The 38 hangings were far from the worst of the Dakota genocide. Lincoln’s role was one of reducing cruelty while still punishing those guilty of massacres of civilians. Originally, hundreds of men were going to be hanged, but Lincoln commuted the sentences of all but the worst offenders. Unfortunately, two of the hanged men were innocent, and it’s unclear how the mistake was made. Far worse was the banning of Dakota people from Minnesota and the internment in camps, leading to widespread death by disease, though these were the actions of the Minnesota government.
There are very legitimate criticism to be had of Lincoln, like being the sitting president as one of the states committed genocide, or the appeasement tactics to slaveowners before civil war became inevitable. I do not think this one makes sense to be top of the list, as by all accounts Lincoln was attempting to reduce cruelty where possible and yet still punish mass murderers.
For a bit of additional background, the Dakota war, during the Dakota genocide, was an uprising of some Dakota, attacking anyone of white or “mixed-blood” descent. The state of Minnesota had broken numerous treaties and continued to seize land from the Dakota people, leading some to fight back. However, the massacring of civilians and anyone of non-pure blood is evil, and many Dakota who did not join the rebellion rescued hostages and helped resist wholesale slaughter. The Minnesota government is absolutely at fault for the conditions leading to and the execution of the Dakota genocide, but the rebels chose to commit racially motivated massacres of non-military targets. This does not make the later retaliation justified, but it does explain the hangings.
As for number two, I cannot speak to the other commenter’s beliefs or intentions, though I do not believe women were combatants in the Dakota war.
Note: Some historians object to the term Dakota war, as only a small faction joined the conflict, while a much greater number did not. I’m using the term as the consensus name for the conflict, not out of belief that it is accurate.
The “women are always screaming” stereotype is sexist. It’s a direct extension of the pseudoscientific hysteria diagnosis that used to be commonly accepted. “A women,” as you put it, might scream, and you might find that annoying. Women as a category have higher pitched voices on average, and the line between “reasonable yelling” and “hysterical screaming” is often just one of pitch, even when the cause for alarm or injury is the same.
Additionally, neither I nor any of the women in my life “scream” in response to injury. We yell in pain just like someone with a masculine voice, if a bit higher pitched. Some may, but it’s not common and is usually reserved for situations of extreme alarm or fear, or occasionally excitement. Any time a woman does scream on video, you always see someone in the comments complaining about how annoying women screaming is. The same is never said about men screaming, unless they scream “like a girl.”
9/10 times. How out of touch are you?