New Article on Custer's Last Stand

[mikegriffith1]

For those who are interested in Custer's Last Stand, last week I web-published an article on the subject titled "General Custer and the Little Big Horn: Setting the Record Straight." Here's the link:

http://miketgriffith.com/files/custerrecord.htm

My article argues that Custer's two subordinate commanders--Major Reno and Captain Benteen--were largely responsible for his defeat, and that much or most of Custer's command could have been saved if Reno and Benteen had done their duty.

My Custer webpage can be found here:

http://miketgriffith.com/files/custer.htm

 

[Nakani]

Interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. The battle of little Big Horn is one of my favorites, but then again, who doesn't like it when the home team kicks the cocky visiting teams ass.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. The battle of little Big Horn is one of my favorites, but then again, who doesn't like it when the home team kicks the cocky visiting teams ass.

The "home" team? I wonder about that. The Sioux and the Cheyenne were two of the most vicious, predatory tribes in the Americas. There was a reason that the Crow and the Arikara were only too happy to help the U.S. Army go after the Sioux and the Cheyenne (they had been brutalized by them).

The Sioux and the Cheyenne acquired most of "their lands" by violent conquest and subjugation. They would then claim huge tracts of land as "theirs" even though they only occupied a tiny part of that land.

This is not to excuse the federal government's bad acts and broken promises toward the Indians, but there is another side of the coin that rarely gets attention nowadays.

 

[deaman]

The Sioux and the Cheyenne acquired most of "their lands" by violent conquest and subjugation. They would then claim huge tracts of land as "theirs" even though they only occupied a tiny part of that land.

Now.....who does that remind us of?

 

[Megalodon]

There was a reason that the Crow and the Arikara were only too happy to help the U.S. Army go after the Sioux and the Cheyenne...

And how well it worked for them...

 

[Nakani]

The "home" team? I wonder about that.

As in, lived here first, didn't come from Europe on a ship.

The Sioux and the Cheyenne were two of the most vicious, predatory tribes in the Americas.

So?

There was a reason that the Crow and the Arikara were only too happy to help the U.S. Army go after the Sioux and the Cheyenne (they had been brutalized by them).

I wonder whose team they would have chosen if they could've seen the future? The Crow and Arikara had no idea they were helping an even worse enemy.

The Sioux and the Cheyenne acquired most of "their lands" by violent conquest and subjugation. They would then claim huge tracts of land as "theirs" even though they only occupied a tiny part of that land.

Are you trying to convince me that the Lakota and Cheyenne were bad people who deserved to be killed?

Yes, war was the name of the game pre-contact but there was a balance. It wasn't about extermination.

This is not to excuse the federal government's bad acts and broken promises toward the Indians, but there is another side of the coin that rarely gets attention nowadays.

Could you elaborate on this "other side of the coin"?

 

[Loss Leader]

For those who are interested in Custer's Last Stand, last week I web-published an article on the subject titled "General Custer and the Little Big Horn: Setting the Record Straight." Here's the link:

http://miketgriffith.com/files/custerrecord.htm

My article argues that Custer's two subordinate commanders--Major Reno and Captain Benteen--were largely responsible for his defeat, and that much or most of Custer's command could have been saved if Reno and Benteen had done their duty.

Interesting. The information I've read said that Custer lost by trying get behind the men to seize the women and children. The terrain made it impossible for him to effectively scout the area and the men ended up able to attack his very, very thinned out line.

Had Custer actually followed his orders, he might have lived through the day. It didn't help that nobody in the other units seemed at all interested in saving him.


ETA: It looks like my understanding conforms with your article, except I didn't remember that the units who failed to aid Custer were the very ones that he had split off. Still, I don't think you're giving Custer enough of the blame for dividing his forces and ignoring orders. He was trying to re-fight his most successful battle in a terrain that didn't allow it and against numbers that were far greater than he had earlier defeated.

 

[Craig B]

The "home" team? I wonder about that. The Sioux and the Cheyenne were two of the most vicious, predatory tribes in the Americas.

But they were "at home" more at least than the European settlers. Europe knows plenty about viciousness and predation, if it comes to that.

 

[Loss Leader]

But they were "at home" more at least than the European settlers. Europe knows plenty about viciousness and predation, if it comes to that.

The were "at home" in that they understood how to use the terrain to their advantage while the American forces didn't.

 

[erwinl]

I've read your article.

Not knowing enough of this history I accept all the facts as true, so will go from there.

I do think that Custer made some errors that cost him the battle (and his life).
As far as I can see, even though it apparently happened more often to divide ones forces before knowing the exact size of the Indian encampment, the fact remains that the error is with the commander if this goes wrong. On other words, doing stupid stuff (dividing the forces), but it works, makes one right. Doing stupid stuff and it goes wrong. Well there is only one person who made that decision.

