Histories of the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862

Home , Battle of Wood Lake, Big Eagle, Dakota War of 1862, Fort Abercrombie, Henry Hastings Sibley, Little Crow

A Review Histories of the U.S.–Dakota War of 1862

44 Minnesota History William E. Lass Memories and impressions of the influenced by each era’s interests and war are deeply embedded in Min- prejudices. n Minnesota’s relatively nesota’s collective psyche. Because The earliest historians of the brief history, the U.S.–Dakota of its enduring fame, the war is war relied heavily on white eye- War of 1862 ranks as one of the represented in such diverse genres witnesses. But within about three Istate’s most momentous occurrences. as reminiscences, memoirs, biog- decades, some Indian accounts be- The sesquicentennial observance raphies, captivity stories, novels, came available, as did more pioneer of the war is an appropriate time to poetry, and history. Space limita- reminiscences and a considerable consider how it has been depicted in tions alone preclude considering all body of official correspondence and histories. of them here. This essay is restricted reports. This new evidence caused a to 13 histories that deal exclusively reassessment of the war’s causes and or mainly with the war and its after- effects and, in some instances, helped math. Their publication dates range clarify disagreements over factual from 1863 to 2009.1 information. Considering these volumes offers Historical writing about the an excellent opportunity to reflect war coincided with a revolution- on the axiom that each generation ary change in thinking about the writes its own history. This claim nature of history. Since the days of does not mean that succeeding gen- classical Greece, western historians erations change history capriciously. thought their craft should be an ac- Nor does it rule out the reversion to curate depiction of the past. But the earlier biases and emphases. Rather, advent of so-called scientific his- it suggests that perspectives on the tory in nineteenth-century western past change with time, new infor- civilization raised a host of ques- mation and interpretations become tions and concerns about the quality available, and perceptions of the na- of historical evidence, the need to ture of history per se can be altered. strive for objectivity, and the neces- All of these characteristics are sity of substantiating statements evident in the U.S.–Dakota War and interpretations by specifically histories collectively. The first books citing sources. With its emphasis on stressed the frontier viewpoint scientific principles, the new history, that the Dakota were backward, in vogue in the United States by the evil, pagan savages who commit- 1880s, stressed comprehensive re- ted atrocious acts. As the number of search, critical evaluation of sources, eyewitnesses and contemporaries de- verification of facts, impartiality, con- creased and ultimately disappeared, clusions derived logically from the the war tended to become an object evidence, and, finally, proofreading. of academic interest, and authors Historians who used these tech- placed more emphasis on the Dakota niques produced what has come to as an oppressed minority group. The be called revisionist history.2 meaning of the past was obviously

Setting the scene: Francis D. Millet’s he first three books rendition of the 1851 Treaty of Traverse about the U.S.–Dakota des Sioux, in which the U.S. obtained War were published when much of what would become southern Tit was barely over. History of the Minnesota from the Dakota. Millet’s Sioux War and Massacres of 1862 1905 oil hangs in the Governor’s and 1863 by Isaac V. D. Heard and Reception Room in the state capitol. Dakota War Whoop, or, Indian

Summer 2012 45 Massacres and War in Minnesota of 1862–’3 by Harriet E. Bishop Mc- Conkey appeared in 1863. The next year brought A History of the Great Massacre by the Sioux Indians, in Minnesota, Including the Personal Narratives of Many Who Escaped by Charles S. Bryant and Abel B. Murch.3 All of these authors relied heavily on their own wartime experiences or information they obtained from eyewitnesses. Born in New York State, Heard was a 28-year-old St. Paul lawyer when he enlisted in the Minnesota volunteers in August 1862. He joined Henry Hastings Sibley’s army at St. Peter and served through its march up the Minnesota River valley. He interviewed many of the white survivors of the Birch Coulee skirmish of September 2 and day school and opening a female Harriet Bishop, pictured on the participated in the decisive Battle teacher-training seminary. Her frontispiece of her 1857 autobiography of Wood Lake on September 23 and autobiographical book, Floral Home, the freeing of 269 white and mixed- or, First Years of Minnesota: Early war. Anxious to complete it while blood captives at Camp Release near Sketches, Later Settlements, and Fur- public interest was still high, Bryant present-day Montevideo three days ther Developments, was published persuaded Murch to be his coauthor. later. Before his military service in 1857. McConkey, who lived in St. Murch, who lived at the Upper Sioux ended in November 1862, he was the Paul during the war, met numerous Agency near present-day Granite recorder for the board of army offi- refugees who had fled the frontier, Falls before the war, had joined the cers that tried more than 400 Dakota and she obtained much firsthand in- Renville Rangers only days before men for war crimes.4 formation from George H. Spencer, the opening of hostilities. This volun- McConkey (better known by her who had been held captive by some teer unit of 51 men was recruited by birth name, Harriet Bishop) moved Dakota for about five weeks.5 Thomas J. Galbraith, federal Indian to St. Paul from New England in Bryant, a lawyer, moved from agent for the Dakota, to fight in the July 1847. She gained the distinc- Ohio to Minnesota in 1859. In 1863, Civil War. The rangers were in St. tion of establishing the city’s first while practicing in St. Peter, he pre- Peter en route to Fort Snelling when permanent school and first Sun- sented more than 100 damage claims they received news of the first at- to the Sioux Claims Commission, the tacks. Galbraith promptly led them body established by Congress to be to Fort Ridgely, which Murch helped William E. Lass, professor of history the federal government’s arbiter in defend when the Dakota attacked.6 emeritus, Minnesota State University, determining compensation for war- These three histories featured Mankato, has written on a variety of Minnesota history topics. His most incurred losses. Many of Bryant’s some noteworthy similarities and recent book is The Treaty of Traverse clients were widows who related contrasts. All covered the war’s 1862 des Sioux (2011). their experiences replete with vivid, Minnesota phase, ranging from the oftentimes gory, details of alleged first killings of white settlers by four Publication of this article was funded, in part, by the Harriet Thwing Holden atrocities committed by Dakota men. young Dakota men in Acton Town- Fund for American Indian History. Their stories, according to Bryant, ship, Meeker County, on August 17 inspired him to write a history of the to the hanging of 38 Dakota men

