The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-03-08

column. In view Of that fact. there
| appears to be only one reasonable cx-
PLANTATION Of the Indians withdrawal
on the 26th, and that-shortage Of
ammunition. Your contention that
the approach of the Terry column,
numbering 400, scared $500 well
armed Indians into prccipitate re-
treat, is a plain absurdity
Mclaughlin Quoted
And you quote Major Mclaughlin.
1t was my good fortune to know
Major Mclaughlin rather intimately
for more than thirty-five years.
have discussed with him. many times,
the details Of the Little Big Horn
affair. His own personal opinion,
as stated to me more than once, was
that the Indians were sadly short Of
ammunition in that fight; and that.
in addition, much ammunition was
wasted-needlessly, of course--in
celebration Of the victory over
Custer. This is mentioned in Sol
diers Of the Plains. p. 164. The
word of Rain .the-Facc is that a
shortage Of ammunition was the
deciding factor in the Indians with
drawal. See American Mercury Mag
axine for November 1926, p. 342
Other facts brought out in my book
20 to show that a shortage Of am
munition handicapped the Indians not
only ut the Little Big Horn but in
most Of the battles of any cOnsequcn nee
between the Indian and the white
man. In the same number Of the
American Mercury Magazine Brig
General f. l.. Huggins. U. S. A. IRE
tired) makes the following statement,
which. offer to you for what it is
worth, and ! think it is worth much:
"The truth is that we have
never seriously worsted the In
dians in any conflict with equal
numbers where they were all sup
piled with arms and ammuni-
ton. This is so, whether our
forces were regular troops or
hastily levied frontiersmen. We
nave always found them focmcn
worthy Of our steel"
90 Under this heading CO.. you
say that forget that thou
sands Of pages have been given to
the Indians side Of the case" You
make that statement as though 1t
were solemn truth and beyond dis
pute. The fact is that no book pur-
porting to enter into discussion
Of the Indians case in like manner
has appeared previous to the present
volume. Permit me to correct an
other Of your misstatemcnts. 1t has
neither been the fashion nor the
practice "for some years to present
what is called the Indians side" in
the manner in which I have attempt
ed to present it. On the contrary,
so far rs l am informed, no serious
attempt has been made heretofore to
present "thc Indians side" with a
view Of giving hi mexact justice.
You say your complaint regarding
the book is that it does not content
itself with u "mcre statement Of the
casc," but that on every controvert-
cd point it makes assertions favor
able to the Indian. Will you please
point out what possible excuse OF
justification there might be for a
book that merely stated case
and refraincd from incidental dis
cussion? The mere fact that the
conclusions happen to favor the In
dian is, in itself, no ground for COM
plant. However. I am not especial
~ concerned with your criticism Of
the book itself. am satisfied you
did not read it with sufficient care
to criticisc it intclligcntly.
The ChivingtOn Affair
And you bring in the Chivington
affair as though ! had discussed it
at great length. 1t is subject
would consent to handle only with "A
tongs. do not attempt to deal
with it in my book. merely repeat
the expressed opinion of General
Miles and the members of the In
dian Peace Commission General
Sherman and associates) concerning
it. They regarded st. and justly re-
gardcd it, as one of the blacklist
crimes that has disgraccd the an
mails Of American history. And you
protest that the "Chivington Mas
sacre has another side, stoutly up
held by good men!" And that when
the Chivington story is rightly told
it must be told in the light of all
the facts" and that in all such
cases appear to give one side only,
and that to degree SO extreme that
it cannot be accepted by scholars
Save the mark. Scholars indeed!
As to the story of this cowardly
murderer, this destroyer of helpless
women and children--evidently you
have been living all these years in
blissful ignorance of the fact that
the story was rightly and thoroughly
told more than sixty years ago. The
affair was Investigated by the United
States Government in response to a
nightly wave Of indignation that
swept over the land, and there was
produced volume Of testimony
which is now a part Of the official
records Of the United States. If you
do not find it close ut hand. for the
sake of the neglected truth let me
send you my copy for reading. 1t is
q sad commentary that q man such
as you, accustomed to review work,
in connection with Indian history
especially, should know SO little con-
corning important developments in
such any outstanding episode Of
frontier history.
I hope also that--somctime- you
may familiarize yourself with the re-
port Of the Indian Peace Commission
(1866) and the report Of the Sioux
Commission NS76l. Apparently both
documents are strangers to you.
You need them to get the right per-
spective on the question of Indian
rights and Indian wrongs.
You conclude by Directing very
strenuously to my quoting $500 as
the generally accepted number OF
Indian warriors at the Little Big
Horn. You strongly dispute" my
fright to saw thu. that number is
generally accepted"
Even so, it Is the most reliable
figure extant. ! do not quite get
your point about the various "esti-
mates" being regulated somewhat ac-
cording as the estimator happens to
be pro- Custer or anti-Custer. What
bearing can the Custer question have
on the question of numbers as ap-
plying to the Indians at the Little
Big Horn?
It is quite true that some have
the figures as high as 5000. With
just as much reason and justification
they might have made the number
10000 or 100000. 1t is merely a
matter of adding one or more ciphers.
All such estimates" are utterly
worthless.