Sitting Bull: Resistance and Submission in His Life

Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Eva Sklenářová

Sitting Bull: Resistance and Submission in His Life

Master‟s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Jeffrey Alan Vanderziel, B.A.

2009

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

Eva Sklenářová

I would like to thank Jeffrey Alan Vanderziel, B.A. for providing me with valuable

advice and resources.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

Chapter One: Lakota ...... 4

Chapter Two: Sitting Bull ...... 9

Chapter Three: Sitting Bull and the Lakotas in Contact with the Whites ...... 15

Chapter Four: Resistance and Submission in Sitting Bull's Life ...... 39

Chapter Five: Repeating Patterns and Tendencies of Resistance and Submission in Sitting Bull's Life ...... 69

Conclusion ...... 77

Summary ...... 82

Resumé v českém jazyce ...... 83

Works Cited ...... 84

Introduction

Sitting Bull – Tatanka Iyotanka – a Lakota Sioux, was undoubtedly one of the most important Indians living in North America. He devoted his life to the fight for the lands that belonged to the Lakotas as well as to the preservation of Lakota culture and traditional way of life. His life was full of controversies that were brought about mainly by the clash of two cultures – the Indian culture and the culture of the Whites who came to North America searching for new home. In a desperate attempt for the preservation of

Lakota lands, culture and way of life, Sitting Bull was as resistant as he could be; however, the pressure applied by the Whites often made him act submissively. Which of these two approaches prevailed and how did they develop and change throughout

Sitting Bull's life? What circumstances made him act the way he did? Were there any key repeating patterns and tendencies that accompanied Sitting Bull's demonstration of resistance and submission? If so, which of them prevailed? These questions are the subject of this thesis.

The thesis is divided into five chapters. The first three chapters are descriptive and serve as background information for the analyses, which are given in the fourth and fifth chapter.

The first chapter is focused on the depiction of the Lakota way of life, philosophy, religion and values. This information is highly important as without it one could hardly understand the influences that affected Sitting Bull's personality, life and conduct.

The second chapter deals with Sitting Bull's early years and gives information about his importance as a warrior, a member of men's societies, a chief, a holy man and a medicine man. It also provides some information about his character and family matters. This part is also very important because it shows many aspects of Sitting Bull's

personality and life, and thus helps to understand how important he was for the Lakotas and clarifies the reasons of his conduct.

The third chapter gives information about Sitting Bull and the Lakotas in contact with the Whites. It covers the main events that happened during Sitting Bull's life and influenced his actions. It also speaks about the people who played important role in

Sitting Bull's life. It shows how Sitting Bull reacted under various circumstances throughout his life. This chapter serves as general background information about Sitting

Bull and the Lakotas in contact with the Whites and, like the first two chapters, it is crucial for the analyses of resistance and submission in Sitting Bull's life.

The fourth chapter deals with the clash between Sitting Bull's resistance and submission. It attempts to investigate and analyze how these two approaches were interconnected, how they changed in different contexts and under various conditions during his life. This part of the thesis is based mainly on the information given in the first three chapters of the thesis; nevertheless, it gives more details about Sitting Bull's conduct.

The last chapter works with the information given in the previous chapter in order to find out which of the two approaches – resistance or submission – dominated

Sitting Bull's life. It also investigates whether there were any key repeating patterns and tendencies that accompanied Sitting Bull's demonstration of resistance and submission, and which of them prevailed.

The thesis is based mainly on the information given in the books by three authors – Robert Utley, Paul Stekler and James Welch. Utley's book, The Lance and the

Shield: the Life and Times of Sitting Bull, serves as a main source of background information as it deals with whole Sitting Bull's life and it can be considered very objective and comprehensive study of this great chief. Stekler and Welch's book, Killing

Custer: the Battle of the Little Bighorn and the Fate of the Plains Indians, deals mainly with the Sioux wars; therefore it is used mainly in the parts coping with the Lakota offensive and defensive, and with the last years of Sitting Bull's life.

In the thesis several terms are used when referring to various groups of people.

A term “Indians” is used to refer to Native Americans in general, not to any particular group or band. A term “Sioux” is used when speaking about the group of the Indians, who lived in the Great Plains and used cognate languages and therefore they are nowadays considered to belong together (with regard to their language, way of life and culture). The Sioux were further divided into three groups – a term “Lakota” (or “the

Lakotas”) refers to one of these three groups – Sitting Bull's group. The Lakotas consisted of seven bands, one of which was the band of Hunkpapas – Sitting Bull's band. Another term which is often used in the thesis is “the Whites”. This term refers to

the European Americans – the people who discovered North American continent in the 15th century and later gradually started to settle in the area, which is now called the United States. When it is important to distinguish whether the Whites were the

Canadians or the Americans, the thesis uses these two terms.

Chapter One: Lakota

The Lakota Sioux (further only the Lakotas) was the section of a Sioux confederacy. The Sioux belonged to the Plains Indians – people occupying the region between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River. This culture was nomadic, following herds of buffalo (Debo 15, Kehoe 303). As Utley describes it:

Originally the Sioux consisted of seven autonomous but related groups. Although they had never assembled at one time and place, they claimed a unity born of shared culture, history, and language (4).

By the middle of the nineteenth century, the Sioux had divided into three groups of tribes. The location and way of life of each traced a century's history of migration and cultural adaptation as the people spread westward from their original homes around the head of the Mississippi River (3).

These three groups were: the eastern group called Dakota (known also as Santees), which lived along the Mississippi River; the middle group, the Yankton and Yanktonai, which occupied the prairies east of the Mississippi River; and the western group called

Lakotas (or Tetons), which lived on the plains between the Missouri River and the

Bighorn Mountains. The Lakotas were divided into seven bands, one of which was

Hunkpapa – Sitting Bull's band. The other bands were Oglala, Brule, Miniconjou, Two

Kettle, Sans Arc, and Sihasapa (Hyde 8, Kehoe 303). The estimated population of the

Lakotas was from fifteen to twenty thousand (Utley 4). The Hukpapas numbered about three thousand (Utley 40). Each of the Lakota bands had its own hunting areas. The

Hunkpapas, together with the Blackfeet and the Sans Arcs, occupied the territory between the Yellowstone River (today's Montana) and the Sioux Rivers (today's

Dakota). These three bands often camped and traveled together, which led to the extensive intermarriage as well (Utley 5).

As it has already been mentioned the Lakotas were nomadic Indians. At the beginning of the nineteenth century they gradually become fully mounted nomads as a

result of the acquirement of horses (Debo 15, Taylor 41) that started to be brought to the

Great Plains as early as the beginning of the eighteenth century (Hyde 29).

The main dietary staple of the Lakotas was buffalo meat and thus all their life had to be adjusted to this fact. The Lakota way of life was tied to hunting – their division of labor arose from gaining and processing buffalo, the movement of groups was governed by the migration of buffalo herds and all Lakota social, political and religious matters emerged from it.

The Lakotas lived in villages, which consisted of a number of tipis (depending on the size of each particular band). A tipi was a dwelling constructed from poles and covered with buffalo hides (Burland, Nicholson, and Osborne 67). It was possible to dismantle it easily so that a band could move quickly in case of danger or when there was need to follow buffalo herds (Zimmerman 47).

As to the division of labor, men were responsible for hunting, warfare, ceremonial activities, tending horses, but also for manufacturing and mending weapons

(Burland, Nicholson, and Osborne 67). Women, on the other hand, were in charge of cooking and processing food, gathering water and fuel, tanning hides, crafting clothing and containers, erecting and dismantling lodges when a village or a camp moved. Both men and women had their responsibilities and their own social roles, neither of them were superior or inferior.

The Lakota society was based on the existence of a band. The band was “an extended family group in which all were relatives by blood, marriage, or simply a declaration of kinship” (Utley 9). Kinship unified the Lakotas, it ensured that everybody belonged somewhere and “established an intricate system of relationships, forms of address, and modes of behavior” (Utley 9).

Each band was headed by a chief, who led his people “by example, by demonstrated wisdom, and above all with the advice of a council of elders” (Utley 9). If a decision was to be made, there was a need for a consensus. If some difficult problems arose or under certain circumstances (e.g. war), a chief's decision was supported by the help of men's societies, from which “came the akicita, or policemen, who enforced the rules and regulations laid down by the leadership” (Utley 9).

As to Lakota philosophy and religion (or what we call religion), there is a legend saying that a “White Buffalo Woman gave the Lakotas the Sacred Calf Pipe and with it all that made life meaningful” (Utley 1). She appeared to two hunters and after one of them had been destroyed by his lust for the woman, she sent the other one to his village to tell his people that she was coming to bring a very important message. When she arrived, she entered a council lodge, which was built in order to receive her in a worthy way. Then she opened the bundle she was carrying and produced a pipe:

This was the Sacred Calf Pipe, the woman declared. The person who smoked it achieved union with all peoples and all things of the universe – established communication, therefore, with Wakantanka1, the Great Mystery (Utley 2).

The White Buffalo Woman then taught them how to use the pipe and “charged [them] with performing seven ceremonies vital to their well-being” (Utley 31). Then she walked away and vanished. The Lakotas, however, followed her advice and “because of the White Buffalo Woman and the Sacred Pipe, [they] enjoyed a rich spiritual and ceremonial life and a powerful bond, both tangible and mystical, to the world surrounding them” (Utley 2). The Lakota spiritual life and philosophy were closely connected with nature. As Utley depicts it:

Mastery of the sacred world required mastery of the natural world, for the two were the same. Lakotas not only lived close to nature; they regarded themselves as an integral part of nature. Nature profoundly affected their everyday lives, and in turn, to the best of their ability, they tried to manipulate it for their

1 “The word Wakan is often translated by saint or sacred. Wakantanka, therefore, means the Great Holy Being” (Peelman 47).

benefit. This manipulation took the form of propitiating the deities that resided in every manifestation of nature, of reverencing them, fearing them, trying to understand them, and honoring or appeasing them with elaborate group ceremonies and numberless individual rites and taboos. Lakotas did not compartmentalize religion, and had no word for it. Rather they cherished a rich body of beliefs and rituals that functioned in all realms of life at all times (26).

As to the ceremonies, the Lakotas performed e.g. purification by sweat bath, vision quests, puberty celebration, honoring of deceased members of the tribe and others.

However, a Sun Dance can be regarded as the most important Lakota group ceremony.

This ceremony was not performed only by the Lakotas, but it was an important part of life for the majority of the Plains Indians (Burland, Nicholson, and Osborne 70). The

Sun Dance was a large gathering of bands, which would normally be scattered over the

Plains, and thus it can be considered to be “a major integrating mechanism for the

Plains societies” (Kehoe 316). Its main purpose, though, was to gain spiritual renewal and social regeneration. As Kehoe puts it:

Ordinarily, a person would invoke help from his or her spirit protector; in a very serious crisis, especially the dangerous illness of a loved one. […] If the extreme crisis was satisfactorily passed, the beseecher felt obliged to show gratitude for this blessing by sacrificing effort, wealth, and comfort in sponsoring a Sun Dance (316).

The ceremony took place in June and lasted for four days. Priests who participated in the ceremony started the preparations weeks in advance and before the ceremony they purified themselves taking a sweat in a sweat lodge. Those “who had vowed to dance would have fasted and abstained from sexual relations” (Kehoe 318). After purifying themselves, the priests and dancers prayed to Wakantanka. Stekler and Welch depict the next steps as follows:

A holy man then filled a sacred pipe with grains of tobacco representing six directions, including sky and Grandmother Earth, the Spotted Eagle, all the fliers and four-leggeds, each time invoking their help to make the ceremony correct and to take pity on the people. They gathered objects together which would be used in the ceremony – buffalo skulls, robes, a small drying rack, special paints and grasses and herbs (49).

Dancing itself began when all was prepared for the ceremony, including a Sun Dance lodge. Apart from dancers and priests, there were drummers, singers, and men sacrificing themselves by slashing or piercing their bodies in order to “endure terrible pain to expiate sins, to control passions, to enter the spiritual realm of Wakantanka”

(Stekler and Welch 49). Other participants were spectators. After all the dances and ceremonies, the holy man said some more prayers and thanked Wakantanka thus ending the ceremony. After the ceremony bands again started their everyday life – moving around in a search for buffalo or organizing war expeditions against enemies.

Lakota life and philosophy were based on the four virtues – bravery, fortitude, generosity, and wisdom. “The measure of achievement in these virtues determined the tangible wealth and honors one accumulated and the reputation and influence one enjoyed in the band or tribe” (Stanley Vestal qtd in Utley 11). As to the first virtue, bravery, there was a system of honors, according to which a degree of man's bravery was evaluated. Individual bravery was considered to be more important than a group victory. One of the bravest things one could do was to gain a first coup – coming near to an enemy and touching him with a coup stick earlier than the other warriors. The second virtue, fortitude, was based on enduring physical pain (e.g. during the self-torture, bearing the discomfort of fierce weather etc.) as well as on the ability of controlling one's temper. The next virtue, generosity, was another quality that was valued a lot. In this case “the prestige came from giving away the property. An elaborate system of gift- giving, among individuals, families, bands, and even tribes, afforded constant opportunity for the practice of this virtue” (Utley 12). The last virtue, wisdom, was in fact a combination of person's experience, spiritual growth, maturity and natural ability.

Chapter Two: Sitting Bull

Fig. 1. Sitting Bull at the age of fifty-four (Utley 142).

Sitting Bull was most probably born at Many Caches on the south side of the

Grand River (see fig. 2, p. 10) approximately in 1831. He was born “into a distinguished

Hunkpapa family. The Hunkpapas were but one small tribe of the Sioux confederacy”

(Utley 3). His father was a Hunkpapa chief called Sitting Bull, his mother was Her-

Holy-Door. Father named him Jumping Badger, but everyone called him Slow, which was his nickname. When Slow was old enough, he started to be trained to ride a horse and shoot, because these skills were essential for “the two basic roles of men in Sioux life – war and hunt” (Utley 7). This training was the responsibility of his father and his uncles, who did very well and “by his tenth year, Slow had absorbed the traditions and customs of war and the hunt” (Utley 10).

Fig. 2. The Upper Missouri in the 1850s (Utley 41).

In 1845, when Slow was only fourteen, he gained his first coup in a raid on the

Crows, who were the Sioux's old enemies. Slow struck one Crow with a tomahawk and dismounted him from his horse. He was then given a white eagle feather (which symbolized the gaining of a first coup) and “because of his great courage in counting first coup on the enemy, his father named him Tatanka Iyotanka, Sitting Bull” (Stekler and Welch 72). Since then his father was called Jumping Bull, as he passed his former name, Sitting Bull, on his son. At this occasion, young Sitting Bull was also given a shield that would accompany him for the rest of his warrior years.

Early in his career as a warrior, Sitting Bull became a member of two warrior societies, the Kit Fox and the Strong Heart societies, and soon he won distinction in both of them. In general, all warrior societies were mainly responsible for “recording and recognizing feats of war” (Utley 16). It was desired by every young man who wanted to be a warrior to gain a membership in at least one of these societies. In 1857, when he was at the age of twenty-six, Sitting Bull became a war chief of the Midnight

Strong Heart Society since his “war record clearly entitled him to such recognition” and

“in the same year he became a war chief of the [Hunkpapas]” (Old Bull qtd in Utley

22). Later on, in his middle age, Sitting Bull became a member of other two societies – the Silent Eaters and the White Horse Riders. The Silent Eaters were founded roughly in

1869. It was a secret society whose task was to take care of welfare of the band. Its members discussed and counseled about the important matters that were of concern to the band. The White Horse Riders, on the other hand, were “highly visible” (Utley

101). “Sitting Bull founded the society in 1875 or early 1876 and presided over it.

Members staged colorful parades for entertainment, but like other akicita societies they performed police duties too” (Utley 101). The society supported Sitting Bull's authority among the Sioux.

As it has already been stated above, Sitting Bull became a war chief of the

Hunkpapa band in 1857. This status was originally held by his uncle Four Horns, who decided to abdicate it to his nephew. Four Horns thus wanted to “give the Hunkpapas strong leadership and bring the other tribes under Hunkpapa sway as far as possible”

(Utley 85). Apart from that, he proposed that Sitting Bull should become a supreme chief of all the Lakotas, which would “embrace all matters of concern to the people, and specifically it would involve a separate identity as head war chief, or „chief soldier,‟ with authority over all decisions of war and peace” (Utley 85). As Utley further adds:

Sitting Bull possessed the qualifications for such a role. Now thirty-eight and long in the highest councils of the tribe, he combined the dynamism and drive of relative youth with experience in war, the hunt, and the political and spiritual leadership of his people. His war record against enemy tribes ranked with the best. Against the whites, it surpassed all. […] He had been a tribal war chief since 1857 and was active in the men's societies. Of his bravery, despite several troubling episodes, there could be no doubt, nor of the other cardinal virtues either (86).

