Posted by Bill R on June 26, 2001 at 10:38:10:
In Reply to: Re: My Own posted by Rich Federici on June 26, 2001 at 09:42:33:
I'd be happy to hear your thoughts Rich. I am not a closed mind to Custer, but I do have some pretty ingrained opinions of him.
Maybe it is because I have seen similar officers while serving.
While I don't mean to make Custer the scapegoat for all bad things done to the Native American, I resist the new movement to make him a hero merely because he gave his life. Many have given their lives. I respect more the poor trooper with him who obeyed his orders and went to his death - who had few if any options other than Army life. All made choices to join the Army, but most of the troopers had little or no options for another kind of life. And they certainly weren't in a position to affect national policy. True, some of the troopers were little more than thugs, or criminals escaping justice - but others were immigrants, poor without options, men inducted/volunteered during the civil war and nowhere to go afterward but the Army.
And even if I were attacking Custer personally, I would not be attacking you. You have read more on the subject than I have.
And we are talking about Custer and HIS values (or lack of them) certainly not Rich and his values - which are accepted without dispute.
There was a good thing on History Channel about events and how Hollywood has portrayed them and particularly about Custer and Big Horn. Portrayal from Hollywood reflected the attitudes of the day. Blindly patriotic, relatively factual, strongly anti-government and anti-Army, middle road, but all more or less tainted by the glasses of the director/producer and their observation of what society wanted. Little to do about a search for facts. Some were more factual than others. So I am open to new (for me) information. But, he fits the mold for blindly ambitious officers I have had contact with. Officers who put their career and ambitions ahead of duty, right and wrong, loyalty, or the welfare of their men.
Bill R
: I don't have the time right now, as I am on an abbreviated lunch. If so inclined, perhaps I'll address your post, Bill, at length ... tomorrow I'm off. I can refute practically everything you say ...
: But, is there a point?
: My one, and only, point, was to demonstrate another side to a man who so many have pre-conceived notions of. It does no good if those pre-conceived (and largely mistaken) notions are so ingrained that it closes one's mind to seeing anything else.
: Custer is not my hero, by any means. I am not his champion. Nor, do I feel, should he be condemned to the extent so many are willing to do so today ... I am happy the Sioux prevailed that day. I am saddened that they lost [their way of life ... as most all the other tribes had previously] - big time - shortly thereafter. Lost to OTHER Army officers, doing their duty to their country. I wish it could have been different.
: It troubles me greatly that folks pick one individual to heap all their crap on. Want to talk US Indian policy? [and European before that ...] and heap crap on that? I'd probably agree. But ... scapegoats have never been my thing ... and people like Custer have become scapegoats, nothing more. He already has paid with his life ...
: : Again, maybe so, maybe so, but he was also an extremely ambitious man who would let nothing get in the way of his ambitions. There is plenty of evidence that he cared not a whit for the men under his command. Frontal attacks (with Cavalry) trying to break a line for glory. He was a martinet - how a troop looks reflects on the commander so by God his troop would be spit and polish. But care for them? I doubt he ever had any real feeling for the men he led other than as a useful instrument to further his own glory and ambitions. My point being, if he cares not for the men who fight WITH him, he surely cares not for those he fights against. It is politic to SAY he does, but his actions show he does not.
: : I think he did indeed have political ambitions. You ask why he testified against Grant's brother if he had political ambtions?
: : Come on Rich, he wasn't seeking to run as Grant's running mate.
: : He was seeking to put himself in the limelight and run against Grant or as his successor. Grant's administration was rather corrupt and inept. There was a strong faction in opposition to Grant and the party. He (Custer) hoped to become the opposition's poster boy. He burned one bridge hoping it would not be needed as he would be taking another shortly.
: : Was he obeying orders or disobeying orders as he rode on ahead and engaged the enemy alone? He had been ordered to wait. Scout them out, block them, and wait for the other two columns.
: : True, he did not know one had turned back. Which strengthens the point, not excuses his actions. Instead, he attacks. For glory, and for his ambitions for high political office.
: : Let's say it was NOT for glory and self-aggrandizement for a moment. His attack surely does not show any evidence of concern for casualties. That was a HUGE camp. He was advised as to its size surely. He can do the math. Yet, he puts part of his force into the fray (diversion) while he circles around with his own force to attack from the rear. And one force he sends off on a meaningless assignment (don't like you, send you out of the glory mentality - oops, I need you, come back, come back.)
: : Who would suffer the most casualties do you think, if his plan had worked? Reno and Benteen. While he lived to grab the glory of a great victory over an superior force. Didnt work out that way though.
: : Why did he go in without waiting? Were they going to run? He was a cavalry officer. The Cav recons. He could easily have posted watchers and retired to wait for the columns to join him.
: : If the camp began to move, he could have been in among them quickly. THAT would have been obeying orders. He didnt. He attacked. And MY opinion is he attacked because he knew if he waiting the glory would go to the senior officer and not him.
: : He needed the glory for his political ambitions.
: : I have seen NO evidence that he was anything but a self-serving man. I disagree with the argument he "was following orders".
: : He disobeyed as many as he followed and got away with it because often he won the battle - at GREAT cost in men. Unnecessary cost in men. WHY would he anger Grant so badly over attacking his brother, and yet NOT anger him by NOT publicly protesting the entire program of Indian treatment and extermination? Because he didnt give a whit for whether or not they were exterminated - he did care for embarrassing a political rival.
: : I am certainly not as well read as you Rich, but those are my impressions gathered over the years.
: :
: : Bill R
: : : 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.