Custer disaster.

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
24 June 2006

EXCLUSIVE: CUSTER DISASTER

For 130 years he has been feted as a hero of the West. Now his Last Stand at the Battle of the Little Bighorn is exposed.

By Murray Davies


Custer: Not as heroic as many Americans believe.


For more than a century General George Armstrong Custer has been lauded as an American hero.

With his golden locks blowing in the wind, bravely wielding a sabre and pistol to the last, for many he symbolises the indomitable spirit of the Old West.

But this weekend, the 130th anniversary of his celebrated Last Stand at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, his heroic status is seriously in doubt.

Historians now believe it was the general's vanity and arrogance that cost his life and those of the 225 officers riding with him that day, massacred by Sitting Bull's army of Indian braves in Montana.

Far from being an act of heroic bravery, the Last Stand, on June 25-26, 1876, was an unmitigated disaster from start to finish.

A notorious self-publicist since his time fighting for the Union in the Civil War, Custer had cultivated an image of a tough military man who was fearlessly taking on the "Indian savages".

It wasn't quite like that, as he showed in 1868 when he massacred a village of more than 100 Native American men, women and children in Oklahoma.

His men called him Hard Ass, hating him as a ruthless leader, while officers who knew Custer despised him for abandoning 19 men to die in Indian hands in an earlier campaign.

By 1876 Custer's star was waning - and he badly needed a victory on the battlefield to repair what mattered to him so much - his reputation.

The opportunity came at Little Bighorn that summer when his 7th Cavalry was one of three columns sent to box in thousands of Native Americans who had left their reservation following an invasion of gold prospectors.

Although ordered to block their escape route, Custer decided to grab the glory by attacking alone. It was an enormous error of judgment. Such was his desperation to take the credit, he left behind his forces' rapid-firing Gatling guns knowing their transportation would hold up his attack. They also moved out without their sabres.

His troopers, many of them immigrants who spoke little English, had to rely on unreliable Springfield 1873 single shot carbines and Colt revolvers.

Custer pushed his men to the limit until they neared the Little Bighorn river. On one side stood steep hills while on the other the Indian camp stretched for more than two miles, the largest gathering in 30 years.

It didn't matter to Custer, who was determined to attack before the other columns arrived next day.

He then weakened his division by sending three companies on a scouting mission, under Captain Frederick Benteen. He ordered his second-in-command, Major Marcus Reno, to charge the southern end of the camp with just 140 cavalrymen.

Although Reno believed Custer would back him up, he was set upon by a horde of Sioux braves during his approach and was forced into a clump of cotton-wood trees in the bend of the river.

He asked a Native American scout's advice, but as he answered a bullet struck his head, splattering his brains over the major.

Panicking, Reno leapt on to his horse and fled. As his men thundered after him across the river, the Sioux pulled them from their horses and clubbed them to death. Reno reached safety but 32 of his men did not.

Meanwhile Custer, who had ridden off to attack the village from a different position, was himself under fire.

Despite his public image, the general did not cut the dashing figure of legend that day. Wearing a blue-flannel army shirt, his hair had been freshly cropped so he could not be scalped by the enemy if captured. His bare head was hidden under a broad-brimmed cream hat.

To attack the village, Custer needed to cross the river but as he did so a mass of Sioux braves, commanded by Chief Gall, came into view. Hopelessly outnumbered, Custer swung around and headed for a distant hill that he planned to defend.

It was a fatal mistake. If he had turned south, he could have linked up with Reno and Benteen. Instead, as the cavalry galloped up a steep gully, Indians picked off the bluecoat soldiers.

The troopers rode over the crest of one gully and down into another pursued by whooping braves who were armed with rifles, bows and arrows, hatchets and lances. The soldiers tried to fire back but their old carbines jammed.

Only L Company - under Custer's brother-in-law James Calhoun - put up an organised resistance. By each corpse were found between 20 and 30 spent shells, showing how much the men had fought before the end came.

