|
Post by Margaret on Feb 19, 2011 16:41:30 GMT -6
Thank you for your polite response.
Ms. Helford. I've been reading this death wish stuff and don't see it that way at all. That's quite alright, I wouldn't expect you to.
If Custer was trying to die in battle at the LBH, he would have been leading a charge directly into the face of the enemy
In this particular battle, the way it was developing, I don't agree with this. I don't accept he could or would have done that. He would have had to have taken his men with him, it would have been deemed foolish and sadistic. I think he was very concerned how he would be perceived by history. He chose to make a stand, it was a series of stands and he encouraged it along that way.
Instead of the dastardly aggressor who got his comeuppance, he turned himself into a kind of victim as a result, I think that's what he wanted in the eyes of his people. I think he got a tremendous result from this overall.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 19, 2011 17:19:13 GMT -6
"...in satisfying Darkcloud's penchant to conjecture but challenge everyone else when they conjecture." My conjectures are announced as such and evidenced. They're not entirely convincing nor original to me. But as they are different from many others' conjectures, they need to be argued out. Same with anyone else's.
"I'm satisified with it then it should not be a problem for anyone else." It's not a problem, but since you set it on public record, it's open to critique. And because it's a public forum, its disingenuous to be surprised by the appearence of that critique, as if I had vomited on a child you wheeled out to display to the neighbors.
"Yet, I feel a sense of release, a feeling of not needing to look any further for answers to questions that really cannot be answered other than by speculation." Release from what particular agony? Research? Reading? Thinking?
You're a masochist if you enjoy pain, however defined. Expressing uninformed opinion and superfically expecting a pass, for example. Ain't gonna happen.
What was Sitting Bull's 'cause' and how was it different from that of the others to the point he had to manipulate them? How would he manipulate them?
Did Custer go to the 'north end' of the village (that what you meant?)(and is it true?)(and suddenly do we know for sure where the north end was?) and why would that surprise the village more than Reno had already accomplished? Were they more surprised that Custer left 60% of his force a mile east out of touch with approaching support and the smaller unit supposedly advancing north, and so susceptible to attack on bad ground for either cavalry offense OR defense?
There's no evidence he made ANY move for the huge numbers of non-combatants, nor any that it would protect him once he had some.
Who in the world have you known with this capitalized Death Wish? What is the basis for your assumptions about its actual existence and characteristics?
This talk about a Plan B recalls old jokes about practicing the second serve in tennis. Of course, the problem is actually the first serve which necessitates the second. There's no evidence Custer had much more of a plan than a general idea before committing Reno, with recent encouragement for Benteen to putter up with the train and join in. In any case, he neither attacked, supported, nor defended well and was likely not in the driver's seat at all.
Wondering about another's innermost thoughts isn't perverse, but it is nonsense without any basis for a diagnosis off the mark and not actually understood by the would be physician. This is the same crap Freud and Bullett tried with Wilson and others and it's absurd.
I hate it when this stuff is applied to Custer as much as to the other two leading officers. He may, however, have had an absence of fear, or been a gambling addict, but that's not an unknown quality in people.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 19, 2011 20:45:35 GMT -6
Anyone who posts on this forum is dealing in conjecture. That is why we are all on here.
Darkcloud doesn't need me to come to his defense, but before anyone makes accusations... please, support them. Yes, DC deals in conjecture just like we all do, but he supports his doubts with logic, reason, and a modicum of data, if not fact. Go take a look at the discussion about Boston Custer and Martini. Sheer conjecture... but reasons "why" are stated. So you know what happens then? A reasonable discussion between several people.
No one here says you cannot throw in your theory. Just throw the support in with it.
As for Custer rounding up fugitives... sheer speculation. No support, no evidence, no nothing. If he sent Reno in for the kill, why would Custer suddenly decide to hold hostages? It is not an illogical assumption/speculative position, but it is unsupportable. In fact, it is just as unsupportable as my position that he intended to kill once across Ford D. Custer was in this thing for one reason: to end the roamers' style of living. If you doubt that, you should take up astro-physics.
As for Custer dividing his force... there was nothing wrong with that tactic... until those divisions fell out of mutual support. Then it became a cause célèbre. So if you are going to criticize Custer for a division of command... or not... then you are obliged to get it straight.
As for Nelson Miles... phooey! Benteen had less respect for Miles than he had for Custer: “Too much circus, too little brain.” I have never found anything about Miles that would contradict that sentiment, including his streak of altruism.
And please, everyone... let's not make more of this battle than it really was. The other boards spend a lot of time doing precisely that which is one of the reasons I can no longer stomach even reading them. This was a simple, straightforward military operation with a simple, straightforward goal. The whole thing, start to finish, Reno's dismount to angels singing them to sleep took only moments more than three hours. If you doubt that you haven't done the math or you don't understand the military.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Feb 20, 2011 12:33:10 GMT -6
To Darkcloud, or any other interested party:-
...did I say I was surprised by the appearance of critique? I put my thoughts to paper, so to speak, a forum in this case, to be quite honest I didn't expect anyone to either:- read it, or comment on it. They are my thoughts and mine alone. I am flattered that some have taken the time and trouble to read what I wrote, I thank them for giving me that time and any reply gratefully received, and that includes yours of course.
...no release from agony, nothing agonising about it.... others may wish to spend the rest of their lives contemplating, that's a matter for them, for me, I think I have found some conclusion.
...I don't enjoy pain so that counts me out for masochism - sorry. As for 'expecting a pass', what on earth is this, a Boy's Own Club whereby you have to pass with certain credentials before you can post anything? I find that attitude elitist and snobbish and it doesn't wash with me I'm afraid. I feel no need to justify my opinions or offer explanations much more than I've stated, [however I do have a little more to add below], I think I need have no fear of them being plagiarised by others, - they are mine and mine alone and likely will stay that way.
I find Custer a strangely fascinating man, it's his psychology I'm interested in more, and I can only offer conjecture on it. I don't treat him or anyone else as a piece on a chess board, which seems to be the way others talk about this, I notice that, it's as if these people in history have no feelings, no emotions, no personal problems, they're not people at all. I find those with military background tend to talk that way - all very regimented and precise.
I like Major Reno more than most. He showed some emotion, some fallibility, some panic. He took the trouble to bury his friend Hodgson, he was hurt, he had something about him I like. Yet to most students, I think, he is regarded as a coward. I see him as quite a sensible man put in an impossible position. He became a tortured soul I believe. ...At Medicine Tail Coulee Custer must have been aware that Reno was in deep trouble. Benteen was nowhere to be seen, yet he sends off young Nathan Short with a note - [if this story is to be believed, there is a monument to the young man along Rosebud Creek so enough people must believe it to be true - I believe bones were discovered in the 1950's]. So why didn't he make his escape then too along with all his other men? Mr Short got quite a long way, so it would appear Custer and his other 210 or so could have stood a good chance of making it perhaps to regroup later... ...perhaps a man without a death wish might have said something like this:- ''right boys, Reno is finished, Benteen's not here and we're all alone... the village is too big and too hostile for us to continue. I suggest we make our escape over the hills to the east and regroup later....it's every man for himself''...
but that's not Custer is it? this would be more the [eminently sensible in my view], Indian way, or Reno's way perhaps, - a cowards way as viewed by many I think, but not Custer, he couldn't do that....
... we are told Custer is an attacking commander, he doesn't retreat, and continues to take it to the enemy, - anyone who never knows when to retreat must be prepared to die and in my view, wants to die when the situation has become so untenable.
...he chose to carry on northward and it must have been obvious to him by then what he would likely be up against. I believe he orchestrated it from then on, because he saw the futility of any plan he may have had, but he had other ideas - to go out in a blaze of glory and that's just what he did.
I don't feel hugely sorry for these troopers but they weren't given [apparently - I have to speculate] any option to desert, to make a run for it. They paid with their lives on his account*
....*all in my opinion, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 20, 2011 16:44:54 GMT -6
1. "...did I say I was surprised by the appearance of critique? I put my thoughts to paper, so to speak, a forum in this case, to be quite honest I didn't expect anyone to either:- read it, or comment on it."
Nonsense. Nobody posts expecting no response.
2. You may have found 'conclusion', although I think you meant 'closure', but it's hard to see how since you weren't involved and you haven't considered all the extant theories, or even most.
3. You just said you didn't expect anyone to read, much less respond, to your post. Nobody cares less about credentials than I, having none myself, and I've always claimed what is posted defines the poster. What you don't seem to know is your views are hardly yours alone, but have been hashed over decades previous and held by many others.
