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

morally wrong.
On the other hand. point to
Sheridan's order Of June, 1868, to
the armed invasion of the Black
Hills by Custer (l874) and to the
armed invasion of the Indians hunt
ing grounds by Custer and his regi-
ment while acting as escort for the
Northern Pacific Surveyors (them.
selves transgressors) in the Summer
Of 1873, as specific violations Of that
treaty. See Soldiers Of the Plains,
p. l6 & 81.
Fantastic Speculations
You indulge in fantastic specula.
tiOns about the assumed right of
the Indian to hold land" etc. In
fact, your letter throughout is made
up largely Of imposing speculations
and congratulations expressed with
refreshing assurance and superior
tone Of finality equally refreshing.
You close this chapter with the all
cnveloping statement that "the earth
belongs to those who make social
use of it." This is very fine and
lovely and beautiful to be sure; but
It has no place in the discussion OF
the matter ut hand.
CD Your comparison of the Indian
fighter. as such. with Bowery thug
is also interesting. You seem to
think that to be soldier one must
always fight just like a white soldier
or lose all right to be classcd as a
soldier in fact. What's the use in
arguing such stuff?
Personally ! was never in an Indian
fight, and my knowledge Of the In
dams qualifications as a soldier is
derived from the ample testimony
Of such as Miles, Crook, Custer, King.
Benteen-- and Bourke. You object
that the testimony Of these men is
not to be trusted. and that their
evidence docs not settle the mat
ter" think it does settle the
matter Us nearly as it is possible to
settle it at this late date. You do
not hesitate to invoke the name Of
Parkman as competent to establish
your contention that, IL certain res
poets and under certain circumstan-
ces. the Indian was coward. Don't
you know that in certain respects and
under certain circumstances any man
white or red may be a coward!
To prove the Indians high standing
as soldier. rely upon the word
of well known officers of wide cx-
PSi N"Ne :" s"e ie1us ~HHc you axe
content to rest your case on the
testimony of the peaceful Mr.. Park
man. and others. unnamed.
Hard to Follow
(3 You dispose Of the Powder
River and Rosebud fights and the
several engagements Of Joseph's re-
treating band with wave of the
hand. You infer, l believe, that since
they were fighting for their wives
and children and pony herds their
exploits should not receive serious
consideration as q purely fighting
proposition. l cannot follow your
line of reasoning. You persist in
general statements and reckless as
sertions and let it 20 ut that. Per-
haps it is another case of my miss
ing the point altogether. l am sorry
II it is so.
You say that in my account of the
Powder River fight ] have pictured
an episode not recognizable by any
one who has consulted the available
material on the subject, and, by in
ference, you include yourself under
that head. In my opinion, it was
up the Indian record-which is the
ities-that the episode" in question
should receive more than the mini
mum of public notice. l have read,
] think, all the available material on
the subject, and much material not
available to you or to the general
public. In writing that chapter l
was guided mainly by the military
reports, by the account of Captain
Bourkc, and BY the stories of SOL
dicx who took part in the campaign.
] have chosen to emphasize points
and incidents as they seemed to me
worth while without regard to wheth-
CIR such points or incidents were en-
phasizcd. or slurrcd over, or en-
tircly ignored, BY the official re.
ports or by others. Therein may
lie the reason for the episode" as
you like to call IL, not being easily
recognizable. With you it is the
usual "insignificant engagement"
and you will have it no other way.
Apparently you consider that
scene or an incident, IL somewhat
picturesque in presentation must nec-
cssarily be inaccuratc; and sou insist
that hanging to the. flanks," "halt-
ing the enemy" and "sending him
back limping and beaten" is rhetor-
ical ornament in conflict with the
records. Well, ! appeal to the facts
the bare facts-about which there is
no dispute. Let them tell their own
story:
Their Own Story
On the morning of March II, 1876
tempe nature in the neighborhood Of
40 bclow--the troops, under command
of Colonel Reynolds. surprised the
Indian camp Of Crazy Horse on the
Powder River, Montana. Without
food or shelter and insufficiently
clad, the Indian women and chill
dren were cast adrift. Their homes
were burned before their eyes. But
there was no surrender. The Indian
warriors fought. In the battle four
soldiers were killed and six serious
~ wounded. Reynolds became panic
stricken, and abandoned the field in
wild haste. Such of the Indians as
could secure mounts their pony herd
had been captured) kept after the
retreating soldiers. They 'recaptured
the pony herd. Rej0ining the main
command under General Crook, the
retreat was continued and the cam
paign finally abandoned. Meanwhile
the Indians succeeded in capturing
CrOOkS valuable herd OF beef cattle,
leaving his weary and discouraged
soldiers to subsist on horseflesh all
the way to Fort Fetterman. Finally
Fort Fetterman was reached with
many of the soldiers badly frost
bitten and otherwise incapacitatcd.
Then. more trouble: some Of Crooks
officers found themselves in disgrace
and facing court martial on charges
Of cowardice as result of develop.
ments In the fight with the Indians.
Those being the facts, feel that
! have not over-statcd the caac.
There is no conflict with the records.
I suspect that your main source
Of information is to be found in the
account Of the New York correspond
ent which you mention in referring to
the extent of your research. That
item appears in Whittaker's Life of
Custer. It is. however y very small
and rather insignificant and unim.