The Little Bighorn (1 Viewer)

[Njja]

John,funny that although in comparison to many famous battles this was a mere skirmish,it has attained legendary status and is known across the world.Past down over generations here we are still talking about that short,savage and sad episode in American History,somehow it captures our imagination.The same can i guess be said for Rorkes Drift,Charge of the Light Brigade. As kids we would play at Custers last stand not knowing the first thing about it really,but knowing it was brave,violent and with a bad ending.

Louis mentioned earlier about the mutilations inflicted after the battle and that they have been part of warfare through the ages.I read sometime ago about how Marines in the pacific took Japenese heads as trophys, and how as veterans started to pass away in the 80's and 90's many of these heads started to come to light in America.I make no judgement about this at all.Because of the sacrafice of that generation i live a free and comfortable life and cannot for one milli second imagine the horror and trauma these young men went through and what this can do to a young man.

We asked so much of that generation and thank god they stood up.

Rob

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

Rob, very well said.

I grew up around many of these Vets who were just normal men forced to

do uncomom things at a very young age. My Dad fought through Italy,

France, Belgium and Germany and after rarely had time for any fun. My Mom's

childhood sweetheart and first husband was killed on D-Day and she never

forgot. It bothered her until her last moment on earth. My close friends Dad

was a marine on Tarawa he was a truck driver for Ancor Motor Freight and

one of the toughest men I ever met. One look from him was enough for

anyone to know he ment business. Another man I worked with for years was

a Marine on Guadalcanal who ran across what became Henderson Field when

they captured it from the Japanese building it.

Many of these men brought home weapons, German Lugers, Nambu Pistols,

Japanese Battle Flags and swords, things that were usually put away and

rarely spoken of.

This is the kind of American Men that fought these battles. The things you

spoke of were not the normal actions of our soldiers and would at best be

isolated instances as could be expected from any activity where millions of

people are involved.

 

[aujj65]

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

You are correct the american indians never fought against each other, and never attempted to wipe out or drive off other tribes from land they wanted.
They all got along swell, like regular pals.

I seem to remember somewhere the theory that the indians migrated here walking across the land bridge that used to connect asia with alaska. If that is the case what is the difference between them walking to America and the Europeans sailing to America?
Throughout history it has always been survival of the fittest, not the first one here wins.

Wasn’t there another theory recently that the Vikings preceded the Indians as the first true citizens of North America?

Jeff

 

[Rob]

[/B]

Yes and you presented the same theme on the new Custer film thread which I am led to believe prompted Michael to open this thread on the battle/tactics etc.

Thank you for the above history lesson, however I am well versed in Custer's political difficulties during the spring of 1876 and his testimony in Washington on the Belknap affair concerning governmental corruption on the frontier. Although Secretary of War Belknap resigned he had indirectly implicated Grant's brother Orville. This brought down the wrath of President Grant upon Custer who blamed him for the whole mess and during a presidential election year. I am also aware thank you that after the defeat the Custer legend was perpetuated to portray the army as a victim that needed to be avenged and was indeed the perfect way for the army/government to justify forcing Plains tribes onto reservations, opening the West for white settlers. It was 1876 the 100th anniversary of the battle for Independence and the shock to the American people at the time was incredulity that a warrior culture could defeat a modern army-very similar I would think to the American reaction to 9/11. I am also quite familar of the fact that a large number of American people today consider Custer as an Eichmann of the Plains.

All that said some of us-make that a couple of us on here-are fascinated with the battle itself without the political agenda albeit we are fully aware of the whole sordid background. Every year more books are published on this battle than any other- apart from Gettysburg- there is simply a plethora of tomes; articles; symposiums etc.on the subject. At West Point the cadets still study the fight as how not to conduct yourself as an officer in command-the fact that Custer divided his forces in the face of an unknown enemy is really a reflection of white arrogance from Custer all the way up to the top of the Army Command. Subsequently, Michael and myself are far from being just the two lone rangers who have the same interest albeit I accept that this is the case on our forum.

