"You're a great fighter, Custer. You have great courage. It's only your judgment I criticize. You are too reckless, and some day this disregard of the enemy may cost you your life."
It's uncertain whether General Stanley ever actually said these words to Custer, but thus sums up the story of his life and untimely death. That said, if you're expecting a detailed description of the event from which the book takes its title, you'll be sorely disappointed, as it's something of a misnomer. The famous battle which shocked the nation, and which is still widely known today, encompasses only about two chapters at the very end of the book.
It's really a biography of the main character, one George Armstrong Custer, a much-reviled figure in the modern day, but much less so at the time the book was written, when white settlers were often portrayed as the victims of savage Indians who mercilessly slaughtered them. That said, for having been written in the 1950s, this book is more balanced than I would have expected. It would still be considered highly controversial today (perhaps its greatest sin is its salacious use of the term "squaw" throughout, which is a misogynistic slur whose definition I won't repeat here), first and foremost for the sympathetic way in which the main character is portrayed, but it's a great example of the way in which history was taught generations ago, when it primarily consisted of so-called "great-man" and "drum-and-bugle" history that's much less prevalent today.
One benefit was that it did tell a story, as in this case, which makes the figures much more relatable and the material enticing to those who otherwise often consider it dry and boring. History as an "adventure story" was definitely how it was marketed to young boys, and this book is a good example. That said, it's not all rosy. The book glosses over some of the more well-known of Custer's character flaws (and, refreshingly, the gruesome details of his and his men's deaths), which, to me, at least in the former case, loses a good opportunity to teach valuable lessons.
Perhaps the most egregious of his faults were his arrogance, rashness and lack of respect for authority. The book does lionize him more than I would like - I think it would be preferable to include some of his indiscretions, to illustrate the tragedy of hubris, which is a valuable moral lesson to youngsters who might be inclined to blindly emulate his example, as he is portrayed as something as a hero throughout, albeit one who made a tragic mistake which led to his untimely end. The real account is far more complex.
Custer had a notorious reputation for flouting the rules: he racked up a total of 726 demerits over the course of his four-year tenure at West Point, reportedly one of the worst conduct records in the history of the Academy. The book itself recounts how he barely escaped a Court Martial, which would have torpedoed his career and ended any aspirations of military greatness (but would have saved his life, and those of his family members).
Even during his admittedly-illustrious military career, on more than one occasion, Custer got himself in some serious hot water for insubordination, once even resulting in arrest by the President, his Commander-In-Chief: doesn't get much worse than that! Custer's lack of respect for authority and rank apparently hadn't diminished since his Academy days: in the aforementioned incident, after being summoned to Washington to testify at congressional hearings regarding official corruption pertaining to the Secretary of War, he attempted to meet with then-President Grant, on three occasions, but was refused. Reportedly in a rage, he boarded a train bound for Chicago, and was subsequently arrested by Grant for leaving Washington without permission.
Tempers were running high after the Civil War, however, and the arrest of the Army's "Golden Boy" met with public outrage, to the degree that Grant finally relented and allowed him to return to his regiment. Again, fortune was not really in his favor: a different decision may have ultimately saved his life, and those of his men for whom he was responsible.
So, who was this guy, whose every move seemed to incline his trajectory toward ultimate catastrophe? George Armstrong Custer, known throughout the book by his childhood nickname "Autie," was something of a phenom in his day. The book states that he was adamant about becoming a general, inspired by a dream he had experienced at age four. A rather poor student, however, the book describes (which is possibly at least fictional) his tenacity and determination to get into the West Point Military Academy, his ultimate admission the result of good ole' fashioned hard work and grit. It was probably more than that: Custer was also something of a natural politician with a gift for schmoozing. He may indeed have been somewhat out of his depth at West Point, as he graduated last in his class, the year the Civil War began, in 1861. Clearly, books weren't his priority.
What he lacked in intellect and academic prowess, he made up for on the battlefield, however, where he made a name for himself early in the Civil War, first at the Battle of Mananas (Bull Run to us Northerners). He was promoted to brigadier general at age 23, becoming the youngest "general" in the army, as the book is quick to note. Another good example of his rashness and propensity for foolhardy action (and perhaps boot-licking), however: reportedly, on one occasion, when his commanding officer General McClellan and his staff were scouting for a crossing point on the Chickahominy River, Custer overheard another general state, "I wish I knew how deep it is." Custer, without hesitation or forethought, spurred his horse out into the middle of the river, turned to the shocked onlookers, and shouted "that's how deep it is, General!" That's also how brash and foolhardy he could be.
