Sunshine Skyways

Many facts of Sitting Bull’s death are uncertain, clouded by conflicting accounts of the event. What is certain, however, is that he died from gunshot wounds on December 15, 1890, after being arrested by Indian reservation police.

One of the first official reports of Sitting Bull’s death was the December 15, 1890, telegram from Indian Agent McLaughlin to Indian Commissioner Morgan, which appeared in many newspapers the following day. The telegram states Sitting Bull was killed during a failed attempt by his followers to rescue him from Indian reservation police who had arrested Sitting Bull and were taking him to Standing Rock. The telegram states (The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 16, 1890, p. 1):

Indian police arrested Sitting Bull at his camp, forty miles southwest of the agency, this morning at daylight. His followers attempted his rescue and fighting commenced. Four policemen were killed and three wounded. Eight Indians were killed, including Sitting Bull and his son, Crow Foot, and several others wounded. The police were surrounded for some time, but maintained their ground until relieved by United States troops, who now have possession of Sitting Bull’s camp. Sitting Bull’s followers, probably one hundred men, deserted their families and fled west up the Grand river. The police behaved nobly and great credit is due them. Particulars by mail.

The Los Angeles Times (L.A. Times) embellished the above account, and on December 16, 1890, published a story of a fierce battle between non-aggressive reservation police and hostile Indians getting ready to go on the warpath. The article states that either a police officer or one of Sitting Bull’s followers shot and killed Sitting Bull during the chaos that existed during the initial minutes of the fight.

The L.A. Times article reads like a script for a future Hollywood western. The cavalry comes to the rescue (L.A. Times, December 16, 1890, p.1):

[T]he hostiles charged upon the police, firing as they came. A hand-to-hand struggle ensued, during which Sitting Bull, who was not shackled, gave his orders in a loud voice. For several minutes the firing was heavy and deadly. In the furious fusilade Sitting Bull fell out of his saddle, pierced by a bullet, but it is not known whether it was fired by the charging party or police…The hostiles fired with deadly accuracy, and slowly dropped the police from the field. If the cavalry had not come up at this time, it is probable that the force would have been annihilated. The soldiers were quickly into action. A skirmish line was thrown out, and then, kneeling and firing as they advanced, the troops, with machine guns playing over their heads, poured a withering fire into the savages.

The same day as the above article, an L.A. Times editorial celebrated Sitting Bull’s death. The editorial describes Sitting Bull as a “remorseless and implacable savage,” who was “blood-thirsty,” “cruel,” “vengeful,” and “murderous,” and who was “the cause of more trouble to the white man and the white man’s government than any Indian” (p. 6). Given this character description, it is not surprising that the editorial suggests Sitting Bull should have been executed ten years before, upon his surrender in 1880.

The New York Times (N.Y. Times) mirrored the same sentiment in a December 16, 1890, editorial about the event. According to the editorial, Sitting Bull was “one of the most mischievous and turbulent Indians,” who troubled Indian agents and U.S. Army officers. The editorial implied his death was the solution to a nagging problem.

L.A. Times and N.Y. Times’ characterizations of Sitting Bull were representative of the characterizations of him promoted by the Indian agent at the Standing Rock Reservation, military authorities, and government officials in Washington. In a telegram to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in the fall of 1890, McLaughlin described Sitting Bull as “a man of low cunning, devoid of …an honorable trait of character, but on the contrary…capable of instigating and inciting others” (Beasley, p. 14). Military authorities produced images of a murderous Sitting Bull and were quick to announce that Sitting Bull’s death was the solution to their problems at Standing Rock and perhaps throughout the Dakotas (Coleman). President Harrison described Sitting Bull as “the great disturbing element in his tribe,” and expressed relief upon receiving word of Sitting Bull’s death (Washington Post, December 16, 1890, p. 1).

The details of Sitting Bull’s death increased and changed for several days after the initial newspaper reports. On December 17th, the N.Y. Times reported that reservation police shot and killed Sitting Bull, which differed from the L.A. Times report of the previous day that he could have been killed accidentally by one of his followers. According to the N.Y. Times article, the shooting of Sitting Bull was a planned response to any attempt to rescue him. The article says, “It is evident that there was, cruel as it may seem, a complete understanding, from commanding officer to the Indian police, that the slightest attempt to rescue Sitting Bull should be a signal to send the old medicine man to the happy hunting ground” (December 17, 1890, p. 1). The same day a Chicago Tribune article suggested Sitting Bull would have been killed whether an attempt was made to rescue him or not (Coleman, p. 231):

That the government authorities, civil as well as military, from President Harrison and General Miles down, preferred the death of the famous old savage to capture
whole-skinned, few persons here, Indian or white, have a doubt. It was felt that Sitting Bull’s presence anywhere behind bars would have been the cause of endless troubles, while should he fall victim to the ready Winchester, the thousands of Messiah-crazed Ghost dancers would rudely realize that his ‘medicine,’ which was to make them bullet-proof, would be worthless…

