Is George Armstrong Custer under appreciated as a cavalry commander.

I figured it was fair to reply to the well split up point of his posts. Other than that I agree w/ you.

I'm not a big Custer fan, while I agree he's gotten kind of a bum rap in the last 30-40 years I think that somewhat makes up for the unearned press he received in the century prior. More recent works have, I think treated him rather fairly. My favorite would be the parallel biographies of Custer & Crazy Horse by Ambrose. But I'm an unabashed fan of Ambrose and his research.

All things considered Custer was a complex and interesting man, a decent enough professional soldier but as a commander he was weighed measured and found sorely wanting by his Lakota & Cheyenne adversaries.

On a side note: IMO the real reason he wasn't mutilated, the Lakota & Cheyenne weren't aware he was there, is quite obvious to any who have studied the warrior culture of the Lakota & Cheyenne. They respected a foe who showed exceptional courage and fought hard & well as an individual. Custer's body wasn't mutilated, a bullet to the temple & one to the heart, either of which would have been nearly instantly fatal. Past those injuries he wasn't mutilated because some warriors were impressed enough w/ him that they wanted to meet & fight him again in the afterlife. Otherwise like almost all of his men he would have been torn to pieces after he was dead, but the man died as good soldiers are wont to do, selling themselves dearly.

As much as I would like to agree with you that Custer was not mutilated out of respect I don't think that was it. I have not found an account by an Indian participant who correctly identified him during the battle. Nearly every Indian account was they either did not know who he was or that he was there at the time. I believe Custer was not scalped simply because he had a receeding hair line (mostly bald) and had cut his hair at his wife's request because she had a dream he was scalped. He was somewhat mutilated in that he had the shaft of an arrow stuck in his p***s. It is still quizzical why his body was not mutilated more so your view remains a possiblity. Since the first shot he took was to the chest it is not clear how much fighting he did thereafter. There were a number of soldiers who acted very bravely who were horribly mutilated. Perhaps they simply did not mutilate him because of their admiration for his civil war record.:eek:
 
You brought up Stuart, Hampton, and Forrest in #136, Stuart in #131, and Stuart again here. That's just in the last few posts, without going back to earlier in the thread.

Instead of talking about Stuart, which you seem determined to do, why not tell us about Custer's hardships as a boy like I asked?

Check this thead from the beginning an you will see I have not initiated a comparison to Confederate Commanders. Learning of your fondness for Stuart I thought a reference to him as a dandy was fair game given your post about my knowledge of the Eastern Theater and Custer's hair. Now I know I am making progress when you want to learn about Custer as a little boy. I will post a picture of his house in rural Ohio, but you will have to wait since I sense your excitement for the story.
 
Check this thead from the beginning an you will see I have not initiated a comparison to Confederate Commanders. Learning of your fondness for Stuart I thought reference to him as a dandy was fair game given your post about my knowledge of the Eastern Theater and Custer's hair. Now I know I am making progress when you want to learn about Custer as a little boy. I will post a picture of his house in rural Ohio, but you will have to wait since I sense your excitement for the story.
Here you are bringing Stuart up again. Let the record show that if someone is continually referencing Stuart, it is not myself. I am trying to expand the discussion between you and Johan from #136. Let me know when you have something.
 
I would agree that Forrest was a Lone wolf and a problem commander that had a difficult time w/ his superios. Though when you realize his superiors were the likes of Bragg... I can understand. Forrest as an overrated general, I can see that to a degree but I don't agree w/ it. His actions out west provided vistories and vital supplies that the CS desperately needed. The most important thing for a General is to win and Forrest did that, a lot. He made his enemy fear and loathe him to a degree few others have and most importantly he made his enemy respect him. Frankly, once again going w/ Sherman post war, he was the best general produced by either side during the war. So you'll just have to forgive me if I take Sherman considering Forrest as superior to Custer as that of a contemporary. Forrest got results.

I don't rely on what one soldier writes about his commander, but have read the words of contemporay officers such as Upton & Sherman and have added into that mix the words of the men who served under him. It paints a full picture, not a carefully cherry picked one that highlights only what you want it to.

