Bluestem Prairie

Walz tours district's flourishing robotics industry; Republican robocalls harass S. Minnesota voters

While declared Republican challenger Mr. Robocall bothered Southern Minnesotans enjoying August in a non-campaign year, Congressman Walz toured his district's burgeoning robotics industry. 

And saw seriously cool "throwbots."

The Winona Daily News reports in Legislator touts region’s robotics collaborations:

Last Sunday, Christi Braun of Winona got a phone call from her son, Matthew Konkel, currently stationed in Afghanistan with the U.S. Air Force.

He told her a robot manufactured at her Winona workplace, RiverStar Inc., identified an improvised explosive device while his unit was on patrol. The robot helped Konkel’s unit avoid a situation that could have resulted in injuries or even fatalities.

On Thursday, Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., toured RiverStar’s facilities to learn more about the growing robotics industry in southeast Minnesota, which increasingly has global reach. . . .

. . .Employees demonstrated Thursday how the robots, or “throwbots,” function: A robot is tossed into suspicious areas and guided over terrain by a monitor that displays video of the robot’s surroundings. The robots weigh less than 1 pound, record up to two hours of video, and function in daylight or darkness.

Who knew Minnesota is at the forefront of military robotics? Probably not the NRCC, which launched its first assault of robocalls Tuesday against innocent First District residents who were so minding their own business.

Images: Walz's opponent makes his presence known.

Related post: Sunny MN01 news: So, when does Mr. Robo-call form a campaign committee to challenge Walz?

Tell me where's your heart: remembering Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt

On this Memorial Day, I'm remembering those who defended my country, and those who died for it.

One story that's moved me this spring strikes at the core of what it means to be an American, to love this country, to honor its values: the death of Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt and his family's standing up for equality for all people. Andrew Wilfahrt was a gay man; this was the least interesting thing about him. What those who served with him remember is a soldier who was there for his fellow soldiers. He's buried now in the national cemetery at Fort Snelling, along with one of my own uncles who died in the Malmedy Massacre and with hundreds of others who served their country.

Wilfahrt's life and death became an emblem of equality in in recent debates over a bill to amend the Minnesota constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Those opposing the bill--and now the amendment--have risen to rare eloquence, none more than that of a Republican freshman legislator who lost the lower part of his legs in Iraq when an IED exploded.

In this video, John Kriesel points toward protesters chanting during this statement, saying that that America was the one he had fought for. I'd like to believe that this is where Andrew's heart is, in the America that includes everyone, and values everyone, but there are others, equally American, who believe otherwise. This is their right; some may even object to the posting of this video on Memorial Day. That, too, is their right.

My beloved state now faces a debate and a fight over fundamentals: who we are, what we love, how a society will recognize that love, and what love will matter. This Memorial Day, I'm siding with the Wilfahrt family and Representative John Kriesel, a straight, married, conservative man, in saying Yes to a society which respects love, and on Election Day in November 2012, saying "Hell No!" to those who would deny equality for Andrew and everyone. I'd prefer that no one's fundamental rights and dignity be put up for a vote, but since vote I must, it's "Hell No."

Thank you, John Kriesel. Thank you, Jeff and Lori Wilfahrt. And thank you, Andrew Wilfahrt.

For more information about Andrew Wilfahrt's service, watch this Youtube from the Courage Campaign.

Shellito warns of cuts to state vets' programs; Senator Mike Parry silent again

Memorial Day is coming up, and families across Minnesota will tidy up the resting places of loved ones, leaving flowers and straightening up the Bronze Star markers on graves of their veterans. The stars are silent reminders of the part of a life--or all of it--that Americans gave to their country.

This morning's Star Tribune reports that may change under the dramatic cuts proposed in Republican bills working their way toward Governor Dayton's desk. In State VA chief: Budget cuts by GOP would hurt veterans, Rachel Stassen Berger writes:

Republican budget cuts could trigger the closure of at least one veterans' home, higher burial fees for veterans' families and elimination of the Bronze Star grave marker program, according to state Veterans Affairs Commissioner Larry Shellito.

Shellito, who led the state National Guard under former Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, said the budget as it stands would result in layoffs and other cuts, even though Republicans had pledged to protect veterans from spending reductions. "I'm very concerned," Shellito said.

The House sponsor, Rep. Morrie Lanning, says Shellito is overreacting. The soldier's response?

Although rhetoric at the Capitol has heated up as the budget process grinds toward a May 23 adjournment, Shellito said his projections are not part of that fight. "I don't play games," said Shellito, a major general in the Guard. "It's really serious."

In a letter to Gov. Mark Dayton on Thursday, Shellito said the budget proposals for his department would result in layoffs for more than 100 employees.

