A STUDY IN MILITARY INJUSTICE

[mdenney]

[FN344]. Id. at 300, 310. The Attorney General responded to Reverdy Johnson's arguments that the fifth and sixth
amendments required that the defendants be indicted by grand jury and tried by petit jury by distinguishing between "crimes,"
which fell under the protection of those amendments, and "offences," which did not. Id. at 312-13.
[FN345]. Trial of Henry Wirz, reprinted in H.R. EXEC. DOC. NO. 23, 40th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1868).
[FN346]. Id. at 10.
[FN347]. Id. at 726-28.
[FN348]. Id. at 805, 809.
[FN349]. See Proclamation by the President, supra note 340. At least one state court had previously addressed questions
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 58
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
about the validity of military trials of civilians in time of war. Smith v. Shaw, 12 Johns. 257 (N.Y. 1815). Shaw brought an
action for assault and battery and false imprisonment based on his arrest and detention by the military. Shaw had been
charged with, among other things, exciting insurrection and being a spy. Chief Judge Thompson, speaking for the New York
Supreme Court, readily found that, because he was an American citizen, Shaw could not be charged as a spy. Therefore, he
could not be brought before a court-martial for trial. Id. at 265.
[FN350]. See Proclamation by the President, supra note 340. Despite the suspension of the writ, many federal district courts
entertained petitions for writs of habeas corpus and demanded responses from the military. If they responded at all, the
military commanders simply relied upon the President's suspension of the privilege. See J. RANDALL, supra note 296, at
157-63. A few courts upheld the authority of the military to make the arrests. See, e.g., Ex parte Vallandigham, 28 F. Cas.
874, 924 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1863) (No. 16,816), cert. denied, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 243 (1863); Ex parte Field, 9 F. Cas. 1, 8
(C.C.D. Vt. 1862) (No. 4761). Other courts determined the arrests to be unlawful and issued writs of habeas corpus, but the
commanders were under orders not to obey the writs and the courts had no ability to enforce their judgments. See J.
RANDALL, supra note 296, at 157-63. Some judges issued opinions denouncing the failure to obey the court. See, e.g., Ex
parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861) (No. 9487). At least one judge simply acknowledged the difficult
position of the marshal who held the prisoner, caught between two masters, and declined to hold him in contempt. Ex parte
Benedict, 3 F. Cas. 159, 173-74 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1862) (No. 1292).
[FN351]. Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866). The Court was earlier presented with the opportunity to rule on the
validity of military commission trials of citizens of the Union in Ex parte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 243 (1863).
Perhaps uncomfortable with the possibility of undermining the President's war effort, the Court declined to decide the
question whether the military commission had jurisdiction over Vallandigham. The Court ruled instead that neither the
United States Constitution nor federal statutes granted the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to review military trials by
writ of certiorari. Id. at 251-52. Although Vallandigham had sought a writ of habeas corpus from the United States Circuit
Court, which was denied, he apparently petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the military
proceedings rather than to review the denial of habeas corpus relief. See J. RANDALL, supra note 296, at 178-79. In Ex parte
Milligan, the defendant instead sought review of the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, and the Court agreed that there was
jurisdiction to hear the claim. See text accompanying notes 352-356 infra.
[FN352]. 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866).
[FN353]. Id. at 121, 130.
[FN354]. Id. at 121-27.
[FN355]. Id. at 126.
[FN356]. Id. at 131.
[FN357]. 317 U.S. 1 (1942).
[FN358]. Id. at 28-29. The primary statutory authorization was contained in the 1920 revision of the Articles of War. Act of
June 4, 1920, ch. 227, 41 Stat. 759. Article 12 specified that general courts-martial would have the power to try "any other
person [not subject to the Articles of War] who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunals." Id. at 789. Article
15 specified that the Articles of War "shall not be construed as depriving military commissions . . . of concurrent jurisdiction
in respect of offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions." Id. at
790. Congress thus did not expressly define the jurisdiction of military commissions but instead recognized the law of war as
providing a separate source of authority for military tribunals.
[FN359]. 317 U.S. at 29.
[FN360]. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10.
[FN361]. 317 U.S. at 29-30. The Quirin Court relied upon earlier decisions that had established the flexibility accorded
Congress in defining offenses against the law of nations. See Harmony v. United States, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 210, 232 (1844);
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 59
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
The Marianna Flora, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 1, 40-41 (1826); United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153, 158-62 (1820). In
1867, perhaps in response to protests about the military arrests and trials during the Civil War or to civil suits against the
officers who had made those arrests, Congress attempted to validate the actions of the military after the fact:
ll acts, proclamations, and orders of the President [from March 4, 1861 to July 1, 1866] . . . respecting martial law,
military trials by courts-martial or military commissions, or the arrest, imprisonment and trial of persons charged with
participation in the late rebellion against the United States . . . and all proceedings and acts done or had by courts-martial or
military commissions . . . are hereby approved in all respects, legalized and made valid . . . .
Act of Mar. 2, 1867, ch. 155, 14 Stat. 432. To the extent that this Act attempted to make punishable acts that were not
otherwise unlawful at the time, it was condemned as an ex post facto law. See In re Murphy, 17 F. Cas. 1030, 1032 (C.C.D.
Mo. 1867) (No. 9947). Under the ruling in Murphy, if the military commission trying the Dakota went beyond its authority,
the Act of Mar. 2, 1867, could not legitimize those trials.
[FN362]. Jecker v. Montgomery, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 110, 112 (1855). See also cases cited in note 321 supra.
[FN363]. Jecker, 59 U.S. at 112.
[FN364]. See generally Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law, 42 VAND. L. REV. 819, 825-
26 (1989).
[FN365]. Id. at 825-26.
[FN366]. 11 U.S. 31, 7 Cranch 32 (1812).
[FN367]. Id. at 34.

[mdenney]

[FN368]. Hudson may be a more limited decision, however. One commentator has suggested that the case was a product of
concerns about protecting the lawmaking power of the states, not a statement about the applicability of the law of nations.
Jay, supra note 364, at 843-44; see also Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law (pt. 1), 133 U. PA. L. REV. 1003,
1012-19 (1985). But see Arthur M. Weisburd, The Executive Branch and International Law, 41 VAND. L. REV. 1205, 1222-
23 (1988) (Hudson "obviously weakened the authority of those Framers who contended . . . that the laws of the United States
included the law of nations").
