Two historical anniversaries: 1876, 1893

[Mayerling]

I noticed that in the last four days we had two anniversaries that passed by with hardly any comments.

1876 - June 25th - the 137th anniversary of the battle of the Little Big Horn, and the destruction of Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer's entire command from the U.S. 7th Cavalry. As the only survivor of Custer's troops (except for the men under Major Marcus Reno and Captain Frederick Benteen) was "Commanche", the horse of medal of honor winner Captain Myles Keogh, there is nothing to explain to us (except feelings that Custer really goofed that day) just what went so wrong. By the way, if you saw the John Ford movie, "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" starring John Wayne, Ben Johnson, and Victor MacLaughlin, the death of Captain Keogh is mentioned by Wayne at the start of the film.

1893 - June 22nd - the 120th anniversary of the sinking (in a collision off Tripoli, Syria) of HMS Victoria, with the death of 323 men. The collision was with HMS Camperdown, during fleet manouvers, on a calm ocean (the Mediterranean). It has been compared as the nautical equivalent of the "Charge of the Light Brigade", as the apparent responsibility was that of the fleet commander, Vice Admiral Sir George Tryon, who gave orders to his second in command (Rear Admiral Sir Albert Sidney Markham) to have the fleet in two columns that were to turn in on each other at six cables length rather than eight. Markham (whom Tryon was possibly testing to see how he would handle the order) followed the order and rammed the Victoria. Tryon went down with his ship and the 322 others. If you saw the movie, "Kind Hearts and Coronets" the disaster is spoofed when Admiral Horatio D'Ascoygne (Alec Guinness) gives a similar order, with similar results (including going down with his ship). Victoria's wreck was found about three years back, in fairly good condition. As in the Little Big Horn, we don't really know what to make of Tryon's loopy orders.

Jeff

[RivkahChaya]

June 25 is my husband's birthday, and I think he is only vaguely aware of Custer's Last Stand, and in general knows a lot about history.

Since practically no Americans survived the battle, it's hard to say for certain that Custer "goofed," in any way other than seriously underestimating the native Americans, but he probably thought more highly of their capabilities than most Americans.

The reconnaissance was very poor, and that was because the US had no real population data on native Americans. When facing the army of a European country, the US could get reliable data on how many people were enlisted, in how many regiments, and what kind of training they had. There was nothing like that available. Custer thought he was facing about 800 Lakota, and it turned out to be several thousand NA from three major tribes.

More importantly, the native Americans were fighting essentially from their front porches, while the US troops had been camping and marching for weeks, and were undernourished and exhausted before the battle started.

The most important factor in why the anniversary goes by with little attention is that it is embarrassing. Most Americans, most white Americans (and black and Hispanic, you get what I mean), think it's a good thing that Sitting Bull's troops won. Custer's troops were the aggressors, trying to force Lakota, who had not agreed to move onto reservations, to do so anyway. All they were doing was defending themselves. If Custer had been victorious, it means his troops would have slaughtered hundreds of Lakota and Cheyenne, and forced the rest into reservations, essentially turning them into concentration camps.

[Mayerling]

June 25 is my husband's birthday, and I think he is only vaguely aware of Custer's Last Stand, and in general knows a lot about history.

Since practically no Americans survived the battle, it's hard to say for certain that Custer "goofed," in any way other than seriously underestimating the native Americans, but he probably thought more highly of their capabilities than most Americans.

The reconnaissance was very poor, and that was because the US had no real population data on native Americans. When facing the army of a European country, the US could get reliable data on how many people were enlisted, in how many regiments, and what kind of training they had. There was nothing like that available. Custer thought he was facing about 800 Lakota, and it turned out to be several thousand NA from three major tribes.

More importantly, the native Americans were fighting essentially from their front porches, while the US troops had been camping and marching for weeks, and were undernourished and exhausted before the battle started.

The most important factor in why the anniversary goes by with little attention is that it is embarrassing. Most Americans, most white Americans (and black and Hispanic, you get what I mean), think it's a good thing that Sitting Bull's troops won. Custer's troops were the aggressors, trying to force Lakota, who had not agreed to move onto reservations, to do so anyway. All they were doing was defending themselves. If Custer had been victorious, it means his troops would have slaughtered hundreds of Lakota and Cheyenne, and forced the rest into reservations, essentially turning them into concentration camps.

Hi Rivkah,

It is true that the events of June 25, 1876 are an embarrassment, and were so from the start. Oddly enough, while there was plenty to criticize regarding Custer's record as a frontier officer (including a brutal massacre of Indian woman and children in the late 1860s), he actually went to bat for the Indians in Washington, D.C. a few months earlier in 1876, testifying about a corrupt ring of speculators and businessmen who got War Department contracts for supply stores for the Indian reservations. His testimony helped lead to the sudden resignation of Secretary of War, General William Belknap, who had been taking bribes in choosing who got the contracts (the reservations were then under the War Department, not the Interior Department). Belknap's resignation occurred just as he faced removal from office, and for the second time in nearly a decade there was an impeachment voted on in the House of Representatives, this time against Belknap. The congressmen voted to impeach, but it was realized they could have saved themselves the effort. Impeachment is a two step process, with the House voting to impeach in order to see if there were grounds for such an action against an official. Then the Senate is to decide to accept or reject the impeachment. If accepted it means there will be a removal. But it was pointed ut that by resigning before the vote on the impeachment in the House, Belknap actually made the process worthless in his case. So the Senate never bothered to carry out his probable removal (had he stayed on to fight).

Belknap was one of General Sherman's staff in his Atlanta Campaign, and the March to the Sea. Sherman (the General in Chief in 1876) was not happy that Custer testified against his protogee. Neither was Grant, who had too many scandals already in his two terms in office. So Custer was under a cloud when he returned to the Plains, and went on the campaign. The pressures of those months may have affected his judgment, as he may have wanted to get back into the good graces of both Grant and Sherman.

Jeff

[RivkahChaya]

That's not really what I meant about it being an embarrassment. Americans have very mixed feelings about Manifest Destiny. On the one hand, we hate having been the aggressors in a very racist episode; on the other, the doesn't seem to be any way of making it up aside from giving the land back.

I think reconnaissance was the biggest problem. A lot of countries published their numbers of soldiers, sizes of fleets, and so forth, as a deterrent. Native Americans didn't do that. The only estimate of the opposition was the number of Lakota who had refused to move to the reservations. For some reason, it didn't occur to the government that people who had already agreed to go would join Sitting Bull's troops and fight. Maybe the US regarded the agreement to move as some kind of non-aggression contract, or maybe they just didn't think at all. At one time, different tribes regarded one another as differently as different European countries, but Manifest Destiny had made them all allies. Knowing that Custer intended to attack Sitting Bull's troops probably enraged the Cheyenne and Arapaho, who hadn't agreed to go to the reservations because they sounded like fun, but because they really didn't think they had a choice.

[Mayerling]

That's not really what I meant about it being an embarrassment. Americans have very mixed feelings about Manifest Destiny. On the one hand, we hate having been the aggressors in a very racist episode; on the other, the doesn't seem to be any way of making it up aside from giving the land back.

I think reconnaissance was the biggest problem. A lot of countries published their numbers of soldiers, sizes of fleets, and so forth, as a deterrent. Native Americans didn't do that. The only estimate of the opposition was the number of Lakota who had refused to move to the reservations. For some reason, it didn't occur to the government that people who had already agreed to go would join Sitting Bull's troops and fight. Maybe the US regarded the agreement to move as some kind of non-aggression contract, or maybe they just didn't think at all. At one time, different tribes regarded one another as differently as different European countries, but Manifest Destiny had made them all allies. Knowing that Custer intended to attack Sitting Bull's troops probably enraged the Cheyenne and Arapaho, who hadn't agreed to go to the reservations because they sounded like fun, but because they really didn't think they had a choice.

Point taken. I was thinking of the initial shock wave here of the defeat as a blow to predominantly caucasian pride, and how Custer and his men were lifted into a prominence as martyrs (subsequent generations have been less generous regarding Custer). As for the lack of knowledge regarding the estimated Indian strength (as opposed to what our experts could tell about European armies), that was due (as you said) to inefficient information gathering. It also was due to the fact that the Lakota were able to form those alliances with former enemy tribes against the whites. Unfortunately for the Native Americans, the fury of the government led to more activity against the tribes within the next three years. Sitting Bull and the Lakota actually entered Canadian territory for awhile, thus making their plight an international matter until 1881 (when they returned to the U.S.). As for their allies, Crazy Horse was killed in 1877 in a confrontation while under arrest (his killer was another Native American, who was a U.S. soldier, so it is still an issue if Crazy Horse was murdered or not).

Jeff

[RivkahChaya]

I don't know how old you are, but in my life, Columbus Day has changed a lot. It used to be almost a mini July 4th, in spite of the fact that Columbus never set foot in the present-day US, then it went through odd sort of backlash "day of mourning," for what was the beginning of the end of Meso-American civilizations, on both continents. Now it's a day off that a lot of people think of as the three day weekend in October. Pretty much every month has some federal holiday from which we can create a three-day weekend. January actually has two (three, when there's a presidential inauguration), and so does November. August doesn't, but there's so much daylight in August, that the time off doesn't get missed. Actually, March and April don't have federal holidays, but schools get spring breaks, so a lot of people take vacation time, and some businesses close on Good Friday.

I think a lot of people plan their three-day Columbus Day weekend, without even really thinking about what day it is. It's just the last chance for a picnic, camping trip, tailgate party, mountain bike trip, or something, before it gets cold.

