In annihilating a cavalry regiment, the Sioux brought upon them-
selves a measure of infamy and a commitment of vengeance. But
they had a justifiable case. By the terms of the Fort Laramie treaty of
1868, the Black Hills of South Dakota were clearly a part of the Great
Sioux Reservation. By the winter of 1875-76 fifteen thousand white
miners entered the area seeking gold. ² The United States govern-
ment decided to ignore this intrusion, and take the area away from
the Sioux with a minimum of compensation. ³ Those Sioux who stayed
away from the reservation, hunting and gathering food in the empty
territory west of the Black Hills, were given an ultimatum to return
by January 31, 1876. The deadline came and went, and the sizable
number who did not return were declared "hostile" by the Depart-
ment of the Interior. The Indians had little choice but to lose them-
selves in the Powder River country and resist attempts by the U.S.
Army to force them out. After the Custer debacle this "police-action"
assumed the proportions of a major war, at least to the newspapers.

Most Americans believed the chief instigator of hostilities to be
Sitting Bull, a Sioux warrior of some repute, a political leader of good
ability, and a religious functionary whose visions and power came,
he and his people believed, from a personal accord with a changing
universe. The white press often described him as intelligent, recal-
citrant, violent, and dangerous. ⁴ Perhaps because of these views,
Sitting Bull came to be the symbol of Sioux resistance on the Great
Plains, and the paramount leader among such rising names in the
national consciousness as Crazy Horse, Gall, Rain-in-the-Face, Young-
Man-Afraid-of-His-Horses, and Black Moon. "He defies the govern-
ment," said Montana Congressional Representative Martin MacGinnis
in an interview with the New York Tribune, "and hopes that he can
get the Sioux nation to join him. If they will only do this, he promises
to drive the whites back into the sea, out of which they came." ⁵

-10-