Trending
NEW ULM – Historian and author, John Haymond, layed out his research on the legalities of the 1862 Dakota Military Trials during the Brown County Historical Society’s Lunch and a Bite of History series Thursday.
Haymond believes much of the debate about the ethics of the trial are based on a misuderstanding of 19th century military law.
Haymond is a “conflict historian,” which he describes as the history of people behaving badly toward one another. He recently published a book on the Dakota War Trials called “The Infamous Dakota War Trials of 1862.” The book examines the trials from the perspective of 19th century military law.
The Dakota War trials were first convened by Col. Henry Sibley on Sept. 28, 1862 and ended Nov. 3, 1862. A total of 392 cases were heard in this time with 391 Dakota defendents charged with war crimes in the conflict that eurrupted that summer.
Haymond began by discussing whether Sibley had legal reason to hold the trials. The legality of the trials and the eventual conviction of Dakota of war crimes depends on the classification of those killed in the conflict, Haymond said. Haymond drew a distiction between those killed as a result of the war versus those who were vicitims of a crime. Some of the Dakota defendents caught up in the trials were legitimate enemy combants and commited no war crime other than being involved in the conflict.
Haymond said from a technical standpoint Sibley did not have authority to convene the trials on Sept. 28. That responsiblity would have fallen to General John Pope. Pope supported the trial, but Sibley had no authority to hold the trials as Pope’s proxy. Haymond interprets this to mean the trials held on the first day were illegal and should have been dismissed. However, by the second day Sibley had received a promotion granting him authority to convene the trials. Other accusations of Sibley being disqualifed due to predjudice are not supported by military law as this would only apply to soldiers in his command.
Haymond confirmed the Dakota men who were tried did not have defense counsel, but again, this did not violate millitary law at the time. However; evidence does exist that Sibley violated the law by re-trying defendents and re-issuing harsher sentences for defendants, said Haymond.
In a letter written by Sibley he admits to re-trying defendents aquitted to obtain a death sentence. Writen evidence still exists that at least one Dakota was tried a second time after being found not guilty. Other paperwork signifying prison sentences were changed after the trial to death by hanging.
Haymond said this was evidence Sibley violated the law, however it is uncertain he was aware of this mistake. As an amateur with no formal legal training Sibley took most of his action based on advice from General Pope. Recently a letter written by Gen. Pope to Sibley was uncovered by historians in which Pope tells Sibley to punish the Dakota with death or be considered a traitor to his country. Shortly after this letter the number of trials held each day increased with a greater number of convictions. Haymond suggests this is evidence Sibley was pushed by a superior to ignore the law to punish the Dakota.
Despite Sibley illegally changing the sentences of multiple Dakota prisoners of war, none of these changes resulted in a death sentence as President Abraham Lincoln did not approve the new charges and the men escaped the gallows.
As a result of these trials a total of 38 Dakota were executed in Mankato on Dec. 26, 1862. Haymond warned against lumping all 38 of those hung as equally guilty or not guilty. Haymond believed some of those executed were guilty of war crimes. Several of the men hung were convicted of specific crimes of killing and raping innocent civilians. At the same time many were executed for legitimate wartime actions that were also done by the United States soldiers.
Haymond gave the example of the Battle of New Ulm, saying the actual attack of New Ulm was not a war crime. The Union Army invaded and fired artillery upon many civilian targets during the Civil War, such as Vicksburg and St. Petersburg. The difference, Haymond explained, is Union soliders, upon breaking through a city’s defences, did not kill the entire civilian population.
Haymond acknowledged the Dakota had legitimate grievances regarding their treatment going into the conflict, but he drew the line at attacking women and children.
“You don’t get to kill everyone who looks like the people that offend you,” Haymond said.
Haymond closed by saying historians often have an agenda in researching history. Upon first researching the Dakota trial his agenda was to rehabilitate Henery Sibley’s reputation. In his reasearch he found two sides to this interpretation. “In some areas he was unfailry critisized, in other areas he was not critisized enough.”
Haymond said history is not a collection facts, but a collection of evidence and interpruatations. In studying the Dakota-US conflict the danger is to choose evidence supporting a theory and ignore other evidence.