46 Minnesota History at Mankato on December 26. In of the deceitful cession treaties and much less detail, they also described the conduct of unscrupulous white Henry H. Sibley’s 1863 army expedi- traders. Writing when white hatred tion into Dakota Territory, part of of the Dakota was at a fever pitch, the strategy to safeguard Minnesota’s Heard clearly presented a minority exposed western frontier. Readers opinion: “The treaties are born in will find vivid descriptions of brutish fraud, and all their stipulations for warriors committing heinous killings the future are curtailed by iniquity.” and mutilations in all three. But in Although he insisted that another this respect, the Bryant and Murch reason for the war was traditional book surpasses the others. Eight of Indian hatred of the inevitable white its 25 chapters are “narratives” or frontier advance, he nonetheless saw “statements” by victims of Dakota the Dakota as victims who deserved attacks. Although each story is dif- humane treatment.8 ferent, overall they exude a certain Unlike Heard’s secular view- John Other Day, 1860s sameness. point, McConkey believed strongly Anyone reading these books in supernatural causation. Her only Dakota as a warlike people who had today would be well advised to explanation of the war’s cause was an inveterate hatred of whites. They concentrate on their viewpoints that the Dakota were inspired by conceded that some of the warriors but mistrust much of their specific the devil, their “great captain.” She may have been motivated by dis- factual information and spelling of contended that the devil “had stirred satisfaction with the 1851 treaties, surnames. All contain numerous the demoniac spirit in their hearts, but they completely ignored the errors, an unwillingness or inability till the war-spirit was sending its food-and-money crisis of 1862 by to question their sources, and sloppy lightning flashes from their eyes, and painting an almost idyllic picture craftsmanship. McConkey was more of a stylist than either Heard or Bryant and Anyone reading these books today Murch. Unfortunately, she some- would be well advised to concentrate times used her writing skills to gloss over her errors. For example, she as- on their viewpoints but mistrust much sumed that the Battle of Wood Lake of their specific factual information. occurred on the lake’s eastern shore and proceeded to write a description of Sibley’s encampment and the maddening them from the onset.” of reservation life. To these authors, ensuing skirmish at that place. In re- In the same vein, she attributed the agent Galbraith was an efficient, ality, Wood Lake is about three miles action of John Other Day, a Dakota high-minded official who was mak- southwest of the battle site; the battle subchief who led 62 whites to safety, ing great progress in converting the was simply named for the largest to the intercession of the “Almighty Dakota to the white lifestyle. lake in the vicinity.7 Ruler.” 9 In portraying the Dakota as The greatest difference in the McConkey’s god manifested him- demons, Bryant and Murch were three histories is their stance on self during the war. She insisted that influenced by their belief that whites causation. Only Heard acknowledged Fort Ridgely was saved because “God had a god-given right to occupy the that each side in the war had some overruled the savages’ purpose.” New frontier. They wrote: “On the one justification. While he deplored Ulm was destroyed, she believed, be- side stood the white race in the com- the actions of some warriors and cause the town’s free thinkers, whom mand of God, armed with his law; defended the conduct of the hasty, she called “infidels,” were “strong in on the other, the savage, resisting arbitrary military trials, he also their wickedness” and “defiant of the the execution of that law. The result believed that the Dakota had been restraints of the Gospel.” 10 could not be evaded by any human provoked. He was especially critical Bryant and Murch described the device.” 11

Summer 2012 47 he fourth history of treaties and an incompetent Indian its past mistakes, he believed, but the war did not appear until service. By name he denounced Gal- its continuation of traditional policy 1891: Alexander Berghold’s braith and his immediate superior, led to the Sioux wars, culminating in TThe Indians’ Revenge, or, Days of Clark W. Thompson, head of the the horrendous massacre of Lakota Horror. Some Appalling Events in Northern Superintendency in 1862, people (Teton or Western Sioux) the History of the Sioux. Berghold, a for their conduct just before the war. by army troops at Wounded Knee, Roman Catholic priest, moved from Other than internal references South Dakota, in December 1890. his native Austria to St. Paul in 1864. to talking with war eyewitnesses, In 1904, some 13 years after In late 1868 he was assigned to start Berghold’s book does not evidence Berghold’s book appeared, Mankato a parish in New Ulm. During slightly new research. Indeed, his account attorney Daniel Buck self-published more than two decades there he be- contains many of the same factual his Indian Outbreaks. After mov- came well known as the builder of its errors made by Heard, McConkey, ing to Minnesota from upstate New first Catholic church, the founder of and Bryant and Murch. However, York in 1857, Buck spent most of his its parochial school, and a commu- Berghold reflected an emerging career practicing law in Mankato. nity leader who established rapport attitude of his time by emphasiz- He was an eyewitness to the incar- with the free thinkers. Judging by the ing the culpability of the federal ceration of the condemned Dakota contents of his history, he also spent Indian bureaucracy. During the prisoners in Camp Lincoln on the considerable time interviewing resi- 1880s many critics, including Helen town’s western edge and the subse- dents about their war experiences.12 Hunt Jackson in her groundbreak- quent execution of 38 of them. After As his subtitle implies, Berghold ing A Century of Dishonor (1881), the war he represented many people did not intend to write a comprehen- denounced federal Indian policy. who sought compensation from the sive history of the war. He wished, Berghold was sympathetic to this re- Sioux Claims Commission. Active in however, that “some able writer” form movement. He thought that the Democratic Party politics, he served would “undertake the task of gather- U.S.–Dakota War “should have led to a term in each house of the state ing all the interesting facts connected better government treatment of the legislature. In 1892, as the candidate with the massacre, and in due form Indians, but it did not.” 15 Not only of both the Populist and Democratic hand them down to posterity.” 13 did the government fail to learn from parties, he was elected an associate After a lengthy introduction on the establishment of New Ulm, Berg- hold surveyed the war’s highlights but placed the most emphasis on the defense, destruction, and evacuation of New Ulm. Like the previous histories, his included some settler stories of gruesome killings by Dakota men. Although Berghold used such stereotypical labels as “savages” and “red demons” to describe the Dakota fighters, he went even farther than Heard in contending that they had been maltreated before the war. In condemning the conduct of Indian agents and traders, he opined that “their [the Dakotas’] treatment at the hands of the whites was at times that of a dog.” 14 While he never fully developed his revenge premise, Berghold thought the war was an Camp Lincoln near Mankato, where Dakota prisoners were incarcerated understandable Dakota reaction to before the mass hanging; wood engraving, 1862.

