Chapter XIV: Foreword: By Rasmus B. Anderson (8)

We cannot vouch for the truth of the story, although it rests on better authority than most of the tales that are told about Lincoln. However authentic its details, it presents a trait of homely kindness, the possession of which constitutes one of the most attractive aspects of Lincoln’s personality.

THE PRINTING OF HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS

The last day of the year brings to hand the January, 1917, number of the quarterly _Journal_ of a neighboring state historical society. What the local conditions may be which render it necessary to be a year behind with the publication of this periodical, we are unaware. Reference is made to it by way of calling attention to a practice which is all too common with respect to the issuance of historical periodicals and other publications. If a quarterly must appear six months or a year late it would seem to be a fair question whether its appearance at all is worth while. If such delays are due to the slackness or incompetency of the editor, the proper authorities should apply a much needed stimulant. If they are due to conditions beyond the editor’s control, reform (in the quarter responsible for the delay) is still desirable. We suspect that commonly such delays are caused by the state printers, by whom, at least in the Middle West, historical publications are generally issued. We speak the more feelingly on the subject because our own Society is not immune from the criticism under discussion. The printer dallied for a year over our most recently issued volume, while it required six months to get a forty-page bulletin printed. It avails little for editors to be punctual and businesslike in turning out their work, if it may then be hung up indefinitely by the printer, with the editor deprived of any means of amending the situation. Quite possibly state printers are themselves the victims of a system the amendment of which is beyond their control. Of this we have no particular knowledge. Wherever the responsibility may justly be placed, the manner in which most public printing is done in this country offers a severe commentary upon our boasted American efficiency.

IS WAR BECOMING MORE HORRIBLE?

There is an ancient story concerning a grave debate indulged in by a group of English philosophers during the Stuart period over the question why a fish does not weigh anything when in the water. At length it occurred to one of them to weigh a vessel of water with a fish in it, and again with the fish removed. As a result of this simple test the philosophers were forced to seek a new subject upon which to exercise their wits. At the present time it seems to be generally assumed that with the invention of new implements of warfare and of improvements upon old ones the horrors of war have steadily increased; in particular, that the present war is far more horrible to those who participate in it than any of its predecessors in the history of the human race have been. Such a belief as this entails obvious consequences affecting not only the peace of mind of our people but, in the last analysis, the success of the cause to which our nation is committed. For if it is indeed true that our young manhood is going to certain death under circumstances more awful than the pages of military history have hitherto ever recorded, our willingness as individuals to send our loved ones to meet such a fate must be seriously shaken by the prospect; while, collectively, the will of the nation to persist in the war upon which we have embarked will be similarly affected. In a word, such an impression gravely threatens the morale of the nation, including both those who go to war and those who send them forth. That our Teutonic foemen have not been unmindful of this is amply evidenced by the new and hellish connotation which in recent years they have succeeded in attaching to the word _shrecklichkeit_. To German _shrecklichkeit_ we will pay our respects presently. Meanwhile we desire to deal with the question whether under the influence of modern science and invention the conduct of warfare has in fact become increasingly horrible.

SOME LEAVES FROM THE PAST

We believe it can be shown, on the contrary, that the direct opposite is true; that the warfare waged by primitive peoples and in ancient times was a far more horrible procedure than is that waged by civilized nations today. It may be taken as axiomatic that the horrors of battle, like the transports of love, increase as the distance between the parties concerned diminishes. All savage warfare, and all civilized warfare as well, until a very recent date, was waged at close range. In ancient and in medieval times men battled hand to hand with spear and sword and ax. The vanquished found slight opportunity to escape and the hand of the conqueror was stayed by no considerations of twentieth century humanity. The chronicles of the Hebrews, the Lord’s anointed, and the narratives of Alexander the Great and Julius Cæsar tell alike the same general tale of slaughter of the opposing warriors and the slaughter, rapine, or enslavement, as the case might be, of their dependents. In medieval times, it is true, under the influence of the institution of knighthood, certain rules foreshadowing the modern rules of war were developed. But these more humane rules applied only to the aristocracy, the commoner being excluded from their operation and benefits.

