Thoughts From G.A.C.

[WY Man]

[Gen. Kuster]

Apr 23, 2010 22:40:14 GMT -6 @darkmoon said:

Sweetums - if you want to “discuss this battle”, then please do “discuss the battle” honey, and please provide sources for you fabrications instead of this silliness.

There are enough Hoo-rah Little Boys running around boards like this with their toy guns pretending to play show and tell - all for their self inflated ego’s. It’s demeaning and like telling the other little boys and girls that “your going to play General Custer” just because your daddy was in the military.

Unlike “some forums,” this forum isn’t about its members being required to be in the military. And, an intense contention could be made that those who claim ‘military status’ warp and refashion historical events. This because, their non-military perceptions cause them to make self contradictory statements, which results in a case of severe cognitive-topic agreement issues when they are playing pretend. It’s nothing new, little boys and girls do this all the time. Think about it this way. How much different is your lame attempt than theirs? They enjoy playing dress up dolly as GI Joe, and they have a self centered excuse to do it - to get those less skilled in military knowledge to applaud and grovel to their biases and prejudices. Like them, don’t feel to bad when someone tells you what you’re doing is disrespectful. You put it out there and are not protected from laughter or public comment, whether either is praiseworthy or not. Pretending under any circumstances, whether it is someone saying they’re in the military or like yourself, pretending to be Gen. Custer isn’t a given Hoo-Rah moment, nor does it alone mean their/your insight is necessarily correct. In reality, you and all those who pretend military status can claim about this battle is a B S degree in History 101. And it’s not that I contend any greater knowledge than you, I don’t!

It’s not about me or you dear, nor “them“, nor is it about what we think we are, who we are, or who “they“ are. In the end (examination, study, investigation, scrutiny, breakdown, inquiry, exploration, evaluation, consideration, probe) its about them, the soldiers and warriors who fought and died.

And now sweetie, if the - “we” - moments are all put away in their little toy box, “we” can go back to being who “we” really are and “discuss this battle” like the ladies and gentlemen we truly are. [exception noted ]

You are obviously not my Libbie. She always supported me 150%.

And you, "my dear", would be dead wrong if you think I have no active duty military service - - Commissioned officer in fact with several years spent in war zones.

Now, can we just get back to discussing the battle? That's all I ask.

One of the common ways to argue is to attack the messenger instead of the message. That's because they can't attack the message.

[Gen. Kuster]

WY Man - I like it!!!

[Reddirt]

General, I believe, I believe, I believe!!!

PS I agree so much with you reference and wisdom regarding posting. If its not fun then why are we here? If
our objective is only to belie the honest efforts others, then perhaps we need a chill pill. . .

[Gen. Kuster]

Who am I?

Born into a wealthy family, my father was the founder of the New York Stock Exchange. However, both my parents died when I was young, and I was raised by my grandfather. I completed my law degree from Columbia University, but instead of going into practice or living the life of luxury like I could have, I joined my uncle’s cavalry unit in the US Army. By the way, my uncle was considered the Father of the US Cavalry and was a famous General in his own right.

After a few years, I went to France to study cavalry tactics there. I participated in several battles and was known to go into battle with saber in my right hand, pistol in left, and reins in my teeth. After returning to the US, I wrote the first US cavalry manual.

In the war with Mexico, I lost one arm. General Winfield Scott called me, "a perfect soldier" and "the bravest man I ever knew".

After that war, I again went to France and participated in many cavalry operations. For my bravery there, I was awarded the French “Legion of Honor’ becoming the first American to do so.

In the US Civil War, I commanded several cavalry units and had great success. Rumor has it that I was one of the officers being considered to replace General McClellan.

During various cavalry charges, the following quotes are attributed to me:

"I'm a one-armed Jersey son-of-a-gun, follow me!"

"Don't worry, men, they'll all be firing at me!"

"The Rebel bullet that can kill me has not yet been molded."

Who am I?

I am none other than Philip Kearny, nephew of Stephen Watts Kearny (who had captured New Mexico and California for the US), and my nickname was Kearny the Magnificent. Both Kearnys have US cities named after them.

Why is this significant?

Kearny was General Custer’s first cavalry commander after graduation from West Point.

