Kick The Dead Lion: A Case Book Of The Custer Battle

By Charles G. Du Bois

Vol. One in ECHOES OF THE LITTLE BIG HORN SERIES, KICK THE DEAD LION by Charles G. du Bois, is a Custer classic, it focuses on the performance of Custer, Benteen and Reno; Enlisted Men’s Petition analysed.

“On June 25, 1876, the greatest Indian battle in the history of the American West was fought on the Little Bighorn River in southeastern Montana. The combined forces of Sioux and Cheyennes encamped there defeated the Seventh U.S. Cavalry Regiment and annihilated five companies of the regiment under the personal leadership of Brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer.

The firing had scarcely ceased, the Indians had only scattered, and the soldier dead still lay hastily buried on a lonely Montana ridge when it began—the unending, ever-increasing slander and defamation against General Custer. His brilliant record established during the Civil War, his victories on the western plains in the years that followed were ignored. The nation’s hero was slowly toppled from his pedestal.

The Lion was dead.

Like jackals snapping at the heels of the lord of the jungle, the defamers began their work. It was no simple task, but they applied themselves with vigor. So thorough was the campaign that only those close to the fallen Custer rallied to his defense. Now they are gone, friend and foe alike, but the perpetrators of the campaign of hate have bequeathed to history a legacy of distorted fact and perverted truth.”-Introduction.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Normanby Press
• Release date: Nov 6, 2015
• ISBN: 9781786254429

Charles G. Du Bois

See Book Description

Book preview

This edition is published by PICKLE PARTNERS PUBLISHING—www.picklepartnerspublishing.com

To join our mailing list for new titles or for issues with our books – [e-mail]

Or on Facebook

Text originally published in 1961 under the same title.

© Pickle Partners Publishing 2015, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Publisher’s Note

Although in most cases we have retained the Author’s original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern reader’s benefit.

We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.

KICK THE DEAD LION: A CASE BOOK OF THE CUSTER BATTLE

BY

CHARLES G. DU BOIS

(COURTESY OF CUSTER BATTLEFIELD NATIONAL MONUMENT)

BVT. MAJOR GENERAL GEORGE A. CUSTER

From the Elizabeth B. Custer Collection

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 18

DEDICATION 19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 20

LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 21

INTRODUCTION 22

SECTION ONE—THE CASE AGAINST MAJOR RENO 25

SECTION TWO—THE CASE AGAINST CAPT. BENTEEN 43

SECTION THREE—THE CASE OF THE PERFIDIOUS PETITION 58

SECTION FOUR—THE CASE AGAINST GENERAL CUSTER 69

APPENDIX 83

REQUEST FROM THE PUBLISHER 85

DEDICATION

TO THE GARRYOWENS—the men of the Seventh U.S. Cavalry Regiment—who, since 1866, have served their country, at home and abroad, in the heroic tradition established by their first lieutenant-colonel, Brevet Major General George A. Custer, this work is dedicated, and especially to three latter-day Garryowens, Colonel Brice C. W. Custer, grandnephew of the General, Colonel William A. (Wild Bill) Harris, liberator of Seoul, and Major Edward S. Luce (retired), Former Superintendent of the Custer Battlefield National Monument.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks to all who have extended assistance in the preparation of this narrative, and especially to

Major Edward S. Luce, U.S. Army, retired, former member of the Seventh U.S. Cavalry Regiment, and former Superintendent of the Custer Battlefield National Monument, for his encouragement and criticism, the use of his copies of the Benteen-Goldin letters, the copy of the Chicago TIMES account of the Reno Court of Inquiry, and numerous other official and unofficial documents, records and manuscripts;

Dr. James Brown, head of the Department of English, Eastern Montana College of Education, Billings, Montana, for a careful correction and appraisal of the manuscript;

To the Parmley Billings Memorial Library, Billings, Montana, and especially Miss Anne Whitmack, chief librarian, for the many courtesies extended me in the compilation of source material.

To all these, and many others, my sincere gratitude.

LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Bvt. Maj. Gen. Geo. A. Custer

Three Pronged Movements in the Sioux Expedition of 1876

Custer Divides the 7th Cavalry into Three Battalions

Major Marcus A. Reno

Battlefield Reunion of 1886

7th Cavalry at 50th Anniversary, 1926

Captain Fredrick W. Benteen

Custer’s Last Order to Benteen

Photostat of Enlisted Men’s Petition

Photostat of 7th Cavalry Payroll, 1876

INTRODUCTION

On June 25, 1876, the greatest Indian battle in the history of the American West was fought on the Little Bighorn River in southeastern Montana. The combined forces of Sioux and Cheyennes encamped there defeated the Seventh U.S. Cavalry Regiment and annihilated five companies of the regiment under the personal leadership of Brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer.

