|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 26, 2006 12:07:03 GMT -6
OK, just to get the ball rolling:
What do you think of this? It's from a piece in Winners of the West, Volume 4, Number 6, dated May 30th 1927, by A. C. Rallya -- a veteran (1866-1871) of the 7th Cavalry. He's cited by E.S. Luce in Keogh, Comanche and Custer as "the late Corporal Clinton Rallya, Honorary Commander of the Seventh U.S. Cavalry Association". So this is a man who has credentials, not one of the many wannabe "veterans" who surfaced in the years after LBH.
He says:
"I will now relate a few things that I remember in the Sully campaign of 1868. Troop I 7th US Cavalry left Fort Wallace in the spring of 1868 being ordered to join the regiment at Fort Hays. Arriving there in good shape we were surprised to find that the 7th US Cavalry had a new commander General Sully as General Custer had been suspended from the Army for one year. And let me say right here that I think it should have been for all time. And I think it would had it not been for General Sheridan. No doubt you know why." (Emphasis added.) Is this interesting? It has the tone of soldierly dark mutterings. It's a soldier writing for fellow soldiers, after all ... Something was generally known among the rank and file that hasn't been vouchsafed to the rest of us. It would be great to know what. We're aware of Sheridan's partiality towards Custer -- but does this suggest something more? Several interpretations spring to mind. The respectable one: that Sheridan felt he owed his CW success to Custer. The less respectable ones: that Sheridan was believed to have a crush on either (a) Custer alone, or (b) the "golden couple", Custer and Libbie. Or, at a stretch, that (c) Custer somehow had the goods on Sheridan ... but there's no evidence to suggest that. But whatever, it does imply that the Custer-Sheridan relationship was viewed with a jaundiced eye by the enlisted men ...
Sheridan continues to support Custer in later years, not least by keeping Sturgis out of his way. (See the Sturgis thread under "7th Cavalry"). But his enthusiasm wanes as time goes on. His tolerance for Custer ebbs; by 1876, he's still supporting him, but in fairly acerbic terms -- saying, post-Belknap, that he's sorry that Custer "did not manifest as much interest in staying at his post to organize and get ready his regiment and the expedition as he now does to accompany it". Whether Sheridan's marriage overcame his crush, or the decay of his crush enabled his marriage, it's hard to say ... but it does seem just a little as if something of the sort went on ...?
This may be far-fetched. But Rallya suggests that there was gossip of some kind!
|
|
|
Post by rch on Nov 26, 2006 14:56:37 GMT -6
Elisabeth,
I think Custer and Sheridan were just friends. I don't know if it has general application, but the last thing my sister-in-law wanted my brother to have anything to do with was his former friends.
re: Rallya
There's no diubt we don't know why. I wish we did.
rch
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 26, 2006 22:26:33 GMT -6
Elisabeth:
Does the "No doubt..." refer to why Sheridan acted on behalf of Custer, or why Custer should have been suspended for all time?
What is the content and tone of the rest of the article?
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 27, 2006 12:08:25 GMT -6
Elisabeth:
Sheridan could have acted on Custer's behalf prior to Washita for any number of reasons such: as he felt that Custer had been unjustly treated by his court martial; he wanted a more a active officer as commander for the Seventh in his proposed campaign. His post-Belknap disclaimer was more than likely a nod to higher authority than any growing anti-Custer feelings.
Custer was apparently in a lot more of a pickle than most of us have been led to believe, well me at least. W.A. Graham, in a correspondence with Van de Water during 1934/5 wrote:
2 April 1934 - "I suppose you have dug up the editorial and news story published in one of the New York papers that so incensed Grant, and caused Sherman's order for Custer's detention at Chicago during the spring of 1876. If not, I advise you to do so, and Sherman's letter to Grant on the subject."
