Custer at Little Bighorn: A Deep Political Hypothesis

[Charles Drago]

Experts remain divided on this, although not evenly.

It seems that the notion first appears as a claim by one of Custer's Arikara scouts who said that his commander told him that, in effect, a victory at Little Bighorn would make make him (Custer) "the Great Father." (If memory serves, a fuller version of this alleged incident may be found in The Arikara Narrative of Custer's Campaign and the Battle of the Little Bighorn.)

Historian Robert Utley, one of the most respected of Custer scholars, weighs in with his view (and, as it happens, that of the majority of his contemporary colleagues, which I share) in his seminal Cavalier in Buckskin:

"That Custer fantasized such an absurdity cannot be disproved, of course, but that presidential aspirations governed his tactical decisions demands more weighty evidence than supplied by the Arikara scout."

Not unlike John Fitzgerald Kennedy, George Armstrong Custer was the target of posthumous character assassination -- the many charges that the U.S. defeat at Little Bighorn was the consequence of Custer being "greedy" and "foolhardy" and "inept" and "racist" and/or "egomaniacal". I can argue that most, if not all, of those flaws were exhibited, to varying degrees, by Custer at points in his professional life. But I'm just as certain that none of them, individually or in combination, should be appreciated as the root cause of his final defeat.

However, it very well may be that wholly concocted or absurdly exaggerated reports of Custer's political ambitions were used by conspirators pre- and post-battle to secure the services of very powerful Washington figures whose interests would have been adversely impacted by the actions of a President Custer.