|
Post by tamara on Jul 9, 2006 14:57:14 GMT -5
Page 259
In addition to those who had partly or completely severed their ties with their tribe before the uprising, there was a larger number who were not removed with the main body in 1863. When 1,318 Sioux were shippped out of Ft Snelling that May, 137 were left behind to serve as scouts against the hostile Indians on the frontier. To this figure, which included women and children, must be added an indeterminate number who had testified against their fellows the previous autumn and believed that their lives would be jeopardized if they were forced to rejoin the tribe. The fate of these "friendly sioux" was a matter of concern, not only to themselves, but to friends of the Indians like Bishop Whipple and General Sibley; even Galbraith expressed concern about what might happen to them if they were made to accompany their tribesman. On December 18, 1862, a petition was signed by five chiefs of the lower Sioux, five of the upper, and by other braves and headman, disavowing praticipation in teh uprising and asking that they be permitted to return to the reservation and the farms they had cultivated before the outbreak. The fact that the petitioners were among the very few not tried by the military court the previous fall indicates that their protestaions of innocence were sincere.
Would this be a good explaination as to the perspective of the government regarding the people found in the Indian Camp Census in Dec. 1863? Any input would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by sara on Jul 9, 2006 15:41:18 GMT -5
I find in the trial records that several who testified against the 400 prisoners were sent to Davenport with them. Other witness where white.
So that blows some of that theory out of the water.
1. David Faribault - Davenport 2. Antoine Frenier- Davenport 3. Godfrey - Davenport 4. Henry Milord - Hung in Mankato.
I guess I could go through all the trial records and see just how many Dakota testified to how many whites testified.
Tamara, these trials are up with the preservation office also. Sara
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Jul 10, 2006 8:55:11 GMT -5
I see what you are saying. I found it interesting that they would haven even used Godfrey for testimony in the trials. I also think there was an element of whom was able to communicate in english. For example it would seem that many of those that testified were often the interpreters in the past, so it would only make sense that they would be seen in the "so called" trials. It may have been that there were not many who could communicate in english. I wouldnt ask you to search for the number who were actually sent with the prisoners, I really didnt even know that there was such a group. amazing.. but i am for now focused on the indian camp census. I remember Hermin1 had sparked my interest in this census in an earlier post about loyalty.
tamara
|
|
|
Post by sara on Jul 10, 2006 10:08:40 GMT -5
I had not thought of listing all the people who testified before but maybe it would be helpful. There are so many lists I have wanted to extract things from to show a better understanding of what was actually going on. I hope it can some day be worked into Dakota school curriculum(?) Giving the students copys of originals and having them write papers on what they are finding.
Sara
|
|
|
Post by wazi on Jul 10, 2006 10:17:56 GMT -5
Sara that is such a good idea ....I do that in the classroom...showing pictures, reading letters, and biographies....mostly with the Lakota people. I would like to do Dakota history but am teaching Lakota Studies. wazi
|
|
|
Post by tokakte on Jul 10, 2006 10:25:16 GMT -5
Joseph Godfrey, born a slave, married into the Mdewakantonwan Tribe; and according to the histories I have read, was an active participant in the atrocities that so angered the white people and their authorities. He "turned state's evidence", so to speak, and helped condemn a number of his former in-laws and neighbors to the gallows. If any of the collaborators had cause to fear for their lives it was he. He died an old man at Santee. It is possible that John Grass, John Otherday, and the members of "Renville's Rangers" who actually fought on the white's side during the pitched battles had reason to fear retaliation, but none materialized. Many of the 1886 enrollees took no part in the fighting on either side. My own ancestor, John Frazier, served no time at Ft. McClellan although his son, Star, was condemned to hang but was pardoned. John drifted back to MN
|
|
|
Post by tokakte on Jul 10, 2006 10:42:22 GMT -5
Sorry. My keyboard suddenly went to sleep. John Frazier drifted back to MN and camped at Granpa Jack's place until he received land of his own. He lived at Santee for three or four years following the removal, but felt he had to leave after giving up one of his wives. Oliver Moore, my other gg-grandfather moved to Flandreau before retuirning to MN. The point is that there was a group of loyalists and some of them might reasonably have feared for their lives, but many on the 86 and 89 rolls simply were "in the right place at the right time". Conversely there are any number of those who might qualify as loyalists who had no chance of being included in the two rolls.
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Jul 10, 2006 11:11:46 GMT -5
Mr Frazier is also one of very few that were said to have be "guilt free" by Mr Freniere. His story is amazing. However there are a number of names on the censuses that were considered by the governement to have been "hostile" to the extent of imprisonment. Even historical references show the names and their actions at such places as Birch Cooley. My uneducated eyes can pick out 5 names of former prisoners. I would argue for many of them that their actions wouldnt warrant imprisonment and there was just cause for their involvement, but I wouldnt be able to say the government viewed them as "loyalists".
|
|