it seems to me Custer was in the wrong and had to comit sucicde to cover up the fact that he was in the wrong and to cover this up that Reno and Benteen seemed to hold back the men in their comand was part of this cover up and the fact thaythey only lost a few men kind of sums that up!

By jeffrey tassey on Mar 11, 2009 at 12:43 pm

What rational person commits suicide to cover up his mistakes? If that was true both Clinton and Gore would have shot themselves.

The article was a well researched account, looking at the available evidence and developing a rational scenario, unlike the history revionist accounts fed into the 'mush minds' of the public school kids.

In every account of the Little Bighorn battle, there is reason to suspect that at the very least Reno and Beneteen were either incompetant officers or were content to let Custer be 'hung out to dry.'

By Allen Williams on Apr 5, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Actually, General Custer was not "wrong". He was an officer in the United States Military and was sent by our governement, with "two other Generals", Crook and Terry to the Little Big Horn. The Sioux under Sitting Bull were murdering settlers/people looking for gold. The army was sent to take measures against them. In essence, he was doing his job.
Abandonded by Reno and Benteen, Custer and five companies of soldiers (240 men) were killed (with the exception six soldiers). Those six soldiers according to a white captive named Ridgely, who escaped when (the braves got drunk and the squaws went to multilate and rob the bodieswith Custer)were tied to stakes and burned to death while Indian boys fired red hot arrows into their flesh. They were kept burning for more than an hour.

There has been much written about the dishonesty of the the army…however, of all the evil deeds between the government and the Indian nations during that time were done by both sides.
Whites killed Indians and Indian killed whites. My great grandfather was left for dead after his mother and siblings were murdered and mutilated ..and considered him to small to for scalping to be worth while so he survived. It would have been better if he hadn't.
We all just need to move on…

By Ann on Apr 7, 2009 at 5:54 pm

The Sioux under Sitting Bull "murdering" settlers/people?

They settlers/people were illegally trespassing on Sioux land. The US military was suppose to keep all whites off Indian land and failed and/or refused to do so.

Just who is this 'white captive" ridgely?

I have never heard of any white captives in the village . . . nor has anyone ever mentioned it in the many books or articles I've read about the LBH.

There was a red-headed Frenchman supposedly in the village . . . but he was not a captive.

By crzhrs on Apr 10, 2009 at 1:20 pm

First of all, CR…yes the Sioux murdered people and it wasn't always over land. I understand that the government did not deal honorably with the Indians. And, it isnt just a matter of Indians killing whites, Indians killed other Indians from different tribes. They also hired themselves out has mercenaries for the French etc..as a matter of fact…even in many treaty meeting between the various tripes and the Army…on numerous occassions at the end of the meeting…the whites who were conducting the meeting were often shot and killed by the indians who were under a flagof truce.
The Indians didnt only kill whites on who were "trespassing" they had did many other killing excursions.. for example… leaving their own land to attack stage coaches for the money, horses and women to take as prisoners, "To the Sioux the highest virtue was to kill men..the greatest hero was he who had the most featherson his head as tokens of the number of his murders."

The Indians are no more or les s noble than any other race of people…they were just out numbered.
CR, the military could not possibly keep all whites out of all Indian territory…there was too much of it.

Back to the Little Big Horn….there were actually three white captives in Sitting Bull's camp Ridgely and two companions. Ridgely
I believe this is confirmed by information at the Library of Congress. However, it is also documented in a couple of books..so if you research it properly, Im sure you'll find it.

A

By Ann on Apr 13, 2009 at 6:25 pm

you need more info about little bighorn

By austin on May 7, 2009 at 7:04 pm

TO SUGGEST THAT CUSTER WAS "LET DOWN" BY RENO AND BENTEEN IS A SLUR ON TWO OFFICERS. RENO WAS NOT THE BEST OF OFFICERS BUT BENTEEN WAS A VERY GOOD ONE. I SUGGEST A BOOK BY DAVID HUMPHREYS MILLER WHICH GIVES THE INDIAN SIDE OF THE BATTLE ALBEIT COLLECTED MANY YEARS AFTER THE BATTLE.HAVING READ MANY BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT , ALTHOUGH NOT AN EXPERT,MOST AUTHORS AGREE THAT CUSTER TOLD RENO TO ATTACK AND HE WOULD BACK HIM UP.IT NEVER HAPPENED. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT CUSTER WAS SHOT IF NOT KILLED AT THE ATTEMPTED CROSSING OF MEDICINE TAIL COULEE LEADING TO THE WITHDRAWAL BACK UP THE COULEE AND THE SUBSEQUENT DEFEAT OF,AND THE DEATHS OF A LARGE PART OF THE 7TH CAVALRY

By M.O'CONNELL on May 8, 2009 at 3:20 pm

I find it interesting that the Custer's suicide myth still persists. Having been employed there for 10 years I have heard and responded to many of these questions in the past. This nation has been so jilted by its politicians (pick a party, it doesn't matter) since the Kennedy assassination and the Watergate break-in, that conspiracy theories still tend to run rampant.

Maybe Mr. Tassey has had past experience constructing tangled webs of government/conspiracy thought sometime in the past, but I doubt he was being shot at when doing so. George Custer had two mortal wounds (left temple, and left breast), hardly the side of the body for a right-handed person. Or is that also part of the conspiracy?

Custer's command perished with 210 men to be exact (13 officers, 193 enlisted men, and four civilians). I am unaware of a man named Ridgely even being on the payroll in 1876. However there has a tendency to be more survivors of the battle than there has been people killed at it.

Iroquoian tribes often burned their enemies at the stake, the Lakota and Tsitsita (that's the Sheyhela (Cheyenne) word for themselves for you novices trying to keep score here) did not. By 1876, killing your enemy on the battlefield was more favorable than dragging them back to camp for some sort of fiendish torture.

David Humphrey's Miller's book does not cite one Indian source, therefore it is not worth the paper it is printed on and should be disregarded as a scholastic interpretation. Use it at your own peril, for in forums such as this, you will be made to look rather foolish, and in record time.

All of you who believe there were any whites at all in the Sioux/Cheyenne camp on 25 June 1876 had better read (and I mean read, just don't buy it and then let it collect dust) Wooden Leg : A Warrior Who Fought Custer by Thomas Marquis. Marquis was a doctor for the Cheyenne in the late 1800-early 1900's. Many of the battle combatants communicated there experiences with Marquis through sign language. Wooden Leg, 18 at the time of the fight, stated without hesitation, there were no whites in the camp.

Custer's orders to Reno were to attack and that Custer would support him (Reno), not back him up. Reno was the first to use the word "support" but that was during the Court of Inquiry at the Palmer House in Chicago in January 1879. Since no one knew where the village was, and if it was moving, it was very difficult to give exact orders at to Reno's specific movement.

Curley, the Crow Scout, was with Custer when the left and right wings of the battalion met on Calhoun Hill. If Custer was wounded, then Curley would have mentioned it to Russell White Bear and Walter Camp. The fact that it was omitted and that Custer was with the right wing on Nye-Cartwright Ridge obviates the fact that he was wounded (or killed) at the river. The officer of which you speak was most likely Algernon Smith, whose body was found on Last Stand Hill near Dr. Porter, whereas his company was found scattered between 300-400 yards from his corpse.

By J. Helmer on May 13, 2009 at 6:19 pm

I am not an historian, but Custer and this battle fascinate me. Custer was a 19th century rock star, on the eve of being a 19th century Kennedy or Obama. (Plenty of discusson of Dem's considering running him for pres in the next election.)

If asked 6 hourse before the battle, I believe Custer would have said his greatest fear would be that the indians would escape. I agree with a recent commenter that Reno was sent forward to scout. But, having recognized the battlefield, I agree with the author's point that Custer then attempted a flanking manuever and expected Maj Reno to recognize and react or at least hold.

Had Reno held his position in the timbers things would have been very different. Warriors would have had to deal with a two pronged attack. Many women and children were fleeing to the west. It's even conceivable that the bulk of the warriors may have followed to protect them. Custer wrote of this tactic in a previous battle.

If guilty of anything, Reno may be guilty of being drunk on duty, emotionally tramatized beyond an ability to command and failure to recognize and react in an appropriate military manner.