His exploits didn't end at Bull Run: Custer also fought at Gettysburg, and was present at Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at the Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia. He was then commissioned as a lieutenant colonel in the army and was sent west to fulfill his lifelong ambition, to become an "Indian Fighter." (!) He was subsequently sent west and posted at Fort Riley, Kansas. However, what Custer returned to was a brewing firestorm, as tensions between the US Army and the tribes of the Plains Indians were at an all-time high. Custer quickly gained a reputation: he was generally beloved by his men, but feared and reviled by his adversaries.
As a result of almost unceasing hostilities, Lakota holy man Sitting Bull had gathered the largest ever contingent of Plains Indians, first at Ash Creek, Montana, and later at the Little Bighorn river, initially on the pretext of discussing what action to take about their dire situation, specifically the numerous broken treaties between the US government and tribal leaders, the most egregious of which was the construction of a railroad through land which had been granted to the Lakota and other native peoples. With the knowledge of the mass gathering of so many potential warriors, Custer's troops were apparently sent to attack and scatter them. The situation quickly spiraled out of control - the Army's control, that is.
The Battle of the Little Bighorn (actually a river), AKA "Custer's Last Stand," occurred in June, 1876, in what is now southeast Montana. The encounter pitted the 7th Cavalry Regiment against the combined forces of the Lakota Sioux, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, under the generalship of two of the most famous Native Americans in history: Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, among others. The exact numbers of native participants are unknown, but it is believed that approximately 3,000 or so warriors descended upon Custer's men, killing 267 of them.
I won't offer a blow-by-blow account of the famous battle, and you'll have to get it elsewhere than the book, if you want a detailed rendering, but the major features were as follows. On or about June 15, Major Marcus Reno discovered a large village on the Rosebud River, and Custer's entire regiment was sent to follow the trail. The encampment was discovered near the Little Bighorn River. Custer had initially intended to attack the village the following day, but when he learned that his presence had been detected, he decided to attack immediately. He divided his forces into three battalions - a fatal mistake.
Custer rode north with a contingent of men while Reno charged the southern end of the village. Reno was quickly overtaken by mounted warriors and was forced to retreat. He was one of the few officers to survive the encounter, but was not with Custer and his troops, so could give no details as to what ultimately befell them. Custer reportedly headed to the northern end of the encampment, and may have tried to cross the river but were beaten back and pursued by hundreds of warriors. He ultimately ended up on a ridge north of the encampment. Crazy Horse and his warriors reportedly drove him and his remaining troops to the top of the ridge, where they were essentially surrounded and trapped. As more and more soldiers were killed and stripped of their weapons and ammunition, the situation became more desperate. The warriors closed in on them, and eventually killed every man in Custer's detachment.
There has been almost endless conjecture about what actually happened, as no one in Custer's immediate company survived to tell the tale. Some accounts from native warriors have survived, but most are highly conflicting. The book ends with the heroic horse Comanche, the lone survivor, being led away. This actually happened: Comanche was found seriously wounded, two days after the battle, but was nursed back to health to live out the rest of his days in retirement at various forts, finally dying of colic in 1891, at about 29 years of age.
The aftermath was gruesome, so it rightly doesn't make an appearance in the children's book. Most of the casualties were found days later, most stripped naked and ritually mutilated, in varying stages of decomposition. Some were identified but many were not, and were simply buried where they fell. Marble markers on the site which show where the bodies were found where they fell attest to the chaotic nature of the battle - no real skirmish lines were discerned. Custer himself was found near the top of the ridge, now known as "Last Stand Hill," with two fatal gunshot wounds, one in the chest and the other to his temple. Some reports suggest that the latter may have in fact been self-inflicted, as he realized that his situation was hopeless and wished to avoid capture and torture.
Perhaps the worst of all for Custer: the defeat at Little Big Horn devastated his entire family. Killed along with him were his much-beloved two younger brothers, Thomas and "Bos" Boston (a civilian), his nephew, Armstrong, who had been named for him, and his brother-in-law. Undeterred by criticism, Custer's widow wrote three books which attempted to polish her husband's badly tarnished reputation. Custer and his brother Tom were found and identified, and were wrapped in canvas and buried in a shallow grave. When his grave was visited a year later, it was discovered that it has been scavenged by animals and the bones scattered over the site, so very few remain. What was recovered of him and his brother were re-interred at the West Point Cemetery.
