Custer George Armstrong Custer

Custer followed standard military practice of the day when he split his regiment to attack the village on the Little Bighorn. Most of his decisions were tactically sound.....in hindsight he probably should have remained in a place where he could direct the actions of all three battalions, rather than riding with one, but that wasn't the way he did things. He commanded from the front. All in all there were just too many Lakota and Cheyenne who, as they showed as few days earlier at the Rosebud, were willing and capable soldiers.
General Miles disputes quite effectively the 'too many Indians' argument. He points out that it was common for cavalry to be outnumbered throughout the Indian Wars. He was told by surviving Indians that the Army estimates of the size of the village were wrong because the Uncpapas moved their tents after the first action from the northern end of the camp to the southern end, leaving what appeared to be a much larger camp. Those same Indians told him that the number of "warriors did not exceed thirty-five hundred." He states that interviews of surrendered Indians soon after the battle by Captain Philo Clark, who was fluent in sign language, arrived at a maximum of "twenty-six hundred". <Nelson Appleton Miles, Personal recollections and observations of General Nelson A. Miles embracing a brief view of the Civil War, or, From New England to the Golden Gate : and the story of his Indian campaigns, with comments on the exploration, development and progress of our great western empire. (Chicago: Werner, 1896). Chapter XXII, pp. 290-293.>
 
Last edited:
* On this day in 1839, American Civil War Union Brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer was born in New Rumley, Harrison County, Ohio. Although he is best known for his demise at the hands of the Lakota and Cheyenne Indians at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, Montana,in 1876, Custer built a reputation as a dashing and effective cavalry leader during the Civil War.

Custer entered West Point in 1857, where he earned low grades and numerous demerits for his mischievous behavior. He graduated last in the class of 1861. Despite his poor academic showing, Custer did not have to wait long to see military action. Less than two months after leaving West Point, Custer fought in the First Battle of Bull Run, Virginia,in July 1861.

Custer served the entire war in the Army of the Potomac. He was present for nearly all of the army’s major battles, and became, at age 23, the youngest general in the Union army in June 1863. He led the Michigan cavalry brigade in General Judson Kilpatrick’s 3rd Cavalry Division. Shortly after his promotion, Custer and his “Wolverines” played a key role in stopping Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart’s cavalry attack, which helped preserve the Union victory at the Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. As a leader, Custer earned the respect of his men because he personally led every charge in battle. Wrote one observer of Custer’s command, “So brave a man I never saw and as competent as brave. Under him a man is ashamed to be cowardly. Under him our men can achieve wonders.”

He achieved his greatest battlefield success in the campaigns of 1864. At the Battle of Yellow Tavern, Virginia, on May 11, 1864, Custer led the charge that resulted in the death of Stuart. One month later at Trevilian Station, Virginia, Custer’s command attacked a supply train before being surrounded by Confederate cavalry. His men formed a triangle and bravely held off the Rebels until help arrived. In October, Custer’s men scored a decisive victory over the Confederate cavalry at Tom’s Brook in the Shenandoah Valley, the most one-sided Yankee cavalry victory of the war in the East.
Custer was demoted to lieutenant colonel in the downsizing that took place after the Civil War ended. He was much less effective in his postwar assignments fighting Native Americans, and his reckless assault on the camp at Little Big Horn on June 25, 1876, led to his death and earned him an unsavory reputation that overshadowed his earlier success in the Civil War.

* History.com

View attachment 86118


I always thought it was a bit inaccurate to say he was "demoted" after the war. His Volunteer commission expired shortly after the war ended. The Volunteer units went home! His regular army rank was Captain, at the war's end. He was ultimately offered a Lt Colonelcy (which was actually a PROMOTION) in the 7th Cavalry.
 
