Michigan city seeks expert to discuss future of Custer site

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee

Michigan city seeks expert to discuss future of Custer site​


Monroe – A city in southeastern Michigan wants to hire an expert to try to reach a community consensus over the future of a monument dedicated to Gen. George Custer.

Custer, who lived in Monroe, has long been recognized as a heroic Army officer, first during the Civil War. But critics note that he also went to war against Native Americans before dying at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...-expert-discuss-future-custer-site/115683540/
 

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Well, if the people of Monroe turn their property over to the Chippewas, Ottawas or whatever Indians once lived there they'll be justified in bumrapping Custer for fighting Indians.

And remember the River Raisin.

Well, if the people of Monroe turn their property over to the Chippewas, Ottawas or whatever Indians once lived there they'll be justified in bumrapping Custer for fighting Indians.

And remember the River Raisin.

Not that it really matters but different Native American groups live in the Monroe area over the years, but by the War of 1812 the area was considered Wyadot (Wendat) area. Currently the Wyandotte tribal group is active in the area near Monroe but not the Ottawa or Chippewa. The Wyandotte are a Iroquoian language group while the Ottawa and Chippewa speak a Algonquian language. The Native Americans Custer fought were the long term bitter enemies of the Chippewa, and there allies.
 

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
I have met and talked to Wyandots here in Michigan. The Wyandots are building, or perhaps have built, a Wyandot cultural/history center in south eastern Michigan. It will be some where near Monroe but the name of city escapes me right now.
 

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
After giving this some thought I believe the Wyandot cultural/historical center is/will be located either in Browntown Charter Township or in the City of Wyandotte. Perhaps along the Browntown Creek. Brown was the English name of a local Wyandot leader during the War of 1812 and the Americans and Wyandot fought the War of 1812 Battle of Browntown at the Wyandot village of Browntown. Anyone visiting the area might want to see the Wyandot Family Statue in Wyandotte Michigan.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019

Michigan city seeks expert to discuss future of Custer site​


Monroe – A city in southeastern Michigan wants to hire an expert to try to reach a community consensus over the future of a monument dedicated to Gen. George Custer.

Custer, who lived in Monroe, has long been recognized as a heroic Army officer, first during the Civil War. But critics note that he also went to war against Native Americans before dying at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...-expert-discuss-future-custer-site/115683540/
There was, for example, that nasty little incident at the Washita directed by Autie. Killing women and children could be seen as a problem And I'm not remotely suggesting you're saying it isn't - just that Custer has a pretty bad record between 1867 and his reckless end in Montana.
 

Kurt G

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 23, 2018
No one can live up to todays "standards".Native Americans sometimes killed captive children and sometimes tortured captive males to death . Union and Confederate guerrillas committed terrible atrocities .So did the French , Germans , English , Russians , Japanese , Chinese etc. , etc. Nearly all races , tribes , ethnic groups and religions have done terrible things to other people . Princip assassinated Archduke Ferdinand which helped to start WW1 which led to WW2 and so many current geo-political messes we have today , yet some still consider him a hero . We cannot eliminate our history because some one or some event doesn't live up to todays standards . Leave Custer where he is but put up a plaque explaining the controversy as well.
 

Irishtom29

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
There was, for example, that nasty little incident at the Washita directed by Autie. Killing women and children could be seen as a problem And I'm not remotely suggesting you're saying it isn't - just that Custer has a pretty bad record between 1867 and his reckless end in Montana.

Killing women and children was hard to avoid when attacking a camp of hostile Indians. The Cheyenne were warriors not soldiers, and after raids retired to the camps of their families. Thus it was unavoidable that woman and children were exposed to danger.

I don't know of any evidence that Custer ordered or even intended the killing of women and children. I think he accepted it.

Those Americans who aren't American Indians have benefitted by the actions of Custer, Willam Henry Harrison, Anthony Wayne, Andrew Jackson, John Pope and other Indian fighters. I'm as left wing a person as you'll find around here but I think it unseemly to discard these people while continuing to benefit from their actions. Not that we shouldn't understand and discuss what they did.

Regards
 

Kurt G

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 23, 2018
Killing women and children was hard to avoid when attacking a camp of hostile Indians. The Cheyenne were warriors not soldiers, and after raids retired to the camps of their families. Thus it was unavoidable that woman and children were exposed to danger.

I don't know of any evidence that Custer ordered or even intended the killing of women and children. I think he accepted it.

Those Americans who aren't American Indians have benefitted by the actions of Custer, Willam Henry Harrison, Anthony Wayne, Andrew Jackson, John Pope and other Indian fighters. I'm as left wing a person as you'll find around here but I think it unseemly to discard these people while continuing to benefit from their actions. Not that we shouldn't understand and discuss what they did.

