|
Post by larmar1942 on Apr 21, 2023 16:35:37 GMT -6
I am new to this site, so if this has already been discussed, please provide thread. I have not read much criticism about the ambiguity of Terry's final orders to Custer. Terry should have been very specific about how Custer should coordinate with the other two columns approaching the Little Big Horn valley. Competent leadership should have known that virtually all the summer roamers would converge with Sitting Bulls Lakota and Cheyenne.
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 23, 2023 6:20:15 GMT -6
I’m quite new myself, but I do feel if Custer was so untrustworthy to follow orders, why did Terry send him, he knew exactly what Custer would do.
Crook apparently after the battle of Rosebud turned back.
Gibbon arrived a day late, taking no part in anything.
In my own opinion, Custer should be removed from the ‘blame equation’, and Terry, Crook and Gibbon more focused on, plus Benteen and Reno.
I’m not a Custer defender, don’t know enough to commit to being such, without more research on my part, but he was the only one who completed the task in hand, everybody else wasn’t there with him, I think the senior command had in mind that if the Indians were aware of the approaching three columns, the camp would’ve packed up and fled, hence Custer’s mobility was essential to catch them, not expecting a stand up fight, and the force under his command must’ve been considered adequate, else Terry would’ve insisted on giving the order to take additional cavalry.
Plausible deniability was used by everyone in the aftermath, there is so much ‘noise’ and smoke and mirrors, the truth and the real culprits are lost in the mix.
Sorry, it’s just another newbie like yourself responding, but maybe this reply will stir up interest, not in my favour though, I’m expecting a bit of opposition
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 23, 2023 11:15:44 GMT -6
I’m quite new myself, but I do feel if Custer was so untrustworthy to follow orders, why did Terry send him, he knew exactly what Custer would do. Crook apparently after the battle of Rosebud turned back. Gibbon arrived a day late, taking no part in anything. In my own opinion, Custer should be removed from the ‘blame equation’, and Terry, Crook and Gibbon more focused on, plus Benteen and Reno. I’m not a Custer defender, don’t know enough to commit to being such, without more research on my part, but he was the only one who completed the task in hand, everybody else wasn’t there with him, I think the senior command had in mind that if the Indians were aware of the approaching three columns, the camp would’ve packed up and fled, hence Custer’s mobility was essential to catch them, not expecting a stand up fight, and the force under his command must’ve been considered adequate, else Terry would’ve insisted on giving the order to take additional cavalry. Plausible deniability was used by everyone in the aftermath, there is so much ‘noise’ and smoke and mirrors, the truth and the real culprits are lost in the mix. Sorry, it’s just another newbie like yourself responding, but maybe this reply will stir up interest, not in my favour though, I’m expecting a bit of opposition I would say that one large fact that is often overlooked is that just a few weeks earlier, these same Indians, (without near as many participants) were able to easily send Crook back to Wyoming. Crooks force was almost twice as large as Custer and Crook did not split up his command. So even those that say Custer should have kept his 12 companies together..... He would have had no more success than Crook Custer, like Reno, would have been fixed and flanked before he would have reached the village. One might argue that the casualty count would be lower and I would agree. The end result would have been the same. The Indians would leave the valley on their own terms. One thing in Custer's favor was surprise. Custer had a small advantage over Crook on that point. I would say that had Custer kept his forces together. More would have survived and the Indians would have left the valley a day sooner. But evidence shows that this scenario is NOT what Custer wanted. In fact.....That was Custer's main concern. He was