The Military Affairs Department, which is separate from Veterans Affairs, said legislative budgets could leave too little money to properly maintain state-owned National Guard armories and the House budget bill could "jeopardize the ability of the state to retain the Army and Air National Guard units currently assigned."

Judging from I've observed from Shellito during his time leading the Guard, and from what my many friends in the MNG say about their former leader, I believe him. Shellito isn't the sort of guy who'll play games.

More telling is who isn't talking. From the Strib:

Sen. Mike Parry, R-Waseca, Lanning's counterpart in the Senate, was not available for comment, despite repeated requests.

Mike Parry at a loss for words? Too busy taping a lame caucus radio podcast to answer some questions about vets? Tied up accepting a journalistic lap dance from the fawning staff at the Faribault Daily News? Really, Mike, really?

Parry was one of those Republicans who promised to hold veterans' programs harmless. But then, he famously didn't answer Senator Dick Cohen's question on the floor of the senate about budget cuts, either.

In fact, Parry won his special election in January 2010 while campaigning on an across-the-board 15 percent budget cut that would nonetheless hold state veterans' program harmless. The Mankato Free Press reported in January 2010:

Parry was asked, if billions of dollars in inefficiencies are present in the budget, why Pawlenty didn’t target them when he had the chance.

“I wasn’t there,” Parry said. “I don’t know what he was thinking.”

One problem, according to Parry’s philosophy, might have been the governor’s attempt to protect K-12 education funding and other popular parts of the budget. Parry would exempt only two relatively small sections of the state budget — veterans benefits and public safety programs. [emphasis added]

Every other part of the budget must be cut — even property tax credits and other favored line items that directly reduce people’s property taxes, according to Parry.

Chair of the Senate's Government Reform and Veterans Committee, Parry didn't taking questions about the possible cuts back in early February.

Parry was hired by voters and draws a paycheck to answer questions. It's the rest of us who should be speechless.

Update: Tomorrow's "Tax Cut Rally" asks attendees to  remember our troops and "Visit veterans memorials on the state capitol grounds." Bluestem thinks it would be better to call Parry's office (number here) and remind him of his promises to vets.

February's video:

Related post: McLeod vets' needs require second county officer; Republican bills cut veterans programs

 

 

Walz in the WaPo: J.P. Morgan Chase to settle lawsuit over military mortgages

  Earlier this year, Bluestem noted work by Tim Walz and other members of the House Veterans' Affair Committee to enforce and strengthen the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.  Walz challenged a bank executive testifying before the committee and introduced legislation to help military families who have a member deployed.

The bi-partisan pressure is working. On Saturday, the Washington Post reported in J.P. MorganChase to pay $27 million to settle lawsuit over military mortgages:

J.P. Morgan Chase said Friday it will pay $27 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the bank of overcharging members of the military for their mortgages and prompted a federal investigation, a congressional hearing as well as public outrage.

In the suit, Marine Corps Capt. Jonathon Rowles charged that the bank refused to lower the interest rate on his mortgage, as required under a federal law, after he was activated for duty. When Rowles refused to pay the higher rate, the bank called his home up to three times a day and threatened to foreclose, according to the suit, which was filed in July.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) prohibits lenders from charging active-duty members of the military more than 6 percent interest on their mortgages. It also prevents banks from foreclosing on their homes during service and for nine months afterward.

Under the terms of the settlement, the bank will give $12 million to the estimated 6,000 service members covered by the suit. It will also set up a $15 million fund for additional individual damages, to be disbursed by a third party. The firm said it has already issued $6 million to service members who were overcharged. A judge is slated to issue preliminary approval to the settlement in late May. . . .

And the article closes with note of Walz's legislation:

Chase still faces several challenges on Capitol Hill and from federal regulators. The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the bank, along with Saxon Mortgage. A department spokeswoman said Friday that the case is ongoing.

Meanwhile, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has introduced a bill that would double the criminal and civil penalties for foreclosing on active-duty service members or for other violations of the SCRA. It would also extend service members’ grace period from foreclosure from nine months to 24. Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) introduced a similar proposal in the House last week. Both bills await votes in committee.

“I hope this settlement will help rectify the harm that Chase caused to military families, and I urge other lenders to own up to their mistakes,” Whitehouse said in an e-mail Friday. “But this settlement does not wipe the slate clean, and we should still take action to make sure these mistakes are not repeated.”

Props to those sticking up for the legal rights of military families.

