I hear tell....

[tbw]

that Lt. Wallace was a liar.

[joewiggs]

He was. I honestly believe that his intentions although misguided were at least understandable. Why Wallace did lie may be better understood once we peruse the historical circumstances he operated under. The Army that confronted the Sioux/Cheyenne village was but a shadow of their predecessors, the Civil War Army. At the time of the Civil war, the ranks were swollen with men determined to defend their Country and what it stood for. When the war finally ended, these men returned home to their previous employment and homes. Left behind were the dregs of society led by a shrunken Officer's Class that remained; professional soldiers (as was Custer) who assimilated into army life en Toto.

The new Army was ill-trained, consisted of foreigners (Irish/German) who could not find employment elsewhere, seekers of gold who deserted quickly, young men extracting themselves from pregnant young wives, and, generally speaking, the scourge of society.

After the debacle that became the Battle of the Little Big Horn, the idea of '"savage aboriginals" defeating the military of the greatest Nation of the world was simple unacceptable. In this contemporaneous era of political correctness, we forget that the society of the nineteenth century was extremely racist and were very comfortable with this ideology..

The hierarchy of the military that sent Custer to his death consisted of individuals who may have been the most racist individuals of their times. Does the statement, "the only goof Indian I ever met was dead" ring a bell? It was they who firmly believed that a handful of "white" soldiers could bring the Sioux to their knees. It was this same hierarchy that filtered down information to certain members of the 7th. to inform them that it was necessary to do two things:

a. Let sleeping dogs lie - Custer and his men, witnesses to what actually happened, were dead and could not speak out.

b. If those men who perished (Custer's Command) were reckless, utilized no plans, and disobeyed orders, all blame could be passed upon their shoulders thus, exonerating the military and its leadership in the process.

Also, on a more mundane and personal level, promotion in the army of that era was depended upon the recommendation of you superior more than actual worth. In other words, you could remain a Lt. for twenty years or achieve higher rank by being subservient to your superiors.

Wallace regretted his action later.

[tbw]

Exemplary post. And it demonstrated perfectly the pathway taken by the army and the Grant administration after the disaster along the LBH. The Grant administration was rife with scandal and corruption and could ill afford another. And if there was one thing Grant, Sheridan and Sherman were all good at was army matters, and this one wasn’t going to go the direction the others did, and it didn’t. It was the one scandal during the Grant administration that should have happened that didn’t, because it did happen. And you got to love it when they did what every politician today does today, “damn shame, nope, don’t know what happened, but it was a damned shame.” You betcha they knew what happened. And it wouldn’t be difficult to prove Custer “reckless”, “disobedient”, or concealing his intentions when “nearly in contact with the enemy”.

As the name “Wallace” suggest, his background most certainly was Scots or perhaps even Irish. And one supposes that there are those out there who know exactly so I wont elaborate further there than to say that his forbearers gave no opportunity to him than to come to America and allow him to join the army also where advancement as you state would of course be preferable and desirable than always tending PLO (permanent latrine orderly) duties for those above you. Of course there are those who love to quote chapter, verse and prose concerning his lovely 1877 diatribe concerning timing, tripe and tea times during the LBH expedition. Quite naturally, his office would be an important one in attending to the correct timing in association with all things during that expedition, including that battle. And as it turned out his timing was skewed throughout from beginning to end, especially concerning the battle and that days events; this in keeping with the prime directive of proving Custer “reckless”, “disobedient”, and/or concealing his intentions when “nearly in contact with the enemy”. And like all, even he just wanted it to go away or as you put it, to “let sleeping dogs lie,” after all Custer and his men’s death did ultimately accomplish what they wanted, and it wasn’t just hollow words to the elite, but hallowed words to lead to the extermination of an entire race, “the only good Indian is a dead one”. A phrase coined by none other than?

