Black Hawk War
In 1832, there emerged a brief conflict between the United States and the Native Americans. The dispute resulted from land ownership in Illinois which was initially owned by the Native Americans but the Americans signed a treaty in 1804 to be allowed to own the land temporarily. The treaty was signed by two spokesmen of Sauk and Fox without consulting the people. Black hawk also known as Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak, a 65-year old Sauk warrior, led the people of Sauk and Fox across the Mississippi river to Illinois to reclaim their land from the white settlers. The Indians wanted a peaceful negotiation but the American leaders labelled them as hostile and sent out the militia to attack the Native Americans who recognized themselves as the ‘British band’ and they fought back leading to the death of many Native tribe members. The British Band was defeated. The survivors retreated to Mississippi and the militia destroyed the remnants of the British band. Black hawk and other band leaders escaped but they were later captured and imprisoned for a year. This paper will show how the negative impacts outweighed the positive during the Black hawk war and the disadvantages of treaties.
Even though war might be seen as a way to provide security for a country, it may lead to lack of trust and confidence in a country. Some people also claim that war brings social freedom. However, fighting may lead to loss of freedom for the defeated team (Holden 58). The Native Americans had trusted the United States enough to the point of signing treaties concerning land ownership because they believed that the land will be returned to them. On reclaiming, the United States betrayed the treaty’s terms and declared war against the Native Americans who wanted peaceful negotiations without bloodshed. This led to the Indians forming the British Band to fight the United States militia and this led to enmity between the two groups.
People may argue that war brings economic benefits and provides great opportunities to own resources and political positions in a certain country. However, fighting may lead to economic depression in a country. Wars results to massive destruction of properties thus promoting poverty. According to Hall (42), a country invests a lot on soldiers during a war and the money comes from the citizens. During the Black Hawk war, the Native American’s intention was to reclaim their land and plant corns which could take them through the winter season. The American General warned the Native Americans against going back to Illinois because the settlers viewed it as invasion promising to supply them with enough corns for the winter. The Natives saw the only way to reclaim their land for cultivation was through war and they ended up losing the battle and their land too. They did not receive the food aid either.
War may be seen as a perfect way to solve conflicts between countries. However, the negative consequences outweighs the positive and many people end up losing their lives. The country that wins loses lives while the defeated country loses both lives and the argument. The conquerors gains power over the defeated country and they end up overruling them. The Black Hawk war resulted to loss of lives, loss of land and freedom. The United States gained power over the Native Americans, they banished them from their own land and imprisoned the British Band leaders. In his final days, Black Hawk never talked about war anymore but peace. He urged the Americans and Sauk people to forget the past and maintain friendship (Jung 32). This showed that Black hawk had surrendered as a warrior despite losing the land.
It is claimed that when people are united during a war, they emerge as winners. However, warfare requires more preparation with all the needed resources. Good weapons and enough food and water are essential to win a war. General Henry Atkinson summoned the Indian tribes to make war on their common enemy and having suffered in the hands of Americans, many tribes accepted the call (Hall 9). Despite being united, they were defeated because United States had a strong army and superior weapons to those of the British Band. They also had enough food to sustain them throughout the war. The British Band was weakened by hunger and death of its members and this made it easy for the militia to win against them.
Treaties might be considered as the safest way to protect a country’s resources when lending them to other countries temporarily. However, if the terms are not well analyzed by literate people who understand the consequences of their action, a country might end up losing its resources. Some countries use treaties to get through with land alienation in inferior countries. In 1804, two Indian Spokesmen signed a treaty with the United States allowing them to own the Illinois land in exchange for some money annually. According to Armstrong (68), the Indians of that land were promised a peaceful stay without eviction from the land and that they could still enjoy the harvests only to be evicted later. The spokesmen were not literate enough to know that the treaty would results to white’s settlement and reclaiming the land would be impossible.
Warfare might be seen as the best solution when countries disagree, but it never brings a solution. Enmity increases between the fighting countries and this may lead to underdevelopment as many countries depend on one another through globalization. Many third world countries depend on the first world countries for financial aid and if the good relationship between them is destroyed, it may result to economic deterioration, political and social instability in many countries.
Works Cited
Jung, Patrick. The Black Hawk War of 1832. United States: University of Oklahoma Press, 2007.
PRINT.
Armstrong, Perry. The Sauk and the Black Hawk War. New York: H.W. Rokker, printer, 1887.
PRINT.
Hall, John. Uncommon Defense. United States: Harvard University Press, 2010. PRINT.
Holden, Angi. The Psychological Impact of War. United States: Verto Publishing, 2015. PRINT.
