![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
 Posted - November 11 2002 : 07:11:41 AM
|
Poll Question:
Who do you feel was most resposible for the Seventh Cavalry's defeat at the Battle of Little Bighorn?
|
|
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
 Posted - November 11 2002 : 3:33:59 PM
|
Very good poll, Sachem Rich, as I stated in an earlier post on the same subject, I believe that it was L/Col. Custer who was mostly at fault for dividing his force within enemy territory without knowing their exact disposition. However, Maj. Reno could theoretically share some of the blame for failing to get his squadron into a position to properly support a retreat. All in all, the ultimate blame should always rest with the battle commander. It is the price of leadership.
Your Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
report to moderator  |
|
|
kgwhitney
Pathfinder
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 26 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - January 06 2003 : 10:48:00 PM
|
Just want to say hello to all of you out there in Mohicanland. Hope all is well with everyone,we are looking forward to the Gathering in June. Can't wait to see everyone again! Take care everyone,Happy New Year!
The Whitney's |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
 Posted - January 07 2003 : 05:25:58 AM
|
My word, Kathy, you really are "lost in the wilderness," poor dear! How in the world did you ever manage to post this message all the way down here?!? 
Oh well ... this reminds me of the old WWWBoard!!! Thanks for the memories! 
And, can't wait to see you, either! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
chasber
Lost in the Wilderness
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 06 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 07 2003 : 01:51:14 AM
|
| I would think criticism for dividing ones force could equally be leveled on Terry. The same with final blame resting on the commander. It was Terry who sent Custer up the Rosebud with a list of suggestions but no confining orders. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - March 23 2003 : 07:35:43 AM
|
Giving Custer no specific orders was probably a good thing. However, I agree with you about Terry dividing the force ... let's remember, he was the actual commander & he sent the 7th out alone without additional support. Instead, he chose to join up with Gibbon well away from the eventual scene of the action!
Good point! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Dillon1836
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 17 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 29 2003 : 9:53:07 PM
|
I will add to this topic and add my own opinion.I think Custer was responsible for the massacre at Bighorn.He was too sure of himself....always expected to win and wouldn't have any other way.He spread the men he had along the hills...Reno....everyone just spread apart because of his doing and he died for it.
Also,My knowledge on Custer isn't as good as of mine on The Alamo so....if I am missing a few facts on custer....feel free to fill them in without making me look too stupid "lol"
Happy Halloween everyone. |
www.alamosentry.com
 |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 30 2003 : 10:31:51 AM
|
Dillon, you have pretty much 'hit the mark', so to speak. All of your observations are very correct. To sum it up, as I have said before on this topic, LTC. Custer made the same mistake that General Thesinger (Lord Chelmsford) would make less than three years later and half a world away. While engaged in the Zulu War of 1879, Lord Chelmsford violated the most basic rule of military campaigning, that is you never divide your force inside of the enemy's territory without first learning of his number and disposition/deployment of force(s).
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
powerdude
Pathfinder
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 05 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 30 2003 : 11:46:46 AM
|
Who is Captain Weir? I do not know his significance in the Battle of Bighorn.
Patrick Quinn |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 30 2003 : 3:05:01 PM
|
Hi Patrick,
Perhaps I may help answer your question. Captain Thomas Weir was the commanding officer of D-Troop, part of Major Reno's Squadron / 7th Cavalry, on the day of the battle. Where Captain Weir comes into the story is as follows.
Major Reno received word of Lietenant Colonel Custer's famous "Send Packs" order to call up the munition train, at around 1620 Hrs. (4:20PM Local Time) after the arrival of Captain Benteen's Squadron at 'Reno Hill'. He then dispatched Lieutenant Hare to recover the pack mules carrying the reserve small arms ammunition. During this time, Captain Weir had started downstream, toward the sound of the guns, with only his own D-Troop. Captain Weir was acting without orders, and on his own inititive, in order to reinforce Lieutenant Colonel Custer. Captain Weir's Troop had gotten as far as what is known today as 'Weir's Point', where he and his men could see a large body of the enemy riding in the distance and apparently firing toward the ground (executing the wounded). At this point it was 1720 Hrs., Captain Benteen's Squadron did not reach Weir's Point until 1742 Hrs. At this time Major Reno has not even departed his original location with the rest of his squadron (A,B & G Troops). Captains Weir and Benteen realized that not only was their regiments' commander's squadron destroyed, but their own lives were now in jeporady. At approximately 1800 Hrs., Captain Benteen's Squadron and Captain Weir's Troop started a retreat back toward Reno Hill.
