The Little Bighorn (2 Viewers)

[Spitfrnd]

...There, for the most part, has never been a righteous political climate that has preceded most of our AND OTHER COUNTRIES past conflicts, especially from our forever apologetic current generation. So when a new set of bones is found on the battlefield, I will be most interested in the forensics to tell me who this guy was and how he died in the service, defending our rights some 130 years later to call him a racist bas*********...Gotta love this country. Michael

I don't think any forensic technique known to man will tell you "who" he was. As to whether he died defending our rights or for some other reason or whether he was a racist bas**** I think are a legitimate questions that go far beyond battlefield archeology. It is amusing to note that being critical of an icon makes you respectfully a bleeding heart, UN-American and an apologist. That is a lot of labeling for a subject of relatively limited contemporary value.

This might be a bit heavy for this thread but I think most of you-phobes and philes alike will get my jist and I do have a genuine interest in what my American friends believe are the reasons Custer's Last Stand has endured all the way into the 21st century.

The myth is not infrequently larger than the man and the image of a brave band courageously defying the odds in defense of their nation is a powerful image for any generation and crosses many value lines. Americans, as much or more than any people, love an underdog and the popular perception of a righteous protector of the American dream by an underdog who was clearly fated to die in the effort is timeless. Interestingly I am not a phobe or a phile of the man but rather find sad and reprehensible some of the practices and policies he did and attempted to carry out. That makes it rather hard for me to accord him much respect.

 

[Combat]

Yes I believe you are correct, it seems to be an American point. I must say

growing up since 1949 it was never a big deal until lately. In the past

everyone seemed to be proud to be an "American" we had a rich history, and

rose to world prominence in a relatively short period of time.

This sort of highlights how perspective plays a role in the way people from different backgrounds interpret events. The people on the receiving end of many of these wrongs were Americans as well. Non-white Americans but still Americans. To suggest that raising issues relating to the mistreatment of Indians is not a big deal or that discussing it somehow diminishes "American" history implies that they were not as American as Custer and his soldiers. Everyone has some inherent bias toward their own culture. Many white Americans - of which I am one - often perceive these types of discussions as attacks on themselves. The defense mechanism is that individuals who raise them must be PC America haters. There are no bad people here on either side of this discussion. We have differences of opinion based on our own cultural backgrounds and even age. My guess is that older people are less open to these discussions having formed opinions (rightly or wrongly) at a time when such discussions of controversial topics were less common.

 

[OzDigger]

This sort of highlights how perspective plays a role in the way people from different backgrounds interpret events. The people on the receiving end of many of these wrongs were Americans as well. Non-white Americans but still Americans. To suggest that raising issues relating to the mistreatment of Indians is not a big deal or that discussing it somehow diminishes "American" history implies that they were not as American as Custer and his soldiers. Everyone has some inherent bias toward their own culture. Many white Americans - of which I am one - often perceive these types of discussions as attacks on themselves. The defense mechanism is that individuals who raise them must be PC America haters. There are no bad people here on either side of this discussion. We have differences of opinion based on our own cultural backgrounds and even age. My guess is that older people are less open to these discussions having formed opinions (rightly or wrongly) at a time when such discussions of controversial topics were less common.

He's an "ageist", let's get out our walking frames and rush him

 

[Russell]

Hi Reb, John, Louis, Michael, Combat, Jazzeum and all the others here on this thread .
I’ve learnt a lot on this thread from you all. For example, because of this thread I’ve googled Benteen and learnt a bit about his road through life. Now knowing next to nothing about the battle of Little Big Horn and knowing that there was an understandable and vocal desire to stick to the battle I’ve kept out but have read all the posts with interest.

But UKReb’s last post opened the door and so I’m walking in. I hope I’m welcome.

Combat wrote,

There are no bad people here on either side of this discussion.

I agree.

The symbol of Custer in Jazzeum’s words as underdog, against unbeatable odds is an enduring one. Other examples that come to mind are David and Goliath, Leonidas and the rest of the Spartans at Thermoplyle (many say as foolhardy as Custer), Athens vs. Persia, the Spanish Armada, the Great Siege of Malta, dare I say it, Cinderella, Rocky Balboa, and the US Miracle on Ice winning the World Hockey Championship. Generally we cheer for the underdog and the burden of being the winner is often that of being unloved, hated, envied; often the case for Americans over the last 50 years. It would probably be the same for Canadians but we’re pretty much invisible. Being the winner and being loved too is often like having your cake and eating it too.

As to the symbolism of Custer, and the last stand, seen in pictures around the world (UK Reb), lots can get lost in translation. I recall reading that a Japanese department store had put up a mock Santa Claus nailed to a cross for Christmas.