The idea that the Southern Cav was succesful because they were better horseman is IMO more than a little bit of a myth. Some were some were not. The CS had the same issues w/ horses that the US did. Cav horses wear out fairly quickly. The average CS Cav was not as well armed or equipped as his US adversary. Forrest was likely the largest exception to that and it was largely courtesy of US supplies & prisoners his command had pilfered. The difference was not in the individual US Cav trooper, his mount or his arms. The difference was leadership. The US Cav forces lacked the quality of leadership available to the CS. As much as I dislike Wheeler he had superb Colonels under him. Stuart had better ones. Hampton ended up w/ excellent officers as well. The CS Cav. Out west that difference between Cav leadership wasn't as marked. US Cav started out w/ more men accustomed to the saddle and fighting from it, then along came the Dakota War of 1862 stripping some of that quality Cav away from dealing w/ the CS. When some of those Cav units were freed up to head east of the Mississippi they impressed those who saw them. They were lean, mean and as tough as they came after 2 years of chasing the Native American all across the plains.

As for the effect of the Spencer Rifle & later carbine some would claim that an overmade point. I'm not one of them. Spencer's weren't readily available to every US Cav man until mid/late 64. Custer had access to them from mid 63 on and had grown used to their effect, some have said too used to it. Post war when his command carried Trapdoor Sprinfields he still operated as though he were commanding Spencer armed men. A good commander adapts to what he has, Custer failed to do so. One more point against him.

Custer was a good fighting man, a decent Regt & Brigade force sized commander. Past that I don't see his supposed brilliance. He needed to be pointed at a target and turned loose. His opponents fared better on their own initiative than he did. In the end he bit off more than he could chew and was chewed up & spit out by his enemy. He got a lot of good press, he wasn't the equal to it. While the man has some things to admire in his charachter I think all things considered he falls short. Especially when compared to some of his contemporaries. In short he was no Emory Upton or Wade Hampton. If I were to rate him against his contemparies in the ACW Cav I would put him well above a Wheeler or about 2/3 of his US contempries but well below a Hampton or Stuart in particular. It isn't fare to compare him to Forrest because the man wasn't the traditional Cav man, he was more of a raider. Only two opponents really ever gave Forrest a bloody nose, Custer wasn't one of them and IMO had he gone west to deal w/ Forrest he would have joined the ranks of those others pimp slapped by Forrest. Could Custer have fared beter against Western CS Cav than he did against the eastern, I don't think so but I don't think many if any of the AoP raised Cav officers would have fared that well out west either against the Lakota/Dakota or AoT Cav.

I think we can reach some areas of agreement. Forrest was more of a raider but he was ahead of the curve in his use of "mounted infantry." He early on used Cooke's organizational battle line (unkowingly just made sense) long before it was accepted by the union cavalry in the west (never adopted in the east) I never put him above Stuart or Hampton but I think he had the same quick decision making abilities and boldness of action. I disagree about Custer's inablility to adapt Spencer tactics to the Springfield trapdoor. I don't know why the tactics involving the Spencer and Springfield would be different, both would have to be used dismounted with a part of the force holding the horses of the others. His problem at Little Bighorn was not the tactics involving these weapons it was that the Indians were better armed in that they had repeating rifles Spencers and Winchesters rather than the single load Springfield.
 
CUSTER A BRILLIANT TACTICIAN
Custer and the Battle of Waynesboro
by William R. Betson

No American military figure is more controversial than George Armstrong Custer. A general and national hero in his twenties, his fabled death at the Battle of the Little Big Horn only increased his legendary status among his countrymen. But history can be fickle, and history lately has not treated the "boy general" well. His reputation has changed from grand, courageous hero to despised war criminal. Indeed, for many his persona now embodies the sins of United States policy toward Native Americans. Hollywood's portrayal of Custer is quite revealing. In the 1930's he was the gallant hero portrayed by Errol Flynn in "They Died with Their Boots On." But by the 1960's he was the despicable, racist, idiot of "Little Big Man."

But what kind of soldier was this American icon?
Any considered judgment of Custer's military abilities, however, should include an analysis of his performance in a relatively small action on March 2, 1865 at Waynesboro, Virginia. In this battle the 25 year old Brevet Major General Custer demonstrated the bravery and initiative that had made him famous. In a brilliant action he attacked and completely destroyed the last remaining organized Confederate force in the Shenandoah Valley. This article will chronicle that fight - what might have been Custer's greatest day as a soldier…

At an age when today's Army officers are being promoted to 1st Lieutenant, George Armstrong Custer became a general. The young officer immediately made his mark. He fought and won a small action on his first day in command. A few days later he and his "Wolverines" (the brigade's regiments were all from Michigan) fought a successful action against Jeb Stewart near Gettysburg, protecting the Union flank during that decisive battle. In these initial actions Custer had demonstrated guts and determination, but it initially was his personality that initially made him stand out.

He exhibited a flair for the dramatic in addition to real leadership ability. He ostentatiously wore an outlandish uniform and long blonde hair down to his shoulders - an affectation that endeared him to his men, but caused some grumbling among his peers and superiors. But he was more than mere show. He was almost recklessly brave and always led from the front. This earned him everyone's respect. One would think that his subordinate officers would resent the fact that a boy was promoted over their heads, but they quickly became loyal as well. Soon the Michigan Brigade became the most celebrated of the Union Cavalry formations.

And they earned their celebrity. In 1864 at Newby's Station, Todd's Tavern, and during Sheridan's Richmond Raid, the Michigan Brigade and Custer istinguished themselves. Another of his bold, mounted charges at the important Battle of Yellow Tavern was crucial to the major victory won that day by the Union Cavalry over the Confederate Cavalry. In fact, it was just after this charge that one of Custer's men shot and mortally wounded the fabled Confederate Cavalry leader Jeb Stuart.
Thus, there was little surprise when in late September, 1864, Custer was promoted to command the 3d Cavalry Division of Sheridan's Army of the Shenandoah. His first test as a division commander came quickly. In a brilliantly conducted maneuver on 19 October 1864 the Confederate Jubal Early attacked and surprised the Union Army of the Shenandoah near Cedar Creek, Virginia. The Rebels quickly routed two of the three Union infantry corps, but the third Union corps (the VI) and the Cavalry Corps refused to be stampeded. They eventually succeeded in bringing the Confederate advance to a halt, and Custer's Division was prominent in stabilizing the Union defense. It checked a Confederate cavalry thrust to the Union rear and fought defensively first on one flank and then the other. Philip Sheridan, who had been away from the Army at the time of the attack, famously galloped his charger back to the battlefield, rallied his troops, and organized a counterattack. Custer's Division formed the right flank of the Union formation and broke the line of the elite Rebel division of John B. Gordon. Custer's troopers then spearheaded an exploitation that completely routed Early's force.

The Battle at Cedar Creek was decisive, for it not only ended any Confederate hopes of launching any future offensives out of the Shenandoah Valley, it eliminated any Rebel hopes that they could even seriously defend it. The division left with Early was a veteran one. By February of 1865, however, this division was a shadow of its former self. One of its brigades had been detached back to West Virginia, and the division's two remaining brigades could field less than 1500 infantrymen. Nevertheless, small veteran Confederate divisions such as this one had shown to be tough in many battles during the last year of the war. This was not a force to be taken too lightly.

For the Spring campaign Custer's command had been reinforced from two to three brigades. The 1st Brigade, Commanded by COL Alexander Pennington, consisted of the 1st Connecticut, 3d New Jersey, 2d New York, and the 2d Ohio Cavalry Regiments, and a battalion of the 18th Pennsylvania. The 2d, commanded by COL William Wells (acting for John Coppington) had the 8th, 15th, and 22d New York regiments, along with a squadron of the 3d Indiana, and a detachment of the 1st New Hampshire. The new 3d Brigade, commanded by COL Henry Capehart, had the 1st New York (known as the "Lincoln" Cavalry), the 3d West Virginia, and elements of the 1st and 2d West Virginia. Custer's Division counted some 4,500 troopers at full strength. All sporting distinctive red ties to mark them as a member of Custer's Division, they were a proud bunch.

Having crossed the North Fork of the Shenandoah River on the 28th, the next day Custer's men approached the Middle Fork near Mount Crawford and ran into the Rebels. There waited Confederate General Thomas Rosser, one of the pantheon of southern cavalry heroes. But Tom Rosser was also George Custer's best friend. Very close while at the academy, the two had already met many times on the battlefield, lately with the results going all George Custer's way. But on this day Rosser had perhaps 300 men, and could not stop the Union mounted force. He could, however, delay the Yankees by burning the long wooden bridge over the river. This he tried to do.

