Custer's Presidential Ambitions in 1876
George Szaszvari
Howdy,
Regarding the matter of George Armstrong Custer's political
interests/intentions, especially the matter of the presidency,
in response to Linda T's insistence [about a year or so back]
that there is "absolutely no proof" that Custer was thinking
about such matters at all during the 1876 Dakotas campaign.
I think it reasonable to suppose he was thinking about such
things, if some basis can be found for his political interests,
especially in view of the following verbatim quote from the
end of the resume of Mari Sandoz' book *The Battle of the
Little Bighorn*:
...So long as men of the time of Custer with the 7th Cavalry
were alive, it was common out on the plains to hear such
conjecturing: Suppose Custer had managed a victory over
a few Sioux June 1876, and got word of it to the Democratic
Convention at St Louis. How would Custer have run against
Hayes for the presidency? Generally the verdict was that
he would have made a better showing than Tilden. Custer was
well aware that the nation gave the presidency to such men
as Washington, Taylor and Grant because they won her wars.
Surely the man who ended the twenty years of Plains wars
with the Indian would be no less rewarded. Besides, in 1876,
aspiring to the presidency was still considered the privilege
of every native male, not only the man with millions or high
political position as well. There was probably never a better
year to stampede a political convention than at St Louis in
1876, and who ever voted against a national hero?
There is a recurring interest in the presidency in Custer's
juvenile letters and utterances from before West Point on,
augmented powerfully by the colonel's success as a speaker
from Johnson's presidential train, where he heard not the
cry for for Johnson but for Grant and Custer. Well, old
Ulysses S Grant had his round, and now it was Custer's
turn. He had listened to the suggestion several times in
the fulsome praise of newspaper and railroad owners. Now
the sense of destiny that often appears in youths intolerant
of discipline and restraint was upon him, a sort of desperate
destiny. The mood permeates all the speeches and flattery of
the luncheons and dinners the winter of 1875-6 in New York.
The later corroboration by the scouts in Libby's *The Arikara
Narratives* came as no surprise to anyone who had followed
the stories of the Indians and the white men of the Plains,
or Custer's own writings. The *Narrative* is the story of
the Ree scouts with Custer to the Little Bighorn, and contains
their firsthand accounts of Custer's promises to Bloody Knife
when he was made the Great Father, the President, if he could
win even a little victory over a few Sioux.
Custer was very well aware that no one voted against
a national hero.
...And here ends the verbatim quote. The *Narrative* referred
to is edited by Orin G Libby and published as *The Arikara
Narrative of the Campaign Against the Hostile Dakotas* in
the North Dakota Historical Collections, Vol VI [Bismarck ND,
1920]. Has anyone seen it? BTW Mari Sandoz was born in 1896
[died 1966] and, as a historian deeply involved with the
history of the Old West, she would presumably have met people
connected with the events of the time...allusions to Custer's
political interests have been made elsewhere, too, notably
in *Reno and Apsaalooka Survive Custer*, but without source
references to enable argument for the case...anyway, please
comment as you see fit!!
Happy New Year to you all.
--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
lin...@mindspring.com
organization to fund a campaign. NONE of the most powerful Democratic
newspapers in the country even ever hinted at GAC as a candidate. A reading of
the St. Louis newspapers before and during the Dems Convention that year
show NO MENTION of Custer in any way associated with the Convetion or the
Presidency.
The ONLY allusion to this which forms the basis for Sandoz's ENTIRE
THEORY is indeed the Libby Arikira Narratives in which an interpreter
tells Libby that the Ree scout said he was told that someone heard
Custer say "when I am the Great White Father" in Washington.
NO ONE else ever heard Custer say such a thing and the meeting the Ree
was speaking of HE DID NOT ATTEND but was told about. So he was telling
an interpreter that he had heard from a third party that Custer said this.This
is NOT "first hand" this is hearsay. It wouldn't hold up in court.
And to have expected Custer could "stampede" a convention on the basis of
a frontier victory over some Indians shows a woeful ignorance of the American
politcal nomination system. The Parties chose the candidates -- there were
no primaries run then. The Good Old Boys Network of each party decided who
would be their nominee and sometimes it could take 30 or 40 votes on the
convention floor before there was a nomination. tilden was nominated as Custer
was being buried.