48 Minnesota History justice of the Minnesota Supreme characterized the first histories. He Court, where he served from 1893 mentioned some but left the im- to 1899. After resigning due to poor pression that the alleged acts were health, he apparently devoted most atypical conduct. of his last years to writing Indian Outbreaks.16 Despite the plural in his he publication of title, Buck wrote only about the Return I. Holcombe’s re- U.S.–Dakota War. He concentrated visionist history in 1908 on the events of 1862, with very brief Twas an important landmark in the coverage of the removal of the cap- war’s historiography. His “Great tured Dakota from the state the next Sioux Outbreak of 1862,” including year. Because of Buck’s restricted a background chapter on the 1857 research and synthesis, many por- Spirit Lake Massacre, entails slightly tions of his book consist of long, more than 200 of the 546 pages in Big Eagle, about 1863 direct quotations from sources such volume three of the four-volume as the Heard and Bryant and Murch compendium, Minnesota in Three of Minnesota in Three Centuries, histories. The only new information Centuries.18 which covered the territorial period, he presented was about the execu- Holcombe was well qualified to gave him an excellent understanding tion. His coverage, derived from his write about the war. Before mov- of the treaties and other events lead- own experiences and contemporary ing to St. Paul in 1888 to work on ing up to the war. newspaper stories, included short a history of the city, he had edited Holcombe was the first historian biographical sketches of the 38 ex- newspapers in Iowa and Missouri to write objectively about this war. ecuted Dakota men. and written histories of various His work displayed factual accuracy, By way of interpretation, Buck Kansas and Missouri counties. From critical evaluation of sources— reflected the popular Social Darwin- 1890 to 1905 he worked mainly as a including eyewitness accounts—and a ism of his day. Declaring that “the journalist for St. Paul’s Pioneer Press dispassionate style free of inflamma- master race of the world is Cauca- and Dispatch. In 1893, while tem- tory language. His history served as sian,” he regarded race relations as porarily employed by the Minnesota a corrective to the Heard, McConkey, a fundamental cause of the war. He Historical Society to organize the and Bryant and Murch books, which especially deplored “vicious and ren- Henry H. Sibley papers, he inter- he concluded “all contain many in- egade” whites who spurned racial viewed Big Eagle, who fought in the correct statements.” 20 In verifying purity to mate with Indian women 1862 war.19 information and offering new in- and produce offspring who “have dis- graced the Anglo-Saxon blood, and fallen below that of the Indian him- Holcombe was the first historian self.” This “violation of nature’s purest to write objectively about this war. laws,” insisted Buck, led to the perva- sive, evil influence of unscrupulous traders and untruthful interpreters In addition, Holcombe had sights, Holcombe benefited from such on government Indian policy. The intimate knowledge of war sites, relatively new sources as his Big Eagle best solution, he thought, would be partly gained through research- interview and Minnesota in the Civil the federal government “absorbing ing his 79-page pamphlet, Sketches and Indian Wars, 1861–1865, a two- and bleaching out the color of the Historical and Descriptive of the volume compendium of unit rosters, aborigines and cross-breeds,” thus Monuments and Tablets Erected narratives, correspondence, and of- producing “a better humanity.” 17 by the Minnesota Valley Historical ficial army reports (1890–93). Despite his contempt for Indi- Society in Renville and Redwood Unlike the earlier historians, ans, Buck generally refrained from Counties, Minnesota (1902). His ear- Holcombe presented the war without repeating the atrocity stories that lier authorship of the second volume including the white atrocity stories.

Summer 2012 49 He thought “the details . . . are nei- continued in the work of William ther agreeable or profitable reading.” Watts Folwell. Published in 1924, Skeptical of some eyewitness ac- the second installment in Folwell’s counts, he observed: “It is difficult, monumental four-volume A History and in most cases impossible, after of Minnesota, covering 1857–65, forty-six years have elapsed, to get devoted approximately two-thirds at the real facts in even a majority of of its pages to “The Sioux Outbreak, the incidents.” 1862.” In explaining why the war Holcombe’s reinterpretation of merited nearly six times as much the war stressed several other key space as Minnesota’s participation in points. When describing the actions the Civil War, historian Solon J. Buck of some friendly Dakota, previous observed in the book’s introduc- historians had made these individu- tion: “In the history of the nation the als seem exceptional. But Holcombe Sioux Outbreak is only an incident, correctly insisted that the Dakota while the Civil War is a major event. Historian William Watts Folwell warriors were mostly Mdewakanton, In the history of Minnesota, however, in his study, 1918 the much larger of the two Lower the relative importance of the two is Sioux bands. He concluded that the reversed.” 22 His detachment and insistence on Upper Sioux (the Sisseton and Wah- Originally from New York State, objectivity led Folwell to disparage peton) generally remained neutral or Folwell moved to Minnesota in 1869 the pioneer tales of Dakota barbari- were pro-white during the war. to become the first president of the ties. Referring to the killing of whites In a sharp departure from Bry- University of Minnesota. After serv- in Milford Township near New Ulm, ant and Murch, Holcombe was ing in that capacity for 15 years, he he insisted, “The contemporary sto- extremely critical of Dakota agent continued as its librarian and profes- ries of indescribable mutilation of Thomas Galbraith. Not only did Hol- sor of political economy until retiring bodies have not been confirmed.” combe portray Galbraith as wholly in 1907 at the age of 74. Until his In explaining the contrasting per- unqualified for his assignment, but death 1n 1929, he devoted most of ceptions of the war’s participants, he thought some of the agent’s inef- his time to researching and writing Folwell noted: fectiveness was because he was a about Minnesota’s history.23 “drinking man.” 21 Folwell reiterated and expanded From the white man’s point of Determined to write an accurate Holcombe’s revisionist viewpoints view these operations [Dakota history based on solid evidence, on the U.S.–Dakota War. Like Hol- attacks] amounted simply to a massacre, an atrocious and utterly unjustifiable butchery of unof- Folwell’s explanation of the war’s causes remains fending citizens. The resources the most extensive and analytical ever written. of invective were exhausted in the descriptions of the day. The Indian, however, saw himself en- Holcombe carefully analyzed the combe, he saw an advantage in gaged in war, the most honorable short-range causes of the war, with considering events with historical of all pursuits, against men who, an emphasis on the food-land-money perspective: “After the lapse of a as he believed, had robbed him of crisis of 1862. Furthermore, his generation during which the heat his country and his freedom, had painstaking assessment of evidence of passion has abated and a better fooled and cheated him with pre- led him to dismiss the claim that the understanding of the character of tensions of friendship, and who Dakota and Ojibwe had conspired in the Indian and of his relations to the wished to force upon him an alien 1862 to launch joint attacks against white man has been reached, it is language and religion.25 Minnesota’s whites. possible to sum up without prejudice Holcombe’s precedent of treat- the causes of one of the bloodiest of In surveying the war and the ing the war as an academic subject Indian outbreaks on the continent.” 24 1863 and 1864 army campaigns in

