|
Post by alfuso on Sept 22, 2005 7:51:21 GMT -6
GAC contracted Clap (g.c.) at West Point. It does not always cause sterility but it can. It is most insidious in the female because there are often no outward symptoms and she'd not know anything unless there was severe pain leading to pelvic inflammatory disease, which can fuse the fallopian tubes.
GC and syphilis are unelated std's that just happen to be caught the same way.
The standard treatment for Clap then (and through WWII) was a long, hot, bbarbed-tip wire and several strong men to hold the patient down. You can fill in the blanks.
On -going treatment was tincture of mercury, which could eventually cause mental problems, but again, this takes decades. Custer did not manifest mercury poisoning symptoms.
After WWI treatment was sulfa drugs which were replaced penicillan after WWII, around 1947. (in fact, when I get a respiratory or uranary infection I usually get triple sulfa from the fish store because we're so full of cillans and mycins that sulfa works better. Drawback is that it can mess up the stomach and it takes massive doses)
Custer primarily was an undisciplined frat brat who was finally maturing during the 1872-1876 years when he became the more at-home accessible writer and center-of-family man. Having a steady "home" at Ft Lincoln seemed to have a claming effect on them *both* (Libbie is not blameless here. It takes 2 to wreck a marriage She was a flirt ((to be fair, in a time when it was an art form)) and even she admits in her books she was prone to a cutting tongue). I think it also cause Libbie to calm down, realize he was there and *with her* (whatever else you can say about the 2 of them, GAC always returned to Libbie)
It seems to have taken hold especially in 1873 with the trip to Fort Lincoln, and the weeks with Libbie by his side as the 7th marched from Yankton to Bismarck. Custer was a late bloomer, as it were.
Clap does not affect the brain. Syphilis can but it takes decades.
Reno's mental problems were because he was a paranoid, brooding loner who drank to excess.
Ranald MacKenzie had syphilis and he died before he was 50, severely mentally debillitated. Frankly, Custer does not show the symptoms of syphillis.
BTW, clap was so common in the old west, affected men commonly carried small catheters so that they could urinate.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 22, 2005 8:29:58 GMT -6
alfuso:
Ugh! So much for being responsible when it came to sex back in those days. However, that can be said for many today. Human nature does not change.
|
|
|
Post by Leyton McLean on Sept 22, 2005 13:27:16 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
You'll enjoy Utley. Very precise and exacting--not a word wasted. But that's also the biggest complaint about it--it's so short! I downloaded "The West Breaks in General Custer" this morning and am, so far, quite enjoying it. GAC's behaviour is really striking in that period of 1866-67 ... was it all comedown from being a "lofty" major general to lieutenant colonel?
The author also makes another point that I found interesting is that as a general, and even as a staff captain, GAC had little to do with the common soldier and never actually learned to work with them, whereas as an LTC, he had to kind of learn on the fly ... with much less dedicated troopers.
Interesting stuff, indeed! Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 23, 2005 0:33:15 GMT -6
Leyton,
Glad you're enjoying 'TWBIGC'. It's good fun, isn't it!
You do very much get the feeling that he'd led a sheltered life up until then. As you say, not having to deal with the common soldier (except old friends from Michigan); not having to worry about tedious details like feeding, equipping, training, disciplining; living off the fat of the land; and surrounded by people like Sheridan who thought the sun shone out of his fundament. Suddenly here he is in the back of beyond, the Great American Desert ... no audience ... no glory ... no press ... no-one to praise him ... no comforts ... no decent food ... no amusements ... and faced with a bunch of soldiers who have no motivation and common goal (other than to get a free ride to the goldfields).
I know it sounds odd to talk about a lack of self-confidence and Custer in the same breath(!), but I do think he lacks the self-confidence to be free and easy with his men. He can deal with them only via harsh discipline and strict, West Point, never-talk-to-an-enlisted-man rules. Something to do with social background, perhaps? (One hates to speak well of the class system, but when we look at the officers from "higher" social backgrounds -- take just Benteen and Keogh as two examples -- who've grown up with servants around them and so on, they're much better able to walk the line between chumminess and discipline.) He, from the wrong side of the tracks as it were, is too afraid of "losing caste" to unbend. Others, more secure in themselves, aren't worried about that, and can play it far better.
