BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?

Subject: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:02 AM

While this is probably old news for Americans, it's certainly one the strangest stories I've come across in quite a while -
Tucumseh's Curse

"The term Tecumseh's curse or zero year curse is sometimes used to describe a chain of events that began with the death of United States President William Henry Harrison from pneumonia. Commonly attributed to Indian chief Tecumseh (and sometimes to his brother Tenskwatawa, aka The Prophet, who was defeated in the Battle of Tippecanoe by Harrison), the "curse" is said to have proclaimed the death of all presidents elected every 20 years.

Victims of the "curse"

Indeed, all American presidents elected in a year divisible by 20 between 1840 and 1960 died in office:

1840 - William Henry Harrison, died of pneumonia in 1841
1860 - Abraham Lincoln, assassinated in 1865
1880 - James Garfield, assassinated in 1881
1900 - William McKinley, assassinated in 1901
1920 - Warren G. Harding, died of heart attack in 1923.
1940 - Franklin D. Roosevelt, died of cerebral hemorrhage in 1945
1960 - John F. Kennedy, assassinated in 1963."

Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980, apparently missed the "curse" by an inch - the distance an assassin's bullet missed his heart. And, of course, the article ends with speculation about the fate of the current President, elected (?) in 2000.

Well! Here I was all ready to order one of these this morning, (a "Days Left in Office" countdown keychain :~) but now I think I'll save my pennies and leave it all up to Tucumseh instead! Unless ... unless ... the curse might not cover rigged elections ...

Subject: RE: BS: Tecumseh vs Bush?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:20 AM

Not that nonsense again...

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:33 AM

If vengence boy is called to heaven, we will not be losing a great mind but rather we will be gaining a holy martyr.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 11:51 AM

gee Donuel, thanks for the foresight    :-/

Maybe Tucumseh knew that 200 years ago too -
Tucumeth to Harrison, Aug 11 1810

How can we have confidence in the white people? When Jesus Christ came upon the earth, you killed him, the son of your own God, you nailed him up!! You thought he was dead, but you were mistaken. And only after you thought you killed him did you worship him, and start killing those who would not worship him. What kind of people is this for us to trust?

Now, Brother, everything I have said to you is the truth, as Washemoneto [Great Spirit] has inspired me to speak only truth to you. I have declared myself freely to you about my intentions. And I want to know your intentions. I want to know what you are going to do about taking our land. I want to hear you say that you understand now, and you will wipe out that pretended treaty, so that the tribes can be at peace with each other, as you pretend you want them to be. Tell me, Brother. I want to know.

Were it not for the word "Brother" and the spirit behind it, I could as easily imagine that last paragraph spoken by an Iraqi or Palestinian leader today, as by the late great Shawnee.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 03:56 PM

That brings up something that I've postulated a time or two: If Gore should die while Bush is in office, will the Republicans concede that it was not Bush who won the elections?

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 04:25 PM

Otherwise it could reasonably be argued that the 2000 election was one in which no president was actually elected, and that should count as the equivalent of an elected one dying in office.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 05:04 PM

"If Gore should die..." nobody would notice

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 05:36 PM

Tecumseh didn't believe in the the torture of captives. But when Jacob Greathouse and his wife wete taken captive in 1791, instead of answering the question "What shall we do with them?", it is said that he turned and walked away without answering. What followed was decidedly unpleasant for Mr. and Mrs. Greathouse, but retribution for what they had done to Logan and his family.

Logan would have had more reason to utter a curse than Tecumseh, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:10 PM

while not usually superstitious, I have decided it's time to become a believer in.. Tucumseh vs Bush! almost as good as the Bush doll in the freezer!!

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:12 PM

"Tucumseh vs Bush?"

Someone makin' book?

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:17 PM

In April last year, in Colac in south-west Victoria, a group of Aboriginal people performed a ceremony known as pointing the bone at our Prime Minister, John Howard. To point the bone at someone is strong enough to cause death.

Still waiting on that one..

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:20 PM

I am NOT going to say what's on my mind. Nope, not a word.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:20 PM

No, no, no . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:24 PM

Ya couldn't get it outta me even with plyers.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:28 PM

maybe some plyers would do you a little good, B.

heh heh heh..

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:34 PM

Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:35 PM

here, pdq, take these, I'll hold him down...

