Who And What Was George Custer?

[Deleted member 28227]

100 million. Whoever made that meme failed math.

Ep. 281: Sacred Seeds | MeatEater Podcasts

Steven Rinella talks with Taylor Keen, Clay Newcomb, Phil Taylor, Corinne Schneider, and Janis Putelis. Topics discussed: Denisovan DNA and scooped teeth; Clay on The Joe Rogan Experience; Montana Farm and Ranch Hunter Access Appreciation Sweepstakes; the effect of drought and heat on wildlife in...

www.themeateater.com

Start at Min 42

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Ep. 281: Sacred Seeds | MeatEater Podcasts

Steven Rinella talks with Taylor Keen, Clay Newcomb, Phil Taylor, Corinne Schneider, and Janis Putelis. Topics discussed: Denisovan DNA and scooped teeth; Clay on The Joe Rogan Experience; Montana Farm and Ranch Hunter Access Appreciation Sweepstakes; the effect of drought and heat on wildlife in...

www.themeateater.com

Start at Min 42

16 million is what I read as the high guess myself. Crazy to think about that 95% die off tho. If covid did that the trailhead would be full of parking spots!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

16 million is what I read as the high guess myself. Crazy to think about that 95% die off tho. If covid did that the trailhead would be full of parking spots!

Yeah the discussion made me think of this thread. 95% is totally nuts

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

I know

Actually there isn’t any truth in any of that. Custer was issued Colt 45 SAA revolvers and Trapdoor Springfield carbines in 45-70. Spencers were what the Michigan Wolverines used in the Civil War.

The army wasn’t malfeasant in their selection of weapons either. You have to know why the Trapdoor was adopted and what made it the better weapon in the Indian wars.

It wasn’t about expending as much ammunition as possible, it was about how to set up a skirmish line and maintain constant firing and having more range and killing power than you got with a Henry or 1866 Winchester.

Setting aside the issue surrounding the justification of the "Indian War's" and not to greatly disparage a dead guy, but there often seems to be some missconceptions or gaps about this subject.

I don't remember many details from professional military education about this subject, but I do recall that Custer’s last stand was an example of how not to do something militaraly speaking. There were no real winners in this battle. The native unknowingly took advantage of Custers huburous. He knew how to fight that battle but he just wanted to go back home a legendary war hero more. Problem is that only works if your still alive. In retrospect, we were thought that his poor leadership (not inferior equipment), was blamed for the loss of the entire unit.

At the time politically, President Grant and Major General William Tecumseh Sherman used Custer's unit destruction as a firebrand to generate support for sending in more Troops and equipment to settle the overall issue. At the time, they needed to publicly honor the loss of Custer and his unit, show that they are taking care of the issue so that they could encurage confidence in settlement of the West.

The Court-Martial of George Armstrong Custer

By Robert C. Berkley, Published on 06/12/18

digital-commons.usnwc.edu

 

[Durango Mike]

This one won't be open forever so let's try and make a discussion of it.

I agree that the 100 million number is pushing it. But being conservative, it's still likely in the neighborhood of 50 million, no?

I also don't think "genocide" is quite the right term. But then, what is instead?

not even close to 50 million!, these were nomadic people in the west.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

Agree with a lot of what you say. Also have to realize what pushed the Sioux and Cheyenne west. Colonialism and conflict.

I know that this is a very sensitive topic but there are a number of orally passed down stories among the First Peoples pushing each other around the land for a millenia prior to European contact. It is honestly how all civilizations were established in the first place. I think that we should recognize that this is how all of our ancestors did business. Certainly it still stings more for folks who are only 3 or 4 generations removed from the perceived grievance, but sins are abound.

 

[Gr8bawana]

not even close to 50 million!, these were nomadic people in the west.

In the west? They lived on the entirety of North America.

 

[JustinsDad]

After listening to the Meateater, I think the hatred toward the “white man” might me misdirected. Maybe people should be more upset at the Spanish for introducing smallpox than at the other Europeans who settled here a few years later.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

It's a funny thing to me, that some guys see negative things said about Custer, or positive things about Custer, and emotions begin to cloud their opinion.

Whereas for me, it's the name Sherman that triggers emotions that cloud my opinion

But rwc is right, when you feel an emotional response because someone criticizes or praises a dead guy from history, it's a good time for self examination

You are from the South my friend.

 

[shrapnel]

In retrospect, we were thought that his poor leadership (not inferior equipment), was blamed for the loss of the entire unit.

This is only as accurate as the subjectivity of the person making that observation. The continued criticism is only due to the outcome of that particular battle. Had he not been killed, win or lose, Custer would be viewed much differently.

