Research Paper

Gregory L. Baker

The Portrayal of Indian Leaders in the 19^th Century Press, 1865-1890

The late nineteenth century was a volatile time in the relations between Native American and Anglo Americans. During this period, Americans forced the last of the Indian tribes onto reservations. For many tribes their representative to the Anglo world was their leaders. Newspapers and reporters did not focus their stories on the culture of the tribes; instead they focused on Indian wars or peace negotiations. Since many Americans did not have any knowledge of Native Americans, except from newspaper stories, the portrayal of the Indian leaders in the press represented all Native Americans to the public. Newspapers provided the Indian leader’s image to the American public. How the newspapers portrayed Indian leaders could influence the attitudes of the public, and their political leaders, who wrote Indian policy. Newspapers portrayed the Indian leaders as “noble” and “ignoble savages” or positively and negatively.

How newspapers made this distinction for each Indian leader depended on to three factors. The first factor was proximity. Proximity varied by distance from the frontier and proximity to dramatic or threatening events in the Indian wars. The second factor was the agenda of a newspaper, whether a paper favored peacefully convincing the Indians onto reservations or forcing them there militarily. The third factor was how the newspaper perceived the individual Indian leader’s actions and crimes before he moved to a reservation. These factors combined helped produce different attitudes on the conflict of savagism and civilization and differing proposals on how to resolve that conflict. This paper examines a cross section of nineteenth century newspapers to compare how the portrayal of Indian leaders varied by region and time.

The first facet of proximity was the distance of the newspaper from the frontier. The further a newspaper was from the frontier, the more positive its portrayal of Indian leaders tended to be. Since the New York Times readership was not threatened directly by Indian tribes, it could afford to have a more positive image of Indian leaders. The Rocky Mountain News was published closest to the frontier and its readers were more threatened by Indian uprisings and events, therefore it portrayed all Indian leaders negatively. In other regions, portrayals would vary by interest in the story and importance of the event.

The four different regions examined for their portrayal of Indian leaders were the East, the Rocky Mountain, the West Coast, and the South. The Eastern papers used for this paper were the New York Times and Chicago Daily Tribune. The Rocky Mountain News located in Denver, Colorado, represented the Rocky Mountain region. The West Coast Papers were the Alta California and San Francisco Chronicle, both based in San Francisco. The Southern papers were the Daily Virginian, Atlanta Constitution, and the Mobile Daily Register. Newspapers in each region portrayed Indian leaders differently during this period based on proximity.

Five Indian leaders--Red Cloud, Satanta, Spotted Tail, Black Kettle and Sitting Bull--provided good examples of the differences in portrayal due to proximity. Each was involved in important events that received press attention from all regions. Red Cloud and Sitting Bull received the most attention of the five Indian leaders in the newspapers studied. Satanta and Spotted Tail, who were involved in the peace conference of 1867, received less coverage. Black Kettle appeared first in newspapers during the Sand Creek massacre prior to 1865. Black Kettle’s death would also be covered in stories about the Battle of the Washita in 1868.

Red Cloud was one of the best known Sioux Indians from 1865-1890. He led the Sioux’s resistance in the war named after him from 1866-1868, visited Washington, D.C. and New York in 1870, and fought for better treatment on the reservation. The two most notable events from Red Cloud’s war included the Fetterman massacre and the burning of Fort Phil Kearny. The Fetterman massacre occurred in December of 1866, where approximately 90 soldiers were killed by Red Cloud and the Sioux.[1] This event led to Red Cloud’s first press stories in the paper. Then, Red Cloud fought the government until they agreed to remove a series of forts, including Fort Phil Kearny, which ran through the Powder River Country. When the United States abandoned the forts, Red Cloud burned them and went to live on the Reservation.[2] It was during Red Cloud’s early years on the reservation and visit to Washington, D.C., that Eastern paper’s began writing stories about him. Once on the reservation, Red Cloud remained peaceful and fought for Sioux reservation rights until his death.

Proximity determined when the press began its coverage of Red Cloud. The Eastern papers’ coverage of Red Cloud began after he moved to the Reservation. In contrast, the Rocky Mountain region wrote several articles and editorials on Red Cloud while he was actively waging war against the United States. Approximately two months after the Fetterman massacre during Red Cloud’s war, the Rocky Mountain News used its editorials to show its distrust for Red Cloud. In one editorial it had this to say about Red Cloud,

It is time now for Red Cloud to replenish his stores of ammunition, and clothing and provisions, hence a treaty is talked of. Away with such child’s play. Let these noble-men be appropriately chastised for what they have done: Let them restore the stolen property they now have in their possession, and then be put on a reservation, there to remain under penalty of being shot, if seen beyond its bounds. [3]

This editorial was attacking the notion that some Indian tribes might come to the reservation during the winter months, to talk peace and replenish supplies, then during the summer wage war against the settlers or military. Red Cloud had not come to the reservation and was still actively resisting the military but the Rocky Mountain News accused him of abusing the reservation system. The second part of the quotation portrayed Red Cloud not as a noble man fighting for his tribe, but as a thief without honor.

