Gibson's Letter about Benteen's Scout

[Dark Cloud]

Markland, your sycophancy has fallen off of late. No soup for you.

If you're going to prosecute someone for not obeying written orders, the written orders should indicate - perhaps by including the statement 'these are your orders' - their status. Terry expressly did NOT say these were orders and explained why: he had faith in Custer's on the ground ability. He calls them only a Letter of Instructions with clear permission to do as Custer felt best provided he felt the NEED to do so. Either Carter or Rosser pointed this out in the Custer Myth.

Of course Custer knew what Terry intended, but he saw reason to deviate, which I think can be lain at the feet of the mules in the train. Another two or three days of pack train fiasco would have delayed any junction of forces, and Custer's thought of sitting tight for a day makes sense, sort of straightening the curve, as it were, to where he'd be in two days by humping around the Wolf Mt.'s to the spot where the village was.

[harpskiddie]

Let me repeat something I posted on another thread about something or other. The letter of instructions is not labelled as an order and is not carried in the order books as an order. Does anyone know of another "order" for an independent movement written by Terry's HQ prior to 22 June which is not labelled?

When a commanding officer issues a written order he does not think or suggest or desire, he directs you to do something or tells you to do it, as in "you will" or "you are directed to." If it is a verbal order, it is given in clear and peremtory wording such as "go there and do this" or "Be quick" etc.

The only order is given is in the first paragraph, and it is the contrast with this language which clearly indicates that Terry not only gave Custer discretion, but chose to do exactly that. The overriding phrase is "unless YOU shall see sufficient reason" not "unless there IS sufficient reason" or "unless you can JUSTIFY."

Gordie

[crzhrs]

I think we need to find out just exactly was the norm when "instructions" or "orders" were given via a written message during the late 1800s.

Does anyone have access to official US military correspondence regarding orders?

[douglas]

Look at the orders given Reno for his scout. I believe it is in The Custer Myth.

[Hostler]

I believe Gordie is right on here, but crzhrs asks a question others have wondered about also. I don't know if anyone on this forum has access to examples of orders written in that time period, but it would be very interesting to see how they were worded. We might all be in for a surprise.

Regards, Hostler

[elisabeth]

One readily accessible source for orders might be Lawrence Frost's The Court-Martial of General George Armstrong Custer. Several were given in evidence and are reproduced in full in the book. Admittedly, it's nine years earlier, and manners and terminology might have changed in the intervening period -- but on the assumption that 1867 can provide a clue to 1876 usage, it may be worth a look. One thing that's noticeable is that the terms "orders" and "letters of instruction" seem to be used interchangeably by court and witnesses alike; there's no suggestion that a letter of instruction has less need to be obeyed. Another is that they vary in tone quite a bit: some couched entirely in peremptory "you will" language, as per Terry's order to Reno, and others expressed in terms of "wishes" and "desires".

Here's one example of the latter variety: Hancock's order, or "letter of instructions" -- it's referred to as both in testimony -- to Custer and others via Smith:

"HD. QRS. DEPT OF THE MO. IN THE FIELD
CAMP NEAR FORT HARKER, KAS., July 13, 1867

Bvt. Maj. Genl. F.J. Smith
Comdg. Dist. Upper Arkansas

GENERAL:

The Major General Commanding desires you to give instructions to General Custer's Command, which it is understood will arrive at Fort Wallace about the 17th inst., that until further orders it will operate through Fort Wallace as a base and between the Arkansas and the Platte. He will habitually draw his supplies from Fort Wallace but a sufficient quantity of supplies has been placed at Forts Hays, Larned, Dodge and Lyons in order that, if he should find it necessary to to visit those Posts, he will be able to obtain ample supplies. It is not proposed that he shall go south of the Arkansas at present, except in case of hot pursuit.

The Battalion of Volunteer Cavalry will be kept, as a rule, intact and will operate in the gneral direction of the Arkansas say; from Zarah westward they will be governed by the same rules and orders and will find supplies at any of the posts designated herein and if pursuit leads them to the Smoky Hill at the posts on that route.

