91��ý

91��ý Center of the American West former board member Rick Williams shares family insights into the historic battle and offers thoughts on how perceptions have changed over time

For many Americans, the Battle of the Little Bighorn is remembered as “Custer’s Last Stand”—a dramatic clash of armies on a Montana hillside where Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer and more than 200 soldiers of the 7th Calvary were killed on June 25, 1876.��

For Rick Williams, an Oglala Lakota/Northern Cheyenne Native, historian, Indigenous rights advocate and University of Colorado Boulder��Center of the American West former board member, the battle was never just a chapter in a history book.��

It was a story passed down through his family in hushed tones, told by his great-grandmother in her native Lakota and Cheyenne and translated into English for him by his grandmother.��

For Rick Williams, an Oglala Lakota/Northern Cheyenne Native, historian, Indigenous rights advocate and previous board member of the 91��ý��Center of the American West, the Battle of Little Bighorn was never just a chapter in a history book.��

“I’m probably one of the few people living today who has a direct connection with someone who was there,” says Williams. “My great-grandmother was born in 1869 … and she was a little girl in the Cheyenne camp during the Battle of the Little Bighorn; she witnessed what happened.

“Growing up, my grandmother and great-grandmother would tell these stories, but they always warned me not to repeat them. They believed they could still get into trouble, possibly from the public or maybe with the government,” he adds. “Even in the 1950s and 1960s, there was still a fear surrounding (Native American) discussions of what happened at Little Bighorn, because Custer was still revered.”

With this summer marking the 150th anniversary of the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine recently spoke with Williams, who shared his family recollections and why he’s encouraged to see that American perceptions of the battle and Native Americans have changed over the years.��

Question: What did your great-grandmother tell you about the battle? What details differed from historical accounts?

Williams: According to my great-grandmother’s account, she and a cousin had been playing near the river when (Cheyenne) scouts warned them to return to camp. Instead, they stopped where they could watch what was happening. …

According to those accounts, warriors were concealed along the river and ambushed Custer’s force as it crossed. The attack created immediate confusion and disorganization. Some soldiers were thrown from their horses and others fled up nearby draws and ridges.

As soldiers attempted to retreat uphill, another group of Lakota or Cheyenne warriors arrived from a different direction after hearing the gunfire. That left Custer’s men with no avenue of escape. That’s why the traditional image of a carefully organized ‘Last Stand’ doesn’t fit some Native accounts. The soldiers never had the opportunity to establish an effective defensive formation.

There are many versions of what happened, and every story seems to have several variations. But one thing is clear: The battle was far more complicated than the traditional narrative suggests. …

One story my great-grandmother told me was children at the camp going among the dead cavalry men after the battle. The children would open the soldiers’ money belts and throw the contents into the air. She said, ‘I didn’t know it was money. If I had known, I would have saved some.’

These were oral stories I learned firsthand.

Later, I told that story at a history conference in Billings. A prominent historian said it couldn’t be true. He argued that Custer’s men wouldn’t have been carrying that kind of money in the field.��

By then, I had done extensive research in military archives. I learned that every military post kept monthly reports called post returns. When I examined the records from Fort Lincoln, I found that just before the expedition left, Custer had drawn two months’ pay for his men. The records also noted that the money was distributed before moving into the campaign area. So, the documents supported my great-grandmother’s story.��

Question: Are there other notable details from your grandmother’s account or from your own research on the battle that differ from the traditional narrative?

Williams: Part of my research suggests a gap between the public narrative and what Native people remember. For example, there was a claim that Custer’s body was not mutilated because he was respected by Native people. However, accounts passed down in my family tell a different story. …

The Cheyenne knew who Custer was. Unlike some other groups, they had prior history with him, particularly after the��. There was an old story that after the peace ceremony, a Cheyenne spiritual leader emptied pipe ashes onto Custer’s boots and warned him never to come among their people again or he would be killed.��

According to Native accounts, Custer was shot in the river (at Little Bighorn) … and a Cheyenne warrior then cut out his heart, held it up and declared that (the spiritual leader’s) warning had finally been carried out. You’ll never find that story in most written accounts. It’s an oral tradition that was passed down within families. …

Another thing that often gets overlooked in history is Native intelligence and military skill. The military capabilities of the Native nations were routinely underestimated. Yet, at Little Bighorn, they demonstrated superior knowledge of the terrain, superior scouting and effective coordination.

