National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Intermountain Support Office 

Denver, Colorado

THE CLASH OF CULTURES TRAILS PROJECT 

Assessing the 

National

Significance of 

Trails associated 

with U.S. Army/ 

American Indian 

Campaigns in the 

Trans-Mississippi

West 

A Cooperative Effort

by the Western 

History Association 

and the National Park 

Service 

Navajo woman and baby, 

c. 1863-68, Fort Sumner, New

Mexico, photo courtesy 

Museum of New Mexico,

negative no. 3242. 
THE CLASH OF CULTURES 

TRAILS PROJECT 

Assessing the National Significance of Trails 

associated with U.S. Army/American Indian Campaigns 

in the Trans-Mississippi West 

A Cooperative Effort by the Western History Association 

and the National Park Service 

2002: Denver, National Park Service, Intermountain Support Office, Cultural Resources and 

National Register Program Services 
i 

Table of Contents 

Introduction 1 

Background 2 

Designation Criteria and Methodology of the National Trails System Act and the National Historic Landmarks 

Program 3 

Project Schedule 4 

Chapter 1: Project Participants 5 

Western History Association Participants 5 

National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management Project Team Members 7 

Chapter 2: Methodology 8 

Evaluating National Significance of a Potential National Historic Trail 8 

National Historic Landmark Criteria for National Significance 9 

Evaluating Significance as a result of Historic Use as a Military Campaign Trail 12 

Evaluating Potential for Public Recreational Use or Historical Interest 13 

Chapter 3: WHA Mentors’ Scope of Work 15 

Chapter 4: Significant Themes associated with the History of U.S. Army/American Indian 

Conflict in the Trans-Mississippi West 17 

Chapter 5: An Overview of U.S. Army/ American Indian Campaigns in the TransMississippi West, 1848-1886 24 

Chapter 6: WHA Mentors’ Recommendations for the Most Significant Military Campaigns 

35 

Chapter 7: WHA Mentors’ Recommendations for the Most Significant Military Trails 37 

Chapter 8: The Bozeman Trail 39 

Associated Military Campaigns 39 

Period of Significance 39 

Location 39 

Length of Trail 39 

History 39 

Map 40 

Does the Bozeman Trail meet the definition of a military campaign trail? 41 

Does the Bozeman Trail meet criteria for national significance? 42 

Does the Bozeman Trail meet the criterion of significance through historic usage, as defined by the National 

Trails System Act? 42 

Does the Bozeman Trail merit further study as a potential candidate for designation as a National Historic Trail?

42 
ii 

Places Associated with the Bozeman Trail that are Significant as Trail Resources and/or Provide Recreational 

and Interpretive Opportunities 43 

Potential National Historic Landmarks associated with the Bozeman Trail 46 

Chapter 9: The Long Walk 47 

Associated Military Campaign 47 

Period of Significance 47 

Location 47 

Length of Trail 47 

History 47 

Map 48 

Does the Long Walk meet the definition of a military campaign trail? 50 

Does the Long Walk meet criteria for national significance? 50 

Does the Long Walk meet the criterion of significance through historic usage, as defined by the National Trails 

System Act? 51 

Does the Long Walk merit further study as a potential candidate for designation as a National Historic Trail? 51 

Places Associated with the Long Walk that are Significant as Trail Resources and/or Provide Recreational and 

Interpretive Opportunities 51 

Potential National Historic Landmarks associated with the Long Walk 54 

Chapter 10: The Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail 56 

Associated Military Campaign 56 

Period of Significance 56 

Location 56 

Length of Trail 56 

History 56 

Map 57 

Does the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail meet the definition of a military campaign trail? 59 

Does the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail meet criteria for national significance? 59 

Does the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail meet the criterion of significance through historic usage, as defined 

by the National Trails System Act? 60 

Does the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail merit further study as a potential candidate for designation as a 

National Historic Trail? 60 

Places Associated with the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail that are Significant as Trail Resources and/or 

Provide Recreational and Interpretive Opportunities 60 

Potential National Historic Landmarks associated with the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail 64 

Chapter 11: The Smoky Hill Trail 65 

Associated Military Campaign 65 

Period of Significance 65 

Location 65 

Length of Trail 65 

History 65 

Map 66 

Does the Smoky Hill Trail meet the definition of a military campaign trail? 69 

Does the Smoky Hill Trail meet criteria for national significance? 69 

Does the Smoky Hill Trail meet the criterion of significance through historic usage, as defined by the National 

Trails System Act? 69 

Does the Smoky Hill Trail merit further study as a potential candidate for designation as a National Historic 

Trail? 69 

Places Associated with the Smoky Hill Trail that are Significant as Trail Resources and/or Provide Recreational 

and Interpretive Opportunities 69 

Potential National Historic Landmarks associated with the Smoky Hill Trail 72 
iii 

Chapter 12: Trails of the Great Sioux War 73 

Associated Military Campaigns 73 

Period of Significance 73 

Location and Length of Trails 73 

History 73 

Map 74 

Do the Trails of the Great Sioux War meet the definition of a military campaign trail? 77 

Do the Trails of the Great Sioux War meet the criterion of significance through historic usage, as defined by the 

National Trails System Act? 77 

Do the Trails of the Great Sioux War meet criteria for national significance? 77 

Do the Trails of the Great Sioux War merit further study as a potential candidate for designation as a National 

Historic Trail? 77 

Trails and Sites Associated with the Great Sioux War that are Significant as Trail Resources and/or Provide 

Recreational and Interpretive Opportunities. 78 

Potential National Historic Landmarks associated with the Great Sioux War 82 

Conclusion 83 

Bibliography 88 

1 

Introduction 

In recent years, the National Park Service has increasingly turned to the academic 

community for assistance in the preparation of its history studies. The Clash of 

Cultures trails project, a cooperative effort by the National Park Service (NPS) and the 

Western History Association (WHA), exemplifies this partnership of academic and 

public history. For the Clash of Cultures trails project, the National Park Service 

asked WHA historians for their assistance in 

identifying nationally significant trails associated 

with the history of U.S. Army/American Indian 

campaigns in the trans-Mississippi West during 

the nineteenth century. Secondly, the NPS asked 

the WHA historians for their recommendations 

as to whether any of these trails might warrant 

further study as potential National Historic 

Trails. As such, through the Clash of Cultures 

trails project, the WHA could provide scholarly 

guidance to NPS researchers and planners as 

they chart the course for future studies of trails 

associated with the history of the Indian Wars in 

the West. Founded in 1961 and currently located 

on the campus of the University of New Mexico, 

the Western History Association is a diverse 

group of western writers, academic historians, 

public historians, and enthusiasts whose purpose 

is to “promote the study of the North American 

West in its varied aspects and broadest sense.” 

To accomplish these tasks, the Western History 

Association assembled a group of eminent 

western historians and, in coordination with the 

National Park Service, asked each of them to 

prepare a report that addressed his or her 

perspective on the national significance of the 

trails associated with the Indians Wars in the 

West. Specifically, the WHA historians were 

asked to provide the following: 

• A description of the major broad themes, 

events, and persons associated with the 

history of U.S. Army/American Indian 

conflict in the trans-Mississippi West during 

the nineteenth century; 

• A list, in priority order, of the most important 

military campaigns associated with this 

history; 

• A prioritized list of the most important 

military campaign trails associated with this 

history; 

• Recommendations as to whether any of these 

trails are of outstanding national significance; 

and 

• Recommendations as to whether any of these 

trails may warrant further study as potential 

National Historic Trails. 

Upon receiving the mentors’ reports, the NPS 

project team members also evaluated the 

recommended nationally significant trails 

according to the designation criteria of both the 

National Historic Landmarks program and the 

National Trails System Act. The mentors’ 

recommendations, as well as the NPS 

evaluations, are the main subjects of this report. 

The report also includes information on places 

along the trails that are of particular significance 

and/or offer recreational and/or interpretive 

opportunities. In addition, the report has 

information on places along the trails that may be 

potential National Historic Landmarks, pending 

further assessments of integrity. All of these 

recommendations will be used by the National 

Park Service to assess the need for future history 

and/or planning studies. 

It is important to note what this project did NOT 

do. It is not the purpose of the Clash of Cultures 

trails project to evaluate military campaign 
2 

The Clash of Cultures trails project is a 

“model” project in that it is the first time 

that trails are being evaluated in terms of 

their national significance using the 

criteria of the National Trails System Act 

and the criteria and methodology of the 

National Historic Landmarks program. 

trails in terms of their physical integrity. 

Although an assessment of physical integrity is a 

standard component of a National Historic 

Landmark study, it was not included as part of 

the Clash of Cultures trails project because the 

National Trails System Act does not emphasize 

physical integrity of National Historic Trails. 

While the report includes general information on 

physical integrity, the project team did not 

undertake an intensive-level survey of the trails. 

Future surveys, beyond the scope of this project, 

may uncover segments of these trails that retain 

visible ruts and/or exceptional trail features. In 

the same way, the project team did not gather 

complete information on all the interpretive and 

educational opportunities along the trail. The 

places identified in this report should only be 

viewed as a sampling of the types of interpretive 

resources located along each trail. 

In addition, it is important to note that the Clash 

of Cultures trails project is not a study of all 

military trails. In due course, the National Park 

Service intends to study military campaign trails 

from colonial days through the twentieth 

century. This initial investigation is limited to 

one discrete historic theme: trails associated with 

U.S. Army/American Indian Wars in the transMississippi West, an area that experienced its 

greatest period of conflict during the nineteenth 

century. It is anticipated that future studies will 

evaluate other military actions, such as intertribal 

wars, the Mexican War, and military 

explorations. The current investigation also 

excludes the War of 1812 and the Civil War 

because on-going studies by the NPS American 

Battlefield Protection Program will provide the 

necessary information to evaluate the relative 

significance of those campaign or battle routes. 

Background 

The Clash of Cultures trails project is a “model” 

project in that it is the first time that trails are 

being evaluated in terms of their national 

significance using the criteria of the National 

Trails System Act and the criteria and 

methodology of the National Historic 

Landmarks program. This concept grew out of a 

National Historic Trails symposium held on 

August 18-20, 1999, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Jerry Rogers, a former Keeper of the National 

Register, organized the event, entitled 

“Symposium of National Significance of Historic 

Trails.” Rogers, who had been instrumental in 

the inception and development of numerous 

preservation programs throughout his long 

career in the National Park Service, described the 

purpose of the symposium as follows: 

 

In 30 years of identifying and conferring official 

designation upon natural and cultural resources 

in the United States, I have recognized a pattern. 

In the beginning stages of a program, there are 

few guidelines or benchmarks by which to 

measure decisions. These come with experience. 

Also, in the beginning stages, programs tend to 

focus upon the designations that are most 

obvious and least difficult. As easy designations 

are exhausted, decisions become more difficult 

and more controversial for the cadre of 

professionals involved and also for the body 

politic and the government itself. If program 

leaders are wise and fortunate, they can bring to 

bear the experience they have gained at just the 

right time to keep the increasingly difficult 

decisions from becoming impossible. This has 

been the case with National Historic 

Landmarks, National Natural Landmarks, and 

the National Register of Historic Places. I believe 

we are now at the point in which those who 

study and recommend National Historic Trails 

need to consolidate their experience and that of 

others to enable the program to continue its 

record of quality in an increasingly complex 

future.

1

 

1

 Jerry Rogers to Lysa Wegman-French, invitation to 

attend the “Symposium of National Significance of 

Historic Trails,” letter dated June 24, 1999. Everyone 

invited to the symposium received identical letters. 

 
3 

The symposium attendees – which included 

representatives of the NPS National Trails 

System and National Historic Landmarks 

program, the Bureau of Land Management, state 

historical societies, and universities – discussed 

numerous issues regarding National Historic 

Trails. 

One of the major recommendations of the 

symposium, and the one that is the focus of 

this report, was to use the criteria and 

methodology of the National Historic 

Landmarks program to identify nationally 

significant trails associated with a particular 

theme, in this case the history of U.S. 

Army/American Indian conflict in the transMississippi West. As discussed in more detail 

below, the application of National Historic 

Landmark criteria and methodology – used in 

conjunction with National Trails System Act 

criteria – results in the identification of trails 

that could warrant further study as potential 

candidates for National Historic Trail 

designation. 

Designation Criteria and Methodology of the 

National Trails System Act and the National 

Historic Landmarks Program 

The National Trails System was established by 

the National Trails System Act of 1968. 

Initially, the National Trails System only 

encompassed National Scenic Trails and 

National Recreation Trails. National Historic 

Trails were added when the Act was amended 

in 1978, with such trails defined as “extended 

trails which follow as closely as possible and 

practicable the original trails or routes of travel 

of national historic significance.”2

 As defined 

in the Act, the purpose of the National Trails 

System is to “provide for the ever-increasing 

outdoor recreation needs of an expanding 

population and . . . to promote the preservation 

of, public access to, travel within, and 

enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air, 

outdoor areas and historic resources of the 

Nation . . .” 

 

2 The National Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543) (U.S.C. 

1241 et. seq.), as amended through P.L. 104-333, 

November 12, 1996, Section 3(a)(3). 

Generally, potential National Historic 

Trails are assessed on an individual, caseby-case basis. . . . By contrast, the National 

Historic Landmarks program will only 

evaluate a potential landmark in terms of 

its relative significance to a larger group of 

properties. This task is typically 

accomplished through the completion of a 

“theme study.” 

As Jerry Rogers observed during the 

Symposium of National Significance of Historic 

Trails, most of the “easy” choices for National 

Historic Trail designation, such as the Santa Fe 

and Oregon Trails, had been identified and 

designated early in the program’s history. As 

less obvious candidates for trail designation 

were put forward, it was often difficult to 

definitively answer the basic questions of 

national significance: Is this trail truly so 

important in the history of the United States 

that it warrants designation as a National 

Historic Trail? What other trails reflect the 

same historic theme and/or event, and how 

does this trail compare to those trails? And how 

can we be sure that this trail is the best 

representation of its type? 

These questions are the same asked of potential 

National Historic Landmarks. The National 

Historic Landmarks program, which was 

established by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, has 

several decades of experience in the application 

of criteria and processes for evaluation of 

national significance. As detailed later in this 

report, both the National Trails System and the 

National Historic Landmarks program have 

specific criteria for their respective designations. 

The two programs, however, take very different 

approaches in evaluating national significance. 

Generally – and this is a very broad generalization 

– potential National Historic Trails are 

traditionally assessed on an individual, case-bycase basis. This assessment is often made in 

response to a constituency group’s desire to see a 

particular trail designated as a National Historic 
4 

Trail. A constituency group, such as a local 

community or trails organization, often will 

approach Congress with a request that a 

particular trail be designated a National Historic 

Trail. Congress, in turn, will then direct the 

National Park Service or another federal agency 

to prepare a National Trails System study to 

evaluate whether or not that particular trail 

warrants such designation, including an 

assessment of national significance. 

By contrast, the National Historic Landmarks 

program will only evaluate a potential landmark 

in terms of its relative significance to a larger 

group of properties. This task is typically 

accomplished through the completion of a 

“theme study.” A theme study focuses on a 

specific historic context within an established 

time frame, such as U.S. Army/American Indian 

campaigns in the trans-Mississippi West in the 

nineteenth century. The theme study identifies 

the primary people and events associated with 

the historic theme. It also identifies a list of the 

primary historic buildings, structures, and sites 

that are associated with that theme. The theme 

study then goes a step further and, by comparing 

the relative significance of these properties, lists 

properties that are nationally significant and the 

best representations of that particular theme of 

American history. The list is further refined to 

include only those properties that have a high 

degree of physical integrity. And it is this “short 

list” of properties – those that have both national 

significance and a high degree of integrity – that 

are considered candidates for National Historic 

Landmark designation. A primary goal of the 

Clash of Cultures trails project was to apply the 

methodology of the National Historic 

Landmarks program to potential National 

Historic Trails, specifically as it applies to an 

evaluation of national significance. Rather than 

assessing trails on an individual basis, the Clash of 

Cultures team evaluated all trails associated with 

a particular historic context – in this case, U.S. 

Army/ American Indian campaigns in the transMississippi West – and made recommendations 

as to which of those trails have national 

significance and would be potential candidates 

for National Historic Trail designation. 

Project Schedule 

In late 2000, several members of the National 

Trails System program believed there was a need 

for a comprehensive look at historic trails in the 

Southwest. By March 2001, this concept had 

evolved into the idea for the Clash of Cultures 

study, which was funded by the Office of Park 

Planning. The Clash of Cultures trails project 

began with a kickoff meeting of the NPS and 

WHA project team members in Denver on June 

13, 2001. The WHA mentors’ final reports were 

completed by January 1, 2002. The draft project 

report was prepared in April 2002; and the final 

report was completed in June 2002. 
5 

Chapter 1: Project Participants 

The National Park Service utilized an existing cooperative agreement with the Western 

History Association to secure access to the academic community for their 

recommendations regarding the national significance of trails associated with U.S. 

Army/American Indian campaigns in the trans-Mississippi West. Paul Andrew Hutton 

is the executive director of the Western History Association and served as the WHA 

coordinator for the project. Patricia Nelson 

Limerick served as a WHA project reviewer. The 

Western History Association obtained the 

services of six additional historians 

knowledgeable in various aspects of western 

history to serve as “mentors” for the project. 

These historians represented diverse aspects of 

historical scholarship – such as military history, 

social history, ethnic history, and American 

Indian history – and provided a variety of 

perspectives on the history of U.S. Army/ 

American Indian conflict. As part of the project 

agreement, each mentor was to provide a report 

that answered the questions outlined in the 

“Mentors’ Scope of Work” and was also to be 

available on an “as needed” basis for consultation 

during the project. The WHA historians 

participated in the project team meeting in 

Denver on June 13, 2001. In addition, the WHA 

historians participated in the WHA conference in 

San Diego, October 4-7, 2001, for a panel 

discussion on this project. 

Western History Association Participants 

R. David Edmunds (Mentor) 

Edmunds is Watson Professor of American 

History at the University of Texas at Dallas and a 

member of the Western History Association 

council. In 1990-91, he served as acting director 

of the McNickle Center for American Indian 

History at the Newberry Library in Chicago. 

Edmunds has written and/or edited seven books 

and over 90 articles or essays, including The 

Potawatomis: Keepers of the Fire (1978), which 

was awarded the 1978 Francis Parkman Prize; The 

Shawnee Prophet (1984), which was awarded the 

1984 Ohiana Prize of Biography; and The Fox 

Wars: The Mesquakie Challenge to New France

(1993), which was awarded the 1994 Heggoy Prize 

by the French Historical Society. Edmunds has 

been recipient of a Minority Dissertation 

Fellowship from the Ford Foundation; a postdoctoral fellowship from the Newberry Library; a 

summer stipend from the National Endowment 

for the Humanities; and a John Simon 

Guggenheim Fellowship. At the time of the Clash 

of Cultures trails project, he was editing two 

books of essays, co-authoring a textbook on 

Native American history, and writing a volume 

about businessmen on the Great Plains in the 

mid-nineteenth century. 

Paul Fees (Mentor) 

Fees received his doctorate from Brown 

University and is former senior curator at the 

Buffalo Bill Historical Center, past president of 

the Wyoming Council for the Humanities, and 

has served on the Wyoming State Records 

Advisory Board. He has organized numerous 

exhibits on various subjects, including “Bits and 

Spurs in the Vaquero Tradition,” "Cody or Bust,” 

“A Century of Plains Indians’ Portraits,” and 

“The Custer Mystique.” He has also authored or 

co-authored several books. His titles include 

Buffalo Bill: A Treatise, Wyoming Territorial 

Imprints, Interior West, Myth of the West, and 

Frontier America: Art and Treasures of the Old 

West from the Buffalo Bill Historical Center. 

Donald Fixico (Mentor) 

Fixico is director of the Indigenous Studies 

Program and a professor of history at the 
6 

As part of the project agreement, each 

Western History Association mentor 

provided a report that answered the 

questions outlined in the “Mentors’ Scope 

of Work” and also was available on an “as 

needed” basis for consultation during the 

project. 

University of Kansas. A leading figure in the 

field of American Indian history, he has been a 

lecturer and/or professor at the University of 

California at Berkeley, the University of 

California at Los Angeles, San Diego State, and 

the University of Michigan. He also served as 

exchange professor at the University of 

Nottingham, England, and was visiting 

professor at the John F. Kennedy Institute at 

Freie University in Berlin. He is the author of 

Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian 

Policy, 1945-1960 and Urban Indians, and is the 

editor of two books, An Anthology of Western 

Great Lakes Indian History and Rethinking 

American Indian History. His latest book is The 

Urban Indian Experience in America (2000). 

Paul Andrew Hutton (WHA Coordinator for 

the Clash of Cultures Trails Project) 

Hutton is currently the executive director of the 

Western History Association and a professor of 

history at the University of New Mexico. He has 

published widely in the field of western history 

on topics ranging from the military and the West 

in the nineteenth century to film and popular 

culture. Hutton’s scholarship has been 

recognized with numerous awards including the 

Billington Prize, the Evans Biography Award, and 

the Spur Award for his book Phil Sheridan and 

His Army (1985). Hutton has twice won the 

Western Heritage Award (Wrangler) for 

“Showdown at Hollywood Corral: Wyatt Earp in 

the Movies” (1993) and “Theodore Roosevelt’s 

Rough Riders” (1999). His edited works include 

Frontier and Region, Soldiers West, and The Custer 

Reader. He has appeared in, written, or narrated 

over 100 television documentaries and is 

currently writing a new biography of David 

Crockett. 

Alvin M. Josephy Jr. (Mentor) 

Josephy is one of America’s most distinguished 

historians. He served for many years as vice 

president and editor of American Heritage. He 

was founding chairman of the board of the 

Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of 

the American Indian and is past president of the 

Western History Association. He is author of 

numerous prize-winning books, including The 

Patriot Chiefs, The Indian Heritage of America, 

The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the 

Northwest, Red Power, Now That the Buffalo’s 

Gone, The Civil War in the American West, and 

500 Nations: A History of North American Indians. 

His latest book is his memoir, A Walk Toward 

Oregon, published in 2000. 

Patricia Nelson Limerick (Reviewer) 

Limerick received her doctorate from Yale 

University and is a professor of history at the 

University of Colorado at Boulder and a former 

president of the Western History Association. 

The author of a wide variety of books and 

articles, she is best known for her work The 

Legacy of Conquest (1987), which had a major 

impact on the field of Western American History. 

She has received a number of awards, including 

State Humanist of the Year (Colorado, 1992), and 

a MacArthur Fellowship (1995-2000). In addition 

to numerous scholarly articles and reviews, she 

has written frequent columns for the New York 

Times, The Denver Post, USA Today, The 

Chronicle of Higher Education and other 

newspapers. Most recently, she is a contributor 

to The Atlas of the New West and author of 

Something in the Soil: Field-Testing the New 

Western History. 

Sherry L. Smith (Mentor) 

Smith is a professor of history at Southern 

Methodist University where she teaches 

Western, Indian, and Public History. Her major 

works include Reimagining Indians, The View 

from Officers’ Row: Army Perceptions of Western 

Indians, and Sagebrush Soldier: Private 
7 

William Earl Smith’s View of the Sioux War of 

1876. She has published numerous articles 

including “Lost Soldiers: Re-Searching the 

Army in the West” (1998) and “Single Women 

Homesteaders: The Perplexing Case of Elinore 

Pruitt Stewart” (1991), both in the Western 

Historical Quarterly, and “A Woman’s Life in 

the Teton Country,” Montana: The Magazine of 

Western History (1996). She is currently a WHA 

council member. 

Elliott West (Mentor) 

West is distinguished professor of history at the 

University of Arkansas and president of the 

Western History Association. A former 

member of the editorial board of the Western 

Historical Quarterly and currently on the 

editorial board of Montana: The Magazine of 

Western History, he is general editor of the 

Histories of Arkansas Series and served on the 

board of directors of the Arkansas Humanities 

Council. He is two-time winner of the Western 

Heritage (Wrangler) Award and the George 

Perkins Marsh Prize. His most recent book, 

The Contested Plains: Indians, Gold Seekers and 

the Rush to Colorado has been recognized with 

the Francis Parkman Prize, the Ray Allen 

Billington Award (co-winner), the WWA Spur 

Award, the PEN Center Award, the Caroline 

Bancroft Award, and the Caughey WHA Prize. 

He is also the author of The Way to the West: 

Essays on the Central Plains, Growing up in 

Twentieth Century America, and more than 50 

articles and essays. 

National Park Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Project Team Members 

In addition to outside expertise gained through 

the Western History Association, the National 

Park Service called upon its staff to assist in the 

administrative and technical aspects of the 

project. Christine Whitacre, historian with the 

NPS-Intermountain Support Office in Denver 

served as project coordinator. Historian Jerome 

Greene (NPS-Harpers Ferry Center assigned to 

Denver) served as principal investigator. 

Historians Lysa Wegman-French and William 

Patrick O’Brien, of the NPS-Intermountain 

Support Office in Denver, and who work in the 

National Historic Landmarks program, also 

served as project team members. (Although 

O’Brien, who was the program manager of the 

Cultural Resources and National Register 

Program Services of the Intermountain Support 

Office in Denver, accepted a new position with 

the NPS Cooperative Extension Services Unit 

office in Tucson before the completion of Clash 

of Cultures, he continued to consult on the 

project.) Dave Ruppert, an ethnographer with 

the Intermountain Support Office, served as a 

project reviewer. John Sprinkle of the National 

Historic Landmarks program in Washington 

D.C., and John Haubert of the National Park 

Service planning office were very instrumental in 

the development of the Clash of Cultures trails 

project and worked closely with the project team. 

Several National Historic Trails program staff 

also participated in the project. These included 

David Gaines, Aaron Mahr, and John Conoboy

of the Long Distance Trails Office in Santa Fe; 

Jere Krakow of the Long Distance Trails Office 

in Salt Lake City; and Steve Elkinton of the 

National Trails System program office in 

Washington D.C. Carl Barna of the Bureau of 

Land Management, which shares responsibility 

with the National Park Service for the 

administration of National Historic Trails, also 

participated in the Clash of Cultures trails 

project. 

NPS project team members Jerry Greene and Lysa WegmanFrench reading interpretive signs at the Crazy Woman Fight 

Site, vicinity of Buffalo, Wyoming. Photo by Christine 

Whitacre. 
8 

 

Chapter 2: Methodology 

As has been discussed in the Introduction, the Clash of Cultures trails project was to be 

a model project in which the methodology of the National Historic Landmarks 

evaluation process was applied to National Historic Trails. To accomplish this, a 

methodology had to be designed that would accommodate the relevant requirements of 

both the National Historic Landmarks program and the National Trails System Act. 

As specified in Section 5(b) of the National Trails 

System Act (16 USC 1244), Congress may 

authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 

a study "for the purpose of determining the 

feasibility and desirability of designating . . . trails 

as . . . national historic trails." Such studies are 

required to include at least 11 specific items of 

discussion. The Clash of Cultures study is not 

such a Congressionally authorized study, and is 

not addressing those 11 topics. Instead, this 

preliminary report focuses on only one of those 

topics: the criteria for National Historic Trails. 

As specified in the Section 5(b) (11), a proposed 

National Historic Trail must meet three specific 

criteria, briefly: 

(A) It must be a trail or route established by 

historic use and must be historically significant as 

a result of that use; 

(B) It must be of national significance with 

respect to any of several broad facets of American 

history; 

C) It must have significant potential for public 

recreational use or historical interest based on 

historic interpretation and appreciation. 

After determining the National Historic Trail 

criteria within the National Trails System Act, the 

project team then turned to the National Historic 

Landmarks process of evaluation, and found that 

the process related quite well with the National 

Trails System Act process. Therefore, the NPS 

project team designed a methodology that 

addressed the three criteria specified for 

designation of a National Historic Trail – historic

use, national significance, and interpretation/ 

appreciation. 

Evaluating National Significance of a 

Potential National Historic Trail 

The project team first addressed National 

Historic Trail Criterion B, requiring national 

significance: 

It must be of national significance with respect to 

any of several broad facets of American history, 

such as trade and commerce, exploration, 

migration and settlement, or military campaigns. 

To qualify as nationally significant, historic use of 

the trail must have had a far-reaching effect on 

broad patterns of American culture. Trails 

significant in the history of native Americans may 

be included. 

To accomplish the task of identifying and 

evaluating potential National Historic Trails in 

terms of national significance, the project team 

used the model of a National Historic Landmark 

theme study. Indeed, the Clash of Cultures trails 

project was the first time that potential National 

Historic Trails were evaluated through the use of 

a theme study – which are a standard 

methodology of the National Historic 

Landmarks program. The National Historic 

Landmarks program believes that a theme study 

(as discussed in the Introduction) is a very 

effective method of identifying and evaluating 

properties because it provides a comparative 

analysis of properties associated with a specific 

topic in history. This enables us to understand 

the entire story of a topic, and by seeing the larger 
9 

picture, the relative importance of specific 

properties can be understood. 

Within the theme study methodology, the first 

step is to determine the historic context, or 

theme, that will be examined. By placing a 

property within its proper historic context, we 

can understand or measure the importance of 

that property. The context is, therefore, the basis 

for judging a property's significance. Contexts 

are typically limited by geographic area and by 

date. National Historic Trails Criterion B 

addresses context. Although the National Trails 

System Act does not mention the term "context," 

it does state that the trails have to be "nationally 

significant with respect to any of several broad 

facets of American history, such as trade and 

commerce, exploration, migration and 

settlement, or military campaigns." 

Thus, within the text of the National Trails 

System Act, Congress provided guidance 

regarding areas to study. It identified several 

broad facets of American history as examples: 

trade and commerce, exploration, migration and 

settlement, and military campaigns. Congress has 

designated a number of National Historic Trails 

that cover some of those topics. For instance, the 

Santa Fe Trail represents trade and commerce, 

the Lewis and Clark Trail represents exploration, 

and the Oregon Trail and the Mormon Pioneer 

Trail represent migration and settlement. 

However, the Long Distance Trails staff of the 

National Park Service perceived a gap in 

representation of military campaigns, particularly 

those related to the western United States. After 

several discussions among the NPS trails, 

landmarks and planning staffs regarding which 

military campaign(s) should be studied as part of 

the Clash of Cultures trails project, the group 

selected the wars between the U.S. military and 

the various American Indian tribes. Thus the 

context was defined as the U.S. Army/American 

Indian campaigns in the trans-Mississippi West 

during the nineteenth century. 

National Historic Landmark Criteria for 

National Significance 

After selecting the historic context, the second 

step in evaluating a property is determining 

whether the property may be nationally 

A theme study is a very effective method of 

identifying and evaluating properties 

because it provides a comparative analysis 

of properties associated with a specific 

topic in history. This enables us to 

understand the entire story of a topic, and 

by seeing the larger picture, the relative 

importance of specific properties can be 

understood. 

significant under the “Specific Criteria of 

National Significance” (36 CFR 65.4(a)), which 

are also known as the National Historic 

Landmark criteria. They are: 

National Historic Landmark Criterion 1: 

Properties that are associated with events that have 

made a significant contribution to, and are 

identified with, or that outstandingly represent, the 

broad national patterns of United States history 

and from which an understanding and 

appreciation of those patterns may be gained. 

National Historic Landmark Criterion 2: 

Properties that are associated importantly with the 

lives of persons nationally significant in the history 

of the United States. 

National Historic Landmark Criterion 3: 

Properties that represent some great idea or ideal of 

the American people. 

National Historic Landmark Criterion 4: 

Properties that embody the distinguishing 

characteristics of an architectural type specimen 

exceptionally valuable for a study of a period, style, 

or method of construction, or that represent a 

significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose 

components may lack individual distinction. 

National Historic Landmark Criterion 5: 

Properties that are composed of integral parts of the 

environment not sufficiently significant by reason 

of historical association or artistic merit to warrant 

individual recognition but collectively compose an 

entity of exceptional historical or artistic 

significance, or outstandingly commemorate or 

illustrate a way of life or culture. 
10 

Why are the trails being evaluated by 

National Historic Landmark criteria? 

Because these criteria are the NPS-wide 

standard for national significance, and are 

those used by the Secretary of the 

Interior’s National Park System Advisory 

Board in its evaluation of both National 

Historic Landmarks and National Historic 

Trails. 

National Historic Landmark Criterion 6:

Properties that have yielded or may be likely to 

yield information of major scientific importance by 

revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon 

periods of occupation over large areas of the United 

States. Such sites are those which have yielded, or 

which may reasonably be expected to yield, data 

affecting theories, concepts and ideas to a major 

degree. 

Why are the trails being evaluated by National 

Historic Landmark criteria? Because these 

criteria are the NPS-wide standard for national 

significance, and are those used by the Secretary 

of the Interior’s National Park System Advisory 

Board in its evaluation of both National Historic 

Landmarks and National Historic Trails. The 

National Trails System Act, Section 5(b)(3), 

specifies that Congressionally funded studies of 

potential National Historic Trail shall include the 

recommendation of the National Park System 

Advisory Board regarding national significance 

“based on the criteria developed under the 

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (40 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 

461).” 

It is noteworthy, particularly for the purposes of 

this study, to summarize how the “criteria 

developed under the Historic Sites Act of 1935” 

have evolved over time to become what is today 

known as the National Historic Landmark 

criteria. The National Park Service first 

developed criteria for national significance in the 

1930s. In 1933, Verne Chatelain, NPS chief 

historian, developed general criteria by which to 

evaluate historical additions to the NPS system. 

According to Chatelain, potential NPS historical 

units should possess “uniqueness,” which he 

defined as follows: 

(a) In such sites as are naturally the points or bases 

from which the broad aspects of prehistoric and 

historic American life can best be presented, and 

from which the student of history of the United 

States can sketch the large patterns of the American 

story; which areas are significant because of their 

relationship to other areas, each contributing its 

part of the complete story of American history; 

(b) In such sites as are associated with the life of 

some great American, and which may not 

necessarily have any outstanding qualities other 

than that association; and 

(c) In such sites as are associated with some sudden 

or dramatic incident in American history, which 

though possessing not great intrinsic qualities are 

unique, and are symbolic of some great idea or 

ideal.

3

Two years later, the Historic Sites Act of 1935 

declared it national policy "to preserve for public 

use historic sites, buildings, and objects of 

national significance for the inspiration and 

benefit of the United States." The act further 

authorized the Secretary of the Interior to 

operate and manage historic properties, and to 

survey the nation’s sites, buildings, and objects, 

for the purpose of determining which possess 

exceptional value as commemorating or 

illustrating the history of the United States." The 

Historic Sites Act also established the creation of 

the National Park System Advisory Board. 

As stated above, the Historic Sites Act of 1935 

identified nationally significant properties as 

those that “possess exceptional value as 

commemorating or illustrating the history of the 

United States.” Over time, however, the National 

Park System Advisory Board began using more 

detailed criteria for national significance, very 

similar to those developed by Chatelain. These 

criteria appear in 36 CFR 65.4 (a), entitled 

 

3 Letter, Arno B. Cammerer to Gist Blair, December 18, 

1933, drafted by Verne Chatelain, as cited in Barry 

Mackintosh, The Historic Sites Survey and National 

Historic Landmarks Program: A History (Washington, 

D.C.: National Park Service, History Division, 1985), p. 

9. 
11 

"Specific Criteria of National Significance." 

Although 36 CFR Part 65 deals specifically with 

National Historic Landmarks, the criteria in 

section 4(a) do not apply only to National 

Historic Landmarks – but to all cultural 

resources. This broad use of the criteria for 

national significance is supported by at least two 

other NPS documents. The 2001 NPS 

Management Policies state that: “National 

significance for cultural resources will be 

evaluated by applying the National Historic 

Landmarks process contained in 36 CFR Part 

65." These same criteria also appear in the NPS 

Criteria for Parklands, under the category of 

“Cultural Resource Evaluation." Thus the 

National Historic Landmark criteria have 

evolved into the criteria for the national 

significance of cultural resources, at least for the 

National Park Service. 

