The end of the Indian Wars in the U.S... from 1869







Although better known for his Indian fighting, George Custer compiled a creditable record as a cavalry leader in the latter part of the Civil War. Graduating at the bottom of his West Point (1861) class, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the old 2nd Cavalry, later the 5th, on June 24, 1861. His Civil War assignments included: first lieutenant, 5th Cavalry July 17, 1862); captain and additional aide-de-camp, USA June 5,1862 - March 31, 1863); brigadier general, USV June 29, 1863); commanding 2nd Brigade, 3rd Division, Cavalry Corps, Army of the Potomac June 28 - July 15 and August 4 November 25, 1863 and December 20, 1863 - January 7, 1864); temporarily commanding the division July 15 - August 4 and November 25 - December 20, 1863); commanding lst Brigade, lst Division, Cavalry Corps, Army of the Potomac (March 25 - August 6, 1864) and Army of the Shenandoah (August 6 -September 26, 1864); temporarily commanding 2nd Cavalry Division, Army of West Virginia serving with the Army of the Shenandoah (September 26-30, 1864); commanding 3rd Division, Cavalry Corps, Army of the Shenandoah (September 30, 1864 - January 5, 1865 and January 30 - March 25, 1865) and Army of the Potomac (March 25 - May 22, 1865); and major general, USV (April 15, 1865). Serving during the first two war years on the staffs of Generals McClellan and Pleasonton, Custer saw action in the Peninsular, Antietam, and Chancellorsville campaigns. Given his own star, he was assigned command of the Michigan cavalry brigade and, with it, took part in the Gettysburg, Bristoe, and Mine Run campaigns. At Gettysburg he remained with General Gregg east of town to face jeb Stuart's threat to the Union rear, although he was previously ordered to the south. The combined Union force defeated Stuart. In Grant's Richmond drive in 1864, Custer participated in the fight at Yellow Tavern where Stuart was mortally wounded. Transferred to the Shenandoah Valley with his men, he played a major role in the defeat of Early's army at Winchester and Cedar Creek, commanding a division at the latter. Returning to the Army of the Potomac in early 1865, he fought at Five Forks; and in the Appomattox Campaign. His victories against the rebel cavalry came at a time when that force was a ghost of its former self Custer was brevetted in the regulars through grades to major general for Gettysburg, Yellow Tavern, Winchester, Five Forks, and the Appomattox Campaign. In addition he was brevetted major general of volunteers for Winchester. Remaining in the army after the war, in 1866 he was appointed Lt. Col. of the newly authorized 7th Cavalry, remaining its active commander until his death. He took part in the 1867 Sioux and Cheyenne expedition, but was court-martialed and suspended from duty one year for paying an unauthorized visit to his wife. His army career ended June 25, 1876, at the battle of Little Big Horn, which resulted in the extermination of his immediate command and a total loss of some 266 officers and men. On June 28th, the bodies were given a hasty burial on the field. The following year, what may have been Custer's remains were disinterred and given a military funeral at West Point.



