| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - September 02 2005 : 9:34:40 PM
|
History has been altered in a parallel universe where the following has occurred;
A. Reno charged into the southern portion of the village with a vim and vigor to be envied;
b. Benteen receives Martini's message and, immediately, gathers his troops and charges towards the village in Reno's wake;
C. General Terry arrives at the battlefield 24 hours earlier;
Based upon the above described scenario, how do you surmise a change, if any, in the final outcome of this battle?
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 02 2005 9:38:31 PM
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 04 2005 : 8:50:57 PM
|
That's alot to digest! I'm usually more than eager to speculate, but this is almost too much.
Each has it's own time to spatial relationship. And in this is difficult to percieve.
What seems clear is from trooper testimony is that Reno's troopers did charge down the valley floor. What is unknown is what happened when they arrived near the village. Was the hunkpapa encampment the only part of the village awake? Most warriors claimed they "dressed for battle." You know the adorning, face paint, etc. Which to my way of thinking would take some time. Now if the village was "napping" as most warrior accounts state is true, and apparently Custer confirms with his "napping" statement. Why indeed dismount?
Some of these issues would have to be cleared before we could assume anything. That's my take on the Reno Valley fight.
General Terry and Gibbon arriving earlier is a good thought. And I beleive coordination attempts by Terry was implemented with the Herendeen order to return. To assume Terry/Gibbon's earlier arrival, one would also have to postulate that Custer did send Herendeen back with Custer's findings and full intentions. And then one would have to ask what their reactions would have been. To streamline their force and march faster/longer? To try to send back another courier, giving Custer explicit instructions not to attack... ad infinitum...
As for Benteen. I believe Custer was as much to blame if not more. He should have realized when he sent Kanipe back to the pack train and recalled Benteen then. It was almost an afterthought that Tom C. said "if you see Benteen tell him to hurry." The question is hurry where? Hurry up with his mission? Hurry to Custer's position? Hurry the pack trains up? And then, this "hurry" order didn't come from GAC.
To me it wasn't Benteen that tarried. It was Custer. Custer ordered both Benteen and Reno to attack the village. What were these orders predicated upon? What knowledge did he, Custer have at that time to base an attack upon?
The other confusing element here is, why after he reached Weir ridge, didn't he look and see where he had sent Benteen to? And if he wanted to charge the indian village. Why not recall Benteen with better instructions, and then immediatly leave to do so? Why the 45 minutes to an hour wait? To me it wasn't Benteens faulty delay that caused this. It was Custer's fault for not better preparing the assault on the village in a more coordinated fashion. And it wasn't Benteen that tarried. It was Custer. |
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 04 2005 : 10:09:51 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Benteen
That's a lot to digest! I'm usually more than eager to speculate, but this is almost too much.
Each has it's own time to spatial relationship. And in this is difficult to perceive.
Great read! You are very correct in your assumption that this scenario contains a great deal of information to digest. The above described factors would, without a doubt, alter the final conclusion of this battle;one way or another. At the very least, Reno's movement into the village,itself, would have wrecked havoc among the villagers.
The problem with this maneuver is could Reno have sustained that open position(without benefit of cover) for a half hour or more until the arrival of Benteen? If so, could both units, working in conjunction, create even more panic in the village? Possibly. Thus, Creating a tidal wave of fleeing warriors,old folk,women, and children.
Terry's command was hampered by a contingency of slow moving infantry. Would his mounted force be sufficient to stem and corral an exodus of panic stricken Indians from escaping north?
It is my belief that if this scenario had occurred, at the very least, the united command may have been able of extricate themselves, escape, thus preventing the "Last Stand" from ever occurring.
I'm sure that further speculation could derive at other conclusions as well. Thanks for your input! |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 05 2005 : 12:17:56 AM
|
I am at this time going through the Reno COI records and the testimonies given. Trying to pick up on the reason for the dismount. And most certainly the retreat that has forever been deemed a charge. I guess my perception of a cavalry charge is based upon troopers on horseback firing their pistols, and useing their sabers. (lol... yeah I know the saber issue again, stupid wasn't it?) Perhaps i've been too influenced by old western's. :) But wasn't this what a cavalry charge was supposed to be?