OutFront Minnesota rally: Jeff Wilfahrt speaks to his son's humanity, and for human rights for all

Jeff and Lori Wilfahrt of Rosemount, grew up in New Ulm, the son of Leo and Ruth Wilfahrt, and daughter of Betty Schaefer. They married and lived in Rosemount, where they raised their family, including Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt, 31, who died in Afghanistan six weeks ago when an IED exploded.

Jeff Wilfahrt spoke today to a rally sponsored by OutFront Minnesota on the wind-swept steps of the State Capitol in St. Paul as part of the GLBT political advocacy group's yearly Day on the Hill.  Andrew Wilfahrt is thought to be the first gay Minnesota soldier to die in the service of his country in the war in Afghanistan.

His sister has said that her brother's sexual orientation was the least interesting thing about him, a remark Jeff Wilfahrt repeated to the crowd today. The elder Wilfahrt's speech, which he read from a statement he prepared, cuts directly to American values and the creation of the American system.

I apologize for the sound quality--at the beginning, the cold April wind carried Wilfahrt's words away. But listen carefully (and the sound gets better as the wind dies down) to a father made a "better human being, a better American, and a better Minnesotan" by the life and death of his beloved son.

Update: Jeff Wilfahrt kindly sent the prepared text of his speech:

Greetings to all, and thank you for the kind introduction.

I have no authority for what I am about to say. My only claim to fame is that I am the father of a fallen Minnesota soldier, the eighteenth to die in Afghanistan since 2007.

To all of you here in attendance and to all of those who serve in the Capitol of the great state of Minnesota I tender these following remarks.

Each of you here today are, first and foremost, a human being, you are in all likelihood an American, and you are in all likelihood a Minnesotan.

Each and every one of you can be described by height, by weight, by eye color, by hair color, by ethnicity, by gender and by sexuality. You were born with these things, not a single descriptor I’ve stated is a choice.

Each of you has chosen a life arc. You choose with whom to associate, you choose your creed, you choose your politics; you choose your work life. These choices each of usmake as humans, as Americans and as Minnesotans.

We had a son. He was gay, he didn’t choose it. But he did choose as his life arc to serve in the Army with the 552nd MP Company. He died in Kandahar just six weeks ago. It was death by IED while on foot patrol.

Congressman Tim Walz to JPMorgan Chase on military customer changes: "About time!"

Last Friday, Bluestem posted  Walz on JPMorgan: "weakest testimony I've ever heard in this committee," relating an episode that occurred during House Veterans Affairs Committee hearings about the giant banking concerns' treatment of military customers.

The bad publicity in the national arena that BSP's post reflected must have threatened to get to the firm's bottomline. Or maybe the bank executive just went through the same experience that friends felt after they were dressed down by Walz when he was their First Sergeant.

Today, the banking corporation issued this release: JPMorgan Chase Announces New Programs for Military and Veterans:

Commits to lower SCRA rate and increasing modifications, jobs, training, and home ownership assistance for military and veterans

“The programs we are announcing today are a start, but in no way a finish," said Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase. “This company has a great history of honoring military and veterans, and the mistakes we made on military foreclosures are a painful aberration on that track record. We deeply apologize to our military customers and their families for these mistakes. We cannot undo them, but we can take accountability for them, fix them and learn from them. Today we want to begin a new way forward with the military and veteran community to make serving them a core part of how we operate our business every day. Our servicemen and servicewomen deserve nothing less.”

The details are available online following the statement.

In response, the Walz congressional office emailed the following press release with the subject line: Walz to JPMorgan Chase: "It's About Time!":

Today, Congressman Tim Walz released the below statement following JPMorgan Chase’s announcement that they will enhance programs for military and veteran customers.

This announcement comes after a hearing in the House Veterans Affairs last week where Walz fiercely criticized the financial institution for overcharging service members and accidentally foreclosing on their homes, some of them while deployed.

 

“I am pleased JPMorgan Chase is taking responsibility for their actions and is working to improve their services for both service members and veterans. If they can issue a 65-page, complicated credit card statement, I am confident they can figure out how to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the law designed to protect the brave men and women who serve our nation in uniform. I am glad the VA Committee addressed this wrongdoing last week and I want JPMorgan Chase to know that I am committed to continuing that vigorous oversight for our veterans as these programs are implemented.” 

 

In last week’s hearing, JPMorgan Chase claimed difficulty reading and understanding deployment orders as part of the reason soldiers had been wronged by their institution. Rep. Walz pulled up a JPMorgan Chase credit card agreement over 60 pages long on his iPad and stated that was the weakest excuse he had ever heard in his four years on the VA Committee.

 

Walz served in the National Guard for 24 years, retiring as a Command Sergeant Major. He is the highest ranking enlisted soldier to ever serve in Congress.

