|
Post by montrose on Aug 5, 2012 8:15:49 GMT -6
One of the challenges in evaluating LTC Custer is his habit of lying to justify his errors, or to undermine his rivals.
GAC's Civil War record is certainly above average, and often admirable. He would have been better off in just saying nothing. Nevertheless, his actions show a lack of judgment, a lack of understanding of what is going on around him (Situational awareness) and a lack of character, integrity and leadership. I believe these traits in GAC are causal, meaning they materially contributed to his failure at LBH.
Example. In the 1867 campaign, Custer disobeyed orders and lied to his superiors to give him a chance to meet his wife. As a result of these deceptions, LT Kidder was sent out on a totally unnecessary expedition. If GAC had been where he lied to his superiors saying he was, Kidder and company would not have died.
Further, GAC followed this up by deserting his command and going to his wife. During this ride to Libby, his backup horse fell out. He set a detail back to get his horse. They ran into enemy contact. Rather than go back to recover his dead and missing, he abandoned them. One of his own officers warned him the men were enraged by this act of cowardice, but he went on. AN infantry officer led a patrol, and found and saved a wounded survivor.
LTC Custer later claimed these men were deserters who deserved being killed. He lied about them following his orders. He further lied in saying there were no survivors, which absolves him for not searching for survivors.
Because of this action, 1/3 of the EM on the ride to Libby deserted. GAC claimed they were deserting to be gold miners. This is nonsense, they deserted after seeing him abandon their peers to die, while pursuing personal objectives, not military objectives.
Comment. Blaming subordinates for a commander's own actions is a hidden military taboo. Especially when officers start blaming privates.
Now, for LBH Custer's supporters follow their Deity in this bad habit. There is a weird standard for LBH (only)where GAC is never held accountable for his actions, but his subordinates are held to a much higher degree of accountability.
I make an effort to use rational choice theory as my 1st tool in analyzing military actions. Yet, LBH attracts a majority of emotional based theories. You start with hero worship of GAC, and then ignore facts and rational analysis to justify anything GAC does, and denigrate Custer's superiors, peers, and subordinates.
LBH is in the same category of the Kennedy assassination third gunman, Area 51 aliens, crop circle aliens, pyramid construction aliens, etc.(Basically, anything on the History Channel).
Bottom line. I plan to use this thread to discuss claims of what GAC said or wrote, vice actual facts. I will discuss the implications of his behavior on the efficiency and effectiveness of his unit, and how it impacted national interests.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 5, 2012 8:48:44 GMT -6
I think it is safe to say that since the first establishment of an armed body for military purposes they have been subject to rules and regulations for the governance of their activities. One can presume then that the U S Army of the 1870's had regulations autorizing a certain amount of leave per year from the Commanding General to the newest Private. Don't know the answer to this, but what amount of leave was authorized per year to Custer, in accordance with existing regulations, and was their a provision to carry unused leave over from a previous year? This is asked in relation to Custer's activites on the east coast in the Winter, early Spring of 1875.
I find that is reprehensible that Custer would not be engaged in the preperation of his command for the upcoming campaign. Preparation does not include watching several performances of Julius Caesar on Broadway or clubbing with the swells. Duty trumps leave, entertainment, and any other personal consideration. I do not include in these critical remarks the time Custer spent testifying in Washington. That was in the line of duty.
While the question of mine is on the fringe of the purpose of the thread, did Custer ever offer any type of explanation as to his activities verbally, or in writing from the time he returned to Fort Lincoln until his death?
|
|
|
Post by plainsman on Aug 5, 2012 8:57:13 GMT -6
Other than physically, did Custer ever grow beyond the age of 14?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 5, 2012 8:58:04 GMT -6
William great post and I am waiting for more.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Aug 5, 2012 9:10:22 GMT -6
Colonel Montrose On my way to church, but had to put my 2 cents in.I agree with Steve great post and a thread that should have been started a long time ago. Custer was a brave man but a fraud. A Courtney Massengale with onions
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 5, 2012 9:12:37 GMT -6
Agree. Of course Montrose, never having delivered a paper to the national ROTC after a full year within that august body and having actually served - and in combat - has no qualifications to diss Custer, a god.
It's been noted that when all three of the top officers at the LBH - when held to any one, consistent set of sane standards applied to all three for soldiers in combat - Custer comes in last every time. That's why they have to apply a different standard to him as they do to themselves.
Custer's amount of leave was also noted in the Civil War. Sometimes for 'wounds'.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 5, 2012 9:21:24 GMT -6
Well he sure as hell wasn't Sam Damon with onions. I also agree and should have stated such in my post above..
DC: Don't recall him being wounded. When and where, or am I slow to pick up on your meaning this morning. Coffee pot is still half full and perhaps I am not yet fully awake?
Dan: The onion scene with Greensteet was still the best in that movie
|
|
|
Post by bc on Aug 5, 2012 10:03:43 GMT -6
LBH is in the same category of the Kennedy assassination third gunman, Area 51 aliens, crop circle aliens, pyramid construction aliens, etc.(Basically, anything on the History Channel). I'm not quite ready to lump the LBH in with that other crud from the History/Modern channel. The major audience for the other crud seems to come from the morons/idiots/Big Bang Theory watchers. bc
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 5, 2012 10:24:55 GMT -6
BC: But it is. The only mistake Montrose made was not including the sentence you cite where it belongs in the paragraph immediately above begining with "I make an effort" then the context of its meaning is quite clear. It is not LBH itself that is crud, but rather the various whakado theories that are inserted into the telling of what little is known of the truth.