Mythically Custer is the underdog; he lost the battle. Historically the Indians are the real underdogs; they and many others have lost the war. I believe that the conflict at Little Big Horn was part of a thousand year old conflict (actually ten thousand). Before agriculture we were all nomads/hunter-gathers. This was the end of a long lasting struggle between agricultural man (with the pleasures and drawbacks of civilization), and the original hunter-gathers. Once all humans were nomads and hunter-gathers, that is the Abels of the world. Then the agriculturalists and their need to own exclusively very specific patches of land, fought for and generally won to maintain this exclusivity. These are the Cains of the world; us. And now the nomads barely exist anywhere except in Winnebagos and Steamliners . It’s the conflict of Cain and Abel. Abel lost. (I love to go canoe-camping, away in the bush for ten days or so. I also love the return with the first shower and operational toilets and a fresh supply of of sunscreen. Mixed loyalties. )

The Indians were fighting for their cultural and physical lives. Europeans coming to America were looking for a better life, my father included.

On another note, John referred to the brutality of the Indians after the battle asking if the soldiers were not human beings too. They sure were, with their own very human dreams and desires. However we explain it away, I would not be comfortable with anyone brutalizing another, dead or alive (now if someone were to lay a finger on my granddaughter ...). Two wrongs or a thousand wrongs don’t make a right. Still, here is an example of coldblooded ugliness with British, American and Canadian roots. In many ways he was probably a nice guy. Probably well educated too. The example is General Amherst. We have a street named after him here in Montreal. That's how much some of us thought of him.

Got this on the net ...

Amherst suggested using smallpox as a weapon for racial extermination. In a series of letters he exchanged with his subordinate, Colonel Henry Bouquet, he proposed that Bouquet infect Native Americans with smallpox through gifts of blankets that had been exposed to the disease, and Bouquet readily agreed to comply.

Amherst served as the nominal Crown Governor of Virginia from 1759-1768, though Francis Fauquier continued his role as acting governor from the previous term. During this period he also served as the first Governor General of British North America from 1760-1763. This office still exists as the Canadian monarch's representative in Canada.

Then there’s Reb who wrote,

Oh! Dear

It appears our history discussion on the battle has been dragged back yet again into todays PC world-I'd best pull the plug on this one guys so we can all get back to the normal but dull one line comments and endless polls.

That had me chuckling.

Now if Britains comes out with a wild west line of soldiers with forts and teepees, I’ll be first in line to start my diorama. That’s another story.

Chatting about all these things with fellow collectors, whom I sometimes meet at shows, is a real pleasure. Cheers

 

[damian]

...................................................................................

I don't know.......perhaps we have finally found a topic, or a man we can

all agree on.......and admire!

Johnny Cash

 

[Spitfrnd]

Johnny Cash

Before, during or after?

.... My guess is that older people are less open to these discussions having formed opinions (rightly or wrongly) at a time when such discussions of controversial topics were less common.

Oh if that were only true; personally I'm still forming mine.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Hi Reb, John, Louis, Michael, Combat, Jazzeum and all the others here on this thread .
I’ve learnt a lot on this thread from you all. For example, because of this thread I’ve googled Benteen and learnt a bit about his road through life. Now knowing next to nothing about the battle of Little Big Horn and knowing that there was an understandable and vocal desire to stick to the battle I’ve kept out but have read all the posts with interest.

But UKReb’s last post opened the door and so I’m walking in. I hope I’m welcome.

Combat wrote, I agree.

The symbol of Custer in Jazzeum’s words as underdog, against unbeatable odds is an enduring one. Other examples that come to mind are David and Goliath, Leonidas and the rest of the Spartans at Thermoplyle (many say as foolhardy as Custer), Athens vs. Persia, the Spanish Armada, the Great Siege of Malta, dare I say it, Cinderella, Rocky Balboa, and the US Miracle on Ice winning the World Hockey Championship. Generally we cheer for the underdog and the burden of being the winner is often that of being unloved, hated, envied; often the case for Americans over the last 50 years. It would probably be the same for Canadians but we’re pretty much invisible. Being the winner and being loved too is often like having your cake and eating it too.

As to the symbolism of Custer, and the last stand, seen in pictures around the world (UK Reb), lots can get lost in translation. I recall reading that a Japanese department store had put up a mock Santa Claus nailed to a cross for Christmas.

