Custer Custer the hero.

[Eric Wittenberg]

Here's my take on Custer: http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=3281

I visited the LBH for the first time this summer. I was struck by a number of things: the vastness of that battlefield, the small force that Reno committed to the valley fight, and the poor judgment of Custer in pitching into a village of 900 lodges.

All of that said, there is no question that Custer had a remarkable record of success in the Civil War.

 

[chucksr]

So, how do you feel about Southern slave holders, where they belong, in the antebellum South?

Not sure of the analogy here but I "feel" that anyone who enslaves another human for profit or any other reason is reprehensible.

 

[FZ11]

I agree with your overall assessment of Custer. But I might add that Custer may not have made the tactical mistakes everyone thinks he made at the Little Big Horn. His final battle there has been analyzed and reanalyzed perhaps more than any battle in the Civil War including Gettysburg. Everyone who claims Custer had the wrong tactics needs to consider one vital, indisputable fact---no one knows and can't even make a reasonable guess at when Custer relinquished command of his column and of the rest of the 7th Cavalry present on the field that day. Why? Because everyone be they pro or con regarding Custer forms their opinion with the assumption that Custer died late in the action fighting to the end on Custer Hill. After all don't we call it his "Last Stand?". The truth is no one knows when Custer actually met his end. He very well might have died in the initial attempt to cross the LBH river. Think about it: Custer might have been out of the battle at its very start, not at its end as everyone somehow is led to believe. If such is the case, then Custer tactics to be criticized if you wish to do so, would be limited to issues such as "Why did Custer advance on the Indian village a day in advance of the other approaching U.S. columns?. Or perhaps you may want to criticize his dividing his force when he sent Benteen on scout or when he sent Reno ahead to open the action. His personality aside, one should be careful about evaluating Custer's overall impact on American history in both the Civil War and the Indian War. His record of achievements in the Civil war is superb. IMHO his is record of achievements in the Indian War should also remain superb.

We know why Custer attacked early. Custer thought the Indians had discovered him and some of his scouts wanted to attack so he attacked. Custer most likely was shot on Last Stand Hill where he was found. Custer was not shot in the abdomen...Custer was shot once in chest and once in the left temple.

 

[Rio Bravo]

Custer excelled as a tactical Commander of Cavalry during the ACW, yet he lacked the qualities for higher command of combined Infantry, artillery & cavalry operations. This was revealed tragically at Little Big Horn on June 25th 1876.
Why did he divide his force into four detachments ? Why did he not keep any Scouts in his detachment, whereas Maj.Reno had all the 35 Scouts in his ?
Custer was offered the use of the Gatling gun detachment of the 20th Infantry Regt, but he declined stating that the guns would slow down his advance. He was also offered two additional Cavalry Companies - again he declined saying that
" The 7th Cavalry could handle anything it might encounter".................and so the legend of Custer, or the Son of the morning Star, as the Indians called him, has been embellished by popular culture and romanticised through the lens of history. Heroes never die !

 

[Will Carry]

Not sure of the analogy here but I "feel" that anyone who enslaves another human for profit or any other reason is reprehensible.

I agree with that statement. It is also reprehensible to slaughter old men , women and children, for profit or any other reason.
I still like Custer though. He was a fighter.

 

[E_just_E]

Not sure of the analogy here but I "feel" that anyone who enslaves another human for profit or any other reason is reprehensible.

The analogy here is that if we have to criticize Custer based on the local, contemporary laws, customs, and feelings (standards) of white America, we better criticize antebellum southern slaveholders based on the local, contemporary laws, customs, and feelings of white America, otherwise we are at best inconsistent and inaccurate, and at worst hypocritical.

Custer killed and order the killings of women and children as well as civilians. To me this is as reprehensible or even more (because even then it was outside their 'ethical' standards) than slavery.

 

[chucksr]

The analogy here is that if we have to criticize Custer based on the local, contemporary laws, customs, and feelings (standards) of white America, we better criticize antebellum southern slaveholders based on the local, contemporary laws, customs, and feelings of white America, otherwise we are at best inconsistent and inaccurate, and at worst hypocritical.

Custer killed and order the killings of women and children as well as civilians. To me this is as reprehensible or even more (because even then it was outside their 'ethical' standards) than slavery.

Why, if I am not mistaken, the slaveholders were criticized and had been criticized for decades by antebellum Abolitionists. I doubt that anything said today about them would/could reach the level of what they were subjected to in "real time".

 

[major bill]

From the many examples of killing Indian women and children, why is doing so outside of the ethical standards of the day?

This still does not impact what Custer did during the Civil War. At the very least Custer was a good cavalryman. His service to his nation during the Indian Wars is fair game. There are other great Civil War leaders who did things that might tarnish their hero status.

 

[archieclement]

The analogy here is that if we have to criticize Custer based on the local, contemporary laws, customs, and feelings (standards) of white America, we better criticize antebellum southern slaveholders based on the local, contemporary laws, customs, and feelings of white America, otherwise we are at best inconsistent and inaccurate, and at worst hypocritical.

