Earlier this month I noted the execution by hanging of 38 Dakota at the culmination of the US-Dakota War. Another 1,600 Dakota were deported from the region after having been imprisoned at Fort Snelling, just outside present-day Minneapolis, and a place where Dred Scott once lived. Much is made of the fact that Abraham Lincoln signed off on the execution of thirty-nine people (the largest mass government execution in US history), while others emphasize the fact that Lincoln reduced the number of people to be executed from 303 to 39 (one individual secured a last-minute reprieve).
Some 150 years later people still dispute the meaning of this event, coming just days before Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Ceremonies held at Mankato commemorated the event (you will find a photo gallery here). Other people discussed how to teach the event.
A good case can be made that the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 led to a renewed pledge for white Americans to advance westward (see the Transcontinental Railroad and the Homestead Act, for example), and that while the Republicans wanted such expansion to be devoid of slavery, they well knew that it would also involve battling native Americans resisting such expansion and deporting them elsewhere. However, one must also recall that white southerners were not against such expansion, and neither were northern Democrats such as Stephen A. Douglas. While the Civil War dampened expansionist efforts, it also laid the groundwork for postwar expansion, with the clashes on the frontier intensifying once the federal government could refocus its military efforts.
Sometimes the legacy of the Civil War is a bit more complicated than we might want to believe.
The secessionists in my state were explicit in their complaint that, in their view, the national government “has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border,” and they included that as part of their justification for seceding — even though, as I’ve read, something like one third of the entire prewar, regular U.S. Army was scattered among the frontier outposts of Texas.
My own ancestor who voted to empower the Texas Secession Convention represented Limestone County, site of one of the most infamous cases of the murder and kidnapping of white settlers by Native Americans in the 19th century. It really is hard for me to imagine that, whatever else their grievances against Lincoln and his party, such men like that would have taken much offense at Washington’s hard-handed policies against the Dakotas in Minnesota. If anything, they wanted more of that down here.
The US Indian policy was no different after the war then before,do something with the Indians and take their lands
Your posting and shared video focusing on the Mankato hangings, brought back many memories for this student. During the late 60′s and 70′s South Dakota was a hotbed of the American Indian Movement. A relationship developed between Bummer and Russell Means, one of the players in the radical activities on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Two Federal Officers were murdered on that reservation early in the conflict . A 72 day siege of the members of the American Indian Movement was the result, several arrests were made and one Native American is still in prison. Means and Bummer remained close for many years and when this “old guy” recently moved near Russell’s ranch, the old friendship rekindled. One of the historical tragedies that we often discussed was the Mankato incident and the Lakota perspective. Means died of throat cancer earlier this year. He was probably one of the most bigoted human beings Bummer has ever met and he would be the first to admit it. Russell felt that his position on racism was similar to that of African-Americans, having experienced similar oppression and in addition forced relocation. Thanks for the posting, the video and the memories.
RIP old friend,
Bummer
Now that is extremely interesting and thought-provoking stuff. My own connections are with the (Eastern) Shoshones, who had an entirely different history. Essentially they came to an “understanding” with the US shortly before the war, guided by Chief Washakie. To oversimplify the matter, he saw where things were headed and struck the “best deal” he could. The tribe ended up with pretty good land on their historical grounds on the east slope of the Wind River Mountains and have fared much better than the Lakota in a number of areas (of course, everything in this realm is “relative”) . By way of contrast, the Arapahoes followed a different path and ended up being relocated to the eastern side of the WR Reservation in connection with the so-called Indian Wars. They have fared much less well than their Shoshone neighbors. As for the Mankato hangings, as I’ve posted previously there were unjustified murders of unarmed civiilans, including children, committed by some of the rebels in August-September, 1862 and Lincoln’s reduction of the number of executions to 38 was a rough attempt at sorting out the “good” from the “bad”. The reasons for the rebellion are unquestioned and were justified. The actions of some in the rebellion still deserved punishment.