totally convinced The Indians would scatter when and if they were attacked. The evidence is overwhelming on that point. I don't think there is one person that can dispute that as fact. If so....I have never seen the evidence proving otherwise. Had Custer kept his forces together........We would not be on these boards discussing this battle. There would be a small sign like at the Battle of the Rosebud and none would really care about Custer or June 25th of 1876. The only question would be.....Do we consider that a victory for Custer or should it be a defeat? Is survival a victory? Well we know it is NOT in the case of Reno. Would it be different if Custer survived? Rosebud The Battle of the Rosebud took place June 17 one week before the LBH not "weeks earlier" Plus it was the Indians who attacked the military (Crook) and the military (Custer) who attacked the Indian Village. Two entirely different scenarios. After the Rosebud the Indians were supremely confidant they could handle any force who attacked them. According to Low Dog (paraphrased) "the village was so large we didn't think anyone would attack it". He could have meant anyone who would attack such a large village would be a fool. I agree the greatest fear of the military including Custer was the Indians fleeing before the military could find them resulting in a humiliating and useless campaign. Custer's main decisions I believe were based on his command being discovered, the Indians would get away and he would be a laughing stock. Thus his decision to divide the command before the exact location and size was determined. Sending Benteen off on his scout to the left with no scouts, no medical staff and to keep going has been second ever since. Once Custer gave Reno his attack orders he failed to inform Benteen until too late to really make a difference regardless of how fast Benteen returned after deciding he was on a "wild goose chase" Lots of blame to go around but more importantly lots of credit to the warriors who took a stand and turned the tables on the 7th cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 24, 2023 12:02:04 GMT -6
The Battle of the Rosebud took place June 17 one week before the LBH not "weeks earlier" I see you want to get picky That also makes you wrong....It was NOT one week earlier....It was more than one week and less than two weeks. So weeks earlier can be correct because you are past week one and into the second week.....Thus weeks. I could have used " earlier that month" Hopefully that would not have confused you.
Plus it was the Indians who attacked the military (Crook) and the military (Custer) who attacked the Indian Village. Yes, I think everyone already knows that. Your point becomes irrelevant. The point is....It was the same Indians they were fighting.Two entirely different scenarios. And I am sure I pointed that out.....Giving Custer the slight advantage in the different scenarios. I went back to the post and made it bold so you should not miss it if you look again.
Anything else you would like to add?
Rosebud
Nope, your answer tells me everything I need to know.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 25, 2023 13:11:44 GMT -6
During his battle with hostile buffalo hunters on Rosebud, Crook did divide and disperse his forces under the mistaken concoct the hostile camp was a little further along (down) the valley. On 17th June, 1876 he was only slightly concocted and of course had Reno pressed on UP the Rosebud, who knows what might have happened.
Of course the hostile camps were sat in Reno Ck. near the mouth of its south fork, up which the buffalo hunters routed to whack Crook's mole. In respect Reno, his scouts told that further progress might, could, and would prove fatal but who was gonna attack him? The hostile force went up the south fork into the Eolf Mountains to ram it to Crook, who, as I said, sent a cavalry column down the Rosebud.
Crook eventually recalled the attack force and the fighting fizzled out but hehad seen enough to learn the relevant and incorrect lesson. Crook believed he was on top of the hostile camp, that is, it was within striking distance, and I suspect he attributed the hostile assault to maniacal defence to allow the familes to flee.