The distance of the Eastern press from the frontier led them to emphasize different details of Red Cloud’s life. Though it covered the Fetterman Massacre, it did not attribute any blame for this incident to Red Cloud in its editorials. Instead, the New York Times published its first editorial on Red Cloud during his visit to Washington, D.C. in 1870. It claimed Red Cloud displayed in his speech, that he understood the line between, “barbarism and civilization” when he stated, “‘You are the people who should keep peace.’”[4] The Times commented on Red Cloud’s statement when it declared, “and one-sided as it is, there is in it much matter for reflection.”[5] The Times portrayed Red Cloud as the shining example of the “noble savage” proven by his speech and manner. It claimed that Red Cloud’s Washington speech “was like a poem” and argued that Red Cloud had a clear sense of Justice:

The clear conception which this unlettered savage possesses of what he claims as his right, and what he is disposed to resent his wrongs, shows very plainly the necessity for treating with the leader of the aboriginal ‘nations’ on some straight forward and intelligible principle[6]

By portraying Red Cloud as a “noble savage” the New York Times projected a good image of the Indian to the public.

The San Francisco Chronicle like the New York Times did not begin its coverage of Red Cloud until his trip to Washington, D.C. An editorial about Red Cloud’s visit argued that “the children of the Plains should be as tenderly cared for as possible [by the government].”[7] The San Francisco Chronicle showed its sympathy for Red Cloud’s situation when it stated, “we may sympathize with the Red Man, and regret the remorseless fate which thins his numbers and hurries him to extermination.”[8] In its story Red Cloud was the “savage” that faced extinction along with the rest of his kind. Its sympathy stems from the idea that the “noble savage” could not coexist with civilization because civilization corrupted the Indian and brought out the “ignoble savage”.

The Southern Press was less interested, than other regions, in Indian affairs. It typically carried the wire reports of Indian events, but hardly ever published editorials on Indian affairs. The majority of Southern newspaper reports at this time focused on Reconstruction. Many of the stories about Reconstruction during this period emphasized the government’s faults. During Red Cloud’s visit to Washington, D.C., the Atlanta Constitution commented, “Red Cloud holds that the forts in his country only brought mischief by whiskey, abuse of squaws and other bad works.”[9] Unlike the other regions, the Atlanta Constitution stated just the facts of Red Cloud’s visit focusing instead on other issues important to the region. For example when the Atlanta Constitution reported Red Cloud’s meeting with Secretary of the Interior Cox it stated, “Red Cloud reiterated his demand previously made for the removal of Fort Fetterman, and was informed, much to his dissatisfaction, that the Fort would not be removed. He received the news that arrangements had been made for the departure of himself and party for home on Monday next.”[10] This example like the previous report appeared in “Washington News” not in the editorial section. In the same section the Atlanta Constitution criticized President Grant, “The President will be absent a week. Masterly inactivity seems to be the policy of the Executive.”[11] It also had reports on cotton prices and counterfeit tobacco stamps, all issues that were more pressing than Indian affairs.

The positive coverage of Red Cloud’s trip by the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle contrasted dramatically with the Rocky Mountain News. The Rocky Mountain News used Red Cloud’s visit to portray him as an “ignoble savage.” It depicted Red Cloud’s speech as a “Grand Indian Howl.” Of his meeting with Secretary of the Interior Cox it said the Indians “…..held a war dance at Washington and brandished their tomahawks over the head of Cox of the Interior. This impudence and bullying has been invited by the stupid course of the Peace party.” [12] The paper described Red Cloud and his group as “insolent, aristocratic, lazy, gang of brutes” which it was sure would make more trouble.[13] The Rocky Mountain News’ negative portrayal continued its earlier attacks on Red Cloud and showed its distrust of Indians and a peaceful course of action toward them.

Another event that demonstrates the effect of proximity on the portrayal of Indian leaders is the peace conference held on the Southern plains to end an Indian uprising by Kiowa, Comanche, Cheyenne, and Arapaho during the summer of 1867. Several Indian leaders made speeches during the conference, among them Satanta and Spotted Tail. The different regions emphasized different aspects of their speeches. For example, the New York Times portrayed Satanta as a “wild free savage, but very ‘eloquent’ in speech and manner.”[14] The New York Times also compared the Indian speeches to the great speakers of the past such as Demosthenes and Cicero.[15] It argued that Satanta’s speeches were good examples of the “wild life and feelings of the untutored savage as he now exists and roams upon the Great Plains”[16] To the New York Times, these speeches were the product of the uncorrupted savage, who was unfortunately facing extinction.

The Rocky Mountain News did not view the Indians as uncorrupted savages, but as just savages. The Rocky Mountain News argued that although the Chiefs said they wanted peace now, “no later than September last, those tribes went to Texas and committed the most diabolical atrocities that could be conceived.”[17] It then argued that “Why not instead of harboring the red fiends within the walls and enclosures of his fort, [reservation] he [the Indian agent] ought to have sent them out bag and baggage to take care of themselves.”[18] The Rocky Mountain News was not as impressed about the eloquent speaking skill or “noble savagism” of the Indian leaders as the New York Times. It described Spotted Tail speech at the conference with this passage,

assuming the dignified appearance of one of nature’s noble men, and wrapping his verrain-colored blanket around him, will thus address the commissioners: I am big Injun! I am big Chief! All my braves desire peace I have done all I could to make other tribes come to council[19]

The Rocky Mountain News viewed the Indians at the conference of 1867 as threats to civilization not as shining examples of the “noble savage.”

Another event that the New York Times and Rocky Mountain region disagreed on, though not as dramatically, was the Battle of the Washita. This battle was a winter campaign against the hostile Cheyenne and Arapaho. George Armstrong Custer and his troops tracked a band of hostile Indians to a camp on the Washita River. In the ensuing fight, 103 Indians were killed, among them Black Kettle.[20] Black Kettle was a Cheyenne Chief who had barely escaped the massacre at Sand Creek, which had clearly been an attack against peaceful Indians. While the Rocky mountain region saw the battle as a great victory the Eastern press was not so sure.

