Will the real Custer please stand up!

[Cutter]

Then Custer would go back to station, Libbie would roll her eyes, as the General sat down at the writing table in a huff. She would then take her place by her general's side, while he wrote to right the wrong placed on him.....

[joewiggs]

And, in doing so, Custer would sadly realize a horrible truth of human nature; we create hero's only to destroy them.

[stumblingbear]

What I do not understand is why is there so much devision when it comes to whose fault the battle was. Didn't someone send the cavalry to fight the Indians in the first place? Secondly, I feel comfortable enough to ask questions. What a great forum.

[tbw]

This was one of those battles where every man in General Custer's immediate command was wiped out. None of them survived. There were only a handful who started out with him who did, and of those, only 1 actually went to the battlefield with him. And that was the Crow guide Curley. [This is the standard story, as it has been told for generations].

Curley and the language barrier imposed couldn't communicate exactly what happened in terms the white men wanted him to. Over the years he tried in various interviews to do so. But no one ever believed him. And thus the mystery and the myths grew about what happened to Custer and his men. The blame for this quite naturally rested upon the shoulders of those who survived. Namely his junior officers, Major Reno and Captain Benteen.

Custer had ordered Major Reno to attack the south end of the Indian village, while it was understood that he would try some kind of flanking move and hit them on the other side of the village. Captain Benteen had been ordered with his men off in a direction Benteen described as "left", with the same instructions he had given to Reno.

Reno attacked the village as ordered but his line didn't hold, and he retreated to the bluffs above the river. And some claim that he didn't maintain the position long enough for Custer to get downstream and help with that attack on the other end.

Benteen's "left" move has always been thought to mean to the left of the trail they were on. But as anyone knows 'left' isn't a direction unless it is referenced to something else. And whether or not it was the 'general direction' of the trail, the 'actual direction' at the time or some other possibility, isn't known.

To make a long story short. Reno was later brought up on charges from Captain Weir. Weir had led an attempt to find Custer shortly after Reno retreated to the bluffs. While there, Benteen happens along, suprise, surprise.

Weir's charges led to the Reno Court of Inquiry through a man by the name of Whittaker. But Weir died before the Court convened, had he not expired, we might not be here discussing this, and the truth already known. Needless to say without its star witness the Inquiry was little more than a snowball fight in July. And we still to this day don't know what happened or who was responsible for their deaths. Weir seemed to feel it was Major Reno, perhaps it was. Some feel it was Weir's captain, Captain Fredrick Benteen. Others feel it was Custers fault for various reasons. And it can get pretty heated as you've witnessed, i'm sure. The reasons for that is "because no one knows." Some feel they have all the answers. The awful truth is, they don't have a clue. Feigning knowledge one supposes empowers some of them, for the life of me, I don't know why. Lord knows i've tried to give opposing views, just to offset that kind of thinking, and back it up with some pretty convincing evidence. But instead of discouraging 'those in the know' it only encourages them. Instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt or people like me, who I still see do try, they argue until the proverbial 'hell freezes over' about the most minutist of detail. Usually, I find its a guy thing, as most gals usually take your stance on this. Perhaps when things go whacko they all need a good shot of hormones to get things back in balance. Either that or buy a case of valium and pass it around.

[melani]

Cute scenario of Custer's return, Dennis. I have often wondered why LBH generates such acrimony--I'm pretty sure people who are obsessed by Gettysburg, for example, don't go after each other the way Little Bighorn buffs do. (Though I'm not actually sure about that, now that I think about it--isn't there some controversy about Chamberlain's original report and his later account? Oops--forget I said that! Wouldn't want to start a new one!)

I think the anonymity of the internet has something to do with it--people who would never behave that way in person suddenly feel free to let out their inner jerk. Or maybe they're frustrated shut-ins and taking it out on people they've never actually met. Or maybe their lives just don't meet their expectations, and they're angry at the world.

