|
Post by edavids on Jan 17, 2016 10:05:57 GMT -6
Colonel William Elliot is a different case. MAJ Elliot chose to pursue with a handful of men from various units, not even a company unit. He made no coordination with the regimental commander, nor with the company commanders from the various units. LTC Custer is blameless in the Elliot defeat. Further, GAC's decision not to go looking for the Elliot detachment was proper and prudent.I might agree if the issue was one of a sand table exercise devoid of any human considerations. But Consider ;the Washita was not vital for the defence of the state and thus the mission was not everything . The action in which Elliot took off in pursuit of fleeing Indians was a melee.Pursuit of the enemy was all part and parcil of the engagement. As the fighting and slaughter died down there would have been a cease fire sounded and a rally and reforming with officers reporting the state of the companies to Custer. There were 20 men missing . Custer slaughtered a pony heard of several 100 ,set about burning the village ,finishing off the wounded and rounding up the women and children. Time to have sent out a search party . No search was attempted. I read that Custer's reputation suffered because of this and he certainly lost Benteen. When Benteen advised him "should we not keep the regiment together general" ? was he thinking "because of what happened to Elliot" And had Benteen not given a hostage to fortune with his newspaper article on the subject ; so that when faced with a similar situation himself at the LBH he decided to remain with Reno. If Elliot could have surrendered then yes I would agree that tactically Custer was correct. Regards Richard Correct if I am wrong but I recall reading that a search party was sent out and canceled as warriors converged on The 7th. Agree it was damaging, Goes back to Custer failing to do recon which he did not learn from 8 years later. Moot points but I do not believe Custer can be accused of making "no effort" to find Elliott's impromptu war party.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 17, 2016 13:42:12 GMT -6
Dave
Correct if I am wrong but I recall reading that a search party was sent out and canceled as warriors converged on The 7th. Custer did execute a feint towards the other villages which sent the Indians rushing back to defend.
Elliot's tracks would have been easy to follow. Cheers Richard
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jan 17, 2016 14:17:56 GMT -6
Elliot is a different case. MAJ Elliot chose to pursue with a handful of men from various units, not even a company unit. He made no coordination with the regimental commander, nor with the company commanders from the various units. LTC Custer is blameless in the Elliot defeat. Further, GAC's decision not to go looking for the Elliot detachment was proper and prudent. . Colonel Montrose, I agree with your post except for this. With due respect sir, I think Custer should have made every attempt he could to rescue Elliot. It doesnt matter if Elliot was ordered to or did it on his own, Custer knew he was out there and cut off. That he didnt, I think split the regiment in half with both the Officers and men, a split which was still there at the LBH. I am not suggesting that he should lead the regiment in a suicide mission, but make a good faith effort, which I dont believe he did. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jan 17, 2016 16:31:58 GMT -6
Could Custer have made a greater effort? Yes. Would it have saved Elliott? Doubtful. Would it have been prudent? Debatable. Did he make some effort? Did send a search party out perhaps 2 miles plus his sleight of hand maneuver to get warriors redirected, Did it have an effect on Benteen? Some but Benteen hated him the first time they met. Did it have a negative effect on the 7th's officers? I will guess not the Custer Clan but likely those outside his inner circle. Overall I think Elliott cooked his own goose just as Fetterman in 1866 and Custer in 1876. Custer was a master at attracting controversy. Probably would have thrived in our social media age.
Best, David
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 17, 2016 18:09:02 GMT -6
Anybody know the distance from the village to where Elliot was found ?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 17, 2016 18:15:58 GMT -6
Sometimes a commander sets an atmosphere where there is more latitude for a range of decision making. My first supervisor would let me come close to hanging myself and my third always had the rope in his hand.
My first supervisor was a WWII Marine and told me that I only needed him when I did something wrong. The third was not an officer and told me that private citizens have no reason to lie.
Benteen could have been mad because Elliot thought it was ok to do what he did without asking permission.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 17, 2016 18:30:46 GMT -6
It seems like Elliott was found approx a mile and a half to the east of the village .
