New Article on Custer's Last Stand

[anglolawyer]

Custer never committed genocide and to bring up gas chambers is beyond ridiculous and an insult to the memory of those who actually endured such horrors.

I asked for an example of Custer's genocide but was ignored because there are no examples to be given. As you may have guessed, I'm not a big fan of baseless hyperbole. If it gets repeated, I'll repeat my objection and again call for factual evidence to support such claims.

The subject certainly seems to be one of some controversy. Historians apparently disagree whether there was any genocide at all against the First Nations. Doubtless, the balance of the argument is affected by who ended up writing the history (you may be sure we would know little about the holocaust had the Nazis won WW2). But if there was a genocide then Custer and the 7th cavalry were certainly part of it, being instruments of the American state's progressve displacement of the native population, just as the SS was Hitler's instrument. I don't see your problem with the idea. The guy was a murderer of women and children who would have killed more but for his own incompetence.

 

[BStrong]

Now.....who does that remind us of?

You caught that too?

 

[WayneK]

The subject certainly seems to be one of some controversy. Historians apparently disagree whether there was any genocide at all against the First Nations. Doubtless, the balance of the argument is affected by who ended up writing the history (you may be sure we would know little about the holocaust had the Nazis won WW2). But if there was a genocide then Custer and the 7th cavalry were certainly part of it, being instruments of the American state's progressve displacement of the native population, just as the SS was Hitler's instrument. I don't see your problem with the idea. The guy was a murderer of women and children who would have killed more but for his own incompetence.

Thanks for the reasoned response. I'm not defending what happened to the Indians. It was awful but it didn't include genocide, which is the deliberate killing of whole populations. The army never did such a thing and if they had, that doesn't make Custer a "genocidal maniac" just because he was in the army. Applying that term to Custer means you're asserting that he took part in killing mass numbers of Indians. That never happened.

The total number of Indians killed in the Indian Wars was trivial compared to the numbers who died from disease.

I don't like the dilution of words that should be reserved for the most extreme forms of horror. I also don't care for cartoon characterizations of historical figures.

Custer attacked villages of Indians that contained women and children. Those attacks resulted in inevitable noncombatant casualties. No one was rounded up and slaughtered. And there were no large scale killings of whole populations by the army and certainly not by Custer. Using the term "homicidal maniac" is a gross misuse of language, in my opinion.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks for the reasoned response. I'm not defending what happened to the Indians. It was awful but it didn't include genocide, which is the deliberate killing of whole populations. The army never did such a thing and if they had, that doesn't make Custer a "genocidal maniac" just because he was in the army. Applying that term to Custer means you're asserting that he took part in killing mass numbers of Indians. That never happened.

The total number of Indians killed in the Indian Wars was trivial compared to the numbers who died from disease.

I don't like the dilution of words that should be reserved for the most extreme forms of horror. I also don't care for cartoon characterizations of historical figures.

Custer attacked villages of Indians that contained women and children. Those attacks resulted in inevitable noncombatant casualties. No one was rounded up and slaughtered. And there were no large scale killings of whole populations by the army and certainly not by Custer. Using the term "homicidal maniac" is a gross misuse of language, in my opinion.

Wikipedia on the Washita engagement:

General Phil Sheridan, commander of the Department of the Missouri, issued orders for the Washita River expedition, including the following: "…to destroy [Indian] villages and ponies, to kill or hang all warriors, and to bring back all woman and children [survivors]."[62] The purpose of this "total war" strategy[63] was to make "all segments of Indian society experience the horrors of war as fully as the warriors".[64]

Benjamin "Ben" Clark, the highly regarded[65] scout and guide attached to the Seventh Cavalry, recalled the execution of these orders at the Washita: "[T]he regiment galloped through the tepees…firing indiscriminately and killing men and women alike."[66] One cavalry unit was seen pursuing "a group of women and children," shooting at them and "killing them without mercy".[67] Lieutenant Edward Godfrey observed that soldiers made no effort "to prevent hitting women" during the attack.[68]

Ben Clark reported "the loss of seventy-five [Cheyenne] warriors dead, and fully as many women and children killed".[69] Greene notes "…all warriors who lay wounded in the village – presumably no matter the extent of their injuries" were (according Clark's testimony) "promptly shot to death".[58] This was consistent with Sheridan's orders to kill or summarily hang all [captured] warriors.[66] The Seventh Cavalry tactical engagement of noncombatants contributed to the effective "destruction"[70] of Black Kettle's village – it "ceased to exist".[71]

This is how you treat an inferior race of untermensch. Exterminate it like vermin. Your definition of acts amounting to genocide is too restrictive IMO.

