Was Custer a Psycho ?

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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.

Repeating your discarded comments is nothing.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Repeating your discarded comments is nothing.

Uh, most of the info in those comments is info I haven't posted in previous replies. I would also note that you still have not attempted to answer a single point I've made about Custer or the battle. Of course, we both know that you haven't done so because you know almost nothing about Custer or the battle.

What a hoot and giggle.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Uh, most of the info in those comments is info I haven't posted in previous replies. I would also note that you still have not attempted to answer a single point I've made about Custer or the battle. Of course, we both know that you haven't done so because you know almost nothing about Custer or the battle.

What a hoot and giggle.

Everything necessary has been answered.

Yes, you are for grins and giggles.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Everything necessary has been answered. Yes, you are for grins and giggles.

LOL! But you have not answered a single point I've made about the battle! Not one! I bet you had to Google who Reno, Benteen, and Weir were. All you've done is make broad, sweeping claims about Custer and the battle, without providing any supporting details and without citing any sources.

Here is more information on the battle for you to ignore (but it might help people who are actually interested in learning about the battle):

Benteen had no excuse for not obeying Custer's order to come quickly. For one thing, Benteen could have simply had Trumpeter Martin lead him back to Custer. The fact that Boston Custer was able to ride all the way to the pack train and then make it back to Custer is revealing, as even Edgar Stewart noted. Stewart cast doubt on Benteen's claim that he took a long detour, and he argued that Benteen was not as far from the rest of the regiment as he claimed he was:

Also it should be noted that Boston Custer had passed Benteen's detachment just as it reached the main Indian trail, and he was able to overtake his brother's command just after Martin had been sent back with the message to Benteen. Thus it is fairly obvious that Benteen's detachment was not too far behind the remainder of the regiment, probably not more than five miles at most, so that his later recital of having made a long detour is to be viewed with definite skepticism. (Custer's Luck, p. 382)

If Benteen had been "quick," he would have arrived at Custer's position long before Custer was surrounded and well before Crazy Horse's force arrived, even allowing for Reno's idiotic failure to stay in the timber. This alone would have completely changed the outcome of the battle.

Speaking of Reno's inexcusable blunder of leaving the timber, we should keep in mind that Reno's scout Bloody Knife was only killed because Reno ordered some of the men to start gathering in the clearing in the timber, and because Reno did nothing to cover this movement, nothing to keep the Indians at bay. When the men began to move into the clearing, this greatly reduced the rate of fire against the Indians, emboldening some of them to move into the bushes and then to spring into the clearing to fire at Reno's men. This was when Bloody Knife was shot. If Reno had not foolishly ordered some of the men to move into the clearing and had not failed to cover their movement, the soldiers' firing would not have markedly slackened and Bloody Knife would not have had his head blown to pieces within a few feet of Reno. Stewart:

While the troops were gathering in the clearing, the fire of the command almost entirely ceased, and no means were taken to keep back the Indians or to cover the movement in any way. Before the formation had been completed, a large party of Sioux broke through the timber to within 30 feet of the command and fired a volley point-blank into the troops. . . .

The hostiles themselves seem to have felt that Reno had a strong position and to have been taken by surprise when the soldiers left it so hurriedly. Later some of them told General Miles that if Reno had not retreated, the Indians would have fled, since the soldiers could not have been dislodged. The Indians would have been compelled to divide their forces and would therefore have been unable to concentrate all of their fighting strength against Custer's two battalions. (Custer's Luck, pp. 363, 365)

Reno's blundering decision to leave the timber not only got 1/4 of Reno's troops needlessly killed but it enabled the Indians to concentrate their forces against Custer. In the timber, Reno posed a threat to the village. As Stewart noted, if Reno had just stayed in the timber, the Indians would not have been able to mass against Custer. And, again, we know from Indian sources that the chiefs had already ordered the village to evacuate, but they changed their minds when they saw Reno flee from the timber.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You have not carried your points. Until you, no answers, Mr. Magoo.

Hey, you remember arguing in class it was really the Paiutes that did most of the killing at MMM for the LDS?

 

[mikegriffith1]

You have not carried your points.

Are you ever going to try to justify your continued dismissal of the scholarly evidence I'm presenting? You pulled the same stunt in the thread on the Vietnam War. You just keep saying I'm not proving my arguments, but you never explain why. Again, summarily dismissing evidence is not answering the evidence--it is dodging it.

Until you, no answers, Mr. Magoo.

You're projecting again. Perhaps you were looking into a mirror when you wrote this.

The only time I've seen you offer any evidence to back up your claims was when you provided a bunch of PC puff-piece links on Wounded Knee. As I pointed out to you at the time, not one of those links said anything about the independent eyewitness accounts that support the soldiers' accounts, nor did they cite any of the soldiers' accounts that defend the soldiers' actions, nor did they cite any of the findings of the official investigation into the the incident.

You never did offer an explanation for Father Francis Craft's account of the battle.

Hey, you remember arguing in class it was really the Paiutes that did most of the killing at MMM for the LDS?

Oh, boy. As with every other issue you raise, I know you've done no serious reading on this subject, and that what little reading you've done has consisted of reading a handful of biased and distorted online articles. You never read both sides of an issue. You only read the side that you know agrees with what you want to believe.

I suspect you won't allow yourself to even skim through any of these articles, but here are some scholarly articles that present the LDS side of the story on the MMM. I bet I've read more critical articles on the MMM than you have, but I've also read the LDS side. Here it is:

Discussing Difficult Topics: The Mountain Meadows Massacre | Religious Studies Center

We should always remember Mountain Meadows in a way that will impel us toward the path of peace that Jesus is at the end of. Wayment: Lead us up to Mountain Meadows, maybe not focusing as much on the event itself but on the forces that lead up to that. What was happening?

rsc.byu.edu

Loading…

scholarsarchive.byu.edu

The Mountain Meadows Massacre

history.byu.edu

Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre - FAIR

www.fairlatterdaysaints.org

Perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre - FAIR

www.fairlatterdaysaints.org

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I helped copy edit Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets.

You are a pretender. Are you related to Clark Gilbert, the 15's hatchet man at BYU.

Mike is a pretender not a contender.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I helped copy edit Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets. You are a pretender. Are you related to Clark Gilbert, the 15's hatchet man at BYU. Mike is a pretender not a contender.

Uh-huh. Well, umm, you obviously did not bother to read any of the links I provided, or else you'd know that the third link, "Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre," deals extensively with Bagley's claims. Yeah, uh-oh. This is what happens when you refuse to read the other side of the story. You get exposed as a pretender.

Anyway, for anyone who wants to read more on Custer and the Little Big Horn battle, my website provides numerous articles, videos, and book recommendations:

General George Armstrong Custer and the Battle of the Little Big Horn

This will be my last post in this thread. The only Custer critics in this thread have clearly done no serious reading on the subject and have no interest in doing so.

I close by again noting that, with only two minor exceptions, every scholarly book written on the Last Stand in the last 20 years defends Custer and strongly criticizes Reno and Benteen for failing to follow his orders and for refusing to go to his aid when they knew he was involved in a severe battle.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Mike is flat wrong. All pretender on the MMM dismiss Bagley. That is a shame, it is literary, accurate, and just fun to read.

Never trust a Clark Gilbert fan.