Posted on 06/25/2004 7:09:26 AM PDT by ijcr
Like the battle at the Alamo, the one fought at the Little Bighorn has entered the realm where history and legend merge. The basic facts are these: on June 25, 1876, seventh U.S. Cavalry troops commanded by Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer came upon history's largest known encampment of Indians beside the Little Bighorn River.
In the battle that followed, Custer and all the men with him—more than 260—were wiped out by the Sioux warriors of Chiefs Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse as well as Cheyenne warriors.
Ironically, the Native Americans' victory hastened their own downfall, as Custer's loss motivated the U.S. government to move even more aggressively against the Indians.
In a sense, Custer never died. Scores of books and movies have been dedicated to his "Last Stand," and even today the battlefield site is the subject of controversy.
Through the 1980s, the National Monument was called the Custer Battlefield, and events were interpreted in favor of Custer and his men.
In 1991 the Park Service changed the name to Little Bighorn Battlefield to introduce a more balanced interpretation of events. A memorial planned to commemorate the Indians who died in the battle promises a neutral interpretation, although its critics charge that it tips the scale too far the other way.
Gravestones mark the last stand of Custer and his men.
Agreed. Who would we be, without the land?
Interesting. Can you elaborate or do you have a link? I am not a close student of the battle but I always took the conventional view as fairly plausible -- namely, that Custer brought the head of the column off the bluff down the ravine to the river, commenced skirmishing, and tried to fall back to the high ground when Indian numbers became apparent. His battalion was pursued, flanked, and swamped in line of march, with the various companies dying more-or-less in place (with the last survivors, of course, making a break for it).
The key thing as I understand it was Crazy Horse, et.al -- the warriors from the downstream camps -- making directly for the high ground themselves instead of rushing to the sound of the guns (the rearguard skirmish), which ensured that the column would be flanked and the retreat cut off. Is this picture incorrect?
What evidence is there to show that Custer died early or late in the engagement? As far as I see it, he could have been killed at any point. He was presumably leading the movement to the high ground when the column was hit, pinned down, and overrun, but he personally could have fallen at any time. Taking his location as the site of the last stand was always a romantic convention, but as a practical matter, did Custer's death make a difference as to how the 7th fought its fight? I mean, when you're getting overrun, command and control disappears pretty rapidly.
Some myths considered:
Custer was beginning to bald and had a butch cut for the campaign. He didn't have long flowing hair.
It is doubtful that Custer carried a sabre into the battle. So ignore the paintings showing him with one.
The proffered gatling guns were being transported by condemned mules and would have slowed down the column considerably.
The Lakota didn't know who Custer was. They did celebrate the death of their arch enemy Mitch Boyer who was a scout for Custer. The Cheyenne recognized Custer though.
No band played during the battle.
10:1 has been put forward as their outnumbered ratio, but I believe it was more like 100:1........
You are right. I did a cut and paste from the web site, that contains some of the old myths. There was an article in the Greensboro paper (1924) that Sgt Kanipe wrote that said he was also to tell Benteen to come up if he ran across him.
"Interesting. Can you elaborate or do you have a link? I am not a close student of the battle but I always took the conventional view as fairly plausible -- namely, that Custer brought the head of the column off the bluff down the ravine to the river, commenced skirmishing, and tried to fall back to the high ground when Indian numbers became apparent. His battalion was pursued, flanked, and swamped in line of march, with the various companies dying more-or-less in place (with the last survivors, of course, making a break for it)."
No, I don't have a link, although I suspect others participating in this thread do. I would suggest you hit The History Channels website on this topic.
The same forensics used at a modern day crime scene were applied. The results are simply amazing. The investigators indentified several dozen different weapon types used by the Indians in this battle, which completely and forever has changed the modern view of what actually happened.
In one segment, they show using a computerized map of the battlefield the movements of several of the Warriors, and the Troopers, based on matching the fired cartridge casing found on the field.
I found it very compelling, others have a differing viewpoint. Thats what makes it fun to discuss.
Why do you think it was 100 to 1?
Did the study also address the various reports of suicide by the trapped troopers? These have occasionally stirred controversy, although I find the tradition of saving the last round for oneself eminently sensible when fighting an opponent prone to torturing prisoners to death for entertainment.
"And you are correct, Custer and much of the leadership fell early, which led to a complete loss of command and Control of the battlefield. It was the key thing to the massacre of the 7th."
I always thought it was a case of really poor to nonexistent intell.
Oops.
Accounts differ about the rape of white women captives. This practice was common among the western Plains Indians, but many accounts (including Teddy Roosevelt's account of those times) claim that the Eastern Indians believed that rape of captives would lessen the fighting essence that they had cultivated through rituals in preparation for war. However, other accounts say rape of white female captives was common among the Eastern Indians also, but the accounts were oppressed due to public squeamishness in discussing the issue.
The bottom line is, Americans could not have expanded throughout the interior of the US, unless the Indians were tamed (ie, the Indian attacks had to cease).
Kudos to the rave fighters of the 7th calvary.
"I was aware that the forensic study demonstrated the Indian's firepower advantage, which seems to have been the big surprise.
Did the study also address the various reports of suicide by the trapped troopers? These have occasionally stirred controversy, although I find the tradition of saving the last round for oneself eminently sensible when fighting an opponent prone to torturing prisoners to death for entertainment."
As I recall (from memory) there was one or two "questionable" instances found. The problem is figuring out if it was a self inflicted wound, or a mercy shooting by the Warrior's after the battle was done.
It was discovered that a couple of troopers were in fact alive, and brutally tortured, based on the forensics, again from what I recall of the program. I suspect this will be running on THC sometime this weekend, due to the anniversary.
The two were the sole survivors of Custers battalion. Kanipe (Company C) was sent back first by Tom Custer. He was lucky in that, according to his account, Sgt. Finkle (I think that was his name) should have taken the message back. But his horse was limping and he had gone back to the end of the column. So Kanipe was given the message to take back. This was at about the point about where Custer first saw the Indian encampment past Reno Hill. The second messenger, Martin, was sent back after the stop a little farther on. The 5 companies that were destroyed with Custer were not totally wiped out. Each company had several soldiers detailed to the pack train. Kanipe ended up fighting with H company on the south end of Reno Hill. We went out several years ago, and it was interesting seeing Sgt. Kanipe's picture on several of the roadside descriptions of the battle. Kanipe also participated in the identification of the dead. Another good stop is Fort Abraham Lincon in Bismarck, ND. The History Channel documentary on the archeological discoveries was really good.
Because the 10:1 ratio sounds too pat. I believe the gov't of the time was too embarrassed to admit any higher ratio. Also, I believe the 10:1 ratio counted only male warriors. The women and any children who could handle a rifle were probably involved also. Data pretty much indicates that Custer was overwhelmed so quickly he didn't know what was going on. He was either extremely over confident or stupid or both........
No, they don't want that. It was the beginning of the end. Anyway it was all about Custer, not George, but his brother.
1) In the company C area it showed how the soldiers fought in a traditional way, with the accepted spacing to fight on foot, where on last stand hill there was no organized fight and panic had set in.
2) It gave the name of "Henryville" to a portion of the battlefield where a group of Indians using Henry repeaters was firing on the troops.
3) My favorite part was where they could trace an individual weapons across the battlefield based on the distinct marks left by the firing pins on the cartridges.
IIRC, that History Channel special also brought up the attempt to capture the fleeing women and children in order to avert a larger battle. Is that the same special?
Yes, I believe so. I bought the tape, so I'll have to check it at home tonight.
Thanks. I was thinking of buying the tape. Someday I hope to visit the battlefield itself though...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.