But Custer's men had other ideas. In an aggressive move that characterized Custer's command, Henry Capehart had two of his regiments swim the river to strike at the Rebel flank. Once they got across Capehart led the rest of his brigade in a mounted charge across the bridge. They scattered Rosser's men to the winds, put out the fire, and chased the fleeing Confederates to Staunton, which Sheridan's entire force occupied later in the day. This action would be a harbinger of things to come. Meanwhile Early had withdrawn the remaining Confederate force east from Staunton along the railroad to Richmond, and taken up a defensive position along a ridge near Waynesboro. He had told the citizens of Staunton before he left that Waynesboro was where he intended to fight.

Sheridan had now reached a decision point. He could follow his orders and continue south to Lynchburg to meet Sherman, or turn east and face Early. Claiming (rather unconvincingly) that he could not leave Early behind him to continue to threaten the valley, Sheridan turned east and headed toward Waynesboro - and eventually Richmond. He directed Custer to take the lead and move out on March 2d to "ascertain something definite in regard to the position, movements, and strength of the enemy, and, if possible, to destroy the railroad bridge over the South River." Custer would do more than that…


At first glance the Confederate position appeared strong. Placed on a hill in front of the Southern Branch of the Shenandoah River (see map), the fourteen (some sources say 11) cannon that Early had seemed to dominate all approaches. Thus, although the position was rather long for the amount of infantry in Wharton's Division, the guns should have made up for that weakness. Indeed, in the front near Richmond, this number of troops and guns would have seemed quite normal. After probing the position with elements of Wells' Brigade, Custer concluded that a direct frontal attack would result in prohibitive casualties. Instead he began a careful reconnaissance of the position.

Thus, on this day at least, Custer was not the reckless, impulsive thruster that some claim. Further, his practiced eye for terrain soon discovered the weakness in the Confederate position. For although Early had placed his troops on the enemy side of a concave bend in the river, he had anchored his left not on the river itself, but on a set of woods south of the hill that dominated the town of Waynesboro. Custer quickly formulated a plan to exploit this weakness. The plan would demonstrate that Custer could be a prudent commander and a first rate, imaginative tactician.

Instructing Wells Brigade to maintain a strong mounted skirmish line to the enemy's front to keep the Rebel attention, he directed his Chief of Staff, Lieutenant Colonel Edward Whitaker, to take three regiments of Pennington's Brigade (2d Ohio, 3d New Jersey, and 1st Connecticut) and infiltrate the woods in order to take a flanking position on the enemy's right. Importantly, these regiments were all armed with Spencer repeating rifles. Custer then had his artillery, 2 guns of the 2d US Artillery under LT Carle Woodruff, conduct a visible withdrawal to deceive the enemy, but then return through the woods to take up firing positions, hopefully without being seen . Finally, he massed Capehart's Brigade behind Wells' and prepared it to make a mounted charge. At a signal Woodruff's guns would open fire to keep the enemy heads down, Whitaker's three regiments would charge the Confederate flank on the run firing their repeaters, and Capehart's mounted force would charge down the road mounted and in column.

The plan worked like a charm. Surprised by the attack on their flank and stung by the firepower of the repeating rifles and the masked artillery battery, the proud Confederate victors of New Market and many other battles broke almost immediately and ran toward the bridge to their rear. The Rebel artillery stuck to their guns and tried to resist. But they were quickly overrun by the mounted attack of Capehart's lead unit, the 8th New York Cavalry. One gun was captured with the ramming sponge still in the tube. Within minutes all organized Confederate resistance ceased and Wharton's Division dissolved in rout. The unorganized survivors tried to get to the bridge over the river and apparent safety, but were ridden down by the aggressive Union cavalry.

