|
Post by twomoons on Apr 12, 2005 8:50:46 GMT -6
hmmmm.....
"how troublesome and <"embarrassing"> babies would be to us . . . Our <"pleasure"> would be continually marred and <"circumscribed"> . . ."
Key words may be telling us more than he wanted others to know.
1) What is so "emabarassing" about babies? That's not normal. Well any way in a normal relationship - it's not. Try telling that one to your wife!
2) He really felt that having a baby would "circumscribe" ie restict their what? = pleasure!!!
ummm... are we missing something here? What restrictive behaviour is he talking about? He couldn't have been talking about his career here. It was mentioned as "our" pleasure.
I think the statement taken as a whole has a clear unadulterated meaning. ;)
#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 12, 2005 9:07:41 GMT -6
GAC and LBC joked between themselves about the Yates' children. Both thought the brood was a bunch of uncontrollable, undisciplined, unmitigated brats. So using those kids as an example of what parents could expect, I don't think embarrassing is such a strange word--especially given the fact that their childlessness (for whatever reason) was becoming a fact they would have to accept. That might have been a bit of CYA, on GAC's part, perhaps buoying Libbie up in a situation neither anticipated.
"I prayed that I might be given a Child that I might make it a cornerstone in the Great Church of God ..."
--LBC, personal correspondence.
But did the lack of children effect Custer's actions in the field?
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 12, 2005 9:12:46 GMT -6
Crazy horse--
My bad. I got confused about what STD in regards to GAC. I thought you were referring to a possibility of GAC's contracting syphilis in 1870 ... not the clap at WP.
Regards, LMC
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 12, 2005 10:23:21 GMT -6
ricemclean your statments are exactly what I am referring to. "GAC and LBC joked between themselves about the Yates' children. " Children, anyone's children are no joke! And if you desire one, you certainly don't joke about it! It's no joking matter, and most women who are trying to have one will tell you that!
Your propsal brings up the conundrum that most people cant begin to fathom. Why would they "both" want a brood" that "was a bunch of uncontrollable, undisciplined, unmitigated brats", that would "embarass" them and "restrict" their sexual desires, and yet: state that, "I prayed that I might be given a Child that I might make it a cornerstone in the Great Church of God ..."? Something is definitly bunk about either one or the other!!! And having a child for the reasons that he stated, is for all the wrong reasons. Any parent knows that. This coupled with my last statements paints a clear picture of his mentality that is very disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on Apr 12, 2005 11:53:09 GMT -6
Wow, a lot to answer here. But I will stick to Tullocks' Fork for the moment. There was (in my opinion) a reason to scout up this creek and its the same reason Terry ordered him to do it. It was to maintain communication and operate in conjunction with the other column. This, of course is not what Custer wanted and he told Gibbon that as he rode by when he answered "No, I won't." To Gibbon's request that he save some Indians for the other column.
Custer had no intention of involving any other unit. Then, as now, a unit has to be able to move, shoot, and communicate. A scout sent up Tullock's Fork would have done the last, communicate. And that is why Terry ordered it. Had Custer done so, it could have changed things, even a small amount of cavalry such as the three companies of the 2nd Cavalry, approaching from the north the same or near the same time Custer came from the south and east and the Indians would have been in a world of hurt. Custer could have won his victory gotten the bulk of the glory for himself and the 7th United States Cavalry, and lived to tell the tale, over and over and over again.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by bigpond on Apr 12, 2005 14:01:07 GMT -6
Walt, I agree with most of what you said,but surely Custer must have thought about Crook too[although we know differently]and it seems odd,that Terry didn't consider Crook either considering it was a three prong attack. I think his life on the plains was depressing,and totally frustrating. Their was little chance of recognition in the right places.Gambled at the Clymer committee and lost,and his ego, what was left of it was in tatters when he had to virtually beg Terry to intercede for him. Wether it was the 26th at dawn,or as it happened the 25th,he knew he would be first to roll the dice.This was his last chance for glory,no matter the odds,he gambled and lost forever. One last point,if GAC had survived and not won,would he have commited suicide,I think the odds would suggest yes.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 12, 2005 14:20:35 GMT -6
Custer said he "would cut loose from Terry."
Terry's ambiguous "orders" left Custer with the option of doing as he saw fit and cut loose he did . . . and it cost him.
Lt. Edgerly told Walter Camp that ". . . Herendeen was to scout Tullock's Creek and report any information to Terry. However, when Custer got over the divide the scouts had approximately located the village in another direction than that of Tullock's Creek."
