I tend to see things in shades of gray. Maybe its because I like debating with people, and with a lot of gray, there’s a lot of room for disagreements. That or I just find black and white to be too boring. I like having more substance, and room to explore.
However, I understand black and white. Its easy. It gives definitive answers. And it may just be part of human nature to see things in that manner. For our ancestors, it was a huge benefit. It allowed them to make efficient decisions that their survival depended on; this is a friend as they are in my group, that is a foe as they are other.
It is a trait that we are born with, and while at one time it may have saved our ancestors lives, it also has caused a lot of trouble. Being a historian, this issue pops up quite regularly. People have a tendency to want to categorize themselves as good, or moral, and those who differ as bad or immoral. Which may be somewhat fine, but when that sort of view is used to define historical figures, often the result is that those individuals become demonized.
Lets face it. Very few people from history, when completely examined, can be seen as perfectly good or moral. Even those who we idolize as pillars have their dark sides, especially when judged according to today’s sets of guidelines and morality. Simply, morality is subjective and tends to change throughout history. While certain guidelines may remain true, others just don’t stand the test of time. Don’t kill, still a good idea. Lets enslave others, not so good.
Mr. Lincoln
Since morality changes, as does what society views as acceptable or unacceptable, to judge an individual on today’s standards often isn’t justified, nor does it make sense. To be clear though, that doesn’t mean people get a free pass because they lived 100 years ago. But it does mean we should look at them in a different light. We can’t simply retroject our views onto the past.
This brings me to President Abraham Lincoln. Increasingly, Lincoln has come under much more scrutiny, and at least in part, for good reason. While at one time he was seen as this mythical hero of the United States, and that view hasn’t completely vanished, increasingly, a dark side of Lincoln has also come to light. For some, this dark side is all that matters, and instead of a hero, he’s been recasted as a tyrannical villain. But history is never so black and white.
To be fair, Lincoln deserves a bit of both views. He led the country through an incredibly difficult time period. He helped pave the way for complete abolishment of slavery, and for greater equality of black citizens. He helped unify the country, as well as better it through things such as land grant colleges, which include most of our public universities. And if you believe what you see in the movies, he killed vampires.
But for a good portion of his life, he was horribly racist. He oversaw the largest mass execution in the country’s history; an execution he signed off on. And he saw blacks as inferior, a point he was not shy about when running for president. However, his views also changed over time.
That’s a key point. Lincoln changed over time. We all do. Our views evolve as new information is introduced. And our views are also shaped by the society in which we belong. To take one or two actions; a single snapshot of history, and assume that is a good reflection of who someone is, just doesn’t work. People are more complex than that.
Even an event, such as the execution of 38 Dakota men, while a heinous act, is more nuanced than just black or white.
Dakota 38
In August of 1862, an uprising by Dakota tribal members in Minnesota began. It was in response to treaty violations and hunger, primarily. To put it simply, the environment at that time was a tinderbox. For six weeks, the Dakota War of 1862 waged on until the Dakota surrendered at what later became known as Camp Release in Minnesota. The uprising itself can be seen as justified. The United States had violated treaties, which can be argued easily as a justification for war.
United
States forces didn’t see it that way though. Just two days after the
surrender, a commission of military officers began trying Dakota men
who were accused of participating in the war. 392 prisoners would be
tried, and out of those, 303 sentenced to death and 16 given prison
terms.
However, earlier that year, in July of 1862, a new law
was passed that made it clear that the President would have to
approve any death sentences that came from military commissions. And
this is where all the gray area comes into play.
For Lincoln, the easy route would have been to sign off on all of the death sentences. That is what the people of Minnesota wanted, and what the soldiers wanted. It is also what local politicians were pushing for and in doing so, helped stoke a growing mob that was set to implement vigilante justice if they didn’t get their way. Lincoln was told, under no uncertain terms, that if he did not give the orders for execution, the people of Minnesota, and possibly some of the soldiers, would kill “all the Indians, old men, women and children.”
In December, he came to his decision. Only those who committed acts of rape would be executed. After only discovering 2 men who were convicted of such, he broadened the criteria to those who committed massacres, making a clear distinction between those who just took place in battles.
The reason for this is one that would also largely be implemented at the end of the Civil War. The goal was to not act in so much clemency, as the fear was that it would encourage further uprisings. At the same time, Lincoln didn’t want to act with so much severity that it would be deemed cruel.
40 Dakota men would be convicted of this. One would immediately have his death sentence commuted to ten years in prison, and a second would later have his death sentence commuted.
It is true that Lincoln could have commuted all of the 303 death sentences. Instead, he commuted the death sentences of 264 men, despite the intense pressure on him, and the very clear threat that had been leveled if he didn’t do what the people of Minnesota wanted.
At the same time, while the Dakota justification for the war may be sound, not all of their actions can be excused. Rape, the killing of children and women, the killing of unarmed non combatants isn’t justified, on either side. Some 450-800 civilians, on the side of the United States, would be murdered during the war, which included children. To turn a blind eye, and paint all the actions of the Dakota as good, and all the actions of the United States as bad is a mistake and does no justice for the overall history. To put it simply, the entire incident is much more complicated then the black and white terms many try to paint it as.
Just as an aside, the decision that Lincoln made towards the Dakota, and the rationale behind it, also were in play with how the United States treated the South after the end of the Civil War. It isn’t uncommon for war tribunals to be held, and for people who went outside of the standard practices of war to be tried and imprisoned or executed.
As with the Civil War
After the Civil War, this wasn’t an exception. Around a thousand tribunals would be held after the War. The reasoning for such acts is simple; they are to enforce the laws of war.
Like the decision in the Dakota War of 1862, after the Civil War, leniency was practiced. There would be prison sentences, as well as executions, most famously Henry Wirz and a bit less famous, Robert Kennedy. Champ Ferguson was another largely publicized execution after the war, not to mention the many more executions during the war (such as spurred on by General Order No. 252, in which Lincoln promised to treat Confederate POWs in the same manner that Union Black troops were treated when held as prisoners by the Confederates. While Lincoln couldn’t keep the promise to the T, it did result in a good number of executions as well as forced labor among Confederate POWs).
The decision was one of attempting to prevent another revolt by laying down punishment, while not being so severe as to be cruel, because reuniting and future peace was still needed. It was a fine line to walk.
In the end, history is much more complicated than the black and white picture that it is often portrayed as. And we shouldn’t shy away from that.
