|
Post by conz on Nov 6, 2007 15:13:03 GMT -6
What might we infer from Elliot's resume?
Born in '40, so he was a year younger than Custer and six years younger than Benteen, but Benteen's senior in the 7th Cavalry.
He was a school teacher before the war, which he went to at the age of 21. So we should presume that he had probably above average education for his class. Don't know how much college he had.
He had a lot of cavalry experience in the Western campaigns, and served under both A.J. Smith and Sturgis during the Civil War, both of whom became 7th Cavalry commanders after the War, although Elliot had died before Sturgis took over from Smith.
He impressed Custer enough while serving on his staff in Texas for the later to want him in the 7th Cavalry when it was formed. He was the second Major behind Gibbs, who was a West Pointer and classmate of Sturgis, but was old and frail and rarely took to the field. So Elliot became the "field major" just as Custer was the "field commander."
During the Sully campaign, Elliot was the senior regimental officer in the field, so acted as the commander, with a bunch of captains under him, although I believe Benteen was left behind in garrison when Elliot commanded.
Benteen had as much combat experience as Elliot, served in higher commands than Elliot during the war, and was senior in time in the 7th Cavalry, yet Elliot was the commander during the '67 campaign. Benteen was then directly subordinate to Elliot when they took to the field together for the Washita campaign.
Did Benteen every express any complaint about serving under Elliot?
Clair
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 6, 2007 15:34:09 GMT -6
Thanks Clair -
Is that 'dripping' or 'spewing' sarcasim? Gordie wants to know.
M
|
|
jc
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by jc on Nov 7, 2007 3:05:11 GMT -6
Ah, jc did we push the wrong button with you? Apparently so. Most of the old guard on this board is well versed in Custer the man. I hate to break the news but he had very human characteristics. Don't perceive our criticisms as some form of dislike of the man. I like everybody connected with the battle but they all have their human faults including Custer. I love old Benteen and boy did he have personal demons. Your comment, "Surely Custer possessed some features and/or traits of moral or ethical quality" sounds like you're not so certain yourself. Anyway old boy this is a discussion forum so jump in and set us straight about our opinions. You're allowed to have one to and we welcome the feedback. Old Scout Scout, On the contrary, I cannot be so easily affected one way or the other. Yet the negativity felt about Custer is expressed here abundantly more than the positive feelings. It's severely one-sided and in my opinion it's rather odious. I'm a Libra, what can I say? A happy balance would be more congenial. I'm ignorant as to what exactly constitutes 'the old guard on this board". Please enlighten me. I'm quite aware that Custer had "very human characteristics", both positive and negative, however it's rather difficult not to perceive that some fellow members possess a biased dislike for the man when over 90% of their comments about him are derogative. In addition, I have no doubts regarding the amount of knowledge fellow members retain about Custer. I merely desire that what was admirable about the man be mentioned as well as that which was not. To make my stance on the subject perfectly clear, I am absolutely certain that "Custer possessed some features and/or traits of moral or ethical quality". Not considering his overall military ability, and/or the apparent mistakes he made in life, IMHO Custer was a finer individual than most give him credit for. Certainly he had faults. Who doesn't? Yet all things considered, I truly believe that he had a good heart and soul. In the end, isn't that what really matters? jc
|
|
jc
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by jc on Nov 7, 2007 3:19:43 GMT -6
Ditto what Scout said, and I will add that ridicule, sarcasm, and insults don't belong in any discussions here. Diane, I do not deserve to be chastised by you for the contents of my post. What I posted is an absolute fact and I merely stated my feelings on the matter. Taking into consideration all the direct "ridicule, sarcasm, and insults" that's constantly posted by/to fellow members of this board, your sharp rebuke for my overall general remark was highly unjustified. If you don't agree then I suggest that you simply review the messages posted to the board merely within the last day or so. I notice that there's no censure of the "ridicule, sarcasm, and insults" contained within those posts, no personal reprimand of those posters. Excluding personal affronts, if one is made to feel inhibited about posting their personal thoughts and/or feelings here about any given subject related to Custer and the LBH what will eventually happen is the metamorphosis of a message board where those contributions made to it are limited to a meager 15 or 20 some odd individuals out of a membership of 641. Your inconsistent actions reveal that you're not a fair, impartial moderator, for it's quite apparent that you have those here that you favor above others. That being the reality, I'm curious to know Diane. Just how much does one have to kiss your ass to be accepted as a member of your 'clan'? jc
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Nov 7, 2007 6:03:09 GMT -6
A whole lot, but hey it's worked out for me! Learn to like it. Actually you couldn't be farther from the truth. Even the great scout has been called to the principals office once upon a time when I lost my head, kinda like you're doing now. Quite a few of us 'clan' members have had our hands switched by the school's head mistress. Fred and I were the only ones who enjoyed it though.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 7, 2007 8:48:15 GMT -6
jc,
Gen'l Custer would never have spoken to anyone, much less a lady, as poorly as you did above.
What use is having a hero if you deride his memory with your own conduct?
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder as big as Benteen's, Custer nemisis, rather than our hero.
As a charter member of the Custer fan club, I am disappointed in the example of your membership. Let's buck up, lad!
Just as Custer did, whether you like how people express their opinions or not, we still have to work with each other as we attempt to study more closely our favorite subjects.
Just as politics in America, our value as a group lies not in how we take insults from each other, but rather how we ignore the slights, take value from the different perspectives, and continue with the mission.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by markland on Nov 7, 2007 10:29:14 GMT -6
It's a question of "character", really; Benteen thought Custer didn't have any. And I'm not sure he was wrong. Oh, please. Give me a break. Surely Custer possessed some features and/or traits of moral or ethical quality, although that likelihood seems to be consistently overlooked by the members of this board, or at least by those who post most often. The never-ending fault-finding of Custer that one encounters here is truly reprehensible. jc No, what is reprehensible is that a trained and, one would assume, skilled commanding officer got himself and his men killed without accomplishing his mission or any portion thereof. Wasted you might say. Billy
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 7, 2007 10:38:10 GMT -6
jc:
The "old guard" died at Waterloo, after their commander refused an offer to surrender the command and save their lives. "Merde!" was his reply, which loosley translates, if you don't know, as "EAT ****" The "old guard of these boards," on the other hand, are those who need help spooning their oatmeal anyplace except onto their bibs [or the floor]. Of course, I speak for myself alone.
conz mentioned Custer as "our hero" but he is not that. These boards have no heroes, except perhaps Fred Benteen. You want to collect demerits and rants to go along with them? Just post something negative about Fred Benteen. You can praise Custer all you want, within boundaries of logic and decorum; but do not criticize Fred Benteen!!! I used to like Benteen, and thought him the true hero of the affair, but not any longer; but I don't bother telling anybody [please do not read this part of this post], because it will bring down the wrath of the Gods upon my poor, feeble head.
Personally, I think Custer was an excellent soldier, who may have made a few mistakes in the circumstances in which he found himself [or put himself] on the day. I think he had been a hero during the ACW, one of the finest cavalry commanders of that war. I don't think he deserves the censure that frequently has been heaped upon him for the past fifty years or so. I rather like him, and wish that I had known him in life, despite his foibles and faults [and his dogs - I'm a cat person at heart, although I did have a dog whom I adored]. I think he has been castigated beyond all reason by some and defended against all reason by others. I think we judge him too much by the last few hours of his life.
All that having been said, I think you were entirely out of line in your "how much does one have to kiss your ass" comment. I'll wager that you probably regret saying that yourself. But that's on you.
The best thing to do when posting is to preface everything by "I think" or "In my opinion." If you do not, then you'll be posting something as fact, and almost certainly be called upon to "prove it" or "give sources." I can [as Walter Brennan once said] "practical guarantee that," if it is a subject in which I'm interested.
