"Custer and the Battle of Waynesboro " Topic

"No American military figure is more controversial than George Armstrong Custer. A general and national hero in his twenties, his fabled death at the Battle of the Little Big Horn only increased his legendary status among his countrymen. But history can be fickle, and history lately has not treated the "boy general" well. His reputation has changed from grand, courageous hero to despised war criminal. Indeed, for many his persona now embodies the sins of United States policy toward Native Americans. Hollywood's portrayal of Custer is quite revealing. In the 1930's he was the gallant hero portrayed by Errol Flynn in "They Died with Their Boots On." But by the 1960's he was the despicable, racist, idiot of "Little Big Man."

But what kind of soldier was this American icon? To many he was a reckless fool who was only lucky that he did not meet his end during the Civil War. To others he was a brilliant cavalry leader who was central to Union victory at Appomattox. Interestingly, his reputation among his peers was also divided. George Crook thought him a humbug; while Philip Sheridan loved him.

Any considered judgment of Custer's military abilities, however, should include an analysis of his performance in a relatively small action on March 2, 1865 at Waynesboro, Virginia. In this battle the 25 year old Brevet Major General Custer demonstrated the bravery and initiative that had made him famous. In a brilliant action he attacked and completely destroyed the last remaining organized Confederate force in the Shenandoah Valley. This article will chronicle that fight – what might have been Custer's greatest day as a soldier…"
Full text here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing!

Yes, interesting.

Also of interest is that Crook who thought him a humbug was a rival, while Sheridan was Custer's commander, usually two steps up.

It's sort of obvious whose opinion is probably more honest.

Tom

Happy you enjoyed it my friends!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Custer had real issues with his command style during the Plain's War of do what I say but not what I do. He was incredibly brave and his troopers in the ACW would have rode to hell with him for the most part. But these were regulars who were often times more likely to go awol then not. Their morale and performance was not that of his volunteers during the war.

That being said, Custer's basic plan at the LBH was sound. His execution was not successful. His estimation of the Indians was inaccurate and lack of knowledge of the ground was almost nonexistent. While the performance of Benteen and Reno was fairly abysmal. I particularly find Benteen culpable for the defeat of Custer. His actions on Reno Hill did save the rest of the command. That is why, I believe, he was not found found guilty in his court-martial. No surviving member of that command could impune the honor of the regiment by testifying vigorously against Benteen when he had saved their lives.

Thanks.