Custer's Luck

[mcaryf]

I have been reading "Custer's Luck" recently and came across a footnote where he references two other publications. One was Graham's article in the Cavalry Journal Vol XXXII (July 1923) and one was Godfrey's "Montana".

I only have the Graham article extract as it appears "The Custer Myth" and the particular issue is not there. Does any know whether there is any internet copy of the Cavalry Journal article or do you possibly have access to it yourself so you could check the actual quote for me please?

Similarly for Godfrey's Montana.

Thanks in advance.

Mike

[harpskiddie]

Mike:

I think that the entire article is reproduced by Graham in Myth. You might be able to get a copy of Godfrey's paper in the Contributions by contacting The Montana Historical Society through their website. If you are interested in the Cavalry Journal [Joumal of the U.S. Cavalry Association], there is a website for that too, but I don't know if the organization has copies for copying, as it were.

You should Email both sources to see if you can arrange something. Were you on this side of the pond, you could visit them in person for research and copying etc., provided you had the time to travel a fair chunk.

Best to you,

Gordie

[crzhrs]

I believe Godfrey "revised" his article afterward . . . especially after learning from Benteen that Reno wanted to abandon the wounded and escape.

The original "narrative" may be more important since it was done before Godfrey had time to "rethink" what occurred.

[harpskiddie]

There are three versiona of Godfrey's article - 1892, 1908 and 1921(?), The latter two are identical, except for the introductions. The 1908 has some changes that are important in indicating Godfrey's attitudes over the years. Read everything you can, especially from the early days, even it seems to be repetitive, and get to the original sources if you can.

That's the big problem with footnotes or endnotes, aside from the fact that they are distractive. If you want to be sure of the information, you had best go to the source yourself.

Gordie

[elisabeth]

Speaking of Custer's Luck -- what do you all make of Stewart's view on the battalion assignments? On page 321, he states that Yates had C and E.


[Just fixed the italics! - DM]

[harpskiddie]

And F.

Gordie

[elisabeth]

Well, no, that's the odd thing; he makes a point of it -- "the latter [Yates] having only two companies, C and E".

Thanks, Diane, for fixing the italics! Did I muck them up? Apologies.

[harpskiddie]

Re: Godfrey's articles and attitudes. There is some anecdotal evidence that Godfrey, while instructing at West Point, read a paper to his cadet/students that more or less blamed Custer for the fiasco at the Little Horn. So far as I am aware, this paper has never come to light in any form, or forum, and I have been unable to either verify its one-time existence, or find it or excerpts from it.

Re: Stewart and the makeup of the battalions. What Stewart wrote has no more validity than what anyone else has written, since there is no source for this information except the logic exercised by the writer. It would be really nice if Cooke's notebook, in which he scribbled at the time the battalions were assigned, came to light in a useable form; but that is too much to hope for. But you never know.

Gordie

[fred]

Elisabeth and Gordon--

Quite honestly, I think there is enough extant evidence available to show Stewart was wrong. Some of it is eye-witness, some archeological, some custom, some dictated, some common sense. To me, the Keogh/ Yates battalion breakdown is one of the few things you can point to and say w/ any degree of confidence, this is the way it was. Keogh: C, I, and L; Yates: E and F.

Best wishes,
Fred.

[elisabeth]

That's good to hear, Fred. It's just that he's so often cited as an incontrovertible source that one's forced to pause for a moment and wonder why he thought that. But I see from his preface that he worked closely with Luce, who followed the Kuhlman line in his own book, so that may account for it. There's still that nagging matter of the early maps all showing C at LSH, which I don't think we ever fully resolved in the "Where was Co. C?" thread; however, I suppose it was an understandable assumption to make, based on sorrels forming the dead horse barricade and Tom Custer's presence. Finley, Finckle and Bobo are pretty solid evidence the other way.

Gordie, that's most interesting about Godfrey's lecture. Especially as (from Men With Custer) his West Point stint was so early on -- 1879-1883. So, he softened his views considerably as time went on, then? Most likely he'll have destroyed that early paper as he began to formulate his later versions ... but perhaps his more dutiful students took notes. Maybe a notebook will turn up in some attic somewhere with enough scraps of notes in it to reconstruct what was said? Too big a job to try to track down the descendants of all his students and ask them, though ...