Will new chair of House Vets Committee leave homeless veterans in the cold?

Over at Minnesota Progressive Project, Eric Pusey cites a press release from Representative Betty McCollum in Republicans want to slash funding for homeless vets. Go over and take a look; it's sobering reading.

And McCollum is no alarmist. Earlier this month, Congressional Quarterly Weekly's Eugene Mulero reported in Cutting the Uncuttable: Congress Eyes the VA (via Nexis) that new chair of the House Vets Committee thinks vets can "sacrifice again":

For years, when lawmakers spoke about the need to cut government spending, they always hastened to add that they weren't targeting funding for the nation's veterans.

Indeed, it's been a banner decade for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has seen its budget jump from $61.8 billion in fiscal 2004 to $109.6 billion in fiscal 2010, according to the Congressional Research Service.

But those days appear to be over. Lawmakers have made it clear that despite two wars, the VA won't be getting the kinds of increases it's gotten used to -- and the department will be lucky to hold its budget near current levels. Indeed, some key lawmakers in the GOP-controlled House say the VA could actually see painful cuts in the coming years.

Slashing benefits for veterans would seem to be an extremely politically risky thing to do, but in an age of tea party fervor and growing concern about the national debt, even those programs may no longer be spared from the chopping block.

The man in the middle of all this is Florida Republican Jeff Miller, the new chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, who now has to walk a tightrope to prove himself a committed friend to the nation's vets while still keeping the House majority's commitment to deficit reduction. In a sign of where his priorities may lie, he says he believes veterans are willing to "sacrifice again."

The needs of homeless vets are especially at risk in light of Miller's priorities:

So far, Miller appears willing to confront the dueling functions of his new job. He already dismissed the Obama administration's goal to house every homeless veteran within five years. That initiative is dear to Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, who worked closely on it with Miller's predecessor, Bob Filner of California, now the committee's ranking Democrat. At a conference in December, Shinseki noted that an estimated 107,000 veterans remain homeless.

When he was the top Republican on the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health during the 110th Congress, Miller opposed Democratic attempts to authorize a variety of new programs for homeless veterans, complaining that the proposals would hurt organizations already providing care and create a potentially unnecessary therapeutic readjustment program.

And the article goes on to outline what Miller's fate might be if he bucks his priorities and turns aside his party's budget ax in favor of the veterans he is supposed to serve.

 Mulero writes:

Most observers expect Miller to follow through on whatever House GOP leaders plan for the VA budget. For one thing, many remember what happened to New Jersey Republican Christopher H. Smith when he chaired the Veterans panel last decade.

When Jim Nicholson, President George W. Bush's secretary for Veterans Affairs, presented the administration's budget proposal at a 2005 committee hearing, Smith, in his role as a veterans' advocate, pressed him to admit that the proposal was at least $1 billion less than what the department sought. But instead of being praised for trying to protect veterans, Smith was roundly criticized by his GOP colleagues for embarrassing his party's president, and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois stripped him of his chairmanship. After serving 24 years on the committee, Smith then left the panel altogether.

Indiana Republican Steve Buyer, who stayed on message, succeeded him.

In the article, Tim Walz responds to the proposed cuts:

"Attempting to balance the budget on the backs of veterans who have risked life and limb in service of our country is unacceptable."

I agree--and I don't think veterans should have to "sacrifice again." My friend serving now are sacrficing quite enough this very minute, thank you.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day on the Hill in St. Paul--I hope the veterans meeting with Governor Dayton tell him to hold the line on veterans spending on the state level. Let's not sacrifice our vets again, Governor Dayton.

Source: Mulero, Eugene.  "Cutting the Uncuttable: Congress Eyes the VA," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, February 5, 2011, Nexis All News database, Accessed Feb. 14, 2011.

Photo: Congressman Walz speaking at a deployment ceremony in Southern Minnesota several years ago

Walz on JPMorgan: "weakest testimony I've ever heard in this committee"

The American Legion's Legislative Action Center serves up a hard hitting story in JPMorgan Chase grilled by Congress. Congressman Tim Walz, a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, put in a memorable turn:

It was an eventful morning on Feb. 9 for a senior executive of JPMorgan Chase, the giant financial institution accused of violating lending rules that - in several cases - caused military families to lose their homes. Stephanie Mudick, Chase's vice president in charge of consumer practices, sat alone as members of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee grilled her about the company's handling of mortgage loan provisions in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).

The committee's ranking minority member, Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., challenged Mudick and fellow JPMorgan Chase employees in absentia to take personal - not corporate - responsibility for violations that reportedly caused emotional and financial distress for a number of servicemembers and their families. . . .

