Will the real Custer please stand up!

[moderator]

CC,

Sure they exist, its just that you refuse to believe it. All of this was done at the Crows Nest, and likewise reported to Custer by his scouts in circumstance, Bloody Knife, Bouyer & Varnum, else why send them there, why go anywhere near there himself? And the basis of your "belief" is based upon?

[tbw]

And now for my 2nd act

CC,

You will note that I said in post #52: "If CC can breathe life into his thesis by providing new or perhaps some unheard evidence, I'm all for it, and more than willing to listen." A while back you were told about being catechized. That word "catechize" was a direct reference to what Custer told Benteen, a fact you well knew. Most people quite simply don't get it, and evidently, neither did you.

catechize - dictionary explanation:

1. teach somebody about Christianity: to instruct somebody in the basic principles of the Christian religion using questions and answers
2. interrogate somebody: to question somebody closely, e.g. in an examination or interrogation...

Interrogate - dictionary explanation:

question somebody thoroughly: to question somebody thoroughly, often in an aggressive or threatening manner…

catechism: Wikipedia...

Catechisms have, historically, typically followed a dialogue or question-and-answer format. This format calls upon two parties to participate, a master and a student (traditionally termed a "scholar"), a parent and a child.

These catechisms were/are to instruct/lecture the "student"/"child" in the disciplines of morals of their faith. So when when Custer used that term it said volumes about their relationship. The short answer here being "lecture", but Custer didn't use that term because it was incomplete in the description he wished to convey to Benteen. Custer was telling Benteen that he didn't need to be looked down upon - as a "student"/"child" to be lectured by him in the disciplines of morality. The examination of which Custer felt Benteen was being too aggressive and threatening in tone and temperament especially in front of his men.

An Article of Faith:

"A fact is something that is true or false and an opinion is what somebody believes to be true not backed with facts."

The first, "a fact", is the mission and purpose of anyone who wants to understand this battle. And is the mission and purpose of any forum so dedicated to the same. The 2nd "an opinion" by your own definition is an article of faith and thus subject to moral challenge.

Article of Faith #1:

"I think Custers follies should be exposed, so that people can learn,change ,be more open minded and correct themselves if they see fit."

Article of Faith #2:

"Satire wants to expose vices or follies,ideas,individuals like yourself,myself,it's too late for Custer but not others."

Article of Faith #3:

"He never did answer about Custers total disregard for Reno being sent down the valley where no one not even Custer knew when and where the support would come from..."

Article of Faith #4:

"Maybe it just is so plainly obvious of Custers blunders people are looking to blame others for intellectual entertainment when the blame is in front of there noses. Don't want to pick on a dead man syndrome kick."

Article of Faith #5:

"Just my opinion mind you."

Article of FAith #6:

"Hear my words that I might teach you "

Need I continue?

I don't need, nor do I desire to be catechized by you. And I think I can speak for the rest of the membership here regarding the same. I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to state an opinion and then let it go if no one responds, or if in their own faith replies. Sure go ahead and debate whether God exists or not, as you well know, it goes nowhere, serves no useful purpose and only serves to disrupt and inflame. But to keep repeating that faith based mantra over and over and over again and again is insulting, threatening and too aggressive for my liking. A fact you now know all too well.

If you'd like to put a little meat on those opinions, someone may chew the bone. But if you keep throwing that putrid, rotten crap, with no tendons attached to the bone, to the lions hoping they'll consume it, don't count on it.

[crazycanuck]

I can't see how Custer knew exactly what Reno was riding into ? Did he know of the ditch ? Did he know the exact layout of the camp ? If he did where did he see it all from, the Crow's Nest,that's along ways to see around corners and over bluffs and teepees close up to the river with the bluff extensions. ? The basis of my belief is Custer didn't have the details(did he?) , because he didn't think he needed them because of his preconceived ideas about Indians and fighting. I'm going to try hard to believe what you are saying that Custer knew all the details a leader needs to know before he attacks a village of that size and he picked this info up from the Crow's Nest ( I think that is what you are saying). I will do the research and get back to you. I will start at the Crow's Nest.

[crazycanuck]

I can't see how Custer knew exactly what Reno was riding into ? Did he know of the ditch ? Did he know the exact layout of the camp ? If he did where did he see it all from, the Crow's Nest,that's along ways to see around corners and over bluffs and teepees close up to the river with the bluff extensions. ? The basis of my belief is Custer didn't have the details(did he?) , because he didn't think he needed them because of his preconceived ideas about Indians and fighting. I'm going to try hard to believe what you are saying that Custer knew all the details a leader needs to know before he attacks a village of that size and he picked this info up from the Crow's Nest ( I think that is what you are saying). I will do the research and get back to you. I will start at the Crow's Nest.

[crazycanuck]

I'm speechless ,stunned ,shocked but I will be fine. Have a nice day.

[Cutter]

Wow, y'all been busy. Need to catch up.

[joewiggs]

Feb 20, 2011 11:32:32 GMT -5 crazycanuck said:

How is this for some wind ? Cooke says be quick once and bring packs twice in note which indicates to me that Custer was thinking "I Custer don't really need your manpower over here that quickly Benny and Dougy, only the firepower packs, so when you guys get here, just give me the packs, and go sit over there on that knoll, and watch an admire, as I Custer take care of this village with a patented Custer move and don't stand in front of Kellog and blocked his view ". Was the 25th a bright sunny day or was that the golden luster radiating off of Custers brigthness and greatness ? Probably both, I quess that is debateable as well.. hmmm bright day,radiation off of Custers greatness or both ?

CC, I'm begging to understand you a bit better as time rolls on. You appear to possess an unvarying distaste for Custer that defies my personal sense of rationality I am not attempting to demean you with this stance because you are certainly entitled to feel and believe in "truth" as you see it. Your perspectives should be acknowledged and respected with an equivalency of understanding as any other poster. However, your views should also be recognized for what they truly seem to be at times;contemptuous.

In the name of acceptance and understandy would it not behoove you to assist the rest of the forum in understanding exactly (or as closely as possible) the true meaning of your seemingly derisive posts aimed at George Custer. Absolute and continuous denigration of Custer sans facts and/or probable cause is too reminiscent of another individual who resides on another forum who happens to be the epitome of dark and cloudy arrogance.

For example, your interpretation of Custer's written order, "I Custer do not really need your manpower" is bizarre at best and delusional at worst. Since you can not possibly know what Custer was thinking, a source for your interpretation would be very helpful.

None of Custer's "moves" were patented. They were the product of training at one of the most prestigious academies in our Nation and the accumulation of experience in one of the the most ferocious and bloody wars this Country has ever encountered.

Finally, sarcasm is, sometimes, amusing and acceptable when distributed in small dozes but, overwhelming when used excessively.

[Cutter]

Seems to me there's a reincarnated Benteen.

[stumblingbear]

I think you have a very good point! So much animosity.

[joewiggs]

The members of this board are some of the finest representatives of this genre of research to date. Now that CC understands our commitment to fairness and equity, let us re-welcome his future input regarding the participants of this battle!

[whitebull]

CC,

like you, I believe Custer is not my picture of perfection. In fact, he done made mistakes in this battle that may have put everybody in a snag. But, the man was no way the imbecile you make him out to be. Can you meet us half way partner?

[joewiggs]

I would like to add another belated thought regarding Custer's personality. I believe him to have been one of those rare breeds that receive immense pleasure from combat. Like all of us, their is a certain thrill like an electrical charge that coursed through our bodies when we drop down the incline of a Roller coaster at 55 m.p.h. Now take the related thrill that accompanies that drop and raise to the 3rd. power; you get Custer mounted on a powerful steed speeding toward an entrenched enemy with pointed bayonets.

Add a second factor, the rewards, acclamations, and celebrity status he achieved thanks to his remarkable Civil War record and you have a very contented and happy man respected and honored by superiors and peers alike.

Now, jump forward to a time when the achievement of rank was virtually non-existent, recognition hard to come by, and Indian fighting nothing better than a continuous chase from one end of the Country to another. Now you have dissatisfied Custer, who was prone to be moody and unsympathetic to those under him as he vainly sought another, magnificent victory to re-create the glory he so sorely missed.

During the Civil War soldiers would have died for him, during the Indian war soldiers called him "Ole Iron Butt."

It was the second Custer that died at the Little Big Horn while the other Custer is admired as a true American Hero by many and detested by some.

[tbw]

Joe,

I think you bring up a crucial fact that remains hidden within your text. In the years after the Civil War, through the early years of WWI, the army was in a long period of transition. Virtually every facet was in transition. Like most transitions, there is an early phase when they didn't realize the need for such transitions: The need to update and modernize, especially back then. Quickly fading was the old military thought of 'saving ammo', yet the Secretary of War wouldn't approve of the Winchester or the Henry for use in our armed services at that time because he thought it would cause the men to waste to much ammunition. It wasn't so much that the old Trapdoor was so much better in range and power as it was, that it wouldn't waste ammunition as much. Many cite that Reno was part of the testing of the weapons, but the final decision rested with the Secretary of War, and he wasn't about to approve of those weapons that wasted that ammunition, and, he didn't! In less than 25 to 30 years, nations around the world would be developing newer and smaller versions of the Gatling gun and forever put to rest the notion of saving bullets for lives. The names Maxim, Vickers, Browning, Ripley and Skoda would all prove the Secretary of War wrong, and sadly someone had the pay the early price, and unfortunately it didn't just happen at the LBH either. So when I see someone criticize Custer for the disaster that befell him, it makes me respond the way I do, as it wasn't entirely his fault. It rested entirely upon the shoulders of the people who sent him there. They sent him there to do the job with inadequate weaponry that can be and should be cited each and every time. The Trapdoor Carbine wasn't an excellent weapon when compared with the Winchester's and Henry's. If given the choice today, and you had to defend your homes against an invader and you had only those three to chose from, which ONE would you choose? And if you'd say the Trapdoor, I'd say, yeah right, and how many Kalishnikov's would it take to kill you? ONE?

