Comments on: George Armstrong Custer: Changing Views of an American Legend http://www.historynet.com/george-armstrong-custer-changing-views-of-an-american-legend.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Thu, 23 May 2013 16:59:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Rex Stevenson http://www.historynet.com/george-armstrong-custer-changing-views-of-an-american-legend.htm#comment-832828 Rex Stevenson Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:16:30 +0000 #comment-832828 The conspiracy theory that I advanced more than 10 years ago is real. Problem is, too many folks appear to resent any theory whatsoever that's contrary to accepted beliefs ... but of course this is what happens when you try to buck the system, or, in this case, so-called military historians, authors, and self-proclaimed Custer experts who have already formed hardened opinions and conclusions about a very famous though obviously lop-sided battle which we actually know so little about. As stated, I am of the opinion that a conspiracy was in the works in 1876, and in so far as I can determine, it went all the way to the White House and directly involved several high-ranking government officials who set up GAC in hopes to either embarrass or eliminate him ... and it worked out far better than anyone had anticipated because it not only opened the door for railroad and national expansion, but also enabled them to illegally confiscate Indian lands which they had failed to purchase at the Red Cloud Conference in September, 1875. As for implicating specific generals and politicians, the reasons are obvious: They are the ones who issued the orders and thus controlled Custer's destiny. In other words, they pulled the strings on our high-strung, over-zealous, and often-times reckless boy general, but the fact remains that he was one hell of a cavalry commander and the only one in the summer campaign with guts enough to confront the enemy on his home turf. As an example, if it were not for Grant, Custer would never have returned to his command. But why would Grant restore Custer's command in the wake of Custer's Congressional testimony that all but wrecked his administration and any chance for a 3rd term in office? It makes no sense ... unless Grant knew, or at least hoped, that this would be Custer's last command. And of course General of the Army Sherman and Lt. Gen. Sheridan owed their post-war positions to Grant and were therefore absolutely loyal to his administration ... which is why no other officer, of any rank, in the entire U.S. Army, collaborated Custer's testimony on behalf of the Indians at the Congressional hearings. I have always believed that history simply repeats itself and that everything we need, want, require or seek has always been there for us just waiting to be found. Ergo, and with direct reference to my conspiracy theory, that which we seek is hidden in plain view (seen and yet unseen), but to see it we need an open and unpolluted mind. Examples: Why would the President of the United States personally intervene to deny the transfer of a junior officer? Maj. Lewis Merrill was Custer's XO and an experienced Indian-fighter, yet he and more than a dozen other loyal officers were transferred during Custer's absence in Washington. And when, on the eve of battle, Custer requested the return of his XO, Grant personally intervened and denied the request, stating that Merrill was needed in St. Louis for Centennial Celebration. Grant was a military man who well knew the serious and potentially disasterous ramifications of combat with inexperienced officers leading green recruits ... and nearly 40% of Custer's command were freshly mustered in. So what motivated him to do it? Custer was repeatedly led to believe that he might encounter first 500-800 poorly-armed hostiles; then as many as 1200-1500; and then back to 800-1000 warriors in the Big Horn Valley ... and yet Terry, Sheridan, Sherman and Grant were all well aware of the fact (since September 1875 and as late as June 6, 1876) that Custer would likely be up against at least 3000-5000 warriors (there were 7,000 warriors at the Red Cloud Conference), at least a quarter of whom were armed with Henry and Winchester repeating rifles. Gen. Crook commanded a 1,300-man column and was under direct orders to link up with Custer in the Big Horn Valley, and yet he retired from the field after