President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862

[Gene C]

(09-26-2014 01:54 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  (OK, I've had enough of this. Too many alleged historians and writers with their own agendas.)

It is a bit of a challenge when a trust worthy writer or witness says something that you question or find out is just plain wrong. Then there is the untrusty one who gets it right.

That is one of the reasons I like it here. If I get something wrong, there is usually someone who will set me straight. That, and we don't have to agree on everything, there are some things we will just never really know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of that....Rob Wick sent some info about Herndon, Donald wrote his doctoral dissortation about Herndon under the supervision of Jamed Randall (who did not care for Herndon) Just important to keep in mind the circumstance when Donald wrote his book. Not that he wasn't objective. Additional infomation and trends in the interpretation of history can change our understanding of past events - (like how Mary is perceived) . Rob also sent an article that I will try to link to later today under Lincoln & Herndon thread.

THANKS ROB

[My Name Is Kate]

What were done with the remaining 264 Sioux who were not sentenced to hang? Wikipedia says they were imprisoned for nearly four years, and 1/3 (88) died of disease. That brings the death toll to 126. The survivors were apparently banished to Nebraska after their imprisonment.

Depending on which source one reads, the Sioux committed only two rapes during the uprising, or they committed horrors beyond description (taking a child live from its mother's womb, and nailing it to a tree). Two of the Sioux may have been wrongfully hanged. Apparently, the hanged Sioux bodies were almost immediately exhumed from their shallow grave and used as medical cadavers.

http://usdakotawar.org/history/war-after...ls-hanging

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_War_of_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.)

[My Name Is Kate]

The Sioux probably got about the "fairest" treatment that could be expected for the time and the circumstances. Still, it isn't true that only 38 died and the rest lived and were set free. The Sioux were a sovereign nation fighting for their lives and most likely didn't discriminate between "innocent" white people and guilty ones. All white people were probably guilty in their view, rightly or wrongly.

Does "thou shalt not kill" mean there is no such thing as a just war?

[L Verge]

In God's world, there would be no wars. In man's world, each side thinks their's is the just cause -- and we end up in a war.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(10-11-2014 04:53 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Does "thou shalt not kill" mean there is no such thing as a just war?

My personal belief is also that if all men acted upon the Ten Commandmends there would be no war. Or, to quote Carl Sandburg: "Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come."
Unfortunatelly that seems utopia, and thus we have to deal with reality. However, I can only decide for myself and my actions, but I'm also responsible to do so.

[LincolnToddFan]

(10-11-2014 05:48 PM)L Verge Wrote:  In God's world, there would be no wars. In man's world, each side thinks their's is the just cause -- and we end up in a war.

So, TRUE Laurie!

Eva E., you are on fire with your posts...brilliant. Thanks.

[My Name Is Kate]

Sometimes there clearly is a right side and a wrong side, to any sane person, at least. For example WWII. So were the Allies fighting a just war, for the most part, excepting a few incidents, such as the fire-bombing of Dresden?

[LincolnToddFan]

Hi Kate, my answer is an unequivocal yes. If America and the Allies were not fighting a "just war" from 1938-1945, then there has never been one.

[My Name Is Kate]

But what about the Germans who hated Hitler and were just defending their country because it was being attacked, even though it was the fault of their leader that they were being attacked? Should they not have defended their country because it was not a just war? Should they have joined the Allies?

[LincolnToddFan]

I am not an historian and we are a little off topic, but didn't many other European countries that had come under control of the Reich form Resistance groups? Why not Germany?

My belief is that the many ordinary Germans who supported Hitler(at least early in his career) did so because they needed and wanted a strong leader to restore their pride after the humiliation of WWI, and the harsh peace imposed upon them by the Allies at Versailles. He told them what they wanted to hear and even provided them with a scapegoat.."the Jews". When he told them that their people were chosen, pre-ordained as Aryans to rule the world and save them from the degeneracy that had befallen Russia under the Soviets and was threatening the entire world, they were ready to see themselves as heroes.

In the eyes of the men and women who supported the Fuhrer, they were also fighting a just war, a crusade really.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(10-11-2014 06:55 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  But what about the Germans who hated Hitler and were just defending their country because it was being attacked, even though it was the fault of their leader that they were being attacked? Should they not have defended their country because it was not a just war? Should they have joined the Allies?

The following thoughts and comments are mainly based upon my family's history.

