Speaker 1: Yeah. It was the largest Indian alliance that the United
Speaker 1: States ever faced, the most effective, the greatest threat that
Speaker 1: the United States ever faced during the entire westward movement
Speaker 1: from the Alleghanies to the West coast. This is the
Speaker 1: second episode in our Two comes To series where we'll
Speaker 1: look at his life from seventeen seventy five through eighteen twelve. Originally,
Speaker 1: I had planned to title this one Uncommon Genius, which
Speaker 1: is what US President William Henry Harrison called the Shawnee.
Speaker 1: I decided, however, to use the declarative statement made by
Speaker 1: the panther crossing the sky himself in response to intolerable
Speaker 1: encroachment while many of his own tribe were leaving and
Speaker 1: heading west. Two comes To said, we shall remain. We're
Speaker 1: going to learn the details of Two comes Is involvement
Speaker 1: in the War of eighteen twelve, But most interesting to
Speaker 1: me will explore the worldview differences of the Indians and
Speaker 1: Europeans and how it was destined to fail. And we'll
Speaker 1: see that change is the only constant and predictable thing
Speaker 1: on planet Earth. I wish I had good news for you,
Speaker 1: but the waters continue to be murky. But this time
Speaker 1: with blood, I really doubt you're gonna want to miss
Speaker 1: this one. And suddenly, in the midst of the War
Speaker 1: of eighteen twelve, too comes. It becomes He's still an enemy,
Speaker 1: but he's an heroic enemy. He's a hero already with
Speaker 1: an American American hero. My name is Clay Nukelem and
Speaker 1: this is the Bear Grease Podcast, where we'll explore things
Speaker 1: forgotten but relevant, search for insight and unlikely places, and
Speaker 1: where we'll tell the story of Americans who live their
Speaker 1: lives close to the land. Presented by f HF gear,
Speaker 1: American made, purpose built hunting and fishing gear. It's designed
Speaker 1: to be as rugged as the places we explore. This
Speaker 1: is a very traumatic time for tribal people in Indiana
Speaker 1: because they see their lands just being overrun. And the
Speaker 1: Greenville Treaty, which assigned in seventeen guarantees to tribal people
Speaker 1: the northwest third of Ohio, but opens up southern Ohio,
Speaker 1: well the line doesn't hold. In other words, white settlers
Speaker 1: come in and then they just cross on their own
Speaker 1: and we call that now settler colonialism because the federal
Speaker 1: government doesn't have any authority to stop them. And here
Speaker 1: they come, and they're not supposed to be their hunting.
Speaker 1: They are hunting the game. Number of game animals declines.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a very it is a way of
Speaker 1: life that is is crumbling around them, and they're not
Speaker 1: exactly sure what to do. These lands are ours, and
Speaker 1: no one has the right to remove us, because we
Speaker 1: were the first proprietors. The Great Spirit above has appointed
Speaker 1: this place for us to light our fires, and here
Speaker 1: we shall remain as two boundaries. The Great Spirit above
Speaker 1: knows no boundary, nor will his people acknowledge any. Two
Speaker 1: Kumsa spoken to his followers in eighteen o seven. These
Speaker 1: words were his response to the settler colonialism breaking the
Speaker 1: Treaty of Greenville. They were definitive in certain words that
Speaker 1: drew a line in the black dirt of Ohio. Before this,
Speaker 1: he had been more diplomatic, more trusting of the Americans
Speaker 1: who set across the table, making treaties and drawing boundary lines.
Speaker 1: Two Cumsa was now thirty nine years old. His youthful
Speaker 1: zealousness had slowly transformed into a calloused and unbreakable certainty
Speaker 1: that would lead his followers into the most significant resistance
Speaker 1: to American expansion east of the Mississippi and ultimately lead
Speaker 1: him to his own death, which he would prophesy with
Speaker 1: his own mouth. Two cums To had told William Henry Harrison,
Speaker 1: the governor of Indiana Territory, that he and hence Otawa
Speaker 1: and their followers would abide by the treaties that have
Speaker 1: been made to date, as wrong as they were, but
Speaker 1: they would not yield another inch of land without fighting
Speaker 1: the Americans. And in eighteen o nine, Harry Uson, for
Speaker 1: his own political reasons, decided to negotiate another nefarious treaty
Speaker 1: for more land, more Indian land close to that part
Speaker 1: of Indiana where the Shawnee Brothers were then living prophets Town.
Speaker 1: And that was, you know, one treaty too many, and
Speaker 1: that drew more adherence to the two cumps and Tankat
Speaker 1: was caused Indies who otherwise we're not attracted by the
Speaker 1: religious message, but more so by the political military part
Speaker 1: of it. Oh my god, the whites are they're pushing again.
Speaker 1: They're pushing again. That was Peter Cozens, the author of
Speaker 1: the acclaimed book Two Kumsa and the Prophet. On part
Speaker 1: one of this series, we learned that two Cumsa was
Speaker 1: born in Ohio into the panther clan of the Shawnees
Speaker 1: under the tailings of a celestial sign. He lost three
Speaker 1: father figures to murder and war with the white trespassers,
Speaker 1: and his mother left him in Ohio and fled west
Speaker 1: into Missouri. His oh older brother chis Aqua, tasked to
Speaker 1: raise two comes To proclaimed that he'd rather let the
Speaker 1: fouls of the air pick his bones and be buried
Speaker 1: back at camp. Later he would also die from a
Speaker 1: white musket ball. These boys were fighters, visionaries, and loved
Speaker 1: the traditional Indian way of life. Two comes To shared
Speaker 1: and adopted father Blackfish with Daniel Boone and likely lived
Speaker 1: in the same village as him for several months when
Speaker 1: old dB was a Shawnee captive. While a teenager, Two
Speaker 1: comes To broke his leg hunting bison on horseback and
Speaker 1: walked with a notable limp his whole life. He was
Speaker 1: known as one of the greatest hunters in the Shawnee nation.
Speaker 1: In the guerrilla warfare of the late seventeen hundreds, he
Speaker 1: became known as an uncanny war leader, displaying skill, wit
Speaker 1: and bravery and nobility as he hated and disdained the
Speaker 1: torture of prisoners, which was common. Almost everyone that wrote
Speaker 1: about meeting Tacumsa spoke of his handsome appearance, magnetic drawl,
Speaker 1: and his uncanny oratory skills. Some believe evidence by the
Speaker 1: inspirational power he had over people, that he may have
Speaker 1: been the greatest orator in American history. Ten Squintawa, the
Speaker 1: younger brother of Tecumsa, had a transformative vision in eighteen
Speaker 1: o five and became the spiritual spokesman, the prophet for
Speaker 1: the most powerful Indian revival in history, persuading tribal people
Speaker 1: to return to their traditional way of life, for going
Speaker 1: alcohol and repenting of their white ways by rejecting the
Speaker 1: technology and culture of the European interlopers. It comes to
Speaker 1: join forces with his brother, for I mean a religious
Speaker 1: and political movement that united the largest inter tribal group
Speaker 1: of Indians ever assembled into a Pan Indian confederacy that
Speaker 1: stood against the young giant, the United States. This is
Speaker 1: all the stuff that we learned on episode one. General
Speaker 1: Sir Isaac Brock said this about two Cumsa in eighteen twelve,
Speaker 1: I found some extraordinary characters. He who attracted most of
Speaker 1: my attention was a Shawnee chief two Cumpsa, brother to
Speaker 1: the prophet who for the last two years has carried
Speaker 1: on contrary to our remonstrances and active warfare against the
Speaker 1: United States. A more sagacious or more galleant warrior does not,
Speaker 1: I believe exist. He was the admiration of everyone who
Speaker 1: conversed with him. Major General Brock was meeting with Twocumsa
Speaker 1: to negotiate an alliance with the British to fight against
Speaker 1: the Americans. Yep, our boy two comes A fought with
Speaker 1: the Brits against America. That's a pretty good way to
Speaker 1: get a bad name around these parts. But somehow two
Speaker 1: Cumsa emerged an American hero. I'm very interesting than that.
