|
Post by conz on Nov 18, 2007 10:23:39 GMT -6
Well it got me to thinking,that you may very well be correct. If I was an enlisted man and saw my company commander taking off to leave us to the mercy of a inexperienced Lieutenant-I might feel unwanted and neglected. Good point Tricia! Cav, I don't really think that this was the case. I don't believe Tom was ever acting as company commander that campaign, and the men didn't think of him as their commander, except in garrison. In the field, I doubt the men saw CPT Custer all that much...he was always at headquarters, like an "S3" I think. Clair
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 18, 2007 12:30:39 GMT -6
Tom, what on earth are you talking about? Cravasses. What do you mean cravasses - that's not even a word. It is too, it's where the pumas hide. Tommy, there are no pumas in Australia. There are too!! Okay, where are they? Hiding in the cravasses.
Hang down your head, Tom Dooley. Hang down your head and ECCCCCHHHH........
Gordie, MC
PS Dunno about the whatsisname comment. It's part of a note of a note, but obviously some years after the fights
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Nov 18, 2007 14:50:09 GMT -6
Conz, Tom was acting as company commander--and practical joker--until sometime in mid-May when it is believed that GAC snatched him to serve as an adjutant ... I can imagine just how furious his men were; the bravest of the brave had suddenly walked out on them and left everything to the untried Harrington ...
Too bad, so sad ... --t.
Chairchick, NACCers, MST, the Nuthouse
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Nov 18, 2007 15:08:20 GMT -6
Tom may have wanted more from Libbie, who's to really know? But, I think, that if Libbie had ever even indicated that kind of interest or offered in any way, Tom would have about-faced and marched off. It's just my opinion, that Tom was too loyal to George to have cuckholded him. However strong Tom's 'alley cat' nature was, I don't see it going there. Even an alley cat has a few prinicples. Yeah, right. You're really stretching there to find a little nobility in the boy's character! But if Libbie really was carrying on with Keogh, that doesn't necessarily block the idea the fair Missus Custer from revealing attraction to the younger brother. It might have been--on her part--a bit of a payback for what happened in St. Louis. Nevertheless, Tom and the Libster spent a lot of time together during the campaign of 1867 ... while TWC was supposedly ill ... Back to the rewrites ... can't make Steve an unhappy holiday boy! --t. Chairchick, NACCers MST, The Nuthouse
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Nov 18, 2007 17:19:36 GMT -6
Clair, You may be correct. My information about Tom Custer was from the book "The Custer Companion' by Thom Hatch. On page 11 he writes "He (Tom Custer) rode out on the 1876 Little Bighorn campaign as commander of Company C, but is has been speculated that at some point during the June 25 battle, he was detailed as an aide-de-camp to his brother." As to your suggestion that he was acting as a S3 Operations officer-I would have thought General Custer acted as his own operations officer. Upon contact with the warriors,any idea why Gen. Custer would prefer an experienced officer like Tom to serve as a staff officer,and not as a Line officer? Thanks, Larry
|
|
kenny
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by kenny on Nov 18, 2007 22:02:52 GMT -6
I'm wondering why Tom was made the Aide-de-camp?Instead of Lt. Harrington? I doubt that a experience company commander is made aide-de-camp for the 7th Regiment. It would seem to me that Lt. Harrington had more experience as a company commander. Then Captain Tom Custer was.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 19, 2007 8:44:15 GMT -6
I'm wondering why Tom was made the Aide-de-camp?Instead of Lt. Harrington? I doubt that a experience company commander is made aide-de-camp for the 7th Regiment. It would seem to me that Lt. Harrington had more experience as a company commander. Then Captain Tom Custer was. Not really an "aide-de-camp," although in Napoleonic times ADCs were often senior officers who could take command of subordinate units or ad hoc formations and lead them into battle. They were like roving "battle captains." Tom was acting like the junior Major in these Cavalry regiments...the Senior Major took a battalion on a critical mission...the Junior Major acts like a "senior" aide-de-camp to advise the commander and do odd-jobs as required in the commander's name. Probably fits Tom's role quite well. Harrington was young, but still had a couple years experience on Indian campaigns. He was highly regarded, I believe. He is one candidate for being the buckskin-clad officer on a Sorrel that was "the bravest man on the field" that day, as described by Natives. Looks as if he was tucked tightly and safely (so to speak) under Keogh's arm, too. As Trish said, he seems to have spent most of his time with the headquarters shortly after leaving FAL. Clair
|
|
|
Post by rch on Nov 19, 2007 12:09:00 GMT -6
Conz,
In desribing the duties of senior and junior majors are you talking about Napoleonic regiments?
In our regiments, I don't believe that there was any distinction between the usual duties of a senior major and junior major. The majors and lieutenant colonel of a regiment, if present, had a general duty to assist the colonel or regimental commander, but usually they commanded battalions or wings.
