Is George Armstrong Custer under appreciated as a cavalry commander.

Custer, in my opinion, was a very capable commander. However, I think is arrogance was almost his undoing in the CW, and WAS his undoing at Little Big Horn. This passage from James Longstreet's Memoir:

"General Custer rode to Captain Sims to know his authority, and, upon finding that he was of my staff, asked to be conducted to my head-quarters, and down they came in fast gallop, General Custer's flaxen locks flowing over his shoulders, and in brusk, excited manner, he said,—
" In the name of General Sheridan I demand the unconditional surrender of this army."
He was reminded that I was not the commander of the army, that he was within the lines of the enemy without authority, addressing a superior officer, and in disrespect to General Grant as well as myself; that if I was the commander of the army I would not receive the message of General Sheridan.
He then became more moderate, saying it would be a pity to have more blood upon that field. Then I suggested that the truce be respected, and said,—
" As you are now more reasonable, I will say that General Lee has gone to meet General Grant, and it is for him to determine the future of the armies."
He was satisfied, and rode back to his command".
 
According to The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War Custer was said by a General at the surrender of Lee to have done more to bring this about than anyone. This General gave Custer's wife the table the signing took place.

I don't know who said that but Sheridan bought the table from Wilber Mclean and gave it to Custer as a gift for his wife. Custer took the small table , mounted his horse and, with the table balanced on his head, jumped the McLean fence. It is on display at the Smithson American History Museum along with Fonzi's jacket and Dorothy's ruby slippers.
 
Ah, yes, but no one had to poke his eardrums with an awl because he didn't listen :smile:

I'm beginning to remember why I was so shocked when I found out I had ancestors from Maine.
Custer at least understood the Indians. At his court martial he said that if he were and Indian he would be a "hostile." Ask why, he said something to the effect that when you put Indians on reservations you destroy their culture and they cease being Indians.
I suspect you ancestor from Maine was a Penobscot Indian, a very tenacious tribe. :eek:
 
Shortly after the war in Texas, The 9th Iowa cav, were hoping for anouther battle so that Custer could be KIA for his treatment of some men in the regiment.

When I was a young man a good friend and Mentor who recieved a battlefield promotion to be a officer in WW2 and later in Korea, told me that agood offecer took care of his men first. In my opinion Custer was a little tin godof some ability with a good press.
That view was not shared by the majority of men who served under him. The Michigan Brigade was quite disheartend when he assumed another command. One of them wrote home " Our boy-general never says, 'Go in men! He says, with that whoop, and yell of his, Come on, boys!' and in we go, you bet."
 
Better than Custer. Stuart's side won their Indian fight.

Sorry, Custer is probably somewhat underrated in the popular culture due to the manner in which he was killed, but he was not all that faboo either. Valuable guy to have, on a tight leash, but wound up with far more responsibility than he ever should have had. I'm more hoping that David Gregg will one day get his due credit.

He was also the first union officer to go up in a baloon to see the Confederate troop placements. Did he lose a battle he led after becoming a general?
 
You said ABSOLUTELY nothing about later, which means no one is supposed to mention Indians. However, I will note Stuart managed to keep both his eardrums. :smile:

Well at least George was still recognizeable as they went though the dead. His brother Tom was not as lucky. The only way the recognized him was from his tattoo.

LOL Hergt I warned you the haters would be out and they could not stay on subject.
 
Custer, in my opinion, was a very capable commander. However, I think is arrogance was almost his undoing in the CW, and WAS his undoing at Little Big Horn. This passage from James Longstreet's Memoir:

