Little Crow’s War

Part 1

Little Crow, Mdewakanton Dakota

Marie Antoinette and Andrew Myrick had two things in common—one, something they allegedly said, and two, losing their heads for having allegedly said it. However much historians dispute whether either of them uttered their infamous words, what can’t be argued is those that punished them for those remarks, believed they did.

Antoinette lost her head to the guillotine for dismissing the plight of starving French peasants clamoring for bread, with the remark, “Let them eat cake.” Seventy-three years later, on August 18, 1862, at Lower Sioux Agency in Southwest Minnesota, 30-year-old Myrick dismissed starving Dakota with a similar remark, “Let them eat grass.” His severed head was recovered with the mouth stuffed full of grass.

In the weeks preceding Myrick’s death, tensions had escalated as starving Dakota were refused food by Lower Sioux Reservation Indian Agent Thomas Galbraith. Not enough supplies or annuity funds had arrived from Washington. Even had such supplies and funding arrived in time, fraud by Indian agents and their collaborators was rampant as evidenced and reported by George Day, Special Commissioner on Dakota Affairs in a letter to President Lincoln: “I have discovered numerous violations of law & many frauds committed by past Agents & a superintendent.”

In addition, the land provided the Dakota was not suitable for farming and there was little game or fish left on the reservation. On August 4, the Dakota bands at Upper Sioux Agency reached agreement on food distribution. The same understanding could not be reached on August 15 at Lower Sioux Agency. Galbraith refused to distribute food without payment. At that meeting the Dakota asked Myrick to extend them credit, but whatever his actual answer, it all amounted to the same decision—no. Myrick had a Dakota wife, and he worked a stone’s throw from the Dakota plight, so he was no stranger to their dire circumstance. Given that the annuity payments arrived three days later, a day after the Dakota beheaded him, one has to wonder why the toxic mixture of greed and depraved indifference makes a doomed man like Myrick so myopically imprudent.

The Dakota had settled down on their small reservations with the treaty obligated understanding their basic needs would be met, needs they had been meeting for themselves for thousands of years, until the United States decided to invade and occupy Dakota territory. That they did occupy, and that a treaty was signed—and that the reservation restricted Dakota then left the land that had sustained them to White settlement—meant that these Dakota were at the mercy of the government’s obligation.

As often happens during time of war, or some other great social upheaval, obligations are far from obligatory. Thousands of miles from Minnesota a civil war raged, and in August 1862 the United States was losing that war. The Army of Northern Virginia had battled George McClellan’s vaunted Army of the Potomac to a standstill in the Peninsular Campaign, and handed John Pope a crushing defeat at Second Bull Run. To say that Abraham Lincoln was understandably preoccupied by McClellan’s abysmal performance is a monumental understatement. Aggressive battle-hardened infantry directed by tough, smart Confederate leadership were just thirty miles from Washington, DC. Getting treaty obligated supplies and annuity payments out to Minnesota to alleviate the plight of the starving Dakota barely registered on Washington’s radar. Not when one more decisive victory by the Army of Northern Virginia could mean the collapse of the Union. Were that to happen, no treaty with any tribe would be worth the paper it was written on.

Every exploding powder keg requires a spark, and that happened two days after the Dakota failed to get the agent or the traders to give them food. Four young Dakota out hunting duck got into a dispute with White settlers, reportedly because one of the duck hunters was caught stealing eggs, and five settlers were killed. Gray areas abound in history, contradictory interpretations of intent and character, and Little Crow on the evening of August 17 is a textbook example.

Many assert Little Crow was a brave and honorable man, and Little Crow did much of this asserting himself. He claimed he did not want conflict, but if the warriors insisted on a fight, he would lead them. Others assert Little Crow knew full well the bloodshed to follow and was right at the forefront, egging it on. What is known for certain is word reached tribal elders of the killing of five settlers on August 17, and it was the next day Little Crow led his warriors against the trading posts at Lower Sioux Agency.

Charles Eastman was a Dakota of some note a century back, a physician, a social activist and a skilled writer. He was born in 1858, so his firsthand account of 1862 is limited to the scope of a four-year-old. However, that still supplied him with a deep cultural and personal window into the people and the times no other observer could claim.