It appears that at times the title of acting major was used. I think Benteen referred to himself that way when commanding one of the 7th's wings on the march from Ft Lincoln. I don't know if that was in any way official or if it was just customary. If anyone served in the capacity you mention, it was Reno while doing only the duties of second in command on the march from the Yellowstone until assigned to battalion command on 25 Jun.
I don't think any surviving officer of the 7th Cav ever said that Capt Custer was an aide or staff officer of any kind. Regimental commanders were not allowed aides-de-camp. Col Merritt, of the 5th Cav did have at least 2 aides-de-camp. They are listed in Charkes K. Mills' "Rosters from 7th U. S. Cavalry Campaigns 1866 - 1896." I beleive these men were probably assigned after Merritt assumed command of Crook's cavalry, which was a brigade sized command. The reason we may know that Merritt had these ADCs is that orders or company records survive to verify the appointments.
I have not heard that any such record exists to verify that Capt Custer had any staff position which would have been estential if other officers were to respect his authority.
I don't believe that Capt Custer acted in any way as a staff officer on the march from the Yellowstone.
I don't believe that he acted as a staff officer on 25 Jun. If he had been doing that duty, Gen Custer would have 2 staff officers and could have easily directed one of them to go back to Benteen and bring Benteen directly to him (by the way, I don't believe that Custer wanted Benteen to come directly to him).
I believe that for 100 years Capt Custer was considered one of the officers who did not die with his company. I don't think that anyone in those 100 years said he didn't die with his company because he was on his brother's staff.
Capt Custer may have simply perferred to ride with his brother, but that didn't make him a staff officer.
rch
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 19, 2007 13:15:34 GMT -6
rch:
Well, then. How do you account for the fact that Captain Tom spent so much time at HQ or pitched his "tent" next to Armstrong's? Oh. That's right - they were brothers I'm surprised that Boston and Autie Reed have not put forward as AAADCs.
DeVoto to Camp, 15 November 1917: "...............the morning we started out before daylight, and B Troop was the advance guard was the morning of the 25th, and the change to rear guard was made when we were about ten miles from the Indian camp, after Officers Call was sounded, and General Custer had his counsel of war. C Troop was made advance guard, with Captain Tom Custer in command. B Troop was made rear guard................."
Varnum to Camp, 14 April 1909: "..............I rode down towards the column and soon met the Genl. He said, "Well, you've had a night of it." I said, Yes, but I was still able to sit up and notice things. Tom Custer and Calhoun then came up to us, and Custer was angry at their leaving the column and ordred them back......"
Custer would hardly have been angry at his aide riding up to him, in fact one would have expected him to have brought Tom along. I think you're right about Tom being in command of C, and that there is [or must be] another explanation as to how he came to be on Custer Hill.
Gordie, MC
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 22, 2007 11:24:13 GMT -6
I'm ba-a-a-ack ...! Somehow I've survived ten days -- ten whole days -- without the computer, though heaven knows how. (It's going to take me ages to catch up.) Must be what cold turkey is like.
Speaking of which -- a happy Thanksgiving to all!
Re Tom as ADC or not, interesting arguments above. One more to add, perhaps. While in exile, I've been re-reading Boston's letters (the Arrow and Trooper compilation) and was struck by the way he refers to Co. D as "Lt. Edgerly's company". Edgerly himself, in his accounts of the Weir advance episode, mentions that Weir generally let him handle the company, so this is hardly a revelation; but it does suggest a fair amount of flexibility prevailing within the regiment as to who was where. (And Peter Thompson blames all of Co. C's extra work on Harrington's wish to curry favour, confirming that Harrington was the key officer as far as enlisted men were concerned.) Clearly, Co. D was identified with Edgerly rather than Weir. If Weir could cheerfully abdicate leadership of his company to an untried lieutenant, it's no stretch to think that the CO's brother could do the same without needing any official ADC status to do so.
Re Tom's character: I've voted for the third option. (Rejecting the fifth one -- though with a trifle of difficulty.) His CW record shows him as a redoubtable fighter, so his courage isn't in doubt -- any more than GAC's. I do find it hard to take to the boy, however. The rattlesnake pranks have been discussed above; he joined with GAC in the evil tricks against Boston and their father; his attitude to women has also been ably canvassed. But what I think makes me dislike him the most is his attitude towards Indians. Libbie tells, apparently without criticism, of how he took advantage of the language barrier to shower insults on them while smiling nicely, presuming that they couldn't understand, and gave Monaseetah the loaded "Sallie Ann" nickname; not major crimes, true, but to me they sound like the work of a sneering underhand bully. I kind of see him as the dark side of GAC. GAC had his virtues as well as his faults, and even his faults were mostly forgivable: boasting, fantasising, etc. Tom's were nastier -- there seems to be a real streak of cruelty there. The kind of boy who pulls wings off flies. Maybe I'm over-influenced by his photos, all of which show a narrowed-eyed glint reminiscent of the actor L. Q. Jones in some of his best roles ... but that's how I see him. And it would be understandable: as younger brother of Golden Boy, he must have carried a certain amount of resentment with him all his life. Deciding -- or having it decided for him? -- to go around as GAC's shadow may have crippled him severely.
