VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I don't see him making 100 posts . . .You’re going to fit in real good here. Enjoy it while you can.
Who And What Was George Custer?
- Thread starter shrapnel
- Start date
And he still had plenty of supporters. Was he court-martialed I believe the answer that question is no.
shrapnel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2015
- Messages
- 2,581
In generalities, this may be accurate, but specifically, Custer was far from mediocre. Compared to his contemporaries, Custer was considerably more successful in terms of warfare during the Civil War where 10’s of thousands died from the result of hundreds of Civil War generals, of which Custer was only 1.
His accomplishments were viewed by the time in the latter part of the 19th century as far beyond mediocre and we still criticize him by 2021 standards. Most people have heard of many of the big battles, yet few know of his leadership and influence of winning those battles.
You do have to research those battles, but he was there and proved himself above his enemies as he contributed more to the Northern success of the Civil War than any other individual.
At Gettysburg, Custer, outnumbered 2-1, repulsed Jeb Stuart, saving the Union. He also was at Appomattox and charged Lee’s artillery and captured his cannons, then approached Lee to convince him to meet with Grant and surrender to end the Civil War.
With those examples and many more, he gets continually criticized by people from what they heard about the Little Bighorn Battle and still the critics know little to nothing about what happened other than Custer was killed.
Believe me when I say this man was closer to real history and who Custer was against the chirping of the Custer detractors that continue to berate him.
General Nelson A. Miles on Custer and the Little Bighorn:
"The more I see of movements here the more admiration I have for Custer," Colonel Nelson Miles wrote from the field to his wife several months after the Battle of the Little Big horn," and I am satisfied his like will not be found very soon again."
"To Hell With Honor"
Page 341 (footnote #39)
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Reading original texts from the 1800's is always interesting. They are a reminder that there are very few new ideas, just old ideas repackaged by new speakers. There was a huge range of opinions in America from 1700-1915 that got whitewashed into the "official American narrative" as a guard against communism, the cold war, and to somehow glorify the south's seccession and resulting segregation. This is really unfortunate, as it is much more meaningful to see how the nation worked through these different perspectives as it grew and became great. Greatness does not come from telling self-soothing stories that become almost childlike in their simplicity - it comes from the hard work and hard lessons. As a lifelong conservative (and Reagan-era cold war warrior) I welcome a true discussion of our past and do not believe we are so weak that we can't be honest about the great and the terrible that got us here.
Last edited:
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,508
Is that General Custer?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
He resigned right after the massacre and would not have been able to be brought up on charges due to the general amnesty order.
That is my understanding.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Weird flex
I’d raise a glass to Gifford Pinchot, he was born in 1865. Thanks for the public lands!
* edited cause I can’t spell for crap… apparently
Last edited by a moderator:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I will raise a glass to my father - all the rest is interesting history - he is the one I owe.
Well the thread topic was George Custer not Gilfford. But good effort on the weird flex.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I refuse to acknowledge the French languagePinchot
SAJ-99
Well-known member
When you charge the enemy hill and over take it, they call you a hero. When you charge the enemy and you and all your men get killed, you get labeled reckless and irresponsible. So is life. Custer’s strategy was always the same. It guaranteed he wasn’t going to die of old age.
squirrel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
- Messages
- 709
Youth, wild times, a flamboyant style, a thirst for personal glory and sometimes material gain (spoils of war), incredible luck. A truly amazing man. His brash style tempered with good battlefield judgement worked for him... right up until it didn't! There are bold soldiers and old soldiers but there are no old, bold , soldiers.
Brigadier general at 23 years of age, that alone speaks volumes, even if taken in context of lots of "job openings" in a slaughterhouse of a war.
He really liked women, fame, riches (baubles would be more accurate), and he loved battle most of all, as he confessed to his sister, he never wanted the war to end. Truly an adrenaline junky of the first order
Some of you guys really need help...
noharleyyet
Well-known member
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Point I was trying to make is that the decedents of everyone on that battlefield are US Citizens (*I guess potentially some are Canadians).
Americans died in the civil war, when I go to Gettysburg or any other American battlefield I think of all American's who died, that's entirely what I'm driving at.
There are lots of American's who tried to elevate our country, for everyone.
