What do you think?
Rate this book
Rising Up from Indian Country: The Battle of Fort Dearborn and the Birth of Chicago
In August 1812, under threat from the Potawatomi, Captain Nathan Heald began the evacuation of ninety-four people from the isolated outpost of Fort Dearborn to Fort Wayne. The group included several dozen soldiers, as well as nine women and eighteen children. After traveling only a mile and a half, they were attacked by five hundred Potawatomi warriors. In under an hour, fifty-two members of Heald’s party were killed, and the rest were taken prisoner; the Potawatomi then burned Fort Dearborn before returning to their villages.
These events are now seen as a foundational moment in Chicago’s storied past. With Rising up from Indian Country , noted historian Ann Durkin Keating richly recounts the Battle of Fort Dearborn while situating it within the context of several wider histories that span the nearly four decades between the 1795 Treaty of Greenville, in which Native Americans gave up a square mile at the mouth of the Chicago River, and the 1833 Treaty of Chicago, in which the American government and the Potawatomi exchanged five million acres of land west of the Mississippi River for a tract of the same size in northeast Illinois and southeast Wisconsin.
In the first book devoted entirely to this crucial period, Keating tells a story not only of military conquest but of the lives of people on all sides of the conflict. She highlights such figures as Jean Baptiste Point de Sable and John Kinzie and demonstrates that early Chicago was a place of cross-cultural reliance among the French, the Americans, and the Native Americans. Published to commemorate the bicentennial of the Battle of Fort Dearborn, this gripping account of the birth of Chicago will become required reading for anyone seeking to understand the city and its complex origins.
These events are now seen as a foundational moment in Chicago’s storied past. With Rising up from Indian Country , noted historian Ann Durkin Keating richly recounts the Battle of Fort Dearborn while situating it within the context of several wider histories that span the nearly four decades between the 1795 Treaty of Greenville, in which Native Americans gave up a square mile at the mouth of the Chicago River, and the 1833 Treaty of Chicago, in which the American government and the Potawatomi exchanged five million acres of land west of the Mississippi River for a tract of the same size in northeast Illinois and southeast Wisconsin.
In the first book devoted entirely to this crucial period, Keating tells a story not only of military conquest but of the lives of people on all sides of the conflict. She highlights such figures as Jean Baptiste Point de Sable and John Kinzie and demonstrates that early Chicago was a place of cross-cultural reliance among the French, the Americans, and the Native Americans. Published to commemorate the bicentennial of the Battle of Fort Dearborn, this gripping account of the birth of Chicago will become required reading for anyone seeking to understand the city and its complex origins.
320 pages, Paperback
First published August 12, 2012
45 people are currently reading
184 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
October 18, 2016
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.
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.
December 26, 2015
I have read hundreds of books, articles, and manuscripts concerning the history of Chicago, Northeastern Illinois, Northwest Indiana, and Southwestern Michigan. When purchasing this book, I did not think there would be much content that would be new to me, but I was incorrect in that assumption. Keating effortlessly weaves detailed Fort Dearborn history with the broader early pre-settlement history of Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan so that the reader better understands the context of the Indian uprising that occurred August 15, 1812.
Keating details the relationships forged between American citizens, British loyalists, American and British military personnel, and the several tribes residing in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Also, she follows the Kinzie/Forsyth family in particular detail, which provides a rather good framework for presentation of the historical facts/events.
Unlike many historians that seem to enjoy poetic, long-winded descriptions of people, places, and events, Keating's writing is not obtuse. It is clear, concise, and appropriately footnoted. The only detraction in the writing is the repetition of facts throughout the book; the book could have probably been shortened by 10 to 15 percent with a thorough editing and removal of repetitive material. For example, there are instances where detailed facts are repeated on the same page. I found that quite annoying, as my memory is not that short.
Overall, the book is excellent and very worthy of reading. But then there is the Epilogue. My dictionary defined *epilogue* as "a section or speech at the end of a book or play that serves as a comment on or a conclusion to what has happened." I wholeheartedly disagree with Keating's comments.
