|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2015 8:44:25 GMT -6
Oh Custer needed T Custer alright, just as an alcoholic needs whiskey. Custer required some manner of adoration all through his life. Don't think he had any real friends, possibly save Rosser, but he surrounded himself with sycophants, hangers on, dependent relatives, and that woman to whom he was only a place in society meal ticket.
What Custer needed and did not have, none in his place had, was a strong staff. In Custer's case he needed a staff of truth tellers who were not intimidated by him. He would not have tolerated them of course so the point is moot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 12, 2015 8:55:50 GMT -6
Tom I was wanted to hear was he was going to play next and it ended, yes I like BG.
Do you want the song I have for you?
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 12, 2015 9:02:46 GMT -6
Chuck I suppose if you are a military genius then you can can go it alone, some officers know how to get the best out of their men, like Rommel did after the battle of Gazala when he drove his men hard, he was weak in number and lacked supplies but they followed him to the end before being stopped at El Alamein.
Custer was in my view not a Rommel.
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2015 9:53:06 GMT -6
Ian: If you are a military genius you realize that you cannot go it alone. Rommel would not have been squat without the exceptional work of his staff, the top flight members of which are far too numerous to name. They also had the moral courage to do what was right, in spite of his orders, as noted in the race to the wire, during Crusader.
Custer as a commander was somewhere between Daisy Mae and Jubilation. T. Cornpone, and he was not comfortable outside the confines of Dogpatch.
Drive is no good, if you don't know where you are going. Commanders think before they act. The reverse ends you up on LSH.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jun 12, 2015 10:10:17 GMT -6
Ian,
Sure love to hear song. To your last, Custer not Rommel. You think!
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 12, 2015 10:35:00 GMT -6
Actually Ian I find it unconscionable. A commander I would think would demand to be with those he commanded. Soldier though do follow orders and if he was ordered by his commander to be where he was that so be it. Obey, but under strong protest. He probably didn't though, and it all points, at least to me, of the amusing lark, snipe hunt aspects of this whole affair. Tom is most probably correct. The rock star needs his groupies to feel manly. I have always thought there was a Custer Family Vacation aspect to LBH. Tom should have been with his men plus Boston and Autie should have been with the packs. Beth |
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 12, 2015 11:06:06 GMT -6
Oh Custer needed T Custer alright, just as an alcoholic needs whiskey. Custer required some manner of adoration all through his life. Don't think he had any real friends, possibly save Rosser, but he surrounded himself with sycophants, hangers on, dependent relatives, and that woman to whom he was only a place in society meal ticket. What Custer needed and did not have, none in his place had, was a strong staff. In Custer's case he needed a staff of truth tellers who were not intimidated by him. He would not have tolerated them of course so the point is moot. Actually Libby was Custer's ticket into society at the time they got married. In ways Libby is very much like Mary Todd Lincoln, selecting a man who she felt would go far in life. Neither women were unusual for their times when a woman had to chose a husband based what their future would be. Though I think Libby had a wild side or need for an extraordinary life so choosing a young and rising Cavalry officer (and I suspect who she felt was moldable) was a good selection. Beth |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2015 11:45:49 GMT -6
Her place in Monroe society, was like a big fish in a small pond. She wanted more. He wanted more. They both USED each other. People aren't for using. They are for loving no matter how far up or how far down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 12, 2015 12:00:21 GMT -6
Her place in Monroe society, was like a big fish in a small pond. She wanted more. He wanted more. They both USED each other. People aren't for using. They are for loving no matter how far up or how far down. QC I understand what you are saying and whole heartedly agree with you but the reality for women in the 18th and 19th century often didn't have the luxury of choosing to marry for love. They had to make sure the man they married was steady, able to earn a living, support a family, of good temperament and reliable. Divorce was not an option so if she married for love and he was a flashy gambler who drank and beat her black and blue, she was stuck. If after a year he moved on to greener pastures, she only had her family to rely on for support and if it was a big family, she might be SOL. A marriage was more than two people in love getting together, you almost had to consider it like a very long term business partnership with both parties trying to improve their station. Marrying for love is a pretty modern concept and I suspect in even my own grandmothers married my grandfathers because they were good steady men who didn't drink, who would be able to have steady income that they liked and trusted and hoped they would make a good team. They also hoped and believed love would come later. |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2015 12:09:27 GMT -6
The Beth what you are saying is that it is perfectly fine to compromise values. I don't believe that was OK then or now.
