George Armstrong Custer met his maker at the Little Bighorn.. folks back east didn't even know about it for a couple of weeks..

hey, les -

i appreciate your message, but unless his paperwork was out of order, GAC met his maker the day before, on 25 jun; having said that, the battle did carry on to 26 jun!

Good Riddance! That egomaniacal yellow haired bastard deserved what he got. A lot of good young men on both sides died long before their time only to serve his ambitions.

quote:

Originally posted by GrosVentreGeorge:
Good Riddance! That egomaniacal yellow haired bastard deserved what he got. A lot of good young men on both sides died long before their time only to serve his ambitions.

George,

Couldn't agree with you more.
The guy was a sociopath seeking to aggrandize himself, going against a known superior force. The results speak my point.
My Step Dad was Senaca...

Don

quote:

Originally posted by GrosVentreGeorge:
Good Riddance! That egomaniacal yellow haired bastard deserved what he got. A lot of good young men on both sides died long before their time only to serve his ambitions.

amen, george - too bad that he didn't buy it during the civil war ~ history hardly remembers the massacre at washita.

I'm not 100% sure I'm fully accurate on this but I heard somewhere that Custer was looking to make a big splash with a glorious victory because he had made U.S. Grant mad. I heard that on Paul Harvey or some such.
In any event, his plan back fired.

tasunkawitko: Thanks.. I was a day off.. My dad passed away on 25 June, 1999.. I get a little confused sometimes.. close... Les

Custer had a campaign staff working on his run for the Presidency after his glorious victory the godless savages.

Some one should have shot him in the back and everybody else should have headed for the Mississippi.

Custer, lived a life that many in those days admired and even at that time the US Press had a knack for glossing over the exploits of some one that should have been busted out of the US military.

The group that was probably the most thankful for one of his whimsical decisions on that campaign against the Sioux and Cheyenne was the regimental band when he decided to leave them behind.

Having been to the battlefield and toured it, IMO, the only person that should have faced a court martial tribunal, and that should have been Custer himself, postumously, for makling such an idiotic attack.

Pahuska was in love with himself, and planned on being the next Emperor in America.

Kind of glad that sitting Bull and Crazy Horse did not share those feelings. JMO.

The kinest thing I can think to say is that anyone who divides his force in the face of vastly superior enemy
gets what they deserve.

AD

About 50 years ago, I visited the battlefield site. (This was before any elaborate build up of the site as I now understand has occurred) I was struck by the utter indefensibility of the site against an enemy superior in numbers. Many years ago, I read of an interview with Rain-In-The-Face, a Sioux sub warchief. He was asked how long the fight had lasted. He responded "About as long as it takes a strong man to draw a deep breath and hold it". Major Reno and Captain Benteen's people (the other parts of a divided force in the face of a superior enemy - a classic error of military strategy) held out throughout the day and into early next morning. They were vilified and slandered for years by Custer's wife, (the daughter of an influential US Senator) for not coming to Custer's aid. Entirely apart from the force that dealt with Custer, they were dealing with a large force of Cheyenne who outnumbered them by a ratio of at least 5 to 1. (They held out because they had the advantage of height and were dug in. Nonetheless they only survived because the Indians got word next morning that General Terry was advancing down the Powder River and so the Indians withdrew. The general feeling and atmosphere of the Little Big Horn site was of sadness when I was there. No trumpets, no martial music. Men died there -and I regretted the loss of white lives and also Indian lives. I agree with the posters that Custer was something approaching a psychopath and he deserved his fate. My regret always was that 264 troopers had to die with him.

quote:

Originally posted by tasunkawitko:
hey, les -

i appreciate your message, but unless his paperwork was out of order, GAC met his maker the day before, on 25 jun; having said that, the battle did carry on to 26 jun!

That's fitting that an ego maniac got killed on June 25th, that's my wedding anniversary.

If you have never been to the battlefield, it is worth the visit. I think I have been 12 times. I got to know Mardel Plainfeather, who was an administrator at the battlefield, quite well. During the re-naming period, she was out of step with the then current park service, she was transffered, to some place down south in order to keep her federal job. Political BS!

I visited the site about 15 years ago. Last stand hill is only a small part of the area.

It was a running battle for the most part, and gravestones are strung out for 5 miles marking where the troopers fell, in ones and twos and little groups. He did not select the site, it was forced on him.

I agree that Custer was a glory hunter - I have known similar at work. They are a monumental nuisance, and often destructive. After 130 years it appears he was braver than he was smart, and for a time lucky. What he was trying to do had been done successfully before - fracture a large group of indians by hitting a concentrated blow at one point. However this time he ran into what may have been the largest collection of native Americans ever assembled up to that time.

Say fellers,

History would tell you that Custer was a product of his times, and perhaps not entirely the jerk, (to put it kindly,) you make him out to be.

During the Civil war he was in fact a heroic officer and repeatedly won decisive victories on our part,(we are all Americans in this thread,) to much acclaim and glory. If I understand it correctly, victory in battle can on occasion include risk, danger, even chance! Custer was using the same battle tactics that had propelled him so succesfully throught his military career.

Further, I'd like to remind you all that Custer worked for Sheridan who worked for Sherman who worked for Grant who worked for,................................Come on now, you can say it,...............................the American people.

Thats right kids, Custers attempted extermination of the Native American population was at the behest, was due entirely to the will of the American voter. Our forefathers, wether bootmakers, farmers, bankers or carpenters voter for the policy that culminated in Little Bighorn and battles previous and subsequent to it that bought the largesse we Americans share today.

If we say "Guns don't murder people, people murder people." Then I think in this case it would be appropriate to say "Custer didn't kill Indians, Americans did."

Even further, 210 comrades of Custer died with him on June 25th 1876, so fuck anyone who takes that lightly.

I was at the battlefield last month an like Kudu said it is well worth the visit.

Good Post, except you miss the whole point that Custer was above all else an egotistical idiot that was trying to bolster his own future, with no regard to the men under his command.

Maybe instead of jumping up with some mis-informed and mis-guided comments about Custer and what some of us can do to ourselves, you might want to go and actually read some of the biographical history of Pahuska, and get an actual knowledge of such things that during his educational career at West Point, he graduated bottom of his class.

Or maybe that all those fgolks you listed him working for busted his ass back to Lt. Col. for some of his "Glorious behaviors" during the Civil War.

Maybe if you will go and do some actual research on the man, Gearge A. Custer, and not the mythical, George A. Custer, brought forth and presented by his blind and simple minded followers, you will find out, that every move, every decision, every action, and evry order that Custer carried out during his life was entirely centered on promoting Gearge armstrong Custer, First/Last/Always.

i don't know if this has ever been done in an appropriate setting, but it would be interesting to read a thorough pyschological profile on GAC.

quote:

Posted 30 June 2008 09:58 Hide Post
Say fellers,

Scott

I agree with you about GAC he was a product of the times and military stragedy.

To pile on him and to not have lived at that time in history is foolish.

Would the outcome have changed had Custer been equipt with gattling guns and lite artlery? I beleave in reading some if not many of the indians did have lever guns, a trap door Springfield was no match for a 66 or 1873 Win in terms of fire power.

Custer miscalculated the fighting will of the enemy about the same we have done so in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Custer miscalculated the fighting will of the enemy about the same we have done so in Iraq.

Very true statement.

I appologize for my wording last night. Hard to imagine a poorer choice.

Crazyhorse, I don't believe you and I have been reading the same books, and yes I have thouroughly studied the subject. Custer was demoted from Brevt Major General back to Lt Col. because of the end of the Civil War. I think "Brevt." indicates war time advancement of rank.

D Day was an invasion againt over whelming odds. The Revolutionary war was fought by the Colonialist against over whelming odds. Custer threw his division across Lee's line at Appomatox against overwhelming odds.

You bet I think Custer made mistakes and was flawed. I also think Custer was responsible for the deaths of his troopers.

As Hunt Ducks said, Custer was in my opinion a product of his times. Grant was elected, Sherman and Sheridan and Custer were appointed because of their ruthless or savage battle tactics.

Again, sorry for the infantile response of last night.

I don't think your post was infantile, just somewhat mis-informed and falls in line with the romanticised accounts of Custer and his exploits.

He was notorious for disobeying his commanding officers, both during the civil war and the indian wars.

To say that he was a product of his times is somewhat wrong, in that other military leaders at that time accomplished much, without endangering their entire commands.

Early in his life, Custer deemed him self worthy of and the heir to greatness, and all his life he chased that goal.

Not really caring who he stepped on or over during his run.

Most likely had any of his troopers had the same attitude that American troops developed during Viet Nam, some one would have shot custer in the back and the troops would have fled the scene.

To go to the battle field, and not look at it as it is today, but to imagine it as it was in 1876, and look to the ridge that Custer and his troopps first spotted the indian encampment from, the total lunacy of what he attempted becomes glaringly apparent.

He was under the delusion, that the indians would flee when they saw the dread that was upon them, so he split his forces, relying on his believed reputation among the indians to throw fear into the hearts of the Sioux and Cheyenne.

For what ever reason, he did not realize these indians had already faced and basically defeated or at least caused the retreat of a much larger military unit under the command of crook I believe.

Custer decided to pull one of his usual end runs and it did not work this time.

I just think you need to check out some other books concerning Custer and his life.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
To say that he was a product of his times is somewhat wrong, in that other military leaders at that time accomplished much, without endangering their entire commands.


To go to the battle field, and not look at it as it is today, but to imagine it as it was in 1876, and look to the ridge that Custer and his troopps first spotted the indian encampment from, the total lunacy of what he attempted becomes glaringly apparent.

He was under the delusion, that the indians would flee when they saw the dread that was upon them, so he split his forces, relying on his believed reputation among the indians to throw fear into the hearts of the Sioux and Cheyenne.


I just think you need to check out some other books concerning Custer and his life.

Thank you for the generosity regarding my vulgarity.

I have and will continue to "check out," the history of Custer. I am gathering that no matter what you read you will retain the (wrong I believe,) view you hold now. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that Shermans "March to the Sea," didn't endanger his entire command". I may be incorrect, but I believe Grant was quoted as saying "He didn't mind loosing 20,000 men as long as the rebels lost 30,000 men.

If I remember correctly from my trip to the battlefield last month, I believe Custer viewed the indian camp from a ridge several miles away and then stayed out of sight of the camp by using the low coulies to advance on the camp. Like you, I surmise he knew darn well the size of the camp, but I'd think that without satellites, spy cameras, U-2 spy planes and the rest it'd be hard to judge the fighting force located on the river. Additionally, his reckless saber charge tactics had worked for him again and again and again in th Civil war and the western indian war.

To repeat myself, yes I do believe Custer was flawed, and in the end, fatally flawed, but please don't try to sell the idea that war can be fought from safety or that other leaders, in fact Custers superiors took no risks.

It seems easy to sit in our office chairs, typing on a keyboard and calling a man dead some 130 years ago an "egotistical idiot,", having never met him, met anyone who'd met him, walked in his shoes, or been close to any of his experiences.

The truth is that Custer was instrumental in the history of the United States, it's continental expansion, and becoming the wealthy nation we are today, warts (Custers,) and all. Us debating Custers merits over thousands of miles via the internet is a fine example.

i lean more towards crazyhoreconsulting's views, but i'll acknowledge that scott's contention also has merit. the truth, as with most things, is certianly somewhere in the middle.

one thing is for sure, both sides were emboldened. custer was emboldened by everything that had happened in his life, including the "victory" at washita a few years before. the sioux, cheyenne and arapaho were emboldened by their valiant traditions and by bringing crook to a standstill at rosebud a few days before. custer (and his officers) were emboldened by their belief that they were bringing "civilization" to the plains; the tribes were emboldened by their belief in the vision of tatanka yotanka, who said that there would be a great victory. they were defending their homes, their way of life and their families, and that was the biggest incentive of all.

we can argue and split hairs all day, but the simple truth, in the end, is that there were simply too many of the enemy for custer's forces to handle.

You are entitled to your opinion as to how you look at the history of Custer and the Indian Wars, not everyone shares that view.

Thankfully that is what keeps this and other forums and the world going round is the diversity of opinions.

His sabre charge tactics worked in the Civil War thru sheer luck, his sabre charge tactics in the Indian Wars, worked because he used them mostly against Indians that were under a flag of truce and villages made up mostly of old men, squaws, and the young.

For the most part, the U.S. goverment during the Indian Wars and shortly there after were so afraid of the indians that they employed the "Kill Them All" concept of how to deal with them.

After all the U.S. military was very instrumental in having a 78 year old or so Sitting Bull killed simply to supress or destroy the Ghost Dance religion.

It is nice to be able to have such a debate as this one without it reverting to name calling, and it is good to be able to agree to disagree on a subject.

Custer was and is a very real part of the history of both our country and the American West, the debate will always revolve around whether he was a true hero, or an egotistical maniac, and how things might have occured had he been successful in his attack that day along the Greasy Grass.

A lot of the better and truer information concerning Custer comes not from some of the auto-biographical stuff written by the major researchers, but from the ancedotal writings of his contemporaries at the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

It is nice to be able to have such a debate as this one without it reverting to name calling, and it is good to be able to agree to disagree on a subject.

A lesson I could learn a little better.

Best Regards Gentlemen!

A good read about the subject and more,

try "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse" by
Peter Matthiessen!


And as for the battle, not massacre, Custer just plain got Siouxed!


Scott I hope you enjoyed the battle field. You should have stopped by, you were only about 90 miles away. A tremendous amount of effort went into changing the name. A lot was lost, but more was gained!

Corax:

It was not a "running fight" as to Custer's part of the command. Custer was hemmed in almost immediately. The running fight was that Major Reno and Captain Benteen's men made a run for the slight hills beyond the Little Big Horn -and made it - and dug in. They were accompanied by Cheyenne on either side of them and it was a real running fight, no doubt about it. There are stories published long afterwards where veterans of that dash down the valley said that even then they had the impression sometimes that the Cheyenne were simply "herding" them down the valley and not trying to wipe them out (screaming and giving the war whoop but not firing at them) - It was Custer the Indians wanted - Major Reno and Captain Benteen stated at the military inquiry that the Cheyenne did not seem to be pressing the attack on them even after they were dug in. (That made Custer's widow scream to the press that they had been cowards in not coming to Custer's aid. (Even aside from the fact that the Cheyenne were a warrior tribe and fearsome enough in their own right when on the warpath -they also outnumbered Reno and Benteen's troops by at least 5 to 1. The very idea of trying to fight their way back to aid Custer was ridiculous) Thanks for an interesting update on my own visit. (I never saw and had no idea that there were markers for that dash of Reno and Benteen's people down the valley. Certainly I would have gone to look)