Conflicted ABCFM Mission to the Dakotas, 1835-1862

Chapter 3. "We could not make them see with our eyes": Early Conflicts with the Dakotas, 1835-40

67 CHAPTER 3 “We could not make them see with our eyes” Early Conflicts with the Dakotas, 1835–40 During the first five years of their work, the Dakota missionaries quickly learned that the Board’s widely publicized strategy for converting Indians to Christianity did not translate well to the reality of life in the field. Rufus Anderson,oneofthemostinfluentialsecretariesoftheBoard (1832−66),de­ veloped a strategy for converting the world to Christianity; under his plan, missionaries simply would preach the gospel. He argued that “civilizing” Indians was secondary to proselytizing and, therefore, should not be the focusoftheABCFMmissions.Theprimaryjobofthemissionary,Anderson believed, “was to plant the gospel, build a native church, and then go home. Anything else was a distraction.” Reverend David Magie of the ABCFM summarizedAnderson’splanforconversion:“Thegospel,preachedwiththe Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, is all we need to recover men from their sins.”1 Despite the fact the Dakota missionaries parroted Anderson’s words, the secretary’s policies did not translate to the mission field on many levels. First, and most important, preaching the gospel alone did not produce re­ sults during the ABCFM’s first five years in Minnesota, except for a small pocket of converts at Lac qui Parle. Language factors initially limited the missionaries’ ability to preach to the Dakotas, as did the lack of funds pro­ vided by the Board. Most important, the ABCFM’s strict requirements for conversion and continued church membership made it extremely difficult for Dakotas to become, and remain, church members. Additionally, those fewDakotaswhojoinedthechurchrefusedtoplayasubservientrole;rather, they demanded to have a voice in church policy and membership. Second, missionaries in the field found it nearly impossible to separate Christianization from civilization, as Board policy required. The missionar­ ies quickly learned that it was difficult to admit Dakotas as church members 68 CONFLICTED MISSION without first changing some of their cultural practices. The Dakota mission­ aries became embroiled in disputes over Dakota warfare and gift-giving, which alienated potential converts. The missionaries also clashed with the Dakotas over whether church members could be involved in polygamous marriages,travelontheSabbath,andcontinuetohunt.Fortheirpart,Dakotas who interacted with the missionaries strongly defended their cultural prac­ tices and refused to join the church if they were forced to give up all, or even some, of them. Finally, Board policy forbade any compromise with so-called savage or heathen practices; Indian church members were required to adhere to the samestrictconversionstandardsasEuro-Americanmembers.However,life in the field militated against this uncompromising policy. If the mission­ aries wanted anyone to consider joining the church, some accommodation was necessary. The missionaries, for their part, worked to hide the extent of their accommodation from both the ABCFM and the evangelical public. During their first five years in Minnesota, the missionaries’ problems in convertingtheDakotasgenerallycameunderfourmaincategories:warfare, gift-giving, mission converts, and mission schools. In each of these areas the missionariesexperienced“theologizingmoments”whentheywereforcedto confront and potentially rethink some of their preconceived notions about Dakota culture and religion, as well as their own religious and cultural be­ liefs. These experiences also illustrate how the black-and-white directives of the ABCFM—conceived by Rufus Anderson in Boston—were challenged by the reality of life on the Minnesota frontier. Woven throughout are the stories of two Dakotas: Wambdiokiya (Eagle Help) and Joseph Renville. In their voluminous correspondence, the mis­ sionaries generally referred to the Dakotas only in the aggregate: for in­ stance, “Sioux are remarkably fond” of music; the Dakotas are “very much attached to their own superstitions”; the Pond brothers were “liked by most of the Indians.” In the first five years of correspondence, Wambdiokiya and Joseph Renville stand out as two notable exceptions to this pattern. The per­ sonal stories of these two men speak to the larger issue of missionary efforts to convert all Dakotas to Christianity.2 Wambdiokiya was a noted Wahpeton and a full-blood Dakota and Joseph Renville a mixed-blood (Dakota-French) trader. Both men lived near the Lac qui Parle mission, and although they interacted with the missionar­ ies and promoted the ABCFM’s agenda, Wambdiokiya and Renville also EARLY CONFLICTS WITH THE DAKOTAS 69 challenged mission policy by pushing the missionaries toward accommo­ dation. They also strongly voiced their opinions and refused to play sub­ servient roles in the mission. Samuel Pond commented that Wambdiokiya “had much to say about our labors here, other missions, wars, etc.” Likewise, Pond noted that Renville was not shy about expressing his...