Latest / Common Mystics / 147: More Voices from the Road- Treaties, War, and the Dakota Story

Transcript

147: More Voices from the Road- Treaties, War, and the Dakota Story · Common Mystics

• 0:10
  Speaker A: On this episode of Common Mystics, a voice comes through from a leader who called for peace during one of the most turbulent and transformational times in American history. I'm Jennifer James.
• 0:23
  Speaker B: I'm Jill Stanley.
• 0:25
  Speaker A: We're psychics.
• 0:26
  Speaker B: We're sisters.
• 0:27
  Speaker A: We are common mystics. We find extraordinary stories in ordinary places. And today's story takes us back to Winona, Minnesota, for more voices from the road.
• 0:37
  Speaker B: That's right. So they know what we do. They know what we do. We drive around asking the spirits to lead us to a verifiable story previously unknown to us that give voice to the voiceless. But sometimes our hits and are not just for one story, but for another. We find another voice when we do the research. And that brings us to more voices from the road and this story today.
• 1:02
  Speaker A: So, Jill, what were we picking up in the car?
• 1:04
  Speaker B: Oh, my God. Jenny B. Is so stupid psychic.
• 1:07
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 1:08
  Speaker B: She was picking up on native people that had passed away, that they were, like, dead on the land in the bluffs.
• 1:18
  Speaker A: What else was she picking up on Mankato Road?
• 1:21
  Speaker B: She was very big on Mankato Road. Do you remember?
• 1:23
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:24
  Speaker B: She was all like, mankato, Mankato. We're like, okay, settle down. We don't know what it means yet, but she thinks traveling to Mankato was an important city for our story.
• 1:33
  Speaker A: I remember thinking Ho Chunk in particular was part of the story.
• 1:38
  Speaker B: You are absolutely correct.
• 1:39
  Speaker A: The Ho Chunk people.
• 1:41
  Speaker B: And you noted that I had a dream that we were under attack by a band of natives.
• 1:46
  Speaker A: Mm.
• 1:47
  Speaker B: That's crazy, dude.
• 1:48
  Speaker A: That's crazy. So we were in the car, and I reminded you, hey, remember that dream you had?
• 1:53
  Speaker B: No. I told you guys of the dream, but you noted it in the hits.
• 1:57
  Speaker A: Oh, got it, Got it.
• 1:58
  Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 1:58
  Speaker A: Okay, now I remember.
• 2:00
  Speaker B: Yes. And then I was picking up on the third. One, two, three. The third. So that was kind of funny.
• 2:09
  Speaker A: And there we were on Sioux Street.
• 2:13
  Speaker B: Correct.
• 2:14
  Speaker A: And I was picking up on conflicts, like, within a family.
• 2:19
  Speaker B: Mm. So we leave Winona, and we're heading west, and we leave during the fog, and it's winter. So we're leaving in the winter during the fog, and we're having a Communications. Or communications. We're having a conversation and communications about how the natives would have navigated the terrain and how we were probably on native trails leaving the vicinity.
• 2:41
  Speaker A: Sure. And then what?
• 2:43
  Speaker B: And then Jennifer notes that there are native trails that we were driving, and they were probably walking routes.
• 2:49
  Speaker A: Yes, they seem to be. We seem to be on routes that were very, very old. You just felt. Felt the Energy of hundreds of years, if not millennia, of people walking the trails that were now roads that we were driving on.
• 3:07
  Speaker B: Can you please take us to the indigenous roots of Winona, Minnesota?
• 3:12
  Speaker A: Why, I'd love to.
• 3:13
  Speaker B: Oh, thanks.
• 3:15
  Speaker A: So accommodating. The history of Winona, Minnesota is deeply rooted in the Made Wakantan traditions. I spent a lot of time practicing that.
• 3:28
  Speaker B: I'm impressed.
• 3:29
  Speaker A: Made Wa Kantan.
• 3:31
  Speaker B: Should we apologize just in case?
• 3:33
  Speaker A: Oh, yes, please do. Okay. So we.
• 3:36
  Speaker B: We try our best to pronunciate or enunciate and read these words that are foreign to us and really in a different language. So we apologize if we're offending any group of people.
• 3:49
  Speaker A: Well, and also, we are imperfect messengers of this story. Clearly, this is not our cultural experience that we're talking to towards.
• 3:58
  Speaker B: That's true.
• 3:58
  Speaker A: And so we are largely ignorant, but learning. And. And we're going into this with respect and curiosity. So if we accidentally fumble on our words, you know, as we. As we navigate this story, just know that it comes from a place of love and respect.
• 4:14
  Speaker B: Yes. And please give us a little grace, because we're ignorant.
• 4:18
  Speaker A: Clearly, clearly, clearly ignorant. So the Made Wakantan were or are a Dakota people who inhabited the Mississippi River Valley for centuries before any European contact. Now, in my research, Jill, and I think this is really important, in my research, in our research, we were coming on terms that were being treated as synonymous, such as the Dakota were sometimes referred to as the Eastern Sioux. But that was confusing for me, so I did a little bit of digging on that. And the word Sioux was a term or is a term that was used by outsiders to the group. It's not the original name that the people used for themselves. So when the French came to the area, they were first to adopt the name Sioux, which came to be an umbrella term that they used to describe a large group of people that were related to the Native nations. So it was just like this blanket term. And the. The term Sioux comes from a shortened French version of an Ojibwe word, naduissu, meaning little snakes, or more broadly, enemies.
• 5:45
  Speaker B: That's rude, right?
• 5:47
  Speaker A: So the French heard the enemies of the Dakota speaking about them. Snakes are enemies. And then they took that word Sioux to then use it as an umbrella term for all the groups that were related to them. Does that make sense?
• 6:02
  Speaker B: It does. And that's not cool.
• 6:04
  Speaker A: It's not cool at all. So the people who the Europeans refer to as the Eastern Sioux called themselves the Dakota people. And the Dakota Dakota means allies or friends.