Poor leadership is not a Custer characteristic. I have posted this quote several times before and its veracity seems to escape most readers, especially those that consider Custer incompetent or stupid...

"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."

Miles was a Custer contemporary and a noted Indian Wars leader. He was certainly closer to Custer personally as well as historically and as such I place more value in his observation than those of the 21st century critics.

To place blame again and claim poor leadership, doesn’t give any credit to Custer’s previous accomplishments in the field. Anyone feeling he knowingly charged a village that he had no chance of subduing the non combatants, still is short sighted as to Custer and his intentions. I believe Custer died fighting a battle he felt he could win.

I also believe, had he been supported by the Michigan Wolverines that he commanded in the Civil War, there would certainly have been a much different outcome.

You have to remember, both Reno and Benteen died in obscurity and alcoholism with little to show for their accomplishments outside of the Little Bighorn. They were viewed substantially differently in their later years than how they have been remembered over 100 years later.

Could Custer have survived the Little Bighorn? That is an unanswered question that will live forever. The fact is, he didn’t and as such, much speculation has made him a demon and a hero. He was a hero and remembered as such in 1876, but within a few weeks until now, he has become a demon and I don’t think the interpretation of history has been very kind to him.

I will admit, I was one of those that thought he was an idiot by what I had heard growing up in Montana and listening to campfire tales of his incompetence. It wasn’t until I had begun to cover the actual ground at and around the battlefield, reading the history of him through this time at West Point until his death, that I began to know more of who Custer really was.

I don’t think I would have been a friend of his and certainly wouldn’t wanted to serve under him, but I have a much better understanding of why Phil Sheridan put so much confidence in him and used him as an effective tool in both the Civil War and the Indian wars.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

After listening to the Meateater, I think the hatred toward the “white man” might me misdirected. Maybe people should be more upset at the Spanish for introducing smallpox than at the other Europeans who settled here a few years later.

Intent is a part of morality right... difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder.

 

[VikingsGuy]

In the west? They lived on the entirety of North America.

Again, best studies suggest 1 million what is now Canada, 3-5 million in what is now US lower 48, 20 million in what is now Mexico and Central America. To get to over 25 million you have to include South American which had approx 50 million in total. So, if we are talking about the US govt - which it looks everyone else is, we are talking 3-5 million as base population in 1600.

 

[VikingsGuy]

After listening to the Meateater, I think the hatred toward the “white man” might me misdirected. Maybe people should be more upset at the Spanish for introducing smallpox than at the other Europeans who settled here a few years later.

Are the Spanish - clearly European - not "white men"? And all European groups brought European diseases with them. Small pox was not a "Spanish" disease.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This is only as accurate as the subjectivity of the person making that observation. The continued criticism is only due to the outcome of that particular battle. Had he not been killed, win or lose, Custer would be viewed much differently.

Poor leadership is not a Custer characteristic. I have posted this quote several times before and its veracity seems to escape most readers, especially those that consider Custer incompetent or stupid...

"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."

Miles was a Custer contemporary and a noted Indian Wars leader. He was certainly closer to Custer personally as well as historically and as such I place more value in his observation than those of the 21st century critics.

To place blame again and claim poor leadership, doesn’t give any credit to Custer’s previous accomplishments in the field. Anyone feeling he knowingly charged a village that he had no chance of subduing the non combatants, still is short sighted as to Custer and his intentions. I believe Custer died fighting a battle he felt he could win.

I also believe, had he been supported by the Michigan Wolverines that he commanded in the Civil War, there would certainly have been a much different outcome.

You have to remember, both Reno and Benteen died in obscurity and alcoholism with little to show for their accomplishments outside of the Little Bighorn. They were viewed substantially differently in their later years than how they have been remembered over 100 years later.

Could Custer have survived the Little Bighorn? That is an unanswered question that will live forever. The fact is, he didn’t and as such, much speculation has made him a demon and a hero. He was a hero and remembered as such in 1876, but within a few weeks until now, he has become a demon and I don’t think the interpretation of history has been very kind to him.

I will admit, I was one of those that thought he was an idiot by what I had heard growing up in Montana and listening to campfire tales of his incompetence. It wasn’t until I had begun to cover the actual ground at and around the battlefield, reading the history of him through this time at West Point until his death, that I began to know more of who Custer really was.

I don’t think I would have been a friend of his and certainly wouldn’t wanted to serve under him, but I have a much better understanding of why Phil Sheridan put so much confidence in him and used him as an effective tool in both the Civil War and the Indian wars.

