|
Source?
Sept 1, 2014 17:50:31 GMT -6
Post by Mulligan on Sept 1, 2014 17:50:31 GMT -6
Lately in my reading I've stumbled across nearly identical statements regarding Custer's well-known aggressiveness as a cavalry commander. These statements are usually some variation of the following: Custer never in his career dismounted in the face of the enemy, and he never stopped a charge over the loss of one man.
Most likely in reference to ACW actions, I would think. Could illuminate later events. Would something like this have an original source? Does it jump out at anyone as coming from one of his many biographies, or from a particular LBH book? Does the statement reflect actual military fact based on scholarly research, or is it just hyperbole? Fred? Thanks! Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 1, 2014 18:17:44 GMT -6
I've never in my life read anything quite so absurd about Custer, which I hitherto thought would be impossible given the crap printed and posted. Yet you claim to have several examples saying near exactly that. Where, for example? He certainly dismounted in the Yellowstone expedition and most certainly at the LBH, so no need to go back to the Civil War. And what cavalry commander ever stopped a charge over one man?
What it illuminates is not 'later events' but current gullibility. You're reading the statements, and you ask us for the source of what you claim you read? What source do they give? Where did you read any such thing?
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 1, 2014 19:32:24 GMT -6
Post by fred on Sept 1, 2014 19:32:24 GMT -6
Does the statement reflect actual military fact based on scholarly research, or is it just hyperbole? Mulligan, I have taken the liberty here of high-lighting the key word in your post. DC is 100% correct and this rah-rah crap about Custer should not be believed. It is fairy tale bush-wah. In my new book, I bring up three comments from those who knew Custer and fought with him. I think these are much closer to reality: Former Civil War general, Allured Bayard Nettleton, who knew and had fought alongside George Custer during the war, wrote in the Philadelphia Times shortly after the Little Big Horn debacle, "It must be remembered that in fighting with cavalry, which was Custer’s forte, instantaneous quickness of eye—that is lightning-like formation and execution of successive correct judgments on a rapidly-shifting situation—is the first thing, and the second is the power of inspiring the troopers with that impetuous yet intelligent ardor with which a mounted brigade becomes a thunderbolt, and without which it remains a useless mass of horses and riders. These qualities Gen. Custer seemed to me to manifest, throughout the hard fighting of the last year of the war, to a degree that was simply astounding, and in a manner that marked him as one of the few really great commanders developed by the wars of the present century." Take that for what it is worth. Then... his old Civil War boss, Major General George B. McClellan, called Custer “reckless and gallant, ‘undeterred by fatigue, unconscious of fear; but his head was always clear in danger, and he always brought me clear and intelligible reports of what he saw when under the heaviest fire. I became much attached to him.’” Lastly, one of those who rode with the man, Captain James H. Kidd of the Sixth Michigan Cavalry, said Custer was, "… brave, but not reckless; self-confident, yet modest; ambitious, regulating his conduct at all times by a high sense of honor and duty; eager for laurels, but scorning to wear them unworthily; ready and willing to act, but regardful of human life; quick in emergencies, cool and self-possessed, his courage was of the highest moral type: his perceptions were intuitions." All high praise, but based on experience rather than some bloviating nonsense writer by hypersensitive authors. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 1, 2014 21:43:03 GMT -6
Post by Mulligan on Sept 1, 2014 21:43:03 GMT -6
RE: "Custer had never in his career dismounted in the face of the enemy, and he had never stopped a charge over the loss of one man."
The bold statement appears in a few Internet forums discussing LBH (yes, there are others) and in a couple of posts in the comment sections of sites that occasionally feature Custer related material. I didn't mean to imply that I'd read it in the Harvard Review, or in Fred's book. If that were the case, I wouldn't be looking for the source.
If you Google the phrase you might run across me, on Historum.com and also here, trying very recently to pin down it's origin.
The first time I saw it was last week, in the comments section of the Historynet.com site, posted by someone (in 2012) following up on Robert Nightengale's article, "Custer's Last Stand Still Stands Up".
It's repetition on the other sites may be because the same poster is busy promulgating his own purple prose, or because others are simply repeating it or copying it.
The 2012 poster was paraphrasing a lot of what appears in David Humphries Miller's Custer's Fall: The Indian Side of the Story so I thought it might have come originally from there.
The statement seems to pre-date whipping boy Philbrick, because I've seen it posted as far back as 2009, which would place it in Donovan territory. Or, it may have come from some "bloviating" -- love that! -- television or DVD narrative, or as an impassioned line delivered in one of the many Custer films.
It would not be out of place in They Died with Their Boots On.