In my opinion, Captain Weir has nothing to be blamed for the defeat, and the only thing he was guilty of was acting without orders, so that he might help his fellow soldiers. I hope this answers your question.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 30 2003 : 3:43:58 PM
|
This might start in inferno, but it's my opinion Custer brought it on himself. There are two sides to the issue of course (maybe even three). One has it that Custer was a raging egotist, had an eye on winning a big campaign and running for the Presidency. Another is that Custer was a scapegoat and a sacrificial lamb. A third is that Custer is a hero.
My opinion goes with the first viewpoint. Sheridan was of the mind that the Indians should be wiped out - that they were in the way of expansion and progress and had little or nothing to contribute to the country. Sheridan, of the "burn everything and leave them only their eyes to cry with" march through the South. If he had that attitude with his own white countrymen, you can imagine his view toward the "savages". Sheridan was Custer's mentor and rabbi.
Custer, on the other hand, always seemed to think he was better than his superiors. In many cases during the War of Succession he may have been right. In other cases he was simply grossly insubordinate and egotistical. He disobeyed orders when it suited him, but had troops under him flogged, hanged and shot for disobeying orders. He backstabbed Grant and sucked up to the opposing Party with hopes of being the darling boy running for election for the high office of Presidency.
Lastly, he had fought no challenging battles with the enemy prior to Big Horn, instead attacking peaceful villages (Black Kettle's for instance)or villages with the men out hunting or raiding.....therefore had contempt for the warrior due to relatively easy "victories". His ruthlessness in attacking unmanned villages with primarily women and children and old men is, in fact, Sheridan policy. Wipe them out. All of them. However, basing the response he was anticipating at Big Horn on his past "achievements" in combat combined with his penchant for glory hunting and disobeying or suborning orders led him to underestimate the enemy and be more concerned with some escaping, than in a true battle plan against a vast and determined enemy who had "had enough" of the white man. He was overconfident and went forward with no respect for his enemy and no intelligence upon which to base a battle plan. Remember, the cavalry was the "eyes" of the army - they were SUPPOSED to have ingrained in them the importance of good intelligence on the numbers, movement, and intentions of the enemy. He just didn't do his job. The enemy, on the other hand, was mightily P.O.'d and ready to strike back at the white man with determination. They were surprised, yes. But they knew their enemy, they knew his capabilities and his weaknesses. They would certainly know Custer was hanging it out there all alone.
Custer sought glory and an easy win so he could go on to bigger things. He had contempt for his enemy and for his soldiers. He lost glory, his future, and his soldiers. I don't mourn Custer. As prior enlisted (who became a Mustang) I DO mourn the troopers who he led to their doom for no purpose. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 30 2003 : 9:28:06 PM
|
Well Bill, if an inferno starts, don't look for it to start from me. I agree with you on your appraisal of LTC. Custer as a leader. But, even if he would have been a competant commander, and had just made a bad series of mistakes on that fateful day (which had happened to other good commanders, at other points in history), he still would have to bear the brunt of the blame. As I said above, it is the price of leadership. The price you must pay, in order to have the honor of men willing to follow you. Once again Bill, I do like the way you think, you are a good troop.
On another subject, it doesn't suprise me that you were a 'Mustanger'. I figured you had to have been a sergeant in a 'line' unit. We do know our own, my friend. Us bayonet fighters need to stick together, we are something of an endangered species since the invention of 'The Right Not To Be Offended' type of citizen. As Jack Nicholson so correctly put it in 'A Few Good Men', "As much as my existence disgusts you, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall..." So true, so true.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Highlander
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
February 04 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 30 2003 : 9:28:51 PM
|
I've also read that Benteen did not like Custer personally,and certainly did not kill himself trying to get there to reinforce him.
BTW Rich,did you know that Custer had several Italians in his ranks.The last person who is credited with seeing him alive was one trumpeteer by the name of Giovanni Martini(John Martin).It was he who was given the message to take to Benteen to"bring packs..." |
Highlander |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - October 31 2003 : 06:38:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by SgtMunro
In my opinion, Captain Weir has nothing to be blamed for the defeat, and the only thing he was guilty of was acting without orders, so that he might help his fellow soldiers. I hope this answers your question.
