Minnesota Historical SocietyIllustration depicting the hanging of 38 Dakota men at Mankato, Minn. on Dec. 26, 1862.
Posted on 03/05/2019 3:48:00 AM PST by vannrox
Minnesota Historical SocietyIllustration depicting the hanging of 38 Dakota men at Mankato, Minn. on Dec. 26, 1862.
It was Dec. 6, 1862. On President Abraham Lincoln’s desk lay a list of 303 Dakota people who were accused of everything from rape to murder.
These accusations came after Dakota warriors in southern Minnesota took it upon themselves to do something about the starvation and loss of millions of acres of their land caused by white settlers in what’s known as the Dakota Uprising. That battle ended with the deaths of 150 Dakota and nearly 1,000 white settlers during the fighting itself — but the true numbers of Dakota casualties over the next several years are still, to this day, untold.
There were no lawyers and no witnesses at the trials of these Dakota people and some were sentenced within mere minutes. In the end, Lincoln and his lawyers combed through the charges and eventually decided that 39 would die. One man’s sentence was commuted minutes before heading to the gallows, but the 38 about to die sang Dakota songs and held hands as they plunged to their deaths at the end of a rope. To this day, it remains the largest mass execution in U.S. history.
After the executions, some 1,700 Dakota elderly, women, and children who had nothing to do with the uprising were placed into concentration camps. Those who survived starvation and disease there were shipped off to reservations in South Dakota, where conditions were no better.
These Dakota people had lived in Minnesota for hundreds of years before white settlers had ever set foot there, and now, they were gone.
Minnesota Historical SocietySigning of the 1851 treaty.
By the time the Dakota wars broke out in 1862, most of the Dakota were starving. This was due to a treaty that they’d signed 10 years before that had cost them 25 million acres in exchange for promised gold, cash, and food. When it came time to deliver on this, however, the U. S. government changed the terms and instead sent the payments to the white settlers who sold goods to the Dakota.
University of MinnesotaA map of Minnesota in 1862.
Finally, in a cruel natural disaster, the decimation of the Dakota corn crop in 1861 by a “cutworm” infestation meant the vital crop the Dakota had been counting on for survival would not be harvested.
Thus, by the summer of 1862, the Dakota people were absolutely desperate.
There were two key incidents that started the Dakota Uprising of 1862, both on the same day: Aug. 17. The first came when desperate Dakota people broke into a government “agency” (administrative offices that managed the reservations and held stores of food) known as the Upper Agency (see map above) to take flour and other staples. This incident spread fear and anger among the white settlers and other agencies of the federal government.
The other event was when, on the same day as the agency storehouse incident, a small group of four young Dakota warriors came back emptyhanded from a hunt. They then tried to steal eggs from a small white settlement near Acton — about 60 miles West of Minneapolis. The young men were caught doing so, and in the ensuing back-and-forth, the white settler family who owned the chickens was killed.
Sensing what was coming next and desperate for basic food supplies, Dakota warriors called for an all-out war with the white settlers and traders, as well as with the U.S. government itself.
Minnesota Historical SocietyChief Little Crow
Chief Little Crow, whose Dakota name was Ta Oyate Duta, disagreed with the sentiment of warring with the white settlers and the federal troops because he’d traveled to Washington, D.C. four years prior and knew just how many there were in the country. He warned them with these prescient words: “If you strike at them they will all turn on you and devour you and your women and little children.”
Still, he resolved to lead the tribe’s attack force and die with them if he had to. The warring members of the Dakota tribe searched out local settlers and once again began with the agencies. This is also where the merchants who famously stole the Dakota cash payments had storefronts.
The “Lower Sioux Agency,” which was actually on the tribe’s own land, was their first target. They took food supplies, set fire to some of the buildings, and killed about 20 of the white men who worked there and attempted to defend it.
Fort Ridgely was next to be attacked, though the warriors were eventually pushed back. They then headed from town to town, killing as they saw fit, sparing some settlers who they knew to be friendly, and taking what food they could scrounge up.
This continued until finally, after the Battle of Wood Lake 36 days later, the Dakota Uprising of 1862 was over. Total numbers aren’t certain, but estimates are that 500 — 1,000 of the white settlers and about 100 Dakota lay dead.
The fighting was over, but the sentiment of most of the Dakota people had been decidedly against what the warriors had done. They knew what could come of it.
And, indeed, it did.
Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey had declared just a few weeks before the end of the uprising what he intended to do:
“The Sioux Indians of Minnesota must be exterminated or driven forever beyond the borders of the State. If any shall escape extinction, the wretched remnant must be driven beyond our borders, and our frontier garrisoned with a force sufficient to forever prevent their return.”
Indeed, the state eventually raised the bounty on Dakota scalps from $75 to $200 — $2,500 apiece in today’s dollars.
After the uprising, the head of the military for the area, Colonel Henry Sibley (who was the main architect of the flawed treaty to begin with), promised security and safety for the remaining Dakota people if they came forward. The warriors who had caused death and destruction had already fled the state or were captured. Those who did come forward were old men, women, and children. They were hunger-marched for several days to Fort Snelling, near St. Paul.
