Was Custer a Psycho ?

[mikegriffith1]

Way back in the early 1900s, Walter Mason Camp, arguably the most important Custer researcher of all time because he interviewed numerous battle participants, wrote a blunt and cogent critique of Reno and Benteen's failure to go to Custer's aid in a timely manner. I found Camp's critique while reviewing the Walter Mason Camp Collection on the BYU Library website. I quote from his handwritten essay titled "About Reno and Benteen Going to Relieve Custer":

At the time when Benteen arrived on Reno Hill, why should he halt where Reno was? Reno was not then besieged by Indians and no considerable body of them were in sight.

Benteen unsaddled his horse and waited there with Reno 2.5 hours, when he held in his hand a very urgent written order from Custer to hurry forward with the pack train, and with Martin and Kanipe there to show him the way.

While Benteen and Reno were waiting, Custer's command was being wiped out. Not only did no body of soldiers go in direction of Custer, but not even a scout was sent to see what was taking place in the direction of Custer.

Custer's firing was heard and seemed to be moving farther and farther away, and if a scout or anyone had ridden to the high ground only half a mile distant, with not an Indian in sight in that direction, he could have seen Custer's fight going on and thus there would have been no enigma about Custer's battle.

When Custer firing was heard, why was no one sent to observe the location of it, or even to investigate the location . . . or observe movement of Indians? From high ground north of Reno heights, the character of Custer's battle could have been made out. Fully one half of Custer's men were slain within full view of the high ground.

With an ordinary 5-power field glass, such as the officers and scouts must have carried, the fence around the Custer monument is easily made out from this point, even after 5 p.m., and the fence posts around the cemetery on Custer Hill early discernible.

Neither Reno or Benteen can plead fear of Indians for not going in direction of Custer because they had not yet seen Indians in full force. ("About Reno and Benteen Going to Relieve Custer," pp. 1-3, Walter Mason Camp Collection, BYU Library, Digital Collections, Special Collections 4, contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/p15999coll31/id/51851/rec/26)

We must keep in mind that Custer was holding his own for some time, even after Reno foolishly left the timber and enabled the Indians to mass their force against Custer. When it became obvious to the Indians that Reno was not going to budge from Reno Hill anytime soon, they became more aggressive and emboldened, and the rest is history.

Camp's observation that Benteen unsaddled his horse further calls into question Benteen's dubious later claim that when he arrived at Reno Hill, he told Reno they should go to help Custer. In fact, when Captain Weir asked Reno for permission to move toward Custer, Benteen argued against it. Private John Fox said that Benteen "did not seem to approve of Weir going and talked as though to discourage him" (Donovan, A Terrible Glory, p. 459; see also Sklenar, To Hell with Honor, p. 302).

Reno and Weir had a fierce argument over Reno's refusal to go toward Custer and his refusal to let Weir do so. Weir got so fed up that he finally took the drastic step of moving toward Custer without Reno's permission. This courageous action eventually shamed Benteen into following Weir. Reno attempted to stop Benteen from leaving, but Benteen ignored him. Finally, after Reno's own officers became "furious" with him, Reno began to move his battalion and the pack train toward Custer, but by then it was too late.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I bet Mike followed the Dumas camp in denying Jefferson was a daddy to several children he had by a woman he enslaved.

 

[davebb]

It be he could not figure out the lay of the land and got stomped.

who?

 

[DonGlock26]

Did they have an offshore base in Cuba where they could imprison captives they didnt have evidence to take to trial ?

Like the Tower of London?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Like the Tower of London?

What point are you sruggling to make ?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Like the Tower of London?

Fallacy of false equivalency. Overruled, sit down.

 

[DonGlock26]

What point are you sruggling to make ?

I thought you were looking for examples of political prisons?

 

[DonGlock26]

Fallacy of false equivalency. Overruled, sit down.

Comparing Custer to Cuba is odd, I'll admit.

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

Do you know a fucking thing about the indians? Do you have any god damn idea how brutal they were? This romanticized version you see in tv and movies didnt exist. They burned men alive, murdered babies, raped and enslaved women. Torture, lots and lots of torture, usually at the hands of the women in the tribe. They tormented their captives with glee, day and night. These were some of the worst people on Earth at that time. If you met them and they had the upper hand, you were in for a horrific end.

I dont give two shits about murder tribes. They an all die for all i care. Cannibals too. Those tribes exist in the world still today. They can all die too.

Well it's not likely they'll die but if it bothers you so much there's nothing stopping you from killing yourself and ending you're misery.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Godboy has no empath for anyone else, TIS.

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

Godboy has no empath for anyone else, TIS.

Well I hope he's religious because when he dies he'll only hear God laughing

 

[mikegriffith1]

It is almost comical to see the leftists in this thread. It is obvious none of them has done any serious reading on Custer or the Last Stand. They're just woke partisans who trash America's founding, whitewash the American Indians' appalling brutality and barbarism, and demonize American heroes who offend their woke feelings.

