|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Oct 24, 2015 16:48:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 24, 2015 17:19:40 GMT
It is rather an enlightening read on how Custer could pretty much justify doing whatever he wanted and how he was surrounded by enablers. I wonder what Libbie thought as she was nursing her dying father and reading Custer's letters.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679 
|
Post by dave on Oct 26, 2015 16:24:42 GMT
Custer's sense of entitlement is part and parcel of his personality and self worth which is all goes to him being the center of the universe. He had been pandered to since a child and earning battle honors during the War only enlarged the number of followers whose adulation only increased the scope of his universe.
Still I have never heard from any of Custer's sycophants what the reason was for his dividing his 5 companies and why it was a sound tactical move.
I suppose I am too obtuse to see clearly and understand that view.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 26, 2015 19:32:27 GMT
It seems to me the more I read about Custer the more I realize that Phil Sheridan was his enabler. People only act outrageous when there is someone in the background smiling benevolently and allowing it. For Custer's early life, it was probably his mother but during his military career Sheridan seems to have taken over the role.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 26, 2015 20:33:35 GMT
Dave: A Custer sycophant I am not. I am sure that will surprise all assembled.
Having said that, and in response to your question, the dividing of the five companies was a sound procedural move> In fact, by the book, exactly the way it is done if your purpose is to recon Ford B or D. Keep in mind he divided twice, once for a look see at B, and then again at D. They were identical.
Do not fault Custer for his technique. It was letter perfect.
WHAT WAS A DISASTER, is dividing those five companies when and where he did, that being in the close proximity of a bazillion hostile Indians.
The best of the best could not get away with that, BUT THEN AGAIN the best of the best, or most of the worst of the worst would not have done it in the first place.
Separate the technique of the action taken, from the action itself.
It does you no good to do the wrong thing the right way.
The reason the sycophants don't key in on this is because they don't know the difference between the tactical decision (the action) from the technique (the execution). To them it is all the same. |
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 26, 2015 20:37:34 GMT
Dave if he had any indication that he and those other 209 including his own civilian relatives were going to get killed, then he wouldn’t have progressed past 3411, as I said last week, Custer probably expected the Indians to scatter and not to attack, making this more of a round up then a pitched battle, but that is always the price you pay when you underestimate your enemy, what did one of his survivors hear as they stopped on the bluffs, That Custer said “Lets finish this job and return to our stations” Hmm..that says it all about Custer’s mind set after 3411.
Yan.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Oct 26, 2015 23:00:17 GMT
QC
The point I poorly tried to make was the dividing of his companies in face of the number of Indians and the area past 3411. I believe he made a poor tactical move going past 3411 and not uniting with Reno, Benteen and the pack train. Splitting his command when he knew the Indians were there and after seeing Reno's activity in the valley.
I am not a vet but I know it is not good to split up into units too small to support each other in view of the enemy and that was my point.
You are correct about the technique being sound and no I never thought of you being a sycophant for Custer or anyone. I was referring to the group that hold that everyone in the world was at fault except George.
In some ways I suspect Custer's ego was equal to MacArthur's.
Regards
Dave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2015 2:29:58 GMT
GAC was a scoundrel. He lied, he stole he had zero ethics or integrity. He was unfit to be an officer in the US Army, at any rank.
I am amused that the biggest Custer fanatic we know, tried to get a commission in ROTC. He was rejected as unfit and unsuitable. He then devoted the rest of his life to this hussar cosplay, trying to create a fantasy world where lack of ethics and integrity makes one not just suitable for a commission, but a star performer.
In 1867 Victory was GACs spare horse, and fell out due to exhaustion. A soldier stayed with GACs horse. GAC sent an NCO and a set of fours back to recover his horse. Enemy forces were trailing GACs column and attacked the detail. 4 of the 6 managed to return to the main body with two missing in action. GAC did not ask about the missing, he asked about his horse. Once he knew his horse had returned and was safe, he kept going and abandoned his own men. His mission was to find and fight hostiles, and he abandoned his mission, heading in the opposite direction.
An officer defending a stage post took the initiative to look for GACs MIAs. He recovered one dead man, but saved the life of a wounded soldier.
GAC later claimed that these men were deserters, and deserved their fate. This boggles my mind. These men took extreme risks obeying his orders, leading to death and disability. To cover his own lying buttocks, Custer smeared soldiers doing their duty. It is this incident that caused me to abandon my own fanboy beliefs.
In fact, I find all histories of this era do not list the names of the KIA and WIA. Billy Markland knew the names, but I can not find his post. Does anyone know who they were?
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 27, 2015 6:02:48 GMT
I thought you made your point quite well Dave, one I agree completely with.
The point I was trying to make is that doing the wrong thing in the correct manner, does not make the wrong thing right.
The one thing that these ACW cavalry vets knew, if nothing else, was how to recon a ford. They spent most of their time from 61-65 doing just that, especially in Virginia. So if the technique was proper, and it still went to hell in a handbasket, the place you must return to, is why did they make the decision to do that (twice) knowing full well that a proper reconnaissance of that sort demands a degree of separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Oct 27, 2015 9:44:27 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2015 15:11:28 GMT
TOM,
THAT ARTICLE OPENED MY EYES TO WHY CUSTER WAS UNFIT TO BE AN OFFICER.
Caps Lock is uber.
But I still want to find the names of Custer's victims. One man died and another was crippled due to an incompetent and unfit officer.
Imagine if Rini had received a commission. Same end state.
v/r
William |
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Oct 27, 2015 15:46:01 GMT
Will,
Wannabe officers/military are much like wannabe cops. Those that are not fit, often take jobs in security(rent-a-cop). They look for places where they can wield power/control, in some fashion. Yes, even in education, if you can't lead men you can at least lead boys. You can even grow up to be the propaganda minister or traffic cop on a message board. Ok, maybe grow up is a little overboard. What was the old saying, those who can, do, those who can't teach or coach. That last is unfair to many quality teachers and coaches, but it might fit in this case.
regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 27, 2015 19:46:21 GMT
William, the names you want are Privates Tolliver, Alburger, Willis and Johnson. The Corpse at Custer's Court Martial"Two parties of officers headed out to enforce Custer’s orders. Tom Custer’s group overtook Privates Tolliver, Alburger, Willis, and Johnson first. When Jackson’s party arrived, three of the men were lying on the ground, and the fourth, Alburger, was on the run, and being shot at. Tom Custer and his mounted officers captured Alburger soon after. Ultimately, three of the four were wounded—only Willis remained unscathed, having hit the ground, feigning death when the shooting began. The troop had ambulances, but a cargo wagon was sent for the captives instead. |
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Oct 28, 2015 15:33:50 GMT
Amazing how one event can change the opinion of many about Custer after being found to be a horse thief. I see that once again justice triumphs in the end, as the horse died before GAC could sell him.
Petty, egocentric, vain glorious, sexual bon viant and killer are all attributes of Custer and now we add horse thief. Kinda just fights into his character.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 28, 2015 17:51:20 GMT
Well being a horse thief is a very low crime in a society that relies on horses for everything.
|
|