In May of that year Barnett of the WORLD came out with an editorial against
another "military man" in the White House.
I don't think there was a plank for GAC to stand on and the "theory" simply
does not hold up on its own.
linda t
>Howdy,
>
>Regarding the matter of George Armstrong Custer's political
>interests/intentions, especially the matter of the presidency,
>in response to Linda T's insistence [about a year or so back]
>that there is "absolutely no proof" that Custer was thinking
>about such matters at all during the 1876 Dakotas campaign.
>I think it reasonable to suppose he was thinking about such
>things, if some basis can be found for his political interests,
>especially in view of the following verbatim quote from the
>end of the resume of Mari Sandoz' book *The Battle of the
>Little Bighorn*:
>
>....So long as men of the time of Custer with the 7th Cavalry
>....And here ends the verbatim quote. The *Narrative* referred
Todd
From all that I know of the northern Plains campaign of 1876 there is only one slight
possibility from which Custer might have managed to win that year's Democratic convention.
The campaign was designed to be completed in the spring of 1876, and had it been
successful then Custer might have had enough opportunity and time to organise and fund a
run at the leadership in St. Louis.
But once the war wasn't gotten off on schedule on March 1, 1876, the best he could
have hoped for would be the nomination for the 1880 convention, which as you say, would
have been immensely helped by a victory in the Centennial Campaign.
However ...
In coldly analytical hindsight, the chances of a complete victory over the Sitting
Bull and Crazy Horse bands were somewhat remote due to the incredibly vast region the US
Army was pursuing them over. Moreover, when you consider that the tribes also had Canada
to resort to--as they ultimately did--this was almost destined to be a long and miserable
guerrilla war. And a war that did not end in 1876, as much as American historians have
tried to portray it as.
--
Best regards
ROGER E WATSON
George Szaszvari wrote in message <76juk0$sa6$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
>
>Howdy,
>
>Regarding the matter of George Armstrong Custer's political
>interests/intentions, especially the matter of the presidency,
>in response to Linda T's insistence [about a year or so back]
>that there is "absolutely no proof" that Custer was thinking
>about such matters at all during the 1876 Dakotas campaign.
>I think it reasonable to suppose he was thinking about such
>things, if some basis can be found for his political interests,
>[very large snip]
Two points I would like to make. One is,being in the middle of David Herbert
Donald's biography of Lincoln and seeing what it actually took for
groundwork to mount a national campaign, Custer would have understood this
need for "national" support and recognition. If GAC had received any "press"
in the recent past, it was bad.
The second point is, IMO, prior to and even just before his death, he could
not have envisoned the type of stunning victory it would have been at the
Little Bighorn ! They thought this expedition was to be a search and
destroy mission where their biggest problem would be to find them and keep
them from escaping.
Regards....Roger
lin...@mindspring.com
published in 1985 by Old Army Press.
During Custer's lifetime and for several decades after, presidential aspirations
were never ascribed to him. It appears that Sandoz made up her stories out
of whole cloth.
Page 103-108
"Where and how did that ludricrous scenario develop? In 1920, forty-four
years after Custer's death, the first word of his presidential aspirations
appeared in the ARIKARA NARRATIVE edited by Orin G. Libby as part of
the North Dakota Historical Collection Sereis. This narrative was based on
Libby's interviews in 1912 with nine of the surviving forth Ree scouts who
accompanied Custer on his LBH campaign.
"At the time of the battle, Red Star was eighteen years of age, and when
interviewed by Libby he was 54. Red Star remains our SOLE SOURCE of
information concerning Custer's political ambitions. With Libby transcribing
the Ree's words, the following account emerged"
"Custer had gone to Washington and returned. . .then there was
a RUMOR of a call to meet Custer at Fort Lincoln, the regular head-
quarters, but HE is not certain of such a meeting. . .
"On one other occasion Custer allegedly made a similar statement:
"Once Custer was eating with them when he said through Girard,
the interpreter: He said he had made up his mind to go on this
expedition to fight. He said he had been to Washington and had been
given instructions to follow the Dakotas. Now that he was on the
war-path, if he had a victory, he said "When we return, I will go back
to Washington and on my trip to Washington I shall take my brother here,
Bloody Knife, with me. I shall remain in Washington and be the Great
Father."
