Gary
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Gary on Apr 15, 2006 17:23:42 GMT -6
Does anyone know if General Custer was, or was about to, become a Mason. I have read of a few instances where he seemed to be associated with them. I read in one of the books on Libbie, that some time after the Generals death, she once commented to a group of women "we're all sort of Masons aren't we". Seems strange also that his monument in Monroe faces (or did face) the Masonic Lodge. (I heard several years back that they were going to move the monument again.) I don't know if they did or not. Thanks,,,,, Gary
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Apr 16, 2006 14:23:45 GMT -6
I was told some time ago, that there is a letter from GAC at the Detroit audobon society asking about or making application for membership in the Masons. And that could be the basis for the flurry of gifts of taxidermy he sent out starting in 1874.
alfuso
|
|
Gary
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Gary on Apr 17, 2006 6:56:29 GMT -6
I was told some time ago, that there is a letter from GAC at the Detroit audobon society asking about or making application for membership in the Masons. And that could be the basis for the flurry of gifts of taxidermy he sent out starting in 1874. alfuso Thanks for the lead! I will contact the Detroit Audubon Society and see if they can help. We plan on being in that area this summer and will stop in to see if they will allow us to research their documents.
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Apr 17, 2006 11:25:27 GMT -6
Alfuso, Interesting anecdote, but George Armstrong Custer was never a freemason. Contrary to popular belief membership of a masonic lodge is not a secret - speaking to non-members of certain lodge affairs is forbidden, but actual membership is not concealed. One of Custer's casual acquaintances, for instance, W. F. Cody, was a freemason and made no secret of the fact - his parchment certificate and regalia are in the Del Castello collection. There's also an online listing of Civil War generals who were freemasons - Custer's listed, but as a non-mason.
I also do not believe that Libbie's religious convictions would have countenanced Autie getting involved in the pseudo-religion of freemasonry. And significantly, there was no masonic representations at his funeral. And you can just bet that any lodge which had had as famous a member as Custer would be working the connection today!
I suspect that some of the 'minute inscriptions' referred to by the owner of the 'Custer watch' for which a tenuous provenance is attempted to be built up through this forum must be masonically related. Therefore finding some suggestion that Custer was a secret mason is on a par with suggesting that Custer preferred cavalry insignia with the sabers pointing down because the watch displays them so. And any suggestion that 'Custer's watch' may have been amongst the memorabilia 'burgled' at Libbie's flat (it wasn't, according to Frost, though a watch of Tom's which he'd given to sister Maggie was) similarly adds to a shaky pyramid of circumstatial 'provenance'. We've seen this kind of spurious association with anecdotes or expert opinion before, of course - quite recently with the ebay seller who implied that D. Mark Katz had supported the provenance of a previously unknown Custer photograph. What they all seem to have in common is a reluctance on the part of the owner to just come out and say who and where they got the item from, and what its known history is so that we can work on a possible provenance from there!
Ciao, GAC
|
|
Gary
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Gary on Apr 17, 2006 11:59:28 GMT -6
Gee, Mr. (Self proclaimed) George Armstrong Custer, your always so negative. What is it that makes you this way? Some of us would like to try and come up with some positive input in order to solve this mystery! Your constant personal attacks are rather childish, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Apr 17, 2006 12:17:08 GMT -6
Not so. Though if by 'positive input' you mean support for your watch being Custer's, then include me out! If you had any genuine interest in establishing the provenance of the watch you have you'd have begun your postings here by telling us as much as you knew of it from whoever or wherever you obtained it. You didn't and you haven't. I find that curious behaviour. As far as childish personal attacks are concerned, I'm not aware of having made any. Sure, I've cast doubt on your interpretations (favorable to the case you're trying to make for your watch) of some very tenuous 'facts'. But the personal stuff, changing of your forum nom de guerre and deletion of posts which destroy the continuity of a thread are all your doing old sport!
You have conspicuously made no attempt to reference how you came by a watch you say you believe may be Custer's, or to accurately describe it and what you do know of it. I find that astonishing. If you really intend to donate it to the Smithsonian, and have already had it appraised by them, then why didn't you simply leave it with them and let them research it on the basis of any information you could give them about it (more than you've given us here, that's for sure!)? I'm sure if they found compelling evidence it was genuine they'd put it on display; if not it would languish in the vaults, no harm done. You ask plenty of suggestive questions, and readily make tenuous 'factual' links, but in the total absence of any genuinely open discussion from you about the actual watch you have, the cynical amongst us might even suspect you're using the expertise of this forum to build up a plausible reference source for the watch before sticking it on ebay!
Ciao, GAC
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 17, 2006 12:24:09 GMT -6
Gary--
No disrespect intended here, but the only "mystery" here is the information you haven't provided. What exactly are the notations engraved upon the watch as well as a thorough description of its precise imagery? Believe me, there is nothing most of us would like more than to proclaim your artifact as a genuine Custer relic, but there's little we can do--apart from educated surmisals--with so little information provided by you, the owner. There are a few LBHA members who are acknowledged connoisseurs of Custer-related collectables, but they would demand the information you seem so reluctant to display to the membership of this board.
Honestly, I'm just trying to help. Leyton McLean (whoops, GAC ... written whilst you were typin')
|
|
Gary
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Gary on Apr 17, 2006 12:27:11 GMT -6
I have a copy of a letter addressed to Mrs. Custer, that was sent by "The Ancient and Illustrious Order of the Knights of Malta" (Authored by,Harry Deshaven). The letter is a request for her permission to name their lodge after her husband. The name they wanted to adopt was: "General Custer's Command of the Ancient and Illustrious Order of the Knights of Malta" Wow! What a long title! Does anyone know if GAC was associated with this organization?
Thanks,,,,,,,,Gary
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 17, 2006 12:34:22 GMT -6
Gary--
This kind of stuff happened to Libbie with great regularity. After her husband's demise, everyone and their mother got on the bandwagon to name something after GAC. Hence, we have towns named "Custer," counties called "Custer," Custer streets, Custer National Forest, and who knows what else. Many people felt the greatest way to pay honour to the fallen hero was to invoke his name. I'd put nothing more to this letter than another group paying homage to the Boy General, and notifying his widow.
Besides, the Knights of Malta are/were a Roman Catholic service organisation. GAC was many things, but never RC.
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Apr 17, 2006 12:50:03 GMT -6
You've ticked all the salient boxes there, Leyton - the applications to Libbie to honor Custer's name (I'm sure some of the members of the KofM were likely to have been former troopers of Custer's in the Civil War or out West). The RC thing is spot on. It seems that the increasingly tedious 'mysterious' watch has some runic symbols on it, and has also the upside down sabers and Custer inscription applied - who knows when? Has the owner, with his earlier questions about the masons confused the Knights of Malta with a masonic lodge (or vice versa)? I don't know, and care less. I've had enough of this drip feed of obscure references (copies of letters to Libbie, engraved notations etc.) If anyone genuinely believed they had a Custer watch and wanted this forum to help attribute it they'd be laying out before us their reasons for think it was Custer's, including who and where it came from. Why doesn't he just come out and tell us what he's got and why he thinks it's what it is? I'll leave it to my forum colleagues to play along with this one any further if they wish - for me the novelty value's worn off! Ciao, GAC
|
|
Gary
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Gary on Apr 17, 2006 12:58:24 GMT -6