That we today cannot see or fail to see this extreme prejudice and refuse to believe what happened under that prejudicial banter back in 1876, then we are no better than those who proclaim genocide upon others and fail to recognize it for what it is today. Today that hierarchy flows in reverse. And they filter this information up so that we today believe that whatever supremacy was should have been and is today, and should remain. Whether their racial purity extends from that which others foreign to our shores first did perpetrate or not, the result is still the same, the purpose is still the same, and the propaganda still the same.

Those comfortable with this ideology today are no different than those who perpetrated the scandal after the LBH disaster. They still today cannot bring themselves to terms that “the greatest Nation of the world” was militarily and soundly defeated upon the field of battle by “savage aboriginals” at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. And after realizing this know that something was wrong about what was said by the participants, about they way in which it was conducted, and about the way in which it was investigated, and last but certainly not the least, covered up - white washed, and swept under the rug by those in the know, of which Lt. Wallace was but one.

[joewiggs]

I sometimes find it utterly amazing how a few people will go to extreme lengths to establish a theory in which General Custer was the epitome of incredulous idiocy. For example, sometime ago I had the misfortune to engage an individual in a debate regarding the negative and positive attributes of Custer's personality, life, and credibility as a military man.

At one point, I referred to Custer's education at the prestigious military academy located at West Point. My purpose in doing so was to point out that an educated man/woman afforded the opportunity to attend such an outstanding institution must, at the least, have something on the ball.

This individual responded with the venom of an outrageous rattler hell bent on revenge, that West Point was a sub-par school incapable of preparing men for war or anything else for that matter. My interpretation of the statement made by this person is extremely mild in comparison to what was actually said.

In actuality, the education received at the Point was as good as or better than other major universities in the Country. Perhaps more so as discipline and drill was the standard of achievement there.

Apparently, there are some individuals so determined to despoil the reputation and life of the General they will say anything to demean his worth as a human being valueless. Individuals of this character are mis-led by their own personal animosity which prevents "truth" from being manifested to the general population, let alone themselves. Custer was neither a saint nor an idiot. He was a man who led other men for better and worst. What man, other than the Savior, was perfect?

[tbw]

I sometimes find it utterly amazing how a few people will go to extreme lengths to establish a theory in which General Custer was the epitome of incredulous idiocy. For example, sometime ago I had the misfortune to engage an individual in a debate regarding the negative and positive attributes of Custer's personality, life, and credibility as a military man.

At one point, I referred to Custer's education at the prestigious military academy located at West Point. My purpose in doing so was to point out that an educated man/woman afforded the opportunity to attend such an outstanding institution must, at the least, have something on the ball.

This individual responded with the venom of an outrageous rattler hell bent on revenge, that West Point was a sub-par school incapable of preparing men for war or anything else for that matter. My interpretation of the statement made by this person is extremely mild in comparison to what was actually said.

In actuality, the education received at the Point was as good as or better than other major universities in the Country. Perhaps more so as discipline and drill was the standard of achievement there.

Apparently, there are some individuals so determined to despoil the reputation and life of the General they will say anything to demean his worth as a human being valueless. Individuals of this character are mis-led by their own personal animosity which prevents "truth" from being manifested to the general population, let alone themselves. Custer was neither a saint nor an idiot. He was a man who led other men for better and worst. What man, other than the Savior, was perfect?

Again an excellent post, Joe.

What many who take up the pen or the computer key fail to do is realize that the prejudice behind their words blinds them to the truth that they seek. Whether that be idolizing men like Custer or hating him. A true professional cannot allow themselves to be sucked into that vaccum. And this is why some today criticize those professionals who have ventured too far from their own fields of specialty into area's where others thought they ought not to go. But such boldness on the part of those professionals who have strayed into other areas of endeavor other than their own field of specialty, have perhaps given us more to consider than if they had chosen to keep it to themselves.

