The Little Bighorn (1 Viewer)

[Spitfrnd]

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.

Never crossed my mind that you would be blind in any analysis.

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.

Right you are there mate; as you and Louis note, there are many more deserving candidates for that award; just as there are a few British equivalents.

This is in no way a criticism of American history but America is notorious for mythologizing 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 irrelevant as the myth and the legend took hold of a gullible American public and his immortality was guaranteed with his demise at the LBH)

Yes, our country does that, perhaps in part because we are so relatively young as a nation and need to make up for all that history. The myth, as I have noted several times now, is part of my problem with the events. When younger, I was an enamored of it as the next bloke but now I am simply disappointed with its continued glamor.

....
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

Interesting stuff; for the uneducated on these items, could you recite the real facts that debunk these myths?

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!

I don't think you were ever in danger of coming off that way. You just happen to touch on a raw nerve of some things about our history that some of us are not particularly proud off. I think this is fine and healthy to vent some of our frustrations (in this case with the way the Custer myth ignores those imperfect aspects of our national heritage) while still maintaining an interesting discussion of what is know and not known and why. There is nothing wrong with a little fire so long as it is under control. So I say keep it coming and maybe I can learn some more from those that have studied this in depth.

 

[Njja]

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.

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


I'm just tired of all the "Special Americans" whoever they might be today. Every group that has come here has had difficulities. I believe it is time we all become "Americans" and move forward from today. I fear in current society that is not going to happen as everyone of these "Special Americans" seems to feel they are owed something from the rest of us.

This of course is not true since most of the current Americans were not here to punish these people. While both my parents were born here none of my grandparents were so I accept absolutely no blame for anything that might have happened to the Indians.

Let me clarify who I mean by "Special Americans" anyone wishing to be treated as more equal then anyone else. Be they Italian, Irish, Latin, and so forth, or White, Red, Yellow......

 

[maddadicus]

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.

I am fast beginning to believe that he was wounded at the ford. Tom Custer would have taken command..Again, most all the books about the battle state that 4 of the 5 troop commanders were with Custer's body and not where most of their men were later found. Keogh,( whose knee was found shattered which matched up to a wound to his horse ), was surrounded by most all his sgts.in a skirmish line of sorts. Since Keogh was the only troop commander to be found with his men, it is surmised that he was wounded on horseback, he was in slirmish order, defending the lower flank of Custer hill, and his troop might have been the only command to have put up a spirited defense, until overwhelmed. If Custer was wounded or hurt, it makes sense that Tom Custer would take command ( That gives him his excuse to be on Custer hill ). But if most of the 7th's officers were found with Custer, how much of a defense could have been mounted if the survivors were leaderless through the fight...? Michael

 

[UKReb]

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).

Two clues here both a bit shaky and unreliable-

First one Sioux Indian account related many weeks after the battle that a waishu (whiteman) leader in buckskins was shot from his horse at the river.

And Lt Godfrey's official report of the wounds on Custer was as Trooper has described them but the temple shot had no blood running from the wound-indicating it was received post mortem.

It could be that if the chest wound had been received at the ford and his brother Tom or Boston etc had carried him to the ridge he may have already been dead or expired soon after being placed there. Cheyenne in particular never "killed" dead men-bad medicine- and would always put an enemy's face to the ground before finishing him off. However, Custer had received the distinctive Sioux coup mark of a 6" knife slash to his upper thigh.

Some Indian experts speculate maybe that's why Custer was supposedly not mutilated as nobody had killed him on the ridge but as already stated any mutilations may have been left out of the field autopsy for the sake of Libbie Custer who was very well respected by the officers and men of the 7th Cavalry.

Reb

 

[eborris]

They say De Rudio brought his saber too, however he was with Reno.

 

[eborris]

Two clues here both a bit shaky and unreliable-

First one Sioux Indian account related many weeks after the battle that a waishu (whiteman) leader in buckskins was shot from his horse at the river.

And Lt Godfrey's official report of the wounds on Custer was as Trooper has described them but the temple shot had no blood running from the wound-indicating it was received post mortem.

It could be that if the chest wound had been received at the ford and his brother Tom or Boston etc had carried him to the ridge he may have already been dead or expired soon after being placed there. Cheyenne in particular never "killed" dead men-bad medicine- and would always put an enemy's face to the ground before finishing him off. However, Custer had received the distinctive Sioux coup mark of a 6" knife slash to his upper thigh.

Some Indian experts speculate maybe that's why Custer was supposedly not mutilated as nobody had killed him on the ridge but as already stated any mutilations may have been left out of the field autopsy for the sake of Libbie Custer who was very well respected by the officers and men of the 7th Cavalry.

Reb

Speculation ,the statements of people that were there along with a questionable archaeological dig 150 years after the battle are all we really have. People write books and interject their own versions based on unreliable evidence or stories. The plain truth is we will never really know exactly what happened and if we did, would we still be discussing it today? I think not it wouldn't be quite as much fun.

 

[UKReb]

They say De Rudio brought his saber too, however he was with Reno.

