|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 20, 2007 13:11:22 GMT -6
Stranger In the Night:
Custer really didn't have a plan when getting close to the Indians. It was more of a work in progress and when he realized what he came upon was not Indians running but a large stationary village, the command was too spread out and the lines of communication to distant for proper support among the separated units.
The fear of Indians running forced Custer to play his hand when he didn't want to. That eliminated a dawn attack when his divided command may have had a better chance to survive if not earn a costly victory.
By attacking at mid-day the Indians had time to overcome their suprise and quickly counter, forcing Custer to do what THEY wanted and not what he wanted.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 20, 2007 13:20:22 GMT -6
Benteen only wrote one letter regarding the Washita to a friend who then gave it to a newspaper. Whether Benteen knew about that or even planned is not known. Benteen's letter writing was more numerous much later after the LBH with his correspondence with Goldin (who has been questioned about his veracity) Odd that Benteen who was anti-Custer would strike up a relationship with Goldin who was pro-Custer true & true.
Custer had a long writing career working for newspapers and magazines under his name and pen names. Some of the anonymous pieces were critical of the administration and Grant who was deciding if he wanted to run for president again. The New York Herald (?) which Custer had close ties to was anti-Grant so any dirt scraped up by "anonymous" writers was welcomed and used against Grant.
If Custer had used his real name he may have been disciplined even harsher by the Grant and/or the military. As it was he hid behind a fake name.
A couple other Custer "escapades:
There was talk of Custer and other CW officers marching on Washington and removing Lincoln from office and installing McClellan as "president"
Custer broke into a dean's office at West Point and stole a test paper. The test would have determined if he would continue at WP or be thrown out. (See BUCKSKIN IN CAVALIER for both accounts)
A "perfect" person does not resort to these acts to get ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 20, 2007 14:01:57 GMT -6
Strange--
Custer "hunted for the largest village" because HE WAS UNDER ORDERS TO DO SO (which he took to an extreme measure). He didn't make that part up just to make things up. Read more about the planning upon the Far West.
And likewise, I see no evidence you've brought to the table where Custer was anything other than a man of his times with the typical white-held prejudices of the period. He wasn't as bad as some, nor was he overly enlightened. He was ... a conservative. Your personal bias is making him the 19th Century Martin Luther King, Jr. ... when in reality, he was typical.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 20, 2007 14:23:39 GMT -6
Ah, Mr. Crzhrs is very wise yet still has a bit to learn! I'm sure there was TALK of Custer's forcing out Lincoln with other officers, yet such was never something on Custer's table. True, he admired his old boss McClellan, and at the beginning of the war he had a few ticks about Lincoln.............................but I feel you're a bit rusty here, Sir Grand Master! Check again and you'll find Custer grew very fond of Lincoln and went against the wishes of his own father by backing Lincoln's reelection. Tis' very true. Emanuel Custer was a fierce democrat and he was very unhappy when his boy stood against McClellan. McClellan's grace and civilized demeaner were more than enough to charm Custer in the early days, but it was not long before Custer could see past it. Though Custer had fond memories of his boss, he didn't fool himself. Custer was a fighter and McClellan wasn't, Custer saw McClellan's positions and was not gonna stand by kiss-ass (as in donkey) on any circumstance. Custer was seeing the true colors eventually, but it was never easy to make a good break from someone he respected so much. If McClellan were any other man, Custer would have marched him into the line of heavy gunfire and humiliated the scoundrel, something Custer liked doing with other officers to see their character.
As for west point? Dead On. No doubt it occurred, surely one of Custer's boyish trouble making moments. No arguments here, but still nothing is adding up to Custer being terribly "bad". Do try harder.
Seriously though, Custer eventually formed an attachment to Lincoln and Custer was very moved by Lincoln's anti-slavery speeches. Look it up, Custer wrote how inspired he was and how he was really feeling a purpose toward freeing the slaves, its in his very own words. Of coarse Custer's democrat Father was none to thrilled.
Strange, strange, one and only!
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 20, 2007 14:51:22 GMT -6
But don't forget that Lincoln was pro-Union, rather than anti-Slave. I'm from the North myself and it is hard to get past the Honest Abe sainthood we Midwesterners are brought up with from birth. Lincoln was against slavery's growth and embranced emancipation only in the Confederacy and was much slower to accept it in the north--thanks only to constant pressure from abolitionists.
