I Never Knew That Abraham Lincoln Ordered The Largest MASS HANGING IN US HISTORY, Or Why He Did It

78
8105

People think that Abe Lincoln was such a benevolent President. He was actually a bit of a tyrant. He attacked the Confederate States of America, who seceded from the Union due to tax and tariffs. (If you think it was over slavery, you need to find a real American history book written before 1960.)This picture is of 38 Santee Sioux Indian men that were ordered to be executed by Abraham Lincoln for treaty violations (IE: hunting off of their assigned reservation). Yes, the “Great Emancipator” as the history books so fondly referred to him as.

Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 38. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds.

So, on December 26, 1862, the “Great Emancipator” ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota.

You have no idea the things that are hidden from you with the textbooks assigned to you as a child by your government. Stay mindful people, be aware….in the age of information being ignorant is indeed a choice. You are currently seeing the wholesale attempt to REWRITE yet another chapter in American History were the Confederate Battle Flag is concerned. Now there is talk of digging up graves and moving bodies that ‘offend’ people. This is nothing more than desecration of the dead.

Have a disagreement with history, and not wanting to remember the War Between the States, is one thing. But to erase a significant event in national history is another. And sets a dangerous precedent. What will fall victim next to Political Correctness?

Click to WATCH: I Never Knew That Abraham Lincoln Ordered The Largest MASS HANGING IN US HISTORY, Or Why He Did It

SOURCEhistory
SHARE

78 COMMENTS

  1. Also, I am no yankee apologist–this was a very nuanced issue, particularly for the non-slaveholders in the South who truly were fighting for a lost cause in supporting their agrarian economy. I agree that the Union really was (like today’s Left) really doing all it could to stir up the hornet’s nest prior to Lincoln’s election. However, South Carolina’s articles of secession, which actually set the whole thing off, specifically mention slavery as the cause. There was a lot of revision going on between 1860 and 1960. You need to go back to the source material to get the facts straight.

    • .America has to own the offenses it has committed against God’s indigenous people. You want the crimes of America to be overlooked. It won;t. When you start something wrong….you will end it wrong.

      • Not America….one individual who happened to be President. I am sure back then he did not need ok from Congress. Sad history.

        • “Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South.” Lincoln had to balance the judicial murder of 38 people, of doubtful criminality, against the survival of the Union. Compared to the casualties of many, many battles, this was a minor load on his conscious.

      • I don’t think same was trying to overlook the offenses committed against American Indians, he didn’t say anything at all to mitigate that or hide it.

        But there is a definite right-wing slant in the subtext of the history given here, if anything it is trying to use that massacre of indigenous people, to undermine the role the end of slavery in the civil war and to undermine “policial correctness” as if today’s meaning of “political correctness” had anything to do with the sweeping of this under the carpet.

        My understand and I think it’s quite known now, was that Lincoln wasn’t personally against slavery but nonetheless the emancipation of slaves was very much relevant to the reasons for the war and backing for the war. Saying it was only about taxes and tariffs ignores the importance of slavery to the economy in the south, and therefore how relevant that was to the taxes and tariffs charged.

      • This whole idea that modern Americans have to “pay” for what was done generations ago is stupid nonsense.

        But if we are going to play that game then let’s just chalk it up as “payback” for what todays’ Amerindians (so-called “Native Americans”) did to the ORIGINAL indigenous peoples that THEY killed off, chased off and destroyed from off the face of North America.

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html

        • I’ve never been sure how it could be possible for anyone who is living now to pay for the evils of people who lived years before we were even born. The only person who could die to pay for the sins of others is Jesus Christ, He died once for the souls of all humankind. This doesn’t mean that a lot of things haven’t been done in the name of whatever worked at the time, that now in retrospect we know to be horrible. I’m just saying that no human can pay for the sins of another human, only Christ the only begotten son of God could do that. He did, He was raised from the grave and lives today. He lives in the hearts of all who invite Him to save them from sin and, give them eternal life.

    • Yes. Denying the part slavery had in the War Between The States is a denial of the facts, economics, and cause of the conflict.