It was “essentially a concentration camp,” said historian Mary Wingerd, “where they were kept until the spring of 1863. And then they were transported to a reservation — Crow Creek, South Dakota. It was in Dakota Territory, which was the next best thing to hell. And the death toll was just shocking.”
“They lost everything. They lost their lands. They lost all their annuities that were owed them from the treaties. These are people who were guilty of nothing.”
Minnesota Historical SocietyA Dakota woman and her child in the concentration camp at Fort Snelling. 1862 or 1863.
This, of course, followed the execution of the 38 Dakota prisoners on Dec. 26, 1862 in Mankato — the largest mass execution in American history.
After the execution, the rest of the Dakota people were effectively banished from the state forever.
There’s no question there were atrocities committed against settlers who were not to blame. What you ignore however is that the Dakota were given damned good reason to feel aggrieved. The Federal govt and specifically the Alincoln administration broke their word and the treaty they had signed. Afterward they committed numerous atrocities against the Dakota (and even Winnebago who were not involved) while several of the crooked bastards lined their pockets as a result. A lot of the Dakota and Winnebago were every bit as innocent as the settlers were. The real bad guy here is the Federal govt - especially the Lincoln administration.
im sorry, but there is never a good reason to smash babies skulls in front of their mothers before raping and torturing them, as well as dissecting settlers while alive and other atrocities documented as having been committed by the Sioux, Comanche and other tribes. One well known tribe (whos name escapes me now) were outright cannibals, treating the hands and feet of their captured as delicacies. Is there ever a good reason for that? Sorry, but No moral equivalency here. Whatever abuse was eventually bestowed upon the tribes was mainly in retribution for the countless atrocities that were committed upon innocent people.
So go talk to Mr Lincoln about that and quit telling us all about these make believe noble savages. They were not.
And they are all long past at this point.
I grew up in Northern Minnesota and had some Native American friends in high school and college. Most were good people but the ones living in the past weren't among them. They would show up at the pow wows to get drunk and plan where they were going to steal their next car. Get over it and make something of yourself or your children may well be caught in the same ugly spiral of alcohol, crime and sometimes suicide.
Victimhood is like that: it gets you nowhere.
It is sad what was done to many aboriginal groups in America.
“The Chinese executions areSTILL happening...
Christians being killed? “
Most likely Falun Gong followed by organ harvesting.
I’m sorry, but I never said there was a good reason for the atrocities committed against settlers. Can you see that there was no good reason to commit all sorts of atrocities against the Dakotas and Winnebago many of whom were non combatants? The first ones to get the whole thing started were the federal government.
I do.
You got that right. That is one reason not to surrender. If they are going to take your scalp[head] make them earn it.
Hi.
You have been posting some good stuff lately.
For example, I didn’t know about the beer ship.
5.56mm
Wrong. the first ones to get the whole thing started were the savages, who massacred and tortured innocent civilians. The government just adopted their policies and treated them with the same level of depravity that they treated the settlers. Here is a little exercise for you. Take every purported “massacre” committed against the indians and put it on a timeline. You’ll find that the outrageous brutality of the Indians upon innocent civilians preceded those dates. The US Government was originally ineffective in their response until the demands of the western territories and governorships to stop the Indian violence and raids. Treaties signed by Indian chiefs were regularly ignored by warriors seeking plunder and blood. That is when, for the most part, the US government came to the realization that the Indians were ungovernable and not willing or incapable of assimilation to an agrarian, peaceful society. The response, although not pretty, resulted in their forceful separation from their lands and territories, from which the Indians had used to launch countless raiding parties and settler massacres. As for “non-combatant” indians, are you referring to many of the women in the tribes that played an equal role in torturing captured settlers, soldiers and mexicans, or just the children? Sorry, but war is hell and yes, at some point the Indians got a taste of the savagery that they unleashed. That was on them in my book.
Mark
“What is the point of understanding history?”
The problem with history is that it reflects the perspective of the “historian” and for the last 50 years many historians have been leftists. What’s that “history” worth?
Wrong. The federal government broke the terms of the treaty it had with them. That was the first thing that got it started.
Is this the hisstory of abortion?
And yet the Northern peoples claim to care about black slaves.
Why would they care about black slaves while they are effectively murdering Indians?
Trying to get your preemptive denials in beforehand eh? :)
Put their own home state Indians in concentration camps while claiming to care about black slaves in states other than which they live in?
I'm beginning to think that the Lincoln era was primarily one of corruption from the beginning to the end, and by the time Grant came along, the corruption was so inherent in the Lincoln's legacy government, that it became so obvious as to attract everyone's attention to it.
I think it is prophetic that the Lincoln government began as a bunch of corruption and influence peddling in Chicago Illinois. Still the source of much corruption in this nation's history.
I figured you would be along sooner or later.
Thanks vannrox.
It was well known how corrupt several of them were. Lincoln joked that he had confidence Seward would at least not try to steal a red hot stove......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.