((On numerous occasions Custer was heard to tell his Ree Scouts that he
would go to Washington and speak in their behalf *with* the Great Father
when he was *with* the Great Father. LT))
Repass continues:
"In his first statement the scout clearly denied his presence at or even
certain knowledge of the meeting at Fort Lincoln. He "heard the rumor
of a call." The scout Custer allegedly directed his words to, Bob-Tailed
Bull, was killed at the LBH; therefore, he was not a direct source of
information in 1912.
"Red Star possibly could have been present at the time of Custer's second
statement. It has a theme similar to the previous statement, but no specific
place, time or date was given. Bloody Knife suffered the same fate as Bob-
Tailed Bull; they, along with Little Brave, were the only fatalities among
Custer's (Ree) Indian scouts. Fred Girard, the Ree interpreter, never verified
that he translated any conversations between Custer and the Arikaras that
indicated the Lt. Colonel's presidential aspirations.
"As a result of Red Star's tales, certain 20th century writers have judged
Custer guilty of recklessly attacking the Sioux village due to his inordinate
desire to become president. Those historians who sneered at Custer's
hearsay testimony before the Clymar Committee were perfectly willing to
accept Red Star's hearsay evidence."
Page 108
"Custer did display normal interest in national and presidential affairs as a
youth but at no time did he express a desire to become president. None of'
his New York speeches of record during the winter of 1875-1876 even hint
of his intention to become the Democrats' 1876 presidential candidate."
Page 109
"In the best tradition of Sandoz, DH Miller ("Custer's Fall") accused Custer
and James Gordon Bennett of conspiring to replace Samuel J. Tilden with
Custer as the Democratic nominee for president. Of course, the expedition
against the Sioux was to serve as the launching pad for Custer's nomination.
In order to make the whole scenario logistically feasible, Miller had the St. Louis
Convention open in July when in reality the meeting convened on June 27 and
closed on June 29.
"What did happen at St. Louis? On June 27 the convention was called to
order with Thomas F. Bayard (Deleware), Allen A. Thurman (Ohio),
and Samuel J. Tilden (New York) as the viable candidates. Hendricks and
Tilden appeared to be the front runners, with Tilden as the favorite
entering the convention.
"In an interview with the NEW YORK TIMES FEb. 18, 1876 was this interview
with Custer:
"A lively interview with General Custer. . .When asked how he thought
General Sherman would do for President, he is said to have replied:
"Capital suggestion! He is trump anyway you take him. Very intelligent
views of men and affairs and unquestionably a great general. He would
run like a steer. . .Some western man and a civilian will most likely be
the Democratic nominee. Of course, this is confidential, as we regular
army chaps don't talk politics but I think Hendricks has the best show of
any of them."
((all this shows is that Custer could be accused of considering the VP spot
if asked LT))
Repass continues:
"Scarcely any statement made by Armstrong in the last six months of his
life was confidential."
Page 110-111
"In spite of the preliminary hype, the nominating convention proved to
be almost anti-climactic. After minimal in-fighting on the opening day,
the 28th witnessed the nomination of Tilden on the very first ballot,
and on the 29th Hendricks was confirmed as his running mate.
"During the convention, no motion s was made to niminate GA Custer --
not even by his adopted state's Michigan delegation. No wild rumors
circulated concerning a hypothetical swing of votes to the "boy general with
the golden locks" if he could only win a victory over the five tents of
the Dakotas.
"For a man who was allegedly supported by the owners of two prominent New
York news papers, THE HERALD and THE WORLD, those tabloids remained
remarkably mute on the subject of Custer for president in their daily
editions. Not one sentence proposing Custer as the Democratic presidential
candidate was printed in either paper. Beyard was the choice of THE WORLD
and Bennett's New York HERALD advised its readers on June 3, 1876 that
it supported Tilden. If for some reason Tilden could not obtain the necessary
voters for nomination, then the HERALD believed a "Great Unknown" was
needed. Custer? No. New Jersey Governor Joel Parker was THE HERALD's
"Great Unknown." GAC was not even publicized as a dark horse.
