|
Post by Tricia on May 17, 2008 8:57:30 GMT -6
Trish, you can ask Joan Croy about GAC's bosom buddy. She sent us one of those, too. I can't remember who painted it, or why Joan was sending it to people. It's still rolled up in a tube somewhere around here. Did you notice the positioning of Custer's gun? I find it a bit naughty.
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 17, 2008 11:09:35 GMT -6
I tend to agree that the pictures of GAC in # 1 & # 10 are probably a borrowed uniform. See how baggy the pants are. The baggy coat sleeves and the oversized coat. About all the pictures I recall seeing have him well tailored with tight fitting uniforms. He was back east to testify before congress so you would think he would be traveling with a dress uniform but who knows. But then again, who would want to travel with one of those funky and bulky helmets and wear it around in Congress, certainly not the buckskin cavalier. I doubt that he would carry it on that trip.
This uniform has him looking frumpy instead of his usually spiffy look. He would be chasing the tailor of this uniform out of the camp with a gun instead of the other way around ala the Boots movie.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 17, 2008 11:23:30 GMT -6
BC--
You bring up a good point ... Custer was mighty fastidious in his appearence and that is one of the reasons that causes a few of us on the board to wonder if this series of photographs were really taken whilst GAC was on the coast for his Congressional testimony. Now, I know not to trust anything Hollywood, but in SOMS, Custer is shown wearing his dress uni whilst before the Belknap committee--and that film is often praised for its attention to wearable detail. If he did bring the helmet and all to Washington, why wouldn't he be dressed in it during a March visit to a photographer's atelier?
Well, unless it was a spur of the moment thing; perhaps he'd gone to NYC simply as a pleasure trip and left everything of the military persuasion in DC. Wasn't this the time he signed with Redpath?
And you're quite right in regards to GAC's penchant for snappy uniforms--he liked those tunics tight. Certainly one of the best developed was the informal tunic he wore whilst on an outing on horseback and it is depicted in that group shot of the clan, a lineup, so to speak, and Custer is the only one standing, holding the reins of his mount (Dandy?). I don't know how the fellow could breathe in that particular costume! If I can get a good scan--or find the photo on the web--I'll post it here.
Elisabeth has often pondered just how far the Custer finances had fallen when he was forced to wear TWC's civvy suits when East. That had to be a bit of a hard pill to swallow--a man who preferred Brooks Brothers caused (by his own gambling) to wear ill-fitting clothing!
--t.
|
|
|
Post by rch on May 17, 2008 11:29:45 GMT -6
Tricia,
Thanks, for some reason it's comforting to know. I can freeze frame on Ann Dvorak in "Abilene Town" confident in her historical accuracy.
clw,
I do think it is James Forsyth in the photo, that's why I have trouble with the date of the photo. (18 May - I'm in error, see the correction in Reply # 39 - rch)
Elisabeth,
Aside from the Forsyth brothers on Sheridan's staff there was two other other Forsyths in the Army in 1871, one was the West Point chaplain and the other was Capt. Lewis Cass Forsyth of the QM Department.
rch
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 17, 2008 12:53:45 GMT -6
If you look at photos of james forsyth at the forsyth photo album (google it), this one isn't there. The 3d person from the left matches up with the photos of James. #5 from the left captioned as Capt. Forsyth certaintly isn't James. It is hard to say without a closeup. Some of those dark short haired guys with mustaches all look similar.
In Donovan's book, he had a pic of Major Reno and a pic of Lt. Lee, the recorder. In my dull eye for detail, they looked like they could have been brothers.
Also in looking at the CW pic that has Forsyth with Sheridan, Merritt, someone else, and GAC sitting around a map table in his major General uniform, I wouldn't call it a particularly slim tailored uniform but certaintly not as baggy as the one we are talking about. In looking at pics in Where Custer Fell and Custer's 7th Cavalry, his 1875 and 1876 pics appear to show a uniform that tapers at the waist. However on pic from the Cus 7th cav book shows him from the stomach up in a similar uniform that doesn't quite taper as much and it is identified as one of Libbie's favoriite pic of GAC and states it was taken in new york in 1876. It doesn't show the helmut. It is hard to say whose uniform it is.
However, Reedstrom's Custer's 7th Cav book does contain pics of a lot of the other officers wearing a similar helmut and all appear to be in self portrait format. The helmuts of Cooke and Sturgis clearly show the 7 on the belly of the eagle but is hard to see in the others.
I don't think there was a problem at all with the two custer brothers sharing civvies. They were of similar size and probably did it all the time when they were kids. Call it a "hand me up". They were very close and usually on leave at different times.
|
|
|
Post by Treasuredude on May 17, 2008 18:15:02 GMT -6
In Donovan's book, he had a pic of Major Reno and a pic of Lt. Lee, the recorder. In my dull eye for detail, they looked like they could have been brothers. I have seen that photo of Lee posted on the net some where and credited as Reno. I was surprised at how much they look alike.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 17, 2008 21:43:49 GMT -6
BC--
Funny ... I was always under the impression that GAC was significantly taller and bulkier than his younger brother. It certainly looks that way in one of those shots taken in what Tom called the "biergarten" behind their tent on the Big River in Kansas. Maybe a couple of inches in height isn't particularly significant, but I would think it would be if it came to the inseams of a pair of trousers! Well, whatever ... something was forcing GAC to borrow his brother's civilian threads whilst on trips to the East Coast in the latter few years of his life.