It is one thing to be a bigot and another to understand that one is a bigot. Russell Means was a racist and unapologetic about it. However, when we examine his life it becomes pretty easy to understand why not only he, but others were racist and why they did what they did. Was it legal? No. Was it right? No. Yet, what was he supposed to do? Be a good Indian and keep on taking the incredible racsim and injustice that came from the state and federal governments not to mention his own tribal leadership? He took a path and by doing so showed why his (and my) ancestors fought a losing struggle during the Indian Wars. Fortunately for Russell Means, his path has had major significance in turning around the relationship between the First Americans and everyone else.
I don’t agree with the path he chose, but I definitely can understand why he chose it. I hope he is at peace now and that we can build from his actions and others.
FREE LEONARD PELTIER!
Interesting subject, I have several Native American friends and I have to tread lightly around this subject.:-) I think it’s realistic to believe that when it came to western expansion and Native American issues in the mid 1800′s most white Americans were on the same page including the South. Forced relocation of Native Americans is just as an important part of American history as the expansion of the railroads and the Industrial Revolution. My ancestors here in Georgia and Florida benefited greatly from the forced relocation of the Creek nation. I live not far from the place where Chief McIntosh signed away the Creek lands of Georgia. That was just as wrong as the slavery they engaged in . You hear a lot about Georgia’s history of Slavery and secession but very little of the forced relocation of the Creek nation. I see the forced relocation of Native Americans, slavery in the western hemisphere and European expansion and conquest of the western hemisphere as one big wave of European Imperialism that started in the early 1500′s. Human history is just one story after another of humans exploiting humans.Sadly it alive and well today. Using modern day Africa as an example, Africa is not poor as we are being told , it’s just been looted and is being looted.
A little side note, I remember a couple years ago visiting the Island of St Thomas. I was at a lookout point over looking a bay and the ruins of an old sugarcane plantation. There were a group of people there taking photos and in ahh of the beauty. I did remind all of them that this beautiful paradise was one a living hell on earth for many people…. I didn’t get a response
As a fellow Georgian I can’t agree more…my ancestors settled in Lumpkin County and my mom’s were eastern NC planters and one of the first planters in Tallahassee Fla
Interesting that at the same time the Dakota War was going on in Minnesota, there were “native” regiments wearing both blue and gray (figuratively) fighting in Kansas and the Unorganized Territory, and people like Ely Parker were petitioning to be “allowed” to bear arms for the United States.
If Thaóyate Dúta had asked Ramsey to raise a Dakota company in 1862, prior to the outbreak of the war, and Ramsey had accepted? I’ve always thought if the Trent Affair had gone hot, there would have been a lot more acceptance of non-whites, including both NAs and AAs, by the US government early in the conflict.
Best,
Pro Brooks,
Just found your blog from you CSPAN panel from Gettysburg. Undergrad my advisor was Peter Hoffer at UGA. Wrote my senior thesis on GA slave law and published part of it in Mercer Law Rev in 1990…love to hear your thought…
On this article I think that the average student or person thought Lincoln was the end all in race relations. Wrong. Lincoln and his peers beloved in ending slavery but most did not believe in the equality of races…Much of the following years up to WWII are not usually taught in ref to race relations in US or the West (except in ethnic studies which in my mind is history taught with an overt political bias of anti western civ anti-male and anti-Caucasian – not defendings their wrongs etc). Even so manifest destiny and late 19th century were inherently racist by our current standards. Just my thought… Look forward to continued reading!
The westward expansion certainly would have happened regardless, the Civil War just interrupted the westward flow somewhat. The war also provided a lot of combat experienced officers to the postwar army who then participated in the various wars with the Native tribes. How much good that combat seasoning on a Blue vs. Gray battlefield did for commanders fighting Native Americans a decade later is certainly debatable.
General William Tecumseh Sherman learned well the art of total war by murdering over 60,000 Southern women and children, and over 1,000,000 slaves. What Sherman couldn’t consume on the spot he burned or bombed into oblivion.
Never before in the history of the civilized world has such poverty, oppression, economic devastation, and injustice been wrought against women and children.
The ink was not dry on General Lee’s surrender papers when General William Tecumseh Sherman carried his lofty idea of total war into the Indian Nation. Murder and mayhem was his game.
Sherman and his Yankee nation should be proud of waging war against women and children. I know he will never rest in peace in Hell.
