In the seventeenth century the Sauk also maintained close relations with the Potawatomi (Pehkînenîha or Shîshîpêhinenîha). This relation has been found by borrowings of Sauk vocabulary that appear in the Potawatomi language. In a loose coalition of tribes – including Dakota (Ashâha), Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Kickapoo (Kîkâpôwa), Meskwaki (Fox), and Sauk, along with the Shawnee (Shâwanôwa), Cherokee (Shanahkîha), and Choctaw (Châkitâha) from the Southeast – they attacked the tribes of the Illinois Confederation ("Illinois/Inoca") (Mashkotêwa) and tried to invade their tribal areas. The "Illinois/Inoca" became their worst common enemies. The coalition warred for years until they destroyed the Illinois Confederation. Later they moved out on the prairie (Mashkotêwi) along the Mississippi and adopted the semi-sedentary lifestyle of Plains Indians (Mashkotêwineniwa). In addition to hunting buffalo, they lived in villages, raised crops, and actively traded with other tribes. The Sauk and allied eastern tribes had to compete with tribes who already occupied this territory. Disputes and clashes arose with the Dakota, Pawnee (Pânîha) and, most of all, the powerful Osage (Washâsha). The Sauk had good relations with the English (Thâkanâsha) through trading. At first, the Sauk had good relations with New France too, until their alliance with the Meskwaki (Fox) made them short-term enemies of the French (Mêmehtekôshîha, Wêmehtekôshîha). A closely allied tribe, the Meskwaki (Fox), were noted for resisting French encroachment, having fought two wars against them in the early 18th century.
This model, of separate ego states, that see different “parts” of the other (the object) explains the extraordinary attachment between the battered woman and her abuser (see Celani, 1995). Model of attachment to the bad object
Fairbairn saw his model of human behavior as universal, that is, he assumed that all children, no matter how benevolent their family environment was, had to dissociate a few intensely frustrating events and, at other times, had to fantasize that their parents had hidden love that they were not displaying; that is, they used the same psychological mechanisms as did children from abusive families, but to a lesser extent. The following analysis is not based on interviews of the four victims, but rather is the result of applying Fairbairns model to the reported behavior of the four individuals. Antilibidinal ego-rejecting object side of the split
When the bank robber and  his accomplice, who was released from prison and allowed to join him, began their six-day hostage taking, the four adult prisoners faced the same environment as do abused children; that is, their lives were absolutely dependent upon the good will of their captors, who had unlimited power over their lives. Their captors were far more important to them than were the police, who were a threat to all of them, captives and criminals alike. Fairbairns model assumes that the captives used the splitting defense to abolish the most terrorizing aspects of their captivity, in order to keep from breaking down into an absolute state of anxiety.