Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Nov 13, 2010 18:46:54 GMT -6
You have made a valid point here. At 37 years of age, Custer was trying to re-invent himself as the "final solution" to the Indian problem. Thereby becoming a post-war hero of the highest caliber!
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Nov 14, 2010 15:45:40 GMT -6
Custer was a wreck(his adonis golden boy image derailed earlier by Grant and Sheridan) looking for glory and the restoration of his status, steamrolling the Indians on to the reserves. Wreck(Custer) meet train(ALL THE INDIANS IN THE WORLD) = Accident. What psychologists couldn't see this coming ? Absurd, inaccurate and certainly not based on any factual historical research. You are deluded by a misunderstanding of the Ree scout Red Star of information passed on to him by another Ree scout; a misunderstanding used by Marie Sandoz to discredit Custer in her book on the Battle. Sandoz lived among the Sioux, admired them, championed their cause and hated Custer. No bias there then.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Nov 14, 2010 16:00:33 GMT -6
You have made a valid point here. At 37 years of age, Custer was trying to re-invent himself as the "final solution" to the Indian problem. Thereby becoming a post-war hero of the highest caliber! See my response to crazycanuck. You too are being blinded by the Sandoz factor. I have no axe to grind for George Custer but it should not be the purpose of these boards to perpetuate biased and plain wrong information. That it has happened before and will probably happen again is no excuse for a total failure to undertake even the most basic research. Opinions are easy to broadcast but so are cheap jibes. The former have no more worth than the latter unless supported by evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 14, 2010 16:53:44 GMT -6
As he says.
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Nov 14, 2010 19:17:42 GMT -6
I truly believe that no member of this forum has the "intent" to perpetuate incorrect information. What I do believe is that each member is attempting to post information that he or she truly believes to be reasonable and/or factual.
For you to assume that I am blinded by the opinions of persons, places, or things is not worthy of you whom I have the utmost respect for. To differ in opinion is the essence of intellect don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Nov 15, 2010 12:46:40 GMT -6
1) I truly believe that no member of this forum has the "intent" to perpetuate incorrect information. What I do believe is that each member is attempting to post information that he or she truly believes to be reasonable and/or factual. 2) For you to assume that I am blinded by the opinions of persons, places, or things is not worthy of you whom I have the utmost respect for. To differ in opinion is the essence of intellect don't you agree? 1) I agree with you that most often there is no intent to post incorrect information but I dispute your contention that some posters truly believe that what they post is factual. Reasonable possibly, but factual no, as most such posts are the result of either little or no attempt to establish the facts as the end results demonstrate. 2) I have made no assumption. Your post directly followed that of crazycanuck and endorsed it with your own wording. That indicated to me that you too believed the totally unproven myth that Custer was glory seeking and therefore that either directly or indirectly you were blinded by the Sandoz factor. If you have read her book or anything authored by anyone influenced by that book my comments are valid. As I have said, that view could easily be discounted by even the most basic of research work and that is my point. I meant no disrespect to you as a person and I thank you for your kind words. My concern is that these boards are losing the will to live under the weight of far too many superficial, unresearched posts. First time posters I can understand, but those who have posted for a while should know better. I cannot agree that differing opinions are the essence of intellect. The basis of intelligent discussion perhaps and then only if both parties are basing their opinions on evidential research. Errors of interpretation are inevitable of course, but that is the way we learn. I have every respect for honest opinions but none for lazy or non-existent research. Regards.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Nov 15, 2010 13:45:31 GMT -6
Wouldn't Custer have earned even more fame and glory if he could defeat the largest gathering of Indians ever seen?
We know Custer had been embarrassed by Grant and even was to be kept from the campaign. Only Terry got him reassigned back.
Wouldn't a major victory by Custer have been a motivational factor for him . . . maybe to the point of making rash decisions?