With the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries came two developments of much importance for their bearing upon our subject. The one was the application of gunpowder to the art of war, as the result of which war was democratized; the business of knighthood soon became as dead as Cæsar’s ghost, and as firearms improved, the distances at which opposing armies fought slowly widened. The other was an indirect result of the Dutch war for independence. Meditating upon the terrible brutalities to which his people were subjected by it, Hugo Grotius evolved the treatise on the laws of war and peace which by common consent has ever since been regarded as the foundation of modern international law. Grotius sought, in a word, to humanize warfare by securing the establishment by common agreement of rules calculated to prohibit its more debasing and awful manifestations. In the three hundred years ending with August, 1914, much progress was made, both along the lines laid down by Grotius and in other ways, looking to the minimizing of the horrors of war. At the same time, ever more ingenious and powerful death-dealing appliances were being devised for the waging of such combat as the rules of international law still rendered permissible.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANITARIANISM

Notable progress, too, was being made along another line. Humanitarianism in its modern connotation is the child of the nineteenth century. To feel distress over the knowledge that famine or other ill afflicts a distant people is a purely modern accomplishment of which our forefathers of two or three centuries ago were wholly innocent. As applied to armies, the humanitarian impulse has worked a startling revolution. Organizations designed to care for the sick and the wounded have developed on an elaborate scale. The Red Cross was called into being only half a century ago as an indirect result of the horrors of the battlefield of Solferino. It was born too late to have any share in alleviating the miseries of our own Civil War but since that time it has constituted an ever increasing agency for the relief of human suffering, whether in peace or in war. Even the “unspeakable Turk” has been infected by the virus of humanitarianism and the Red Crescent plays for the Mohammedan world the rôle fulfilled by the Red Cross among the nations of Christendom.

OTHER AGENCIES

The progress made in recent years in the fields of medicine and surgery has been no less striking than in that of humanitarianism; while the development of a new social consciousness (a concomitant, of course, of the humanitarian movement) has resulted in throwing about the soldier who wars for America in 1918 a set of safeguards, and in providing him with a degree of comfort such as no other warriors in the history of the world ever enjoyed. Against drunkenness and vice, twin plagues of army life since the beginning of the world, he is at least as well protected as is the civilian at home. Libraries and clubhouses and games and lectures are provided with unstinted generosity for his recreation and instruction. That his mind may be free from incidental worry, a system of life insurance on a scale hitherto undreamed of has been evolved; while the wife or other dependents at home are insured by the largess of a parental government against coming to actual want during his absence.

SOME FACTS AND FIGURES

All these things will avail little to comfort the soldier or his loved ones if it is in fact true that he is being sent to a certain and awful death--if his span of life, after reaching France, is limited to a few weeks, and after reaching the front line trenches to a few hours or minutes. Let us proceed, then, to weigh this particular fish. We can do it only approximately, for it is inherent in the nature of warfare that accurate, dependable statistics are commonly lacking, or extremely difficult to obtain. The testimony of such as we have, however, is all in support of the view that never before in civilized warfare has the individual soldier had so good a prospect of surviving the term of his enlistment and returning once more to the homeland as now. It is not contended, of course, that modern war is simply a pleasant pastime from which all will return unscathed, but merely that the current impression concerning its having become more awful and more fatal than in times past is incorrect. According to respectable authority the casualties in the entire French army in proportion to mobilized strength amounted, for the first six months of 1915, to 2.39 per cent. Since then the ratio has steadily decreased, the figure for the last six months of 1916 being 1.28 per cent. At the beginning of the war, for the battles of Charleroi and the Marne, when the French suffered more heavily than at any time since, the casualties were 5.41 per cent of the mobilized strength of the army. In other words during the period of greatest danger in the entire war but five men in every hundred received wounds, while, of these five, it is a safe generalization to say that only one died as a result thereof.