"The facts are that no documented statements by Custer, either private
or public, pertaining to his presidential aspirations, exist. No support was
in evidence at the St. Louis Convention. The newspapers of his two
alleged backers, Jay Gould and James Gordon Bennett, announced their
support of other candidates. No organizing committee promoting Custer as a
candidate ever developed."
Now, add to this that Libbie's last letter to her husband, June 21, 1976
pleaded with him to not go to Washington that fall to testify because the
city only ever caused them pain. That Custer had contracted with
Red Path of Boston to do a Lecture Tour in the Fall for 3-4 months, 5
nights a week, $200 a night -- which would have paid off all of GAC's
debts. That to this end, Custer had arranged a leave in late August and was
going to spent two weeks at the summer home of the actor Lawrence Barrett
for elocution lessons and to write a "script." And I've seen a copy of Red Path's
correspondence with Custer. And Barrett alluded to the two week visit
in later letters.
Now add that Custer historian, Tom O'Neil, with whom I have carried
on lively correspondence and conversations since 1992, did his paper on the
1876 election, and he never came across any PRIMARY SOURCE of a hint of
Custer for president and you have a Sandoz/Miller fantasy that has been
repeated so many times that it has become "fact."
I can't believe that Libbie had no knowlwege of any presidential aspirations
Custer might have had. And if he did, I can't believe that NOT ONCE in her
remaining 57 years did she allude to it. As proud as she was of her "Beau"
she would have crowed about such a possibility. "The Democrats wanted my
Autie!"
This does not mean he might not have considered it down the line. But the most
intriguing thing about a "had Custer lived" scenario is that his support for
Tilden may just have swung enough Electoral votes Tilden's way so that
Tilden would have become president. And had Tilden (or any Democrat)
become president, Custer was probably guaranteed a Brigadier's star.
(although he had a promotion to full Colonel coming that summer on the
retirement of Col Emory; this was announced in the NY HERALD on July 5)
As it was, Tilden got the majority popular vote but not enough Electoral
college votes -- and that is another story of a scandal in itself.
linda t
George Szaszvari
You may be right, but your adamant insistence warns me to keep
an open mind on the possibility of Custer's political interests
and ambitions. Don't you rather overstate your case? You claim
the only the basis for GACs political ambitions in 1876 to be
based on a third party account from an Indian, etc. But Reno
stated that it was unquestionably so long before Sandoz or the
Arikara.
Having nothing like Sandoz' quoted sources to research for myself
and, besides, not having had the advantage of having lived at
the time when people alive in 1876 were still around to talk to,
I remain interested in why Sandoz alludes to various "factors"
in support of her claims. Why would she want to deliberately
misrepresent it? To dramatize the story, perhaps? I can understand
why the pro-GAC camp would want to scotch any such notions since
it suggests that GAC was less than perfect. Was Sandoz more of
a journalist than a historian? What about her references to the
*juvenile letters* and *utterances before West Point on*? What about
Johnson's campaign train? Why did Sandoz write of the *suggestion*
in the *fulsome praise of newspaper and railroad owners*? What about
the proof of Custer's clear interest in presidential politics on pp
27-28 of Sandoz' book [where a discussion of this point is supported
by a verbatim quote from a Custer letter of 1860]? Apart from Sandoz,
why does Reno write [p 175 in *Reno and Apsaalooka Survive Custer*]
the following:
"The politics of the situation are important...Custer, a Democrat,
was definitely a man interested in becoming president. So intent
was he that he took with him into the fight a reporter for the
*Tribune*, against military orders, unquestionably hoping to make
headlines that would vault his name into the list of candidates
in the upcoming Democratic Convention."
Without claiming any real knowledge of US political workings in the
1870s, does it really show Reno and Sandoz "woefully ignorant" [as
you put it] to suggest that Custer had political ambitions in 1876,
if not for the immediate presidential campaign, then at least for
the next one? Could it not be argued that the then system suited
a sudden burst onto the political platform for such a flamboyant
pretender?
In article <76k2j6$qp$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>, lin...@mindspring.com
says...
--
lin...@mindspring.com
men then were fascinated by politics, especially in a year that would
see a President whose very election could set off a war. And did.
When Custer "rode the Circle" with Johnson just after CW, he became disgusted
with the politics and pols. Grant left the train early. Custer stuck through
to the end but didn't want much to do with politics Washington style after that.
