| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 16 2005 : 11:47:52 PM
|
...and bringing the Poll thread direction here.
Whistling Boy ignores the time line. But first.....
A soldier's duty is not to pointlessly die in combat for the sake of dying in combat but to effectively complete his mission. Isn't that correct? Patton thought so. So do most generals. Where do you read different? Where were you trained different? So, when did the 7th's mission become Saving General Custer Who Most Likely Had Left Us and Gone North to Terry Having Not Done What He Said He Would And Risking the Entire Regiment? After all, he'd deserted the regiment before, and left men to the enemy before after that courtsmartial. Not an irrational assumption on Reno's part.
Again. In the one hour between Reno starting his charge and Custer starting his feint/attack/line dance, at 16mph how many times could Reno have run back and forth between the ends of the village? How many soldiers would he have at the termination of his first run through? One hundred thirty men in the middle of a village of how many? With all those supposed repeaters? And everyone above the age of eight can shoot an arrow pretty well. All those attractive horses providing motivation? Come on. Time it out.
Dr. Porter is given reverential treatment, although for no particular reason other than his tale is conducive to Custerphiles. You point out that Reno had a significant number of Indians in his rear (wake) and should continue into a village of thousands already surrounded when we know now - as Stewart did not forty years before Gray's work - that Custer was nowhere near able to give support to Reno, whatever difference that would have made.
You negelect to point out that everyone with Reno in Stewart's book agrees that after the skirmish line is formed, hundreds of Sioux suddenly appear in attack, which tends to support those who say there were significant numbers ahead. People saw what they recalled they saw, and there is no glaring discrepancies in their tales. You find such variations in all these battle tales, including the Rosebud earlier. It denotes nada about the veracity of these guys. It's a battle report. Remember, we named Chicago's airport for Butch O'Hare, who thought he'd sunk a non-existent battleship off Guadalcanal. He probably did think that. Just wasn't true. So we made him a hero because he died and we needed one despite the truth. We make others scapegoats when we need them despite the truth. Ask the Captain of the Indianapolis. Oh, wait. He killed himself.
We know that one or two ran into the village uncontrolled, since this was the fastest some had ever ridden (also in Stewart's book, referencing the Inquest, and a clear illustrative example of the quality of the 7th's training in general which, along with guns they never noticed fouled in such short time frames....)and clearly some weren't up to it. We know that one soldier was killed as they mounted to retreat with a bullet through the throat, then Bloody Knife. So two dead minimal before the retreat started, likely four. Likely more, actually, but there's no proof other than it's so chaotic it's unlikely anybody saw everything.
Reno was not known as a drunk or coward before this event till it was scapegoat time. French and Weir (and Keogh and others....)were, both died from likely booze related problems, yet they are treated as sober woulda been heroes for a lot of talk. For all we know, actually, the story about French clearing the carbines could be becausee he wasn't steady enough himself to shoot after the train came up. Supposedly, when sober he was about the best shot in the regiment, or one of them. Does it strike you as wise to so employ your best shot? Recall, Ryan said he once threw a hissy fit and tossed his new rifle away, which Ryan saved for him, previous to this battle. That's the sort of alcoholic reflex we can recognize: childish tantrum.
And those scouts. Odd it is there are no tales of their daring or great shooting as soon as the train and kegs were up, but they sure resented Reno patrolling the packs. While not heroic, Reno is recalled fighting on the Hill. Weir? The Scouts? It was Ryan who cleared Sharpshooter Ridge, apparently. But only Reno is suspected of drinking......
Absolutely nobody shines, soldier or Indian, in this well documented fiasco. And Benteen's comment that there wasn't enough liquor in the pack train (or Montana) to get anyone drunk on that Hill is worth considering. In the event, regular drinkers deprived of their booze are as likely to think as poorly as those with their normal allotment. You can't make sweeping assertions like this. It's just as likely booze inflames people to attack in ferocity. Perhaps more so.
And I don't think that the Indians knew from shot one to the final clubbing of TWC's cranium what the hell was going on. They were so unglued that, like Reno, they mounted, dismounted their lodges, were terrified of their own men on captured horses and in uniform, sometimes spoke of 'the village' clearly referencing their particular circle and sometimes a larger area, and in any case we have no first person accounts, since they couldn't write and they didn't speak English. And the kicker is they let a regiment of cavalry get that close at all. Little Bighorn was a disaster of a battle and terribly fought by both sides.
In the Bernard booklet, it's cheerfully pointed out that .22 casings have been found on the field. This means that shooting occured on the field well after the battle. If true, it's inconceivable that other shooting didn't occur, unknown and unrecorded. Or, since Bernard says the field and even the Reno garbage dump was clearly picked over in the years immediately after the battle, maybe the salting tales are true if casings disappeared so quickly before significant numbers of tourists arrived. Whatever. The casings on the field simply cannot be concluded to be evidence, as most do.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 17 2005 02:31:47 AM
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 18 2005 : 04:45:52 AM
|
DC
Reno was not known as a drunk or coward before this event till it was scapegoat time. French and Weir (and Keogh and others....)were,
After the action at Rourke's Drift our heros Chard and Bromhead were brought back to England to meet Queen Victoria and society.They were great disappointments.They were found to be men of few words,withdrawn and morose.They were of course in shock and suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.
