Dakota War of 1862

I thought I would do my next blog on the Sioux Indian conflict in Minnesota during the Civil War, also referred to as the Dakota War of 1862. 

As I would expect from most of my fellow classmates, I had never heard of the Dakota War before today. My family and I took a day and a half trip up to the environmental boarding school I'll be attending next semester: Conserve School, in northern Wisconsin. On the five hour drive back, we- as my family is wont to do- listened to NPR. There was a segment on This American Life about the Sioux Indians, and this is where I heard the story of the Dakota War. 

Sioux tribe warriors 

The war was basically prompted by traders and the state's government, who desired the land that the Sioux were currently living on for settlers pushing West. By basically forcing the chiefs into debt and then manipulating them to sign a treaty, they were able to cheat the Sioux tribes of 35 million acres for American soil. 

It didn't take the Sioux tribe long to discover that they'd been played. And once they realized this, a group of them decided to take revenge. The lands they had grown up on and had lived on for years had literally been stolen from them- snatched right out from under their noses. Their anger was understandable; their actions were too rash. 

They declared war on the United States and went on a 36 day rampage throughout the state. There was a shortage of soldiers in Minnesota, of course, due to the Civil War, and as a result, over 400 people were killed, including women, children, and defenseless men.

The public reacted with an extreme backlash of emotions. The extermination of the Sioux was called up on immediately, and the term "blood for blood" was a notion they intended to practice. 

Quote from Alexander Ramsey, the governor of Minnesota: "If any shall escape extinction, the wretched remnant must be driven beyond our borders and our frontier garrisoned with a force sufficient to forever prevent their return."

Most of the warriors that had been involved with the killings fled West. But Henry Sibley, a previous friend to the Sioux, tricked the remaining innocents, who either had nothing to do with the fighting or deliberately chose not to take part, into surrendering. The terms were that they would not be harmed. They were anyway. 

The women, children, and men who had not participated in the War were made to march on "a mini-Trail of Tears". Hundreds of Sioux died on the trail, in the temporary camps they stayed in, and on the reservation they were forced onto.  

The Sioux Indians were falsely seen as barbaric savages 

President Lincoln, pre-occupied with the Civil War, only took prominent note of the Dakota conflict when the guilty- and unfairly judged- verdicts of 303 Sioux men were presented to him. The state of Minnesota and many of the surrounding citizens called fiercely for their hangings. 

Lincoln had more pressing things on his mind: the disbandment of the Union, for one. He dealt with the false verdicts quickly, asking that the Sioux men who did the more extreme damage (raping of women, mutilation of babies) were the ones to be prosecuted for their crimes. 

Only two Sioux men were found guilty of Lincoln's defined crime and the president now faced the bloodthirsty people calling for the death of more. He eventually wrote out a list of 38 Sioux to be executed, to quell the raging citizens in Minnesota and across America. 

All of this goes to show that the conflicts with the Indians were not over, and that the idea of "manifest destiny" was not over, even while the Civil War was happening. Americans were still pushing West, and still pushing the Indians out of their homes. 


I think that the interesting part to of all of this is that even today, many people in the U.S. are completely ignorant to the hangings, and to the fact that it was the white man to blame. Many schools push the mindset that it was the Indians who waged the War, for random and mysterious reasons unknown. As is covered in the NPR podcast, many of the people who live in the area of the hangings have no idea what the Dakota War was. 

Here's some questions for you to chew on. Do you think that Lincoln should have intervened in the brutal treatment of the Indians? Or was the Civil War enough for him to tackle? What was a different way to end the conflict- peacefully, perhaps? And should the Dakota War be taught alongside the Civil War, or should it be deemed unimportant to the events of the 1860s?

To give my own opinion, wanted or not, I feel that the mistreatment of the Sioux was just as prominent as the conflict between the North and the South. Brutality to minorities is something America has always handled badly. Perhaps if this brutality was taught or focused on more, it wouldn't happen as frequently now. 

After all, history repeats itself. 

You can listen to the podcast (something I would highly recommend) here: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/479/transcript

Thanks for reading.

Mormonism in America

Because I love Mormons...

and because I find the 19th century American society's reaction to them hypocritical...

a blog on the introduction of Mormonism in America.

As we all know, the majority of colonists traveled to the New World in order to practice religion freely and without fear of persecution. This idea of freedom of religion was something that would stay with the colonists as they declared independence and began to develop an "American identity". It not only affected the writing of the American Constitution, but also was- and still is- an important concept to American citizens. But however highly this concept was regarded, Americans were far from accepting or tolerant when it came to the introduction of this new religion. 

The Angel Moroni speaks to Joseph Smith

Mormonism began with the idea of a man named Joseph Smith, who claimed that the angel "Moroni" had visited him and informed him of the whereabouts of a set of golden plates. The plates were supposedly recovered by Smith and were then translated into the Book of Mormon, which he began to preach from and gather followers for.

Smith took the Mormons west to find their promised land. But Americans rejected their practices for the extreme differences that set them apart from "normal" religions. The idea of "freedom of religion" was ignored, whether it be purposefully or accidentally, and hatred for Mormons grew until Smith was attacked and murdered by a mob in Carthage, Illinois, along with his brother, Hyrum. 

Brigham Young became the next influential leader of the Mormon people. After Joseph Smith's death, he led the Mormons to a safe haven in Utah, the place that they named their "promised land". Mormon influence is still prominent in Utah today.