Herendeen also told Camp that ". . . Custer told me that there was no reason for sending him there (Tullock's Creek) as the Indians were known to be in his front, and that his command had been discovered. He said the only thing for him (Custer) to do was therefore to charge their village as soon as possible. It was also my opinion that Custer wished to fight the Indians with the 7th Cavalry ALONE, and he was clearly making every effort to do this. It appeared to me at the time that Custer was right and that there was really no use in scouting Tullocks' Creek."
From CUSTER'S LUCK:
Herendeen stated, "General here is where I leave you to go to the other command" . . . (scout Tullock's Creek, and report to Terry). Custer made no answer and the two rode alongside some distance, then Herendeen feeling his services not needed, fell back. Later that night, both discussed the question of sending him down Tullock's Creek to communicate with Terry, but both felt that they had better wait until they were farther along on the trail. They next day it became apparent that the Indians had discovered the presence of the command, and Custer knew that the scout could not get through.
The conclusion was that it would be a waste of time to scout Tullock's Creek when the Indians were in front of the command and close by.
However, sending Herendeen to notify Terry that Custer was closing in on the Indians MAY have forced Terry to march faster and POSSIBLY arrive in time to assist in the battle.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 12, 2005 14:40:05 GMT -6
RE: How much did Custer confer with fellow officers?
On the evening of June 22, Custer held a council with fellow officers and detailed his plans for the campaign. The procedure was so unusual that practically all of those present commented upon it. Custer almost pleaded for cooperation and loyalty from his officers and complained that some of his official actions had been criticized. The whole tone of the meeting left officers dumbfounded and amazed. Lt. Wallace confided to Gibson and Godfrey that Custer had never been known to talk that way before and felt a premoniton of disaster.
Apparently, Custer rarely asked for any input from fellow officers and his actions on the 22nd may have been the result of second-guessing himself, the command, and the men under him.
Maybe if Custer had confided and asked for opinions from his junior officers more often, the animosity, jealousness, hatred, and lack of trust would not have been a factor at the LBH.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 12, 2005 16:19:39 GMT -6
ricemclean your statments are exactly what I am referring to. "GAC and LBC joked between themselves about the Yates' children. " Children, anyone's children are no joke! And if you desire one, you certainly don't joke about it! It's no joking matter, and most women who are trying to have one will tell you that! Your propsal brings up the conundrum that most people cant begin to fathom. Why would they "both" want a brood" that "was a bunch of uncontrollable, undisciplined, unmitigated brats", that would "embarass" them and "restrict" their sexual desires, and yet: state that, "I prayed that I might be given a Child that I might make it a cornerstone in the Great Church of God ..."? Something is definitly bunk about either one or the other!!! And having a child for the reasons that he stated, is for all the wrong reasons. Any parent knows that. This coupled with my last statements paints a clear picture of his mentality that is very disturbing. Twomoons-- Then it appears you are questioning the entire Victorian Era's morality. Outwards there was a strict adherence to society's principles of Christian (not Judeo-Christian) goodness, Godly righteousness, and NO sex--but when we get beyond the side humanity showed the outside world--it was permissible for couples to share private jokes and enjoy a healthy, as long as it doesn't inflict pain without prior consent, sexuality. Who are we to judge the Nineteenth Century on the humorless, Red State morality of the Twenty-First? Both Libbie and GAC had a knack for wit--one of Libbie's favorite pastimes was to cut cartoons out of magazines, erase the balloons and make her own--often making her friends, family, husband, and other people's children the butt of her jokes. Custer's humor manifests itself in his letters--I especially enjoyed the one he wrote to Libbie about the "RAW ONIONS" he ate, "ad nauseum, and ad infinitum" for breakfast, lunch, and dinner ... so they joked about the behavior of Yates' kids? Okay. They liked sex--at any time they pleased. So did Queen Victoria (well, until Prince Albert died)! Even though GAC probably found pleasure outside his marriage bed (remember the times), do these facts alone make GAC a psycho? Yes, Custer had a tendency to brood (the seasons of silence), he bragged to Libbie in letters about "conquests" while away on the East Coast--granted, I don't know what's up with that--and he DID have psychological issues, especially in periods of enforced inactivity and/or peacetime (see the Belknap Committee or his going AWOL in 1867). He sometimes saw shadows where there weren't any. He did like to gamble to an extent that some may think is beyond healthy (I'm among them)--and remember, he had instances of verry public drunkeness before taking his oath of temperance (IMHO, he may have tended towards addiction). But I don't think sharing a private joke with his wife about other people's brats is typical of a disturbed personality. There are far more interesting examples of his psychology to discuss--especially when it comes to effecting his leadership at LBH--or lack thereof. There was the image--or the myth, if you prefer--and reality. But remember that "Custer was a psycho" is just as much a myth as "Custer was a Saint." The truth is somewhere in-between. Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on Apr 12, 2005 18:29:13 GMT -6
Wow, I just can't seem to get all this answered, great job everybody! Okay, a couple of points and I will leave Tullock's Fork. Here is the portion of Terry's "orders" regarding Tullock's Fork:
"The Department Command desires that on your way up the Rosebud you should thoroughly examine the upper part of Tulloch’s Creek, and that you should endeavor to send a scout through to Colonel Gibbon’s column, with information of the result of your examination. The lower part of this creek will be examined by a detachment from Colonel Gibbon’s command. "
That seems pretty clear. Custer's column stopped to rest twice on the night of the 24th. The first time on the banks of the Rosebud for a four hour period. This is the time Custer should have sent a scout with a message to Gibbon. I understand that Custer had already found the Indian trail and didn't need to scout the creek to locate them. But he completely ignored that part of the order requiring him to make contact with Gibbon.