And he also brought those wonderful field glasses that nobody could see through.

Ed you're right a couple of the officers had brought their sabres but Custer's orders were to leave them back at Fort Abraham Lincoln and 99% of officers and troopers did exactly that.

Now tell me how many Custer movies have you seen with a soundtrack of rattling sabres against horse furniture?

And how many LBH prints/pictures/figures have you seen of old buckskin George flailing a sabre above his head?

And the myth continues.

Bob

 

[maddadicus]

This whole discussion has caused me to read again the battle accounts in 5 of my " Custer books "..Another what if for you...Some blame Reno that his not charging the village allowed the indians to concentrate against Custer. But most all the after action accounts have Reno holding his position for 45 min. to an hour. Then more time elapses as he retreats into the timber and runs toward his final position at Reno hill..All told, estimates of 60 to 90 minutes of Reno against the indians..Where was Custer and what was he doing in all this time? It is a fair question to ask and speculate about. Custer's scouts supposedly knew the ground and so you would think that Custer might head to the nearest ford. Did he realize that he was not on the other end of the immense village and continue to ride west to get around the village's flank? Was he wounded or killed at this ford and his command, thrown into confusion, forgot all about Reno and were pushed hard by the rallying indians away from Reno? It might account for the actual distance of several miles between Reno and Custer, hardly in support range...If Reno's real job was to hold the indians attention so Custer could sweep into their rear, it seems Reno did that and some other event caused Custer failure to do his part..Michael

 

[eborris]

And he also brought those wonderful field glasses that nobody could see through.

Ed you're right a couple of the officers had brought their sabres but Custer's orders were to leave them back at Fort Abraham Lincoln and 99% of officers and troopers did exactly that.

Now tell me how many Custer movies have you seen with a soundtrack of rattling sabres against horse furniture?

And how many LBH prints/pictures/figures have you seen of old buckskin George flailing a sabre above his head?

And the myth continues.

Bob

Now when did movies ever let a little thing like facts get in the way?

 

[pugio]

This whole discussion has caused me to read again the battle accounts in 5 of my " Custer books "..Another what if for you...Some blame Reno that his not charging the village allowed the indians to concentrate against Custer. But most all the after action accounts have Reno holding his position for 45 min. to an hour. Then more time elapses as he retreats into the timber and runs toward his final position at Reno hill..All told, estimates of 60 to 90 minutes of Reno against the indians..Where was Custer and what was he doing in all this time? It is a fair question to ask and speculate about. Custer's scouts supposedly knew the ground and so you would think that Custer might head to the nearest ford. Did he realize that he was not on the other end of the immense village and continue to ride west to get around the village's flank? Was he wounded or killed at this ford and his command, thrown into confusion, forgot all about Reno and were pushed hard by the rallying indians away from Reno? It might account for the actual distance of several miles between Reno and Custer, hardly in support range...If Reno's real job was to hold the indians attention so Custer could sweep into their rear, it seems Reno did that and some other event caused Custer failure to do his part..Michael

Michael, have you ever read "Save The Last Bullet For Yourself" by Dr. DeMarquis. The doctor was the doctor, in the 1920's, for the Crow/Cheyenne Agency in Montana. Became very close with the tribes and many of his patients fought as young men at LBH. He came to conclusions and wrote a book in the 30's but it was so contraversle that it didnt find a publisher til 1976... very interesting book, the bottom line was whiskey, panic and mass suicide did the 7th in.

 

[maddadicus]

Michael, have you ever read "Save The Last Bullet For Yourself" by Dr. DeMarquis. The doctor was the doctor, in the 1920's, for the Crow/Cheyenne Agency in Montana. Became very close with the tribes and many of his patients fought as young men at LBH. He came to conclusions and wrote a book in the 30's but it was so contraversle that it didnt find a publisher til 1976... very interesting book, the bottom line was whiskey, panic and mass suicide did the 7th in.

I have read magazine articles ( might have been exerpts from this book )about the idea of troopers committing suicide. I do not doubt that a few, fearing capture, might, but I am not a believer in the mass suicide theory..Many early accounts were influenced by eyewitness reports of the mutilated bodies with fatal head wounds. The contemporary historians , through exhumed skulls and such, believe nearly every body got a head shot, with bullet and mostly club/hatchet to finish off the serious wounded..Michael.

 

[Mister Dave]

Michael, have you ever read "Save The Last Bullet For Yourself" by Dr. DeMarquis. The doctor was the doctor, in the 1920's, for the Crow/Cheyenne Agency in Montana. Became very close with the tribes and many of his patients fought as young men at LBH. He came to conclusions and wrote a book in the 30's but it was so contraversle that it didnt find a publisher til 1976... very interesting book, the bottom line was whiskey, panic and mass suicide did the 7th in.

Hmmmm, another item for the reading list I guess.