During his early years of commissioned service during the Civil War, Custer rode with men who were hard driving, tough, ambitious, and also hard drinking and foul mouthed sons of guns.

Maybe this puts things in perspective. Custer was not really a novelty like he has been characterized. He was closer to the norm than many think. He was fashioned and molded in a peculiar culture of Army officers that still exists today. Army officers are known for being bold, ambitious, and a little haughty.

I know firsthand that during war, most of the men in the military are anxious to see battle and earn their decorations (i.e., earn their stripes, earn their bones, etc). Many men (and women) join the military out of honor and a sense of duty, and it is precisely those war decorations (Bronze Star, etc) that commemorate and serve notice that they in fact served with honor and distinction. Their deeds are not done out of ambition as much as it is done from a sense of patriotism and an internal need to achieve honor.

That many men and some women would do daring deeds of heroism in order to earn decorations and satisfy their internal desire for honor is a common one in the military. In that way too, General Custer was not alone.

[benteen]

Gen K I believe Custer alone (with the help of a couple of thousand Indians which you correctly point out) was responsible for this military defeat. This will put me on opposite sides of the roll call from yourself and most others.In reading the postings, particularly your own, I see they are on point, well thought out, and show a firm grip on this engagement.I would both enjoy and look foward to a healthy,civil exchange of facts ,ideas and opinions.I based my conclussion of Custer on years of research but my mind (or whats left of it) is always to new ideas.Who knows you may have a convert.I noticed there was some give and take on weather Custer had a contingency plan.I believe the facts show he didnt.Isnt this a moot point? If he did have one he didnt share it with his Battalion commanders which means its as useless as no plan at all.I realize that battles ebb and flo and tactics must change but isnt it important that the entire regiment start off on the same page. (Please excuse the spelling and punctuation not my strong suit)

[Gen. Kuster]

Benteen,

I have read many of your comments on this board, and they are interesting. I like your fresh perspective. As I am a military officer now retired (hence the reason I have time to post on this board), I can relate to the General in terms of his career aspirations, life growing up in a humble environment and overachieving to the point of being made Brevet Gen., and his predicament at LBH. Thus, I began to think it would be worthwhile to present his perspective (at least to the best of my ability).

In general, I think we all look at the battle with hindsight too often. The idea is to try to get into his head and imagine his perspective.

I give more credit to Custer than most simply because I am looking at things from his perspective and see a lot of good in what he was trying to do that day (and some bad). His record prior to LBH is pretty outstanding too, so when a man goes down as hard as he did at LBH, there must have been a very, very good reason. I also know what it is like to be an officer, so that gives me a little more insight.

Concerning his plan. Yes, I believe it was detailed and well thought out as opposed to "on the fly" like some believe. There were contingencies too. I don't think a man like him goes into LBH with several of his young family members that he is responsible for and behaves recklessly and without a good plan. I just can't fathom that. The facts may show that he didn't have a detailed plan nor a contingency plan, but the facts as we know them may just paint a portion of the picture because maybe not all the facts are known.

I tend to think something significant happened (as I stated in my original explanation of what happened) that changed the course of this battle. If a catastrophic events occurs, that means the plan has to change in mid form, and hence, the plan does not unfold as planned. Thus, what you see is a portion of the plan.

I tend to think he was injured at the river, but not fatally. This explains why the companies did not retreat back up MTC (back to Benteen and Reno). If he still had an ounce of breath, he was still going to fight even though most of his men were morally defeated by that point (hence the ensuing rout).

The General was not one to sit back and let others charge. He had to be in harms way at the front, so he probably went down to the river. A charge at MTF makes a lot of sense given Reno's charge in the valley. I believe the General's charge occurred as Reno was retreating to the bluffs. Thus, most of the Indians were still distracted to a certain extent. This also agrees with most of the Indian testimony too.

It appears that the Indian force that engaged the General at MTF was fairly light. This begs the question: Why wasn't the charge at MTF successful? If they had charged across (granted it was not the best place to ford but definitely fordable) with 200 men, they could have done some serious damage especially with the fearless General leading the way. I believe the reason they did not ford the river is the General was shot but not fatally.

Do you recall that there was an assignation attempt on President Teddy Roosevelt? He was shot in Milwaukee on October 14, 1912.