In addition to that. When he found out that the Indian forces were too great for him and he needed reinforcement as soon as possible, he still didn't concentrate the forces he had at his command at that moment (his own battalion). It might be, that he expected reinforcement very soon, but he didn't protect his soldiers as much as possible, by concentrating their fire power.

It might very well be that there was some friction between Custer and the other officers. Could that have been because Custer at this point was more interested in making a name for himself for entering politics, instead of being a soldier foremost?
I can imagine that could be an issue, but freely admit this is only conjecture from my part.
Any way. It was Custer's responsibility to make sure his command would react to what he ordered, the way he wanted it. (see another example of this type of error when Evan-Thomas didn't know what Beatty wanted of him at the start of the battle of Jutland in 1916).

All in all it comes to me as a failure of concentration of forces and a failure of management. Both of which are squarely on Custer's plate of responsibility.

 

[skeptichaggis]

Custers military ability is a interesting question. The 7th was not a happy lot of campers,not to mention the problems between the various clichés. Still,Custer was in charge so ultimately.....

Isandalwana,maiwand,little big horn. All those battles(and others)have something in common-more ink has been spilt on what the losers did wrong than on what the Zulu/Afghans/Indians did right.

Even the greats,like Hannibal can lose in battle.

 

[WayneK]

I'd encourage anyone who's interested in historical mysteries to devote some time to studying this battle. It's fascinating to try to figure out what happened, and there's an abundance of evidence to work with.

I'm more interested in the "what happened" angle than assigning blame. It ended up in a disaster for the soldiers so it's natural to conclude that someone did something wrong, and if only they hadn't done that, everything would have turned out fine. It's understandable to think that way, but it's unfair.

When I look at each of the decisions that were made in the context of what was known at the time, I see mostly reasonable decisions. The fact that the chain of decisions ended up in defeat doesn't change that.

 

[Axxman300]

Had Benteen and Reno moved to Custer they would have been chewed to pieces. The Indians were better armed and motivated. Even had they reached Last Stand Hill it would have been too late, Custer's element was destroyed in under 20 minutes.

Crazy Horse and his warriors had just returned from fighting General Crook's force to a draw at the Rose Bud. Crook was a superior Indian fighter to Custer, so he and the rest of the hostiles would have made short work of the arriving support elements.

The better questions are these:

Why didn't Custer ride into the village under a white flag to talk with Sitting Bull first? The Chiefs had voted and decided that how they dealt with the 7th Cav depended on their approach. Custer was familiar with all of the tribes and knew he could at least talk with them first.

Why didn't Custer, after finally seeing the vast size of the Indian encampment, turn around and regroup with Reno to wait for Benteen?

The fact is that once Reno had engaged the encampment the issue was not victory, but survival. The Little Big Horn was a lousy place for a pitched battle. The Indian encampment was surrounded on the south side by grass tall enough to hide horses, so Reno's force had poor visibility for most of their attack. The survivors all say that Indians seemed to appear from nowhere, this was due to the lack of good sight lines. Couple this fact with Reno's lackluster experience as an Indian fighter, or even a combat officer, and his attack was doomed the second he crossed the river.

Benteen was a career hack, but his hatred and distrust of Custer were justified after Custer left good men for dead at the Whashitah River. He'd sent Maj. Joel Elliot and twenty men to pursue fleeing Indians, and they ran into a Little Big Born-sized encampment a few miles away and were slaughtered by the responding Native force. Weather or not he deliberately left Custer hanging in the breeze is not the point. Reno and his men were being engaged by the Indians, and his responsibility at that point was to reinforce Reno's position and hold out hoping that Terry would get there in time.

The only reason they survived was because the Indians decided not to finish them off, which they could have with little problem.

The larger problem with your thesis is that you fail to take the fighting prowess of the Sioux and Cheyenne into account. They were superior tacticians, and battle hardened. Custer just got beat.

 

[Loss Leader]

It might very well be that there was some friction between Custer and the other officers. Could that have been because Custer at this point was more interested in making a name for himself for entering politics, instead of being a soldier foremost?
I can imagine that could be an issue, but freely admit this is only conjecture from my part.

Oh, they hated him. With an eye towards politics, he'd written a book that was very critical of his commanding general. There's a reason he was General Custer during the Civil War and Colonel Custer afterwards.

Fun fact, just before the battle, Custer had shaved his head. So, the traditional long blond hair we associate him with was not in evidence that day.

Even had they reached Last Stand Hill it would have been too late, Custer's element was destroyed in under 20 minutes.

Many now believe Custer dies very, very early in the battle. One native american woman thought she saw two men helping a man with long blond hair late in the battle, but that couldn't have been Custer.

