Comments on: Ten Myths of the Little Bighorn http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:24:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: J.Vance http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn.htm#comment-787647 J.Vance Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:12:00 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13680743#comment-787647 As a historian that has read various accounts of the famed Custer event(s), this is a unique and perspective that the author valiantly (no pun intended) attempts to defend. However, the article's premises and arguments have assumptions that, upon examination, reveal that the central defense put forth of Custer's actions does not run counter to the many more historical opinions of Custer as a man, whose weakness, among other things was hubris. As example, the author ostensibly sets out to defend Custer's charge (raid?) as a "good thing" by arguing that Custer did not disobey his superior officer, that he listened to his scouts, and the Indian Village was not immense. The author would like unsuspecting readers to assume that because of these and other "facts", Custer did the right thing. The problem is, however, that even if he, Custer, did not disobey his superior officer and DID listen to his native American scouts for intel, this does not prove that Custer did not also suffer from fatal pride, which--the bulk of established and credentialed historians--attributed to his demise. (I do not care how heavily armed you were in those days, a group of 300 against 1500 IS/WAS an immense village and something that should have given a leader pause--whatever persuation from others). If the author addressed similar issues that I raise here, he would be well on his way to producing a piece of good historical analysis. However, it was an interesting read. As a historian that has read various accounts of the famed Custer event(s), this is a unique and perspective that the author valiantly (no pun intended) attempts to defend. However, the article's premises and arguments have assumptions that, upon examination, reveal that the central defense put forth of Custer's actions does not run counter to the many more historical opinions of Custer as a man, whose weakness, among other things was hubris. As example, the author ostensibly sets out to defend Custer's charge (raid?) as a "good thing" by arguing that Custer did not disobey his superior officer, that he listened to his scouts, and the Indian Village was not immense. The author would like unsuspecting readers to assume that because of these and other "facts", Custer did the right thing. The problem is, however, that even if he, Custer, did not disobey his superior officer and DID listen to his native American scouts for intel, this does not prove that Custer did not also suffer from fatal pride, which–the bulk of established and credentialed historians–attributed to his demise. (I do not care how heavily armed you were in those days, a group of 300 against 1500 IS/WAS an immense village and something that should have given a leader pause–whatever persuation from others). If the author addressed similar issues that I raise here, he would be well on his way to producing a piece of good historical analysis. However, it was an interesting read.

]]> By: David Custer http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn.htm#comment-784572 David Custer Wed, 14 Dec 2011 06:28:13 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13680743#comment-784572 The outcome of this battle, started over a thousand miles away. A corrupt Pres Grant,and his stalwart cronies, were upset, that Custer had testified against Sec of war Belknap, and got him fired, which he deserved. Grant set out to arrest Custer,and to destroy his character. Why then, did he allow Custer, to go on this excursion? hmm... Why was Custer refused,his original request for officers, and given Benteen instead? Benteen was slow to come, with his firepower. It wouldnt have mattered? How then, was Benteen able to withstand the concentrated attack for days after the battle, with half the men? Cavalry not important? Of course it is, and Reno should never have dismounted.But, he didnt have many men, his scout was killed before him, brains splattering on him, and if he was drunk,I can understand his lack of clarity. His retreat up the hill, instead of staying on flat land, was probably the correct one. Benteen, no doubt heard the fight, and his slow response, caused many to die. When he caught up with Reno, had he moved quickly to Custers aid,the story may have ended differently. How long he argued with captain Weir,before Weir left alone with his men, I just dont know. Benteen had the firepower, and was content to stay put. It is certain, that he was very happy to see Custer dead. He had wanted to duel him earlier. Grant was also happy, as Custer had arrested his son, for being drunk. Custer was a democrat,in a republican world. The stalwarts got the revenge they wanted, and continued to plunder the American people. The whistleblower was dead, and the captains of industry,free to carry on, as they do to this day.The legend of Custer, and his deeds, are of a fighter in the civil War, an Indian fighter,but his unknown greatest deed, was his fight against the corruption in the high places,against the powers that be. The outcome of this battle, started over a thousand miles away. A corrupt Pres Grant,and his stalwart cronies, were upset, that Custer had testified against Sec of war Belknap, and got him fired, which he deserved. Grant set out to arrest Custer,and to destroy his character. Why then, did he allow Custer, to go on this excursion? hmm…
Why was Custer refused,his original request for officers, and given Benteen instead? Benteen was slow to come, with his firepower. It wouldnt have mattered? How then, was Benteen able to withstand the concentrated attack for days after the battle, with half the men?
Cavalry not important? Of course it is, and Reno should never have dismounted.But, he didnt have many men, his scout was killed before him, brains splattering on him, and if he was drunk,I can understand his lack of clarity. His retreat up the hill, instead of staying on flat land, was probably the correct one. Benteen, no doubt heard the fight, and his slow response, caused many to die. When he caught up with Reno, had he moved quickly to Custers aid,the story may have ended differently. How long he argued with captain Weir,before Weir left alone with his men, I just dont know. Benteen had the firepower, and was content to stay put. It is certain, that he was very happy to see Custer dead. He had wanted to duel him earlier. Grant was also happy, as Custer had arrested his son, for being drunk. Custer was a democrat,in a republican world. The stalwarts got the revenge they wanted, and continued to plunder the American people. The whistleblower was dead, and the captains of industry,free to carry on, as they do to this day.The legend of Custer, and his deeds, are of a fighter in the civil War, an Indian fighter,but his unknown greatest deed, was his fight against the corruption in the high places,against the powers that be.