I think Custer's frame of mind (not that he was "out of it") was a factor in this battle. If he could pull off this feat the famed Custer's Luck would be alive and well and he could stick it to Grant.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Nov 15, 2010 16:24:06 GMT -6
Wouldn't Custer have earned even more fame and glory if he could defeat the largest gathering of Indians ever seen? We know Custer had been embarrassed by Grant and even was to be kept from the campaign. Only Terry got him reassigned back. Wouldn't a major victory by Custer have been a motivational factor for him . . . maybe to the point of making rash decisions? I think Custer's frame of mind (not that he was "out of it") was a factor in this battle. If he could pull off this feat the famed Custer's Luck would be alive and well and he could stick it to Grant. All the points you raise have been flogged to death many times. Yes, there is a school of thought that promotes the theory that Custer was on a glory hunt, but any careful sifting of the evidence will dispel that idea. Everything that Custer did from the Rosebud to the Battle was done either in accordance with Terry's wishes or from military expediency. The distorted post-battle versions put out by Terry and others to discredit Custer with accusations of rashness and disobedience of orders, were a smoke screen to deflect attention away from the errors and misjudgements of the accusers, plus a desparate need for career soldiers to distance themselves from any blame for the disaster. The simple facts are that the Indians were expected to run and didn't, there were too many of them and whatever tactics had been used would have been doomed to failure. Custer was a soldier and field commander of his regiment so of course he wanted a victory and expected a victory. We can criticise him in hindsight for what we label poor decision making, but please, can we get away from the unproven and deliberately malicious rumours circulated by his enemies at the time and by headline seeking authrors since.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Nov 15, 2010 16:27:39 GMT -6
horse
I agree with you and take it a step further. The proof that Custer's thoughts weren't on the men or the mission, doesn't come from Marie Sandoz book, but on the known facts.
The key to it , is not the battle of LBH, but before it, when he left Terry. Custer was offered Gatling guns and a battalion of Cavalry. He turned down the guns (OK I give him a pass on that , they might have slowed him down) but the Cavalry would not have.
Any officer when given a mission will take all the help he can get to accomplish that mission. The only possible reason Custer turned down the Cavalry was because his concern was not about the mission or the men but his own personal glory. He was not going to share his victory with anyone
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Nov 15, 2010 16:41:55 GMT -6
1) Wouldn't a major victory by Custer have been a motivational factor for him . . . maybe to the point of making rash decisions? 2) I think Custer's frame of mind (not that he was "out of it") was a factor in this battle. If he could pull off this feat the famed Custer's Luck would be alive and well and he could stick it to Grant. Some further thoughts:- 1) What major victory? The whole military plan was to force the free roamers on to reservations. If Custer had been successful at LBH it would have been by scattering the warriors, rounding up as many of the non-combatants as he could, driving off their horses, then destroying as much of their property as possible. That would have achieved the military objective, would have been what was expected and would not have brought any glory to any one. 2) Custer's frame of mind going into the LBH valley would have been dictated by the points raised in 1) above. That was what he was expecting to happen and would have planned for. When he knew the village was not going to flee as advised to him at the Divide by Hairy Moccasin, he would have had no time to think of glory or Grant, just how to go about dealing with a large standing village of hostile Indians.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Nov 16, 2010 7:30:52 GMT -6
I truly believe that no member of this forum has the "intent" to perpetuate incorrect information.
Does that include a member with a female profile when they are not? That would be " "intent" to perpetuate incorrect information."
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Nov 16, 2010 9:13:50 GMT -6
A number of officers felt Custer would be the one to find and attack Indians. Comments like "Now Custer, don't be greedy" . . . (Custer) "I'll cut loose from Terry" indicate there was enough evidence that Custer would push to find Indians and attack regardless of who else was in the field.
As benteen stated: he refused additional men and the gatlings. The gatlings I can understand, extra men . . . most soldiers (even law enforcement) would agree that they would like overwhelming force on their side to make the difference.