Rarely in military history has a victory been so complete. Wharton's Division was killed or captured (mostly the latter) almost to a man. The 8th New York - strength about 400 - captured 800 prisoners. Total Rebel prisoners numbered perhaps 1500 (the exact number is unknown). All of the Rebel guns were taken, along with nearly 200 wagons - the entire train of the Confederate Valley District. General Early and his immediate staff somehow escaped, although he lost his headquarters wagons and all his papers and records. Jubilant Union troopers also seized 17 Confederate battle flags - and recaptured the flag of Union General George Crook's Corps, captured at Cedar Creek. For their efforts that day a grateful Union government awarded Custer's Division a total of 15 Congressional Medals of Honor. The cost to Custer's 3d Cavalry Division for this stunning triumph in total killed and wounded was a mere 9 soldiers.

Later that day a proud Custer reported to Sheridan's Headquarters followed by seventeen 3d Division troopers, each carrying a captured battle flag. It was certainly a heady moment for the 26 year old, and Sheridan described the action in his official report as a "brilliant fight." But of course the fighting was not over for Sheridan, Custer or their men. After Waynesboro Sheridan moved slowly eastward toward the main armies fighting near Richmond, destroying the railroads and anything of military value along the way. Sheridan and Custer then played key roles in the decisive Union victory at Five Forks and the ensuing pursuit of the Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. And, not surprisingly, it would be Custer's Division that blocked the last Confederate escape route, precipitating Lee's surrender.

So what are we to conclude from this action about Custer the soldier. . Clearly he had the ability to see and understand the battlefield at a glance - something Clausewitz described as a major element of military genius. He also knew how to achieve synergetic effects through the use of combined arms. On this day his employment of a combination of mounted and dismounted soldiers, his exploitation of the firepower of his cannons and his soldiers' repeating rifles, and his ability to synchronize it all with thunderclap surprise was quite remarkable.

The difference this day was Custer and his ability to see the battlefield and employ his forces with a tactical virtuosity that still seems astonishing. This performance certainly puts Custer in a class with the greatest cavalry tacticians that the United States has produced

Of course, Custer will always be most remembered for the day on the Little Big Horn when his eye for the battlefield and his tactical instincts failed him. But that was a different day and a different enemy. Any balanced appraisal of Custer as a soldier must remember what he did in March, 1865.
 
No I am not backtracking, I was highlighting what those western men he was placed in command of thought of him & why.

Too many soldiers have been poorly served by their officers. Custer is an example. Stuart & Hampton could both be considered poor little rich boys, both though were IMO superior Cav officers to Custer. Largely through what I would consider a superior command style and perhaps a greater level of maturity.

As I said Custer in the east isn't my forte, I really don't know as much about his actions there and I explained why. When he went west he didn't do nearly so well as he did out east. Not that that stopped his press.

"Ohio was hardly a frontier state; there was no threat of losing a house and scalp to cheesed of Indians. Custer never grew up on a farm or lived the hardscrabble life of those frontier farmers who he expressed such contempt for. Many hunted because it was that or have no fresh meat or even any meat on the table. They worked for a living." johan_steele.

Which cavalry general is it that meets your standards of poverty, depredation, and frontier living besides [Forrest] and how does that equate to making you a better cavalry commander during the Civil War? Stuart, Hampton etc. all enjoyed rather luxurious life styles in their youth compared to Custer. I thought your original point was that Custer grew up in the city and "played in the woods." I think your backtracking now.
 
It didn't matter if they knew who he was, they knew what he was: a brave and courageous man who apparently died fighting. There were only, IIRC, two other men less mutilated than Custer. IIRC, One a Sgt, possibly the last man to die on the field, who went down fighting tooth and nail and he did not go down alone. The other a former member of the Vatican Guard who also went down hard.

My best friends father is the grandson of a man who fought there. The stories of the fight passed down from the Lakota & Cheyenne side of the fight are rather interesting.
As much as I would like to agree with you that Custer was not mutilated out of respect I don't think that was it. I have not found an account by an Indian participant who correctly identified him during the battle. Nearly every Indian account was they either did not know who he was or that he was there at the time. I believe Custer was not scalped simply because he had a receeding hair line (mostly bald) and had cut his hair at his wife's request because she had a dream he was scalped. He was somewhat mutilated in that he had the shaft of an arrow stuck in his p***s. It is still quizzical why his body was not mutilated more so your view remains a possiblity. Since the first shot he took was to the chest it is not clear how much fighting he did thereafter. There were a number of soldiers who acted very bravely who were horribly mutilated. Perhaps they simply did not mutilate him because of their admiration for his civil war record.:eek:
 
