Ann Durkin Keating

The Indian Country of the title of this examination of the early days of Chicago refers to the area between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes in which various Indian tribes coexisted with British, French and American fur traders. The author paints a picture that is nearly idyllic, with much intermingling and mutual profit. Like the native tribes and the trappers and traders who dealt with them, the author ranges throughout the region but has a particular focus on Chicago. Its transformation from a trading post to an outpost of U.S. military presence through the construction of Fort Dearborn set the stage for multi-faceted conflicts. Similarly, the author introduces a wide range of characters yet at the same time focusses on the career of John Kinzie, a major player in the area but also a figure whose own life was emblematic of the cultural crosscurrents in the Old Northwest. It seems to me that this regional and character ambivalence weakens the book; it would have been better if a clear choice had been made between these alternatives. Yet the book has a clear center: the evacuation of Fort Dearborn in 1812 and the native attack on the retreating garrison and settlers.
Keating has researched her tale well, but employs a pedestrian writing style, marred by a tendency to repeat herself by reformulation. Especially in the latter part of the book, the prose reads like a collection of index cards. Nor does it inspire confidence when the author prefaces her work with a timetable of events: If the best-known event on the list is incorrect (Washington was inaugurated in 1789, not 1790), what is a reader to make of the rest? She is also, to my taste, careless in her repeated reference to the death of Jean Lalime in an altercation with Kinzie as a murder. Kinzie was never tried; all that was established, as far as I can tell from the account, is that they fought, Lalime firing his pistol at Kinzie and wounding him, Kinzie stabbing Lalime fatally with a knife.
A more controversial question of terminology comes in the final section of the book. The author’s epilogue treats three themes: whether to abandon the term “Fort Dearborn massacre” in favor of “Battle of Chicago,” the related question of what should be done with a massive statue commemorating the event, and the importance of viewing the first generation of Chicagoans as emblematic of the diversity of a fragile experiment in co-existence. The most controversial of these is the term massacre. The author convinced me that to view this event in isolation is a serious distortion, perpetuating the indiscriminate retribution meted out by US forces. Its proximate relation to the “battle” (massacre?) of Tippecanoe the year before, as well as the wider context of conflicting lifestyles. In a development typical of the sad history of American expansion, the tribes were repeatedly pressed for ever more “concessions.” Lands on which they had maintained a semi-nomadic lifestyle were now viewed as “property” that could be owned and settled. The impetus came from the top down, from President Jefferson and his fellow Virginia aristocrat, William Henry Harrison, installed as governor of the region. Jefferson comes across as well-meaning, muddled in his intentions, and paternalistic in his views toward his “red children.” Despite his genuine interest in the languages and customs of the tribes, he was convinced their lives would be improved if they could be convinced to live like anglicized yeoman farmers. The Indians were however already advanced in their knowledge of agriculture — that is, the women were. Jefferson’s program to have the males exchange bow for plow were received as an attempt to turn them into women. A cultural gaffe with bloody consequences.
Yet even if one grants Keating’s contextualization, it seems equally misleading to replace the traditional denotation of the incident with the name “Battle of Chicago.” The garrison had clearly abandoned the fort and was retreating, after distributing everything save alcohol and gunpowder to the native Americans camped outside.
Despite its flaws, this is a valuable book to read. The long, tragic history of the native population following the arrival of Europeans from 1492 on can best be understood by reading careful accounts of encounters such as this. My takeaway: Rather than a “white” position or “Indian” position, the author is at pains to note that the decisions made by individuals at various crucial turning points were motivated by a complex mixture of individual sympathy or apathy, as well as layers of cultural allegiance. In recounting the aftermath of the attack on the retreating Fort Dearborn garrison, she points out that while the acts of cruelty, particularly in that many children were massacred, were shocking, there were also many individual acts of mercy and kindness that were instrumental in restoring the society in Chicago in coming years.… (meer)

Fourteen years in the making, this historical reference was developed by the Chicago Historical Society and the Newberry Library. According to the editors, it had to be one volume, no magnifying glass required. It was a tremendous undertaking and, of course, there has already been criticism over what's not in it. I have some myself. But you can't put everything in a "one volume, no magnifying glass required" encyclopedia! The good news is that the Chicago Historical Society is putting it all online, plus!

There's an index, a biographical dictionary, an index of leading businesses, census information, and other goodies. And for those who love encyclopedias for the opportunities for digression, this book feeds that habit with: most entries end with "see also" and "further reading".

At $65 and 6.7 pounds, it's cheaper than filet mignon! Treat yourself; I did!… (meer)