|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jan 16, 2007 19:02:02 GMT -6
Scout, that's actually what I meant -- Custer could be portrayed as a dirtball and Libbie as a hero. That would at least fly on Lifetime, where that seems to be the theme of 90% of the movies in regard to gender roles.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 16, 2007 22:28:30 GMT -6
Custer isn't P in-C anymore and hasn't been since SOTMS. He's weighed fairly, pretty much. 1960's, you'd have a point. Custer was a gambling junkie in life, investments, and with other people's money. GRQ was his goal and her wish.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jan 16, 2007 23:36:06 GMT -6
Scout, that's actually what I meant -- Custer could be portrayed as a dirtball and Libbie as a hero. That would at least fly on Lifetime, where that seems to be the theme of 90% of the movies in regard to gender roles. True ... Libbie did eventually come to think the Indian policy of the late-19th Century was wrong. In time for the 50th anniversary ceremonies, I believe. A good story must show character growth and Libbie's tale offers a bunch of it (if we are to believe the Aggrieved Widow)!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 17, 2007 3:39:15 GMT -6
Absolutely! And these tensions are what would make it really interesting. The Grieving Widow of a controversial hero who many thought had brought his fate on himself, AND who died in a war many thought was wrong in the first place. Even many of those fighting it. (A lot of enlisted men's letters home are straightforwardly triumphalist about capturing "old Sitting Bull", and don't worry about the rights and wrongs, but not all: I think it's Henry Bailey, the Co. I blacksmith, who writes that the Indians are hostile "on account of being frauded out of their rations" ...) She really had a mountain to climb.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 17, 2007 4:05:21 GMT -6
No it doesn't. It shows she kept her fingers damp to the thermals, is all. She was a social climbing snob of the first rank from Daddy's knee, and nothing much changed. People were great or not solely based on their public opinion of her late husband, which is to say as they threatened or didn't threaten her status and income. As she aged, people would be less likely to accost her with either truth or contrary opinion, and she could got with the flow of Back East elite opinion more. She was still the same condescending, self centered twirp she always was.
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jan 17, 2007 10:10:21 GMT -6
"She was a social climbing snob of the first rank from Daddy's knee, and nothing much changed........She was still the same condescending, self centered twirp she always was."
Why the hostility toward her? I'm not sure where that's coming from.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jan 17, 2007 13:23:56 GMT -6
Well, she had less social climbing to do than her husband. After all, she was from the right side of the tracks, so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jan 21, 2007 7:43:58 GMT -6
We began this thread wondering if Libbie had any interactions or correspondence with officers who may have told her details of her husband's last battle. We also discussed the debt that she was left by GAC. In The Custer Story -- the collection of letters book -- I chanced upon two notable items.
First, Edgerly later communicated to Libbie, and his letter is fascinating in that it clearly had (to me) an "agenda." Others may see it as merely soothing to a widow. The letter is dated October 10, 1877. Edgerly begins by telling personal reminiscences about the final days. They are friendly stories of his last interactions with Custer, and show a very human and personable Custer. Then we get to the conclusion, where Edgerly details an officers' meeting which I'm guessing took place on the 22nd. He tells of Custer admonishing his officers to avoid "grumbling" about one another, and to maintain unity. Benteen asks if Custer knew of any grumbling that ever came from him. Custer's reply: "No, I never have, or on any other [campaign] on which I have been with you." After this, Edgerly has Reno closing the meeting with a few remarks. I referred to an "agenda" that Edgerly had in mind. To me, he was clearly attempting to dispel any notions of conflict between the officers that may have impacted upon the battle. Was he doing this to comfort Libbie? Was he doing this to exonerate fellow officers? I don't know, but to me it is clear that he had some intentional purpose in relating that story. With all of the other events that took place -- why that story?
Secondly, regarding Custer's debt, he did seem to have a plan if he could have lived through that campaign. I knew of rumors of a speaking tour in the East, but never knew how lucrative it could have been. In a letter to Tom he states the terms of a deal with a Mr. Pond from New York:
".....[speaking] five nights a week for from four to five months, I [am] to receive $200 a night....."
Doing some quick math, and going down the middle of his time estimate, he could have raked in $18,000. Considering his $13,000 debt, he could have been debt free by the following summer. Again, who knows if this would have ever materialized, but there was a plan.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 21, 2007 8:38:14 GMT -6
Blair, that is interesting. I'd forgotten that letter. I first read it long before I'd read his July 4th letter to his wife, so thought nothing of it -- beyond that the man was rambling rather pointlessly, and was perhaps being a touch tactless raising the "grumbling" issue at all. But you're right, he must have had an intention. Possibly to exonerate Benteen ...?