 

[Border Reiver]

Interesting article.

I disagree with two of your conclusions :
A. That the gatlings were left behind because they were fragile; and
B. That Custer had made a good faith attempt at reconnaissance.

A. That same pattern of Gatling gun was extensively used by British forces in colonial campaigns, including the Northwest Rebebellion of 1885 (fought just north of the Dakotas in Saskatchewan); and
B. It has been a solid part of military training from the day that ug's clan tried to get Ogg's clan's nice warm cave..to not divide one's forces until you know the strength and disposition of the enemy

 

[WayneK]

Oh, they hated him. With an eye towards politics, he'd written a book that was very critical of his commanding general. There's a reason he was General Custer during the Civil War and Colonel Custer afterwards.

Fun fact, just before the battle, Custer had shaved his head. So, the traditional long blond hair we associate him with was not in evidence that day.


Many now believe Custer dies very, very early in the battle. One native american woman thought she saw two men helping a man with long blond hair late in the battle, but that couldn't have been Custer.

Loss Leader,

It's been a while since I've really been into studying the battle but I think I remember enough to make a few suggested alterations to what you said. No offense intended.

Custer's rank didn't change after the Civil War. He was a Captain in the regular army during and after the war (later promoted to Lt. Colonel). He was a Major General of Volunteers, a rank which disappeared when volunteer units were disbanded. He was also a brevet General during and after the war, which entitled him to be addressed as "General".

Custer didn't shave his head right before the battle. He had his hair cut short (not shaved) before leaving Ft Lincoln over 5 weeks earlier. So his hair would have been relatively short but not very short.

I wouldn't say "many" believe Custer was killed very early. If you want to conjecture that, that's fine, but there's little evidence to support any one scenario over another. There are hundreds of conflicting Native American accounts. You can find one to support just about any position. The Indians did not know they were fighting Custer and would not have been able to recognize him on the field amid the smoke, dust, and chaos. No one knows when he was killed.

Wayne

 

[Loss Leader]

The Indians did not know they were fighting Custer and would not have been able to recognize him on the field amid the smoke, dust, and chaos. No one knows when he was killed.

They may not have known during the battle, but they figured it out at some point. His body was badly and obscenely mutilated.

 

[Border Reiver]

They may not have known during the battle, but they figured it out at some point. His body was badly and obscenely mutilated.

Not according to the accounts of the U.S. Army and the FN warriors. George Custer was surprisingly not mutilated/scalped. The stories of LCol Custer having been horrifically mutilated with an arrow being inserted into his genitals only started to arise well after the battle had passed into myth for both sides. The idea has been put forward that these stories were suppressed by the Army to spare Libby Custer, but given the rather lurid descriptions of the dead made by the press at the time and the corroboration by FN oral accounts that Custer wasn't mutilated would make that story not as believable.

It is possible that some confusion arose between descriptions of LCol George Custer, Maj Tom Custer and Lt Boston Custer, which seems more likely to me.

 

[Loss Leader]

Not according to the accounts of the U.S. Army and the FN warriors. George Custer was surprisingly not mutilated/scalped. The stories of LCol Custer having been horrifically mutilated with an arrow being inserted into his genitals only started to arise well after the battle had passed into myth for both sides. The idea has been put forward that these stories were suppressed by the Army to spare Libby Custer, but given the rather lurid descriptions of the dead made by the press at the time and the corroboration by FN oral accounts that Custer wasn't mutilated would make that story not as believable.

It is possible that some confusion arose between descriptions of LCol George Custer, Maj Tom Custer and Lt Boston Custer, which seems more likely to me.

I read a source that said they cut his ears off and stuffed them in his mouth.

 

[dudalb]

Interesting article.

I disagree with two of your conclusions :
A. That the gatlings were left behind because they were fragile; and
B. That Custer had made a good faith attempt at reconnaissance.

A. That same pattern of Gatling gun was extensively used by British forces in colonial campaigns, including the Northwest Rebebellion of 1885 (fought just north of the Dakotas in Saskatchewan); and
B. It has been a solid part of military training from the day that ug's clan tried to get Ogg's clan's nice warm cave..to not divide one's forces until you know the strength and disposition of the enemy

If Custer made a good faith effort on recon, it was of one of the most incompetent good faith efforts I have ever read about.
IMHO Custer blindly tried the same tactics that had worked for him before...the Washista for instance....not realising there were a hell of a lot more Indians then before.
I note the OP seems to have a thing for defending military leaders who are generally considered to have screwed up big time.Check his Pearl Harbor threads of details,where everybody but Kimmel and Short are to blame for the debacle. Expecting a post on how the British comanmders at The Charge OF the Light Brigade got a raw deal next.......