[FN369]. Realistically, it seems unlikely that the courts would have invalidated the trials on this ground. While legally the
state courts had no jurisdiction, see Part IV infra, and military tribunals' claim to jurisdiction was debatable, the highly
charged racial atmosphere and the nature of the attacks made some punishment of the Dakota virtually inevitable. As a
practical matter, the best alternative may have been fairly conducted military trials for violations of the laws of war, but the
Dakota were not even afforded that.
[FN370]. See H. HALLECK, supra note 320, at 425-26; DE VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS, bk. 3, § § 1-5, 136 (J.
Chitty ed. 1852); Gen. Order No. 100, supra note 334 (Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the
Field, also known as the Lieber Code, see text accompanying notes 377-380 infra). See generally PERCY BORDWELL,
THE LAW OF WAR BETWEEN BELLIGERENTS (1908); THE LAW OF WARRRRR (R. Miller ed. 1975); HUGO
GROTIUS, THE RIGHTS OF WAR AND PEACE (A. Campbell trans. 1901); RESTRAINTS ON WAR (M. Howard ed.
1979); Roda Mushkat, Who May Wage War? An Examination of an Old/New Question, 2 AM. U.J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 97
(1987). The modern law of nations now grants belligerent status to groups other than nation states. Organized groups subject
to some form of military discipline, but not owing allegiance to a nation state, are now also accorded the rights of a lawful
belligerent. INGRED DETTER DE LUPIS, THE LAW OF WAR 23-24 (1987); Mushkat, supra, at 104-37. Even in 1862 an
entity that was not a fully sovereign state might, in practice, become a lawful belligerent if it actually went to war, though the
theory recognized only sovereign states as having the legal right to wage war. Mushkat, supra, at 100. In determining the
proper treatment of the Dakota, I have relied upon the terminology and concepts generally in use in 1862.
[FN371]. H. HALLECK, supra note 320, at 398-404, 426-28; DE VATTEL, supra note 370, bk. 3, § § 140-147, 173.
However, some of these otherwise forbidden acts might be justified under certain circumstances. See H. HALLECK, supra
note 320, at 428-29, 439-40, 444-45; DE VATTEL, supra note 370, bk. 3, § § 141-142, 145, 151.
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 60
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
[FN372]. H. HALLECK, supra note 320, at 386-87; DE VATTEL, supra note 370, bk. 3, § § 66-68, 226.
[FN373]. I.D. DE LUPIS, supra note 370, at 124-25.
[FN374]. See sources cited in note 370 supra.
[FN375]. Calvin's Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377, 398 (1609).
[FN376]. 97 U.S. 509, 515-16, 519 (1878). When the death sentence imposed on a Union soldier by a court-martial during
the Civil War had not been carried out nine years later, the State of Tennessee tried and convicted him on the same charge.
The Court reversed the state conviction, holding that, as a soldier in the Army of the United States, the defendant could not
be tried under the ordinary criminal laws of the enemy (Tennessee).
The only contrary ruling appeared in the case of Government v. M'Gregory, 14 Mass. 498 (1780). In M'Gregory nine
individuals were indicted for murder; they challenged the jurisdiction of the court on the grounds that they were prisoners of
war and subjects of the King of Great Britain and therefore triable only under the law of nations in courts-martial, not under
"municipal law." The court upheld the Massachusetts Attorney General's contention that the prisoners could be tried by the
state for offenses malum in se and overruled the jurisdictional challenge. Id. at 499.
[FN377]. Gen. Order No. 100, supra note 334, at 45. Francis Lieber, a scholar in international law and a close friend of
General Halleck, was instrumental in developing General Order 100.
[FN378]. Geoffrey Best, Restraints on War By Land Before 1945, in RESTRAINTS ON WAR, supra note 370, at 20.
[FN379]. See Gen. Order No. 100, supra note 334, at 45-51.
[FN380]. See R. HARTIGAN, supra note 334, at 14-15; notes 370-376 supra and accompanying text.
[FN381]. See note 370 supra and accompanying text.
[FN382]. Throughout this discussion I refer to historical incidents both before and after 1862. While the latter are not
"precedent" for the events of 1862, they shed light on the attitudes and actions of the earlier period, particularly because of
the consistency of treatment demonstrated, with the notable exception of the trials and executions that are the focus here.
[FN383]. Indeed, in only one instance did the Americans formally hold individuals responsible for the killing of civilians or
other acts of destruction that violated the laws of war. This exception was the 1873 trial of Kintpuash (Captain Jack) for
violating a flag of truce. See text accompanying notes 387-388 infra.
[FN384]. See, e.g., ROBERT M. UTLEY & WILCOMB E. WASHBURN, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE HISTORY OF
THE INDIAN WARS 145-46 (1977) (General Sidney Jessup seized Osceola, leader of the Seminole resistance, and
imprisoned him until his death); id. at 150 (Black Hawk jailed for a year); id. at 237-39 (72 Cheyenne, Kiowa, Arapaho, and
Comanche war leaders deported and imprisoned for three years at Fort Marion, an old Spanish fortress at St. Augustin,
Florida); id. at 298 (after Chief Joseph and the Nez Percé surrendered, they were moved to a new reservation); id. at 270
(those captured in Bannock-Paiute War sent to reservations); id. at 329 (Goyahkla (Geronimo) and his fighting men sent to
prison forts in Florida and Alabama following surrender).
[FN385]. For example, in 1858, Colonel George Wright summarily hanged 15 members of various tribes involved in a
successful attack on the troops commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Edward Steptoe. R. UTLEY & W. WASHBURN, supra
note 384, at 204-05. And in early 1863, as reported by a prospector who witnessed the incident, soldiers guarding Mangas
Coloradas, chief of the Warm Springs tribe, tortured him with heated bayonets and then shot him when he protested. Id. at
226.

[mdenney]

[FN386]. DEE BROWN, BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE 388 (1970). The Commission named 12 Utes to stand
trial for killing Nathan Meeker, the much-resented Indian agent, and nine other employees at the Agency. R. UTLEY & W.
WASHBURN, supra note 384, at 310. The Commission thus seemed to be drawing a distinction between those who fought
"fairly" and those who violated the laws of war.
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 61
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
[FN387]. 14 Op. Att'y Gen. 249, 253 (1873).
[FN388]. Id.