The tributaries of the Arkansas will be especially under the supervision of the Volunteer Cavalry.

I wish you would require itineraries from Commanders of every scout in accordance with the reiterated orders from these Head Qrs. and the General Regulations of the Army. These troops will not belong to any post nor will their Commanders interfere with the Command of any post at which they may be, or through which they may pass, except so far as to draw their regular supplies on proper requisitions.

These troops should move with pack mules, and not wagons; if means of transportation are required for supplies there are sufficient pack saddles at Fort Wallace and directions will be given to send twenty (20) packaddles to each of the other posts in your districts where Cavalry may be stationed, say, Forts Hays, Larned, Dodge, Lyons, Reynolds and Harker.

You will please determine how much of the 7th Cavalry you propose leaving at Wallace, whether any more than Capt. Keogh's Company or not and give the necessary instructions.

Captain Barnitz' Company should be back at Fort Wallace by the time your orders reach there.

There are some lariats required for the packsaddles at Fort Wallace taken off by General Custer at Fort Hays and used for lariats for his horses; requisitions have been made but you had better see that the rope goes by the first train.

The Cavalry should be kept continually employed.

I am General
Very Respectfully
Your Obt. Servant
/s/ CHAUNCEY McKEEVER, Asst. Adj. Genl."

This is only one example; and it's less tentative in tone than Terry's orders to Custer; but it perhaps gives us a flavour of the delicate language in which orders could be couched ...?

[crzhrs]

<The Major General Commanding desires you to give instructions to General Custer's Command, which it is understood will arrive at Fort Wallace about the 17th inst., that until further orders>

The 1st paragraph may be the whole key here. Notice the words "desires you to give instructions" then "until further orders . . ."

It would appear the "desire" is an "order"

However:
"It is not proposed that he shall go south of the Arkansas at present, except in case of hot pursuit"

That also appears to be another "out" for Custer a la the LBH.

[alfuso]

Elisabeth

I believe I posted heree some time ago, on a series of "orders" I read about Grant issuing to Sheridan in CW and how Grant really, really wanted Sheridan to conclude some plans he was supposed to be carrying out but he kept delaying.

Grant's series of orders are full of "I desire" "I wish" "would you"

that is apparently the language of the times.

alfuso

[Hostler]

Hi alfuso,

I have always perceived Terry's orders to Custer as ambiguous at least. I may have to re-think my conclusions if what you say is the case. I've been trying to locate a copy of Terry's orders to Reno for the Powder River scout, just for comparison. They would be in the same time period and on the same subject, so it would be interesting to see if the two sets of orders are similar in wording or phrasing. No luck in locating a copy yet.

Regards, Hostler

[markland]

Just throwing this out as a "what if."

Perhaps the orders are worded to protect the sensibilities of the recipient? For instance, both Terry & GAC had the same brevet rank (Maj. General) and reached the same actual volunteer (Maj. Gen.) rank during the war and the orders might contain more soothing words such as "desires" and "instructions"; whereas orders to a definitive subordinate would be more direct.

Just a thought.

Billy

[AZ Ranger]

The Major General Commanding desires you to give instructions to General Custer's Command, which it is understood will arrive at Fort Wallace about the 17th inst., that until further orders it will operate through Fort Wallace as a base and between the Arkansas and the Platte. He will habitually draw his supplies from Fort Wallace but a sufficient quantity of supplies has been placed at Forts Hays, Larned, Dodge and Lyons in order that, if he should find it necessary to to visit those Posts, he will be able to obtain ample supplies. It is not proposed that he shall go south of the Arkansas at present, except in case of hot pursuit.

The 1st paragraph may be the whole key here. Notice the words "desires you to give instructions" then "until further orders . . ."

It would appear the "desire" is an "order"

crzhrs - Could it not also be read as Custer was under orders to go to Fort Wallace before this instruction was given to Gen. Smith. Custer's command was to operate from there until further orders. ( the first order could have been the one that sent Custer there with a 17th arrival date which is not included in the instructions given to Gen. Smith). Gen. Smith was not sending Custer to Fort Wallace in this document from what I read only giving him the instructions as given to him on what he is to do once he arrives and how long he is to remain. The desire was attached to the instructions to Gen Smith and not to the order that sent Custer to Fort Wallace as I read it. I say that because there is an arrival date of the 17th which is understood and could be from a previous order.

