The 7th cav.

[lboos]

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.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[free1954]

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

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

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.
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

[Relay4]

My father-in law always said that Custer's death was actually a political assassination. I can see the possibilities in that statement.

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

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.

[free1954]

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.

[lboos]

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.

[lboos]

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.

[Larry Gibson]

Iboos

Very nice outfit!

larry Gibson

[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.

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