[Scorpio]

I noticed that in the last four days we had two anniversaries that passed by with hardly any comments.

1876 - June 25th - the 137th anniversary of the battle of the Little Big Horn, and the destruction of Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer's entire command from the U.S. 7th Cavalry. As the only survivor of Custer's troops (except for the men under Major Marcus Reno and Captain Frederick Benteen) was "Commanche", the horse of medal of honor winner Captain Myles Keogh, there is nothing to explain to us (except feelings that Custer really goofed that day) just what went so wrong. By the way, if you saw the John Ford movie, "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" starring John Wayne, Ben Johnson, and Victor MacLaughlin, the death of Captain Keogh is mentioned by Wayne at the start of the film.

1893 - June 22nd - the 120th anniversary of the sinking (in a collision off Tripoli, Syria) of HMS Victoria, with the death of 323 men. The collision was with HMS Camperdown, during fleet manouvers, on a calm ocean (the Mediterranean). It has been compared as the nautical equivalent of the "Charge of the Light Brigade", as the apparent responsibility was that of the fleet commander, Vice Admiral Sir George Tryon, who gave orders to his second in command (Rear Admiral Sir Albert Sidney Markham) to have the fleet in two columns that were to turn in on each other at six cables length rather than eight. Markham (whom Tryon was possibly testing to see how he would handle the order) followed the order and rammed the Victoria. Tryon went down with his ship and the 322 others. If you saw the movie, "Kind Hearts and Coronets" the disaster is spoofed when Admiral Horatio D'Ascoygne (Alec Guinness) gives a similar order, with similar results (including going down with his ship). Victoria's wreck was found about three years back, in fairly good condition. As in the Little Big Horn, we don't really know what to make of Tryon's loopy orders.

Jeff

I have just finished James Donovan's Little big horn bestseller ' A TERRIBLE GLORY '. The battle makes an interesting companion to the disaster at Isandlwana during the Zulu war.

[Mayerling]

Hi Rivkah,

I am old enough to know that Columbus Day weekend is now sort of taken for granted as a holiday treat but that Columbus's reputation is not so high as it was in the 1960s. He did help institute slavery in the New World, and his abilities governing Hispaniola were really poor. But his seamanship was impecable, except that he died believing he reached India and Japan. As for the weekend, in N.Y.C. they have the Columbus Day Parade, which is big with Italian - Americans for their pride in being part of the U.S. Interestingly enough the grand marshal of the parade does not have to be American - Sophia Loren was once Grand Marshal.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Hi Scorpio,

The last book I read about the Little Big Horn was Evan Connell's "Son of the Morning Star", written in the 1980s. It was a good biography. I have tried to find Nathaniel Philbrick's account about the battle at the local Barnes & Noble this past weekend, but it was not available (they had had some copies they were selling at reduced prices a month ago.

I have seen the comparison of Little Big Horn and Isandhlwana. They occurred only three years apart (1876 and 1879), and were shocking losses to the U.S. and the British in that period. Both were followed by warfare that was devastating to the natives (Lakota and allies, and Zulus). But the official commander at Isandhlwana, Lord Chelmford, was not among the dead (he had been out of the camp with his staff reconoitering), and he stayed on to finally win the war. Not so for Custer of course. Also, while the loss of about 300 American soldiers is not to be shrugged off, the loss at Isandhlwana was between 700 and 900 men. That's pretty bad. Also, the day after Isandhlwana was the battle at Rorke's Drift, which a small, better prepared British groups won against the same Zulu forces. Two good movies on the events: "Zulu Dawn" (with Peter O'Toole as Lord Chelmford, and Burt Lancaster, John Mills, & Simon Ward), and "Zulu" with Michael Caine, Stanley Baker, and Jack Hawkins. The best book I ever read about the Zulu War was "The Washing of the Spears".

Jeff

[RivkahChaya]

Maybe that's the difference. I lived in New York as a child-- Manhattan until I was eight, and then Queens, but then I went to high school and college in the Mid-west. I went back to Manhattan for several years in the 90s, but I've been in Indiana since 2002. Maybe it's the Mid-west that doesn't think much of Columbus day. Also, the farther west you get, the more people there are with native American ancestry. I know several people who have one grandparent, or one great-grandparent who was a native American, and these people don't have tribal membership themselves, and don't know much about their specific heritage, but they still have a little resentment over Columbus day being a federal holiday.

[Mayerling]

Pretty understandable if they do hold such resentment. A friend of mine in Illinois was assisting somebody with Cherokee ancestry doing some geneology, and she and I agreed that General Andrew Jackson was a real creep regarding Native Americans (and African-Americans for that matter). But there never was a Jackson Day as a hoiday to celebrate (if there was, his birthday in March would give that month it's three day holiday).