A definitive account of the LBH has always eluded historians and continues to do so but small details and discoveries in recent years continue to fuel that interest of how Custer's command collapsed into total disintegration based on the simple premise that these noble and simple indigenous people would not fight let alone have the ability to defeat a whole regiment.

However being in the complete minority here on the forum I surrender this thread to you and others who understandably do not have the same interest in the battle that I have.
Amen

Reb

Interesting post mate,didn't know Grant blamed Custer.

Rob

 

[maddadicus]

There is one account about the battle that was never taken seriously because it was told by some Cheyenne warriors. Custer may have been one of the first casualties of the battle. After Custer sent Reno off on his ill-fated charge of the village, Custer traveled on the opposite side of the river from the village. Farther up his found a fording place, and did indeed start crossing the river to the village side. There he came into contact with a small group of Cheyenne warriors. According to the braves, who discribed his horse and his attire, Custer received the first of his 2 wounds- a round to the chest- almost knocking him off his mount. This threw the rest of his troop into chaos and they retreated back across the river into history. On the modern battlefield, even with all modern tech at your figure tips, in a ambush, if your commanding officer is put out of action, it takes a while for the second in command or anyone to take stock of the situation before he can restore order out of the chaos. I really belive this is what happened. His troops could not believe "Custers Luck" had run out- the Golden Cavalier was mortally wounded. Pyschologially they had just lost the fight........

I also read that account and it might make sense since most of the officers that commanded the troops with Custer, were found near his body and not with the bulk of their dead troopers. It might speak volumes about the chain of command being totally broken down from Custer's wounding..( I do not believe that they would have been given any time by the indians to drag his dead body about..Also, there were probably wounded or faking dead soldiers, that were finished off by the woman and children. The large number of head shots once gave some historians to surmise that the panicked soldiers, sensing the end, started to kill themselves, rather than be taken prisoner. But now it might have been the indians giving the coup de grace..Head blows from clubs were also evident to the many skulls found, later...Michael

 

[maddadicus]

Interesting post mate,didn't know Grant blamed Custer.

Rob

Custer was not popular with Grant and most of his administration. It took Sheridan to force the issue and even get Custer on the expedition. Custer was to have been kept at home ,with Reno being given command of the 7th.(.Now imagine how the battle might have played itself out with Reno in charge. He would have waited for Terry and with some 1200 men, challenged the village, with all their components intact. Plus, Terry had gatlings and infantry in force..)That was why Terry was the commanding officer and Custer, his second. ( Custer was not even the 7th's commander ,Sturgis was away recruiting and that is why it is not called Sturgis last stand..) Sturgis lost his son with Custer and never forgave him or the indians..He was in command of the 7th at Wounded Knee and sanctioned the subsequent death of many indian noncombattants. Michael

 

[UKReb]

Pugio/Michael

Good posts- that theory when applied to Custer splitting his force yet again after he came to Medicine Ford Coulee makes some sense.

If he was not mortally wounded I have struggled-along with many others-in trying to unravel the mystery of why he split his 5-Company battalion into two parts. Did he leave half his company to go further north to attack at a better positioned ford to stop the expected exodus from the village? or was he performing a feint to pull the Indian away from Reno-if he knew!

The evidence shows that Custer with E & F Troop and maybe part of C move away from Keogh L & I and the rest of C resulting in both being isolated and unable to support each other they quickly start to lose cohesion. The collapse occurs as Custer is moving north instead of south toward the rest of the regiment-Why?
Keogh on the other hand may have been split by Custer as a link-lynchpin to Benteen who was still expected to come up as support. But if Custer was already dead or incapacitated those movements begin to make more sense-his brother Tom would most definitely not have left his body for the Indians but would have tried to carry him clear of the fight. Yet another mystery!