One wonders just what state of mental health were the senior officers of the 7TH in.Keogh was given to black moods and heavy drinking.Weir's behavior at the LBH was irrational and he cracked up afterwards.Moylan broke down and became emotional during the action and Reno lost it entirely.Benteen was disinterested until shocked into action.Just what emotional baggage did these men bring with them to the LBH.All had been through the horrific experience of the Civil war.All had been senior officers during the civil war commanding regiments or serving on HQ Staffs.Now these heros found themselves lowly troop commanders in a flea biten outfit.Forgotten disillusioned and shocked they rode into the valley of death.
Now let me pose this question did Custer crack up? |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 20 2005 : 10:18:46 AM
|
A kinda universal cynical "our".
But I'm surprised at the disinterest of the board in the possibility that Custer had cracked up.In fact I think I could make a better case for it than you have in suggesting that Custer had been shot. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 20 2005 : 12:41:54 PM
|
| Touché |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 20 2005 : 2:53:49 PM
|
I have no evidence that Custer was shot, and no emotional hold to the theory. It's the only thing I can imagine that would propel the 7th to where they ended up. I don't believe any cavalry officer would plan or consider crossing the land between Weir and LSH by choice, much less to make a stand with no cover there. Awful horse country, and so evident from Weir Point.
The recitation of hallucination and outright malarkey currently on the LBHA board regarding Curley's alleged testimony saying Custer went to Ford D always on the offensive is the exact sort of nonsense that requires a slap upside the head. But since I cannot fathom why the 7th didn't cross at MTC except for something like a, perhaps THE, Custer being wounded, I'm stuck with my own neither original nor brilliant theory. Simplest, covers everything. Any military detritus betwwn LSH and river the result of Indian pillaging and celebration after, and we know they rode cavalry horses into the village from that north ford, shedding unwanted stuff as they rode.
Custer was no idiot, and he had to have to have assumed Reno had wounded and lost horses. If he could have, I'm of no doubt Custer WOULD have continued north to Terry. I don't think he waited for Benteen for a second. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 9:33:40 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I have no evidence that Custer was shot, and no emotional hold to the theory. It's the only thing I can imagine that would propel the 7th to where they ended up. I don't believe any cavalry officer would plan or consider crossing the land between Weir and LSH by choice, much less to make a stand with no cover there. Awful horse country, and so evident from Weir Point.
Why did a calvary officer plan or consider crossing the land between Weir Point and LSH? To get to the other side? Somehow, I believe, that when the decision was made to cross, no soldier stood up and stated, "Gee General Sir, that is such awful horse country",you think? Men in combat do what must be done to accomplish a mission, win or fail.
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 29 2005 9:37:47 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 11:23:53 PM
|
Wild ~ "Now let me pose this question did Custer crack up?"
Joseph gives us a lesson in hero's on another board here ~ "David Crockett,the man, was a victim of his own reputation. Seen by his peers as "hero" of the common man, he desperately attempted to live up to that image. He did not always succeed. Davy, the immortal, performed every wonderful deed that one could imagine, to include swinging "Ole Betsy" on the ramparts until he was finally overcome. The death of the Crockett you believe in is dependant upon your personal need. Hero or human? Sadly, reality is often an abrupt departure from myth."
This I believe is also true of Custer. Thus ~ George A. Custer, the man was a victim of his own reputation. Seen by his peers as "hero" of the common man, he desperately attempted to live up to that image. He did not always succeed. Custer, the immortal, performed every wonderful deed that one could imagine, to include swinging his rifle behind the ramparts of the fallen horses until he was finally overcome. The death of Custer you believe in is dependant upon your personal need. Hero or human? Sadly, reality is often an abrupt departure from myth."
While not a direct answer to your question Wild, it is only the beginning. Sure many try to defend him to the very last ounce of their own wishful thinking. But wishing doesn't make hero's, it's only a personal need. And in this they will grasp at any straw to prove his innocence of any charge against his heroship. I cannot defend a man who not only risked his own life, but the lives of what; 4 other members of his family, and 200 some other men in his own personal command! While the story of the Alamo has been for the most part known, the LBH and its enduring mystery will forever enshrine the man with an honor he really didn't deserve.
Several key points that most miss.
a) It was a very hot day. The night before it had rained. It was according to some indian accounts calm. I can only imagine the stifling heat and humidity of that day. The men were bone dead tired from the long march from Fort Lincoln. Not to mention the forced march in the rain on the night of the 24th. At the time of Reno's attack at about 3pm that afternoon. They and their mounts had been on the march/move for over 31 hours of 36, almost non-stop. They had an early breakfast and nothing else to eat for the rest of the day. The same for their mounts. Water was at a premium, not only for the men but perhaps just as important the horses as well.
b) When Custer ordered the packs forward. I think he was meaning the whole shabang! Water included! He knew the men needed provisions, they had to have been hungry, thirsty and tired. He already had committed Reno to action, and he had to have known how difficult the terrain where he sent Benteen into. It just wasn't the ammo that was desperately needed as most assume.
c) When Custer made his fateful charge towards MTF. Did he really just do it as a feint? Martini reported that he told them that, "We will go down and make a crossing and capture the village." Whoa this is a big surprise! From what i've heard everyone assumes that he's after the non-coms! It doesn't look like it does it? Again someones fanciful imaginations strive to put a goal to his mischief making, cunning and brilliance by saying he was after the non-coms. When in fact he was indeed trying to capture not the non-coms but the village itself! There's only one way that I know of to do that. That's to attack it. And this is precisely what he ordered Reno to do! And what he himself was trying to do. It's also what he wanted Benteen to do if he found it. Thus the "pitch in" order.