"General Custer rode to Captain Sims to know his authority, and, upon finding that he was of my staff, asked to be conducted to my head-quarters, and down they came in fast gallop, General Custer's flaxen locks flowing over his shoulders, and in brusk, excited manner, he said,—
" In the name of General Sheridan I demand the unconditional surrender of this army."
He was reminded that I was not the commander of the army, that he was within the lines of the enemy without authority, addressing a superior officer, and in disrespect to General Grant as well as myself; that if I was the commander of the army I would not receive the message of General Sheridan.
He then became more moderate, saying it would be a pity to have more blood upon that field. Then I suggested that the truce be respected, and said,—
" As you are now more reasonable, I will say that General Lee has gone to meet General Grant, and it is for him to determine the future of the armies."
He was satisfied, and rode back to his command".
Longstreet's rendition of the facts was and remains controvercial. Custer was not in a position to discuss the terms of surrender and was only 300 yards from the Confederate forces poised for an attack when he was asked to call off his attack. This is what Thom Hatch author of the book The Custer Companion had to say about the incident:
"Maj. Robert Sims of Gen. James Longstreet’s staff was received by Custer and stated that General Lee requested that hostilities be suspended. Custer replied that he was not the commander on the field and would attack unless Lee agreed to and unconditional surrender. He then sent word back to Sheridan and dispatched his chief of staff Lt. Col Edward Whitaker...
Eyewitness accounts-primarily a questionable remembrance by Longstreet written thirty-one years after the incident-suggest that after dispatching Whitaker, Custer crossed the Confederate line and was presented to Longstreet, Custer demanded that Longstreet surrender his army. Longstreet allegedly was irritated by the brash young general and refused, citing he the fact that he was not the commander. In addition, Longstreet was said to have taunted Custer by boldly professing that the Rebs were not beaten and that Custer could attack I he **** well pleased…
Although Custer without question would have relished the glory associated with being the officer who accept the Confederate Surrender, he was West Point educated and would have understood the protocol in such matters. If he had indeed crossed the lines, it was perhaps out of concern for Whitaker’s well-being. Longstreet’s challenge to attack would not have been taken seriously. The Rebels were whipped, and Custer a man of action, would certainly have welcomed another fight."
 
I don't know who said that but Sheridan bought the table from Wilber Mclean and gave it to Custer as a gift for his wife. Custer took the small table , mounted his horse and, with the table balanced on his head, jumped the McLean fence. It is on display at the Smithson American History Museum along with Fonzi's jacket and Dorothy's ruby slippers.
Phil Sheridan wrote to Custer's wife:
"My dear Madam, I respectfully present to you the small writing table on which the conditions for the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia were written by Lt. General Grant- and permit me to say, Madam, that there is scarcely an individual in our service who has contributed more to bring about this desirable result than you gallant husband." He also got the dish rag the Army of Northern Virginia tried to surrender with. Where is that? In the Museum of the Confederacy?
 
I notice you are from Custer's hometown. About six years ago, the Custer family sold the two MOH's awarded to Tom Custer. I had thought that selling these medals was illegal. Did the local papers ever play up the story?
 
I notice you are from Custer's hometown. About six years ago, the Custer family sold the two MOH's awarded to Tom Custer. I had thought that selling these medals was illegal. Did the local papers ever play up the story?

Custer grew up in Monroe Michigan for a time, married and owned property their but was born in New Rumley Ohio. I had not heard about the selling of the medals. The sale of the Little BigHorn battle flag by the Detroit Institute of Arts created a minor rucus and was front page news.
 
Here in the Shenandoah Valley he's pretty much the one who shall not be named. He may not have had anything to do with the hanging of that 17 year old in Front Royal who according to some was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and he might have had good reason to execute the simple minded David Getz...oddly enough it is said a man who lived in Middletown cursed Custer because of the Getz incident and told him in a public place that "You will have to sleep in a bloody grave because of this!"

And he did his share of barn burning but then again..he was just following orders.

But despite all that he was a very capable if flamboyant officer and maybe just a victim of bad press.
 
Here in the Shenandoah Valley he's pretty much the one who shall not be named. He may not have had anything to do with the hanging of that 17 year old in Front Royal who according to some was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and he might have had good reason to execute the simple minded David Getz...oddly enough it is said a man who lived in Middletown cursed Custer because of the Getz incident and told him in a public place that "You will have to sleep in a bloody grave because of this!"

And he did his share of barn burning but then again..he was just following orders.

But despite all that he was a very capable if flamboyant officer and maybe just a victim of bad press.

Although he was blamed for the shooting death of 17 year old Henry Rhodes, hanging two of Mosby's men and shooting another, this has been proven to be a bum rap. Custer was in the area but it was baby-faced Wesley Merritt who was on the scene and it was Merritt's men who did the deed. I read one account that said that Custer may have been blamed because he later entered Front Royal and his uniform and flamboyant attitude was what the people remembered.
 
