The Dakota 38 (Listener Request)

“It is estimated that from eight hundred to one thousand quiet, inoffensive, and unarmed settlers fell victims to savage fury ere the bloody work of death was stayed, The thriving town of New Ulm, containing from 1,500 to 2,000 inhabitants was almost destroyed. For Ridgely was attacked and closely besieged for several days and was only saved by the most heroic and unfaltering bravery on the part of its little band of defenders until it was relieved by troops raised, armed, and sent forward to their relief.” William P. Dole, Commissioner of Indian Affairs. November 26, 1862. 

Welcome to Civics and Coffee. My name is Alycia and I am a self-professed history nerd. Each week, I am going to chat about a topic on U.S history and give you both the highlights and occasionally break down some of the complexities in history; and share stories you may not remember learning in high school. All in the time it takes to enjoy a cup of coffee. 

INTRO MUSIC

Hey everyone, welcome back. 

As President Lincoln sought to develop military strategies to put a quick end to the Civil War, a band of indigenous Americans were slowly, but surely, starving to death. In an act of desperation, a group of these men stole food for their families and caused the death of a handful of settlers, prompting a series of events that would end in the largest mass execution by the government in United States history. 

Known as both the Dakota 38 and the Sioux Uprising, the decision to execute nearly forty indigenous Americans left quite the black mark on Lincoln’s time in office. Long time listener Sam asked that I cover the Dakota 38. So this week, I am exploring just what happened. What prompted the theft of food? Why were 38 men hanged? And how did this impact Lincoln’s legacy? 

Grab your cup of coffee, peeps. Let’s do this. 

If you’ve been a listener to the show for a while, then you’ve likely heard me discuss the very troubling history between the United States and indigenous nations. Unfortunately, while the United States government was very eager to enter into agreements with native peoples in order to secure land and water rights, they had a less than stellar track record for upholding their side of the bargain. Like so many instances of indigenous - U.S. relations, much of the turmoil that came from the Dakota War is a direct result of the United States failing yet again to meet the terms of a previously signed treaty. 

The tribal nation known as Eastern Dakota called the land that would later become the state of Minnesota their homeland for centuries. According to their origin stories, the earliest members of the tribe came out of the rock in the area. The tribe moved around the area based on the season, saving surplus materials to get them through the cold winters. The women of the tribe were responsible for gathering wood and making hides while the men of the tribe took on the hunting responsibilities. 

While contact with white settlers began as early as the eighteenth century, it wasn’t until 1805 that the Dakota and the United States entered into a series of treaties intended to help the federal government expand its borders westward. In these treaties, the Dakota relinquished claims to their homeland in exchange for food, supplies, and annuity payments from the United States. The first treaty was signed with Zebulon Pike and secured for the United States a tract of land where the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers met. The treaty also provided that the Dakota would be able to quote “to pass, repass, hunt or make other uses of the said districts, as they have formerly done, without any other exception,” end quote. 

Over the next several years, the two sides entered into additional treaties, all of which led to the Dakota signing over more and more land in exchange for supposed goods and financial payments. This includes in 1851 when the Dakota signed the Traverse de Sioux treaty. In exchange for giving up thousands of acres of land, the Dakota were slated to receive 1.6 million dollars. Some of the money was scheduled to be paid up front, but the bulk of the funds, about 1.3 million, was supposed to be placed into a trust with annual payments over the next fifty years. The Dakota signed over a majority of their land for about 12 cents an acre and according to historian Francis Paul Prucha is an example of quote “the many forces that focused on treaty negotiations in order to serve non-idian interests,” end quote. After the signing of the treaty, unethical traders tricked Dakota members into signing another document. The Dakota believed they were signing another copy of the treaty, but in fact they were entering into a debt agreement with the traders. In signing the document, the Dakota acknowledged they were in debt to local traders and agreed to assume responsibility for paying said debt, all but guaranteeing that whatever payments came from the United States would inevitably end up going to the traders and not the Dakota as intended. 

