|
Post by Tricia on Oct 3, 2007 7:58:31 GMT -6
All--
I've been refraining from asking this question because I thought its responses might get a bit sticky, but it is an important one and can also offer insight into how many Custer buffs tend to place their own ideals and mores into his character.
Much is often made by philes about GAC's supposed "born-again" Christianity. I believe he wrote a letter in 1864 to his pastor that outlined his renewed commitment to Christ and that is often used as proof of active conversion. Of course, this might have come at the behest of both Libbie and Lydia Ann Reed ... oh, the cynic I am.
I tend to think that for Custer, religion was something more of a convenience and that his beliefs were a bit more muddled. At least here in the South, going to church can often be a social type of thing and furthers one's membership in the good ol' boy Club (I'm not doubting that there are true believers, though). It certainly couldn't hurt GAC to be seen at services (he talks about it in at least one letter in 1866) and his life seems to reflect something quite less than that of a model Christian--especially if one believes he engaged in the occasional adulterous fling and given his penchant for gambling.
So ... was he a True Believer or was this another example of Do As I Say, Don't Do As I Do?
--t.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 3, 2007 8:39:52 GMT -6
OK, I'll take the plunge. I'd say lip service, definitely. I don't think religion ever crossed his mind except when forcibly thrust at him by the likes of Libbie and Lydia Ann.
That's not intended as a slur, by the way. I think the Civil War shook the religion out of many people. A cousin of Keogh's who arrived in the army in 1863 wrote home that Keogh was "the only thing in the shape of an officer who has any religion" -- and many of his own later remarks show him to be pretty easy-going about it. Barnitz writes to Jennie explaining how his own belief in divine providence is considerably less than hers; and while he makes a few of the right noises about Sabbath observance, his letters and journal entries don't show much in the way of standard Victorian piety. Same with Benteen, same with swarms of others. ("Holy Owen" Hale and "Bible-Thumper" Mathey are extreme examples.) The religious-minded officer was the exception rather than the rule, I believe. Religion, like embroidery, was something the ladies took care of; the men would mostly just go along with it to humour them.
These must have been quite stirring times intellectually. Apart from the shock of the Civil War, they had Darwin's ideas shaking up the notion of the Bible as literal truth, plus scientific and technological advances that must have made the old ways look somewhat irrelevant. The belief in "progress" was such that it would have been easy to see Man as the true master of the universe ...
|
|
|
Post by Montana Bab on Oct 3, 2007 9:05:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 3, 2007 9:15:08 GMT -6
Hale wasn't there, and I don't think anyone ever questioned his courage ...
|
|
|
Post by Montana Bab on Oct 3, 2007 9:46:35 GMT -6
Of course, you are right, Elisabeth. I mistook the first name listed! Velly solly.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Oct 3, 2007 10:12:04 GMT -6
Religion among officers of the period facinates me. For instance, on the flip side we have Jackson and Lee whose Christian beliefs had tremendous influence on their mindset in battle. By comparison, Custer never voiced that kind of faith. I think his view of religion was more cultural than personal.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 3, 2007 10:20:48 GMT -6
That's very well put. For instance, there's that letter he wrote in 1875 (?) suggesting missionaries/preachers should be sent out to army posts -- not for any reason of personal conviction, apparently, but because he thought it would be good for the men's morale and behaviour. A pragmatist, really.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Oct 3, 2007 20:41:51 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
"Pragmatist." You took the words out of my mouth; that is exactly the term I've used to describe GAC's association with the church. I've been discussing this aspect of the Custer puzzle with both Father Vince and Steve and it is rather funny how we differ on the subject--and I'd consider neither of them to be knee-jerk Philes (whereas I think CSS would offer a worship-y outlook on worship). Father Heier has read letters from GAC to Libbie where he apologises--or notes--that he has not read his Bible as he should whilst on campaign, etc., etc., .... I'm hoping to see some of these correspondances next week in Monroe. But given GAC's tone with his wife, as I have been led to believe, I wonder if he was responding more out of duty than out of a true dedication to His Saviour.
Of course, Armstrong's vow to clean up his language--in which he was quite successful later--and his teetotlerism, well, could be used as examples of Applied and Sincere Faith. Or not.
I'm hoping to learn more in MUN-roe this weekend! --t.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 4, 2007 2:54:53 GMT -6
I think you're right about duty; giving the answer he knew she wanted to hear ...
One thing about Custer that I guess we shouldn't overlook is the thespian streak. Like any good actor, he immersed himself in his role. So he was never a hypocrite -- because he believed everything he said, totally and sincerely, at the time he said it. As with all his vows of reform ("shall never gamble again") to Libbie, as with his indignant defence at his court martial, and so on. The same, perhaps, with his "born again" conversion. He'll have meant it, to the hilt, when he made the statement. Five minutes later ...
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 4, 2007 8:28:18 GMT -6
Its for real.
