The 7th cav.

I know these pic's are as bad as they get, But just to give you an idea, the saddle i have on top has the screw holes for the skirts which are missing, the model 1904 never had them, the middle saddle is the model 1904, The bottem saddle is a model 1872, the 1st full leather cover still had the skirts. I don't know for sure what year my saddle is but it has the screw pattern for the skirts on the out side, And there is a pic. like it on page 71 of The fighting men of the civil war by William C Davis taken at the museum of the Confederacy in Richmond Va. It' brown also. But those folks may not know what there talking about. But thanks for looking, if you have any more info. please let me know. IM tired, Good night.:beerchug:https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...can00011-1.jpg

First, let me say that I never thought you were saying anything about this equipment as Custer's. Especially since you sourced the items over a long period of time from different owners.

I'm simply making a statement that your items are pattern 1904. Usually you can tell immediately by the color. Earlier period McClellans ( Civil War through Indian War) are always dyed black . The leather was specified to be russett for both equipment and uniform leather at the tuurn of the century. You will find no specs for black leather from just after the Spanish American War until well after WWII.

Next give away would normally be the quarterstrap rigging, but yours is missing. The 1904 had a buckle adjustable quarterstrap. This was used to better fit the individual horse.

I would guess that the nail holes in the bars for the skirt were probably added after the saddle was surplused. The only McClellans I've ever seen that attached skirts in that manner were the 1859 with the rawhide covered tree.

The following is an excerpt from www.militaryhorse.org

Quote:

---

The M1872 was essentially a rebuilt civil war surplus saddle, using as many parts of the old saddle as possible. The skirts were removed, and dee ring safes were attached to the rigging. The trees themselves were covered in black collar leather, with all the original hardware being returned to the proper positions. New cinches were obtained. Essentially an interim solution, the M1872 saddle would serve into the late 1870s.

There is some debate as to the shape of the rigging dee safes on the 1872 saddle, which has been further confused by Randy Steffen's illustrations which are basically pure conjecture. Extent specimens of the 1872 are EXTREMELY rare, nearly to the point of legend, so it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty exactly what this model's details looked like.

---

The saddle you pictured from the Confederate Museum may be a Confederate copy of the McClellan. I believe they made them at the Richmond Arsenal. The few that survive are always russett as the South didn't have any real quantities of black dye.

The stirrup leathers are indicative of the 1904 and the buckles are the same as used on the aforementioned side rigging. Iron stirrups could generally be found on the artillery McClellan's.

Your saddlebags follow the same general pattern as the saddle, russett, three straps, and the 1904 cut. All of the previous gear would have been black and only one other bag followed the same general size and cut. The Model 1879.

A really good recource is Border States Leather. Doug Kidd is one of the most respected saddlemaker and saddle historian out there. All of his work is done to original patterns and leather spec. http://www.borderstates.com/

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...scan0002-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fredtheobviouspseudonym

I don't dispute that the other NW tribes might well have risen.

They would have lost, though.

.....
Basically, the last chance the Native Americans had to remain independent died with Tecumseh. And it was a slim chance then. There's only so far guts and skill will get you against a determined enemy with vastly superior numbers.

---

Fred, and list:

There was a time I would have agreed with you. But there were a lot of things that just didn't add up - like the American military I know would have mopped up the floor with the Indians. What was the deal? And why were the official reports on the various actions so obviously false?

Martin Cruz Smith, who wrote Gorky Park, his first book (1970) was an alternative history titled "the Indians Won." It wasn't perfectly elegant, but it brought out quite a few facts. Probably the most important fact was that the U.S. had a lot of people alarmed at that time - British and continental movers and shakers, the people who backed the Confederacy hoping to profit from the breakup of the U.S.

The railroads, steel mills, mines and ranches at the time were developed with foreign capital. A lot of that capital would have dried up if the Army could not police the frontier. The US was kind of a colonial economy at the time, having burned through its own reserves in the Civil War. Besides foreign investments, the biggest source of "new money" the US had was silver, but the world was on the gold standard. And the silver mines were not located in particularly secure areas.