History is complicated. If you really wanted a complete understanding of Little Bighorn, you’d need accounts from the Lakota, the Cheyenne, the Crow scouts (for the cavalry), (Custer’s subordinate Captain) Reno and everyone else involved. No single narrative tells the whole story.

Question: Why do you think the accounts of Native Americans who were present at the battle were not given the same credence—at least initially—as secondary accounts regarding Custer and his men, who did not live to tell their stories?

Williams: For many years, historians largely ignored or dismissed Cheyenne accounts. One reason was simple: The Cheyenne used a different directional system. Their cardinal directions were based on Bear Butte—one of their most sacred landmarks. When historians translated Cheyenne stories using conventional directions, the stories seemed inaccurate.

In the 1980s, after a fire at Little Bighorn exposed new archaeological evidence, archeologist Richard Fox studied the battlefield extensively. Working with researchers familiar with Cheyenne traditions, he found that when the directional references were properly understood, Cheyenne accounts matched the archeological evidence remarkably well. In some cases, they were more accurate than any other version of events.

Question: Do you think American public perceptions of the battle have changed in your lifetime?

Williams: Absolutely. Fifty or 60 years ago, criticizing Custer publicly was difficult. Many people viewed him as a heroic figure, and there were passionate defenders of that interpretation.��

I think that’s one reason my grandmother cautioned me not to repeat certain stories; there was a real concern about how people would react.��

Over the years, Native perspectives have gained greater recognition. The interpretation at the battlefield itself has changed, and the visitor center now presents a more balanced story.

The archeological work done after the battlefield fire was especially important because it challenged longstanding assumptions. At the same time, Native voices became harder to ignore.��

Question: Are there still elements of the historical narrative regarding western expansion before and after the battle that you think are largely unchanged in American culture?

Williams: One issue that still bothers me is the language some people use when talking about western expansion. The traditional story often describes settlers moving peacefully into empty territory and being attacked by savage tribes. But native people lived on that land already.

From a Native perspective, outsiders were entering and occupying someone else’s homeland. History sounds very different when viewed from that angle.

Question: If Little Bighorn had ended differently, do you think the history of the West would have changed substantially?

Williams: That’s difficult to answer. The battle took place in 1876—the nation’s centennial year. Because of that timing, the event became highly symbolic. It captured the nation’s attention in a way that few other battles could have.

Had the outcome been different, perhaps some things would have changed, but larger forces were already in motion. There was tremendous pressure for western expansion. Public attitudes toward Native people were deeply entrenched. Government policies were already moving in certain directions. Even without Little Bighorn, many of those forces would still have existed.

For generations, Native nations experienced policies designed to assimilate, relocate or absorb Native peoples into mainstream society. Those policies affected nearly every aspect of life.

Even today, many tribes remain constrained by federal systems that affect their ability to govern themselves and develop their economies.

Question: Some 150 years after the Battle of the Little Bighorn, do you have thoughts on how the American public views Native Americans?

Williams: Despite everything, I believe one thing has improved dramatically: People don’t view Native Americans the same way they did 50 or 60 years ago. For much of earlier American history, Native people were often portrayed as enemies, obstacles or relics of the past.

Today, more people are willing to listen. They’re looking at the historical record and saying, ‘We didn’t get this completely right.’ That’s encouraging.

I hope the next 50 years involve more than simply acknowledging mistakes. I hope they include real efforts to rebuild communities and create opportunities.

People sometimes talk about reconstruction efforts in other parts of the world after wars and disasters. Native communities have often needed similar investments but have rarely received them. There is still a great deal of work to be done.

But for the first time in a while, I think more people are willing to have an honest conversation about history—and that’s a good place to start.

Did you enjoy this article?����Passionate about the American West?��

��