I don't know, I wasn't there, but it sure seemed like the indians were sleeping. I don't know about anyone else, but stopping, dismounting and then firing volleys into the tents wasn't going to alarm anyone. If it did anything it made them angrier than a hive of bees! And they were going to protect their women and children, not run with them and risk everyone's lives.
For me, I guess it seems too close to the old movie ~Advance to the Rear~ And one does have to wonder if that's where they got the idea for the movie. I know of no finer example.
Oh no I don't blame Reno for the retreat, that's natural. But what I do blame him for is stopping and stirring up the hornet's nest! One wonders if he ever got over his childhood from playing with such things. And there were, i'm quite sure enough childhood stories about what not to do.
Your assumption that Terry would have let him attack the indian village is one that I am not too sure about. From the orders he gave to Custer, I don't think so. And this may have been what Custer was worried about. He may not have wanted Terry to know. That's why he probably didn't send Herendeen back.
Now, what if he had sent him back? I honestly think that a courier would have been sent back to slow Custer down. And no I don't believe that he would have given Custer the go ahead without Gibbons column being closer.
One detour here for a moment. This applies in some respects to Reno's charge and what I think Terry's intentions were. That morning when they saw Reno's men charging the village they were according to some accounts looking for a white flag. A flag of truce. They thought they would come in peace and talk. This of course, as we know, didn't happen.
I think Terry's plan was to do just that. He was going to try to surround the village in the night. Just like Custer planned to do. And then talk to them. If you think about it. He would have held all the cards. And with the gatlings in strategic locations, it would have been difficult for the indians to have gotten out of there with few casualties, both warrior and non-coms. Something we all know that they didn't like. And I think that they would have had little choice but to surrender.
So if Terry's plan involved this. Then I would say he would have definitly have told Custer to back off and wait.
Also with this; A more refined and better coordinated approach by Custer's forces would have been undertaken upon advancment to the village. One more of stealth than they did. And certainly not the ill concieved, unthinkable, quick change of plans without proper recon, unprepared for attack that Custer tried to implement.
Of course this would still be dependent upon whether or not Custer wanted to cooperate. And as we all know to well, he probably wouldn't have. Not that I blame him directly. He did try to stick to the overnight surround and attack theme right up until breakfast that morning. He even told White Man Runs Him that ~ that was his intention. What puzzles me. Was the he was so firm to White Man Runs Him, yet within a few hours if not less he's changed his mind.
|
Edited by - Benteen on September 05 2005 12:30:27 AM |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 05 2005 : 4:29:12 PM
|
woulda, coulda, shoulda....
Joseph, my friend, why can't we just accept the fact that Custer was against a superior force-- beyond number, superior in every way? They were better horsemen, quicker to the attack, better armed, far more motivated and coming off a victory against Terry--a stronger force than Custer's.
This isn't like discussing what Lee might have done to win at Gettysburg. Custer thought he had another easy one like a small, sleeping, snow covered camp on the Wa****a. Big mistake, that.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 05 2005 : 8:04:45 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Benteen
I don't know, I wasn't there, but it sure seemed like the Indians were sleeping. I don't know about anyone else, but stopping, dismounting and then firing volleys into the tents wasn't going to alarm anyone. If it did anything it made them angrier than a hive of bees! And they were going to protect their women and children, not run with them and risk everyone's lives.
I think Terry's plan was to do just that. He was going to try to surround the village in the night. Just like Custer planned to do. And then talk to them. If you think about it. He would have held all the cards. And with the gatlings in strategic locations, it would have been difficult for the indians to have gotten out of there with few casualties, both warrior and non-coms. Something we all know that they didn't like. And I think that they would have had little choice but to surrender.
So if Terry's plan involved this. Then I would say he would have definitly have told Custer to back off and wait.
Two excellent points! Stopping the impetus of a charge prior to arriving to the military objective deprives this tactical movement of its very purpose; to cause panic in the ranks of men on foot. When Reno ordered a dismount, the warriors realized that something had gone awry. "Walking soldiers" fought on foot, not "pony soldiers." It was at this point, I think, that many of the warriors regrouped and, subsequently, mounted a counter-charge. As the warriors rode towards the dismounted soldiers many noticed that much of the firing was high, thus ineffective. When the enemy acts strangely, appears befuddled and weak, previous fear is quickly replaced with anger. Anger that these, now perceived, incompetents dared to threaten you and your loved ones. At this point they became, as you say,"Angrier than a hive of bees."