50 Minnesota History Dakota Territory, Folwell consistently tion that the reservation Winnebago the Indian wars of Minnesota.” 28 He refrained from concentrating on the (Ho-Chunk) had conspired with made this claim because he included spectacular aspects of morbid events. Dakota leaders to launch a general brief coverage of three local Ojibwe For example, his description of the war. By judicious use of multiple disturbances that hardly qualified Mankato execution was quite brief sources, Folwell strove to arrive at as wars. Approximately 94 percent and did not mention the disposition plausible answers. His approach, of his 311-page book was concerned of the bodies of the executed men. reminiscent of the ancient Greek with what he called “the Sioux Folwell’s explanation of the war’s historian Herodotus, was to present Outbreak.” causes remains the most extensive all versions and then endorse the one Continuing in the tradition of and analytical ever written. His sys- best substantiated by available evi- Holcombe and Folwell, Roddis re- tematic review of the background dence.26 frained from including white pioneer and triggering events stressed the Folwell’s study was the last until atrocity stories. He concluded that deceitfulness and ineptitude of the 1956 when Louis H. Roddis’s The eyewitness and contemporary ac- federal government’s Indian policy Indian Wars of Minnesota was counts of Dakota men mutilating the and the men who administered it. published. A retired captain from bodies of their victims were “grossly Like many historians, Folwell the medical corps of the U.S. Navy, exaggerated.” 29 realized the difficulties of writing ac- Roddis had received his medical Relying heavily on the corre- curate, objective history. Sometimes, degree from the University of Min- spondence and reports published in eyewitnesses to the same occurrence nesota in 1913. Before tackling the Minnesota in the Civil and Indian could not agree on basic factual U.S.–Dakota War, he had authored Wars, Roddis stressed the war’s information. Other times, previous two books on nautical medicine.27 military aspects but did not include writers reported falsehoods as facts, Roddis asserted that his book was any new information or interpre- such as the unwarranted conten- the first to be “devoted entirely to tation. Furthermore, his prosaic

13 Books: First Editions

Isaac V. D. Heard, History of the Sioux War and Massacres William Watts Folwell, A History of Minnesota (St. Paul: of 1862 and 1863 (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1863) Minnesota Historical Society, 1921–30), volume 2: chapters on “The Sioux Outbreak” and its aftermath Harriet E. Bishop McConkey, Dakota War Whoop, or, Indian Massacres and War in Minnesota of 1862–’3 Louis H. Roddis, The Indian Wars of Minnesota (Cedar (St. Paul: D. D. Merrill, 1863) Rapids, IA: Torch Press, 1956)

Charles S. Bryant and Abel B. Murch, A History of the C[hester] M[arshall] Oehler, The Great Sioux Uprising Great Massacre by the Sioux Indians, in Minnesota, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959) Including the Personal Narratives of Many Who Escaped (Cincinnati: Rickey & Carroll, 1864) Kenneth Carley, The Sioux Uprising of 1862 (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1961) Alexander Berghold, The Indians’ Revenge, or, Days of Horror. Some Appalling Events in the History of the Duane Schultz, Over the Earth I Come: The Great Sioux Sioux (San Francisco: P. J. Thomas, 1891) Uprising of 1862 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992)

Daniel Buck, Indian Outbreaks (Mankato: the author, John Koblas, Let Them Eat Grass: The 1862 Sioux Uprising 1904) in Minnesota (St. Cloud, MN: North Star Press, 2006–08), 3 volumes Lucius F. Hubbard and Return I. Holcombe, eds., Minnesota in Three Centuries, 1655–1908, volume 3: Curtis A. Dahlin, The Dakota Uprising: A Pictorial History 1858—Minnesota as a State—1870 (New York: Publishing (Edina, MN: Beaver’s Pond Press, 2009) Society of Minnesota, 1908)