He was asked to run for office from Michigan (either Senator or Governor); he
turned them down.
Your adament insistance that there has to be more to Sandoz than she
states doesn't jibe with anything I've studied about it in 40 years.
Major Historians, who specialized in the 1876 election, can find
NOTHING in 1876 that even hints at presidential aspirations on the part of
Custer.
Natterings written in letters in 1860 by a 20 year old don't often have
much to do with the outlook of the same man 16 years later. I don't
hold a lot of the political views I did when I was 20. Or even 30.
We have proof that GAC had contacted Red Path to go on speaking tour
that Fall -- he'd arranged with an actor friend for elocution lessons.
He had no organization in place. Libbie writes to him to stay away from
Washington.
And NO ONE has ever stampeded a presidential convention in this
country. No one can. Back then you had to be the Pols' network favorite.
Today you win primaries. No one walks into a party presidential convention
in this country and walks off with it -- and those who do get nominated
then and now did it with tremendous organizations behind them. And the "right"
newspapers touting their image.
When there isn't word one in any of the Dem newspapers about Custer as
presidential fodder, it's highly unlikely that he was on their list for the White
House. And if he was on their list, the Republican controlled newspapers
would have been trashing him from day one. Nothing from them either.
My gawd, if Custer was thinking of it and had contacts, the Dems would have
been shouting it! Grant had stumbled badly in his treatment of Custer
for his Clymar testimony; it was Grant on the short end of the stick that
summer.
Let's take Sandoz's story -- that it was all set up and Kellogg was there
just to push the image -- and follow it through. The newspapers would have
been full of it long before because Custer was sending anonymous "letters from
an officer" with Custer to the HERALD. He totally missed ALL opportunities
to advertise his availability. What's more, the newspaper didn't say a word
about it. This is NOT how you push yourself for president in this country.
Egad, man, the Dems' would have been falling all over themselves that
the "golden cavalier" was seeking the presidency.
But nothing of the sort happened.
>Don't you rather overstate your case?
No, I was addressing your points.
>You claim
>the only the basis for GACs political ambitions in 1876 to be
>based on a third party account from an Indian, etc. But Reno
>stated that it was unquestionably so long before Sandoz or the
>Arikara.
>
>Having nothing like Sandoz' quoted sources to research for myself
>and, besides, not having had the advantage of having lived at
>the time when people alive in 1876 were still around to talk to,
>I remain interested in why Sandoz alludes to various "factors"
>in support of her claims. Why would she want to deliberately
>misrepresent it?
Why not deliberately misrepresent it? Just about everything about Custer's
life has been misrepresented for 120 years.And Sandoz didn't present one
iota of FACT for her claims, did she?
To dramatize the story, perhaps? I can understand
>why the pro-GAC camp would want to scotch any such notions since
>it suggests that GAC was less than perfect. Was Sandoz more of
>a journalist than a historian? What about her references to the
>*juvenile letters* and *utterances before West Point on*? What about
>Johnson's campaign train? Why did Sandoz write of the *suggestion*
>in the *fulsome praise of newspaper and railroad owners*?
She didn't present the actual articles or letters or journals, did she?
Where are they? Repass can't find them. Tom O'Neil can't find them.
Where are these songs of praise for GAC the presidential aspirant?
Where is the written PRIMARY source? Where are the letters saying such?
Where are the editorials pushing Custer as a dark horse?
What about
>the proof of Custer's clear interest in presidential politics on pp
>27-28 of Sandoz' book [where a discussion of this point is supported
>by a verbatim quote from a Custer letter of 1860]? Apart from Sandoz,
>why does Reno write [p 175 in *Reno and Apsaalooka Survive Custer*]
>the following:
>"The politics of the situation are important...Custer, a Democrat,
>was definitely a man interested in becoming president. So intent
>was he that he took with him into the fight a reporter for the
>*Tribune*, against military orders, unquestionably hoping to make
>headlines that would vault his name into the list of candidates
>in the upcoming Democratic Convention."
Major Reno didn't write this, his descendnat did in a book that is written
as a *novel* that is not documented. And O. Reno is virtually quoting
Sandoz here.
No one in Custer's day ever "accused" Custer of presidential aspirations.
