Law At The Little Bigorn : Due Process Denied.

[logan]

By Charles E. Wright

Military/civilian law fascinates me greatly, more so if it is related to my 19th Century interests.

Therefore, when I saw this book I just had to buy it recently...unread at the moment

Any opinions on its contents ?

[fred]

Dec 31, 2019 13:39:06 GMT -6 logan said:

By Charles E. Wright

Military/civilian law fascinates me greatly, more so if it is related to my 19th Century interests.

Therefore, when I saw this book I just had to buy it recently...unread at the moment

Any opinions on its contents ?

Here is a review of the book I wrote for "Montana Magazine"...


“Bang, bang… You Broke the Law”
A review of Law at Little Big Horn, by Charles E. Wright, for…
Montana
The Magazine of Western History

FREDERIC C. WAGNER III

Everyone interested in the history of American westward expansion needs to read this book. It will infuriate, it will embarrass… but it will do more: it will teach. Unfortunately, it will also bore. The book has its flaws—from errata (both editorial and factual: 26 examples, before I stopped counting); to a choppy, bullet-point writing style; to hoary assumptions and questionably proven commentary—but its importance in the realm of military and civil law transcends those flaws, and its initial, sharp, bang-bang presentation, along with the legal brilliance of its author, Charles Wright, makes it surprisingly fun to read, and it speeds by as the pins and needles it engenders force the reader to keep turning pages awaiting his next hero to be legally excoriated… initially.

Mr. Wright takes no prisoners and his inclusion of American icons in genocidal complicity is legion, from Thomas Jefferson to U. S. Grant, William Sherman to Phil Sheridan. One almost wonders how George Custer—a mere lieutenant colonel at the time of his death—made it into such an esteemed “rogue’s” gallery, though throughout the book Wright questions Custer’s ability and fitness for command, emphasizing his penchant for extemporaneous actions beyond the military acceptability for such, thereby placing him in the same gallery.

Legal terra cotta becomes military sand, however, and Mr. Wright is on less solid ground as he attempts to express his tactical acumen by criticizing General Alfred Terry’s division of forces prior to the Little Big Horn fight, while readily admitting the Indians’ whereabouts were unknown and their camp moved “every day.” Yet he seems to want to solve that problem by sending out small patrols to locate the recalcitrants, never considering the distances and terrain involved… or the risks: both to the patrols and the timeliness of their discoveries. While there is plenty of criticism to go around in the handling of the battle and its lead-up, pillorying Terry for dividing his command and thereby “violat[ing] cardinal military tactical rules” [106]—anyway, not applicable at this stage of the event—and for allowing “Custer to dictate the terms of his deployment” [106], borders on the fatuous, especially considering the circumstances: experience, distance, terrain, time, intelligence.

When discussing Terry’s written orders to Custer, Mr. Wright focuses on the lack of proper military instructions, i.e., no strategic objective (none being required, as this was a tactical operation), all the while intimating Terry was positioning himself with a catholicon of innocence. Shortly thereafter, the author brushes off any notion of Custer disobeying orders, while never addressing the senior officer’s intent or its military efficacy. Wright’s bullet-point approach omits too much critical information for an important “legal” phase of the operation, and in what becomes an increasingly annoying habit, the author continually interjects personal suspicions, bombarding the reader with irrelevant questions, and throwing off one’s concentration on the focus of the book.

It is evident Mr. Wright has done little primary source research, choosing instead to echo the opinions of others as they fit his own preconceptions, and his constant, hammering use of historical examples, from Napoleon to Chester Nimitz—all used to condemn the actions/inactions of George Custer—makes one question his intent: a battlefield analysis or a legal review of American indigenous population treatment. His use of Carl von Clausewitz’ work, starting well, degenerates into a severe stretch of relevancy. I was also somewhat disappointed in his failure to cite—or at least reference—John Fabian Witt’s brilliant book, Lincoln’s Code, reviewed by Gary J. Bass in The New York Times, September 30, 2012.

Still, opinions can be justified and this does not negate the power of Wright’s elemental thesis. The passion and decency displayed in his beliefs make one wince at our historical legacy and despite a soldier’s and a historian’s eye-rolling at times, Charles Wright has filled a necessary gap in the history of America’s humiliation of a proud people.


Best wishes and a Happy New Year,
Fred.

[logan]

Thanks Fred. I bought it at the same time as the much larger version of the Reno Court Of Inquiry in paperback, with Reno’s portrait photograph on the front cover....