Printable View
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...paper001-1.jpg I picked this up today at an antique mall, it's got a 45-70 and a ssa 45cal. cart. setting on the fram, It's a copy of the tribune extra of the first account of the custer massacre july 6th 1876 Bismark, D.T., I thought it would look good hanging over my old cav. saddle and my trapdoor carbine.
no photo. but i miss the replies a post like this would have generated on the old board.
found this while looking around http://www.custerslaststand.org/source/extra.html i hope the link works
Funny when the Indians win, its a massacre, but when the Army wins it was a victory.
Custer shouldn't even have been there as he was still under courts martial for abandoning an officer and men in his hurry to "get home to Libby"
Any other officer would have waited for Terry and the infantry, but not our boy wonder.:rolleyes:
Any other officer would NOT have split his command
Any other officer would have listened to his scouts
Any other officer would have taken the gatling guns offered to him
Custer intended to run for political office after the campaign, and of course being billed as the "great indian fighter" wouldn't have hurt.
By the way, he was known for his high casualty rates in the Civil War where high losses were the norm
My father-in law always said that Custer's death was actually a political assassination. I can see the possibilities in that statement.
I should think his death was more an act of terminal stupidity. Too bad he had to take part of his command with him.
Unfortunately for him the indians didn't read his press releases.
IBOOS: photo is up now. nice, post a pic of it with the saddle
JOHN SUKEY: there were few former civil war commanders who had regard for the lives of their men. after reading up on TOM CUSTER i wonder if he would have made a better leader. he had b*lls, that's for sure.
Wow! Sounds like someone is trying to re -write History, From what i've read and know about Custer was that he was serving his country like any good soldier would, doing what he was order'd to do during the civil war and the Indian war's, Yes his Casualty were hi but at least he was alway's up front leading his Trooper's. You said very little about the part those poor indians played, the indians of that time would Kill traveler's, rape woman and children, Take people as slaves, burn homes down, and i know you forgot the part about what they did to the bodies of dead Soldier's at the Little Big Horn who were follow'ing order's..... Anyway, I guess it's easy for some to beat-up on the dead guy, he's long gone, but there still a lot of good Indians around, and i guess it,s just PC to stick up for them, Hummm maybe someone here is planing on running for POLITICAL OFFICE.:beerchug:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rbine001-1.jpg Free 1954 Here you go, I took this pic out side because of the lighting, and before i got the Tribune extra, i guess i'll have to take some with it, But thanks for your interst. lboos.
Iboos
Very nice outfit!
larry Gibson
John Sukey
You really should read a little more on the subject. I'd suggest several current books with the latest information if you'd read them?
Funny when the Indians win, its a massacre, but when the Army wins it was a victory.
The word "massacre" is from the newspaper text. While several other officers were want to use that expression their reason are obvious as to place blame elsewhere in lieu of their own culpability. Many today want to concede it as a "victory" for the Indians but in a strictly military context it was a great defeat for them. They were never able to get together again for anything resembling that. They used up most of their ammuntion, arrows etc during the battle. They were not able to hunt and obtain a winter's supply of meat. They were hounded by the Army for the 2 years until all surrendered or were defeated in subsequant battles. And finally while the 7th probably sustained more casualties it was the Indians that withdrew from the battlefield in a retreat breaking up into smaller bands attempting to escape.
Custer shouldn't even have been there as he was still under courts martial for abandoning an officer and men in his hurry to "get home to Libby"
My oh my, we are second guessing Generals sheridan and Sherman and the CIC President Grant. It was their decission to make and they made it. Thus under what "authority" do you say Custer should not have been there? You also might want to read a little more and you'd find out the discipline from that courts martial ended several years before the campaign of 1876.
