Custer's Last Stand Summary

The predicament of the Native American Indians throughout history is devastated by many battles of relocation from one reservation to the next. One would perceive the Indians merely as puppets that were manipulated by white settlers. However, the Battle of the Little Bighorn was unique. Custer’s Last Stand has been a symbol of bravery, of folly, and of oppression.
The New York Times article provides first-hand knowledge of the event and presents an image of heroic American soldiers who were overpowered by the “savage” Indians. The author takes a firm emotional stance throughout the article, using pathos to create a positive view of the American soldiers while painting an image of Indians as bloodthirsty. The author uses emotionally-charged
words to get his message across and this is seen in the following sentences: “Sitting Bull’s band of Sioux left their reservation with hostile intent. They refused negotiations for peace. They defied the power and authority of the United States. They invited war.” This article, which was published shortly after the battle, was written to bring awareness to Americans of the danger of the Indians and to bring forth the need for development of new war tactics to defeat the Indians. As a Native American man during these times of battle and turmoil, the Lakota Chief Red Horse provides a first-hand account of the tragedy of Custer’s Last Stand. The objective of Red Horse’s account is to provide a better understanding of the legacy of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. His account presents an example of how the white settler once again attempted to control the Indians for their own benefit. However, for the white men, it resulted in defeat and several deaths. The Sioux did not take a single soldier prisoner, but killed all of them; “none were left alive for even a few minutes”. Red Horse does not try to promote the Indians’ image, but uses his experience as a resource of information. His direct exposure allows him to provide better insight of what occurred during this historical event.
Negative perceptions surround the Battle of the Little Bighorn as a result of General Custer’s actions. Although the New York Times article recognizes Custer as a courageous soldier, it seems to place blame on him for the defeat at Little Bighorn. Custer divided his troops into three regiments, which was a detrimental decision. The article emphasizes that Custer was an “imprudent” solider and that lead to his fatal descent upon the enemy. The author further reinforces his opinion by stating that “no such catastrophe has happened in our Indian warfare since the Florida war”. Although the article does address Custer’s admirable characteristics, it also establishes a negative view of Custer. General Custer was seen as a brave, brilliant solider. However, his rashness was also believed to be the reason that cost him his own life and the lost of many brave officers and gallant man.
On the contrary, Red Horse’s portrayal of Captain French, Seventh Cavalry, leads the readers to believe that he was no ordinary soldier, but a likeable and brave man, one of “the bravest man they had ever fought”.
Although Red Horse was unsure whether this solider was General Custer, he further provides the audience with an example of this officer’s bravery by stating that “this officer saved the lives of many soldiers by turning his horse and covering the retreat”. Red Horse’s account presents conflicting perspectives of how Custer was viewed. This discrepancy may have its roots in the veracity of the source. This account was written five years after the battle, at a time when Americans were vengeful and the government became more determined to destroy or tame the “hostile” Indians. Thus, perhaps the positive statement came from a Native American who is enthusiastic to present his enemies in a laudable manner, which would be more easily received by the interviewer, audience, and white men.
The Battle of Little Bighorn was one in a series of conflicts that occurred during the continuous intrusions of whites into the Indians’ sacred lands in the Black Hills. Although both primary sources discuss the tragedy of the battle, “An Eyewitness Account by the Lakota Chief Red Horse” is a more reliable source as it provides specific details of the battle without using emotionally charged words to state opinions. By overstating emotions throughout the article, the author of the
New York Times weakens his arguments and comes across as being too emotionally involved to the point of appearing biased.