AUTHOR'S NOTE.

The intuitive desire for fair play and the wish to help a hapless victim, supplemented by some research and mature reflection, has induced me to write this personal estimate of the Indian attitude toward White men of pioneer times.

The responsibility for this opinion rests with me instead of with my mother. Her account of the Lott tragedy, however, furnished the occasion for its expression.

I shall not attempt an account of the Spirit Lake massacre. Its salient features have been traced by many Iowa historians; and a detailed description of the tragedy has been written by one of the women who was taken captive by the Indians. Abby Gardner-Sharp's book may be found in many Iowa libraries.

My expression of individual opinion is not given to criticize the spirit of growth which made necessary the acquirement of the red man's hunting grounds; nor is it given to censure the men who were instrumental in its accomplishment. It is a comparison of human propensities which, under the same conditions, produce the same results regardless of color or degree of civilization.

A statement of fact, made without prejudice, should receive judicial consideration; so I hope to touch the note of expansive fairness which at this distance may make it possible to discuss and determine calmly the natural estimate of human values, whether the individuals under discussion be red or white-skinned.

The Spirit Lake settlers were a peaceable and unoffending people; that they should have been massacred in retaliation either for fancied grievances or real injuries, is

273

most deplorable. The trouble serves well, however, to emphasize the prevalence of the idea: "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," which persists, not alone among savage tribes, but among the peoples of so-called civilized nations.

Strange to relate we frequently find those who claim the highest culture and humane tendencies are first to break all bonds of restraint, ruthlessly invade the liberty and usurp the rights of unoffending victims. For confirmation of this statement we only need to enumerate the many home and neighborhood disturbances, the state-wide political upheavals, and the trade depredations committed by destructive armies of conquest.

There can be no extenuation of the Spirit Lake massacre except that the perpetrators were unfamiliar with the teaching to turn the other cheek when smitten by the enemy. Their sense of mutuality and reciprocity, notwithstanding, seems to have been very well developed.

There were, doubtless, stored in the minds of the Indians many, to them, unjust minor incidents which goaded them to active enmity; and when nine of them were butchered by Henry Lott, forbearance must have ceased to be a virtue. This massacre of Indians seems to have been the crowning act of hostility remembered against the settlers, and for which they retaliated at Spirit Lake--the only massacre of Iowans by Indians, so far as I have been able to learn.

Major Brassfield affirmed that Henry Lott was thought to be less desirable as a neighbor than the cheated and mistreated red man who was unable to explain his grievances or good intentions. We readily can understand, however, that were a foreign race foolhardy enough to attempt to dispossess the white man, destroy his possessions, appropriate his belongings or take his life expedient, there would be more strenuous opposition or more terrific destruction of property and more bloody reprisals required than could have been conceived by the savage mind of half a century ago.

An historical account states that while the fragmentary

274

band of Sioux Indians, although apparently friendly and listed as pensioners of Uncle Sam, had not at that time, received their portion of revenue for the sale or cession of Iowa lands. Isn't it possible that the distance of the general government from the danger zone may have caused delay, not to say apathy or indifference to the niceties of business adjustment; or that the envoys who came to ensure safety to the settlers may have been mistaken or careless in the equitable distribution of Indian payments, thereby raising the question of unfair dealing in the minds of the former possessors of the land?

Mrs. Sharp, referring to the withholding of annuities of Indian bands until they had helped to capture or kill Inkpaduta, although these assistant bands had nothing to do with the massacre, says: "We will only say that it was the opinion of some of the Indian officials, and the general intelligent sentiment of the people of Minnesota at the time, that the apparently friendly disposition of the Sioux nation should not be endangered by subjecting them to wants, incident to their present condition, thus leading them into temptation and to commit depredations which the withholding their annuities might leave them exposed."

Imposing dangerous and unusual burdens upon friendly bands of Indians was not the business of those in command of affairs, and the condition which obtained after the return of the two captives existed before, as indicated by various official reports.

We virtuously assert that Iowa lands were bought from the Indians, but note the price. For a part of the Neutral strip the government in 1830 paid the Indians two cents--some authorities say three cents--per acre; and in 1842, for the cession by the Sac and Fox tribes east of the Missouri river, ten cents per acre was paid.