Absolutely agree with that, Sarge ... Of all the possible answers in the poll, I believe Weir the only one not responsible for the Army's defeat at all. He was, in fact, a Little Bighorn hero, in my opinion!!
Ultimately, too, I do agree with your opinion - and Bill's, too - that Custer must bear the brunt of the blame for the affair, BUT ...
There are so many questions:
What if Benteen brought the packs up promptly?
What if Gibbon's column had acted earlier?
What if Crook sent a message through to Custer/Terry informing them of the Rosebud engagement ... or, better yet, he had pursued the Sioux/Cheyenne warriors?
What if Reno had held his ground?
What if Terry was more aggressive?
I just feel that Custer gets an overall bad rap. We know the outcome today. He was not an idiot. He must've been counting on certain things that never happened. Whether this was because of misjudgments, miscommunications, or plain blindness, we cannot know for certain.
Given the Army's mentality at the time, his apparent plan was not out of line. It was based - solely - on the expected behavior of the Indians. And that was to flee - fight a rear guard action while allowing their non-combatants to escape. What did Custer know of Sitting Bull's vision? What did Custer know of the Battle of the Rosebud? Nothing. They had, in fact, "caught them napping."
Anyway, Custer was in the service of his Country & doing its bidding. He deserves mourning.
No tempest, though, from me ... I'm passionate about the event, but I am not a Custerphile, per se. I just think he needs to be looked at in a more balanced light.
Several inaccuracies in your post, Bill -
The Presidency thing is overblown & there is much evidence to refute that. I think They Died With Their Boots On did much to embed that in the public's perception of reality.
Custer was far from alone in having deserters shot. Many of his men loved him to death - literally.
The use of the term "villages" is incorrect. Custer attacked - prior to Little Bighorn - one village. That village, though under Black Kettle - a "peace" chief - had raiders within. It was not a totally innocent bunch. Following the raiders' trail is how they came upon the village in the first place.
Custer was a protégé of the Grant/Sherman/Sheridan "Total War" philosophy. He didn't invent it. He was attempting to carry it out, I suppose.
Custer's own words tell a much different story as to his opinion & respect of the Indians.
I think it important to judge men in the standards of the day - fair & balanced. So many variables in this whole sequence of events.
Anyway ...
Yes, Ed, well aware of Giovanni Martini - he's buried in my birthplace of Brooklyn, NY. I know I've mentioned this before, somewhere around here, but Daniel Kanipe, another messenger who survived, is buried right here in Marion, NC. His post-LBH house still stands, a mile from the Post Office. I pass his house & grave everyday going to & from work ... think about what he saw every time!
Sgt. Daniel Kanipe
If it's an inferno ya want, post over at the Against All Odds board ... someone will oblige ... no matter what your take on things is!!! 
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 31 2003 : 12:27:02 PM
|
Wasnt looking for an inferno so no need to go to some other board. I barely have time for the several boards I do visit.
I also intentionally used the words "it is my opinion". That doesnt make it completely right or completely factful. Just an opinion. I confess to not having done a lot of reading or study on the man.
On the other hand, I don't think it was far-fetched at all that he had his eye on high office. Common sense would support that. He HAD been a general in the Army covered in glory during the Civil War. Even then, he had an attitude about his superiors that he was smarter and better than they. After the war, from glory he goes to a backwater with a demotion. Sure, that was the normal state of affairs for many officers after the war....those that didn't leave or were cashiered outright. But for HIM, that was likely intolerable. He would have expected to be welcomed in Washington as a mover and shaker and he wasn't. He was being used by Sheridan and the government, yes. He was also being kept at arm's length by them because of his insubordinance and disloyalty. You don't invite a snake into your bed.
