|
Post by montrose on Feb 12, 2015 10:14:36 GMT -6
LTC Custer spent the majority of 1875 not performing his duties. His absentee landlord style of leadership set the conditions for the poor performance of the 7th cavalry in 1876.
LTC Custer spent Jan to Jun primarily in NYC. He was involved in two major activities. First, he had subscribed a $35,000 investment in the Stevens Mine in Colorodo. This investment had failed, and the debts were coming due.
Second, was his involvement in the Belknap scandal. This needs further explanation.
Secretary of War Belknap took control of sutlers away from the general coming the Army to his own office in 1870. He then set up a kickback scheme with Caleb Marsh at Fort Sill. He was paid $1,500 every quarter 1870-75.
LTC Cutler told senior Democrat leaders in New York that he could prove further corruption involving Belknap in his own area. Further he claimed he could link Grant to the scandal, through his brother Orvil. An agreement was reached between Congressman Clymer, Custer and the New York Herald to investigate Custer's claims.
Custer and a reporter named Meeker returned to Fort Lincoln on 2 Jun 75. There was money wired from the Herald to LTC Custer that some tried to prove showed that GAC was a paid liar. This is not true, that money was for Meeker and to cover costs of their investigation. The investigation found nothing, since Custer's charges were false.
This did not stop Clymer and Custer. The Herald published fantastic libels, several written by GAC himself, as later revealed in sworn testimony before Congress.
LTC Custer and Meeker returned to NYC on 24 Sep 75. LTC Custer told his superiors this was a 2 week trip, as we know he was gone 9 months. He got 2 extensions, then his superiors patience snapped and he was ordered to return to duty. Custer went to Clymer and requested that he be summoned back to testify against Grand and Belknap.
The initiative to start Congessional hearings was Feb 1876. GAC and his ally Meeker both testified. Billy Markland had a link to the Congressional records for these hearings, though I can't find it. It makes fascinating reading. LTC Custer and Meeker told numerous falsehoods. Their testimony was hearsay at best, and had little basis in fact. LTC Custer made numerous personal attacks on the Secretary of War that were vicious. GAC testified on 29 Mar and 4 Apr; and he wrote the article Belknap's Anaconda on 31 Mar.
When GAC was ordered to Washington to testify he disobeyed orders and went to NYC instead. Here he had a final set of meetings with his fellow conspirators to work out their testimony. Want to know one of the people at these final meetings? Frederick Whittaker.
Bottom Line. The Clymer hearings were instigated by LTC Custer to frame the Secretary of War and the President for crimes that were never committed. The intent was to ensure a Democratic victory in the elections of 1876.
Please note that LTC Custer was only present at Fort Lincoln in 1875 from 2 Jun to 24 Sep. During this period his main effort was working the conspiracy. Remember that MAJ Reno was on extended leave as a single parent after the death of his wife. So for a year and a half the 7th went with zero or occasionally one field grade officer. This lack of senior leadership meant that training was virtually nonexistent. No unit can sit on its ass for 18 months and then jump into field operations.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 12, 2015 10:59:57 GMT -6
Montrose Great post! My follow questions would be: for both infantry and cavalry units 1 Was the 7th a unique organization in that the commanding officer, Col. Sam Sturgis, was basically on detached service the whole time he was in command. Did he ever take to the field on any actions? Do other regiments follow this pattern?
2 Where all the other regiments split up by companies and battalions around the nation as was the 7th?
3 Did any other executive officer gallivant around as did Custer did in the late 60's and up to June 1876.
4 Was Custer's behavior during 1875-76---political shenanigans---detrimental to the unit in regards to cohesion, moral and leadership? Or was the rot so deep that it had a marginal effect?
5. Was the training and equipment inspection of the 7th as well done as other units?
I would really appreciate your thoughts.
Regards Dave
Apologize for the long list.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 12, 2015 11:30:14 GMT -6
Agree with Dave, Montrose. A very good and interesting post with stuff I'd not read about in a while and don't ever recall being so cleanly presented. Custer had blown his wife's money as well as his own, and an officer could not be in serious debt, as I recall. Apparently, he never told the wife. Nor could he be an adulterer and all that because - and especially in the those days when one's entire life was encapsulated within a fort - it destroyed unit cohesion. Gambling debts were a big deal. Assume much the same now.