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:37 PM

Be still my beating heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:38 PM

Sure thing, Freda...just tell me which one is the dwarf.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:38 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:40 PM

Vertically challenged, you heartless hind!

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:43 PM

Plyers sounds like the got something to do with tyres.

Are those stock 4-plyers or did you upgrade to 6-ply?

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: GUEST,paddymac, the cookieless
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:44 PM

is it pliers, or plyers, as of strong drink or other vices?

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:45 PM

NOT EVEN THESE!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:48 PM

Vices do kinda the same thing as pliers 'cept they're bigger and bolt to your workbench. Always glad to help.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:48 PM

OR THIS!

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:54 PM

Available on e-Bay.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:57 PM

Well, you ain't agonna git it outa me, either. I shall be firm, I shall not be moved. I am a rock, I am an island. I follow the lead of the late Bruce Murdoch, who once said, "If chosen I will not run, if elected I will not serve, so stop beating your gums and git outa here."

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 11:13 PM

never underestimate the Power of the Pointed Bone

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 11:20 PM

Yep, the late pugilist Moose Bedrock went four rounds with Tecumseh.

Six rounds with Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 11:22 PM

Ooops! That was six rounds with Anheuser Busch!

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 12:54 AM

Bush doesn't fall under the curse, IMO. He has to have been elected in 2000. He wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 12:58 AM

Or does being elected enter into the equation?

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:26 AM

what we need is a pragmatic curse, a bit like a virus, something that can attach itself to the right man at the right time. Is a cross between a virus and a curse a verse?

I, mother of the dead,
endorse you, George Brain-dead
as the bearer of my curse
through prose and verse
so that through endless time
you will be destroyed in rhyme


hmm . does a verse have to be good to work as a virus-curse? better leave it to Tucumseh!

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 07:17 AM

Opps...

I thought this was goiong to be about Bush not being able to get his log splitter engine to start back at the ranch seein' as a few have Tecumsah engines???

But this is about a "curse", you say???

Well, maybe the 100,000 Iraqia woman and ckids that Bush has offered up in sacrifice will keep the curse at bay fir him... But maybe not... In that case, don't let the door hit ya on the way out, Prezzy...

(But horrors, Bobert. Do you know how to spell Dick Cheney???)

Nevermind...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 09:54 AM

Y'know, I'd take that story about Logan and Mr and Mrs Greathouse with a big grain of salt, Rapaire. There are no less than 45 conflicting accounts of Tecumseh's death, let alone his life! They can't even get the date straight, although I think the truth is he died right here in Ontario, in 1813, near Chatham, in the "Battle of the Thames".

A few say his body was mutilated and skinned, which might be enough motive to utter a curse? But it seems more likely it was his brother, "The Prophet", who "cursed" the whites before he died at the Battle of Tippecanoe - even though even this account appears to have their names confused.

The Tecumseh curse story is retold by Donna Sands as follows: "After the historical battle of Tippecanoe in 1811, legend has it that the Shawnee Indian Chief, Tecumseh, sent General William Henry Harrison, via released prisoners, a message... a prophecy that history justifiably labelled, 'Tecumseh's Curse':

"'Harrison will not win this year to be the Great Chief. But he may win next year. If he does... He will not finish his term. He will die in his office.' 'No president has ever died in office,' declared a visitor. 'But Harrison will die I tell you. And when he dies you will remember my brother Tecumseh's death. You think that I have lost my powers. I who caused the sun to darken and Red Men to give up firewater. But I tell you Harrison will die. And after him every Great Chief chosen every 20 years thereafter will die. And when each one dies, let everyone remember the death of our people.'"


Well, there it is B - " .. and after him every Great Chief CHOSEN every 20 yrs thereafter will die". Maybe it doesn't matter how the 'Chief' was chosen - by the electorate or by machine.

I think freda's "curse" is alot more artistic though! Only problem is, freda, the curse is said to take effect only when Saturn conjuncts Jupiter, a planetary alignment that occurs every 20 years. So hold that thought .... for about 15 years ..... ;~)

And it looks like the Indians had a penchant for 'holy martyrs too' ...

Shawnee tradition states 'No white man knows, or ever will know, where we took the body of our beloved Tecumseh and buried him. Tecumseh will come again!'

