Custer's anti-Indian reputation

Correspondent DMarks asks:Where is the best place to read about the crimes of Custer that set him apart, say, from any Army Indian fighter such as Abe Lincoln? One of my blog-readers is a huge Custer fan (not conservative at all, actually, and not any sort of racist that I can see).I think Custer's fame re Indians rests on three things:

1) Little Bighorn.

2) The battle (massacre) of Washita.

3) Leading an expedition to open up the Badlands.

Most people don't know about 3), or don't consider it remarkable, so they focus on 1) and 2).

One could argue that Custer's intent at Little Bighorn was a sneak attack that would turn into a rout if not a massacre. In other words, he was acting as an "Indian killer" even if his plan utterly failed. Hating him for that is somewhat understandable. It's like hating Hitler or Stalin for being anti-American even though they never attacked the US.

But really, Custer's infamy among Indians is mostly due to Washita. Along with Wounded Knee and Sand Creek, Washita was one of the "top three" massacres in the Indian Wars. There may have been one or two others where more Indians died, but these are the ones we remember.

Other "Indian fighters" may have killed more Indians over time, but Custer a) killed dozens in one swoop, and b) knew how to attract and hold the public's attention. I suspect Washita cemented his fame as an Indian fighter--with Custer stoking the legend himself.

Custer the symbol

When people like me list Custer as an Indian hater or killer, it's really because most people know him as one. He's useful as a symbol of anti-Indian aggression, not because he was a racist who hated Indians. Because of Washita and Little Bighorn, he represents someone who wanted to kill Indians, even if he didn't do that much of it.

In fact, Custer's view of Indians may have been typical of the times: he admired their fierce fighting prowess, but thought they had to get out of the way of progress. At one point he even testified on their behalf:

Custer ScrapbookNo one can really understand Custer's Last stand and its whys and hows unless they have a good knowledge of its background and how that background would lead to both an Army and Government coverup of what did take place at the Battle. Robert J. Barnes stated, "...this coverup is perhaps the most massive in American history with effects still being felt today". In 1876, politics were flaming in America with a Presidential Election in sight. The Grant administration was, in many ways, totally corrupt ...especially in the Indian Bureau where government figures were making fortunes cheating the Indians. Few Army Officers dared to speak of it, for their careers would be ruined. Custer, whatever one thought of him, was one of the few in the Army who actually was an admirer and friend of the Indian ... despite political correctness today trying to show the opposite. Custer did speak out and was called before Congress to testify about corruption. Outside of General Sherman and Sheridan, Custer was the most loved and famed Army Officer of the time ... and highly respected. His testimony led to the impeachment of Grant's favorite, Secretary of War Belknap. When Custer implicated Grant's brother, Orville, as king of the thieves, Grant went on a rampage. Custer has set off a firestorm and wrecked any chance Grant had for the third term he wanted so badly.Of course, testifying against the corrupt government doesn't necessarily mean Custer was the Indians' friend. He could've thought they were subhuman savages even though he indirectly took their side. Similarly, many Northerners opposed the slaveowning states while thinking blacks were children who couldn't govern themselves.

Custer open to interpretation

So I'm not sure any firm conclusion about Custer is possible. He led one of the worst massacres of Indians, but otherwise he didn't do much against them. Does that make him much worse than average, just average, or what? Depends how you rank the moral crimes, I'd say.

A better choice for Indian killer would be Col. John Chivington, who led the massacre at Sand Creek. I believe he genuinely hated Indians and thought they should die. Most Indian fighters respected their foes, but not Chivington.

I guess your friend could be a fan of Custer's Civil War record, or his larger-than-life personality. It would be like admiring the South's generals even though they lost the Civil War. But if he's a fan of Custer's Indian record, I'd have to ask why. Unless you think hunting and killing Indians is good, Custer didn't do anything great in the post-war years.

For more on the subject, see Racist Pro-Custer Website and Why We Love Custer and Indians.