Was he crazy? Nutso? Or as you say "cracked up"? Anyone who orders one of his battalions (Reno's) to attack a village virtually sight unseen, isn't in control of something, is he? That same person, orders Benteen into difficult terrain, that has about as much finding the indian village as it does the river. In fact the river and Reno's path to it would have made for a better choice than where Custer ultimately sent him.
Finally. At the time of his attack at MTF. He knew that the indians were putting up a fight. He also knew the approximate number of warriors there, at least 1500. Yet he does what? Reno has only what 130 or so men. He has 200 and this force is going to attack the village? A village of at least 1500 able and capable warriors? I don't know Wild, you tell me, was he?
What was it that made it impossible for him to retreat? A retreat that he eventually had to do, one that the indians forced him to do. And he risked all their lives for what? |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 30 2005 : 12:09:14 AM
|
| DC: I'm not ignoring Gray's timeline. Just because he generated a timeline doesn't make it 'gospel.' What you ignore, always, is the true soldier's mindset. If you were never subjected to military authority and its harsh discipline, never in position to administer military orders, never in position to prosecute and/or judge obedience or disobedience of one having been ordered to perform a military task, then you cannot be expected to be privy to the importance of such dictums to a U.S. soldier. You cannot appreciate the pressure that a soldier carries, the comradery he shares with fellow soldiers, his understanding of the roles of the echelons of authority. That is why you keep harping about the time line. You utilize hindsight too much to support your position. If you really want to be objective, and I'm not sure you do, reduce your great knowledge of hindsight which is what timelines are all about. If Reno would have done his DUTY he would have changed 'your' timeline. You keep insulting these American soldiers by making excuses for their disobedience. Did Reno disobey his orders or not? Yes or no. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 30 2005 : 11:39:50 AM
|
No. Reno did not disobey his orders. One, these "orders" are not agreed upon by those who contend to have heard them, and two, officers are given latitude to make command decisions. Told he would be supported, and seeing Custer's inability to lend support any time soon enough to save his particular command, he retreated.
If you have evidence the time line is meaningfully wrong, then what's the evidence? If you don't, explain how Reno would survive in the village while Custer adjusted his saddles for that hour. You avoid it.
I don't know the pressure a soldier carries, who in turn doesn't know the pressure CEO's or politicians carry, or drug dealers either. Who is to say which have more lives in their hands or is more likely to be killed or get people killed for screwing up? And most soldiers don't even know what it is like to be in combat or risk death at all. Fishermen on the Grand Banks live a more dangerous life per capita. Why the opinions of Bevo officers, clerks, and typists ought to be given the same weight as Audie Murphy, Sgt. York, or Jessica Lynch regarding combat situations is beyond me. Explain.
And the fact is that many who were at the LBH support Reno in most areas. Who are you or anyone to contest Wallace or Godfrey or Benteen? Or Reno, frankly. Who among the chest thumpers here has seen (and participated in) more combat - up close and personal - then those guys? I've defended Custer on this board as much as Reno. Not only am I not being disrespectful to actual combat vets, I refuse to include non combat wannabes in the same elevated position I hold them. And I actively despise those who pretend to have been in combat, in some cases pretend to have been in the military. I do no such thing, but I've developed a good nose for those who do.
There were a bunch of fifty-fifty calls by many at the LBH that went wrong, is all. The Seventh was a victim of its own bombast. It wasn't well trained for their mission overall, and seems to have operated on the necessity of Indians running.
I'd bet in most actions of this size an otherwise good guy dissolves to the degree Reno did, and this is covered by his buds, and it's somebody else next time where a Reno shines. LBH didn't allow that to happen because of the Centennial, because it was against "mere" Indians, and because few officers understood how the bored press operated. Offhand remarks came to be defended as holy writ.
Oh, and because Custer died and his financially strained wife did not.
I do much agree with Benteen. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 30 2005 11:44:37 AM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - August 30 2005 : 1:58:14 PM
|
| Sorry WB, I have to agree to some extent with DC. The reason is this, "officers are given latitude to make command decisions." This latitude is and always has been granted to Custer, by those who defend him. Did he, Custer disobey orders? Now tell me about that latitude? See! It just has to work both ways, doesn't it? If it doesn't, then it shouldn't work in defense of Custer either, should it? And if it does apply to all officers, then it should also apply to Benteen as well. Anyway that's my take on this subject. For what it's worth. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - August 30 2005 : 4:03:11 PM
|
Darn, I hate it when you can't edit a post! Drives me insane!
Anyways.... It should have read..."And if it does apply to all officers, then it should also apply to *Reno* & Benteen as well." |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 30 2005 : 4:58:58 PM
|
I don't know Wild, you tell me, was he?
Benteen
Nothing was going right for the man.If his luck had held out he would have been discovered by the Indians who would have fought a rear guard action while the village fled followed by the rearguard leaving Custer alive with the minimum of casualties and a reputation dented but not holed.But his luck ran out and he caught them "napping" then one mistake followed another.The whole process took on a dynamic of it's own.For the next hour and a half he travells away from Reno and Benteen and the Pack train .What's he thinking?I'm in the **** can't let the men see I 'v made a balls of it.Can't stop now and try and go on the defensive. Push on and hope something turns up.He is not thinking straight but his officers do not know this and don't question him .Then it ends ,his command wasted and scattered..... |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 31 2005 : 12:24:42 AM
|
Which is my original complaint:
When you judge the three main officers by consistent criteria, Custer comes out the worst each time. If you grant Custer a doubt's benefit, you have to grant it to Reno and Benteen as well. Custerphiles will not. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 31 2005 : 6:37:00 PM
|
I'm unaware of what "consistent criteria" is being utilized to judge Custer, Reno, and Benteen that ultimately concludes in Custer "coming out the worst each time." One would think that Reno or Benteen would receive that honor at least once or twice, odds being what they are. Could you possible post your sources for this information for further clarification?
All three men were trapped in a horrific situation not totally of their own making or choosing. As such, all three deserve some "benefit of a doubt" regarding some of their actions.
Some of us regard Reno's "charge" as a total fiasco, however, who can honestly say that they can't understand how such a thing could happen.? Personally, I hold the man to a military standard that he failed to achieve, that does not mean that I do not understand the enormous pressure he was under.
Some of us maintain that Benteen did not obey his last directive from Custer. Yet, how many of us have no compassion as to not understand the uniqueness of his situation? Faced with "900" warriors, he chose to join his command with that of Reno's. An absolutely reasonable choice.
Some believe that Custer was totally responsible for the fatal outcome of the battle. When we peruse anti-Indian, government policies and the social denigration of the Indian as humans,we may even afford the General a little benefit of doubt.
In summation, it is equally possible to disagree with some of the actions of all three yet, maintain a sensitivity for the "Why's" for their respective actions. The vast majority of threads on this forum appear to fall within the ramifications listed. Isn't it a good thing not one "Custerphile" is posting? Rather, open and intelligent debate, more often then not, is in the main here. This style of thinking and openness precludes the mindset that could encompass the ideologies of a "Custerphile" or any "phile" for that matter. Men and women who read books, respect the opinions of others, and maintain an openness to the perspectives of others have little chance of being anything but a LBHB enthusiast. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 31 2005 6:40:12 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 31 2005 : 8:08:17 PM
|
I'm sure you are unaware of any consistent criteria, since you have a chemical animosity towards such. For example, it wasn't so long ago you were claiming that "Custerphile" wasn't a real term or word because you'd never heard of it. From your current posting, the unwary might not realize that amusement.
There hasn't been consistent criteria applied to all three, which is my prolonged point. Custerphiles recoil at the thought. But just start with granting on the ground decision making to each commander. Custerphiles want to hold Reno to an iffy 'command' to attack and ride through the village, hampered by the varying versions and its innate stupidity given reality. But they don't hold Custer to his promise of support for that charge. Grant Custer, logically, the right to change to reflect reality, it isn't granted Reno. Custerphiles interpret Benteen's orders to mean bring everything to Custer at a gallop, which makes no sense, and not stop for Reno. But again, those 'orders' are pretty imprecise and not reflective of the reality Benteen encountered. And if you hold Reno and Benteen to obey a selective interpretation of their 'orders', you have to hold Custer to his with the same intensity and narrow view. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 31 2005 : 9:51:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Which is my original complaint:
When you judge the three main officers by consistent criteria, Custer comes out the worst each time. If you grant Custer a doubt's benefit, you have to grant it to Reno and Benteen as well. Custerphiles will not.
So as not to confuse issues with inflammatory verbiage that often clouds critical issues by reducing debate to incriminating accusations, let us remain upon the subject at hand, please. Your statement is clear, concise, and spelled correctly. I actually understood it. Again, what source materials did you utilize to substantiate your allegation that "consistent criteria, Custer comes out the worst each time." |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 31 2005 : 9:59:40 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
There hasn't been consistent criteria applied to all three, which is my prolonged point.
Which statement did you mean, the first one or the second one. Which statement is true, the first one or the second one. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 31 2005 : 10:21:12 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Benteen
Wild ~ "Now let me pose this question did Custer crack up?"
Joseph gives us a lesson in hero's on another board here ~ "David Crockett,the man, was a victim of his own reputation. Seen by his peers as "hero" of the common man, he desperately attempted to live up to that image. He did not always succeed. Davy, the immortal, performed every wonderful deed that one could imagine, to include swinging "Ole Betsy" on the ramparts until he was finally overcome. The death of the Crockett you believe in is dependant upon your personal need. Hero or human? Sadly, reality is often an abrupt departure from myth."