Brigham Young leads the Mormons to Utah

Even in early American history, conflict over questions that are debated now can be found. The Corrupt Bargain of 1824, although the first, would not be the last government scandal. Jackson's discrimination against Indians is only one example of the country's discrimination against other groups and minorities. And today, in the 21st century, the details of freedom of religion are still disputed. It's interesting how history repeats itself, and how even the morals of Americans can be put aside for intolerance to rule.


How would American society be different today if religion had been accepted more often in the past? Perhaps we would be more open to change and originality if the introduction of different religions had been approached with an unprejudiced mind instead of blind rejection.

Looking for more on Mormons in the 19th century? Try listening to this song from the creator's of South Park's Broadway musical, "Book of Mormon". The song gives a funny- and still quite accurate- synopsis of the beginnings of Mormonism in America.  

The Book of Mormon: All-American Prophet

Thanks for reading!

Revolutionary War: THE BLOG

One of the key parts of the Revolutionary War was foreign relations.

Ben Franklin was essential in his diplomatic negotiations with France, the one large supporter of America's split with Britain. Determined to make a good impression on their (hopeful) chief funder, Franklin went to work gaining the popularity of the aristocrats. However, instead of attempting to meet their standards of class and dressing in all the fineries of a nobleman, he played on the idea of "the American Quaker". 

Franklin dressed in handmade, plain clothing, wore no wigs, and carried a simple walking stick. His well-known trademark in France was the fur cap that he wore at every social occasion he could. The cap was donned to display his simplicity, but perhaps it was also a symbol, meant to blatantly tell the French monarchy that America was a new nation that would not follow the standards of any other country, and instead become a free democracy.



He was very popular with the aristocrats- especially the women. Nearly all of France was taken aback and astounded by his apparent humbleness in apparel and attitude, and embraced him for it. The closest thing that I can relate it to is a wealthy woman and a puppy. 

While it may seem like a stretch, I think the metaphor is fairly accurate: the snobbish woman turns her nose down at the eager men who attempt to capture her attention, but will swoon over a small, rather adorable puppy. John Adams would take the place of the hopeful men in this comparison, while Ben Franklin would be seen as the puppy, and France, of course, the wealthy woman. Adams' vain attempts of foreign relations are failures, while Franklin has major success with the French. To the disbelief and irritation of Adams, Franklin is a charming master-mind at work when it comes to social interactions. And, like a puppy, he seems innocent and adorable on the outside, when in truth all he needs to do is "turn on the charm", so to speak. With his ability to enthrall and delight the French courts (and French women), America gains their first foreign ally.

For a little over a year, Franklin visited with King Louis XVI and the rest of the French government to work out a deal in which France would fund the rebellious colonies and stock their weapons, as well as other supplies. At last, with the help of Franklin and two additional diplomats, Silas Deane and Arthur Lee, America's budding revolution was backed by the Treaty of Alliance with France, as well as the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, founded on February 6th in 1778. Relations between the two nations were positive until the French Revolution and the execution of Louis XVI, in which America declared neutrality and the French grew angry, all due to the fact that they had aided the American Revolution while the Americans stood by as their country rose up against their own monarchy.

However, that's another story for another blog. 

- MAK

For more information on the puppy-ish womanizer that was Ben Franklin, feel free to check out this video.

Spain and the Beginnings of Slave Labor

In this blog, I'll be focusing on the Spanish conquistadors' treatment of natives in the New World: especially the Aztecs.

Both the Spanish and English practiced the extremely poor treatment of natives. However, the Spanish CONQUISTADORS' abuse of the natives was far worse than the New England colonists'.

The Spaniard's hunt for gold and silver was a crazed frenzy, an obsessive search that often led to the bloody slaughter of natives as they moved through southern America. An example of this would be Hernando Cortes, a Spanish conquistador. 

"...he invited the headmen of the Cholula nation to the square. And when they came, with thousands of unarmed retainers, Cortes's small army of Spaniards, posted around the square with cannon, armed with crossbows, mounted on horses, massacred them, down to the last man. Then they looted the city and moved on."

While the English colonists were more concerned about their settlements and their religion to focus on anything more than the banishment of the Indians, the conquistadors enslaved the natvies that they came across. In their search for GOLD and as part of the ECOMIENDA, they forced the natives into SLAVERY.

The working conditions and lifestyle that the enslaved natives endured were almost unimaginable. They were often worked to the death, and treated worse than animals.

"Total control led to total cruelty. The Spaniards 'thought nothing of knifing Indians by tend and twenties and cutting slices off of them to test the sharpness of their blades.'"

"[They] 'grew more conceited every day' and after a while refused to walk any distance. They 'rode the backs of Indians if they were in a hurry' or were carried on hammocks by Indians running in relays. 'In this case they also had Indians carry large leaves to shade them from the sun and others to fan them with goose wings.'"

The picture below shows a mass hanging of natives, and the murder of native children.

The Spaniards' use of natives for labor was also an important part of the COLUMBIAN EXCHANGE. The enslaved AZTECTS and INCAS worked to collect the gold and silver that was sent from the New World back to the Old World. 

In addition, Cortes and his followers created a generation of MESTIZOS, the offspring of raped indigenous women, and the BLACK LEGEND, one view of the actions taken by the Spanish conquistadors. 

The battle fought by the Aztecs- and the siege they now refer to as "NOCHE TRISTE"- was fought and lost. But what if the they had succeeded and driven Cortes out? It may have frightened Spain off for a time, perhaps. However, it's more likely that Spain would have sent more troops and wiped out the natives completely.