|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Feb 3, 2006 11:39:19 GMT -6
Just a passing thought . . . .
Do we know if Autie Reed's parents knew he was going on the campaign? I know he was of age (18), but I'm wondering if his presence at the Little Big Horn was a total shock to Lydia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Feb 3, 2006 13:26:00 GMT -6
Diane--
There are certainly letters, penned by GAC and Boston Custer, that refer to Autie Reed's presence on the campaign of 1876. I'm probably sure that there are extant letters from Autie to his mother, perhaps at the Monroe County Historical Museum, but haven't found any in my blitzkrieg search of the titles in the McLean family hovel. The Custer family was so tightly knit, I cannot believe that this would have been a secret. As I recall, the Reeds wanted their son to experience the real West--and from what I understand, when Boston broke away from the packers to join his brothers at the battle, Autie chose to go with his uncle.
However, this doesn't mean Lydia and David Reed weren't shocked to find out their son died at LBH. Autie was accompanying the Seventh as a civilian, as either a forage master or farrier--and theoretically, shouldn't have been involved in the battle. I say "theoretically" because it might have been naive to believe there was no chance of Autie never coming into contact with hostile Indians. Perhaps this was yet another example of the Custers believing a little too much in Custer's Luck.
Regards,
Leyton McLean
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 3, 2006 13:44:10 GMT -6
Leyton:
One would think if Custer knew his command was threatened and/or the situation serious, he would have immediately sent Boston and Autie back to safety. Neither of which had much, if any experience in the military, least of all fighting Indians. Thus we have to assume the situation went from everything OK to instant chaos.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Feb 4, 2006 1:51:55 GMT -6
Reed is never mentioned as traveling with Boston. It appears he was with the HQ staff, and Boston may or may not have been serving in some capacity with the pack train. Or, he was going back to train to get a fresh horse. Depends on what you believe.
It would appear he was riding with HQ that day. Boston might not have been, but decided to join them. There's no mention of Reed running off to join his family. He was already there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Feb 4, 2006 16:03:50 GMT -6
Autie Reed was hired as a civilian herder and was unassigned at the time of the battle. It does tend to bother me that he would be attached to HQ. Was it faith in Custer's Luck? I can agree with a complete turn of events from order to chaos, but I don't understand how an eighteen year old kid, supposedly just around for the Western Experience, was forced--by circumstance--to face the worst of the battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Feb 5, 2006 2:22:21 GMT -6
I'm sure Custer was more interested in being able to keep tabs on him, rather than having him with a unit GAC was not around.
And it always seemed to me that Harry Reed wanted to get in the fight, as did Boston.
Think of this way: if you've got an 18 year old nephew with you as you're marching through Indian country, where do you want him when the battle begins? Somewhere that you can keep track of him, or under the trust of another officer?
|
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 5, 2006 3:47:06 GMT -6
And if young Reed was as big on discipline and self-denial as the rest of the family, it'd have been far more terrifying (for GAC) to try to leave him behind with the pack-train; he'd know full well that the boy would take the first opportunity to "cut loose", as Boston did. An 18-year-old with 5 troops of cavalry would be a lot safer (in theory) than an 18-year-old running around in hostile Indian country on his own ...
In any normal battle, HQ would be the safest place, surely? One of the criticisms levelled at GAC by the military (I'm thinking of Coughlan immediately, but there were many others who said the same thing too) was that he'd sacrificed overall control of the battle by choosing to lead one strike force, instead of setting up a command HQ from which he could direct the whole thing. Maybe he was still thinking in those terms when he took the lad along?
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 6, 2006 12:38:42 GMT -6
There has been several threads about Custer setting up HQ and commanding operations from there instead of leading the charge. He would have been able to oversee all action and movements and possibly establish a point for Benteen to see and advance to.