Crook:s infantry fought an outstanding battle.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 25, 2023 16:06:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 25, 2023 16:43:26 GMT -6
Anyways....... In late April, 1876; Col. Gibbon at Ft. Pease on the Yellowstone ( a couple of miles below the mouth of the Bighorn River on its north side) ordered a recon mission up the Bighorn which moved to Fort C.F. Smith, across the river to Stinkingwater, Lodgegrass, the Little Bighorn valley and returning down Tullock's Fork, in an attempt to find the hostile village. This mission was undertaken by Capt. Edward Ball, Company H, and Lt. Charles Roe, Company F, 2nd Cavalry, with Lt. Edward McClernand along as Engineer Officer. His report is linked Excerpted - PP (Appendix) AnRepCoESoWv2 (1877) 2Cav Scout down the WEST bank of the Bighorn into LBH valley and the later Custer battleground via Lodge Grass valley. 18th April — We remained in camp awaiting the return of several scouts sent last night to the month of the Little Big Horn River to prospect for a Sioux village. The scouts return, having failed to discover any signs of hostile Indians. 21st April — This morning instructions via Fort Ellis are received, ordering us into camp at Fort Pease, there to await further orders. The same mail brings information that the troops from the other directions will not be able to take the field for some time. We move on to Fort Pease, 2.02 miles, and 215.32 miles from Fort Ellis. The command is put in camp immediately outside of the fort. 24th April — H and F Companies, Second Cavalry, under command of Captain Ball, receive orders for a seven days scout, via the Big Horn, Fort Smith, and Tullock's Fork. I am ordered to report to Captain Ball. Starting about noon, the two companies march up the river to a point just above the mouth of the Big Horn, and cross at a good ford 5 miles from Fort Pease. 25th April — 'at 7:15pm we reach the mouth of the Little Bighorn coming in from the southeast opposite across the Bighorn. 26th April — 6am, The command crosses the Bighorn, 16 miles above the mouth of the Little Bighorn. A reasonable conclusion is that Terry 'reasonably' expected a hostile camp in Little Bighorn valley, to be on the site at the mouth of LodgeGrass discovered by Ball, Roe and McClernand. There had been a large fight in Lodgegrass in April 1874, as a civilian expedition made its way in reverse, along the route of march of 2nd Cavalry's April 1876 scout. This expedition originated out of Bozeman and fought three major engagements with roaming tribes who were estimated to include 1,500 warriors. This expedition was debriefed at Bozeman, upon its return, by Lt. Bradley of 7th Infantry. Ball and Roe's report would have been given to Terry when he arrived on the Far West, to Gibbon, on the Yellowstone, and together with information from Bradley about recently discovered camps. Questio - Did Terry scratch an ear or his nose, when he heard that information?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 25, 2023 17:40:36 GMT -6
I’m quite new myself, but I do feel if Custer was so untrustworthy to follow orders, why did Terry send him, he knew exactly what Custer would do. Crook apparently after the battle of Rosebud turned back. Gibbon arrived a day late, taking no part in anything. In my own opinion, Custer should be removed from the ‘blame equation’, and Terry, Crook and Gibbon more focused on, plus Benteen and Reno. I’m not a Custer defender, don’t know enough to commit to being such, without more research on my part, but he was the only one who completed the task in hand, everybody else wasn’t there with him, I think the senior command had in mind that if the Indians were aware of the approaching three columns, the camp would’ve packed up and fled, hence Custer’s mobility was essential to catch them, not expecting a stand up fight, and the force under his command must’ve been considered adequate, else Terry would’ve insisted on giving the order to take additional cavalry. Plausible deniability was used by everyone in the aftermath, there is so much ‘noise’ and smoke and mirrors, the truth and the real culprits are lost in the mix. Sorry, it’s just another newbie like yourself responding, but maybe this reply will stir up interest, not in my favour though, I’m expecting a bit of opposition I would say that one large fact that is often overlooked is that just a few weeks earlier, these same Indians, (without near as many participants) were able to easily send Crook back to Wyoming. Crooks force was almost twice as large as Custer and Crook did not split up his command. So even those that say Custer should have kept his 12 companies together..... He would have had no more success than Crook Custer, like Reno, would have been fixed and flanked before he would have reached the village. One might argue that the casualty count would be lower and I would agree. The end result would have been the same. The Indians would leave the valley on their own terms. One thing in Custer's favor was surprise. Custer had a small advantage over Crook on that point.I would say that had Custer kept his forces together. More would have survived and the Indians would have left the valley a day sooner. But evidence shows that this scenario is NOT what Custer