|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Feb 9, 2011 11:31:34 GMT -5
Well I still think you know more about this topic than I do but having said that and moving on what percent of the blame would you assign to Custer for the disaster at The Little Bighorn ?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Feb 9, 2011 12:24:08 GMT -5
Davel, glad to hear from you again!
The comments above are thought provoking and worthy of individual address which I intend to do in the future along with the fine commentary already presented.
However, I wish to slightly digress for just a moment while pausing for a bit of personal clarification while also soliciting input from the membership. Is it possible that we have become just a tad fixated on the concept that the outcome of this battle was the sole fault of the senior commanders of this battle?
Their individual responsibility, while an intricate part of the equation, may be augmented by the actions of the men whom they were accountable to as well:Generals Sherman, Sheridan and Terry and their extremely faulty and blind tactical approach to a military tactic.
Convinced that the "savages" were incapable of making a stand when confronted by a command of American soldiers Sheridan designed a plan infused with the erroneous belief that a "Prong" attack (resulting in the fatal division of troops) was the only solution to the problem.
Sherman assigns Sheridan the authority to solve the "problem" who then designs the original three prong attack. Thus Cooke, Terry , and Gibbon start out to accomplish the goal.
In an era wherein the average promotion tenure was extremely lengthy and the "field promotion" was practically dormant after the Civil War, ones military future was totally dependent upon the whim of your commander. "Suggestions" from superiors became etched in stone if one wished to move up the ladder of hierarchy.
Unsurprisingly, when the where abouts of Cook became unknown, this grave depletion in manpower prompting nothing in the mind of Terry to make a logical adjustment to an altered situation; he simply continued with the "Prong" ideology albeit with reduced strength.
When Custer utilized the same plan with an even further depletion of manpower, he merely obeyed the "suggested" template of his superiors which resulted in what ended in absolute failure.
Contemporaneous society of Custer's era simply could not take the Indian warrior seriously as a formidable foe! This mindset, which was based upon a racial prevarication, set the stage for complete failure by the troopers.
Personal mistakes by Custer, Reno, and Benteen compounded an already insurmountable quandary. Under no circumstances could the military defeat such a large gathering of Native Americans who possessed a sense of family as strong as any other group of people. A village so large could not be moved quickly enough to ensure the safety of the non-combatants so the warriors had to stand and fight.
My personal belief is that had Reno held the timber for a another 1/2 hour or so he would have been relieved by Benteen whose movement would have forced the warriors to fall back to protect the rear of the fleeing women, children and old men.
The very worst scenario may have been that Custer's meager combined forces may have been sufficient enough for him to have extracted his men out of harm's way.
|
|
|
|
Post by moderator on Feb 9, 2011 13:53:32 GMT -5
I've never assigned a percentage, nor for that matter, ever thought of it in those terms. Not that its wrong to do so, it does bring a different perspective to the discussion. I think there were to many factors to consider before trying to identify such a number. For example, i've heard everything;
1 'to many Indians'
2 'what Reno did wrong'
3 'what Benteen did wrong'
4 'what Custer did wrong'
5 'Custer had to far to go after send Reno in'
6 'obeying orders' - Custer, Reno, Benteen
7 'the terrain was unknown'
8 'underestimating, stength, size of opponent'
...
And a very long list of other, just as important excuses for this battle that have to be weighed before trying to assess who was to blame in the first place. And most, if not all of these issues could be resolved by taking a more serious look at the scouts & guides and what services they provided, or perhaps failed to provide that day. And after all that they had been through to get there, why not believe the one person who did know the terrain (Mitch Bouyer) they would be going over to get there? That just doesn't make any sense at all.