 

[WayneK]

Wikipedia on the Washita engagement:

.

Nice cherry picking of evidence. The number of Indians killed and how they were killed is by no means settled. I'm sure you just happened to miss this quote in the same article by respected historian Paul Andrew Hutton:

"Although the fight on the Washita was most assuredly one-sided, it was not a massacre. Black Kettle's Cheyennes were not unarmed innocents living under the impression that they were not at war. Several of Black Kettle's warriors had recently fought the soldiers, and the chief had been informed by Hazen that there could be no peace until he surrendered to Sheridan. The soldiers were not under orders to kill everyone, for Custer personally stopped the slaying of noncombatants, and fifty-three prisoners were taken by the troops."

Even taking the worst possible interpretation of everything about this battle, it would amount to atrocities in a single battle, not genocide. The definition of "genocide" is not "my" definition. If you want to change the meanings of words and publish your own dictionary, knock yourself out.

I've think we've beat this to death. Neither of us is going to change his mind. Others can read both sides and judge for themselves.

 

[anglolawyer]

Nice cherry picking of evidence. The number of Indians killed and how they were killed is by no means settled. I'm sure you just happened to miss this quote in the same article by respected historian Paul Andrew Hutton:

"Although the fight on the Washita was most assuredly one-sided, it was not a massacre. Black Kettle's Cheyennes were not unarmed innocents living under the impression that they were not at war. Several of Black Kettle's warriors had recently fought the soldiers, and the chief had been informed by Hazen that there could be no peace until he surrendered to Sheridan. The soldiers were not under orders to kill everyone, for Custer personally stopped the slaying of noncombatants, and fifty-three prisoners were taken by the troops."

Even taking the worst possible interpretation of everything about this battle, it would amount to atrocities in a single battle, not genocide. The definition of "genocide" is not "my" definition. If you want to change the meanings of words and publish your own dictionary, knock yourself out.

I've think we've beat this to death. Neither of us is going to change his mind. Others can read both sides and judge for themselves.

Sure. Let's go back to the battle. I'm following with interest.

 

[WayneK]

Indian Weapons

The 1984 dig produced the following estimates ("Archaeological Insights into the Custer Battle", pp 111-112):

192 repeating rifles
178 muzzle-loaders, etc
----
370 total rifles

The above totals are derived estimates based on individual weapons positively identified. The estimates were arrived at as follow:

1) 69 individual soldier rifles were identified. This represents 32% of the total present (approx 210).

2) 119 individual Indian rifles were identified. Assuming this represents the same percentage of the total as the soldier finds (32%), total Indian weapons = 370.

3) The number of repeating rifles was obtained in the same way.

I got some small rounding error differences when I tried to re-create their numbers but it's not enough to matter so I'm not going to try to resolve the discrepancies.

I'm not sure how they handled the issue of captured weapons. There may have been a couple dozen Springfields being used by the Indians that were captured from Reno. I'm sure they addressed it but I'm not going to delve into it right now because it won't be a huge difference.

They cautioned that their numbers are conservative because:

1) They counted only bullets that could be positively identified. If all misshapen bullets could have been identified, the count would have been higher.

2) There were probably Indians firing from outside the study area whose weapons would not be counted.

They don't estimate how much this would affect the totals, but I'll take a shot and make the following semi-educated guesses:

225 repeating rifles
225 muzzle-loaders, etc
----
450 total rifles

The number and percentage of bows and arrows depends on how many total Indians there were. This figure is unknown but I often use 1,000 warrirors as the total. If this is anywhere near correct, then 50% of the Indians were using bows and arrows. If the Indian total was higher, then an even higher percentage were using bows and arrows.

Interestingly, this matches Sgt Windolph's eyeball estimate that half the Indians had bows and arrows, a quarter had repeating rifles, and a quarter had muzzle-loaders and other odds and ends.

 

[Axxman300]

The two posts above mine were discussing Custer's status as hero. I was simply responding. FYI Hollywood was mythologising Custer well into the last century, casting Errol Flynn, no less. A discussion about the merits of the design of the gas chambers at Auschwitz and the ingenuity and fortitude of the camp commandant would be similar to this one, IMO, not that I am not both fascinated and instructed by it.