I don't buy that a historical figure can have their single biggest failure so easily dismissed - particularly when it arose from a personality fault/trait that so clearly showed itself throughout that figure's life. If Custer would have survived the Big Horn he would have screwed up something else, somewhere else. Arrogance, senseless bravado and uncontrolled self-promotion almost always end poorly - it's just a matter of when - and Big Horn was his when.

Just as you suppose a victory at Big Horn would have cemented his greatness, you have to also equally acknowledge that a loss at Washita would have cemented this folly a few years earlier. If you get to revise history, so should his detractors.

 

[shrapnel]

I don't buy that a historical figure can have their single biggest failure so easily dismissed - particularly when it arose from a personality fault/trait that so clearly showed itself throughout that figure's life. If Custer would have survived the Big Horn he would have screwed up something else, somewhere else. Arrogance, senseless bravado and uncontrolled self-promotion almost always end poorly - it's just a matter of when - and Big Horn was his when.

Just as you suppose a victory at Big Horn would have cemented his greatness, you have to also equally acknowledge that a loss at Washita would have cemented this folly a few years earlier. If you get to revise history, so should his detractors.

You have yet to show objectivity in your objections to Custer. I never said his greatness would be cemented with a win at the Little Bighorn, I said surviving the battle would have given a different take, as win or lose, Custer would have had some input on his part in the battle.

Using your logic, Tom Brady should never be considered one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history because he not only threw interceptions, but he also lost games.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

Society is very interesting and intriguing when it rationalizes rape and murder to achieve a goal. The fundamental question then has to be, what desired outcomes justify the actions? A US Army Captain at Sand Creek refused to participate in the slaughter, and was later a key witness in court martial trials.

Speaking solely for myself, I’d rather take a bullet than commit some of the atrocities that occurred during the Indian war

This is only as accurate as the subjectivity of the person making that observation. The continued criticism is only due to the outcome of that particular battle. Had he not been killed, win or lose, Custer would be viewed much differently.

Poor leadership is not a Custer characteristic. I have posted this quote several times before and its veracity seems to escape most readers, especially those that consider Custer incompetent or stupid...

"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."

Miles was a Custer contemporary and a noted Indian Wars leader. He was certainly closer to Custer personally as well as historically and as such I place more value in his observation than those of the 21st century critics.

To place blame again and claim poor leadership, doesn’t give any credit to Custer’s previous accomplishments in the field. Anyone feeling he knowingly charged a village that he had no chance of subduing the non combatants, still is short sighted as to Custer and his intentions. I believe Custer died fighting a battle he felt he could win.

I also believe, had he been supported by the Michigan Wolverines that he commanded in the Civil War, there would certainly have been a much different outcome.

You have to remember, both Reno and Benteen died in obscurity and alcoholism with little to show for their accomplishments outside of the Little Bighorn. They were viewed substantially differently in their later years than how they have been remembered over 100 years later.

Could Custer have survived the Little Bighorn? That is an unanswered question that will live forever. The fact is, he didn’t and as such, much speculation has made him a demon and a hero. He was a hero and remembered as such in 1876, but within a few weeks until now, he has become a demon and I don’t think the interpretation of history has been very kind to him.

I will admit, I was one of those that thought he was an idiot by what I had heard growing up in Montana and listening to campfire tales of his incompetence. It wasn’t until I had begun to cover the actual ground at and around the battlefield, reading the history of him through this time at West Point until his death, that I began to know more of who Custer really was.

I don’t think I would have been a friend of his and certainly wouldn’t wanted to serve under him, but I have a much better understanding of why Phil Sheridan put so much confidence in him and used him as an effective tool in both the Civil War and the Indian wars.

Well written, I certainly don't think that Custer was an idiot. He was by all accounts exceptional, but he lacked the experience age to reign it in. In the case of "Custer’s Last Stand" he also lacked supervision. We studied these battles in the Marines and I know that the Army does as well to gain knowledge from them. I am certain that the Army as a whole would have a very favorable viewpoint of Custer and I wouldn't take that away from them. However, these reviews are generally done without bias because this is a business where mistakes are counted by mission failure and bodies. Stakes are high. Todays warriors don’t care where the lessons come from, they just want to excel at winning battles. They use examples of battles to learn from, everyone makes mistakes and everyone has moments of greatness. Trick is to learn from each of them and apply to other situations.

I think that Custer came out of the War thinking that he could leverage it into something more. While he was a very brave leader and won battles, he wasn’t necessarily seen as mature by his counterparts. After the War, he became disillusioned as to his status, and the opportunity to for the U.S. to claim the West came up. I think that he knew how to whoop the enemy, he just chose to go a different path and with no one holding him back he went for the glory.