It's a very illuminating piece, I think.
|
|
|
Post by ma dawg got et on Sept 23, 2005 7:11:28 GMT -6
however one thing that shouldn't get lost re Custer -- he was a very good adminisrator in getting a regiment (and in CW, a Division) up and moving. Logistics, equipping, assigning, delegating, in contact with HQ asnd Washington for all the fiddly bits needed. He was quite good at it. And he expected his delegates and subordinates to do their job. Commanding officiers, especially WP, were not usually free and easy with their men. Their "delegates"/subordinates were.
Colonels and Generals just usually didn't get down and chummy with the grunts. That was for Captains and Lts.
Reading Edgerly's diary of BH expedition and the flurry of telegrams during the getting ready period, shows GAC was on every aspect of it.
Recall, too, that in the west, the Army often got the desperate dregs of society, (even criminals on the lam because of an odd law that said sheriffs etc couldn't take a soldier into custody), also immigrants, and hard drinkers, and summer soldiers hanging out through the winter for three squares and a bunk only to skip out in the spring. Harsh discipline was often called for and Custer didn't do more or less than many of his contemporaries. And he most often handed it over to his Captains and Lts.
Discipline in the Plains army was harsh as was just plain living in it.
However, Darling's rare piece, 7TH CAVALRY COMES TO DAKOTA does show a nervous, unconfident Custer trying to prepare the regiment for a long march to new Fort Lincoln. And when Custer was feeling unsure of himself (or he was trying to push too hard) he tended to get picky, nervous and imperious. He was trying too hard to reestablish a relationship with the 7th which was together again after 3-4 years. Trying too hard to bring it up to speed. He backed off quite a bit when finally on the march. But before that he had quite a run in with one of the Steamer captains -- who cut GAC off at the knees.
alfuso
PS and how I love a forum where we can discuss something OTHER than endless LBH, LBH, LBH, LBH, ad infinitum until my eyes glaze and my sinuses swell.
|
|
|
Post by ma dawg got et on Sept 23, 2005 7:21:24 GMT -6
we should recall where some idea of discipline came from as many of the officers were CW Vets:
Excerpt Civil War History 51.3 (2005) 269-287 [Access article in PDF]
Class, Ideology, and Discipline in the Union Army
Lorien Foote
In September 1861, for three successive days, an officer of the 2d Massachusetts tied a private to a tree for one hour. A courts martial had found the man guilty of drunkenness and insubordination. Regiments encamped near the Second noticed this punishment and disapproved. On the third day, as the man hung bound to the tree, a large crowd gathered around the edge of the Second's camp. Hurling insults at the officers, many men in the crowd took up a cry of "cut him down!" The crowd quickly became a mob that was not easily subdued. After this incident, officers from several regiments approached Colonel Gordon, commander of the Second, and asked him to punish the man in a more private place. Gordon refused. Wilder Dwight, the Major of the 2d Massachusetts, commented bitterly to his family that the Second was the only regiment that attempted to maintain discipline. "Even the officers among our neighbors discountenance the severity which alone insures our discipline," he lamented. "To-day our army is crippled by the ideas of equality and independence which have colored the whole life of our people. When this defect is cured, and men recognize authority and obey without knowing why, we shall begin to get an army. In war, one will must act through all the others."1
|
|
|
Post by kaiulani on Jan 24, 2006 19:44:11 GMT -6
The geneology forums provide alot of information about this subject. One even post's Monaseetah and Yellow Bird (her child) as a descendant online.
From them I have learned that she (Monaseetah) was pregnant at the time, and was taken prisoner when General Custer was on duty in Indian territory. Monaseetah was born abt. 1857 in Texas, and her child was named Yellow Bird. Who was also born in Texas. This child was said to be female and died in 1921. Others say she had a son. So this is difficult to tell by name alone.
The number of people researching this on those geneology forums are of sufficient number so there should be some truth to the story. And by the number of Custer's claiming some kinship to Monaseetah, I think there just has to be some truth to it. Several post's claim that she was the victim of rape. That would have made covering up the truth more important than ever, not only for the Custer's but the indians too.
It seems like these indian ancestry traditions are passed down through the generations. And while not exactly pleasing to most, the story becomes more obscure. Several claim that Monaseetah wasn't, it seems, from the tribe with which she was with at the time. With this accout General Custer it seems bought her, or in other words, she was sold or traded to him. While the implication is simple to white way of thinking, to the indians they believed that this made her his bride. Whether or not Custer realized he was taking a wife and not a slave, or whatever his motive may have been, we may never know. He may have been unaware of the cultural difference. I don't know what his Indian experience was at that time. Whatever became of the relationship, she as we know had a child. And according to all accounts, he rejected the child she bore him. I am sure this went over like a lead balloon . And he most assuredly made more than a few enemies in her family and the tribe. It is interesting I think about why he had no more kids after he denied and rejected his child by his indian wife. Some say that he did this offering his bride as a joke to Tom. I think that's not only wierd but in bad taste. But then again, I have also heard he did play wierd, bad, distasteful jokes on his brother, so this may have been possible. This time the joke was on him, sadly for the child.