]]> By: SharonH http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn.htm#comment-781330 SharonH Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:41:36 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13680743#comment-781330 I could not agree with you more. What part of that message did Benteen not understand? Martini's lack of language skills had nothing to do with it; the short, curt sentences speak for themselves. The Reno Inquiry was a joke. Men were afraid to come forward and speak about his (Reno's) extreme intoxication for fear of repercussions. In between testimonies, all the big wigs involved joked and drank together-a "good ol' boys' club" if ever there was one. Even the map presented at the inquiry had been tampered with. Everything was done to exonerate both Reno and Benteen and put the blame on the man who could not defend himself-Custer. That Benteen was not punished for his disobedience is to me one of the biggest injustices in our military history. Regarding Captain Weir, as mentioned by another poster-it appears that he was extremely distraught by Benteen's refusal to go to Custer's aid and for the rest of his life probably could not live with the thought of what he may have seen as a preventable massacre. He did become a severe alcoholic and was certainly suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress until the end of his life a few months later, a broken shell of a man. I am not a huge fan of Custer in any way, but that short note speaks volumes. Benteen was no coward, as shown by his subsequent actions, so one is left to ponder his motives in choosing to stay put. Certainly his almost pathological dislike of Custer (and vice-versa) must be factored in. As an aside, the mental toll this battle took on so many of the survivors is sad indeed and indicates the horror of that day. We will never know the true extent of the psychological damage suffered by those who "survived". A very sad story for everyone concerned. I could not agree with you more. What part of that message did Benteen not understand? Martini's lack of language skills had nothing to do with it; the short, curt sentences speak for themselves.

The Reno Inquiry was a joke. Men were afraid to come forward and speak about his (Reno's) extreme intoxication for fear of repercussions. In between testimonies, all the big wigs involved joked and drank together-a "good ol' boys' club" if ever there was one.

Even the map presented at the inquiry had been tampered with. Everything was done to exonerate both Reno and Benteen and put the blame on the man who could not defend himself-Custer. That Benteen was not punished for his disobedience is to me one of the biggest injustices in our military history.

Regarding Captain Weir, as mentioned by another poster-it appears that he was extremely distraught by Benteen's refusal to go to Custer's aid and for the rest of his life probably could not live with the thought of what he may have seen as a preventable massacre. He did become a severe alcoholic and was certainly suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress until the end of his life a few months later, a broken shell of a man.

I am not a huge fan of Custer in any way, but that short note speaks volumes. Benteen was no coward, as shown by his subsequent actions, so one is left to ponder his motives in choosing to stay put. Certainly his almost pathological dislike of Custer (and vice-versa) must be factored in.

As an aside, the mental toll this battle took on so many of the survivors is sad indeed and indicates the horror of that day. We will never know the true extent of the psychological damage suffered by those who "survived". A very sad story for everyone concerned.

]]> By: Otter http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn.htm#comment-779636 Otter Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:34:19 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13680743#comment-779636 If Benteen would have followed the order, "bring packs, be quick", Custer might have made it. One can only assume that Custer meant, bring ammo and get here fast. Benteen, who was jealous of Custer and hated him, choose to believe that the message was meant for the officer in charge of the pack train and not him. So he continued slowly and even stopped to water his horses. After reading the Reno Inquiry, I blame Benteen for not following orders. Custer's trail, by Reno's report, was next to where Reno retreated to and Benteen would have easily found it. By being quick, he would have seen Reno in the woods, BEFORE the retreat, and would have been able to follow Custer's trail. They should have hung Benteen for not following orders and causing the death of the commanding officer. If Benteen would have followed the order, "bring packs, be quick", Custer might have made it. One can only assume that Custer meant, bring ammo and get here fast. Benteen, who was jealous of Custer and hated him, choose to believe that the message was meant for the officer in charge of the pack train and not him. So he continued slowly and even stopped to water his horses. After reading the Reno Inquiry, I blame Benteen for not following orders. Custer's trail, by Reno's report, was next to where Reno retreated to and Benteen would have easily found it. By being quick, he would have seen Reno in the woods, BEFORE the retreat, and would have been able to follow Custer's trail. They should have hung Benteen for not following orders and causing the death of the commanding officer.