The Rocky Mountain region quickly attacked any notion that the Indians and Black Kettle were massacred. The Rocky Mountain News argued that the band had, “fresh scalps of four white men in their possession…one….who was butchered and horribly mutilated but a few days before.”[21] Again the Rocky Mountain News focused on the crimes of the leaders, while describing an event. The rest of the article defended the attack on Sand Creek and argued for retractions of some of the vicious newspaper attacks made upon Colorado.

The New York Times viewed Washita as a military campaign that was unnecessarily cruel. It claimed that “it looks as if no quarter were given, for whereas mention is made of killing 102 warriors, nothing is said of a single one being captured-from which we may guess that all were dispatched.”[22] Though the Times did not agree with the methods, it believed the Army had attacked the band responsible for an earlier raid. Admitting that the band led by Black Kettle and an Arapaho band led by Satanta was guilty, it portrayed Satanta positively. It described him as “the splendid Kiowa chief who took part in the famous peace negotiations … and he was imposing in his presence and eloquence.”[23] In this instance the Times did not focus on the possible crimes of the leaders or the Indian band, but the positive points of leader.

The proximity of the newspaper affected the portrayal of Indian leaders. In the examples, the papers closest to the Indian frontier portrayed the Indian leaders negatively. Papers whose location was a greater distance between it and the frontier portrayed many Indian leaders positively. This explanation explained the portrayal of many Indian leaders, but would not explain why both the Eastern and Rocky Mountain region portrayed other leaders such as Sitting Bull negatively. The second factor of proximity, how much of a threat a leader appeared to the newspapers, provided a better explanation for the negative portrayal of Sitting Bull during the Battle of Little Big Horn and his escape to Canada.

The second factor of proximity was time in relation to important or dramatic events in the Indian wars that caused some Indian leaders to be viewed as more of a threat. From 1865 until the end of the Sioux war of 1876-1877, hostile Indians were major threats to Western settlements. In that time period several dramatic events in the Indian wars occurred. Events such as Red Cloud’s war on the northern plains, the Indian war of 1867, and the Sioux war of 1876-1877 received broad newspaper coverage in many of the regions. Events occurring later in the period appeared more dramatic and threatening. For example the Fetterman massacre, in 1866, did not appear as threatening as George Custer’s defeat in 1876. So the number of articles and the portrayal of Sitting Bull differed from Red Cloud’s described earlier. Then, after 1877 Indian wars decreased in their frequency and cost. Most Indian tribes were confined to reservations and the threat of conflict diminished. Therefore the amount of coverage decreased.

Proximity to a dramatic event of the Indian war that appeared a real threat to American interest provided an explanation for the negative portrayal of Sitting Bull from 1876-1877. Sitting Bull was a Sioux warrior and medicine man involved in several dramatic events toward the end of the Indian wars. He gained national attention after the Battle of the Little Big Horn. This battle was a huge victory for the Indians, who defeated and killed approximately 200 soldiers, including the very popular General George Armstrong Custer. The large number of people lost against a perceived invincible military made Sitting Bull a large threat to the stability of the Indian situation on the Plains. Sitting Bull’s success and continued resistance might inspire more Indians to leave the reservation to join him. After the battle Sitting Bull, pursued by the military, led his people to Canada for a safe heaven where he remained until 1881.[24]

The Eastern press reacted with shock and horror after the Battle of Little Big Horn. The Chicago Daily Tribune printed front page stories with headlines such as, “The American Indian Exalts his Reputation for Satanic Brutality,” “Three Hundred and Fifteen Men Against Five Thousand Devils,” and “The Gloomy Butchery Takes Place on the Little Horn River.”[25] Most of the stories depicted the events of the battle, but many mentioned Sitting Bull as the leader of the hostile Sioux.[26] The Chicago Daily Tribune soon shifted its shock and horror of the battle to Sitting Bull with headlines such as “Some History of the Principal Wild Beast Called Sitting Bull.”[27] They blamed Sitting Bull for the conflict in the same article arguing that, “this step was considered necessary [the military campaign of 1876 against the Sioux]….not only on the account of numerous murders of white people committed by this band [led by Sitting Bull]…constant attacks on the Bannock and other friendly Indians… [that was responsible for] inciting other Sioux to hostility.”[28] The Chicago Daily Tribune believed that Sitting Bull was responsible for the bloodshed at the Battle of Little Big Horn, a dramatic event in the Indian wars.

The New York Times attacked Sitting Bull in the time period after the battle as well. It, like the Chicago Tribune, printed many details of the Battle of Little Big Horn, but criticized Sitting Bull most when Sitting Bull fled to Canada. It lamented that there was no extradition treaty.[29] The Times also portrayed Sitting Bull negatively while he was in Canada. For example, an editorial stated,

Sitting Bull is a cheap and contemptible humbug. While he kept his warriors together and outnumbered the white soldiers twenty to one, he gave us infinite trouble. He fought as bravely as any Indian ever fights when he has a small force to contend with; and when he was pushed by a tolerably large detachment of troops, he fled over the border like any other horse-thief with the constables after him.[30]

By arguing that Sitting Bull ran away from a formidable force, but fought at Little Big Horn, against a smaller force, the Times portrayed Sitting Bull as a coward. Its name calling and comparison of Sitting Bull to a horse-thief left no doubt of its dislike for him.

