|
Post by Tricia on May 1, 2005 19:23:14 GMT -6
Well, it was interesting. And they followed some very well known veins of personal attributes and behaviors Custer exhibited. I take issue with the tests for sure. Two Custer "experts" took the tests for him, consulting one another as they did. It has limited value in my estimate except for entertainment, which I often find fiction to be entertaining. Thanks, it was something new. Walt I can agree with your summation of the website and its conclusions--but at the same time, doesn't Hofling's book fall into the same "let's use pop/modern psychology to define a person I couldn't test?" That was at least my opine of it. Nice ideas are presented, certainly some are worth discussion ... but unless Hofling is/was channeling the boy general or in some way, was able to put him on a coach in modern-day Freudian circumstances, it's all just conjecture, right? The farthest I will go in assessing Custer's personality type to a modern standard is that he may have had some hyperactive disorder--or whatever its called. Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on May 2, 2005 15:11:42 GMT -6
I totally agree with all you have said.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 3, 2005 17:36:34 GMT -6
<The farthest I will go in assessing Custer's personality type to a modern standard is that he may have had some hyperactive disorder--or whatever its called>
I believe it is called nervous energy. He couldn't sit still and had to be doing something . . . which can cause mistakes in acting to quickly or rashly.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 3, 2005 18:17:12 GMT -6
<The farthest I will go in assessing Custer's personality type to a modern standard is that he may have had some hyperactive disorder--or whatever its called> I believe it is called nervous energy. He couldn't sit still and had to be doing something . . . which can cause mistakes in acting to quickly or rashly. That certainly does strongly stand out among Custer attributes. It was when he was unable to use that energy when he became problematic. I think the entire Belknap mess came out of that kind of inactive down time. Of course, that rashness might have been a trait as well ... Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 3, 2005 18:55:57 GMT -6
<Of course, that rashness might have been a trait as well ...>
True . . . sometimes it is good to react without thinking. Too much time spent thinking could cause the loss of an opportunity . . . on the other hand one should consider the action one takes may lead to consequences that could have been avoided if one thought before speaking or acting (i.e., order the shooting of deserters, accusations against Grant's brother and the Belknap scandals, going AWOL, letting Benteen get away with close to insubordination behavior, and of course the final acts at the LBH.
This does not include Custer's breaking and entering into a dean's office to get test questions for a West Point exam and the possible coup against Lincoln disussed with fellow Civil War officers in support of McClellan when Lincoln/McClellan were feuding over tactics to be used in battle.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on May 3, 2005 19:00:03 GMT -6
Perhaps this could be labeled "compulsive - obsessive rashness! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 3, 2005 20:47:26 GMT -6
<Of course, that rashness might have been a trait as well ...> True . . . sometimes it is good to react without thinking. Too much time spent thinking could cause the loss of an opportunity . . . on the other hand one should consider the action one takes may lead to consequences that could have been avoided if one thought before speaking or acting (i.e., order the shooting of deserters, accusations against Grant's brother and the Belknap scandals, going AWOL, letting Benteen get away with close to insubordination behavior, and of course the final acts at the LBH. This does not include Custer's breaking and entering into a dean's office to get test questions for a West Point exam and the possible coup against Lincoln disussed with fellow Civil War officers in support of McClellan when Lincoln/McClellan were feuding over tactics to be used in battle. A coup? I must have missed that lesson. Certainly GAC was a strong McClellan man all along--but would he have accepted any role in such a cabal? What are your sources? Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 3, 2005 20:57:51 GMT -6
Perhaps this could be labeled "compulsive - obsessive rashness! ;D Actually, obsessive-compulsive impulses are two sides of one trait that is often found within personalities who exhibit adult hyperactivity disorder, as well as behavior that borders on addiction. I'm more convinced that GAC had tendancies to abuse--gambling and alcohol, specifically--than to be truly OCD. He did seem to have a kind of obsessive way of keeping LBC to himself when together, often considered "rude," by his peers, but nothing I'd consider really, really odd. But as I've mentioned before, the dangerous times for Custer were those when he wasn't engaged in chasing an enemy ... Regards, Leyton McLean, CSA (ha!)
