The U.S.-Dakota War of 1862: Prelude to War
The Dakota people, or Santee Dakota, lived a semi-nomadic lifestyle in present-day Minnesota for centuries before European traders arrived in the late 17th century They thrived by utilizing nearby rivers and lakes during summer and migrating to woodlands and prairies in other seasons Although they initially tolerated early white settlements, significant changes began in 1819 when the Dakota signed a treaty with the United States, allowing the construction of Fort Snelling This agreement marked the start of a series of treaties in which the Dakota ceded land and hunting rights to the U.S government in exchange for compensation and the promise to remain in their homelands, notably highlighted by the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux.
In 1858, extensive lands in Minnesota were made available to white settlers, while the Dakota were restricted to a narrow ten-mile wide reservation in the state's southwestern region Despite their relocation, the Dakota maintained the ability to hunt and gather food beyond the reservation limits.
Dakota people‟s lives were now structured according to the will of the United States and its representatives in Minnesota
Located on the rolling prairies of southwestern Minnesota, the Lower Sioux Agency (one of two agencies where government workers, fur traders, and missionaries served the Dakota
1 A good general history of the Santee Dakota can be found in Gary Clayton Anderson, Kinsmen of Another Kind:
Dakota-White Relations in the Upper Mississippi Valley, 1650-1862 (St Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society
Prior to the summer of 1862, the villages within the reservation boundaries appeared to be a quiet community The Lower Agency catered to the Mdewakanton and Wahpekute bands of the Santee Dakota, while the Upper Agency served the Wahpeton and Sisseton bands further up the Minnesota River These agencies aimed for the Dakota to adopt Euro-American dress, culture, and farming practices While some Dakota embraced farming and Christianity, many resisted the Bureau of Indian Affairs' acculturation efforts, choosing not to settle permanently on the reservation and only coming for the annual distribution of promised food and money from the 1858 treaty Despite the seemingly peaceful atmosphere in early summer 1862, significant unrest was brewing, foreshadowing a pivotal moment in Minnesota's history.
In the summer of 1862, the Dakota faced significant hardships due to a previous year's crop failure that left them short on food supplies Relying on their annual payment and food allocations, which were usually distributed in June, the Dakota congregated at the reservation in anticipation However, their hopes were dashed when the expected payments were delayed by the ongoing Civil War.
The Lower Sioux Agency, also referred to as the Redwood Agency, was one of two government facilities established along the Minnesota River under the 1858 treaty, primarily serving the Mdewakanton and Wahpekute bands of Dakota In contrast, the Upper Agency, located further up the river and known as the Yellow Medicine Agency, catered to the Wahpeton and Sisseton bands Each agency supported nearby villages, governed by local chiefs or recognized leaders, and housed various government officials, including Indian agents, missionaries, and fur traders Every summer, all Dakota, regardless of their village affiliation, would report to these agencies to receive their annual payments and food allocations Dakota individuals who committed to farming were designated as "farmers."
The Dakota Indians were distinguished by their shorter hair and American-style clothing, which set them apart from those who adhered to traditional customs, known as "blanket Indians." This division created tension, as the Dakota who embraced American influences were often favored by the Indian agent, leading to resentment among those who remained committed to their ancestral way of life.
3 The Lower Sioux Agency Historic Site: Development (Minneapolis, MN: Nason, Wehrman, Chapman Associates, Inc., 1974)
In August, the Dakota community faced severe starvation as they sought extended credit from fur traders, who refused until their debts were settled with annuity payments Indian agent Thomas Galbraith withheld food allotments, insisting on waiting for the annuity money, which led to confusion and anger among the Dakota Frustrated, some members stormed the Upper Sioux Agency warehouse, demanding food distribution To restore order, Galbraith called for soldiers from Fort Ridgely, who, despite their initial role as enforcers, sided with the Dakota and compelled Galbraith to distribute food rations before the arrival of the funds.
On August 17, tense conditions prevailed in southwestern Minnesota when four Dakota men, in search of food, stumbled upon Robinson Jones's farm near Acton After discovering fresh eggs, one man boasted he was brave enough to not only steal them but also kill the farmer The men approached the homestead, where they found Jones and his two adopted children Jones quickly left to alert his stepson, Howard Baker, where the Dakota men followed and encountered the Jones, Baker, and visiting Webster families Initially engaging in a shooting contest, the Dakota men unexpectedly turned and shot Mr Webster, Mr Baker, and Mr and Mrs Jones.
The Dakota raiders departed from the Baker farm and returned to the Jones farm, where they tragically shot and killed Clara Wilson, the 15-year-old adopted daughter of the Jones family Fortunately, Mrs Baker, her young child, Mrs Webster, and the Jones' 18-month-old adopted son managed to survive the attack and escaped to a nearby homestead.