The difference in arms is rather dramatic in that a Spencer can put out a LOT more fire in a short time than the Trapdoor Springfield Carbine. That carbine has a much more powerful and more accurate cartridge but when it came to mass of fire the Springfield was at a serious disadvantage. The idea that the Lakota & Cheyenne were better armed than the men of the 7th is one that doesn't hold water. The Lakota & Cheyenne both liked up close & personal fighting, looking into the eyes of the men they fought. Large numbers, perhaps the majority of their arms were shortened to the point where sights were useless. The Indians @ the Little Big Horn had a huge variety of firearms ranging from .36 up to .71. To add to that many didn't understand the proper ammo needs of their arms so it wasn't uncommon to see a .50-110 cartridge forced into a .45-70 chamber or a .45-70 into a .50-110... but at 3' accuracy isn't all that vital.

The differences between Eastern & Western Cav are Legion and IMo that is where Custer failed dismally to adapt. He jumped into his command w/ the expectations of the AoP Cav force. Those men weren't AoP and had little tolerence for the attitudes and arrogance he brought west w/ him.

As to the ultimate Cav commander see Subadai, Batu or Bayan. All others since are pale amatuers in comparison.

At the end of the war several European military observers viewed US Cav as the finest Light Cav in the world.

To paraphrase one exchange post war. "Custer is the best horseman in the world!" The reply from a veteran NCO under his command and a veteran of the ACW as well as pre war Regular Cav. "Really? I didn't know he was a Commanche."

My best knowledge of Custer is mostly late war & post war. I'm sorry but I've never seen anything that would identify him as anything brilliant. Good & competent probably; brilliant no.
I think we can reach some areas of agreement. Forrest was more of a raider but he was ahead of the curve in his use of "mounted infantry." He early on used Cooke's organizational battle line (unkowingly just made sense) long before it was accepted by the union cavalry in the west (never adopted in the east) I never put him above Stuart or Hampton but I think he had the same quick decision making abilities and boldness of action. I disagree about Custer's inablility to adapt Spencer tactics to the Springfield trapdoor. I don't know why the tactics involving the Spencer and Springfield would be different, both would have to be used dismounted with a part of the force holding the horses of the others. His problem at Little Bighorn was not the tactics involving these weapons it was that the Indians were better armed in that they had repeating rifles Spencers and Winchesters rather than the single load Springfield.
 
As a note I don't consider Sheridan as a proponent of Custer as all that high of a recomendation. I'm not that big of a fan of his either. I'll stick w/ the opinions of Sherman & Upton. Comparing Custer in any way to histories great Cav leaders is quite a stretch IMO. Greatest Cav that the US has produced isn't too hard as IMO we have produced very few that were much past supremely competent.
 
Only because this has now been mentioned three times, I feel compelled to add a minor correction and say that Stuart was never wealthy, nor was his family; in fact they had constant debt difficulties. Stuart inherited virtually nothing from his father (there was very little left to inherit) and certainly never got rich in the army.

Not in Forrest's hardscrabble class, but not in Hampton's either. As for Custer, I await further information.
 
So tell us, what was Custer's youth like, as far as standards of luxury? I don't know what his situation was like before he came to West Point.
Custer was born in 1836 in New Rumley, Ohio the oldest child of his father’s second marriage. Here is a picture of Custer’s birthplace.
Custer home.jpg
His father split his time between farming and blacksmithing. Since horses were predominant in both endeavors Custer became involved with them in performing his farming and blacksmithing chores. In the early fifties they moved into a log cabin in Harrison County 2 miles outside of town. At age 10 he was sent to live briefly with his sister Lydia in Monroe Michigan which 36 years earlier had been the site of an Indian massacre which killed 400 people. At age 14 he was sent back to Monroe Michigan to attend school. It is there where he first encountered his future wife Elizabeth Bacon. At age 16 Custer returned to Ohio to teach school. It is said that he fell in love with a local girl whose father disapproved because of his low status. The story goes that to remove Custer as a suitor he [it could have been Bingham’s daughter I don’t recall] arranged Representative Bingham to procure an appointment for him at West Point. Years later Bingham who was a Whig claims that he got Custer, a Democrat, the appointment because he was struck by a letter written by Custer in which his “honesty captivated” him. Custer went back to Monroe during the war to court Elizabeth Bacon but her father would not approve of the union until Custer became a general. Source of picture and some text The Custer Album by Lawrence A. Frost
 
A good smithy could make good coin, typically I think he would have been considered in what we today consider the "Middle Class." It was hard work but rewarding as well, a good blacksmith was typically quite appreciated by the local community. While certtainly not rich Custer was no poor hardscrabble child.