Speaker 1: In eighteen oh seven, though, two COMPSA it had enough
Speaker 1: and it was time to take up the hatchet. But
Speaker 1: even with that, to come say and thanks af how
Speaker 1: it knew they didn't have the strength to take on
Speaker 1: the Americans. They were not going to launch an offensive
Speaker 1: war even at this point, I mean they needed They
Speaker 1: realized they needed to help with the British in Canada,
Speaker 1: at least British arms and ammunition before they could begin
Speaker 1: to put up a credible resistance to the Americans. Fast
Speaker 1: forward a little bit more eighteen eleven, two COMPSA and
Speaker 1: William Henry Harrison had this contentious conference at the territorial
Speaker 1: capital of Vincennes. Two comes to reiterates his message that
Speaker 1: I'm trying to build a pan Ding alliance, not to
Speaker 1: launch war against the Americans, but to defend what is
Speaker 1: ours against any more encroachment byou. You're not going to
Speaker 1: break us up piecemeal like you have in the past.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, I'm going to head south
Speaker 1: and take my message and then of my brother to
Speaker 1: the tribe of the American South, the Chickasaw, the Cherokee,
Speaker 1: the Choctaw, and the Creeks, the great so called civilized
Speaker 1: tribes of American South, all most of whish numbered about
Speaker 1: twenty thousand people. These are strong tribes, he said, for
Speaker 1: the purpose of creating a united front. When Harrison heard that,
Speaker 1: I mean he had a real high regard for Takoms.
Speaker 1: In fact, he he wrote, was perhaps the greatest tribute
Speaker 1: ever penned by an American leader to a potential Indian foe.
Speaker 1: William Henry Harrison was the governor of the Indiana Territory
Speaker 1: and would one day become the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: On episode one. I ended with part of Harrison's famed
Speaker 1: quote about twakumsa. It's so good, We're gonna listen to
Speaker 1: it again, but this time in its entirety. I'll add
Speaker 1: that this was extracted from a private letter, so we
Speaker 1: can assume Harrison meant these words the deepest sincerity. I
Speaker 1: may make this a ringtone on my phone. Here's what
Speaker 1: William Henry Harrison said after his contentionous eighteen eleven conference
Speaker 1: with the with the Comps. The implicit obedience and respect
Speaker 1: which the followers of two comes to pay to him
Speaker 1: is really astonishing, and more than any other circumstance bespeaks
Speaker 1: him one of those uncommon geniuses which spring up occasionally
Speaker 1: to produce revolutions and overturn the established order of things.
Speaker 1: If it were not for the vicinity of the United States,
Speaker 1: he would perhaps be the founder of an empire that
Speaker 1: would rival in glory that of Mexico or Peru. He
Speaker 1: meant the great, of course, great Indian empires. He went
Speaker 1: on to say, no difficulties deter him his activity and
Speaker 1: industry supply the want of letters. For four years he
Speaker 1: has been in constant motion. See him today on the
Speaker 1: Wabash River and in a short time you hear of
Speaker 1: him on the shores of Lake Erie, or Michigan, or
Speaker 1: on the banks of the Mississippi. And wherever he goes,
Speaker 1: he makes an impression favorable to his purposes. The rest
Speaker 1: it comes in will be home the pioneering land us
Speaker 1: the room. Come now, who can sell the air and
Speaker 1: who can sell the sea? Who has right to sell land?
Speaker 1: It for you? And comes? Get the words of this
Speaker 1: folk song declare, two comes to get your rifle, Two
Speaker 1: comes to get your gun for on the field tomorrow
Speaker 1: you'll meet with Harrison. Now who can sell the air,
Speaker 1: and who can sell the seat? Who has the right
Speaker 1: to sell the land? Put here for you and me.
Speaker 1: This song is by the Tillers, a cool folk band
Speaker 1: out of Ohio. It's called two Comes on the back Attlefield.
Speaker 1: It's written about the famous meeting of William Henry Harrison
Speaker 1: and two Coomesa in August eighteen eleven. Harrison and two
Speaker 1: Cumpsa had a classically romantic but very real and bloody
Speaker 1: and not so romantic nineteenth century rivalry. They were arch
Speaker 1: enemies but maintain respect for each other. It was just
Speaker 1: a different time. I want to step outside of the
Speaker 1: Chronology of two comes his life for a minute and
Speaker 1: look into the Native American worldview. Having a view into
Speaker 1: this is essential and understanding the dynamics of what was
Speaker 1: actually happening when Indians and Americans met. Here is my friend,
Speaker 1: historian and Cornell University professor Robert Morgan talking about the
Speaker 1: way the Native Americans viewed warfare. The Anglo Saxons didn't
Speaker 1: see warfare as a ritualistic thing. As a spiritual thing,
Speaker 1: you fought until you won, and if you lost, you
Speaker 1: fought again. This certainly see it that way. There's a
Speaker 1: ritual and you know, after a certain time, you go away.
Speaker 1: That's what Cornstalk did at Point Pleasant. It's not at
Speaker 1: all clear that General Lewis won at Point Pleasant. It's
Speaker 1: in fact, it seems that Cornstalk and the and the
Speaker 1: Shawnees may kill more people, but they got tired of fighting.
Speaker 1: I mean, you don't just keep on forever, and and
Speaker 1: Cornstalk I thought, you know, well, I'm tired of this.
Speaker 1: I don't want to any more people kill or to
Speaker 1: kill more people. So they just conceded and signed the treaty.
Speaker 1: But it's it's not at all clear that they lost
Speaker 1: that battle. In fact, it's not entirely clear that William
Speaker 1: Henry Harrison won the battle of typical news. You could
Speaker 1: kind of argue the other way, but he might have
Speaker 1: just fought longer. Yeah, they wouldn't give up. I mean
Speaker 1: there was different ways of thinking of warfare. Wow. You know,
Speaker 1: that's what most confounds me is I try to just
Speaker 1: get a small understanding of the Native American worldview at
Speaker 1: that time versus kind of a Western worldview from the
Speaker 1: white europe Ian's. It was almost like two different types
Speaker 1: of beans from different planets were engaging with the cultures.
Speaker 1: It's very hard for them to mix because they saw
Speaker 1: themselves in the world in very different ways. The different
Speaker 1: ways these two groups understood warfare is a significant factor
Speaker 1: when the stakes are this high and immissible cultures what
Speaker 1: an interesting phrase. The word admissible means not forming a
Speaker 1: homogeneous mixture. When added together. Some of the greatest human
Speaker 1: tragedies of history could be linked back to this problem. Generally,
Speaker 1: people think that other people of the world view the
Speaker 1: world the way they do, but they typically don't. Per
Speaker 1: biological fact, all Homo sapiens share common ancestors, but the
Speaker 1: human diaspora across planet Earth created such a long period
Speaker 1: of separation geographically, it's as if it created a rift.
Speaker 1: Even as thee as the human soul, the mind, will,
Speaker 1: and emotions are known to represent what we call the soul.
Speaker 1: And I think if we mind into that statement, we
Speaker 1: find that the mind, will, and emotions of the Europeans
Speaker 1: and the Native Americans were very different. And I want
Speaker 1: to clarify that. I believe the human spirit is different
Speaker 1: from the soul. It's what connects us all and defines
Speaker 1: our humanity. Aside from the biological indicators, the spirit is
Speaker 1: our common bond. It's certainly what makes humans different than
Speaker 1: just highly evolved smart and monkeys. That modern trope is
Speaker 1: intoxicated with its own sophistication and fallacious intercourse with the data,
Speaker 1: making it unable to discern something that's undeniable and evident.
Speaker 1: Humans are different than beasts. Noticed I didn't say better
Speaker 1: by what system? Would you say one thing is better
Speaker 1: than another? Humans do live by a different set of
Speaker 1: rules than beasts. The human spirit, though, I believe, is
Speaker 1: at the core of it all. It's what connected Harrison
Speaker 1: and two KUMSA. It's wildly interesting to consider that the
Speaker 1: first Homo sapiens spread out of North Africa and the
Speaker 1: Middle East. Some headed west into Europe became the Chro Magnuts,
Speaker 1: and then the modern Europeans over EON's the pigment of
Speaker 1: their skin paled in some magic biological adaptive potion influenced
Speaker 1: by the long winters of the northern Hemisphere. Two Cumsa
Speaker 1: would later call the descendants of these people pale faces.
Speaker 1: In this diaspora, some humans went east, occupying Asia and
Speaker 1: eventually made an incomprehensible journey over the burying land bridge,
Speaker 1: and perhaps some by ocean vessel from East Asia into
Speaker 1: North America. The best guests we have is that this
Speaker 1: happened sometime in the vicinity of twenty thousand years ago,
Speaker 1: and this continent was inhabited starting in the west and
Speaker 1: moving east. Genetic evidence from archaeological sites and some modern
Speaker 1: testing on indigenous people shows links back to Asia. However,
Speaker 1: many Native American tribes have ancient stories of their arrival
Speaker 1: onto this continent coming from the south, and I don't
Speaker 1: dismiss their ancient arrival stories. Don't think for a second
Speaker 1: that we know all the answers of the ancient world.
Speaker 1: We just don't. The archaeological record in its most robust
Speaker 1: form is a dim record. I have tremendous faith in
Speaker 1: archaeology and science. I ain't no hater, flat earther or
Speaker 1: science denier. I'm just saying interpretation of the data that
Speaker 1: we have is just that, an interpretation and getting back
Speaker 1: to our human diasporas story, if you'll allow me the
Speaker 1: liberty to simplify a very complex story. A group of
Speaker 1: people split up and started on journey from the same
Speaker 1: spot North Africa the Middle East, but they headed in
Speaker 1: opposite directions on around planet. They met years later on
Speaker 1: the American frontier, with vastly different ways of interpreting the
Speaker 1: planet and what it meant to be a human. These
Speaker 1: boys surely thought that the world was flat, so they
Speaker 1: couldn't have predicted that they'd meet again. There's even Biblical
Speaker 1: reference to this problem, this idea of immissible cultures and
Speaker 1: the corresponding division that would produce difficulty in relationship. The
Speaker 1: story of the Tower of Babel tells of men beginning
Speaker 1: to work together with such effectiveness they believed they could
Speaker 1: build a tower that reached heaven. They spoke the same
Speaker 1: language and exemplified great power. Their ego swelled to destructive
Speaker 1: levels so God scrambled their language so they could no
Speaker 1: longer collaborate. The strategy used to divide people was to
Speaker 1: crash their communication. That's important on the American Frontier two.
Speaker 1: It's believed there are six thousand languages spoken today on
Speaker 1: planet Earth. The Shawnee language is one of them. You'll
Speaker 1: remember Chief Ben Barnes from the last episode. He's essentially
Speaker 1: the president of a functional and sovereign Indian nation today.
Speaker 1: I want to ask him about the Shawnee worldview, and
Speaker 1: he immediately takes it right back to language. What's the
Speaker 1: biggest difference in the Shawnee Indigenous worldview from classic Western thinker.
Speaker 1: I have thought about that question too, So I didn't
Speaker 1: start out. I had no desire to be chief at
Speaker 1: the Shawnee, which is a place that I found myself
Speaker 1: in and I thought, well, I think I have something
Speaker 1: that I can you contribute here. And I found myself
Speaker 1: in the right time when our former chief retired to
Speaker 1: step into that role. But before that, my brother and
Speaker 1: I was volunteering running the Shawnee Tribes language program. It
Speaker 1: was those years of teaching language that I started to
Speaker 1: understand how Shawnee is different and why it's different. So
Speaker 1: in English and a lot of European language, you have
Speaker 1: this subject verb relationship, that subject verb rightship is you
Speaker 1: have a subject verb object. It's always subject object, almost
Speaker 1: exclusively subject verb object here in North America and well
Speaker 1: Central America too, you know, you know, in most of
Speaker 1: the languages of this hemisphere, whereas the noun has primacy
Speaker 1: in European languages, and that the subject. You want to
Speaker 1: tell about the subject, the subject what it did, and
Speaker 1: that becomes your framework of understanding. It's always related to
Speaker 1: the subject, and then all this other stuff. In Shawnee language,
Speaker 1: the verb is the center of the universe. It's not
Speaker 1: important who did it yet. Yeah, So the way you
Speaker 1: frame your sentences, the way that you talk is centered
Speaker 1: around that verb. Can you give me? Can you give
Speaker 1: me an example? Example that I use is like, uh,
Speaker 1: if there was an older there's an older lady. She
Speaker 1: had always come to language class. She had better tendants
Speaker 1: than even INTI instructors did. Her name was Rosa May Peterson,
Speaker 1: and Rosa May. She would come to classes. And so
Speaker 1: if Rosa was to cook a traditional dish corn soup dish,
Speaker 1: and I'll speak in English for this. So if Rosa
Speaker 1: was to speak this the way I would say it,
Speaker 1: and Shawnee would be cooked corn soup? Did rosame Peterson?
Speaker 1: So I'm telling you that she cooked? And then why
Speaker 1: did she cook? Oh, corn soup? I like corn soup.
Speaker 1: Someone to put that at first, because it's important what
Speaker 1: she cooked. Then who cooked it? So what who cooked?
Speaker 1: It's no big deal. But if my daughter, if I
Speaker 1: could say my five year old daughter had cooked it,
Speaker 1: I would want to make sure that that was the
Speaker 1: most important part of the story. You know, Brianna cooked
Speaker 1: corn soup. So now I have this, She's like, can
Speaker 1: you believe that? So the way that that when I
Speaker 1: tell that to you, really she cooked that. So you
Speaker 1: understand there's a different emphasis. Now it's changing the episodes
Speaker 1: like this is exceptional because occurred before the verb. So
Speaker 1: what I just told you that was in front of
Speaker 1: that verb is the most important thing what I'm telling you.