In view of the enormous numbers of men in the present war, the absolute figures of losses are appalling enough. Relatively, however, the losses are lower than in many previous wars. In no great battle of the war, probably, has the individual soldier stood so good a chance of being wounded or killed as did those--to mention a few cases only--who fought at Fredericksburg or Gettysburg, at Stone River or Chickamauga, at Waterloo, at Aspern, at Borodino, or Leipsic. At Fredericksburg, Burnside lost, in a few hours, one-tenth of his army, the loss in that portion actively engaged amounting to 16 per cent; at Gettysburg, in three days, one-fifth of the Union army and almost one-third of the Confederate army were killed or wounded; at Chickamauga and at Stone River over one-fourth of the Confederate forces engaged were lost, while the casualties sustained by Grant’s army in the seven-days’ wilderness battles amounted to the same appalling proportion. As to the Napoleonic wars, at Waterloo 40 per cent of the French army--30,000 out of 74,000--were lost in a few hours’ time; at Austerlitz, the French, although overwhelmingly victorious, lost almost one-ninth of the army in one day’s fighting, while the allies lost nearly half of theirs; at Borodino, in a single day, the victorious French suffered casualties of 22½ per cent, the defeated Russians casualties of 50 per cent of the armies engaged; at Aspern, a drawn battle, both French and Austrians lost, in killed and wounded, over one-fourth of the total armies engaged; at Albuera over one-fourth of the French and one-fifth of the allied armies were lost, but the British force, which bore the brunt of the allied fighting, lost 4,100 men out of a total of 8,000 engaged. In the present war, because of an unrescinded order, we are told, a Canadian detachment of 800 left 600 men on the field. But this is more than matched on both sides at Gettysburg, where with no mistake in orders one Confederate regiment lost 720 men out of 800, while a Union regiment lost 82 per cent of the men engaged. Sixty-two Union regiments in this war sustained losses in some single battle in excess of 50 per cent, a record equalled on the southern side by forty-three regiments. Those killed in action today are as irrevocably dead as those killed in any former war; but of those merely wounded (about four-fifths of all battle casualties) the prospect of recovering is incomparably better than in any previous war, while the prospect of death from disease incurred in service is likewise vastly diminished.

BRAVERY THEN AND NOW

It is a foible of most peoples in all generations fondly to picture themselves as braver and hardier than those of other races and times. So, in the present war, it is commonly assumed that greater demands upon the soldier’s fortitude and courage are made than in times gone by. In fact, however, bravery has been throughout the ages probably the commonest attribute of mankind. Soldiers are as brave today as in former times, but no more so. To contemplate a modern bayonet charge or a fight at close grips with gun-butt and knife is far from pleasant. But whereas such fighting is the occasional or exceptional thing today, of old it was the normal mode of fighting. The idea that combat should be waged at a distance was born only with the development of smokeless powder and high-power rifles. As late as Cromwell’s time the pike was the main reliance of infantry in battle. The favorite tactics of Napoleon were based on the idea of overwhelming the opposing army by the shock of mass formations. At Waterloo, for hours his splendid cavalry broke against the British squares, riding round and round at bayonet’s length, seeking to break their outer line. From fighting in the open in mass formation, armies have now largely taken to cover, even as the American Indian did; partly because of this, partly for the other reasons noted, the dangers and the horrors of war today have greatly diminished as compared with former times. Our people should be made acquainted with this fact, and both those who go to war and those who send them forth are entitled to such comfort as may legitimately be derived from it.

SCHRECKLICHKEIT

One general exception, however, must be taken to the comforting conclusions which have been reached. Broadly speaking, warfare among savages knows no rules and recognizes no limitations of action or honor. Prisoners of war may be slaughtered at once or reserved for the refinements of torture. No distinction of treatment is made between warriors and noncombatants. The lives, the liberty, and the possessions of the conquered social group are subjected to such disposition as the caprice or self-interest of the conquerors may dictate. Following in the path marked out by Grotius, slowly and painfully yet none the less surely, civilized nations have humanized warfare to a marked degree. The rules of civilized war distinguish between soldiers and noncombatants. The rights of the latter, both of person and of property, have been clearly established; even as between contending armies numerous rules have been established, all based on the general idea of regulating and refining war in ways calculated to eliminate its most horrible and debasing manifestations. In this work our own nation has played a leading part and the rules for the guidance of the Union armies adopted by President Lincoln half a century ago, still largely guide the conduct of nations in the waging of war.

With one awful exception, however. Moved by what atavistic influence we know not, in striking contrast to the trend of world development during the last three hundred years, the German government and people in the last half century have evolved the doctrine and subscribed to the principles of _shrecklichkeit_. As briefly characterized by Bismarck, this policy, or principle of conduct, aims to leave to the enemy nothing except their eyes with which to weep. It lays the ax to the very foundation of the structure of international law, slowly reared through three hundred years of effort. For the rule of right and justice it substitutes the jungle law of tooth and fang. Under its malign influence the whole circuit of the earth is filled with spying and treason, with fraud and strife. On the foul results of this policy, as applied to the conduct of armies, it is superfluous to dwell when addressing readers of the present generation. No sharper commentary upon the sad reversion of modern Germany to the customs and practices of savagery can be afforded than the fact that the rules promulgated by Lincoln for the guidance of the Union armies were drafted by Francis Lieber, one of the most notable men ever driven from reactionary Prussia to seek refuge in the United States. _Shrecklichkeit_, like revolutionary France in 1792, throws down the gage of battle to the remainder of the civilized world. In 1792, however, revolutionary France voiced the aspirations of the future against the dead weight of the past. Today imperial Germany challenges the civilization of the present and the hopes of the future in the interest of resurgent savagery. The world is too small to contain two such antagonistic sets of ideals and of conduct. Either Prussian _shrecklichkeit_ or the American ideal of order based on reason and justice must prevail.

May we acquit ourselves like men and carry the fight to the finish.

THE QUESTION BOX

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| _The Wisconsin Historical Library has long maintained a |
| bureau of historical information for the benefit of those who |
| care to avail themselves of the service it offers. In “The |
| Question Box” will be printed from time to time such queries, |
| with the answers made to them, as possess sufficient general |
| interest to render their publication worth while._ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

THE FIRST SETTLER OF BARABOO

I am not able to fix the exact date when Abraham Wood came
to Baraboo. What is the opinion of the staff as to the time?
He was supposed to be the first permanent settler. A line
will be appreciated.

H. E. COLE,
_Baraboo, Wisconsin_.

We appreciate your difficulty in determining the time of the advent of Abraham Wood on your river, because of the conflict in the authorities. So far as we can determine, the account in the _Wisconsin Historical Atlas_ seems to be the most authoritative. The sketches in this volume were carefully written, and were obtained from survivors then alive. According to that statement the first man who attempted settlement at the Baraboo Rapids in 1837 was Archibald Barker, who then lived at Portage. He was driven off by the Indians. Meanwhile the treaty at Washington had been negotiated, and there seemed more hope that a settlement might be made. In the spring or early summer of 1839 a man named James Alban discovered Devil’s Lake, and he went back to Portage and told Eben Peck, first settler at Madison. Peck had just sold out at the latter place to Robert Ream, and he and Alban set out up the Baraboo and marked out a site at the Rapids, including the water power. As Peck was going back (after a stay of some weeks), apparently he met Wallace Rowan and Abraham Wood, whom he had known well at Madison, coming up from Portage. They staked out their claim at Lyons, where Wood spent the winter.

In the meanwhile James Van Slyke came up from Walworth County in the fall of 1839 and determined to jump Peck’s claim. Van Slyke had had his claim at Lake Geneva jumped by other parties, and was in a bitter and retaliatory frame of mind. After staking out his claim to the rapids of the Baraboo he went back to Walworth and interested James Maxwell in a plan for a mill and persuaded him to furnish the irons and equipment. Van Slyke went up in the spring of 1840 and built a dam which was carried out by the freshet of June. Meanwhile, Peck had brought his claim before the court at Madison and obtained judgment against Van Slyke. The latter had already abandoned the enterprise. Van Slyke sold his irons to Wood and Rowan, who during the summer started a sawmill at the upper rapids.

There seems to be every evidence that the source of this account was the Peck family, who were in a position to know the facts. If this account is true, we suppose Wood might be called the first settler, since he remained in the vicinity during the winter of 1839-40; but no doubt he lived as the Indians did, if not with them, since his wife was a squaw. He was thus not much more of a first settler than Barker, Alban, Rowan, Peck, or Van Slyke.

To return to Wood. We are unable to discover when or how he came to Wisconsin. He was probably a free trapper or trader, one of the rough frontiersmen of Scotch descent from the backwoods of Canada. In the course of trade he came in contact with the Decorah chiefs and took to wife one of the daughters of the tribe. He had probably been on the Baraboo often before 1839, since his squaw’s native village was near its mouth, and there her father died in 1836. Wood was not then at the Baraboo, since he was wintering near Madison. He was not at this site in 1832, so sometime between that date and 1836 he set up his wigwam at Squaw Point on Third Lake opposite the modern city of Madison.

His neighbor at this place was Wallace Rowan, a rough, good-hearted frontiersman from Indiana with a white wife. There is a good account of Rowan in _History of Dane County_ (Chicago, 1880), 382-83. Rowan seems to have permitted Wood to place his wigwam, or whatever kind of dwelling he had, on his claim, which he entered with William B. Long in 1835.

Wood was on Third Lake during the winter of 1836-37, and during the summer of 1837 he aided in building Madison, being employed as a mechanic on Peck’s log house. It seems probable that Wood spent the winter of 1837-38 at the same place, as there is no record of him at Portage before the spring of 1838. Probably he moved away from Squaw Point because Rowan that spring sold his claim and improvements to William B. Slaughter. Rowan moved to Poynette and opened his noted tavern. Wood went to Portage, where, no doubt, he had often been before with the relatives of his squaw.

In 1838 work was begun on the Portage canal, and Wood opened a house of liquid refreshment just below Carpenter’s on the Wisconsin River. There, probably in the spring of 1839, Wood killed Pawnee Blanc, a noted Winnebago chief. Wood’s brother-in-law, John T. La Ronde, tells the sordid story in _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, VII, 360. He does not give the date of the murder; Moses Paquette says (_idem_, XII, 431) that it was in 1837. Paquette probably remembered that it was after his father’s death in 1836; but it could hardly have been in 1837 since Wood was then at Madison. Our inference is that the death of Pawnee Blanc occurred in 1838 or 1839. Wood was probably anxious to leave Portage at this time; moreover in 1839 Winfield Scott went to Portage and held a council with the Winnebago concerning their removal from Wisconsin. Wood knew the Baraboo Valley would soon be open for settlement. He persuaded his old friend, Rowan, to go prospecting with him. But on their way out they found Peck and Alban had been there before them. Wood, not wanting to go back to Portage, spent the winter in the Baraboo woods; and the next autumn (1840) with Wallace Rowan began a sawmill, as La Ronde states (_Wis. Hist. Colls._, VII, 360).

The foregoing hypothesis appears to reconcile all the accounts except Moses Paquette’s date of the killing of Pawnee Blanc. The record of Wood’s trial may sometime come to light. Possibly it may be preserved in the records of the court of Brown County, still kept at the courthouse at Green Bay.

THE CHIPPEWA RIVER DURING THE FRENCH AND BRITISH RÉGIMES

Within a short time we expect to issue a special edition of
our local paper that will cover the development of the
Chippewa Valley. It struck me that possibly you could
furnish me considerable data covering the early history of
this section of the valley.

AL J. HARTLEY,
_Cornell, Wisconsin_.

Probably the first white person to pass the mouth of the Chippewa was Father Louis Hennepin, who ascended the Mississippi in 1630. He describes the Chippewa under the name of Rivière des Boeufs (Buffalo). It is probable that in his time the Beef Slough was part of the Chippewa channel, and the present Buffalo River an affluent of the Chippewa proper. In 1682 La Salle wrote a description of the rivers of Wisconsin in a letter, the translation of which is found in volume sixteen of the _Collections_ of the Wisconsin Historical Society. He says “About thirty leagues, ascending always in the same direction [above Black River], one comes to the Rivière des Boeufs which is as wide at its mouth as that of the Islinois. It is called by that name owing to the great number of those animals found there; it is followed from ten to twelve leagues, the water being smooth and without rapids, bordered by mountains which widen out from time to time, forming meadows. There are several islands at its mouth, which is bordered by woods on both sides.” La Salle’s description was without doubt taken from the account of Hennepin.

The next visitor to this region was Duluth, who in 1680 rescued Father Hennepin from his captors, the Sioux Indians, and brought him down the Mississippi and by the Wisconsin-Fox route to Green Bay. Duluth has not left any description of the Chippewa.

In 1685 Nicolas Perrot was governor of all of this region. In the _Proceedings_ of this Society for 1915 you will find an account of Perrot’s experiences and of the Fort Antoine that he built at the mouth of the Chippewa. Perrot called the stream River of the Sauteurs, which was the French name for the Chippewa tribe, whom they first met at the Sault, hence Saulteurs or Sauters. Perrot seems to have been the first person to use the name Sauteur or Chippewa for the river. It so appears on a very remarkable map drawn in 1688, and now in Paris. A facsimile of this is in the Wisconsin Historical Library, at Madison, and a photograph appears in L. P. Kellogg’s, _Early Narratives of the Northwest_ (New York, 1917), 342. At Fort St. Antoine, Perrot in 1689 held a great ceremony, taking possession of all the Sioux country for the King of France. A translation of this document is found in volume eleven of the _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, 35-36.