      • Slavery issue was settle by the Missouri Compromise. And the compromise of 1850. There was no way that Slavery was going to change in the US. It existence was guaranteed by the Federal government and the areas of it’s expansion was guaranteed by the Federal Government. Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment could have changed that.

        The issue which 90% of the southerners choose to fight was due to restrictive regulation similar to those which led up to the US Revolutionary War. Less than 5% of southerners owned slaves and the expansion or issues surrounding slavery did not effect the other 95%.

        Very hard for poor southerners to survive when government regulations drive up cost to a point where they have to work without needed tool or had to make patchwork repairs to try and make them work.

    • the Ordinance of Secession mentions nothing about slavery or tariffs;but those were contributing causes,as was state’s rights-think of it! because we lost ,the Federal government in Washington DC gained a great deal of power which has gravitated toward The Swamp ever since

        • So basically 2/3rd through the article it is saying that certain northern states were not abiding by the laws created by The US Constitution the Missouri compromise and the Compromise of 1850. That the federal government were not forcing these states to abide by Constitution, the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850.

          Seems natural that if the federal government would not enforce the law equally then there is need to make a change.

      • Fourteen states held votes in their respective legislatures about the issue of secession. Maryland voted no, the others voted yes (11 soon to be confederate states, Kentucky which was seized by the Union and a vote in Missouri which wasn’t necessarily legal by their state laws.) Lets focus on the actual confederate states.
        All 11 states, that ended up joining the Confederacy, created signing documents explaining their votes. 10 of the 11 published these for public perusal (Florida was the exception). Every one of those documents, without exception, explicitly referenced slavery as the issue.
        Most, if not all, of these documents are available online. You should feel free to read them. These “new” explanations of why we really fought the Civil War are ridiculous.

      • It had virtually everything to do with slavery. Most were not slave holders just like most are not super rich today, but Koch brothers and Robert Mercer (who is the real one behind Trump) have effective control. The 50’s and 60’s boomed with high taxes that smoothed out income and raised average demand. The rich did not like this, and we’ve had low growth, declining middle class ever since. But, their propaganda won’t let you think it. Same thing with the South at the time. The winners of the agrarian economy didn’t want to roll the die again with industrialization. Fight!

    • Specifically, South Carolina seceded over property rights of Slave owners. i.e. being deprived of their property, an enslaves human being. Because their book of morality, the Holy Bible permitted slavery, by never condemning it, these capitalists believed Christianity condoned the inhumane practice. They were convinced, God was on their side and they were willing to subject their states and state citizens to the ravages of war. Is that greed at its most evil?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union

        • True SuzyQ I never go to or read Wikipedia it can be edited by anyone.Yes I agree America has it’s very bad times and some did some horrific things but those so called Christians were not true to GODS WORD and we have many today that try to do harm in the name of GOD they are playing with fire GOD doesn’t like it but we have to remember and know our history good,bad or otherwise.

      • You do know that the first slave state was Delaware. And that slavery still existed in the North until the ratification of the 13th amendment. Oh yea Delaware did not ratify the 13th amendment until the 20th century.

    • correct Slavery was the straw that broke the camel’s back .. yes the Tarifs and stuff is why they tried to leave the union but without an approval of Congress no state except Texas can leave the union … so even with their claim of left the union isn’t really legit due to Congress never approved their leaving of the Union … but yes what finally started the war was the Freeing of the Slaves due to Lincon was going to send in troops to make sure land owners did release the slaves … and the south weren’t going to stand for that .. so that is the real facts about how the civil war started

    • My reading of history is that the South talked itself into war, considering the election of Lincoln a dire threat to the existence of slavery, which, really, it was not.

    • Thank you! The article lost credibility with me as soon as I read that BS. Mississippi’s Article of secession is the one I always point to. It said “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

  2. Isn’t that pretty much the whole of US history. A fabrication to protect the guilty and blame the innocent. Looking forward to the history of Trump as a hero who could never tell a lie and revered women. Giving them the vote as a reward for their Nation Building.

    • you mean like hilary will be looked back on as a trusting honest women that did a great job for her country lol

  3. All my life when i have been ask who in my opion was the greatest American I always said Abe Lincoln. He now does not make my list of great Americans. What he did was awful and those who serve in his administration should be shamed also.