None of the newspapers that reported the LBH debacle even hinted that
GAC's fantasies drove him to attack as he did. When Sheridan damned Custer with
faint praise, when Grant condemned him with vitriole, neither of them mentioned
anything about presidential hopes being the root of the battle.
When Custer found the trail, he was a day closer to the Indians. Terry was
a day further away. As Gibbon notes in his article written in 1877, the only definite
orders Custer had from Terry were to pursue and find the Indians. This GAC did.
Read Custer's own book if you think he had presidential fantasies.
George Szaszvari
says...
>When Custer "rode the Circle" with Johnson just after CW, he became
>disgusted with the politics and pols. Grant left the train early.
>Custer stuck through to the end but didn't want much to do with
>politics Washington style after that. He was asked to run for
>office from Michigan (either Senator or Governor); he turned them
>down.
Perhaps GAC was only interested in the Number One job; aren't we
all agreed that GAC never liked to settle for being second best,
or take the long orthodox way to his objective when he could just
cut the Gordian Knot with one stroke?
<snip>..
>Let's take Sandoz's story -- that it was all set up and Kellogg was there
>just to push the image -- and follow it through. The newspapers would have
>been full of it long before because Custer was sending anonymous "letters
from
>an officer" with Custer to the HERALD. He totally missed ALL opportunities
>to advertise his availability. What's more, the newspaper didn't say a word
>about it. This is NOT how you push yourself for president in this country.
>Egad, man, the Dems' would have been falling all over themselves that
>the "golden cavalier" was seeking the presidency.
>But nothing of the sort happened.
Sure, apart from the apparently paltry evidence, there are problems
about GAC's proposed political ambitions. Wouldn't anyone with a
stammer [thus his elocution lessons] have had image problems with
gaining and keeping high public office? As you say, GAC certainly
seems to have kept a low profile in all these matters. I'd surmise
[if he did, in fact, have political ambitions] that he was looking
to make an appearance when he felt ready, perhaps as a surprise
move to avoid most the usual insider political claptrap, wheeling
and dealing that so evidently disgusted him. After all, who'd have
expected a disobedient bottom-of-the-class West Point graduate to
become the USA's "Golden Cavalier"?
>>and, besides, not having had the advantage of having lived at
>>the time when people alive in 1876 were still around to talk to,
>>I remain interested in why Sandoz alludes to various "factors"
>>in support of her claims. Why would she want to deliberately
>>misrepresent it?
>Why not deliberately misrepresent it? Just about everything about
>Custer's life has been misrepresented for 120 years.And Sandoz didn't
>present one iota of FACT for her claims, did she?
Yes, the Arikara quote, insofar as any verbal reminiscing can
be relied on as historical evidence. You call it hearsay that
wouldn't stand up in court, but what is that comment worth?
Look at the cases of OJ Simpson and Bill Clinton, never mind
the miscarriages of justice that perpetually plague both US
and British courts. Sorry to be so cynical, and no offence to
people in the legal business reading this, but too often the
courts are just a weapon for those who know how to use it to
their own advantage to beat those who don't know. I'd be interested
to know more about Sandoz herself and the actual research she did.
>>why does Reno write [p 175 in *Reno and Apsaalooka Survive Custer*]
>>the following:
>>"The politics of the situation are important...Custer, a Democrat,
>>was definitely a man interested in becoming president. So intent
>>was he that he took with him into the fight a reporter for the
>>*Tribune*, against military orders, unquestionably hoping to make
>>headlines that would vault his name into the list of candidates
>>in the upcoming Democratic Convention."
>Major Reno didn't write this, his descendnat did in a book that is written
>as a *novel* that is not documented. And O. Reno is virtually quoting
>Sandoz here.
According to the author, Major Marcus Reno did write it, thus
making it a primary source. And why do you call it a "novel"
apart from just wanting to publicly rubbish the author and the
book? Has anyone here seen the original notes in Marcus'and
Beatrice's handwriting or discussed the matter with the author
or publisher? Perhaps the author is a low-down lying coyote, but
I somehow doubt it. If Marcus didn't write it, why is it stated
in the book that Sister Beatrice transcribed Marcus' notes in
the Providential Hospital, Washington, DC before Marcus died?
