The Little Bighorn (2 Viewers)

[UKReb]

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.

Trooper

I am dog-tired of being the only guy on this forum to even attempt to try and remove the myth of Custer and the LBH to get to the facts-I have to accept that although his bravery appears not to be in contention on here(although the consensus on his recklessness could nullify even that) 98% of members on here including yourself consider him to be no more than an inconsequential murdering fool whose dubious reputation in both the civil and Indian wars was written by himself.
What else do you want me to say?

Reb

 

[Spitfrnd]

Trooper

I am dog-tired of being the only guy on this forum to even attempt to try and remove the myth of Custer and the LBH to get to the facts-I have to accept that although his bravery appears not to be in contention on here(although the consensus on his recklessness could nullify even that) 98% of members on here including yourself consider him to be no more than an inconsequential murdering fool whose dubious reputation in both the civil and Indian wars was written by himself.
What else do you want me to say?

Reb

I don't know Bob but I don't think you are the only one; as several noted, myself included, many of us are very much interested in the facts. It does seem to me that some of the competing facts do suggest a fair measure of self promotion, recklessness and vaingloriousness to go along with his bravery. What facts are we missing or accepting incorrectly? Surely there are enough rational voices here to have a fair and candid exchange.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Trooper

I am dog-tired of being the only guy on this forum to even attempt to try and remove the myth of Custer and the LBH to get to the facts-I have to accept that although his bravery appears not to be in contention on here(although the consensus on his recklessness could nullify even that) 98% of members on here including yourself consider him to be no more than an inconsequential murdering fool whose dubious reputation in both the civil and Indian wars was written by himself.
What else do you want me to say?

Reb

Reb,

You have to understand that many Americans, myself included, feel that the vast majority of American Generals (Union in the Civil War) in every war we have fought from the Civil War until Vietnam could accurately be described as "an inconsequential murdering fool". When you look at the number of incompetents West Point and American politicians have foisted on the American soldier over this time period, it is more than a little scary. McClellan, Burnsides, Hooker, the idiot in charge of the ground troops at the outset of operation torch because he was Ike's buddy (I put his name out of my mind), Mark Clark, every major commander in Vietnam. Then the ones that were somewhat capable, but so interested in their own glory that they were willing to disobey direct orders from the commander and chief (MacArthur's bombing of China that brought millions of Chinese into the Korean War causing tens of thousands of American Casualties) or use their troops as a private army for the benefit of their own family (Patton's dispatch of a combat command from an armored division in a disasterous attempt to rescue his son and law from a POW camp far behind enemy lines, resulting in it being entirely wiped out). I am sorry to say that, despite your extensive knowledge of the battle, and theories which seek to explain how it occurred, for most Americans, who like me, have lost relatives in every war this country has fought since the Spanish American War, the fact that Custer got the troops whose lives were entrusted to his command massacred is sufficient evidence that he was either vainglorious or incompetent. And the fact that you can list 10 other Union Civil War generals who were even more incompetent or vainglorious in no way proves that Custer was not. I am fascinated by your knowledge of the battle, because it tells me how the brave men under his command fought and died, but I have heard nothing that proves Custer was a good commander anywhere on this thread. I will try to keep an open mind, and I understand that this was an entirely new type of warfare when dealing with the Indians, whom his experience taught him would try to escape, but were he a great commander, like Lee, he would have found a way to keep his divided forces from being not only defeated in detail, but massacred to a man.

 

[trooper]

Reb,

I think you will agree that Custer was not the shining knight of legend as some people regard him, and I certainly don't regard him as an inconsequential murdering fool, although I do think he put a positive spin on his exploits, and Libby turned that spin into a googly in the years following his death. The truth lies somewhere in between. Neither of us was there, all we have to go on to form our opinions is the written record and surmise. As I have said on a previous post there appears to be no shades of grey with regard to opinion about Custer, everything is presented in black or white. The truth is a shade of grey. Custer had his faults as well as his good points. All we can do is present and discuss the evidence and accept the findings. If you want to find out the truth you must first dismantle the image and examine it in detail. Do you not agree?

