The Little Bighorn (2 Viewers)

[Spitfrnd]

I think he thought, as many whites did at that time, that the Indians in general were inferior barbarians and could never standup to professional troops. It is hard to see how that did not influence his decision making.

 

[eborris]

I don't know what he thought of Indians personally, but I believe he thought they were disorganized and that they fought better as individuals as opposed to being a cohesive unit.

 

[marco55]

Little Bighorn,Isandlwanda,Rorke's Drift,Alamo,Gandamark,Camerone.Last Stands all.There is something about desperate fights to the last man that moves us all.The thought of these men with almost no chance of surviving against uncivilized savages (or Mexicans) fighting with all they have in remote locations makes us admire them if if they aren't the nicest people in the world.It makes us think how we would act if we were in their shoes.
Mark

 

[eborris]

Little Bighorn,Isandlwanda,Rorke's Drift,Alamo,Gandamark,Camerone.Last Stands all.There is something about desperate fights to the last man that moves us all.The thought of these men with almost no chance of surviving against uncivilized savages (or Mexicans) fighting with all they have in remote locations makes us admire them if if they aren't the nicest people in the world.It makes us think how we would act if we were in their shoes.
Mark

It sure does. I wonder if they actually thought they were going to die or did they believe that somehow they were going to get out of there. I would think those that thought they were going to die would try to escape while those who didn't would stay and fight. However, I cannot say with any certainty.

 

[jazzeum]

"Civilization" is in the eyes of the beholder. It's been years since I've heard anybody use the term "uncivlized savages."

 

[marco55]

Well like it or not that was what they were considered by the people we are talking about.They said what they felt.I'm not saying it was right but that was the way it was.We are talking about the 19th cen. not the 21st.
Mark

 

[eborris]

"Civilization" is in the eyes of the beholder. It's been years since I've heard anybody use the term "uncivlized savages."

They must have been uncivilized, they didn't have cell phones. I know that's why I'm uncivilized, I don't have a cell phone either. Infact, I may be a dinosaur, so they're may not be extinct.

 

[Combat]

An interesting parallel to Custer on a larger scale and with entirely different results might be Cortés and the Aztecs.

 

[marco55]

I've always been amazed that the Spanish with such small forces were able to overthow such large empires.Now I know the Spanish had many Indian allies but the Aztecs and Incas had large armies.The Spanish had guns but the warriors had bows and spears and as seen with Asiatic nomads we can see what a bow can do.
Mark

 

[maddadicus]

For me, it has always been about dissecting a battle more so than the major personalities involved. If it had been Reno's last stand, I would feel the same way. The mystery of how it happened, why it happened, who were the average individuals involved captivate me. When I read books about exhumed 7th cavalry bodies that through various means can be linked to an actual trooper's name ,**** near makes me cry, because it becomes more personal to me. We all read history books about the big picture of a battle. Me, I want to know about the one on ones. That is my way of honoring them. To give them acknowledgement that they have not been forgotten, because some officer got them killed. I am also an archeology wanna be, that should have made the decision to dig things up a long time ago..instead of going for the almighty buck..Michael

 

[jazzeum]

They must have been uncivilized, they didn't have cell phones. I know that's why I'm uncivilized, I don't have a cell phone either. Infact, I may be a dinosaur, so they're may not be extinct.

There is hope for you yet Once we get you the phone, it's time for a CrackBerry (i.e., a BlackBerry) .

 

[eborris]

I would have got one, but I have two grown daughters who would call me 5 times a day each to ask me what I'm doing, that means I'd have to put down my beer and go outside so I could get reception. Who wants that?

 

[binder001]

Speaking of the classic phrase "Custer's Last Stand". It's kind of interesting, because as far as I know it was his ONLY stand. Custer's career was built on offensive actions, even in the defense he was using cavalry in a give-and-take. In the combat in Montana, Custer lost the initiative and had to fight a purely defensive action, mostly dismounted.

Gary

 

[damian]

The use of the term "Uncivilized savages " is regretable. There have been many requests to keep politics out of this and then this particular term is used. It is ironic that most of the engagements listed in that post the "uncivilized savages" were the ones being invaded and defending their way of life.

As for the issue of focusing mainly on the "military issues" I feel this is problematic. Clausewitz famously said "war is a continuation of politics by other means". He was referring to great power politics and had no experience of modern guerilla war. Yet it is modern guerilla war that most exemplifies what he was saying. So to get back to Custer and the Indians I feel that without bringing politics into it we have a slightly self referential discussion which ends up by everyone saying it is a great myth and we don't understand the man, brave men died etc etc.

