Custer at Little Bighorn: A Deep Political Hypothesis

[Ed Jewett]

Charles, if you are already two "staff rides" ahead of me and have already conducted the introductory (and perhaps in-depth) research , then you are way ahead of me... all the more reason not to "debate" you. If you are looking for an "assist" or a contrapuntal set of questions to assist in your thinking and exploration, then I shall have to "saddle up", and that will require time and commitment.

I am also very much aware of the creation of the mythlogy surrounding Custer and conscious that my perspective may be skewed from having been steeped in it prior to becoming more aware that all is not what it appears to be (indeed, that it may be a conversely-distorted image of the truth).

I agree with you on your remarks about Sitting Bull's vision. The information I have in front of me backs you up entirely in terms of "spiritual" components and differing worldviews.

If anomalous cognition has possibilities (as it appears to), then perhaps it can be arranged that a series of extended regressive "visits" to Washington, D.C., Fort Lincoln, various telegraph stations (equipped with that era's equivalent of Echelon), Fort Leavenworth, Fort Snelling, and others be made to "eavesdrop" on the minds and politics of the day, the in-fighting within the US military chains of command, and much more during the period of March through June 1976 (and perhaps an occasion in 1875, as well as much earlier*). If Custer is seen to have been a threat to someone in military command or politics -- and of course we are talking about their tight inter-coil then, then one question would seem to be why Grant seemed focused on Custer.

One obvious answer: the scandal involving U.S. Secretary of War William W. Belknap and President Grant's brother Orville.

One less-obvious answer might be simply the recognition that Grant was a former commanding General serving with, along side, over and in cahoots with many of the leading cast of characters in this drama. I'd want to do at least a fast survey of the relationships, problems, alliances, etc. It also sets up the potential mechanics inherent in your hypothesis.

But the scandal seems the likely place to look in depth because it was current and simultaneous. Grant feared or knew that Custer knew something, I would suppose, and feared that it would be used in some forthcoming political candidacy by Custer. In the background politically is still the persecution of the Indian Wars and the degree of safety for the commonfolk during the ongoing westward expansion, the gold in them thar hills, and other factors.

From the venerable WikiPedia, useful only as a starting point:

"... on March 15, Custer was summoned to Washington to testify at Congressional hearings regarding the scandal involving U.S. Secretary of War William W. Belknap and President Grant's brother Orville. After testifying on March 29 and April 4, Custer testified in support of the Democrats before the Banning Committee. After Belknap was indicted, Custer secured release and left Washington on April 20. Instead of immediately returning to Fort Lincoln, he visited the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia and traveled to New York to meet with his publishers. While there, he was summoned to the U.S. Senate, possibly a move instigated by President Grant....."

"[As the LBH campaign was beginning to get underway], General Sherman sent a telegram to General Sheridan ordering him to intercept Custer and hold him until further orders. [What other telegrams did he send to others?] Sheridan was also ordered to arrange for the expedition against the Lakota to depart with Major Reno's replacing Custer. Sherman, Sheridan, and Terry all wanted Custer in command but had to support Grant. Sherman wrote Terry: "Custer's political activity has compromised his best friends here, and almost deprived us of the ability to serve him".[citation needed]"

As for the Gatling gun question, I'll reserve further comment and judgment, but will make this comment:

In the simulation game with which I am most familiar with (covering the Battle of the Bulge), there is a wonderful and insightful comment made inside the designer's notes I have used several times and which comes to play here. 'Every time you want to move one of the German artillery units, you must recruit six of your friends and push a heavy sedan around the block in the rain." It keeps simulators honest when moving heavy pieces in pretense [cardboard counters] across hill and dale. So the best way to answer your question would be for me to actually pack and unpack a Gatling gun, bring it in by mule, set it up, fire off a beltful of blanks (apologize to the neighbors), pack it up, and move it 100 yards down the road and do the same thing. I suspect a number of Gatlings were to be the anvil for the cavalry's hammer.

As for rubbing ears with Shirley Horn, I cannot compete. I did, however, once interview Paul Simon, once sat on the stage next to Mark Stein of the Vanilla Fudge as they did "You Keep Me Hangin' On" [because I like you, I will spare your ears], and once saw the reconstituted Dave Brubeck Quartet at Saunders Theater at Harvard, reputed by one recording savant as the best place to record jazz in the US. (I speak of the principal, owner, producer, recording and sound engineer for esoteric, audiophile record label Mapleshade Records, Pierre Sprey, previously one of John Boyd's acolytes at the Pentagon. [There's an inside private story associated with his catalog arrival at my home.])