There is no doubt that Custer's reputations was greatly affected by his loss, and is still to this day the butt of many a joke in association with that loss. But it is through ignorance that this is proclaimed and maintained. There are many people who can't see it any other way, quite simply because they cannot broaden the scope of their horizons and see beyond their petty biases and hero worships to include that which was quite simply true or not true. And in their topsy turvy world they see it 'simple - straight forward', read it 'simple - straight forward', and never think to look for the myriad small things that make huge differences in the way one could perceive a difference in the complicated outcomes. In other words for over 130 years every one has been trying to put a square block into a round hole. And in doing so they keep having to trim the edges to make it fit, which by anyone's definiton means that they have 'cheated', 'lied' and debased the whole issue into the myth that it has become.

A case in point here serves to illustrate the issue. Walter Camp in his famous interviews with the Native Americans, tried time and time again to prove through his questions that Custer went to Ford "B". And the way the questions were asked of the Indians, it didn't allow them the freedom to choose another ford. This so ingrained into the conciousness of the whole that ford "B" became the locus where everything happened, everything was supposed to have happened, and everything should have happened, that today, no one can get past the idea and notion that it didn't happen.

Another earth shattering myth was Cedar Coulee. Today it is the focus of many because of John Gray's work. But that coulee actually played no significant part in the battle at all. Nor was it in actuality any significant place where any event took place other than where perhaps one of Custer's company's passed through on their way towards their rendevous with death on down stream.

And in the case of Custer Field itself, everyone focus's upon 'where they died', which does not tell us anything else. It doesn't tell us of their maneuvers there, it doesn't tell us of what the Indians did to place the 'end' of battle there, all it tells one is that's where the battle for those who died there at that particular spot happened. And it doesn't tell us the sequence in which that happened. Whether one position fell before another, or they all fell at the same moment in time.

And yet, through all of this, we have those self proclaimed, so called 'experts' like you've stated above Joe, who can berate Custer and the Point, Chastize both and prove nothing of signifance to refute, deny or say that this Nation's proudest traditional institutions, and it's leaders are what? That is not someone I personally would want to have anything to do with. I may not hold with some of the things George A. Custer did, nor what some of our leaders today are doing. Like you said Joe, he was no Christ figure, and those today are certainly not either. But that is not a reason to denigrate them, nor is it reason to denigrate the institutions which teach our soldiers to go overseas and defend our shores, our very lives from those who would harm us.

[melani]

Wallace may have been of Scots-Irish descent, but his family was by no means on the bottom rung of society. The immigrant ancestor arrived in 1773, and by the time George was born in 1849, the family was quite prosperous and active in politics. Here's the house where he was born:



(Humor me, guys, I just figured out how to resize things in Photobucket )

Not too shabby--in fact, maybe a somewhat higher social level than the Custers in Ohio. His dad was a loyalist Republican, even elected to Congress after the war, which meant that he wasn't too popular with his South Carolina neighbors during and after the war, to the point where he eventually moved away. But that is probably also what got the political influence to secure George's appointment to West Point, which, as you pointed out, was as good a higher education as was available in the country.

So I don't think he was desperate for promotion in the same way as an Irish famine refugee would have been, and probably had possibilities other than the Army for a career.

Everybody lied at the RCOI. It was definitely a cover-up and excuse-fest. The Army was up for funding, and the country was tired of war after the Recent Unpleasantness, and didn't want to hear about it. The last thing the Army wanted was a really good examination of what had to be a major screw-up by everybody involved, so scapegoating was the order of the day. Custer was in command, after all, and so ultimately responsible, not to mention dead and unable to discuss the matter. We will never really know what orders he actually gave, though they probably had something to do with what was reported. But whether or not he was clear about his plans is anybody's guess. It seems to me that it would be totally nuts not to have told the other battalion commanders what he had in mind, at least to some degree.

I think maybe the problem could have been timing--Custer probably thought it would be easy to ride into the other side of the village and create the kind of chaos that he did at Washita, but it wasn't, and everything took too long. Reno probably was facing the 800-900 warriors he described, at least before they turned around and went after Custer, and that was much too big a bite for him to chew for very long. Tactics is not my strong point, so I really don't know if he could have held out longer than he did, or whether it would have been two battalions wiped out if he had tried.

