Shrapnel, I'm with you; but discussing the battle with most of the guys on here is a lost cause because they won't read more than one history book (if any). Like a lot of people, they just regurgitate some questionable information they got from "someplace".
The current "someplace" is probably the new mini-series on the AMC Channel about legends of the American West (or something like that). Don't watch it: You'll risk breaking your jaw when it hits the floor!
Still, it's not too bad. You should see the discussion on the same topic on some other forums.
I was anxious to watch the series "Legends Of The West" and I thought Bill O'Reilly was better informed and needless to say was quite disappointed in the same "regurgitated" drivel that has shadowed Custer for the past century.
Custer died a hero's death and all these years later is considered a fool by revisionists that apply PC theology to a battle, historical figure and the circumstances that don't fit with today's way of thinking.
What a complete joke this has become and so many uneducated people keep piling it on, yet they don't have a clue to what it is that they pile on...
"Always an interesting topic to me. There is quite a bit of info out there written by people who were there or knew people who witnessed it to get the picture. ..."
Brady, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, after discharge, moved to Omaha, Nebraska, in 1886, where he had access to retired soldiers, documents, etc. In his book he details the after-battle arguments and disagreements of participants, and whether or not Custer disobeyed an order from General Terry, the night before the battle, as witnessed by two officers at that meeting.
Brady also interviewed at length a number of Indian survivors who fought against Custer... at least those who would agree to talk about the battle and what they did and saw.
The book also details the court martial of Major Reno. Reno had a very serious problem with alcohol and it caused his dismissal in disgrace from the Army.
Lots of interesting information in the book .... if you can find a copy.
L.W.
"Always go straight forward, and if you meet the devil, cut him in two and go between the pieces." (William Sturgis, clipper ship captain, 1830s.)
Who do you think would be a more fearful adversary? Jeb Stuart with thousands of troops at his command or 2,000 Indian warriors on the open plains...
At Gettysburg, Custer unraveled Lee's (JEB Stuart's) assault on the east flank. Lee put all of his cavalry one one side of his army to over run the union. It was a bold move, and thwarted by Custard. Cutting off the Baltimore pike would have given the South a negotiate peace. I'll be there this weekend for the battle anniversary, and a birthday party.
The Mayans had it right. If you�re going to predict the future, it�s best to aim far beyond your life expectancy, lest you wind up red-faced in a bunker overstocked with Spam and ammo.
Custer did a lot of things, but what he didn't do was ride willy-nilly into that battle.
Actually, that's exactly what he did. Custer was not a strategist or tactician. His favored tactic was a headlong charge into the enemy. He was a brave man but was last or nearly so in his class at West Point. As Shrapnel said, this tactic served him well at the Washita and he hoped to re-create that success at the Little Bighorn. Before the Washita, Chivington had used it successfully at Sand Creek in Colorado during the war. The US Army specifically targeted the hostile's families and commissary.
Who do you think would be a more fearful adversary? Jeb Stuart with thousands of troops at his command or 2,000 Indian warriors on the open plains...
At Gettysburg, Custer unraveled Lee's (JEB Stuart's) assault on the east flank. Lee put all of his cavalry one one side of his army to over run the union. It was a bold move, and thwarted by Custard. Cutting off the Baltimore pike would have given the South a negotiate peace. I'll be there this weekend for the battle anniversary, and a birthday party.
Gettysburg is talked about more than any other battle of the Civil War and yet few even know of Custer's involvement. He did it with 500 troops. One of the most revered Civil War generals was sent running by Custer and a far inferior number of Michigan Wolverines.
Not long afterward, Stuart was killed at Yellow Tavern, again at the hands of Custer. Lee was first given the opportunity for unconditional surrender at the end of the Civil War by Custer and subsequently did sign conditions for surrender to Grant at Appomattox.
There is a lot of the Civil War people don't know anything about, but everyone knows Custer graduated at the bottom of his class at West Point. Then at the age of 23 he became a General in the Union Army, something that no other top graduate of West Point has ever done.
Still people take the time to criticize Custer, not knowing anything about him other than what they heard from some other unsubstantiated source..