Custer killed and order the killings of women and children as well as civilians. To me this is as reprehensible or even more (because even then it was outside their 'ethical' standards) than slavery.

Agree I cant imagine anyone would want to suggest a double standard how we should treat mistreatment of Indians, slaves or postwar blacks. That it was just Indians or postwar is inexcusable as an excuse for his personal actions.

In context to the threads title.........I thought "heroes" were supposed to rescue women and children.....not slay them......

 

[Rio Bravo]

How come Custer got away with this massacre without being Subject to a Court-Martial ?
Bearing in mind that he had been convicted of desertion & mistreatment of Soldiers earlier in that year in a Military Court ! The Govt had suspended him from rank & command for I year. Then 10 months into his punishment, Sheridan had him reinstated to lead the campaign against the Cheyenne.

 

[connecticut yankee]

The ethical standards of the day----

1870's--- Positive Fact: Custer and the U.S. military killed Indian woman and children; such action was entirely sanctioned and directed by the U.S. Government, including President Grant.
1700's - 1862---Positive fact: Southern slaveholders legally owned other human beings; as their legal property, the slaveholders were entitled to sell , injure, or kill these persons. Such actions were entirely sanctioned by the U.S. government, including Abraham Lincoln among many other presidents.

Reading the above most Americans would today find these ethical standards for slavery and Indian genocide grossly reprehensible. Be it as it may, these were the standards attested to and followed by our forefathers and the majority of everyday Americans in those time periods.

 

[archieclement]

How come Custer got away with this massacre without being Subject to a Court-Martial ?
Bearing in mind that he had been convicted of desertion & mistreatment of Soldiers earlier in that year in a Military Court ! The Govt had suspended him from rank & command for I year. Then 10 months into his punishment, Sheridan had him reinstated to lead the campaign against the Cheyenne.

LOL are you serious? Even Chivington was never punished for the Sand Creek Massacre........The US's record of protecting Indians legally is pretty **** poor..........its right up there with honoring our treaties with them.............which is next to non existent.........perhaps we'll honor the 15th treaty with them after we've taken everything we wanted, and everything we could possibly want in the future from them........

 

[James N.]

... Why did he divide his force into four detachments ? Why did he not keep any Scouts in his detachment, whereas Maj.Reno had all the 35 Scouts in his ?
Custer was offered the use of the Gatling gun detachment of the 20th Infantry Regt, but he declined stating that the guns would slow down his advance. He was also offered two additional Cavalry Companies - again he declined saying that
" The 7th Cavalry could handle anything it might encounter".................and so the legend of Custer, or the Son of the morning Star, as the Indians called him, has been embellished by popular culture and romanticised through the lens of history. Heroes never die !

Mitch Boyer, the half-breed Sioux-French scout was killed on Last Stand Hill and was the subject of a well-known book about twenty years ago. If you've ever been to Little Big Horn or the surrounding countryside, you can easily and quickly see how completely unsuited it is for any kind of wheeled vehicle, especially if one considers himself to be in a hurry. Custer, Terry, Gibbon, and all the rest of their officers had no way of knowing the size of the Sioux-Cheyenne encampment and only in hindsight did they realize how inadequate their forces were. Agents on reservations had deliberately misrepresented the number of "hostiles" that had left that summer, lest it reflect poorly on their ability to control their erstwhile wards. Besides, that information might've been used to reduce supplies on those reservations, further encouraging even more Indian defections as well as reducing the opportunity for unscrupulous agents to sell the excess supplies to settlers and pocket the difference.

 

[archieclement]

Mitch Boyer, the half-breed Sioux-French scout was killed on Last Stand Hill and was the subject of a well-known book about twenty years ago. If you've ever been to Little Big Horn or the surrounding countryside, you can easily and quickly see how completely unsuited it is for any kind of wheeled vehicle, especially if one considers himself to be in a hurry. Custer, Terry, Gibbon, and all the rest of their officers had no way of knowing the size of the Sioux-Cheyenne encampment and only in hindsight did they realize how inadequate their forces were. Agents on reservations had deliberately misrepresented the number of "hostiles" that had left that summer, lest it reflect poorly on their ability to control their erstwhile wards. Besides, that information might've been used to reduce supplies on those reservations, further encouraging even more Indian defections as well as reducing the opportunity for unscrupulous agents to sell the excess supplies to settlers and pocket the difference.

"Custer, Terry, Gibbon, and all the rest of their officers had no way of knowing the size of the Sioux-Cheyenne encampment"

Terry and Gibbon didn't.........Custer's scouts pretty much warned him how big it was.................He may have chose to ignore the intelligence he had, which turned out indeed accurate, but he had for days been warned the size and number of the trails indicated perhaps caution would have been called for........

 

[James N.]

Agree I cant imagine anyone would want to suggest a double standard how we should treat mistreatment of Indians, slaves or postwar blacks. That it was just Indians or postwar is inexcusable as an excuse for his personal actions.