Custer's not a suck up, and from what I know he put off his beliefs until he felt he could make an accountable decision rather than half-ass his faith (ass as in donkey). As a biblical scholar I'm aware of the importance of making a real decision. This is why Babies are not suppose to be baptized because they are too young to speak let alone make up their minds on anything. Custer was a big literature and books and a highly educated person from what I hear, whether self taught or by teachers. Professing the faith was something he kept may have held back on until he came to a full realization of the Holy Spirit thereof. many of you disturb me when you're all so quick say he's paying lipservice with everything he says because nothing he says has ever gotten him in any easy spots. When voicing his opinion of "not resting until every slave is freed from bondage and every dirty rebel is hung from an oak tree" does that sound like anything "Politically correct" to any of you? Of coarse not. Custer did have respect for various mentors like Mcclellan and therefore he's on a bit of an edge considering what we know of his mentor, but Custer did not do as his mentor but rather gave the other officer his respect, albeit a rather unflinching and personal flaw of respect, while still fighting and being his own man. Custer was most likely denied some of the higher circles of power on account of the fact that he was his own man. Sherman, for instance, was Grant's old cigar chomping, liquor buddy. Would Grant have ever taken Sherman down in his rank or would he have done any of the things he did to Custer to his buddy Sherman? Of coarse not. I do not object to different opinions, disliking Custer is one thing, but to dillude some of yourselves into thinking that he was some kind of spoiled suck up is just ridiculous. Whether you like him or not, please get a feel of his character and do not lay things on him that are not of him.
I say that Custer wanted a uniformed decision and did not want to wear his faith on his sleeve and attend bake sales. I myself am a biblical scholar and I won't go near a church, there's to many traditions of man, each and every individual ought have a unique and special relationship with the heavenly father without chanting prayers or having bake sales.
Therefore, I say that Custer did right in having his unique and special bond with the Lord without taking the company of chuckle heads who know not the word. The great thing about living in the north is that not everyone is raised in the choir and each person can make their own relationships with God without having to play church with a bunch of ninnies.
Ironically, despite his faith or lack thereof, Custer bears the closest match with many of the biblical warriors. He and Samson died around the same age ( 40 to his 36, if I am not mistaken), they both died just after cutting their hair. Both were ladies men ( though its important to note that technically Samson's downfall was as a poor judge of character in his spouses. He took his women one at a time and through death or divorce, which is legal in God's word, they came and went and eventually he fell in with the last tramp, who turned out to be a hooker/spy, who wept a river of tears until he told her his secret and the philistines shorned his locks. More tragic with Custer is that he WILLINGLY shorned his golden locks.). And both died after having their hair cut (once again Custer does it willingly). They also are both known for taking on large numbers and being very strong (albeit, Samson is superhuman). Then there's even Gideon. I don't know if this were on purpose or not, but Custer died when poorly executing a strategy that looks exactly like Gideon's victory over the Philistines. There are also dozens of other great military leaders who executed something like Custer did a LBH with far better results. And I'll repeatedly insist that if properly carried out it would have proved to be a fantastic maneuver and Custer was juggling with utter defeat and supreme victory right at his finger tips. But as always, everything can go wrong, and Custer did not carry the luck of others this time around.
Its possible that an aging Custer may have fell out of God's good graces during the critical indian conflicts. We know he was a firm believer during the civil war and he was blessed accordingly, but all that tension he faced during those pesky Indian conflicts may have done some damage to his warrior spirit.
Thats my stand.
Strange One
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Oct 4, 2007 19:32:46 GMT -6
‘..thru the many layered veils of time, and dimly, I see…’- Don’t remember who wrote that. Maybe it was me, just now.
Trying to get into Custer’s head is one thing. Getting into his heart is quite another, and ‘pragmatic’ is probably the best (though possibly unfair) term we can come up with to characterize Custer’s depth of religious commitment.
Christianity was originally intended, and is still often practiced as a religion of kind (and quiet) deeds rather than of public displays of sanctimony and ceremony. So, I’m not sure what Custer’s record tells us. Quiet deeds, which by definition we would know little of, or outward displays of piety - we don’t really have much (or any?) of that either.
Custer’s (at times) brutal treatment of miscreants is not at odds with the wrath shown by the God of the Old Testament and the supposed conflicts between the precepts of a practicing Christian and the requirements of a soldier are covered by the words of Jesus, ‘Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar’s and unto God, those things that are God’s.’
Soldiering has been perfectly defined as ‘Long periods of interminable boredom interrupted by short periods of shear terror.’ Those long periods, at times idle, present abundant opportunities for mischief in one form or another. Drills can only go so far and only do so much. In fact, repetitive drill might well add to the boredom. The ‘edge’ dulls within any group tasked to a specific purpose. Camaraderie wanes and like a herd of cattle without a proper fence, individuals wander off in their own directions, and therefore cohesiveness begins to dissolve. That sense of being a part of a particular/special group disappears. A soldier IS - a part of - and is NOT - the part itself. (Well, I know what I mean by that.)