From what they told I personally don't think there were many "who hated Hitler and were just defending their country because it was being attacked", particularly at that point in time. I think those who fought against being attacked were those who still fought for Hitler's Germany (or were forced to do).

I don't think then and now the majority of Germans had (and have) a "national feeling" compared to other nations (like the Americans, English, French etc.). On October, 3rd (our main national holiday) you won't see many Germans celebrating or giving special attention to the day other than that it's a day off.
People rather identified (and still do) themselves with the region they live(d) in (like feeling Bavarian, or "a Berliner", or an East Prussian, etc.). Thus if people wanted to defend anything from attacks this was rather their land and property, and maybe their region. My family (whose land was threatened and finally taken by the Russians - yes, due to Hitler's war), had never supported Hitler or his ideologies and was against the war. They didn't fight to stop him either. They had never been much interested in politics or the war and had hoped all would not be(come) as bad as it turned out to be, and pass by quickly. They hoped not to get involved and to be able to simply go on with their daily life - undisturbedly and in peace. (My father, born 1912, who lived in the very west, escaped military duties by working as a paymaster.)

Towards the end of the war, my grandfather and my grandma's brothers (all living in East Prussia) were forced to conscription, taken away from their wifes and children, and had to serve in the army. In the end all was about saving as much as possible, which turned out to be "not more" than staying alive.

To my family the Allies were saviors who brought back peace and safety. Nevertheless, since almost all men who were able to serve were forced to do so - who should have "joined the Allies"? Also do you think they would have wanted to fight against their own family members who were taken away and forced to army duties? My grandma and mother hadn't heard anything of their father, husband, and brothers after they had been taken away from them until about two years after the war ended. They neither knew whether they were alive nor where they had to serve (my grandfather in Russia, where he was imprisioned by the Russians, and my grandma's brothers, having previously been captains on family mercant vessels, on submarines).
Most families in the area had similar histories and fates.

[L Verge]

Thank you for teaching us a personal lesson, Eva. I fear that too many people never bother to dig deep into the issues of what a war brings about and the underlying feelings of the people. The German people who had the means understood early what was happening and left the country, if at all possible. Not everyone has that choice, however, when evil rears its ugly head. It is often harder to fight the evil within your doors than the evil that invades your land.

During a summer of touring Europe, my friend and I spent several days in a tiny village in Austria (straight out of the picture books). Our hosts at the little hostel were wonderfully friendly. The first night, we had dinner around a common table with two couples who were our parents' ages. They knew we were Americans and told us that they had been held as prisoners by the Americans during WWII. Our first reaction was to duck under the table, and we started to apologize. They laughed at us and told us that they loved Americans - that their captors treated them better than their own German officers had.

When we toured in Germany, we got much the same reaction. I was also surprised that the natives of certain areas would recommend other areas to visit as well as other areas to avoid because the natives were not so friendly. I do the same thing in telling visitors where to go in D.C.

Eva, I paid particular notice to what you posted above about people of Germany protecting their individual regions - feeling more kinship to their locale than to the country in general. Kinda reminded me of America before the Civil War.

I know there are good people everywhere who are lost in the publicity that evil generates. If nothing else, the rise of dictators and police states such as what Germany endured should teach us all a lesson to watch continually what our "leaders" are up to. And, we definitely need to check out what our "wanna-be leaders" have done previously to warrant our respect and our votes. End of Civics 101.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(10-12-2014 11:17 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Thank you for teaching us a personal lesson, Eva. I fear that too many people never bother to dig deep into the issues of what a war brings about and the underlying feelings of the people. The German people who had the means understood early what was happening and left the country, if at all possible. Not everyone has that choice, however, when evil rears its ugly head.

My grandmother's family (she had six siblings btw) owned vessels and had always been seafaring men (think that's why I'm addicted to the sea, too). They also owned some land. My grandfather's family were farmers owning land. Both families loved their land, it's not easy to give that up, so they stayed as long as possible - till the Russians knocked at their doors and they had to flee. The refugees from East Prussia were anything but wecome in the west, btw.

Another point - if you are aware of what's going on and leave, a piece of opposition leaves with you. My grandma's reply, when asked how could Hitler become that powerful and how all that could have happened, was: "I don't really know. We knew so little until it was too late". I think knowing too little and acting too late is something that shouldn't happen again.

[LincolnToddFan]

Thanks Eva...your family story is a fascinating one!