|
Post by terryandrews55 on May 9, 2010 7:43:19 GMT -5
When Robert Jones,a survivor of Rorkes Drift still haunted by continual nightmares of Zulu warriors chasing him, blew out his brains in 1898,he was grudgingly granted a grave in consecrated ground-but FACING AWAY from the church.Such was the disapproval of suicide in the Victorian era.In the book''She Wore A Yellow Ribbon''there is an account of Elizabeth Custers life.In it,a native american, Horned Toad,brings the news of Custer's defeat-''Speckled Cock...say Custer shoot himself at end.Say all dead'.i can't recall reading this before,but i have read that Custer had a gunshot wound in the abdomen and another in the temple.Mrs Custer was informed that her husband was the only soldier unmutilated,which is hard to believe.Was Horned Toads information likewise disregarded as another example of the sparing of Elizabeths feelings and also to ensure that Custer was glorified without taint?If this piece of information is the truth,i am not seeking to denigrate Custer,for after all Kipling said something like'when youre lying on the Afghan plains/and the women come up to cut up what remains/take a bullet and blow out your brains/and die like a true english soldier'and amen to that!Albeit this piece of advice didnt do poor Private Jones who clearly thought he was still on the African plains a great deal of good!
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 9, 2010 8:51:35 GMT -5
There are reports that several 7th Cavalry soldiers committed suicide at Little Big Horn. Some think Custer either did commit suicide; I recently read one speculation that his brother Tom did it for him after he was mortally wounded. As I recall, one of Custer's fingers was cut off, but he was otherwise not mutilated; not sure why, since some, including Tom Custer, were so badly mutilated they could only be identified by tatoos or other body markings. Apparently, many participants in that campaign refrained from saying anything that would have upset or offended Libby Custer for years after the battle.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by terryandrews55 on May 9, 2010 11:24:37 GMT -5
I have read reports though that Custer had an awl jammed in his ear and an arrow shaft stuck in his penis.It seems he was not scalped though as his thinning thatch had been cropped short prior to his setting off and maybe the indians felt it wasnt much of a trophy.However i;ve read that even a bald men's head risked being skinned off using the teeth if no scalp was present.....Terry
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 9, 2010 11:44:55 GMT -5
Yes, I read an awl was shoved through his ears so that he might hear better in the next world. The Indians had no idea they were fighting Custer and thought these were the same soldiers they had fought at the Rosebud (Crook's force), but must have recognized him afterward. There's also a story that Custer was known to these Indians because he had fathered a child by one of their women, but I have no idea if there's any truth to that.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 9, 2010 12:13:29 GMT -5
The awls, the child, and the identification of the body are all from Cheyenne oral histories.
Some "forensic" histories theorizes that the Custers were childless due to his contracting syphilis when a cadet. According to some, a majority of the New York City had VD in the pre Civil War era, and many future officers contracted the disease while cadets at West Point.
IIRC, at the Fetterman massacre, Fetterman and the senior infantry officer were witnessed by Indians committing mutual suicide. They supposedly held their pistols to each others' head and counted down and pulled the triggers. Because of this, their bodies were supposedly unmutilated.
The surviving 7th Cavalry officers covered up a lot after the LBH, in part to spare Libby Custer. I'm not too sure that I fully accept their word on the condition of Custer's body.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 9, 2010 12:24:17 GMT -5
Good point, Herb; I had heard the story of Custer not being mutilated so often that I accepted it, but I hadn't factored in the deference shown to Libby, which seems to have been considerable.
|
|
|
Post by terryandrews55 on May 9, 2010 14:08:38 GMT -5
its true that at the Fetterman massacre,2 bodies were unmutilated,however it wasnt those of Fetterman and Brown who we know committed suicide-their bodies were hacked up.As regards Custer,oral accounts speak of more than one suicide among the troops yet only Custers body is allegedly untouched,so that does not stand up.i am afraid the truth is more prosaic =it revolved around deference to the commanders wife.The sensibilities of the families of his command whose lives he arguably threw away,were not a consideration.The last shot in''They Died With Their Boots On''shouldve shown a sabreless cropheaded Errol Flynn blowing his brains out in the face of the advancing indians .Wouldnt have worked as well really,would it?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 9, 2010 15:40:12 GMT -5
I'll be interested in Philbrick's take on Custer. Donovan was pretty easy on him, but very harsh on Reno. No one likes Benteen and I can't blame them, although he probably provided a better degree of order to the hilltop defense than Reno was, but then failed to have his men dig in overnight, which cost several lives that might have been saved.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 9, 2010 17:57:20 GMT -5
Yes, I read an awl was shoved through his ears so that he might hear better in the next world. The Indians had no idea they were fighting Custer and thought these were the same soldiers they had fought at the Rosebud (Crook's force), but must have recognized him afterward. There's also a story that Custer was known to these Indians because he had fathered a child by one of their women, but I have no idea if there's any truth to that. I don't know much about Col. Custer or the battle of the Little Bighorn, but I'm a bit confused by this whole recognition and mutilation issue. If the Sioux and other tribes believed they were really fighting Crook again and did not recognize Custer before the fight, it seems suspect that they would recongnize him when he was less animated and with his brains blown out. The lack of bad mutilation to Custer's body doesn't seem to be a good indicator that he was recognized. I think there are probably many cultural or religious reasons why a single body might be spared in this particular circumstance if the 7th Cavalry story is factual. Maybe it is just my complete ignorance on the subject, but this interesting sub-topic seems overly ripe for speculation.
|
|
|
Post by martyb on May 9, 2010 18:33:27 GMT -5
The book, 'Custer's Luck', first published in 1955, has a very interesting take on Tom taking out his brother at the end. He also addresses other suicides during the battle as well as the ritual mutilations.
