Conflicted ABCFM Mission to the Dakotas, 1835-1862

Epilogue. "But oh, how changed the times": The Immediate Aftermath of the Dakota War of 1862

203 EPILOGUE “But oh, how changed the times” The Immediate Aftermath of the Dakota War of 1862 In November 1862, approximately 2,100 Dakota men, women, and children were transferred to prison camps at Fort Snelling and Mankato. Dakotas who had not been tried—mainly women, children, and the elderly—were sent to Fort Snelling, whereas the condemned men were imprisoned in a hastily constructed Mankato jail. Angry settlers attacked the captives, caus­ inginjuriesanddeaths,duringtherelocationto both prisons.Inspring 1863, the men held at Mankato were transported to a prison at Davenport, Iowa, where they remained for three years. Those held at Fort Snelling were re­ located to an isolated and undeveloped reservation called Crow Creek in Dakota Territory.1 As the Dakotas struggled to adapt to imprisonment, the appalling con­ ditions at the camps, and eventual removal from Minnesota, something happened that the missionaries considered miraculous. At the camps, “op­ position to education and the gospel of Christ had vanished . . . the prison became a school of letters and religion, and the camp at Fort Snelling was not much behind.” Missionary letters and reports tell of hundreds of con­ versions at both prisons, as well as the overwhelming desire of Dakotas to learn to read and write. The missionaries rejoiced that the seeds they had struggled to cultivate over twenty-five years with the Dakotas finally had flowered. As Mary Riggs later wrote, “but oh, how changed the times.”2 While the times certainly had changed, long-standing conflicts re­ mained. The missionaries had hoped that this new chapter of their work wouldfinallyendthestrugglesthathaddefinedtheirlaborswiththeDakotas since 1835. The post-war period, however, simply translated these conflicts into the new situation. First, the missionaries divided with government of­ ficials and other Minnesotans over the treatment of the prisoners and their removal outside the borders of Minnesota. Second, the missionaries argued 204 CONFLICTED MISSION among themselves about the validity of the conversions in the two prison camps. Third, the missionaries experienced conflict with the Dakotas over the purpose of education, and with the government over the use of Dakota instead of English in the prison schools. Finally, as in earlier times, the mis­ sionpresshidtheseconflictsfromtheevangelicalpublic,insteadpublishing stories about the triumphant success of the Dakota mission after years of failure. As usual, the Dakotas had a different frame of reference than the Protes­ tant missionaries. Unlike the missionaries, they did not keep a tally of the number of baptisms and conversions in the prisons; rather, they focused on survival in a hostile post-war Minnesota. After the war, Gabriel Renville (the stepson of Joseph Renville) summarized the Dakotas’ situation: “We had no land, no homes, no means of support, and the outlook was most dreary and discouraging,” he mourned. “How can we get lands and have homes again, were the questions which troubled many thinking minds, and were hard questions to answer.”3 Conflict over the Post-war Treatment of the Dakotas Most Minnesotans would not have responded sympathetically to Renville’s difficult questions. Indeed, the hysteria that swept across Minnesota during the Dakota War remained into the post-war period. Many settlers and gov­ ernment officials continued to call for harsh reprisals against all Dakotas. Historian Jennifer Graber argues that the U.S. victory in the war prompted ABCFM missionaries “to embrace evangelistic methods that featured state violence and confinement as acceptable, if not providentially prompted means for effecting American Indian conversion.” While Graber is correct that the ABCFM missionaries reveled in the prison camp conver­ sions that followed the war, Stephen Riggs, Thomas and John Williamson, and the Ponds never advocated the use of violence as a legitimate method to achieve this end. In fact, throughout their twenty-five years with the DakotamissioninMinnesotaandintothepost-warperiod,themissionaries remained consistent in denouncing violence and government policies and actions they viewed as contrary to their evangelical beliefs.4 Amid the cries for further executions and removal, the missionaries at­ tempted to walk an ineffective middle path between the two sides. The Wil­ liamsons, Riggs, and Gideon Pond acknowledged that many Minnesotans EPILOGUE 205 had suffered due to the war. However, they spoke out in both their public and private correspondence against settler attacks on the Dakotas as they moved to prison camps and questioned the prisoners’ detention and treat­ ment at Mankato and Fort Snelling. They also opposed the removal of the prisoners to Davenport, as well as the location of the new Crow Creek res­ ervation...