There have only been 5 movies about Little Big Horn. Errol Flynn's "They Died with Their Boots On" was in 1941, but was released in January, 1942. The only history we had up until that point was the Army's inquest, and the Custer biography and mythology generated by Custer's wife, Libby. In 1942 the American public was in no mood for introspection, this was 1 month after Pearl Harbor.
By the 1960s the public sentiment of Custer changed, and we saw this reflected in the movie "Little Big Man". The last Custer outing was "Son of the Morning Star", based on the excellent book. The difference with that book, and the ones written today is that the Indian narrative and accounts of the battle are now given respect and equal weight (which makes sense because they're the only ones who survived the Custer side of the battle).

There is no white-washing of history today, the Indians won't allow it.

 

[WayneK]

The only history we had up until that point was the Army's inquest, and the Custer biography and mythology generated by Custer's wife, Libby. .

I agree with most of what you say but don't know where you get the idea that we had no history of the battle before 1942 except the the COI and books by the Custers. This is one of the most written-about events in American history. The accounts began immediately after the battle and have been appearing continuously ever since. Many of them included the Indian side of the story. The volume of history written about this battle before 1942 is large.

 

[anglolawyer]

Indian Weapons

The 1984 dig produced the following estimates ("Archaeological Insights into the Custer Battle", pp 111-112):

192 repeating rifles
178 muzzle-loaders, etc
----
370 total rifles

The above totals are derived estimates based on individual weapons positively identified. The estimates were arrived at as follow:

1) 69 individual soldier rifles were identified. This represents 32% of the total present (approx 210).

2) 119 individual Indian rifles were identified. Assuming this represents the same percentage of the total as the soldier finds (32%), total Indian weapons = 370.

3) The number of repeating rifles was obtained in the same way.

I got some small rounding error differences when I tried to re-create their numbers but it's not enough to matter so I'm not going to try to resolve the discrepancies.

I'm not sure how they handled the issue of captured weapons. There may have been a couple dozen Springfields being used by the Indians that were captured from Reno. I'm sure they addressed it but I'm not going to delve into it right now because it won't be a huge difference.

They cautioned that their numbers are conservative because:

1) They counted only bullets that could be positively identified. If all misshapen bullets could have been identified, the count would have been higher.

2) There were probably Indians firing from outside the study area whose weapons would not be counted.

They don't estimate how much this would affect the totals, but I'll take a shot and make the following semi-educated guesses:

225 repeating rifles
225 muzzle-loaders, etc
----
450 total rifles

The number and percentage of bows and arrows depends on how many total Indians there were. This figure is unknown but I often use 1,000 warrirors as the total. If this is anywhere near correct, then 50% of the Indians were using bows and arrows. If the Indian total was higher, then an even higher percentage were using bows and arrows.

Interestingly, this matches Sgt Windolph's eyeball estimate that half the Indians had bows and arrows, a quarter had repeating rifles, and a quarter had muzzle-loaders and other odds and ends.

Any idea why the cavalry was still stuck with lousy muzzle loaders? And can you say what loading would have entailed, as in, how long it would take? I think I read upthread there is evidence the individual soldiers only got off about 6 rounds each which doesn't seem a lot in a twenty minute engagement. That's fewer than one every three minutes. Presumably, the last segment of the encounter did not involve much more than Indians bashing cavalry men's heads in so maybe the rate of fire was faster at the beginning. I would have wanted 6 Gatling guns.

 

[bluesjnr]

Any idea why the cavalry was still stuck with lousy muzzle loaders? And can you say what loading would have entailed, as in, how long it would take? I think I read upthread there is evidence the individual soldiers only got off about 6 rounds each which doesn't seem a lot in a twenty minute engagement. That's fewer than one every three minutes. Presumably, the last segment of the encounter did not involve much more than Indians bashing cavalry men's heads in so maybe the rate of fire was faster at the beginning. I would have wanted 6 Gatling guns.

The troopers were issued with the Springfield Carbine, see the following video for a loading and firing sequence of three rounds. As I understand it the muzzle loaders belonged to the NAI.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks bluesjnr

That was pretty interesting. I would not like to be fiddling with that thing with an army of injuns bearing down on me.

 

[bluesjnr]

Thanks bluesjnr

That was pretty interesting. I would not like to be fiddling with that thing with an army of injuns bearing down on me.

Imagine the poor troopers fumbling in panic and dropping rounds, the ejectors jamming and suddenly... BANG! Wolf Walking is standing over you, club descending........

