| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 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.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
Brother Tom
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 3:20:53 PM
|
What have you written?
|
  |
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 5:54:07 PM
|
At my fairest, I'd agree that Custer had no shortage of bravery. He certainly showed plenty of it during the War Between the States. We might remember, however, that he did so under the command of Sheridan and his subordinates. Custer shone in this environment, earning his brevet star.
The more significant discussion, however, involves Custer as an independent commander--in the field, under fire and responsible for the training, welfare and safety of his command. I'm no historian. I am, somewhat, a student of history and, as a native Oklahoman who grew up in Custer County, I've had a lifelong interest.
Beginning with the Battle of the Wa****a, Custer's faults seem to have come to the fore. Black Kettle's village, attacked at dawn, was a relatively easy target. I've visited this place, the river has long since changed course, leaving the true site of the village isolated between the river and the old oxbow.
Feel free to correct me on the numbers, as I write only from memory. I recall that Custer claimed about 105 Indians killed, although Cheyenne accounts give about a fourth of that. I also recall reading that all but 11 of those were non-combatants. It was a slaughter, not a battle. Sergeant Major Creek is roughly a mile downstream from the village site. Major Elliot's command, 18 in all, were wiped out there.
I realize these facts (or near facts) are well known to most here. I include them to precede my point.
This "commander" abandoned Elliot and his men, refusing even to send a patrol. The hatred some of his subordinate officers had for him seems to have begun with the Elliot affair.
Over the next eight and a half years, Custer was absent without leave; then almost dismissed from the service. He was notorious for making rules, applying them to all but himself, then brutally punishing those who broke these rules.
At the Little Big Horn, he made his attack prematurely, without proper intelligence and a day ahead of Gibbon's column, the result of a forced march. Against a vastly superior force HE DIVIDED HIS COMMAND into THREE parts, compounding the stupidity by sending almost a third on a wild goose chase, far to distant to assist.
Ultimately, his attack was puny, sorta like going after a hornet's nest with a BB gun.
DC's assessment may be a bit more generous than my own. However, I agree that it was Libby who did his post mortem public relations with great success, playing on the brave "fallen hero" story to the hilt.
Custer was brave enough. He was unfit for such a command, yet probably would have done very well had he no more rank or responsibility than 1st lieutenant.
O.K., have at me...
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 7:48:51 PM
|
My first and only attendance at a LBHA conference took me for a loop. I was promptly asked to sit down by one of the leaders of the LBHA as he proceeded to ask me whom my favorite personality was? “What?” I asked. “Which person at the Little Bighorn are you most interested in”, he stated.
I had to think a moment and my response was basically that I was more interested in the battle as opposed to the people involved. He gave me a really funny look. At that point I was afraid someone would ask me the date of Custer’s birth knowing that I wouldn’t be able to answer, and then I’d appear totally dumb to this new group I found myself in.
I was surprised to find that almost every individual at that conference studied the battle from the perspective of one or several people that fought in it and were admired immensely. Of course, Custer was liked the most with a small number of other individuals far behind.
Over the years I’ve learned that in most cases where people view this battle through its participants, they are less inclined to study the battle with open minds and eyes. Sklenar is a prime example of how this is abused.
I continue to study the battle as a battle. I have the most interesting conversations with people that think along similar lines. I grow bored and less interested having a conversation with folks who do nothing but praise Custer and credit Reno or Benteen or whoever for all the mistakes. The same is true for those who think Custer the idiot.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on December 21 2004 7:49:22 PM |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 8:23:33 PM
|
Bob,
I appreciate your perspective, finding it scholarly. However, the subject is Custer, which is why I responded.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 8:42:49 PM
|
Bravo Bob, your perspective is certainly a valid one. Separating one's personal "spin" on historical events is to not judge an individual, of the past, by our contemporaneous standards. That is why I was shocked to read Dc's statement, "Left destitute by her husband's incompetence." For someone who did not know better, such a statment could be classified as a remark coming from a "Custerphobe" (one who fears or hates Custer.) However, I am confident that this is not the case in this situation.
I did some research of my own and discovered that at the age of 34, Custer's widow began writing to augment her "meager" army pension. Now I realize that the term "meager" is the opposite of "a lot", but it don't mean "destitute" either.
