Finding the Real Henry Sibley

MARSHALL - A discussion about early statesman, fur trader and first
Minnesota governor Henry Hastings Sibley brought about impassioned arguments
on Wednesday at Southwest Minnesota State University.

It began after a reading by Saint Paul's own, Rhoda Gilman on her recent
biography Henry Hastings Sibley: Divided Heart. She titled her reading
"Henry Sibley and the Consequences of Conquest."

The Rural and Regional Studies department hosted the event with funds from the Otto Bremer Foundation.

Gilman retired as a senior research fellow at the Minnesota Historical Society in 1992 after 34 years as an editor, researcher and administrator.

She's completed the first full-scale biography of the Sibley "because there has never been a real biography of him," she said.

"Most people don't know how crucial his life was for more than 50 years
shaping the state we live in today."

Gilman shared her research on Sibley as a national politician in pre-Civil
War America, a founder of Minnesota territory and leading architect of its
constitution.

For Gilman, Sibley goes beyond the role of a lawmaker and his assumed role
as an army officer. She said Sibley was a cultural leader who bridged the
Dakota and white cultures in a complex way.

In one example she said "Sibley secured twice the usual allotment of federal
land for common schools in the territory."

Gilman also said that MHS historians and political scientists in 1966 rated him among the top seven governors.

In part of her reading, Gilman also sought to dispel myths about the man, one being that Sibley tried to hide that he had a Dakota daughter.

Sibley put her in a white foster family and supported her after the death of
her mother. Later, he went on to marry a white woman Sarah Jane Steele and
the two had nine children.

Given this information, Gilman said his private life is still a mystery.

"Trying to find the real Henry Sibley is like walking through a hall of mirrors," she said.

In 1862, the U.S.-Dakota War pitted cultures in the Minnesota River Valley
and the surrounding area against each other.

"On Aug. 18, 1862 Minnesota suffered a terrorist attack, equal in it¹s shock
to New York City on 9/11,"Gilman said.

"That August day, and those following it saw more than 500 unsuspecting
citizens attacked and slain (by select Dakota groups) in the Minnesota River
Valley," she added.

Gilman also mentioned that just as many if not more Dakota were not interested in fighting in the war.

Then Governor, Alexander Ramsey looked to Sibley to lead a force to quell
the fighting.

Later, when the war came to an end, Dakota men were tried and 303 slated to
be executed. President Abraham Lincoln had aides reinvestigate the evidence
to find 39--one Dakota man was commuted and 38 were hanged in Mankato on
Dec. 26, 1862.

Time did not allow Gilman to discuss issues leading to the conflict, but she
spoke at length on the earlier 1851 treaties (Traverse des Sioux--signed
north of St. Peter, and Mendota) between the U.S. Government and the Dakota.

Gilman said Sibley was also deeply critical of the Washington indian policies where he worked to secure citizenship for natives.

In Sibley's association with these treaties and other dealings, Gilman
called him a "controversial figure"as evidenced by the arguments that arose
after the reading.

Chris Mato Nunpa, professor of Indigenous Nations and Dakota Studies at SMSU said perspectives are important in looking at Sibley.

"Who is doing the looking, who is doing the telling and that perspective
generates the terminology that is used," he said.

"Somebody¹s terrorist is another's freedom fighter," he added and Gilman
agreed.

"Terms like controversial, illusive, complexity were used in describing
Sibley...and probably that is true with Euro-Americans, but for most Dakota
people that¹s not necessarily the case," Mato Nunpa said.

"In a matter of perspective, the people whose lands where stolen are going
to look at things differently, than the people who stole the lands," he
added. "The people who had the treaties broken, are gonna look at things
differently than the people who broke the treaties-in this case the
Euro-Americans or the U.S. and it's Euro-American citizenry."

Mato Nunpa also spoke in terms of genocide.

"The people who are victims of genocide are gonna look at things differently
than the perpetrators of genocide of indigenous peoples in general of the
United States and of Dakota people specifically in Minnesota," he said.

Dave Larsen Jr. of the Lower Sioux Community near Morton asked Gilman to
define the term Manifest Destiny. He also said that the Dakota viewpoints
aren¹t always heard.

"We always sugarcoat what happened from the Europeans, but we don't get an
opportunity," he said. "The trial of the 300-and-some that were found guilty...we're not allowed to defend ourselves."

"...just like today when we defend ourselves I can almost feel the animosity
rising among the people here...because we are defending ourselves," Larsen
added.

He continued by explaining the impact he sees on the Dakota children today a
result of this sort of history being expressed.

"A lot of things you said are what our children hear at school everyday--guess what--our children have a 70-percent drop out rate...our children
have 4 to 7 times (more likely) suicide rate than other youth because of
these kinds of attitudes--your view is a very bigoted view, I'd say."

Larsen went on to say that there is "very little truth in most history books
today" and soon after left the room.

Following Larsen's comments, South Dakota alternative education teacher
Gabrielle Tateyuskanskan spoke about her relatives participating in the 1862
conflict, and the importance of history to today's Dakota youth.

"What happens in this country...Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota--young people get their identities squelched...they can't talk about Colombus' genocide," she said.

Tateyuskanskan also talked about the origins of the 1862 conflict and the
Dakota people who were missed after the fighting as well as her hopes for
education.

"When Dru Sjodin disappeared, the whole community went looking for her--when our relatives disappeared we get their remains repatriated in the '70s, she said.

"My great-grandmother...her father disappeared and they don't know what
happened to them...horrific things happened in this country," she added.

"How many generations do we have to re-teach our children and say this is
how history happened, even though you learned it in a public institution?"

John LaBatte, a New Ulm resident and local historian had relatives who were
also a part of the conflict. He supported Gilman's address and explained
that atrocities occurred on all sides in the conflict.

"My Dakota ancestors were also involved in the Dakota war," he said. "I had
two of my grandfathers who were sent to hang in Mankato and were granted
reprieves by President Lincoln."

"One my Dakota ancestors was murdered on first day of the war at the Lower
Sioux Agency," he added.

"People need to understand what happened then--it wasn't the Dakota nation
versus the United States, it was a few hundred maybe at the most, Dakota men
who went out into the countryside and committed the worst atrocities," LaBatte said.

"Heads were cut off, babies were nailed to trees, people were dismembered--you need to read about what they did to understand why they were removed
from the state."

LaBatte also spoke about the depopulation that occurred following the
fighting in Aug. and Sept. of 1862 and that "a good number of Dakota Indians
were opposed to the war--including my ancestors," he said.

In closing, LaBatte made mention of natives taken to Fort Snelling after the
Battle of Wood Lake not as part of a genocidal effort, but for humanitarian
purposes.

"If Henry Sibley hadn't taken those indians to Fort Snelling, who knows what
could have happened to them out on this frontier when the white people
returned--the rescue of those indians that returned to Fort Snelling was a
humanitarian effort," he said.

Bill Bolin, of Garvin, who worked with the park and guides tours at Lake
Shetek, recognizes the tensions that are still present. In order to move
forward, we need to respect each other's ideas, he said.

"I think you¹ve hit the nail on the head," Bolin said to Gilman about her
reading. "What have we learned?"

"I can see the feelings are very strong and very sincere. To consider each
other's perspectives, is the only way to work through this type of history,"
he said. "That's the only way we're going to learn--we have to sit down and talk it
over."