Recognizing the gravity of the recent killings, four men traveled to Rice Creek Village, situated near the Lower Sioux Agency and led by Chief Shakopee, who inherited his leadership from his respected father This village housed a newly established soldiers' lodge, comprised of around 100 members, predominantly hunters who favored traditional lifestyles and excluded Dakota individuals who had adopted farming After the men recounted the details of the Acton incident, the lodge swiftly voted to declare war against the white settlers, although Rice Creek and its soldiers' lodge represented only a small segment of the broader community.
The Dakota people recognized the need for additional support to pursue their war efforts, reaching out to nearby villages and seeking the guidance of Little Crow, a respected village chief and emerging leader Despite his recent attempts to adopt Euro-American farming practices, Little Crow became the focal point for discussions among village chiefs and elders, who debated the best course of action Opinions varied, with some advocating for surrender to authorities while others believed the moment was right for war Ultimately, Little Crow, acknowledging the potential devastation of the Dakota nation, made the decisive choice to lead the conflict, warning the warriors of the grave consequences ahead.
In January, during the Hard Moon, the Dakota people faced dire circumstances as hungry wolves hunted rabbits, symbolizing their struggle for survival Little Crow and his supporters, determined to fight back, prepared to launch an attack on the Lower Sioux Agency, marking the onset of the Dakota War of 1862 in Minnesota.
Figure 1.1 This map depicts the reservation boundaries in 1862, the location of the two agencies, the first attack at
Acton, and other points of interest associated with the War Illustrated by J J Carlson
5 Little Crow‘s quote can be found in Gary Clayton Anderson and Alan R Woolworth, eds., Through Dakota Eyes:
Narrative Accounts of the Minnesota Indian War of 1862, (St Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1988): p
Little Crow, known by his Dakota name "Ta-o-ya-te-du-ta," translates to "His Red Nation," a title that many believe signifies his inherent leadership qualities among the Dakota people.
Introduction: The Power of Memory
In 1878, a significant gathering took place at Ness Church in Litchfield, Minnesota, where locals dedicated a monument to the first victims of the Dakota War The five settlers, buried nearby, were honored by several hundred citizens, including members of the Old Settlers' Association of Meeker County, with financial support from the state The event, marked by a festive atmosphere and a one-mile procession led by the Litchfield band, celebrated not only the memory of the victims but also the settlers' triumph over the Dakota, which facilitated the full settlement of the Minnesota River Valley Prominent figures, including General C.C Andrews, highlighted the federal government's role in the conflict, criticizing its corrupt Indian department and history of broken treaties.
Ramsey asserted that the Dakota people had not provoked the war and that settlers had always treated them kindly The granite obelisk, which commemorates the five settlers killed on August 17, 1862, serves as both a cemetery marker and a symbol of collective community memory, reinforcing the narrative that white settlers were innocent victims in an unprovoked conflict Throughout the late nineteenth and into the twentieth century, additional monuments and ceremonies continued to shape the landscape of this war, perpetuating the belief that the Dakota were solely responsible for the violence.
6 Ceremonies at the Unveiling of the Acton Monument in Memory of the Victims of the Massacre (Aug 17, 1862)
Held at Ness Church, Sept 13, 1878 Minnesota Historical Society Collections
Following an intense all-night debate regarding the consequences of war, a significant number of Dakota decided to retaliate against the United States government by attacking the Lower Sioux Agency While Little Crow emerged as the principal leader, other village chiefs like Traveling Hail, Big Eagle, and Little Shakopee also played crucial roles in leading the Dakota warriors On the early morning of August 18, 1862, approximately 200-300 Dakota warriors launched their advance on the agency, which was one of two government agencies serving the Mdewakanton and Wahpekute bands of Dakota The majority of Little Crow's soldiers were drawn from these two bands, and residing at the agency was United States Indian agent Thomas.
Galbraith, several government workers, missionaries, and fur traders, for a total of more than
The surprise attack by Little Crow on the agency residents, including Dakota individuals, created chaos and confusion, as recalled by Esther Wakeman, a Dakota woman She described the war as a sudden and destructive storm, making it hard to distinguish allies from enemies While some Dakota soldiers actively participated in the assault on the agency buildings, others, like Chief Big Eagle, hesitated to engage fully in the conflict, focusing instead on saving the lives of friends rather than joining in the violence.
I could.” Despite the mixed feelings, the attack on the Lower Sioux Agency was a victory for the Dakota Nearly two-dozen people were killed, including several traders and government
1 The details of this section draw primarily from Jerry Keenan‘s The Great Sioux Uprising, Gary Clayton
In "Through Dakota Eyes" by Anderson and "The Dakota War of 1862" by Kenneth Carley, the narrative highlights the plight of Dakota workers and the desperate conditions that led to conflict As tensions escalated, many residents fled to the countryside, seeking safety from the violence A notable figure among the victims was trader Andrew Myrick, who met a tragic fate after refusing to extend credit to the starving Dakota during a harsh summer.