Why is this important. Well I feel that many conventional armies are now being asked to fight essentially political wars. Yet it seems that they fail to grasp the importance of politics in all this. Without a political solution we are doomed to fail.

 

[UKReb]

For me, it has always been about dissecting a battle more so than the major personalities involved. If it had been Reno's last stand, I would feel the same way. The mystery of how it happened, why it happened, who were the average individuals involved captivate me. When I read books about exhumed 7th cavalry bodies that through various means can be linked to an actual trooper's name ,**** near makes me cry, because it becomes more personal to me. We all read history books about the big picture of a battle. Me, I want to know about the one on ones. That is my way of honoring them. To give them acknowledgement that they have not been forgotten, because some officer got them killed. I am also an archeology wanna be, that should have made the decision to dig things up a long time ago..instead of going for the almighty buck..Michael

Michael I sincerely concur with your comments-the individual officer and soldier of the 7th is sometimes forgotten when studying the whys? of this particular battle which naturally tend to concentrate on Custer; Reno and Benteen.

One officer who should have been regaled more than he has been is Captain Thomas Benton Weir Commander of D Troop. Weirs company was attached to Benteen's command- when they arrived at Reno's position Weir demanded that they ride to the sound of gunfire, which unknown to him was Custer under attack. A heated argument then ensued between him and Reno who refused him permission. Weir disobeyed orders and advanced his troop to what is now known as Weir's point but his unit was pushed back by a mass of Indian. The aftermath of this is that Weir was emotionally ruined by what he considered was the failure of his attempt to reach Custer. He felt personally responsible even though he had done everything he could even exceeding his authority to the point of disobedience. He never recovered from his personal trauma and became a deep depressive he died suddenly six months later whilst on recruiting duty in New York City.

Also consider the trauma faced by the men who first found Custer's command after the battle and the follow-up burial detail.

When Terry/Gibbons column reached Reno's position on the 27th June-both sides asked the same question "Where's Custer?" Terry sent out two patrols one each side of the river. Lt James Bradley, 7th Infantry, Montana Column followed Custer's trail on the eastern bluffs. The first thing he noticed were hundreds of pieces of paper blowing around in the breeze- they were dollar bills- (Custer had ordered that his men be paid the day after they left Fort Abraham Lincoln to stop excessive drinking. Each man received two months pay and carried them into battle in their saddle bags).
About a mile from Custer Ridge Lt Bradley's Crow scout stopped his horse pointed and in sign language said "Custer!" Bradley using field glasses said to his sergeant "All I can see are little white boulders". Those boulders were the naked bodies of Custer and his troops within half an hour they had counted 197 bodies. The acts of mutilation that were documented still make grisly reading today Suffice to say soldiers detailed to bury the remains were overcome by nausea and vomiting whilst trying to dig graves. Bodies thought to be officers were buried together-few could be fully recognised but some were and their names were written on a slip of paper which was inserted into an empty cartridge case and hammered into the top of a wooden stake.

Tom Custer was only recognised by his tattoos TWC and the goddess of liberty and flag on his arm.
Lt John Crittenden only by his glass eye which had been splintered by an arrow.
Canadian W.W.Cooke, Custer's adjutant only by the one remaining prodigiously long flowing sidewhisker-the other having been hacked from his face
Lt James (Jimmy) Calhoun-Custer's brother-in-law only by a distinctive dental filling............. and so and so on.

Some bodies to this day have never been found the most poignant story concerns the second in command of E Troop young Lt Jack Sturgis the son of Colonel Samuel Sturgis the overall commander of the 7th Cavalry (Custer was second in command). He was probably killed in the Deep Ravine although his blood stained clothes were found in the deserted Indian camp. His father organised extensive searches for his sons body to no avail. In the archives of the U.S.Signal Corps there is a photograph taken on the battlefield depicting a primitive pile of stones with a board lettered Lt Sturgis-7th Cav June'76. However, that photo was staged by Col Sturgis in an effort to mislead his wife who was never told that her sons remains had not been found.
Once again guys stories such as that can get to you and perfectly aligns with Michael's previous post.

