Guilt and/or Innocence: The Consequences of Manifest Destiny

4/17/2014

Documents for Research prior to completing the Blog
(writing your verdict)

Little House on the Prarie

Little House on the Prairie is an American Western drama television series, starring Michael Landon, Melissa Gilbert, and Karen Grassle, about a family living on a farm in Walnut Grove, Minnesota, in the 1870s and 1880s. The show is an adaptation of Laura Ingalls Wilder's best-selling auto-biographical series of Little House books. Below is the pilot of the series entitled “A New Home”.

Part I

Part II

Part III

We Shall Remain: Wounded Knee

Copy of the Readers Theater: "The Trial of Mr. Charles Ingalls"

PDF copy: The Trial of Mr. Charles Ingals

VERDICT

On completion of your research, post your verdict & RATIONALE in the comments box below. Your verdict, should follow a basic format: 1) Indicate whether or not you believe Mr. Charles Ingalls Wilder was not guilty OR guilty of "recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian land" (you must be decisive juries do not render a verdict of maybe). 2) Provide multiple rationales to support your verdict. Your online verdict must be posted by April 29th (the completion date of our study of "The West").

58 Comments

Rhiannon

4/28/2014 07:51:44 am

Charles Ingalls is being accused of “recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian Land.” I believe he did not enter “recklessly” nor do we have enough information that he did so intentionally. He did not hurt the land or any Indians. I also do not think he knew he was on Indian land. I find Charles Ingalls innocent.
There are a few reasons why I think he did not intentionally settle on the Indians land. The first reason is that he didn’t see an Indian for months after he settled. No one that knew he was there bothered to tell him either. He man from the fort did not bother to tell him to move after discover his house, neither did the doctor who visited more than once. He also was only 3 miles in to Indian Territory and with no signs or fences it would be hard to tell were exactly that ended. Even with a map of the boundaries it might be unclear. I also do not think a man with 2 young daughters would want to settle on Indian Territory. His intentions were to find a new home where he could farm and raise his children, not to be a bother to the Indians.
He also did not hurt the land or interfere with the Indians in any way. He did not stop the Indians from passing through nor did it change their hunting grounds. He did not intentionally harm the Indians in any way. I think the only reason the Indians did care was that it was their land even though it did not affect them. He also made the land better. By farming the land he increased the value of the land. He was actually quite kind to the Indians who did pass by. It said he let them in, fed them, and gave them tobacco. His behavior does not seem like he wants to harm or annoy them.
Although he could have gotten a map, the law states that it was illegal if he knowingly settled on Indian land with the intent to harm or annoy the natives or the land and since he did not know at the time where the boundaries were he cannot be found guilty.
Since Charles Ingalls did not in any way damage the land or harm the natives nor did he settle on the land knowingly therefore we do not have enough evidence for him to be found guilty. He did not knowingly or intentionally break the law therefore I find Charles Ingalls not guilty.

Nephi :)

4/28/2014 09:12:47 am

I believe Charles Ingalls is not guilty of "recklessly and intentionally entering and..." ya, you know how it goes. In the movie (because movies are always correct), Charles shows no indication that he is in fact being reckless, but is actually using his brain to find a better place for his family to live. He also does not even know where they are going, he just finds a good spot, and basically says "this is the place" and starts building (or is it settling?), therefore, he could not have intentionally entered indian land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Ingalls was not known to be reckless, nor were his actions reckless. He needed/wanted a better place for his family to stay. A place with good soil and lots of land for farming, good hunting grounds, and, well, that's pretty much it. If Charles was reckless, he would have tried to take on the indians all by himself so he could have their land. ````````` `````````
<(O)> | <(O)>
Charles Ingalls also did not intentionally enter indian territory (now read the sentence before in a british accent). He said so himself, he didn't know where he was going. He also didn't have a map to show wether or not he entered indian territory so there is no way he can possibly be charged of "INTENTIONALLY" entering/trespassing on indian land. -------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe there is not enough evidence for Charles Ingalls to be guilty, so the only conclusion is that he is not guilty. There is no real evidence of Charles actually "recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on indian land", in fact, there is evidence that shows quite the opposite. Therefore, I pronounce Charles Ingalls to be innocent