• 6:16
  Speaker B: That's beautiful.
• 6:17
  Speaker A: So throughout, we're going to refer to these people as the Dakota out of respect to them, even though in the research and in the literature will see Eastern Sioux come up as an accepted name for the group. So the Dakota traditionally lived in areas around present day Minnesota, western Wisconsin, northern Iowa, and eastern parts of the Dakotas. And the Made Wakontan was the name of the Dakota band that traditionally lived in the upper Minnesota River Valley in a place full of lakes and wetlands. And their name comes from the Dakota language and means dwellers by the sacred lake.
• 6:56
  Speaker B: I love it.
• 6:57
  Speaker A: Isn't it beautiful?
• 6:58
  Speaker B: That is beautiful.
• 6:59
  Speaker A: Yes. So in the late 1700s, however, conflict would drive the people, the dwellers of the sacred lake or the Medewakantan, south to settle in and around present day Winona, Minnesota.
• 7:19
  Speaker B: So, okay, now today we don't see this group of people living in Winona, Minnesota.
• 7:26
  Speaker A: We don't.
• 7:27
  Speaker B: What factors were in play that would drive the, say the name for me
• 7:34
  Speaker A: made Wakantan people off their sacred lands. Well, actually, their sacred lands were originally much farther north of Winona, like I just said. But there was conflict that drove them to Winona. Yes. That was not their sacred land. Does that make sense?
• 7:51
  Speaker B: Yes. Their adopted homeland.
• 7:53
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 7:54
  Speaker B: So, Jennifer, what factors at play that would drive the Mdewakantan to the Winona area?
• 8:03
  Speaker A: Yes, exactly. Well, as early as the 1600s and early 1700s, the Mississippi region became a critical juncture for. For European fur trade. And the indigenous peoples often gave the settlers animal furs in exchange for weapons, metal goods and other supplies. Okay, okay. And they were especially interested in acquiring guns. Why?
• 8:29
  Speaker B: That seems unusual.
• 8:31
  Speaker A: Well, because they wanted to use the weapons against the other tribes that were encroaching upon their territories. And so the fur trade fed right into that. The Mdewakantan were experiencing conflict with the Ojibwe. Remember the people who called them Sioux, the Little Snakes? Yeah, they. Because they themselves, the Ojibwe, were being pressed westward by the expansion of white settlement on their territories.
• 8:59
  Speaker B: God dang it.
• 9:00
  Speaker A: Got it. So the Madei Wakantan moved like a current down the Mississippi in a chain of displacement. So that's how they got there. But that wasn't their ancestral homeland. Does that make sense?
• 9:12
  Speaker B: It does make sense, but there's more. What a mess. It just sounds like such a mess.
• 9:17
  Speaker A: Oh, my God. Then, around 1780, a powerful leader emerged, known as Wabasha the First. And he led the Mdewakantan to the area where two rivers meet, the Mississippi and the Upper Iowa, and an important settlement Grew up along the Mississippi river known as Keosha. And it wasn't a single permanent town, Jill. The way we think of towns, it was more of a seasonal Dakota village area and cultural landscape for living, but also fishing and trading and travel. But these people were very. They were transient. So they didn't, like, have a place in state, stay there year round.
• 10:00
  Speaker B: They're snowbirds.
• 10:02
  Speaker A: Right. They knew how to do it. Right.
• 10:05
  Speaker B: They're smart.
• 10:06
  Speaker A: I don't know why any of us live up north in the winter, especially today.
• 10:11
  Speaker B: Oh, God. Seriously, don't get me started.
• 10:14
  Speaker A: And the place, now we know it as Winona, Minnesota, but they refer to it as Wapasha's prairie, after the leader that brought them there.
• 10:25
  Speaker B: I like their language. I like how they name things. I do.
• 10:29
  Speaker A: And Wabasha the First, and I will say Wapasha and Wabasha, those terms are used synonymously. I think their language didn't fully translate to our Alphabet. And so it's written with a P or a B, depending on which translation you're looking at. But Wabasha the first wasn't just a chief, Jill. He was actually the first of three chiefs, all named Wabasha, who would leave an imprint on this region and the history of the people. Around 1800, his son Wabasha II rose to lead. And in the years that followed, Wabasha II would stand at the treaty table at the United States, negotiating through some of the most pivotal and life altering agreements in Dakota's history.
• 11:16
  Speaker B: Tell me.
• 11:19
  Speaker A: Well, there was a series of treaties called the treaties Prairie Duchenne. And it refers to these major agreements that occurred between 1825 and 1830, and they were signed by the United States and various indigenous nations in the upper Midwest. And, Jill, they were so important in our history because they marked one of the very first times in the history of the United States that the federal government tried to divide native lands with boundaries. This is the first time that the government is dipping their toe into the land negotiations with indigenous peoples and trying to tell them how to treat the land and how to live on the land.
• 12:09
  Speaker B: Right.
• 12:10
  Speaker A: Super messed up.
• 12:12
  Speaker B: Which is doubly messed up, because these people, like we said, are snowbirds and they don't have a permanent residence. Exactly. They're going back and forth based on the seasons.
• 12:22
  Speaker A: Right. Land ownership was something that was completely outside of their understanding. That's not how nature works.
• 12:29
  Speaker B: Right.
• 12:29
  Speaker A: Own nature.
• 12:31
  Speaker B: Right.
• 12:31
  Speaker A: Right. And yet. And yet, here we are. So here's how it started. After The War of 1812, the United States government started Looking closer at the northwestern frontier, okay. They had just gotten into this war with England, and they wanted England to stay out of the area, and they wanted to secure the area to make sure that the English weren't all up in there.
• 12:57
  Speaker B: Right.
