This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dakota War of 1862 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 17, 2007, August 17, 2008, August 17, 2009, and August 17, 2010. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. |
I don't believe the Dakota hostiles took ANY hostages. It says they took hundreds. Furthermore, in was in the State Minnesota. Not Minnesota, Dakota territory. Minnesota became a state in 1858. 73.37.129.152 ( talk) 22:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Response to 1 Jan 2022 comment above: I object to the characterization of the Dakota as "hostiles." The Dakota did indeed take captives during the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, and many of the captives (including my own mixed French Canadian/Dakota/Ojibwe family members) are well-documented in newspapers and books. My ancestor -- who fought for the United States and whose mother was Sisseton Dakota and father was French Canadian -- was present at Camp Release on the day the captives were released. But the characterization of the Dakota as "hostiles" is objectionable. I've read: "Someone who is hostile is unfriendly and aggressive. They usually relate in a cold and hostile way to the world.” That does not describe the Dakota. The Dakota (then in the State of Minnesota) who went to battle against Euro-Americans (in their way, not in a European way) were warriors futilely defending their way of life after their lands had been stolen (even the reservation had been reduced) and promised annuities had not been paid. A warrior is “a brave or experienced soldier or fighter.” Warrior is a more accurate word to describe the Dakota who fought in the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Minnesota did indeed become a state in 1858, and the land from which the state was created was home to the Eastern Dakota. The Dakota (specifically, the Eastern Dakota) went to war against the United States in August 1862. It is why the war is named the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.65.98.5 ( talk) 00:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I was asked by an editor in the Minnesota Project to review this article. It had multiple issues. The leade had a number of them. It claims the Mdewakanton were affected more than the other tribes by the treaties with the US Government which is a NPOV issue. It failed to identify that the US Government's response to the the hostilities was actually the response that the State of Minnesota mounted as a surrogate for the Federal Government. That failure was an issue of stating historic fact. The article stated that the hangings at Mankato were the single largest executions in US history without stating Lincoln granted the largest "mass commutation" prior. That is another NPOV issue. The leade closes by calling the massacre at the Lower Sioux Agency a battle. That is a falsehood that is stated as fact. That is problematic for an Encyclopedia. The article itself failed to address the war crimes committed by both sides. The war has a notoriety for violence upon civilians that is presented in a sanitized narrative. Overall there is a pov problem with promoting sanitized historic facts. The inclusion of the annual Mankato Pow-wow is inappropriate. The Pow-wow is done to honor the Mdewakanton executed as heroes and martyrs that some Americans see as baby killers, rapists, and murders. Wikipedia is an inappropriate place for the acrimony.
With regard to @ Mcb133aco's list of concerns with the Dakota War article, my proposal is to see if we can group them together by topic and see if we can make sure we address them. Starting with the relatively uncontroversial formatting issues:
I agree that this article has too many multiple duplicate in-line links, so I will go through the article now to see if we can fix that.
Regarding the citation of multiple sources for the same fact: In general, I lean toward wanting to keep multiple sources, because accuracy, reliability, and neutrality is such a big problem when it comes to this topic. If we can show that multiple sources confirm the same fact, it gives us more confidence that it is true, not a mistake, and not just a single author's point of view. (Also, not everyone has access to all sources, and it's nice to be able to point to alternate sources to check.) That said, as I am going through the article, I will try to check to see if there are any points where the citation of multiple sources seems unnecessary or excessive. Cielquiparle ( talk) 08:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding @ Mcb133aco's following concern in "Issues of the Dakota War of 1862 article" listed above:
I wanted to point out that the "Primary sources" sub-section actually still appears as a sub-section of the "Further reading" section here: /info/en/?search=Dakota_War_of_1862#Primary_sources This seems like a misunderstanding or a non-issue. Cielquiparle ( talk) 11:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding @ Mcb133aco's following concern (Point 23 in "Issues" list above):
This is an excellent point. Explanation of how the women were transferred to Fort Snelling is indeed missing from the article entirely. I am now checking various sources to see how we can best add it (i.e., it's about more than just the means of transport.) Cielquiparle ( talk) 11:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing the following point flagged by @ Mcb133aco (Point 22 in "Issues" list above):
It seems straightforward enough to add but checking sources now. Cielquiparle ( talk) 10:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of Iowa, I haven't been able to find any sources for these two units, so I've removed them from the Article page:
You will find other wikis and web sites that list those units, but it looks like those web pages probably got the information from Wikipedia, so it's a self-reinforcing loop with no actual reliable source behind it. (I tagged it as "citation needed" back in June 2021. I have also looked through Iowa history books on the civil war period.) If someone ever manages to find sources, we can put them back. Cielquiparle ( talk) 15:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Good catch by @ Mcb133aco:
The Pipestone Quarry reference has now been removed from the article. Cielquiparle ( talk) 22:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the comment from @ Mcb133aco that:
I have now added prose to the sub-section on "Escape and death of Little Crow" conveying this, quoting Dr. Asa Daniels who said it "reflects sadly on the humanity of Christian people", as well as his grandson indirectly (as "barbarous War trophies" is not exactly something we can assert in Wikipedia voice). Cielquiparle ( talk) 21:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, nearly all the materials written about the War have been done writers with agendas and no military background. The historic narrative and the indigenous narrative have the War ending with the executions. That is a falsehood the current article perpetuates. The trials and executions were but a phase in Minnesota's war. Sibley wrote his wife that he felt he only had 16-20 of the men that should be tried. Mcb133aco ( talk) 15:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)mcb133 Mcb133aco ( talk) 15:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
In the aftermath, battles continued between Minnesota regiments and combined Lakota and Dakota forces through 1864 as Col. Henry Sibley's troops pursued the Sioux. Sibley's army defeated the Lakota and Dakota in four major battles in 1863: the Battle of Big Mound on July 24, 1863, the Battle of Dead Buffalo Lake on July 26, 1863; the Battle of Stony Lake on July 28, 1863; and the Battle of Whitestone Hill on September 3, 1863. The Sioux retreated further but faced a United States army again in 1864. General Alfred Sully led a force from near Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and decisively defeated the Sioux at the Battle of Killdeer Mountain on July 28, 1864, and at the Battle of the Badlands on August 9, 1864.
I thought it would be easy to fix this – as it's a quote from historian Mary Wingerd's radio / podcast interview with This American Life:
I think I understand what @ Mcb133aco is saying: This citation sounds a bit awkward, like a straw man argument, without more context. I did the logical thing which was to check if Wingerd provides more context in her book North Country: The Making of Minnesota, but haven't yet found anything quite right which we could cite. I'm inclined to leave this one for now and come back to it later. (It's true that she said it in the interview...and it is also true that there is confusion about who exactly is meant when we refer to it as the "Dakota War".) Cielquiparle ( talk) 15:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that context, @ Oncamera - it's much clearer now that Wingerd was making a remark about perceived misconceptions of the conflict in the 21st century, not the motivations of people in 1862.
IMO it still doesn't belong in the article at all, but different strokes for different folks. How about renaming the "Monuments and Memorials" section to "Historical Memory and Historiography" and moving the Wingerd quote (and maybe some of the stuff about 21st-century actions by the State of Minnesota) there? That solves the problem of readers getting confused by the sudden appearance of a 21st-century figure in a section of the article focused on August 1862 while still keeping the quote in the article. Jbt89 ( talk) 19:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Per @ Mcb133aco:
The actual story is slightly complicated, but has now been addressed at the top of the Section titled "War", with citations. This was a good flag, as that sub-section definitely needed to be fixed. Cielquiparle ( talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I've split @ Mcb133aco's Point 7 above into three separate sub-points. Here are Points 7 & 7a.
The third part, Point 7b, will be covered in the following section. More to follow. Cielquiparle ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the following point from @ Mcb133aco's list:
This already been addressed in the initial response from @ Oncamera under "Issues of the Dakota War of 1862" article. Both sides had soldiers with little "military background" and there are many sources cited referring to Dakota soldiers. Cielquiparle ( talk) 06:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
On 2 September two Chippewa Chiefs sent Lincoln a letter offering to fight the Sioux so Minnesotans could go fight the south. Had Lincoln accepted the offer all the other bands of Chippewa would have followed almost ensuring the annihilation of the Mdewakanton. Accepting their offer would have meant there would have been no trials, no executions, no Dakota 38. Lincoln saved hundreds of Mdewakanton women and children by not setting the Chippewa on the warpath for the U.S. This fact that is overlooked in the defamation that Lincoln is painted with in the presentism of today. The letter was released to the national press and published by the Chicago Times in Volume VIII No. 27 on 16 September 1862.