5 April 1934 - "The editorial and news item of which I spoke was the thing which set Grant off. It purported to be an interview with Custer given out on the eve of his departure from Washington in which General Sherman and the Secretary of War were quoted as saying that Grant's removal of Custer from command of the expedition was an outrage, and that Custer was the only officer in the Army fit to command such an expedition. Grant sent the newspaper to Sherman with a letter calling for on him for an immediate explanation, and Sherman's reply was to the effect that he had never said or thought any such thing nor had the Secretary of War; that he found it difficult to believe that Custer had said what was attributed to him; that in any event he had ordered him detained at Chicago, and that he had the honor to report to the President that he [Custer] was now subject to any disciplinary action the President should choose to take. Everything indicates that Grant had no intention of following the matter further after removing Custer from command until these newspaper articles appeared. After that, however, it required extraordinary effort on Sherman's part to get Grant to permit Custer to go with the expedition at all, and I ahve always been convinced that had he returned alive he would have been tried by court-martial for contumacy and disrespect toward the Commander-in-Chief. It was this fact I think, and not the consequences of his foolish testimony, that made Custer take the chances he did......."
As a matter of interest, the Seventh U.S. Cavalry Association was formed in 1932, some five years after Rallya's article. I don't know when he was the Honorary Commander, but it was obviously late in his life, when he would have been one of the older veterans of the regiment. I have no way of knowing how credible a witness he would have been to relationships between senior officers [exalted status late in life has little to do with the circles in which one moved early on,or with credibility either - witness Goldin], but I would certainly have thought that news of Custer's suspension had managed to filter through to the wilds of Fort Wallace before the spring of 1868.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 27, 2006 12:14:13 GMT -6
Gordie, I read it as referring to the "had it not been for General Sheridan" part -- but I could be wrong. To me, it reads as if he's assuming common knowledge among enlisted men. But the rest of the article doesn't throw any light on that aspect, unfortunately; it's mostly anecdotes about Rallya's own experiences on the Sully campaign, pre-Washita. Main points: (1) Co. I's adulation of Keogh; (2) Sully chasing Indians from an ambulance; (3) character sketch of California Joe; (4) attempt to rescue Hamilton's orderly, who was carried off by Indians. here's the link to the whole piece: tinyurl.com/v5eptrch: Agree, I'm not suggesting anything sexual; more like a form of hero-worship, I suppose. But yes, it's so frustrating that the likes of Rallya assume his readers know all the gossip, when we poor followers-on haven't a clue ...
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 27, 2006 12:37:37 GMT -6
Gordie,
Sorry -- another case of simultaneous posting.
Yes, that is the one false note in Rallya's story; it's hard to believe that the news of Custer's suspension wouldn't have spread like wildfire. Especially with the bulk of the regiment, pro- and anti-Custer factions alike, gathered at Wallace while the whole court-martial thing unfolded. (Unless he's merely expressing surprise that it's Sully they're under? But no, I don't think so.) And you're absolutely right, Goldin is a warning against taking anyone on trust. However ... Goldin seems to have been canny enough to steer clear of his fellow enlisted men, whereas Rallya would have been pitched into the midst of them. If Rallya had been spinning a line, someone would surely have called him on it? (I grant that Luce isn't the ultimate arbiter of truthfulness -- he displays gullibility on a number of occasions -- but his citation at least means Rallya was accepted by his fellow veterans, and wasn't just some pretender who'd crawled out of the woodwork.) Given the nature of this Rallya piece, I'm prepared to believe it's reasonably kosher. After all, he is telling the tale of a failed rescue, not a successful one ...
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Nov 28, 2006 9:16:33 GMT -6
Elisabeth
I have read in only a few places,(I think one is TOUCHED BY FIRE) that Sheridan's young wife was leery of Libbie and Sheridan's friendship with that lady. Custer may not have been invited to Sheridan's wedding (or Custer just couldn't financially get there, so goes one story) and there appears to be noticable cooling off starting with Sheridan's marriage.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 29, 2006 12:42:24 GMT -6
alfuso,
That makes sense, and she'd be very wise; one can't help wondering whether Sheridan would have cut Custer quite so much slack over the years without Libbie's charm and social skills (aka manipulativeness) to offset her husband's misdeeds ...
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 29, 2006 14:05:41 GMT -6
Elisabeth:
The impression I get from Sheridan [and the more I read about him, the less I like him] is that he was first and foremost interested in what was good for Sheridan. While Custer produced results for him, then Custer was his boy; when Custer got into hot water with Grant, it was "who?" After the LBH disaster, then Custer was completely disavowed [more or less]. Everybody in the military of the day had at least some of the 'what's in it for me' attitude, which wasn't surprising, all things considered, but Sheridan seemed to have it in spades [as oppsed to Sherman, who seemed to sincerely wish to better the Army].