The treaty with the Sac and Fox tribes stipulated that they were to relinquish their part of the then territory of Iowa, but were allowed three years in which to evacuate. The Sioux Indians occupying northern Iowa and parts of

275

what now is Minnesota and Dakota were not friendly with the Sac and Fox tribes.

The Sacs and Foxes moved westward to leave Iowa, as per treaty, and a part of the Sioux contingent followed them; thus, for some time separating themselves from the parent tribe. These bands being absent in 1851 when the treaty ceding Minnesota lands was made, they, at that time had received no share of the payments due them.

The non-payment of money to them was stated by Charles Flandreau, who later was Indian agent. They were absent, he says: "and took no part in the treaty." These braves came under the leadership of Inkpaduta and Sidominadotah, and the latter became the victim of Henry Lott.

Referring to the northern border Indian trouble during the civil war, Major Flandreau makes this declaration:

"Much dissatisfaction was engendered among the Indians by the administration of the treaties under the general government * * *. The rebellion of the south was at its height. The payment due in June or July, 1862, was much delayed. The Indians were hungry and angry. Nothing special has been discovered to have taken place to which the outbreak can be immediately attributed."

Discussing the causes in a report by Geo. L. Davenport to Governor Kirkwood of the western frontier situation, he says:

"I am of the opinion the cause of dissatisfaction among many of the tribes of Indians is caused mainly by the general government paying the annuities to the Indians in goods instead of money. ** * He thinks the agent is cheating him. He thinks he is wronged, although the agent explains to him that cotton and wool have gone up in price and that his money does not buy as much as before. It is difficult to make the Indian understand or believe it, but pay him in dollars and then he knows the government has fulfilled its part."

Governor Grimes, after the Spirit Lake massacre, established a supply of arms and ammunition in Webster and

276

Dickinson counties. He said in his message to the general assembly of Iowa in 1858:

"I do not anticipate any further trouble from Indians. Rumors in regard to further difficulty can generally be traced to interested persons, seeking to accomplish some ulterior purpose."

What such ulterior purpose was the governor does not declare but his statement would not indicate an actively unfriendly attitude of the Indians. The fact, likewise, that from 1853, when the soldiers were transferred from Fort Dodge to Fort Ridgley, Minnesota, there was not for several years a single military organization in the state, would not indicate Indian hostility.

Many years ago America's sage and benefactor, Benjamin Franklin, said: "It appears that almost every war between Indians and Whites in our country has been caused by injustices of the latter toward the former."

When we reflect that the Indian's account of this or any other story never has been written; when we remember that re-written stories often become one-sided; when we realize that the sufferings of a human being may be equally acute under a sun-browned cuticle or beneath a pure white skin; when we admit that savage instincts still persist in the white race-then we shall be more just in our judgment than we have been heretofore.

It is quite believable there were unrecorded early invasions of the rights of both Indians and white men, but the court records of today indicate a similar condition existing between members of the white race alone.

Historians assert that Henry Lott committed many depredations against property and made many unjust and demoralizing deals with the Indians. I imagine these acts would arouse the resentment of almost any red-blooded white man; and were his revenge immediately taken the court of the common people, doubtless, would declare it to be justifiable.

The Spirit Lake massacre was committed over half a century ago; but was it more distressing than the up-to-date

277

feuds of the South which end only with the death of all members of one or more families? Was this massacre more deserving of execration than the recent bloody strife of settlers with western plainsmen in the effort to break up large holdings of grazing lands for homes?

A condition was presented in these disturbances very similar to the one which confronted the Indian; and in this particular parallel the scales tip in favor of the red man. He sought only to conserve his food supply, while the greedy holder of grazing-lands sought to accumulate money benefits at the expense, and to the detriment of suffering home-seekers.

We read that when the Fort Ridgley soldiers were prepared to pursue the Indians and the Spirit Lake captives, the detachment was recalled and detailed to the scene of Mormon troubles. These religionists, earlier had been driven from their homes by the persecutions of their brothers of the same race and color, because they did not worship God as did their neighbors.

When established in their Mormon stronghold they are alleged to have returned blow for blow to innocent western emigrants. "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" culminated, in this case, in the Mountain Meadows massacre, which now is conceded to have been of fanatical Mormon instigation.