He had many of the same issues Admiral Beatty had in WWI and after, although on a much smaller stage. A socially prominent yet always social climbing wife, bad luck with cash, and early promotions for merit that deprived them both of understanding the middle levels of their profession as well as peer/age group friends in the service. Custer and Beatty were very similar in areas, and the comparison helps the consideration of both.
Aside from the near total lack of relevant campaign preparation, though, I don't think Custer was majorly motivated by these issues at the LBH. I think everything he did till he got to MTC can be argued as sane, at least, with several plausible and constructive thoughts possibly at work. That would apply even to those aspects based on assumptions that appear clearly wrong and bonkers in hindsight. But in or near MTC he divided or allowed his group to be divided, and so in their direction and intent whatever "it" was fell apart. I think because he or someone of his clique or family was wounded, what was initially projected as a temporary adjustment was never allowed to end by the enemy, and so were driven to where they decomposed.
And Beth, like you "I would never underestimate the empowerment that people feel when they believe that they have god, gods or even justice on their side." But I would seriously and correctly consider that severed muscles designed for specific tasks would only allow them to feel empowerment as opposed to physically exercising it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 12:26:57 GMT -6
LTC Custer spent the majority of 1875 not performing his duties. His absentee landlord style of leadership set the conditions for the poor performance of the 7th cavalry in 1876. LTC Custer spent Jan to Jun primarily in NYC. He was involved in two major activities. First, he had subscribed a $35,000 investment in the Stevens Mine in Colorodo. This investment had failed, and the debts were coming due. Second, was his involvement in the Belknap scandal. This needs further explanation. Secretary of War Belknap took control of sutlers away from the general coming the Army to his own office in 1870. He then set up a kickback scheme with Caleb Marsh at Fort Sill. He was paid $1,500 every quarter 1870-75. LTC Cutler told senior Democrat leaders in New York that he could prove further corruption involving Belknap in his own area. Further he claimed he could link Grant to the scandal, through his brother Orvil. An agreement was reached between Congressman Clymer, Custer and the New York Herald to investigate Custer's claims. Custer and a reporter named Meeker returned to Fort Lincoln on 2 Jun 75. There was money wired from the Herald to LTC Custer that some tried to prove showed that GAC was a paid liar. This is not true, that money was for Meeker and to cover costs of their investigation. The investigation found nothing, since Custer's charges were false. This did not stop Clymer and Custer. The Herald published fantastic libels, several written by GAC himself, as later revealed in sworn testimony before Congress. LTC Custer and Meeker returned to NYC on 24 Sep 75. LTC Custer told his superiors this was a 2 week trip, as we know he was gone 9 months. He got 2 extensions, then his superiors patience snapped and he was ordered to return to duty. Custer went to Clymer and requested that he be summoned back to testify against Grand and Belknap. The initiative to start Congessional hearings was Feb 1876. GAC and his ally Meeker both testified. Billy Markland had a link to the Congressional records for these hearings, though I can't find it. It makes fascinating reading. LTC Custer and Meeker told numerous falsehoods. Their testimony was hearsay at best, and had little basis in fact. LTC Custer made numerous personal attacks on the Secretary of War that were vicious. GAC testified on 29 Mar and 4 Apr; and he wrote the article Belknap's Anaconda on 31 Mar. When GAC was ordered to Washington to testify he disobeyed orders and went to NYC instead. Here he had a final set of meetings with his fellow conspirators to work out their testimony. Want to know one of the people at these final meetings? Frederick Whittaker. Bottom Line. The Clymer hearings were instigated by LTC Custer to frame the Secretary of War and the President for crimes that were never committed. The intent was to ensure a Democratic victory in the elections of 1876. Please note that LTC Custer was only present at Fort Lincoln in 1875 from 2 Jun to 24 Sep. During this period his main effort was working the conspiracy. Remember that MAJ Reno was on extended leave as a single parent after the death of his wife. So for a year and a half the 7th went with zero or occasionally one field grade officer. This lack of senior leadership meant that training was virtually nonexistent. No unit can sit on its ass for 18 months and then jump into field operations. An alternate view/history of the Belknap scandal from http://www.senate.gov; War Secretary's Impeachment Trial An impeachment trial for a secretary of war occupied much of the Senate’s time during May 1876. At issue was the behavior of William Belknap, war secretary in the administration of President Ulysses Grant. A former Iowa state legislator and Civil War general, Belknap had held his cabinet post for nearly eight years. In the rollicking era that Mark Twain dubbed the Gilded Age, Belknap was famous for his extravagant Washington parties and his elegantly attired first and second wives. Many questioned how he managed such a grand life style on his $8,000 government salary. By early 1876, answers began to surface. A House of Representatives’ committee uncovered evidence supporting a pattern of corruption blatant even by the standards of the scandal-tarnished Grant administration. The trail of evidence extended back to 1870. In that year, Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory. Marsh’s promise of generous kick-backs prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment. Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000. On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears. This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.” The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office. On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two thirds, however, he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further; he died in 1890. Years later, the Senate finally decided that it made little sense to devote its time and energies to removing from office officials who had already removed themselves.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 12, 2015 12:35:02 GMT -6
Montrose Great post! My follow questions would be: for both infantry and cavalry units 1 Was the 7th a unique organization in that the commanding officer, Col. Sam Sturgis, was basically on detached service the whole time he was in command. Did he ever take to the field on any actions? Do other regiments follow this pattern?