• 12:58
  Speaker A: They wanted stability, but they also wanted access to land and trade. But as we know, as we saw, there was fighting between the indigenous tribes. And this conflict between them was making it harder for the fur trade to operate smoothly. As you can imagine, any kind of conflict, any kind of conflict is going to make. It is going to make economic practices difficult. So the government wanted peace in the region for those economic reasons. It was purely self motivated by, you know, the. The fur trade and making money at the same time. There are more miners, more settlers moving into the native lands without permission, of course.
• 13:40
  Speaker B: Right.
• 13:40
  Speaker A: Which led to growing tension and conflict between the native communities and these newcomers. And so in 1825, there was a treaty. And the United States brought together many tribes, including the Dakota, the Ojibwe, the Ho Chunk, the Sauk, the Fox, the Menominee, and other tribes. So they had them all around a table, and they drew boundary lines between the tribal territories.
• 14:08
  Speaker B: They just needed to mind their own business, like, honestly.
• 14:13
  Speaker A: And through this, they also attempted to create peace and regulate trade. So they are like these outsiders imposing these boundaries and these rules, these rules of conduct between these people who have a completely different culture and a completely different understanding of how they interact with the land.
• 14:32
  Speaker B: I just can't even imagine that meeting with, like, these stakeholders of these chiefs from these different.
• 14:38
  Speaker A: Could you imagine being a fly in the room?
• 14:40
  Speaker B: They must have been like, what now? What are we doing?
• 14:43
  Speaker A: Like, exactly.
• 14:44
  Speaker B: So I can only stay here. They're there and we can't. Right?
• 14:48
  Speaker A: Yeah. And one wonders how much the language even translated. Yeah. Because the United States would have been using specific terms that would have no meaning in their native language. So how did. How did that communication even happen?
• 15:02
  Speaker B: Oh, my God.
• 15:02
  Speaker A: You know what I mean?
• 15:03
  Speaker B: Yeah. So many questions.
• 15:05
  Speaker A: Then four years later, there was another agreement that was signed.
• 15:08
  Speaker B: Damn.
• 15:09
  Speaker A: Continued negotiations over, again, the use of tribal land and conflicts. And also addressed unsolved tensions from earlier boundary decisions. Okay, so. So four years later, they had to come back because the boundaries that were made weren't working.
• 15:24
  Speaker B: Right.
• 15:24
  Speaker A: So they came back and made new, new rules about the boundaries. Okay. Then a year later, in 1830, this treaty resulted in significant land cessations to the United States.
• 15:38
  Speaker B: Okay.
• 15:39
  Speaker A: So now they're making the indigenous peoples cede their land to the United States government. And it wasn't just small pieces of land either. It was parts of present day Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and those, those areas that we now know as those states were opened now to American settlement and mining. And now in 1830, we're seeing the government saying, okay, no more boundary making. Now we're just going to take this land. We, we gave you the opportunity to follow these rules and follow these boundaries, and now we're just going to take the land and you need to move off it all together because this is working.
• 16:22
  Speaker B: You know, I think honestly I love the gaslighting that's going on here, but obviously they wanted the land. They needed European people to populate the land to keep the English people out. And this was all just like gaslighting to keep, to keep the charade going. Like, let's all have peace together. So we're, you guys aren't fighting us, we're, we're trying to help you. And then, you know what, forget it, we're taking your land.
• 16:47
  Speaker A: And I think to the lot of, a lot of people who are listening, they're like, no kidding. This is like a tale as old as time. This happened again and again in the United States during this period. However, I will point out that this was the first time this, these agreements, these quote unquote negotiations set the precedent for what would happen next. You know, so the, the effects of the Prairie Duchenne treaties cannot be overstated. The treaties began the formal mapping and division of the native territories by the United States and affected millions of acres of land in modern day Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and the Dakotas. These treaties altered traditional patterns of land use and inter tribal relations, attempting to draw boundary lines between the Dakota, Ojibwe, Ho Chunk, Sauk, Fox nominee, Iowa and other tribes, often across lands that had been used seasonally like you said, or shared peacefully over generations. Like all these peoples did not have a problem with each other.
• 17:55
  Speaker B: And honestly, as you said earlier, these people were also co inhabiting with the French for hundreds of years.
• 18:02
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 18:02
  Speaker B: So this false narrative like the United States had to come in to stop these wars for commerce is just wrong. They've been living in peace for hundreds of years at this point.
• 18:12
  Speaker A: Exactly, exactly. And it really sounds like, like all of these peoples that I just listed, they, they were different. Culturally, they were all the same, but the government didn't care. They just got them all together at a table and it's like, look, you know, and just making these, these broad rules for everyone because they had the might behind them. Also, these treaties accelerated American expansion into the upper Midwest? Well, of course they did. Important river corridors, trade hubs, were brought under growing US Influence. Regions that were rich in things like lead, timber, fertile farmland were open up to white settlement. And by the 1830 treaty, large parts of present day eastern Iowa, southwestern Wisconsin, were transferred to United States control. And like I said, this did set the precedent for later treaties that would lead to further land loss and displacement.
• 19:12
  Speaker B: Oh, my God.
• 19:14
  Speaker A: Now, Abasha ii, he was the principal chief of the Mdewakantan people, and he was among the Dakota leaders connected with the treaty negotiations during this period. And he is remembered as a leader who tried to manage the conflict rather than provoke it. And his attempt was to help his people navigate these uncertain political realities. But his actions may have contributed to even greater troubles for his son and successor, Chief Wabasha iii.
• 19:50
  Speaker B: Okay, tell me about him.
• 19:52
  Speaker A: Chief Wabasha III was born in 1816 and died in 1876. And he was born in Kyosha, which was modern day Winona, Minnesota. That was where he was born.
• 20:05
  Speaker B: That's where we were.
• 20:07
  Speaker A: Wabasha III became chief of the Midday Wakantan Band in 1836 when his father, Chief Wabasha II, died during a smallpox epidemic. Again, another effect of white people coming in, bringing their diseases. Yep. Wabasha III inherited a lot of problems because of the treaties that his father had signed.
