Custer and Little Bighorn

He split his forces for one. I believe he also ended up trapping his unit in a tactically pretty bad area for calvary. Off the top of my head thats all I can think about........

What "technological" advantage are they talking about? The fact that some Native Americans had Winchester repeaters rather than the single shot Springfields the 7th Cav had? The number of Winchesters was likely not very high according to most historians (the principal Indian weapon was still the trade musket at this time) and the Springfields had over 100 yards of greater range and stopping power. For neither side was target practice a high priority due to cost and ammunition concerns (which did of course offset some of the Springfield range advantage)

Numbers, better tactics, and better use of the terrain were far greater factors in the Native win than technology.

Custer made his bones as a young Commander in the Civil War, he was in line to be demoted after his impestous nature led him to leave his command to go home and spend time with his Wife, to head off that demotion Custer attempted to generate a large victory over the "savages" and make it impossible to demote him politically speaking.

If there was a tech advantage for the Sioux it was found in the fact their warriors were all mounted and allowed them enough mobility to defeat the aimed fire of the Springfield rifles, as per usual in mostly flat, semi rolling terrain, mobility is life, once his troop dismounted to fire they were done.

What is the real truth?

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d8e05b59-fee4-4383-92cb-20ddf11eda25

The national monument at the Little Bighorn battlefield lists William Heath as one of 263 American cavalry soldiers who died under the command of Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer on June 25, 1876.
But official records in Pennsylvania show that Heath's body is buried thousands of miles away from the Montana battlefield, having been laid to rest in a cemetery plot in Schuylkill County on May 2, 1891. This leads some historians to wonder -- did one of Custer's troops live through the Battle of Little Bighorn?

http://custer.over-blog.com/

So, if you visit the Little Bighorn battlefield today, if you read general books on Custer’s Last Stand, you will learn that:

1) The story ended on June 25, 1876 (no information on what happened next: an investigation? Something? Critics?)

2) General Custer and his 210 soldiers never existed or existed as the worst men ever seen in US history: cowardly, inefficient, no training, no morality, no spirituality. They were also criminals who were poor, stupid, sick and alcoholic. They did not kill a single Indian warrior in the battle and committed suicide en masse in less than twenty minutes. Forget about them.

3) Captain Benteen was a wise man (he was right not to go with those cowards above), Major Reno was a poor victim of the horrors of war who lost his nerve (remember your lessons of psychology). Their men were heroes and deserved their Medals of Honor (to the contrary of those cowards above).

4) The American Indian warriors at Little Bighorn has been the greater tacticians ever in US history – fifteen thousand, or several thousands (what about a few million of them at Little Bighorn?) of men of Honor with spirituality, Napoleon’s strategy, thousands of automatic rifles (maybe bulletproof jackets?), never-seen-before heroism and discipline.

5) Ronald Reagan never talked about a cover-up. In fact, no soldier or officer (or the US General-in-chief Nelson A. Miles) has ever criticized Benteen and Reno. End of the story. For the things that you will find hard to believe... it is a mystery.

http://www.custerwest.org/facts.htm

"As a smart trot or a gallop, as a cavalryman goes into action, fifteen minutes would have brought the whole command into the (Little Bighorn) engagement and the result would have been completely different. (...)

It was Benteen's duty to strike out straight to Custer. (...) No commanding officer (Custer) can win victories with 7/12 of his command remaining out of the engagement (Benteen and Reno) when within sound of his rifle shots."

US General-in-chief Nelson A. Miles (Bvt Lt Gen), Medal of Honor recipient, 1898. Miles was the most successful Indian fighter in US history. He studied the battle during 22 years,

There are so many questions, in my mind, pointing to a coverup and yes PC at this point in time (Just as we repaint WWII against the Japs who are now our trusted Allies ... we bury our own to vilify the Native peoples) yet I too have bought into the story line.

The sad part is that everyone loses when History is replaced with romanticized fiction.

Two questions, out of the many, 1. How did Custer, a brillant Cavalry officer suddenly become stupid? and 2. How could the Indians suddenly go from groups of several 100 to maybe a 1000 ...... to become this camp of 5 to 10,000 only this one time in all their history?

There was something of a tribal prayer meeting to bring the buffalo back GA, Custer walked into the largest assembly of Sioux and Blackfeet that had been recorded, as for why he did not "trot into the camp".

Hmm, could be they had scouts out to watch the approaches to the encampment? The indians had an advantage in not having to gather much gear to assemble and attack Custer's forces, a sort of minute men on mounted cavalry.

