One Noose, Two Beams, Same Story

Like PBS’s History Detectives? Read on.

*****

Roughly a decade ago, a Blue Earth County Historical Society volunteer took a historian into the back room of their Mankato, Minnesota facility and unwrapped a huge wooden timber. The volunteer said it was reputed to be a beam from the scaffold that executed 38 Dakota men in Mankato, Minnesota on December 26, 1862.

The volunteer was unaware that this showing violated BECHS policy. When the historian (who is white) requested a second, closer examination of the beam through official channels, the historian was denied in writing on the grounds that the beam, as a relic of the 1862 executions, was a “sensitive” object that held sacred funerary significance for the descendants of those who died on it, so could only be viewed by Dakota people.

By the twenty-first century, I think the state’s historical societies would understand that the politically expedient –cover-ups, denials, administrative rulings –only make some historians more intent to discover the truth hiding beneath.

Sunday January 29, 2012, the subject of BECHS’s sequestered beam surfaced again in the opening article in Dakota War of 1862 sesquicentennial coverage in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. In the article, reporter Curt Brown probed public opinion on the subject of another relic of the Dakota executions: a hangman’s noose sequestered in the bowels of the Minnesota Historical Society History Center in St. Paul where only Dakota people have been allowed to view it.

In the wake of the Strib. article, the Mankato Free Press, on Feb. 4, 2012 ran an article by Tim Krohn on Blue Earth’s own sequestered relic: the forbidden beam. Krohn’s article included a reprint of a 1927 newspaper story declaring the timber to be a beam from the 1862 scaffold. In it, the prescient reporter gave detailed dimensions and noted the remnants of a shipping tag affixed to one end of the beam.

Last week, Blue Earth County Historical Society (BECHS) Executive Director Jessica Potter took the 1927 specs to the back room and unwrapped the beam. The Mankato Free Press ran a follow-up story by Dan Linehan complete with photographs on Feb. 10, 2012.

Potter’s verdict: the beam does not match the 1927 description of the scaffold piece but may be an object described as an 1856 bridge timber accessioned by BECHS around the same time it acquired the piece of the 1862 scaffold.

However this bridge timber, as it is now identified, comes with a twist. Inside a small frame nailed to the end of the timber is an aged paper tag like the one the 1927 newspaper story attributed to the scaffold beam.

This story is missing pieces bigger than the hand-hewn notches in the timber.

BECHS once owned two beams. Between 1927 and 1987, Potter believes, the scaffold beam was lost and its tag switched to the bridge timber.

The beam they denied the white historian access to is nothing but an innocuous chunk of (likely) the wrong species of wood. An old hunk of bridge, that, it is said, modern Dakota people have wept and prayed over believing it to be a piece of the scaffold that executed 38 of their ancestors.

What makes something true? Denial? Belief? Tears?

That’s what makes history slippery.

It was true 150 years ago that relics of a grotesque execution were so treasured that one official planned to make a present of 38 nooses to his superiors in the nation’s capital who had authorized the mass hanging. Until a soldier detailed to remove the nooses from the necks of the executed Dakotas –the same guy who told this story –filched a noose, stuffed it inside his jacket, then slept with the knotted hemp like a giant pea under his mattress until the furor over the missing 38th noose subsided.

In the 143 years since the soldier donated the noose and its story to the Minnesota Historical Society, politically correct perceptions of “the truth” have made seismic shifts, especially in response to the American Indian Movement. MHS is now self-conscious about the things it once proudly collected and is scrambling to appear forthcoming about its past –we can hope including the collections and access policies it has a history of sealing, denying, deaccessioning, and legally covering-up.

A decade ago, why did not BECHS invite a historian with a measuring tape who had seen a photograph of scaffold beam into its back room and let the historian do what historians do? (The photo of the beam was subsequently lost by the Minnesota Historical Society.)

That’s the rub. If the people who collect history were routinely forthcoming, we historians would have to devote ourselves to more essential questions like, “What happened 150 years ago?” instead of following the rabbit trails and red herrings of forbidden objects locked in the basements of historical societies.

