The largest mass hanging in US history 150 years ago today

So, you're proud of being just as wrong as they are?

Nah, I merely posted that it was the anniversary of one the most shameful events in US history, an event that just happened to occurred in the North. Then those who sometimes write so eloquently about the plight of Southern slaves suddenly got defensive.
 
Easy to forget the Indian Agents responsible were all appointed by a Southern President. Lincoln had more pressing things on his plate than replacing them.

The Dakota War of 1862 was a no quarter given and none asked conflict, IMO there were a lot more white settlers killed than the 4-800 figure often quoted. And the number of settlers run out of Minnesota was also considerably greater.

The effect of about 2000 Dakota Warriors going on the war path had a greater effect on a larger area which lasted longer than either of Bobbie Lee's northward movements. FWIW the sheer terror effect of an Indian War Party was effective whether it was Commanche or Dakota. It's a good thing it wasn't a Lakota War as the Lakota were far wider ranging than the Dakota, better led and considerably more effective fighters as Red Cloud would prove in 1866.

Lincoln was ultimately responsible for the execution of 38 Dakota... how many did he pardon? Lincoln actually reviewed the case against every man to be executed and he commuted the majority of those sentences, which he knew came out of a kangaroo court. He made the time, he didn't care about the political hay that might make and he did all this in the middle of the darkest days of the ACW. A president that reviewed each case... over 300. He didn't appoint someone else to do it he did it himself and for that I give the man credit.

Knowing of the opinion of Davis toward the Native American had such a brutal War flared up in Texas I have no doubt he would have ordered the extermination of ALL Commanche. So before the Lost Causers in the crowd start flinging mud at Lincoln and the "north" (which translates to US) they might want to make sure they aren't living in a glass house. In other words every southerner is living on land stolen from a Native American tribe, so is every other American. Get over it, the Indian got screwed and we ALL benefit from that today. To say otherwise is to knowingly lie.
 
Nah, I merely posted that it was the anniversary of one the most shameful events in US history, an event that just happened to occurred in the North. Then those who sometimes write so eloquently about the plight of Southern slaves suddenly got defensive.
Have you ever posted of the plight of the Cherokee, Seminole, Creek, Commanche, Kiowa etc?
 
You ever notice how real or imagined Southern misdeeds are gist for open and endless debate here, but let a pro Southerner mention, in a post that it, that it is the anniversary of one the most shameful events in US history and the poster is immediately accused of throwing a bomb and being a “resident troll”. Of course the fact that the travesty occurred in Minnesota and not Mississippi almost certainly has something to do with it.
I think we often miss the point that, if we are to insist on the right of the Confederacy as a sovereign nation with an inherent right to self determination, we must reciprocally extend that courtesy to the northern states. Their country, their call. If they stretch a few necks in MN,... so, how 'bout them Saints? Think Drew Brees can take'em to the Bowl?
 
Have you ever posted of the plight of the Cherokee, Seminole, Creek, Commanche, Kiowa etc?

I’m sure I have somewhere, if not, or in case you missed it, let me make it emphatically clear that what the US government did to the American Indian was an outrage and national disgrace. And furthermore, it makes no difference to me whether the president responsible was Southern or Northern, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Burin, Abraham Lincoln or some other ‘man of the people’ type scummy imposter.
 
How many Indian agents were convicted of a crime for which they could be hanged? You're complaining Lincoln didn't hang any Indian agents, yet none of them were convicted of anything. If Lincoln were to hang Indian agents he'd be hanging them without a trial.

Yeah, you’re right the Lincoln regime never brought charges against the corrupt government officials for their crimes.
 
A little background.

Previous treaties
The United States and Dakota leaders negotiated the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux[5] on July 23, 1851, and Treaty of Mendota on August 5, 1851, by which the Dakota were forced to cede large tracts of land in Minnesota Territory to the U.S. In exchange for money and goods, the Dakota were forced to agree to live on a 20-mile (32 km) wide Indian reservation centered on a 150 mile (240 km) stretch of the upper Minnesota River.

However, the United States Senate deleted Article 3 of each treaty, which set out reservations, during the ratification process. Much of the promised compensation never arrived, was lost, or was effectively stolen due to corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Also, annuity payments guaranteed to the Dakota often were provided directly to traders instead (to pay off debts which the Dakota incurred with the traders).

Encroachments on Dakota lands
220px-ChiefLittleCrow.jpg
Expired Image Removed

Little Crow, Dakota chief
When Minnesota became a state on May 11, 1858, representatives of several Dakota bands led by Little Crow traveled to Washington, D.C., to negotiate about enforcing existing treaties. The northern half of the reservation along the Minnesota River was lost, and rights to the quarry at Pipestone, Minnesota, were also taken from the Dakota. This was a major blow to the standing of Little Crow in the Dakota community.

