| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 11:47:32 AM
Most people who "study" LBH are there to find a hero and to praise and sometimes worship him, admitted or not. If you're one of them, more power to you and all but you're not seeking truth, you're seeking myth and self affirmation from it, and not history. We all do this to one degree or another. It's only bad when there is confusion or outright dishonesty about one's own motivation.
I believe you can see this at work in many of the recent books, although I've only read a few. Sklenar, Michno, Nightengale, many other, all claim as fact wishful thinking. And their goal is to reveal a Custer who was betrayed and sacrificed. It makes no sense, but it clearly serves an emotional purpose in some people.
I suggest you read some of the more recent works of the archaeology, and you can do a lot of this for free by looking at the material Markland and Bhist provide on this site and their own. It does not support many - or my own - theories but it does not suggest the 7th was an impressive bunch of soldiers. At least, fighting a defensive battle under Custer on a barren hilltop without cover. They weren't in battle long enough to have ammo as an issue. That's a short fight. Boxes of ammo there a year later.
Custer has no need to hold his own: his record of victory is clear and unassailable, but if he'd been successful at any of his outside business dealings he probably would have left the Army: he liked civilian life, too. But he was killed and his wife, allowed few ways to make a living and left destitute by her husband's incompetence, realized that her stock in trade was his memory. Much of what happened that preserved a Custer Myth could have been hammered out and calmed down by 1900 had people wanted not to turn against her sometimes absurd descriptions of a man without equal, and her baseless accusations for profit, direct and not. You didn't argue with women and she needed the cash for awhile. She made herself wealthy.
Much of the problem stems from the baseless belief engendered by his wife, a good writer, of Custer's unique qualities. He was no Forrest; he was no Buford; he was no Sheridan. He was no Crook or Merritt. He wasn't the best at anything and never had been outside self promotion. His reputation is basically valid but augmented by great myth and outright fabrication.
It's his ludicrous elevation above common sense and the baseless accusations by Whitaker and Custer's wife against others that inspired the often equally stupid defenses and charges on the other side. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 9:16:42 PM
Isn't that interesting Lorenzo, after someone insisted over,and over,and over,and over,and over,and over,and over,and over again that "probe" and "philes" merely mean that you either "like" Custer or you "don't" like Custer the rules have suddenly changed?
After having it drummed in our heads that negative connotations associated with those adjectives were all in my imagination I'm now reading of their now "extreme" meanings. I don't intent to be facetious nor do I wish to antagonize anyone but, I'm confused.
The current meaning apparently is :
"Handy, feel good assumptions like that mandate philes and phobes to take extreme positions so they can say that in affected reasonable summation and hopefully overbloviate the "middle" closer to their position."
Are you as confused as I am Lorenzo? Those philes and phobes certainly sound devious to me. By the way,I have no idea what "overbloviate" means, wish I could help you there. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 7:41:59 PM
No, Lorenzo, I don't think it does. Handy, feel-good assumptions like that mandate philes and phobes to take extreme positions so they can say that in affected reasonable summation and hopefully overbloviate the "middle" closer to their position.
It's not like the phobes are from Mars and the philes from Venus, it's rather like Compton and Alpha Centauri. If the many books you've read include those on the level of Margaret Leighton, it's a false premise. All books exclusively based upon the agenda of Libbie Custer - and there are lots of them - are essentially just that one distorted view of Libbie Custer's because the authors did no independent - or any - research and just rewrote her books. And she's demonstrably fibbing in some areas.
Frost is a Custerphile, but he doesn't distort. Leckie is neither, but sympathetic to Libbie's situation and clearly admires her, as I do. She bent the Army and nation to her will for, yes, her own interests and also because she honestly wanted her husband appreciated. Say the first part of that sentence again; hard not to admire her.
But what she did is only what Mrs. Alexander Hamilton did, and Robert Falcon Scott's wife (who apparently was unfaithful to her husband with his rivals previous to his death), ended up doing as well, in imitation of John Franklin's widow. They had to play a role and play it well to provide for themselves and their husbands' reputation.
