The Battle of Little Bighorn - Research Paper Example

? The Battle of Little Bighorn The Battle of Little Bighorn Introduction This historic paper primarily explores the background of the Battle of Little Bighorn. This battle is the only significant battle where the Native Americans managed to achieve a decisive victory over the White Americans, or more precisely, the US Army. Parties involved in the battle: The battle was fought between the alliance of some major Native American tribes and the US Army. At one side, there were the warriors from Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho tribes. They numbered around 2000. The other side consisted of US troops, numbering around 650. They were in alliance with the Arikara and Crow tribes. The Native American side was led by Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, etc. The US side was led by G.A. Custer, Marcus Reno, Bloody Knife, etc. 1 Short description: The battle took place on 25th to 26th June, 1876 near the Little Bighorn River in Montana. Custer, who led the army from the forefront, made certain mistakes, which ultimately caused the US defeat. He divided his troops into 3 battalions by the time the battle began. This disunited the column, while the Native Americans surrounded them very swiftly. Custer’s move was actually a tactical error.2 In the battle that followed, over 250 US troops died while less than 150 Native Americans were killed.3 This paper will examine the background of this battle with reference to the Great Sioux War. Next, the supporting evidence will be put forward almost in the form of a literature review. In the conclusion part, the aftermath and consequences of the battle will be discussed. A summary of the paper will also be provided. Background The Great Sioux War: This war was waged by USA against the Native Americans who spoke languages mainly from the Sioux linguistic group. It was not strictly European style warfare. It consisted of a series of skirmishes, battles, and massacres. In the High Plains, warfare in various ways continued almost from 1865 to 1879.4 5 US defeat in the Battle of Little Bighorn heightened the tensions of this war and lingered it. About these developments, the New York Times reported, “The news of the fatal charge of Gen. Custer and his command against the Sioux Indians has caused great excitement in Washington, particularly among Army people and about the Capitol. The first impulse was to doubt the report, or set it down as some heartless hoax or at least a greatly exaggerated story by some frightened fugitive.”6 Situation before the battle: Prior to this battle, USA had demarcated the Great Sioux Reservation for the Native Americans and Indians around the Missouri area, Montana Territory, Dakota Territory, etc. The Cheyenne tribe had moved west side to the Powder River Country and Black Hills and they had adopted horse culture near about 1730. The Cheyenne remained a major force in the region and developed a centralized tribal authority, which later embarked on unifying the other tribes as well. The Lakota tribe had migrated to this region after Cheyenne. They began expanding their territory westward from the Missouri River as their number continued to increase. They used the Great Plains region to gather plant resources, lodge poles, animal rearing, buffalo hunting, etc. The Arapaho tribe was also a significant power in the area, which adopted common customs like Sun Dance along with Cheyenne and Lakota. Their social system was also centered on buffalo hunting and that was the main tribal occupation in the region.7 The alliance between Cheyenne, Lakota, and Arapaho became a significant power in the Great Plains that was opposing the US socio-political expansion during the mid 1870s. Arikara and Crow tribes were allied with USA. Arikara speak the distinct Arikara language. They were a people of semi-nomadic creed who were afraid of the increasing power of the Cheyenne. However, it is interesting to note that USA had fought their first battle with the Western Indians (i.e. Native Americans of the Great Plains) against this Arikara tribe in 1823. By 1876, the situation had very much changed and Arikara had become a US ally.8 The Crow people were dwellers of the Yellowstone River Valley. Although they spoke a Siouan language, they did not have a cordial relationship with the Cheyenne.9 They had also formed an alliance with the US by 1876. So, prior to the battle, the parties involved were clearly organized into two camps with opposing aims and interests. As the Cheyenne, Lakota, and Arapaho tribes were violating the borders of the Great Sioux Reservation, the US cavalry and infantry were planning to control them. Fort Laramie Treaty, which had been signed mainly between USA and the Sioux people, had become very fragile after 1874, and tensions peaked near 1876.10 Reasons behind the battle: Discovery of gold in the Black Hills area increased the pressure on the US government to erect settlements in the Great Plains. The region was rich in mineral resources, and the US politicians wanted to evacuate it from the Native American tribes. The US infantry and cavalry had been