The visit to Saunders was a present from "my funny valentine" [I met her on Valentine's Day and the rest is history], and I bought three of his CD's. The concert was great -- "you're not going to jump up and shout or anything like that, are you?" she asked -- but came to a fore when Bobby Millitello soloed on a rocking fast-paced rendition of "Koto Sing" -- I have searched since for a recording of it -- in which Millitello was chanting across the mouthpiece of the flute.

[Charles Drago]

Charles, if you are already two "staff rides" ahead of me and have already conducted the introductory (and perhaps in-depth) research , then you are way ahead of me... all the more reason not to "debate" you. If you are looking for an "assist" or a contrapuntal set of questions to assist in your thinking and exploration, then I shall have to "saddle up", and that will require time and commitment.

Your non-debate conclusion is my loss. Your offer of contrapuntal questions is my gain. I should reiterate, however, that I'm at the place where scholarship and the objectivity that steers it enjoy greatly reduced speaking privileges. The process in which I'm currently engaged is the creative/artistic process. While said art is informed by empirical conclusions which clearly remain open to scholarly challenge, please keep in mind that now I'm writing fiction (I won't use the term "historical fiction," which Gore Vidal described as being "neither history nor fiction").

Herein lies the chasm between objective history and subjective art: By definition, my hypothesis must include identification of a human agent for Custer's downfall -- one (or more?) who had to have held a position(s?) of influence within the command structure. If I were writing history, I would be hard-pressed to defend my choice(s?) for the enemy(s?) within; my evidence is, at best, circumstantial in nature. But I'll luxuriate in artistic freedom and name my name(s?) secure in the knowledge that I have been as fair-minded and thorough as possible during the research stages of the project.

By the way, I'm sure you can easily name my prime suspect. But the individual I characterize as his co-conspirator likely will surprise you.

I am also very much aware of the creation of the mythlogy surrounding Custer and conscious that my perspective may be skewed from having been steeped in it prior to becoming more aware that all is not what it appears to be (indeed, that it may be a conversely-distorted image of the truth).

The study of deep politics will do that to us.

But the scandal seems the likely place to look in depth because it was current and simultaneous. Grant feared or knew that Custer knew something, I would suppose, and feared that it would be used in some forthcoming political candidacy by Custer. In the background politically is still the persecution of the Indian Wars and the degree of safety for the commonfolk during the ongoing westward expansion, the gold in them thar hills, and other factors.

If I may: Remember one of the most important lessons to be gleaned from studies of the structure of and motives for the JFK assassination. A half-dozen or more False Sponsors of the event were motivated to get involved at the Facilitator level of the plot. They were allowed to do so for operational reasons and for future use as patsies. So the scandal is worthy of serious study -- but study informed by deep political insight.

As for the Gatling gun question, I'll reserve further comment and judgment, but will make this comment:

In the simulation game with which I am most familiar with (covering the Battle of the Bulge), there is a wonderful and insightful comment made inside the designer's notes I have used several times and which comes to play here. 'Every time you want to move one of the German artillery units, you must recruit six of your friends and push a heavy sedan around the block in the rain." It keeps simulators honest when moving heavy pieces in pretense [cardboard counters] across hill and dale. So the best way to answer your question would be for me to actually pack and unpack a Gatling gun, bring it in by mule, set it up, fire off a beltful of blanks (apologize to the neighbors), pack it up, and move it 100 yards down the road and do the same thing. I suspect a number of Gatlings were to be the anvil for the cavalry's hammer.

Call me. I have some targeting suggestions.

And keep in mind that the Gatlings were included on the march as much for defensive purposes as for offensive firepower. They were to be used only if and when circumstances permitted their tactical application. Again I'll submit that the fact they were left behind to be used to shoot fish in the Yellowstone had as little impact on the LBH battle as did Custer's decision not to unpack the regiment's sabres.

As for rubbing ears with Shirley Horn, I cannot compete. I did, however, once interview Paul Simon, once sat on the stage next to Mark Stein of the Vanilla Fudge as they did "You Keep Me Hangin' On" [because I like you, I will spare your ears], and once saw the reconstituted Dave Brubeck Quartet at Saunders Theater at Harvard, reputed by one recording savant as the best place to record jazz in the US. (I speak of the principal, owner, producer, recording and sound engineer for esoteric, audiophile record label Mapleshade Records, Pierre Sprey, previously one of John Boyd's acolytes at the Pentagon. [There's an inside private story associated with his catalog arrival at my home.])