The NPS staff recognized that identifying and 

evaluating resources within the context of a 

theme study, as well as applying the criteria of 

national significance, would require professional 

expertise and a thorough familiarity of the best 

current scholarship. The National Park Service 

therefore approached the Western History 

Association with a proposal to work 

cooperatively on the project. As has been 

discussed in the Introduction, the WHA 

assembled a blue-ribbon panel of scholars who 

have recognized knowledge of that era of 

Western history. A set of questions was written 

to elicit information regarding the context and 

criteria, as well as comparing the relative 

significance of the trails. (The questions are 

included in this report under the chapter entitled 

“Mentors’ Scope of Work.") For instance, the 

criteria (as well as the questions) discuss topics 

such as broad patterns or themes in history, 

major events, and important persons. In 

addition, the scholars were asked to rank the 

most important campaign trails. 

The scholars met with the NPS staff in June 2001 

to discuss the topics related to the U.S. 

Army/American Indian campaigns, along with 

the criteria and the process of identification and 

evaluation. In this meeting, the National Park 

Service members of the project team posed the 

prepared questions to the WHA scholars, and an 

invigorating discussion ensued. Several 

The NPS staff recognized that identifying 

and evaluating resources within the 

context and utilizing the criteria would 

require professional expertise and a 

thorough familiarity of the best current 

scholarship. 

months later, in October 2001, the Western 

History Association and the National Park 

Service jointly presented a panel discussion at 

the Western History Association conference. 

The scholars presented their thoughts on the 

topic, as they had developed them up to that 

point. The audience provided additional 

stimulating comments and suggestions. 

Subsequently, the WHA team members 

submitted their written responses to the set of 

questions. In both the discussions and in 

subsequent written submittals, the scholars’ 

responses provided valuable information and 

analysis regarding the topic. 

Utilizing the information provided by the subject 

matter experts, NPS historian Jerry Greene 

prepared a summary history of U.S. 

Army/American Indian campaigns in the 

nineteenth-century trans-Mississippi West, 

included herein as the chapter entitled “An 

Overview of Army-Indian Campaigns in the 

Trans-Mississippi West, 1848-1886.” The goal of 

this text is to provide sufficient background and 

depth to "support the relevance, the 

relationships, and the national importance of the 

properties to be considered."4 

The scholars had also submitted discussions on 

what they perceived to be the major broad 

themes of the U.S. Army/American Indian 

campaigns. The three-person NPS team of Jerry 

 

4

 U.S., Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

National Register, History and Education-National 

Historic Landmarks Survey, How to Prepare National 

Historic Landmark Nominations, National Register 

Bulletin ([Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 

Office], 1999), 19. 
12 

The WHA scholars were also asked to give 

recommendations on the most important 

military campaigns and military campaign 

trails associated with the history of the 

Indian Wars in the West. 

Greene, Lysa Wegman-French, and Christine 

Whitacre compiled their comments, and upon 

analysis, realized that the themes could be 

organized within the NPS Thematic Framework. 

This framework, comprised of eight themes, 

represents the past as an “integrated, diverse, 

complex, human experience.”5

 NPS historian 

Jerry Greene then crafted an essay synthesizing 

the major themes of the U.S. Army/American 

Indian campaigns – as proposed by the scholars – 

and organized within the NPS Thematic 

Framework. This essay is included in this report 

as the chapter entitled “Significant Themes 

Associated with the History of U.S. Army/ 

American Indian Conflict in the TransMississippi West.” 

 

The WHA scholars were also asked to give 

recommendations on the most important military 

campaigns and military campaign trails 

associated with the history of the Indian Wars in 

the West. By compiling the scholars' lists of most 

important trails, six trails stood out quite clearly 

from all other suggestions. These trails were: the 

Long Walk, the Northern Cheyenne Exodus 

Trail, the Smoky Hill Trail, the Bozeman Trail, 

the Nez Perce Trail, and trails associated with the 

Great Sioux War. After the scholars had 

proposed these trails to be nationally significant, 

the NPS team then assessed them according to 

the National Trails System Act and the National 

Historic Landmark criteria. 

As noted earlier, the National Trails System Act 

specifies that a Congressionally authorized study 

on the suitability and feasibility of a potential 

National Historic Trail shall include the 

 

5 [U.S., Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service], Revision of the National Park Service's 

Thematic Framework ([Washington, D.C.: Government 

Printing Office], 1996), 2. 

recommendation of the National Park System 

Advisory Board regarding national historic 

significance. Note that the recommendations 

regarding national significance in this report are 

made jointly by the Western History 

Association's panel of subject matter experts and 

the National Park Service staff. The National 

Park System Advisory Board has not yet reviewed 

the recommendations. 

Evaluating Significance as a result of Historic 

Use as a Military Campaign Trail 

The next step was to apply the two additional 

criteria for National Historic Trails. National 

Historic Trail Criterion A specifies: 

It must be a trail or route established by historic use 

and must be historically significant as a result of 

that use [emphasis added]. The route need not 

currently exist as a discernible trail to qualify, but 

its location must be sufficiently known to permit 

evaluation of public recreation and historical 

interest potential. A designated trail should 

generally accurately follow the historic route, but 

may deviate somewhat on occasion of necessity to 

avoid difficult routing through subsequent 

development, or to provide some route variation 

offering a more pleasurable recreational 

experience. . . . 

 

This criterion contains three aspects. The 

requirement that the significance be derived “as a 

result of that [historic] use” was the focus of 

much discussion among the WHA scholars and 

the NPS staff. The group understood that the 

significance had to be derived from the use of the 

trail itself, separate from anything significant that 

occurred at either end of the trail. If the trail was 

simply the route that someone took to get to an 

important place, that importance did not 

automatically transfer to the trail. For instance, a 

trail connects point A and point B; even though 

something important happened at either point A 

or point B, the trail itself was not necessarily 

important. Likewise, if an important person used 

a trail, that importance did not necessarily 

transfer to the trail. The trail would have to have 

a strong association with that person’s 

importance through his/her use of the trail. For 

the trail itself to meet this National Historic Trail 

criterion, it had to be significant for the use of the 
13 

trail itself. This requirement eliminated a number 

of potential trails, which were associated with 

important battles or other events or people, but 

did not derive significance from the use of the 

trail itself. For instance, the many routes taken in 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico by both the 

Apache people and the army typified the conflict 

between that tribe and the military. However, the 

project team determined that none of the trails in 

this important campaign met the requirement 

that significance be derived from the use of the 

trail itself. 

The next aspect of Criterion A relates to the 

physical nature and location of the trail. An 

additional step in the National Historic 

Landmark evaluation process is to determine if 

the property has physical integrity. The National 

Trails System Act legislation does not emphasize 

physical integrity of National Historic Trails, and 

this criterion states, "the route need not currently 

exist as a discernible trail to qualify but its 

location must be sufficiently known . . ." As a 

result, this study does not address physical 

integrity. For this reason, the trails themselves 

have not been considered as potential National 

Historic Landmarks. The NPS staff conducted 

research to determine the historic route(s) of 

each of the trails, and maps of those routes are 

included in this report. However, these maps are 

not intended to be precise maps, and should not 

be taken literally. Instead, they are intended to 

generally represent the locations of the trails. If 

subsequent studies are conducted on any of these 

trails to determine their suitability and feasibility 

as National Historic Trails, more specific maps 

should be prepared. 

Evaluating Potential for Public Recreational 

Use or Historical Interest 

The last part of Criterion A discusses “historical 

interest” and a “pleasurable recreational 

experience.” This topic segues into the third 

National Historic Trail criterion, Criterion C: 

It must have significant potential for public 

recreational use or historical interest based on 

historic interpretation and appreciation. The 

potential for such use is generally greater along 

roadless segments developed as historic trails, and 

at historic sites associated with the trail. The 

For the trail itself to meet National 

Historic Trail criterion, it had to be 

significant for the use of the trail itself. 

This requirement eliminated a number of 

potential trails, which were associated 

with important battles or other events or 

people, but did not derive significance 

from the use of the trail itself. 

presence of recreation potential not related to 

historic appreciation is not sufficient justification 

for designation under this category. 

The National Trails System Act also specifies (in 

Section 5(e)(1)) that after legislation has been 

enacted designating a trail, the Secretary is 

required to identify "all significant natural, 

historical, and cultural resources to be preserved 

(along with high potential historic sites. . . )." 

Section 12 of the act defines high potential 

historic sites as "those historic sites related to the 

route, or sites in close proximity thereto, which 

provide opportunity to interpret the historic 

significance of the trail during the period of its 

major use. Criteria for consideration as high 

potential sites include historic significance, 

presence of visible historic remnants, scenic 

quality, and relative freedom from intrusion." 

Using the legislative guidance, the NPS staff then 

pursued a next level of research on these 

proposed trails, to evaluate if the y did in fact 

meet this criterion for National Historic Trails. 

The research focused on three aspects: 1) what 

sites were in existence at the time of the historic 

use of the trail (especially sites important relative 

to trail use); 2) which of those sites are extant 

today; and 3) what non-historic sites along the 

routes interpret the trail. Also, the NPS staff 

located trail-related published material that is 

easily available to the public, which would help 

public enjoyment of the routes. In addition to 

library research, three NPS staff members (Jerry 

Greene, Lysa Wegman-French, and Christine 

Whitacre) conducted site visits along much of the 

trails. They drove selected routes of the Long 

Walk, and drove the majority of the routes of the 
14 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus, the Smoky Hill 

Trail, and the Bozeman Trail. 

This report identifies sites that appeared (either 

visually or through research) to be of the same 

era as the period of significance of the proposed 

trails, describes if there are visible historic 

remnants, and discusses scenic quality and 

whether the setting is free from modern 

intrusions. However, as noted in the text, 

additional research would be required to verify if 

certain resources are in fact of the same time 

period, and whether they have historic integrity. 

The lists in this report should not be considered 

comprehensive. 

Finally, this report was prepared to present 

information on the findings. The format is 

arranged within chapters, many of which focus 

on particular trails. Within those trail chapters, 

the discussion is organized in sections. The first 

main section is the discussion of the trail’s 

historical significance. The next section is an 

assessment of the trail in terms of whether or not 

it meets the definition of a military campaign trail. 

The remaining sections assess national 

significance and the trail’s potential as a National 

Historic Trail. Categories within these sections 

correspond to the three National Historic Trail 

criteria and include an evaluation of whether the 

trail meets the criteria for national significance; a 

discussion of whether it is significant due to its 

historic use; and whether the trail merits further 

study as a potential candidate for designation as a 

National Historic Trail. Next is an annotated list 

of associated places along the trail that are trail 

resources or could provide recreational and 

interpretive opportunities. Finally, the NPS 

project team members recommend sites 

associated with the trails that should be evaluated 

(and nominated as appropriate) as National 

Historic Landmarks. 
15 

Chapter 3: WHA Mentors’ Scope of Work 

Each of the WHA mentors provided a report that addressed his or her perspective on 

the history of U.S. Army/American Indian conflict in the trans-Mississippi West 

during the nineteenth century. Specifically, the mentors were asked to answer the 

following questions. Following each question is a statement regarding where the 

mentors’ responses are summarized within this report: 

1. Describe the major broad themes associated 

with the history of U.S. Army/American 

Indian conflict in the trans-Mississippi West 

during the nineteenth century. 

The WHA mentors’ responses to this question 

are summarized in Chapter 4, “Significant 

Themes associated with the History of U.S. 

Army/American Indian Conflict in the TransMississippi West.” 

2. Develop a chronology of the major events 

in this history of conflict. 

The mentors’ responses are summarized in 

Chapter 5, “An Overview of U.S. Army/American 

Indian Campaigns in the Trans-Mississippi 

West.” 

3. Describe up to 25 of the most significant 

events associated with this history, and 

explain their importance. 

The mentors’ responses are summarized in 

Chapter 5, “An Overview of U.S. Army/American 

Indian Campaigns in the Trans-Mississippi 

West.” 

4. Identify up to 25 of the most significant 

persons associated with this history, and 

explain why they are important. 

The mentors’ responses are summarized in 

Chapter 5, “An Overview of U.S. Army/American 

Indian Campaigns in the Trans-Mississippi 

West.” 

5. Provide an annotated bibliography of the

most important books, articles, and 

documents of the history of U.S. Army/ 

American Indian conflict in the transMississippi West during the nineteenth 

century. 

The mentors’ recommendations for important 

books, articles, and documents are included in 

the bibliography of this report. The bibliography 

also includes reference materials used by the NPS 

project team in the preparation of this report. 

6. Describe and list, in priority order, up to 10 

of the most important military campaigns that 

reflect elements of the themes presented in 

your answer to number 1, above. (A dictionary 

definition of “campaign” is: “A military 

operation or connected series of operations 

undertaken as a distinct stage in a war or as an 

overall strategic operation. The term also 

refers to a military expedition conducted for a 

special purpose.” In developing your list, 

consider the full range of operations that may 

constitute a campaign, including battle 

campaigns undertaken by both the U.S. Army 

and American Indian tribes; evasion treks; 

actions taken to establish and protect supply, 

emigration and military routes; and 

operations related to the forced removal of 

Indian tribes to reservations.) Provide 

justifications for your selections, including an 

assessment of national significance. 

The mentors’ responses to this question are 

summarized in Chapter 6, “WHA Mentors’ 
16 

Recommendations for the Most Significant 

Military Campaigns.” 

7. Describe and list, in priority order, the most

important military campaign trails that reflect 

elements of the themes presented in your 

answer to number 1 above. When answering 

this question, specifically address the 

significance of the trails of the military 

campaigns, not the campaigns themselves. 

The National Trails System Act, Section 

5(b)(11), defines a “historic trail” as a “trail or 

route established by historic use and must be 

historically significant as a result of that use.” 

It is the use of the trail itself – not just the sites 

connected by the trail – that must be 

historically significant. Also, although the 

most important trails are likely to be 

associated with the campaigns identified in 

number 6 above, please consider ALL 

campaign trails associated with the history of 

U.S. Army/American Indian conflict in the 

trans-Mississippi West. It is possible that an 

individual trail may have a significance that is 

greater than that of the larger campaign with 

which it was associated. Provide justifications 

for your selections, including an assessment of 

national significance. 

The mentors’ responses to this question are 

summarized in Chapter 7, “WHA Mentors’ 

Recommendations for the Most Significant 

Military Trails.” These recommendations – as 

evaluated against the criteria for national 

significance and the criteria of the National Trails 

System Act – also appear in the chapters on the 

Bozeman Trail, the Long Walk, the Northern 

Cheyenne Exodus Trail, the Smoky Hill Trail, 

and the Trails of the Great Sioux War. 

8. If you have first-hand knowledge of the 

location and condition of the trails listed in 

number 7 above, please elaborate. Also, please 

identify any places along the trails that you 

believe may be particularly significant as trail 

resources and/or are outstanding locations for 

interpretation of the trail. 

The WHA mentors’ responses are summarized in 

the chapters on the Bozeman Trail, the Long 

Walk, the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail, the 

Smoky Hill Trail, and the Trails of the Great 

Sioux War. 

9. Do you believe that any of the identified 

trails are of such outstanding national 

significance that they should be studied 

further as possible additions to the National 

Trails System? Provide justification for your 

selections. 

The mentors’ recommendations – as evaluated 

against the criteria for national significance and 

the criteria of the National Trails System Act – are 

included within the chapters on the Bozeman 

Trail, the Long Walk, the Northern Cheyenne 

Exodus Trail, the Smoky Hill Trail, and the Trails 

of the Great Sioux War.
17 

Chapter 4: Significant Themes associated with the History 

of U.S. Army/American Indian Conflict in the TransMississippi West

Historic themes afford topical conceptualization of subjects to help provide context and 

significance, thus giving them broader relevance, meaning, expression, and 

understanding. The trails associated with U.S. Army-American Indian campaigns in 

the trans-Mississippi West evoke numerous recurring themes and subthemes that 

reflect elements contained in the 1996 “Revision of the National Park Service’s 

Thematic Framework.” The themes identified in 

the NPS thematic framework are: 

(I) Peopling Places, 

(II) Creating Social Institutions and Movements, 

(III) Expressing Cultural Values; 

(IV) Shaping the Political Landscape; 

(V) Developing the American Economy; 

(VI) Expanding Science and Technology; 

(VII) Transforming the Environment; and 

(VIII) Changing Role of the United States in the 

World Economy. 

All of the thematic framework’s eight interactive 

elements are represented in various degrees. The 

following presentation, based largely on the 

recommendations of the WHA mentors, 

discusses the predominant themes and 

subthemes affecting military campaigns in the 

trans-Mississippi West in relation to the 

integrated components defined in the thematic 

framework. The themes are presented in general 

order of significance to the topic of military 

campaign trails associated with U.S. 

Army/American Indian conflict in the transMississippi West. 

(V) Developing the American Economy. The 

economic theme is paramount because it conveys 

the essence of the national purpose for advancing 

continuously onto Indian lands in the region, while 

recognizing the impact of such activity, in terms of 

its concomitant policy, technical, and social aspects, 

on tribal cultures and economies. 

Broadly speaking, all campaigns were intended to 

promote economic/political objectives, no matter 

their immediate purpose. In the long-term sense, 

campaigns were motivated by, and grounded in, 

prospects for commercial gain for white 

Americans. But there were economic 

ramifications among the tribes, too, affecting 

goods, trade, land, and lifeways. “Historians now 

understand,” wrote Sherry L. Smith, “that the 

complicated interactions among and between 

Indian occupants, as well as between Indians and 

Anglo-American migrants, miners, and 

agricultural users/settlers, add up to a frenzy of 

activity during which different groups, of various 

sizes and military strengths, vied for access to ‘the 

West.’” During the mid-nineteenth century, the 

West afforded a place where white people might 

migrate to improve their livelihoods, and federal 

policy encouraged such action. Such inroads by 

whites introduced competition for economic 

hegemony over Indian lands and their resources, 

ultimately forcing dispossession of tribal lands. 

The federally established “Permanent Indian 

Frontier” and its later evolutions were all 

successive expedients in the process of economic 

dispossession. Mining, with its rapid influx of 

white Americans, impacted tribal communities 

and caused wholesale displacement and cultural 

disruption – including that to native economies – 

precipitating conflict between Indians and 

civilian trespassers and subsequently the army, as 

well as among the tribes themselves. Mining and 

settlement evinced white Americans’ need to 

command a region’s resources, including game, 
18 

 “Although Americans may not be 

accustomed to conceptualizing the United 

States as a nation that engaged in military 

conquest, expansion, and occupation of 

others’ homelands, such an interpretation 

is difficult to evade when one turns the 

spotlight on the Indian Wars of the 

nineteenth century West.”

often with cataclysmic results to tribal 

populations. For the tribes, their own command 

of resources, particularly of game, was 

fundamental to their subsistence and survival, 

and the eventual commercial exploitation of the 

buffalo by whites thus further threatened 

lifeways and provoked discord. Invariably, 

behind the wars, wrote Elliott West, “was a 

brooding understanding by Indians that the 

material basis for their way of life was being taken 

away, often rapidly.” Mining, followed quickly 

by white farming ranching activities, conflicted 

with tribal beliefs regarding the uses of land, 

nonetheless prompting modification of earlier 

removal programs affecting American Indians to 

embrace the reservation system as the absolute 

form of that policy. Mining and settlement 

temporarily coincided with, then succeeded, the 

enterprise of the fur trade in the West. During 

the post-Civil War period, the government 

sanctioned railroad construction throughout the 

region, insuring the expansion and enhanced 

mobility of the military presence while 

promoting economic growth via commerce and 

the continuation of western migration. As West 

noted, “Given the extent of the outside invasion 

of the far West and that invasion’s rapid 

redeployment of the West’s rich resources to new 

uses, the ways of life of native peoples were 

bound to be undermined, whether they fought 

back or not.” 

(IV) Shaping the Political Landscape. This 

theme vies for importance with the economic 

theme. All of the mentors saw it as a dominating 

topic, both in its reflecting the supreme nationalism 

of the United States throughout the period of the 

campaigns, as well as in regard to the parallel 

impacts that the campaigns wrought upon and 

within American Indian cultures and societies. 

As Sherry Smith stated, “the key story of the 

nineteenth century . . . is the emergence of [the 

United States as] an industrialized nation with 

sufficient power (demographic, military, etc.) to 

prevail over all others and establish control. . . . 

Although Americans may not be accustomed to 

conceptualizing the United States as a nation that 

engaged in military conquest, expansion, and 

occupation of others’ homelands, such an 

interpretation is difficult to evade when one turns 

the spotlight on the Indian Wars of the 

nineteenth century West.” Couched in the 

notion of Manifest Destiny – the belief that it was 

divinely ordained for the country to fulfill its 

territorial limits – national expansion, in effect, 

embraced colonization, necessitating the 

conquest, control, subordination, consolidation, 

and relocation of tribes whose presence barred 

the way. This was an elementary part of 

nationhood and the country’s attempt to advance 

and control its boundaries and internal 

resources. Preemption, noted Paul Fees, was the 

view that white Americans had a right to the land 

– that because the tribes kept it in a relatively 

“useless” condition “it was a right and a duty to 

take it and make it productive. It was the army’s 

duty to protect Americans exercising their right 

of preemption.” The latter constituted an 

application of police power and punishment 

often connected to the military enforcement of 

treaty provisions regarding tribal hunting lands. 

Imposition of the treaty system brought changes 

to tribal sovereignty and territoriality, removing 

Indian peoples from the major white overland 

routes and settlement zones to land areas deemed 

less desirable and potentially less usable, while 

exacerbating turmoil within their societies as 

tribal domains and game lands became 

increasingly constricted. Forced removal, Alvin 

Josephy suggested, amounted to what today 

might be termed “ethnic cleansing.” Further, 

stated Josephy, “as the government involved itself 

in tribal matters, the Indians lost control of their 

lives and affairs.” Loss of sovereignty caused 

some tribal groups to fight with each other over 

restricted hunting grounds or over the allegiance 

of some tribesmen in supporting the army 

(service as scouts, for example), actions that were 
19 

condoned by the government as a means of 

further breaking down Indian resistance. Other 

tribes – often smaller groups (some of which had 

been previously decimated by white men’s 

diseases) – aligned with the government against 

traditional foes as a means of survival, while 

elements of certain tribes saw warfare or flight to 

other locales as catalysts for bettering their 

circumstances. In sum, the independent nature 

of the tribes precluded their ability to marshal a 

sustained united front against the federal 

government. 

Often the outbreak of violence reflected the 

variant interpretations of treaties by Indians and 

whites that led the government to enforce its 

view, especially as it applied to the protection of 

American citizens. R. David Edmunds observed 

that “when tribal people left reservations without 

their agent’s permission, or when they committed 

depredations upon neighboring non-Indians, 

federal troops were dispatched to apprehend and 

sometimes punish the ‘hostiles.’” Indeed, it is 

likely that much Indian-white warfare of the midto-late nineteenth century resulted from 

American Indians’ resistance to going on 

reservations and, despite their strong instincts for 

survival, facing the cultural asphyxiation that 

awaited them there. All of the mentors agreed 

that violence, whether between the army and the 

Indians, among the tribes themselves, or between 

and among factions within tribes, characterized 

most aspects of Indian-white relations during the 

period in question. In the post-Civil War West, 

where comparatively small military forces 

operated following demobilization, it is possible 

that too much latitude rested on the judgment of 

individual army commanders who were not 

necessarily politically fit to exercise appropriate 

discretion in carrying out their duties. Finally, as 

Eliott West has indicated, the inevitability of 

white domination over the Indians and the loss of 

their independence points out the relative 

insignificance of the army-Indian conflicts in the 

larger sense. “The wars and campaigns . . . 

affected the particulars of Indian peoples’ loss of 

autonomy and their forced integration into a 

national economy, political system, and culture. 

The larger question of whether that 

integration would take place had already been 

answered.” 

Forced removal, Alvin Josephy suggested, 

amounted to what today might be termed 

“ethnic cleansing.” 

(I) Peopling Places. Movements and changes 

affecting human populations, including the 

composition of ethnic populations and communities 

and their patterns of living over time, along with the 

concept of homeland, profoundly impacted the 

course of Indian-white contact in the transMississippi West and bore significantly on arising 

conflicts and the major army campaigns to 

overpower tribal groups. 

As Donald L. Fixico and Alvin Josephy 

demonstrated, a traditional tribal homeland 

registered a people’s bonds with the earth that 

permeated their culture. It reflected a spiritual 

relationship with the land that white Americans 

could not comprehend. Economically motivated 

inroads by whites into Indian-occupied lands 

precipitated disruption of native societies by 

pushing tribes together on diminishing land bases 

and generating intertribal and intratribal rivalry 

and conflict. Introduction of the treaty process 

and its confusing interpretations among the 

tribes (or among parts of them) spelled further 

loss of control over their lives and affairs. 

Preemption and colonization by whites of Indian 

lands, with or without regard to the legal sanction 

of treaties, provoked tribal resistance to conquest 

and territorial incorporation. Despite efforts of 

either side to achieve understanding of each 

other’s cultures in the disputes that arose, as 

represented in the views of particular army 

officers and Indian leaders, accommodation 

seldom occurred and warfare was seldom 

averted. “Many officers observed Indian ways in 

an effort to understand and explain them,” noted 

Paul Fees, “[but] they also believed they were 

recording ways of life they assumed would soon 

disappear.” 

With the decline of Indian existence seemingly 

institutionally ordained, warfare evinced itself in 

various ways: the male-dominant campaigns of 

federal forces applying strategies and resources 
20 

Preemption was the view that white 

Americans had a right to the land . . . it was 

a right and duty to make it productive. It 

was the army’s duty to protect Americans 

exercising their right of preemption.

grounded in Euramerican tradition and 

technology, versus male-oriented tribal systems 

that fostered raiding, sought to protect 

noncombatants against army aggression, and 

initiated contact with troops rarely and usually 

only when superior numbers justified. Internal 

conflict often marked either side in the struggles. 

“Politics, jealousy, differences of 

strategy and overall policy all affected the white 

prosecution of campaigns,” stated Elliott West. 

“Division, often bitter, within the Indian 

leadership was at least as significant in how and 

how well they fought.” The army capitalized on 

such disputes, employing scouts from tribes that 

were enemies of those being prosecuted (or even 

from within those tribes), a technique that 

promoted tribal discord leading to the Indians’ 

fragmentation and defeat. In such manner the 

army exploited tribal independence and the 

inability of the diverse peoples to substantially 

unify their opposition. Warfare brought 

devastating consequences for Indian people. 

Beyond the human losses from fighting the 

soldiers were the destruction of material 

resources in homes and property. More severe 

was the trauma imposed on tribal infrastructure 

that reached deep into band and family units, 

ripping at cultural fabric to threaten tribal 

existence and accompanying militarily defeated 

people onto the reservation. Some resisted by 

fleeing their homelands to reach sanctuary in 

Canada; others fled reservations to return to their 

homelands. Facing overwhelming crises, still 

others found solace in spiritual and revivalist 

movements that were generally misinterpreted by 

government officials and led to further military 

confrontation. As Indians were ushered aside by 

the army campaigns, emigrants arrived to occupy 

areas where forts now guarded the hinterland, 

and former expeditionary routes became 

highways in the pattern of Euramerican 

commerce and settlement. Again, in the larger 

view elaborated by Elliott West, the manner in 

which all of this transpired was subordinate to 

the inevitability of its occurrence. 

(VII) Transforming the Environment. The 

army-Indian campaigns of the trans-Mississippi 

West, along with associated precursor activities, 

produced wide-ranging ramifications on the 

environment, effects that were apparent in a host of 

changes to the cultural landscape. This theme 

considers the relationship between people and their 

environment while examining the results of the 

campaigns in terms of the environmental 

consequences that accompanied them. 

Traditional Native American belief systems 

embodied their spiritual bond with the earth and 

its resources, and a conviction among many 

societies that members be born and die on the 

same soil. This view was contrary to 

Euramerican thought regarding land and land 

ownership and was one that most white men 

could not understand. Perceived geography 

among whites of the boundless plains and 

mountains encouraged the taking of largely 

uninhabited land from Indian peoples and 

promoted westward migration. As a result, 

explained Paul Fees, “the Indians were brought 

into proximity and conflict with each other in 

new ways as they were displaced by American 

settlement. The essentially migratory patterns of 

most plains tribes contributed to the belief that 

their place in the land was temporary and 

ultimately indefensible.” In the West, the bottom 

line became command of resources, and Indians 

found that the resources they needed to sustain 

themselves were diminishing rapidly as the 

outside invasion proceeded. 

Mining rushes became progenitors of conflict 

because they introduced massive numbers of 

people quickly into a region and resulted in 

abrupt landscape deterioration. “By their 

nature,” specified Elliott West, “isolated rushes 

led to an instant sprouting of institutions and, 

more important, economic supports such as 

agriculture and ranching, which in turn had their 

own impact on the region and brought more 

people. Nothing had a more wrenching 

environmental impact than mining frontiers.” As 

the tribes watched helplessly, their land bases 
21 

receded while game, timber, grass, and water 

resources declined. Not only was the destruction 

of the earth by mining inimical to the spiritual 

beliefs of tribesmen, it wrought physical 

destruction of the landscape as well. The 

invasion of tribal hunting territory by migrants 

bound for the gold fields or to find productive 

farm land, with their accompanying destruction 

of – and competition over – resources, made 

some tribes resort to fighting to stem their losses. 

The direct impacts of a mining strike, once 

focused, subsequently diffused to wreak broad 

consequences among neighboring lands and 

populations. The despoliation continued even in 

the aftermath of the army campaigns of the 1850s 

through 1880s. According to Sherry Smith, “once 

military campaigns ended and treaties, executive 

orders, and agreements shepherded Native 

Americans out of the way, enormous change 

followed, . . . not only for people but for the flora 

and fauna of the West. Nowhere are the changes 

more dramatic than the Great Plains. The 

decimation of wildlife – entire species in some 

cases – is a story most Americans know little 

about. The wholesale ‘agricultural assault’ . . . on 

the Southern Plains has stripped that region of its 

ecological vitality, not to mention its former 

considerable aesthetic appeal.” 

Aside from the environmental effects introduced 

by white conquest, immediate climatic conditions 

played an important role in the government 

campaigns. Military movements against villages 

immobilized by winter weather increased 

significantly as a strategy, especially in the 1860s 

and 1870s, and factored in finally removing the 

tribes from the principal arteries of white travel 

and settlement. These campaigns, along with 

those that took place during other seasons, often 

laid down roads and trails or resulted in the 

establishment of army posts that affected regional 

patterns of white and Indian occupation, 

presaging further environmental change in the 

West. 

(VIII) Changing Role of the United States in 

the World Community. The Indian campaigns 

with their related economic and political aspects 

affected changes in the status of the United States 

within the world community, while significantly 

changing the interaction between the tribes and the 

. . . a traditional tribal homeland 

registered a people’s bonds with the earth 

that permeated their culture. It reflected a 

spiritual relationship with the land that 

white Americans could not comprehend. 

federal government as well as the tribes’ 

interrelationships with each other. 

Clearly, the United States government, in its 

impetus to expand politically and economically, 

at various times saw Indian populations as both 

facilitators and deterrents to that objective. 

During the fur trade era, the tribes played a major 

role in assuring the success of the trade, thus 

factoring in the nation’s commercial relations 

with its European competitors. By the time of the 

overland migrations, however, the tribes were 

generally viewed as obstacles, deeming their 

removal necessary. Indeed, relocated tribes, as 

part of what became an impermanent 

“Permanent Indian Frontier,” served as buffers 

between the United States and its European 

adversaries in the West. The treaty system, in 

which the tribes were viewed as domestic rather 

than sovereign nations within the boundaries of 

the United States, afforded means of removing 

Indians from lands that whites wanted to use, 

while the Indian campaigns with their punitive 

elements, supported the treaties to complete the 

process of conquest, intimidation, and control. 

David Edmunds noted that “tribal flight to escape 

oppression also created conflict.” Some 

campaigns were aided by accords with Great 

Britain respecting Indians seeking refuge in 

Canada, and reciprocity agreements with 

Mexico, permitting troops of either country to 

cross into the other in “hot pursuit” of Indians. 

Further, there was an international element in the 

composition of the troops that campaigned 

against the Indians, as many were immigrants 

from Europe. Other foreign born accompanied 

the overland movements of the 1840s, 1850s, and 

1860s, participating in interactive cultural 

exchanges with other white emigrants, as well as 

with Indians, during and after the migrations. 
22 

The ability to move people and material 

over distances and difficult terrain was 

crucial to the course of every Indian war. 

As a result of the campaigns, many Indian tribes 

were changed forever, both from physical loss in 

numbers and internal political and social 

realignments. Donald Fixico pointed up the 

different views of war held by whites and certain 

tribes, as well as the results of conquest on the 

people. Native leaders were killed or imprisoned 

and tribal infrastructures were threatened. The 

tribes lost control of their affairs, and with 

dispossession came removal, sometimes to 

reservations far from native homelands. 

Intertribal and intratribal relationships suffered. 

The army often employed scouts of one or more 

tribes to seek out (and often to fight) their 

ancestral enemies (a practice that led to the 

experimental assimilation of Indian men into the 

army as full-fledged soldiers). Some whole tribes 

aligned with the federal government against 

former enemy tribes, and those that did not resist 

the white advance generally fared better in the 

wake of the army campaigns. Sometimes, parts of 

tribes were encouraged by whites to fight against 

their kin, causing longstanding internal 

disruption within groups so affected. 

Occasionally, tribal members pressed by the 

military forces found sanctuary in Canada or 

Mexico. Overall, however, the inability of the 

people to mount any effective united opposition, 

together with their lack of renewable resources, 

assured their submission. 

(II) Creating Social Institutions and 

Movements. The Army-Indian campaigns of the 

trans-Mississippi West and their aftermaths 

significantly encouraged the burgeoning of social 

reform movements that influenced institutions 

within white and Native American societies. At the 

same time, the traumatic results of the campaigns – 

particularly in the removal of the tribes onto 

reservations – promoted social and spiritual 

responses within native communities that had 

immediate and long-range implications for the 

people. 

As Paul Fees noted, the military campaigns 

against the tribes were conducted under “the 

scrutiny of a liberal press and a humanitarian 

public.” Church-oriented administration of 

Indian affairs during the 1870s influenced and 

coincided with the establishment of privately 

funded philanthropic organizations grounded in 

principles of equality and education whose 

primary objective was the integration of 

American Indians into the dominant society. 

Even as the campaigns occurred, these groups, 

which often included former high-ranking army 

officers in their memberships, aided by a liberal 

eastern press, sought to protect Indian people 

from concepts that forecasted the decline and 

inevitable disappearance of their cultures. 

Government attempts at Indian assimilation 

included ending traditional ceremonial practices, 

establishment of off-reservation schools for 

Indian children, and creation of judgeships and 

police forces modeled after those in white 

society, with the intention of replacing tribal 

institutions and promoting integration into the 

dominant order. 

The attack on native conventions that followed 

the army campaigns nurtured spiritual revivalist 

movements on many western reservations that 

resisted acculturation and sought to revert the 

people to their pre-reservation status and 

condition. The widely heralded Ghost Dance 

Movement was one example of this, and it fairly 

swept the tribes during the 1880s and 1890s, 

affording them hope during a period of great 

cultural stress. Among the recently subdued 

Lakotas its militaristic overtones distressed 

government agents and led to the tragic massacre 

at Wounded Knee. Among other groups it 

played out more subtly in the rise of new 

religions that helped transition the people to the 

new conditions. 

(VI) Expanding Science and Technology. As 

with other realms of human endeavor, science and 

technology had direct application to the armyIndian campaigns through processes of invention, 

experimentation, and application, ranging from 

advancements in material goods to evolving ideas 

of military strategy and tactical theory that directed 

profound change on factors of existence for Indian 

peoples and their communities. 
23 

Elliott West correctly observed that “the ability to 

move people and material over distances and 

difficult terrain was crucial to the course of every 

Indian war.” Mounted tribesmen generally 

conducted offensive operations during the 

summer when their mobility was at peak and they 

could move their homes and persons to keep one 

step ahead of pursuing troops. But this advantage 

was mostly seasonal; in the winter, as they 

occupied isolated villages and their ponies could 

not travel, they became vulnerable. Striking the 

tribes at this time of year became an army 

priority, and grand strategies were devised to this 

end. Later, a revolution in mobility occurred 

with expansion of railroads throughout the West, 

and this advantage permitted the rapid 

deployment of troops and supplies to practically 

every venue, assuring the final conquest of the 

tribes in a relatively short time span. American 

technological superiority was further seen in 

advancements in small arms and artillery and 

their ammunition, as well as in equipage 

components, all of which was brought to bear 

against designated “hostile” tribes in the West. 