Alexi Corpron

4/28/2014 09:23:32 am

Charles Ingalls is being accused of “recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian land” I do not believe that Mr. Charles Ingalls is guilty of “recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian land” First of there was never any proof that he ruined/wrecked the land and there is no proof that he entered intentionally.
I believe that Charles Ingalls is not guilty because he never harmed any of the land in fact, they said that he improved the land. They also said that he wasn’t rude to anyone and that he harmed no one. He was never told that the land wasn’t actually open for the public to move onto, so how was he supposed to know that it was still Indian land. In the trial it also says that Joseph Collins was the Indian agent in charge of the Indians needs. He should have told Mr. Ingalls that it was not ok that he was on that land. I don’t think that Mr. Ingalls should be blamed for someone else’s mistake. Joseph should have kept coming until he finally got to talk to Mr. Ingalls about it not being okay that he was living on Indian Territory. I also think that it was wrong of Dr. Tan not to tell him that he was not allowed to be on the land. Even though he was sick he still should have said something because mentioning it to him could have prevented the whole trial because he could have left the land. Another reason why I think that he should not be accused is because a newspaper did come out saying that the Indian land was open to settlers. I think that he had very good reasoning for thinking that the land was open because newspapers have the facts and most people believe what is said in newspapers.
Mr. Ingalls in no way harmed the people living there or the land that he lived on. Also there is no clear evidence that Mr. Ingalls actually intentionally moved into Indian Territory. Therefore I find Mr. Charles Ingalls not guilty.

Ryan Raff

4/28/2014 10:45:20 am

Imagine you are a farmer. You have a family to feed and a roof to put over their heads. It is your responsibility to provide for the family and you want what is best for them. So when you get word of a great place to live, you decide to move your family there. The journey is hard and takes several weeks but when you finally arrive, you get settled down on the land. Come to find out, you’re on Indian Territory and that you’re the unfortunate fellow who they decide to charge with Criminal Trespass. This is the situation of Charles Ingalls. I don’t know about you, but that doesn't sound like someone who is “recklessly and intentionally” trespassing.
First, Mr. Ingalls had no idea he was in Indian Territory. He had received word from a friend in Washington D.C. that the land would be opening to the public. There were also newspaper articles stating that the government was moving the natives farther west. So, Charles Ingalls decided to move in and farm on the land with his family. To his knowledge, the area was not private property. There were no visible signs, markers, or fences to indicate the boundaries between Indian and public land. Therefore, there is no evidence that Ingalls intentionally entered and trespassed on Native Territory.
Second, Charles Ingalls did not recklessly enter Indian lands. He befriended the natives. He fed them and gave them tobacco. He was said by Mr. Edwards to be a “good neighbor, always willing to help others.” He wasn't harming the people or the land. All he did was plow some soil and build a home for his family. Dr. Tan even said he “increased the value and usefulness of the land”. And, the law states that the trespasser must intend to cause injury, fear, or annoyance. Mr. Ingalls did none of these things.
In conclusion, Charles Ingalls is not guilty of Criminal Trespass. He was not aware of the boundaries between public and Indian land because the boundaries were not noticeable. He did not harm the native peoples; he helped them and improved their land for hunting. He was another settler, minding his own business and doing what he thought was best for his family. So, given the evidence (or lack thereof), Charles Ingalls is innocent and his charges should be lifted.

Brooklyn

4/28/2014 10:57:28 am

I do not think that Charles Ingalls is guilty for purposely moving onto Indian land. He did not know that the land still belonged to the Natives and he didn't want to harm them or the land in anyway.
Charles Ingalls was moving his family onto a new land that was safer for them and where they could find more food and supplies. He had no intention on trying to harm the Natives in any way. He didn't even know that the land still belonged to Native Americans. All he was concerned about was the safety of his family. He did not think about looking at any of the signs to see if the land still belonged to the Natives because he was in a hurry and felt like he didn't have the need to. He had heard that the land was open and that you could live on it. Nobody ever told him that the land wasn't ok to live on. He knew that there were Natives nearby, but he didn't do anything to harm them in anyway. He also didn't take any more food or supplies than they needed. He only took the things that him and his family needed. He never did anything to harm the land and in fact he improved it. He did no harm to anyone and he didn't have any intention to do any harm.
Charles Ingalls is not guilty for intentionally breaking onto Indian Territory. He did not know that the land belonged to Natives Americans and he didn't have any desire to harm any one.

