Little Bighorn 134 years ago

[Dakotaranger]

Since this is the 134th Anniversary of Custer getting his butt handed to him, this is just my take on what I am CONVINCED occurred.  Being a Dakotan and knowing Custer rode out of Fort Lincoln Gressy Grass/Custer's Last Stand/Little Bighorn Battle has an connection with North Dakota that is often ignored (and something the ND Dept. of Tourism should be ashamed of).

As with any human, no one is strictly heroic. Although, General George Armstrong Custer (which would have been the proper way to address him since that was the highest rank he had obtained...he wasn't demoted for cause, it was due to the lack of need, hence he could keep the title.) was incredibly arrogant and brash he was charismatic. Simply put either you loved him or hated him. One the things that I fully respect was that he was willing to put his career on the line by testifying before Congress about the corruption that was tied directly to President Grant's brother. His career was pretty close to being scuttled at this point because the Lakota and Cheyenne were getting Winchester Rifles (capable of holding about 15 rounds. According to the Clinton Era Assault Weapons Ban it would be an 'assault weapon.')

The troopers were saddled with the Springfield Armory Trapdoor carbine. It was a single shot rifle that was converted from the muzzleloaders left over from the Civil War. The first Henry Rifles (later Winchester) were produced during the War along with the Spencer Rifle. The army was afraid that such a weapon would cause a 'spray and pray' affect from the soldier where the soldier would waist ammo. While the trapdoor rifles were incredibly accurate at long range there are several problems with them. First off they were obsolete the second they were developed. They make great buffalo guns...not so much in a fire fight. The quality of brass that was available wasn't the greatest, especially when the barrel was heated from continuous fire. The troopers would have to dig out a spent cartage with a knife, not good in the middle of a firefight where rate of fire will keep you alive. The battlefield was with in 100 yards not out to 1,000 yards.

I've read historians where they swear if Custer would have accepted the three Gatling Guns he would have survived. First off, Custer was in the Civil War. He would have seen what they were and weren't capable of. The Seventh was a Calvary Unit. They were akin to our Special Operations operators today. Quick and light weight. The Gatlings were considered fixed artillery pieces and were ANYTHING but light weight. They would have slowed the column and you would NEED to have trained personnel to operate them. The gravity fed magazines are not like the modern spring-fed mags, the way that the guns would have to have been traversed WOULD have jammed the barrels. Taking any of the advantage that they would provide away.

Then there was General Terry he was to the South East of the Battlefield. I've heard the question why Custer didn't wait for him. Personally, I'm convinced his orders were partially a holding action. He was told not to get greedy, but he was still told to go in. IF he hadn't proceed he could have been courtmartialed for cowardice. There also was an old adage "If you see an Indian, YOU KNOW they saw you three miles ago." NO ONE had ever heard of a village the size of what Custer stumbled into. He should have listened to his scouts but then again NO ONE had ever heard of a village that size.

There has been criticism of him for dividing his forces. Which may be valid because he was worried about any Indians escaping. But he would ONLY truly be worried about this IF he was to fight a holding action. The fact he was concerned about this only strengthens my argument that he was fighting a holding action (or in other words keeping the Lakota there). It was a tactic that worked numerous times for him, there would be no reason he would doubt it either.

Reno was worthless as a commander. He freaked out once the brains of his scout were splattered over his uniform. IF Benteen hadn't shown up his command would have been slaughtered. Reno later in his career was court-martialed because of his unwanted advances on a superior officers daughter. He was real quality person. Benteen may have hated Custer, but he had no choice but stay with Reno's command to save what was left. The packs that Custer had ordered Benteen to bring up didn't arrive until later that afternoon. They ended up not playing any real factor in the battle.

Unlike most modern historians I do believe there was a last stand for Custer's Command. There were some that made a run for it, but we have always known that. Custer 'last stand' was on that hill. He was killed fighting fairly early on what has been dubbed 'last stand hill' but he still died fighting.

The Lakota and Cheyenne both give credit to Sitting Bull for the victory because of his vision he had where the troops 'just stumbled into the village. I've seen Lakota historians mention the second half of the vision where Sitting Bull warned them NOT to take spoils and with regrets they wonder what if. This part of the story as a PK has always intrigued me, because I remember the Israelites were told at one point not to take spoils. It just has always been a major hmm thing for me. Just something I have always pondered. The Lakota, Arapaho, and Cheyenne won the battle but really just weren't going to win the war. It was a war of Attrition that there was no way they could win.