. . . In her oral testimony before the HVAC, Mudick said JPMorgan Chase assumed "full responsibility" for the SCRA violations, characterizing the alleged 4,500 cases of mishandled interest rates and 18 wrongful foreclosures as products of human error. She said lack of internal training left many Chase employees with little, if any, knowledge of SCRA regulations and the intricacies of military documentation, saying that "military orders are sometimes hard to comprehend."

In response, Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., produced his iPad, upon which he exhibited a simple one-page set of military orders. In contrast, he held up a Chase credit card agreement spanning dozens of pages. He called Mudick's statement "the weakest testimony I've ever heard in this committee." [emphasis added]

For more background on this story, check out this story from the Marines' website, which links to indepth discussions of the issue: Marines may be entitled to JP Morgan Chase settlements.

Photo: Tim Walz in Worthington.

All of them: MN Senate Republicans refuse to hold the line on funding state veterans' programs

Back on February 4, Bluestem noted in the post McLeod vets' needs require second county officer; Republican bills cut veterans programs:

On the county level, the county veterans service officer is the latter's best first hope, a staff person to guide them through the state and federal programs a more-or-less grateful nation provides to those who give their time to serving the country.

So what is the Republican majority in the Minnesota legislature doing about this increased need?

Why, cutting money for county veterans services offices.

On January 27, the Star Tribune reported in $1 billion in cuts passes first test:

. . .DFLers said cutting that money would hurt veterans, soldiers and college students most. Targets could include a state soldiers assistance program, which provides emergency financial aid to veterans, along with money for county veterans service officers. . . .[emphasis added]

Today, Senate DFLers asked to send the conference committee report for HF130 sent back so that a slight changecould be made to the language, a change that would ensure that veterans' programs would not be put on the chopping block.

Not a single Republican voted to protect veterans' programs. The DFL Senate Caucus has posted video from the floor debate:

Perhaps I should contact my state senator's legislative aide about his vote. That'll do it. Yeah, given Senator Newman's "Bus Dumping" Prowess, I'm sure he'll get my message.

Meanwhile, what will we say to Minnesota's veterans? To State Senator John Harrington's son, a member of the Red Bulls? 

What promise can the GOP caucus give to vets that they couldn't put in writing?

Update: Governor Dayton vetoed the bill. His reasons are stated here.

A win for Minnesota's vets: Dayton appoints Larry Shellito commissioner

My friends who have served in the National Guard all hold former Adjutant General of the MNG, Larry Shellito, in high esteem for the wauy in which he worked to reintegrate soldiers coming back from deployments in the wars. Doing that job for all of Minnesota's vets--young and old, and from all branches of the military, is going to be hard, but if anyone can, Shellito is the one. A great choice by Governor Dayton.

In Retired Guard general accepts 'calling' to state Vets Affairs post, staff reporter Mark Brunswick lays out how difficult a mission the job will be:

Shellito, 65, a Vietnam veteran who stepped down as head of the Minnesota Guard while facing mandatory retirement, said he actively sought the Veterans Affairs post, which coordinates programs and resources for the state's 131,000 veterans and their dependents.

"I threw my hat in the ring. One day you just wake up and say, 'There's still a lot of work that needs to be done,'" he said.

Under his guidance, the Guard began a pioneering Beyond the Yellow Ribbon campaign, which worked to ease the transition and reintegration of soldiers and their families after a deployment. It became the template for similar national programs for the Reserve, Guard components and active military.

The state faces a $6.2 billion budget deficit, but Shellito said he would work to sustain current $112.5 million funding for the department, the bulk of which is taken up with providing health care, including operating five veterans homes statewide. He said he also will work to break down barriers between state and federal programs, and will encourage such things as coordinating medical care on the local level for outstate veterans who might find it inconvenient to travel to VA Medical Centers in Fargo, St. Cloud or Minneapolis.

Representative Tim Walz, the highest ranking enlisted soldier to ever serve in Congress, issued a statement about the appointment that echoes my friends' sentiments about Shellito:

“From the days when General Shellito and I served together in the Minnesota National Guard, his commitment to those who have served our nation has been clear. He is a strong leader, a good listener, always focused on the mission at hand, an excellent manager and a visionary thinker. His foresight had the Minnesota National Guard prepared years in advance for their combat missions, guaranteeing the highest level of performance from our brave troops.

I am thrilled with Governor Dayton’s selection. I know as General Shellito transitions into this new role, he will bring the same dedication and work ethic he has in the past and will put veterans and their families first. I look forward to working with him to ensure that all the men and women who have risked life and limb in service of our country have the care they have earned.”