Keating spends an enormous amount of effort attempting to convince the reader that the August 15, 1812, uprising was not a "massacre," but rather a "battle." The facts of the conflict are rather clear and have been triangulated by numerous published first-hand accounts (many of which Keating cites in her book). U.S. troops were abandoning Ft. Dearborn for Ft. Wayne in a retreat that was specifically ordered from Detroit. On the morning of August 15, the military troops fed hundreds of Indians surrounding the fort, and gave away numerous valuable goods to them as well (excepting alcohol and gun powder). The military had no intention of engaging the Indians. In fact, the military was making an intentional effort to pacify a rather large and hostile group of Indians so as to avoid a conflict. Not a single historical account of the event, of which there are many, articulate any known military strategy or tactic devised by American troops to engage with the Indians as they retreated from Ft. Dearborn for Ft. Wayne. Proactive engagement, in part, defines a battle.
Let there be no mistake. The conflict of August 15, 1812, was not a battle. It was clearly a massacre. A harsh, negatively connotative word for a terribly harsh, bloody, and unnecessary event. If the situation been completely reversed (i.e., military attacking a clearly retreating group of Indians), then the conflict would surely have been defined as a massacre by both Native Americans and others. As Keating writes in her description of the conflict: "The fighting targeted not only the soldiers and militia, but also the women and children. One of the mule-drawn wagons at the rear of the column was filled with supplies, guns, and ammunition, while children traveled in the other [wagon]. Placing the women and children near the supplies was a terrible mistake, as it put them directly in harm's way. The Potawatomie warriors sought the booty held in the supply wagon, and many children wound up in their path. One young Indian, filled with drink and fury against his fallen comrades, 'killed several children with his tomahawk."
If today's [ca. 2014] U.S. military troops, some in a drunken stupor, were to confront an enemy in a village, say in Afghanistan or Iraq, and then indiscriminately murder women and children while engaging with the enemy, then I believe most common-sense observers would define the killing of these women and children to be a massacre (i.e., not a more pleasantly-termed "battle").
Keating's Epilogue appears to this reviewer as nothing more than political correctness run amok. Unfortunately, what is a fantastic book regarding the early history of Chicago will be forever tainted by Keating's oddly presented Epilogue. This should not, however, deter you from reading the book. However, I would recommend not reading the Epilogue, as it flies in the face of Keating's own presentation of the details of the massacre.
Keating details the relationships forged between American citizens, British loyalists, American and British military personnel, and the several tribes residing in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Also, she follows the Kinzie/Forsyth family in particular detail, which provides a rather good framework for presentation of the historical facts/events.
Unlike many historians that seem to enjoy poetic, long-winded descriptions of people, places, and events, Keating's writing is not obtuse. It is clear, concise, and appropriately footnoted. The only detraction in the writing is the repetition of facts throughout the book; the book could have probably been shortened by 10 to 15 percent with a thorough editing and removal of repetitive material. For example, there are instances where detailed facts are repeated on the same page. I found that quite annoying, as my memory is not that short.
Overall, the book is excellent and very worthy of reading. But then there is the Epilogue. My dictionary defined *epilogue* as "a section or speech at the end of a book or play that serves as a comment on or a conclusion to what has happened." I wholeheartedly disagree with Keating's comments.
Keating spends an enormous amount of effort attempting to convince the reader that the August 15, 1812, uprising was not a "massacre," but rather a "battle." The facts of the conflict are rather clear and have been triangulated by numerous published first-hand accounts (many of which Keating cites in her book). U.S. troops were abandoning Ft. Dearborn for Ft. Wayne in a retreat that was specifically ordered from Detroit. On the morning of August 15, the military troops fed hundreds of Indians surrounding the fort, and gave away numerous valuable goods to them as well (excepting alcohol and gun powder). The military had no intention of engaging the Indians. In fact, the military was making an intentional effort to pacify a rather large and hostile group of Indians so as to avoid a conflict. Not a single historical account of the event, of which there are many, articulate any known military strategy or tactic devised by American troops to engage with the Indians as they retreated from Ft. Dearborn for Ft. Wayne. Proactive engagement, in part, defines a battle.
Let there be no mistake. The conflict of August 15, 1812, was not a battle. It was clearly a massacre. A harsh, negatively connotative word for a terribly harsh, bloody, and unnecessary event. If the situation been completely reversed (i.e., military attacking a clearly retreating group of Indians), then the conflict would surely have been defined as a massacre by both Native Americans and others. As Keating writes in her description of the conflict: "The fighting targeted not only the soldiers and militia, but also the women and children. One of the mule-drawn wagons at the rear of the column was filled with supplies, guns, and ammunition, while children traveled in the other [wagon]. Placing the women and children near the supplies was a terrible mistake, as it put them directly in harm's way. The Potawatomie warriors sought the booty held in the supply wagon, and many children wound up in their path. One young Indian, filled with drink and fury against his fallen comrades, 'killed several children with his tomahawk."