As for the miraculous change from "uneducated savages" to "noble valiant warriors" that is why if one is interested in history of an event then one is best to look for sources of information close after the event, wait 120 yrs and the books out now would have both sides scratching their heads with a "what was in their peace pipe" looks of consternation.

If one wants a real History Challenge, try looking into the Japanese version of the Nuremberg Trials, or the Union Armies' invasion of Kentucky or how the Great Lakes States were added (you will be amazed how that was accomplished).

IIRC that was known as the 7 Nations Confederacy, but that happened AFTER the French and English..well, you can look it up...:wink2:

"padre31 wrote:

There was something of a tribal prayer meeting to bring the buffalo back GA, Custer walked into the largest assembly of Sioux and Blackfeet that had been recorded, as for why he did not "trot into the camp".

Hmm, could be they had scouts out to watch the approaches to the encampment? The indians had an advantage in not having to gather much gear to assemble and attack Custer's forces, a sort of minute men on mounted cavalry.

5 to 10 thousand, not much gear, the horses alone would have torn up the countryside let alone what it would take on a day to day basis to feed such a group. And recorded by whom? Methinks it might just be that Custer isn't the only one to believe all the clippings.:wink2:

As for the miraculous change from "uneducated savages" to "noble valiant warriors" that is why if one is interested in history of an event then one is best to look for sources of information close after the event, wait 120 yrs and the books out now would have both sides scratching their heads with a "what was in their peace pipe" looks of consternation.

So just what are you saying? That the 2 Army officers, who both said 1 to 2 thousand in 1876, suddenly had a vision which revealed the true figure to be 5 to 10 thousand in 1879? Every Indian account I've ever read places the number of male indians at the battle at between 5 to 6 hundred which would lead me to believe this was a camp of around 15 hundred or so. As for "uneducated savages"
becoming the "noble Red man" I would rather treat them as respected enemy troopers! Who BTW were also there and who's figures don't match the US Army version. Hmm!

If one wants a real History Challenge, try looking into the Japanese version of the Nuremberg Trials, or the Union Armies' invasion of Kentucky or how the Great Lakes States were added (you will be amazed how that was accomplished).

IIRC that was known as the 7 Nations Confederacy, but that happened AFTER the French and English..well, you can look it up...:wink2:

Thanks but Custer is enough on my plate at one time ... my remark about WWII was only to show the PC that goes on when History is debated long after the event took place.:up::tongue2:

600?

Sorry GA, not buying into that one, not even buying into 1,000-2,000

Keep in mind the other two prongs were kept from re enforcing Custer's min force, that would have meant 1 to 1 numbers with maybe the indians being outnumbered as they kept Reno and the other group from moving towards Custer.

1 to 1, clubs and bows and arrows vs rifles with wide open fields of fire?

Hmm, had a rock solid History professor lay out what happened for the class one day, I think perhaps one maybe needs to re-examine one's own inquiry...:wink2:

Well, of course if a "rock solid" History Prof laid it all out then his version has to be the end all, right!:no:

Not asking you to "buy" anything. My intent was and is to open up debate. Why not share your sources, surely you have some? Going by your stand on the subject, not calling you out, but ....... if you are so sure even thought by your own admission history gets "adjusted" as it gets farther from the actual event. Or am I reading you wrong?

I would think rather than come into this with solid preconcived notions to truly study this one needs to be open to all points of view. I've no horse in this race other than wanting to know the truth of the matter. If there truly were 5 - 10 thousand Indians then where is the proof? Having some small experence in mass feedings and raising horses (in my younger days) I can say with great certainty that those male Indians would be out foraging inmass to feed such a group, if it existed, at all! These were hunter/gatherers prone to move alot to be able to survive, where were the Buffalo? No where is there a report of any? Unless any here can come up with links or at the very least a plausable way for such a large group to exist over any reasonable time period (a month or more) I will continue to question these excepted Army versions that most seem to be satisfied with.

BTW even I fall into the group of those who excepted the Army/Hollywood until I started reading and questioning certain things. Alot just doesn't "FIT" at least for me!:wink2:

"gafinfan wrote:

What is the real truth?

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d8e05b59-fee4-4383-92cb-20ddf11eda25

http://custer.over-blog.com/

http://www.custerwest.org/facts.htm

There are so many questions, in my mind, pointing to a coverup and yes PC at this point in time (Just as we repaint WWII against the Japs who are now our trusted Allies ... we bury our own to vilify the Native peoples) yet I too have bought into the story line.

