+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Abraham Lincoln - The White House Years (/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862 (/thread-1100.html)
RE: President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862 - Gene C - 06-01-2017 11:26 AM
This is a deep subject.
Attached is a link to what I think is the article David is referring to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/arts/design/emmett-tills-coffin-a-hangmans-scaffold-and-a-debate-over-cultural-appropriation.html
While it is nice for artist to want to comment on society's failings, especially those of events 60 and 150 years ago, it would be nice to see them role up their sleeves, get their hands dirty by actually working in their community to do something positive and help those who are willing to help themselves, but need some assistance.
They seem to be more interested in pointing fingers at the problem, drawing attention to themselves, than becoming personally involved and working on practical solutions.
The author of the NY Times article seems to overlook this little point.
From the article -
"Central to both cases are issues of cultural appropriation and artistic freedom. Should white artists, no matter how well intentioned, represent harrowing stories that are not their own to tell? Conversely, should any subject matter be off-limits to artists because of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other life experiences?"
Rest assured that I have a politically incorrect, tacky comment to add to this, but I really am old enough to know better (this time)
RE: President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862 - David Lockmiller - 06-02-2017 04:50 AM
I did some additional research of New York Times articles published at the time.
THE INDIAN EXECUTIONS.
New York Times Published: December 12, 1862
We have this morning a message from President LINCOLN to the Senate in relation to the thirty-nine Minnesota Indians whom he has ordered to be executed one week from to-day. The President was anxious not to act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak of the savages, nor with a degree of severity which should be real cruelty, and therefore at first ordered only the execution of such Indians as "had been proved guilty of violating females;" but only two of this class were found. He then directed that out of the three hundred condemned men, such should be selected as were proved to have participated in massacres as distinguished from participation in battles. These amounted to forty, (including the two of the first-class,) but as one of them had been strongly recommended to mercy, he ordered that only thirty-nine should suffer the death penalty, and has dispatched a messenger to Gen. SIBLEY, in Minnesota, with a copy of the order.
From the statements at first made in regard to these Indian troubles in Minnesota, we favored a policy of even greater clemency than the President has adopted; but the evidence since published, reveals atrocities on the part of the savages so inexcusable, cold-blooded and shocking, that we cannot differ from the decision the President has made after his perusal of that evidence.
We have received information, also, from a gentleman whose statements and proofs seem to be beyond dispute, that the massacres of the settlers which were begun in Minnesota in August and September last, were only part of a grand scheme of frontier butcheries which had been organized under the auspices of JEFF. DAVIS by ALBERT PIKE, and which were intended to extend along the whole Western line from Minnesota to Arkansas.
(06-01-2017 04:24 AM)RJNorton Wrote:(05-31-2017 09:10 PM)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.
I agree, David. In his diary, on December 4, 1862, Gideon Welles wrote, "The Members of Congress from Minnesota are urging the President vehemently to give his assent to the execution of three hundred Indian captives, but they will not succeed."
Thank you for this information, Roger. If I should be contacted by the New York Times regarding setting the historical record straight on this issue, I shall certainly make them aware of this diary statement made by the Secretary of Navy, Gideon Welles. I especially liked the "they will not succeed" part.
RE: President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862 - L Verge - 06-05-2017 04:05 PM
I received the Spring 2017 issue of The Lincoln Forum Bulletin, and there is an article by Roger D. Billings, Jr., retired Professor of Law at the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University, entitled Lincoln, The Law, and the 1862 Indian Uprising. I'm not sure that it will tell us anything new and different, but I will forward the Bulletin to Roger to see if he can transfer it to the forum.
RE: President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862 - Gene C - 06-05-2017 05:12 PM
I'm in the middle of reading this book, interesting....
It was a very blood thirsty, violent, incident.
How do you respond to broken promises by the government, promised food and money for your family not delivered?
People assigned to assist you that steal from you.
RE: President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862 - RJNorton - 06-05-2017 05:13 PM
(06-05-2017 04:05 PM)L Verge Wrote: I received the Spring 2017 issue of The Lincoln Forum Bulletin, and there is an article by Roger D. Billings, Jr., retired Professor of Law at the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University, entitled Lincoln, The Law, and the 1862 Indian Uprising. I'm not sure that it will tell us anything new and different, but I will forward the Bulletin to Roger to see if he can transfer it to the forum.
