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.

The Lincoln one isn’t fair. After the Dakota uprising, the court sentenced HUNDREDS of natives to death for the murder of almost 500 settlers, including women and children. Lincoln commuted the sentences of almost all the convicted natives, save for the ones that personally murdered women and children.