Speaker 1: So if i'm if you're coming to me and negotiating
Speaker 1: a treaty and we're talking about what what the terms
Speaker 1: are and what's going to happen, I am looking at
Speaker 1: the verbs and you're looking for nowns. So it's in
Speaker 1: the way that the things are being said are important.
Speaker 1: The order that things are being said is what's important.
Speaker 1: So that's a different worldview. You ought to just rewiden
Speaker 1: the tape and listen to that section again. It makes
Speaker 1: my gears spend backwards to realize how complex the situation was.
Speaker 1: These people didn't understand each other. The structure of our
Speaker 1: language displays our value system. In the Shawnee world, who
Speaker 1: did something wasn't as important as what actually was done.
Speaker 1: The individual is minimized and the community is the focus.
Speaker 1: To Westerners, who did it is most important. But there's more.
Speaker 1: That's a great answer to that question. It just gives
Speaker 1: a window. And sometimes things as complex as that original question,
Speaker 1: sometimes you just get one little example and you kind
Speaker 1: to see it. But from that you can see kind
Speaker 1: of the core emphasis of the people was not so
Speaker 1: me or I or person. You just hit the actual
Speaker 1: center of the bulls on this one because it centers
Speaker 1: the community. Your community has primacy. Community has primacy working
Speaker 1: from that Shawnee language framework, right whereas in other society
Speaker 1: that's you know, now intruded on North American thought processes,
Speaker 1: it becomes more into individualistic, I think, which is really
Speaker 1: intriguing right now in the times we live in where
Speaker 1: we seems like we have lost our sense of identity
Speaker 1: in terms of like our community. Right, it's like that
Speaker 1: you've seen this weakness, of weakness of belonging to community,
Speaker 1: and I think these little devices that we all all
Speaker 1: carry that further divorced us from senses of phon he's
Speaker 1: got his phone of community. Yeah, Chief Ben Barnes is
Speaker 1: shaking his phone in his hand to make a point
Speaker 1: that our cell phones are disrupting traditional community. It's definitely
Speaker 1: an interesting idea. Here's another though very interesting component of
Speaker 1: Shawnee language and some of the indigenous languages. There was
Speaker 1: no word for animal that separated man. There were just
Speaker 1: living beings. Is that? Is that true? In the Johnny
Speaker 1: language there is terms of animasy, and in animassy there
Speaker 1: are certain things that have animacy. When you speak about them,
Speaker 1: I would speak about them as individuals, much like I
Speaker 1: would speak about you, right, speak about you. So I
Speaker 1: would refer to them as human, not not humans, but
Speaker 1: as co living beings, and so they would occupy the
Speaker 1: same space in the landscape as I do. So this
Speaker 1: idea that we have from you know, uh, those of
Speaker 1: us brought up in Judeo Christian communities about how I
Speaker 1: Adam has stewardship over animals, you know, where he has
Speaker 1: some sort of that. It already builds this framework in
Speaker 1: your mind of some sort of organizational chart with Adam
Speaker 1: at the head and all these other animals and in
Speaker 1: the less round. No, this is totally different imaginal imaginal
Speaker 1: line stretched out to infinity, and humans and ants and
Speaker 1: bees and everything else is all in the same line.
Speaker 1: So they all have that same place of animacy. They
Speaker 1: all have the same ranking under the eyes of God.
Speaker 1: That's very interesting and helps me make sense of their
Speaker 1: land ethic and how that overlapped with animals. Here's Robert
Speaker 1: Morgan with a powerful aside on a fundamental difference between
Speaker 1: European and Native American world views. But deep in in
Speaker 1: the Indian culture were things that the white people simply
Speaker 1: could not understand, and one was identity. Everybody was a
Speaker 1: human being, and they were more like in the Indian
Speaker 1: concept than they were different, so that in the same
Speaker 1: village you know of Ka Chillicotte, you could have from
Speaker 1: Mingos and some Delawares and some Cherokees, and they might
Speaker 1: even spoke different languages, but they were all together everybody,
Speaker 1: you know, the human beings and the white people could
Speaker 1: they could be, through a certain ceremony, become a Shawnee Cherokee.
Speaker 1: I mean Boone was a Shawnee. He was always a Shawnee,
Speaker 1: and when he moved to Missouri he would see his relatives.
Speaker 1: There is a very different sense of identity. When they
Speaker 1: did the cleansing of a white person to adopt him
Speaker 1: into a Native American tribe, they really believed it. I mean,
Speaker 1: it wasn't just we're just gonna do this whole thing,
Speaker 1: and this guy is gonna work for us and help us,
Speaker 1: but he's always going to be the white guy. It's
Speaker 1: convincing that they really brought them into their families and
Speaker 1: it was just like, this is one of us. The
Speaker 1: Indians saw people defined by likeness, and European people saw
Speaker 1: them defined by difference because they had that analytical scientific
Speaker 1: mind where you separate things categories. Back to Aristotle, you
Speaker 1: define things by difference. This is this and that is that.
Speaker 1: And the Indians thought metaphorically how things were like the
Speaker 1: similarities to try to divide it. So this this is
Speaker 1: a real you know, disadvantage of of Indians against these
Speaker 1: Europeans that come in there and you know, as you
Speaker 1: as you're telling me that, it's like my mind is
Speaker 1: spinning backwards, trying too clearly when you're talking about human beings.
Speaker 1: The Native American the way they viewed humans was superior
Speaker 1: way in many ways to see a person as as
Speaker 1: a human being. They weren't looking for difference and then
Speaker 1: and but then in other parts, you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: it just makes And maybe I'm saying this because I
Speaker 1: am of white European descent to categorize things and to
Speaker 1: think about things scientifically, and it's you know, that seems
Speaker 1: like just a natural way to progress inside of the world.
Speaker 1: I'm just it's it's it's almost confusing, even though it
Speaker 1: makes perfect sense, and it just it just feels like
Speaker 1: such a set up for for failure of of that society.
Speaker 1: For other people who think that civilization has been declining
Speaker 1: ever since the Stone Age, over the Indians was still
Speaker 1: in the Stone Age, and they thought of the world
Speaker 1: metaphorically that they could see person and son like they've
Speaker 1: given a name, that things were connect. So what we
Speaker 1: perceive as an increase in society and civilization, like we're
Speaker 1: sitting here now thinking we're way better off than them,
Speaker 1: But maybe we aren't quite possibly that. You know, when
Speaker 1: people started cultivating land, they began a decline. As opposed
Speaker 1: to the hunter gatherers, they didn't have hierarchies in the
Speaker 1: same way that if you have a cultivated land, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have a town. You have a town, you've got
Speaker 1: to have a temple, you gotta have a statue, and
Speaker 1: you've gotta have a hierarchy. You're gonna have somebody in charge,
Speaker 1: you have orders, and you define everything by difference. He's
Speaker 1: a he's a colonel, he's a major, he's a landowner,
Speaker 1: he's not. I'm not saying that's right, but it is
Speaker 1: a theory that, yeah, since the Stone Age and the
Speaker 1: age of hunter gatherers, there's been a decline in the
Speaker 1: moral world. Since the Stone Age, the moral gauge of
Speaker 1: the world has been declining, but it's camouflaged by the
Speaker 1: increase in technology and knowledge, falsely making us think we're
Speaker 1: actually getting better. I'm pretty sure our old boy Robert
Speaker 1: Morgan just articulated for me a core message inside of
Speaker 1: the Bear Grease ethos, and in a practical way, this
Speaker 1: helps me understand the radically different ways of thinking between
Speaker 1: these two different groups of people. We're going to get
Speaker 1: back to Chief Ben Barnes. One of his main objectives
Speaker 1: as leader of the Shawneese is to preserve their language.