I've heard some great music at the Saunders, too. And I own a few Mapleshade sides -- most notably two CDs by the late, brilliant tenor saxophonist Clifford Jordan.

Bobby Millitello soloed on a rocking fast-paced rendition of "Koto Sing" -- I have searched since for a recording of it -- in which Millitello was chanting across the mouthpiece of the flute.

"Koto Song" has been recorded at least twice by the Brubeck Quartet c. 1960s. There's a later version with Paul Desmond available on YouTube. Don't know if it was captured during the Militello era -- although I believe that, back in the early '80s, I MC'd a Newport Jazz Festival at which Brubeck/Militello performed the number.

Dave, by the way, is without question the kindest, sweetest jazz superstar I've ever met.

And I met Stan Getz on a bender!

[Jan Klimkowski]

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.

Yes, crafting the story is hard work.

But the spiritual rewards are high.

Great art can provide a deeper level of insight than the dominant historical consensus.

Charles - your screenplay may have the protential to create a paradigm shift in popular understanding of Custer, and potentially of the deep political construction of history.

The director, and his/her power to get dangerous material onto cinema screens, would be crucial.

Howzabout Clint Eastwood. :bandit:

[Charles Drago]

In the absence of Sidney Pollock (Jeremiah Johnson AND Three Days of the Condor), old Rowdy Yates seems like a fine choice to me.

So ... do you have Clint's number handy?

[Ed Jewett]

Said Drago: "Your non-debate conclusion is my loss. Your offer of contrapuntal questions is my gain." Replied Jewett: "I have simple personal reservations about time and priority I shall address further below. I did indicate that I await a bibliography and can certainly monitor the thread and other offerings." Is it historical fiction, alternative history, or simply a straight-forward effort in scholarship? The difficult in arguing that Hitler might have succeeded in getting to Antwerp in force and splitting the alliance is destroyed in both the research and the simulation; it is an item on my bucket list to do a staff ride for that event. Nor have I been to Gettysburg. But I have walked several of the Revolutionary battlefields; the solemnity of Antietam lay like a thick fog. The answer to your thesis probably won't be found on the battlefield (though it might be illuminated). Try as I might, I cannot seriously succeed in making a case for Lee's victory at Gettysburg.

If the Gatlings were intended for defensive use, why again didn't he put one or two of the 175-lb. units and their ammo on a pack mules? There is material suggestive of the fact that they were not appreciated as a tactical tool and they they were poorly maintained by low-level troops. Perhaps I was swayed by the New Yorker cartoon. Perhaps the entire strategic/tactical approach to the problem was flawed in the short run and successful in the long run by other means. But I don't radically disagree with you about the effect of the missing sabers and Gatlings; your thesis lies in the inter-relationships and "politics" of the players on one side.

Your thesis may deserve a good deal of work, and Jan Klimkowski's ideas for a narrative worth exploration (if pricey). I see nothing wrong in writing a series of graduated steps -- outline, abstract, treatment, short story, and then from there on to the bigger possibilities if the research stands up to scrutiny. I don't see why I wouldn't be available for review and question, but I personally question its priority (for me) in the scheme of things. A friend of mine recently expressed our national situation as a 'circling down the drain' and, having read a book about Crazy Horse when I was an impressionable middle school student, I probably have a bias I have retained. Custer was not the only one mythologized, and I have read of Sitting Bull's trek, Sand Creek, Dee Brown's account of Wounded Knee, and more, and I always felt Custer got his righteous come-uppance. If the genocidal types want to kill each other, particularly one who was obviously self-centered, egotistical and likely pathological (can you see Freud, even at the age of 20, and his couch brought along by wagon, asking "Autie" about his relationship with his devout preacher father who wanted him to be a preacher too?), then I say "keep going, boys, and don't forget the Gatling guns and the sabers this time".

So perhaps the first step in the graduated series of written treatments is to explain why an understanding of the deep politics behind the death of Custer at Little Big Horn is pertinent and illustrative of today's national political scene, and why a significant effort to archaeologically dig up the truths hidden by the myths before or even in parallel with similar efforts relative to the numerous recent deep political SCAD's will have an impact on the freedom and quality of life for my 30-something children and their toddlers.

And, please, kind sir, do not take that as a personal rejection of you or your thesis, but understand it as a challenge to all deep political researchers and observers.