mobilized to push back the Native Americans, especially the Cheyenne tribe, in further west. Moreover, there were plans to construct railroad across the area to connect the eastern and western coasts of USA. Ultimately, Custer’s hasty moves to maneuver the Native American positions in the Montana region triggered off the battle. Research and evidence for these reasons will be explained in the following section of the paper. Supporting Evidence Evidence for reasons behind the battle: Rivalry between the Native Americans in Great Plains was a major factor that emboldened USA. The Arikara and Crow tribes were being cornered by the Cheyenne domination.11 Moreover, expeditions to the Black Hills in search of gold were giving rise to a socio-political pressure to create US settlements in the Great Plains. “The politicians decided to force the issue with several thousand ‘Northern Sioux’ led by Sitting Bull and others who had spurned all efforts to settle them on the reserve. Accordingly, the commissioner of Indian affairs ordered those tribesmen onto the reservation. They did not – or could not – respond promptly, and early in 1876 the situation was turned over to the War Department for resolution.”12 Finally, Custer’s hasty moves dramatically escalated the strategic conflict. According to Reno’s report, “The regiment left the camp at the mouth of the Rosebud River, after passing in review before the department commander, under command of Bvt. Maj. Gen. G. A. Custer, lieutenant-colonel, on the afternoon of the 22nd day of June, and marched up the Rosebud 12 miles and encamped; 23rd, marched up the Rosebud, passing many old Indian camps, and following a very large pole-trail, but not fresh, making 33 miles; 24th, the march was continued up the Rosebud, the trail and signs freshening with every mile, until we had made 28 miles, and we then encamped and waited for information from the scouts.”13 The Battle of Little Bighorn was triggered off on 25th June; Custer had really moved very fast. Evidence for developments during the battle: Major Marcus A. Reno’s report to the 44th Congress on the Battle of Little Bighorn clearly reveals that Custer made strategic mistakes. Although Reno praised his colleagues, his description of the events showed the US troops had better ammunitions but had largely been outnumbered.14 The Native Americans not only inflicted a major assault on the US Army but also killed several high ranking US Army officials including Custer, who was at the lead position.15 Public Opinion: Public opinion went against the rights of the Native Americans and hatred began to increase. US policy dramatically changed and print media played a major role in this. “The first reports on Little Bighorn began before the battle, with accounts from the Bismarck Tribune’s Mark Kellogg (who was later slain with Custer) that soon gave way to unbelievable accounts of Custer’s defeat and death, reports that soon generated more rumors, editorial speculations and Indian condemnation.”16 Conclusion Consequence and aftermath of the Battle of Little Bighorn were very unfavorable for the Native Americans although they had won it. The US government now sponsored a full fledged war against them, and large number of people, especially from the Cheyenne tribe, was killed. Public opinion turned against these people, and there was virtually no support for them in US politics for several years that followed. The Battle of the Little Bighorn was an episode of the Great Sioux War. In one side there were Cheyenne, Lakota, and Arapaho tribes. On the other side, there was the US Army and its allies. The battle was a result of US expansionism and conflict of interests between the parties involved in it. Custer’s strategic mistakes were mainly responsible for the US defeat in this battle. Bibliography Goodrich, Thomas. Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books, 1984. Gray, John S. Centennial Campaign: The Sioux War of 1876. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988. Greene, Jerome A. Battles and Skirmishes of the Great Sioux War, 1876-1877: The Military View. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. Long, Ryan. “Newspaper Articles”. War For The Plains: A Clash of Indians and Army and the Battle of Little Bighorn. http://littlebighornproject.com/id31.html (accessed August 23, 2011) Lowie, Robert H. Societies of the Arikara Indians. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing LLC, 2010. Major Marcus A. Reno, “Reno’s Official Report”, Forty-Fourth Congress, First Session, House Executive Document 1742, no. 1 (1876): 476-480. Manning, Martin J. and Clarence R. Wyatt. Encyclopedia of Media and Propaganda in Wartime America, Volume 1. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2010. McClearly, Timothy P. The Stars We Know: Crow Indian Astronomy and Lifeways. Long Grove: Waveland Press Inclusive, 1996. Nobleman, Marc T. The Battle of the Little Bighorn. Minneapolis: Compass Point Books, 2001. Welch, James and Paul Shekler, Killing Custer: The Battle of Little Bighorn and the Fate of the Plains Indians. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Inc. 2007. Read More