"The Infamous Birth of the Custer Myth" Topic

"The following piece has previously appeared on the June 25 anniversary of what the Sioux and Cheyenne call the Battle of the Greasy Grass, known to most Americans as the Battle of the Little Bighorn…"

Main page

link

Armand

What Custer myth is still in common uses anymore? He is not a mythical hero, just a Commander who made a bad series of choice and got himself & his men killed for it.

Source is very questionable Portside Material of Interest to People on the Left

Graham's book is an excellent supplement to his book on the Little Big Horn, and quotes extensively (but not without expurgation) from Benteen's letters, and includes summaries of his conversations and correspondence with various survivors whom he knew, including Winfield Scott Edgerly, and Edward Settle Godfrey. For a book published in 1953, he pulled surprisingly few punches (although I have wondered if he waited so long to publish it after his first book to avoid offending Elizabeth Custer's sensibilities- I believe she was still alive when his first book was published).

+1 Wackamole
I'm in my 70s and can never recall anything about Custer that didn't portray him as a buffoon. The movies were things to laugh at.
Is there a "myth" that he was somehow competent?
No. The Truth about Custer was always there.

I have a deep interest in the LBH battle. I have studied it for 50 years. I am quite familiar with it. That article didn't really say much other than discuss the myth factor. Ok, there is a myth about the battle. Custer wasn't a genius but he also wasn't a fool who had a stupid plan. He was ill served by his subordinate commands. He made some bad decisions. He paid a price along with his command. The Indians paid a price too. Nobody won in the long term.

Thanks.

John

Thanks

Armand

Graham's "Custer Myth" was a bit of a misnomer- more of a de-mythologizing, not just of Custer, but of the 7th Cavalry. It's hard to read Benteen's account of the Washita or the assertion that Custer impregnated an Indian woman without feeling these incidents diminish the man, just as you feel after reading Godfrey's recounting of Benteen's claim that Reno wanted to abandon the wounded: nobody emerges the better from that story, either.

Really, admirable soldier though Benteen was, his feuding with the men around him tends to demonstrate the corrosive effect of a too-combative personality on a unit.

Thanks also…

Armand

Hello John. Just dropping in for a quick chat. I've been at it as long as you have, possibly longer. I'm in my late 70s now.

I can't recall anyone who said Col Custer was a genius, but by all accounts he was courageous, maybe too much so. And, he had an abundance of confidence in his trooper's ability to overcome any military problem he felt/thought they might encounter. However, The Colonel faced an "out of context problem." This time the Indians had an insurmountable advantage in numbers, and they stood their ground to fight. Both of which meant the Colonel's standard military plan to solve the standard military problem was woefully inadequate.

Also, having served a couple tours at the "Puzzle Palace" where there are "five sides to every story," I have a keen appreciation for internecine squabbles. Colonel Custer's subordinates were not the worst and dumbest, but they were not the best and brightest. Sadly, there were failures in the command structure top to bottom. The 7th also had, perhaps too many, new recruits.

BTW – The decision to leave the swords behind weakened the melee capability of the 7th. How much so is conjectural, but it had to diminish melee combat success.

Cheers

Hi, there's been a discussion going on and off for years about for want of a sword at the LBH. Personally, I am not one who believes they mattered.

I am very aware of the shortcomings of the 7th in command, quality, training and more. My comments normally are directed to those who believe that Custer was a glory hound or an idiot. His plan was stupid and he was looking to possibly become president. Just so silly. He made several mistakes. He felt that the Indians were going to slip away. What the Indians did at the LBH campaign had not happened before. Stand and fight. But you know all this as we have talked about time and again.

Thanks.

John

Interesting that this topic pops up so periodically.

I guess this is considered an "old" book now, but it;'s still one of the very best and most diligently researched as well as brilliantly written: link

"The Son of the Morning Star" TV movie (which is excellent) was based on this.

A good bit more recently, this is also excellent: link -- not as wide-ranging as McConnell's book, but carefully crafted.

It's easy to take extremes when evaluating Custer, he's been made a hero and a villain, a demigod and a buffoon, and there's so much we can't ever know about the famous last stand battle. But there's a middle ground thoughtful historians have explored, along with placing Custer within the contexts of his time.

My feeling after reading a lot on this campaign is that Custer at the Little Bighorn made severe miscalculations based on his prior experience fighting Indians and a series of these led to his disaster. But had he been correct on some assumptions and luckier in his opponents that day, he might have got away with it and been celebrated as a hero. "A medal or a grave," as the old toasts put it.

Also, that his subordinates let him down considerably. Reno lost his nerve at key moments, not up to the job, and Benteen was soured by his jealousies and rivalries and unreliable in a pinch. Custer, however, had placed them in those positions and given them difficult assignments on the crucial day and so is ultimately responsible for their conduct.

John always fun to see what folks have read recently.
"The Mystery of E Troop: Custer's Gray Horse Company at the Little Bighorn" is a good read. Because of the horse color the troop can be "effectively" tracked on the battle field.

"Why Custer Was Never Warned" Also a good read. Gen Crook gets taken to task for his performance during his trek up the Rosebud and his decisions after the battle. A bit repetitious, but very damning regarding Crook's performance.

I think both do a decent job of adding to the knowledge and discussion of the battle/campaign. Regarding the sabres: Surely, the lack of a melee weapon would have decreased effectiveness in hand-to-hand combat. At least a minus one.

The Website article quotes the original author where he talks about the Custer myth. Unlike some of the comments above, Graham is not out to show Custer as a buffoon or idiot, he talks of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt all having myths that need to be deconstructed but never suggests that any or all are bad or incompetent Presidents.

The booklist for the article features Son of the Morning Star and A Terrible Glory, neither of which make Custer out to be an idiot.

Maybe look some more at what George Crook was up to (or not up to) if one wants to allocate blame,