Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn

Who Was George Armstrong Custer?

George Armstrong Custer is remembered chiefly for his defeat at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876. Yet long before that battle, he had become one of the best-known cavalry officers in the United States. During the American Civil War, he earned a reputation for bravery, daring attacks and a willingness to lead his soldiers into danger. By the age of 25, he had reached the rank of major general in the volunteer army.

His military career was not without controversy. Custer could be an effective commander, but he was also ambitious, impatient and sometimes unwilling to follow orders. Some soldiers admired his courage and confidence. Others questioned his judgement and the risks he expected his men to take.

To understand what happened at the Little Bighorn, it helps to know something about the man who led the Seventh Cavalry into battle. His earlier successes shaped his confidence, while his experiences in the army influenced the decisions he would later make on the Great Plains.

Custer's Early Life and Education

George Armstrong Custer was born on 5 December 1839 in New Rumley, a small community in Ohio. His parents were Emanuel and Maria Custer. Although he was born in Ohio, he spent much of his childhood and teenage years in Monroe, Michigan, where he lived for periods with his older half-sister, Lydia Reed, and her family.

As a young man, Custer was lively, sociable and fond of practical jokes. He enjoyed attention and was not always particularly interested in following rules. These qualities would remain part of his character throughout his life, sometimes helping him make friends and sometimes getting him into trouble.

In 1857, at the age of 17, Custer entered the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. West Point trained young men to become officers in the US Army. Cadets studied subjects such as mathematics, engineering and military tactics, but they were also expected to follow strict rules governing their behaviour and daily routines.

Custer struggled with the academy's discipline. He repeatedly received demerits, which were penalties for breaking rules, and came close to being expelled. His record suggests that he was more interested in enjoying himself than becoming an outstanding student.

When he graduated in June 1861, he finished last in his class of 34 cadets.

That might have seemed an unpromising beginning for a military career. However, the United States was already at war. The American Civil War had begun in April 1861, and the army urgently needed officers. Custer received a commission as a second lieutenant in the Second US Cavalry, beginning a career that would develop much faster than anyone might have expected from his performance at West Point.

Custer and the American Civil War

The American Civil War was fought between 1861 and 1865. Eleven Southern states had left the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, largely to protect the institution of slavery. The Northern states, known as the Union, fought to preserve the United States. As the war continued, ending slavery became an explicit Union war aim.

Custer served in the Union Army. His first experience of a major battle came at the First Battle of Bull Run, also called First Manassas, in July 1861. The Union suffered a defeat, but Custer had begun gaining the battlefield experience that would help establish his career.

During the following year, he attracted the attention of senior officers. He served on the staff of General George B. McClellan during the Peninsula Campaign of 1862, a Union attempt to capture Richmond, the Confederate capital. Staff officers helped senior commanders by carrying messages, gathering information and assisting with military planning.

Custer developed a reputation for remaining calm under fire and volunteering for dangerous assignments. These qualities impressed his superiors. He later served under General Alfred Pleasonton, an important Union cavalry commander.

His greatest opportunity came in June 1863. Although he was only 23, Custer was promoted to brigadier general of volunteers and placed in command of a brigade of Michigan cavalry. A brigade was a formation made up of several military units, and cavalry soldiers were trained to fight and move on horseback.

It was an extraordinary promotion for someone who had graduated from West Point just two years earlier.

Only days later, Custer and his soldiers took part in the Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania, fought from 1 to 3 July 1863. Gettysburg became one of the most important Union victories of the Civil War.

On 3 July, while fierce fighting was taking place elsewhere on the battlefield, Confederate cavalry commanded by General J. E. B. Stuart attempted to threaten the Union army from the east. Union cavalry under General David Gregg, including Custer's Michigan brigade, fought to stop them.

Custer personally led mounted charges against the Confederate horsemen. The fighting was dangerous and confused, with cavalrymen using firearms and sabres at close range. His brigade helped prevent Stuart's force from breaking through and threatening the Union army's rear.

The victory greatly strengthened Custer's reputation. His men became known as the Michigan Wolverines, and he was increasingly recognised as an officer who preferred bold action to caution.

He continued fighting through 1864, serving under General Philip Sheridan during campaigns in Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley. Sheridan was an aggressive commander who valued speed and determined attacks, qualities that suited Custer's approach to warfare.

During the Shenandoah Valley Campaign, Custer helped lead Union cavalry against Confederate forces. His division took part in important fighting, including the Battle of Cedar Creek in October 1864. The campaign also involved the destruction of crops, barns and other supplies that Confederate armies depended upon. This was a harsh form of warfare, intended to weaken the South's ability to continue fighting.

By the final months of the war, Custer commanded an entire cavalry division, a much larger formation than the brigade he had led at Gettysburg.

In April 1865, his cavalry helped block the retreat of General Robert E. Lee's Confederate army during the Appomattox Campaign. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House on 9 April, bringing an end to the main fighting in Virginia.

Custer had risen from a newly commissioned lieutenant to one of the Union's youngest generals in less than four years. His achievements were remarkable, particularly for an officer who had finished at the bottom of his West Point class.

But the Civil War also encouraged habits that would become important later. Custer had repeatedly seen bold attacks succeed. He had learned that speed, surprise and personal courage could overcome difficult situations. Whether those same methods would work against different opponents, in unfamiliar country, was another matter.

Custer's Reputation as a Cavalry Commander

Custer was not a commander who preferred to remain safely behind his soldiers. He often rode near the front of an attack, exposing himself to the same dangers as the men he led. His confidence could be infectious, particularly when soldiers were frightened or exhausted.

He also understood the importance of appearance. During the Civil War, Custer became known for his long blond hair and striking military clothing. He sometimes wore a black velvet jacket decorated with gold braid, rather than the more ordinary uniform of a Union officer. His appearance made him easy to recognise, both to his own men and to the enemy.

There was something theatrical about his style, but it served a purpose. Custer wanted to be noticed, and his distinctive appearance helped establish him as a memorable figure at a time when newspapers and illustrated magazines were bringing military leaders to public attention.

His personal bravery was widely recognised. During the Civil War, several horses were shot beneath him, yet he repeatedly escaped serious injury. This remarkable good fortune contributed to the expression Custer's luck.

Luck, however, was only part of the story. Custer could move troops quickly, recognise opportunities and inspire soldiers to attack at moments when hesitation might have allowed an enemy to recover. These were valuable qualities in a cavalry officer.

His leadership also had a more troubling side.

Custer sometimes expected his soldiers to endure exhausting marches and dangerous attacks. His willingness to take risks could produce impressive victories, but it could also expose his men to heavy losses. He was not always patient with officers who disagreed with him, and his confidence in his own judgement sometimes brought him into conflict with military authority.

It would be misleading to describe Custer as either a brilliant commander who could do no wrong or a reckless officer who succeeded only through good fortune. His Civil War record shows genuine military ability. It also reveals a man whose ambition and confidence could make him difficult to control.

Another important part of his life was his marriage to Elizabeth Bacon, usually known as Libbie. The couple married in Monroe, Michigan, in February 1864. Her father, a prominent judge, had initially opposed the relationship, but Custer's growing military success helped change his opinion.

Libbie remained deeply devoted to her husband. Their letters reveal a close relationship, despite the long periods they spent apart during his military service. After Custer's death, she would play an important role in shaping how Americans remembered him.

When the Civil War ended in 1865, Custer faced a major change in his career. The United States no longer needed such a large army, and thousands of volunteer soldiers returned to civilian life. Officers who had held high wartime ranks could not automatically keep them in the much smaller regular army.

Custer's permanent rank was considerably lower than his wartime title of major general. In 1866, he became a lieutenant colonel in the newly formed Seventh US Cavalry Regiment. Although the regiment had officers with higher formal rank, Custer frequently exercised command because its colonels were serving elsewhere.

He was still a relatively young officer, but he had considerable experience of battle. His next assignments would take him west, where the army was becoming increasingly involved in conflicts with Native American nations defending their lands and independence.

Custer's Court-Martial and Political Controversies

Custer's move to the Great Plains exposed him to a very different kind of military service. During the Civil War, he had fought organised Confederate armies. In the West, he was operating across vast distances, where Native American nations knew the country well and had their own military traditions, political aims and reasons for resisting the United States.

In 1867, Custer served under General Winfield Scott Hancock during an army expedition into Kansas and the surrounding region. The expedition took place at a time of growing tension between the US government and Native American communities, particularly the Southern Cheyenne and other Plains peoples.

Custer's first major controversy in the West arose that summer. He left his command without permission and travelled towards his wife, Libbie. The journey involved taking soldiers and horses away from their assigned duties, despite the army's expectation that he remain with his regiment.

He also faced serious accusations concerning his treatment of soldiers who had deserted. Custer had ordered deserters to be shot without trial and was accused of denying medical treatment to wounded men.

In September 1867, he appeared before a military court at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. A court-martial is a trial held under military law. Custer was found guilty of the charges against him and sentenced to suspension from rank and pay for one year.

This was more than a minor disagreement with his superiors. The case raised serious questions about his judgement, his treatment of soldiers and his willingness to obey military rules.

Nevertheless, Custer's military career survived. General Philip Sheridan still valued his experience and abilities. In September 1868, before his suspension had fully ended, Custer was restored to duty and returned to command of the Seventh Cavalry.

His return led directly to further involvement in the conflicts on the Great Plains, including the controversial attack on a Southern Cheyenne village beside the Washita River in November 1868. That event will be examined later in this study.

Custer's difficulties were not confined to military discipline. He also took an interest in politics, sometimes placing himself in awkward situations as a serving officer. His political sympathies and personal connections occasionally brought him into disagreement with senior figures in Washington.

These tensions became particularly serious in 1876, shortly before the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

At the time, President Ulysses S. Grant was dealing with allegations of corruption involving his administration. William W. Belknap, the Secretary of War, had become involved in a scandal concerning payments connected with trading posts at military forts. These posts supplied goods to soldiers and people living near army installations.

Custer was called to give evidence before a congressional committee investigating the allegations. His testimony helped support claims of corruption and also brought attention to Orvil Grant, the president's brother, who had connections with the trading-post system.

President Grant was angered by Custer's involvement and his conduct during the investigation. With a major military campaign against Lakota and Cheyenne communities being prepared, Grant initially prevented Custer from taking part.

For Custer, this was a serious setback. He had spent years building his reputation as a fighting officer, and he did not want to be left behind while the Seventh Cavalry went into the field.

General Alfred Terry, who was to command the army force with which the Seventh Cavalry would serve, appealed for Custer to be allowed to accompany the expedition. Custer also sought to repair his relationship with the president. Eventually, Grant permitted him to return to duty, although he would serve under Terry's overall command.

The decision meant that Custer would take part in the campaign of June 1876. Without it, he would not have been leading his soldiers towards the Little Bighorn.

By then, Custer was 36 years old. He had experienced extraordinary success in the Civil War, survived a court-martial and returned to a position of military responsibility. He was brave and capable, but his career had also shown how ambition and confidence could lead him into trouble.

His personal story explains only part of what happened in 1876. The conflict that brought him to the Little Bighorn had developed over many years, as the United States expanded westwards into lands occupied and defended by Native American nations.

Understanding those nations, their ways of life and their relationship with the land is essential to understanding the battle itself.

Back to Contents

The Native American Peoples of the Great Plains

Long before George Armstrong Custer arrived on the Great Plains, Native American peoples had established communities across this enormous region of North America. They had their own languages, traditions, political systems and ways of using the land. Their histories stretched back many generations, and their relationships with neighbouring nations were shaped by trade, alliances and sometimes warfare.

The Great Plains extended across a vast area between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains, from the southern parts of present-day Canada into the central United States. Much of the landscape consisted of open grassland, although rivers, wooded valleys and hills provided important places for settlement, hunting and shelter. Winters could be bitterly cold, while summers brought intense heat and occasional droughts.

Life on the Plains was far more varied than the popular image of warriors riding across empty grassland might suggest. Some communities lived in permanent villages and cultivated crops. Others moved regularly to follow herds of buffalo, while many combined hunting with trade and other activities. Different nations occupied particular homelands, but their territories were not always separated by fixed boundaries of the kind shown on modern maps.

By the nineteenth century, the arrival of American settlers and the expansion of the United States were placing increasing pressure on these communities. Yet the Native American peoples of the Plains did not all respond in the same way. Their decisions depended on their own histories, interests and relationships with other nations.

Understanding these differences is essential. At the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876, Lakota and Northern Cheyenne warriors fought against Custer's Seventh Cavalry, while Crow and Arikara scouts served alongside the US Army. All were Native American peoples, but they had different reasons for taking part in the conflict.

The Lakota and Dakota Peoples

The Lakota and Dakota belonged to a wider group of related peoples often called the Sioux. This name became widely used by European Americans, although the peoples themselves had their own names and identities. The wider alliance is known as the Oceti Sakowin, meaning the Seven Council Fires, and includes the Dakota, Nakota and Lakota.

They shared historical and cultural connections, but they were not a single community governed by one chief. Different groups had their own leaders and traditions, and decisions were often made through discussion among respected members of the community.

By the nineteenth century, many Lakota communities occupied territories across the northern Great Plains, particularly in areas that are now South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana. The Dakota had strong connections with lands further east, including present-day Minnesota and the eastern Dakotas.

Among the Lakota were several important divisions, including the Oglala, Hunkpapa, Miniconjou and Sicangu, also known as the Brule. These names identified distinct communities within the wider Lakota people. Their members might cooperate in hunting, ceremonies or warfare, but they did not always agree about relations with the United States.

The Lakota had become particularly skilled at hunting buffalo on horseback. Horses, introduced to North America by Europeans, gradually spread through Native American trade networks and transformed life for many Plains communities during the eighteenth century. They made it possible to travel greater distances, transport possessions more easily and hunt buffalo with increased speed.

Buffalo provided much of what people needed. Their meat was an important source of food, while hides could be used for clothing, bedding and the coverings of tipis. Bones, sinews and other parts of the animal had practical uses. Hunting was therefore closely connected to family life, trade and the ability of communities to remain independent.

For many Lakota, the land also held deep spiritual meaning. Places such as the Black Hills, known as Paha Sapa, were not simply areas where people could hunt or gather resources. They were part of the nation's history, beliefs and identity. The Black Hills were particularly sacred, and their importance would become central to the conflict with the United States.

Lakota communities were organised through networks of families and bands. Leadership depended on qualities such as generosity, wisdom, courage and the ability to persuade others. A respected chief could exercise considerable influence, but this did not mean that every person was required to obey his decisions.

This is important when considering leaders such as Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. Both became famous for resisting American expansion, yet neither commanded all Lakota people as though they formed a single army. Their influence depended on the trust and support of particular communities and warriors.

Relations with the United States became increasingly difficult as settlers, soldiers and railway builders entered Native American territories. Some Lakota leaders negotiated treaties or attempted to preserve peace, while others believed that continued resistance offered the best hope of protecting their independence.

These differences were still evident in 1876. Some Lakota people were living on reservations established under agreements with the United States. Others continued to live and hunt beyond them, following a way of life that had existed long before American officials attempted to impose fixed boundaries.

It was from these communities, including bands associated with Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, that many of the warriors at the Little Bighorn came. They were defending their families, their freedom of movement and lands they regarded as their own.

The Northern Cheyenne and Their Allies

The Cheyenne were another important Native American nation of the Great Plains. Their language was different from that of the Lakota, and they possessed their own traditions, political institutions and religious ceremonies.

Over time, Cheyenne communities became associated with two broad geographical groups, the Northern Cheyenne and the Southern Cheyenne. Although they shared a common identity, their experiences increasingly differed as American expansion affected different parts of the Plains.

The Northern Cheyenne occupied and travelled through areas of present-day Montana, Wyoming and the northern Plains. Their hunting territories overlapped with those used by other nations, and they developed close alliances with the Lakota and Arapaho.

These alliances were important for practical reasons. Communities could cooperate in hunting, support one another during conflict and maintain relationships through trade and marriage. At times, allied groups established large camps together, although each retained its own identity and leadership.

Cheyenne political life included a council of chiefs responsible for discussing important matters and maintaining relationships within the nation. Warrior societies also played a significant role. These societies helped organise defence, encouraged courage and discipline, and could carry responsibilities within the community.

Like the Lakota, many Cheyenne families relied heavily on buffalo hunting. They travelled with horses and lived in tipis that could be taken down and moved when necessary. Their movements followed seasonal needs, the availability of grazing for horses and the location of game.

Cheyenne life was also shaped by religious beliefs and ceremonies. Sacred objects and traditions helped connect communities with their ancestors and with the places they considered important. Bear Butte and the Black Hills held particular significance in Cheyenne history and spirituality.

Relations with the United States had become increasingly violent by the middle of the nineteenth century. In November 1864, Colorado volunteer soldiers attacked a Cheyenne and Arapaho camp at Sand Creek, killing many people, including women and children. The massacre left a lasting mark on relations between Plains nations and the American government.

Custer did not lead the attack at Sand Creek. However, he later became involved in military operations against Southern Cheyenne communities, including the attack on Chief Black Kettle's village at the Washita River in 1868. These events will be examined in Section 5.

By 1876, Northern Cheyenne families were among those resisting attempts to force them onto reservations. Many joined Lakota communities gathering along the rivers of the northern Plains. Their alliance did not erase the differences between the nations, but it gave them greater strength when threatened by the army.

Cheyenne warriors would play an important part in the fighting at the Little Bighorn. Among their leaders was Two Moons, while other men, including Lame White Man, became remembered for their actions during the battle.

There were also a small number of Arapaho warriors present. The Arapaho were a separate nation with longstanding ties to the Cheyenne and Lakota. Their participation provides another reminder that the gathering at the Little Bighorn brought together people from several communities rather than one united tribe.

For the Northern Cheyenne, the battle was part of a much longer struggle. Their aim was not simply to defeat Custer or win a single engagement. They were attempting to preserve their homeland, their communities and their ability to live without being controlled by the United States.

Life and Culture on the Great Plains

To understand why so many Native American communities resisted American expansion, it is necessary to look beyond the battles and consider the lives they were trying to protect.

For many hunting communities, everyday life followed the changing seasons. Families moved when buffalo herds shifted or when their horses needed fresh grazing. Rivers provided water, fish and wooded areas that offered shelter and materials for making tools and household objects.

Tipis were particularly well suited to this way of life. They were constructed from long wooden poles covered with animal hides, although canvas later became increasingly common. Their design provided shelter from wind and rain, and they could be dismantled and transported when families moved to a new campsite.

Inside these homes, family life continued much as it did in communities elsewhere. People prepared meals, repaired clothing, cared for children and shared stories. Elders passed on knowledge about the land, family history and religious traditions. Children learned practical skills by watching and helping adults, gradually taking on greater responsibilities as they grew older.

Women carried out work that was essential to the survival of their communities. Among many Plains hunting peoples, they prepared food, processed buffalo hides, made clothing and helped organise the movement of household possessions. They also maintained family relationships and participated in the social and ceremonial life of their nations.

Men often undertook hunting and warfare, although responsibilities varied between communities and individuals. The familiar image of the male warrior represents only one part of Plains society. A successful community depended on the labour, knowledge and cooperation of many people.

Not all Native American peoples of the Plains lived in mobile hunting camps. Along the Missouri River, for example, the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara established substantial agricultural villages. They grew crops such as maize, beans and squash, stored food for the winter and traded with neighbouring peoples.

These communities lived in large earth lodges, built with timber frames and covered with earth. Their villages became important centres of trade, bringing together goods and people from different parts of the Plains. Buffalo hunting remained significant, but farming provided another source of food and economic security.

Trade connected the different nations. Horses, hides, tools, food and decorative objects moved between communities, sometimes travelling considerable distances. Trading relationships could continue even when political relations were uncertain.

Religion was closely connected to the natural world and to community life. Ceremonies differed between nations, but many expressed relationships with the land, animals, ancestors and spiritual powers. Important places were remembered through stories and traditions passed down through generations.

The Great Plains were therefore not an empty wilderness waiting to be settled. They contained established homelands, recognised hunting areas, villages, sacred places and routes used for trade and travel.

They were also places where disputes occurred. Native American nations sometimes fought over hunting territories, horses or earlier grievances. Alliances changed over time, and neighbouring peoples could have very different interests.

This does not make their societies unusual. Across the world, communities have traded, negotiated and fought over territory and resources. The Plains nations had their own political relationships long before the United States became the dominant military power in the region.

During the nineteenth century, these ways of life came under growing pressure. Settlers occupied land, railways crossed hunting territories and commercial hunters killed enormous numbers of buffalo. American officials increasingly tried to persuade or compel Native American communities to abandon their independence and settle on reservations.

For people whose lives depended on access to particular lands, the consequences were profound. Losing territory could mean losing hunting grounds, food supplies and the freedom to move between places of cultural and spiritual importance.

The struggle over the Plains was therefore about much more than military control. It concerned the future of entire communities and the survival of ways of life that had developed over generations.

The Crow and Arikara Peoples

One of the most important facts about the Battle of the Little Bighorn is that Native Americans fought on both sides. While Lakota and Northern Cheyenne warriors resisted the US Army, Crow and Arikara men served as scouts with Custer's Seventh Cavalry.

At first, this might seem surprising. Why would Native American men help an army that was taking control of Native American lands?

The answer lies partly in the relationships between the different Plains nations. The Crow and Arikara had their own histories and interests, and both had experienced conflict with Lakota groups. Their decisions cannot be understood simply as support for American expansion.

The Crow, who call themselves Apsaalooke, had longstanding connections with the northern Plains, particularly the country around the Yellowstone River and the Bighorn Mountains. They were skilled horsemen and hunters, and their communities maintained a strong sense of identity through family relationships, ceremonies and traditions.

During the nineteenth century, expanding Lakota power placed pressure on territories used by the Crow. As Lakota communities moved westwards, competition over hunting grounds and other resources contributed to repeated conflict between the nations.

For some Crow leaders, cooperation with the United States appeared to offer a way of resisting Lakota expansion and protecting their own remaining lands. They hoped that helping the army against their traditional enemies might strengthen their position in negotiations with American officials.

This was a difficult calculation. The United States was also claiming control over Crow territory, and cooperation did not guarantee that Crow lands would be protected. Nevertheless, individual Crow men chose to serve as scouts because they believed it might help their communities or because they had personal reasons for joining the army.

The Arikara, sometimes known as the Ree, had a different way of life from many of the mobile hunting communities of the western Plains. They traditionally lived in agricultural villages along the Missouri River, where they cultivated crops and traded with neighbouring nations.

The Arikara had experienced conflict with Lakota groups as well as the disruption caused by disease and changes in regional trade. During the nineteenth century, many Arikara people became increasingly dependent on alliances with neighbouring peoples and the United States as they attempted to protect their communities.

Some Arikara men joined the army as scouts, using their knowledge of the country and their experience of travelling across the Plains. Their work could involve following tracks, locating camps, identifying river crossings and reporting the movements of other groups.

Scouting was dangerous. A scout might be sent far ahead of the main army, where he risked encountering enemy warriors without immediate support. His knowledge could be vital to the success of a military expedition, yet he might also become a particular target because he was assisting the opposing force.

During the campaign of 1876, the Seventh Cavalry employed Crow and Arikara scouts to help locate the Lakota and Cheyenne encampments. Among the best known were the Crow scout Curley and the Arikara scout Bloody Knife, who had served with Custer on earlier expeditions.

These men were not simply guides who happened to know the landscape. They belonged to nations with their own political interests and their own experiences of conflict on the Plains.

At the Little Bighorn, several of the army's Native American scouts were killed, including Bloody Knife. Others survived and later provided accounts of what they had witnessed. Their testimony would become part of the evidence used by historians to reconstruct the battle.

The involvement of Crow and Arikara scouts makes it impossible to describe the Little Bighorn as a straightforward struggle between all Native Americans on one side and the United States on the other. It was a conflict in which different nations made different choices, often under extremely difficult circumstances.

Those choices were shaped by a changing world. The United States was extending its authority across the West, while Native American nations attempted to defend their lands, maintain their independence or protect themselves against rival groups.

As American settlement increased, the pressure on these nations became more intense. Treaties promised boundaries and protection, but those promises were repeatedly challenged by the demand for land, gold and new routes westwards.

To understand how these tensions eventually led to the Battle of the Little Bighorn, we must now examine the expansion of the United States and the growing conflict over the Great Plains.

Back to Contents

Westward Expansion and Conflict with Native Americans

By the middle of the nineteenth century, the United States was expanding rapidly across North America. Settlers travelled west in search of farmland, gold and new opportunities, while the government encouraged the construction of roads and railways that would connect distant parts of the country.

For many Americans, this expansion represented progress. New towns appeared, businesses developed and previously distant territories became connected to the growing national economy. Yet much of the land being settled was already occupied and used by Native American nations, whose rights and independence were increasingly threatened.

The conflict was not simply between people who wanted to move west and people who wanted to prevent them. The United States claimed authority over territories where Native American nations had long exercised their own forms of government. American officials negotiated treaties recognising particular lands, but settlers and soldiers frequently crossed the boundaries established by those agreements.

As the pressure increased, some Native American leaders attempted to negotiate ways of protecting their communities. Others believed that armed resistance was necessary. Many pursued different approaches at different times, depending on the circumstances they faced.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn grew out of these tensions. Its origins lay in decades of westward expansion, disputes over hunting grounds, broken promises and disagreement about who had the right to control the Great Plains.

Settlers, Railroads and the Expansion of the United States

During the nineteenth century, millions of Americans moved westwards. Some travelled to establish farms, while others hoped to make money through mining, trading or providing services to the growing settlements. Families loaded their possessions into wagons and followed routes across country that could be difficult and dangerous.

The movement accelerated after the United States acquired enormous areas of territory during the first half of the century. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 had brought a vast region west of the Mississippi River under American control, at least as the United States understood it. Further territorial expansion followed, particularly after the war with Mexico in 1846–1848.

American claims to these lands did not mean that the Native American nations living there had agreed to surrender them. Many communities continued to govern themselves, maintain their own territories and follow established hunting and trading routes.

Nevertheless, an increasingly influential belief encouraged Americans to regard westward expansion as both desirable and inevitable. This idea became known as Manifest Destiny. Supporters argued that the United States was destined to spread across the continent, bringing its institutions and way of life with it.

Such arguments often ignored the rights of Native American peoples. Some Americans regarded Indigenous communities as obstacles to settlement, rather than nations entitled to decide what happened to their own lands.

Government policies helped turn these ideas into reality. The Homestead Act of 1862 offered eligible settlers the opportunity to acquire 160 acres of public land, provided they met conditions that included living on and improving the property. It encouraged the establishment of farms across the West.

But land described by the government as available for settlement could be part of a Native American homeland. The law did not give settlers an unrestricted right to occupy every part of the Plains, particularly land protected by treaties. Even so, the wider movement of settlers increased pressure on Native American territories.

Railways made this expansion much easier. Before their construction, travelling across the continent could take months. Wagon journeys involved difficult river crossings, unreliable supplies and the danger of illness or accidents. Railways offered a faster means of transporting passengers, food, building materials and manufactured goods.

In 1862, Congress passed the Pacific Railway Act, supporting the construction of a railway linking the eastern United States with the Pacific coast. The first transcontinental railway was completed in May 1869, when the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railways met at Promontory Summit in Utah.

The railway transformed travel and trade. Goods could be moved across the continent more efficiently, while new settlements developed along the tracks. Railway companies also received substantial government support, including grants of land intended to help finance construction.

For Native American communities, however, the consequences were often damaging. Railway routes crossed established hunting territories and encouraged further settlement. Workers, soldiers and travellers entered areas where their presence was disputed. The trains also made it easier for commercial hunters to transport buffalo hides and other animal products to distant markets.

Railway construction did not proceed without resistance. Native American warriors sometimes attacked surveyors, workers or supply parties, while the army was increasingly called upon to protect construction and travel. These clashes were part of a much wider struggle over the future of the Plains.

Gold discoveries brought additional pressure. In 1848, gold was found in California, encouraging a major migration westwards. Further discoveries in Colorado and Montana attracted thousands of prospectors, many of whom travelled through or settled in Native American territories.

One particularly important route was the Bozeman Trail, which connected the Oregon Trail region with goldfields in Montana. Established in the early 1860s, it passed through the Powder River country, an area used for hunting by Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho communities.

The route was attractive to settlers because it offered a relatively direct journey to the goldfields. For the Native American peoples who relied on the region, it threatened access to valuable hunting grounds and brought an increasing number of outsiders into their territory.

These competing interests would lead to one of the most significant conflicts between the United States and the Lakota before the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

The Importance and Decline of the Buffalo

Few animals were as important to life on the Great Plains as the American bison, commonly called the buffalo. Before the nineteenth century, enormous herds travelled across the grasslands, providing food and materials for many Native American communities.

For the Lakota, Cheyenne and other hunting peoples, buffalo were essential to everyday life. Their meat could be eaten fresh or dried for later use. Dried meat could also be combined with fat and other ingredients to make pemmican, a concentrated food that could be stored and carried during long journeys.

The animals provided much more than food. Their hides were used for clothing, bedding, containers and tipi coverings. Bones could be shaped into tools, while sinews supplied strong fibres for sewing and other practical purposes.

Buffalo also held cultural and spiritual importance. Their presence was connected to ceremonies, traditional knowledge and the relationship between communities and the land. Hunting involved skills passed between generations, including knowledge of animal behaviour and the changing seasons.

Before horses became widely available, Plains peoples used several methods to hunt buffalo. Some groups drove animals towards steep drops or into enclosed areas. Later, horses allowed hunters to approach herds more quickly and pursue individual animals across open country.

Native American hunting was not entirely without waste, and hunting practices differed between nations. Nevertheless, buffalo remained a renewable source of food and materials for many communities over generations.