The Romans in Britain set their soldiers to building long walls with complex fortifications. Not only to keep otherwise idle hands busy, but also to provide the cohorts with a specific mission to focus themselves on. I would be surprised if officers didn’t create various competitions between labor units working on the walls.
All western theater commanders faced the ‘boredom among the troops’ dilemma. Custer couldn’t set the men to building walls across the plains. Spelling bees were, no doubt, out of the question. Baseball games were a popular activity for the troops to rally around, but like drills only went so far and like golf in Medieval England, could overly absorb attention away from otherwise necessary training. So, I imagine Custer saw formalized religious services as an additional tool to help combat that idleness factor as well as a focus point for a more cohesive soldier community to build around. His recommendation for full-time chaplains (IMO) probably stemmed more from pragmatic thinking than from what was felt in his heart.
One last quote, ‘There are no atheists in foxholes.’ At the end, at least, I feel certain that Custer (and many others around him) were praying in the most earnest manner of their short lives.
M
P.S. Absolutely nothing would have prevented Custer from designating a building/tent as a dedicated place of worship. Few preachers at that time were formally trained as such. Lay preachers were almost the rule. Troopers could have been encouraged to volunteer to organize and conduct services. At the very least, Custer could have encouraged something like a Sunday school among the enlisted ranks AND officers. Did he do such? Do we know? That would seem to offer evidence of his personal commitment or concern.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 5, 2007 5:33:48 GMT -6
I just wanted to drop by real quick and say that despite my positive views in regard to Custer's faith, I do not wish to come off as if I'm judging him. As a biblical scholar in my own right I am neither allowed to say some one went to heaven or went to hell. Thats judgment and I will have no part in trying to determine whether or not he or his brothers or the officers were hell worthy or Heaven sent. I let God do the judging, as a historian I just discern their actions.
Strange One.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 5, 2007 5:42:49 GMT -6
I just wanted to drop by real quick and say that despite my positive views in regard to Custer's faith, I do not wish to come off as if I'm judging him. As a biblical scholar in my own right I am neither allowed to say some one went to heaven or went to hell. Thats judgment and I will have no part in trying to determine whether or not he or his brothers or the officers were hell worthy or Heaven sent. I let God do the judging, as a historian I just discern their actions. Strange One. To add to the last thought, I wanted to mention that "hell" has not even been created yet so therefore I can state here and now that no one has yet gone to "Hell". Hell is more properly understood as the Lake of Fire which will obliterate the bad souls at toward the end times, at at God's discretion and judgment. Technically, bad souls are being held actually IN HEAVEN believe it or not, there is also THE GULF which has two sides and bad souls take one side while good souls take the other and will even cross the gulf to help some of the bad souls and maybe save a few from obliteration. I always introduce myself as scholar so I didn't want any one to think I was off my game. Strange One
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 5, 2007 6:55:27 GMT -6
In Jeffry D. Wert's book 'Custer' he refers to GAC kneeling at prayer at the Monroe Presbyterian Church on February 5 1865 and stating afterwards that he accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour and that when he returned to the army he wrote to the minister, describing his conversion, concluding his letter with: 'I feel somewhat like a pilot of a vessel who has been steering his ship upon familiar and safe waters but has been called upon to make a voyage fraught with danger. Having in safety and with success completed one voyage, he is imbued with confidence and renewed courage, and the second voyage is robbed of half its terror. So it is with me.' Jay Monaghan in his book tells us that in April 1864 Custer wrote to Libbie that, although a nonprofessing Christian, he was not an unbeliever and had absolute faith in the Almighty 'This belief....makes me brave and fearless as I am.' In the same book we learn that in early 1865 he arranged a special religious service for his men after their activities in the Shenandoah Valley and later that month he attended another evangelistic service which he explained in part as 'I was not fulfilling the end of my Creator if I lived for this world alone.' Also in March 1865 after being pinned under his horse during a skirmish he gave thanks and a resolution to 'glorify Him and keep His commandments.' It appears to me that he started being aware of his own mortality and realised perhaps that 'Custer's Luck' needed a helpong hand from above.
Hunk
|
|
dcary
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by dcary on Oct 5, 2007 10:23:52 GMT -6
Conversion experiences, such as the one recounted by Hunk above, can be profound, then fade as time goes by, only to reappear and re-disappear later. I take this to mean that GAC was profoundly affected at that time, when the dead bodies had been piling up in Virginia at an unprecedented rate and no clear end was in sight, so he was at least familiar with some form of Christianity. I do not mean to suggest his Christianity ended there, only that what happened internally then did not necessarily carry forward undiluted into the future.
I also believe GAC had a curious nature and might have been profoundly affected by the terrain of the west and the “nature” found there, as well as, perhaps, by the NAs themselves – after all, he learned their sign language, which not everyone did.
My hunch, and it is little more than that – GAC had a belief in a Jesus who is large enough for the Montana landscape and not stuffy enough to be contained in any church building, mirroring the side of GAC that also didn’t want to be confined.
BTW, Strange – your Biblical scholarship comes to a different conclusion that a majority of Christianity, which does baptize infants.
|
|