2 Where all the other regiments split up by companies and battalions around the nation as was the 7th?
3 Did any other executive officer gallivant around as did Custer did in the late 60's and up to June 1876.
4 Was Custer's behavior during 1875-76---political shenanigans---detrimental to the unit in regards to cohesion, moral and leadership? Or was the rot so deep that it had a marginal effect?
5. Was the training and equipment inspection of the 7th as well done as other units?
I would really appreciate your thoughts.
Regards Dave
1. The Army was not designed well in this period. They were all command and no staff. So everything had to come out of hide. I think 15% of combat unit officers were permanently assigned other duties. But every single campaign required a comparable number assigned temporary duties to fill essential staff positions. And Sturgis did have time with his unit, maybe 2 of the 10 years; and he returned after LBH.
2. The regimental organizations were more administrative than operational. The assembly of an entire regiment like the 7th in 1876 was a rare event. The Army wasn't 35 regiments. The building block was companies. SO every regiment in the Army had its companies scattered in different posts, departments, and divisions. No regiment in peace owned its own companies. Let me emphasize this. Nearly every operation in these decades involved collections of companies from different regiments. Battalions were frequently mixed. ANd I don't mean 2 infantry companies from different regiments. I mean cavalry, infantry and artillery companies from different regiments. It was a weird Army.
3. No. LTC Custer was a spotlight soldier. He liked to be around during combat operations. He did not like to be around during training and preparation. And he had been taking these extended abscences since he was a second lieutenant. No other officer in the Army did this.
4. The political maneuvering had no impact on the unit. They knew who GAC was. The absence of a commander is crippling for any unit. A commander training a unit is like tracers. It works both ways. The commander is being trained as well as the unit. It is hard to describe this. You learn which of your subordinates to really on for certain situations. Maybe Fred is my scout genius, Ian my hasty defense guy, Quincannon my attack dog. I know who does what task well, or poorly. And they know my tendencies, so they start doing what I want before I tell them.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 12, 2015 12:45:17 GMT -6
Mark,
There are errors in that wiki post. Still, no one is arguing Belknap's guilt in kickbacks from Fort Sill.
LTC Custer made accusations involving other posts that were complete fabrications. He also tried to prove Grant was involved. When the evidence proved he was wrong, he waged a media campaign to slander his superior officers. He proved that as an officer he had zero honor and zero integrity. DO these values matter for leaders of military organizations?
Also should any officer with open hatred and contempt for his superiors command anything larger than an outhouse? I get it if he had truthful evidence of misconduct. That does not apply here.
You are an executive, right? Is this behavior appropriate for either a leader or a subordinate.
I have 11 years of green tab time.