--t.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on May 18, 2008 8:46:25 GMT -6
At least Autie wasn't wearing clothing borrowed from Cooke, Wallace or Edgerly..............
I understand that there were holes in his all of his socks which went un-mended by either his liberated missus or his "I got the goods on you" female servants, and that he was too proud to borrow any, so eventually went barefoot. Under his boots, of course - same as any self-respecting cowboy.
In keeping with the title and tenor of this thread, I should point out that I have a photograph of his bare left foot [with a bunion on the base of the big toe], and it is unquestionably my favorite. I also have several of hs socks with the holes intact, i.e. still holes, if you know what I mean.
The Old Haberdasher
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 18, 2008 9:03:35 GMT -6
Maybe he'd pawned the good clothes?
Re the bagginess: in that full-length photo in Reply No. 1 (the one with the absurd pose) he looks as if he's developing a bit of a tummy. Wouldn't be surprising if he had, really; he'd been living a thoroughly urban life since September/October 1875, with none of his usual outdoor exercise such as riding, hunting, etc. Perhaps he's had to borrow something in a larger size for the photo session. And perhaps that's why he's borrowed Tom's civvies, as well. (I don't know that we've got any photos of Tom much later than spring of 1875; hard to know if he'd got bigger too ... But possibly he favoured a looser-fitting style than GAC, in which case his clothes would be a bit more forgiving?)
Actually ... doesn't Custer say Tom's clothes have been in the limelight -- i.e. he's been wearing them for the hearings? I must re-check Merington, but I think he does. If so, SOTMS is wrong, and he wore civilian clothes to give his evidence. (You'd think Harper's or someone would have sent a sketch-artist, wouldn't you. But maybe they weren't allowed.) If that's correct, we might have an explanation for the borrowed uniform: that he simply hadn't taken a uniform East.
Of course, there's always the possibility that he was indulging in a bit of theatre here. One of the strands of questioning in the Belknap enquiry concerned suggestions that he'd been taking back-handers from Bennett via Meeker -- which of course both Custer and Meeker strenuously denied. Turning up in ill-fitting clothes might have helped deflect any idea that he'd been pocketing money ...?
|
|
|
Post by rch on May 18, 2008 17:58:40 GMT -6
clw,
I apologize. I shouldn't have questioned the photo.
I've checked the group photos of Sheridan, Custer, the Grand Duke, and the Forsyth brothers. The man I thought was J. W. Forsyth must be someone else. The Forsyth in the photo might be Capt Forsyth of the QM Department.
I'm sorry for raising the dust.
rch
|
|
|
Post by rch on May 18, 2008 19:42:46 GMT -6
The dates for photos are not carved in stone. I think a borrowed uniform is a possibility for the period when Custer was on leave at the end of 1875 and the beginning of 1876. He may not have taken a dress uniform with him. He may have borrowed the uniform to have the pictures taken. He might have attended a military ceremony of funeral.
When he was called to testify he was on duty and on full pay. He probably didn't have to wear his dress uniform to testify, but I think he would have a set of apporpriate uniforms and civilian clothes with him. Since in his last series of photos he's wearing the uniform of a Lt Col of the 7th Cav, I think it's reasonable to believe he had a dress uniform with him. He may also have worn a forage cap rather than the helmet. as in the 1873 Ft Lincoln photos.
rch
|
|
|
Post by clw on May 19, 2008 9:01:12 GMT -6
I think you're right rch. I'm almost certain McClernand references the QM Forsyth in his journal, but the darn thing isn't indexed and I can't find it -- I was looking last night. What is known about him?
And I also agree it's a good guess those photos came during that leave. We had discussed that their date may have been date of issue/printing. With his name being so "in the news" that spring, it seems logical they may have been produced then, having been taken earlier.
|
|
|
Post by rch on May 19, 2008 13:21:13 GMT -6
clw,
Heitman's Register entry on Forsyth says he was born in Michigan and appointed from the District of Columbia as a Capt, assistant quartermasters of volunteer 11 Jun 1862 and served through 3 Nov 1866. He was appointed to the same rank in the Regular Army effective 11 Mar 1867. He was promoted to Maj in 1888, and Lt Col in 1896. He retired in 1897 and died in 1902
He was brevetted Maj for faithful and meritoriuos service during the Civil War.
If he retired in his 64th year, he would have been about 38 in 1871.
rch
|
|
|
Post by clw on May 20, 2008 7:15:30 GMT -6
Thanks rch. What is his full name?
|
|
|
Post by rch on May 21, 2008 7:39:57 GMT -6
clw
His full name was Lewis Cass Forsyth which his helpful, because he was probably named after Lewis Cass who was prominent in Michigan politics from about 1820.
rch
|
|