I think the video has the target out at 60 yards, a fit man could cover that in 10 seconds and engage hand to hand while you're still trying to reload your second round or fire off three aimed rounds from his 13 shot Henry Repeater.

 

[anglolawyer]

Imagine the poor troopers fumbling in panic and dropping rounds, the ejectors jamming and suddenly... BANG! Wolf Walking is standing over you, club descending........

I think the video has the target out at 60 yards, a fit man could cover that in 10 seconds and engage hand to hand while your still trying to reload your second round or fire off three aimed rounds from his 13 shot Henry Repeater.

They would have to do that thing in Zulu - three lines, load, aim, fire, second rank, fire, third rank, fire etc and even they would need a fortified mission station, plenty of bean bags and a day or so to sort themselves out.

 

[bluesjnr]

They would have to do that thing in Zulu - three lines, load, aim, fire, second rank, fire, third rank, fire etc and even they would need a fortified mission station, plenty of bean bags and a day or so to sort themselves out.

I mentioned firing by battalion, companty, rank and file upthread. These tactics were prevelant before and up to the American Civil War and with the more accurate Springfield Carbine would have produced a withering field of fire. Tactics of the time favoured skirmish lines (3 men firing, plus one horse marshall) which thinned the men out and consequently the volume of fire.

 

[anglolawyer]

I mentioned firing by battalion, companty, rank and file upthread. These tactics were prevelant before and up to the American Civil War and with the more accurate Springfield Carbine would have produced a withering field of fire. Tactics of the time favoured skirmish lines (3 men firing, plus one horse marshall) which thinned the men out and consequently the volume of fire.

I guess, what with being cavalry, their main means of defence when outnumbered was to gallop away. That they could not do so here for some reason has not been touched upon I think (sorry if I missed it). From the pictures of the battlefield there seems to have been no cover at all so it looks as though they were forced by some insuperable circumstance to stand their ground. I assume they got themselves surrounded as well as, apparently, being widely separated. How did that happen?

 

[Garrette]

They would have to do that thing in Zulu - three lines, load, aim, fire, second rank, fire, third rank, fire etc and even they would need a fortified mission station, plenty of bean bags and a day or so to sort themselves out.

Perhaps my favorite scene from one of my favorite movies, but sadly the incident was fabricated. As movies go, Zulu held closer to the truth than most and certainly gave a remarkably life-like feel to the movie, but the inaccuracies still abound and are a bit aggravating to those who know better. And, as usual, the truth itself often exceeds the movie.

Did you know the reason Surgeon Reynolds received the Victoria Cross was not for his imperturbability at the operating table but rather that after the main force abandoned the hospital and pulled back to the inner wall (a last minute addition by Chard which ended up saving the day for the British), he realized that the water cart was still in the yard but was needed for survival? With the yard overrun by Zulus, he dashed alone to grab the water cart and pull it back to the wall.

As it is off topic, I'll leave the subject alone now, but if you want a very well researched, very accessibly written account of the battle, I recommend Like Wolves on the Fold.

 

[anglolawyer]

Perhaps my favorite scene from one of my favorite movies, but sadly the incident was fabricated. As movies go, Zulu held closer to the truth than most and certainly gave a remarkably life-like feel to the movie, but the inaccuracies still abound and are a bit aggravating to those who know better. And, as usual, the truth itself often exceeds the movie.

Did you know the reason Surgeon Reynolds received the Victoria Cross was not for his imperturbability at the operating table but rather that after the main force abandoned the hospital and pulled back to the inner wall (a last minute addition by Chard which ended up saving the day for the British), he realized that the water cart was still in the yard but was needed for survival? With the yard overrun by Zulus, he dashed alone to grab the water cart and pull it back to the wall.

As it is off topic, I'll leave the subject alone now, but if you want a very well researched, very accessibly written account of the battle, I recommend Like Wolves on the Fold.

Thanks Garette. I will look at that with interest. I like that film. Did you see they copied some of the zulu pre-battle singing in Gladiator?

 

[WayneK]

Any idea why the cavalry was still stuck with lousy muzzle loaders? And can you say what loading would have entailed, as in, how long it would take? I think I read upthread there is evidence the individual soldiers only got off about 6 rounds each which doesn't seem a lot in a twenty minute engagement. That's fewer than one every three minutes. Presumably, the last segment of the encounter did not involve much more than Indians bashing cavalry men's heads in so maybe the rate of fire was faster at the beginning. I would have wanted 6 Gatling guns.