Honestly, I could point fingers to who is to 'blame for the loss' but the truth is the Lakota, Arapaho, and Cheyenne were better armed, in better shape, better trained, and in their terrain. They won. It's too easy to say it's Custer's fault, because of there was also inadequate weaponry, inadequate support, and inferior logistics. It's not something that true fault can be assessed on one set of shoulders, and to really do so is to take away a hard fought victory.


http://dakotaranger.blogspot.com/2010/06/little-bighorn-134-years-later.html

[fightingquaker13]

I've always wondered about his decision to leave the sabers bedind to save weight and noise. They don't weigh much and no one is going to sneak up on the Indians in that country with 700 men and horses. It precluded a charge to break out (probably doomed but better than the alternative), and also denied the men a "last stand" weapon once the rifles stopped functioning. The Indians never were that good at the charge, giving or recieving. Its minor, but I've still wondered.
FQ13

[Dakotaranger]

I've always wondered about his decision to leave the sabers bedind to save weight and noise. They don't weigh much and no one is going to sneak up on the Indians in that country with 700 men and horses. It precluded a charge to break out (probably doomed but better than the alternative), and also denied the men a "last stand" weapon once the rifles stopped functioning. The Indians never were that good at the charge, giving or recieving. Its minor, but I've still wondered.
FQ13

By the time a last chance charge could have been mounted Custer had already ordered all the horses to be killed for breastworks.  A breakout wasn't going to happen without Benteen bringing up the packs, which weren't going to arrive for several more hours....there just wasn't enough ammo.

 I've never really read anything to explain why they didn't carry the sabers.  I know there were campaigns that did occur, but then there were times they weren't carried.  Unless it was a weight issue (MAYBE)

[Pathfinder]

DR, I gotta wade into this, as I have been to Ft. Lincoln, and TLBH battlefield site. For those who have not physically walked the Battlefield, it is an awesome and humbling experience. As a horseman, I looked at the coulees (hills with ravines) that Reno's men had to scale in their flight from the

I agree with most of your assessment, especially the ludicrous claims about the Gatlings. Mountain howitzers were more mobile than those lumps.

The sabers, like the Gatlings, and like the argument that "only if Custer had not split his command" are all pointless silly arguments. Prof. Fox's archeological research and analysis have indicated a number of crucial elements.
1. The Cavalry troops did not run out of ammo
2. The value of rapid fire rifles to the Indians is still not certain - they were there, but in what numbers?
3. Last Stand Hill was Last Stand Hill only because that is where the majority of Troopers - and more importantly Custer - died.

The truth of the matter is simply this - the 5 companies of the 7th who died were significantly outnumbered. The most conservative estimates are that the Indian tribes were able to muster 750-1000 warriors. The largest estimates are more than 2500 warriors. So whether Custer had ca. 220 troopers (5 companies) who died with him, or slightly over 200 more adding Benteen (2 companies) and Reno (3 companies), they were at best outnumbered nearly 3-to-1, and worst case 12:1.

IMHO there was no "last stand". Custer had tried to mount a mobile attack which was still in process. Keogh's company was a short distance away from the other companies and disappeared in waves of attacks. The 5 Companies were simply overwhelmed and ceased to exist essentially in place.

[Dakotaranger]

The reason I hold to the Last stand is that is where Custer was killed and he did have the horses killed as breastworks and that is just my perspective too.  The mountain Howitzers may have made a difference (but against the Nez Pierce, the Army lost at least one  to them).  It's hard to know why Benteen didn't go to Custer's aid.  It's mind blowing to think that a good chunk of the company didn't even fire a shot. 

The original piece was just to talk my friends into coming out to take the tour with me.  I didn't do anything to adapt it for here and I'm just doing it from memory (since I'm at work and all my books are at home.) 

[Sponsor]

[Bidah]

I grew up gong to the place, and I still like to go there.  You really do have to see it to understand.  I did see something recently where they were comparing bullets found at the sites and then comparing them to known rifles to get an understanding of what was used.  They were even able to trace particular rifles to a couple of different battles, such as the Big Hole Battle.