Reb

 

[Spitfrnd]

Rob old mate

Nice try but drop it best not make statements like that on this thread

Reb

Now, now Bob. This behavior, if true, was hardly unjustified by the program of systematic displacement with at best, confinement to areas inhospitable to subsistence and at worse, extermination. I can't say I would have blamed them giving the suffering visited on them and their tribes by many "Yellow Legs". Of course, their conduct was hardly unique since women on campaigns of many "civilized" nations (including Britain and France) routinely engaged in such conduct (as did the soldiers), very notably on the battlefields of the Napoleonic Wars. Many of these were considered low born but hardly savages.

It seems like it is p***ing in the wind but I fail to see why the two themes of the discussion cannot co-exit without acrimony for either. Both offer legitimate questions and both have those interested in the answers or at least the debate, albeit with varying degrees of open mindedness. So for those who are fascinated by the battle itself, the options for dialog remain unabated. But when someone in that discussion attempts to glorify the campaign or justify the policy behind it, it is not surprising that some others would care to point out the "other side of the story", which for many decades, was largely ignored. Perhaps they all died bravely, perhaps not, but the sad truth is that they did not die for a great cause. So buy all means discuss the battle and don't fret so much about those who care to also lament a less than finest hour for our country that is all to often unduely glamorized.

 

[UKReb]

Bill,

I wasn't aware that I was glorifying the campaign or justifying the policy-if I have been my sincere apologies and your absolutely correct it wasn't America's finest hour-but if you look today at the conditions some of those poor Native Americans are still living in and I have seen them, although the extermination has stopped -One must ask-What else has changed?

Reb

 

[VanguardFC007]

Bill,

I wasn't aware that I was glorifying the campaign or justifying the policy-if I have been my sincere apologies and your absolutely correct it wasn't America's finest hour-but if you look today at the conditions some of those poor Native Americans are still living in and I have seen them, although the extermination has stopped -One must ask-What else has changed?

Reb

I remember a few years ago watching an ABC news video about that in school. And for the most part many of them are content to live in those conditions, they dont care to work their way out of it. There are some success stories, the Seminoles and other tribes in Florida, Sam Bradford at Oklahoma, but many are willing to just take the free hand the government offers.

(Dont get me wrong though, I realize any person of any ethnic group can be guilty of the same charge.)

 

[Spitfrnd]

Bill,

I wasn't aware that I was glorifying the campaign or justifying the policy-if I have been my sincere apologies and your absolutely correct it wasn't America's finest hour-but if you look today at the conditions some of those poor Native Americans are still living in and I have seen them, although the extermination has stopped -One must ask-What else has changed?

Reb

You are not but some in the thread have, hence the contrary responses. It was an observation about the general trend over time and you are right that the end of the policy is not a great deal better than its beginning. It is small wonder to me that they fought so hard against those who effectively stole their land and deprived them of their customary means of support.

It remains a large problem for a nation with many competing larger problems at the moment so I would not expect to see much improvement for a long time, if ever. Frankly, I don't think we immigrant bred citizens know how lucky we are that the Native Americans do not hold or act on grudges the way many displaced or conquerer peoples around the world do. So I wonder, who indeed is the more civilized.

 

[thebritfarmer]

You are not but some in the thread have, hence the contrary responses. It was an observation about the general trend over time and you are right that the end of the policy is not a great deal better than its beginning. It is small wonder to me that they fought so hard against those who effectively stole their land and deprived them of their customary means of support.

It remains a large problem for a nation with many competing larger problems at the moment so I would not expect to see much improvement for a long time, if ever. Frankly, I don't think we immigrant bred citizens know how lucky we are that the Native Americans do not hold or act on grudges the way many displaced or conquerer peoples around the world do. So I wonder, who indeed is the more civilized.

We have had many run in with Native Americans over this subject. So the hatchet (so to speak) is not yet buried. I don't think it ever will be.

 

[Rob]

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

Rob, very well said.

I grew up around many of these Vets who were just normal men forced to

do uncomom things at a very young age. My Dad fought through Italy,

France, Belgium and Germany and after rarely had time for any fun. My Mom's

childhood sweetheart and first husband was killed on D-Day and she never

forgot. It bothered her until her last moment on earth. My close friends Dad

was a marine on Tarawa he was a truck driver for Ancor Motor Freight and

one of the toughest men I ever met. One look from him was enough for

anyone to know he ment business. Another man I worked with for years was

a Marine on Guadalcanal who ran across what became Henderson Field when

they captured it from the Japanese building it.

