The Sioux Uprising of 1862 - Research Paper Example

 The Sioux uprising in 1862 is a major event that took place during the civil war period in the United States when Abraham Lincoln was the president. Although civil the gravity of the civil war has caught the attention of the historians till today this uprising was of much consequence in the Minnesota valley and even the state policies under the presidency of Lincoln was affected with the implications of this tribal mutiny. There were several factors responsible behind the movement. In the broadest view it can be seen that the war was a part of their constant struggle with the other Indian tribes in the first place and with the Whites in the second. In the nineteenth century two important treaties had largely contributed in the shooting up deep anguish among the Dakota, by which the Sioux were known. The westward movement of several groups of settlers with their government forced the Dakotas to surrendered massive portion of land by signing the treaties in Traverse des Sioux and in Mendota in July and August of 1851 respectively. For this surrender, the government was to pay an amount of “$1,410,000 in cash and annuity over a fifty year period” (Carley, 2001, p.2). The Sioux were left only with two small reservations of land along the upper Minnesota River by the federal government that established two administrative centers. While the upper Sioux were complacent with the land allowances, the lower Sioux were not. Furthermore they were more agitated because they thought that they had been cheated in signing the Traverse des Sioux, when they signed the traders’ paper. The traders who were not a pat of the Indian tribe seized a payment of $400,000, which was due to the Dakota. In 1858, another deal was made with the government via the traders for the prospect of getting better annuity but the Indians did not get the amount they imagined. The traders’ claims became a source of distrust and dissatisfaction. In order to ratify the condition, proposal was made to the government for the better allowance of seeds, goods, firm equipments and even school to empower the native Sioux. But the introduction of farming led to the development of breach among them, which led to the suspicion of dissolution of the tribe (Carley, 2001, p.4). In 1857, the Indian office at Washington held the Sioux tribe responsible for not being able to capture a disrepute murderer called Inkpaduta. But the most immediate cause of the uprising was the delay arrival of annuity in 1862 and the subsequent starving of the tribe. An armed demonstration by the Sioux brought them some provision and promise of annuity pay but this was not met when the provision finished. At this point of time the traders refused to give them credit. At this crucial juncture, a humiliating remark is believed to have ignited the revolt. Myrick said, “if they are hungry let them eat grass” (Carley, 2001, p.6). Amid such conflict the massacre of five whites by four Indians made it clear to them that there as no other way than tom wage a war against the whites and the US government. The Dakota militants killed 44 Americans on August 18, 1862. In this way the events escalated to the point where Henry Sibley was appointed as the leader of the Americans to protect government properties like Fort Ridgely and the Dakotas were moving towards New Ulm. Then followed the battle of Birch Coulee, in which the Dakota a camp of government troops. Finally in the battle of Wood Lake on September 23 the troops under Sibley were able to inflict huge casualty on the Dakota. After this Sibley began to take the Dakotas in custody for the charges of rape, murder and other criminal activities and try them in the legal court and horrible report was prepared for execution. But it was president Lincoln who ordered that no execution would take place without the presidential intervention. Finally 38 of the convicted Dakotas were given death sentence. The Dakota trial has aroused much confusion regarding the fairness of the trial because the trials were carried out in a very small period of time. 393 trials were conducted within six weeks. Moreover on the last day near about forty cases were heard and passed verdict. Hardly the necessary for a systematic court proceeding was allowed. The Dakotas were just called on to confess his crime and given the sentence. “The length of trials depended primarily on the length of the prisoner’s statement” (How fair were the Dakota conflict trials). The trial, commission took a detached attitude towards the prisoner and tried the Indians, Mixed bloods and the Mulattos summarily without judging the liability of different prisoners. Sibley expressly instructed the trial commission to determine whether the prisoner was participated in the war without judging the degree of active involvement in the war. Had the degree of involvement accounted for, there could be different punishments for the convicted (Chomsky, 2006, p.13). The prisoners were convicted by the specification set by the trial commission and if a Dakota was merely found to have participated in the battle, irrespective of his active role, he deserved a death sentence. In some cases, the prisoners were awarded death sentences by the statement of a single eyewitness. In the modern criminal trial, the compatibility of eyewitness is very low because the witness can have misidentification in some fast moving traumatic situation. Moreover, the eyewitness