Note that Marcus' son, Ross, opened the stack of notes on April 8,
1889, when the commentary on page 38 switches to the first person,
i.e., what Marcus wrote. It ends on page 248. Ross and Ittie took
a week to carefully read the stack of transcribed notes and it
started the campaign to have Major Marcus Reno fully exonerated,
posthumously restored to rank and honorably reburied by the
Pentagon [much to the evident chagrin of some in the pro-GAC camp].
lin...@mindspring.com
>According to the author, Major Marcus Reno did write it, thus
>making it a primary source. And why do you call it a "novel"
>apart from just wanting to publicly rubbish the author and the
>book?
Not to "rubbish" the book. But it is written in a First Person narrative;
you do not know when it is Marcus Reno speaking or Ottie Reno. And
there is no documentation. Don't *tell* me about letters -- SHOW them to me
and tell me when you are using the actual letters and when it is the
author of the book speaking.
No one during GAC's lifetime and in the decades after ever spoke of Custer
having presidential ambitions. Not his friends, not his wife. Not his enemies.
Not even BENTEEN. And you know Benteen would have been the first to
trash Custer for that. Why is here is NO MENTION of it in Benteen's
correspondence?
> Has anyone here seen the original notes in Marcus'and
>Beatrice's handwriting or discussed the matter with the author
>or publisher? Perhaps the author is a low-down lying coyote, but
>I somehow doubt it. If Marcus didn't write it, why is it stated
>in the book that Sister Beatrice transcribed Marcus' notes in
>the Providential Hospital, Washington, DC before Marcus died?
>Note that Marcus' son, Ross, opened the stack of notes on April 8,
>1889, when the commentary on page 38 switches to the first person,
>i.e., what Marcus wrote. It ends on page 248. Ross and Ittie took
>a week to carefully read the stack of transcribed notes and it
>started the campaign to have Major Marcus Reno fully exonerated,
>posthumously restored to rank and honorably reburied by the
>Pentagon [much to the evident chagrin of some in the pro-GAC camp].
Marcus Reno was honorably reburied at the LITTLE BIG HORN. I've seen his
grave there. However, given the last years of his life, I doubt being buried with
at LBH was on his wish list. It was probably the last place on earth he wanted
to be buried. Benteen at least got buried at Arlington. GAC at West Point.
Tom Custer and Yates are at Leavenworth. Keogh is in a private family plot in
'New York. Cooke was returned to Canada.
Why do you dismiss everything out of hand with "the pro-GAC"? I don't dismiss
you or your theories with "well you are just anti-GAC."
It's such an easy throw-away line and put down. It doesn't advance arguments.
George Szaszvari
says...
>>According to the author, Major Marcus Reno did write it, thus
>>making it a primary source. And why do you call it a "novel"
>>apart from just wanting to publicly rubbish the author and the
>>book?
>Not to "rubbish" the book. But it is written in a First Person narrative;
>you do not know when it is Marcus Reno speaking or Ottie Reno.
It's absolutely crystal clear to anyone who reads the book. I even
pointed it out for you. Marcus' transcribed notes, in the first person,
start on page 38 and end on page 248. viz:
>> ...If Marcus didn't write it, why is it stated
>>in the book that Sister Beatrice transcribed Marcus' notes in
>>the Providential Hospital, Washington, DC before Marcus died?
>>Note that Marcus' son, Ross, opened the stack of notes on April 8,
>>1889, when the commentary on page 38 switches to the first person,
>>i.e., what Marcus wrote. It ends on page 248. Ross and Ittie took
>>a week to carefully read the stack of transcribed notes....
>And
>there is no documentation. Don't *tell* me about letters -- SHOW them to me
>and tell me when you are using the actual letters and when it is the
>author of the book speaking.
The book contains a huge amount of primary source material, not least
Marcus' own transcribed notes. You'll have to come up with something
a bit better than just the apparent dearth of documented references
to challenge the authenticity of Marcus Reno's transcribed notes in
the Ottie Reno book. How about trying to communicate with O Reno
[maybe via his publisher] and seeing if you [or a historian friend]
can get a look at the originals to corroborate the bit about GAC's
alleged political ambitions?
>No one during GAC's lifetime and in the decades after ever spoke of Custer
>having presidential ambitions. Not his friends, not his wife. Not his
>enemies.