Speaker 1: Today they are less than two hundred and fifty people
Speaker 1: that speak Shawnee. He told me. There are six thousand
Speaker 1: languages on the earth today, and by the year one
Speaker 1: hundred they estimate that only two hundred and fifty will remain.
Speaker 1: He said, every two weeks of language dies and mono
Speaker 1: lingual speakers have a hard time understanding why this matters.
Speaker 1: But other languages shape our ability to understand the world.
Speaker 1: There are things happening in our lives and on this
Speaker 1: planet that the English language doesn't have the words to
Speaker 1: describe or understand that other languages might. That's a really
Speaker 1: wild idea that makes me wonder what mono lingual people
Speaker 1: are missing. It's mind boggling. I really wish there was
Speaker 1: a way we could help Chief Ben Barnes and the
Speaker 1: Shawnees save their language. This language carried a man two
Speaker 1: Kumpsa that is believed to be one of the greatest
Speaker 1: orators in American history. What did those guys here that
Speaker 1: was locked inside of this Shawnee language? What mysteries lie
Speaker 1: hidden within it. Here's the question the Chief Ben Barnes
Speaker 1: about this Shawnee oratory skill, and hey, in just a minute,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get back onto Twokumps's life. The Shawnee is
Speaker 1: placed a high value on oratory skill, and that was
Speaker 1: part of what two Kumpsa was known for, remembered for.
Speaker 1: Why was that? I think that part of it is
Speaker 1: also the culture in which we come from. And it's
Speaker 1: not just unique to Shawny people. I have seen this,
Speaker 1: and I don't want to man, I feel I want
Speaker 1: to be cautious how I answer this, because I've noticed
Speaker 1: the same oratory traditions with the traditional Maori people or
Speaker 1: Hawaiian people, or folks from Hooding and a Shawny when
Speaker 1: they deliver a guad know their Thanksgiving Day address. And
Speaker 1: even when we go into ceremony and we've concluded those ceremonies,
Speaker 1: our speaker will stand up and he will give an
Speaker 1: address to all assembled, and he will thank all of
Speaker 1: creation for its existence. Can you imagine how long it
Speaker 1: takes to thank the entirety of the creation for its
Speaker 1: existence and for your forebearance for being present and having
Speaker 1: to having to hunt and take from it, so that
Speaker 1: takes a little while. So I think it's baked in
Speaker 1: in a lot of the ways that we came up.
Speaker 1: Does it Does it have to do with the kind
Speaker 1: of egalitarian structure of of the tribe and that a
Speaker 1: leader would have to be able to cast vision and
Speaker 1: inspire people. That's what guys Westerners noticed when they came
Speaker 1: over here and interacted with in the Jinas people is
Speaker 1: like man when they speak, they speak with such in
Speaker 1: such powerful speeches and whatnot. When Shawny people still occupied
Speaker 1: at that point pleasant West Virginia area, there's a Logan
Speaker 1: Seneca Cayuga. His family was butchered by a marauding Europeans colonists,
Speaker 1: and the story is terrible, probably not even probably unfit
Speaker 1: to even repeat some of what happened on your podcast.
Speaker 1: When Logan returned from his hunting and came back home
Speaker 1: and saw the murder that happened in his house and
Speaker 1: his family the way they had been butchered, he lost it,
Speaker 1: totally lost it. He was able to gather up a
Speaker 1: force to oppose what was opposed, the settling of areas
Speaker 1: that people we're not supposed to be living in, and
Speaker 1: so that started a Logan's one. He was Seneca Cayuga,
Speaker 1: but he a lot of young Shawnee people rallied to
Speaker 1: his banner because they felt, you know, they've had empathy
Speaker 1: for this, and he had a it's called Logan's lament.
Speaker 1: We used to teach it in public schools. We taught
Speaker 1: it for a century in public schools. Can you imagine
Speaker 1: trying to teach that now in in a in an
Speaker 1: era where we can't say certain words, you know, But
Speaker 1: they actually taught Logan's lament in public schools, and they
Speaker 1: would do it for oratory classes when we used to
Speaker 1: have dialectics and class when we used to you know,
Speaker 1: actually encourage kids to stand up in front of class
Speaker 1: and speak. Now we're doing TikTok's So yeah, but that's
Speaker 1: what what what is Logan's limit? What? What was that
Speaker 1: he Logan's all men, it's a it's a wonderful It
Speaker 1: is a wonderful and yet terrible and heartbreaking speech about
Speaker 1: Logan and how basically a a prayer or a plea
Speaker 1: for empathy. And it's not structured that way, but when
Speaker 1: you're when you hear what he said, you can't be left,
Speaker 1: but your soul change a little you know and understand
Speaker 1: like these are really terrible things that happened to indigenous people's.
Speaker 1: That's powerful stuff from Chief Barns. I want to now
Speaker 1: jump back into Two comes his life with Peter Cozens
Speaker 1: talking more about Oh William Henry Harrison and two Cumsa who,
Speaker 1: if you remember, had just gone south to the Southern Trips.
Speaker 1: Two comes to head to try to recruit more people
Speaker 1: into the Pan Indian Confederacy. Well, of course what was
Speaker 1: favorable to his purposes was unfavorable to those of Harrison. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is his arch enemy, our potential Irish enemy. So
Speaker 1: two comes to go south. Harrison thinks, aha, thanks. Ottawa,
Speaker 1: who everyone knows is not a military leader, not a
Speaker 1: war leader, not even a warrior, is in Profits Town
Speaker 1: on what is still Indian land by treaty, and Harrison
Speaker 1: decide he's going to launch a premptive strike and wipe
Speaker 1: them out while to comes is elsewhere. He he attacks
Speaker 1: Profits Town the Battle of typic Canoe. As a result,
Speaker 1: the Indians tactically lose the battle and that they flee
Speaker 1: Profits Town and Harrison burns it. He returns to vincends
Speaker 1: and Trump it's this great victory and eventually runs this
Speaker 1: president on the typic Canoe and Tyler too. In fact,
Speaker 1: it was strategic defeat for Harrison because by launching this attack,
Speaker 1: he caused even more Indians from farther away to Fox
Speaker 1: to the banner of takam San tans Matawa, if they
Speaker 1: realized that we're not even safe on land that is
Speaker 1: supposedly our own, the Americans are gonna get us. So
Speaker 1: it backfired. It backfired and ignited more strength for the
Speaker 1: Pan Indian Confederacy. However, it didn't come from Tekumbsa's journey
Speaker 1: into the southern United States to the Creeks, Chickasaws, and
Speaker 1: o s Ages. Harrison attacked tin Squintawa because Tekampsa had
Speaker 1: gone on an apostolic mission. If you remember, here's Dr
Speaker 1: Dave Edmonds the University of Texas and Dallas talking about
Speaker 1: why other tribes rejected this Pan Indian Confederacy in this
Speaker 1: religious revival, you would feel like what he was promoting
Speaker 1: would be accepted by every tribe. You. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you just said, hey, we got a guy that wants
Speaker 1: you not all the tribes so that we can all
Speaker 1: keep our land in the United States, will be not
Speaker 1: be able to come any further. I mean that sounds
Speaker 1: like it's such an easy sell. But he was rejected
Speaker 1: way more than he was. Well, he was accepted in it.
