CUSTER's LAST GRANDSTAND

[cusser]

According to accounts I have read as well as an army engineer topographical survey map made for Major Reno's inquest in 1878 or '79, Custer led a charge down the ravine to the river. At this point the troopers were hit by an overwhelmingly simultaneous counterattack by the warriors. Custer was shot in the chest, dismounting and disabling him from further participation in the battle. This makes sense if he was leading the attack as was his custom. The panic-stricken soldiers fled in two directions: one group going back up the ravine with Captain Keogh to a hill at its end, the other with Tom Custer (along with his wounded brother) up a ravine closer by the river to another. Along the path of flight the soldiers were shot down as depicted in a line on the map and in tentskin pictograms. When Tom Custer saw the hill was no longer tenable, he retreated with the survivors and his brother to a hill farther back from the river and closer to Keogh. By this time however Keogh's command had been wiped out except for him and a few survivors who were shot down mid-way on the ridge in an attempt to reach the Custers. When the wounded Custer saw the last few troopers as well as his brother fall, he knew he was finished and shot himself dead in the head. This accounts for the bullet wound found in the right temple, which is unlikely to have been inflicted by a standing enemy. Thus, George Armstrong Custer died a defeated SUICIDE! Let 'em put that in the school history books!!!

[Melani]

I thought the wound was in the left temple (see "Custer's Body" and "Was Custer Mutilated?"). As pointed out in those threads, a right-handed guy wouldn't be likely to shoot himself in the left temple. I think it's unlikely that Custer would kill himself anyway, but that's just my personal opinion. The Indians certainly went around afterward dispatching the wounded; the temple wound could have happened then or any other time. Otherwise, your scenario sounds just as plausible to me as anything else. Now to sit back and see if a firestorm of comment occurs.

[El Crab]

Caution, trolls about...

[fred]

Cusser--

C'mon, do you really believe that?

(Having asked that question, I will admit there are some pretty good people out there who believe the same thing; but really...)

And welcome, my friend. Best wishes for a happy new year.
Fred.

(And Crab... you are a pip!)

[crzhrs]

While the wounding/killing of Custer early in the fight is plausible, there is no way to prove it. Nor is there any way to prove Custer committed suicide. We do know the Indians finished off any wounded troopers, many shot in the head or even clubbed or had their throats cut. It would be impossible to know what wound(s) was the mortal one.

We also know there were far more Indians than soldiers but the warriors did not charge en masse into the troopers until the very end when there was little likelihood of resistance by the few remaining men.

The school history books that I knew while in the 50s-60s did not depict the actual facts of what took place, not only with Indians but other "sad" periods of US history, and it is only recently that the Indians' and others' side of the story has come to light.

Hopefully we can learn and not repeat the mistakes of the past, but it seems that is still a long way off.

[Melani]

The reason the above caught my attention is that it sounds very like the scenario described by David Humphreys Miller in "Custer's Fall"--one of the books I grew up with. In the back of "The Little Bighorn Campaign" by Wayne Michael Sarf, he lists "Custer's Fall" under "books to avoid taking seriously" and characterizes it as "absurd." So my question is this: is Miller generally considered not to be taken seriously, and if so, why?

It's taken me two weeks now to work up the nerve to ask this question, since I am emotionally attached to the book, but I am always ready to be educated. I tried to get my grandfather, a Civil War historian, to read and review it for me many years ago, but he just announced that Custer was an idiot and declined (he was somewhat blunt-spoken, to put it mildly). I am indebted to our trollish friend for bringing up the topic.

[fred]

Melani--

I beg to differ w/ your historian grandfather, but regardless of what you may think of GAC, the man was NOT an idiot. Rash, foolhardy, harsh, brutal, arrogant, mean-spirited... but not an idiot. (Unless, of course, one uses the word in the every-day sense, the less-than-perjorative way.)