Custer at least understood the Indians. At his court martial he said that if he were and Indian he would be a "hostile." Ask why, he said something to the effect that when you put Indians on reservations you destroy their culture and they cease being Indians.
I suspect you ancestor from Maine was a Penobscot Indian, a very tenacious tribe. :eek:

Yes, that's why the Cheyenne honor him every year.

Nope, a Bowdoinham Irishman.
 
Yes, that's why the Cheyenne honor him every year.

Nope, a Bowdoinham Irishman.

Penobscot or Irishman what's the difference neither could tolerate whiskey. Is that how they ended up in Texas? :eek:
By the way instead of the sowing awls used to puncture his ear drums you could have made reference to the arrow shaft in another part, since you were being mean to Custer.
 
An interesting view on the problems of obtaining historical accuracy:
It often becomes a matter of surprise to the reader of general history, or to the seeker after historical truths, particularly if the latter relate to the incidents of battles or to the conduct of military campaigns, that marked and sometimes apparently irreconcilable discrepancies occur in the recorded testimony of those who were prominent actors in the same event…In many if not the greater number of instances official reports, while intended to be accurate and truthful, are but hasty, unstudied grouping together of such prominent facts and circumstances of a battle as may up to that particular date have fallen under the personal observation or been brought to the notice of the officer whose duty it may be to record them. …But the incidents of battle are so numerous and changing, and occur over so great and extent of country, often concealed by forests of by inequalities of the surface of the ground that the entire field by be regarded as an immense series of animated kaleidoscopes, the number of which is only limited by the number of observers, no two of the latter obtaining exactly the same view, and no individual probably obtaining the same view twice…official reports relating to the same battle have been found to contain more discrepancies than did the ordinary newspaper accounts of the same…Then, when official reports became the order of the day, they were usually so framed as to touch lightly if at all upon the blunders committed and disasters suffered, and to make the most of successes gained, whether they were the result of accident or design… The value and importance, to a correct history of the war of the rebellion of placing on record the matured opinions and statements of men who were either prominent actors in or close observers of the great struggle…War Memoirs of G.A. Custer published in the Galaxy 1876
 
An interesting view on the problems of obtaining historical accuracy:
It often becomes a matter of surprise to the reader of general history, or to the seeker after historical truths, particularly if the latter relate to the incidents of battles or to the conduct of military campaigns, that marked and sometimes apparently irreconcilable discrepancies occur in the recorded testimony of those who were prominent actors in the same event…In many if not the greater number of instances official reports, while intended to be accurate and truthful, are but hasty, unstudied grouping together of such prominent facts and circumstances of a battle as may up to that particular date have fallen under the personal observation or been brought to the notice of the officer whose duty it may be to record them. …But the incidents of battle are so numerous and changing, and occur over so great and extent of country, often concealed by forests of by inequalities of the surface of the ground that the entire field by be regarded as an immense series of animated kaleidoscopes, the number of which is only limited by the number of observers, no two of the latter obtaining exactly the same view, and no individual probably obtaining the same view twice…official reports relating to the same battle have been found to contain more discrepancies than did the ordinary newspaper accounts of the same…Then, when official reports became the order of the day, they were usually so framed as to touch lightly if at all upon the blunders committed and disasters suffered, and to make the most of successes gained, whether they were the result of accident or design… The value and importance, to a correct history of the war of the rebellion of placing on record the matured opinions and statements of men who were either prominent actors in or close observers of the great struggle…War Memoirs of G.A. Custer published in the Galaxy 1876


The inherent difficulties of writing a factually accurate AAR are daunting indeed.
You can triple the difficulty level when attempting to write a cavalry AAR due to the swiftness of the action when compared to the relatively plodding nature of infantry. This is especially true when squadrons don't act in concert.
 
That was David Gregg more so than Custer although Custer did personally lead the two charges on July 3rd as well as at Huntertown the day before. That was a heck of a first week of "leading from the front" generalship. Kind of set the tone.
Gregg recognized the danger posed to the Union rear and marshaled what forces their were to meet an attack. It was Custer however who not only led the force which turned Stuart back but won the day for the cavalry. I am not sure the Union had another cavalry commander who being outnumbered could have accomplished the task. When prior to this had the Union Cavalry ever got the upper hand against Confederate Cavalry even when they were evenly match in number? It took daring and superior leadership to accomplish what he did with the Michigan Brigade.
 
Back
Top