Hampton may well have been the wealthiest man to serve on either side and possibly one of the most respected. Hampton is one of those fellas that the more I learn about him the more I like & respect him.

Sounds like a decent enough living.
 
The difference in arms is rather dramatic in that a Spencer can put out a LOT more fire in a short time than the Trapdoor Springfield Carbine. That carbine has a much more powerful and more accurate cartridge but when it came to mass of fire the Springfield was at a serious disadvantage. The idea that the Lakota & Cheyenne were better armed than the men of the 7th is one that doesn't hold water. The Lakota & Cheyenne both liked up close & personal fighting, looking into the eyes of the men they fought. Large numbers, perhaps the majority of their arms were shortened to the point where sights were useless. The Indians @ the Little Big Horn had a huge variety of firearms ranging from .36 up to .71. To add to that many didn't understand the proper ammo needs of their arms so it wasn't uncommon to see a .50-110 cartridge forced into a .45-70 chamber or a .45-70 into a .50-110... but at 3' accuracy isn't all that vital.

The differences between Eastern & Western Cav are Legion and IMo that is where Custer failed dismally to adapt. He jumped into his command w/ the expectations of the AoP Cav force. Those men weren't AoP and had little tolerence for the attitudes and arrogance he brought west w/ him.

As to the ultimate Cav commander see Subadai, Batu or Bayan. All others since are pale amatuers in comparison.

At the end of the war several European military observers viewed US Cav as the finest Light Cav in the world.

To paraphrase one exchange post war. "Custer is the best horseman in the world!" The reply from a veteran NCO under his command and a veteran of the ACW as well as pre war Regular Cav. "Really? I didn't know he was a Commanche."

My best knowledge of Custer is mostly late war & post war. I'm sorry but I've never seen anything that would identify him as anything brilliant. Good & competent probably; brilliant no.

I know the difference between a Spencer and a Springfield Trapdoor as I own an 1860 Spencer. Your point however was that Custer was unable to adapt to use the Springfield, and my counter argument was that you will still use them dismounted in the same way, although less effectively. This is how the Sharps a single shot breach loading percussion cap carbine and rifle was used. Given the propensity of the Springfield’s copper casing to jam when the weapon heated it probably ended up with the same rate of fire as the Sharps. When Custer took over the Michigan Brigade I think only 2 regiments were equipped with the Spencer Rifle. There are two archeological books on Little Bighorn each examines the bullets and casing found at Little Bighorn after an extensive and thorough search of the battle field. and there were a fair number of casings for Winchesters and Spencers found at the battle. These weapons were not issued to the cavalry. We are off topic again. Please read my post on Yellow Tavern and Wilson as well as the article I posted by Betson concerning Custer’s tactical skills.
 
Forrest father was a blacksmith yet he is hard scrabble why?
Those who know more about Forrest can tell you what happened with his family. I forget the exact circumstances, but they were poor as heck, and had to scrape for everything. If I recall right, Mr. Forrest died and left the widow and a bunch of kids.

What the heck does any of this have to do with being a cavalry commander in the eastern theater during the CW?
See post #136.
 
Thread: Is George Armstrong Custer under appreciated as a cavalry commander.

To me the title of the thread does not limit the converstaion to just the eastern theatre of the ACW, but his whole career. To study & claim a man as brilliant or as good as Murat and then gleefully ignore his greatest failures seems... well odd to put it politely.

If I was going into a fight and had my choice of US Cav officers of the ACW of General rank I think I would grab Upton to command the Division w/ Wilson, Buford & Minty as Brigade commanders. If I was given Custer I would put him under Minty where I think Minty could use his aggresion and flair for the dramatic to good effect... as well as keep him under tight rhein.

