Posted by ros on June 25, 2001 at 18:23:32:
In Reply to: Re: My Own posted by Rich on June 25, 2001 at 09:57:51:
This discussion might turn into something we don't want to have on this board. There are still very strong emotional feelings about Custer and Bighorn on just about every side of this issue. I for one, certainly had no love for the man. Eichmann was only following orders too.
Ros
: :
: : Can we debate this? He followed orders when it suited him. When it did not suit him, he ignored them. It got him in trouble more than once. Better to have gotten in trouble for NOT killing women and children at the Washeeta (had to spell it that way - CDA censor is alive and brainless), than for running home AWOL for a "matinee" with his wife, for example.
: : Bill R
: Love is a many splendored thing, is all I can say about that! :)
: :
: : : :
: : : : Hi Rich,
: : : : Given his history, the man was certainly a contradiction. It's difficult to think of him as someone who had emphathy for those he was trying to exterminate.
: : : : Jeri
: : : He was an Army officer ... following orders ... Our country had a vision, called Manifest Destiny. He served his country.
: : : Times were different then.
: : : : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
: : : : : On this 125th Anniversary of the Battle of the Little Bighorn
: : : : ...
: : : : : For those of you who might be under the impression that General Custer was a one dimensional, genocidal Indian killer:
: : : : : "If I were an Indian, I often think I would greatly prefer to cast my lot among those of my people adhered to the free open plains rather than submit to the confined limits of a reservation, there to be the recipient of the blessed benefits of civilization, with its vices thrown in without stint or measure." ... Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer, 1839-1876 ... From "My Life On The Plains" (actually a series of articles written, from the field, for Harper's Magazine in the 1870s.)