Introduction
On December 26, 1862, the largest public mass execution ever in the United States took place in Mankato, Minnesota, when the United States military hung 38 Dakota men for their part in the "Sioux Outbreak" that began in August of that year. Approximately 358 white men, women, and children died in the outbreak, as well as 29 Dakota warriors. Just over a month later, the Dakota surrendered and returned their white captives. By that time, news accounts of the massacres as well as the "proclamations" of state leaders so inflamed the passions of Minnesota's white population that only one response -- revenge -- seemed appropriate. However, short of another war or outright extermination of the Dakota, the only available recourse for revenge was apparently legal.
A military commission was set up to try the "guilty." However, it became clear as the trials progressed that the commission's real job was to find guilty the many Dakota men turning themselves in following the surrender. Minnesota historian William Folwell noted that, had all the 303 prisoners eventually found guilty had been executed, it would have been the "most atrocious judicial murder on record." Only through President Lincoln's intercession was that avoided. Lincoln recognized the military commission's kangaroo-court behavior but also recognized the charged atmosphere in Minnesota, a strongly Union state -- a state he could not afford to alienate, politically or militarily. Two problems faced Lincoln. First, the Civil War prevented him from sending federal troops to protect the prisoners. In addition, the state's congressional delegation warned him that Minnesotans wanted appropriate retribution. If they did not get it from the federal government, they would mete it out in their own fashion. Lincoln sought a compromise and brought to justice those he believed most guilty.
Minnesota public opinion, shaped in part by the attitudes of its civil and military leadership, could be heard all the way to Washington -- and it was squarely against mercy for any Dakota. For many white Minnesotans, their only knowledge of what opinion leaders believed came from state newspapers, which often published verbatim correspondence, opinions, and proclamations regarding the "atrocities" (of which many were proved unfounded). As for Minnesota's leadership, some, including the governor and leading military commander, may have had more than civil or military interests at stake when they argued for the prisoners' death sentences, namely Minnesota land and federal money.
Much of what white Minnesotans learned about the trials came from the writings of Isaac Heard, the military commission's official recorder. Heard's handwritten transcripts -- as brief as many of them were -- provided the only record of what the defendants and witnesses said. In addition, Heard, a military man himself, wrote, perhaps, the only trial account available to the public in a newspaper. He favored swift military judicial action and disparaged the Dakota defendants, their alibis and culture. In a second article, Heard admonished critics who believed the trials unfair, and a year later, he published the first book about the uprising. What emerges from Heard's handwritten trial transcripts, his newspaper accounts and book is a lack of regard for the Dakotas on trial and a lack of a desire for their justice.
The purpose of research for this paper was to address the following questions: First, how did Minnesota's military and political leadership's react to the outbreak, and how was that reaction reported in Minnesota newspapers? Could those published accounts increase already negative perceptions whites held for the Dakota as a result of the outbreak, thus, virtually ensuring the executions? In addition, this analysis relied upon the trial transcripts of the 38 executed Dakota to address the following research question: Do the trial transcripts discern any common elements among the defendant testimony and indicate bias against them. Finally, what role did the trials' court recorder, Isaac Heard, play? Did he act as both recorder and defender of the proceedings? Before those questions are addressed, a brief detail of the "Sioux Outbreak of 1862" must be outlined.
Dr. Kittrell Rushing or Dr. David Sachsman 311 Frist Hall Communication Department The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga, Tennessee 37403-2598 http://www.utc.edu/commdept/conference/
19th Century and Free Expression Conference Home Page.
1998 Symposium Program & Abstracts 1997 Symposium Program & Abstracts 1996 Symposium Program and Contacts 1995 Symposium Program and Contacts
U.S. Library of Congress American Memory Project: The Civil War
Return to the UTC Communication Department Index
Last updated: November 20, 1999
comments to: commdept@cecasun.utc.edu