Your second position, Terry's desire to surround the village than parlay is certainly an interesting one. While I have found no information to sustain it, I certainly have not discovered anything to disprove it either.
Terry's personality was far more moderate than that of Custer. While he needed the speed and experience(?)of the 7Th. Calvary, to locate an extremely mobile foe, Terry may have very well checked Custer's enthusiasm upon his arrival once the quarry had been treed. Faced with the combined forces of Terry and Custer the Indians may have very much acquiesced to the demands of the military and returned to their respective reservations. Needlessly to say, the first rifle shot by the troopers prevented such a possible scenario from ever occurring. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 05 2005 : 8:25:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
woulda, coulda, shoulda....
Bob, truer words were never spoken. How many times have I pined for an opportunity to redo something I have done in the past. If just one know fact in this battle could be changed the outcome would have been different. Admittedly this is all speculation but, nevertheless, intriguing.
quote:
Joseph, my friend, why can't we just accept the fact that Custer was against a superior force-- beyond number, superior in every way? They were better horsemen, quicker to the attack, better armed, far more motivated and coming off a victory against Crook--a stronger force than Custer's.
No argument here, they were all you say and, fundamentally, the reason Custer was defeated.
quote:
This isn't like discussing what Lee might have done to win at Gettysburg. Custer thought he had another easy one like a small, sleeping, snow covered camp on the Wa****a. Big mistake, that
.
Bob based on the information Custer gathered as he trailed the very large village(Indian signs) and, his own estimate of meeting at least 1,500 warriors he probably knew this engagement was not going to be a picnic.
|
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 05 2005 : 9:51:59 PM
|
quote:
Your second position, Terry's desire to surround the village than parlay is certainly an interesting one. While I have found no information to sustain it, I certainly have not discovered anything to disprove it either.
I don't know for sure either. But there are hints and clues along the way. Terry's letter of instruction to Custer helps alot in that regard. Most people key in on Custer's order's, which of course they should. But the real key to the "whole operation" is what is stated in those instructions for Gibbon. While admittedly not much it is enough to tell you that he was part of that plan.
Thanks to BJ who put up another link over at the lbha forum we have this little tidbit.
1st Lt. John Mcblain, 9th Cavalry:
quote:
...General Terry acting on the suggestion of the crow scouts that we would find the hostiles on the Little Big Horn, probably at the "big bend," planned to send Custer up the Rosebud, while Gibbon would go by way of the Big Horn, with the hope of catching the indians, between th two commands, thus "bagging" the whole crowd. The plan would have worked admirably had both parts been conducted as the commander had a right to expect that they would be.
I know how it sounds to me. But sometimes I cloud my perceptions with what I want it to say. Who doesn't try? But to be honest, I think it's a pretty straight forward remark, that pretty much explains itself. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 06 2005 : 8:19:57 PM
|
Interesting, very much so. I'm busting a gut here trying to be fair and open minded regarding the term "bagging the whole crowd." On the surface, one is encouraged to believe that the intention was to bag (gather)the whole crowd and return them to the reservations. Surely the term "bag" could not refer to annihilating them all. I do not recall at the moment which Indian said it but, as I recall, one or more of them said that if Custer had wished to talk they would have obliged him. Let me do some research on this and get back with you. This is certainly a new direction we are heading into isn't it?
As you pointed out, this is not sufficient information for a confirmation one way or the other but,it gives food for thought. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2005 : 10:25:33 AM
|
Well, this is just my opinion. But I think way too many people try to look through rose coloured glasses. Especially when it comes to this battle. Personally, I weigh each phrase or sentence within the context of the paragraph. And then if applicable to the entire work. That's the way I was taught. Some people single out certain phrases and take that out of context from what was trying to be conveyed. For example: Little green men from outer space came to earth and planted little green seeds. The little green seeds sprouted and became beautiful people.
By implication only is this sentence related to Mars. Some would contend that it was Mars. And would say that our ancestors were Martians. But was that really what it was saying. Here is where I draw the line. For example: One question: Was the beautiful people green too?
Some people, thankfully not all, tend to think Custer was the hero painted by the thousands of worshippers. Who by the way, were quite innocently I believe was either trying to make a buck, or simply didn't know.