Custer's soldiers' remains were collected from the scattered graves and site, and re-interred in a mound mass grave, by Captain George Sanderson, in 1879. He built a mound out of wood, filled the center with as many horse bones as they could find on the site, and in the center, dug a mass grave and interred all the human bones they could recover, and covered all with wood four feet high. As in the case of Custer and his brother, remains were found scattered all over the battlefield, and many were never positively identified. What was found now lie together, in a mass grave, still at the site. A granite memorial was built in 1881, which also remains today. The marble markers which show where the bodies were found were placed in 1890.
One aspect of the book which rather surprised me, considering the period in which it was written, was the critical way in which the US government is described with regard to its treatment of native peoples. Some striking passages are as follows:
"...the Sioux, the Cheyenne, and the Arapaho tribes were uniting to fight the white man. It is hard to blame them. A group of peaceful Cheyennes was living quietly at Sand Creek, Colorado. For no reason at all, the militia attacked them and killed nearly all of them. Ordinarily the Sioux and the Arapahoes would be fighting against the Cheyennes. Now they began to think that if the white man could break a treaty and attack peaceful Cheyennes, why they - the Sioux and Arapahos - might be next on the list."
Which, of course, they were.
"They were brave men, fighting for their homes; fighting for their wives and children. The odds were against them, but not one man surrendered and only the wounded were captured."
"General Sheridan was determined to wipe out all the Cheyennes. It was a cruel, unjust decision. There were bad Indians, all right, but there were thousands of good Indians, too. We had peace treaties with the Indians. Yet if one small band of outlaw Indians attacked a stagecoach or a settlement, the treaty was forgotten and the whole tribe condemned to death. The Indians had lost faith in the promises of the white man, and looking back, it is hard to blame them... If the white man could kill even a peacemaker, the Indians felt that the white man would kill any Indian. So in self-defense, they united."
"The Indians didn't want progress - not the white man's progress. But the Indians were overruled, and surveyors prepared to go out to survey the land where the railroad was to be built. We made hundreds of promises to the Indians and broke almost all of them."
This review has become just about as long as the book itself, but it's a fascinating story, one which continues to intrigue, perhaps because there are so many complex moving parts and mysteries unsolved. The book likewise presents some complex issues, and is definitely worth a read, as long as instructors "deconstruct" this text and point out the many varying points of view. It's one of the better ones in terms of offering many "teachable moments."
It's uncertain whether General Stanley ever actually said these words to Custer, but thus sums up the story of his life and untimely death. That said, if you're expecting a detailed description of the event from which the book takes its title, you'll be sorely disappointed, as it's something of a misnomer. The famous battle which shocked the nation, and which is still widely known today, encompasses only about two chapters at the very end of the book.
It's really a biography of the main character, one George Armstrong Custer, a much-reviled figure in the modern day, but much less so at the time the book was written, when white settlers were often portrayed as the victims of savage Indians who mercilessly slaughtered them. That said, for having been written in the 1950s, this book is more balanced than I would have expected. It would still be considered highly controversial today (perhaps its greatest sin is its salacious use of the term "squaw" throughout, which is a misogynistic slur whose definition I won't repeat here), first and foremost for the sympathetic way in which the main character is portrayed, but it's a great example of the way in which history was taught generations ago, when it primarily consisted of so-called "great-man" and "drum-and-bugle" history that's much less prevalent today.
One benefit was that it did tell a story, as in this case, which makes the figures much more relatable and the material enticing to those who otherwise often consider it dry and boring. History as an "adventure story" was definitely how it was marketed to young boys, and this book is a good example. That said, it's not all rosy. The book glosses over some of the more well-known of Custer's character flaws (and, refreshingly, the gruesome details of his and his men's deaths), which, to me, at least in the former case, loses a good opportunity to teach valuable lessons.
Perhaps the most egregious of his faults were his arrogance, rashness and lack of respect for authority. The book does lionize him more than I would like - I think it would be preferable to include some of his indiscretions, to illustrate the tragedy of hubris, which is a valuable moral lesson to youngsters who might be inclined to blindly emulate his example, as he is portrayed as something as a hero throughout, albeit one who made a tragic mistake which led to his untimely end. The real account is far more complex.
Custer had a notorious reputation for flouting the rules: he racked up a total of 726 demerits over the course of his four-year tenure at West Point, reportedly one of the worst conduct records in the history of the Academy. The book itself recounts how he barely escaped a Court Martial, which would have torpedoed his career and ended any aspirations of military greatness (but would have saved his life, and those of his family members).