Benteen, forgive my ignorance for not acknowledging your comments until now. For some inexplicable reason, I am seeing it for the first time. When I wrote these words I believed in them with my heart and soul, I still do. I was ridiculed for doing so. I imagine such sentiments are to easily identified with "purple Prose" and easily disregarded. Perhaps that is how it should be. Nevertheless, I sincerely thank you for your wonderful comments. You Sir, are a gentleman. Your posts have always been informative and balanced. You have shown me that it is not necessary to reply kind with kind. Because of you, I believe that henceforth, I will be a much better member of this forum. I could have PM'ed this message and, undoubtedly, there may be a few who wish that I had. However, I wanted the entire forum to witness my sincere gratitude for your kind remarks. Thank You. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 01 2005 : 4:04:05 PM
|
Some of us regard Reno's "charge" as a total fiasco,
Joe I put this question to you before possibly on another thread but perhaps you missed it.What was the least number of men Reno required to successfully charge the village? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 01 2005 : 10:02:37 PM
|
Wild, a good question that deserves a response. (I did miss the question on an earlier thread, sorry.) Unfortunately, I don't have the answer. I could speculate but, that would be counterproductive because I honestly believe no one anticipated nor requested Reno to "successfully" charge the village.
Let us make several assumptions, none of which can be proven but, nevertheless,open to discussion. Although Indian agents submitted false reports regarding the actual count of Indians on each reservation, General Terry, "on the eve of starting against the hostiles had wired Sheridan: 'It is represented that they have 1,500 lodges, are confident and intent making a stand."
Based upon the number of reported lodges, it was safe to assume (our first assumption) that Terry have expected to meet a force of 4,500 to 6,000 warriors.(Custer's Luck, page 139).
Custer himself believed that the number of lodges reported by Bouyer "indicated that they may meet a force of one thousand warriors, and that there might be enough men from the various agencies to bring the total to fifteen hundred."
Now the $64,000 dollar question. Why would a sane commander ask a subordinate with approximately 120 men attack a force consisting of 1,500 to 6,ooo warriors and, be successful in doing so?
What evidence that has been gathered, thus far, regarding Reno's orders is enmeshed with confusion and ambiguity. Gray writes that the Scout Gerard testified: "Custer hallooed over to Reno, beaconing him with his fingers, and told him: 'You will take your battalion and try and bring them to battle and I will support you." Nothing is mentioned here of charging "through" the village.
Is it just possible that Custer's subsequent observation of a voluminous dust cloud emanating from the environs of the village and, a scout's warning, "There go your Indians General, running like devils" inspired General Custer to believe that the village was in flight, that the encroachment of Reno's battalion could force a rear guard action from the warriors (a common tactic utilized by them and, know to Custer)while the General headed north to round up Indian non-combatants?
I could be absolutely incorrect in my assumption. Right or wrong, I refuse to believe that General Custer expected, anticipated, or requested that Reno charge through a village of such enormous size and occupation. He would have had to be insane to do so; he was not. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 01 2005 10:11:00 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 03 2005 : 11:18:29 AM
|
HERO'S:
Thanx Joseph. I think the statement you made applies to all hero's really. It pretty much said what I thought of Custer. I'm not what you would call a Custer "fan"atic. And I have issues with people who are fanatical to the point of hero worship. Your statement put that into much better words and a perspective than I ever could. It said it all. And for that I thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUES OF CONCERN:
Custer, before I read your statement, seemed too much the willing hero at LBH. After reading it with serious regard, although it was applied to another hero. I rethought my position, and began to question ~ why? One area of concern of that "why" is the current topic. And I will address that in a moment. Continueing... Some claim that what he was doing there was nothing more than being the heroic buffoon that he always seemed to be. You know the pompous, crass, thoughtless person that history has painted of him; Heroically self satisfying his emotional need for foolish selfish goals.
One has to stop and step back after reading that remark and ask, was that true? Did or could George A. Custer have had mental issues? And if that was the case. What could they have been? Certainly, from what we understand of his Civil War record, this just wasn't so! What happened at the LBH seems on the surface to be someone who acted irrationally. And the issue of insanity creeps in. But was that the case? These questions, I feel are important. And are the one central issue here that determines Custer's fate. Hero or buffoon?
Not only are these questions of extreme importance. They are complicated by the fact that; Custer after the Civil war got into alot of trouble~~most of the time! Points of interest are these:
1) The Elliot affair. Here was something unthinkable. How could Custer not miss Elliot? One of his own officers? And his men, no less!? Difficult to believe that he wouldn't have missed Elliot? Unthinkable!!!
2) Shooting Deserters! Need I say more... Good lord, this is sane!?
3) The Belknap affair. This as it turns out, is perhaps the one that places a perspective upon his thoughts more than any other. If he wanted out of the army, he didn't need to shoot himself in the foot, just testify... If any one single issue didn't make any sense, this one didn't! It was also here that Custer disobeyed a direct order, leaving to join his regiment without prior appoval, and so documented by Sheridan.
4) "Seemingly" impaired judgements during the whole LBH campaign, and particularly on the day of the battle.
5) Before reaching the Yellowstone. Custer often displayed his self styled heroism, like the finding of a suitable "road" (for want of a better word) for the expedition to follow. He even boasted of this to his wife. This is typical Custer. Then after Reaching the Yellowstone we see a more Hesitant Custer. A more atypical reaction to events, one not of courage and bravado, but one where he relies upon the advice of junior officers. This is definitly not the Custer of Civil War fame!
6) Last but certainly not the least is; The A.W.O.L. issue of taking an absence to visit his wife. What did he expect of the outcome? Didn't he know better? Why put his career on the line again?
Custer put his career on the line time after time after time... ~ after the Civil War. Did he care? Was he nuts? Insane? Or was it something else? "Something" was definitly ~ not quite right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RENO'S CHARGE:
Consider the following:
Gray CLC pp 239...
"...then the scouts sat down and one of the Crows, Big Belly [white Man Runs Him], got up and asked Custer, through the Crow interpreter [Mitch Bouyer] what he thought of the Sioux camp. Custer said "This camp has not seen our army; none of these scouts have seen us." The Crow replied,"...These Sioux we have seen at the foot of the hill, two going one way and four the other, are good scouts. They have seen the smoke of our [the command's] camp." Custer said agrily, "I say again, we have not been seen. That camp has not seen us. I am going ahead to carry out what I think. I want to wait until its dark, and then we will march; we will place our army around the Sioux camp." The Crow replied, "That plan is bad; it should not be carried out." Custer said, "I have said what I propose to do; I will wait until dark and then go ahead with my plan."~~
Here was Custer's attack plans for the 26th: "I want to wait until its dark, and then we will march; we will place our army around the Sioux camp." Was Custer really trying to do this in the daylight? By appearance it does, doesn't it? Benteen goes to the left? Reno goes up the middle? Custer goes to the right? The fact was that he didn't have the cover of darkness. The facts make it appear that he didn't have the proper time to pull this off in the daylight. And if he was trying to covertly surround them, then why send Reno to attack?
He could see from the Crows nest the best way for Benteen's men to go to support the mission. The same way Reno went. Only instead of sending his men to attack with Reno, he sends them west over the benchlands to break up the pony herds and attack the village from same direction. Yet he sends him into high difficult terrain that he could clearly see from the Crows Nest wasn't going to get Benteen anywhere.
Impaired judgement? Second thoughts about what White Man Runs Him said? Indecision? Change of plans! All of this uncharacteristic of the man we all know!
Nothing Custer did made any sense after he gave Reno the orders to attack the village. That's why I think everyone has such a difficult time understanding this event. Here we see a firm angry resolve to wait, yet moments later, for some unforseen reason, he changes his mind. From this decision to send Reno to attack it only gets worse, not better. The simple facts were; He and his men didn't have the energy after the forced night march. The necessary force to deal with the huge numbers of indians (and had he cared he would have made some effort to find out.) And last but not the least, he executed all the wrong decisions. This all uncharacteristic of Custer as we know him.
Question is who changed his mind? And with this sudden change of thought and plans. Did Custer have the proper time to evaluate the situation before giving Reno his orders? Or for that matter what he himself would do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CUSTER'S PLAN:
I just love it when someone say's this is or was Custer's plan. I personally don't think he had one, especially after he changed his mind so suddenly. And it appears as though it was sudden, doesn't it? Custer for most of that morning was at the Crows nest. At what time was it that Custer was eating breakfast? Before or after? The assumption would be after, but not definite. Because they halted at 4 and according to Gray they ate at 5. This still well before full daylight. And surely before Custer had went to the Crows nest. The assumption then is that this took place at some point of relaxation after the Crows next. Which would be around 8 o'clock or so. They left on their mission of attack again according to Gray at 9:00. This definitly would not have been enough time to think of a plan. Because the knew so little of the village. After all, Custer, and even the Indian scouts didn't see much from the Crow's nest.
If Custer had any semblance of a plan it wasn't based upon firm knowledge of possible indian numbers. Or for that matter, their resolve if someone attacked that sleeping village, which at that time he wouldn't have known. Had he cared to properly survey this before sending Reno in, I think things would have been drastically different.
The one simple conclusion is; Custer had no plans. Perhaps other than those for the next day. From there it's guess work. But we have about as much chance at surprise and discovery as he did.
|
Edited by - Benteen on September 03 2005 11:31:43 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 03 2005 : 5:18:50 PM
|
Thank you for the reply Joe
Some of us regard Reno's "charge" as a total fiasco,
In response to the above I asked this question .What was the least number of men Reno required to successfully charge the village?Iask this question because in describing Reno's charge as a fiasco you make a judgement and without going back over old discussions you have always been critical of Reno's action.
Now this judgement is based on not knowing the least number of men required to successfully charge the village.In other words you have no idea if Reno's force was adaquate for the job assigned to it.But none the less you make a judgement.
I honestly believe no one anticipated nor requested Reno to "successfully" charge the village.
Well if success was not anticipated was failure?
What evidence that has been gathered, thus far, regarding Reno's orders is enmeshed with confusion and ambiguity.
But you still ctitize his actions not knowing his precise orders.