But because they achieved their goals doesn't mean their view is true and unassailable. Or that they even really expected anyone to believe them. It was often just a blatent dare for anyone to say otherwise and distress a media savvy widow because, as was mentioned, one didn't argue with women in public spats, and especially widows, who'd wear mourning for years or decades, such was their heartbreak. PHfft! It was a shadow play, is all. Beats working what they were allowed, back then. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 5:12:28 PM
Dark,ok. But, I have read a lot of books about the subject and they disagree with your view. Also If they was'nt pro-Custer,nobody pushed until to say that Libbie falsified her letters. For what I have seen myself, this never happened. The image I have of Custer, Dark, is not a naive image of two saints, neither a romantic dream. I know their flaws, but I'm so bored, so tired about lot of trash, the so called "new books" that wants to discredit America via Custer. They call themselves new, pretending to have the TRUTH for the first time, but they are instead gossip and the same old story (this happens, as you might know, also with the indians-side books, in which the forewords seems to be photocopy of a matrix: how much times I've readed the pompous words: "for the first time in this book will be revealed the truth about the tribe etc. and the tragic insights of indian wars etc etc.")Finally, is not the first time that documents are exhibited as true but are false, in full good faith, as happened with the presumed last message of Custer to Reno ("Reno, for God sake etc.")I just don't know, I will give you my answer when the book will be here. If my view is too pink I can easily state that maybe yours is too much spiced with hate: probably, the truth lies in the middle.
However thanks. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 3:00:24 PM
Yes, I could...... But I'd be happier if you used the index and re-read it before you reopen this issue. Your image of the Custers really isn't remotely factual, Lorenzo. And no, being romantic in inclination yourself is no excuse. These were world-class social climbers of the first water, and image trumped reality all through Mrs. Custer's life. If you're writing a book you need to start with the cold, hard items. Like those letters as she presented them and the letters as they are. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 2:17:37 PM
Okay Dark,
I will re-read Leckie book and then we'll talk again. I had it from Usa university bibliotheque so I must order it again. But, really I can't remember what you claim. Can you tell me please the pages so I will go there directly? Thanks. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 2:02:07 PM
I did not say there was only one book and that it was Leckie; I said only Leckie had written an academic biography of Mrs. Custer. In that I was wrong, as I said, having forgot Frost, but Touched by Fire isn't a biography of Mrs. Custer. Wiggs' utter incomprehension of Alfuso's post is most revealing. Alfuso is backing me up totally.
Just because there is a book, Lorenzo, doesn't mean it's worth anything.
And no. Leckie states and shows that Mrs. Custer rewrote some letters, because the originals exist and conflict with the versions in her books. Mrs. Custer lied, cheerfully, and wrote about this, hoping legend and fact would merge about her husband to his advantage. Read Leckie's book with her extensive citations. Then, we can talk again. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 1:31:56 PM
alfuso, you informative post goes a long way in establishing a case that Mrs. Custer was economically functional. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 12:21:29 PM
Dear Mr Alfuso, I agree with you and, if you read past posts, you will see that I already mention Touched by fire. However, as one member of the forum said there was just Leckie biography I felt compelled making a list just of specific Libbie's biographies, while touched by fire is on Custer subject.Only for this reason I have'nt included that title. But I said: if I show you what is on market about Libbie, there are more books of this ones. I just give you the titles of the more interesting - without make citation of all the interesting analysis included on Custer's biographies.
Libbie letters, yes I agree too. And they never were false. All of the letter published on the Libbie's narrative could be find on Merington aswell. She just cut, somewhere, some personal lines that are of no interest for historians.
Thank you Mr Alfuso. |
| alfuso |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 12:02:17 PM
In her books, Libbie takes herself to task for her gossiping and her cold-shoulder treatment of people she perceived as being her husband's enemies.
She goes into some amusing tales of how GAC would imitate her being proper but icy at some gathering. Or the letters he wrote her cautioning her not to gossip since she was to set the tone for garrison wives.
|
| alfuso |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 11:56:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by lorenzo G.
Another thing: Leckie is not the only one serious book about Libbie.
"Pastures in the sun: The story of the man General George A. Custer and his wife Elizabeth Bacon Custer" by Della Tyler Key
"Bride of glory: The story of Elizabeth Bacon Custer"
by Margaret Leighton
"Elizabeth: A biography of the girl who married General George Armstrong Custer of "Custer's last stand."
by Ruth Painter Randall
"General Custer's Libbie"
by Lawrence A. Frost
"A Life Within a Life: The Story and Adventures of Libbie Custer, Wife of General George A. Custer "
by Pat Kines
Maybe, you have to read this books before to form your opinion.
