Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly
I posted earlier a copy of General Terry's famous written order to Colonel Custer on the day that the Seventh broke off from the column and started its march to the Little Big Horn. I was hoping for some debate on the order and if Custer had really disobeyed orders when he launched his attack.
In the years since 1876, the Terry order has been argued, since the Officer's Call on June 21, Custer was already well awareof how the campaign was to progress, this order was simply written to confirm this. right?
Colonel William Pond (ret) conducted an analysis which is intresting on many points: "No matter what Custer does, Terry is protected. If Custer does everything that Terry thinks, and wins, Terry told him to, and the credit is his. If Custer does and is defeated, Terry told him to use his discretion and the blame is Custer's. On the other hand if Custer disregards what Terry thinks and wins, Terry gave him the discretion to do it, and credit is due Terry. If he loses, he disobeyed orders and again the blame is his alone."
Other historians regard the Terry order as so vague that Custer could not have disobeyed them, unless he disobeyed his own opinion as to his best course of action. Others argue that Custer's determination to strike the Indians on his own simply made him indifferent to his orders, especially since he had supposedly told a friend of his determination to "cut loose" from Terry and operate independently.
Another factor is the question of whether Terry verbally modify these orders prior on the morning of the 22nd. In 1896, General Nelson Miles cited an affidavit which had Terry, tell Custer: "Use your own judgement, and do what you think best if you strike the trail; and whatever you do, hold on to your wounded." Miles thought this "a most reasonable conversation." Others questioned the likelihood of such a conversation, citing Terry's caution against Custer abandoning the wounded as most unlikely. Miles later identified his eyewitness only as "Custer's servant." Libby Custer possessed a copy of the affidavit but never defended its authenticity. The affidavit was not published until 1953 were it was revealed that the affiant was Mary Adams, Custer's negro servant. Statements made by three surviving Seventh Cavalry officers, taken in 1924 stated that no servant had accompanied the Dakota Column and another witness had "Maria", Libby Custer's housemaid at Ft Lincoln. At this point, the affidavit was regardless as useless.
However, in 1983, historian John Manion produced evidence which establised the presence of Mary Adams with the column, but also explain "Maria" as Mary's sister, both women being employed as house servants by the Custers. But even this evidence does not confirm the affidavit's contents as to the real nature of Terry's verbal orders to Custer.
|
The orders as written show clearly that General Terry was covering all bases, another thing that hasn't change much since their time. The orders appear to direct Custer to follow one course of action while in the next breath he gets told to use his best judgement. In either direction if Custer luck held out, it would be Terry taking the credit. If it failed Custer was the only to blame.
As you have state, you have drawn same conclusion from the orders and I think many of us drew from the same conclusion.
I am concern that General Terry would go through the express effort to write out the last part for Custer to use his best Judgement. That part is usually the unspoken part of one written orders. We have to remember back in time period they didn't have the ability to call back to HQs and ask for permission. It where it was better to do something first and then ask for forgiveness, than do nothing and fail attitude came from.
The only time I know of orders being written in such way, were back in the Civil War. Where many of the top players during this time had fought. The purpose was to give the subordinate freedom to act as they felt they should since they were Johny on the spot. With the clear intention of any failures would rest with the subordinate and keep the commander clear of the matter coming through the fan of fallout.
Of course hearing the conversation where General Terry may have verbally modify the orders does on one hand surprise me. First off during the Civil War, the only time verbals orders were issued at this level were in time of distress. In many cases, when said orders were later disputed due to the fact they were rarely recorded, and infrequently were passed along by some aid. While at others the Chief of Staff were known to issue verbal orders in the name of their Commander too. Again when disputed there was general no record. In almost every case where things went badly, especially for the Union side the commanding officer would find themselves relief of duty.
Especially in the East during the Civil War there were times when due to verbal orders a senior Commander had been removed from command to be replace by the same people who units had failed, but due to lack of documentation that they failed in executing their supposed orders were allow to raise to Corps and Army Commanders. In fact even Major General Meade, Major General Sherman, and Lt. General Grant all been accused of various forms of misconduct before and during their various command stints.
Now back to George A. Custer, one of the things that many Regular Army Officers would keep noting during his military career was that Custer was only Regular Army Captain and was Brevet to Major General during the Civil War. Most of the jumps of rank from Captain to that Major General was due to fact that he served as aid to Major General McCleallan and then after he removed from command of the army he came to the attention of Major General Pheasonton who happen to command a Division of Cavalry. It was Pheasonton who promoted Custer from Captain of Regular Army to Brigadier General of Volunteers and assigned him to command a Brigade before the Battle of Gettysburg. From this point on Custer star would raise.
Then fast forward to the end of the war. Custer was still listed as Captain in the Regular Army, but again jumped to Lt. Colonel due to his successes he had during the Civil War and 2nd in command of the 7th Cavalry Regiment. A unit for most part until his death he held, most of the time as 'acting' Commander, but due the actual commander of the Regiment being sent of to fill some other duty.
The facts are that many Officers in the US Army didn't care for one Lt. Colonel George A. Custer. Many felt he hadn't proven himself, and felt he was under qualified for his position in his command. General Terry was one of those officers who felt this way, hence is why he issued the orders in this way. It was common practice for senior Officers who felt they had limit control over subordinates or wanted to find a reason to relieve someone.
Then again if IIRC, some of the orders from even the War Department and directly from President Lincoln were similarly worded. Again this is due to the direct fact of life at the time. The Officer who was conducting the operation was to Johny on the spot and was to act as they felt was required, and yes they would be second guess later if they failed. This was general unwritten rule for any written orders, the only times it seems to be include when the Commander who issued the order felt it important enough to express, said unwritten part to remind the subordinate that they could use their better judgement because they were trusted when the subordinate had shown they wouldn't always use the initiative. Or as the case seem here invite the subordinate to use their initiative in hopes they second guess themselves long enough to give the commander to catch up and claim any victory to their credit, while leaving failures to be the subordinate fault solely.