[FN389]. See Letter from J. Adv. Gen. Joseph Holt to Adj. Gen. (Jan. 29, 1875), in Letters Sent-JAG, NARG 153 (Entry 1);
text accompanying note 434 infra.
[FN390]. United States v. Cha-to-kah-na-pe-sha, 25 F. Cas. 414 (Super. Ct. Ark. Terr. 1824) (No. 14,789a).
[FN391]. Id. In this 1824 case, the Superior Court of the Territory of Arkansas tried an Osage for murder. The defendant
claimed that the Osage were sovereign and had the right to declare war and that, consequently, his actions--not described in
the opinion--were acts of war. Abruptly and without reference to any authority, the court noted that "[e]ven if this position
was sound, which is not the fact," the Osage were not at war with the United States and had disavowed the defendant's
actions and surrendered him to the authorities for prosecution. The court thus held that the Osage nation could not claim
belligerent status based on sovereignty and that, in any event, this Osage certainly could not because his nation was not at
war. Even if the facts had warranted a more extended consideration of the question whether the Osage had a right to wage
war, this alternative holding by a territorial trial court could hardly be considered strong precedent on the issue.
[FN392]. 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831).
[FN393]. Id. at 17.
[FN394]. Id. at 16, 19. Article III of the United States Constitution grants the federal courts jurisdiction over "Controversies .
. . between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. In Cherokee
Nation, the Cherokees sought an injunction to prevent the state of Georgia from enforcing the laws of Georgia within
Cherokee territory; these laws had the alleged purpose of annihilating the Cherokees as a political society and seizing the
Cherokee lands. 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) at 15.
[FN395]. 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) at 16.
[FN396]. Justice McLean joined Chief Justice Marshall. Justices Thompson and Story, in dissent, agreed that the Cherokees
were sovereign and suggested further that they were a foreign state under the Constitution. Id. at 52-62 (Thompson, J.,
dissenting). Although it did not expressly refer to the power to wage war, the dissent's view of Cherokee sovereignty
necessarily encompassed that power. Justices Johnson and Baldwin, while concurring with the Court's result, denied that the
Cherokee were sovereign. Id. at 21-27 (Johnson, J., concurring); id. at 33-39 (Baldwin, J., concurring). Justice Duvall
apparently did not participate. See Joseph C. Burke, The Cherokee Cases: A Study in Law, Politics, and Morality, 21 STAN.
L. REV. 500, 517-18 (1969). Thus, four of the seven justices agreed that the Cherokees had the right to wage war. Marshall
indirectly recognized the same point earlier in Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). By recognizing that a
land cession in a peace treaty between the United States and the Illinois and Piankeshaw nations could effectively annul an
earlier grant of the land to an individual, Marshall implicitly recognized the Illinois and Piankeshaw as nations capable of
making war and settling terms of peace.
[FN397]. 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). The State of Georgia had convicted Samuel Worcester of residing in Cherokee territory
without a license required under Georgia statutes. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the Cherokee
nation was a "distinct community" in which the laws of Georgia had no force. Id. at 561-63.
[FN398]. Id. at 548.
[FN399]. Id. at 583 (McLean, J., concurring).
[FN400]. 2 Op. Att'y Gen. 110, 133 (1828). The same point was made sixty years later, after many more wars with the Indian
nations, by the United States Court of Claims:
The principles of international law have been applied to hostilities with the Indian tribes so far as to accord to them the
rights of a belligerent. It is too well-settled to need citations that an Indian warrior in a war waged within the boundaries of a
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 62
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
State can not be tried for murder or robbery in its courts . . . . When war comes, it becomes lawful to kill, capture, and
destroy; and if by the peculiar circumstances of a case such acts are deemed offenses, it is because they are offenses against
the laws of war.
Love v. United States, 29 Ct. Cl. 332, 346 (1894); accord Leighton v. United States, 29 Ct. Cl. 288, 304, 325 (1894); Ke-tuce-
mun-guah v. McClure, 122 Ind. 541, 23 N.E. 1080 (1889).
[FN401]. 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) at 515.
[FN402]. Id. at 546-47; see also Steven Paul McSloy, American Indians and the Constitution: An Argument for Nationhood,
14 AM. INDIAN L. REV. 139, 139-40 (1989) (Marshall articulated the view, accepted by European monarchs and legal
scholars throughout the colonial period, that the Indian nations of North America were independent sovereign powers.).
[FN403]. 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) at 555.
[FN404]. Id.
[FN405]. Id. at 561.
[FN406]. See DE VATTEL, supra note 370, bk. 1, § 7.
[FN407]. See id. at bk. 2, § § 49-52, bk. 3, § § 1-5.
[FN408]. See Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 552-57 (1832); Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 16
(1831).

[mdenney]

[FN409]. Treaty with the Sioux, Sept. 23, 1805, art. 1, reprinted in 2 CHARLES J. KAPPLER, INDIAN AFFAIRS: LAWS
AND TREATIES 1031 (1904). The Treaty of 1805 was confirmed by the Senate on April 16, 1808, 2 J. EXEC. PROC. S. 80
(1808), but was apparently never proclaimed by the President or published in the United States Statutes at Large. 2 C.
KAPPLER, supra, at 1031 n.*.
[FN410]. Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes, July 19, 1815, art. 2, 7 Stat. 126, 126 (1846); Treaty with the Sioux--See-seetoan
and Wah-pe-toan Bands, July 23, 1851, art. 1, 10 Stat. 949, 949 (1855); Treaty with the Sioux--Med-ay-wa-kan-toan and
Wah-pay-koo-tay Bands, Aug. 5, 1851, art. 1, 10 Stat. 954, 954 (1855).
[FN411]. See Love v. United States, 29 Ct. Cl. 332, 340-41 (1894); FELIX S. COHEN'S HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL
INDIAN LAW 39 (1942) [hereinafter COHEN'S HANDBOOK].
[FN412]. The courts have viewed Cohen's work as authoritative. See, e.g., Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1956);
Felix Frankfurter, Foreword to FELIX S. COHEN, THE LEGAL CONSCIENCE: SELECTED PAPERS OF FELIX S.
COHEN at xiii (1960); Stephen M. Feldman, Felix S. Cohen and His Jurisprudence: Reflections on Federal Indian Law, 35
BUFFALO L. REV. 479, 514-17 (1986).
[FN413]. COHEN'S HANDBOOK, supra note 411, at 39.
