benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on May 24, 2018 21:07:22 GMT
I have a question. Terrys plan was basically a hammer and anvil. With one force preventing the Indians from fleeing South and driving them North where the blocking force would be waiting for them. The force that he chose for the hammer (7th Cavalry) would be the one that may have to adjust to a changing situation, they would have decisions to make. Why didnt Terry go with Custer, he knew Custer was a loose cannon and was capable of doing what was best for himself, not what was best for the mission. Gibbon was perfectly capable of performing a blocking action. So I ask would you go with Custer or Gibbon
Be Well Dan
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 24, 2018 22:04:32 GMT
Interesting question Dan!
Do you think Terry should have known what Custer would do?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2018 3:38:04 GMT
That is one of the more interesting and important questions put forward for a long time. Don't have an answer, but I do have a couple of things to put on the table.
1) Didn't I recall Gibbon being ill, incapacitated, or something along those lines?
2) If you were Terry would you want to be around when Custer inevitably screwed up? It was just a matter of time you know because Custer would have inevitably questioned Terry's authority,and may very well have gotten away with it, seeing as the only troops present were Custer's troops.
3) If it ever became a peeing contest within the Army between Custer and Terry, Terry would win. If it ever became a peeing contest in the court of public opinion between Terry and Custer, Custer would win. The leadership of the Army and the Commander in Chief, would just as soon that Custer be the only fatality of the Great Sioux War. Left unchecked Custer would have eventually brought all of them down, and placed the Army in disrepute. In the main that was because Custer loved and honored himself, more than he loved and was willing to serve the Country and institution he was sworn to obey, preserve, and protect.
4) If I had my way any person who raised their hand or swore on the Bible, that they would Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States ============= So help me God. and failed to live up to that oath from the day they swore it to the day dirt was shoveled in their face, a bolt of lightning sent from God Himself would strike them dead, and the voice of God would ring like the thunder in the heavens saying --- "How dare you"
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 25, 2018 10:59:40 GMT
A point or two, Terry was essentially an infantry officer and Gibbon was under the weather. Also Terry was a gentleman who expected orders to be followed, at least geographically and he expected an update via Herendeen. Lack of follow through and communication or lack there of derailed much of the Custer portion of the campaign after the 23rd.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 25, 2018 14:03:00 GMT
Hi Dan, all the three columns [Terry, Gibbon and Crook] had infantry elements in their columns, which restricts your speed. Each column had a cavalry elements, but it was only Terry who detached his and sent them on ahead.
Terry's cavalry was the 7th and commanded by Custer who was a law to himself, what did Gibbon say; Now Custer, don’t be greedy, wait for us, and Custer turned around and said no.
I wonder by the part ‘wait for us’ actually meant that this was all part of a plan to place the Indians in a vice like grip, which would mean that both Gibbon and Terry had a bigger plan then just sending Custer off on his own, but it also sounds as if they knew that Custer would follow his own nose and not orders.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2018 17:25:21 GMT
I take it then that you do not give much credence to the double entendre:
What did "NO" mean in this context? Did it mean I have no intention of waiting on you or anyone else, or did it mean that no, he was intending to wait until all the pieces of the plan came together and the Terry/Gibbon column were in place?
I hate to remind Dan of this, but this was the very same form of word usage by Custer when he said "Porter there will be great killing today" Did he mean that he was going to kill every man, woman and child he ran across, or did it mean that he expected a big battle with the probability of casualties being high?
So what it may sound like is not always an indication of truth or intention. All it is, is the inability of one person to make his intentions perfectly clear to the listener.
Therefore no conclusions can be drawn or derived unless that first question, what did NO mean, can be answered, and the man has been somewhat unavailable to answer that question in one hundred forty two years.
