Who And What Was George Custer?

[geetar]

Maybe we should all if given the opportunity just visit the site in the picture Shrapnel posted and form our own opinions on what it means to live in America following these battles. I know I’d love to see the place for myself if for no more than for the historical factor of it without taking Custer or the Lakota Sioux side.

 

[Bullshot]

rwc101 - every.... single....one...of...us is living on someone else land from some perspective out of the distant past. If agreeing it was genocide or saying the word genocide ends the conflict of this post, or the flaws in the world, would that be it? Is it just recognition thats needed, no action? If action what action. And by whom? And for whom? And why..and how. I think you kinda tossed a little plausibly deniable grenade and then want to stand behind a history degree and book recommendation. What was the point exactly of this whole back and forth? And does it apply to you, in any real tangible way other than your willingness to sign a petition notwithstanding. I will extend credit to you for not running about genociding native American populations in your lifetime, or your parents in theirs. At least on that, you and hill and shrapnel and, well, all of us are on the exact same page so let’s all celebrate this point of agreement and common ground and turn in for the night.

 

[Doublecluck]

A lot of times these conversations get turned into "is America good or bad" because (fill in the blank) happened in the past. If you call the Indian Wars and subsequent treatment of Natives genocide the conversation gets redirected to whether the country (or this race or that race) is bad. My first comment was about the importance of focusing on the issue objectively and be honest about their lasting effects.

You responded "Why?" which gave me the initial impression that you were saying it is not important to look at the issue objectively, to call bad things that happened in the past bad because it wasn't happening now and we can't change the past. That would imply that you don't think history is important which I wouldn't accuse you of. Hence, we must be on different wavelengths.

Edit: and "We" meant society in the first comment. It meant you and I in the second.

A lot of times in these conversations, especially as of late, “recognize” means responsible for and should feel guilty of.

Why, why do I or anyone for that matter need to recognize Custer or the American Indians actions as anything other than what they were, history. Yes sure we can learn from it in some limited ancestral context, but as a society, as a government, as a nation we already figured that shit out. We’re past that.

Drink a beer for Custer, drink a beer for the natives, whatever. Cheers.

 

[MTLabrador]

The battlefield museum is very well done and shows a lot of artifacts and information about the battle from both sides. It’s definitely worth a visit for anyone driving I-90.

 

[Bullshot]

This thread has got me interested in going to the site , if I’m ever in Montana.

It is very moving and quiet and somber memorial to both government and indian participants and the area over which the battles or skirmishes took place is expansive and signs and plaques are informative of the human drama that took place. Truly was a different world back then.

 

[Shangobango]

The battlefield museum is very well done and shows a lot of artifacts and information about the battle from both sides. It’s definitely worth a visit for anyone driving I-90.

I drove by it 4 times while I was up there last fall. Still kicking myself for not taking the time to stop.

Won’t make that mistake next trip.

I just now took time to read all the pages of this thread between the post by @rwc101 that I quoted and where that post hit the thread.

Won’t make that mistake again either.

 

[glass eye]

Movies always portray Custer as being duped or caught off guard,, not knowing what he was getting into.
I visited the battlefield in 2006 and following his steps there is no way that he couldn't see how many Indians there were. He had the high ground and advantage of view in that open country. He was dillusional or suicidal.
During the Civil War he had 11 horses shot out from under him and he never got a scratch. It was known as "Custer Luck". Maybe he felt invincible but he certainly wasn't taken by surprise.

 

[squirrel]

Pretty sure he was a fella that REALLY wanted to be famous... and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. But as so often in life there was just a bit of a plot twist.

 

[shrapnel]

Pretty sure he was a fella that REALLY wanted to be famous... and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. But as so often in life there was just a bit of a plot twist.

Custer did keep the press close by and did enjoy the spotlight. Some people intimate that he had ambitions for the presidency, but I have not seen that in his writing or mannerisms. Seeking fame is much different than political ambitions.

He did participate in Johnson’s presidency to a limited extent, but that didn’t create any visible indication of him looking toward holding that office.

 

[squirrel]

Custer did keep the press close by and did enjoy the spotlight. Some people intimate that he had ambitions for the presidency, but I have not seen that in his writing or mannerisms. Seeking fame is much different than political ambitions.

He did participate in Johnson’s presidency to a limited extent, but that didn’t create any visible indication of him looking toward holding that office.

I would put it "smokey and the bandit" terms. What do you do Mr "bandit"?? Mostly what I do best, show off.

His bravery is indisputable, his reasons for it very complex, like most humans. A product of an amazing time, a vessel of dramatic contradictions. If you look for something you want to see you can find it, good or bad, in him.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The G word didn't bother me. The fact that he purposefully chose to only honor the Lakota and Cheyenne was a deliberate attempt to try and provoke others. To say otherwise is a lie. That comment was best left in his head.
All the people who participated in either side of that conflict deserve to be honored and both sides deserve to be scrutinized. Im sure a lot of good men died on the "winning side" who were just following orders those dead men had families to. The whole thing isn't as simple as good vs. evil.

It can be problematic to view historical events through a modern day lens; to apply modern ethics to past events. Genocide was a term coined in 1944, for instance.

So if we are to judge those by the ethics of their own time. Battle of the Little Big Horn was 1876.

The first Geneva convention was 1864 and prior to that there were various treaties governing rules of war.

The continental army from inception had a code and rules of conduct.

The Lieber Code was issued as General Order No. 100 in 1863. Signed by Lincoln it dictated how US soldiers should conduct themselves.

Article 44:
"All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense.

A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior."