can have certain personal interest in producing false evidence. In this case most of the eyewitnesses were prisoners themselves and so there was every chance that they would bear false witness for mitigate their own criminal liability (Chomsky, 2006, p.13). This quickness and the inadequacy of the justices system is apparent in the words of Heard, the recorder of the Military Commission: “I have already shown that the point to be investigated being a very simple one, viz, presence and participation in battles and massacres which had before been proven, and many of the prisoners confessing the fact, each case need only occupy a few moments” (How fair were the Dakota conflict trials?, n.d.). In addition to this, the members of the trial commission were prejudiced because the prisoners were the same Dakotas who had attacked them a few days ago. So impartial evaluation was not possible. William Marshal, who served in the commission has been reported to have said “hiss mind was not in a condition to give the [ ] men a fair trial” (Chomsky, 2006, p.15). Prior to the trial there was no counseling of the detained persons. During it many of the defendants had not the idea that they were being judged for their life. Instead they thought that the trial is intended to judge their crime and keep them in future detention and try. Furthermore the Dakota culture proved to be a point of imperfection in the trial process. As studied by C Chomsky, the in the Dakota, tribe the killing someone was a point of boasting and the first Dakota to have touched the enemy was given an honor. Thus when the Dakota called on to confess, boasted about his killing, it might have been recognized that the boasting was exaggerated. He addition to that the defendant might have been guilty of having participated in the battle only (Chomsky, 2006, p.13). Another dimension of the trial was that it undermined the laws of sovereignty in warfare. Chief justice Marshal, who called the Indian tribes as “domestic dependent nations”, made the firt reference to the Dakota tribe as a nation. In order to define their separate status, he used phrases like “a distinct political society, separated from others, capable of managing its own affair and governing itself” (Chomsky, 2006, p.22). Now without verifying the actuality of such status, one can question the decision to presents the Dakotas as common criminal, accused of rape, murder and robbery. If they were recognized as sovereign nation, the prisoners should have been taken as prisoners of was and treated accordingly, instead of passing death sentences like petty criminals. The treaties between the United State and the Dakota serve to support the sovereign status. Chomsky (1990) has another observation in regard to the unprecedented treatment that the Dakota met. In this analysis not only the economic vulnerability of the Dakota has been pointed out as a significant factor in the US outlook, but their low ethnic solidarity has also caught attention. The Dakotas were domiciling on two small strips of lands after the treaties mentioned before and they were surrounded by United States territory. In the post-treaty period they became heavily dependent on the annuity. Such economic and political standing of the Dakotas must have led the trial commission to think that the community had no sovereign status and they were entirely dependent on US. This perspective of the whites might have led the commission members to believe that they rebelled against their own government and hence punishable under the criminal law of the state. It becomes clear how during the civil war period, when the domestic conflict between the southern and northern states, the Dakota movement took place and later became an issue of America’s cultural ill-treatment. At that time the lack of standardized constitutional provision was at least partially responsible for the treatment towards the Indians. It seems more surprising when one thinks that the civil war all bout the promotion of democracy and extension of civil rights to all groups of society. Such thinking would, however, be a simplistic way of looking at matter of graver political implications. Today the conditions of the Dakota have changed and they have got the civil rights with the provision to their own legislature. For example there are North Dakotas department of Labor and North Dakota Human Rights Act, which preside over issues like employment discrimination based on race and ethnicity, marital disputes, public assistance etc. (North Dakota Department of Labor, 2010) References Carley K. (2001), The Dakota war of 1862, Minnesota Historical Society Press Chomsky C. (1990), The United States Dakota War Trial: A study in military injustice, Stanford Law Review, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13, available at: http://ejp.icj.org/IMG/AppendixF.pdf (accessed on August 11, 2010) How flair were the Dakota conflict trials? (n.d.), Available at: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/dakota/dakfairness.html (Accessed on August 11, 2010) North Dakota Department of Labor, (2010), Human Rights Division, available at: http://www.nd.gov/labor/services/human-rights/employment-disc.html (accessed on August 12, 2010) The Sioux Uprising, Minnesota Ghost, available at: http://www.minnesotaghosts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88:the-sioux-uprising-of-1862&catid=5:minnesota-history&Itemid=13 (Accessed on August 11, 2010) Read More