10
10
0
Lincoln ordered the execution of thirty-eight Dakota Indians for rebellion—but never ordered the execution of Confederate officials or generals.
By John Weiner
December 26, 1862: thirty-eight Dakota Indians were hanged in Mankato, Minnesota, in the largest mass execution in US history–on orders of President Abraham Lincoln. Their crime: killing 490 white settlers, including women and children, in the Santee Sioux uprising the previous August.
The execution took place on a giant square scaffold in the center of town, in front of an audience of hundreds of white people. The thirty-eight Dakota men “wailed and danced atop the gallows,” according to Robert K. Elder of The New York Times, “waiting for the trapdoors to drop beneath them.” A witness reported that, “as the last moment rapidly approached, they each called out their name and shouted in their native language: ‘I’m here! I’m here!’ ”
Lincoln’s treatment of defeated Indian rebels against the United States stood in sharp contrast to his treatment of Confederate rebels. He never ordered the executions of any Confederate officials or generals after the Civil War, even though they killed more than 400,000 Union soldiers. The only Confederate executed was the commander of Andersonville Prison—and for what we would call war crimes, not rebellion.
Minnesota was a new frontier state in 1862, where white settlers were pushing out the Dakota Indians—also called the Sioux. A series of broken peace treaties culminated in the failure of the United States that summer to deliver promised food and supplies to the Indians, partial payment for their giving up their lands to whites. One local trader, Andrew Myrick, said of the Indians’ plight, “If they are hungry, let them eat grass.”
The Dakota leader Little Crow then led his “enraged and starving” tribe in a series of attacks on frontier settlements. The “US-Dakota War” didn’t last long: After six weeks, Henry Hastings Sibley, first governor of Minnesota and a leader of the state militia, captured 2,000 Dakota, and a military court sentenced 303 to death.
Lincoln, however, was “never an Indian hater,” Eric Foner writes in his Pulitzer Prize–winning book The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. He did not agree with General John Pope, sent to put down a Sioux uprising in southern Minnesota, who said “It is my purpose utterly to exterminate the Sioux if I have the power to do so.” Lincoln “carefully reviewed the trial records,” Foner reports, and found a lack of evidence at most of the tribunals. He commuted the sentences of 265 of the Indians—a politically unpopular move. But, he said, “I could not afford to hang men for votes.”
The 265 Dakota Indians whose lives Lincoln spared were either fully pardoned or died in prison. Lincoln and Congress subsequently removed the Sioux and Winnebago—who had nothing to do with the uprising—from all of their lands in Minnesota.
Mankato today is a city of 37,000 south of Minneapolis, notable for its state university campus, which has 15,000 students. In Mankato, which has heretofore neglected its bloody past, a new historical marker is being erected at the site of the scaffold, at a place now called Reconciliation Park. The marker, a fiberglass scroll, displays the names of the thirty-eight Dakota who were executed.
The Minnesota History Center in St. Paul is currently featuring an exhibit titled “Minnesota Tragedy: The U.S.-Dakota War of 1862.” “You can’t turn your head from what is not pretty in history,” said Stephen Elliott, who became the director of the Minnesota Historical Society last May after twenty-eight years at Colonial Williamsburg. He told the Minneapolis Star Tribune, “Whatever we do, it’s not going to somehow heal things or settle it.” The impressive state-of-the-art exhibit includes the views of both white settlers and Indians, voices from the past as well as the present. “Visitors are encouraged to make up their own minds about what happened and why,” the official guide declares. The website and online video are particularly impressive.
https://www.thenation.com/article/largest-mass-execution-us-history-150-years-ago-today/
http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html
http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html
Additional video footage :
https://youtu.be/aC5AffazwcI
https://youtu.be/fifVfoarhMU
By John Weiner
December 26, 1862: thirty-eight Dakota Indians were hanged in Mankato, Minnesota, in the largest mass execution in US history–on orders of President Abraham Lincoln. Their crime: killing 490 white settlers, including women and children, in the Santee Sioux uprising the previous August.