I haven't really analyzed Wallace's testimony on timing, and so can't really comment intelligently, but there seems to be agreement that at least his watch was off, if nothing else. One more thing on my reading list.

Reno was unpopular and drank too much, so hey, guys, let's hang the blame on him--but not too much, after all, he is a brother officer. None of us look that good in this one.

I agree that Custer was neither a saint nor an idiot. He had good reasons, based on past experience, to think he could pull this off, but--he REALLY should have scouted that village first.

[tbw]

Very nice photo Melani.

I tried to edit your "Washita" message as requested. I think I have things worked out for now. For some reason when I reworked the settings it didn't reset the word, so I edited it for you.

[Note to other members there was nothing offensive or wrong with Melani's post, she requested that I correct a missive in our Files, which I did. When it didn't autocorrect the word in question, I edited it for her.]

A very nice post to go along with that photo too. Some very good observations. Although I would admit that some I don't agree with, but then that's the nature of this beast isn't it? Thanks
Admin

[tbw]

Actually Melani,

I agreed with everything you said, and thought it all very-very good, except one point, that last comment.

"I agree that Custer was neither a saint nor an idiot. He had good reasons, based on past experience, to think he could pull this off, but--he REALLY should have scouted that village first."

I believe that this is one of those myths that is rarely exposed to the light of truth. For it was a time filled with scouting reports.

Hare had returned and had reported to Custer. So too had Varnum who in his reports to the COI indicated what he had observed an hour previously. Neither of these men were asked at the Court what they reported to the General, or whether they did or not, but rest assured, they did. It was their duty to do so, and don't think for a moment that Custer would have let them gotten off without reporting. It wasn't his style.

Custer also had Girard's knoll-side report of the village and fleeing Indians. And he had asked prior to his arrival at the tepee about 1 mile from the river of an Indian guide what that "dust was up ahead". And the Indian guide gave him his opinion. Not only this but Custer had a trusted guides word, Bouyer, that there was more Indians there than he thought they could handle. And that list goes on and on.

Now take all of this "intelligence" place it into proper perspective and tell me, what he didn't know.

1) Did he know where the Indian village was?
2) Did he know the size of that village? (Think Bouyer, Varnum)
3) Did he know how he was going to attack it?
4) If he knew how he was going to attack it, would he not have let those under him know that?
5) Why would they then after his death not fess up to that truth?

PS: Thank you very much for re-sizing that photo. There is nothing more irritating than to try to scroll through endless post to try to read them because of some oversized photo. A job well done Melani, Thank You.

[melani]

Well, now we come to the question of why Custer apparently ignored Bouyer's comment about too many Indians--and whether or not he was more clear to the battalion commanders than they afterwards reported. Maybe it comes down to Custer expecting the Indians to run rather than fight?

Clearly there was more than one screw-up by more than one person, and I have come to believe that we can't hang all the blame on anybody--not even poor old Reno, bad as he may have looked. I think I want to sit down and think about his options while in the valley and the timber. It's been pointed out that in a number of other engagements, such as Beecher's Island, the soldiers managed to hold off huge numbers of Indians for extended periods, but it has also been pointed out that the weaponry was different at LBH. One of my favorite ironies is that Reno was part of the board that selected single-shot Springfields, in the interest of fire control--and then at LBH didn't appear to have much of any.

[tbw]

A very good discussion here shaping up.

Well, now we come to the question of why Custer apparently ignored Bouyer's comment about too many Indians--and whether or not he was more clear to the battalion commanders than they afterwards reported. Maybe it comes down to Custer expecting the Indians to run rather than fight?