sustaining just 31 casualties (10 dead, 21 wounded) in a brief encounter with Crazy Horse and about 1,500 Sioux and Cheyennes at Rosebud Creek (38 miles south of LBH) on June 17th and supposedly failed to notify anyone about his actions until mid-July. Crook was a Civil War veteran and wannabe Indian-fighter whose battle record is, in my opinion, not only highly questionable but borders on cowardice. My question is: Why wasn't he courtmartialed for "desertion in the face of the enemy" instead of promoted? Military records indicate that Custer was supposed to link up with Terry's and Crook's columns on June 26th, and that Custer's forced march into hostile territory put him at the LBH a day early and therefore without support ... and if Crook's column had continued its advance, they would have arrived 5-6 days before Custer and would have been there waiting for him. And yet Terry didn't reach the LBH until the afternoon of June 27th, and Crook never showed at all. (Hmmm? Seems to me that he was set up for failure ... even at the expense of a regiment of cavalry.) But why then did Custer's orders stipulate that he was to advance on the LBH, locate and contain the hostiles, and prevent their escape? How could they (the powers that be) know that Custer would find himself alone and cut off? Accepted U.S. Army strategy/tactics when attacking a hostile Indian village was a three-pronged pre-dawn attack, just as Custer had done at the Washita in 1868. So why condemn him for dividing his command? After all, one has only to look at an overview of the battlefield (placement of troops) to ascertain the fact that Custer never intended to attack and instead chose to adhere to his orders (he was already in enough trouble) and contain the hostiles until help arrived. Consider this: Custer's scouts tell him that there are more than 2,200 lodges in the Big Horn Valley, thus indicating the presence of at least 12,000 Indians and certainly no less than 3-4,000 warriors. Custer is also told that there are three possible avenues of escape, so Custer dispatches a message to Benteen to return immediately and bring the pack train with him; tells Reno to dig in with his 3-troop batallion and deny the hostiles a river crossing; and then proceeds along the rim of the valley with the remaining 5 troops to seal off Medicine Tail and Deep Coulees. But Reno attacks the village; Benteen ignores Custer's order and links up with Reno; and Custer, because of Reno's charge, is caught out of position. Remember, Custer is momentarily expecting reinforcements and realizes that his tiny command is no match for the thousands of warriors in the LBH. So he makes a sound military decision, divides his command, and attempts to bottle-up the Indians pending the arrival of the other two columns. This is why he sent dispatch riders to Benteen telling him to come quick and bring packs ... and not because he was about to attack the village. After all, no experienced cavalry commander in his right mind would lead a mounted cavalry charge with a 85 pack-laden mules in tow, not even Custer! As for Reno, why would he suddenly decide to obey the orders of a man he openly despised, often questioned, and constantly ridiculed, especially when he obviously knew it would be suicide for him and the 140 troopers under his command? Did he have a death wish? No way! The man was a proven coward. So why then did he advance to the attack, stir up the hornet's nest, and then just as quickly as possible, turn tail and head for the hills? Why did Reno and Benteen swear, under oath, at the 1879 Military Board of Inquiry, that they had no idea that Custer was in trouble ... that they didn't hear the sounds of gun-fire ... when every enlisted man who testified swore that the sounds of volley-firing were clearly heard by everyone in the command? These are just a few of the many unanswered questions surrounding Custer's Last Stand. The conspiracy theory that I advanced more than 10 years ago is real. Problem is, too many folks appear to resent any theory whatsoever that's contrary to accepted beliefs … but of course this is what happens when you try to buck the system, or, in this case, so-called military historians, authors, and self-proclaimed Custer experts who have already formed hardened opinions and conclusions about a very famous though obviously lop-sided battle which we actually know so little about.

