|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jan 25, 2014 11:51:32 GMT -5
Events leading up to the battle:
General Phillip Sheridan's plan of campaign for the year 1876 was for three columns of troops to converge on the Indian camps in the Powder River Basin. From Fort Abraham Lincoln in the Northeast was sent a force built around all twelve companies of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, this force was under the command of Brigadier General Alfred Terry. from the forts in western Montana came a force under Colonel John Gibbon; and from the South Brigadier General George crook's command, which unknown to Terry and Gibbon, had been repulsed at the Rosebud Battle.
On the 7th of June 1876, Terry, now having joined with Gibbon's forces, established a base camp and supply dump at the mouth of the Powder River. After scouting had been done, a conference between the senior commanders was held on the 21st of June. As a result, Gibbon's command and the smaller portion of Terry's command was sent to the mouth of the Bighorn. Custer had been ordered by Terry to circle around the likely area of a large Indian encampment and then to drive the Indians northwards into the arms of of the other column of troops under Terry and Gibbon.
When Custer found as large Indian trail he decided to change his ordered route (which Terry's orders arguably gave him the leeway to do)and thereby followed the trail directly to the Indian camp area. He thus arrived at the Indian camp about 48 hours ahead of Terry and Gibbon, instead of more or less simultaneously, as had been hoped for.
Now put yourself in Custer's place. What would you do?
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jan 25, 2014 16:43:57 GMT -5
It seems to me, if I recall, that no one objected to much of what Custer did until he got on the hot trail. Then his naysayers hinted that his greediness for glory is what got him into trouble and ruined his reputation.
Maybe if he had not followed the hot trail he would have met up with General Terry at the right time. At the very least, the united soldiers may have had more success. Just a thought!
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jan 25, 2014 20:11:23 GMT -5
No body has ever explained to me how Custer was suppose to "push" a great big village to Terry. Wouldn't that be like trying to herd a band of geese, say about two thousand or so, with a broom in a straight row for a hundred miles?
when he caught the hot trail he went after it like he was suppose to do. If Custer had captured the village he would have been a hero. He didn't so he wound up being the goat. It's as simple as that!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jan 26, 2014 11:14:38 GMT -5
It seems to me, if I recall, that no one objected to much of what Custer did until he got on the hot trail. Then his naysayers hinted that his greediness for glory is what got him into trouble and ruined his reputation. Maybe if he had not followed the hot trail he would have met up with General Terry at the right time. At the very least, the united soldiers may have had more success. Just a thought! Custer was criticized after the fact as a result of failure. Had he taken the exact step he did and succeeded, he would have been idolized as a hero. For example, let's say that Custer after discovering a "hot trail" of an Indian encampment moving in a specific direction went farther south to make sure that the Indians kept going in the perceived direction instead of doubling back, could he not do the same thing by continuing to follow the Trail? Surely his command could move swifter than a village of thousands of residents, right? What could have occurred if he continued south, perhaps Terry would have arrived slightly before Custer and, as a result, wound up being wiped out himself. To abandon the trail would have led directly to a Court Martial for Custer for failure to perform his assignment. Custer had to follow the trail. Unfortunately for him the manner in which Terry drew up the orders governing Custer's movements were designed to make one man responsible for any failure:Custer himself. |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jan 26, 2014 15:10:49 GMT -5
Sounds like Custer was set up in a way. If he wins, Terry is there to get the credit. If he losses, He gets the blame!  |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jan 27, 2014 13:29:16 GMT -5
Actually that is exactly what I believe to be true. Terry felt that he lacked the capability to located the village and was convinced that Custer could. he also believed that Custer was a necessary clog in his mechanism of locating and subduing the village. How else could one comprehend Terry's plea to the U.S. President to forgive a man who had drawn his wrath and ire. Terry took a very realistic chance of receiving admonishment from his superiors for even daring to make the request.
However, Sheridan even endorsed the request and,accordingly, the President acquiesced. Going against your Boss is no way to advance in the military hierarchy yet, these men did just that!
Why? Because at the last analysis, these men, as well, believed Custer to be absolutely necessary to accomplish the mission. The absolute irony of all this is the voluminous silence of the previous confidence in Custer from the lips of these very same men.
Terry was exceptionally intelligent commander and designed a unique document that theoretically encouraged Custer to use his own discretion when ever possible. The document also advised Custer to do two things:make haste and find the village and, when you do find it march away from it! Does such a request make sense? Absolutely!
make haste, located the village and attack. If you fail to subdue the village you will be held entirely responsible.
March away south to ensure that the Indians do not escape, if they do you will be held responsible.
Perform two diametrical movements at once and completely responsible if you fail.
It has been reported that at the last staff meeting prior to heading out that Custer was uncharacteristic in his open mannerisms to his men and someone subdued; can you guess why?
|
|
|
|
Post by jackieg on Jan 28, 2014 13:05:05 GMT -5
What is the general opinion of the forum as to why the U. S. was so determined to capture Sitting Bull's Camp and do you feel that Indian surrender was an option if Custer had not been defeated?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jan 29, 2014 13:31:01 GMT -5
What is the general opinion of the forum as to why the U. S. was so determined to capture Sitting Bull's Camp and do you feel that Indian surrender was an option if Custer had not been defeated? Of course no one can say for a certainty what the strategy of the U. S. Military was regarding the containment of Sitting Bull and Co. entailed but, we may be able to surmise few things. Once gold was discovered in the Black Hills the era of armed, independent, wandering, and unsupervised aboriginals was at an erupt end. While the Sioux were determined to keep this (to the Sioux) a sacred and life supporting land replenished with the vital buffalo, the "whites" were equally determined to confiscated it this "cash-cow" for their own nefarious purpose. In order to accomplish this unprovoked aggression against a foreign and sovereign nation, the strength of the Sioux and their counterparts had to be expediently vanquished and broken. At the time of the "Last stand", Sitting Bull was the spiritual Leader (a very predominant position of authority to the Indians) of thousands of high spirited Indians who were quite willing to fight to protect their families. Any chance of a parlay between the two forces was liquidated when Major Reno's troops thundered down the valley toward the southern end of an huge Indian encampment occupied by hundreds and hundreds of spirited warriors who were more than willing to rumble! To answer your question, any surrender of the Indian camp would have only been possible if Custer had approached the village under the auspices of a White Flag for an initiation of earnest and credible negotiations. The other scenario would include the cavalry breaking the very back of the Sioux Nations and, subsequently, allowing survivors to surrender only after many Indians had perished and, as a result, were no long perceived to be a danger. Please accept my response as it was intended, a personal opinion and nothing more.  |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jan 30, 2014 12:05:37 GMT -5
What is the general opinion of the forum as to why the U. S. was so determined to capture Sitting Bull's Camp and do you feel that Indian surrender was an option if Custer had not been defeated? A large group of armed Indians, any Indians, had to be taken as a threat to the general public. The military had to provide safety for these American citizens. Welcome aboard! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Feb 4, 2014 13:22:00 GMT -5
What is the general opinion of the forum as to why the U. S. was so determined to capture Sitting Bull's Camp and do you feel that Indian surrender was an option if Custer had not been defeated? A large group of armed Indians, any Indians, had to be taken as a threat to the general public. The military had to provide safety for these American citizens. Welcome aboard! ;D Stumblingbear is correct although the issue of morality and fair play is completely discarded by the U. S. Government in effecting such a one sided policy. |
|