Many of these men brought home weapons, German Lugers, Nambu Pistols,

Japanese Battle Flags and swords, things that were usually put away and

rarely spoken of.

This is the kind of American Men that fought these battles. The things you

spoke of were not the normal actions of our soldiers and would at best be

isolated instances as could be expected from any activity where millions of

people are involved.

There must be millions of human stories of men doing things they never wanted to or dreamed they would have to,its for me one of the most fascinating things of Warfare,the human stories of those involved.

Rob

 

[Combat]

Sorry for some of the earlier rhetoric, but my point is that you can't discuss and understand the LBH battle and Custer's decisions by focusing just on the events of that day. Limiting discussion to those events provides an imperfect and incomplete understanding of what happened and why. You do have to look to the larger context and motivations that brought Custer to that place and the mindset and objectives involved in dealing with Indians at that time. That goes a long way to explain many of the otherwise inexplicable decisions made by Custer. That is an uncomfortable and shameful chapter in our history that some prefer to ignore while focusing on the glorified last stand, but it plays an important part in the historical analysis.

 

[Louis Badolato]

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

Louis:

I am well aware of all the horors of war, since the begining of time through today. But there is a difference, look at Senator John McCain and what he endured in N. Vietham. Did we keep any Vietcong prisoners in such conditions for 5 or 6 years? I do not recall any.

In the US in WWII we kept prisoners in camps, did we kill people there by the millions?

Here in the US we are closing Gitmo because the same enemies that routinely execute people on TV might be offended if you speak to them in an unkind manor.

Three people were water boarded to save American lives and it caused a major upheaval, I fear our enemies are laughing at us.

I do not condone mistreatment of anyone, nor will I tolerate mistreatment of
my countrymen.

John,

I love this country, and prefer to think of us as the good guys. However, you have a very simplistic view of Vietnam if you think that what Senator McCain went through was not meeted out by our forces as a matter of policy as well. I have a good friend (he was in my wedding party) who served two tours in Vietnam and who talks about the common practice of taking prisoners up in helicoptors, threatening to throw them out at several hundred feet as a means of gathering information, and, once all usefull information was obtained, throwing the prisoners to their death. It was also official U.S. policy to demand body counts, resulting in the deliberate killing of civilians.

We are not angels, and have our share of military disgraces, often aimed at our own people. Post-WWI several thousand U.S. veterans who had been promised certain benefits but not received them marched on Washington, D.C. and set up a shanty-town with their families to protest. The U.S. Army sent Douglas MacArthur and George S. Patton with a couple of thousand troops to clear out the shanty town, and literally hundred of veterans and their innocent family members were massacred when Patton gave the order to fire on American Veterans (the first of many reasons that I consider him a disgrace to the United States military tradition).

In my opinion, to ignore the bad things we have done, like the massacre of the Indians, and the massacre of the veterans, and the intentional killing of civilians to satisfy body count requirements, is not a good idea.

I completely agree with your statement that you "do not condone mistreatment of anyone, nor will [you] tolerate mistreatment of
[our] countrymen." I simply think that when judging a society, you will always find examples of offician policy that is disgraceful in wartime, so don't condemn an entire society for the disgraceful exigencies of war.

 

[Njja]

You are not but some in the thread have, hence the contrary responses. It was an observation about the general trend over time and you are right that the end of the policy is not a great deal better than its beginning. It is small wonder to me that they fought so hard against those who effectively stole their land and deprived them of their customary means of support.

It remains a large problem for a nation with many competing larger problems at the moment so I would not expect to see much improvement for a long time, if ever. Frankly, I don't think we immigrant bred citizens know how lucky we are that the Native Americans do not hold or act on grudges the way many displaced or conquerer peoples around the world do. So I wonder, who indeed is the more civilized.