When I met one particular member of the other forums in person at LBH, we got along great and had a wonderful time--then later that person proceeded to devote their online time to causing as much trouble as possible and generally being a jerk. I totally can't imagine why--unless maybe the controversy generates an adrenalin rush, or something.

Then we come to the idea of multiple identities. I think maybe most people enjoy pretending to be somebody else from time to time. I fulfill my need to be "not Melani" by performing living history--I've always wanted to time travel, and that's as close as I can come. And I say "performing" very deliberately--I do think of myself as an actress. Then I go home, and Melani has to wash the dishes and do the laundry. Much more fun to be an 18th century sailor or a Civil War artilleryman.

Stumblingbear, I notice that you are female, so I can't resist one more theory--testosterone poisoning. Excuse me, gentlemen, I know you don't all behave that way, but these boards do tend to attract more men than women, and a lot of ex- or active duty military as well, and I think that may account for some of the wild behavior. There is still, even in this age of equality, a lot of difference in gender socialization, and women tend to be more collaborative than confrontational. Not universally true, of course, but this is why mothers work so hard to get their sons to act civilized.

It's definitely the job of the moderator to keep all of this under control. My adult daughter is a member of several online forums, and after seeing some of the things that have gone on on the other LBH boards, she commented than anybody who behaved that way on one of her forums would have been banned immediately. The degree of tolerance for bad behavior has been exceptional. On the other hand, people shouldn't be too touchy--sometimes things that are seen only in print come out sounding a bit different than if they were said in person. I think we all know the difference between passion for the subject and downright nastiness.

[tbw]

See below......

[sonofacavalryman]

At the risk of appearing to be trying to sell books I will bring up another individual besides Curley who seemingly saw parts of the battle no one else did, that survived. I am referring to Private Peter Thompson.

I'm sure most of you are familiar with Daniel Magnussen's book "Peter Thompson's Narrative of the Little Bighorn Campaign, 1876". He titled it this way and then proceeded to fill the book with mostly his observations. I was dissatisfied with this book and Magnussen's negative view of almost everything Thompson had to say.

So, I wrote a book and removed most of Magnussen's comments except those I thought particularly germaine. It is titled "Thompson's Narrative of the Little Big Horn". What remains is Thompson's account with a few footnotes from my own research. One reader sent me a message saying "You have done a creditable job of rehabilitating the reputation of Peter Thompson". But actually his narrative, minus the constant negative comments of Magnussen speaks well of its self and I have no problem believing his account despite the criticism of other members of the 7th Cavalry. As a Vietnam War veteran I know each individual saw the war in a different light. So too those who fought at LBH.

The good new about this book is that it is quite reasonably priced in either hardback or paperback at my storefront: www.lulu.com/greenpheon7

Walt

[tbw]

To continue with my thoughts Melani on your excellent summation. And please do forgive my earlier misunderstanding.

Cute scenario of Custer's return, Dennis. I have often wondered why LBH generates such acrimony--I'm pretty sure people who are obsessed by Gettysburg, for example, don't go after each other the way Little Bighorn buffs do. (Though I'm not actually sure about that, now that I think about it--isn't there some controversy about Chamberlain's original report and his later account? Oops--forget I said that! Wouldn't want to start a new one!)

Well now that you mention it. It probably wasn’t Chamberlain’s finest hour. I think we should have this discussion, don’t you? You post it, lets see where it goes.

I think the anonymity of the internet has something to do with it--people who would never behave that way in person suddenly feel free to let out their inner jerk. Or maybe they're frustrated shut-ins and taking it out on people they've never actually met. Or maybe their lives just don't meet their expectations, and they're angry at the world.

When I met one particular member of the other forums in person at LBH, we got along great and had a wonderful time--then later that person proceeded to devote their online time to causing as much trouble as possible and generally being a jerk. I totally can't imagine why--unless maybe the controversy generates an adrenalin rush, or something.