The execution took place on a giant square scaffold in the center of town, in front of an audience of hundreds of white people. The thirty-eight Dakota men “wailed and danced atop the gallows,” according to Robert K. Elder of The New York Times, “waiting for the trapdoors to drop beneath them.” A witness reported that, “as the last moment rapidly approached, they each called out their name and shouted in their native language: ‘I’m here! I’m here!’ ”
Lincoln’s treatment of defeated Indian rebels against the United States stood in sharp contrast to his treatment of Confederate rebels. He never ordered the executions of any Confederate officials or generals after the Civil War, even though they killed more than 400,000 Union soldiers. The only Confederate executed was the commander of Andersonville Prison—and for what we would call war crimes, not rebellion.
Minnesota was a new frontier state in 1862, where white settlers were pushing out the Dakota Indians—also called the Sioux. A series of broken peace treaties culminated in the failure of the United States that summer to deliver promised food and supplies to the Indians, partial payment for their giving up their lands to whites. One local trader, Andrew Myrick, said of the Indians’ plight, “If they are hungry, let them eat grass.”
The Dakota leader Little Crow then led his “enraged and starving” tribe in a series of attacks on frontier settlements. The “US-Dakota War” didn’t last long: After six weeks, Henry Hastings Sibley, first governor of Minnesota and a leader of the state militia, captured 2,000 Dakota, and a military court sentenced 303 to death.
Lincoln, however, was “never an Indian hater,” Eric Foner writes in his Pulitzer Prize–winning book The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. He did not agree with General John Pope, sent to put down a Sioux uprising in southern Minnesota, who said “It is my purpose utterly to exterminate the Sioux if I have the power to do so.” Lincoln “carefully reviewed the trial records,” Foner reports, and found a lack of evidence at most of the tribunals. He commuted the sentences of 265 of the Indians—a politically unpopular move. But, he said, “I could not afford to hang men for votes.”
The 265 Dakota Indians whose lives Lincoln spared were either fully pardoned or died in prison. Lincoln and Congress subsequently removed the Sioux and Winnebago—who had nothing to do with the uprising—from all of their lands in Minnesota.
Mankato today is a city of 37,000 south of Minneapolis, notable for its state university campus, which has 15,000 students. In Mankato, which has heretofore neglected its bloody past, a new historical marker is being erected at the site of the scaffold, at a place now called Reconciliation Park. The marker, a fiberglass scroll, displays the names of the thirty-eight Dakota who were executed.
The Minnesota History Center in St. Paul is currently featuring an exhibit titled “Minnesota Tragedy: The U.S.-Dakota War of 1862.” “You can’t turn your head from what is not pretty in history,” said Stephen Elliott, who became the director of the Minnesota Historical Society last May after twenty-eight years at Colonial Williamsburg. He told the Minneapolis Star Tribune, “Whatever we do, it’s not going to somehow heal things or settle it.” The impressive state-of-the-art exhibit includes the views of both white settlers and Indians, voices from the past as well as the present. “Visitors are encouraged to make up their own minds about what happened and why,” the official guide declares. The website and online video are particularly impressive.
https://www.thenation.com/article/largest-mass-execution-us-history-150-years-ago-today/
http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html
http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html
Additional video footage :
https://youtu.be/aC5AffazwcI
https://youtu.be/fifVfoarhMU
Native Americans
American History
Crime
Punishment
Death
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
The article's headline is misleading: "Lincoln ordered the execution of thirty-eight Dakota Indians for rebellion—but never ordered the execution of Confederate officials or generals."
But one needs to read the text to find some semblance more resembling the truth: President Lincoln commuted the sentences of 265 Dakota Sioux condemned at trials by a military commission.
During the course of the Civil War, President Lincoln issued only 64 pardons for Civil War-related offenses. Unlike the 38 Dakota Indians put to death in Minnesota in 1862, these Civil War-related pardons were not for crimes such as murdering civilians, rape, and atrocities.
The below link is an article showing a more balanced historical description of President Lincoln's role in deciding the fate of those Dakota Sioux convicted and condemned for their roles in the 1862 Minnesota uprising:
http://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-deciding-the-fate-of-300-indians-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-minnesotas-great-sioux-uprising.htm
I agree that the entire 1862 Minnesota uprising was a terrible tragedy, as were the associated deaths; but then, so was the Civil War.
But one needs to read the text to find some semblance more resembling the truth: President Lincoln commuted the sentences of 265 Dakota Sioux condemned at trials by a military commission.
