With Custer at the Little Big Horn

[telewinz]

Many officers who served the Union during the Civil War and were familiar with the Spencer's firepower were very reluctant to exchange the repeating Spencer for the new single shot Springfield .45. So why did the Army change from the Spencer to the Springfield? There appear to be two main reasons the Army made the change—one financial and one tactical. After the Civil War, the Army was forced to cut back on expenditures. The Army had recognized that a soldier armed with a repeating rifle would expend a large amount of ammunition during battle whether he had a clear target in sight or not. The belief was that with a single shot rifle, the soldier would become more efficient with his ammunition and take only clear shots at his target

Then, when the magazine is empty and only one or two targets are left, the gun can be single loaded very quickly. This option is not nearly as convenient for the unlucky Henry shooter. If reloading becomes necessary, the Spencer's magazine can be refilled far more rapidly than a Henry. If everyone is missing and both the Henry and Spencer must be reloaded, the Spencer armed skirmisher can overtake a Henry shooter. A positive advantage of the Spencer design is that the magazine is safer to reload, since the muzzle is always pointed down range. A common misconception is that Spencers are more difficult to operate and prone to jamming. With the wrong ammunition, or a weak magazine spring, this is true. However, a properly prepared Spencer is as smooth and reliable as any Henry on the line.

There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered.

The success of Henry's rifles ensured Winchester's success, and the primary weapon carried by the Indians at the Little Bighorn was either Henry's model or the slightly altered Winchester Model 1866. Both fired a .44-caliber Henry rimfire cartridge. The Henry used a 216-grain bullet with 25 grains of powder, while the Winchester used a 200-grain bullet with 28 grains of powder. Velocity was 1,125 feet per second. Cartridges were inserted directly into the front of the Henry magazine, while the Winchester 1866 had a spring cover on the right side of the receiver. The carbine and the rifle had a capacity of 13 and 17 cartridges respectively.

What, then, was the reason that the soldiers made such a poor showing during the West's most famous Army-Indian battle? While Custer's immediate command of 210 men was wiped out and more than 250 troopers and scouts were killed in the fighting on June 25-26, the Indians lost only about 40 or 50 men. The explanation appears to lie in the fact that weapons are no better than the men who use them. Marksmanship training in the frontier Army prior to the 1880s was almost nil. An Army officer recalled the 1870s with nostalgia. "Those were the good old days," he said. "Target practice was practically unknown." A penurious government allowed only about 20 rounds per year for training--a situation altered only because of the Custer disaster.

 

[Phyphor]

If I were with Custer at Little Big Horn, I'd want.....

...my brown pants!

 

[Ky Larry]

Wasn't Custer's original order to scout the Rosebud Creek area and not the Little Bighorn? IIRC, his unit was part of a three pronged campaign. Custer shouldn't have been at Little Bighorn. Someone with more facts will correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not a soldier or a historian, but it seems to me there were too many Indians and not enough soldiers. Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[entropy]

Many officers who served the Union during the Civil War and were familiar with the Spencer's firepower were very reluctant to exchange the repeating Spencer for the new single shot Springfield .45.

True though that may be, many soldiers in Vietnam who were initially issued the M-14 did not want to give them up for M-16's. But they had no choice in the matter, either. Though your original post is an interesting idea, telewinz, there is this thing in the military called the TO&E, or MTO&E (Table of Organization and Equipment, Modified Table of Organization and equipment.) As the Armorer of my unit, I was not authorized any M2HB HMG's, for instance. In a combat area, I could have probably got them, but only after jumping through many hoops. Although they may not have been called TO&E's then, The QM Corp in the 1870's had similar, and probably stricter, regs to deal with, as I note below about Ft. Davis, TX, in the 1880's-90's.

I visited Ft. Davis,TX, not too long ago, and in touring the QM shed, the guide noted that minimal ammo was provided for the mission of protecting the surrounding area, and none for training. Again, the Army bean counters spoil the day. I am well aquainted this, as it was always harder to justify ammo expenditures during peacetime than even during a 'live fire exercise' such as Panama.

The Dept. of the Army didn't take the fighting with the Native Americans as seriously as a 'real' war, and the QM Corp of the day was all about saving $$$ (hence the recycling of CW rifles into Springfield Trapdoor in the first place), so many of Custer's troops may have never fired their rifles before then, or only minimally so. Couple this with the tactical blunders aforementioned, and it's little wonder Custer and many of the 7th fell that day.

 

[telewinz]

Spencers were the standard issue weapon of mounted troops for a decade after 1865, with few exceptions. Their firepower saved the day in many actions. When it came to a close fight, such as Beecher's Island in eastern Colorado, the repeaters were hard to beat. In a cost cutting move, they were finally superseded by the single shot Model 1873 Springfield carbine. The changeover started late in 1874, five years after the Spencer company went out of business. Some units were equipped with Spencers well into 1876.
It's not unrealistic for Custer to have requested retention of the Spencers for a little while longer. A lack of respect for the plains Indians as a culture (well deserved, based on experience) at that time, caused Custer to be over confident. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. Seldom (if ever) did the Plains Indians ever attack a force they didn't believe they overwhelmed. Maybe thats why the majority of their "conquests" were settlers

 

[bcochran]

All that you can really learn is what worked.

The typical plains Indian family was mobile, trained in fundamental survival skills and had worked successfully with ambush and retreat tactics. They had not only practiced their attack survival options, they had lived them. Fundamentally, survival training had been from the perspective of the indivdual. I don't overlook the shortcomings that include a lack of skill in a large scale coordinated attack or defense.

In July 1876, do you really think that the US troops were battle hardened soldiers from the Civil War that had ended 11 years earlier. Of course not! Was the "survival training" from the perspective of the individual or the unit? Were the soldiers trained in the use of micro terrain, sniping and hand-to-hand combat? Or were they trained to march and walk garrison posts? The only advantages enjoyed by the troops were standardization of firearms and firepower that were neutralized.

 

[telewinz]

The American soldier even in 1876 was trained to fight as a unit/team (poor success in Custer's case). The American Indian seldom if ever fought as a unit, as an individual could fight or run away as he chose. As with ALL primitive cultures, too much importance was placed on the charisma of the leader. Living with nature was not a "noble" option, the white man's technology was willingly accepted and used by the Indians. Until quite recently, it was still illegal to give or sell alcohol to an Indian because of the resulting havoc. The American Indian of the 19th century (and previous generations) was worthy of no more respect or admiration than your run-of-the mill caveman.

 

[entropy]

The American Indian of the 19th century (and previous generations) was worthy of no more respect or admiration than your run-of-the mill caveman

Hoo boy, are you gonna hear respones on that one!

It's not unrealistic for Custer to have requested retention of the Spencers for a little while longer.

He could have requested till he turned blue; Custer was persona non grata in the Army power circles of the time; You must remember who was the General of the Army. (Four star at the time; the five star rank wasn't created until the 1880's.) IIRC, it was Sherman, who was not enamored of Custer at all. And most of the General Staff agreed, for various reasons. It would not surprise me that that very enmity is why the 7th was issued Trapdoors in the first place. Picture if you will, some QM full or light bird sitting in a DC office looking at the 7th's TO&E. 'Hmmm.....that's Custer, the bastage. Let's see him fight the Indians with Trapdoors instead of Spencers. ' Could very well have happened.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It would not surprise me that that very enmity is why the 7th was issued Trapdoors in the first place. Picture if you will, some QM full or light bird sitting in a DC office looking at the 7th's TO&E. 'Hmmm.....that's Custer, the bastage. Let's see him fight the Indians with Trapdoors instead of Spencers."

The trapdoor Springfield was adopted long before Custer fell afoul of Secretary Belknap, President Grant, and the Army high command. In fact, in the late '60s, Custer was quite the fair-haired boy.

The decision to issue Springfields to all units was based at least partly on the Springfield's battle record in actions like the Wagon Box Fight. Once the decision was made, parts and ammunition for the Spencer were not stocked.

