Last Sunday, April 14, I watched on PBS Bill Moyers interview with Sherman Alexie, poet and award-winning writer. In that interview, Mr. Alexie, a native American, vilified President Lincoln for permitting the execution of 37 of the 303 Sioux Indians convicted of war crimes in the Minnesota Indian uprising and sentenced to death. Today at 1PM ET, at the Book Club web site, Sherman Alexie will have a live chat and answer questions submitted by viewers in advance. An hour ago, I posted the following question:

If you, Sherman Alexie, had been President of the United States, instead of Abraham Lincoln, at the time of the war crimes convictions and sentences to death of 303 Sioux men, what would have been your response in detail?

Following this question, I included in my post the following abbreviated history of President Lincoln's response from "Abraham Lincoln: A Life” Volume II, pages 480-84, by Professor Michael Burlingame, 2008.

President Lincoln ordered General Pope to "forward, as soon as possible, the full and complete record of these convictions" and to prepare "a careful statement." As President Lincoln and two Interior Department lawyers scrutinized the record of the trials, they discovered that some had lasted only fifteen minutes, that hearsay evidence had been admitted, that due process had been ignored, and that counsel had not been provided the defendants.

President Lincoln authorized the execution of only 37 of the 303 condemned men (35 were found guilty of murder and 2 were convicted of rape). Lincoln explained his reasoning: "Anxious not to act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of the trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females." He further sought to discriminate between those involved in massacres and those involved only in battles. At the last minute before the executions, President Lincoln pardoned Round Wind, who had helped some whites to escape.

On December 26, 1862, the convicted rapists and killers died on the gallows while a peaceful crowd of more than 5,000 looked on. In 1864, Minnesota Governor Ramsey told President Lincoln that if he had executed all 303 Indians, he would have won more backing for his reelection bid. “I could not afford to hang men for votes," came the reply.

In 1864, Lincoln pardoned two dozen of the 264 Sioux who, after being spared the death penalty, had been incarcerated. The same year, he intervened to spare the life of Pocatello, chief of a Shoshoni band in Utah.

In response to Episcopal Bishop Henry Whipple, who lobbied the president to reform the corrupt Indian agency system, Lincoln pledged that "if we get through this war, and if I live, this Indian system shall be reformed." In his December, 1862 annual message to Congress, President Lincoln urged that Congress change the system.

As usual, if Lincoln could figure out a way to spare a life, he did it. If they were guilty of rape and murder, they'd have been hung in those times if they were white. I don't know how Mr. Alexie could argue against this decision.

This was an unfortunate situation, as the United States Govt frequently did not uphold their end of the bargain in dealing with the different tribes, and showed almost no respect for the Indians way of life. President Linclon probably knew this and took the fairest method to deal with this problem. I wonder what impact on the problem he could have had if he had lived to deal with it.

David, please let us know the response from Sherman Alexie to your question! By the way, what did Bill Moyers say when Mr. Alexie stated his position about Lincoln?

(04-16-2013 12:50 PM)Gene C Wrote:  This was an unfortunate situation, as the United States Govt frequently did not uphold their end of the bargain in dealing with the different tribes, and showed almost no respect for the Indians way of life. President Linclon probably knew this and took the fairest method to deal with this problem. I wonder what impact on the problem he could have had if he had lived to deal with it.

I don't imagine the Native Americans would have been granted equality any more than the African Americans.

(04-16-2013 02:31 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  David, please let us know the response from Sherman Alexie to your question! By the way, what did Bill Moyers say when Mr. Alexie stated his position about Lincoln?

I watched the entire live broadcast that lasted one hour. It was all done with live typing like a text message in immediate response to other text messages. At the beginning, the moderator said that the Bill Moyer's site (this is where the interview took place) had received a number of advance questions (including mine). My question was not asked and therefore not answered. It could have been that he answered only live show questions.

But in the PBS television interview, it was Bill Moyers that brought up the issue. He had read a poem a number of times over which Sherman Alexie had written and which seemed to bother Bill Moyers. I had intended to post separately the portion regarding Lincoln from the TV interview, but your request of me was "on point" (as the lawyers say) and so I am posting this as a reply at your request.

Bill Moyers began by asking Sherman Alexie to read the poem. What follows is a "paste and copy" of the TV interview transcript from the Bill Moyer's website:

BILL MOYERS: There's a poem that I have read several times in anticipation of this meeting. And this one is troubling. Another Proclamation.

SHERMAN ALEXIE: Another Proclamation.

When
Lincoln
Delivered
The
Emancipation
Proclamation,
Who
Knew
that, one year earlier, in 1862, he'd signed and approved the order for the largest public execution in United States history? Who did they execute? "Mulatto, mixed-bloods, and Indians." Why did they execute them? "For uprising against the State and her citizens." Where did they execute them? Mankato, Minnesota. How did they execute them? Well, Abraham Lincoln thought it was good

And
Just
To
Hang
Thirty-eight
Sioux
simultaneously. Yes, in front of a large and cheering crowd, thirty-eight Indians dropped to their deaths. Yes, thirty-eight necks snapped. But before they died, thirty-eight Indians sang their death songs. Can you imagine the cacophony of thirty-eight different death songs? But wait, one Indian was pardoned at the last minute, so only thirty-seven Indians had to sing their death songs. But O, O, O, O, can you imagine the cacophony of that one survivor's mourning song? If he taught you the words, do you think you would sing along?

BILL MOYERS: Talk about that.

SHERMAN ALEXIE: Well, essentially, they were executed for terrorism. The perception of being terrorists for defending themselves and their people from colonial incursions.

BILL MOYERS: As the Whites had been pushing into Minnesota, pushing them further west. And promised them, as I understand it, food in exchange for land. And then the food didn't come. And the Indians reacted violently.

SHERMAN ALEXIE: And then all over the country massacres happening of people they, you know, they would push these tribes and these people onto reservations and then send the soldiers in to wage war on them. I just learned, I don't know why I didn't know this, some sort of denial I guess. But they gave medals of honor to U.S. soldiers who participated at Wounded Knee, absolute massacres of unarmed women, children, and elderly people.

They gave medals of honor. And, you know, this idea of Lincoln as this great savior. Which is true. But in deifying him, it completely, completely whitewashes the fact that he was also a complete part of the colonization of Indians, a complete part of the wholesale slaughter of Indians.

BILL MOYERS: He lived in the in between like everyone. What I know of this incident is that 303 Indians were sentenced to death. President Lincoln commuted the sentences of 265 of them on the basis he himself said of not enough evidence, but allowed 38 of them to be hanged.

SHERMAN ALEXIE: So, the hypocrisy abounds. So once again, the way in which I watch Lincoln the movie is far different than most people watch Lincoln.

That movie in no way portrayed the complexity of human beings, and certainly does not portray the complexity of Lincoln, who for his genius was also, you know, an incredibly, as any politician, an incredibly conflicted and conflicting man, who was capable of ordering great evil. And who did, in fact, by ordering it, created a great evil, committed great evil, a sinful, sinful man that Lincoln.

I don't know whether either Sherman Alexie or Bill Moyer's read my question and the informative material on President Lincoln's cases review which was written by Professor Burlingame. I will probably never know. But it would be a measure of both men as to how each responds if they do read the material.

---

I want to make a new reply on the Bill Moyers interview because of a short exchange between Bill Moyers and Sherman Alexie which occurred immediately following the reading of the poem.

BILL MOYERS: Talk about that.

SHERMAN ALEXIE: Well, essentially, they were executed for terrorism. The perception of being terrorists for defending themselves and their people from colonial incursions.

In the material that I quoted from Professor Burlingame's book on the Minnesota Indian Uprising, I focused upon Lincoln's "lawyer review" of the convictions and did not include anything specific regarding Indians being "executed for terrorism" as Sherman Alexie phrased the basis for the execution of the 37 Indians.

I left out of my posting to the Bill Moyer's website, the following description of events on the ground as General Pope related to President Lincoln:

"You have no idea of the wide, universal,and uncontrollable panic everywhere in this country. Over 500 people have been murdered in Minnesota alone and 300 women and children are now in captivity. The most horrible massacres have been committed; children nailed alive to trees and houses, women violated and then disemboweled--everything that horrible ingenuity could devise." "Abraham Lincoln, A Life" Volume II, pages 480-81.

(04-16-2013 10:15 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  In 1864, Minnesota Governor Ramsey told President Lincoln that if he had executed all 303 Indians, he would have won more backing for his reelection bid. “I could not afford to hang men for votes," came the reply.

(04-16-2013 10:27 AM)J. Beckert Wrote:  As usual, if Lincoln could figure out a way to spare a life, he did it. If they were guilty of rape and murder, they'd have been hung in those times if they were white.

(04-16-2013 12:50 PM)Gene C Wrote:  President Linclon probably knew this and took the fairest method to deal with this problem.

Yes. Lincoln took extra precautions to make certain no mistakes were made and only those guilty of the most egregious crimes were hanged. The president deliberately spelled out each name phonetically so there would be no question which men (only the rapists and murderers) to hang.

(04-17-2013 04:40 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 10:15 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  In 1864, Minnesota Governor Ramsey told President Lincoln that if he had executed all 303 Indians, he would have won more backing for his reelection bid. “I could not afford to hang men for votes," came the reply.

(04-16-2013 10:27 AM)J. Beckert Wrote:  As usual, if Lincoln could figure out a way to spare a life, he did it. If they were guilty of rape and murder, they'd have been hung in those times if they were white.

(04-16-2013 12:50 PM)Gene C Wrote:  President Linclon probably knew this and took the fairest method to deal with this problem.

Yes. Lincoln took extra precautions to make certain no mistakes were made and only those guilty of the most egregious crimes were hanged. The president deliberately spelled out each name phonetically so there would be no question which men (only the rapists and murderers) to hang.

Thank you, Roger, for that additional information regarding Lincoln's caution. I might add to this that Professor Burlingame wrote: "As execution day for those Indians drew near, Lincoln instructed Nicolay, who had been in Minnesota on a troubleshooting mission during the uprising, to warn Sibley not to hang Chas-kay-don, whose name was similar to one of the condemned men."

---

I wanted to say something in the defense of Sherman Alexie. He did say in the interview with Bill Moyers that he did suffer from bipolar disorder, which is characterized by extreme highs and lows.

And, I like what Sherman Alexie said in response to one participant’s question yesterday about what can be done to address the pervasive problem on many Indian reservations today of extreme poverty. His response in successive responses was “Donate,” “Donate,” and “Donate some more.” (or, words to that effect) But his best quote of observation was the following, more or less: “Those people who think that you can’t solve a problem by throwing money at the problem, are the people with money.”

And, there is no doubt that Sherman Alexie has an inherent understanding of the suffering of all Indian nations as the white people exercised relentlessly the intolerant national policy of “Manifest Destiny” in taking Indian lands. The term “Indian giver” has a simple, universally understood meaning. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 (?) was the polite sale by the French Napoleon (I believe) to the United States (and the philosophical “king” of this democracy, Thomas Jefferson) of lands “owned” by numerous Indian tribes. When and if, individual Indian tribes objected to this nation’s manifest destiny, they were met with brutality and atrocities, by overwhelming forces and superiority of arms. [On the other hand, before the white man, Indians warred with one another in a similar fierce manner. I came from Illinois originally. There is a place there called Starved Rock State Park. One Indian tribe forced the remnants of another tribe onto this location. The name of the park speaks for itself as to what followed.] And, when the Sioux took supreme advantage of their horseman skills in warfare on the open plains with other Indian tribes, the Sioux did not complain of unfair advantage in war. As with the white man, the Sioux also took what became their own; later, one bully was replaced by another bully with the justification of Manifest Destiny for this democracy.

Last night, I took the time (two hours past my normal bed time) to look into Professor Burlingame’s reference to Lincoln’s call to the U.S. Congress in December, 1862 to reform the Indian agent corruption problem. I first consulted the book, “Abraham Lincoln, In His Own Words.” I found a five page text in large print which I read over twice quickly but could find no reference to this call to Congress. Then, I noticed all the “dot, dot, dot’s” indicating omitted text. But, I have another book, “The Life, Public Services and State Papers of Abraham Lincoln” by Henry Raymond (1865). President Lincoln prepared his annual address to Congress in time for the opening day of the Thirty-seventh Congress on the 1st day of December, 1862. The address in very small print covered 17 pages of Mr. Raymond’s book, from pages 344-360. [When I have some spare time, I intend to post a statement in this regard to the Bixby letter authorship topic.] The reference that President Lincoln made to the Sioux Indians uprising in Minnesota is contained within one extended paragraph and is quoted in part as follows:

“In the month of August last, the Sioux Indians in Minnesota attacked the settlement in their vicinity with extreme ferocity, killing, indiscriminately, men, women, and children. This attack was wholly unexpected, and therefore no means of defense had been provided. It is estimated that not less than eight hundred persons were killed by the Indians, and a large amount of property was destroyed. How this outbreak was induced is not definitely known, and suspicions, which may be unjust, need not be stated. . . . I submit for your especial consideration whether our Indian system shall not be remodeled. Many wise and good men have impressed me with the belief that this can be profitably done.” (“The Life, Public Services and State Papers of Abraham Lincoln,” pages 350-51)

Mr. Raymond prefaced in his printing of President Lincoln’s Annual Message to Congress in 1862 with the statement that “the supporters of the Administration hav[e] a large majority in both branches.” Although this Congress was able to create and run committees on the conduct of the Civil War in order to second guess decisions and actions of the Lincoln Administration on the conduct of the Civil War, the Congress had neither the time nor the inclination to investigate and recommend legislation for a remodel of the corrupt Indian agent system.

I know only a smattering about the Sioux uprising and resulting executions. However, I also know only a smattering about the Indian meetings with Mr. Lincoln and the presentation of canes?? Will someone fill me in on that, please?

Weeks ago, I posted the above query and received no response. So, I did some searching on my own. I first heard about these canes years ago, but never pursued their history. This site will give you a brief introduction http://si-siris.blogspot.com/2013/01/lin...e-on.html. One thing it did clear up was my misconception that Lincoln himself presented these canes to the Pueblos. 'Tain't so. Just an interesting sidelight to the Lincoln/Indian part of his administration.

I know that many moons ago on this forum we were discussing the Dakota Uprising and Lincoln's pardoning of over 250 Sioux warriors, leaving only 38 to be executed. Not finding that thread, I'm starting this one because of something interesting that I read today.

Several months ago, I purchased an intriguing book entitled Here Is Where: Discovering America's Great Forgotten History by Andrew Carroll. The author has traveled the country finding and writing about historical events that few of us have ever paid any attention to. The execution of these Sioux warriors in 1862 is the subject of one of the chapters.

On the morning of their execution, the men carried little pocket mirrors with them and, before being bound, dressed themselves in traditional war paint and arranged their hair according to Indian style. They marched to the gallows with their heads high and rushed up the steps almost as if they were in a contest to see who could get up to the platform first. Among their executioners, the concern was chiefly whether or not the gallows could withstand the weight of 38 men all at one time. This would become the largest mass execution on American soil.

Once on the gallows, the men began singing, chanting, and swaying to and fro. Even though each man was tied up, there was an effort to reach one another and hold hands. Some managed to do it.

The gallows held for the fall, but one rope snapped and sent its man to the ground where he was quickly retrieved and "re-hanged." One man struggled for ten minutes until a soldier tightened the noose by giving it a quick snap.

After the required thirty minutes of hanging, the bodies were cut down, piled into mule-drawn wagons, taken to the Minnesota River, and hastily buried in a sandbar, the only portion of land not frozen in the December 1862 winter. The most disgusting part of the whole story came after nightfall.

Once the sun went down, a group of men went down to the riverbank, found the shallow graves, and dug the corpses up and hauled them home. They even drew lots to see who got the best bodies. A warrior named Cut Nose was the one that everyone wanted. This group of men were all doctors wanting the bodies for anatomical research. They were body snatchers following a common practice. Cut Nose was over six-foot-four and a beautiful specimen of a man.

(08-12-2013 06:57 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I know that many moons ago on this forum we were discussing the Dakota Uprising and Lincoln's pardoning of over 250 Sioux warriors, leaving only 38 to be executed. Not finding that thread, I'm starting this one because of something interesting that I read today.

Several months ago, I purchased an intriguing book entitled Here Is Where: Discovering America's Great Forgotten History by Andrew Carroll. The author has traveled the country finding and writing about historical events that few of us have ever paid any attention to. The execution of these Sioux warriors in 1862 is the subject of one of the chapters.

On the morning of their execution, the men carried little pocket mirrors with them and, before being bound, dressed themselves in traditional war paint and arranged their hair according to Indian style. They marched to the gallows with their heads high and rushed up the steps almost as if they were in a contest to see who could get up to the platform first. Among their executioners, the concern was chiefly whether or not the gallows could withstand the weight of 38 men all at one time. This would become the largest mass execution on American soil.

Once on the gallows, the men began singing, chanting, and swaying to and fro. Even though each man was tied up, there was an effort to reach one another and hold hands. Some managed to do it.

The gallows held for the fall, but one rope snapped and sent its man to the ground where he was quickly retrieved and "re-hanged." One man struggled for ten minutes until a soldier tightened the noose by giving it a quick snap.

After the required thirty minutes of hanging, the bodies were cut down, piled into mule-drawn wagons, taken to the Minnesota River, and hastily buried in a sandbar, the only portion of land not frozen in the December 1862 winter. The most disgusting part of the whole story came after nightfall.

Once the sun went down, a group of men went down to the riverbank, found the shallow graves, and dug the corpses up and hauled them home. They even drew lots to see who got the best bodies. A warrior named Cut Nose was the one that everyone wanted. This group of men were all doctors wanting the bodies for anatomical research. They were body snatchers following a common practice. Cut Nose was over six-foot-four and a beautiful specimen of a man.