Are we justified, with such common cruelties fresh it our minds, in declaring the Indian to be a more intolerant savage than the white man?

Could the resentment of Indians be more unreasoning, their enmity more virulent than the race antipathy--not to say hatred--of white men for negroes? This prejudice culminates periodically in the most atrocious butcherings and burnings of black men by their white brothers. Does the taking of a white man's scalp as a trophy by an Indian deserve a greater degree of censure than the collection of fragments of negro flesh as souvenirs by the white executors?

278

Charles Bancroft says: "As for scalping, that was originated by the palefaces, so the Indian cannot be blamed for adopting it, The colonists offered bounties for scalps of the Indians. The warriors' scalps were the most expensive. Those of the squaws came next. The friendly Indians were induced to scalp their fellow red men in the hope of receiving these bounties, and it is but natural that the hostile Indian retaliated, not only against the friendly Indians, but against the white man."

Indian depredations were few and far between on the frontier, compared with the number of immigrants; but reports from our cultured and populous centers show that during the past seven years six thousand persons in Chicago have been shot. The same city reports a total number of arrests for 1915 of 121,714 persons. Press reports chronicle 818 arrests for the city of Des Moines, Iowa, during the month of July, 1917. It would require some speed by the several tribes of Indians to match these records of crime and misconduct.

The Indians had no ponderous written law volumes for their guidance, but regardless of our statutes there were fifty-five negroes lynched in the United States in 1915, by white men and women; and the perpetrators of these heinous crimes were not at all particular to make sure they captured the guilty party. The execution of any black man seemed to appease the wrath of the civilized white man. The stock charge of assault was not always sustained; and statistics show that burnings have occurred when the victim was guilty only of vagrancy and other light offenses. From the hundreds of reports which might be cited from the press, I quote but one:

"Two negroes and one negress near Savannah, Tennessee, were burned to death by white tenants who objected to the occupancy of land by negroes. The negroes were going to market with a load of seed cotton. They were tied to the load of cotton, and after building a fire beneath it, the mob stood guard while the negroes were cremated."

279

These outrageous crimes are being committed today. Are we to suppose that pioneers of three score years ago were always punctilious in their treatment or dealings with Indians?

Recent statistics show that in the United States, within seventeen months, 4,217 wives were murdered by their husbands. With these facts before us the bloody record of the Indian fades a little in hue. When we read of opera house hangings so the elite of society may witness the physical manifestations of strangulation; when we note the record of private lynching parties and public executions as holiday festivals, (read Georgia and Mississippi statistics for August, 1915,) we are constrained to admit that the war-dance of red-skinned savages about the forms of their captured victims cannot approximate the sports of the cultured, pale-faced product of our enlightened age.

Our Anglo-Saxon cousins, as late as 1870, listed one hundred and sixty crimes punishable by death. We have eliminated a large number from this list; but the members of modem society commit crimes and depredations which make necessary the maintenance of fourteen thousand prisons, and an annual expenditure of six billions of dollars for machinery of conviction and other expenses. Since our rules of life today are so remote from the spirit of reciprocity, are we not presumptuous even to expect the semblance of mutuality in the primitive races of pioneer times?

I quote from the reply to a personal letter of inquiry addressed to Professor Frederick Starr, anthropologist of the Chicago University, in regard to the characteristic cruelty charged by so many authors against the Indians, he says: "I know of no tribe of American Indians who are deserving of the terms wanton cruelty, and vengefulness. I did not suppose anyone made such claims nowadays."

It is difficult for an interested individual to view an injury from a disinterested standpoint, or to consider a community grievance with national consideration. Conditions arise in the path of progress which, whether locally detri-

280

mental or beneficial, produce unvarying results; and on the possibility of being considered by a Judicious, analytical mind depends the accuracy or bias of history.

The red race, as a whole, no more should be blamed for the depredations of various hostile bands of Indians than the Caucasians, as a race, should be censured for black-hand societies or the kuklux klan. It would be very unreasonable and unjust to condemn the Italian people because of the existence of the Mafia, or Christianity for its recreant ministers, or a community for its several "black sheep."