William
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 12, 2015 12:52:12 GMT -6
Scarface, That isn't an alternate view and doesn't conflict with Montrose. Belknap was corrupt as they come, mostly due to his insane and greedy wife, and so was an easy target. The kickback scheme Montrose presents supports that. I have the feeling Custer and crew were hurling feces at the wall, knowing a certain amount would stick regardless to get what they wanted. What's at issue are Custer's charges alone. And despite all the corruptions of Grant's administration (save Grant himself), they could not make Custer's charges stick and there was no real evidence. For all I know, Grant's son was corrupt, but there's evidence both ways. Custer was in big debt and needed cash however he could by his own evidenced schemes with sutlers and businesses that Grant's guys kept for themselves. Grant ended his administration not rich and was soon broke due to relatives and friends. If not for Clemons, Grant would have died a pauper in debt, and HIS idiot wife would have ended poorly. Everybody was GRQ mode back then. www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2010/06/these-are-the-last-days-of-us-grant/58879/This is from an African American writer who's been through the politically correct stages and this is his final thoughts on the confusing and wonderful Grant's autobiography in the Atlantic years back. Grant was a great writer. "I knew, throughout the book, that Grant was dying of throat-cancer while writing. Toward the very end (when this picture was taken) he could no longer talk and was in constant pain. Knowing that, death is always in the background for the reader. But having Grant acknowledge death is breath-taking. There is so much there--a twice elected leader of the most advanced nation in history. A tanner's son, failing at so much, turned savior of his country. A slave-holder turned mass emancipator. The warrior transformed into a warrior-poet, and to the last embracing the hare-brained scheme of black emigration. It's all just too much. I am a black man, and God only knows what Grant would have made of me in that time, or in this one. I asked myself that question so many times while reading that I made myself ill. I don't care to ever hear it again. Grant is splendid to me, and I am sick of keeping score." To me, too.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 12, 2015 12:55:54 GMT -6
Darkcloud,
I agree that LTC Custer's decision making was sound up until MTC. In fact, the battle was winnable until this time frame.
After that point you feel a bullet ended his decision making. I believe it was incompetence, and an officer unfit to hold a commission. The evidence is not sufficient to fully prove either of our theories.
But I am very comfortable in saying that LTC Custer did an extremely poor job as a peacetime commander. He did not train and prepare his unit for war. In fact, I am comfortable saying he was in the bottom 3 of 35 regimental commanders in 1876. 3ed Cav commander was run out of the Army by Crook for Powder River. Of course his failure was nowhere near as bad than LBH.
Let me say, I get that you create a strong feeling in other posters. Several folks fled to the flaky board because of personalities here. I do not often agree with you, but your challenges to my posts have made me a better poster.
To some degree I wish I knew how to get old posters to return, but really it is just futile. I hope folks know I can disagree with them without it being personal.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 13:08:26 GMT -6
Montrose (& DarkCloud), I posted the link and summary concerning Belknap in response to your "Bottom Line. The Clymer hearings were instigated by LTC Custer to frame the Secretary of War and the President for crimes that were never committed. The intent was to ensure a Democratic victory in the elections of 1876". Belknap was guilty of gross misconduct. Custer pushed to far with attempts to expand on the allegations, but to summarize by saying Belknap was not guilty, for me, was a little misleading.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 12, 2015 13:15:54 GMT -6
Scarface,
Read the posts from myself and Darkcloud.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 12, 2015 13:24:03 GMT -6
Montrose,
I agree, I have no evidence, nor claimed I do, to back my scenario exclusively (it's not really mine, of course)and I agree with you about Custer. Somehow, the blood does not steam at this admission. I don't know what happened, it's just a reasonable opinion.
The 'strong feeling' I supposedly engender isn't valid when you go back and read the exchanges. Any of them. I have no sense of embarrassment or shame directing 3rd parties to them to make their own decision. They, if they haven't erased all their offerings as some have, leave and pretend the exchanges never happened and deal with those sensations. I admit error easily and often. They do not.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 12, 2015 13:28:02 GMT -6
Agree with Dave, Montrose. A very good and interesting post with stuff I'd not read about in a while and don't ever recall being so cleanly presented. Custer had blown his wife's money as well as his own, and an officer could not be in serious debt, as I recall. Apparently, he never told the wife. Nor could he be an adulterer and all that because - and especially in the those days when one's entire life was encapsulated within a fort - it destroyed unit cohesion. Gambling debts were a big deal. Assume much the same now. He had many of the same issues Admiral Beatty had in WWI and after, although on a much smaller stage. A socially prominent yet always social climbing wife, bad luck with cash, and early promotions for merit that deprived them both of understanding the middle levels of their profession as well as peer/age group friends in the service. Custer and Beatty were very similar in areas, and the comparison helps the consideration of both. Aside from the near total lack of relevant campaign preparation, though, I don't think Custer was majorly motivated by these issues at the LBH. I think everything he did till he got to MTC can be argued as sane, at least, with several plausible and constructive thoughts possibly at work. That would apply even to those