"Morality is a fixed law, but each of us must be his own judge" - Pucksinwah, (Shawnee Chief, 1774)

Click here for alternative explanations of the 20-year 'Presidential death pattern' - all semi-convincing, except for the ballyhoo over the conjunction of Jupiter of Saturn. Some dispute this because a couple of the 'zero year' Presidents met their Maker a few months before or after the conjunction - BUT - anyone who's studied a bit of astrology knows that Jupiter and Saturn move so slowly that they come 'within orb of influence' (5 degrees) of one another many months before, and after, the conjunction is exact.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 10:10 AM

PS It's really bugging me that I spelled his name wrong not once but at least 4 times above AAARRRGGGHHH - and even in the thread title - AAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!! Sorry - whatever was possessing me yesterday, I dunno. Hey, maybe my fingers were "cursed" - I DO know how to spell it! Everyone around here pronounces it "Too-cum-seth" though (there's a township and two schools named after him in my neck of the woods) so it's confusing ....

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:30 PM

Daylia, while we may not agree on very much, you are totally correct regarding Tecumsehs' location when he died. His Indian federation had joined with the British to fight the Americans. During the battle the British ran from the battleground and allowed the Americans to drive the Indians away. Tecumseh was shot in the head during the retreat. I did some ancestor research back in Ohio where Tecumseh was born and every Ohio historian reflects this story.

(As far as "Tecumseh vs Bush", Tecumseh was a fearless and brillant leader and would have been on the side of GWB.)

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:41 PM

Guest 22 Aug 05 - 01:30 PM wrote "(As far as "Tecumseh vs Bush", Tecumseh was a fearless and brillant leader and would have been on the side of GWB.)"

Does Guest mean to imply that George W. Bush is a fearless and brillant leader??!!!

That would be funny if it weren't for the fact that so many people in the USA, in Iraq, and elsewhere in the world have sufferred, and are now suffering, and have yet to suffer because of GWB "leadership" or-perhaps I should say- the leadership of those who lead GWB.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 03:08 PM

Azizi - lighten up for crying out loud, life is too short to have so much one sided negativity. That is causing you to read things that are not implied.

Daylia - The history portion was right on as per your previous statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Kaleea
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:43 AM

I've heard the stories of Tecumseh since I was a little kid. I believe that the closest you can come to the truth is to listen to what the Shawnee people have to say about it.


Um, where might one obtain one of those aforementioned
    pointing bones? I've been thinking of visiting a feller in Texas.

            (just kidding! With the price of gasoline, I couldn't
                  afford the trip.)

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 09:39 AM

Daylia, Tecumseh was a briliant and courageous man. He did NOT approve of torture -- which was actually a cultural imperative a many of the Eastern nations vis-a-vis captive warriors.

Nor is the story of Logan and what happened at Yellow River in Ohio is doubt. Logan blamed Michael Cresap for it, but investigation showed he was wrong, that Greathouse and a band of drunken cronies were responible. The massacre by Greathouse, et al., sparked Lord Dunmore's War in the Ohio Lands -- Logan's venegance (and yes, Logan eventually was sated and died nearly forgotten).

Greathouse and his wife were taken in 1791; Tecumseh would have been about 23 at the time. Tradition has it that Tecumseh was leading the band which captured the Greathouses, and states that Tecumseh neither condoned nor condemned the slaying of the captives. This was taken by the others as permission and the Greathouses were tortured to death in a "dishonorable" manner in retaliation for the earlier killing of Logan's family.

This is not legend, but well-researched history taken from contemporary sources and interviews with participants from both the Indian and White sides.

(Tecumseh was also present for St. Clair's Defeat on the Ohio-Indiana border, the single costliest defeat for the US Army in history -- something like 25% of the active army was slain there.)

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:18 AM

Thanks for taking the time to explain this, Rapaire. There are differences in the way the two cultures related to their "Chiefs". For the whites, a "Chief" holds ultimate authority, is expected to give orders which the people are then forced to obey, whether they agree with the "Chief" or not. From what I've studied to date, it was different for the Indians. Their culture "sanctified" the individual, and no one - even a Chief - gave orders to another. A leader or elder was expected to share wisdom, experience, opinions, insights etc - but certainly NOT to give "orders". ANd even if such orders were given, it was no dishonour or "crime" for those who might disagree to do their own thing instead. Rather, it was expected.

In light of this, it seems odd that Tecumseh's 'permission' would have been required in the first place - especially over such a relatively common 'problem' as what to do about war captives. But then again, Tecumseh had formed an Indian federation the extent of which had never been seen before on this continent - so probably the customs and mores around war practices were changing as well.