I have just been finishing up the Reno battle chapters in "Terrible Glory", and was struck by repeated references to the Major's slurred speech and apparently unconcealed consumption of brandy from a flask throughout the day, so the whiskey reference in this post seems interesting to me. I half assume the accounts concerning Reno's apparent drunkeness are part of the myth and attempts to smear the "ineffective subordinates" who let Custer down at LBH, but......I suspect others of you may have more informed opinions on this particular issue and I would love to hear more of it.

I am amzed at how many pages this thread had generated in such a short span of time. Obviously very fascinating stuff. Really looking forward to hearing more for selfish reasons, as this will all be very much rattling around in my brain when I am walking the site with my oldest kid in a few weeks.

MD

 

[marco55]

Dave,
Is this book a good read?
Mark

 

[Mister Dave]

Dave,
Is this book a good read?
Mark

Do you mean "Terrible Glory" Mark? If so, yes I find it to be just that. I have not come across a whole lot of head-scratching material yet, but am just getting to the bit where Custer's Bn. of 5 companies comes into action. There was mention of boxing up the 7th Cav's sabres at the Powder River depot, and this business about Reno being drunk was something I'd not remembered hearing much about. Mostly the author seems to stay fairly apolitcal on most of the big bones of contention, as when he describes the detailing of Benteen on his wide sweep to the West well short of the village for example.

MD

 

[marco55]

Yes Dave that's the book I meant because I had heard that it was a little dry.Thanks.
Mark

 

[chiefs70]

Yes Dave that's the book I meant because I had heard that it was a little dry.Thanks.
Mark

Mark -

I too have read this book and I found it to be very engaging and not the least bit dry. Then again, I'm not exactly an authority on what makes a history book lack a "dryness" factor since I'll read most any history tome I come across and expect most of them to be rather lacking in exciting turn of phrase department. I expect you would enjoy it greatly, however.

Eric

PS I also have read Thomas B Marquis' book and found it interesting although rife with a lot of misinformation in general from comments on native cultures as well as many of the accepted "facts" of the battle. Nevertheless, it is a interesting perspective and every book of adds to the information available.

 

[Mister Dave]

Yes Dave that's the book I meant because I had heard that it was a little dry.Thanks.
Mark

Hey, if it's any help, I am still reading it and it has not joined the massive pile of 25-50% finished books I regularly add to.

MD

 

[UKReb]

Guys

As I have referred to before on here the sheer volume of books on Custer are unbelievable-just try punching in CUSTER on to Amazon and you'll see what I mean.

But beware a hell of a lot of them fall between-the vain glorious fool and the buckskin cavalier. The trick is to be recommended to books that give an unbiased analysis of the fight and the background bearing in mind it is very much today a thorny subject as has been witnessed on this thread.

I have approaching 80 volumes on the fight some good, some very good and some downright awful but my recommendations for an unbiased view and extremely interesting reads -for what it's worth- are the following:-

To Hell with Honor
Red Sabbath
A Terrible Glory
Lakota Noon
A Road We Do Not Know (which is a novel but based on fact not fiction and an excellent volume which I read in one sitting)

As MD has said he is due to visit the battlefield and for any serious student of the fight that's a must to even begin to understand why historians have struggled to comprehend those last 20 minutes or so on the Greasy Grass. When I visited some years ago I half filled a yellow legal pad with copious notes and sketches and when I returned drew it up as my own personal paperback.
To my utter amazement it was published as a kind of mini-travellers report by a Plymouth Publisher as "A Walk With Custer" -which I won't recommend

Reb

 

[Rob]

Good list Reb.Could you now give me a list of say top five ACW books,i'd like to get an idea of some definitive books on the subject.

Cheers

Rob

 

[UKReb]

Good list Reb.Could you now give me a list of say top five ACW books,i'd like to get an idea of some definitive books on the subject.

Cheers

Rob

Rob

A set of books on the whole war I would recommend Bruce Catton's trilogy that was written in the 1960's and known as The Centennial History of the ACW.

Book 1. The Coming Fury-covers the causes and the coming of the war.

Book 2. Terrible Swift Sword-Victories and defeats as both sides fully mobilize their civilian armies.

Book 3. Never Call Retreat- Total war culminating at Appomattox.

For the novice student (no disrespect) I consider these- even though 40 years in print as the best starter pack-they are beautifully written almost in a style of prose tinged with a sadness the author must have felt for this dreadful war that descended upon the States. But more importantly extremely easy to digest without getting into the gritty details of which regiment went where and whose artillery was over there (that comes later after you get to grips on what the hell this war-and being civil the worst kind of war- was all about.)

I re-read them every couple of years and still learn a few things that I had missed or forgotten Plus the good thing Rob you really can pick all three up for pennies on Amazon. Shouldn't be allowed

I also like Shelby Foote's series but there is a definite leaning to the Southern Cause and being a Reb is right up my street-but Catton's works are spot on the nail with an unbiased analysis throughout all three books. Well recommended.

As a side bar he eventually won a Pulitzer Prize for his brilliant book on Grant's Overland Campaign which I use as a reference for the diaries dios called "A Stillness at Appomattox"

Hope that helps but if need be will talk further with you next Saturday at the London Show.

Bob