Conflicted ABCFM Mission to the Dakotas, 1835-1862

Chapter 4. "Leagued together to drive all the missionaries out of their country": Increasing Opposition nad Conflict, 1840-50

97 CHAPTER 4 “Leagued together to drive all the missionaries out of their country” Increasing Opposition and Conflict, 1840–50 The 1840s was a time of increasing opposition and conflict for the men and womenoftheDakotamission.TheTreatyof1837,whichcededDakotaterri­ tory east of the Mississippi to the U.S. government, was extremely unpopu­ lar among the Dakotas, and they directed most of their anger over the treaty at the ABCFM missionaries. Ironically, at the same time Dakota protests reachedanall-timehigh,theABCFMwasable(withthegovernment’shelp) to send more teachers, laborers, and ministers to Minnesota. Government aid, however, was a double-edged sword, as it solidified the Dakotas’ be­ lief that the missionaries were merely a mouthpiece for the government. It also created tension with the ABCFM, which did not want the government to usurp its control over the location of its stations. The reality of raising large families in the field also led to disillusionment among the missionary women. These themes—Dakota opposition to missionary work, the mis­ sionaries’ conflicted relationship with the federal government, disagree­ ments between members of the Board in Boston and missionaries in the field, and troubles faced by missionary women—were not new. However, these issues intensified during the 1840s and became more problematic. The decade also illustrates that missionary history cannot be separated from the larger history of the development and settlement of Minnesota. The missionaries wanted to remain isolated from social change, working to proselytize to the Dakotas without outside interference. Although this had neverbeentherealityevenpriortothe1840s,changeacceleratedduringthis decade. Following the Treaty of 1837, Minnesota’s population slowly began to rise. Small settlements—including St. Paul and Minneapolis—were established during the 1840s. In 1849, Minnesota became a territory. The missionaries worried that these new settlements and Minnesota’s territo­ rial status would be detrimental to their effort to Christianize the Dakotas. 98 CONFLICTED MISSION Othermissionstations(bothforeignand domestic) had taught theABCFM that “settlement generally had disastrous consequences for the spiritual and material interests of indigenous peoples.” This adage was certainly true for the Dakota mission in the 1840s. The Dakotas would have offered this same evaluation, but for entirely different reasons than their missionary counterparts.1 Conflict over the Treaty of 1837 More so than any other event, the Treaty of 1837, which was part of An­ drew Jackson’s Indian removal policy, defined missionary work among the Dakotas throughout the 1840s and beyond. According to Jackson’s policy, thefederalgovernmentwouldrelocatealltribeslivingeastoftheMississippi River to areas west of the river. The newly vacated lands would be opened for settlement and cultivation, as well as for extraction of resources (such as gold or timber). The Mdewakanton Dakotas, as the only band with villages on the eastern side of the Mississippi River, were the first of the four bands of Dakotas to fall under the guidelines of this aggressive removal policy.2 As part of Jackson’s policy, twenty-six Mdewakanton Dakotas traveled to Washington, DC, to negotiate and sign a treaty. The resulting Treaty of 1837 ceded to the United States “all their land, east of the Mississippi [R]iver, and all their islands in the said river,” totaling approximately 5 million acres. In return, the government would pay the Mdewakantons $1 million in an­ nuities and payments over several years. Part of the money from the land cession would be used to purchase medicine, “agricultural implements, me­ chanics’ tools, cattle, and such other articles as may be useful to them.” The government also would hire a physician, farmers, and blacksmiths to aid in the Mdewakantons’ civilization.3 Missionary Reaction to the Treaty of 1837 Although Jackson and his agents extolled the virtues of the Treaty of 1837, the Dakota missionaries were divided over the document. Only Stephen Riggs focused on the potential benefits of the treaty, believing that it would help the Dakotas. He also hoped that the missionaries would benefit from the new paid positions or receive treaty funds to support their schools. In the end, Riggs was “extremely anxious that the treaty . . . be ratified.” If the INCREASING OPPOSITION AND CONFLICT 99 treaty was not ratified, he worried that the Dakotas would lose “confidence in our government,” and this might cause the missionaries to “have to leave their country.”4 For various reasons, Riggs’s colleagues did not support the Treaty of 1837.Manyofthemissionariesespeciallycriticizedtheannuitiesestablished bythetreaty.SamuelPond,forexample,believedthatannuitieswouldmake the Mdewakantons lazy and dependent on government handouts. He com­ mented that “[t]he pay which they receive for the land” could...