As we've seen, they just don't care that nearly every historian/scholar who has published a book on the Last Stand in the last 20 years has rejected their view of Custer's conduct at the battle. Nah, instead, they go running to this or that online article written by fellow liberals who know almost as little about the battle as they do, and then they repeat the outdated myths peddled in those articles.

As mentioned earlier, the OP cites a documentary that actually defends Custer's conduct at the Little Big Horn! Apparently the author of the OP either did not actually watch the documentary or somehow missed the segments that defend Custer.

And just FYI, regarding the Washita battle, even Captain Frederick Benteen, who intensely hated Custer, said the battle was entirely justified. His only beef about the Washita was that he wrongly believed that Custer had abandoned his (Benteen's) good friend Major Joel Elliott. T. J. Stiles, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning Custer's Trials, proves that Custer did no such thing, that Custer made every reasonable effort to find and aid Elliott.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Mike et al are magapaths who misimagine America's founding, whitewash the settlers' and government's appalling brutality and barbarism, and demonize indigenous peoples who offend white feelings.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Mike et al are magapaths who misimagine America's founding, whitewash the settlers' and government's appalling brutality and barbarism, and demonize indigenous peoples who offend white feelings.

Why are you even posting in this thread? It seems obvious that you haven't read a single book on Custer or the Last Stand. I bet that what little you know is stuff you've gleaned from online puff pieces written by authors who know almost as little as you do on the subject.

Have you even watched the PBS documentary comically linked in the OP? I say "comically" because the documentary contradicts the OP's position on Custer. I'm guessing that Tommy Tainant assumed the documentary supported his anti-Custer views because it was made by PBS, but the documentary is actually quite fair and presents a lot of information that defends Custer and condemns Reno and Benteen.

You always wield your tar brush whenever you're confronted with facts that challenge your fiction. You will make some bogus claim; people will refute the claim with evidence; and then you summarily dismiss the evidence and repeat your woke talking point.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Why are you even posting in this thread? It seems obvious that you haven't read a single book on Custer or the Last Stand. I bet that what little you know is stuff you've gleaned from online puff pieces written by authors who know almost as little as you do on the subject.

Have you even watched the PBS documentary comically linked in the OP? I say "comically" because the documentary contradicts the OP's position on Custer. I'm guessing that Tommy Tainant assumed the documentary supported his anti-Custer views because it was made by PBS, but the documentary is actually quite fair and presents a lot of information that defends Custer and condemns Reno and Benteen.

You always wield your tar brush whenever you're confronted with facts that challenge your fiction. You will make some bogus claim; people will refute the claim with evidence; and then you summarily dismiss the evidence and repeat your woke talking point.

You are off balanced and one sided, as you were taught at uni, yet continue to ignore the teachings that the American expansion across the continent were no different than those among the natives of Americ, Africa, and Europe for 2,000 years.

All sides are violent and try to take land and its resources from others.

Whites did this do indigenous peoples everywhere, and they retaliated when possible.

My ancestors did. We took Mexicans and whites and other natives for slaves and plunder. Mexican women were highly prized. Mormon women were good workers once they were beaten enough times. Whites did not act much differently.

Why could you possibly think white invasion was any better than indigenous invasion?

 

[mikegriffith1]

You are off balanced and one sided, as you were taught at uni,

No, you are. Unlike you, I've read both sides. One has to go back many years to find books that blame Custer and exonerate Reno and Benteen, but I've read them. Again, I repeat the fact, which you keep ignoring, that with only two exceptions every scholar who has written a book on the Last Stand in the last 20 years has defended Custer and faulted Reno and Benteen.

Indeed, every book on the subject that has sold well and been well reviewed in the last 20 years has rejected the Grant administration's smearing of Custer's conduct at the Little Big Horn. Even T. J. Stiles, who harshly criticizes Custer on several issues, defends his conduct at the Last Stand and faults Reno and Benteen for disobeying his clear orders.

Would you mind sharing which book or books you have read on the Last Stand?

yet continue to ignore the teachings that the American expansion across the continent were no different than those among the natives of Americ, Africa, and Europe for 2,000 years.

One, what does this have to do with Custer's conduct at the Little Big Horn? Two, the problem is you've only read the liberal version of American history and of the American Indians.

All sides are violent and try to take land and its resources from others.

The Indians were far more brutal in their conquests than we were in ours. This is not even a close call.

Whites did this do indigenous peoples everywhere, and they retaliated when possible.

I get it: You hate white people. You think white people are awful. I get it. But you are unwilling to process the well-documented fact that the Indians treated each other much worse than we treated them.

My ancestors did. We took Mexicans and whites and other natives for slaves and plunder. Mexican women were highly prized. Mormon women were good workers once they were beaten enough times. Whites did not act much differently.

