I’m not the kind to defend Lincoln. In fact, I’m rather less forgiving of Lincoln than most historians, especially regarding the Civil War. And you could argue some of his dealings with the Indians could be seen as iffy and there was definitely some chicanery involved. But once again, as with most things about the Indian Wars, it’s more complicated than it appears on the surface, the chicanery was not universal and you also have to keep in mind how rather inexperienced he was regarding Indian affairs. His paternalistic attitudes toward the Indians didn’t help.
If anything, it’s you who’s having trouble approaching any subject with an open mind. I have never forgotten that time you accused me of downplaying racism in WWII (despite clear evidence):
You mean the 38 (initially to be 39, one received a reprieve) who were executed out of the 303 Sioux sentenced to death after an uprising and massacre by a rather hasty military tribunal (headed by Gen. Sibley) whose findings were thoroughly reviewed by Lincoln which resulted in most of those charged being pardoned due to the haphazard nature of the tribunal and the “massacres” vs. “battles” standard?
Here’s some context for anyone curious (check out these links):
The Interior Department, War Department and Indian Policy, 1865-1887 (Waltmann, July 1962):
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=historydiss
This used the Bureau of Indian Affairs, military sources and Congressional reports from that time as sources.
One of the most shocking wartime uprisings occurred in southern Minnesota. What began as an isolated incident became a bloody massacre in which 644 citizens were killed. On August 17, four intoxicated Sioux killed five whites some distance from their agency. Fearing reprisal, some of the Sioux fled westward, while others under Little Crow indiscriminately murdered white neighbors and destroyed homesteads. The town of New Ulm was devastated and Fort Ridgley besieged before Gen. H. H. Sibley’s troops subdued the rampaging warriors.
The outbreak had drastic consequences for the Sioux and other tribes of Minnesota. The public was indignant and many openly advocated extermination of the natives. Even the Sioux agent declared it was time for “force and hard blows,” not “moral suasion, sugar plums and the like.” But when 300 Sioux were court-martialed and sentenced to die, Commissioner Dole and others protested vigorously. President Lincoln responded by pardoning all but 39 who, with one exception, were sent to the gallows at Mankato on December 26, 1862 [One of the Indians died before execution]. Later, not only the Sioux, but the Chippewas and peaceable Winnebagoes were expelled from the state. In addition, the military launched a series of expeditions into Dakota Territory to teach the red men that they could not defy the government.
The Sioux Massacre of 1862 was the extreme instance of Indian hostility during the period 1861-1865. Those who later argued for military control and a coercive Indian policy often cited this affair as “proof” that the Indians were irredeemable savages who could not be trusted to comply with peace treaties.
A few disagreements with this link, but overall pretty decent:
A more or less detailed look into the situation:
Homstad (December 2001):
Lincoln’s explanation for his decision to the Senate, Dec. 6, 1862:
Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on the one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females. Contrary to my expectations, only two of this class were found. I then directed a further examination, and a classification of all who were proven to have participated in massacres, as distinguished from participation in battles.
Of the 38 executed, 29 had been convicted of murder, three for having “shot” someone, two for "participating in massacres,” one for mutilation and two for rape.
According to whom? The activists? Your professors? Have you yourself actually read up on the Indian Wars properly without just simply looking up popular narratives to suit your viewpoint?
The Indian Wars are a very complicated subject and making broad statements like that does the subject a great disservice. If you’re still going to criticize me, at least call me out for being too simplistic, just as I am calling you out for being too simplistic and close-minded. Or is it that you’re only satisfied when the narrative I present is always “Indians are victims”? Because it’s far more complicated than that. And that’s not even accounting for the fact that in wartime, things get messier and even more complicated.