This was Abraham Lincoln???


#juan
No Party Affiliation
#1
Back to Home Page



"Largest mass hanging in United States history"
38 Santee "Sioux" Indian men
Mankato, Minnesota, Dec. 16, 1862
303 Indian males were set to be hanged
What brought about the hanging of 38 Sioux Indians in Minnesota December 26, 1862 was the failure "again" of the U.S. Government to honor it's treaties with Indian Nations. Indians were not given the money or food set forth to them for signing a treaty to turn over more than a million acres of their land and be forced to live on a reservation.

Indian agents keep the treaty money and food that was to go to the Indians, the food was sold to White settlers, food that was given to the Indians was spoiled and not fit for a dog to eat. Indian hunting parties went off the reservation land looking for food to feed their families, one hunting group took eggs from a White settlers land and the rest is history.
Information below tells how President Lincoln and Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey set out to exterminate Indians from their home land.
Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#2
Somehow this runs contrary to anything I've read about Lincoln. Apparently Lincoln was not the "Great Emancipator" for everyone.

Google Image Result for http://www.assumption.edu/users/mcClymer/his260/execution.jpg
 
Colpy
Conservative
#3
Lincoln had a very nasty war to fight, and slavery was certainly not the only reason it was fought. He set aside all other concerns to prosecute that war.....he was a pragmatist.......

He was also a man of his time......he wanted to send freed slaves back to Africa, not integrate them into American society........some were returned, and founded the African nation of Liberia.

Did you know the Emancipation Declaration of 1863 that freed the slaves applied ONLY to those states that supported the Confederacy.........not exactly the most idealistic of documents.

But, Lincoln was a great man.....just not perfect........or even close. Seriously flawed, as all human beings are......especially when judged in the light of a time and culture not their own......
 
Walter
#4
I'll never put a Lincoln in my loafers again.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#5  Top Rated Post
Hanging is a form of execution used against criminals. Mankato's men were warriors. As such, the proper form of execution was by firing squad. Not only were they victims of injustice, they were treated like thieves rather than like warriors.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#6
I am sad for the arrogance of the past in regard to the 'indians', both south and
here in canada, 'there was a better way', and it's too bad that the greed of the
white 'guy' played such a heavy role, they obviously saw themselves as the more
educated and intelligent, and took advantage of that position, but it is now coming
back to show us all, how they lacked compassion and fairness.
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#7
Someone should throw their shoes at him.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#8
A lot of details get left out to paint a pretty image on history....
 
Walter
#9
Humans are the worst kind of people.
 
normbc9
Conservative
#10
This is but but one of many examples of the atrocities commited against native Americans all over the areas controlled by the US. After the Civil War many US military Cavalry contingents were ordered to the areas west of the Mississippi to engage in "dealing with the Indian problems." Several decorated Civil War flag officers went west too and commited crimes against humanity. Among those were Sherman, Custer and others. The history of the US government dealing with the native American tribes is not one for anyone to be proud of. What is more disturbing is that the writings of some who chronicled these events were edited heavily by government agents and some others were banned from the press. I guess the First Amendment rights weren't even considered then.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Humans are the worst kind of people.

I'd go one better- the worst kind of animal
 
EagleSmack
#12
The Native Americans were not without their own atrocities such as the massacre at Ft. William Henry where between 70-180 surrendering British troops, women and children were slaughtered at the hands of Indians allied to the French.
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

The Native Americans were not without their own atrocities such as the massacre at Ft. William Henry where between 70-180 surrendering British troops, women and children were slaughtered at the hands of Indians allied to the French.

Oh well then! The genocide was a good thing then

This seems like the same logic the USA is using today to justify its genocide in Iraq.

This twisted f**ked up logic is getting old.
 
Walter
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

Oh well then! The genocide was a good thing then

This seems like the same logic the USA is using today to justify its genocide in Iraq.

This twisted f**ked up logic is getting old.

