President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862

[STS Lincolnite]

(07-28-2014 04:10 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  I understand that there are people who disapprove of Lincoln's action as president regarding Sioux. I suppose what confuses me is what they feel Lincoln could have/should have done in this case, vs. the action he actually took. I have asked this question for years, ever since I learned of the mass execution but I have never once received a reply.

Do they feel he should he have commuted the sentences of every one of them?

Toia, I suppose at least a partial answer to this questions lies in another question: Who are "they"?

From what I understand, Lincoln (as it seems like he often did) angered people on both sides of the conflict with the decision he made. On one side, there were those people that thought that all of the Indians should have been executed, on the other side, there were those people who thought that none of the Indians should have been executed. Lincoln examined the situation, considered all the options and, I believe (while admittedly looking through the lens of history), made the only decision he could have made. The fact the he angered people on both sides seems to underline the idea that he made the best decision he possibly could have in a situation where there was no "good decision" or "right decision" to be made (this has been alluded to on this forum in the past related to other decisions).

Once I have read Mr. Berg's book, I will pass along his answer is to the question you pose (assuming of course he answers it!).