| OCR Text |
Show FlT j y rj ' ' , is , - 1 "" , ; - " v - c 5 J ' V . . ..t'i.V-- .50 Anniversary W) -: :- of Mot: Famous lndianv ,v ; fettk to be Observed 7 P ' 'v - i :;v;:: J4 s.tt:s X& 1 ?:.1 v. By ELMO SCOTT WATSON HIS year marks the fiftieth an-' an-' niversary of the best known, most talked-about and most writ-: writ-: ten-about Indian battle in nil . American history. Otticially it is u- known ns the Battle of the I.it- 1 f 0 tie Big Horn river, Montana, but ''JSxs' tlie- llictures(llle figure of Gen. iCwL George Armstrong Custer, whose vh irm dashing career as a cavalry ill' ,ea'l1er in t,le Civil war and as a JM successful Indian fighter on the Vi H. western plains, has so caught the popular fancy and so dominates this engagement engage-ment that it probably will never be known generally gen-erally by any other name than Custer's Last Fight, or Custer's Last Rally or more commonly (albeit inaccurately) the Custer Massacre. Plans for the semi-centennial celebration of this famous engagement are under the direction of the National Custer Memorial association, organized last year in Montana but including in its membership mem-bership a score of persons nationally known who are prominent in the work of patriotic societies and perpetuation of historical spots. One of them is Gen. K. S. Godfrey, U. S. A., retired, who was a lieutenant in Custer's regiment, tiie Seventh cavalry, on that fateful day fifty years ago. The program calls for participation in the celebration cele-bration by the present personnel of the Seventh cavalry, now stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas, and Sioux and Cheyenne Indians, the sons and grand-sous grand-sous of the savage warriors who overwhelmed Custer's men on the Little Big Horn. The United Unit-ed States government is co-operating, $30,000 having hav-ing been appropriated by congress recently for the transportation of the troops to and from the celebration. Congress has also passed a bill authorizing au-thorizing the secretary of the interior to acquire a tract of land of 100 acres on the site of the fight between the Indians and the detachments commanded com-manded by Major Keno and Captain Benteen, which was a part of the Custer battle, und to erect on it a suitable monument and historical tablet, the dedication of which will be a part of the celebration. But the most interesting part of it all will be the march of the Seventh under Colonel Lee from the mouth of the Rosebud river, beginning at noon on June 22 and following the route taken by Custer and bis doomed men. They will arrive on the Custer battlefield, the property of the federal government upon which a monument was erected many years ago, on the morning of June 25. There they will be met by the Indians and a formal ceremony symbolical of the "burying of the hatchet" between red men and white will take place. mi... . . . -Liius, in a celebration which is attracting na-tlon-wide attention, will be recalled a tragedy which shocked the entire nation a half century ago, echoes of which have been heard every year of the fifty that have intervened since America's "Six Hundred" rode into their "Valley of Death." The story of this battle is so well-known that It needs no repetition here. It has been told and retold re-told so often that there seems to be little that is new to tell again. Over it has raged many a bitter bit-ter controversy and around it has sprung up a 8reat mass of tradition, myth, misinformation Md sheer "bunk." Fortunately, however, it has nad its historians who have worked Industrious-'y Industrious-'y to "debunk" the story of the Custer battle and, although there still are many details over which 'here is, and alwavs will be, a chance for disagreement, dis-agreement, in the main certain facts which have been oftenest distorted have been established w their true light. .. rFlrst of all, the Custer battle was not the Custer Massacre," as it Is so often called. Custer Cus-ter attacked the Indians and fought desperately fntil he and all of the 212 men in the five companies com-panies of the Seventh which accompanied him were killed. But there was no ambush, no slaughter slaugh-ter of unarmed men, none of the other factors ,Vftleh would justify calling this battle a nnre-stiere. nnre-stiere. One of the points over which there has been ne most acrimonious debate Is whether or not Uster disobeyed the orders of his superior olli-jr. olli-jr. Gen. A. II. Terry, and by his disobedience ought disaster upon himself. In many respects "s dispute resolves itself into an academic aiTair which there can be no solution without a strict station, interpretation and definition of the erms used in the debate. Opinion on this matter s Hbout equally divided. General Godfrey is the ost eminent among those who believe that the master did not result from disobedience of orders Qd the general Is probably as well qualified as nyone in the world to make a positive state-meat state-meat in this regard. Next to the matter of responsibility for the disaster is the question of whether or not there were any survivors of the Custer battle. The center of the controversy over this point for many years was the Crow Indian scout, Curley, whose claim to the title of "survivor" depends entirely upon an interpretation of what that term means. Curley was with Custer after the general had separated his command and was with him when he first came into contact with the Indians. Just when he left Custer at the order of the commander, com-mander, by the way is not known definitely, but it has been pretty well established that he was not with him when Custer made his last stand on the barren hillside over which the red wave of destruction de-struction swept to blot out five companies of the Seventh. The only genuine "survivor" of that last desperate struggle was not a human being, but a horse, Comanche, the claybank sorrel charger ridden by Capt. Myles Keogh of I Troop of the Seventh. Comanche was found after the battle, wounded in seven places but with tender care his life was saved and he lived to an honored old age. Despite indisputable evidence that there was only one real survivor,, a horse, and one human being who had a faint claim to being a survivor Curley, the Crow during the last half century cen-tury there have come to light innumerable "survivors" "sur-vivors" whose claims have been easily exploded by competent authorities but