"Unforgetting the Dakota 38" projects a nuanced light onto the history and memory of the mass hanging of thirty-eight Dakota men on December 26, 1862 following the U.S.-Dakota War in Southcentral Minnesota. This thesis investigates the competing narratives between Santee Dakota peoples (a mixture of Wahpeton and Mdewakanton Dakota) and white Minnesotan citizens in Mankato, Minnesota—the town of the hanging—between 1862 and 2012. By using settler colonialism as an analytical framework, I argue that the erasing of Dakotas by white historical memory has actively and routinely removed Dakotas from the mainstream historical narrative following the U.S.-Dakota War through today. This episodic history examines three phases of remembrance in which the rival interpretations of 1862 took different forms, and although the Dakota-centered interpretations were always present in some way, they became more visible to the non-Dakota society over time. Adopting a thematic approach, this thesis covers events that overlap in time, yet provide useful insights into the shaping and reshaping of memory that surrounds the mass hanging. White Minnesotans routinely wrote Dakota peoples out of their own history, a key element of settler colonial policies that set out to eradicate Indigenous peoples from the Minnesota landscape and replace them with white settlers. While this thesis demonstrates how white memories form, it also focuses on Dakota responses to the structures associated with settler colonialism. In so doing, this thesis argues that Dakota peoples actively participated in the memory-making process in Mankato between 1862 and 2012, even though most historical scholarship considered Mankato devoid of Dakota peoples and an Indigenous history. / Master of Arts / The U.S.-Dakota War wracked the Minnesota River Valley region of Southcentral Minnesota. Following a bloody and destructive six weeks in late-Summer 1862, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the mass execution of thirty-eight Mdewakanton Dakota men as punishment for their participation. This controversial moment in American history produced unique and divergent memories of the Dakota War, the hanging, and the Mdewakanton Dakota place in white American society. This thesis examines the memories that formed between 1862 and 2012, highlighting Dakota perspective and memories to shed new light on the history of this deeply contested event. By doing so, we gain new understandings of Mankato, the U.S.-Dakota War, and the mass hanging, but also a realization that Dakota peoples were always active in the memory-making process even though many have considered their participation nonexistent.

The U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 resulted in the deaths of more than 500 Minnesota settlers, the expulsion of the Dakota people from their homeland, and the largest mass execution in U.S. history. For more than a century, white Minnesotans declared themselves innocent victims of Indian brutality and actively remembered this war by erecting monuments, preserving historic landscapes, publishing first-person narratives, and hosting anniversary celebrations. However, as the centennial anniversary approached, new awareness for the sufferings of the Dakota both before and after the war prompted retellings of the traditional story that gave the status of victimhood to the Dakota as well as the white settlers. Despite these changes, the descendents of white settlers persisted in their version of events and resented the implication that the Dakota were justified in starting the war. In 1987, the governor of Minnesota declared “A Year of Reconciliation” to bring cultural awareness of the Dakota, acknowledge their sufferings, and reconcile the continued tense relationship between the state and the Dakota people. These efforts, while successful in now telling the Dakota side of the war at official historic institutions, did not achieve a reconciliation between native and non-native residents of the state. This study of the commemorative history of the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 illustrates the impact this single event exhibited for the state of Minnesota and examines the continued tense relations between its native and non-native inhabitants.

Built in 1819 by the U.S. government, Fort Snelling sits at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. This place is called a “bdote” by the Dakota people. Oral traditions describe bdote as the site of Dakota creation. Treaties in the nineteenth century allowed the U.S. government to dispossess the Dakota of this land. Fort Snelling is connected to many important points in U.S. history. It operated as a military post until the mid-twentieth century, and was a training or processing site for U.S. servicepersons who fought in the Civil War, U.S. Indian removal campaigns, and World War Two, among others. Dred Scott lived as a slave at Fort Snelling. Following the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, about 1,600 Dakota people were forcibly concentrated below Fort Snelling, where nearly 300 died. Shortly after, the U.S. government banished the Dakota from Minnesota. Today, Fort Snelling exists as “Historic Fort Snelling.” Run by the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS), the site offers a living history program which interprets Fort Snelling “as it was” in the 1820s—before much of these events of import occurred. This portrayal is geared toward schoolchildren and white Minnesotans, and focuses on the premise of peaceful U.S. settlement in the American West. This study describes Fort Snelling’s history, and address peoples’—both Dakota and other Minnesotans’—objections to the circumscribed interpretation of history at Historic Fort Snelling. By better revealing the memory alive at this site, most specifically the popularly ignored Dakota memories of Fort Snelling and bdote, this study hopes to convey what scholar Avery F. Gordon would term the “hauntings” present but unacknowledged at Historic Fort Snelling. This study concludes that in order to express the density of memory at Fort Snelling, MHS and Historic Fort Snelling must acknowledge that the Dakota people and their stories are crucial to its history. Further, these institutions must recognize that oppressive structures like U.S. colonialism allowed for Fort Snelling’s creation and operation. These structures and the hauntings they produce are still alive on this land, and onsite historical interpretation at Historic Fort Snelling must transform to reflect these living memories. / text