Gibson's Letter about Benteen's Scout

[Hostler]

jc,

Thank you very much!

It's plain for all to see there was none of the "desires' or "wishes" or any of that ambiguous language that Terry used in his orders to Custer. No "unless you see sufficient reason" or "he thinks you should" stuff. Just a straightforward set of orders anyone can understand and deal with. This reinforces my belief that Terry's orders to Custer just days later, were written with a purpose to give Custer license to do whatever he wished, plus clear Terry of any responsibility for whatever might take place should there be a battle, no matter the outcome. Custer had no worries or concerns whatsoever about disobedience of orders. Ole Alfred was a shrewd old boy for sure.

Regards, Hostler

[Dark Cloud]

Most to the point is that the Reno orders ARE CALLED orders. Special Field Order 11. This is a term deliberately missing from the Custer letter of instructions.

[Hostler]

Quite correct dc. If Terry had wanted to save paper he could have just written:

George, Sic 'em!
Signed, Alfred

and it would have had the very same effect and outcome. But it would not have been as flowery and impressive as what was actually written. To me it was a classic snow job and it worked beautifully. After all, Terry was the expedition commander and was ultimately responsible for the way the operation was conducted as well as the end results. And he skillfully avoided almost all responsibility by handing it to Custer with those "instructions". Custer took the bait and ran with it as Terry knew he would. If Custer wins Terry says "Well I gave him room to maneuver." If Custer loses Terry says "Well, he didn't do as I wished." And in the aftermath the public immediately jumped on Reno, Benteen, Custer, and many others in the 7th, but Terry was held almost blameless as if he had nothing to do with any of it. Sharp lawyer that Terry.

Regards, Hostler

[Dark Cloud]

In fairness, as we should try to be, Terry didn't seek or want field command, but that was dumped on him by Custer's remarks having annoyed Grant. Terry was under no false impressions he himself was The Man, and I don't think that he wrote that with CYA in mind, but to mend a broken command structure. When Lady Custer responded to Grant's beef about her husband, and CYA went into play, Terry's son in law Hughes went to bat for Terry, although Terry was never damned like others. Everybody actually DID like Terry, and he didn't try to play this for advantage, and I can understand his resentment if he felt blame coming his way: he'd been seriously misinformed and was stuck with Sheridan's strategic concept which may not have been really applicable as it was in the winter.

And I don't agree that Terry was responsible for Custer's fate. Terry was responsible for drawing up a plan that didn't apply to the number of Indians actually there, and not really envisioning anything worse than the Sioux disbanding to reassemble later. But when Custer departed from Terry's instructions, he was on his own. I think he had reason for doing so, but his utter lack of recon despite opportunity and ordering attack before he knew what he was attacking are pretty bad and can't be patted into shape.

The campaign was going to fail anyway absent a Deus Ex Machina Warthog aircraft , but the disaster was all Custer's.

[Hostler]

dc,

I agree with you on most points. I didn't mean to imply that Terry was ultimately responsible for Custer's fate. The point I am making is that Terry took deliberate steps to insulate himself from most responsibility for Custer's fate. I think Reno scared the hell out of both Terry and Custer on his mission up the Powder. It scared Terry because he (Terry) had issued direct orders listing who, how, when, where, and the equipment to be used. Although Terry didn't yet know about Crook's battle, had Reno ran into the same situation as Crook the outcome would have been as much Terry's responsibility as Reno's. Terry wasn't going to make THAT mistake again. It scared Custer because a success by Reno would have left little glory or kudos for Custer. Solution? Jerk Reno's chain and turn GAC loose and let him sink or swim on his own. With no direct orders, Custer's success or failure was entirely his own making. I agree that Terry didn't want the assignment or try to use it to advantage. I'm not sure he even felt very competent as an Indian fighter. But I also feel he was not going to let himself be a patsy for Sheridan or Custer or anyone else under the circumstances. This is the only reason I can imagine for the difference in phrasing of the orders or instructions for the two missions. As Godfrey said, "Orders is orders!" and there shouldn't have been any substantial difference in the terminology used to issue them. Both recipients were subordinates. Terry's abilities and self confidence hadn't changed in the short time between the two missions, so there had to be another reason for the disparities in tone. I think during Reno's scout he wised up, realizing his butt was on the line because of the wording of the orders. Voila!!!!...issue suggestions rather than direct orders. In short I think Terry was a very sharp person intellectually.

Regards, Hostler

[Dark Cloud]

Hadn't thought of that, but that makes sense and blends with what is known. Just so long as Custer's decision to abort and the execution thereafter trumps anything Terry did for responsibility for Custer's fiasco.

[elisabeth]

Hostler, nice idea.

In practice, however, Terry would have been off the hook for anything that happened to Reno, since despite crystal-clear orders allowing no discretion Reno went off and did something different -- usefully, as it turned out. But I do think you're onto something with Reno's scout having an effect on his thinking. For all that Terry fumed about Reno's disobedience, do you think it might have taught him something about the virtue of not being over-prescriptive when issuing orders to a unit hunting such an elusive enemy? He was new to Indian fighting, after all, and having to learn as he went along. He relied on Custer as the Indian fighting expert. Given Custer's response to Reno's scout -- that the mistake wasn't in the disobedience, but in failing to strike when he had the chance -- might this have shaped Terry's reluctance to give orders that "might hamper your actions when nearly in contact with the enemy"?