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:35:34 am

I believe that Mr. Charles Ingalls is indeed guilty of moving onto lands he did not have a right too. Think of this, you just bought a house, but then, someone moves into your yard. How alienating would that be? Just because someone is not intentionally or recklessly doing something wrong, does not hide the fact that they are still breaking a law. Mr. Ingalls did knowingly go onto and settle on the lands with the assumption that the land would soon be free to be settled. He did not wait for that to happen though, he just moved on in. He did not have any permission from anybody, he just did it. When people just do whatever they deem right, societies fall apart because everybody has their own set of laws that they live by. Just because Ingalls is a good man, does not redeem the fact that he broke the law at that time.
My verdict is that Mr. Charles Ingalls is guilty because he did break the law, and no one is outside the law.

Jack Of The Miskins

4/29/2014 12:57:10 am

just read the first one!

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:35:41 am

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:35:50 am

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:35:59 am

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:36:30 am

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:37:01 am

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:37:15 am

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:37:32 am

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:37:54 am

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:38:05 am

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:38:40 am

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:39:21 am

Jack Miskin

4/28/2014 11:39:30 am

JaCk MiSkIn

4/28/2014 11:40:33 am

JaCk

4/28/2014 11:40:47 am

JaCk

4/28/2014 11:41:00 am

JaCk

4/28/2014 11:41:08 am

JaCk

4/28/2014 11:41:19 am

JaCk

4/28/2014 11:41:25 am

Jordan Bennion

5/5/2014 07:20:32 am

You really believe that he is guilty. Woah

Jordan

5/5/2014 07:23:47 am

I think you broke my head. I.... REBOOT, REBOOT!!!!!

Jack (Confused) Miskin

4/28/2014 11:43:38 am

Well...........................Hmmm.................thats odd....................I think that the ERROR the computer is/was giving me is really NOT one. Sorry, but I though my verdict was important enough to post a lot of times. :) MUch smiley faces.

Ike

4/28/2014 12:26:41 pm

haha,, i think jack deserves an A+++++++++++++++++++ if i counted currently :))))

ike

4/28/2014 12:27:23 pm

correctly

Beleiver (Jack)

4/29/2014 12:58:01 am

I beleive there is at least one more plus.

ike

4/29/2014 03:24:37 am

i dont know jack, i used all my fingers and toes, except for one, which is last time i counted, 19:)))

Jack

4/29/2014 11:47:09 pm

well, ok Than i believe you,....if you used your toes.

Brentley Burnham

4/28/2014 12:42:07 pm

When the land that Charles Ingalls previously owned could no longer provide the necessary things that his family required to live, he decided to find a better, more suitable place for his young family to settle down. As a result of this feeling to more efficiently be able to provide for his family, Charles packed up his belongings and moved his small family west. Though he settled on what was then Indian territory his intentions were not “reckless” or “intentional” at all. News from the capital and newspaper reports led him to believe that the territory he would settle on would be open to the public after his several week long journey, there were also no clear markings to help him decipher where government property ended and Indian Territory started, and he only wanted to do what was best for his family and others. It is for these reasons that I find Mr. Charles Ingalls innocent of “recklessly and intentionally settling on Indian lands.”
Before Charles Ingalls even started to pack up and immigrate west he received news from Washington D.C. that the Indians would soon be moved from their territory, leaving it open to public settlement. Not only did he hear it from the capital but also from the newspapers. Back then the newspapers were accepted as the truth. So, when Charles read that this land would soon be open for settlement he figured that by the time his family arrived the land would already be open and free for white settlement and that immigrating west would provide his family with more resources and more opportunities.
After traveling for several treacherous weeks Charles and his family finally found a suitable place to call home. The family had no idea that where they had chosen to settle was Indian land. There were no fences, signs, or any other type of markings showing that they had crossed over from government land and were now in Indian territory. No Native Americans were even reported being seen on the land for the first several weeks they were there. Furthermore people who visited the Ingalls did not notify them that they had illegally settled on Indian Territory, assuming that he knew or could search for a map in town, even though he was already settled.
Following the building and settling of what was now the Ingalls's farm, Charles continued to increase the value of the land and help his neighbors and the native inhabitants. He had nothing against the natives or anyone for that matter, riding or hunting on his land and frequently invited people into his home, native or white, for fun and/or for dinner. Even after hearing the sounds of the natives rendezvous down at the river bottoms. Regardless of what he thought or heard Charles continued to be kind and considerate to all his neighbors no matter what their origin.
I find Charles Ingalls innocent of “recklessly and intentionally trespassing of Indian land” because news from the capital and newspaper reports led him to believe that the territory he would settle on would be open to the public after his several week long journey, there were also no clear markings to help him decipher where government property ended and Indian Territory started, and he only wanted to do what was best for his family and others. I believe that this is strong evidence proving that Charles Ingalls is innocent.

