Wisconsin in the spring of 1659. Here they learn of the Sioux and the
Crees. They push southwest first, where they see the Mississippi
between April and July, 1659. Thence they come back to the Sault.
Then they winter, 1659-1660, among the Sioux. I have not attempted to
give the dates of the itinerary; because it would be a matter of
speculation open to contradiction; but if we accept Radisson's account
at all--and that account is corroborated by writers contemporaneous
with him--we must then accept _his_ account of _where_ he went, and not
the casual guesses of modern writers who have given his journal one
hurried reading, and then sat down, without consulting documents
contemporaneous with Radisson, to inform the world of _where_ he went.
Because this is such a very sore point with two or three western
historical societies, I beg to state the reasons why I have set down
Radisson's itinerary as much farther west than has been generally
believed, though how far west he went does not efface the main and
essential fact _that Radisson was the true discoverer of the Great
Northwest_. For that, let us give him a belated credit and not obscure
the feat by disputes. (1) The term "Forked River" referred to the
Missouri and Mississippi, not the Wisconsin and Mississippi. (2) No
other rivers in that region are to be compared to the Ottawa and St.
Lawrence but the Missouri and Mississippi. (3) The Mascoutins, or
People of the Fire, among whom Radisson found himself when he descended
the Wisconsin from Green Bay, conducted him westward only as far as the
tribes allied to them, the Mascoutins of the Missouri or Nebraska.
Hence, Radisson going west-north-west to the Sioux--as he says he
did--must have skirted much farther west than Wisconsin and Minnesota.
(4) His descriptions of the Indians who knew tribes in trade with the
Spaniards must refer to the Indians south of the Big Bend of the
Missouri. (5) His description of the climate refers to the same
region. (6) The _Jesuit Relations_ confirm beyond all doubt that he