"Why We’ve Gotten ‘Custer’s Last Stand’ Wrong ..." Topic

…for Nearly 150 Years

"Sometimes to get remembered in history, you need a great publicist.

This weekend marks the 147th anniversary of the Battle of Little Bighorn—also known as ‘Custer's Last Stand'—a chapter in U.S. history that some historians are arguing needs a rewrite. The story American students are generally taught is that "in one of the most decisive battles in American history," Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer and more than 200 men from five companies of the Seventh infantry cavalry heroically died on June 25, 1876, in a sneak attack by Native Americans in what's now Montana. It was part of the broader crackdown by the U.S. government on Native Americans, who were seen as threatening innocent white settlers…"

Main page

link

Armand

One of the most decisive battles in American history? Not what I learned in school---a tragic last stand brought on by Indian tactics and poor decisions by Custer.

Even an M3 Stuart tank and some M2 carbines couldn't save the day — 'The 7th Is Made Up Of Phantoms' The Twilight Zone, episode 130.

I am growing sick of how people misuse the term genocide. A genocide is a planned attempt to wipe out a given people. Custer at the Little Big Horn had no plan to kill every single Indian he found. Nor did the federal government have a plan to wipe out all Native Americans. The goal of the campaign was to defeat the Sioux and Cheyenne and place them on a reservation.

Well it was decisive for the plains tribes, but not in a positive way for them.

Lots of odd things here.

"Seventh Cavalry infantry"???

Actually, the Little Bighorn Valley wasn't Sioux/Lakota territory--it belonged to the Crow or Absaroka.

By 1876, enforcing the 1868 Treaty of Laramie meant the government was going to have to shoot somebody: either the Indians or the settlers trespassing on Indian land.

People have been interviewing Native American participants almost since the smoke drifted away. Their accounts are along the line of "This what I did," or "This is what I saw." This is not the way Europeans/Americans write history, and we have trouble integrating the accounts. My understanding is that there is a similar problem with Arab accounts of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Grelber

"…in a sneak attack ̶b̶y̶ on Native Americans …"

Fixed that for ya…

"The story American students are generally taught…"

-rilly.

MAD +1

MAD +1

I went to read the article.
Oops! Something went wrong :(
We'll be back shortly…

Perhaps that sums it up.

I have to say that even as a young lad I always thought that Custer was kind of a bone head for taking 700 or so troopers against 2000 plus warriors – might have been influenced by my uncle, a hard-bitten infantry NCO who had a high opinion of cavalry troopers and Sioux warriors and a low one of George Armstrong Custer

Actually, there were only 1,000 to 1,500 warriors. Plus, Custer did not know there were that many at the time he attacked. Also, there had been earlier battles where the army was outnumbered by Native Americans and still won.

Grattan55, actually, he had been told there were a lot more warriors than he thought, but he didn't believe the Crow scouts. And dividing his forces was just plain stupid.

He was looking to get back in good favor with Grant, do off he went.Ive been there ,hill after hill, you can't see very far, you can hide everywhere

It had worked fot Custer on the Washita in 1868, or rather he had got away with it. 'Custer's Luck.' He had no idea that Black Kettle's village was the first of many others stretching away downstream. However, a quick feint had sent the massing Indian warriors back downstream to their own villages (Not so lucky for Major Elliot and his party- who by that time may already have been dead).

In June 1776, it seems his concern was more that the Indians camped om the Greasy Grass would up sticks and skedadle, rather than round on his troops and ride over them. Hence his lack of interest in the warnings from his scouts.

"Big village. Bring packs
PS Bring Pacs."

How often were Indian scouts wrong? Do we know? Did they ever exaggerate numbers of the enemy? Again, the cavalry had been outnumbered before (battle of Palo Duro) and won. Plus, 42flanker is right, dividing his force had worked before for Custer. Way to easy to have 20/20 hind sight on this one.

Ol' Yellow Hair! How many times does ne need to be killed?

The Lieutenant Colonel would be chuckling knowing that after almost 148 years people are still fussin' about him.

Probably… although I wonder what would have become of his fame if the attack he planned had been successful… maybe we wouldn't be talked about him so much?…

Armand

He had aspirations of running for President, so we still would have heard of/from him… ;-)

"This is what I did" and "This is what I saw"……About the only admissible testimony in a court of law.

Actually, he did not want to be president. That is a rumor that got started a while back. What he personally said was he would never want that job. Marie Sandoz started the rumor with her book. She claimed Custer needed a major victory so he could get the Democratic nomination. Yet, he had no organization, no supporters and the convention was being held before any news could have arrived of victory in the campaign.

"The Son of the Morning Star" book by Evan Connell (and the TV movie made from it) remain for me the most authoritative, literate, comprehensive accounts or depictions of what really happened that day. I urge those interested to seek out the book and movie.

"The Son of the Morning Star" TVM

Some very dodgy wigs.

Maybe, 42flanker, but I don't reckon the value of something by the hair stylists. I read similar criticisms of "Gettysburg" ("wigs! fake beards!") but I don't let it decide how worthwhile the dramatization is.

Or better still, try the book! It's incredible.

To be frank, I didn't think the dramatisation up to mutch, but then I was distracted by Captain Benteen's shoulder- length white blonde nylon hair.

And somewhat overstated hats.`

The book, I have read.

The old dividing your forces is stupid myth. The aim of the campaign was to bring the Indians to battle and not let them escape. If the idea was so stupid why was the whole campaign based on 3 parts of the army arriving in 3 columns and fight the Indians? Crook, Custer/Terry and Gibbon each were arriving from a different direction. The strategic reason the 7th got whacked was due to 2 factors. This was the greatest assembly of Indian Tribes in the West and this time they didn't run. Crook engaged them early, then went fishing while not alerting any of the other columns about what happened. Custer's actions were forced on him due to being discovered (which he really hadn't been). He wanted to attack the next morning. He miscalculated. He didn't understand how big the camp really was. But Indians escaping was the only real worry. Not that they would stand and fight.

Thanks

John

No, not saying anything!

The Day after the Battle of the Little Bighorn

YouTube link

Armand

link

He had aspirations of running for President, so we still would have heard of/from him… ;-)

If Custer had any political aspirations he did not tell his wife, or anyone else.

That "Custer For President" stuff was prevaricated by Mari Sandoz. Not a shred of evidence has been brought forth.

Custer saw what politics did to Grant's reputation and was not going tp follow suit.

42 Flanker:

At least one of the Crows urged an immediate attack.