It is sort of a catchy sentence, no? I mean, in its own hyperbolic way. There are screenwriters that make a very nice living who would like to write with half that much style and verve.
I was sort of hoping it was taken from some stuffy old academic's historical masterwork on Custer, c. 1930's or 1940's, when such over-the-top, bombastic phraseology was popular. Perhaps there was some kernel of veracity in the bombast, you know, that I could sink my teeth into.
For a man who liked to swashbuckle his way around the West, I think Custer himself might have enjoyed the "ring" the statement carries on the ear, even if he knew it wasn't true, strictly speaking, if that's actually the case.
Mulligan
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 1, 2014 21:48:49 GMT -6
Post by Mulligan on Sept 1, 2014 21:48:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 2, 2014 6:18:09 GMT -6
Post by fred on Sept 2, 2014 6:18:09 GMT -6
Mulligan,
Before this goes any further, let me make a couple of points.
It appears to me you are pretty sharp and there is more than what meets the immediate eye. If I am correct and you are a legitimate "student of the battle," there are some things you should be aware of.
First of all, there are two facets to this whole business of George Custer and the LBH: there is the legitimate historical analysis group, where people try to dig up primary sources, interpret them, develop theory and context, and make an honest effort to set forth a scenario or scenarios of what they believe occurred. There are many, many such people. Most of these people have agendas of one sort or another, but they do make an honest effort. The best of the bunch are people like the archaeologists-- Scott, Fox, Harmon, Bleed, et al.; real legit historians like Hardorff, Hammer (deceased), Utley, Hutton, Hedron, Donohue, Monnett, Kuhlman, Stewart, Hart, Gray, Dustin, Trinque (discredited-- unfairly-- and now deceased) et. al; and the pros, such as Liddic, Donovan, Nichols, Horn, Michno, Connell, Mangum, Darling, Vaughn, Heski, et. al.
The second camp belongs to those who try to make a "cottage industry" out of the whole thing, and they are the borderline kooks and those with really off-the-wall nonsense whose attempts at favoritism are very thinly veiled. These are guys like Pennington, Nightengale, David Humphries Miller, McMurtry, Philbrick, and I'm sure we can dig up a few more. Their research is crap... or questionable at best; their motives are suspect, and their hero-worship is and was in full bloom. You cannot deal with people like this because they are convinced they are correct and honest scholarship is irrelevant. Heroes matter, scholarship be damned. (And by the way, that other board is loaded with people who fit perfectly into this latter category.)
I will cite an example. Jack Pennington wrote a book called The Battle of the Little Bighorn: A Comprehensive Study. It was published by Richard Upton as part of Upton's "Battle of the LBH Series" (volume three, to be precise). The book is large... and long: 363 pages. The first 192 pages are devoted to the battle and Pennington's personal dissection of Indian accounts. The rest is a critique of other authors and the archaeologists. Pennington poses theories that would boggle the mind, including a 40-minute halt by Reno when he crossed at Ford A; about a half-dozen messengers Custer "had" to have been sending back to keep his commanders up-to-date; dead certainty that Benteen was instructed to head all the way to the river, cross, and come up on Reno's left to support him... because Custer said he would support him!!!!; and more fantasy befitting the hero-worship of ol' Jack. After all, in Jack's mind, that's all that made any sense for the death of the God-Child Custer.
The only author who comes away unscathed is Miller... because he was a big a fraud as our contemporary; and one of Jack's primary sources was the Sioux, White Cow Bull, the Oglala version of Flashman.
My point here is you, Mulligan, begin to lose credibility, here and among the many who may be reading this and who may have been actively engaged in writing books (heaven only knows who reads these boards, never letting on they do), doing research, digging up sources, collecting any measure of historical documents, etc., by continually referring to such cranks as Philbrick, Miller, et al.
You can do as you like, but personally, my eyes glaze over as soon as I hear or read certain names... those mentioned above, included... so whatever you may think of me, my participation will be nil as long as those fellows are included.
Pay attention to what DC says. He has never steered me wrong, despite our differences in how this whole thing shook out. His methodology is rigorous and that's what counts.
Just some personal advice... nothing more.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 2, 2014 8:20:51 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on Sept 2, 2014 8:20:51 GMT -6
Fred, Mulligan needs to know that we are all not in lock step on this Board, there is a diversity of opinion regarding what transpired on 6-25-76. Was someone wacked or wounded at Ford B? I think so from accounts. Was it someone of importance? Don't know, maybe Sturgis. I find it hard to believe Custer would not take whole command north, after MTC. I also feel CH attacked from NE after traversing the village, rather than ascending the slopes directly from the west. I don't think I am a Custer hater, yet I am a Custer detractor. The fact that he was a brave and determined individual, must be weighed against his flaws. In many ways he could have been a tragic hero from one of Shakespeare's plays.
Time is the one true variable that it is hard to come to grips with, many tend to expand or constrict to fit their agendas. We pretty much know the timeframes but exactly how much time did Custer spend on each of his tasks, after he left Reno, after Martini was dispatched.
Another variable, how many NA combatants were in the village not engaged with Reno and ready to meet Custer? Much speculation here. Did CH really engage Reno or did he turn around immediately to meet the new threat?
Also, the most recent artifact finds that seem to be from 2004 or 2005 just prior to road work. Several days were spent searching, with metal detectors, 40 to 50 yards on either side of the road. Some new stuff, but I think, nothing of importance.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 2, 2014 8:49:00 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 2, 2014 8:49:00 GMT -6
Tom, I can’t for the life of me think why Custer would put together a river assault with only 80 troops, he took five Companies for a reason, and by some accounts three of them could have been up to a mile away, he must have had an idea when he saw the size of this place that those 80 men would be swallowed up by this village and that could be why he needed the additional four Companies (Benteen-McDougal) and ammo, this place would be simply too large to be taken piecemeal.
Ian.
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 2, 2014 10:14:27 GMT -6
Post by fred on Sept 2, 2014 10:14:27 GMT -6
I can’t for the life of me think why Custer would put together a river assault with only 80 troops... He didn't. So now, if he didn't, what did he do? If one isn't attacking and one isn't retreating, what is one doing? Up until the very end, when he was seeing what was becoming overwhelming numbers of warriors, what did Custer believe? That at most, there were fifteen hundred warriors and his regiment could handle the.He never saw the full extent of the camp: I don't care what anyone says, I have stood on top of every piece of terrain at that battlefield and you cannot see what would have been the entire extent, especially along the river: the bluffs are in the way. He could never understand the packed tepees, the density of the village compared to what they were all used to seeing (and Boyer warned him; another example of ignoring one's scouts). In addition, he had to believe the majority of Indians had flocked toward Reno and that Reno's move back up the valley was working to his advantage. If he could cross at Ford D with enough men, enough of an organized force, he could cut through the disorganized mob gathering there. That was his plan when he sent Martini back; it was why he wanted Benteen; it was one of the reasons he dropped off Keogh. Custer continued to underestimate the size of his opposition!Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 2, 2014 10:28:52 GMT -6
Post by fred on Sept 2, 2014 10:28:52 GMT -6
Mulligan needs to know that we are all not in lock step on this Board, there is a diversity of opinion... That's for sure. Why would you even begin to assume it was Sturgis? That is a blindman's-bluff-dartboard guess. Algernon Smith was the only E Company man found on LSH and all 210 bodies were accounted for, if not identified. Plus, no one of Sturgis' physical description-- severed head or otherwise-- was found in the village. Why? Why? How did he get there? What evidence do you have?... especially since there is evidence to the contrary... This is a very fair and reasonable attitude and I find myself in a similar position. I am far from a Custer-hater... why would anyone hate the man? Precisely! In my opinion, the fact you understand this is 90% of the battle. You will be finding out pretty soon. A lot. And combined with the 399 who left Reno to fight Custer, enough. He engaged him, all right. I agree. I have heard of nothing new and I spoke with Doug Scott and Mike Donohue last year. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 2, 2014 11:28:41 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on Sept 2, 2014 11:28:41 GMT -6
Fred, I got Sturgis from Donovan's dartboard, not mine, page 266. Could his body have been further dismembered or burned or just not identified.
Crazy Horse route map found in Viola's book, among other places. Where was CH ravine located? Evidence to the contrary or NA 3rd hand accounts, as DC might say. By the way I feel much better about many of those accounts than DC.
For the most part I'm saying, there is a divergence of opinion here and that is healthy.
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 2, 2014 12:24:08 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 2, 2014 12:24:08 GMT -6
I can’t for the life of me think why Custer would put together a river assault with only 80 troops... He didn't. So now, if he didn't, what did he do? If one isn't attacking and one isn't retreating, what is one doing? Fred; as you say he is not attacking, you also mentioned about not being able to view all of his objective, which in this case would be paramount if you want to capture the place, and this could be the reason for getting in close, to reach the area adjacent to the ford would give him a good look across the river, as this would tell him first hand if the majority of the warriors had moved against Reno, I would guess that only E Company went close, maybe the front element of this Company got their feet wet, and this could be behind the stories of Indians firing across and knocking someone off his horse. I would not be surprised if F Company hung back and maybe dismounted in front of the HQ. Ian.