During the nineteenth century, the herds began to decline. The causes were complex. Hunting increased as commercial markets developed, while expanding settlements and livestock grazing placed additional pressure on the grasslands. Drought, disease and changes to buffalo habitats also contributed in different regions.

The growth of the hide trade was particularly destructive. Buffalo hides could be sold for use in clothing and industrial products, and hunters increasingly killed animals for commercial profit rather than local food supplies.

Improved firearms made it possible for professional hunters to kill large numbers of buffalo. Railway lines provided access to hunting areas and allowed hides and bones to be transported to markets far away. In some places, carcasses were left on the Plains after the most valuable parts had been removed.

The scale of the slaughter was extraordinary. Estimates of the earlier North American bison population vary, but it numbered many millions. By the end of the nineteenth century, the surviving population had fallen to fewer than a thousand animals.

The consequences for Native American communities were severe. As buffalo became scarce, families who depended on hunting faced growing difficulties obtaining food and other necessities. They were forced to travel further in search of surviving herds, while access to hunting territories was already being restricted.

Some American military officers and government officials recognised that destroying the buffalo would weaken Native American resistance. If communities could no longer support themselves through hunting, they would become more dependent on government food supplies and might be compelled to settle on reservations.

Not every buffalo hunter was acting on government orders, and the decline cannot be explained by one policy alone. Commercial profit was a powerful motive. Nevertheless, the destruction of the herds was tolerated and sometimes encouraged by officials who understood its effect on Native American independence.

The timing of the decline also differed across the Plains. The great slaughter on the southern Plains was especially intense during the early 1870s, while substantial northern herds survived beyond the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Their destruction accelerated in the following years.

For the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne in 1876, buffalo hunting remained an important part of life. Yet the increasing pressure on the herds was already making the future uncertain.

When the United States attempted to confine Native American communities to reservations, it was therefore attacking more than their freedom of movement. The policy threatened their ability to obtain food, maintain traditional practices and remain economically independent.

The Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868

As increasing numbers of settlers crossed the Great Plains, the United States government attempted to establish agreements with the Native American nations whose territories lay along the main routes west.

Fort Laramie, in present-day Wyoming, became an important meeting place. Originally established as a trading post, it later served as a military installation and a centre for negotiations between American officials and Plains leaders.

Two major agreements associated with Fort Laramie were made in 1851 and 1868. Although they shared a name, they arose from different circumstances and contained important differences.

The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 followed growing tensions along the overland trails. Thousands of migrants were crossing territories used by Native American peoples, bringing competition for grazing, water and other resources.

In September 1851, representatives of several Plains nations gathered near Horse Creek, east of Fort Laramie, to negotiate with American officials. Those represented included the Lakota, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Crow, Arikara, Mandan and Hidatsa, among others.

The meeting was an enormous gathering. Thousands of Native American men, women and children attended, accompanied by large numbers of horses. The negotiations were intended to reduce violence and establish rules governing the movement of travellers across the Plains.

The agreement attempted to identify territories associated with the different nations. It also provided for the passage of settlers along established routes and allowed the United States to construct roads and military posts connected with those routes.

In return, the government promised annual payments of goods or money and undertook to protect Native American communities from wrongdoing by American citizens. The agreement also sought to reduce fighting between the nations represented.

There were difficulties from the beginning. The United States wanted to define territories using boundaries on a map, but Native American relationships with land were not always organised in the same way. Hunting areas could overlap, and the authority of individual leaders to make agreements on behalf of whole nations was not always straightforward.

The agreement also did not mean that Native American peoples had surrendered ownership of all the land within their recognised territories. Its purpose was partly to secure passage through those lands while acknowledging that different nations had established territorial claims.

The treaty's legal history was complicated. Although the agreement was signed in 1851, the United States Senate did not ratify it in its original form. The government nevertheless treated parts of the arrangement as the basis for relations with the Plains nations, and its promises became important in later disputes.

Peace proved difficult to maintain. Settlers continued travelling through Native American territories, and the government frequently failed to provide the protection or payments that had been promised. As migration increased, the pressures that had produced the treaty became more serious.

The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 was negotiated after a major conflict known as Red Cloud's War. By then, the United States had attempted to establish military control over the Bozeman Trail, provoking determined resistance from Lakota and allied warriors.

The 1868 agreement represented an important concession by the American government. It established the Great Sioux Reservation, including the Black Hills, and recognised additional territory where the Lakota and their allies could continue hunting.

The reservation covered much of present-day South Dakota west of the Missouri River. The Black Hills lay within this protected area. The treaty also recognised a separate region, often described as unceded Indian territory, extending into the Powder River country.

This distinction mattered. The reservation and the unceded territory did not have identical legal arrangements, but both placed restrictions on American settlement and access. The government recognised that Native American communities had continuing rights beyond the reservation itself.

The treaty promised that unauthorised white settlers would not be permitted to occupy the reservation. It also restricted entry into the unceded territory without Native American consent and provided for the abandonment of the military posts along the Bozeman Trail.

In return, the agreement included provisions intended to encourage Native American families to settle permanently, adopt farming and send children to schools. Government officials hoped that reservation life would gradually replace the mobile hunting practices of many Plains communities.

These provisions reflected the unequal power relationship behind American policy. The government was not simply offering protection; it was also attempting to reshape Native American societies according to its own ideas about how they should live.

Another important clause concerned future land cessions. Article 12 required agreement from at least three-quarters of the adult male Native Americans occupying or interested in the reservation before the land could be ceded.

Not every Lakota leader accepted the treaty or interpreted its obligations in the same way. Some communities continued to live and hunt outside the reservation, while others established closer relationships with government agencies.

For those who accepted the agreement, however, its promises were significant. The United States had formally recognised the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux Reservation and had undertaken to protect Native American rights in the surrounding country.

When gold was discovered in the Black Hills in 1874, the government faced increasing pressure from miners and settlers who wanted access to land that the treaty protected. The dispute would become one of the immediate causes of the Great Sioux War of 1876.

Red Cloud's War

Red Cloud's War was fought between 1866 and 1868, several years before Custer's defeat at the Little Bighorn. It was an important demonstration that Native American forces could successfully resist the expansion of American military power.

Red Cloud was an Oglala Lakota leader who became increasingly concerned about the movement of settlers through the Powder River country. The region contained valuable buffalo hunting grounds used by Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho communities.

In the early 1860s, gold discoveries in Montana encouraged travellers to seek a shorter route northwards. The Bozeman Trail crossed the Powder River region, bringing wagon trains and prospectors into lands that Native American communities regarded as their own.

Red Cloud and other leaders objected to this intrusion. The trail threatened hunting grounds, disturbed buffalo and increased the likelihood that permanent American settlements would follow.

In 1866, American officials attempted to negotiate an agreement that would permit continued use of the route. At the same time, the army was preparing to establish military posts to protect travellers.

The decision angered Red Cloud, who believed that the government was acting before obtaining Native American agreement. He rejected the negotiations and helped organise resistance to the military occupation of the region.

The army established three posts along the route: Fort Reno, Fort Phil Kearny and Fort C. F. Smith. Soldiers were expected to protect travellers and maintain control of the road, but their positions were isolated and difficult to supply.

Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho warriors attacked military patrols, supply parties and men gathering wood or hay for the forts. They used their knowledge of the country to move quickly and strike at vulnerable targets.

One of the most serious incidents occurred on 21 December 1866, near Fort Phil Kearny. Captain William J. Fetterman led a detachment of soldiers and civilians out of the fort after reports of an attack on a woodcutting party.

Native American warriors drew the detachment away from the fort and into a position where a much larger force could attack. All 81 members of Fetterman's party were killed.

The engagement became known to Americans as the Fetterman Fight. It was a devastating defeat for the army and demonstrated the effectiveness of coordinated Native American tactics.

Several warriors and leaders played important roles in the wider campaign, including Crazy Horse, who would later become one of the best-known figures associated with the Battle of the Little Bighorn. The fighting was not the work of Red Cloud alone, even though the war came to bear his name.

During 1867, attacks continued. In August, soldiers and civilians defending positions near the Bozeman Trail fought two major engagements, known as the Hayfield Fight and the Wagon Box Fight.

In both cases, small groups of defenders managed to resist attacks by larger Native American forces. Their success was helped by improved breech-loading firearms, which could be reloaded more quickly than the muzzle-loading weapons previously used by many soldiers.

These engagements showed that the army could still defend fortified positions effectively. They did not, however, solve the wider problem of controlling the trail. Native American resistance continued, and the forts remained difficult to maintain.

By 1868, the American government was prepared to abandon the Bozeman Trail and negotiate a new agreement. The decision reflected the military difficulties of the campaign and a growing desire in Washington to reduce the expense and violence of frontier warfare.

Red Cloud insisted that the forts be abandoned before he would accept peace. The government eventually agreed, and the army withdrew from the posts during the summer of 1868. Native American warriors subsequently burned the abandoned structures.

The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 formally recognised the Great Sioux Reservation and protected the Powder River country from unauthorised American settlement. Red Cloud himself did not sign until November, after the military withdrawal had taken place.

For Red Cloud and his allies, this was a major achievement. They had resisted the army's attempt to establish a permanent military route through their hunting territory and secured the withdrawal of its forts.

It is often described as one of the clearest Native American victories over the United States during the nineteenth-century Plains conflicts.

The victory did not end disagreements among Lakota leaders. Red Cloud increasingly pursued negotiation with American officials, while others, including Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, remained determined to preserve their independence beyond the reservation system.

These differences became more important as the United States renewed its demands for access to Native American land. Within a few years, the promises made in 1868 would be placed under enormous strain.

Reservations and Native American Resistance

The reservation system became one of the main instruments through which the United States attempted to control Native American peoples during the nineteenth century.

A reservation was an area of land designated for the use of a particular Native American nation or group. Reservations were often established through treaties, although the circumstances surrounding those agreements varied considerably.

Some Native American leaders accepted reservations because they believed that agreements with the United States might protect at least part of their homelands. Others hoped to obtain reliable food supplies, reduce warfare or secure a future for their communities under increasingly difficult circumstances.

For many American officials, however, reservations served another purpose. They concentrated Native American populations within defined areas, making it easier for the government to supervise their movements and open surrounding lands to settlers.

The policy also reflected a belief that Native American peoples should abandon many of their existing ways of life. Officials encouraged farming, permanent housing and forms of education intended to replace Indigenous languages and traditions with those favoured by American society.

Life on reservations could be extremely difficult. Some were located on land poorly suited to farming or far from traditional hunting grounds. Communities that had relied on buffalo faced serious problems when they were no longer able to travel freely in search of food.

The government promised supplies and payments under various agreements, but delivery was not always reliable. Corruption, administrative failures and inadequate provisions could leave families short of food and other necessities.

These difficulties contributed to mistrust. Native American leaders were being asked to surrender territory and independence in return for promises that the government had repeatedly struggled or failed to honour.

Not all Native American people responded by fighting. Many attempted to protect their communities through negotiation, adaptation and the maintenance of family and cultural traditions. Some combined reservation residence with seasonal hunting whenever circumstances allowed.

Others refused to accept permanent confinement. For communities accustomed to moving between established hunting grounds, remaining beyond the reservation boundaries was not necessarily an act of aggression. It could represent a determination to continue living on lands they believed they had every right to occupy.

Among the Lakota, these differences became particularly important after the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. Red Cloud and some other leaders developed relationships with government agencies, while Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and their followers continued to live largely beyond direct American control.

These groups were sometimes described by American officials as hostile or non-treaty Indians. Such labels reflected the government's position, but they could conceal important differences between communities and the legal status of the lands they occupied.

Some people living outside the reservations had never accepted the treaty. Others were using hunting territories that the 1868 agreement itself recognised. Their presence beyond a reservation boundary did not automatically mean that they were violating American law or preparing to attack settlers.

From the government's perspective, however, independent communities presented a continuing challenge. They could not easily be counted, supplied or controlled through reservation agencies. Their freedom of movement also complicated American plans for settlement and access to natural resources.

By the middle of the 1870s, the situation had become increasingly tense. The United States wanted greater control over the northern Plains, while many Lakota and Northern Cheyenne families remained determined to protect their independence.

The discovery of gold in the Black Hills made the dispute far more serious. The hills lay within territory protected by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, yet prospectors began entering the region and demanding access to its mineral wealth.

American officials attempted to obtain the Black Hills through negotiation, but Lakota leaders were unwilling to surrender land that held such importance to their nation. As the pressure increased, the government moved towards a military solution.

By the winter of 1875–1876, Native American communities living beyond the reservation agencies faced an ultimatum demanding that they report to those agencies. The order was issued during a season when long-distance travel was especially difficult, and many of those affected may not have received it in time.

The government's decision to treat those who failed to comply as hostile helped set the stage for a new military campaign.

By then, the conflict was about far more than the movement of settlers or the construction of a road. It involved competing claims to territory, the meaning of treaty promises and the determination of Native American nations to preserve their independence.

These pressures would bring the United States Army into another confrontation with the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne. George Armstrong Custer, whose career had already taken him into the conflicts of the Plains, would become one of its most famous participants.

Before examining the immediate causes of the 1876 campaign, it is necessary to look more closely at Custer's service in the West and the military operations that brought him into contact with Native American communities.

Back to Contents

Custer and the Indian Wars

When the American Civil War ended in 1865, George Armstrong Custer had already achieved considerable fame. He had commanded thousands of soldiers, taken part in major battles and risen to the rank of major general in the volunteer army. Yet the next stage of his career would be very different.

Across the western United States, the army was increasingly involved in conflicts with Native American nations. These campaigns became collectively known as the Indian Wars, although they were not one continuous war against a single enemy. They consisted of numerous conflicts, fought at different times and in different regions, involving peoples with their own histories and reasons for resisting American expansion.

For the government, military operations were often intended to protect settlers, secure transport routes and extend federal authority. Native American communities, meanwhile, were defending territories that supported their lives and had frequently been recognised in treaties. Raids and retaliatory attacks by both sides contributed to a cycle of violence in which civilians suffered alongside soldiers and warriors.

Custer entered these conflicts with considerable experience of conventional warfare, but relatively little understanding of the peoples he would encounter. On the Great Plains, he faced opponents who knew the country intimately and could travel across enormous distances with remarkable speed.

His service in the West would bring further military success, but it would also involve some of the most controversial events of his career. Among them were the attack on Black Kettle's Cheyenne village at the Washita River and an expedition into the Black Hills that helped bring the United States into direct conflict with the Lakota over land protected by treaty.

Custer and the Seventh Cavalry

In 1866, the United States Army established the Seventh Cavalry Regiment as part of a wider reorganisation following the Civil War. Custer was appointed its lieutenant colonel, a substantial reduction from the major general's rank he had held in the volunteer army.

Although his permanent rank was lower, he remained an experienced officer. The regiment's colonel was often absent on other duties, leaving Custer to exercise command during important campaigns.

The Seventh Cavalry was initially organised at Fort Riley in Kansas. Its soldiers came from different backgrounds, including many immigrants who had arrived in the United States from Europe. Some were experienced Civil War veterans, while others were young recruits with little knowledge of military life.

Service in the cavalry demanded physical endurance. Soldiers spent long hours in the saddle, often travelling through country where roads were poor or nonexistent. They had to care for their horses, maintain weapons and equipment, and endure difficult weather conditions.

A cavalry regiment also depended on a complicated system of supplies. Horses required grazing and water, while soldiers needed food, ammunition and shelter. An expedition could be delayed or weakened if supplies failed to arrive or if the animals became exhausted.

These practical problems mattered enormously on the Great Plains. Unlike the densely populated regions of the eastern United States, much of the western country offered few established settlements where an army could obtain fresh provisions.

The Seventh Cavalry became known for its strong sense of regimental identity. Its marching tune was Garryowen, an Irish melody that soldiers associated with their unit. The tune would become closely linked with Custer and the regiment's later history.

Custer expected discipline and hard work from his men. He could inspire loyalty, but his demanding style was not universally admired. Officers sometimes disagreed with his decisions, and relations within the regiment were not always harmonious.

In 1867, the Seventh Cavalry joined an expedition commanded by General Winfield Scott Hancock. The army hoped to establish greater control over parts of Kansas and the surrounding Plains, where relations between settlers, soldiers and Native American communities had become increasingly tense.

Hancock intended to demonstrate American military strength while negotiating with Cheyenne and other Plains leaders. He believed that a large display of soldiers would discourage further attacks on travellers and settlements.

The expedition produced a very different result.

When Hancock's troops approached a Cheyenne and Lakota encampment near the Pawnee Fork in April 1867, many women and children fled. Their fear was understandable. Only a few years earlier, American soldiers had attacked a Cheyenne and Arapaho village at Sand Creek, killing large numbers of civilians.

Hancock interpreted the departure as evidence of hostility. Custer and his cavalry were ordered to pursue the people who had left, but they were unable to catch them. The Native American families used their knowledge of the landscape to escape the soldiers.

Hancock subsequently ordered the abandoned village destroyed. Soldiers burned its lodges and possessions, including valuable buffalo robes and other supplies. The destruction deepened hostility towards the army and helped provoke further fighting.

The campaign demonstrated how differently the two sides understood the situation. Hancock regarded his actions as an attempt to impose order. For the people whose homes had been destroyed, the expedition provided another reason to distrust American promises.

Custer's own experiences during 1867 were difficult. His soldiers struggled with exhausting marches, shortages of supplies and desertion. During the summer, he became involved in the disciplinary offences that led to his court-martial and suspension from duty, as described in Section 2.

He returned to command in 1868, when General Philip Sheridan was preparing a new campaign against Native American communities on the southern Plains.

Sheridan believed that the army needed to change its methods. Instead of spending the summer pursuing mounted warriors across enormous distances, he proposed attacking Native American camps during the winter, when horses were weaker and families were less able to move quickly.

The strategy was intended to destroy the resources that enabled communities to continue resisting. Soldiers would attack villages, capture people and animals, and destroy food supplies and shelter.

For the army, this promised a way of bringing an elusive opponent under control. For Native American families, it meant that even the coldest months of the year would no longer provide protection from military attack.

Custer would put this strategy into practice in November 1868.

Sand Creek and Chief Black Kettle

Before examining Custer's attack at the Washita River, it is necessary to understand an earlier event that had a profound effect on the Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho peoples.

On 29 November 1864, Colorado volunteer soldiers attacked a Native American encampment beside Sand Creek in what is now southeastern Colorado. The attack became known as the Sand Creek Massacre.

Custer was not involved. At the time, he was serving in the Union Army during the Civil War, far from Colorado. Nevertheless, Sand Creek would become closely connected to his later military career because one of its survivors was Chief Black Kettle.

Black Kettle was a respected Southern Cheyenne leader who believed that negotiation offered his people a better chance of survival than continued warfare with the United States. He had attempted to maintain peaceful relations with American officials even as settlers occupied increasing areas of Cheyenne territory.

During the early 1860s, tensions across Colorado and the surrounding Plains had become severe. Settlers demanded protection from Native American raids, while Cheyenne and Arapaho communities faced the loss of hunting grounds and growing pressure from soldiers and newcomers.

There had been attacks and killings involving Native American warriors and American settlers or soldiers. Yet the different Cheyenne bands did not all follow the same policies, and the actions of one group did not necessarily represent the wishes of another.

Black Kettle continued to seek an agreement that would protect his people. In September 1864, he took part in discussions with Colorado officials at Camp Weld near Denver. He hoped that his willingness to negotiate would distinguish his community from those engaged in fighting.

Following contacts with military authorities, Black Kettle's people established a camp near Sand Creek, where they believed they would be safe. Cheyenne and Arapaho families gathered there, including many women, children and elderly people.

The village was not prepared for a major military attack.

Before dawn on 29 November, a force of Colorado volunteers commanded by Colonel John Chivington approached the encampment. Chivington had previously been a Methodist minister and had become an influential military figure in Colorado during the Civil War.

As the soldiers advanced, Black Kettle attempted to signal that his people were peaceful. Accounts describe an American flag and a white flag being displayed near his lodge. Neither prevented the attack.

The soldiers opened fire on the village. People fled from their tipis towards the creek bed, where some attempted to shelter behind the banks or dig into the earth. Others were pursued as they tried to escape.

The killing continued for hours. Many of those who died were women, children and elderly people. Some soldiers mutilated bodies and took human remains as trophies, acts that later became part of the evidence examined by investigators.

Estimates of the number killed vary, with accounts commonly placing the deaths between roughly 150 and more than 200 Cheyenne and Arapaho people. The precise figure remains uncertain.

Black Kettle survived, although his wife, Medicine Woman Later, was seriously wounded. He helped her escape from the attack, and the couple eventually reached safety.

The massacre caused outrage when details became known beyond Colorado. Several investigations by the United States government condemned the conduct of Chivington and his soldiers. Evidence showed that the village had contained people who were seeking peace rather than preparing to attack the army.

Chivington defended his actions, but the investigations damaged his reputation. He was not successfully prosecuted for the massacre.

For the Cheyenne and Arapaho, the consequences were devastating. Families had lost relatives, homes and possessions. The attack also destroyed confidence in the idea that peaceful negotiations or American promises could guarantee their safety.

Some warriors responded by taking part in further attacks against American settlements and transport routes. Others continued trying to negotiate, believing that a prolonged war against the United States would bring even greater suffering.

Black Kettle remained committed to finding a peaceful solution. He participated in later treaty negotiations, including those at the Little Arkansas River in 1865 and Medicine Lodge Creek in 1867.

These agreements did not remove the tensions on the southern Plains. Different bands continued to make different decisions about resistance, while American officials frequently treated Native American communities as though they were all responsible for attacks committed by particular groups.

Black Kettle's position was therefore increasingly difficult. He wanted to protect his people from war, but he could not control the actions of every Cheyenne warrior or guarantee that the army would recognise the peaceful intentions of his own community.

Four years after surviving Sand Creek, he would face another dawn attack by American cavalry. This time, the soldiers were commanded by George Armstrong Custer.

The Battle of the Washita, 1868

During 1868, violence continued across the southern Great Plains. Raiding parties attacked settlements and travellers, while American soldiers carried out operations against Native American communities. The fighting involved different Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa and other groups, whose decisions and interests were not always the same.

General Philip Sheridan believed that the army needed a more aggressive approach. He planned a winter campaign that would strike Native American villages when their inhabitants were least able to escape.

The strategy was based on a simple calculation. During winter, horses had less grass to eat and were often in poorer condition. Families camped in sheltered river valleys, where they could find water, firewood and some protection from the weather. If the army could locate these camps, it might destroy the food, shelter and animals on which their inhabitants depended.

Custer was restored to duty and placed in command of the Seventh Cavalry for the campaign. In November 1868, he led approximately 690 soldiers, accompanied by Osage scouts, into what was then Indian Territory, now part of Oklahoma.

The expedition travelled through bitterly cold conditions. Snow covered the ground, making movement difficult but also allowing scouts to follow the tracks of horses and people.

On 26 November, the scouts discovered a trail leading towards the Washita River. Custer followed it and learned that a Native American village lay in the valley ahead.

The village belonged to Chief Black Kettle and his Southern Cheyenne band.

Black Kettle had continued trying to secure peace. Shortly before the attack, he and other leaders had travelled to Fort Cobb to seek assurances of protection. They were unable to obtain the guarantees they wanted and returned to their people.

Their village stood near a bend in the Washita River, with other Cheyenne, Arapaho and Kiowa encampments further downstream. The location provided shelter and access to water, but it also meant that an attacking force could approach through the surrounding hills.

During the night of 26–27 November, Custer moved his soldiers into position. He divided the regiment into four groups, intending to approach the village from different directions and prevent its inhabitants from escaping.

At dawn on 27 November 1868, the attack began.

The cavalry charged towards the village as many of its inhabitants were waking. Soldiers crossed the cold river and entered the encampment, firing as Cheyenne families attempted to flee.

Some Cheyenne warriors fought back, using trees, ravines and other features of the landscape for cover. Others tried to protect relatives or help people escape. The surprise of the attack made organised resistance extremely difficult.

Black Kettle and his wife, Medicine Woman Later, attempted to escape across the Washita River. Both were shot and killed.

For the Cheyenne, the death of Black Kettle was particularly tragic. He had survived Sand Creek and spent years attempting to prevent further conflict, yet he was killed during another attack on a village containing families.

The number of Cheyenne deaths has remained disputed. Custer initially claimed that more than 100 Native Americans had been killed, but later research and Cheyenne accounts have produced lower estimates. The National Park Service records that the Cheyenne and Arapaho Nation identifies approximately 60 deaths, while other historical estimates differ.

The victims included women and children as well as warriors. This is one of the principal reasons why the event remains controversial.

Twenty-two members of the Seventh Cavalry also died during the operation, including men who were killed in fighting away from the main village.

Custer's soldiers captured 53 Cheyenne women and children. These captives were taken away from the Washita and held at military posts for several months before being released in 1869.

The army also seized hundreds of horses. Approximately 875 animals were captured, and Custer ordered around 650 killed. The remaining horses were used by the soldiers, scouts and captives during their withdrawal.

The destruction of the horses was deliberate. Without them, surviving families would struggle to travel, hunt buffalo or defend themselves. Soldiers also burned the lodges and destroyed supplies of food, clothing and other possessions needed for the winter.

For people facing months of cold weather, the loss was devastating. Even those who escaped the shooting had lost much of what they needed to survive.

Another controversy developed during the battle. Major Joel Elliott, one of Custer's officers, led a small detachment away from the main fighting in pursuit of people fleeing the village.

Elliott and 17 soldiers became separated from the regiment. They encountered warriors from the neighbouring encampments and were killed.

Custer became aware that Elliott's party was missing, but he was also concerned about the growing number of Native American warriors gathering nearby. He eventually withdrew without recovering the missing men.

Their bodies were discovered during a later expedition.

Some officers believed that Custer had abandoned Elliott and his soldiers. Captain Frederick Benteen was particularly critical. The disagreement damaged relations within the Seventh Cavalry and contributed to tensions that would still exist during the campaign of 1876.

Custer's defenders argued that remaining near the Washita would have placed the entire regiment in danger. Large numbers of warriors from the downstream villages were approaching, and the cavalry had already suffered casualties while taking prisoners and destroying the encampment.

It is difficult to know whether a longer search could have saved Elliott's detachment. The episode nevertheless raised questions about Custer's responsibilities towards soldiers who became separated from his command.

The attack at the Washita was presented by Sheridan and other army officers as an important victory. They believed it demonstrated that winter operations could weaken Native American resistance by destroying the resources of entire communities.

From the Cheyenne perspective, it was the destruction of a village led by a chief who had repeatedly sought peace. Survivors remembered the deaths of relatives, the loss of their homes and the killing of the horses on which their lives depended.

Historians continue to discuss whether the event should be described primarily as a battle or a massacre. Armed resistance occurred, and soldiers were killed, but the attack also struck a sleeping village and caused the deaths of civilians.

Both aspects must be recognised to understand what happened.

The Washita established Custer's reputation as an officer capable of carrying out a surprise attack against a Native American encampment. It also revealed the dangers of dividing forces in unfamiliar country and the difficulty of judging how many warriors might be present in nearby villages.

Those questions would become even more important eight years later at the Little Bighorn.

Custer's Black Hills Expedition of 1874

After the Washita campaign, Custer continued serving with the Seventh Cavalry. His duties increasingly took him towards the northern Great Plains, where American expansion was bringing settlers, soldiers and railway surveyors into territories claimed by the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne.

In 1873, the Seventh Cavalry helped protect a survey expedition working along the Yellowstone River. The Northern Pacific Railway hoped to establish a route across the region, connecting the expanding railway network with the Pacific Northwest.

The proposed route crossed country used by Lakota and other Native American communities. Warriors opposed the movement of surveyors and soldiers through their hunting territories, and several clashes occurred during the expedition.

Custer took part in fighting along the Yellowstone, gaining further experience of the northern Plains. The encounters showed that Lakota warriors were prepared to resist military expeditions and could use the landscape effectively against American cavalry.

The following year, Custer received an assignment that would have consequences far beyond the immediate expedition.

In 1874, the army organised a journey into the Black Hills, a region of wooded mountains and valleys in what is now western South Dakota.

For the Lakota, the Black Hills were known as Paha Sapa and held profound cultural and spiritual importance. They were also included within the Great Sioux Reservation established by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868.

Under that treaty, the United States had recognised the Black Hills as part of the reservation and promised protection against unauthorised entry by white settlers.

Nevertheless, American interest in the region was growing. Rumours of gold had circulated for years, and some officials wanted more detailed information about the country. The army was also interested in possible sites for a military post.

Custer was ordered to lead a large expedition into the hills to investigate the region and assess its suitability for military purposes.

On 2 July 1874, the expedition departed from Fort Abraham Lincoln in Dakota Territory, near present-day Bismarck, North Dakota.

It was a substantial undertaking. The party numbered approximately 1,000 men and included soldiers, Native American scouts, guides, engineers, scientific observers, journalists, miners and a photographer.

The expedition also required hundreds of horses and mules, wagons carrying supplies and cattle intended to provide food. Its size demonstrated the army's determination to travel through the region with sufficient strength to defend itself.

Among the Native American scouts accompanying the expedition was Bloody Knife, an Arikara scout who had worked with Custer on earlier campaigns. His knowledge of the Plains would later be valuable during the Little Bighorn campaign.

As the column travelled westwards, the soldiers crossed open grassland before reaching the wooded slopes of the Black Hills. The journey required careful planning, with scouts examining possible routes and soldiers finding suitable places for camps.

The landscape was strikingly different from the surrounding Plains. Forested hills, streams and valleys offered a contrast to the wide grasslands through which the expedition had travelled.

Members of the party recorded observations about the land, plants, animals and geological features. Journalists sent reports describing the expedition's progress, helping to attract public attention to a region that many Americans knew only through rumours.

The most consequential discovery concerned gold.

During the expedition, prospectors found evidence of gold in the Black Hills, including along French Creek near the site of present-day Custer, South Dakota. Horatio Ross, one of the miners accompanying the party, became closely associated with the discovery.