My impression only.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 30, 2006 6:56:30 GMT -6
Gordie,
You could well be right. I get the feeling, though (and this is my impression only), that Sheridan had moved away from Custer somewhat even before the Belknap affair ... and I'd love to pin down the moment when the turnaround began. He's still indulging him in '73, if Darling's right about the Sturgis posting; by '75, it's Sheridan -- isn't it? -- who refuses to extend Custer's leave, even though Custer says he'll be in serious financial trouble if he can't stay in New York. Something happens in between those two points, by the looks of things. Could it be Custer's game-playing over the Black Hills expedition, taking along miners and broadcasting gold finds? Is that when he decides the man's just too much trouble to tolerate any longer? Or could it be Custer's book? Maybe he feels that doesn't give him enough credit? There's something, but I can't put my finger on it.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 30, 2006 10:44:45 GMT -6
Elisabeth:
I think you're right about the book having an effect. It certainly did not sit well with many of the senior officers of the Army [and I think that Sherman's remark about not casting aspersions on brother officers in the future - was it Sherman? - was in reference to the book, not to Belknap as popularly believed], although many of the younger ones probably said: "Right on!!"
The estrangement likely was the result of a bunch of little [?] things, including exasperation at Custer allowing himself to be sucked into the political machinations of the day instead of being at FAL getting ready for the important mission ahead. I think Sheridan was in a stew about the campaign, and Terry's: "Oh, my, whatever shall we do now?" attitude when Custer was forbidden to go did not help.
The more I read about the Army of the day, the more I am impressed by the relatively few successes they had on the frontier. I"m going to have to stop all this reading and research stuff. I was quite happy with my music until I happened upon that Delphi Board and now this one. My "media room" is now strewn with maps, books, notes and manuscripts, and I haven't listened to Linda Ronstadt for two days.
It's all your fault, Elisabeth - you and your friends on these message boards!!!!!!!!
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 1, 2006 3:43:31 GMT -6
Apologies, Gordie ... but this stuff is music to my ears!
In fact it was Sheridan himself who reproved him for "attempting to throw discredit upon his profession and his brother officers" -- and yes, it makes ample sense that it would be the book that brought this forth rather than the Belknap affair. Custer's very disparaging about poor General Sully; he tells many damaging anecdotes about officers he doesn't name, but who I'm sure were easily identified by army readers; and he's totally impenitent and untruthful about his own court martial and events leading thereto. (His vicious little paragraph about the state of affairs he pretends to have found at Fort Wallace in '67 must have upset a lot of people who were there at the time and knew the truth of the matter.) Plus he keeps citing Sheridan as his own number one fan, which Sheridan by this time may have found more than a little galling.
Some writers suggest that giving Dodge the '75 Black Hills expedition was intended as a bit of a slap-down to Custer ... Maybe Sheridan was less than keen on Custer doubling as a newspaper correspondent on the '74 trip, too. I'm sure you're right, an accumulation of things could have added up to the feeling that the man was more trouble than he was worth, and/or that he was trading on Sheridan's past indulgence towards him. Sheridan must have kept waiting for him to grow up, and as the realisation dawned that it wasn't going to happen, began to wash his hands of him ...?
|
|
|
Post by rch on Dec 1, 2006 20:16:44 GMT -6
I don't think Sheridan was referring to Custer's book. I think he might have been referring to either to Custer's behavior in leaving Washington and talking to the press or to Custer's criticism of Maj Merrill.
rch
|
|
|
Post by Realbird on Jan 27, 2007 21:39:22 GMT -6
Sheridan's relationship with Custer was essentially the same then as it is now. a superior will always utilizes a subordinate to his or her advantage.
|
|
eamonn
Full Member
debates are brilliant as they bring us together despite our differences
Posts: 156
|
Post by eamonn on Apr 10, 2007 1:40:06 GMT -6
Dear Real Bird
Sheridan didn't utilise his subordinate (Custer) well at LBH. He was of the view that the army should act in earnest vindictiveness against the Indians. Me thinks the opposite was achieved at LBH.
|
|