aspects based on assumptions that appear clearly wrong and bonkers in hindsight. But in or near MTC he divided or allowed his group to be divided, and so in their direction and intent whatever "it" was fell apart. I think because he or someone of his clique or family was wounded, what was initially projected as a temporary adjustment was never allowed to end by the enemy, and so were driven to where they decomposed. And Beth, like you "I would never underestimate the empowerment that people feel when they believe that they have god, gods or even justice on their side." But I would seriously and correctly consider that severed muscles designed for specific tasks would only allow them to feel empowerment as opposed to physically exercising it. How many warriors took part in the Sundance? I agree about the physical limitations on the body after the Sundance but isn't part of the Sundane about learning to block out things like pain and distraction--at least indirectly and not necessarily it's stated purpose. I would add to your comment about early promotions and I am drawing what I have noticed about smart children who have been promoted way beyond their age group in education. Around middle age, they are no longer the prodigy and start having to compete with peers who are now at the same age, education, and often have a better ability socially. The prodigies don't aways do so well when they no longer have their youth to fall back on. Infact some of them start to look pretty ordinary compared to others in their field who haven't recieved a quick boot up the professional chain of command. They have reached professional success at too young of age and don't often have the social skills it takes to go higher or the ability to judge their skills against coworkers who are now equals. Custer was social, but he did't show the social acuity to advance much further and I suspect he would have grown more frustraed as men younger than him started to equal or pass him in rank or acclaim. Perhaps Custer's toe dip into politics was the start of realizing that he had reached his limits in the military and he had to find a new way to make his fame and fortune. Unfortunately I think that politics would have eaten him alive and spit out his dried husk because at times he does seem extremely naive to the workings of the world. The lecture tour would probably have been a better option but I suspect he would have managed to get fleeced at that too. Today he probably have become a 'talking head' on the news. JMHO Beth
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 12, 2015 13:39:10 GMT -6
By 1876 there was very little left in the way of advancing in rank. The Civil War was long past over and the only "action" was fighting Indians. Not much glory in that unless you took along reporters to sensationalize the "horrors" of Indian warfare, aka, tabloid news. Custer had just been through the ringer with Grant, he had to humiliate himself by begging Terry to intercede for him and Custer was allowed to rejoin he 7th. Once Custer was free of Terry he would be able to do as he pleased regardless of orders that were cryptic as to what he could or couldn't do. Given a free reign he was now able to obtain a chance to redeem himself, recapture the former glory and headlines of the CW and ride off into the sunset. I guess the Indians had something to say about how that would work out.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 12, 2015 13:45:00 GMT -6
I don't think Custer would have been a great lecturer. Didn't he have some type of stutter? He also was not a very good businessman because he lost his shirt over some dubious investments. The only thing Custer knew how to do was fight. Fighting against southern farm boys was one thing . . . fighting against hard core, veteran Indians warriors was another matter. In the end the only thing that saved Custer and perpetuated his "image" was his wife who spent the rest of her life promoting the image of GAC and outlived most everyone else involved with the LBH
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 12, 2015 14:19:38 GMT -6
I don't think Custer would have been a great lecturer. Didn't he have some type of stutter? He also was not a very good businessman because he lost his shirt over some dubious investments. The only thing Custer knew how to do was fight. Fighting against southern farm boys was one thing . . . fighting against hard core, veteran Indians warriors was another matter. In the end the only thing that saved Custer and perpetuated his "image" was his wife who spent the rest of her life promoting the image of GAC and outlived most everyone else involved with the LBH Thanks I remember now reading somewhere that there was something unique about Custer's voice. I don't know if it was like Patton's high pitch, a stutter or talking too fast. A good lecturer could learn to overcome that with training but I don't know if that was in Custer's nature. I agree that he probably wouldn't have been a great lecturer but he would get at least one good tour in. People would come based on his name alone. Beyond that who knows? Custer might have been happy living in his own shadow surrounded with good friends out West somewhere romping around chasing buffalo and roughhousing. I suspect Libby would have found that life stiffling and would have urged another path. Something that always would have her posed in the middle of the photograph with a ring of men and servants around her. I don't know if I agree or disagree about the only thing Custer knew was to fight. I think that with Custer it was more of a case that he knew how to fight only a certain type of battle that happened to work well in the CW. I think sometimes he had rather an image of himself as a knight belonging in the age of Arthurian legends and courtly love than in the real world--or perhaps that is the myth that has developed around him. Sometimes it is hard to tell where the man ends and the legend begins. There is an irony in the fact that the one thing that saved Custer the CW legend from being just a bit more than a a few lines in CW history who faded away after his military career ended was not how he fought at LBH but how he died. Custer as people tend to see him today arose like a Phoenix from the ashes of the disaster at LBH. Beth
|
|