|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 18, 2015 7:08:10 GMT
An interesting article on the Belknap Scandal. Custer testified in front of a Congressional hearing. During his testimony, Custer implicated President's Grants brother, Orvil Grant, as well as fellow 7th Cavalry officer Major Lewis Merrill. Custer's testimony angered President Grant and almost prevented Custer from accompanying the 7th as part of the Dakota Column linkBeth |
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 18, 2015 12:14:05 GMT
To the above, I can only say a man has to know his limitations. If Custer's testimony had taken place today, he would never have been at the LBH. The president would have stuck to his guns. I don't claim to be a historian, but since the Harry T./ Dugout Doug row, officers who have crossed the administration have not fared very well.
I would dearly love to hear an officer expound on politics and the military and activism while in uniform. Heck you can't even be quoted in Rolling Stone, ask Stanley McChrystal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 11:53:56 GMT
LTC Custer led a conspiracy to falsely accuse the Grant family of extensive criminal activity. I have posted numerous times on the details of this conspiracy and how it was implemented. There is no dispute from anyone, including GAC, the Congressional record, Clymer, Whittaker, on this action.
Belknap, the Secretary of War, took bribes with respect to trading posts at Fort Sill. LTC Custer told Clymer he could prove similar corruption with the Grant family at Fort Lincoln, and in his own Department. AN agreement was made between Clymer, the New York Herald (NYH) and LTC Custer to conduct a private investigation to prove this theory.
The NYH sent a reporter to work with Custer for most of 1875. The NYH sent large sums of money to GAC in this year. Some folks suspected this was paying him for false testimony, GAC said it was money for the reporter. The reporter was using a fake name, but he was such an obvious plant no one believed him. I believe GAC here, no one had to pay George Custer to lie.
The problem rapidly discovered in summer 1875 is that the accusations against the Grant family were not true. In addition, the charges against Belknap in this Department were also not true. So an honorable man, or a professional officer, or any man with integrity; gives up the chase and moves on.
GAC was none of the above. He made the decision to frame Grant and Belknap with false evidence. He made some 30 allegations that were complete lies. Both GAC and the NYH reporter testified in Congressional hearings. Every single thing they said was proven to be a lie.
How does this effect LBH? The major focus of GAC's life 1874-6 was working this conspiracy to frame Grant for corruption. He was absent from his command from Sep 75 to May 76 working his conspiracy.
I know Stan McChrystal. In fact, have been under fire with him. He was fired for being an arrogant ass, which he is. He was not fired for trying to frame President Obama for crimes he did not commit. Stan is a great warrior and leader, Problem with Stan is that he was a great field grade officer, and a very poor general officer. GAC was a better than average general officer, and totally useless at company and field grade level.
Company grade officer is LT to CPT. Field grade is MAJ to COL, General is BG to 5 star.
So someone help me. If a field grade officer leads a two year conspiracy to falsely frame the head of state for crimes, which the accuser knows are false, why do you think this person should be a commissioned officer?
Respectfully,
Will |
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679 
|
Post by dave on Jul 27, 2015 14:53:53 GMT
Will
Welcome aboard. The light of truth is very revealing when applied to nefarious actions. The Bard of Avon was on target:
truth will come
to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son
may, but at the length truth will out
It is as true today as then that the cover-up is what bites you in the end.
Regards
Dave
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jul 27, 2015 17:07:30 GMT
Scandals were all the rage after the War.
Tammany Hall (a Democratic party concern)was going full speed spurred on by large number of immigrants (new voters) moving in to NYC after the War. The increase in political power lead to increased graft and bribes.
Black Friday 1869 was the gold price fixing scheme devised by 2 “Robber Barons” to corner the gold market by hoarding. President Grant's brother in law was involved and when Grant sold US Treasury gold a the Panic of 1869 ensued.
Credit Mobilier 1872 Scheme of selling railroad shares at inflated prices and giving shares to members of congress, both parties as bribes for continuing the scam.
This started with supporting the Union Pacific railroad on it's transcontinental track laying to the west. This scandal began during Lincoln's administration.
The Whiskey Ring 1875 Most infamous scandal of Grant's administration. Whiskey distillers bribed Treasury Department agents to pay lower tax stamps.
The Indian Ring 1876 Belknap and wife accepted bribes from companies to allow access to Indian posts and reservations to sell supplies.
The moral here is that money and power always leads to corruption regardless of the times, nations or people involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 27, 2015 17:55:17 GMT
A couple of questions.
Was the New York Herald a organ of Tammany Hall?