Mythically Custer is the underdog; he lost the battle. Historically the Indians are the real underdogs; they and many others have lost the war. I believe that the conflict at Little Big Horn was part of a thousand year old conflict (actually ten thousand). Before agriculture we were all nomads/hunter-gathers. This was the end of a long lasting struggle between agricultural man (with the pleasures and drawbacks of civilization), and the original hunter-gathers. Once all humans were nomads and hunter-gathers, that is the Abels of the world. Then the agriculturalists and their need to own exclusively very specific patches of land, fought for and generally won to maintain this exclusivity. These are the Cains of the world; us. And now the nomads barely exist anywhere except in Winnebagos and Steamliners . It’s the conflict of Cain and Abel. Abel lost. (I love to go canoe-camping, away in the bush for ten days or so. I also love the return with the first shower and operational toilets and a fresh supply of of sunscreen. Mixed loyalties. )

The Indians were fighting for their cultural and physical lives. Europeans coming to America were looking for a better life, my father included.

On another note, John referred to the brutality of the Indians after the battle asking if the soldiers were not human beings too. They sure were, with their own very human dreams and desires. However we explain it away, I would not be comfortable with anyone brutalizing another, dead or alive (now if someone were to lay a finger on my granddaughter ...). Two wrongs or a thousand wrongs don’t make a right. Still, here is an example of coldblooded ugliness with British, American and Canadian roots. In many ways he was probably a nice guy. Probably well educated too. The example is General Amherst. We have a street named after him here in Montreal. That's how much some of us thought of him.

Got this on the net ...




Then there’s Reb who wrote,
That had me chuckling.

Now if Britains comes out with a wild west line of soldiers with forts and teepees, I’ll be first in line to start my diorama. That’s another story.

Chatting about all these things with fellow collectors, whom I sometimes meet at shows, is a real pleasure. Cheers

Great post Russell! Just for the record, I am pretty far from P.C., and I am a proud American, but I do try to call a spade a spade. To me, as a proud American, I have to know about the bad things this country has done, so I can make sure that we (a) don't do them again, and (b) where possible, make amends. I can tell you that I was a little prouder to be an American when I heard today that the Senate passed a bill formally appologizing to African Americans for Segregation (slavery as well, but as there aren't any slaves left alive to appologize to, so I thought this was a bit belated). African Americans, such as my friend Teddy, a Court Officer, who actually remembers not being able to enter a cafeteria at a Bus Station as a child because of segregation, must feel pretty good to finally get a unanimous formal admission that it was wrong. Admitting we were wrong as a nation and appologizing is evidence of just how good a country we really are. As far as I know, in Germany and Japan, they don't even acknowledge that the years 1936 through 1945 ever happened.

 

[marco55]

This is one wild thread.We all seem to be energized this spring.I just wanted to add that on any frontier you usually have your rough and ready daring types and usually there is not much law but these are the type of people that settle a frontier but they are not the type of people you would invite in to your home.
Mark

 

[OzDigger]

Great post Russell! Just for the record, I am pretty far from P.C., and I am a proud American, but I do try to call a spade a spade. To me, as a proud American, I have to know about the bad things this country has done, so I can make sure that we (a) don't do them again, and (b) where possible, make amends. I can tell you that I was a little prouder to be an American when I heard today that the Senate passed a bill formally appologizing to African Americans for Segregation (slavery as well, but as there aren't any slaves left alive to appologize to, so I thought this was a bit belated). African Americans, such as my friend Teddy, a Court Officer, who actually remembers not being able to enter a cafeteria at a Bus Station as a child because of segregation, must feel pretty good to finally get a unanimous formal admission that it was wrong. Admitting we were wrong as a nation and appologizing is evidence of just how good a country we really are. As far as I know, in Germany and Japan, they don't even acknowledge that the years 1936 through 1945 ever happened.

Great news Louis and I'm all for equal opportunity etc as you know, but sometimes I reckon Political Correctness goes too far. For example when I dropped into my local McDonalds to grab a quick coffee I was reminded that someone once told me that in the USA the terms Black and White are not listed under the Coffee variety options.

Is this actually true?

As for Germany and Japan acknowledging WWII. That may be so, but I find that in Australia most people under around 35 years know very little about WWII. I am in two minds about that situation. The upside is that the younger generation will be less likely to carry grudges from days gone by. The downside is of course that we may not learn from mistakes made back then. However in reality the past is always adapted or even twisted to suit the needs of today and we end up repeating past mistakes anyway, so sometimes I get to thinking that maybe it's best to forget, or at least forgive what happened in history.

 

[Spitfrnd]

This is one wild thread.We all seem to be energized this spring.I just wanted to add that on any frontier you usually have your rough and ready daring types and usually there is not much law but these are the type of people that settle a frontier but they are not the type of people you would invite in to your home.
Mark

Very true Mark.

