Evening star., 1934-07-10
Answers Critic of His
Version of Little Big Horn Battle

To the Editor Of The Star:
Mr.. w. j. Ghent. in a letter to the
Washington Star which appeared in
that the interview on the battle OF
the Little Big Horn given by me to
/ Thomas r. Henry was not in accord
with the known facts, and advances
specific objections.
At the outset I must call attention
to the fact that have no first hand
knowledge of this battle. I happened
to be present at meeting of various
survivors when they told their stories
under peculiar form of Indian oath
Mr.. Ghent implies that Indians, as
such, under oath may not tell the
truth. AS a realistic proposition, many
white men under oath do not tell
the truth either, but from experience
must say that an Indian under oath
who still believed that the powers
above would punish him for swearing
falsely. would be mighty likely TO tell
the truth
Furthermore, it must be remembered
that the circumstances of this meeting
were not such that any purpose would
be served by falsehood. 1t was a pri-
vate meeting. The stories were not for
the record. They we're "reminiscences
of aging men talking among them
selves.
Frankly, as to what happened at
the battle of the Little Big Horn, in
SO far as it relates to Clusters fate.
nobody knows and nobody ever will
know. Both white men and Indians
who have made conscientious studies
of the battle hopelessly disagree on
many particulars. Supposed eve
witnesses disagree. 1t Will always be
a subject of controversy.
H'he statements under oath Of at
least two men who actually were lead
erS in the battle constitute, l believe,
at least a worthwhile footnote to the
history of the time. especially since
1t is supported in its essentials by
those white historians who have writ
ten most effectively on the matter.
*x*
Now as to Mr.. Clients specific OBJ
jections:
First. That the battle took place on
June 25, not on June 26. Mr.. Ghent
is right This was a slip.
Second. That Curley. White Man
Runs Him. Goes Ahead and Hairy
MoccaSln we're not actually in the
battle. The interview does not state
that they were, They were present at
meeting in 1909 with the Sioux who
were IN the battle. Two Moons and
! Crazy Horse name given as Crazy
Bull IN the article, survivors of the
battle, were present. Communication
was in the sign language. which was
well understood by those who were
there
Third. That Curley was not in the
battle with Custer. That is correct
and 1t Is not claimed. nor was il
claimed in my interview that he was
Fourth. That Two Moons estimate
that the Sioux numbered only 900
warriors in this battle is not correct
The statement of Two Moons that the
Sioux mustered only 1000 warriors is
fortified and backed by the careful
researches Of DR. Max Eastman, a
Sioux Indian. who was agency phy-
sician at Standing Rock in 1891. East
man is cited by P E. Byrne in his
article entitled the Custer Myth" III
the North Dakota Historical Quarterly
April, 1882, page 1877. This article is
also published as Senate Document
No. 6S. Seyenty-third Congress. first
session. The report of the commits
sioner Of Indian affairs for 1876, page
E
IN Sitting Bulls camp during the
Winter Of 1875 at 5000. mastering
between six and eight hundred war
riors. The whole body Of hostile Sioux
and other malcontent Indians was