It would be interesting to see documentation for your claims. Otherwise, I don’t see how we can accept what you assert in the first paragraph as being true.
“Never before in the history of the civilized world has such poverty, oppression, economic devastation, and injustice been wrought against women and children.” Ever hear of slavery, Terry?
Just a thought. Seems we may have touched a nerve.
Maybe he can do us the favor of documenting the “over 1,000,000 slaves” who were “murdered” by Sherman. In 1860 Georgia had 462,000 slaves. South Carolina had 402,000 and North Carolina had 331,000. According to Terry Sherman therefore killed at a minimum literally every slave in Georgia and in South Carolina and 40% of those in North Carolina. Who knew…..
I doubt Terry is up to documenting his rants. He wouldn’t want facts to get in the way of his tale.
True, but he should at least demonstrate the ability to perform basic arithmetic.
Math’s just another Yankee trick.
What is surprising to me is that these types of are NOT sock puppets, even though they routinely illustrate the truth of your argument on a regular basis.
It is almost TOO perfect, at times – are you sure you don’t have a couple of grad students pranking you?
Best,
Their ISPs suggest otherwise.
I didn’t say they had to be ASU grad students…
Then it would be an amusing parody that comes rather close to the real thing, suggesting their true talents lay elsewhere.
Sure, we can talk about slavery all day. Tell me how the Yankees enslaved the Piquet Indians, and to keep the Indian slaves from running away the holier than thou Yankees cut the toes off the Indians. And next tell me how the Yankees sold the Indians to sugar plantations in the Caribbean. Tell me how Yankees kidnapped and enslaved thousands of blacks from the African Continent for profit.
Tell me how Yankee soldiers used slave labor during the Civil War. Tell me when the Yankee soldiers were not enslaving blacks during the war they let the blacks starve to death. Tell me how and when Ulysses S. Grant freed his slaves.
Tell me about the “Jim Crow” laws in the State of Indiana and all over the North before 1860. Tell me about the holier than thou Yankees when tired of their slaves SOLD them to the South for profit.
Tell me about the real reason Yankees did not want slavery in Missouri?? Let me help you with that. Yankees thought they were superior to blacks and wanted to preserve ALL work and profit for the white race. Since the North already had a few blacks living among them (former slaves) Missouri and the west would be a good place to purge the countryside of all those ugly black folk. Colonizing the rest might help? Tell me about the racist Abraham Lincoln and his efforts to deport blacks back to their place of origin. What a great idea?
Yep, we can talk about slavery all day. And when we are done with that, we can talk about the holier than thou Yankees murdering over 60,000 Southern women and children, and over 1,000,000 slaves.
For good measure, we can talk about the Roswell, Georgia kidnapping of white women and children and enslaving them in Yankee factories during the war. While General William Tecumseh Sherman’s army is waging war upon civilians, burning and pillaging their way through the South at least 400 women and female children working at a cotton mill in Roswell, Georgia are kidnapped by Sherman and shipped North. They are charged with treason. The vast majority are never heard from again. Stories were told that during the week while the women were held in Marietta, Georgia several Union soldiers committed acts of sexual assault against their captives.
Slavery was evil for sure. Thank you Yankees for introducing it onto the American Continent.
Abraham Lincoln displayed little to no regard for the Dakota Indians in 1862. His murderous rampage would teach and serve him well in his conquest of the South.
Ah, yes, southern whites were helpless victims in this tale of Yankee evil.
Guess we’ve touched a nerve. You failed to document your claims about Sherman. As for Grant, he freed the only slave he owned before the war. Maybe you should do some reading on the subject,because I’ve already addressed the issue. Tell us why you ignore that work … or admit that you’re simply ignorant of it. And, while you’re at it, since these issues are so important to you, why don’t you tell us about Lee’s involvement with slavery? That should prove entertaining.
Hope you feel better now that you’ve had your say. It would be interesting if you actually read the blog before engaging in your periodic rants.
“Piquet Indians”?
Pequods, maybe?
He’s on a roll.