4. "I find Custer a strangely fascinating man, it's his psychology I'm interested in more, and I can only offer conjecture on it." Custer is a type, known to every nation and military, and to find him - by which is meant his type - fascinating is apparently common. I don't, and would suggest that anyone read in history would find him familiar. For example, I'm writing a piece comparing Custer to naval heroes in several nations in attitude, devotion to training, image making, and end. There are so many who could have taken a splinter and died and been nearly syllogistic to him. David Beatty, for one.
5. People with exclusive military backgrounds can be very tunnel visioned, having lived in a socialist environment defending capitalism without really understanding either. But, no more than civvy women with extremely foreshortened emotional outlets can be blinkered, or anyone, for that matter. Nobody brings to the table all the innate tools required to know someone else by text, photo, and 3rd person account alone.
6. It's not that people aren't interested in the personal lives of the 7th or Custer in particular, it's that there is little objective evidence one way or the other, and it becomes a hen house of gossip, nothing more.
7. I too think Reno deserves better than he has received. It is not a zero sum game, that SOMEone has to be to blame. It was a battle, a bunch of 50-50 calls were reasonably made, and this day they came a cropper. Happens. Benteen, I think, sensed this immediately upon arrival at Reno Hill. He did not arrest anyone, scream at anyone, and by gravitas and presence he brought everyone back without argument or dissolution, both of which were below the surface. He did not confront Reno for his decisions nor Weir for his juvenile insubordination. He had everyone on the same page and team pretty quick. He made no irreversible decision before he saw the terrain and enemy.
Nathan Short and Peter Thompson and Martini's later tales all require a keg of salt.
There is no particular evidence exclusive to the theory that Custer was on the offensive, or that he - or any officer - willingly led men to land without cover surrounded by land providing enemy cover. I don't buy it, and think the initial impression of the field - that Custer was driven - is more right than not.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 20, 2011 17:30:35 GMT -6
I too think Reno deserves better than he has received. It is not a zero sum game, that SOMEone has to be to blame. It was a battle, a bunch of 50-50 calls were reasonably made, and this day they came a cropper. Happens. Benteen, I think, sensed this immediately upon arrival at Reno Hill. He did not arrest anyone, scream at anyone, and by gravitas and presence he brought everyone back without argument or dissolution, both of which were below the surface. He did not confront Reno for his decisions nor Weir for his juvenile insubordination. He had everyone on the same page and team pretty quick. He made no irreversible decision before he saw the terrain and enemy. The best summation of this situation I have ever read... anywhere. I am copying it, keeping it, and may even eventually use it. And for those of you who belch over my comment... deal with it. The gas is caused by envy... and worse. And yes, I have some people in mind. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 20, 2011 17:51:56 GMT -6
...At Medicine Tail Coulee Custer must have been aware that Reno was in deep trouble. Benteen was nowhere to be seen, yet he sends off young Nathan Short with a note - [if this story is to be believed, there is a monument to the young man along Rosebud Creek so enough people must believe it to be true - I believe bones were discovered in the 1950's]. I agree with your assessment of Reno. Nice to see. I do not, however, know how you can come to either conclusion above. You offer no supporting evidence, anecdotal or otherwise and the powder to blow the Nathan Short fable to smithereens has been all used up. For example: Marker 128—Isolated; behind Greasy Grass Ridge. • Both human remains and battle related artifacts were found. • Almost a complete burial discovered at this site; the most complete set of human remains recovered during the 1984 – 1985 archaeological excavations. • Lower right leg articulated, its foot bones encased in a cavalry boot. • Other bones had been re-buried after the flesh had decayed. • Male, between 19 – 22 years old, and approximately 5’ 6¾” tall, with a range of 5’ 5¾ ” – 5’ 7 7/8”; or, 66.8” ± 1.18”. Individual was stocky with well-developed musculature [Scott, et al., Archaeological Perspectives, p. 268]. Right-handed. o F. Meier (C) o J. Shea (C) o J. Thadus (C) o N. Short (C)o G. Moonie (E)—highly doubtful. o W. Huber (E)—highly doubtful. o T. Donnelly (F)—highly doubtful. o E. Babcock (L)—highly doubtful. o F. Hughes (L)—highly doubtful. While not conclusive certainly, it provides far better fodder than the tales along the Rosebud. If you need it, I can also provide every lick of whatever anyone who was there and saw it ever said about the Rosebud bones. As for Custer knowing of Reno's plight while he was in MTC... how do you know that? Is there something that leads you to that belief other than guesswork? I am not being facetious here, I am serious and would like to know what evidence you have that helps you form that opinion. And by the way, if you do provide something, spare me the mewlings of authors. If you could provide times, speeds, distances, and any anecdotal stuff, that would help me a great deal. I realize this is your opinion-- and I respect that-- but if there was ever conjecture in this event, this is it. I know of absolutely no evidence available that could support this theory and I think you are basing your "Custer-death-wish" business on beach sand at neap tide. What I see here, Helford, is a theory in need of "facts" rather than the other way around, which is how it should be. First the facts, then the theory. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Feb 21, 2011 8:21:38 GMT -6
^Thank you for your curteous response and for the time and trouble, including a link to a book on another thread I meant to add.