The name of the river indicates that the Chippewa was the home of some portion of the Chippewa tribe. In the early eighteenth century this valley became the battle ground of the great feud between the Sioux and Chippewa Indians, which lasted nearly one hundred and fifty years. Much interesting material on this subject may be found in _Minnesota Historical Collections_, volume five, which is a history of the Chippewa tribe by a half-breed, W. W. Warren.

In the year 1766, three years after the French had ceded all this territory to the British crown, the noted explorer, Jonathan Carver, ascended the Mississippi and attempted to bring about a peace between the warring Sioux and Chippewa. The next year he returned from Mackinac, and with a stock of goods ascended the Chippewa River, at whose headwaters he found a Chippewa village of one hundred fine stout warriors. Their customs, however, were very filthy. This is, so far as we know, the first recorded voyage through the Chippewa valley. No doubt, however, many fur traders had preceded Carver, for he speaks of engaging a pilot to accompany him.

In the last years of the French régime there was reported a copper mine on this river, which was then called for a time “Bon Secours” or Good Help River. Carver calls it the Chippewa River. About six years after Carver’s visit a British trader named Hugh Boyle was killed at this river. See _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, XVIII, 312-13. According to the court of inquiry ordered by the British officials, the affair was his own fault.

The British traders continued to trade on this river, notwithstanding the danger caused by the fierce intertribal wars. In 1805 the United States government sent Zebulon M. Pike, a young army lieutenant, to ascend the Mississippi and warn British traders that this was then American territory. It became so by the treaty of 1783, but the British kept the forts on the Great Lakes until 1796, and all had continued to act until Pike’s visit as if the upper Mississippi region belonged to the British. Pike found that the traders avoided the Chippewa River because of the danger of falling in with war parties of contesting Indians. He passed the river’s mouth about dusk.

In 1820 an American expedition headed by Lewis Cass descended the Mississippi, and from that time on there were numerous boats going up and down. The first steamboat ascended to the Falls of St. Anthony in 1823. Some very early logging expeditions in 1822 and 1829 are described in the _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, II, 132-41, and V, 244-54.

The earliest permanent settlers were the Cadottes. See _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, XIX, 171, and _Minnesota Historical Collections_, volume five.

THE CAREER OF COLONEL G. W. MANYPENNY

Can you give me any reference to any publication or record
in your library relating to G. W. Manypenny, who was Indian
commissioner in 1855 and in that year made a treaty with the
Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin?

E. S. GAYLORD,
_Minneapolis, Minnesota_.

Colonel George W. Manypenny, who was Indian commissioner in President Pierce’s administration, was not a Wisconsin man. He was born in Pennsylvania, and appointed from Ohio. His home was in Columbus, Ohio, and as early as 1835 he was editor of a prominent Democratic paper at that place. His appointment was no doubt a reward for journalistic services during the campaign; but he seems to have taken his duties seriously and to have undertaken the rôle of a defender of the red men against the extortions of unscrupulous speculators. In doing this he incurred the enmity of a powerful political clique among whom was Senator Benton.

Manypenny went west in August, 1853, and made the series of treaties that opened up the territories of Kansas and Nebraska for settlement. It is claimed that he acted in the interests of the South with regard to the Pacific railroad. See Wisconsin Historical Society _Proceedings_, 1912, 80. In 1855 Manypenny made the treaty with the Mississippi bands of Chippewa at Washington, whither their chiefs had been conducted by Henry M. Rice.

Manypenny retired from office in March, 1857, and returned to Columbus where, in 1859, he purchased a half interest in the _Ohio Statesman_ and was its editor for three years. In 1862 he retired to become manager of the state public works, of which he was one of the lessees. His interest in the Indians continued, and in 1876 he was appointed a chairman of the commission to investigate the troubles that had led to the Sioux outbreak of that year. In 1880 he published a book entitled _Our Indian Wards_ (Cincinnati, Robert Clark & Co.), which is a plea for more fairness in the management of Indian affairs, and a recital of many of their wrongs.

The date of his death we have not ascertained, nor whether he left descendants. An inquiry of E. W. Randall, secretary of the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society, at Columbus, would doubtless put you in possession of these facts.