Finally, if the decision to arm the 7th Cavalry with Springfields was made with malice, what about the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th -- all of whom participated in this campaign, and all of whom were armed with Springfields?

 

[Powderman]

The American soldier even in 1876 was trained to fight as a unit/team (poor success in Custer's case). The American Indian seldom if ever fought as a unit, as an individual could fight or run away as he chose. As with ALL primitive cultures, too much importance was placed on the charisma of the leader. Living with nature was not a "noble" option, the white man's technology was willingly accepted and used by the Indians. Until quite recently, it was still illegal to give or sell alcohol to an Indian because of the resulting havoc. The American Indian of the 19th century (and previous generations) was worthy of no more respect or admiration than your run-of-the mill caveman.

Ah....excuse me?

The Native American was usually not trained to fight as a "unit", because they chose not to wage war on each other as a matter of course. Most of the conflicts between the tribes came about as a result of raids on the other tribes' resources--the resulting battle was not conceived because of a grand battle plan, but because the defenders had their families a short distance away.

Acceptance of the "white" man's technology? Sure. Willing acceptance of the white man's technology consisted of having your children separated from their families by force, and taken many states away to be forcefully assimilated into a European culture.

Willing acceptance of the white man's technology was being forced to go to "Indian schools" where you were swabbed with caustic solutions for sanitation, and being forbidden to speak your Native tongue or practice your beliefs, under pain of punishment.

As far as nobility or civilization is concerned:

1. The Native American did not take ancestral lands from the original inhabitants, forcing them to live on portions of their own homeland.

2. The Native Americans encountered by the first settlers were helped and were assisted, particularly when the settlers had no food. This favor was repaid many years later by the introduction of scalping (a French practice), the introduction of diseases, and in some of the Western states, actual hunting parties organized to kill Indians. These expeditions were so effective that entire tribes vanished from the face of the earth.

3. The Native American lived for thousands of years in the United States. During that time, the landscape did not change that much. In a relatively short 350 years, the land has been polluted, species of animals driven to extinction, forests have been clear-cut in a hunger for wood and building materials, and ancestral burial grounds and religious sites have been built upon and paved over.

And, let's not forget--the term "noble savage" was coined by the "white" man.

Cordially yours,

Powderman
(who happens to be 1/2 Keetowah Cherokee)

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As far as nobility or civilization is concerned:

1. The Native American did not take ancestral lands from the original inhabitants, forcing them to live on portions of their own homeland.

Yes they did -- for example, the Sioux only emerged onto the plains in the 1700s. Their "ancestral homelands" were still being contested by the Crow, who were there first, in the late 1800s.

The evidence is that virtually EVERY existing tribe at the time of European contact was either in the process of expanding, or being expanded upon.

2. The Native Americans encountered by the first settlers were helped and were assisted, particularly when the settlers had no food.

It's a matter of record that Opechecancnough hated the settlers at Jamestown (he was the instigator in John Smith's capture and near-execution) and led an attack to wipe the settlers out. One early town, Wolstenhome town completely disappeared in that attack.

This favor was repaid many years later by the introduction of scalping (a French practice), the introduction of diseases, and in some of the Western states, actual hunting parties organized to kill Indians. These expeditions were so effective that entire tribes vanished from the face of the earth.

Taking human trophies is endemic in all early societies -- the Irish were head-hunters, for example. The Scythians took scalps in the time of Ceasar. And the University of Oklahoma has (or had) remains of long before European contact that unmistakeably show the marks of scalping.

3. The Native American lived for thousands of years in the United States. During that time, the landscape did not change that much. In a relatively short 350 years, the land has been polluted, species of animals driven to extinction, forests have been clear-cut in a hunger for wood and building materials, and ancestral burial grounds and religious sites have been built upon and paved over.

There was no ice age? What happened to the Mammoths and other megafauna?

There is considerable evidence of damage to the environment -- albeit more in Meso America and South America than in North America. The Salt River Valley in Arizona is a North American example -- it was irrigated long before Europeans arrived, and the salts left by the evaporating irregation water destroyed its fertility.

And, let's not forget--the term "noble savage" was coined by the "white" man.