I cannot answer your questions here satisfactorily as I would have to refer in the main to Mr Gray's book and I know what you think of that, so it would be pointless, as he uses Curley as a reliable informant, whereas I don't think you would. However, in brief, if not Nathan Short then maybe it was someone else - I wouldn't know and neither does anyone else know, but the point is, I believe there was still time to make an escape from what surely Custer must have seen by then, was an impossible task at hand. Yet he continued on. What would Major Reno have done? What would Capt. Benteen have done at this point in the same situation...? neither of whom, in my view, harboured a distinct death wish. I think they were more balanced people.
I believe Mr Gray's assertion that Boyer must have told Custer in the Coulee about Reno's capitulation.
You are entitled to dismiss it all out of hand, I would expect nothing less from you nor anyone else, on many points I have to bow, or curtsey even, to your superior knowledge, but it doesn't make any difference. It's what I believe and I shall maintain that stance. I am largely finished wth it.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Feb 21, 2011 8:23:34 GMT -6
...but I have something else to say in reply to Mr Darkcloud,
I'm sorry if this is hard for you to grasp but if I had posted and got '0' replies and '0' views, it wouldn't have troubled me unduly. I might have hoped, that's hope not expect, that in a year's time someone might have responded by then. I am not an attention seeker or with any agenda, which I think a lot of people are, on forums. I see it as a means to put one's thoughts to paper and perhaps share with someone else, even just one person at some later point - when, it doesn't matter.
''What you don't seem to know is your views are hardly yours alone, but have been hashed over decades previous and held by many others''. ...oh I'm very much aware of this. All I've done is rehashed it in my own version. Incidentally, it's just another observation, but like many others on the internet, you seem fond of hurling personal insults around, which doesn't do you credit I think, no more than it does anyone else. Perhaps like my civvy intuition, - all best ignored.
Mr Gray's book, which appeared to have all the answers at the time, seems to have enraged many. I see him as a great story teller, it's rivetting. I care not too much whether it's all true or not. I believe most of it is. Perhaps Donovan's 'A Terrible Glory' should have been titled 'A Wonderful Glory' - I think it would be more appropriate...
The story of LBH makes me laugh really, it's a virus and anyone who get's infected by it, has it for life and importantly, they don't usually want to be rid of it. They don't want a cure, so it must go on and on. That's what this subject is like and the people who discuss it. Always something new must be found, a new take, new discoveries, now they have archeological evidence to write another book on. Every decade we have new writers putting forward their revisionist theories to make a dollar or two.
It's like an oil well that never runs dry. Whilst there's money to be made from it, agendas driven, someone somewhere will always find something to say to further an aim, or to sell a book, but I do detect the oil is beginning to run out. Life is moving on, it's getting further away.
It amuses me because I see Custer as such a control freak during his life that he even controls his pursuers, [and we all are pursuers looking for truth], in death.
I might even be more charitable to Custer, I have room for that too. I have already stated I think he drew the Indians off Reno as he was obligated to do so, he sent Reno in unsupported, but the thoughts may have flashed through his mind that the Indians were moving North, and would soon meet Terry. They were far more than anyone expected and were prepared to fight.... I see a triple win here for Custer.... save Reno and the pack train which must have been an important factor in his decisions.... spare Terry by attempting to destroy as many as he could in a defensive death driven movement, which would render the enemy short of ammunition...and get the Glory he had long since wanted for himself...