I love taking new directions. Testing and questioning all aspects of this battle. Usually someone finds something said by someone else, who refutes entirely what I test. Does that necessarily mean that my test is invalid? I don't think so. Way to many people after the fact had agenda's. Agenda's, I think they were trying to coverup, keep secret, or even lie about. And this will probably cause the enduring mystery for centuries to come.
So is there a smoking gun? I'm sure there is. Hidden away in some dank attic somewhere, within a hope chest lies the answer. All it takes is for someone to discover it. Open it. And then have the courage to tell of their discovery. Or for that matter, even recognize its value, and not toss it!
Back to Mcblain's statement. What I do find interesting is this statement at the end of the paragraph. "The plan would have worked admirably had both parts been conducted as the commander had a right to expect that they would be." While we cannot be certain, which "part" Mcblain is referring to. It is clear that the blame was placed upon an uncoordinated effort to attain Terry's goals. Whether that was Custer's column and/or Gibbons' column is at this time ~ unknown. But it certainly looks suspicious in the light of what happened to Custer. And. Because Terry was with Gibbon. Any conclusions?
|
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2005 : 10:55:13 AM
|
Second but no less important to my analyisis are:
1) People with blinders on, who can't see interelationships to battlfield events. And in doing so can't see the surrounding interaction of events that was happening. If this person was to take a Rorschach test. He/she would likely see for certain only one thing, ie narrow minded.
2) And conversely, people of the so very opposite view, that try to take into consideration what we know today. If this person was to take a Rorschach test. He/she would likely see many things, ie. paranoid delusional.
3) And last but most certainly not the least is those that compartmentalize things. Base their entire knowledge of the whole battle one one or perhaps two events. If this person was to take a Rorschach test. He/she would likely see one or two things for certain, ie. narrow minded ~ paranoid delusional.
4) I think perhaps the worst are the people who are all three. If this person was to take a Rorschach test. He/she would likely be committed for insanity.
I'm not trying to say that archaeology, time-sequencing etal. doesn't have it's place. We all know that it does. The study of history and/or archaeology requires that we use these knowledge bases carefully, analytically and with an open mind. And each time we have a question, does it apply to one of the 4 above?
|
Edited by - Benteen on September 07 2005 10:57:32 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2005 : 9:16:39 PM
|
Benteen, this is possibly the best post (parts 1 and 2) that I have yet to read on this forum. Let me explain why I feel this way. First of all you are absolutely correct, many people view this battle from a personal perspective and, detest those who may differ in opinion. In fact to deviate from established protocol, regarding the course of this battle, will sometimes result in a hail storm of blistering, personal insults upon your head.
Secondly, your analysis of Custer enthusiasts is on the money. I know I am guilty of seeing the "Indian Side" of this battle as though no efforts were ever made to treat them fairly. The efforts were made but did not succeed. I should address that issue as well. Again, great job! |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 2:01:57 PM
|
| Why thank you Joseph. That'so very nice of you to say. I have changed my mind sooo... much about this subject. And what usually really bothers me is those who think they really ~ really know. Like it's set in stone or some such thing. To me it's all a matter of perspective. One can try to understand. Or one can think he/she doesn't have to understand, they know. I know i'm still learning, trying to understand. Trying to find the answers too. To me I think that there isn't, in most cases, enough to justify rock solid answers. That's why I like this forum so much more than the others. Most people here seem to have an open mind. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 9:05:10 PM
|
| You have the "key" to what this discussion is all about, learning and sharing. Unlike other thoroughly documented cases, the BLBH is stuffed to the gills with "what ifs" and "how cums" that go far towards the facilitation of books, movies, documentaries, and magazine articles galore. It is almost unbelievable that the interest in this battle continues to motivate so much interest over a hundred years after its advent. Amazing isn't it? If any future answers, regarding this battle, are to be discovered it will be through the efforts of those who are "open minded" and not closed to new ideas. |
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 9:11:00 PM
|
With Terry arriving 24 hrs early, I believe that greater remnants of the 7th would have been saved with historians comparing the outcome to Crooks stand off at the Rosebud on June 17th.