I believe arceological finds have demonstrated that Custer deployed elements of his command in pickets. Horses were slain to provide fighting positions. Custer's demise bears all the signs of a military command to the end.

Reno's every man for himself retreat from the timbers, to me, is the most terrifying part of the battle. As men were funneled into choke points trying to ford the river and being cut down one by one… terrifying!

Benteen failed Custer's command to "come quick". Benteen stopped at Reno and did not come to Custer's aid as directed. This is clear violation of his commanders orders. While with Reno, Benteeen did command the defense as Reno was ineffective. Men with them said Benteen was responsible for their survival. While this defense in commendable, Bentenns jealousy and hatred of Custer led him to abandon his commander and his men to their fate.

I do not intend to disparage the valor or effectiveness of the warriors during the battle. I only write this becamse Custer has been intolerably smeared by history and the two culprits, Reno and Benteen, got off scott free.

Thanks to our author for highlighting these important issues and keeping the discussion alive!

By Mike on May 17, 2009 at 2:49 am

Thank You Mr Helmer some of the posts listed here were way off and highly fabricated myths and stories.

By s.harris on May 23, 2009 at 11:22 am

It's time to realize that, in 1876, Custer is the only one who did that which he was sent to do, that being to locate the enemy and bring them to battle. Crook didn't do it, they (the Indians brought the battle to him, Terry didn't do it, nor Gibbon. Only Custer fulfilled his duty and he did so realizing that he was making the ultimate sacrifice to his duty, honor, and service to his country, while surrounded by treachery from all sides, from the president on down. When you look at the contribution that he made during the Civil War to keep this union together, we have to wonder why he was so maligned during the 1876 campaign. There can be no further question as to his allegiance to the US, he proved this on many fields of battle. Reno & Benteen simply could not stand to contribute to Custer having yet another victory….they were so jealous of him….and yet they had no right to ever try to compare their military worth with his, as they never were in his league. This soldier Custer deserves to rest in peace along with his companions….no one ever questioned his bravery, so why should the survivors question his service to his country.

By Ron Webb on May 27, 2009 at 2:59 pm

I have just come from a survey of the Little Big Horn Battlefield.
Testimomy from historians and on site rangers support the fact that Custer divided his force into five groups: pack train, Reno, Benteen, one group that attacked at the ford and one group sent further north. In the face of an enemy force of the size reported,this was not sound. The flank attack at the ford was a good idea, but should have been executed with Custer's full five companies.

The exhaustion of the cavalry horses and the ground (4-5 miles of hills and gulleys) bwtween the Reno group and the Custer group prohibited any mutual support of each other and the inability to message each other was a guarantee that the groups could be defeated in detail.

When the Custer group began its retreat, they went NORTH rather than south toward the Reno and Benteen groups thus extending the distance between the groups rather than going SOUTH toward a link-up.

The distribution of the sites of the deaths of the troopers with Custer reveals that they as a group made no proper defense of themselves with the exception of one group. It also shows that Custer's two groups did link up as well, but were defeated in detail.

There is no issue of any one's courage, but there is clearly an issue that Custer's leadership was lacking and his assumption that the Indians would run was flawed. They didn't come together to be wimps. They came together to fight and did. The won two major battles in one week.

By Paul Tisdel on Jul 12, 2009 at 1:43 am

Please note that I left out the word "not" in the next to last paragraph of my comment. Custer's two groups did NOT successfully link up.

By Paul Tisdel on Jul 12, 2009 at 1:46 am

Way to go Mr. Tisdel. No one else gave an account of the fatigue factor of the movement for vthe horses. A "CAVALRY" is dead without fresh mounts. And when you exercise a "pincer" movement you do not divide your force into five groups. Reno was incompetent. He had been disciplined before; why trust such an important mission to him in the first place? Custer was brash and brave but NOT a military genious. He had a GOOD record during the Civil War not a GREAT record. He underestimated the resolve and strength of his adversary and paid dearly.