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

Isn't it about time we being thinking of ourselves simply as Americans?

Anyone born here is a Native American 1st! Why is it that so many people

feel the need to put something in front of American?

I have Italian, English, and Irish roots but I am an American first, and I would

not stand against other Americans because of my heritage.

A simple trip to Italy proved they have little today in common with my life

here.

 

[pugio]

"There is no such thing as a hyphenated American"- President Theodore Roosevelt

 

[thebritfarmer]

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

Isn't it about time we being thinking of ourselves simply as Americans?

Anyone born here is a Native American 1st! Why is it that so many people

feel the need to put something in front of American?

I have Italian, English, and Irish roots but I am an American first, and I would

not stand against other Americans because of my heritage.

A simple trip to Italy proved they have little today in common with my life

here.

I have often wondered that myself and it seems to only happen in America for some reason. I think it is more of a PC thing and used instead of saying black or Indian etc.....

 

[Njja]

John,

I love this country, and prefer to think of us as the good guys. However, you have a very simplistic view of Vietnam if you think that what Senator McCain went through was not meeted out by our forces as a matter of policy as well. I have a good friend (he was in my wedding party) who served two tours in Vietnam and who talks about the common practice of taking prisoners up in helicoptors, threatening to throw them out at several hundred feet as a means of gathering information, and, once all usefull information was obtained, throwing the prisoners to their death. It was also official U.S. policy to demand body counts, resulting in the deliberate killing of civilians.

We are not angels, and have our share of military disgraces, often aimed at our own people. Post-WWI several thousand U.S. veterans who had been promised certain benefits but not received them marched on Washington, D.C. and set up a shanty-town with their families to protest. The U.S. Army sent Douglas MacArthur and George S. Patton with a couple of thousand troops to clear out the shanty town, and literally hundred of veterans and their innocent family members were massacred when Patton gave the order to fire on American Veterans (the first of many reasons that I consider him a disgrace to the United States military tradition).

In my opinion, to ignore the bad things we have done, like the massacre of the Indians, and the massacre of the veterans, and the intentional killing of civilians to satisfy body count requirements, is not a good idea.

I completely agree with your statement that you "do not condone mistreatment of anyone, nor will [you] tolerate mistreatment of
[our] countrymen." I simply think that when judging a society, you will always find examples of offician policy that is disgraceful in wartime, so don't condemn an entire society for the disgraceful exigencies of war.

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

Louis you make excellent points, and I am aware of activities that went on in

Vietnam.

It does not condone the State sponsored abuse of prisoners, on television

and in the media which was practiced by N. Vietnam.

In the United States when such activies are made public, people are

punished for these crimes which are unlawful.

I do not recall seeing anyone from the Hanoi Hilton put on trial.

We are also still waiting for the terrorists that killed our newsman on live

tv to be brought to trial do you think that will ever happen?

This is what seperates us from some other nations. We are a nation of laws.

On occasion these laws are broken by individuals, when this information is made

public actions are taken.

 

[Njja]

"There is no such thing as a hyphenated American"- President Theodore Roosevelt

We should all remember that!

 

[Njja]

I have often wondered that myself and it seems to only happen in America for some reason. I think it is more of a PC thing and used instead of saying black or Indian etc.....

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.

Today many people seem to be unhappy, filled with guilt, or whatever.

We cannot even have a simple discussion on the Little Bighorn without it

turning into America's aggression against an innocient poor little flock of

sheep. I wonder if a simple discussion about the English Countryside would

bring up tales of Roman Conquest and abuse of the "Native English"

So I take a quick look at the people so upset with America's history of 130

years ago........and what do I find.......are they from another country

perhaps? Maybe they do not understand all the good things America has

tried to accomplish. Maybe they have never visited here, and seen the

opportunities, and lifestyles we enjoy.

No many of the folks so upset with our history and activities live right here

in the good old USA.

So you must forgive me if I intend to give America the benefit of the doubt,

we may not always be right, be we try our best.