By Jean Jaques Rosseau -- who meant it as a compliment.

Vern Humphrey
(Part Mohawk)

 

[slzy]

if george had taken the gatling guns,presumably he never would have caught the Indians,or in concert with the other approaching columns,the hostiles may have been headed off,then hey could or might have been brought up to good effect. but as it was,he should have got every body together,see if he could head into the wind,and try those volley sights out.

 

[telewinz]

Please....

who happens to be 1/2 Keetowah (Keetoowah) Cherokee

Without civilization I'd be 100% Gaul ("Noble" Germanic savage), with civilization I'm 100% German American. Kicking and screaming, willing or not, "victim" or not, I'm delighted that civilization was "forced" upon my ancestors over a thousand years ago by the Romans or any other superior culture that came along. Maybe in a thousand years your descendants will feel the same way.

A thong bikini beats the hell out of a smelly loin cloth anytime!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

if george had taken the gatling guns,presumably he never would have caught the Indians,

The gatlings were not only heavy and cumbersome (think of a Napoleon howitzer in terms of weight and carriage) but they were pulled by condemned cavalry horses. It's doubtful they would have made it, and they certainly could not have kept up with the march.

or in concert with the other approaching columns,the hostiles may have been headed off,then hey could or might have been brought up to good effect.

The record shows that was impossible -- one column, Crook's, had already been fought to a standstill on the 17th of June (Battle of the Rosebud) and Crook had turned back to Goose Creek to care for his wounded and resupply. Of course, Terry, Custer and Gibbons knew nothing of this.

Controlling the three columns over such a vast distance with no communication but gallopers was impossible.

Remember also, the gatlings were .50-70, with such a looping trajectory that you can't employ them as we would a modern machinegun.

but as it was,he should have got every body together,see if he could head into the wind,and try those volley sights out.

Probably to little effect -- the indians would have simply scattered. But in any case, he could never have created a situation where he could use them to any effect.

 

[entropy]

Without civilization I'd be 100% Gaul ("Noble" Germanic savage)

No, that would be sniveling Frenchy savage! JK!

The main difference there is the Romans, while believeing themselves to be superior, did not seek to completely eradicate the Gauls, but instead sought out trade relations with them, brutally crushed those who refused, and rewarded those who became allies with partnership with, and eventual citizenship in, Roman society.

 

[richyoung]

The Native American was usually not trained to fight as a "unit", because they chose not to wage war on each other as a matter of course.

Horespucky. The Indians fought constantly - if they didn't have a rival tribe to fight, they fought different factions in their own tribe. Sometimes they fought just for the heck of it, as a chance to "count coup" on an enemy.

1. The Native American did not take ancestral lands from the original inhabitants, forcing them to live on portions of their own homeland.

Your right, the "Native Americans" WIPED OUT and EXTERMINATED the original, Caucasian inhabitants when they immigrated from Asia. There are still Indians today - not so for North America's original people.

2. The Native Americans encountered by the first settlers were helped and were assisted, particularly when the settlers had no food.

In some cases. In others, they aggressively wiped out settlers. Roanoak, anyone?

This favor was repaid many years later by the introduction of scalping (a French practice),

..a practice used BY indians, to get paid for killing OTHER Indians, and instituted by the Brittish, I believe. Either way, the Native American's took to it like ducks to water...

the introduction of diseases,

...decades before Louis Pasteure's "germ theory" explained WHY and HOW disease waws transmitted - hardly a deliberate act.

and in some of the Western states, actual hunting parties organized to kill Indians.

...and vice-versa, of course. Not that the natives weren't above having a little fun with the captives before they killed them, said "fun" including such humane treatment as rape, skinning alive, staking out over ant mounds, use for target practice, hence the admonision to "save the last round for yourself."

These expeditions were so effective that entire tribes vanished from the face of the earth.

Some tribes needed to - never a shortage of Indain scouts from other tribes ready and willing to help wipe out the worst of the bunch.

3

. The Native American lived for thousands of years in the United States. During that time, the landscape did not change that much.