Thanks for the insights!

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: pdq
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:19 AM

much more here

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:07 PM

thanks pdq. And Rapaire, if Tecumseh did act uncharacterstically by looking the other way as Greathouse and his wife were tortured and killed, perhaps it was because he was Logan's brother-in-law (at least according to one of the sources I've read today), and families were bound by honour and tradition to avenge their own??

At any rate, he certainly expressed different sentiments during the Battle for Detroit in 1812, according to this version of the story.

"Cf. Robert McAfee, History of the Late War in the Western County (1816), p. 272:

... The dispute between them had become serious when Colonel Elliot and Tecumseh came down from the batteries to the scene of carnage. As soon as Tecumseh beheld it, he flourished his sword and in a loud voice ordered them 'For shame do desist. It is a disgrace to kill a defenoeless prisoner.' His orders were obeyed, to the great joy of the prisoners, who had by this time lost all hopes of being preserved. In this simple act, Tecumseh displayed more humanity, magnanimity, and civilization, than Procter with all his British associates in command, displayed through the whole war on the northwestern frontiers."

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:15 PM

For a real thrill, check out the history of the "Battle" of Stillman's Run during the Black Hawk War.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Azizi
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:53 PM

Guest 22 Aug 05 - 03:08 PM:

Re your comment to me to "lighten up for crying out loud, life is too short to have so much one sided negativity", my response is that negativity is as negativity does, and IMO GWB is negativity personified to the nth degree.

As to "that" [whatever that is] "causing {me} to read things that are not implied", I'm not sure how else to read your sentence that
"As far as "Tecumseh vs Bush", Tecumseh was a fearless and brillant leader and would have been on the side of GWB" than to interprete it as meaning that you consider GWB to be a fearless and brilliant leader.

I repeat that that description of President Bush would be comical if he were not responisble for so much grief in this country, in Iraq, and around the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Azizi
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:04 PM

Hmmm, on third thought maybe your comment gave props to Tecumseh on the one hand and took it away on the other, for I'd have to question the intelligence of anyone who still supports Bush' failed war.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 08:34 PM

Tecumseh's war failed, too, Azizi. But we respect him as warrior and a leader of his people....

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: wildlone
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 01:50 PM

War of 1812

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 09:34 AM

and thanks to you too, wildlone. Very interesting! If I ever finish wading through that entire site, I think I'll award myself a honourary degree or something! But I haven't found your Battle of Stillman's Run yet, Rapaire ....

Oh, and just thought I'd mention that according to a couple of the articles I've read about that "curse", it's effect on Bush is expected to be at it's "most dangerous" in November 2005 and the few months following. But what I'm wondering is -- dangerous for whom?   

;-) Go, Tecumseh! (Or is it Tecumtha? - as it was spelled in wildlone's article)

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 11:31 AM

Well, it seems that Black Hawk and a band of about 700 folks, including women and children, left the lands they were supposed to stay on in Missouri (let's just say that the treaty signature was flawed and let it go at that) and headed for Saukenauk, their ancestral place on the Rock River.

Naturally, the Governor of Illinois called out the militia (which included a young fella name of Abraham Lincoln). The militia gathered at Beardstown on the Illinois River and then marched and rode towards Rock Island, a Federal fort and arsenal in the Mississippi (and now part of the Quad Cities).

Regular Infantry from Ft. Armstrong joined them at the confluence of the Rock and Mississippi rivers, and they marched off upriver. The militia cavalry rode out way ahead of the infantry, secure in their knowledge that the cavalry would win the war and everyone would be able to go home.

Black Hawk knew they were coming, of course. When the cavalry stopped for the night, about 12 or 15 miles ahead of the infantry, Black Hawk either sent a delegation or, some say, attacked with about 40 warriors. The records and accounts are kinda mixed up at this point.

Anyway, the militia saw an Indian or two. The pickets yelled that they were being attacked, fired a few shots into the air, and everyone in the cavalry panicked and ran like hell downriver and sheltered behind the infantry.

The Indians were both amused and amazed -- they wanted to give their families time to get to safety, preferably by negotiating, and here they'd won a HUGE victory (there was something like 1,300 militia).

This happened under the command of Colonel Stillman, and the creek upon which it occured was up to that time called "Old Man's Creek." The name was changed to "Stillman's Run."

As a former member of the Illinois National Guard, successor to the Illinois State Militia, I have to say that this was not considered the militia's finest hour....



That's sort of the gist of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 02:11 PM

Ha! That's a great story Rapaire - thanks so much!   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 02:30 PM

The followup is far more tragic. Black Hawk and his people skirmished with the militia and the Regulars across Northern Illinois and up into Wisconsin. When the Indians tried to cross the Mississippi and get into Iowa/Minnesota, the military types mounted cannon on rafts and shot them to pieces with artillery fire. Many drowned or were killed.

Black Hawk was an honorable man and a great leader of his people. He later wrote his memoirs which are available on the Internet, I think.

The whole incident, from the all-but-direct theft of the land to the killing of women and children, was extremely distasteful and corrupt. The Battle of Stillman's Run sort of epitomizes the whole Black Hawk War.

Lincoln said in later years that it was during his militia service that he developed his dislike of war and battles. He was never in combat, but was quite familar with the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 09:02 AM

Yes, his autobiography (or one translation of it) is online here.   

Apparently Black Hawk was with Tecumseh at the Battle for Detroit, consulted with his brother "The Prophet" before Stillman's Run. What's encouraging is to see the change in attitude toward him and his people over the last century. Compare, say, your own comments above, Rapaire, with this account by JA Atwood dated 1904:

The story of the battle of Stillman's Run, fought at Stillman Valley, May 14, 1832, between a detachment of 275 Illinois soldiers under the command of Major Stillman, and a band of bloodthirsty savages led by Black Hawk, the intrepid Indian chieftain, makes a thrilling page in American history; and the brave men who sacrificed their lives in that engagement are as worthy of the honors due to heroes as any who ever fell in a holy cause.

They were not banded together to win honor, or fame, led on by the inspiring strains of martial music and the shouts and cheers of the populace. They did not enlist because of their love for the "old flag," determined to carry it to victory against a foreign foe, but they did rally at the call of Governor Reynolds for volunteers to defend their homes and all they held dear, and to "coerce into submission" the organized bands of Indians who had left the reservation and were roaming up and down the Rock River Valley, terrorizing the early settlers of Illinois, and murdering men, women and children in their humble homes.

I have thought it not inappropriate in passing to briefly review some of the incidents that led up to the opening of hostilities betwen the Whites and Redskins, and the cause of the conflict known in history as the Black Hawk War.


Redskins? Savages? Murdering? Even "terrorizing"? It's good these biased attitudes are a thing of the past, but it seems we still have such a LONG way to go, folks. This is part of Black Hawk's account of the "Crane Dance" - his people's traditional ceremony to honour warriors, taken from the autobiography posted above;


"All our wars are predicated by the relatives of those killed or by aggressions upon our hunting grounds....

A warrior enters the square, keeping time with the music. He shows the manner he started on a war party-how he approached the enemy-he strikes, and describes the way he killed him. All join in applause. He then leaves the square, and another enters and takes his place. Such of our young men have not been out in war parties, and killed an enemy, stand back ashamed-not being able to enter the square.

I remember that I was ashamed to look where our young women stood, before I could take my stand in the square as a warrior. What pleasure it is to an old warrior, to see his son come forward and relate his exploits - it makes him feel young, and induces him to enter the square, and "fight his battles o'er again." This national dance makes our warriors.

When I was traveling last summer, on a steam-boat, on a large river, going from New York to Albany, I was shown the place where the American dance their national dance [West Point] ; where the old warriors recount to their young men, what they have done, to stimulate them to go and do likewise. This surprised me, as I did not think the whites understood our way of making braves."

Well, the "reasons" for making war haven't changed much - if at all -in 200 years, have they? Difference is of course, the wars against Tecumseh and Black Hawk, horrific as they were at the time, were NOT fought with WMD.

As a species, we can no longer afford to resolve differences, avenge relatives and incursions upon our "hunting grounds" via armed conflict - not if we expect to continue living on this planet much longer, anyway. We're ripe for a change. It would be wonderful if George Bush et al would catch up with the needs of the 21st Century, and make that change ASAP!