I'm sure you're right about Reno's scout scaring them both, for their different reasons; I wonder, though, if it could have had a larger part to play in causing the fiasco. Back in the early spring, Terry had reported to Sheridan that "the most trustworthy scout on the Missouri recently in the hostile camp reports not less than two thousand lodges". [Custer's Luck, p. 84.] So Terry was initially expecting a village every bit as massive as the one Custer actually encountered. Bradley had reported a 400-lodge village, but no-one took much notice. But now, Reno had reported one of much the same size. So it could have been Reno's scout, rather than misinformation from HQ, that gave Terry (and Custer) erroneous impressions about numbers ...?

[elisabeth]

One other question. How usual was it to give written orders (or instructions) to a commander of Custer's rank after a plan of action had already been agreed face to face? For instance, was Gibbon also given instructions/orders in writing?

Just wondering if the mere fact of the order's existence, regardless of its courteous wording, might tell us something about Terry's misgivings.

[crzhrs]

I belive the Terry-Custer relationship had a lot to do with Terry's Instruction/orders to Custer.

It seems Terry may have had a soft spot for Custer. When Custer was relieved from command by Grant Custer went to Terry and from some reports begged and/or pleaded on his knees for Terry to intercede. Terry did so and Custer was allowed on the campaign.

When Reno "disobeyed" Terry's orders about his scout Terry put Custer in command of the 7th.

Did Terry want to give Custer a 2nd chance to redeem himself over the Grant/Belknap feud/scandal? Did Terry want to give Custer a chance to earn a victory and put him back in the spotlight?

Was that the reason for the ambiguous "orders" to Custer giving him "options" that Reno did not have. Or did Terry think Reno needed "orders" while Custer needed only "instructions"

The Terry/Custer relationship may have a lot to do with Custer's letter of instructions.

[elisabeth]

I'm sure you're right, crzhrs. I can't find the quote just now, but I'm sure I've read of Terry saying overtly that he wanted to give Custer a chance to distinguish himself. (Such a nice man, Terry.)

By the way, Roger Darling, in A Sad and Terrible Blunder (p. 136, n. 18) picks up on the absence of written orders to Gibbon. He asks, "does the absence of written orders for Gibbon imply a greater Terry reliance on Gibbon's trustworthiness than that for Custer?". Interesting ...?

[Dark Cloud]

Again, this is History Channel level audience manipulation. Could Elizabeth's and Crzhrs habit of ending posts with rather artificial questions be indicative of their desire to write scripts for pseudo documentaries for The History Channel, Discovery, or even worse?

Why would Terry give written orders to Gibbon? He rode with Gibbon and was, in fact, the officer in charge. Any error or success of Gibbon would be credited to Terry regardless. He was there, you see.

Could Roger Darling, counting deeply on a readership who doesn't read much, hope to infuse the LBH with more unlikely and and forced mystery than a deeply routine set of administrative exchanges justify? Huh? Could he? Huh? And could ending posts with rhetorical questions be a device derived from elementary school teachers who want their students to think about their lessons on the way home? Huh? Could it? And isn't that rather insulting for adults? Huh? Isn't it?

[crzhrs]

DC:

<Again, this is History Channel level audience manipulation. Could Elizabeth's and Crzhrs habit of ending posts with rather artificial questions be indicative of their desire to write scripts for pseudo documentaries for The History Channel, Discovery, or even worse?

Why would Terry give written orders to Gibbon? He rode with Gibbon and was, in fact, the officer in charge. Any error or success of Gibbon would be credited to Terry regardless. He was there, you see.

Could Roger Darling, counting deeply on a readership who doesn't read much, hope to infuse the LBH with more unlikely and and forced mystery than a deeply routine set of administrative exchanges justify? Huh? Could he? Huh? And could ending posts with rhetorical questions be a device derived from elementary school teachers who want their students to think about their lessons on the way home? Huh? Could it? And isn't that rather insulting for adults? Huh? Isn't it? >

Instead of insulting everyone who have been here far longer than you have and who try to work with other forum members instead of nit-picking everything to death and starting arguments as you do . . . why don't you give us all the answers to your questions?

[Hostler]

Elizabeth and CRZHRS

You are both looking at the same mystery as I. Why the obvious difference in phrasing between the two sets of instructions? Terry may have indeed had a soft spot for Custer, but still, he was an experienced officer with many years of service, and I would think not prone to emotional swings. You all may be correct in your observations and I intend to keep an open mind on the subject. Something certainly seems to have affected Terry's mindset after the Reno scout, and I suppose that is what makes issues like this a mystery, and such fun to speculate on. As for me, the more questions, answers and opinions the better. I learn something almost every day on this forum from folks who are much more knowledgeable than I about these things.

Regards, Hostler

[Hostler]

DC,

I'll get to the point quickly. Just when I think you may have somehow acquired some common sense, you demonstrate the obvious. (You haven't.) Please, how about a break from the condescending smugness in your posts?

Regards, Hostler

[elisabeth]

Actually, DC, it's, dare I say it, a thing called (gasp) humility. If I'm reasonably certain of a statement, I might end it with a period. If I'm not, and am inviting opinions, I use a question-mark. Because (gasp again) it's a question. Not a rhetorical question, incidentally. A question.

I'm very flattered that you envisage a whole new career for me, and it sounds like a lot of fun. However, it's not on my agenda at present. By the way, I can only say that your elementary school teachers must have been much more exciting than mine; they never thought of that device. Would have been nice if they had.

Have you read Darling, by any chance? [Real, not rhetorical.] Myself, I'd have thought his books were targeted more at a highly specialist readership. Sensationalism is hardly his thing. But then that's just my opinion. And I know what value you give that. Ah well ...