Another great American of the era whose legacy I would toast would be John Wesley Powell.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brian in Montana
Well-known member
I love the portrayal of Custer in Little Big Man. It was funny and went great with the story, but I doubt it was all that accurate. The real Custer was warrior who relished the battle no less than Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, and Red Cloud. The tradition of raiding and making war on enemies ( which did include brutalizing them) among the plains tribes is an ancient one; the difference is that the Lakota and Cheyenne were somewhat back on their heels militarily at the time of the Little Bighorn, so the lense of history largely views them as valiantly fighting an over-powered conqueror (which is not inaccurate, just a little more to it than that). Custer's part at Gettysburg was pretty badass and he was certainly on the right side of history in that event. He apparently had ambitions of becoming president some day, I think I read somewhere, and heroism on the battlefield had worked for Grant. My own opinion as a casual armchair student of history is that he was at his heart a military man, and fighting was just what he did. We can pontificate on the Indian Wars and the morality thereof all day long, but I think Custer was just out there basically doing what he knew, where his profession led him. For whatever reason he seems to have grossly overestimated his advantage at the Little Bighorn and he and the 7th paid the ultimate price for it. Anyway, I think it's OK to admire him for his courage and adventurous spirit, but he was clearly a flawed man like the rest of us. Probably very vain and it's easy to assume that's what got him into trouble in the end. But really, we'll never know.
He is an interesting character, as evidenced by the piles of books written about him. Albeit controversial. And although some of his actions were certainly questionable, the Little Washita being one, most of the horror stories about the soldiers' brutality comes from Chivington. That guy was a blood-thirsty creep.
I haven't been to the Little Bighorn Battlefield in years. I need to get my kids out there some time, it's a fascinating place that commemorates an event in a fascinating era in our history.
He is an interesting character, as evidenced by the piles of books written about him. Albeit controversial. And although some of his actions were certainly questionable, the Little Washita being one, most of the horror stories about the soldiers' brutality comes from Chivington. That guy was a blood-thirsty creep.
I haven't been to the Little Bighorn Battlefield in years. I need to get my kids out there some time, it's a fascinating place that commemorates an event in a fascinating era in our history.
Custer was a bad ass and arrogant soldier, he died being stupid and arrogant, the end.
The battlefield is well worth the visit. Been there a few times and my when my son was 12 he thought it was pretty cool. You drive around and get out and read the signs for a play by play account and there is markers for supposedly where everyone was killed. let your imagination take over and it is a pretty cool tour.
The battlefield is well worth the visit. Been there a few times and my when my son was 12 he thought it was pretty cool. You drive around and get out and read the signs for a play by play account and there is markers for supposedly where everyone was killed. let your imagination take over and it is a pretty cool tour.
shrapnel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2015
- Messages
- 2,581
Yes, the battlefield is worthy of a visit, but no, the line about being stupid is what shows the little knowledge people have of Custer. I have said and will stand by it: Custer was one of a kind cavalry leader and accomplished more in the Civil War than any other individual on either side.
His exploits in the Indian wars did not only include the Little Bighorn and Washita. We also need to remember, he did none of this on his own, he was under orders from a higher authority in his actions.
Custer also settled a conflict with Stone Forehead's band of southern Cheyenne in Texas without a shot being fired and reclaimed captured settlers that had been taken hostage sometime earlier. Had Custer been the Indian killer everyone accuses him of, he wouldn't have parlayed with Stone Forehead and settled peaceably.
He was called to Washington to testify against Orville Grant and William Belknap for their corrupt handling of money from contracts with Belknap's position in the War department. Grant subsequently relieved Custer of his command of the 7th Cavalry and only through the constant pressure of Phil Sheridan, was Custer given his chance to again, lead the 7th Cavalry under the leadership of Alfred Terry.
This comment, though published earlier, still seems to escape the eyes of the critics, as this is a comment from another well known Indian wars general Nelson A. Miles:
"The more I see of movements here the more admiration I have for Custer," Colonel Nelson Miles wrote from the field to his wife several months after the Battle of the Little Big horn," and I am satisfied his like will not be found very soon again."
"To Hell With Honor"
Page 341 (footnote #39)
idelkslayer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 267
I'll second the recommendation for:
In general, atrocities were committed and started by both sides throughout American and Indian history. The tribes did not treat each other any differently and they had lengthy histories of genocide against each other. However atrocious, it is pretty much the history of all mankind throughout the world.
The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn, by Nathaniel Philbrick
In general, atrocities were committed and started by both sides throughout American and Indian history. The tribes did not treat each other any differently and they had lengthy histories of genocide against each other. However atrocious, it is pretty much the history of all mankind throughout the world.
Similar threads