The author, Edgar Stewart, had worked as an historical aide on the Crow Agency at the Custer Battlefield National Monument, where he had the opportunity to walk the ground and study all the documentation then available. He spent years interviewing Indian survivors during the 20's and the 30's. With the knowledge he garnered he was able to provide insights that few others had then recognized.
Many books have been written about Custer and the Little Big Horn in the ensuing fifty five or so years. However, Stewart's older account still has value.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on May 9, 2010 22:39:54 GMT -5
I, too, had grown up reading and hearing that Custer's body was not mutilated. I never really could understand that. However, I do buy the notion that the graphic details of her husband's death were spared on Libby. This makes perfect sense.
In several books I've read, including one based heavily -- well, almost entirely -- on Sioux accounts, it has been noted that as the battled unfolded, the Indian combatants had no clue they were fighting Custer. There was no love for Custer among the Sioux and Cheyenne, as we all know. They held Custer responsible for the loss of their sacred Black Hills, as he led and/or protected prospectors into the Hills after finding gold. Then there was the Washita, in which he and his troops drove through a peaceful camp in the predawn darkness, killed many men, women, children, then force-marched 50-something women and kids to a military post through snows and bitter cold after burning every lodge, all the food food stores, clothes and hides and shot every Indian pony (hundreds) in the camp.
While the Sioux may not have not who was attacking them at first, it appears they discovered it was Custer after the battle.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 10, 2010 6:34:03 GMT -5
The book, 'Custer's Luck', first published in 1955, has a very interesting take on Tom taking out his brother at the end. He also addresses other suicides during the battle as well as the ritual mutilations. The author, Edgar Stewart, had worked as an historical aide on the Crow Agency at the Custer Battlefield National Monument, where he had the opportunity to walk the ground and study all the documentation then available. He spent years interviewing Indian survivors during the 20's and the 30's. With the knowledge he garnered he was able to provide insights that few others had then recognized. Many books have been written about Custer and the Little Big Horn in the ensuing fifty five or so years. However, Stewart's older account still has value. Marty, I'm in COMPLETE agreement with you on Stewart's CUSTER'S LUCK. I first read that back in 1976, and it STILL remains the best single book on the subject from the viewpoint of explaining the battle's causes in intelligently objective terms. And it makes you understand how everything transpired---included the overall campaign---much more clearly than any other narrative. I've read many of the Custer books published since, and they're mostly either of the blame-Reno-for every-Custer-mistake variety, or else they paint Custer as a Satan who got his just desserts. The last two interpretations always make for Bad History, for history can never be explained in such simplistic, subjective terms. Bravo Edgar I. Stewart!
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 10, 2010 10:55:14 GMT -5
I'll be interested in Philbrick's take on Custer. Donovan was pretty easy on him, but very harsh on Reno. No one likes Benteen and I can't blame them, although he probably provided a better degree of order to the hilltop defense than Reno was, but then failed to have his men dig in overnight, which cost several lives that might have been saved. Well, you know how much fault I lay on Benteen for his dawdling on the 25th, once he received orders from Custer to join up with Custer's command. But, I don't give Benteen too much credit even on the hilltop. First he disobeyed orders, second, he lost control of his own battalion (the advance to Weir Point), third he ignored the rearguard fight back to the hilltop (nearly losing two companies), fourth, that night his was the only company that did not dig in (he refused to do so), and in the morning his company suffered disportionate casualities. Despite moments of personal bravery, imo, he utterly failed in his assigned role as a commander of troops.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 10, 2010 13:21:49 GMT -5
And, like the other survivors, he had the option of casting events as he wanted them to look.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 10, 2010 22:50:55 GMT -5
I, too, had grown up reading and hearing that Custer's body was not mutilated. I never really could understand that. However, I do buy the notion that the graphic details of her husband's death were spared on Libby. This makes perfect sense. In several books I've read, including one based heavily -- well, almost entirely -- on Sioux accounts, it has been noted that as the battled unfolded, the Indian combatants had no clue they were fighting Custer. There was no love for Custer among the Sioux and Cheyenne, as we all know. They held Custer responsible for the loss of their sacred Black Hills, as he led and/or protected prospectors into the Hills after finding gold. Then there was the Washita, in which he and his troops drove through a peaceful camp in the predawn darkness, killed many men, women, children, then force-marched 50-something women and kids to a military post through snows and bitter cold after burning every lodge, all the food food stores, clothes and hides and shot every Indian pony (hundreds) in the camp. While the Sioux may not have not who was attacking them at first, it appears they discovered it was Custer after the battle. Paul I'm not so sure they knew Col. Custer from a hole-in-the-head. Ugh! Sorry I couldn't resist. Chief Crow King supposedly stated: "No warrior knew Custer in the fight. We did not know him alive or dead."
|
|