Reb

 

[forlornhoper]

To the modern historian the personality of Custer is often debated and many questions invariably arise,few of us can doubt his bravery,all of us would like a Custer next to us on a battlefield,but bravery alone does not make a good soldier and or leader of soldiers in battle.The character of a soldier and leader is more complex than simple bravery and Custer falls into that complexity.Custer may have been a good soldier/leader in battle but may be viewed by some to be a poor human being with little moral conviction,he was taking a leaders part in a campaign to physically remove or destroy a minority race of fellow human beings,morally questionable even in the 19th century and rightly questionable in the 21st century.This historical fact cannot and should not be denied,even if it makes uncomfortable reading for his admirers.Custer may have justified his convictions to himself but that does not mean he will be justified to history and there the debate will continue,you will either see Custer as a brave soul or a man of little soul and feeling for the suffering of fellow human beings.

 

[jazzeum]

To the modern historian the personality of Custer is often debated and many questions invariably arise,few of us can doubt his bravery,all of us would like a Custer next to us on a battlefield,but bravery alone does not make a good soldier and or leader of soldiers in battle.The character of a soldier and leader is more complex than simple bravery and Custer falls into that complexity.Custer may have been a good soldier/leader in battle but may be viewed by some to be a poor human being with little moral conviction,he was taking a leaders part in a campaign to physically remove or destroy a minority race of fellow human beings,morally questionable even in the 19th century and rightly questionable in the 21st century.This historical fact cannot and should not be denied,even if it makes uncomfortable reading for his admirers.Custer may have justified his convictions to himself but that does not mean he will be justified to history and there the debate will continue,you will either see Custer as a brave soul or a man of little soul and feeling for the suffering of fellow human beings.

From my perspective the latter.

 

[Spitfrnd]

To the modern historian the personality of Custer is often debated and many questions invariably arise,few of us can doubt his bravery,all of us would like a Custer next to us on a battlefield,but bravery alone does not make a good soldier and or leader of soldiers in battle.The character of a soldier and leader is more complex than simple bravery and Custer falls into that complexity.Custer may have been a good soldier/leader in battle but may be viewed by some to be a poor human being with little moral conviction,he was taking a leaders part in a campaign to physically remove or destroy a minority race of fellow human beings,morally questionable even in the 19th century and rightly questionable in the 21st century.This historical fact cannot and should not be denied,even if it makes uncomfortable reading for his admirers.Custer may have justified his convictions to himself but that does not mean he will be justified to history and there the debate will continue,you will either see Custer as a brave soul or a man of little soul and feeling for the suffering of fellow human beings.

Well said mate. I think as you noted, he is likely best seen as both, as well as perhaps more than a little vainglorious to the point of recklessness, despite his undeniable success and luck.

 

[Njja]

To the modern historian the personality of Custer is often debated and many questions invariably arise,few of us can doubt his bravery,all of us would like a Custer next to us on a battlefield,but bravery alone does not make a good soldier and or leader of soldiers in battle.The character of a soldier and leader is more complex than simple bravery and Custer falls into that complexity.Custer may have been a good soldier/leader in battle but may be viewed by some to be a poor human being with little moral conviction,he was taking a leaders part in a campaign to physically remove or destroy a minority race of fellow human beings,morally questionable even in the 19th century and rightly questionable in the 21st century.This historical fact cannot and should not be denied,even if it makes uncomfortable reading for his admirers.Custer may have justified his convictions to himself but that does not mean he will be justified to history and there the debate will continue,you will either see Custer as a brave soul or a man of little soul and feeling for the suffering of fellow human beings.

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

Were the troopers that fell at the little bighorn not human beings? Did they in any way deserve to be hacked to pieces?

Even in war we have rules, and the way an enemy is treated can cause more harm to the victor if he displays little humanity in his victory.

Once the American people learned of the mutilation of the troopers on Custer's Ridge the indians fate was sealed.

I'm sure that atrocities occurred on both sides, but it is the social acceptance of this behavior that separates people into civilized and uncivilized society's.

This fact often makes it difficult for one group to tolerate the existance of the other group until such time as a resonable level of humanity is obtained.

Just my thoughts on Custer's humanity.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Custer may have been a good soldier/leader in battle but may be viewed by some to be a poor human being with little moral conviction,he was taking a leaders part in a campaign to physically remove or destroy a minority race of fellow human beings,morally questionable even in the 19th century and rightly questionable in the 21st century.This historical fact cannot and should not be denied,even if it makes uncomfortable reading for his admirers.Custer may have justified his convictions to himself but that does not mean he will be justified to history and there the debate will continue,you will either see Custer as a brave soul or a man of little soul and feeling for the suffering of fellow human beings.

Im not very well versed on European Imperialism but I know that around 1876 things were getting into high gear for Europe's conquest and division of Africa. Certainly the native peoples there were treated just as poorly as American relations with the Native Americans. So my feeling: was it really that morally questionable in the 19th century?