That said, I think what truly set Lincoln apart was the genuine mercy he was willing to give those recently in rebellion--whereas many wanted to see the entire Confederate army and government hang.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 20, 2007 15:10:19 GMT -6
But don't forget that Lincoln was pro-Union, rather than anti-Slave. I'm from the North myself and it is hard to get past the Honest Abe sainthood we Midwesterners are brought up with from birth. Lincoln was against slavery's growth and embranced emancipation only in the Confederacy and was much slower to accept it in the north--thanks only to constant pressure from abolitionists. That said, I think what truly set Lincoln apart was the genuine mercy he was willing to give those recently in rebellion--whereas many wanted to see the entire Confederate army and government hang. Very true, but Custer was inspired by what he perceived as Lincoln's anti-slavery speeches. It is my understanding that our great Lincoln was not so dedicated to this cause but nevertheless that was how he was widely perceived and that is what Custer took from Lincoln at the time. Custer was also very pro-union too, but he was also inspired by anti-slavery and was quite dedicated to the freedom of blacks. So to be specific, pro- union, pro-freedom. I'll be sure to fetch Custer's exact feelings and let the rest of you discern for yourselves. Speaking of Custer's civil rights feelings, I'll also want to start another thread on Custer's CHILD HOOD perception of the Indians because I feel something disappointed him during the Indian wars when he was really looking for something Adventurous. I also wonder if his childhood perception of Indian helped craft his civil war tactics, after all he was often considered by others to be indian like in his boldness. And then I wonder........well thats for the next thread I guess. Once again I'm hearing some good points, and i hope we're all really getting somewhere. Strange
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 20, 2007 15:28:25 GMT -6
Well, he liked Cooper (Trish runs away, screaming out the door) ...
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Sept 20, 2007 15:43:21 GMT -6
Strange, in your Reply #37 you state that you are still doing research. I suggest that you stop posting rambling, inarticulate and incoherent messages on these boards and do one hell of a lot more research. In fact, it seems to clear to me now that what you are doing is hoping that the knowledgeable people on these boards will do your research for you, because you fling your nonsensical ideas about so that the refutation of those ideas will provide you with enough information to save you doing any real work. Trying to point you in the right directions is futile as you take no heed of the advice you are given. Obviously the phrase 'back off and try to be more objective' made no impression on you whatsoever as your latest long-winded ramblings make clear. Your ignorance of basic facts is appalling. For example 1) the advocate of total war was William Tecumseh Sherman, General of the Army during Grant's presidency, so Sherman was the arbiter of U.S. Army tactics against the Indians, not Grant and 2) as a professed admirer of Custer's writings , it is a pity that you do not pay greater attention to the details they contain. If you did, you would have not made the elementary mistake of stating that in his attempt to release the white hostages held by the Cheyenne, Custer was holding one chief when in fact he was holding three, Dull Knife, Big Head and Fat Bear. You will never make any serious progress in the subjects we all discuss because your study method is superficial, too widespread, is without objectivity and your more bizarre interests have no value as serious history talking points. Your replies #44, 48 and 50 do not merit any response as they are in the main, pure drivel. Having made previous efforts to help you, I for one will not respond again to your ego trips on these boards. In another thread you ask us to vote if we want you to leave these boards. As you will have seen, most people simply cannot be bothered to do so and that is because in that respect, the ball is very much in your court. You should not need to ask the question because you know the answer. I respectfully suggest that you would be better suited to the monster movie scene until you have gained a lot more factual knowledge about the matters discussed on these boards and developed a little maturity.
Hunk
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 20, 2007 16:00:44 GMT -6
Strange, in your Reply #37 you state that you are still doing research. I suggest that you stop posting rambling, inarticulate and incoherent messages on these boards and do one hell of a lot more research. In fact, it seems to clear to me now that what you are doing is hoping that the knowledgeable people on these boards will do your research for you, because you fling your nonsensical ideas about so that the refutation of those ideas will provide you with enough information to save you doing any real work. Trying to point you in the right directions is futile as you take no heed of the advice you are given. Obviously the phrase 'back off and try to be more objective' made no impression on you whatsoever as your latest long-winded ramblings make clear. Your ignorance of basic facts is appalling. For example 1) the advocate of total war was William Tecumseh Sherman, General of the Army during Grant's presidency, so Sherman was the arbiter of U.S. Army tactics against the Indians, not Grant and 2) as a professed admirer of Custer's writings , it is a pity that you do not pay greater attention to the details they contain. If you did, you would have not made the elementary mistake of stating that in his attempt to