September Cluff

4/28/2014 12:43:10 pm

Charles Ingalls was accused of “recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian land,” although I do not believe this is true. There is not enough evidence regarding the fact that he might have been trespassing on Indian land, and doing so recklessly. I believe he just wanted to start a new life for him and his family somewhere new. He had heard that Indian land was going to be open to the public, and figured it might be when they would arrive. He did not hurt any Indians or land. In fact, he made the value of the land go up. I do not believe he is guilty of any harm done.
There simply is not enough evidence to prove that Charles Ingalls intentionally trespassed on Indian land. He never said anything that implied he meant to do harm to the Indians and the land. None of his actions showed intentions of hurting anyone. He never said “Oh come on family, let’s go take over Indian land and hurt some Indians, nor did his actions suggest he would do this.
I believe Charles Ingalls just wanted to give his family a better life in a place they could start over. He must have been getting tired of his old town, and wanted a change. This is normal. People should be trying new things, and exploring, not staying in one town your entire life. It of course makes sense that he might want to settle down somewhere else that may not have many distractions, and where his family can learn and do new things.
As we have learned, Charles Ingalls had heard that new land would be opened up for people to live on, and thought it was the perfect chance for him and his family. So they started their journey, him believing the land would probably be open by the time they reached their destination, and although he could have easily gone to check a newspaper, and really look into it, he didn’t feel there was a need.
Once him and his family arrived on the land, he did not try to harm it in any way. Months after they settled, he had still not seen any Indians. But he immediately started building a nice home for his family, and actually increased the value of the land by what he did with it.
As you can see, Charles Ingalls never intended to hurt anyone or anything. He wanted to take his family somewhere else, give them a new life, and take an adventure. He improved the land, believing it was open. He was wrongly accused of “recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian land.”

Andy Jones

4/28/2014 12:57:26 pm

I believe that he is NOT GUILTY. He never had any idea or was given any notice that the land was not open to settlement. Therefore he could not have "recklessly and intentionally" trespassed.

My examples:
1) There were never signs, fences, or easily accessed maps to alert him of his home being on indian territory.
2) No one ever warned him that it was indian territory even though some knew.
3) He did not harm the indians or thier land, if anything he improved the land.
This is why i find him NOT GUILTY

Adi

4/28/2014 12:59:36 pm

All though I do agree that no, he didn't enter "recklessly", he didn't harm anyone and they should've made some effort to show that the land was Indian territory, but he definitely should've figured that out himself. I think that Charles Ingalls is very guilty of moving onto the land that didn't belong to him.
First off, you shouldn't just move onto land because rumor has it, it's open. I, personally, would wait until I would not in any way have any trouble moving somewhere new. Also, if he took the time to maybe pick up a map or find anything out about the place he was settling, he would've found out that it was not his to live on. Picture this. You are a Native. No matter where these invaders have moved you, you always have to move again. You keep getting moved further and further from your original home, and every single time, you're moved to create more room for the people who kicked you out in the first place. Supposedly, this land belongs to the Indians. If he is allowed, what is to stop everyone from moving in too.
Not to mention, Charles, broke the law when he moved into land that belonged to someone else. Imagine living somewhere where nobody follows the rules. There wouldn't be any order at all. Yes, Mr. Ingalls is a good man, but good people can make mistakes and break rules sometimes too. If someone, like Ellie maybe, murdered someone else, would it be okay to let her go without any sort of punishment, simply because she is good? No, of course not! When breaking the law, or any sort of rules, a consequence should be given.
Maybe I'm just mean, but I do think that Charles Ingalls is guilty.

