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.
I don't believe the 7th had repeating rifles... but the Indians did...
You're pulling my leg, right? Please tell me you are...
No, I don't know what you mean.
The Sioux fought more bravely. They were fighting for their homes and their way of life. And they weren't being paid.
Because the defeat he suffered was so costly, complete, and apalling that it was politically "necessary" to transform him into a hero, lest the catastrophe blow back on his higher-ups in Washington.
Well, the bottom line is that Custer was outmanned, outgunned, and outtacticalized (I made that word up)...
If I recall correctly, the 7th under Custer had single shot rifles, and some pistols - none of the new Gatlin guns, etc... while the Indians had many variations of weapons, with many having the repeating rifles (henrys, I believe, or something like that...) which they used to devestating effect...
bingo.
That's pathetic
Even more pathetic is the fact that apparently some of the Troopers had some repeating rifles (Springfields?) that, apparently, had a high jamming rate during the battle... Other troopers ran out of ammo because they were ordered not to take extra ammo because Custer didn't want the men to "get spooked"...
But the most pathetic of all?
Custer is also known on one occasion to have been given a derringer pistol in case of capture before going into an Indian encampment under a truce. The fear of Indian mutilation whilst an officer was still a live may have made the ‘secret’ carrying of such weapons a common practice. One eyewitness claim about the body of Custer is that he shot himself in the head with a derringer type pistol.
Even more pathetic is the fact that apparently some of the Troopers had some repeating rifles (Springfields?) that, apparently, had a high jamming rate during the battle... Other troopers ran out of ammo because they were ordered not to take extra ammo because Custer didn't want the men to "get spooked"...
But the most pathetic of all?
Custer is also known on one occasion to have been given a derringer pistol in case of capture before going into an Indian encampment under a truce. The fear of Indian mutilation whilst an officer was still a live may have made the ‘secret’ carrying of such weapons a common practice. One eyewitness claim about the body of Custer is that he shot himself in the head with a derringer type pistol.
How do ya like my new tagline? ;0)
Wow
I'm not gonna judge the Troopers too hard about things - most were, from what I've heard, inexperienced in fighting indians (many were immigrants, fairly new to teh country) and little experience on horseback. The average age of the Privates was around 30...
So, when faced with imminent death, and the possibility of torture and mutilation, I can understand them turning their guns on themselves. One Indian who was there, I dont recall his name, said in a report to the government that "The White Men went crazy! Instead of shooting us, they turned their guns on themselves!"
From all that I've seen and read, the facts seem to be that Custer and his units were taken out fairly quickly (when a group of people charge into a primitive camp and begin shooting women and children who are trying to escape, ya cause some anger ya know?) and so basically the whole command and control fell apart... after Custer's fall, some units tried to escape by fleeing west, which unfortunately took them in the direction of the camp they had been attacking. Oops. They ended up in a gully or ditch type area, where they were finally killed (or killed themselves, as the case may be) and the battle was pretty mcuh over...
The deeper one looks into the Little Big Horn event, the more fascinating it becomes... Some indians painted what they saw, and those painting are now in the Smithsonian... The paintings and drawings are pretty interesting, albeit a little crude compared to what we are used to today...
I've stumbled across photos of the battlefield that were taken months after the battle, and the bones of horses were still evident (used as makeshift defenses, from what I gather). The dead were pretty much buried where they fell, but praire/plains animals dug them up and scattered them. When Custer's "body" was returned to be buried at West Point, in reality it only contained a few symbolic bones...
Niiiiiice. ; )
Heh heh heh
Some additional information (cause it seems as though you'd be interested in details): Riverboat Captain Grant Marsh made record time ferrying the wounded aboard his Far West from near the battlefield site, arriving in Bismarck, Dakota Territory, the night of July 5 (if my memory serves me proper). Information concerning the battle would probably have then been wired to Ft. Snelling in Minnesota. I'm uncertain whether a messenger on horse could have made any better time. Maybe.
Is that right? I've heard many differing views on that word. Confusing.
No we don't.
We know the Indians had far superior firepower on that day, which wasn't known, nor appreciated fully by historians and military experts until the past three or four years.
I can't say whether it was appreciated fully, but it has been in the literature forever. Read Graham's "Custer Myth" and look at the accounts by French and Godfrey, for example.
We know how each seperate "group" fell back, moved forward, and when the end was obvious, exactly where Custer's last remaining troops (about 25 - 35 from what I recall) attempted to seek an escape route.
"Forensics" couldn't possible tell us any of that.
Finally, these "silly forensic studies" took down a half dozen "myths" that were accepted by historians as "fact"....such as when Custer was killed, flow of the battle, etc etc etc.
Forensics couldn't possibly tell us when Custer was killed, or the flow of the battle (it's all a matter of interpretation), etc etc etc.
Eye witnesses are to be viewed with extreme caution in any situation. Those that are "handed down" from generation to generation lose so much in each retelling they are impossible to rely on. Thats true of witnesses today as it was in the 1800's.
The field was picked over by souvenier hunters for a hundred years before any archaeologists ever went there, and people were riding around it shooting off weapons and screwing around with the field and moving stuff for years after the battle. Any archaeological sample is heavily tainted. You put way too much stock in these "forensic studies".
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.