    • Do you believe every thing you see on face book may I suggest You do a little home work before you change your mind when I read the first part about the civil war not being about slavery that was a big red flag I would not take this post of Abe Lincoln serous until I did my own homework

      • Absolutely correct. The reason for the South leaving the Union was over the fact that there was a bill up to prohibit Slavery in the Northwest Territory. The south got nervous, thinking they would be next.
        The issue of Slavery was definitely the underlying cause of the Civil War. The person who posted this does no know what he was talking about. This

        ‘mass hanging” incident could be blown way out of proportion. think about it. How come this is the first time we are hearing this. I agree that one must research things like this before they buy it hook. line, and sinker.

        • I first read about these hanging over 20 years ago when I first became serious about research. All these unknown are available to all who are willing
          to do the hard work.
          Check out Author — pledge of allegiance and read about the Bellamy boys. And to think you have been saying it all these years and did not have a clue!

    • Read historical documents and I recommend two books by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. Proof text what he says with your own research and you will see a totally different person, an unfeeling, cruel, despotic ruler!! He could have prevented the War of Northern Aggression but he chose war. He chose the scorched earth tactic to bring the widows and orphans and black folk of the Southern States to their knees, starving to death and grieving to death. Yeah, my great great grandmothers and their children were among the lot.

      • Very good resource. I, too, have read both of these well researched and documented books and, although I already knew of Lincoln’s duplicity and dishonesty, learned a few things about that scoundrel I did not know.
        The argument concerning whether or not slavery was the cause of the civil war is little more than a tempest in a teapot. Those who are history literate know that slavery was an issue but of itself not the crux of the matter.

      • I think these books have an agenda to put down Lincoln. He was a caring man. He wanted to hold the country together. I don’t think what these books say is true. May be examples of let’s revise history for author’s agenda.

  4. Lincoln did not order these hangings. Governor Sibley of Minnesota did. Lincoln pardoned all but 38 of the Dakota who were originally sentenced to hanging.

  5. The word you want is SECEDE, NOT SUCCEED, IDIOT. No, the South did not succeed, they failed.

    The fake old-looking ” newspaper clipping is a laugh. Got some better evidence that doesn’t get laughed away?

    Here’s an actual article on the subject in the New York Times, and oh look, it’s 2012, a long time after the 60s. And my 1983 textbook has it.

    And, political correctness can’t be to blame for revising the history on this. First off, it was never covered up.

    Political correctness didn’t exist at the time you claim the revision took place: since you say the mass hanging can be found in history textbooks published prior to the 1960s then somewhere in the early 60s, right?

    Revisions to history–what you say whitewashed the massacre–are those that unearth new and compelling evidence, NOT burying the truth. What exactly do you think happened in the 60s? The entire universe of historians, publishers, school teachers, professors, and everyone educated prior to the 60s suddenly conspired to make Lincoln look better??

    Of course the freaking Civil War was over slavery. Ever hear of John Brown? And do you know what Bills Southern State-Houses voted upon to secede? What was the reason did Robert E. Lee provided for resigning his commission from the US Army and taking a same-rank commission in the Army of Northern Virginia?

    Those citizens who seized a military installation provided the same reason for their act of domestic terrorism. That’s the reason the South gave. But for the US (the Union was still the US, it was the states that did not seced) the reason was much simpler, and much more justified, and the reason was terrorism at Ft. Sumpter.

    Sort of like forgetting that attack on Pearl Harbor was the start of US involvement in WW II. Japan said they attacked the US over refusal to sell steel to Japan, but while that was one of many circumstances, it’s not what started the war.

    And you don’t know the difference between who and whom.
    Keep your fingers in your nose, not on a computer keyboards.

    Any further fifth grade education you want you’ll have to pay for yourself or move to a state that requires basic literacy and arithmetic to graduate high school.

    • When you call someone an idiot for a misspelling, your credibility is diminished when your own post has multiple misspellings. “Seced” is also wrong. And it’s Fort “Sumter” not Sumpter. And “on a computer keyboards”; what is that? Hoisted by your own petard.