]]> By: Otter http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn.htm#comment-779632 Otter Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:03:57 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13680743#comment-779632 We must all remember that the Indians picked-up the spent cartridges. Just because no cartridges were found on Last Stand Hill, doesn't mean that no stand was made at this point. Many men died on this hill and many Indian women were stripping and hacking up the bodies. It onlt stands ro reason that they would have picked-up most of the cartridges. We must all remember that the Indians picked-up the spent cartridges. Just because no cartridges were found on Last Stand Hill, doesn't mean that no stand was made at this point. Many men died on this hill and many Indian women were stripping and hacking up the bodies. It onlt stands ro reason that they would have picked-up most of the cartridges.

]]> By: Ross Osborn http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn.htm#comment-778975 Ross Osborn Wed, 05 Oct 2011 01:24:56 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13680743#comment-778975 There is that old saying, and it works here. "It's rough to remember your goal was to drain the swamp, when you're up to you ass in aligators.' I feel that Custer and crew jumped in over their heads, but he led the jump. Simper fi, dog face. There is that old saying, and it works here. "It's rough to remember your goal was to drain the swamp, when you're up to you ass in aligators.'

I feel that Custer and crew jumped in over their heads, but he led the jump.

Simper fi, dog face.

]]> By: andrew woolf http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn.htm#comment-643904 andrew woolf Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:12:15 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13680743#comment-643904 Fields of fire, and their patterns moving forward over the course of a battle, can be charted with a great degree of accuracy, by analyzing the unique firing pin marks imprinted on spent cartridges. Those examined at the Ford area of the LBH River show scant evidence of any type of coordination at all- and plenty of evidence of random discharges of weapons 'wild firing' in multiple directions at once- in the ground, in the air, etc. The direction of fields of fire is likewise random at LBH, and given the former speaks more of a Company in the throes of confusion and panic of men being caught by surprise by an overwhelming amount of foe, rather than the far more popular image of an organised and impressive 'last stand.' The ballistic evidence at LBH also supports the eyewitness accounts of Braves that Custers Troopers 'stampeded like Buffalo' in response to the onslaught of warriors that overwhelmed them. A last note of interest: contemporary archeological analysis of the LBH site also shows that far less rounds were even fired than expected, given the last stand theory. This is also supported by Indian accounts of the cartridge belts (a prized item of booty) taken from Troopers bodies after the battle. The Indians reported that most of the belts they recovered still had live cartridges in them. This would seem to indicate also more of a panic reaction, than a ground standing response from Custers men. In addition, the physical amount of rounds expended at the site, is disproportionatly low Fields of fire, and their patterns moving forward over the course of a battle, can be charted with a great degree of accuracy, by analyzing the unique firing pin marks imprinted on spent cartridges.
Those examined at the Ford area of the LBH River show scant evidence of any type of coordination at all- and plenty of evidence of random discharges of weapons 'wild firing' in multiple directions at once- in the ground, in the air, etc.
The direction of fields of fire is likewise random at LBH, and given the former speaks more of a Company in the throes of confusion and panic of men being caught by surprise by an overwhelming amount of foe, rather than the far more popular image of an organised and impressive 'last stand.'
The ballistic evidence at LBH also supports the eyewitness accounts of Braves that Custers Troopers 'stampeded like Buffalo' in response to the onslaught of warriors that overwhelmed them.
A last note of interest: contemporary archeological analysis of the LBH site also shows that far less rounds were even fired than expected, given the last stand theory. This is also supported by Indian accounts of the cartridge belts (a prized item of booty) taken from Troopers bodies after the battle. The Indians reported that most of the belts they recovered still had live cartridges in them. This would seem to indicate also more of a panic reaction, than a ground standing response from Custers men.

In addition, the physical amount of rounds expended at the site, is disproportionatly low

]]> By: D http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn.htm#comment-634061 D Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:19:39 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13680743#comment-634061 I've read this article several times over now and must say I don't agree with how some of these people are commenting.(Including the one that comments about the "grammatical" errors.) I think this is one of the better articles on Custer. I've read this article several times over now and must say I don't agree with how some of these people are commenting.(Including the one that comments about the "grammatical" errors.) I think this is one of the better articles on Custer.

]]> By: joe http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn.htm#comment-591522 joe Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:38:26 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13680743#comment-591522 good one! good one!

]]> By: Alan Johnson http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-of-the-little-bighorn.htm#comment-563328 Alan Johnson Tue, 17 May 2011 15:57:20 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13680743#comment-563328 One correction. I mixed up archeologists. Michno was addressing Fox's conclusions, not Scott's. One correction. I mixed up archeologists. Michno was addressing Fox's conclusions, not Scott's.

]]>