 

[pugio]

This is one wild thread.We all seem to be energized this spring.I just wanted to add that on any frontier you usually have your rough and ready daring types and usually there is not much law but these are the type of people that settle a frontier but they are not the type of people you would invite in to your home.
Mark

Why wouldnt they be invited into your home? Sounds elitist to me. If it wasn't for that type of person, we'd still be huddling along the eastern seacoast.....

 

[Russell]

Pugio wrote

we'd still be huddling along the eastern seacoast.....

Where's that island of yours?

 

[pugio]

Pugio wrote

Where's that island of yours?

It's farther west than Montreal

 

[marco55]

Why wouldnt they be invited into your home? Sounds elitist to me. If it wasn't for that type of person, we'd still be huddling along the eastern seacoast.....

Exactly what I mean,People who lived on the frontiers usually were an unsavory type but they are the kind of people that push frontiers.They are a more individualist type of person who don't really care about laws or civilization but they are the kind you need to expand.
Mark

 

[trooper]

This is the third time I have tried to post these comments. Each time when I submit the post I get a message telling me I am not logged in despite the page telling me I am. Can only conclude the post is too long so forgive me if I split this into two smaller pieces in order to get it on board.
A long time ago on this thread Reb said something to the effect that to understand Custer at LBH you had to study his entire military career. Custer's early career was influenced by two men. Congressman Bingham and General McClellan. Bingham was instrumental in getting Custer into West Point and his influence was utilised at several points in Custer's career, most notably when Custer, Merrit and Farsworth were recommended for promotion to Brigadier General. Lincoln was initially reluctant to confirm the appointment of these youthful and comparatively inexperienced officers but was persuaded by Bingham's ringing and fulsome endorsement of Custer.
McClellan's influence began when Custer was offered a post as aide on his staff. Custer was most impressed with McClellan and began to adopt his mannerisms. Unfortunately McClellan was not the most ideal role model for a young officer, having high political ambition, a tendency to court the press at every opportunity and to present his own actions in the most grandlose terms while disparaging everything else.

 

[trooper]

To continue.
Custer's Civil War exploits always mention his brilliant cavalry charges. Closer examination reveal many flaws in these statements. At Hanover, in his first action commanding a brigade, Custer saw a line of Confederate skirmishers and placing himself at the head of Company A of the 7th Michigan led them in a headlong charge. Why he thought it necessary for a Brigade commander to undertake a junior officer's job has only one answer. Self glorification. As to why he failed to understand that skirmishers are normally posted to screen a larger force can only be put down to a lack of tactical knowledge. So he ran his company straight into a full brigade which shredded Company A and killed his horse, rolling him in the dust. It was only by being bundled ignominiously across the back of a troopers horse that he escaped capture. Company A suffered 50% casualties.
At Gettysburg on the third day he again led a charge against Conferates who were pushing back his skirmish line. Lack of knowledge of the terrain led him straight into a stone wall topped with a post and rail fence. Despite the obvious impregnability of this position to cavalry he charged a second time, incurring more casualties. Repulsed yet again he was attempting to reform for a third charge when he was caught in flank by Virginian cavalry and was only saved from being overwhelmed by Colonel Ager who threw the 5th Michigan in on the Rebel flank and saved the day.
Later that day there was a more successful action and the Confederate force withdrew. Custer's report of that days action glosses over the early setbacks giving the impression that they were highly successful. His account culminates with the words "I challenge the annals of warfare to produce a more brilliant or successful charge of cavalry." He also made sure that the newspapers reported that he led the charges.
Custer was always Custer. His bull at a gate impetuosity, lack of planning or forethought and ability to only see what he wanted to see are evident throughout his military career. And Custer's Luck had nothing to do with Custer, rather the ability of subordinate officers to pull his chestnuts from the fire with little or no recognition for their actions.

 

[maddadicus]