On December 18th, the N.Y. Times continued to change its account of Sitting Bull’s death and published what it called “the actual details of the fight in which Sitting Bull was killed” (1890, p. 1):

The police under Bull Head, Lieutenant of Police, and Shave Head, First Sergeant, went into camp near Sitting Bull’s village on the night of the 14th, and the next morning went into Bull’s camp and made the arrest. Sitting Bull expressed his willingness to go with them, but wanted to make preparations for the ride, and ordered his horse to be gotten ready. While Bull Head and Shave Head were in the shack where the old chief was getting ready, two bucks enveloped in blankets entered the shack, and throwing off their blankets opened fire on the police… In the fight that followed, Red Tomahawk killed Sitting Bull. Ten or more of Sitting Bull’s followers were killed. Seven police were killed, and Bull Head and Shave Head were desperately wounded, Shave Head dying later.

According to above article, an Indian named Red Tomahawk, who was one of the reservation police, killed Sitting Bull. That fact that Sitting Bull was killed by an Indian who intended to shoot him, as opposed to an Indian who accidentally shot him, was touted as proof that Sitting Bull had enemies among his own people.

A day later on December 19th, the Washington Post (Post) reported it was Bull Head, not Red Tomahawk, who shot and killed Sitting Bull. According to the Post article, Bull Head shot Sitting Bull twice.

Four days after publishing its first report of Sitting Bull’s death, the N.Y. Times continued its assault on Sitting Bull’s character in a December 20th editorial. The editorial describes Sitting Bull as having been “always disgruntled, always an element of discord, to the last degree suspicious and superstitious, and altogether one of those Indians who insist upon their rights but never recognize their duties,” and now deceased, he is a “good Indian.”

Not one of the previously mentioned newspaper articles or editorials laments the death of Sitting Bull. It is described as a rightful death, the outcome of the police acting in self-defense; however, there was a very different perspective as illustrated in a letter from Reverend W.H.H. Murray published in the December 21st issue of the New York World. Murray writes (Bland, p. 25):

The land grabbers wanted the Indian lands. The lying, thieving Indian agents wanted silence touching past thefts and immunity to continue their thieving. The renegades from their people among the Indian police
wanted an opportunity to show their power over a man who despised them as renegades, and whom, therefore, they murdered. And so he was murdered.

The next day a World editor wrote that a member of the Eight Cavalry, Corporal Gunn, supported Murray’s characterization of the event. The editor described Sitting Bull’s death as “organized butchery” (Bland, p. 27).

On December 23rd, the Post continued to revise its account of Sitting Bull’s death when it published a December 16, 1890, telegram from McLaughlin:

At daybreak on Monday morning the 15th, the police went to Sitting Bull’s camp direct to his house, and surrounded the house; a detail was sent into the house where Sitting Bull was sleeping on the floor, the remainder staying outside. They aroused him and announced their purpose, at the same time raising him to a sitting position, and he at first seemed inclined to offer no resistance, and they allowed him to dress, during which time he changed his mind and they took him forcibly from the house. By this time the police were surrounded by Sitting Bull’s followers, members of the ghost dance, and the first shot was fired by ‘Catch-the-Bear,’ one of the hostiles, and the
lieutenant of police, Bull Head, was struck, the fighting then became general in fact, it was a hand-to-hand fight. Sitting Bull was killed, shot through the body and head in the early part of the fight, by Bull Head and Red Tomahawk, each of whom shot at him. Four policeman were killed outright and three wounded, one of the latter dying at the agency hospital this morning…

McLaughlin claims one of Sitting Bull’s followers, Catch-the-Bear, started the fight when he fired the first shot. In this official scenario, the police acted in self-defense when they shot and killed Sitting Bull.

The World continued its assault on the government’s story of Sitting Bull’s death as reported in the Post, N.Y. Times, and many other newspapers. According to a December 28th article in the World, “The impression here is growing stronger every day that Sitting Bull’s death was brought about by deliberate assassination… Were it not for the World’s correspondent’s unearthing the real facts the country would still believe that Sitting Bull was shot by Indian police while resisting arrest. There was no resistance whatsoever. It was a crime, cruel and cowardly” (Coleman, pp. 232, 233).