I believe Custer's actions on 25Jun76 were intelligent, well thought-out for a command on the fly, & tactically sound. I think circumstances intervened-- fortuitous & non-fortuitous-- w/ the bottom-line being that GAC & his 7th Cavalry were simply overwhelmed that day.

I've had a rather contentious argument w/ my friend West over the size of the Indian forces-- & I believe Twomoons also takes exception to some of my figures (& these are 2 people whose opinions I greatly admire & respect)-- but it is my feeling that Custer could have performed the hula for Sitting Bull & it would have made no difference. Too many Indians, whether it was 1500 or 4000.

He may have been foolish-- I prefer to think he was merely wrong-- but he was certainly no idiot.

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Melani]

Just because he was my grandfather doesn't mean I agreed with his opinions. Because of his views on the subject, he simply refused to discuss it. He was into the Battle of Franklin. I respected his scholarship, and at the age of fourteen or so, naively thought I could get him to discuss subjects of mutual interest. I was wrong on several counts--he wasn't interested in Custer, having dismissed him as an idiot, and girls weren't supposed to be interested in military history. He left all his books to my boy cousins, the ones that didn't go to some university library in Tennessee. I did manage to snag the copy of "Glory Hunter" before they were packed up. Recently my cousin was about to send five boxes of these books to the Salvation Army to get them out of his garage, when his wife suggested that I might like them. They are now in my living room.

So my question is still: what do people generally think of the Miller book? At fouteen I found it totally captivating, since it explored issues that I hadn't seen discussed elsewhere. I've read a lot more since then (though by no means enough!) and haven't seen a lot that indicates much interest in the idea that Custer was incapacitated early in the battle. Miller says his account comes from Indian informants, who described the charge stopping suddenly at the river when several soldiers in the lead were killed. Leaving the perjorative language out of it (sorry if you found my grandfather's comment offensive--I certainly did, but he was like that), the opening of this thread sounded a lot like Miller's description, which is what prompted me to ask the question.

[fred]

Melani--

I certainly didn't take any offense from your grandfather's comment; I respect almost all opinions. It's just that I found it a bit jaded, especially from a historian whose job-- in my mind-- is to try to UNDERSTAND as well as KNOW historical events.

I've never read the Miller book, so I cannot comment. I can tell you, however, that Jack Pennington wrote a book titled "The Battle of the Little Bighorn," published by Upton & Sons & he espouses the same theory. I've corresponded w/ Pennington & I like some of his ideas, but I draw the line w/ the "Custer-killed-or mortally-wounded-at-the-ford" theory. I have also discussed this issue w/ Greg Michno who feels the theory has led to more mischief than solution (those are my words, not Greg's, but they pretty much paraphrase what he was alluding to).

The primary source for the theory comes from a Sioux warrior named White Cow Bull, who happened to be visiting someone in the Cheyenne circle when troops appeared at the ford. White Cow Bull was one of those who defended the ford & the only identifiable Sioux I know of at the ford (there were supposed to be 4 or 5). The problem w/ WCB is that according to him, he was everywhere, saw everything, & did everything, from killing Custer to God only knows what else. There was also a female who attested to the fact that Custer was killed there, but I would have to go into my notes to cull the specifics.

Anyway, while there is no definitive testimony DK'ing the theory, there is ample evidence-- both archeological & historical (& anecdotal, I might add)-- that points to an entirely different scenario. Those people-- including my buddy Pennington-- who continue to harp on the "Custer dead at B" theory simply refuse to reason out what few facts we DO possess. To me it's a lame, head-shaking scenario that causes more useless discussion than worthwhile discussion; but, that's just MY opinion... & you know what they say about THOSE!

My feelings about this whole thing are fairly simple: in lieu of hard, cold fact, we use reason, we look at terrain, we try to put ourselves in the position of participants, & we try to understand their personalities, their fears, their experience, their knowledge. That's why new books are always more & more important. Perspective is ever-changing. These pages are phenominal, just for that.