Why do historical organizations rebuff those who might help them make sense of their institutional past?

History suggests this new buzz-word, “truth-telling,” is inherently self-limiting.

*****

For the record, I am not the historian who was shown, then denied access to the BECHS beam. In the wake of MHS’s recent rediscovery of the noose and its accession story, I was invited to view the noose. I had not made up my mind about accepting when MHS removed the noose from the collection of potential exhibit objects open for comment. 

Posted in Blue Earth County Beam, Minnesota Historical Society, Opinion, truth-telling | 4 Comments

Reading Through Dakota Eyes: Woolworth Interview

An interview with Alan Woolworth on the development of  Through Dakota Eyes: Narrative Accounts of the Minnesota Dakota War of 1862, edited by Gary Clayton Anderson and Alan R. Woolworth (Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1988). In February, 2012, Alan re-read our interview and I thank him for permission to reproduce it here.

*****

Over the course of my research on the U.S. Dakota War of 1862, I have consulted Through Dakota Eyes and the manuscripts from which it was drawn. By 2004, I was curious about the development of the book and realized that with Alan Woolworth’s full retirement on the horizon, I should not assume I’d have a future opportunity to discuss it with him. Alan agreed to an interview and we sat down in his office at the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) History Center in St. Paul, Minnesota on February 18, 2005.

In preparation for the interview, I read the transcript of Alan’s interview with Rhoda Gilman, part of the Minnesota Historical Society’s ongoing institutional Oral History Project, and drafted a series of questions on the development of Through Dakota Eyes. That morning, Alan spoke from notes he had written for our meeting. As Rhoda had done with the earlier interview, I let Alan guide the conversation and only interrupted to ask for clarification, or to ask a related question of my own. I took extensive notes and began composing the following summary of our interview an hour after we finished. The interview lasted 60 minutes.

Alan read and approved my written account of the interview in 2005, and again in a letter dated February 10, 2012, granting permission to post the my interview notes on the web.

Alan opened the interview by talking about our mutual friend, Walt Bachman, who Alan had referred to me in 2003 because of the overlap in my work on the federal administration of the Sioux Agency in Minnesota, and Bachman’s work on Joseph Godfrey and the  military tribunal trials of Dakotas accused of participating in the 1862 war.

Then Alan turned the conversation to Through Dakota Eyes (TDE). When we set up this interview Alan had mentioned some notes he’d made from an earlier presentation on TDE to a church group at Mary Bakeman’s request. Alan is still looking for that speech and also referred me to his original proposal, which he said I should look up in his papers at MHS. [I later found a copy in the Publications files in the MHS Institutional Archives collection.] This is the story Alan told me of how TDE developed.

June Holmquist was the director of publications at the time Alan was made Research Fellow at MHS in November, 1979. Her pet project was a compilation of Minnesota biographies she thought MHS should publish. Holmquist asked staff members to research and write two biographies per week for 12-18 months, on top of their regular workload. Alan’s slice of the biographical pie contained Dakota fur traders, mixed bloods, and full bloods. The fruits of Alan’s labor were:  a binder of biographical sketches Alan had earlier dropped off at my house to copy for my own collection; a related set of 3 x 5 cards in the History Center Library which are condensed versions of the same information; and supporting research files in Alan’s papers. Just about the time Alan finished his biographies, MHS quashed the idea of publishing the project.

Alan’s research method was to glean and photocopy from printed, manuscript and microfilmed sources in the MHS Library. Alan said he never set out to do research on any particular individual, but rather copied everything he found which commented on a Dakota, a mixed-blood, or a trader. Alan set up a file on each person and when he’d accumulated about a half inch of paper on one person, he wrote that individual’s biography. Alan said that anything he’d not specifically footnoted in one of the written biographies should trace back to a photocopy in that person’s file in his papers.