Since Saddam was overthrown I haven't heard of a genocide in Iraq. Do you have a link?
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Since Saddam was overthrown I haven't heard of a genocide in Iraq. Do you have a link?

Oh right... we don't call it that... it's just the worst humanitarian disaster of the 21st century that makes Darfur (what we do call a genocide) look like a hiccup.

"One can only marvel at the insouciance of the US Congress to the current Iraqi Genocide while condemning Turkey for one that happened 90 years ago. " - Paul Craig

Yeah Walter... it's a genocide except to the most addle minded.

WTF do you think the "surge" is? Do you really think the US just stepped up its presence?

The Americans are going in and bombing the living sh*t out of everything that moves with the least provocation.

They have murdered millions of people, displaced millions more and are still there killing people. That is a genocide.

If you need a specific stated intent from the US government then your going to be waiting a long time. Your nievity is their bread and butter.

The surge is just Bush's "final solution," that is, his last kick at asserting his will over people who obviously don't want him.
 
fubbleskag
No Party Affiliation
#16
I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#17
```Since Saddam was overthrown I haven't heard of a genocide in Iraq.```


Links pertaining to attacks on Iraqi Chaldean Christians, Jews, and other minorities have been posted on this forum previously. There are over 3 million Iraqi exiles and none are in any hurry to return to the repression and hate caused by Bush.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

The Native Americans were not without their own atrocities such as the massacre at Ft. William Henry where between 70-180 surrendering British troops, women and children were slaughtered at the hands of Indians allied to the French.


Who's turf was being invaded?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Since Saddam was overthrown I haven't heard of a genocide in Iraq. Do you have a link?

It's only genocide when the bad guys do it....
 
EagleSmack
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Who's turf was being invaded?

Who said it was their turf? Native Americans had been fighting wars amongst each other, taking each other's lands, and slaughtering each other LONG before the white man threw in his hat.

The Iroquis Nation is responsible for the destruction and dissolution of more Indian tribes than the white man ever will be.
 
EagleSmack
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

Oh well then! The genocide was a good thing then

Is that what you think? I don't.

Quote:

This seems like the same logic the USA is using today to justify its genocide in Iraq.

What genocide?

Quote:

This twisted f**ked up logic is getting old.

Yet you keep bringing it up.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#22
Abraham Lincoln ordering mass executions? Next somebody will tell us that George Washington told a lie......
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Who said it was their turf? Native Americans had been fighting wars amongst each other, taking each other's lands, and slaughtering each other LONG before the white man threw in his hat.

The Iroquis Nation is responsible for the destruction and dissolution of more Indian tribes than the white man ever will be.

NATIVE should be your first clue. Iroquois, too, were people of THIS land. Europeans were an invading cancer.
 
EagleSmack
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

NATIVE should be your first clue. Iroquois, too, were people of THIS land. Europeans were an invading cancer.

So it was OK for Indians to conduct genocide providing it was on their own people?

Sorry...it was just the way of the world. I don't see many people of European decent heading back to Europe any time soon.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#25
Native Americans had been fighting wars amongst each other, taking each other's lands, and slaughtering each other LONG before the white man threw in his hat.

eaglesmack,

This is so much White BS. Between the arrival of Columbus and the arrival of the first settlers, 90 - 95% of the population of the Americas (approx. 100 million) was wiped out by diseases brought here by Europeans. After the settlers began displacing the remaining native populations, many land disputes took place as tribes moved west to try to escape persecution, genocide and missionaries.

The Blackfoot nation, for example arrived at the foot hills of the rockies from Labrador or Quebec around 1795 after moving west for almost two hundred years of fighting with the Cree over land. This was the story of many nations, but some like the Cherokee were forced marched out west even though they were peaceful and had adapted much of the White Man's ways.

Sure there was some expansionism before occupation, but most of the blood was spilled afterward. White apologists would have us believe that we brought civilization to a bunch of savages, but the truth is that for the most part, these people were agrarians that only went back to hunter/gatherer life styles after the Great Dying that was brought down on the by Europeans.

There were advanced civilizations in the Americas before tribesmen of the middle east stopped humping their goats in the desert.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

So it was OK for Indians to conduct genocide providing it was on their own people?

Sorry...it was just the way of the world. I don't see many people of European decent heading back to Europe any time soon.


Where did you read it was okay? I'm saying Indians were just as well within their rights to protect their homes as anyone else whose way of life is endangered. That doesn't excuse extermination - whether you're winner or loser....
Last edited by lone wolf; Dec 16th, 2008 at 06:27 PM..
 
Colpy
Conservative
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Native Americans had been fighting wars amongst each other, taking each other's lands, and slaughtering each other LONG before the white man threw in his hat.

eaglesmack,

This is so much White BS. Between the arrival of Columbus and the arrival of the first settlers, 90 - 95% of the population of the Americas (approx. 100 million) was wiped out by diseases brought here by Europeans. After the settlers began displacing the remaining native populations, many land disputes took place as tribes moved west to try to escape persecution, genocide and missionaries.

The Blackfoot nation, for example arrived at the foot hills of the rockies from Labrador or Quebec around 1795 after moving west for almost two hundred years of fighting with the Cree over land. This was the story of many nations, but some like the Cherokee were forced marched out west even though they were peaceful and had adapted much of the White Man's ways.

Sure there was some expansionism before occupation, but most of the blood was spilled afterward. White apologists would have us believe that we brought civilization to a bunch of savages, but the truth is that for the most part, these people were agrarians that only went back to hunter/gatherer life styles after the Great Dying that was brought down on the by Europeans.

There were advanced civilizations in the Americas before tribesmen of the middle east stopped humping their goats in the desert.

Well, you are correct that disease killed between 90 and 95% of the native population of about 120 million....on contact. and it took generations to build up resistence to the white man's diseases (mostly measles)......when the Alaska highway was built in the 1940s, Indian bands once again starting dying from being exposed to unusual diseases.

You are also correct about the tribes that had taken up the white man's ways being driven west, including the Cherokee.......the Trail of Tears is nothing to be proud of.....

But you do whitewash the native populations.....the Inca were a great military people that controled a vast empire by war and military domination........long before the white man. The Aztec engaged in human sacrifice, cutting the hearts out of live prisoners, sometimes killing tens of thousands in a single day of mass
sacrifice. The Indians of North America engaged in genocide, the most heinous forms of prisoner torture, and cannibalism, before the white man came.

It is often forgotten in our self-loathing that the cruelty and unnecessary mass murder carried out in the wars between the white man and the Indian were done by both sides.........the Indians too killed everybody, man, woman, and child......and were much more apt to engage in frightful tortures than were the whites......such acts do not inspire reasoned response.....on either side.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#28
It seems endemic of the human race to kill. Every civilization is guilty. Every empire goes through the same cycles from idealism, to barbarity to decline and decadence. I am not trying to whitewash what happened here but to point out that we were no better nor worse than any other. I was countering the long held belief that all was bad until we brought order to this savage land. The truth is that like anywhere else on this planet, there were good and bad, but none any better.

Civilizations, by their very nature, are designed to self destruct. And that is what we are doing right now. People who think that Obama has come to save them from the inevitable are going to have a very rude awakening. As far as the native peoples, they did fine until they became civilized, then they became decadent which results in insanity. People only engage in atrocities when they aren't struggling to survive. It is always the elite leadership and priesthoods that have the spare time to engage in slaughter, war and mayhem.
 

Similar Threads

4
The Abraham Lincoln Brigade
by darkbeaver | Mar 17th, 2008
5
How Lincoln Was Wrong
by CHUCKMAN | Nov 21st, 2007
14
Was honest Abe Lincoln truly gay?
by Col Man | Jan 20th, 2005