I'm not too sure that he did "ignore Bouyer's comments". I think we tend to filter these statements through those "others" that have made similar statements, like Benteen's, who stated much the same. But Custer's actions and the orders, even as we understand, them seem to indicate something different than that "belief". On the sheer basis of Benteen's orders, and what we can percieve of them, it seemed like Custer wanted him to "pitch in" or attack someplace. These orders came not long after leaving the divide, and thus not long after leaving the Crows Nest. Then we have Reno's further orders again to "attack" something, this occuring again not long after sending Benteen on his mission. He then high tails it according to the men who survived from his battalion down stream, "going at a gallop all the way" according to one. And another saying that he never "stopped". Clearly something was believed by Custer. And it was "believed" by him as early as when he sent Benteen.

Clearly there was more than one screw-up by more than one person, and I have come to believe that we can't hang all the blame on anybody--not even poor old Reno, bad as he may have looked. I think I want to sit down and think about his options while in the valley and the timber. It's been pointed out that in a number of other engagements, such as Beecher's Island, the soldiers managed to hold off huge numbers of Indians for extended periods, but it has also been pointed out that the weaponry was different at LBH. One of my favorite ironies is that Reno was part of the board that selected single-shot Springfields, in the interest of fire control--and then at LBH didn't appear to have much of any.

I too like that last "irony". I bet he was cussing himself all the way up that hill that day, or kicking himself for not advancing the idea of the Cavarly using the Winchester or the Henry. As for "his blame", it would entirely be what exactly his orders were. And I for one don't believe it was what he said they were.

[joewiggs]

Custer ignored Boyer no doubt. Boyer was dealing with a very defined reality;Indians who chose not to confront troopers were not cowards nor necessarily intimidated. Custer, apparently, was involved in a different reality that sold him a "bill of goods." The refusal of the Indian to do so was very logical and rational, why loose lives unnecessarily when their communities were mobile and capable of instantaneous escape? Land could not be owned by individuals therefore there was no need to "protect" territory so dominate with the European culture.

Unfortunately for the military of that era, they misconstrued these actions as a sort of "inferiorly" that prompted the warriors to flee chaos whenever the "pony soldiers" approached.

The battle of the Rosebud and the battle of the Little bighorn clearly defined the error of their ways. Custer was convinced that a large village would disperse in panic equally as well as a large village, hence his predisposition to ignore his trusted scout.

[tbw]

I believe that this is another one of those often misquoted, and misconstrued statements that was never clarified. I also believe that this "disbelief" was nothing more than the 'practical joke' that blossomed into that fable that it now is.

From the Book "Custer's Chief of Scouts", page 88.

Picking up from where I left off in the 'review' that I presented...

"He sent Tom back and rode to the Crow Nest with me. I reported to him all I had seen and what the Crows claimed to have seen." [Now stop right here. What had Varnum seen, and what had the Crows claimed to have seen? Think of this, again the marksmanship of a good Scout, which Varnum was, he didn't let these observations go, he reported them!] "We climbed to the crest of the hill and the Genl. talked with the Crows thru Boyer. The General finally said, "I have got mighty good eyes and I can see no Indians," and Boyer replied, "If you can't find more Indians in that valley than you ever saw together before you may hang me." The General replied, "It would do a damn sight of good to hang you, wouldn't it?" That was the second time I ever heard Custer use such an expression, the other being in an Indian fight in 1873."

Of course one may interpret this as one sees fit. But then one supposes that after a long night march with little to no sleep many a word may have been misconstrued for the intent in which it was used, for example, "would" and "wouldn't" being exchanged produces what? Then again, Custer was known for his practical joking, which is what that was. He coud ill afford to loose the confidence of his most trusted Guide and Scout at that time.

To say that he didn't believe Bouyer, also meant that he didn't believe what Varnum had observed. And "It would do a damn sight of good to hang "him", wouldn't it?"