TREATY HALL AND OLD LA POINTE

Will you kindly advise me what “Treaty Hall,” La Pointe,
Madeline Island, stands for historically? When and by whom
was it built? Some say it was erected in 1836 and others say
1857 or 1858. The treaties were signed before the latter
date, so why call it “Treaty Hall”? Any information you can
give on the subject will be greatly appreciated.

MRS. FRANK H. JERRARD,
Representative St. Paul Chapter, D. A. R.,
_St. Paul, Minnesota_.

The information we have obtained concerning the building on Madeline Island now called “Treaty Hall” does not give conclusive proof of the origin of the building. One fact seems clear--the name “Treaty Hall” was not applied to it until the eighties of the last century, and the building was not put up to accommodate the negotiating of a treaty. Whether a treaty was negotiated in this building or not is another question. As a rule Indian treaty proceedings were held in the open air; if any covering was desired, a kind of shade was built of boughs, or a circle was temporarily enclosed with poles, boughs, and mats. Nevertheless it is not improbable that in the northern region of Madeline Island, with the cold winds from the lake blowing in, a treaty might have been held under shelter, and that some appropriate building might have been thus used.

There were only two treaties held on Madeline Island, that of 1842 and that of 1854. The former was concluded October 4, 1842, and the commissioner was Robert Stuart, who had been for many years the representative of the American Fur Company at Mackinac. He was at the time of this treaty Indian superintendent at Detroit. The inference is strong that Stuart was on terms of friendship, even intimacy, with the American Fur Company’s agents at La Pointe. These were at the time of the treaty of 1842 Charles H. Oakes and Dr. Charles W. Borup, both of whom were present at the treaty. Moreover, Rev. Alfred Brunson of Prairie du Chien, a prominent Methodist missionary in early-day Wisconsin, was appointed Indian agent at La Pointe in the autumn of 1842. He reached his post of duty very late in the year and says both in his printed reminiscences and in unpublished manuscripts in our Society’s possession that there were no agency buildings, but that Dr. Borup had a large storehouse prepared for a council.

With regard to the Treaty of 1854, it was signed September 30 of that year. The commissioners were Henry C. Gilbert and Daniel B. Herriman. Among the witnesses was L. H. Wheeler, whose sons are among our correspondents. H. M. Rice was likewise present. We believe the Minnesota Historical Society is in possession of the latter’s papers. If so, something might be gleaned from them.

COMMUNICATIONS

MORE LIGHT ON THE ORIGINATOR OF “WINNEQUAH”

As a medieval Madisonian, I protest against your summary termination of the activities of “Cap” Barnes at “1873 or 1874, perhaps later.”[127] He was positively an institution in and of Madison, and I positively remember him and his steamboat line at least as late as 1889. His steamboats, the _Scutenaubequon_ and the _Waubishnepawau_, lent new terrors to the aboriginal tongues. His later divergence to _Silenzioso_ bore witness to the liveliness, if not the expertness, of his linguistic imagination. No Madisonian of the Victorian age, so to speak, will recall “Angleworm Station” without a warming of the heart to the memory of “Cap” Barnes. His midwinter straw hat and his irrepressible gaiety are intimately associated with our tenderest Madison memories. Picnics? Madison was the home of them, and “Cap” Barnes and his steamboat, in combination, were preëssential to them. It was “Cap” Barnes who hit upon the first discovered practical use of the abortive capitol park driven well: “Pull it up, saw it into lengths, and sell it to the farmers for post holes.”

Statesmen, prophets, and nabobs, Mr. Editor, may pass into oblivion--but touch reverently on the memory of “Cap” Barnes. Madison would never have been the Madison of its golden age without him.

CHARLES M. MORRIS.
Milwaukee, January 7, 1918.

A HISTORY OF OUR STATE FLAG

I have just received the first copy of the new WISCONSIN MAGAZINE OF HISTORY, and think it a splendid idea. Of course, I have not had time to examine it carefully, but I did run across the short article with reference to the state flag, which seems rather to carry the idea that Wisconsin had no state flag at any time prior to 1913.

I call your attention to a letter written by me to H. W. Rood, Custodian of Memorial Hall, under date of January 5, 1911, in which I said:

In response to your verbal request of a few days since, I
have investigated the matter of the state flag of Wisconsin.