• 20:35
  Speaker B: Tell me about it.
• 20:36
  Speaker A: Well, the new boundary lines drawn up by the treaties just increased tensions between the tribes.
• 20:43
  Speaker B: I'm sure they did. I'm sure.
• 20:46
  Speaker A: And not only that, but it limited access to important resources because they were largely arbitrary, and the. The boundaries weren't fair.
• 20:59
  Speaker B: And, of course, that would cause conflict.
• 21:01
  Speaker A: Of course.
• 21:02
  Speaker B: Of course, some of the resources were over on somebody else's land that they used to have access to. Of course. I'm going to start a fight.
• 21:10
  Speaker A: The boundaries also went against traditional notions of seasonal movement and sharing hunting grounds and the flexible use of land. And the Dakota were forced to change their entire way of life. Now, with increasing United States authority in the region, the Medei Wakantan people were divided about the best way to respond. Some of them wanted resistance. Others wanted continued diplomacy. And the band suffered from internal conflict among the tribal leadership because they didn't all agree about the best course of action.
• 21:51
  Speaker B: Right.
• 21:52
  Speaker A: But Wabasha the third, like his father and his grandfather before him, was trying to hold the line not with force, but with restraint. And he was known as a careful observer who is deeply strategic. He was a diplomat first. He was not a warlord. He was not a war leader. But at the time, his diplomacy wasn't rewarded. And so his goal was simple but not easy. He was trying to keep his people out of war. He was trying to keep the peace. But past treaties had already laid the foundation for war. And what followed made tragedy all but certain.
• 22:37
  Speaker B: Okay, so basically at this point, the United States caused some bullshit that increased tension in the area, not just between the different native tribes, but between the United States, the natives collectively as a whole. Yes, and that sets the stage for the road to tragedy.
• 22:56
  Speaker A: It does.
• 22:57
  Speaker B: Tell me.
• 22:58
  Speaker A: So by the 1840s and early 1850s, American settlement is expanding rapidly. Girl, think about the steamboats, the towns, the farms that are popping up along the river corridors. So the game, the hunting becomes scarce, and the Dakota face pressure to adapt economically. And tension grows between traditional life ways and new realities. And then, in 1851, the Treaties of Traverse des Sioux and Mendota lead to even more dire conditions for the Dakota. As a result of these treaties, Dakota leaders cede most of the southern Minnesota territory to the United States government. And the Dakota people are required to move to a narrow reservation along the Minnesota River. Now, they're promised money, they're promised food, and they're promised supplies in return. But this loss of land leads to dependence on the government for support. These people are no longer self sufficient because they've been moved off of the land that they know how to live on.
• 24:10
  Speaker B: And they have restrictions to where they're hunting. And they're not farmers. They were hunter gatherers. So they're, they're limited in what, how they can support themselves.
• 24:20
  Speaker A: Exactly. And then in 1858, the Dakota suffer even further land loss. Remaining Dakota land north of the Minnesota river is ceded to the government, and the land set aside as their reservation was reduced even more. And now hunting is almost impossible and food insecurity increases.
• 24:42
  Speaker B: No one likes to be hangry, tell you right now.
• 24:46
  Speaker A: And so why was hunger the result of a system breaking down around the Dakota people? Well, the loss of their traditional food sources, the hunting, especially the buffalo and deer, the fishing that's no longer viable, gathering wild foods. They can't even do that. After the treaties in 1851 and 1858, they're now forced with smaller reservations, fewer animals, limited access to rivers, limited access to hunting grounds, and a sudden dependence on farming and government food. Government food is shitty anyway. Can we all agree that government food is shitty?
• 25:23
  Speaker B: Yes, government food is shitty. But to be clear, these people never had to cultivate the land before. So they get to a smaller reservation and they're like, well, go ahead and try to farm, you know, teach a man how to farm. They'll be farming for a lifetime. And they're like, we've never had to do this before. We don't. Like, that's not something in our toolbox.
• 25:43
  Speaker A: Right. And even for seasoned farmers, the soil wasn't good for farming. And they didn't have the tools. They weren't given the tools and the equipment for farming. And so of course their crops failed. They were set up to fail. Now, do you remember how I said the government promised them things?
• 26:01
  Speaker B: Yeah, promise.
• 26:03
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 26:03
  Speaker B: They promised some money, supplies. All things.
• 26:06
  Speaker A: All of that was supposed to arrive regularly. But there was a complicating factor that slowed up these annuities.
• 26:15
  Speaker B: What was it?
• 26:16
  Speaker A: Well, several, actually. Government inefficiency, which today. Oh, my God. Right. Try to renew your driver's license. Just try. Correct.
• 26:25
  Speaker B: Try to get someone on the phone.
• 26:29
  Speaker A: Corruption, which again. Yep, yep. And also a little thing called the Civil War. The Civil War was pulling attention and resources away from supplies to these people. Yeah. So without supplies. Hold on. Just. I just wanna, I just. Such a disservice. If it wasn't for the Civil War, more people would have known about what was happening. I don't know if more people would have cared. I don't know. But the fact that the Civil War was overshadowing the media, overshadowing the headlines. People didn't. People literally did not care.
• 27:12
  Speaker B: Yeah. They.
• 27:14
  Speaker A: You know what I mean?
• 27:14
  Speaker B: Like, their homes were under attack in the east because of the Civil War.
• 27:19
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 27:20
  Speaker B: The headlines were about the war in the succession. So, course I can't. I agree with you. I don't know how many people would care. But still, I mean, even in the history books today, I've never heard about any of this.
• 27:32
  Speaker A: Well, right. You go back into the. The newspapers, and there is not. There's not the widespread outrage coverage, even reporting of what's happening. And of course, all of the papers would have been from the white European point of view because of course, the indigenous people didn't have papers.