Even during his admittedly-illustrious military career, on more than one occasion, Custer got himself in some serious hot water for insubordination, once even resulting in arrest by the President, his Commander-In-Chief: doesn't get much worse than that! Custer's lack of respect for authority and rank apparently hadn't diminished since his Academy days: in the aforementioned incident, after being summoned to Washington to testify at congressional hearings regarding official corruption pertaining to the Secretary of War, he attempted to meet with then-President Grant, on three occasions, but was refused. Reportedly in a rage, he boarded a train bound for Chicago, and was subsequently arrested by Grant for leaving Washington without permission.
Tempers were running high after the Civil War, however, and the arrest of the Army's "Golden Boy" met with public outrage, to the degree that Grant finally relented and allowed him to return to his regiment. Again, fortune was not really in his favor: a different decision may have ultimately saved his life, and those of his men for whom he was responsible.
So, who was this guy, whose every move seemed to incline his trajectory toward ultimate catastrophe? George Armstrong Custer, known throughout the book by his childhood nickname "Autie," was something of a phenom in his day. The book states that he was adamant about becoming a general, inspired by a dream he had experienced at age four. A rather poor student, however, the book describes (which is possibly at least fictional) his tenacity and determination to get into the West Point Military Academy, his ultimate admission the result of good ole' fashioned hard work and grit. It was probably more than that: Custer was also something of a natural politician with a gift for schmoozing. He may indeed have been somewhat out of his depth at West Point, as he graduated last in his class, the year the Civil War began, in 1861. Clearly, books weren't his priority.
What he lacked in intellect and academic prowess, he made up for on the battlefield, however, where he made a name for himself early in the Civil War, first at the Battle of Mananas (Bull Run to us Northerners). He was promoted to brigadier general at age 23, becoming the youngest "general" in the army, as the book is quick to note. Another good example of his rashness and propensity for foolhardy action (and perhaps boot-licking), however: reportedly, on one occasion, when his commanding officer General McClellan and his staff were scouting for a crossing point on the Chickahominy River, Custer overheard another general state, "I wish I knew how deep it is." Custer, without hesitation or forethought, spurred his horse out into the middle of the river, turned to the shocked onlookers, and shouted "that's how deep it is, General!" That's also how brash and foolhardy he could be.
His exploits didn't end at Bull Run: Custer also fought at Gettysburg, and was present at Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at the Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia. He was then commissioned as a lieutenant colonel in the army and was sent west to fulfill his lifelong ambition, to become an "Indian Fighter." (!) He was subsequently sent west and posted at Fort Riley, Kansas. However, what Custer returned to was a brewing firestorm, as tensions between the US Army and the tribes of the Plains Indians were at an all-time high. Custer quickly gained a reputation: he was generally beloved by his men, but feared and reviled by his adversaries.
As a result of almost unceasing hostilities, Lakota holy man Sitting Bull had gathered the largest ever contingent of Plains Indians, first at Ash Creek, Montana, and later at the Little Bighorn river, initially on the pretext of discussing what action to take about their dire situation, specifically the numerous broken treaties between the US government and tribal leaders, the most egregious of which was the construction of a railroad through land which had been granted to the Lakota and other native peoples. With the knowledge of the mass gathering of so many potential warriors, Custer's troops were apparently sent to attack and scatter them. The situation quickly spiraled out of control - the Army's control, that is.
The Battle of the Little Bighorn (actually a river), AKA "Custer's Last Stand," occurred in June, 1876, in what is now southeast Montana. The encounter pitted the 7th Cavalry Regiment against the combined forces of the Lakota Sioux, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, under the generalship of two of the most famous Native Americans in history: Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, among others. The exact numbers of native participants are unknown, but it is believed that approximately 3,000 or so warriors descended upon Custer's men, killing 267 of them.
I won't offer a blow-by-blow account of the famous battle, and you'll have to get it elsewhere than the book, if you want a detailed rendering, but the major features were as follows. On or about June 15, Major Marcus Reno discovered a large village on the Rosebud River, and Custer's entire regiment was sent to follow the trail. The encampment was discovered near the Little Bighorn River. Custer had initially intended to attack the village the following day, but when he learned that his presence had been detected, he decided to attack immediately. He divided his forces into three battalions - a fatal mistake.