The Rocky Mountain region, despite its strong anti-Indian views, did not run as many editorials as the Eastern press about the Little Big Horn battle, but what it did write showed little sympathy for the Indians. The Rocky Mountain News argued, “The cause of the war, or rather of these expeditions, for this war with these Indians has been going on for fifteen or more years may be summed up in these words: ‘Sitting Bull and the Outlaw Sioux.’”[31] The Rocky Mountain News also believed the government should eliminate the Sioux, not sue for peace. It argued if a peace were made, “the savages would only secure another long lease of lawlessness and butchery.”[32] In this incident the Rocky Mountain region portrayed Indian leaders negatively and believed peace should not be made with them.

The proximity of an event to a dramatic Indian battle increased the amount of coverage and portrayal. In the examples listed earlier, the portrayal of Sitting Bull reflected the surprise and awe of the Battle of Little Big Horn. The newspapers though also used incidents to support their positions on Indian policy. The agenda of a newspaper centered on how the Indian problem should be solved. All agreed that the solution to the Indian problem was the Americanization of the Indians, but a debate raged over whether the best method to achieve this goal was a “force policy” or a “peace policy.” The “force policy” contingent wanted the Army to subdue the Indian tribes and force them to Americanize at the point of a gun. The “peace policy” wanted civilian control of Indian affairs and promoted using missionaries to oversee Indian agencies. The basis for the “peace policy” came from the Doolittle report published in 1867. The Doolittle Report resulted from a seven man investigative committee formed by Congress to investigate the Sand Creek Massacre. It cited widespread corruption in the Indian bureau and blamed white settlers for most broken treaties.[33] President Grant hoped to curb the corruption by putting religious leaders in control of Indian agencies. President Grant’s actions were controversial and the newspapers often found ways to argue the policy. Several of the newspapers used dramatic events in the Indian wars or a leader’s life to promote either the “peace policy” or “force policy.”

During the newspaper coverage of the Little Big Horn battle, the Chicago Daily Tribune portrayed Sitting Bull and the Sioux negatively while it attacked the government’s Indian policy with sarcasm. For example it argued, “While Sitting Bull and his Lieutenants were killing Custer’s men, the United States was kindly feeding and caring for their squaws and papooses. Perhaps it would be well now for the United states to keep on with the farce it is playing, pension the Indian widows, and present Sitting Bull with a sword and freedom of the whole Indian country.”[34] For several months following the massacre, the Tribune perceived Sitting Bull negatively, portraying him as vicious, brutal, and deceptive. Unhappy with the government policy, it used Sitting Bull’s actions to criticize the government.

Though the Chicago Daily Tribune argued against the policy of the government, the New York Times supported the “peace policy” both before and after Little Big Horn. The New York Times predicted an eventual Indian war after Custer’s expedition into the Black Hills in 1875, which it contended broke earlier treaties with the Sioux Indians.[35] It argued, “if the Black Hills prove rich in gold, the red man will be bought out or driven out, and the white man will take possession.”[36] It then stated, “It is too late, no doubt, to expect a different policy; it is not too late to point the moral of the one too long followed.”[37] When the Sioux and Sitting Bull defeated Custer, the Times and the Eastern press shifted the blame for the massacre from the government to Sitting Bull. Although it did not condone the savagery of Sitting Bull, the New York Times defended the government’s “peace policy” and argued, “Had the peace policy never been heard of, we do not see that this collision would have been prevented.”[38] It blamed Sitting Bull not the government policy.

The Eastern papers were not alone in their criticism of the government. The West Coast and Southern papers criticized the government’s policy as well. The Alta California described Sitting Bull and the Sioux as worthy enemies fighting to avoid extermination.[39] It did not criticize Sitting Bull so much as the government for not furnishing enough men to put down the revolt. It stated, “If there are not enough troops sent forward to crush out the enemy at once, then a prolonged Indian war will be the result.”[40] It saw the government’s lack of commitment as an underestimation of the threat Sitting Bull and the Sioux posed. For example it argued, “that each Indian, fighting in his own country, for his won lands, as he believes, and to overcome an enemy who desires his extermination, is equal to each soldier that is sent against him.”[41] To solve this problem the newspaper stated that the government should call up the militia.

In the Southern region, the papers argued that Grant’s “peace policy” was to blame for the massacre. The Atlanta Constitution stated that the Indian, “knows he has been robbed, swindled and made to bear unutterable sufferings through the Quaker idiocy and post-trader and contractor corruptions of the administration.”[42] Despite this criticism, the Atlantic Constitution did not increase its coverage of Indian affairs, and continued its focus on Reconstruction.

The Battle of Little Big Horn received widespread news coverage but it was not the only incident used to attack the government policy on Indians. The Battle of Washita, discussed earlier as example of location, provided the Rocky Mountain News with an opportunity to promote its agenda when it stated, “hurrah for Washita,” it also referred to the Indians as “pets” of the peace advocates.[43] Another incident, the case of Captain Jack, a Modoc Indian leader, led to support and attacks on the government position. Both the Eastern and Rocky Mountain region used his escape and execution to argue for change.

Captain Jack’s story provided material for both sides of the Indian policy question. The event occurred during the years of 1870 to 1873. Unhappy with Klamath reservation conditions on the border of California and Oregon, Captain Jack led his tribe off the reservation in 1870. The Army was called in to bring the Indians back to the reservation but was unable to dislodge them from the lava beds by Tule Lake. In 1873, during a peace conference between the General Canby and the Modocs, Captain Jack killed Canby and two other officers. After Captain Jack’s capture, he and three other Indians were executed.[44] The New York Times and the Rocky Mountain News portrayed Captain Jack negatively and used the event to argue their agenda.

The Rocky Mountain News portrayed Captain Jack as a murderer. It started by attacking the whole Modocs tribe after General Canby was killed. It began a sarcastic editorial with, “Lost-A band of Indians known as the Modocs” and continued with, “on the 11^th of April a slight misunderstanding occurred between one Captain Jack, an elegant and humane Indian Chieftain, and General Canby, a blood thirsty American officer, and two or three white monsters, in which the former, as an act of self defense, was obliged to shoot down the latter.”[45] Its target of this sarcasm was the “peace policy” advocates. The Rocky Mountain News used this incident to further its position for a stronger “force policy” and to prove the savagery of the Indians. It mocked the way the negotiations took place, stating, “We are becoming disgusted with the way affairs have been managed about the lava beds, and trust that it will not be many days before the present incapacity may give way to something which may smack of success.”[46] The Rocky Mountain News wanted fewer negotiations and more force.

The New York Times agreed with the Rocky Mountain News and declared Captain Jack a murderer. The New York Times clearly drew a distinction between Indians defending themselves against extinction and what it believed was useless bloodshed. The Times believed Captain Jack’s shooting of General Canby at a peace conference was an example of useless bloodshed. It argued that “Capt. Jack was an assassin not a warrior.”[47] The Times used the occasion to attack the government as well. It argued that, “permanent peace cannot be secured between whites and Indians until both are shown that they cannot commit murder and call it war.”[48] About Captain Jack’s execution the Times stated, “The execution of Capt. Jack has put one side of the case beyond dispute, but we must not expect this deserved punishment to have its full effect until white outlaws are treated with equal severity.”[49] So as before the New York Times used their portrayal of an Indian leader to argue its peace agenda.

The Eastern press did not always portray Indian leaders negatively to argue for the “peace policy.” Sometimes, if it perceived an Indians crime as “noble” or believed that the leader avoided unnecessary bloodshed, it portrayed them positively and contrasted that positive image with the government. Examples of the use of positive portrayal to further an agenda occurred in the cases of Standing Buffalo and Chief Joseph.

Standing Buffalo was a Sioux leader who returned to the warpath after members of his tribe insulted him for giving in to the Army. Standing Buffalo did not fight the Army, but waged war against an opposing tribe, the Assiniboines. During the fight Standing Buffalo was killed. In this action, the New York Times believed Standing Buffalo represented the ideal noble savage uncorrupted by civilization. It stated that although the noble savage was all but extinct, “some descendant of this doomed and outcast race gives us a flash of real nobleness of spirit as Cooper’s myths seem almost possible. The death of the Santee-Sioux Chief, Standing Buffalo, as described by the Indian agent at Milk River, smacks of antique heroism.”[50] The Times once again used this incident as it did other stories to attack the treatment of the Indians. It argued that “judicious treatment may at least avert those weapons from ourselves.”[51] Here once again, the Times used a positive portrayal of an Indian leader to argue in support of the “peace policy.”

Another example of an Indian leader portrayed positively to further a newspaper’s agenda was Chief Joseph. Chief Joseph was a Nez Perces Indian who spent most of his life on the reservation. When the government tried to renegotiate a treaty with the Nez Perces which would have allowed settlers to live on Indians lands, Chief Joseph refused. He then led the Army on a 1300-mile chase, trying to escape to Canada with his tribe. After he was surrounded at Bear Paw Mountain in 1877, Chief Joseph surrendered and refused to fight ever again.[52]

The New York Times used Chief Joseph’s resistance to attack the “force policy.” It wrote two editorials during the period of his capture. The first editorial described Chief Joseph’s actions while fleeing to Canada. In the second editorial, the Times defended Chief Joseph’s actions and attacked the “force policy” advocates with sarcasm. It stated, “It shocks all our inner feeling to be compelled to say that so far Joseph has fiendishly refused to be exterminated…when Gen. Gibbon’s Army attacked one of his villages the women and children were heroically killed by the troops; but when Joseph the other day attacked a little band of white people he released the women without injuring them.”[53] It continued its sarcasm with this passage: “The longer this unspeakable wretch postpones his extermination the more he deserves our indignation. There never was a holier cause for which our troops are fighting.”[54] Since Chief Joseph avoided the unnecessary bloodshed, it provided the perfect opportunity for the New York Times to attack what it believed was flawed about the “force policy.”

The examples listed previously dealt with an Indian leader who had in some way or another violated government treaties. Though events such as an Indian leader leaving the reservation to take up the warpath provided an opportunity for a paper to argue its position, sometimes a peaceful Indian’s travels were used. That was the case for Red Cloud during his trip to Washington, D.C., in 1870. Earlier in the paper, this event provided examples of the differences of portrayal due to proximity. In addition to the differences due to location, different papers used his trip to argue its position on Indian policy. An example of this occurred in the West Coast, Eastern, and Western regions.

The San Francisco Chronicle used Red Cloud’s trip to Washington, D. C. to argue its position on the peace process. An editorial about Red Cloud’s visit argued that “the children of the Plains should be as tenderly cared for as possible [by the government].”[55] The San Francisco Chronicle showed its sympathy for Red Cloud’s situation when it stated, “we may sympathize with the Red Man, and regret the remorseless fate which thins his numbers and hurries him to extermination.”[56] In its story Red Cloud was the “savage” who faced extinction along with the rest of his kind. The Chronicle argued the extinction was speeded up due to the government’s policy.

