Custer made mistakes....

[tbw]

"Custer made mistakes." It's an oft repeated tome that is never substantiated by any evidence. The reasons for this is obvious, and yet, we still get this insane need to say that he did in association with his actions and/or orders at the LBH.

The only one's who ever really accused him of wrong doing in that battle was Reno and Benteen. Yet they had every reason to do so. And still left everyone wondering what his "plans" were by them both stating "he never had any." Both Benteen and Reno were shown to not be entirely truthful in those statements at the RCOI, and had the question been pursued further, the truth would have came out further than the answers they did give; which was that they both had "no confidence in him or his ability as a commander" and other statements like this, which cast them in a negative light when they threw judgmental statements about "his abilities" into the air and see who caught it. For instance like Benteen thinking his orders from Custer as "senseless". Yet most today still don't see those orders as senseless, but instead try to trace by pace that route in order to understand. If Benteen thought they were "senseless", how then does one expect to make any sense out of it, and in the process be prepared in any sensible way to proclaim that "Custer made mistakes"? The facts as they stand, no one can, just as no one can't.

[joewiggs]

Custer, in my opinion, had a plan that was credible enough to succeed if he had the personnel to carry it out. That he did not was certainly not his fault. His plan called for vigor, elan, and commitment none of which Reno possessed.

After the battle, superiors immediately started to seek a scapegoat for this monumental failure. The fact that every witness who was capable of telling the truth died in the battle. The survivors were not willing to speak the truth because their participation, for the most part, was embarrassing.

Custer had a reputation for being forceful and eager in a fight. This reputation was just enough to hang an albatross of guilt around his neck when he and the others perished.

[tbw]

I think way too many people tend to rely way to much on the tactics employed and forget the strategic goals of the mission. None of which makes any sense unless one does. These tactical studies then create the differing of opinions that most hold. What isn't simple about this approach, is to isolate each battalion and suggest that what they were doing at the time was "senseless" or that they somehow 'at the time' misinterpreted their orders. Both observations, and others like them, which were made in hindsight, and most certainly not 'at the time' do tell us more or less what happened, and most of it was simply written in black on white.

I've brought this up before, but I think it deserves a mention here. The division of the Regiment into battalions was Standard Operating Procedure at that time. Now no matter what we think of this today, that's the way they were trained, that's the way it was understood they would attack, and that was what Custer did. Now while many can second guess that judgment, what can't be denied, is that it was the military procedure of its day. What also can't be denied, is that only one officer thought it would be best not to divide the regiment, and again, we don't have enough confirmation of evidence of him ever objecting to it - other than 'his' statement saying so. So it was doubtful that 'at the time' he said anything about it. Why? Because he was more than eager to report his battalion ready for action and in compliance with the orders of the day that would "divide that regiment"! His statement then concerning 'his orders' being 'senseless' was an afterthought and not something he did think at that time.

Benteen and Reno both have came out smelling like the proverbial rose, mainly because of 'what they said.' As has already been shown, Benteen was less than sterling in his performance and what he later attributed his actions to, did not match his words and actions 'at that time.'

Reno's orders have become a serious contention for anyone interested in pursuing the truth. Yet he insisted that he never received any orders 'directly from Custer' and instead preferred that his orders came through Lt. Cooke. What he forgot in this whole messed up version is that 'village'. Supposedly this village wasn't seen until Girard viewed it from his knoll and reported it. Yet he only yelled that he observed the fleeing Indians running 'like devils' and shouted that back at Custer some 50 yards away. If he was the only one to have observed that "village", then how did Cooke, or for that matter Custer know enough about it at a 'previous' time - when he supposedly sent Cooke back to Reno with his only order to attack the village? Supposedly this occurring several miles, according to Reno, and before reaching that tepee and knoll where Girard later made his observation. The only other one who should have known about that village was Varnum, and he arrived at Custer's position as Reno was riding off, so it wasn't him that told about "the village," but if it was, rest assured, it was Custer who then would have sent Cooke to make sure that this would not have been an oversight. This then lends more credence to the fact that Girard's story about him observing Custer giving Reno direct orders bears more weight than Reno's fabricated tale about not receiving any orders directly from Custer.

Unfair parallels to Custer and Reno's fight have been made. We all know them so I won't state them. I won't because there is absolutely no evidence to support any claims as to what did or did not happen on Custer's battlefield other than where they were found dead days later. Sure we can and should state opinion as to what we believe happened, but to draw any parallel between the two battles is sheer speculation that can't be proven one way or another.

The much often and quite misinterpreted failures to 1) listen to his scouts; 2) Believe the Indians were running, when in fact they were not; 3) Be tactically aware of all situations about all his battalions, which they try to pace out, based upon misinformation leads to the same conclusions drawn right after the battle.

To know all of this one either has to get in Custer's mind, which was and still is impossible, or, try to find out from those who survived in his battalion. How many survived from his battalion, and with regards to this, how many are totally believed? Here is a partial list that I can think of right off hand. Watson, Curley, Thompson, Kanipe, Goldin & Martin. Which of these don't 'you' believe? See the problem? Instead of it being a credibility issue, it should be whether we are credible in what we research. If any one of them told the truth about something and 'you' don't believe it, what does that say? One can for sure blame Custer and say he was at fault, but that isn't a fact, its a supposition.

I've brought up the fact of 'where Custer's men were found dead.' This has been used for years as a thought that he did something tactically wrong. But, if the Indians did as they say they did, and they did indeed "drive Custer's men, like driving buffalo", what would have been the result? In that terrain, its difficult to say or for that matter to speculate about. And in this regard those positions tell us very little except, "that's where they died" - period. It doesn't tell us what was tactically going on previous to that to accomplish the mission. Obviously Custer had some kind of 'intelligence' we don't or he would not have done what he did. What indeed was 'that intelligence' that caused him to go through with whatever he was doing? Part of this can be observed in Bouyer's conversations with Curley. Where Custer was going to go into the village, and Bouyer thought they "had no chance." Curley also relayed that Custer thought that 'he would be reinforced', but Bouyer thought different, 'he thought that they had all been' "scared away." What many forget is the time when these conversations possibly could have been going on. What did Custer see or know to make him believe that he would be 'reinforced', and concurrently, what did Bouyer see or know to make him believe that "they had all been scared away"?

Any suppositions about ford "B" quite simply have to consider the reactionary retrogrades to Calhoun and NYC ridge, and try to make sense of them. The fact is, no one can. These positions 'alone' could be and were easily flanked without proper support, and we're not talking about 'waiting for anyone', Custer didn't! That same supposed attack at ford "B" must also be seen in the light of those who propose it. Why - simply must be explained. And no, one cannot do this when just considering the "tactical" operations. One must - must consider the "strategic" goals. If that supposed operation, in any way shape or form would have jeopardized those "strategic" goals, then quite simply, it didn't happen.

The most common myth about Custer is that he moved too far away from his support. Yet in light of the last paragraph, that doesn't make sense, does it? Nor does it make sense to "make him wait" for reinforcement, he didn't.

While this has been addressed to some extent, it also is important to bring out a myth that most still cannot fathom. What seems out of place was Custer's orders, when and where he sent his subordinates, and where he went. All seems to most to be in disarray, yet they cannot fathom him changing or attempting to change those orders to prevent a piece by piece distruction of his entire battalion. Once again this isn't keeping ones' eye upon the strategic objective, and that strategic objective had everything to do with the "village" and nothing to do with what Benteen thought, or for that matter, what Reno thought after that battle was over. As i've already demonstrated, and shown, thats what was unfair about the whole thing. While they went on to defend themselves and their actions, he couldn't. And no one could for him because only one survived to tell anything about it, and most don't believe him. Yet if what Curley said about his conversations with Bouyer has any chance at legitimacy at all, it should tell us something most still don't fathom, or perhaps cannot percieve or choose not to believe. What that difference was between what Custer thought about being 'reinforced' and that Bouyer didn't. That difference was the words "scared away". Indeed, both Custer and Bouyer knew the same things at that same moment in time. While Custer ferverntly believed or perhaps hoped that through his instruction, and as set forth by his plan, he would be 'relieved'. Bouyer and Custer both observed something to make them beleive, that it was just possible, "they" Reno and Benteen had been "scared away." One chose not to believe that and paid the price, the other who just as clearly observed it, said "we have no chance..." and paid the price; and unbelievably so because no one believes those words that Reno and Benteen were indeed "scared" "away". I think it fair to say at this point, that it is futile to try to evaluate any circumstances in either Benteen or Reno's case where their words would absolve them of this, nor should any try.

Trying to re-do what Custer did based upon today's standards and what we know, or think we know, is an exercise in futility. Sure its fun to speculate about what may have been. But when and where Custer gave his orders to his subordinates played some part in his "strategic plans" that others tried to obfuscate in their "tactical in-execution", and they had plenty of chances to have their say after the battle, he didn't. Bottom line. Unless one knows what Custer's plans were, you wont figure it out, and both Reno and Benteen saw to it that no one did.

[joewiggs]

Jun 16, 2010 19:58:20 GMT -5 tbw said:

"Custer made mistakes." It's an oft repeated tome that is never substantiated by any evidence. The reasons for this is obvious, and yet, we still get this insane need to say that he did in association with his actions and/or orders at the LBH.

Is it not human nature to be envious,sometimes, of those who accomplishme in their life times? A great many officers were envious of Custer because of his rank achievement in the Civil War. That animosity has been handed down through the ages until the present day.

The only one's who ever really accused him of wrong doing in that battle was Reno and Benteen. Yet they had every reason to do so. And still left everyone wondering what his "plans" were by them both stating "he never had any." Both Benteen and Reno were shown to not be entirely truthful in those statements at the RCOI, and had the question been pursued further, the truth would have came out further than the answers they did give; which was that they both had "no confidence in him or his ability as a commander" and other statements like this, which cast them in a negative light when they threw judgmental statements about "his abilities" into the air and see who caught it. For instance like Benteen thinking his orders from Custer as "senseless". Yet most today still don't see those orders as senseless, but instead try to trace by pace that route in order to understand. If Benteen thought they were "senseless", how then does one expect to make any sense out of it, and in the process be prepared in any sensible way to proclaim that "Custer made mistakes"? The facts as they stand, no one can, just as no one can't.

I thought that the most ironic moments in the Reno Inquiry was his stating that he had no "confidence" in Custer as a soldier. That revelation was almost as hilarious as Benteens' remakes about going all the way to Fort Benton

.

[crazycanuck]

"Live by the sword die by the sword", which they didn't do, because they didn't bring any, but if they had the fight might of lasted longer than 40 minutes.

[cinnamon]

who said it lasted 40 minuts? Sabres were not brought with the regiment as they would have been too noisy. And the attack was to be a surprise attack.

[crazycanuck]

The length of Last Stand was more or less in that time range.Nothing more surprising than a sword up your enemies butt.The sabres were probably left because of weight and there cumbersomeness.Sabres sheathed should not be too noisy. Also, Renos boys could use them charging the village, slashing and slicing there way, utilizing shock and awe . The Indians clubs and lances came in handy though. Maybe Custer could of forded the river with this form of intimidation but nooooooooooooooo he brings single shot Springfields(PRESIDENT GRANT WAS CHEAP). Guess who got surprised ?

[crazycanuck]

Custer had no specific plans. Reno had no clue where the support was to come. I bet Reno could of used some help when the Indians were not retreating and Custer knew this early. He could of come back to help.But nooooo he is going to flank and hammer and anvil.... oops didn't happen.

[cinnamon]

The sabres were left because of noise. It is said by most of the testimony. However, no way sabres could do anything against the well armed indians. They had rifles and stood longtime on the grass, shooting at the blue soldiers. Custer was armed with what the Army gave at the time. Indians with what they got at the forts from the army. This is one point that even Godfrey claim as a reason for the defeat.
Custer had a specific plan, but his "two men" didn't made it at all. Custer back? Oh yea, go back , let indians, squaws, escape north, quietly ride back on the slopes, Weir Point...CC, it was not possible come on!

[crazycanuck]

Terry to the north and it would be easy to round up the ladies. Custer didn't care about Reno and he could of come back.He was at CC when he knew of Renos retreat. Concentrated firepower would of stopped Renos rout.Custer had to know that the operation was on the defence if he had any smarts at all but then strategy was never his West Point thing.A smart man knows when he is beat and goes home and does his homework and comes back to fight another day. Oh sure the bully boys will laugh and ridicule Custer for letting the ladies get away but at least your troopers will love ya.

[cinnamon]

You are making sure what is not sure at all. Nobody knows when and if Custer knew about Reno's retreat. He probably didn't. He more probably knew just that Reno was not striking through the village as ordered (from Boston). He called in for benteen, that never came. Custer didn't knew where Terry exactly was and ladies on their land were not so easy to "round up", no less than a bunch of talibans in their mountains in afghanistan. Custer could not go home, because as soon as he had to, he already was abandoned by his two fellows.

[crazycanuck]

I hope I don't jump to conclusions and then gather biased facts to make it fit. I agree that the sabres were left because of noise but they could of been muffled in boxes and then strapped on a tan appropriate time. You say I'm " making sure what is not sure at al l" . I don't think so. Cooke and Varnum told Custer before he climbed the bluffs that Renos charge incited the Indians to attack, not run (could of used some sabres,gatling gun and extra troops but nooooooooo( "The seventh cavalry can handle anything it meets" and "Oh I think we will get through them in a day") . Further the government should of not of allowed repeating rifles in the Indians hands for hunting as many were evidenced in LBH battle and of course had foolishly taking away the 7th's repeaters "History repeats it self first as a tragedy,second as a farce" . Recent arming of the Mujahideen in the late 80's came back to bite. Sh!& doesn't have to happen if your smart.

[cinnamon]

Attack doesn't mean Reno retreat. As said, Custer I said knew that Reno was standing and not striking. About the indians. The forts gave them also rifles. It was a fact they gave that for hunting, naively I add, as much of those hunting people later joined "rebels". What excavations found on the indian side was: Spencers, sharps, smith and wessons and springfields, Winchesters. Windolph stated that at least 500 indians had springfields and modern repeaters. Crook, in 1876, later the battle: "When indians came into possession of the breech loader and metallic cartridge, which allows them to load and fire from their horses with perfect ease, they became at once ten thousand times more formidable."

[crazycanuck]

I'm saying Custer was a know it all goof with needless deaths under his command in the Civil war and at LBH.He might of been physically strong,tough and could shoot and ride a horse and knew how to promote himself but in the end a fool and his money and life soon part. It is just unfortunate for the young lads to be deluded in there following. Roll the dice to often,quess what... you lose? Of course he should of helped Reno,cause Custer was sure and the H slow in his flanking support, thus defeating the whole purpose, but again Custer did not care about Reno, he was taking care of his boys, bound for glory. Custer couldn't think on his feet or horse.Pigheaded and determined to plow ahead, when he should of went back, knowing your support was engaged with an attacking enemy. I wouldn't go to war with a hothead.

[cinnamon]

this is your thought and I don't share it. I think my whole effort here well explained my idea.