Of course, not everybody shared the Four Horn's opinion and there were numerous opponents to his ideas. Nevertheless, Sitting Bull had also a lot of supporters who finally elected him a supreme chief of the Sioux confederation and thus created a

completely new office that had never existed before. The election took place most probably in 1869. Four Horns presided it and afterwards he made his speech:

For your bravery on the battlefields and as the greatest warrior of our bands, we have elected you as our war chief, leader of the entire Sioux nation. When you tell us to fight, we shall fight, when you tell us to make peace, we shall make peace (One Bull qtd in Utley 87).

Sitting Bull had visions and dreams with spiritual meaning, according to which he was able to predict what would happen in the future – he could prophesy. He was also a member of two dream societies – the Buffalo and the Heyoka. Dream societies united men, who had had similar dreams. Their members gathered to discuss and interpret the meaning of their dreams. The societies “performed certain functions in tribal ceremonies and had their own special songs, dances, rituals, and regalia” (Utley 29).

Sitting Bull was one of the composers and singers of such songs. Since he also understood the rituals and beliefs of the Lakotas, he could become a holy man of his people (Zimmerman 92), which meant that he took part in important ceremonies, the people relied on him with advice and his visions were considered important. As all holy men, Sitting Bull had his peace pipe. Peace pipes were viewed as the most important ceremonial objects. Smoking the pipe preceded all crucial decisions and it was a part of all important ceremonies, meditation and other events. Sitting Bull also had a great knowledge of healing. As Utley puts it:

Although a holy man rather than a medicine man, Sitting Bull had mastered the techniques of healing. He knew which roots and herbs relieved which maladies, and he understood the role of ceremonies and incantations in driving out the malevolent spirits that caused physical distress (28).

Despite of having this knowledge, Sitting Bull did not regularly heal people, only in urgent cases.

Apart from being considered a great warrior, a hunter, a holy man, and a chief,

Sitting Bull was also admired for his character. In fact, he is usually described in

superlatives. According to most sources Sitting Bull was a very kind, wise, and humble person, who was absolutely free of any kind of arrogance. He had a strong personality and generally enjoyed a great amount of authority and recognition, at least among the

Indians. He never spoke too much, and when he spoke, his speech was quiet and slow.

He was also a very good listener, who never interrupted speakers. Moreover, Sitting

Bull was a living example of the four Lakota virtues – bravery, fortitude, generosity, and wisdom. He loved children and people in general. He had a good sense of humor too. As Robert Higheagle said:

There was something in Sitting Bull that everybody liked. Children liked him because he was kind, the women because he was kind to the family and liked to settle family troubles. Men liked him because he was brave. Medicine men liked him because they knew he was a man they could consider a leader (Robert Higheagle qtd in Utley 35).

It is a question, whether this depiction of Sitting Bull is exaggerated; however, as Utley puts it: “by Sitting Bull's twenties or early thirties, in fact, all the Hunkpapas considered him a leader, whether they liked him or not” (36).

As to Sitting Bull's family life, he most probably married his first wife, Light

Hair, in 1851. However, this marriage ended in 1857, because Light Hair died during the childbirth. The son she gave birth to died of a disease at the age of four. “Grieving for the lost son, [Sitting Bull] formally adopted his nephew, One Bull” (One Bull qtd in

Utley 23), who was the same age as his dead son. He later married two other women –

Snow-on-Her and Red Woman. He had two daughters with the first one and a son with the second one. However, the two wives did not get on very well and squabbled all the time. “Judging [Snow-on-Her] largely at fault, [Sitting Bull] threw her out of the tipi. In

1871 Red Woman died of sickness” (Utley 100). As he remained alone with his children and widowed mother, Sitting Bull needed some woman to take care of his family. At that time his sister Good Feather, whose son was earlier adopted by Sitting Bull, came

to live with Sitting Bull's family, mainly to look after his children. Nevertheless, Sitting

Bull's social status required that he had a wife. For this reason he again started looking for a wife. He was successful and he married another woman, Four Robes, in 1872. His new wife had a widowed sister, named Seen-by-the-Nation, who had two sons. Four

Robes asked Sitting Bull to marry her sister too. He agreed and in the same year he married Seen-by-the-Nation as well and adopted her two sons. This arrangement seemed to have been successful, since the sisters had a very good relationship and never quarreled (Utley 101). Both marriages endured for the rest of Sitting Bull's life.

Chapter Three: Sitting Bull and the Lakotas in Contact with the Whites

Sitting Bull (together with his band and other Plains Indians) had to become involved in a war with the Whites because of the circumstances and reasons that will be given further on. His general approach towards the Whites was rather adverse – he did not want to have anything to do with them, apart from trade. However, the general development of the situation (the gradual settlement of the Indian lands by the Whites as well as the U.S. government policies) made his contact with the Whites inevitable.

The overall situation finally resulted in a war.

The establishment of Fort Pierre on the west bank of the Missouri River (see fig.

2, p. 10), in 1832, can be taken as the beginning of real and regular contact of the

Lakotas with the Whites. The fort served mainly as a trading post, where the Indians exchanged buffalo furs and robes for trade goods. It led to the situation which Utley describes as follows:

The Indians had grown to depend on the goods [the white traders] supplied, especially firearms and ammunition and metal tools, containers, and utensils. Life without them would be much more onerous, even fatal when confronting enemies equipped with firearms. For better or worse, traded goods had become necessities, and they could be obtained only from white men, directly or through Indian intermediaries (39).

Sitting Bull came in contact with white traders in his early childhood. He gradually became familiar with them, but, similarly to most Indians, he viewed them with suspicion (Utley 39). On the one hand, they brought in the much needed goods; on the other hand, they trespassed on the Indian land and behaved in a manner that was beyond

Indian understanding and that seemed very strange to them. Last but not least, they brought alcohol and new diseases that eventually turned out to be fatal for the Indians.

The continuous influx of the Whites into the U.S. brought about gradual westward shift of the so called Permanent Indian Frontier – the boundary dividing the

White and the Indian worlds. In the 1850s, the Whites started to appear in larger

numbers in the Lakota territory as well. This situation caused the first bigger hostilities between the original inhabitants of the land – the Indians, and the unwelcome newcomers – the Whites. To prevent these hostilities and to establish peace between the

U.S. and the Plains Indians, the U.S. government decided to gather the Plains Indians at

Fort Laramie, which was situated on the North Platte River (see fig. 2, p. 10), in order to sign the treaty that would bind the Indians to stop hostilities against the Whites as well as skirmishes among themselves, and to accept the boundaries which were laid down for them (Hyde 69-73). In return, the government promised to protect the Indians from the hostilities of the Whites and to provide $50,000 in annuities for fifty years (Utley

43). This treaty – the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 – turned out to be troublesome, like many other treaties that followed. Not every chief signed it, and those who did could not possibly comply with it. For example, the nomadic way of life of the bands required their movement in order to follow buffalo, so the bands were often forced to move beyond the boundaries described by the government. Another problematic issue was the warfare among the hostile groups of Indians – it was too embedded in the cultures of the

Indians and it could not be stopped simply by signing some treaty. Consequently, there was a lot of misdemeanors by the Indians as well as irritation of the white officials, who obviously did not understand the Indian way of thinking.

The Lakotas were first brought into an armed conflict with the U.S. soldiers in

1854. A Miniconjou man killed an ox that belonged to white immigrants. The man was at that time visiting the Brule village of Conquering Bear, who was its chief (Hyde 76).

A young lieutenant John L. Grattan with his thirty men walked into the village and demanded the Miniconjou man to surrender (Debo 167, Hyde 78). When Conquering

Bear refused to extradite him, the lieutenant ordered his men to open fire and

Conquering Bear was shot dead (Hyde 79). Consequently, all the soldiers were killed by

the infuriated Brule warriors who started to fight back. Grattan Massacre, as the event was later called by the Whites, resulted in the flattening of the Brule village by the white soldiers under the leadership of General William S. Harney (Hyde 83-84). This was the first time the Lakotas “saw women and children cut down by American soldiers and many others taken captive” (Utley 45). This experience, of course, influenced the way the Lakotas reacted towards the Whites. Harney and his army then stayed at Fort

Pierre with the aim of establishing order in the Lakota country. He named a head chief for each of the Lakota bands. Each chief was supposed to be responsible for the obedience of his people (for the Hunkpapas he named Bear's Rib, one of the most distinguished Hunkpapa men). Harney also dictated the new treaty terms requiring all the Indians who had murdered the Whites to surrender, to return the property they have stolen, and to keep out of the roads used by the Whites and other. Although Sitting Bull and his band did not participate in the above mentioned events, the consequences were valid for them as well as for all the Lakotas. There was a lot of ambivalence among the

Hunkpapas as to the accepting or not accepting the terms of the new treaty. Bear's Rib supported the policy of adjustment to the government and he wanted to accept annuities while Sitting Bull was a supporter of the old habits and he refused the annuities.

In the summer of 1862, gold was discovered in the Rocky Mountains. This fact led to the further influx of hundreds of the Whites into the area and to their trespass on the Lakota lands on their journey to the mountains. In August, the Lakotas reacted by attacking one of the steamers bringing new miners on the Missouri River. This attack was followed by other hostilities carried out by the Lakotas as well as other Sioux. As a response, the government sent Generals Sibley and Sully with their columns to the area.

“The operations of Sibley and Sully marked the onset of warfare between the United

States and the Lakotas, which would last nearly continuously until Sitting Bull's final

surrender in 1881” (Utley 52). Among these operations was, for example, the Battle of

Whitestone Hill (see fig. 3, p. 19) on September 3, 1863, where soldiers under command of General Sully killed about a hundred Dakota, Hunkpapa and Blackfeet people, captured many others and destroyed their camp. Whether Sitting Bull took part in this battle or not is not sure. Another operation carried out by General Sully and his men, was the Battle of Killdeer Mountain (see fig. 3, p. 19), 1864, where the Sioux suffered an absolute defeat. Another hundred warriors died whereas the army lost only two soldiers (Utley 57). The conflict started with the ambush prepared by three Dakota warriors in which one of the cavalry soldiers was killed. However, as the soldier was followed by the General Sully's cavalry, the warriors did not manage to escape. They were killed, and their heads were cut off and hanged on the poles near the Sioux camp as a warning. The Sioux were shocked and wanted revenge. However, this revenge ended up as a total failure, as it has been already mentioned above.

The operations carried out by Generals Sibley and Sully in the years 1863-64 taught Sitting Bull and the Sioux an important lesson. They found out that white soldiers fought in a different manner than the Indians did. Contrary to the Indians, they did not show their individual bravery, they fought in highly organized and obedient groups, and used firearms against which the Indians with their bows, lances and several rifles did not stand any chance. Sitting Bull realized that without changing tactics of fight – which meant avoiding open battles, and acquiring better firearms – further fights would most probably be predetermined to failure. At this stage of his life, Sitting Bull started to realize, that he had to fight for the preservation of Lakota lands and traditional way of life, and that the Whites would not give up and stay out of Lakota lands without fight. It meant that an offensive was necessary.

Fig. 3. The Northern Plains in the 1860s (Utley 61).

Around 1865, Sitting Bull thus started to advance his military offensive approach, which would last for the next four years (Utley 65). However, not all the

Hunkpapas agreed with him. At this time the band had already split into supporters and opponents of his policies. The main opponents of it, and at the same time the main supporters of the policy of adjustment and compromise, were Bear's Rib and Running

Antelope, two distinguished Hunkpapa men. These men did not believe that the Whites could be expelled from their country and did not want to risk their peoples‟ lives. Their views and fears were strengthened by the Sand Creek Massacre, November 1864, where the Colorado militia under the command of Colonel Chivington brutally massacred villages of Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho (Hyde 111-12). However, the Sand Creek

Massacre did not only bring about the fear, but it also led to a quest for revenge.

“In January, 1865, the alliance of Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Sioux launched a series of raids along the South Platte. They attacked wagon trains, stage stations, and small military outposts. They [also] burned the town of Julesburg” (Brown 92). In the spring of 1865, Lakota parties repeatedly attacked Fort Rice (see fig. 3, p. 19). These

events brought once again General Sully with his force into the area and led to the

Battle of Fort Rice, July 1865. By that time Sitting Bull had already been a tribal war chief. He led about three hundred warriors in the fight against Fort Rice. However, his men had to withdraw soon, probably because of the lack of firearms. Sitting Bull was said not to be very brave in this particular fight. He was believed to open the fire, steal two horses and ride away (Utley 68). This fact definitely did not help his reputation as a warrior. The reason for his conduct in this battle is not sure.

The above mentioned hostilities led to another government's attempt at making peace. In October 1865, the series of treaties were concluded with several bands, including the Hunkpapas. The treaties set conditions very similar to the Fort Laramie

Treaty of 1851. However, Sitting Bull and his supporters refused any peace making.

They still insisted on the total withdrawal of the Whites from the Lakota territory and continued the warfare.

In 1864, a permanent military post, Fort Buford, was built on the Missouri River

(see fig. 3, p. 19). In 1866, another three military posts were built along the Bozeman

Trail, which led through the Plains Indian territory (not directly through the Hunkpapa territory, but it brought the soldiers very close to it). This meant the biggest military intrusion yet and brought about a sustained four-year offensive carried out by Sitting

Bull and his Hunkpapas as well as other Plains Indians. Sitting Bull and his war parties attacked the settlements of the Whites, mainly Fort Buford and Stevenson (the latter was built on the Missouri River in 1867 – see fig. 3, p. 19). Sitting Bull sent messages to the posts claiming that as long as he lived he would fight for freedom of his people and he would not make himself “[a slave] to a piece of fat bacon, some hard-tack, and a little sugar and coffee” (Charles Larpenteur qtd in Utley 73). The Bozeman Trail was

also under fierce attacks by the Indians and traffic moved there only with a military escort.

The end of the Civil War (1861-65) brought about a bigger interest in settling the western territories of the U.S. New emigrants were coming in thousands searching for new opportunities – land and wealth. The Central Plains, of course, were not the exception. As the situation there was rather serious and unsafe, in the years 1867-68 the government once more tried to make peace with the Plains Indians, in attempt to settle the problems there. Its aim was to clear all the Indians away from the travel routes and place them on the reservations. The negotiations were successful in the southern Plains, where in October 1867 many bands promised to settle on the reservation in Kansas.

When the commission started to negotiate with the northern bands, it was partly successful; however, Sitting Bull and his band refused to negotiate at first and answered with a war expedition against Forts Buford and Stevenson in May 1868. Later on,

Sitting Bull changed his mind and wanted to make a compromise. He demanded the

Whites to abandon the forts that had been set in the Lakota lands (along the Bozeman

Trail and the Missouri River). He also required the influx of the Whites and the steamboats coming into their country to be stopped. The government agreed only to abandon the forts along the Bozeman Trail (Debo 234). The other requirements were, in fact, ignored.

Finally, the Treaty of 1868, which created a Great Sioux Reservation, was signed (see fig. 4, p. 22). The Hunkpapas were supposed to settle there and to start to live as the Whites did – to make their living by farming, to go to schools, to stop warfare and not to leave the reservation. It is quite sure that those Hunkpapas, who signed the treaty, could not possibly understand what the treaty bound them to do, and they, in fact, continued in their traditional way of living in spite of signing it. The last

offensive carried out by Sitting Bull and his followers was an attack on Fort Buford in

September 1870. From then on, Sitting Bull's policy was rather defensive and this tendency lasted until his surrender in 1881 (Utley 91).

Fig. 4. The Treaty of 1868 (Utley 83).

As it has already been mentioned, the Lakotas as well as other Plains Indians depended on buffalo with their diet. In the 1870s, the Whites started to build the Northern Pacific

Railway (Debo 235, Henriksson 151), which was planned to run through the Lakota territory and which scared off the buffalo. This situation, without any doubt, meant a war. The Whites wanted to persuade the Indians involved to agree with the railway.

They, however, refused even though they temporarily accepted the rations at the Milk

River Agency at Fort Peck (see fig. 5, p. 24). Sitting Bull was not the exception. Utley explains this temporary acceptance of the rations by Sitting Bull, who thus acted against his former conviction, as follows – Sitting Bull was supposed to try to make peace, he also wanted to build a trading relationship in order to gain necessary goods, as well as learn something more about the Whites (94). Since Sitting Bull wanted to make peace,

he sent some chiefs to a peace conference, which took place at Fort Peck in November

1871. Black Moon, who spoke for the Lakotas, dictated their conditions: the Whites

“must stop the Northern Pacific, expel all white soldiers and citizens from the Indian country and abandon Fort Buford and the settlement at the mouth of the Musselshell.