Why did Custer avoid contact with the approching Indians? he had at least 500 troops.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jan 17, 2016 18:56:09 GMT -6
It seems like Elliott was found approx a mile and a half to the east of the village . Why did Custer avoid contact with the approching Indians? he had at least 500 troops. N/As may have had 2-3000 from what I have read. LBH might never have happened with 7th massacred at Washita instead.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jan 22, 2016 21:35:48 GMT -6
Been too quiet on this board. Looks like I have to change my tune about Custer & Elliott. No BS here - my cousin posted on Facebook with a pic of Joel Elliott. My mother's sister in law's maiden name was Elliott. Turns out her great grandfather was Major Joel Elliott which makes me a very distant relative in law.
So now I am obliged to change my stance and damn GAC for all time for not sacrificing the whole 7th cavalary to go find Elliott after his now very brave vs. foolish "for a brevet or a coffin" and all that! That miserable SOB Custer got my relative killed!! ;-)
Wild and Benteen I am now duty bound to blame Custer for the whole damned fiasco. Custer might as well have scalped Elliott himself! Comments welcomed as always of course :-)
Best,
David
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 23, 2016 6:12:24 GMT -6
I certainly understand blood, is thicker than water. You sure, you are related, was it Custer or Elliott that was sterile? Ok just kidding? My wife is related to President Hoover and I blamed her for every financial woe we ever had!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jan 23, 2016 10:28:49 GMT -6
I certainly understand blood, is thicker than water. You sure, you are related, was it Custer or Elliott that was sterile? Ok just kidding? My wife is related to President Hoover and I blamed her for every financial woe we ever had! Regards, Tom LOL Tubman. Now Custer was a rat bastard (Fred will be familiar with that term being from NY) and Hoover in denial kinda like George Herbert in the early 90's when that recession hit courtesy in part of Desert Shield and Storm. ;-) Best, David
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 23, 2016 11:18:21 GMT -6
... Custer was a rat bastard (Fred will be familiar with that term being from NY).... How true, how true!! Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 26, 2016 8:45:05 GMT -6
< . . . Elliott after his now very brave vs. foolish "for a brevet or a coffin">
Just a little curious about how some of these junior officers made decisions to go chasing after Indians. We know what happened to Elliott, Grattan when he decided he knew more about fighting Indians than anyone else and Fetterman who decided against orders to chase after Indians and then we have Weir going off looking for Custer and/or fight Indians, possibly without orders.
The only one who got away with his and his men's lives was Weir . . . the others ended up as dart boards for warrior arrows!
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 26, 2016 10:40:34 GMT -6
Crazyhorse,
Bad organization design. The regiment consisted of a regimental commander and 12 companies. There was no organizational unit between the regiment and company. Modern organizational theory says one HQ should have 3-5 subordinate units.
I believe folks who have not served in the military do not understand command. Command matters more than rank. Company commanders are peers,, equals. AT LBH we have company commanders in grades O1 to O3, second lieutenant to Captain. Too much is made of rank, or date of rank to determine authority between peers.
BG Terry, LTC Custer and MAJ Reno clearly understood this. Several admin games were played to ensure company commanders were the best qualified personnel, regardless of rank. 2LT Harrington commanded a company, which speaks volumes of the perceived abilities of the regiments first lieutenants. 1LT DeRudio should have commanded his own unit, E CO. Instead a junior officer was given his job, and he was placed under a Captain, to mitigate his gross incompetence.
(A good call, by his own account, privates refused to obey orders from this incompetent coward).
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 26, 2016 12:04:26 GMT -6
montrose: I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Was it OK for Elliott et al to make decisions on their own without orders from a commanding officer? One of the biggest bugaboos was Terry's orders to Custer and giving him leeway to do as he saw fit. Was that SOP for junior officers to make decisions as well?
If so we saw the disasters and loss of life to many soldiers because of a junior officer who may not have had much experience fighting Indians . . . an officer who feels "a brevit or a coffin" is not someone I want to follow!
|
|