|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 10, 2007 11:52:09 GMT -6
Lady Jane Franklin was more likely the chosen motif, or Hamilton's widow here after Burr offed the guy in a duel. It was redone by RF Scott's (unfaithful) widow to a T. In reverse, Earhart's widower cashed in big time. "Cashed in on" is more accurate that "carry the torch." There was money in that there corpse, found or not.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 10, 2007 12:09:41 GMT -6
I don't doubt you. Shall be most interested to follow up those references.
Still ... the appearance of carrying the torch was pretty essential to the marketing ploy, was it not? Nowadays, victimology would swing it, and Libbie could make a fortune detailing Custer's assorted infidelities, abuses, dogs all over the bed, etc.: the "Autie Dearest" version, as it were. But I doubt if that would have played in the 1880s. Whatever, she pitched it perfectly. Smart lady.
P.S. Thank you, DC. I've just looked up Lady Franklin, and she sounds amazing. Hadn't known about her. What a story. Thank you again.
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jan 10, 2007 12:24:04 GMT -6
Horse, I had forgotten about the Reno memorial. Great point, as that was the type of interaction with officers I was looking for.
DC, I had been trying to think of a widower, and Earhart's widower is a perfect example. I think we both grew out of the same cynic's tree, you and I. "Cashed in on" is likely more accurate in some of these instances than "carrying the torch."
Elisabeth, that is an excellent point you made -- Libbie was the real star in the stories (I've only read Following the Guidon, but I'm assuming the others are similar).
So here's a follow up question -- how much did Libbie's long life and literary career directly influence the public persona of her heroic cavalry officer? We know that Teddy Roosevelt and others squashed new information out of respect for her. So why did it take so long after her death for the "truth" (for lack of a better term) to come out? Too ingrained in the culture to change?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 10, 2007 12:40:31 GMT -6
Libbie was doing a great job of lionizing her husband. Then she died in 1933.
Then Van de Water's GLORY HUNTER came out in 1934 which bashed Custer and labled him as psychological. It's been almost downhill for Custer since then . . . except for those on this forum who have a more balanced view of Custer.
Was it ironic that Van de Water waited until Libbie's death to publish the book or was it kismet?
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 10, 2007 13:06:35 GMT -6
Unlikely to be coincidental, I think. Even in her 90s, Libbie was a force to be reckoned with. She'd have sicced lawyers onto him in the blinking of an eye.
The tragedy is that she outlived all the officers involved. We might have had a very different story if any of them had survived her. Actually, it would probably have needed two or three to survive, because any one wouldn't have wanted to be the sole nay-sayer; but with several, it could have got very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jan 10, 2007 13:40:59 GMT -6
A 1934 book is not exactly wasting time, is it? Wow, that was quick!
Having said that, do we all agree that the "Custer legend" had become much larger than Libbie in the years following his death? The army needed a martyr as well after LBH to help with enlistment, and to quash the "Indian problem." I can envision an army in love with Libbie's writings. Army life was presented with fond memories -- heroes were formed -- what wasn't to like? So why challenge the myth when a living, breathing part of the myth could present a wholesome image of the army? In a way, Libbie's popularity probably forced the army to "play ball" with her, but I don't think the powers that be (on the whole) were too upset with the myth she created.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jan 10, 2007 13:43:41 GMT -6
Libbie promoted an image of herself more as that of a Presidential widow than that of a deceased general's wife. She was looked upon as some sort of living icon during her later years. Roosevelt and others treated her like one as well. That role might have dried up if she had remarried and she knew that. Maggie Custer did and Libbie was much displeased over it. Maggie decided to get on with her life while Libbie relished the role as the 'knight's fallen lady' to much.
Old Benteen pulled no punches when talking about her though! In fact Benteen even talked about his friends the same way as he talked about his enemies.
Whatever you think of her she was great at public relations.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jan 10, 2007 13:47:38 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure the date of the Gibsons' wedding was August 31, 1874. As for fiction, the author said Keogh was present, but he was actually in Ireland on that date. It would be easy enough to find out where Reno was. A large part of that book reads like fiction to me.