This country belonged to the Lakotas” (Utley 95). In exchange, the Indians would not raid on the Whites. The peace conference seemed to be successful, and peace lasted for some time at least. The Lakota bands then spent the winter of 1871-72 near to Fort Peck and they lived on the rations. Seeing the success, the government then offered more rations and clothing for those Lakotas, who stayed near to Fort Peck. As Sitting Bull did not want to rely on the rations in the following winter, he spent it out of Fort Peck, whereas most of his people (except for a few of his most faithful followers) spent the winter near to Fort Peck again. The governmental policy thus challenged Sitting Bull's authority. However, after the winter, when they were not in danger of starving any more, most of his people joined him again. Following their defensive policy, the hostile

Indians attacked the Whites only occasionally, rather concentrating on their old enemies

– the Crows. They also did not attack the Whites when they first appeared in the

Yellowstone Valley (in what is now northeastern Montana) in the autumn of 1871 with the intention to build the Northern Pacific Railway. Later on, in the spring of 1872, when this intention became obvious, the attack was inevitable as the Indians who occupied the territory would never agree with it.

First defense against the railway was the Battle of Arrow Creek. There the

Lakotas attacked the railway employees and soldiers who were working under the command of Major Baker. It happened in August 1872. Even if the Lakotas were finally forced to back off, it discouraged the railway engineers from continuing the survey of the Yellowstone Valley.

Fig. 5. The Great Sioux Wars 1876-77 (Utley 113).

Several days after the Battle of Arrow Creek, the Lakotas attacked again. This time they attacked the survey expedition, which was working at the mouth of the

Powder River (see fig. 4, p. 22) under the command of Colonel Stanley. Here, as well, the Lakotas were driven away. Again the Lakota way of fight proved to be ineffective.

Nevertheless, after these two attacks the railway workers called for stronger protection as well as a stronger military force in the area. The government finally decided to strengthen the military forces and sent Colonel Custer with his Seventh Cavalry in the area (Debo 235). They joined Stanley's survey expedition that was at that time at Fort

Lincoln on the upper Missouri. Custer met Sitting Bull and his warriors for the first time in the Battle of Yellowstone in August 1873. There the Indians fearing that their camp on the Bighorn River might be assaulted by the soldiers attacked the survey expedition which was at that time working on the Yellowstone River. The fight lasted one day and it was the last Lakota encounter with the railway builders. In 1873 the building of the

Northern Pacific Railway was interrupted because of financial problems. This break lasted for the next six years so it was not the main cause of problems with hostile

Indians1 any longer. After that the Lakotas concentrated rather on their raids against the

Crows as well as the Crow Agency (see fig. 4, p. 22).

The Black Hills (see fig. 5, p. 24) – Papa Saha in Lakota language – had always been taken as sacred by the Lakota people. The Treaty of 1868, apart from other things, guaranteed the Lakotas their ownership of the Black Hills and exempted the hills from settlement by the Whites forever. Nevertheless, the guaranty was broken as soon as the gold was discovered in the Black Hills in 1874. “In the summer of 1874, George Custer led a highly publicized military and scientific expedition into the Black Hills” (Stekler and Welch 81). When he announced there was gold in the Black Hills, the Black Hills

Gold Rush started. “Within a year of the discovery there were fifteen thousand miners in the Black Hills [...and...] by the following year the number jumped to twenty-five thousand, and more were coming” (Stekler and Welch 84). The Whites made an attempt to buy the Black Hills from the Indians involved; however, the negotiations were not successful (Debo 236, Fowler 43, Hyde 223-33) and that is why the government decided to use force instead. Stekler and Welch describe the government's steps as follows:

On December 6, President Grant issued the order that all the Sioux and Cheyenne were to be on the reservation by January 31, 1876, or be declared at war with the United States. The final justification for the declaration was that the Sioux were harassing the Crows in Montana (94).

Sitting Bull himself “had not been present at the [Treaty of 1868] and so he did not consider himself and his people beholden to its conditions or benefits” (Stekler and

Welch 66). He also did not take part in the negotiations regarding the sale of the Black

Hills to the U.S. government, as he strongly opposed it. Apart from that, the severe winter did not allow him and his people to carry out the Grant's order. Many other

1 Sitting Bull and his followers rejected any contact with the Whites as well as the rations offered by them, and they were viewed by the U.S. government as the hostile Indians. Sitting Bull was viewed as the leader of the hostile Indians.

Indians were in a similar situation (Debo 236, Hyde 238) and this led to a war for the

Black Hills. The Indians could not manage to move to the reservations so quickly, and they also did not want to leave their home lands and to give up their sacred hills.

Throughout the winter of 1875-76, the bands were dispersed, trying to survive the severe weather and avoid contact with the U.S. army whose task was to drive the remaining Indians to the reservations.

Sitting Bull played an important role in the conflict. In the spring of 1876, the groups of the Hunkpapas, Cheyenne and Oglala gathered to travel together for spring and summer hunting. “Sitting Bull became the de facto big chief because his band, the

Hunkpapas, was the largest, and because he was the most forceful leader” (Stekler and

Welch 65). In early June of 1876, “those bands of [Indians] held a sacred ceremony at the Deer Medicine Rocks” (Stekler and Welch 48) which were situated along the

Rosebud River in Montana. This ceremony was the Sun Dance. Sitting Bull, who was present at the ceremony as well, had a vision (Brown 275, Hyde 248). Brown describes it as follows:

For three days Sitting Bull danced, bled himself, and stared at the sun until he fell into a trance. When he rose again, he spoke to his people. In his vision he had heard a voice crying: „I give you these because they have no ears.‟ When he looked into the sky he saw soldiers falling like grasshoppers, with their heads down and their hats falling off. They were falling right into the Indian camp. Because the white men had no ears and would not listen, Wakantanka, the Great Spirit, was giving these soldiers to the Indians to be killed (275).

Sitting Bull's vision meant a great inspiration and encouragement for all the Indians present. They knew that “the soldiers were close by, looking to capture them, disarm them, and drive them to the Great Sioux Reservation” (Stekler and Welch 53).

While these several thousand Indians were camped on the Rosebud, many young warriors joined them from the reservations. They brought rumors of great forces of the soldiers marching from three directions. [General Crook] was coming from the south. [Colonel John Gibbon] was coming from the west. [General Terry and General Custer] were coming from the east (Brown 275).

On June 17, an Indian scout reported the presence of General Crook's troops near to the camp at the Rosebud River. The Indians attacked the Crook's force and as they were greater in numbers, they managed to win quite easily (Hyde 248-52). The Crook's force retreated south in order to wait for a message from Gibbon, Terry or Custer. “After the fight on the Rosebud, the chiefs decided to move west to the valley of the Greasy Grass

(Little Bighorn)” (Brown 277). Sitting Bull, however, “did not believe the victory on the Rosebud had fulfilled his prophecy of soldiers falling into the Indian camp” (Brown

278).

On June 25, 1876, the Seventh Cavalry under the command of General Custer attacked the camp of Indians at the Little Bighorn River. Custer, not knowing about the great number of Indians in the camp, divided his command into three parts, which was a serious mistake. When Custer charged the camp, he was easily defeated by the

Cheyenne and Lakotas, who were again greater in numbers. Custer and all 210 men under his direct command were killed (Utley 160). Sitting Bull's prophecy was thus fulfilled. The victory of the Indians, however, did not last long. The Whites called this fight massacre, and their outrage at Custer's defeat brought more soldiers into the area.

Their task was to revenge the defeat, force the Indians to surrender, and make them give in the Black Hills. Stekler and Welch describe the U.S. government's further steps as follows:

On September 7, 1876, a commission arrived on the reservation to „negotiate an agreement‟ whereby the Indians would relinquish the Black Hills and the unceded territory in Montana and Wyoming. The deal the commission gave the Indians was territory for food. Put another way, the government threatened to cut off all rations to the agencies if the Indians did not agree to give up the Black Hills. The Indians were to give them up or literally starve to death1. [...] On February 28, 1877, Congress ratified the new agreement, and the sacred Black Hills, Paha Sapa, became the property of the United States of America (196-97).

1 The U.S. government absolutely ignored the fact that the Treaty of 1868 required the consent of three- quarters of adult men whenever deciding about important issues such as selling lands and the like.

The government then decided to start a war against the hostile Indians so as to drive them to reservations, disarm and dismount them, and make them follow the rules of the

Whites. In order to force the hostile Indians to give up, the Whites opted for a permanent military campaign against them, cutting all the rations and occupying the buffalo ranges so that the Indians would either starve or surrender.

After the Little Bighorn, the Indians separated. Sitting Bull and his Hunkpapas moved to the Killdeer Mountain and met their allies again at the Moreau River in

September (see fig. 2, p. 10). There they were attacked by General Crook and his force.

They fought for one day but the Indians managed to drive the soldiers back.

Another encounter with the soldiers happened at Cedar Creek, October 1876

(see fig. 5, p. 24). Sitting Bull's people, following the buffalo, met Colonel Miles with his regiment. First, they tried to talk about peace; however, the negotiations resulted in disagreement. Sitting Bull wanted the soldiers to leave, whereas Miles demanded the

Indians to surrender. The Indians then tried to escape. Sitting Bull with his followers were successful. Other chiefs, when caught up by Miles, surrendered. Moreover, many hostile Indians, who originally followed Sitting Bull, were tired of war and starving and wanted peace. Consequently, Sitting Bull was gradually loosing his followers and started to become more and more isolated. This situation was worsened by the severe winter of 1876-77. Sitting Bull's camp close to Fort Peck was attacked by the soldiers in

December 1876. The Indians managed to escape; however, the soldiers burned their camp down. Thus the Indians lost their possessions including the supplies of food. This and other attacks by soldiers as well as the shortage of supplies meant another blow to

Sitting Bull's authority. Now, the “bands were badly divided on the issue of war or peace” (Utley 179). Except for surrender and attempts to fight the Whites, there was an only option – to leave for Canada. There, it seemed, the Indians were welcomed and

could live peacefully. Many Sioux decided to surrender to the U.S. government (Debo

241) and did so in the spring of 1877 whereas some had already been in the Wood

Mountain, Canada (see fig. 6, p. 30). Sitting Bull together with his followers, now counting 135 Lakota lodges – about a thousand people (Utley 183), decided for the second option. They crossed the Canadian border in May, 1877.

“Sitting Bull and his Hunkpapa band stayed in Canada, the Grandmother's

[queen Victoria's] country, for four years, from May 1877 to July 1881” (Stekler and

Welch 252). When they were arriving at Pinto Horse Butte on the White Mud River in

Saskatchewan, Canada (see fig. 6, p. 30), they were exhausted, hungry, tired of war and impoverished. The Canadian dominion welcomed them and allowed them to stay.

However, the Indians had to follow the Canadian rules as the Canadian “laws protected every person of whatever color but also punished any person who violated them” (Utley

185). The North-West Mounted Police was a tool that enforced this obedience in the territory where Sitting Bull and his people stayed, and they did so uncompromisingly.

The police was led by Major Walsh, a commander of Fort Walsh (see. fig. 6, p. 30). He was the main person who represented the Canadian dominion in communication and contact with Sitting Bull and his people. Walsh was very helpful and he gradually won

Sitting Bull's trust, respect and even friendship, and had a big influence on him. Walsh also granted to traders a permission to sell the Sioux ammunition so that they could hunt buffalo. Sitting Bull promised Walsh to cooperate, not to violate the laws, and to punish those who would do so. In the beginning, he was able to keep the promise; however, the young warriors, striving for recognition of warriors and not being used to semi- sedentary life, started to steal horses and thus acted against the Canadian law. They sometimes crossed the Canadian boundary when hunting the buffalo and stole some cattle from American farmers. This, of course, was considered to be an offence as well.

Even if Sitting Bull them for breaking the laws, it was clear that he and his people would not be allowed to stay any longer. Canada started to talk with the U.S. government about arranging the return of Sitting Bull and his people to the U.S.

Nevertheless, the Indians had to be persuaded first.

Fig. 6. The Canadian Interlude 1877-81 (Utley 187).

The U.S. government sent a commission to Fort Walsh to discuss this issue with

Sitting Bull. In October 1877, a council took place. General Terry, who represented the

U.S. government, dictated there the conditions of the return:

Sitting Bull and his people would be received kindly and not punished. They would have to give up their ponies and guns, which would be sold and the money spent on livestock with which the Indians could begin a new mode of life (Utley 196).

Terry further explained that they could not return unless they accepted the conditions.

Sitting Bull reacted by a total refusal. He talked about all the grievances and injustice suffered from the Americans, and he made it clear that he wanted to stay in Canada.

Thus the commission returned to the U.S. without a success. Nevertheless, it did not

mean that Sitting Bull and his people could stay in Canada forever; they could stay as long as buffalo lasted, but they would never be allowed to become the Canadian Indians with the right to be entitled their own reservation and to take rations.

Sitting Bull's camp gradually grew bigger as there were more refugees coming from the U.S. In the spring of 1878, it numbered about five thousand people including the Hunkpapas, Oglalas, Nez Percé and others (Stekler and Welch 257). This situation brought about further problems. The buffalo became scarce and it led to hunger, hostilities between the Canadian Indians and Sitting Bull's people, and to more crossing of Canadian boundary by Sitting Bull's people. The Canadian authorities also made several attempts to persuade Sitting Bull to give up and go back to his country.

As the situation became unbearable, the people who stayed with Sitting Bull in

Canada gradually started to leave for the U.S. to surrender and go to reservations.

Firstly, Sitting Bull ordered akicita to prevent any Indians from leaving; however,

Walsh persuaded him “not to interfere with anyone who wanted to surrender” (Utley

206).

In the winter of 1878-79, Sitting Bull made an attempt to ally on with Lakota traditional enemies, the Crows. He wanted to go back to the U.S. and fight for the lost lands again. However, he was not successful. The Crows fought him back and it only led to further problems with the Canadian officials. In 1880, Major Walsh was found too cooperative with the Sioux so the Canadian authorities decided to remove him from his office. He was sent to another place where he could not be in contact with Sitting

Bull any more. Thus Sitting Bull lost one of his important supporters. The pressure upon the Sioux to give up by both the Canadian and the U.S. authorities increased and together with all the other problems (hunger, poverty, homesickness etc.) led to further

departure of the people who stayed with Sitting Bull. Stekler and Welch describe the situation as follows:

By early 1881, Sitting Bull had lost most of his followers to the promises of U.S. authorities and was left with a small band of mostly old people. Still, he refused to surrender, although the old people did not have enough to eat and were living under deplorable conditions. They were homesick and desperate, but they stayed because of loyalty to their chief (256).

Sitting Bull made another attempt to plead the Canadian dominion for rations and reservation, but he was refused. Despite his unwillingness to give up, seeing his people in this desperate situation, which worsened day by day, Sitting Bull decided to surrender and lead his people back to the U.S. On July 19, 1881, he and other 186 Hunkpapas

(Stekler and Welch 257), who stayed with their chief till the end, approached Fort

Buford (see. fig. 6, p. 30), where they were disarmed and dismounted. When surrendering his rifle, Sitting Bull gave a speech:

I surrender this rifle to you through my young son, whom I now desire to teach in this manner that he has become a friend of the Americans. I wish him to learn the habits of the Whites and to be educated as their sons are educated. I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle. This boy has given it to you, and he now wants to know how he is going to make a living (Sitting Bull qtd in Ewers 180).

Thus the Lakota defensive was ended.

Sitting Bull and his 186 followers expected they would be allowed to go to the

Standing Rock Agency on the Missouri River (see fig. 7, p. 33), where the other Lakota had already lived, as they had been promised by the U.S. authorities in October 1876.

Instead, they were sent to a military post of Fort Randall (see fig. 5, p. 24), which was situated “several miles farther down the river, and there [they] remained as

[prisoners] of war for the next two years” (Stekler and Welch 258). The reason for this was probably the fear that Sitting Bull's presence among his people could result in new disturbances and therefore it seemed to be better to keep him and his followers under military supervision.

Fig. 7. The Sioux Reservations, 1890 (Utley 273).

They arrived at Fort Randall on September 17, 1881. As Utley puts it, the time spent at Fort Randall “formed the unhappiest and most uneventful period of Sitting

Bull's life. He had nothing to do but sit and vegetate” (241). He and his people received army rations and were supposed to live there and behave themselves. They were not free any more. They did not understand why they could not stay with their people at the

Standing Rock Agency and longed for being allowed to join them. Finally, in August

1882, Sitting Bull sent a letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs where he stated that “although he had never signed a treaty and therefore never violated a treaty, he and his people were ready to accept the terms of the 1868 treaty. “He begged to be sent to

the Standing Rock Agency” (Stekler and Welch 259). After some time of “bureaucratic maneuvering between the military and civilian agencies” (Stekler and Welch 259),

Sitting Bull and his followers were allowed to go to the Standing Rock Agency. On

May 10, 1883, they started their new lives there. Standing Rock thus became Sitting

Bull's home for the rest of his life.

Arriving at the Standing Rock Agency, as Stekler and Welch put it, “Sitting Bull expected to return to his position as head chief of the Hunkpapas, and for that matter, of all the Lakotas” (259). However, James McLaughin, who was an agent at the agency, made it clear right from the beginning that Sitting Bull “was not a chief on the agency, he would receive his own rations just like any other Indian, he would follow the regulations laid down by McLaughin and he would start to farm immediately” (Stekler and Welch 259)1. However, as Sitting Bull still had quite a big influence on his people,

McLaughin would fight till Sitting Bull's death to win this influence over him.

Sitting Bull soon understood that he was not the one who would decide about important things and that he would have to adjust his life to the dictate of the Whites.

This dictate and all the rules which came along with it were aimed at transforming the

Indians into people who would live the same way the Whites did. In practice it meant to destroy the tribal life, to make the Indians support themselves by farming (not hunting any more), to educate them and to Christianize them – in fact to make them forget about their former culture. This dictate, of course, could not be accepted by Sitting Bull without resistance and it caused some problems from time to time. Nevertheless, he did quite a lot in order not to interfere with the Whites. As Stekler and Welch put it, “Sitting

Bull did pretty well as a farmer, raising oats, potatoes, and corn. In addition, he kept

1 Sitting Bull expected that he would have right to decide about important matters of his tribe, to divide the rations received from the agent and like wise. He also wanted to start to farm the following year, not right after their arrival at the agency.

horses, cattle and chickens. And he sent his children to the Congregational day school”

(262).

Since his stay in Canada, Sitting Bull attracted the attention of the press and general public. Journalists strived for gaining an interview with him. Sitting Bull also started to sell his autographs to general public and allowed the Whites to portray him after his surrender in 1881. It enabled him to get to know the Whites better as well as to let them slightly change the distorted image of him. Later on, from 1883 to his death,

Sitting Bull had some opportunities to travel and learn more about the culture of the

Whites. These opportunities came along with the exhibition tours, the most famous of which was definitely Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West. Sitting Bull joined this tour in

1885. Cody presented him as a famous Hunkpapa chief. Sitting Bull's task was to ride in parades, sit on stage, greet visitors in his tipi and so on (Kasper 51-57). The tour lasted for four months, Sitting Bull got his salary. Moreover, he could sell his portraits and autographs. Thus he gained some money for being able to display his virtue of generosity (Utley 265). More importantly, Sitting Bull gained a new view of the world of the Whites and could enjoy the attention that he did not get at the agency.

In the 1880s, the Sioux had to face a new interest for their land – the Great

Sioux Reservation. In 1882 the U.S. authorities suggested that the reservation should be divided into six Sioux reservations, each of which would be administrated by the existing agencies and the remaining land would be opened to settlement by the Whites.

However, according to the Treaty of 1868 the approval of the three-fourth of the adult

Sioux men was required when deciding about sale of the Sioux lands (Henriksson 152).

When the first commission came to the reservation in 1882 to persuade the Indians to sign the agreement, they objected strongly. This attempt was not successful and the

Senate refused to ratify the agreement with only a few signatures. In 1883, another

commission, the Dawes commission, was sent to the reservation to investigate the methods of the previous commission as well as to try to convince the Indians again.

Sitting Bull's conduct at the first session with the commissioners was very controversial.

He pointed out his own importance, accused commissioners of being drunk and left.

Other Indians followed him. Later, when he realized that his conduct probably had not been appropriate, he apologized at another session. There Senator Logan explained to him that “[he had] no following, no power, no control, and no right to any control”

(Dawes report qtd in Utley 259). Having been humiliated by a white man in front of his people, Sitting Bull‟s authority suffered another blow.

In 1888, the U.S. government prepared the Sioux Act of 18881 and sent another commission to get enough signatures so that the land agreement could be ratified. This time the commission was successful, despite Sitting Bull's efforts to prevent his people from signing the treaty. At first, the Sioux were offered fifty cents an acre for the remaining land (Utley 269). In the beginning, they did not want to sell it at any price.

However, after several weeks of pressure by the commissions, further negotiations and new price2 offered for the remaining land in a new act, the Sioux Act of 1889, the Sioux changed their minds. Eventually, the sufficient amount of signatures for the agreement to be ratified was collected and on February 10, 1890, it was accepted by the U.S. government.

After the acceptance of the Sioux Act of 1889, the U.S. government reduced the rations, in spite of the fact that the Sioux had been promised that it would not happen

1 “Under the Sioux Act of 1888, six separate reservations would be carved out of the Great Sioux Reservation: Pine Ridge, Rosebud, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, Crow Creek, and Lower Brule. Each would contain the amount of land needed for allotments to all its residents. The remaining land, about 9 million acres, would be restored to the public domain and immediately opened to settlers at fifty cents an acre. As provided by the Treaty of 1868, the law could not take effect until accepted by three-fourths of adult males” (Utley 269). This was also observed by Henriksson (181-184).

2 According to Utley, $1.25 an acre was to be offered during the first three years of the distribution of land, for the next two years 75 cents and then 50 cents (277).

(Kehoe 303, Neihardt 195). This fact together with the crop failure of 1889 led to hunger. Moreover, the Sioux were struck by epidemics of measles, influenza and whooping cough (Debo 290). All these facts strengthened by the gradual loss of traditional culture (customs, values, way of life) resulted in a depression that spread over the Sioux reservations. This situation probably gave rise to and helped to spread a new rumor that “a god had come to earth to rescue Indians everywhere” (Utley 281). A messiah called Wovoka was said to have appeared prescribing the Indians to dance a dance of ghosts (Debo 289). Through this dance the Indians would get their lands back, it would make the Whites go away, the dead Indians would return and all the tribes would live in peace forever. The Ghost Dance, as the movement was later called, soon appeared on the Sioux reservations and it reached Standing Rock as well. People gathered close to Sitting Bull's cabin and there they danced the ghost dance. Even though Sitting Bull himself did not participate in the dancing, as he most probably did not believe in the new religion, he did not discourage his people to do so. He interpreted their visions and, in fact, ignored the advice of the agent McLaughin to send the believers home. He probably would not have been successful even if he had tried to do so as the movement had already been too strong. Being afraid of possible disturbances,

McLaughin sent on July 18, 1890, a letter to the U.S. government in which he asked for the arrest of Sitting Bull and other „troublemakers‟. However, it took quite a long time before the arrest was to be done. The situation worsened at the reservations of Pine

Ridge, Rosebud and Cheyenne River. It caused hysteria and the agents “sent their tribal policemen to break up these gatherings” (Stekler and Welch 267). This situation encouraged McLaughin to act. Having approval of the U.S. government to arrest Sitting

Bull and knowing that the chief had been invited to visit the dance camp at Pine Ridge

and intended to go there, McLaughin decided to arrest him as soon as possible (Debo

291).

On December 15, 1890, forty-four Indian policemen arrived at Sitting Bull's cabin in order to conduct the arrest. They arrived early in the morning to prevent any interference of the dancers; however, they were not successful. When arresting Sitting

Bull, his wives and children started to cry. This attracted the attention of other Indians at the settlement. As Stekler and Welch describe it, “a crowd had gathered outside the cabin. Some urged Sitting Bull to go with the police, assuring him that they [could not] hurt him, while others became more threatening” (271). This situation led to confusion and Sitting Bull's followers started to shoot. First, one of the policemen, Bull Head, was shot. “As he fell, he turned his revolver up and shot Sitting Bull full in the chest” (Utley

301). Sitting Bull was then shot once again by Red Tomahawk, another member of the

Indian police. Sitting Bull was thus killed by his own people, not the Whites. His death was followed by a fight. “By the time the cavalry troops arrived [to stop the fighting], twelve Indians, both police and civilians, were dead” (Stekler and Welch 271). Sitting

Bull and other dead were then taken to Fort Yates (see. fig. 6, p. 30). There they were buried at the post cemetery on December 17, 1890.

Chapter Four: Resistance and Submission in Sitting Bull's Life

Resistance and submission were the inseparable parts of Sitting Bull's life.

Before dealing with these two approaches in his life, it is important to ask what resistance and submission are, how they can be defined and how they can be applied to this case.

According to Webster's New World Dictionary of American English (1142), resistance is a noun which means:

1. the act of resisting, opposing, withstanding, etc. 2. power or capacity to resist 3. opposition of some force, thing, etc. to another or others

Taking into consideration the fact that Sitting Bull was a Lakota and devoted his life to the preservation of the Lakota lands, culture and way of life, resistance in his life can be explained as an opposition against everything and everybody that threatened what he tried to preserve. This threat was posed mainly by the Whites, especially in the first part of Sitting Bull's life; however, later on many Indians, who had yielded to the pressure of the Whites and the circumstances which have been described in the third chapter, started to threaten Sitting Bull's attempts as well and thus he also had to resist his own people.

As to the meaning of a noun submission, Webster's New World Dictionary of

American English (1334) describes it as follows:

1. the act submitting, yielding, or surrendering 2. the quality or condition of being submissive; resignation; obedience; meekness 3. the act of submitting something to another for decision, consideration, etc.

Submission was without any doubt a part of Sitting Bull's life as well. He was made to submit whenever he had to give in under the pressure of the Whites and the circumstances that did not allow him to persist in his resistance and attempts at the

preservation of the Lakota lands, culture and way of life. In these situations he was made to act against his nature, belief, and cultural tradition.

In the first years of Sitting Bull's life, there was, in fact, no need for resistance or submission, at least with regard to the subject of this thesis i.e. resistance or submission in Sitting Bull's attempts to preserve the Lakota lands, culture and way of life. Even if

Sitting Bull was in contact with the white traders, who appeared at Fort Pierre, since his childhood, his approach toward them was more or less neutral. He, similarly to other

Lakotas, saw the first Whites he met with suspicion (Utley 39); however, it did not make him act resistively or submissively. At that time, he was being brought up, and his personality and approach to life were being formed. He was learning the Lakota ways so that in the following years of his life he would be a good warrior and hunter who would honour the Lakota virtues and protect his people. Apart from not being mature enough, he had not gained the necessary recognition in terms of the four Lakota virtues yet. He did not yet belong to the most important Lakota men. Therefore he was not visible for the Whites so there is almost no record of Sitting Bull's acts from the earliest period of his life. However, this situation gradually changed with Sitting Bull's maturing as well as with the growing numbers of the Whites in the Lakota lands in the 1850s. Later on, being already an adult, Sitting Bull realized that the world of the Whites could possibly threaten the Lakota lands, culture and way of life and that there would be a need to protect them.

By the 1850s, when the Whites started to arrive at the Lakota lands in larger numbers, Sitting Bull had already won distinction in his band, the Hunkpapas, as a member of men's societies and a warrior who had proved his abilities by gaining enough honors that were recognized by the Lakotas. Even if at that time he was not the main chief of his band yet, he started to be recognized and influential. In this period of his

life, Sitting Bull acted partly resistively against the Whites, even if it was probably not a conscious resistance yet. Being in his twenties, Sitting Bull most likely longed for the gaining more honors of war and hunt. He did well against the Indian enemies of the

Sioux – the Arikaras, the Assinboines, and the Crows (Utley 44).

With regard to the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, which obliged the Sioux to stop hostilities against the Whites as well as to stop fighting their Indian enemies, Sitting

Bull as well as many other Sioux was, in fact, resistant since he ignored this request of the Whites and continued the warfare. Apart from the fighting their Indian enemies, the

Sioux sometimes acted hostilely against the Whites, especially when they encountered them in their lands. Taking into account his youth and ambitions, Sitting Bull most likely was not the exception. The explanation to the violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 is quite obvious. The above mentioned request to stop fighting their Indian enemies was against the Lakota tradition and their way of thinking. Moreover, the

Hunkpapas were not present at the signing of the treaty and therefore they most probably did not consider themselves to be bound by it. On the other hand, the treaty offered annuities and many Sioux were willing to accept them. As to this matter, there was a disagreement among the Sioux. Some wanted to accept the annuities and talked about peace, and some of them refused. This disagreement among the Sioux grew bigger, especially after the Grattan Massacre in 1854. As far as the Hunkpapas are concerned, there was, as it has already been mentioned in the previous chapter, much disagreement as well. Bear's Rib supported the policy of the adjustment while Sitting

Bull opposed it. This was another sign of his resistance against both the Whites and some of his own people. The reason why he opposed the treaty was most likely the fact that Sitting Bull honored the Lakota traditions and did not want to depend on the

Whites. He, therefore, refused to bind himself and his people to any of the treaties. Even

if generosity and gift-giving was not alien to the Lakotas, the suspicion towards the

Whites probably prevailed. Finally, in the Hunkpapa band the resentful attitude towards the annuities prevailed and this led to the murdering of Bear's Rib after he had accepted the last annuities in May, 1862 (Utley 49). It is not known whether Sitting Bull approved of this murder or not, but it is clear that he did not support Bear's Rib's policies. As to Sitting Bull's approach to the white traders who came to Forts Pierre and

Berthold, it was neutral and he often traded with them in the early 1860s (Utley 48).

Generally, it is possible to say that the resistance to the Whites prevailed in this period of Sitting Bull's life, though it was sometimes combined with a neutral approach to them, especially with regard to his above mentioned contact with the white traders.

Sitting Bull's resistance to the Whites grew even stronger after 1862, when gold was discovered in the Rocky Mountains. It continued until the attack on Fort Buford in

September 1870, which was the last offensive encounter carried out by Sitting Bull and his people. How did he act in this period and why? The Lakotas reacted hostilely to the influx of the Whites, which began after the discovery of gold in 1862. These hostilities led to the arrival of five thousand U.S. soldiers to the area (Utley 52) and consequently to more disturbances and hostile encounters by the Indians. It is not sure whether Sitting

Bull himself took part in these encounters with the Whites (e.g. when the Lakotas attacked the steamer on the Missouri River in August 1862, or at the Battle of

Whitestone Hill in September 1863). However, at that time, Sitting Bull was in his early thirties, therefore at the peak of his powers and willing to confirm his qualities as a warrior.1 Moreover, he had already been a war chief of the Hunkpapas since 1857.

Considering these facts, it is most probable that he participated at least in some of these encounters. He thus acted resistively against the Whites as well as many other Lakotas

1 In the beginning of the 1860s, Sitting Bull had already gained a lot of experience and recognition as a warrior, but to be recognized by his people and to be a good example he, of course, had to reconfirm his warrior qualities by more brave deeds.

did. Sitting Bull reportedly fought at the Battle of Killdeer Mountain, July 1864. Even if this battle was a stunning defeat for the Sioux, Sitting Bull is said to have fought with bravery (Utley 57). This battle was definitely Sitting Bull's act of resistance, but at the same time it was an important lesson, which made him understand that the Lakota way of fight is not as efficient as the one of the Whites, especially taking into account the huge difference between the weapons used by the both sides. It certainly resulted in

Sitting Bull doubts about capability of the Lakotas to resist the Whites.

Soon after the Battle of Killdeer Mountain, in August 1864, when the Indians

(the Sioux and the Cheyenne) wanted to fight Sully's soldiers back at the Badlands,

Sitting Bull was, as Utley puts it, at first eager, but soon he wanted to let the soldiers go even if many other Indians desired to continue the fight (58). Was his conduct submissive? It is possible that even if Sitting Bull was a brave man, he realized that the failure at Killdeer Mountain did not give the Indians much hope for the success at the

Badlands and seeing that the situation there was not very different from Killdeer

Mountain, he did not want to risk his peoples' lives. On the other hand, considering the proverbial bravery of the Lakota men, who normally did not fear to risk their lives in the matters of warfare, Sitting Bull's conduct can be partly regarded as submissive.

Nevertheless, his later actions refer again to his growing resistance. His attack on a train carrying white immigrants can be perceived as an example of this tendency. The attack was carried out by Sitting Bull and his Hunkpapas in September 1864 in the Upper

Missouri Badlands. Nevertheless, this was an attack on civilians, not soldiers. Naturally, such an attack did not require so much bravery as an attack on soldiers, who were prepared to fight.