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 2, 2014 14:13:15 GMT -6
Post by fred on Sept 2, 2014 14:13:15 GMT -6
... as you say he is not attacking, you also mentioned about not being able to view all of his objective, which in this case would be paramount if you want to capture the place... Ian, I think you are missing the point here, my boy. This wasn't a board game where you can take the time to think out your options. This was a helter-skelter mess, with people scattering to the four winds, dust and smoke obscuring things. Everything Custer did-- contrary to what 95% of all these experts believe-- he did with speed. Speed paramount... always, always speed. The timing analyses bear this out: down Reno Creek, up into the hills... he may have spent eight brief minutes at 3,411 watching Reno's fight developing; then an agonizingly slow-ish descent into Cedar Coulee... and as AZ has pointed out to me, maybe a deviation out of Cedar and into MTC; speed down MTC; speed up to Luce. A few moments there, then hurrying to Ford B for a few more minutes... maybe only another ten... then onto Calhoun Hill, probably at a decent speed: a slow gallop, 8 MPH; another brief wait on Calhoun Hill to issue instructions, then on to Ford D... and despite some scattered opposition, probably at 10-12 MPH... and it wasn't a mile: it was closer to 2½ miles to "D." Then back to Cemetery Ridge. There are those clowns who want to say Custer sat there for 20 more minutes, doing nothing, waiting, but again, if you analyze it, yes, he was there for probably that long, but hardly doing nothing. These slowdowns, halts, waits, hiatuses, stops, discussions... are all formulated and postulated by civilians without a lick of military experience, people who are not used to how a military operation is run, and especially one like this with such an elusive and skittish foe, apt to run at the slightest provocation. I don't remember whether it was QC or Montrose, but one of them said, Custer never attacked that day; not once. And they/he were/was absolutely correct; but it doesn't mean he was sitting on his hands. Who cares? He didn't care. It wouldn't have made any difference and he couldn't tell, anyway. He was after the families: attack the families. Reno drew off the warriors, I am sure that's what Custer believed. He wasn't sitting there... anywhere... counting warriors. He had them pegged: Reno drew warriors to him; families were fleeing (accompanied by some warriors... Custer could handle those guys real easy-like); that was his objective and a deadly threat against the families would draw off and break up any large resistance. That was his objective. Simple. Very, very simple. In my opinion, you would be guessing correctly. And I believe you would be correct here, as well. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 2, 2014 14:22:16 GMT -6
Post by fred on Sept 2, 2014 14:22:16 GMT -6
I got Sturgis from Donovan's dartboard... Figures. Yep. According to Mike Donohue, Crazy Horse Ravine used to be the ravine where the park entrance road is. It swung around to the south beyond the Battle Ridge extension and formed the ravine between the Keogh Sector and Crazy Horse Ridge. The part of it along the entrance road is where Custer rode when he moved to Ford D and it was in this area-- beyond the culvert-- where Kellogg was killed. Originally, I thought the Kellogg site was a little more west and south-- more at the southern base of Cemetery Ridge (which is where it is shown on the Bonafede map), but I now believe that is wrong. The original Kellogg marker was located in that so-called Crazy Horse Ravine area, west of the culvert, but east of the gravel pit. That area makes more sense, especially if Kellogg was called coming back from "D": it would be the more logical route for Custer to have come, rather than a wide swing into the lower flats area just north of Deep Ravine. I agree, Tom. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Source?
Sept 2, 2014 14:42:41 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Sept 2, 2014 14:42:41 GMT -6
Montrose and QC both said it and more than once.
Technically everything Custer did from the time he crossed the divide was an attack. A movement to contact is an attack. An assault is the final offensive act of an attack. Unfortunately the words attack and assault are used as meaning the same. They should not be. So for the record Custer assaulted nothing, he never culminated anything offensively, not at Ford B or D or anywhere else. The only assault conducted was conducted by Reno.
Also for the record. I think it possible that Smith was wounded at Ford B, or unhorsed, shaken up, knocked senseless. Possible not probable. I think it much more likely that he was wounded up north early, and was found among F in the same manner that we would today attempt to withdraw our wounded and safeguard them. Like Tom, I have no problem with it being Sturgis, or perhaps someone else. I see absolutely no reason to carry a severely wounded Smith to the north. It makes no sense. A slight wound maybe, but that begs the question of why he was found with F as well. If he was well enough to go north he was well enough to lead troops in the north. The possibility that he was wounded twice has not escaped my notice, one slight the other eventually fatal. But that theory and a couple of bucks will buy me half a dozen donuts and not much more.
|
|