I think the Custers actually were pretty fond of each other (dc, you're such a romantic!). Jeffrey Wert (I think that's right; I'm always misspelling his name) quotes some extremely interesting and funny letters Custer sent her from the Yellowstone. Of course it wasn't the perfect marriage Libbie depicted, but I don't think such a thing really exists anywhere. It's really too bad Weir never got a chance to talk to her, though his views were certain to have been highly colored, and perhaps not any more dependable than anyone else's, and perhaps less so.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 10, 2007 13:57:14 GMT -6
I believed Varnum and Godfrey may have survived Libbie. And possibly Edgerly. Not 100% sure . . . but possible.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jan 10, 2007 14:07:44 GMT -6
Why in the world did Weir fall apart like he did? For God's sake...he survived the battle, wasn't that enough? I have to think he was livng on the edge of some mental problems to begin with. No offense meant but the guy was pretty fragile for a man pursuing a military career. I wish we knew more about the man and his secrets.
Melani...agreed. I think the Custers did have good relationship. Each fulfilled a need for the other one. I always think it interesting on how they interacted with their counter parts.
Life at Fort Lincoln would've made a great reality show.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jan 10, 2007 15:20:06 GMT -6
As I recall, Weir was in pretty bad shape by the time they got back to what passed for civilization--jumped in the river drunk, then riding along the next day in wrinkled clothes and a warped hat. I seem to remember reading somewhere that somebody thought his horse looked embarrassed. (Varnum?) Maybe he got hustled away real fast, before he had a chance to talk to anybody?
I'm pretty sure Libbie outlived all the officers. Was it Windolph who lasted until the '50's? (Not at home now, can't look it up.) Didn't Varnum also have something to say that he was saving until after Libbie was gone?
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jan 10, 2007 15:20:43 GMT -6
Reality show -- funny, Scout!
I'd like to drag us back to PhillyBlair's excellent initial post. Who sat down with Libbie and explained the battle to her? She obviously came away from the discussion blaming Reno and Benteen, so whose version of the story did she hear and in what detail?
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jan 10, 2007 16:41:26 GMT -6
Diane, if I had worded my initial post as clearly and succinctly as you just have, perhaps we wouldn't be all over the place! Your question is exactly what I wanted to know. I've never read anything about a person to person interaction, but I can't imagine Libbie living life and never needing to know what took place.
There's a line in the movie version of Son of the Morning Star that I assume was lifted from one of Libbie's writings. I believe it was said in a voice over by Rosanna Arquette as Custer was seen galloping toward his last stand. I can't recall it word for word, but it had something to do with his distinguished record, and then she said something akin to: "I wonder what it was like for him in the end." Does anyone know if this is something Libbie actually wrote? It certainly would be a normal curiosity for someone in her situation.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 10, 2007 21:38:13 GMT -6
"She obviously came away from the discussion blaming Reno and Benteen, so whose version of the story did she hear and in what detail?"
We don't know her opinion until she learned Grant had offered his, and that was pretty much the match that lit her fuse regardless of what she'd been told of the battle, or who told her. If Custer were thought a military oaf, as Grant implied, losing to Indians, her future absent a profitable marriage was awfully grim; nobody was likely to marry a widow in great debt, and at the beginning there would be no surety that debt would be forgiven or paid off. I think a great deal of the 'mystery' around LBH is because she created one by issuing plausible alternatives to her husband's errors and playing them up. Keeping juggled balls in the air was her successful goal.
That letters are not mentioned and don't exist now, does not mean they didn't exist then. It was not uncommon for letters to be burned once read back then. She spent her time trying to refute Grant's charges and soliciting help to that end, truth be damned. There were pre-Colbert 'truthiness' issues back then. There were Higher Truths that were understood to supercede fact for the greater good. In this case, her plush life vs. honesty or at least admission of no clue.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 11, 2007 10:10:14 GMT -6
It was Varnum who outlived Libbie, dying in 1936! Godfrey died in 1932 and Edgerly 1925.
Windolph died in 1950, the last surviving soldier.
Gotta think someone around today may have known Varnum and possibly the others. Just think of it!
Of course, many Indians alive today had grandparents and even parents who were at the village or knew ones who were there.
Ancient history . . . not!
|
|