What follows is a synopsis of the event:

MILWAUKEE, October 14. -- Theodore Roosevelt was shot and wounded in the right breast in front of the Hotel Gilpatrick shortly before 8 o'clock tonight. Roosevelt was about to enter his automobile to go to the Auditorium for his evening address, when a man rushed up and fired at close range. The bullet passed through his eye glass case and his 50 page speech before settling three inches into his breast. He proceeded to give his speech that night and even started it by saying "Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose." The bullet's speed had decreased to the point that it was not able to puncture his lung. He lived with that bullet in him the rest of his life.

I recall reading somewhere that the General was injured not two times but three. There was an injury to one of his arms as well. Could the bullet have hit his arm first on its way to his breast? If so, maybe the breast injury was not fatal. This also explains the bullet hole in the temple (mercy shot just before Indians surround Custer).

The General's first military engagement was at the battle of Bull Run (the first not the second) He had received his commission from West Point and made his way to the front lines just in time for the start of the battle (Custer's luck). It was a rout as we all know for the Union Army…..

Wait a minute - - the South won that battle not the North. Ah, but the North was winning early on and had turned the Confederate left flank and was starting to roll it up (Custer was watching from a bluff) when all of a sudden, 2,000 confederate troops under Brig. Gen. Joseph E. Johnston appeared from the NE and circled behind the Union troops. The inexperienced Union soldiers started to flee and the battle turned into a rout for the South.

Just goes to show you that a battle can turn quickly, especially when you can get behind the enemy and start shooting him in the back (Reno found that out too).

I believe that had the General not been shot, he rides into the camp and causes major problems including taking many women and children. Keogh, who had been in reserve, follows the General right on in followed a few minutes later by Colonel Benteen (had he charged too as planned). There would have been so many Indians now flocking to the center of the village that Reno's men, had they held out just 10 minutes longer (and had Custer not been shot), would be free to charge again from the southern end of the camp. This does not even count the 100 or so men with the pack train. I believe this was the basic plan, but there would have been some contingency plans too. This was not the only plan.

It must be remembered that the cavalry’s most basic purpose is to use its speed to outflank the enemy and get into his rear; intelligence gathering and destroying supply lines are way down in order of importance.

This plan was so simple and basic (i.e., get behind the enemy) that I have to believe that Colonel Benteen and Reno, with all their experience, had to know what was going on even if they were not told explicitly. Reno charges and holds the Indians in position while the General gets behind them and is followed in by Colonel Benteen.

Then again, maybe they were told and this never came out? I think we need to look for more clues concerning what they really knew.

[benteen]

Gen K I would certainly give you the courtesy of a reply but something is wrong with this page on my computer and I can only read part of the post unless I go back and forth a hundred times.perhaps when we hit a page 4 it will straighten out. All the proceeding pages were fine just hit a glitch in this one

[AZ Ranger]

It must be remembered that the cavalry’s most basic purpose is to use its speed to outflank the enemy and get into his rear

Really? Where is that basic purpose stated?

How does that work against against cavalry?

[Gen. Kuster]

Apr 30, 2010 20:48:42 GMT -6 AZ Ranger said:

It must be remembered that the cavalry’s most basic purpose is to use its speed to outflank the enemy and get into his rear

Really? Where is that basic purpose stated?

How does that work against against cavalry?

That comes from Cavalry manuals from the Civil War timeframe. I will look them up when I get a chance.

However, most if not all the Generals in the Civil War did not use Cavalry as a part of their tactics except to scout the enemy. This is why some Cavalry Officers like Gen Custer were POd because they were not being used properly. They wanted to attack instead of being used as an auxiliary.

Many US Generals were cluelss how to use the Cavalry effectively. Thus, men like McClellan and Kearny were sent to Europe to learn how the Europeans (mainly Russia and France) used their Cavalry. That's how McClellan improved the saddle.

When JEB Stuart was stopped by Gen Custer at Gettysburg, he was trying to get into the Union's rear. But we all know that General Custer stopped him! If he hadn't, some historians theorize that the outcome at Gettysburg could have been different. People only consider Pickett's charge on the front middle of the Union line, but don't realize there were other things that Lee was doing to split the Union line into two.

In addition to attacking the enemy’s flank, the Cavalry must protect its own army’s flank.

Thus, a Cavalry has to defend against the enemy’s Cavalry too.