Speaker 1: It was because a lot of these tribes were had
Speaker 1: their own little interest going here. Yeah they had good
Speaker 1: What what did they have coming from the government like
Speaker 1: well would lead you? Well, they had, they had some
Speaker 1: they had sometimes leaders had positions, the payments, sometimes they
Speaker 1: were being paid. Sometimes they felt that they should be
Speaker 1: the sole owners of this particular and and wouldn't have
Speaker 1: to share it with other tribes. But this is not
Speaker 1: so strange if you stop and think about it right now.
Speaker 1: It makes sense right now to say to some people,
Speaker 1: you know, we've really got to do some make some changes.
Speaker 1: Are the country is going to be in bad shape here.
Speaker 1: And but people said, oh no, man, I've got you know,
Speaker 1: I got a job doing here. I don't want you know,
Speaker 1: I don't want to lie pretty good my life is
Speaker 1: pretty good, or I don't want the coal industry to
Speaker 1: go away with the guys. Yeah right, I mean, so
Speaker 1: everybody's everybody their self interest involved in this. And one
Speaker 1: thing about all of this, as a as a historian
Speaker 1: of most of my life, history doesn't exactly repeat itself,
Speaker 1: but it comes around pretty close. It seems like the
Speaker 1: issues of human nature always come up when you put
Speaker 1: a bunch of people in the spot. Humans are always
Speaker 1: moving around and mixing around. This conflict, which has to
Speaker 1: do with land and has to do with two different
Speaker 1: cultures colliding, is really the story of planet Earth, and
Speaker 1: rarely do the did the just win there? There's it
Speaker 1: will be hard to it will be hard to say that.
Speaker 1: Look at it this way, though, I I understand what
Speaker 1: you're saying. You know you can get on most of
Speaker 1: the pleasure. I think, oh my god, that's there's no Hopefully,
Speaker 1: people of goodwill will say, all right, things are going
Speaker 1: to gets back to change. Changes are going to take place.
Speaker 1: What we want to do is to keep those changes
Speaker 1: good changes, things that will benefit people and protect individual rights, etcetera.
Speaker 1: But you've got to they're going to take place. I mean,
Speaker 1: giving an example right now, which is obvious to me.
Speaker 1: Right now, people that were on the verge of electric cars,
Speaker 1: people say, oh my god, electric cars. Nobody can't have
Speaker 1: electric cars. My gosh, what you gonna do? Plug them in? Well,
Speaker 1: in about fifty sixty years probably, that's hard to believe.
Speaker 1: But when automobiles came in, people said they'll never have
Speaker 1: those things. People will, well, what would you ever do?
Speaker 1: You'd run out of gas. There's gas stations everywhere, So
Speaker 1: I mean, that's kind of thing and it's hard to believe.
Speaker 1: But who's you know, who's really fighting it? Companies and
Speaker 1: for good reason from their perspective, because their interest their
Speaker 1: interests are there. Although there's probably enough other abuses for
Speaker 1: and that may be that may simplification, and there's it's
Speaker 1: easier to find, you know, holes in that argument. But
Speaker 1: generally speaking, you can make the same thing. The changes.
Speaker 1: The only the only constant, the only thing that you
Speaker 1: can always have or rely on is change. The only
Speaker 1: thing we can rely on is change. That brings up
Speaker 1: a question that I don't really want to ask myself
Speaker 1: for fear of the answer. How do we fight this
Speaker 1: change when it's bad for us and our people? Is
Speaker 1: it noble or wise to fight to the death for
Speaker 1: something you know is a losing battle? Really at the
Speaker 1: most fundamental level. Two come so was fighting against change,
Speaker 1: albeit erratically unjust change. Here's more from Dr Edmonds. Let
Speaker 1: me give you a side of something which which this
Speaker 1: is not the same, but it's it's caused a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount of stress. We see the same thing here. I
Speaker 1: think a lot in a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: places in rural America. I grew up in a small
Speaker 1: farm town. The town's almost gone. Everything's gone. What if
Speaker 1: you're a coal miner, everything's gone? You see the point,
Speaker 1: it's it's a time of great trauma. You want to
Speaker 1: you want to fight for your way of life. You
Speaker 1: do and and it it Maybe it may be hard.
Speaker 1: It's very hard to do that, you know. I think
Speaker 1: sometimes this far past all of that trauma and many
Speaker 1: of us being on the side that really one in
Speaker 1: a way, it's hard to understand that. But because it
Speaker 1: just seems so so black and white, like white Europeans
Speaker 1: basically pushed out, killed the land, a new way of
Speaker 1: life emerges. In other words, they want everybody to settle
Speaker 1: down and be small farmers. Well that's not what I mean.
Speaker 1: The Shawnees farm. But women do the farming, not men.
Speaker 1: And and it's the same thing coal miners today in
Speaker 1: West Virginia and the same thing. Yeah, it's it's the
Speaker 1: cool when you say it like that, it makes you
Speaker 1: realize the real personal pain that would come as as
Speaker 1: you watched your collection, your way of life just designed
Speaker 1: down in front of you. Did the traditionalists ever win?
Speaker 1: He rarely, because the problem is what happens is by
Speaker 1: that time there have been too many there's too much
Speaker 1: of the news ways that people have gotten used to.
Speaker 1: What you could What you hope here is that you
Speaker 1: get the very best of the old tradition combined with
Speaker 1: the new ways, and you you gradually work your way forward.
Speaker 1: That's the best of all worlds. That doesn't always happen.
Speaker 1: But you're right, No, they win sometimes for a short time.
Speaker 1: But but but but they don't win in the long run.