Personally, I still don't envision Custer surviving the battle. Now is that wishful thinking on my part or just a coldness seeping through to a man I find to be a vain, egocentric glory hound? He is reported to be discovered with "clean wounds" - not mutilated. Did he shoot himself? Warriors did not touch a suicide. Sorry if my opinions seem mean spirited. But I'm of the opinion that in any senario Custer died fairly early on MTC and that it was highly likely Miles Keogh being the last of the command to parish in the fighting.
GUYS FOOTBALLS KICKING OFF!!!! GOTTA RUN! GO CHIEFS!!!! (Oh they play Sunday against the Jets.... )
|
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 9:39:08 PM
|
I find a GAC suicide problematic. For one, he was right-handed. Although he could be ambidextrous in battle situations, how would warriors recognize a suicide upon LSH if it hadn't occurred in front of them? Don't get me entirely wrong; I'm not saying it's beyond belief that that GAC received a "helpful" shot from a member of the family or a friend ... in the fine "save the last bullet" tradition. Maybe he even requested one (that idea always gets all kinds of hate mail from certain philes), though I haven't any proof to that effect. We also have to note the lack of blood or powder wounds around that head wound--if we are to believe the burial party. He bled out from the chest hit, it seems.
How did Keogh get to be one of your last survivors? I'm curious. I've always thought TWC one of the final ones, considering the treatment his maybe-not-quite-dead body received.
But no, I find no mean-spiritedness to your thoughts. None at all.
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on September 08 2005 9:40:08 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 09 2005 : 10:44:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by terri
Personally, I still don't envision Custer surviving the battle. Now is that wishful thinking on my part or just a coldness seeping through to a man I find to be a vain, egocentric glory hound? He is reported to be discovered with "clean wounds" - not mutilated. Did he shoot himself? Warriors did not touch a suicide. Sorry if my opinions seem mean spirited. But I'm of the opinion that in any senario Custer died fairly early on MTC and that it was highly likely Miles Keogh being the last of the command to parish in the fighting.
Your personal feelings about any participant in this battle should not be construed, by any reader, as"mean spirited" at all. What you post is reflective of what you truly feel, your "gut" reaction to a specific stimuli. You have expressed your honest feelings and, no one should be condemned for such honesty. While there are many who will disagree with your supposition, there are many who will find your position reasonable.
However, like Movingrobewoman, I disagree with you supposition that Keogh was the last to die on LSH. It has been adequately documented and, essentially authenticated that this gallant "Irish Man" fell with "I" troop in the slight, ravine west of Custer Ridge.
|
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 10 2005 : 9:43:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
I find a GAC suicide problematic. For one, he was right-handed. Although he could be ambidextrous in battle situations, how would warriors recognize a suicide upon LSH if it hadn't occurred in front of them? Don't get me entirely wrong; I'm not saying it's beyond belief that that GAC received a "helpful" shot from a member of the family or a friend ... in the fine "save the last bullet" tradition. Maybe he even requested one (that idea always gets all kinds of hate mail from certain philes), though I haven't any proof to that effect. We also have to note the lack of blood or powder wounds around that head wound--if we are to believe the burial party. He bled out from the chest hit, it seems.
How did Keogh get to be one of your last survivors? I'm curious. I've always thought TWC one of the final ones, considering the treatment his maybe-not-quite-dead body received.
But no, I find no mean-spiritedness to your thoughts. None at all.
Hoka hey!
Hi MRW,
I do think Custer could have committed suicide. Powder marks would not necessarily show on bodies badly blackened in the sun and bloated. He was not, not, mutilated when the overwhelming vast majority of his unit were. It is understood that warriors did not touch suicides. As for being right handed, well that too can be argued. He could have used his other hand very easily - I'm left handed and just tried it with my mouse. (So much for scientific experimentation). :)
As for Keogh, ahhh.... I think I read a couple of accounts where either the enemy praised his fighting skill or mentioned he was one of the last to die. So I may in fact be mistaken in that assumption. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 11 2005 : 1:36:41 PM
|
Your comments bring up a very interesting point that, somehow, has escaped me for many years. I am referring to the testimony describing Custer's remains after the battle.
Lt. Godfey - "He had been shot in the left temple and the left breast. There were no powder marks or signs of mutilation."