• 27:52
  Speaker B: Right.
• 27:52
  Speaker A: They did. They didn't. They didn't write anything down, which is why it's sometimes difficult to even talk about people like Wabasha iii because there are no written records of what he thought or what he did. Right. It's all from the white European perspective
• 28:05
  Speaker B: or oral tradition of the people.
• 28:07
  Speaker A: Right. So I, I don't know. I just, I, I think. And I digress, but I do think that's one of the reasons why we're even called to talk about it just because nobody was talking about it, you know?
• 28:18
  Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, I know, exactly. So without supplies, people had to fall back on what.
• 28:26
  Speaker A: Well, they were trying to trade, but the traders weren't trading with them because
• 28:32
  Speaker B: they had nothing to trade with because all their supplies, money and food were.
• 28:36
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 28:37
  Speaker B: And they weren't stashed in an annuity that they weren't had access to.
• 28:41
  Speaker A: Right. And most of them weren't interested in just doing the right thing and giving handouts to these peoples either. Do you know what I mean?
• 28:47
  Speaker B: I mean, they, I mean, clearly they weren't even thinking of these people as people.
• 28:50
  Speaker A: And I think maybe some of them did. I don't want to paint that with broad strokes. I hope, I would like to hope that there were some people who took pity on. And. You know what I mean? And, and gave some handouts to these people who are clearly starving. But there was one man who, who made the, the history. His name was Andrew Myrick. Myrick. Yeah. Who refused to help the, the people and said, let them eat grass. Let them eat grass. So by the summer of 1862, families were starving, children were suffering, and people were eating whatever they could find.
• 29:33
  Speaker B: And that brings us to the incident.
• 29:38
  Speaker A: The incident. It was August 17, 1862.
• 29:44
  Speaker B: That's Ryan's birthday. Is it really not 1862, but August 17th again?
• 29:49
  Speaker A: Civil War is still happening, people. Civil War is still works hot and heavy in the Civil War. But near the town, the present day town of Acton, Minnesota, a group of five Dakota men who were young, hungry and frustrated stole eggs from settlers. The raid led to the deaths of five settlers, including two women. So they didn't only steal, they also killed the settlers. The group of five Dakota men, fearing punishment, pled for help from a faction of Dakota chiefs who wanted an all out war to drive the settlers out of the region. Now, Wabasha III believed in keeping peace by surrendering the culprits to the authorities. But his contemporary Little Crow was not of the same mind. And Little Crow decided to continue the raids and he pledged to die with the five young men so led by Chief Little Crow. Against the direction and feelings of Wapasha iii, the Dakota warriors carried out another attack, this time on the Lower Sioux Agency, which was a US government administrative and supply center near the present day town of Morton, Minnesota.
• 31:20
  Speaker B: Which makes sense. They don't want to kill people, they just want their food and their supplies.
• 31:24
  Speaker A: Right. When a relief force of Minnesota militia arrived, hoping to regain control, they were quickly overwhelmed. And the fighting then spread Quickly across the Minnesota river valley. And in the days that followed, the Dakota warriors launched additional attacks, most notably on the town of New Ulm and Fort Ridgely in south central Minnesota. And these efforts met resistance. They were not complete victories for the Dakota, but just fragments of a larger unfolding struggle. And beyond the immediate fighting, something else was shaping the pace of events.
• 32:06
  Speaker B: What was that?
• 32:07
  Speaker A: The United States, already deep in the Civil War. Resources were stretched, attention was divided. Federal troops were slow to arrive. So in those early days, much of the response fell to volunteer forces, men pulled together quickly, led by former Minnesota governor Henry Sibley. So it wasn't the United States government, the federal government, it was the local militias.
• 32:33
  Speaker B: They had their hands full deep in the Civil War. So here comes the governor, like getting people, settlers to arm up against the natives.
• 32:40
  Speaker A: Right. The indigenous peoples, the Dakota.
• 32:44
  Speaker B: The Dakota then apologize.
• 32:47
  Speaker A: In late September, the tide began to turn. And on September 23, 1862, at the Battle of Wood Lake, Federal forces defeated the Dakota in what would become the decisive military engagement of the conflict that has come to be called the Dakota War of 1862.
• 33:05
  Speaker B: Now, have you ever heard of that?
• 33:07
  Speaker A: Never.
• 33:08
  Speaker B: Never.
• 33:09
  Speaker A: Never heard of the Dakota War of 1862. I would say in all of the Civil War research that I've done, all of the documentaries, and you're a buff,
• 33:20
  Speaker B: You're a Civil War buff. You and your husband, like, get into the Civil War history of it all.
• 33:26
  Speaker A: Correct. The, the Native American peoples are just a footnote during this entire time frame.
• 33:37
  Speaker B: So within three days, it was all over.
• 33:41
  Speaker A: It was all over. The Dakota surrendered and released nearly 300 captives.
• 33:49
  Speaker B: I mean, that's pretty good. 300 people, like, that's more success than I thought that they were going to have.
• 33:56
  Speaker A: But their surrender did not bring resolution. Those who gave themselves up were taken into custody, held and guarded. As the next phase began, hundreds of Dakota men were confined at Camp Release near present day Monte video, about 120 miles west of Minneapolis St. Paul. And the hundreds of men would remain there waiting for weeks for their trials. In November of 1862, at Camp Release, Dakota men were brought forward to face trial. Hundreds of them. In total, 498 cases were heard.
• 34:40
  Speaker B: How can you possibly try that many cases? It just seems like it's a sham.
• 34:48
  Speaker A: It was. They were not full trials. Like even the word trial is like the wrong word for what happened. Yeah, There was no legal representation for these people.
• 34:57
  Speaker B: Right.
• 34:57
  Speaker A: And there was no time to prepare a defense. And the, the idea must have been completely outside of their realm of Understanding about how these negotiations go. And in some cases, the entire proceeding lasted less than five minutes.