During the course of the Civil War, President Lincoln issued only 64 pardons for Civil War-related offenses. Unlike the 38 Dakota Indians put to death in Minnesota in 1862, these Civil War-related pardons were not for crimes such as murdering civilians, rape, and atrocities.
The below link is an article showing a more balanced historical description of President Lincoln's role in deciding the fate of those Dakota Sioux convicted and condemned for their roles in the 1862 Minnesota uprising:
http://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-deciding-the-fate-of-300-indians-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-minnesotas-great-sioux-uprising.htm
I agree that the entire 1862 Minnesota uprising was a terrible tragedy, as were the associated deaths; but then, so was the Civil War.
Abraham Lincoln: Deciding the Fate of 300 Indians Convicted of War Crimes in Minnesota's Great...
Even as the Civil War intensified, President Abraham Lincoln faced the aftereffects of a bloody Indian war in Minnesota. More than 300 men faced execution, but the death sentences required the president's approval.
(4)
(0)
SGT John " Mac " McConnell
The article is misleading until you dig into it. That is why I put other links below the meat of the article. To give it a sense of balance. But when it comes to the native Americans in history . How much do we really know.... Thanks for your thoughts..
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Lincoln wasn't all that magnanimous. He originally said that he would allow the execution of those Indians who molested white women, but changed his mind when he learned that would only be two Indians. He had to allow the execution of more Indians because he didn't want to lose the support of Minnesota in the war.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
"[President Lincoln] never ordered the executions of any Confederate officials or generals after the Civil War."
President Lincoln died on April 14, 1865 and while General Lee did surrender at Appomattox on April 9, 1865, the last battle did not take place until a month later in Texas. There just was not enough time before President Lincoln's death for him to order any executions, trials, or implement any plans he had for those that had attempted to leave the Union.
Even the Commander of Andersonville was not hung until seven months after Lee's surrender. Henry Wirz was hung on November 10, 1865 after being found guilty at trial that did not start until August of that year, not on orders from any President.
Comparing what happened to Natives that attempted an uprising that was successfully suppressed early in President Lincoln's first administration to what did not happen to Confederates is illogical. By the time anything was able to be done after the Civil War was over President Andrew Johnson had taken over and he had a very different outlook on how the South should be punished than President Lincoln did. This led to many conflicts between Congress and him and eventually resulted in President Johnson being impeached for not following rules Congress put into place to keep him in line with how they wanted the Southern Reconstruction effort dealt with. He missed being removed from office by one vote in the Senate. If President Lincoln had survived the war and completed his second term things would have ended much different as the Executive and Legislative Branches would have been more unified in their beliefs about how those that attempted to leave the Union should have been treated. I do not know if he would have ordered anyone executed as he did mostly believe in the rule of law but things definitely would have been a lot different had he lived.
President Lincoln died on April 14, 1865 and while General Lee did surrender at Appomattox on April 9, 1865, the last battle did not take place until a month later in Texas. There just was not enough time before President Lincoln's death for him to order any executions, trials, or implement any plans he had for those that had attempted to leave the Union.
Even the Commander of Andersonville was not hung until seven months after Lee's surrender. Henry Wirz was hung on November 10, 1865 after being found guilty at trial that did not start until August of that year, not on orders from any President.
Comparing what happened to Natives that attempted an uprising that was successfully suppressed early in President Lincoln's first administration to what did not happen to Confederates is illogical. By the time anything was able to be done after the Civil War was over President Andrew Johnson had taken over and he had a very different outlook on how the South should be punished than President Lincoln did. This led to many conflicts between Congress and him and eventually resulted in President Johnson being impeached for not following rules Congress put into place to keep him in line with how they wanted the Southern Reconstruction effort dealt with. He missed being removed from office by one vote in the Senate. If President Lincoln had survived the war and completed his second term things would have ended much different as the Executive and Legislative Branches would have been more unified in their beliefs about how those that attempted to leave the Union should have been treated. I do not know if he would have ordered anyone executed as he did mostly believe in the rule of law but things definitely would have been a lot different had he lived.
(3)
(0)
SGT John " Mac " McConnell
The article is misleading. The meat of the post is about the mass execution of native Americans. Thanks for your thoughts.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google