[FN414]. Treaty with the Sioux and Chippewa, Sacs and Fox, Menominie, Ioway, Sioux, Winnebago, and a portion of the
Ottowa, Chippewa, and Potawattomie Tribes, Aug. 19, 1825, preamble, 7 Stat. 272, 272 (1846).
[FN415]. Id. arts. 2 & 5, 7 Stat. 272-73.
[FN416]. Treaty with the Sioux--Mendawakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, June 19, 1858, art. 6, 12 Stat. 1031, 1033-34
(1863); Treaty with the Sioux--Sisseeton and Wahpaton Bands, June 19, 1858, art. 6, 12 Stat. 1037, 1039 (1863).
[FN417]. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).
[FN418]. Id. at 552-57.
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 63
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
[FN419]. The 1851 treaties negotiated with the Mdewakanton, Wahpekute, Sisseton, and Wahpeton bands appear to provide
for a total cession of all Dakota lands in the Territories of Minnesota and Iowa. In return, the United States agreed to set apart
specified land on the Minnesota River "for the future occupancy and home of the Dakota Indians, . . . to be held by them, as
Indian lands are held." Treaty with the Sioux--Sisseeton and Wahpaton Bands, July 23, 1851, art. 3, 10 Stat. 949, 949; Treaty
with the Sioux--Med-ay-wa-kan-toan and Wah-pay-koo-tay Bands, art. 3, 10 Stat. 954. The Dakota, however, understood the
treaty to reserve for them the land on the Minnesota River without cession. In negotiating both treaties, Dakota leaders
expressed concern that the terms might be changed in Washington. Minnesota Territorial Governor Alexander Ramsey and
Commissioner of Indian Affairs Luke Lea assured them that no changes would be made. Ten months after the signing of the
treaty, the Senate rejected its provisions and proposed instead that the president be permitted to set aside for the Dakota
unspecified land outside the ceded territory. S. Res., 10 Stat. 957 (1852). Some chiefs refused to sign the amended treaties.
One who refused to sign--Mazasha (Red Iron)--was arrested and the American negotiators replaced him with a chief more
willing to comply. See I. HEARD, supra note 6, at 34-40; R. MEYER, supra note 6, at 86. Having little choice, the Dakota
finally acquiesced to the amendments. See 10 Stat. 958 (1852). The President ultimately chose the precise tract of land
specified in the original treaty terms. See generally R. MEYER, supra note 6, at 85-87 (discussing the above sequence of
events).
[FN420]. H. HALLECK, supra note 320, at 126; DE VATTEL, supra note 370, bk. 2, § 80.
[FN421]. Treaty with the Sioux--Mendawakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, 12 Stat. 1301; Treaty with the Sioux--Sisseeton
and Wahpaton Bands, 12 Stat. 1037.
[FN422]. 45 U.S. (4 How.) 567 (1846).
[FN423]. Id. at 572.
[FN424]. See, e.g., Milner S. Ball, Constitution, Court, Indian Tribes, 1 AM. B. FOUND. RES. J. 1, 40-42 (1987); Robert T.
Coulter, A History of Indian Jurisdiction, in RETHINKING INDIAN LAWS 9 (1982); Nell Jessup Newton, Federal Power
Over Indians: Its Sources, Scope, and Limitations, 132 U. PA. L. REV. 195, 210 (1984); Daniel L. Rotenburg, American
Indian Tribal Death-- A Centennial Remembrance, 41 U. MIAMI L. REV. 409, 420 (1986); Rachel San Kronowitz, Joanne
Lichtman, Steven Paul McSloy & Matthew G. Olsen, Toward Consent and Cooperation: Reconsidering the Political Status of
Indian Nations, 22 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 507, 524 (1987) (student authors).
[FN425]. 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856).
[FN426]. Id. at 403-04.
[FN427]. 112 U.S. 94 (1884).
[FN428]. Id. at 102.
[FN429]. See generally D. BROWN, supra note 386; HELEN HUNT JACKSON, A CENTURY OF DISHONOR (1881 and
photo. reprint 1965); VINE DELORIA, JR. & CLIFFORD M. LYTLE, AMERICAN INDIANS, AMERICAN JUSTICE
(1983).
[FN430]. See text accompanying notes 370-372 supra.
[FN431]. The courts, as well, have occasionally noted this distinction between individual acts and group warfare. See
Montoya v. United States, 180 U.S. 261, 266 (1901); People v. McLeod, 25 Wend. 483, 578 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1841).
[FN432]. R. UTLEY & W. WASHBURN, supra note 384, at 179-81.
[FN433]. The two were condemned to death, but their sentences were commuted to imprisonment and, in 1873, they were
freed to return to their people. Id. at 261-62.
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 64
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
[FN434]. Letter from J. Adv. Gen. Joseph Holt to Adj. Gen. (Jan. 29, 1875), in Letters Sent-JAG, NARG 153 (Entry 1). The
Judge Advocate General was distinguishing the case of the Modoc leaders tried by military commission in 1873. See text
accompanying notes 387-388 supra. But see Letter from J. Adv. Gen. Joseph Holt to Sec'y of War William Belknap (July 3,
1869), in Letters Sent-JAG, NARG 153 (Entry 1) (denying payment of claim to Cherokees for cattle taken by United States
forces during Civil War; Cherokees could not be considered to be at war with the United States because they were in state of
pupilage and dependence and were not independent communities).

[mdenney]

[FN435]. DE VATTEL, supra note 370, bk. 3, § 4; H. HALLECK, supra note 320, at 351.
[FN436]. S. POND, supra note 216, at 66-69. The following description is gleaned from discussions with present-day
members of the Dakota nation.
[FN437]. The authority of the soldiers' lodge is similar to the authority of the military after a declaration of martial law.
Sometimes a soldiers' lodge formed before the formal decision was made to go to war in part to attempt to influence the
decision. The soldiers' lodge had no formal authority, however, until the Council decided on war. See note 436 supra.
[FN438]. See texts accompanying notes 22-25 & 40 supra.
[FN439]. See Cecilia Campbell Stay's Account, in THROUGH DAKOTA EYES, supra note 6, at 47-52; Good Star Woman's
Recollections, supra note 21, at 52-53; Esther Wakeman's Reminiscences, in THROUGH DAKOTA EYES, supra note 6, at
53-55; Joseph Coursolle's Story, supra note 19, at 57-58; Taopi's Statement, in THROUGH DAKOTA EYES, supra note 6, at
63-65.
[FN440]. See text accompanying note 435 supra.
[FN441]. Ch. 538, § 1, 26 Stat. 851 (1891).
[FN442]. Id. at 851-52.
[FN443]. Id. § 6, at 853. If no such funds were available, the United States would pay the claimant from the Treasury, but
the amount would then be deducted from future payments to the tribe. Id.
[FN444]. See Montoya v. United States, 180 U.S. 261 (1901); Scott v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 486, 493-94 (1898); Salois v.
United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 326, 332-33 (1898); Conners v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 317, 320 (1898); Dobbs v. United States,
33 Ct. Cl. 308, 314-16 (1898).
[FN445]. In the most telling of these decisions, the Court of Claims reviewed the acts of what it called an "insurgent" group
of Chiricahua Apaches led by Goyahkla (Geronimo), consisting of 22 men, 13 women, and 2 children. The group had no
existence as a band prior to the outbreak of hostilities; had a military leader, not a hereditary chief, as their commander; and
had no separate territory. The court nonetheless concluded that Goyahkla's small group was at war with the United States,
independent of the much larger body of the Chiricahuas, who remained at peace. Scott, 33 Ct. Cl. at 494. The court accorded
similar treatment to Tahmelapashme (Dull Knife) and Little Wolf, and to their followers, 320 members of two bands who had
broken away from the rest of the Northern Cheyenne. Conners, 33 Ct. Cl. at 321. In considering (and rejecting) a reparations
claim for injury caused by this group, the Court of Claims noted that these bands were not individuals wandering from the
main body, murdering and destroying while the main body remained in amity, but "an entire body waging armed resistance,
with all its might and with all the ferocity of Indian warfare, against whatever power the United States could bring to bear
upon them." Id.
[FN446]. See Steven A. Knecht, Tribal Status and the Indian Nonintercourse Act: An Alternative to the Montoya Definition
of Tribe, 29 CATH. U.L. REV. 625, 629 (1980) (student author). The tribe remained primarily liable, but the United States
Treasury was charged if no money was available from payments due or becoming due to the tribe from annuities or land
sales, or from appropriations other than for "current and necessary support, subsistence and education." Indian Depredations
Act, ch. 538, § 6, 26 Stat. 851, 853 (1891).
[FN447]. See, e.g., Governor's Message, Pioneer Democrat, Sept. 10, 1862, at 4, col. 1 (Governor Ramsey's message to the
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 65
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
state legislature referring to the "Dakota nation" and the "Sioux nation"); The Question of Responsibility, St. Paul Daily
Press, Sept. 12, 1862, at 1, col. 2 (editorial noting that "[t]he Sioux Indians are not within the jurisdiction of the State of
Minnesota, nor subject to its laws. The State authorities are excluded from any control over them or any responsibility for
their conduct," but also stating that the Dakota were wards of the United States government); Letter from Right Reverend
Bishop Whipple, St. Paul Daily Press, Dec. 4, 1862, at 4, col. 3 ("In all of our relations [with the Dakota] we have
persistently carried out the idea that they were a sovereign people."); St. Paul Pioneer, Jan. 8, 1863, at 1, col. 1 (reporting
another of Governor Ramsey's messages to the state legislature, in which he complained about "[t]he recognition of [the
Dakota] as independent nations, competent to declare war, to make laws for their own guidance, and to hold and dispose of
property").
[FN448]. Letter from Brig. Gen. Henry Sibley to Acting Ass't Adj. Gen. R. Selfridge (Dec. 22, 1862), in Letters and
Telegrams Sent, NARG 393 (Entry 343). One month earlier, Sibley had written to Selfridge requesting his guidance
regarding whether the Dakota were to be considered prisoners of war and thus entitled to complete rations. Letter from Brig.
Gen. Henry Sibley to Ass't Adj. Gen. R. Selfridge (Nov. 29, 1862), in id. Sibley seems never to have questioned the treatment
of the Dakota as simple murderers for the purpose of the Commission trials. In a letter to Judge Advocate General Holt
following the disapproval of the trial of Wowinape in 1863, Sibley challenged the application of a particular statute to trials,
such as the Commission proceedings, involving "enlisted men or prisoners of war," see notes 184-185 supra, thus implicitly
suggesting that the Dakota were prisoners of war. In view of his other actions and remarks, however, it is unlikely that Sibley
fully considered this statement or meant to recognize in the Dakota any sovereign status entitling them to formal treatment as
prisoners of war.
[FN449]. Letter from Sen. Henry Rice to Bishop Henry Whipple (Nov. 19, 1862), in Whipple Papers, MHS.
[FN450]. Annual Message of Governor Ramsey to the Legislature of Minnesota (Jan. 7, 1863), at 27 (on file with Stanford
Law Review).
[FN451]. Id. at 29. In suggesting that the State might punish the Dakota, however, Ramsey continued to recognize the
unusual status of the Dakota. The authority to try the Dakota that he claimed for the State emanated, he thought, from the
state's power to engage in war independently of the United States when its own boundaries were invaded. Ramsey still saw
the Dakota as a warring nation, not as a group of simple murderers acting individually and subject to the normal criminal
jurisdiction of the State.
[FN452]. Letter from Sen. Morton Wilkinson and Reps. Cyrus Aldrich and William Windom to Pres. Abraham Lincoln,
reprinted in S. EXEC. DOC. NO. 7, supra note 116, at 4 (emphasis in original).
[FN453]. Letter from Bishop Henry Whipple to Sen. Henry Rice (Nov. 29, 1862), in Whipple Papers, MHS ("I said what I
did simply to show how false a system was whose policy if carried out to its just conclusions left these savages as an
independent nation and as such would have the right to engage in war, a doctrine I do not believe."). At least one person not
directly involved with the events in Minnesota disagreed with these views and suggested a distinction of the sort I have
proposed in this article. V.D. Lowther, an attorney in Chicago, wrote to Whipple: "[R]ecognizing as we mistakenly do by
Treaties the Indians as independent nations, not amenable to our laws, all of them that we have captured are entitled to be
treated as Prisoners of War, entitled to their immunities . . . . " Letter from V. Lowther to Bishop Henry Whipple (Dec. 13,
1862), in Whipple Papers, MHS (emphasis in original).
[FN454]. See Part V infra.
[FN455]. H. HALLECK, supra note 320, at 426, 428; DE VATTEL, supra note 370, bk. 3, § § 145, 147, 149.
[FN456]. Gen. Order No. 100, supra note 334.
[FN457]. Id. § 1, ¶ 22.
[FN458]. See, e.g., DE VATTEL, supra note 370, bk. 3, § § 136-139, 145; H. GROTIUS, supra note 370, at 323-31; H.
HALLECK, supra note 320, at 412. Halleck, it should be noted, was not only a scholar in the area of international law,
publishing several editions of his treatise; he was also at various times the commanding general of the Union Army for the
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 66
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
western theater, General-in-Chief of the Union armies, and chief of staff under General Grant. David Herbert Donald, Uniting
The Republic, 1860-1877, in THE GREAT REPUBLIC 452, 460, 462 (1985). He was instrumental in promoting the
promulgation of General Order 100.
[FN459]. Gen. Order No. 100, supra note 334, § 1, ¶ 15.
[FN460]. Id., § 1, ¶ 14.
[FN461]. H. HALLECK, supra note 320, at 412.
[FN462]. General Order 100 may have tried to move towards increased protection of civilians by limiting harm to them to
situations in which it was "incidentally unavoidable," suggesting that direct attacks on civilians would be considered
unacceptable even if "indispensible for securing the ends of the war." Gen. Order No. 100, supra note 334, § 1, ¶ 14.
Without further contemporary explanation or application of these newly expressed terms, however, the precise standard by
which to judge the Dakota remains unclear. See notes 463-467 infra and accompanying text.

[mdenney]

[FN463]. The international community did not reach any formal agreement on the protection of noncombatants until 1949.
See Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516,
T.I.A.S. No. 3365, 75 U.N.T.S. 287. Earlier international agreements primarily concerned the treatment of combatants and
prisoners of war. See I. DELUPIS, supra note 370, at 332-37. Even today, there remains significant controversy about the
extent to which "military necessity" may justify behavior that would otherwise violate express provisions of the Geneva
Convention on the treatment of civilians.
[FN464]. See, e.g., DONALD A. WELLS, WAR CRIMES AND LAWS OF WAR 3-4 (1984); Best, supra note 378, at 29-
31; Michael Howard, Temperamenta Belli: Can War Be Controlled, in RESTRAINTS ON WAR, supra note 370, at 1, 9-11;
Donald Cameron Watt, Restraints on War in the Air Before 1945, in id. at 57, 57-58. Indeed, it was the absence of such
international standards that raised questions about the legality of the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes trials following
World War II. See generally D. WELLS, supra, at 1-3, 71-72; WILLIAM J. BOSCH, JUDGMENT ON NUREMBERG:
AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE MAJOR GERMAN WAR-CRIME TRIALS 40- 66 (1970); CHARLES E.
WYZANSKI, JR., WHEREAS--A JUDGE'S PREMISESSSSS 164-90 (1965).
[FN465]. See generally R. UTLEY & W. WASHBURN, supra note 384; ROBERT WOOSTER, THE MILITARY AND
UNITED STATES INDIAN POLICY 1865-1903, at 137-38, 141-42, 208-09 (1988) (U.S. army often violated traditional
rules of warfare in fighting with Indians; Indian women and children were frequent targets); Don Higginbotham, The Early
American Way of War: Reconnaissance and Appraisal, 44 WM. & MARY Q. 230, 230-234 (1987) (reviewing work
concluding that American wars were fought with a "strategy of annihilation," particularly in conflicts with Indians); Robert
M. Utley, The Frontier Army: John Ford or Arthur Penn?, in INDIAN-WHITE RELATIONS: A PERSISTENT PARADOX
133, 133-34, 141 (J. Smith & R. Kvasnicka eds. 1976) (U.S. army practiced total war against bands or tribes that resisted,
killing many noncombatants).
[FN466]. See WILLIAM W. WARREN, HISTORY OF THE OJIBWAY PEOPLE 102-07, 183- 87, 224-27, 327-29, 352-53,
367 (1885 & photo. reprint 1984); S. POND, supra note 216, at 135.
[FN467]. S. POND, supra note 216, at 135.
[FN468]. See notes 116-120 supra and accompanying text.
[FN469]. See notes 210-246 supra and accompanying text.
[FN470]. See Trial Transcripts, Case Nos. 6, 14, 15, 22, 67, 68, 69, 96, 115, 170, 210, 225, 264, 318, 333, 342, 373, 377, 382.
[FN471]. See Trial Transcripts, Case Nos. 5, 138, 175.
[FN472]. See Trial Transcripts, Case No. 2 (defendant acted pleased when others said they killed two men; also convicted of
rape), Case No. 4 (with group when settler killed; also convicted of rape), Case No. 24 (in party that killed settler, but
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 67
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
defendant was chasing a girl who ran away when killing occurred), Case No. 155 (in group that killed settler), Case No. 254
(in group that shot at settlers on way to New Ulm), Case No. 279 (in group that fired on settlers at Beaver Creek), Case No.
327 (defendant seen in house where old man and two girls were killed), Case No. 359 (present when settler killed; saved
white woman from death).
[FN473]. See text accompanying notes 219-221 supra.
[FN474]. See Trial Transcripts, Case Nos. 2, 4.
[FN475]. See Trial Transcripts, Case No. 19.
[FN476]. See Trial Transcript, Case No. 35; K. CARLEY, supra note 6, at 16; I. HEARD, supra note 6, at 72-73. With no
guarantees of safe passage having been given and no truce flag violated, it does not appear that these actions would violate
the laws of war. Instead, they would be considered the ordinary kind of deception practiced to obtain advantage on the
battlefield.
[FN477]. See Trial Transcripts, Case No. 12. Wahehud was also charged with and convicted of "making war upon the
citizens of the United States," but the specifications listed only general participation in the war, and the testimony related
only to the killing of the soldier. Id. It is against the law of war to kill a soldier who has surrendered, unless taking prisoners
is impossible. H. HALLECK, supra note 320, at 429-31, 439-40. The transcript gives no clues whether this is the kind of
charge alleged.
[FN478]. See Trial Transcripts, Case Nos. 10, 178, 383. It is unclear from the evidence given whether these were isolated
attacks not part of a general battle or actually part of the unified attack on New Ulm.
[FN479]. See Trial Transcripts, Case No. 3 (defendant in party that killed settler). There was testimony that he saved a white
woman from death, and this may have saved his life, but others of those hanged had also protected captive women and were
not spared. See note 223 supra.