In the winter of 1864-65, surprisingly, Sitting Bull did not join those Lakotas who provoked the white soldiers that appeared from time to time in the Lakota area, and

he rather chose a neutral approach to them. It can probably be explained by his unwillingness to have anything in common with the Whites, except for trade.

Obviously, he did not intend to attack them at all costs. He wanted them to stay out of the Lakota lands. At that time such a trespass was sometimes opposed by Sitting Bull, but frequently it was ignored. Thus his approach to the Whites was rather ambivalent, fluctuating between neutrality and resistance. However, this approach was about to change very soon with the growing disagreement among the Hunkpapas as well as the advance of the Whites.

After 1865, Sitting Bull had to resist both the Whites and his own people as there was the disagreement among the Hunkpapas regarding his policies. This tension grew bigger especially after the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864. Unlike some important

Hunkpapa men (e.g. Bear's Rib and Running Antelope), Sitting Bull favoured offensive policy and thus acted resistively again. Some of the examples of his resistant conduct are the attacks on Fort Rice, the Battle of Fort Rice in July 1865 (even though Sitting

Bull is said not to have been particularly brave in this fight), the refusal to speak about both the peacemaking and signing the treaties with the Whites in October 1865, the refusal to accept government's annuities, the strengthening of the warfare against the

Whites (both civilians and soldiers) after the new forts were built along the Bozeman

Trail in 1866, and last but not least, the threatening messages Sitting Bull sent to the forts claiming his readiness to risk his life and fight for the Lakota lands (Hyde 118) rather than succumbing to the advance of the Whites. All these facts show that in this period of his life Sitting Bull was, with a few exceptions, very resistant due to the strong support he had from the part of the Hunkpapas as well as other Sioux. Another factor which undoubtedly supported Sitting Bull's resistance was the growing numbers of the

Whites who started to be a rather serious threat to the Lakotas and all the Plains Indians.

The Whites killed and scared off the buffalo, built roads, cut the wood for building forts, houses, heating etc. Moreover they wanted the Indians to follow the Whites' rules and to adjust to their way of life. Sitting Bull, at that time, very likely still believed that if the Indians changed the war tactics they would be able to ward off this inevitable threat.

In contrast to his former definitive rejection of the peacemaking in October

1865, Sitting Bull was more willing to discuss it at the negotiations of 1868 (after the negative reaction in the beginning of the negotiations). Even if he was neither present at the signing of the Treaty of 1868 (unlike some Lakotas) and nor did he sign it later, he seemed willing to think about it. It is very likely that he had already been tired of fighting the Whites all the time. Also, he might have been influenced by other

Hunkpapas, who were willing to sign it.1 Another fact that possibly played an important role and influenced Sitting Bull was the presence of a Jesuit missionary Pierre-Jean De

Smet, so called Father De Smet, who came to persuade the Lakotas to stop the warfare against the Whites and to sign the treaty (Hyde 161)2. Sitting Bull's willingness to sign it could be partly taken as a submissive act. However, he set the conditions under which he would be willing to sign it, he finally refused to go to Fort Rice to sign the treaty, and later on he carried out several attacks which ended by his last offensive in September

1870 (the attack on Fort Buford). Judging by these facts, it is clear that his resistant approach prevailed. Even Sitting Bull's acceptance of Father De Smet cannot be taken as an act of submission since the Lakotas most probably viewed him as a holy man and

1 It is most probable that the most distinguished Hunkpapa men held the councils and spoke about the treaty and thus surely influenced Sitting Bull.

2 Father De Smet was generally well accepted by many groups of the Plains Indians and was able to influence them, at least in a way. He visited Hunkpapa village in June, 1868, where he spoke with Sitting Bull (as well as with other important Hunkpapa men) about universal peace and peacemaking. Firstly, Sitting Bull answered with rejection (speaking about the grievances suffered from the Whites), but later he agreed to think about the signing the treaty (Utley 81). Nevertheless, he finally decided not to sign.

he was thus an exception to the rule of absolute refusal of the Whites. In general, in the years 1862-70, during the Lakota offensive, Sitting Bull's acts were predominantly resistant. Nevertheless, this approach started to be threatened when Sitting Bull had to change his policies from offensive to defensive.

In the 1870s, with the increasing intrusion and pressure by the Whites, and the consequent weakening support of Sitting Bull's policies among many of the Sioux,

Sitting Bull's so far prevailingly resistant conduct started to wade and gradually became more submissive. However, in spite of the growing number of his submissive acts, this period of his life can still be viewed as very resistant. As it has already been stated above, Sitting Bull changed his policies from offensive to defensive. It meant that his followers mostly neither interfered with the Whites nor attacked them unless being directly endangered by them. The reason for choosing the defensive policies was very likely the fact that Sitting Bull realized that the Sioux way of warfare was rather ineffective. Another fact that might have been important was the growing number of both the white civilians and the soldiers in the Sioux lands. This situation made the

Whites more capable of fighting the Indians. Moreover, many Sioux had already submitted and accepted the terms of the Treaty of 1868, and they did not support Sitting

Bull and his followers any more. Last but not least, Sitting Bull was in his forties. At that time, he already was a mature man. Thus it is possible that he did not long so much for war honours any more and did not want to risk his peoples' lives just to challenge the

Whites. Also he very likely wanted to live in peace, which, of course, was in accordance with the Lakota philosophy and way of thinking. Nevertheless, the defensive (instead of the offensive) did not mean a total submission. Sitting Bull was still ready to fight for the freedom of his people, even if, at that time, he was usually not the first one to attack.

What role did resistance and submission play in Sitting Bull's life in the period from the beginning of the 1870s to May 1877, when he and his followers crossed the

Canadian border? When the Whites appeared in the Sioux lands with the intention to build the Northern Pacific Railway in the early 1870s, Sitting Bull reacted neutrally.

Even if he clearly refused to agree with the railway, which can be taken as an act of resistance, he temporarily accepted the rations offered by the Whites, which was, on the contrary, definitely an act of submission. Sitting Bull's people's presence at the peace talks at Fort Peck in November 1871 was, in fact, a neutral act. On the one hand, Sitting

Bull was willing to make peace with the Whites in order to protect his people and he set the conditions under which he and his followers would stop fighting the Whites. Hence he was partly resistant. On the other hand, he was willing to accept the rations in exchange for peace and thus showed his people's incapability to support themselves.

Despite his wish to keep the Whites out of the Lakota lands, he accepted the rations from them in exchange for the promise that he and his people would not attack the

Whites, which in fact meant that he would let them come in.

Sitting Bull and his people spent the winter of 1871-72 close to Fort Peck where they received the rations. This meant that this once Sitting Bull's conduct was submissive. This time his submission lasted longer. Nevertheless, in the following year

Sitting Bull returned to his resistant approach and he rejected the rations again. He spent the winter of 1872-73 without taking any rations from the Whites, nearly completely isolated from his own people who preferred to accept the rations and turned away from their chief, at least temporarily1. Sitting Bull's conduct in this situation shows his resistance again. In spite of not being supported by the majority of his people, he insisted on not having anything in common with the Whites, except for the trade. After

1 Utley states that Sitting Bull spent the winter of 1872-73 with only fourteen lodges of his followers, completely separated from other Hunkpapas (97).

the winter, Sitting Bull was joined by many of the Lakotas again. The beginning of the

Northern Pacific Railway construction led to further resistance by Sitting Bull and those

Lakotas who joined him. Examples of such resistance are the Battle of Arrow Creek,

August 1872, the attack on the survey expedition on the Powder River, August 1872, as well as the Battle of Yellowstone a year later in August 1873. This resistant approach was caused by the intrusion by the Whites, which could not be tolerated by the Lakotas, and which led them to join Sitting Bull in his resistant approach again. Utley explains the reasons for such resistance as follows: “Railroads frightened away the buffalo and brought in white people. They could not be tolerated in the midst of Indian country. The

Northern Pacific meant war” (92). The resistance against the Northern Pacific Railway ceased after the Whites had stopped building it in 1873. Then, Sitting Bull and his people focused rather on their Indian enemies than on the Whites thus continuing their traditional warfare. This neutral approach towards the Whites1 ended when gold was discovered in the Black Hills in 1874.

This discovery and the circumstances that followed it strengthened the resistant approach of Sitting Bull and his followers. The first resistance in this matter was brought about by Sitting Bull when the Whites attempted to buy the Black Hills in

August 1875. Sitting Bull made it clear that, by no means, did he intend to sell the

Black Hills and that he would never agree with it. He would fight the Whites if they tried to buy or steal the Lakota sacred hills (Utley 125). The reason for this resistance is obvious. The Lakotas, as well as some of the Plains Indians, had always seen the Black

Hills as sacred and they valued them highly. Utley describes the hills as rich in small game, firewood and as an excellent source of tipi poles (115). Stekler and Welch depict

1 The exceptions were the Whites who were in contact with Lakota traditional enemies – the Crows. The Lakotas continued their warfare against the Crows and were most probably not willing to spare the lives of people who helped the Crows – whether they were the Indians or the Whites.

the hills as “the center of [Lakota and Cheyenne] universe [and as] a source of strength and reassurance” (82). Generally speaking, the Lakotas believed that if they were in trouble, they could always go to the hills to look for food and refuge, and they would always find them there. Considering the high value the Lakotas placed on the hills, it is understandable that any intrusion or trespass on them must have resulted in deep discontent among both the hostile and the reservation Indians. Unlike some Lakotas who were finally willing to negotiate the sale of the hills, Sitting Bull remained resistant and relentless, prepared to fight the Whites if necessary. He also had to use akicita in order to prevent his own people from taking part in the negotiations regarding the sell of the hills. In this case Sitting Bull's conduct can definitely be perceived as resistant.

Another example of Sitting Bull's resistance at that time is his reaction to the ultimatum of 31 January, 1876. His reluctance to meet this deadline might be explained by the fact that the severe winter of 1875-76 did not allow Sitting Bull and his people to come to the agency as required by the U.S. government (Brown 272). Another explanation for his conduct might be that the Indians perceived what we call „time‟ differently than the Whites. As Utley puts it, Indian conceptions of time the meaning of deadline does not exist, so the deadline of 31 January, 1876 could not carry any urgency and meaning (128). Moreover, as Sitting Bull did not want to have anything in common with the Whites, he most probably did not feel to be obliged by the orders carried out by them. On the other hand, he did not totally refuse the message which said that he and his people were obliged to go to the agency. He sent a message saying that he would consider the invitation and he and his people might come in June (Brown 272).

However, this message cannot be interpreted as a sign of submission since Sitting Bull did not take any steps in order to come to the agency in the end. Sitting Bull's attempt to preserve the Lakota traditional way of life after January 1876, can be seen as an act of

resistance as well. However, it is questionable whether he realized that his reluctance to come to the agency together with preserving the Lakota traditional way of life would mean an open war with the Whites. It is also unclear whether he would have decided differently in case he had realized this fact.

Concerning the wars for the Black Hills, Sitting Bull was almost exclusively resistant, even if he still advanced the defensive policies. His resistance during the wars was very likely supported by his visions as well as by the great number of the Plains

Indians who followed him at that time1. In those days the unity among his followers was very strong. They were ready to fight back. This support and unity undoubtedly encouraged Sitting Bull's readiness to resist. How did Sitting Bull react during the wars for the Black Hills? The first bigger resistance carried out by Sitting Bull and his people in these wars was the attack on General Crook's troop at the Rosebud River in June

1876. Even if Sitting Bull himself most probably did not fight in the attack, as he was exhausted after the Sun Dance and flesh-giving of a previous week (Utley 141), he supported the warriors who took part in the attack and thus participated in this resistance. He backed them up by being present in the battlefield as well as by the spiritual message he obtained during one of his visions (see p. 29). Sitting Bull, of course, could not influence the character of the messages he got; however, in this case it was very positive and encouraging and it must have meant a great support to the Indians who fought in the attack2. Even if it definitely meant a big support for the warriors at

1 Utley speaks about 461 lodges of Hunkpapas, Cheyennes, Blackfeet, Sans Arcs, Oglala, Miniconjous and Dakotas in June 1876 (134). These people can be viewed as Sitting Bull's followers, even if they had their own chiefs and common decisions were made by a council of chiefs not only by Sitting Bull.

2 It is important to take into the consideration the fact that spiritual messages and visions had a big influence on how the Indians perceived the reality given and thus consequently influenced the decisions they made. The messages could be either encouraging or discouraging depending on the character of the particular message (Irwin 185-210, Zimmerman 130). People who had the ability to see visions and interpret them were for the Indians very important. Their interpretation and advice was usually taken very seriously.

the Rosebud River, Sitting Bull's vision was not fulfilled at this battle and it was to be fulfilled later on, in the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

After the attack at the Rosebud River, the camp of the hostile Indians more than doubled in numbers now counting about 7,000 people (Utley 142). This must have led to the growth of confidence among all the Indians present and consequently to a greater willingness to react resistively to the steps carried out by the Whites. Not surprisingly, it was the case at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. The Indian warriors fought very bravely there, most probably also because their lives as well as the lives of their families were threatened. Their bravery was also strengthened by the fear of losing the Black Hills.

The battle can be described as an act of defensive resistance. The Indians did not start the fight; nevertheless, they were prepared and capable of fighting off the Whites who attacked them. What was Sitting Bull's role in this particular conflict? As Sitting Bull did not believe that his vision was fulfilled at the Rosebud River, he was still expecting its fulfillment (Brown 278). His vision most probably still had very supportive effect on the warriors who fought in the Battle of Little Bighorn. As to Sitting Bull's direct participation in the battle, Stekler and Welch describe it as follows:

Depending upon which scholar you read, [Sitting Bull] was making medicine in his tipi, he was riding herd on the women and children in the center of camp, or he was cowering behind them (157). [Nevertheless], the most probable sequence of Sitting Bull's movements, based on the majority of accounts, is that he was mounted shortly after Reno's attack, shouting encouragement […and…] then he made his way through the village, gathering women and children and old ones, persuading them to stay put in the safety of the village, or just west of the village, near the hills (158).

Sitting Bull was not popular with everybody, as it has already been mentioned in the previous chapters, and some people declared him to be a coward in the Battle of Little

Bighorn (Stekler and Welch 157, Utley 162). However, he had already proved his bravery many times before the battle. At the time of the Battle at the Little Bighorn, he was forty-two, which is “an advanced age for a warrior” (Stekler and Welch 157), “he

was a chief, not an active war leader” (Stekler and Welch 158). Moreover, he had a son in the battle, which required him “to stay out of battles and give the son his chance to get warrior honors” (Stekler and Welch 158). In addition to that at the time of the battle

Sitting Bull was exhausted after many days of fasting, dancing and bleeding himself so he probably did what he considered to be the most important and useful1. Taking all the previous reasons and explanations into consideration, Sitting Bull's conduct in the battle can not be taken as submissive, even if it might seem so. He did what he was expected to do as a chief of his age and wisdom. It can be assumed that if there had not been enough warriors on the spot and if women and children had been safe, he would most likely have participated in the battle as well. However, the situation did not require him to do so. He was there to counsel and to protect the women and children and he did so.

Despite the resistance carried out by the Indians, the Black Hills were lost.

After the loss of the hills and with the strengthening of the military campaign against the hostile Indians, Sitting Bull started to lose his followers and his resistant approach was gradually challenged more and more. Sitting Bull knew that the only way how to stay in his land without being pursued was the unconditional surrender. It meant to give up arms, ponies and start to live a sedentary life on the reservation. He still did not want to give up, even if pursuing his resistant approach meant to be permanently on the run. At that time, even a mere attempt to preserve the Lakota traditional way of life meant to resist in a way. Sitting Bull could not fight for the preservation of the Lakota lands and culture any more because the large population of the Whites in the area as well as the decreasing number of Sitting Bull's followers made it nearly impossible.

However, he was still prepared to face the threatening reality. Sitting Bull very likely

1 Sitting Bull “fought the Reno soldiers when they threatened the women and children at the upper end of the village” (Utley 162). Utley further explains Sitting Bull's role at the Little Bighorn as follows: his “significance at the Little Bighorn lay not in flaunting bravery, or directing the movements of warriors, or even inspiring them to fight. It laid rather in a leadership so wise and powerful that it drew together and held together a muscular coalition of tribes” (164).

understood that the harsh conditions and the U.S. government policies after Little

Bighorn would gradually discourage many of his followers, who were not willing to risk so much as he did. Having to face all the circumstances with only a little support,

Sitting Bull was forced to give up, at least partly. By avoiding any contact with the

Whites rather than getting into conflict with them, he continued his defensive policies.