    • R.E. Lee resigned from the U.S. Army with the rank of Colonel, he was appointed commander of Virginia State Forces as a Major General. His initial rank in C.S. Army was Brigadier General. Then General, third, behind Sam Cooper of New Ýork and Albert Sidney Johnston of Texas. Lee did not take command of Army of Northern Virginia until June 1, 1862 following the Battles at Fair Oaks and Seven Pines where that Army’s CO was wounded.
      Slavery was not a reason for his resignation, not desiring to participate in an invasion of the South was the reason.

      • Thank you for the clarification. The world is filled with misinformed snobs who believe they know everything. Get into genealogy and it will open your eyes to so much of our American history! I read about this when I was researching my great great great grandmother, Sarah Santee, led to it by a Native American man I met who knew about the Dakota Santee tribe.

        • Southern Black’s on their knees, Dawn keep that conversation to your people, Black’s came to this country on their knees, I know that you felt sorry for us…please! All of this arguing back and forth, about who’s right, who’s wrong… that is why this country won’t last long, because together you stand, divided you fall, and history is not on US side!

  6. this is true disgusting history im glad none of my relatives had nothing to do with. Never know why Lincoln was shot but its a shame it wasn’t done sooner. The Indian nation has been the biggest most screwed over people in U.S. history . they are the only true Americans and the only true ones that care about all people and the land we live on. It always amazes me how every other race bitches bout something yet have no comparison to what has happened to the Indians . Maybe someday they will take back what was once and is rightfully theirs.

    • jacked, I appreciate your anger at the atrocities to the Indigenous Peoples of the US, however, I am grieved by the atrocities on both sides of the issue. I have Native American ancestors as well as Anglo ancestors. I am forever grieved by the atrocities of some, but, I am forever proud to be the descendent of others.

  7. From the various Declarations of Secession:
    .
    South Carolina:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp
    198 references to slavery, including:
    “The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
    .
    “We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
    .”For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that ‘Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,’ and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”
    .
    Mississippi:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp
    7 references to slavery, including:
    “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”
    .
    Alabama:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
    .
    “And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government”
    .
    Georgia:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp
    10 references to slavery, including:
    For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
    .
    Texas:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp
    22 references to slavery, including:
    “She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery – the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits – a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slaveholding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?”
    .
    Virginia:
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
    .
    “Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States”

    • You are spot on! Sadly, we have entered an age of misinformation where academia and intellectualism is shunned as nonsense. God help us all.

  8. I have read this article again & again & researched other records/reports – ok, the OUTRAGE of 38 Murdering Rapists being hung all at once that was ordered by Abraham Lincoln USA President – BUT no one says anything about the TWO-HUNDRED & SIXTYNINE THAT HE PARDONED!!!! REMEMBER, that 307 had been ORIGINALLY FOUND GUILTY but, after the individual cases were reviewed by President Lincoln, he found that ONLY 38 WE’RE ACTUALLY GUILTY OF THE CRIMES OF MURDER & RAPE – the PUNISHMENT – HANGING.

    WHY are people so incensed by this???

    Are you saying Murdering Rapists should have been FREED!!!!! I DON’T THINK SO.

  9. Don’t believe everything you read in that article. Those 38 indian men weren’t a Hunting Party. They were the end result of Trials after the Sioux War. The Hunting Party the author is referring to was only four Souix. They killed 5 settlers. Funny how the article left that part out. After those killings the tribes decided to attack the settlements to drive the whites out of the region. Read about the Sioux war of 1862. Whoever wrote this article has a lot of hatred for Abraham Lincoln. It’s poorly written and he’s trying to make it personal. The war was about slavery. The outcome of the war was emancipation. The Republican party was created specifically to abolish slavery.

  10. I read a DOCUMENTARY called ” Irish White Slaves – White Slaves ” this says that not only was there Black Slaves but there was white slaves. Whites were not the only ones that had Slaves so did Native Americans , yes Indians owned Black and White Slaves, Blacks owned White and Black Slaves. Slavery started may-many years ago, Black Slaves migrated to Africa to avoid the Slave Traitors, to the North Eastern coast area, where the Slave Traitors caught up with them. The Slave Traitors then went to South West in Africa and continued to get Slaves to Sell and Trade in America.. This Documentary is very Educational and Interesting. Please read to get the full extent of the Documentary. I read this artical several months ago, and I hope I stated every thing correctly.

    • The White Slaves were primarily Irish. The Brits wanted to be rid of those rebellious Irishmen so they sold them. White slaves were in more peril than blacks because the Black slaves were more valuable. The males were seen as studs and the females as mares to bear strong and healthy offspring to work the fields. The Irish were sold at a discount because their horrible treatment by the Brits had left them weaker, thinner and not as healthy as their black counterparts.

  11. Not treaty violations…Their crime: killing 490 white settlers, including women and children, in the Santee Sioux uprising the previous August.

  12. You cannot judge historical events using current PC dogma. If you do then there are no former great individuals. Anyone who takes a moral stand against what is considered “normal” in that day and age deserves our respect.

  13. I always read the war started when the rebels attacked Fort Sumter? I didn’t know the north attacked first!

  14. for those who cares to dig deeper, good old Abe wanted to ship all the slaves off to another country….south America… I believe, after the war .

  15. The world is ruled by approximately 8,000 people; about 1,500 of whom are billionaires. Beginning with their first pet snake Alexander Hamilton, the elites attempted to hijack the only Christian, constitutional republic in history. Hamilton profoundly influenced presidents Washington and Adams, and created the first illegal full-time army and the precursor to the criminal FED banking cartel. Read the book ‘Hamilton’s Curse’ to learn much more about this execrable snake.

    But Dishonest Abe was the elites’ pet snake that finally delivered the killing bite to the U.S. Constitution. This is explained in extensive detail in the six books linked in this blog article:

    https://americaagain.net/lincoln-americas-hijacker/

    Was slavery immoral and inhuman? Of course; but those six books — even just the one by Lerone Bennett — will forever dispel the myth that the War to Enslave the States was primarily about slavery. That was only a clever cover story…as were the ruthless 9/11 contract, the false report from Tonkin Bay, the Pearl Harbor setup, and the sinkings of the HMS Lusitania and USS Maine. Each of these led to a massive windfall for thousands of the elites in banking, war, oil and other industries.

    Lincoln was just the dog-faced butcher who served the puppet role perfectly in his time. After a long career as a lawyer for the railroad and river boat industries, Lincoln was a serial failure in politics. One measure of his treachery was his fiery ‘Spot Resolutions’ condemning President Polk in 1847 for starting a war with Mexico…then starting a war against the American people for far less!

    Yes, far less; read any of the six books linked in the article above. If you believe what you were taught in school, given the paucity of truth in government education over the past 50+ years, you belong in Russia or China.

    • DM Zuniga
      Aluminum foil will keep those radio waves from the alien satellites out. Suggest you make a hat immediately.

  16. Reason history continues repeating itself and changes constantly is because people within this “Nation under God,” can’t learn to forgive the past and move on, with lessons learned, thus evil always finds its way back to the top amongst non-thinkers who are like sheep following and believing all they hear from the racists, bigots and those who have become hypocrites as evil breeds evil, thus baring it’s fruit every now and then to keep lovers of truth and progress at bay, while evil runs this world few will ever overcome.

  17. There were many many more story’s similar to this one , but no one wants to hear them . The Brutal and murderous occupation of the South by the North and the Carpet Bag’s and Scalawags were just the tip of the Iceberg . Raping and killing at Will, killing those whom dared resist , steeling anything they wanted . Setting fires and setting more fires and more fires. It would be Generations before southerners ever forgave the atrocities of the Northern Occupation , and the National Cover up , paying off historians and politicians and News papers to not write the truth .

  18. Oh! We ought to seek out a “real history book before 1960” because they printed the truth of America’s history and particularly that the succession was not about slavery. Well, there are plenty of remarks from Confederate Generals and southern politicians whose words are on record stating that their engagement in the Civil War was intended to protect their vital institution of slavery. Slavery was the foundation of causing Mississippi plantation owners by 1836 to become some of the richest people in the world, so attempting to diminish its significance is a worthless canard.

