Re: My Own "Thought For The Day" ... 125th!

Posted by Rich on June 26, 2001 at 02:58:47:

In Reply to: Re: My Own posted by Bill R on June 25, 2001 at 17:56:43:

: :
: : : 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.)

: : Rich,

: : Custer sounds like a man I would have respected.

: : Gayle

A few comments ...

:
: Maybe so, but if he truly held those opinions and wasnt just saying it for the press, he sold that viewpoint cheaply in return for the chance of glory,

Again, he was doing the duty of his country, like it or ot.

:advancement and possibility for political office.

Ok ... there is no evidence to support the "fact" that Custer was looking for political office. That is an oft-repeated mistruth. Secondly, if he was looking for advancement, and what officer isn't, perhaps we should look at his appearing, under oath, at a hearing in which he implicated President Grant's (TOTAL WAR GRANT, remember him?) brother in Indian Agency corruption. He was fighting to better the rations!

: In my opinion. Not to mention breaking his word to the Cheyenne.

Paraphrasing here ... as Red Cloud said, the white man has made us many promises but has kept but one. They promised to take our land, and they took it.

Why villify Custer? It is popular to do so, much like Columbus, but I could rattle off a hundred names, off the top of my head, who did MUCH more damage to the Indian people ... some soldiers, some politicians, some Indians themselves. Do we single out individuals to ease our conscience? To avoid placing the blame on our Country's policies? At Little Bighorn, Custer was carrying out orders. He was doing his duty ... to bring the "hostiles" in to the Reservation. He did not devise that policy ... the US Government did. He did not write the orders ... General Terry did. Comparison to Hitler's henchmen is totally overblowing the situation ... it just isn't so.

Was Custer a man with faults? Yes, no argument there. But our current impressions of the man are far too one dimensional. That was my only point. He had another side ... as we all do. He was complex.

Follow Ups:

• Re: My Own "Thought For The Day" ... 125th! Bill R 09:13:08 6/26/2001 (2)
  • Re: My Own "Thought For The Day" ... 125th! Rich Federici 09:42:33 6/26/2001 (1)
    • Re: My Own "Thought For The Day" ... 125th! Bill R 10:38:10 6/26/2001 (0)
• Re: My Own "Thought For The Day" ... 125th! Marc 05:52:55 6/26/2001 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: : : 
: : : : 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.) 

: : : Rich,

: : : Custer sounds like a man I would have respected. 

: : : Gayle

: A few comments ...

: : 
: : Maybe so, but if he truly held those opinions and wasnt just saying it for the press, he sold that viewpoint cheaply in return for the chance of glory,

: Again, he was doing the duty of his country, like it or ot.

:  :advancement and possibility for political office.

: Ok ... there is no evidence to support the "fact" that Custer was looking for political office. That is an oft-repeated mistruth. Secondly, if he was looking for advancement, and what officer isn't, perhaps we should look at his appearing, under oath, at a hearing in which he implicated President Grant's (TOTAL WAR GRANT, remember him?) brother in Indian Agency corruption. He was fighting to better the rations!

: :  In my opinion.  Not to mention breaking his word to the Cheyenne.

: Paraphrasing here ... as Red Cloud said, the white man has made us many promises but has kept but one. They promised to take our land, and they took it.

: Why villify Custer? It is popular to do so, much like Columbus, but I could rattle off a hundred names, off the top of my head, who did MUCH more damage to the Indian people ... some soldiers, some politicians, some Indians themselves. Do we single out individuals to ease our conscience? To avoid placing the blame on our Country's policies? At Little Bighorn, Custer was carrying out orders. He was doing his duty ... to bring the "hostiles" in to the Reservation. He did not devise that policy ... the US Government did. He did not write the orders ... General Terry did. Comparison to Hitler's henchmen is totally overblowing the situation ... it just isn't so.

: Was Custer a man with faults? Yes, no argument there. But our current impressions of the man are far too one dimensional. That was my only point. He had another side ... as we all do. He was complex.



Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: