Why did Custer die? , page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 07:26 PM by Oldnslo

reply to post by Valhall

My ancestors are American Indian - Onondaga - Mohawk.

Would you like to lecture me some more about my anger. I was just stating facts the OP could not do.

The facts are out there, you just have to put forth a slight bit of effort. Why be an OP if you haven't done a tiny bit of homework.

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 08:13 PM by Misfit

Originally posted by Oldnslo
My ancestors are American Indian - Onondaga - Mohawk.

Would you like to lecture me some more about my anger. I was just stating facts the OP could not do.

The facts are out there, you just have to put forth a slight bit of effort. Why be an OP if you haven't done a tiny bit of homework.

Is that how this works? To start a thread you must bring facts, that to merely present a possible and believable (considering) conspiracy is not done? The OP presented for discussion the possiblilty of a government conspiracy against Custer . Nowhere does the OP imply nor infer any notions of fact. Another poster added that history as we know it may not be as we have believed, as gained from other sources other than traditional U.S. History. You went straight to blasting any notions other than Custer and all being honorable hero's .... period.

As for your ancestors, half the damn country has Native American in their ancestry, save the "I'm 1/78th part Thisnthat" for someone else.

I could be like you? No thanks, yer to damned jumpy with a strong mixture of 'above thee'.

Now how about that possible conspiracy that the U.S. Government set Custer up for a fall? It really is ok to just talk about something.

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 08:17 PM by Oldnslo

Originally posted by Valhall
Here's the long and the short of it...without emotion and just centering on facts:

Custer was killed because he was part and parcel of an organized, government-ordered machine that had exactly one mandate - eliminate, as best you can, the Native Indian...period.

I'll buy that statement.

He died because the targets got tired of dying.

Actually, he died because he got there a couple days early. I believe it was 2 days after the battle when the columns of General Alfred Terry, Colonel John Gibbons, and General George Crook converged on the Valley of the Little Big Horn to find a visibly upset Reno in charge of what remained of Custer's command. They had just finished the burials of those that died.

The three columns, to include Custer's cavalry, consisted of more than 2,500 men. Had they attacked the Little Big Horn at full strength, Custer most likely survived the battle and the Indians would have been decimated. There may not have been further major battles with the Indians and the massacre at Wounded Knee might not have happened.

No slight intended.

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 08:26 PM by Valhall

Originally posted by Oldnslo
reply to post by Valhall

My ancestors are American Indian - Onondaga - Mohawk.

Would you like to lecture me some more about my anger. I was just stating facts the OP could not do.

The facts are out there, you just have to put forth a slight bit of effort. Why be an OP if you haven't done a tiny bit of homework.

My ancestors include Choctaw and Cherokee. I live on the east side of 2 mile road in Oklahoma - which means my ancestors were on the Indian Territory side of the Twin Territories.

My question is - have I begun to lecture you yet on your anger??? Because I don't recall even initiating that line of discussion...please point it out if I'm having a memory lapse.

P.S. Based on your acidic comments about the OP's speculative post, I fear you may not fully understand the intent of this board.

[edit on 8-23-2008 by Valhall]

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 09:23 PM by Oldnslo

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by Oldnslo
My ancestors are American Indian - Onondaga - Mohawk.

Would you like to lecture me some more about my anger. I was just stating facts the OP could not do.

The facts are out there, you just have to put forth a slight bit of effort. Why be an OP if you haven't done a tiny bit of homework.

Is that how this works? To start a thread you must bring facts, that to merely present a possible and believable (considering) conspiracy is not done? The OP presented for discussion the possiblilty of a government conspiracy against Custer . Nowhere does the OP imply nor infer any notions of fact. Another poster added that history as we know it may not be as we have believed, as gained from other sources other than traditional U.S. History. You went straight to blasting any notions other than Custer and all being honorable hero's .... period.

Ah... maybe the "headstrong idiot" and " must have been betrayed by his Government" in the OP has something to do with it. Maybe different wording.

And yes I believe most folks should have a least some basis in fact when posting an OP. As I said before, if you have no knowledge of a subject and want answers, do a little homework so you can at least use your OP to ask a somewhat intelligent question. An intelligent question does not include the word "idiot".

Other sources of other than tradition U.S. History?

I used:

1. Narratives from the Indian warriors involved (1st hand knowledge).
2. Debriefings of officers and troopers involved in the battle (more 1st hand knowledge).
3. Numerous reference materials from well known authorities in the field of Archaeology (2nd hand inferences) from artifacts retrieved from the battlefield.
4. A 112 page National Park Handbook of the Custer Battlefield I purchased while visiting the site.
5. A DVD "The Betrayal at Little Big Horn - A&E Production with Bill Kurtis. (Reno's betrayal of Custer)

No harm intended, but what other sources other than traditional U.S. History are you talking about?

As for your ancestors, half the damn country has Native American in their ancestry, save the "I'm 1/78th part Thisnthat" for someone else.

That's 1/8th, not that it matters.

I could be like you? No thanks, yer to damned jumpy with a strong mixture of 'above thee'.

Good, I prefer to deal with folks that have some knowledge of what their talking about. You are not like me. I am also a veteran and I don't associate with those that call veterans "cowards". PERIOD. Especially from non-hackers!!

Now how about that possible conspiracy that the U.S. Government set Custer up for a fall? It really is ok to just talk about something.

Maybe, but a U.S. Government conspiracy against Custer??? How would they do that in 1876? Alexander Graham Bell didn't patent his telephone until 1876. No telegraph lines in Indian country either. The main means for conveying a message was via horseback. It took almost a month for the news of Custer's defeat to reach Washington. Pretty hard to control a conspiracy when the object of the conspiracy is 2,000 miles away and it takes a month for a message to reach whomever and another month awaiting a reply. Besides, Custer was one of Grant's best Generals in the Civil War. That's why Custer was in "Indian Country". Grant and Sheridan thought he was the best man for the job!!!!

Sorry if you took offense.

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 09:30 PM by Misfit

Originally posted by Oldnslo
I am also a veteran and I don't associate with those that call veterans "cowards". PERIOD.

Well there's another special button for you. It's also part of your ignorance about me.

Good bye.

Misfit

[edit on 23/8/08 by Misfit]

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 09:51 PM by bigdog36

Good info and facts Oldnslo. A star for you.
Don't let any of the negative comments bother.
Again great info and references!
Thank you!

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 10:33 PM by hinky

reply to post by Oldnslo

Very interesting posts on Custer.

I once heard the terrain of rolling hills may had contributed to Custer's decision to split the troops where he did. He had reports of large a large Indian camp and related warriors, but really couldn't tell how many from the terrain.

Any thoughts?

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 10:55 PM by joecamel

Originally posted by Oldnslo
Maybe, but a U.S. Government conspiracy against Custer??? How would they do that in 1876? Alexander Graham Bell didn't patent his telephone until 1876. No telegraph lines in Indian country either. The main means for conveying a message was via horseback. It took almost a month for the news of Custer's defeat to reach Washington. Pretty hard to control a conspiracy when the object of the conspiracy is 2,000 miles away and it takes a month for a message to reach whomever and another month awaiting a reply. Besides, Custer was one of Grant's best Generals in the Civil War. That's why Custer was in "Indian Country". Grant and Sheridan thought he was the best man for the job!!!!

To suggest telephones are a prerequisite for conspiratorial action is maybe the most ludicrous thing ever. Conspiracies have been around since before men had words. The first time two cavemen decided to use their buddy for bait, conspiracy was born. I've heard as well that Custer was, not so much set up for a fall, as he was sent on a fool's errand. And since this was posted on a board for conspiracy discussions, and the entire purpose of the OP was to initiate dialogue regarding a conspiracy to end Custer's life and career, I think the speculative nature of the replies are more than warranted.

It's pretty cool you know some stuff about a few things but don't get testy because people still wanna talk after you finished sharing. It doesn't mean your contribution is any less valid.

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 11:55 AM by Oldnslo

reply to post by hinky

You are correct. There were reports of a large concentration of Indians in the Rosebud/Little Big Horn Valleys. That's the reason for such a large campaign, involving Generals Terry & Crook,and Colonels Gibbons and Custer. The total command of 3 columns consisted of more than 2,500 officers and mounted cavalry. They expected a great many Indians, they just didn't know where and how many.

I believe Custer's demise is due in large part to the terrain of the Little Big Horn Valley. Rolling hills with many ravines. The terrain was such that the different commands were almost never insight of each other. The trees along the river hide a good portion of the village from Custer's view even though he was moving north-northwest on the high ground.

When Custer sent Reno's command across the Little Big Horn River, they had no idea the size of the Indian forces they were to encounter. Reno learned first that they were hopelessly outnumbered and beat a hasty retreat back across the river to the high ground with the Indians in hot pursuit.

I also believe Custer's command rode along the high ridgeline east of the river to reconnoiter the situation and kept moving north because of the terrain. When Custer approached the river north of the village, where he could finally see what he was up against, it was at that time he realized he was vastly out numbered, as the Indians, en mass, charged across the river. As many as 2000-3000 Indians fought Custers men that sunny day.

The battle from that point on was defensive retreat back up the hill to the site of the "Last Stand".

As Custer retreated, the Indians used the ravines, gullies to conceal themselves and used these positions, unseen by soldiers, to launch arrows, with a high arc, into Custers men. As the battle continued up "Last Stand Hill", the Indians used these ravines and gullies to creep closer to Custers men and also used rifles and ammunition taken from the dead soldiers to increase their firepower and tempo of their attack. The battle may have ended with the Indians charging out of the ravines, and the mounted charges of Chief Gall and Sitting Bull through Custers command. The end came quickly.

Good one, Hinky. It was the terrain.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Oldnslo]

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 12:31 PM by Lantian

George Custer, was a killer of Men, Women and Children. He deserved what happened to him and all of his men..

I live near Monroe, Michigan.. They have a statue of him in town.. Do these dumb a** people even know what he did?

~L

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 02:46 PM by Lostinthedarkness

Originally posted by Lantian
George Custer, was a killer of Men, Women and Children. He deserved what happened to him and all of his men..

I live near Monroe, Michigan.. They have a statue of him in town.. Do these dumb a** people even know what he did?

~L

That can be applied to 95 % of the calvary during the Indian wars . History is written by the winners . A massacre or a great battle is the point of view. 50 warriors 300 squaws 150 children vrs 800 calvary is a massacre or a great battle . It all depends on what side you were on and who writes the history books .

Many good books are out there that depict the actual Indian wars . First hand accounts by soldiers, lieutenants and some by Indians . Some you better have a strong stomach . A saying prevalent at the time was " The only good Indian was a Dead Indian "

We took from them their style of government , Iroquois used them to break free of England and then take from them their land and lives as well as the rest of the nations .

The Indian wars will forever be a skeleton hiding in our collective closet .

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 06:07 PM by Valhall

And when we couldn't shoot them we starved them out, intentionally exposed them to killer diseases, and marched them exposed to harsh elements.

As far as genocide for the sole purpose of taking a continent - we set the bar.

P.S. I should qualify that as intended genocide. Obviously we didn't wipe every tribe out but not because we didn't try real hard.

[edit on 8-24-2008 by Valhall]

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 08:15 PM by sir_chancealot

*sigh*

While what we did to the Indians wasn't right, nor moral, do not forget that the Indians were not peaceful hippies, sitting around preaching love and peace.

Some of the native americans were very, very vicious indeed. And some were cannibals. Believe it or not, the Indians did their own fair share of slaughtering "innocent women and children" (btw, I love how it's always the "women" who are innocent, and never men.