Many of E Company fled down a narrow gully that turned out to be a dead end. In all, 29 bodies, shot and clubbed to death, were found

The rest of the 7th Cavalry managed to reach an area of flat land called Greasy Grass, in front of the hill they were heading for.

But as they got there, Crazy Horse and thousands of men swept over the brow of the hill. Desperately, men shot their horses to form a barricade. It was in vain and as it became every man for himself the troops were massacred, their bodies scattered over hundreds of yards.

Forty men and half his officers fell around Custer, who sent a galloper, Sergeant Butler, to ride to Reno to call for help.

BUTLER'S body was found a mile away. The Native Americans put a braid on his arms, honouring him as the bravest man in the battle.

An Arapaho warrior called Waterman claimed he witnessed Custer's last moments.

"He was on his hands and knees. He had been shot through the side and there was blood coming from his mouth. Four soldiers were sitting up around him," he said.

Benteen, who inspected Custer's body, thought he had been killed by the bullet to his side. A second bullet hole in his temple had been fired after he was dead. His body, naked apart from his socks, was found lying across three dead soldiers while unpublished letters speak of Custer's thighs being slashed to the bone, his ears slit and his groin shot full of arrows. Out of respect for his widow Libby, the public were never told he had been mutilated.

The body of his brother Tom was found a few feet away, scalped and bristling with arrows. Of the 225 officers and men who rode with Custer, not one lived.

The only survivor was Captain Keogh's horse, Comanche. He was nursed back to health but was never ridden again.

The Native Americans called their victory the Battle of Greasy Grass. But after their triumph, Custer's death hardened the white American mood and calls mounted for the Native American resistance to be crushed once and for all.

Within a few years their way of life had gone forever. Both Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, the Sioux chief, died on reservations.

Custer's last stand that hot June afternoon was also that of the Native American nations. From their victory came defeat.


mirror.co.uk
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
I have heard a dozen different versions of that story over the years. On the History channel, there was even a version where Custer died because he was actually trying to save Indian lives!

The story went like this:

Ulysses S Grant's brother was a corrupt pol who ran a conspiracy that stole food intended for Indians, sold it in the black market, and replaced it with rotted food that poisoned Indian children.

Custer appeared before the Ilinois legislature and Congress to report this corruption because, spuposedly, he wanted to save Indian children.

In order to continue their corrupt money grubbing campaign, Grant arranged to have Custer fight that battle using only single shot rifles while Indians were armed with multiple shot rifles. It was all a set up so that these corrupt Republicans could make lots more money at the expense of the one guy who dared to speak out against them.

According to the History channel, there are documented reports in the Congressional Record to back up this claim. Several historians testified on that show to back up this version of the story.

Don't know which one is true but it sure makes for fascinating speculation!
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
gopher said:
I have heard a dozen different versions of that story over the years. On the History channel, there was even a version where Custer died because he was actually trying to save Indian lives!

The story went like this:

Ulysses S Grant's brother was a corrupt pol who ran a conspiracy that stole food intended for Indians, sold it in the black market, and replaced it with rotted food that poisoned Indian children.

Custer appeared before the Ilinois legislature and Congress to report this corruption because, spuposedly, he wanted to save Indian children.

In order to continue their corrupt money grubbing campaign, Grant arranged to have Custer fight that battle using only single shot rifles while Indians were armed with multiple shot rifles. It was all a set up so that these corrupt Republicans could make lots more money at the expense of the one guy who dared to speak out against them.

According to the History channel, there are documented reports in the Congressional Record to back up this claim. Several historians testified on that show to back up this version of the story.

Don't know which one is true but it sure makes for fascinating speculation!

The single-shot .45-70 Springfield single shot rifle was standard US Army issue at the time. single shot rifles stayed in military service in most countries of the world for 30 years after the invention of good, dependable repeaters, usually because military leaders thought repeaters would just encourage soldiers to waste ammunition! "There IS something about high military rank that turns men's brains to bone." (Canadian General Worthington)

So much for Grant forcing them to have single shots.