On the other hand, he was wildly popular in the public mind much as Bill Cody, Hickock, Wyatt Earp etc were....penny novels and newspapers enlarged his exploits. He saw one General become President in the form is his CW boss. Grant's Presidency was pretty rife with mismanagement, corruption, and venal attitudes....and he likely was a drunk to boot. Given his already insubordinate attitudes toward superiors, Grant's unpopularity as Pres, Custer's popularity in the public eye, and Custer's attitude about HIMSELF, it would not have been out of line for him to see himself as a Presidential candidate...it might have been completely impossible for him to NOT cast his eye in that direction. Especially since he would have had the perception that he was pretty much dead ended and finished in the Army. After his testimony against Grant, his court martial and suspension for AWOL, and some of the charges made against him by subordinates.......he was finished. He knew he would go no higher in the Army. Even if what he alleged against Grant was true, and almost certainly WAS, officers do NOT testify against their commanders.....they do NOT break ranks. Grant was his Commander in Chief. He was a serving officer. When they do, it is held against them by ALL officers no matter the truth of the matter. Ollie North may be vilified by many in this country, but he is respected among the officer corps I promise you. He did what he was expected to do as a loyal, serving officer. There are reasons such loyalty and trust MUST be held to which I won't go into here.
Officers do NOT leave their posts for personal reasons on their own authority and leave their troops to their own devices. They do NOT go AWOL. It is one thing to take action on your own authority like Weir did for the good of the service or for justifiable reasons of battle and tactics. It is quite another to on your own authority leave your post AWOL because you are horny. All of this and other things meant his career in the Army was at best dead ended, and at worst OVER at the end of the campaign against the Indians. That would have rankled a personality like his to no end. His ego needed feeding constantly. With the example of Grant, his name recognition and popularity in the public eye, his huge ego, his dead ended career, his betrayal of his Commander in Chief and consequent favor gained with the opposing Party while alienating much of his own officer corps (which he seemed to be very good at - let's not blame it ALL on Reno and Benteen's personalities) and his love of the power and percs of office........if he DIDN'T have his eye on high politics it would have been completely out of character for him. He only needed a big victory to point to and bring him completely into the public eye as a name on every lip. Besides - he had nowhe |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - October 31 2003 : 1:20:00 PM
|
| Hey Bill ... I wasn't inviting you to leave, btw. You know that, right?!? That doesn't read too well. Hope you didn't take it that way!!! Just meant if you wanted a spirited engagement on the topic ... |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 31 2003 : 1:44:39 PM
|
I knew what you meant Rich! No problems! I was just trying to say that I only participate on two or three boards due to time, so I am rather selective on what those boards are. AND, believe it or not, infernos are not sought after. I am opinionated, hold some of them strongly, but actually do not SEEK infernos! They take way too much out of me and drain me...I enjoy a good debate, but sometimes debates turn into more, and that truly does emotionally drain me and is not sought after!
I know your view on Custer. I just differ. After over 100 years of Hollywood, partisan propaganda from all sides, revisionist history swinging back and forth, etc it is hard to know exactly WHAT the real story is.......so I base a lot of my assumptions on observed human nature and life experiences. Some officers truly love to serve and do so for the sake of the service and the country. Others are careerists or driven solely by ambition. He falls somewhere in between, but he had an enormous ego and some evident love of the power and trappings......which would lead me to believe those attributes became dominant.
Even with all the diverse opinions of the man, nobody has ever accused him of cowardice or lack of bravery. If anything, he was brave to the point of recklessness. In itself, many would view that as a virtue. So would I, up to the point of dragging his troops along in the wake of his recklessness to their doom. It's easy to order a "hey diddle diddle right up the middle" ballsy attack. At least he did so at the head of his troops. The best officers accomplish their mission at least cost to the resources under their command respecting the lives of those their are entrusted with....not at any cost in lives driven by a belief that you personally are invulnerable and charmed caring less that those under you are not so charmed.
We had a saying that expressed it better. Mission first, people always. When the troops KNOW you care about their lives and value them, THEN they love you and trust you to spend them wisely. I'm not sure Custer was loved as much as he was respected and feared. He built up unit pride quite well. The troops were motivated by that, and by the age old glue of the bond of soldiers in harms way fighting for each other in the last extremis. It's very hard to explain to those who have not been there, and I'm not saying that unkindly, it's just that you can't really appreciate the dynamics until you have served in the military in a unit with pride, and alongside troops in combat. Unit pride was high going into Iraq. Unit pride suffers now because they are no longer sure there is a game plan which spends their lives wisely and the only thing holding it together is the soldier's sense of duty and love for their brethren. The last thing they want to do is let their buddies down.
You can absolutely despise your leader, but still fight like tigers for your buddies. I envision the same dynamics playing on that bloody field overlooking Big Horn. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 31 2003 : 3:13:26 PM
|
Trying to respond to some points:
"Given the Army's mentality at the time, his apparent plan was not out of line. It was based - solely - on the expected behavior of the Indians. And that was to flee - fight a rear guard action while allowing their non-combatants to escape. What did Custer know of Sitting Bull's vision? What did Custer know of the Battle of the Rosebud? Nothing. They had, in fact, "caught them napping."