When attacked by General Crook's force in September 1876, Sitting Bull and his people fought back. However, it was an act of enforced defensive resistance. The

Indians were fighting for their lives rather than for their lands and the sacred hills. A more resistant act, carried out by Sitting Bull's people, was an attack on a wagon train near the Yellowstone in October 1876. Sitting Bull himself, however, did not participate in this fight. Later on, when there was an attempt at peacemaking, Sitting Bull at first reacted neutrally or with just a little resistance. He sent a message asking what the

Whites were doing there and warning them that he would fight them if they did not leave (Utley 169). Later, during the peace talks he reacted rather submissively. He did not speak himself and the chiefs who spoke for him said “they were hungry, low on ammunition, tired of war, and wanted peace” (Utley 170). It is a question to what extent

Sitting Bull shared their point of view. Nevertheless, when the peace talks proved not to be successful and Colonel Miles threatened with an immediate attack if they did not surrender, Sitting Bull with his followers escaped, while many other chiefs surrendered.

The escape may, in fact, be taken as an act of resistance as it proved Sitting Bull's willingness to lead a life of difficulty rather than losing his. Obviously, Sitting Bull still hoped that the situation might get better and that they would not have to give up their freedom and traditional way of life, even if he was losing more and more supporters who were most probably not so eager to fight and risk so much. Consequently, Sitting

Bull was gradually becoming isolated and less determined to resist the Whites. This

situation was even worsened by the lack of buffalo and consequent hunger among his people.

The winter of 1876-77 was another trial of Sitting Bull's resistance. Apart from the severe weather, he and his followers had to face starvation and the constant pressure of the Whites, who were determined to make the rest of the hostile Indians surrender.

Sitting Bull was, at that time, known to the Whites as a leader of the hostile Indians,1 which most probably drew more attention to him and his people and it unquestionably increased an urge to defeat them. Thus they were permanently pursued. Despite all the above mentioned disadvantages and inconveniences, Sitting Bull got the ammunition through the trade and tried to prepare his people to fight the Whites. However, when his camp was attacked and burned down in December 1876 and the Indians lost their supplies, lodges, clothes and animals, Sitting Bull's authority was shaken and his attempts at resistance jeopardized once again.

The growing disagreement among the chiefs whether to surrender or continue the war undoubtedly influenced Sitting Bull's decision making. His final decision to head for Canada was partly submissive and partly resistant. On the one hand, he decided to leave his own land and not to fight for the preservation of it. On the other hand, it was clear that the land was lost and the most of the Indians surrendered and started to live on the reservations. Not having any support necessary for the resistance, Sitting Bull could have surrendered and it would have meant a total submission. Nevertheless, he did not decide to surrender yet. His decision to lead his people to Canada can be regarded as at least a partial resistance. Sitting Bull still hoped that it would be possible to live a free life of an Indian man even if not on his own land. Rather than surrendering and leading

1 Utley depicts how Sitting Bull was viewed by the Whites at that time as follows: “In the perception of the white citizenry, Sitting Bull was the man to get, the archdemon of the Sioux holdouts, the architect of Custer's defeat and death, the supreme monarch of all the savage legions arrayed against the forces of civilization. Newspapers vied with one another in profiling this all-powerful ruler, and no story was too silly for their readership” (175).

a sedentary life of a farmer on the reservation, he chose to go to a foreign land, to look for freedom, despite the risks he had to handle. He was still not prepared to face the inevitable reality that was awaiting all the Indians. Therefore he opted for leaving his land in order to resist as long as possible.

The next four years, which Sitting Bull and his followers spent in Canada, meant another opportunity for both resistance and submission. It can be assumed that the submission played rather a big part there. It gradually grew stronger and it reached its peak with the Sitting Bull's surrender on July 19, 1881.

After the arrival in Saskatchewan, in May 1877, Sitting Bull promised to respect the Canadian laws and to punish those who would violate them. This can be partly taken as submission since abiding the laws meant not to move freely around, not to make warfare on the Lakota Indian enemies, not to steal horses etc. All these conditions were, in fact, against the traditional Lakota way of life. However, considering the situation

Sitting Bull found himself in,1 it would be faulty to view his conduct as submissive.

Sitting Bull, as a matter of fact, did not have any other option but to obey and it is understandable why he did so. His resistance against the Whites was thus weakened.

Based on his positive experience with the Canadians, Sitting Bull slightly changed his opinion of the Whites and in this period of his life he resisted only the Americans when he had to get in contact with them. Even this resistance was transformed into submission in the years to come. One of the reasons for Sitting Bull's strengthening submission was probably the failure of his defensive policies. However, the harsh situation and conditions he found himself in were undoubtedly much more influential.

What were the examples of Sitting Bull's resistance and submission in this period of his life? The first example of his resistance was his attitude towards the

1 Sitting Bull came to ask for a permission to stay in Canada and he was most likely perfectly aware of the fact that if he and his people wanted to be tolerated in Canada, they had to obey.

Americans he expressed during the meetings with Canadian officials, which took place at Fort Walsh in June 1877. The officials informed him that the U.S. government wanted to speak about the possible return of Sitting Bull and his people to the U.S.

Sitting Bull made it clear that he did not trust the Americans any more and that he did not intend to go back. He would accept the rules set by the Canadians, as long as he could stay there with his people (Utley 188). Later on, when Hunkpapa young men started to cause troubles and Canada began to negotiate with the U.S. about the question of Sitting Bull's return to the U.S., Sitting Bull was resistant once again. At the council of October 1877, where General Terry wanted to persuade Sitting Bull to accept the unconditional surrender and follow the Indians who had already done so, Sitting Bull resisted. He talked about all the grievances suffered from the Americans and stressed that he did not belong to the U.S. any more. Canada was his home now. On the other hand, he let himself be persuaded to meet with journalists, even though he objected it at first (Utley 197). This was partly a submissive act, especially if Sitting Bull's prevailingly refusing attitude to the Americans is taken into account. His conduct can be explained by the fact that Major Walsh urged him to meet with the journalists (Utley

197). In order to maintain a good relationship with him, Sitting Bull agreed, despite the fact that it was undoubtedly against his conviction.

Further development of the situation brought about other problems and a new necessity to resist. Not only did Sitting Bull have to resist the Americans, but he gradually also had to resist the Canadians who with the coming problems (e.g. the disputes with the U.S. regarding the Indian refugees, the growing number of the people in Sitting Bull's camp, the scarcity of buffalo, the disputes among the Indian groups because of the lack of buffalo and others) started forcing Sitting Bull out of Canada and settle on the reservation which was prepared for him and his people in the U.S. When

trying to prevent the young Hunkpapas from trespassing on the U.S. border when following buffalo, or from stealing stock from Canadian ranchers, Sitting Bull had to resist his own people as well. He had to establish law and order so that he would maintain the good relationship with the Canadian government. Later on, however, he himself participated in such trespasses in order to allay the hunger of his people.

Nevertheless, this conduct cannot be taken as an act of resistance against either the U.S. authorities or the Canadian ones. It was rather breaking the rules, which only led to further complications. However, the reason he did so is quite obvious – he had always tried to do the best for his people. When it was necessary (e.g. when his people were starving), he was willing to break the rules, even if he had promised not to do so.

Not only did Sitting Bull require his followers to abide the Canadian laws but he also forced them not to leave his camp for the U.S. He ordered akicita to prevent them from leaving and those who tried to do so were punished. It remains a question what led him to such a precaution. It is possible that he might have felt the weakening support of his people again or that he understood it as a betrayal.

Another example of Sitting Bull's resistance, this time against the Americans, was his attempt to plot a war against them trying to persuade his traditional enemies, the

Crows, to become his allies. It happened in the winter of 1878-79. Though it is questionable what made him do so. The Crows had always been Lakota enemies and it was highly probable that they would not agree with anything what Sitting Bull might have suggested. Sitting Bull's conduct shows how desperate he must have been. The pressure from all sides was so strong that it sometimes made him act in and irrational and confusing manner. For a while, he insisted on his new resistance to the Americans.

When Major Walsh blamed him for trying to plot the war against the Americans, Sitting

Bull replied that he was a chief and that he intended to fight the Americans and to do

what they had done to him1 (Utley 205). Nevertheless, soon after that Sitting Bull changed his opinion and went back to Canada2. His return was, in fact, an act of submission. Again, he lost his heart and did not fulfill his promises and fighting the

Americans. He most likely realized that his chances to successfully fight them were almost none. His hope to lead a free life laid in Canada, even if the life there had already been very difficult and it was a far cry from what it meant to live as the Lakotas had always lived.

At the council with Walsh, which took place in March 1879, Sitting Bull reacted partly submissively and partly resistively. Once more his talk carried signs of confusion.

He expressed his desire to continue his stay in Canada and asked to be given land where he could start to farm (Utley 206). Thus he reacted submissively, at least with regard to the Lakota traditional way of life, which was a life of a hunter. On the other hand, when having been told that he could go to the U.S. where he would be given a land and where the U.S. government would support him and his people, Sitting Bull reacted by saying that he would never farm because he was a hunter (Utley 206). This can be taken as resistance; nevertheless, his behavior was not very clear, it was rather confusing. Apart from this, Sitting Bull promised not to stop his people from leaving his village if they wished to do so. This was in fact submission as well, but this submission can be viewed as a decision of a wise man who realized the seriousness of the situation and allowed his people to decide themselves. Generally, Sitting Bull's conduct at the council indicated his low self-esteem and indecisiveness unquestionably caused by the overall situation, which appeared to be rather pessimistic and permanent.

1 Utley states what Sitting Bull replied Major Walsh when having been blamed for plotting the war against the Americans: “I wish you to tell the Grandmother [Queen Victoria] that I will do to the Americans as they have done to me. […] It is not my wish to go to war, but I must. I never told you before that I was a chief; today I tell you I am one” (205).

2 Both the encounter with the Crows and the talk with Walsh happened to the south of the border – in the U.S.

Not long after the council, in June 1879, Sitting Bull and his people crossed the

Canadian border again when following the herds of buffalo. This time, they were driven back across the border by the American infantry under the command of Colonel Miles.

Sitting Bull's people, outnumbered by the soldiers, could not do anything but flee. Thus it cannot be taken as submission since fighting back would have meant certain death for

Sitting Bull and his people. The fact that Sitting Bull entered the U.S. again, even if he had promised to the Canadian authorities not to do so, can be viewed as a partial resistance to both the Canadian and the U.S. governments. However, Sitting Bull would definitely not have done so had it not been for the fact that his people were starving and, being a chief, he had to do everything to prevent them from hunger. He most probably realized that such disobedience would cause some troubles with the Canadian authorities.

In 1880, with the deepening crisis which struck his people, Sitting Bull's conduct started to be more hesitant, fluctuating between resistance and submission. He was, obviously, becoming more and more desperate, not knowing how to solve the situation without having to surrender to the U.S. government. It gradually started to be clear that there was not any other option, but to give up. Despite this fact, Sitting Bull was still trying to avoid the inevitable, or at least to delay it.

To what extent was his conduct before the surrender in July 1881 submissive and to what extent it was resistant? One of his first acts of submission was sending his nephew One Bull to Fort Buford in May 1880 to find out under what conditions they could surrender. They remained the same, only the unconditional surrender was possible

(Utley 212). The pressure on Sitting Bull undoubtedly started to be unbearable as he was willing to admit that he had already started to consider the surrender. Before he surrendered, he certainly had hard times, fighting his pride and desire to live as the

Lakotas had always lived. Therefore he was changing his mind changed his mind very often and he had difficulties making clear decisions. One of the facts that undoubtedly influenced Sitting Bull's decision making was Major Walsh's promise that he would try to persuade the Canadian authorities to grant the Sioux a reservation in Canada. Thus he planted great expectations in Sitting Bull (Utley 214). However, Walsh finally did not do so. He only confused Sitting Bull and his people and made their deciding much harder.

In 1880, the pressure on Sitting Bull to surrender by both the Canadian and U.S. authorities grew stronger. They sent emissaries to persuade Sitting Bull to give up.

Nevertheless, he reacted resistively, still insisting on the promise he had given to Walsh that he would wait for his return in November (Utley 217), while many other chiefs were persuaded and left for Fort Buford. Sitting Bull thus became again more isolated.

His willingness to bear this isolation can be taken as resistance as well. Despite being more and more isolated, Sitting Bull was not willing to give up yet, even if he must have already felt that there was no other future for the Indians than the life on reservation.

As early as November 1880, when Sitting Bull realized that Walsh was not about to come, his conduct became much more erratic, and more or less submissive. At the council at Wood Mountain in November 1880, where the Canadian officials again wanted to persuade Sitting Bull to give up, he asked them to give him some more time as he intended to discuss the matter with the other men. Later on, in December, he promised to set off for Fort Buford in order to surrender (Utley 218). This decision was definitely submissive. On the other hand, the given circumstances did not allow him to make any other decision. However, Sitting Bull did not keep his promise and in the

following months he behaved rather confusingly again, vacillating between resistance and submission.

In the beginning of 1881, Sitting Bull and his people were left with nearly no food. Another part of his followers left for the U.S. in March, whereas Sitting Bull still resisted. He did not surrender, but he asked the Canadian government for the rations, which was, in fact, a submissive act. Having been rejected, he sent some representatives to check the situation at Fort Buford in April 1881 (Utley 222). This can be viewed as one of the submissive steps which led to his total surrender. The representatives then returned with a rather negative report which discouraged Sitting Bull from surrendering.

Therefore Sitting Bull refused to surrender again, which made Canadian officials feel betrayed. Sitting Bull's conduct was in a way resistant. On the other hand, he broke the promise he had given and this kind of resistance obviously did not lead to anything but deepening of the crisis and delaying the inevitable. This situation repeated. Sitting Bull was once more in April pleaded by the Canadian officials to surrender. He was again very suspicious. Many other chiefs were persuaded and left, while Sitting Bull refused, explaining that he had to speak with Walsh once again (Utley 226). Considering his conduct, it is clear that Sitting Bull was rather confused, afraid to accept the reality, and he relied on the unreal (i.e. Major Walsh would possibly arrange the reservation in

Canada). His conduct was partly resistant. This resistance was, however, carried out because of Sitting Bull's hopelessness and it was not effective at all. Finally, Sitting Bull had to submit totally on July 20, 1881, because of the lack of food, the overall bad conditions, and the pressure carried out by both the Canadian and the U.S. governments.

Generally speaking, Sitting Bull's conduct during the stay in Canada was relatively resistant, since he resisted the surrender until he was made to give up by the circumstances given above. On the other hand, taking into consideration his original

attempt to continue the traditional Lakota way of life, his conduct was quite submissive as he was willing to follow the Canadian rules, which prevented the Lakotas from living traditionally. Furthermore, Sitting Bull was willing to settle on reservation in Canada (if he and his people were offered one) as well as to live on the rations. All these facts refer to the fact that Sitting Bull's behavior was in these years to a large extent submissive.

In the last years of Sitting Bull's life, which he spent on the reservations in the

U.S., his conduct was prevailingly submissive, especially if his original attempts at the preservation of Lakota lands, culture and way of life are taken into considerations. On the other hand, resistance was not absent from these years either. Sitting Bull had to face mainly the fact that the only way to live was to adjust to the ways of the Whites and forget about the traditional Lakota ways. Sitting Bull had most probably already understood that he could do nothing but to obey and to follow the rules. Despite this, there were times when he had to act resistively, especially when trying to do the best for his people and to save the Sioux lands. The following paragraphs will provide the examples of both resistance and submission in the last part of Sitting Bull's life.

After the surrender at Fort Buford, Sitting Bull's behavior was, in fact, submissive. He awaited the future resignedly, not being certain what was going to happen with him and his followers. His self-esteem was, at that time, very likely too low as he was not able to prevent his people from the life on reservation. Another shock was undoubtedly caused by the changes which took place during the four years Sitting

Bull and his people had spent in Canada. This submissive approach, however, was not everlasting.

The first examples of Sitting Bull's attempt at resistance were his fierce protests when he learned that he and the people who surrendered with him were to be sent to

Fort Randall instead of being allowed to stay at the Standing Rock Reservation. He

swore that he would never go to Fort Randall and his words influenced his followers so much that it led to a rebellion, which was very quickly suppressed by the soldiers (Utley

240-41). This resistance can be explained by the fact that Sitting Bull felt betrayed by the Whites again. Once more they broke the promise which they gave him. After this,

Sitting Bull became more submissive and remained so in the following months, which he spent at Fort Randall. He and his people obediently stayed near the fort, received the rations and even “exhibited themselves to occasional curiosity seekers” (Utley 241).