"His Excellency the Governor of Minnesota: Fond du Lac, St. Louis Reservation 2 September , 1862
We the undersigned Chiefs of the Chippewas of Lake Superior, do petition through you, to the President of the United States, the Great Father, as in hereinafter set forth: My Father we have heard and do hear every day and through the half breeds who are more enlightened than we are, that you are in trouble with your own people: and that they are very strong. We hear that one of your Red children has taken up the knife and tomahawk against you; that they have killed and murdered men, woman and children. That they have destroyed everything they could lay their hands on. They are blind and do not appreciate your great kindness. The Great Spirit looks down on that people with great vengeance. We raise the spirit of the Chippewa enemies to avenge the wrongs perpetrated on their white brethren.
My Father, you know he is our enemy, therefore we beg that you give us the chance to show that we are your friends and wish to serve you, to help you preserve the peace and tranquility among your children. We are willing to go and put down the evil spirit of my old enemy. Give us an opportunity to show you that we are loyal to the Great Father and his laws, and that we appreciate his kindness towards us. We think that our Great Father has enough to do down south for his solider: let him sen them down there, and send us to fight our red enemy. We are ready to go. We are willing to obey orders, and be lead by a white Captain, but on the battlefield we want our own Captains and fight in our own mode of fighting. Pay our expenses while we are gone. We also wish to raise our men our way, as we have been accustomed to raising men for a "war party." We also think that it would be just and right , if we should whip them that their annuities should be paid to those that would go fight.
My Father give us your consent, and we will get the Lake Superior Chippewas, with our half-breed children, to arise en masse to your help. Provide us with arms and ammunition, and we willing to go. My Father the, the door is open to me to help you, shut it not again in my face. We are willing to go. Our Fathers have driven them from this country, and if you had not come between us we would have chased them still further. Our young men are anxious to go show you that we are your friends. We know that we cannot do and drill like your soldiers, because we do not understand each other- our talk is different. We would offer you our services as well to fight your own people down there were it not for that, but send send us against our own color and we can fight. You will please answer and address Joseph Gurrol, Bayfield Wisconsin.
Naw-Gaw-Nub, Chief, Shin-Gwack, Chief
The Chippewa had forced the Dacotah out of the Dacotah homeland surrounding Mille Lacs Lake and were confident they could do remove their evil spirit from Minnesota. Mcb133aco ( talk)mcb133aco Mcb133aco ( talk)
You're speculating what could have or would have happened, doing your own interpreting of a primary source and trying to present it on Wikipedia. That's original research. Find secondary sources that speak to your claims about the letter. oncamera (talk page) 21:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
References
https://abc7chicago.com/president-abraham-lincoln-statue-edgewater-senn-park/12492964/
Victor Grigas (
talk) 02:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The mass execution at Mankato is notable in and of itself, and thus deserves to be split into its own article. The scale of the executions makes them arguably the most well-known aspect of this conflict. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 21:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Feels like it would be taken out of context and should stay merged here for better timeline placement as part of the aftermath section. It also downplays the death of many settlers as less important if the hanging of 38 is pushed as more notable. Doesn't seem neutral. And not sure if there's enough text to really justify being a separate article. oncamera (talk page) 21:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I was pinged to this discussion, as I have previously commented on this matter at other Minnesota articles. It is simply inconceivable to me that the largest mass execution in US History would not have its own article, particularly considering the cultural and historical relevance. I agree with Mr. Guye, Mcb133aco, and Pingnova on the need, relevance, and execution. See WP:SS for how to separately write and then incorporate the hangings in all the places that content is needed and unnecessarily now repeated in article after article (which is why I have commented on this before). Perhaps Susanlesch will work on this in all her spare time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
According to Xtools, this article is at 8,000 words. So it's longish, but not necessarily so long that a split is required. If more information needs to be added, (and I'm not sure it does), a split for the massacre could make sense (provided the split includes sufficient context, etc per Oncamera). The massacre is the type of event that frequently has its own article (and would meet GNG independently), but I like to minimise separate articles for maintenance reasons. There could be a redirect from the massacre to the appropriate section if there isn't already.