That's where the intelligence comes in. He was cavalry. He was fully ingrained with that arm's duty and mission to obtain intelligence. It was his JOB to know the numbers, disposition and intent of the enemy. That was, I believe, his MISSION when assigned to go forward...the common mission of the cavalry under the command of the larger army. He was expected to perform that mission and report back to the Army NOT take it upon himself to attack and leave a large army with nothing to do and no purpose, and insubordinatly cut them out of the picture. He knew that. It was his common mission during the Civil War. It's what cost Lee the battle at Gettysburg...another cavalry officer going off on his own, leaving Lee's army blind to the numbers, dispositions and intents of the Union army at Gettysburg. Whatever the actions of the "hostiles" in previous campaigns and battles, IF he had done his job - his mission - he would have realized that there was an unprecedented HUGE camp of multi-tribes in front of him. He did not "catch them napping". He caught them in numbers large enough to feel rather secure from the usual small unit attack. It's why they came together in the first place. It must have been something of a surprise to see themselves attacked by so few in number against so large a body of warriors. They would have expected something on the order of Cook's numbers, for which they would have had plenty of warning.
"Anyway, Custer was in the service of his Country & doing its bidding. He deserves mourning."
Perhaps. Or perhaps Custer was in the service of himself. I believe the latter since his mission would have been to obtain the intelligence needed by his Commander and report back, NOT engage.
"The use of the term "villages" is incorrect. Custer attacked - prior to Little Bighorn - one village. That village, though under Black Kettle - a "peace" chief - had raiders within. It was not a totally innocent bunch. Following the raiders' trail is how they came upon the village in the first place."
Oh. Kinda like Calley wasting the whole village of My Lai - man woman and child - because it was suspected some guerillas worked out of there or passed through? As distasteful then as it is now. I agree it was probably "policy" given the Government's position on the "Indian question" and their "solution" and he was just carrying out those policies. Makes it none the less distasteful though. However, that wasn't my point. His main experience in fighting a battle with the Indians was that relatively easy "victory". That's where the intelligence should have come in, and what I believe his real mission was - for had he done his mission he would have known he was facing a far different situation.
"Custer was a protégé of the Grant/Sherman/Sheridan "Total War" philosophy. He didn't invent it. He was attempting to carry it out, I suppose."
There I agree with you completely. He was just the instrument of Grant/Sherman/Sheridan. A willing instrument, for sure. An instrument none the less.
"I think it important to judge men in the standards of the day - fair & balanced. So many variables in this whole sequence of events."
There I agree with you completely again. However, I DO think I am judging him by the standards of the day. HIS MISSION was to find the enemy and obtain it's disposition and report back - the common mission of the cavalry of that day, and of today. His duty to his troops was to spend their lives wisely and accomplish the MISSION.
Just as it is an officer's |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Highlander
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
February 04 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 31 2003 : 5:46:10 PM
|
I don't believe that Custer was an idiot either.He probably just underestimated his opponent.General Braddock did the same I'm sure.Didn't Custer lead some kind of calvary charge on the third day at Gettysburg against Jeb stuart? |
Highlander |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 31 2003 : 6:07:26 PM
|
Well, I don't think he was an idiot either, nor do I think anybody is saying that. However.........
you "probably only just underestimated your opponent" when you have to revise your plans, or you lose a battle. When your entire command is lost to the last man save one horse or so........that's a bit more than "just underestimating your opponent"! There's something more at play than just a bad misjudgement. I say again, it was NOT his mission to engage. It was his mission to find them and report back their strength and numbers - stall them with engagement if they were trying to run......but his mission was to serve as they eyes of the Army. Not engage without cause. I think it is terribly significant that the only messengers we hear he sends out are to HIS split detachments.......NOT to the Army which he was supposed to be serving. His role was to have sent back messengers to the army with the location and strength of the hostiles, and keep watch on them.....fix them in place as best he could or follow them as best he could keeping the army updated as necessary. His actions and decisions are what lead most to believe he was driven by glory and self over mission, loyalty, and responsibility.