I think you hit upon it Melani. This person feels safe sitting behind that screen being a jerk because no one knows who they are. Then you mix in the opposite extreme. Those who pry into affairs to find out who they are by IP addresses. The problem is, its usually the same people who are the jerks that do this! And to spice up their adrenalin poor existence and because their lives haven‘t met their expectations, in frustration, angry at the world, “why didn’t I think of that” - they take it out on people who as you put it “they've never actually met.”

Then we come to the idea of multiple identities. I think maybe most people enjoy pretending to be somebody else from time to time. I fulfill my need to be "not Melani" by performing living history--I've always wanted to time travel, and that's as close as I can come. And I say "performing" very deliberately--I do think of myself as an actress. Then I go home, and Melani has to wash the dishes and do the laundry. Much more fun to be an 18th century sailor or a Civil War artilleryman.

Ahhh… yes!!! Fantasy Island. Where did shows like that ever go? There just isn’t enough of those around anymore to satiate these poor souls. Also tv shows like the New Twilight Zone and the New Outer Limits also brought a side of serious fantasy into our lives, yet they to are sadly missing from our screens. Ideal for ‘shut-ins that need to explore their ‘dark side’. Again, it must be the insatiable need to further their inner idealism to satiate their outer limitations.

Stumblingbear, I notice that you are female, so I can't resist one more theory--testosterone poisoning. Excuse me, gentlemen, I know you don't all behave that way, but these boards do tend to attract more men than women, and a lot of ex- or active duty military as well, and I think that may account for some of the wild behavior. There is still, even in this age of equality, a lot of difference in gender socialization, and women tend to be more collaborative than confrontational. Not universally true, of course, but this is why mothers work so hard to get their sons to act civilized.

I can’t answer for Stumblingbear. But I couldn’t resist your testy remark, and was the stated reason for ‘hormone therapy’ I alluded to, for those who seek inner balance to do better good to our and their social needs to better forum communication. So what if they grow a few extra bumps in the process, perhaps they would then see the true way to enlightenment and lift the burden of their shame from their hearts to clear their minds from all worry about such nonsense.

It's definitely the job of the moderator to keep all of this under control. My adult daughter is a member of several online forums, and after seeing some of the things that have gone on on the other LBH boards, she commented than anybody who behaved that way on one of her forums would have been banned immediately. The degree of tolerance for bad behavior has been exceptional. On the other hand, people shouldn't be too touchy--sometimes things that are seen only in print come out sounding a bit different than if they were said in person. I think we all know the difference between passion for the subject and downright nastiness.

Couldn’t agree with you more here. And with all due respect and thanks to Joe, we all know it won’t happen here. We both agreed when we started this board that it would not happen. The free flow of expression, thoughts and ideas is what its all about as long as its done with decency and respect for those of us here, and in compliance with the TOS as stated when they join, there shouldn’t be any problems. The “touchy” feelings you mention, are a part of that on those ’other’ boards. And your correct, the issues there and others like them are not addressed properly. Therefore realizing that I’m not the best sometimes when trying to express myself. And I’m sure that it may have occurred here already. But it is as you say Melanie, for me or anyone else - ’it comes out sounding a bit different than if’ the person saying it was saying it in person. I would request that anyone, and I certainly do mean anyone, who has felt, or perhaps may feel this way about anything I may have posted here, or will post, or in the pm’s would tell me of their ’suspicions’ or ’touchiness’ to a particular word, phrase or sentence stated, I would certainly be most relieved to know and properly correct it rather than have bad feelings and relationships with the people that I have come to know as my friends. Please don’t be ’afraid’ to do this, I would rather know than let it simmer in the nether regions of someone’s mind and not know. This is the kind of person that I am. Perhaps I am touchy to some extent, or perhaps i'm sensitive not only to my own foibles and mistakes, but others as well. It may be wrong, or it simply may be mistaken compassion.

And your are right again Melanie. I think we all can recognize the difference between compassionate passion and dark passion. I certainly hope so anyway.

