|
Post by quincannon on Apr 4, 2016 20:26:37 GMT
Yes, Tom and Dave, we here in the high desert are simple folk.
Outside a few, who remembers Wesley Merritt, Ranald McKenzie, Joe Wheeler, Winfield Scott Hancock? Hell, who remembers Harry Truman's vice president? My model shipbuilding friends don't even remember who Carl Vinson was, or his contributions to the Navy.
Custer was a run of the mill cavalry officer in the ACW, and a miserable Army officer thereafter. It would have been better for the Army if he had taken a bullet at Bull Run, and better for the Nation's history if Libbie had made her last stand in Montana
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 4, 2016 20:44:38 GMT
He was well known in the USA and even started to write articles (under the name nomad I think), I suppose at the time his civil war record gave him a high status, but out side the states were his war record is not so well recorded, he is best known for the massacre that occurred in 1876. That record was highlighted in such films as "they died with their boots on" and "Custer of the west" and this elevated his profile even more, I must say that only for TDWTBO, I would never have heard of him, and would have stuck to reading about British generals like the excellent William Slim and his classic campaign to recapture Burma from the Japanese Yan. I'm not sure about what Custer's status was after the War. I suspect if you took anyone else with Custer's war record that in the normal ways of a post war society, the public would have quickly forgotten him as they moved on. That brevet general would always be a featured guest at any veteran's events, perhaps written a book about his experiences (which would now be sitting on the shelf in his local historical society) but once the last veteran was gone, he would have faded to just name in a history book. Custer was a man who didn't want to fade to obscurity. He made sure that he was constantly remained in the public eye. He wanted to be treated as if he was an equal to Grant, Sherman and Sheridan but it just wasn't going to happen because he wasn't. I suspect that he deserved a political appointment to Grant's administration and that he should be entitled to move with the movers and shakers--especially after the Grand Duke's buffalo hunt. I really recommend reading T. J. Stiles book "Custer's Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America." It's one of those books that makes you rethink how to view events in Custer's life. I found it both enlightening and frustrating especially when you think how a stronger man than Custer could have made a huge difference when it came to reconstruction. I find it's one of those books that I have been spending a long time processing and not easy to dismiss from my mind.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Apr 4, 2016 20:46:53 GMT
It has become apparent to me that George Custer is one of the most divisive figures in American history. His admirers were generally those members of his "inner circle" and enlisted men who had ridden with him during the War from 1861-1865. His family, primarily his wife Libbie, were the prime defenders of his career and accomplishments. She spent 50 plus years attempting to silence and curtail any and all efforts, in her opinion, to besmirch and or detract from the mythical figure she had created. Only after her death in 1933 did the real George become clearer. Custer to this day is still is a source of discussion, praise, worship, denigration, love and admiration almost 140 years after his death. This to me begs the question, if Custer had not died on a Montana hillside with his entire command of 5 companies, would we be discussing his career and actions today? I suspect not. Regards Dave Dave, I agree. Found something I think you would find very interesting. It is about a naval Officer Capt James Lawrence of "Dont give up the ship" fame. I am sorry I dont know how to copy and paste, but if you punch up his name and go to the heading " The real shameful story behind "Dont give up the ship" you will find the comparison to Custer and the LBH remarkable. In fact the author actually mentions it in his article. Be Well Dan
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 6, 2016 0:37:17 GMT
Back to Custer and his ACW exploits. Here is a link to a map of part of the action at Trevilian Station. I wonder why after facing Wickham, Custer seems to "wish away" his presence and that of Fitzhugh Lee. Where did he think they were when he arrived at the pack train? I quite like the route he took but do not understand the move on the packs. How about some analysis from those better educated than I am, on Custer as a commander in this situation. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Trevilian_Station_June_11.pngThe keeping of his colours seems to be the "boys hero" part of this story that detracts from the reality. I also note that Sheridan's withdrawal was hampered the disproportionately large number of casualties from Custer's command. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 6, 2016 16:10:42 GMT
Mac: As it turns out my meeting has been postponed until later in the day, so I did have the opportunity to refresh myself on Travilian Station. BTW that second book is called Lincoln's Cavalrymen, not the title I gave you.
Custer when he met Wickham was doing his assigned task with his brigade, guarding the flank. His choice of the woodcutter's road to move forward guarding was correct. Guard the flank means guard the flank though. Targets of opportunity are hard to resist, and I would be the first to say that the horses of all those dismounted Confederates made a very tempting target. He took his eye off the ball, as he had done before, and would do again. He succumbed to temptation, and in so doing disregarded his given mission, allowing Lee to gain his rear, and the happenstance of retreating Confederates, going back for their horses, to destroy his flank.
The point here is that unless you have a very clear picture of the battle space, particularly good visibility of your surroundings, it is unwise to divert from your assigned mission, no matter the temptation. That part of Virginia, then, was masses of tangled woodlots, served by very narrow roads offering no visibility of your surroundings. Thing I am wondering about is why he felt it necessary to have his trains so close by, but we have wondered that before.
When one of those relatively small brigades, suffers 400 plus casualties in one engagement of an hour or so duration with absolutely no positive, instead negative results, you have to look in only one direction, the guy who gave the order.
In fairness to all concerned it should be pointed out that the original Confederate plan was a redo of Buckland Mills, suck in Sheridan, then kick him in the flank. Terrain was the partial culprit on that not working so well. Custer's presence while guarding that flank insured that it could not work so well. There were recriminations between Hampton and Fitz Lee over the issue. So fairness demands that neither force covered themselves with a heck of a lot of on display competence, but fairness also requires notice that one force did it a little better than the other
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 6, 2016 17:17:32 GMT
Mac and QC Was not Trevilian Station the first engagement for the Confederate Horse since Jeb Stuart's death? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 6, 2016 17:58:27 GMT
First major engagement. Lots of small stuff guarding and fending, generally in support of setting up the battle space around Richmond. Lot of the same ground involved with the Stuart RAMc, Ashland, Hawes Shop, and so forth, as well as a few large (brigade) scale recon ops.
I think it should be remembered how the two forces looked at themselves. Under Sheridan, the Union force was a mounted main battle force, designed to operate separately, an armored division if you will, where all the subordinate commanders are used to working with each other. The Confederates always were more comfortable in operating as brigades in the up to then traditional roles of cavalry. So for them the occasions when they came together would be more like collecting all of the armored cavalry regiments from three or four corps and temporarily (ad hoc) forming a larger force, with all the problems that entails.
Don't think I can recall any time during Stuart's tenure where he assembled a large mass of cavalry together, meaning more than a couple of brigades, except at Brandy, and he did not do that for battle, but rather a parade. Sidebar personal privilege here: Would have loved to seen either of them, although the first was better. The ridge that is Fleetwood Heights makes a dandy grandstand.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Apr 7, 2016 1:05:33 GMT
Without the proviso I mentioned earlier, saying that - I ran across this and it is inconsistent with all else I read, what do you all think, - which I believe should have been there, and the responsible way to go about it. Without some introductory statement the implication is tacit agreement with the content. If that was not the intention so be it, but I would like to hear that from him.
Forum members, First let me apologize to all especially Beth for causing such a ruckus over my posting of this article. I noticed Custers name in it and decided to read it. When I did I was taken back by the similarity between this battle and the LBH. I also saw that the author was the great, great grandson of Capt Lawrence Aide de Camp. I assumed (I know that is dangerous) that because of this, the author would have more interest and knowledge than we do about this battle. I also checked by reading different blogs that apparently the author was correct in his article. If anyone knows that anything that the author has stated as fact is not true, I will not be insulted but rather would appreciate pointing it out. I do not want to be misled but more important I dont want to mislead anyone. Posting this was a two fold purpose. The first was the similarity between the two battles but also to support Daves opinion that Custer was more famous for a battle he lost than any he won. I agree and was going to point out to the forum that that is not that rare in history. Who would have heard of Fetterman if not for the massacre , King Leonidas would have been just another Spartan king if not for Thermopoly (Please excuse the spelling) or we in the forum would know him, but if you asked the common Joe to name Confederate generals sure they would know RE Lee and probably Stonewall Jackson, but who would know George Pickett if not for the disaster of the charge named after him.There are other examples of course. But more important is that I want all of you to know that in no way, shape or form that my purpose was to dishonor or defame a Brave Naval Officer that had a fine career in the service of his country, he simply had a very, very bad day in which he lost his ship and his life. I hope you accept my explanation. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Admin1 on Apr 7, 2016 1:21:22 GMT
Dan it was no problem. Sometimes posts will take on a life of their own that could never have been foreseen. For future reference to anyone reading this thread and wondering about the discontinuity. The discussion about Lawrence was move to Naval History and into a thread about the Birth of the American Navy. A worthy discussion, it just went off the subject of Custer quickly.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 7, 2016 2:04:34 GMT
Dan If we can't cause a ruckus every so often why would we read these boards and threads? The Lawrence discussion you brought did its job by raising interest and discussions. I believe that I have created as many stupid ideas and statements as anyone else yet I still play in the sandbox. Your post was a sincere effort to share information with others. No one and I mean no one on this board or any public forum is infallible and we all make mistakes.
Public or heroic figures are all fair game in discussions and studies. You had no intent to slander or harm Lawrence's reputation but merely shared an article published in a national publication. Your source was not an underground journal or hit piece by a hack writer. You were duped as I was when I made the charge that Lawrence disobeyed his orders and we were both conned by Halsted. I have plenty of egg on my face and suspect I'll have a few more if the Good Lord lets me piddle around on this mortal coil.
As they say in New York fuhgeddaboudit! Regards Dave PS And they think I speak with an accent!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 7, 2016 2:56:50 GMT
Enough. The explanation was satisfactory to me, and I was the one who asked for it. It is a dead issue, and no blame attaches.
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Apr 7, 2016 3:22:14 GMT
Dan, feel free to raise a ruckus. Your posts and insights are a bonus to any board.
Best,
David
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 7, 2016 10:08:39 GMT
Dan, While I saw no reason for a ruckus, some of us old farts need something to help move that cholesterol through the veins. Besides, if a Marine can't raise a ruckus, who the hell can. I know, you no can do, but Steve and I would enjoy your company in Montana, to help us raise a small ruckus. I on the other hand I have been known to raise a ruckus, just to do it. You be well, too.
Regards, Tom
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Apr 7, 2016 14:38:37 GMT
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Apr 7, 2016 19:05:56 GMT
Beth, Gentlemen
I want to thank you all for your kind sentiments, I appreciate them very much.
Be Well Dan
Semper Fi Steve
|
|