The finds did not immediately establish how much gold the region contained. Early discoveries were relatively modest, and prospectors would need further exploration to determine whether mining could be profitable.

Nevertheless, reports of gold were enough to attract enormous interest.

News travelled east through newspapers and other communications. For Americans hoping to become wealthy, the possibility of gold in the Black Hills was an exciting prospect. The fact that the land was protected by treaty did little to discourage many prospective miners.

Custer's expedition returned to Fort Abraham Lincoln at the end of August 1874. Its reports had confirmed that gold could be found in the hills and had provided new information about the country.

The consequences were immediate.

During the following months, prospectors began entering the Black Hills without Lakota permission. Some travelled in small groups, while others joined larger parties hoping to establish mining camps.

Their presence violated the treaty protections surrounding the reservation. The United States government initially attempted to prevent unauthorised entry, and soldiers were sometimes sent to remove miners.

These efforts proved increasingly ineffective. As reports of further discoveries spread, more prospectors arrived. The government faced growing pressure from Americans who wanted the Black Hills opened to mining and settlement.

For Lakota communities, the situation was a direct challenge to an agreement made only six years earlier. The Black Hills were not unclaimed territory waiting to be developed. They were part of a recognised reservation and held deep importance to the people whose homeland they formed.

The expedition itself also raised questions about the government's intentions. Although it had been organised for military exploration, it had entered treaty-protected land and included miners whose discoveries encouraged others to follow.

Whether Custer personally intended to provoke a gold rush is less important than the consequences of the expedition he commanded. Its findings made the Black Hills a focus of national attention and increased the pressure to remove them from Lakota control.

In 1875, American officials attempted to negotiate the purchase of the Black Hills. Lakota leaders resisted the proposal, and the government was unable to obtain the agreement required to surrender the territory.

The failure of negotiations contributed to a growing determination among federal officials to bring independent Lakota and Northern Cheyenne communities under tighter control.

By the end of 1875, the dispute had become a serious political and military crisis. The United States wanted access to the Black Hills, while many Native American leaders remained unwilling to surrender their land or abandon their independence.

Custer had played a significant part in bringing these events about, even though he had not personally negotiated the treaties or made the government's later decisions.

His Black Hills expedition helped transform rumours of gold into a rush of prospectors entering protected Lakota territory. Less than two years later, he would return to the northern Plains as part of an army campaign against Native American communities resisting federal control.

To understand why that campaign began, we must now examine the importance of the Black Hills, the failure of negotiations and the government ultimatum that helped lead to the Great Sioux War of 1876.

Back to Contents

Why Did the Battle of the Little Bighorn Happen?

The Battle of the Little Bighorn was fought on 25–26 June 1876, but the events that caused it had been developing for years. The immediate crisis centred on the Black Hills, a region of enormous importance to the Lakota that the United States had agreed to protect under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868.

When gold was discovered in the hills, thousands of Americans wanted access to the region. The government faced growing pressure to open the land to mining, while Lakota leaders insisted that the treaty should be respected. Attempts to purchase the Black Hills failed, and relations between the United States and Native American communities became increasingly hostile.

Yet the dispute was not simply about gold. It was also about whether Native American nations could continue to control their own territories and decide how they wished to live. Some Lakota communities had established relationships with government reservation agencies. Others, together with their Northern Cheyenne allies, continued to hunt and travel across lands they had occupied for generations.

American officials increasingly regarded these independent communities as a challenge to federal authority. By the winter of 1875–1876, the government had decided to force them onto reservations. When they failed to comply with an ultimatum, the army began preparing a military campaign.

Custer's defeat at the Little Bighorn was one result of that campaign. To understand why the soldiers were there, it is necessary to examine the Black Hills dispute and the decisions that turned a political crisis into war.

The Black Hills and Their Importance to the Lakota

The Black Hills rise above the surrounding Great Plains in what is now western South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming. Their forests, streams and rocky slopes form a distinctive landscape, quite different from the open grasslands around them.

For the Lakota, the region is known as Paha Sapa. Its importance cannot be explained simply by the food, water or shelter it provided. The hills hold deep spiritual and cultural meaning, connected to traditional teachings, ceremonies and the history of the Lakota people.

Important places within the hills are associated with sacred traditions passed between generations. The landscape forms part of a living relationship between the people, their ancestors and the natural world. Its significance extends beyond any particular settlement or hunting ground.

Other Native American nations, including the Cheyenne, also have longstanding cultural and spiritual connections with the region. The Black Hills were not regarded by every nation in exactly the same way, but their importance to Indigenous peoples was established long before American miners arrived.

For many Lakota, the hills were part of a wider homeland that included the surrounding grasslands and river valleys. Families travelled through this country to hunt buffalo, gather useful plants, visit important places and maintain relationships with other communities.

The Black Hills therefore belonged to a much larger network of territories that supported Lakota life. Protecting the region meant protecting both its practical resources and its cultural meaning.

During the nineteenth century, the Lakota became one of the most influential Native American peoples of the northern Plains. Their communities occupied extensive hunting territories, although their relationships with neighbouring nations were sometimes contested.

American expansion gradually brought soldiers, settlers and traders into closer contact with these communities. Disagreements developed over roads, military posts and access to land, eventually contributing to Red Cloud's War between 1866 and 1868.

As described in Section 4, the United States agreed to abandon the military posts along the Bozeman Trail after that conflict. The resulting Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 established the Great Sioux Reservation, which included the Black Hills.

Article II of the treaty set aside the reservation for the use and occupation of the Native American peoples named in the agreement. It restricted unauthorised entry and settlement by outsiders.

The treaty also recognised a separate area of unceded Indian territory beyond the reservation, including much of the Powder River country. Article XVI prohibited white settlement there and restricted passage without Native American consent.

These provisions were important because the treaty did not simply require the Lakota to surrender their independence in exchange for a small area of land. It recognised specific rights to the reservation and imposed restrictions on American access to additional territory.

There were disagreements among Lakota leaders about the treaty itself. Not every band accepted its terms, and some continued to live beyond the reservation agencies. Nevertheless, the United States had formally undertaken to protect the Black Hills from unauthorised settlement.

Another provision would become particularly significant. Article XII required the agreement of at least three-quarters of the adult male Native Americans occupying or interested in the reservation before any part of its land could be ceded through a valid treaty.

This was a substantial protection on paper. It meant that American officials could not simply purchase the Black Hills from a handful of leaders and claim that the entire Lakota nation had agreed.

For Lakota communities, however, the issue went beyond the wording of a treaty. The Black Hills were not merely property that could be exchanged for money. They were part of a homeland whose importance could not easily be measured in financial terms.

When Americans began demanding access to the hills, the dispute therefore involved two very different understandings of the land. Prospectors saw the possibility of wealth beneath the ground. Lakota people saw a sacred region that the United States had promised to protect.

Gold, Treaty Rights and Growing Tensions

Rumours of gold in the Black Hills had circulated before 1874, but the region remained largely closed to American prospectors under the Fort Laramie Treaty. The situation changed after George Armstrong Custer led a military expedition into the hills during the summer of that year.

As explained in Section 5, the expedition included soldiers, scouts, scientific observers and prospectors. Its official purposes included examining the country and identifying possible military sites, but the search for gold became one of its most important activities.

Gold was found, including deposits near French Creek. Although the early discoveries did not establish the full extent of the region's mineral wealth, newspaper reports quickly attracted public attention.

For Americans hoping to become wealthy, the news suggested an opportunity similar to earlier gold rushes in California and Montana. Prospectors began preparing to travel into the hills, despite the restrictions established by treaty.

During 1875, increasing numbers entered the region without Lakota permission. Some established temporary camps and began searching streams for gold. Others explored possible mining sites, expecting that the government would eventually open the territory to settlement.

Their presence placed the United States in an awkward position. The government had promised to protect the reservation from unauthorised entry, yet many of its own citizens were demanding the right to occupy the land.

At first, the army attempted to enforce the treaty. Soldiers sometimes removed miners or escorted them out of the Black Hills. These operations demonstrated that American officials recognised the legal restrictions, but they also revealed how difficult enforcement had become.

Prospectors continued arriving. Some returned after being expelled, while others entered by different routes. The discovery of additional deposits increased the pressure, and mining interests argued that valuable resources should not remain beyond American development.

For the Lakota, these intrusions were a clear violation of the agreement made in 1868. The government had not obtained permission to open the hills, and the miners were entering territory that had been reserved for Native American use.

Some Lakota leaders attempted to resolve the situation through negotiation. Others believed that the repeated failure to enforce the treaty showed that American promises could no longer be trusted.

In 1875, the United States sent a commission to negotiate the purchase of the Black Hills. The commission met Lakota leaders at the Red Cloud Agency in September, hoping to reach an agreement that would allow the government to acquire the region legally.

The negotiations were difficult from the beginning. The American representatives wanted access to the hills, while many Lakota leaders regarded the territory as too important to surrender.

Different proposals were discussed, including arrangements that would have allowed the United States to obtain mining rights without immediately acquiring every other right to the land. But no agreement acceptable to both sides emerged.

The question of who could authorise a sale created further difficulties. Lakota society was not governed by a single leader empowered to dispose of the nation's territory. Individual chiefs could speak for their own communities, but they could not automatically bind every Lakota band to a decision.

Some leaders were more willing than others to consider financial compensation. This did not mean that they regarded the Black Hills as unimportant. Their decisions were shaped by the growing military strength of the United States and concern for the survival of their people.

Others opposed any sale. They believed that surrendering the hills would sacrifice a sacred homeland and encourage the government to demand still more territory.

The treaty's requirement for widespread consent made the problem even more serious. The government could not legitimately obtain the Black Hills under the treaty simply by persuading a few cooperative leaders to accept payment.

The commission returned without securing the agreement it wanted.

By the autumn of 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant and senior officials were considering how to respond. The administration faced continuing demands from miners and settlers, while the army's attempts to keep prospectors out had failed to stop the growing gold rush.

In November, Grant met senior government and military officials to discuss the situation. The administration subsequently ceased its effective efforts to prevent miners from entering the Black Hills.

This represented an important change. Instead of enforcing the treaty against the prospectors, the government increasingly directed its attention towards Native American communities that remained beyond reservation control.

It would be too simple to suggest that every American official wanted a war. Some had long favoured negotiation, and there were disagreements over the most effective policy. Nevertheless, the government's decisions made military conflict increasingly likely.

The failure to protect the Black Hills weakened trust in the United States. At the same time, federal officials became more determined to bring independent Lakota communities under their authority.

These developments were closely connected. The continued independence of Lakota bands living in the Powder River country complicated the government's plans, while their resistance demonstrated that the United States had not established complete control over the northern Plains.

By the end of 1875, American policy was moving away from negotiation and towards the use of military force.

The US Government's Ultimatum of 1875–1876

The decision that directly preceded the Great Sioux War was an ultimatum issued by the United States government in December 1875.

Federal officials ordered Lakota communities living away from the reservation agencies to return by 31 January 1876. Those who failed to comply would be regarded as hostile and could be pursued by the army.

The order was intended to bring independent bands under government control. It particularly affected communities living and hunting in the Powder River country, where Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and other leaders maintained considerable independence.

American officials often described these people as non-treaty or hostile Indians. Such terms reflected the government's desire to distinguish them from communities living near reservation agencies, but they did not adequately explain the legal and political situation.

Some of the affected bands had not accepted the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. Others continued to use hunting grounds recognised by the agreement. Their presence beyond an agency did not automatically mean that they had launched an attack or surrendered their rights to the land.

The ultimatum also made little allowance for the practical difficulties of life on the northern Plains.

December and January were among the coldest months of the year. Heavy snow, frozen rivers and bitter winds could make travel dangerous. Families were often established in winter camps, with horses in poorer condition because grazing was limited.

Moving an entire community was not the same as ordering a small military patrol to march. Families needed to transport tipis, food, clothing and household possessions. Children and elderly people had to travel with them, often across long distances.

Many camps were hundreds of miles from the reservation agencies. Even if their leaders had wished to comply, the time allowed was extremely short.

Communication presented another problem. The government depended on messengers and agency officials to carry the warning to communities spread across a vast region. There was no guarantee that every group would receive the order promptly, or even hear about it before the deadline.

Some leaders were also unwilling to abandon their hunting grounds. They did not necessarily regard themselves as being at war with the United States, but they saw little reason to surrender their independence simply because American officials had imposed a new deadline.

For Sitting Bull and many of his followers, the buffalo country beyond the reservation remained a place where they could obtain food and live with greater freedom. Moving to an agency would mean accepting closer government supervision and greater dependence on promised supplies.

These concerns were not imaginary. Conditions at reservation agencies could be difficult, and the distribution of food and other provisions was sometimes inadequate. Families living independently had reasons to doubt whether the government would provide for them properly.

The ultimatum therefore presented Native American communities with a choice that was neither simple nor entirely fair. They were expected to leave lands they regarded as their own, travel during a dangerous season and submit to government control within a matter of weeks.

When 31 January 1876 passed, many of the independent bands had not reported to the agencies.

On 1 February, Secretary of the Interior Zachariah Chandler informed Secretary of War William W. Belknap that the matter had been turned over to the War Department. The army was now expected to take action against those whom the government had classified as hostile.

Within days, General Philip Sheridan began issuing instructions for military operations.

The failure to meet the deadline did not prove that every person in the affected camps intended to fight. It showed that the government had decided to treat continued independence as grounds for military action.

Historians have debated the intentions behind the ultimatum. Some have argued that officials knew compliance would be extremely difficult and expected the order to provide a justification for war. Others have emphasised the government's wider determination to impose reservation control and its belief that independent bands threatened security on the Plains.

Whatever the precise intentions of individual officials, the practical result was clear. The United States had created a deadline that many communities could not reasonably meet, then authorised military action when they remained outside the reservations.

The political dispute over land had become an armed confrontation.

The Great Sioux War of 1876

The military campaign that followed became known as the Great Sioux War of 1876, although the fighting continued into 1877. The name reflects the terminology commonly used in American histories, but the conflict involved more than the Lakota alone.

Northern Cheyenne communities were important participants, fighting alongside Lakota allies to protect their independence and resist the army's attempts to force them onto reservations.

The war also involved Native American peoples who supported the United States for their own reasons. Crow and Arikara scouts, for example, assisted army expeditions because of their knowledge of the country and their separate political interests.

The American objective was to locate independent Lakota and Northern Cheyenne communities, defeat armed resistance and compel the people to return to reservation agencies.

General Philip Sheridan was responsible for planning operations across the region. Rather than sending one army along a single route, he arranged for separate columns to approach the Native American hunting territories from different directions.

The intention was to reduce the possibility that the communities could simply move away from advancing soldiers. If the columns approached from several directions, the army hoped to find the camps and bring them into battle.

For American commanders, this seemed a sensible response to earlier difficulties. Native American groups could travel quickly across the Plains and often avoided engagements when the army possessed an obvious advantage.

Yet the strategy depended on the columns being able to locate their opponents, communicate effectively and support one another. The distances involved made these tasks extremely difficult.

In March 1876, General George Crook led a force northwards from Wyoming into the Powder River country. The expedition was one of the first major operations of the new campaign.

Crook's soldiers encountered severe winter conditions. Their horses and supplies were placed under considerable strain as they travelled through snow and cold weather.

On 17 March, a detachment commanded by Colonel Joseph J. Reynolds attacked a Native American village beside the Powder River. The camp belonged to Northern Cheyenne people, although the soldiers had expected to find a Lakota village associated with Crazy Horse.

The attack caused deaths and the destruction of property, but the army failed to secure a decisive victory. Many of the inhabitants escaped, and the soldiers withdrew after capturing horses and supplies.

The operation exposed weaknesses in the American campaign. Difficult weather, uncertainty about the location of Native American camps and problems with military coordination could undermine even a carefully planned expedition.

It also demonstrated that the fighting was already affecting communities whose families and possessions were gathered in winter camps.

Meanwhile, Lakota and Northern Cheyenne groups continued moving across the northern Plains. Some families joined the independent communities because they wished to participate in seasonal buffalo hunting. Others were dissatisfied with conditions at the reservation agencies.

These movements helped create increasingly large gatherings of Native American people during the spring and early summer of 1876.

Sitting Bull, a Hunkpapa Lakota leader, exercised considerable influence among those resisting American control. He was respected for his spiritual leadership, his experience and his determination to defend the freedom of his people.

Crazy Horse, an Oglala Lakota warrior and leader, was also closely associated with the resistance. He had a reputation for courage and military skill, although he did not command every warrior or community that gathered with the Lakota.

Their influence did not create a single army organised like the Seventh Cavalry. Different bands retained their own leaders, and decisions about movement or fighting were shaped by discussions among communities and warriors.

This distinction would matter during the coming battles. The American army was searching for what it regarded as hostile forces, but the people gathered on the Plains included families, children and elderly people as well as men capable of fighting.

By late spring, Sheridan's campaign was developing on a larger scale. Crook prepared another advance from Wyoming, while Colonel John Gibbon led a column from Montana.

General Alfred Terry organised a third force from Dakota Territory. The Seventh Cavalry, commanded in the field by Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer, formed an important part of Terry's expedition.

The army intended these movements to bring pressure on the independent camps from several directions. Its commanders hoped that the Native American communities would be unable to escape all the approaching columns.

But the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne were not simply waiting for the soldiers to arrive. Their warriors knew the country, maintained scouting networks and were prepared to resist attacks on their villages.

The first major warning came on 17 June 1876, when Crook's force encountered a large body of Lakota and Cheyenne warriors near the Rosebud River. After hours of fighting, Crook withdrew from the immediate advance, leaving him unable to support Terry's column as the campaign continued.

The Battle of the Rosebud was a significant Native American success. It demonstrated that the independent communities could assemble substantial fighting forces and challenge an experienced American commander in open country.

Eight days later, Custer's Seventh Cavalry approached a large Native American encampment near the Little Bighorn River.

The battle that followed would become one of the most famous defeats in the history of the United States Army. Yet its causes were not confined to Custer's decisions on 25 June.

For years, the United States had expanded into Native American territories while promising to respect certain boundaries. The discovery of gold in the Black Hills brought those promises into direct conflict with demands for land and mineral wealth. When negotiations failed, the government chose to use military force against communities that remained independent.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn was therefore part of a much wider struggle over land, treaty rights and political control. Custer and his soldiers entered that struggle as representatives of a government determined to extend its authority across the northern Plains.

Before examining the army's march towards the battlefield, it is important to understand the Native American leaders whose communities resisted that expansion. Their decisions, experiences and relationships would help shape the events of June 1876.

Back to Contents

Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Native American Leadership

The Battle of the Little Bighorn is often remembered as a confrontation between George Armstrong Custer and two famous Native American leaders, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. Both men played important roles in the resistance to American expansion, but the history of the battle is more complicated than a struggle between three individuals.

In June 1876, thousands of Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, Dakota and Arapaho people gathered in a large encampment beside the Little Bighorn River. They belonged to different communities, each with its own leaders, traditions and reasons for being there. Some had spent years resisting American control. Others had recently left reservation agencies to join relatives or take part in the summer buffalo hunt.

There was no single chief who could order everyone in the encampment to fight. Leadership depended on experience, reputation and the willingness of others to follow. A respected spiritual leader might influence important decisions without directing warriors on the battlefield. An experienced fighter could lead men into combat without possessing authority over their families or neighbouring bands.

This distinction is important when examining the Native American victory. Sitting Bull helped bring people together through his influence and determination to remain independent. Crazy Horse, Gall and other warriors contributed their military experience. Northern Cheyenne leaders organised and inspired men from their own communities.

Women also played essential roles in the gathering. They maintained households, prepared food, cared for children and helped sustain the communities during months of movement and uncertainty. When the army attacked, their lives were placed in immediate danger. Some women helped relatives escape, while others took a direct part in the fighting.

To understand the Native American side of the Little Bighorn, it is necessary to look beyond the most famous names and consider the different people whose decisions shaped the events of June 1876.

Sitting Bull and His Leadership

Sitting Bull, known in Lakota as Tatanka Iyotake, was a Hunkpapa Lakota leader who became one of the most important figures in Native American resistance during the nineteenth century. He was probably born during the 1830s in the region of the Grand and Missouri rivers, in what is now South Dakota.

He grew up in a society where hunting, generosity, courage and responsibility towards others were highly valued. Young men could earn respect through their actions, but leadership also required judgement and the ability to maintain relationships within the community.

Sitting Bull became known as a skilled hunter and warrior. Accounts of his early life describe his courage during encounters with rival Native American groups, while his growing reputation brought him responsibilities within Lakota warrior societies.

Over time, however, his importance extended far beyond his abilities in battle.

He became a respected political and spiritual leader whose opinions carried considerable weight among the Hunkpapa and other Lakota communities. People valued his determination, his generosity and his willingness to defend their independence.

Sitting Bull's influence did not come from holding a position equivalent to that of an American army general. Lakota society did not operate through a single chain of command covering every band. Chiefs and other respected figures could advise, persuade and lead, but individual communities retained the right to make their own decisions.

His authority therefore depended on the confidence that people placed in him. Families and warriors chose to associate with Sitting Bull because they respected his judgement and shared his determination to preserve their freedom.

As American settlement spread across the northern Plains, Sitting Bull became increasingly concerned about the future of Lakota territory. Soldiers, railway surveyors and settlers were entering lands used for hunting, while government officials attempted to persuade Native American communities to accept permanent reservation life.

Sitting Bull opposed the idea that his people should be forced to abandon their established way of life. He believed that the Lakota had the right to travel, hunt and live in their own country without submitting to American control.

During Red Cloud's War in the 1860s, Lakota and allied warriors successfully resisted the establishment of military posts along the Bozeman Trail. The conflict ended with the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, which recognised the Great Sioux Reservation and protected additional hunting territory.

Sitting Bull did not sign that treaty. He was unwilling to accept arrangements that would place his community under closer government supervision, and he did not believe that leaders who signed could automatically speak for all Lakota people.

His position differed from that of Red Cloud and Spotted Tail, who pursued negotiations with American officials and developed relationships with reservation agencies. These differences reflected genuine disagreements about how best to protect Lakota communities in the face of growing American power.

It would be misleading to suggest that one approach was simply courageous and the other weak. Leaders faced difficult choices. Negotiation might protect some families from immediate danger, while continued independence offered others the possibility of preserving hunting traditions and political freedom.

Sitting Bull became increasingly influential among those who remained beyond the reservation agencies. His followers continued to travel through the northern Plains, hunting buffalo and maintaining relationships with other independent communities.

He also took part in resistance to the Northern Pacific Railway. During the early 1870s, Lakota warriors challenged expeditions surveying possible railway routes through disputed territory. These encounters brought them into conflict with American soldiers, including Custer's Seventh Cavalry in 1873.

The discovery of gold in the Black Hills in 1874 intensified the dispute. Sitting Bull regarded the region as part of the Lakota homeland and opposed American demands for access to its resources.

When the United States issued its ultimatum in December 1875, ordering independent communities to report to reservation agencies by the end of January, Sitting Bull and his followers did not comply.

For them, remaining in their hunting country was not simply an attempt to provoke the army. It was a continuation of the independence they had long sought to preserve.

During the spring of 1876, more Lakota families joined the communities associated with Sitting Bull. Some had travelled from reservation agencies, where food supplies could be unreliable and government restrictions limited their freedom. Others came to hunt buffalo, visit relatives or participate in ceremonies.

Northern Cheyenne families were also present, strengthening an alliance that had developed over many years.

The gathering grew into an unusually large encampment. It was not a permanent town, nor was it an army camp organised solely for fighting. It was a community of families whose movements were shaped by hunting, relationships and the growing threat of American military action.

In early June 1876, Sitting Bull participated in a Sun Dance ceremony near the Rosebud River. The ceremony involved prayer, sacrifice and the search for spiritual guidance during a period of considerable uncertainty.

Accounts describe Sitting Bull undertaking severe physical sacrifice and experiencing a vision in which American soldiers appeared to fall into a Native American camp. His followers understood the vision as a sign that a victory over the soldiers was approaching.

The vision became an important part of the story of the Little Bighorn. It strengthened confidence among some of those who heard about it and later appeared particularly significant because of the outcome of the battle.

However, it should not be treated as evidence that Sitting Bull knew exactly what would happen on 25 June. Accounts of the ceremony were recorded and retold at different times, and historians must distinguish the beliefs of those involved from later interpretations of events.

Sitting Bull's contribution was principally one of leadership and influence rather than direct battlefield command.

By the time the Seventh Cavalry attacked, he was an older, highly respected figure. National Park Service accounts indicate that he did not personally take part in the main fighting. His younger relatives and many of the warriors associated with him did fight.

His importance lay partly in helping create the conditions in which such a large gathering could exist. Through his reputation and opposition to American control, he had become a central figure around whom independent communities could unite without surrendering their separate identities.

After the battle, American newspapers frequently portrayed Sitting Bull as the mastermind of Custer's defeat. This made a complicated series of events easier to explain, but it exaggerated the extent of his control over the warriors who fought.

He was not the commander of every Lakota and Cheyenne fighter. The victory resulted from the actions of many leaders and individuals, responding to an attack on their families and encampment.

Nevertheless, Sitting Bull's determination to defend Lakota independence made him one of the most significant figures in the history of the Great Sioux War.

Crazy Horse and His Role in the Conflict

Crazy Horse, known in Lakota as Tasunke Witko, was an Oglala Lakota warrior and leader whose reputation rested largely on his courage, military judgement and determination to resist American expansion.

He was probably born around 1840, although the precise date and location remain uncertain. His early life was spent among Lakota communities living across the northern Plains, where children learned about hunting, horses, family responsibilities and the traditions of their people.

Accounts of his youth describe a boy who was relatively quiet and thoughtful. Unlike some warriors who enjoyed public attention, Crazy Horse became known for avoiding unnecessary display and placing considerable importance on personal conduct.

His appearance also differed from the image of a Plains warrior often presented in popular films. Traditional accounts describe him entering battle without an elaborate feathered war bonnet, following instructions associated with a spiritual vision he had experienced when young.

According to these accounts, the vision encouraged him to avoid boasting and taking trophies, and to maintain a particular form of preparation before combat. Such traditions were important to his identity and to the way his courage was remembered.

Crazy Horse became an experienced fighter during a period of growing conflict between the Lakota and the United States. His knowledge of horses, terrain and the movements of other warriors helped establish his reputation.

He participated in resistance during Red Cloud's War and is associated in historical accounts with the fighting around Fort Phil Kearny, including the events leading to the Fetterman Fight in December 1866.

These encounters demonstrated the effectiveness of Native American tactics. Warriors could use their familiarity with the landscape to draw soldiers away from protected positions, then attack when the circumstances favoured them.

Such methods required patience, coordination and an understanding of how American officers might respond. They were not simply uncontrolled charges by mounted warriors.

Crazy Horse became respected for his ability to recognise opportunities and act decisively. His influence grew among warriors who trusted his judgement and were willing to follow him into dangerous situations.

Like Sitting Bull, he opposed permanent confinement on reservations. He wanted his people to retain access to their hunting grounds and maintain control over their own lives.

He did not sign the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and continued living largely beyond the reservation agencies. His resistance was rooted in the belief that the Lakota should not be forced to abandon lands that had supported their communities for generations.

During the early 1870s, American expansion placed increasing pressure on the northern Plains. Railway surveys, military expeditions and the Black Hills gold rush contributed to an atmosphere of growing hostility.

By 1876, Crazy Horse had become one of the most important military leaders among the independent Oglala Lakota.

When the United States began its campaign that spring, he was among the leaders prepared to resist the army's advance. His experience of earlier fighting made him particularly valuable at a time when American columns were approaching Native American hunting territories from several directions.

On 17 June 1876, Crazy Horse played a major role in the Battle of the Rosebud, where Lakota and Northern Cheyenne warriors confronted General George Crook's advancing force.

The battle involved prolonged fighting across difficult ground. Warriors attacked, withdrew and returned to the fighting, using their mobility and knowledge of the terrain to challenge the soldiers.

Crazy Horse was one of the important leaders involved, but he was not acting alone. Other Lakota and Cheyenne warriors and leaders made substantial contributions to the engagement.

Crook's force eventually withdrew from its advance. Although historians differ over how to describe the tactical result, the battle prevented Crook from continuing immediately towards the main Native American encampment.

This was a significant achievement. It reduced the pressure on the communities gathering farther north and left Crook unable to provide the support that other American commanders might otherwise have expected.

Eight days later, Crazy Horse was present when Custer's Seventh Cavalry attacked the large encampment beside the Little Bighorn River.

He is widely recognised as one of the important Native American leaders during the battle. However, the precise movements of individual warriors are difficult to reconstruct, particularly during the fighting against Custer's own battalion, from which no American soldier survived to give an account.

Native American eyewitnesses described different movements and encounters. Some accounts place Crazy Horse among warriors who moved against Custer's men, while historians continue to debate exactly when and where he fought.

It is therefore safer to describe him as a major participant in the Native American victory than to claim that he personally commanded every attack or directed the entire battle.

His importance should not be underestimated. He was an experienced leader whose reputation encouraged others, and he belonged to a community that had repeatedly demonstrated its ability to resist American military expeditions.

Crazy Horse's leadership also reveals an important difference between the opposing forces. Custer commanded soldiers through a formal military hierarchy. Crazy Horse led warriors whose willingness to follow him depended on respect, relationships and their own decisions.

After the Little Bighorn, Crazy Horse remained determined to resist American control. The victory had not ended the war, and the United States increased its military operations against the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne.

His eventual surrender and death in 1877 would become another tragic chapter in the conflict. Those events will be examined in Section 13.

For the people who followed him, Crazy Horse represented more than success in battle. He became remembered for his courage, independence and refusal to abandon the lands and traditions of his community.

