|
Post by conz on Apr 10, 2007 7:00:53 GMT -6
Elisabeth,
Could the source of the rift between Custer and all the senior officers be more political, than personal? Look at the environment in Washington today...it was not that different then.
What was going on politically, that concerned the Army, in Washington in 1873-4? With Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan worried about the "big picture" and wanting the Republicans to support the military and Grant's overall policies, how did Custer's actions give the Democratic enemies of Grant and Sherman ammunition?
Amongst honorable men, I think such a scenario might explain better what they thought of Custer at the time.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 10, 2007 7:45:51 GMT -6
I believe Custer was writing anti-Grant articles (using a pen name) for Democratic newspapers. In addition he had ties to anti-Grant big business capitalists.
And when Grant didn't allow Custer to go on the LBH anti-Grant newspapers attacked the President. The Belknap Scandal and Custer's involvement with it only added insult to injury for Grant.
Sheridan, Sherman, & Grant were old Civil War buddies and may have stuck together. And there is a possibility that Grant was heavily influenced and maybe even "run" by Sheridan/Sherman regarding Indian policy.
If Custer wanted to discredit Grant he did his part behind the scenes and in front.
Also back at the beginning of the CW there were rumors of Custer and several other officers marching on Washington, "overthrowing" Lincoln and installing McClellan (Custer's commanding officer) as president.
Custer apparently didn't know when to stop biting the hand that fed him.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 10, 2007 9:05:17 GMT -6
Certainly Custer's activities in '75/'76 were politically damaging; but in '73/'74 he wasn't misbehaving too much, I'd have thought. In '73 he even had young Fred Grant along, which suggests no particular rift with Grant senior; and in '74 he was doing pretty much what the government wanted, with his "Gold!!" discovery to offset the economic depression ... Of course we may not yet know the full story on any involvement of his -- via Rosser? -- with Jay Cooke and the railroad; it could be that some of Custer's financial/commercial activities were in danger of embarrassing the Grant administration, and they could have cooled towards him for that reason, but I don't know of any evidence to indicate that.
But it's a good question, Clair. There was a big army reorganisation afoot; and at some point -- was it then? or was it later, in '75 or thereabouts? -- there was a problem with getting Congress to vote money to pay the army; maybe they considered Custer a liability in that context? I really don't know. Hope someone does, and can tell us!
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Apr 10, 2007 9:33:47 GMT -6
I know this has been mentioned here before but just what was Custer's salary as a Lt. Colonel? Was it a comfortable wage for the time? Wonder if the gambling thing might have been bigger that suspected. He even played poker with privates...but when losing never paid his debts to them. Think he tried that on Benteen once. That with bad investments...
Well, he didn't drink or smoke...guess he was entitled to one vice, although a very expensive one.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 10, 2007 9:59:12 GMT -6
Off the top of my head, I rather think it was $8,000 a year. (Compared with a captain's pay of $2,000 a year.) It should have been comfortable enough -- especially out west, where there was so little to spend it on. Of course the Custers did feel obliged, when in garrison, to entertain a lot, but even so ...
Yes, it seems to have been pretty much an addiction. In all its forms: poker, investing in doomed racehorses, investing in doomed projects -- he just couldn't leave it alone. It was 50% for the thrill, and 50% for the money, is my guess -- always dreaming of the big killing that would let him leave the army and live in luxury. Maybe he'd have got over it if he'd taken the job in Mexico, with the untold riches that promised; but probably not.
What we don't know is if he was any good at poker! He could fleece young lieutenants well enough, but not an old pro like Benteen. Maybe he did clock up more gambling debts than we realise?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 10, 2007 10:43:57 GMT -6
Sounds like Ralph Kramden of the Honeymooners . . . always trying to come up with ways of making it big . . . only to fall flat on his face.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 10, 2007 11:20:51 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
I seem to recall that $8,000 was the salary GAC received whilst a brevet major general--which made the reduction to the captaincy after the ACW more of a financial threat. So, I'm guessing the LTC salary would be somewhere between $2000 and the higher number. I tend to think GAC did have an addictive personality--it first showed with his drinking and later, his gambling. One is rarely addicted to just one thing/substance.
I'd hate to see what he would have done with the Mexican salary. Gone In 60 Seconds comes to mind ...
--t.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 10, 2007 11:27:09 GMT -6
You're right! And it was to have been in gold, too. What he didn't spend or lose would have gone to make jewellery for himself or Libbie ...