Through Dakota Eyes had its roots in that biographies project. Earlier, Ken Carley published several Dakota oral histories. [As Red Men Viewed It, Minnesota History 38, September 1962.] Alan laughed when he observed that Carley always made a point about how rare such accounts were. Alan didn’t think they were rare; he’d come across about two dozen of them just putting together his biographies. Alan mentioned this fact casually to someone at the MHS Press and they encouraged him to submit a book proposal. He did and was pleasantly surprised when they wanted to do the project. Alan then spent another month or two digging around and came up with a little over 50 accounts of the 1862 War attributed to Dakota narrators.

The Minnesota Historical Society Press brought Gary Clayton Anderson in on Through Dakota Eyes (TDE) for his editorial experience. [Anderson had previously published Little Crow: Spokesman for the Sioux (1986) with MHS Press.] Alan had known Anderson for quite a while already. Anderson added another dozen or so Dakota accounts he had found, bringing the total to the 63 published in Through Dakota Eyes (TDE). Anderson was teaching at Texas A & M University at the time, but Alan had a Watts line so they spent a lot of time on the phone conferring and sent written work back and forth through the mail. Anderson also had family in the Twin Cities so he and Alan met to go over material several times as the project developed.

I asked who wrote which parts of the book. Alan said he wrote most of the biographical introductions; MHS Press editor Sally Rubinstein wrote others from Alan’s notes. It was also Alan’s job to find pictures of the narrators. Anderson wrote the majority of the Introduction, and the chapter introductions.

Alan’s driving impulse for Through Dakota Eyes was the fact that even those Dakota narratives that were known had been neglected by white historians, which he called “an atrocity — an abomination” because, in Alan’s opinion, the narrators’ ethnicity was the reason their stories had been ignored. Alan said “oral traditions have their value. I’d still take something that had been written down, the earlier the better.” However, Alan felt white historians had slighted even early-recorded oral narratives, simply because they were from Dakotas.

Next, I asked Alan about revising Through Dakota Eyes (TDE) someday. If it was done, what would he like to see happen? Alan said it needed to be updated and corrected along the lines of what the Press had done when, at his insistence, they fixed the George Crooks account.

“They did?” I asked. “My copy at home (black cover) isn’t the most recent edition. I didn’t realize they’d updated it.”

Alan’s desk copy of TDE was the same as mine. So he got up and began fishing through his office cupboard for a newer edition. While he did, I asked, “Did the Press just change the citation or did they run both the Enterprise story and Crook’s refutation?”

“Oh, they printed them both,” he said. “I told them that was the only right thing to do. It would be so instructive for readers to see both so they can keep in mind that things like this [the refutation of a previously accepted source] might be out there.”

Alan emerged from his cupboard with two copies of the latest version of TDE (blue cover) and handed one to me. We both began flipping to the Crooks account. On the way, I looked at the publication page and thought it did not indicate it was a revised edition. The Crooks account in the newer edition looked identical to my copy at home: same narrative, same notes. Then I opened Alan’s desk copy (black cover) to compare and found it identical. I didn’t say anything, wondering what he’d say.

“It isn’t here. How could it not be here?” Alan said. “Where else [in the book] would they have put it? This must not be the most recent edition.”

Alan next looked next door in the Press library and didn’t find a revised edition there either. Alan promised he’d seen an updated version and would find a copy of the most recent printing and get back to me.

[He later did. The revisions at the 5th imprint altered the introduction to Crook’s story on p. 261, and removed the photo of Crooks from p. 262 to make space for an excerpt from his refutation, and contains a reference on the publication page noting the revision. The blue cover remained the same.]

Since we were talking about revisions, I brought up the Joseph Blacksmith information in Good Star Woman’s biography in TDE. “I read your biographical file on Blacksmith [for the Minnesota Biographies project] and found it so interesting that by the time Good Star Woman talked to Densmore, the family had forgotten Blacksmith had been tried and imprisoned for participation in the Uprising.”

“They did?” Alan asked, seeming genuinely surprised. He flipped to Good Star Woman’s narrative in TDE and skimmed the biographical introduction. [Echoing the narrative on p. 263, the Introduction on p. 36 places Good Star Woman’s father among the Dakotas interned at Fort Snelling.] “They sure did,” he said shaking his head. “I guess that tells us something about human memory doesn’t it. We remember the good times, the happy times. The bad just slides away.”