I recall this 'saving Terry' line in the old Errol Flynn film, They Died With Their Boots On, [lovely theatre and oft derided], but perhaps there was an element of truth to be found in this instance. I am prepared to incorporate that.
Regardless, I have escaped, I have found my truth. It bothers me little if I ever read another book on the subject, for me it can be laid to rest. The battle area has been ruined by commercialism.
I much prefer the Rosebud fight in any case. Few were killed on either side, no massacres, we know more or less all about it, no one can have any agenda with it, it's not a money making battle this, no Hollywood film as far as I know [which is a shame], it's not commercialised, it's still remote, isolated and intriguing and in fairly good shape for the most part. The main discrepancies tend to concern Indian numbers, and how many dead Crook suffered, was there a cover up, or not..? Other than that, not a lot. Everyone was dressed up to the nines, several tribes in combat and some colourful and little known characters had a role. To me this has everything....
I would love to have watched invisibly, from a high hill, or swirl overhead in a helicopter unseen or unheard by those below....
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 21, 2011 8:53:49 GMT -6
Helford,
You seem far too nice to warrant anything but courtesy. And to be honest, I think the medium distorts Darkcloud's tone rather than his meaning. He is far more demanding than most, but only asks that one support their theories.
Having said that, I will give you an example. John Gray does not enrage me. In fact, I might be insistent to any reader that his second book is a necessary read, but I would include the necessary caveats. As for the claims that he was a first-rate historian, I would treat those a little more gingerly, for as I have said, I think he intentionally distorted his time - line to coincide with his theory. A first-rate academic would not do that. I have had many of my little pet theories wiped out by further research and what I would like to be is intellectual honesty. There was a time when I was a lap-dog to Gray's work; further work on my own showed me the fallacy of that position.
You are correct about my opinion of Curley; I find him to be as worthless a source as the latter-year Martini musings. I hang a lot of weight on Martini's RCOI testimony, but if one analyzes his narratives over due time, those musings become irreconcilable with remembrances only 2 1/2 years removed.
As for Boyer, Gray-- as do so many others-- break down. Read this carefully: there is absolutely no credible support for a theory that Mitch Boyer saw Reno's plight or reached Custer in MTC. In fact, the opposite is true. Boyer left Weir Peaks and three Crow scouts and returned to the column while it was in Cedar Coulee. Fact!... at least according to narrative. So Boyer had no idea Reno retreated. Anything else is speculative and supported by no evidence. If, somewhere in "Martini," the trumpeter claimed he saw Boyer report to Custer, he was making it up. Distances, other testimonies, reasonable speeds "prove" the point.
Your theory or idea that Custer, while in MTC, realized he was in serious trouble, also holds no water. If, for no other reason, he could have always returned the way he came and sought out the support he would have needed.
It is my opinion that George Custer did not realize he was in any serious danger until within a 35 to 40 minute time-span of his total demise. Of course, that is only my opinion, but I can call up the narratives of possibly as many as 40 to 60 Indian witnesses that could be used to support it... and those narratives would form the basis of some very fine discussion, indeed.
As for your "Custer death wish" theory, I bow to you... I have no opinion whatsoever.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 21, 2011 9:50:09 GMT -6
It is my opinion that George Custer did not realize he was in any serious danger until within a 35 to 40 minute time-span of his total demise. Of course, that is only my opinion, but I can call up the narratives of possibly as many as 40 to 60 Indian witnesses that could be used to support it... and those narratives would form the basis of some very fine discussion, indeed.
I agree with this Fred. William recommended a book Blink and it has helped me understand what may have went on. It is rapid decision making to paraphrase and it is amazing how quick one can make accurate assessments. The down side is that are predisposing factors that effect making a correct assessment.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by shan on Feb 21, 2011 10:34:58 GMT -6
Helford,
I'd like to compliment you on a very interesting and well thought out post. Your analogy of the subject being like a virus certainly strikes home with me. I have drifted around these boards for several years now, often cursing myself for spending my precious time reading posts that either circle around, or else go over and over the same old ground saying the same things in almost the same old way forever and a day. Worse still, I sometimes find myself driven to post and to my horror, I find myself committing the very same crimes I get so snotty about.