Brianna Hancock

4/28/2014 01:08:08 pm

Mr Charles Ingles Wilder has been accused of entering indian territory both recklessly and intentionally. We the jury find these accusations to be false. We find Mr Wilder to be not guilty. In the defense of the prosecuting, he did enter intentionally thinking that the land would soon be free for the cultivation and settling of the American people. However, with the defense, he never entered recklessly. He came in just like the rest of us would, calmly and respectfully. When he entered into indian territory, there was no identification of the boundaries and where they started. He also, since arriving, has done nothing to harm the land in any way. The value of the land has just gone up, and eventually more people will settle, it was inevitable. I also think that there is no evidence that he had access to a map with boundaries or that he was ever given instructions not to settle and cultivate that area. He was also not given any warning that he was settling in a illegal area. Even though there were maps in town, no warning was given and no proof was given to him that he should not be where he is. Thus I think that Mr. Charles Ingles Wilder is not guilty.

Ike Melanson

4/28/2014 01:10:10 pm

I believe that Mr. Charles Ingals is innocent. He is innocent because he did not “recklessly and intentionally enter and trespass on Indian land” First of all, there is no proof that he knew that the land wasn’t open for settlement. Sure he could of gone and found a map but he’s kind of out in the middle of nowhere. Second, there was no fences marking off the Indian territory, so that makes it hard to tell the difference between Indian reservation land and everything else. Another reason is that he did not recklessly trespass on the land. He did the exact opposite, he improved the land. I think that he should be given a cookie and sent home. He didn’t do anything bad to the Indians, in fact, he fed them and gave them tobacco (not that tobacco is really a good thing, but you get the point) I think that Mr. Ingals is innocent because he went onto the land not knowing it, and because he did not harm the land, or the natives, nor did he intend to.

Ashton

4/28/2014 01:13:14 pm

I believe that Charles Ingalls is guilty of recklessly and intentionally entering onto Indian land. Even though Charles made have improved the land and didn't cause any harm to any of the Indians, that does not mean he didn't break the law. He probably didn't mean to trespass onto the Indian land, but he could have found out any of the times he went into town. People who drive while drunk don't mean to get into accidents, but even if they do they still must suffer the consequences. Just because you accidentally killed someone doesn't mean that you are innocent. Obviously this isn't that serious, but he still broke the law. We cannot bend the law just because someone is nice or didn't do further harm. He should have found out prior to settling where the Indian territory was, and then settled outside of it, which he could have easily done. I'm sure the natives didn't care, but think of the example this would have set. Not everyone is going to be kind and care about the Native Americans. If one person is allowed to settle in their land, I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Due to these facts, I believe that Charles Ingalls in guilty.

Samantha

4/28/2014 01:32:35 pm

Mr. Charles Ingles is brought to trial in the confusion of his choice to trespass on Indian territory, and by so doing was charged for "reckless and intentional" settlement on this prairie. Charles Ingles came with his family, he came searching for a home. He gave up everything that he had and kept what he could hold in his wagon for the trail. He sacrifices his past life for a paradise that he can call "Home, sweet home." I would not consider such a nice and friendly family man to be guilty for the so-called crime.
Charles Ingles traveled a long journey with his very religious family. I believe the accused would avoid such a risky crime if his family travels along the jagged trail by his side. Such a kind father, willing to search for his daughter's lost friend, would not intentionally trespass on Indian boundaries if his family was involved.
His neighbors could be of no help either. They could only support in the construction of their new home, without giving any knowledge of such boundaries.
It's not like anybody from such a distance could come to a territory just for shelter and a new beginning for him and his family, without crossing through a town, could possibly know of the people who posses the land already. Therefore, he could not have meant to be "reckless" or harmful to the land or its settlers.

Alora Colton

4/28/2014 01:34:59 pm

I find Mr. Charles Ingalls Wilder to be Not guilty of the charge of "recklessly and intentionally trespassing on Indian lands." I believe that Mr. Wilder is an innocent victim of a lack of information.
How was Mr. Wilder supposed to know that he was on Native lands? First there was no signage, or fences marking where the lands in question began. Mr. Wilder did not recieve any official notice that he was on an Indian reservation. Mr. Wilder used logic to deduce that these lands where soon to be open to public settlement based on prior knowledge if other areas. Not only was he not in contact with a newspaper during his journey there where no official maps that would indicate where the public could settle.
As for being reckless and harming Indians, we heard testimony the Mr. Wilder in fact made the land better. He plowed as well as installing a well. As far as the Indians, Mr. Wider welcomed them with open arms and provided them trade. Any impediment to the Indians and there land was purely accidental.
These are the reasons I believe that Mr Charles Ingalls Wilder is NOT guilty of the charge that he is accused.

