The ways in which the Dakota and the Americans governed themselves at the time of the novel were profoundly different, leading to many misunderstandings between the two nations. One thing that they did agree upon, up to a point, was the importance of individual freedom. From its founding, the United States recognized that there were certain natural rights that the state could not overrule. To protect the citizens from the state, the founding fathers intentionally designed a weak central government. However, they soon found that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate for governing a large, diverse population and replaced it with a constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, which would hopefully protect individual rights. The Dakota, however, did not have to protect individuals from the government. They had no government.
How could the Dakota function without a government to enforce society’s rules? To answer that question, one must first realize that the Dakota population was very small compared to the United States in 1862. There were perhaps no more than 6,500 people who thought of themselves as Dakota. They lived in villages scattered throughout the southern half of Minnesota. The largest villages had no more than a few hundred people, most of whom were related in some way. Each village therefore was a large extended family, and politically independent from all other villages. Each village had a chief, and the title of chief was hereditary. However, the chief was not a sovereign and did not give orders. Little Crow, Mankato, and Big Eagle were all leaders, not commanders. Dakota society had rules that were enforced by consensus through the leadership of the chief, village elders, and head soldiers. Rules did not need to be codified because everyone knew them. Essentially everyone was the government.
In my novel I mention four Dakota bands: the Mdewakanton, Sisseton, Wahpeton, and Wahpekute. These were not legal entities like states or counties, but collections of villages. The Dakota moved freely among the bands and intermarriage was common. The bands were represented by their village chiefs in counsels, and often one of the chiefs was elected as a speaker for the band. The speaker was a spokesman with influence but no power to act on behalf of the band. The reader may recall the election of Traveling Hail to replace Little Crow. I could not find any information about how the election was conducted other than that it took place in a counsel of the Mdewakanton band. It seems that it was the only position of leadership determined by polling the whole band, or at least the male half of it. As in 19th Century America, politics was a male affair. In any case, the Dakota may have lacked a true system of government, but, as the reader may have gathered, there was plenty of politics going on in the Dakota nation. Politics pulled the people in different directions, making any successful effort for either peace or war impossible. In the end it could be argued that some positive outcome from the war could have been achieved by the Dakota if they had had political unity. Unity of purpose might have offset the Americans’ superiority in resources and manpower to some extent, especially since they were entangled in the Civil War. Unfortunately for the Dakota, however, General Sibley had something the Little Crow did not–command.