To simplify the discussion, I suggest leaving comments about Draft:Bdóte out of this thread unless it's clearly relevant. Larataguera ( talk) 11:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The main issue wih the use of soldier/soldiers to refer here to Sioux combatants is that this usage is inconsistently applied, and serves only to confuse particularly when at times one cannot be clear whether the reference is to a combatant of Sioux heritage fighting in the militia or government forces.
While there is a conversation to be had about the use of the word 'warrior,' it is, as most of the text of this article makes clear, a customary term used to distinguish between the combatants of pre-industrial communities organising themselves communally (hitherto described as 'tribal') as opposed to the organised units of fighting men, subject to military discipline and political control that typically we find on the European/settler side of these conflicts and usually describes as 'soldiers' (a term arrising from the concept of paid military service). The term 'warrior' implies no disrepspect.
It would improve the article greatly if this distinction could be accepted and employed consistently while the various debates associated with the topic could be saved for another forum. JF42 ( talk) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
one cannot be clear whether the reference is to a combatant of Sioux heritage fighting in the militia or government forces, then that's just poor writing. If we're writing an article about French soldiers fighting English soldiers, we manage the distinction and no one complains. No reason we can't do it here too. Larataguera ( talk) 21:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
As presently written it's hard to keep track of the movements of the various Dakota bands in early September 1862 in particular. Were the same Dakota warriors at the Battle of Acton and Birch Coulee, or was it a different band? How about the unrest in Iowa and North Dakota? Presumably there are multiple groups acting semi-autonomously here, but that needs to be stated explicitly one way or the other.
I realize the addition of references to the Battles of Acton, Forest City, and Hutchinson probably worsened this confusion, but it was strange to have them in the infobox and mentioned nowhere in the body of the article. Jbt89 ( talk) 06:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dakota War of 1862 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 17, 2007, August 17, 2008, August 17, 2009, and August 17, 2010. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. |
I don't believe the Dakota hostiles took ANY hostages. It says they took hundreds. Furthermore, in was in the State Minnesota. Not Minnesota, Dakota territory. Minnesota became a state in 1858. 73.37.129.152 ( talk) 22:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Response to 1 Jan 2022 comment above: I object to the characterization of the Dakota as "hostiles." The Dakota did indeed take captives during the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, and many of the captives (including my own mixed French Canadian/Dakota/Ojibwe family members) are well-documented in newspapers and books. My ancestor -- who fought for the United States and whose mother was Sisseton Dakota and father was French Canadian -- was present at Camp Release on the day the captives were released. But the characterization of the Dakota as "hostiles" is objectionable. I've read: "Someone who is hostile is unfriendly and aggressive. They usually relate in a cold and hostile way to the world.” That does not describe the Dakota. The Dakota (then in the State of Minnesota) who went to battle against Euro-Americans (in their way, not in a European way) were warriors futilely defending their way of life after their lands had been stolen (even the reservation had been reduced) and promised annuities had not been paid. A warrior is “a brave or experienced soldier or fighter.” Warrior is a more accurate word to describe the Dakota who fought in the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Minnesota did indeed become a state in 1858, and the land from which the state was created was home to the Eastern Dakota. The Dakota (specifically, the Eastern Dakota) went to war against the United States in August 1862. It is why the war is named the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.65.98.5 ( talk) 00:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I was asked by an editor in the Minnesota Project to review this article. It had multiple issues. The leade had a number of them. It claims the Mdewakanton were affected more than the other tribes by the treaties with the US Government which is a NPOV issue. It failed to identify that the US Government's response to the the hostilities was actually the response that the State of Minnesota mounted as a surrogate for the Federal Government. That failure was an issue of stating historic fact. The article stated that the hangings at Mankato were the single largest executions in US history without stating Lincoln granted the largest "mass commutation" prior. That is another NPOV issue. The leade closes by calling the massacre at the Lower Sioux Agency a battle. That is a falsehood that is stated as fact. That is problematic for an Encyclopedia. The article itself failed to address the war crimes committed by both sides. The war has a notoriety for violence upon civilians that is presented in a sanitized narrative. Overall there is a pov problem with promoting sanitized historic facts. The inclusion of the annual Mankato Pow-wow is inappropriate. The Pow-wow is done to honor the Mdewakanton executed as heroes and martyrs that some Americans see as baby killers, rapists, and murders. Wikipedia is an inappropriate place for the acrimony.
