Posted on 06/25/2011 8:15:40 PM PDT by EveningStar
Today marks the 135 anniversary of the Battle of the Little Big Horn near present day Garryowen, Mont. After all this time the death of Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer remains a mystery.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedickinsonpress.com ...
´Just saw ¨They Died With Their Boots On¨ a couple of days ago.
Modest success? Surely you jest.
Custer was one of the luminaries during the civil war.
Thanks for the pics, jimbo. That’s how I remember it, and matches my own pics. It is truly hallowed, but haunting ground.
I will have to search the torrents for that episode. It was always a way to kill time per se while on travel or hurry up an wait missions to discuss tactics an the good an bad of former conflicts an individual battles. What if then an now an or original issued weapons or what we had now.
Lessons learned on the fly ....
Thanks for the info.
Stay safe.
But then, he did finish last in his class at West Point.
You sound like a disgruntled southerner who is still p.o.’d that Custer forced Lee to surrender by pushing his troops up to cut the line of retreat.
Bold moves were vintage Custer
So what if he graduated last in his class at West Point and had the most demerits of any graduate. He was the best fighting cavalry officer the North had.
He didn’t exactly rise through the ranks as he flew through them. He was promoted 5 ranks in one go.
Some accounts have this unusual promotion happening by mistake.
But Custer took advantage of it, and led his new force in an aggressive attack (in violation of his orders) against Jeb Stuarts cavalry at Gettysburg.
His attack, in which he led at least 3 charges stopped the reb horses from taking the Union forces in the rear. He was also very outnumbered in that fight.
Visiting there is on our “to do” list as we depart here right after July 4 weekend for a trip thru the national parks in the area.
He fought for the wrong side? heh
At least MacArthur had the gut instincts to realize that the UN war in Korea was being played by the UN to both sides, that’s why he landed his surprise attack, then subsequently brought back home and made to look like a traitor by the real traitor Eisenhower.
One of the things that annoys me most about many portrayals of Custer is the idea that the Washita was some sort of deliberate cowardly attack by the Army on a known peaceful village. As you just pointed out, there were hostiles in the immediate area; it was just horrible luck for Black Kettle and his band that the trail Custer followed - in the dark - led to that group and not any of the other hostile camps in the area.
The Washita Battle has already been mentioned, and all you need to do is look at that fight and you’ll see why Custer did what he did at the LBH. Add to that the fact that the indians would normally withdraw to protect their families. Factor in the Battle of the Rosebud, and you have the recipe for a perfect mess. Was Custer a glory seeker? Oh yeah. Best plan was to probably hit the village with everything he had at the south end and get them moving. But, then you spend the rest of the summer chasing them because even with women and children, the indians could move fast. Not sure there is a good solution in this for old Custer. As was already mentioned, raise a glass to both sides. The indians won the battle, but the wrath from the US after the fight ensured that the indians would not just be defeated, they would be taught a harsh lesson...and they were. A great story because it includes all of the human emotions.
How are you going? If you’re taking I-25 north through Sheridan, a good stop would be at the Ft Phil Kearney site. It’s close to Story, WY and just off (west) of the highway. The scenes of the Fetterman and Wagon Box fights are there, the Fetterman battlefield being in view of the Interstate. Parts of the fort have been replicated, and they have a nice little visitor’s center and bookstore.
He got about a third of his command wiped out. The most one-sided loss in U.S. history is probably the Battle of the Wabash - it seems few people are aware of it, but there it is.
Custer is a mixed bag, but he led from up front, took the same risks and suffered the same consequences for his decisions with his men. Personally, "contempt" isn't a word I apply to Custer.
I had always wondered "how did they distinguish a 'war party' from a non-war party based on tracks in the snow?" until I read a book by a trooped named Barnitz who was severely wounded at the Washita (actually he eventually died from complications of that wound - it just took 30 years to kill him). Barnitz claimed the distinction was made because there were no dog tracks. Did indians have dogs with them on hunting parties? Beats me, you'll have to ask a Crow scout, but that was apparently the key determining factor.
We stopped at Little Bighorn Sate Park a few years ago and drove around the battlefield. Battlegrounds always make me very emotional, I cried ,as usual.
There is. Far more than most realize. My Battalion did a staff ride with an Army historian walking us through the entire lead up to the fight. We saw the ground, we learned the circumstances of the decisions made by Custer, and we even got to fire the weapons he and his men used on the Crow Indian Reservation. We even did day 2 on horse back for a few hours to get a small idea of what it was like to be a Cav trooper back in those days.
Fascinating stuff. Custer may have screwed up, but there’s very little to indicate how he could’ve done better, given the circumstances known and unknown to him.
Mac was brought back for openly bad mouthing command. His ego was such that he felt he could get away with it. When the President tells a general to do something, he does it without bitchin and whining like a little girl. Mac mis-managed most of the war and if wasnt for Inchon, he would have been kicked to the curb sooner.
I have Barnitz’ book. He became very bitter toward Custer after the battle because of what he saw as Custer’s abandonment of Maj. Elliott and his men (the ones I referred to upthread as having been wiped out by Indians coming to Black Kettle’s rescue).
No, I seriously doubt there were dogs that traveled with war parties. Hunting parties, possibly, but war parties were just that and dogs would pose a serious problem (noise or wandering when close to the enemy). And hunting parties generally roamed closer to camp than war parties, for the most part at least. Therefore, dogs may well have traveled with them at times. But again, one would think that dogs could prove a problem when trying to close in on a heard of buffalo.
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.