The firing had scarcely ceased, the Indians had only scattered, and the soldier dead still lay hastily buried on a lonely Montana ridge when it began—the unending, ever-increasing slander and defamation against General Custer. His brilliant record established during the Civil War, his victories on the western plains in the years that followed were ignored. The nation’s hero was slowly toppled from his pedestal.

The Lion was dead.

Like jackals snapping at the heels of the lord of the jungle, the defamers began their work. It was no simple task, but they applied themselves with vigor. So thorough was the campaign that only those close to the fallen Custer rallied to his defense. Now they are gone, friend and foe alike, but the perpetrators of the campaign of hate have bequeathed to history a legacy of distorted fact and perverted truth.

For three-quarters of a century the facts surrounding the Battle of the Little Bighorn were buried in the confidential proceedings of the Reno Court of Inquiry of 1879. In 1951, Lieutenant Colonel W. A. Graham, U.S. Army (Retired), published a limited edition of these proceedings.{1} It is ironic to note that Colonel Graham, in performing his valuable service, remained a critic of Custer, ignoring the factual information contained in the material he himself brought to light. Colonel Graham was not alone; his views were shared (perhaps more strongly) by other historians, among them E. A. Brininstool, Fredrick Van de Water and Fred Dustin.{2} This latter triumvirate was probably more bitter and vindictive in its method of attack than Colonel Graham, who described himself as something of a neutral observer, Yet within his writings, he sometimes contradicts this declaration. The best example is found in the appendix of one of his books.{3} Here he reprints in full Colonel Robert P. Hughes’ article, The Campaign Against the Sioux in 1876, which first appeared in the January, 1896, issue of The Journal of the Military Service Institution of the United States, an account which strives to prove by misrepresentation of fact that Custer disobeyed his orders.

But this is not a critique of Colonel Hughes’ article. The late Dr. Charles Kuhlman, author of Legend Into History and a profound student of the Custer Battle, has already sufficiently debunked Hughes in the course of writing the above mentioned book, an analytical study of the battle which is a must for anyone interested in the subject.

Nor can this be considered a critique of the works of Graham, Van De Water, Brininstool and Dustin, for they, like Hughes, relied on first-hand witnesses for their information. If, in proving these witnesses to be in error, some measure of guilt is reflected on these gentlemen, it is the result of their own failure to probe deeper into the motivations of their informants.

The picture of the battle is, at best, seen through a glass darkly, and the one-sided contributions of Messrs. Graham, Van De Water, Brininstool and Dustin have done little to clear it up. Yet there is good in everything, and in spite of the obvious prejudices, many interesting sidelights have been brought forth by these same men.

No historian can claim to be unbiased. In his search for truth, he must of necessity form opinions and judgments, regardless of an attempt to maintain objectivity. It is the historian’s obligation to preserve truths which might be misinterpreted or corrupted by prejudice. The conclusions reached by historians, based on careful research and analysis, without fear or favor, form the basis of all history, and the burden of Truth rests fully on the integrity of the historian. As one delves deeply into any historical subject he will find some things which impress him either favorably or unfavorably. Once this happens, and it cannot fail to happen if one digs deeply enough, the historian is committed. He becomes a partisan whether he will admit it or not, and there is no reason for him to deny it. Opinions based on facts are honest opinions, and if the facts are in error, it is an honest error arrived at by the historian. But nothing can be said in the favor of the man who approaches the subject with bias, for with such an approach, all facts will be colored by preconceived opinion, and all conclusions will be presented in this same light.

General George A. Custer died a hero’s death in the service of his country. His was a soldier’s death, quick and violent. Mourned by his friends, and they were many, reviled by his enemies, and they were many, he emerges today, in the light of Truth, an honorable man worthy of his country’s adulation. We Americans have long prided ourselves on our insistence for fair play. With this in mind, let us sweep aside the cloak of mystery that surrounds the two leading detractors of Custer, Major Reno and Captain Benteen, and examine the facts with cold reason. Perhaps then we may agree with General Nelson A. Miles, one of the greatest of all army officers who served on the Western frontier, when he said...I have no patience with those who would kick a dead lion.{4}

Who, then, will hold a brief for the dead lion? And who, after more than three-quarters of a