As stated, I am of the opinion that a conspiracy was in the works in 1876, and in so far as I can determine, it went all the way to the White House and directly involved several high-ranking government officials who set up GAC in hopes to either embarrass or eliminate him … and it worked out far better than anyone had anticipated because it not only opened the door for railroad and national expansion, but also enabled them to illegally confiscate Indian lands which they had failed to purchase at the Red Cloud Conference in September, 1875.

As for implicating specific generals and politicians, the reasons are obvious: They are the ones who issued the orders and thus controlled Custer's destiny. In other words, they pulled the strings on our high-strung, over-zealous, and often-times reckless boy general, but the fact remains that he was one hell of a cavalry commander and the only one in the summer campaign with guts enough to confront the enemy on his home turf.

As an example, if it were not for Grant, Custer would never have returned to his command. But why would Grant restore Custer's command in the wake of Custer's Congressional testimony that all but wrecked his administration and any chance for a 3rd term in office? It makes no sense … unless Grant knew, or at least hoped, that this would be Custer's last command. And of course General of the Army Sherman and Lt. Gen. Sheridan owed their post-war positions to Grant and were therefore absolutely loyal to his administration … which is why no other officer, of any rank, in the entire U.S. Army, collaborated Custer's testimony on behalf of the Indians at the Congressional hearings.

I have always believed that history simply repeats itself and that everything we need, want, require or seek has always been there for us just waiting to be found. Ergo, and with direct reference to my conspiracy theory, that which we seek is hidden in plain view (seen and yet unseen), but to see it we need an open and unpolluted mind.

Examples:

Why would the President of the United States personally intervene to deny the transfer of a junior officer? Maj. Lewis Merrill was Custer's XO and an experienced Indian-fighter, yet he and more than a dozen other loyal officers were transferred during Custer's absence in Washington. And when, on the eve of battle, Custer requested the return of his XO, Grant personally intervened and denied the request, stating that Merrill was needed in St. Louis for Centennial Celebration. Grant was a military man who well knew the serious and potentially disasterous ramifications of combat with inexperienced officers leading green recruits … and nearly 40% of Custer's command were freshly mustered in. So what motivated him to do it?

Custer was repeatedly led to believe that he might encounter first 500-800 poorly-armed hostiles; then as many as 1200-1500; and then back to 800-1000 warriors in the Big Horn Valley … and yet Terry, Sheridan, Sherman and Grant were all well aware of the fact (since September 1875 and as late as June 6, 1876) that Custer would likely be up against at least 3000-5000 warriors (there were 7,000 warriors at the Red Cloud Conference), at least a quarter of whom were armed with Henry and Winchester repeating rifles.

Gen. Crook commanded a 1,300-man column and was under direct orders to link up with Custer in the Big Horn Valley, and yet he retired from the field after sustaining just 31 casualties (10 dead, 21 wounded) in a brief encounter with Crazy Horse and about 1,500 Sioux and Cheyennes at Rosebud Creek (38 miles south of LBH) on June 17th and supposedly failed to notify anyone about his actions until mid-July. Crook was a Civil War veteran and wannabe Indian-fighter whose battle record is, in my opinion, not only highly questionable but borders on cowardice. My question is: Why wasn't he courtmartialed for "desertion in the face of the enemy" instead of promoted?

Military records indicate that Custer was supposed to link up with Terry's and Crook's columns on June 26th, and that Custer's forced march into hostile territory put him at the LBH a day early and therefore without support … and if Crook's column had continued its advance, they would have arrived 5-6 days before Custer and would have been there waiting for him. And yet Terry didn't reach the LBH until the afternoon of June 27th, and Crook never showed at all. (Hmmm? Seems to me that he was set up for failure … even at the expense of a regiment of cavalry.) But why then did Custer's orders stipulate that he was to advance on the LBH, locate and contain the hostiles, and prevent their escape? How could they (the powers that be) know that Custer would find himself alone and cut off?

Accepted U.S. Army strategy/tactics when attacking a hostile Indian village was a three-pronged pre-dawn attack, just as Custer had done at the Washita in 1868. So why condemn him for dividing his command? After all, one has only to look at an overview of the battlefield (placement of troops) to ascertain the fact that Custer never intended to attack and instead chose to adhere to his orders (he was already in enough trouble) and contain the hostiles until help arrived.
Consider this: Custer's scouts tell him that there are more than 2,200 lodges in the Big Horn Valley, thus indicating the presence of at least 12,000 Indians and certainly no less than 3-4,000 warriors. Custer is also told that there are three possible avenues of escape, so Custer dispatches a message to Benteen to return immediately and bring the pack train with him; tells Reno to dig in with his 3-troop batallion and deny the hostiles a river crossing; and then proceeds along the rim of the valley with the remaining 5 troops to seal off Medicine Tail and Deep Coulees. But Reno attacks the village; Benteen ignores Custer's order and links up with Reno; and Custer, because of Reno's charge, is caught out of position.