The New York Times agreed with its fellow newspaper on the West Coast about the peace process. It argued during Red Cloud’s speech that the government should not lie to the Indians. It stated, “The attempt to cajole and bamboozle them, as if they were deficient in intelligence, ought to be abandoned, no less than the policy of hunting them down like wild beasts.”[57] In an editorial a week later describing Red Cloud’s speech it argued for “justice” for the Indian. It stated, “We have long been doing justice to the negro. Is it not almost time to see what we can do for the Indian?”[58] The New York Times used Red Cloud’s speech to explain why better treatment of the Indians was needed.

The Rocky Mountain region did not perceive Red Cloud’s as an opportunity argue for better treatment. The Rocky Mountain News believed that Red Cloud’s actions provided the perfect example for how the “peace policy” advocates invite resistance from the Indians. It stated that at the meeting, where Red Cloud negotiated for better treatment with Secretary of the Interior Cox, Red Cloud and others, “brandished their tomahawks over the head of Cox of the Interior. This impudence and bullying has been invited by the stupid course of the Peace party.” [59] It did not believe that Red Cloud wanted peace, but war.[60] Its arguments against trusting Red Cloud and the Indians supported its position on the “peace policy.”

The four different regions all used Indian leaders or incidents of the Indian wars to promote their agendas. Sometimes they used a positive portrayal and other times they used a negative portrayal. In most instances Eastern papers viewed Indians positively after they came to the reservation, but for some Indian leaders, despite the situation or agenda, the papers portrayed them negatively. The determining factor here was whether the papers perceived the Indian leader as a criminal. This could lead to a positive portrayal as with Chief Joseph or a negative portrayal for others such as Geronimo, Cochise, and Sitting Bull.

In the case of Chief Joseph, the Eastern press, perceived his attempted escape to Canada positively. It stated, “he” [Chief Joseph] “and his men deserve the treatment of foes, not felons. By refraining from scalping and mutilation, by their frequent release of women and children, and sometimes even unarmed citizens, they have set an example in Indian warfare.”[61] Since the New York Times believed Chief Joseph avoided unnecessary bloodshed, it portrayed him positively. The Times’ admiration for Chief Joseph lasted until his death. Upon his death the Times wrote, “The American bison is scarcely more completely extinct than the savage, unspoiled by civilization, of which the chief of the Nez Perces is a very typical specimen.”[62] Clearly the events that precipitated the Chief Joseph’s surrender had a lasting affect on his portrayal in the paper.

Chief Joseph’s resistance was perceived as less of a threat to the frontier due to his perceived effort not to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Chief Joseph therefore received a positive portrayal unlike, Geronimo and Cochise, two Apache Indian leaders, and Sitting Bull. The Eastern press perceived their resistance as unnecessarily brutal. All of these leaders’ actions have been viewed as fighting to defend their way of life, but not perceived in the same manner as Chief Joseph or Red Cloud. Chief Joseph’s actions occurred at the same time of Sitting Bull’s escape to Canada, but did not raise alarm in the East. That was not the case with Geronimo and Cochise. Geronimo and Cochise were Apache, whose warlike reputations were prominent in the period.

Geronimo and Cochise were both leaders of the Chiricahua Apache Indian band. For several years, the Apache raided along the Arizona and Mexican border, killing ranchers and stealing cattle. When Geronimo surrendered in 1886, it made the Apache the last Indian tribe to give up the warpath. The Apache being the last tribe to surrender and the difficulty the Army had in capturing the Apache helped give them a reputation for being the most dangerous Indian tribe of the time. In addition, the Chiricahuas were viewed as one of the most vicious bands of Apaches.

Given the vicious reputation of the Chiricahuas, it is not surprising that the Eastern papers portrayed Cochise and Geronimo negatively. The Chicago Daily Tribune retold a story in which Cochise killed a member of his own tribe and an interpreter. In it they argued, “The Apache have had many a chief-none as desperately wicked as Cochise.”[63] The story focused on all the gory actions committed by Cochise, with no mention that his resistance might be for good reasons. The New York Times portrayed Geronimo just as negatively. After his capture, the Times described Geronimo as a “thug” and “wretch” who “should be either executed or imprisoned for life.”[64] The Times did not perceive Geronimo as fighting to defend his tribe, but as just a thief and killer.

Another Indian leader who was perceived as a criminal even after his surrender was Sitting Bull. After Sitting Bull’s surrender in 1881, he was confined to Fort Randall, treated well, and received a lot of fan mail from around the world.[65] After a short venture in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, he returned to Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Toward the end of his life, Sitting Bull promoted the Ghost Dance religion which led to orders for his arrest. During his arrest in 1890, he was shot and killed by the Indian police.[66] After his death, Sitting Bull’s portrayal remained negative.

The Rocky Mountain and West Coast regions continued to portray Sitting Bull as a troublemaker. The Rocky Mountain News seemed almost gleeful at the news of his death and argued that all the “good” Indians were glad he was dead.[67] The San Francisco Chronicle also portrayed him as a troublemaker and claimed he was a “bad Indian, who always started trouble, was dishonest, and lazy.”[68] In the same article it remarked, “He is a ‘good Indian’ now, and no one will mourn him.”[69] Both regions blamed Sitting Bull for the troubles at Standing Rock reservation and treated him accordingly.

The Southern region did not attack Sitting Bull as forcefully as the other regions. The region printed the wire reports of Sitting Bull’s death, but did not add many editorials or other stories about it. The Atlanta Constitution ran a short story of his death, but just pointed out the facts of his demise.[70] The Daily Virginian printed a story of an interview with Colonel Cody, who claimed now that Sitting Bull was dead all the Indian troubles would stop.[71] Though not as detailed as the West Coast or Rocky Mountain region, it was clear the southern press believed Sitting Bull was a troublemaker. It used reports from the President and War Department to explain his dangers. The Daily Virginian said the War Department “regarded as the brains of the recent Indian uprisings”[72] The Atlanta Constitution quoted the President’s response to Sitting Bull’s death as, “he had regarded Sitting Bull as the great disturbing element in his tribe.”[73] The Southern press portrayed Sitting Bull as a troublemaker, whose passing might end the Indian troubles.