The land was divided into townships and plots for settlement. Logging and agriculture on these plots eliminated surrounding forests and prairies, which interrupted the Dakota's annual cycle of farming, hunting, fishing and gathering wild rice. Hunting by settlers dramatically reduced wild game, such as bison, elk, whitetail deer and bear. Not only did this decrease the meat available for the Dakota in southern and western Minnesota, but it directly reduced their ability to sell furs to traders for additional supplies.

Although payments were guaranteed, the US government was often behind or failed to pay because of Federal preoccupation with the American Civil War. Most land in the river valley was not arable, and hunting could no longer support the Dakota community. The Dakota became increasingly discontented over their losses: land, non-payment of annuities, past broken treaties, plus food shortages and famine following crop failure. Tensions increased through the summer of 1862.

Negotiations
On August 4, 1862, representatives of the northern Sissetowan and Wahpeton Dakota bands met at the Upper Sioux Agency in the northwestern part of the reservation and successfully negotiated to obtain food. When two other bands of the Dakota, the southern Mdewakanton and the Wahpekute, turned to the Lower Sioux Agency for supplies on August 15, 1862, they were rejected. Indian Agent (and Minnesota State Senator) Thomas Galbraith managed the area and would not distribute food to these bands without payment.

At a meeting of the Dakota, the U.S. government and local traders, the Dakota representatives asked the representative of the government traders, Andrew Jackson Myrick, to sell them food on credit. His response was said to be, "So far as I am concerned, if they are hungry let them eat grass or their own dung." [6] But the importance of Myrick's comment at the time, early August 1862, is historically unclear. When Gregory Michno shared the top 10 myths on the Dakota Uprising in True West Magazine, he stated that this statement did not incite the uprising: "An interpreter’s daughter first mentioned it 57 years after the event. Since then, however, the claim that this incited the Dakotas to revolt has proliferated as truth in virtually every subsequent retelling. Like so much of our history, unfortunately, repetition is equated with accuracy." [7] Another telling is that Myrick's was referring the Native American women who were already combing the floor of the fort's stables for any unprocessed oats to then feed to their starving children along with a little grass. Myrick was later found dead with grass stuffed in his mouth.[8]
 
Then you could complain about him stacking juries to hang people. :wink:

Then you could complain about him stacking juries to hang people. :wink:

My compliant is Lincoln didn’t have the US government appointee perpetrators charged and brought to trial for their crimes. But then again, perhaps Lincoln thought only the Indians were guilty of crimes or perhaps it was as another poster so blithely put it: “Lincoln had more pressing things on his plate”
 
My compliant is Lincoln didn’t have the US government appointee perpetrators charged and brought to trial for their crimes. But then again, perhaps Lincoln thought only the Indians were guilty of crimes or perhaps it was as another poster so blithely put it: “Lincoln had more pressing things on his plate”

Lincoln didn't have anyone brought to trial in this situation. You all falsely complain that he was a dictator, then you complain that he doesn't act like a dictator.
 
And a little more...........

Early fighting
On August 16, 1862, the treaty payments to the Dakota arrived in St. Paul, Minnesota, and were brought to Fort Ridgely the next day. They arrived too late to prevent violence. On August 17, 1862, four young Dakota men were on a hunting trip in Acton Township, Minnesota, during which one stole eggs and then killed five white settlers.[9] Soon after, a Dakota war council was convened and their leader, Little Crow, agreed to continue attacks on the European-American settlements to try to drive out the whites.

On August 18, 1862, Little Crow led a group that attacked the Lower Sioux (or Redwood) Agency. Andrew Myrick was among the first who were killed.[citation needed] He was discovered trying to escape through a second-floor window of a building at the agency. Myrick's body later was found with grass stuffed into his mouth. The warriors burned the buildings at the Lower Sioux Agency, giving enough time for settlers to escape across the river at Redwood Ferry. Minnesota militia forces and B Company of the 5th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment sent to quell the uprising were defeated at the Battle of Redwood Ferry. Twenty-four soldiers, including the party's commander (Captain John Marsh), were killed in the battle. [10] Throughout the day, Dakota war parties swept the Minnesota River Valley and near vicinity, killing many settlers. Numerous settlements including the Townships of Milford, Leavenworth and Sacred Heart, were surrounded and burned and their populations nearly exterminated.

