|
Post by Tricia on Sept 8, 2007 15:44:16 GMT -6
Strange--
No one here is saying GAC was racist. He simply reflected the mores and sentiments of his era. And it's always an easier to excercise one opinions on people when you actually know them. You didn't know him. I didn't know him. Overwraught hero-worship, barely underlined by facts, gets nowhere here.
And if GAC didn't think of Benteen as an enemy, who are you to judge? --t.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 8, 2007 19:25:12 GMT -6
Well, well! First let me pull the subject back on Eliza for the moment............. I wanted to add that, and please inform me if the rest of you concur, that Custer has a certain way of behaving when he does something out of line. Often, to my knowledge, Custer doesn't directly lie but will absolutely duck the subject when he is spotted in foul order. Once again I feel we can kick out Annie Jones because Custer was very direct in his own words on what went about with her strange coming. However, I am curious if Custer has ever shot down the hearsay of his involvement with Eliza? If Custer directly approached it then I feel that it is unlikely they "knew" each other in a biblical way, but if he ducked the subject and never spoke of anything, and if Custer suddenly shut his yapper, then we know something may be up, because Custer likes talking and he usually never fails to defend himself against hearsay, as long as the hearsay is not true. I consider this to be a re-occuring personality trait of his to the best of my knowledge. One good reference is the night he never spoke of where he got a little too heavy on the drink, and did something that made him never drink again! No one seems to know how misbehaved he was, and lips were sealed! I should start digging up more record on these things, but mainly I'm going off of my memory for now. Secondly, in regard to Tricia, I hope I didn't come off like I was accusing THIS board of Custer prejudice. But I was coming off of a few documentaries and depictions that really had me boiling! I think all of you are absolutely great in straightening out matters and getting to the bottom of things, I definitely value all of your thoughts, and bless you all! However, I think its important to remember that times of the past are not always what we all think they are, and if they were, we know very well that Custer is well beyond his years!--------------------------And if I ever get my hands on Ken Burns.....................................................................................................................
Stranger!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 9, 2007 0:47:58 GMT -6
That's a good point, about how Custer goes silent when guilty. And the silence after Libbie fires Eliza is deafening. If the firing was for the reason Libbie gives, you'd expect remonstrations, arguments, or at the very least expressions of regret. There's none of that. Or none on record, anyway.
You may just have added more proof.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 9, 2007 8:08:07 GMT -6
Ah, hah, Elizabeth! True, true, but is the deafening silence coming from Libbie or the General? Do try and look up the General, I'm none too knowledgeable of Libbie's behavior, I just have a hunch on how Custer behaves. If you want evidence of Custer's misdeeds, then look for him to shut up about things. Its like I said, and maybe its a theory, but Custer likes talking and if he doesn't say anything ............
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 9, 2007 9:06:41 GMT -6
Well ... This doesn't necessarily mean a thing -- there may be all sorts of letters etc. that haven't yet been published -- but I've never yet seen any comment from Custer on Eliza's sudden departure. In normal circumstances you'd expect him to say "weren't you being a bit hasty?", or "how dare you fire my favourite cook?", or at the very mildest, "what a pity, we'll miss her". She'd been around for years, after all -- longer than Libbie had. Yet as far as I know, he never says a word. Looks like one of his guilty silences, to me!
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 9, 2007 9:10:18 GMT -6
I agree, Elisabeth ... and to add to that, GAC goes almost invisible in the spring of 1866 and misses Judge Bacon's funeral. Supposedly he escorted Eliza to Virginia ... so who the heck knows what happened?
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 9, 2007 9:22:38 GMT -6
Well if Eliza had been with Custer longer than Libbie, then I'd almost wish to change my vote! I think its safe to say there is doubt that Custer had an on-going relation with Eliza (once again he has to be a real master to juggle all of these broads), but on and off over long periods of time? Frankly, I may have to change to undecided. Maybe Eliza fell so in love with Custer that she went mad on Libbie one day after having enough of the years of being kept away from the Ginnil? Maybe Libbie didn't lie when she said Eliza saying "you have the general, I have nobody", maybe that has firmer implications? This is definitely a more solid argument then just saying they were with each other (in a "biblical" way) just because they were actually WITH each other! Meaning it makes no sense to accuse Custer of sleeping with every woman he's been in the same room therewith. Take that into consideration, and don't forget about the Stranger who re-fueled your arguments!
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 9, 2007 9:41:22 GMT -6
Absolutely, Strangeone. I don't think anyone here will argue that GAC was anything like "if it has legs" brother, Tom. And from the written evidence, he was a caring and generous lover: look at his description of Monaseetah. He could have chosen not to mention her--after all, she was but a captive--but his phrases strike me as one who is clearly obsessed with the romantic. Of course, he has his wild times at West Point--I even have him sharing a prostitute with Tom Rosser--and perhaps, after his marriage. I just don't think we'll ever really know his ways ...
But I do have to compliment you on re-starting the discussion. I had totally forgotten he'd travelled East with Eliza in March, 1866. I wonder what Libbie thought about that?
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 9, 2007 9:48:09 GMT -6
"On and off over long periods of time" sounds about right, to me. I'd see it as a rather easy-going relationship rather than an "in love" thing: Eliza, a generous and understanding woman, being accommodating to a man she likes a lot. (The 19th century was much less prudish than our own in many ways -- especially in wartime.)
One possibility for the dialogue that revealed all this -- and this is pure fiction, but could work! -- is that Libbie could have been ranting on about Custer's wickedness in sleeping with Monahseetah. Eliza could have responded with (and may the gods of bad dialect forgive me) "Lawd bless you, Miz Libbie, he never could go more than a few weeks in the field without needin' some kind of a woman -- I knows that better than anybody". From which Libbie deduces all. That would be a quite benign version; but if Eliza really did go "on a spree" there could have been more crowing involved -- "Why, Miz Libbie, you thinks you was ever the only one for him? No, ma'am ... why, we's had fun more times than you's had hot dinners -- cooked by me". Or similar. It can feel credible, I think ...
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Sept 9, 2007 10:13:23 GMT -6
"... he'd travelled East with Eliza in March, 1866. I wonder what Libbie thought about that? "
We've all heard the saying, 'The wife/husband is the last to know.' Perhaps Libbie discovered that she had a fox guarding the chicken-house - so to speak. As I've said before, I lack the intuition necessary to probe effectively into gossip. That is better left to someone named - Oh, say, Tri-CIA? Facinating stuff. Keep it up.
Elizabeth - I think your use of dialect in the above was quite well done.
M
For some reason, it reminds me of the story from the Bible regarding Abraham and his wife Sarah. The barren Sarah gave her handmaiden, Hagar, to Abraham to have his child, but Hagar (the servant) developed something of an attitude toward her mistress because of her percieved rise in status and new found self-importance. Sarah had Hagar cast out into exile. Hummm
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 9, 2007 10:46:18 GMT -6
Interesting thought ...
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 9, 2007 10:51:55 GMT -6
In regard to Elizabeth, I'd once again be careful on mentioning things like "easy going" in regard to affairs. There's always rocky-ness when juggling. Secondly, I'm not quite enjoying the broad stroking of Custer's emotions. A dirty cheat, I can't deny he isn't, but he's a real loving guy and a more romantic cheat, not quite a "ride 'em hard and and toss 'em away" kind of guy(excuse my language.). Even when he goes outside of his marriage I feel he puts a lot of feeling into what he does which is probably why he's so smooth. Also for the record I should mention that Custer is also a hideous flirt with women and he always brags about it is flirtations,even to his wife. So as for Tricia, in regard to your comment about Custer's affection for the Indian woman, I would be warned of Custer's flirty teasing ways, but I definitely wouldn't say you're off track.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Sept 9, 2007 11:26:29 GMT -6
BTW, for those who don't already know it-
Eliza married Andrew Jackson Davidson and settled in Athens, Ohio after leaving the Custers. Libbie Custer paid Eliza a visit in 1899. Eliza's husband ran for political office in Ohio (as a Democrat) and authored a book.
There is a monument in the Athens, Ohio cemetery in honor of Eliza.
M
|
|
j52
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by j52 on Sept 11, 2007 20:15:16 GMT -6
Quite frankly, who cares? Of what relevance is it? Did LBJ have a love child? How about Ike and his driver? How about the forum members? The Soaps are still on T.V. , are they not?
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 11, 2007 23:48:19 GMT -6
In regard to J52, Sure, things can be a bit gossipy, but I think people should try to keep things on a level where every one can still get something out of these discussions even if it turns into "Ricky Lake". I think people have plenty of great things to say and I am quite happy with the interesting thoughts I'm getting from everybody on these boards. You can miss a lot of good perspectives when you're too eager to deem things irrelevant. Criticisms can be applied by any one, but they don't get you any where. Try to get the best of what is said or take nothing at all. It doesn't take some brain scientist to just stand up and say "who cares, what relevance, blah, blah" I think there should always be a piece of good information being passed down from those who wish to comment. Let us not become a group of Leonard Maltin's, shall we then? Just tell things as they are to the best of our knowledge and have the chips fall where they may.
|
|