I could be absolutely incorrect in my assumption. Right or wrong, I refuse to believe that General Custer expected, anticipated, or requested that Reno charge through a village of such enormous size and occupation. He would have had to be insane to do so; he was not.
So not knowing the number required his precise orders or the numbers opposing him you say I hold the man to a military standard that he failed to achieve,????????
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 03 2005 : 6:43:46 PM
|
Wild, a point of clarification. When I referred to Reno's "charge" being a fiasco, I was relating to his decision to leave the timber in the abrupt manner in which he did;without adequate notification to all of his troops. That would be the movement wherein Dr. Porter testified, "There were few Indians between me and the command. I went out expecting to see the command charging the Indians, but instead the Indians were charging the command."
The movement to the bluffs which was accompanied by Lt. Varnum's pleading,"For God's sake men;don't run.There are a good many officers and men killed and wounded and we have to go back and get them."
The movement that Dr. Porter referred to when he later commented to Reno," Major the men were pretty well demoralized, weren't they." To which Reno replied," No, that was a charge, Sir. This movement was away from the village not towards it. I find Reno's insistence on labeling this movement a "charge" to be unsettling. I have talked about this incident in prior posts and,have referred to it (facetiously)as a charge on those occasions. I should have clarified my comment and, for that I apologize.
When you subsequently asked how many troops would Reno have needed to charge the village, I assumed you meant his original movement, towards the village and answered accordingly.
No one can know the precise orders given to Reno by Custer. There is little about this battle that is "precise", yet all of us continue to give our opinions on this matter which is to be expected. These opinions should have some basis in reality of course. For example, the Reno Inquiry gives several versions of the orders by different witnesses. That the orders were given is certain, although the precise wording has not been established and, probably never will be.
The military standard I referred to would be the level of competence that should be inherent in a graduate of West Point and experienced Civil War office. The ability to issue orders for making preparations for an orderly withdrawal. To ensure that the entire command has a chance to escape. Such as given the order to leave by trumpet which could have been heard over the din of combat.
Reno's response as to why he did not do so was that the troop commanders should have done so. With black powder exploding all about and the shrill screams of struck mounts, such a response is preposterous.
As I have stated before, we may and should have compassion for every participant of this battle due to the extraordinary circumstances they suddenly found themselves in. However, Reno's refusal to even acknowledge his responsibility by scapegoating one individual is unfair. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 03 2005 6:55:23 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 03 2005 : 7:53:02 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Benteen
HERO'S:
Thanx Joseph. I think the statement you made applies to all hero's really. It pretty much said what I thought of Custer. I'm not what you would call a Custer "fan"atic. And I have issues with people who are fanatical to the point of hero worship. Your statement put that into much better words and a perspective than I ever could. It said it all. And for that I thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUES OF CONCERN:
Custer, before I read your statement, seemed too much the willing hero at LBH. After reading it with serious regard, although it was applied to another hero. I rethought my position, and began to question ~ why? One area of concern of that "why" is the current topic. And I will address that in a moment. Continueing... Some claim that what he was doing there was nothing more than being the heroic buffoon that he always seemed to be. You know the pompous, crass, thoughtless person that history has painted of him; Heroically self satisfying his emotional need for foolish selfish goals.
I understand your rationale as nineteenth century American society seemed to admire Custer, he was a celebrity in his own era. The majority of his men (grunts not officers) seemingly did not. Hence the reference to old "Iron butt."
I agree with your supposition for his emotional need for goals, although I stop at calling them foolish.
One has to stop and step back after reading that remark and ask, was that true? Did or could George A. Custer have had mental issues? And if that was the case. What could they have been? Certainly, from what we understand of his Civil War record, this just wasn't so!
Custer possessed courage to such an extent that many would deem him foolish at best, demented at worst. During the Civil war, he personally led every charge. Believing, that men would willingly follow such a leader;he was correct. However, an officer having numerous mounts shot from beneath him while engaging in outrageous charges, dressed in a flashy, unorthodox uniform while his strawberry locks flowed wildly in the wind, capped by an oversize sombrero, might lead one to think that he may have had issues.
1) The Elliot affair. Here was something unthinkable. How could Custer not miss Elliot? One of his own officers? And his men, no less!? Difficult to believe that he wouldn't have missed Elliot? Unthinkable!!!
Eliot left the command without orders hoping to achieve a substantial victory. Even your namesake stated that "Elliot, like myself was piratting on his own hook;allowed himself to be surrounded and died like a man."
Unfortunately, Custer was unaware that Black Kettle's village was merely one of several villages strung along the Wa****a River for several miles. The approach of thousands of warriors coming to the aid of Black Kettle forced Custer to leave post haste, to the fatal detriment of Elliot and his men.
2) Shooting Deserters! Need I say more... Good lord, this is sane!?
I can assure you, Custer was not the only individual to order the shooting of deserters during wartime. The same happened in World War I and II. Insane? Yes.
3) The Belknap affair. This as it turns out, is perhaps the one that places a perspective upon his thoughts more than any other. If he wanted out of the army, he didn't need to shoot himself in the foot, just testify... If any one single issue didn't make any sense, this one didn't! It was also here that Custer disobeyed a direct order, leaving to join his regiment without prior app oval, and so documented by Sheridan.