As well, Custer left behind a Gatling gun, one of the first machine guns.

Custer was a moron. He was always a moron. He proved it during the Civil War, and did nothing after to change anyone's mind about the fact.

The Indians, BTW, were armed with 16 shot .44 rimfire Henry repeaters, a weapon Southern soldiers used to call "That damned Yankee rifle you load on Sunday and shoot all week" (Yes, the Union Army did issue some repeaters.......during the Civil War)

My understanding about Custer is that he was quite sympathetic to the Indians, until he saw the opportunity to create a political career.......and so he bought into the prevailing philosophy of the day "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."

Interesting stuff.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
That was my 2000th post!

Man do I ever need to get a life!

BTW, Springfield rifles were dependable, and the Colt 1873 revolver is the famous SSA (Single Action Army) or "Peacemaker" that is STILL made by various companies today.............133 years later.

Undependable.....HARDLY. In fact it is famous simply because it was SO dependable.
 

thecdn

Electoral Member
Apr 12, 2006
310
0
16
North Lauderdale, FL
Around 1987 when I was a young Lt, the Strathcona officers went down to the Little Big Horn Battlefield to do an officers study session with a military history professor from West Point.

Very interesting. Walked the ground and saw what happened. Out of the 10 principles of war I think he violated 7!!

You can learn a lot from the mistakes of others....
 

Simpleton

Electoral Member
Jun 17, 2006
443
0
16
Sarnia
sarnia.selfip.org
Re: RE: Custer disaster.

thecdn said:
Around 1987 when I was a young Lt, the Strathcona officers went down to the Little Big Horn Battlefield to do an officers study session with a military history professor from West Point.

Very interesting. Walked the ground and saw what happened. Out of the 10 principles of war I think he violated 7!!

You can learn a lot from the mistakes of others....

I agree with you on the last sentence. But I would hasten to add that learning from others' mistakes is meaningless, if you're incapable of learning from your own.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
gopher said:
~~ single shot rifles were standard in army use ~~


According to the following site, repeat rifles were well in use during the Civil war or several years before Custer's last stand:


http://www.aotc.net/Spencer.htm

Yes, both the Spencer and the Henry were issued during the Civil War, as I noted in a post above. The Union was issuing ANYTHING, and I believe both these rifles went(in limited quantities) to calvary units. However, neither became standard AFTER the war, and standardization on the Springfield single shot .45-70 put repeaters out of the Army (officially) until the adoption of the .30 Krag much later.

Believe, firearms and their history is NOT a subject you should challenge me on. 8)
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Colpy said:
gopher said:
~~ single shot rifles were standard in army use ~~


According to the following site, repeat rifles were well in use during the Civil war or several years before Custer's last stand:


http://www.aotc.net/Spencer.htm

Yes, both the Spencer and the Henry were issued during the Civil War, as I noted in a post above. The Union was issuing ANYTHING, and I believe both these rifles went(in limited quantities) to calvary units. However, neither became standard AFTER the war, and standardization on the Springfield single shot .45-70 put repeaters out of the Army (officially) until the adoption of the .30 Krag much later.

Believe, firearms and their history is NOT a subject you should challenge me on. 8)

Did the Sioux have the repeating rifles if memory is correct?? And because Custer's forces only had six-shooters and the single shot carbine that is why they lost.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
They lost because Custer was an incompetent moron.......but yes, they had single shots, and a dig at the site years ago (reported in a great piece in National Geographic) proved the Indians had Henry rifles in abundance.......and dismounted to assault Custer's position in a classc infantry attack.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Custer being a moron is a given. However, with the power of the weaponry and the numbers against the 7th Calvary was also a mismatch. A well played trap I say because they grouped together so many Sioux and other Indians that it took them off guard.
 

thecdn

Electoral Member
Apr 12, 2006
310
0
16
North Lauderdale, FL
Jersay said:
A well played trap I say because they grouped together so many Sioux and other Indians that it took them off guard.