In 1862, while awaiting their annuity payments, Myrick infamously proclaimed, “Let them eat grass!” This statement became notorious after Myrick was found mutilated outside his store, with his mouth stuffed with grass.
Thirteen miles from Lower Sioux Agency, survivors of the initial attack sought refuge at Fort Ridgely, the sole military outpost in southwestern Minnesota A contingent of 46 soldiers, led by Captain John S Marsh, departed for the Agency, leaving fewer than thirty men to defend the fort and assist incoming refugees However, upon reaching the ferry landing at Redwood, Marsh and his troops were ambushed by a larger force of Dakota soldiers, resulting in the deaths of 24 white soldiers and Captain Marsh drowning while attempting to swim across the Minnesota River The surviving soldiers retreated to Fort Ridgely, realizing that the violence at the Lower Sioux Agency was part of a coordinated effort by the Dakota nation against the United States, news of which quickly spread to the Upper Sioux Agency and throughout the state.
The map illustrated by J J Carlson highlights the initial acts of war by the Dakota, showcasing their attack on the Lower Sioux Agency followed by an ambush on soldiers at Redwood Ferry.
The Reflection of Memory in Words and Monuments
The declaration of ―war‖ by Little Crow on the morning of August 18, 1862, explains the degree of seriousness the Dakota participants approached their attack on the Lower Sioux
The initial conflict at the Lower Sioux Agency marked the beginning of a prolonged struggle for Little Crow and his followers, who aimed to reclaim their homelands from white settlers in the Minnesota River valley As news of the violence in Acton and the Agency spread, white Minnesotans were left in shock and confusion, grappling with the implications of the bloodshed They perceived these initial killings as unprovoked, using the events at Acton and the surprise attack to characterize and rationalize the ensuing acts of war.
The recent violence in the Minnesota River Valley has sparked significant debate over what to name this period of bloodshed Various terms have emerged to describe the six-week conflict that ensued after the tragic events at Acton, with labels such as "outbreak" being frequently used.
Throughout American history, terms like "uprising," "conflict," and "war," along with "massacre" and "disturbance," have been used to describe interactions with Indigenous peoples These labels, prevalent since the colonial era, served to justify the Euro-American conquest of North America, framing the narrative in a way that legitimized the displacement of its original inhabitants Philip J Deloria highlights this linguistic strategy as a means of rationalizing territorial expansion.
From the onset of white-Indian contact, narratives surrounding this relationship have been shaped by two contrasting and gendered themes One narrative portrays Indian women as intrinsically connected to the land, symbolically offering themselves to colonizing white men In contrast, another narrative emphasizes a masculinist perspective focused on violent conflict, featuring imagery of murder, massacre, and warfare These themes often intertwine, reflecting white perceptions of Indian difference while overlooking the genuine interactions found in cross-cultural trade, diplomacy, and alliances.
The historical conflict between whites and Native Americans in the United States led to the harsh punishment of the Dakota after the War, as white Minnesotans perceived "war" as a conflict exclusively among whites This perception contributed to the belief that executions of surrendering parties were unjustifiable Additionally, while there were some organized battles between the Dakota and white settlers or soldiers, many confrontations did not fit the traditional definition of warfare.
The conflict between white settlers and the Dakota was marked by individual attacks on settlements, often not ordered by Little Crow, challenging the traditional view that these encounters constituted a "war." Over time, these events were collectively referred to as "The Great Sioux Uprising," leading to a proliferation of books, pamphlets, and other media that focused on the experiences of white Minnesotans This narrative portrayed them as innocent victims, placing the blame solely on the Dakota people and shaping the historical memory of the conflict in a way that favored the settlers' perspective.
Historian Elizabeth Cook-Lynn argues that the terminology used to describe the six-week conflict between indigenous peoples and the United States diminishes the significance of this war and absolves the federal government of responsibility She highlights that terms like "uprisings" or "conflicts" reflect propaganda rather than the reality of warfare, portraying Dakota people as "marauding, savage" individuals rather than legitimate military opponents Additionally, labeling the events as a "war" extends the narrative beyond the initial fighting, as the U.S Army continued to pursue the Dakota in military campaigns through 1863 and 1864 Those Dakota who surrendered faced trials as war criminals or were placed in poorly equipped internment camps outside Fort Snelling in St Paul, while others were forced to leave Minnesota.
3 Cook-Lynn, New Indians, Old Wars, p 100
The internment camp at Fort Snelling has been described by various sources as a prison camp; however, Dakota activist Waziyatawin emphasizes that the Dakota individuals held there were not prisoners or convicted criminals She advocates for the term "concentration camp," arguing that the term "internment camp" diminishes the violent and brutal realities of invasion, conquest, and ethnic cleansing experienced by the Dakota people.
The term "internment camp" will be used in this paper to describe the Dakota's forced removal to new reservations in Dakota Territory, following a government mandate that offered rewards for capturing Dakota individuals Using terminology other than "war" undermines the significance of the actions taken by Little Crow and his soldiers, as well as the severe repercussions faced by the Dakota nation Despite this, the term "war" has rarely been employed in historical discussions, leading to ongoing debate about its implications since the conflict concluded.
The War Expands: Attacks at the Upper Agency, the Countryside, and New Ulm
On the morning of August 18, while the Lower Sioux Agency faced an attack, the Upper Agency, or Yellow Medicine Agency, remained calm By noon, rumors of impending Indian attacks began circulating, but most residents were skeptical However, physician John Wakefield took precautionary measures, arranging for his family to evacuate He sent his wife, Sarah, and their two young children with government employee George Gleason to Fort Ridgely, ensuring their safety during the potential conflict on the reservation.
As Wakefield and George Gleason approached the Lower Sioux Agency, they observed smoke rising from burning buildings, which Gleason dismissed as likely being a prairie fire Their journey took a turn when they met two Dakota men, Hapa and Chaska, who were riding horses, leading to an unexpected confrontation when Hapa opened fire.
Chaska recognized Sarah as Mr Gleason's wife and urged her to remain silent After Gleason's death, Hapa aimed at Sarah's head, but Chaska intervened, saving her life For the next six weeks, Sarah and her children lived as captives in Dakota camps, relying on Chaska for protection while also being at his mercy.
Sarah Wakefield witnessed the direct impact of war, while Dakota leaders from the Wahpeton and Sisseton villages convened to discuss the possibility of aligning with Little Crow and his followers Ultimately, no definitive conclusion was made, as the majority of leaders remained undecided.
“wait and see” attitude rather than fully committing their soldiers Many of the Dakota who had
In "Six Weeks in the Sioux Tepees," Sarah F Wakefield highlights the contrasting responses of Dakota leaders to the impending conflict, noting that those who had converted to Christianity and adopted farming, such as John Otherday, Chief Akepa, Simon Anawangmani, and Paul Mazakutemani, actively warned their white and mixed-heritage friends at the Upper Agency about the dangers of war However, other members of the Upper Agency Dakota felt that all Dakota would be unjustly blamed for the violence, leading them to join the conflict and engage in looting agency buildings and stores.
By late Monday, white residents at the Upper Agency, including Dr Thomas Williamson and Rev Stephen Riggs, prepared to evacuate after hearing reports of devastation at the Lower Sioux Agency Early Tuesday, they organized a group of white and mixed-blood residents, including Martha Riggs Morris and photographer Adrian Ebell, who would later document their five-day journey to Henderson Meanwhile, over sixty residents fled to St Paul under the guidance of Dakota farmer John Otherday, who shared his experiences with the St Paul Press on August 28 As Little Crow and his soldiers took control of the abandoned Upper Agency, the buildings and stores were quickly looted or destroyed.
In the early stages of the Dakota War, Dakota soldiers convened near Little Crow's house to strategize their next moves, while smaller groups launched attacks on isolated homesteads around the Lower Sioux Agency These unpredictable assaults led to significant casualties, particularly in Renville and Brown counties, where many white farmers were caught off guard The violence peaked on August 18, resulting in the deaths of over fifty residents in Milford Township, and continued with the capture of fourteen-year-old Mary Schwandt and the tragic killing of twenty-five German settlers from Sacred Heart on August 19 as they tried to escape.
On August 19, a Dakota woman and her thirteen children were captured while fleeing from the Upper Agency to Fort Ridgely They were protected during their captivity by Little Crow, who acknowledged their Dakota heritage As the conflict escalated, the Dakota moved further from the reservation, launching attacks on additional settlements By August 20, they reached Lake Shetek in Murray County, where eleven families sought refuge in a swamp but were vastly outnumbered by the Dakota forces This encounter resulted in the deaths of fifteen individuals, injuries to several others, and the capture of eight people, including two women and six children, who were taken into Dakota Territory and remained captives until their eventual release.
In November, weeks after the war's conclusion, fear gripped the entire state as the conflict extended into the countryside Survivors of the initial attacks began sharing their harrowing experiences, fueling a growing desire among the audience to permanently eradicate the Dakota from Minnesota.
Little Crow and his Dakota supporters contemplated an assault on the largely undefended German settlement of New Ulm, the largest town near the reservation At the time, New Ulm had recently dispatched a recruiting party to enlist volunteers for the Civil War, leaving it vulnerable to attack.
Dakota it would be counted as an important victory, but it also promised large amounts of goods and property that could be claimed by the Dakota people
As news of the attacks on nearby settlements reached New Ulm, residents quickly organized their defense by constructing barricades around key brick buildings Women and children took refuge in larger structures, while able-bodied men armed themselves under the leadership of Sheriff Charles Roos and German immigrant Jacob Nix, the town's only military veteran In a desperate bid for assistance, the town dispatched messengers to St Peter, seeking help from prominent local figure Judge Charles Flandrau Meanwhile, an influx of refugees from the besieged settlements flooded into New Ulm, heightening the urgency of the situation.
