The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-31
CHIEFS OF THE SIOUX
INTERESTING "REMINISCENCES OF
THE CUSTER MASSACRE.
Sitting Bull Not In the Batxle-The
Giant Gall Led the Indians-StOry
Told by Rafn-in-the-Fnce.
Bismarek (N. % Letter in St. Louis Globe-

DAYS ago that the United States purchase
a picture of the Sioux Indian chieftain Sit
ting Bull as memento of the Custer
massacre, and the opposition aroused there
by, it having been claimed that Sitting Bull
was merely medicine man and an unim-
portant factor in the famous uprising of the
Sioux nation which resulted in the slaugh-
ter of Clusters command, has raised an
other controversy among those who lived
on the frontier at the time of the massacre
and were familiar with the details of the
massacre from the lips of the wounded of
the other commands, who were brought to
Bismarck after the fight by steamboat, as
to the part taken in the fight by the sew
the Sioux at that time.
1t is a peculiar fact that, although TWEEN
ty-two years have elapsed since the massa-
ere, and the battle, from the standpoint of
the regular troops, has been discussed from
every possible phase and point of view, the
Indian side of the matter has never been
taken up and the relative Importance of the
several chiefs who participated decided. At
first Sitting Bull had the lions share of
credit for having planned and executed the
campaign which cost the United States so
many brave soldiers. The name of Sitting
the horrible details of that butchery on the
Little Big Horn But as the years passed
the pendulum swung the other way. until
now it is stated that Sitting Bull was only
medicine man, took no part in the struggle
and remained during the fight with the
squaws and children, and that he is en-
titled to none of the credit for the Sioux
campaign. 1t is difficult to get at the exact
status of the fight from the Indian stand
point from the fact that the chieftains re-
fuse to discuss the matter. There were four
of them whose names are most intimately
connected with the massacre-Sitting Bull,
Call Observation-Disclosures and John Grass. OF
these four two are dead. Sitting Bull was
killed by an Indian policeman in the Indian
uprising of 1890, and Gall died on the reser-
walton at Standing Rock two years ago.
Both are buried there, but the grave of Sit
ting Bull appears TO be summed or whites
and Indians alike. 1t is incloSed in a rude
wooden paling, and above the mound be-
meath which lie the remains OF this willy,
crafty and treacherous leader Is a plain
wooden board, painted white, and inscribed
thereon the words, Sitting Bull, Indian,
$780,
Rain-in-the-Face is a policeman at the
agency, while John Grass is chief justice
of the SjASIx tribe and sits as court of
last rescH in the trial of all offenses by
the native tribunals Both of them are men
beyond fifty years of age, and both are
stout, healthy and promise to achieve old
exceeding. corpulency, as he was a physical
giant and the finest appearing Indian the
Sioux tribe ever produced.
SITTING BULL A MEDICINE MAN.
Between Sitting Bull and Gall there was
always enmity. 1t was not expressed, but
close observers of the two men have stated
that the aversion of each for the other was
readily noticeable when either man spoke
Of the other. 1t is not surprising that this
enmity existed, for the reason that the men
were exact opposites in character. Sitting
Bull was crafty, treacherous, strategic, fond
Of admiration, vain and boastful. Gall was
frank, open, a warrior, with no faint of de-
ceit or treachery, brave and absolutely in
different to either admiration or desta-
ton. There is no doubt that it was he
who led the hosts of Sioux on the battle
field when Custepis scommandkwas killed.
He was such a leader as warriors on the
field would follow to the death. But on
the other hand, it is also a fact that 1T was
Sitting Bull who infiamed the passions of
the Sioux, worked upon their supersttions
and made medicine for the campaign.
The medicine man of the Indian tribe is
largely responsible for it's conduct. He is
not a warrior, and yet he-is more dangerous
to the peace Of the tribe. He brings TO the
warriors his dreams, his visions and the
results of his incantations. He reads Tor
them the designs of the Great Spirit. He
sees in his dreams visions of untold power
and wealths of glory achieved on the bat
and an exhorter, and 1t is he whose crafty
counsels. insidious suggestions and gilded
visions lead the warriors 20 forsake the
paths of peace and seek those of war
1t was in this way that Sitting Bull was
an important man In the Sioux tribe. War
riors were not alone needed to wage bat
tie There must be some one to rouse en-
thusiasm and foster The spirit Of strife: 1t
was Sitting Bull who did this. And so
well did he do it Td tna5 d ftTe S9nx
Before the battle he made more medicine"
And not alone did he make medicine, but he
outlined a plan of campaign, provided for
the retreat of the women and children in
case of defeat, and executed a mastery
retreat when hard pressed later. Those
lance of Sitting Bull do not understand the
nature of the Indian. He was, perhaps,
more directly responsible for the. Custer
massacre than any other single chieftain,
and yet it is stated, and probably with
truth. that he did not fire single shot dur
But it was Gail that the Indians followed
on the battlefield, once aroused by. Sitting
Bull. Gall was giant who would have
the ideal Indian warrior. He was brave,
gallant and a natural leader. He knew
nothing Of craft, nor was he an adept at
stirring up mems passions like Sitting Bull.
But he was a host on the field of battle.
And therein lies the part played by the two
men. Bull fostered the fight, reused the
Gall led them on the field.
Gall was not talkative chieftain, and
mitted 'i gracefully to ali the requrement H Of
surrender. He was warrior, and after
defeat he was honorable man. At no
time after the Sioux returned to the reser-
walton did he make one bit Of trouble with
the authorities. Here again the different
dispositions of the two men are shown
Sitting Bull was willy, restless, dissatisfied
and seeking to foment disturbance. He was
the same potter, and it was probably again
owing TO his influence that the uprising of
1880 was due, and his death was a relief to
the authorities although the manner of it
is not considered creditable to those by
whom and through whom it was accom-
plished.
BOASTFUL RAIN-IN-THE-FACE
The chieftains who led the Custer massa-
ere were always reticent concerning the de-
tails of the fight. There was good reason
for this. since, after they returned to the
reservation, they felt that knowledge of
their activity in the massacre of Clusters
men would prejudice the authorities against
them. 1t was a plan question of avoiding
Standardization. The only one of the
chieftains who talked much of the battle
was Rain-in-the-Fac perhaps the most
cruel warrior of all the chieftains who took
part in the battle. But Rain-in-the-F Face
was more boastful than reliable and his
relations have been mainly for the purpose
of Wanting his own prowess. A year or 50
ago article was published in some maya
an interview had with Northumberland re-
garding the matter of the death of Tom
Custer. There 1t was stated that Rain-in-
the-Face had admitted that he had cut Tom
Clusters heart out in the carrying out of a
VOW made by the Indian when in Jail at
Fort Lincoln before the massacre where il
was claimed that Custer had been unneceS-
sarily cruel to Rain-in- the-Face. But the