Lt. Bradley (Helena Herald) "Probably never did hero who had fallen upon the field of battle appear so much to have died a natural death. His expression was rather that of a man who had fallen asleep."
After two days in the searing heat of a Montana summer, I would imagine that all of the bodies would be bloated and festering which would pretty much discount any images of "restful sleep."It would also be difficult to discern between Indian caused mutilation and the normal sequence of body deterioration under such circumstances.
I do not believe Custer committed suicide. His type "A" personalty and established record of "charging the enemy" no matter the cost do not support such a notion. He may have spent his last moments directing a defensive parameter behind the dead mounts facing east and south when one,of many,Indian rounds struck him from a distance. We will never know. |
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 11 2005 : 10:05:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by terri
Personally, I still don't envision Custer surviving the battle. Now is that wishful thinking on my part or just a coldness seeping through to a man I find to be a vain, egocentric glory hound? He is reported to be discovered with "clean wounds" - not mutilated. Did he shoot himself? Warriors did not touch a suicide. Sorry if my opinions seem mean spirited. But I'm of the opinion that in any senario Custer died fairly early on MTC and that it was highly likely Miles Keogh being the last of the command to parish in the fighting.
Your personal feelings about any participant in this battle should not be construed, by any reader, as"mean spirited" at all. What you post is reflective of what you truly feel, your "gut" reaction to a specific stimuli. You have expressed your honest feelings and, no one should be condemned for such honesty. While there are many who will disagree with your supposition, there are many who will find your position reasonable.
However, like Movingrobewoman, I disagree with you supposition that Keogh was the last to die on LSH. It has been adequately documented and, essentially authenticated that this gallant "Irish Man" fell with "I" troop in the slight, ravine west of Custer Ridge.
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for the kind words. I'm new to the board and sure don't want to step on any toes, at least for a while yet. 
Yes, Custer had a "personality". Have you ever given thought to perhaps he might have been bipolar? I make note due to his grandiose vanity, and his utter lack of exhibiting exhaustion - even after full days in the saddle - two traits of the illness. Now this does not mean the man was bipolar, nor am I posturing this argument. However, some of the traits seem to fit his documented personality.
Also, I'm still curious as to why his body was not mutilated. Why? Or could it have happened and the survivors hushed it up for Elizabeth's sake?
In the end, my guess is that he took his life knowing all was lost, living with the creed of the frontier Indian Fighter, Save The Last Bullet For Yourself.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 13 2005 : 9:39:41 PM
|
Hello to you Terri and, thank you for your kind words. When we read of Custer's civil war actions and the extraordinary bravery he displayed time, after time, after time, we are somewhat puzzled as to what could have possible motivate him to perform such antics. Was he abundantly brave or simply foolish to constantly risk his life the way he did? What we can be certain of is that the average individual would not have subjected him/herself to such outlandish possibilities of being killed. Self-preservation prevents such activities in the "normal" person, right?. Therefore, it is assumed, Custer must have been nuts, crazy, demented, bi-polar, or simply insane. When we thrown in his ludicrous attempt to defeat a village, the size of a small city, with his comparatively meager force the case is closed! Verdict? Guilty as charged.
Terri, here is the root problem with such an analysis. Whenever we pluck a historical figure from his/her own time and space and, attempt to judge him or her with our own contemporaneous standards the judged individual will suffer terribly in the translation. Alexander The Great is deemed "great" only because he won. His actions (world dominance) was far more irrational than Custer's ambitions.
In Custer's era, every able bodied White male was indoctrinated in a belief that the Red man was nothing more than a "savage" incapable of rational thought and bereft of any ability to wage war in the manner of "civilized" society. As such, the vast majority of that society was convinced, along with Custer, that a trained contingency of soldiers could cut through the Sioux Nation like a knife through hot butter.
I have always been fascinated by the popular misconception that a lowly, Lt.Col. had the authority to create and initiate U.S. Government policy. It was the powerful War Department that dictated the policy that the recalcitrant Indians must be punished. Custer, Reno, and Benteen were merely pawns in a needless and immoral war.
At the end, when the proud and superior U.S. military was soundly trashed by the red "heathens", when the soldiers performed poorly (to put it mildly), when the survivors found themselves chastised by an unforgiving public, only then was the need for a scrap goat defined and created. Conveniently, dead men are incapable defending themselves,thus they were chosen to wear the Albatross of responsibility.