The Eastern press viewed Sitting Bull just as negatively after his death as it had after the Battle of Little Big Horn. A New York Times editorial stated, “The announcement of his death is not calculated to arouse any other emotions than those excited the other day by the slaying of a ‘rogue’ elephant in Cincinnati.”[74] The Chicago Daily Tribune agreed. It described Sitting Bull as an “arrogant sneak and a coward.”[75] The Tribune also believed Sitting Bull was responsible for the recent Ghost Dance troubles. It argued, “There is no doubt that he encouraged the ghost dancers for purposes of his own and that he was scheming for an outbreak in the spring.”[76] Unlike the Times though, the Tribune used Sitting Bull’s death to attack the poor treatment of the Indians by the government. In the same editorial that blamed Sitting Bull, it argued later, “when the Indians are gathered on the reservation again it will save time, money, and lives if the contracts with them are kept.”[77] The Tribune portrayed Sitting Bull negatively while it argued its agenda, much as it had with other resistive Indian leaders.

Throughout the period different Indian leaders were portrayed either positively or negatively by the press. Proximity was the most important factor on how a newspaper portrayed an Indian leader. In the Rocky Mountain News, located closest to the Indian troubles, all Indians were viewed negatively and their resistance, peaceful status, or perception of their crimes did not matter. In the other regions, portrayal varied between positive and negative. Sometimes due to the proximity to an important event, an Indian leader seemed more threatening and was portrayed negatively, but mostly the other regions portrayed the majority of Indian leaders positively.

A second factor that determined how an Indian leader was portrayed was the agenda of the newspaper. The Rocky mountain region portrayed Indian leaders negatively to argue its position for a strong “force policy.” In the other regions, it used Indian leader portrayals to argue for a better “peace policy.” The Eastern, West Coast, and Southern regions often portrayed leaders positively to further their positions. Though sometimes, in the case of Sitting Bull, Captain Jack, Geronimo, and Cochise, it used a negative portrayal to argue its agenda.

The last factor that determined an Indian leader’s portrayal was perception of his actions off the reservation. Indian leaders such as Standing Buffalo and Chief Joseph were portrayed positively due to the paper’s perception of their actions. Both Indian leaders were perceived as acting nobly and avoiding unnecessary bloodshed. The Indian leaders portrayed negatively had a reputation for unnecessarily killings and violent raids. In these instances the negative portrayal lasted until their deaths.

Newspapers in the last half of the nineteenth century wrote many stories involving Native American leaders. The stories portrayed either a positive or negative image of that leader. Proximity or the location of the newspaper to the frontier was the greatest determinant of an Indian leader’s portrayal. The closer a newspaper was to the threat of Indian violence the more negative its portrayal. The newspapers also used Indian leaders to argue its position on Indian policy. Newspapers used either positive or negative portrayal to point out flaws in Indian policy depending on the Indian leader and proximity. The last factor of portrayal was a newspapers perception of an Indian leader’s crimes and threat to the frontier. If Indian leader’s actions were perceived as unnecessarily violent, newspapers portrayed him negatively. If an Indian leaders actions were perceived as less threatening or avoiding unnecessary bloodshed, newspapers in the East portrayed them positively. These factors provided the basis for an Indian leader’s portrayal in the newspapers during the last half of the nineteenth century.

Primary Sources

Newspapers

Alta California- San Francisco, CA

Atlanta Constitution-Atlanta, GA

Chicago Daily Tribune-Chicago, IL

Daily Virginian- Lynchburg, VA

Rocky Mountain News-Denver, CO

New York Times-New York, NY

San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, CA

Secondary Bibliography

Berkhofer, Jr. Robert F. The White Man’s Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present. New York: Random House, Inc., 1978.

Coward, John M. The Newspaper Indian: Native American Identity in the Press 1820-90. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999.

Dary, David. Red Blood and Black Ink: Journalism in the Old West. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1998.

Ellingson, Terry Jay. The Myth of the Noble Savage. Berkely: University of California Press, 2001.

Gibson, Arrell Morgan. The American Indian: Prehistory to Present. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1980.

Hays, Robert G., forward to Paul Simon. A Race at Bay: New York Times editorial on “The Indian Problem,” 1860-1900. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1997.

Knight, Oliver, forward by Sherry L. Smith. Following the Indian Wars: The Story of the Newspaper Correspondents Among the Indian Campaigners. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1960.

Larson, Robert W. Red Cloud: Warrior-Statesman of the Lakota Sioux. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997.

Leckie, William H. The Military Conquest of the Southern Plains. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963.

Nichols, Roger I. “Printer’s Ink and Redskins: Western Newspapermen and the Indians.” Kansas Quarterly 3 no. 4 (1971): 82-88.

Pearce, Roy Harvey. Savagism and Civilization: A Study of the Indian and the American Mind. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1953.

Roberts, David. Once They Moved Like the Wind: Cochise, Geronimo, and the Apache Wars. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993.

Schulte, Steven C. “Indians and Politicians: The Origins of a “Western” Attitude Toward Native Americans in Wyoming 1868-1906.” Annals of Wyoming 56 no. 1 (1984): 2-11.

Utley, Robert M. Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian, 1866-1891. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1973.