It is a little off topic. The women did three things to him, but they did not know him as Custer. They pierced his ear drums so he could hear in the next life. they cut his genitals off so he could not breed in the next life and they cut off his trigger finger so he could not kill. The Cheyenne of Washita died intentionally in the beginning of the final assault. There were only 300 of them there and only 7 from Washita. The other Cheyenne were northern Cheyenne. You are right we will never know about who killed him but a number of accounts cover the mutilation. You just don't ride into someone's church and attack
The accounts are contradictory. According to Kate Bighead, two southern Cheyenne women punctured Custer's eardrums with an awl so that he could hear better in the afterlife.<Paul A. Hutton, The Custer Reader. (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1992), p. 376>
However, according to other Indian sources, they were unaware Custer was among the attackers until long after the battle. <Gregory F. Michno, Lakota Noon: The Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat, (Missoula, MT: Mountain Press, 1997), p.293.>
The bodies of the men and horses had greatly swollen under the hot summer sun. According to Lieutenant Godfrey
"Everything of value was taken away: arms, ammunition, equipment and clothing. Occasionally there was a body with a bloody undershirt or trousers, or socks, but the name was invariably cut off. The naked, mutilated bodies with their bloody, fatal wounds were nearly unrecognizable and presented a scene of sickening, ghastly horror." Describing Custer's remains, he told researcher Charles F. Bates that "an arrow had been forced up his penis."<Richard Hardoff, The Custer Battle Casualties: Burials, Exhumations, and Reinterments. (El Segundo, CA: Upton and Sons, 1989), p. 21.>
 
I always thought it was a bit inaccurate to say he was "demoted" after the war. His Volunteer commission expired shortly after the war ended. The Volunteer units went home! His regular army rank was Captain, at the war's end. He was ultimately offered a Lt Colonelcy (which was actually a PROMOTION) in the 7th Cavalry.
Correct. At war's end he retained his regular Army commission as Captain, dated May 8, 1864. He then was promoted to Liutenant Colonel July 28, 1866.
 
The accounts are contradictory. According to Kate Bighead, two southern Cheyenne women punctured Custer's eardrums with an awl so that he could hear better in the afterlife.<Paul A. Hutton, The Custer Reader. (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1992), p. 376>
However, according to other Indian sources, they were unaware Custer was among the attackers until long after the battle. <Gregory F. Michno, Lakota Noon: The Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat, (Missoula, MT: Mountain Press, 1997), p.293.>
The bodies of the men and horses had greatly swollen under the hot summer sun. According to Lieutenant Godfrey
"Everything of value was taken away: arms, ammunition, equipment and clothing. Occasionally there was a body with a bloody undershirt or trousers, or socks, but the name was invariably cut off. The naked, mutilated bodies with their bloody, fatal wounds were nearly unrecognizable and presented a scene of sickening, ghastly horror." Describing Custer's remains, he told researcher Charles F. Bates that "an arrow had been forced up his penis."<Richard Hardoff, The Custer Battle Casualties: Burials, Exhumations, and Reinterments. (El Segundo, CA: Upton and Sons, 1989), p. 21.>
Mutilations toward the dead soldiers where known at the time, I read somewhere that to spare Elisabeth Custer (Custer's wife) moral, his fellow officers didn't tell her the truth. A kind of legend was since then developed about Custer beeing not mutilated, the only one in his command.
Anyway those kind of practices are disgusting , the way indians made warfare was ugly.
 
Mutilations toward the dead soldiers where known at the time, I read somewhere that to spare Elisabeth Custer (Custer's wife) moral, his fellow officers didn't tell her the truth. A kind of legend was since then developed about Custer beeing not mutilated, the only one in his command.
Anyway those kind of practices are disgusting , the way indians made warfare was ugly.
Thanks for your response.
Yes, I've read some of those narratives claiming somehow he was spared mutilation or that his corpse got some kind of special treatment.
But if one digs deeper, it is clear they are false. There is wide agreement among the Indian witnesses that they did not know they were fighting Custer until afterward.
Particularly telling are the recollections of both the surviving Indian witnesses and the burial detail. Most of the men could not be identified. Tom Custer was identified by a tattoo, Keough by his religious medal which surprisingly had been left around his neck, Calhoun by his conspicuous dental work, Cooke by the remaining portion of his two-pointed beard: one half had been scalped.
It was, indeed, gruesome. But that was part of the way the Indians fought.
 