who have succeeded in deceiving many persons not familiar with the Custer battle. In the same manner innumerable "Custer scouts" have gained wide publicity. They bob up at such regular intervals that the headline head-line "Last of Custer Scouts Dies" has become a commonplace. Evidently every packer, wagoner or other civilian employee of the army, who ever had any remote connection with Custer's regiment, some time before he dies gets the idea or his friends get it for him that he was a "Custer scout" and either living or dying he enjoys a brief moment of fame. If all of the men who have claimed to be "survivors" or "Custer scouts" had been with Custer on the Little Big Horn on June 25 1ST6, it is difficult to see how ten times the number of Indians who were there would have been able to have wiped out. Custer's command 1 One of the favorite pieces of fiction about the Little Big Horn battle is that the Indians were led by Sitting Bull and that Rain-in-the-Face personally per-sonally killed Custer. While it has never been definitely established just how prominent a part Sitting Bull had in the battle (some authorities say that he was not even in the fight) It has been fully proved that the leaders who were principally principal-ly responsible for maneuvers of the Indians on that day were Chief Gall of the Huiikpapa Sioux, Chief Crazy Horse of the Oglala Sioux and Chief Two Moons of the Cheyennes. As to Rain-in-the-Fnce's claim to distinction it is true that there was a feud between him and Capt. Tom Custer, brother of the general, and that he had threatened to cut out Tom Custer's heart. It Is also true that Tom Custer's body was found after the battle thus mutilated and, although Rain-in-the-Face is accused of having done this, in the dosing years of his life he denied it. His denial was made to a man of his own race, Dr. Charles A. Eastman, and under all the circumstances it Is reasonable to believe that he told Doctor Eastman the (ruth. Within the last year there has been much dispute dis-pute over the arms which Custer and his men carried into the battle. Many artists who have drawn pictures of the Custer battle have shown the soldiers using swords, when as a matter of fact there was not a saber In the entire command. The men of the Seventh were armed only with ancient single shot Springfield rbines and Colt ,-ev.lvers and it was partly because of these Ineffective In-effective single shot carbines that Custer's command com-mand perished. Another favorite piece of misinformation lays (All photographs copyright by D. F1. Barry.) part of the responsibility for the disaster upon the "cowardice" of Major Reno In not going to the support of Custer. E. A. Brininstool, a historian who has made a special study of this campaign and who has brought to light many important facts about it, has definitely disproved this Imputation Impu-tation of cowardice on the part of Major Reno and has done much to show that the man who for so long was "the goat" In this unfortunate affair in reality was something of a hero. It has remained for Prof. 0. G. Libby of the department de-partment of history at the University of North ' Dakota to remove the stigma from the names of other brave men connected with the Custer battle. bat-tle. In addition to the Crow scouts who accompanied accom-panied the Custer expedition there were also a number of Arikara or Ree Indian scouts. The manner of referring to their part in the battle by most historians Is to say "the cowardly Rees fled at the first fire." Professor Libby's investigation among the surviving members of this group of scouts, published by the North Dakota Historical society under the title of "The Arikara Narrative," shows conclusively that the term "cowardly Rees" Is utterly unfair and untruthful. When the Arikara Arik-ara scouts "fled," they did so expressly upon the orders of General Custer who told them that they were to guide him to the Indian village but were to take no part in the fighting. But for all the disputes, controversies, charges and counter-charges connected with this battle to make it unique among Indian fights and for all that the general features of Its story are well known to most Americans, there Is much that Is Interesting and thrilling and inspiring which has never yet become widely known. There is the story of the narrow escape from death of Lieut. Charles L'e uuuio, oeigt. j-iioluus u ieiu, Scout Billy Jackson and Interpreter Fred Girard, who became separated from Reno's detachment during the first days' fighting and, after numerous narrow escapes from death, managed to rejoin their command while it was beleaguered on the hills to which Reno was forced to retreat. There is the story of the brave men In Reno's command who In the face of persistent Indian fire risked their lives to creep down to the river to get water for wounded and dying comrades. They received congressional medals of honor for their deeds, it is true, but they are almost unknown except ex-cept to a few historians of the Custer battle and It Is to be hoped that emblazoned high on the new memorial will be their names. They were the following: Nell Bancroft, Abram J. Brant, Thomas J. Callan, Frederick Deetline, Theodore W. Gold-in, Gold-in, David W. Harris, William M. Harris, Rufus D. Hutchinson, James Pym, Stanislaus Roy, George Scott, Thomas W. Stevens, Frank Tolan, Peter Thompson, Charles H. Welch, George H. Geiger, Henry W. B. Mechling, Charles WIndolph and Otto Ot-to Volt. Along with their names should be those of Sergt. Richard P. Hanley, Scrgt. Benjamin C. Criswell, Sergt. Thomas Murray, Corp. Charles ; Cunningham and Private Henry Holden, all of whom were awarded similar medals for various acts of gallantry during the two days of the battle and siege. 4. reunion of the survivors of the battle was held on the field in lSfi, the tenth anniversary of the fight, and at that time Chief Gall of the Sioux and Chief Two Moons of the Cheyennes went over the field with officers of the Seventh and described de-scribed the battle In detail as they remembered it. Gall Is long since dead, as are all the other Indian leaders on that fateful day. Br.t their spirits may be there this June, not so much to rejoice again over one cf the greatest victories the Indians In-dians ever won over the whiles, as to rejoice when the "hatchet-burying" ceremony signalizes a final and lasting peace between red men and white. |