A trap would be where you lie in wait for the enemy. The Indians didn't do that, they were just having a gathering.

Custer failed to perform a proper recce to determine his enemies strength and dispositions, then didn't wait for reinforcements, then split his force in the face of a superior enemy.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Believe, firearms and their history is NOT a subject you should challenge me on


Calm down and rest assured that I am not challenging your knowledge of military history. The point here is the fact that such armaments were readily available as shown by the fact that Indians had ready access but Custer did not. As most people know, responsibility goes to the top of the command chain. For Grant to send soldiers into "hostile" lands without proper equipage proves his incompetence. And if you know your history, you should be aware that his administration was more scandal ridden than Bush's.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
gopher said:
Believe, firearms and their history is NOT a subject you should challenge me on


Calm down and rest assured that I am not challenging your knowledge of military history. The point here is the fact that such armaments were readily available as shown by the fact that Indians had ready access but Custer did not. As most people know, responsibility goes to the top of the command chain. For Grant to send soldiers into "hostile" lands without proper equipage proves his incompetence. And if you know your history, you should be aware that his administration was more scandal ridden than Bush's.

I'm not at all upset, I enjoy the subject.

The point is the Springfield single shot was standard, and was a fine weapon. The philosophy behind issuing soldiers single shot weapons was pretty well universal (stupid or not), as I can't think of any nation that fielded a repeater as their standard rifle at this time. So, Grant was not sending "soldiers into "hostile" lands without proper equipage", according to the predominant practices of the day. There is no scandal here, outside the obvious one of Custer's stupidity, and the bare fact the Indians were driven off their land by gold prospectors supported by the Army.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
~~ scandal ~~

Officially, no scandal.

I did a little research and discovered that you are correct in that single shot rifles remained standard until the Spanish-American war in 1898. Even the Winchester 73 was not used. Amazing! With all the conflict going on in the world, why in the heck didn't the military adopt the new tech?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Believe it or not, the predominant opinion among military "experts" of the time was that soldiers with repeating rifles would just waste ammunition.

The British used this same logic to cling to the (excellent) bolt action SMLE in the 50s, after everyone else had converted to semi-automatic or selective fire arms.
 

The conductor

New Member
Feb 12, 2006
39
0
6
The thing that destroyed Custer was his king-size ego.
He was so full of himself that a lot of people wanted to see him fall of his horse.
Well he did them a favour, he proved them they were right.
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
as far as Custer goes, I was having a chat with a couple of Navajo indians (wrong tribe I know, but on the subject matter a lot of tribes had joint efforts) they reckon he was being closely watched for a very long time anyway, and if he hadnt been "taken out" at little big horn, he would have been "dealt with" somewhere else in the west, he "had it coming, and he knew it, he knew he couldnt escape and a lot of tribes were ready for him.......he wouldnt have left the west alive"

although, the same Dneh (Navajo) did suggest that Katrina was because Bush is such a bell end and that was god's will also
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Many American "heros" of the old west were, in reallity, something less than heros. Wyat Erp, Wild Bill Hickok, Jesse James, Billy the Kid, were all found wanting under closer examination. Custer was not only incompetent, but he was an absolute jerk who wasted his men. Attacking an enemy that vastly outnumbered his own force without careful planning was the height of arogance and stupidity. He deserved what he got. It is unfortunate that his men had to die with him.
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
very true Juan, what was it some one said? "History doesnt repeat itself, but it does ryme" - very apt really, if you consider how many Greeks (under Alexander) british Empire and soviet troops have died over the years in afghanistan, which seems to have been forgotten by a group of American (and british) generals in ending a situation that, in all honesty, is unwinable.

I just feel the same arrogence seems to be rearing t's ugly head now, it seems to me, that with minor provocation, the war hawks have made Arabia the new wild west