During that time, the Plains Indians would deliberately set prarie fires, (some of which consumed areas the size of states when they got out of control), in order to stampede buffalo over cliffs, after which they would...take and eat only the tongues. (Verified by archeological evidence). If the landscape didn't change much, it was due to a lack of technology to do so, not some "noble desire" otherwise. The vast majority were hunter-gatherers - they exterminated the food in one are - and left. Not to come back until years later, after they have eaten there way through somewhere else.

In a relatively short 350 years, the land has been polluted,

In some areas, yes. By and large we live a much cleaner, longer life than the Native Americans did - our primary sources of energy, (petroleum, gasoline, nuclear, coal with stack scrubbers) are much cleaner and have less impact on the environment as a whole, than attempting to support a population this size on wood, animal dung, and coal (burned in the open in small furnaces, no scrubbers.)

species of animals driven to extinction,

The Indians did some "extincting" of their own, see "Kennewick Man"...

forests have been clear-cut in a hunger for wood and building materials,

Rubbish. There are MORE trees in North America NOW than when white man first set foot on the continent. See, we FIGHT forest fires, and we PLANT trees, something the "noble red man" was not noted for doing.

and ancestral burial grounds and religious sites have been built upon and paved over.

...this sort of thing tends to happen when you lose a war.


Just exactly did where did you get this somewhat romanticed view of the Native American, and the correspondingly demonized view of western civilization?

 

[Powderman]

Without civilization I'd be 100% Gaul ("Noble" Germanic savage), with civilization I'm 100% German American. Kicking and screaming, willing or not, "victim" or not, I'm delighted that civilization was "forced" upon my ancestors over a thousand years ago by the Romans or any other superior culture that came along. Maybe in a thousand years your descendants will feel the same way.

Ah, don't get me wrong. I'm not a believer in visiting the excesses or sins of the fathers on anyone else. What has happened in the past needs to stay in the past. It's over, it's done with, it's finished--now, let's move on.

And, progress in any civilization usually is uncomfortable--look at the Industrial Revolution. Sure, in the last 200 years, we have invented, devised or fabricated most of the things we take for granted today.

The one real disadvantage that I see lingering from the Industrial Revolution is the advent and continuation of the large metropolitan areas--the aftermath of the huge populations formed around the megafactories.

Still, one has to wonder--if our forefathers had taken the approach of living alongside the original inhabitants, instead of pushing them aside--what would our country be like today?

 

[toivo]

Your right, the "Native Americans" WIPED OUT and EXTERMINATED the original, Caucasian inhabitants when they immigrated from Asia. There are still Indians today - not so for North America's original people.

I believe you're referring to Kennewick man. The problem is that the research is ongoing and there is no reliable evidence that he is in fact "Causcasian" and not Paleo-Indian. Some people would like him to be, so that they could deny Native American claims to property rights, relics, etc. The fact is that even if the above-mentioned scenario were true, that Paleo-Indian migrants from Asia wiped out a pre-existing civilization, this would in no way validate European claims to the North American continent, unless you believe that sovereignty and property rights should be based solely on race.

It's impossible to establish the "original" homes of the world's people; there has just been too much migration, conquest, extermination, etc., throughout history. The irony is that the European settlers of North America brought the concepts of rule of written law, private property rights, etc. to the new world while at the same time violating these principles in regard to the Indians.

our primary sources of energy, (petroleum, gasoline, nuclear, coal with stack scrubbers) are much cleaner and have less impact on the environment as a whole, than attempting to support a population this size on wood, animal dung, and coal

That's the key phrase; population pressures require new technologies. But you're suggesting that the Native Americans were to blame because their technology couldn't support the masses of Europeans that were pouring into their land.

Don't confuse technological superiority with morality. Some Native American practices seemed "savage" to the European settlers, but it was technologically advanced societies that created the Holocaust and the atomic bomb. The fact is that humans of any culture are capable of "savagery."

There is a tendency in these discussions to fall into the "good guys/bad guys" view of history. It doesn't work that way. Cultures respond to pressures, with a variety of results. Whenever I hear the "superior civilzation" talk, I get very uncomfortable, because the logical conclusion is that the guy with the best weapons gets to make the rules. That's a pragmatic position, but it's not a moral one.