Gall, Two Moons and Other Leaders

Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse became the most famous Native American figures associated with the Little Bighorn, but they were only two of the many leaders whose actions mattered.

The encampment contained several Lakota bands, Northern Cheyenne families and smaller groups from other nations. Each community had experienced men who could organise warriors, offer advice or help families respond to danger.

One of the most important was Gall, a Hunkpapa Lakota warrior whose life had long been connected with Sitting Bull.

Gall was born around 1840 in what is now South Dakota. He developed a reputation for physical strength, bravery and skill in warfare, eventually becoming a respected leader among the Hunkpapa.

He was closely associated with Sitting Bull and shared his opposition to American attempts to control the Lakota. During the early 1870s, Gall took part in resistance to railway surveys crossing the northern Plains.

His experiences also reveal how complicated relations between Native American nations could be. In 1865, Gall was seriously wounded during an encounter with American soldiers whose party included the Arikara scout Bloody Knife.

Both men would later be connected with the Battle of the Little Bighorn, but on opposing sides. Bloody Knife served with Custer's Seventh Cavalry, while Gall fought against the army.

By June 1876, Gall was among the important Hunkpapa leaders in the large encampment beside the Little Bighorn.

His family suffered terribly when Major Marcus Reno's battalion attacked the southern end of the village on 25 June. Gall lost two wives and three children during the fighting.

These deaths were not incidental to his experience of the battle. They help explain the anger and determination with which warriors responded to an attack that threatened their families.

Gall subsequently played an important role in the fighting against Custer's battalion. Historical accounts associate him with warriors who moved northwards and helped confront the soldiers approaching the village.

His actions demonstrate how the battle developed through the decisions of several leaders rather than through one centrally directed plan.

Gall was an experienced fighter, but he was also a husband and father whose family had been struck by the army's attack. His experience illustrates the close relationship between the defence of the encampment and the fighting on the surrounding hills.

Another important figure was Two Moons, a Northern Cheyenne leader who took part in the resistance against American military operations.

Two Moons belonged to a nation whose relationship with the Lakota had developed through years of cooperation, shared hunting territories and resistance to American expansion.

The Northern Cheyenne retained their own leaders and political identity, even when they camped alongside Lakota communities. Their participation in the Great Sioux War was therefore an alliance between peoples rather than the absorption of one nation into another.

Two Moons was among the Cheyenne leaders involved in the fighting at the Rosebud on 17 June 1876. He was also present at the Little Bighorn, where Cheyenne warriors made important contributions to the defence of the village and the defeat of the Seventh Cavalry.

Accounts given by Two Moons and other Cheyenne participants later became valuable to historians. They helped preserve perspectives that were missing from the earliest American accounts of the battle.

Another Northern Cheyenne leader associated with the Little Bighorn was Lame White Man. He was an experienced warrior who took part in the fighting against Custer's soldiers and was killed during the battle.

His death is a reminder that the Native American victory came at a cost. Although Custer's battalion was destroyed, Lakota and Cheyenne families also lost relatives, including men whose leadership was important to their communities.

Other participants became known through their eyewitness accounts. Wooden Leg, a Northern Cheyenne warrior, later described his experiences of the fighting and life among his people. His recollections provided historians with details about the encampment and the movements of warriors.

Among the Lakota, White Bull, a Miniconjou warrior, also became associated with accounts of the battle. He was a relative of Sitting Bull and took part in the fighting, although later claims about exactly whom he killed must be treated cautiously.

These accounts are valuable because they come from people who experienced the events, but they are not always identical. Witnesses observed different parts of the battlefield, remembered events from different positions and sometimes gave their accounts many years later.

Historians therefore compare Native American testimony with military evidence, archaeology and the physical landscape rather than assuming that any one account provides a complete explanation.

Leadership within the encampment was also broader than the men who became famous through battle.

Respected elders helped maintain relationships between families and bands. Spiritual leaders conducted ceremonies and offered guidance. Other individuals organised hunting, movement and the practical responsibilities involved in maintaining a large community.

Among the Dakota people present was Inkpaduta, an elderly leader whose experiences of conflict with the United States stretched back many years. National Park Service accounts describe him and other Dakota people helping women and children move to safety during Reno's attack.

Such actions were essential, even though they rarely receive the same attention as cavalry charges or mounted warriors.

The Native American victory at the Little Bighorn was therefore not the achievement of one extraordinary commander. It depended on the actions of many individuals, each responding to events according to their experience and responsibilities.

Some led warriors into battle. Others protected families, carried information or helped people escape. Their combined efforts enabled the encampment to survive the army's attack.

Native American Women and Their Experiences

Accounts of the Battle of the Little Bighorn often concentrate on the men who fought, particularly Custer, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. Yet the large Native American encampment was home to thousands of women and children whose experiences were central to what happened.

They were not simply accompanying an army. The gathering was made up of families living together in a temporary community, with homes, possessions, horses and food supplies spread along the river valley.

Women carried out work that supported every part of this life. Among the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne, many prepared meals, processed buffalo hides, made and repaired clothing, maintained tipis and cared for children.

They also played important roles in family relationships, ceremonies and the transmission of cultural knowledge. Their responsibilities required skill and judgement, particularly when communities moved frequently across the Plains.

The work involved in moving a camp was considerable. Tipis had to be dismantled, household possessions packed and transport organised. Families needed to ensure that children and elderly relatives could travel safely, while food and other supplies had to be carried to the next campsite.

Women were therefore essential to the mobility and independence of the communities that American officials were attempting to confine to reservations.

They also experienced the consequences of earlier conflicts. The Sand Creek Massacre of 1864 and Custer's attack at the Washita in 1868 had demonstrated that Native American villages could be attacked without warning and that women and children might be killed or captured.

These memories formed part of the background to the Little Bighorn. For many families, the possibility of another military attack was not an abstract danger.

When Reno's soldiers approached the southern end of the encampment on 25 June 1876, women and children were among the first people placed in danger.

The attack began while many inhabitants were engaged in ordinary activities. As the soldiers advanced, people attempted to gather relatives, recover possessions and move away from the fighting.

Some fled towards the river or the hills beyond it. Others sought protection among neighbouring lodges while warriors hurried to confront the soldiers.

The confusion must have been frightening. A large encampment could not be evacuated instantly, particularly when families were scattered among hundreds of tipis and horses were being gathered in haste.

Some women and children were killed during the attack. Among the dead were members of Gall's family, whose loss became an important part of his personal experience of the battle.

For the surviving families, the immediate task was to escape the advancing soldiers and protect those unable to defend themselves.

Women helped children and elderly relatives reach safer ground. Some carried belongings, while others abandoned possessions in order to move more quickly.

Native American accounts also preserve examples of women taking a direct part in the fighting.

One was Moving Robe Woman, a Hunkpapa Lakota woman whose brother was killed during the battle. Accounts describe her responding to his death by joining the fighting against the soldiers.

Her experience challenges the assumption that Native American women were always passive observers during warfare. Although combat was generally associated with male warriors, individual women could take up weapons or act directly when their families and communities were threatened.

The Northern Cheyenne also remembered women whose actions demonstrated courage during the 1876 campaign. At the Battle of the Rosebud, eight days before the Little Bighorn, Buffalo Calf Road Woman became known for riding into danger to rescue her brother, Comes in Sight, whose horse had been shot.

Her actions were so important to Cheyenne memory that the engagement became known among them as the Battle Where the Girl Saved Her Brother.

This name reveals something important about how the conflict was remembered. American military histories generally named battles after rivers or geographical locations. Cheyenne accounts could remember the same events through an act of courage that expressed responsibility towards family.

Buffalo Calf Road Woman was also associated in Cheyenne oral traditions with the fighting at the Little Bighorn. Some later accounts credit her with a particularly prominent role, although the precise details remain disputed.

It is important not to treat uncertain stories as established fact. What can be said with confidence is that women were present, that some participated directly in resistance, and that their actions became part of the history preserved by their communities.

Women also had responsibilities that continued after the fighting ended.

Families needed to care for wounded relatives, mourn those who had died and prepare to leave the area. The victory did not mean that the encampment could remain safely beside the Little Bighorn River.

The people knew that more American soldiers might arrive. Moving such a large community required urgent practical decisions, including the recovery of horses, the packing of possessions and arrangements for families whose relatives had been killed.

Grief was therefore mixed with relief and uncertainty. The army had been defeated, but the war was not over.

For Native American women, the consequences of the conflict would extend far beyond June 1876. As American military pressure increased, families faced further displacement, shortages of food and the eventual loss of much of their freedom of movement.

The reservation system affected women as well as men. Changes to hunting, settlement and government-controlled food supplies altered the practical organisation of family life. American policies also threatened established cultural practices and the ways knowledge was passed between generations.

Yet women continued to preserve languages, traditions and family histories despite these pressures. Their experiences form an essential part of the history of the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and other Plains nations.

The Little Bighorn was therefore not simply a contest between soldiers and warriors. It was an attack on a living community, and the people who defended it were protecting relatives, homes and a way of life.

Understanding this changes how the battle should be approached. The famous leaders mattered, but so did the thousands of people whose names are less familiar and whose lives were directly affected by the army's advance.

With these people and their different forms of leadership in mind, we can now follow the military campaign that brought Custer's Seventh Cavalry towards the Little Bighorn in June 1876.

Back to Contents

The Road to the Little Bighorn: The 1876 Campaign

By the beginning of 1876, the United States government had decided to use military force against Lakota and Northern Cheyenne communities that remained outside its reservation agencies. The dispute over the Black Hills had contributed to this decision, but the army's wider objective was to bring independent Native American communities under federal control.

The campaign that followed took place across an enormous region of rivers, grasslands, wooded valleys and rugged hills. American commanders knew that finding their opponents would be difficult. Lakota and Cheyenne families travelled with their horses and possessions, moving between hunting grounds and campsites according to the seasons. A village discovered in one place might have moved many miles by the time soldiers arrived.

The army therefore planned to approach the region from several directions. It hoped that separate columns of soldiers could locate the Native American communities, prevent them from escaping and force them to surrender or fight.

Yet the plan contained serious weaknesses. Communication between the columns was slow, and commanders could not always know where the other forces were operating. Their information about the number of warriors gathering on the Plains was also incomplete.

For the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne, the campaign threatened more than their warriors. The approaching soldiers were searching for encampments containing families, children, elderly people and the possessions on which everyday life depended.

During the spring and early summer, these communities continued to gather in the northern Plains. Some people had travelled from reservation agencies, while others had remained independent for years. By June, their camps had grown into one of the largest gatherings of Plains Native American peoples recorded during the nineteenth century.

The two sides were moving towards a confrontation, although neither fully understood how events would unfold.

The US Army's Campaign Against the Native American Nations

After the government's deadline of 31 January 1876 passed, military officials began preparing operations against Lakota and Northern Cheyenne communities that had not reported to reservation agencies.

General Philip Sheridan, who commanded the Military Division of the Missouri, was responsible for overseeing the campaign. Sheridan had extensive experience of warfare on the Great Plains and believed that military pressure could force independent communities to submit to government authority.

The army's principal objective was to find the Native American encampments in the country around the Powder, Rosebud, Bighorn and Yellowstone rivers. This region covered parts of present-day Montana and Wyoming and included valuable buffalo hunting grounds.

American officers faced a difficult geographical problem. The country was vast, and there were relatively few established roads. Rivers and valleys provided possible routes of travel, but steep slopes, broken ground and unpredictable weather could slow soldiers and supply wagons.

Unlike a conventional army occupying a fixed position, the Lakota and Cheyenne could move their villages. Families travelled with horses and transport equipment, choosing campsites near water, grass and hunting areas.

The army had encountered similar difficulties in earlier campaigns. Soldiers might spend weeks following tracks, only to discover that the people they were pursuing had moved elsewhere.

Sheridan's solution was to send forces into the region from different directions. The campaign eventually developed around three principal columns.

Colonel John Gibbon's column approached from the west. It left Fort Ellis, near Bozeman in Montana Territory, in April 1876. Gibbon commanded a mixture of infantry and cavalry, supported by Crow scouts whose knowledge of the northern Plains was particularly valuable.

Gibbon's soldiers moved through the Yellowstone River country, attempting to discover where the independent Native American communities were travelling. The river also provided a useful line of communication and supply.

General Alfred Terry's column advanced from the east. It left Fort Abraham Lincoln in Dakota Territory on 17 May 1876. Terry's force included infantry and the Seventh Cavalry, whose twelve companies were commanded in the field by Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer.

Terry was the senior commander of the expedition, while Custer was responsible for the cavalry regiment. This distinction would become important when the force separated during the final approach to the Little Bighorn.

The expedition included officers, enlisted soldiers, civilian employees and Native American scouts. The army also depended on wagons, pack animals and river transport to move food, ammunition and other supplies.

General George Crook's column approached from the south, operating from Fort Fetterman in Wyoming Territory. Crook had already led an expedition during the winter and returned to the field with a larger force in late May.

His soldiers included cavalry and infantry, supported by Crow and Shoshone scouts. These Native American allies had their own reasons for opposing Lakota and Cheyenne groups, including longstanding disputes over territory and hunting grounds.

The three columns were expected to place pressure on the independent communities from different directions. If one force discovered a large encampment, the presence of the others might prevent its inhabitants from escaping.

In practice, however, the operation was not a precisely coordinated movement in which every commander knew where the others would be on a particular day.

There were no radios or aircraft. Messages travelled by mounted courier, and the distances between columns could be enormous. A commander might make an important decision without knowing that another force had been delayed or had already fought a battle.

Military intelligence was another problem. Officers relied on scouts, tracks, abandoned campsites and reports from travellers to estimate where Native American communities had gone.

These sources could be valuable, but they were not always easy to interpret. A broad trail might indicate a large village, yet its age and destination could remain uncertain. Reports about the number of warriors were particularly unreliable.

Some American officers expected to encounter several hundred warriors, perhaps more than a thousand. They did not anticipate the full size of the gathering that would eventually be found beside the Little Bighorn River.

The army's confidence also reflected earlier experience. American commanders had repeatedly attacked Native American villages, sometimes achieving success through surprise and the use of concentrated military force.

But the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne were experienced opponents. Their warriors knew the landscape, could move quickly on horseback and had demonstrated their ability to resist military expeditions.

The campaign would reveal that the American columns were not the only forces capable of taking the initiative.

The Powder River Expedition

The first important military operation of the 1876 campaign took place during the winter, several months before Custer reached the Little Bighorn.

At the end of February, General George Crook led a force northwards from Fort Fetterman into the Powder River country. His expedition included cavalry, infantry and scouts, and its purpose was to locate Native American communities that the government had classified as hostile.

Winter campaigning was particularly difficult on the northern Plains. Snow could conceal trails, freezing temperatures endangered men and horses, and grazing was scarce. Soldiers needed to carry supplies while travelling through country where established roads were limited.

Nevertheless, American commanders believed that winter offered certain advantages. Native American families were often established in camps, and their horses might be less capable of travelling quickly because of poor grazing conditions.

The army hoped that an unexpected attack could destroy a village's supplies and horses, making it difficult for its inhabitants to remain independent.

During March, Crook's scouts located a Native American encampment beside the Powder River, in present-day Montana.

The soldiers believed that they might have discovered a village connected with Crazy Horse. In fact, the camp was occupied principally by Northern Cheyenne people, including families associated with the leaders Old Bear and Two Moons.

Crook ordered Colonel Joseph J. Reynolds to lead a detachment against the village.

On 17 March 1876, Reynolds's soldiers approached through bitterly cold conditions and attacked at dawn. The operation became known as the Battle of Powder River or the Reynolds Fight.

The attack took the inhabitants by surprise. Soldiers entered the camp and forced many families to flee, leaving behind possessions, food and shelter.

As at other attacks on Native American villages, the fighting affected people who were not taking part in combat. Women and children had to escape in dangerous winter conditions, while warriors attempted to defend the camp and protect their relatives.

The soldiers burned lodges and destroyed supplies. They also captured a large number of horses, an especially serious loss for a community whose mobility depended on its animals.

At first, the attack appeared to have achieved the army's objective. The village had been overrun, and its inhabitants had been driven away.

Yet Reynolds failed to turn this success into a decisive victory.

The soldiers were unable to hold the captured horses securely. Cheyenne warriors recovered much of the herd, while the American force withdrew from the area.

Other Native American communities helped the displaced families. This assistance mattered greatly because people who had lost their tipis and food supplies faced a serious risk of exposure and hunger.

The operation also exposed weaknesses in American command. Reynolds was criticised for his handling of the attack, and the army had not destroyed the independent communities' ability to resist.

Although the village had suffered substantial losses, the fighting had not produced the surrender that American officials wanted.

Instead, the attack demonstrated that the army was prepared to strike Native American camps, including those occupied by families, during the harshest part of the year.

For the Northern Cheyenne, it provided another reason to seek safety and support among allied communities. Survivors could join other camps, and warriors had further cause to resist approaching soldiers.

The Powder River expedition therefore achieved little towards ending the conflict. It inflicted suffering on a village but failed to establish lasting American control over the region.

Crook returned south to reorganise his forces. The army's main campaign would resume when the weather improved, with larger columns moving into the northern Plains during the spring.

The Battle of the Rosebud, 17 June 1876

By June 1876, General Crook had returned to the field with a substantial force. His column included regular soldiers and a large contingent of Crow and Shoshone scouts.

The scouts were essential to the expedition. They knew the country, could recognise signs of Native American movement and understood the dangers of travelling through territory used by Lakota and Cheyenne warriors.

Crook advanced northwards from Wyoming, hoping to locate the independent communities gathering in the river valleys of southern Montana.

Meanwhile, Lakota and Northern Cheyenne warriors were aware that soldiers were approaching. They were not simply waiting for the army to discover their encampment.

Crazy Horse and other leaders decided to confront Crook's force before it could threaten their families. Warriors travelled away from the main village and moved towards the Rosebud Creek country.

On the morning of 17 June 1876, Crook's soldiers were resting near the Rosebud when the presence of Native American warriors became apparent.

Fighting began as Lakota and Cheyenne warriors attacked the American force. The battle developed across a wide area of ridges, valleys and broken ground.

The landscape made it difficult for either side to control the entire engagement. Small groups of soldiers and warriors fought in different places, while mounted men moved rapidly between positions.

Crazy Horse was among the important Lakota leaders involved. Northern Cheyenne warriors also played a major part, together with other experienced fighters from the allied communities.

The warriors used the terrain to their advantage, approaching from different directions and attempting to exploit weaknesses in the soldiers' positions.

Crook's force responded with cavalry movements, dismounted rifle fire and efforts to occupy higher ground. His officers attempted to maintain order as the fighting spread across the hills.

The Crow and Shoshone scouts fought actively on the American side. Their actions were particularly important during the early stages of the battle, when they helped prevent the advancing Lakota and Cheyenne from overwhelming exposed parts of Crook's force.

This is another example of Native American peoples fighting on opposing sides of the same conflict. The Crow and Shoshone had their own political and territorial interests, and their participation cannot be understood simply as loyalty to the United States.

The battle continued for several hours. Warriors charged, withdrew and returned to the fighting, while soldiers attempted to maintain their positions and respond to threats across the battlefield.

One incident became particularly important in Northern Cheyenne memory.

During the fighting, a Cheyenne warrior named Comes in Sight was placed in danger when his horse was shot. His sister, Buffalo Calf Road Woman, rode into the battle and helped him escape.

Her courage became so closely associated with the event that the Northern Cheyenne remembered it as the Battle Where the Girl Saved Her Brother.

The name illustrates how different communities could remember the same engagement in different ways. American accounts generally called it the Battle of the Rosebud, after the nearby creek. The Cheyenne name preserved an act of family loyalty and personal bravery.

By the end of the fighting, both sides had suffered casualties. The exact numbers remain uncertain, particularly among the Native American warriors, whose losses were not recorded in the same way as those of the army.

Crook's soldiers retained possession of parts of the battlefield, and some American accounts described the engagement as a tactical success.

However, Crook did not continue his advance towards the main Lakota and Cheyenne encampment.

Instead, he withdrew southwards to his base near Goose Creek, in present-day Wyoming. His force needed rest, supplies and time to recover from the battle.

From the Native American perspective, this was an important achievement. Their warriors had confronted a substantial army column and prevented it from continuing immediately towards their families.

The battle therefore had consequences beyond the casualties suffered that day.

Crook's withdrawal removed a major American force from the immediate advance against the independent communities. The army's plan had depended on pressure from several directions, but one of its principal columns was no longer moving towards the gathering.

Communication between the American commanders was too slow to ensure that Terry and Custer understood the significance of Crook's situation before they reached the Little Bighorn.

This was a serious weakness in the campaign. The army had planned to use separate forces to restrict Native American movement, yet its commanders could not reliably coordinate their actions.

The Rosebud also demonstrated the strength of the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne resistance. Warriors had shown that they could organise a large force, take the initiative and fight experienced soldiers in difficult country.

Eight days later, many of those warriors would be involved in another battle against the Seventh Cavalry.

Custer's March Towards the Little Bighorn

While Crook was fighting near the Rosebud, General Alfred Terry and Colonel John Gibbon were operating farther north, along the Yellowstone River.

Terry's expedition had left Fort Abraham Lincoln on 17 May. The force travelled westwards across Dakota and Montana territories, supported by wagons and supplies transported along the rivers.

Custer commanded the Seventh Cavalry in the field. The regiment contained twelve companies, although its soldiers would later be divided into smaller groups during the approach to the Native American village.

Its men were experienced to different degrees. Some had served for years on the frontier, while others were relatively new to military life. They had to endure long marches, difficult weather and the uncertainty of searching for an opponent whose exact location was unknown.

Native American scouts accompanied the regiment. Arikara and Crow men helped identify trails, examine abandoned campsites and interpret signs that might otherwise have meant little to the soldiers.

These scouts possessed valuable knowledge, but they could not provide perfect information. The Native American communities were moving, and the army had to make decisions from evidence that was often incomplete.

In early June, Major Marcus Reno led a reconnaissance expedition with six companies of the Seventh Cavalry. His task was to examine the country around the Powder and Rosebud rivers and discover signs of the independent encampments.

Reno's men found evidence that a large Native American village had travelled through the region. Abandoned campsites and broad trails suggested that many people and horses were moving together.

The discoveries were important. They indicated that the army was not simply pursuing a few small bands scattered across the Plains.

However, the evidence did not establish the exact size or current location of the gathering. A trail could reveal where a community had been without showing precisely where it was now.

On 21 June, Terry held a conference aboard the steamboat Far West, near the mouth of the Rosebud River. The meeting helped establish the plan for the next stage of the campaign.

Terry intended to approach the suspected Native American position with forces moving along different routes.

Custer and the Seventh Cavalry would travel southwards up the Rosebud, following the signs of the village. Terry and Gibbon would move by a more northerly and westerly route towards the Bighorn and Little Bighorn valleys.

The hope was that these movements would prevent the Native American communities from escaping once their location had been discovered.

On 22 June, Custer left the main force with the twelve companies of the Seventh Cavalry, accompanied by scouts and a pack train carrying ammunition and supplies.

He had been given considerable freedom to investigate the trails and respond to circumstances. Terry's instructions allowed him to depart from the suggested route if he had good reason, although the wider intention was for the separate forces to cooperate.

The relationship between these instructions and Custer's later decisions has been debated by historians. It is important not to assume that Terry had ordered an immediate attack regardless of the circumstances.

Nor should Custer's freedom of movement be confused with complete independence from the campaign's overall objectives. He was operating as part of a larger army expedition.

As the Seventh Cavalry advanced, its scouts followed the traces left by the Native American encampment. The trail was substantial, indicating the movement of many people, horses and possessions.

The soldiers travelled through the Rosebud valley and towards the divide separating it from the Little Bighorn River.

Marching conditions were demanding. Men spent long hours in the saddle, horses became tired, and the regiment needed to maintain enough supplies to continue operating away from the main army.

Custer had to decide how quickly to move. A slower advance might allow more time for reconnaissance and rest, but it could also give the Native American communities an opportunity to travel beyond the army's reach.

His experience of earlier campaigns encouraged him to value speed and surprise. American officers frequently feared that a village would disperse rather than remain in place for an attack.

During 24 June, the regiment approached the Wolf Mountains, east of the Little Bighorn valley. Scouts moved ahead to examine the country and search for evidence of the encampment.

The soldiers continued moving during the night, following the broad trail towards the divide.

Early on 25 June, Crow scouts reached a high vantage point later known as the Crow's Nest. From there, they could look westwards towards the Little Bighorn valley.

The scouts reported signs of a large village in the distance. They could see evidence of the encampment and the great number of horses associated with it, although the full extent of the settlement was difficult to judge from so far away.

Custer received their reports, but there were disagreements about what could be seen and how much the information revealed.

Some scouts warned that the village was very large. They also understood that the presence of soldiers might already have been discovered.

At this stage, Custer faced a difficult decision. He could remain concealed and continue gathering information, or he could advance before the Native American communities had time to move away.

Accounts indicate that he had initially considered delaying an attack until the following morning. However, reports suggesting that the regiment had been detected increased his concern that the opportunity for surprise was disappearing.

Custer decided to move towards the Little Bighorn on 25 June.

His decision did not necessarily mean that he understood the true size of the village or the number of warriors present. He was acting on incomplete intelligence, influenced by his fear that the encampment might escape.

The Seventh Cavalry began its final approach through the hills towards the river valley.

Within hours, the regiment would be divided and the fighting would begin. Those decisions and their consequences belong to the account of the battle itself in Section 9.

The Native American Encampment

The community that Custer was approaching was far larger than the small villages the Seventh Cavalry had attacked during some earlier campaigns.

By June 1876, Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, Dakota and Arapaho people had gathered in the northern Plains, travelling between hunting grounds and river valleys.

The gathering had developed over several weeks. Families joined relatives, took part in ceremonies and hunted buffalo. Some had lived beyond reservation control for years, while others had travelled from agencies to spend time with the independent communities.

The encampment included several Lakota groups, among them Hunkpapa, Oglala, Miniconjou, Sihasapa, Itazipco and Sicangu families. Northern Cheyenne communities occupied their own part of the gathering, and smaller numbers of Dakota and Arapaho people were also present.

These were distinct communities, not one nation ruled by a single chief. Each retained its own leaders, family relationships and customs.

Sitting Bull's influence helped bring people together, but he did not exercise direct authority over every person in the camp. Other respected leaders, including Crazy Horse, Gall and Northern Cheyenne chiefs, had important responsibilities within their own communities.

The gathering also had spiritual significance. Earlier in June, a Sun Dance ceremony had taken place near the Rosebud. Sitting Bull's vision during that ceremony became an important part of the community's understanding of the approaching conflict.

By about 18 June, the large gathering had moved into the Little Bighorn valley, in present-day Montana.

The river provided water, while the surrounding grasslands offered grazing for horses. Nearby hills and wooded areas supplied additional resources and shelter.

Families established their tipis along the valley, with different bands occupying recognisable areas of the encampment.

The settlement extended for a considerable distance beside the river. It was not a compact military position surrounded by defensive walls. It was a collection of homes, with spaces for horses, household activities and movement between different parts of the camp.

Everyday life continued as the people settled beside the Little Bighorn. Women prepared food, cared for children and maintained their homes. Men hunted, tended horses, visited relatives and discussed news of the approaching soldiers.

Children played, families gathered and ceremonies continued. The people had not abandoned their ordinary lives simply because the army was searching for them.

At the same time, the threat was real. Warriors and scouts had been observing American movements, and news of Crook's defeat at the Rosebud had reached the gathering.

Some inhabitants expected further fighting. Others believed that the size of the encampment offered considerable protection against an attack.

Historians cannot establish the exact number of people present on 25 June. Estimates differ because the gathering was mobile, no complete census was taken and later witnesses remembered its size in different ways.

The National Park Service estimates that approximately 7,000 people were present, including around 1,500 to 2,000 warriors. Other historical estimates are higher or lower.

Even allowing for uncertainty, the gathering was exceptionally large.

Its size mattered because Custer's regiment was approaching a community capable of producing far more warriors than the soldiers may have expected. It also meant that the encampment could not simply disappear in a few moments if threatened.

Moving thousands of people, hundreds of tipis and large herds of horses required time and organisation. Families had to gather possessions, prepare transport and ensure that children and elderly relatives could travel safely.

The warriors defending the camp therefore had a powerful reason to resist an attack. They were not protecting an isolated military outpost but the people and possessions on which their communities depended.

The physical landscape would also influence the fighting. The river wound through the valley, while steep bluffs and ridges rose to the east. Ravines and smaller streams cut through the hills, sometimes concealing movement from anyone standing on higher ground.

These features made it difficult for an approaching commander to see the whole encampment at once. A view from one ridge might reveal only part of the valley, while another section remained hidden by bends in the river or rising ground.

The same landscape offered opportunities to the defenders. Warriors familiar with the area could cross the river, move through ravines and gather on the hills surrounding an advancing force.

The Lakota and Cheyenne also possessed a variety of weapons. Some carried bows and arrows, while others used rifles, including repeating firearms. Their equipment was not identical, and the number of cartridges available to individual warriors varied.

They were experienced horsemen, accustomed to moving quickly over the Plains. Many had already fought American soldiers, and some had participated in the Battle of the Rosebud only eight days earlier.

However, the gathering was not organised as a single army awaiting orders from one commander. When danger appeared, warriors responded through their own leaders, relationships and immediate understanding of the threat.

This would become important during the battle. Different groups could move to defend their own families and then join other warriors as the fighting developed.

On the morning of 25 June, the inhabitants of the encampment did not all know that the Seventh Cavalry was approaching. Reports of soldiers circulated, but many people continued with their ordinary activities.

East of the river, Custer and his men were moving through the hills. Their scouts had identified the presence of a large community, but the soldiers had not yet seen its full extent.

The two sides approached the coming confrontation with very different objectives.

Custer was attempting to locate and engage the encampment before its inhabitants could escape. The Lakota, Cheyenne and their allies were determined to protect their families and preserve the independence that had brought them together.

By the afternoon of 25 June 1876, the search was over. The Seventh Cavalry had reached the Little Bighorn valley, and the decisions made during the next few hours would determine the outcome of one of the most famous battles in American history.

Back to Contents

What Happened at the Battle of the Little Bighorn?

On Sunday 25 June 1876, George Armstrong Custer led the Seventh Cavalry towards a large Native American encampment beside the Little Bighorn River in Montana Territory. By the following afternoon, five companies of his regiment had been destroyed, Custer himself was dead, and the surviving soldiers were struggling to defend a position on the hills above the river.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn was one of the most serious defeats suffered by the United States Army during the nineteenth-century conflicts on the Great Plains. For the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and their allies, it was a major victory against soldiers attempting to force their communities under American control.

Yet the battle was not one continuous fight involving every soldier and warrior in the same place. It developed across several miles of river valley, steep bluffs, ridges and ravines. Different groups fought separate engagements, sometimes without knowing what was happening elsewhere.

This helps explain why the events of 25 June remain difficult to reconstruct. Some American soldiers survived the fighting under Major Marcus Reno and Captain Frederick Benteen, and their testimony provides valuable evidence. However, none of the soldiers who remained with Custer's five companies survived to describe their final movements.

Native American eyewitnesses later provided important accounts of the fighting. Archaeological discoveries and the positions where bodies were found have also helped historians understand what happened. Even with this evidence, important questions remain unanswered.

The following account therefore distinguishes between events that can be established with reasonable confidence and those that historians continue to debate.

The Morning of 25 June 1876

During the early hours of 25 June, the Seventh Cavalry was moving through the country east of the Little Bighorn River. Its soldiers had followed the broad trail left by the Native American encampment, which had travelled westwards from the Rosebud valley.

The regiment had already endured a demanding march. Men and horses were tired, but Custer believed that the village might be close enough to reach before its inhabitants could escape.

His Crow and Arikara scouts were particularly important at this stage. They could recognise signs of movement, identify suitable routes and interpret evidence left by the families and horse herds travelling through the country.

Early that morning, scouts examined the valley from a high point in the Wolf Mountains, later known as the Crow's Nest. From this position, they reported evidence of an exceptionally large encampment in the distance.

Some of the scouts recognised the scale of what lay ahead more clearly than the soldiers accompanying them. They understood that the broad trail and extensive horse herds indicated the presence of a considerable number of people.

However, seeing the whole village from the eastern hills was difficult. The Little Bighorn River wound through the valley, and the ground concealed parts of the settlement. Custer did not have an accurate count of the warriors who might oppose him.

He had initially considered remaining concealed during 25 June and attacking the following morning. That would have given the scouts more time to examine the country and the regiment an opportunity to rest.

Events persuaded him to change his plans.

Reports suggested that Native American warriors might already have discovered signs of the soldiers' presence. Custer feared that the inhabitants would abandon their camp and scatter before the army could bring them to battle.

This fear was not unreasonable in itself. During earlier campaigns, American soldiers had often struggled to locate mobile Native American communities. Once a village began moving, pursuing it across the Plains could become extremely difficult.

Nevertheless, Custer was making a decision without knowing the full strength of the people he intended to attack.

In the encampment, the morning had begun much like other summer days. Families were living in their tipis, tending horses and carrying out household activities. Some people had heard reports that soldiers were approaching, but there was no single command structure through which every family received the same information.

Warriors who had fought at the Rosebud only eight days earlier were among those present. Others belonged to bands that had joined the gathering more recently.

The people were not assembled in battle formation waiting for Custer. They were living in a large community containing women, children and elderly relatives, as well as men capable of fighting.

By late morning and early afternoon, the Seventh Cavalry was advancing towards the river. The approach brought the soldiers closer to the village, but the broken landscape continued to restrict what they could see.

Custer now had to decide how to use his regiment against an encampment whose full size remained uncertain.

Custer Divides His Forces

The Seventh Cavalry consisted of twelve companies. Rather than keep them together, Custer divided the regiment into separate groups as it approached the Little Bighorn valley.

Dividing cavalry forces was not automatically an unusual military decision. Mounted troops could be sent along different routes to scout, threaten an opponent's flank or prevent an enemy from escaping.

However, such movements depended on good information, communication and the ability of separated units to support one another. These conditions were difficult to guarantee in the country around the Little Bighorn.

Custer first sent Captain Frederick Benteen with Companies D, H and K towards the south-west. His task was to examine the country and look for Native American activity away from the main trail.

Benteen commanded approximately 125 men. His detachment moved across difficult ground, searching for signs of the village or other groups that might threaten the regiment.

The main body continued towards the river. As the soldiers approached the valley, Custer ordered Major Marcus Reno to advance with Companies A, G and M.

Reno had approximately 140 soldiers, accompanied by Arikara scouts. He was instructed to cross the Little Bighorn and attack the southern end of the village.

According to accounts of the orders, Custer indicated that Reno would receive support from the rest of the regiment. This assurance became particularly important when Reno found himself confronting far more warriors than he had expected.

Custer retained five companies under his own command: C, E, F, I and L. These formed the largest single group of soldiers remaining directly under his control, numbering approximately 210 men.

The final company, B, commanded by Captain Thomas McDougall, accompanied the pack train carrying additional ammunition and supplies.

Lieutenant Edward Mathey was responsible for the pack train itself, which included approximately 175 mules. Soldiers from other companies had also been assigned to help manage the animals, bringing the pack-train contingent to roughly 130 men and civilian packers.

By the time the fighting began, the regiment was therefore separated into four principal elements: Reno's battalion, Benteen's battalion, Custer's five companies and the pack train.

This division had immediate consequences.

Reno was approaching the southern end of the village, while Benteen was still away to the south-west. The pack train was following behind, and Custer was moving northwards along the eastern side of the valley.

None of these groups could instantly support the others. Messages had to be carried by mounted soldiers, and the hills made it difficult to see what was happening beyond the nearest ridge.

Historians have debated what Custer intended to achieve by moving north while Reno attacked from the south.

One possibility is that he hoped to strike another part of the encampment, placing its inhabitants under pressure from different directions. He may also have wanted to prevent the village from escaping northwards.

What cannot be established is a detailed plan explaining every movement Custer intended to make. No surviving written order sets out his complete intentions for the attack.

The essential fact is that Reno entered the valley expecting support, while Custer and his five companies moved away towards the northern part of the battlefield.

The fighting that followed would prevent the separate elements of the regiment from coming together as Custer had apparently expected.

Major Reno's Attack and Retreat

Major Marcus Reno led his three companies towards the Little Bighorn River and crossed to its western side, approximately two miles south of the Native American encampment.

His soldiers then advanced northwards along the valley towards the southern end of the village.

At first, the attack created alarm among the inhabitants. People hurried to gather children, find horses and move away from the advancing cavalry. Warriors began preparing to resist, while families attempted to reach safer ground.

Reno's force was relatively small for an attack against such a large settlement. Nevertheless, the soldiers initially advanced on horseback, hoping to take advantage of the confusion.

As they approached the village, more Lakota and Cheyenne warriors appeared to oppose them.

Reno halted his advance before reaching the tipis. He ordered his soldiers to dismount and form a skirmish line, spreading them out so that they could fire their carbines towards the approaching warriors.

A skirmish line allowed soldiers to cover a wider area than a tightly packed formation. It could be effective against an advancing opponent, but it was vulnerable if large numbers of enemies moved around its flanks.

That was the danger Reno now faced.

Warriors continued gathering, some riding towards the soldiers while others moved to threaten their exposed positions. The number of defenders was increasing as men from different parts of the encampment responded to the attack.

Reno's soldiers were no longer advancing. They were attempting to hold their position against an opponent whose strength was growing.

Reno ordered his men to withdraw towards a stand of trees beside the river. The timber offered some cover, but it did not provide a secure defensive position for a prolonged fight.

The retreat was difficult to organise. Soldiers had to recover their horses while remaining under pressure, and confusion increased as warriors approached from several directions.

Reno then decided to abandon the timber and retreat across the Little Bighorn towards the bluffs on the eastern side of the valley.

The movement became chaotic.

Some soldiers were already mounted, while others struggled to reach their horses. Units became separated, and men were left behind as the battalion attempted to escape.

Lakota and Cheyenne warriors pursued the retreating soldiers. The open ground between the timber and the river exposed the cavalrymen to attacks from mounted opponents who could approach rapidly and fire at close range.

Some soldiers were shot while trying to reach the river. Others fell from their horses or were overtaken during the retreat.

The river crossing added to the confusion. Men and horses entered the water at different points, and the survivors then had to climb the steep ground on the eastern bank.

Not everyone escaped with Reno. Some soldiers remained concealed in the timber and survived by avoiding further fighting until the danger had passed.

Reno and the men who reached the bluffs were badly shaken. They had suffered serious casualties, lost contact with members of their companies and had little idea where Custer had gone.

The retreat also gave the Native American defenders an important advantage. Reno's attack had been stopped, and warriors who had pursued his soldiers were now free to move towards other parts of the battlefield.

From the perspective of the encampment, the immediate threat to its southern end had been driven away. Families had gained time to escape, while warriors could respond to the presence of Custer's remaining companies farther north.

Reno's conduct would later become the subject of intense criticism. Some accused him of losing control of his men or retreating too quickly. Others argued that his small battalion had faced overwhelming opposition and could not have continued its attack without support.

Those arguments cannot be settled simply by knowing that the retreat ended badly. Reno had been ordered to attack a village whose strength had been seriously underestimated, and the support he expected did not arrive during the valley fight.

Whatever judgement is made about his decisions, the result was clear: the southern attack had failed, and Reno's survivors were isolated on the bluffs.

Captain Benteen and the Search for Reinforcements

While Reno's battalion was fighting in the valley, Captain Frederick Benteen was returning from his reconnaissance towards the south-west.

His three companies had searched difficult country without discovering another major Native American encampment. Benteen therefore turned back towards the route followed by the rest of the regiment.

During the afternoon, a mounted messenger reached him with an urgent communication from Custer.

The messenger was Giovanni Martini, an Italian-born soldier serving as a trumpeter with Custer's command. Martini had been sent back before the final destruction of the five companies, which is why he survived to describe receiving the order.

Custer's adjutant, Lieutenant William Winer Cooke, had written a short message for Benteen. It read:

Benteen. Come on. Big Village. Be quick. Bring Packs. P.S. Bring packs.

The message is one of the most important surviving pieces of written evidence from the battle.

It shows that Custer wanted Benteen to come forward quickly and bring the pack train containing additional ammunition. It also confirms that Custer recognised the village was large.

However, the note does not explain exactly where Custer intended to fight, what resistance he was encountering or how long he expected his companies to hold out.

Benteen moved towards the main battlefield, but before reaching Custer he encountered Reno's surviving battalion on the bluffs.

The men were exhausted and disorganised after their retreat from the valley. Many were wounded, and some officers were attempting to establish a defensive position.

Reno urgently asked Benteen to remain and help him.

This placed Benteen in a difficult position. He had received an order to move towards Custer, but he had now discovered that another part of the regiment was in serious trouble.

Benteen decided to support Reno's men rather than immediately continue north with his three companies.

His decision became one of the most controversial aspects of the battle. Critics later argued that he should have obeyed Custer's message without delay. Defenders pointed out that abandoning Reno's badly damaged battalion could have exposed those soldiers to another attack.

At the time, Benteen did not know that Custer's five companies were being destroyed. He had to judge the situation from the evidence immediately before him.

The pack train eventually reached the bluffs, bringing the additional ammunition and supplies that Custer had requested. Its arrival strengthened the position of Reno and Benteen's combined force.

Meanwhile, gunfire was heard from the north, in the direction Custer had taken.

Captain Thomas Weir, who commanded Company D and was a friend of Custer, became concerned about the fate of the missing battalion.

Weir moved northwards with his company to investigate. Other soldiers subsequently followed, and elements of Reno and Benteen's force advanced along the high ground.

They reached a prominent position now known as Weir Point.

From there, soldiers could see dust, smoke and movement in the direction of Custer's battlefield. However, the distance and the obscuring dust prevented them from understanding exactly what had happened.

Some later accounts described signs that fighting had taken place on the distant ridges. None of the men at Weir Point could establish that Custer was still alive or identify a safe route to reach him.

Before the soldiers could advance much farther, large numbers of Lakota and Cheyenne warriors appeared moving towards them.

The position was exposed, and the American force faced the danger of being overwhelmed away from its supplies and wounded men.

The soldiers withdrew towards Reno's earlier position on the bluffs, where they began organising a stronger defence.

The attempt to reach Custer had failed.

Whether an earlier advance by Benteen could have changed the outcome remains a matter of historical debate. The timing of Custer's final fighting is uncertain, and there is no reliable evidence that Benteen could have reached the five companies before their destruction.

What is established is that Benteen helped organise the defence of the surviving soldiers. His experience and leadership would prove important during the fighting that continued into the following day.

Custer's Final Movements

After sending Reno towards the southern end of the village, Custer continued northwards along the high ground east of the Little Bighorn River.

He had five companies with him, but no surviving soldier from those companies later described what happened during their final engagement.

That absence of American eyewitness testimony has shaped the history of the battle ever since.

Historians can identify important places where fighting occurred, but the precise sequence of Custer's decisions is uncertain. Native American accounts provide valuable evidence, although different witnesses saw different parts of the action and did not always agree about the order of events.

It is generally accepted that Custer moved northwards along the ridges and towards a broad drainage known as Medicine Tail Coulee.

This route led down towards the Little Bighorn River, opposite part of the Native American encampment.

Some historical reconstructions suggest that Custer intended to cross the river and attack the village from another direction. Such a movement might have been designed to support Reno by placing pressure on the defenders farther north.

Other interpretations suggest that Custer was examining the ground, looking for a suitable crossing or attempting to understand the size and position of the settlement.

The evidence does not establish exactly what he intended.

Native American accounts describe soldiers appearing near the river and encountering warriors who moved to oppose them. Archaeological discoveries also indicate fighting in the area around Medicine Tail Coulee and its approaches.

However, historians disagree about whether a substantial attempt to cross the river took place. It would be misleading to describe a failed river assault as an established fact.

At some point, Custer's companies moved or were driven towards the higher ground east of the river.

By then, the situation had changed dramatically.

Reno's attack had been defeated, allowing large numbers of warriors to move northwards. Lakota and Cheyenne fighters could now concentrate on the soldiers accompanying Custer.

Warriors approached from different directions, using the folds of the ground, ravines and ridges to move towards the cavalry.

The terrain made it difficult for Custer's men to maintain a clear view of the battlefield. A group of warriors could disappear behind rising ground and reappear closer to the soldiers' position.

Some Native American fighters carried repeating rifles, while others used different firearms or bows. The American soldiers were armed principally with single-shot Springfield carbines and revolvers.

The soldiers' carbines could be effective at considerable distances, but they had to be reloaded after each shot. In close fighting against numerous mobile opponents, the speed and direction of attacks could make a significant difference.

It is important not to imagine every Native American warrior possessing a repeating rifle. Weapons varied considerably between individuals, and the outcome cannot be explained by firearms alone.

As the fighting developed, Custer's five companies became separated across the ridges and surrounding ground.

Evidence suggests that some soldiers fought in organised groups, attempting to hold defensive positions. Others appear to have moved or retreated as warriors closed around them.

The area around Calhoun Hill, towards the southern end of the principal battlefield ridge, became one of the important centres of resistance.

Companies C and L are commonly associated with fighting in this area. Archaeological evidence and the positions of bodies indicate that soldiers attempted to resist advancing warriors before their positions were overcome.

Other groups fought farther north and along the slopes leading towards what is now known as Last Stand Hill.

Some historical interpretations suggest that parts of the battalion collapsed in stages, with survivors from one position moving towards another. Others place greater emphasis on the speed with which the warriors overwhelmed the scattered companies.

There is evidence for intense fighting at several locations, but no surviving record allows every movement to be placed in a definite order.

Custer's men were facing an opponent that greatly outnumbered them and could attack from several directions. Their separated positions made it increasingly difficult to support one another.

As the pressure increased, the soldiers' opportunities to escape or regroup diminished.

What began as an attempt to attack a Native American encampment had become a desperate struggle for survival on the hills above it.

The Fighting on Last Stand Hill

The best-known location on the Little Bighorn battlefield is a small hill overlooking the river valley. It is now called Last Stand Hill because Custer and a number of his soldiers were found dead there after the battle.

The name has become closely associated with the popular image of Custer's final moments. Paintings and films have often shown him standing at the centre of a tightly packed group of soldiers, firing his revolver as warriors surround them.

That image is dramatic, but it is not a reliable reconstruction of the entire battle.

Custer's five companies did not all die together on one hill. Soldiers were killed across a much wider area, including ridges, slopes and ravines extending southwards from the final position.

The fighting on Last Stand Hill was therefore only one part of the destruction of Custer's battalion.

Evidence from the battlefield suggests that approximately forty soldiers made a final stand on or close to the hill where the principal memorial now stands.

Their position was surrounded by Lakota and Cheyenne warriors. As other groups of soldiers were overcome, the defenders on the hill faced increasingly concentrated attacks.

The men could use their carbines and revolvers, but they had little cover. The surrounding ground allowed warriors to approach from different directions, while the soldiers had limited opportunities to withdraw.

Native American eyewitness accounts describe fierce fighting, although they differ about individual incidents and the order in which particular groups of soldiers were defeated.

Some warriors recalled soldiers resisting until they were overwhelmed. Others described groups attempting to flee or being pursued down the slopes and into ravines.

These accounts do not necessarily contradict one another. Different witnesses may have observed separate groups of soldiers during a battle spread across a considerable area.

One particularly important location is Deep Ravine, west of the main ridge. Historical accounts and battlefield evidence have led to debate about soldiers who may have attempted to escape towards the river or sought shelter in the ravine.

The precise number of men involved and the circumstances of their deaths remain uncertain.

There is also no reliable evidence establishing the exact moment at which Custer was killed.

He was found on Last Stand Hill, but that does not prove that he was the last soldier to die or that he personally directed every stage of the final defence.

His brother, Captain Tom Custer, and several other officers were also killed during the fighting. The deaths of so many officers contributed to the destruction of the battalion's command structure.

As the remaining soldiers were overwhelmed, organised resistance came to an end.

None of the soldiers who stayed with Custer's five companies survived the battle.

For the Lakota and Cheyenne warriors, the destruction of the battalion was a major military achievement. They had defeated a substantial force of American cavalry while defending a community threatened by attack.

However, the victory was not without loss. Native American warriors had been killed and wounded, and some families had suffered deaths during the fighting in the valley.

It is also important to remember that the battle was fought for reasons much larger than Custer's personal reputation. The warriors were defending their relatives, their hunting grounds and their independence from a government attempting to control their lives.

The expression Custer's Last Stand became famous after the battle, particularly in American newspapers, paintings and popular histories.

Yet the evidence reveals something more complicated than a single heroic or reckless final charge. Custer's companies appear to have fought in several locations, and their destruction resulted from a series of encounters whose exact sequence is still disputed.

By the time the fighting around Custer's battalion ended, the warriors had won a decisive victory in the northern part of the battlefield.

But the battle itself was not yet over.

Reno and Benteen's Defence, 25–26 June

While Custer's five companies were being destroyed, the surviving soldiers under Reno and Benteen were gathering on the bluffs east of the Little Bighorn River.

Their situation was dangerous. Reno's battalion had already suffered heavy losses, and the men were exhausted after their retreat from the valley. Some were wounded, while others had lost equipment or become separated from their comrades.

Benteen's arrival provided fresh soldiers, and the pack train brought ammunition and supplies. Nevertheless, the combined force remained isolated, with large numbers of Lakota and Cheyenne warriors moving through the surrounding country.

The attempt to advance towards Custer had ended when warriors approached Weir Point in overwhelming strength.

The soldiers withdrew to their earlier position, a ridge now known as Reno Hill or the Reno-Benteen Defence Site.

Here, they began organising a defensive perimeter.

The position was not a fort. It consisted of exposed high ground with slopes falling away towards the river and neighbouring ravines. The soldiers had to use the landscape as best they could, placing companies where they could cover likely approaches.

Some men dug shallow rifle pits or used whatever cover was available. Others took positions along the edges of the ridge, watching for warriors approaching through the broken ground.

Reno was the senior surviving officer present, but Benteen played a particularly important part in organising the defence. Accounts from soldiers who survived suggest that his experience and determination helped restore order.

As evening approached on 25 June, Lakota and Cheyenne warriors attacked the position.

The defenders faced gunfire from different directions. Warriors used the surrounding hills and ravines to approach, sometimes firing from places that were difficult for the soldiers to identify.

The Americans returned fire, attempting to prevent the warriors from closing on their perimeter.

For men who had already endured the fighting in the valley, the renewed attack was particularly frightening. They did not know what had happened to Custer, and there was no certainty that another army force would arrive in time to help them.

The soldiers also faced a serious shortage of water.

The Little Bighorn River lay below their position, but reaching it meant travelling down exposed slopes towards ground where Native American warriors could fire on anyone approaching.

Wounded men suffered especially badly from thirst. The weather was warm, and the defenders had to remain in their positions while the fighting continued.

As darkness fell, the intensity of the attacks diminished, although the soldiers remained alert throughout the night.

They used the opportunity to strengthen their positions, care for the wounded and prepare for another attack.

Many still hoped that Custer might appear with reinforcements. They had not yet received confirmation that his entire battalion had been destroyed.

On the morning of Monday 26 June, the Lakota and Cheyenne renewed their attacks.

Warriors approached the defensive perimeter and fired from the surrounding ground. The soldiers responded with concentrated rifle fire, attempting to prevent their positions from being overrun.

At times, the fighting became intense. Benteen helped organise counterattacks to drive warriors away from threatening positions, while officers and enlisted men worked to maintain the defensive line.

One of the most urgent problems remained the lack of water.

Volunteers eventually made dangerous journeys towards the river, carrying containers that could be filled and brought back to the wounded and other soldiers.

Other men provided covering fire to reduce the danger from warriors occupying the nearby ground.

The efforts of these volunteers were important to the survival of the defenders. Without water, the position would have become increasingly difficult to hold, particularly for men already weakened by wounds or exhaustion.

As 26 June continued, the intensity of the Native American attacks gradually decreased.

The warriors had already destroyed Custer's five companies and driven Reno's battalion from the valley. Continuing to attack a defended ridge would involve further casualties, while the families in the encampment needed to prepare for the possibility of more American soldiers arriving.

Reports indicated that General Terry and Colonel Gibbon's forces were approaching the region.

The Native American leaders therefore faced a different problem from the one that had confronted them the previous afternoon. They had won a major victory, but remaining in the valley could expose their families to another army attack.

The large encampment began preparing to move away.

Families dismantled tipis, gathered horses and organised their possessions. The process required considerable effort, especially for those caring for wounded relatives or mourning people killed during the fighting.

During the afternoon and evening of 26 June, the village moved southwards up the Little Bighorn valley.

For the soldiers on Reno Hill, the reduction in gunfire brought relief, but they still did not know the full outcome of the battle.

They had survived nearly two days of fighting and uncertainty. Their position had held, yet five companies of the regiment remained missing.

On 27 June, General Terry and Colonel Gibbon's forces reached the battlefield.

The arriving soldiers found the abandoned Native American encampment and eventually made contact with Reno and Benteen's survivors.

They also discovered the bodies of Custer and the men who had fought with him on the ridges east of the river.

The scale of the disaster was now apparent.

The Seventh Cavalry had suffered a devastating defeat. Its five companies under Custer had been destroyed, while Reno and Benteen's forces had sustained further casualties during the valley fighting and the defence of the bluffs.

For the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and their allies, the battle had demonstrated that they could defeat a major American cavalry force. They had protected their encampment and forced the surviving soldiers to defend themselves rather than continue the attack.

Yet the victory would not end the war. The United States still possessed far greater military and economic resources, and news of Custer's death would provoke a determined response.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn was over, but the consequences for the Native American nations of the northern Plains were only beginning.

Back to Contents

Why Did Custer Lose the Battle of the Little Bighorn?

George Armstrong Custer had experienced considerable success during the American Civil War. He had led daring cavalry attacks, risen rapidly through the ranks and developed a reputation for taking risks that other officers might have avoided. Yet on 25 June 1876, five companies of the Seventh Cavalry were destroyed by Lakota and Northern Cheyenne warriors beside the Little Bighorn River.

Why did an experienced commander suffer such a devastating defeat?

For many years, explanations concentrated almost entirely on Custer himself. Some writers portrayed him as a brave soldier overwhelmed by an unexpectedly powerful enemy. Others blamed his ambition, poor judgement or failure to wait for reinforcements.

These explanations raise important questions, but they tell only part of the story. The Native American warriors were not simply an obstacle that Custer failed to overcome. They made decisions of their own, understood the country and fought effectively to defend their families and independence.

The defeat resulted from several connected circumstances. Custer did not know the full strength of the encampment, he divided his regiment into groups that could not easily support one another, and the warriors defending the village responded with speed and determination.

Even so, historians cannot reconstruct every decision made during Custer's final engagement. None of the soldiers who remained with his five companies survived, and the surviving evidence does not provide a complete account of his intentions.

Understanding the defeat therefore requires more than identifying one mistake. It means examining the information available to Custer, the choices he made and the actions of the people who defeated him.

Did Custer Underestimate Native American Strength?

One of the most important questions concerns the size of the Native American encampment. When Custer approached the Little Bighorn, he knew that a substantial number of Lakota and Cheyenne people had gathered in the valley. What he did not know was how many warriors were present or how quickly they could organise to resist his attack.

The encampment was unusually large. It brought together Lakota bands, Northern Cheyenne families and a small number of Arapaho people. Some had travelled considerable distances to join relatives, hunt buffalo or participate in ceremonies.

Such gatherings were not permanent towns. Their size could change as families arrived or departed, making them difficult for American officers to count accurately.

Modern estimates differ, but the National Park Service suggests that the village may have contained around 8,000 people, including approximately 1,500 to 1,800 warriors. Other historical estimates have been higher or lower, partly because the evidence does not establish an exact population.

Even allowing for that uncertainty, the warriors substantially outnumbered the soldiers Custer took into his final engagement.

The entire Seventh Cavalry numbered only several hundred soldiers. After Custer divided the regiment, approximately 210 men remained with him. Reno and Benteen commanded separate battalions, while another company accompanied the pack train.

Custer's five companies therefore faced the possibility of encountering many times their own number of warriors without immediate support.

His Crow and Arikara scouts had warned him that the trail indicated an exceptionally large village. They were experienced in interpreting signs such as horse tracks, abandoned campsites and the width of a trail made by travelling families.

However, the country made it difficult to see the whole encampment. Hills, river bends and changes in the ground concealed parts of the settlement. Even from a high viewpoint, a distant observer could struggle to distinguish between a large village and a gathering larger than anything the regiment had previously encountered.

There was also a difference between recognising that a village was large and understanding how many warriors might fight to defend it.

American commanders had frequently encountered Native American communities that withdrew when soldiers approached. Army operations often aimed to prevent villages from escaping, because pursuing families and horse herds across the Plains could be extremely difficult.

Custer's immediate concern appears to have been that the encampment would scatter before he could attack. Reports that his soldiers had been detected strengthened his determination to advance on 25 June rather than wait until the following morning.

This was a serious miscalculation.

The village did not simply flee. Its warriors were prepared to fight, and the gathering included men who had recently taken part in the Battle of the Rosebud against General George Crook's forces.

Those warriors had already demonstrated that they could confront a substantial American military column. However, Custer did not know the outcome of the Rosebud battle when he approached the Little Bighorn.

His understanding of the enemy was therefore incomplete in two important respects. He did not appreciate the full size of the gathering, and he lacked recent information showing how effectively its warriors could resist an organised army attack.

It would be unfair to suggest that Custer had been given a precise count of the warriors and deliberately ignored it. No such reliable count existed. Nevertheless, the evidence available to him indicated considerable danger, and his decision to attack left little opportunity to discover more.

Underestimating Native American strength was consequently an important factor in the defeat, although it does not explain everything that followed.

Custer's Military Decisions

Custer's decision to attack on 25 June has attracted criticism ever since the battle. His original intention had been to remain concealed and approach the village the following morning, but he changed his plans after becoming concerned that the inhabitants knew soldiers were nearby.

From Custer's perspective, delay carried a risk. If the village escaped, the army might lose the opportunity to force the Lakota and Cheyenne communities back towards the reservations.

He was also operating as part of a wider campaign. General Alfred Terry and Colonel John Gibbon were approaching from another direction, while General Crook's force had been advancing farther south. The intention was to restrict the movement of Native American communities and prevent them from escaping the army's columns.

Yet Custer did not have those other forces beside him on 25 June. By attacking immediately, he accepted the possibility of fighting a major engagement before Terry and Gibbon could arrive.

The next important decision was to divide the Seventh Cavalry.

Custer sent Benteen south-west with three companies, ordered Reno to attack the southern end of the village with another three, and retained five companies for his own movement northwards. The pack train followed separately.

There were military reasons for using separate detachments. Cavalry could threaten an opponent from several directions, scout unfamiliar ground and attempt to prevent an enemy from escaping.

During the Civil War, Custer had repeatedly benefited from rapid movement and aggressive attacks. He had learned that striking an opponent before they could organise might produce a victory.

However, the circumstances at the Little Bighorn were different.

The regiment was operating in broken country against warriors who knew the landscape well. Once the companies moved apart, ridges and ravines obstructed communication. An officer could not simply look across the battlefield and see where every detachment had gone.

The separation also reduced the strength available at any one point. Reno attacked the village with approximately 140 soldiers, while Custer continued north with about 210. Neither force could count on the immediate assistance of the other.