Words matter, but those words used have no value unless the meaning and intent of their use is available.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 25, 2018 19:49:23 GMT
What do you think he meant? If you knew Custer personally like these officers did, would you think that he would stick to any plan when he commanded the largest number of horse soldiers in columns and cut loose in Indian country? As I said, all of these columns had infantry elements which meant that they where no good to you if you lost contact with them. Terry allowed Custer to ride a day or two ahead of the column, did Crook do this with his command?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2018 20:17:17 GMT
I don't know what he meant, and I am not presently in a position to ask him. You don't, nor does anyone else know what he meant either, nor are you or anyone else in a position to ask him. THEREFORE what he said and what it meant becomes irrelevant.
If I knew Custer personally, and was present when he made that remark, I still wouldn't know any more about what he meant then what I do now, which is nothing. The thing is that you didn't know him either, but you are trying to tell me you know what was going on in his head. That's quite a trick.
You are trying to draw inferences from a remark where no accurate inferences can be drawn. Those who dislike Custer will always think that his meaning was NO, I am going to do as I please, while others will say he meant he was going to get with and stay with Terry's program. Neither inference can be taken by a reasonable man, one who has the courage to say that he just does not know, and can find no way at this late date to determine the intent of the remark.
What does the fact that he had the largest number of horse soldiers and was cut loose in Indian country have anything to do with what the man meant by saying NO. Nothing.
Not so. The Infantry elements and the cavalry elements may have had a separate mission. If that was true I would not be at all concerned if they lost contact with one another. It is obvious that they did indeed have a separate mission, and Custer was not riding a day or two ahead of anyone. He was in fact going in a completely different direction, with a completely different mission.
Now if you are speaking of Custer riding a day or two ahead of Terry during the journey from Fort Lincoln to the Powder River Depot. that is the job of cavalry to ride ahead and be the reconnaissance eyes and ears of the main body. That still does not concern me.
What Crook did with his command is Crook's business. He was in command. No inferences one way or the other can be drawn from his style of command or how he operated.
Why do you constantly go down the rabbit hole on things that you cannot prove, and that can never be proven, yet those things are always what get you in trouble?
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on May 25, 2018 21:02:20 GMT
Gentlemen ,
Thank you for your responses. Now, I am not about to say I know what Terry was thinking, however, as Mac said "You take whatever evidence and factors that you have and come up with the most probable answer" I agree. This is my opinion and it is just that an opinion on what Terry was thinking. My opinion is based in part by Terrys orders to Custer.
Mac you asked me if I thought Terry should know what Custer would do. I believe Terry not only should know but did know. Again my opinion is that Terry knew as soon as Custer rode away, he was going to forget everything Terry said and do what was best for him. Which would be to attack the village and gain fame for himself.
Here is where Terrys orders play to me an important tell on Terrys thinking.Terry was a kind man and had to be a fine officer to raise to the rank of General in the post CW Army, he also had to be very adapt at CYA. I wont go into the whole order but rather the key parts
1.....The commander puts to much faith in your zeal to hamper you when you are in close proximity to the enemy.
2....You should conform to my orders unless you see sufficient reason from departing from them.
1...Why would Terry put part 1 in writing. Unless I am wrong a commander who sends an Officer on a mission 100 miles away with no radio contact not only would allow that Officer but would expect him to access and evaluate situation and come to the best possible decision. So why put it in writing.....I say not for the Army but for the court of public opinion which can end a Military career as fast as a bullet to the heart. Sorry I ran out of space, if you want me to continue with my reasoning I will do so
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2018 21:58:17 GMT
Benteen: I never as a commander wrote such flowery phrase into any order I issued, but the same intent was always there, "Faith in your zeal enough to not hamper you in close proximity" "Do what I say unless you see the situation has changed, then do what you think best". If a commander sends a subordinate out without that requisite confidence then he has no business sending him out at all.
You ask why Terry gets a pass, and you post the two sentences that most damn Terry, as a poor judge of character and ability. In short Terry has tied the noose for his own hanging in the court of public opinion, for such poor judgment of Custer abilities, and character.
Of course Terry himself did not write those orders one might say, but Terry signed them, or they were signed in his name, which makes him responsible for them.