One of the most famous moments in American history, Custer’s Last Stand, provides compelling evidence for this idea. From the moment the battle ended at the Little Big Horn, historians and poets began to retell the story for their own purposes. It is fascinating to see how the images of Custer and his Last Stand have radically changed in the last century, not because of any new historical information, but because of the contradictory needs of our national psyche (Barnett 410). At first, Custer’s Last Stand represented the struggle of Western civilization over savagery. After the Depression, writers portrayed Custer as a rampant egomaniac. During World War II, the Last Stand was an example of courage and self-sacrifice. Since the 1960’s the Last Stand has been seen as just retribution for America’s crimes against Native Americans. Today, advertisers use Custer as an example of the quint essentially unprepared fool. In this rush to shape Custer and the Last Stand into a symbol, these historians, poets, and film makers have often lost the real historic character and moment.
At the beginning of July 1876, the United States of America was preparing to celebrate its centenary. Americans were congratulating each other on the extraordinary material and intellectual progress of the last hundred years. Two of the nation’s most famous generals, William Tecumseh Sherman and Philip H. Sheridan, were attending the great exposition in Philadelphia celebrating 100 years of national progress (Hutley 329). As other Americans, they were marveling at the mechanical wonders on display at the exposition. When the first dispatches arrived reporting the annihilation of Custer and his command, both generals thought them absurd rumors. After all, the Indian wars were over; it had been two hundred years since King Philips war, and a little over a hundred years since Pontiac’s rebellion. Americans had tamed the continent. They had bridged its geographical immensity with the trans-continental railroad in 1869. It seemed incredible that George Armstrong Custer, one of the most brilliant cavalry commanders of the Civil War, could be wiped out with much of his command by a group of primitive tribesmen on the eve of the nation’s great centennial celebration.
But this catastrophe had indeed transpired, and now Americans had to make sense out of it. Initially there was some criticism of Custer from Republican papers and President Grant. Grant stated, "I regard Custer’s massacre as a sacrifice of troops brought on by Custer himself, that was wholly unnecessary – wholly unnecessary" (Hatch 84). But Americans felt that Grant was just demonstrating presidential pique, because Custer had testified in the Belknap scandal implicating the president’s brother and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. At this moment in their history, Americans saw themselves as heroic tamers of a wild continent, and Custer and the frontier army were civilization’s advance guard (Hutley 4). Within days of the news, newspapers were publishing articles and poetry glorifying Custer and his men. One example is the poem by William Ludlow, "Custer’s Last Charge" (1876).
It seemed that all of America’s poets, great and not so great, had picked up their pens and joined the celebration. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Walt Whitman, and even Oakland’s famous poet Joaquin Miller in "Custer’s Last Stand." But the two individuals who carved Custer’s image into the national psyche for the next fifty years were a dime novelist, Frederick Whittaker, and Custer’s petite, dedicated widow, Libbie. Whittaker, working from mostly erroneous news reports and his own overheated imagination, rushed a thick, turgid tome into print within six months of The Little Big Horn (Barnett 365). He invented one fanciful incident after another. Since there were no survivors, we know nothing of what happened in Custer’s command after he divided his forces. Whittaker, however, presents detailed dramas of what happened to Custer in the final moments. One example is when Curly, the faithful Crow scout, approaches Custer during a lull in the fighting and offers "Yellow Hair" a chance to escape.
In that moment, Custer looked at Curly, waved him away and rode back to the little group of men, to die with them. How many thoughts must have crossed that noble soul in that brief moment. There was no hope of victory if he stayed, nothing but certain death. With the scout he was nearly certain to escape. His horse was a thoroughbred and his way sure. He might have balanced the value of a leader’s life against those of his men, and sought safety. Why did he go back to certain death?
Because he felt that such a death as that which that little band of heroes was about to die, was worth the lives of all the general officers in the world .
Whittaker’s quickie book became the basis for dozens of other histories, novels and penny dreadful's in the next decades (Utley 7). These books along with the books of Libbie Custer would create the image of the heroic Custer for the next half century.
Libbie Custer became a widow at age thirty-four when Custer died at the Little Big Horn. She had married him when she was young and accepted without complaint her role as a soldier’s wife, following him wherever his duty called. She endured hardship, terror, and deprivation on the frontier. Even though she had never published anything previously, Libbie now became an eloquent and prolific writer and lecturer. Her theme was always the valor and perfection of her martyred husband, and the image she created of him was romantic and inspiring .

Libbie Custer continued to burnish his image until she died in 1933.
In the year after her death, 1934, a writer of detective novels, Frederic F. Van de Water, began the process of dismantling the image of Custer as the gallant cavalier. The First World War and the Depression had created a "school of fashionably cynical debunkers"(Utley 10) that Van de Water belonged to. In Van de Water’s book, Glory Hunter , Custer is "tyrannical, brutal, detestable, vain, ambitious, selfish, arrogant, reckless, and incompetent" (Utley 10), driven by only one passion, the relentless pursuit of glory. Like Whittaker before him, Van de Water takes us into the mind of Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. But Custer’s thoughts are very different: no longer of selfless courage but now thoughts of suicidal rashness.
Duty, when weighed against Glory, was had always been—a little thing. If Custer could reach the enemy before Terry arrived, he could win a mighty victory. He never questioned his own and his regiment’s ability to whip all the Indians in creation.
When he had triumphed, Mark Kellogg,the newspaperman, would magnify his achievement. The hero in shining new journalistic armor would then be immune to the wrath of Grant.
Custer needed Glory too much to share her favor with Terry and Gibbon. He was a hard-pressed egotist and a gambler. He planned to whip the Sioux alone, Doubtless, the Glory-Hunter recognized the risk of his chosen course. . . He played a long shot to win, with the unscrupulous rashness of his cavalry assaults.