Laurie, it is online here.
Professor Billings writes, "If Washington politicians, the Army, and Minnesota citizens had had their way probably all of the condemned Indians would have been hanged. That Lincoln took time during his conduct of the War to save eighty percent of them is remarkable."
RE: President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862 - Anita - 06-06-2017 05:08 PM
David, thank you for the letter you sent to the NY Times. This is not about race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other life experiences. An artist has no more right to impunity for historical inaccuracies and misrepresentations under the guise of "artistic freedom" than an author of history and should be held to the same standards of critical evaluation for accuracy. I'd like to see some "artistic footnotes."
RE: President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862 - David Lockmiller - 06-07-2017 12:00 AM
(06-05-2017 05:12 PM)Gene C Wrote: I'm in the middle of reading this book, interesting....
It was a very blood thirsty, violent, incident.
How do you respond to broken promises by the government, promised food and money for your family not delivered?
People assigned to assist you that steal from you.
The following is from a posting (with some revisions) to this thread that I made on August 15, 2013:
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 Lincoln 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."
Episcopal Bishop Henry B. Whipple lobbied the President to reform the corrupt Indian agency system. 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 rascality 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."
[President Lincoln] pledged to Bishop Whipple 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.
So, at least two things would have been different had Lincoln lived: Reconstruction and the treatment of native Americans.
RE: President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862 - David Lockmiller - 06-07-2017 02:58 AM
(06-06-2017 05:08 PM)Anita Wrote: David, thank you for the letter you sent to the NY Times. This is not about race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other life experiences. An artist has no more right to impunity for historical inaccuracies and misrepresentations under the guise of "artistic freedom" than an author of history and should be held to the same standards of critical evaluation for accuracy. I'd like to see some "artistic footnotes."
I might add to what Anita has written that the New York Times has a responsibility to history to correct "historical inaccuracies and misrepresentations" printed in its newspaper articles when pointed out to them. I just checked and the following words are printed each day in the upper left hand corner of the front page by the New York Times: "All the News That's Fit to Print."
I sent a second letter to the New York Times on Friday, June 2 after I checked what the New York Times had itself written about the actions of President Lincoln in this matter on December 12, 1862, which reads in full as follows:
In the article of May 31 titled “[] A Hangman’s Scaffold and a Debate Over Cultural Appropriation,” it is noted therein that Sam Durant’s sculpture “Scaffold” is a composite of the gallows used in seven United States government-sanctioned hangings from 1859 to 2006 [and] includes the 1862 execution of 38 Dakota men in Mankato, Minn., ordered by President Abraham Lincoln — the largest mass execution in the nation’s history.
Mr. Durant says that he intended the work “as a learning space for people like me, white people who have not suffered the effects of a white supremacist society and who may not consciously know that it exists.”
The NYTimes may itself wish to respond with its own contemporaneous (December 12, 1862) reporting of this same historical incident:
We have this morning a message from President LINCOLN to the Senate in relation to the thirty-nine Minnesota Indians whom he has ordered to be executed one week from to-day. The President was anxious not to act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak of the savages, nor with a degree of severity which should be real cruelty, and therefore at first ordered only the execution of such Indians as "had been proved guilty of violating females;" but only two of this class were found. He then directed that out of the three hundred condemned men, such should be selected as were proved to have participated in massacres as distinguished from participation in battles. These amounted to forty, (including the two of the first-class,) but as one of them had been strongly recommended to mercy, he ordered that only thirty-nine should suffer the death penalty, and has dispatched a messenger to Gen. SIBLEY, in Minnesota, with a copy of the order.
From the statements at first made in regard to these Indian troubles in Minnesota, we favored a policy of even greater clemency than the President has adopted; but the evidence since published, reveals atrocities on the part of the savages so inexcusable, cold-blooded and shocking, that we cannot differ from the decision the President has made after his perusal of that evidence.
And, I might add this entry from Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles’ diary on December 4, 1862: "The Members of Congress from Minnesota are urging the President vehemently to give his assent to the execution of three hundred Indian captives, but they will not succeed."
And, I also note: “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.”
It is obvious to me that maintaining a myth of infallibility in its reporting is now more important to the New York Times than is truth itself regarding the history of the actions of President Lincoln in this matter.