For the remaining 52 years of her life, after the death of General Custer, Libbie devoted herself to the memory of her husband. Isn't it remarkable that she did not resent this hotspur who "incompetently" left her behind, to face life alone? Somehow I got the notion that she adored him even more after his death.
But I regress, my singular purpose for addressing this thread was to warn the reader not to misconstrue Dc's words, as I almost did. His prior statement, that he has never said a negative thing about Custer, must stand. His reduction of Custer's death, his family, the slaughter of his comrades, the death of Indian men, women,and children to the common denominator of "incompetence" must not be taken out of context.
P.S., Dc's dire warning, that "you don't argue with women" should not be interpreted to imply that he is a misogynist. He simply realizes that women are incapable of rational thought, therefore, you don't"argue" with them. I just wish someone would tell my wife that because I surely won't!  |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 21 2004 8:47:57 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 9:38:23 PM
|
Again, Wiggs, you cannot read. The word is "didn't" not "don't". As in 'one did not argue with women in 1876.' See?
Your research is indeed little since you imply that she was not in debt. Easily found on the WEB, a review of Shirley Leckie's bio of E. Custer. A flyleaf quote here http://www.oupress.com/bookdetail.asp?isbn=0-8061-3096-2: "George Armstrong Custer’s death in 1876 at the Battle of the Little Big Horn left Elizabeth Bacon Custer a thirty-four-year-old widow who was deeply in debt." Saves me from having to get my notes and yet, still, I can produce easy to check reference. You don't do this because you lie, outright and by omission.
What school do you teach in again? I don't think you should be allowed near one. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on December 21 2004 9:39:47 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 10:32:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
I had to think a moment and my response was basically that I was more interested in the battle as opposed to the people involved.
I'm the same. I suppose I'm mildly interested in the people involved, and know off the top of my head a few details, such as that Charley Reynolds's dad was a doctor, or that Mathey was nicknamed "Bible-thumper" because having once been an inmate in a Catholic school he was a confirmed atheist and talked loud about it, but I don't hoard such details and understand the compulsion to dress up as these people not at all. I find maps more interesting than photographs. It's the battles, and fights, which interest me, and the other things are just subsidiary.
To be quite honest my interest in the Little Bighorn all comes from it being a big freak battle. The Indian Wars as a whole are interesting too, but what interest I have in them sprang first from finding the Little Bighorn so fascinating. It has since I was a child. There's probably a little morbidity there too, since any event which left everybody dead seems to intrigue me, at least if we don't know a whole lot of jack about it, but enough to know something. LBH, the Alamo, Fetterman, the Franklin expedition: each of these was a colossal disaster, burdened with few known facts, lots of garbage, and heaps of mythology, and for me anyway, it's an intellectual pleasure to sort through it all. Why else does anyone read literature or history?
Of course, I think I get less dividends than other people. Some people prowl through everything looking for any tenuous claim or statement which they can then anoint as a new "fact", and reap the self-satisfaction. I think Hardorff is like that; Michno too. I once met a guy who showed me this chart claiming to identify, by company, where all the men had died on Custer field. He had something like 15 men of Company C put down on Battle Ridge, and 32 of L in the same place, or some other absurdly specific number, and it went on like this through the whole field. Ridiculous. That's just trying to learn more than can possibly be known. And to tell the truth, I think we actually know less than we think we do. There are a lot of "facts" in this battle which are widely accepted, but on very tenuous evidence. I've gone after a few in the year or so I've been here. I think the same is true about all these things. Michno's "Lakota Noon," Woodman's "Unravelling the Franklin Mystery," Lindley's "Alamo Traces" --- there's a lot of things these guys promote, or worse, take for granted, which just doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 22 2004 : 01:34:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
Bob,
I appreciate your perspective, finding it scholarly. However, the subject is Custer, which is why I responded.