As for my status, no, I must humbly submit that my knowledge is no greater than any other here. However, there is one here who's passion and dedication to the subject is far greater than my own, and he should be rightly praised for it, none other than joewiggs. His knowledge of these events, as well as others, goes way beyond my own. He, Davel, strange, cutter, and You CC, as well as others have shared very good information on a par equal to my own, and for that I am grateful.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Feb 9, 2011 14:16:47 GMT -5
I think your can hold your own ! Hey Mod, humble people are not so humble, they just like to be told twice how good they are, and you are pretty good . Now if we can believe Curley, and why can't we, he said Mitch(Buoyer may have seen the forth coming disaster that Custer maybe couldn't or didn't want to see....you know pride goeth before the fall) said, they were doomed so to speak, and for Curley to get outta here, because that man Custer will stop at nothing, and so Curley did. Why didn't Custer get out or do you think he even tried to ?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Feb 9, 2011 14:18:25 GMT -5
Or do you think Custer could of retreated at some time and where if you do ?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Feb 9, 2011 14:35:01 GMT -5
I understand the Shermans, Sheridans, the Terry's and the game plan ,strategy,orders,etc, and the consequences of not following standard procedure, but where I have trouble is understanding people sticking up for Custer and not pointing a finger at his field blunders leading to LBH disaster. We name call Benteen the dawdling liar,Reno the lying coward but what negative label do we give Custer. Yes I understand when we call names we've run out of ides but what derogatory label do we give Custer like what Benteen and Reno have ? Apparently none.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Feb 9, 2011 17:29:11 GMT -5
You say that you understand the preliminaries that led up to the battle then you quaintly shrug them off by immediately pondering why so many want to defend Custer. Please forgive me if I point out that you may have entirely missed the point!
There are so many participants of this battle who made horrendous mistakes based on false presumptions that, to point out any single individual as a major contributor to the fatal outcome of this battle is unfair.
To answer your question regarding Custer, much of what has been printed about about him tends to reinforce the philosophy that he was a lunatic set loose on the Indians and wound up getting himself killed and his men as well.
The Reno Inquiry is seen by the majority of students as a odious but convenient whitewash that did much to foster that erroneous theory. The truth was submerged beneath a convoluted layer of mis-information that created the ideal that Custer did not have a salient battle plan.
All of his subordinates had any idea what he was trying to do. He had no plans. He talked to no one, etc. Please keep in mind that Reno, Benteen, and the other officers were experience troops, Civil War veterans nd not young, shave-tail rookies. During the testimony, Officers who knew better kept silent. Wallace actually lied when he testified that he was constantly at Reno's side. This gave Reno a respected and credible witness who could confirm everything Reno stated.
All of this was done in order to bring responsibility of failure squarely on the shoulders of a dead man who could not defend himself. All of this was done to save the honor of the 7th. All of this was done to increase the chance of being promoted. Godfrey and Edgerly became Generals!
Benteen in subsequent writings admitted that he held back the truth at the Inquiry and the "Army" was somewhat happy with that.
Reno's cowardice was known to all except the public. The same public who witnessed thousands of loyal, heroic citizens discharge from the service only to be replace by perceived post-Civil War Army consisting of an potpourri of bums, cut throats, and derelicts who couldn't get a real job.
Imagine the up roar if that same public was informed that the "heathens" defeated the Army because of the white feather of a Major in that very same Army! Would this not seem to confirm the already negative, public opinion?
Custer was no Saint. He was an educated soldier whose Civil War record was outstanding. The majority of his critics were men older than he yet, junior in rank.
In summation, the totality of circumstances should be reviewed regarding this battle to formulate an even keeled perspective of the battle along with individual participants.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Feb 9, 2011 17:49:23 GMT -5
Too many p!$$#@ off Indians Davel with Custer being introduced to the concept of unintended consequences of war with poor terrain,no backup support,enraged Indians defending there turf. It was there LAST STAND and maybe not so much Custers last stand. You may be right with the two scenarios but I think Custer stayed back on Luce Ridge area because he was wide eyed bewildered now knowing he had a big fight on his hand,as he knew what was happening to Reno, could happen to him. I think Custer panicked and should of got out of there.Just my opinion. Everything you have posted is possible although I do not agree with you. However, there is one bone of contention I feel very strongly about .Custer may have been and done a lot of things but, I can't imagine him panicking for any reason. This personal philosophy has nothing to do with admiration for Custer. It does have everything to do with the historical record of the battles he participated in. One of the first Generals to "lead" in battle. He also carried a saber that he took away from a confederate officer in a "Mano a Mano"up close fight. He had several mounts shot from beneath him in battle only to re-mount and continue. He made mistakes, he followed orders, he under estimated his for; he did not panic! |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Feb 9, 2011 18:03:47 GMT -5
