy also had diverse impacts throughout the country. In the Southeast, the Cherokees led the most well-known resistance to land cessions and removal, taking the fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Throughout the Old Northwest, bands of Indians struggled to hold on to small pieces of land. Although some moved by choice, most were forced to move. One of the most famous episodes of forced removal occurred in the summer of 1832. From April to September of that year, a band of Sauks and Mesquakies attempted to defend their lands east of the Mississippi from the growing population of American settlers in northeastern Illinois. A 65-year-old warrior named Black Hawk served as their leader and their spokesman. The resulting conflict, known as the Black Hawk War, forced the surviving Sauks and Mesquakies west of the Mississippi and secured the region for Anglo-American settlement. By passing the Indian Removal Act, Congress made an important point clear. Decades of diff erent government policies and conflict had led to one conclusion. The United States and its citizens had decided that American Indians did not have a place in the future of the country. Instead, Indians needed to surrender their lands and move peacefully out of the way." ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * John Hall 2009 "Uncommon defense: Indian Allies in the Black Hawk War" Spends the first three chapters on describing the policies of french, british and american expansion and the Indian Removal policies from Jefferson to Jackson. In fact the book clearly frames the Black Hawk War as a part of the general Indian Removal policy - of which the Act of 1830 is only one stage. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You've gone from arguing in favor of an inaccurate version of the article (that claimed that the Removal Act led to the treaty that caused the war), to arguing that the sources we use don't really need to be about the Black Hawk War, to quoting extensively from a book written for children (Bowes), to characterizing a book that does not mention the Indian Removal Act as if it does (Hall). These arguments don't seem very compelling to me. If your main point now is that we simply need more information about Indian removal policies in the article, then perhaps we arrived at something we can agree on. As I keep saying, the article is far from finished. —Kevin Myers 06:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been making the same argument all along - you might have noticed if you had tried to actually understand instead of make some weird claim to ownership and twisting my words. I am talking about the removal policies of which the act is just one part - and form the start I have said that the previous article did a better job of setting the war into the political context of the 1830's - I stand by this. I am not arguing that that version was overall better. Yes, Bowes (professor of history at Kentucky State University) is writing for a non-academic audience - but he clearly thinks that understanding the indian removal policies as part of westward expansion is key to presenting the war for a lay audience (which is also what we are doing here). Hall clearly does the same. Hal does not mention the Act itself but he spends more than a chapter outlining the political discussions that lead to it. Clearly he thinks the political environment concerning the Removal policies are pertinent to the topic - denying that is only disingenious. For the record here is the entry under "Indian Removal" in the index of Hall's book: "Indian removal: Black Hawk War’s facilitating of, 2, 10, 126, 214–215, 237, 257– 263; Gaines’s view on, 116, 259, 297n79; Illinois residents’ calls for, 89, 214–218, 221, 225, 255; Indian fears of uncompensated, 8, 206, 213, 246, 249–250; intertribal pacification required for, 55; McKenney’s views on, 48; for Menominees and Dakotas, 207, 262; as national policy under Jackson, 71, 93–95, 116, 122, 150, 225, 227" - I think other editors should be able to see what this means for my argument.
 * I am going to leave you here to your own devices now and do with my suggestions as you wish. Nice cooperative spirit you've got there, just the thing for a collaborative encyclopedia. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If asking for reliable sources is ownership, and if insisting on no original research is anti-collaborative, then I plead guilty. All I've done here is to ask you to provide a specific citation from a reliable source for your assertion that the Indian Removal Act should be mentioned in the "Background" section of this article. Rather than concede that you don't have such a citation, you've repeatedly tried to get around having to provide one. Your use of the Hall book is yet another evasion. The point in dispute is whether he mentions the Indian Removal Act; I don't think he does. No one would even question whether he discusses Indian removal. —Kevin Myers 07:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

New book coming!
Attention Black Hawk War buffs: Patrick Jung has a new book coming out on March 4, 2011: The Battle of Wisconsin Heights, 1832: Thunder on the Wisconsin. Who will be the first person to read it and add cites from it to the article? You? —Kevin Myers 14:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)