No one doubted Custer's bravery but some have doubted his leadership. A command post would have been ideal, especially when they were still many unknowns. From Weir point he would have an view of the surroundings and would have been able to make plans instead of continuing without full knowledge lay ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Feb 6, 2006 16:22:34 GMT -6
But was that how Custer really ever fought? He led from the front, he didn't direct from the rear.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 7, 2006 11:27:28 GMT -6
Crab:
Agreed . . . Custer was always in the lead . . . whether that was what a commander should be doing rather than setting up HQ to direct operations is the question.
That was one of Terry's concerns . . . he wanted Custer to find and fight Indians but Terry and Brisbin (especially Brisbin) seemed to have some doubts regarding Custer's leadership ability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Feb 7, 2006 13:16:42 GMT -6
Crab: Agreed . . . Custer was always in the lead . . . whether that was what a commander should be doing rather than setting up HQ to direct operations is the question. Good points, both Crab and Crzhrs. But both of your comments bring me back to my question of whether, given Custer's leadership style in battle, was it for the best (or perhaps more prudent) that Autie Reed to be with HQ in the first place, I mean, given the results. Does anybody know of a possible fracture in the Custer-Reed relationship after GAC's nephew was killed? Certainly Margaret Calhoun pretty much fell apart after losing five members of her family ... Regards, Leyton McLean |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 7, 2006 16:19:06 GMT -6
I gotta believe it would have been wiser to leave Boston and Autie with the pack train. They had little, if no experience in combat, especially Indian, and I doubt they had any in their "assigned" roles on the campaign. They were along for adventure and excitement.
It always amazes me when civilians went along on campaigns. Remember the Fetterman Massacre and all the women and children that went along? They military was going into unknown lands and possibly having to face the fiercest Indians on the Continent, yet the civilians (wifes and children) went along as if it were a picnic.
I have not found any evidence of bad feelings with the Reeds over their sons' death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Feb 7, 2006 17:53:31 GMT -6
Crzhrs--
Maybe it's the whole "history is 20/20" thing here, but I just can't comprehend how putting two civilian newbies in any situation where'd they'd face a real battle--or the consequences thereof-- is a smart decision on any person's part. I mean, GAC did kind of know what the Seventh was heading into ... wasn't that the reason he didn't conclude the scout of Tulloch's Creek? He wanted a battle, didn't he?
This isn't unlike the picnickers who attended the first Bull Run--boy, did they learn about war!
Regards,
Leyton McLean
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 7, 2006 18:10:43 GMT -6
The reason Custer didn't have Herendeen scout Tullock's Creek was because the command had discovered the Indians weren't there and it would be a waste of time for Herendeen.
However, Terry and Gibbons were waiting for SOME word on what was going on and by Custer not at least sending Herendeen to tell them about what Custer had discovered and what he was going to do may have delayed Terry/Gibbons from getting sooner to the LBH. It may have been for naught anyways, but Custer should have sent some word to them.
Custer knew there was going to be a battle if he could quickly get to the Indians before they discovered the command . . . whether Boston and Autie were considered at risk is unknown but they should have not been in the midst of the main attack force . . . but then again there was Kellogg out for a big story . . . shades of Bob Woodruff!
|
|
|
|
Post by rch on Feb 7, 2006 22:11:41 GMT -6
I don't think you're looking at Custer as a warrior. He didn't bring those young men a thousand miles so that they could run for cover when the shooting started. Having civilians present at such times may not have been so unusual. Often, it may have gone unrecorded. Crook had a squad worth of reporters to watch him wash his underwear. Grierson, of the 10th Cavalry, had his civilian son with him in at least one fight (or potential fight) with Apache's. These civilians were there as observers, though I doubt there was any objections to their using firearms.
Also, I think you may have a more modern concept of a headquarters than existed in 1876. It may have been a marginally safer place, but a regimental HQ in action consisted mainly of the regimental commander, the adjutant, a couple of NCOs and a few orderlies. It was always in an exposed position, because without radios and telephones the CO had to see what was going on; he couldn't work from maps in a dugout, nor could he be at any great distance .
Yours, rch
|
|