Custer did not have to send Benteen left,south etc. He could of checked that region more efficently with scouts,thus following his orders. Custer would of lied like the rest of them at his own court review,why would he be any different than Benteen or Reno... cherry picking your answers etc. Custer called some bad plays that day...in my opinion. In doesn't matter why he sent Benteen left but he did and it ended in disaster.Bad call among many. Another bad call by Custer that day was him assuming the Indians would scatter and not fight(you know like the Steelers thought the Packers would do),thus go in early instead of waiting for rendevouz. Custer outsmarted himself. Custer might of been brave,wily,ambitious , smart maybe...but wise I don't think so. I will stop short of calling him stupid that day. The purpose for sending Benteen to the left was as you say. What would have happened if the scouts had run into a couple of hundred Indians? As for Custer lying at the inquest, who knows what he would have done. I just don't see why he would lie because there was no motive to do that. He died because he did not hesitate to fight. He could have left the field before the Indians occupied the east section of Custer Ridge but he refused to leave. He refused to leave because he could not comprehend that help would not be coming. When he did realize he and his men were being left to die he must have been crushed. Neither Custer, Reno, or Benteen were "stupid" men. They were men who did the best they could and may God bless everyone of them. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Feb 9, 2011 18:28:53 GMT -5
Scouts are paid to scout and not to shout and scream "here we are Souix"! The Indians as the trails indicated were staight ahead and to the north of Reno Creek. Why would you splinter your troops to the left when scouts who know the land and get paid for stealth could check it out ? Poor tactics and huge blunder by Custer in my opinion which led to him and 5 of his companies eradicated. Custer fought but he didn't fight smart in my opinion. Bless them and the dead Indians.
|
|
|
|
Post by moderator on Feb 9, 2011 21:50:00 GMT -5
Why would Custer splinter his troops at all, at the time, and the supposed place, where this was supposed to have occurred; may be a better question. However, yours is just as valid a question as any.
Some years ago one Perry Baker, god rest his soul, posted some photos on one of the Custer forums. Those photos pretty much showed a 180 degree view from the Crows Nest (and the surrounding area), this covering an area from the NE to the SW. In those photos, one could see for quite a distance, where supposedly Benteen was sent. No one has ever thought of this before, but those photos were quite revealing, how so? If there were Indians there Varnum and the Scouts sent there would have seen them and reported it. BUT, they never ever did, did they? Thats because there were none there! And if there were, does anyone imagine for a moment that Varnum, or for that matter any of the other scouts sent there, would not have reported it? The hills off that direction, are as you know, divided by ravines that feed into Ash Creek, but, above that it plateaus off into a shallow basin before once again ascending higher. This shallow basin could be easily negotiated by anyone on horseback for miles in the direction of the LBH that parallels those hills. Was this basin where Benteen was supposed to have gone? If it was, Benteen messed up bigtime.
I don't think it was, because there were not any Indians ever reported being there. Now regurgitate GAC's orders to Benteen.
Benteen stated at the COI that (and I paraphrase), "Custer pointed to a line of bluffs some 3 to 4 miles distant" as the place where he was to go. He told his wife in a private letter the very same thing but used only 2 miles as the distance for those bluffs. For eon's people have assumed that the "left" Benteen referred to meant left of the trail they were on, but it didn't. Why? Because that line of hills that people want to call bluffs wasn't 2 to 4 miles away, but originated 'RIGHT THERE' where supposedly Custer sent him from. The 2nd thing about this was another thing Benteen said at the COI, he stated (again I paraphrase) that Custer had "sent him to look up some Indians." Now Varnum and every man who ever went to the Crows Nest knew there were no Indians there 'left of the trail' because it was easily observed from the Crows Nest and perfectly scouted from there. Those Indians Custer sent him to look up were indeed somewhere else! Not only that but Custer told Benteen to attack them! Sound like a wild goose chase to you? Benteen was full of smoke and mirrors and he still has a lot of people believing his slightly canted story. And no, he didn't lie, you see, he never had to, did he?
|
|
|
|
Post by moderator on Feb 10, 2011 0:54:29 GMT -5
Let me try to put this in a way that should explain a few of the statements made by Benteen, and its not necessarily that I believe it to be this way, but it very well could have been under the circumstances.
