Gall

[Diane Merkel]

From an LBHA member:

Gall claimed that he lost 2 wives and 3 children in the battle and afterwards fought with the tomahawk out of fury (my words). This sounds like a pretty big loss for one man. What is the proof this is an accurate statement? Were they all standing still in front of a firing line? It just sounds odd and should be questioned since it gets quoted so frequently.

[shatonska]

"With Little Sioux there was Red Star, Strikes Two, and Boy Chief. As they stood there together looking across the river they saw at the foot of the ridge three women and two children coming across the flat running and hurrying along as best they could, on a slant towards the river. Little Sioux fired twice at them and so did red Star. then all four of the scouts rode through the timber toward the river to kill them. but just at this point, they saw across the river a large heard of about two hundred Dakota horses in the sage bush, so they stopped pursuing pursuing the women and children and started after the horse."
The Arikara Narrative, page151

they didn't admit the killing but they killed them , this comfirms gall's account for the place where the action had appened

[Scout]

Some researchers have questioned Gall's loss at the LBH. I can't remember where I read that..I'll do some digging. Hard to say...he had such a hard time with the truth anyway. I've always looked at that story with some doubt.

Good points shatonska although I don't know if it confirms it was Gall's family at all. I'm not saying it wasn't...I'm just not convinced.

[harpskiddie]

Scout:

Greg Michno did an article on Gall's movements, showing that what he claimed he did could not have been done in the time frame permitted for it - going to the northern herd, finding his dead family, and etc. I can't remember where I read it, or if I still have it. It would likely have been in Greasy Grass, The Research Review or Wild West. When, I cannot say.

I have always had reservations about some of Gall's stories and Michno's article, I remember, was a positive reinforcement of those, and seemed to be very well researched.

Gordie

[shatonska]

i agree with both of you
almost everything related to the lbh fight is foggy

[Scout]

Gall, like Sitting Bull, seemed to have a different story for each day of the week. Both told tales of leading warriors against Custer. I think Gall's story has been recieved with more success than Old Bull's has. Gall and Sitting Bull did seem to care for each other at all. I guess they were both vying for the number one position of biggest liar although they have some stiff competition from the trooper side as well.

In regard to the Ree tale there was also a tepee set on fire...supposedly. Did any of the soldiers get that close or was it done intentionally? A possible smoke screen?

Yea, beware of anyone trying to give you the difinitive story of what happened at the Little Big Horn. Believe me, those people exist.

[crzhrs]

I believe Michno's account of Gall's movement is in LAKOTA NOON. He also says Gall never did all the damage to soldiers at the LBH as he claimed he did.

[harpskiddie]

crzhrs:

I have not yet read LAKOTA NOON, so I know that it not where I read it, but I do believe that it was mentioned in the article's introduction that his research was leading up to a book. You know the type of blurb "The author has collected more than 50 stories of the Indian warriors who......and for the very first time........"

Scout:

Not only do those people exist, but a lot of them have already written books, from which we quote stuff all the time. Some of us, probably including your good self, are in the process of doing so ourselves. Yes, indeed, BEWARE - as Pogo once said: "We have met the enemy, and he are us!!"

Gordie

[crzhrs]

In Bray's Crazy Horse, the author states that Gall did, in fact, have a major impact on the battle. Bray used interviews with contemporaries of CH and modern day Lakotas.

Michno used interviews with Indians at the LBH, no modern day Indians, and "interpreted" the interviews to suit his book.

[harpskiddie]

crzhrs:

We were both right. The article is called Revision at the Little Bighorn: The Fall of Gall, and appears in the June 1996 Research Review. There is also mention that this is "just a sample" from Lakota Noon, which "is due out in the fall." In the author's profile it says that the article is "largely drawn" from Lakota Noon. There is a map of Galls movements according to Michno on the back cover.

Gordie

[crzhrs]

There always seems to be "previews" of upcoming books in magazines . . . I guess it's a little PR by the publisher.

I enjoyed LAKOTA NOON and the use of Indian statements. One issue many have is Michno's interpretation of what the Indians said and fitting them into his theory.

Another book he did afterward deals with the Battle of the Washita and his theory that Black Kettle was not innocent of depradations and that Wyncook, et. al. were involved in an "Indian Ring". Highly controversial . . . I haven't read it however.

[eamonn]

During a visit to Soaring eagle last year i met a 4th generation descendant of Gall. He indicated to me that whilst his ancestor did loose his family at LBH he was prone to exageration

[Dietmar]

This could be interesting:


www.oupress.com/bookdetail.asp?isbn=978-0-8061-3830-5#

[harpskiddie]

The cover is outstanding, and the blurb makes the book sound interesting. Anything from OU is usually worth the money.

Gordie,
stay young; keep your wheels in motion - you've got everything that you need.................

[Montana Bab]

I checked out my copy of "Lakota Noon" and discovered several issues about Gall: (Pg. 167-168)

1." Gall was not one of the first at the ford. He did not confront Custer there, nor did he chase at his heels, leading hundreds of warriors up Deep Coulee. "

2. "He did not participate in the Reno fight, and he was late to the Custer fight. He acknowledged that he was not in command of anyone."

3. He discovered his family (two wives and three children) dead near the Hunkpapa tipis between 4:40 and 4:50 P.M ! (Mitchno's times).

4." By the time he got to Calhoun Hill, two hours of fighting had passed, an assault had been made and broken, and much of the drama had been played. If he got to "hatchet" anyone, it was the flotsam left behind after the battle had swept on by. Gall was not the force behind Calhoun's destruction. He contributed almost nothing to the ultimate Indian victory." (pg. 168)

Gall suffered a great loss that day, but his fabulous feats must have been only in his mind.

...Skip a rope, skip a rope a dope...