You must add Louise Barnett's "Touched By Fire" She goes into some depth looking at the 19th century woman and her circumstances. And looks into the Custer marriage from that perspective. She and I both agreed that Custer had little business sense, looked upon investments as another form of gambling (which it was. Libbie was against Autie playing poker so he compartmentalized...). Barnett spends several after chapters on Libbie's life.
It's quite possible Libbie had little idea of her husband's "investments;" that is, how deeply he was in for. Men then handled the finances and gave their wives a household allowance.
Libbie didn't even begin writing her 3 books until the 1880's. Until then, she had a pension of about $50 a month. She went to New York City because she knew the best opportunities were there. women of "class" didn't hold "jobs," they took "positions" and so she worked for some society answering their mail 'cause the Custer signature gave it more clout/class.
BTW, Leighton's book cannot be counted as "serious" It's aimed too much at high school.
|
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 19 2005 : 12:55:08 PM
I redefine nothing. I just tell what I think. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 19 2005 : 11:06:15 AM
You keep trying to redefine the argument, Lorenzo. If you think Margaret Leighton's is a work of heft and note, fine, nothing to be done for you. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 19 2005 : 10:58:09 AM
Dark, You said there are no books on Elizabeth Custer but the one of leckie. I showed you that you was wrong. And that before to spit your sentences you should be more carefull. First, if I show you what is on market about Libbie, there are more books of this ones. I just give you the titles of the more interesting - without make citation of all the interesting analysis included on Custer's biographies. Second: What is not serious? Margaret Leighton? Her biography of Libbie is very interesting. Also if is a child book. It's honest. Not lying. She wrote also a life of General Custer and this book too is good, though with the classical sketch for children, the book report the truth about Custer, for what we knows, with all the anecdotes of his early days and last days. I use everything for my search, also books that I don't like as your Leckie! Then let me know, how do you know what scholars use? Oh, right you know everything. No serious the other authors? What are you telling? Painter Randall is a good author that wrote a lot of books, also a well known biography of Lincoln wife; Frost is a great historian that all we knows and, at my opinion, his Libbie book is much better then Leckie's one; Pat Kines book is very full of inside corners of Libbie. It shows Libbie in a unpartial and positive light. I Gave you this hoping you would have appreciated more this woman...but see was in vain. If here there is someone telling balderdash this one is you with your presumptuousness.
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 7:50:56 PM
None are so blind as he who refuses to see. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 6:49:31 PM
That looks like you went to the WEB and listed some books, Lorenzo. You haven't read them all either, because you wouldn't have listed at least one of them if you had as a serious book. That's something Wiggs would do. But I've read Frost, and I admit I'd forgotten it. Point taken. It's nowhere near what Leckie's is, though.
Margaret Leighton wrote books for little girls, and that volume is a child's book. If that is your criteria of a serious book, you're dead in the water. It makes no pretense of being a biolgraphy. I don't believe the others are written by academics and researched as academics would do, but bodice ripping tales essentially taken from Mrs. Custer's works. Further, Pat Kine's talks about Libbie's yarn manufacture ability, so it doesn't help you.
Mrs. Custer lied about the contents of the letters in her books, because the actual letters exist. You know this, Lorenzo. That qualifies as a lie. And because the evidence is clear and in print, it's certifiable. Deal with it.
You also don't understand Oz either, Wiggs, although I hated that book. It's not me creating things out of thin air: it's the proveable words and actions of the Custer duet. We're not talking about whether or not the Custers had faults: they were loaded down as everyone is. We're talking about Lorenzo's romantic claptrap.
Aside from you, Wiggs, I haven't called anyone here a liar until forced to by Lorenzo's balderdash, and it's in print and proveable and there it is. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 4:40:06 PM
D.c., show me a man, any man who is not flawed. When you've accomplished that feat, please show me a woman, any woman who would "cheerfully" refuse to acknowledge a critical condition as owning others monies. To refuse to acknowledge a thing, anything is certainly possible. To "cheerfully" refuse is indicative of an idioctic state of mind. Surely you are not suggesting that Libbie was an idiot. Movingrobewoman's earlier post clearly informed us that Libbie paid so much on a dollar to satisfy her husbands debts. How then can you suggest she ignored same, let alone cheerfully.