Nonsense. Whites acted very differently. I'll tell you what: Why don't you cite me one case where an Indian tribe that conquered another tribe set aside reservations for the conquered tribe, set up schools and hospitals on those reservations, offered them college grants, tried to teach them modern farming methods, spent millions of dollars to provide food and clothing for them, etc., etc.? Just name one. We both know you can't.

Why could you possibly think white invasion was any better than indigenous invasion?

Because "white invasion" was manifestly better than how Indian tribes treated other tribes when they conquered them, manifestly not as brutal, manifestly not as barbaric. Because I live in the real world, not your liberal fantasy world, and read real history.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If Mike won't answer the points each and every one fully, he has lost.

He does not study the full measure and share his thinking. Instead, he gaslights that part of it and rants on.

He is an academic villain since uni, and should not be accepted as accepted as an equal.

Let him whine and whimper.

Let him go, folks.

 

[mikegriffith1]

If Mike won't answer the points each and every one fully, he has lost.

He does not study the full measure and share his thinking. Instead, he gaslights that part of it and rants on.

He is an academic villain since uni, and should not be accepted as accepted as an equal.

Let him whine and whimper.

Let him go, folks.

LOL! This is hilarious. Can you say "projection"?!

You've refused to address a single point I've made about the battle--summarily dismissing a point is not addressing it. I've cited numerous scholarly sources, while you've cited none. I've addressed every one of your arguments, yet you keep acting like I haven't. You won't name a single book you've read on the battle (I suspect because you haven't read any). And, my view of Custer's performance at the battle is the view of the overwhelming majority of scholars who've written books on the subject over the last 20 years, while your view is held by only two such scholars.

And then you comically declare yourself the winner! Yeah, keep dreaming. Don't let reality get in the way of delusion.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

LOL! This is hilarious. Can you say "projection"?!

You've refused to address a single point I've made about the battle--summarily dismissing a point is not addressing it. I've cited numerous scholarly sources, while you've cited none. I've addressed every one of your arguments, yet you keep acting like I haven't. You won't name a single book you've read on the battle (I suspect because you haven't read any). And, my view of Custer's performance at the battle is the view of the overwhelming majority of scholars who've written books on the subject over the last 20 years, while your view is held by only two such scholars.

And then you comically declare yourself the winner! Yeah, keep dreaming. Don't let reality get in the way of delusion.

Stop whining and whimpering.

I am telling you to tell the whole story.

 

[mikegriffith1]

If you want to discuss Custer's Last Stand, it helps if you've actually done some reading on the subject. But that's just me. A few notes for newcomers to the subject:

We know what Custer was intending to do: strike at a point at the northern half of the village, as far north as feasible. But, this depended on Benteen's arrival. Custer could not launch an assault until Benteen arrived. Custer feinted/probed at Medicine Tail Coulee to take pressure off Reno after he saw that Reno had halted his charge and formed a skirmish line. Custer never dreamed that Reno would then be foolish enough to flee the timber and enable all the warriors to mass against Custer's force.

We know from Indian sources that the chiefs had already ordered the village to pack up and leave when they detected Reno's force, and that the Indians would have merely fought a holding action if Reno had not committed the inexcusable, mind-boggling blunder of leaving the timber.

Benteen could have made it to Custer's location in a max of 30 minutes, and Martin and Kanipe could have guided him there. When Custer would have then attacked, the warriors would have done what they always did: they would have given way in the middle and ran away from the charge. This is, by the way, exactly what the warriors did when they thought Reno was charging them from the timber, until they quickly realized that Reno was not charging but was frantically fleeing.

Indian sources also tell us that the Indians did not even plan on launching an incursion into the timber to get at Reno's force. Even when they knew that only a small part of Reno's force remained in the timber, after Reno foolishly fled, they still declined to launch an incursion into it. They simply did not fight that way, as the prosecutor at the Reno court of inquiry pointed out. When the Indians fought Crook a few days earlier, they gave up and took off after suffering what we would consider to be moderate casualties.

None of the liberals who are making critical comments about Custer's character have read a reputable, balanced biography of him, such as T. J. Stiles Custer's Trials or James Mueller's Ambitious Honor or Ted Behncke and Gary Bloomfield's Custer. If you read any of these three books, you will learn that in many cases soldiers, officers, and journalists who formed a strongly negative opinion of Custer after knowing him for a short time either totally or substantially changed their minds about him after they got to know him better.

You will also learn that Custer was not a bloodthirsty, reckless officer, and that in many cases he showed exemplary caution and patience in combat. During a key battle in the Shenandoah fighting against Jubal Early's Confederate force in 1864 and during the Yellowstone battle in 1873, Custer was the only officer who detected ambushes that the enemy had set up, and he literally saved the day by avoiding them.

You will further learn that Custer, far from being a mindless brute, was an avid reader of history, current events, and science, and was a genuine student of nature and the arts. When I began my study of Custer back in the early 2000s, I was quite surprised to learn about this side of Custer.