Commemoration: three views of the 1862 mass execution in Mankato

Today marked the 148th anniversary of the largest mass execution in American history, in Mankato following the U.S. - Dakota War of 1862.  I've written before about the conflict; today the Mankato Free Press and columnist Nick Coleman each touched on the execution.

In Our View: Heeding a history lesson, the Free Press staff writes:

Today, as on many a Dec. 26 of decades past, the Dakota Indians will commemorate the hanging of 38 of their ancestors in the largest mass execution in U.S. history.

They will hold a ceremony at Mankato’s Reconciliation Park to remember this dark time in our history. 2012 will mark the 150th anniversary of the hangings.

Already there are preparations at the Minnesota Historical Society for a large exhibit and report on this significant historical event. Ancestors from both white and Dakota sides will be interviewed. Memories will come forth in a narrative that will be a somber reminder on the price paid by what seems like it could have been an avoidable conflict.

Many Mankato area residents know the story, although more and more it seems, some young people have not paid as much attention to it as their elders. . . .

. . . We should give pause to any reaction to declare a winner in a conflict that extracted so much violence on both sides. As we’ve watched the Dakota commemoration over the years, we see that spirit running through the ceremony. Many non-Indians have been invited and welcomed to the ceremony.

So it’s difficult sometimes to face an annual reliving of sorts of this dark chapter of U.S. and Dakota history, but it’s also a living reminder the reconciliation is just as important to history as the conflict itself.

Read the whole editorial at the MFP. Now writing at his own website, The State We're In, Coleman notes in Minnesota’s Darkest Memory: The Hanging of the 38:

Dec. 26, 1862: The execution of the 38 Dakota warriors at Mankato: Revenge and rage drove the flawed legal proceedings behind the kangaroo-court convictions of 303 Indians who surrendered after the U.S.- Dakota war of that autumn. Only President Lincoln’s aversion to mass punishment limited the hangman’s toll to 38. But the stain of those official killings, followed by the official banishment of the Dakota Sioux from their home (banishment or extermination was the state’s policy) left a mark of shame on Minnesota that has colored all the years since, and which has made it almost impossible to even talk about the events of 1862. Now, proposals have been made to extend a posthumous “pardon” to one of the hanged. Pardoning one man doesn’t even come close to an official recognition of the wrongs done to the Dakota, or to comprehending the scale of an avoidable tragedy that claimed hundreds of lives on all sides of the racial divide that was the cradle of Minnesota’s birth. . . .

After reviewing his extensive history of learning and writing about the war and its aftermath, Coleman includes his column from December 19, while observing that through the comments on columns about the conflict published at the Strib, he'sdiscovered:

through the kind of readers’ comments those efforts have received that the well of ignorance and outright racism remains deep and largely unplumbed in this state.

There's a great deal of truth in that observation. What will the 150th anniversary of the war draw from most: the spirit of the commenorations in the park today--or from that poisoned well at which so many readers of Coleman's columns drink?

On December 23, MPR aired a segmented about how a New documentary remembers largest mass execution in US history:

— The largest mass execution in U.S. history occurred 148 years ago, when 38 Dakota warriors were hanged from a single scaffold in Mankato.

The shock waves of that mass execution still reverberate today among the Dakota people. A new documentary film remembers the 38, and also a group of Dakota who ride on horseback each year at this time to Mankato to commemorate the executions of Dec. 26, 1862.. . .

At the end of Dakota 38, the filmmakers reveal that one of the young men featured in the film recently committed suicide.

Dakota 38 co-director Sarah Weston, a member of the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, said the suicide is part of what she calls the 'historical grief' left over from the traumatic collision in the 1800's between Native Americans and white settlers.

One of the film's messages, Weston said, is that the Dakota and other Indians should take a simple but difficult step: forgive the misdeeds of the past.

"The past is really, really traumatic," Weston said. "But we're going to reach our hand out and say that we forgive. Because when you're not in a forgiveness place, you're linked to that person or that trauma for the rest of your life, all day long. And so by forgiving we're no longer linked to that."

A point worth reflecting on in a dark and snowy December.

Image: Condemned Dakota men in the Mankato prison. Via The Dakota Conflict Trials.

2012: How should Minnesota remember the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862?

In August, I served as a guide for Twin Cities freelance journalist and theater artist Sheila Regan in a tour of sites related to the U.S. -Dakota War of 1862.

The three-part series is a fascinating read over at the Twin Cities Daily Planet. As a partner of the TCDP, I'm posting one of the articles today, and links to the other articles are below.