You blame Libbie for her "selfish" accusations against others. Since you did not specify which accusations you are referring to my comments must be limited. I will say this, could the unexpected and terrible death of a man she loved dearly be the primary reason that she accussed anyone at all. What evidence, other than your personal perspective, do you have that she was selfish in her actions. History eagerly awaits this heretofore unknown revelation.
I have not read Libbie's books although I plan to do so soon. I would imagine that she, like most authors, felt free to utilize poetic license in her works. I am also certain that her personal love for Custer permeated thoughout each line of work as she did so. I would hesitate to refer to such creativity as lies, but then you and I differ on many things.
Having established, in your own way,that Libbie Custer was a liar, you then proceed to legalize you unsubstantiated finding with a final and formidable proclamation that she is a "certified liar."
Perhaps your condescending,unprovable, obnixious retorts against a digified and classy individual, such as Libbie Custer, is the catalysis for Lorenzo's antagonism towards you. Last, but certainly not least, are you aware of how often you use the word liar? Could your definition include anyone who disagrees with the great and terrible Oz?
|
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 2:26:55 PM
Another thing: Leckie is not the only one serious book about Libbie.
"Pastures in the sun: The story of the man General George A. Custer and his wife Elizabeth Bacon Custer" by Della Tyler Key
"Bride of glory: The story of Elizabeth Bacon Custer"
by Margaret Leighton
"Elizabeth: A biography of the girl who married General George Armstrong Custer of "Custer's last stand."
by Ruth Painter Randall
"General Custer's Libbie"
by Lawrence A. Frost
"A Life Within a Life: The Story and Adventures of Libbie Custer, Wife of General George A. Custer "
by Pat Kines
Maybe, you have to read this books before to form your opinion. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 2:12:40 PM
I blame you, because you still know nothing about Custer the man and is you, after all, that fabricate a myth, a negative myth, don't know for which reason. I blame you because you know very few things about that couple but you say who they was and who they were the Custers. Pretending to know also their intentions. Libbie never fabricate correspondence, all cited letters are quoted in Merington too and other books of correspondence.
I'm sorry Dark that your view in this matter is so poor and that you're so ready to jump at conclusions, for exemple, saying that I have'nt readed Leckie's book. Of course, one book that partly support what you're saying, that only one book, against thousand of others contrary, is the Bible for you, simply because it tells what YOU believe is the truth. And please, don't start again that silly joke "you don't mean what you write", cause other members understand very well what I'm talking about. And me too. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 1:48:48 PM
Lorenzo,
I'm sorry your imagined great romance was composed of a flawed man and a woman who cheerfully refused to acknowledge her husband's debts for her own benefit, but that's the way it was. What do you expect from a woman who fabricated correspondence involving her husband and herself in her own books, when the actual letters do not concur? She is, therefore, a certified liar proveable and unassailable, and her lies are not to some greater good as much as her own income, which was dependent upon the unreal and rather silly image of her husband she composed. She was a talented and smart woman, a very good writer, and her husband left her in terrible shape, and I do not blame her for making hay while the sun shone. I do blame you for refusing to acknowledge the lies and supporting known falsehoods. And I blame her for her selfish accusations against other people.
Your quote doesn't say what you think it does, and isn't compelling anyway. Again. There has only been one actual biography of Mrs. Custer - Leckie's - and you need to read it before you go off the deep end. It's quite readable. |
| whistlingboy |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 11:26:24 AM
I read with great warmth your posts and enjoy the 'brightness' you bring in the midst of the 'dark and gray ' overcast skies that hover over Libby. If the truth be (if it is ever decided upon what 'that' is) that she was 'less fortunate' than others, so be it, just as long as aspersions are not cast upon her character due to perceived negligence on her part. Look forward to reading more from you, Lorenzo, and thanks for the posts. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 10:14:40 AM
Thank you, Joseph and Warlord, it's a relief to be understood as I saw that Dc misunderstood or wanted to misunderstood my all words. But is the same, I think that, who don't feel the same hate that Benteen felt for Custer, see in what I wrote, the proof that Custer loved his wife. She was'nt destitute. She just had problems as all the widows of 7th Cavalry had. She begged never! Instead, she refused help! That's in Jane Stewart foreword on the OU Press edition of "Following the guidon", for exemple. As now it seems quotes are so important: "At his death (of Custer)she found heself little better off than any of the other widows at Fort Lincoln (...) An article appeared in the Fargo "Argus" on February 15, 1882, stated that "Mrs Custer declined to spread her necessitious condition before the public"
Well, I suppose that if we would be judged with the same intolerance Custer is judged here, we would be all condemned, even his accusators.