With regard to @ Mcb133aco's list of concerns with the Dakota War article, my proposal is to see if we can group them together by topic and see if we can make sure we address them. Starting with the relatively uncontroversial formatting issues:
I agree that this article has too many multiple duplicate in-line links, so I will go through the article now to see if we can fix that.
Regarding the citation of multiple sources for the same fact: In general, I lean toward wanting to keep multiple sources, because accuracy, reliability, and neutrality is such a big problem when it comes to this topic. If we can show that multiple sources confirm the same fact, it gives us more confidence that it is true, not a mistake, and not just a single author's point of view. (Also, not everyone has access to all sources, and it's nice to be able to point to alternate sources to check.) That said, as I am going through the article, I will try to check to see if there are any points where the citation of multiple sources seems unnecessary or excessive. Cielquiparle ( talk) 08:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding @ Mcb133aco's following concern in "Issues of the Dakota War of 1862 article" listed above:
I wanted to point out that the "Primary sources" sub-section actually still appears as a sub-section of the "Further reading" section here: /info/en/?search=Dakota_War_of_1862#Primary_sources This seems like a misunderstanding or a non-issue. Cielquiparle ( talk) 11:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding @ Mcb133aco's following concern (Point 23 in "Issues" list above):
This is an excellent point. Explanation of how the women were transferred to Fort Snelling is indeed missing from the article entirely. I am now checking various sources to see how we can best add it (i.e., it's about more than just the means of transport.) Cielquiparle ( talk) 11:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing the following point flagged by @ Mcb133aco (Point 22 in "Issues" list above):
It seems straightforward enough to add but checking sources now. Cielquiparle ( talk) 10:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of Iowa, I haven't been able to find any sources for these two units, so I've removed them from the Article page:
You will find other wikis and web sites that list those units, but it looks like those web pages probably got the information from Wikipedia, so it's a self-reinforcing loop with no actual reliable source behind it. (I tagged it as "citation needed" back in June 2021. I have also looked through Iowa history books on the civil war period.) If someone ever manages to find sources, we can put them back. Cielquiparle ( talk) 15:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Good catch by @ Mcb133aco:
The Pipestone Quarry reference has now been removed from the article. Cielquiparle ( talk) 22:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the comment from @ Mcb133aco that:
I have now added prose to the sub-section on "Escape and death of Little Crow" conveying this, quoting Dr. Asa Daniels who said it "reflects sadly on the humanity of Christian people", as well as his grandson indirectly (as "barbarous War trophies" is not exactly something we can assert in Wikipedia voice). Cielquiparle ( talk) 21:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, nearly all the materials written about the War have been done writers with agendas and no military background. The historic narrative and the indigenous narrative have the War ending with the executions. That is a falsehood the current article perpetuates. The trials and executions were but a phase in Minnesota's war. Sibley wrote his wife that he felt he only had 16-20 of the men that should be tried. Mcb133aco ( talk) 15:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)mcb133 Mcb133aco ( talk) 15:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
In the aftermath, battles continued between Minnesota regiments and combined Lakota and Dakota forces through 1864 as Col. Henry Sibley's troops pursued the Sioux. Sibley's army defeated the Lakota and Dakota in four major battles in 1863: the Battle of Big Mound on July 24, 1863, the Battle of Dead Buffalo Lake on July 26, 1863; the Battle of Stony Lake on July 28, 1863; and the Battle of Whitestone Hill on September 3, 1863. The Sioux retreated further but faced a United States army again in 1864. General Alfred Sully led a force from near Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and decisively defeated the Sioux at the Battle of Killdeer Mountain on July 28, 1864, and at the Battle of the Badlands on August 9, 1864.