Actually, given the utterly Machiavellian nature of liberal Yankee college professors (in well-known liberal hotbed Arizona, of course), it could be the most cunning self defense method imagined – provide your “own” over the top screwball neo-Confederate as a sock puppet, and the “real” over the top screwball neo-Confederates say “okay, that’s all right then – off to the League of the South Facebook page”….
Cue triumphant maniacal laughter…
Terry’s working from a worn, dog-eared script.
1. Instead of addressing the issue at hand (the hanging at Mankato), toss in as many diversionary subjects as possible (e.g., Grant owned slaves! Lincoln wanted to deport all black people! Uncle Billy was a racist!).
2. When challenged on specific points, claim you either made a simple mistake — which, naturally, shouldn’t be held against you or be seen to undermine your credibility — or claim you didn’t actually say that in the first place (“I stated that Sherman murdered or allowed to starve a million slaves during the war. All the slave’s death cannot be attributed to Sherman alone. . . .”)
3. When someone does challenge your statements, however civilly, claim that you are the victim of a “personal attack,” while accusing the challenger of being a “one sided Yankee revisionist and a fake so-called historian, unwilling to accept truth.”
4. When your subsequent comments are not moderated and posted within minutes, falsely claim that you’ve been “banned,” and tell yourself it’s because you’re speaking truth to power, and the other guy can’t handle it.
5. Finally, when nothing else works, quit while loudly announcing that further discussion is useless and unworthy of your time (e.g., “I shall not waste any more time on you. Goodbye. I’m gone.”).
Yes, Terry’s on a roll, but he probably doesn’t realize he’s rolling in a deep and well-worn rut.
I don’t understand this weird focus on the 39 Dakota’s that got hanged – as opposed to the hundreds of white setters that were massacred. The 39 were the ringleaders and were responsible for “the war” – if you can call rape, murder, and pillage of unsuspecting white settlers a “war”. The Dakota’s had legitimate grievances but nothing can justify the hundreds of deaths. Just like having a “high tariff” can’t justify secession and starting a war that killed 600,000.
Well, their grievances went to matters which were a little more basic than the level of duties imposed on certain goods – like subsistence and being forced off their lands. As I’ve posted, there’s little doubt that some deserved punishment. But it’s not conclusive that all 38 were established as “ringleaders” of the murders, etc., certainly not by the standards of proof which would have applied to whites. It was Lincoln making as good faith an effort as he could given the climate of the times. And the focus isn’t “weird” – the whole thing was wrapped up with conditions which any right-thinking American today believes were immoral and intolerable.
Please note that no where in my post did I personally attack anyone on this blog. However, all replies to my post have been nothing but personal attacks against me. We can discuss the issues as adults or we can spend our time hurling insults at each other. I question my sanity when I bother to reply or post to “moderated” blogs. Usually “moderated” blogs are totally one sided and do not present an accurate, or fair and balanced picture of history. I must commend the moderator here in posting my reply. I didn’t think he/she had it in him, given the raw and damning information presented.
Please allow me to correct a misstatement by me in my first post. My haste to write something, caused me to be ambiguous in my post. I stated that Sherman murdered or allowed to starve a million slaves during the war. All the slave’s death cannot be attributed to Sherman alone. Many perpetrators were guilty of murdering slaves. Sherman and Sheridan are the most famous. The million murdered slaves figure is the total number of murdered slaves for the entire war. Of course the figure is not exact. No one can prove the exact figure. I suppose by that, some will claim that none were murdered or even died at the hands of Yankee soldiers. And please don’t try to claim that Rebel soldiers murdered their own slaves.
Also I misspelled “Piquet” Indian. It should have been “Pequot” Indian. Would you like to comment on why the Yankee slave owners cut the Pequot Indian’s toes off and profited from their sale to Caribbean sugar plantations??
I was asked if I ever heard about slavery. I posted several points on slavery. None were answered intelligently. At least someone conceded the fact that Grant had “one” slave. Most Yankee and hypocritical war so-called historians will not concede that much. And yes, one could say General Lee owned slaves at one point in his life. Those slaves were the original property of his wife’s father. She inherited them when her father died. Lee freed the aforementioned slaves before the war started. Slavery was definitely NOT the reason Lee went to war.
