The Custer Controversy
-Jordan Barrilleaux
I have
known about a battle at Little Bighorn for a long time. I never really remembered ever formally
learning about it in a class setting, but somehow the knowledge that there was
a famous battle near the Little Bighorn River in Montana had been placed in my
head somewhere along the line. As I
began researching the topic I found much discrepancy among historian’s
description of the battle. I wanted to
know why the Battle of Little Bighorn was so controversial.
When I
searched ‘Little Bighorn controversy’ the first hit was an article in the New
York Times. At Little Bighorn battle
site there is a monument to the soldiers and Indians who lost their lives that
day. There is controversy over the
monument because the site of the battle and the monument park is on the Crow
Indian reservation land. The main point
of this modern disagreement involving the Battle of Little Bighorn is
land. Since the 1980’s private
supporters of the monument have raised money to buy land around the park so it
could expand and improve the quality of the facility and park as a whole. The Crow Indians were against this transfer
of their land because the Crow were originally forced out of their land by the
Sioux camped at the Little Bighorn River.
The Tribe also cites a law passed in the 1920’s limiting non tribal
members to only owning land up to 2,000 acres.
The supporters of the park try to explain that with the enhancement of
the park there will be tourists who will be great business for the Crow Indian
tribe. This article also explained that
in 1991 congress passed a law to remove George Armstrong Custer’s name from the
monument changing it from Custer Battlefield Monument to the Little Bighorn
Battlefield Monument. As of now there is
still a stand still over the Crow allowing the donation of the privately owned
land to the Little Bighorn monument site.
It was
definitely interesting to see there is still controversy involving the battle
site today, but my question remained unanswered. Next I came across an article from the
magazine called “The Wild West”. This
commentary was trying to convince people that there had been a big cover-up of
what really happened at the Battle of Little Bighorn. At first I did not want to give it any credit
thinking it was some conspiracy theorist babbling on about crazy delusions that
the government is corrupt and just loves keeping things secret from the
people. After reading into in a little I
found the article to be very thorough in analysis containing full names of
sources and descriptions of experiments validating assumptions of what happened
at the scene of the battle. Mainly the
article criticized the critiques of General; some say Lieutenant Colonel,
Custer. The author described instances
where there were inconsistencies with what the critiques said and what actually
could have happened. Some such instances
were; not all the 7th Calvary was wiped out on Last Stand Hill,
Custer did not disobey orders and advance to quickly but was left alone by the
other commanders who were behind schedule, Custer used proper military
maneuvers when engaging the hostile Sioux Indians, and that Custer was left
alone after commanders Reno and Benteen made early retreats from their
positions.
I began to notice a pattern. None of the articles or descriptions I read
could discuss the battle without covering some flaw or misconception about
George A. Custer. This was the real
controversy. I could not understand
which was famous because of the other.
Is Custer a household name because of his terrible defeat at Little
Bighorn or is the battle famous because of the controversy over how Custer
handled this encounter.
After realizing this I focused my
research more toward Custer and the mystery surrounding him. In the same article discussing the cover-up I
learned, from the perspective of the author, Custer had an extremely successful
career in the Civil war demonstrating well thought out attacks and mastery of
tactic of surprise. This author was
obviously on the side of Custer. Custer
later was court marshaled for absence from command without leave and ordering
the execution of deserters. After
regaining his command Custer was asked to give a speech in Washington. Custer brought up topics like the great
corruption in the west and how the government was not upholding treaties with
the Indian tribes.
Sources: