|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Apr 12, 2005 7:37:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 12, 2005 9:19:15 GMT -6
I'm not sure who the "student" is here, but Wes's article is right on the money! There is more to the story, and of course most wouldn't dare to pursue it, because its stains what they think history should be. What Libby and other early authors did was perpetuate the myths, and biased future researchers when they read such things. And in so doing they fail to look for things of omission, or self promotion, or even self gain.
Sadly most refuse to believe the truths, as is evidenced here. Take a look at the "Psychological Implications Effecting the Battle" thread. Someday the truth as they say "will out", but I fear that the myths surrounding the man will alway make him a legend, that should never have been.
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Apr 12, 2005 18:56:31 GMT -6
The ignorance of this young man seems to know no bounds! He can't even spell c-a-v-a-l-r-y let alone hold a cavalryman's stirrup! He reminds me of those morons Jay Leno asks questions of during his "Jaywalking" sessions.
SOACM
|
|
|
|
Post by weir on Apr 13, 2005 3:46:12 GMT -6
The Washita description is the most wrong of the whole. Black Kettle's warriors killed 353 people during Summer 1868 and this student found that Sheridan sent a winter campaign without reason !
Custer killed about 140 warriors and 18 civilians (from Green "Washita campaign", he said most of the civilians were killed by osages scouts, including several squaws and Black Kettle himself while crossing the river). Yes Custer ordered to kill 600 of the 800 poneys, that is not scandalizing Northeners and Southeners did the same during the Civil War. And Indians killed also the horses they could not take along.
Fox is quoted, although his now old study is very debatable.
The most absurd I read was the "Daniel Thorpe" comment : "[Custer] personifies millions of white, male, wielders-of-power who have oppressed women and non-whites".
And that's a man who works in a university ! Amazing.
I'm not surprised Two Moons found this article right. Fox is I think the guy who scorn the most the Indians testimonies. He keep those he liked and wrote that the others were stupid witnesses who tell what journalists or specialists (Walt Camp, Marquis...) wanted them to tell.
The fact I cannot understand is why many if not the majority of Indians or Indians fans cannot just speak of Indians themselves and say what was good and in a way bad in their culture. No, always, they have to insult the other side, present Custer as evil and so on... Two Moons you cannot admit that like among Indians who have good (Sitting Bull, Two Moon, Joseph) and bad (Little Crow, for me Black Kettle but it's debatable) commanders, Whites have good (Custer, Miles) and bad (Chivington, Hazen, Baker, Forsyth) commanders ? real soldiers and real butchers ?
Impossible to admit that ? Between black and white it is gray...
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Apr 13, 2005 8:16:41 GMT -6
For the record, Custer was not "forced" to accept a lower rank of captain at the end of the war. He held that regular army rank in the 5th Cav since May of 1864. He simply reassumed that rank when the volunteers were mustered out. Yet, this "student" (probably got an A in "ethnic studies") makes it sound as though this was a result of some incompetence. Hundreds of officers experienced the same, the venomous Benteen included.
This little college puke is indicative of the leftist/socialist America hating PC indoctrination that permeates university campuses these days. This is a prime example of what the LBHA was organized to combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 13, 2005 10:22:13 GMT -6
I first read this article about a year ago--it seems to make the rounds of Custer-inspired web sites and discussion boards every so often, just so philes can get their knickers in a knot and hurl insults at the writer or other posters on this board who do not agree with their take on the Boy General. Isn't it about time to stop with the name calling--don't rabid philes already have a bad enough reputation at the battlefield and beyond?
All I ask for is for an end to this radicalism--both on GAC side and the NA side. Stop telling people that if they don't agree with your perception of either side that they're probably taking ecstacy or some socialist. Discuss the topic--not the poster.
The kid (he's probably in his forties by now, that editorial is probably twenty years old by now) needed a history lesson and obviously a dictionary. But he was absolutely right in calling Custer a "product of his times." People have GOT to stop basing their judgments of the guy on 21st Century morality--both Blue and Red state interpretations of such.
In other words, lighten up!
Regards,
Leyton McLean
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Apr 13, 2005 22:10:41 GMT -6
My head hangs in shame, I am well chastised, and to think, I almost agreed with Xav. But Rice pulled me back from the brink. However, he (the student) did extremely poor rersearch! And it was he that called the first name. Okay, okay, I'll be a good scout, two wrongs never make a right...old stuff that shouldn't be still making the scene man.
SOACM
|
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 14, 2005 6:25:33 GMT -6
Aw heck Leyton, your no fun! But your right! ;D
Anyway, read it again. Take it one statement at a time, dont' miss the entire point, and prove him wrong! NOT me - HIM!