[FN480]. I sense today the same reluctance among the general populace to view Indian tribes as sovereign, confined as they
are to relatively small reservations surrounded by American territory.
[FN481]. These annuities were required payments for land sold pursuant to treaties and so represented, if anything, an
affirmation of the sovereign status of the Dakota, since a country concludes treaties only with other nations, not with private
groups. Whatever the legal consequences of receiving annuities, however, the Minnesotans apparently viewed the annuities
as creating a dependent relationship.
[FN482]. See generally GARY CLAYTON ANDERSON, KINSMEN OF ANOTHER KIND: DAKOTA-WHITE
RELATIONS IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY, 1650-1862 (1984); Reginald Horsman, Indian and White
Perceptions of an Expanding Republic: Minnesota in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (unpublished paper, on file with the
Stanford Law Review); B. Forbes, supra note 123.
[FN483]. See Sweet, supra note 17, at 355-56, 369.
[FN484]. See generally B. Forbes, supra note 123. Forbes reports that only 52 full-bloods and 15 mixed-bloods were
members of the three mission churches on the eve of the war, but that the missionaries' impact on the Dakota community was
much stronger than these figures suggest. Id. at 77. He believes that the tensions caused by the missionaries' inroads on
traditional Dakota culture were themselves an important cause of the war. Id. at 259-67.
[FN485]. R. MEYER, supra note 6, at 102; B. Forbes, supra note 123, at 71. The Republic was established in 1856 by 17
Wahpeton, who, "wishing to place themselves under a separate chief and adopt all the habits of civilized 'life,"' signed a
constitution and requested recognition from the federal government as a separate band. Id. (quoting the HAZLEWOOD
REPUBLIC CONST.). The Republic was recognized by the federal government, and by 1858 included 82 Dakota and mixedbloods.
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 68
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
[FN486]. Letter from Brig. Gen. Henry Sibley to Bishop Henry Whipple (Dec. 7, 1862), in Whipple Papers, MHS. A printed
memorial, sent to President Lincoln as he pondered the fate of the condemned Dakota, expressed similar sentiments:
Tame [the Indian], cultivate him, strive to Christianize him as you will, and the sight of blood will in an instant call out the
savage, wolfish, devilish instincts of the race. It is notorious that among the earliest and most murderous of the Sioux, in
perpetrating their late massacre, were many of the "civilized Indians," so called, with their hair cut short, wearing white men's
clothes, and dwelling in brick houses built for them by the government.
S. EXEC. DOC. NO. 7, supra note 116, at 5; see also Pioneer Democrat, Sept. 10, 1862, at 4 (Governor Ramsey's message to
the legislature); Memorial for the Removal of the Winnebago Indians, Sept. 23, 1862, reprinted in GENERAL AND
SPECIAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, EXTRA SESSION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE
COMMENCING SEPT. 9, 1862, at 92-93 ("[T]o live adjacent to those savages . . . is more than can reasonably be expected
from a people who have lost all confidence in Indian integrity or Indian professions of friendship."); Reminiscence of Marcia
Doughty Pike, Sunday Oregonian, Nov. 17, 1940, in Sioux Uprising Collections, MHS ("Had these red-skinned natives been
engaged in open war, such as the law of races or of nations tolerate, their advocates might well have claimed for them the
rights extended to prisoners of war. But these savages had declared no open war. They had secretly conspired against the
lives of men, women and children in a time of peace when the hand of genuine friendship was extended for their relief.").
[FN487]. One historian called the United States-Dakota war "the most disastrous Indian uprising white Americans had
experienced since the attacks of Opechancanough and Philip on the Virginia and Massachusetts frontiers two centuries
before." ANGIE DEBO, A HISTORY OF THE INDIANS OF THE UNITED STATES 157 (1970).
[FN488]. In fact, there was suspicion that the Confederacy had incited the Dakota to war. See, e.g., Daily Tribune, Aug. 25,
1862, at 4, col. 4 ("The Sioux have doubtless been stimulated if not bribed to plunder and slaughter their white neighbors by
White and Red villains set among them for this purpose by the Secessionists."); B. Forbes, supra note 123, at 255-59.
[FN489]. R. MEYER, supra note 6, at 124-25; cf. R. WOOSTER, supra note 465, at 51-55 (United States military policy
often shaped by settlers' desire for Indian land). The Dakota were removed pursuant to statute rather than by treaty, as other
Indian removals had been accomplished. See note 150 supra and accompanying text.
[FN490]. Robert J. Sheran & Timothy J. Baland, The Law, Courts, and Lawyers in the Frontier Days of Minnesota: An
Informal Legal History of the Years 1835 to 1865, 2 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 1, 6 (1976).
[FN491]. Id. at 14.
[FN492]. See note 486 supra and accompanying text.
[FN493]. CONG. GLOBE, 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 1507 (1850).
[FN494]. "I shall do full justice, but no more," he wrote to his wife. "I do not propose to murder any man, even a savage, who
is shown to be innocent of the great transgression, or to permit the massacre of women and children." Letter from Brig. Gen.
Henry Sibley to Mrs. Henry Sibley (Oct. 20, 1862), in Sibley Papers, MHS. The role he played weighed heavily on his mind.
Several days earlier he had written to his wife:
I have to review all the proceedings, and decide the fate of each individual. This power of life, and death, is an awful thing
to exercise, and when I think of more than three hundred human beings are subject to that power, lodged in my hands, it
makes me shudder. Still, duty must be performed, and judgment visited upon the guilty.
Letter from Brig. Gen. Henry Sibley to Mrs. Henry Sibley (Oct. 17, 1862), in Sibley Papers, MHS.
[FN495]. See MARK KELMAN, A GUIDE TO CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES 263 (1987); EUGENE GENOVESE, ROLL,
JORDAN, ROLL: THE WORLD THE SLAVES MADE 27 (1974).
[FN496]. E. GENOVESE, supra note 495; see also Douglas Hay, Property, Authority and the Criminal Law, in ALBION'S
FATAL TREE: CRIME AND SOCIETY IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND 17 (1975); M. KELMAN, supra note
495, at 262-68. But cf. Alan Hyde, The Concept of Legitimation in the Sociology of Law, 1983 WIS. L. REV. 379
(discussing generally the legitimacy of laws).