The accounts are contradictory. According to Kate Bighead, two southern Cheyenne women punctured Custer's eardrums with an awl so that he could hear better in the afterlife.<Paul A. Hutton, The Custer Reader. (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1992), p. 376>
However, according to other Indian sources, they were unaware Custer was among the attackers until long after the battle. <Gregory F. Michno, Lakota Noon: The Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat, (Missoula, MT: Mountain Press, 1997), p.293.>
The bodies of the men and horses had greatly swollen under the hot summer sun. According to Lieutenant Godfrey
"Everything of value was taken away: arms, ammunition, equipment and clothing. Occasionally there was a body with a bloody undershirt or trousers, or socks, but the name was invariably cut off. The naked, mutilated bodies with their bloody, fatal wounds were nearly unrecognizable and presented a scene of sickening, ghastly horror." Describing Custer's remains, he told researcher Charles F. Bates that "an arrow had been forced up his penis."<Richard Hardoff, The Custer Battle Casualties: Burials, Exhumations, and Reinterments. (El Segundo, CA: Upton and Sons, 1989), p. 21.>
Unknown number of warriors actually engaged with Custer, maybe, 1500. Here's, simply,what happened....Custer runs out of ammunition and is then overwhelmed by the warriors. Doesn't take many warriors to overwhelm,out of ammo,troopers who are no physical match for the warriors.
 
I think Custer's most important victory was at Gettysburg. If Custer had not defeated Stuart, Stuart would have arrived in Meade's rear and may have sparked a panic among Union troops at a critical time.

It is still hard to fathom what Lee was thinking when he ordered Pickett's charge. The mauling that McClellan gave him at Malvern Hill in the Seven Days Battles should have taught him that making a frontal assault on Meade was a terrible idea.

In any case, I regard Custer as a hero.
 
I think Custer's most important victory was at Gettysburg. If Custer had not defeated Stuart, Stuart would have arrived in Meade's rear and may have sparked a panic among Union troops at a critical time.

It is still hard to fathom what Lee was thinking when he ordered Pickett's charge. The mauling that McClellan gave him at Malvern Hill in the Seven Days Battles should have taught him that making a frontal assault on Meade was a terrible idea.

In any case, I regard Custer as a hero.
He was mine too until I found out he massacred Indians.

"Without bothering to identify the village or do any reconnaissance, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer leads an early morning attack on a band of peaceful Cheyenne living with Chief Black Kettle."
 
the way indians made warfare was ugly
With all respect, @MAJOR DUNDEE, while I agree with that assessment, it's only reasonable to point out that many of these practices were learned from Europeans. None of that excuses either side mutilating the dead, but this was hardly an exclusive habit of Native American warriors.
 
Torturing and mutilating one's perceived enemy can be traced back to the beginning of civilization. From the Babylonian Empire to the Roman Empire to today, people have been torturing, mutilating and slaughtering other people in all ways, shapes and forms. This is how human beings roll.....
 
Torturing and mutilating one's perceived enemy can be traced back to the beginning of civilization. From the Babylonian Empire to the Roman Empire to today, people have been torturing, mutilating and slaughtering other people in all ways, shapes and forms. This is how human beings roll.....
Sad, but oh-so-true. We truly are murdering angels, if angels we are.
 
With all respect, @MAJOR DUNDEE, while I agree with that assessment, it's only reasonable to point out that many of these practices were learned from Europeans. None of that excuses either side mutilating the dead, but this was hardly an exclusive habit of Native American warriors.
Exactly. Indian vs. Indian warfare was relatively bloodless until Euro/Americans came along. "Counting coup" was as important as killing one's enemy. A college professor I had said that Indians thought of war as almost the equivalent of an athletic event. Showing one's bravery was of primary importance, win or lose.
 