This submission was probably influenced by the fact that Sitting Bull did not understand why he was treated like a prisoner and he most likely already understood that he had no freedom any more. Also he must have been homesick, longing to join his people at

Standing Rock (Utley 242). It is very likely that he knew that if he did not behave, he would not be allowed to go to Standing Rock. The letter which Sitting Bull sent to the

Commissioner of Indian Affairs can be viewed as both resistant and submissive. It was resistant, because Sitting Bull did not want to stay at Fort Randal any more and, in reality, he resisted it by expressing his views in order to change this situation. On the other hand, he begged that “he and his followers be sent back to Standing Rock. There, he promised, he would conduct himself peaceably and obey the rules of the Indian

Service” (Utley 245). This was submission. He, in fact, begged to be pardoned, even if he had not done anything wrong. Nevertheless, he very likely viewed the letter as the only alternative which could possibly change the situation. The promise to obey the rules was, in reality, submission as well since it definitely meant to forget about the traditional Lakota way of life and start living as a farmer. It definitely must have appeared to be better than staying at Fort Randal, isolated from other Lakotas and without any meaningful activity. He, finally, had to accept the rules of the Whites. From this point of view the rest of his life was in a way submissive.

After the arrival at the Standing Rock Agency on May 10, 1883, Sitting Bull expected that he would have the right to decide about the important matters regarding his people. However, it was not to happen. Even if Sitting Bull still had a big influence on his people, he was neither given the official right to decide the important matters regarding them nor was he treated as a Hunkpapa chief by the U.S. officials, especially agent James McLaughin. This situation and other circumstances, which gradually appeared, brought about further reasons for both resistance and submission by Sitting

Bull as explained below.

The first situation, when Sitting Bull had to react submissively was the one, when he was explained by McLaughin that he would not be treated any differently from the other Indians on the agency and he would start to farm immediately, even if he planned to start the following year (Utley 250). Sitting Bull found out that there was no other option so he submitted, as advised by McLaughin, and he tried to obey the rules and avoid any unnecessary conflicts. Thus he became a good farmer, sent his children to school, and was even quite open to a new religion, Christianity (Utley 255), even if he never became a Christian. It is questionable how much he identified himself with the new way of life. Most probably he never got used to it despite the fact that he adjusted to the ways of the Whites to quite a large extent.

Sitting Bull's participation at the Buffalo Bill Cody's exhibition tour was certainly a nice escape from the sedentary way of life. It was also an opportunity to see something new as well as to earn some money. If his original attempt at the preservation of the traditional Lakota way of life and culture is taken into consideration, Sitting

Bull's conduct can be explained from, at least, two points of view. First, it can be viewed as submission. The participation at the exhibition tour had nothing to do with the Lakotas. Sitting Bull must have forgotten about his original attempts. Doing so, he

also denied his original refusal to have anything to do with the Whites. On the other hand, it could also mean that he wanted to pass on what remained from his culture to general public. From this point of view, it can be seen as partial resistance. Most probably none of these reasons led Sitting Bull to participate. It might have been merely a good opportunity to travel a little, to learn more about the culture of the Whites, and to gain some fame, which Sitting Bull could miss at that time. Therefore, it seems that it was neither submission nor resistance. After the exhibition tour, Sitting Bull returned to the agency with valuable experience and continued his life on the reservation, enjoying the family life and spending time with his friends.

Even if Sitting Bull led a peaceful life of a farmer, trying not to interfere with the

Whites, he could not do anything else but to protest when the question of selling the

Sioux lands arose. The question was first raised in November 1882, when Sitting Bull was still at Fort Randal and therefore he did not have an opportunity to react to this matter. Later on, however, he fiercely opposed the possible sale of the lands, thus reacting resistively. The concrete example of Sitting Bull's resistance is his conduct in front of the Dawes Commission, in 1883. However, this resistance was quite controversial. The commissioners came to hear the Indians, but Sitting Bull offended them, as explained in the previous chapter. He very probably realized his own mistake and therefore he submissively apologized for his conduct at another session. His confusing conduct may have been influenced by the fact that he probably did not understand the purpose of the commission. Another thing, which might have been important, was his status on the reservation. Sitting Bull had always been used to being admired and treated with respect. This, however, was not the case on the reservation, as it has already been explained above. At the sessions with the commission he possibly tried to win this respect back. Though, he was not successful. On the contrary, he was

humiliated by the members of the commission and thus learned a lesson that showed him that he would probably never win back the general recognition, which he had enjoyed earlier. Nevertheless, there were still the Lakotas who followed Sitting Bull and his advice, and he still had some influence, even if it was not significant any more.

Later on, when the U.S. government came up with the Sioux Act of 1888, Sitting

Bull reacted resistively again. By no means did he want to sell any piece of land and he was also against the allotment since “he saw individual farms as eroding the social and political cohesion of the tribe and the traditional Sioux way of life” (Utley 269). He tried to influence the Lakotas and prevent them from selling the land. Now he behaved more wisely, without emotions. As Utley describes it, at the Indian council which took place in August 1888, Sitting Bull “urged the people not to give in simply […and…] to push for adjournment” (274). He was successful, since the commission which came to speak with the Sioux about the sale of the lands left with only a few signatures. Later on, however, when a delegation of chiefs was invited to Washington in October 1888 to negotiate about the selling of the lands, Sitting Bull claimed that the land was worth better price than offered by the government. Instead of a dollar per acre he suggested

$1.25 (Utley 276). This was very strange as Sitting Bull had always claimed that he would never sell his lands. Was it submission? What made Sitting Bull act the way he did is not clear. Utley speaks about Sitting Bull's possible reasons as follows:

Perhaps he recognized the inevitable and held out for the best deal. Perhaps he did not grasp that he was weakening his ability to obstruct further land cessions. Perhaps he simply threw in with the growing consensus. Perhaps he hoped that the government would refuse a higher price and thus kill the issue altogether. Perhaps he was merely anxious to go home (276).

Any of the above mentioned reasons could be right. With regard to Sitting Bull's original attempts at the preservation of the Lakota lands, his conduct can be perceived as submissive. On the other hand, later on, when it came to the signing of the Sioux Act

of 1889 in July 1889, Sitting Bull was again very resistant. He made it clear that he would resist the act and pleaded others to do so as well. When the Indians persuaded by the government wanted to sign the act, Sitting Bull and his followers tried to disperse them, unsuccessfully though (Utley 278, Stekler and Welch 267). Sitting Bull's conduct there was clearly resistant. He probably knew that it was the last chance to avoid the loss of the Sioux lands. Again, he did not manage to save what he saw as important.

Sitting Bull was again resistant during the Ghost Dance, which started at

Standing Rock in the autumn of 1889. He, in fact, created the base for the dance. He himself did not participate in it, but he was a spiritual support for those who took part in the dance, and he interpreted the visions that had been invoked during the dance1. He thus conducted resistively since the Whites were afraid of the Ghost Dance and they wanted to stop it. Sitting Bull ignored all the attempts at persuading him “to cast off the religion and send the people home” (Utley 285). Why did he do so? It is hard to say if he believed in the new religion or not (Stekler and Welch 268). He, as a one of the

Lakota holy men, had always been faithful to the Lakota spiritual life. On the other hand, he was obviously very curious and interested in other religions (e.g. Christianity) as well as “nothing in his faith excluded experimentation with any religion” (Utley

256). It is very likely, that he believed that he could use only some parts of the new belief – those which he considered to be beneficial for him and his people. Whether he believed in the Ghost Dance religion or not, he certainly did not see it as anything which could cause any harm as the Ghost Dance was not violent and it brought a new hope for better life. There was not any good reason to stop it. Moreover, Sitting Bull would

1 Utley describes Sitting Bull's role in the Ghost Dance as follows: “He presided over the community of believers and officiated as the chief apostle of the religion at Standing Rock. He encouraged his people to dance and interpreted the revelations of those who had „died‟ and visited the spirit land. And doggedly, at considerable personal risk, he defied all efforts, by government officials, by missionaries and schoolteachers, and by unbelieving fellow tribesmen, to persuade or compel him to cast off the religion and send the people home” (285).

probably not have been successful even if he had tried to stop it – the movement was too strong and his influence was not big enough. Another factor that might have supported Sitting Bull's conduct was the attention and the respect he enjoyed at the time of the Ghost Dance. Once more, he was important, having some authority and influence

(Utley 285).

The Ghost Dance and the circumstances that accompanied it led to the Sitting

Bull's last opportunity to act resistively or submissively – right before his death, when he was being arrested. When the Indian police arrived at Sitting Bull's cabin to arrest him, he, in the beginning, did not protest at all. Sitting Bull asked for the permission to put on his clothes and refused any assistance (Utley 300, Stekler and Welch 269). Then his son, Crow Foot, started to chide him for giving up so easily and for allowing the police to take him. Probably feeling ashamed in front of his son as well as the rest of his family, he started hesitating and resisting the arrest (Utley 301, Stekler and Welch 270).

In the next moments, he was shot. Thus his last conduct was resistant.

Chapter Five: Repeating Patterns and Tendencies of Resistance and Submission in Sitting Bull's Life

Based on the examples of Sitting Bull's resistance and submission, which have been given in the previous chapter, the final analysis will be made. The subject of the analysis will be the question whether there were any key repeating patterns and tendencies that accompanied Sitting Bull's demonstration of resistance and submission, and if so, which of them prevailed.

As to the examples of Sitting Bull's resistance aimed at the preservation of the

Lakota lands, culture and way of life, there are several patterns or types of resistance that repeated throughout Sitting Bull's life. Basically, they can be divided into two groups – resistance to the Whites and resistance to Sitting Bull's own people1. Both of these two groups have subgroups of typical situations when Sitting Bull reacted resistively and these will be depicted in the following paragraphs.

As far as Sitting Bull's resistance to the Whites is concerned there are several examples that appeared repeatedly throughout his life. Therefore they can be considered typical or even taken as a pattern of Sitting Bull's behavior.

Firstly, Sitting Bull's resistant conduct often appeared in the situations related to the treaties and the negotiations i.e. when Sitting Bull refused to sign any treaty concerning the Lakota ways (e.g. those which required the Indians to stop warfare against both their traditional Indian enemies and the Whites), the sale of Lakota lands, the annuities and rations, or when he refused to speak about the peacemaking or going to reservation. Specific cases of this type of Sitting Bull's resistance are for example his reluctant approach to the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, the refusal to speak about the peacemaking and signing the treaties in October 1865, Sitting Bull's more or less

1 Most of these examples were closely related to the extent of the intrusion by the Whites and the circumstances that arose from this intrusion

rejecting approach to the Treaty of 1868 and his final refusal to sign it, his disagreement with the building of the Northern Pacific railway in the early 1870s, the refusal to accept the rations in the winter of 1872-73 (even though he accepted them in the previous winter) as well as his generally rejecting attitude to them (which changed very rarely), the rejection to sell the Black Hills in August 1875, the councils with the

Canadian officials in June 1877 where Sitting Bull expressed his negative attitude to the

Americans, his willingness to stay in Canada, the council in October 1877 where he refused the unconditional surrender suggested by General Terry, Sitting Bull's unwillingness to surrender in 1880 (which he expressed at the negotiations), the letter sent by Sitting Bull from Fort Randal expressing his discontent with the placement at the fort, and last but not least the opposition to the sale of the Sioux lands in the 188Os

(including the Sioux Act of 1888).

Secondly, Sitting Bull acted resistively in the battles with the Whites whether they were battles with the U.S. soldiers or hostile encounters with white civilians. This type of resistance can be further divided into offensive resistance when Sitting Bull initiated the battles, and defensive resistance when he and his people fought in self- defense in order to save their lives, lands and property. Among the examples of offensive resistance are these situations: the hostile encounters with the Whites in the

1850s (after the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851), the Battle of Killdeer Mountain in 1864, the attack on the train carrying white immigrants in the Upper Missouri Badlands in

1864, the attacks on Fort Rice, the Battle of Fort Rice in 1865, the attack on Fort Buford in 1870, and Sitting Bull's attempt to plot the war against the Americans in the winter of

1878-79 (which was the only offensive after 1870). The examples of defensive resistance are: the battles and attacks which arose due to the Northern Pacific Railway

(i.e. the Battle of Arrow Creek in 1872, the attack on the survey expedition in the same

year, and the Battle of Yellowstone in 1873), the battles and attacks which were part of the wars for the Black Hills (e.g. the attack on the U.S. army at the Rosebud River in

1876 and the Battle of the Little Bighorn in the same year), the attack on the wagon train near the Yellowstone in 1876, the rebellion that arose after Sitting Bull's protests when he learned that he and his followers would be sent to Fort Randall instead of the

Standing Rock Reservation in 1881, and finally his defensive during his final arrest in

1890.

Thirdly, Sitting Bull resisted the Whites when he broke the rules created by them. He broke these rules both consciously, mainly because they were not in accordance with the Lakota ways; and unconsciously. This happened in these cases: when Sitting Bull ignored the rules set by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, when he disregarded the rules set by the Treaty of 1868 which created the Great Sioux

Reservation and bound all the Sioux to settle there, when he reacted reluctantly to the ultimatum of 31 January, 1876, and after this he tried to continue the Lakota traditional way of life and unlike many other Lakotas did not settle on the reservation. In Canada

Sitting Bull had to ignore the Canadian laws in order to obtain the food for his people and therefore he crossed the Canadian border several times, he also broke his promises that he would surrender and thus he postponed it couple of times, and lastly Sitting Bull ignored the U.S. rules during the Ghost Dance in 1889-1890.

As for Sitting Bull's resistance to his own people, it can be divided into two groups, both of which have in common the fact that Sitting Bull in some cases used akicita to maintain the order.

Firstly, Sitting Bull resisted his people in the situations related to the signing of treaties, especially those, which concerned the sale of the Lakota lands or accepting annuities and rations in exchange for cooperation with the Whites. The examples of this

type of resistance are: Sitting Bull's disagreement with some of the Hunkpapas concerning the annuities offered by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, his enforcement of the offensive policy in the 1860s which was not in accordance with the opinion of some of the important Hunkpapa men, Sitting Bull's refusal to sell the Black Hills and to negotiate such sale and his use of akicita to prevent his people from taking part in these negotiations, and finally his attempts to prevent his people from selling the Sioux lands in the 1880s.

Secondly, Sitting Bull resisted his people when he punished them for breaking the rules (either the Lakota ones or those agreed with the Whites). This mainly happened in Canada when Sitting Bull punished his followers for violating the

Canadian rules (e.g. trespass of the Canadian border and hostilities against other Indian groups) or when he prevented his people from leaving his band for the reservation in the

U.S. In these situations, Sitting Bull, again, used akicita in order to carry out his orders.

Regarding the situations related to the preservation of the Lakota lands, culture and way of life, in which Sitting Bull acted submissively there are patterns or types of submission that appeared repeatedly throughout his life. Sitting Bull's submission may be divided into similar groups as his resistance thus reflecting opposite reactions in similar situations, but, of course, under different conditions.

With regard to Sitting Bull's submission to the Whites, there are typical situations that appeared repeatedly and these can be divided into the following groups.

Firstly, Sitting Bull acted submissively in the situations related to the treaties and the negotiations, i.e. in the situations when he was willing to accept the rules set by the Whites, annuities and rations, or when he was willing to speak about the sale of the

Lakota lands, peacemaking or going to reservation, and last but not least Sitting Bull's surrender in 1881. This type of submission can be seen in these situations: the

negotiations of 1868 when Sitting Bull was willing to speak about peacemaking, in the early 1870s when he temporarily agreed to accept the rations offered by the Whites, his submissive reaction at the peace talks of 1876, his readiness to meet the journalists after the council of 1877 in Canada, his willingness to speak about the surrender, his surrender in 1881, and finally his partial readiness to speak about the sale of the Sioux lands in 1888.

Secondly, Sitting Bull's conduct tended to be submissive in some battles with the Whites. This happened mainly when Sitting Bull did not feel sufficient support of his people, when there was only a little chance of success, or when he lost his heart and did not fulfill his promises to fight. The particular examples of this type of submission are: the attack on the U.S. soldiers at the Badlands in 1864 and Sitting Bull's return to

Canada after his unsuccessful attempt to plot the war against the Americans in 1879.

Finally, there is a special group of situations when Sitting Bull did not act in accordance with the traditional Lakota ways: Sitting Bull's decision to leave the Lakota lands for Canada, his willingness to follow the Canadian rules, his request for being given a reservation in Canada and readiness to start living there as a farmer, his final surrender in 1881, his resignation after the surrender, his promises to obey the U.S. rules during his stay both at Fort Randal and the Standing Rock Agency and the fact that he more or less kept them, and finally Sitting Bull's partial submission during his final arrest in 1890.