The sad part is that everyone loses when History is replaced with romanticized fiction.

Two questions, out of the many, 1. How did Custer, a brillant Cavalry officer suddenly become stupid? and 2. How could the Indians suddenly go from groups of several 100 to maybe a 1000 ...... to become this camp of 5 to 10,000 only this one time in all their history?

I got no use for custerwest.org. That web site is mainly a bunch of Swiss and Frenchmen who want to blame everyone but Custer for what went wrong that day. If only Reno had not retreated, if only Benteen would have went instantly to Custer's position. After all I've read, I can't blame Benteen for anything and very little with Reno. When Custer told Reno to attack the village head on, he sent word by WW Cooke that he would support Reno, as in, attack almost simultaneously. He wasn't even in position to attack until Reno was already retreating and if he had charged right into the village or not fallen back, those 3 companies would have been wiped out too IMO. It's no secret Custer and Benteen didn't like each other, especially since Benteen felt Custer deserted Major Elliott at the Wash-ita Massacre. But, it is pretty well agreed upon that Benteen was his best battlefield commander, much more experienced being in the heat of battle than Reno was and more competent too. Knowing this, why not have Benteen lead the head on charge on the village and send Reno off on the scout to the southwest? IMO, he should never have divided his command, but rather charged the village en mass if he really felt he needed to attack immediately and not wait for Terry and Gibbon. Custer knew the date of the planned rendezvous and pushed his men and horses hard to get there a day early. He felt he could whip any Indians with just the 7th and that's what he intended to do.

The best Indian fighter amongst all the cavalrymen of that era was Ranald S. MacKenzie. Custer couldn't carry his jock. Had MacKenzie been leading the 7th that day, the results would have been much more positive. IMO.

Another question I have, when Custer sent that final written message back to Benteen, written by Cooke and delivered by Giovanni Martini, it said" Benteen, Big Village, Come quick. Bring packs. W.W. Cooke PS: Bring pacs" When you say bring packs, it means ammo packs loaded on mules in the pack train. To say come quick and also bring packs, it translates to me as come as quickly as you can while also bringing packs. Benteen really could not come as quickly as possible by also bringing packs, but that order was repeated, indicating emphasis IMO. Martini was an Italian, limited in English, but he was overheard by Benteen and others to say also that the Indians "skedaddled". Martini later in life didn't recall saying that word when interviewd. Before he came with that note, Daniel Kanipe rode back with verbal orders for the pack train to come straight to Custer. He stopped first at Benteen who directed him to go on back and tell McDougall with the pack train. As he was riding past Company H, he was overheard to say "we got 'em boys". Obviously both Martini and Kanipe were speaking out of school, but no one knew it right at that time.

Personally, I think Custer severely underestimated the number of Warriors and their willingness to fight. The Indians in a situation like that, previously, with the advance warning they had, would generally scatter. He was told well beforehand too of the enormity of the village. Mitch Boyer told him, "General, I've been around these Indians for 30 years and never seen a village that size." To hear that from his head of scouts should have been taken to heart by Custer. Bloody Knife, his favorite scout, told Custer that if he attacked, he didn't stand a chance, which made Custer mad and even more billigerent.. I think he sent his old nemesis Benteen off on a wild goose chase, because he wanted the glory for himself. All the key members of the so called Custer Clan, except for Weir, were in the 5 companies that stayed with Custer. Tom Custer, James Calhoun, Miles Keogh, Cooke, and Yates. Boston Custer, and Autie Reed too but they weren't soldiers.

Some Custer apologists too, say the Custer battle lasted 3-4 hrs. meaning plenty of time for Benteen/Reno to reinforce him. The Indians said the battle lasted as long as it takes a hungry man to eat a meal. There is no way Custer's men had ammo for a long fight. Consider they had some 45/70 rounds in a pouch on their belt and the rest of their rifle and pistol ammo in their saddle bags. Many if not most horses ran off when the battle got hot and heavy. So, they had their rifle, a loaded revolver and whatever rifle ammo those small ammo pouches on their belt held. 8-10 rounds? With no jamming, the cavalry rifles could fire about 7 rounds a minute max. Many of them jammed, which they were prone to do, and the cases had to be dug out with a knife. It was such a known concern, their manuals even gave instructions on using a knife to remove jammed spent cases.