Eastman describes the situation on the evening of August 17: “It was proposed to take advantage of the fact that the North and South were at war to wipe out the white settlers and to regain (Dakota) freedom. A few men stood out against such a desperate step, but the conflagration had gone beyond their control.”

Even today, on Lakota reservations this same mentality holds sway. Mario Gonzalez, a prominent tribal attorney was recently accused of trying to get over $30 million for selling the Black Hills. This was totally untrue, but it spread like wildfire across social media. People claimed Gonzalez was not even a tribal member, when he is in fact an enrolled member with a long history of fighting for his tribe. Then, as now, malicious gossip was the worst enemy any tribe ever faced, and it controlled that 1862 meeting, and propelled the Dakota down a dark path of history altering calamity.

Another disturbing similarity is that Gonzalez is Spiola, or tribal member of Hispanic ancestry. This is seen as an indication of his alleged treachery. There is no shortage of racists among members of the Oceti Sakowin, the Seven Council Fires, of which the Lakota and Dakota are a part. Eastman addressed this in his account: “There were many mixed bloods among these Sioux, and some of the Indians held that these were accomplices of the white people in robbing them of their possessions, therefore their lives should not be spared. My father, Many Lightnings, who was practically the leader of the Mankato band (for Mankato, the chief, was a weak man), fought desperately for the lives of the half-breeds and the missionaries. The chiefs had great confidence in my father, yet they would not commit themselves since their braves were clamoring for blood. Little Crow had been accused of all the misfortunes of his tribe, and he now hoped by leading them against the whites to regain his prestige with his people, and a part at least of their lost domain.”

It is dangerous to fuel action against a grim and unjust reality with aspirational rhetoric. Wisdom should direct war council, not hyperbole. This was the well spring of all the bloodshed and slaughter to follow.

According to Eastman, his father said to Little Crow: “If you want war, you must personally lead your men tomorrow. We will not murder women and children, but we will fight the soldiers when they come.”

Little Crow’s account differs markedly. In it, he paints himself as the peace maker, the wise counsel, but all of these assertions are after the fact, and are taken by naïve historians as factual account. To whatever extent they reflect the reality of that time it cannot be denied they serve to ennoble the character and actions of Little Crow. Little Crow claimed later this is what he said on August 17 to those clamoring for war: “You are fools. You cannot see the face of your chief; your eyes are full of smoke. You cannot hear his voice; your ears are full of roaring waters. Braves, you are little children – you are fools. You will die like the rabbits when the hungry wolves hunt them down in the Hard Moon (January). (Little Crow) is not a coward; he will die with you.”

What followed on August 18 belies that any of this was ever so deeply and earnestly articulated by Little Crow on August 17. Also, Little Crow, predictably, did not die with his braves—he fled to Canada.with you.

Eastman: “Little Crow declared he would be seen in the front of every battle, and it is true that he was foremost in all the succeeding bloodshed, urging his warriors to spare none. He ordered his war leader, Many Hail, to fire the first shot, killing the trader James Lynd, in the door of his store.”

Urging his warriors to spare none…that doesn’t sound like the man who called them fools the night before. Eastman’s take on the character and motivations of Little Crow is curiously swept under the shame stained historical carpet. But Eastman is not done with his thoughts on Little Crow, they get worse. Eastman alleges the handsome, charming, well- spoken Little Crow was actually good friends with the Indian traders, and that after fleeing to Canada, after his war on the White settlers failed, he “entered into secret negotiations with his old friends the Indian traders.”

Eastman now lays his cards on the table, he levels the final charge against Little Crow, that Little Crow was instrumental in working with the Whites to take Dakota land: “There was now a price upon (Little Crow’s) head, but he planned to reach St. Paul undetected and there surrender himself to his friends (the Indian traders), who he hoped would protect him in return for past favors. It is true that he had helped them to secure perhaps the finest country held by any Indian nation for a mere song.”

 

(James Giago Davies is an enrolled member of the Oglala Lakota Tribe. He can be reached at skindiesel@msn.com)

The post Little Crow’s War first appeared on Native Sun News Today.

Visit Original Source