Finally, one other thing I forgot to address... "Military experience". While we all have had people in our lives, fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, aunts, uncles etc... in the service, or even ourselves. That doesn't mean that you know more about this battle than those that have not had military training or experience. It does NOT qualify you to come here and boast of it and say because you have had that training/experience, that gives you a certain right or privilege over others. Let me make this perfectly clear. It does not.

This is a battle that took place well over 130 years ago, its a part of 'history' and not current events. And many enthusiast have dedicated many years of independent reading and research on this battle who have not had military training or experience. They are as well qualified if not more so than those boasting of "military training and/or experience", and it is disruptive and insult to their intelligence to suggest otherwise.

In fact any experience, real or implied that is boastful and makes you feel more important than someone else here, is in most respects, disruptive and disrespectful to others who know better. The only ones who really may have any grasp at all on this are those who have authored books, do historical re-inactment, living history or B Troop, 4th U.S. Cavalry Regiment (Memorial). And I am prepared to stand corrected on this. Just don't push it to far. (Suggestions anyone?)

[tbw]

Walt, I saw that one and its on my list, thanks. I always like Peter Thompson's narrative. But hated the thought process behind the 'other' narrative. I'm sure its worth the read.

[stumblingbear]

Malani, I think you are just wonderful. Guy's don't mis-understand, you are wonderful too but, Malani is right. Women understand more deeply what occurred in this fight because we live with and are forced to understand the "ego's" of all men; regardless of race.

War is the off-spring of man. Peace is the dream of women!

[joewiggs]

Stumblingbear, with all respect, not all men are war mongers. Unfortunately, war is often necessary and unavoidable. When this occurs, it is a good thing to have "men" to fight it.

[melani]

Walt, I am currently reading your Peter Thompson, and so far, it seems pretty unvarnished, with primarily explanatory footnotes. Of course, I've only made it to June 24...Gerry piqued my interest in the guy by portraying him--I knew Gerry online, but met him in person when I saw a cavalryman in full uniform roaming around the Seventh Ranch Campground one evening. He spent the evening telling me everything he knew about Peter Thompson, which is considerable, and more than I could remember at one sitting. So I am happy to have his account in writing.

[stumblingbear]

I was always under the impression that Thompson was considered, by many, to have greatly exaggerated his accounts. So much so that he has been pretty much disregarded as a source of information. Perhaps I've been wrong. My interest has been piqued so much, by you guys, that I'm going to order a copy of your book Walt!

[joewiggs]

According to Camp, Thompson spoke the truth regarding some of his activities but, stretched the truth, infinitely, when describing other events.

[joewiggs]

Another arrogant quality charged to Custer's account is his need/greed to rush into battle and, thereby, gather all the wonderful glory for himself. For example, every one knows that Terry had a planned junction date when the two prongs would arrive in conjunction on June 26, right?
Wrong!:

'the concept of a joint operation may well be summed up and rendered moot for all time by a June 20, 1876 entry inot the diary of Lt. Bradley of the Second Cavalry, Gibbon's Chief of Scouts:

"With reference to a combined movement between the two columns in the neighborhood of the Sioux village about the same time and assist each other in the attack, it is understood that if Custer arrives first, he is at the liberty to attack at once if he deems it prudent. We have little hope of being in on the death, as Custer will undoubtedly exert himself to the utmost to get there first and win laurels for himself and his regiment."

This clearly tells us that Custer was expected to attack first and like all commanders of his era and the present, he desired "laurels" for his command and himself.

Terry's own views of the "plan" of a rendezvous and coordinated attack on June 26 certainly does not suggest this:

"I had no idea where I would find the Hostiles, which of my two forces, if any would engage them, and how we would fight them if we did in fact and engage the Hostiles."
A.H. Terry Nov. 21, 1876

Simple stated the grand plan was this, whichever unit found the Sioux, it could handle them, then and there!
Some plan, a miserable one in which Custer receive the blamefor it total failure.