release the white hostages held by the Cheyenne, Custer was holding one chief when in fact he was holding three, Dull Knife, Big Head and Fat Bear. You will never make any serious progress in the subjects we all discuss because your study method is superficial, too widespread, is without objectivity and your more bizarre interests have no value as serious history talking points. Your replies #44, 48 and 50 do not merit any response as they are in the main, pure drivel. Having made previous efforts to help you, I for one will not respond again to your ego trips on these boards. In another thread you ask us to vote if we want you to leave these boards. As you will have seen, most people simply cannot be bothered to do so and that is because in that respect, the ball is very much in your court. You should not need to ask the question because you know the answer. I respectfully suggest that you would be better suited to the monster movie scene until you have gained a lot more factual knowledge about the matters discussed on these boards and developed a little maturity. Hunk I did know of the THREE chiefs, but I only mentioned ONE in particular that Custer was speaking to at the time. I'm trying to keep the length of these as brief as I can in demonstrating my point, so I didn't mention all three, just one which he was talking to. And Secondly, despite the fact of Sherman supposedly having full rein, there are still many tactics that sound like Grant. Sherman was often creeped out by Grant's tactics, as were others, so I was surprised to see him using those in particular. Frankly the purpose of these boards is to express information, so yes of coarse I'm looking for other people's opinions. And you don't have the best room to talk, I've heard more from others than I've heard from you. Its easy to cut some one down who's laying on the information but to provide information yourself is more constructive, thats why I don't speak negative of people, but rather LISTEN and get more knowledge of things. I actually was planning to exile myself, but I'm getting a hang of things, and some people are starting to get fond of The Strange One! Since these boards are meant for historical discussion, I try and keep people looking for more. Strange
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 20, 2007 16:49:58 GMT -6
I wasn't trying to dis Custer, just pointing out that he was full of all the human elements that make one good, bad, right, wrong, kind, mean, happy, sad, capable of good decisions and bad. He had his admirers & distractors, friends & enemies . . . just like everyone else.
When one tries to elevate someone to a position that no human is capable of you distort that person making him into something he is not.
I'm not anti-Custer nor pro-Custer . . . but like several here in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 20, 2007 17:03:23 GMT -6
Strange--
You're dead wrong when it comes to McClellan ... if anything, Custer was loyal to a fault to his mentors. If he really thought Little Mac was so bad, I doubt if he'd have had the man's photograph on his wall in Ft. Abraham Lincoln, Dakota Territory. That photo was displayed on the same wall as an image of Phil Sheridan, a bridal shot of Libbie ... and you guessed it, Custer himself.
As for GAC's childhood, I recommend you get yourself a copy of Monahan's Custer and another title, Custer: Favor the Bold. There is very little about Custer's youth out there, so if one wants to portray how he saw Indians in the 1840s and 1850s, it is primarily going to be a work of extrapolation from what might have been around in popular culture. We don't know much of the guy until he teaches school in Ohio and meets up with Mollie Holland ...
--t.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 20, 2007 17:46:44 GMT -6
Strange-- You're dead wrong when it comes to McClellan ... if anything, Custer was loyal to a fault to his mentors. If he really thought Little Mac was so bad, I doubt if he'd have had the man's photograph on his wall in Ft. Abraham Lincoln, Dakota Territory. That photo was displayed on the same wall as an image of Phil Sheridan, a bridal shot of Libbie ... and you guessed it, Custer himself. As for GAC's childhood, I recommend you get yourself a copy of Monahan's Custer and another title, Custer: Favor the Bold. There is very little about Custer's youth out there, so if one wants to portray how he saw Indians in the 1840s and 1850s, it is primarily going to be a work of extrapolation from what might have been around in popular culture. We don't know much of the guy until he teaches school in Ohio and meets up with Mollie Holland ... --t. Definitely. But he was against McClellan's run for president, and did eventually stand by Lincoln (though I think it was mostly Libbie who hung out with the president). You are very sharp on Custer's unfortunate fault with mentors. Custer is always looking for a big brother, maybe because he was the oldest and never had one. I'll go as far to say Custer may have father issues too. Custer had a pretty good family but I understand that Emanuel was a rough old blacksmith who liked having things his way and would fiercely shout his views while hammering away at a piece of molten steel. Quite a character, as are all of the whacky oompa loompas that make up Custer and his wild family. Strange
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 20, 2007 19:13:11 GMT -6
OMG!! You mean I actually know something, Strange?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Sept 20, 2007 19:51:13 GMT -6
Armstrong Custer did have on older [half] brother - Brice William Custer, who was, if I remember correctly, 8 years older than Armstrong.
Gordie, and I'll probably feel a whole lot better when you're gone..............................................