Regards
Well said .
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Few people are without flaw. If only perfect people are allowed to be honored, we will have very few statues or monuments.
I respectfully disagree that killing women and children was simply a "flaw", and removing eligibility for memorialization is far, far from saying we can only honor those who are "perfect". Plenty of historical figures had flaws that were balanced, offset or even overcome by their significant positive achievements. I draw a line at murdering women and children and it's not balanced by the fact that Custer was successful in the Civil War. I don't know of anyone saying there should be a monument to Chivington for what he did in the NM Campaign and "explaining" Sand Creek. On a different issue, I don't know of anyone arguing for a monument to Benedict Arnold, who led a heroic attack at Quebec City and was permanently crippled while being the single most important figure in what was probably the single most important victory in the AWI. Sometimes you do something that equals a forfeit.
Killing women and children was hard to avoid when attacking a camp of hostile Indians. The Cheyenne were warriors not soldiers, and after raids retired to the camps of their families. Thus it was unavoidable that woman and children were exposed to danger.

I don't know of any evidence that Custer ordered or even intended the killing of women and children. I think he accepted it.

Those Americans who aren't American Indians have benefitted by the actions of Custer, Willam Henry Harrison, Anthony Wayne, Andrew Jackson, John Pope and other Indian fighters. I'm as left wing a person as you'll find around here but I think it unseemly to discard these people while continuing to benefit from their actions. Not that we shouldn't understand and discuss what they did.

Regards

"Thus it was unavoidable that woman and children were exposed to danger. I don't know of any evidence that Custer ordered or even intended the killing of women and children. I think he accepted it."

That's inconsistent with his false and inflated count of dead "warriors" after the fight and with his clear order to use women and children as shields. In addition, regarding whether he "ordered or even intended" the killings, that undisputed evidence didn't save Yamashita from hanging in 1946. I don't excuse commanders who somehow "lose control" of troops under their direct command and don't stop/prevent the murders. And I will also admit to having real concerns about the way Jackson is remembered in this country, as well as some others. It's real easy to talk about balance and perspective when a paltry percentage of monuments and memorials actually recognize these negative events. Full disclosure: I have long ties to the Eastern Shoshones. I will add that despite that, literally killing women and children is a big problem for me regardless of the circumstances.

That
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
No time for this , Sorry to say I feel very strongly about how Native Americans are complete hypocrites.

They were perfectly fine slaughtering their own kind and taking lands off established tribes via the right of conquest but when the white man does the same it all of a sudden becomes a war crime.

The Sioux had no problem Slaughtering the Pawnee , Crow or any other nation they deemed inferior with advanced weapons and numbers but then whine about sacred lands which they had only owned for a mere 100 years having booted out all the other tribes who had been in the area for over 800 years.

Whatever people feel about Custer he was no worse than the Indians he fought.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
No time for this , Sorry to say I feel very strongly about how Native Americans are complete hypocrites.

They were perfectly fine slaughtering their own kind and taking lands off established tribes via the right of conquest but when the white man does the same it all of a sudden becomes a war crime.

The Sioux had no problem Slaughtering the Pawnee , Crow or any other nation they deemed inferior with advanced weapons and numbers but then whine about sacred lands which they had only owned for a mere 100 years having booted out all the other tribes who had been in the area for over 800 years.

Whatever people feel about Custer he was no worse than the Indians he fought.
So what Custer did was okay? But I have a solution - let's erect a monument to Little Crow, who engineered treaties with the US for peace in the early 1850's. We can "explain" the bad conduct by his Dakota faction in August 1862. That way he and Autie get the same "honor". Not enough time or space to deal with the other errors.
 
Last edited:

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
So what Custer did was okay? But I have a solution - let's erect a monument to Little Crow, who engineered treaties with the US for peace in the early 1850's. We can "explain" the bad conduct by his Dakota faction in August 1862. That way he and Autie get the same "honor". Not enough time or space to deal with the other errors.
Of course not the killing of women and children is wrong but lets take a closer look at that , For a start the Sioux had no problems killing woman and children in fact after Bighorn we have Indian accounts of the Women finishing off and mutilating Soldiers on the battlefield.

Massacre Canyon 1873 where over 1500 Sioux slaughtered 200 Pawnee mainly women and children who were then mutilated and set on fire so cruelly that their was outrage by many whites in the area at the time. This sort of behaviour had been happing for centuries before the white man had even set foot on the plains.

I have no doubt Custer and his Crow scouts would have been aware of how cruel the Sioux and their allies were to other Indian nations and deemed them public enemy no1 , In fact many Indian nations looked to the US government for protection against the more aggressive tribes something the US government failed upon to their utter shame.

But as always it is the Sioux and their allies that get the attention nowadays and many smaller Nations get disregarded the peaceful Indians so to speak and that urks me.
 
Last edited:

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Of course not the killing of women and children is wrong but lets take a closer look at that , For a start the Sioux had no problems killing woman and children in fact after Bighorn we have Indian accounts of the Women finishing off and mutilating Soldiers on the battlefield.

Massacre Canyon 1873 where over 1500 Sioux slaughtered 200 Pawnee mainly women and children who were then mutilated and set on fire so cruelly that their was outrage by many whites in the area at the time. This sort of behaviour had been happing for centuries before the white man had even set foot on the plains.

I have no doubt Custer and his Crow scouts would have been aware of how cruel the Sioux and their allies were to other Indian nations and deemed them public enemy no1 , In fact many Indian nations looked to the US government for protection against the more aggressive tribes something the US government failed upon to their utter shame.

But as always it the Sioux and their allies that get the attention nowadays and many smaller Nations get disregarded the peaceful Indians so to speak and that urks me.
As you may have noticed, my ties are with the Eastern Shoshones. They and groups like the Nez Perce, the Salish/Kootenai, and others have a different history. As you also know, "Sioux" is an overly-broad brush. And, as you also know, a lot of the depredations using "advanced weapons" and horses started after you-know-who showed up. You have a much better argument about some tribes before the white man showed up and started fomenting inter-tribal warfare for their own gains and especially before we started making treaties and then breaking them. I'm sure you know about the events that led to the 1862 Dakota War in Minnesota. Starvation ain't pretty.

To be fair, a lot of the attention the Dakota get today has to do with what happened at Pine Ridge in 1890 and with the abominable conditions of that reservation today. I - and I expect you - wouldn't want to live there no matter what they offered me.

I'll stand by my point about Custer.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Of course not the killing of women and children is wrong but lets take a closer look at that , For a start the Sioux had no problems killing woman and children in fact after Bighorn we have Indian accounts of the Women finishing off and mutilating Soldiers on the battlefield.

Massacre Canyon 1873 where over 1500 Sioux slaughtered 200 Pawnee mainly women and children who were then mutilated and set on fire so cruelly that their was outrage by many whites in the area at the time. This sort of behaviour had been happing for centuries before the white man had even set foot on the plains.

I have no doubt Custer and his Crow scouts would have been aware of how cruel the Sioux and their allies were to other Indian nations and deemed them public enemy no1 , In fact many Indian nations looked to the US government for protection against the more aggressive tribes something the US government failed upon to their utter shame.

But as always it is the Sioux and their allies that get the attention nowadays and many smaller Nations get disregarded the peaceful Indians so to speak and that urks me.
Often though the reason the tribes were warlike is because the peaceful "subjected" Indians that were forced west..........encroached on the tribes who had allready been there first.

Once you get west of the Mississippi it's hard for historians to even declare tribes historic ranges pre white man with certainty, because so many eastern tribes had been displaced there by the time many white men arrived.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
I'll stand by my point about Custer.
Custer was arrogant but he did not hate the Indians in fact he chose sides and grew very close to the Crow tribe which mourned his loss.
The Crow had owned much of the land the Great Sioux wars were fought on in fact a large portion of the Crow lands were taken in the 1850s - 1860s including the Black Hills as far as the Crow were concerned Custer was a liberator and a friend to the Crow people so I find it strange that people judge Custer as a war criminal.

I suspect if you visit the Crow reservation today they will have a different opinion of Custer than the Sioux and the mainstream liberal media.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Often though the reason the tribes were warlike is because the peaceful "subjected" Indians that were forced west..........encroached on the tribes who had allready been there first.

Once you get west of the Mississippi it's hard for historians to even declare tribes historic ranges pre white man with certainty, because so many eastern tribes had been displaced there by the time many white men arrived.
I don't discount this and it certainly put pressure on the tribes without a doubt.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I respectfully disagree that killing women and children was simply a "flaw", and removing eligibility for memorialization is far, far from saying we can only honor those who are "perfect". Plenty of historical figures had flaws that were balanced, offset or even overcome by their significant positive achievements. I draw a line at murdering women and children and it's not balanced by the fact that Custer was successful in the Civil War. I don't know of anyone saying there should be a monument to Chivington for what he did in the NM Campaign and "explaining" Sand Creek. On a different issue, I don't know of anyone arguing for a monument to Benedict Arnold, who led a heroic attack at Quebec City and was permanently crippled while being the single most important figure in what was probably the single most important victory in the AWI. Sometimes you do something that equals a forfeit.


"Thus it was unavoidable that woman and children were exposed to danger. I don't know of any evidence that Custer ordered or even intended the killing of women and children. I think he accepted it."

That's inconsistent with his false and inflated count of dead "warriors" after the fight and with his clear order to use women and children as shields. In addition, regarding whether he "ordered or even intended" the killings, that undisputed evidence didn't save Yamashita from hanging in 1946. I don't excuse commanders who somehow "lose control" of troops under their direct command and don't stop/prevent the murders. And I will also admit to having real concerns about the way Jackson is remembered in this country, as well as some others. It's real easy to talk about balance and perspective when a paltry percentage of monuments and memorials actually recognize these negative events. Full disclosure: I have long ties to the Eastern Shoshones. I will add that despite that, literally killing women and children is a big problem for me regardless of the circumstances.
I don't see how anyone honestly and objectively could examine Fort Pillow and Washita, and not conclude Washita more deservedly earns the title massacre.....and hence war crime.

First of all they didn't bother to see if it was even the right bands village.....it wasn't. Then most accounts admit indiscriminate killing of women and children. They also take women and children hostage as human shields........And while at Fort Pillow well over 1/2 were taken prisoner.......at Washita they executed all the wounded men captured .....
 
Last edited:
Top