There were some very good soldiers in the post-CW Army, mainly the officers and NCOs. The troopers and infantrymen, however, were not well trained. They couldn't shoot,didn't take care of their weapons, didn't drill. The troopers didn't ride enough and their horses were unreliable. After the Custer fight the men were spooked. At the White Bird fight the troopers panicked and broke ranks - and died.

At the same time the Indians were learning fast. The Nez Perce war chiefs had learned a lot scouting for the Army in the Modoc and Snake wars, whether personally or second hand. The young men were instructed to shoot the buglers/trumpeters first, then officers and NCOs. They attacked the artillery when they could, and went after the supply trains. Tactically, they were very good. Strategically, not so good.

What was missing from the picture? Smith thought Wovoka could have united the tribes if he had been born earlier. A generation earlier, though, was Smohalla and the Dreamer religion, Christian-influenced and with similar promises: return of the buffalo, resurrection of the dead Indians, disappearance of the white men.

A military leader? Cherokee Stand Watie, the last CSA general to surrender, died in 1871. Seneca General Ely Parker was still alive and vigorous, as were most of the 10,000+ Native CW veterans who served on both sides.

A political leader? That's he tough one. Fred is right about Tecumseh being the "last chance" for the first nations. Maybe Sitting Bull could have done the job if he had a few good advisers. If the British, French or Germans saw an advantage in breaking up the US, such "advisers" would probably have materialized.

For the same kinds of reasons the US could have lost the Civil War at Antietam, I think the US could have lost the Indian Wars at the Clearwater fight. Wait for my book,guys!

Oh, and BTW: "There's only so far guts and skill will get you against a determined enemy with vastly superior numbers" - tell that to the Israeli Defense Forces!

jn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lboos

doncb,
Kicked out? He should have got a promotion.:beerchug:

---

Their desertion probably didn't contain the genteel necessity of Custer's unauthorized leave to visit his wife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers

Their desertion probably didn't contain the genteel necessity of Custer's unauthorized leave to visit his wife.

---

Desertion: Leaving or running away from service or duty without the intention of returning. There was a war going on at that time, and that was the rule for cowardness. I dont recall the "outcome" of any court marshal saying Custer was AWOL or Deserting.
Agin, It is so easy now days to be so PC and stick up for the Savage Indians of that time, and that's what they were. That's History Not Political correctness. But if it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling,...Then feel free to Run our Military Hero's down... Could be a feather in your cap:rolleyes:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lboos

Desertion: I dont recall the "outcome" of any court marshal saying Custer was AWOL or Deserting.
Agin, It is so easy now days to be so PC and stick up for the Savage Indians of that time, and that's what they were. That's History Not Political correctness. But if it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling,...Then feel free to Run our Military Hero's down... Could be a feather in your cap:rolleyes:.

---

The first charge against Custer was absence without leave from his command. That is normally shortened to AWOL, and he was found guilty of the charge among several others.
He was also charged with the shooting of his men who were "supposed" deserters, but were not put on trial. He was also found guilty on this charge.
Here is further reading if you would like to get up to speed, and I don't believe any of this contains revisionary history.


THE COURT MARTIAL OF GENERAL GEORGE ARMSTRONG CUSTER


On 11 October 1867, at Fort Leavenworth, a court martial found Brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer, Lieutenant Colonel, 7 th U.S. Cavalry guilty and sentenced him to suspension from rank and command for one year, and forfeiture of his pay for the same time.
_____________
**** Charges
**** Findings
**** Members of the Court
**** Further Readings
______________
Charges and Specifications preferred against Brevet Major General G. A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry
Charge first.

Absence without leave from his command.

Specification first.
In this, that he Brevet Major General G.A . Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, did at or near Fort Wallace, Kansas, on or about the 15th day of July 1867, absent himself from his command without proper authority, and proceed to Fort Harker, Kansas, a distance of about 275 miles, this at a time when his command was expected to be actively engaged against hostile Indians.

Charge second.
Conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.

Specification first.
In this, that he, Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, immediately after the troops of his command had completed a long and exhausting march, and when the horses belonging thereto had not been rested, and were in an unfit condition for said service, did select a portion of such command consisting of three Commissioned officers, and about seventy-five men with their horses, and did set out upon and execute a rapid march from Fort Wallace, Kansas, to Fort Hays in the same state; the said march being on private business, and without proper authority or any urgency or demand of public business; and in so doing did seriously prejudice the public interest by overmarching and damaging the horses belonging to the said detachment of his command.

Specification second.
In this, that he, Brevet Major General G.A . Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, while executing an unauthorized journey on private business from Fort Wallace, Kansas to Fort Harker in the same state, did procure at Fort Hays in the same state, on or about the 17th July 1867, (two ambulances and) four mules belonging to the United States, and did use such (ambulances and) mules, for the conveyance of himself and part of his escort from said Fort Hays to Fort Harker in the aforesaid state.

Specification third.
In this, that he Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, when near Downer's Station in the state of Kansas, on or about the 16th day of July 1867, after having received information that a party of Indians had attacked a small party detached from his escort near said Station, did fail to take proper measures for the repulse of said Indians, or the defense or relief of said detachment; and further, after the return of such detached party of his command with report that two of their number had been killed, did neglect to take any measures to pursue such party of Indians, or recover or bury the bodies of his command that had been killed as aforesaid.

Additional Charges and Specifications preferred against Lieutenant Colonel George A. Custer, Brevet Major General U.S.A.

Charge
Conduct prejudicial to good order and Military discipline.

Specification first.
In this that Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, while en route commanding and marching a column of his regiment, six companies or thereabouts, strong, from the valley of the Platte River, to the valley of the Smoky Hill River, did, when ordering a party of three commissioned Officers and others of his Command in pursuit of supposed deserters who were then in view leaving camp, also order the said party to shoot the supposed deserters down dead, and bring none in alive.
This on "Custer' Cavalry Column Trail," while traveling southward, about fifty miles southwest from Fort Sedgewick, Colorado, on or about the seventh day of July, 1867.

Specification second.
In this that Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, did order (the following named and designated Soldiers of his regiment, viz. Bugler Barney Tolliver, Company K., Private Charles Johnson, Company K., Private Alburger, Company D., and other) enlisted men of his command, to be shot down as supposed deserters, but without trial; and did thus cause three men to be severely wounded.

This on "Custer's Cavalry Column Trail," while traveling southward, between fifteen and forty miles South of Platt River, between fifty and seventy miles Southwest from Fort Sedgewick, Colorado, on or about the seventh day of July, 1867.

Specification third.
In this that Brevet Major General G.A . Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, after the following named and designated soldiers of his regiment, viz. Bugler Barney Tolliver, Company K., Private Charles Johnson, Company K., and Private Alburger, Company D., had been summarily shot down and severely wounded by order of him the said Custer, did, order and cause the said soldiers to be placed in a government wagon, and to be hauled eighteen miles, (and did then and there neglect and positively and persistently refuse to allow the said soldiers, to receive treatment and attention from the Acting Assistant Surgeon with his command or any other Medical or Surgical attendance whatsoever).

This on "Custer's Cavalry Column Trail," while traveling southward, between fifteen and forty miles south of Platt River, between fifty and seventy miles Southwest from Fort Sedgewick, Colorado, on or about the seventh day of July, 1867.