Any other officer would have waited for Terry and the infantry, but not our boy wonder.:rolleyes:
Again your not well versed in Terry's strategy. Terry was, after all the commander of the campaign. Terry's June 22, 1876 "Letter of instruction" to Custer along with the devised strategy as outlined to numerous officers besides Custer had the 7th as the "attack force". Gibbons column was to be the blocking force to the north and hopefully Crooks column would be the blocking force to the south. Custer was to "be on station" on the 25th and proceed down the LBH on the 26th. Custer and the 7th was the only column that was at the appointed place at the appoint time. Terry with Gibbon's column was lost and delayed crossing from the Tullock to the LBH. Crook had lost the Rosebud Battle and instead of further pursuit he encamped and went fishing. He didn't even bother to notify Terry of the Battle and what he was doing in a timely manner. Custer had intended to rest the 7th on the 25th (it was 'on station") and attack on the 26th. However it appeared by all intents and purposes that the 7th had been discovered by the Indians. How did he know this. Well gee whiz...his Indian scouts told him so! He also knew pretty close to how many Indians were in the vicinty as the Army had fairly good intel on that before Custer departed up the Rosebud. Also he was listening to his scouts. Only the Indian and civilian scouts were afraid of the numbers of Indians. None of the other officers voiced any objections. Wait for Terry? Well commo was not to good in those days so I doubt he had cell phone service. Had Terry been where he said he was going to be with Gibbon's column or Crook been moving into the LBH as planed then the outcome would have been very much different. You want to fault the one commander that was where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there. And you want to fault a cavalry commander for not attacking? That is very astute of you.....BTW what exactly is your military back ground so we may know of your expertise to make that judgement?
Any other officer would NOT have split his command
Any other officer there would have split his force as it was "by the book" (Prescriptions of cavalry Tactics 1873). The tactic is now classic and known as find, fix and flank, hammer and anvil, etc. You might want to read tactics, particularly cavalry tactics.
Any other officer would have listened to his scouts
He did listen to his scouts, that's exactly how he found the Indians and why he attacked on the 25th.
Any other officer would have taken the gatling guns offered to him
You're probably right. Custer could then have taken a few Forrest Service roads up the Rosebud to the Highway and then cut across to the battlefield without any problems........No Custer made the right decission. Again if you'd bother to read the actual facts you'd know that Reno had two Gatlings on his scout the week before. You'd also know of the trouble he had with them and of the soldiers injured when they overturned in the rough roadless terrain. You also know the Gatlings were mounted on artillery carrages and drawn by two horses. Not exactly easy to maneauver in rough terrain. No one argued with his decission not to take the Gatlings. However, had he taken them history might very well have been different. Not in that the gatlings would have made a difference in the battle but that there wouldn't have been a Battle at the Little Bighorn. With the Gatlings along the 7th would not have moved as fast and as far as they did and would not even have been close to the LBH on the 25th let alone the 26th.
Custer intended to run for political office after the campaign, and of course being billed as the "great indian fighter" wouldn't have hurt.
Exactly where do you get this information?
By the way, he was known for his high casualty rates in the Civil War where high losses were the norm[/QUOTE]
Again, where do you get this information? Custer was one of the most respected officers by his men. High casualties do not beget that. Leading from the front and kicking Johnny Rebs *** did. Custer did that time after time.
Larry Gibson
Nice, but I was into the Indian War history for many years, and collected arms, uniforms, equipment, manuals, AND read a number of BOOKS on the subject. Plus reenacting that period.
You can praise Custer all you want but you will find no love of him by the soldiers of the 7th cav, aside from Tom Custer. they did fear him as he had the reputation of a martinet. One example for your edification. On campaign any infraction was dealt with by having the offender dig a hole and remain in it overnight while the rest of the command slept above ground.
I no longer collect that period in our history but I know damm well That "Lieutenant Colonel" Custer was not the brightest bulb in the lot.
As far as the gatlings go, don't hand me the bull that he couldn't have taken them with him. or at least one of the four. Those carriages were not restricted to paved roads.
As for the information that Custer intended to run for political office that is a known fact.
Second guessing Grant? Custer pleaded with Sherman to go on that campaign.
And the courts martial sentence still had not been entirely served.
Cavalry tactics that you are so proud of do not apply in this case because there were too damm many indians, as his scouts accurately reported. Custer figured the Indians had always run before, so they would run again, WRONG.
He was discovered by the indians? yeah, a couple of kids herding livestock. why did this happen? Because Custer pushed his command to get there FIRST so he could grab the "glory"
Now I mentioned high casualties in the Civil War, because his casualties were HIGHER than any other cavalry command! Getting your men killed faster than any other officer is NOT a sign of brilliance even if you are at the head of them.