Ruthann

4/28/2014 01:36:10 pm

I hate what the US government did to the Native Americans, but Mr. Ingalls was not part of that. Charles Ingalls is innocent. He was accused of purposely invading Native lands. He was informed that the Indian lands would be open for settlement by the time he reached them. He had no malicious intent. Ingalls was merely a Father trying to find a place where his children could have a full and happy childhood. Based off of what I learned about his personality from the trial and video, if the Indians had informed him that he was trespassing on their lands, he would have tried to reach some kind of compromise. If no compromise could be reached he would most likely ask them to help him move his home to an area outside of Indian Territory.
Charles Ingalls is the kind of man who you know you can trust. The Indians may have expressed displeasure at his being there, but they never specifically said, “Hey, this is still our land, and we want you off! If you don’t believe us go check the map in town.” This brings me to the fact that he mainly only went into town to get supplies. When he was there he was not worrying about Indian land boundaries because he was just trying to get his stuff, and get back to his beloved wife and children. He wasn’t worried about the boundaries because he had been misled into thinking that the land was up for settlement.
The main accusation is that he invaded their lands knowingly. If he had known the land was unavailable to the public he would have found another place to build his home. Charles Ingalls is a law-abiding man! If someone had bothered to tell him that the land he was living on was illegal he would have found a way to either live somewhere else, or make a deal with the Native Americans.
In class we used the example of someone buying a house and having someone move onto their lawn. But what if the person who moved on thought that it was their lawn because you hadn’t put your fence up. It would be the land owner’s responsibility to inform their neighbor that the lawn was his. The new neighbor would then back off, and warn his kids not to play on that part of the lawn without the other person’s permission. This whole situation could have been avoided if others had taken some initiative. Mr. Charles Ingalls is innocent.

Spencer

4/28/2014 01:36:50 pm

I believe that Charles Ingalls is not guilty. Though he did trespass onto private property, we have no proof that it was intentional. Without proof of intentional trespass we must assume he is innocent. Furthermore, there was a lack of communication to let Mr. Ingalls know that the property was in fact private. There were no signs or fences put up to indicate that the property was private except for in the city buildings. Due to his lack of knowledge, I find it only fair that we inform Charles that he must move to territory outside that which belongs to the Indians. If Charles Ingalls does not move we will have proof that he did know of the boundaries, and only then can we press charges for Mr. Ingalls’ crime.

Danielle

4/28/2014 01:57:17 pm

Charles Ingalls was accused of “recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian land”, after moving to an area known as Indian Territory. It is my responsibility to prove him guilty or innocent after being present for his trial. I will be representing the jury today.
I have come to the conclusion that Charles Ingalls is not guilty because communication was inadequate. Charles was told by a friend that the land out west would be open, but was never told an exact date. The best decision for Charles to make was to leave when it was best for him, and he survived the struggle it took to get there. Once Charles settled, there was no one to tell him that it was not open. He was given no warnings that he was on land that was still Indian territory. No one was in the territory to tell him that he was trespassing, in fact there were not even signs to mark where the territory began and ended. Mr. Ingalls could have traveled a few miles to the fort to find out the Indian Boundaries, but why would he need to if he believed the land was open freely to the public. Therefore, he did not intentionally settle on Indian Territory, for he believed the land was free to any who wanted it.
He is also not guilty because he did not recklessly harm the land in any way, not that I have proof of. There is no proof that he caused any destruction to the land, but if he did, he has hidden his tracks well. The only person to witness Charles Ingalls to be living on the territory is Dr. Tan, who gave no sign that Charles harmed the land.
This is another reason that Ingalls could not know that he was on Indian Territory. There was nobody within his sight in the territory. He had a meeting with Indians once, but he believed they were just passing by, which is a logical thought considering that he had not seen any other Indians. Since there were no Indians in the area of the territory he resided in, it was okay that he came to the conclusion that there were no Indians for miles, or at all.
Mr. Ingalls also did not hide that he was settled on the land. He also brought his family along for the long and tiresome trip. A man who wanted to be hidden, a man who is guilty of trespassing, would not let any trace of his presence be found, and he would not put his family into the danger of being caught.
In conclusion, I find no reason to prove Mr. Ingalls guilty. He was not reckless in settling. Charles Ingalls did not intentionally trespass on the Indian land, because he did not know he was on Indian land. I have used the facts in my verdict, and these are the results I come to.