Custer rode north with a contingent of men while Reno charged the southern end of the village. Reno was quickly overtaken by mounted warriors and was forced to retreat. He was one of the few officers to survive the encounter, but was not with Custer and his troops, so could give no details as to what ultimately befell them. Custer reportedly headed to the northern end of the encampment, and may have tried to cross the river but were beaten back and pursued by hundreds of warriors. He ultimately ended up on a ridge north of the encampment. Crazy Horse and his warriors reportedly drove him and his remaining troops to the top of the ridge, where they were essentially surrounded and trapped. As more and more soldiers were killed and stripped of their weapons and ammunition, the situation became more desperate. The warriors closed in on them, and eventually killed every man in Custer's detachment.
There has been almost endless conjecture about what actually happened, as no one in Custer's immediate company survived to tell the tale. Some accounts from native warriors have survived, but most are highly conflicting. The book ends with the heroic horse Comanche, the lone survivor, being led away. This actually happened: Comanche was found seriously wounded, two days after the battle, but was nursed back to health to live out the rest of his days in retirement at various forts, finally dying of colic in 1891, at about 29 years of age.
The aftermath was gruesome, so it rightly doesn't make an appearance in the children's book. Most of the casualties were found days later, most stripped naked and ritually mutilated, in varying stages of decomposition. Some were identified but many were not, and were simply buried where they fell. Marble markers on the site which show where the bodies were found where they fell attest to the chaotic nature of the battle - no real skirmish lines were discerned. Custer himself was found near the top of the ridge, now known as "Last Stand Hill," with two fatal gunshot wounds, one in the chest and the other to his temple. Some reports suggest that the latter may have in fact been self-inflicted, as he realized that his situation was hopeless and wished to avoid capture and torture.
Perhaps the worst of all for Custer: the defeat at Little Big Horn devastated his entire family. Killed along with him were his much-beloved two younger brothers, Thomas and "Bos" Boston (a civilian), his nephew, Armstrong, who had been named for him, and his brother-in-law. Undeterred by criticism, Custer's widow wrote three books which attempted to polish her husband's badly tarnished reputation. Custer and his brother Tom were found and identified, and were wrapped in canvas and buried in a shallow grave. When his grave was visited a year later, it was discovered that it has been scavenged by animals and the bones scattered over the site, so very few remain. What was recovered of him and his brother were re-interred at the West Point Cemetery.
Custer's soldiers' remains were collected from the scattered graves and site, and re-interred in a mound mass grave, by Captain George Sanderson, in 1879. He built a mound out of wood, filled the center with as many horse bones as they could find on the site, and in the center, dug a mass grave and interred all the human bones they could recover, and covered all with wood four feet high. As in the case of Custer and his brother, remains were found scattered all over the battlefield, and many were never positively identified. What was found now lie together, in a mass grave, still at the site. A granite memorial was built in 1881, which also remains today. The marble markers which show where the bodies were found were placed in 1890.
One aspect of the book which rather surprised me, considering the period in which it was written, was the critical way in which the US government is described with regard to its treatment of native peoples. Some striking passages are as follows:
"...the Sioux, the Cheyenne, and the Arapaho tribes were uniting to fight the white man. It is hard to blame them. A group of peaceful Cheyennes was living quietly at Sand Creek, Colorado. For no reason at all, the militia attacked them and killed nearly all of them. Ordinarily the Sioux and the Arapahoes would be fighting against the Cheyennes. Now they began to think that if the white man could break a treaty and attack peaceful Cheyennes, why they - the Sioux and Arapahos - might be next on the list."
Which, of course, they were.
"They were brave men, fighting for their homes; fighting for their wives and children. The odds were against them, but not one man surrendered and only the wounded were captured."
"General Sheridan was determined to wipe out all the Cheyennes. It was a cruel, unjust decision. There were bad Indians, all right, but there were thousands of good Indians, too. We had peace treaties with the Indians. Yet if one small band of outlaw Indians attacked a stagecoach or a settlement, the treaty was forgotten and the whole tribe condemned to death. The Indians had lost faith in the promises of the white man, and looking back, it is hard to blame them... If the white man could kill even a peacemaker, the Indians felt that the white man would kill any Indian. So in self-defense, they united."
"The Indians didn't want progress - not the white man's progress. But the Indians were overruled, and surveyors prepared to go out to survey the land where the railroad was to be built. We made hundreds of promises to the Indians and broke almost all of them."
This review has become just about as long as the book itself, but it's a fascinating story, one which continues to intrigue, perhaps because there are so many complex moving parts and mysteries unsolved. The book likewise presents some complex issues, and is definitely worth a read, as long as instructors "deconstruct" this text and point out the many varying points of view. It's one of the better ones in terms of offering many "teachable moments."