Remember, Custer is momentarily expecting reinforcements and realizes that his tiny command is no match for the thousands of warriors in the LBH. So he makes a sound military decision, divides his command, and attempts to bottle-up the Indians pending the arrival of the other two columns. This is why he sent dispatch riders to Benteen telling him to come quick and bring packs … and not because he was about to attack the village. After all, no experienced cavalry commander in his right mind would lead a mounted cavalry charge with a 85 pack-laden mules in tow, not even Custer!

As for Reno, why would he suddenly decide to obey the orders of a man he openly despised, often questioned, and constantly ridiculed, especially when he obviously knew it would be suicide for him and the 140 troopers under his command? Did he have a death wish? No way! The man was a proven coward. So why then did he advance to the attack, stir up the hornet's nest, and then just as quickly as possible, turn tail and head for the hills?

Why did Reno and Benteen swear, under oath, at the 1879 Military Board of Inquiry, that they had no idea that Custer was in trouble … that they didn't hear the sounds of gun-fire … when every enlisted man who testified swore that the sounds of volley-firing were clearly heard by everyone in the command?

These are just a few of the many unanswered questions surrounding Custer's Last Stand.

]]> By: Ron Webb http://www.historynet.com/george-armstrong-custer-changing-views-of-an-american-legend.htm#comment-515344 Ron Webb Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:34:31 +0000 #comment-515344 Custer!....you have to ask yourself why does the government continue to try to damage his image...He cannot seriously be taken as a raving, reckless maniac, as Sheridan, Sherman, & Terry, those who had served closest to him, wanted him on the LBH expedition...and believe me, they would not have done so had they felt he would ruin their reputations. As far as Grant, history has proven that Custer told the truth at the Belknap hearings, which is why Belknap resigned before the hearings. As far as Custer hating Indians, he wasn't out there of his own accord, he was carrying out his assigned orders...as far as being reckless, he ordered that his spare ammunition be sent to him "twice", once through Kanipe and once through Martin. The Indians are quoted as saying Custer's shooting dwindled toward late evening...If Benteen and Reno had wanted to cover up what they had intentionally done, they would say #1. nothing they could have done would have saved him (the extra ammo would have) #2. the battle lasted only 30 minutes, not enough time for them to get there (the Indians and Peter Thompson said it lasted almost two hours, #3. they didn't hear any shooting (everyone but Benteen and Reno did, even those who were partially deaf), and these are exactly the things that they did say. You have to ask yourself why Benteen so nonchalantly felt that he could ignore his orders. He would not have done so had he not known that it was alright to do so from a superior officer, and this officer was not General Terry, as he was documented to be in tears upon arrival at the Reno location. Terry blew his integrity out of the water when he sent in two differing reports to Sheridan, the first being accurate, and the second blaming the dead Custer, once R. Hughes and J. Brisbin had sufficiently influenced him, as Terry certainly did not want Sheridan to blame him....So where would such a conspiracy as befell Custer come from....who had the enmity and who had the motive.....Grant did!...and how would Grant get such an order to the battlefield....certainly not through Sherman, who was known to bow to no man dishonestly, but there was one other general, who while he benefitted from the victories that Custer delivered to him, never fully helped Custer out after the great Rebellion of the Civil War, a general who was always career-climbing by carrying out anything and everything that the angry Grant wanted, and that was Sheridan.....So from Grant to Sheridan, from Sheridan to Benteen.....they knowing full well that Custer would be in the thickest of the fighting....leave him stranded, and how to do that? do not deliver the ammunition! Custer was the only one who did exactly what he was sent out there to do.....he carried out his duty as he understood it with the fullest sacrifice...that which he vowed at West Point....honor, duty, country. All other commanding generals either avoided the Indians, hoping that Custer would deal with them, or in the case of Crook, when the Indians found him (instead of him finding them), he retreated, and was basically afraid, as was Terry to go back out there without many reinforcements. Thank you. RWW Custer!