 

[marco55]

Very good post Trooper.That's what some of us have been saying all along.
Mark

 

[UKReb]

Bill; Louis; Trooper

Thank you for your thoughtful comments which are very much appreciated. I find, quite unintentionally, to have painted myself into a corner as being some kind of blind disciple of Custer.
Guys please give me some credit! you all must know simply by my choice of TS collecting eras where my main interests lie and more than a little knowledge of US history.

Of course I knew that Custer was not a shining knight either during the ACW or after but I also do not consider him to be the worst general in the history of the United States just because he got himself and half his command wiped out at the LBH.

This is in no way a criticism of American history but America is notorious for mythologising quite a few inept characters out of your history as an example-Jesse James; Davy Crockett; Jim Bowie even a couple of ill educated and inept bank robbers called Bonnie & Clyde. Amongst those unimportant examples I have always put Custer (whether he wrote the myth or Libbie did is irrelevent as the myth and the legend took hold of a gullible American public and his immortality was guaranteed with his demise at the LBH)

My interest in this particular battle and why I involved myself in Michael's thread was a genuine opportunity to articulate with mainly my American friends on here-what was Custer myth and what they believed was fact?. Someone wrote on here "what has myth to do with the LBH anyway"? Well actually quite a lot:-

Custer's long hair at the LBH-Myth
Sabres at the LBH-Myth
Comanche being the only horse survivor left on the field-Myth
Soldiers in blue-Myth
Seven wounds on Keogh's horse to represent the 7th Cavalry-Myth

I could go on ad-infinitum-but these inconsequential myths are embedded in the public psyche and there maybe many other important facts that are just pure myth or nearer the truth-what I wanted to discuss was what you guys thought-instead we got bogged down in 21st century dogma and each of my posts in trying a different tack just made me appear to be some simple Brit Custerophile who doesn't know Custers rear from his elbow. That's when I gave in to Troopers post!

Reb

 

[Louis Badolato]

Your point about American's myths is well taken, Reb.

Before I go any further, I just want to point out that I never, ever viewed you as anything like a "Custerphile who didn't know his . . . ", I have always thought of you as one of the best read and most knowledgeable gentlemen on this forum, and I always learn from your posts.

But getting back to myths, it is fascinating that here in the U.S.A. myth is almost always better known than factual history. You want to get into a fight, badmouth an american mythological figure. Tell someone that one of these figures was not so pure and holy as myth would have us believe, and you are going to be branded with the scarlet letter.

 

[damian]

Your point about American's myths is well taken, Reb.

and you are going to be branded with the scarlet letter.

That is what I like about you Louis, you know American literature as well.

 

[trooper]

Your point about American's myths is well taken, Reb.

Before I go any further, I just want to point out that I never, ever viewed you as anything like a "Custerphile who didn't know his . . . ", I have always thought of you as one of the best read and most knowledgeable gentlemen on this forum, and I always learn from your posts.

But getting back to myths, it is fascinating that here in the U.S.A. myth is almost always better known than factual history. You want to get into a fight, badmouth an american mythological figure. Tell someone that one of these figures was not so pure and holy as myth would have us believe, and you are going to be branded with the scarlet letter.

I heartily endorse Louis' sentiments there Reb. Incidently at the risk of you throwing your Teddy bear at me again, there were two sabres at LBH. One belonged to Lt Crittenden of the 20th Infantry who was on attachment and the other was wielded by an indian who had captured it at the Rosebud. It's these little snippets that intrigue me.

 

[Shannon Reuss]

Custer gets his redemption in Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian. I thought of you all as I watched it in the theater last night.
It was absolutely and thoroughly random and I recommend it as a stressbuster to see with your kids.
And you'll be happy to know that Teddy Roosevelt plays a part in it as well...

 

[jazzeum]

I had basically ignored this thread until I had to moderate a couple of posts as I didn't think that there was much disagreement about his role in history.

What the discussion has shown, in my opinion, is that you can't divorce battles or conflicts from the political milieu in which they took place. History used to be written that way but no more.

 

[Louis Badolato]

That is what I like about you Louis, you know American literature as well.

