WI: Larger and More Successful Sioux Uprising in 1862

What if the the Sioux Uprising in 1862 was larger and more successful than OTL?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_War_of_1862

Say the Sioux are able to capture Fort Ridgely, New Ulm and defeat Sibley's relief forces. Could this have had any effects on the American Civil War, if the local Minnesota troops couldn't handle the situation?

Would the Sioux be able to capitalize on these victories and force U.S. to grant them a larger reservation?

How would this impact the later wars between the U.S. and Sioux: Red Clouds War and the Great Sioux War?

thanks
 
The US sends more troops and crushes them. The US used about six regiments in the war against the Sioux. This is about a brigade and a half in the USCW or around a half of a division. The US sends an entire division this time as reinforcements thus tripling the number of troops. That might effect a battle here and there but very unlikely a campaign not talking the war.
 
If anything, the inevitable response would be much more harsher and the Sioux will be lucky if they have a smaller reservation, if any land, once they're subdued.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
My question is how?

The Lakota were not organized along conventional lines, and were not capable of fighting a conventional conflict.

Sibley, with his mix of militia and volunteers, drove them from Minnesota into the Dakotas pretty quickly, all things considered; with the forts along the Missouri to the south, they can't go that direction, so other than crossing the 49th Parallel into BNA, they don't have much in the way of options.

It is worth noting that Connor et al were capable of securing the Great Basin, while Carson was able to do much the same in New Mexico and even the Comancheria...

As was obvious (Chivington) the US forces were willing to be as brutal as can be imagined to keep the west quiet during the Civil War; I don't see that changing any.

Best,
 
The Lakota were not organized along conventional lines, and were not capable of fighting a conventional conflict.

Sibley, with his mix of militia and volunteers, drove them from Minnesota into the Dakotas pretty quickly, all things considered; with the forts along the Missouri to the south, they can't go that direction, so other than crossing the 49th Parallel into BNA, they don't have much in the way of options.

Best,

What about moving into Iowa north of the Missouri River? Some groups went there a few years earlier, could expanding the conflict in this direction cause the Union any issues?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_Lake_Massacre

by the way thanks for the comments everyone:D
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Iowa was actually a fairly populous state;

What about moving into Iowa north of the Missouri River? Some groups went there a few years earlier, could expanding the conflict in this direction cause the Union any issues?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_Lake_Massacre

by the way thanks for the comments everyone:D

Something like 675,000 in the 1860 census, and the state was credited with more than 75,000 enlistments in the war; granted, a lot of those men would be off on various battlefields, but still...for the Lakota to try and fight offensively and protect their women and children?

It's just suicidal.

Best,
 

Driftless

Donor
Most of the fights: New Ulm, Spirit Lake, etc were relatively close on either side of the Minnesota/Iowa boundry. It's the eastern edge of the Great Plains. Then as now, it's mostly prairie with some decent sized Oak savannahs.

Pretty wide open country, with few hills of any real size

I'm thinking the Sioux were doomed from the get-go. With the Civil War in full swing, and in 1862, only 300-400 miles from the field of battle in the West; the US was going to go for a quick and ruthless shut-down of any Sioux uprising. Probably the only thing they might have done that would have extended the fight, would have been a long march something on the order of the Nez Perce in the 1870's

This is a current photo of Blue Mound State Park near Luverne, MN (fairly close to Spirit Lake and Okoboji - just for an idea of topography.)

flat,550x550,075,f.jpg
 
They weren't Lakota, but Dakota people.

But yeah, this was a desperate uprising by starving people. The only real hope it had of doing some lasting damage is if the Ojibway up north joined in. There were some real fears of this happening. Some Ojibway leaders were mobilizing, but others were quick to put a stop to it.

Can't remember what specific battle it was, but I've actually seen the captured American flag where the Dakota won. A family still owns it as part of their bundle (a collection of Spiritual items a Native family keeps).

If anything, the inevitable response would be much more harsher and the Sioux will be lucky if they have a smaller reservation, if any land, once they're subdued.