I don't really think it's up for debate that soldiers on the us frontier including Custer and his men committed court martial-able offenses based entirely on the laws of their era.

Native American's certainly used similar tactics on settlers, eg. Comanche in Texas, though they were not bound by their own law nor any treaties. Ethically I don't think there is a difference and I am not giving the total war tactics employed by various tribes a pass, but I think we do have to acknowledge that a sovereign nation following it's own rules is different than Custer disobeying US military code.

Lastly, the Lieber code has been used as a blue print to inform modern rules of war. It's how we got the Nuremberg Trials and the trial of Calley et. al for My Lai.

US and international law has dictated for almost 100 years that "just following orders" is absolutely not a justifiable defense. Solider's have an obligation to disobey orders that are palpably illegal, so clearly illegal that any reasonable person would have known it was illegal. I doubt very much anyone now or in 1876 would disagree that rape and murder of unarmed women and children is "palpably illegal".

 

[Deleted member 16014]

It’s truly amazing how recently these events took place. I’m fairly young, but spent lots of time with my grandpa, who as a child spent lots of time with a fellow who fought in the civil war. And those were just a couple random guys on the prairie of MT.

I’m sure many HT members are just a couple generations and a degree or two removed from these events, and the same for Native American families that many of us know in the west.

When I think about how fast information and society have changed through that lens, the rate is almost frightening. As disconcerting as the world seems at times, on the whole I wouldn’t want to go back.

 

[shrapnel]

It can be problematic to view historical events through a modern day lens; to apply modern ethics to past events. Genocide was a term coined in 1944, for instance.

So if we are to judge those by the ethics of their own time. Battle of the Little Big Horn was 1876.

The first Geneva convention was 1864 and prior to that there were various treaties governing rules of war.

The continental army from inception had a code and rules of conduct.

The Lieber Code was issued as General Order No. 100 in 1863. Signed by Lincoln it dictated how US soldiers should conduct themselves.

Article 44:
"All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense.

A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior."

I don't really think it's up for debate that soldiers on the us frontier including Custer and his men committed court martial-able offenses based entirely on the laws of their era.

Native American's certainly used similar tactics on settlers, eg. Comanche in Texas, though they were not bound by their own law nor any treaties. Ethically I don't think there is a difference and I am not giving the total war tactics employed by various tribes a pass, but I think we do have to acknowledge that a sovereign nation following it's own rules is different than Custer disobeying US military code.

Lastly, the Lieber code has been used as a blue print to inform modern rules of war. It's how we got the Nuremberg Trials and the trial of Calley et. al for My Lai.

US and international law has dictated for almost 100 years that "just following orders" is absolutely not a justifiable defense. Solider's have an obligation to disobey orders that are palpably illegal, so clearly illegal that any reasonable person would have known it was illegal. I doubt very much anyone now or in 1876 would disagree that rape and murder of unarmed women and children is "palpably illegal".

This type of response is what I was originally hoping for. It is interesting what you can find out from other knowledgeable people.

I understand why Sheridan placed so much confidence in Custer, but I also would not have wanted to serve under him...

 

[glass eye]

In the museum there was an article about the military makeup at that time. Lots of the soldiers were immigrants that barely spoke English, most were Germans. Also there was high suicide rate.
I was there in 2006 and it read like a modern day news article about our war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just exchange German for Hispanic and you wouldn't know it was speaking of the 1870's. The news in 2006 was really victimizing Hispanics in the military, making them out to be a sacrificial race.

 

[Brad]

Custer was a small pawn in the larger genocide that was, practically speaking, US Indian policy. He was the smartest guy in the room, right up until he wasn't.

 

[RobertD]

In the museum there was an article about the military makeup at that time. Lots of the soldiers were immigrants that barely spoke English, most were Germans. Also there was high suicide rate.
I was there in 2006 and it read like a modern day news article about our war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just exchange German for Hispanic and you wouldn't know it was speaking of the 1870's. The news in 2006 was really victimizing Hispanics in the military, making them out to be a sacrificial race.

Same with the Fetterman Fight. Lots of Germans.

Following that vein up to WWI is interesting too. It gets mostly overlooked how large the German immigrant population was at that time and the cultural conflicts caused by American hostility towards Germany as the war progressed.

 

[RobertD]

I understand why Sheridan placed so much confidence in Custer, but I also would not have wanted to serve under him...

Setting aside the previous topics, why do you feel that way?

Just curious, since you've studied Custer pretty thoroughly. What were his major shortcomings as a leader? (I know some of the common opinions on Custer, but nothing from a more formal source)

 

[shrapnel]

Setting aside the previous topics, why do you feel that way?

Just curious, since you've studied Custer pretty thoroughly. What were his major shortcomings as a leader? (I know some of the common opinions on Custer, but nothing from a more formal source)

He was relentless and had no shortage of energy. He could get by on less than 3 hours of sleep and if his horse didn’t play out, he was capable of over 50 miles in 24 hours. Nobody that followed or served under him could keep his pace.

He had no fear and never sent his command anywhere that he wasn’t in the lead. If you read of his cavalry accomplishments, you would see why Sheridan relied on him and why you wouldn’t want to follow...

 

[A Guy Out West]

What about in memory of Custer, his 4 or 5 dozen men and the dozens of horses also?

That’s who I’m cracking my beer for. I’m waiting for my time to join them at Fiddlers Green. So sorry for the rest of you, only the likes of the Cavalry can go to Fiddlers Green.

 

[A Guy Out West]

I'll crack a beer today in memory of the Lakota and Cheyenne.

Im cracking mine for the US Cavalry, scouts out! Positively, my beer will taste better than yours.