Anybody see We Were Soldiers? Same situation sorta. Man (a cavalry officer by the way - air cav) gets dropped in amongst the enemy and discovers he is vastly outnumbered. His mission was to find them, fix them, and call in the heavy hammer. Instead, he discovers they are all around him, outnumber him greatly, and are drooling at the chance to kill some Americans. Now, had he decided for the sake of glory and self he was going to attack them sob's without backup nor asking for any.........he would have gone the way of Custer. Instead, he calls in reinforcements, fights a defensive action as best he can, calls in all the support he can to hammer the enemy, and goes into the "heck with glory, let's survive and lose as few troops as possible" mode. A real leader there. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - October 31 2003 : 7:46:13 PM
|
Well, Bill I see your points & now understand your reasons - I think - for seeing this as you do. Your reasons are pretty valid. The problem, as I see it, is that you assign them to all the wrong people. The was lack of communication; there was insubordination; there was lack of clarity; there was lack of intelligence. It wasn't Custer, though, failing in these departments. Not on this campaign.
I will post more on this as soon as I get my thoughts & notes together.
I feel you criticize based on feelings & ideas rather than the facts.
Major Reno was sent out to reconnoiter before Custer led the entire 7th from the Powder River depot. The location of the village was ascertained, more or less. Custer was a strike force. Would you offer Gatling guns to a reconnaissance mission? As Terry did to Custer? Against the "finest light cavalry" in the world?
More questions:
Why wasn't Terry with them? He was actually leading the 7th, not Custer.
Where was a messenger from Crook? Or Gibbon? Gibbon had a chance, much earlier to strike this village ... when it was smaller. Why did Benteen malinger? Why put all the blame on one man who gave his life in service to his Country?
Who's to say Custer didn't do all he could to save his men? Expecting help to arrive ...
If Custer did everything the same, what would have happened if the Indians did react as expected? Not as just Custer expected, but as the military plan expected. That is the question. I believe it would have been a smashing victory.
As to the Washita parts of your post, making multiple allegations against Custer's depredations during engagements that never took place ... is that fair? A big difference between one dawn attack and these peaceful villages & villages where the men were away you speak of ... didn't happen, Bill. Not by Custer.
He wasn't some depraved lunatic aimlessly roaming the Plains seeking to kill Indian women & children at every chance. That is not the man I'm talking about.
You also misstate by simplifying with the "horny" charge. Much more to it ... I'm not condoning his actions, and he was court-martialed. There's just more to it ...
This will take an essay to straighten out ... You have too many preconceptions - MISconceptions ...
I'll be back!  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 31 2003 : 9:32:40 PM
|
That just doesnt wash Rich. Why would an entire army be sent out on the march - on foot - infantry? Were they sent out knowing Custer was the main strike force by plan, just to arrive days later and pick over the bones of Custer's big victory? They were clearly to be the main strike force. An Armored Cav unit should leave it's main gun behind if they aren't a strike force, but are only doing a recon in force? So too if the gatlings were part of his weaponry it would not be unreasonable to expect him take them along. IF he was a strike force rather than a recon force, then leaving his gatlings behind was further negligence.
If he was to be a fast moving recon force, then not taking them along was reasonable if they slowed him down and weren't central to his mission.
"I feel you criticize based on feelings & ideas rather than the facts."
Nope. I criticise based on military doctrine that any officer would and should know. I criticise putting myself in his commander's shoes. I criticise based on professional knowlege of what the roles of cavalry are in a combined force. In his function with that army he was not a lone force policing the badlands. He was the eyes of the army behind him. Do you really think that infantry was marching all that way in force merely to arrive and tell him "well done" and turn around and march back home?
His wasn't the only negligence and only error. But he WAS negligent AND in error. And it got many of his troops killed, scattered the enemy so no hammer blow COULD be struck, and was driven, I believe, by his ego.
"Why wasn't Terry with them? He was actually leading the 7th, not Custer."
Answer: the force commander doesnt usually ride with the recon. He remains with the main body and depends on the recon to give him the intelligence he needs to form his battle plan or ammend it.
"Where was a messenger from Crook? Or Gibbon? "
Commanders don't usually provide a messenger to the recon force. They rely upon the recon force sending back the message. Custer was mobile. The infantry is, well, not as mobile.
Gibbon had a chance, much earlier to strike this village ... when it was smaller.
I'd have to research his role to answer that question.