• 35:12
  Speaker B: Oh, my God.
• 35:13
  Speaker A: It was like speed dating, only it wasn't dating. When it was over, more than 300 Dakota men had been sentenced to death, 370 sentenced to death. And the weight of those decisions reached all the way to Washington. And President Abraham Lincoln personally reviewed the convictions. Now, President Lincoln, just side note, had an awful lot on his plate in November of 1862.
• 35:45
  Speaker B: That's a true statement. You're a Lincoln lover.
• 35:49
  Speaker A: I am. I am an official Lincoln lover.
• 35:52
  Speaker B: Yes, yes, yes, we get it.
• 35:54
  Speaker A: Pressure came from every direction. There were calls for justice, There were calls for punishment, and others for mercy. In the end, Lincoln made a distinction. Only those accused of participating in attacks on civilians would be executed, and the rest would be spared. So on December 26, 1862, in Mankato, Minnesota, of the 300 men who had been sentenced to death, 38 Dakota men were executed in a single day. 38. And some call the murders the largest mass execution in United States history. To this day, those 38. Yes, but you have a bunch of people who are sentenced to and yet not released. So what happened to them?
• 36:48
  Speaker B: They were sent away?
• 36:49
  Speaker A: Yes, they were. To a place called Camp McClellan in Iowa, where they would remain imprisoned for years.
• 37:00
  Speaker B: Some of the Dakota people still around today that refer to this imprisonment as being imprisoned in a concentration camp. Just to let you know.
• 37:09
  Speaker A: Just saying. And while this was all unfolding, there was another tragedy taking shape as well. Nearly 1, 600 Dakota women, children and elders were forced into a camp on pike island below Fort Snelling near Bidote, a place deeply sacred to the Dakota people. And through the winter of 1862-1863, there were freezing conditions, limited food, and the rapid spread of disease. Hundreds died there, not in battle, but in confinement. By April 1863, the outcome became even more final. Minnesota voided its treaties with the Dakota and expelled them entirely from the state, sending many to Nebraska and other places. And soon after, Congress passed a law making it illegal for the Dakota people to live in the state of Minnesota, a law that, remarkably, still stands to this day. And to ensure that removal was complete, a bounty was established. Money was offered for Dakota scalps. Among those killed was Little Crow, the leader of the attacks on the Lower Sioux agency. By the way, Little Crow was shot and killed on July 3, 1863, while picking berries with his son.
• 38:46
  Speaker B: Wow.
• 38:47
  Speaker A: The shooter was a settler who was later awarded a bounty. Little Crow's scalp was taken to claim the reward, and his body was buried, but his skeleton was later exhumed, and parts of his remains, including his skull, were kept and displayed by local individuals and institutions. And for many years, his remains were treated as curiosities or historical objects. In 1971, Little Crow's remains were finally returned to his descendants, and Dakota representatives gave him a proper burial ceremony in 1971. Yeah. Executions continued into 1865. And by then, what had begun as a conflict had become something far deeper. The forced removal and partial extinction of a people and the reshaping of a land that still carries that memory.
• 39:42
  Speaker B: What happened to Wabasha iii?
• 39:46
  Speaker A: The last years of Wabasha III were marked not by power, but by displacement, survival, and the aftermath of a world that had changed around him. Like Many Dakota, Wabasha III's people, the Medei Wakantan, were first sent to Crow Creek Reservation in present day South Dakota. And conditions there Jill, devastating. The soil was poor, there was little food and there was much disease and many died and suffered. Eventually, the midday Wakantan people were relocated again, this time to areas in Nebraska where conditions were somewhat more stable. And in his final years, Wabasha III was leading a displaced people, was navigating survival in unfamiliar land and trying his best to hold on to the identity of his people in the face of loss. And his role shifted from protector of territory to protector of a people and their culture.
• 41:00
  Speaker B: Oh, wow.
• 41:01
  Speaker A: Wabasha iii died in 1876, far, far from the homeland of his grandfather. And he did not return ever to the Mississippi River Valley.
• 41:14
  Speaker B: There's so many voiceless here. But specifically, I think Wabasha III is coming through to us.
• 41:21
  Speaker A: Tell me why
• 41:24
  Speaker B: he was known as a peace oriented leader.
• 41:26
  Speaker A: He was.
• 41:27
  Speaker B: He did not want to poke the bear. He wanted to keep to diplomacy. He. I feel like intuitively he would have known what that the United States was just looking for a reason to get their hands on that land. And he didn't want to give them a reason.
• 41:45
  Speaker A: I think too intuitively he believed that the best way to preserve the culture of his people, to preserve the lives of his people, would be to bend to the United States government because the sheer force and size and might would have crushed them.
• 42:09
  Speaker B: And like his father and grandfather before him, he wanted to keep his people out of conflict. He didn't want them fighting with the United States for, like you said, for obvious reasons
• 42:21
  Speaker A: also the war of the Dakota War of 1862, it was caused, if you look at the research and the history, it was caused because of these five, the incident was Started by the five Dakota warriors, young men who attacked this settlement to steal the eggs. But what. That's so false. That's not how it started. Like, how convenient. How convenient to point at this hostility as the start. No, no, no. The start of the war of the Dakota War of 1862 happened long before those five individuals had reached starvation and were at the point to start resorting to. To might and, you know, to violence. Right.
• 43:07
  Speaker B: Not only that, but. So while there was peace in the area for hundreds of years, and then the United States was coming in and encroaching on the. The lands of the people. They were advertising lands overseas in Europe being like, come to the Americas. You can homestead. And so people were coming, and they were. Some of the settlers that were under attack in the Dakota wars. Those are some of the volunteers that took up arms. So in a way, I don't know if some of those people are voiceless, too, to be like, I thought that I was coming. Like, I thought everything was cool. Like, you guys sent an advertisement, and a lot of them were Germans to Germany saying, come have land. And then all of a sudden, I get here and I'm under attack.