Specification fourth.
In this that Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel 7th U.S. Cavalry, while commanding and marching a column of his regiment, six companies or thereabouts strong, did, on or about the seventh day of July 1867, at a point about fifteen miles South of Platt River, and about fifty miles southwest from Fort Sedgewick, Colorado, order and cause the summary shooting, as a supposed deserter, but without trial, of one Private Charles Johnson, Company K., 7th U.S. Infantry [sic], a soldier of his command; whereby he, the said Johnson, was so severely wounded that he soon after - to wit, on or about the 17th day of July 1867, at or near Fort Wallace, Kansas - did decease; he the said Custer thus causing the death of the said Johnson.
_
_____________
Findings
Of the 1st Specification 1st Charge - Guilty of the Specification, substituting the words "Fort Harker," for the words "Fort Riley," and the figures "200" for the figures "275."

* *Of the 1st Charge - Guilty.
* *Of the 1st Specification of the 2nd Charge - Guilty.
* *Of the 2nd Specification of the 2nd Charge - Guilty of the Specification, substituting the words "Ft. Harker" for the words "Ft. Riley;" omitting the words "two ambulances and," and substituting the word "four" for the word "eight," and omitting the words "ambulances and," and attach no criminality thereto.
* *Of the 3rd Specification of the 2nd Charge - Guilty.
* *Of the 2nd Charge - Guilty.
* *Of the 1st Specification of the Additional Charge - Guilty.
* *Of the 2nd Specification of the Additional Charge - Guilty of the Specification omitting the words "the following named and designated soldiers of his Regiment, viz Bugler Barney Tolliver, Co.K, Private Charles Johnson, Co K, Private Alburger, Co. D. and other," and substituting the words "three" in place of the words "the said."
* *Of the third Specification of the Additional Charge the Court finds the facts as stated in the specification except the words "and did then and there neglect and positively and persistantly refuse to allow the said soldiers to receive any treatment or attention from the acting assistant Surgeon with his command, or any other medical or surgical attendance whatever," and attach no criminality thereto.
* *Of the forth Specification of the Additional Charge - Guilty.
* *Of the Additional Charge - Guilty.



In consequence the Court sentenced Brevet Major General G.A. Custer, Lieutenant Colonel, 7th U.S. Cavalry, to be suspended from rank and command for one year, and forfeit his pay for the same time.

Thank you for all the info. And it does bring me up to speed, Some what.
Custer did make some mistakes in his time and was court martial'd by his superior's and found guilty, and paid the price.
You or me, were not at his court martial, But i feel sure his superior's that were there Knew "ALL" the fact's.
But what is clear is that even after his court martial his superior's and the U.S. Army thought enough of Custer to make him Commander of the 7th CAV. where he and his Trooper's died with Honor on the battlefield fighting for there Country.

I'd like to ramble on but i gotta go. Happy Easter ever one.

To the list:

We went through the Custer discussion pretty well in the CUlver list. It would be nice if there were a way to archive that discussion onto this site.

I kind of changed my mind about Custer, or refined my opinion anyway, result of that discussion. And I did a little reading too. Custer was pretty good when he could see an enemy who was formed up facing him. Anything you could take with a weight of horseflesh and metal, Custer was your man. He wasn't too good at sizing up a complicated situation - like at Trevillian Station where he didn't notice that artillery battery until it was too late, or the three Confederate regiments coming up on his flanks and rear.

The more of these discussions I get into, and the more I read, the more convinced I am that Custer's tactics that day were pretty good, given the tactical objective. One of the guys on the list summed it up "Oh did I mention, there were too many Indians?"

In any case, contrast Custer's approach with Howard's during the Nez Perce War. Miles and Sturgis got the glory, but it was Howard and his men, slogging along, dragging their artillery and gatlings, always arriving late, that maneuvered the Nez Perce into their defeat, while avoiding at least one potential disaster along the way. Not much dash there, but a lot of common sense. IMHO


jn

Custer had friends in high places. Deciding to make a quick trip to visit "Libby" was NOT a "mistake" it was derillction of duty. And he was deservedly smacked for it. If not for his connections, the verdict would have been a lot worse.
The fact that he is a hero to some is the direct result of the books his wife wrote about him after his death.