"Why did Benteen malinger? "
Benteen was insubordinate, unmotivated, apparently had a less than high opinion of his commander, and was perhaps a coward. Or, perhaps, he made a judgement call that aid was useless and would have resulted in the destruction of HIS force also and was preserving the lives of HIS troops under HIS command. And, maybe, he knew they were a recon force not a strike force and was less than enthusiastic in disobeying higher orders for Custer's glory? Particularly in light of the overwhelming opposing force?
"Why put all the blame on one man who gave his life in service to his Country?"
Two reasons. Sgt Munro understands. HE WAS THE COMMANDER. HIS WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE BLAME WHEN THINGS WENT WRONG. That's the first reason. The second is, had he survived after that debacle he may well have been court martialed again and cashiered in disgrace.
That he died with his men through his foolishness and ego does not make him a hero, or less culpable, it just makes him one of the casualties.
"If Custer did everything the same, what would have happened if the Indians did react as expected? Not as just Custer expected, but as the military plan expected. That is the question. I believe it would have been a smashing victory."
If Custer did everything the same and the Indians had reacted as he expected, then it would have been necessary for the Indians to have turned tail and run even having the advantage and overwhelming force.
It would have been like expecting the North Vietnamese Corps in those mountains turning tail and running, fighting a rear guard action, when the mere several battalions of 1st Air Cav were dropped in amongst them. In the military plan, Custer was to be |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 31 2003 : 11:38:00 PM
|
Just to reassure.......though I am of the opinion generally as I state concerning Custer, I'm taking so hard a line only to generate the debate Rich. And I do look forward to your rebuttal and use of your better reading and knowlege of the MAN Custer in that rebuttal.
I'm basically stating the military officer's point of view, and what our discussions were in class on this issue. From a military perspective, he screwed up royally. Not only him, but ultimately HIS responsibility as the highest ranking officer on the field.
Some humor.
Last words of various folks in Custer's position at Big Horn:
Custer: Aw Sh*t. Shoulda been a lawyer like daddy wanted.
Supply Officer: Dammit! Sir! They're not filling out the requisitions for the bullets! I'm not giving out another dam bullet without a requisition.
Engineering Officer: Career enhancing my as*! Shoulda taken that job supervising the Mississippi levees......
Cook: I am NOT FEEDING ALL THOSE SONS OF BIT*HES! Nobody told me I had to plan for that!
Company Clerk: Gonna be a real short morning report tomorrow......
Chaplain: Real dumb idea of mine to provide services to the troops in the field...........real dumb.
Guidon bearer: Somebody ELSE hold this damn thing!!! ANYBODY else!
This damn thing is an arrow magnet!
Bugler: Is NOW a good time to sound retreat Sir?
Newsman: Guess I'm not gonna get the byline on THIS one........
John Wayne to Private Snuffy: Snuffy! Take a message back to Cook! Send more Indians!
Private Snuffy to John Wayne: Take it your OWN damn self! I'm trying to dig a hole and cover myself over before they get here!!
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - November 01 2003 : 6:43:40 PM
|
OK -
If I were an Indian, I often think I would greatly prefer to cast my lot among those of my people adhered to the free open plains rather than submit to the confined limits of a reservation, there to be the recipient of the blessed benefits of civilization, with its vices thrown in without stint or measure ...
George Armstrong Custer from My Life on the Plains
If you want insight into this man, read that book. Read it, before believing every fantasy out there regarding him. He, in many ways, greatly respected and admired his foe. Does this sound like the wanton Indian killer some portray him as? Yes, Custer was a warrior. He killed. He was paid to kill. His Country revered him, partially because of that killing, for killing equaled victory - in the American Civil War, in the Indian Wars.
Side-note: Custer get on Grant's bad side by reporting graft - in the Indian Agency! Ripping off the Indians, in other words.
Custer, too, was not only loved by many who served under him, but was loved by the woman whom he married, Elizabeth Bacon Custer. Libbie was the ultimate devoted wife, and was so – true to his memory – long after his death at Little Bighorn. She was his greatest champion, always, until her own death in 1933. Longer actually ... she left a couple of books.
There is so much more to the man than indiscriminate killing … and so, in the summer of 1867, he left his field command to travel across Kansas to be with Libbie. Court-martialed, of course, but why did he test the system in this manner? Two reasons –
· Reports of cholera struck fear into him that perhaps Libbie had fallen to this illness.
· Then, if Captain Benteen is to be believed, there may have been an affair brewing between Libbie & Captain Weir.
Neither was true, but passion was the driving force here. Not pardonable, to be sure, but understandable. He paid the price.
And, his superiors wanted the famous Boy General, of the Civil War, back in the field.
Custer had many skirmishes, chases, and parlays with Indians during his post-Civil War Army career, but other than Little Bighorn, fought but one major engagement. That was in present-day Oklahoma along the banks of another river, the Washita. The similarities between these two affairs are striking; I won’t go into them here. Just two points:
* As the victorious 7th Cavalry was busy burning the village, numerous letters, photo albums, and other items from the frontier settlements were discovered, bounty from the raiders whose trail led Custer to the sleeping village.
* Secondly, as this was going on, large numbers of warriors began to gather nearby. At dusk, Custer mounted the regiment, and with band playing, boldly started directly toward the bewildered warriors. It was now known, that the Washita village they had attacked was just the tip of the iceberg. Strung out along the river were numerous other villages. The startled warriors retreated to protect their families. Custer made a hasty u-turn and headed the regiment, and prisoners, back to the safety of their base camp. The ultimate bluff, perhaps. Custer was no fool. This behavior speaks volumes about what he may have been attempting at Little Bighorn 8 years later.
Total War – Total war was the Army’s policy, not Custer’s. He merely carried it out. Crockett & Boone are forever heroes. Custer & Columbus villains. Too much anti-hype has colored public perceptions. So, it is Custer the Indian Killer. George Washington killed far more Indians than Custer ever did. Who cares? Custer the Indian Killer. Custer didn’t make policy; he didn’t even devise the strategy employed in the Sioux campaign of 1876. His Government declared these Indians hostile in a land grab. Who cares? Custer the Indian Killer. His superiors came up with the ludicrously inane 3-pronged attack - sans communication – to entrap these Indians. Custer wasn’t even i |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 01 2003 : 7:09:37 PM
|
I'll get back to a greater response shortly, but need to say something so you don't get too frantic and wound around the axle. You seem to be overwrought about ONE single sentence, primarly, about Black Kettle's village out of ALL I had said. Focusing on that single sentence or wee paragraph. My point in bringing it up was NOT to prove Custer a murderer, but to point to his general experience in engagements with the enemy. Easy victories or Indians running away. Don't spend a lot of your time and emotion on trying to respond to that single sentence.
For the rest of it, good stuff and I'll try to respond when I get chance later this evening. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - November 01 2003 : 7:33:07 PM
|
No, Bill, it is an entire paragraph:
quote:
Lastly, he had fought no challenging battles with the enemy prior to Big Horn, instead attacking peaceful villages (Black Kettle's for instance)or villages with the men out hunting or raiding.....therefore had contempt for the warrior due to relatively easy "victories". His ruthlessness in attacking unmanned villages with primarily women and children and old men is, in fact, Sheridan policy. Wipe them out. All of them. However, basing the response he was anticipating at Big Horn on his past "achievements" in combat combined with his penchant for glory hunting and disobeying or suborning orders led him to underestimate the enemy and be more concerned with some escaping, than in a true battle plan against a vast and determined enemy who had "had enough" of the white man. He was overconfident and went forward with no respect for his enemy and no intelligence upon which to base a battle plan. Remember, the cavalry was the "eyes" of the army - they were SUPPOSED to have ingrained in them the importance of good intelligence on the numbers, movement, and intentions of the enemy. He just didn't do his job. The enemy, on the other hand, was mightily P.O.'d and ready to strike back at the white man with determination. They were surprised, yes. But they knew their enemy, they knew his capabilities and his weaknesses. They would certainly know Custer was hanging it out there all alone.
That entire paragraph is factually incorrect. But it doesn't bother me that you said it. What bothers me is that even a guy like you - who has an interest in history - has been "blinded," so to speak, of the truth by all the anti-Custer, anti-White Man BS that has permeated our society and finds its way into the newer "history" books.
If you could say that, I can only imagine what the less-informed public thinks.
That's what has my kilt in a wad, as Kate used to say. Oh what the hey ...
But, actually, my intent in this thread is not to argue that, but rather to show another side of Custer, and, more importantly, to spread the blame around to all those who deserve it, for the loss of 260 some-odd Americans, including Custer. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 1.24 seconds |
 |
|
Responsibility at Little Bighorn