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 4, 2005 10:48:31 GMT -6
<A coup?>
Leyton:
In CAVALIER IN BUCKSKIN: after Lincoln dumped McClellan, Custer along with other staff officers blustered about headquarters with wild threats to mutiny and march on Washington.
In CRAZY HORSE AND CUSTER: High level northern politicians who were in favor of slavery were grooming McClellan to become president or possibly a coup d'etat. Lincoln was furious with McClellan's lack of offensive action at the start of the Civil War and replaced him. Custer and his fellow aides--all West Pointers--were "talking both loudly and disolyally" about "changing front on Washington" and setting up McClellan as dictator. McClellen heard about it and stopped whatever action that was to be talken.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on May 4, 2005 11:56:15 GMT -6
McClellan; Now there was a man who missed the boat! Trained and excellent army and failed miserably in leading it. He could have been a shoe-in for president if he'd had a little gumption. No worry, he didn't have the necessary ingredients to stage a coup. he was indeed a hero with clay feet.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on May 4, 2005 12:57:42 GMT -6
Knowing what we do now know about Custers psychological problems or quirks, whichever is applicable, and given that he did have a big ego factor in this as well. How did these "Psychological Implications Effect.. the Battle", with regards to his demotion in status from Commander of the expedition? And what would his likely response have been?
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 4, 2005 16:23:30 GMT -6
McClellan; Now there was a man who missed the boat! Trained and excellent army and failed miserably in leading it. He could have been a shoe-in for president if he'd had a little gumption. No worry, he didn't have the necessary ingredients to stage a coup. he was indeed a hero with clay feet. Walt Ahh, yes ... the General of the Endless Drills ... Regards, LMC
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 4, 2005 16:51:09 GMT -6
Knowing what we do now know about Custers psychological problems or quirks, whichever is applicable, and given that he did have a big ego factor in this as well. How did these "Psychological Implications Effect.. the Battle", with regards to his demotion in status from Commander of the expedition? And what would his likely response have been? He certainly seemed to have it "in" for Belknap and the Grant Administration (I think Van de Water makes a strong case)--and perhaps he saw LBH as a way to leave the Army on top, so to speak (GAC was to begin a lecture tour that September). He needed to--he had finally managed to hack off every supporter (even Sheridan) he had in the Army--with the sole exception of Terry. Now of course, GAC's reputation had begun its downslide during Reconstruction duty in Texas--it seemed to reach its nadir in the spring of 1876 ... I see, in a few examples, that he often became a "do as I say, don't do as I do" kind of leader ... Regards, LMC
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on May 5, 2005 15:06:11 GMT -6
Can we actually say he was demoted from commanding the expedition? To my knowledge there was no official orders placing him in command. In fact, what he was demoted from originally was accompanying the expedition at all.
That's when Reno began positioning himself to lead the 7th. I would think it was this positioning with Terry that got him designated to take the better part of the 7th on the Rosebud River scout, much to Custer's chagrine. It was Terry's way of rewarding him for his willingness to serve as the field commander of the 7th in Custer's absence.
However, to answer Two Moons question, I think Custer's psychological makeup required him to place too much trust in his subordinates. He assumed they were as motivated as he was. After all, a victory for the 7th Cavalry would help everyone's career, but especially his. Had he succeeded he no doubt would have been made colonel of the regiment and be on the fast track to brigadier in the Regular Army.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 5, 2005 16:34:46 GMT -6
Walt:
Reno's scout along the Rosebud yielded valuable information. However, Reno went farther than he was ordered and may have tipped off the Indians that soldiers were in the area. When Reno reported to Terry, he was furious that Reno may have jeopardized the campaign and took command of the 7th from him and gave it to Custer.
Custer, given an opportunity to once again lead the 7th, may have tried just a tad too hard to regain some of his glitter that was lost due to the Belknap/Grant feud and "cut loose from Terry" as he told a friend that he would do. A big victory over the last "free" Indians on the Continent would once again put Custer on the front page . . . he did make the front page, but not in the way he had hoped!
|
|