I enjoyed reading the accounts of enlisted men like Charles Windolph, William Slaper, John Ryan, Peter Thompson, et al. Windolph was in Co. H under Benteen and had been for a long time, and it's a safe bet to say Windolph revered Benteen.
I figure too, that had Benteen just bypassed Reno and went directly toward Custer, Reno's remaining able bodied men, about 50 or so, would have been wiped out and the 3 companies with Benteen may not have fared much better once they got out on the same open ground where Custer was. The Reno survivors all say that Benteen's arrival when it took place, saved them from total annihilation.

Here are some good accounts of Custer and LBH, from 2 eyewitnesses:

http://www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/edward_godfrey_little_big_horn.html

http://www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/chas_windolph_little_big_horn.html

If you start with these, links on the pages will take you on and on to other eyewitness accounts.

"gafinfan wrote:

5 to 10 thousand, not much gear, the horses alone would have torn up the countryside let alone what it would take on a day to day basis to feed such a group. And recorded by whom? Methinks it might just be that Custer isn't the only one to believe all the clippings.:wink2:

So just what are you saying? That the 2 Army officers, who both said 1 to 2 thousand in 1876, suddenly had a vision which revealed the true figure to be 5 to 10 thousand in 1879? Every Indian account I've ever read places the number of male indians at the battle at between 5 to 6 hundred which would lead me to believe this was a camp of around 15 hundred or so. As for "uneducated savages"
becoming the "noble Red man" I would rather treat them as respected enemy troopers! Who BTW were also there and who's figures don't match the US Army version. Hmm!

Thanks but Custer is enough on my plate at one time ... my remark about WWII was only to show the PC that goes on when History is debated long after the event took place.:up::tongue2:

The Indians may have fielded over 1800 warriors. Historian Gregory Michno settles on a low number around 1000 based on contemporary Lakota testimony, but other sources place the number at 1800 or 2000, especially in the works by Utley and Fox. The 1800–2000 figure is substantially lower than the higher numbers of 3000 or more postulated by Ambrose, Gray, Scott, and others. Some of the other participants in the battle gave these estimates:

Spotted Horn Bull – 5,000 braves and chiefs
Maj. Reno – 2,500 to 5,000 warriors
Capt. Moylan – 3,500 to 4,000
Lt. Hare – not under 4,000
Lt. Godfrey – minimum between 2,500 and 3,000
Lt. Edgerly – 4,000
Lt. Varnum – not less than 4,000
Sgt. Kanipe – fully 4,000
George Herendeen – fully 3,000
Fred Gerard – 2,500 to 3,000
An average of the above is 3,500 warriors and chiefs.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Armstrong_Custer

"gafinfan wrote:

Well, of course if a "rock solid" History Prof laid it all out then his version has to be the end all, right!:no:

Not asking you to "buy" anything. My intent was and is to open up debate. Why not share your sources, surely you have some? Going by your stand on the subject, not calling you out, but ....... if you are so sure even thought by your own admission history gets "adjusted" as it gets farther from the actual event. Or am I reading you wrong?

I would think rather than come into this with solid preconcived notions to truly study this one needs to be open to all points of view. I've no horse in this race other than wanting to know the truth of the matter. If there truly were 5 - 10 thousand Indians then where is the proof? Having some small experence in mass feedings and raising horses (in my younger days) I can say with great certainty that those male Indians would be out foraging inmass to feed such a group, if it existed, at all! These were hunter/gatherers prone to move alot to be able to survive, where were the Buffalo? No where is there a report of any? Unless any here can come up with links or at the very least a plausable way for such a large group to exist over any reasonable time period (a month or more) I will continue to question these excepted Army versions that most seem to be satisfied with.

BTW even I fall into the group of those who excepted the Army/Hollywood until I started reading and questioning certain things. Alot just doesn't "FIT" at least for me!:wink2:

Remember they were moving frequently up to the time they all gathered at LBH. Custer and the 7th were following a very fresh well used trail, that some of the LBH Indians arrived on. Also, they soon dispersed late on the 2nd day and at that point the various bands all went various directions. Scattered to the 4 winds so to speak. The size of the pony herd spotted from the Crow's Nest and at other vantage points covered a much larger area than even the village itself. When a man like Mitch Boyer said is was by far the largest village he had seen in 30 years, and with no other scouts giving much different accounts as to it's size, we can be assured it was massive.

Here is a web site with a reprint of NY Times articles from back in the weeks following Custer's Last Stand.

http://www.custerlaststand.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42&Itemid=60

Interesting reading, though they did get some minor facts wrong about who was killed and such, e.g. Myles Moylan was not killed, he was under Reno and made it back to Reno Hill and survived the two days there. Also making the inexcusable error of calling Benteen, Col Benson.

Back then the Times called it The Little Bighorn Massacre.

Being neither pro or anti Custer my only concern is the truth of the matter. IPOF being from the South I've little love for Custer!:wink2:

Never the less when you say the Indians said "" it should include those who said the fight started somewhere around 8:00 and ended at high noon, going by the shadows.

http://www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/iron_hawk_little_big_horn.html

IMVHO all later day links are biased one way or the other and while you say you have no use for a link there would be others who would disagree but I do understand your position.

Another site I found most interesting:

http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/cheyenneprimacy.htm

As to the numbers you show even they are not in agreement only to the extent that one could say "Larger than normal." As I pointed out earlier even those fighting changed their stories as time moved on.

As for Custer himself, for all these years I've believed the Hollywood/Army version which may or may not be true, but after your invite and my googling of the battle plus my own experences in the Military with its buddy systems, I'm more inclined to believe there are untruths that are stated as facts.

Was Custer a good/bad officer who mistreated his men or did what was necessary to maintain order under his command? Desertion was a big problem within the Army west of the Mississippi and this was true long before Custer showed up. R.E. Lee in some of his letters home, while he was serving in Texas before the War, state this as fact even then. So Custer shot 2 men for desertion, big deal! Ike had one shot in WWII, does that make him bad too?

As I say I've no horse in this race other than what factually happened. I will leave all judgement calls in God's hands.

"gafinfan wrote:

What is the real truth?

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d8e05b59-fee4-4383-92cb-20ddf11eda25

There is a book about William Heath as a survivor of Custer's battalion at LBH.

http://www.amazon.com/Billy-Heath-Vincent-J-Genovese/dp/1591020662/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307540717&sr=1-8

Also there was a dead 7th Cav horse and a 45/70 Carbine found far from the scene of the battle afterwards, that was said to belonged to Nathan Short of Company C.
Other sources mention Crook's men finding a decomposed body of a 7th Cav trooper 3 or 4 weeks after the battle, a few days journey from Custer Hill, who was identified as possibly Short.
If you look at this web site, http://www.littlebighorn.info/Articles/Casualties.pdf after Short's name it says "died following the battle." This means one of two things IMO. Either Short was one of the men from C assigned to the pack train, since something like 3 men from each company were with the pack train, or he somehow got away from the battle and made it to where his horse was found, went on further on foot and since his body, from all I've read was never found, he died or got away like some say Heath did.
The aforementioned web site lists William H Heath, Farrier, Co L, as among those killed. He could have gotten away like some say, but oddly he is not listed as among the 19 soldiers and officers who's body was never found or identified.

According to John Gray's book, Custer's Last Campaign: Mitch Boyer and the Little Bighorn Reconstructed, Reno's force crossed the Little Bighorn at the mouth of what is today Reno Creek around 3:00 p.m. When McDougall and the pack train arrived at Reno Hill, Lt Godfrey, Co K, reported that he distinctly remembered checking his watch and at that time it was 4:20 pm. That would fit with Reno attacking not long after 3pm. Iron Hawk seems really off on his times if he has the battle commencing at 8am. I think other Sioux and Cheyenne do contradict that as the time too. The actual time the first shots were fired, kicking things off, seems a little like minutia, but for diehard followers of the battle history it is still interesting.

"gafinfan wrote:

Another site I found most interesting:

http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/cheyenneprimacy.htm

.

That's a really great link! Thanks for posting it. I love these quotes

“The Sioux were just at the Fetterman fight to hold the Cheyenne horses,” and another, “The Crows did the scouting, the Cheyennes did the fighting, and the Sioux got the credit”

The latter one I've heard before, and you know due I guess to the sheer enormity of the Sioux nation, they did seem to gain most of the notoriety. Most casual fans of the LBH battle know the Sioux names like Crazy Horse, Gall and Sitting Bull, but not many know the name of the Cheyenne war chiefs that day. Two Moons is the most well known I'd say though.

"MrClean wrote:

That's a really great link! Thanks for posting it. I love these quotes

The latter one I've heard before, and you know due I guess to the sheer enormity of the Sioux nation, they did seem to gain most of the notoriety. Most casual fans of the LBH battle know the Sioux names like Crazy Horse, Gall and Sitting Bull, but not many know the name of the Cheyenne war chiefs that day. Two Moons is the most well known I'd say though.

In all honesty I want to thank you. Its been quite some time since I've given any thought to Custer or to this History forum. I love both debating and History and have learned to reevaluate my thinking because of things I've found thru the internet. It is a real boon to the History student imho, even more so, if one will go into it with an open mind.

A double fist pump to you good Sir!

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&id=History.Reno&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1

The official record of a court of inquiry convened at Chicago, Illinois, January 13, 1879, by the President of the United States upon the request of Major Marcus A. Reno, 7th U.S. Cavalry, to investigate his conduct at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, June 25-26, 1876

I found this very interesting reading. The testimony of Lt George Wallace especially. I guess because it pretty much reiterates my take on things from all previous reading.
I've long felt the first person accounts of survivors on both sides to be a better source of info, as opposed to some historian's spin and suppositions.

My mother actually grew up in the house of Custer's widow in Bronxville, NY...

I've been reading a book called Troopers With Custer, by E.A. Brininstool, and it seems to me to be the quintessential work when it comes to the Battle of the Little Bighorn. It was first copyrighted in 1952, and is comprised of 1st person accounts given by survivors. As books go on the subject, I think any of the rest which followed were largely just a way for some writer to try and make a buck or two. This one covers it as well as it can be covered. I guess it wouldn't hurt anyone to read several books about it, but if they wanted to read just one and feel they'd understand just fine what took place, this is the best one to read.

A link that might interest you. Alot of photos and much history about the whole Indan fighting period before, during, and after LBH.

http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/custer7.html

While the Little Bighorn will always be the signature issue in Custar study, his leadership of the Wolverine Brigade in the Civil War is more intersting to me.

Custer did split his forces into 3, and that was after already being outnumbered by 5 to 1 at minimum. He also did have his personal writer with him (Kellogg) and WRITING these press clippings for his personal push toward the White House that led up to his restored/rebuilt/high profile in the press and ultimately the Little Big Horn battle.

Custer changed his strategy with dealing with the Indians - prior to this he and Benteen actually attempted to right the wrongs of the Agents and provide for treaties with the Indians - after he was censored and court-martialed for speaking out against the corrupt Indian Agents appointed by Grant and of which included Grant's brother and other senator's family members in good graces of the current administration. Ultimately, during Custer's stay in Washington for the censure proceedings, he was rebuffed by Grant for a face-to-face meeting and this is what many believe to be his tipping point of anger, and thus willingness to change his opinion of the Indians in order to raise his personal profile to claim the white house - as Custer felt a fellow officer (in Grant) should have met face to face with a fellow officer.

However, he was reinstated by a push from some Senators that opposed Grant under the caveat that he raise his profile and "lay waste to the savages". This lead to a major falling out with his two top officers Maj. Reno and Capt. Benten or Benteen (based on history books or improper spelling accounts). What's funny is Benteen and Reno's daughter had a relationship, And Reno a former Southern Officer of the Civil War, didnt like Benteen (a Northern Officer) or his favorable view of the Indians. It was Reno that wanted to harshly treat the Indians, ultimately, Reno switched his view toward that of Benteen and previously Custer, but then watched as Custer ended up being the far more angry aggressor toward Indians.

Custer also had a significant issue with dissertation by his troops (several which were shot on sight under these attempts to leave) which lowered moral, based on his actions of bring force upon all Indians including women and children and his personal WRITER would submit bogus stories excluding these items and sending them back East to the papers, etc. All in all, Custer did change his attitudes toward the Indian Nation for the worse, and that change led to errors of judgement and errors in tactics. Including Gen Terry's troops arriving late, and Custer declining assistance of extra battalion from Terry, etc. The "speculation" always has been that Custer wanted to be first on the scene to quell the uprising and reap all the HEADLINES his writer could craft up without it being a GROUP effort. It was EGO for sure in his push for the White House.

And not enough praise is afforded to the leadership and skill of Sitting Bull, Red Cloud, Crazy Horse, Gall, etc.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

While the Little Bighorn will always be the signature issue in Custar study, his leadership of the Wolverine Brigade in the Civil War is more intersting to me.

For sure, his skill and leadership was amazing.....it wasnt until his falling out with the Indian Agents, and Congress/White House that he started to change and really in a ego effort to grab the white house that he made decisions based on publicity and less on tactics or logic that he showed during the Civil War.