Evening star., 1934-07-10

, known as Sitting Bulls outfit. See
Godfrey, Montana Historical Society
Contributions, Vol. 9. page I5s.
Fifth. That Sitting Bull took no
active part in the battle. There are
three versions of Sitting Bulls ac-
tivities during the Battle of the Little
Big Horn. (a) That of Mclaughlin.
who insists that Sitting Bull was an
arrant coward, took no part in the
battle and remained at a distance
from the scene of conflict making
medicine-"My Friend the Indian"
page 140. (b) That found in Finerty,
who gives a copy Of the report of
Col. Poland. 9Th United States In
fantry, to the adjutant general. De-
partment of Dakota, dated July "a,
1876, which is as follows: That seven
Sioux, some of whom had been en-
gagged in the Battle of the Little Big
Horn, had just come in to Standing
Rock and reported that Sitting Bull
took no active part in the battle, but
directed operations from his tent, for
which Black Moon took him severely
to task after the battle See WAR
Path and Bivouac," page 453. Jud-
son Elliot Walker in his Campaigns
of Gen. Custer" at page 102, attrib-
utes the same statement to Crow
King with regard to Sitting Bull. (c)
The version given in my interview,
based on statements made in my
presence by Two Moons and Crazy
Horse to the effect that Sitting Bull
assisted in rallying the young men
and took an active part in the battle.
(a) AS to Mclaughlin His state
ments with regard to Sitting Bull
show considerable personal animus,
as a most superficial perusal of his
book will indicate. And Sitting Bull
had no use for the agent or the
agency The feeling was mutual. Nc
Laughlin. of course, obtained the
bulk of his information about Sitting
Bull from the ration house Indians
and as he owned the key to the ration
house. these Indians naturally told
him the things they thought he would
like to hear. Besides this, Indians,
like white people, are not always
united but have their factional fights
and political parties. and group likes
and dislikes, and there were Sioux at
Standing Rock who did not care
much for Sitting Bull Sitting Bull
was an inSurgent, and did not have
any use for the agency or the agent,
and the agency and the agent did not
care for Sitting Bull. Hence the
genesis of the Sitting Bull myth as
fathered by Mclaughlin. McLaugh-
Inns story has been given greater
force and credibility by being ac-
cepted. both as to Sitting Bulls con-
duct during the battle, and as to the
numbers of Sioux engaged, by such
reputable authority as Godfrey, Mon
tana Historical Society Contribu-
tions and by Brakett, in the same
series, volume 4.
(b) Col Poland's report, seconded
bv Grow Kings statement, that Sit
ting Bull directed the battle from his.
tent does not seem to be generally
accepted now by historians. It makes
him take too active a part in the
battle to suit the Mclaughlin school,
and the persons who insist that they
saw Sitting Bull in the battle OF
course do not accept it. AS to Crow
Kings statement, it must be remem-
bered that this battle had three
phases: Reno's attack, repulSe and
retreat: the wiping out of Custer. and
the besieging of the survivors under
nominal command of Reno after Gus
ter was wiped out All three of these
operations occurred over quite an
extent of territory, and it would be
possible for Sitting Bull to be in the
battle and not be seen there by Grow
King. SO Grow Kings statement
would not necessarily rebut the state