Of course they had to blame someone else for his incompetence because the wonderful "boy general" was perfect, so they blamed the officer who saved a portion of the 7th. There was NO WAY Custer could have managed a victory. Some even believe Custer was among the first casualties, as on crossing the Rosebud, one person was shot out of the saddle and the entire command stopped to rescue him. Would they have done that for a trooper?
John
Your impassioned misconceptions are noteworthy but still wrong. I do not "praise" Custer, I only point out facts. Custer did make some mistakes but what commander doesn't make mistakes. One fact in particular is that the battle took place no where near the Rosebud. Obviously Custer was not shot "crossing the Rosebud". You're being "into" Indian ar history you should know that. Perhaps you meant crossing the LBH at medicine Tail Coulee? There is no factual evidence that any soldiers crossed the LBH there. There was an exchange of fire when the soldiers crossed Medicine Tail Coulee (verified by Indian accounts and archeological evidence) near the LBH, perhaps that is what you meant?
Discipline was indeed harsh in the Army back then. Custer used no methods that weren't in common use by every other commander. It was the way things were.
As to the cavalry tactics; had the 7th been trained and actually the "elite" fighting force most think it was (it wasn't by the way) then things would have been quite different. It was known by Custer and all other officers with any Indian fighting experience that the warriors would fight to protect the women, kids and old ones. They also knew if you captured any of the woman, kids and old ones the warriors were loathe to fight. They also knew the Indians seldom stood and fought in pitched battles but would use delaying actions until the village escaped. They also knew you shouldn't ever run from Indians during a fight. Custer knew the Indians would fight. The problem was many of the soldiers weren't trained and many of the soldiers and officers had little or no Indian fighting experience. They lost tactical stability and broke and ran. Soldiers do not fight when running and the Indians took advantage of that. Besides, if the reason was "there were to many Indians" how is it that Custers battalion held them off for 2+ hours? How is it those same Indians, now armed with 200+ M1873 and thousands of rounds of ammuntion, were unable to "massacre" the Reno/Benteen contingent the same way? If there were "to many Indians" and that worked against Custer then why not against Reno/Benteen? The reason is tactical stability and the Indians loathing of a standup fight against soldiers armed with M1873s. Another point to ponder as to why Custer, and all the other officers of the 7th, wasn't concerned about all those Indians was because there was supposed to be over 4,000 soldiers converging on the LBH. Unfortuneatley what Custer did not know was that rook had gone fishing and Terry had Gibbobs column lost in the Tullock.
"He was discovered by the indians? yeah, a couple of kids herding livestock." There may be some kids herding livestock in that vicinity these days but there wasn't any then. I don't think you've read very much of the 1876 Campaign as you claim. You'rte making to many erroneous statements to write it off as a onetime mistake.
"so they blamed the officer who saved a portion of the 7th. Assuming you are referring to Reno? If so you are wrong. It was Benteen who actually "saved' that portion by lending tactical stability to a rather inglorious route. The problem was that in doing so he abanded his orders from Custer. The 'dark secret" kept by the surving officers "for the good of the Regiment" was that had they gone to "the sound of gunfire" as several officers and a 1SG wanted to the Indians very well might have broken off and at least some of Custers men would have survived. As it was they didn't. Actually it was everyone above Custer who blamed him to cover their own culpability in this disaster.
Perhaps you should reread some of the books you've read or read some of the newer ones. You might learn something new.
Larry Gibson
Larry Gibson,
Thank you for that great post, And it's clear to me you know what "YOU" are talking about.
I don't understand why it is so easy for some people to try and ruin the reputation of one of our Military leader's out of history, And esp. one Simpley follow'ing orders and who gave his life in battle for his Country, I think Custer did what was right for that time, I don't think he wanted his men or himself to die that day, Sure he could have done better IF he had overhead map's of the battle field, night vision, cell phone's, Or even more important --Trooper Sukey's advice on what he had learned during his reenacting battles, But he diden't, He did the best with what he had, And he is one of this country's Hero's. Have a good day.:beerchug:
Perhaps you should quit making excuses for Custer.
I will give you the bit about the Rosebud, but then I stopped collecting that period over 30 years ago and sold all but one of my 35 trapdoors and my Indian war collection.
You are engaging in wishful thinking if you believe that there was any way Custer could have survived or extricated his command
I know I am simply wasting my time trying to convince you that Custer was a victim of his own ego, so lets leave it at that.
As for inexperienced troops ,you could say that of the 7th at wounded knee.
And yes an indian fired the first shot and they actualy identified him.
The 7th at that time WAS filled with inexperienced troops.
The Soldiers of the 7th and Custer rode into history that day with little intention of dying. They were brave men who were doing as they were ordered. My studies over many years was to detemine what had happened. It is easy to get involved in the personalities of the participents but that was not my objective. I only desired to know what happened and why it happened. The facts are probably about 95% known today. The problem is much of the old works lend themselves to theories, myths and personal beliefs of what happened. The campaign of 1876 is an interesting campaign to study. One must look at the whole context, including the Indian perspective, of the campaign to get a good concept of what and why things happened at the LBH. If one only looks at the LBH battle it is easy to lose perspective. Thanks for the comments, I always enjoy a good discussion on this subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by lboos
Larry Gibson
John
I make no excuses for Custer. I only state the facts of what happened and why it happened.
Perhaps you should quit making excuses for poor "Lo" and try to take an objective look at the facts. It is obvious you've biased opinions. I've no problem with that as you're entitled to your own opinions. It does however cloud you perspective of the facts. Good day to you and I've actually enjoyed this conversation.
Larry Gibson
I always enjoy these conversations. Looking back at various times; Washington was thought to be incompetent, Patton was a butcher as was Grant. Along the same lines, we have "revisionists" today who bemoan the acts of people long dead, accusing them of all sorts of crimes. These folks, of course, like to pontificate "from the high moral ground"....as they drive across the nation in their air-conditioned SUV's slurping on their latte's. One one occasion, #1 son came home ticked off as his history teacher in COLLEGE stated that ALL US Army personnel in the 1st wave at Normandy had "below average IQ's" because the generals knew a large percentage would die. Sent a letter to the "professor" asking if he considered Teddy Roosevelt Jr (Phi Betta Kappa) as one of those with a "below average IQ", seeing as Teddy was in the first wave, and had suffered a heart attack just weeks before the invasion. Also informed said professor that you don't take and hold a hostile shore with idiots. Closed by stating that it was my opinion that there is evidently no such restriction in the selection of history professors.
I would have loved to have been there when the "history professor" read your letter.:yikes:
I agree with john, it indeed would have been interesting. I had my share of "discussions" with history professors in college.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Sukey
Larry Gibson
His name was Benjamin Franklin Brown and he was a private in F Troop. I have a letter that he wrote just before they left on the campaign. I have left the spelling uncorrected.
Fort A. Lincoln DT May 13th, 1876
Dear Mother,
I received your kind and welcom letter. It found me well and I hope this may find you the same. I was very sorry to hear that Sister Alice was sick. I think Alice might send me her picture, and also, tell Tom to send his.
There will be no excuse for them. They will have til next fall to have them taken. If they do have them taken don't send them til next fall. We are going to start next Monday on our Journey to the Big Horn Valley.
You can write and if the mail is sent out to us I will get it.
Your Son
Benjamin F. Brown
F Troop 7th U.S.
Cavalry
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...aper0011-1.jpgBob, What a great piece of family history, Here's a pic. of the ---
Tribune Extra, Bismarck DT. July 6th 1876. It list amoung the dead two pvt. Browns as 1st and 2nd, no first name, they were the only two Brown,s in F CO. im sure one of them is Benjamin. Thank you for sharing your Family,s History with us....lboos.
As listed in "They Rode With Custer" there were 8 Browns assigned to the 7th Cavalry on 25 June, 1876. Four of them died in battle on 25 June, 1876 including Benjamin.
Larry Gibson
The two Brown's listed here are from CO F only, That's why i thought one of them might be Pvt. Benjamin Brown whose letter said he was in CO F.
Thank's for the History lesson anyway, I need it. lboos.
I forgot to mention that my great-great uncle was half Cherokee and half white. I have his picture in full dress uniform and you can easily see the indian blood . If I knew how to upload pictures I would post it.
Bob, If you can email me the pic. i'll be glad to post it here, if that,s what you mean.
my email= lboos1@yahoo.com
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...scan0001-2.jpgBob,s Great-Great Uncle, in his full dress uniform. A Sharp looking Trooper.
And American Hero. Thanks Bob.
The only problem Custer really had was there were too many angry Indians, who happened to take the high ground.
When re-reading the thread I paid a little more attention to the photo of the saddle, etc.. Do your 1873 saddlebags still have their canvas liners inside? I had a pair of those saddlebags in almost unissued condition with the canvas liners still buttoned inside that a guy gave me years ago. I held on to them until about 4 years ago when a guy caught me at a weak moment and I sold them to him for $300.
Bob, When i bought these there were two set's of them, one did have the canvas liners in them but the guy was asking $425 for that set. the set i bought was missing the liners but i got them for $200. not a big dicission for me HA. I have seen some nice sets with the liners go for $500. Bob those 1878 cav. boot's [org.] i have seen them go as high as $1100:yikes:. I paid $300 for them:madsmile:. When i got home my wife said i was completely insane:bash:, But i like um:beerchug:.
You've got a nice display that is something to be proud of. I saw a similar display at the U.S. Cavalry Supply Company in Elizabethtown, Kentucky several years ago.
Bob, Thanks for the kind word's. I can't think of a better hobby then collecting small parts of our Country's History.:beerchug:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...trait550-1.jpgBob, I found This pic. of Custer when he was the 7th Cav. Commander in his full dress uniform. His uniform, Helmet and award hanging down on his chest look very close to your Great Great Uncle's Uniform. Even though one's a Pvt. and the other is a LT/COL.
What award?Quote:
Originally Posted by lboos
I must say...I have really enjoyed reading this thread.
Very informative.....albeit somewhat controversial....which adds to the interest.
David
Part of the problem was inexperienced troops. the other part was not enough of them.
The United States Army had a vast country to police, and it had only a few men to do it with. Speaking generally of the problem in 1878, Lt. Gen. Philip Sheridan commented:
“No other nation in the world would have attempted reduction of these wild tribes and occupation of their country with less than 60,000 or 70,000 men, while the whole force employed and scattered over this enormous region . . . never numbered more than 14,000, and nearly one-third of this force has been confined to the line of the Rio Grande to protect the Mexican frontier. The consequence was that every engagement was a forlorn hope, and was attended with a loss of life unparalleled in warfare. "
The U.S. came really close to losing the Indian Wars in 1877 - the first 15-20 minutes of the Clearwater fight against the Nez Perce, before Howard pulled his troops together and got the howitzers and gatlings into the line.
All the northwest tribes were watching to see what would happen. A major US defeat would have triggered a general war against the NW tribes at first, and eventually all the tribes in the west.
I don't dispute that the other NW tribes might well have risen.
They would have lost, though.
By 1877 there were just too many Euro- and African-Americans (gotta be politically-correct these days before the PC police pull me in) in the USA for the Native Americans to win. After the War Between the States the US would not have allowed any section of what became the Lower 48 to be detached from the political control of Washington.
Between the surviving veterans of the War Between the States and the numbers of young men who grew up with stories of heroism, manhood and endurance (this was allowed in that dim benighted age) there would have been plenty of manpower AND experience needed to turn that manpower into good troops. The railroad already crossed the plains and could have brought as many troops and supplies as needed.
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.
Didnt Custer get kicked out of the Army for shooting 4 of his men for desertion prior to his command of the seventh. I should get some emails on this. don b in Fl.
doncb,
Kicked out? He should have got a promotion.:beerchug:
Iboos, Bob, not to nitpick, but the saddle and saddlebags are Model 1904.
The Indian War equipment was dyed black and the correct pattern equipment would most likely have been Model 1874. There were distinct differences between the the two models, though the basic McClellan seat remained pretty much the same.
Still nice stuff, you just need to add a Patton saber and a Model 1903 ! :thup:
RickH, Thanks for your interest. I was not trying to pass the saddle or the saddle bags off as Lt/Col. Custer's personal equip... Just a display that the Cav. used for many years.
Over the years i have talked to many wannabe antique saddle experts, some have written book's on them, and i have found that when i get a chance to talk to them and go over some pic's of antique saddles that i am just as much if not more of a saddle expert then most. Did you notice the screw holes that held the skirts on that the 1904 never had? Tommorow i'll post some better pic's, and let you guess agin, And your off on the bag's also.
Could you please give me your expert opin. on how you date'd the saddle and bags to model 1904?
And thank you for the kind word's.:beerchug:.
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
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.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 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/
Fred, and list:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredtheobviouspseudonym
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
Their desertion probably didn't contain the genteel necessity of Custer's unauthorized leave to visit his wife.Quote:
Originally Posted by lboos
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lboos
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.
John, you seem to be a nice guy, But it sounds like you've been reading all the wrong book's, And that's what happens when people already have there mind's made up and dont want to be confuse'd with any fact's, Just PC of the day.
Any way, Our Country reburied him with Honor at West Point. The last i heard he is still there.....You think we ought to move him?
I can only refer you to Johhny Peppers post on the charges at Custer's court martial and the fact that he was found guilty on ALL counts.
I cannot bring myself to become an apologist for Custer when his peers at that time were NOT inclined to do so.
Yes he was reburied with honors, but one has to look at the political climate at the time and the newspapers crying about their "boy General" ( Lt Colonel) Better officers than custer wound up as captains and lieutenants after the civil war, even as NCO's when the army was reduced in size.
I assure you that when I was interested in that time period and collecting extensively I read MORE than one or two books about the fiasco. when I changed my interests, most of my collection went to a friend in the U.K. in return for Victorian uniforms and equipment.
John, You say,..Better Officer's then Custer wound up as Captains and Lieutenants after the civil war, even as NCO's...[Even as NCO's ?]. WOW:dunno:. You make an NCO in the US Army sound about one notch below a savage Indian of the time, Who by the way we were at war with.
JohnQuote:
Originally Posted by John Sukey
Not so, Custer was a "hero" well before his death and well before Libby started writing. His "heroics" (you chose to call him a "hero") were well documented and published during the Civil War and and after before his death at the LBH. Considering he defeated Jeb Stuart's cavalry several times and finally brought him down at Yellow Tavern there was not doubt about Custer being a "hero" to many. In the Shenandoah at Winchester Custer charged with 500 of his Wolverines, over ran an entire infantry brigade of confederates, captured 700+ prisoners including 52 officers, captured 2 artillerycaisons and seven Confederate Battle Flags. Because of that the Confederate defenses collapsed and General Early was forced to withdraw. At Tom's Brook Custer and Merrit defeated Rosser's Laurel Brigade and the rest of Early's cavalry and sent them packing in what is known as the "Woodstock Races". Custer continued to defeat Rosser's Cavelry at every turn. In October '64 Custer and 13 of his men were sent to Washington DC to present 13 captured Battle Flags to Secretary of War Stanton. Sounds like a "hero" to me and Libby didn't write a thing to make it happen.At Sayler's Creek Custer collected 31 more Confederate Battle Flags. Then on April 8th Custer learned of 3 railroad trains of ammo and rations at APPomattox Station. He not only captured those but led the 2nd Ohio in a cavalry charge that captured 24 cannons. It was Custers cavalry that blocked Lee's further withdrawal. It was to General Custer that Lee sent his officer with the white flag of surrender telling him Lee wanted to meet with Grant. Seems like all the trappings of a hero were made by Custer himself and had nary a thing to do with Libby's writtings. Pray tell, what renouned books is she credited with during the Civil War that make her husband a "hero"?
Larry Gibson
I'm going to agree with John Sukey, at best Custer was a idiot who got lucky for most of his time in command. At worse he was a opportunist who is directly at fault for the deaths of his men both through using them as pawns and ordering the death of them as his court marshal papers show.
He was unfit for command, why he kept command is beyond me.
Dimitri
Guys,
I can see both sides of it. Actually I was more in the "Custer was a twerp" camp before i got involved in this same discussion on the old list. Larry is making a pretty good case there, but you got to balance that out against the weirdness at Trevillian Station.
My own thought is that Miles and Howard, maybe Sturgis and Terry too, were both better commanders in the Indian Wars. Howard especially, he respected the capabilities of the enemy. The Indians used to call him "Day After Tomorrow," but it was Howard's dogged pursuit of the Nez Perce that defeated them, and it was his caution that kept his men alive. In that war, Miles was the glory boy who dashed in at the last moment to claim the victory and all the glory.
Wait for my book, guys!
jn
jon
You might want to remember that the strategy for the LBH campaign was Terry's not Custers.
Larry Gibson
This sums it up about a neat and concise as anything I have seen. If incorrect, please feel free to correct.
"General Philip H. Sheridan concluded that George A. Custer had made several important mistakes at the Little Big Horn. He argued that after their seventy mile journey, Custer's men were too tired to fight effectively. Custer had also made a mistake in developing a plan of attack on the false assumption that the Sioux and Cheyenne would attempt to escape rather than fight the soldiers.
Sheridan also criticized Custer's decision to divide his men into three groups: "Had the Seventh Cavalry been held together, it would have been able to handle the Indians on the Little Big Horn." His final mistake was to attack what was probably the largest group of Native Americans ever assembled on the North American continent. President Ulysses Grant agreed with this assessment and when interviewed by the New York Herald he said: "I regard Custer's Massacre was a sacrifice of troops, brought on by Custer himself, that was wholly unnecessary"."
The Political prostitutes of that time are about the same as we have today, They never change, Same with the press. They are always for our Military leader's as long as things are going the way the public likes it [Buying Vote's] But when thing's go wrong these same Political Prostitutes will say what ever the public want's to hear, And esp. if the other guy is dead and can't respond. How sick.
I cant remember where i read it but it sounds good to me,
Lt/Col. Custer is a Hero, And no political correctness will ever tarnish his name.
lboos.
I concur with Iboos.
Sheridan was covering his hind end for his part in the misguided strategy developed with Terry (Sheridan approved it and agreed that Custer was to lead the "attack" force of the campaign) and Custer was dead. Easy to see who to blame eh, just like Tuesday morning quarterbacking the Monday night football game. Lot different when your out there having to make the call. Custer was indeed a hero of the times. Too bad the "war is clean and nobody but the bad guy should get hurt and any good commander will bring everyone home" crowd doesn't see the reality of combat. Soldiers are pawns. Soldiers get injured and killed. If they do not you do not win. Custer used his soldiers as Terry and Sheridan used there's.
Pray tell, what is the difference of Sheridan dividing his forces into 3 sepertate columns or Terry further diding his forces into 2 spertate columns or Custer dividing his forces? If we use that logic the the COC is at fault because he didn't give Sheridan ALL the military forces the US had. Sheridan should have lined up all of Gibbon's, Terry's and Crooks soldiers shoulder to shoulder and just done a police call across the plains, my wouldn't that have been grand! Not hardly. Each commander at each level made choices based on tactics, strategy and divided his forces to accomplish the mission. Custer followed the tactics of the day at LBH. Unfortuneately his soldiers were, for the most part, not trained and experienced at what they were about to engage. Neither were Crooks which is why he was defeated at the Rosebud. Neither was Tery's which is why they got lost up Tullock Creek. It is also why neither Terry nor Crook, even as a combined force or seperately, could do anything effectively for the rest of the '76 campaign.
Larry Gibson
Guys,
One thing I know for certain is this: long after we're in the ground people will be arguing this one. Take it as a learning experience. My own thought is to learn the lesson and look forward.
On the old list, one guy said he could draw a straight line from LBH to Ia Drang. I can see his point but the actual tactical and strategic lessons are still open to interpretation. What is the lesson - never walk into an ambush laid by superior forces? Listen to your scouts, respect the intel? Don't put your enemy into a position where he has no choice but fight to the death?
Take your pick.
It would be nice if we could find something, say something that would save the lives of young soldiers and marines today and tomorrow.
jn