Gen Sherman was specifically picked by President Grant to remove the Native American problem because of his past efforts in the Civil War. Many on this forum would not like me saying this, but Gen Sherman was a strategic and tactical military genius, especially when dealing with an embedded insurrection. There is a reason they named a tank after him. There is a certain type of man that can do this type of work and Sherman was that man. Sherman knew that Gen Custer was also willing to do what others would not. As I understood it, Custer was viewed by the regular Army as wildcard. He had something to prove and was good at what he did but didn’t necessarily have the respect of the upper echelon of the political and military machine. To counteract this, he wanted to appeal to the general public, and he dressed the part.

He had witnessed someone who was known to be a drunk become the General of the Army and win the Civil War. That man latter became President of the United States. It seems that Custer was thinking that he was younger, more brash and has won significant battles in the War so he should get a hero’s position as well. He knew that he needed more fighting to stand out to the public to get the credit that he deserved, as the guy in charge. The only place that he could do that was the Indian Wars where there were few takers to endure more hardships. He rushed into this battle not necessarily because he was brave (and he was), but more because he wanted his name in the headlines like Grants’ was.

Custer has seen organized war firsthand and knew that the Native Americans couldn’t have possibly put up a legitimate opposition to what he thought was coming. He knew that he had to get his victory in soon, before the rest of the Army (and any idea of his sole command), showed up. Custer was trying to become the next superhero rather than being responsible strategically winning the battle and taking care of the troops in his charge. He certainly and knowingly made tactical mistakes because of this. Certainly there are values to respect in Custer but the loss of this battle was a waste of natural talents that could have been put to much better uses.

 

[JustinsDad]

Are the Spanish - clearly European - not "white men"? And all European groups brought European diseases with them. Small pox was not a "Spanish" disease.

Yes, I am aware that Spain is a European country. That’s why I said “other European” in my post. Slow down and reread it. I’m not trying to argue with anyone but that seems to be impossible on social media. The smallpox wipe out happened before the US was settled. According to the Meateater discussion. Started in South and Central America.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Yes, I am aware that Spain is a European country. That’s why I said “other European” in my post. Slow down and reread it. I’m not trying to argue with anyone but that seems to be impossible on social media. The smallpox wipe out happened before the US was settled. According to the Meateater discussion. Started in South and Central America.

My response was to the "white man" reference as somehow not including "the Spanish". That still stands.

 

[JustinsDad]

My response was to the "white man" reference as somehow not including "the Spanish". That still stands.

I’m not upset at current people about:

The Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor

The Germans for Nazi atrocities

The African Chiefs for selling slaves to the slave traders

Egyptians for using slaves to build their pyramids

The Mongolians for all the slaughtering Genghis Kahn did around half the planet

And I’m not upset at modern Americans for what happened with Native Americans. You can’t stay mad at everybody forever, right?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I’m not upset at current people about:

The Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor

The Germans for Nazi atrocities

The African Chiefs for selling slaves to the slave traders

Egyptians for using slaves to build their pyramids

The Mongolians for all the slaughtering Genghis Kahn did around half the planet

And I’m not upset at modern Americans for what happened with Native Americans. You can’t stay mad at everybody forever, right?

That list is not relevant to this discussion, but thanks for the derail attempt anyhow (see, logical fallacies)

As for this discussion, how does blaming the white Spaniards (as compared to other white Europeans) for small pox of any use to this discussion? I take it you are not of Spanish descent and that stating this somehow absolves you from something?

My ancestors were Norwegian immigrants who didn't do any of these things and didn't even come to American 'til almost 1900. But that doesn't mean I lack empathy for Native Americans who lost their lands and have been treated terribly by any definition and Blacks who were enslaved and treated even worse until the 1970s. How about we let folks express their upset and then engage in making the future better rather than somehow getting all defensive and arguing the semantics of who are "white men" and who amongst them can be blamed. The question is not who should be blamed for the past - but who will rise to improve the future. And currently, I see lots of fellow rural whites spending more time pointing out their lack of guilt than actually trying to be part of a solution.

It's as if we all came across a horrible car accident but rather than extracting the victim and giving them medical assistance, we all stand around pointing out that we neither caused this accident nor did we ever cause any other accident - in fact, our ancestors didn't even have cars. After several rounds of this "productive" debate, we all feel so comfortable in our lack of "responsibility" for the accident that we all wander off - and no one seems to care that the driver is still trapped in the car. (for those who are Christian, I read Luke 10:25 to suggest I do more than this, YMMV)