Early Dakota offensives
220px-BirchCouleeBattle.jpg
Expired Image Removed

1912 lithograph depicting the 1862 Battle of Birch Coulee, by Paul G. Biersach (1845-1927)
Confident with their initial success, the Dakota continued their offensive and attacked the settlement of New Ulm, Minnesota, on August 19, 1862, and again on August 23, 1862. Dakota warriors initially decided not to attack the heavily defended Fort Ridgely along the river. They turned toward the town, killing settlers along the way. By the time New Ulm was attacked, residents had organized defenses in the town center and were able to keep the Dakota at bay during the brief siege. Dakota warriors penetrated parts of the defenses enough to burn much of the town.[11] By that evening, a thunderstorm dampened the warfare, preventing further Dakota attacks.

Regular soldiers and militia from nearby towns (including two companies of the 5th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry then stationed at Fort Ridgely) reinforced New Ulm. Residents continued to build barricades around the town.

During this period, the Dakota attacked Fort Ridgely on August 20 and 22, 1862.[12][13] Although the Dakota were not able to take the fort, they ambushed a relief party from the fort to New Ulm on August 21. The defense at the Battle of Fort Ridgely further limited the ability of the American forces to aid outlying settlements. The Dakota raided farms and small settlements throughout south central Minnesota and what was then eastern Dakota Territory.

Minnesota militia counterattacks resulted in a major defeat of American forces at the Battle of Birch Coulee on September 2, 1862. The battle began when the Dakota attacked a detachment of 150 American soldiers at Birch Coulee, 16 miles (26 km) from Fort Ridgely. The detachment had been sent out to find survivors, bury American dead and report on the location of Dakota fighters. A three-hour firefight began with an early morning assault. Thirteen soldiers were killed and 47 were wounded, while only two Dakota were killed. A column of 240 soldiers from Fort Ridgely relieved the detachment at Birch Coulee the same afternoon.

Attacks in northern Minnesota
220px-Dakota_War_of_1862-stereo-right.jpg
Expired Image Removed

Settlers escaping the violence, 1862
Farther north, the Dakota attacked several unfortified stagecoach stops and river crossings along the Red River Trails, a settled trade route between Fort Garry (now Winnipeg, Manitoba) and Saint Paul, Minnesota, in the Red River Valley in northwestern Minnesota and eastern Dakota Territory. Many settlers and employees of the Hudson's Bay Company and other local enterprises in this sparsely populated country took refuge in Fort Abercrombie, located in a bend of the Red River of the North about 25 miles (40 km) south of present-day Fargo, North Dakota. Between late August and late September, the Dakota launched several attacks on Fort Abercrombie; all were repelled by its defenders.

In the meantime, steamboat and flatboat trade on the Red River came to a halt. Mail carriers, stage drivers and military couriers were killed while attempting to reach settlements such as Pembina, North Dakota, Fort Garry, St. Cloud, Minnesota, and Fort Snelling. Eventually, the garrison at Fort Abercrombie was relieved by a U.S. Army company from Fort Snelling, and the civilian refugees were removed to St. Cloud.
 
You know that nobody really thinks Lincoln was a dictator. It's just an insult, like calling Grant a butcher and a drunkard and Sherman insane and a pyromaniac.

It's also a rather anachronistic insult; the word "dictator" acquired a lot of its present baggage because of the totalitarian movements of the first part of the 20th Century. In mid-19th Century terms, the word would have evoked references like Cincinnatus, Caesar, Cromwell, and Napoleon. There was certainly a connotation of absolutism, but without many of the more negative references that the word has now.
 
So typical of Lincoln-bashers. One blames him for hanging (starving) Indians, another blames him for not hanging (mass-murdering) Indians. The only thing they agree on is that Lincoln is responsible for all the worlds ills.

Pretty pathetic, guys.


After reading back through the post, this is the first mentioning of Lincoln bashing.
I wonder why that is.Lincoln follows the thread title.....which is History......and let me add by the US Government!

The largest mass hanging in US history 150 years ago today
 
You know that nobody really thinks Lincoln was a dictator. It's just an insult, like calling Grant a butcher and a drunkard and Sherman insane and a pyromaniac.

It's also a rather anachronistic insult; the word "dictator" acquired a lot of its present baggage because of the totalitarian movements of the first part of the 20th Century. In mid-19th Century terms, the word would have evoked references like Cincinnatus, Caesar, Cromwell, and Napoleon. There was certainly a connotation of absolutism, but without many of the more negative references that the word has now.

Go back to the beginning post and see who mentioned dictator first!
 
Back
Top