so, here's the thing. The more I read about the Black Hawk war, the more conflicted I get because I see a really strong argument for both sides. A lot of the problem is the Black Hawk war never should have happened, but it did and it was unfortunate, but most significantly many at the time knew it was unfortunate and were vocally critical about the handling of certain events. This is the 1820-30's keep in mind.
We look back at history a lot with a present-bias and don't always consider the context of how things happen. I'll try to give a brief summary of how things went down and why its so complicated. In 1804, there was an official agreement between Quashquame (hereditary Chief of Sauk Nation and the US government) called the Treaty of St. Louis which ceded an extremely large portion of Sauk land between the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. Like obscenely large. The Sauk would get $1000 a year in payment.
Black Hawk (not a hereditary chief mind you, it is important to recognize Sauk political hierarchy here) along with other influential individuals such as Keokuk always saw this as unacceptable and this was compounded following the unfavorable result for the native coalitions in the War of 1812. Black Hawk is very critical of Quashquame, even calling him a drunkard (which may be true). Black Hawk eventually earned his status of War Chief so this is an element of internal political strife within the Sauk Nation where people had to pick between Quashquame and Black Hawk's British Band which was quickly gaining momentum.
When Black Hawk decided to move back into ceded Sauk land with his warband, colonists were PISSED. They saw it as a legally agreed upon treaty that they were paying for and this aggression was unacceptable. Neither side wanted war, and Illinois politicians recognized the treaty was very unfair. They tried to reach an agreement but it was always dependent upon natives settling west of the Mississippi which Black Hawk couldn't accept. I want to drive home the fact that nobody wanted this war.
There were several minor skirmishes in the early engagements, but one of our most influential individuals of the 19th century, who was self-admittedly effected by these wars was none other than Abraham Lincoln, a captain in the Illinois militia. What he saw was massacred and scalped/mangled colonists following the Battle of Stillman's Run and wrote frequently about it's effect on him. The historical significance of the events has to be recognized.
Black Hawk was brilliant, to put it modestly. He continuously eluded the militias and really strained the militia system at the time. For example, Abe Lincoln went from Captain to Private because his enlistment ran out. Had he and his comrades not "re-submitted," there would have been no defenses for the furthest west settlement at the time (Galena). Additionally, Black Hawk somehow managed to maneuver his warband with accompanied tribe of elderly, women and children across the Wisconsin River at the Battle of Wisconsin Heights which leaves military strategists to this day scratching their heads. You can go there today, it's in Prairie du Sac just outside Madison, I suggest kayaking down the Wisconsin river to get to it.
What is extremely controversial, however is the following events. The colonists caught up with Black Hawk at the mouth of the Bad Axe River. It wasn't much of a battle but it was a massacre. Such that even people at the time wrote about how awful a site it was. They felt bad about it, which is a rarity in terms of colonial/native american affairs (except for maybe Jefferson Davis and his soon-to-be confederate butt buddies). It's evident this is the case because of the following news articles and criticisms the military and Illinois governor received following the event. Additionally Black Hawk's autobiography became a nationally best seller. Everyone wanted to hear his story.
So it makes sense that the 86th Infantry Division named themselves in honor of the British Band (and not ironically like some would lead you to believe). But at the same time... These people were massacred and we have a sports team depicting them in a very loose sense, where nobody really knows the true history behind the events.
In my personal opinion I am standing on the fence and not particularly leaning in any direction. What I do like is seeing healthy discussions such as this which create awareness to what the hell actually happened and how we should approach the issue.