[wolfgang911]

Apr 27, 2010 17:03:35 GMT -6 Gen. Kuster said:

His record prior to LBH is pretty outstanding too, so when a man goes down as hard as he did at LBH, there must have been a very, very good reason. I also know what it is like to be an officer, so that gives me a little more insight.

I like this exchange and the way you brought up your personnage GKuster
but can you as an ex officer and as the internet reincarnation of the general tell me what his prety outstanding record is fighting indians actually was?
i have been on this board for a while looking for clues for the indian fighter reputation he had, but still searching amongst the myth busters around here how the heck he deserved it, what real
victories on the ground do enhance this 'record'?

[Melani]

Apr 27, 2010 17:03:35 GMT -6 Gen. Kuster said:

Concerning his plan. Yes, I believe it was detailed and well thought out as opposed to "on the fly" like some believe. There were contingencies too. I don't think a man like him goes into LBH with several of his young family members that he is responsible for and behaves recklessly and without a good plan. I just can't fathom that. The facts may show that he didn't have a detailed plan nor a contingency plan, but the facts as we know them may just paint a portion of the picture because maybe not all the facts are known.

The Custers in general behaved pretty recklessly. Tom was an experienced combat officer with two more medals than Autie, and Boston was supposed to have stayed with the pack train. Not so sure about Autie Reed--seems to me he should have been detailed to the pack train as well, in the interest of caution, but you have to remember that these guys were supremely arrogant in their assumption that the cavalry could always lick the Indians. It's pretty clear from the scouts' warnings ignored and the ultimate results that Custer didn't really expect what he got.

I tend to think something significant happened (as I stated in my original explanation of what happened) that changed the course of this battle. If a catastrophic events occurs, that means the plan has to change in mid form, and hence, the plan does not unfold as planned. Thus, what you see is a portion of the plan.

I tend to think he was injured at the river, but not fatally. This explains why the companies did not retreat back up MTC (back to Benteen and Reno). If he still had an ounce of breath, he was still going to fight even though most of his men were morally defeated by that point (hence the ensuing rout).

The General was not one to sit back and let others charge. He had to be in harms way at the front, so he probably went down to the river. A charge at MTF makes a lot of sense given Reno's charge in the valley. I believe the General's charge occurred as Reno was retreating to the bluffs. Thus, most of the Indians were still distracted to a certain extent. This also agrees with most of the Indian testimony too.

It appears that the Indian force that engaged the General at MTF was fairly light. This begs the question: Why wasn't the charge at MTF successful? If they had charged across (granted it was not the best place to ford but definitely fordable) with 200 men, they could have done some serious damage especially with the fearless General leading the way. I believe the reason they did not ford the river is the General was shot but not fatally.

Interesting idea. I would guess that somebody certainly was hit at MTC--maybe Custer, maybe somebody else. I seem to recall reading that either of his two wounds could have been fatal. There is a possibility that he was alive after the chest wound, but I think it was probably much more serious than the one Roosevelt sustained, if it could be characterized as possibly fatal.

This plan was so simple and basic (i.e., get behind the enemy) that I have to believe that Colonel Benteen and Reno, with all their experience, had to know what was going on even if they were not told explicitly. Reno charges and holds the Indians in position while the General gets behind them and is followed in by Colonel Benteen.

Then again, maybe they were told and this never came out? I think we need to look for more clues concerning what they really knew.

Reno and Benteen both had really good reasons to say what they did afterwards, whether or not it was the entire truth, and I suspect it wasn't.

[Melani]

May 9, 2010 15:37:58 GMT -6 wolfgang911 said:

Apr 27, 2010 17:03:35 GMT -6 Gen. Kuster said:

His record prior to LBH is pretty outstanding too, so when a man goes down as hard as he did at LBH, there must have been a very, very good reason. I also know what it is like to be an officer, so that gives me a little more insight.

I like this exchange and the way you brought up your personnage GKuster
but can you as an ex officer and as the internet reincarnation of the general tell me what his prety outstanding record is fighting indians actually was?
i have been on this board for a while looking for clues for the indian fighter reputation he had, but still searching amongst the myth busters around here how the heck he deserved it, what real
victories on the ground do enhance this 'record'?

