The contrast between Red Cloud’s approach — signing the treaty, working within the system, trying to enforce treaty promises through political means — and Sitting Bull’s approach — refusing to recognize American authority, remaining outside the treaty framework, continuing to live as if the treaty’s reservation provisions didn’t apply to him — represents one of the most fundamental divisions in Lakota political life in this period.

Neither approach ultimately succeeded in preserving Lakota sovereignty in the full sense.

Red Cloud’s political advocacy produced some real results but could not stop the fundamental violation of the treaty’s promises.

Sitting Bull’s refusal to sign produced a more consistent personal integrity but left him exposed to the military campaigns that eventually forced his surrender in 1881.

Both men were responding to the same impossible situation from different positions.

Neither had a path that led to a good outcome.