Was Custer's frame of mind the difference in what happened? I think it's part of the equation, but so many other factors were involved that one single issue cannot be used to blame the outcome on that.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Nov 22, 2010 16:21:50 GMT -6
horse 1) I agree with you and take it a step further. The proof that Custer's thoughts weren't on the men or the mission, doesn't come from Marie Sandoz book, but on the known facts. 2) The key to it , is not the battle of LBH, but before it, when he left Terry. Custer was offered Gatling guns and a battalion of Cavalry. He turned down the guns (OK I give him a pass on that , they might have slowed him down) but the Cavalry would not have. 3) Any officer when given a mission will take all the help he can get to accomplish that mission. The only possible reason Custer turned down the Cavalry was because his concern was not about the mission or the men but his own personal glory. He was not going to share his victory with anyone Be Well Dan Dan, If you are bound and determined that Custer was a glory hunter and based all his decisions to that end, then nothing I can say will change your mind. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to explore every possibility in these discussions, so to that end I think the following observations are valid:- 1) I cited Sandoz because she was the first author to put forward the idea that Custer wanted a victory 'for himself' to pursue his alleged political ambitions and from that have sprung many subsequent allegations that Custer deliberately kept the Montana Column out of the fighting. You state that the 'known facts' demonstrate that Custer's thoughts were not on his men or the mission and go on to cite why you hold those views. I cannot agree that what you cite are the 'known facts' but rather the post-battle biased views of self-serving people. 2) Indeed, Custer did turn down both the Gatlings and the addition of Brisbin's 2nd Cavalry. Custer had originally agreed to take the Gatlings but once he learned of just how much trouble one gun had given Reno he changed his mind. In fact, you concede the point but without any explanation. Now as far as the 2nd Cavalry is concerned let us examine the 'known facts.' The Montana Column was made up of cavalry and infantry. The cavalry numbered 195 men and the infantry 233, with scouts, artillery, interpreters and non-combatants. Both had set off early on June 21st. The infantry under Capt. Freeman left at 6 a.m. and the cavalry under Capt. Ball at 9.30 a.m. The cavalry marched for 5 miles and stopped in case there was news of any change of plan from the Far West conference (from the diary of Lt. English). They waited for 2 hours then marched on, covering a total of 18+ miles and camped at 7.05 p.m. So, at 11.30 a.m. they were 5 miles away and remained there for 2 hours, therefore resuming the march at 1.30 p.m. Between 1.30 p.m. and 7.05 p.m. they covered 13+ miles at roughly 2.5 mph. A return journey of 18 miles would therefore have taken roughly 7.5 hours. In Brisbin's letter of January 1892 to Godfrey he says of June 21st that after the conference he talked to Terry about Custer taking the 2nd Cavalry and that "In the evening he (Custer) came on the boat, and was on the front deck talking to John Carland, Sixth Infantry when I went up to him..." It was then that he offered Custer the 2nd Cavalry and Custer refused them. At that point the 2nd Cavalry was in or nearly in camp, some 18 miles away. If Custer had accepted the offer a messenger would have had to ride those 18 miles and not through the hours of darkness. At what time then would the messenger have reached the 2nd on June 22nd? They decamped at 6 a.m. on that day so a messenger would have had to press hard to catch them up and get them to turn back. The idea that Brisbin's offer was made seriously is negated by these simple calculations. Then too, there w as the infantry. Shorn of the 2nd Cavalry they would have had 230+ men, not an effective fighting force to stand alone. No, Terry would have needed to drastically alter his beloved plan to accomodate this major change in the structure of his forces, he could not have left the infantry isolated and they too, would have had to march up the Rosebud, slowing everything down to their marching speed. Not just non-viable but totally impractical if the idea was to catch the Indians between two military columns. 3) Custer knew what Brisbin was up to, hence his comments to Carland. The only effective division of forces pre-battle that could possibly have seen Terry's plan work if luck had been with him, was exactly how it was originally conceived. From the mouth of the Rosebud onward, there is nothing in Custer's actions to suggest that he was pushing for glory. His daily marches were of the lengths he had told Terry they would be and he did all he could to comply with Terry's wishes in his Letter of Intructions. It is easy to attach labels to him because he was a volatile character with an impulsive streak, but if we do so, let it be on the basis of evidence, not speculation. Sincerely, Hunk
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Nov 24, 2010 11:16:18 GMT -6