By Sheila Regan, TC Daily Planet

September 16, 2010

In 1987, on the 125th anniversary of the execution of the Dakota warriors who were hanged at the end of the war, Minnesota's Governor Rudy Perpich declared a Year of Reconciliation.  A statue, called Winter Warrior was created at the site of the execution, and the remains of the executed men were returned from museums to the Dakota for proper burial. 

[As the sesquicentennial of the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 approaches, our series addresses the ongoing "war" about the accuracy of historical description, about the naming of events, and about the relation of peoples and history in Minnesota in the 21st century -- and about the remembrance and commemoration of the historical events of 1862.  The series:

Forest City to Fort Snelling: The U.S.-Dakota War of 1862
Trail of treaties: The U.S.-Dakota War of 1862
Telling the story today: The U.S.-Dakota War of 1862]

 

Naming events and places is a powerful part of history-making, and today's battles center over both naming and telling the story.

Many historians and activists insist that Fort Snelling was, in fact, a concentration camp for the 1600 Dakotas interned there after the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Those interned in the camp were women, children and old men, not combatants. Hundreds died as a result of the cold and abuses, and those who lived were removed from Minnesota in the spring.

The Minnesota Historical Society, which has a historical interpretive center at Fort Snelling, doesn't call it a concentration camp and doesn't mention the concentration camp on their website's Brief History Page.  However, the Visitor Center at Fort Snelling State Park, which is run by the Department of Natural Resources, does have a memorial for the Dakota who were held at the camp and uses the term "concentration camp." 

In Native Roots: How the Indians Enriched America, Jack Weatherford writes about a picture from the 1862-3 encampment at Fort Snelling:

The tepees seem so traditional, yet the identical appearance of the tepees, neatly arranged with an enclosure, offers a strange glimpse of a form that was to haunt the twentieth century.  The pictures show us the birth of an institution, the beginning of a whole new social practice of concentrating innocent civilians into an area and imprisoning them for protracted periods without charging them with any crime.

 Mankato State University's Minnesota history website also describes Fort Snelling as a concentration camp:

The remaining Dakota surrendered. Sibley's force rounded up 1700 Dakota women, children, and elders and began a forced march from the Lower Sioux Agency to a concentration camp at Fort Snelling. They walked 20 miles a day. Along the way they were subjected to physical and verbal violence by local white people. New Ulm residents poured hot, scalding water over their heads. Many were killed or died from hunger and sickness. ...

The remaining Dakota prisoners were treated with brutality. Soldiers held prisoners at Fort Snelling through the winter. The soldiers treated them brutally, violating the women and then killing them. Many people died from disease because of the crowded conditions. Others committed suicide because of the horrors they saw there. Some days soldiers buried as many as 50 people in a mass grave.

The Lower Sioux Agency historical site, which is run by the Minnesota Historical Society, also does not use the term "concentration camp." Instead, the term "prison camp" is used.   The problem with "prison camp," is that it implies that the inhabitants of the camp were criminals, which they were not. 

At the Lower Sioux Agency Historical Site, which is run by the Lower Sioux Community with funding from Minnesota Historical Society, Anthony Morse provided documentation for changes that were made on the historical markers inside the visitors' center.  The changes were made, he said, in 2000. 

The documents indicate historical information that used to be shown at the site and which now has been removed.  For example, there was information about Major Lawrence Taliaferro, an Indian Agent at Fort Snelling.  Previous signage spoke of Taliaferro's "sincere interest in the welfare of the Dakota and Chippewa," who "came to respect his truthfulness."  The marker read:  "His efforts went far to keep peace on the Minnesota frontier for many years." 

Another marker, about Fort Ridgley, formerly titled "Big Guns Hold the Fort," then was changed to "The Door to the Valley." 

St. Cloud Times letter to the editor: facts contradict Representative Dan Severson's schtick

One of GOP Secretary of State candidate Dan Severson's claims about voting in Minnesota is a low rate of acceptance of absentee ballots by military personnel. Typical is the claim on his campaign website's issues page:

Nothing is more frustrating and outrageous than the disenfranchisement of our military personnel at the election box. In the last election roughly 25% of our military personnel in Minnesota were able to cast a vote that counted when using the absentee system. In our local elections, military ballots were 16 times more likely to be rejected by local officials than other absentee ballots. Much of the reason for that is because the ballots were received after Election Day.

That's pretty awful--but Severson doesn't tell readers where he got that figure. A little due diligence, however, does  reveal a source.

In a recent St. Cloud Times article about Severson's bid to unseat incumbent Mark Ritchie, staff writer Mark Sommerhauser wrote:

Severson, a U.S. Navy veteran, believes too many military absentee ballots were rejected in 2008. He cites a Center of the American Experiment study asserting that Minnesota rejected military ballots at a rate 16 times higher than other ballots in the election. Another study by two groups, Common Cause and Citizens for Election Integrity, said the military ballot rejection rate was far lower.

