Fueled by both land speculators and a
declining fur trade, which had previously been the main enterprise in Minnesota
Territory (then including parts of both the Dakotas and Iowa), the U.S.
government representatives justified these treaties as a way to satisfy the
rising tide of migration west. In fact,
the tide did not begin until the land was handed over; at the time, an area of
9,000 square miles held just over 6,000 settlers—hardly a rising tide of
humanity. The treaties stipulated the Dakota would retain a twenty mile swath
of land, and receive $3,750,000. Of that amount, debts owed to the fur traders
were paid off, another $60,000 was to be paid to blacksmiths to help with the
natives’ switch to farming, and five per cent of the remainder would be paid
annually to the Dakota—with half of that to buy goods and services from the
traders. In fact, the government hoped
to change the Dakota culture away from communal property to individual
ownership.
By 1862, four years after Minnesota had become a state, the
8,000 Dakota affected by these treaties were starving. In 1858, the Dakotas had
been forced to give up the northern half of the small band of land they had
been left. Delayed payments and the
refusal of the traders to give any more credit resulted in hunting parties
going out. On August 17, 1862, while the
Civil War raged back east, one such hunting party killed five white
settlers. That night a council of Dakota
led by Chief Little Crow decided to drive the settlers out of the Minnesota
River valley. Over the next six weeks, what is now called the Dakota War of
1862 raged with massacres and atrocities committed on both sides.
The war ended with the Dakota Sioux surrender at Camp Release. The Army had captured more than 1,000 Native
Americans. Some eight hundred white
settlers were said to have died. Subsequently, 392 prisoners were tried, 303
were condemned to death, and sixteen were given prison terms. The cases, which had purportedly been handled
with unseemly haste and little attention to detail, were then handed on to
President Lincoln for his approval.
Lincoln found himself under intense political pressure to let
these death sentences go forward. Keeping in mind that this had been called a
War—a situation in which opposing sides do not normally thereafter hold
executions of soldiers unless there is a further crime—and also remembering
Lincoln had other things on his mind, it is amazing that the President was able
to go over these cases and reduce the condemned to just thirty-nine (one
sentence was later commuted). He did this by narrowing the guilty to those convicted
of rape and massacre, as opposed to just taking part in battles.
The executions took place in Mankato, Minnesota, on 26
December, 1862. It was the largest mass execution ever held in
the United States. More than one quarter of the Dakota Sioux who had
surrendered died the following year.
Others were sent to reservations in Nebraska, North Dakota, or left for
Canada.
Print, Library of Congress |
In 2012, 150 years after the executions, a memorial was
unveiled in Reconciliation Park, Mankato.
It was preceded by a sixteen day horseback trek of Dakota from South
Dakota to MN. This ride has been repeated every year since 2005. In addition, a documentary about the hangings
and the commemorative ride was brought out in 2010. More recently, in 2017, a so-called sculpture
of the scaffold on which thirty-eight men died was erected by the Walker Art Center
in Mankato. After numerous protests that
the sculpture was a reminder of a “bad past,” it was taken down and burned.
As always when I read something like this, I wonder at the psyche of people who lived in the west at that time and had to deal with that conflict. I really cannot imagine. The sheer number of families who lost loved one on either side is heartbreaking. I'm sorry to hear they took down the sculpter!
ReplyDeleteThis is a little known "situation" from history, Andrea, and such a sad footnote in the Indian Wars, which, unfortunately, appears to have been made up of sad footnotes. I'm shocked they took down the sculpture in 2017. It's as if no one wants to learn tolerance from history. So sad, both the history, and the present-day events, too.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog, shedding light on little-known history. The deeper you dig into history, the more interesting it becomes.
Patti, they mostly took the sculpture down because of complaints from Native Americans. They felt that a sculpture of an object on which 38 men died was not appropriate. Many Native Americans are actually unable to put behind them the past they have inherited; they feel there is something genetic in their make-up that leads to their depression because of their past. In fact, one of the men who did the memorial ride to MN from SD later committed suicide.
ReplyDeleteHebby, I guess I didn't explain too well about the reasons for taking down the sculpture as both you and Patti seem to have misunderstood--apologies, it's from trying to keep a post a reasonable size! Please read my response to Patti above, and thanks for stopping by!
ReplyDelete