  19. So tired of people judging the past by today’s standards. History is history – for a reason. What right have we to judge anyone?

  20. This article is simply wrong, on almost all counts.

    First, Lincoln didn’t “order” the execution of anyone. Over 300(!) were sentenced to death for their part in the Dakota uprising of 1862. When this was brought to Lincoln’s attention, he understood that it was a gross miscarriage of justice, and worked personally to find reasons to exonerate all but the 38. So, he actually *saved* hundreds of Dakota from murder. To characterize his actions as “ordered” is sloppy.

    Second, the Southern slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. Period. This is settled by overwhelming evidence in the historical record. It was certainly the main reason given my the slave states themselves. To fall back on the neo-Confederate canard that Lincoln was a tyrant, and that the secession wasn’t really about slavery is ignorance.

    Lincoln had his flaws, no doubt. But you discredit yourself (and your editor, and your website) when you post nonsense like this.

  21. This article is so grossly misleading (and I believe deliberately so) that I hardly know where to begin. For starters, it states that the 38 Santee Indians were hung for “treaty violations (IE: hunting off of their assigned reservation).” The real reason that they were hung – and there is absolutely no mention of it in the article – is for what they did after they left the reservation. The Santee Sioux Indians, led by Little Crow, went on a bloody, murderous rampage throughout southern Minnesota, killing and raping white settlers. This came to be known as the Sioux uprising of 1862, and by the time it had ended; over 800 whites had been killed and hundreds of buildings had been burned or destroyed.

    The article also calls President Lincoln a “tyrant,” and portrays him as uncaring and unsympathetic, trading in the lives of the Indians for political capital. In reality, the thirty-eight Indians that were hung were only a very small percentage of the 1,500 that were placed on trial. Of this number, 303 were found guilty. Lincoln himself poured over the trial transcripts and wound up personally commuting the sentence of all but 39 of those who had been found guilty (one additional Indian was pardoned just before the hangings). Lincoln wanted to be sure that only those Indians for whom it could be proved that they had committed murder or rape would be executed.

    If Lincoln had been interested in gaining political favor in Minnesota, he sure went about it the wrong way. In the election of 1864, the Republicans lost ground in Minnesota, due to the fact that Lincoln had pardoned so many of the Indians who had been participants in the uprising. Governor Ramsey rebuked Lincoln, telling him that he would have received more votes if he had hung more Indians. Lincoln replied, “I cannot afford to hang men for votes.”

    I agree that our nation’s Indian policy was harsh. We broke treaties, we stole land and we often times failed to make annuity payments to the Indians who had settled on reservations. The Indians counted on these annuity payments in order to make it through the winters without starving to death. I believe that when we report history, we should report all of it – the ugly truth as well as the stuff that makes us look good. But we should also report history honestly and without bias. And we certainly should never do what this article does – twist the facts and leave other facts out completely in order to further our own agenda.

    • Thank you for a voice of reason. I have Indian ancestry; my husband is 7/8 Native. It is disingenuous of the authors of this article to claim to tell the “real historical truth”, then leave out the major fact of the Dakota uprising, and the number (450-800) of white settlers who were murdered. We can argue endlessly about the “right” of several hundred thousand native Americans to every bit of land of the North American continent, and their “right” to murder settlers who wanted land. There is no doubt that native peoples were lied to and treated unfairly many times, and the deaths on both sides, but if you want to talk about these 38 hangings, and leave out not only the original number of defendants, but the crimes they committed in order to be given the death penalty, to try to besmirch Abraham Lincoln, you haven’t got a leg to stand on.

  22. Text books?? Seriously? Textbooks are garbage. If you want history, you need to read much and widely. I’ve known about this bit about Lincoln, for instance, for many years. And never heard it in school. But there are thousands of stories like this. But you won’t ever hear it in school.

  23. I’ve heard it said that the Indians in question were hardly innocent to say the least. Supposedly, they took advantage of the distraction of the civil war to attack innocent settlers. In other words, they hunted white civilians. They murdered and raped their way across the area. They left 450-800 dead depending on the source. 77 soldiers died too.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here