When Reno encountered unexpectedly strong resistance, his battalion was unable to maintain its advance. Its retreat allowed warriors to turn their attention towards Custer.

Meanwhile, Benteen was returning from his reconnaissance and had not yet reached the main fighting. The pack train, carrying additional ammunition, was also behind the leading companies.

The result was that the regiment could not concentrate its strength when the situation became dangerous.

Historians disagree about how much responsibility should be placed on the decision to divide the command. Some argue that splitting the regiment was a serious error because it exposed relatively small groups of soldiers to a much larger opposing force.

Others point out that dividing cavalry into separate battalions was an established military practice. The problem may have been less the division itself than the assumptions on which it was based.

If the village had been smaller, or if its warriors had fled rather than resisted, Custer's approach might have appeared successful. It became disastrous when the defenders responded with greater strength and speed than he had anticipated.

Another question concerns the support promised to Reno.

Reno understood that the rest of the regiment would support his attack. Instead, Custer moved northwards along the eastern bluffs. The two commands became separated, and Reno was left to confront the warriors gathering against him.

We cannot know exactly how Custer intended to support Reno. He may have expected an attack farther north to draw warriors away from the southern end of the village. He may also have believed that Reno could maintain pressure long enough for his own movement to succeed.

Neither possibility can be established with certainty.

The surviving evidence also does not reveal every decision Custer made after reaching the ridges above the river. Historians disagree about whether he intended to cross at Medicine Tail Coulee, attack another part of the village or continue searching for a suitable position.

It is therefore important to distinguish between decisions that are documented and intentions that have been reconstructed afterwards.

What can be said is that Custer continued the operation without accurate knowledge of the enemy's strength, divided his forces and entered a battle in which his separate detachments could not effectively support one another.

His decisions created serious vulnerabilities. The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors then exploited them.

Native American Tactics and Resistance

Any explanation of Custer's defeat must give proper attention to the people who won the battle.

For much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, popular accounts concentrated on the courage or mistakes of the American soldiers. Native American warriors were sometimes presented as an anonymous crowd whose numbers alone explained the result.

That interpretation overlooks their military experience, knowledge of the landscape and ability to respond to changing circumstances.

The Lakota and Northern Cheyenne had traditions of warfare that differed from those of the US Army. Warriors often fought in smaller groups, relying on speed, individual initiative and cooperation with relatives or companions.

Leadership was not organised through a single chain of command like that of the Seventh Cavalry. Respected warriors could encourage others to follow them, but they did not necessarily issue orders to every fighter present.

This did not prevent effective action. Men who had hunted and fought together understood one another's abilities, and experienced leaders could recognise opportunities as the battle developed.

The warriors also knew the country. They were familiar with river crossings, ridges and ravines, and they could use the uneven ground to approach soldiers without remaining exposed for long periods.

Horses were particularly important. Lakota and Cheyenne warriors were skilled riders, accustomed to travelling and hunting across the Plains. Their mobility allowed them to move quickly between different parts of the battlefield.

When Reno advanced towards the southern end of the village, the defenders initially had to respond to a sudden threat. Families hurried away from the approaching soldiers, while warriors gathered to resist.

Rather than allow Reno's battalion to continue towards the tipis, the warriors challenged its advance. As more men arrived, they threatened the soldiers' flanks and increased the pressure on their defensive line.

Reno eventually withdrew towards the timber and then retreated across the river. Warriors pursued his men, inflicting further casualties and preventing the battalion from returning to the attack.

This was a significant achievement. The defenders had stopped one part of the American assault and forced its survivors onto the bluffs.

It also changed the balance of the wider battle.

Warriors who had been fighting Reno could now move northwards towards Custer's five companies. Others were already responding to the soldiers approaching from that direction.

The Americans were separated into smaller groups. The Native American fighters, by contrast, could move between threatened areas of the village and concentrate against whichever soldiers presented the greatest danger.

Accounts of the fighting around Custer's battalion describe warriors approaching from different directions, using ravines and folds in the ground to reach positions from which they could fire or launch attacks.

Some warriors fought on horseback, while others dismounted and used the terrain for cover. Their methods were flexible, and they adapted to the resistance encountered at different points.

Men such as Crazy Horse, Gall and Two Moons became associated with important parts of the fighting, although the precise actions of individual leaders remain disputed in some eyewitness accounts.

It would be misleading to suggest that Sitting Bull personally directed every movement of the warriors. His importance lay chiefly in his spiritual and political leadership and his influence in bringing communities together.

Nor was the victory the work of one exceptional warrior. Many men from different bands contributed to the defence of the encampment, and their actions were supported by a community determined to protect its families.

The warriors also possessed a variety of weapons.

Some carried repeating rifles, which could fire several shots before reloading. Others used single-shot firearms, revolvers, bows or traditional weapons. Weapons were acquired through trade, earlier fighting and other means.

American cavalrymen generally carried single-shot Springfield carbines and revolvers. Their carbines could be accurate and effective, but each shot required the soldier to reload.

In a battle where warriors could approach rapidly from several directions, the ability of some fighters to fire repeatedly was an advantage. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to assume that all Native American warriors possessed repeating rifles or that superior firearms alone decided the outcome.

Numbers, mobility, terrain and the ability to concentrate attacks were at least as important.

The defenders also had a powerful reason to fight. Their families were living in the village being attacked. The presence of women, children and elderly relatives made the battle an immediate struggle to protect people who might be killed, captured or forced to abandon their homes.

For many of the warriors, the conflict was also connected to the wider defence of their hunting grounds and independence. The American campaign threatened to bring communities living beyond the reservation agencies under government control.

Their victory should not be understood as a fortunate accident caused solely by Custer's mistakes.

The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors defeated Reno's attack, concentrated against Custer's isolated companies and prevented the surviving American soldiers from advancing to his assistance. They then maintained pressure on Reno and Benteen's defensive position until the village prepared to move away.

These actions demonstrate effective resistance by experienced fighters who understood both their immediate task and the wider importance of defending their community.

Could Reinforcements Have Saved Custer?

One of the most frequently debated questions about the Little Bighorn is whether Custer's five companies might have survived if reinforcements had reached them.

The argument centres particularly on Captain Frederick Benteen and Major Marcus Reno.

During the battle, Custer sent a message ordering Benteen to come forward quickly and bring the pack train. The note, written by Lieutenant William Winer Cooke and carried by Giovanni Martini, shows that Custer wanted additional soldiers and ammunition.

However, Benteen encountered Reno's surviving battalion before reaching Custer. Reno's men had been driven from the valley, suffered serious casualties and were attempting to recover on the bluffs.

Reno asked Benteen to remain and help him.

Benteen did so, rather than immediately continuing north with his three companies. His decision later attracted criticism from those who believed that obeying Custer's message should have taken priority.

Yet the situation was not as straightforward as it might appear when viewed with knowledge of the final outcome.

Benteen did not know that Custer's five companies were about to be destroyed, or that their destruction might already have begun. He had found a damaged American battalion facing the possibility of another attack, and he had to decide whether to leave it behind.

Reno's survivors needed support. Many were exhausted or wounded, and their position had not yet been properly secured. Without Benteen's soldiers and the ammunition brought by the pack train, their chances of surviving further attacks might have been considerably worse.

There was also the problem of distance.

Custer had moved northwards along the ridges, and the ground between the separate battalions was difficult. Benteen could not simply ride directly to him across open country. He had to locate the missing companies while avoiding or fighting through Native American warriors.

The timing of the final engagement is another major difficulty.

Because no soldier accompanying Custer survived, historians cannot establish precisely when his companies were overwhelmed. Accounts of gunfire heard from the bluffs help reconstruct the battle, but they do not provide a reliable timetable for the destruction of each company.

Consequently, it is impossible to prove that Benteen could have reached Custer in time, even if he had continued north without stopping.

There was an attempt to find the missing battalion. Captain Thomas Weir advanced north with his company, and other soldiers followed towards the position now called Weir Point.

From there, they could see signs of activity in the distance, but they could not determine Custer's fate. Large numbers of Lakota and Cheyenne warriors then approached, forcing the soldiers to withdraw.

This encounter demonstrated how dangerous any attempt to reach Custer had become.

Even if Benteen's three companies had arrived during the fighting, they would have faced the same large concentration of warriors. Reinforcements might have strengthened Custer's position, but they might also have become trapped alongside him.

The same uncertainty applies to Reno.

Some critics have argued that Reno should have maintained his attack in the valley or moved north to support Custer after reaching the bluffs. However, his battalion had suffered serious losses, and the men were disorganised after a difficult retreat.

It cannot be assumed that Reno possessed the strength or freedom of movement to launch another successful attack.

A different question concerns the other American forces involved in the campaign.

General Terry and Colonel Gibbon were approaching the Little Bighorn from the north, but they did not reach the battlefield until 27 June, after the fighting had ended. General Crook's force was farther south and had withdrawn following the Battle of the Rosebud.

If Custer had waited for Terry and Gibbon, the army would have had more soldiers available for a possible engagement. A combined force might have been better able to withstand a large Native American counterattack.

However, waiting would also have given the encampment time to move. Custer feared losing the opportunity to bring the village to battle, and that concern influenced his decision to attack.

There is no way to know whether a delayed attack would have produced an American victory, a different battle or no battle at all.

Historians sometimes describe such possibilities as counterfactual questions: they ask what might have happened if events had taken a different course. These questions can help us understand the choices available to historical figures, but they cannot provide definite answers.

The strongest conclusion is therefore a cautious one. Additional soldiers and ammunition might have improved Custer's chances, particularly if the regiment had remained together or if other army columns had been nearby. Yet the evidence does not establish that Benteen, Reno or Terry could have saved the five companies once the fighting developed as it did.

The defeat was not simply the result of one officer failing to arrive at the right moment.

Custer had attacked a larger and more determined opposing force than he anticipated. His regiment became separated, communication broke down, and Lakota and Cheyenne warriors used their numbers, mobility and knowledge of the ground to overwhelm the isolated companies.

Those factors together provide a more convincing explanation than blaming one individual decision.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn was both a serious American military defeat and a major Native American victory. Understanding why it happened means recognising the mistakes and limitations of the Seventh Cavalry, but also the courage, experience and effectiveness of the people who fought against it.

Back to Contents

How Many People Died at the Battle of the Little Bighorn?

The Battle of the Little Bighorn was fought over two days, 25 and 26 June 1876, but most of the deaths occurred during the intense fighting on the first afternoon. By the time the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne encampment moved away, George Armstrong Custer and all the soldiers who had remained with his five companies were dead. Other American soldiers had been killed during Major Reno's attack and retreat, while further casualties occurred during the defence of the bluffs.

Native American families had also suffered losses. Warriors died while defending the encampment, and the fighting placed women, children and elderly people in considerable danger.

Establishing the number of people killed is not as straightforward as it might seem. The United States Army kept records of its soldiers, and the names of most of those who died can be identified. However, historical sources do not always use exactly the same total, particularly when civilian employees and Native American scouts are included.

The losses among the Lakota and Cheyenne are harder to calculate. Their dead were generally removed from the battlefield by relatives, and no complete written list of everyone killed was produced at the time.

These differences in the surviving evidence explain why historians can give a reasonably reliable figure for the American dead but only an estimate for the Native American casualties.

US Army Casualties

The Battle of the Little Bighorn was one of the most serious defeats suffered by the United States Army during its nineteenth-century campaigns against Native American nations.

Approximately 268 people serving with or attached to the Seventh Cavalry were killed. This figure includes Custer and other soldiers, together with civilian personnel and Native American scouts who were working with the army.

The exact total varies slightly between authoritative accounts. The National Park Service's chronology gives 268 deaths, while some other historical summaries give figures a few deaths lower. The differences reflect variations in the records and in which categories of people are included.

The essential point is not in dispute. The regiment suffered devastating losses, and five of its twelve companies were destroyed.

Custer had taken approximately 210 men northwards after dividing the Seventh Cavalry. These soldiers belonged to Companies C, E, F, I and L.

None of the men who remained with those five companies survived the battle.

This was an extraordinary loss. An entire group of companies had disappeared from the regiment in the course of a single afternoon, leaving no surviving soldier from Custer's immediate command to describe what had happened.

Among the dead were several experienced officers who had served in earlier campaigns. Captain Myles Keogh, an Irish-born officer who had fought during the American Civil War, was killed with Company I. Captain George Yates and Captain Thomas Custer, George Armstrong Custer's younger brother, also died.

Lieutenant William Winer Cooke, Custer's adjutant, was another casualty. Earlier in the afternoon, Cooke had written the urgent message ordering Captain Benteen to come forward and bring the pack train.

The messenger who carried that note, Giovanni Martini, survived because he had left Custer's command before the final fighting.

Other members of Custer's family were also killed. His younger brother Boston Custer, who was accompanying the expedition as a civilian, died on the battlefield. So did their nephew, Henry Armstrong Reed.

The deaths of several members of the same family added to the personal tragedy of the defeat and attracted considerable attention when the news reached the eastern United States.

However, the losses were not confined to Custer's five companies.

Major Reno's three companies suffered serious casualties during their advance towards the village and their subsequent retreat across the Little Bighorn River. Some soldiers were killed while attempting to hold the skirmish line. Others died in the timber, during the retreat or while trying to reach the bluffs.

Further soldiers were killed or wounded during the fighting around the Reno-Benteen defensive position on 25 and 26 June.

The US Army's published casualty figures include 12 officers and 247 enlisted men killed, together with civilian employees and Native American scouts. They also record more than 50 wounded soldiers.

These figures show how widely the losses were spread across the regiment. Although Custer's death became the best-known part of the story, men serving under Reno and Benteen had also experienced a costly and dangerous battle.

The wounded faced particularly difficult conditions.

During the defence of the bluffs, the soldiers had only limited medical supplies. Their position was exposed to Native American gunfire, and the shortage of water made caring for injured men even more difficult.

Acting Assistant Surgeon Henry Rinaldo Porter was the only army surgeon who survived the battle. He established an improvised field hospital in a sheltered depression near the defensive position.

Porter treated men suffering from gunshot wounds and other injuries while the fighting continued around them. He had some medicines to relieve pain, but there was little opportunity to provide the kind of medical treatment available in a properly equipped hospital.

Obtaining water became one of the greatest challenges. Volunteers risked their lives travelling towards the river to fill containers and bring them back to the wounded.

After General Alfred Terry and Colonel John Gibbon's forces arrived on 27 June, the survivors could finally receive assistance.

During the following days, wounded soldiers were transported towards the Yellowstone River, where the steamboat Far West was waiting. The vessel carried casualties to Fort Abraham Lincoln in Dakota Territory for further medical treatment.

The army's records also reveal the different backgrounds of the people who died. The Seventh Cavalry included men born in the United States and immigrants from several European countries. They served alongside civilian employees and Native American scouts whose reasons for joining the expedition were not necessarily the same.

Among the Native American scouts killed were Arikara men who had helped the army locate and follow the Lakota and Cheyenne encampment. Bloody Knife, one of Custer's most experienced scouts, was killed during Reno's fighting in the valley.

His death is a reminder that the American losses were not exclusively those of white soldiers. Native American men serving with the army also died, sometimes while fighting against peoples with whom their own nations had longstanding disputes.

For the families of those killed, the distinction between military defeat and personal loss was painfully clear. Husbands, sons, brothers and fathers did not return from the campaign. Many families had to wait for news, and some received only limited information about how their relatives had died.

The scale of the losses shocked the United States. Yet the American casualty figures tell only one side of the human cost of the battle.

Native American Casualties

The Lakota and Northern Cheyenne won a major victory at the Little Bighorn, but they also lost warriors, relatives and friends.

Exactly how many Native American people died is unknown.

The National Park Service estimates that approximately 60 to 100 Lakota and Cheyenne people were killed. Other historians have suggested different totals, reflecting the uncertainty of the surviving evidence.

Unlike the Seventh Cavalry, the warriors defending the village were not members of a single regiment with a centralised written record of everyone taking part. They came from different Lakota bands, Northern Cheyenne communities and a small number of other allied groups.

Families and communities remembered their own dead, but there was no single list recording all the casualties from the fighting.

Another difficulty arose from what happened after the battle.

The Lakota and Cheyenne generally removed their dead from the battlefield. Relatives prepared bodies according to their own customs, and some were placed in tipis or on raised wooden platforms in the surrounding country.

By the time American soldiers arrived on 27 June, most of the Native American dead had already been taken away. The army therefore could not establish their number by counting bodies left on the battlefield.

It is also possible that some people died later from wounds received during the fighting. Without complete records, historians cannot always determine whether such deaths were included in estimates made at the time.

The losses were not spread evenly among the different communities. Some bands were involved in particularly intense fighting, while others experienced fewer casualties.

The Northern Cheyenne remembered several warriors killed during the battle. Among them was Lame White Man, an experienced fighter who took part in the struggle against Custer's companies.

Accounts of his death differ in some details, but his loss became part of the Cheyenne memory of the battle. His story illustrates how a victory celebrated by an entire community could still bring grief to individual families.

For the Lakota, too, the battle involved personal losses. Warriors fought to protect relatives living in the encampment, and some discovered that members of their own families had been killed or wounded.

Gall, a Hunkpapa Lakota leader, is associated in historical accounts with the loss of family members during the fighting. His experience reflects the immediate danger faced by people living at the southern end of the village when Reno's soldiers approached.

It is important to remember that the encampment was not simply a gathering of warriors. It contained thousands of people, including children, elderly relatives and families carrying out their ordinary activities when the soldiers arrived.

During Reno's attack, many inhabitants hurried to escape from the advancing cavalry. Women gathered children, people attempted to recover horses and possessions, and families moved away from the areas where fighting was developing.

Some Native American women also participated directly in the fighting. Their experiences demonstrate that the defence of the village was not undertaken exclusively by men.

The available evidence does not allow historians to give a reliable total for civilian deaths or to establish the precise circumstances of every person killed during the battle.

We should therefore avoid treating the estimated Native American death toll as an exact count or assuming that it includes every person who may have died from injuries afterwards.

There is another important difference between the way the two sides experienced their losses.

The American soldiers who died were part of a military expedition sent to compel Native American communities to submit to government authority. The Lakota and Cheyenne were defending an encampment containing their homes, relatives and possessions.

For the people in the village, the danger did not end when the soldiers stopped fighting. Families had to care for the wounded, mourn their dead and prepare to move before further American forces arrived.

The victory was therefore accompanied by difficult decisions. The large encampment could not safely remain in the Little Bighorn valley indefinitely, particularly once reports suggested that more soldiers were approaching.

During 26 June, the families began dismantling their tipis and gathering their belongings. The movement involved thousands of people and large numbers of horses, as well as those who were injured or grieving.

The community had successfully defended itself, but it still faced an uncertain future.

Later American accounts often concentrated on the deaths of Custer and his soldiers. Native American losses received much less attention, partly because the names and experiences of the dead were preserved mainly through family memories and oral histories rather than army records.

Those memories are an important part of the historical evidence. They help us recognise that the Lakota and Cheyenne victory was achieved by real people who experienced both courage and suffering.

When considering the casualties at the Little Bighorn, the most responsible conclusion is that approximately 268 people serving with the American force were killed, while an estimated 60 to 100 Lakota and Cheyenne people also died.

The American figure is comparatively well documented. The Native American figure remains an estimate, and the true number may never be established.

The Discovery of Custer's Body

On 27 June 1876, two days after Custer's five companies had been destroyed, General Alfred Terry and Colonel John Gibbon's forces reached the Little Bighorn battlefield.

They found the surviving soldiers under Reno and Benteen exhausted after their defence of the bluffs. The men had endured gunfire, thirst and uncertainty, and many still did not know what had happened to Custer.

The arriving troops began searching the country to the north, following the route Custer had taken on 25 June.

What they discovered was devastating.

Bodies lay scattered across the ridges and slopes east of the Little Bighorn River. Some were found alone, while others lay close together in places where groups of soldiers had apparently attempted to resist the warriors attacking them.

The positions of the dead showed that Custer's companies had not all been killed in one place. Fighting had taken place across a considerable area, including the ground around Calhoun Hill and the northern ridge later associated with Custer's Last Stand.

The summer heat had already affected the bodies, making identification difficult. Some had been stripped of clothing or equipment, and a number showed signs of mutilation.

These discoveries were deeply disturbing to the soldiers who found them. They also contributed to the anger and shock that followed when reports of the defeat reached the wider American public.

However, the condition of the bodies cannot by itself establish exactly how the men had died. Some injuries may have occurred during the fighting, while others were inflicted after death.

Different Native American communities had their own beliefs and practices concerning enemies killed in battle. It would be misleading to suggest that every warrior behaved in the same way or that all the dead were treated alike.

Among the bodies discovered on the northern part of the battlefield was that of George Armstrong Custer.

He was found near the crest of the hill that would later become known as Last Stand Hill. Several officers and other members of his command lay nearby.

Custer's body was identified by the soldiers examining the battlefield. Although much of his clothing had been removed, his remains were relatively recognisable compared with some of those around him.

Accounts recorded two gunshot wounds, one in the left side of his chest and another in his left temple.

Both were serious injuries, but the evidence does not establish which was inflicted first or the precise circumstances of his death.

It is sometimes suggested that Custer killed himself rather than be captured. Other accounts claim that a particular Native American warrior shot him during the fighting.

Neither explanation can be established as fact.

No American soldier who remained with Custer survived to describe his death. Native American eyewitnesses later gave accounts of the fighting, but identifying one officer amid the confusion of battle was difficult, and their descriptions do not provide a universally accepted answer.

His body being found on Last Stand Hill also does not prove that he died there at the final moment of resistance. It establishes where his remains were discovered, not the complete sequence of events leading to his death.

The soldiers also found the bodies of Custer's younger brothers, Thomas and Boston, and his nephew Henry Armstrong Reed. Their deaths reinforced the scale of the family tragedy.

Thomas Custer's body had been badly damaged, making identification difficult. He was eventually recognised in part through a tattoo on his arm.

The discovery of the dead created an urgent practical problem.

The bodies had been exposed to the summer weather for nearly two days, and the army had limited tools and equipment for burial. There was little possibility of transporting so many remains away from the battlefield.

On 28 June, soldiers from Reno's surviving companies began burying Custer's command.

Most of the dead were placed in shallow graves near the positions where they had been found. Wooden poles taken from the abandoned Native American encampment were used to mark some of the burial sites.

These were hurried burials carried out under difficult conditions. The soldiers were exhausted, the weather was hot and the battlefield extended across rough ground.

During the following years, some remains were recovered and moved to other burial places.

Custer's remains were removed from the battlefield in 1877 and reinterred at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, where he had graduated in 1861.

Other officers were also reburied elsewhere, sometimes at the request of their families.

In 1881, the War Department erected a granite memorial on Last Stand Hill. Remains of soldiers and other personnel still buried on the battlefield were gathered into a mass grave beneath and around the monument.

Later, white marble markers were placed at locations associated with the fallen soldiers. These markers helped visitors understand the extent of the fighting, although they do not necessarily identify the exact spot where every individual died.

For many years, the battlefield's monuments concentrated almost entirely on the American dead. The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors who had died defending their encampment received far less official recognition.

That imbalance would eventually become an important issue in the way the battlefield was remembered and interpreted. Later memorials sought to acknowledge the Native American peoples who fought there, including those who lost their lives.

The discovery of Custer's body made his defeat impossible to conceal or dismiss. An officer who had become famous for daring cavalry attacks was dead, together with the men who had followed him into battle.

Yet the positions of the bodies could answer only some of the questions surrounding his final hours. They showed where soldiers had fallen, but not every movement they had made or every decision their commanders had taken.

To understand the battle more fully, historians must combine this physical evidence with military reports, Native American eyewitness accounts and archaeological discoveries.

Those different forms of evidence are the subject of the next section.

Back to Contents

How Do Historians Know What Happened at the Little Bighorn?

On 27 June 1876, when American soldiers reached the ground where Custer's five companies had been destroyed, they found bodies scattered across the hills above the Little Bighorn River. There were abandoned weapons, cartridge cases and signs of fighting, but no surviving soldier from Custer's immediate command to explain what had happened.

It was an unusual problem for the army. The deaths of so many men could be confirmed, yet the precise events leading to their destruction remained uncertain.

There were survivors elsewhere on the battlefield. Soldiers who had fought under Major Marcus Reno and Captain Frederick Benteen could describe their own experiences, and Native American warriors had witnessed much of the fighting against Custer. The difficulty was that these people had seen different parts of a battle spread across several miles of difficult country.

Imagine standing behind a ridge while gunfire continues on the other side. You might hear hundreds of shots without knowing who was firing, how many people were involved or whether the fighting was advancing towards you. Even someone watching from a nearby hill could misunderstand events taking place beyond the next rise in the ground.

That is one reason why historians do not rely on a single account of the Little Bighorn.

They compare eyewitness memories with army documents, maps, photographs and objects recovered from the battlefield. They also consider when an account was recorded, who supplied it and whether later events might have influenced the person's recollection.

The result is a picture of the battle that is much clearer than it was in 1876, although some questions may never be answered.

Native American Eyewitness Accounts

The Lakota and Northern Cheyenne warriors who fought at the Little Bighorn were among the most important witnesses to Custer's defeat. Many had seen the American soldiers approaching, taken part in the fighting and watched the final resistance of the isolated companies.

Without their accounts, historians would know considerably less about what happened on the afternoon of 25 June.

For a long time, however, Native American testimony did not receive the attention it deserved. Popular accounts often concentrated on the American officers, particularly Custer, Reno and Benteen. Some writers treated Native American descriptions as unreliable while accepting the memories of American soldiers with much less questioning.

This was not a sound way to investigate the battle. Every eyewitness account needs to be examined carefully, regardless of which side the witness fought on.

Native American accounts also have particular strengths. The warriors knew the landscape, recognised the different bands gathered in the village and understood the reasons why people moved towards particular parts of the battlefield. Some were close enough to describe events that American survivors could only hear from a distance.

Among the best-known witnesses was Wooden Leg, a Northern Cheyenne warrior who was about eighteen years old when the battle took place.

Wooden Leg had also fought at the Battle of the Rosebud, eight days earlier. His recollections of the Little Bighorn describe the arrival of the soldiers, the response of the warriors and his experiences during the fighting.

Decades afterwards, a physician named Thomas B. Marquis interviewed him extensively. Marquis had worked among the Northern Cheyenne and became interested in preserving the memories of people who had witnessed the conflicts of the 1870s.

Wooden Leg's account was eventually published as Wooden Leg: A Warrior Who Fought Custer. The book offers a detailed view of Cheyenne life as well as the battle itself.

There is something particularly valuable about this testimony. Wooden Leg did not describe the Little Bighorn simply as a famous military event. He remembered it as part of his own life, involving people he knew, horses he rode and places he had travelled through.

His recollections also show why historians must consider how testimony was collected. The interviews took place many years after 1876, and the published account was shaped through conversations with Marquis. Wooden Leg's memories remain important, but the book is not a word-for-word record made on the day of the battle.

Other Native American participants also supplied accounts.

Gall, a Hunkpapa Lakota leader, described the fighting against Reno and Custer. He was especially well placed to discuss the response of warriors near the southern part of the village, where Reno's attack first threatened the encampment.

White Bull, a Lakota warrior, later gave accounts of his experiences in the battle. Some descriptions attributed to him have been used in attempts to identify the warrior who killed Custer, although that claim cannot be proved.

Two Moons, a Northern Cheyenne leader, was another important witness. His recollections contributed to the understanding of how Cheyenne warriors responded to the soldiers and fought alongside the Lakota.

Not every participant remembered the same events in the same way.

One warrior might describe soldiers advancing towards the river, while another remembered them moving along a ridge. Such differences do not automatically mean that one witness was lying. They may have been watching different companies, observing events at different times or describing the same ground from opposite directions.

Translation introduces another difficulty. Some interviews were conducted through interpreters, and Native American descriptions of distance, time or military movements did not always correspond neatly with the terminology used by American officers.

A warrior might refer to a particular bend in the river or a familiar hill without giving it the name later used on army maps. Historians then have to work out which location was being described.

There is also the question of memory.

People who experience a frightening or confusing event may remember certain moments with extraordinary clarity while forgetting the order in which other things happened. As the years pass, conversations with friends and relatives can influence the way those memories are told.

This applies to American soldiers as much as to Native American warriors.

Some witnesses were interviewed more than once and gave accounts that differed in detail. Historians compare these versions rather than automatically selecting whichever one best supports a preferred explanation.

Native American oral traditions provide another form of evidence. Families preserved stories about relatives who had fought or died, and these memories were passed between generations.

Such traditions can preserve names, experiences and perspectives missing from official documents. They also require careful interpretation, particularly when a story has been retold over many years.

One especially important contribution of Native American testimony is that it challenges the familiar image of Custer's men standing together on a single hill until the last soldier fell.

Several accounts describe fighting at different positions, with soldiers retreating or becoming separated as warriors advanced. These descriptions are broadly consistent with evidence showing that the final engagement extended across several ridges and slopes.

They do not, however, provide an agreed account of every movement.

The strongest historical approach is to treat Native American witnesses as essential participants in the story, examine their testimony critically and compare it with other evidence. Their accounts are not simply an alternative to the American version. They are part of the evidence from which the history of the battle must be reconstructed.

Military Testimony and Official Records

The US Army produced a substantial collection of documents relating to the Little Bighorn. These included orders, correspondence, reports and statements made by surviving soldiers.

Such records are valuable because some were written soon after the battle, before memories had faded. They can establish where officers were ordered to go, when certain messages were sent and which men were serving in particular companies.

They are not necessarily complete or impartial.

The most obvious limitation is that Custer left no surviving report explaining his final movements. His last known message, written by Lieutenant William Winer Cooke and carried to Benteen by Giovanni Martini, asked for assistance and the pack train.

It proves that Custer wanted reinforcements, but it does not tell us exactly what he intended to do next.

