The echoes of a long-fought injustice reverberated through the halls of a Washington State history museum on a recent Friday, as a historical court convened to address a wrong committed nearly a century and a half ago. Chief Leschi, a prominent figure of the Nisqually Indian tribe, whose life was tragically cut short in 1858, has been posthumously exonerated. This symbolic act of redemption sought to rectify a historical narrative marred by prejudice and misunderstanding.
The seven-judge panel, assembled specifically for this momentous occasion, reached a unanimous verdict. While lacking legal authority to overturn the original conviction, the decision carried immense weight, resonating deeply with the hundreds who gathered to witness the proceedings. Cheers erupted as the verdict was announced, a collective expression of relief and a long-awaited acknowledgement of the truth.
Chief Leschi, whose name is pronounced LESH-eye, was a leader caught in the tumultuous crosscurrents of territorial expansion and indigenous resistance. He was hanged for the death of Colonel A. Benton Moses of the territorial militia, an event that occurred during the region’s Indian War of 1855-1856. This conflict, born of broken treaties and encroaching settlements, pitted Native American tribes against the burgeoning American presence in the Pacific Northwest.
The historical court, presided over by Gerry L. Alexander, then chief justice of the State Supreme Court, meticulously reviewed the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case. Their finding centered on a crucial distinction: whether Chief Leschi’s actions, if he indeed committed them, constituted murder or an act of war. The panel concluded that if Chief Leschi was responsible for Colonel Moses’ death, it occurred during a time of armed conflict, rendering the charge of murder unjustifiable. They were, in essence, lawful combatants in a declared war.
Cynthia Iyall, a descendant of Chief Leschi’s sister and chairwoman of the Committee to Exonerate Chief Leschi, expressed profound satisfaction with the outcome. "I’m just happy; this is really about the future," she stated. "This is for all the kids: they need to know who that man was and what truthfully happened to him." Her words underscored the importance of historical accuracy and its impact on future generations, ensuring that the memory of Chief Leschi is preserved and honored.
John W. Ladenburg, the former prosecutor who played a key role in representing Chief Leschi’s descendants before the historical court, emphasized the necessity of establishing the truth. He acknowledged the limitations of the present, stating, "We cannot bring Leschi back to life, and we cannot restore Leschi to his land. We can, we must, restore his good name." Ladenburg’s words captured the essence of the exoneration effort: a quest to reclaim a reputation unjustly tarnished by the passage of time and the biases of history.
The circumstances surrounding Chief Leschi’s conviction have been a source of contention and debate for decades. Historians and even his own executioner questioned the validity of the charges against him. The first trial ended in a hung jury, indicative of the uncertainty surrounding the evidence. However, in the second trial, the presiding judge refused to instruct jurors that killing an enemy soldier during wartime did not constitute murder. This crucial omission effectively denied Chief Leschi a fair trial, leading to his conviction and subsequent death sentence.
Further compounding the injustice, the territorial Supreme Court refused to consider new evidence that placed Chief Leschi miles away from the scene of Colonel Moses’ death at the time it occurred. This blatant disregard for potentially exonerating information further solidified the perception of a biased legal process.
Even the U.S. Army recognized the inherent unfairness of the situation. Military leaders believed that the established rules of war should have precluded Chief Leschi from being charged with murder. Their refusal to carry out the execution reflected a deep-seated unease with the legal proceedings and a recognition of the complexities of the conflict. Ultimately, Pierce County authorities oversaw the execution on February 19, 1858.
The executioner, Charles Grainger, carried a burden of guilt that would haunt him for the rest of his life. He later confessed, "I felt then I was hanging an innocent man, and I believe it yet." Grainger’s remorse serves as a powerful testament to the moral ambiguity surrounding the case and the lingering doubts that plagued those involved.
Despite the tragic circumstances of his death, Chief Leschi’s legacy has endured. His name graces schools, monuments, a park, and a Seattle neighborhood, serving as constant reminders of his significance in the region’s history. These commemorations reflect a growing recognition of his role as a leader, a warrior, and a symbol of indigenous resistance.
Justice Alexander’s decision to convene the historical court stemmed from his belief that the current State Supreme Court lacked the authority to overturn a decision made by its territorial predecessor. This innovative approach allowed for a thorough re-examination of the case without directly challenging the original legal ruling.
Andreya Squally, a 17-year-old member of the Nisqually tribe, vividly recalled the challenges she faced in defending Chief Leschi’s innocence at school. "They said it was right because it was in the history book," she explained. "Now they have to change the history books." Her words encapsulate the transformative power of the historical court’s decision, which has the potential to reshape the narrative surrounding Chief Leschi and his role in the history of Washington State. The exoneration is a call to re-evaluate the past, to acknowledge injustices, and to ensure that future generations learn a more complete and accurate history.