1) A number of officers felt Custer would be the one to find and attack Indians. Comments like "Now Custer, don't be greedy" . . . (Custer) "I'll cut loose from Terry" indicate there was enough evidence that Custer would push to find Indians and attack regardless of who else was in the field. 2) As benteen stated: he refused additional men and the gatlings. The gatlings I can understand, extra men . . . most soldiers (even law enforcement) would agree that they would like overwhelming force on their side to make the difference. 3) Was Custer's frame of mind the difference in what happened? I think it's part of the equation, but so many other factors were involved that one single issue cannot be used to blame the outcome on that. 1) Your quote "I'll cut loose from Terry" did not surface until well after the Battle. It was cited in the 1896 article by Robert Hughes in his defense of Terry, against remarks made by General Fry in his comments on Godfrey's 'Century' article. According to Hughes, Custer, after being reinstated to his command had left Terry's office then happened to meet Captain William Ludlow who later reported that Custer had remarked to him that he, Custer, "Would swing clear of Terry at the first opportunity." That Custer did say something to Ludlow is not in dispute but some four months later Ludlow could not recall the precise words used. Not enough evidence to prosecute a man I think. Your other quote is from Gibbon, who, in his 1877 'Sioux Campaign of 1876' says, "...Custer shook hands with us and bade us good-by. As he turned to leave us I made some pleasant remark, warning him against being greedy, and with a gay wave of his hand he called back, 'No, I will not,' and rode off after his command." Here again, there is nothing sinister. Other officers who commented were Lt. Bradley, who in his journal stated, "...it is understood that if Custer arrives first, he is at liberty to attack at once if he deems prudent" and Major Brisbin in his (attributed) dispatch to the New York Herald which appeared on June 28th 1876, "It was announced by General Terry that General Custer's column would strike the blow and General Gibbon and his men received the decision without a murmur...The Montana Column felt disappointed when they learned that they were not to be present at the final capture of the great village, but General Terry's reasons for affording the honor of the attack to General Custer were good ones."All of these comments show quite clearly that the 7th Cavalry would almost certainly strike the Indians first and that most probably the Montana Column would only help in mopping up operations. None of the comments cited is in any way derogatory of Custer and significantly, all were pre-battle, before the CYA syndrome set in. 2) See my response to Dan's post. 3) It would be arrogant of any of us to presume to understand what Custer's frame of mind was in those final days. He behaved in a fitting military fashion in the march up the Rosebud and given the anticipated flight of the Indians, he did only what any cavalry commander of the day would have done going into the battle. We can find fault with his decisions with hindsight bias, but we have information he did not possess. One of the best yardsticks for measuring his pre June 22nd mood are his campaign letters to Libbie. She was the one person to whom he opened his thoughts but in none of his letters does he make any reference to the need for either a smashing victory or to re-establishing his reputation. He also speaks of Reno missing the opportunity to make a name for himself by not following the trail during his scout, hardly the view of someone desparate for personal glory. I don't believe we can use the word 'blame' regarding the outcome of the battle. It is possible for us to see the weaknesses inherent in the military mindset of the day, the poor planning and the mood of the Indians, but on that day, at that time, the overwhelming numbers and determination of the Lakota and Cheyenne warriors gave them success. We cannot 'blame' them for that.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Nov 25, 2010 14:42:21 GMT -6
You state that the 'known facts' demonstrate that Custer's thoughts were not on his men or the mission and go on to cite why you hold those views. I cannot agree that what you cite are the 'known facts' but rather the post-battle biased views of self-serving people.
2) Indeed, Custer did turn down both the Gatling's and the addition of Brisbin's 2nd Cavalry. Custer had originally agreed to take the Gatlings but once he learned of just how much trouble one gun had given Reno he changed his mind. In fact, you concede the point but without any explanation.
It is easy to attach labels to him because he was a volatile haracter with an impulsive streak, but if we do so, let it be on the basis of evidence, not speculation.
Sincerely,
Hunk[/quote]
Hunk,
Perhaps because I put in parenthesis it was easy to miss, but I did state the reason Custer did not take the Gatling's
That Custer turned down the Cavalry is not speculation, but a fact with which you agree.
What is speculation and why we disagree is the reason why he turned them down
Your statement and opinion is well thought out,knowledgeable and well articulated.I don't have any doubt that every bit of it is accurate. What I disagree with is the premise of it,which I believe entails two main points. 1- That Custer was concerned about the condition of this Cavalry unit 2- That Terry's offer of this Cavalry was more of a "Good Will" gesture" than an actual offer
As to the first, love him or hate him, I don't think Custer's main concern was ever how tired his troops were. Perhaps its because he had such physical prowess himself that he could go a day with just a nap and still be at peak performance As to the second,I don't believe a General makes "Good Will" gestures to his subordinates. If he told Custer he could have the Cavalry he meant it. If Custer wanted those troops he would have had them
Then again I may have misread the intent in your statement and that would not be the first time Ive done that.If I have I assure you that it would be my inability to interpret rather than your ability to explain it
Be Well and have a Happy, Healthy, and Safe Thanksgiving Dan
|
|