What was the underlying motivation, if known, for Custer to engage in all this?
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jul 27, 2015 19:52:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 27, 2015 22:04:46 GMT
Dave I am just trying to ascertain why Custer would engage in this sort of business.
As far as I know Grant, himself, had always looked favorably upon Custer
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 27, 2015 22:10:55 GMT
Custer had an interest in NY politics. I found a reference to a dispatch he made in May 30, 1876 that was published by the NY Herald on June 27, 1976. "The New York Herald article published on June 27,1876 published a commoner from May 30 were quoted. “The Whereabouts of Sitting Bull is now as much of a conundrum to the military as is the hiding place of Boss Tweed to the New York Police. Rumor—that busy but not always reliable dance-now places sitting Sitting Bull" 1876 Facts about Custer, ebook preview
Beth |
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jul 27, 2015 22:57:42 GMT
QC
I have tried very hard to determine if Custer was guilty of accepting or demanding kick backs from fort settlers or was he a mere babe in the woods?GAC seems to be like Churchill's quote about "Russia a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
" He is such a complex individual to study and understand as a man, spouse, soldier, warrior then legend.
Senator Hiester C. Clymer, D-PA, called GAC to testify and he naively said Secretary Belknap was crooked and so was Orville Grant. After testifying Custer seems to be surprised that President Grant was mad and removing him from command. He was a minnow among the bass!
Whether the Redpath Agency played any part in this sordid chapter of GAC's life I can not determine.
As Sir Walter Scott wrote "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 27, 2015 23:48:36 GMT
I know that it is rumored that Custer was considering a career in politics after the Centennial campaign but frankly he strikes me as the last type of person who should get involved. He seems to have been too trusting of things told to him by friends and didn't understand a simple principle. Trust but verify
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 28, 2015 2:16:04 GMT
The three normal motives for people getting involved in this type of affair are money, power, and revenge. Any of these three could have been an initial motivating factor, but when you insert Custer the person into the mix each of those motives fizzle out pretty quickly. Someone may have been shinning Custer's apple, but for some reason he was a willing participant. I just can't see any long term gain in the cards for him/
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 28, 2015 3:00:38 GMT
The three normal motives for people getting involved in this type of affair are money, power, and revenge. Any of these three could have been an initial motivating factor, but when you insert Custer the person into the mix each of those motives fizzle out pretty quickly. Someone may have been shinning Custer's apple, but for some reason he was a willing participant. I just can't see any long term gain in the cards for him/ Perhaps because all the cards were yet to be laid on the table? Custer had financial problems that I don't believe could ever be paid back on his military salary. However if he got a speakers tour for example, saying that he helped clean up Washington would even add to his appeal and an honest plain talk. Or if he really planned to go into politics, Custer was doing is best to make himself the darling of the Democrats. The 1876 Democratic convention was very interesting with 6 candidates. Tilden the winner on the second ballot. Custer's public popularity would have been a bonus for any candidate. Tilden however was from NY and was opposed by Tammany Hall, which I suspect means he had huge support from the New York Herald. It all adds up to interesting tidbits but nothing concrete, it's easy to make all sorts of connections but I don't think that there is proof that any of them are what the Custers were actually planning to do. |
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jul 28, 2015 3:27:38 GMT
I have attempted to study and learn what I could about the Belknap Scandal. I could not find any infomation about the New York Hearld to be in collusion with Custer and Clymer. I know it has to be available because Montrose c(s)ited it in his post. I will continue looking into this circus. But would love Montrose to post more when he can.
In the end I am left with the question QC posed "What was the underlying motivation, if known, for Custer to engage in all this?"
The Redpath Agency supposedly wanted to pay Custer $200 per night for lecturing but he turned it down to go on the campaign.
Was Custer so naive to believe he could testify before Clymer's committee would not cause repercussions with Grant?
GAC was many things but an idiot he was not.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 28, 2015 6:12:45 GMT
It's been my experience in life that people can be really smart about some things but rather an idiot about others. CUster knew war and the military, not necessarily politics.
Much of what he testified to was correct but then he went of the rails, I don't think he embellished, I think he just repeated as facts something that might have been told to him as rumor or supposition. If he hadn't brought Orvil Grant's name into things Grant probably would have just ignored things.
Grant was a lame duck president so any repercussions Custer suffered would probably have been short term. Who knows maybe Custer thought the new administration would be thankful for his efforts and that especially after a convincing victory on the summer campaign, they would offer him a job in Indian Affairs.
|
|
