The book focuses on this one particular atrocity in the history of the American wars with Indian tribes. But the overarching theme is the systemic racism and injustice inherent in that most American of legends, Manifest Destiny. Whether it had the name or not, the phrase being coined in 1845, it is at its core what would now be viewed as White Christian supremacy. This later phrase would never have occurred the people in that day, as the intrinsic superiority of white over red (or black), Christian over heathen, “civilized” over “savage”, would have been so obvious as to not warrant notice.
What the author does excellently, is present the history that the story is not about a failure of policy, or a failure of justice (though in the afterward, those notions are mentioned). But rather that it is the success, albeit sloppy, of Indian removal and extermination policy, and the success of deliberate injustice towards native peoples which are the true legacies of manifest destiny mentality. One need look no further in this century at Guantanamo, to see the egregious legal and ethical tapdancing when balancing military and civilian courts. And the the 19th century was already fraught with unscrupulous treaty making and breaking, with only one goal in mind, the expansion into and appropriation of land for white, Christian Americans. An American “Lebensraum”, nearly a century before it was implemented in Europe.
My only reservation about the book is that as it presents the accounts of massacres committed both by Americans and Dakota, there is a chance that a false equivalence may be perceived, though the author does well to clearly cite sources. In most cases recognizing that accounts of military atrocities have considerable corroboration, while many accounts of Dakota killings are second or third hand stories, hysterical in nature, and infused with a vitriol which does nothing so much as put the veracity of the narrative into question. I just fear that listeners more inclined going in to find that there are good and bad on both sides, might feel they have a tenuous rope to cling to in that regard, conveniently discarding context. Which is not to say the Dakota did not commit massacres, the certainly did. But as is mentioned in a contemporary account by a white witness, recounted in the book, how would white have acted differently given the same situation? Almost certainly more violently. Again, modern “Stand your ground” legislation should suffice to nail that point home.
As previously mentioned, since the scope of the book really expands beyond the restrictive title, the time with Lincoln is shorter than expected. But there is enough for people who venerate the man, to excuse a morally reprehensible, but politically expedient decision. And enough for those looking to excoriate him, to bolster their view of him as a political hack. I would judge him rather harshly, but ultimately fall into the first camp.
All in all, an entertaining and though-provoking book.