(How naive :-/)

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 09:40 AM

PS   Found this interesting little verse yesterday, sung when they dedicated the memorial at the site of Stillman's Run a few decades after the 'Battle':

"Dr. W. D. McAffee of Rockford, a veteran of the Civil War, sang in an impressive manner that inspiring song "Illinois" with the following stanza written for the occasion:

In this mound thy sons are sleeping,--Illinois, Illinois.
What they sowed we now are reaping,--Illinois, Illinois.
Dying for the dear home land,
May this shaft long ages stand,
Telling of that noble band, Illinois"

"What they sowed we now are reaping" ... hmmm. Eventually, we'll be able to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. I hope!

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 09:42 AM

I mentioned the land grab.

The Whites wanted the Illinois country, all of it. They forced the Sac, the Fox, the Illinois, the Sauk, and others over to Missouri but wanted the land "legal and proper."

So they invited ONE chief to St. Louis, told him that he was the Great Chief Of His People (the Fox, I think it was), got him drunk, and had him sign the papers.

Now, the various tribes did not have one chief, not necessarily even within the tribe itself. And certainly (as was repeatedly pointed out by the Indians) one drunk member of one tribe could not sign away all of the rights and lands of all the tribes.

Of course, it made no difference....

The Sac and Fox used to hold a powwow every year at Black Hawk State Park in Rock Island. I hope that they still do -- I've been out of touch with that for years and years.

The last time I watched my nephews and neices play "Cowboys and Indians" the "Indians" won. I was told that this was usually the case by the kids -- their father told me that they usually couldn't remember who was which after a while and so started to play something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 10:36 AM

Perhaps GWB is trying to "catch up with the needs of the 21st Century", Daylia. We have succeded in dethroning a Dictator who cared not about killing his own people be they his brethern or groups like the Kurds. Add to that the fact that he had no qualms about attacking and killing in nearby Countries.
While it is not as yet completely resolved, Iraq is a better place to live today. I know, car bombs, insurgents, etc. & blah, blah, blah.

As far as the references to "Savages, murdering, even terriozing", what would you call those who would sneak into your tent, Wigwam or Wickiup at night and scalp at random be they men, women or children, White or fellow Indian(s)?

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:01 PM

Perhaps GWB is trying to "catch up with the needs of the 21st Century", Daylia.

I hope you're right, G. But I really doubt it. In his own words, spoken just yesterday:

....Bush said the country faced a clear choice after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - either hunker down and retreat or "bring the war to the terrorists, striking them before they could kill more of our people."

"I made a decision. America will not wait to be attacked again," he said. "We will confront emerging threats before they fully materialize....

In a rare reference to the war's death toll, Bush noted that 491 guard and reserve members have lost their lives in the fight against terror.

"And now we'll honour their sacrifice by completing their mission," he said.


Sorry, I don't see much difference between Bush's and Black Hawk's justifications for war ... to avenge the dead and secure the "hunting grounds".

Except, of course, that Black Hawk and Tecumseh's people - and their ancestors from time immemorial - DID actually live on the "hunting grounds" they were trying to defend.

And, in the 1800's the "Chiefs" were generally dumb enough ;-) to wait till they were sure of a real, physical, materialized "threat" before they went on the rampage.

Also, back in those less enlightened times, usually when the dead were avenged, it was the real killers who paid the dues - not scapegoats a few thousand miles away (who just happen to be living on of the planet's richest oil reserves).

Just wondering, G - if you believe that the Bush administration was truly being altrusitic, (ie the reason for invading and occupying Iraq is to remove a cruel dictator and bring freedom and democracy to the people there), why then have they not acted just as quickly and forcefully and altruistically on behalf of, say, the Tibetans?   

Surely Red China is more of an 'equal', worthy, honourable opponent than Saddam Hussein, for an enlightened nation with the military muscle and political clout of C21 USA!

As far as the references to "Savages, murdering, even terriozing", what would you call those who would sneak into your tent, Wigwam or Wickiup at night and scalp at random be they men, women or children, White or fellow Indian(s)?

The atrocities and massacres were committed by both sides, G. So to accuse just one side of being "murderers" or "savage" or "terrorizing" is like the pot calling the kettle black. ANd in many cases, such as in the Battle of Detroit, the Indians were actually paid for enemy scalps by the white generals. On either side.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:11 PM

PS   I mentioned Tibet/China as an example, not as any kind of recommendation believe me!