Summer 2012 51 style, bereft of anecdotal material dialogue sometimes amounted to Perhaps to make his history more and characterizations of the war’s quintessential poetic license. By tak- colorful, Oehler parroted the shrill main participants, makes reading ing some quotations out of context criticism by some of Sibley’s con- laborious. and inserting his own adjectives, temporaries about the allegedly slow Roddis apparently intended to Oehler made his writing livelier but movement of the relief corps from write a scholarly history, but he fell also altered the literal sense of his Fort Snelling to Fort Ridgely. Oehler far short of that mark. His novel sources. related the familiar story of Pvt. Wil- end-noting system has relatively few Before writing this book, Oehler liam Sturgis who, using a relay of citations to random sources. Many had authored Time in the Timber horses, carried the news of the war’s of his longest, direct quotations are about his experience as a camp clerk outbreak from Fort Ridgely to Fort undocumented. Although he used for the Virginia and Rainy Lake Snelling in only 18 hours. Completely sources that contain factually cor- Lumber Company in the summer of rejecting the Holcombe-Folwell ex- rect information, he made some 1928, between his high school and planation that Sibley was slowed by egregious errors, such as placing college years. He graduated from inexperienced troops and shortages Camp Pope (actually at the mouth the University of Minnesota, where of supplies, weapons, ammunition, of the Redwood River near present- he majored in journalism, in 1932. and horses, Oehler concluded that day Redwood Falls) near Mankato By 1948, when his reminiscence was Sibley’s pace, compared to Sturgis’s and portraying the Little Missouri published, Oehler was working as the “was hard to forgive.” 34 Badlands (now known as the North director of research for the western Apparently, neither Oehler nor Dakota Badlands) and the Black offices of the famous national ad- his publisher understood the pur- Hills of present-day South Dakota as vertising agency of Batten, Barton, pose of reference notes. The book’s the same place.30 Durstine & Osborn.32 random “chapter notes” show only The numerous errors in Oehler’s authors and titles without specific U.S.–Dakota War book clearly show page references. n 1959, three years before the that he had an inadequate back- Two years later, in 1961, amidst centennial observance of the ground in the frontier history of preparation for the war’s centennial, war, C. M. Oehler’s The Great ISioux Uprising was published. Evi- dently, Oehler decided to replace the Oehler was more intent on telling a good story traditional description of the war as an “outbreak” with “uprising” shortly than producing a factually accurate history with before publication. Internally, the logical conclusions based on credible evidence. text generally retains “outbreak.” 31 Although ambivalent about his book’s title, Oehler was very decisive Minnesota and the United States. By the Minnesota Historical Society about its style and tenor. Spurning failing to recognize the nature and published Kenneth Carley’s The the objective approach of Holcombe significance of the two 1851 Dakota Sioux Uprising of 1862. Carley was and Folwell, he wrote a popular his- cession treaties (Traverse des Sioux then the assistant editor of the Min- tory that had striking similarities and Mendota), he concluded that the neapolis Sunday Tribune Picture to the much earlier McConkey and first distinction between upper and Magazine. Fifteen years later, when Bryant and Murch editions. Leaving lower Dakota occurred after they had he was the editor of Minnesota His- virtually nothing to the imagination, been moved to adjoining reserva- tory magazine, the society published he repeated sensationalized pioneer tions. He decided that Minnesota in a second edition of this book, ap- stories of the war’s gorier incidents. 1862 was in the “Far West.” At that proximately one-fourth longer than Oehler was more intent on tell- time, he stated, the Pacific Coast the original. It included new chapters ing a good story than producing a states of California and Oregon, re- on the siege of Fort Abercrombie and factually accurate history with logical spectively, had only “a few Argonauts the banishment of the Dakota from conclusions based on credible evi- burning with gold fever” and “a few Minnesota in 1863, as well as some dence. His extensive use of invented avoiders of mankind.” 33 new photographs and revisions to the

52 Minnesota History he 1992 publication of nesota Indian War of 1862, edited Over the Earth I Come: The by Anderson and Alan R. Woolworth Great Sioux Uprising of 1862 (1988). Nonetheless, his history is Tby Duane Schultz marked a reversion mostly a retelling of familiar events. to the heavy use of atrocity stories. A Anyone who writes history native of Baltimore, Schultz holds a engages in a selective process. Hol- doctoral degree in social psychology combe, working 46 years after the and is a prolific author. His 20-plus war, chose to exclude atrocity stories; books include psychology textbooks, Schultz, 130 years post-conflict, novels, and various nonfiction works emphasized them. Obviously, each on aspects of the history of the author carefully contemplated his American Civil War, World War II, approach. So, what do their sharply and American Indian wars.36 contrasting viewpoints indicate Schultz’s book, its main title about them and their audiences? Henry Hastings Sibley, about 1863 inspired by a line from a Dakota Their choices were likely motivated, warrior song, is more like Oehler’s in part, by personal tastes. But one original text. (In 2001 the society re- Great Sioux Uprising than any of the must also consider the strange tricks printed the 1976 edition under a new other prior histories. Although he did played by time. Holcombe thought title, The Dakota War of 1862.) In his preface to the 1976 edition, Carley wrote: “This book, like the first edi- Because of his extensive use of recently published tion in 1961, attempts to present an accurate, concise narrative in words scholarly articles, Carley provided some new and pictures.” 35 information and insights about the war. His objective history, well illustrated with 128 photographs, drawings, and maps (in the second not use as much dialogue as Oehler, descriptions of the war’s most loath- edition) achieved this goal. In the Schultz resorted to some popular some details were hackneyed and pattern of Holcombe and Folwell, history crutches, including nonde- untrustworthy. But Schultz lived he wrote lucidly without depicting scriptive chapter titles such as “Lay long enough after the war that the the war’s brutalities. Because of his on Your Bellies and Shoot!” 37 old tales must have exuded a certain extensive use of recently published Like Oehler, Schultz never ex- newness to him. scholarly articles, Carley provided plained his book’s purpose. Judging Schultz’s book was evidently some new information and insights by his lively style and unconcern for done hurriedly and without sys- about the war. Earlier histories were factual accuracy, he intended to in- tematic research, fact verification, sparsely illustrated; in Carley’s, ex- troduce the war to a new generation and a decent working knowledge cellent photographs integrated at of readers. Those who read it as their of Minnesota geography. His over- appropriate places throughout the first and only book on the subject are reliance on the Heard, McConkey, book enhanced understanding of much more likely to be impressed— and Bryant and Murch histories led the war and its Dakota and white and misled—than anyone who has to some errors. But he introduced participants. some knowledge of the events and others himself, such as misplacing Carley did not include reference background in Minnesota geography the Traverse des Sioux treaty site in notes, but his 1976 “List of Sources” and history. the Blue Earth River valley instead remains the most significant U.S.– Schultz’s sources include two sig- of the Minnesota River valley. Fur- Dakota War bibliography in print. nificant works unavailable to previous thermore, he wrote that Traverse des Although a bibliography published historians: Little Crow: Spokesman Sioux was the only Dakota cession in 1976 is now dated, it is both more for the Sioux by Gary Clayton An- treaty of 1851. Then he compounded current and much easier to use than derson (1986), and Through Dakota this error by claiming that Little Folwell’s footnotes. Eyes: Narrative Accounts of the Min- Crow and Wabasha, two leading