On August 19, 1862, the Dakota launched an attack on New Ulm at around 3:00 PM but faced unexpected resistance from the town's defenders The assault was disorganized, as key leaders like Little Crow chose to concentrate their efforts on Fort Ridgely instead of supporting the New Ulm attack The initial confrontation resulted in the deaths of six citizens and several injuries That night, Flandrau and his volunteer relief unit arrived, providing essential fortifications However, the Dakota returned on August 23 with over 600 warriors, leading to intense fighting that destroyed many buildings Despite the inexperienced troops under Flandrau managing to repel the Dakota, resulting in 34 casualties among the defenders, he decided to evacuate the town, prompting nearly 2,000 residents to flee to Mankato for safety Meanwhile, soldiers at Fort Ridgely were engaged in their own fierce battle.
Figure 3.1 This map shows some of the early attacks on nearby settlements as well as the takeover of the Upper
Sioux Agency and the battles at New Ulm Illustrated by J J Carlson
2 The above paragraphs referenced Carley, The Dakota War of 1862, pp 17-39
Sharing Memory to Build Community Identity
In the months following the War's conclusion, Minnesotans who had lived through the conflict began to share their experiences with the broader public This practice of recounting and commemorating traumatic events is prevalent among Americans Historian Jill Lepore emphasizes that the way wars are remembered holds equal significance to the manner in which they were fought and initially described.
In the aftermath of Metacom's War in the late 17th Century, New England archives hold numerous documents reflecting the sentiments of colonists, whose words played a crucial role in establishing new boundaries between English settlers and Native Americans This conflict resulted in significant loss of life and the devastation of Native societies Similarly, in Minnesota, white settlers expressed their experiences through interviews and personal narratives, which helped solidify political, cultural, and geographic divisions that displaced the Dakota people As these narratives circulated, a strong community identity emerged among white Minnesotans, reinforcing the belief that they were the rightful inhabitants of the territory.
European descent – not the Dakota people – and therefore the victory by Minnesota over the Dakota in this war and the punishment of the Dakota after the War was justified
Although many Minnesotans are not familiar with the specifics of the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, in the decades immediately following the conflict, journalists promoted narratives that favored white perspectives and highlighted the experiences of certain Dakota individuals deemed "friendly" to white settlers.
3 Jill Lepore, The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity (New York, NY: Alfred A Knopf, 1998): x
Organized Attacks: The Battles at Fort Ridgely and Birch Coulee
After initial victories at the Upper and Lower agencies, Dakota leaders faced challenges in deciding their next coordinated assault Chiefs like Little Crow, Big Eagle, and Shakopee supported attacks on New Ulm and Fort Ridgely to strengthen their position in southwestern Minnesota However, other leaders, including Wabasha and Wapecuta, disagreed with this strategy, leading to a night of heated discussions Complicating the situation, many chiefs from the Upper Agency declined to participate in the conflict, leaving Little Crow with limited support Ultimately, on August 19, Little Crow, Big Eagle, and their allies moved forward with plans to attack New Ulm on August 19 and 23, and Fort Ridgely on August 20 and 22.
However, the initial delay and general lack of cohesiveness would cost them key victories
Following the attacks on August 18, settlers sought refuge at Fort Ridgely, located thirteen miles south of the Lower Sioux Agency The fort, a basic collection of stone and wooden structures, lacked a stockade and relied on the Minnesota River for water, making it ill-equipped for defense Captain John Marsh, who had left to investigate the violence, was ambushed and killed, leaving inexperienced Lieutenant Thomas Gere in charge with only twenty-two able-bodied men, most of whom were ill As refugees arrived and news of Marsh's death spread, Gere anticipated an attack from the Dakota and urgently requested reinforcements from Fort Snelling Meanwhile, Dakota leaders debated their strategy, ultimately deciding to target New Ulm for looting instead of the fort, granting Gere crucial time to prepare for a potential assault.
On August 19, Lieutenant Sheehan took command at Fort Ridgely, where he was joined by the Renville Rangers, a volunteer regiment from St Peter, bringing the total number of defenders to approximately 180 Ordnance Sergeant John Jones strategically positioned a six-pound cannon and two twelve-pound howitzers around the fort's perimeter as the soldiers prepared for the anticipated attack following the failed assault on New Ulm that same day.
On August 20, the Dakota planned an attack on Fort Ridgely, but were caught off guard by the unexpected cannon and howitzer fire Commanded by Sheehan, the soldiers took cover and fired at will, abandoning traditional military formations for better protection By nightfall, the Dakota retreated to the Lower Agency to reassess their strategy.