), they just did it in ones and twos, instead of wholesale.

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 08:24 PM by Valhall

Typical response to truths unwanted by those who prefer ignorance.

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 08:33 PM by pavil

reply to post by Oldnslo

Not my area of expertise, but from what I remember of the A&E show didn't the Indians extinguish 2/3rds of the fires in their encampment, giving the illusion of a far small force? Custer had been spotted by scouts ahead of time, which led to the Indians at Little Big Horn to set the ambush up.

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 09:22 PM by Oldnslo

reply to post by pavil

That's a likely assumption. Whether to mask their numbers or just plain trying to hide. Keeping down the number and size of their fires could only benefit them, considering the events of the previous few months.

In 1876, there had been numerous clashes between the US Army and the Sioux Indians. A couple major battles with Crazy Horse who was soon joined by a large band of Cheyenne.

March 12th, 3 months before the Battle of the Little Big Horn, General George Crook attacked Crazy Horses Sioux & Cheyenne village destroying it and looting it of all their belonging as well as its huge supply of food.

Again on June 17th, a little more than a week before the "Last Stand", Crazy Horse and 1,500 of his men attacked Col. Crooks column in what was known as the Battle of the Rosebud. (This was one of the 3 columns Custer was attached to) The battle lasted a good part of the day, with the Indians finally withdrawing to the Valley of the Little Big Horn, where Custer unfortunately found them on June 25th.

The Indians knew the Army was close, so it's easy to believe they kept their fires and the smoke to a minimum.

Good one!!

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 09:45 PM by jefwane

Being a Southerner I have no love for George Armstrong Custer. Having been a Cavalryman, I have much respect for the history of the 7th. Fiddler's Green is as relevent today as when it was penned. Just replace "indians" and "scalp" with "haji" and "head".

As I understand from some recent research and archaeological evidence from the sight, it is highly unlikely that bows were the favored weapons of the Indians involved in the battle. I've heard, but can't readily site the reference, that it is possible the Indian forces might have had better weapons than the US forces. If I'm not mistaken the service rifle was a single shot, breachloading firearm while the Indians had a variety of firearms inlcuding lever action repeaters. If i'm mistaken or misinformed feel free to flame away.

I feel that one of the greatest honors that can be given to a vanqusihed enemy is to take their name. Whereas an infantry battalions A company is most commonly designated "Alpha" or less commonly "Assassin", a Cavalry Squadron's A troop is often designated "Apache".

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 10:31 PM by deadbang

Not being American Indian, and with both sides of my family not arriving in the states till the early 1900s, I have no real axe to grind here...

What I was taught and then learned further on my own as I became more interested was...

Custer was indeed a brilliant military strategist, and this seems to have been his downfall...

Like other military men, he got complacent with his tried and true methods, what he never figured on was his enemy actually learning from him.

My belief is this type of thinking (at the time) was very pervasive when it came to American Indians, they were thought of as savages...who were not able to think critically, strategically...this was a failure by the Euro Americans...the American Indians had government, language, arts, religion...they were every bit as advanced in thinking as the Euro Americans.

And when they got their hands on Euro American weapons, they proved it!

reply posted on 25-8-2008 @ 01:02 AM by Lantian

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
*sigh*

While what we did to the Indians wasn't right, nor moral, do not forget that the Indians were not peaceful hippies, sitting around preaching love and peace. Some of the native americans were very, very vicious indeed. And some were cannibals. Believe it or not, the Indians did their own fair share of slaughtering "innocent women and children" (btw, I love how it's always the "women" who are innocent, and never men. ), they just did it in ones and twos, instead of wholesale.

Oh my... You forgot something very important.. Europeans performed a hostile take over..Of the Native American's lands.. What they didn't just take.. They swindled from the Native Americans. What the ****!

How could you forget this important fact? The Indians were in their right to attack the hostile Invaders/Conquerors..

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^