Van de Water’s image-shattering novel heavily influenced writers and film makers for the next 50 years. Yet the image of the gallant hero on a horse would have one more glorious moment in history.
When Warner Bros., in 1941, decided to produce a big budget film of the Custer story, the original script was strongly influenced by the Van de Water biography. Producer Hal Wallis, however, demanded a rewrite to better fit the star, Errol Flynn, and the tenor of the times. "In preparing this scenario," the new screenwriter, Aeneas MacKenzie, assured producer Hal Wallis, "all possible consideration was given the construction of a story which would have the best effect upon public morale in these present days of national crisis". With the country on the brink of war, military heroes were back in style. The desired themes were now duty, love of country, courage and self-sacrificing heroism.
They Died With Their Boots On, starring Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland, is terrific entertainment. A romanticized biography, it attempts to illustrate Custer’s adult life from cadet days to an heroic death. Flynn was the perfect choice to play Custer. He was able to catch the boyish recklessness, panache, and charisma that the real Custer obviously had. Surprisingly, the film treats Indians very sympathetically. They are no longer blood-thirsty savages standing in the way of civilization, but rather a brave and noble people who are terribly wronged. The real villains of this film are greedy businessmen (typical of Depression era films) and corrupt politicians .
However entertaining this film is, it is filled with historical errors, both major and minor. Custer was not a defender of Indian rights as he is portrayed in the film; nor did he sacrifice his troops at the Little Big Horn to save General Terry’s column; nor was he the enemy of the railroad tycoons, but actually protected the extension of the railroads through the Black Hills. The most absurd fantasy of the film is the idea that the Black Hills were returned to the Sioux because of Custer’s sacrifice at the Little Big Horn .
In the climax of They Died With Their Boots On, Errol Flynn stands with one hand on the regimental flag and the other holding his saber (one of the many minor historical errors since none of the troops carried sabers). Defiant and undaunted tin the midst of a field littered with "dead" extras, he is ready to sacrifice his life in the service of his country. This would be the last heroic Custer that Americans would ever see.
After the war, the anti-heroic Custer became the norm in both novels and movies. This was a new period of Cold War ambiguity and ambivalence. Spotless heroes were no longer in vogue. The zeitgeist had changed dramatically. Many Americans were now concerned over the wrongs done to minorities, including Indians. Custer became an easy symbol of America’s crimes against Native Americans. He was now not only a rash and foolhardy commander but also an insane butcher, and this image reached its pinnacle in the 1970 film Little Big Man. This Custer is arrogant, vicious, and finally, crazy. His idea of a good time is to ride through an Indian village massacring helpless women and children. The Indians are the perfect victims. They simply run around in circles and never think of shooting back. In Little Big Man Custer has become a cartoon.
The ultimate step in the heroic Custer’s diminishment is to make him a joke. In 1994 the Lotus Development Corporation took out an add in the New York Times Magazine with an image of Custer at the Little Big Horn. The warning below the picture read, "The competition is organizing around you. Does your E-mail system give you all the ammunition you need?".
On its journey through history, Custer’s image has gone from noble hero to reckless egotist and back to noble hero, then to vicious butcher, and, finally, to incompetent fool. These changing images were not fueled by new historical discoveries but by society’s needs. The real Custer was neither villain nor fool. He also was not a superhuman hero. But he was a larger than life figure in American history, and stands ready to take on as many new images as a changing society demands.


George Custer had 3 brothers and 1 sister. The Custer family had moved to Monroe, Michigan in 1863. Brothers Tom Custer and Boston Custer died at Little big Horn. Nevin Custer,"Nev", a brother of George, was not in the military and was a farmer. The Custer's had a history of health issues in their children. George's sister Maggie Custer married the Former Mayor of Atlanta Ga. during the civil war, they were married after the war in 1872. She married James Calhoun, and he also died at Little Big Horn. It was a family affair in the 7th Cavalry of George Armstrong Custer.