That said, occasionally someone makes a point or takes a look at something from an unfamiliar angle which not only makes me have to rethink one of my own pet theories, it also, given that like almost everyone else on these boards, I've been writing the book of books that will never be finished, means that I have to throw away what I had previously thought to be a killer chapter or two.
I suppose part of the attraction, certainly one of the reasons I continue to hang around is not the arguments about timing, or the formations, or indeed the blame game, it is that that last half an hour or so that keeps me reading, that last half hour that will never be satisfactorily explained either by fresh archaeology or indeed by some fresh Indian testimony that has so far failed to come to light.
Doctor doctor cure me of this virus, but then if it wasn't this it might just as well be Troy, or ancient hunter versus farmers, or god knows what.
Finally, at the risk of sounding sycophantic, I couldn't agree more about the battle of the Rosebud. Now there was a spectacle worthy of film, { why have there been so few?} a spectacle that has all the elements of a Medieval battle with knights displaying all their gaudy finery, and a sense of I'll charge for a bit then you have a go and see what you can do.
Best wishes Shan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 21, 2011 10:40:32 GMT -6
Helford,
In what way is your version different from the others? What evidence whatesoever do you have Custer was a control freak absent his role of commander? Or had a death wish? There's much evidence against both contentions.
What 'personal insult'?
In any case, I want a cure for the virus, as you call it, of the LBH. There's no particular mystery to me above that of many battles, including recent ones, and in truth the 'mystery' is why it's continued to be presented as such, which is my interest: what service do such discussions provide those who participate? There's not been any new evidence, and absent discovery of Custer's skeleton in the river bank, hard to foresee what could be viewed as game changing. Perpetual discussion of the same things for decades is an attraction that eludes me.
I do resent the reputations of those involved, primarily the three top officers of the 7th, being distorted to satisfy bizarre fetishes or world views of my contemporaries or their predecessors. Reno as drunk, syphilitic, coward or Benteen as petty, self serving, traitor or Custer as demented, suicidal, or incompetent. Benteen was a Southerner who fought for the Union, which causes resentment even today. Neither he nor Reno revered Custer, and for those sorts who purchase the god awful and sometimes decidedly homoerotic paintings of Custer in battle and not, this is unforgiveable.
Custer did not have serious presidential ambitions, beyond the age of 8, anyway. In 1876 he was concerned with keeping his job, as the Army had LOTS of officers with no place to advance; a slip and he was cashiered. Tilden had the nomination in hand before Custer left FAL. Probably long before that.
He was no control freak, if the term means anything except what what was mandated by the Army of his day, and the few times his sudden overattention to detail arise - as with the orders to Benteen when on his scout to the south - stand out as odd, not typical. He liked to dress in flamboyant attire and was loose in his approval of others'. He liked practical jokes, theater, and gambling. He was spontaneous in nature and emotional. These are NOT the stigmata of a control freak. Rather the opposite.
If I were to say you had or have someone in your life who was a control freak, and 'study' of the LBH allowed you to visualize him/her slaughtered for your vengeful enjoyment, and that this person obviously had a death wish if they got on your bad side, such a theory would have as much turgor as your's about Custer, which is to say: none. As such hypothesis would reasonably annoy you (or me), publicly displayed, you can understand that when the dead cannot defend themselves or offer contrary theory, courtesy demands people step up on their behalf. They mean no discourtesy to you, per se, but to defend against your discourtesy of superficial and contrived characterizations of the dead, who frankly deserve better from us.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 21, 2011 10:44:20 GMT -6
Steve, As a combat vet, you know this as well as I do... and I am sure Will would agree. When I was in Vietnam the two times I tasted fear-- literally, you know, rising bile reached your taste buds-- were when the plane I was in flew over the South China Sea and I, sitting by the window, began thinking of what would happen in the North Vietnamese decided to send a MIG out after us and shoot us down. That of course was ridiculous. The second time was when my driver and I pulled off the road in this little village to allow our 75 or 80 vehicles to go by, and I am there thinking about being shot in the back by some sniper behind me. I immediately began to look over my shoulder, then forced myself to put it out of my mind and concentrate on the job at hand. The irony of this was, of course, there was no threat in either case, but when there was a threat, when something began to pop-- and it did so very, very quickly-- we sprung into action. We acted so quickly, so instinctively, so much as we were trained over and over, that when things were finished I was shocked at my own actions. And not a little bit proud, let me tell you. That's why I always say some guys are good combat leaders, others are better garrison soldiers. There is no bravado in either, just simple fact. I suspect George Custer, Fred Benteen, Tom French, George Yates, Charlie Varnum, Luke Hare and a few others were the same way, and it presents another reason why I do not believe GAC was-- in his mind-- in any trouble until it was entirely too late and well into the 3 hours+ length of the event. The down side is that are predisposing factors that effect making a correct assessment. This, of course, is what separates one leader from another. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Feb 21, 2011 17:30:18 GMT -6
Hello again, Mr Darkcloud,
In what way is your version different from the others? What evidence whatesoever do you have Custer was a control freak absent his role of commander? Or had a death wish? There's much evidence against both contentions.