Heavyrunner -- Please understand, my points were not directed at your post. It was actually a response to D.C.'s original post to this thread. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - December 22 2004 : 04:54:11 AM
|
| I must admit to enjoying a good mystery, like the JFK assasination or Jack the Ripper. The historical or political contexts are just interesting background for me, as are the people involved. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 22 2004 : 06:40:40 AM
|
Well--I find the "total" Custer to be a pretty brave man, a very good (but not truly excellent) cavalry commander, with a pretty large ego and a high opinion of himself. Reckless and impulsive (often known as "bold"!!) which aren't too bad traits for a cavalry commander to have, provided a little caution and common sense can be mixed in as required. Fault-wise he certainly played favorites among his officers and unfortunately for all concerned, Benteen and Reno were not among his favorites. The 7th's officers were not in complete harmony--not a band of brothers (if you'll again pardon the unintentional pun) and that can make for trouble when all hell breaks loose and things are desperate. Barnitz has a good take on Custer and even given the possibility of his "class" dislike of Custer, I value his opinion. His views were given in "real time" letters to his wife, not based on "down the years" recollections when events often alter perceptions. In today's world, sort of like you or I today coming home from work and telling the wife --"Guess what that jerk Custer did today??"
As for the LBH--some one said it best--"Mistakes were made". In my opinion the two major mistakes Custer made (once he decided to divide the command (which itself may have been a mistake) were 1) Sending Benteen off on the scout and 2) promising to support Reno when he wasn't sure exactly how and when he could do that. I don't fault Custer for making the attack--I doubt he had much choice. But when so many things are uncertain (enemy numbers, the terrain, the exact size and location of the Big Village), I think that suggests a more simple plan than dividing your command 3 ways, in an un-coordinated fashion.
Add the fact that the 7th didn't fight well that day and you have LBH---.
Note: I'm not about to flame anyones views on Custer. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, especially if it's based on (and after) the "essential" readings, which most of the posters on this site surely have done. My opinion herein expressed is simply my own, based on what I've read (and also on the posts on this site). I'm sure that some may agree with all, most, some, very little, or even none of the things that I've posted. None of it is written in stone and I'm always ready to hear all other opinions with an open mind.
And in case I forget, a Happy Holiday season to EVERYONE!! |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 22 2004 : 11:44:21 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Smcf
I must admit to enjoying a good mystery, like the JFK assasination or Jack the Ripper. The historical or political contexts are just interesting background for me, as are the people involved.
Jack the Ripper is another a big BS dump. The police couldn't catch him a hundred years ago, so it's nothing but heartwarming to see a new book published every year from some guy working on his couch who has figured it out!!! With evidence to prove it.
Obviously, if the police, who knew a lot more about the case than any of us do (most of the Ripper files have been stolen), couldn't find the guy, it's pretty unlikely anybody today is. The favored suspects --- Chapman, Tumblety, Kosminski, Druitt, and lesser lights --- were all pretty obviously not the killer, and the fact that guys like Chapman and Tumblety drew suspicion only shows how desperate the police were. To be fair, this was the first real serial killer any of these guys had had to deal with, and they really didn't know what they were dealing with, but comparing what we know today about serial killers with what the police were expecting to find doesn't bring much hope that the real guy is going to be found in any of their favored suspects pile. They were expecting a madman, someone swinging knives around, who would be strange, off-putting, and foreign, when if anything a person who really commits such crimes is in public quiet, nondescript, and banally uninteresting.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 22 2004 : 6:30:21 PM
|
In 1876, men were not to be seen arguing with women, especially widows, in person or page. It was against the contemporary etiquette. You didn't argue with them. Then.
I've given you the name of the book, you can read it or not. Leckie is no hack but a respected academic. http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~history/leckie.html In any case, you're not owed anything in that regard since trying to pass off a gamesite as a source. It's in Utley as well, I recall. Cavalier in Buckskin.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 22 2004 : 8:31:17 PM
|
Dc, implication is in the mind of the receiver. There was no need for me to "imply" anything. I simply countered your unsubstantiated claim that Libbie Custer was "destitute" because of her husbands "incompetence." That her pension was "meager" and needed to be "augmented" is pretty much confirmed. The fact that she continued to preserve the honor of her husband's memory after she became financially solvent "implies" that her mission was twofold; survival and love.
Men did not argue with women in 1876 because women were considered, by men, to be their chattel. In accordance with that erroneous belief, women were socialized (trained) to be subservient to all men. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 22 2004 : 8:40:50 PM
|
Larsen, that harangue regarding "JacK the Ripper" has me stymied!
What was that all about? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 22 2004 : 8:48:07 PM
|
| P.S. to D.c., Regarding your position about my suitability to teach: What you think and a $1.25 will buy me a large cup of coffee at the 7-11. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 23 2004 : 03:16:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Larsen, that harangue regarding "JacK the Ripper" has me stymied!
