Custer at Little Bighorn: A Deep Political Hypothesis

[Charles Drago]

[S]ome placed in Boston Mr. Drago has no doubt visited or at least heard of by the name Scullers.

Heard of and listened in. An unassuming but intimate room in which I rubbed ears with Shirley Horn, the brilliant Brazilian singer/pianist Eliane Elias (her Dreamer CD is not to be missed) and the master alto saxophonist Phil Woods (Live at Montreux on MGM is one for the ages), among others.

You can call it what you'd like. I call it an enjoyable interlude with some romantic themes I can pass on to my children and their significant others that I can enjoy while I await two forthcoming purchases of some Clark Terry material (no, not Colonel Alfred Terry, on trumpet) and so I don't wear out my Keith Jarrett, Dave Brubeck, Ahmad Jamal, Cannonball Adderley, and Art Blakey palate.

All players named among the best. CT's Riverside albums are among his finest.

I'd raise the question as to whether Sitting Bull's vision of "soldiers falling into his camp like grasshoppers from the sky" wasn't an early example of remote viewing..

You can call it what you'd like. This is a very profound observation. The acceptance of such experience as a spiritual phenomenon stands in stark contrast to the efforts to quantify and weaponize it -- a contrast that speaks volumes about the deepest levels of conflict between "primitive" and "civilized" peoples.

It is a lovely thought, this debate; I do it disservice if I can't fully commit to doing the reading, but I would wonder if it wasn't Custer's own hubris and arrogance that told him not to bring the Gatling guns.

In rereading my posts here I am discomforted by a subtext which may lead some to describe me as a Custer apologist. In fact, I am nothing of the sort -- even in light of the fact that I must point out how "hubris" and "arrogance" were descriptors assigned to Custer by, among others, those looking to diminish his capabilities (anti-mortem) and scapegoat him at LBH (post mortem; this act has been poetically described as "kicking the dead lion").

Let us recall how JFK has been similarly tainted: It is falsely argued that he ordered minimal Secret Service protection, and thus he is responsible for his own death.

Hubris is an inescapable component of the psychology of leadership.

Arrogance, of course, is another story.

In the scapegoating phase of the LBH debacle, Custer often was quoted as having said repeatedly, in effect, "With my Seventh Cavalry I can whip the entire Sioux nation." Assuming for the sake of argument that such a sentiment was expressed by the Boy General, there are good reasons to accept the statement as A) a "cheer" used to instill pride and confidence in his command; B) a good-natured boast of the sort commonly exchanged among commanders; C) a public relations ploy by one of America's earliest public relations masters.

To be as boldly unconventional as possible: I see no evidence whatsoever of fatally inappropriate arrogance in any command decisions made by Custer at LBH -- absent those attributed to him by individuals and institutions who stood to profit from broad public acceptance of the notion of Custer as the agent of his own demise.

I buy Custer's Gatling gun argument: Speed was of the essence for the Montana columns. The theater's terrain would have posed serious obstacles to gun/caisson transport. The pack train that did accompany Custer's column amounted to a grand if unavoidable hindrance.

And to play the what-if game: How might Custer have utilized a Gatling battery? Set up a firing position across the river and rake the village into submission? As if the hostiles would have permitted him the luxury of the time it would take to establish such an in-range firing location.

There is far more, but dinner, drinks, and musssels with my wife is on tonight's agenda, and the first grandchild (the one who appears at the age of 2.5 to be gifted) is due tomorrow for the day.

A wise tactical decision to be sure.

Thinking out loud, if I were to attempt an analysis of this hypothesis, I would assemble the following (this is an incomplete list):

1) Maps
a) of that time and use and campaign;
b) accurate topographic map;
c) modern depictions of the campaign;

2) Board game and/or Computer Simulation (if they exist) (which is not to suggest their automatic acceptability as a source but merely as an aide to thinking and the depiction of accounts, theses, etc.);

3) Order of Battle (both sides)
(including some reference that is historically accurate as to their degree of armament)

4) Cast of Characters Not Engaged in Battle
a) Other military figures
b) politicians
c) Other

5) List of resources
bibliography (insuring a variety of sources)
military analyses, past and present
political analyses of that time period across the decades since...

Of course. I've been engaged in the process for a very long time -- a process which you seem to have remote-viewed. Research has included two lengthy visits to the LBH (including a ride to the Crow's Nest).

At this point I've moved from objective consideration of all sides' arguments to subjective storytelling.

In other words, the fun is over. It's work time.