I understand the tenor of the times. I also understand that the face one sees in the mirror diminishes with each passing day.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jun 12, 2015 12:31:50 GMT -6
Chuck,
Some people will forever see the young Dorian Gray looking back at them from the mirror. It is what they aspire to and like, price is no issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2015 14:13:52 GMT -6
True. I suppose it is a case of me not having much use for those some people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 12, 2015 18:13:56 GMT -6
The Beth what you are saying is that it is perfectly fine to compromise values. I don't believe that was OK then or now. I understand the tenor of the times. I also understand that the face one sees in the mirror diminishes with each passing day. Read Jane Austin's Pride and Prejudice--granted it's nearly a century earlier than 1860's but things didn't change much for women--Jane Austen portrays the plight of unmarried daughters and marrying for need instead of love well because she was an unmarried daughter of a gentleman who had to rely on her brothers for support. Pride and Prejudice at the time of its publishing was ground breaking because most women didn't even consider marrying for love. Even Princess Charlotte, George IV only heir envied Jane and Lizzie Bennet for being able to chose love. She knew she had to marry for dynastic reasons but was lucky to find love with Prince Leopold of Sax-Colberg et al. Your values for love and marriage are honorable and fit with today's mores but what made a good marriage candidate was just viewed differently. I do believe that Judge Bacon was right to at first object to Custer's suit. Libbie just as ill suited to the life of an upper crust wife as GAC would have been unsuited any life beyond the military. |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 13, 2015 7:20:48 GMT -6
Beth my thoughts revolve around Sam Ordinary and Martha Average, and it is difficult for me to reach down and find much sympathy for the Jane Austen or the Madam Fluffys of this world who maintained a form of indentured servitude to maintain the life style they were accustomed to and wished to maintain. It is another form of prostitution, and the truth be told it is just as prevalent now as it was then. The only difference is that now there are few if any social limitations that exist in developed countries that place these burdens on conscience.
In short I have no use for women who are what they are, because of who the men they married are, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY use that position to gain a place of advantage over others. I have seen enough Mrs.Colonels and Mrs. Generals for ten lifetimes.
There is no better fictionalized version of what happens when these things go on than last Thursday's episode of Father Brown, where Lady Felecia betrays the only real friend she has, Father Brown, in an attempt to preserve her status, by covering up for the misdeeds, or more probably the hidden lifestyle, of her husband Lord Montague. Personal decisions about what one is willing to do for the sake of power and position have consequences, none of which are good. Living a lie is not living at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 13, 2015 12:36:49 GMT -6
Beth my thoughts revolve around Sam Ordinary and Martha Average, and it is difficult for me to reach down and find much sympathy for the Jane Austen or the Madam Fluffys of this world who maintained a form of indentured servitude to maintain the life style they were accustomed to and wished to maintain. It is another form of prostitution, and the truth be told it is just as prevalent now as it was then. The only difference is that now there are few if any social limitations that exist in developed countries that place these burdens on conscience. In short I have no use for women who are what they are, because of who the men they married are, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY use that position to gain a place of advantage over others. I have seen enough Mrs.Colonels and Mrs. Generals for ten lifetimes. There is no better fictionalized version of what happens when these things go on than last Thursday's episode of Father Brown, where Lady Felecia betrays the only real friend she has, Father Brown, in an attempt to preserve her status, by covering up for the misdeeds, or more probably the hidden lifestyle, of her husband Lord Montague. Personal decisions about what one is willing to do for the sake of power and position have consequences, none of which are good. Living a lie is not living at all. Unfortunately my local PBS doesn't broadcast Father Brown. |
|