I don't see why. Someone mentioned Jack the Ripper as having a similar attraction to the Little Bighorn because of its mystery, and I noted that both have an accretion of BS and phony solutions which continues to be piled on top of them to this day.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 23 2004 : 03:32:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Men did not argue with women in 1876 because women were considered, by men, to be their chattel. In accordance with that erroneous belief, women were socialized (trained) to be subservient to all men.
While we're on the subject, what is this all about? So Benteen didn't duel with Libbie in print because he considered her a dray-horse?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - December 23 2004 : 04:29:09 AM
|
| @R. Larsen - My information has it that all extant Scotland Yard files on the Ripper and they are voluminous, are now in the Public Records Office, South London. Some "minor suspect" files went missing from Scotland Yard in the 1970's before the bulk were handed over, but these missing files had already been researched and referenced in books published over the past 30 years. For a complete reference work on the subject, "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook" by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner is highly recommended. |
Edited by - Smcf on December 23 2004 04:32:03 AM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 23 2004 : 05:34:02 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Smcf
@R. Larsen - My information has it that all extant Scotland Yard files on the Ripper and they are voluminous, are now in the Public Records Office, South London. Some "minor suspect" files went missing from Scotland Yard in the 1970's before the bulk were handed over, but these missing files had already been researched and referenced in books published over the past 30 years. For a complete reference work on the subject, "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook" by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner is highly recommended.
It's much worse than that. Autopsy reports for one victim is missing (albeit a victim that few today ascribe to the Ripper), and any files they may have had on any of the "major" suspects are long gone, including Kosminski, who seems to be the favored suspect nowadays (30 years ago it was Druitt, and there's jack about him too in the police files). The Metropolitan Police, in their official website, are unambivalent about the pilferings. www.met.police.uk/history/ripper.htm
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - December 23 2004 : 06:59:52 AM
|
| Point taken. The post mortem report on Kelly was missing, but was posted anonymously to the authorities a few years ago. A factor in keeping interest alive in the case is the habit of documents to show up, leading to new avenues of research - the Littlechild letter for example spawning research on Tumbelty. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 23 2004 : 11:21:17 AM
|
The thing to recall about Jack the Ripper, I think, is that this was the first murderer to parley with the modern media, who exploited him in turn. There's plenty of reason to think that prostitutes were murdered left and right before and after by drunken, angry men, copycats or whatever, and that whoever he was could have murdered many more or maybe less than those five. Nobody, truth be told, really cared before the press decided the police had better care. Gladstone was in and out of office, the Prime Minister who brought wayward and poor girls home to save them.
One interesting aspect is that Doyle published A Study in Scarlett, the first Holmes story, a year or two before the Ripper. Interesting story, well received, no clamor for another. After the Ripper stories in the press, Sherlock Holmes - the man who could do what the police could not, see what nobody else could - became the best known name in the world, and may still be, and Doyle was pressured till his death to keep churning out the tales of this guy who could protect the innocent and turn the tables on genuinely evil people. Custer and Holmes may be the two best known names of the late Victorian era. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 23 2004 : 3:10:51 PM
|
Libby Custer has as much relevance to the battle of the LBH as Captain Smith wife has to the sinking of the Titanic.Anyone taking her seriously would regard Buffalo Bill's portrayal of the LS as a primary source.She is an nonentity,at best she provides a biased insight into Custer's domestic life ,at worst she gives necrophilia a bad name.
Most people who "study" LBH are there to find a hero and to praise and sometimes worship him, admitted or not.
Heros were few and far between at the LBH DC.The trooper who assisted Lt Hodgson,Keogh/Calhoun,the men who went for water,Boyer?Good subject for another thread.
Happy Christmas all and I hope the new year sees all your young lads back from Iraq.
Regards. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 24 2004 : 10:51:31 PM
|
| Larsen, you got me again. I swear, I don't have any idea what a "dray-horse is. I'm not trying to be factitious. Please, elaborate. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 25 2004 : 04:42:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Larsen, you got me again. I swear, I don't have any idea what a "dray-horse is. I'm not trying to be factitious. Please, elaborate.
Look up the word "dray" in the same dictionary you plucked the word "acidulous" from, and you can probably figure out the rest. Facetious, Wiggs. My query about your sociological theories for the 19th century certainly was not that either. Expand.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
On Custer
