They takes what they likes................

[strange]

Greetings!

I noticed the common theme of LBH is that the Indians were continuously keeping their eyes on the buckskin jacket wearers and and as a result each Indian has an account of killing Custer based on the fancy Jacket wearers that they assumed were the leaders.

Is it a common habit for the indians to keep their eyes on valuables? I don't want to be too mean spirited and accuse them all of being thieves, but did any of them choose their kills based on what they'd like to be looting afterwards?

Those buckskin jackets are so pesky, I've read several accounts that have gotten my hopes up that one of the Indians may have spotted or taken down Custer, these accounts will give amazing descriptions (and seemingly I'm sure that one of his brothers could have been mentioned in a few of these stories), and just when you're real enticed, they'll throw the jacket at you.

More and more I am really assuming that Custer's little blue shirt may have taken him completely off the Indian radar, and simply taking his jacket off could have surely offered him more precious minutes on this earth if a few of the warriors were indulging themsleves.

I would be curious to wonderif any of the more greedy indians ever went easy to protect the merchandise they were drooling after?

Any thoughts? Keep in mind, I'm just speaking of a few Indians, I do not know if they widely practiced this extent of greed, we do know that looting was common practice but I'm speaking of something a little worse than that.

[clw]

I think they had a few higher priorities that day than acquiring a new jacket.

[conz]

Besides, "greed" is not the proper term to use...it has too many negative connotations. Greed is a sin in Christian doctrine.

Some may be "trophy" hunting. Some may need the clothing. It was also tradition to take something of the Warrior you kill, as part of taking his "power" to yourself.

Taking down a flashy enemy figure builds esteem for you among your colleagues. So I do believe Warriors would go after the more flashy officers or NCOs, as Soldiers would go after better-dressed Natives...for the esteem, the glory, and for the trophy.

As a practical side, taking down the supposed leaders will dishearten the enemy and aid you in battle. Both Warriors and Soldiers would assume that the best/flashiest dressed enemy were those key leaders, and both would often be wrong. <g>

I agree, that wearing a buckskin jacket would tend to draw attention towards you. That is why many officers took such things off...but then again, maybe it was just hot. <g>

Clair

[harpskiddie]

To the victor belong the spoils. All victorious armies have "looted and pillaged" and in some cases were spurred on by their leaders by the promise of booty. Wellington, himself, was not above promising "shares to all."

The thing about leaders is that they are the ones perceived by the enemy to be doing the leading. When you're in a firefight, you don't look for the fancy dress or the insignia [which is often discarded - there is an anecdote about officers at LBH removing their jackets, and the troopers knowing why they did]. One tends to notice the opposition guy who appears to be giving the orders [it was easier in those days - look for the gestures indicating commands], and he makes an easier and more desirable target.

That may be one reason why trumpeters made such good targets - they seemed to be giving orders - and the guides [that's the guys with the guidons] and flag carriers also.

Gordie,
with them windshield wipers slappin' time, and Bobby clappin' hands, we fin'ly sung up every song that driver knew.............................................

[crzhrs]

From Indian accounts a the LBH there was so much smoke and dust it would have been very difficult to see clearly. However, anyone on a horse who "looked" like he was leading and/or giving orders would be a target.

Any soldiers in the open would have been fired upon. The Indians weren't hunting for a trophy rack here . . . kill a soldier, any soldier would mean one less threat to the families.

Possibly in Indian-on-Indian warfare opponents would have noticed a warrior who may have been more prominent by their dress and/or abilities. To take out that type of opponent would have been another feather in one's headdress. But in fighting the Whites that may not have been much of a factor.

[ladonna]

As a Indian person who studies history I have never heard of anyone of my people taking out custer just for his coat. We took down the leader in a battle. In fact it is the women who raided the bodies of the fallen soldiers.

[strange]

ladonna said:

As a Indian person who studies history I have never heard of anyone of my people taking out custer just for his coat. We took down the leader in a battle. In fact it is the women who raided the bodies of the fallen soldiers.

Thats true. I was simply remarking on how the Indians were constantly yacking about these fancy buckskin jackets for every leader they killed which they thought was Custer. I don't know what the deal is, but there's some kid of fixation.

Strange

[BrokenSword]

Strange-

The Seventh was rather informal in appearance when in the field. Soldiers were issued one new uniform (coat and trousers) per year. Regulation clothing was the rule while at the post or duty station but in the field - they wore older clothing or privately purchased shirts chosen for durability and comfort.

Elisabeth suggested what was probably an accurate description of them as 'rather disreputable looking hay-cutters', or something close that. An officer wearing a more expensive buckskin coat and perhaps trousers would stand out in appearance and therefore in memory. Simple as that.

M

[Tricia]

strange said:

ladonna said:

As a Indian person who studies history I have never heard of anyone of my people taking out custer just for his coat. We took down the leader in a battle. In fact it is the women who raided the bodies of the fallen soldiers.

Thats true. I was simply remarking on how the Indians were constantly yacking about these fancy buckskin jackets for every leader they killed which they thought was Custer. I don't know what the deal is, but there's some kid of fixation.

Strange

I get it! I get it now ...! You're a member of that family who has been trying to peddle "Custer's Last Buckskin Jacket" for the last few years. I bet you also have a neat pair of "honest to goodness it's Vic" horse hoof candlesticks for sale, too ...

--t.

[clw]

I don't know what the deal is, but there's some kid of fixation.

The "deal" and the "fixation" have been explained quite clearly here. Process it.

[ladonna]

I should of know

[ladonna]

strange said:

ladonna said:

As a Indian person who studies history I have never heard of anyone of my people taking out custer just for his coat. We took down the leader in a battle. In fact it is the women who raided the bodies of the fallen soldiers.

Thats true. I was simply remarking on how the Indians were constantly yacking about these fancy buckskin jackets for every leader they killed which they thought was Custer. I don't know what the deal is, but there's some kid of fixation.

Strange

Could you provide names to these Native people? Who were they talking Too and what book did you read this in?