Some of these improvements brought short-term 

benefits to the Indians, too, with rifles and other 

guns often replacing traditional weaponry; 

however, such dependence on this new 

technology became a problem because of the 

limited availability of ammunition and 

replacement parts to the people. Finally, 

technology brought changing patterns of land 

use, first with the development and use of mining 

apparatus, and later with inventions of barbed 

wire and farming equipment that, augmented by 

the railroads, transformed forever the use and 

appearance of the trans-Mississippi West. 

(III) Expressing Cultural Values. The Indian 

campaigns illustrated the extreme manifestation of 

culture conflict between American Indians and 

Euramericans. They also signified decisively the 

different values of the societies involved, exposing 

For at least a century now, the Indian 

Wars have provided fodder for 

Americans’ identity. 

the beliefs and lifeways that each embraced to 

support their existence, elements that to a large 

degree became diffused in American popular 

culture. 

In many respects, while the expression of 

traditional Indian cultural values endures today 

in art, literature, and the mass media, so does the 

history of the clash of arms between Indians and 

whites. All manner of media point up the cultural 

dichotomy and raise questions about the morality 

represented in the history of the campaigns, 

registering an interest that is strong and 

widespread. “Even as military conflicts were still 

playing themselves out in the West,” explains 

Sherry Smith, “artists, writers, and actors were 

transforming these events into cultural objects: 

Wild West Show performances, dime novels, 

lithographs which hung in taverns across 

America, paintings, sculptures, movies, and 

eventually television shows. For at least a century 

now, the Indian Wars have provided fodder for 

Americans’ identity. Of course, the nature of the 

tales has changed over time and the role of 

villains and heroes switched (with Indians, 

currently, holding the heroic roles more often 

than soldiers). What remains constant, however, 

is the usefulness of this history as vehicle to say 

something about who Americans were, and are.” 

And although much of this expression of popular 

culture encourages certain stereotyping of 

Indians, as Donald Fixico indicated, it 

additionally provides means for highlighting their 

ethnological distinctions, promoting their 

legitimacy as culturally diverse peoples. 
24 

Chapter 5: An Overview of U.S. Army/American Indian 

Campaigns in the Trans-Mississippi West, 1848-1886 

Utilizing information provided by the WHA mentors, NPS historian and project team 

member Jerome Greene prepared the following summary history of U.S. Army/ 

American Indian campaigns in the trans-Mississippi West. 

The principal Indian campaigns of the transMississippi West began during the period 

following the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 

1848 that ended the war between the United 

States and Mexico. It was then that the expansive 

nation first confronted many of the native 

peoples who inhabited that region stretching 

north-to-south between the modern Canadian 

and Mexican borders and east-to-west from the 

Mississippi to the Pacific Coast. For many of the 

tribes, it marked the beginning of sustained 

contact with Euramericans, one that would carry 

deadly implications for them through the next 

several decades. Although some of the tribes and 

their people had previously encountered 

Americans – along with British, Spanish, 

Russians, and French – in earlier various 

nationalistic and commercial ventures, no 

previous associations had presented the 

portentous future that ultimately would 

challenge their existence and change their 

destinies forever as subjects of American military 

conquest. For as the War with Mexico yielded 

new territorial gains for the United States, it 

inspired an almost immediate influx of thousands 

of Euramericans through migration west via the 

emigrant trails seeking California’s gold and 

Oregon’s abundant land. The lands leading west 

from the Missouri borderlands composed the 

Great Plains, Great Basin, and intermountain 

regions, vast tracts historically occupied by tribes 

of these indigenous peoples who had 

traditionally competed among themselves for 

area game and land resources. During the decade 

following the War with Mexico, columns of 

emigrants bound westward for settlement or 

commercial venture increasingly contested the 

native occupants for use of the land and its 

produce. The primary arteries of travel consisted 

of the Oregon Trail, the Mormon Trail, the 

California Trail, and the Santa Fe Trail, and all 

their collateral routes. The tribesmen, facing ever 

constricting hunting territory in their normal 

seasonal peregrations, confronted the additional 

complications of seeing their land exploited by 

whites, a factor that aggravated existing 

intertribal schisms and generated new ones. 

In an effort to assuage the Indians and to protect 

its citizens, the federal government in the 1850s 

and 1860s negotiated a number of treaties with 

the tribes, most of which attempted to remove 

the natives beyond the major lines of travel and 

settlement and to establish for them boundaries 

within which they might practice their age-old 

lifeways. The treaties promised rich benefits in 

goods and training, but in reality many of the 

agreements went unfulfilled. Moreover, the 

accords often created confusion and strife among 

people unfamiliar with written language and the 

legal concepts specified in the documents. The 

cultural misunderstandings inherent in many of 

the treaties ultimately produced conflict in the 

West. As Alvin Josephy noted, “the Indians did 

not want to give up their land, could not give up 

their land without pulling apart their relationship 

with the spiritual world, and the whites never 

understood that.” Further, some tribesmen did 

not comprehend the contents of agreements 

negotiated by their kin and refused to 

acknowledge any strictures. Just as troubling, 

whites often used the conventions as means to 

cheat the Indians and enrich themselves, to the 

detriment of both the tribesmen and citizens.
25 

Whereas some peoples conformed to the 

agreements out of perceived needs for 

government protection against tribal enemies, 

others spurned altogether their relationship with 

federal representatives and continued to resist 

the emigrants’ encroachment onto their hunting 

lands. The tide of emigration west, slowed or 

halted during the Civil War, renewed following 

that conflict and brought a resumption of Indian 

resistance to white inroads on the plains and in 

the mountains. The years between 1865 and 1886 

represented the period of major Indian-white 

contention in the trans-Mississippi West, an era 

that ended only with the forced removal to 

reservations of the Indians and the imprisonment 

or deaths of their leaders. 

Among the various tribes inhabiting the region 

before and following the Civil War, those with 

whom the United States variously treated and 

fought included the Lakotas (Teton Sioux), 

Dakotas (Santee Sioux), Northern Cheyennes, 

Southern Cheyennes, Northern Arapahos, 

Southern Arapahos, Blackfeet, Crows, 

Comanches, Kiowas, and Kiowa-Apaches, all of 

whom inhabited the prairies and plains; the 

Shoshonis, Nez Perces, Bannocks, and Paiutes, of 

the intermountain plateau; and the Chiricahua 

Apaches, Mescalero Apaches, and Navajos of the 

Southwest. Of these tribes, several dominated 

the warfare with the army over decades, notably 

the Lakotas, Northern Cheyennes, Southern 

Cheyennes, Comanches, and Kiowas whose 

relatively large populations and longstanding 

resistance in the area of the principal emigrant 

arteries through the plains made them frequent 

adversaries of the federal government. Some of 

these peoples had pursued their own 

expansionistic designs that were eventually 

superseded by those of white Americans. 

Intertribal warfare was rampant, and the 

presence of whites often aggravated age-old 

belligerencies. In the Southwest, Apache groups 

assumed a similar stance, while groups like the 

Modocs and Nez Perces occupied more remote 

localities, and their resistance to white 

domination, while vigorous, was of shorter 

duration and sometimes did not involve entire 

tribes. Further complicating matters, members of 

some of the tribes targeted by the army 

occasionally and variously served as scouts for 

the troops in pursuit of their own kin. 

The years between 1865 and 1886 

represented the period of major Indianwhite contention in the trans-Mississippi 

West, an era that ended only with the 

forced removal to reservations of the 

Indians and the imprisonment or deaths 

of their leaders. 

During the latter half of the nineteenth century – 

the period when most of the trans-Mississippi 

Indian campaigns occurred – the plains and 

mountain regions were administered by various 

geographically designated army divisions, 

departments, and districts. For example, during 

the 1870s a major component consisted of the 

Military Division of the Missouri, headquartered 

in Chicago, and included most of the Great Plains 

region. This vast jurisdiction, which stretched 

from the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains, 

was divided into several departments, including 

the Department of Dakota, headquartered in St. 

Paul, Minnesota; the Department of the Platte, 

headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska; and the 

Department of the Missouri, headquartered in St. 

Louis, Missouri. Subsidiary elements, for 

example within the Department of the Dakota, 

included the District of Western Montana, 

headquartered at Fort Shaw, Montana Territory, 

and the District of the Yellowstone, 

headquartered at Fort Keogh, Montana. Other 

departments had similar administrative 

subdivisions, as required. Generally, a major 

general (or rarely a lieutenant general) 

commanded a division, a brigadier general a 

department, and a colonel a district. Prominent 

officers who commanded military divisions at 

peak periods of the Indian campaigns included 

Lieutenant General Philip H. Sheridan (Division 

of the Missouri) and Major General Irvin 

McDowell (Division of the Pacific, 

headquartered at San Francisco). Those 

commanding departments included Brigadier 

General Alfred H. Terry (Department of 

Dakota), Brigadier General George Crook 

(Department of the Platte), Brigadier General 

John Pope (Department of the Missouri) – all 

within Sheridan’s division; and Brigadier General
26 

Campaigns were the army’s means of 

prosecuting the Indians for their 

perceived wrongs or for eliminating them 

as obstructions. 

Oliver O. Howard (Department of the Columbia 

within the Division of the Pacific). Colonel John 

Gibbon, for example, commanded the District of 

Western Montana within the Department of 

Dakota. While other officers commanded like 

jurisdictional components in other parts of the 

country, those cited above, or their predecessors 

and successors in similar positions, were 

administratively (and sometimes actively) 

involved in the campaigns that dominated the 

trans-Mississippi scene during the immediate 

pre- and post-Civil War periods. 

Campaigns were the army’s means of prosecuting 

the Indians for their perceived wrongs or for 

eliminating them as obstructions. An 1880s 

definition described war generally as a contest 

“carried on by force, either for defense or for 

revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the 

extension of commerce or acquisition of 

territory, or for obtaining and establishing the 

superiority and dominion of one [nation] over 

the other.” Within that context, a campaign 

represented “a connected series of military 

operations, forming a distinct stage or step in a 

war.” The term “campaign” is sometimes used 

interchangeably with “expedition,” which 

normally references a rapid, sudden movement 

of land forces for surprise assault purposes.6

 The 

campaigns were usually managed by field rank 

commanders, generally officers graded as majors, 

lieutenant colonels, and colonels, although 

sometimes one or more departmental 

commanders took the field to direct large, multi-

 

6

Thomas Wilhelm, A Military Dictionary and Gazetteer

(Philadelphia: L.R. Hamersly and Company, 1881), pp. 84, 

153, 626; Edward S. Farrow, Farrow’s Military 

Encyclopedia: A Dictionary of Military Knowledge (3 vols; 

New York: Military-Naval Publishing Company, 1895), I, 

594; John Quick, Dictionary of Weapons and Military 

Terms (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973), p. 

88. 

force undertakings against one or more large 

tribes of Indians. Occasionally, operations 

against small bodies of tribesmen were led by 

company-level officers of the rank of lieutenant 

or captain. 

On the other hand, the Indians generally viewed 

warfare in a different way. Operating within their 

particular cultural spheres, the tribesmen fought 

more or less individually in combat, presenting a 

guerilla style of surprise, ambush, and decoy that 

was anomalous to what the soldiers had been 

trained to expect. In open fighting far from 

village communities, warriors sometimes 

launched aggressive assaults much in the nature 

of intertribal warfare patterns, with individuals 

seeking war honors through effective use of 

terrain and speed to inflict sizable casualties on 

their enemies. 

Army campaigns normally departed from 

stations located on the periphery of an area 

inhabited by the targeted tribesmen, or from 

garrisons previously established within that area. 

Generally, the former place was where the 

campaigning force assembled and logistical 

matters were settled prior to taking the field. 

Campaigning forces comprised the companies of 

cavalry, infantry, and artillery (often acting as 

infantry) soldiers and their officers, a 

complement of Indian scouts, usually recruited 

from tribes that were enemies of those targeted, 

plus a selection of civilian guides, trailers, scouts, 

and drovers, together with the requisite number 

of contracted ox- or mule-drawn wagons 

carrying supplies for both men and beasts and 

driven by civilian teamsters. Beyond these 

animals, the military columns going afield 

included mules for pack trains, the hundreds of 

horses of the cavalry and Indian scouts, and often 

a herd of cattle for butchering en route. In sum, 

they proved sizable enterprises that were slow 

and cumbersome as they managed their courses, 

and were thus often in large measure crippled in 

effectiveness by their very composition. 

Sometimes portions of an expedition usually 

composed of cavalry functioned independently 

of the main column, affording some speed and 

mobility to compensate for the otherwise 

sluggardly advance; cavalry troops thus usually 

constituted the primary attacking force when the 

army engaged the Indians. The Indian groups 
27 

sought by the army during the campaigns 

generally avoided large-scale confrontations with 

the troops if at all possible. They occupied small 

villages or camps that were generally loosely 

segregated from each other for purposes of 

insuring sufficient game resources, but that often 

came together for security with knowledge of 

troops operating in the region. Nonetheless, they 

followed age-old traditions in their movements 

along well-worn trails to accustomed hunting 

and camping grounds. River and creek valleys 

provided known routes of travel while offering 

grass for the pony herds and game, water, and 

shelter for the people, especially during the cold 

winter months. More often than not, it was these 

traditional encampments that the soldiers sought 

out for attack. Although sometimes warriors far 

removed from their villages boldly initiated 

surprise attacks on the troops if their own 

superior numbers warranted, army-Indian 

engagements most commonly occurred 

following the soldiers’ discovery and surprise of a 

village, and usually in the morning when the 

occupants slept. These attacks, in which troops 

swept through on horseback driving out the 

villagers and capturing their homes and supplies, 

typified the Indian Wars. While today such 

tactics by the army are often condemned as 

immoral, resulting as they often did in death and 

injury to noncombatants, the army at the time 

justified them as practical and expedient because 

of the tribesmen’s elusiveness, and thereby 

necessary to the protection of white citizens. 

The trails that the various army columns 

employed in their prosecution of the Indians 

represented a diversity of characteristics that 

reflected existing geography as well as proximity 

of the commands to settled and unsettled areas of 

the country. As mentioned, major campaigns 

involving large numbers of troops usually 

originated from larger and more centralized 

installations located on the periphery of the 

region in which existed the tribes or villages that 

were to be the objectives of the movement. The 

trails leading from these posts into the hinterland 

often consisted of available wagon roads and/or 

long-used exploration or emigrant routes, 

themselves likely superimposed atop early Indian 

trails and even earlier game trails. Such routes 

were often used time and again for successive 

campaigns. Only when the troops gained the 

. . . tribesmen fought more or less 

individually in combat, presenting a 

guerilla style of surprise, ambush, and 

decoy that was anomalous to what the 

soldiers had been trained to expect. 

heart of the Indian country did departures from 

the main trail occur, as when scouting parties 

moved afield to locate the villages. For lengthy 

operations lasting many months, camps or 

cantonments were raised within zones of 

ongoing conflict from which smaller bodies of 

troops marched out after the tribesmen as events 

and conditions dictated. These campaigns often 

followed rivers and streams through the country, 

again often tracing age-old Indian and game 

trails. Thus, in most instances, the trails used by 

the soldiers on their campaigns at least partly 

conformed with paths and trails previously 

established through long-time use. Because of 

their continuous and successive use, the army’s 

campaign trails, as well as the known trails of 

Indian groups involved in the campaigns, 

represent historic routes of travel of varying 

significance based upon a given campaign’s 

national significance and the survival of historic 

remnants of its particular trails. Such routes also 

contain important potential for interpretation 

based upon their historical interest and 

significance, as well as upon public appreciation. 

By way of chronology, the government 

campaigns proceeded against the backdrop of 

much of the land acquisition following the War 

with Mexico and the impetus for American 

movement into the newly acquired territory. 

With the Mexican Cession came rapidly 

expanding American military authority, new to 

the many tribes occupying the region. Moreover, 

the Oregon Trail with its large numbers of 

emigrants brought western tribes into greater 

contact with Euramericans, engendering trade 

along with misunderstanding and violence. In 

response, government authorities negotiated 

treaties that defined areas of Indian habitation 

and that prescribed a tribe’s behavior towards 

white emigrants and settlers. On the Northern 
28 

The trails leading from the military posts 

often consisted of available wagon roads 

and/or long-used exploration or emigrant 

routes, themselves likely superimposed 

atop early Indian trails and even earlier 

game trails. Such routes were often used 

time and again for successive campaigns.

Plains, treaties concluded with the Teton 

Lakotas, Northern Cheyennes, Northern 

Arapahos, Crows, and other groups in the 1850s 

and 1860s attempted to segregate them from each 

other and to remove them from the principal 

avenues of white migration – notably the Oregon 

Trail – and areas of potential government 

economic interest. Conventions negotiated on 

the Southern Plains with the Southern 

Cheyennes, Southern Arapahos, Kiowas, and 

Comanches in 1861, 1863, and 1867, and with the 

tribes of the Southwest and Northwest had 

similar aims. A major flaw in the treaty process, 

evident in the Fort Laramie treaties of 1851 and 

1868, was the government’s failure to 

comprehend that Indian leaders who signed the 

treaties often lacked authority to represent 

kinsmen in other bands who rejected the 

instruments. Eventually, when government 

efforts failed to enforce compliance from 

tribesmen who were not parties to the accords, 

the army was called in to force their 

acquiescence. By and large, it was the 

establishment of reservations by the treaties, and 

the Indian’s resistance to settlement on them, 

that proved the paramount reason for the conflict 

with the army and for the military campaigns that 

followed. Ironically, the “Peace Policy” fostered 

during the administration of Ulysses S. Grant, 

wherein the government promoted involvement 

in Indian administration by religious 

organizations, clashed starkly with the brutality 

of the army’s forceful prosecution of the tribes, 

ensuring altogether vague prospects for peace on 

the frontier. 

The first serious confrontations on the Northern 

Plains occurred in the 1850s following a dispute 

near Fort Laramie in 1854 over some Lakotas' 

killing of an emigrant’s livestock. An ill-planned 

retaliation by a small body of soldiers from the 

post resulted in the Indians’ virtual destruction of 

the army detachment. In response, the 

government mounted a punitive campaign that 

resulted in Brigadier General William S. Harney 

with 600 dragoons, infantry, and artillery 

destroying a Lakota village on Blue Water Creek, 

Nebraska, near the Oregon Trail, on September 

3, 1855. Harney not only dealt the tribesmen 

severe human and material losses, but his attack 

set a tone of mutual enmity and distrust that came 

to characterize government-Lakota-Cheyenne 

relations for the balance of the nineteenth 

century. 

Following Harney’s campaign, relations with the 

Cheyennes worsened. On the Southern Plains, 

troops responding to reported attacks on 

emigrants struck a camp along the Platte River in 

Nebraska and killed ten people. And in July 1857, 

soldiers under Colonel Edwin V. Sumner 

encountered 300 Cheyenne warriors along the 

Solomon River in Kansas and opened a cavalry 

attack that scattered them, inflicting few 

casualties but encouraging retaliatory strikes in 

the future. The repercussions of the Harney and 

Sumner campaigns spread throughout the plains 

and foretold years of conflict between the army 

and the Lakotas and Cheyennes. While many 

troops headed east to fight in the Civil War, 

others – many of them of state or volunteer 

regiments – remained to garrison the posts in the 

West. 

As Union and Confederate armies contested 

fields through Virginia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, 

and Georgia, two signal events took place in the 

West that presaged a continuation of volatile 

Indian-white affairs in that region. In Minnesota, 

white encroachment on Indian lands, together 

with the defrauding of the Santee, or Eastern, 

Sioux of their annuities, brought on an uprising 

against settlers in August 1862. More than 800 

whites died in attacks led by Little Crow that 

lasted more than a month before state troops 

under Colonel Henry H. Sibley managed to 

defeat the tribesmen. Meantime, Santees 

escaping west forced new expeditions to curb 

retaliation and protect citizens. One led by Sibley 

succeeded in finding and defeating bands of 

those people and Yanktonais in the summer of 
29 

1863, while another headed by Brigadier General 

Alfred Sully moved to attack a large assembly of 

Santees at Whitestone Hill, Dakota, killing as 

many as 300 warriors and capturing 250 

noncombatants while sustaining but minimal 

casualties. Both campaigns succeeded in 

punishing and further antagonizing the Indians; 

Sully’s had the effect of carrying the warfare 

westward to the region of the Yellowstone River 

and inflaming the tribesmen in that region. The 

Minnesota-Dakota Sioux war fueled the fears of 

whites throughout the trans-Mississippi frontier 

and helped foster another momentous incident, 

the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, perpetuated by 

U.S. volunteer troops from Colorado against a 

village of Southern Cheyennes and Arapahos 

under the Cheyenne peace chief, Black Kettle. 

Responding to the demands of settlers, these 

troops, operating under Colonel John M. 

Chivington, assaulted a supposedly protected 

encampment and killed at least 160 people, then 

defiled their remains and destroyed their 

property. Although Sand Creek was quickly 

recognized as a national disgrace, it nonetheless 

mobilized the plains tribes and sent Sioux and 

Cheyenne warriors on an avenging rampage in 

Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Nebraska that 

further exacerbated the tone of intolerance 

between Indians and whites. The Sand Creek 

massacre, noted Paul Fees, “became a central 

story to modern Cheyenne culture as well as a 

symbol of American injustice and brutality 

toward Indian people.” 

Intent on punishing the tribes, Brigadier General 

Patrick E. Connor headed a multi-columned 

movement into northern Wyoming and southern 

Montana in 1865. While Connor’s command 

found and destroyed a large Arapaho village 

under Chief Black Bear on Tongue River, and 

another column battled Sioux along the Powder 

River, the campaign in large measure failed 

because of deteriorating weather and logistical 

problems. According to Fees, Connor’s “feckless 

campaign left an impression of impotence which 

emboldened the Indians . . . in subsequent years.” 

Treaties negotiated with the Lakotas during the 

fall of 1865 supposedly assured the tribesmen’s 

withdrawal from the overland routes, but that 

provision eventually went unheeded. 

Correspondingly, the emigrant presence on the 

Northern Plains increased in the 1860s with 

The Bozeman Trail conflict, reasoned 

Elliott West, “grew directly out of changes 

brought by a mining discovery . . . [and] 

resonates with the lessons Indians had 

learned about environmental changes 

brought by overland migration.” 

establishment of the Bozeman Trail leading from 

the Oregon Trail northwest to the gold fields of 

southwestern Montana Territory. When Lakotas 

and Cheyennes again resisted the influx of 

travelers through their hunting grounds, the 

government raised and occupied army posts 

along the Bozeman in Wyoming (then part of 

Dakota Territory) and Montana, inciting major 

conflict with the tribes. Following several wellpublicized engagements – including the 

annihilation by Sioux and Cheyennes of Captain 

William J. Fetterman and his command near Fort 

Phil Kearny, Wyoming – the government 

abandoned the region altogether, ending the socalled Red Cloud War and conceding, at least 

momentarily, native suzerainty there. 

(Coincidentally, access to the gold fields had by 

that time shifted west with expansion of the 

Union Pacific Railroad.) The treaty of 1868 

designated hunting territory and established for 

the Lakotas and their allies the Great Sioux 

Reservation in western Dakota Territory, on 

which some – though not all – tribesmen settled, 

thereby laying the seeds for future confrontations 

with the army. The Bozeman Trail conflict, 

reasoned Elliott West, “grew directly out of 

changes brought by a mining discovery . . . [and] 

resonates with the lessons Indians had learned 

about environmental changes brought by 

overland migration.” 

Scattered incidents affecting several tribes took 

place in the early 1870s. None was more 

damaging to the Piegan tribe than the attack of 

Major Eugene Baker on a village along the Marias 

River in 1870, in which more than 170 Indians 

died. The assault delivered on the Piegans for 

purported wrongs against white settlers in 

northwestern Montana proved, in fact, to be a 

massacre. It inflamed public opinion among 
30 

The Great Sioux War did much to define 

the image of Indian-white warfare in 

American popular culture. 

humanitarians and provoked considerable 

debate in its evident contrast to the “Peace 

Policy.” But the major eruption of fighting took 

place with the Lakotas and Northern Cheyennes 

following the 1874 discovery of gold on part of 

the Great Sioux Reservation. When the 

nontreaty Indians spurned government 

directions to move onto the new reservation and 

others refused to yield the gold-rich Black Hills 

to federal negotiators, warfare erupted. 

Over the course of 20 months in 1876 and 1877, 

the so-called Great Sioux War triggered 13 major 

contests and several smaller ones as troops and 

Indians ranged over a tract encompassing some 

120,000 square miles in what is now Montana, 

Wyoming, South Dakota, and Nebraska. 

Principal fighting occurred at Powder River 

(March 1876), Rosebud Creek (June 1876), Little 

Big Horn River (June 1876), Slim Buttes 

(September 1876), Cedar Creek (October 1876), 

Red Fork of Powder River (November 1876) and 

at Wolf Mountains (January 1877). That at the 

Little Big Horn, in which Lieutenant Colonel 

George A. Custer’s Seventh Cavalry command 

fell before a Sioux-Cheyenne coalition under 

Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Gall, and Two Moon, 

climaxed the fighting and influenced vigorous 

government efforts to subjugate the tribes and 

end the warfare. Subsequent campaigning by 

Colonel Nelson A. Miles in the YellowstoneMissouri country of Montana and by Brigadier 

General George Crook in the Powder River 

region of Wyoming promoted surrenders at 

Indian agencies in Dakota and Nebraska of the 

non-reservation Lakotas and the Northern 

Cheyennes, thereby concluding the country’s 

largest Indian war. This conflict, and particularly 

the epic Little Big Horn engagement, captured 

public attention as most previous army-Indian 

campaigns had not, with most of its actions 

occurring during the centennial year of American 

independence. As R. David Edmunds observed, 

the Great Sioux War “did much to define the 

image of Indian-white warfare in American 

popular culture.” Near the end of the fighting in 

1877, Sitting Bull and his followers took refuge in 

Canada; when Sitting Bull returned four years 

later his surrender effectually symbolized the end 

of non-reservation life for the Plains Indians. 

With the Lakotas and Northern Cheyennes 

removed from the Yellowstone and upper 

Missouri country, subsequent army campaigning 

focused on clean-up activities, on isolated 

incidents involving the tribes remaining on 

reservations in the region, and on the effects of 

the revivalist movements that pervaded some 

tribal societies as they sought to return to their 

old way of life. (Some events were related to 

occurrences in the Southern and Central Plains 

regions, as discussed below.) One of the latter 

consisted of an incident among the Crows in 1887 

in which troops from nearby Fort Custer put 

down a perceived disturbance headed by a 

collaborator named Wraps-Up-His-Tail (Sword 

Bearer), who died in the affray. But the primary 

cultural renewal activity manifested itself among 

the Lakotas on the remaining tracts of the nowdivided Sioux reservation. Misunderstood by 

government agents who regarded it as a hostile 

demonstration, the ghost dance practiced by the 

desperate tribesmen promised spiritual and 

cultural renewal. Its promulgation, and the 

government’s reaction against it, led directly to 

the massacre at Wounded Knee Creek, South 

Dakota, on December 29, 1890, perpetrated by 

troops sent to restore order. More than 250 

Lakota men, women, and children died in the 

carnage that largely ended the Indian Wars and 

helped symbolize the closing of the American 

frontier. But compared to the campaigns of the 

preceding years, this event, along with similar 

operations against Indians now confined within 

established reservations, more properly 

comprised a civil disturbance. 

In many respects, events on the Southern Plains 

mirrored those happening in the north between 

the 1860s and 1890s. For decades, Indians in that 

region had been exposed to soldiers escorting 

trade caravans along the Santa Fe Trail. During 

the 1830s and 1840s, they had further endured the 

forced juxtopositioning among or near them of 

tribes removed there from the East by the 

government. In addition, the annexation of 
31 

Texas in 1845 along with the Mexican Cession 

three years later broadened the federal presence 

in the region, promoting disputes with many 

tribes that carried well into the Civil War years. 

In Texas, where warfare between settlers and 

Comanches had existed for decades, by the late 

1850s federal troops joined Texas rangers and 

militia units in neutralizing the raiding proclivities 

of those people. Much as in the north, on the 

Southern Plains a treaty (Fort Atkinson, Kansas, 

1853) sought to keep the Kiowas, Comanches, and 

Kiowa-Apaches from marauding along the 

overland trails. Yet following the Sand Creek 

Massacre of 1864, combustible conditions existed 

from Texas to Kansas and from Missouri to 

Colorado, many of them previously fueled by 

gold fever among whites en route to California 

and Colorado Territory, as well as by social and 

environmental disruptions among the tribes 

posed by the later construction of 

transcontinental railroads through the region. 

Already troubled relations with the Southern 

Cheyennes, Southern Arapahos, Kiowas, and 

Comanches further deteriorated in the violent 

aftermath of Sand Creek. Treaties in 1865 and 

1867, at the Little Arkansas, Kansas, and at 

Medicine Lodge, Kansas, respectively, along with 

a congressional inquiry on the condition of the 

tribes did little to stem the hostilities, and in the 

latter year the presence of troops in that state 

during Major General Winfield S. Hancock’s 

summer campaign inflamed passions on both 

sides. 

In 1868, government attempts to protect white 

settlers following attacks by the Cheyennes 

presaged a winter campaign devised by General 

Sheridan that resulted in Custer’s attack on Black 

Kettle’s Cheyennes along the Washita River in 

the Indian Territory during which that chief was 

killed. This was followed by prosecution and 

destruction of the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers at 

Summit Springs, Colorado Territory, and by 

federal intimidation of camps of Arapahos, 

Kiowas, and Comanches in the Indian Territory 

and Texas, including the arrest of Kiowa leaders 

like Satanta and Big Tree following uncontrolled 

raiding and killing of settlers that ended with the 

placement of the tribes on reservations. Within 

several years, however, facing starvation from 

inadequate government provisions while 

witnessing the decimation of the buffalo herds by 

Influenced by public opinion, the 

government eventually allowed Morning 

Star’s people to join Little Wolf’s followers 

on a reservation established for them in 

Montana. The attempt of Morning Star’s 

people to escape from Fort Robinson, 

together with other events, signified the 

failure of the government’s forced 

removal policy, as well as the leadership 

under desperate conditions of men like 

Morning Star and Little Wolf. 

white hide hunters, the tribesmen generally 

retaliated against reservation life in the Red River 

War of 1874-75. Columns under Colonels Miles 

and Ranald S. Mackenzie assaulted several key 

villages in the Texas panhandle, notably at 

McClellan Creek and Palo Duro Canyon, killing 

tribesmen and destroying their property before 

the Kiowas, Comanches, Cheyennes, and 

Arapahos succumbed once more to reservation 

existence. 

In 1878, following their own incarceration in the 

Indian Territory in the aftermath of the Great 

Sioux War, many of the Northern Cheyennes, 

beset with disease and starvation, started for their 

Montana homeland under Chiefs Morning Star 

(Dull Knife) and Little Wolf. En route through 

Kansas, the Indians combatted troops and raided 

white settlements. In Nebraska, the soldiers 

forced the surrender of the group under 

Morning Star, while those with Little Wolf 

managed to elude the pursuit and eventually 

continued north. Finally incarcerated without 

food in a heatless barrack at Fort Robinson 

pending their return south, Morning Star’s 

people broke out of their prison in January 

1879and were pursued over two weeks by 

soldiers. Many died in the conflict, while those 

who survived turned themselves in at the post. 

Influenced by public opinion, the government 

eventually allowed these people to join Little 

Wolf’s followers on a reservation established for 

them in Montana. This event, with others, 

signified the failure of the government’s forced 

removal policy, as well as the leadership under 
32 

Some of the most rigorous campaigning 

for troops and Indians in the transMississippi West took place in the 

Southwest from the 1850s into the 1880s . . . 

desperate conditions of men like Morning Star 

and Little Wolf. 

During the 1850s-70s, army campaigning 

occurred in the Pacific Northwest as the 

government sought to isolate the tribes 

sufficiently to permit the exploitation of regional 

resources. Previously, extended missionary 

efforts had met sharp rebuke following the 

Cayuse murders at Marcus Whitman’s mission 

on the Walla Walla River, an event that 

precipitated lengthy campaigns by territorial and 

federal forces. Ultimately, proposed treaties 

concluded in 1855 proved distasteful, and the 

Yakimas, Cayuses, Walla Wallas, and other 

groups arose against the Americans, bringing 

regular and militia troops into protracted frays in 

1856 and 1858. Farther south, mounting 

government antagonism toward the Southern 

Shoshonis resulted in the attack on, and massacre 

of, one of their villages at Bear River, Idaho 

Territory, in January 1863, by state forces under 

command of then-Colonel Patrick E. Connor. 

During the 1860s and 1870s, continued 

settlement, gold rushes, and further treaties 

ultimately affected the Nez Perces of eastern 

Oregon and central Idaho Territory. Efforts to 

remove nontreaty elements of that tribe brought 

their resistance, and between June and October 

1877, a consortium of Nez Perce bands headed by 

Looking Glass, Joseph, and others led a pursuing 

column under Brigadier General Oliver O. 

Howard through Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana 

territories in a movement punctuated by multiple 

battles and skirmishes. Attempting to reach 

sanctuary in Canada, most of the Nez Perces 

instead fought and surrendered to Colonel 

Miles’s Yellowstone Command near northern 

Montana’s Bear’s Paw Mountains. “In many 

ways,” observed Edmunds, “the flight of Chief 

Joseph and the Nez Perces toward Canada 

reinforced the image of the ‘vanishing red man,’ a 

people staging a last-gasp effort to avoid being 

controlled by the federal government at the end 

of the Northern Plains Indian Wars.” Facing 

pressures similar to those that confronted the 

Nez Perces, groups of Bannock Indians in 1878 

killed several whites and instigated a war that 

ultimately ranged through parts of Idaho, 

Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, while a 

more localized contest involving a band of 

displaced Paiutes occurred the following year. 

And in 1879 bands of Ute Indians in Colorado 

Territory who detested their agency conditions 

forced deadly encounters in the so-called 

“Meeker Massacre” and the siege of cavalry 

soldiers at Milk River, an engagement resolved 

only with the arrival of reinforcement troops 

from Wyoming. 

Conditions regarding the Indians in most of 

California during the last half of the nineteenth 

century were such as to require little attention of 

the regular army. There, the concentrated 

population that numbered as many as 260,000 in 

1800 had, under Spanish rule, been reduced to 

less than half that figure by mid-century. Most of 

these people existed in tiny, loosely organized 

enclaves that subsisted on small game and 

gathered seeds and roots. Gold-hungry 

Euramericans who swarmed into California 

following the Mexican War quickly advantaged 

themselves of these people, conducting mass 

killings with impunity as they seized control of 

the land and resources. Thousands more natives 

succumbed to introduced diseases in what 

amounted to a state-sponsored campaign of 

extermination; between 1850 and 1880 the 

number of Indians in California declined from 

100,000 to 16,000. 

Only in northern California and southern 

Oregon were the people of sufficient numbers to 

offer resistance, and during the late 1850s a body 

of tribesmen collectively known as the Rogue 

River Indians, who inhabited the mountains of 

southern Oregon, staged a nine-month-long 

resistance to the whites’ spoliation of their 

country. Volunteer troops and regulars 

combined to finally force the Indians’ surrender 

in July 1856, following which most of the 

tribesmen removed to reservations. Similar 

operations in 1867-68 headed by Lieutenant 

Colonel George Crook ended resistance by the 
33 

Paiutes in southern Oregon and California, but 

defiance over treaty agreements persisted among 

the small but tough Modoc tribe, leading to a fullfledged military operation against them. The 

Modoc War of 1873-74 took place mostly in the 

rugged lava country of northern California, 

affording the army a necessity of northern 

maneuvering over some of the roughest terrain 

imaginable. The Indians killed numerous settlers, 

and several encounters proceeded before the 

command hierarchy attempted to negotiate with 

the tribesmen, an attempt that resulted in the 

death of Major General Edward S. Canby by 

Captain Jack, one of the Indian leaders. The war 

dragged on as the Modocs withdrew time and 

again into the fastness of the lava beds, emerging 

time and again to visit casualties upon the troops. 

Finally, pressured by their own factionalism as 

well as by cavalry reinforcements, some of the 

tribesmen yielded and joined in the army pursuit 

of their kinsmen under Captain Jack, who 

likewise ran out of hiding places. Under sentence 

of a military commission, several of the leaders 

were hanged, while surviving Modocs were 

removed to the Indian Territory. 

Some of the most rigorous campaigning for 

troops and Indians in the trans-Mississippi West 

took place in the Southwest from the 1850s into 

the 1880s where the principal native groups 

meeting the Euramerican advance composed 

Navajos and several tribes of Apaches. 

Campaigns against the Jicarillas were conducted 

by Lieutenant Colonel Philip St. George Cooke in 

the 1850s that virtually subordinated those 

people. During the Civil War, columns of state 

troops commanded by Colonels James H. 

Carleton and Kit Carson confronted Mescalero 

Apaches and Navajos with a “scorched earth” 

campaign, capturing their livestock, destroying 

their crops, and incarcerating many at Bosque 

Redondo in eastern New Mexico, precipitating 

for most of the Navajos their tragic “Long Walk” 

to that place in 1864. “Carson’s campaign,” 

suggested Sherry L. Smith, “deserves less 

attention than its aftermath, particularly the Long 

Walk to Bosque Redondo Reservation in eastern 

New Mexico, an early experiment in reservation 

policy.” 

Meanwhile, incidents like the Bascom Affair of 

1861, in which an army lieutenant hanged relatives 

In sum, the warfare accommodated the 

expansionist designs of white Americans 

at the expense of American Indians, finally 

restricting them on reservations where 

they labored, with great persistence, to 

live and to preserve their cultures. 

of the Chiricahua leader, Cochise, brought a 

souring of Apache-government relations that 

persisted for decades. And the Camp Grant 

Massacre, wherein mostly white citizens 

murdered Aravaipa and Pinal Apaches in 1871, 

inspired further distrust between settlers and 

Indians in the Southwest. Subsequent military 

campaigns in the corrugated scapes of Texas, 

New Mexico, and Arizona during the 1870s and 

1880s subjugated Apache groups intent on raiding 

settlements in both the United States and 

Mexico. Led by men like Victorio, Cochise, and 

Mangas Coloradas, the tribesmen resisted the 

affront to their homes and lifeways until they, 

too, dwindled away in numbers and intensity 

before the inexorable resources of the army. 

Principal drives against the Apaches included the 

Tonto Basin campaign of 1872-73 and the 

expedition into Mexico’s Sierra Madre in 1883. 

The last major campaigns involved the army’s 

prosecution of the Chiricahua leader, Geronimo, 

in 1885-86. Movements under Generals Crook 

and Miles, in which Apache scouts helped locate 

and fight their kinsmen, presently succeeded in 

isolating the tribesmen and ending the warfare. 

Many of the Apaches – including the scouts – 

were sent to Florida and Alabama as prisoners of 

war, insurance for the maintenance of white 

supremacy in the Southwest. Elliott West termed 

the Apache Wars “a grinding quarter-century of 

intermittent warfare that degenerated at times 

into something like a race war. . . . The basic 

conflict here was ongoing and nasty and . . . 

ultimately Indians lost their independence 

because they lost control of the wherewithal of 

living.” 

The immediate result of the army campaigns 

against the tribes in the trans-Mississippi West 

was the opening of their homelands and hunting 
34 

Many Indian people today view their 

encounters with the army as turning 

points in their respective tribal histories 

and cultures . . . 

grounds to mining, white settlement, and other 

forms of commercial exploitation beneficial to 

the United States government and its citizens. 

In sum, the warfare accommodated the 

expansionist designs of white Americans at the 

expense of American Indians, finally restricting 

them on reservations where they labored, with 

great persistence, to live and to preserve their 

cultures. The sites where many Indians and 

soldiers gave up their lives during the 1850s, 1860s, 

1870s, and 1880s must be viewed as pockets of the 

same forces of Manifest Destiny that imbued 

white Americans throughout most of the 

nineteenth century. Many Indian people today 

view their encounters with the army as turning 

points in their respective tribal histories and 

cultures, and acknowledge the sites of those 

encounters as places that while signifying their 

people’s courage and sacrifices nonetheless 

denote the forcible confiscation of their 

freedoms and lifeways. As such, the sites of that 

warfare, as well as of the trails that ushered armed 

forces to and from them, warrant identification 

and preservation as part of United States history 

and the histories of the affected tribal societies. 

Taken together, these resources exemplify the 

ultimate form of culture conflict, an appreciation 

for which must never be lost. 
35 

Chapter 6: WHA Mentors’ Recommendations for the Most 

Significant Military Campaigns 

As outlined in the Scope of Work, the WHA mentors were asked to identify the most 

significant military campaigns associated with the history of the Indian Wars in the 

West. Following is a summary of their recommendations. 

All of the military campaigns involving soldiers 

and American Indians in the trans-Mississippi 

West were significant, and especially so for the 

tribes who were targeted by the various army 

commands. For the Indians, the campaigns 

usually resulted in the loss of lives, relocation, 

and disruption of traditional lifeways. For the 

federal government, the campaigns provided 

means to an end – punitive exercises directed 

against native peoples to protect white citizens 

while destroying Indian resistance and/or to 

effect the removal of the tribes from lands that 

whites wanted to possess, often regardless of 

treaty agreements. The mentors of the Western 

History Association were invited to recommend 

the military campaigns that they believed to be 

significant, and beyond their almost universal 

endorsement of the Great Sioux War of 1876-

1877, there appeared to be no clear consensus as 

to other campaigns. (In the discussions, the term 

“war” and “campaign” were often used 

interchangeably, although formally “war” 

encompasses the multitude of operations and 

activities involved in a total conflict, while 

“campaign” or “expedition” generally represents 

an aspect of the procedures and maneuvers, 

including battles, through which a “war” is 

prosecuted.) 

Besides the Great Sioux War, which in fact 

incorporated a number of wide-ranging 

campaigns (including, e.g., the Big Horn 

Campaign, the Big Horn and Yellowstone 

Expedition, the Powder River Expedition) 

throughout the Northern Plains over a 20-month 

period, and which resulted in the removal to the 

reservation of the large Lakota population as well 

as of the Northern Cheyennes, the mentors 

designated three other conflicts or “wars” that 

they believed preeminently significant as 

representing the tenor of Indian-white conflict in 

the trans-Mississippi West. Two of these 

represented clustering of several conflicts, i.e., 

the Apache wars of the 1860s through the 1880s

(including, for example, the Tonto Basin 

Campaign of 1872-1873 and the Geronimo 

Campaign of 1885-1886), and the warfare of the 

Central Plains that spanned 1864 through 1869

(and included the Sand Creek Massacre, 

Hancock’s Expedition of 1867, the Washita 

Campaign of 1868, the Republican River 

Campaign of 1869, and all relevant militaryIndian encounters in between) as it pertained to 

such tribes as the Lakotas, Cheyennes, Kiowas, 

and Comanches. Finally, the Red River War of 

1874-75, affecting several large tribes on the 

Southern Plains (but which also included a 

number of campaign-style military maneuvers) 

was considered significant by the mentors. All of 

these wars, which involved numerous military 

exercises and clashes between soldiers and 

tribesmen, typified the activities involved in other 

Indian-white conflicts, as well. In addition, these 

four broad conflicts affected large numbers of 

Indians from the Northern Plains to the Southern 

Plains to the desert Southwest, thereby 

symbolically representing what happened to 

these and other tribes during the course of the 

western Indian Wars. 

Several other Indian-white conflicts were 

variously cited as contenders for consideration of 

significance, but they represented more 

individual than the united recommendations of 

the mentors. For the record, these were the Nez 

Perce War of 1877, the Red Cloud War of 1866-
36 

1868 (which might also be considered as part of a 

broader conflict involving the Lakotas beginning 

in the 1850s and including the Great Sioux War of 

1876-1877 and the Wounded Knee Massacre of 

1890), the Modoc War of 1872-1873, the Navajo 

War of 1863-1864 (especially the Long Walk phase 

of the campaigning), the Santee Sioux Uprising of 

1862-1864 in Minnesota and Dakota (including 

the extended western campaigns of Generals 

Sibley and Sully in 1863 and 1864), the 

Atkinson/O’Fallon Upper Missouri River 

Campaign of 1825, and the Powder River 

Campaign of 1865. Of these, the Nez Perce War 

possessed considerable consensus in its 

significance; however, the linear route of the 

Indians as they fled their homeland ultimately 

seeking sanctuary in Canada, and along which 

they were pursued by several army commands, is 

presently designated as a National Historic Trail, 

and the sites of their historic encounters with 

U.S. troops form part of the interpretive program 

of Nez Perce National Historical Park and its 

collateral units in Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. 

Similarly, the events of the Modoc War comprise 

an interpretive element of Lava Beds National 

Monument in California. To recapitulate, the 

campaigns associated with army-Indian combat 

in the trans-Mississippi region, as recommended 

for NPS consideration by the WHA mentors and 

ranked in order of preference, are as follows: 

1. Great Sioux War, 1876-1877 

2. Apache Wars, 1861-1886 

3. Central Plains Warfare, 1864-1869 

4. Red River War, 1874-1875 

5. Nez Perce War, 1877 

6. Minnesota Sioux War, 1862-1865 

7. Navajo Campaign and Long Walk, 1863-68 

8. Red Cloud War, 1866-1868 

9. Modoc War, 1872-1873 

10. Atkinson/O’Fallon Upper Missouri River 

Campaign, 1825 

11. Powder River Campaign, 1865
37 

Chapter 7: WHA Mentors’ Recommendations for the Most 

Significant Military Trails 

After identifying the most important themes and military campaigns associated with 

the Indian Wars in the West, the WHA mentors were then asked to list, in priority 

order, the most important military campaign trails. Summarized below, these 

recommendations are also discussed in the following chapters, including a discussion as 

to whether or not these trails meet specific criteria of the National Historic Landmarks 

program and the National Trails System Act. 

For many of the mentors, the question of which 

trails associated with the Indian Wars were the 

most significant proved to be the most 

challenging part of the Clash of Cultures trails 

project. Specifically, the mentors were asked to 

address the significance of the trails of the 

campaigns, not the campaigns themselves. As 

discussed earlier, the National Trails System Act 

defines a “historic trail” as a “trail or route 

established by historic use and must be 

historically significant as a result of that use.” 

National Historic Trails are defined as “extended 

trails which follow as closely as possible and 

practicable the original trails or routes of travel of 

national historic significance.” Hence, in this 

phase of the project, the WHA mentors were 

asked to evaluate whether the historic use of the 

trail was nationally significant, not the 

significance of the sites connected by the trail. 

As noted in the WHA mentors’ scope of work for 

the “Clash of Cultures” project, while the most 

important trails are likely to be associated with 

the most important campaigns, that may not 

always be the case. As the National Park Service 

and Western History Association project team 

discussed in the early phases of the project, it was 

possible that an individual trail might have a 

significance that is greater than that of the larger 

campaign with which it was associated. 

The significance of the trails, as well as their 

overall importance of use in a campaign, was 

generally more difficult to determine than the 

relative significance of the campaigns that they 

represent. The trails that the mentors discussed 

in their evaluation, included (in no particular 

order): the Bozeman Trail, the Red River War 

Trails (including the campaign trails of Davidson, 

Miles, Mackenzie, the Palo Duro campaign trail, 

and the routes taken by the Comanches); the Nez 

Perce Trail; the Tonto Basin campaign trails; 

Carr’s Republican River campaign trail; the trails 

associated with Sheridan’s southern plains winter 

campaign (including the trail to Washita); the 

Navajo Long Walk; Crook’s trail to Fort Apache; 

the Old Spanish Trail; the South Platte Trail; Big 

Foot’s Trail to Wounded Knee; Mullan Road 

(Walla Walla to Fort Benton); the trail from Santa 

Fe to El Paso; the trail from Fort Smith to Santa 

Fe; the trail from El Paso to Los Angeles; the 

Butterfield Mail Route; the Montana to Salt Lake 

trail; the trail from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles; 

the Whoop-Up Trail; the Gila River Trail; Fisk’s 

Gold Seeker Routes; the Smoky Hill Trail; the 

Hopi, Zuni, and Pueblo Trails; the Comanche 

Trail to Mexico; Custer’s Trail through the Black 

Hills (1874); the trail of Crazy Horse from Little 

Big Horn to surrender; all of the primary 

campaign trails associated with the Great Sioux 

War; the Clearwater River Trail to Spokane; the 

Apache Trail from Arizona to Mexico; the 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail; and the 

Chisholm Trail. 

Adding to the difficulty of evaluating the trails is 

that, with the exception of previously designated 

trails like that for the route of the army and 

Indians during the Nez Perce War, many of their 
38 

precise locations and routes have not yet been 

concluded with certainty. Nonetheless, a 

number of trails or portions of trails that conform 

to parts of several campaigns were recognized 

and recommended by the mentors as likely 

possessing significant on-ground remnant 

features of possible interpretive value in 

conveying the history of the Indian Wars to the 

American public. These represent elements of 

the Navajo War of 1863-1864; the Central Plains 

warfare of the 1860s involving the Southern 

Cheyennes, Southern Arapahos, Kiowas, and 

Comanches; the Sioux wars of the 1860s and 

1870s, involving the Lakotas and Northern 

Cheyennes; the Nez Perce War; and the 

Northern Cheyenne campaign of 1878-79. 

Thus, after evaluating all of the trails, the WHA 

mentors overwhelmingly concurred that six of 

them are nationally significant and reflect the 

major themes associated with the history of U.S. 

Army/American Indian conflict in the West. 

These are: 

The Bozeman Trail 

The Long Walk

The Nez Perce Trail 

The Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail 

The Smoky Hill Trail 

The Trails of the Great Sioux War

In terms of ranking, the Bozeman Trail ranked at 

the top of the list. However, the difference in the 

rankings of these six trails was very slight, and the 

mentors essentially found them to be of equal 

significance. 

Each of these trails, except for the Nez Perce 

Trail, is discussed in the following chapters. In 

terms of the Nez Perce Trail, when the Western 

History Association mentors were asked to assess 

trails for national significance, they were 

instructed to look at the entire group of trails 

associated with the Indian Wars, and to not take 

into account the current designation status of 

those trails. Appropriately, within the context of 

the trails associated with the history of U.S. 

Army/American Indian conflict in the West, the 

Nez Perce Trail was identified as nationally 

significant. However, since that trail is already 

designated as a National Historic Trail, there is 

no need within this report to assess its potential 

for such designation. 
39 

Chapter 8: The Bozeman Trail 

Bozeman Trail sign near Kaycee, Wyoming. Photo by Christine 

Whitacre. 

Associated Military Campaigns 

Powder River Expedition (1865) and the Red 

Cloud War (1866-68). From the Indian 

perspective, the campaign to close the Bozeman 

Trail began with the trail’s establishment in 1863 

and continued through the Red Cloud War. (For 

a discussion of the Bozeman Trail’s association 

with the Great Sioux War, see Chapter 12.) 

Period of Significance 

1863-1868. The period of significance begins 

with the trail’s establishment by white 

emigrants in 1863. That same year, a war party 

of Cheyennes and Lakotas forced the first 

wagon train on the new trail to turn back, 

initiating Indian resistance to the trail. The 

period of significance ends with the 1868 Fort 

Laramie Treaty, which called for the closure of 

the military forts protecting the trail. 

 

Location 

The Bozeman Trail begins in the vicinity of 

Glenrock and Douglas, Wyoming (where several 

routes of the Bozeman Trail leave the Oregon 

Trail) and runs northwest to Virginia City, 

Montana. 

 

Length of Trail 

The Bozeman Trail is approximately 535 miles 

long. 

History 

The Bozeman Trail was established in 1863 as a 

civilian enterprise looking to provide a shortcut 

between the gold fields around Virginia City, 

Montana Territory, and the overland trails along 

the North Platte River in Wyoming. As 

established, the trail covered some 535 miles, part 

of it through the heart of hunting lands claimed 

variously by the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, 

Northern Arapaho, and Crow tribes in Montana 

and Wyoming (only the Crow claims were then 

sanctioned by treaty). The Bozeman Trail 

originated from three points along the Oregon 

Trail adjoining the North Platte River – Bridger’s 

Ferry, below modern Douglas, Wyoming; the 

Deer Creek Station and Ferry, near present 

Glenrock; and Richard’s Bridge and Trading 

Post, near modern Evansville. These three routes 

eventually converged into one trail tracing 

diagonally northwest, passing over Powder River, 

Crazy Woman Fork, Tongue River, Big Horn 

River, Clark’s Fork River, before paralleling the 

Yellowstone and fording the Gallatin and 

Madison rivers in reaching Virginia City. 

Increased usage of the Bozeman Trail between 

1863 and 1866 by white citizens prompted a 

campaign by Lakotas, Northern Cheyennes, and 

Arapahos to resist the intrusions, which in turn 

necessitated a federal military response. These 

large tribes, and especially the Lakotas, had come 

to dominate native use of the Powder River 

country bordering the Big Horn Mountains on 

the east and north and continuing north beyond 
40 
41 

the Yellowstone and Missouri river basins of 

Montana. As the Indian threat to emigrants 

worsened following the Sand Creek Massacre in 

Colorado Territory in 1864, the government 

launched the Powder River campaign, which was 

composed of volunteer troops who marched 

over parts of the Bozeman Trail in 1865 in an 

unsuccessful attempt to intimidate the tribesmen. 

In one major contest near modern Ranchester, 

Wyoming, Brigadier General Patrick E. Connor 

attacked the Arapaho village of Chief Black Bear 

along Tongue River, killing 63 Indians and 

burning the lodges before withdrawing from the 

area. In retaliation, the Arapahos then assailed 

James Sawyers’s nearby civilian train then 

traversing the Bozeman Trail, laying siege to the 

party for two weeks. Connor’s Powder River 

Expedition thus accomplished little more than 

further inflaming the dominant Sioux, Cheyenne, 

and Arapaho coalition against any presence of 

whites along the trail. 

As attacks on emigrant trains mounted, the 

government settled on a permanent military 

presence with the construction and garrisoning 

of three stockaded outposts along the Bozeman: 

Fort Reno (a post left over from Connor’s 

expedition) at the junction of Powder River with 

the trail in east-central Wyoming; Fort Phil 

Kearny, 70 miles north of Reno; and Fort C.F. 

Smith, 90 miles beyond Fort Phil Kearny in 

Montana. The presence of the forts antagonized 

Chief Red Cloud of the Lakotas, whose warriors, 

as well as those of the Cheyennes and Arapahos, 

struck fatigue parties near the forts, ran off 

livestock, and continued their harrassment of 

army and civilian trains negotiating the Bozeman. 

This intermittent warfare climaxed on December 

21, 1866, when Red Cloud’s warriors enticed a 

column of 80 men from Fort Phil Kearny, then 

surrounded and killed them all. The “Fort Phil 

Kearny Massacre,” as it was called, shocked the 

nation. Lieutenant General William T. 

Sherman’s planned retaliatory campaign against 

the tribesmen never took place as Congress 

decreed a peace commission to resolve 

differences with the tribes. 

Meantime, the Indians, bolstered with 

confidence from their victory and infuriated by 

the government’s construction of Fort Fetterman 

near the junction of the Bozeman and Oregon 

trails, continued levying attacks on the Bozeman 

Trail garrisons, notably striking fatigue parties 

near Forts C.F. Smith and Phil Kearny in early 

August 1867, in a calculated and coordinated 

campaign against these northernmost garrisons. 

Finally, spiraling costs of the continued military 

occupation, together with its impracticality 

following construction of the Union Pacific 

Railroad that provided alternate routes to the 

Montana gold country, forced Washington to 

acquiesce. In the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the 

federal government formalized the closure of the 

three posts.7

 

Does the Bozeman Trail meet the definition 

of a military campaign trail? 

Yes. The Bozeman Trail is a military campaign 

trail from the perspectives of both the Indians 

and the U.S. Army. Blazed by whites in 1863, the 

Bozeman Trail was targeted by Lakotas, 

Northern Cheyennes, and Northern Arapahos 

who resisted the intrusion through what they 

considered to be their hunting grounds, and 

waged a campaign to close down the trail. In 

 

7

The Bozeman Trail is chronicled in several important works, 

among them Susan Badger Doyle (ed.), Journeys to the Land of 

Gold: Emigrant Diaries from the Bozeman Trail (2 vols.; 

Helena: Montana Historical Society Press, 2000) (see, too, in this 

work, Elliott West, “Afterword: American Pathways”); Grace 

Raymond Hebard and E. A. Brininstool, The Bozeman Trail (2 

vols.; Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1922); 

Dorothy M. Johnson, The Bloody Bozeman: The Perilous Trail 

to Montana’s Gold (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 

1971); and Robert A. Murray, The Bozeman Trail: Highway of 

History (Boulder, Colo.: Pruett Publishing Company, 1988). For 

early Indian occupation of the Powder River region of 

Wyoming, see, Sherry L. Smith, “The Bozeman – Trail to Death 

and Glory,” Annals of Wyoming, 55 (Spring, 1983), pp. 32-36. Overviews of military aspects relating to the trail appear in 

Jerome A. Greene, “Warbonnets and Longknives: Military Use 

of the Bozeman Trail in the 1860s” (unpublished paper presented 

at the Bozeman Trail Symposium, Bozeman, Montana, July, 

1998), but see also, Sherry L. Smith, “The Bozeman Trail” 

(unpublished, undated report submitted to the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality), pp. 28-36, 37-40. Other 

works that contributed to this overview of the Bozeman Trail are 

Wyoming: A Guide to Its History, Highways, and People (New 

York: Oxford University Press, 1941), pp. 270-72, 277, 282-83, 

377-78; Wyoming Recreation Commission, Wyoming: A Guide 

to Historic Sites (Basin, Wyo.: Big Horn Publishers, 1976), pp. 

30, 118, 120, 232; Thomas Schmidt and Winifred Blevins, 

History from the Highways: Wyoming (Boulder, Colo.: Pruett 

Publishing Company, 1993), 29-30, 79-83, 85-89. 
42 

response, the U.S. Army launched the 1865 

Powder River campaign. In 1866, when the 

federal government began building three forts 

along the Bozeman Trail to defend it and protect 

emigrants, Lakota Chief Red Cloud’s warriors, as 

well as those of the Cheyennes and Arapahos, 

orchestrated a series of surprise military attacks 

to force their removal. During the Red Cloud 

War (1866-68), several army-Indian engagements 

were initiated by the tribesmen along the 

Bozeman Trail, including the so-called Fetterman 

Massacre, resonating the determination of their 

cause. The Indians’ objective was temporarily 

realized in the treaty of 1868, which called for the 

closure of the three military forts along the trail. 

In addition to the military engagements that took 

place along the trail, U.S. Army troops routinely 

used the road for communication, 

transportation, and supply purposes during the 

relatively short existence of the Bozeman Trail 

forts (1866-68). The Bozeman Trail also factored 

as a significant route for General Crook’s 

commands operating against Lakotas and 

Northern Cheyennes in the Great Sioux War. 

Does the Bozeman Trail meet criteria for 

national significance? 

Yes. The Bozeman Trail is nationally significant 

for its associations with the Powder River 

campaign and the Red Cloud War; indeed it was 

the establishment and use of the trail that was the 

cause of those conflicts. From the perspective of 

the Lakotas, Northern Cheyennes, and Northern 

Arapahos, the presence of the trail cutting 

directly through what they perceived to be their 

hunting grounds affronted them and mobilized 

them to a high degree to resist its continued use 

by civilians and soldiers. The tribes’ combined 

efforts to stop traffic over the Bozeman Trail 

equated to a campaign of resistance that, in turn, 

was met in force by a U.S. Army military 

campaign. As such, the Bozeman Trail looms 

large as a means for understanding both the 

evolution of federal policy affecting tribal lands 

during the mid-to-late-nineteenth century, the 

tribes’ response to the invasion of white settlers 

onto their traditional lands, as well as the military 

means through which the government sought to 

resolve issues of native resistance with decisive 

campaigns of punitive intent. 

As WHA mentor Elliot West noted, the Bozeman 

Trail illustrates nearly all the major themes of the 

Indian Wars as discussed in Chapter 4 of this 

report and which fall within the National Park 

Service’s Thematic Framework (1996). Under the 

theme of Peopling Places, the Bozeman Trail 

represents the desire of Euramericans to move 

into traditional Indian lands, and the efforts of 

Indians to protect their lands from invasion. The 

trail also falls under the theme of Developing the 

American Economy, as it was the discovery of 

gold in Montana that prompted the 

construction of the Bozeman Trail through 

Indian lands. At the same time, the Indians 

fought to maintain the use of their traditional 

lands for subsistence hunting. Under the theme 

of Shaping the Political Landscape, the Bozeman 

Trail reflects the diplomatic and military efforts 

of Indians to protect their ethnic homelands, 

and is also a reflection of the U.S. government’s 

nationalism and its policies towards Indian tribes 

during the nineteenth century. 

Does the Bozeman Trail meet the criterion of 

significance through historic usage, as 

defined by the National Trails System Act? 

Yes. The National Trails Systems Act states that a 

National Historic Trail “must be a trail or route 

established by historic use and must be 

historically significant as a result of that use.” 

The Bozeman Trail meets this definition since it 

was the actual establishment and use of the trail 

itself that precipitated the Powder River 

Campaign and Red Cloud’s War. Furthermore, 

the trail was used as a military campaign trail by 

both the U.S. Army and American Indians – 

Lakotas, Arapahos and Cheyennes – during those 

conflicts. 

Does the Bozeman Trail merit further study 

as a potential candidate for designation as a 

National Historic Trail? 

Yes. According to the National Trails System 

Act, a National Historic Trail must: (A) be 

significant as a result of its use as a trail; (B) must 

meet criteria for national significance; and (C) 

must have potential for public recreation or 

historical interpretation. As discussed above, the 

Bozeman Trail appears to meet the criteria for 

national significance based on its use as a historic 
43 

trail during the time leading up to and during the 

Red Cloud War and, as outlined below, has the 

potential to provide recreational and interpretive 

opportunities to the public. 

Places Associated with the Bozeman Trail 

that are Significant as Trail Resources and/or 

Provide Recreational and Interpretive 

Opportunities 

 

A reconnaissance-level survey of the Bozeman 

Trail indicates a high level of physical integrity. 

The Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

has prepared a National Register multiple 

property documentation form on the Bozeman 

Trail, and several segments of the trail that have 

high integrity, i.e., visible trail ruts, have been 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

The Montana State Historic Preservation Office 

has surveyed much of the trail between 

Springdale and Virginia City, sections of which 

have also been found to have physical integrity. 

Western History Association mentor Sherry 

Smith has noted the Bozeman Trail remains in a 

portion of the West that has seen relatively little 

disruption of surface landscapes. As such, Smith 

believes that the trail is “posed to educate and 

even transport people back to the nineteenth 

century, in a way that is unique in the 21st 

century West.” 

The Bozeman Trail also provides recreational 

and interpretive opportunities. Among the 

activities that occur along the trail are the annual 

“Bozeman Trail Days,” which take place at a 

number of sites along the trail and include a 

symposium, exhibits, and tours. Other local 

organizations offer special activities and tours 

along the trail. In addition, several local 

museums house artifacts and exhibits associated 

with the Bozeman Trail. An excellent 

interpretive map of the Bozeman Trail, prepared 

by Susan Badger Doyle and W.S. Neal, lists 

numerous historic sites and interpretive and 

recreational opportunities along the trail, many 

of which have scenic qualities and most of which 

(outside of the major metropolitan areas) are free 

from modern intrusions.8 These include: 

 

8 Susan Badger Doyle and W.S. Neal, Map, The Bozeman 

Trail: Gold Rush Road to Montana, 1863-1868 (Helena, 

MT: Doyle Neal Associates, 2001). 

Top to bottom: Fort Laramie Cavalry Barracks, Fort 

Laramie National Historic Site, vicinity of Torrington, 

Wyoming; Wyoming Pioneer Museum in Douglas, Wyoming; 

Townsend Wagon Train Fight Site, Johnson County, 

Wyoming; Fort Fetterman, vicinity of Douglas, Wyoming. 

Photos by Christine Whitacre. 
44 

Fort Laramie National Historic Site 

(administered by the National Park Service), 

Vicinity of Torrington, Wyoming. Built in 1834 as 

a fur trading post and purchased by the U.S. 

Army in 1849, Fort Laramie protected the 

California, Pony Express, Mormon, and 

Bozeman trails. Connor’s Powder River 

campaign of 1865 was based at Fort Laramie. The 

fort was also the site of several treaty 

negotiations, including the 1868 treaty that called 

for the abandonment of the Bozeman Trail forts. 

Wyoming Pioneer Memorial Museum, Douglas, 

Wyoming. Located on the state fairgrounds, the 

Pioneer Museum exhibits a wide collection of 

artifacts associated with Wyoming history, 

including several associated with the history of 

the Bozeman Trail. 

Fort Caspar Museum, Casper, Wyoming. The 

Fort Caspar Museum interprets the history of 

Fort Caspar, which was adjacent to the Guinnard 

Bridge, later known as the Richard’s Bridge 

crossing of the Platte River. When Fort Caspar 

was abandoned in 1867, portions of it were 

salvaged to built Fort Fetterman. 

Fort Fetterman Historic Site, Vicinity of Douglas, 

Wyoming. Named for Captain William J. 

Fetterman (see “Fetterman Fight Site”), Fort 

Fetterman is at the junction of La Prele Creek 

and the North Platte River north of Douglas. 

Established in 1867, Fort Fetterman was the last 

post constructed on the Bozeman Trail. 

Following the abandonment of Forts Reno, Phil 

Kearny, and C. F. Smith in 1868, Fort Fetterman 

was the only post along the Bozeman Trail. Fort 

Fetterman is a historic site administered by the 

state of Wyoming. 

Hoofprints of the Past Museum, Kaycee, 

Wyoming. The Hoofprints of the Past Museum 

houses exhibits on regional history and organizes 

tours of area sites, including a 2002 tour of the 

Morning Star (Dull Knife) village site. 

Site of Fort Reno (Cantonment Reno), Johnson 

County, Wyoming. Established in 1866 at the 

Powder River crossing of the Bozeman Trail, Fort 

Reno (erected and abandoned as Fort Connor in 

1865) was the southernmost of the three forts 

Top to bottom: Fort Reno (Cantonment Reno) wayside, 

Johnson County, Wyoming; Fort Phil Kearney, vicinity of 

Story, Wyoming; Bozeman Trail Museum, Big Horn, 

Wyoming; Connor Battlefield State Park, Ranchester, 

Wyoming. Photos by Christine Whitacre. 
45 

built by the U.S. Army to protect the Bozeman 

Trail. The site, which is on Bureau of Land 

Management, is interpreted through markers 

placed by the state of Wyoming in cooperation 

with the Fort Phil Kearny/Bozeman Trail 

Association. Interpretive signs also mark the 

Bozeman Trail route north of the Fort Reno site. 

Townsend Wagon Train Fight Site, Johnson 

County, Wyoming. In July 1864, a Sioux and 

Cheyenne war party attacked a large wagon train 

of nearly 500 people a few miles west of the 

Powder River crossing of the Bozeman Trail. 

The site of that fight is identified with interpretive 

markers. 

Crazy Woman Fight Site, Vicinity of Buffalo, 

Wyoming. Interpretive markers indicate the site 

of the Crazy Woman Fight site, where a military 

train was attacked by a group of Red Cloud’s 

Lakota warriors in July 1866. The interpretive 

signs were placed by the state of Wyoming, in 

cooperation with the Fort Phil Kearny/Bozeman 

Trail Association. 

Jim Gatchell Museum, Buffalo, Wyoming. The 

Gatchell Museum displays exhibits of artifacts 

associated with the Bozeman Trail, as well as of 

the forts associated with the trail. Also on display 

is a diorama of the Wagon Box Fight, and an 

extensive collection of American Indian artifacts. 

Fort Phil Kearny State Historic Site, Vicinity of 

Story, Wyoming. Established in 1866, Fort Phil 

Kearny was the largest of the three forts 

established to protect the Bozeman Trail. 

Following the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the 

fort was abandoned and burned by the Indians. 

The site, which is administered by the Fort Phil 

Kearny/Bozeman Trail Association under the 

auspices of the Wyoming Division of State Parks 

and Historic Sites, includes a visitor 

center/museum. A portion of the fort stockade 

has been rebuilt, as have guard towers that mark 

the corners of the fort. Interpretive markers 

indicate the location of the fort buildings. Fort 

Phil Kearny, together with the Wagon Box Fight 

Site and the Fetterman Fight Site, are included 

within the “Fort Phil Kearny and Associated 

Sites” National Historic Landmark. 

Fetterman Fight Site, Vicinity of Story, Wyoming. 

On December 21, 1866, a small number of Indians 

decoyed Captain William J. Fetterman and 80 

men over Lodge Trail Ridge where over 1,000 

Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors were 

waiting. Fetterman’s entire command was killed 

in the ambush. An interpretive trail at the site 

interprets the event from the perspectives of both 

the soldiers and the Indians. The Fetterman 

Fight Site is managed by the Fort Phil 

Kearny/Bozeman Trail Association. 

Wagon Box Fight Site, Vicinity of Story, 

Wyoming. In August 1867, following the success 

of their ambush on the Fetterman party, an 

estimated 1,000 Indians attacked a detail of 26 

soldiers and 6 civilians on a wood-cutting detail 

who were camped about five miles from Fort Phil 

Kearny. The soldiers and civilians took cover 

inside an oval of wagon boxes used as a stock 

corral and, armed with breech-loading rifles, held 

off the warriors until a relief force arrived from 

Fort Phil Kearny. The Wagon Box Fight Site, 

which is managed by the Fort Phil Kearny/ 

Bozeman Trail Association, is marked by 

interpretive markers. 

Top to bottom: Site of Fort C.F. Smith Fort Smith, Montana; 

Virginia City, Montana. Top photo by Christine Whitacre; 

bottom photo from National Park Service files. 
46 

Bozeman Trail Museum, Big Horn, Wyoming. 

Main Street in Big Horn, Wyoming, follows a 

segment of the Bozeman Trail. The Bozeman 

Trail Museum is housed in a historic stage station 

along the route of the trail. 

King's Cowboy Museum, Sheridan, Wyoming. 

The King’s Cowboy Museum, located in the rear 

of King’s Saddlery and Ropes, includes a 

Bozeman Trail collection. 

Connor Battlefield State Park, Ranchester, 

Wyoming. On August 29, 1865, Brigadier General 

Patrick E. Connor attacked Chief Black Bear's 

Arapaho Indian camp along the Tongue River. 

The site of the Indian camp, marked by a 

monument and interpretive signage, is now a 

park within the town of Ranchester. The site is a 

Wyoming State Historic Site administered by the 

Fort Phil Kearny/Bozeman Trail Association in 

cooperation with the town of Ranchester. 

Sawyers Expedition Site, Vicinity of Ranchester, 

Wyoming. A few miles outside of Ranchester, 

Wyoming, a monument marks the site where 

Indians attacked a road expedition survey under 

the leadership of James A. Sawyers of Sioux City, 

Iowa City, on September 1, 1865. 

Site of Fort C.F. Smith, Fort Smith, Montana. 

Established in August 1866, Fort C.F. Smith was 

the northernmost of the three forts built in 1866 

specifically to protect the Bozeman Trail. The 

fort was located near the ferry across the Bighorn 

River, below the mouth of Bighorn Canyon. The 

site of Fort Smith, which was evacuated in 1868, is 

on private land, marked with a monument. 