"Of course, Custer will always be most remembered for the day on the Little Big Horn when his eye for the battlefield and his tactical instincts failed him. But that was a different day and a different enemy. Any balanced appraisal of Custer as a soldier must remember what he did in March, 1865."

I would simply say that any balanced appraisal of Custer as a soldier must remember what he failed as much as what he accomplished and in the balance I do believe Custer was weighed, measured and found wanting by some of the finest Cav to ever grace this continent. Nuff said. If I were to study an ACW General for tactical accumen it would not be Custer. Upton & Wilson w/ perhaps Greirson would be on my list for the US. Hampton, Stuart & Forrest would lead the pack for the CS.

I may perhaps be being unfair but IMO by March of 1865 AoP vs CS forces were much like Pattons men facing off against the remains of the Wermacht in March 1945. While still very dangerous they were not the terrifyingly lethal adversaries of 2 years earlier, for most of the same reasons.

IMO one of the measures of good Cav is rapid sweeping movements that can have multiple impacts/effects upon a foe. Something which IMO Wilson & Upton managed during the Selma campaign, Greirson in 1863 Mississippi etc. Stuart was quite adept at such, Hampton not so much but Forrest was an absolute genius in making his enemy wonder where in hell he was.
 
The M1859/63 Sharps fired a linen cartridge, it did not jam except from fouling... which took a lot of firing. The Spencer used a 7 shot magazine and was capable of putting out a hellacious wall of lead, it rarely jammed because of the way the action worked. Custer did well enough adapting to this additional firepower of the Spencer and using it to his advantage. When he was placed in command of troops carrying the Trapdoor Springfield he did not change his use or tactics to reflect the more accurate and harder hitting Springfield. I don't think it would have made a difference at the Little Big Horn whether he had Spencers or Trapdoors his actions were... stupid. While I understand his familiarity and knowledge of the enemy tactics and understand why he did what he did at the Little Big Horn a better or Brilliant commandre would not have fallen prey to the age old failing of not noting or expecting the enemy to adapt. A good officer adapts; a brilliant officer not only adapts, he wins.

Rock Island Arsenal at Rock Island Illinois has a superb exhibit on the Custer battlefield and the weapons used there including having quite a few of those weapons in their collection. I've seen a list of verified weapon types in the hands of the Lakota & Cheyenne and it is not a small list. As I said everything from .36 up to .71 w/ everything in between. There was a goodly number of Winchesters & Spencers as well as Sharps (both percussion & cartridge) and a host of other arms to include bows, lances & war clubs.

I know the difference between a Spencer and a Springfield Trapdoor as I own an 1860 Spencer. Your point however was that Custer was unable to adapt to use the Springfield, and my counter argument was that you will still use them dismounted in the same way, although less effectively. This is how the Sharps a single shot breach loading percussion cap carbine and rifle was used. Given the propensity of the Springfield’s copper casing to jam when the weapon heated it probably ended up with the same rate of fire as the Sharps. When Custer took over the Michigan Brigade I think only 2 regiments were equipped with the Spencer Rifle. There are two archeological books on Little Bighorn each examines the bullets and casing found at Little Bighorn after an extensive and thorough search of the battle field. and there were a fair number of casings for Winchesters and Spencers found at the battle. These weapons were not issued to the cavalry. We are off topic again. Please read my post on Yellow Tavern and Wilson as well as the article I posted by Betson concerning Custer’s tactical skills.
 
Those who know more about Forrest can tell you what happened with his family. I forget the exact circumstances, but they were poor as heck, and had to scrape for everything. If I recall right, Mr. Forrest died and left the widow and a bunch of kids.


See post #136.

You are absolutely correct father died and left mom with a ton of kids. When I posted the reply I was hoping someone would point this out because it illustrates why all information is need to make proper assessment of what occured and why it is dangerous to deal in snippets.
 
You are absolutely correct father died and left mom with a ton of kids. When I posted the reply I was hoping someone would point this out because it illustrates why all information is need to make proper assessment of what occured and why it is dangerous to deal in snippets.
You already knew, yet you still asked why Forrest, the son of a blacksmith, is considered hardscrabble while Custer, also the son of a blacksmith, is not?

Interesting.

Anyhow... that's why.
 
Back
Top