[fred]

Elisabeth--

Someone-- I'm not sure who; crzhrs or El Crab-- told me Custer's Luck was probably the best advanced entry-level book on the battle. (In other words, not a children's fantasy.) I had read it years ago, back in the '80s, so I re-read it and I agree w/ whoever told me that. It is one of the very best ever written and it is chock full of good information. There are, however, several glaring "mistakes" (?). (Define "mistakes" as things I do not agree with, the Custer battalions make-up, for example.) There are others, if you want to discuss them.

Best wishes,
Fred.

[crzhrs]

Fred (old buddy)

I may be the one who recommended CUSTER'S LUCK as one of the better objective book on the LBH. It was one of the first book I read so it didn't jade me (pro-anti Custer) right off the bat, even though my sympathies always lay with the Indians.

I use it more for reference than going back and reading the whole thing. Like all books about the LBH there are some things we may not agree totally with but overall one of the best books on the subject.

And considering its publication, mid-1950s when the "LBH Mania" was not what it is now should be must-reading for everyone.

One thing off the top of my head was Stewart's criticism over Custer not sending info to Terry about Tullock's Creek . . . which is still hotly debated.

[fred]

crzhrs, my boy! How are you?

Yes, I thought about it some more this afternoon, & it was you who recommended the book. Well, I took your advice.

The Tullock's Creek thing has interested me for some time now. Remember "twomoon"? Well, before her re-incarnation as the befuddled "q," she added some brilliant stuff on these boards & she was the one who got me thinking about it. I wrote an article for the LBHA "Newsletter," which Diane was kind enough to print, and I wound up getting a very interesting critique of that article from another LBHA member. The thing that was so interesting was that this fellow took no issue w/ the odd-ball hypothetical I brought out in that article, but he did take issue w/ my stressing the importance of, (a) Tullock's Creek, and (b) the reports of the various scouts.

So... it got me thinking & I asked Diane if I could query this fellow & critique his critique, a rebuttal, if you will. That got me working on another article, this one on... what else?... Tullock's Creek, which in turn led me to a couple of very interesting discoveries/ conclusions. I have forwarded my rebuttal (he has been busy so he has not been able to get back to me yet... I guess) and then expanded the whole thing into another, more formal article. Anyway, it is amazing to me what a real detailed analysis of this "failure" could lead to & if you are interested, I would be willing to ship you out a copy, via normal e-mail. It's 6,100 words long, however, & it will drive you wild if you don't agree w/ the whole set of conclusions. I do not condemn Custer-- I do not have the heart to do so because I think I may have acted in a similar fashion & I do admire the man-- but...

Best wishes,
Fred.

P.S.-- I will probably be up in your neck of the woods in November; I need a breath of cool, clean air after being stifled for the last 5 months. Have you recovered from the flooding? Hope all is well. Take care, my friend.
FCW

[crzhrs]

Fred:

I would love to get a e-mail copy of your article. The Tullock's Creek issue is still hotly debated.

According to Herendeen he told Custer on the 24th(?) it was not the right time to scout it and Boyer agreed. Custer said he coud wait.

However, once Custer realized the size of the village was much larger than intel suggested and was going in a different direction he failed to send Herendeen or anyone else to inform Terry. It probably didn't affect the outcome of the LBH, but it may have gotten Terry to move a lot quicker and possibly get to Reno/Benteen earlier and save them from further casualties.

Both Gray and Stewart criticize Custer for not sending a report back to Terry, but both weren't sure of the motive behind it.

Regardless Custer should have sent someone to Terry to keep him informed.

PS: Fall in New England, especially NH, is spectacular. The foliage is suppose to be the best in years due to all the spring-summer rains, and the cool late summer-early fall temps. Almost anywhere in NH is worth a trip. The White Mountains are magnificent, but the traffic is horrible. You can't even rubber neck to see the sights because of the heavy volume of stop-and-look drivers.

I suggest getting a state (whatever state you are heading to ) map and seek out back roads or ask locals about out-of-the-way rides.

PS: My BoSox floundered and now my Patriots are looking "iffy" . . . still time for the Pats to turn it around.

Take care!

[shatonska]

crzhrs said:

However, once Custer realized the size of the village was much larger than intel suggested and was going in a different direction he failed to send Herendeen or anyone else to inform Terry. It probably didn't affect the outcome of the LBH, but it may have gotten Terry to move a lot quicker and possibly get to Reno/Benteen earlier and save them from further casualties.

!

i agree on that ( beside my consideration that noone could reach terry alive at that moment hundreds of hunters everywhere )

another consideration
if terry came faster indians had no time to escape and another great battle could be almost certain , at least a rear guard fight