The Minnesota territory became a state in 1858 and white settlers continued to pour into the area, relishing in the idea of manifest destiny. Entrance into the area spiked after Congress passed the Homestead Act in 1862. The law was meant to incentivize Americans to move west and stated that families could get up to 160 acres of land free and clear after five years, as long as they improved the land and paid a small filing fee. As a result of the act, thousands of white settlers poured into the Minnesota area, reducing the availability of game and other resources the Dakota relied upon in their daily activities. 

The policy of the United States government at the time was to force members of the Dakota into the business of agriculture. Instead of continuing their traditional hunting and fishing practices, representatives of the federal government pushed the Dakota into planting to meet their community needs. The Dakota did their best, but they had little recourse when, in 1861, their crops failed. Their situation was made worse as the United States government fell significantly behind on its payments to the tribe, leaving the Dakota on the verge of starvation without any recourse. 

And what caused the payment delinquency? The Civil War. As you know from listening these last few months, the United States entered into Civil War in 1861 shortly after Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as president. Focused on trying to keep the country together and working toward bringing rebellious states back into the union, Lincoln was understandably singularly focused on the interior conflict. Denied credit by traders due to the lack of money and refused rations or other support by local Indian agents, several Dakota took matters into their own hands. On August 17th, 1862, four Dakota hunters stole eggs from settlers in Acton Township which led to the death of five white settlers. The hunters feared retribution and hurried to their village where they begged for protection. From there, several tribal leaders asked Little Crow to help them in launching a war against the settlers, which he reluctantly agreed to do. The Dakota preemptively organized an attack on Fort Ridgley and the town of New Ulm and pretty soon, the Great Sioux Uprising had begun. 

Over the next five weeks, the Dakota engaged in a series of battles before finally surrendering on September 26, 1862. Although there were nearly 6,000 Dakota living in and around the area surrounding Fort Ridgely, only 1,000 participated in the uprising. In reporting casualties, Indian Agent Thomas Galbraith put the death toll at 737 which included 644 civilians and 93 soldiers. That number was increased once the Commissioner of Indian affairs, William P. Dole shared his findings with the president in November, a portion of which I read at the top of the episode. The historical record is a little murky - at least with what I could find - most of the sources I could locate put the number of white deaths to over 600 and roughly 150 Dakota warriors. 

Whatever the total losses, by the end of September, 1862, hundreds of Dakota warriors were in captivity, waiting to learn their fate. The events that followed are troubling, with some scholars comparing the fate of the Dakota to the Jews in Nazi Germany. Just two days after their surrender, a five-man military commission was called to review the actions of hundreds of Dakota and assess their guilt. Over a period of mere weeks, just under 400 quote unquote trials were conducted, with 319 individuals declared guilty. Of that number, 303 were sentenced to death. The Dakota were not given the benefit of counself and, what’s worse, is that these trials were for actions taken during a period of war. 

As legal scholar Carol Chomsky observed, quote: “the Dakota were tried, not in a state or federal criminal court, but before a military commission. They were convicted, not for the crime of murder, but for killings committed in warfare. The official review was conducted, not by an appellate court, but by the President of the United States. Many wars took place between Americans and members of the Indian nations, but in no others did the United States apply criminal sanctions to punish those defeated in war,” end quote. Hearing about the convictions, President Lincoln ordered that no execution be handed out until he had time to fully review the facts of the case and asked that the prisoner’s records be sent to Washington for his review. And here is where some scholars take exception. 

While Lincoln significantly reduced the number of Dakotas to be executed, his rationale for deciding who should die was a little… weak. Originally, Lincoln wanted to ensure those who had committed crimes against women were the ones to face execution; however, in reviewing the records, only two of the convicted met the criteria. Lincoln was facing tremendous pressure to give Minnesota residents their pound of flesh, even being warned by local politicians quote: “if the president does not permit these executions to take place under the forms of law, the outraged people of Minnesota will dispose of these wretches without law,” end quote. Whether from outside pressure or a belief that he had to ensure an adequate punishment was doled out, Lincoln decided to include any Dakota who had been convicted of participating in quote unquote massacres. When all was said and done, 39 men were scheduled to die by hanging. This decision, scholar David Martinez argues, was a violation of the Dakota’s human rights and states quote “Lincoln willfully ordered this mass hanging in order to appease a Minnesota settle populace threatening riots and anarchy, perhaps even SE SU SHUN secession, if he did not do as they demanded,” end quote. 