Well, there was Washita, and...Washita...and I guess that bit on the Yellowstone. I think it was just that he had really good press. Handsome, flamboyant, and all that stuff.

[Gen. Kuster]

May 9, 2010 20:18:28 GMT -6 Melani said:

The Custers in general behaved pretty recklessly. Tom was an experienced combat officer with two more medals than Autie, and Boston was supposed to have stayed with the pack train. Not so sure about Autie Reed--seems to me he should have been detailed to the pack train as well, in the interest of caution, but you have to remember that these guys were supremely arrogant in their assumption that the cavalry could always lick the Indians. It's pretty clear from the scouts' warnings ignored and the ultimate results that Custer didn't really expect what he got.

Here's an analogy that some may appreciate and some may not. Gen. Custer and President Kennedy were both young men when they were unexpectedly shot down. Both were flamboyant and charismatic....well educated....military men...Both had tremendous courage...both were reckless in certain ways....both came from Democratic families.....had siblings who were also extremely confident and reckless.....Both were ambitious....Both were talented authors...both had a way with women....both had their enemies who envied them....Kennedy "recklessly" charged into Dealey Plaza against the advice of his advisors and went in without proper security preparations. Did he expect to be shot? Probably not. The same is probably true of Gen Custer. He did not expect to be shot while leading the charge at MTF. It did not occur to him nor Kennedy because they were doing what they always did – leading the way and blazing new paths.

Both were gunned down by talented marksmen. The snipers are the ones that the General Officers need to be weary of.

I know from first hand experience that men like them are born and bred to expect success in all endeavors. When they go into battle, they are extremely confident because they have spent their whole lives preparing for the fight. They are exceptional, and they know it. They are the best of the best….the cream of the crop. However, no man is perfect, and just like Kennedy, Custer went down unexpectedly.

There is a strong parallel between both men.

Was Kennedy reckless? I think most would say YES. On the other hand, could he be cool and calm under pressure? YES. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis averted WWIII. Custer was the same way. Thus, a man can be both reckless in some aspects of life and cool under pressure because like many great leaders, they compartmentalize their life. They can charge head first into battle, but at the same time, use restraint when needed. Custer proved that when he negotiated the safe release of hostages Annie Brewster Morgan and Sarah White in 1869.

anpa.ualr.edu/digital_library/Osage_Sketch/osage_sketch_10.htm

Most people believe Custer was just a hot head adept at doing just one thing: charging the enemy. But like Kennedy, he was a deep thinker too, and gave considerable thought to everything he did. However, once he made up his mind, it was full speed ahead.

This is why I believe he would not carelessly endanger the lives of his family members. Individually, the Custers may have been reckless in parts of their lives, but when everything was on the line like at LBH, I believe Custer was carefully plotting every move (just like Kennedy and his brother Bobby did during the Cuban Missile Crisis).

What we need to explore is why things turned unexpectedly.

[AZ Ranger]

May 1, 2010 12:05:13 GMT -6 Gen. Kuster said:

Apr 30, 2010 20:48:42 GMT -6 AZ Ranger said:

It must be remembered that the cavalry’s most basic purpose is to use its speed to outflank the enemy and get into his rear

Really? Where is that basic purpose stated?

How does that work against against cavalry?

That comes from Cavalry manuals from the Civil War timeframe. I will look them up when I get a chance.

However, most if not all the Generals in the Civil War did not use Cavalry as a part of their tactics except to scout the enemy. This is why some Cavalry Officers like Gen Custer were POd because they were not being used properly. They wanted to attack instead of being used as an auxiliary.

Many US Generals were cluelss how to use the Cavalry effectively. Thus, men like McClellan and Kearny were sent to Europe to learn how the Europeans (mainly Russia and France) used their Cavalry. That's how McClellan improved the saddle.

When JEB Stuart was stopped by Gen Custer at Gettysburg, he was trying to get into the Union's rear. But we all know that General Custer stopped him! If he hadn't, some historians theorize that the outcome at Gettysburg could have been different. People only consider Pickett's charge on the front middle of the Union line, but don't realize there were other things that Lee was doing to split the Union line into two.

In addition to attacking the enemy’s flank, the Cavalry must protect its own army’s flank.

Thus, a Cavalry has to defend against the enemy’s Cavalry too.

I have many manuals which is your source?