This thread was a lot more interesting when it was about weapons and tactics.

 

[telewinz]

The main difference there is the Romans, while believing themselves to be superior, did not seek to completely eradicate the Gauls, but instead sought out trade relations with them, brutally crushed those who refused, and rewarded those who became allies with partnership with, and eventual citizenship in, Roman society.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me especially compared with the "usual terms" offered throughout human history. The Indians were treated much better than the Gauls, we also agreed to cloth, feed and house them (didn't always do a good job), a social program waaay ahead of it's time. Our current welfare recipients are unhappy with their lot also only they don't have any land to trade in barter! Have you EVER seem an Indian reservation, often it's on a choice piece of real estate, not the wasteland often depicted. Yea what a raw deal, free clothes, food, housing, free hunting and fishing, no income tax, free education, gambling, and free relocation to a reservation you chose. Them poor cheated redskins...offer me that deal and I'll be 100% American Indian too (the hell with being German).
http://www.armenians.com/Genocide/
Now if you want to talk about a people exterminated less than 100 years ago(1.5 million!), lets talk about the Armenians, they would have killed for the deal we gave the American Indians.

Still, one has to wonder--if our forefathers had taken the approach of living alongside the original inhabitants, instead of pushing them aside--what would our country be like today?

Ever been to a third world city like Calcutta?

 

[Kaylee]

At risk of wandering too far afield from the topic at hand..

"It's easy to be enviromentally conscious when all your trash is either biodegradeable or rocks"
Source -- A modern Indian (of plains extraction I think) from the web... somewhere. I always liked that quote.

Anyhow.. look, can we drop the whole "Noble Savage" thing finally? As has already been noted, the whole disneyesque Dances With Wolves-plastic-pony-beads view of Indians is just plain insulting I think, just as much as the "ignorant savage" stereotype that preceded it. Like every other human culture on the face of the planet, they had some remarkable nobility and some outright barbarity.

As to the Indian Schools.. heck, my grampa grew up in one, and his folks ran the darned place. Maybe not the best solution, but when I look at the mess that's been going on in Israel..... there haven't been many Cherokee suicide bombers in the last fifty years, ya know?

Finally, one thing I REALLY like about modern Indian culture.. they were honoring vets in a big way before it was cool. In many ways (like some immigrants) they're more American than many others who claim the title.

-K

 

[Malamute]

A couple of my Navajo friends occasionally mention the there are more Navajos now than there has ever been, they now have more land that they have control over, and they didn't have pickup trucks and running water back then.

I agree many Indians had a tough go, and many didn't make it through, but some did pretty well overall considering.

 

[telewinz]

they were honoring vets in a big way before it was cool. In many ways (like some immigrants) they're more American than many others who claim the title.

They HAVE come a long way, my hats off to them.

 

[richyoung]

I believe you're referring to Kennewick man. The problem is that the research is ongoing and there is no reliable evidence that he is in fact "Causcasian" and not Paleo-Indian.

You have that backwards. There is no reliable evidence, indeed, NOTHING other than posturing by local AmerInd tribes, to suggest that he ISN'T anything other than what anthropologists have said he is - a Caucasian male with a Clovis spear point imbeded in his hip This, of course, also fails to take into account the OTHER Caucasian remains found all the way from the Pacific Northwest down to Mexico City - about ten ina ll, I beleive.

Some people would like him to be, so that they could deny Native American claims to property rights, relics, etc. The fact is that even if the above-mentioned scenario were true, that Paleo-Indian migrants from Asia wiped out a pre-existing civilization, this would in no way validate European claims to the North American continent, unless you believe that sovereignty and property rights should be based solely on race.

...isn't that what the "poor Indians" claims are based on?

 

[MICHAEL T]

Were's CUSTER that what this is suppose to be about.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Were's CUSTER that what this is suppose to be about.

He's down in some gulley in the Little Wolf Mountains, cursing and swearing and trying to get those d*mn gatlings up the other side.