4. Custer as a Commander

[Beth]

4) GAC was a poor quality regimental commander. As well as the training/meritocracy issues mentioned above, he tended to deploy his platoon size companies like he was still a brigade/divisional commander deploying entire regiments. His offensive deployments were invariably overly intricate with little close mutual support, akin to the Imperial Japanese Navy in WW2. Look at the Washita, where he got away with it. He deployed in 4 columns (GAC, Elliott, Thompson, Myers), the GAC column itself being split into separate battalions under Hamilton and West. Co-ordination was poor, as was command and control. GAC was not a renowned Indian fighter, despite the manufactured reputation, and others such as Crook, Carr, MacKenizie and Miles were far superior. GAC had demonstrated little tactical acumen during his career, but he was a fearless leader of a cavalry charge. GAC should have been utilised under close tactical supervision, with Sheridan probably commanding instead of Terry in the field.

[deadwoodgultch]

Beth, I think the Army let the Department make the call. Also could Terry have asked for a commander from another Department, I think yes, but would that cause problems. Would it not make the Department commander look weak? Was the commander of the Department under orders/suggestion from Chicago to request GAC. Loyalties and friendships may be stronger than the decision making process.

I think GAC's actions in Washington, should have been an indicator of a certain lack of judgment. Was he called to testify? Did he get himself called? Would a deposition have worked? Did he answer asked questions or hold forth? As an officer, do you attempt to put the President and his family in a bad light? Was he maybe attempting to set up his life after military life? Too many yes answers to the above questions would bring into GAC's judgment. Sadly he may have been using his military and status to promote an agenda. It would not be the first or last time.

If he was just trying to clean up corruption, he went overboard. Was he playing to the press and public?

Regards,
Tom

[Beth]

Yes Custer was called by the Democrats in Congress to testify. He either wrote or was rumored to have written a number of newspaper articles about the trading post practices. At the very least he was viewed as the source of the information.

His testimony about Grant's brother though was based on pure speculation and rumor, not fact. I tend to wonder if someone anti-Grant 'friend' dropped a bug in his ear about the possibility and Custer then stated it as fact. Custer seems to have really trusted anyone he considered a friend.

I don't think that Custer was intentionally a dishonest person, in fact he seems to have been rather rather brittle in his right/wrong views--perhaps what we would think of as a black and white thinker. I suspect he started investigating the trading post affair because of his sense of 'this is really wrong."

Custer seems to have taken people at their word. Several of the statements he made at the testimony were based purely on rumors so he either was gullible, politically naive, or didn't understand the verify portion of 'trust but verify."

There is no doubt though Custer knew how to use the press. I am not sure though if he understood how the press could use him.

[Deleted]

Beth,

I do not agree with you, so let's look at why.

Custer lied extensively. If you do not understand Custer the liar, you do not understand Custer. He lied to cover his mistakes, he lied to slander/libel his peers, he lied to help his career, he lied because he liked lying. I have posted over a 100 times on this issue.

So does being a scoundrel mean he was a bad officer. Hell no, many of our best officers are jerks. In the USA war on terror who are our best generals? Petreus and McChrystal. Both were fired. The most incompetent is Odierno, well Sanchez.

Custer led a conspiracy to falsely frame Grant for corruption. It failed since none of his 20 some fabrications were true. Custer led a conspiracy to frame Grant for about two years. His fellow conspirators were Clymer, the New York Herald, and a variety of politicians.

Belknap went down due to true facts, that had nothing to do with Custer. Please read the Congressional Record of Custer and NYH testimony. Not a single allegation in either testimony is true. Again, not a single one.

Respectfully,

William

[dave]

I recently found some new information---at least it was new to me---regarding Custer's performance at the LBH;

Philip H. Sheridan said GAC made several mistakes at the LBH 
1) Forced march over fatigue horses and men curtailing their fighting ability
2) Attacked believing the Indians would flee rather than attacking
3) Dividing his command into to many segments
4) Attacking to large a force of Indians
In fact Sheridan was quoted " Had the Seventh Cavalry been held together, it would have been able to handle the Indians on the Little Big Horn."
I feel that number 4 was a bit unfair.

President Grant was quoted "I regard Custer's Massacre was a sacrifice of troops, brought on by Custer himself, that was wholly unnecessary."
I look forward to learning more about Custer as a commander.
Regards
Dave

Source: spartacus-educational.com/USACWcuster.htm

[quincannon]

I think you had best take statements 3 and 4 together. I believe if you do, the unfairness dissipates.

Any good regiment of cavalry of equal strength should have achieved a better outcome than the historical outcome.

The 7th Cavalry was not an any good regiment of cavalry, but with a different commander even the 7th Cavalry could have achieved better results. The 7th Cavalry was a regiment of shortcomings. All that aside though it was only the commander that brought about what happened.

[dave]

Ulysses Grant was criticized, and rightly so, for being naive in appointing men to political positions in civilian life but he was very good at reading and selecting military leaders.
He had Custer's number and read him like a book. Custer foolishly poked his nose into politics and Grant bloodied it. If he had not given to his old army subordinates, Sheridan mostly, the LBH may not had happened but he did relent.
Grant sensed that Custer was all hat and no cattle and should have held fast.
Regards
Dave

[Beth]

Aug 16, 2015 0:46:02 GMT dave said:

Ulysses Grant was criticized, and rightly so, for being naive in appointing men to political positions in civilian life but he was very good at reading and selecting military leaders.
He had Custer's number and read him like a book. Custer foolishly poked his nose into politics and Grant bloodied it. If he had not given to his old army subordinates, Sheridan mostly, the LBH may not had happened but he did relent.
Grant sensed that Custer was all hat and no cattle and should have held fast.
Regards
Dave

I love that expression.