Indian Fights and Fighters: The Soldier and the Sioux

I.

Whether General Custer did, or did not, obey General Terry’s orders; whether these orders were, or were not, well considered, and such as could be carried out; whether, if General Custer did disobey General Terry’s orders he was warranted in so doing by the circumstances in which he found himself, are questions of the deepest interest to the student of military matters and the historian thereof. I presume the problem they present will never be authoritatively settled, and that men will continue to differ upon these questions until the end of time.

The matter has been discussed, pro and con, at great length on many occasions. A number of books and magazine articles have been written upon different phases of the situation. I have come to the conclusion indicated in my own article, as I said, against my wish. In view of his heroic death in the high places of the field, I would fain hold General Custer, for whom I have long cherished an admiration which I still retain, entirely innocent. I have only come to this conclusion after a rigid investigation including the careful weighing of such evidence as I could secure upon every point in question.

This evidence consists, first, of a great variety of printed matter; second, of personal conversations with soldiers and military critics, which, as any record of it would necessarily be hearsay and secondhand, I have not set down hereafter save in one instance; third, of letters which have been written me by officers who, from their participation in the campaign, or from unusual opportunities to acquire knowledge concerning it which they have enjoyed, have become possessed of information which they were willing to give to me.

The object of this appendix is to set down, so that it may be here preserved in permanent and available form for future reference, such evidence in these letters as may be pertinent and useful; also to refer the student, who desires to go deeper into the subject, to some of the more valuable printed accounts which are easily accessible.

I am glad that some of the communications I have received, notably those from Colonel Godfrey, make a stout defense of General Custer. Perhaps upon consideration of Colonel Godfrey’s points and arguments, which are not only strong and well taken, but also admirably put, the critic may be inclined to differ from my conclusion. For the sake of General Custer’s fame, I sincerely hope so. I should be glad to be proved to be mistaken.

Without specifically noting the various descriptions of the campaign and battle, which are interesting, but irrelevant to my purpose,^[113] Custer’s conduct has been critically considered at some length—by persons whose standing requires that their opinions should be respectfully received—in several publications which I note in such order as best serves the purpose of this discussion without regard to the order in which they appeared.

Colonel Edward S. Godfrey,^[114] U. S. A., now commanding the Ninth Cavalry, who, as a lieutenant, commanded K Troop, in Benteen’s battalion, which joined that of Reno in the battle of the 26th of June, 1876, wrote a most interesting account of the battle, containing some valuable reflections upon some disputed points, which was published in the Century Magazine, Vol. XLIII., No. 3, January, 1892. To this article, in the same number, were appended certain comments by Major-General James B. Fry, U. S. A., since deceased.

This article and these comments came to the notice of Major-General Robert P. Hughes, U. S. A. (retired), then Colonel and Inspector-General. General Hughes was General Terry’s aide-de-camp during the Little Big Horn Campaign. He wrote an exhaustive criticism on Fry’s comments to Godfrey’s article, which was in effect a discussion of the main proposition that Custer disobeyed his orders and thereby precipitated the disaster, for which he was therefore responsible. This campaign was also considered in an article by Dr. E. Benjamin Andrews, president of the University of Nebraska, who was then president of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, which appeared in Scribner’s Magazine for June, 1895. A fuller reference to Dr. Andrews’ position will be made later.

General Hughes’ article was offered to the Century, but was not accepted, and was finally published in the Journal of the Military Service Institution, Vol. XVIII., No. 79, January, 1896.

Among the many books in which the matter has been discussed, three only call for attention.

In “The Story of the Soldier,” by Brigadier-General George A. Forsyth, U. S. A. (retired), the following comment appears:

“Under the peculiar condition of affairs, bearing in mind the only information he could possibly have had concerning Sitting Bull’s forces, was Custer justified, in a military sense and within the scope of his orders, in making the attack?

“In the opinion of the writer he was within his orders, and fully justified from a military standpoint in so doing.”

General Forsyth gives no reason for his decision, but it is to be presumed that he did not arrive at that decision hastily and carelessly, and as he is a very able and distinguished officer and military critic, due weight should be accorded his views.

In “The United States in our Own Time,” by Dr. E. Benjamin Andrews, published by Chas. Scribner’s Sons, edition of 1903, pages 190–1–2–3, there is a concise discussion of the question, based on the article in Scribner’s Magazine, referred to above, with some additional reflections on General Hughes’ paper.

In “Personal Recollections of General Nelson A. Miles, U. S. A.,” chapter xv., pages 198–210, there is a further discussion by the Lieutenant-General, lately in command of the United States Army.

In order clearly to understand what follows the student should refer to each of the sources mentioned and examine carefully into what is therein set forth. It is not practicable to quote all these authors at length. I have corresponded with every one of the authors mentioned except General Fry. I print their letters to me, having made no change except once in a while breaking a page into paragraphs and supplying a missing word here and there which had no especial bearing upon the point at issue. Some of the letters were written in pencil amid press of duties. Most of these documents I print without comment. It is necessary, however, that I should call attention to some features brought out by the correspondence.

President Andrews says, in the book referred to:

“Much turns on the force of Custer’s written orders, which, judged by usual military documents of the kind, certainly gave Custer a much larger liberty than Colonel Hughes supposed. There is an affidavit of a witness who heard Terry’s and Custer’s last conversation together at the mouth of the Rosebud, just before Custer began his fatal ride. Terry said: ‘Use your own judgment and do what you think best if you strike the trail; and whatever you do, Custer, hold on to your wounded.’”

General Miles says, in his book:

“But we have positive evidence in the form of an affidavit of the last witness who heard the two officers in conversation together on the night before their commands separated, and it is conclusive on the point at issue. This evidence is that General Terry returned to General Custer’s tent,^[115] after giving him the final order, to say to him that on coming up to the Indians he would have to use his own discretion and do what he thought best. This conversation occurred at the mouth of the Rosebud, and the exact words of General Terry, as quoted by the witness, are:

“’Custer, I do not know what to say for the last.’

“Custer replied: ‘Say what you want to say.’

“Terry then said: ‘Use your own judgment, and do what you think best if you strike the trail; and, whatever you do, Custer, hold on to your wounded.’

“This was a most reasonable conversation for the two officers under the circumstances. One had won great distinction as a general in the Civil War; was an able lawyer and department commander, yet entirely without experience in Indian campaigns. The other had won great distinction as one of the most gallant and skilful division commanders of cavalry during the war, commanding one of the most successful divisions of mounted troops; he had years of experience on the plains and in handling troops in that remote country, and he had fought several sharp engagements with hostile Indians.”

If General Terry spoke such words to General Custer the last thing before Custer’s departure, those remarks have a very important, almost a decisive, bearing on the matter at issue. The only question then existing would be, how far the verbal order ought to be considered as superseding the written one. It is my opinion that the charge that Custer disobeyed orders would fall to the ground if the truth of the alleged remarks could be established. By giving him this verbal order, Terry would make Custer an absolutely free agent. The vital importance of establishing this affidavit is therefore obvious.

I call attention to the fact that Terry nowhere refers to this conversation, which it would be incumbent upon a gentleman to declare immediately Custer was charged with disobeying Terry’s written order, and that Terry, in that portion of his report which is quoted by me on page 225, virtually not only fails to exculpate but actually charges that Custer did disobey his order, by saying he did the very thing that he was not expected to do.

To establish this affidavit, I wrote to President Andrews, asking his authority for stating that such an affidavit existed and requesting a copy of it. Here is his reply. I insert it without comment.

Replying to your esteemed favor of the eleventh inst. I regret to say that I have no means of recalling with certainty the source of my information touching the Custer affidavit. My impression is, however, that my informant was Gen. Miles, with whom I communicated on the subject while I was writing my account. I also conversed personally with Hughes and with a very intimate friend, now deceased, of Gen. Terry’s.

I shall be extremely pleased to read your views upon this subject.

I also wrote to General Miles and received the following reply from him:

In reply to your two letters, you will find in my book, “Personal Recollections, or from New England to the Golden Gate,” published by Werner & Co., Akron, Ohio, perhaps all the information you will require. I can not give the time now to going over the campaign in detail. I presume you will find the book in most libraries.^[116] You will notice in it a chapter on the Custer campaign. General Custer did not disobey orders. When General Terry divided his command, taking one portion of it with him up the Yellowstone, and sending General Custer with the other portion far out in the Indian country, it necessarily put from seventy-five to one hundred miles between the two commands, and therefore placed upon General Custer the responsibility of acting on the offensive or defensive, for he could have been attacked by the whole body of the combined tribes, and, on the other hand, if he allowed them to escape without attacking them, he would have been severely censured. It would be silly to suppose that Indian chiefs like Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse would permit two columns to march around over the country with infantry, cavalry, wagon trains, etc.,^[117] and wait for them to come up on both sides simultaneously, and one must believe the American people very gullible if they thought such a proposition had military merit.

I immediately wrote General Miles a second letter asking him for the name of the affiant and any statement he might be willing to make about the affidavit. I pointed out to him what he very well knew—the prominence given to the story in his own book indicates that—the importance of the affidavit in establishing General Custer’s position and defending him against the charge of disobedience. I received no answer to this letter.

Meanwhile the question of the affidavit was taken up by General Hughes in his several communications to me which appear below.

In order not to break the thread of the discourse I will anticipate events and here insert a third letter which I wrote to General Miles, after carefully considering General Hughes’ remarks. The letter was sent to General Miles by registered mail. I hold the registry receipt showing that he received it. To this inquiry I have as yet received no reply.

A few months since I addressed to you a letter asking you for the name of the person, alluded to in your book, who made the affidavit as to the last remark of General Terry to General Custer. This letter has probably never reached you since I have never received any answer to it.

The statement is questioned by a number of officers, and in the interest of historical accuracy and for the sake of bringing forward every particle of evidence tending to clear General Custer of the charges which are made against him in that campaign, I most respectfully ask you to give me the name of the affiant together with such other statements concerning the affidavit as may be conclusive. How did you become possessed of the affidavit, for instance? Did you see it? Did you know the affiant? Was he a person whose testimony was to be implicitly relied upon? Is he alive now? In short, any information concerning it will be most acceptable as well as most useful.

I do not desire to comment on General Miles’ refusal further than to say that if he has in his possession the affidavit he should either submit it to the inspection of impartial observers, give it to historians, state who made it, where it was made, furnish a certified copy of it to the public, or otherwise establish it. If he is not willing to do this he should at least say why he is not willing. I submit that no man, whatever his rank or station, ought to make statements which affect the fame and reputation of another man without giving the fullest publicity to his sources of information, or stating why the public must be content with a simple reference thereto.

While I am on the subject of the affidavit, I call the student’s attention to a possible suggestion in Colonel Godfrey’s second communication below.

It is twenty-eight years since the Battle of the Little Big Horn. If the alleged affiant is now alive, what reason can exist to prevent him coming out and acknowledging his affidavit? If he is dead, why should secrecy about it longer exist? Why does not General Miles break his silence? The whole matter turns on the production of this affidavit, with satisfactory evidence as to the character of the affiant.

The other position taken in General Miles’ letter above, which of course is a summary of his views as set forth in his book, is discussed later on by General Woodruff.

II.

I now refer the student to the following letter in answer to one from me asking information and calling General Hughes’ attention to President Andrews’ book, which has just been reissued in a new and amplified edition:

Your letter of the 13th was duly received. I had not heard of Dr. E. Benjamin Andrews’ book prior to receipt of your letter, but have looked it up since.

After a careful examination of what he says about the Sioux campaign of 1876, I cannot find any good and sufficient reason for changing aught that was stated in the article published in the Journal of the Military Service Institution, in January, 1896. I do find, however, that something could be added to the statement of the case in reply to new matter which he has injected into it in his book. These items are three in number, to wit:

1st. General Miles does not agree with the views therein expressed.

2d. New evidence in the form of an affidavit made by some individual, name not given.

3rd. The writer of the book dissents from my view of the case.

We will take these items up severally:

First: “General Miles is strongly of the opinion that Custer was not guilty of disobeying any orders.”

It is not a new experience to learn that the views of General Miles and myself are at variance. Indeed, it seems that they are seldom in accord. But, in this instance, my views are supported by the late General P. H. Sheridan, who states as follows:

“General Terry, now pretty well informed of the locality of the Indians, directed Lieutenant-Colonel George A. Custer to move with the Seventh Cavalry up the Rosebud, until he struck the trail discovered by Major Reno, with instructions that he should not follow it directly to the Little Big Horn, but that he should send scouts over it and keep his main force farther south.”^[118]

General Gibbon, in a letter to General Terry, written after having reached his post, Fort Shaw, Montana, and bearing date November 5th, 1876, writes as follows, speaking of the “Conference”:

“We both impressed upon him (Custer) that he should keep constantly feeling to his left, and even should the trail turn toward the Little Big Horn that he should continue his march southward along the headwaters of the Tongue, and strike west toward the Little Big Horn. So strong was the impression upon my mind and great my fear that Custer’s zeal would carry him forward too rapidly, that the last thing I said to him when bidding him good-by, after his regiment had filed past you when starting on the march, was, ‘Now, Custer, don’t be greedy, but wait for us.’ Poor fellow! Knowing what we do now, and what an effect a fresh Indian trail seemed to have on him, perhaps we were expecting too much to anticipate a forbearance on his part which would have rendered coöperation between the two columns practicable.”

The foregoing clearly shows that no doubt existed in the minds of the Division Commanders and the third party present at the conference as to what the instructions required and that those instructions were not complied with.

Second: Dr. Andrews states that there was a listener at the last conversation between Terry and Custer at the mouth of the Rosebud, just before Custer began his fatal ride, and that his affidavit sets up that:

“Terry said: ‘Use your own judgment and do what you think best if you strike the trail and, whatever you do, Custer, hold on to your wounded.’”

It is quite evident that this is the same affidavit which General Miles refers to in his book. My attention was called to that reference in the winter of 1896, and in behalf of the family and friends of General Terry I asked to see the affidavit, saying that I might wish to make a copy of it. My request was refused by General Miles, with the further information that it had been in his possession for nineteen years, which carried the date back to a time when Colonel Miles was commanding a post in General Terry’s Department. The value of the document could have been very readily determined at that time by General Terry himself, and I am thankful to say its worthlessness is still capable of proof.

The quotations given by Dr. Andrews would alone be sufficient to condemn the paper with any one familiar with General Terry and the situation.

It will be noticed that he is represented as saying, “If you strike the trail.” Terry was sending, with Custer, Reno and six troops of cavalry, who had followed the trail for many weary miles only three days before, and there was no “if” in the case.

The other quotation is equally incredible. General Terry had an enviable reputation throughout the army for his exceptional courtesy on all occasions and under all circumstances, to all those serving in his command. To have made the remarks quoted, “Whatever you do, hold on to your wounded,” would have been tantamount to saying to one of his Lieutenant-Colonels, to whom he was confiding the finest command in his department, that he considered it necessary to caution him on the elementary principle of the position assigned him. To an officer of General Custer’s experience and gallantry such a caution would have been far from agreeable, and such action would have been entirely foreign to the life-long conduct of General Terry.

But, fortunately, we are not dependent upon deductive evidence in this instance. There are still living a good many people who were witnesses of that “march past” and parting of Generals Terry and Custer. By personal observation I positively know that any one, General Gibbon excepted, who makes affidavit to the effect that, at the said parting at the Rosebud, there was a conversation between Terry and Custer to which he was the only listener, is guilty of perjury.

When the notice came that the command was ready to take up its march I was sitting with Terry and Gibbon. General Terry invited General Gibbon to go with him and see it. They walked off a few yards from the bank of the stream and stood together when Custer joined them. The three remained together until the command had filed past and the final good-by was said. Custer mounted his horse and rode off, and Terry and Gibbon came back to where I had remained. The last remark made to Custer was by Gibbon. If any change was made at that time in Custer’s orders it was perforce known to Gibbon, who was alongside of Terry, and the only one who was with him and Custer. Now let us see what Gibbon said in a letter written to General Terry twenty-seven years ago, when he could not foresee for what purpose his words would be quoted:

“Except so far as to draw profit from past experience it is, perhaps, useless to speculate as to what would have been the result had your plan been carried out. But I cannot help reflecting that, in that case, my column, supposing the Indian camp to have remained where it was when Custer struck it, would have been the first to reach it; that with our infantry and Gatling guns we should have been able to take care of ourselves, even though numbering only two-thirds of Custer’s force.”

The only person actually in the presence of Terry and Custer at that final parting, happened to be the third member of the conference, who knew the “plan,” and on the fifth of the November following he writes as above, of what would have been the result had “your plan” (Terry’s conference plan) been carried out.

It so happened that I went over this whole subject with General Gibbon personally only a short time before his death. He certainly knew nothing of any change in the “conference plan” at that time. Any historian who makes use of the affidavit General Miles had some years ago, would do well to look carefully into the facts.

Third: Andrews states: “He (Hughes) adduced many interesting considerations, but seemed to the writer not at all to justify his views.”

I am, by no means, sure that this dissent would have disturbed me if I had depended on my own judgment alone in submitting the article^[119] for publication, but it so happened that I did not do so. The tragedy discussed being of an exceedingly grave character, and both the responsible heads having passed away, rendered it unusually important that every possible precaution should be taken against mistakes. For this reason, after the “many interesting considerations” were prepared for publication, I submitted the article to different competent military men with the simple question, “Is it conclusive?”

The final review was made by General Henry L. Abbott, U. S. Army, who enjoys a world-wide reputation for military ability and scholarly attainments. The gentlemen who revised the article were unanimously of the opinion that the statement was absolutely conclusive, and with the support of such men I have felt little anxiety about the criticisms that have been made.

Thereafter I wrote again to General Hughes about some matters repeated to me in conversation by General Carrington, who told me that Custer actually got down on his knees to Terry and begged him, for the sake of Custer’s honor and fame as a soldier, to get the orders detaining him at Fort Lincoln revoked, so that he might be spared the disgrace of seeing his regiment march to the front leaving him behind. Carrington’s recollection was that the scene took place in Terry’s bedroom.

Here is General Hughes’ letter on that point:

Yours of the 27th at hand. Carrington is all right except as to location—the incident occurred in General Terry’s office in St. Paul, corner Fourth and Wabashaw Streets. It drew from Terry a request to the President to permit Custer to go with him, the answer being through Sherman, “If Terry wishes Custer let him take him along.” Just after notifying Custer of the reply and telling him he would take him along, Custer met Ludlow on the street and made the “swing clear” remark which is spoken of in Andrews’ history and is referred to in my article in the journal. I shall have to apply for a copy of the Secretary of War’s report for 1876, which has the reports of Sheridan, Crook, Terry, Gibbon, Reno, etc., pages 439–487.^[120]

III.

Meanwhile I had communicated with Colonel Godfrey, who had already furnished me with much data in addition to that contained in his valuable and interesting paper, calling particular attention to some of the statements made by General Hughes in his article in the Journal of the Military Service Institution. From Colonel Godfrey I received the following paper:

Memoranda for Rev. C. T. Brady

A semi-official account entitled “Record of Engagements with Hostile Indians in the Division of the Missouri, from 1868 to 1882,” was published by the Division of the Missouri. This paper is now being reprinted in the United States Cavalry Journal, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The part relating to the Little Big Horn, is in the October, 1903, number. This account reads:

“About two o’clock in the morning of July 25th, the column halted for about three hours, made coffee, and then resumed the march, crossed the divide, and by eight o’clock were in the valley of one of the branches of the Little Big Horn.”

This is misleading and not altogether true. We halted about two A.M., till eight A.M., then marched till ten A.M., halted, and it was not until nearly noon that we crossed the divide. We were in a narrow valley. The march is correctly described in my article. The inference is that Custer was so very eager that he crossed the divide into the valley of the Little Big Horn and put himself where he could be discovered. General Hughes’ article is a special plea to clear General Terry from the odium that he and his family seemed to think was heaped upon him for failure to push forward with the information they had on June 25th and 26th, and that General Custer’s family and friends were supposed to hold him (Terry) responsible for the disaster in a measure. I do not remember a charge of disobedience as having been made at any time during this campaign; nor, on the other hand, do I recall that much was said that Terry and Gibbon did not do as they thought best on June 25th and 26th.

The marching distance from the Yellowstone, where Gibbon’s command was crossed, to the Little Big Horn, was about forty-six miles. East of the Big Horn, the country over which Gibbon’s forces marched, was rough—bad lands. The Second Cavalry on its march June 25th, saw the “big smoke” (from the fire in the bottom at the time of Reno’s attack) and at once sent word to General Gibbon (and Terry) that they thought a fight was going on, or something to that effect. I don’t know when they saw this “big smoke,” but my recollection is that it corresponded or tallied very well with the time of Reno’s attack. The Second Cavalry got to the Little Big Horn, four or five miles above the mouth, about nine-thirty, June 26th. They were then distant from the battlefield about eight or ten miles—an infantry officer says six miles. They arrived in the vicinity of our position about eleven A.M., June 27th, nearly two days after the “signs,” the “big smoke” of the fight, had been communicated.

That the country between the Yellowstone and the Little Big Horn was rough; that the 25th of June was hot; that the water was scarce, we all know; but we thought it strange that, after they learned from the Crow scouts—say at ten-thirty, June 26th, on the Little Big Horn—that a disaster had occurred, it took them so long to get a move. Yet none of us blamed them for being cautious at that time.

General Terry was not an Indian fighter and would never have made a success of getting Indians on the plains. The idea is preposterous^[121] that a force can march through the open country (a great big country like we had) pass by the Indians fifty or sixty miles south, then turn round and find them in the same place, and crush them between that force and another from the opposite direction. They don’t linger that way. Our march from eleven P.M., June 24th, was in a close country and not exposed—was in a close valley, a branch of the Rosebud. The Indians who discovered us and sent word to the village would have discovered our trail and consequently informed them of our movements.

General Custer did not intend to attack until June 26th, the date Terry was to be at the Little Big Horn.^[122] Herandeen was the scout that was to take the information through to Terry, but developments made it necessary, in General Custer’s opinion, if we were to strike the Indians at all, that we should do it at once. Even then he expected only a running fight. Their stand and concentration were unexpected, because the chance of “surprise” was gone, and he probably did not send Herandeen, as was intended, to communicate with Terry for the reason that he did not think he could get through.

Now, suppose the Indians had been located on the headwaters of the Rosebud or Tongue, or Powder, and not on the Little Big Horn, and we had bumped up behind them on the north, should Custer have backed away, sent a scout through to Terry, made a detour so as to get to the south side? Terry’s instructions had fairly located the Indians, but it was a mere guess.^[123] On the 17th they had fought Crook to a retreat, then they concentrated upon the Little Big Horn.

In my opinion, if our attack had been delayed even a few hours we would not have found the Indians all in the village. When we got to the divide their pony herds were still out grazing; when the attack was made all herds had been driven into the village; they did not have time to strike their tepees and steal away. I don’t believe they had a long warning of our advance. The Indian runners had the same, or a greater, distance to get back than we had to advance. It was their evident purpose to drop out of sight of our scouts who were in position for observation before daylight, and did not see them returning down the valley on the trail. Therefore, they must have made a wide detour.

Again, when they discovered us we were probably in bivouac and, at all events, an ordinary day’s march distant from the village. The time of warning, I think, could be safely conjectured as the time of arrival of the few warriors that came out to meet the advance and attack Reno. All those warriors that had their ponies handy, I believe, were assembled at once to come out and meet the troops. The rapid advance didn’t give the Indians a chance to collect their belongings and mature any plans to escape; otherwise I believe the expected “scattering” would have taken place. And in just so much was the attack a “surprise.”

That General Custer deliberately disobeyed Terry’s orders I do not believe. Custer was intensely in earnest and fully determined to find the Indians and, when found, to attack them, even if it took him back to the agencies. Suppose Custer had asked Terry “If I find these Indians shall I attack, or wait for you?” Undoubtedly Terry would have replied “Attack!” He was too good a soldier not to appreciate opportunity, but he was not enough of a cavalryman or Indian fighter to appreciate the flash-like opportunities for hitting the Indians on the broad prairies.

Custer was what in these modern days is styled a “strenuous” man. Terry was not. He was the personification of gentleness and deliberateness. And besides, Terry’s instructions gave the necessary latitude. He told Custer what he thought should be done but, after all, left it to Custer’s judgment and discretion when so nearly in contact with the enemy.^[124] If Custer had passed on south and the Indians had escaped, or had gone forth and attacked him, as they had Crook, and defeated him, would these instructions have shielded him? Not much. He would have been damned as cordially for the failure of the expedition as he is now, by those same men, for courting disaster. I have no doubt in my mind, that if Custer had passed south even one more day, the Indians would have attacked us as they had General Crook, and upon almost the same ground, just one week before.^[125]

Terry says, in his instructions, “He will indicate to you his own views of what your action should be, and he desires that you should conform to them unless you should see sufficient reason for departing from them.”^[126] Custer was an experienced war soldier, a thorough cavalryman, and an experienced Indian campaigner. So why not give him the benefit of “sufficient reason”? Were Terry’s instructions “definite and explicit”? Terry himself says in his order that “definite instructions” were “impossible.”

There was not an officer or soldier of the Seventh Cavalry but that expected a fight when we were preparing to leave the mouth of the Rosebud. Where the fight would take place we knew not, but I venture to say that never was there a thought that the Indians would take a position and wait there for us to go through a lot of manœuvers. Reno’s scout had not brought any definite information. I find my notes (June 20th) say that it was generally thought the trail, when they left it, was about three weeks old and the indications showed perhaps three hundred and fifty lodges. I don’t think General Terry had any later information than Reno’s scout on which to guess the location of the Indians on the Little Big Horn. General Custer’s statement that he would follow the trail until he found the Indians, even if it took us to the agencies on the Missouri or in Nebraska, does not indicate that he expected them to wait in position on the Little Big Horn or elsewhere. This statement was made after it had been decided that we should go over the trail, June 21st, but probably before the general instructions had been made out.

As it turned out I think Custer did make a mistake in going in with a divided force, not that the division of itself would have been fatal, but because Reno failed to hold a leg even if he couldn’t skin.

If Custer had followed Reno the latter, in my opinion, would never have dared to halt, or even hesitate, in his attack. If Reno had even held to the bottom, the overwhelming forces would have been divided. There was nothing in Reno’s past career that would indicate confidence should not be placed in his courage. Custer could not have anticipated a faint-hearted attack or that Reno would get stampeded.

I believe that Reno was dismayed when he saw the showing in front of him, and when he failed to see the “support” promised, I think he lost his nerve, and then when his Ree scouts stampeded and he found his force being surrounded in the bottom, I believe he abandoned himself to his fears, then stampeded to the hills and lost his reason, throwing away his ivory handled pistols. If Reno had held to the bottom, Custer’s left flank (Keogh and Calhoun) would not have been so quickly overwhelmed (for the Indians leaving Reno made that envelopment), and it is reasonable to suppose Custer would have had a better show to withdraw and rejoin other forces.

If Custer had followed up Reno he would have taken matters in his own hands, held and concentrated his men in such manner as to control the situation until Benteen and the packs came up. The Indians, as a rule, will not stand punishment unless cornered. I went over the ground in the bottom where Reno was when he concluded to go to the hills, and I believe he could have held the position. I talked the matter over with General Gibbon and he practically agreed with me. I know many others think otherwise, including some who were in that part of the fight.

I have doubts about the saving of Custer if Reno had advanced after the packs joined us, for I think the fight was practically over then. To have advanced before then might possibly have done something in favor of Custer, but probably not. I am of the opinion that part of the fight was settled quickly. Custer’s battalion had practically no shelter and no time to make any. While a good many horses were killed, I fear that most of those getting away carried their reserve ammunition, and it didn’t take long to get away with fifty rounds in a fight. With a different commander than Reno we might have created a diversion by advancing as soon as the ammunition packs came up, which was some little time before McDougall arrived with all the packs. Reno was apparently too busy waiting for further orders from Custer to take any initiative. Weir asked permission to take his troop to reconnoiter in the direction of the firing on Custer, and Reno would not give it. Weir started on his own hook, and Edgerly (Weir’s Lieutenant) supposing permission had been given for the troop, followed Weir with the troop. I think Reno subsequently tried to make it appear that this advance of Weir was by authority. I don’t think Reno was drunk, for I don’t believe there was enough whiskey in the command to make a “drunk.”^[127]

At the Reno Court of Inquiry I was asked if I thought Reno had done all he could as a commanding officer, and I replied “No.” That was about the effect of the question and answer. The testimony and proceedings were reported in full in the Chicago Times. The New York Herald had an able correspondent, Mr. Kelly, that joined our forces on the Yellowstone in July or August, and wrote, giving all the information he could gather from all sources that pervaded the command, that he could get at. There were a “whole lot” of correspondents in the field after the fight, but Mr. Kelly was considered one of the ablest. Being in the field till September 26th, we saw but few newspapers from the east.