wanted. In fact.....That was Custer's main concern. He was totally convinced The Indians would scatter when and if they were attacked. The evidence is overwhelming on that point. I don't think there is one person that can dispute that as fact. If so....I have never seen the evidence proving otherwise. Had Custer kept his forces together........We would not be on these boards discussing this battle. There would be a small sign like at the Battle of the Rosebud and none would really care about Custer or June 25th of 1876. The only question would be.....Do we consider that a victory for Custer or should it be a defeat? Is survival a victory? Well we know it is NOT in the case of Reno. Would it be different if Custer survived? Rosebud I generally agree with Rosebud's thoughts and move onto the what if Custer had survived. My feeling is that Terry despite being incredibly robust, would have had little choice but bring charges against Custer. His brother in law would have tilted the table as he did lifelong afterwards. Across a swathe of Officers, Custer had blotted his copy book about as badly as could be with Grant - who was fighting another term of Office and being heavily plastered in controversy and avarice of those representing him. By year's end Grant was out of the Whitehouse but it was a bitterly fought result and was Custer really any kind of political asset in defeat at LBH. The one aspect of things which would not have emerged, given a breathing Custer, is the bruha over Herendeen and reporting the Tulloch's Fork scout. Things would have evolved in a fashion no-one can imagine - given what we know today. As an example, given all 12 companies surviving the Reno Hill Hill siege (it would have been Custer Hill) albeit with diminished losses then what does Terry do? Not much different, I guess but it's that old, old problem - I suppose. Regards.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Apr 26, 2023 6:07:17 GMT -6
I generally agree with Rosebud's thoughts and move onto the what if Custer had survived. My feeling is that Terry despite being incredibly robust, would have had little choice but bring charges against Custer. His brother in law would have tilted the table as he did lifelong afterwards. Across a swathe of Officers, Custer had blotted his copy book about as badly as could be with Grant - who was fighting another term of Office and being heavily plastered in controversy and avarice of those representing him. By year's end Grant was out of the Whitehouse but it was a bitterly fought result and was Custer really any kind of political asset in defeat at LBH. The one aspect of things which would not have emerged, given a breathing Custer, is the bruha over Herendeen and reporting the Tulloch's Fork scout. Things would have evolved in a fashion no-one can imagine - given what we know today. As an example, given all 12 companies surviving the Reno Hill Hill siege (it would have been Custer Hill) albeit with diminished losses then what does Terry do? Not much different, I guess but it's that old, old problem - I suppose. Regards. Well, the point of the 76 campaign was not to win some enormous battle, it was just to break up the roamers and make them return to the reservations. That could have been achieved in several ways. Say we got the "Custer Hill scenario" with the 12 companies intact: When the Indians left the valley, it would be knowing that an entire regiment was in the proximity. That alone would be a constant threat to them, not to mention other columns they knew were in the field. The prospect of an entire late Summer/Autumn of potential rear guard actions would probably not appeal to them. Many were already before both Rosebud and LBH planning a return to the reservations at some point in the near future. An attack on the village or fighting close to their famileis could speed up this decision for many, I guess. (It probably did too, if we talk about how things did happen). So in that case, Custer could have played on that his actions lead to the NAs giving up and returning. (Ofc we today know that many of the NAs were planning to return to the reservations regardless) One thing you can't take away from the man, was his ability to make a big deal out of himself. My guess is he could have gotten the media to go along with a "The fair-haired Boy General in his late 30s hounds the bloodthirsty barbarians back into the welcoming arms of sweet civilization." Just my two speculating cents. All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 26, 2023 7:39:19 GMT -6
I looked long and hard for Custer's political aspirations and...... it ain't there in anything but a translated comment in the Ree Narrives. Fancy that?............ There had been reticence during 1875, to uphold treaty rights over the Black Hills but Deadwood pretty much pulled the rug under that obligation. The winter Roamers were not reservation people - and it took Sitting Bull a further five years to give up on his brand of freedom. Even then, he supported the Ghost Dance outbreaks which peacefully inspired hope and fears leading to his death. What's wrong with dancing? Crazy Horse was more pragmatic and called it a day in summer 1877, which did him a lot of good. There was a hard core of natives not prepared to settle or accept promises which would forever be broken as they were dominated into suplication. Battle scenarios are rife through the Custer fight into the entire force across Ford A, which probably would not have evolved into a defence on Reno Hill following a brilliant charge into a river off twelve feet banks. It would have been a very different struggle with Custer in the valleyand Reno obeying his CO. Custer was a marked man in terms of Grant and his administration. Sheridan was quite open that there was no choice but attack once Custer was aware his command had been detected and of course, the camp was actually too large to scatter in the face of a surprise attack. Reno's strike emptied the tipi's which from the army point of view, was good. Hold that ground and destroy the property - job done. There could have been parley in the valley and One Bull was sent out from the camp to do exactly that although it served the purpose of delaying an attack if the soldiers pulled up and talked things through. Obviously, this was not within Reno's remit - given his Orders - but likewise, Sitting Bull was not, no way never (at that time) doing the reservation thing. He was there for the fights and I believe he held high hopes of success bringing a settlement like that following the expeditions and fort building of Red Clouds War. Could Custer have survived the setback of a defeat or stalemate? The best guide we have is what happened to J.J. Reynolds although he had more irons in the fire than Custer, and was actually a friend of Grant. That didn't stop a show Courtmartial by Crook, which brought a suspension from service and his resignation. Custer, at the time of the battle was the amry's senior Lieutenant Colonel, and the next regimental top spot was his for the acceptance, regardless of a further suspension resulting from Courtmartial. As with Reno being found guilty, a year or two off kicking heels and ..... back in the saddle. It really, really is a game of if, ands, buts and supposes. Born in 1839, Custer would have risen through the service to Brig. Gen. or beyond, as did his entire generation of serving Officers. Miles made it to Commanding General of the United States Army born the same year as Custer although better connected. There were some interesting parallels between the two but Miles of course was not West Point. 7th Cavalry's 12 companies, consolidated into the valley timber or charging the camps with Custer hands on, would have got the job done or the regiment wiped out. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Apr 28, 2023 0:14:09 GMT -6
Could Custer have survived the setback of a defeat or stalemate? The best guide we have is what happened to J.J. Reynolds although he had more irons in the fire than Custer, and was actually a friend of Grant. That didn't stop a show Courtmartial by Crook, which brought a suspension from service and his resignation. Custer, at the time of the battle was the amry's senior Lieutenant Colonel, and the next regimental top spot was his for the acceptance, regardless of a further suspension resulting from Courtmartial. As with Reno being found guilty, a year or two off kicking heels and ..... back in the saddle. --- 7th Cavalry's 12 companies, consolidated into the valley timber or charging the camps with Custer hands on, would have got the job done or the regiment wiped out. What do you think? Speculating and wondering are good mental gymnastics. I feel, if the premise is that all 12 companies survived an engagement and made the encampment break up, that it would be way different from the Reynolds case. Yes, Grant didn't like GAC. But Terry, Sheridan and Sherman PLUS the public opinion/press did or were "on his side". I can't see Grant mid-election firing a "national hero", against the mentioned generals wishes. Plus, in such a scenario I can't see the grounds for doing so anyways. He found, attacked and would probably in co-operation with the other columns continue to hound the NAs until the mission was a success. Crook, who had one run-in with a force he outnumbered maybe 2-1, took a break for almost 2 months after Rosebud. Card playing and fishing is fun, so I do kinda understand him That was ok, but not what Custer did in this scenario? I personally don't think so. Interestingly enough, if I recall correctly, one of the charges against Reynolds was failing to support the first advance towards the village. If we play around with scenarios, Reno in the valley comes to mind. As for the last point. In general I think GACs chances for any sort of positive outcome would be greater with as large as possible force. The chances of being wiped out would be likewise (wrong phrase?) smaller. There were many outcomes that strategically could be defined as a success for the Army (hostages, destroying supplies, provitions, tents, killing warriors etc). For the NAs, not so much. All the best,Noggy
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 28, 2023 2:11:33 GMT -6
Had the winter roaming bands, inflicted a defeat or eluded Terry and Crook (as they did) then it was more than less likely Terry and Crook would further example miscreants such as done with Reynolds, if they felt themselves at risk of public blame or censure. In Custer's case, Reno had been set up for that fall over his scout of the Tongue which didn't.
