None but hostile Indians were about the fort, and if the young man was unknown and killed as related, he was certainly considered an enemy. If known as the adopted son of Black Hawk, then openly fighting the Americans, it was a fair presumption that he got no permission to hunt and was considered as taken red-handed. The community inside Fort Madison was in a serious mood those days and in no condition to receive Indians with rifles on advantageous terms. Black Hawk arrived at his village filled with indignation, as he has said. He was met by the chiefs and braves and conducted to the lodge prepared for him. After eating, he gave an account of himself and his travels, crediting the Americans with some valor and marksmanship. In turn, the village chief replied that with the absence of Black Hawk and his following, they would have been unable to defend themselves had the Americans attacked them. Not only had they been unmolested, but when Quash-qua-me, the Lance and other chiefs, with their old men, women and children, descended the Mississippi to St. Louis for protection, the Americans received them with every evidence of friendship, sent them up the Missouri River and there abundantly provided for them.
Black Hawk found on his return that Keokuk, during his absence, had been made principal war chief of the Sac nation, which so enraged him that I am forced to believe his attack upon that chief, which followed, was unwarranted, though he magnanimously concluded his philippic with the statement that he was satisfied.
Keokuk, chief of the Sacs, who was above Black Hawk in civil affairs, had, from reasons of polity or preference, maintained close and constant relations of friendship with the Americans and had prospered in the estimation of the latter. His rising fortune created friction from the first, then envy and finally implacable hatred on the part of Black Hawk, who found himself unable to combat the influence of Keokuk, either overtly or covertly, by reason of his incapacity. Instead of meeting Keokuk on terms as nearly equal as his intellect would permit, he invariably grew angry, allowed his baser nature to master him, and left the scene vowing vengeance on the victor. Had he been able to throw off his anger after a brief season, as many impulsive men can do, he might yet have accomplished much, but a yellow streak in his nature forbade it, and, I honestly believe, impelled the man onward to ruinous decisions in spite of himself. His melancholy made him churlish and revengeful, and consequently dissatisfied, unless punishing some real or imaginary wrong.
British agents could not influence Keokuk, whose temper was naturally amiable and gentle, and, if one wishes to adopt Black Hawk’s sarcasm, politic, too. He favored peace always. In a sense he was luxurious for an Indian, fond of pomp, and those attributes might in a measure have superinduced his love of peace; but peaceful he was after the fire of youth had somewhat succumbed to the influence of the whites, and so he continued unto his dying day. His oratory was so perfect, his logic so convincing, his person so magnetic and his pleas so engaging, that poor Black Hawk made a sorry figure against him, and, after a few attempts, dared never again appeal to the reason of his people against the invincible Keokuk.[[23]] As an orator, Keokuk had no equal among the red men, and the influence it acquired for him so rankled in the heart of Black Hawk that the latter could never overcome his hatred of Keokuk. Even down to the very last speech he ever made, at Fort Madison, he could not repress an unfortunate fling at his rival; and too bad it was that he allowed his passion to sway him from a plain and simple talk upon past or present events. The words and sentiments of that little talk were truly beautiful and had reflected much credit had he resisted the temptation to speak ill of Keokuk. His life was then ebbing away, and had that offensive portion of his talk been omitted, very many of his evil acts could have been pardoned and forgotten. His melancholy and his temper were his undoing.
CHAPTER VII.
Expedition of Governor Clark to Prairie du Chien–Lieutenant Campbell’s Battle.
During the absence of Black Hawk, in 1812 and 1813, Fort Madison fell and considerable trouble was encountered from Indians, but, whether Sacs or others,[[24]] the Sacs were never molested by the Americans. That the Sacs were unprepared to stand an attack was freely told him on his arrival, and Wash-e-own, who paid him a visit, was warm in his praises of American kindness, upon which Black Hawk scornfully commented: “I made no reply to these remarks, as the speaker was old and talked like a child.”
Such perverse assertions as this one, constantly recurring throughout his autobiography, are irritating to one who desires candor, and in the face of them it is difficult to deal justly in the premises without appearing almost savage. He constantly asserts that he never fought the Americans without being first attacked, yet who can say that the Americans had attacked or disturbed him up to this point? And how had the Americans disturbed him after his arrival home in 1814? His village had never been molested, though on his account it might have been with good cause. He was still enjoying the use and occupation of it, but, notwithstanding that fact, he was no sooner back to it but he began an organized campaign of bloodshed on the frontier. Like the torch applied to the dried grass of the prairie, the Sacs and Winnebagoes, under him, spread their ravages in 1814. British agents again had material to work on, and their machinations produced results, as the journals of the day recite.
Black Hawk stated that he, with thirty braves, immediately on his return in 1814, out of revenge for the murder of his supposed adopted son, descended the Mississippi, and that the battle of the “sink hole” followed. This would need to be early in 1814, whereas the fact is that the battle of the “sink hole” was fought nearly a year and a quarter after that time, and, what is more, after peace had been declared between the United States and Great Britain. Now if we cannot believe Black Hawk’s assertion in that important matter, which is refuted by the record, then when can he be believed?