The original thread is 10 topics below your new listing. It is "President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862"

I would like to add to this thread, my observation regarding ignored "double standards" as disclosed in Professor Burlingame's discourse on the reaction of citizens of the state of Minnesota at the time following President Lincoln's generous intervention, in behalf of the Indians, for justice.

"Minnesotans denounced the President's decision. In February, the abolutionist-feminist Jane Grey Swisshelm told a Washington audience that if 'justice is not done,' whites in Minnesota 'will go to shooting Indians whenever these government pets get out from under Uncle Sam's wing [i.e., President Abraham Lincoln alone]. Our people will hunt them, shoot them, set traps for them, put out poisened bait for them -- kill them by every means we would use to exterminate panthers.'' ("Abraham Lincoln: A Life" Vol. Two, page 483.)

And, if the Southern slaves had arisen in rebellion and killed many of their masters, as so many in the South legitimately feared, what would have the abolutionist-feminist Jane Grey Swisshelm, and people of her ilk, have said? Would she have said: "Good riddance for abusive white masters" or "exterminate the panthers?" How different is the answer when the "shoe is on the other foot."

Gene C Wrote in this thread on April 16:

"This was an unfortunate situation, as the United States Govt frequently did not uphold their end of the bargain in dealing with the different tribes, and showed almost no respect for the Indians way of life. President Linclon probably knew this and took the fairest method to deal with this problem. I wonder what impact on the problem he could have had if he had lived to deal with it."

Returning to Professor Burlingame's commentary on the subject:

"Episcopal Bishop Henry B. Whipple lobbied the President to reform the corrupt Indian agency system. (Sort of like how people lobby for reform of the banking system now.) In the spring of 1862, the bishop had recommended more humane treatment of the Minnesota Sioux. Lincoln promptly asked the secretary of the Interior to investigate, which he did and suggested numerous reforms. The President told a friend that Whipple 'came here the other day and talked with me about the rascaclity of this Indian business until I felt it down to my boots.' In reply to Whipple's appeal, Lincoln characteristically recounted a story: 'Bishop, a man thought that monkeys could pick cotton better than negroes could because they were quicker and their fingers smaller. He turned a lot of them into his cotton field, but he found that it took two overseers to watch one monkey. It needs more than one honest man to watch one Indian agent.' (or, more than one honest man to watch one bank president, such as Jamie Dimon) [President Lincoln] pledged that '[i]f we get through this war, and if I live, this Indian system shall be reformed.'" (Henry B. Whipple, "Light and Shadows of a Long Episcopate,etc.," pages 136-137.

I submit the following propostion: Perhaps President Lincoln felt, in retrospect, that he should have intervened more forcefully on the problem of Indian mistreatment in the Spring of 1862, at the time of Bishop Whipple's exposition of the mistreatment of the Sioux Indians, despite the overwhelming pressures of the American Civil War upon President Lincoln at the time. The Minnesota Indian uprising took place in the summer and fall of 1862. Was it President Lincoln's own conscience that demanded his extensive intervention in behalf of the Sioux Indians and at high political risk to the Union cause?

"In 1864, Minnesota Governor Ramsey told President Lincoln that if he had executed all 303 Indians, he would have won more backing for his reelection bid. 'I could not afford to hang men for votes,' came the reply." (Burlingame references at page 483: (Ramsey diary, 23 Nov. 1864, in Don E. Fehrenbacher and Virginia Fehrenbacher, eds., "Recollected Works of Abraham Lincoln" (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996, 372)

Again, Professor Burlingame wrote (page 484): "In his [December]1862 annual message to Congress, Lincoln urged that it change the system. [The Congress of the time did nothing, as far as I know, in response.] . . . . Though Lincoln did not live to see his recommendations implemented, he gave a significant boost to the movement that evnetually overthrew the corrupt system. (Burlingame references here "Lincoln and the Indians," by Nichols, at page 145.) In 1864, Lincoln pardoned two dozen of the 264 Sioux who, after being spared the death penalty, had been incarcerated. That same year he intervened to spare the life of Pocatello, chief of a Shoshoni band in Utah."

I wish that all blacks, whites, green card holders, Indians, etc., knew more about the true history and character of President Abraham Lincoln.

Thank you, David. About a year ago the New York Times carried a commentary on this topic.

Thanks for the link, Roger! That was quite an excellent column.

I agree with one of the commenters, though, that, despite what the writer said, all schoolchildren do *not* know the terrible history of the treatment of Native Americans by the U.S. I doubt that any do. However, this is not because of the state of education "today." It's always been like that. Teaching anything critical of America to kids in school has always been taboo.