A bovine wish.
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 9:22:42 PM
Lorenzo, thank you for your efforts and factual explanation regarding a specific portion of the General and Libbie's life.
all of us seek to better ourselves in this materialistic world. Some succeed while other do not. Again, your presence makes this forum a better place for me. |
| prolar |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 6:59:07 PM
Warlord: I, for one, enjoy Whistling Boy's posts. If he is you, keep it up. Ignoring the two trolls posts might be the best solution. I guess I'll struggle with them for a while yet. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 2:46:59 PM
If I understand you we should believe the French were a success with the Panama Canal because look what the Americans did with it when they made it work. That someone may or may not have made a success later does not reflect well on Custer then, and rather makes them look sillier, doesn't it? The fact is, he left his wife worse off than when she married him.
Regarding your understanding of the legal issues, you might want to consider this: should the United States government fight wars with Indians to protect gold mines claimed by the Army officers fighting those wars, possibly obtained illegally anyway? Leaving aside issues of theft, conflict of interest, maybe? Custer opens the Black Hills, would it be appropriate if he had investments in the Hills that might affect his supposedly objective reports to the government that employs him? These are hypothetical questions, not accusations, to answer your question about what difference it would make, but that's why what Custer owns or invests in is potentially important.
In any case, he was only involved with these things so people could use his name, and if he lost the battle his name would be worth almost nothing. What had he done lately, after all.....
I don't doubt he wanted success and tried, but he was incompetent at this. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 1:45:32 PM
You told me too, about quotes, but, Dark, the only one that pretend something here is you, and you pretend to know everything about Custer's life when you know nothing instead or very few about him. What a hell there is of illegal to have a mine and to be a soldier? What right have you always to don't believe in what other people says? I tell you Barnett or no? Is'nt a source? take the book and read it, if you don't have it, buy it. (It's a good book, also if I don't agree with all what she writes.) Cause if I ask you quotes for everything you state, instead of a forum this become a reproduction of books and this, really I don't know if is legal!
Why the mine affair exculpate Custer? Well you assume that he don't care about his wife's future, this affair instead shows that He was looking for it.He was looking at it as a way to guarantee a safe future to his wife; the mine affair and the readings he had to do and others. However, I translate you the part that talk about mine affair. This is not a simple work for me but I'll do for your praise. Of course, don't look at mistakes.
among the others, August Belmont invested 15000 dollars and jacob Astor 10000. As usual, Custer was optimist. He wrote to Libbie(She knows about this affair: "It can be that my small Standby and me, that amble for a long time to the possession of a small fortune, are realizing our hopes and our desires? "A series of letters of Hall (a colonel of the Michigan Brigade) revealed that little by little would have had to abandon those excessive hopes. In these letters the colonel repeatedly tried to reassure him. "I have delayed to write you three or four days", wrote Hall, "in the hope to be able to report you something good, but the fact is that the things are tremendously complicated and I have to ask to wait you at least another week." Hall mentioned to the possibility "that some controversy rose with the Crescent Company", thing that doesn't have to surprise as the seam had been separated between this society and the group headed by Custer and Hall, but, this last, communicated, optimist as always, that his own rights would have been maintained and that he would have "protected the fiduciary action in possession of our friends of New York." He remembered besides to Custer that "it is(the mine Stevens) considered one of the richest mines of the Colorado."In the following years, but for other owners, the mine Stevens justified the optimistic forecasts of Hall (look: Frank Fossett "Colorado: its gold mines, farms and stock ranges, and health" and "pleasure resorts" C.G. Crawford pp 400-401; or, "Bureau of Mines Scrapbooks, vol 10 voice 640, in the collection of the Colorado Historical Society. Custer needed just more time, that destiny wanted not to let him.
|
|
|