I think I've gone over this already, but the early writers on this tended to put the view, and I think this is one a lot of older people were brought up to believe, that he went charging into an Indian camp intent on victory that would make him President of the United States - a rash, vanity driven glory hunter. That was the story I was given in my early life and I think a lot of people were. I contend now that he had a plan and when that plan was deemed hopeless there was no other way out for him, he couldn't go back, he then became the glory hunter, but in death.
Custer did not have serious presidential ambitions, beyond the age of 8, anyway. In 1876 he was concerned with keeping his job, as the Army had LOTS of officers with no place to advance; a slip and he was cashiered. Tilden had the nomination in hand before Custer left FAL. Probably long before that
...I hadn't mentioned this before about presidential ambitions, so not sure why you brought this up, but I agree completely and I'm aware of that political situation at the time. It's an old chestnut that should have been buried a very long time ago. The whole notion is absurd.
He was no control freak..................... He liked to dress in flamboyant attire and was loose in his approval of others'. He liked practical jokes, theater, and gambling. He was spontaneous in nature and emotional. These are NOT the stigmata of a control freak. Rather the opposite.
No, I don't agree. Control freaks can be all of those things, or none. In fact, the person you have described there, if it wasn't Custer - would be me [even the occasional gambling] and I am most certainly a control freak, always have been, and at Custer's age and earlier, probably as much a b*gger to work with as he was.
As for the Death Wish, it may be within me too, - it's certainly within my family. I have known someone who, when all about them fell apart - out of their control - they took charge of their own death and executed it with such a ruthless efficacy that could be deemed selfish and self centred, and importantly, longed for it, and sought it. I relate this heavily to Custer.
I am reminded here of something author Robert Utley once said, and I think he hit the nail on the head with it, a quite brilliant observation. ''Custer is, whoever you are'' and I think that rings very true for me. I have 3 of Utley's books, I find him a solid author if unexciting, lacking in controversy, but that line of his, for me, is the best he ever wrote.
.............As such hypothesis would reasonably annoy you (or me), publicly displayed, you can understand that when the dead cannot defend themselves or offer contrary theory, courtesy demands people step up on their behalf. They mean no discourtesy to you, per se, but to defend against your discourtesy of superficial and contrived characterizations of the dead, who frankly deserve better from us.
I find all this a little precious. They are all a long time dead, generations have passed and depending on which side of the fence you are, they may not necessarily deserve any reverence from us whatsoever....
However, I will say that I find Custer to be both good and bad, brilliant and idiotic in equal measure taking his whole career into account.
At Trevilian Station he strikes me as a blithering idiot, as he does on the Kansas prairie all alone and getting his horse shot.
I think his efforts at Sweetwater River in 1869 a quite brilliant piece of daring that brought excellent results.
I think he turned the Little BigHorn into an amazing work of drama, his authorised, demanded and controlled manoeuverings were quite astonishing but to another, his work could seem mad, and insane. I see both.
But best of all, it would seem his sterling work at Gettysburg is something we should all know more about. It's largely overlooked but it's possible to believe, and I do believe this, that his actions there contributed to a change in history that considerably helped the Union win the day, thereby affecting all of us born into the 20th Century who have found ourselves allied to the United States.
He is often lost in the quagmire of Civil War history, but that day was pivotal for us all, and I think both Indian and European should take this into account when forming our opinions of Custer.
|
|