Virginia City, Montana. It was the discovery of 

gold in Alder Gulch in 1863 that prompted the 

establishment of Virginia City – and the 

construction of the Bozeman Trail. Virginia City, 

the territorial capital of Montana and one of the 

West’s most famous mining towns, was the 

terminus of the Bozeman Trail. The town, which 

is a National Historic Landmark, is a popular 

tourist destination with several interpretive and 

recreational opportunities. 

Roadside markers. A number of roadside 

historical markers, as well as several interpretive 

signs, identify events associated with the 

Bozeman Trail. 

Potential National Historic Landmarks 

associated with the Bozeman Trail 

None were identified as part of this 

reconnaissance-level effort. As noted above, Fort 

Phil Kearny and Associated Sites and Virginia 

City are already designated as National Historic 

Landmarks. 
47 

Chapter 9: The Long Walk 

Canyon de Chelly National Monument. The canyon was the last 

stronghold of the Navajos during the Navajo War of 1863-1865. Photo 

by Christine Whitacre. 

Associated Military Campaign 

Navajo War of 1863-1865 

Period of Significance 

1863-1868. The period of significance begins with 

the Navajo War of 1863 and ends with the 

Navajos’ return to their homeland following the 

Treaty of 1868. 

Location 

The route of the Long Walk extends from the site 

of Fort Canby (now the town of Fort Defiance) in 

northeastern Arizona, the westernmost staging 

point for the march to Bosque Redondo, to Fort 

Sumner in east-central New Mexico, which was 

the center of the Bosque Redondo reservation. 

Length of Trail 

Between Fort Canby (now Fort Defiance) and 

Bosque Redondo, the Long Walk extends 

approximately 375 to 500 miles, depending on the 

route taken. The Long Walk followed four 

primary routes: the Fort Union Route (498 

miles); the Santa Fe Route (436 miles); the 

Mountain Route (424 miles), and the Canon 

Blanco Route (375 miles). 

History 

Conflict with the large Navajo tribe of some 

12,000 people in the Department of New Mexico 

(including what is today western New Mexico 

and northeastern Arizona) began during the War 

with Mexico and its aftermath, particularly with 

the movement of American settlers into the 

region of the upper Rio Grande River, which 

touched off a long period of intermittent conflict. 

By the early 1860s, with the withdrawal east of 

federal troops for the Civil War, the army 

hierarchy in the area in the person of Brigadier 

General James H. Carleton, commander of the 

Department of New Mexico, decreed a policy of 

protecting citizens by removing the Indians from 

their potentially mineral-rich homelands and 

concentrating them under guard at an isolated 

location. Acting on Carleton’s orders for a strong 

prosecution, in late 1862 and early 1863 Colonel 

Christopher (“Kit”) Carson with territorial 

troops rounded up and removed several hundred 

Mescalero Apaches to a site known as Bosque 

Redondo (“Round Grove of Trees”), along the 

east bank of the Pecos River on the plains near 

Fort Sumner in eastern New Mexico. 

At Carleton’s direction, Carson next turned his 

attention to the Navajos. Beginning in June 1863, 

Carson’s thousand-man command ranged 

throughout the Navajo country capturing the 

Indians’ livestock and destroying their crops to 

force their submission. In a thus-weakened 

condition, the Navajos were likewise set upon by 

native enemies who plundered their homes and 

property, as well as by winter elements that 

further crippled them. In January 1864, Colonel 

Carson’s forces converged on the Navajo 

stronghold at Canyon de Chelly, killing 23 of the
48 
49 

people while destroying their sanctuary and 

forcing them to choose between the likelihood of 

death by starvation or surrender and removal. In 

all, the various troop movements resulted in the 

killing and wounding of several hundred Navajos 

and the capture of more than 700 others. Within 

weeks of the Canyon de Chelly expedition, the 

numbers of Navajos yielding at Forts Canby and 

Wingate swelled to several thousand, and the 

army began the process of exiling them to Bosque 

Redondo, a central component of Carleton’s 

strategy. 

The trek to the reserve, known among the 

Navajos as the Long Walk, began during the late 

summer of 1863 and lasted intermittently until 

1867, with at least 53 separate journeys, and 

doubtless many more, incrementally constituting 

the removal. Groups of several hundred people – 

occasionally thousands – along with their 

surviving flocks of sheep and goats and herds of 

horses, accompanied by soldiers throughout, 

made their way to the reserve. By the end of 1864, 

more than 8,000 of the people – three-quarters of 

the tribe – with such leaders as Delgadito, 

Barboncito, Ganado Blanco, and Herrera 

Grande, had been ushered east from their 

homeland to languish in the remote and arid 

reserve on the Pecos. (Another 4,000 Navajos, 

including the chief, Manuelito, managed to flee 

into the rugged lands bordering the Colorado 

River but eventually surrendered; many of them 

ended up at Bosque Redondo.) More than 200 

Navajos – many without proper clothing – 

perished during the oft-freezing transit, and 

rationing of such a large assembly en route and 

after became a major problem for the army 

command. The arrival of the Navajos, traditional 

enemies of the much smaller Mescalero 

population, aroused intertribal feuding at Bosque 

Redondo, with the Mescaleros finally stealing 

away altogether from the reserve to their former 

mountain haunts. 

 

During the Long Walk, the Navajos followed 

several routes of varying distances, most of them 

utilizing existing military and wagon roads in the 

territory. Most of the tribesmen assembled at 

Fort Canby (near modern Fort Defiance) and 

were marched to Old Fort Wingate (near present 

San Rafael) to begin the journey to Bosque 

Redondo. Leaving Fort Wingate, they passed 

Rock monument at Fort Sumner State Historic Site. These rocks were 

carried to Fort Sumner from different parts of the Navajo reservation 

in February 1971 in commemoration of the Navajos who were exiled 

and died at Bosque Redondo. Photo by Christine Whitacre. 

east along a trail that ultimately branched, with 

one road leading to Albuquerque and another to 

Los Pinos, south of Albuquerque. From that 

point, several alternative routes led (1) to Santa Fe 

and Fort Union, then southeast to Fort Sumner 

and Bosque Redondo – the “Santa Fe Route”; (2) 

east from Albuquerque, then north along the 

Sandia Mountains to Fort Union and on to Fort 

Sumner – the “Mountain Route”; (3) directly east 

from Albuquerque through Canon Blanco to Fort 

Sumner – the “Canon Blanco Route”; and (4) east 

from Albuquerque or Los Pinos, respectively, 

along separate roads to Ojo de Cibolo, then 

through Piedra Pintada Canon to Fort Sumner – 

the “Piedra Pintada Route.” Of these, the most 

commonly used Mountain Route ran 424 miles 

from Fort Canby to Bosque Redondo, while 

those going via Santa Fe and Fort Union 

traversed as many as 498 miles; the comparatively 

little-used Canon Blanco route covered the 

distance in 375 miles. Some of the routes 

combined parts of the others. By November 

1864, the relocation of the people was mostly 

complete. 

Over the next four years, the Bosque Redondo 

experiment with the Navajos failed drastically. 

The lands of the Pecos could not sustain such 

large numbers of people, while alternating 

blight, floods, droughts, and insect infestations 

ruined any hope of crop production. Many 

Navajos died from disease and 

malnourishment, and government rations were 
50 

perpetually insufficient for the great body of 

people. Some fled the reserve to avoid 

starvation. Compounding all, the tribesmen 

became targeted by Comanche and Kiowa foes 

who repeatedly attacked and stole their 

property. By 1867, with stockmen now coveting 

the Fort Sumner tract, the government 

acknowledged the failure of Bosque Redondo, 

and in treaty provisions with the Navajos the 

following year the people were allowed to 

return to their homeland (although to a much 

smaller reservation). In mid-June 1868, a 

caravan ten miles long filed out of the Pecos 

bottom escorted by four companies of soldiers. 

Their trauma and subjugation at Bosque 

Redondo weighed heavily on the tribesmen 

ever after, and they never again challenged 

Euramerican settlement in the Southwest.9

 

9

For the Navajos’ ordeal in 1864-68, see, Lawrence D. Kelly, 

Navajo Roundup: Selected Correspondence of Kit Carson’s 

Expedition Against the Navajo, 1863-1865 (Boulder, Colo.: 

Pruett Publishing Company, 1970), passim; Robert A. Roessel, 

Jr., “Navajo History, 1850-1923,” in Handbook of North 

American Indians (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 

1983), X (Southwest), 506-23; Robert M. Utley, Frontiersmen in 

Blue: The United States Army and the Indian, 1848-1868 (New 

York: The Macmillan Company, 1967), p. 237-48; Lynn R. 

Bailey, The Long Walk: A History of the Navajo Wars, 1846-68

(Tucson, Ariz.: Westerlore Press, 1988), pp. 149-237; Lynn R. 

Bailey, Bosque Redondo: The Navajo Internment at Fort 

Sumner, New Mexico, 1868-68 (Tucson: Westerlore Press, 

1998); Harvey L. Carter, ‘Dear Old Kit’: The Historical 

Christopher Carson (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 

1968), pp. 159-62; Neil C. Mangum, “Old Fort Wingate in the 

Navajo War,” New Mexico Historical Review, 66 (October, 

1991), pp. 393-411; Darlis A. Miller, “Los Pinos, New Mexico: 

Civil War Post on the Rio Grande,” New Mexico Historical 

Review, 62 (January, 1987), pp. 1-31; Leo E. Oliva, Fort Union 

and the Frontier Army in the Southwest (Santa Fe: National 

Park Service, 1993), pp. 119, 297-98, 301-02, 351, 362-63, 549; 

Ruth Underhill, Here Come the Navaho! (Lawrence, Kansas: 

Haskell Institute, 1953); and Richard White, “It’s Your 

Misfortune and None of My Own”: A New History of the 

American West (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 

p. 100. Navajo views are presented in Broderick H. Johnson 

(ed.), Navajo Stories of the Long Walk Period (Tsaile, Ariz.: 

Navajo Community College Press, 1973), passim; and Crawford 

R. Buell, “The Navajo ‘Long Walk’: Recollections by Navajos,” 

in Schroeder, Changing Ways of Southwestern Indians, pp. 171-

87. A detailed treatment of the Long Walk appears in Frank 

McNitt, “The Long March: 1863-1867,” in Albert H. Schroeder 

(ed.), The Changing Ways of Southwestern Indians: A Historic 

Perspective (Glorieta, New Mex.: The Rio Grande Press, Inc., 

1973), pp. 145-69, but a most precise delineation of routes 

appears in Neal W. Ackerly, “A Navajo Diaspora: The Long 

Walk to Hweeldi” hhttp://members.tripod. com/ 

Does the Long Walk meet the definition of a 

military campaign trail? 

Yes. A major element in Brigadier General James 

H. Carleton’s military strategy for protecting 

American citizens and freeing up potentially 

mineral-rich lands in present Arizona and New 

Mexico specified the forced removal of 

indigenous populations to remote and 

isolated locations. The concentration and 

removal of the large Navajo tribe, as articulated 

by Carleton in correspondence in 1862 and 1863, 

became the major objectives of Colonel 

Christopher (“Kit”) Carson in his 1863-64 

movements to implement Carleton’s policy. 

Thus, what became known as the Long Walk to 

the Navajos comprised an important component 

of the military operations to remove that tribe, 

culminating in the people’s incarceration at 

Bosque Redondo. As such, the military escort of 

the Indians to Bosque Redondo was an integral 

and planned part of the military campaign as 

conceived by Carleton. Simply put, the Long 

Walk did not take place after the military 

campaign, but was part of the military campaign, 

as conceived by Carleton. It was also the major 

focus of the campaign. Although there were 

other campaigns against the Navajos in 1863, the 

major thrust – thus the major campaign – came in 

January 1864 when Carson's forces converged on 

points within Canyon de Chelly. 

Does the Long Walk meet criteria for 

national significance? 

Yes. The military significance of the 1860s 

Navajo wars lay in the tandem of strategy 

conceived by General Carleton and vigorous 

campaigning of Colonel Carson, the latter in 

particular in securing the tactical destruction of 

the people’s livestock and food resources in a 

scorched-earth campaign that effected the large 

surrenders and incarceration at Bosque 

 

~bloodhound/longwalk.htm). See also, “Four Primary Routes of 

The Long Walk” (http://reta.nmsu.edu/echshare/modules/

longwalk/lesson/part1/resource.htm#. For historical roads 

contemporary with, and utilized during, the Long Walk, see 

“Map of the Military Department of New Mexico, 1864,” reprint 

copy in Kelly, Navajo Roundup. For places, see also, New 

Mexico: A Guide to the Colorful State (New York: Hastings 

House, Publishers, 1940), pp. 355-56, and passim. 
51 

Redondo. Because Carleton’s initial goal lay in 

removing the Navajos from their lands, an 

objective realized through Carson’s expeditions, 

the Long Walk comprises a major campaign 

element of U.S. Army strategy. And as the 

immediate by-product of the forced removal, the 

Navajos’ exile at Fort Sumner and Bosque 

Redondo by extension possesses campaign 

implications through the termination of their 

incarceration and subsequent return to their 

homes in 1868. 

The human significance of the warfare and its 

aftermath lay in the physical and emotional 

impacts that the federal prosecution, including 

the Long Walk and Bosque Redondo 

experiences, held for the Navajos. Anguished 

over leaving behind the sacred sites and familiar 

landmarks of their homeland, they were escorted 

to a country that their religion rejected and that 

brought them untold heartache and physical 

suffering. The exile en masse and the deaths en 

route, together with the starvation, disease, 

misery, and homesickness that greeted the 

families at Fort Sumner – prolonged with the 

repeated failure of their efforts at agriculture and 

husbandry in this foreign land – comprised a 

tragedy that pierced the soul of the people and 

forever left in them perceptions of the 

ruthlessness of the federal government. But for 

their cultural fortitude and spirit, the people 

likely would not have survived the internment at 

Bosque Redondo; it represented a disheartening 

human calamity for the Navajos, one sustained 

ever since in their memory. The Long Walk and 

Bosque Redondo thus exemplified some of the 

worst aspects of the U.S. government’s removal 

policy regarding American Indians. 

The Long Walk is associated with several themes 

identified in the National Park Service’s Thematic 

Framework (1996). Under the theme of Peopling 

Places, the Long Walk represents the efforts to 

remove Indians from their ethnic homelands in 

order to promote white settlement – and the 

powerful desire of those native people to return. 

Under the theme of Expressing Cultural Values, 

the Long Walk represents a seminal event in 

Navajo history, strongly affecting the Navajos’ 

beliefs about themselves and the world they 

inhabit, and reflecting their strong desire to 

maintain their traditional culture and homelands 

in the face of powerful forces that sought to 

destroy them. The Long Walk also represents 

the themes of Developing the American Economy

as a government-supported effort to promote 

Euramerican economic activities in the 

Southwest, and the resulting economic 

ramifications on the tribes. As a reflection of the 

U.S. government’s nationalism and its policies 

towards American Indians during the 

nineteenth century, the Long Walk also is 

associated with the theme of Shaping the Political 

Landscape. 

Does the Long Walk meet the criterion of 

significance through historic usage, as 

defined by the National Trails System Act? 

Yes. The National Trails Systems Act states that a 

National Historic Trail “must be a trail or route 

established by historic use and must be 

historically significant as a result of that use.” 

The Long Walk meets this definition. The 

journey of the Long Walk – to and from Bosque 

Redondo – is of enormous significance to the 

Navajos and a nationally significant example of 

Indian removal and relocation. Indeed, the 

journey along the Long Walk has taken on a 

historical and cultural importance that is more 

powerful than any individual location along the 

route. 

Does the Long Walk merit further study as a 

potential candidate for designation as a 

National Historic Trail? 

Yes. According to the National Trails System 

Act, a National Historic Trail must: (A) be 

significant as a result of its use as a trail; (B) must 

meet criteria for national significance; and (C) 

must have potential for public recreation or 

historical interpretation. As discussed above, the 

Long Walk appears to meet the criteria for 

national significance based on its use as a historic 

trail and, as outlined below, has the potential to 

provide recreational and interpretive 

opportunities. 

Places Associated with the Long Walk that 

are Significant as Trail Resources and/or 

Provide Recreational and Interpretive 

Opportunities. 
52 

Based on a reconnaissance-level survey of the 

Long Walk route, the trail appears to have a high 

degree of integrity, at least outside of the major 

metropolitan areas. The various routes of the 

Long Walk pass through and/or near several 

towns, pueblos, and other sites that were in 

existence during the time of the Long Walk and, 

again based on a reconnaissance-level survey, 

many of these locations appear to have a high 

degree of historic integrity and reflect the historic 

era of the Long Walk. These include: 

Albuquerque, Algodones, Anton Chico, Apache 

Springs, Bernal (Bernal Springs), Cubero, El Rito, 

Fort Defiance, Fort Wingate, Galisteo, Golden 

(Real de San Francisco), Hatch’s Ranch, Isleta, 

Kozlowski’s Ranch, Las Vegas, Los Lunas, 

McCartys, Peralta (Los Pinos), Pigeon’s Ranch, 

Pueblo Laguna, Rio Puerco, Romeroville, San 

Antonito, San Jose, San Pedro, Santa Fe, 

Tecolate, Tecolotito, Tijeras, Tijeras Canyon, and 

Whittmore’s Ranch. In addition, the following 

list presents some places associated with the 

Long Walk that would provide recreational and 

interpretive opportunities. Many of them have 

scenic qualities, and most lie beyond the major 

metropolitan areas and are thus free from 

modern intrusions. 

 

Canyon de Chelly National Monument 

(administered by the National Park Service), 

Chinle, Arizona. Canyon de Chelly National 

Monument is an integral component of the Long 

Walk. When the first boundary lines for the 

current Navajo Reservation were drawn, Canyon 

de Chelly was intentionally placed in the center, 

and the current Navajo population is comprised 

of descendents of the survivors of Bosque 

Redondo and the Long Walk. Canyon de Chelly 

was the last stronghold of resistance during the 

army’s campaign against the Navajos, and some 

residents eluded capture by escaping to the top of 

Fortress Rock, a geologic formation within the 

monument. Other landscape features within the 

monument, such as cottonwood trees, also date 

to the time of the Long Walk. However, as noted 

in the monument’s informational handout, the 

most important legacy of the Long Walk in 

Canyon de Chelly is its impact on the hearts and 

minds of the Navajos who live within the 

monument. Canyon de Chelly interprets the 

Long Walk through exhibits in its visitor center 

and through printed materials. 

Top to bottom: Canyon de Chelly National Monument Visitor

Center, Chinle, Arizona; General view of Tecolate, New 

Mexico; Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site, 

Ganado,Arizona; Fort Union National Monument, Watrous, 

New Mexico. Photos by Christine Whitacre. 
53 

Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site 

(administered by the National Park Service), 

Ganado, Arizona. Purchased by John Lorenzo 

Hubbell in 1878, Hubbell Trading Post is the 

oldest continuously operating trading post on the 

Navajo reservation. Although the post was not 

established until after the Long Walk, several 

members of the Hubbell family are associated 

with that historic event. At least one Hubbell 

family member served with the U.S. Army during 

the military campaign against the Navajos and 

Mescalero Apaches, and other members of the 

family provided supplies and transportation 

services to the military during the time of the 

Long Walk and Bosque Redondo. Hubbell 

Trading Post also was important to the Navajos 

following their return to the Four Corners area. 

Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site 

interprets the Long Walk in their printed 

materials and through special interpretive 

programs. 

Fort Union National Monument (administered 

by the National Park Service) Watrous, New 

Mexico. Fort Union was established in 1851 to 

provide protection for the Santa Fe Trail. As a 

military supply depot, the fort supplied the 

region’s army posts and forts and was involved 

with providing supplies to the U.S. Army during 

the period of the Long Walk. One of the Long 

Walk routes traveled to Fort Union, where the 

army distributed provisions for the remainder of 

the journey. On at least one occasion, the 

Navajos camped at Fort Union during their 

march to Bosque Redondo. 

Navajo Nation Museum, Window Rock, 

Arizona. The Navajo Nation Museum is located 

in Window Rock, the administrative center of the 

Navajo Nation. The museum includes exhibits 

on Navajo history, including the Long Walk and 

Bosque Redondo. 

Fort Sumner State Monument (administered by 

the State of New Mexico), Fort Sumner, New 

Mexico. Fort Sumner State Monument preserves 

the site of Fort Sumner, which was established in 

1862 by General James H. Carleton, and stood at 

the center of the Bosque Redondo reservation. 

Although no fort buildings are extant, the 

foundations of some of the structures are marked 

by reconstructed walls. The monument includes 

Top to bottom: Fort Sumner State Monument Visitor Center, 

Fort Sumner, New Mexico; Fort Sumner Entrance Sign; New 

Fort Wingate near Gallup, New Mexico; New Fort Wingate 

Wayside, vicinity of Gallup, New Mexico. Photos by Christine 

Whitacre. 
54 

a museum that interprets the Long Walk and 

Bosque Redondo. Also located within the site are 

two monuments placed by Navajos to 

commemorate the Long Walk and their 

internment at Bosque Redondo. Fort Sumner 

State Monument offers guided tours for 

organized groups. It also offers living history 

demonstrations every weekend throughout the 

summer or by reservation year-round. 

Fort Stanton, Capitan, New Mexico. Fort 

Stanton, established in 1855, was commanded by 

Colonel Christopher (“Kit”) Carson in 1862, 

when he began his campaign against the 

Mescalero Apaches. The site has great 

significance to the Mescalero Apaches as it was 

the staging point for their march to Bosque 

Redondo. Fort Stanton is owned by the State of 

New Mexico which, in recent years, has 

attempted to sell the property. A preservation 

group, Fort Stanton Inc., administers a museum 

at the fort and is working towards the long-term 

preservation of the site. Many of the fort’s 

buildings date to the era of Bosque Redondo. 

Fort Canby (Fort Defiance), Town of Fort 

Defiance, New Mexico. Fort Canby, which was 

the westernmost staging point for the Long Walk 

to Bosque Redondo, was established in 1863 on 

the former site of Fort Defiance. Fort Defiance 

had been established in 1851 as the first U.S. Army 

post in Navajo Country. In 1861, Fort Defiance 

(as well as nearby Fort Lyon) were closed, as the 

U.S. Army pulled troops away from these posts 

for use in repelling the Confederate invasion on 

the Rio Grande. In 1863, Colonel Christopher 

(“Kit”) Carson determined that he needed a fort 

in the heart of Navajo County as he began his 

assault against the Navajos, and established Fort 

Canby atop the ruins of Fort Defiance. Fort 

Canby, like Old Fort Wingate, later served as a 

temporary detention center for Navajos awaiting 

their Long Walk removal to Fort Sumner. There 

are no extant structures associated with the fort, 

although there may be archeological remains.

New Fort Wingate, Fort Wingate (near Gallup), 

New Mexico. “New” Fort Wingate was 

originally established in 1860 as Fort Fauntleroy, 

which was soon renamed Fort Lyon. In 1861, 

however, Fort Lyon was abandoned and the 

materials were salvaged to build Fort Wingate – 

later referred to as “Old Fort Wingate” – 

approximately 40 miles away, near the presentday town of San Rafael. In 1868, as treaty 

negotiations proceeded to allow the Navajos to 

return to their homeland, the U.S. Army decided 

to abandon Old Fort Wingate and build a new 

fort closer to Navajo country. The military 

selected the former site of Fort Lyon as the 

location for the new fort, naming it Fort Wingate. 

“New” Fort Wingate opened just in time to assist 

with the return of the Navajos to the homelands. 

Most, if not all, of the original Fort Wingate 

buildings have been destroyed, many of them by 

a fire in 1896. The site of the original fort is within 

the now-closed Fort Wingate Military 

Reservation. 

Old Fort Wingate, San Rafael, New Mexico.

“Old” Fort Wingate was established in 1862. 

Together with Fort Canby, Fort Wingate served 

as a temporary detention center for processing 

Navajos for their relocation to Bosque Redondo. 

The first group of Navajos to surrender arrived at 

Fort Wingate in November 1863 to begin their 

“long walk.” Following the government’s 

decision to allow the return of the Navajos to 

their homeland in 1868, Old Fort Wingate was 

abandoned in favor of New Fort Wingate, which 

was closer to the heart of Navajo Country. Old 

Fort Wingate closed on July 22, 1868, the same 

day that the returning Navajos passed through its 

walls on their long journey home. Following its 

closure, Old Fort Wingate was scavenged by the 

settlers who built the adjacent town of San 

Rafael. The site of Old Fort Wingate lies 

approximately one mile east and slightly south of 

San Rafael.

Roadside markers. The New Mexico State 

Monument office has placed several roadside 

markers along the route of the Long Walk, 

including the identification of old and new Fort 

Wingate. 

Potential National Historic Landmarks 

associated with the Long Walk 

Fort Sumner, New Mexico. The National Park 

Service (Intermountain Support Office, Santa Fe) 

is currently preparing a National Historic 

Landmark nomination of Fort Sumner. 
55 

Canyon de Chelly, Arizona. Canyon de Chelly 

National Monument was authorized in 1931, 

primarily to preserve the ruins of Indian villages 

within the canyon that were built between AD 

350 and 1300. The designation did not specifically 

address Canyon de Chelly’s associations with the 

Long Walk. As such, a National Historic 

Landmark nomination of Canyon de Chelly that 

focuses on the canyon’s association with the 

Long Walk –and which identifies places within 

the monument that are associated with that 

historic event – would be appropriate.
56 

Chapter 10: The Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail 

Fort Reno, Oklahoma. Fort Reno provided protection to the nearby 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Agency at Darlington, from which the 

Northern Cheyenne escaped in September 1878. 

Associated Military Campaign 

Cheyenne Campaign of 1878 

Period of Significance 

1878-1879. The period of significance begins with 

the Northern Cheyenne’s escape from their 

reservation in Oklahoma and ends with the 

surrender of Little Wolf's people in Montana. 

Location 

The Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail extends 

from Darlington, Oklahoma, to Fort Keogh, 

Montana. 

Length of Trail 

The approximate length of the trail is 1,200 miles. 

History 

Following the Great Sioux War of 1876-77 on the 

Northern Plains, the bands of Lakota Indians 

yielded at agencies in Dakota Territory and 

Nebraska or variously took refuge in Canada. In 

May 1877, even while the Sioux surrenders were 

underway, the Northern Cheyennes, who had 

fought alongside the Lakotas in the Powder River 

country of Wyoming and Montana and who had 

surrendered the previous month, found 

themselves escorted by army troops to join their 

southern kinsmen at the Cheyenne and Arapaho 

Agency, Indian Territory (present Oklahoma). 

(In November 1876, the Northern Cheyennes had 

been subdued by the army in a major assault on a 

village under Morning Star [Dull Knife] and 

Little Wolf in the Big Horn Mountains.) These 

people had lived on the Northern Plains for 

decades, and the exile of 937 of them to what in 

many respects was a foreign environment in the 

Indian Territory affected them profoundly. Over 

the next year, under guard of agents at 

Darlington and soldiers at nearby Fort Reno, 

they languished from starvation, disease, and 

homesickness in the hot, dry climes. The winter 

of 1877-78 was especially brutal for them, and 

dozens perished. On the night of September 7, 

1878, 300 Northern Cheyennes led by Chiefs 

Little Wolf and Morning Star started north from 

Darlington in a desperate gambit to reach 

Montana. 

The movement brought a rapid military response 

as troops converged from several administrative 

departments to stop the Indians and turn them 

back. Army and Indian maneuvers over the next 

several weeks took on campaign appearances, 

with the principal route delineated by the 

tribesmen as they wended their way generally 

north through Kansas and Nebraska, and with 

secondary routes forged by the pursuing 

commands coming from various directions. 

Several times the comparatively few Cheyenne 

warriors skirmished en route with the soldiers, 

losing but few of their number in casualties while 

delivering significant losses among the troops. In 

major actions occurring at Turkey Springs, 

Indian Territory, and Punished Woman’s Fork, 
57 
58 

Kansas, as well as in a number of smaller 

skirmishes, the tribesmen carried out carefully 

prescribed offensive combats at pre-selected 

positions that stymied the army forces, enabling 

them to continue on their course. They also 

raged against white citizens at several places in 

their flight, particularly after the encounter at 

Punished Woman’s Fork, helping themselves to 

livestock and food and sometimes killing settlers, 

despite reproval of their leaders for such actions. 

(These attacks on settlers, principally in Decatur 

and Rawlins counties, Kansas, helped neutralize 

public opinion that had previously largely 

favored the Cheyennes, and some of the leaders 

later faced legal charges for the depredations.) As 

they plied the country north of the Platte River in 

Nebraska, differences arose between the chiefs 

over immediate objectives, with Morning Star 

desiring to join relatives among the Sioux while 

Little Wolf wanted to proceed to the Powder 

River lands. In mid-October, the body of Indians 

divided; and mostly 149 women, children, and 

elderly followed Morning Star toward the old 

Red Cloud Agency in northwestern Nebraska. 

The remainder stayed with Little Wolf, passing 

much of the winter hidden away in valleys of the 

Nebraska Sand Hills, then trudging on to skirt the 

east and north sides of the Black Hills and on to 

their home country. On March 25, 1879, Little 

Wolf’s people surrendered to a contingent of 

troops from Fort Keogh on the Yellowstone 

River. They were eventually permitted to remain 

at the post. 

Meantime, the people under Morning Star fared 

much worse. Soon after their separation from 

Little Wolf’s followers, these people encountered 

a cavalry patrol from Fort Robinson in northwest 

Nebraska. On October 25, after several days of 

negotiations, desperately hungry and surrounded 

by artillery hurried forward from the post, the 

Indians gave up their weapons without a fight 

and went under escort to Fort Robinson. The 

government anticipated returning Morning Star’s 

people to Darlington, but the tribesmen were 

adamant in their refusal to go back. The dispute 

lasted for weeks. Finally, post commander 

Captain Henry W. Wessells, Jr., restricted them 

to an empty barrack without food and heat to 

force their compliance; later he cut off water. 

The onset of freezing weather compounded their 

ordeal, and during the night of January 9, the 

Indians staged a sudden outbreak from their 

barracks prison armed with guns they had 

secreted beneath the floorboards. The garrison 

responded quickly, but many of the 149 

tribesmen succeeded in breaking away and 

scattering among the hills and ravines around 

Fort Robinson. For almost two weeks, patrols of 

cavalrymen scoured the Nebraska countryside 

intermittently skirmishing with the escapees. The 

final engagement occurred northwest of the post 

on January 22, when 150 soldiers surrounded 33 

tribesmen along Antelope Creek, killing most of 

them (including eight women and children). 

Taken together, Cheyenne casualties totaled 64 

killed and 78 captured of those who fled Fort 

Robinson. For Morning Star’s followers, the 

bloody result ended their exodus from the Indian 

Territory. News of the events evoked 

considerable sympathy from white Americans, 

and the surviving tribesmen were permitted to 

stay with the Lakotas at Pine Ridge Agency in 

Dakota. Eventually, the government allowed the 

Pine Ridge Cheyennes to join Little Wolf and the 

others in Montana.10

 

10For the campaign involving the Northern Cheyenne’s flight 

from the Indian Territory and its resulting conflicts, see John H. 

Monnett, Tell Them We Are Going Home: The Odyssey of the 

Northern Cheyennes (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 

2001), 48 and 128 (maps), and passim; Thomas R. Buecker, Fort 

Robinson and the American West, 1874-1899 (Lincoln: 

Nebraska State Historical Society, 1999), pp. 129-35, 141-46; 

Robert M. Utley, Frontier Regulars: The United States Army 

and the Indian, 1866-1890 (New York: The Macmillan 

Company, 1973), pp. 283-84; the somewhat novelized book by 

Mari Sandoz, Cheyenne Autumn (New York: McGraw-Hill, 

1953), pp. vii-viii (maps), and passim; The Army Almanac: A 

Book of Facts Concerning the Army of the United States

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1950), pp. 410, 

678; Socolofsky and Self, Historical Atlas of Kansas, maps 20 

and 29; Kansas Historical Markers, p. 26; “Major Trails of 

Kansas,” map provided by the Kansas State Historical Society, 

Topeka; Kansas: A Guide to the Sunflower State (New York: 

Hastings House, Publishers, 1949), pp. 32-33; and Nebraska: A 

Guide to the Cornhuster State (New York: Viking Press, 1939), 

p. 381. Accounts based largely on Cheyenne reminiscenses 

appear in George Bird Grinnell, The Fighting Cheyennes

(Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1956), pp. 400-27; and 

especially, Peter J. Powell, People of the Sacred Mountain: A 

History of the Northern Cheyenne Chiefs and Warrior Societies, 

1830-1879 (2 vols.; San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 

1981), II, 1153-1262. Site specific information, including that 

for trails, is in Ramon Powers, “The Northern Cheyenne Trek 

Through Western Kansas in 1878: Frontiersmen, Indians and 

Cultural Conflict,” The Trail Guide, 17 (September, December, 
59 

Does the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail 

meet the definition of a military campaign 

trail? 

Yes. The Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail is an 

excellent example of a military campaign trail, 

from the perspectives of both the Northern 

Cheyennes and the U.S. Army. When Little Wolf 

and Morning Star departed Indian Territory with 

300 people in September 1878, it was with full 

realization that their flight would be countered by 

U.S. Army troops. The Northern Cheyennes’ 

movement became a military operation with the 

objective to enable them to reach their Montana 

homeland, and they repeatedly waged offensive 

and defensive warfare of tactical substance 

against soldiers and civilians to effect that goal. 

Conversely, the army reacted by deploying 

numerous units to prosecute the Indians in a 

series of field maneuvers. In 1907, the War 

Department sanctioned the collective army 

movements as the campaign against the Northern 

Cheyennes, 1878-1879. 

Does the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail 

meet criteria for national significance? 

Yes. The Northern Cheyenne ordeal of their 

escape from the Indian Territory and pursuit by 

troops is fraught with significance for several 

reasons. It continued the face-to-face conflict 

with the army as in previous years. The forced 

relocation of the people from the Northern 

Plains to a country so physically ill-suited for 

them typified the government’s punitive policy of 

moving tribal peoples to the Indian Territory for 

 

1972), pp. 1-35; Bob Rea, “Turkey Springs & Red Hills, 

September 13-14, 1878" (unpublished manuscript provided by 

the author); “The Great Cheyenne Chase: A Truthful Account by 

a Dragoon Who Participated in It” (typescript copy in the 

Decatur County Historical Society Last Indian Raid in Kansas 

Museum, Oberlin, Kansas); “Plan of Battle Ground between 

Troops and Cheyenne Indians September 27, 1878" (map by 

Captain William G. Wedemeyer of Punished Woman’s Fork site 

from court-martial proceedings of Captain Joseph H. 

Rendlebrock in the National Archives. Copy provided by Bob 

Rea, Fort Supply Historic Site, Oklahoma); Rendlebrock to 

Lieutenant Colonel John P. Hatch, Fourth Cavalry, December 

12, 1878 (transcription of National Archives document provided 

by Bob Rea, Fort Supply Historic Site); and Terry L. Steinacher 

and Gayle F. Carlson, The Cheyenne Outbreak Barracks 

(Lincoln: Nebraska State Historical Society, 1999). 

deeds considered inimical to the nation’s 

interests (in actuality, the government had 

projected the removal south of the Northern 

Cheyennes several years earlier); in other words, 

the Northern Cheyennes were punished thusly 

for their involvement in the Great Sioux War. 

While their flight from the Indian Territory in 

1878 directly responded to existing conditions 

there as well as to the nostalgia of the people for 

their Powder River lands, it perhaps represented 

a deeper expression of outrage over the cultural 

dilemmas that had confronted them over the past 

two decades. This manifested itself time and 

again in their striking out against aspects of white 

society wherever encountered on the route 

north, and while the Indians needed food and 

animals to prolong their movement, it also 

explains in large measure the deaths and 

destruction, against the will of their leaders, 

directed against settlers along their course. 