Just for the record, I hated the Scarlet Letter . . . Hester Pryn was annoying, and that teacher . . . she had to trip him and hit the ground first to get anywhere. Hawthorne's best character was "Knickerbocker", the prototypical New Yorker. For American Literature, I always preferred "The Red Badge of Courage", "Moby Dick" and Washington Irving's works to Hawthorne and Faulkner (both of whom bored me to tears).

 

[damian]

Just for the record, I hated the Scarlet Letter . . . Hester Pryn was annoying, and that teacher . . . she had to trip him and hit the ground first to get anywhere. Hawthorne's best character was "Knickerbocker", the prototypical New Yorker. For American Literature, I always preferred "The Red Badge of Courage", "Moby Dick" and Washington Irving's works to Hawthorne and Faulkner (both of whom bored me to tears).

I know it is a bit lowbrow but I really liked Damon Runyon

 

[Louis Badolato]

I know it is a bit lowbrow but I really liked Damon Runyon

I don't think its lowbrow at all. Some of the best stuff I've ever read is what snobby English professors would consider lowbrow, like Raymond Chandler's hard boiled detective stories.

 

[trooper]

You are wandering, gentlemen, shall we go back to the Little Big Horn? I would like to hear what people think as to whether Custer was hit at the ford or not. If he was it could explain some of the confusion that followed.

 

[Louis Badolato]

You are wandering, gentlemen, shall we go back to the Little Big Horn? I would like to hear what people think as to whether Custer was hit at the ford or not. If he was it could explain some of the confusion that followed.

Sorry about wandering off on a tangent.

If it could be proven that he was incapacitated by a serious wound early in the battle at that ford, I think that he would have to be exhonorated by history for the disaster that followed, because he was not in a position to react to the unexpected circumstances.

 

[UKReb]

Sorry about wandering off on a tangent.

If it could be proven that he was incapacitated by a serious wound early in the battle at that ford, I think that he would have to be exhonorated by history for the disaster that followed, because he was not in a position to react to the unexpected circumstances.

If he wasn't shot leaving him wounded or dying then splitting his 5 companies of troops into two makes no sense whatsoever unless he truly was insane as in "Little Big Man" or he suffered absolute blind panic-in my opinion- which doesn't amount to a hill of beans- something happened at the ford that no-one has been able to properly suss-because the complete collapse of his command followed immediately after.

Reb

 

[Louis Badolato]

If he wasn't shot leaving him wounded or dying then splitting his 5 companies of troops into two makes no sense whatsoever unless he truly was insane as in "Little Big Man" or he suffered absolute blind panic-in my opinion- which doesn't amount to a hill of beans- something happened at the ford that no-one has been able to properly suss-because the complete collapse of his command followed immediately after.

Reb

I remember reading earlier in this thread that his body was found unmutilated . . . I wonder if anyone took photographs or better yet if there was an autopsy. Perhaps that could shed some light on the wounds he suffered, and whether he had the type of wound that would incapacitate him but not kill him right away (like a stomach wound).

 

[marco55]

As indians mutilitad to gain an enemies strength maybe the didn't mutilate him because they had no respect for him?Something to think about.
Mark

 

[trooper]

I remember reading earlier in this thread that his body was found unmutilated . . . I wonder if anyone took photographs or better yet if there was an autopsy. Perhaps that could shed some light on the wounds he suffered, and whether he had the type of wound that would incapacitate him but not kill him right away (like a stomach wound).

There was no photographer present, the equipment was far too bulky. And there was no time or facility for an autopsy, the surgeons had their hands full with the wounded. Reports say there were two gunshot wounds, to the upper left chest and the left temple. Initialy it was said that he was unmutilated, but I think this was said for Libby's benefit. Later comments reveal that bradawls had been thrust into his ears, a finger had been cut off, his thigh had suffered a knife slash and an arrow had been thrust into his penis. Someone said earlier that the Indians thought he was a scout because of his buckskins and so didn't mutilate him, but that is rubbish as several of the officers were similarly dressed, including Tom Custer who was so dismembered as to be unrecognisable and was only identified by tattoos. The chances are that the chest wound would have severely incapacitated him, possibly even killing him, and that the head wound was either suicide or inflicted by another member of the command when it became apparent that all was lost.