(>'-')> Jake Breckenridge <( '-'<)

4/28/2014 02:10:35 pm

I believe that Mr. Charles Ingalls is not guilty for three reasons. One is I played Mr. Charles Ingalls and to sentence him to a prison would backfire on me. Second he didn't want to harm anyone and was not reckless while he moved or after he moved. Third it would be punishing him for something he thought was better for him and his family. He is also a very smart and wise man, he would know what he was doing while he did it.

Jordan

5/5/2014 07:22:52 am

(>'-')> This is totally awesome <( '-'<)

Kennedee Young

4/28/2014 03:16:32 pm

I believe that Charles Ingalls is guilty of "Recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on indian lands". He new that the land was going to be ready for settling, but when he decided to settle there were no new articles saying that the land was opened for settling. He just assumed that once he got there it would be ready. That is very rude and seems to portray disregard for the Indians on the land. It is similar to walking into someone's home and saying that you are living there now because you heard they might be leaving. It was inappropriate, and very inconsiderate. These seem to me as "reckless and intentional". Many have argued that Mr. Ingalls knew what he was doing and would never harm the Indians. If he knew what he was doing then that means he did move onto lands intentionally. Endangering himself and his family in the process. Even after being visited by Indians in his own home he still did not move. Who would be visited by Indians and then claim to still be unaware that they were living on Indian land. It is very unlikely that he did not know that the Indians were still currently living on the territory. Something I have to ask though is how do you live somewhere for so long and not even know who lives on the land? He would go into the main town regularly, and it never occurred to him to check? This is a very poor excuse, and I believe that he should be punished for his crimes. The Indians were already having there land being taken away from them in many other places, and it would not have been surprising if the Indians had attacked Mr. Ingalls out of fear. He endangered himself and his family and I believe that he should be reprimanded. He could have just asked somebody in town too, just a simple "hey is that place out there Indian territory?" It really isn't that hard to find out. He knowingly entered Indian territory and settled there. Therefore I believe he is guilty.

Melanie Henrie

4/28/2014 03:36:41 pm

I do not believe that Mr. Ingalls "Recklessly" entered the indian lands. He didn't have some highway with a lovely sign saying welcome to indian territory! Get. Off. He needed a place to take his family his three children his dog. He needed a place where he could farm the land and raise a baby pony. Without settlers, Utah would not be here. the US wouldn't be from sea to shining sea. It would be from sea to boring plains. We need a home too! Keep their culture alive until we can give them their own planet is my answer. Give them a whole planet as soon as we find and can inhabit it. Until then, release Mr. Ingalls, he is innocent.

Ellie Howard

4/28/2014 10:28:13 pm

Charles Ingalls is not guilty of “recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian land”. Charles came to the area believing that the land was free for the taking. There were no signs, fences, or markers to indicate that he was trespassing. Charles was, however, visited by Indians, but they never told him that he was on their land. Sure there were maps in town that showed the territory owned by the Indians but it was difficult for Charles to even travel to town let alone find the maps to make sure that he was not trespassing on land that he thought was already free. Another reason that Charles is not guilty is that he made the land better. If someone was intentionally trying to cause harm of trespass they would not try to improve the land, they would try to destroy it. Seeing that the land could still be used by Charles and not disrupt the Indians or the City folk and council from interacting with them, Charles is not guilty. Charles may have annoyed the Indians but it was not on purpose, he was just living his daily life and going about his own business, and the law says that Charles has to intentionally disrupt the natives to be guilty and punished. So with this evidence and these facts, Charles Ingalls is not guilty.

Carson

4/28/2014 11:04:13 pm

First of all I would like to stat off by saying that Charles Ingalls is not guilty of "recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian land." Just think if you were him and you and your family are being forced to move west in fear of going hungry due to lack of resources. To me that doesn't sound "reckless" at all that sounds like a person in desperation trying to protect his family. Another reason is the fact that when his wife asked him where they were going he said " I don't know, I will know it when I see it." To me that sounds like a regular person looking for a place to settle free of worries and not a single thing to have to fear.