Actually, I hadn't thought of that before. If he'd gone into a different regiment -- might he have turned out a very different person??
Not wishing to be pretentious here (oh yeah?) but if anyone's read the wonderful Icelandic tale, Njal's Saga, isn't he almost a dead ringer for the character of Skarp-Hedin? A guy who starts off with immense potential, but because he's overshadowed by (in this case) his father, becomes more and more angular and itchy and mean throughout the story. A man who's brilliant in battle -- yet you can see he's been diminished throughout by playing second fiddle. If he'd broken away, he could have been a happier person. Same with Tom, one can't help wondering ...?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 22, 2007 14:03:17 GMT -6
Welcome back, Elisabeth [may I call you Eileen?]. We've [well, me anyway] missed you, and I hope all went well with your renovation or whatever it was.
That said, I think you may be on to something about Tom vis a vis Autie. I have not, I freely admit, read widely on the subject of Tom, but the bits I have seen regarding his service in the ACW before he joined his brother, show a happy-go-lucky, gregarious boy, who would give you the shirt off his back, and seemed satisfied to skip [or slink] through his official duties, which for a while were minimal anyway - just do as you're told, Custer. And that's about all he did.
It was only after he was transferred at his brother's doing that the mad reckless fighter emerged, and it may well be the result of his wanting to live up to his brother's image and reputation - which would have been a chore for anyone, for regardless of what one thinks of Armstrong Custer as a man and husband, he was one heck of a cavalry commander, a desperate fighter, and revered by his men, and plenty of others. As Rosser is said to have told a subordinate: "That's that General Custer fellow them Yankees are so proud of. Watch me teach him a lesson today."
Gordie, MC come join our merry gang.......................................................
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 22, 2007 18:16:51 GMT -6
Elisabeth! Yes, we're all happy that you're back. Gordie has been so distraught at your absence that he's taken to renaming everyone here. Obviously trying to fill in the void we've all felt while you were away. Sad, sad, sad. Below is a link some here may enjoy. 'The Story of Burnt Njal' is available, as well as many others - some incredibly difficult to find. www.fullbooks.com/M
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Nov 23, 2007 1:01:28 GMT -6
harpskiddie
that's "pooma"
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 23, 2007 7:34:48 GMT -6
Help me out here. Fred is still in a food coma and I can’t access his voluminous notes.
Is it correct that TWC had not been a captain very long at the time of the LBH fight? AND, that he had not been with Co. C until his promotion to captain? I know he was with Co. M sometime earlier as a lieutenant.
It seems (I have gotten the impression at least) that actual company commanders (captains) often had little direct involvement with their specific company's members. Many seemed to leave it to the lieutenants and sergeants to actually deal with the men on a day-to-day basis, drill, training, seeing to individual and personal duties, even punishments - that sort of thing. There were of course exceptions - Yates, Benteen and a couple of others. SO… the troopers would ‘know’ their lieutenant, even more so their sergeant and more importantly vice versa. The captains seem almost to be over-all administrators in many cases. On a mini scale, the same ‘working’ arrangement as with Col. Sturgis and Lieut. Col. Custer.
IF, my impression is correct then (as in the case of Capt. Custer and Lieut. Harrington), the captain might not even be the best person to actually be giving commands to the troopers at certain times. Or, at the least - it would make no difference or add any benefit. In that case, a Capt. Custer might be free to be tapped by a higher officer to fill a more important roll - official or not, and with no detriment to ‘his’ specific company of troops and their performance.
Lieut. Col. Custer did some shuffling of officers among the different companies before the 1876 Campaign got under way. He did more shortly before the 25th of June. My opinion is that there was a system in place that allowed for flexibility beyond what was laid out in the ’book’.
Lieutenant Harrington was, by all accounts I’ve seen, a competent and capable officer. He was not without experience in the field. His knowledge of the company members may have been greater than Capt. Custer's. It was probably at least as good, so that it made no difference which was giving the orders directly or which was closest by - or should have been or needed to be.
Just some thoughts.
M
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Nov 23, 2007 9:22:49 GMT -6
Good points Elizabeth. I guess it's truth what they say about 'middle children' isn't it? They demand more attention. Perpetually pissed that older brother and younger brother got more attention. I've always likened the Custers to professional athletes who've never had to grow up. You know, shoes nailed to the floor, the famous hot foot, locker doors glued shut and etc. They were allowed to get away with more than others because of GAC who's safety umbrella protected Tom. Goes back to what bs said about that there "was a system in place which allowed for flexibility." Wonder how many serious soldiers fell in with the merry pranksters and ended up having their image tarnished.
|
|