Happy new year, Melani,
Fred.

[markland]

LOL, Melani, if your grandfather was interested in the battle of Franklin, he likely was burnt out by heroic dunces who got men needlessly killed-which is perhaps why he had no patience with GAC.

Did your granddad publish anything about the Army of the Tennessee?

Happy New Year,

Billy

[Melani]

No, Billy, unfortunately my grandfather never actually wrote anything, but he gave a hell of a lecture. He was one of the very early members of the Chicago Civil War Roundtable, and once gave his Franklin talk for the Missouri Roundtable at the request of Harry Truman. (My grandfather was also a heavy-duty Republican--THAT must have been quite an evening!) He was the sort of overwhelming, outspoken personality that people either love or hate, but many people really liked him and found his less-charming aspects funny. I never quite forgave him for not taking me seriously because of my sex, but otherwise had a blast growing up with him. (The Chicago Civil War Roundtable, by the way, was at that time an all-male organization with a Ladies Auxilliary called "The Camp Followers"!) Your assessment of the origin of his opinion on Custer is probably right on.

Fred, thanks very much for your comments. Now I will spend some time looking into White Cow Bull. Miller also mentions Cheyennes named Bobtail Horse, Roan Bear, Calf, and White Shield. He lists Bobtail Horse and White Cow Bull as people that he interviewed. Obviously other people interviewed White Cow Bull as well; I will check it out.

[fred]

Hey Melani--

You just rang a bell in my head! Pennington spends an inordinate amount of time criticizing everybody's work on the LBH. His book is like an extensive book review. One of those books is David Humphreys Miller's "Custer's Fall." BINGO!

While he spends his usual half-dozen pages lambasting the guy, Pennington sums it all up w/, "I agree wholeheartedly w/ Miller's summation. As I have said earlier [gag!], this is the only answer where all the necessary ingredients come together: timing, testimony, psychology & logic." [Here we go! What did I tell you?!]

As for the guys at the ford, I have done a not-inconsiderable amount of ferreting for names: Bobtail Horse, Roan Bear, Buffalo Calf, Big Nose, Mad Wolf, White Shield, Rising Sun [he was part Japanese... that's a little levity there], Hanging Wolf, Young Little Wolf, American Horse (the Cheyenne chief), & possibly Pawnee, Wooden Thigh, Yellow Horse, & Horse Road. These were all Cheyenne. White Cow Bull is the only Sioux name I have been able to find.

Best wishes,
Fred.

[markland]

"White Cow Bull is the only Sioux name I have been able to find."

Fred, you might wander over to www.thehistorychannel.com and select Discussions/Wars/Indian Wars. A guy there by the name of Jimbo is extremely knowledgeable about the Indian participants. I am not sure if he is the same Jimbo who is here or not but if not, he is worth your while to meet. Also check out General76's analysis of Deep Ravine and why no bodies have been found there. Those two guys know their stuff!! I am sure if Bob is wandering around this board, he will second me on that opinion. Others, who wax philosophical, may have a somewhat different view of them, but that is OK, we are all in it to learn...at least I am...49 and and still wondering what I want to do when I grow up...ain't life wonderful?

Time to go blow up the left-overs from the 4th.

Happy New Year everyone!

Billy

P.S. The cat had no idea that he was lost

[elisabeth]

Melani,

I haven't read the Miller book either (because everyone lambasts it so soundly) but the dead-or-wounded-at-Ford-B theory continues to attract people; the new Hungerford book states it firmly as fact, as well. I'm guessing that the main attraction is that it neatly absolves Custer of the debacle that followed. What makes it so hard for many of us to swallow is: it only makes sense if every subordinate officer in the battalion was a Reno clone or worse. Which they clearly weren't.

For an excellent demolition job on White Cow Bull, you can't do better than Michno's Lakota Noon ...

[fred]

Boy, Elisabeth... THAT'S for sure!

Happy New Year, Englander!!

Fred.