Henry L. and Edwin Sabin, in "The Making of Iowa," record this statement: "Let us bear in mind that the Sacs and Foxes, the Iowas and the Sioux, and all the rest were but men and women as are all the white people. They loved their homes; they loved their relatives; they were brave in defense of their rights. The more we learn of the Indians, especially of their life before the whites corrupted them with liquor and false promises, the more we will respect them. * * * They were honest and paid their debts more promptly than did the whites."

The American Indian, according to his degree of development, is exactly like the white race. There are friendly and vicious individuals who command a certain following; there are true and treacherous members of both races. There are intelligent, broad-minded men seeking the good of all; and opposed to them is the selfish element seeking power and prestige.

The red, black, brown or yellow races hold the same relative position in the estimation of the white man--that of an inferior; therefore, they are the legitimate prey of his dominant mentality and physical efficiency. While the white man's power or craft are in the ascendancy he, of course, will hold his position. Power delegated or usurped invariably has been abused, and to hope for the voluntary relinquishment of such hold upon any race--or a portion of our own race--before the influence of education has done its work, were to hope for the unattainable.

281

General Randolph B. Marcy says: "Nearly all the troubles we have encountered with the Indian tribes for the last fifty years has resulted from the noncompliance, on our part, with treaty stipulations, together with the injustice and fraud practiced upon them by dishonest agents."

Randall Parrish, in The Great Plains, says of early immigration over the Santa Fe Trail: "During all the later years the Indian tribes were restless and dangerous. * * * This hostility of the savages can be traced back to the reckless barbarism of the teamsters themselves. The Santa Fe Trail became a trail of blood, yet it was peaceful enough until wanton shooting of Indians by whites compelled the tribes to retaliate. In the earliest days a man could have walked in safety the entire distance."

General Nelson A. Miles says: "The whole history of our dealings with the Indians has been one process after another of obtaining from the Indians what the white man wanted, with little scruple about methods. We disregarded treaties, sold the Indians into slavery in some states and pushed them back into the wilderness and toward extinction.

The success of pioneering from the Atlantic to the Pacific became more rapidly possible because of the assistance and co-operation of friendly red men. That small numbers of hostile bands held up the advance guard of settlement is but an incident in the march of progress.

It is a matter of record that after the Puritan fathers landed on the American continent they first "fell upon their knees, and then upon the aborigines." The same policy has been continued throughout the years by various arms of the government and lawless members of society. Whether mistakenly or intentionally does not change the record of results.

It is a well known fact that the Indian wars of history were fought on the one side by Indians who were hostile to white invasion, and by white men and friendly Indians on the other. It likewise is well known, and admitted by Mrs. Sharp, that the negotiations of the governor of Minnesota

282

for the relinquishment of captives taken at the Spirit Lake massacre, could not have been concluded favorably except for the assistance of friendly Indians.

Our outlook upon life is: whatever appears to benefit us most, seems just to us; whatever promises displeasure or detriment is declared to be unjust. Whether this reasoning can be sustained from a humane standpoint matters not; the fact remains. The advent of the white man into the hunting grounds of the Indian did not presage benefits for the so-called savage. The invasion appeared to be unjust to many, therefore to be opposed and the offenders punished. The color line cannot be drawn on this statement; its boundary is not tribal or even national; the law of self-preservation--of sustaining and maintaining the race--is as virile in one branch of the tree of humanity as another.

The strife for supremacy has been well shown in the world war with its waste of money and men; with its disregard for personal and property rights; with its demand for sacred and profane sacrifices; with its holocaust of hate and horrors; with its burial of ideals and inspirations and its records of disease, debauchery and disaster--the world war emphasizes the fact that today civilization essentially is savagery. It also places the consideration of early Indian depredations in a class by themselves and out of the lists in competition.

The two general methods followed by the Indians--that of hostile opposition and that of peaceful submission to white domination--both seem to have failed. The first, those opposing invasion, have been sacrificed without mercy; the second, the peaceable tribes, have been demoralized by idleness and the various vices of a white man's civilization. These changes were thrust so suddenly upon the victims that no time was given for constitutional or intellectual evolution; so, these sons of nature rapidly are being eliminated from the equation of progress.

The moderation which should characterize our attitude toward an aggressor; the toleration which should be exer-

283

cised toward a so-called inferior, and the consideration which should make always possible just decisions for both -- these may be slow in materializing, but they must materialize if we are to answer, affirmatively, the question: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Top

Back