….you have to ask yourself why does the government continue to try to damage his image…He cannot seriously be taken as a raving, reckless maniac, as Sheridan, Sherman, & Terry, those who had served closest to him, wanted him on the LBH expedition…and believe me, they would not have done so had they felt he would ruin their reputations. As far as Grant, history has proven that Custer told the truth at the Belknap hearings, which is why Belknap resigned before the hearings. As far as Custer hating Indians, he wasn't out there of his own accord, he was carrying out his assigned orders…as far as being reckless, he ordered that his spare ammunition be sent to him "twice", once through Kanipe and once through Martin. The Indians are quoted as saying Custer's shooting dwindled toward late evening…If Benteen and Reno had wanted to cover up what they had intentionally done, they would say #1. nothing they could have done would have saved him (the extra ammo would have) #2. the battle lasted only 30 minutes, not enough time for them to get there (the Indians and Peter Thompson said it lasted almost two hours, #3. they didn't hear any shooting (everyone but Benteen and Reno did, even those who were partially deaf), and these are exactly the things that they did say. You have to ask yourself why Benteen so nonchalantly felt that he could ignore his orders. He would not have done so had he not known that it was alright to do so from a superior officer, and this officer was not General Terry, as he was documented to be in tears upon arrival at the Reno location. Terry blew his integrity out of the water when he sent in two differing reports to Sheridan, the first being accurate, and the second blaming the dead Custer, once R. Hughes and J. Brisbin had sufficiently influenced him, as Terry certainly did not want Sheridan to blame him….So where would such a conspiracy as befell Custer come from….who had the enmity and who had the motive…..Grant did!…and how would Grant get such an order to the battlefield….certainly not through Sherman, who was known to bow to no man dishonestly, but there was one other general, who while he benefitted from the victories that Custer delivered to him, never fully helped Custer out after the great Rebellion of the Civil War, a general who was always career-climbing by carrying out anything and everything that the angry Grant wanted, and that was Sheridan…..So from Grant to Sheridan, from Sheridan to Benteen…..they knowing full well that Custer would be in the thickest of the fighting….leave him stranded, and how to do that? do not deliver the ammunition! Custer was the only one who did exactly what he was sent out there to do…..he carried out his duty as he understood it with the fullest sacrifice…that which he vowed at West Point….honor, duty, country. All other commanding generals either avoided the Indians, hoping that Custer would deal with them, or in the case of Crook, when the Indians found him (instead of him finding them), he retreated, and was basically afraid, as was Terry to go back out there without many reinforcements.

Thank you. RWW

]]> By: Custer at Little Big Horn @ Tweet Your Future Self http://www.historynet.com/george-armstrong-custer-changing-views-of-an-american-legend.htm#comment-81143 Custer at Little Big Horn @ Tweet Your Future Self Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:50:14 +0000 #comment-81143 [...] http://www.historynet.com/george-armstrong-custer-changing-views-of-an-american-legend.htm (accessed April 12, 2009) [...] [...] http://www.historynet.com/george-armstrong-custer-changing-views-of-an-american-legend.htm (accessed April 12, 2009) [...]

]]> By: Keith Burgess-Jackson » The Battle of the Little Bighorn http://www.historynet.com/george-armstrong-custer-changing-views-of-an-american-legend.htm#comment-458 Keith Burgess-Jackson » The Battle of the Little Bighorn Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:03:43 +0000 #comment-458 [...] in 1964 and in 1989. I’m on the quarter-century plan, so I’m due to go back on 2014. Here is an article about Custer. Here is the website of the battlefield. Posted by Keith [...] [...] in 1964 and in 1989. I'm on the quarter-century plan, so I'm due to go back on 2014. Here is an article about Custer. Here is the website of the battlefield. Posted by Keith [...]

]]>