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Apr 10, 2007 14:38:25 GMT -6
A Lt Col's salary would have been around $2,000.00 per year A private's would have been around $170.00 per year
To exacerbate the enlisted man's financial predicament:
From: “From Ohio to Little Bighorn” in the TRIBUNE-REVIEW Sunday, December 3, 2006
"The government arranged for private contractors to run the stores (on the army posts) where goods could be purchased. These men then charged 100 to 200 percent or more than they themselves paid for the goods to soldiers who wished to buy them. A can of vegetables bought by the storekeeper for 29 cents, was resold for $1 by him to a soldier, for instance. Of course the enlisted men were entitled to all the beans they could eat." Might have G. A. Custer's alleged kick backs from the store contractors' operations caused even more resentment from the ranks beneath him?
Typical rates of pay for some other occupations:
Guide and interpreter per month $100.00 Chief carpenter per day 6.00 Carpenter per day 4.00 Stonemason per month 90.00 Blacksmith per month 100.00 Laborer per month 45.00 Foreman per month 60.00 Teamster per month 45.00 Clerk per month 100.00 Saddler per month 90.00 Wagon master per month 75.00 Herder per month 45.00 Mule packer per month 35.00 Wheelwright per month 90.00 Painter per month 80.00
Below are a few everyday items and the prices civilians paid for them in that time frame ax 1.07, coffee pot .40, compass 3.79, Dutch oven 1.70, 25 lb keg of gunpowder 6.05, pound of bacon .05, 5 lb tin of biscuits .99, pound of cheese .35, 10 lb sack of dried beans .33, 5 lb sack of dried fruit .33, 5 lb sack of dried vegetables .22, 10 lb sack of flour .22, 8 oz jar of preserves .09, 20 lb sack of rice 1.08, pound of salt pork .11, 20 lb sack of potatoes .42, 5 lb box of yeast cake .59, 8 oz bottle of chamomile .08, 16 oz bottle of castor oil .38, rifle 21.98
M P.S. Mitch Boyer raised chickens and sold the eggs to soldiers and their wives for added income. I have not found how much they went for. I have read that Mitch let Gen. Custer hide out in his coops at times when the Gen. was dodging someone who was looking for him.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 10, 2007 15:22:42 GMT -6
A Clerk . . . $100/mo. I woulda' been a clerk for that kinda money. Better than wandering around in the wilderness, eating beans and bad coffee, maybe if I'm lucky a little mule meat. And I get to chase Indians that may or may not be lurking anywhere. And if I got killed, not only would I be dead, they would chop me up.
Call me Paper Pusher!
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Apr 10, 2007 15:33:52 GMT -6
crzhrs-
I assume that 'clerking' required a bit higher level of education than many had. What amazed me was that a few of the 7th's enlistees stated 'clerk' as their former occupation. Maybe the cavalry was yet again a haven for those sticky fingered ones that had need of a fast exit, so to speak. Then again, I have no idea as to the availability of these jobs. But it does seem that almost ANYTHING paid more than the $14 a month privates received.
M P.S. Can I be your clerk's assistant?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 10, 2007 16:38:34 GMT -6
Or it may be a telling sign of the lack of formal education, immigrants with poor English or job training (other than farming, which is not a bad occupation) adventurers, losers, etc.
Is that the kind of military Rumsfeld meant when he stated "you go to war with the military you have, not the military you should have"?
I'd still want to count beans than miles I've marched.
I'm staking applications for my gopher (or clerk's assistant)
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 10, 2007 17:06:38 GMT -6
A Lt Col's salary would have been around $2,000.00 per year. Michael, this is from a post on the Independent Research/Army Organization thread and refers to the 1866 pay and allowances for a Lt. Colonel. "As a Lt. Colonel his pay was $95.00 per month with the following: 5 rations per day-Monthly aggregate at .30 per ration=$45.00 2 servants paid at the rate of a private soldier. 2 forage rations for horses. Total monthly pay $203.00." Be good, Billy
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Apr 10, 2007 17:42:19 GMT -6
Horse:
The important question is: But can it core a apple?
Gordie, hey, Ralphie boy!!!!...................................................................................
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Apr 10, 2007 17:46:20 GMT -6
Billy-
Thank you! Would you know? Were the servants actually privates detailed to him as such, were they civilians on the regimental payroll or maybe his choice of which? In effect, virtual money reckoned as pay. And were the ration and forage allotments deducted from base pay or considered as value added, with no money actually changing hands?
I guess what I’m wondering is what was a Lt. Colonel’s take home pay.
Hope I’m making sense here.
Michael
|
|