dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 4, 2017 18:37:17 GMT
The question of What Could Custer See would have been influenced greatly by What Custer Wanted To See,would it not? Custer was set to go and would not let facts or circumstances interfere with his plan is what I believed happened. He was splitting his command as he went with the preconceived belief that he could circle the Indian camps to the North intending to herd the hostiles like cattle back to the reservations. I don't believe he knew how determined the Sioux and Cheyenne were to defend their old traditional lifestyles. If news of Crook's engagement at Rosebud Creek had reached GAC prior to the LBH would it have changed his plan of attack? Just curious. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 4, 2017 19:51:45 GMT
Well Dave, if Custer had read the Book of Numbers, instead of dilly dallying down at the old fishing hole on Sunday morn, he would have followed the advice of Moses and gone up that figurative mountain to see what was to be seen. If he had eyes, which I presume he did, he would have crapped his pants in viewing what lay before him.
That is what professionals do. Custer could have still fulfilled both his mission and his ambitions, and just like Moses led his people to smite the enemy in Canaan Land. Its not what you do it's the professional manner in which it is done.
Moses was not a pro but acted like one. Custer was supposed to be a pro but acted like a shit assed pipsqueak.
You may have noticed that I am not much into excuse making, and there are a lot of well meaning people who have presented that same argument for 140 years. At the end of the day though it is still an excuse. People who needlessly cause the deaths of American soldiers should be damned to the hottest corner of hell. There is no frigging excuse.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Jun 4, 2017 20:42:14 GMT
The question of What Could Custer See would have been influenced greatly by What Custer Wanted To See,would it not? Custer was set to go and would not let facts or circumstances interfere with his plan is what I believed happened. He was splitting his command as he went with the preconceived belief that he could circle the Indian camps to the North intending to herd the hostiles like cattle back to the reservations. I don't believe he knew how determined the Sioux and Cheyenne were to defend their old traditional lifestyles. If news of Crook's engagement at Rosebud Creek had reached GAC prior to the LBH would it have changed his plan of attack? Just curious. Regards Dave Dave, In my opinion Custer was in the dog house. This was probably going to be the last big battle with the Indians. His way back to his former fame was to win this battle, alone, just the 7th Cavalry. No Terry, and God forbid no Crook. Dave, he was going to attack no matter what. If Custer had known about Crook, he probably would have said good, now I dont have to worry about him raining on my parade. This will be his victory alone. I agree with Quincannons post. His plan was fubar from the start. He dragged 209 souls to their deaths that didnt share in his vision of fame. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 4, 2017 22:07:26 GMT
And your post Benteen is excuse making as well. Excuse making in reverse perhaps but still an excuse.
Professionals keep their minds on what is at hand. Everything else that constitutes their immediate emotional state should be irrelevant. Both you and Dave are making the irrelevant relevant and bring it to the fore, and that is excuse making.
No you do not agree with Qunicannon's post. His plan was not fubar. He had no plan, and he had no plan because he did not go to the mountain to give himself the wherewithal to formulate that plan.
The proximate cause of defeat was no reconnaissance, no seeing. Without seeing a plan is irrelevant. The seeing is the egg, and the plan is the chicken that hatches from it. No egg. No chicken.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 5, 2017 0:33:17 GMT
Not sure which excuse I am making as I agree with Dan and hold GAC completely accountable for the results of June 25, 1876. Custer was desperate for success for himself and his career and he made mistakes. Period, no excuses.
Part of why I look forward to next year's visit is too really study the terrain as well as I can and, which may be limited since I won't be riding a horse, see what Custer faced. I believe line of sight was far more important than I have ever realized as all communications where by notes and/or messengers only. I have a hard time visualizing not having modern communication means and frustrating it would have been to await for messages and orders to be delivered. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 5, 2017 1:37:03 GMT
"Custer was desperate for success" ---- That is an excuse for his incompetence. It is the same excuse made in one form or another for 140 years
Custer had a hangnail. Custer had jock itch Custer had. Custer did. Custer, Custer, Custer.
All of these are excuses. Do any of you think that Custer was the first, or only commander that ever entered battle with another agenda in mind, or under outside stress of some sort. I have news then. They all do. Every damned one to some extent lesser or greater. After all they are human beings.
The excuse part then is bringing this up as if it were mitigation. There is no mitigation. He failed. He was derelict in his duty to his country, to his commander, and especially to his soldiers.
What did Moses do? What did Joshua do? They sent out their scouts to the mountain tops and into the valleys beyond. They went into the villages. Then they brought back the information that the commander needed to formulate the plan. Are you suggesting that Moses and Joshua were not under stress, or did not know that this was the big one, and thousands of peoples lives were depending upon him? Are you suggesting that Moses and Joshua did not have future ambitions? Are you suggesting they did not have something to prove? They performed under the same stress factors as Custer.
Custer was responsible, and should be held accountable, but what you guys are doing is trying to soften the blow of responsibility by inserting the mitigation of his mental state, when in fact his mental state should have enhanced his performance, not detracted from it/
Have either of you ever been at a point in your professional or personal life where you know this one thing you are about to do has to be done right because people are watching. That made you more, not less keenly aware of how you would go about whatever it was. So if anything you both pointing this out makes Custer look worse that he obviously was. Are we about making someone look worse or are we about trying to discover the critical mistake or mistakes that led to failure.
Custer could have and should have done a good job because of the things you all mention. He didn't WHY.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jun 5, 2017 11:32:17 GMT
Chuck
Not sure I am following your excuse explanation. Seems to me anything could be an excuse rather than an explanation for what went wrong in Custer's decision making. So if Custer doesn't recon then that is the excuse for why it went terribly bad. If one knows what to do but doesn't do it isn't that the excuse for the results.
I know you're attempting to make a point but I am having trouble following it. If I win a foot race the excuse is that the others weren't fast enough. I don't see that the explanation of how something came about would mitigate negative results. In this case Custer's death negated any attempt to litigate or mitigate what occurred. Terry alleged charges of failure to obey but stated Custer paid the price.
I don't think Benteen or Dave were giving Custer a free pass for his actions.
Help me out here.
Thanks
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 5, 2017 14:14:52 GMT
I don't think they are giving Custer a free pass either. I just think it is the wrong pass.
I am looking for proximate cause, the root, the one fault, that caused all to happen.
For 140 years we have heard that he was ambitious, looking for political office, trying to get out of the dog house, on and on.
The question is, absent all these emotional issues, would he have performed better. Remove everything ever said about why he was reckless that day, would he still have been reckless, would he still not go to the figurative mountain.
My opinion is yes he would have still been reckless, he would have still done exactly what he did and in the same manner, for his previous record shows that that is the way he always operated - recklessly
Therefore bringing up all those emotional issues that surrounded the man is excuse making, so ingrained over these 140 years, that we fail to see the forest (inherent long term reckless behavior) for the trees (the emotional excuse).
###########################################################
If a man is driving his about to deliver pregnant wife to the hospital at an unsafe speed, and along the way he weaves in and out of traffic, runs others off the road, runs red lights and ends up crashing into another killing both of them and others, he was acting in a reckless manner. Why was he acting in a manner that was reckless. Now if everyone says poor Joe and Alice the emotional stress of the baby coming was the cause of what happened. Anyone might conclude the same.
If however you look at Joe's driving record, and it shows that he consistently acted in this manner regardless of any outside factor, then it most probably had nothing to do with the fact Joe's wife was about to deliver, but rather on Joe's demonstrated pattern of behavior.
Do you all get my point about excuse making now? Do you still say poor Joe, or do you say damn that son of a bitch Joe to hell for what he did?
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 5, 2017 15:08:18 GMT
Damn that Custer! Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 5, 2017 15:20:21 GMT
Exactly, but damn him for the right reason, consistent, career long reckless behavior, not because of any personal emotional turmoil he was thought to be or might have been in at the time.
All of these possible reasons (excuses) for his behavior that have been brought up over time are only speculative. We have no way of knowing if he was considering any of these things as he crossed the divide and down into the valley. He may have been, but we can't possibly know that. We can't read his mind.
What we can do though, just like with Joe's driving records, establish a pattern of how he behaved. It is much more probable therefore that he acted according to his established pattern.
Leopards do not change their spots, either in the jungle or in a zoo. They are always the same animal.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 5, 2017 15:41:58 GMT
Dave: I want you, Benteen, and Steve, maybe others as well, to think about this very hard.
When have you heard a military professional in all these years that have passed, comment on Custer's outside motivations and emotional state at this battle, as a reason for poor performance?
I suspect the answer is never.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 6, 2017 15:07:17 GMT
Custer surly was classed as a professional soldier, he was in the army long enough and fought in enough engagements to earn his spurs, but I don't think he was in way as trained as well as the professional officers of today.
Take Custer forward about 90 years and put him in the same predicament as he was on LSH, you can actually see him in your minds eye, looking to his left and seeing companies I,L and C getting chopped up, then to his front he see's company E getting brushed off cemetery, hill, his remaining company F is being pressed up towards him and on every point of the compass he see's Indians, and plenty of them too, so I wonder if its now that he turns to his radio man and yells "BROKEN ARROW"
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 6, 2017 15:23:29 GMT
Not sure which excuse I am making as I agree with Dan and hold GAC completely accountable for the results of June 25, 1876. Custer was desperate for success for himself and his career and he made mistakes. Period, no excuses. Part of why I look forward to next year's visit is too really study the terrain as well as I can and, which may be limited since I won't be riding a horse, see what Custer faced. I believe line of sight was far more important than I have ever realized as all communications where by notes and/or messengers only. I have a hard time visualizing not having modern communication means and frustrating it would have been to await for messages and orders to be delivered. Regards Dave Do you suppose we can borrow Nellie Bell to get around.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 6, 2017 16:07:47 GMT
Clear back when I asked what Custer would have seen, I think I was trying to figure out why he went onto the bluffs and why he chose whatever general area he did. I know that this is going to the workings of the mind of a dead man but I was perhaps wondering if he thought the village was much closer than it actually was or if that early he decided to get to the high ground to circle around behind the village.
Something I also wonder now because we have discussed it before is why he didn't chose to go up to the bench, at that point was it too far away to be an option?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 6, 2017 16:11:32 GMT
There is the professional soldier, one who draws pay. Then there is the soldier who conducts himself in a manner befitting the profession. The difference is night and day.
I assume Ian that you are making some passing reference to the movie made by the guy you do not particularly case for.
The situations were similar. Moore had about a hundred or so more men than Custer on LZ XRAY, but that was offset by the numbers engaged against him at the point of contact. The difference was that Moore, had the planning in place to call for the support he needed should that situation arise, and Custer did not. Therefore, one can only conclude that Custer was professional in that he drew pay, and Moore was the one who conducted himself in a manner befitting a professional. The end state speaks for itself.
Ian I know guys who were professionals in that they drew pay for twenty years. One in particular that I see every Sunday. I assure you that this fellow, and his kind, could not manage to fight themselves out of a waste basket.
|
|