I suspect that if Custer had such ambitions, then he kept it pretty
much to himself and only wanted to make it known when he was fully
ready...maybe those ambitions were still only embryonic. Other
officers in the field in constant close proximity to GAC might have
suspected such stirring ambitions, but I have to admit there is no
denying that the apparently very few documented references make his
presidential ambitions a controversial supposition at best...that's
why I resurrected the whole thing here...it's intriguing.
>Not even BENTEEN. And you know Benteen would have been the first to
>trash Custer for that. Why is here is NO MENTION of it in Benteen's
>correspondence?
Why would Custer's interest in the presidency be something to TRASH
him for? Wasn't it a natural target for any flamboyantly successful
military man to go for? It's possible that it was so natural and
taken for granted that GAC would eventually be a natural candidate
for the presidency, that with all the then current and possible
future candidates, it would hardly have been worth mentioning until
he made an actual definite move in that direction. If you think
Benteen was out to trash GAC at every opportunity, it's possible
that GAC's possible interest in the presidency wasn't worth
mentioning, since it didn't necessarily trash GAC at all. Anyway,
that aside, perhaps Custer was interested in high office but not
the BS that went along with political campaigning, or maybe he
was simply embarrassed about his stammer and wanted to work on that
first [why otherwise take elocution lessons?] before trying for high
public office. Maybe GAC was waiting to grow a bit older and get the
Dakotas Campaign under his belt first, or maybe Reno, Sandoz and the
Arikara made it all up :-)
lin...@mindspring.com
on the ready when in fact Indian testimony again and again said they were
surprised. They had partied late the night before and stayed up until after
dawn. Many of them were sleeping, children were bathing in the river, women
were about and AWAY from camp digging up turnips. This is not an encampment
on the alert. A camp expecting an attack does not allow its women to leave;
they and the elders and children are rounded up and taken to safety.
Would it have been so difficult to show us a photograph of a page or two of
the manuscript that Beatrice wrote?
These are not the words of a bitter, bitter man.
As for Benteen -- if you read CAMP TALK a collection of his letters to his
wife from 1870-1885 -- you will see that Benteen loved to gossip. If he'd caught
the slightest hint that Custer has presidential aspirations, he would have mocked
it. After 1876 especially Benteen rarely missed a chance to mock GAC.
Curiously, however, Benteen only ever did it in private correspondence. Rarely
made a public remakrk. Reno, on the other hand, slammed Hayes in a very
angry, bitter and public letter. Benteen was never bitter, merely a cynic.
>Why would Custer's interest in the presidency be something to TRASH
>him for? Wasn't it a natural target for any flamboyantly successful
>military man to go for?
No, since Hancock went for it too. And Hayes. And Taft. Hardly flamboyent
men but they had been CW officers.
It's possible that it was so natural and
>taken for granted that GAC would eventually be a natural candidate
>for the presidency, that with all the then current and possible
>future candidates, it would hardly have been worth mentioning until
>he made an actual definite move in that direction. If you think
>Benteen was out to trash GAC at every opportunity, it's possible
>that GAC's possible interest in the presidency wasn't worth
>mentioning, since it didn't necessarily trash GAC at all. Anyway,
>that aside, perhaps Custer was interested in high office but not
>the BS that went along with political campaigning, or maybe he
>was simply embarrassed about his stammer and wanted to work on that
>first [why otherwise take elocution lessons?] before trying for high
>public office. Maybe GAC was waiting to grow a bit older and get the
>Dakotas Campaign under his belt first, or maybe Reno, Sandoz and the
>Arikara made it all up :-)
Mebbe.
lin...@mindspring.com
George Szaszvari
says...
Well, all you're saying is that any ol' boring Tom, Dick or Harry
was capable of becoming president, which just strengthens the case
for anyone with a bit of style and panache ;-)
lin...@mindspring.com
man could aspire to it. Of course even then that common man had to
have the Party and $$$ behind him. So it's always been a lie.
>>> No, since Hancock went for it too. And Hayes. And Taft. Hardly
>flamboyent
>>>men but they had been CW officers.
>
>Well, all you're saying is that any ol' boring Tom, Dick or Harry
>was capable of becoming president, which just strengthens the case
>for anyone with a bit of style and panache ;-)
>