Evening star., 1934-06-30
Offered as to Article
About the Little Big Horn Battle

To the Editor OF The Star
The statements made in the article
on the battle of the Little Big Horn,
narrated by Richard Sanderville. writ
ten by Thomas r. Henry and pub
liShed in The Evening Star of June
26. are not in accord with the known
facts OF that engagement 1t should
be borne in mind that though this
battle has been the subject OF in
Vulnerable canards and sensational
stories. 1t also has been the subject
OF painstaking study by many his
torical students. l wish to offer the
following notations on the article:
!. 1t was on the 25th of June and
not the 26th that Custer and the 2ll
men of his immediate command were
killed
2. No one OF the four alleged sur
vivors-Curly. White Man Runs Him.
Goes Ahead and Hairy Moccasin-
was in the battle. All four dropped
out Of Clusters column before the
general came in contact with the In
dians. and probably before Reno's at
tdCk III Tie NhlIty.
g. No one of them seriously pro-
fessed to be survivor Of the battle
Three of them consistently disclaimed
such a distinction. Newspaper cor
respondents and others put into the
mouth OF Curly, at the time youth
of II. statements that he never made.
AS he knew no English and the nc
q; a x.,st
he could not have been aware of much
that was attributed to him. For a
time he was "heroized." He found the
notoriety pleasant and profitable. and
often acquiesced in the stories as they
were translated to him. but to men
who knew the facts he repeatedly ad-
mitted that he was nowhere near the
battlefield when Custer fell
4. 1t is amusing that Two Moons,
the Cheyenne. should be quoted as
placing the number of Indians in the
battle at about 1000" instead of the
usually accepted 5000 or more. TWO
Moons, during his active career. made
great many statements of varying
degrees of plausibility. But even IL he
had been more concerned about tidel-
ity to fact, the statement from him
would mean little. The unlettered In
dian had no sense of numbers beyond
few score. and the sum OF 900
would have been to him as incompre-
henSible as that of 100000.
S. That Sitting Bull took any active
part in the fighting is fiction that
long ago was shattered Though sew
eral writer's Of the impresSiOniStic
school have sought to ennoble Sitting
Bull, nothing has developed from any
quarter that impairs the account of
him given years ago by James Nc
Laughlin, in MY Friend the Indian.
6. Virtually all students agree that
the real leaders in the fight were the
Hunkpapa. Gall. and the Oglalla,
Crazy Horse. These two. by the way.
are not even mentioned in the ar
ticle.
z. The article asserts that had
Sitting Bull played the cowardly role
usually ascribed to him he would
thereafter have been an object Of
ridicule. Ultimately that was just
the result that followed. As he had
made medicine" and predicted bat
tie in which all the white soldiers
would be killed, and as the wiping
out of Clusters five companies was
to the Indians a sufficient fulfilment,
his fame for time was greatly
heightened, in spite of his cowardice.
But as the pressure Of the troops in
the months following broke up the
Sioux into small parties. most OF
I. -
others going over into Canada, his
prestige collapsed. Ultimately Gall
reproached him with being a faker
and a coward ard separated from
him. After his surrender and return