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM

Once again, I did not make myself clear. I was not accusing anyone of anything, I was merely quoting you. "Murdering, even terroizing" was a statement made by you as if you aspired to the idea that this were an improper choice of words. I simply wanted to know if there was another description that should have been used. And I was not making comparisions either.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 01:32 PM

No, I don't think the words themselves were improper. But to apply them only to the Indians was, way back in 1904! And I'm glad attitudes are changing in this regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 06:20 PM

I just had an interesting converation with a friend stateside. She told me that when she was in college back in the early 70's, one of her English teachers, a history buff of German/Iroquois descent, told her about another clause to "Tecumseh's curse" that is not so well known ie

... the first president to survive the curse would be the signal for the beginning of the end of the legitimate government of the US. The president after that would be the final legitimate president; and after that, the US would be ruled by a band of thieves.

The first zero-year President to survive the "curse" was Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980. Reagan apparently had an astrologer working with him full-time, scheduling his affairs down to the minute so as to avoid the curse (and he STILL got shot!)

So, according to the lesser-known clause, that makes his successor, Bill Clinton, the final legitimate President. Clinton, whom my friend calls 'a reasonably competent president', was duly elected, then nearly hounded out of office when the Right wing entrapped him in a perjury charge over an extramarital affair.

Now, is "band of thieves" an accurate description of Clinton's successors? A LOT of intelligent, informed and concerned people seem to think so! In fact, the Oval Office itself is said to be one of the items duly "thieved"! Some say the only reason Bush avoided the curse in 2000 is because he was not elected but appointed by the Supreme Court. And, of course, the legitimacy of his 're-election' in 2004 election is still under dispute.

Still, there are many 'in the know' about such matters who doubt he'll make it through his second term, legitimately elected or not. And that he'd best be extra careful after Oct of this year.

ANd I still say - this is one of the strangest stories I've ever come across! So thanks for the opportunity to share these weirdnesses here (:-) and to discover more intriguing history in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 08:20 PM

I actually started a thread about this a while back--though mine didn't draw as much discussion as yours--

It is an interesting coincidence, but maybe not really--the fundamental premise is not easy to state, and, probably cannot be expressed in a simple, declarative sentence.--

Not all of the presidents died, not all were murdered, not all were even president in the years in question. It isn't even that every twenty years, a president dies in office--because other presidents died in office (or came near death) in between these deaths.

The fact that is disturbing is that such a large percentage of our presidents have died in office. I think that it would be difficult to find many jobs with a higher mortality rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: *daylia*
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 04:12 PM

Not all of the presidents died, not all were murdered, not all were even president in the years in question. It isn't even that every twenty years, a president dies in office--because other presidents died in office (or came near death) in between these deaths.

Only one, though. 7 of the 8 US Presidents who have died in office to date were elected in zero years:

1840 - William Henry Harrison, died of pneumonia in 1841
1860 - Abraham Lincoln, assassinated in 1865
1880 - James Garfield, assassinated in 1881
1900 - William McKinley, assassinated in 1901
1920 - Warren G. Harding, died of heart attack in 1923.
1940 - Franklin D. Roosevelt, died of cerebral hemorrhage in 1945
1960 - John F. Kennedy, assassinated in 1963.

The only other President to die in office was Zachary Taylor. Elected in 1848, he died in of cholera in 1850.

From what I've read, the "curse" did not specify cause of death.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: LadyJean
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 11:22 PM

But Ronnie Reagan, elected in 1980, alas finished two terms. John Hinkley tried to end his first. But That hardly counts.
Zachary Taylor wasn't elected in a year ending in zero. But he died of a stroke (or maybe it was food poisoning) while still in office.

Much as I admire Tecumseh, I would rather see George W. forced to resign from office after being caught en flagranted with Karl Rove and Condoleeza Rice, preferrably at the Watergate Hotel.

Subject: RE: BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 10:18 AM

Much as I admire Tecumseh, I would rather see George W. forced to resign from office after being caught en flagranted with Karl Rove and Condoleeza Rice, preferrably at the Watergate Hotel.

M'lady, you've got my vote!   :-)

And aside from the fundamental twistedness of wishing the worst on anyone, including GWB, there's 2 EXCELLENT reasons NOT to root for Tecumseh:

1. George is but a puppet. Those who pull his strings from the shadows would still be in control, and

2. What Donuel said. If vengence boy is called to heaven, we will not be losing a great mind but rather we will be gaining a holy martyr.

Hmm. His Holiness, Saint Bush.

(suddenly nausea overwhelms me ....)