Both here and in the Gracie letter he's at pains to dispel any thoughts of any unpleasantness on the march -- implying that some was expected, both by Gracie and by Libbie. In the Gracie letter we perhaps get more of a clue: he says "I want to say here that during the entire march from Lincoln I didn't hear one word of fault found with any of Custer's actions and he gave Keogh command strictly in accordance with his rank on the morning of the fight". (My emphasis.) Does this sound ever so slightly as if it's Keogh who was at the centre of the supposed unpleasantness? He was never normally the sort to pick quarrels (though I suppose people can change), so it'd seem more likely Custer was being nasty to Keogh than vice versa; but there's some tension there from the sound of it.
Add in Boston's June 8th letter with its resentful muttering: "... unfortunately there are men along whose campaign experience is very limited, but, having an exalted opinion of themselves, feel that their advice would be valuable in the field. But I think before this trip is over they will be thoroughly understood by those who should know" -- clearly a subordinate officer, since "those who should know" must mean Terry. Plus the fact that on that very same date, Keogh is escorting Terry to his meeting with Gibbon. Moylan is also along -- but it's only Keogh who travels with Terry on the Far West, and thus has Terry's ear, and thus is the only person to have the opportunity for the alleged "grumbling". (Other versions of the June 22nd speech have Custer specifying that what he's complaining about is that his "official actions" have been criticised to HQ. Guessing, but the likeliest scenario would be that Terry must have asked Keogh for his opinions -- something he was never reluctant to give, and forcefully -- and that Terry's incautiously passed these on to Custer at their final briefing meeting.)
I've often wondered which "official actions" these were. Deciding to ditch the sabres? Wanting to take the band along? -- But those come too late for the June 8th trip. Now, it's just occurred to me -- fancifully perhaps -- that if the Mary Adams affidavit was true, the "for God's sake, Custer, hold onto your wounded" remark could possibly have sprung from this! Harking way back to the 1867 court martial, and Custer's blithe abandonment of the Downer's Station casualties. Strong stuff, if so!
Still doesn't give us Edgerly's agenda, however -- unless it's to make clear that Benteen was guiltless of any dissension that Libbie may have heard rumours of. Better to blame the dead, who can't suffer, than the living who can ...?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 21, 2007 10:01:16 GMT -6
This requires belief that Keogh had limited experience, when he had a great deal. Boston is indulging in the paranoid world of 'us' vs. 'them' which Custer's sparkling personality engendered in the 7th. In any event, why in the world - how in the world? - would the opinion of Boston Custer matter at all? He had no relevant experience whatsoever.
This breathless, hovering query over every prosaic action makes everything seem silly after a while. The "agenda" of Edgerly was primarily a letter of compassion to calm a widow's grief and guilt. He was also an officer on the rise and make (like Godfrey) and he knew how to be gracious. What the 7th wanted more than anything was peace and to bury the dead and move on. That it had not happened by October of 1877 (literally, as it turned out......) was due to La Custer and Whitaker. All of this would be fine except Herself started calling people cowards and traitors and all that garbage, which she had zero right to do.
Custer always had plans and schemes, but living through a Battle of LBH would not be enough for a speaking tour. Custer stuttered and had a high voice which probably could wear on a paying audience, especially if he had not won the battle. Virtually all his business deals went south and that he had a 'plan' isn't saying much.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 21, 2007 10:43:53 GMT -6
Boston is indulging in the paranoid world of 'us' vs. 'them' which Custer's sparkling personality engendered in the 7th. In any event, why in the world - how in the world? - would the opinion of Boston Custer matter at all? He had no relevant experience whatsoever.
Agree totally. He has to be parrotting what he's heard said around the family campfire. It sounds so like Custer that it's almost ventriloquism.
Historians are fond of pointing out that Keogh missed Washita and missed the Yellowstone, Custer's only two Indian fights of any significance. Custer might not have been averse to making the same observation, especially if Keogh was getting up his nose by offering "helpful" advice. He'd made the mistake of doing the same in the 7th's early days in Kansas, and Custer had soundly slapped him down for it -- even though Keogh was then the man on the front line, the knowledgeable frontier hand, while Custer had yet to see a hostile Indian. Advice wasn't something he ever took kindly to.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 21, 2007 10:52:26 GMT -6
Especially if the planning wasn't any better than the one for LBH.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 21, 2007 12:12:20 GMT -6
True enough, AZ.
Re the voice: I think he planned to get coaching from his friend Lawrence Barrett, which might have helped?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 21, 2007 12:33:02 GMT -6
Are you asking me? I don't know. Doubt it. Sorry. I meant: doubt it?
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jan 21, 2007 13:01:31 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
You're correct regarding the plan; Barrett was supposed to do some voice training. But I gotta echo AZ and DC regarding GAC's financial prowess. It didn't matter if he made twenty, two hundred, or two million dollars a night ... he'd find the way to spend it all through gambling and land/mining speculation. He wasn't one to learn a lesson--moneywise--whilst moderately successful and famous. I'd hate to see what a mess of things he'd made had he come back a living loser from LBH. I'm sure he'd try to spin the tale in another book, if anybody wanted to read it.
Would Terry have taken to Keogh because of his ability as a successful staff officer, which would make me think he was more of a planning type?
Regards, LMC
|
|