Tullocks Fork was well within riding distance of Custer’s scouts. The 7th Cavalry was in a position to make contact with the 7th Infantry, informing Gibbon of Custer’s intentions and insuring Terry’s command provided support. In retrospect this failure was implicit in Custer’s defeat, as Terry halted Gibbon's column at the mouth of Tullocks’ Creek for more than a day awaiting Custer’s message, a message that never came. Had Custer obeyed orders Gibbon would arrive at the Indian village at or near the time of Custer’s own arrival.
I agree that by the time of the next rest stop, early on the morning of the 25th and on the eastern slope of the crest of Wolf Mountains, it was too late to send a message. The die was cast. What a pity that the last meal many of these men would ever taste was raw bacon, hardtack and alkali coffee.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 13, 2005 8:05:20 GMT -6
Walt--
Because of your gallant and meritorious service during your successful scout of Tulloch's Creek, General Terry recommends you for promotion, and it would behoove Washington to consider it seriously.
On the serious side, you've actually answered a lot of questions I had about the matter. Thanks!
Your obedient servant-- LMC
|
|
|
Post by bigpond on Apr 13, 2005 16:34:42 GMT -6
Wow, I just can't seem to get all this answered, great job everybody! Okay, a couple of points and I will leave Tullock's Fork. Here is the portion of Terry's "orders" regarding Tullock's Fork: "The Department Command desires that on your way up the Rosebud you should thoroughly examine the upper part of Tulloch’s Creek, and that you should endeavor to send a scout through to Colonel Gibbon’s column, with information of the result of your examination. The lower part of this creek will be examined by a detachment from Colonel Gibbon’s command. " That seems pretty clear. Custer's column stopped to rest twice on the night of the 24th. The first time on the banks of the Rosebud for a four hour period. This is the time Custer should have sent a scout with a message to Gibbon. I understand that Custer had already found the Indian trail and didn't need to scout the creek to locate them. But he completely ignored that part of the order requiring him to make contact with Gibbon. Tullocks Fork was well within riding distance of Custer’s scouts. The 7th Cavalry was in a position to make contact with the 7th Infantry, informing Gibbon of Custer’s intentions and insuring Terry’s command provided support. In retrospect this failure was implicit in Custer’s defeat, as Terry halted Gibbon's column at the mouth of Tullocks’ Creek for more than a day awaiting Custer’s message, a message that never came. Had Custer obeyed orders Gibbon would arrive at the Indian village at or near the time of Custer’s own arrival. I agree that by the time of the next rest stop, early on the morning of the 25th and on the eastern slope of the crest of Wolf Mountains, it was too late to send a message. The die was cast. What a pity that the last meal many of these men would ever taste was raw bacon, hardtack and alkali coffee. Walt www.uwyo.edu/armyrotc/bh_terryorder.asp
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on Apr 13, 2005 19:03:07 GMT -6
Thanks Rice, the whole scene on the eve of battle was kind of weird. You might want to read my post on the brothers Custer's apparent disagreement the night before their final fight. Thanks for the promotion!
Bigpond: Thanks for the link!
Walt
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Apr 15, 2005 9:00:13 GMT -6
clap and syphillis are not the same thing.
syphillis kills you. Clap leaves you sterile.
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Apr 15, 2005 9:28:17 GMT -6
"In the book THE RENO COURT OF INQUIRY the author states that both Custer and Reno were treated for syphillis. Whether the treatment was successful no one knows. Syphillis can cause mental deterioration and make one sterile."
Syphillis causes mental deterioration because your brain literally melts, along with your flesh. You DIE from syphillis. Not from clap.
Clap was very common on the Plains. Men often caried rubber catheters so they could urinate. It was that prevelant.
|
|