BS: Tucumseh vs Bush?

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 ....)