Summer 2012 53 Mdewakanton chiefs who signed the tion, Koblas stated that the Dakota in Treaty of Mendota about two weeks 1862 reacted to “two hundred years after Traverse des Sioux, were the of resentment and frustration over key Dakota negotiators at Traverse contact with the government.” 39 If he des Sioux. This claim demonstrates meant the United States government, a fundamental misunderstanding this would have been impossible. of one of the most important events The federal union under the consti- leading up to the war. tution was only 73 years old when In writing a somewhat anecdotal the U.S.–Dakota War occurred. If history, Schultz neglected to care- he meant two centuries of Dakota- fully analyze the war’s causes. He did white contacts, the “resentment and not even mention Inkpaduta and the frustration” would date to the initial Spirit Lake Massacre in northwest- French meeting with the Dakota. But ern Iowa in 1857. The traditional the French and succeeding British question of why some Dakota went Wabasha, from a group portrait had a generally harmonious trading to war in 1862 can be partially ex- taken in New York City, 1858 relationship with the Dakota and plained by considering the Spirit never forced cession treaties upon Lake incident and its aftermath. Depictions of key incidents in them. The federal government’s inability the U.S.–Dakota War, such as the Koblas also proposed a new to apprehend and punish Inkpaduta army-Indian clash at Birch Coulee, version of the war’s start. Previ- caused a number of Dakota to as- contain more detail than any earlier ous historians, all the way back to sume that there was no great risk in history. Some of this is because the Heard, generally explained that the going to war against the whites. book includes numerous, somewhat war began because the four young By far the longest of these war different, descriptions of the same Dakota who killed some settlers in histories is the three-volume Let thing; rather than synthesizing and Acton Township on Sunday after- Them Eat Grass: The 1862 Sioux condensing various sources, Koblas noon, August 17, 1862, turned to Uprising in Minnesota by John presented all of them. More so than their elders for support. But Koblas Koblas. The volumes, subtitled any previous historian, he relied claimed that on that very afternoon, Smoke, Fire, and Ashes, total slightly heavily on manuscripts in county before the murderers returned to over a thousand pages. The author and state historical societies, local their village, the Mdewakanton Da- of some two-dozen books, Koblas histories, and many internet sources. kota chief Little Crow, Wahpekute wrote on a variety of Minnesota Conversely, he chose not to use most Dakota chief Inkpaduta, and Ho- topics—including F. Scott Fitzgerald, of the scholarly articles listed in Chunk chief Little Priest participated the James-Younger gang’s North- Carley’s bibliography. His extensive in a war council at Rice Creek, above field bank raid, and other notorious use of long, direct quotations—such the Lower Sioux Agency. Accord- outlaws—before undertaking his as the full text of the Ojibwe treaty ing to Koblas, this meeting, which study of the U.S.–Dakota War. Let of 1827 and the Winnebago treaty called for a general war against Them Eat Grass is his first work of 1855—contributes to the study’s the whites, was also attended by about American Indians.38 length, as does his reiteration of “delegates from the Winnebagoes, Koblas’s history has some dis- many eyewitness accounts, includ- Chippewas, and the tribes who dwelt tinctive characteristics. It sets the ing gruesome stories about alleged on the great plains of Dakota.” Sub- war in the very broad context of atrocities. sequently, however, he contradicted Indian-white relations ranging from Let Them Eat Grass offers no this scenario by describing the Acton Christopher Columbus to Minne- statement of purpose. It presents killings and Little Crow’s oft-quoted sota’s Leech Lake Ojibwe incident some new details about the war’s reluctance to attack the whites. So, in 1898. The considerable detail in- major events; however, it also pos- perhaps his inclusion of the Rice cludes such topics as various colonial its several novel claims that, if true, Creek council story resulted from Indian wars and the Seminole wars would cause a radical revision of the uncritical acceptance of an erroneous in Florida. history of this war. Regarding causa- source and insufficient editing.40

54 Minnesota History places, such as “Leaders” and “Fort with Berghold in 1891 and ending Ridgely.” There is a certain, unavoid- with Roddis in 1956 labeled it the able overlap because such persons Sioux Outbreak, but the histories as Little Crow and Henry Sibley are from Oehler in 1959 through Dahlin first described as leaders and then for in 2009 supplanted outbreak with their participation in various events. uprising. The reason for this change The text of each chapter is either is not clear. The semantic distinction a series of biographical sketches between outbreak and uprising is or descriptions of events—all in- very narrow, but strict connotation tended to explain the accompanying would suggest that an uprising has photographs. greater magnitude than an outbreak. The lavishly illustrated work Oehler may have been motivated by averages more than a photograph Alvin C. Gluek Jr.’s article, “The Sioux for each page of text; it is the most Uprising: A Problem in International Little Crow, about 1860 extensive collection of U.S.–Dakota Relations,” published in the Winter War photographs ever published. 1955 issue of Minnesota History. In addition, Koblas presented These include a surprising number This was the journal’s first article a new claim about the extent of of images of Dakota people as well to use uprising. Previously, the pre- Dakota participation in the war. as whites who played only minor ferred term was Sioux War. Even the first three histories, which implied that participation was wide- spread, acknowledged that many Given 150 years of hindsight, Minnesotans today tribal members remained neutral or opposed the war. The Holcombe- can reflect on how the U.S.–Dakota War of 1862 Folwell viewpoint was that the has been portrayed historically. warriors were mostly Mdewakanton. But Koblas portrayed the conflict as total war. Without documentation, roles in the war. As Dahlin explained, Despite the popularization of he asserted, “The entire Sioux Nation he wanted to illustrate that the war uprising, there has been ambiva- of about 7,000 united in the uprising touched thousands of people. lence about naming the war since and 1,500 braves took the warpath.” 41 This book will not serve as an the mid-1950s. The September 1962 Finally, the most recent book on authoritative history of the war. issue of Minnesota History was titled the war (as this article went to press) However, its wealth of information the “Special Sioux War Issue,” but was Curtis A. Dahlin’s The Dakota about the postwar lives of many par- the article authors used uprising. Uprising: A Pictorial History (2009). ticipants makes The Dakota Uprising In Fall 1976 another special issue of Dahlin, an independent historian, particularly useful to readers seeking Minnesota History was called the has concentrated on the war in his information about the war’s legacy. “Sioux Uprising Issue.” The three various studies.42 books released in the twenty-first As its preface explains, the century—the Carley reprint, Koblas, pictorial history “gives the reader iven 150 years of hind- and Dahlin—respectively use Dakota the opportunity to view the Upris- sight, Minnesotans today War, Sioux Uprising, and Dakota Up- ing through period photographs of can reflect on how the rising. Whether one of these names people and places, period newspaper GU.S.–Dakota War of 1862 has been or some other possibility—such as clippings of events, and an accom- portrayed historically. They will the current usage, U.S.–Dakota War panying narrative which describes note that the war’s name has been of 1862—becomes standardized re- the events which unfolded around changed from time to time. Heard mains to be seen. the subject of these photographs.” 43 called it the Sioux War, but to Bryant Two viewpoints—the frontier The volume’s 12 chapters are topi- and Murch it was the Great Mas- and post-frontier—have dominated cally arranged by participants and sacre. The five histories beginning the interpretation of the war. The