If today's [ca. 2014] U.S. military troops, some in a drunken stupor, were to confront an enemy in a village, say in Afghanistan or Iraq, and then indiscriminately murder women and children while engaging with the enemy, then I believe most common-sense observers would define the killing of these women and children to be a massacre (i.e., not a more pleasantly-termed "battle").
Keating's Epilogue appears to this reviewer as nothing more than political correctness run amok. Unfortunately, what is a fantastic book regarding the early history of Chicago will be forever tainted by Keating's oddly presented Epilogue. This should not, however, deter you from reading the book. However, I would recommend not reading the Epilogue, as it flies in the face of Keating's own presentation of the details of the massacre.
February 14, 2024
“Rising Up From Indian Country” gives a lot details about a dozen or so historical figures that were local ‘movers and shakers’ in the Mid-West region prior to the start of the War of 1812. Although primarily focused on John Kinzie, this book is the most detailed account of the events lead up to Battle of Fort Dearborn (often called the “Massacre of Fort Dearborn”), the actual violence itself, and the aftermath of the various characters. It’s a little cumbersome of a read trying to keep all the different characters straight, nevertheless, it’s one of the better books about Chicago history that I’ve read.
August 27, 2018
I've only known bare bones history of Chicago and the Great Lakes, and I delighted in the ways Keating has filled in the gaps of my knowledge - about the geography of villages and settlements, the many races and ethnicities of people who lived intermingled with one another across a large area, the hunting, farming, trading and trapping that was the foundation of the economy for hundreds of years, and how over a few decades in the early 19th century, the Indians were eventually bought, bribed, threatened, and pushed out. Central characters, John Kinzie, Tecumseh, Blackhawk, Black Patridge, the Ouilmette family, and one-day-to-be president William Henry Harrison. The writing itself is sometimes awkward and mechanical, but I was fascinated enough by the historical information that it didn't distract me that much.
May 27, 2025
The general plot lost in the details.
The Battle of Fort Dearborn, nor the Birth of Chicago, are central to this book. The book is more about Kinzie and Forsyth. However, even they are lost in the details.
Lots of footnotes but bad maps.
Timelines are muddied. Momentous issues and occurances disappear in the telling.
Ms Keating spends a lot of time detailing the payments in treaties, but very little in the actual happenings.
Overall, after slogging my way through this mess, I learned quite a bit that I did not know about the Potawatamies and other nations prior to 1812. And, with the help of outside sources (Google maps very useful) I was able to follow the intent of the book.
The Battle of Fort Dearborn, nor the Birth of Chicago, are central to this book. The book is more about Kinzie and Forsyth. However, even they are lost in the details.
Lots of footnotes but bad maps.
Timelines are muddied. Momentous issues and occurances disappear in the telling.
Ms Keating spends a lot of time detailing the payments in treaties, but very little in the actual happenings.
Overall, after slogging my way through this mess, I learned quite a bit that I did not know about the Potawatamies and other nations prior to 1812. And, with the help of outside sources (Google maps very useful) I was able to follow the intent of the book.
June 14, 2023
An excellent account of Chicago's early history and the efforts of traders to keep Chicago and its environs as "Indian Country", i.e., no white European settlements. This is a lively account of how, in this era, personal loyalties generally trumped allegiance to any government. For anyone interested in Chicago history.
October 16, 2023
Worthwhile read
The timeline is a little scattered and the author definitely has a point / perspective he wants to impress upon the reader but he's a good storyteller and he knows his material.
The timeline is a little scattered and the author definitely has a point / perspective he wants to impress upon the reader but he's a good storyteller and he knows his material.
December 8, 2018
Fairly dry, but I learned quite a bit about the very earliest days of Chicago's settlement, when this was just a terribly remote outpost. Worth it for Chicago nerds!
September 2, 2016
It’s highly interesting because it has substantial background to the history of Chicago and Detroit, as well as neighboring communities including Fort Ouiatenon – and the Tippecanoe reservation there before the War of 1812. Tippecanoe was the spiritual home for Tenskwatana, the “Shawnee Prophet”, who denounced all Euro-American people, customs and goods – urging a return to communal Indian life, including renouncing alcohol. Tenskwatana was the brother of Tecumseh and both had migrated to Tippecanoe from Ohio. (Tecumseh was killed in October, 1813 while fighting for the British in Canada during the War of 1812.)