Center of the American Experiment?  It's "very close ties" to the Minnesota Republican Party are well-documented. The report itself asserts the claim but little more. The Common Cause and CEI study notes in response:

Within the CAE report, it inaccurately states the rejection rate of military absentee voters three times and it uses this incorrect information as the basis of some of its recommendations. In reference to this ―fact‖, it uses the word ―shameful‖ and notes ―that local election officials were 16 times more likely to reject military absentee ballots than they were to reject other absentee ballots, and most of these ballots were rejected because they were received after Election Day.‖3 The fact is that in 2008 the rejection rate of military absentee voters was two times higher than the average of all absentee voters. Furthermore, the processing of absentee military ballots has greatly improved in recent years. In fact, the rejection rate of military absentee ballots was cut in half while, at the same time, well over two times more absentee military ballots were accepted in 2008 when compared to 2006.4

The great improvement in counting military absentee ballots under Ritchie's watch--as opposed to the last election supervised by Republican Mary Kiffmeyer--is noted in a letter  by  election judge Kenneth A.Grinsell, Surveys contradict claims of Severson, published in today's St. Cloud Times.

Grinsell responds to Severson's assertions in the earlier article. The core of the letter:

. . .On the whole, the Times’ coverage was very good and seemed fair. However, some of candidate Dan Severson’s comments about the election process do seem a little misleading or possibly ill informed. They need to be addressed.

In particular I am speaking of the statistics he uses regarding the rejection rate of military and overseas ballots.

According to the bipartisan Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act survey:

In the 2006 election, under Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, the total number of military ballots requested was 5,844 and the total returned and counted was 1,072, for an acceptance rate of 18 percent.

In the 2008 election, under Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, the total number requested was 5,745 with 3,396 returned and counted. This is a 59 percent acceptance rate.

Most people would agree that the 2008 survey would seem to show a major improvement from 2006. . .

As I was working on this post, a press release from the DFL came in, responding to yet another instance of Severson carrying on about military ballots. As it turns out, Severson himself has shown much leadership in the House on this issue:

(June 1, 2010) — The GOP candidate for Secretary of State today claimed to be an advocate for the voting rights of military personnel, but his record in the state legislature tells a different story.

“Dan Severson has repeatedly failed to lead on improving voting practices for our military personnel and is only now stepping into the discussion to play politics with our soldiers’ rights,” said DFL spokesperson Kristin Sosanie. “Not only did Severson oppose military voting assistance legislation in 2007, he also voted against moving the primary to help overseas voters in 2009. Let's be serious, if Severson wants to pretend to lead on military voting, he needs to first explain his opposition to reform and lack of leadership over the past eight years.”

Over the past decade, the US through their Federal Voting Assistance Program, has recommended an earlier date for the Minnesota primary to allow 45 days for absentee ballots to be sent out to citizens overseas. Since Mark Ritchietook office, he has strongly promoted legislation to comply with this recommendation. Dan Severson voted against it repeatedly before finally flip-flopping earlier this year.

Background:

Dan Severson’s record shows no leadership on military voting.

Dan Severson voted against military voting package included in the state government finance bill in 2007. [SF 1997]

Dan Severson repeatedly voted against moving the primary to help overseas voters.

In 2007 Severson voted no on HF 201, a bill to move the state primary from September to August. [HF 201]

In 2009, Severson did not show up to vote on SF 1331. [SF 1331]

Then, Severson eventually showed up to vote against SF 1331 after it was amended. [SF 1331 as amended]

Severson finally flip-flopped earlier this year when the legislature moved the primary date to August 10^th. [SF 2251]

Mark Ritchie has led the nation in increasing ballots from military personnel serving overseas, tripling the number of servicemen and women who were able to vote

The count rate jumped [from] 18% in 2006 to 59% in 2008 [Election Assistance Commission, 2006 & 2008]

3396 military ballots were counted in 2008 vs. the 1072 counted in 2006 [Election Assistance Commission, 2006 & 2008]

Severson's service to our country as a Navy pilot is a fact universally acknowledged and praised. Unfortunately--as the data above suggests--his skills set as a legislator simply doesn't seem to match the excellence of his earlier career. Severson had chances to work to improve absentee voting by our military--and didn't lead.

Related post at Bluestem Prairie: Notes on camp: rage, Dan Severson, the Gap, and John Waters in Minnesota Republican politics.

Photos: Minnesota Representative Dan Severson (above); Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (below)