Carson

4/28/2014 11:07:27 pm

In conclusion, Charles Ingalls should be released. I strongly believe that someone who wants nothing but the best for the land and his family should certainly not be punished.

Emmy Nielsen

4/28/2014 11:15:19 pm

I believe that Charles Ingalls is not guilt of trespassing on Indian territory. His neighbor said he was a good person, he would not want to harm Indian lands. He just wanted to support his family. There was no indication that it was still Indian land and not open to settlement. He knew it would be open soon and thought he was doing no wrong. There were maps available to show where the territory was, but becasue he didn't believe they applied to where he had settled he should not be expected to put in the effort to find out. He also didn't see Indians when he first arrived there further explaining why he believed it was open to settlement. He had no idea that it was still Indian territory but not only that, he didn't have the intent to harm anyone or anything. This is exactly what he did. He actually improved the quality of the land and did not harm the Indians. Charles Ingalls is not guilty.

Kirsten Grover

4/28/2014 11:23:51 pm

I think that Charles Ingalls is not guilty of “recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian land.” Even though we all know he was on the land we also know that he improved the land. Charles and his family were not trying to bother the native Americans they were just trying to be safe. They took several weeks to get there and maybe they thought that land would be opened up. With his family leaving early they would be able to get to that land safely. It was not his intention to be on Indian land and he was not on there recklessly. He improved the land and did not try to bother the Indians. There was no fence to where he was so he might not have known he was on Indian territory once he got there. I find Charles Ingalls to be NOT GUILTY.

Amelia Morgan

4/29/2014 12:08:37 am

i believe that Mr. Ingalls is not guilty A) because he recieved information that lead him to believe that the land was open for settling. B) the Indian Territory wasn't fenced C) he was never informed he was on Indian lands D) he was not reckless, greatly improved the land and was kind to the indians who came to his farm. he is innocent whith the information we currently have, which is not enough to prove him guilty.

Jordan Bennion link

4/29/2014 03:38:47 am

I believe that Charles Ingalls is innocent.
A) The U.S. was about to buy that land. If you had forced him to move, you would just be allowing him to move back on at a different time.
B) He made the land much better than it was.
C) He never once saw something that said that would have told him not to settle there.
So yeah.

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Kaitlyn Christensen

4/30/2014 08:02:04 am

Mr. Charles Ingalls Wilder was accused of "recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian land" but I believe Charles Ingalls Wilder is not guilty. There are three reasons why I believe so. One, the land Mr. Ingalls was settling on with no intention to harm anyone was not fenced, and nowhere indicated the accused should not settle said land. Two, the land was not made worse or harmed in any way, if anything, Wilder increased the value of the land by adding a building and a farm, so there was nothing wrong or "reckless" about Mr. Ingall's intentions. Three, nobody informed Mr. Ingalls he was on Indian lands, so he didn't know and therefore cannot be charged guilty. I find the accused, Mr. Charles Ingalls, not guilty.

Michael Pope

5/5/2014 07:37:56 am

I believe that Charles Ingalls is innocent of "recklessly and intentionally entering and trespassing on Indian land"
1: There were no fences or signs marking the beginning of Indian territory.
2: I don't know about you guys, but I would tell the truth the first time because if I didn't I usually get caught and have to pay a bigger price compared to little or no price at all.
3: Charles Ingalles would just be forced off of that land just to have the US government get the land from the Natives, He might lose his land that he had worked really hard to cultivate.
4: Who would take the time to look at a map of where the boundaries are if he was convinced that he had not settled on Indian Territory.
As I am concluding my verdict, I would like to say that Charles Ingalls would not raise a family, even if they were the roughest toughest boys on the plains in Indian Territory. It is just not a good environment in most people's minds.

Assignment

1. Participate in the Readers Theater entitled "The Trial of Mr. Charles Ingalls" Copies are available on line if you miss class or have forgotten the testimonies provided.
2. On completion review your notes and assignments on pages 55-73 in your Conflict workbook.
3. Watch the three part pilot of the film series "Little House on the Prairie" (1 hr) based on the auto-biographical novel of the same name by Laura Ingals Wilder, AND the episode of Wounded Knee from "We Shall Remain" produced by PBS (45 min).
4. When finished with your research address the blog question posted on the bottom left below.

RSS Feed