h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In the wake of the BBC's execrable 'drama-documentary of this subject broad cast last week 23/2/07 I should like to add these comments.

You seem more concerned with expressing your opinion that Custer was an arrogant fool and that the US government Indian policy was unjust than with writing an accurate summary of Custer's life or the events that ended his career. Of course, you are hardly alone in your opinion. You seem to have studied the subject at some length but your piece is full of sweeping generalisations and glaring inaccuracies. Moreover, in your desire to be satirical you frequently come across as merely flippant. Your opinions are your own but the racy style only points up the sloppy handling of the facts. Ironically the resulting combination of arrogance and error runs the risk of making you sound a bit like the Boy General himself.

To mention a few mistakes:

Custer served as an aide early on but his civil war fame was based on his record as a brigade and then division commander in the Union cavalry, where he established a reputation for reckless aggression; perfect qualities for a cavalry commander- unless you were one of the men under his command. At 24 he was allegedly the youngest general in the Union army.

Custer did not find himself in command the 7th US Cavalry in 1876. He took over field command of the 7th Cavalry in 1867 (technically, as Lieutenant Colonel, he was 2 i/c. The Colonel was filling a staff post) and although he spent periods away from his regiment on other postings (or suspended ) he remained in that position until his death.

Do you mean it was the 'Powder RIVER country' where the Indians had gathered ?

You write 'The fact is, we will never know what made him do what he did next." then go on to say "While Reno distracted them in the south, Custer would strike in their midst and sweep all before him. That was the plan, anyway." Make up your mind!

Obviously, Custer's recorded statements and orders to his officers give some indication of his plan and his intentions before the commands separated. Afterwards some deductions can be made from Custer's movements with his 'battalion', not least using the lines of grave markers ( not reliable) and the bullets and shell cases found by archaeologists (more reliable) as well as Indian testimony (vivid but frequently contradictory) but in the end it must all be surmise.

We can never, for instance , know whether Sgt Butler was going for help or riding for his life having fought free.

By the way, when you write 'feckless', do you mean 'reckless'.

Sitting Bull played no part in the battle of LBH. He was apparently still recovering from loss of blood after the Sun Dance ritual in which he had had the vision of the soldiers falling into the Indian camp. Crazy Horse is said to have been the leader (amongst others) of the circling attack that finally trapped Custer and the companies under his command.

I could go on but I shall spare you.

For those interested in balanced, factual analyses, Stephen Ambrose's 'Crazy Horse & Custer, and Evan S. Connell.'Son of the Morning Star' are good, readable accounts. As background, Hoig's study of the Washita is worth reading. Robert Utley's 'Life in Custer's Cavalry' deals vividly with the divisions in the officers of the 7th Cavalry into pro- and anti-Custer camps, evident as early as 1867-69, which contributed to the disaster in 1876. His 'Frontier Regulars: The US Army and the Indian 1866-1890' is a worthy history but with focus on the army point of view that might make some readers restless.

I question whether Custer was indeed, a General at age 24. I cannot recall where I read it, but he was only awarded a " brevetted " or temporary rank at that age for some specific campaign -- a rank that was later withdrawn. I may be incorrectconcerning the time of his career when this happened. Can you clarify?