Exactly. Indian vs. Indian warfare was relatively bloodless until Euro/Americans came along. "Counting coup" was as important as killing one's enemy. A college professor I had said that Indians thought of war as almost the equivalent of an athletic event. Showing one's bravery was of primary importance, win or lose.
I had read similar things, @Jimklag, thanks for pointing that out. It's amazing to see what a cultural shift happened so that the indigenous people were perceived to be "savage" in their responses to Europeans and Americans, and how enduring that characterization was/is.

Getting back to the main topic, Custer's treatment of indigenous tribes is only one reason why I can't and will not admire him, regardless of my being a Michigander. Regardless of his service to the Union during the Civil War, he does not meet my personal standards of a "hero".
 
Exactly. Indian vs. Indian warfare was relatively bloodless until Euro/Americans came along. "Counting coup" was as important as killing one's enemy. A college professor I had said that Indians thought of war as almost the equivalent of an athletic event. Showing one's bravery was of primary importance, win or lose.

I have read, in several paces, that recent archeological evidence indicates that pre-Columbian Indian warfare was every bit as common, bloody, ruthless and cruel as European warfare was (contrary to popular opinion). Problem is - the Indians did not leave a written record. I wish I can remember where I read this - somewhere on the Internet - I will try to find my sources for this.
 
I had read similar things, @Jimklag, thanks for pointing that out. It's amazing to see what a cultural shift happened so that the indigenous people were perceived to be "savage" in their responses to Europeans and Americans, and how enduring that characterization was/is.

Getting back to the main topic, Custer's treatment of indigenous tribes is only one reason why I can't and will not admire him, regardless of my being a Michigander. Regardless of his service to the Union during the Civil War, he does not meet my personal standards of a "hero".

Amen!

I have stated the same thing in the beginning of my thread.

I was taught early in my educational process that George Armstrong Custer was a "TRUE" American history hero.

But after completing my own research on this fella, my perception had changed.

After my first visit to the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument in 2012, I came to my final conclusion that Custer was the opposite of a "TRUE" American hero.

Just my .02 cents.....

Bill
 
I think Custer's most important victory was at Gettysburg. If Custer had not defeated Stuart, Stuart would have arrived in Meade's rear and may have sparked a panic among Union troops at a critical time.

It is still hard to fathom what Lee was thinking when he ordered Pickett's charge. The mauling that McClellan gave him at Malvern Hill in the Seven Days Battles should have taught him that making a frontal assault on Meade was a terrible idea.

In any case, I regard Custer as a hero.

Ummm...it wasn't Custer's victory. It was David Gregg's.
 
Amen!

I have stated the same thing in the beginning of my thread.

I was taught early in my educational process that George Armstrong Custer was a "TRUE" American history hero.

But after completing my own research on this fella, my perception had changed.

After my first visit to the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument in 2012, I came to my final conclusion that Custer was the opposite of a "TRUE" American hero.

Just my .02 cents.....

Bill

I figured that out long ago.

But I will making my first visit to that battlefield in 9 days. Having studied the battle extensively already, I doubt that my opinion will change. For years, Custer's death cast a pall on how I viewed him. It's been long and grudging, but I've come to respect him. That doesn't change the fact that he screwed up royally at the Little Big Horn and cost the lives of a lot of good men.

http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=3281
 
I figured that out long ago.

But I will making my first visit to that battlefield in 9 days. Having studied the battle extensively already, I doubt that my opinion will change. For years, Custer's death cast a pall on how I viewed him. It's been long and grudging, but I've come to respect him. That doesn't change the fact that he screwed up royally at the Little Big Horn and cost the lives of a lot of good men.

http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=3281

You will really enjoy this NPS site, Eric! I am extremely happy the NPS (with help from outside groups) decided to include the American Indian Warriors which also perished on this site. The American Indian Monument is awesome!

Make sure to visit the Benteen-Reno Battlefield. Many miss out on touring this part of the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument.

Bill
 
Back
Top