I thought it would be easy to fix this – as it's a quote from historian Mary Wingerd's radio / podcast interview with This American Life:
I think I understand what @ Mcb133aco is saying: This citation sounds a bit awkward, like a straw man argument, without more context. I did the logical thing which was to check if Wingerd provides more context in her book North Country: The Making of Minnesota, but haven't yet found anything quite right which we could cite. I'm inclined to leave this one for now and come back to it later. (It's true that she said it in the interview...and it is also true that there is confusion about who exactly is meant when we refer to it as the "Dakota War".) Cielquiparle ( talk) 15:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that context, @ Oncamera - it's much clearer now that Wingerd was making a remark about perceived misconceptions of the conflict in the 21st century, not the motivations of people in 1862.
IMO it still doesn't belong in the article at all, but different strokes for different folks. How about renaming the "Monuments and Memorials" section to "Historical Memory and Historiography" and moving the Wingerd quote (and maybe some of the stuff about 21st-century actions by the State of Minnesota) there? That solves the problem of readers getting confused by the sudden appearance of a 21st-century figure in a section of the article focused on August 1862 while still keeping the quote in the article. Jbt89 ( talk) 19:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Per @ Mcb133aco:
The actual story is slightly complicated, but has now been addressed at the top of the Section titled "War", with citations. This was a good flag, as that sub-section definitely needed to be fixed. Cielquiparle ( talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I've split @ Mcb133aco's Point 7 above into three separate sub-points. Here are Points 7 & 7a.
The third part, Point 7b, will be covered in the following section. More to follow. Cielquiparle ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the following point from @ Mcb133aco's list:
This already been addressed in the initial response from @ Oncamera under "Issues of the Dakota War of 1862" article. Both sides had soldiers with little "military background" and there are many sources cited referring to Dakota soldiers. Cielquiparle ( talk) 06:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
On 2 September two Chippewa Chiefs sent Lincoln a letter offering to fight the Sioux so Minnesotans could go fight the south. Had Lincoln accepted the offer all the other bands of Chippewa would have followed almost ensuring the annihilation of the Mdewakanton. Accepting their offer would have meant there would have been no trials, no executions, no Dakota 38. Lincoln saved hundreds of Mdewakanton women and children by not setting the Chippewa on the warpath for the U.S. This fact that is overlooked in the defamation that Lincoln is painted with in the presentism of today. The letter was released to the national press and published by the Chicago Times in Volume VIII No. 27 on 16 September 1862.
"His Excellency the Governor of Minnesota: Fond du Lac, St. Louis Reservation 2 September , 1862
We the undersigned Chiefs of the Chippewas of Lake Superior, do petition through you, to the President of the United States, the Great Father, as in hereinafter set forth: My Father we have heard and do hear every day and through the half breeds who are more enlightened than we are, that you are in trouble with your own people: and that they are very strong. We hear that one of your Red children has taken up the knife and tomahawk against you; that they have killed and murdered men, woman and children. That they have destroyed everything they could lay their hands on. They are blind and do not appreciate your great kindness. The Great Spirit looks down on that people with great vengeance. We raise the spirit of the Chippewa enemies to avenge the wrongs perpetrated on their white brethren.
My Father, you know he is our enemy, therefore we beg that you give us the chance to show that we are your friends and wish to serve you, to help you preserve the peace and tranquility among your children. We are willing to go and put down the evil spirit of my old enemy. Give us an opportunity to show you that we are loyal to the Great Father and his laws, and that we appreciate his kindness towards us. We think that our Great Father has enough to do down south for his solider: let him sen them down there, and send us to fight our red enemy. We are ready to go. We are willing to obey orders, and be lead by a white Captain, but on the battlefield we want our own Captains and fight in our own mode of fighting. Pay our expenses while we are gone. We also wish to raise our men our way, as we have been accustomed to raising men for a "war party." We also think that it would be just and right , if we should whip them that their annuities should be paid to those that would go fight.