More facts of Sitting Bull’s death were revealed in testimonies and reports in the months and years that followed. Captain Fechet of the Eighth Cavalry contradicted McLaughlin’s claim that Sitting Bull was killed in self-defense during a fight started by his followers. Captain Fechet writes in a report, “The attempt to arrest Sitting Bull was so managed as to place the responsibility for the fight that ensued upon Sitting Bull’s band which began fighting” (Coleman, p. 232). Captain Fechet’s remark suggests the police wanted to incite the Ghost Dancers into a fight. Combined with earlier remarks that the police and military planned to shoot Sitting Bull if a fight ensued, it follows that the police incited the Ghost Dancers to fight, thus creating the conditions to kill Sitting Bull. It was preferable to Agent McLaughlin and the military that it appeared that Sitting Bull died in a fight as he resisted arrested, instead of being murdered by Indian police.

Fanny Kelly, who was captured and taken prisoner by a Sioux war party, then returned to her husband, lived with Sitting Bull’s band and described him as a man very different from the one described by McLaughlin, military authorities, and officials in Washington. In an 1891 book edited by Bland, Kelly states, “Sitting Bull was a true nobleman, and great man. He was uniformly gentle and kind to his wife and children and courteous and considerate in his intercourse with others” (Bland, p. 27). In the same book, Catherine Weldon, a teacher and missionary who spent much time among Sitting Bull’s people, also describes Sitting Bull as a good man. She writes (p. 29):

Sitting Bull was not treacherous, nor cruel. He was not a liar, nor a murderer, as has been charged. He was a man of true nobility of character and generous deeds. As a friend, he was sincere and true, as a patriot devoted and uncorruptible. As a husband and father, affectionate and considerate. As a host, courteous and hospitable to the last degree. He was a typical Indian, and he held tenaciously to the traditions, of this people as sacred legacy. He distrusted the innovations sought to be forced upon the Indians. He believed that all the white men cared for was to get the Indian’s land from him. He had no faith in Government Commissioners or Christian
missionaries. What he saw of white civilization did not impress him favorably. There was too much avarice and too much hypocrisy in it. He never signed a treaty to sell any portion of his people’s inheritance, and he refused to acknowledge the right of other Indians to sell his undivided share of the tribal lands. For this he was denounced as obstructionist, a foe to progress … His influence with his people was very great. This fact made him unpopular with all who saw in his policy and
influence obstruction to their selfish schemes, hence they demanded his removal.

According to Weldon, Sitting Bull’s family and others who were eyewitnesses described to her the death of Sitting Bull. Weldon’s description of the event contrasts sharply with McLaughlin’s telegrams: (Bland, pp. 29, 30):

A squad of agency police under command of Bullhead went under cover of night to arrest Sitting Bull. The military were close by to support the police, if necessary.
Bullhead and his party arrived before daylight, and entered Sitting Bull’s house without being discovered. Sitting Bull and his family were in bed. Bullhead called out “Sitting Bull, are you here?” “Yes, answered the Chief, “How.” Bullhead then lit a match and discovering the chief, he dragged him from the bed. He made no resistance but asked to be allowed to dress. Then Crowfoot, Sitting Bull’s youngest son, a mere boy, and Catch the Bear, gave the alarm. Immediately Bullhead shot Sitting Bull through the heart. Another policeman, Red Tomahawk, put a ball in his head. Not content with this they then beat his head to a pulp, and then rifled his pockets. Crowfoot, who had hid under a bed, was dragged out and killed though he was unarmed, and begged for his life piteously. His skull was crushed and four balls fired into his body. The fight now became general. Though Sitting Bull’s friends were so completely surprised that many of them did not have even a knife with which to defend themselves. The troops came up almost immediately, and then the fighting ceased.

Current newspapers and other media continue to publish contrasting descriptions of the death of Sitting Bull. For example, an article by Harriman in the April 25, 1999, issue of The Virginian-Pilot says (p. M14), “On the 15th, Sitting Bull, the most illustrious of all Indian leaders and the most uncompromising as well, was taken into custody and shot to death by Indian police when he resisted.” The article does not describe the death as a murder or assassination; Sitting Bull is killed because he resisted arrest. However, an April 8, 1995, article by Sharkey in the London, England, newspaper, The Guardian, says (p. T27), “Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, the Lakota’s greatest leaders, were both assassinated.” The 1999, 2nd edition of Religious Leaders of America, agrees with The Guardian article and says Sitting Bull was assassinated. A 1991 article in Canadian Dimension (Dimension) by Taylor says (p. 13), “Early on December 15, 1890, 43 Indian police surrounded Sitting Bull’s cabin, but in the commotion which followed his arrest, he was shot and killed.” Later in the Dimension article, the death is described as a murder.