During a violent period, smaller groups of Dakota soldiers launched attacks on rural areas, including a Scandinavian settlement in Swift County on August 20, where at least fourteen individuals were killed, notably the families of Anders and Daniel Broberg attending church This tragic event is commemorated at Monson Lake State Park with a monument The following day, the Lars Endreson homestead was targeted; while Guri Endreson and her young daughter survived by hiding, Lars and one son were killed, another son was injured, and two daughters were captured Guri then embarked on a thirty-mile journey to Forest City with her two surviving children, encountering and rescuing two severely wounded men along the way before reaching safety.
By August 22, the Dakota, led by Chief Big Eagle, prepared to launch a crucial attack on Fort Ridgely, recognizing its significance for controlling the Minnesota valley With nearly 800 soldiers, including allies from the Sisseton and Wahpeton tribes, Little Crow aimed to set fire to the fort and maintain a siege through continuous gunfire However, recent rains hindered their efforts to ignite the buildings, and any positions the Dakota occupied were swiftly targeted by cannon fire, which stripped them of cover and prevented closer assaults Big Eagle noted that without the cannon fire, they believed they could have successfully taken the fort, highlighting the fierce resistance from the soldiers defending it.
1 The above paragraphs draw on information found in Carley, The Dakota War of 1862, pp 15-31
After two unsuccessful attempts to capture Fort Ridgely, the Dakota regrouped and launched a second assault on New Ulm on August 23, which was again repelled by the town's defenders Following these defeats, the Dakota's hopes of reclaiming their homelands began to diminish, yet the conflict in the region persisted, prompting white settlers to continue evacuating the Minnesota River Valley.
By late August, General Sibley, guided by scouts and advisors, believed the Dakota had vacated the area, prompting him to send Major Joseph Brown and a contingent of 170 men to assess the situation and search for survivors Brown, a former Indian agent and now a prosperous businessman, had his Dakota wife and mixed-blood children held captive by Little Crow's camp Despite his reservations, he accepted Captain Grant's suggestion to camp at Birch Coulee on September 1 Overnight, over 200 Dakota warriors, led by Big Eagle, Mankato, and Gray Bird, surrounded Brown's poorly defensible position When General Sibley arrived with reinforcements, the siege had resulted in thirteen dead and forty-seven wounded soldiers, marking the military's heaviest casualties of the war Big Eagle noted that while both sides fought valiantly, the white soldiers suffered greater losses due to their combat methods Following the battle at Birch Coulee, the fighting shifted further north.
3 Big Eagle‘s account as found in Anderson and Woolworth, Through Dakota Eyes, p 149
4 Carley, The Dakota War of 1862, pp 40-44; June Drenning Holmquist and Jean A Brookins, Major Historic Sites in Minnesota (St Paul, MN: Minesota Historical Society, 1963): 105
5 Big Eagle‘s account as found in Anderson and Woolworth, Through Dakota Eyes, p 150 and west; the Dakota abandoned the southern half of their reservation around the Lower Sioux Agency
The map in Figure 4.1 highlights the upcoming wave of assaults on settlements, along with the significant battles at Fort Ridgely and Birch Coulee It also depicts earlier attacks, represented by smaller battle icons, emphasizing the intensity and widespread nature of the conflict that unfolded over just a few days from August 18 to 23 Illustrated by J J Carlson.
The aftermath of the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, including the execution of thirty-eight Dakota men and the expulsion of the Dakota nation, left white Minnesotans grappling with a profound sense of loss Historian David Blight notes that post-Civil War America was burdened by its tragic history, which deeply influenced societal memory Minnesotans engaged in commemorating their Civil War contributions by erecting monuments to their distinguished regiments at significant battlefields Similarly, memorials for Minnesota soldiers were established at sites linked to the U.S.-Dakota War, with notable monuments dedicated in the 1890s at Camp Release, Birch Coulee, and Fort Ridgely As the centennial of both conflicts approached, Minnesotans increasingly recognized the intertwined legacies of the Civil War and the U.S.-Dakota War.
The battle landscapes of the U.S.-Dakota War hold significant importance in Minnesota's collective memory, particularly among white residents for over a century With the establishment of monuments and markers, local and state historical societies actively promoted visits to these sites through anniversary celebrations, souvenirs, and tourist guides Historian James Loewen highlights that many monuments often portray a one-sided narrative of conflicts, which visitors readily accepted, as the inscriptions on these structures were designed to reinforce a limited historical perspective rather than encourage a broader understanding of the events.
7 St Paul Daily News, "The Chickamauga Monument," September 28, 1893; and Find a Grave, ―1 st Minnesota Infrantry Monument,‖ http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRidi35558 (accessed February 11,
Preserving memory through markers, monuments, and historic sites allows the public to find closure for painful pasts while ensuring that specific interpretations of events are passed down to future generations Geographer Kenneth Foote emphasizes that these sites convey messages reflecting how societies choose to interpret their histories, offering insights into their reconciliation with violence and tragedy David Glassberg further notes that the meanings attached to these places are influenced by local social, economic, and political dynamics, as well as the community's relationship with the outside world Historic landscapes can communicate long after individuals are gone, as permanent structures like stone monuments and brass markers resist alteration, thereby safeguarding particular narratives of historical events In Minnesota, for instance, most monuments were erected to represent white settler perspectives, often neglecting the suffering experienced by the Dakota nation before and after the War.