Alan sounded tired so I wrapped up our interview. On my way out, Alan brought up my then-upcoming trip to Philadelphia to review Ella Deloria’s papers in the Franz Boas collection at the American Philosophical Society. Alan said, “It is really ridiculous that you have to go all the way out there to read translations of [Dakota language] originals MHS owns. That stuff has been sitting here for decades and nobody knows what it says.”

Alan told me he knew Ella Deloria. They both grew up in South Dakota and had many mutual friends. They were in Washington D.C. for a hearing on a Yankton Dakota claims case. Afterward, the law firm representing the Yanktons took Alan and Deloria out for dinner.

“Somehow,” Alan reminisced, “she got so she was standing behind me and I said, in jest, ‘Ella, I am not one damn bit afraid of you. I don’t have enough hair to make a good scalp.’ Then she began running her fingers through my thinning locks and said,

‘Well, we’d have to do a careful job of it. But I think we could get a scalp here.’”

Alan smiled as he remembered. “Ella and I both laughed. The eastern attorneys were shocked at our levity.”

Posted in Alan Woolworth, Through Dakota Eyes | 5 Comments

Reading Through Dakota Eyes

This post introduces a series on the book, Through Dakota Eyes: Narrative Accounts of the Minnesota Dakota War of 1862, edited by Gary Clayton Anderson and Alan R. Woolworth, published by the Minnesota Historical Society Press in 1988.

In the 21st century, it is axiomatic to consider the Dakota point of view on this war increasingly owned by Dakota people as the “Dakota-U.S. War of 1862.” But that wasn’t true a quarter century ago. Back then, white men still held the corner on the history market, although they were beginning to feel defensive about the popularity of revisionist stories like Dee Brown’s 1983 Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

By the 1980’s, Dakota people had been telling their 1862 stories for over a century. But outside the Dakota community, those stories that had been recorded were almost unknown, originally published in ephemeral places like newspapers and magazines where they were  encountered only by the hardiest of archival scholars.

Through Dakota Eyes (TDE) changed the contours of the Dakota War research landscape by collecting the written Dakota stories that Woolworth and Anderson had identified by the mid-1980s, and by making them accessible in a book, the form at that time most valued by non-Native historians.

TDE remains a standard work on the subject of the U.S. Dakota War of 1862. My goal in this series is to stand in the generation gap, reaching one hand back toward the college student I was the year this seminal work went to press, and one hand forward to help interpret the book for modern consumers of history. With his permission, this series will includes an interview I conducted with Alan R. Woolworth on the development of Through Dakota Eyes, a list of recorded Dakota primary sources that have come to light since 1988, and several discussions about using Through Dakota Eyes in the 21st century.

–Carrie

Posted in Through Dakota Eyes | Leave a comment

Read Many Stories

150 years after an event as thoroughly-studied as the U.S. Dakota War of 1862, it is hard to find a fresh angle, a new point of view that makes even scholars question what they think they know. Mary Butler Renville’s A Thrilling Narrative of Indian Captivity is that kind of story.

This website is the back story for A Thrilling Narrative, helping you consider the Dakota War and how it has been represented in history by gathering sources you can access on the Internet: from old primary documents to the most recent scholarship and headlines.

How did a 19th century woman born in New York state become the wife of a Dakota man? How could they be “captives” of their own kin?  Why did a Dakota resistance movement form to oppose a war started by Dakota people? How did that change the course of the war? Asking new questions opens new lines of inquiry.

“What one book should I read to better understand the Dakota War?” Gwen Westerman was asked recently.

“It was a hard question to answer,” Gwen admitted. “A very hard question. Finally I said, ‘Don’t read just one story. Read many stories.'”

Your interest in the Dakota War will be piqued by Renville’s A Thrilling Narrative. Keep reading. Keep listening. Keep inquiring. As you’ll see when you begin to explore the resources collected on this site, it is one among many stories.

–Carrie

cropped-little-thunder-they-always-prefer-the-old-ways.jpg

ATN Cover

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment