Why So Much Controversy?

[joewiggs]

Politics and Religion aside, I can think of no other subject that raises more rancor and mis-communication than a heated discussion of the Little Big Horn Battle.

Regardless of your personal position as to whom should shoulder the responsibility for the out come of the battle, you may be assured that someone, somewhere may viciously assault your dignity in a heated manner that defies logic.

The AAO Board (sorely missed) has never recovered from the insidious character dispersions by two of its membership;AZ and DC. Their overt inability to respect their peers is phenomenal!

Arrogant posters side, another overwhelming contribution to controversy that confuses and thwarts the reality of the battle events becomes a natural part of the whole when one looks at the actual behavior of some of the participants. In other words, witnesses/participants gave testimony that was colored to present them in the best light possible. It is human nature to do so!

The responsibility of the battle student is to glean through the enormous amount of available data, develop a thesis, and present it to the membership for perusal. This site, due to the efforts of Dennis, is such a place.I would like to give an example of information made complicated, mis-understood and, convoluted by the personal needs of the giver of such data.

Private Edward A. Pigford (M. Co.) in the Washington Observer, 10/6/32 stated the following:

"Sergeant O'Hara, Troop M, was badly hit, and he turned to me with the plea, 'Pigford don't leave me!' and i helped him to a place of safety."

It turns out that this statement was false as Pigford earlier admitted to Walter Camp that he had ignored his Sergeant's plea.
This is not an attempt to denigrate Pigford but an honest attempt to truly comprehend the psychological motivation that affected the actions of the troopers involved in the battle. Doing so will help us to correlate statements given by Whites and native Americans that can only help us to understand a bigger picture of what may have happen.

To challenge an honestly given perspective by arbitrarily accusing an individual's effort in a needlessly arrogant and demeaning manner is juvenile at best and a cowardly act at its worst. Again, this statement is not directed against any member of this site.

Will the membership please present examples of data that has been twisted, fabricated, whitewashed, and generally impossible to have occurred for membership review? I'd like to hear of them. Thanks!

[stumblingbear]

I agree wit you. So many of the men involved in this battle fell victim to a natural fear of the many hostiles that faced them. Later, after the dust had settled they must have been ashamed of some of their actions. Reno must have been particularly distraught.

The witnesses at the Reno Inquiry are an example of men who seemed to be suffering from a sudden case of amnesia. Some of the officers forgot to man the skirmish line, prepare a rear-guard, or sound recall on the trumpets.

They even forgot that Reno showed little leadership when it was needed the most.

[strange]

The Indian accounts are somewhat regularly twisted out of context... likely in attempt to understand them. There are quite a few Indian accounts which simply cannot be taken as is which is why well meaning people try to twist and turn them until they start sounding right.

Thats probably the best thing I could bring to what you're asking.

Another thing people take out of context is when they try to add divisions between Custer and his close friends. Most notably as came up on the other board, someone said that Custer rubbed Myles Keogh off as a silly person and didn't think much of him. This is absolute jibberish as someone pointed out that the quote was simply referring to one of Keogh's flirty moments with women where he apparentlt bought someone an extravagant gift and Custer obviously stated it was silly of him. Its one incident, has nothing malignant to it, but people just grab at it so they can try and say that Custer and Keogh "weren't really friends". Similar things have been done with Cooke. It goes against all common sense and is merely a frail crutch for Benteen and Reno enthusiasts to lean on.

[joewiggs]

I couldn't agree more Strange One! Indian testimony has been shattered because of inadequate interpretation, Indian culture norms like tooting one's own horn which is perfectly acceptable in their culture, and cultural unawareness of time comparable to our own.

They who believe that the fatal outcome of the battle was the sole responsibility of Custer deny historical facts that prove his military tactics, while not acceptable in our present day society, were perfectly acceptable in his.

U.S. governmental policies toward the "Summer Roamers" killed Custer!

[tbw]

Will the membership please present examples of data that has been twisted, fabricated, whitewashed, and generally impossible to have occurred for membership review? I'd like to hear of them. Thanks!

Trying to open a big or should we say huge can of worms?

1) So called sightings of Custer on the Bluffs anywhere from 2/3rds of a mile away +. Usually this is twisted into something that it could never have remotely been possible.

2) Custers supposed route down the right bank. I've never seen so much twisting and turning of that route. It has more kinks in it because of theorist than the river has cutbanks.

3) Which time was which? Who was using what time and when? And how does one tie it all together in a coherent manner between events? This one kills me. Anyone who has ever attempted a timeline knows what I mean. Again, it isn't necessarily who way back when did what, but who today is twisting which fact to meet an certain theoretical need?

4) Fitting one's biased theory to the biased facts. Sometimes referred to as cherry picking. And in the process throwing away anything else that just doesn't seem to fit as irrelevant. And more likely than not, throwing away something more relevant than they ever expected!!!

5) Making biased choices of when and where a certain event occurred based upon someone else's (non participant) statement that bore no resemblance to the truth.

6) Trying to make terms spoken, like "abandoned lodges", more or less than what they were. Gotta love that one.... abandoned cars, abandoned houses, abandoned factories etc.... Jeez, what else could it mean?

7) Trying to say there wasn't more than 1 interpretation of where a lone tepee was, let alone the morass, the bluffs, or trying to identify certain river crossings or terrain features from what was said by the participants. Yup, that was Weir peak FOR SURE, but it was never stated that way, was it?

8) Blaming the Indians who attacked Reno for Custer's demise.

9) Not reading enough into Custer's messages back to his subordinates. It's done with everything else, but not those messages, why not? Bias?

10) Giving a name to something that simply doesn't exist in a nations army, for example; cuirassier, Uhlans, stradiots, hobelars, chasseurs à cheval, cossacks, chevau-légers. Which should be adopted that best explains our plains Cavalry units? Quite simply this nation has always seen fit to call them what they were, cavalry. However, if I had a choice why not chasseurs à cheval?

These are but a few of the inconsistencies produced mainly by the people trying to investigate the phenomenon. And usually it is their misinterpretation of the facts that makes it more mystifying than clear.

The classics are 1) Benteen's "left" mission. Left never has been and will never be a direction unless there was a reference for it, and no, not an inferred reference but an exact one. Interestingly enough I think it would be more than comical to see this one reinacted the way so many today have stated it happened. Yup, Benteen did say it was senseless, didn't he, so I guess we should absolutely trust others interpretation of what the participants didn't say happened. 2) Those last bunch of men who rushed from last stand hill that were reported by quite a few Indians. This one is more than hilarious, it is a damn shame the way people today interpret it. Benteen said that he found over 20 bodies he assumed were from E company with some horses in a ravine that he could not get down into to inspect them. This was within 100 yards of the river. He also observed that they would not have gone in there to fire out of it. Theodore Goldin who helped bury this detachment said, just like Benteen, that they couldn't get down to them and instead just shoveled dirt from the sides of the ravine to cover them. Does this possibly sound like some men who could have been fleeing for the river at the end of the battle, possibly using this ravine as shelter from shot, arrow and spear as they went, and before they could get there, were annihilated by swarming indians? YET, we still get this insane notion from way too many today that they barely made it to the south skirmish line where Mitch Bouyer was later found. AND to top it all off, Mitch Bouyer's story is well told by none other than Curley himself, yet not one legitimate investigator in his right mind would ever think that this group of men on the SSL was doing something, anything constructive at the beginning of the battle, would they?

[joewiggs]

As usual, a wonderful summation of Facts! So much information often portrayed as facts when oftentimes facts have nothing to do with reality.

The following quote is helpful:

"Memory is a practiced re-creation of events rather than a faithful replay of what our senses recorded. What a person remembers is strongly slanted toward his/her needs. Post-trauma stress disorder may result in psychic numbing and emotional anesthesia.

In other words, having suffered an inordinate amount of stress in any given hostile situation may cause one to forget or alter the event experienced. This anomaly does not mean that the individual purposely altered facts on a conscious level.

Also, events that appear extraordinarily unusual in contemporary society may have been the norm in centuries past. We of today can not conceive of a military expedition against an enemy without knowing its disposition and martial abilities. This was not so in Custer's day. In foresight, not one military member or civilian of Custer's era believed that any amount of "savages" could best 600 calvary. They were wrong. In hindsight we now know this.

What is unfathomable to me are the few "geniuses" who declare that the military lost because of the antics of one man.
The same persons who will latch upon one piece of information to substantiate their personal interpretation, then denigrate any contradictory data.

The joy, to me, of a site such is this one is the mature approach wherein we all agree to disagree. There is so much I have learned from you all and will continue to do so.

[stumblingbear]

Whenever I think about the great interest in this battle I find myself asking, why? Why are there so many forums discussing this event. Why do so many people become angry with each other when discussing the reasons for the battle turning out as it did. Why do persons like Crazycanuk insist that Custer was an idiot, and why do so many people condone the military demolition of tribal camps as necessary when, obviously, it was not.

The wars between the Sioux and the U.S. occurred because of greed. The greed for land and precious metals on behalf of the politicians and shysters of the U. S. government. Only when the people of the land (native Americans) were exterminated or subdued did peace arrive and all was O.K. in the "land of the Free."

The interest in this battle is so extraordinary because "savages" inexplicably defeated the illustrious 7 Th. Calvary,

[tbw]

Stumblingbear,

First off, I think that most people have very firm ideas, notions, theories about what happened, so much so that they absolutely refuse to accept any idea or notion from anyone else that they feel is absolutely unnacceptable in their own minds.

[NOTE: And this is where I have tried to be more lenient and fair here concerning my own notions and theories, and why I told CC to go ahead with any evidence he had of Custer being at fault at the LBH. I may be wrong about my own conclusions and realized that when he first proposed it, so, sure if there is evidence for it, go for it. I know there is some, because I've done the research on it. But i'm not about to put words into his mouth, If he or for that matter anyone else has the evidence, produce it and sure, I'm more than willing to listen.]

What is interesting is that most of this, if not all of it is unknown, simply because there were so many versions by so many participants that it is difficult for them to tell who was lying and who wasn't. And of course everyone wants to solve the mysteries involved and be the "big it" or bigot, take your pick, who solves it and is forever enshrined in everyone elses hall of fame. This is a grand part of the contention that you mention, the I'm right, your wrong attitudes that cause so much trouble. And nearly everyone i've ever been involved with on any board, and evidently, even this one to some extent, feels this pain. Thus, it isn't a discussion board at all, but a free for all to simply express, impress and recieve congradulatory remarks from the peanut gallery.

Then there are those whose claim to fame is very questionable if not totally unacceptable by the sheer idiocy of thier own posts. I'm lucky in that regard, simply because i've never made any such claim, nor do I ever intend to. If I make a stupid off the wall remark, I don't have to try to explain it in reference to any claim to fame i've ever made and in the process discredit myself because of same.

Then there are those with legitimate credentials, which some, seek adoration and exhulatation by the sheer volume of their knowledge of the subject. Some don't, and that needed to be said. I respect both to some extent, and can certainly understand the need. For example, one of the most accepted credentials in this business is whether or not you've ever served in the armed forces, one supposes that it be more acceptable if it was for the U.S. of A., and would be quite interesting if it wasn't. Armed service credentials appear to be something that some feel is more acceptable, than those others of the discussion board(s) in question that don't have such a moniker attached. And this is quite frankly sheer nonsense. One would imagine that someone who had a degree in history (think Brian Pohanka rest his soul) would be better qualified to discuss and know than someone in the military. But this isn't the only problem with it. The discussion of strategy and tactics become bogged down, and more-so because of military credentials and knowledge thereof today becauase, quite simply, it wasn't the same back in 1876. And of course that isn't all. One would figure that these military professionals would indeed know more about the subject than the average "tom", "dick" or "mary" who had none, but they don't go far enough in their own experience to realize that the queen of battle wasn't the infantry, as has been always thought, but logistics, which they never discuss, and if they do, they have this narrow vision of 1876 logistics that everyone else takes for granted. Without ammo, food, water, and other support, they could never accomplish any mission they were sent upon, never!!! From the lowliest of Sergeants/Lieutenants of squads & platoons, through Captains of companies , Majors and on up the chain of command to Lt. Col's and Generals, they all had to, if they served, THEY HAD TO deal with the logistical aspects of any operation they were involved in. And this singular fact, this one alone is never ever explored to the fullest at the LBH, never. So no, those who claim military experience are no better than the rest of the forum if they can't realize the "total" logistics involved at the LBH, and I do mean "total", from those on the front lines on back to that pack train because is makes a significant difference in the total discussion of what was and what wasn't possible, or for that matter, quite simply, what did happen and what didn't. And, I should add, would, quite frankly silence many a soothsaying idiot (and there are none here at this forum - NONE) from further pain in regard to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[stumblingbear]