It is quite clear from true history that the South did not have a monopoly on slavery as claimed by most Yankee historians. Can you tell me the flag that flew over each and every slave ship that brought the slaves to America? Again let me help you with that. The slave ship flags were either the American flag (stars and bars) or the British flag. Please own up to the north’s heinous part in American slavery. It’s time to stop the “holier than thou” attitude.
Let me suggest that if you treat requests for documentation as unwarranted personal attacks, you’ll believe that you are always being attacked.
Here’s a chance to prove you have something worthwhile to say. You assert the following: “At least someone conceded the fact that Grant had “one” slave. Most Yankee and hypocritical war so-called historians will not concede that much.” Prove it. There have been several biographies of Grant published since 1981. Tell me which biographer omitted this information.
We’ll wait for your answer, and we won’t hear from you until you give it. That will tell me whether you intend to make a serious contribution with your remarks, or whether it’s time to let you seek attention elsewhere.
What’s ambiguous about this?:
“General William Tecumseh Sherman learned well the art of total war by murdering over 60,000 Southern women and children, and over 1,000,000 slaves. What Sherman couldn’t consume on the spot he burned or bombed into oblivion.”
That’s a backpedal (and “allowed to starve” is also a new addition). Moreover, nobody’s claiming that Rebel soldiers murdered “their own slaves” (beyond the occasional need for discipline or to deal with runaways). That “property” was too valuable to simply murder and killing them would also have meant that the masters would now need to do the dirty work around the homestead – sort of a :”cut your nose off to spite your face” deal.
How about some documentation on the “over 1,000,000″, regardless of who you now say did it. That’s 1/3 of all slaves in the entire CSA. There’s still a big math problem.
As for Lee, read his own private letters about slavery and his slaves. .
Lee owned slaves in his own right, inherited from his mother, from soon after his graduation from West Point. Written documentation is scarce, but biographers have shown that Lee definitely owned slaves — personally, himself — as late as 1852, considered buying more shortly before the war began, and throughout the war itself used slaves — his own or others’, it’s not clear — as personal servants.
The enslaved persons at Arlington who were part of George Washington Parke Custis’ estate were another situation entirely, separate and apart from Lee’s own ownership of slaves. Lee did formally manumit them, but not until the very end of 1862, past the deadline set for manumission set in Custis’ will, and after most of them had been freed as a practical manner by the Union occupation of Arlington and the surrounding area.
If you are unaware of these somewhat basic facts about Lee and the “peculiar institution,” you might wish to reconsider lecturing others on the subject.
Oops — that last graf wasn’t intended to be blockquoted at all — plain text, sorry.
Guess I have been banned. My replies are not coming through.
Not true.
Sorry, I know your tactic. I defined the question and several issues after you challenged my knowledge of “slavery” in my previous replies. You refuse to address any of my perfectly good historical facts. I even corrected a couple of my mistakes. You are as I suspected. A one sided Yankee revisionist and a fake so-called historian, unwilling to accept truth.
I shall not waste any more time on you. Goodbye. I’m gone.
First I’m a fair moderator who allows dissenting views to appear. Then I’m willing to “admit” that Grant owned a slave. However, when I ask you to back up a statement, you run away crying that I’m a “one-sided Yankee revisionist and a fake so-called historian.”
Make up your mind.
Damn Yankee tactic … asking for evidence and documentation. Of course, if you offered “perfectly good historical facts,” you would have no problem providing support for your assertions.
I take you at your word that you’re gone, and I’ll be sure that you are as good as your word. I wouldn’t want you to break your resolution. Happy New Year!
Speechless! Bummer enjoys reviewing various sites, but some are better than a Coen Brothers feature film. The dialogue is classic and the “hits just keep on coming.” Glad your back on line.
Bummer
Is Bummer related to Bob Dole?
Oh…TF, you’re so droll, won’t you be my huckle-berry?
Thanks, but no.
Best,
An interesting but little reported background on this. Lincoln only agreed to have 2 men hanged. They had been convicted of rape & murder. Gov. Sibley wrote the President that there was no way he could survive hanging only 2 Indians, he had to have more blood to satisfy the white settlers. The final number might just as well been pulled out of a hat.