Still, no one can say for certain that they had any foreknowledge of Custer's intent. Therefore nothing can be divined, and all becomes speculation.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 25, 2018 22:33:22 GMT
The plan was correct, If Custer had gone to the head waters as desired. Sent Herendeen with the update the timing Terry laid out would have worked. Plus GAC would have found the Crook battlefield and could have back tracked the NA's across the divide.
CYA hell yes, Terry was an attorney by trade.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 25, 2018 22:41:59 GMT
Bye the way Ike covered his ass because of at least one subordinate. Roosevelt covered his ass when a certain camp was rousted by a certain General. Marshall was a master.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 26, 2018 0:41:09 GMT
Tom: Terry gave Custer specific orders, but he also gave him in writing the two get out of jail free cards that Dan posted above.
As your senior both in age and rank I have too much faith in your zeal to hamper you when you are in close proximity to the offending document.
You should conform to all my orders with regards to re-reading it, unless you see sufficient reason to depart from it and go fishing down on the river.
I completely agree with you, and by extension Benteen, on the three salient points you made regarding Custer's inattention to Terry's written order. Had this portion of the campaign been a success, nothing would have been said at least in public. Had it failed, as it did, and had Custer survived, he would have had as many as six (that I can think of) charges placed against him. Of those six it was a cinch he would have been found guilty of dereliction of duty, but I highly doubt that he would have been found guilty of disobedience of orders, and strictly because Terry in his orders gave him discretion to disobey if he found cause to do so.
Therefore, it seems to me a moot point to pursue those three factors you list. Had he done all of them there was still no guarantee that the campaign would succeed, and if he could justify not doing those three things, as being overcome by events, then he was clear of any fault appertaining to disobedience. Of the three though, not sending Herendeen was probably the hardest of them to justify.
Were it me I would have turned and followed that trail in a heartbeat. The trail was the hottest intelligence in town. So I too would have found a way to ignore that written order. Where I would differ though is that my scouts would have been out all over that territory, and I would have adjusted my rate of march to a rate consistent with that need to thoroughly reconnoiter. I suspect that reconnaissance would have picked up the Crook battle site, without the main body all traveling there.
There is one fault by Custer never talked about, that being conducting his march off set to the trail, a purposeful misdirection. I think it could have made a lot of difference when it came time to evaluate options on the very eve of battle. Justin talked about it briefly a couple of years ago, but I don't recall us going into much depth on the subject.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on May 26, 2018 20:12:10 GMT
Benteen: I never as a commander wrote such flowery phrase into any order I issued, but the same intent was always there, "Faith in your zeal enough to not hamper you in close proximity" "Do what I say unless you see the situation has changed, then do what you think best". If a commander sends a subordinate out without that requisite confidence then he has no business sending him out at all. You ask why Terry gets a pass, and you post the two sentences that most damn Terry, as a poor judge of character and ability. In short Terry has tied the noose for his own hanging in the court of public opinion, for such poor judgment of Custer abilities, and character. Of course Terry himself did not write those orders one might say, but Terry signed them, or they were signed in his name, which makes him responsible for them. Still, no one can say for certain that they had any foreknowledge of Custer's intent. Therefore nothing can be divined, and all becomes speculation. Q/C, I looked at my posts and to be honest I dont see anything that would cause you to think that I thought Terry was a poor judge of character. In fact just the opposite. He read Custer perfectly, although dont need ESP to know who Custer was and what he was capable of doing. But I digress, in getting away from my main point which was why did Terry go with Gibbon and not Custer and what would you do. I have seen in a couple of posts that Gibbons was ill. Certainly that has merit, but not so much in this case.The reason being that if Gibbon was the hammer (attack force) he may have to access and evaluate a changing situation and being sick as a dog may hamper his decision making. However, Gibbons task was as a blocking force not to many decisions to be made and he also had Major Brisban and other officers who were more than able to accomplish that task. I believe that if there was going to be a foul up or decisions to be made, it would be with attack force (Custer) not Gibbon and therefor I believe Terry should have gone with CusterBe Well Dan
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on May 26, 2018 20:14:12 GMT
Just as a follow
|
|