In context to the threads title.........I thought "heroes" were supposed to rescue women and children.....not slay them......

Interestingly, when Custer led the 7th Cavalry into the valley of the Washita River, leading too the "notorious" attack on Black Kettle's "peaceful" village, one motive was to try to locate and rescue a white woman that had recently been taken prisoner. (Though it developed that she had been captured by another tribe.) Black Kettle's Cheyenne weren't the only tribe encamped along the Washita and once the attack went in, these other tribes reacted by sending warriors to the assistance of the Cheyenne, causing Custer to realize his danger and begin an immediate retreat. Later, when the bodies of Maj. Joel Elliot and a score of men were found that Custer had supposedly "abandoned" by retreating, the body of the woman captive was also found in what had been an Indian campsite where she had been murdered by her captors.

 

[James N.]

"Custer, Terry, Gibbon, and all the rest of their officers had no way of knowing the size of the Sioux-Cheyenne encampment"

Terry and Gibbon didn't.........Custer's scouts pretty much warned him how big it was.................He may have chose to ignore the intelligence he had, which turned out indeed accurate, but he had for days been warned the size and number of the trails indicated perhaps caution would have been called for........

The person most culpable in this mess was probably Gen. George Crook whose "jaw" of the pincer had already been defeated by Crazy Horse at the Rosebud and made absolutely NO effort to inform overall commander Terry of the fact or the obvious number of Sioux and Cheyenne warriors. Under the circumstances, that would've been difficult but by no means impossible - it was just another slip-up in what was in reality a "perfect storm" situation.

 

[Irishtom29]

Custer killed and order the killings of women and children as well as civilians. To me this is as reprehensible or even more (because even then it was outside their 'ethical' standards) than slavery.

I'd avoid making comparisons between the Washita and massacres like Sand Creek. The Cheyenne attacked at the Washita were at war with the United States and had been raising Hell. The Cheyenne men were warriors rather than soldiers and didn't have armies and military camps and fortresses (though the Tuscaroras built European style forts with ditches and bastions during their war with North Carolina). A result was that when soldiers attacked Plains Indian warriors in home camp they were unable to avoid their women and children. Lots of lead flying.

And did Custer explicitly order the killing of women and children?

 

[E_just_E]

I'd avoid making comparisons between the Washita and massacres like Sand Creek. The Cheyenne attacked at the Washita were at war with the United States and had been raising Hell.


And did Custer explicitly order the killing of women and children?

The Cheyenne had a winter camp at the Washita River. That included women, children and elderly. Custer's plan and specific orders were to capture the non-combatants so they will be used as a "shield", so the warriors will not attack. Basically the same MO that modern terrorists employ.

The Cheyenne did not attack. They had lodges there. As far as whether they were at war with the US or whether they defended their right to stay at their lands, it is very debatable. As far as treaties go, they were signed by a titular head, appointed by the US government, but not always recognized as such in all tribal bands of a Nation, so his agreement was not unanimous and/or valid among the people of a particular Nation. Red Cloud is a good example of such a titular head among the Lakotas

 

[archieclement]

I'd avoid making comparisons between the Washita and massacres like Sand Creek. The Cheyenne attacked at the Washita were at war with the United States and had been raising Hell. The Cheyenne men were warriors rather than soldiers and didn't have armies and military camps and fortresses (though the Tuscaroras built European style forts with ditches and bastions during their war with North Carolina). A result was that when soldiers attacked Plains Indian warriors in home camp they were unable to avoid their women and children. Lots of lead flying.

And did Custer explicitly order the killing of women and children?

I guess your right, there wasn't as many Indians killed at Sand Creek so it as a massacre it does fall short of the Washita Massacre............surprisingly enough the soldier casualties were about the same 24 killed at sand creek, 21 at Washita, though bout twice as many Indians killed at Washita........

Somewhat odd if one accepts your premise the Indians were friendly at Sand Creek, and hostile and armed at Washita, that twice as many were killed at Washita with actually less of a loss of soldiers....................yet you consider Sand Creek indeed a massacre, and somehow Washita a fair fight?

 

[Irishtom29]

The Cheyenne had a winter camp at the Washita River. That included women, children and elderly. Custer's plan and specific orders were to capture the non-combatants so they will be used as a "shield", so the warriors will not attack. Basically the same MO that modern terrorists employ.

The Cheyenne did not attack. They had lodges there. As far as whether they were at war with the US or whether they defended their right to stay at their lands, it is very debatable.

We decry terrorists not because of their methods but because of their politics. When it suits our purpose we are willing to kill vast numbers of civilians.

Many of the Cheyenne at the Washita were "hostiles" who were raiding and killing Americans. In practical terms that is war. They were free men and a warrior people acting like...free men and a warrior people. Warriors who had no compunction about exposing their families to the dangers of war. In any event they were a people we were bound and determined to conquer by one means or another.