[joewiggs]

Another problem with deciding if Custer was a boob or not is failing to realize that Custer's lack of recognizance had nothing to do with the out come of the battle. Is is assumed that if he knew the actual number of warriors he had to face, he would have about faced and did an "exit, stage left." That is an assumption based upon the mind-set of contemporaneous thinkers who, rightly I might add, believe that poor Custer duped himself and his men by failing to realize the odds he was about to encounter.

I am convinced that this was absolutely not the case. His assumed, meager attempt at recognizance was for one purpose and one purpose only; to ensure any avenue of escape by the village was covered.

Malanie hits a point when she referred to the mis-guided mind-set of not only Custer, but the military hierarchy itself. From the General of the Army to the rawest recruit on Company I, everyone was convinced that any single segment of the proposed three-prong attack was capable of success on it's own merit. While this thought appears to be ludicrous to the modern mind it was absolute truth to the ethnocentric thought patterns of the nineteenth century military. Hence the hue and cry followed by the total military and public astonishment created by the battle that exist to this very day to this very day.

Prior to the Rosebud, no Indian attack had ever compromised such a large force! as commanded by Crook. Rather than realizing the horrible truth that the Sioux and Cheyenne were capable of rendering such a mighty blow, Crook chose to ignor this reality and pretend that he actually sent the Indians fleeing.

This inexcusable belief and his failure to notify the other two military segments were inexcusable and set Custer up for the fall. In a different set of circumstances, Terry and Gibson may have met up with the Sioux and fell victim to the same fate as Custer. Then all of us would be arguing the audacity and stupidity of Terry to engage so many Indians while exclaiming that Custer (who would have survived) been court marshaled by his decision to follow orders and continue south leaving Terry to his fate. History is, at the least, ironic.

[tbw]

Now how can one argue with that line of reasoning? ;D

I always wondered why Crook never told of his defeat. The truth of the matter is, he did. I read somewhere a while back that either Sheridan or Sherman had recieved word prior to Custer's departure down the Rosebud. That if he had acted quickly he very well could have informed Terry of Crooks defeat in time to have averted the disaster that befell Custer. Again one of those "slip ups" that was costly. I'll have to dig that one out and see if I can find it.

What I liked about your last post Joe is the "alternative" thought process. The "what if" proposal if Custer had supposedly kept on going instead of following the known Indian trail. I am not too sure, but I think Terry's smaller force may have been able to have handled them. From my understanding of it, the Indians feared the "walking soldiers" ie. the Infantry soldiers. The question is: Why? If indeed they did fear them, more than they did the Cavalry, what would have been the result had Terry and Gibbon stumbled upon the Indian Camp first?

You may have accidently stumbled upon "Terry's Plan". It may very well have been Terry's intent to engage the Indians first with those vaunted Infantry that the Indians feared, along with those two gattlings. Now there's a thought to chew upon. Then when they ran south up the LBH, guess who would have been there waiting for them?

[joewiggs]

Exactly! On a sub-conscious level, we of the twentieth century have fallen prey to the same "mind-set" of our counter-parts of the Custer era; someone had to really screw up to enable a bunch of aboriginals to defeat the Calvary!

It is just as difficult now as it was over a hundred years ago to accept that a group of people whose culture was misunderstood, who were believed to be ignorant and, constantly referred to savages could defeat U.S. troops. There must be an explanation better suited to ego of the greatest Country upon the earth: Custer screwed up!

In doing so, dishonor and shame is placed upon the shoulders of one "dead" man thus, absolving the military(as a whole) of responsibility of conducting a foolish military, action. In summation, if a vain glory seeking, idiot had not attacked a village the size of Chicago (according to universal pundits) "we woudda" won. The fact that Custer was ordered by his superiors to make the attack,regardless of the village size, becomes lost in this hypothesis.

In my readings, I too, was left with the feeling that the Indians were terrified by the "Walking soldiers." In not one of those sources were reasons given for this fear!

Had Custer followed orders to a "T", the bodies of Terry's and Gibbon's commands would have been strewed about the place, as in death, would have been held responsible in life.