Summer 2012 55 frontier emphasis on the Dakota as want to satisfy their curiosity about There is, as yet, no history of the unprovoked, savage killers was first the war? If they have the time and war that incorporates the scholarship notably advanced by McConkey and perseverance, they would learn much of three recent biographies: Gary Bryant and Murch. But in the ap- about the various ways of writing Anderson’s Little Crow: Spokesman proximate half-century dominated history by reading all 13 books. But for the Sioux (1986), Mark Died- by the writings of Holcombe and Fol- readers who have time for only one rich’s Little Crow and the Dakota well, the war was treated much more would be well advised to peruse Car- War (2006), and Rhoda R. Gilman’s like an academic subject, and authors ley. For further information on the Henry Hastings Sibley: Divided aimed to produce objective history. war’s background and highlights, Heart (2004). These works and Anyone who assumed that the fron- much of Folwell’s coverage is still future scholarship will someday be tier outlook had been consigned to pertinent. But all readers should sources for yet another history of the the dustbins of history, however, realize that this war, like all other U.S.–Dakota War of 1862. And then, had some rethinking to do after the history, is an evolving subject. Since once again, it will become evident publication of Oehler’s book. Carley the publication of Folwell’s volume that there is no single judgment of seemed to serve as an antidote to two, 25 articles about the back- history but, rather, a series of studies, Oehler, but then Schultz revived the ground, nature, and effects of the war each one influenced by its author’s bloodthirsty-savage characterization. have been published in Minnesota disposition, source selection, scholar- Where does this leave those who History alone. ship, and the milieu of its time. a

Dakota from Prairie Island, a U.S. Army general, and Minnesota’s secretary of state gathered at Prairie Island on August 5, 1962, to mark the centennial of the U.S.–Dakota War.