I have asked the question before:

Where is the schwerpunkt (the focal point, or center of gravity) of our efforts, singly and collectively? Where should our efforts be concentrated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbdpQ2pPlD8

[Charles Drago]

Ed,

Again I'm endebted to you for the time and energy you continue to expend in this discussion.

FYI, the outline and abstract phases of my operation have been completed. The treatment currently hangs on a critical decision relating to the core narrative structure. Resolution is just around the corner.

If I'm less than forthcoming on all of this, it is a result of the imposition of security-related precautions. While I don't have the temerity to suggest that Weir Point (working title) is so outrageously precious a commodity that it is a prime target for Hollywood raiders, I've been around enough industry blocks to know when to shut up and when to put up.

So perhaps the first step in the graduated series of written treatments is to explain why an understanding of the deep politics behind the death of Custer at Little Big Horn is pertinent and illustrative of today's national political scene, and why a significant effort to archaeologically dig up the truths hidden by the myths before or even in parallel with similar efforts relative to the numerous recent deep political SCAD's will have an impact on the freedom and quality of life for my 30-something children and their toddlers.

The steps you outline above were taken at the nascent stage of this progress, in the midst of scholarly research and, to the degree that it is possible, objective study. Conclusions have been reached. They now must inform artistic expression. The processes are quite distinct, as you know.

In other words, I must show rather than tell why "the deep politics behind the death of Custer at Little Big Horn is pertinent and illustrative of today's national political scene," and "why a significant effort to archaeologically dig up the truths hidden by the myths ... will have an impact ... freedom and quality of life".

The time has come to re-create a world -- one which I am obliged to render truthfully if not literally.

I have asked the question before:

Where is the schwerpunkt (the focal point, or center of gravity) of our efforts, singly and collectively? Where should our efforts be concentrated?[/U]

I've been posing the all-but-identical query for too many autumns too long. My very first presentation before a JFK scholarly conference (the first Third Decade meeting in Fredonia, New York back in 1991, I believe) included a brief presentation on this theme. I later published a lengthy, similarly themed essay, "In the Blossom of Our Sins," in Jerry Rose's journal, and I re-published it here when this site came into being. At a JFK/Lancer "November in Dallas" conference, I delivered one of two keynote addresses; on that occasion I once again asked how we define "justice" in this case, how our shared missions can be defined, and how we'll know when our missions are accomplished.

At one Lancer event I presented a paper in which I asked how we might "return the fire" that took out JFK. I suggested (yet again) that we are at war with his killers, and then asked after the wisdom of renaming Dealey Plaza the "JFK Battlefield National Monument" (I quoted from and still highly recommend Sacred Ground: Americans and Their Battlefields, by Professor Edward Linenthal).

Answers remain ... elusive.

[Charles Drago]

P.S.

"40 Days" is quite beautiful and apropros to a discussion of the creative process and its ... distractions.

[Ed Jewett]

P.S.

"40 Days" is quite beautiful and apropros to a discussion of the creative process and its ... distractions.

There is a long story that goes with that piece of music and my love of music, Brubeck and jazz. I have three versions of it (it's damn difficult to choose which one is the best, but then that is a choice that doesn't have to be made, as there is both progression and interpretation by his co-players). I told that long story in a letter to the national treasure -- then touring in his 80's, for God's sake -- and he wrote back with a postcard of him at his piano in front of his 'trademark' modern art. It is not only a beautiful piece of music, exquisite in its thunder and cymbalism, but a spiritual expression that resonates.

I appreciate the need for watchful brevity; I did not know, but it does not surprise me, that you were that deep into the process. I awiat the ability to read it. If you want to copy it off after I've signed a non-disclosure agreement, we can make arrangements...

I am also familiar with the previously-noted works written by you. I shall chase them down again after dinner, read them, download them, and share them again with others. They are, among other reasons, the reasons why I consider myself one of your students -- I could use the word acolyte.

I would think you'd be better off with the assistance of a young whipper-snapper with a master's in history; I am flattered that you think I am worthy and of value to the effort. I shall make independent contact; tell me what I ought to read, and in what order.

[Gordon Sturrock]

great discussion, thanks! I just found this place/forum, stumbled into this particular thread while researching the Washita River Massacre after reading "Soldiers falling into camp", an ***excellent*** book I thought.
Gordon Sturrock

[Ed Jewett]

great discussion, thanks! I just found this place/forum, stumbled into this particular thread while researching the Washita River Massacre after reading "Soldiers falling into camp", an ***excellent*** book I thought.
Gordon Sturrock

Welcome; stay a bit; return frequently; participate thoughtfully....