Reno and Benteen survived, and both became central figures in the arguments that followed the defeat. Their decisions were examined by officers, journalists and members of the public who wanted to understand why Custer had not been supported.

Reno faced particularly strong criticism.

Some accused him of abandoning his attack in the valley too quickly. Others argued that he should have attempted to reach Custer rather than remaining on the bluffs.

Reno defended his conduct, maintaining that his men had faced overwhelming opposition and that retreat had been necessary to prevent their destruction.

In 1879, he requested an official Court of Inquiry to examine his actions.

The proceedings brought together testimony from officers and civilians who had been present during the battle. Witnesses were questioned about Reno's advance, the withdrawal into the timber, the retreat across the river and the subsequent defence of the hilltop position.

It was an opportunity to examine the evidence in considerable detail, but it was not the same as having an independent recording of events.

Witnesses had different experiences, and some disagreed sharply about what Reno had done. Officers who served together also had professional relationships that could influence how they described one another's conduct.

There were reputations at stake.

Reno wanted to defend his career. Other officers had reasons to explain why their own decisions had been appropriate, particularly when they were questioned about the failure to reach Custer.

None of this means that their testimony should be dismissed. It means that historians need to read it with an understanding of the circumstances in which it was given.

One witness was Acting Assistant Surgeon Henry Rinaldo Porter, who had accompanied Reno's battalion.

Porter described the confusion of Reno's retreat and the difficulties faced by the surviving soldiers. His account was particularly valuable because he had been present during the fighting and later treated wounded men on the defensive position.

However, Porter could only testify about events he had witnessed or information he had received from others. Like the other survivors, he could not provide a direct account of Custer's final moments.

After considering the testimony, the Court of Inquiry concluded that Reno's conduct did not require adverse criticism from the court. This did not end public disagreement about his decisions, and historians have continued to debate his performance.

The court's findings are therefore an important historical document, not a final answer to every question about Reno.

Another difficulty arises from the way soldiers remembered time.

During the battle, men heard gunfire from different directions, moved between positions and attempted to interpret events they could not see. Watches were not necessarily synchronised, and some witnesses later estimated the time from memory.

Consequently, two soldiers might agree that they heard heavy firing to the north but disagree about when it began or how long it continued.

These differences matter when historians attempt to reconstruct the final engagement. A change of only twenty or thirty minutes can affect an argument about whether Benteen might have reached Custer before the fighting ended.

Official correspondence provides a firmer basis for some parts of the story.

Orders issued before the campaign help establish what General Terry expected Custer to do. Records of the regiment identify the companies assigned to different commanders, while later reports describe the discovery of the battlefield and the treatment of the wounded.

Letters written by participants can add personal detail. They may reveal what an officer believed at the time or how he responded to the news of the defeat.

Yet letters have their own limitations. A private letter may contain rumours, misunderstandings or information received second-hand. Newspaper reports sometimes repeated dramatic stories before anyone had checked whether they were true.

Historians therefore ask a simple but important question when examining a document: how did its author know what they were describing?

A soldier who saw Reno's retreat can provide direct testimony about it. The same soldier's description of Custer's death, if based only on rumours heard afterwards, is a different kind of evidence.

Separating those two things is essential.

What Has Archaeology Revealed?

For more than a century, much of the debate about the Little Bighorn depended on written accounts and memories. Archaeology offered another way of investigating the battle: examining objects left in the ground.

The battlefield contains evidence that neither soldiers nor warriors intended to leave for future historians.

Spent cartridge cases, bullets, fragments of equipment and other objects can help identify where fighting took place. Their positions may also suggest how soldiers and warriors moved across the landscape.

One of the most important developments came after a grass fire swept across parts of the battlefield in 1983.

The fire removed vegetation and exposed ground that had previously been difficult to examine. Archaeologists were able to carry out systematic surveys of areas associated with Custer's final engagement.

During the following years, teams led by archaeologist Douglas D. Scott and colleagues used metal detectors and careful recording methods to locate thousands of objects.

Rather than simply collecting interesting finds, they recorded where each object had been discovered.

That distinction is crucial.

A cartridge case displayed in a museum tells us something about the weapon that fired it. A cartridge case whose original position has been recorded on a map may also help us understand where someone was shooting during the battle.

When hundreds of finds are plotted together, patterns begin to appear.

Clusters of cartridge cases can indicate places where soldiers or warriors fired repeatedly. Other areas contain fewer objects, suggesting that fighting there may have been brief or that people moved through without remaining in one position for long.

Archaeologists can also examine marks left on cartridge cases by firearms.

When a gun is fired, parts of its mechanism may leave distinctive marks on the cartridge. By comparing these marks, specialists can sometimes identify cases fired by the same individual weapon.

This technique has helped researchers investigate the movement of firearms across the Little Bighorn battlefield.

For example, if cartridge cases bearing matching marks are found at separate locations, they may indicate that the same weapon was fired in more than one place. That could suggest movement during the fighting, although the weapon might also have changed hands.

Archaeologists have identified evidence of different firearms used by the two sides, including the army's Springfield carbines and a variety of weapons carried by Native American warriors.

These discoveries help correct a common misunderstanding about the battle.

It is sometimes claimed that the Lakota and Cheyenne won simply because every warrior possessed a repeating rifle, while the soldiers were helpless with inferior weapons. The archaeological evidence shows a much more varied picture.

Some warriors used repeating firearms, but others carried different rifles or weapons. The American soldiers' Springfield carbines were capable firearms, although they required reloading after each shot.

Weapons mattered, but they cannot explain the defeat on their own.

The distribution of objects has also challenged the traditional image of Custer's Last Stand.

For many years, paintings and films showed the soldiers gathered closely around Custer on a hill, firing in every direction until the last man fell. Archaeological research indicates that fighting occurred across a wider area, with different groups of soldiers occupying positions along Battle Ridge.

Richard A. Fox, an archaeologist who studied the evidence, argued that Custer's command initially maintained some military organisation but then suffered a rapid breakdown as the warriors pressed their attacks.

In his interpretation, the final stages were not a single prolonged and orderly defence. Soldiers became separated, resistance collapsed in different places and some attempted to escape from positions that could no longer be held.

Other historians have questioned aspects of Fox's reconstruction. They agree that the archaeological evidence is important but differ over how confidently it can reveal the actions and intentions of individual soldiers.

This is a useful reminder that archaeology does not remove the need for interpretation.

Consider a group of cartridge cases found on a slope. They might indicate that soldiers stood there and fired for several minutes. But how many men were present? Were they retreating or defending a position? Did they fire at approaching warriors or at enemies already passing them?

The objects alone cannot answer every question.

There is also the problem of what happened to the battlefield after 1876.

Native American warriors collected weapons and ammunition after the fighting. American soldiers recovered equipment when they arrived, and visitors later removed objects as souvenirs.

Burials, reburials, memorial construction and natural erosion have altered parts of the ground. Some objects were moved from their original positions, while others may never have been recovered.

For these reasons, a place where archaeologists find few cartridge cases cannot automatically be described as somewhere no fighting occurred.

Human remains have provided another form of evidence.

Archaeological and forensic studies can sometimes reveal the age of an individual, injuries suffered or details of burial practices. However, the movement and reburial of remains since 1876 make it difficult to connect every discovery with a particular soldier or event.

Modern battlefield research has also involved maps, landscape studies and comparisons with historical photographs. These methods help researchers understand how ridges, ravines and river crossings affected what participants could see.

Perhaps the greatest achievement of archaeology has been to give historians a way of testing claims that once depended almost entirely on eyewitness testimony.

If a witness described fighting in a particular ravine, physical evidence may help establish whether weapons were fired there. If a popular account claimed that all the soldiers died together on one hill, the wider distribution of battlefield objects provides good reason to question it.

Archaeology has not solved every mystery of the Little Bighorn. It has, however, made some explanations more convincing and others much harder to defend.

What Historians Still Do Not Know

Despite nearly 150 years of investigation, the Battle of the Little Bighorn still contains unanswered questions.

One concerns Custer's intentions after he separated from Reno. Historians know that he moved northwards along the bluffs and that his companies eventually fought on the ridges east of the river.

What remains uncertain is precisely what he intended to achieve during those movements.

Did he plan to cross the Little Bighorn and attack the village from another direction? Was he searching for a suitable crossing? Or did his plans change as he discovered the scale of the resistance?

Different explanations have been proposed, but no surviving order or eyewitness account establishes his complete plan.

The fighting around Medicine Tail Coulee is another subject of debate. Some Native American accounts describe soldiers approaching the river, and historians have suggested that Custer may have considered crossing there.

Others argue that the evidence is insufficient to prove that a determined attempt to cross took place.

Even the exact timing of Custer's defeat remains uncertain.

Soldiers with Reno and Benteen heard gunfire to the north, but they could not see every part of the engagement. Native American witnesses described intense fighting, although their recollections do not produce a single agreed timetable.

Archaeological discoveries can indicate where weapons were fired, but a cartridge case does not tell us the time at which it was left on the ground.

Consequently, historians cannot establish the precise minute when the last organised resistance ended.

There is also continuing debate about how Custer's companies broke apart.

Some interpretations suggest that different groups fought from a series of defensive positions before being overwhelmed. Others place greater emphasis on a rapid collapse, with soldiers retreating or fleeing as their positions became impossible to defend.

Both interpretations draw on evidence, but they differ in the way they connect the surviving clues.

The death of Custer himself remains one of the most familiar mysteries.

His body was found near the crest of Last Stand Hill with two gunshot wounds. That discovery confirms that he died during the battle, but it does not reveal who fired the shots or exactly when he was killed.

Several stories have claimed to identify the warrior responsible. Others suggest that Custer took his own life rather than face capture.

There is no reliable evidence that allows historians to choose one of these explanations as an established fact.

Another uncertainty concerns the number of warriors who participated in the fighting. Estimates of the encampment's population and fighting strength vary, and no complete list of those present was recorded.

Historians can be confident that Custer faced a force substantially larger than his five companies, but they cannot give an exact number of warriors engaged at every stage of the battle.

It is tempting to imagine that one more document or archaeological discovery will eventually answer every question. Some details may indeed become clearer as research continues.

Others are likely to remain beyond our reach.

Historical investigation is not simply a matter of finding the most dramatic story and repeating it. It involves asking what the evidence can establish, recognising when sources disagree and being prepared to revise an interpretation when new information appears.

The Little Bighorn offers an especially good example of this process.

For generations, the popular image of Custer's Last Stand was shaped by paintings, newspaper stories and accounts that concentrated on the American dead. The voices of Lakota and Cheyenne participants, together with later archaeological research, have produced a much more complicated understanding.

We now know that the battle was fought across several locations, that Native American warriors played a decisive part in determining its course and that many familiar stories cannot be accepted without question.

There is still room for disagreement, and that is not necessarily a weakness in the study of history.

A careful historian should be able to explain why one interpretation seems more convincing than another, while acknowledging the evidence that remains uncertain. Students can do the same when examining sources in a history lesson.

The important distinction is between what we know, what the evidence suggests and what we can only speculate about.

That distinction matters particularly at the Little Bighorn, where the deaths of Custer and his soldiers became part of a national legend. The battle itself was a real event involving thousands of people, and its history deserves to be understood through evidence rather than legend alone.

Back to Contents

What Happened After the Battle of the Little Bighorn?

When the fighting ended at the Little Bighorn in June 1876, the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne had achieved an extraordinary victory. Custer and the five companies under his immediate command had been destroyed, while the surviving American soldiers had spent much of two days defending themselves against further attacks.

For the Native American families who had gathered beside the river, the victory meant that their encampment had escaped a major threat. They had protected their homes and prevented the army from forcing them to surrender.

But winning the battle did not mean that the war was over.

The United States possessed far greater military resources than the Native American nations. It could recruit additional soldiers, replace lost equipment and send new expeditions into the northern Plains. The Lakota and Cheyenne, by contrast, depended on their horses, hunting grounds and the ability of their communities to obtain food while remaining beyond government control.

The consequences of the battle were therefore very different from what its immediate result might suggest. The American defeat encouraged a renewed military campaign, and within the following year the independence of many of the communities that had fought at the Little Bighorn was severely weakened.

At the same time, the United States government moved to take possession of the Black Hills. This land dispute would continue long after the fighting ended and eventually reach the Supreme Court more than a century later.

News of Custer's Defeat Reaches America

In 1876, news could travel rapidly by telegraph, but only once a message reached somewhere connected to the telegraph network. The Little Bighorn battlefield lay in a remote part of Montana Territory, far from the major towns and railway lines of the eastern United States.

General Alfred Terry and Colonel John Gibbon's troops reached the battlefield on 27 June. They discovered Custer's dead and relieved the exhausted survivors under Reno and Benteen, but there was no immediate way to send the news directly to Washington.

The steamboat Far West, commanded by Captain Grant Marsh, became the vital link between the battlefield and the outside world.

The vessel had supported Terry's expedition by transporting supplies and personnel along the Yellowstone River. After the battle, it carried wounded soldiers and reports of the defeat towards Bismarck in Dakota Territory.

Marsh travelled with remarkable speed, navigating the Missouri and Yellowstone river system to reach a town where the news could be transmitted by telegraph.

Late on 5 July 1876, the Far West arrived at Bismarck.

The news began spreading almost immediately. On 6 July, the Bismarck Tribune published details of the disaster, and telegraph messages carried the story to newspapers and military authorities across the country.

The timing made the defeat particularly shocking. The United States had just celebrated the hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1876. Centennial celebrations were taking place throughout the country, and Philadelphia was hosting an enormous international exhibition marking the occasion.

Many Americans had been celebrating a century of national achievement when they learned that one of their best-known cavalry officers had been killed with hundreds of his men.

General William Tecumseh Sherman, the army's commanding general, and General Philip Sheridan received the news while attending the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia.

For the families at Fort Abraham Lincoln, near Bismarck, the disaster was much more personal.

Elizabeth Custer, usually known as Libbie, was informed of her husband's death on the morning of 6 July. She had been married to George Armstrong Custer for twelve years and had accompanied him during parts of his military career.

Other women at the fort learned that their husbands, brothers or sons had also been killed. Some had lost relatives serving in Custer's five companies; others faced the uncertainty of waiting for more complete information about the surviving soldiers.

Libbie later wrote about the suffering experienced by the families at the post. Her recollections show that behind the national headlines were households suddenly deprived of people they loved.

Across the United States, newspapers attempted to explain what had happened. Some described Custer as a brave officer overwhelmed by an enormous Native American force. Others questioned his decisions or suggested that Reno and Benteen had failed to support him.

These arguments began before the full evidence was available.

There were no surviving soldiers from Custer's immediate command to describe his final movements, and the first reports were necessarily incomplete. Nevertheless, dramatic accounts circulated quickly, helping establish the image of Custer's Last Stand.

Many newspaper reports also reflected the prejudices of the period. Native American warriors were often described in hostile or dehumanising language, while comparatively little attention was given to the treaty disputes and American policies that had brought the two sides into conflict.

The defeat was widely presented as an attack on the United States itself, rather than as a victory by Native American communities defending their land and independence.

That distinction mattered. Public anger helped create support for a stronger military response, even though the army's campaign against the Lakota and Cheyenne had begun before Custer's defeat.

For Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and the families who had fought at the Little Bighorn, the news spreading through American cities meant that more soldiers would soon be sent against them.

The US Army's Renewed Campaign

The American government did not respond to the Little Bighorn by abandoning its attempt to control the northern Plains. Instead, the army increased the pressure on Lakota and Northern Cheyenne communities that remained outside the reservation system.

More troops were assigned to the campaign, and commanders sought to prevent the Native American bands from gathering again in such a large and powerful encampment.

After the battle, the families who had been living beside the Little Bighorn River separated into smaller groups. Maintaining a village of thousands of people required enormous quantities of food and grazing for horses. Smaller camps could move more easily and were less vulnerable to an attack by a large army force.

Yet separation brought disadvantages. The warriors no longer possessed the combined strength that had helped them defeat Custer, and individual bands could be pursued by soldiers operating across different parts of the Plains.

General Terry continued operations in the north, while General George Crook resumed campaigning from the south. Colonel Nelson A. Miles, commanding troops of the Fifth Infantry, became another important figure in the effort to force Native American communities to surrender.

The army's methods were not limited to fighting warriors in open battle.

Soldiers pursued camps, seized horses and destroyed food supplies. They also attacked villages during periods when families were particularly vulnerable, including the colder months when obtaining shelter and food was difficult.

These tactics were intended to make continued resistance impossible. If a community lost its horses, it might struggle to transport tipis, possessions and children. The destruction of stored food or winter shelters could place everyone in danger, whether they had fought in the battle or not.

One important engagement occurred on 9 September 1876 at Slim Buttes, in present-day South Dakota.

During a campaign through the Black Hills region, troops under Crook attacked a Lakota village associated with the Oglala leader American Horse. The fighting resulted in deaths on both sides, and American Horse was mortally wounded.

Soldiers captured supplies and equipment from the village. For Crook's exhausted men, who had been struggling with shortages of food during a difficult march, these supplies were particularly valuable.

For the Lakota families, however, the attack meant the loss of possessions and provisions they needed for survival.

Further military operations followed.

In November 1876, troops under Colonel Ranald S. Mackenzie attacked a Northern Cheyenne village in the Bighorn Mountains. The attack is commonly known as the Dull Knife Fight, although the village was also associated with the Cheyenne leader Little Wolf.

Many inhabitants escaped, but the soldiers destroyed the village and captured or dispersed large numbers of horses. Families were left exposed to winter conditions without much of the equipment and shelter on which they depended.

The consequences extended beyond the immediate fighting. Some Cheyenne survivors sought refuge with other Native American communities, while others eventually made their way towards government agencies.

Colonel Miles also continued pursuing Lakota and Cheyenne groups through the winter of 1876–1877.

On 8 January 1877, his troops fought warriors associated with Crazy Horse at the Battle of Wolf Mountain, near the Tongue River in Montana Territory. The engagement took place in severe winter weather, with snow and freezing temperatures adding to the difficulties faced by both sides.

Crazy Horse and his followers withdrew, but the army's continued presence made it increasingly difficult for them to find secure places to camp.

The destruction of villages, the loss of horses and the growing scarcity of buffalo all placed pressure on Native American families. The situation was particularly difficult for people who had children or elderly relatives to care for.

Some communities surrendered because they no longer believed they could obtain enough food or protection by remaining beyond the reservations. Others hoped that accepting government authority might prevent further suffering.

The army also increased pressure on Native American people already living at reservation agencies. In some cases, officials withheld supplies or used the threat of military force to secure compliance with government demands.

By the spring of 1877, the position of the independent Lakota and Northern Cheyenne bands had changed dramatically.

Less than a year earlier, they had gathered in sufficient numbers to defeat Custer's regiment. Now many were scattered, hungry or struggling to maintain their horses and equipment. Their victory at the Little Bighorn had not removed the wider imbalance in resources between the Native American nations and the United States.

Most of the groups that had continued resisting eventually surrendered. Others, including Sitting Bull's followers, sought safety beyond the American border.

The campaign demonstrates why historians distinguish between winning a battle and winning a war. The Lakota and Cheyenne had defeated Custer, but the United States possessed the means to continue fighting long after that defeat.

Crazy Horse's Surrender and Death

Crazy Horse had been one of the most influential Oglala Lakota warriors involved in the resistance to American expansion. His reputation had grown during earlier conflicts, and his leadership at the Rosebud and Little Bighorn helped make him a respected figure among those who wished to remain independent.

After June 1876, he continued resisting the army rather than moving permanently to a government reservation.

During the winter of 1876–1877, Crazy Horse and his followers faced increasingly difficult conditions. American troops pursued them, and the loss of secure hunting grounds made it harder to provide for the families travelling with the warriors.

The Battle of Wolf Mountain in January 1877 was another setback. Although Crazy Horse escaped with his people, the continuing military pressure reduced the possibility of remaining independent.

Eventually, he decided to surrender.

On 6 May 1877, Crazy Horse arrived at Fort Robinson in Nebraska with more than 1,000 followers. Their surrender was a major achievement for the American army because Crazy Horse had been one of the best-known leaders still resisting government control.

His decision should not be mistaken for an enthusiastic acceptance of reservation life. He was attempting to protect his people in circumstances where further resistance threatened to bring greater suffering.

For a time, Crazy Horse lived near the Red Cloud Agency, close to Fort Robinson. His presence attracted considerable attention, both from American officers and from other Lakota leaders.

Relations soon became difficult.

Some government officials regarded Crazy Horse with suspicion because of his military reputation and his influence over younger warriors. Rivalries between Lakota leaders also complicated the situation, while misunderstandings during conversations with American officers increased mistrust.

Crazy Horse had never been a leader who depended on formal American recognition. His authority came from the respect he had earned among his own people, and that made him difficult for officials to control through the usual arrangements at a reservation agency.

During the summer of 1877, rumours circulated that he might leave the agency or encourage renewed resistance. Historians disagree about how much substance there was to these reports.

In early September, military authorities decided to arrest him.

On 5 September 1877, Crazy Horse was brought to Fort Robinson. When he realised that he was being taken into a guardhouse, he resisted.

A struggle followed, and Crazy Horse was stabbed with a bayonet by a soldier. He was mortally wounded and died later that evening.

The precise circumstances remain disputed. Accounts differ over the actions of those present and the sequence of events during the struggle. It is clear, however, that Crazy Horse died while in American military custody, only four months after his surrender.

He was approximately in his mid-thirties.

His death had a profound effect on the Lakota. A leader who had spent much of his adult life defending their independence had died at the hands of the army after agreeing to come into a government agency.

Crazy Horse's family took responsibility for his remains, and the precise location of his burial has not been publicly established.

That uncertainty has helped preserve an element of privacy around his final resting place, in contrast with the highly visible monuments erected to Custer.

Crazy Horse remains an important figure in Lakota history. His reputation rests not simply on his ability as a warrior but on his determination to defend his people and his refusal to accept the loss of their independence as inevitable.

Sitting Bull's Years in Canada and Later Surrender

Sitting Bull followed a different path after the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

As a Hunkpapa Lakota leader, he had helped bring together many of the families and warriors who gathered along the Little Bighorn River in June 1876. His influence was political and spiritual as well as military, and he had become one of the most prominent opponents of American attempts to confine the Lakota to reservations.

After the battle, Sitting Bull continued resisting the army. During the autumn of 1876, his followers moved through the northern Plains while American forces attempted to locate and pressure them.

In October, Sitting Bull met Colonel Nelson Miles during negotiations near the Tongue River. He insisted that American soldiers should leave Lakota country, while Miles demanded that the Lakota submit to government authority.

No agreement was reached.

As military pressure increased, Sitting Bull began looking northwards for a place where his people might live beyond the immediate reach of the United States Army.

In 1877, he and his followers crossed the international border into Canada, then part of the British Empire.

They entered the North-West Territories, settling for periods in the country around Wood Mountain in what is now Saskatchewan.

The border offered an important advantage. American soldiers could not simply continue their campaign into Canadian territory, and Sitting Bull hoped that his people would be able to hunt and live without being forced onto an American reservation.

At first, the move appeared to offer a measure of safety.

Canadian authorities, represented in the region by the North-West Mounted Police, dealt with Sitting Bull and his followers. The police were responsible for maintaining order and enforcing Canadian law, but they were not prepared to provide unlimited supplies or establish a permanent independent homeland for the Lakota.

Relations were sometimes respectful, particularly in dealings with individual police officers, yet the Canadian government had little desire to become involved in a prolonged dispute with the United States over Sitting Bull's presence.

Food soon became the greatest problem.

Buffalo herds were declining across the northern Plains, and hunting could no longer reliably support the large number of people who had followed Sitting Bull into Canada.

Families endured difficult winters, illness and shortages of food. Some travelled long distances in search of surviving buffalo, only to discover that the herds had moved or become too scarce to provide enough meat.

The situation became increasingly desperate.

As the years passed, some Lakota families decided to return to the United States. They were aware that reservation life involved restrictions, but they also knew that government agencies might provide food at a time when hunting could no longer sustain them.

Gall, who had fought at the Little Bighorn and had later joined Sitting Bull in Canada, eventually separated from him. In January 1881, Gall returned to the United States with many of his followers.

Sitting Bull remained determined to preserve his independence, but the departure of other families left him with fewer people and increasingly limited resources.

By the summer of 1881, he could no longer maintain his community in Canada.

On 19 July 1881, Sitting Bull arrived at Fort Buford in Dakota Territory to surrender. The formal surrender took place the following day, 20 July.

He had remained beyond American control for approximately five years after the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

His return attracted considerable attention. By then, Sitting Bull had become internationally famous, often described in American newspapers as the leader responsible for Custer's defeat.

That description exaggerated the extent of his direct military command during the battle, but it reflected the powerful reputation he had acquired.

After his surrender, Sitting Bull was held for a period at Fort Randall before eventually being allowed to live at the Standing Rock Agency.

Life under government supervision was very different from the independence he had previously enjoyed. Officials attempted to regulate his movements, and he faced continuing pressure to accept the reservation system.

Yet he remained a respected figure among many Lakota people.

In 1885, Sitting Bull briefly joined Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West show. His appearance attracted crowds who were curious to see a man associated with one of the most famous defeats in American military history.

There was a striking contradiction in this. A leader who had resisted the expansion of the United States was now being presented to paying audiences as part of a popular entertainment celebrating the American West.

Sitting Bull's story did not end with the show. He returned to Standing Rock, where tensions between Native American communities and government authorities continued.

In December 1890, during a period of alarm among officials over the Ghost Dance religious movement, Indian police attempted to arrest him at his home.

A confrontation developed, and Sitting Bull was shot and killed on 15 December 1890.

His death came fourteen years after the Little Bighorn and only two weeks before the killing of hundreds of Lakota people by American soldiers at Wounded Knee.

Although Sitting Bull had survived Custer's defeat and years of exile in Canada, he did not live to see the United States recognise the injustice of its seizure of the Black Hills.

The Loss of the Black Hills

While the army was pursuing the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne after the Little Bighorn, the American government was also taking steps to gain control of the Black Hills.

The hills were central to the dispute that had helped cause the war.

Under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the Black Hills formed part of the Great Sioux Reservation. The United States had promised to protect the reservation from unauthorised settlement, and the treaty placed strict conditions on any future transfer of its land.

For the Lakota, the Black Hills were much more than a valuable piece of territory. They were a sacred homeland associated with their history, ceremonies and spiritual beliefs.

For miners and settlers, the discovery of gold had made the region increasingly attractive.

Following Custer's 1874 expedition, prospectors entered the hills despite the treaty protections. The government attempted to purchase the land, but Lakota leaders refused to agree to its sale.

The defeat of Custer in June 1876 did not persuade the government to abandon its ambitions. Instead, it strengthened the determination of many officials and politicians to bring the Lakota under greater control.

In August 1876, Congress approved legislation that placed enormous pressure on the Lakota living at government agencies.

The legislation linked the provision of food and other supplies to acceptance of changes that would remove the Black Hills from the Great Sioux Reservation and end important hunting rights in the surrounding country.

This was a particularly powerful form of pressure because many reservation families had become dependent on government rations. Their freedom to hunt had been restricted, buffalo herds were declining and the government controlled much of the food available through the agencies.

Refusing to accept the proposed agreement could therefore mean placing families at risk of hunger.

A government commission, commonly known as the Manypenny Commission after its chairman, George W. Manypenny, visited the agencies to obtain signatures from Lakota leaders.

The proposed agreement required the Lakota to surrender their rights to the Black Hills and to large areas of hunting territory recognised by the 1868 treaty.

Some leaders signed because they believed they had little practical choice. Others objected strongly, arguing that the government was demanding land it had previously promised to protect.

Standing Elk, a Brulé Lakota leader, later described how officials used the threat of withholding food to pressure his people into agreement.

His complaint revealed the unequal circumstances surrounding the negotiations. The government controlled the supplies on which many families depended, while the Lakota were being asked to surrender land of enormous importance to their nation.

There was also a fundamental legal problem.

Article 12 of the Fort Laramie Treaty required the agreement of at least three-quarters of the adult male Lakota population concerned before reservation land could be ceded.

The 1876 agreement did not obtain anything close to that level of consent.

According to the historical findings later examined by the United States Supreme Court, only about ten per cent of the adult male population signed.

Nevertheless, Congress proceeded.

On 28 February 1877, it passed legislation implementing the agreement. The Act removed the Black Hills from the Great Sioux Reservation and ended the treaty protections covering important parts of the surrounding hunting territory.

In practice, the United States had taken possession of land it had promised to protect less than nine years earlier.

Gold mining and settlement expanded in the region. Towns developed, businesses grew and the Black Hills became increasingly integrated into the economy of the United States.

For the Lakota, the consequences were profound.

The loss of the hills was not simply the disappearance of a hunting area. It meant that a sacred landscape, central to their identity and traditions, had been placed under the authority of a government that had broken its earlier promises.

The loss also came at a time when Native American communities were experiencing major changes to their lives. Military defeat, restrictions on movement and the destruction of buffalo herds made it increasingly difficult to maintain their former independence.

Some Lakota leaders continued to protest against the seizure, while later generations sought recognition of their rights through legal and political action.

What had begun as a dispute over gold and treaty obligations in the 1870s became one of the longest-running land claims in American history.

The Black Hills Dispute and the 1980 Supreme Court Decision

More than a century after the Battle of the Little Bighorn, the dispute over the Black Hills reached the highest court in the United States.

The case was called United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, and the Supreme Court delivered its decision on 30 June 1980.

To understand why the case mattered, we need to return briefly to the promises made at Fort Laramie in 1868.

The treaty had recognised the Great Sioux Reservation, including the Black Hills, and had established a requirement for substantial Native American consent before reservation land could be transferred.

Congress had nevertheless taken the Black Hills in 1877, using an agreement that had not received the consent required by the treaty.