Before Custer had sent Benteen on his mission, supposedly and reportedly by Benteen himself, Benteen told Custer to keep the regiment together. Benteen then complied in some manner with Custer's request and left for somewhere to evidently do something that he didn't think needed done. He viewed Custer's orders as senseless, a view I might add most seem to share today. And in light of the former post, it can be told that it most assuredly was not. To continue... Benteen decided at a certain point in time to call the mission off purportedly because "he" seen no Indians and get this, "no valleys". While most would and do support the 'no Indians' that Custer evidently knew were there, as he told Benteen to attack them, they forget the "no valleys" that he said didn't exist. So he forces the issue here and heads back to where? At one point in his testimony Benteen said that "he thought" he would be needed "at the bluffs" and "he thought" it best to stop looking in the direction Custer had sent him and head there. What issue could he have been forcing? Perhaps the notion that he was right about keeping the regiment together, and Custer wrong about the three pronged attack?
Had there ever been a time when Benteen felt unsettled by being led by someone much younger than he was? Had there ever been a time when Benteen would catechize Custer to the correction of points made about he being more correct than Custer? The answer is yes. And it was exhibited in full at the COI. At one point in his testimony he told the court that (and I paraphrase) "he had assessed the situation more than Custer or Cooke knew" and decided on his own to head back in defiance of Custer's orders. And he even admitted that he did disobey Custer's order when he did that. Now, while most of this doesn't seem possible to many, what he did say concerning what he expected Custer to do, more or less clinches the matter on this one. He, Fredrick Benteen, after taking charge of the 7th U.S. Cavalry, before Custer was even dead, said that he, Benteen, "expected Custer to come back to him."
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Feb 10, 2011 8:47:47 GMT -5
Thank- you Mod but why in your opinion did Custer send Benteen WHEREVER HE SENT HIM ? And I'm not being a jerk, but could you tell me in one sentence,please ? Is it because there were valleys and there could be Indians ? I think that is what you are saying . In other words Custer was doing his job as honestly and thoroughly as he knew how and Benteen was the bad guy ? Something like that ?
|
|
|
|
Post by moderator on Feb 10, 2011 10:19:13 GMT -5
I think if you're looking for quote, "good guys & bad guys" you wont find them. However if you're looking for evidence of what may have happened according to what the participants said without cherry picking the evidence to slant the view to what you or someone else believes, it is there. And you will note that I did say that Benteen didn't lie, something that others claim he did, even those who without reservation, wholeheartedly support him.
If you're looking for evidence to convict Custer for dereliction of duty, you wont find that in the evidence either. What you will find is their thoughts on what should have been done, not abject criticism of what Custer did do. And no, I never said that Custer was doing "his job as honestly and thoroughly as he knew how", those were Benteen's statements, concerning his orders, according to his own words at the COI, not mine.
And not to forget your request about the one liner you requested. I don't do one liners, its too theatrically staged and something that Bill Cosby does at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas , not me. I don't have an opinion on why he sent Benteen, where he sent him, because Benteen in his own words, at the COI, perfectly described that mission to the Court. He told the court that Custer sent him on that mission "to look up some Indians", he also told him, according to Benteen himself at that same court that Custer wanted him to "Pitch into them" And finally, you go to that country, where supposedly he was sent from, and tell anyone that you could go any direction from there for 8 miles without hitting a "valley" and see what they will tell you, one of which will be the pronoun you use for your nickname here. Benteen assuredly had a way of ruffling Custer's feathers, because just as that mission was getting under way Custer had to send 2 clarification of orders to Benteen, ever wonder why? Interestingly enough, Benteen provided the answers to why he sent those two couriers to him, one of which was to correct the location from "the bluffs" he was being sent to, and change it to "the valley" beyond those bluffs. Now why should Custer do that? Was it because Benteen took every order literrally and wouldn't attack the Indians if they weren't on "the bluffs", but instead were in "the valley" beyond it? Heads up here, Custer knew this guy better than we ever did, no matter how cantankerous he was, no commander should have had to do what Custer did to clarify that order, It should have been obvious, if he, Benteen had found any Indians in the direction he was traveling, it should have been a given that he pitch into them, which was exactly what Custer had ordered him to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Feb 10, 2011 10:45:24 GMT -5
Thanks Mod but I'm just as much a Canucklehead as I'm Crazy.You could be nice and throw that in once a while.However did did Benteen send couriers back to ask Custer for clarification of orders (I don't think he did) or had Custer sent the two couriers to make sure Benteen did his job ? If Benteen went left as requested why does Custer send couriers to tell Benteen to keep going when he already has gone .Does he expect Benteen not to look ?
|
|