The enduring presence of monuments in state parks and historic sites conveys a significant message about commemoration The state's increased involvement in dedicating these monuments marks a notable shift from previous local efforts As Kirk Savage notes, these monuments are designed to endure unchanged over time The intentions of communities, organizations, and now the state, in establishing these permanent markers to honor the War, remain crucial David Lowenthal emphasizes that while other relics may fade, commemorative creations persist as lasting symbols of memory.
Monuments from the 1862 War serve as enduring reminders of the past, designed to last and evoke memories of white victims pursuing a pioneer dream In contrast, the Dakota people are depicted as brutal and savage, leading to their banishment from Minnesota after the War Despite growing recognition of the injustices faced by the Dakota, including the hasty execution of thirty-eight men in December 1862, the prevailing narratives reinforced by these monuments have remained unchanged The turn of the twentieth century saw a surge in the use of stone monuments for commemoration, a practice that persists even as the War fades from collective memory As Savage notes, these monuments retain their power long after their creators and the events they commemorate are forgotten Recent attempts at reconciling with the Dakota nation have largely failed due to the unchanged messages conveyed by the landscape.
By the late 19th century, the state took on a more significant role in preserving sites linked to the U.S.-Dakota War Initially, state and local communities focused on erecting monuments and markers without plans for larger historic site preservation The first substantial landscape preserved by the state was Camp, marking the final site associated with the six-week conflict.
12 David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985): 324
13 Savage, Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves, p 211; and ―When Minnesota State Parks were Established,‖ in
Minnesota State Park Centennial Conference December 4, 1990, Minnesota, Division of Parks and Recreation,
Subject Files, Minnesota Historical Society, State Archives
September - December 1862: Retreat, Surrender, and Consequences
During a siege at Birch Coulee, Little Crow decided to lead his men north towards Hutchinson and Forest City, resulting in a split among his group; approximately 35-40 men remained with him while around 75 followed Walker Among Sacred Stones On September 4, both factions attacked the towns, only to encounter well-defended stockades erected by local settlers After a day of fighting and looting unprotected properties, they retreated towards the Upper Agency In response to the attacks on the Dakota reservation, settlers constructed numerous stockade forts, with the Hutchinson fort capable of sheltering nearly four hundred people The community of St Cloud built three fortifications, including one with a sharpshooter tower, and many of these forts would eventually serve as permanent army outposts While some settlers fled the area, others chose to remain and defend their properties, utilizing the protection offered by these stockades.
Fort Abercrombie, located on the western border of Minnesota and Dakota Territory along the Red River, faced significant attacks under the command of Captain John Vander Horck After learning of Dakota assaults from a newspaper clipping on August 23, Vander Horck fortified the fort by bringing nearly eighty settlers for protection On September 3, around one hundred Dakota warriors launched an attack but were repelled after two hours of fighting, leaving the fort with dwindling munitions A second assault occurred on September 6, with approximately 150 Dakota soldiers besieging the fort until relief forces arrived on September 23.
In early September 1862, Governor Alexander Ramsey's urgent requests for federal troop support were finally acknowledged by President Lincoln, highlighting the gravity of the situation with his statement, “This is not our war; it is a national war.” On September 6, Major General John Pope was appointed to lead a new military department in the Northwest, headquartered in St Paul However, Pope did not reach out to Colonel Henry Sibley until September 17, by which time Sibley was already facing criticism for his delays in pursuing Little Crow after establishing his headquarters at Fort.
On August 28, following the losses at Birch Coulee and a shortage of experienced soldiers, Sibley was hesitant to engage the Dakota in open combat, primarily fearing for the safety of nearly 300 captives held by them Utilizing his background as a fur trader, Sibley initiated correspondence with Dakota leader Little Crow to negotiate the release of the prisoners and halt further violence Other chiefs, including Wabasha and Taopi, also reached out to Sibley, who proposed that those seeking protection should gather with their captives on the prairie, visibly displaying a white flag Sibley recognized the divisions within the Dakota, with some factions eager for peace while others desired to continue the conflict By September 19, having received reinforcements in ammunition, weapons, and troops, Sibley prepared to confront the Dakota, whether through battle or treaty negotiations.
On September 22, Sibley and his men set up camp at Lone Tree Lake, mistakenly identified as Wood Lake by their guide, who miscalculated their location by about three and a half miles Unbeknownst to Sibley, his failure to deploy pickets beyond the camp's perimeter allowed approximately 700-1200 Dakota soldiers to prepare for an ambush Little Crow strategically positioned his forces in the tall prairie grass, planning a dawn attack However, their surprise was compromised when a group from the Third Minnesota left camp without permission around 7:00 am, seeking nearby potatoes to supplement their rations.