The cavalry didn't have muzzle loaders. These are the Indians' weapons. The cavalry had single-shot 1873 Springfield rifles and Colt handguns

An experienced soldier could fire 12+ rounds a minute, not that you'd usually want them firing that fast. Each man carried 100 rounds, with more ammo available in the pack train. They were out there by themselves with no ready method of re-supply so the soldiers had to be mindful of ammunition usage.

I'm curious where you saw the estimate that the soldiers fired only 6 shots. The only hard evidence source would have had to been the dig but I don't know how they could estimate total shots fired. Many empty cartridges were picked up by visitors in the years afterwards.

Witnesses after the battle reported seeing piles of cartridges at some positions. I believe one said groups of 20-30 (caution: I could be wrong; I'm working from memory).

Maybe the best evidence for total shots fired is the sheer length of the battle. Custer was engaged for roughly 2 hours if you include the presumably light skirmishing that began in Medicine Tail Coulee immediately after Martin left with Custer's last message.

There were likely several "ends" to the battles, with the soldier positions at the south end collapsing first, then some time later, the group around Custer at the north end. The Indians fought from behind cover, raising up just long enough to fire. As the battle progressed and the Indian numbers swelled with late arrivals from the Reno fight, the Indians pressed forward to more aggressive and deadly positions.

At some point, one of two things (or both things) happened:

1) The soldier formation broke down and the men tried to make a dash on foot or horseback to one of the remaining soldier groups. This would have been the signal for the Indians to rush in to finish them off as they fled, exactly as they did against Reno. This is what I believe happened at Calhoun's position at the south end.

2) The return fire from the soldier position dwindled to the point that the Indians judged it was safe enough to rush in and finish them off. I don't think this would have happened as long as the soldiers were maintaining effective fire because the risk would have been too great. I think this is what happened on Custer Hill. Since there was no remaining soldier position to run to, they made a dash for Deep Ravine. It's hard to say whether the last soldiers fled because the Indians rushed in or the Indians rushed in because the last soldiers fled. I'm inclined to the latter.

Six Gatling guns would have been nice IF you could carry the needed ammunition and IF you could get them into action against a fast-moving enemy.

 

[anglolawyer]

The cavalry didn't have muzzle loaders. These are the Indians' weapons. The cavalry had single-shot 1873 Springfield rifles and Colt handguns

An experienced soldier could fire 12+ rounds a minute, not that you'd usually want them firing that fast. Each man carried 100 rounds, with more ammo available in the pack train. They were out there by themselves with no ready method of re-supply so the soldiers had to be mindful of ammunition usage.

I'm curious where you saw the estimate that the soldiers fired only 6 shots. The only hard evidence source would have had to been the dig but I don't know how they could estimate total shots fired. Many empty cartridges were picked up by visitors in the years afterwards.

Witnesses after the battle reported seeing piles of cartridges at some positions. I believe one said groups of 20-30 (caution: I could be wrong; I'm working from memory).

Maybe the best evidence for total shots fired is the sheer length of the battle. Custer was engaged for roughly 2 hours if you include the presumably light skirmishing that began in Medicine Tail Coulee immediately after Martin left with Custer's last message.

There were likely several "ends" to the battles, with the soldier positions at the south end collapsing first, then some time later, the group around Custer at the north end. The Indians fought from behind cover, raising up just long enough to fire. As the battle progressed and the Indian numbers swelled with late arrivals from the Reno fight, the Indians pressed forward to more aggressive and deadly positions.

At some point, one of two things (or both things) happened:

1) The soldier formation broke down and the men tried to make a dash on foot or horseback to one of the remaining soldier groups. This would have been the signal for the Indians to rush in to finish them as they fled, exactly as they did against Reno. This is what I believe happened at Calhoun's position at the south end.

2) The returning fire from the soldier position dwindled to the point that the Indians judged it was safe enough to rush in and finish them off. I don't think this would have happened as long as the soldiers were maintaining effective fire because the risk would have been too great. I think this is what happened on Custer Hill. Since there was no remaining soldier position to run to, they made a dash for Deep Ravine. It's hard to say whether the last soldiers fled because the Indians rushed in or the Indians rushed in in response to the soldiers running. I'm inclined to the latter.

Six Gatling guns would have been nice IF you could carry the needed ammunition and IF you could get them into action against a fast-moving enemy.

And if you could induce the indians to hang around and be shot by them.

I maybe misunderstood something I saw upthread about the 6 bullets thing. Do you know why they could not simply have retreated? Did they get surrounded?