Thank you for your reply. You painted a picture,for me, of the many ego's and personality types that use these forums. I am a little taken back by some of the requirements insisted upon that seem to be choices of a few rather than the majority. By the meanness of the few seems to overwhelm the positiveness of the majority.

Present military rank, to me, is not necessarily the ultimate factor in reaching solutions when a large portion of the participants were non-military. As you pointed out, a historian who specified in the social ways of that time period would be just as important.

Again, thank you for such a helpful reply.

[tbw]

Yeah, admittedly I may also trip on my on ego at times, just human I guess. But when it comes to the forum I really do try to let the flow of ideas flow. I know some would say that isn't so, but it really is true. I just get a little upset when statements are made without backing it up with some kind of evidence, especially what the participants may have said to back up your claim. I don't care who the statement(s) are made against or for, be it Reno, Benteen, Custer or even Peter Thompson etc., if your going to make a statement, prove it by the evidence. There isn't anything wrong with asking for evidence, we all gain enrichment from it and sometimes it can be quite enlightening. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. And, as far as i'm concerned if you don't have ingredients for the pudding, why make it?

[joewiggs]

Perhaps the core reason for the controversy regarding this battle is the;racism! White America's collective belief in"racial superiority. Time after time we read of the unified belief from numerous commentators who believed they could, "out run, outwit, or out fight the Indians they would meet" regardless of their numbers!

When Custer set out on his fatal journey, the Weekly Tribune described him as, "full of perfect readiness for a fray with the hostile devils, and woe to the body of scalp-lifters that comes within reach of himself and brave companions in arms"

Convinced that a true Red,White, and Blue American hero and his stout companions could never be defeated by "heathens" the actual result was mystifying and inexplicable.

Thus the battle became and continues to be a MYSTERY.

[tbw]

Mystery? Perhaps one word best describes this so called mystery -TITANIC. Was human error responsible? Were orders or the "messages" properly relayed [IF AT ALL] so that appropriate action could have avoided the disaster? And a long list of other improbabilities, one among many was the number of life boats and/or the number of people allowed to board them before the ship sank.

1) Was it Captain Smiths fault?
2) Was it a subordinate that quite simply fubar-ed it?
3) Was it the arrogance and negligence of the people who built the ship and owned it?

[Cutter]

Racism.
"A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

Seems to me this is a trait among all peoples, past and present, like it or not, man is tribal. I would guess if an extraterrestrial gave a report on the social order here, I wouldn't be surprised if he would report that the inhabitants on this planet were still in the tribal warfare stage.
Having said that, I don't believe that the past has exclusivity on the way too much used noun, racism.
I would be much surprised if the conversations and general thoughts among the Indian Village towards the white man would be much different from the newspaper's view of the Indians.

[tbw]

brilliant, just brilliant Cutter. Damn, I wish i'd said that. Especially about the ET's. To think a civilization that did put men on the moon would be classified by ET's as a "primitive race" and still in a tribal warfare state, world wide. That says something about our leaders and the governments that we the people, all people, everywhere, can do about it. These past few wars have been nothing but a demonstration of shock and awe, a virtual testing ground for weapons, and in the very last instance, trying to fight a cancer without the radiation. Hell, we didn't and still dont know who the enemy is, just go bomb someone, show our power, it doesn't matter whether we're on the right side or not, just go bomb something. Tribal warfare on steroids and in the hands of madmen is, very very dangerous.