Many were the causes for the failures that day so long ago. But to blame it entirely upon one man, especially Custer is ludicrous. No one ever rationalizes why all their timing efforts goes awry. Why do they have to, quote, "pick and choose"? Why do we have to believe their efforts, when others have said differently? Has anyone really stepped back and really tried to look at each and every man in that engagement as an equal and not blame a one of them. Has anyone ever tried this perspective? Perhaps if one tries hard enough NOT to place blame on any of them, the real truth can be discovered. Of course such objectivity comes with a price, one must give up one's biases and prejudices. AND, you must, I insist, you must give up any notion that ANY of them lied, they all told the truth! I challenge anyone to try this approach. Surprisingly, the questions become easier to answer, and the truth easier to see. Try it, you might just like it.

[joewiggs]

Bravo! A tremendous statement of truth, logic and common sense that establishes "reasonableness" when investigating the causes of this of this battle (and there were quite a few).

A much saner approach to the enigmas of this battle then the singular "Glory Hunter" approach insisted upon by some who obsessed with attaching an albatross of sole responsibility around the neck of one man rather than the government policies which ordered him to the Little Big Horn in the first place.

As you pointed out, the passionate desire of the Indian Braves to protect his family was far more effective, as a motivator to fight, than the soldiers whose morale was quickly destroyed by a total collapse of command under Reno. With no one to give orders and the lost of cohesion in the ranks, the men soon lost the will to fight!

The psychological stress of combat under specific conditions will cause ordinarily brave men to flee, turn their backs on the enemy, and refuse to fight.

A government concerned for the safety of its troops has a responsibility to insure that fighting men receive intensive training that includes the martial culpabilities and habits of a specific enemy to be met. In this deplorable case, m,any of the soldiers were lulled into a sense of complacency because of the racist ideology that "savages" could never defeat soldiers of the elite, United States.

[tbw]

Joe,

I haven't worshipped a hero in years, not since my teenage years. And, I don't have one in this battle or for that manner any other either. I've heard it all from many an author, so called expert and wannabe's. And they still get it wrong each and every time. And no matter how many times they go to the well, they still just don't get it.

Sure morale played into what happened, there's no doubt about it. And when a couple of thousand warriors were held hostage to the idea of moving a large village to safety or standing and fighting, they really had no choice at all. The problem evolved from there. The plains indians didn't defend anything. They were at their best when on the attack, and attack they did. The old men, women and children would, and did have to fend for themselves as the warriors went out to meet each and greet and repulse each and every attempt to attack that village.

What happened?

In a nutshell:

I started another thread in association with this one, "Test Fire". I did the research and found that 3 rounds per minute was the standard rate of fire on those skirmish lines. Also, when one goes further and researches Reno's skirmish line this 3 rpm also stands this test. This came out to be about 1 round fired every 20 seconds for each trooper.

What many may argue is how fast or perhaps even how much slower it should have been. Sure, men can and did fire faster, 1 rnd. every 15 seconds is of course 4rpm. ANd of course, 1 rnd. every half minute is of course slower at 2rpm. Why three RPM? It had everything to do with "conservation of ammunition" and nothing to do with capabilities.

Taking these figures further one does find the reasons for the 3 rpm figure.

What in the world was going on? Most don't have a clue...

Custer ordered that each man be provisioned with 100 rounds of ammo for his Carbine and 25 rounds for his pistol. Anyone rememeber this?

At 2 RPM how long would it take to fire those 125 cartridges? About 1 hour!

At 4 RPM how long would it take to fire those 125 Cartridges? About 1/2 hour!

And at 3 RPM? 45 minutes!

What do these stats tell us?

1) If that pack train was really over 1 hour behind Custer he didn't stand a chance, even if he fired from his skirmish lines at 2 RPM!!!

2) That Benteen wasn't over 1 hour away, and may have been as close as a half hour from being where Custer was going when he sent Martin away! (Remember where Custer was prior to this message being sent, what could he not see when it came to observing where Benteen was?)

3) The standard rate of fire on those skirmish lines as we can see was established for time and duration (especially when they had to bring up the reserve ammo from the pack train!). A half hour (4 RPM) wasn't long enough to get the pack train forward to assist any of Custers men, that is, not unless it was a lot closer than most realize. AND, at an hour (2 RPM) the RPM is ridiculously low, so low in fact, that if that is what happened, then Kanipe's message now becomes more abundantly clear, does it not? And, does it not explain what some call a "double message"? If Custer thought he could sustain a 2 RPM skirmish line, and then after observing the number of Indians charging him found that not to be true, then, and only then, he sends Kanipe because they didn't have even a half hour? OR, was it, the pack train, indeed within reach... ie. not over 1/2 hour away just like Benteen? Anyone wanna bet what this does to someone's timing efforts let alone petty theories? What is for sure is that Benteen nor that pack train was any further away than 45 minutes from Custer at any given moment in time, and that you can take to the bank. (Remember the slow down orders Custer gave to Benteen after he sent him on his mission?) - Why? Now you know. And it had everything to do with... "conservation of ammunition"... guaranteed.