Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 5th, 2012, 06:21 AM   #11

Baltis's Avatar
Goat Whisperer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 2,991
Blog Entries: 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Sorry, I meant in the general context of the wars between the Indians and the white settlers. In this specific instance, I agree with you: the settlers were victims, not perpetrators.
Yes, I realized that but it kind of makes a good point. The Sioux punished innocent settlers for perceived wrongs committed by the government. They did not distinguish between the 'good whites' and the 'bad whites'.

And of course when put in those terms, we clearly see the opposite dynamic also. The people of Minnesota later failed to distinguish between the 'good Indians' and the 'bad Indians'.

Or, in very philosophical terms, are there really any such things? Aren't we all part good and part bad.

What do we think about the levels or response? The annuities were late and the army refused to open their storehouses of food for distribution until the annuities arrived. Does this justify massacre? What if the victims were in fact the soldiers instead of civilians? should the action taken by the Sioux be viewed as an unnecessary escalation of violence?
Baltis is online now  
Remove Ads
Old December 5th, 2012, 07:17 AM   #13

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

This is another thing I admire about Lincoln. With all the pressing problems he had on his plate, he could VERY EASILY have brushed this whole thing aside. Instead he sat down and went through these cases one by one to try to make sure that justice was done. Kudos to him.
Rongo is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 07:36 AM   #14

Hopeforus's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Where I retired.
Posts: 209

I don't agree with what lead TO the fighting. But the reason followed all the indians all the way to the defeat of all INdian Nations.

Battle_of_Fort_Ridgely Battle_of_Fort_Ridgely
Hopeforus is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 11:22 AM   #15

Theguy8882's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Philadelhpia, PA
Posts: 177

I never knew about this horrible atrocity. It's interesting to learn that both sides were just as guilty as the other.
Theguy8882 is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 03:19 PM   #16

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,100

Quote:
Originally Posted by unclefred View Post
The hangings following the trials which condemned over three hundred participants in the 1862 Dakota Conflict, stand as the largest mass execution in American history. President Lincoln saved 265 of the warriors from the noose, but executed thirty-eight.
Depends on how you define mass executions.

In 1862, Texas executed 40 men accused of being Unionist plotters.

In 1740, South Carolina executed over 50 slaves for an attempted revolt.

In 1831, Virginia executed 55 for participation in Nat Turner's rebellion.

Quantrill's Raiders killed 204 civilians in Lawrence, Kansas in 1863.
Fiver is online now  
Old December 6th, 2012, 04:56 AM   #17

Garry_Owen's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Thomond, Ireland.
Posts: 674

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltis View Post
Yes, I realized that but it kind of makes a good point. The Sioux punished innocent settlers for perceived wrongs committed by the government. They did not distinguish between the 'good whites' and the 'bad whites'.

And of course when put in those terms, we clearly see the opposite dynamic also. The people of Minnesota later failed to distinguish between the 'good Indians' and the 'bad Indians'.

Or, in very philosophical terms, are there really any such things? Aren't we all part good and part bad.

What do we think about the levels or response? The annuities were late and the army refused to open their storehouses of food for distribution until the annuities arrived. Does this justify massacre? What if the victims were in fact the soldiers instead of civilians? should the action taken by the Sioux be viewed as an unnecessary escalation of violence?
No man, be he indian or white, would have accepted so patiently and with fortitude the treatment meated out to the Santee Sioux and others. The starving indians were overdue their annuities but the agents would not release food without the money they actually having arrived. Little Crow was losing face with the younger men who accused him of cowardice. One indian agent (Myrick?) told the Sioux they could eat grass! Can any man, indian or white, be expected to suffer that kind of treatment without kicking back. I think the authorities themselves must take a lot of the blame for what happened. You cannot disrespect, abuse and cheat people like that and expect them to behave normally, especially when their women and children are going cold and hungry. The authorities had a powder keg on their hands and they set the fuse alight.

I'm not excusing what happened but once Little Crow decided to fight he found that he could not restrain and control his own braves.

Last edited by Garry_Owen; December 6th, 2012 at 05:10 AM.
Garry_Owen is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 04:59 PM   #18
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,273

Yep. That was certainly one of the worst incidents, but if you really look into it, the history of the frontier was drenched in the blood of civilians on both sides. Thousands of them, when you add it all up.
Tripwire is offline  
Old November 17th, 2013, 02:47 PM   #19
Citizen
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Cheyenne
Posts: 1

It was never the fort Ridgely Massacre, how ridiculous, it is officially known as the Dacotah conflict.and if the crooked Indian agents would'nt have kept most of the money for themselves, I won't even bother getting into that,, the Indians would never have rebelled,,,the warehouse was full of food but yet agent Galbraith refused to pass out any of it,,Taoyataduta wanrs him by saying "when Indians go hungry the Great Creator tells us to help ourselves"
indigenous is offline  
Old November 17th, 2013, 04:06 PM   #20

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
In latrine Rex
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 5,644
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by indigenous View Post
It was never the fort Ridgely Massacre, how ridiculous, it is officially known as the Dacotah conflict.and if the crooked Indian agents would'nt have kept most of the money for themselves, I won't even bother getting into that,, the Indians would never have rebelled,,,the warehouse was full of food but yet agent Galbraith refused to pass out any of it,,Taoyataduta wanrs him by saying "when Indians go hungry the Great Creator tells us to help ourselves"
Good point worth considering. Indian agents were notorious for abuse of power and corruption.
Panthera tigris altaica is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
fort, massacre, ridgely


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Coniston Massacre, the last massacre in Autralia Panthera tigris altaica Asian History 4 February 12th, 2012 08:12 AM
A fort for a state. Mike McClure American History 55 January 14th, 2012 08:27 PM
Fort Lafayette tjadams American History 4 January 3rd, 2012 05:35 PM
Fort York Dragon War and Military History 3 November 14th, 2011 11:31 AM
The Yehiam Fort vera Medieval and Byzantine History 21 October 10th, 2009 11:28 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.