AZ Ranger

[Dark Cloud]

I don't think these are orders at all, but just what they say they are: the desires of the superior officer. I don't doubt that in a top heavy Army feelings were important. Look at the absurd number of actual and brevet Generals commanding 2000 men in Terry's column alone. Terry, Custer, Brisbin, Reno, Gibbon.......

But regarding Terry's instructions to Custer, however you interpret the etiquette, you're confronted with this: "It is, impossible to give you any definite instructions in regard to this movement, and were it not impossible to do so the Department Commander places too much confidence in your zeal, energy, and ability to wish to impose upon you precise orders which might hamper your action when nearly in contact with the enemy. He will, however, indicate to you his own views of what your action should be, and he desires that you should conform to them unless you shall see sufficient reason for departing from them." That is pretty clear, and Custer cannot be said, therefore, to have violated Terry's orders (if orders they were) in any sense. He may have violated Terry's wishes, but Terry refused to "impose upon you precise orders...."

[Hostler]

DC,

I tend to agree with you, however I am waiting for delivery of a book which may have a copy of Terry's orders to Reno for his scout on the Powder. I want to compare the two sets of orders or "instructions", whatever one chooses to call them, as to phrasing etc..

Regards, Hostler

[crzhrs]

I looked up "instructions" in a number of on-line dictionaries. [My emphasis in bold italic] The results:


the act or practice of instructing or teaching; education.
knowledge or information imparted.
an item of such knowledge or information
Usually, instructions. orders or directions
the act of furnishing with authoritative directions


instruct (ORDER)
to order or tell someone to do something, especially in a formal way:


The act, practice, or profession of instructing.
Imparted knowledge. b. An imparted or acquired item of knowledge; a lesson.
An authoritative direction to be obeyed; an order. Often used in the plural: had instructions to be home by midnight.

a. Imparted knowledge.
b. instructions: Detailed directions on procedure: read the instructions for assembly.

instructions: order
an outline or set of procedures to be followed

It seems instructions can be defined as "orders"

[elisabeth]

DC,

Mmmm, yes ... and no doubt that was the part of the sentence that Custer chose to take in ... but all Terry's really refusing to impose is "precise orders which might hamper your action when nearly in contact with the enemy". The near contact with the enemy comes first, then the "sufficient reason" discretion for Custer kicks in. Now one could argue, and many have, that picking up the hot trail in itself constituted being "nearly in contact". But since Terry has already stated that he fully expects the trail to lead towards the LBH, and even so "thinks you should" not follow it directly, he's set the parameters pretty clearly. As it turned out, Custer was probably right to ignore Terry's "own views of what your action should be", in view of the unforeseen chance that the Indians had gone down the valley rather than up it ... but he didn't know that when he took the decision to go out on a limb. He just got lucky. (Or unlucky.)

The Tullock's Creek question has been argued into infinity, and most consider he'd reconnoitred it enough (just) to comply with his orders. But the "endeavour to send a scout" part was undeniably ignored. Poor old Benteen gets castigated for failing to comply with the "report" part of his mission, yet Custer's perpetually let off for doing the same on the grounds that it would have made no difference to the outcome of the battle. Doesn't seem entirely fair, somehow ...

Billy's point about equality of rank is a good one, I think. The same delicacy may well have applied to the Hancock/Smith orders/instructions quoted above. As you say, it was a top-heavy army, and orders to a man of equal or near-equal rank might need to be couched in far more courteous terms than those to a distinct subordinate (such as Terry's to Reno, which are all "you will"). This could account for a lot of the apparent ambiguity. The intention was clear enough; but Custer could, if he chose, find wiggle room. He chose to do that in his defence at the '67 court-martial; that's not, of course, proof positive of his intentions at LBH -- but it may suggest a mindset?