Speaker 1: It's kind of sad, isn't that. Yes, except they've got
Speaker 1: to understand. I think that that the only constant in
Speaker 1: the world, probably the only thing. The only thing that
Speaker 1: doesn't change is change. The only thing that doesn't change
Speaker 1: is change. Godly, here's Peter Cozen's with the next step
Speaker 1: into comes his life. The Battle of Tip of Canoe
Speaker 1: was in eighteen eleven, so that's where we are. Fast
Speaker 1: forward a few months, a few more months into eighteen
Speaker 1: twelve United States, Declaire's were in Great Britain. One of
Speaker 1: the reason is given is just trumped up idea that
Speaker 1: the Indians are are launching raids on the northern frontier
Speaker 1: of the United States because they're being controlled by the
Speaker 1: British to do so, when in fact, the few raids
Speaker 1: that occurred were revenge raids as a result of Harrison's
Speaker 1: attacking profits time. So Wor twelve begins, Two comes to
Speaker 1: and his allies make common cause with the British in
Speaker 1: western Ontario. The British, who are badly outnumbered because they're
Speaker 1: busy fighting Napoleon in Europe, they're more than happy to
Speaker 1: have Indian help. More and more Indians flocked to Two
Speaker 1: Comes To and Tanks Platawa's banner. The British, in good
Speaker 1: faith promised that if they beat the Americans, which they
Speaker 1: have every prospect of doing early in the world Atian twelve,
Speaker 1: that they will grant Two comes To and Tanks Wattawa
Speaker 1: an Indian homeland which benefits both sides. For the British,
Speaker 1: it would be a buffer state between the United States
Speaker 1: that wants to conquer Canada, and of course will give
Speaker 1: the Indians are on homeland and that would be modern
Speaker 1: day Michigan, Wisconsin, and whatever part of northern Ohio and
Speaker 1: Indiana the British and Indians could conquer. The War of
Speaker 1: eighteen twelve went from eighteen twelve to eighteen fifteen and
Speaker 1: started because of British violations of US maritime rights. The
Speaker 1: US used the political excuse of the Indians who were
Speaker 1: being supplied by the British, and we're raiding US settlements.
Speaker 1: But behind this there were trade issues between British owned Canada,
Speaker 1: the US and the French, and the US just wanted
Speaker 1: Indian land. The British became allied with the Compsa and
Speaker 1: promised him an Indian nation if they won. Here's more
Speaker 1: from Peter. Two Compsa and his allies and the British
Speaker 1: defeated the American Army, the only American army of consequence
Speaker 1: in the the Midwest, when they captured Detroit, Michigan in twelve.
Speaker 1: Captured that army, drove the Americans out of mis Chigan
Speaker 1: and northernmost Ohio, put them on the defensive for several
Speaker 1: months and things were going their way. So and that
Speaker 1: that was a big deal. This two Cumpsa and what
Speaker 1: he's doing, and these the British and the Indians there
Speaker 1: for real. Yeah, the British could not have captured Detroit,
Speaker 1: which was the you know, the the American outposts in
Speaker 1: the Midwest without two cumsa preceding that in western Ontario
Speaker 1: two cumpsa, he and his Indian allies, with help of
Speaker 1: what British were there, basically, through two cumbs of tactical planning,
Speaker 1: were able to halt a tentative American invasion of Canada
Speaker 1: from Detroit. So Canada, and it's still recognizing Canada today
Speaker 1: that Canada owed its safety to twocumsa and then once
Speaker 1: the British got up to strength, they were able to
Speaker 1: capture Detroit with two cumbs as hell. Sounds to me
Speaker 1: like Canada might have a different name if it weren't.
Speaker 1: Two Comes a big if true. Big if true. Here's
Speaker 1: Peter quantifying the influence and power two comes a rallied
Speaker 1: against the United States. So here we are in the
Speaker 1: latter part of eighteen twelve, and it's clear then, and
Speaker 1: it also is true in hindsight today. Two Comes at
Speaker 1: the height of his power as an Indian military and
Speaker 1: political leader, assembled nearly six thousand warriors from tribes all
Speaker 1: across the Midwest to fight under him. And you compare
Speaker 1: that to what the Indians were able to accomplish or
Speaker 1: not accomplished in the West after the Civil War, during
Speaker 1: the Great Indian Wars, the largest alliance ever existed in
Speaker 1: the American West was that of the Lakota also known
Speaker 1: as a Sue Lakota and the Cheyenne. In eighteen seventy six,
Speaker 1: under Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, they brought together between
Speaker 1: two thousand and twenty five undred warriors to oppose American expansion,
Speaker 1: and that resulted, of course the Battle of a Little
Speaker 1: Big Horn, among other things. But that was, you know,
Speaker 1: less than forty the number of warriors that pledges their
Speaker 1: allegiance to Twokumpsa, and that was only two tribes sore
Speaker 1: able to get it together in the West to come
Speaker 1: San tanks Patawa had followers more than a dozen tribes,
Speaker 1: and it was the largest Indian alliance that the United
Speaker 1: States ever faced, the most effective, the greatest threat that
Speaker 1: the United States ever faced. During the entire westward movement
Speaker 1: from the Alleghanies to the West coast, two comes to
Speaker 1: assembled the largest Native American forces ever rallied against the
Speaker 1: United States. That is true, however, some would dispute the
Speaker 1: actual size of his force and say it wasn't that big.
Speaker 1: I guess we'll never really know. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: the question of did he actually kill forty deer in
Speaker 1: three days? We don't know, and it doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: He was just a great hunter. Well. Tecumsa was an
Speaker 1: incredible war leader and rallied an incredible Native American force
Speaker 1: against the United States. And remember this man wasn't even
Speaker 1: the chief, he was just a dude. We all know
Speaker 1: the outcome of the War of eighteen twelve two Comes
Speaker 1: in the British would lose. Here are some interesting thoughts
Speaker 1: from Peter on what might have been. For those who
Speaker 1: read my book Two Comes in the Private, it will
Speaker 1: become evident that there are a number of instances in
Speaker 1: which the British and Tecumsa and thanks about how it
Speaker 1: could have prevailed, and if they had, it would have
Speaker 1: really changed the courts of American history. Michigan at a minimum,
Speaker 1: would have remained in Indian hands and Wisconsin in Minnesota
Speaker 1: for at least at least one or two generations, if
Speaker 1: not more. That would have slowed the west movement westward
Speaker 1: because at the time, I mean, the first westward path
Speaker 1: was the Ohio River. And uh, you know, if you
Speaker 1: didn't have the Midwest under American control, you couldn't really
Speaker 1: considered settling the West, so it would have would have
Speaker 1: retarded that. It also would have would have affected the
Speaker 1: outcome of the American Civil War potentially because though you
Speaker 1: wouldn't have had you know, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota was const
Speaker 1: possibly in an union cause, so it could have profoundly
Speaker 1: changed the shape of American history. And that almost happened. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they were early enough in the movement of westward expansion
Speaker 1: that they absolutely could have changed the course they could
Speaker 1: have some historians, you know, and I have to confess
Speaker 1: that when I started this project, I sort of saw
Speaker 1: it as a pre ordained that to come to and
Speaker 1: his brothers were gonna lose. I kind of just figured
Speaker 1: there's no way that they could have prevailed over the
Speaker 1: Americans when they were you know, several million Americans in
Speaker 1: the United States at the time, and no more than
Speaker 1: seventy thousand Indians in the Midwest, not all of whom
Speaker 1: even supported two comes in and the profit. But the
Speaker 1: United States was so inept militarily and as of war progressed,
Speaker 1: began more and more to lose its will to fight,
Speaker 1: and once the British defeated Napoleon, they were able to
Speaker 1: send over more troops to fight in Canada. And unfortunately
Speaker 1: that happened a little too late for two Comes and
Speaker 1: Thanks Latawa to prevail. But if the British had defeated
Speaker 1: Napoleon maybe a year earlier, and if the Americans had
Speaker 1: not won this great naval battle on Lake Erie in
Speaker 1: eighteen thirteen, which severed the British supply line back into
Speaker 1: Canada and forced the British to abandon Western Ontario. You know,
Speaker 1: if the Americans had lost at Lake Erie, that would
Speaker 1: have prevented the Harrison from taking launching a counter offensive
Speaker 1: until the next year. Potentially by then there would have
Speaker 1: been more British in Canada, many more British. I could
Speaker 1: easily conceive of a of a scenario in which the
Speaker 1: Americans would have just given up the war and uh
Speaker 1: and and yielded Michigan. We kind of take it for
Speaker 1: grant it now on this side of history that America
Speaker 1: goes from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and you know
Speaker 1: just that this is America. But at the time this
Speaker 1: what we know today was in America. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: we had we had a lot of the West on
Speaker 1: paper to Louisiana purchase. But that was that wouldn't be
Speaker 1: pretty irrelevant if we if we lost part of the
Speaker 1: United States East and Mississippi in the War of eighteen twelve.