56 Minnesota History Notes 1. Examples of excluded books: A. P. combe, Minnesota in Three Centuries (New cine (New York: H. Schuman, 1950). On Connolly, A Thrilling Narrative of the Min- York: Publishing Society of Minnesota, Roddis, see The Indian Wars of Minnesota, nesota Massacre and the Sioux War of 1908), 3: 401. title page, and “Louis H. Roddis, 1886– 1862–63 (Chicago: the author, 1896); Oscar 8. Heard, Sioux War, 33, 31–34, 338–41. 1969,” Journal of the History of Medicine Garrett Wall, Recollections of the Sioux 9. McConkey, Dakota War Whoop, 66–67. and Allied Sciences 25 (1970): 216. Massacre (Lake City, MN: the author, 10. McConkey, Dakota War Whoop, 87, 81. 28. Roddis, Indian Wars, v. 1909); Jerry Keenan, The Great Sioux Up- 11. Bryant and Murch, History of the 29. Roddis, Indian Wars, 269. rising: Rebellion on the Plains August– Great Massacre, 48–49. 30. Roddis, Indian Wars, 204, 252–53. September 1862 (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo 12. On Berghold, see Don Heinrich Tolz- 31. See, for example, Oehler, Great Sioux Press, 2003); Jacob Nix, Der Ausbruch der mann, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Indians’ Uprising, viii, 243, 244, 249. Sioux-Indianer in Minnesota, im August Revenge (repr., Roseville, MN: Edinbor- 32. C. M. Oehler, Time in the Timber (St. 1862 (New Ulm, MN: Verlag des Verfassers, ough Press, 2007), 1–5; “Visionary priest, Paul: Forest Products History Foundation, 1887) and its German-English reprint, The Father Alexander Berghold,” www.dnu.org 1948), editor’s introduction, 3, 53, 55; Erin Sioux Uprising in Minnesota, 1862: Jacob /news/newspaper/june02/berghold.html George, assistant archivist, University of Nix’s Eyewitness History, ed. Don Heinrich (accessed Feb. 27, 2012). Minnesota Archives, to the author, Feb. 9, Tolzmann (Indianapolis: Max Kade Ger- 13. Berghold, Indians’ Revenge, 152. 2010. For more on Chester Marshall Oehler, man American Center, Indiana University- 14. Berghold, Indians’ Revenge, 69. see Chicago Tribune, Jan. 30, 1970, p. 18; Purdue University and Indiana German 15. Berghold, Indians’ Revenge, 186. On Wilmette Life (Wilmette, IL), Feb. 2, 1970. Heritage Society, 1994); Gregory F. Michno, the Indian reform movement and the Battle 33. Oehler, Great Sioux Uprising, 10. Dakota Dawn: The Decisive First Week of of Wounded Knee, see Arrell Morgan Gib- The respective 1860 populations of Califor- the Sioux Uprising, August 17–24, 1862 son, The American Indian: Prehistory to the nia and Oregon were 379,994 and 52,465; (New York: Savas Beatie, 2011). Connolly’s Present (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of the United and Wall’s books are reminiscences by army 1980), 457–59, 479. States in 1860, 339. veterans of the 1862–63 campaigns against 16. Daniel Buck, Indian Outbreaks, 5, 34. Oehler, Great Sioux Uprising, 141. the Dakota. Keenan’s 99-page book, which 106, 224, 267–70; Mankato: Its First Fifty 35. Kenneth Carley, The Sioux Uprising provides only a general summary of the war, Years, 1852–1902 (Mankato: Free Press of 1862, iii. is part of the Battleground America Guides Printing Co., 1902), 188–90; Minnesota 36. On Schultz, see www.duaneschultz series. Nix’s 70-page account is a very gen- Legislative Manual, 1877, 71, 1879, 358, .com/biography.php and www.librarything eral survey that emphasizes the role of Ger- 1893, 322, 374, 467; Mankato Free Press, .com/author/schultzduanep (both accessed man Americans in defending New Ulm. May 22, 1905, p. 1. Feb. 28, 2012). Michno’s book, which covers only one week, 17. Buck, Indian Outbreaks, 10–11. 37. “Over the earth I come; Over the emphasizes the war’s white victims. 18. Holcombe coauthored this volume, earth I come; A soldier I come; Over the 2. Michael Kraus, The Writing of Ameri- 1858—Minnesota as a State—1870, with earth I am a ghost” first appeared in the can History (Norman: University of Okla- Lucius F. Hubbard, who wrote the five “Narrative of Paul Mazakootemane,” Collec- homa Press, 1953), 157–77. chapters about Minnesota in the Civil War. tions of the Minnesota Historical Society 3. Harper reprinted Heard’s book in 19. On Holcombe, here and below, see (St. Paul, 1880), 3: 85. The first war history 1864 and 1865. A year after her 304-page Warren Upham, “Return Ira Holcombe,” to quote the song, Oehler, Great Sioux Up- first edition ofDakota War Whoop was pub- Minnesota History Bulletin 2 (Feb. 1917): rising, 191, did not indicate a source. The lished, McConkey self-published a 429-page 7–11. The transcript of Holcombe’s June 1894 song appeared with proper citation in Gary revised edition. While formatting changes interview (through interpreters) of Big Eagle Clayton Anderson and Alan R. Woolworth, accounted for most of the added pages, Mc- at Flandreau, SD, was published in the St. eds., Through Dakota Eyes: Narrative Ac- Conkey also included three new chapters Paul Pioneer Press, July 1, 1894, and re- counts of the Minnesota Indian War of 1862 and substantially expanded another. This printed in Collections of the Minnesota His- (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society edition was reprinted in 1970. The Bryant torical Society (St. Paul, 1894), 6: 382–400. Press, 1988), 197. and Murch book was reprinted by R. W. 20. Here and below, Hubbard and Hol- 38. On Koblas, see www.mnriv.com Carroll of Cincinnati in 1868 and by E. combe, Minnesota in Three Centuries, 3: /koblas.html (accessed Feb. 28, 2012). Wainwright & Son of St. Peter, MN, in 1872. 389. 39. Koblas, Let Them Eat Grass, 1: 152. 4. For a brief sketch of Heard’s life, see 21. Hubbard and Holcombe, Minnesota 40. Koblas, Let Them Eat Grass, 1: 157. his History of the Sioux War, 4; St. Paul in Three Centuries, 3: 292. His source for the bizarre information about Dispatch, June 20, 1913, p. 17. 22. Folwell, History of Minnesota, 2: viii. the council was the undocumented History 5. On McConkey, see Zylpha S. Morton, The four volumes were published between of the Welsh in Minnesota, Foreston and “Harriet Bishop, Frontier Teacher,” Minne- 1921 and 1930; a revised edition, 1956–69. Lime Springs, Ia. Gathered by Old Settlers, sota History 28 (June 1947): 132–41; This article cites the original edition. ed. Thomas E. Hughes et al. (Mankato: Free Norma Sommerdorf, “Harriet E. Bishop: A 23. Edward L. Lach, Jr., “Folwell, Wil- Press Printing Co., 1895), 66. Doer and a Mover,” Minnesota History 55 liam Watts,” in American National Biogra- 41. Koblas, Let Them Eat Grass, 1: 177. (Fall 1997): 320–23. phy (New York: Oxford University Press, 42. On Dahlin, see Dakota Uprising, 6. Bryant and Murch, History of the 1999), 8: 183–84. [412]. His many other publications include Great Massacre, iv, 78, 79, 120, 198. For 24. Folwell, History of Minnesota, 2: 212. Dakota Uprising Victims: Gravestones & more on Bryant, see Pioneer Press, May 3, 25. Folwell, History of Minnesota, 2: 115, Stories (2007) and Tales of the Dakota Up- 1885, p. 8. A roster in Wall, Recollections of 125. rising: Period Eyewitness Accounts (2011). the Sioux Massacre, 85, lists Murch as one 26. For example, see Folwell’s coverage 43. Dahlin, Dakota Uprising, xi. of the rangers’ 44 privates. of the controversy over who was in com- 7. McConkey, Dakota War Whoop, rev. mand of the troops at Birch Coulee; History ed. (1864; repr., Minneapolis: Ross & of Minnesota, 2: 386–91. Haines, 1970), 217–18. For detailed cover- 27. Roddis, A Short History of Nautical All illustrations are in MHS collections. age of the battle site and its location, see Medicine (New York: P. B. Hoeber, 1941) Lucius F. Hubbard and Return I. Hol- and James Lind, Founder of Nautical Medi-

Summer 2012 57

Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society, and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or users or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission: contact us.

Individuals may print or download articles for personal use.

To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us. Include the author’s name and article title in the body of your message. But first--

If you think you may need permission, here are some guidelines:

Students and researchers • You do not need permission to quote or paraphrase portions of an article, as long as your work falls within the fair use provision of copyright law. Using information from an article to develop an argument is fair use. Quoting brief pieces of text in an unpublished paper or thesis is fair use. Even quoting in a work to be published can be fair use, depending on the amount quoted. Read about fair use here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html • You should, however, always credit the article as a source for your work.

Teachers • You do not need permission to incorporate parts of an article into a lesson. • You do need permission to assign an article, either by downloading multiple copies or by sending students to the online pdf. There is a small per-copy use fee for assigned reading. Contact us for more information.

About Illustrations • Minnesota History credits the sources for illustrations at the end of each article. Minnesota History itself does not hold copyright on images and therefore cannot grant permission to reproduce them. • For information on using illustrations owned by the Minnesota Historical Society, see MHS Library FAQ.