Those who are critical of Lincoln point out the fact that not only were the Dakota tried and convicted under the most dubious of circumstances, but that they were being punished for acts committed during war time. Some have even pointed to the fact that despite the thousands of casualties caused by Confederate soldiers, none faced a death sentence. In his analysis of the uprising, scholar Miles A. Brown argued that Lincoln had a blind spot to Indian affairs and therefore could have been more easily influenced by the anti-indigenous sentiment brewing in the country. 

For what it is worth, I think Lincoln was focused on the major task in front of him - ending the Civil War and reuniting the country. And I think he took threats of secession very seriously. After all, he watched as state after state announced their intention to leave the union and I think it is reasonable to believe that Lincoln was trying to find the best way to appease those who felt they suffered a grave injustice and ensure that only those truly responsible for quote unquote participating in massacres faced punishment. In this case, he made a bad call, but given the historical context I am not sure any other president would have done it differently. This is not to excuse Lincoln’s actions or to otherwise mitigate the pain the execution cost, but instead as a way to frame how and why Lincoln may have come to the decision he did. 

Whatever the motivations, Lincoln announced his decision on December 6, 1862. Issuing a notice to General Henry Sibley, Lincoln identified 39 individuals for execution, ordering the rest to be held until further orders were sent. The President at the last minute intervened on behalf of one other convicted warrior, leaving the total at 38. On December 26, 1862, 38 men were hanged for their crimes against the white settlers with nearly 4,000 onlookers. The mass hanging remains the largest single day execution carried out by the government in United States history. 

For some Minnesota settlers, the death of almost 40 men was insufficient. After the mass execution, several residents pushed for all Dakota to be removed from the state and set up on a reservation far from Minnesota borders. In the spring of 1863, the remaining prisoners were transported to Iowa; over 100 would die in transport. And what about the Dakota who were not charged or convicted by the government? Their fate was not much better. Likely in response to the palpable anger expressed by the white residents, nearly 2,000 Dakota were forcibly removed from the area and put into camps around Fort Snelling on Pike Island. They spent their winter there, losing a few hundred individuals before finally being permanently relocated. One source I read says they were forced to live in present-day South Dakota, and another indicated Nebraska. Congress also satiated the thirst of Minnesota resident by apparently passing a law prohibiting the Dakota from living in the state, a law that remains on the books to this day. 

In 2012, 150 years after the execution, then-Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton issued a formal apology to the Dakota people. Stating partially quote: “August 17, 1862 marked a terrible period in Minnesota's history. The first victims of the "U.S.-Dakota War of 1862" lost their lives on that day, 150 years ago,” end quote, the Governor called for August 17 to be a Day of Remembrance and Reconciliation. 

The Dakota suffered an incredible loss at the hands of the United States government. First with its failure to live up to its previous commitments, and second by moving forward with an execution of individuals who were convicted with questionable evidence for committing acts of war during wartime. While Lincoln may have intervened on behalf of a few Dakota, his actions fell short and the execution of 38 individuals remains a black mark on his record. A president who successfully navigated the unchartered waters of Civil War to reunite the country before his premature death in 1865, Lincoln failed to make the right call on behalf of indigenous americans.  

A big thanks to Sam for suggesting the topic. As usual, I learned so much while diving into the research for this episode. Looking into listener requests is one of my favorite parts of producing the podcast, so be to keep them coming. If you have a topic you want me to cover, just let me know. You can find me on the socials including instagram, the former bird app, threads, and bluesky. Or you can find me via my website at www dot civics and coffee dot com. The website is also where you can see source material, transcripts, and learn how you can support the show. 

Thanks, peeps. I’ll see you next week.

Thanks for tuning and I hope you enjoyed this episode of Civics & Coffee. If you want to hear more small snippets from american history, be sure to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening and I look forward to our next cup of coffee together. 

OUTRO MUSIC