Sioux defendants file law suit

LAKE PEPIN, MN—In 1830, when U.S. treaty negotiators met Dakota and other tribal leaders at Prairie du Chien, one seemingly small provision would cast a long shadow over the next century of Dakota history. That treaty—sometimes called the Fourth Treaty of Prairie du Chien—set aside 320,000 acres west of Lake Pepin for “half-breed” descendants of mixed European Dakota ancestry (often the children of traders, trappers, or other outsiders with Dakota wives). That parcel became known as the Half-Breed Tract.

The idea behind the tract was, at least on its face, paternalistic: the U.S. and some Dakota leaders agreed that the mixed-descent descendants needed a land reserve— both as a buffer and as a recognition of their ties to Dakota communities. (The tract remained underutilized for years, and was gradually encroached by settlers after the 1851 Dakota–U.S. treaties opened much of southern Minnesota to settlement.)

But that tract would later become a symbolic and material battleground: the descendants of the “half-breeds” would claim it as a rightful Dakota landholding, while the U.S. government and settlers would deny their claims, omit them from later treaties, and eventually treat them as non-entities in the ensuing dispossessions.

Fast-forward to 1862, when pressure, broken promises, hunger, and encroachment drove the Mdewakanton Dakota (and other bands) into open conflict with the United States—what is commonly called Little Crow’s War. The war was rooted in systemic failures: annuities not paid, reserved lands lying idle or sold off, settlers pressing into Dakota territory, and the subsistence crisis among the Dakota.

Within that conflict, choices of allegiance and neutrality had irreversible consequences. Some Dakota communities supported Little Crow; others stayed neutral or even aided settlers. Among the latter were the Shakopee Mdewakanton (a band already of mixed ancestry), who chose not to take up arms in Little Crow’s War and in some instances assisted settlers when conflict erupted. Their cooperation and neutrality—though potentially driven by pragmatism and local pressure—would later be their lifeline.

After the war’s suppression, Minnesota and U.S. policy dealt harshly with Dakota populations: mass exile, forced removal, execution of leaders, confiscation of lands, and wholesale expulsion from ancient territory. Minnesota demanded that all Dakota leave the state. Only a handful of bands were allowed to remain; others were expelled into the Dakota Territories (present-day South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska) or forced onto reservations beyond Minnesota.

The “half-breed” reservations were in many places effectively dissolved or ignored. The notion was that the mixed-descent bands might serve as a bulwark or breakwater against wholesale resistance. But post-war, such nuance would vanish under the logic of mass removal.

Because the Shakopee Mdewakanton had remained neutral or even cooperative, they were allowed to remain in Minnesota when other Dakota were expelled—an exception whose consequences would ripple across the modern era. Over time, the Shakopee band leveraged that survival into federal recognition, tribal infrastructure, and benefit flows. Their recognized status allowed them development, sovereignty, and state-level legitimacy.

All the while, “half-breed” Dakota bands, despite their verifiable genealogy and continuous cultural ties, were shut out of recognition. Their reservations, if any remained, were not maintained; many descendants live in poverty, invisibilized by federal law and policy. The irony is sharp: these “half-breeds” often have clearer lineage to federally recognized Dakota tribes (through shared ancestors, documented kinship, and community memory) than many non-recognized tribes claiming scant historic continuity. Yet the recognition regime remains unforgiving of that “one decision” not to side with Little Crow.

That original 1830 tract—the 320,000 acres—is central to a modern lawsuit by Mdewakanton descendants seeking federal recognition and reparations. A recent CBS News article reported that lineal descendants filed suit against the U.S. for recognition and monetary damages over some 500 square miles (roughly 320,000 acres) of what was known as the Lake Pepin Reservation.

The suit’s legal claims rest heavily on the 1830 treaty: the plaintiffs argue that this parcel was never lawfully extinguished, that the U.S. attempted to purchase it in 1849 for $200,000, but the Senate declined to ratify due to cost, and that the later 1851 Dakota treaties wrongly omitted them.

According to legal counsel Erick Kaardal, the lawsuit demands at least $5 billion in damages. The plaintiffs assert that denying recognition to these half-breed descendants has denied them cultural identity, land rights, and economic opportunity.

In the broader context, the plaintiffs argue they are not fringe or speculative claimants: they are lineal descendants of documented Dakota, with genealogies, historical continuity, and collective memory. Their exclusion, in their telling, is not due to lack of worthiness but due to a historical fluke: a band decision during the 1862 war, and the subsequent structural preferences granted to only those bands that survived or aligned with U.S. policy.

Where recognized tribes mobilize resources, operate schools, police, courts, and social services, the unrecognized live under state and county systems that often lack cultural competence or capacity.

Examining the contours of this history, reveals the half-breed Mdewakanton challenge is not one of legitimacy—it’s one of justice. Recognition is not a privilege; it is a remedy. If recognition is a zero sum game, then it is being denied precisely to those who are clearly eligible.

The story of the half-breed Dakota— born in the 1830 Prairie du Chien Treaty, fractured by the decision not to join Little Crow’s War, and locked out in modern recognition regimes—is a tragedy of historic contingency and structural exclusion. The petitioners do not seek charity; they ask for acknowledgment, legal standing, and resources necessary to restore dignity to their communities.

If reconciliation means anything, it must include the silent, erased voices. The half-breed Dakota descendants are not asking to rewrite history—they are asking history to be read faithfully, with its wounds and its obligations intact.

Whether a court will force that reckoning in dollars, land, and sovereignty remains to be seen. But the moral case is clear: excluded by treaty and by policy, these descendants deserve their seat at the table—not as exceptions, but as continuations of a people who never truly left.

(James Giago Davies is an enrolled member of OST. Contact him at skindiesel@msn.com)

The post Sioux defendants file law suit first appeared on Native Sun News Today.

Visit Original Source