Have you ever read a bio of the man? I’d suggest you do. He was horrible. By todays standards he’d never have been made an officer and on any one number of occasions his conduct would have had him court-martialed. Had he survived the Bighorn he would have been.
As a matter of fact I have read quite a bit about General Custer, and I really do believe he was nowhere near as evil as he was made out to be. There is a lot of misunderstanding of what really happened at the Little Big Horn, as the title of this thread proves.
Sitting Bull still did not lead the attack against Custer...Crazy Horse certainly did.
Custer gained much of his reputation as a young cavalry officer during the Civil War, and he really was an outstanding tactician in an age of horse cavalry. Many reputable Civil War sources discuss Custer and how he really was an outstanding Cavalry Officer at a young age.
But some historians think that by the time he arrived at the Little Big Horn he had matured and mellowed somewhat from his early years and was deserving of the loyalty he was lacking from his subordinate officers who were part of the large command Custer led up into the Badlands.
I think Custer took the blame for the entire Little Big Horn slaughter because he was good enough to die with the troops and was conveniently unavailable to defend himself.
The most recent book I’ve read about Custer is Nathaniel Philbrick’s “Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull and the Battle of the Little Bignorn”.
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Custer-Sitting-Bighorn/dp/0670021725
Philbrick is a respected historian, and his analysis of the battle is interesting and enlightening, and I encourage everyone to read it to get a fresh perspective on General Custer. Philbrick postulates that most people’s image of Custer comes from Dustin Hoffman’s movie “Little Big Man” which portrays Custer as demented, which according to Philbrick is far from the truth.
In any case, Custer was a complex man and made a permanent mark in History for himself.