President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862

[Eva Elisabeth]

Quoted from Abraham Lincoln's second annual address:

"In the month of August last the Sioux Indians in Minnesota attacked the settlements 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 prodded. It is estimated that not less than 800 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 to be stated. Information was received by the Indian Bureau from different sources about the time hostilities were commenced that a simultaneous attack was to be made upon the white settlements by all the tribes between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains. The State of Minnesota has suffered great injury from this Indian war. A large portion of her territory has been depopulated, and a severe loss has been sustained by the destruction of property..."

For all goes: IMO (and I don't expect everyone nor anyone to agree).
I can't wholly estimate how fair the proceedings and trial were (or not), but at least it seems some serious efforts were made to avoid innocents being hanged or imprisoned.

Regarding the high number of victims the number of accused seems to me proportioally possible and realistic. And regarding the high number of victims I also think the citizens had every right to be protected from further acts of violence.

Someties, especially nowadays (can only speak for "democratic" Germany though) I feel the criminals' rights are given priority and more attention to than the victims' rights and suffers.

Re:"Two of the Sioux may have been wrongfully hanged" - This was not the first nor last time in history innocent persons were executed including cases where there was a "fair" trial. So what is fair? My personal belief is that according to "Thou shalt not kill" it's not men's right to judge about other people's life, even not criminals'. However, if the people of a country agrees on this form of punishment then everyone living in this country is also aware of the fate he might suffer at the moment he/she's committing a crime, or allowing him/herself being involved in (even if only marginally), and that judges and juries are still human beings prone to mistakes.

One questionable "legal" point to me would be that the Indians were natives and were not "democratically" questioned whether they agreed on the laws made up by those who came and settled in/on their land later. (Though I assume the Indians did not have "fairer" forms of punishment themselves).

Even though not each of the convicted Indians had a personal lawyer as he/she "should have had" I think the Indians had the best supporter and lawyer they could have had in those days and in that situation. Legal proceeding didn't necessarily lead to fair treatment and real justice IMO. Just think of the way Mary had legally been kidnapped and confined by Robert and Swett and their prepared gang, court, and jury. She had no fair chance to defend herself (and prepare a defence) IMO, but all was legal. She did have a lawyer, Isaac Arnold (chosen by Robert & Co.), who was convinced of his client's insanity. What a helpful support he was to her! Imagine one of the Sioux whose life Abraham Lincoln had spared had instead been assigned a similarly helpful lawyer! And the way how shrewdly Mary freed herself of that confinement IMO proved the jury's decision wrong. Here we go again - what is fair?

IMO no legal system is perfect (though I think most democratic ones work pretty well for the majority of cases), and there will always occur cases that seem unfair and not compatible with common sense when the laws are applied upon them "justly", thus correctly. (And similar I feel goes for political correctness.)

(Sorry, couldn't get this off my mind.)