Today these brave men who believed (rightly or wrongly) they were on a honorable quest, sanctioned by their government, are labeled and remembered by today's standards as mere simpletons for their misguided, but courageous efforts. What is particularly ironic, to me, is that any objective attempts to discern the true responsibility for this fiasco condemns one as a "Custerphile" by a clear minority. As such, I find myself stepping on the "toes" of some. Oh well, such is life. "Lo siento mucho." |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 13 2005 10:03:40 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 13 2005 : 10:45:01 PM
|
Terri--
You make an interesting point. I spend more of my time researching Custer's character over battle intracacies, and although we can never know for certain about some psychological traits--short of putting the subject on a couch under DSM IV standards and criteria--I think I've gleamed that if anything, Custer might have had ADHD. I've read parts of Holliwell's "Driven to Distraction," and there are some patterns to GAC's personality that fit: the inability to sit still, a lack of concentration (until he started writing and learning taxidermy), tendency to addictive behaviours (gambling, drinking), poor scholarship, obsessive qualities (especially in regards to Libbie and Sec'y Belknap). I have tried to tie these common behaviours to first person accounts of Custer's personality and actions. Now, it's been two years since I've reviewed the material--so I'm a bit rusty on the subject.
I wouldn't spend too much time wondering about Custer's "vanity." He cared about his appearence when necessary, but when he was on campaign, he could let himself go--bragging to Libbie he didn't even use a mirror!
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2005 : 3:59:05 PM
|
It's so touching, Wiggs, that you think the dead should be treated fairly......now. After all, in the Benteen's Order thread, you provided us with this:
"Benteen failed to render aid to 10 to 12 soldiers that HE obsevred being slaughtered in the valley." Followed by "I did not charge Benteen with failure to render aid to the troopers left behind on the valley floor." You want to libel Benteen, thinking you'd get board approval and then be excused by denying it. Noble.
After arguing this for months, then revealing you didn't know what Custerphile meant, now you reveal you still don't. A Custerphile is a Custer partisan, and as such is not capable of objectivity. It follows that seeking objectivity couldn't make you a Custerphile, doesn't it? But nobody has ever said that anyway. Should anyone forget your grasp of these issues and our language, I invite them to read the Benteen's Order thread and judge you by your own words, for which you admit no error nor apologized. It's absolutely hysterical.
But in fairness, not as hysterical as over at the LBHA forum, where a noted fashion designer was allegedly seen on television with a painting of Custer over his fireplace, and is, in seriousness, congratulated for facing against the PC wind. You can't even satirize this. Talk about missing the point. Do they think heterosexual men buy these dreamy Custer paintings? (See: "Thoughts of Libby" et al on the LBHA site) They couldn't possibly think that, could they? Of course, they can't state the obvious, either. Bad for business, one supposes, if Custer were revealed to be a gay icon to the Custerphile mob. And these guys? They're not playing dress up. They're re-enactors. (They're not dolls, they're action figures.....) And they wonder why CusterLand became such a pariah state in Western academia. Harsh, but start with the truth, since everyone talks about it all the time. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on September 14 2005 4:02:35 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2005 : 10:17:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
I wouldn't spend too much time wondering about Custer's "vanity." He cared about his appearance when necessary, but when he was on campaign, he could let himself go--bragging to Libbie he didn't even use a mirror!
Hoka hey!
How true, on this arduous campaign, his prematurely balding dome was sans the golden curls. His armpits were probably probably guilty of emitting an offensive aroma to any who would dare venture to close. His habitual habit of constantly washing his hands was probably hampered by a possible lack of available soap and water on this mandated excursion. His dashing, buckskin ensemble was, mayhap, reduced to mediocrity when he removed his buckskin jacket in deference to the heat. Thank goodness the paparazzi was not there to witness his horrendous fall from the eloquent standards of GQ. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 14 2005 10:23:15 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2005 : 6:25:05 PM
|
Joe--
Eeeeyuuuuck! Don't let West over at the LBHA board see that great and absolutely hilarious description; he'll have your hide!
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2005 : 7:42:25 PM
|
You can bet the book he is writing[in French]wont disclose anything like that.
He will be pristine clean and smiling when he breaths his last !!
|
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Alternate Universe