Welcome to the boards, jc. And remember [as Dirty Harry Callahan once said - he and old Walter are MY heroes]: "Opinions are like a******* - everybody's got one."
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Nov 7, 2007 11:45:46 GMT -6
<"Opinions are like a******* - everybody's got one.">
True . . . but some are bigger than others!
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Nov 7, 2007 18:43:46 GMT -6
I think it would be really nice if we could all remain polite--or at least not abusive.
I'm sure Custer, Benteen, Reno and everyone else present that day had their various faults and good points. The idea is to explore these characteristics--at least, that's my idea. I have just posted something negative about Benteen, and been aprised of the opinions of those who disagree with me--okay, I'm willing to take on a new point of view if I come across information that causes me to change my opinion. None of these guys had wings and halos, and I don't think they had horns and tails, either.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 8, 2007 8:44:13 GMT -6
No, what is reprehensible is that a trained and, one would assume, skilled commanding officer got himself and his men killed without accomplishing his mission or any portion thereof. Wasted you might say. Billy Hmmm....would you apply that judgment standard to Robert Lee, then? Of course, he lived, while so many of his men died, and he failed to no purpose. At least Custer's defeat still accomplished the overall endstate of his mission...to drive the Natives onto the reservations. What did Lee's sacrifice accomplish? Just wondering at the perspectives on judgment, here... Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 8, 2007 8:46:51 GMT -6
I think it would be really nice if we could all remain polite--or at least not abusive. I'm sure Custer, Benteen, Reno and everyone else present that day had their various faults and good points. Another neat perspective, Melani, is that these men, some of whom really despised each other to their deaths, still were polite and civil to each other (except when drunk in the OClubs sometimes <g>), and tried to get on with their mission together. So should we not at least follow our study's examples? I suggest that we consider these boards as one big virtual Officer's Club...just try to stay sober. <g> Clair
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Nov 8, 2007 9:19:22 GMT -6
It's a question of "character", really; Benteen thought Custer didn't have any. And I'm not sure he was wrong. Oh, please. Give me a break. Surely Custer possessed some features and/or traits of moral or ethical quality, although that likelihood seems to be consistently overlooked by the members of this board, or at least by those who post most often. The never-ending fault-finding of Custer that one encounters here is truly reprehensible. jc My comment about ridicule, sarcasm, and insults was directed at the post above in which jc first slammed Elisabeth (a cardinal sin) and proceeded to characterize the opinions of the people here based upon a thread or two. jc, if you will review the thousands of posts on these boards over the past three years, you'll find that practically everyone has been bashed at one time or another -- living and dead, LBH participants and board posters-- and there is often an enormous amount of respect shown to Custer, depending upon the topic under discussion.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 8, 2007 9:23:49 GMT -6
conz -
Hmmm....would you apply that judgment standard to Robert Lee, then? Of course, he lived, while so many of his men died, and he failed to no purpose.
Apples and Oranges, BIG time. You should know that.
At least Custer's defeat still accomplished the overall endstate of his mission...to drive the Natives onto the reservations.
Can you expand on that notion? I've been to a World's Fair, a rodeo, reading this board for months and that might be one of the silliest things I've seen or heard.
Just wondering at the perspectives on judgment, here...
Me too.
Thanks, M
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Nov 8, 2007 9:47:07 GMT -6
Conz & I went back and forth with this with no resolution to the issue.
Technically Conz may be right. The government/military was so shocked and humiliated by the defeat they increased money and manpower to get the job done properly.
However, the battle itself did nothing to cower the Indians. In fact they may have felt empowered and more confident knowing they were capable of dealing with any amount of soldiers IF they stayed together. However, the LBH camp was a one-time occurrance and could not sustain itself.
Too many people & horses taking up all the resources would not work. They broke up into traditional groups for hunting and grazing. That more than anything was a deciding factor.
|
|