Current Indian scholars give different accounts of the death of Sitting Bull. Angie Debo’s account suggests Sitting Bull was killed by Bull Head. She does not say if Bull Head, “the wounded man,” intended to or accidentally shot Sitting Bull. Debo writes (p. 291):

On December 14, 1890, McLaughlin on orders from Washington sent thirty-three of his police to arrest the Chief, while two troops of cavalry marched out to support them if necessary. Before dawn the next morning the police quietly entered his house and took him into custody. The camp sprang into life and more than 150 fanatic dancers began to surround them. One of them shot and fatally wounded a policeman, and the wounded man then shot Sitting Bull. A fight followed, in which even the women participated with knives and clubs. Four of the police were killed and another badly wounded, while the ghost dancers lost seven besides Sitting Bull and three wounded. The cavalry arrived, and the dancers were subdued.

Dee Brown’s account varies from Debo’s in many respects. Debo says 33 police were at Sitting Bull’s camp, Brown says 43. Debo does not say if Bull Head intended to shoot Sitting Bull, Brown says he did not. Debo suggests only Bull Head shot Sitting Bull, Brown claims Red Tomahawk delivered the fatal shot. Brown states (p. 437):

Just before daybreak on December 15, 1890, forty-three Indian police surrounded Sitting Bull’s log cabin. Three miles away a squadron of cavalry waited as a support force if needed. Lieutenant Bull Head, the Indian policeman in charge of the party, found Sitting Bull asleep on the floor. When he was awakened, the chief stared incredulously at Bull Head. “What do you want here?” he asked. “You are my prisoner,” said Bull Head. “You must go the agency.” Sitting Bull yawned and sat up. “All right,” he replied, “let me put on my clothes and I’ll go with you. He asked the policeman to have his horse saddled. When Bull Head emerged from the cabin with Sitting Bull he found a crowd of Ghost Dancers gathering outside. They outnumbered the police four to one. Catch-the-Bear, one of the dancers, moved toward Bull Head. “You think you are going to take him,” Catch-the-Bear shouted. “You shall not do it!” “Come now,” Bull Head said quietly to his prisoner, “do not listen to anyone.” But Sitting Bull held back, making it necessary for Bull Head and Sergeant Red Tomahawk to force him toward his horse. At this moment, Catch-the-Bear threw off his blanker and brought up his rifle. He fired at Bull Head, wounding him in the side. As Bull Head fell, he tried to shoot his assailant, but the bullet struck Sitting Bull instead. Almost simultaneously, Red Tomahawk shot Sitting Bull through the head and killed him.

Some have argued that Sitting Bull was an accident victim, killed when Bull Head accidentally shot him. Vine Deloria and Ward Churchill argue Sitting Bull’s death was a political assassination, not an accident. I agree with Deloria and Churchill.







REFERENCES:

1. Beasley, Conger, Jr. 1995. We Are a People in This World: The Lakota Sioux and the
   Massacre at Wounded Knee. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville.
2. Bland, T.A., ed. A Brief History of the Late Military Invasion of the Home of the Sioux. The National Indian Defense Association, Washington, DC, 1891.
3. Brown, Dee. 1991. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American
   West. Henry Holt and Company, New York.
4. Churchill, Ward. 1998. Fantasies of the Master Race: Literature, Cinema and the Colonization of American Indians. City Lights Books, San Francisco.
5. Coleman, William S.E. 2000. Voices of Wounded Knee. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
6. Debo, Angie. 1970. A History of the Indians of the United States. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
7. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1988. Custer Died for your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
8. Gale Group. 1999. Religious Leaders of America, 2nd edition.
9. Harriman, Stephen. April 25, 1999. “Indians Win the Battle, Lose the War; Custer’s Last Stand Made The Flamboyant Soldier Immortal, but it Signaled The End of The Indians’ Independence” in The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA). April 25, 1999, p. M14.
10. Philadelphia Inquirer, The. December 16, 1890. “Sitting Bull Killed.” P. 1.
11. Los Angeles Times, The. December 16, 1890. “His Last Sit; Reclining Bison Killed by the Indian Police; The Old Reptile Taken by Surprise and a Hot Fight Ensues.” P. 1.
12. -------------------------. December 16, 1890. Untitled Editorial. P. 6.
13. New York Times, The. December 16, 1890. “The Last of Sitting Bull; The Old Chief Killed While Resisting Arrest.” P. 1.
14. -------------------------. December 16, 1890. “Exit Sitting Bull” (editorial).
15. -------------------------. December 17, 1890. “The Death of Sitting Bull; Story of the Old Medicine Man’s Last Fight.” P. 1.
16. Sharkey, Alix. April 8, 1994. “Indian Giver” in The Guardian (London). P. T27.
17. Taylor, Walt. 1991. “Wounded Knee 1890 – Unquenchable Spirit 1990; History of Wounded Knee” in Canadian Dimension, vol. 25, no. 1, January.
18. Washington Post. December 16, 1890. “Sitting Bull Shot.” P. 1.
19. 
    --------------------. December 19, 1890. “Death of Sitting Bull.” Pp. 1, 4.
20. --------------------. December 23, 1890. “Sitting Bull.” P. 1.