-Bidah

[tombogan03884]

Some nits to pick and things to add, because this is a cool topic.
(Thanks DakotaRanger  )
The biggest problem with the Trap door Springfield's was that the "brass", was copper which is why they had so much trouble with extraction, copper, being even softer than brass, could even be dented or bent just during loading.
While neither Reno, or Benteen were what would be considered "nice people", they were, as alcoholics, fairly representative of the Frontier Army of the day. Both , however, had outstanding records in the War, it is doubtful they would have intentionally left their Commander to his fate.
Ranks, during and after the Civil war could become confusing. Many lower ranking Officers were bumped up to fill holes left by resignations, until the 1900's Officers did not receive awards for bravery, they received a temporary promotion , called a "Brevet" rank, it was only valid for the duration of the war, then the officer reverted to his old rank, then other regular officers who served with Volunteer regiments would be granted higher "State" ranks.
If I recall correctly, Custer benefited from this system rising to the rank of General during the war, but on returning to an all regular Army and the canceling of all Brevets he reverted to his actual rank of Lt. Col.
What Custer planned was a standard cavalry  operation . The Calvary were that era's "Rangers" or airborne, Lightly armed troops who could move rapidly using their speed as their armor and to enhance the shock effect of their attack.
Unfortunately he attempted it against men widely considered to be the finest mounted troops in the world.
When terrain and numbers prevented him from making a surprise charge through the village he lost all hope of victory, or even survival, when he was unable to scatter the Indians and break their organization. (the objective of the charge was not necessarily to "kill" their opponents, but to scatter them, creating disorder, Chaos, and break up their organization )
The reason for no sabers was that they were no longer considered an effective weapon of modern warfare by many Officers, including Custer.
As for the Gatlings, the decision was based on prejudice, Gatlings WERE NOT widely used during the Civil War, so Custer, not being familiar with them did not know that the battery was actually faster than his baggage train and would in fact, have had no problem at all keeping up.
As for Custers career situation, the 7th Cav. was the first posting he had received in sometime, because he was facing charges for his second (unauthorized) expedition to the Black Hills. He, like MacArthur later, had political ambitions, had he survived the Little Big horn he would have returned to Washington to either face a court martial, or to recieve the Republican nomination for President.

[Pathfinder]

Tom, great points. A couple of others.

Reno/Benteen - right on the money. I was actually surprised, hearing all of the crap about Benteen in particular, to learn he was a skilled and very capable Cavalry officer. Of course, that was 10+ years before the LBH. He was also some miles away in command of a wagon train, so he could not move quickly even if he wanted to. His was also the weakest of the forces with only 2 companies IIRC. He joined up with Reno at Reno's makeshift defensive position as Custer was being wiped out. They could hear the fight - almost 2-3 (?) miles away.

Brevet promotions were usually based on need and it was an officer who stood out that usually got the promotion, primarily because of bravery or aggressiveness in the face of the enemy. It was not the bravery, but the Army's need that created brevets.

Custer actually did attempt a charge into the village after he had moved to the far end (west) of the ridge overlooking the village. He then doubled back part way along the ridge to the north, and moved down a coulee to the river. His troops actually made it into and IIRC some even made it across before being confronted with a huge mass of warriors - and withering fire - coming through the village to that point. Custer moved his troops away from the river back to the high ground having lost some troopers at the river.

The Gatlings might have been faster than the wagon train, but that ain't saying much. The concept of flying artillery (and Gatlings were considered exactly that - they were big, heavy, and required a multiple unit limber to transport guns and ammo) was invented pretty much in the War with Mexico (should that maybe be "the First War with Mexico  )and honed in the Civil War by some units. But you're right - Custer was pure Cavalry. I am not at all convinced that with the mobile attack that Custer was engaged in that Gatlings would have been even minimally decisive, especially with the Indians' very effective use of the terrain in which they were able to close with the Troopers without the Troopers even knowing they were there - measured according to the Indians afterwards in feet or a few yards at times.

Bidah is right - until you walk the field, it is hard to envision the battle. When I saw the coulees near Reno's stand, I was flabbergasted that a man and a horse could make it up the hill. But then, I have never had hundreds of Sioux and Cheyenne hot on my tail hunting me like buffalo either!   

IIRC, Custer was under charges for being AWOL to see Libby. Coupled with his testimony against Grant and his cronies, he was out of the Army for a while, and only posted to the 7th, not at the Cavalry commander but as a regimental commander, at the insistence of his old friend Phil Sheridan, who commanded the Western Army.

[tt11758]

For those in my demographic, do you remember the history books we had in school as kids?  In any mention of the Indian Wars, if the army won, they were called "battles", but if the indians won, they were called "massacres".  I noticed that even as a kid.

[Dakotaranger]

For those in my demographic, do you remember the history books we had in school as kids?  In any mention of the Indian Wars, if the army won, they were called "battles", but if the indians won, they were called "massacres".  I noticed that even as a kid.

Yeah, that is one of the good 'revisions' of history that we ceased that.