Are you telling me then that the thing most recently presented on the History Channel about Custer's survivor by some Bobaloo out to make a buck and sell his book, Koster not the other one, does not rank up there in the catagory of visual blight, as Rocket Men from Mars stealing the Declaration of Independence? Why I just watched some presentation last night where Jesus Christ Himself went to Spain and left His footprint in concrete. It was on long enough to allow me to finish my hamburger and it ultimately lost out to Celebrity Wife Swap.
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on Aug 5, 2012 12:25:45 GMT -6
QC, I believe Custer sufferfed a leg wound some time in the CW. I don't recall exactly when, mainly because, well, it just didn't make an impression on me.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 5, 2012 12:39:40 GMT -6
ZG: Maybe so. Don't recall ever hearing about it, although I sure have heard the stories of the Golden Boy, leader of a thousand charges, horses by the hundreds shot out from under him, yet never a scratch.
|
|
|
Post by stevewilk on Aug 5, 2012 13:19:17 GMT -6
QC, I believe Custer sufferfed a leg wound some time in the CW. I don't recall exactly when, mainly because, well, it just didn't make an impression on me. Custer WIA Culpepper VA, 12(?) Sep 1863; shell fragment ripped into lower leg, killing horse. Six months later he suffered a concussion after being thrown headfirst out a carriage.
|
|
Carl
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by Carl on Aug 5, 2012 15:01:51 GMT -6
Heitman, Vol 2, Part 3 = List of Officers casualties does not list G A Custer's wound in 1863.
It does list Benteen's at LBH
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Aug 5, 2012 15:11:56 GMT -6
One of the challenges in evaluating LTC Custer is his habit of lying to justify his errors, or to undermine his rivals. GAC's Civil War record is certainly above average, and often admirable. He would have been better off in just saying nothing. Nevertheless, his actions show a lack of judgment, a lack of understanding of what is going on around him (Situational awareness) and a lack of character, integrity and leadership. I believe these traits in GAC are causal, meaning they materially contributed to his failure at LBH. Example. In the 1867 campaign, Custer disobeyed orders and lied to his superiors to give him a chance to meet his wife. As a result of these deceptions, LT Kidder was sent out on a totally unnecessary expedition. If GAC had been where he lied to his superiors saying he was, Kidder and company would not have died. Further, GAC followed this up by deserting his command and going to his wife. During this ride to Libby, his backup horse fell out. He set a detail back to get his horse. They ran into enemy contact. Rather than go back to recover his dead and missing, he abandoned them. One of his own officers warned him the men were enraged by this act of cowardice, but he went on. AN infantry officer led a patrol, and found and saved a wounded survivor. LTC Custer later claimed these men were deserters who deserved being killed. He lied about them following his orders. He further lied in saying there were no survivors, which absolves him for not searching for survivors. Because of this action, 1/3 of the EM on the ride to Libby deserted. GAC claimed they were deserting to be gold miners. This is nonsense, they deserted after seeing him abandon their peers to die, while pursuing personal objectives, not military objectives. Comment. Blaming subordinates for a commander's own actions is a hidden military taboo. Especially when officers start blaming privates. Now, for LBH Custer's supporters follow their Deity in this bad habit. There is a weird standard for LBH (only)where GAC is never held accountable for his actions, but his subordinates are held to a much higher degree of accountability. I make an effort to use rational choice theory as my 1st tool in analyzing military actions. Yet, LBH attracts a majority of emotional based theories. You start with hero worship of GAC, and then ignore facts and rational analysis to justify anything GAC does, and denigrate Custer's superiors, peers, and subordinates. LBH is in the same category of the Kennedy assassination third gunman, Area 51 aliens, crop circle aliens, pyramid construction aliens, etc.(Basically, anything on the History Channel). Bottom line. I plan to use this thread to discuss claims of what GAC said or wrote, vice actual facts. I will discuss the implications of his behavior on the efficiency and effectiveness of his unit, and how it impacted national interests. Well put William. The only problem is that you're an infantryman and don't understand the Hussar mentality. Billy (who is now going next door to see the CYA cutting and pasting by Bill and the reflexive bashing by Clair of everyone who's surname was not Custer.)
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 5, 2012 15:44:42 GMT -6
Being wounded on 12 September 1863 seems somewhat suspect, at least the date. The Bristoe Campaign saw its opening moves on 13 September and Kilpatrick's Division moved on that date across Kelly's and on to Culpeper. He met Stuart on the old Brandy Station field and it does not seem to have been a prolonged affair, and evidently not considered important enough for either Stuart or Kilpatrick to file a report.
Now if Custer was wounded at Culpeper sometime around the 13th of September it does not seem to be very serious because he sure was active and on horseback and in the field for the Buckland Races on the 19th of October at the conclusion of the Bristoe Campaign.
I would think that an artillery shell fragment that was sufficient to kill a horse would also be sufficient to cause very serious injury to Custer's leg as well. That said, has anyone ever seen or heard where the man walked with even a slight limp or had any other outward sign of a serious injury to the leg, and I would include in this any mention, by anyone, of a scar?
Billy: William is a Special Operator. They have their own branch. I am not sure if it's a case of we don't claim them, or they don't claim us.
Lincoln's Cavalrymen - Longacre Page 224: A shell fragment gouged his foot and killed his horse 13/9/63
|
|