Their reservations are tiny as is, and I think it was only set aside for bands that didn't join in.
 
Last edited:
They weren't Lakota, but Dakota people.

But yeah, this was a desperate uprising by starving people. The only real hope it had of doing some lasting damage is if the Ojibway up north joined in. There were some real fears of this happening. Some Ojibway leaders were mobilizing, but others were quick to put a stop to it.

Can't remember what specific battle it was, but I've actually seen the captured American flag where the Dakota won. A family still owns it as part of their bundle (a collection of Spiritual items a Native family keeps).



Their reservations are tiny as is, and I think it was only set aside for bands that didn't join in.

So what would have happened if the Ojibway had joined in? And how could we have had that happen?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Wouldn't the Ojibway be more likely to attack Fort Garry?

Wouldn't the Ojibway be more likely to attack Fort Garry?

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
I mean, if you're going to go to war, at least...

I mean, if you're going to go to war, at least...

1) take on your "own" great white father; and
2) go somewhere where you have some friends...

J.L Riel was in his 40s, and L. Riel was 18, I think; could be interesting...

And hey, Wolseley was in BNA by the time of the Minnesota War...

Best,
 
I'd like to see Louis Riel join the war. However, I really don't think that a larger war would be successful for the Dakota. The country would be better off with some peaceful agreement preventing the war, though that may not be likely either.
 
The Ojibwe/Chippewa was the bigger, tougher tribe that had chased the Dakota/Lakota/Nakota out of Canada and the Upper Midwest out onto far more desolate high Northern plains so an alliance would be very unlikely with centuries of warfare and raids between them. This is marginal country that doesn't support many people in clusters (without mechanized farming and railroads) so think of a fairly small number of guerrilla bands, perhaps a thousand warriors total (age 14-25 or so, the veterans protect the camp so it's more novice adolescents with lousy group discipline but a lifetime of training in certain skills.) That's why they're mostly defeated by attacks on their camps rather than in open combat (like the Afrikaan Boers.)

So at most it disrupts further a minor front, Minnesota, drawing more former Confederate prisoners as frontier defenders/"Galvanized Yankees" so fewer died in the prisoner camps.

OTL's campaign which attacked non-participating Lakota tribes in Alfred Sully's expedition to find someone to vanquish and get back to the main battlefronts does plenty to make them hostile and Red Cloud's War is already beginning to the West in Wyoming and Montana so nothing much would change there.

If the Minnesota and Dakota tribes fled West entirely, resettling in mostly empty Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming which is a reasonable POD. That would intensify the fighting out here with more warriors so potentially:
1. Red Cloud's War is more decisive in wiping out patrols, woodcutters, wagon trains, cattle drives, prospectors' camps, etc.. That probably would make the U.S. Army less ready to settle it and the posts along the Bozeman Trail would be reinforced and expanded after the Civil War allowed it.
2. 1870's battles where they'd reinforced might change: Crook's forces are wiped out at the Battle of the Rosebud, Reno's forces are wiped out at the Little Big Horn with Benteen retreating rather than reinforcing. Chief Joseph's Nez Perce flight to Canada succeeds with Army troops still chasing the Lakota instead. The Black Hills get a much more intense defense from the gold prospectors and the Northern Pacific Railroad construction crews suffer far more losses but they still follow OTL development just slower and fewer. But Alfred Terry's 1876 expeditionary force (Custer, Crook, Gibbon) had as many soldiers as the entire and unique cluster of camps they chased, it's an overwhelming presence when you think about the total "Sioux" population scattered across 4 vast states at about 36,000 people then.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
IIRC, the troops sent to quell the uprising were largely made up of those who had surrendered to the Confederates at Harper's Ferry and been released on parole. Since they had pledged not to serve against the Confederates until properly exchanged, the government sent them off to fight the Sioux instead.

There were plenty of other Union troops that had been paroled after being captured by the rebels (in Morgan's Kentucky raid in the fall of 1862, I think he captured 2,000 or thereabouts), so the government would have plenty of troops to use against the Sioux without detracting from their efforts against the Confederacy.
 
Top