[FN497]. See generally KENNETH L. KARST, BELONGING TO AMERICA: EQUAL CITIZENSHIP AND THE
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 69
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
CONSTITUTION (1989) (discussing United States' treatment of culturally distinct subgroups under the Constitution).
[FN498]. See, e.g., People v. Kimura, No. A-091133 (L.A. Super. Ct. 1985) (Japanese mother charged only with involuntary
manslaughter in death of her two children where her actions would have only been deemed involuntary manslaughter in
Japan); Nat'l L.J., Apr. 17, 1989, at 3, col. 1 (Chinese immigrant received lightest possible sentence for the murder of his wife
after successfully asserting "cultural defense"--cultural factors lessening the defendant's responsibility for certain crimes).
[FN499]. In this they seem less like the governed described by Genovese and Hay, see text accompanying note 496 supra,
and much more like the criminal defendant who sits quietly through his trial and walks calmly, escorted to prolonged
confinement, not because of any shared understanding of the rules but because of the "overwhelming array of violence
ranged against him." See Robert M. Cover, Violence and the Word, 95 YALE L.J. 1601, 1607 (1986).
*96 APPENDIX
The following is a list of abbreviations I have used to refer to material contained at the National Archives and the Minnesota
Historical Society:
Documents at the National Archives
Court Martial Court Martial Case Files; Records of the Immediate Office of
Cases, NARG the Judge Advocate General; Records of the Office of the
153, File Judge Advocate General (Army), 1808-1942; Record Group 153,
NN3132 National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Indian Indian Prisoners, 1861-1865; Civil War, 1861-1865; Records
Prisoners, Relating to Wars, 1812-1943; General Records of the
NARG 94 (Entry Adjutant General's Office, Record Group 94 (Entry 173);
173) National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Letters Rec'd, Letters Received, 1862-1869; District of Minnesota, Nov.
NARG 393 1862-June 1873; Geographical Districts and Subdistricts;
(Entry 346) United States Army Continental Commands, 1821-1920, Record
Group 393 (Entry 346); National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Letters File 5I-1866; Sioux Uprising in Minnesota in 1862, 1862-1916;
Rec'd-Adj. (National Archives Microfilm Publication M619, roll 483);
Gen., NARG 94 Letters Received by the Office of the Adjutant General,
Main Series, 1861-1870; Records of the Adjutant General's
Office, 1780s-1917, Record Group 94; National Archives,
Washington, D.C.
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 70
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Letters and Letters and Telegrams Sent, Nov. 1862-Oct. 1873; District of
Telegrams Minnesota, Nov. 1862-June 1873; Geographical Districts and
Sent, NARG 393 Subdistricts; United States Army Continental Commands,
(Entry 343) 1821-1920, Record Group 393 (Entry 343); National Archives,
Washington, D.C.
Letters Letters Sent, June-Oct. 1862; Daily Journal of the Indian
Sent-Indian Expedition, June-Sept. 1863; District of Minnesota, Nov.
Expedition, 1862-June 1873; Geographical Districts and Subdistricts;
NARG 393 United States Army Continental Commands, 1821-1920, Record
(Entry 354) Group 393 (Entry 354); National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Letters Letters Sent, 1842-1889; Records of the Immediate Office of
Sent-JAG, NARG the Judge Advocate General; Records of the Office of the
153 (Entry 1) Judge Advocate General (Army), 1808-1942, Record Group 153
(Entry 1); National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Military Orders, Orders and Circulars, 1797-1910; Orders, 1797-1939; General
NARG 94 Records of the Adjutant General's Office, Record Group 94;
National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Military Orders, 1845-48; Mexican War, 1845-50; Records Relating to
Orders-Mexican Wars, 1812-1943; General Records of the Adjutant General's
War, NARG 94 Office, Record Group 94 (Entry 134); National Archives,
(Entry 134) Washington, D.C.
Military Mexican War Department of Puebla Orders and Special Orders,
Orders-Mexican March-June 1848; Orders, 1845-48; Mexican War, 1845-50;
War (Puebla), Records Relating to Wars, 1812-1943; General Records of the
NARG 94 (Entry Adjutant General's Office, Record Group 94 (Entry 134);
134) National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Military General and Special Orders, February 18-December 18, 1847,
Orders-Mexican Mexican War Volunteer Division Issued and Received; Orders,
War (Volunteer 1845-48; Mexican War, 1845-50; Records Relating to Wars,
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 71
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Div.), NARG 94 1812-1943; General Records of the Adjutant General's
(Entry 134) Office, Record Group 94 (Entry 134); National Archives,
Washington, D.C.
Military Worth's and Scott's Command Orders, Issued and Received, June
Orders-Mexican 1846-July 1847; Orders, 1845-48; Mexican War, 1845-50;
War (Gen. Records Relating to Wars, 1812-1943; General Records of the
Scott), NARG Adjutant General's Office, Record Group 94 (Entry 134);
94 (Entry 134) National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Trial Senate Records 37A-F2, Original Transcripts of the Records of
Transcripts Trials of Certain Sioux Indians Charged with Barbarities in
the State of Minnesota; National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Documents at the Minnesota Historical Society
ABCFM Papers, Papers of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
MHS Missions, 1827-1878; File BA10.A512b, Minnesota Historical
Society, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Riggs Letters, Letters of Stephen R. Riggs; Works Progress Administration,
WPA-Chippewa Chippewa County Museum Project 1465, 1936-37; File
County FF612.W9C5 (vol. 13), Minnesota Historical Society, St.
Project, MHS Paul, Minnesota.
Riggs Papers, Stephen Return Riggs and Family Papers, 1837-1958; File P727,
MHS Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Sibley Papers, Henry Hastings Sibley Papers, 1815-1930; File M164, Minnesota
MHS Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota.
[microfilm]
Sioux Uprising Sioux Uprising Collection; File P1369, Minnesota Historical
Collection, Society, St. Paul, Minnesota.
MHS
Sioux War U.S. Army; Military Commission, Sioux War Trials, 1862; Trial
43 STNLR 13 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 72
43 Stan. L. Rev. 13
(Cite as: 43 Stan. L. Rev. 13)
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Trials, MHS Transcripts; File P1423, Minnesota Historical Society, St.
P1423 Paul, Minnesota.
Whipple Papers, Henry Benjamin Whipple Papers, 1833-1934; File P823,
MHS Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota.
END OF DOCUMENT

ejp.icj.org/IMG/AppendixF.pdf