• 43:57
  Speaker A: Sounds like a setup.
• 43:58
  Speaker B: It really does.
• 43:59
  Speaker A: It sounds like a setup. That is a really good point, too. But the fact that the Dakota wars were started by this act of hostility, I think is false. And then looking at Wabasha III and his father and grandfather, who were all peaceful leaders, I think is the antithesis of this concept of hostility.
• 44:21
  Speaker B: Right, right.
• 44:22
  Speaker A: Like, they did not want hostility. And they were one of the leaders, too. You know, they were leaders, too, of their band of the Dakota.
• 44:29
  Speaker B: So.
• 44:29
  Speaker A: Yeah. So I think for a lot of reasons, it's so complicated, but it's. It's an important story to discuss. Can I just say another thing that points to my own, like, racism here?
• 44:40
  Speaker B: What.
• 44:41
  Speaker A: When you brought this story up, my first thought was, we already have stories about Native Americans. And then, you know what I mean? Like, I thought, another story about Native Americans we've already told. And then I was like, Jennifer. And then I started learning about the names of these people, learning about Wabasha and learning about his. His band, whose name, you know, I. I've practiced, and I still. Here it is. Medea, Wakantan. These people had a singular experience. These. You know what I mean? Like, how racist of me to think that, oh, we.
• 45:17
  Speaker B: We.
• 45:17
  Speaker A: Here's another Native American story. No. Do I ever think, oh, we have another white story to tell. You know what I mean?
• 45:23
  Speaker B: No, I never.
• 45:23
  Speaker A: Like, they're not. They're not all the same. All of these people had a different experience. And so this. I hope you see that the Medewakantan, they were peaceful people who just got caught up because of the situation, and they never wanted a fight. Even the Five warriors weren't part of the band, I don't think. I'm not sure, but I don't know. Another thing that was lost to history,
• 45:51
  Speaker B: I think that this story, for some reason, and I'm not gonna lie, I was taken. I was taken back by this story, too. About how powerfully it struck an emotional chord in me.
• 46:02
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 46:02
  Speaker B: And I don't know. I still. I can't articulate why, other than it's. It's so unfair, and it really does feel like genocide. That's the only thing that I can. That I can think of. Like, it really feels.
• 46:16
  Speaker A: Yeah, it. You know, here's the other thing. We do hear of, like, Crazy Horse and the great heroic. Right, the great heroic war heroes. You know, some of them survive in our cultural experience because of their bravery, because of the. Their violence. And for some reason, we value that.
• 46:42
  Speaker B: Geronimo.
• 46:43
  Speaker A: Yes. But we don't value the diplomats who sat there and wanted peace. And that is the quiet strength of Wabasha. And I think this figure needs to be held up as a brave man for not wanting peace, for wanting to hold the line. He wasn't glamorous. He was a good man who cared deeply about his people and wanted to do what was best. And we should be holding these. These people up as well as leaders.
• 47:14
  Speaker B: Agreed.
• 47:16
  Speaker A: Yeah. So, Jill, why do you think Wabasha's story matters today? Is there anything that resonates with you in terms of, like, now just pigging
• 47:26
  Speaker B: back of what you said. It's the cost of being a peaceful leader. Right. I mean, how timely. I would. In my experience, I would rather have a peaceful leader than someone who's gung ho and a cowboy going out there and. And causing or participating in conflict. It also shows how the system failed and continues to fail. People just saying.
• 47:54
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 48:00
  Speaker B: It shows broken treaties, shifting promises, laws made far away that reshape the lives on the ground of people who just wanted to live in peace in their homelands. I honestly think if the United States didn't, like, come up with those treaties in the beginning, I know that those tribes would have worked it out. They would have figured it out. They were living with this with the trappers and the hunters for years. They were doing it. They would have figured it out. We just needed to leave them alone. But we wanted the land. Right?
• 48:34
  Speaker A: Right.
• 48:35
  Speaker B: The pattern still matters today when we talk about trust in government and how policies impact communities whose voices are heard in making the decisions. Just saying, like, if you don't have the equity to sit at the table to have the conversation, or if you're at the table but don't have the equity to have your voice be heard, then you're not gonna be involved. Your interests aren't going to be involved in making decisions. Just saying.
• 49:06
  Speaker A: That is true. That is true.
• 49:08
  Speaker B: I know. I know you don't like political stuff, but it's true.
• 49:11
  Speaker A: Well. And all of this energy, you can just feel it in the land when you're in this area. It's really thick. It's in the land.
• 49:22
  Speaker B: It is in the land.
• 49:23
  Speaker A: And speaking of the land, when Jenny B. Was picking up on the land and the bluffs and the Native American people dead there, was that, like, a fact?
• 49:35
  Speaker B: So what was that? I think it was figuratively, but also, like, it may have been literally because these are sacred lands to these people for so long. Right. So if I was going to. If I was going to bury some people, I would have put them off on a bluff in a beautiful setting. But I think it was figuratively that she was feeling Natives dead on the land on the bluffs.
• 50:02
  Speaker A: And what about Mankato Road? What's special about Mankato?
• 50:06
  Speaker B: Jenny, that's the city that the 38 men were killed in. No.
• 50:13
  Speaker A: Oh, my gosh. That's major.
• 50:14
  Speaker B: Jenny, be super psychic.
• 50:16
  Speaker A: The Ho Chunk people. I mentioned them. They were also forced off their land from the area as well.
• 50:22
  Speaker B: Mm. Do you know? Okay, I'll tell you in a second. Jen noted. You noted the dream I had about being under attack by natives. Native attacks.
• 50:32
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yep. Tracker cab number three?
• 50:35
  Speaker B: Yes, that was the. The three. I was, like, feeling the third Basha.
• 50:39
  Speaker A: The third.
• 50:39
  Speaker B: He's the third.
• 50:41
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 50:42
  Speaker B: And family conflicts. Tell me about that feeling on Sioux Street. No, you tell me about that. You tell me.
• 50:48
  Speaker A: Well, originally known as Wapasha's Prairie, the area was a significant site for the Mide Wakantan band of the eastern Sioux. Okay. So I was picking up on the eastern Sioux, hence that synonym for the Dakota people.
• 51:04
  Speaker B: But not only that, that there was infighting among how to adjust to the encroachment into the United States and the treaties.
• 51:13
  Speaker A: I was literally in, like, conflict within them. Yes. Wow.
• 51:18
  Speaker B: And when we were leaving Winota, heading west in the fog.
• 51:21
  Speaker A: Yes. Tell me about that.
• 51:23
  Speaker B: They were escorted, leaving their lands by foot, sometimes through towns that that settlers were throwing things at people.
• 51:37
  Speaker A: People were.
• 51:37
  Speaker B: Yes. People were dropping dead during this exile. So they would go through these towns and it was in the winter, and they were, like, throwing things. A Dakota woman was holding her baby and was assaulted.
• 51:51
  Speaker A: Chill.
• 51:52
  Speaker B: And would just. I'm.
• 51:53
  Speaker A: What.
• 51:54
  Speaker B: This is a fact. I'm not.
• 51:56
  Speaker A: These were. As they were being led out of the area.
• 51:58
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 51:59
  Speaker A: On the old trails that we were driving.
• 52:00
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 52:01
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 52:03
  Speaker B: Sorry. Didn't mean to upset you, but that's.
• 52:06
  Speaker A: Well, that's upsetting.
• 52:07
  Speaker B: It's outrageous.
• 52:08
  Speaker A: That's upsetting.
• 52:09
  Speaker B: It's outrageous. Great.
• 52:10
  Speaker A: Well, how are you going to turn this around?
• 52:12
  Speaker B: Well, I do think that. I do think that the scars of this conflict still are alive and well today. And I do think that there is generational trauma amongst the settlers and their ancestors and the ancestors to the Dakota people in the area. And I think bringing voice to this story, hopefully, and having these complicated conversations about how this happened, who's at fault. Maybe we can come to some kind of resolution and at least an understanding of, you know, it didn't start with five guys trying to get eggs. It was we created. Or the United States created a pressure cooker, and it eventually was going to blow up. Just saying.
• 53:02
  Speaker A: All righty, then. Well, thanks for finding this story.
• 53:08
  Speaker B: I. I literally am deeply impacted by the story. And like I said, I don't know why, other than. It's just the. The more you know about it, the. The angrier and the. The angrier I get because I'm so ignorant. I'm just so ignorant. I had no idea. Like, none.
• 53:29
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 53:31
  Speaker B: So many things of American history I have no clue of. And I am on our dad's side. We are from the Revolutionary War. Right. And have not a clue. Completely ignorant.
• 53:45
  Speaker A: Well, we'll keep telling these stories that a lot of people are not familiar with, like ourselves. So thank you again. We have another. Oh, my gosh. Where are we now? How many reviews do we have on apple? 223. Oh, my gosh. We're trying to get to 250. Right.
• 54:03
  Speaker B: 250.
• 54:04
  Speaker A: Keep them coming. Thank you so much. And we do have a written review from Ali2002. Do you want me to read it?
• 54:14
  Speaker B: I would love it. I'm excited.
• 54:16
  Speaker A: Ali says, love this podcast. I've been listening for over a year and have learned so much. Hidden history of the States. Love their energy with one another. And the sisters banter and the sister banters are heartwarming. No other podcast I can laugh and be shocked all at once. Also Love the opportunity to practice my gifts on who I feel the voiceless is.
• 54:37
  Speaker B: Oh, I love that.
• 54:38
  Speaker A: Oh, good. I'm so happy about that.
• 54:40
  Speaker B: Hey, you guys, I just wanted to let you know that Jen and I are going to be traveling at the end of the month, so some community announcements. Please keep leaving us a positive review. If you don't hear it on the upcoming episodes, it's because we're recording in advance, but we will get to them and we will read them as we record. Also, our mystical mentorship group, our tier 4 patrons behind the paywall. We have to move up our call for this month. We're talking to TI Shippers about grief eaters and I'm super excited about that. Jen created a fabulous episode that we recorded about grief eaters and I'm really excited for you guys all to listen and hopefully participate with TI Yeah, that should be fun.
• 55:28
  Speaker A: Thank you. Oh, also, I do have a class for awakening your Claires and your psychic intuition and it is going to start on April 27th and run Monday nights for four consecutive weeks. So if you are interested in joining a class, email me@commonmysticsmail.com and don't forget,
• 55:52
  Speaker B: we still are authoring one on one mentorship with the fabulous Jennifer James. And of course I love engaging with you guys and participating with your family members in reading. So please email us so we can be of service to you and we love you.
• 56:07
  Speaker A: With their family members. Yeah.
• 56:09
  Speaker B: On the other side, they come through.
• 56:10
  Speaker A: Oh, oh, got it. I thought you were sitting down with full families.
• 56:13
  Speaker B: I have, actually. I literally have. And you know what, just to say, I think that that was a really warming experience to sit in front of family members and getting messages from the loved ones on the other side to see how they bonded in. I really did enjoy that.
• 56:31
  Speaker A: Oh, interesting. I didn't know that we were doing that now, but that makes sense.
• 56:35
  Speaker B: That's cool. It kind of just fell into my lap and I went with it.
• 56:39
  Speaker A: All right, well, I like that. All right, well, thank you for listening. Love you all. Love all our listeners. We really appreciate you.
• 56:46
  Speaker B: Love you guys. Love you, Jen.
• 56:48
  Speaker A: Love you, Jill. Bye. Bye.
• 56:50
  Speaker B: This has been a common Mystics Media Production editing done by Yokai Audio, Kalamazoo, Michigan.