Keating notes that the arrival of the horse in the late 1700s gave Native American people much more mobility than before. Prior to that point, most transportation was done via canoe. Horses also enabled Tecumseh to travel throughout Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio in an attempt to create a pan-Indian movement to fight the encroachment of Native American lands by Americans moving west.
Keating estimates that the Native American population of the states surrounding Lake Michigan was about 30,000 people at the time and consisted of about a dozen tribes, including the Potawatomi, Odawas, Ojibwas (Chippewas), Shawnee, Miami, Fox, Ho-Chunk (Winnebagos) and the Sauk. There was substantial trade between fur traders and Native Americans, which was one of the reasons that made it so difficult for Indian tribes to resist the encroachment of their territory by white Americans.
Chicago was essentially a fur trading outpost during the years before the War of 1812 and it continued in that role until 1827-1828. The invention of the steel trap in 1823 cut down on the fur trade, which previously relied on Indian hunters for collection of furs. By 1828, Astor’s American Fur Company shut down Chicago operations. However, with the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, the travel time from Chicago to New York was cut from six weeks to two and increased population and agriculture sent the city’s economy in a different direction.
The old Fort Dearborn, the original settlement, was at what is now Michigan and Wacker, where there are some historical markers outlining the fort. The London Guarantee Building has a relief depicting the fort at its entrance.
Keating notes that the arrival of the horse in the late 1700s gave Native American people much more mobility than before. Prior to that point, most transportation was done via canoe. Horses also enabled Tecumseh to travel throughout Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio in an attempt to create a pan-Indian movement to fight the encroachment of Native American lands by Americans moving west.
Keating estimates that the Native American population of the states surrounding Lake Michigan was about 30,000 people at the time and consisted of about a dozen tribes, including the Potawatomi, Odawas, Ojibwas (Chippewas), Shawnee, Miami, Fox, Ho-Chunk (Winnebagos) and the Sauk. There was substantial trade between fur traders and Native Americans, which was one of the reasons that made it so difficult for Indian tribes to resist the encroachment of their territory by white Americans.
Chicago was essentially a fur trading outpost during the years before the War of 1812 and it continued in that role until 1827-1828. The invention of the steel trap in 1823 cut down on the fur trade, which previously relied on Indian hunters for collection of furs. By 1828, Astor’s American Fur Company shut down Chicago operations. However, with the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, the travel time from Chicago to New York was cut from six weeks to two and increased population and agriculture sent the city’s economy in a different direction.
The old Fort Dearborn, the original settlement, was at what is now Michigan and Wacker, where there are some historical markers outlining the fort. The London Guarantee Building has a relief depicting the fort at its entrance.
June 25, 2020
A very personalized history text that follows the life of fur trader John Kinze as he interacts with the Indians and British in the early 1800's. Anyone from Chicago knows where Kinze St. is on the Gold Coast. His family laid claim to much of the area and his house is where the the Chicago Tribune building is today. He participated in the building and functionality of Fort Dearborn and was with the inhabitants when they were massacred by the Potawatomi on August 15th, 1812 while they were trying to evacuate the fort. We get to learn the various Indian tribes and their leaders as they were pushed off their lands east of the Mississippi by the US government. We meet future Presidents like William Henry Harrison and Andrew Jackson as they fight during the War of 1812. It is a great read for someone from the Midwest because we get to learn about the people who many of our towns were named after.
January 13, 2013
I love reading about Chicago's tumultuous last and this book provides a fascination, thorough glimpse into what few Chicagoans really know behind the origins of their city, the first star on its flag, and the Battle of Fort Dearborn. It was verrrrrrry detailed and had a cast of characters in the thousands, but was well worth the investment. I hope more people read this book and learn about the birth of the second city!
January 27, 2016
A great history of early Chicago: this is the story of the "Battle of Fort Dearborn," the creation myth of Chicago. Centered on John Kinzie, a trader with dubious loyalties, the story follows him and other characters (white and Indian) to the disputed territory in the Midwest. Readers from Milwaukee will be interested to see that the only battle ever fought at Chicago was a huge victory for Potawotomis from present-day Milwaukee.
January 7, 2013
I learned quite a few new facts regrding the War of 1812. I guess I never realized how much fighting there was on the Northwest frontier around the Grteat Lakes region. Any time I learn this much new information in a book that was well written and easy to read it is an enjoyable reading experience.
November 13, 2012
pretty good the subject requires new interpretation, somewhat repetative.
January 30, 2017
free-book UofC, cell-read. epilogue pertinent
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews