cmort666
Member
I think you mean the "FETTERMAN massacre".
I don't think Michael Brown was involved.
All of his beefs were with Asian store keepers and cops...
Custer's "Last Stand"
- Thread starter Naphtali
- Start date
I don't think Michael Brown was involved.
All of his beefs were with Asian store keepers and cops...
Eltioloco
Member
It is true that Custer was vain and a glory hound. But to say that he "never was in a position to be seriously militarily contested" ignores his whole Civil War record. I am sure Wade Hampton and J.E.B. Stuart were being serious during the Battle of Gettysburg.
Ken
Double-O-Dave
US Veteran
FWIW - I attended nursing school at Wm. Beaumont Army Medical Center in 1977. One of my patient's was a very elderly gentleman who told me his father was a physician who worked on a number of Indian reservations in the southwest. Evidently, my patient regularly accompanied his father while he worked, and formed good relationships with many of the people his father treated. This man told me that several of his friend's parents told him that Indians did not believe in completely wiping out their enemies. One reason was the possibility of "bad karma", or angering their Great Spirit for such wanton destruction. Another reason was that they understood that by leaving some survivors, their fame and reputation was greatly enhanced by tales by the survivors.
He said that the Indians said they were shocked to see many of the soldiers shoot each other, then themselves. In other words, murder/suicide. I've read several books that reported that soldiers, fearing torture if captured by the Indians, made murder/suicide pacts with their friends.
I always thought what my patient told me made sense, and was an interesting insight into a possible facet of the battle.
Regards,
Dave
There were those who said Custer had a wound in the side and one in the temple with powder burns.They also said he was scalped and mutilated, but didn't report that to keep the gory details from Libbie Custer.
On the other hand, the Indians described a man wearing clothes like those Custer was wearing being killed or wounded as the 7th attempted to cross the LBH.. In other words one of the very first casualties.
But that wouldn't fit the glorious tales told in the newspapers.
On the other hand, the Indians described a man wearing clothes like those Custer was wearing being killed or wounded as the 7th attempted to cross the LBH.. In other words one of the very first casualties.
But that wouldn't fit the glorious tales told in the newspapers.
Last edited:
Ray
Member
One of my patient's was a very elderly gentleman who told me his father was a physician who worked on a number of Indian reservations in the southwest.
Hi Dave, the father of that gentleman should be Dr. Thomas B. Marquis author of the book ' Keep The Last Bullet For Yourself'.
Regards, Ray
Hi Dave, the father of that gentleman should be Dr. Thomas B. Marquis author of the book ' Keep The Last Bullet For Yourself'.
Regards, Ray
Double-O-Dave
US Veteran
Plain Old Dave
US Veteran
I have never understood the Eastern Theater prejudice. Hampton, MAYBE. But IMO Stuart was as much overrated as Custer; If you want to see what would have happened to Old Bedford at Yellow Tavern, you only have to look at Fallen Timbers. He never would have went for any "fool nonsense" like Brandy Station, and certainly wouldn't have been caught with his britches down like Stuart did, but that's another topic.
Murfreesboro.
The Winter 1862 Campaign.
Streight's Raid.
Brice's Crossroads.
Johnsonville, possibly the single most damaging raid of the entire War.
The Civil War produced a good many competent cavalrymen; the eyes and ears of the Army. Doing your job, and doing it well is one thing. But finding new ways to do your job is altogether different. Where Stuart, Custer and the rest used cavalry as reconnaissance or raiders, an untutored genius in Tennessee instinctively understood the day of the "beau sabreur" was long gone. To this barely-literate savant, the horse was only a rapid means of carrying its rider to battle and his "troopers" as often as not carried an infantry musket or shotgun and several lighter weight "navy sixes" (36 caliber) instead of the standard carbine and "Army pistols" (.44s) and never had a saber. He honed the edge on his saber to a razor edge and by some accounts killed several of the 31 men he accounted for in the conflict with it. Never lost a battle til Selma in the Spring of 1865, too.
The Civil War produced many competent cavalrymen by the standard of the day, but it only produced one GREAT one: The Wizard of the Saddle, Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest.
"No d***ed man kills me and lives!"
Last edited:
My, how times change. When I was a kid, Custer was a hero, with only a few malcontents deriding him. Now it is the other way around. The truth will probably never be known.
I despise popular opinion.
I despise popular opinion.
Gulfecho
Member
I agree. In Montana history as a kid we were taught Custer was up there with Lewis and Clark. As an adult I've come to believe the latter of your conclusion.
It's safe to say that "Old Iron ***'s" troops didn't think much of him.
He would go hunting while they were on the march. He had several horses and the troops had just one.
Surviving troops under Reno said their horses were exhausted and frantically thirsty. They were delayed in their attack on the village by horses fighting to get a drink as they crossed the LBH.
Autie cared little for his men. He proved that over and over again.
He would go hunting while they were on the march. He had several horses and the troops had just one.
Surviving troops under Reno said their horses were exhausted and frantically thirsty. They were delayed in their attack on the village by horses fighting to get a drink as they crossed the LBH.
Autie cared little for his men. He proved that over and over again.
Ed Fowler
Member
Custer's wife also wrote a book about one of their campaigns, I was amazed at how different her memory and experience was from that of her husband. Both wrote about the event, but you would never realize they were writing about the same campaign. I do not mean to claim that one was right and the other was wrong, just different!!
I agree with the general premise that the Sioux were not inclined to wipe them out to the last man, but I disagree with the conclusion or assumption that the last troops on last stand hill would have been left alive by the Sioux.
The problem is that after a couple initial assaults during the battle, they left the Reno/Benteen position intact and basically pinned them place with harassing fire for a couple more days - long enough for the village to pack up and withdraw.
In other words, they could in fact completely wipe out the troops on last stand hill AND leave survivors to tell the tale - which is exactly what happened.
Given that the evidence indicates that the Sioux cut down 40 or so troops who tried to escape into a coulee, I don't think they had any intention of leaving any of the troops on last stand hill alive.
Custer was found on last stand hill with two wounds, both of which would have been very quickly fatal.
That largely conflicts with native accounts that Custer was wounded in the attempt to ford LBH river at Medicine Tail Coulee, and was assisted back on his horse and rode back up the Coulee. It's likely they mistook one of the scouts in buckskins and a hat for Custer.
After all, all Wašíču look pretty much alike.
Journals indicate that Custer was wearing a buckskin coat during this campaign and on the day of the battle.
One will never know, but could have Custer although wounded continued to fight until the end and then shot himself or was he unable to fight and his brother or some other of the four other family members present do it for him when it was clear the end was near?
One will never know, but could have Custer although wounded continued to fight until the end and then shot himself or was he unable to fight and his brother or some other of the four other family members present do it for him when it was clear the end was near?
Last edited:
Ed Fowler
Member
The book I read that claimed to be written my the Indians who were there stated the man they thought was Custer was shot crossing the Little Big Horn, by a party of hunters returning to camp. Custer fell from his horse and was immediately loaded back up on his horse by his men and taken to the battle field, he was not moving on his own and had to be held on his horse.
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
I agree, and I would argue this whole point assumes too much intentionality or planning on the part of the Indians.
As mentioned above, the Plains tribes in battle really recognized no leadership other than by example. So the idea that "the Indians" might have decided to leave or not leave anyone alive just does not fit the way they fought. Basically, every warrior decided for himself who and where he was going to engage and when he was going to break for lunch.
So when traditional accounts talk about "Crazy Horse and his warriors" or "Chief Gall and his warriors" doing this or that in the course of the battle, one must not envision a company commander ordering his troops into action. It was more like Crazy Horse might say "Let's go up this ravine" and a bunch of others agreeing to come along because of his reputation, but it was just a likely and acceptable for others to say "Nah, looks too dangerous, I think we'll go around the hill here and check out the other side".
So I don't believe it's realistic to think in categories of the Indians actually deciding in the confusion of the fight to either kill them all or to leave some alive. Those that were killable died, which due to its disintegration included all of the Custer batallion; those that maintained an organized defensive posture, on Reno-Benteen hill, held and lived.
Ed Fowler
Member
Like many great events in the history of man, I feel this one had all the grace and coordination of a soup sandwich. It happened much of it unplanned and today we try to explain it logically.
It's piling up pretty deep here, boys. More theories than the 911 attacks, and at least there was video of most of that.
"The Indians" didn't write anything down, so by the next day, eyewitness accounts were starting to "evolve". In other words the BS started piling up. This has continued now for 130 years, so the truth is lost to history. I'm fine with that, but I get weary of speculation turning into "facts", just like is happening now with revising the history of the War that the South started to keep slavery legal. Fussin' stop already.
"The Indians" didn't write anything down, so by the next day, eyewitness accounts were starting to "evolve". In other words the BS started piling up. This has continued now for 130 years, so the truth is lost to history. I'm fine with that, but I get weary of speculation turning into "facts", just like is happening now with revising the history of the War that the South started to keep slavery legal. Fussin' stop already.
Last edited:
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Not to make too much of this, and it is a different type of discussion, but I just don't buy that.
I'm not talking about you specifically, but the attitude you seem to express has become much too fashionable with those today who want to just dismiss the history they don't like or that doesn't fit with their worldview. Or even worse, who need an excuse for intellectual laziness.
History is a thing, events can be reconstructed based on actual evidence, and serious scholarship is still widely practiced. The only problem I see is the unwillingness of too many people to make the effort.
cmort666
Member
However, they were known to do "ledger book" drawings of events. Not all that different from Trajan's column, albeit far more perishable.
Similar threads