_____________. The Lance and the Shield: The Life and Times of Sitting Bull. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1993.

Worcester, Donald. “Satanta” in American Indian Leaders: Studies in Diversity. Ed. by R. David Edmunds. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1980.

[1] Robert W. Larson. Red Cloud: Warrior-Statesman of the Lakota Sioux. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997. pp. 100-102.

[2] Ibid., pp 120-125.

[3] “Indian and Military Matters up North,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 20 February 1867, (1-9)

[4] “The Appeal of the Red Man,” New York Times, 8 June1870, in Hays, pp, 100.

[5] Ibid., pp 100.

[6] Ibid., pp 100.

[7] “The Indian Question,” San Francisco Chronicle, 11 June 1870, (2-1)

[8] Ibid.

[9] “Washington News,” Atlanta Constitution, 14 June 1870, (1-3)

[10] “Washington News,” Atlanta Constitution, 11 June 1870, (2-3)

[11] Ibid.

[12] “Grand Indian Howl,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 8 June 1870. (1-4)

[13] “Red Cloud’s Behavior,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 20 June 1870 (1-2)

[14] “Red Man Eloquent” New York Times, 9 November 1867. in Hayes pp. 98-99.

[15] Ibid.pp 97.

[16] Ibid. pp 97.

[17] “Indian Atrocities,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 24 April 1867 (2-4)

[18] Ibid.

[19] “The Final Indian Pow-wow,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 30 November 1867. (2-3)

[20] Robert M. Utley. Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian, 1866-1891. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, 1973. pp. 149-152.

[21] “Washita and Sand Creek Compared,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 29 December 1868, (1-2)

[22] “Sheridan’s Winter Campaign,” New York Times, 4 December 1868, in Hays pp 137.

[23] Ibid., pp 138.

[24] Herbert T. Hoover. “Sitting Bull” in Edmunds. pp 163.

[25] “Horrible,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 6 July 1876, (5-2)

[26] “The Causes and Consequences,” New York Times, 7 July 1876, (1-3)

[27] “Retrospective,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 7 July 1876, (1-1)

[28] Ibid.

[29] “Editorial,” New York Times, 7 April 1877, (4-2)

[30] “The Exile’s Return,” New York Times, 21 December 1877, in Hays, pp 115.

[31] “The Indians,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 12 July 1876, (2-3)

[32] “Perhaps a Fatal Delay,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 11 July 1876, (4-5)

[33] Arrell Morgan Gibson. The American Indian: Prehistory to Present. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1980. pp 393-395.

[34] “Editorial,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 17 July 1876, (4-1)

[35] “Taming the Savage,” New York Times, 15 April 1875, (6-1)

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] “Gen. Grant’s Peace Policy,” New York Times, 30 July 1876 in Hays pp 74.

[39] “An Indian War,” (San Francisco) Alta California, 10 July 1876, (1-1)

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid.

[42] “Indian Problem,” Atlanta Constitution, 7 July 1776 (1-2)

[43] “Washita and Sand Creek Compared,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 29 December 1868, (1-2)

[44] Gibson, pp 417-418.

[45] “Lost,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 23 April 1873, (2-3)

[46] Untitled, (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 23 April 1873, (2-3)

[47] “Untitled,” New York Times, 5 October 1873, in Hayes pg 104-105.

[48] Ibid., pp 105.

[49] Ibid., pp 105.

[50] “A Sioux Hero,” New York Times, 6 August 1871, in Hays pp 103.

[51] Ibid., pp. 104.

[52]Gibson., pp. 419.

[53] “An Impudent Indian,” New York Times, 4 September 1877, in Hays pp 111.

[54] Ibid., pp 112.

[55] “The Indian Question,” San Francisco Chronicle, 11 June 1870, (2-1)

[56] Ibid.

[57] “The Appeal of the Red Man,” New York Times, 8 June 1870, in Hayes pp 100.

[58] “The Last Appeal of Red Cloud,” New York Times, 17 June 1870, in Hayes pp.103.

[59] “Grand Indian Howl,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 8 June 1870. (1-4)

[60] “Red Cloud’s Behavior,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 20 June 1870. (1-2)

[61] “The Surrender of Chief Joseph,” New York Times, 11 August 1877, in Hayes pp 109.

[62] “Chief Joseph,” New York Times, 24 April 1897, in Hayes pp 126.

[63] “Cochise’s Duel a Startling Revenge on an Interpreter,” Chicago Daily Tribune 12 July 1874 (16-6)

[64] “Geronimo’s Band of Thugs,” New York Times, 2 June 1885 in Hays, pp 122.

[65] Herbert T. Hoover. “Sitting Bull” in Edmunds. pp 163.

[66] Ibid., pp. 168-170

[67] “White Buffalo Man,” (Denver) Rocky Mountain News, 18 December 1890, (1-3)

[68] “Sitting Bull’s Death,” San Francisco Chronicle, 17 December 1890, (4-2)

[69] Ibid.

[70] “Sitting Bull Slain,” Atlanta Constitution, 16 December 1890, (1-4)

[71] “Buffalo Bill on Sitting Bull’s Death,” (Lynchburg) Daily Virginian, 17 December 1890, (1-4)

[72] “The News In Washington,” (Lynchburg) Daily Virginian, 17 December 1890, (1-4)

[73] “The News Confirmed,” Atlanta Constitution, 16 December 1890, (1-4)

[74] “Exit Sitting Bull,” New York Times, 16 December 1890, in Hayes pp. 125.

[75] “The Last of Sitting Bull,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 17 December 1890, (4-2)

[76] Ibid.

[77] Ibid.