As for Sitting Bull's submission to his own people, it was nearly exclusively connected with the situations when he did not insist on their participation in his fight aimed at the preservation of the Lakota way of life. Among the examples of this type of submission are: Sitting Bull's willingness to speak about the peacemaking at the negotiations of 1868 (he was most probably persuaded by the other members of his

band and thus he submitted to them), his promise to Major Walsh not to stop his people from leaving for the reservation in the U.S. which he made in 1879 at the council in

Canada., and the fact that he kept the promise, and also his conduct during the Ghost

Dance in 1889-1890.

With regard to the above given examples of both Sitting Bull's resistance and submission, it is possible to determine which types of these approaches prevailed and which of them were not so numerous. Taking into account the number of the examples related to each of the two approaches, resistance and submission, it can be stated that the number of the examples of resistance is much larger than the number of the examples of submission. Therefore, it is obvious that resistance prevailed (both resistance to the Whites and resistance to his own people) while submission did not play such an important part in Sitting Bull's life. On the other hand, there were periods during which Sitting Bull behaved more submissively than resistively as it can be seen in the previous chapter.

Speaking about Sitting Bull's resistance itself, it is possible to state that out of the two groups, resistance to the Whites predominated. This resistance was further divided into three types – the first type is, generally speaking, related to the treaties and negotiations, the second type is related to the battles and the hostile encounters with the

Whites, and the third type is related to Sitting Bull's violation of the rules created by the

Whites. Out of these three types of resistance the first and the second type appeared more often than the third type.

As to the Sitting Bull's resistance to his own people, there were two types – the first one is related to the treaties and negotiations and the second one was more or less connected with the situations when Sitting Bull punished his people for breaking some

rules. These types of resistance were appearing with roughly the same frequency; nevertheless, much less often than Sitting Bull's resistance to the Whites.

As for Sitting Bull's submission, out of the two groups – submission to the

Whites and submission to his own people – the first one again predominated.

Submission to the Whites was further divided into three types – the first type is related to the treaties and negotiations, the second type is related to the battles and the third type appeared in the situations when Sitting Bull did not act in accordance with the traditional Lakota ways. Out of these three types, the first and the third prevailed whereas the second type appeared only very rarely thus proving that Sitting Bull hardly ever conducted submissively in the battles (which was, of course, in accordance with the Lakota traditions and virtues). The second group, Sitting Bull's submission to his own people, was not divided into any subgroups or types as it was nearly exclusively related to the situations when he did not insist on their participation in his fight aimed at the preservation of the Lakota way of life. This, however, did not happen very often in comparison with Sitting Bull's submission to the Whites and thus the examples of such conduct are not very numerous.

It is important to say that Sitting Bull's conduct depended on particular situations and conditions and it was influenced by many factors. The most probable reasons for his behavior in particular situations have been given in the previous chapter.

Nevertheless, some situations appeared more often and thus can be considered a pattern of Sitting Bull's behavior. Considering the proportion of both resistance and submission, it is possible to state that Sitting Bull behaved mainly resistively. This resistant behavior appeared mainly in the situations related to the treaties, negotiations and battles. It was much more often aimed at the Whites than at his own people. Submission, on the other hand, did not appear in Sitting Bull's life as often as resistance did. If Sitting Bull

behaved submissively it was mainly in the situations related to the treaties and the negotiations and is some special cases when Sitting Bull did not act in accordance with the Lakota ways. Even if the cases of submission did not appear as often as those of resistance, they cannot be seen as insignificant as they played the same role in Sitting

Bull's life as resistance did. In each particular situation he had to decide about his future conduct and thus consciously or unconsciously chose between resistance and submission. Therefore it can be claimed that submission was always there as well.

Sitting Bull's final decisions, depended on his qualities, the overall situation and, above all, on the extent of pressure under which he had to decide.

Conclusion

Sitting Bull – Tatanka Iyotanka – was one of the most important Indians living in North America. He devoted his life to the preservation of the Lakota lands and traditional way of life. During his life various circumstances made him act resistively and sometimes submissively. The extent of these two approaches and the reasons for them are the subject of this thesis.

The first three chapters of the thesis deal with the information about the

Lakota (their way of life, philosophy, religion and values), about Sitting Bull himself

(his importance as a warrior, a member of men's societies, a chief, a holy man, a medicine man, about his character and family matters), and about Sitting Bull and the

Lakotas in contact with the Whites (the main events that happened during Sitting Bull's life and influenced his acts). This information is highly important for understanding the conditions that formed Sitting Bull's personality and perception of reality, and influenced his behavior. It also serves as the background information without which neither of the analyses could be provided.

The fourth chapter – the first analysis – examines the question of resistance and submission as it developed and changed throughout Sitting Bull's life – it looks at these two approaches from the chronological point of view. It also attempts to give possible reasons for Sitting Bull's conduct. Generally speaking, it seems that it (with only a few exceptions when he had to fight his Indian enemies) mostly depended on the extent of the intrusion by the Whites as it will be shown in the following paragraphs.

Generally, the bigger the intrusion was, the stronger the tendency to resist. However, with the coming years and with the growing advance of the Whites even this tendency changed.

In Sitting Bull's early years, the Whites were not a real threat yet. Therefore neither resistance nor submission aimed at the Whites appeared in his life. His approach towards them was, in fact, neutral. Sitting Bull's resistance towards the Whites first arose in the 1850s, starting with his reaction against the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, continuing with the hostilities against the Whites and his refusal to accept annuities, which meant resistance against the Lakotas as well. At that time, Sitting Bull's resistance started to be conscious. He intended to protect the Lakota traditional way of life (including the warfare against the Lakota enemies) which had already started to be threatened by the Whites. His resistance had not reached its peak yet. Nevertheless, it was gradually growing stronger (except for the matters concerning the trade with the

Whites).

Sitting Bull's resistance to the Whites reached its peak after the discovery of gold in the Rocky Mountains in 1862, when the Whites began to settle in the Sioux lands in larger numbers and thus became even a bigger threat to the Lakotas than before. Sitting Bull opted for the advancement of the offensive policies which were aimed at driving the Whites away from the Lakota lands. Even though at that time his resistant approach definitely prevailed and more or less remained the same until the

Lakota last offensive in 1870, some manifestations of submission already appeared in his conduct, especially in the cases of his willingness to accept rations (temporarily) or to negotiate with the Whites.

After 1870, when Sitting Bull changed his policies from offensive to defensive

(above all because of the intrusion by the Whites which, after the discovery of gold in the Black Hills in 1874, started to be unbearable and the Lakota did not have much chance to drive them off from their lands any more), submission started to play a greater role in his life. Resistance transformed the same way the Sitting Bull's policies did –

from offensive resistance to defensive resistance. He mainly resisted the Whites when his people were directly attacked by them or when there was a danger of an attack.

Sitting Bull gradually lost many of his supporters and this situation very likely supported his growing tendency to submit. Even though submission played quite a big role in this period of Sitting Bull's life, he was still very resistant, willing to preserve the

Lakota lands, culture and way of life. His resistance grew even stronger when he felt stronger support from the other Indians, especially during the wars for the Black Hills.

At the end of this period, however, it was clear that the most of the Lakota original lands had already been lost and thus in the following years Sitting Bull's resistance focused rather on the preservation of the Lakota culture and way of life. In the beginning, being still in the U.S., he tried to continue to live in the traditional Lakota way and thus conducted more or less resistively, but the conditions were too harsh and the pressure by the Whites too strong so he finally left for Canada in 1877, which can be viewed as both resistance and submission.

During Sitting Bull's stay in Canada, submission played quite a big role in his life. It reached its peak with his final surrender in July 1881. The conditions in Canada did not allow the Lakotas to preserve their traditional way of life and this was most probably the main reason for Sitting Bull's submission. The Lakotas had to adjust to the situation which, in reality, meant to obey and follow the Canadian rules. Another factor that played quite a big role was the hunger, which struck Sitting Bull's followers in 1879 and lasted till their final surrender. It made Sitting Bull ask for rations and for being allotted a reservation in Canada, and it also made him break the Canadian rules. Finally, there was the fact that Sitting Bull with his followers could not be granted Canadian citizenship and it was clear that their stay would be only temporal. There were a few situations when Sitting Bull reacted resistively (both to the Whites and to his own

people) but submission generally prevailed. The overall situation finally made Sitting

Bull and his followers leave for the U.S, surrender and thus submit totally.

Taking into consideration Sitting Bull's original attempts at the preservation of the Lakota culture and way of life, his last years which he spent on the reservations in the U.S. were more or less submissive. He, in fact, had to adjust to the dictate of the

Whites and had to follow their rules. On the other hand, Sitting Bull was very resistant when it came to the question of the sale of the Sioux lands in 1882 and remained so until 1889, when the Sioux act of 1889 was signed. Sitting Bull‟s last days were also very resistive taking into account his conduct during the Ghost Dance as well as his partial resistance during his last arrest.

The fifth chapter questions the key patterns and the tendencies that accompanied Sitting Bull's demonstrations of resistance and submission, and attempts to show which of them prevailed and which, on the other hand, were not so numerous.

Unlike the fourth chapter, which examines these two approaches from the chronological point of view, it attempts to question them with regard to their character. It divides each of these approaches into two basic groups – resistance or submission to the Whites, and resistance or submission to Sitting Bull's own people. Both of these groups are further divided into subgroups. This analysis reveals that, based on the number of examples of both resistance and submission, it is possible to say that resistance definitely prevailed

(both resistance to the Whites and resistance to his own people). Speaking about Sitting

Bull's resistance itself it can be stated that out of the two groups – resistance to the

Whites and resistance to his own people – the first one predominated. The most repeated cases of Sitting Bull's resistance to the Whites were those related to the treaties and negotiations as well as to the battles and the hostile encounters with the Whites. As to Sitting Bull's submissive conduct, it is clear that out of the two groups – submission

to the Whites and submission to his own people – the first one again prevailed. Most frequently, it was related to the treaties and negotiations, as well as to the situations when Sitting Bull did not act in accordance with the traditional Lakota ways.

To sum it up, with regard to the proportion of the two approaches examined – resistance and submission in Sitting Bull's life – the first one prevailed. It was appearing mainly in the situations related to the treaties, negotiations and the battles, and it was much more often aimed at the Whites than at Sitting Bull's own people. As to the development of these two approaches throughout Sitting Bull's life, resistance gradually grew stronger and it reached its peak during his offensive policies (in the years 1862-

70). Afterwards it gradually declined even though it never disappeared from his life.

Submission, on the other hand, appeared only rarely until 1870. Later, after the wars for the Black Hills in the 1870s, it gradually grew stronger and it reached its peak in

Canada in 1881, when Sitting Bull decided to surrender to the U.S. During his last years on the U.S. reservations it slightly weakened, but it still played quite an important role in Sitting Bull's life. His last conduct was, however, resistant.

Summary

The thesis deals with a Lakota chief Sitting Bull – Tatanka Iyotanka – who devoted his life to the fight for the lands that belonged to the Lakotas as well as to the preservation of their culture and traditional way of life. Sitting Bull was as resistant as he could be; however, the pressure applied by the Whites often made him act submissively. The main aim of the thesis is to investigate which of these two approaches prevailed, how they developed and changed throughout Sitting Bull's life.

The thesis is divided into five chapters. The first three chapters are descriptive and serve as background information for the analyses, which are given in the fourth and fifth chapter. The first chapter is focused on the depiction of the Lakota way of life, philosophy, religion and values. The second chapter deals with Sitting Bull's early years and gives information about his importance as a warrior, a member of men's societies, a chief, a holy man and a medicine man. It also provides some information about his character and family matters. The third chapter gives information about Sitting Bull and the Lakotas in contact with the Whites. It covers the main events that happened during

Sitting Bull's life. It shows how he reacted under various circumstances throughout his life. The fourth chapter deals with the clash between Sitting Bull's resistance and submission. It attempts to investigate and analyze how these two approaches were interconnected, how they changed in different contexts and under various conditions during his life. The last chapter works with the information given in the previous chapter in order to find out which of the two approaches – resistance or submission – dominated Sitting Bull's life. It also investigates whether there were any key repeating patterns and tendencies that accompanied Sitting Bull's demonstration of resistance and submission, and which of them prevailed.

Resumé v českém jazyce

Tato diplomová práce pojednává o lakotském náčelníkovi Sedícím býku, který celý svůj život věnoval boji za záchranu lakotských zemí, kultury a tradičního způsobu

života. Sedící býk kladl odpor pokud to bylo možné. Tlak vynaložený bílými přistěhovalci jej však poměrně často zahnal do situací, kdy se musel podřídit. Hlavním cílem této práce je zjistit, který z těchto dvou postojů v životě Sedícího býka převládal.

Dále pak tato práce zkoumá jak se tyto postoje postupně vyvíjely a měnily.

Práce je rozdělena do pěti kapitol. První tři kapitoly jsou deskriptivní a slouží jako podklad pro analýzy, které jsou provedeny v kapitole čtvrté a páté. První kapitola líčí způsob života Lakotů, jejich filozofii, náboženství a hodnoty. Druhá kapitola se zabývá ranným mládím Sedícího býka, jeho charakterem a rodinným zázemím. Dále pak popisuje jeho roli válečníka, člena mužských spolků, náčelníka, svatého muže a léčitele. Třetí kapitola poskytuje informace o Sedícím býkovi a Lakotech v kontaktu s bílými přistěhovalci. Zahrnuje hlavní události, které se staly za života Sedícího býka a ukazuje, jak jednal za různých okolností. Čtvrtá kapitola se zabývá konfliktem mezi kladeným odporem ze strany Sedícího býka a jeho podřízeností. Snahou je zjistit, jak byly tyto dva postoje vzájemně propojeny a jak se měnily za různých okolností během jeho života. Poslední kapitola pak na podkladě těchto informací zkoumá, zdali životu

Sedícího býka dominoval odpor či podřízenost. Pokouší se také zjistit, jestli se některé situace opakovaly a pakliže ano, které z nich převládaly.

Works Cited

Brown, Dee. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. Washington: Washington Square Press,

1981. Print.

Burland, Cottie, Irene Nicholson, and Harold Osborne. “The Buffalo Hunters of the

Plains.” Mythology of the Americas. London: The Hamlyn Publishing Group,

1970. 66-87. Print.

Debo, Angie. A History of the Indians of the United States. Oklahoma: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1986. Print.

Ewers, John C. “When Sitting Bull Surrendered His Winchester.” Indian Life on the

Upper Missouri. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1968. 175-81. Print.

Fowler, Loretta. “The Great Plains from the Arrival of the Horse to 1885.” The

Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas. Volume 1: North

America. Part 1. 1. Ed. Bruce G. Trigger and Wilcomb E. Washburn. Vol. 1.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print.

Henriksson, Markku. The Indian on Capitol Hill. Indian Legislation and the United

States Congress, 1862-1907. Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1988. Print.

Hyde, George. Lid Rudého Oblaka. Dějiny oglalských Lakotů. Trans. Jan F. Ulrich.

Praha: Paseka. 2007. Print.

Irwin, Lee. “Mythic Discourse.” The Dream Seekers. Native American Visionary

Traditions of the Great Plains. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994.

185-210. Print.

Kasper, Shirl. Annie Oakley. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992. Print.

Kehoe, Alice Beck. “The Prairie-Plains.” North American Indians. A Comprehensive

Account. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992. 287-359. Print.

Neihardt, John G. “The Messiah.” Black Elk Speaks. New York: Washington Square

Press, 1972. 195-202. Print.

Neufeldt, Victoria. Webster's New World Dictionary of American English. 3rd ed.

New York: Prentice Hall, 1989. Print.

Peelman, Achiel. “The Great Mystery (Wakan Tanka).” Christ Is a Native American.

Toronto, Canada: Novalis, 1995. 45-50. Print.

Taylor, Colin F. “Prérie.” Mýty a legendy indiánů Severní Ameriky. Trans. Zuzana

Mayerová. Praha: Volvox Globator, 1995. 40-53. Print.

Utley, Robert. The Lance and the Shield: the Life and Times of Sitting Bull.

New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1993. Print.

Welch, James, and Paul Stekler. Killing Custer. The Battle of the Little Bighorn and the

Fate of the Plains Indians. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1994. Print.

Zimmerman, Larry J. Indiáni Severní Ameriky. Víra a Rituály. Duchové země a oblohy.

Trans. Dušan Zbavitel. Praha: Euromedia Group, 2003. Print.