The battle at Agency Gardens marked a significant confrontation between Sibley's forces and the Dakota, resulting in minimal damage despite the initial attack Sibley successfully regrouped and launched a more formal assault, supported by cannon fire Notably, Chief Mankato was killed by a cannonball, making him the only major Dakota leader to fall during the conflict In total, the Dakota suffered an additional fourteen casualties This victory at Wood Lake solidified Sibley's position, discouraging the Dakota from openly engaging the army in Minnesota again.
During the conflict at Wood Lake, some Dakota, opposed to the war, seized the chance to distance themselves from Little Crow's camps and secure white and mixed-blood prisoners This separate faction, known as the "peace party," consisted of nearly 150 lodges from both Lower and Upper Sioux They communicated with Sibley, inviting him to their camp to retrieve the captives On September 26, the friendly Dakota released 91 whites and approximately 150 mixed-blood individuals, with additional captives freed in the following days, totaling 107 whites and 162 mixed-bloods—269 in all These captives were then taken to Sibley's camp, which was renamed Camp Release.
Battle Lake, also known for the significant historical event involving the Dakota people, saw approximately 1,200 Dakota taken into government custody As additional Dakota surrendered in the subsequent days, the number of individuals in Sibley’s camp swelled to nearly 2,000.
Figure 5.1 This map shows the final battles of the War as well as the surrender at Camp Release Illustrated by J J
2 The information in this opening section was drawn from Carley, The Dakota War of 1862, pp 45-67
The Dakota people's remembrance of the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, often overshadowed by white settlers' narratives, has gained recognition in Minnesota's recent history They utilized various media, including letters, oral traditions, and written histories, to document their experiences during and after the War, emphasizing the aftermath rather than specific battles Key aspects of their memory include commemorating anniversaries, erecting monuments, and preserving historic sites to honor their fallen While white Minnesotans focused on community losses and battles, the Dakota highlighted the government's actions against their nation, such as the military trials of nearly 1,200 Dakota, internment, forced removal, and the execution of thirty-eight men on December 26, 1862.
Native historian Elizabeth Cook-Lynn contends that Native Americans should not be classified as minorities, as they differ fundamentally from 'ethnic Americans' who seek assimilation She highlights the historical perception of Native Americans as a marginalized group, often viewed with disdain both globally and within the immigrant landscape of America, where many have hoped for their disappearance.
3 Cook-Lynn, New Indians, Old Wars, p 180
The Dakota people's memories of the War face significant challenges in being recognized as part of the broader collective memory, even during the conflict itself A poignant example is a letter published in the Stillwater Messenger on September 2, 1862, which captures the intense emotions of white Minnesotans and aligns with Cook-Lyn's portrayal of the Dakota as a "despised population." The letter reflects the desperation felt by soldiers and settlers at Fort Ridgely, who were anxiously anticipating a Dakota attack and expresses a commitment made by some defenders during this tumultuous time.
In a fervent declaration, it was expressed that if any of us survived our dangerous predicament, we would commit to a relentless campaign for the complete destruction of the Sioux race This sentiment reflects the belief that every white man should be driven by the same spirit, advocating for the total annihilation of the race to prevent the ruin of our state and the potential slaughter or displacement of white settlers.
The legacy of the War has fostered a "heritage of bitterness" that still affects the Dakota perspective today, limiting their ability to share their memories In the aftermath, white Minnesotans predominantly viewed themselves as innocent victims and sought to punish the Dakota nation, overlooking their own involvement in the conflict.
Historian David Blight, in his book "Race and Reunion," examines how the marginalization of African-American memories has shaped the narrative of the Civil War He highlights that while the experiences of African-Americans and the institution of slavery were pivotal to the war's origins, their contributions and perspectives were often overlooked in favor of reunification celebrations between the North and South This neglect resulted in a lack of meaningful dialogue about slavery's role in the conflict, ultimately sidelining the voices of those most affected.
―Black responses to such reunions as that at Gettysburg in 1913, and a host of similar events, demonstrated how fundamentally at odds black memories were with the national reunion In that
4 A J Van Vorhes, "Let the Sioux Race be Annihilated," Stillwater Messenger, September 2, 1862
The disconnection surrounding the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 represents an American tragedy that remains underexplored as of 1913, particularly at Blue-Gray reunions Acknowledging the Dakota perspective poses a challenge in honoring both the white and Dakota narratives without marginalizing either group The initial step in this process is to recognize and highlight the contributions of the Dakota people to the broader commemorative history.
The impact of the forced invisibility for Dakota memories is long reaching and has contributed to the continued tense atmosphere surrounding discussion of this War today in
Minnesota, even as the history of the War is not generally well-known amongst white