I do not know how vindictive Grant was towards Custer but he had exampled it and his problems were multiplying. Oddly, the political infighting over graft and audit and economic setback of 1873, brought about the impeachment which actually began June 25th, 1876. Grant could ultimately, during his last six months in Office, do as he pleased with Custer. His Presidency was in a political nut-cracker; Custer had insulted his family, gotten mixed up in politics, and been involved in protecting agents exposing corruption on the frontier.
Adoration of Custer was not universal and many who had spurned the US, hated his guts and its possible their descendants still do.
Reno's attack emptied the tipis and had suffient force of cavalry gotten into the encampment and held it, the property could have been destroyed. That was half the job done but the hostiles left mounted.
That situation was ripe. Damn Custer - we send thousands of men to whip these insolent Indians and he lets them ride off into the sunset. Was Grant that kind of guy? Evidence suggests yes. Was Crook? Yes. Was Terry? Evidence suggests yes. From 27th June 1876, Patterson Hughes was nailing Custer to the cross over disobeying orders. I would guess that he and Reno got on like a house on fire.
Regards.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 28, 2023 2:38:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 28, 2023 16:42:32 GMT -6
If I was to make that sort of effort I'd pick up a yew sapling at the same time.
Belknap had an interesting history in sidelines back before ACW and particularly with surplus weapons. It was what it was and we make what it was, what it is.
I had a bit of good luck. Someone shunted the WAV this morning and drove on, before I was up.
This evening, the following driver emailed me dashcam of the whole thing. Brilliant.
Pick A or B.
A is Grant B is Custer
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Apr 28, 2023 17:06:29 GMT -6
I would say that one large fact that is often overlooked is that just a few weeks earlier, these same Indians, (without near as many participants) were able to easily send Crook back to Wyoming. Crooks force was almost twice as large as Custer and Crook did not split up his command. So even those that say Custer should have kept his 12 companies together..... He would have had no more success than Crook Custer, like Reno, would have been fixed and flanked before he would have reached the village. One might argue that the casualty count would be lower and I would agree. The end result would have been the same. The Indians would leave the valley on their own terms. One thing in Custer's favor was surprise. Custer had a small advantage over Crook on that point. I would say that had Custer kept his forces together. More would have survived and the Indians would have left the valley a day sooner. But evidence shows that this scenario is NOT what Custer wanted. In fact.....That was Custer's main concern. He was totally convinced The Indians would scatter when and if they were attacked. The evidence is overwhelming on that point. I don't think there is one person that can dispute that as fact. If so....I have never seen the evidence proving otherwise. Had Custer kept his forces together........We would not be on these boards discussing this battle. There would be a small sign like at the Battle of the Rosebud and none would really care about Custer or June 25th of 1876. The only question would be.....Do we consider that a victory for Custer or should it be a defeat? Is survival a victory? Well we know it is NOT in the case of Reno. Would it be different if Custer survived? Rosebud The Battle of the Rosebud took place June 17 one week before the LBH not "weeks earlier" Plus it was the Indians who attacked the military (Crook) and the military (Custer) who attacked the Indian Village. Two entirely different scenarios. After the Rosebud the Indians were supremely confidant they could handle any force who attacked them. According to Low Dog (paraphrased) "the village was so large we didn't think anyone would attack it". He could have meant anyone who would attack such a large village would be a fool. I agree the greatest fear of the military including Custer was the Indians fleeing before the military could find them resulting in a humiliating and useless campaign. Custer's main decisions I believe were based on his command being discovered, the Indians would get away and he would be a laughing stock. Thus his decision to divide the command before the exact location and size was determined. Sending Benteen off on his scout to the left with no scouts, no medical staff and to keep going has been second ever since. Once Custer gave Reno his attack orders he failed to inform Benteen until too late to really make a difference regardless of how fast Benteen returned after deciding he was on a "wild goose chase" Lots of blame to go around but more importantly lots of credit to the warriors who took a stand and turned the tables on the 7th cavalry. Thank you CH. Also, no one knew what the hell happened to Crook after the Rosebud battle, so there was no communication about what kind of hornet's nest Custer was getting into. J
|
|