For decades, Lakota representatives argued that the United States had acted unlawfully and had failed to provide proper compensation for the land.

The legal struggle was complicated. Native American nations faced restrictions on the kinds of claims they could bring against the federal government, and several different courts and commissions became involved over the years.

In 1920, Congress passed legislation allowing the Sioux Nation to pursue a claim concerning the Black Hills. The case continued through lengthy proceedings, but the Court of Claims rejected the claim in 1942 under the legal rules then governing the case.

Further legislation and the establishment of the Indian Claims Commission in 1946 created new opportunities to seek compensation.

The dispute continued through the following decades, with lawyers and Lakota representatives arguing about the legal effect of the 1877 Act and the government's obligations under the earlier treaty.

Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court.

On 30 June 1980, the Court ruled by eight votes to one in favour of the Sioux Nation.

The justices concluded that the United States had taken property protected by the Fort Laramie Treaty and that the taking required just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment protects against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. In this case, the Court held that the government's actions in 1877 had created an obligation to compensate the Sioux Nation for the Black Hills.

The Court upheld an award based on the land's value at the time of the taking, approximately 17.1 million dollars, together with interest dating back to 1877 and other amounts considered in the proceedings.

By 1980, the award had grown to approximately 105 million dollars.

For the United States government, the decision established that compensation was legally owed. It was a significant recognition of the wrong committed when the Black Hills were taken.

But there was a problem that money could not easily resolve.

Many Lakota people did not want compensation in place of the land. They wanted the Black Hills returned.

From their perspective, accepting payment could be understood as agreeing to a sale that their ancestors had never freely accepted.

The Black Hills were not simply property that could be valued according to the amount of gold, timber or other resources they contained. They remained a sacred landscape with deep connections to Lakota history and identity.

Consequently, the monetary award was rejected by the Sioux Nation, and the money was left in government-held accounts rather than distributed as a settlement.

Interest continued to accumulate, increasing the value of the funds over time. Yet the existence of a large financial award did not settle the underlying dispute.

The Supreme Court's ruling also needs to be understood carefully. It did not order the United States to return the Black Hills. It established that the taking required compensation under American constitutional law.

That legal distinction is important. A court can recognise that land was taken unjustly without necessarily providing the remedy that the people who lost it believe is appropriate.

The case therefore raises a difficult question: can financial compensation make up for the loss of a sacred homeland?

For many Lakota people, the answer has remained no.

Their position reflects a view of the Black Hills that reaches far beyond the events of 1876. The land is connected to their ancestors, ceremonies and continuing identity as a people.

There have been proposals to return particular areas of land or to develop other arrangements recognising Lakota interests, but the wider question of the Black Hills has remained unresolved.

This is one of the most important long-term consequences of the conflict surrounding the Little Bighorn.

The battle itself lasted only two days. The war continued into 1877, and the United States eventually imposed its authority over the communities that had resisted it.

Yet the argument over the Black Hills continued through generations, eventually producing a Supreme Court decision more than a hundred years after Custer's death.

It is difficult to think of a clearer example of how a nineteenth-century conflict can continue to influence the lives and rights of people in the modern world.

The Little Bighorn was therefore not simply the end of Custer's military career or a dramatic American defeat. It formed part of a much longer struggle over land, sovereignty and the promises made between the United States and Native American nations.

Understanding that wider history is essential when considering how the battle has been remembered, and why its meaning remains contested today.

Back to Contents

Custer's Last Stand: History and Legacy

More than a century after the Battle of the Little Bighorn, George Armstrong Custer remains one of the most recognisable figures in American military history. His name appears in books, films, paintings and discussions about the expansion of the United States across the Great Plains. Yet the way people remember him has changed considerably since his death in 1876.

For many Americans in the late nineteenth century, Custer was a courageous soldier who had died fighting against overwhelming odds. His defeat became known as Custer's Last Stand, a phrase that suggested bravery, sacrifice and resistance until the final moment.

For the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne, the battle had a very different meaning. It was a victory achieved by people defending their families and lands against an army attempting to force them under American government control. They had not gathered at the Little Bighorn to create a legend about Custer. They were trying to preserve their independence.

These different perspectives have shaped the history of the battle ever since.

The Little Bighorn also raises a question that reaches beyond the events of 1876. Who decides how a battle should be remembered? The people who fought in it, the government that later controlled the battlefield, or the generations who inherit its consequences?

Examining Custer's reputation and the changing treatment of Native American experiences helps us understand why the battle remains important today.

The Making of Custer's Heroic Reputation

George Armstrong Custer was already famous before the Battle of the Little Bighorn. During the American Civil War, he had attracted attention as a young cavalry commander who led daring attacks and appeared to escape danger through a combination of skill and extraordinary luck.

His appearance made him particularly memorable. With long blond hair, distinctive clothing and a willingness to ride near the front of his soldiers, Custer seemed almost designed to attract the attention of newspaper writers and artists.

He also encouraged publicity. His military career brought him into contact with influential people, and he understood that a successful officer could become a public figure as well as a battlefield commander.

By 1876, Custer had developed a reputation for courage and aggressive leadership, although his career included serious controversies. His court-martial in 1867 and his involvement in the Washita attack of 1868 demonstrated that he was far from universally admired.

His death changed the way many Americans viewed him.

When news of the defeat reached the eastern United States in July 1876, newspapers described the destruction of Custer's command in dramatic language. Reports emphasised the number of soldiers killed, the supposed size of the Native American force and the idea that the men had fought bravely to the end.

The timing added to the public reaction. Americans had just celebrated the centenary of their independence, and the country was looking back over a hundred years of national achievement. The sudden news that a famous cavalry officer and hundreds of his men had been killed on the western frontier came as a profound shock.

For many readers, Custer became a symbol of national sacrifice.

There was a difficulty with this interpretation. Nobody from the five companies that remained with Custer had survived to describe their final hours. The newspapers could report where the bodies had been found, but they could not know exactly what the soldiers had said or done before they died.

Nevertheless, artists began producing dramatic images of the battle. Custer was often shown standing upright with a pistol or sabre, surrounded by a small group of soldiers while Native American warriors attacked from every direction.

Such scenes were powerful, but they were not eyewitness records.

One of the best-known examples was Custer's Last Fight, painted by Cassilly Adams in 1884. It presented the battle as a crowded and violent struggle, with Custer at the centre of the action.

The painting became particularly influential after the brewing company Anheuser-Busch acquired the rights to reproduce it. From the 1890s, large printed copies were distributed to saloons across the United States.

This meant that millions of Americans could encounter an imagined version of the battle without ever reading a historical account. The painting helped establish a picture of Custer's final moments that remained familiar for generations.

It is worth considering how unusual that was. A single dramatic image, displayed in drinking establishments across the country, helped shape popular understanding of an event that historians were still struggling to reconstruct.

Another important influence was Custer's widow, Elizabeth Bacon Custer, usually known as Libbie.

After her husband's death, Libbie worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen his reputation. She wrote books about their experiences together, including Boots and Saddles, published in 1885, and Tenting on the Plains, published in 1887.

Her writing presented Custer as an affectionate husband, an inspiring commander and a man whose life had been devoted to military service.

Libbie's books are valuable historical sources because she knew Custer personally and had experienced life at army posts on the frontier. They also need to be read with an understanding of her purpose. She loved her husband and wanted the public to remember him favourably.

She was particularly determined to defend him against suggestions that his own decisions had caused the disaster. In doing so, she helped strengthen the idea that Custer had been betrayed by circumstances or by officers who failed to support him.

That interpretation was never accepted by everyone. Some military officers criticised Custer's decision to divide his regiment, while others questioned whether he had underestimated the size of the village.

But the heroic image proved remarkably durable.

During the twentieth century, films and television programmes introduced Custer to new audiences. The 1941 film They Died with Their Boots On, starring Errol Flynn as Custer, offered a romanticised version of his life and death.

The film was entertaining and influential, but it took considerable liberties with the historical record. Its portrayal reflected the popular heroic tradition more than the complicated evidence surrounding the real Custer.

Later films sometimes challenged that tradition. Little Big Man, released in 1970, presented a much more critical portrayal of Custer and gave greater attention to the experiences of Native American peoples.

Neither film should be treated as a reliable account of exactly what happened in 1876. Their importance lies partly in what they reveal about changing American attitudes.

The heroic Custer of the earlier film reflected a period when westward expansion was often celebrated as national progress. The more critical portrayal appeared at a time when Americans were increasingly questioning traditional accounts of their country's history.

Custer's reputation therefore tells us something about the people who remembered him, as well as about the officer himself.

How Native American Perspectives Changed the Story

For the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne, the Battle of the Little Bighorn was not originally remembered as Custer's Last Stand. It was a victory over soldiers who had attacked an encampment containing thousands of people.

Families remembered warriors who had fought, relatives who had died and the efforts made to protect the village. Their accounts were preserved through personal recollections and oral traditions, often passed from one generation to the next.

These memories offered a very different view from the stories that became popular in the eastern United States.

Where American paintings frequently showed anonymous Native American warriors surrounding Custer, Lakota and Cheyenne accounts described named individuals with their own families, responsibilities and reasons for fighting.

Men such as Gall, Two Moons and Wooden Leg were not simply figures in Custer's story. They were participants in a conflict that affected the future of their communities.

Women also remembered the battle. Some helped their families escape the fighting, while others participated in the defence of the encampment. Their experiences remind us that the people at the Little Bighorn were not an army gathered on an empty battlefield. They were communities living beside a river when the soldiers approached.

Native American testimony began reaching wider audiences through interviews, books and the work of historians interested in recording the experiences of those who had fought.

Thomas B. Marquis, for example, spent years interviewing Northern Cheyenne people. His work with Wooden Leg preserved detailed recollections of the battle and of Cheyenne life during the nineteenth century.

Other researchers collected Lakota accounts, including those of warriors who had fought against Custer's companies. These sources helped historians examine events that American survivors could not describe.

The testimony was sometimes difficult to reconcile. Witnesses had observed different parts of the fighting, and interviews conducted many years afterwards could contain mistakes or changes in memory.

Nevertheless, the accounts were indispensable.

They demonstrated that the battle could not be understood solely through the experiences of the Seventh Cavalry. They also helped challenge the idea that Native American success had been achieved through numbers alone.

Lakota and Cheyenne warriors used their knowledge of the landscape, moved rapidly between threatened positions and responded effectively to the opportunities created by the American attack.

Their victory was the result of determined resistance and military action, not simply the destruction of a small force by an enormous crowd.

Native American perspectives also changed the way historians explained the causes of the battle.

Older popular accounts often treated the fighting as part of an inevitable struggle between advancing civilisation and peoples who refused to accept progress. Such language reflected the assumptions of nineteenth-century American expansion rather than a balanced understanding of the conflict.

Later historians paid greater attention to the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the discovery of gold in the Black Hills and the government's attempt to force independent Lakota and Cheyenne communities onto reservations.

These details are essential. The Black Hills were protected by treaty, and many of the people resisting American control believed that they were defending lands they had every right to occupy.

Recognising that perspective does not require us to ignore the suffering of American soldiers or their families. It means understanding why the two sides were fighting and acknowledging that the United States had responsibilities under agreements it had made.

During the later twentieth century, Native American communities became increasingly active in challenging the way the battlefield was presented to visitors.

For many years, official monuments had concentrated on Custer and the soldiers who died with him. Lakota and Cheyenne warriors who lost their lives defending the village had received little comparable recognition.

Native American campaigners argued that this was an incomplete account of the battle.

Their efforts contributed to changes in the battlefield's name, memorials and historical interpretation. The site increasingly came to be understood as a place where several peoples had experienced loss, rather than simply the location of Custer's death.

There is an important distinction here. Native American perspectives were not newly created in the twentieth century. The communities involved had preserved their histories since the battle itself. What changed was the willingness of wider American institutions to listen to those accounts and include them in the public presentation of the battlefield.

Today, historians also recognise the importance of the Crow and Arikara scouts who served with the Seventh Cavalry. Their participation demonstrates that Native American nations did not all have the same interests or make the same decisions during the conflict.

A balanced history must therefore include the Lakota and Cheyenne defenders, the American soldiers and the Native American scouts who accompanied them, without treating any of these groups as though every individual shared an identical experience.

How Historians Interpret Custer Today

Historians have spent generations arguing about Custer's decisions at the Little Bighorn. Some have emphasised his military ability and courage, while others have portrayed him as an ambitious officer whose confidence finally led him into disaster.

The evidence supports a more complicated interpretation than either extreme.

Custer had demonstrated genuine ability during the American Civil War. His cavalry attacks contributed to important Union victories, and his willingness to lead from the front helped establish his reputation among soldiers.

Those achievements should not be dismissed simply because he later suffered a disastrous defeat.

At the same time, his military career reveals a pattern of risk-taking and difficulties with authority. His court-martial in 1867 and his controversial conduct during campaigns on the Plains raise legitimate questions about his judgement.

His attack on Black Kettle's village at the Washita in 1868 also forms an important part of any assessment of his career. The deaths of Native American people during that operation cannot be ignored when discussing Custer's reputation.

At the Little Bighorn, he made decisions that placed his regiment in a dangerous position. He attacked before joining forces with Terry and Gibbon, divided his command and moved towards a large Native American encampment without fully understanding the strength of the opposition.

Yet historians continue to debate how much he knew and whether he had reasonable grounds for believing that a rapid attack might succeed.

Custer had been told that the village was large. His scouts had warned him about the number of people gathered there, and the country ahead made it difficult to observe the entire encampment.

He also had reason to believe that the Native American families might move away if they discovered the army's presence. Earlier military campaigns had shown that large encampments could disperse before soldiers reached them.

These circumstances help explain his decision to attack, although they do not necessarily justify it.

Some historians argue that Custer's greatest mistake was dividing the Seventh Cavalry before he knew exactly what he was facing. Others believe that his failure to coordinate the different battalions was more important.

There are also disagreements about the conduct of Reno and Benteen. Could Reno have maintained his attack in the valley? Should Benteen have moved towards Custer more quickly? Or would further attempts to reach the northern battlefield simply have resulted in more American deaths?

Those questions remain difficult because the surviving evidence does not establish a complete timetable for Custer's final movements.

Historians have also examined the performance of the Native American warriors. Their actions were once sometimes described as a disorganised attack by overwhelming numbers.

That interpretation does not adequately explain what happened.

The Lakota and Cheyenne responded to the danger facing their village, forced Reno's battalion to retreat and concentrated warriors against Custer's isolated companies. Their familiarity with the country and ability to move quickly were important advantages.

Archaeological research has added another dimension to these debates.

Following a grass fire in 1983, systematic investigations recovered cartridge cases, bullets and other objects from parts of the battlefield. Researchers recorded the positions of these finds and used them to examine where fighting had occurred.

Douglas D. Scott and his colleagues demonstrated how physical evidence could be used alongside historical testimony. Their work helped establish that Custer's final engagement had involved fighting across several positions rather than one simple confrontation on Last Stand Hill.

Archaeologist Richard A. Fox later developed an interpretation in which Custer's command experienced a breakdown of military organisation during the final stages of the battle.

Fox argued that the evidence was more consistent with groups of soldiers becoming separated and overwhelmed than with the traditional picture of a single organised last stand.

Not all historians agree with every part of his reconstruction. The positions of cartridge cases and other objects can reveal important patterns, but they cannot establish exactly what individual soldiers were thinking or intending.

That limitation is worth remembering. Archaeology can help identify where a weapon was fired, but it cannot tell us whether the person holding it was frightened, confident or attempting to obey a particular order.

Another change in historical interpretation concerns the wider significance of the battle.

Rather than examining the Little Bighorn only as a military defeat, historians increasingly place it within the history of American expansion, treaty obligations and Native American resistance.

The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 had recognised Lakota rights to the Black Hills and other territories. The discovery of gold, the movement of prospectors into protected land and the government's ultimatum of 1875–1876 were central to the conflict.

The battle cannot be fully understood without that background.

There is also the question of its long-term outcome. Although the Lakota and Cheyenne won at the Little Bighorn, the United States intensified its campaign and eventually forced most of the independent bands to surrender.

In 1877, the government took the Black Hills despite the protections established by treaty. More than a century later, the Supreme Court ruled that compensation was owed for the taking.

These events show why a military victory does not always produce a political victory.

Modern historical writing is generally more willing to examine Custer as a capable but flawed officer, the Lakota and Cheyenne as peoples defending their independence, and the American government's actions as part of a wider struggle over land and sovereignty.

That does not mean historians have reached complete agreement.

New evidence can change interpretations, and different researchers sometimes place different weight on the same testimony or archaeological discoveries. The important thing is that their arguments can be tested against the surviving evidence.

Custer was neither the flawless hero of nineteenth-century paintings nor a figure whose entire career can be explained by his final mistake. Understanding him requires an examination of his achievements, his decisions and the consequences of the military campaigns in which he served.

The Little Bighorn Battlefield and Its Memorials

The landscape where Custer and his soldiers died has become one of the best-known historic battlefields in the United States.

It lies in present-day Montana, near the Little Bighorn River and within the Crow Indian Reservation. The surrounding country still contains the ridges, slopes and river valleys that shaped the fighting in June 1876.

Visitors can stand on Last Stand Hill and look across the ground where Custer's companies fought. The distances between the hills and the river are easier to appreciate from the battlefield than from a map, and the broken landscape helps explain why the different American battalions struggled to communicate.

The site was first formally protected primarily to preserve the graves of the American dead.

In 1879, part of the battlefield was designated as a national cemetery. Two years later, in 1881, a permanent granite monument was erected on Last Stand Hill to commemorate the soldiers and other personnel who had died.

The monument stands above a mass grave containing remains gathered from the battlefield. It became one of the most recognisable features of the site.

White marble markers were later placed at locations associated with the fallen soldiers. These markers were intended to show where men had been found, although the positions do not always identify the precise places where individuals died.

One of the most frequently visited markers is associated with Custer himself, near the monument on Last Stand Hill.

His actual remains are no longer buried there. They were removed from the battlefield in 1877 and reinterred at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York.

The cemetery and memorials originally reflected the way the battle was understood by the American government. They honoured the soldiers who had died, but there was little official recognition of the Lakota and Cheyenne warriors who had also lost their lives.

In 1946, the site was designated Custer Battlefield National Monument. The name placed Custer at the centre of the battlefield's identity, even though the fighting had involved thousands of people and extended far beyond the hill where his body was discovered.

During the second half of the twentieth century, Native American communities increasingly challenged this approach.

They argued that the battlefield should recognise the people who had defended the village as well as the soldiers who had attacked it. The site was important to Lakota and Cheyenne history, and the absence of a memorial to their dead created an obvious imbalance.

Native American campaigners, historians and supporters pressed for changes in the way the battlefield was presented.

In 1991, Congress passed legislation changing its name to Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. The law also authorised the construction of a memorial recognising the Native American participants.

The change of name was significant. It did not remove Custer from the history of the site, but it acknowledged that the battle belonged to a much wider story.

The new name also reflected the importance of the place itself, rather than identifying the battlefield almost entirely with one American officer.

Designing an appropriate Native American memorial required consultation with representatives of the peoples involved. Their histories, traditions and spiritual beliefs needed to be respected.

In 1997, a design by John Collins and Alison Towers was selected following a national competition. Construction began in 1999, and the Indian Memorial was dedicated on 25 June 2003, the 127th anniversary of the battle.

The memorial stands near Last Stand Hill, within sight of the monument to the Seventh Cavalry.

Its circular design reflects ideas of unity and continuity found in the traditions of several Plains peoples. The memorial includes panels recognising the Native American nations connected with the battle and their different experiences.

A bronze sculpture entitled Spirit Warriors, created by Native American artist Colleen Cutschall, depicts warriors riding into battle while a woman offers a shield.

The woman's presence is important. It reminds visitors that the battle involved families and communities, not simply men fighting on horseback.

The memorial's central theme is Peace Through Unity.

One opening in its circular wall faces the Seventh Cavalry monument. Known as the Spirit Gate, it symbolically connects the two memorials and expresses the hope that the dead on both sides may be remembered with dignity.

The memorial also recognises the different Native American peoples involved, including the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, Arapaho, Crow and Arikara.

This is particularly appropriate because the Crow and Arikara scouts served with the American army, while the Lakota and Cheyenne fought to defend the encampment. Their participation demonstrates the complexity of the conflict and the different decisions made by Native American nations.

Another important change was the introduction of red granite markers to commemorate Native American warriors who died during the battle.

The first of these markers were dedicated in 1999, honouring Northern Cheyenne warriors Lame White Man and Noisy Walking. Further markers have been added to recognise other individuals whose deaths are associated with particular locations on the battlefield.

These red markers stand alongside the white markers associated with the American soldiers, allowing visitors to recognise that people on both sides lost their lives.

There are limits to what the markers can show. Many Native American dead were removed by their families after the battle, and the precise locations of their deaths are not always known. The memorials therefore represent only part of the human cost.

The battlefield also includes the Reno-Benteen defensive position, where the surviving soldiers fought on 25 and 26 June. Visitors can examine the ground where those men resisted repeated attacks and consider how the terrain affected their ability to survive.

Walking or travelling through the battlefield reveals something that can be difficult to appreciate in a book. The fighting did not occur in one small area. It spread across a landscape of ridges, ravines and river crossings, with different groups experiencing the battle in very different ways.

Today, the National Park Service manages the site and works to preserve its historic landscape, archaeological evidence and memorials. Interpretation of the battle draws on military records, Native American testimony and archaeological research.

Visitors can therefore encounter a more complete account than the one traditionally presented through Custer's Last Stand alone.

The battlefield remains a place of remembrance, but it is also a place where history continues to be examined and discussed. The different monuments show how public understanding has changed over time.

The Seventh Cavalry monument reflects the desire to honour American soldiers who died in 1876. The Indian Memorial recognises the people who defended their families and way of life. Together, they encourage visitors to consider the battle from more than one perspective.

Perhaps that is the most important change in the way the Little Bighorn is remembered. The story no longer has to be told as the final hours of one famous officer. It can be understood as an event involving several nations, conflicting claims to land and people whose experiences continued to shape history long after the fighting ended.

Back to Contents

Conclusion: Why Does the Battle of the Little Bighorn Matter?

On 25 June 1876, George Armstrong Custer led part of the Seventh Cavalry towards a Native American encampment beside the Little Bighorn River. By the end of the afternoon, he and the soldiers under his immediate command were dead. The defeat shocked the United States and became one of the most famous events in American military history.

Yet the importance of the Little Bighorn goes well beyond the death of one cavalry officer.

The battle was part of a much longer conflict over the lands of the Great Plains. For decades, American settlement, military expansion and government policies had placed increasing pressure on Native American nations. Treaties had recognised their rights to particular territories, but those agreements were repeatedly challenged when settlers and prospectors wanted access to the land.

The Black Hills lay at the centre of this dispute. They were sacred to the Lakota and had been included within the Great Sioux Reservation established by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. When gold attracted prospectors into the region, the American government faced a choice between enforcing its treaty obligations and satisfying demands for access to the hills. Its decision to pursue greater control of the territory helped bring about the war of 1876.

For the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne families gathered at the Little Bighorn, the approaching soldiers threatened their homes and independence. Their resistance was not simply an attempt to defeat Custer. They were defending the people and lands that mattered to them.

Their victory also demonstrated that Native American warriors were capable of defeating a well-equipped American force. Knowledge of the country, effective leadership and the ability to respond quickly to danger all contributed to the outcome. The Lakota and Cheyenne were not passive victims of westward expansion. They made decisions, formed alliances and fought to protect their communities.

Custer's own decisions remain an important part of the story. His Civil War experience had encouraged confidence in bold cavalry attacks, but the situation at the Little Bighorn was different. He faced a large encampment whose strength he did not fully appreciate, and his decision to divide the Seventh Cavalry made cooperation between its battalions more difficult.

Historians still disagree about some of his movements and intentions. No soldier survived from the five companies that fought with him, so there is no complete American eyewitness account of their final engagement. Native American testimony and archaeological discoveries have provided valuable evidence, although neither can answer every question.

That uncertainty is part of studying history. We can explain the circumstances that contributed to Custer's defeat without pretending to know precisely what happened during every moment of the fighting.

Perhaps the most striking feature of the Little Bighorn is what happened afterwards. The Lakota and Northern Cheyenne had won the battle, but the United States intensified its military campaign. Within the following year, many of the communities that had resisted were forced to surrender, while Sitting Bull and his followers sought refuge in Canada.

In 1877, the American government took the Black Hills despite the protections established by treaty. More than a century later, the Supreme Court ruled that compensation was owed for the taking. Many Lakota people have continued to reject money as a substitute for the return of their sacred homeland.

The consequences of the conflict therefore did not end when the shooting stopped. They affected where people could live, how communities were governed and whether promises made between nations would be honoured.

The way the battle has been remembered is equally revealing. For generations, the familiar story centred on Custer's Last Stand, presenting the American soldiers as heroic figures overwhelmed by their enemies. The experiences of the Native American people who fought and died received far less attention.

Today, a fuller understanding of the battle includes the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho who defended the encampment, as well as the Crow and Arikara scouts who served with the American army. Their different experiences remind us that the history of the Great Plains cannot be reduced to two simple opposing sides.

The Little Bighorn matters because it shows how military events are shaped by decisions made long before a battle begins. It also demonstrates that winning on the battlefield does not necessarily mean securing the political outcome for which people fought.

Above all, it encourages us to look beyond the most famous individual in a historical event. Custer's death made the battle famous, but the struggle over land, independence and treaty rights explains why it happened and why its consequences are still remembered.

Back to Contents

Sources and Further Reading

The Battle of the Little Bighorn has been studied through military records, Native American eyewitness accounts, archaeological discoveries and later historical research. Each type of evidence contributes something different to our understanding of the events of June 1876.

The sources below provide opportunities to explore the battle in greater detail, examine original documents and understand why historians sometimes disagree about what happened. They also cover the wider history of the Great Plains, the Fort Laramie Treaty and the continuing dispute over the Black Hills.

Historical Documents and Eyewitness Accounts

• National Archives — Treaty of Fort Laramie, 1868. Read the treaty and its historical background. The original treaty is essential for understanding the rights recognised by the United States, including the protection of the Great Sioux Reservation and the Black Hills. Its provisions concerning land and hunting territories help explain why the events of 1876 became so controversial.
• Thomas B. Marquis — Wooden Leg: A Warrior Who Fought Custer. Read the book through JSTOR. Based on interviews with Wooden Leg, a Northern Cheyenne participant in the battle, this work preserves an important Native American account of life on the Plains and the fighting at the Little Bighorn. It should be read with an awareness that the recollections were recorded many years after the events and interpreted and edited by Marquis.
• Elizabeth B. Custer — Boots and Saddles (1885) and Tenting on the Plains (1887). These books describe life with Custer and the Seventh Cavalry from the perspective of his widow, Libbie. They provide valuable personal details, although her determination to defend her husband's reputation must be considered when evaluating her account.

Battlefield History and Native American Perspectives

• National Park Service — The Story of the Battle. Read the battlefield history. An account of the circumstances leading to the battle, the fighting on 25–26 June 1876 and the consequences of Custer's defeat. It provides a useful introduction to the military campaign and the role of the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho.
• National Park Service — Little Bighorn Battlefield: History and Culture. Explore the historical resources. A collection of information about the battlefield, the people involved and the development of the site as a place of historical study and remembrance.
• National Park Service — The Indian Memorial. Learn about the memorial. Explains how Native American communities campaigned for recognition of their ancestors and how the Indian Memorial was established. It is particularly useful for examining the changing public interpretation of the battle.
• National Park Service — Museum and Archival Collections. Explore the battlefield collections. Describes the photographs, documents, oral histories, archaeological objects and other evidence preserved at the battlefield. These collections help researchers compare written accounts with physical discoveries.

Historical and Archaeological Research

• Douglas D. Scott, Richard A. Fox Jr., Melissa A. Connor and Dick Harmon — Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn (1989). A major archaeological study of the battlefield. The authors examine the distribution of ammunition and other objects to investigate the locations and development of the fighting. It demonstrates how physical evidence can help historians test accounts of military events.
• Richard A. Fox Jr. — Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle (1993). A detailed interpretation of Custer's final engagement, drawing on archaeological discoveries and historical testimony. Fox challenges parts of the traditional image of a single organised last stand. His conclusions are influential, although some remain debated.
• John S. Gray — Custer's Last Campaign: Mitch Boyer and the Little Bighorn Reconstructed (1991). A detailed examination of the 1876 campaign and the events surrounding the battle. Gray uses surviving testimony, military records and geographical evidence to reconstruct movements and assess disputed questions.
• Jerome A. Greene — Stricken Field: The Little Bighorn Since 1876 (2008). Examines the history of the battlefield after the fighting, including the treatment of the dead, the creation of monuments and the development of public memory. It is especially useful for understanding how interpretations of the site have changed.

The Black Hills and the Legal Dispute

• United States Supreme Court — United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980). Read the Supreme Court judgement. The Court examined the United States government's taking of the Black Hills and upheld the Sioux Nation's entitlement to compensation. The judgement provides important historical and legal evidence concerning the Fort Laramie Treaty, the events of 1876–1877 and the long struggle over the land.

Using Historical Sources Carefully

Historical sources do not all serve the same purpose. A treaty records promises and legal obligations, but it does not necessarily tell us whether those promises were honoured. An eyewitness may provide details unavailable elsewhere, while remembering events differently from another participant. Archaeological discoveries can identify patterns of fighting, but they cannot reveal every decision made by the people involved.

It is also important to consider who created a source and why. Some nineteenth-century American accounts presented the battle primarily as a national tragedy, while Native American participants remembered a victory achieved in defence of their communities. Both perspectives form part of the historical record, but neither should be accepted without examination.

The most reliable understanding comes from comparing different kinds of evidence, recognising where they agree and acknowledging questions that remain unanswered.

Back to Contents