I have a sneaking suspicion that IS the TL:DR.

I mean you know how insane you sound right now, right? Like I doubt you are being serious in what you are saying, cause we’re over here saying “Hey some of those people murdered women and children who had nothing to do with the attacks on the Dakota people and that is frequently a death penalty kind of situation” and you’re over there implying those women and children could have totally deserved it or something so that would have make it ok, kinda hard to tell which is why I have to assume you just don’t like people disagreeing with you.

Look I agree with the overall sentiment but 1 of these is not like the others, especially if you’ve read the history of the Dakota War of 1862. Should the US in general not have wholesale slaughtered an indigenous people and stolen their land? Obviously not. Did that reality lead to the war of 1862? Sure did. Does that make massacring people on either side ok? No not really. Lincoln was given a recommendation to execute 303 people who participated in battles and, in some cases, massacred civilians. He asked for details of their convictions. Then he decided that the 38 who actively participated in massacres of innocent people should be executed, not the others who participated in battles. That kinda feels like the best of a fucked up situation to me.

That is absolutely insane. Black coffee? What am I a savage?