By Muhamad on Sep 13, 2009 at 11:15 am

I've been a student of George Custer's for the better part of 50 years. I've visited the battlefield on the Little Bighorn some three dozen times. Obviously, I can't resist commenting on some of the comments on this page. Yes, he was brash and perhaps bold to the point of overconfident. Seems to me that I've heard the same criticisms of MacArthur and Patton. Leadership is a tough hat to wear–I'm a school district administrator–I know. George Custer was given credit for saving the day at Gettysburg by his superiors–so much so that his wife, Libby, was given the table that Lee signed the surrender on. I agree, maybe not a genious but the only officer to lead eleven charges. His command post was in front of his men. This was a lesson that Hal Moore took to Viet Nam and gave Custer credit for in his book "We Were Soldiers". If George Custer is to be criticised it should be for trusting his second and third in command, Reno and Benteen. These two men were not on the "team" and didn't want to be part of the "team". The term "underestimated" was used and I'd like to point out that George Custer most likely underestimated the dedication of Reno and Benteen along with the strength of the "hostiles". Custer's reports or "intelligence" from the reservations was faulty at best. Reservation agents of the day were paid "per head". The Indian Agents hadn't reported the number of hostiles that had left their agencies because it would have meant a terrible cut in pay for them. Also along the lines of "intel" we can include the fact that George Crook was whipped at the Battle of the Rosebud and retreated to near present day Sheridan, Wyoming to lick his wounds. No word was sent north to the Terry column or Gibbon's Montana column. Why hasn't Crook been criticised for the lack of intel and also attacking a week earlier than planned by the three columns.
Finally, I'd just like to say that I think George Custer, since Viet Nam, has been a victim of a changing attitude–a very poor attitude about what a hero is and what our great country has stood for. He has been made a scape goat for Manifest Destiny. He was a geat soldier–maybe with tunnel vision for glory but non-the-less, he was always focused on getting the job done just like our greatest Generals.

By Thomas Dunson on Apr 27, 2010 at 5:15 pm

that is wrong for what Custer did to the Indians aney way. the Indians didn't do aneythin to them. the Whites just tried to take over are lands. they should HAve not trid to clame land that some peole allreaddy had.
thats just like theft.

By mariah on Apr 28, 2010 at 10:43 am

It seems like every time I begin doing a little research on Lt Col Custer and the Little Big Horn battle, I run into at least a couple of folks who seem to be hung up on the "Little Big Man" depiction of the boy general. Despite all the billions of words used in discussing this historical personage, I truly can not understand how anyone who takes the time to read more than one book or watch more than one movie about Custer does not come away with an appreciation of this extremely brave and heroic man. I met Robert Nightingale a few years ago (when he was at the Gerryowen shop and I bought his book from him) and I enjoyed the read. I enjoyed reading the write-up here also. The more that is written, the better off we are, despite some of the tripe that some people call history.

By joe lawlor on May 3, 2010 at 10:35 pm

An in depth study of Custer will show he was noted as being an overly aggressive officer and somewhat of a 'misfit'. During the Civil War, he took it upon himself to hang Confederate POW's captured in Virginia during his campaing against Confederate General Jubal Early. Lee and Jefferson Davis communicated to Lincoln that unless Custer was reigned in, they would adopt the same policy.
Without going into to much detail, facts will show he took the 7th and arrived early ahead of the other units and Infantry support. He even left his field guns behind to move quickly. Why–because the Democratic Conventin was to be held in July and Custer wanted a big victory alone to cinch his nomination in the party for the Presidency. His tactics were sound, but he simply did not realize he was attacking a much superior force. After the disaster, no one wanted to destroy the myth. His wife Libby wrote 'Boots and Saddles' around 1912 I think and a beer company had a portrait of the 'glorious last stand'. Libby lived until around 1932 and the Army or historians neither one wanted to lay the truth out as to what really happened. It has just been with recent publications and digs at the battlefield that the truth is coming out. Read 'Son of the Morning Star' for perhaps the best documentation of the battle.

By Colonel RHS on Jun 10, 2010 at 6:01 pm

That was a great day for us Lakotas and Cheyenne. If Pehin Hanska (Custer) had defeated us he would become President and begin his joy of genicide against the people indigenous to this part of the world.

By rbrave on Jun 21, 2010 at 1:52 pm