To continue.
Custer's Civil War exploits always mention his brilliant cavalry charges. Closer examination reveal many flaws in these statements. At Hanover, in his first action commanding a brigade, Custer saw a line of Confederate skirmishers and placing himself at the head of Company A of the 7th Michigan led them in a headlong charge. Why he thought it necessary for a Brigade commander to undertake a junior officer's job has only one answer. Self glorification. As to why he failed to understand that skirmishers are normally posted to screen a larger force can only be put down to a lack of tactical knowledge. So he ran his company straight into a full brigade which shredded Company A and killed his horse, rolling him in the dust. It was only by being bundled ignominiously across the back of a troopers horse that he escaped capture. Company A suffered 50% casualties.
At Gettysburg on the third day he again led a charge against Conferates who were pushing back his skirmish line. Lack of knowledge of the terrain led him straight into a stone wall topped with a post and rail fence. Despite the obvious impregnability of this position to cavalry he charged a second time, incurring more casualties. Repulsed yet again he was attempting to reform for a third charge when he was caught in flank by Virginian cavalry and was only saved from being overwhelmed by Colonel Ager who threw the 5th Michigan in on the Rebel flank and saved the day.
Later that day there was a more successful action and the Confederate force withdrew. Custer's report of that days action glosses over the early setbacks giving the impression that they were highly successful. His account culminates with the words "I challenge the annals of warfare to produce a more brilliant or successful charge of cavalry." He also made sure that the newspapers reported that he led the charges.
Custer was always Custer. His bull at a gate impetuosity, lack of planning or forethought and ability to only see what he wanted to see are evident throughout his military career. And Custer's Luck had nothing to do with Custer, rather the ability of subordinate officers to pull his chestnuts from the fire with little or no recognition for their actions.

Since a number of my Custer books are out of print, it might be harder for folks to want to reference them. I have a great book ( Custer.the life of Gen. George Armstrong Custer by Jay Monaghan ),which is most thorough in Custer's ACW career. It supports what you present and backs it with Custer's own documented after action reports and his voluminous letters to Libby and others. It does speak volumes about his natural instincts to charge first and plan later. It also speaks volume of Custer's half baked plan to charge a massive Indian village with only 1/2 his men and only one unit in position ,that was left totally unsupported ( Reno )..Michael

 

[UKReb]

Trooper I could name you a dozen Union generals during that war who used old type Napoleonic tactics that resulted in far worse acts of reckless stupidity with men's lives from Burnside to Hooker to US Grant himself but I am all out of arguments on this one. You win!

In fact if you put your comments together with his actions at the LBH- we may finally have the answer that has eluded historians for years on why he lost his final fight-a failed cadet who should have been thrown out of West Point but was only saved by the coming of war- vain-glorious-a reckless glory hunting idiot-who was an incompetent and inept leader-not fit to lead men to the latrines-who was elevated way way beyond his mediocre abilities (although I do believe he could ride a horse but even that might be BS) by a couple of influential contacts -who was determined to massacre 10,000 Indians all by himself purely to win the Democratic nomination in 1876 which would have swept him into the White House because he fancied Libbie would make a right dandy First Lady. Thank God the Indians killed him at the LBH because based on all the above facts he would have been a far worse president than either Buchanan or Harding.

Now having solved the mystery-if indeed there was any mystery. Reflection makes me ask myself why on earth are we all still discussing such a wretched and pathetic man?-

Reb

 

[Spitfrnd]

Well mate I think some plausible explanations have already been advanced for that phenomena.

....
The myth is not infrequently larger than the man and the image of a brave band courageously defying the odds in defense of their nation is a powerful image for any generation and crosses many value lines. Americans, as much or more than any people, love an underdog and the popular perception of a righteous protector of the American dream by an underdog who was clearly fated to die in the effort is timeless. ...

 

[trooper]

Trooper I could name you a dozen Union generals during that war who used old type Napoleonic tactics that resulted in far worse acts of reckless stupidity with men's lives from Burnside to Hooker to US Grant himself but I am all out of arguments on this one. You win!

In fact if you put your comments together with his actions at the LBH- we may finally have the answer that has eluded historians for years on why he lost his final fight-a failed cadet who should have been thrown out of West Point but was only saved by the coming of war- vain-glorious-a reckless glory hunting idiot-who was an incompetent and inept leader-not fit to lead men to the latrines-who was elevated way way beyond his mediocre abilities (although I do believe he could ride a horse but even that might be BS) by a couple of influential contacts -who was determined to massacre 10,000 Indians all by himself purely to win the Democratic nomination in 1876 which would have swept him into the White House because he fancied Libbie would make a right dandy First Lady. Thank God the Indians killed him at the LBH because based on all the above facts he would have been a far worse president than either Buchanan or Harding.

Now having solved the mystery-if indeed there was any mystery. Reflection makes me ask myself why on earth are we all still discussing such a wretched and pathetic man?-

Reb

Reb, my post was in response to a suggestion you made earlier with regard to studying Custer's 16 years of military service, and in an obviously vain hope of returning the thread to it's original form, moving away from the application of 21st century standards, mindsets and morality to those of the 19th.
I agree with you regarding the tactics used by some officers during the Civil War, but with regard to Custer I was trying to point out that his character was formed very early in his career and that basically it was unchanged by his opponents or circumstance. You may disagree with my viewpoint, that is your right and prerogative, and is what opens up reasoned and interesting debate which is what I assumed was the point of this thread. Unhappily it appears I was wrong.