Speaker 1: Playing the what might have been game can sometimes be
Speaker 1: helpful in understanding the complexity of how things came to
Speaker 1: be as they are, and how if stuff had just
Speaker 1: been a little bit different, they wouldn't be as they are.
Speaker 1: Do you remember the first question we asked on episode one?
Speaker 1: It was why is two Comes, who was an enemy
Speaker 1: of the United States considered an American hero. Here's a
Speaker 1: saddlebag full of insight from Peter Cousen's on that very thing.
Speaker 1: To meet two Comes. He really was fighting for a
Speaker 1: dying way of life, and it's it's really a pretty
Speaker 1: common in human history for people to do that. The
Speaker 1: story of humanity has been the breakdown of society's breakdown
Speaker 1: of cultures. Cultures rise up, and then cultures whatever happens
Speaker 1: that they change, and there's there's always fighters that are
Speaker 1: wanting to keep things the way they were. I couldn't
Speaker 1: have expressed it better myself. It's absolutely right. And just
Speaker 1: to add to what you what you said, would like
Speaker 1: to say, is spot on my mind. What's remarkable too
Speaker 1: about to come. So as he was fighting for that
Speaker 1: way of life. I mean, he was, like you say,
Speaker 1: fighting for a way of life. This was an existential war.
Speaker 1: I mean at one battle during the War of eighteen twelve,
Speaker 1: the Battle of Fort Meg's in Ohio, and the Indians
Speaker 1: and British wanted to take that fort because that was
Speaker 1: going to be the jumping off point for Harrison whenever
Speaker 1: he didn't launch a counter offensive. And so they besieged
Speaker 1: the fort. And during the course of the siege in
Speaker 1: May of eighteen thirteen, some nine Kentucky volunteers come up
Speaker 1: the river in flatboats to reinforce William Henry Harry and
Speaker 1: his beleaguer Garrison. So the Americans are trapped there. They're
Speaker 1: British and and two comes and his Indians have them
Speaker 1: surrounded up the river. Come these Kentucky volunteers, which is
Speaker 1: totally surprised as the British and comes up. A pitch
Speaker 1: battle is fought the Kentuckians, I mean there's they're untrained.
Speaker 1: About a little under the third of them get into
Speaker 1: the Fort Meg's. Okay, The majority, however, allured by the
Speaker 1: Indians into an ambush on the far side of the
Speaker 1: river from Fort Meg's, almost six hundred of them are captured.
Speaker 1: Now Comes was not on the spot at that moment,
Speaker 1: but he rides over just as of fighting has ended
Speaker 1: and the Kentuckians are being crowded into the ruins of
Speaker 1: this old British fort and some of the victorious Indians
Speaker 1: have begun to club Endeth shown to death, tomahawk him
Speaker 1: to death. I mean, you've got these these almost six
Speaker 1: hundred Kentuckians like piled on top of each other, being
Speaker 1: pressed against one another, and is the ruins of this fort.
Speaker 1: In one instance, a British century tries to protect them
Speaker 1: and the Indians shoot him and call me yankee, and uh,
Speaker 1: I mean all hell had broken out, and it was
Speaker 1: if someone didn't intervene, it was clear that Kentuckians are
Speaker 1: gonna be slaughtered. And literally when it comes to hears
Speaker 1: of this, he rise into this scrum and is able
Speaker 1: to separate the Indians who are tomahawking, you know, massacring
Speaker 1: the prisoners from the Kentuckians, bring order out of chaos
Speaker 1: and stop the slaughter, and the Kentuckians either recognize him
Speaker 1: as Takumsa or learn that this is Takumsa here now,
Speaker 1: and I mean they of course they owe their life
Speaker 1: to two comes and they are paroled a few months later.
Speaker 1: Take the story back to Kentucky. Tell if T comes
Speaker 1: to saving their lives and suddenly, in the midst of
Speaker 1: war of eighteen twelve, two comes to becomes. He's still
Speaker 1: an enemy, but he's an heroic enemy. He's a hero
Speaker 1: already when American hero. Because you have to remember another
Speaker 1: keep point here is that Takumsa, as a political military
Speaker 1: leader among the Indians, he had no institutional means of
Speaker 1: controlling his followers. All the influence he had was based
Speaker 1: on his personal magnetism, his his personal courage, his personal example.
Speaker 1: He had no institutional means to compel his followers to
Speaker 1: obey him. So he's riding in there on the on
Speaker 1: the basis of his charisma alone, and he's risking his
Speaker 1: life to save the lives of those who would end
Speaker 1: his way of life. I mean, if that isn't incredible,
Speaker 1: I don't know what is. It was at that battle
Speaker 1: that we did the legendary T comes to a rose
Speaker 1: in the United States. Wow, you know we're fighting someone
Speaker 1: who is not only fighting war as we would like
Speaker 1: to see war fought, respecting the lives of prisoners, but
Speaker 1: he's doing it brilliantly, and even in defeat he becomes
Speaker 1: He becomes early on an American folk hero. Even in defeat,
Speaker 1: he became an American folk Hey. Robe, So there's the
Speaker 1: answer to our first question. We began this episode with
Speaker 1: a powerful statement by two Cumpsa when he said, we
Speaker 1: shall remain. Though our story isn't finished yet, We've got
Speaker 1: one more episode. The very fact that a man into
Speaker 1: cumbs his lineage, a lineage of Shawnee leaders spoke on
Speaker 1: this series. Chief Ben Barnes shows us that two Cumpsa
Speaker 1: was right. Despite unthinkable trials to shawn Needs two Cumpsa
Speaker 1: and ten Swaddow as people are still here. They have remained.
Speaker 1: Part three in this series is going to be called
Speaker 1: two Cumpsa's Death. I really don't think you're gonna want
Speaker 1: to miss it. I can't thank you enough for listening
Speaker 1: to bear Grease. I'm moved by these stories. Consider it
Speaker 1: a privilege to be able to tell them to you
Speaker 1: through the veiled lens of my understand ending. I'm learning
Speaker 1: as I go and I hope that you are too.
Speaker 1: You can follow me on Instagram, the dad Gum, TikTok,
Speaker 1: The Book of Faces, and even at LinkedIn Clay Underscore
Speaker 1: Nukele or whatever Clay Nukele. Please leave us a review
Speaker 1: on iTunes and share our podcast with a friend. This week,
Speaker 1: I can't wait to talk this over with the folks
Speaker 1: on the Render. I hope you have a great week.