My Father give us your consent, and we will get the Lake Superior Chippewas, with our half-breed children, to arise en masse to your help. Provide us with arms and ammunition, and we willing to go. My Father the, the door is open to me to help you, shut it not again in my face. We are willing to go. Our Fathers have driven them from this country, and if you had not come between us we would have chased them still further. Our young men are anxious to go show you that we are your friends. We know that we cannot do and drill like your soldiers, because we do not understand each other- our talk is different. We would offer you our services as well to fight your own people down there were it not for that, but send send us against our own color and we can fight. You will please answer and address Joseph Gurrol, Bayfield Wisconsin.
Naw-Gaw-Nub, Chief, Shin-Gwack, Chief
The Chippewa had forced the Dacotah out of the Dacotah homeland surrounding Mille Lacs Lake and were confident they could do remove their evil spirit from Minnesota. Mcb133aco ( talk)mcb133aco Mcb133aco ( talk)
You're speculating what could have or would have happened, doing your own interpreting of a primary source and trying to present it on Wikipedia. That's original research. Find secondary sources that speak to your claims about the letter. oncamera (talk page) 21:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
References
https://abc7chicago.com/president-abraham-lincoln-statue-edgewater-senn-park/12492964/
Victor Grigas (
talk) 02:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The mass execution at Mankato is notable in and of itself, and thus deserves to be split into its own article. The scale of the executions makes them arguably the most well-known aspect of this conflict. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 21:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Feels like it would be taken out of context and should stay merged here for better timeline placement as part of the aftermath section. It also downplays the death of many settlers as less important if the hanging of 38 is pushed as more notable. Doesn't seem neutral. And not sure if there's enough text to really justify being a separate article. oncamera (talk page) 21:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I was pinged to this discussion, as I have previously commented on this matter at other Minnesota articles. It is simply inconceivable to me that the largest mass execution in US History would not have its own article, particularly considering the cultural and historical relevance. I agree with Mr. Guye, Mcb133aco, and Pingnova on the need, relevance, and execution. See WP:SS for how to separately write and then incorporate the hangings in all the places that content is needed and unnecessarily now repeated in article after article (which is why I have commented on this before). Perhaps Susanlesch will work on this in all her spare time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
According to Xtools, this article is at 8,000 words. So it's longish, but not necessarily so long that a split is required. If more information needs to be added, (and I'm not sure it does), a split for the massacre could make sense (provided the split includes sufficient context, etc per Oncamera). The massacre is the type of event that frequently has its own article (and would meet GNG independently), but I like to minimise separate articles for maintenance reasons. There could be a redirect from the massacre to the appropriate section if there isn't already.
To simplify the discussion, I suggest leaving comments about Draft:Bdóte out of this thread unless it's clearly relevant. Larataguera ( talk) 11:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The main issue wih the use of soldier/soldiers to refer here to Sioux combatants is that this usage is inconsistently applied, and serves only to confuse particularly when at times one cannot be clear whether the reference is to a combatant of Sioux heritage fighting in the militia or government forces.
While there is a conversation to be had about the use of the word 'warrior,' it is, as most of the text of this article makes clear, a customary term used to distinguish between the combatants of pre-industrial communities organising themselves communally (hitherto described as 'tribal') as opposed to the organised units of fighting men, subject to military discipline and political control that typically we find on the European/settler side of these conflicts and usually describes as 'soldiers' (a term arrising from the concept of paid military service). The term 'warrior' implies no disrepspect.
It would improve the article greatly if this distinction could be accepted and employed consistently while the various debates associated with the topic could be saved for another forum. JF42 ( talk) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
one cannot be clear whether the reference is to a combatant of Sioux heritage fighting in the militia or government forces, then that's just poor writing. If we're writing an article about French soldiers fighting English soldiers, we manage the distinction and no one complains. No reason we can't do it here too. Larataguera ( talk) 21:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
As presently written it's hard to keep track of the movements of the various Dakota bands in early September 1862 in particular. Were the same Dakota warriors at the Battle of Acton and Birch Coulee, or was it a different band? How about the unrest in Iowa and North Dakota? Presumably there are multiple groups acting semi-autonomously here, but that needs to be stated explicitly one way or the other.
I realize the addition of references to the Battles of Acton, Forest City, and Hutchinson probably worsened this confusion, but it was strange to have them in the infobox and mentioned nowhere in the body of the article. Jbt89 ( talk) 06:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)