Custer did everything in his power to avoid this summons to testify but, was unsuccessful.
4) "Seemingly" impaired judgements during the whole LBH campaign, and particularly on the day of the battle.
Debatable premise but, certainly understandable.
5) Before reaching the Yellowstone. Custer often displayed his self styled heroism, like the finding of a suitable "road" (for want of a better word) for the expedition to follow. He even boasted of this to his wife. This is typical Custer. Then after Reaching the Yellowstone we see a more Hesitant Custer. A more atypical reaction to events, one not of courage and bravado, but one where he relies upon the advice of junior officers. This is definitly not the Custer of Civil War fame!
He did boast a lot but, don't we all?.
6) Last but certainly not the least is; The A.W.O.L. issue of taking an absence to visit his wife. What did he expect of the outcome? Didn't he know better? Why put his career on the line again?
Love knows no boundaries nor limitations. He loved his wife dearly and, was afraid that she was in peril.
RENO'S CHARGE:
Consider the following:
Gray CLC pp 239...
"...then the scouts sat down and one of the Crows, Big Belly [white Man Runs Him], got up and asked Custer, through the Crow interpreter [Mitch Bouyer] what he thought of the Sioux camp. Custer said "This camp has not seen our army; none of these scouts have seen us." The Crow replied,"...These Sioux we have seen at the foot of the hill, two going one way and four the other, are good scouts. They have seen the smoke of our [the command's] camp." Custer said agrily, "I say again, we have not been seen. That camp has not seen us. I am going ahead to carry out what I think. I want to wait until its dark, and then we will march; we will place our army around the Sioux camp." The Crow replied, "That plan is bad; it should not be carried out." Custer said, "I have said what I propose to do; I will wait until dark and then go ahead with my plan."~~
Here was Custer's attack plans for the 26th: "I want to wait until its dark, and then we will march; we will place our army around the Sioux camp." Was Custer really trying to do this in the daylight? By appearance it does, doesn't it? Benteen goes to the left? Reno goes up the middle? Custer goes to the right? The fact was that he didn't have the cover of darkness. The facts make it appear that he didn't have the proper time to pull this off in the daylight. And if he was trying to covertly surround them, then why send Reno to attack?
He could see from the Crows nest the best way for Benteen's men to go to support the mission. The same way Reno went. Only instead of sending his men to attack with Reno, he sends them west over the benchlands to break up the pony herds and attack the village from same direction. Yet he sends him into high difficult terrain that he could clearly see from the Crows Nest wasn't going to get Benteen anywhere.
Impaired judgement? Second thoughts about what White Man Runs Him said? Indecision? Change of plans! All of this uncharacteristic of the man we all know!
Custer was actually displaying reason and rationality at this point. He was convinced that the Indians had not detected his command. This factor would enable him to get closes to the village, attack at dawn, and be closer in conjunction with Terry who could block the north door with his command. It was the insistence of the scout, and other incidents that erroneously led Custer to believe his command had been discovered. You know the rest.
CUSTER'S PLAN:
I just love it when someone say's this is or was Custer's plan. I personally don't think he had one, especially after he changed his mind so suddenly. And it appears as though it was sudden, doesn't it? Custer for most of that morning was at the Crows nest. At what time was it that Custer was eating breakfast? Before or after? The assumption would be after, but not definite. Because they halted at 4 and according to Gray they ate at 5. This still well before full daylight. And surely before Custer had went to the Crows nest. The assumption then is that this took place at some point of relaxation after the Crows next. Which would be around 8 o'clock or so. They left on their mission of attack again according to Gray at 9:00. This definitly would not have been enough time to think of a plan. Because the knew so little of the village. After all, Custer, and even the Indian scouts didn't see much from the Crow's nest.
Custer met with Terry and his staff and thoroughly discussed the mission and agreed upon a "plan" of action. Unfortunately, the highly fluid, and ever changing conditions of combat may force a commander to alter plans as required.
The one simple conclusion is; Custer had no plans. Perhaps other than those for the next day. From there it's guess work. But we have about as much chance at surprise and discovery as he did.
He had a plan, no doubt. It simply did not work. Neither failure nor success can be guaranteed by a plan.
quote] |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 03 2005 8:17:12 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 06 2005 : 06:05:14 AM
|
Wild, a point of clarification. When I referred to Reno's "charge" being a fiasco, I was relating to his decision to leave the timber in the abrupt manner in which he did;without adequate notification to all of his troops.
You know Joe I would not get too hung up on Reno's abrupt manner of getting out of an untenable situation.The same critisism can be leveled against the majority of civil war officers on both sides.And most with far less reason to skeddal than Reno.This was a street fight no fancy maneuvers.As regards the men left in the timber it was in fact the troop commander responsibility to relay the order.Reno's abrupt withdrawal saved the majority of his unit and those men went on to support Benteen's defense without which he
might verywell have been over run.
Of the five manuevers Reno carried out in the valley all but one were well executed.Reno with a handful of men [the unit being no larger than modernday company]was left in an untenable position and the only critism that can be leveled against him if it is indeed critism is that he left it two late to extricate his unit with the decorum you hold so highly |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Referencing Stewart's Custer Luck