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Sept 20, 2007 20:19:31 GMT -6
Tricia, I think you are very correct in Custers admiration of General McClellan and I find it somewhat hard to believe he voted against his old commander in the 1864 election. After the removal of McClellan it took a very brave person in the military to openly show his support for McClellan, at the risk of angering the radical republicans in power. Custer knew he had to pay lip service to Lincoln and his supporters. The following is a letter Custer wrote to Senator Jim Howard where he says what they want to hear! " Headquarters, 3rd Division Cav. Corps Army of the Potomac, Jan. 19th 1864 Hon. J. M. Howard U.S.S. Dear Sir; Yours of the 16th has just been received, and I thank you for affording me an opportunity to give you a brief _expression of my views regarding the war policy of the administration. Having, at a very early age, adopted that profession of arms, I have never deemed it proper or advisable to assume an active part in politics. I have endeavored to be a soldier and not a politician. So far has this sentiment controlled me that, at the last Presidential election, of the three candidates who were nominated for the Presidency I never expressed nor entertained a preference for either. Since the commencement of the war many questions and issues have sprung up which have such an important bearing upon the great work before us that it was to a certain extent necessary that I should merge something of the politician with the soldier, I refer to those important the proclamations of the Executive regarding slavery, confiscation, emancipation, etc. The President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Army and as my superior officer cannot issue any decree or order which will not receive my unqualified support. Thus much would, to me as a soldier, be my duty, but I do not stop here. I do not merely tender my support to the war measures of the President, but all the acts, proclamations and decisions embraced in his war policy have received not only my support, but my most hearty, earnest and cordial approval. And furthermore I am convinced upon every principle of reason and by the light of experience, that it is only by the adoption and execution of the present policy of the President that we hope to establish and secure an honorable and lasting peace. I seldom discuss political questions but my friends who have heard me, can testify that I have insisted that so long as a single slave was held in bondage, I for one, was opposed to peace on any terms, and to show that my acts agree with my words I can boast of having liberated more slaves from their masters then any other general in this army. This is a fact which can be verified by referring to Maj.Genl. Pleasonton and a host of other officers. As to "compromise", I know of (no) compromise with rebels by which we could retain our dignity and self respect as a nation of freemen. If I could decide the questions, I would offer no compromise except that which is offence at the front of a bayonet, and rather than that we should accept peace, except on our own terms, I would, and do, favor a war of extermination. I would hang every human being who possesses a drop of rebel blood in their veins whether they be men, women or children. Then after having freed the country from the presence of every rebel, I would settle the whole Southern country with a population loyal and patriotic who would not soon forget their obligations to their country and to themselves. There is no measure which has for its object the weakening and destruction of the rebel forces that will not command my hearty support and approval. From what I have said you will have no difficulty in discerning my true sentiments, and to you as to others to whom I have expressed the same opinion, with regard to the coming presidential election, I say frankly that I am not committed to any one man, but that of all who have been prominently spoken of for the position I know of none who would in my estimation conduct that affairs of government as ably and successfully as Mr. Lincoln has the past three years. I regret Mr. Howard that it has become necessary for me to defend myself from such slanderous charges, and I regret that our personal acquaintance has not been more intimate, that you might see the absurdity of the charges you refer to in your letter. In my views as to the best and most effective method of injuring the rebels and of inflicting the most possible harm I am so far in advance of Mr. Lincoln's present policy as his policy in advance of that advocated by Seymour, Vallandigham & Co. I recognize no right of a rebel that I am bound to respect, and I think the more rebels we kill the fewer will be to pardon and the better for us. Another question which has excited considerable discussion is that of military arrests in states where the rebellion does not exist. If the President has erred at all it has been in making too few arrests. I can go to Michigan and arrest a larger number of disloyal persons in that one state than the President has throughout the United States. I will now explain how and why the rumors arose which have reached you, to the effect, that I was an opponent of the administration. I was promoted and appointed on the staff of Gen. McClellan for an act of gallantry, and at a time when I was almost a total stranger with McClellan he having seen me but twice before and never had spoken twenty words to me. During the time McClellan was in command I, as any soldier would, supported him, but I have never allowed my personal obligation to him for his kindness and favor towards me, to interfere with my duty. And I leave it to you to say whether my avowal of the sentiments expressed in the forepart of this letter can be considered as any endorsement of McClellan's policy. The real reason why this charge has been brought against me is simply for the lack of some other. There are those who desire to see me defeated and no effort has been spared to bring influences to bear with you and Hon. Z. Chandler to prejudice my case. My conduct in the field has afforded these enemies no opportunity to defame or impune (sic) me and as a last hope they have chosen the one more lacking in truth and correctness than other which they could bring. I have written freely and frankly and have been compelled to write more lengthily than I intended. I hope you will give this communication your careful consideration. To vouch for its correctness, I can refer you to Hon. I. P. Christiancy who has been in correspondence with me for a long period and probably knows me better than any man in Michigan. Truly yours, G.A. Custer
|
|