Oh and none of that bits and pieces Cra....stuff! Either he's all wrong or he's all right, or he's somewhere between. That's where most get tripped up here. Prove him wrong in ALL of his statements, not just the ones you think are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 14, 2005 15:48:27 GMT -6
Aw heck Leyton, your no fun! But your right! ;D Anyway, read it again. Take it one statement at a time, dont' miss the entire point, and prove him wrong! NOT me - HIM! Oh and none of that bits and pieces Cra....stuff! Either he's all wrong or he's all right, or he's somewhere between. That's where most get tripped up here. Prove him wrong in ALL of his statements, not just the ones you think are wrong. Twomoons-- Awww, come on, I really am fun ... I do enjoy the discussions here--when they stay discussions. I am just really tired at all the name calling (let's leave that for other boards). I mean this isn't a roadmap to world peace or solving hunger--it's just Custer. I know never the twain shall meet, but ... must we always pursue the nuclear option when it comes to disagreement? Regards, Leyton McLean (Unfortunately, the kid/s who really need to pay attention to this detail probably won't.) |
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 14, 2005 16:44:56 GMT -6
Hey Leyton I'm with you on that point. It doesn't belong here! Just because we all don't see eye to eye, doesn't mean that we have to sling phrases like that around. And I am tired of the lame comparisons that are made. They are unjustified in any time frame but the one to which it should apply. It's like comparing Custer to Patton. Both were eccentric.... and so on, but to compare them for the sake of an arguement that's just plain stup... er...wrong. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 14, 2005 19:51:22 GMT -6
Hey Leyton I'm with you on that point. It doesn't belong here! Just because we all don't see eye to eye, doesn't mean that we have to sling phrases like that around. And I am tired of the lame comparisons that are made. They are unjustified in any time frame but the one to which it should apply. It's like comparing Custer to Patton. Both were eccentric.... and so on, but to compare them for the sake of an arguement that's just plain stup... er...wrong. ;D OMG! Don't start with the Custer-Patton comparisons! Apparently there are quite a few to be made, though I am not the person to make them (nor do I particularly care). I just want us to be happy. Famous last words, maybe? This may just be semantics, but, apart from leaving the army, wasn't Custer "forced" to accept a captaincy (but not demoted to) after the US Volunteer Army was mustered out of the service? I know he received a full major generalship in the USVA--eventually--and that was the thing that directly led GAC to the Lt. Colonelcy of the Seventh--or something like that. Of course, I could be totally wrong. Regards, Leyton McLean |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on Apr 14, 2005 21:55:04 GMT -6
Actually George reverted to his Regular Army rank at the end of the CW which was captain. His BREVET rank awarded during the Civil War was major general. Sheridan's influence got him the rank of Lt. Colonel, Regular Army and placed second in command of the 7th. Of course he would never be promoted again.
Brevet rank was awarded like medals are today. They entitled the recepient to be addressed by his brevet rank even in official dispatches. Needless to say it was all a bit confusing at times. Benteen was breveted a brigadier general after his retirement for his actions at Little Big Horn and another engagement.
Walt
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 15, 2005 8:17:05 GMT -6
Actually George reverted to his Regular Army rank at the end of the CW which was captain. His BREVET rank awarded during the Civil War was major general. Sheridan's influence got him the rank of Lt. Colonel, Regular Army and placed second in command of the 7th. Of course he would never be promoted again. Brevet rank was awarded like medals are today. They entitled the recepient to be addressed by his brevet rank even in official dispatches. Needless to say it was all a bit confusing at times. Benteen was breveted a brigadier general after his retirement for his actions at Little Big Horn and another engagement. Walt You're absolutely correct, Walt. My writing last night seemed to be rather (?) obtuse. Those brevet ranks ARE confusing--I know after the ACW, a bill was passed that took away the breveteer's right to wear the uniforms of their brevet rank. I think Utley mentions it. But GAC WAS awarded a full major general's rank in the Volunteer Army after the war was concluded--thanks to Sheridan pulling strings with Stanton--and it was this "promotion" that made his Lt. Col's position more possible. Apparently more than a few brevet generals got stuck as lieutenants in the new, improved, smaller Regular Army. I'm not sure Custer's ego was bruised by reverting to a captaincy (in letters to LBC, he seems to take it in stride), but his pocketbook surely was ... I heard somewhere that in the CSA Army, brevet ranks were only applicable in the state it was awarded--so a general in Georgia could be ... uhh, maybe we should just mint some medals, huh? Thanks for keeping me clear! Leyton McLean |
|