the guns Custer's troops had at Little Big Horn; colt pistol and Spencer's
His cavalry units played a critical role in forcing the retreat of Confederate General Robert. E. Lee's forces; in gratitude, General Phillip Sheridan purchased and made a gift of the Appomattox surrender table to Custer and his wife, Elizabeth Bacon Custer. We offer an incredible eight page letter in which the 24 year old Custer is writing United States Senator J.M. Howard from the battlefield to defend accusations that he has been "an opponent to the Lincoln administration.". Custer explains fully that he is totally against slavery and that the rumors of his disloyalty bear no truth and is from "those who want to see me defeated." Custer goes as far to say "I would, and do, favor a war of extermination. I would hang every human being who possesses a drop of rebel blood in their veins whether they be men, women or children." The pages are 8x10 in side and are hinged to a double sided display that hangs on the 31"x56" frame. The letter is handwritten by Custer who has signed it "G.A. Custer."TRANSCRIPT OF THE GEORGE ARMSTRONG CUSTER LETTER Headquarters, 3rd Division Cav. Corps Army of the Potomac, Jan. 19th 1864 Hon. J. M. Howard U.S.S. Dear Sir; Yours of the 16th has just been received, and I thank you for affording me an opportunity to give you a brief _expression of my views regarding the war policy of the administration. Having, at a very early age, adopted that profession of arms, I have never deemed it proper or advisable to assume an active part in politics. I have endeavored to be a soldier and not a politician. So far has this sentiment controlled me that, at the last Presidential election, of the three candidates who were nominated for the Presidency I never expressed nor entertained a preference for either. Since the commencement of the war many questions and issues have sprung up which have such an important bearing upon the great work before us that it was to a certain extent necessary that I should merge something of the politician with the soldier, I refer to those important the proclamations of the Executive regarding slavery, confiscation, emancipation, etc. The President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Army and as my superior officer cannot issue any decree or order which will not receive my unqualified support. Thus much would, to me as a soldier, be my duty, but I do not stop here. I do not merely tender my support to the war measures of the President, but all the acts, proclamations and decisions embraced in his war policy have received not only my support, but my most hearty, earnest and cordial approval. And furthermore I am convinced upon every principle of reason and by the light of experience, that it is only by the adoption and execution of the present policy of the President that we hope to establish and secure an honorable and lasting peace. I seldom discuss political questions but my friends who have heard me, can testify that I have insisted that so long as a single slave was held in bondage, I for one, was opposed to peace on any terms, and to show that my acts agree with my words I can boast of having liberated more slaves from their masters then any other general in this army. This is a fact which can be verified by referring to Maj.Genl. Pleasonton and a host of other officers. As to "compromise", I know of (no) compromise with rebels by which we could retain our dignity and self respect as a nation of freemen. If I could decide the questions, I would offer no compromise except that which is offence at the front of a bayonet, and rather than that we should accept peace, except on our own terms, I would, and do, favor a war of extermination. I would hang every human being who possesses a drop of rebel blood in their veins whether they be men, women or children. Then after having freed the country from the presence of every rebel, I would settle the whole Southern country with a population loyal and patriotic who would not soon forget their obligations to their country and to themselves. There is no measure which has for its object the weakening and destruction of the rebel forces that will not command my hearty support and approval. From what I have said you will have no difficulty in discerning my true sentiments, and to you as to others to whom I have expressed the same opinion, with regard to the coming presidential election, I say frankly that I am not committed to any one man, but that of all who have been prominently spoken of for the position I know of none who would in my estimation conduct that affairs of government as ably and successfully as Mr. Lincoln has the past three years. I regret Mr. Howard that it has become necessary for me to defend myself from such slanderous charges, and I regret that our personal acquaintance has not been more intimate, that you might see the absurdity of the charges you refer to in your letter. In my views as to the best and most effective method of injuring the rebels and of inflicting the most possible harm I am so far in advance of Mr. Lincoln's present policy as his policy in advance of that advocated by Seymour, Vallandigham & Co. I recognize no right of a rebel that I am bound to respect, and I think the more rebels we kill the fewer will be to pardon and the better for us. Another question which has excited considerable discussion is that of military arrests in states where the rebellion does not exist. If the President has erred at all it has been in making too few arrests. I can go to Michigan and arrest a larger number of disloyal persons in that one state than the President has throughout the United States. I will now explain how and why the rumors arose which have reached you, to the effect, that I was an opponent of the administration. I was promoted and appointed on the staff of Gen. McClellan for an act of gallantry, and at a time when I was almost a total stranger with McClellan he having seen me but twice before and never had spoken twenty words to me. During the time McClellan was in command I, as any soldier would, supported him, but I have never allowed my personal obligation to him for his kindness and favor towards me, to interfere with my duty. And I leave it to you to say whether my avowal of the sentiments expressed in the forepart of this letter can be considered as any endorsement of McClellan's policy. The real reason why this charge has been brought against me is simply for the lack of some other. There are those who desire to see me defeated and no effort has been spared to bring influences to bear with you and Hon. Z. Chandler to prejudice my case. My conduct in the field has afforded these enemies no opportunity to defame or impune (sic) me and as a last hope they have chosen the one more lacking in truth and correctness than other which they could bring. I have written freely and frankly and have been compelled to write more lengthily than I intended. I hope you will give this communication your careful consideration. To vouch for its correctness, I can refer you to Hon. I. P. Christiancy who has been in correspondence with me for a long period and probably knows me better than any man in Michigan.
Truly yours, G.A. Custer


Last known photo of Custer on horse 11 days before he died by W.H. Illingworth.

7th Cavalry heads towards Little Big Horn.

First newspaper story of Little Big Horn June 28th 1876
Custer's Last Stand concerns Reno-Benteen Hill where seven companies of the Seventh were held back despite Custer's orders for them to come to him at once. Custer was heavily engaged less than five miles away and these troops not moving out when under no enemy pressure led to Custer's defeat. After Custer was wiped out the warriors would come to this area and place it under siege for two days; more Medals of Honor were awarded for this two day action than any other in American History.








Photo of Custer from March 1876.

First hand report of Little Big Horn from the Press









Leutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer's house at fort Abraham Lincoln at Mandan , North Dakota. This was Custer's last place of residence before his demise at the Little Big Horn River.




George Custer Information





http://ns.headroyce.org/~us_history/podegard/paper.htm
Custer website clothing thanks to River Junction Trade Co. Your source for all your Frontier Clothing.
River Junction Trade Co. 1-866-259-9172