There you go again! In regards to sharing information, if you look back at the LBHA Newsletter, Oct. 1994, you will find a full description <<<<AND>>>> pictures of my watch. Further,,,,,, many of the LBHA members have seen and held my watch in their own hands! Museums all over the country have seen my watch and have helped in every way they can. The Smithsonian, "in their own words" have such a backlog of artifacts, "tens of thousands" they could not even begin to research this watch! I wish I could post pictures on this board but it is so difficult. It is probably not a good idea anyway, as there will be those that will likely copy this watch. (As they have the movie watch) I have already found one "documented" copy of my watch! Thanks to all who are providing positive information! Please keep it coming! Gary Not so. Though if by 'positive input' you mean support for your watch being Custer's, then include me out! If you had any genuine interest in establishing the provenance of the watch you have you'd have begun your postings here by telling us as much as you knew of it from whoever or wherever you obtained it. You didn't and you haven't. I find that curious behaviour. As far as childish personal attacks are concerned, I'm not aware of having made any. Sure, I've cast doubt on your interpretations (favorable to the case you're trying to make for your watch) of some very tenuous 'facts'. But the personal stuff, changing of your forum nom de guerre and deletion of posts which destroy the continuity of a thread are all your doing old sport! You have conspicuously made no attempt to reference how you came by a watch you say you believe may be Custer's, or to accurately describe it and what you do know of it. I find that astonishing. If you really intend to donate it to the Smithsonian, and have already had it appraised by them, then why didn't you simply leave it with them and let them research it on the basis of any information you could give them about it (more than you've given us here, that's for sure!)? I'm sure if they found compelling evidence it was genuine they'd put it on display; if not it would languish in the vaults, no harm done. You ask plenty of suggestive questions, and readily make tenuous 'factual' links, but in the total absence of any genuinely open discussion from you about the actual watch you have, the cynical amongst us might even suspect you're using the expertise of this forum to build up a plausible reference source for the watch before sticking it on ebay! Ciao, GAC
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Apr 17, 2006 13:08:28 GMT -6
Gary wrote: How d'you know it's not the other way round? Gary wrote: But you've just said that pictures of your watch are already in the public domain! And posting images here's not so difficult - email 'em to Diane and she'll put them up. And very interested to see them we'll be.............. Ciao, GAC
|
|
Gary
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Gary on Apr 17, 2006 13:13:47 GMT -6
Thanks very much for the input! I know that the Knight's of Malta are separate from the Mason's, but when I come across these things I like to share them with the rest of the world! As yet (other than this letter copy I have) I have not seen anything printed in regards to the Knight's of Malta and GAC "possibly" being associated. Thanks again,,,,, Gary Gary-- This kind of stuff happened to Libbie with great regularity. After her husband's demise, everyone and their mother got on the bandwagon to name something after GAC. Hence, we have towns named "Custer," counties called "Custer," Custer streets, Custer National Forest, and who knows what else. Many people felt the greatest way to pay honour to the fallen hero was to invoke his name. I'd put nothing more to this letter than another group paying homage to the Boy General, and notifying his widow. Besides, the Knights of Malta are/were a Roman Catholic service organisation. GAC was many things, but never RC. Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
Gary
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Gary on Apr 17, 2006 13:24:35 GMT -6
The copy of my watch (in the owners own words) does not even date to the time of Custer! It surfaced about six year's after the posting of my watch in the LBHA Newsletter, 1994! Gary wrote: How d'you know it's not the other way round? Gary wrote: But you've just said that pictures of your watch are already in the public domain! And posting images here's not so difficult - email 'em to Diane and she'll put them up. And very interested to see them we'll be.............. Ciao, GAC
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 17, 2006 16:28:52 GMT -6
Gary--
You're not going to find a possible, formal association with GAC and the Knights of Malta because Custer was not Roman Catholic. Although religion was quite important to Libbie, it was far less so to her husband. I think he believed, but quite dispassionately.
Consider the Knights of Malta similar to the Knights of Columbus--except I think the Malta guys (when they really were knights) may have been involved in some of the Medieval Crusades. The K of C are a much more modern organisation. It would be of more interest to me if whether Keogh was similarly honoured (err, Elisabeth?) by such Catholic societies!
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|