I think it interesting too that some of the accounts mention that she was not of the same tribe she was with. This could account for the mixup and perhaps make tracing her lineage more difficult. There are some eastern tribes that had great respect for their women. I find it amazing that he survived this incident, if it was one of those tribes she was with.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jan 25, 2006 4:32:14 GMT -6
I thought guests couldn't post. Or is this person banned, and that's why their account shows as guest?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 25, 2006 9:40:09 GMT -6
kaiulani:
Good points about what the Indians considered marriage and what the whites did. It may be the Cheyenne felt Custer "married" Monaseetah and when he rejected her they felt betrayed.
Remember, it was the Cheyenne who may have had more of a play in Custer's death. A Cheyenne medicine man dumped ashes on his boot and warned him he would be killed if he fought the Cheyenne again. And it was the north end of the Indian village that contained the Cheyenne where Custer attacked. And it was said that Cheyenne women punctured his eardrums with awls and prevented the Sioux from disfiguring him because he was "related" to them.
Whether Custer fathered a child with Monaseetah may not have happened, but the "marriage" thing may have.
PS: Welcome to the forum
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jan 25, 2006 11:31:29 GMT -6
One thing we are overlooking--ther was a warrior (I believe White Cow or something like that--a Souix) that tells his story of how he rode with the Chy. that day to impress Meotzi of his courage. He wanted to marry her even though she had been disgraced by a white chief and had his baby. No Chy. would marry or could marry her because of that. He goes on to say that as he was cutting of the trigger finger of the white chief (because he was a good shot) Meotize came up with another squaw and stopped him. Now if the story of Custer and Meotzi was all "bull" and made up --was this Sioux involed in the consparicy too? I think not! There had to be some truth in it for this Souix to tell it--it has no self serving message--for this warrior to confess his love and want of marrage for a squaw who had been disgraced lends some credibility to the whole affair.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jan 25, 2006 12:03:59 GMT -6
Tony--
Wasn't it White Cow Bull? One would normally think that story would add some veracity to the tale. However, WCB's stories do seem a bit incredulous, at least as presented in the narrative of Lakota Noon, so the folks who believe there was no relationship between GAC and Meotzi would take it as another example of an "untruth."
But, you'll get no argument from me. I'm of the opinion the woman was shared property among the officers of the Seventh after the Washita. GAC, at least in his descriptions of the comely squaw, shows some Romantic propensity towards her character, whereas Tom Custer seems to have considered her more of a "Sallie Ann." That may mark a deeper difference in attitudes towards women on the part of the Custer brothers ... but I'm just now beginning to explore that.
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 25, 2006 12:54:55 GMT -6
Leyton:
Yes, it was White Cow Bull who had the crush on Meotzi. While some of his statements may be "slightly" self-promoting, there is no doubt about his warrior status.
As for TC. Didn't he have a girlfriend who died? Maybe in his grief he became more "so what" about life and didn't care about who or what he did things with. Possibly even at the LBH?
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jan 25, 2006 13:06:05 GMT -6
Crzhrs--
You're correct about Tom. His fiancee, a girl from Jersey, died in 1875--I believe from tuberculosis. That may have affected his outlook a bit; most of us here tend to believe he already suffered from melancholy from time to time--which may explain his tendency to walk on the wild side.
Regards, LMC
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 25, 2006 13:11:54 GMT -6
Leyton:
I thought perhaps she may have died earlier, thus TC's possible "fling" with Meotzi and others. But her passing in 1875 may have resulted in more of a death wish or what else have I got to live for attitude.
Just an opinion . . . not very familiar with him as I am about his brother.
When someone has no reason to live they may by willing to take more chances or risk their life just to go out in a blaze of glory. It's possible at the LBH TC was going down fighting, taking out as many Indians as he could with him. Maybe the reason for his treatment after death by the Indians?
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Jan 25, 2006 13:22:56 GMT -6
crzhrs
I think TC had about as much of a death wish as his older brother.
alfuso
|
|