Moreover, in the soldier-like manner of their 

execution, the stands of the Cheyenne warriors at 

Turkey Springs and Punished Woman’s Fork, as 

well as at other sites, represented important 

variants from former army-Indian encounters on 

the plains, signifying by their planning and armed 

readiness the determination of the people in their 

course. What followed for Morning Star’s people 

after their surrender to military authorities at 

Fort Robinson, including their subsequent 

escape from the unbearable conditions imposed 

on them in their barrack prison, exemplified the 

reaction of desperate people confronted with 

intolerable circumstances. The trek of Little 

Wolf and Morning Star in 1878 today constitutes 

a sad yet enduring legacy within Northern 

Cheyenne society. 

The Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail is 

associated with several themes identified in the 

National Park Service’s Thematic Framework 

(1996). Under the theme of Peopling Places, the 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus – similar to the Long 

Walk – represents efforts by the U.S. government 

to remove Indians from their ethnic homelands, 

and the desire of those native people to return. 

Under the theme of Expressing Cultural Values, 

the Northern Cheyenne Exodus is a seminal 

event in Cheyenne history and culture. As a 

reflection of the U.S. government’s policies 

towards Indians, and the ability of the Cheyennes 
60 

to persuade the U.S. government to establish a 

reservation in Montana, the Northern Cheyenne 

Exodus also is associated with the theme of 

Shaping the Political Landscape. 

Does the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail 

meet the criterion of significance through 

historic usage, as defined by the National 

Trails System Act? 

Yes. The National Trails Systems Act states that a 

National Historic Trail “must be a trail or route 

established by historic use and must be 

historically significant as a result of that use.” 

Although the trail was most likely known and 

used before, the significance of the Northern 

Cheyenne Exodus Trail is directly tied to its onetime use as the route of the Northern Cheyennes 

during their flight from the reservation in 

Oklahoma. It is the use of the trail itself, and the 

events that took place during that journey that 

define the Northern Cheyenne Exodus, a 

seminal event in Northern Cheyenne history and 

culture. 

Does the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail 

merit further study as a potential candidate 

for designation as a National Historic Trail? 

Yes. According to the National Trails System 

Act, a National Historic Trail must: (A) be 

significant as a result of its use as a trail; (B) must 

meet criteria for national significance; and (C) 

must have potential for public recreation or 

historical interpretation. As discussed above, the 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail appears to 

meet the criteria for national significance based 

on its use as historic trail and, as outlined below, 

has the potential to provide recreational and 

interpretive opportunities. 

It should be noted that any future study of the 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail may want to 

consider a re-evaluation of the name for this trail. 

Steve Brady of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

stated that the word “exodus” seemed an 

inappropriate word choice, in that the Northern 

Cheyennes viewed the journey as coming to their 

homeland, rather than departing from 

Oklahoma. 

Places Associated with the Northern 

Cheyenne Exodus Trail that are Significant 

as Trail Resources and/or Provide 

Recreational and Interpretive Opportunities 

Based on a reconnaissance-level survey of 

portions of the trail, the Northern Cheyenne 

Exodus Trail has a very high degree of integrity, 

and it is relatively easy for modern-day travelers 

to recreate the route of the trail. The Northern 

Cheyenne Exodus Trail also provides several 

recreational and interpretive opportunities, many 

of which have scenic qualities and most of which 

(outside of the major metropolitan areas) are free 

from modern intrusions. In addition, the story of 

the Northern Cheyenne Exodus was 

chronologically dramatic; as such, this trail 

especially offers an exciting experience for the 

traveler who begins the route in Oklahoma and 

follows the unfolding drama northward. Places 

associated with the Northern Cheyenne Exodus 

Trail include: 

Morning Star (Dull Knife) Village Site, Vicinity of 

Kaycee, Wyoming. The November 25, 1876, 

destruction of Morning Star’s village by Colonel 

Ranald S. Mackenzie devastated the Northern 

Cheyennes, forcing their surrender to the U.S. 

Army at Camp Robinson, Nebraska, in April 1877. 

The village site is on private property, 

approximately 15 miles west of Kaycee and 

approximately five miles north of the Barnum 

post office. 

Darlington Agency, Darlington, Oklahoma. 

Following their surrender, the Northern 

Cheyennes were marched nearly 1,000 miles to 

the Darlington Agency in Indian Territory. Nine 

hundred thirty-seven Northern Cheyennes 

enrolled at the Darlington Agency, reporting to 

John D. Miles, the agent for the Cheyennes and 

Arapahos in August 1877. One year later, only 353 

Northern Cheyennes had survived the harsh 

living conditions at the agency. In a desperate 

attempt to return home, most of them deserted 

the reservation on September 9, 1878. The 

Darlington Agency is now the Darlington Game 

Bird Hatchery, and is open for wildlife viewing. 

The site does retain some historic buildings 

related to agency operation. 
61 

Fort Reno, Oklahoma. One of the primary 

missions of Fort Reno, which was established in 

1874, was to provide protection for the nearby 

Cheyenne and Arapaho reservation at 

Darlington. Troops from Fort Reno pursued the 

Cheyennes after their breakout, encountering 

them at Turkey Springs, Punished Women’s 

Fork, and other skirmish areas. Fort Reno, now 

operated by the Agricultural Research Service of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has a visitor 

center that interprets the history of the fort. A 

number of fort buildings date to the time of the 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus. 

Reno Cantonment, Canton, Oklahoma. 

Northwest of the town of Canton is the only 

remaining structure of a cantonment that was 

constructed on the North Canadian River in 1879. 

The cantonment, which is now used by the 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Head Start program, was 

built by the army to prevent additional 

Cheyennes from also trying to return to their 

Montana homelands. 

Fort Supply Historic Site, Town of Fort Supply, 

Oklahoma. Originally established as a base of 

operations for General Philip H. Sheridan’s 1868 

campaign against the Cheyennes and Arapahos, 

Fort Supply also played a role in the Northern 

Cheyenne Exodus. Following their defeat at 

Turkey Springs, Captain Joseph Rendlebrock’s 

troops retired to the fort, then known as Camp 

Supply. Troops from Camp Supply were also 

involved in the skirmish at Sand Creek, Kansas 

(not to be confused with the Sand Creek 

Massacre in Colorado). The fort closed in 1893, 

and has since housed several governmental 

agencies, including the Western State Mental 

Hospital. The Fort Supply Historic Site preserves 

the fort’s historic buildings, including several that 

date to the time of the Northern Cheyenne 

Exodus, and has a visitor center and museum. 

Turkey Springs Battle Site, vicinity of Camp 

Houston, Oklahoma. The battle at Turkey 

Springs took place on September 13, 1878, and was 

the first encounter between the military and the 

Cheyennes during the Northern Cheyenne 

Exodus. A wayside marker along Oklahoma 

State Highway 64, between the towns of 

Tegarden and Camp Houston, marks the vicinity 

of the battle. 

Top to bottom: Darlington Agency, Darlington, Oklahoma; 

Officers’ Barracks at Fort Reno, Oklahoma; vicinity of 

Turkey Springs Battle Site, vicinity of Camp Houston, 

Oklahoma; Salt Haulers’ Graves, vicinity of Camp Houston, 

Oklahoma. Photos by Christine Whitacre. 
62 

 Bristow and Clark Gravesite (“Salt Haulers 

Graves”), vicinity of Camp Houston, Oklahoma. 

Within days of the Turkey Springs battle, 

Northern Cheyenne scouts killed several local 

residents, including cowboys Ruben Bristow and 

Fred Clark, who were on their way to pick up a 

haul of cattle salt. Bristow and Clark were buried 

near the spot where they died. Their gravesite, 

surrounded by a pipe fence and maintained by 

the property owner, is adjacent to county road 

E0030 approximately 13 miles northwest of the 

town of Camp Houston. 

 

Krier Pioneer Museum, Ashland, Kansas. The 

Bear Creek skirmish between the Cheyennes and 

the army took place on west Bear Creek, about 

one mile west and one-half mile north of the 

town of Ashland. The Sand Creek skirmish took 

place about six miles west and north of Ashland.11 

Information on both of these events is available at 

the Krier Pioneer Museum in Ashland, Kansas, 

which also interprets the local history of the area. 

Fort Dodge, Vicinity of Dodge City, Kansas. Fort 

Dodge was established in 1865; its purpose was to 

protect U.S. mail and emigrant wagon trains on 

the Santa Fe Trail. Troops from Fort Dodge also 

were involved in the Northern Cheyenne 

Exodus. Colonel William H. Lewis, who led the 

assault at Punished Woman’s Fork, was an 

infantry commander at Fort Dodge. When the 

fort closed in 1882, it was sold to the State of 

Kansas and has served as a home for disabled 

veterans and their families since 1890. The 

property includes a number of historic buildings 

as well as a museum and library. 

Punished Woman’s Fork, vicinity of Lake Scott 

State Park, Kansas. The engagement at Punished 

Woman’s Fork, which took place on September 

27, 1878, was one of the most significant battles 

between the U.S. Army and the Northern 

Cheyennes during the Northern Cheyenne 

Exodus. The site, which is open to the public, is 

within Battle Canyon near Lake Scott State Park. 

 

Site of Fort Wallace, Vicinity of Wallace, Kansas. 

Following the Battle of Punished Woman’s Fork, 

 

11 Albert G. Maddux and Vernon R. Maddux, The Battle 

of Punished Woman’s Fork (n.p., n.d.), footnotes 18 and 

19.

Top to bottom: Entrance road to Punished Woman’s Fork 

Battle Site, vicinity of Lake Scott State Park, Kansas; 

Monument in Wallace Cemetery, Wallace, Kansas; Fort 

Wallace wayside marker, Wallace, Kansas. Photos by 

Christine Whitacre. 
63 

the troops retired to Fort Wallace, Kansas. 

Colonel Lewis, who was wounded at Punished 

Woman’s Fork, died en route to the fort. Fort 

Wallace was originally established in 1865 to 

protect emigrant traffic along the adjacent Smoky 

Hill Trail; troops from the fort were engaged in 

numerous encounters with Indians, including 

those during the Northern Cheyenne Exodus. All 

that remains of the fort is its cemetery, which is 

within the Wallace Township cemetery. Fort 

Wallace stood directly south of the cemetery on 

land that is now private property. 

Fort Wallace Memorial Association Museum, 

Wallace, Kansas. The Fort Wallace Memorial 

Association Museum interprets the history of 

Fort Wallace and has exhibits of artifacts from 

the fort. 

Last Indian Raid Museum (Decatur County 

Museum), Oberlin, Kansas. Between September 

30-October 3, 1878, Cheyenne warriors killed 31 

settlers in the vicinity of Prairie Dog Creek, 

Beaver Creek, and the forks of the Sappa River in 

northern Kansas. The Last Indian Raid Museum 

interprets the history of those attacks, locally 

referred to as the “last Indian raid in Kansas.” 

The museum displays on the raid include 

artifacts and a video on the Northern Cheyenne 

Exodus. 

Last Indian Raid Monument, Oberlin Cemetery, 

Oberlin, Kansas. In 1911, a “Last Indian Raid” 

monument was placed within the Oberlin 

Cemetery, in memory of those local settlers who 

were killed during the raid and are buried near 

the monument. Among those buried in the 

cemetery are members of the Laing family, which 

lost four members (a father and three sons) 

during the raid.

Fort Robinson, Vicinity of Crawford, Nebraska. 

In 1873, the U.S. government relocated Chief Red 

Cloud and approximately 13,000 Sioux, 

Cheyennes, and Arapahos to the White River 

area. The following year, Fort Robinson was 

established adjacent to the reservation to protect 

government employees and property and to 

oversee these Indians. The fort also served as a 

base for numerous army campaigns, including 

the 1876 Powder River campaign and the 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus. On October 23, 

1878, troops from Fort Robinson encountered 

Morning Star’s band, leading to their surrender 

and imprisonment at Fort Robinson. The 

restored fort, which is within the Fort Robinson 

and Red Cloud Agency National Historic 

Landmark, is operated as a state park by the 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 

Located within one of the fort’s historic buildings 

is the Fort Robinson Museum, which is operated 

by the Nebraska State Historical Society and 

interprets the history of the fort, including the 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus. The Nebraska 

State Historical Society also is currently 

reconstructing the Cheyenne Outbreak Barracks

at Fort Robinson, from which the Northern 

Cheyennes escaped on January 9, 1879. 

Bear Butte, Bear Butte State Park, Sturgis, South 

Dakota. On their journey back to Montana, 

Little Wolf stopped to worship at Bear Butte. 

Sacred to Native Americans, Bear Butte is the 

place where Maheo, the creator, imparted to 

Top to bottom: Exhibit on the Northern Cheyenne Exodus at 

the Last Indian Raid Museum, Oberlin, Kansas; Laing 

Family Cemetery Marker, Oberlin Cemetery, Oberlin, 

Kansas. Photos by Christine Whitacre. 
64 

Sweet Medicine the knowledge from which the 

Cheyennes derive their religious, political, social, 

and economic customs. The site, which is a 

National Historic Landmark, is within Bear Butte 

State Park.

Site of Fort Keogh, Montana. Little Wolf’s band 

of 114 people surrendered to the U.S. Army at 

Fort Keogh on April 1, 1879. Established in 1877, 

Fort Keogh was at one time the largest army post 

in Montana. The site is now part of the Fort 

Keogh Livestock and Range Research 

Laboratory, operated by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Remnants of the old parade ground, 

and one wagon shed, are all that remain of the 

original fort. 

Range Riders Museum, Miles City. The Range 

Riders Museum in Miles City, Montana, includes 

one of the officer’s quarters from Fort Keogh, 

which was relocated to this site from the Fort 

Keogh Livestock and Range Research 

Laboratory. The museum is on the site of the 

1876 Tongue River Cantonment established by 

General Nelson A. Miles. 

Roadside markers. Several roadside historical 

markers identify events associated with the 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus. 

Potential National Historic Landmarks 

associated with the Northern Cheyenne 

Exodus Trail 

As noted above, Bear Butte and Fort Robinson 

and the Red Cloud Agency already are National 

Historic Landmarks. Potential National Historic 

Landmarks associated with the Northern 

Cheyenne Exodus Trail include: 

Morning Star (Dull Knife) Village Site, Wyoming. 

The destruction of this village was a pivotal event 

in Northern Cheyenne history, and a deciding 

factor in forcing the surrender of the Northern 

Cheyennes and their removal to Oklahoma. 

Punished Woman’s Fork, Kansas. The Battle of 

Punished Woman’s Fork is the most significant 

engagement between the Northern Cheyenne 

and the U.S. Army along the route of the 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus. In addition, 

Punished Woman’s Fork is particularly 

significant for the military tactics employed by 

the Northern Cheyennes. The carefully planned 

and staged ambush by the Northern Cheyennes 

at Punished Woman’s Fork represented an 

important variant from earlier army-Indian 

encounters on the plains. 
65 

Chapter 11: The Smoky Hill Trail 

Smoky Hill/Butterfield Overland Dispatch Trail Marker, Kansas. 

Photo by Christine Whitacre. 

Associated Military Campaign 

Central Plains Warfare of the 1860s involving the 

Southern Cheyennes, Southern Arapahos, and 

other tribes. 

Period of Significance 

1859-1870. The period of significance begins with 

the Colorado Gold Rush of 1859, which 

precipitated the creation of the Smoky Hill Trail, 

and ends with the 1870 arrival of the Kansas 

Pacific Railroad in Denver. 

Location 

Although segments of the Smoky Hill Trail were 

based on earlier routes, the Smoky Hill, as a 

distinct continuous trail, is generally defined as 

extending from Atchison, Kansas, to Denver, 

Colorado. Trunk lines also connected to the 

trail from Fort Leavenworth and Kansas City. It 

is also important to note that the construction 

of the Kansas Pacific Railroad redefined the 

eastern beginning point of the Smoky Hill Trail; 

as the railroad moved westward, so did the 

eastern terminus of the trail. 

 

Length of Trail 

The length of the trail between Atchison, Kansas, 

and Denver, Colorado, is approximately 600 

miles. 

History 

The Smoky Hill Trail was an overland passage 

followed by emigrants headed for the Colorado 

gold country during the late 1850s and 1860s. 

Named for the hilly clay ridge that divided the 

drainages of the Smoky Hill and Republican 

rivers, the course evolved as a middle route 

leading west between the Oregon Trail, 

paralleling the Platte River through Nebraska, 

and the Santa Fe Trail, following the Arkansas 

River in southern Kansas. The eastern parts of 

the Smoky Hill Trail, extending west from Fort 

Leavenworth and Kansas City, traced segments 

of old Indian trails in their course. In 1844, Major 

John C. Fremont’s expedition to the Rockies 

passed through the country bordering the Smoky 

Hill River. In little more than a decade, the 

migrant segment of the Smoky Hill Trail 

branched from the Santa Fe Trail near Council
66 

 
67 

Grove, Kansas, and carried west along the 

stream, providing a shorter but hazardous route 

to the goldfields, and during the rush of 1859 

thousands of prospectors followed it in their 

wagons, pulling handcarts, or walking. From the 

head of the stream in what is today eastern 

Colorado, the Smoky Hill Trail veered northwest, 

following Sand Creek, before heading west and 

north to Denver. Part of the trail later served as a 

route for stagecoaches running between the 

Missouri River and Denver, as well as briefly for 

the overland mail. 

Military operations along the Smoky Hill Trail 

during the Indian Wars stemmed from the 

route’s use by citizens and commercial enterprise 

and the consequential establishment of army 

posts along it for their protection. It was not a 

campaign route in a formal sense, i.e., its use in 

that regard was secondary to the reason for its 

existence and came about largely because of the 

interplay of the various forts during unfolding 

events of the 1850s, 1860s, and 1870s vis-a-vis the 

Indians who inhabited its environs. As 

emigration proceeded, and as plans for a railroad 

materialized, the government erected several 

army posts east-to-west along the Smoky Hill 

Trail, namely Fort Harker (1864), Fort Hays 

(1865), and Fort Wallace (1865). All straddled the 

Smoky Hill Trail in interspersed fashion, and 

were anchored in the east, as were other Kansas 

posts, by Fort Riley (1853), near the junction of 

the Kansas and Republican rivers, and Fort 

Leavenworth (1827) on the Missouri River. The 

Smoky Hill posts, as well as four others raised 

along the Santa Fe Trail in the Arkansas Valley to 

the south, played significant roles in governmentIndian relations affecting the entire Central 

Plains region. 

Beyond the routine military use of the Smoky Hill 

Trail as a wagon road connecting the forts, 

reflecting more or less of a daily interaction 

among them as they carried out their prescribed 

missions on the Kansas frontier, elements of the 

trail figured in several distinct operations against 

the Southern Cheyennes, Southern Arapahos, 

Lakotas, Kiowas, Comanches, and KiowaApache Indians. In early September 1864, Major 

Edward W. Wynkoop and a command from Fort 

Lyon, Colorado Territory, marched to a point on 

the Smoky Hill to meet with the Cheyenne and 

Arapahos. There the Cheyenne chief Black 

Kettle and the Arapaho leaders turned over 

several white captives and agreed to meet with 

Colorado Governor John Evans in an effort to 

maintain peace. But any peace was illusory; in 

late November Colonel John M. Chivington and 

a column of volunteer cavalry fell on Black 

Kettle’s village at Sand Creek, killing more than 

150 of the people. Those who managed to flee the 

massacre found refuge with kinsmen in the 

Smoky Hill country. In retaliation, the Indians 

attacked whites along the overland trails 

throughout Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas, 

targeting emigrant parties, stage stations, and 

military outposts. Attempting to close the Smoky 

Hill Trail, which penetrated the Indians’ prime 

buffalo country, Cheyenne Dog Soldiers and 

other warriors conducted at least a dozen raids 

between 1865 and 1869 over the 200-plus mile 

expanse between Fort Wallace in the west and 

Fort Harker in the east. In 1867, the trail factored 

in Major General Winfield Scott Hancock’s 

campaign against the Cheyennes and Lakotas 

when the tribesmen killed citizens, stole 

livestock, burned stage stations along it, even 

attacking the garrison at Fort Wallace. Hancock 

sent Lieutenant Colonel George A. Custer in 

pursuit, and he followed the Smoky Hill Trail east 

for 40 miles from Downer’s Creek Station. At 

Fort Hays, the two officers counciled and 

determined that Custer should proceed 

northwest on a chase through the Platte, 

Republican, and Smoky Hill country. But there 

occurred no decisive engagements, and Custer’s 

weary column limped back to Fort Wallace. 

Later, troops of the Tenth Cavalry and 

Eighteenth Kansas Cavalry joined to fight several 

hundred Cheyennes and Lakotas at Beaver 

Creek, some 80 miles north of Fort Wallace on 

the Smoky Hill Trail. 

In September 1868, responding to Major General 

Philip H. Sheridan’s concern over increased 

depredations by Cheyennes and Lakotas along 

the railroads, Major George A. Forsyth led a 

command of 50 scouts out of Fort Hays, 

ultimately to engage Chief Roman Nose’s 

Cheyenne warriors in a storied fight of eight days 

on the Arickaree Fork of the Republican in 

eastern Colorado Territory. Forsyth’s besieged 

command, which included five dead and 16 

wounded, was relieved by Tenth Cavalry 
68 

“Buffalo Soldiers” marching rapidly from Fort 

Wallace. Following Sheridan’s winter campaign 

against the Southern Plains tribes, Cheyenne 

prisoners taken at the Washita River encounter in 

November 1868, were incarcerated at Fort Hays. 

Again, in April 1875, cavalry operating out of Fort 

Wallace struck a village of Cheyennes about 70 

miles northeast of the post and killed most of the 

occupants in an episode since plagued with 

controversy. And in September 1878, troops from 

Forts Wallace and Hays ranged east and west 

along the Smoky Hill Trail paralleling the Kansas 

Pacific Railroad, alert for the Cheyennes under 

Little Wolf and Morning Star who had broken 

away from their exile in the Indian Territory in a 

desperate attempt to return to their Montana 

homes. These people engaged soldiers at 

Punished Woman’s Fork on September 27, and 

the army casualties from that encounter were 

brought to Fort Wallace. Over the next several 

weeks, troops from Forts Wallace and Hays 

continued their maneuvers through the country 

along the Solomon, Beaver, and their tributaries, 

but were unsuccessful in their search for the 

elusive Cheyennes. Throughout the period of 

construction of the Kansas Pacific Railroad 

through Kansas near the Smoky Hill, troops from 

the different posts regularly conducted patrols 

along the trail to protect its stage and railroad 

stations from Indians. This routine procedure 

constituted principal army use of the Smoky Hill 

Trail, rather than any strict use of it by troops or 

Indians in the formal government campaigns. 

As an overland route, the Smoky Hill Trail 

provided access for emigrants and prospectors 

bound for the Rocky Mountains, and its presence 

eventually brought transportation and 

commerce, which promoted placement along its 

length of military posts to protect citizens as well 

as these interests. As did all the overland trails, it 

impacted Indians who lived in the region by 

introducing further competition into an everconstricting land base. Whites vied for game in 

the coveted buffalo grounds between the Platte 

and Arkansas rivers granted the Cheyennes and 

Arapahos by treaty in 1861 and 1865. 

Compounding this, parties of emigrants who 

passed over the Smoky Hill Trail joined with 

those on the Oregon and Santa Fe trails to create 

a river of humanity cutting broad swaths through 

tribal lands, stripping grass and timber, while 

droughts and disease additionally limited game 

availability, particularly that of buffalo. 

Moreover, the military stations along the Smoky 

Hill – as well as elsewhere in the region – 

contributed to the despoliation by cutting wood, 

taking game, and instituting haying to feed their 

horses, besides promoting the arrival of ranchers 

to graze the country with cattle to market to the 

troops. The mounting stress on resources 

produced trauma and resentment among the 

tribes, drawing them more and more 

centrifugally into the Smoky Hill country and 

creating combustible conditions that erupted 

randomly over the years of trail use. Underlying 

all, the Sand Creek Massacre had visited 

devastation upon the Cheyennes, ripping their 

societal fabric with the loss of so many leaders 

and families killed; the catastrophe further 

promoted longstanding schisms among the 

assorted bands over matters of war and peace 

that further manifested themselves in relations

with the army along the Smoky Hill Trail over the 

next decade.12 

 

12This description of the Smoky Hill Trail and events that 

occurred along it as well as throughout the Central Plains, is 

drawn from the following publications: Elliott West, The 

Contested Plains: Indians, Goldseekers, and the Rush to 

Colorado (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998), pp. 

198-99, 234-35, 273, 275, and passim; Calvin W. Gower, “The 

Pike’s Peak Gold Rush and the Smoky Hill Route, 1859-1860,” 

Kansas Historical Quarterly, 25 (Summer, 1959), pp. 158-71; 

Utley, Frontiersmen in Blue, pp. 292-97; Robert M. Utley, 

Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian, 

1866-1890 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1973), pp. 

111-39, George Bent, Life of George Bent written from His 

Letters. Ed. by Savoie Lottinville (Norman: University of 

Oklahoma Press, 1968), passim; Lawrence A. Frost, The CourtMartial of General George Armstrong Custer (Norman: 

University of Oklahoma Press, 1968), map on pp. 114-15; and 

Margaret Long, The Smoky Hill Trail (Denver: Privately 

published, 1953), pp. 19-39, and maps opposite pp. xvi and 19. 

See also, Homer E. Socolofsky and Huber Self, Historical Atlas 

of Kansas (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972), maps 

20 and 23; “Major Trails of Kansas,” map provided by the 

Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka; Kansas Historical 

Markers (Topeka: Kansas State Historical Society, n.d.), pp. 9, 

26, 27, 39; Kansas: A Guide to the Sunflower State (New York: 

Hastings House, Publishers, 1949), p. 449; and Colorado: A 

Guide to the Highest State (New York: Hastings House, 

Publishers, 1941), p. 70-71, 271-72. For several of the military 

outposts along the trail, see, William McKale and William D. 

Young, Fort Riley, Citadel of the Frontier West (Topeka: Kansas 

State Historical Society, 2000); Leo E. Oliva, Fort Harker, 

Defending the Journey West (Topeka: Kansas State Historical 

Society, 2000); Leo E. Oliva, Fort Hays, Keeping Peace on the 

Plains (Topeka: Kansas State Historical Society, 1980); and Leo 
69 

Does the Smoky Hill Trail meet the 

definition of a military campaign trail? 

No. Although segments of the Smoky Hill Trail 

were used in various military campaigns, the trail 

was primarily an overland route and not a 

campaign route in a formal sense, in that it was 

not a primary route used by either Indians or 

army commands in a direct expeditionary sense. 

The trail’s military use was secondary to the 

reason for its existence and came about largely 

because of the interplay of various forts during 

unfolding events of the 1850s, 1860s, and 1870s 

vis-à-vis the Indians who inhabited its environs. 

Does the Smoky Hill Trail meet criteria for 

national significance? 

No, at least not within the context of military 

campaign trails. Although the Smoky Hill may be 

nationally significant as an overland trail, that 

assessment is beyond the scope of the Clash of 

Cultures trail project. The Smoky Hill Trail is 

significant in several respects, but its importance 

in the Indian campaigns derives more from its 

incidental presence and use, as well as from 

causative associative features that contributed to 

the existence of the campaigns, and not as a 

primary route used by either Indians or army 

commands in an expeditionary manner. 

Does the Smoky Hill Trail meet the criterion 

of significance through historic usage, as 

defined by the National Trails System Act? 

No, at least not within the context of military 

campaign trails. The National Trails Systems Act 

states that a National Historic Trail “must be a 

trail or route established by historic use and must 

be historically significant as a result of that use.” 

The Smoky Hill Trail may meet the definition of a 

nationally significant historic trail in terms of its 

use as an overland trail, but that is beyond the 

scope of this project. 

 

E. Oliva, Fort Wallace, Sentinel on the Smoky Hill Trail

(Topeka: Kansas State Historical Society, 1998). 

Does the Smoky Hill Trail merit further 

study as a potential candidate for designation 

as a National Historic Trail? 

Pending further study, the Smoky Hill Trail may 

merit designation as a National Historic Trail 

designation for its use as an overland trail, but not 

for its use solely as a military trail. 

Places Associated with the Smoky Hill Trail 

that are Significant as Trail Resources and/or 

Provide Recreational and Interpretive 

Opportunities 

Based on a reconnaissance-level survey, the 

Smoky Hill Trail appears to have a high level of 

integrity, with vast open stretches of land similar 

to that encountered by historical travelers. Much 

of the trail parallels Interstate 70. The Smoky Hill 

Trail also provides several recreational and 

interpretive opportunities, many of which have 

scenic qualities and most of which (outside of the 

major metropolitan areas) are free from modern 

intrusions. From east to west, the following 

represents a partial list: 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Fort Leavenworth, 

the oldest U.S. Army fort in continual use west of 

the Mississippi River, was established in 1827 to 

protect the Santa Fe Trail. The fort, which is a 

National Historic Landmark, was one of several 

forts that marked the line of the Permanent 

Indian Frontier, the purported purpose of which 

was to separate white settlement areas and Indian 

lands. Fort Leavenworth’s location on the 

Missouri River made it an important staging area 

for the military protection of all overland routes, 

including the Smoky Hill. 

Frontier Army Museum, Fort Leavenworth, 

Kansas. The Frontier Army Museum at Fort 

Leavenworth interprets the history of the frontier 

army from 1817 to 1917 and Fort Leavenworth 

from 1827 to the present. The museum offers a 

variety of interpretive displays and living history 

programs. 

Fort Riley, Kansas. Fort Riley, which is still an 

active base, was established in 1853 at the junction 

of the Smoky Hill and Republican rivers; its 

purpose was to provide protection to emigrant 

and commercial traffic along the adjacent Santa 
70 

Fe and Oregon Trails. A military road linked 

Forts Larned, Leavenworth, Riley, and Zarah. 

Following the discovery of gold in Colorado in 

1858, wagons often gathered at or near Fort Riley 

to begin their westward journey along the Smoky 

Hill Trail. The fort also served as a stagecoach 

station stop. 

 

U.S. Cavalry Museum, Fort Riley, Kansas. 

Located within an historic building at Fort Riley, 

the U.S. Cavalry Museum interprets the history 

of the cavalry from the Revolutionary War to 

World War II. 

Fort Hays State Historic Site (administered by the 

State of Kansas), Hays, Kansas. Because it was 

believed that the Indian tribes, especially the 

Cheyennes and Arapahos, posed a significant 

threat to emigrant and commercial traffic along 

the Smoky Hill, Fort Hays (originally known as 

Fort Fletcher) was established in 1865 to provide 

protection for the trail. The first Fort Hays was 

approximately 14 miles to the south; in 1867, it 

was moved to its current location. Fort Hays also 

helped guard the mails and Union Pacific 

Railway construction crews, served as a 

stagecoach station stop, and was a supply depot 

for army posts throughout Kansas. Closed by the 

military in 1889, Fort Hays is now managed as a 

historic site by the Kansas State Historical 

Society. Four original structures still stand: the 

blockhouse, guardhouse, and two officers' 

quarters. The site has a visitor center and holds 

living history demonstrations on weekends 

during the summer. 

Fort Harker, Kanopolis, Kansas. Like Fort Hays 

and Fort Wallace, Fort Harker also was built in 

response to the increased emigrant and 

commercial traffic along the Smoky Hill Trail. 

First established as Fort Ellsworth in 1864, Fort 

Harker also helped guard the stagecoach line and 

military traffic along the Fort Riley Road. In 1866, 

the fort was the site of a failed attempt to 

negotiate a peace settlement with the Cheyennes, 

following the eruption of warfare that resulted 

from the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre. Today most 

of Fort Harker is private property, and several 

fort properties have been adaptively reused as 

residences. 

Top to bottom: Smoky Hill Trail marker, eastern Colorado; 

Barracks buildings, Fort Hays State Historic Site, Hays, 

Kansas; Fort Wallace Memorial Association Museum, 

Wallace, Kansas. Photos by Christine Whitacre. 
71 

Fort Harker Guardhouse Museum, Kanopolis, 

Kansas. The Ellsworth County Historical Society 

owns two of the original Fort Harker buildings 

and operates one of them – the guardhouse – as a 

museum that interprets the history of the fort. 

 

Geographic Landmarks along the Smoky Hill 

Trail. Most of the route of the Smoky Hill Trail 

traverses flat, open prairie. However, several 

geographic landmarks punctuate that landscape, 

and were points of interest to travelers along the 

Smoky Hill Trail. These landmarks, some of 

which have been designated as National Natural 

Landmarks, include the geographic formations 

within Mushroom Rock State Park near 

Ellsworth, Castle Rock near Quinter, and 

Monument Rocks near Oakley. 

Site of Fort Wallace, Vicinity of Wallace, Kansas. 

First called Camp Pond Creek, Fort Wallace was 

the westernmost military post along the Smoky 

Hill Trail. Established in 1865 to protect emigrant 

traffic, as well as stagecoaches and railroad crews, 

the fort was 150 miles west of Fort Hays and 200 

miles east of Denver, within prime buffalo 

country coveted by several Indian tribes. As 

historian Leo Oliva has noted, the troops 

stationed at Fort Wallace, given their location 

and missions, engaged in more battles than those 

at any other post in Kansas. All that remains of 

the original fort is its cemetery, which is within 

the Wallace Township cemetery. The fort stood 

directly south of the cemetery on land that is now 

private property. 

Fort Wallace Memorial Association Museum, 

Wallace, Kansas. Fort Wallace Memorial 

Association Museum interprets the history of 

Fort Wallace and has displays exhibiting artifacts 

from the fort. 

Butterfield Trail Museum, Russell Springs, 

Kansas. Located in the historic county 

courthouse building, the Butterfield Trail 

Museum interprets the history of the Butterfield 

Overland Dispatch stage line, which followed the 

route of the Smoky Hill Trail. 

Twenty-Mile House, Parker, Colorado. The 

twenty-mile house was so-named because it was 

a stage stop along the Smoky Hill Trail 20 miles 

south of Denver. (In this area, the Smoky Hill 

Trail paralleled the historic Cherokee Trail.) 

Later converted to a post office, the building is 

now preserved in the Twenty-Mile Historical 

Park in the town of Parker. The Twenty-Mile 

House was one of six “mile” houses on the 

Smoky Hill Trail along Cherry Creek south of 

Denver. Of these, only the Twenty-Mile House, 

the Seventeen-Mile House, and the Four-Mile 

House are extant. 

Seventeen-Mile House, Arapaho County, 

Colorado. In an effort to protect it from 

encroaching suburban development, Arapaho 

County has purchased the Seventeen-Mile 

House and surrounding land as open space. A 

nonprofit organization, the “Friends of the 

Seventeen-Mile House” is now working to 

restore and interpret the history of the site.

Four-Mile House, Denver, Colorado. 

Constructed in 1859, the Four-Mile House is the 

oldest building in Denver. The building is within 

a 12-acre Denver park that is operated by a 

nonprofit organization, Four Mile Historic Park, 

Inc., which offers guided tours of the house, as 

well as other programs that interpret the early 

history of the region. 

Pioneer Monument, Denver, Colorado. The 

Pioneer monument, which is across from the 

State Capitol within the Civic Center plaza of 

downtown Denver, was designed by American 

sculptor Frederick MacMonnies to mark the end 

of the Smoky Hill Trail to Denver. The 

Butterfield Trail Museum, Russell Springs, Kansas. Photo by 

Christine Whitacre. 
72 

dedication ceremony for the monument took 

place in 1911. 

Roadside markers. Several roadside markers 

have been placed along the route of the Smoky 

Hill Trail by the Colorado and Kansas state 

historical societies, as well as local communities 

and organizations. These include 138 stone 

markers placed by Howard Raynesford in 1963, 

which mark the route of the Butterfield Overland 

Dispatch in Kansas at those points where it 

crossed major highways. (One of these markers 

is shown on the first page of this chapter.) 

The Smoky Hill Trail passes through several 

towns and sites that were in existence during the 

time that the trail was historically used. More 

intensive studies of the Smoky Hill Trail route, 

some of which have already been undertaken by 

volunteers and trail associations, will yield 

additional information on extant trail-related 

resources, such as trail ruts, camping sites, and 

stage stations. 

Potential National Historic Landmarks 

associated with the Smoky Hill Trail 

Fort Leavenworth is a designated National 

Historic Landmark. No new potential National 

Historic Landmarks were identified as part of 

this reconnaissance-level effort. Further research 

may yield potential National Historic Landmarks 

associated with the Smoky Hill Trail. 
73 

Chapter 12: Trails of the Great Sioux War 

Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. National Park Service 

Photo. 

Associated Military Campaigns 

Campaigns of the Great Sioux War 

Period of Significance 

1876-1877. The period of significance 

encompasses all of the major military actions 

associated with the Great Sioux War, beginning 

with Brigadier General George Crook’s 

movements north in February 1876, and ending 

with the final campaigns of the war in July, 

August, and September 1877. 

Location and Length of Trails 

Varied. See accompanying map. 

History 

The WHA mentors concurred that the trails 

associated with the Great Sioux War of 1876-77, 

which was the nation’s largest Indian conflict, 

merited special attention because they carried 

troops, Indians, scouts, and large amounts of war 

materiel into the zone of active operations 

embracing parts of present Wyoming, Montana, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. (In 

1907, the War Department recognized the overall 

army movements as the “Campaign against the 

Northern Cheyennes and Sioux in Montana 

[Territory], Wyoming Territory, Dakota 

Territory, and Indian Territory” between 

February 22, 1876, and September 10, 1877.) The 

mentors did not identify one single trail as being 

the most significant, but instead identified a 

number of trails, as described below. 

In particular, the WHA mentors noted that there 

is considerable public interest in the routes of the 

army and Indians between the winter of 1875-1876 

and the late summer of 1877, largely because of 

the defeat of Custer and his command at the 

Little Big Horn by Sioux and Cheyennes and all 

ancillary features associated with that 

engagement. Among campaign trails, that tracing 

the route of the army command under Brigadier 

General Alfred H. Terry (which included Custer 

and the Seventh Cavalry) west from Fort 

Abraham Lincoln, Dakota (near present 

Bismarck, North Dakota) into the PowderTongue-Big Horn river country south of the 

Yellowstone River evokes perhaps the widest 

interest because of the Custer connection. The 

entire length of this trail is known with great 

certainty, and especially that part leading south 

from the Yellowstone along Rosebud Creek and 

eventually west into Little Big Horn Valley. The 

trails of Custer and his subordinate officers in the 

direct vicinity of the climactic encounter are 

likewise well known, with the possible exception 

of that of Captain Frederick W. Benteen, whose 

battalion’s location immediately preceding the 

action at the Sioux-Cheyenne encampment 

remains at best murky. These are, of course, 

presently interpreted along with coinciding 

Indian movements at Little Bighorn Battlefield 

National Monument. 

While the climactic event of the Great Sioux War 

was the Indians’ defeat and destruction of 

Lieutenant Colonel George A. Custer’s command
74 

 
75 

at the Little Big Horn River in Montana, the 

conflict consisted of several other notable 

campaigns, including several whose routes 

corresponded with segments of the old Bozeman 

Trail route through Wyoming. All of these, each 

under the command of Brigadier General George 

Crook, embarked from Fort Fetterman, near 

present Douglas, Wyoming, and followed the 

trail generally northwest into the war zone. In 

February 1876, the Big Horn Expedition headed 

into the Powder River country along the 

Bozeman, but departed north along Prairie Dog 

Creek east of modern Sheridan, Wyoming, 

seeking Indians along the Tongue and Powder 

rivers in Montana. Following an engagement 

with Northern Cheyennes on the Powder on 

March 17 that portended grim implications for 

subsequent army operations, Crook’s force 

trudged over part of the Bozeman Trail in 

returning to Fort Fetterman. The route of the 

army command in this campaign is generally 

known, while parts are precisely known. 

Again in May, as part of the grand offensive 

known as the Sioux Campaign that involved 

army columns from Fetterman, Forts Shaw and 

Ellis, Montana Territory, and Fort Abraham 

Lincoln, Dakota Territory (including the illfated Custer command) closing on the 

Yellowstone-Powder river country, Crook 

started north again, once more following the 

Bozeman and, as in February, striking north 

from it a few miles southeast of present 

Sheridan, Wyoming. His column entered 

Montana and met the Indians in a major clash 

along upper Rosebud Creek that again forced 

his withdrawal back into Wyoming. Scarcely 

one week after Rosebud, the Sioux and 

Cheyennes annihilated Custer’s command at 

the Little Big Horn. Following the army 

setbacks, Crook awaited reinforcements along 

Little Goose Creek (near modern Sheridan, 

Wyoming), then once more struck north on the 

newly designated Big Horn and Yellowstone 

Expedition. On that campaign, Crook’s 

command labored through southeastern 

Montana into Dakota on a “Horsemeat 

March,” in which the starving soldiers 

consumed many of their animals. En route, the 

troops attacked a village of Sioux and Northern 

Cheyennes at Slim Buttes, South Dakota, before 

passing south through the Black Hills mining 

districts and closing their operation at Camp 

Robinson, Nebraska. The route of Crook’s 

summer campaigning is more or less precisely 

known. 

The former Bozeman Trail factored once more in 

the Great Sioux War. In mid-November 1876, 

Crook led forth the Powder River Expedition – 

more than 2,500 soldiers and scouts and 150 

wagons bearing provisions constituting the 

largest of Crook’s successive campaigns – again 

following the trail northwest out of Fort 

Fetterman bound for the Tongue River haunts of 

Crazy Horse’s Lakotas and tarrying briefly at 

Cantonment Reno, a rude outpost raised as a 

supply link to Fetterman. Near the road’s 

crossing of Crazy Woman Fork of Powder River, 

Crook advanced a large cavalry command under 

Colonel Ranald S. Mackenzie to attack a village 

of Northern Cheyennes of chiefs Morning Star 

(Dull Knife) and Little Wolf. Mackenzie struck 

the camp on November 25, and in one of the 

largest encounters of the Great Sioux War routed 

the tribesmen and destroyed their homes. Rather 

than continuing into Montana, Crook now 

backtracked over the Bozeman and from 

Pumpkin Buttes descended the Belle Fourche 

River in a northeasterly direction to overtake 

Crazy Horse’s Lakotas. Frigid weather 

conditions and scanty provisions, however, 

combined to turn him back to Fort Fetterman, 

and his command marched south over part of the 

Bozeman Trail on its way into the post. 

Three successive campaigns from Fort Fetterman 

thus moved northwest over parts of the Bozeman 

Trail before diverging toward Montana, the 

overall pertinent stretch containing segments 

utilized in Crook’s various campaigns measuring 

approximately 165 miles. While these movements 

constituted legitimate campaign routes of 

Crook’s armies, each traced the old Bozeman 

Trail over part of its course before passing 

northward. Subordinate routes of consequence 

tied closely to the Bozeman appear to have 

included that of Mackenzie leading to and from 

his attack on Morning Star’s village in the Big 

Horns, together with that of Crook’s push down 

and back along the Belle Fourche River before 

returning to Fort Fetterman in late December. 

Likewise, the general route north of the 

Cheyennes from their destroyed village into 
76 

Montana where they sought refuge with Crazy 

Horse’s people, while presently but 

approximately known, must be considered an 

associated route of this campaign. In all 

instances, the Bozeman Trail in 1876 likely 

resembled a broad, dusty, multi-laned dirt road 

intermittently scored by thousands of soldiers’ 

shoes, horses’ hooves, and wagon wheels, all 

moving forward, and the latter constantly passing 

back and forth with supplies, some bearing the 

wounded from the Rosebud and Morning Star 

engagements to the hospital at Fort Fetterman. 

Other Great Sioux War campaign trails whose 

courses are generally well known include the 

route of Colonel John Gibbon’s command from 

Fort Shaw to Fort Ellis and from the latter post 

down the Yellowstone to meet the Terry/Custer 

contingent from the east, as well as the route of 

march of the forces of Terry and Gibbon west 

from the mouth of Rosebud Creek to the Big 

Horn River and the ascent of that stream to the 

Little Big Horn and up that tributary to the scene 

of Custer’s engagement. The route of General 

Crook’s marches along the Bozeman trail, as 

previously explained, is also generally known. 

Less is known of the exact movements of Terry 

and Gibbon on the north side of the Yellowstone 

in August and September 1876, as they scouted 

the country before abandoning the summer 

operations and returning to their respective 

home stations. 

Following the summer campaign, the army 

erected cantonments at Tongue River and 

Glendive Creek on the Yellowstone, thereby 

permanently occupying the disputed lands. 

From these posts through the winter of 1876 and 

spring of 1877, Colonel Nelson A. Miles fielded 

campaigns in several directions designed to 

compel the tribesmen’s surrender and removal to 

the Dakota and Nebraska agencies. While the 

sites of Miles’s engagements north and south of 

the Yellowstone (Spring Creek, Cedar Creek, 

Bark Creek, Ash Creek, and Muddy Creek) have 

been established with certainty, the exact routes 

of his soldiers to and from those places are but 

vaguely known. The lone exception is Miles’s 

route south up Tongue River toward his 

rendezvous and battle with Crazy Horse’s Sioux 

and accompanying Northern Cheyennes in the 

Wolf Mountains on January 8, 1877. Similarly, the 

trails of the Indians as they addressed army 

movements throughout 1876 and 1877 are 

presently known but generally. The least known 

routes of all of the army operations are those 

embracing the final campaigning of the Great 

Sioux War conducted by Miles and his 

subordinates north of the Yellowstone in the late 

summer and early fall of 1877, and those 

occurring simultaneously in eastern Montana, 

western Dakota, and northern Wyoming, as the 

troops tried to overtake refugees from the 

previous encounters and force them into the 

agencies. 13 

 

13Facets of the Great Sioux War of 1876-77 are considered in 

several of the works cited in the preceding footnote relating to 

the Bozeman Trail, but see also, Utley, Frontier Regulars, pp. 

247-84; Charles B. Robinson III, A Good Year to Die: The Story 

of the Great Sioux War (New York: Random House, 1995); John 

S. Gray, Centennial Campaign: The Sioux War of 1876 (Fort 

Collins, Colo.: Old Army Press, 1976). Site-specific data, 

including that relating to army and Indian trails, appears 

variously in Laudie J. Chorne, Following the Custer Trail of 

1876 (Bismarck, No. Dak.: Printing Plus, 1997); ohn S. Gray, 

Custer’s Last Campaign: Mitch Boyer & the Little Bighorn 

Reconstructed (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1991); 

Paul L. Hedren, Traveler’s Guide to the Great Sioux War

(Helena: Montana Historical Society Press, 1996); Jerome A. 

Greene, Slim Buttes, 1876: An Episode of the Great Sioux War

(Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982); and Jerome A. 

Greene, Yellowstone Command: Colonel Nelson A. Miles and 

the Great Sioux War, 1876-1877 (Lincoln: University of 

Nebraska Press, 1991). For 1876 use of the Bozeman Trail, see 

Paul L. Hedren, “Beyond Red Cloud’s War: The Bozeman Trail 

in the 1870s” (unpublished paper presented at the Bozeman Trail 

Symposium, Bozeman, Montana, July, 1998), while information 

specific to Crook’s operations in 1876, and particularly as they 

relate to movements in the area of the Bozeman Trail, is in John 

D. McDermott, “Gen. George Crook’s 1876 Campaigns: A 

Report Prepared for the American Battlefield Protection 

Program” (unpublished manuscript dated June, 2000), passim; 

Robert J. Legoski (comp.), General George Crook’s Campaign 

of 1876, June 5 through August 3: Newspaper Accounts of the 

Day (Sheridan, Wyo.: Privately published, 2000), pp. 6-20, 65-

73; Jesse W. Vaughn, The Reynolds Campaign on Powder River

(Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961), pp. 43-52; and 

Neil C. Mangum, Battle of the Rosebud: Prelude to the Little 

Bighorn (El Segundo, Calif.: Upton and Sons, 1987), pp. 29-36, 

89-91. Federal campaign designation encompassing the various 

army movements appears in The Army Almanac: A Book of 

Facts Concerning the Army of the United States (Washington, 

D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1950), pp. 410, 678. 
77 

Do the Trails of the Great Sioux War meet 

the definition of a military campaign trail? 

Yes. Taken as a whole, the trails of the Great 

Sioux War represent all of the army movements 

in 1876-77 to subdue elements of the Lakota and 

Northern Cheyenne Indians who refused to be 

confined on the Great Sioux Reservation. 

Together they comprise not only the routes of 

the large multi-columned expeditions to 

strategically target those tribes fielded by the 

government in the summer of 1876 in Dakota, 

Montana, and Wyoming territories, but also 

those of the smaller maneuvers from established 

cantonments through the winter of 1876 and the 

following spring and summer to force the 

Indians’ removal from the Yellowstone-PowderMissouri rivers region. As well, the stalwart 

resistance of the tribes to the pervasive military 

force represented a defensive campaign against 

increasingly overwhelming odds, although the 

routes of Indian movement are but broadly 

known. The War Department later 

acknowledged the army operations against the 

Lakotas and Northern Cheyennes in 1876-1877 as 

a formal campaign. 

Do the Trails of the Great Sioux War meet 

the criterion of significance through historic 

usage, as defined by the National Trails 

System Act? 

No. The National Trails Systems Act states that a 

National Historic Trail “must be a trail or route 

established by historic use and must be 

historically significant as a result of that use.” A 

trail cannot be determined nationally significant 

because it provides a route, even if it is a historic 

route, from one famous site to the next. Indeed, 

National Trails System staff often use the analogy 

that it is not the purpose of trail designation to 

“string beads on a necklace.” In the case of the 

trails of the Great Sioux War, it is the engagement 

sites associated with the war – such as Little 

Bighorn – that are the most significant features. 

Do the Trails of the Great Sioux War meet 

criteria for national significance? 

No, at least not in terms of their possible 

designation as National Historic Trails. 

According to National Trails System Act 

criteria, the trails themselves – not the points 

along the trails – have to be of national 

significance. The trails associated with the 

Great Sioux War are an excellent example of 

this distinction. The mentors of the Western 

History Association overwhelmingly identified 

the Great Sioux War of 1876-1877 as a nationally 

significant military campaign. However, the 

trails associated with this conflict are not 

significant as stand-alone resources, but rather 

for their associations with the major 

engagements of the Great Sioux War. As 

mentor R. David Edmunds noted, “Although the 

trails associated with the Custer campaign are 

important in that they are the routes that the 

army used during the campaigns, the trails 

themselves are only incidental to the events of the 

campaign, and therefore not the focal points.” 

However, the WHA mentors suggested 

designating the sites and trails associated with the 

Great Sioux War as a state or national heritage 

area, as a scenic/historic byway, or as an auto tour 

route. These concepts would encompass all of 

the major trails and sites associated with the 

Great Sioux War, and would provide an 

opportunity to interpret all of the major 

resources of the Great Sioux War – including its 

military campaign trails – within a broader and 

more comprehensive context. 

Do the Trails of the Great Sioux War merit 

further study as a potential candidate for 

designation as a National Historic Trail? 

No. According to the National Trails System Act, 

a National Historic Trail must: (A) be significant 

as a result of its use as a trail; (B) must meet 

criteria for national significance; and (C) must 

have potential for public recreation or historical 

interpretation. As discussed above, the trails of 

the Great Sioux War are important only in terms 

of their relationship to the engagements of the 

Great Sioux Wars. As stand-alone resources, 

they do not meet the criteria for national 

significance in terms of their use as historic trails. 
78 

Trails and Sites Associated with the Great 

Sioux War that are Significant as Trail 

Resources and/or Provide Recreational and 

Interpretive Opportunities. 

Based on a reconnaissance-level survey, many of 

the trails and sites associated with the Great 

Sioux War have retained a high degree of 

integrity. These trails and sites provide a range of 

educational and recreational opportunities, many 

of which have scenic qualities and most of which 

(outside of the major metropolitan areas) are free 

from modern intrusions. These include: 

Custer Trail, North Dakota and Montana. This 

route was used by the Terry-Custer column in its 

advance west from Fort Abraham Lincoln, 

Dakota, in the spring of 1876. From the mouth of 

Rosebud Creek on the Yellowstone, Custer 

marched with the Seventh Cavalry component to 

the Little Bighorn. The locations of historic army 

campsites have been established along its course. 

The trail approximates Interstate 94 in North 

Dakota and Montana in its route to Rosebud 

Creek, and Montana Highway 39 and U.S. 

Highway 212 in its course to Little Bighorn 

battlefield. Occasional markers and monuments 

interpret sites along the route up Rosebud Creek 

to the Little Bighorn. 

Crook’s Routes along the Bozeman Trail, 

Wyoming. Military use of the Bozeman Trail in 

1876 consisted of passing north and back again 

from Fort Fetterman to the scenes of the Powder 

River, Rosebud, and Morning Star (Dull Knife) 

encounters. Parts of the trail were used 

repeatedly for the transportation of provisions 

for Crook’s commands. While parts of the trail 

can be accessed using county roads north of 

modern Douglas, other segments approximate 

the route of modern Interstate 25 and its parallel 

routes through northern Wyoming. 

Crook’s Route to the Black Hills, 1876. In the late 

summer of 1876, General Crook moved southeast 

from the Yellowstone River in pursuit of Lakotas 

and Cheyennes headed both toward the Great 

Sioux Reservation agencies and the Black Hills 

mining communities. Today, the route of his 

command can be approximated with reasonable 

accuracy along Interstate 94 in Montana and 

North Dakota, North Dakota State Highway 22, 

and South Dakota State Highway 79 to Slim 

Buttes and the Black Hills, various local roads in 

the Black Hills from Whitewood to Deadwood to 

Custer, then south toward Camp Robinson, 

Nebraska, via U.S. Highway 385. 

Crook’s Trail on the Belle Fourche River, 

Wyoming. Following the destruction by 

Mackenzie’s cavalry of the Northern Cheyenne 

village under Morning Star and Little Wolf, 

Crook led his command down the Belle Fourche 

seeking Crazy Horse before returning to Fort 

Fetterman. The route of a small part of his trail 

approximates part of Wyoming Highway 387 

through Campbell County east of modern Pine 

Tree, but most of the route has not been defined. 

Powder River Encounter Site, Montana. Located 

in Powder River County, Montana, 36 miles 

southwest of Broadus, this site commemorates 

Colonel Joseph J. Reynolds’s attack on a village of 

Northern Cheyennes on March 17, 1876, the first 

engagement of the Great Sioux War. The site, 

marked in 1934, is on private land. 

Fort Abraham Lincoln, North Dakota (1872-1891). 

Currently a North Dakota state historical park, 

this partly reconstructed post located near 

Bismarck represents the home of the Seventh 

Cavalry as it existed prior to its departure west on 

the Sioux Campaign in May, 1876. 

Fort Fetterman, Wyoming (1867-1882). This post, 

located near modern Douglas, Wyoming, stood 

at the periphery of the Powder River drainage 

and anchored three movements of Crook’s army 

in 1876. The site is currently administered as a 

state historical property. 

Fort Ellis, Montana (1867-1886). In the spring of 

1876, cavalry and infantry troops under Colonel 

John Gibbon descended the Yellowstone River 

from Fort Ellis to join Terry’s column coming 

from the east. The site of the post, devoid of all 

structural features, is located on the east side of 

Bozeman, Montana, where a single marker 

interprets its history. 

Fort Laramie, Wyoming (1849-1890). This 

venerated post, with its fur trade antecedents, 

played major logistical – as well as strategizing – 

roles in the Great Sioux War. The 1868 treaty 
79 

establishing the Sioux Reservation was 

negotiated at Fort Laramie. As point of 

organization for the various campaigns under 

Crook, as well as a “jumping off” spot for some 

troops bound for the war, it served as an 

important army staging area throughout the 

conflict. It also hosted a major war progress 

conference with General Sheridan in attendance. 

Today a national historic site, Fort Laramie 

preserves nearly two dozen army buildings and 

interprets the role of the post in American 

frontier history. 

Tongue River Heights Skirmish Site, WyomingMontana. On June 9, 1876, Crook’s command, en 

route into Montana Territory, camped at the 

junction of Prairie Dog Creek with Tongue River, 

in modern Sheridan County, Wyoming. That 

evening, his bivouac briefly came under fire of 

Northern Cheyenne warriors before cavalry 

troops drove the Indians away. The site, which 

spans the border of the two states, is unmarked. 

Rosebud Battlefield, Montana. Here on June 17, 

1876, Lakota and Cheyenne warriors instigated an 

attack on Crook’s column as it moved north to 

meet Terry, Gibbon, and Custer. The all-day 

battle netted significant casualties on either side, 

but importantly forced Crook to withdraw his 

command back into Wyoming, effectually 

removing him from the principal war zone a 

week before the Little Bighorn encounter. The 

site of this wide-ranging action is a Montana state 

park. 

Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument 

(administered by the National Park Service) 

Crow Agency, Montana. This national 

monument, administered by the National Park 

Service, commemorates the Indian Wars through 

interpretation of the June 25-26, 1876, victory of 

the Lakotas and Northern Cheyennes over 

Custer’s Seventh Cavalry – the climactic 

engagement of the Great Sioux War and a 

strategic setback for the federal command. The 

site has come to symbolize not only the Great 

Sioux War, but the entire spectrum of the Indian 

Wars of the trans-Mississippi West, as well. 

Sibley Fight Site, Wyoming. This generally 

defined location where on July 7, 1876, a scouting 

detachment from Crook’s command engaged 

Top to bottom: Fort Fetterman, vicinity of Douglas, 

Wyoming; Fort Robinson Museum (former post 

headquarters), Fort Robinson, vicinity of Crawford, 

Nebraska; Bozeman Trail ruts, Wyoming; Morning Star 

(Dull Knife) Village Site wayside marker, Johnson County, 

Wyoming. Photo of Fort Robinson by Roger Whitacre; all 

others by Christine Whitacre. 
80 

Northern Cheyenne warriors is in Bighorn 

National Forest, about ten miles from modern 

Dayton. The 25 soldiers and two scouts with 

Second Lieutenant Frederick W. Sibley, fought a 

two-hour exchange before managing to escape 

over the mountains and rejoin the troops without 

casualty. The approximate site is in Sheridan 

County and is accessible on Forest Service roads. 

The skirmish is commemorated by a monument 

erected along U.S. Highway 14 near Sibley Lake. 

Warbonnet Creek Skirmish, Nebraska. On July 

17, 1876, Colonel Wesley Merritt’s Fifth Cavalry 

engaged Northern Cheyennes en route to the 

Powder River country from Red Cloud Agency, 

near Camp Robinson. The encounter disrupted 

the Indians’ journey, instead forcing most of 

them to return to the reservation. During the 

skirmish, the army scout, William F. Cody, shot 

and killed a young Cheyenne named Yellow 

Hair, an event later reenacted in Cody’s Wild 

West show. The site is interpreted through a 

monument and markers on Department of 

Agriculture property in Sioux County and is 

accessible via local gravel roads. 

Slim Buttes Encounter Site, South Dakota. At 

dawn on September 9, 1876, troops from Crook’s 

command under Captain Anson Mills stormed 

into a mixed village of Lakotas and Northern 

Cheyennes along Gap Creek, capturing a number 

of noncombatants, but also the chief, American 

Horse, who was mortally wounded. In the 

afternoon, Crook’s men skirmished with 

followers of Crazy Horse until nightfall. It was 

the first major army victory in the Great Sioux 

War. Most of the site in modern Harding County 

is on private land adjoining national forest land 

about 22 miles east of Buffalo along South Dakota 

Highway 20. Besides a state road marker, a single 

monument erected in 1920 interprets the site. 

Glendive Cantonment (1876-1877). Erected on 

the north bank of the Yellowstone River, 

Glendive Cantonment stood at the seasonal head 

of navigation of that stream. During 1876 and 

1877, steamers unloaded equipment and 

provisions at Glendive for delivery upriver to the 

Tongue River Cantonment. Late in the Great 

Sioux War, Miles ordered campaigns from 

Glendive to seek out the refugees of Lame Deer’s 

village who had not yet surrendered. While the 

Glendive Cantonment is long gone, its history is 

interpreted at local Glendive museum facilities. 

The site is on private property adjoining 

Montana State Highway 16. 

Tongue River Cantonment (1876-1877) and Fort 

Keogh (1877-1900), Montana. Raised in the fall of 

1876, Tongue River Cantonment stood west of 

modern Miles City. From the cantonment, 

Colonel Nelson A. Miles fielded six campaigns in 

1876-77, demonstrating to the tribes the 

government’s determination to permanently 

occupy the Sioux country and force the Indians’ 

capitulation or destruction. Tongue River 

Cantonment was replaced in the summer of 1877 

by the more substantial Fort Keogh, erected a 

short distance up the Yellowstone to effect a 

continued military presence in the region. Today 

the Range Riders Museum approximates the 

location of the temporary post. 

Spring Creek Skirmishes, Montana. On October 

11, 1876, a command escorting a provision train 

from Glendive Creek to Tongue River 

Cantonment under Captain Charles W. Miner, 

came under attack along Spring Creek (present 

Sand Creek) by Lakotas distressed over the army 

presence in the buffalo country. The train 

returned to Glendive, but started out again 

several days later under Lieutenant Colonel 

Elwell S. Otis. On October 15, Indians struck 

again, and an intermittent running fight ensued 

over many miles before troops from Tongue 

River arrived on the 18th and the warriors 

withdrew, allowing the train to proceed to the 

cantonment. The area of the extended 

skirmishing, mostly today on private land, is in 

modern Dawson and Prairie counties. 

Cedar Creek Conference and Skirmish, 

Montana. On October 20 and 21, 1876, Colonel 

Nelson A. Miles approached Sitting Bull’s camp 

in the divide country between the Yellowstone 

and Missouri rivers and there conferred at length 

with the Hunkpapa leader. At the meeting – the 

first between a federal agent and a leader of the 

Indian coalition since the warfare began – the 

chief demanded that the soldiers leave the region, 

while Miles resolved to remain. The contentious 

parley precipitated an encounter between Miles’s 

command and the Indians, following which many 

of the tribesmen (minus Sitting Bull’s people, 
81 

who escaped) agreed to surrender. The site, in 

Prairie County, approximately 21 miles northwest 

of Terry, is partly on Bureau of Land 

Management property and partly on privately 

owned land. 

Fort Robinson, Nebraska (1874-1948). During the 

Great Sioux War, Fort Robinson – then known as 

Camp Robinson – stood guard over nearby Red 

Cloud and Spotted Tail agencies of the Great 

Sioux Reservation to insure that warriors did not 

leave to reinforce their kinsmen fighting the 

soldiers to the northwest. Camp Robinson 

hosted soldiers of Crook’s various expeditions 

while overseeing the agencies and the Military 

District of the Black Hills, thus playing an 

important role in the conflict. In September 1877, 

the surrendered Oglala leader, Crazy Horse, was 

killed there by a sentry while resisting arrest, an 

action symbolizing the conclusion of the war. 

The “camp” designation was changed to “fort” in 

1878. A museum operated by the Nebraska State 

Historical Society today interprets the post’s 

history. 

Cantonment Reno, Johnson County, Wyoming 

(1876-1878). Built along the Dry Fork of Powder 

River in what is now Johnson County, this 

cantonment served as a subpost supporting the 

operations of General Crook during that officer’s 

third and final thrust north from Fort Fetterman 

in 1876. The site, on Bureau of Land 

Management property, is interpreted through 

markers placed by the State of Wyoming. 

Morning Star (Dull Knife) Village Site, Wyoming. 

On November 25, 1876, cavalry from Crook’s 

command under Colonel Ranald Mackenzie 

attacked and destroyed the Northern Cheyenne 

village of Morning Star and Little Wolf in one of 

the largest engagements of the Great Sioux War. 

The army success demoralized the people, 

promoting their surrender at the Sioux agencies 

the following spring. The site is in Johnson 

County, mostly on private property, and is 

accessible by fee at the pleasure of the 

landowners. A small monument raised in 1948 by 

the Daughters of the American Revolution marks 

the site. 

Fort Peck Expedition Trail. In late November 

1876, Colonel Miles led a command north from 

Tongue River Cantonment seeking the winter 

haunts of the Lakotas. The troops followed 

down the Big Dry River to the Missouri and the 

Fort Peck Indian Agency (site now beneath the 

Fort Peck Reservoir), then moved west to the 

vicinity of Carroll, Montana, before returning 

southeast to the cantonment in late December. 

The route of the campaign is only broadly 

known. Part of the command under First 

Lieutenant Frank D. Baldwin moved east from 

Fort Peck and encountered Sitting Bull’s people 

at Bark Creek and Ash Creek. 

Bark Creek Skirmish, Montana. On December 7, 

1876, a part of Colonel Miles’s command under 

First Lieutenant Frank D. Baldwin came upon 

Sitting Bull’s people near Bark Creek, about 18 

miles below Fort Peck Indian Agency, and in 

process of crossing the ice of the Missouri River 

to its south bank. Baldwin’s infantry soldiers 

fired on the rearguard of the assemblage, but 

there were apparently no casualties on either 

side. The site of the Bark Creek action was 

inundated by reclamation projects in the 1930s 

and presently lies beneath Fort Peck Lake. 

Ash Creek Encounter Site, Montana. On 

December 18, 1876, First Lieutenant Frank D. 

Baldwin surprised and attacked at midday Sitting 

Bull’s village, forcing the occupants to scatter and 

destroying their homes and provisions. The 

attack motivated Sitting Bull to lead his people 

into Canada in the spring of 1877. This site, 

marked with a monument in 1932, is located on 

private land in Prairie County. 

Wolf Mountains Campaign Trail. This route led 

south from Tongue River Cantonment, passing 

upstream for approximately 100 miles. In January 

1877, Miles’s infantry command moved out of the 

cantonment searching for Crazy Horse’s winter 

camp. The modern paved Tongue River Road 

closely approximates the course of the troops’ 

march to the scene of the January 8, 1877, 

engagement near present Birney, and then back 

to the Tongue River Cantonment near Miles 

City. 

Wolf Mountains Battlefield. At this site south of 

modern Birney, Lakotas and Northern 

Cheyennes led by Crazy Horse, Two Moon, and 

others attacked Miles’s bivouac on the morning 
82 

of January 8, 1877. The troops, armed with two 

artillery pieces and protected from the cold in 

buffalo overcoats, established a perimeter in the 

Tongue River bottom and confronted warriors 

entrenched on ridges to the southeast until the 

death of a prominent medicine man, Big Crow, 

coupled with the onset of a blizzard, forced the 

Indians’ withdrawal. The engagement was 

significant in convincing most of the Lakotas and 

Cheyennes to yield to the government the 

following spring. The site is on private land in 

Rosebud County approximately three miles 

southwest of Birney on Country Road 314. A 

privately raised sign marks the battlefield. 

Lame Deer Encounter Site, Montana. Here at 

dawn on May 7, 1877, Miles and his cavalry 

attacked the village of Chief Lame Deer’s 

Minneconjou Sioux, who had repeatedly defied 

army presence in the region and had refused to 

surrender at the Dakota/Nebraska agencies. The 

chief was killed in the ensuing combat. The 

unmarked site, owned by the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe and now compromised by the 

incursions of modern development, lies in 

Rosebud County on the southwestern edge of 

Lame Deer. 

Fort Custer, Montana (1877-1898). This post was 

raised in 1877, during the closing months of the 

Great Sioux War, to provide with its sister post, 

Fort Keogh, a permanent military occupation of 

the disputed Yellowstone-Big Horn region. The 

site of Fort Custer is on private land and 

admittance is prohibited. It is marginally 

interpreted at the Big Horn County Historical 

Society Museum in nearby Hardin. 

Potential National Historic Landmarks 

associated with the Great Sioux War 

Fort Robinson is part of the Fort Robinson and 

Red Cloud Agency National Historic Landmark. 

Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument 

recently received funding to prepare a thematic 

study of all the sites and trails associated with the 

Great Sioux War, an effort that may identify 

other potential National Historic Landmarks. 

Based on preliminary study prepared for this 

funding request, potential National Historic 

Landmarks associated with the Great Sioux War 

may include: 

Rosebud Battlefield, Montana. As noted above, 

this all-day battle forced Crook to withdraw his 

command back into Wyoming, effectually 

removing him from the principal war zone a 

week before the Little Bighorn encounter. 

Wolf Mountains Battlefield, Montana. This 

engagement was significant in convincing most of 

the Lakotas and Cheyennes to yield to the 

government the following spring. 

Powder River Encounter Site, Montana. The site 

of Colonel Joseph J. Reynolds’s attack on a village 

of Northern Cheyennes on March 17, 1876, this 

was the first engagement of the Great Sioux War. 

Morning Star (Dull Knife) Village Site, Wyoming. 

The destruction of this village was one of the 

largest engagements of the Great Sioux War, and 

prompted the surrender of the Northern 

Cheyennes in the spring of 1877. 

Slim Buttes Encounter Site, South Dakota. The 

Slim Buttes encounter was the first major army 

victory in the Great Sioux War. 

Cedar Creek Conference and Skirmish, 

Montana. In 1876, Colonel Nelson A. Miles 

approached Sitting Bull’s camp at this site, and 

conferred at length with the Hunkpapa leader in 

the first meeting between a federal agent and a 

leader of the Indian coalition since the Great 

Sioux War begin. The engagement that followed 

signified the government's determination to 

remain permanently in the region. 
83 

Conclusion 

The Clash of Cultures trails project had two primary goals. The first was to identify 

and assess the national significance of trails associated with the history of U.S. 

Army/American Indian campaigns in the trans-Mississippi West during the nineteenth 

century. To accomplish this goal, the National Park Service asked a blue-ribbon panel 

of Western History Association historians to evaluate the trails within the framework 

of a National Historic Landmark theme study. 

As such, the mentors were asked to evaluate the 

use of the military campaign trails associated with 

the Indian Wars in terms of their relative 

significance – requiring the WHA mentors to not 

only identify the most significant military 

campaign trails, but to also prioritize them in 

terms of their significance. 

This was a difficult task, and one that the mentors 

took very seriously. Sherry Smith reflected the 

views of many of the WHA historians as she 

noted that while she understood the National 

Park Service’s need for prioritization, she also 

found it frustrating. As she stated in her report: 

“Assigning levels of significance, ranking events 

(or people or places) is antithetical to what we 

historians do. We’re trying to understand the 

past by making connections; explaining 

relationships among groups, events, and 

individuals for the purpose of understanding the 

complexity of human activities.” At the same 

time, however, Smith and the other mentors also 

recognized that the National Park Service works 

with finite resources, and needs to make choices 

about which are the most important resources to 

preserve and interpret. While recognizing that all 

the trails of the Indian Wars are significant at 

some level, and all have some story to tell, the 

mentors agreed to identify those trails that were 

clearly nationally significant, and which were the 

best representations of the broader themes of the 

history of U.S. Army/American Indian conflict in 

the trans-Mississippi West. By compiling the 

mentors' lists of the most important trails, six 

trails stood out very clearly from all other 

suggestions. These were: the Bozeman Trail, the 

Long Walk, the Nez Perce Trail, the Northern 

Cheyenne Exodus Trail, the Smoky Hill Trail, 

and the trails associated with the Great Sioux 

War. 

The second major goal of the Clash of Cultures 

trails project was to determine if any of these 

trails might warrant further study as potential 

National Historic Trails. Since the Nez Perce 

Trail is already designated as a National Historic 

Trail, there was no need for further evaluation. 

As described in the methodology section, the 

assessment of the remaining five trails had to be 

based on criteria established by both the National 

Trails System Act and the National Historic 

Landmarks program. These criteria are exacting. 

In particular, the National Trails System Act 

states any potential National Historic Trail “must 

be a trail or route established by historic use and 

must be historically significant as a result of that 

use.” As has been noted several times throughout 

this report, it must be the trails themselves – not 

just the points along the trails – that have to be of 

national significance. Examples are the Santa Fe 

and Oregon Trails. Both of these National 

Historic Trails are adjoined by places that are also 

significant for their association with those trails. 

But even if those associated places along the trails 

did not exist, the trails themselves would still 

have national significance. 

This standard of identifying trails that are 

nationally significant for their historic usage is 

particularly important in the case of military 

campaign trails. Most military trails are only 

considered significant in terms of their 

relationship with the engagement sites to which 
84 

. . . it must be the trails themselves – not 

just the points along the trails – that have 

to be of national significance. 

they lead. Simply put, what happens on the trail 

is rarely as important as what happens on the 

battlefield. Overwhelmingly, it is the engagement 

sites themselves that are the primary resource in 

the history of military conflict. WHA historian 

Paul Fees noted that this distinction is graphically 

illustrated by various atlases and published maps 

of the Indian Wars. With few exceptions, Fees 

noted, these maps and atlases “show (marked by 

crossed sabers and a date) the places where 

actions and engagements took place, and the 

locations of forts and depots. But, significantly, 

they do not show how the army or the Indians 

got from one place to another, apparently 

because the trail is not as essential to the story.” 

Within the scope of the Clash of Cultures trails 

project, the evaluated trails also had to meet the 

definition of a military campaign trail – since that 

was the intent of this project. The Clash of 

Cultures trails project was specifically created to 

evaluate military trails, which are an underrepresented resource type within the National 

Trails System, but one in which there is a 

substantial amount of public interest. Other 

categories of trails – such as trails of exploration, 

trails of trade and commerce, and trails of 

migration and settlement – have been, or will be, 

evaluated as separate studies. 

Based on these criteria, there were, not 

surprisingly, only a relatively small number of 

trails that the WHA mentors identified as 

nationally significant for their historic use as 

military campaign trails. Of those, only three 

trails were found to warrant further study as 

potential National Historic Trails. These were 

the Bozeman Trail, the Long Walk, and the 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail. 

The Bozeman Trail ranked at the top of the 

WHA mentors’ list of nationally significant trails 

associated with the Indian Wars in the West, 

although only by a slight margin. Of the trails 

studied, the Bozeman Trail was one of the 

clearest examples of how the historic usage of the 

trail was nationally significant, as it was the 

establishment and use of the trail itself that was 

the primary cause of the Powder River Campaign 

and the Red Cloud War. Interestingly, the 

Bozeman Trail points out that the most 

significant military campaign trails are not always 

associated with the most significant military 

campaigns, a situation that had been predicted by 

some project team members at the onset of the 

project. While the Red Cloud War and Powder 

River Campaign ranked, respectively, eighth and 

eleventh in the WHA mentors’ list of most 

significant campaigns, the Bozeman Trail was at 

the top of their list of most significant trails. The 

historic usage of the trail as both the precipitator 

and focal point of conflict – as well as its 

representation of several broad themes of the 

history of the Indian Wars – make the Bozeman 

Trail an excellent candidate for further 

evaluation as a National Historic Trail. 

The WHA also identified the Long Walk and the 

Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail as nationally 

significant, and these two trails also appear to be 

excellent candidates for further evaluation as 

potential National Historic Trails. The Long 

Walk and the Northern Cheyenne Exodus Trail 

are both noteworthy as epic routes taken by 

Indian people in extraordinary campaigns. In 

both cases, it is the actual usage of the trails that 

are not only nationally significant, but which 

have also become seminal events in the history 

and culture of the tribes. Also, as Paul Fees 

noted, “these routes captured the imagination 

and the sympathy of the nineteenth-century 

American public in a way that the army’s treks 

could not, especially in the wake of the Civil War 

and its many epic marches and battles.” 

It is very important that any further studies of 

Indian Wars military campaign trails, specifically 

in terms of their possible designation as National 

Historic Trails, include tribal consultation. This 

is particularly true for the Northern Cheyenne 

Exodus Trail and the Long Walk. Tribal 

consultation would be absolutely necessary to 

learn whether or not the tribes would support 

such designation. The tribes also can identify any 

sites along these trails that are of particular 

significance to the tribes. As part of the Clash of 
85 

Cultures trails project, NPS project team 

members contacted the Navajo and Mescalero 

Apache tribal offices regarding the Long Walk, as 

well as individual members of the Northern 

Cheyenne tribe regarding the Northern 

Cheyenne Exodus Trail; however, there was no 

formal tribal consultation. 

The WHA mentors also identified the Smoky 

Hill Trail as being nationally significant. 

However, within the scope of the Clash of 

Cultures trails project, the Smoky Hill Trail did 

not meet the criteria for further study as a 

potential National Historic Trail, at least not 

within the context of military campaign trails, 

since it did not meet the definition of a military 

campaign trail. As discussed in the report, the 

Smoky Hill Trail’s importance in the Indian 

campaigns derives more from its incidental 

presence and use, and not as a primary route 

used by either Indians or army commands in a 

direct expeditionary sense. The Smoky Hill 

Trail’s primary significance is as a trail of 

migration and settlement – an overland route – 

albeit one that was militarily supported and 

protected. It is recommended that the Smoky 

Hill be evaluated as a National Historic Trail 

within the context of trails of migration and 

settlement, which is beyond the scope of this 

project. Indeed, new scholarship – such as The 

Contested Plains: Indians, Goldseekers, and the 

Rush to Colorado by WHA mentor Elliott West – 

has substantially broadened our understanding 

of the environmental and cultural impacts of the 

overland routes, warranting a re-evaluation of the 

significance and interpretation of those trails. 

The final recommendation for national 

significance by the WHA mentors encompassed 

the trails associated with the Great Sioux War. 

The WHA mentors overwhelmingly identified 

the Great Sioux War as the most important 

military campaign of the Indian Wars. However, 

there was no agreement as to which, if any, of the 

several campaign trails associated with the Great 

Sioux War are nationally significant as individual 

resources. Presumably, this reflects the 

secondary importance of the trails to the war. As 

has been discussed throughout this report, a trail 

is not nationally significant because it connects 

nationally significant sites; i.e., the “beads on the 

necklace” analogy. The trail itself must have 

It is very important that any further 

studies of Indian Wars military campaign 

trails, specifically in terms of their 

possible designation as National Historic 

Trails, include tribal consultation. 

national significance for its historic usage. The 

trails associated with the Great Sioux War 

provide an excellent example of this distinction. 

Although significant for their associations with 

the major engagements of the Great Sioux War, 

the trails are not nationally significant as standalone resources. Little Bighorn is nationally 

significant for the events that occurred on June 

25-26, 1876. The route that Custer took to that 

nationally significant event is an associated, but 

secondary, element of that story. 

In terms of the trails associated with the Great 

Sioux War, many of the mentors suggested a 

more appropriate designation may be the 

creation of a multi-state heritage area or corridor, 

an auto tour, and/or scenic/historic byway that 

interpretively links some of the major campaign 

trails used by American Indians and soldiers 

together with certain of the encounter sites. Such 

an approach could enhance understanding of the 

country’s largest Indian war in a broad context, 

while helping to satisfy public interest in the 

specific events of the conflict and promoting the 

protection and interpretation of its sites. 

It is, of course, up to Congress to initiate the 

process for officially evaluating any potential 

national heritage area and/or National Historic 

Trail. In the case of a potential National Historic 

Trail, Congress directs either the National Park 

Service or another federal agency to complete a 

National Trails System study. As noted earlier, a 

Congressionally authorized National Trails 

System study must include the recommendation 

of the National Park System Advisory Board 

regarding the national significance of that trail. 

(Although the evaluation of national significance 

has been a major focus of this report, it is the 

responsibility of the National Park System 

Advisory Board to make that final
86 

In terms of the trails associated with the 

Great Sioux War, many of the mentors 

suggested a more appropriate designation 

may be the creation of a multi-state 

heritage area or corridor, an auto tour, 

and/or scenic/historic byway . . . 

recommendation.) In addition, the study must 

also evaluate both the feasibility and desirability

of a potential National Historic Trail. National 

Trails System studies, which generally take about 

two years to complete, include extensive public 

involvement. As outlined in Section 5(b) of the 

NTSA, congressionally authorized studies are 

“made in consultation with the heads of other 

Federal agencies administering lands through 

which such additional proposed trails would pass 

and in cooperation with interested interstate, 

State, and local governmental agencies, public 

and private organization, and landowners and 

land users concerned.” Such studies also have to 

address the physical possibility and costs of 

developing and maintaining the trail, whether the 

development of a trail would be financially 

feasible, and the impact of public use on the 

preservation of the trail and its associated 

features. These studies, when completed, are 

printed as House or Senate documents. 

A National Trails System study of the trails 

identified in the Clash of Cultures trails project 

would offer an opportunity to more fully evaluate 

several issues raised in this preliminary report. 

This would include detailed routes of the trails, 

and the identification of important associated 

sites. In their scope of work for the Clash of 

Cultures trails project, the WHA mentors were 

asked if they had first-hand knowledge of the 

location and condition of recommended trails, or 

if they were aware of any sites along the trails that 

were of particular significance. In general, the 

mentors offered few such recommendations. As 

such, the project report includes only general 

information on such resources, primarily based 

on “windshield surveys” of portions of the trails 

that were done by NPS project team members. 

While the general impression of the NPS team 

was that at least segments of the trails have a high 

level of integrity, any future trails studies should 

identify those trail resources that, according to 

National Historic Trail Criterion C, also “have 

significant potential for public recreational use or 

historical interest based on historic interpretation 

and appreciation” (NTSA (Section 5(b)(11)C)). 

This would include a close examination of both 

the trail route and significant associated sites. 

For example, most historians define the Long 

Walk as extending from Fort Canby (Fort 

Defiance) to Bosque Redondo. However, the 

route could also be defined as beginning in 

Canyon de Chelly. This could be further 

evaluated in the National Trails System study. 

Also, all the various routes of the Bozeman Trail 

should be evaluated in terms of their historic 

usage and which routes, therefore, should be 

potentially designated. And, although portions of 

the Northern Cheyenne Exodus are well known, 

other portions are lesser known, including the 

exact location of the camp established by Little 

Wolf in the valleys of the Nebraska Sand Hills, 

the identification of which may only be possible 

through tribal oral history and consultation. 

Project team members also recommend that any 

future surveys of these trails as potential National 

Historic Trails include a special effort to identify 

Indian-related sites associated with these trails. 

The very reconnaissance-level survey of the trails 

that was conducted as part of the Clash of 

Cultures trails project identified a predominance 

of U.S. Army-related sites, such as forts, largely 

because those are the sites that have been 

preserved and interpreted. Traditional Indian 

campsites, sites of special significance to the 

tribes, as well as areas where Indians traditionally 

lived, hunted, gathered, etc., are also an integral 

part of the story of these trails. 

Western History Association mentor Don Fixico 

also emphasized the importance of obtaining 

ethnographic information in any future trail 

studies, including the cultural background of 

Indian warfare and the use of war materials, and 

properly presenting that information to the 

public. Fixico also underscored the importance 

of representing the Indian point of view in the 

interpretation of the trails, a point that weighs 

heavily in trying to correct past stereotypes about 
87 

plains Indians that still plague the American 

public. 

National Park Service ethnographer Dave 

Ruppert, who reviewed the draft project report, 

echoed Fixico’s comments regarding an Indian 

perspective in the interpretation of the trails. 

“One of the major complaints I often hear from 

tribal members,” noted Ruppert, “ is that the 

American public is not really aware that Indian 

people – and important aspects of their culture – 

are still here.” The trails associated with the 

Indian Wars provide an opportunity to educate 

the public on the broad spectrum of the “clash of 

cultures.” The themes outlined in Chapter 4, 

which can be more fully developed in future trails 

studies, reflect how these resources characterize 

broad patterns of American history and culture, 

including Indian cultures – representing not only 

military clashes but also clashes of cultural views 

of land use, resources, lifeways, and ideas. 

It is also recommended that future trail studies 

take into consideration other historic contexts 

with which these trails are associated. As has 

been noted numerous times throughout this 

report, the focus of the Clash of Cultures trails 

project was on military campaign trails associated 

with the Indian Wars. But it is important to note 

that many of these trails had uses that extended 

beyond those of military campaigns – and which 

may also be historically important. Many of 

these trails originated as tribal and/or inter-tribal 

trails (which, in many cases, were also a “clash of 

cultures”). Some were also trails of exploration, 

overland travel, and trade and commerce. For 

example, in the case of the Smoky Hill Trail, the 

project team did not believe that it met the 

definition of a military campaign trail, and instead 

recommended that it be evaluated for its national 

significance as an overland trail. And, while the 

Bozeman Trail meets the definition of a military 

campaign trail, it was also used for commerce, 

migration, and overland travel. (Indeed, it was 

those activities that triggered the Bozeman Trail’s 

use as a military campaign trail.) Evaluated 

A congressionally authorized study of a 

potential National Historic Trail must 

include the recommendation of the 

National Park System Advisory Board 

regarding the national significance of that 

trail . . . In addition, a National Trails 

System Study must also evaluate the 

feasibility and desirability of any potential 

National Historic Trail. 

within those other contexts, the Bozeman Trail, 

as well as others, may be found to have nationally 

significant associations beyond their military use. 

In other words, some of these trails may “fit” into 

additional historic contexts other than “military

campaign trails.” Those additional associations 

may be of equal or even greater significance – but, 

again, that was beyond the scope of the Clash of 

Cultures trails project. Indeed, the themes 

outlined in Chapter 4 illustrate how – even within 

just the context of military campaigns – these 

trails represent extremely broad patterns of 

American history and culture, and had farreaching environmental, political, and social 

implications. 

The Clash of Cultures was a model project in that 

it was the first time that the methodology of the 

National Historic Landmarks program – 

specifically the use of a theme study – was applied 

to the identification and evaluation of potential 

National Historic Trails. Overall, the project 

team members believe that the methodology was 

successful in its application and may well serve as 

a useful means by which to evaluate additional 

thematic groups of trails in terms of their national 

significance. Future studies of trails could even 

more completely follow the model of a National 

Historic Landmark theme study by also assessing 

the physical integrity of the trails. 
88 

Bibliography 

Most of the following citations were provided by the Western History Association 

mentors as being the most important works on the history of U.S. Army/American 

Indian conflict in the trans-Mississippi West during the nineteenth century. In addition, 

citations are included for works that were used by the NPS project team to research 

specific trails; most of those resources are also cited in the footnotes in the text of the 

report. 

Documents: 

Heitman, Francis B. comp. Historical Register and Dictionary of the U.S. Army. 2 vols. Washington, D.C., 

1903. 

Kappler. Charles J. comp. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. 2 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904. 

Oliva, Leo E. Fort Union and the Frontier Army in the Southwest. Santa Fe: National Park Service, 1993. 

Rendlebrock, Joseph to Lieutenant Colonel John P. Hatch, Fourth Cavalry, December 12, 1878. 

Transcription of National Archives document provided by Bob Rea, Fort Supply Historic Site. 

U.S. Adjutant General’s Office, 1780s-1917, Record Group 94, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Army. “Map of the Military Department of New Mexico” by Captain Allen Anderson, 5th U.S. 

Infantry, under the direction of Brigadier General James H. Carleton. 1864. Reprint copy in Navajo 

Roundup, Lawrence D. Kelly, Boulder, Colo.: Pruett Publishing Company, 1970. 

U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annual Reports, 1848-1890. 

U.S. Dept of Defense. Armed Forces Information School. The Army Almanac: A Book of Facts Concerning 

the Army of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1950). 

U.S. Secretary of War, Annual Reports, 1848-1891. 

Wedemeyer, William G. “Plan of Battle Ground between Troops and Cheyenne Indians September 27, 

1878." Map of Punished Woman’s Fork site from court-martial proceedings of Captain Joseph H. 

Rendlebrock in the National Archives. Copy provided by Bob Rea, Fort Supply Historic Site, 

Oklahoma. 

Articles:

Anderson, Gary Clayton. “Early Dakota Migration and Intertribal Warfare.” Western Historical Quarterly, 

11: 1 (January 1980): 17-36. 

Bischoff, W.N., S.J. “Yakima Campaign of 1856.” Mid-America 31 (1949): 162-208. 
89 

Calloway, Colin G. “Sword Bearer and the ‘Crow Outbreak,’ 1887." Montana, the Magazine of Western 

History XVI (April 1982): 38-51. 

Doyle, Susan Badger. “The Bozeman Trail, 1863-1868.” Annals of Wyoming 70:2 (Spring 1998): 3-11. 

________. “Indian Perspectives of the Bozeman Trail.” Montana, the Magazine of Western History 40:1 

(Winter 1990): 56-67. 

Ellis, Richard. “The Humanitarian Generals.” Western Historical Quarterly 3 (April 1972): 169-78. 

Ewers, John C. “Intertribal Warfare as the Precursor of Indian-White Warfare on the Northern Great 

Plains.” Western Historical Quarterly 6 (October 1975): 397-410. 

Flores, Dan. “Bison Ecology and Bison Diplomacy: The Southern Plains from 1800 to 1850.” Journal of 

American History 78:2 (September 1991): 465-85. 

________. “The Great Contraction: Bison and Indians in Northern Plains Environmental History.” In

Legacy: New Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn, ed. Charles E. Rankin, 3-22. Helena: 

Montana Historical Society Press, 1996. 

Gower, Calvin W. “The Pike’s Peak Gold Rush and the Smoky Hill Route, 1859-1860.” Kansas Historical 

Quarterly 25 (Summer 1959): 158-71. 

Gray, John S. “Blazing the Bridger and Bozeman Trails.” Annals of Wyoming 49: 1 (Spring 1977): 23-51. 

Horsman, Reginald, “Scientific Racism and the American Indian in the Mid-Nineteenth Century.”

American Quarterly 27 (May 1975): 152-68. 

Leonard, Thomas C. “Red, White and the Army Blue: Empathy and Anger in the American West.” 

American Quarterly 26 (May 1974): 176-90. 

Mangum, Neil C. “Old Fort Wingate in the Navajo War.” New Mexico Historical Review 66 (October 1991): 

393-411. 

McGinnis, Anthony. “Economic Warfare on the Northern Plains, 1804-1877.” Annals of Wyoming 44 

(Spring 1972): 57-71. 

Miller, Darlis A. “Los Pinos, New Mexico: Civil War Post on the Rio Grande.” New Mexico Historical 

Review 62 (January 1987): 1-31. 

Porter, Joseph C. “Crazy Horse, Lakota Leadership, and the Fort Laramie Treaty.” In Legacy: New 

Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn, ed. Charles E. Rankin, 41-62. Helena, Mont.: Montana 

Historical Society Press, 1996. 

Powers, Ramon. “The Northern Cheyenne Trek Through Western Kansas in 1878: Frontiersmen, Indians 

and Cultural Conflict.” The Trail Guide 17 (September, December, 1972): 1-35. 

Smith, Sherry L. “The Bozeman Trail.” Annals of Wyoming (Spring 1983): 32-50. 

________. “Lost Soldiers: Re-Searching the Military in the West.” Western Historical Quarterly (Summer 

1998): 149-63. 
90 

Utley, Robert M. “The Frontier and the American Military Tradition.” In The American Military on the 

Frontier: Proceedings of the 7th Military History Symposium, ed. James P. Tate. Washington: Office of 

Air Force History, 1978. 

White, Richard. “The Winning of the West: The Expansion of the Western Sioux in the Eighteenth and 

Nineteenth Centuries.” Journal of American History 65:2 (September 1978): 319-43. 

Books:

Anderson, Gary Clayton. Kinsmen of Another Kind: Dakota-White Relations in the Upper Mississippi Valley, 

1650-1862. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. 

Andrist, Ralph K. The Long Death: The Last Days of the Plains Indians. New York: Macmillan Co., 1964. 

Athearn, Robert. William Tecumseh Sherman and the Settlement of the West. Norman: University of 

Oklahoma Press, 1956. 

Bailey, Lynn R. Bosque Redondo: The Navajo Internment at Fort Sumner, New Mexico, 1868-68. Tucson: 

Westerlore Press, 1998. 

________. The Long Walk: A History of the Navajo Wars, 1846-68. Tucson, Ariz.: Westerlore Press, 1988. 

Ball, Eve. Indeh, An Apache Odyssey. Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1980. 

Bent, George. Life of George Bent Written from His Letters. Ed. by Savoie Lottinville. Norman: University of 

Oklahoma Press, 1968. 

Berthrong, Donald J. The Southern Cheyennes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963. 

Bourke, John G. An Apache Campaign in the Sierra Madre. New York: Charles Scribner, 1958. 

________. On the Border with Crook. Chicago: Rio Grande Press, 1962. Originally published 1891. 

Brimlow, George F. The Bannock Indian War of 1878. Caldwell: Caxton Printers, 1938. 

Brown, Dee. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. New York: Holt, 

Rinehart and Winston, 1971. 

Brown, Mark H. The Flight of the Nez Perce: A History of the Nez Perce War. New York: G.P. Putnam, 1967. 

Buecker, Thomas R. Fort Robinson and the American West, 1874-1899. Lincoln: Nebraska State Historical 

Society, 1999. 

Buell, Crawford R. “The Navajo ‘Long Walk’: Recollections by Navajos.” In The Changing Ways of 

Southwestern Indians: A Historic Perspective, ed. Albert H. Schroeder, 171-87. El Corral de Santa Fe 

Westerners Brand Book. Glorieta, New Mexico: The Rio Grande Press, Inc., 1973. 

Carpenter, John A. Sword and Olive Branch: Oliver Otis Howard. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh 

Press, 1964. 

Carter, Harvey L. ‘Dear Old Kit’: The Historical Christopher Carson. Norman: University of Oklahoma 

Press, 1968. 
91 

Chorne, Laudie J. Following the Custer Trail of 1876. Bismarck, North Dakota: Printing Plus, 1997. 

Craig, R.S. The Fighting Parson: The Biography of Colonel John M. Chivington. Los Angeles: Westernlore 

Press, 1959. 

Doyle, Susan Badger. Journeys to the Land of Gold: Emigrant Diaries From the Bozeman Trail, 1863-1866. 2 

Vols. Helena: Montana Historical Society, 2000. 

Dunlay, Thomas W. Wolves for the Blue Soldiers: Indian Scouts and Auxiliaries with the United States Army, 

1860-90. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982. 

Emmit, Roger. The Last War Trail: The Utes and the Settlement of Colorado. Norman: University of 

Oklahoma Press, 1965. 

Ewers, John. Indian Life on the Upper Missouri. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1968. 

Frost, Lawrence A. The Court-Martial of General George Armstrong Custer. Norman: University of 

Oklahoma Press, 1968. 

Gray, John S. Custer’s Last Campaign: Mitch Boyer & the Little Bighorn Reconstructed. Lincoln: University 

of Nebraska Press, 1991. 

Gray, John. Centennial Campaign: The Sioux War of 1876. Fort Collins, Colorado: Old Army Press, 1976. 

Greene, Jerome A. Battles and Skirmishes of the Great Sioux War, 1876-1877: The Military View. Norman: 

University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. 

________. Lakota and Cheyenne: Indians Views of the Great Sioux War, 1876-77. Norman: University of 

Oklahoma Press, 1994. 

________. Nez Perce Summer, 1877: The U.S. Army and the Nee-Me-Poo Crisis. Helena: Montana Historical 

Society, 2000. 

________. Slim Buttes, 1876: An Episode of the Great Sioux War. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 

1982. 

________. Yellowstone Command: Colonel Nelson A. Miles, and the Great Sioux War, 1876-1877. Norman: 

University of Oklahoma Press, 1991. 

Grinnell, George Bird. The Fighting Cheyennes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1915. 

Haley, James. The Buffalo War: The History of the Red River Indian Uprising of 1874. New York: 

Doubleday, 1976. 

________. Apaches: A History and Culture Portrait. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981. 

Hampton, Bruce. Children of Grace: The Nez Perce War of 1877. New York: H. Holt, 1994. 

Hebard, Grace Raymond and E. A. Brininstool. The Bozeman Trail. 2 vols. Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark 

Company, 1922. 
92 

Hedren, Paul. Fort Laramie in 1876: Chronicle of a Frontier Post at War. Lincoln: University of Nebraska 

Press, 1988. 

________. Traveler’s Guide to the Great Sioux War. Helena: Montana Historical Society Press, 1996. 

Hoig, Stan. The Battle of the Washita. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1976. 

________. Tribal Wars on the Southern Plains. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. 

________. The Sand Creek Massacre. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963. 

Hutton, Paul. Phil Sheridan and his Army. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985. Reprint, University 

of Oklahoma Press, 1999. 

________. Soldiers West: Biographies from the Military Frontier. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987. 

Hyde, George E. Life of George Bent. Edited by Savoie Lottinville. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 

1968 

________. Red Cloud’s Folk: A History of the Oglala Sioux Indians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 

1937. Reprint 1975. 

________. Spotted Tail’s Folk: A History of the Brule Sioux. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961. 

Johnson, Broderick H., ed. Navajo Stories of the Long Walk Period. Tsaile, Ariz.: Navajo Community 

College Press, 1973. 

Johnson, Dorothy M. The Bloody Bozeman: The Perilous Trail to Montana’s Gold. New York: McGraw-Hill 

Book Company, 1971. 

Josephy, Alvin M. The Nez Perces Indians and the Opening of the Northwest. New Haven: Yale University 

Press, 1965. 

Kansas State Historical Society. Kansas Historical Markers. Topeka: Kansas State Historical Society, 2001. 

Kavanaugh, Thomas W. Comanche Political History: An Ethnohistorical Perspective, 1706-1875. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press, 1996. 

Keim, DeB. Randolph. Sheridan’s Troopers on the Border: A Winter Campaign on the Plains. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press, 1985. 

Kelly, Lawrence D. Navajo Roundup: Selected Correspondence of Kit Carson’s Expedition Against the 

Navajo, 1863-1865. Boulder, Colo.: Pruett Publishing Company, 1970. 

Knight, Oliver. Following the Indian Wars: The Story of Newspaper Correspondents among the Indian 

Campaigners. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1960. 

Larson, Robert W. Red Cloud: Warrior-Statesman of the Lakota Sioux. Norman: University of Oklahoma 

Press, 1997. 

LaVere, David. Contrary Neighbors: Southern Plains and Removed Neighbors in Indian Territory. Norman: 

University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. 
93 

Leckie, William H. The Military Conquest of the Southern Plains. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 

1963. 

Legoski, Robert J., comp. General George Crook’s Campaign of 1876, June 5 through August 3: Newspaper 

Accounts of the Day. Sheridan, Wyo.: Privately published, 2000. 

Limerick, Patricia Nelson. Legacy of Conquest. New York: W.W. Norton, 1987. 

________ et. al. Trails: Toward a New Western History. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1991. 

Long, Margaret. The Smoky Hill Trail. Denver: Privately published, 1953. 

Maddux, Albert G. and Vernon R. Maddux. The Battle of Punished Woman’s Fork. n.p., n.d. 

Madsen, Brigham D. The Shoshoni Frontier and the Bear River Massacre. Salt Lake City: University of Utah 

Press, 1985. 

Mackintosh, Barry. The Historic Sites Survey and National Historic Landmarks Program: A History. 

Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, History Division, 1985. 

Mangum, Neil C. Battle of the Rosebud: Prelude to the Little Bighorn. El Segundo, Calif.: Upton and Sons, 

1987. 

Mattes, Merrill. Platte River Road Narratives: A Descriptive Bibliography of Travel over the Great Central 

Overland Route to Oregon, California, Utah, Colorado, Montana, and Other Western States and 

Territories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988. 

McDermott, John D. Forlorn Hope: The Battle of White Bird Canyon and the Beginning of the Nez Perce War. 

Boise: State Historical Society, 1978. 

McGinnis, Anthony. Counting Coup and Cutting Horses: Intertribal Warfare of the Northern Plains, 1738-

1889. Evergreen, Colorado: Cordillera Press, Inc., 1990. 

McHugh, Thomas. The Time of the Buffalo. New York: Alfred A, Knopf, 1972. 

McKale, William and William D. Young. Fort Riley: Citadel of the Frontier West. Topeka: Kansas State 

Historical Society, 2000. 

McNitt, Frank. Navajo Wars: Military Campaigns, Slave Raids, Reprisals. Albuquerque: University of New 

Mexico Press, 1972. 

_________. “The Long March: 1863-1867.” In The Changing Ways of Southwestern Indians: A Historic 

Perspective, ed. Albert H. Schroeder, 145-69. El Corral de Santa Fe Westerners Brand Book. 

Glorieta, New Mexico: The Rio Grande Press, Inc., 1973. 

_________. Navajo Wars: Military Campaigns, Slave Raids, and Reprisals. Albuquerque: University of New 

Mexico Press, 1992. 

Michino, Gregory F. Lakota Noon: The Indian Narrative of Custer’s Defeat. Missoula, Montana: Mountain 

Press Publishing Co., 1997. 
94 

Monnett, John H. Tell Them We Are Going Home: The Odyssey of the Northern Cheyennes. Norman: 

University of Oklahoma Press, 2001. 

_________. The Battle of Beecher Island and the Indian War of 1867-1869. Niwot: University Press of 

Colorado, 1992. 

Mooney, James. The Ghost Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890. Lincoln: University of Nebraska 

Press, 1991. 

Morris, Roy. Sheridan: The Life and Wars of General Phil Sheridan. Dayton, OH: Morningside Books, 1993. 

Murray, Robert A. The Bozeman Trail: Highway of History. Boulder, Colo.: Pruett Publishing Company, 

1988. 

Oliva, Leo E. Fort Harker: Defending the Journey West. Topeka: Kansas State Historical Society, 2000. 

_________. Fort Hays: Keeping Peace on the Plains. Topeka: Kansas State Historical Society, 1980. 

_________. Fort Wallace: Sentinel on the Smoky Hill Trail. Topeka: Kansas State Historical Society, 1998. 

Powell, Peter John. People of the Sacred Mountains: A History of the Northern Cheyenne Chiefs and Warrior 

Societies. 2 vols. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981. 

________. Sweet Medicine: The Continuing Role of the Sacred Arrows, the Sun Dance, and the Sacred Buffalo 

Hat in Northern Cheyenne History. Norman : University of Oklahoma Press, 1969. 

Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the Indian, 1865-1900. 

Norman : University of Oklahoma Press, 1976 

________. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California 

Press, 1994. 

________. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. 2 vols. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press, 1984. 

Quinn, Arthur. Hell With The Fire Out: A History Of The Modoc War. Boston: Faber and Faber Inc., 1997. 

Rickey, Don. Forty Miles a Day on Beans and Hay. Norman : University of Oklahoma Press, 1963. 

Roberts, David. Once They Moved Like the Wind: Cochise, Geronimo, and the Apache Wars. New York: 

Simon and Schuster, 1993. 

Robinson, Charles B. III. A Good Year to Die: The Story of the Great Sioux War. New York: Random House, 

1995. 

Robinson, Sherry, ed. Apache Voices: Their Stories of Survival as Told to Eve Ball. Albuquerque: University 

of New Mexico Press, 2000. 

Roessel, Robert A., Jr. “Navajo History, 1850-1923.” In Handbook of North American Indians, ed. Alfonso 

Ortiz. Vol. 10, Southwest. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1983. 

Sandoz, Mari. Cheyenne Autumn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953. 
95 

Schmidt, Thomas and Winifred Blevins. History from the Highways: Wyoming. Boulder, Colo.: Pruett 

Publishing Company, 1993. 

Smith, Sherry L. Sagebrush Soldier: Private William Earl Smith’s View of the Sioux War of 1876. Norman: 

University of Oklahoma Press, 1989. 

________. The View From Officers’ Row: Army Perceptions of Western Indians, 1848-1890. Tucson: University 

of Arizona Press, 1990. 

Socolofsky, Homer E. and Huber Self. Historical Atlas of Kansas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 

[1972]. 

Spicer, Edward. Cycles of Conquest. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1962. 

Stands in Timber, John and Margot Liberty. Cheyenne Memories. 2nd ed. New Haven : Yale University 

Press, 1998. 

Steinacher, Terry L. and Gayle F. Carlson. The Cheyenne Outbreak Barracks. Lincoln: Nebraska State 

Historical Society, 1999. 

Stewart, Edgar I. Custer’s Luck. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1955. 

Sweeney, Edwin R. Mangas Coloradas: Chief of the Chiricahua Apaches. Norman : University of Oklahoma 

Press, 1998. 

Thompson, Gerald. The Army and the Navajo. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1976. 

Thrapp, Don. The Conquest of Apacheria. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1967. 

________. Victorio and the Mimbres Apaches. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1973. 

Underhill, Ruth. Here Come the Navaho! Lawrence, Kansas: Haskell Institute, 1953. 

Unruh, Jr., John D. The Plains Across: The Overland Emigrants and the Trans-Mississippi West, 1840-1860.

Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1979. 

Utley, Robert M. Cavalier in Buckskin: George Armstrong Custer and the Western Military Frontier. 

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988. 

________. Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian, 1866-1890. New York: Macmillan Co., 

1973. 

________. Frontiersmen in Blue: The United States Army and the Indian, 1848-1865. New York: Macmillan 

Co., 1967. 

________. The Indian Frontier of the American West, 1840-1890. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico 

Press, 1984. 

________. The Lance and the Shield: The Life and Times of Sitting Bull. New York: Henry Holt, 1993. 

________. The Last Days of the Sioux Nation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. 
96 

Vaughn, Jesse W. The Reynolds Campaign on Powder River. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961. 

West, Elliott. The Contested Plains: Indians, Goldseekers, and the Rush to Colorado. Lawrence: University 

Press of Kansas, 1998. 

________. The Way to the West: Essays on the Central Plains. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 

1995. 

White, Richard. “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own”: A New History of the American West. Norman: 

University of Oklahoma Press, 1991. 

Wilfong, Cheryl. Following the Nez Perce Trail: A Guide to the Nee-Me-Poo National Historic Trail with 

Eyewitness Accounts. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 1990. 

Wooster, Robert. The Military and United States Indian Policy, 1865-1903. New Haven: Yale University 

Press, 1988. 

Works Project Administration. Writers' Program. Colorado: A Guide to the Highest State. New York: 

Hastings House Publishers, 1941. 

________. Kansas: A Guide to the Sunflower State. New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1949. 

________. Nebraska: A Guide to the Cornhusker State. New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1939. 

________. New Mexico: A Guide to the Colorful State. New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1940. 

________. Wyoming: A Guide to Its History, Highways, and People. New York: Oxford University Press, 1941. 

Wyoming Recreation Commission. Wyoming: A Guide to Historic Sites. Basin, Wyo.: Big Horn Publishers, 

1976. 

Other Media: 

Ackerly, Neal W., Dos Rios Consultants, Inc. “A Navajo Diaspora: The Long Walk to Hwéeldi.” 

<http://members.tripod.com/~bloodhound/longwalk.htm >, 1998, accessed May 9, 2002. 

Doyle, Susan Badger and W.S. Neal. "The Bozeman Trail: Gold Rush Road to Montana, 1863-1868" [map]. 

1"= approximately 13 miles. Helena, MT: Doyle Neal Associates, 2001. 

“The Great Cheyenne Chase: A Truthful Account by a Dragoon Who Participated in It.” Typescript copy. 

Last Indian Raid in Kansas Museum, Decatur County Historical Society, Oberlin, Kansas. 

Greene, Jerome A. “Warbonnets and Longknives: Military Use of the Bozeman Trail in the 1860s.” 

Unpublished paper presented at the Bozeman Trail Symposium, Bozeman, Montana, July, 1998. 

Hedren, Paul L. “Beyond Red Cloud’s War: The Bozeman Trail in the 1870s.” Unpublished paper 

presented at the Bozeman Trail Symposium, Bozeman, Montana, July, 1998. 

“Major Trails of Kansas.” Map provided by the Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka. 
97 

McDermott, John D. “Gen. George Crook’s 1876 Campaigns: A Report Prepared for the American 

Battlefield Protection Program.” Unpublished manuscript, June 2000. 

Rea, Bob. “Turkey Springs & Red Hills, September 13-14, 1878." Unpublished manuscript provided by the 

author. 

Regional Educational Technology Assistance. “Four Primary Routes of The Long Walk.” 

<http://reta.nmsu.edu/modules/longwalk/lesson/maps/lw_map.htm>, accessed May 9, 2002. 

Smith, Sherry L. “The Bozeman Trail.” Unpublished report submitted to the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, no date.