General George A. Custer's Leadership

by

MSG Linda C. Suggs

MSG Willie Covington

PNCS(SW/AW) David Ramirez

MSG William Van Natta

RSM Ian M. Pressley

Group 6

19 May 1995

ii

Outline

Thesis: General George Armstrong Custer was not the brilliant

military leader depicted in history.

I. How he earned his reputation

A. Background

B. His wife's contributions

C. His aspirations

D. The public's image of Custer

II. The Indian's perspective of General Custer as an adversary

III. Analysis of his leadership in different battles

A. As a Civil War leader

B. As a leader during the American Indian Wars

1

General George Armstrong Custer's Leadership

General George Armstrong Custer was not the brilliant

military leader depicted in history. FM 22-100, dated July 1990,

defines leadership as "the process of influencing others' to

accomplish the mission by providing purpose, direction, and

motivation."

Facts are the basis of the many good things we read and hear

about Custer. Custer, himself, wrote many articles, books, and

personal letters documenting his development as a leader.

Everyone agrees that he was brave and daring in battle. This

research paper will make the reader aware of Custer as a regular

person. He has been on a pedestal as America's hero long enough.

It is time to analyze why such a minor battle and a relatively

unaccomplished soldier continue to live on larger than life in

history. To do this, let us begin by learning how he earned his

reputation.

General George Armstrong Custer was a self-made man. He was

born in New Rumley, OH in 1839. He was the third of seven

children in his father's second marriage. The family immigrated

from Germany in the 17th century. His father and grandfather

were village blacksmiths. George's stepmother probably played

the major role in his upbringing. She instilled in him a strict

sense of moral discipline. His father taught him to be

comfortable around animals. This ability served him well

throughout his military life. George, his brothers, and his

2

sisters, constantly played pranks on each other. No trick was

too cruel and no dare too great. His childhood environment

played a key role in how Custer acted out his life.

Custer took a job as a teacher when he was 16. A year later,

he received an appointment to West Point Military Academy.

Admitted in July 1857, Custer was far from a model cadet. He had

a consistently unsatisfactory military appearance, marginal

academic grades, and his military bearing was poor. It makes one

wonder what kind of teacher he was before West Point. He

received a court-martial and reprimand in his third year. Custer

must have hated authority because it seems that he intentionally

tested the rules to see what he could get away with.

Custer did excel at one thing during his time at West Point.

He was unrivaled in his horse-riding ability. This remains his

only praiseworthy achievement during his entire time at the

Academy. Custer graduated from the West Point Military Academy

in June 1861, 34th out of 34 students.

Custer married Elizabeth Bacon in 1864. He remained

faithfully devoted to her throughout their marriage. Even though

the marriage remained childless, she did much to enhance his

reputation. She was a popular figure in society and adamantly

defended him against all allegations after his death at Little

Big Horn. Elizabeth also wrote three books that perpetuated the

shining image of her husband. They were: Boots and Saddles

3

(1885), Tenting on the Plains (1887), and Following the Guidon

(1890) (Hutton 25) .

Custer may have been a self-made success story, but he had

much help from the press. Brereton stated that GALAXY magazine

offered Custer $100 each for a series of articles about his

experiences on the plains. Custer accepted the offer and from

January 1872 to October 1874 wrote a long series of articles for

the magazine. By doing so, he enhanced his image in the public

eye (522).

Custer's image became a primary issue. The public was

looking for a new leader. President Ulysses S. Grant was nearing

the end of a very troubled second term in office. His

administration was famous for its unscrupulousness and

corruption. It had earned the reputation of being one of, if not

the rottenest administration in American history (stewart 132).

Custer seemed an ideal choice and rumors abounded in the

Democratic community of the possibility of his selection.

However, those rumors remained just that. There is no clear

indication that Custer had his eye on the Presidency. There is,

however, a clear indication that he still sought glory on the

battlefield.

The public raged after the terrible loss of the 7th Cavalry

at Little Big Horn. This is the point at which General Custer's

reputation began to accelerate. The press covered the dramatic

misfortune from every angle. They helped lay the blame for the

4

massacre on Major Reno. The Army court-martialed Reno twice and

dismissed him in 1879. He died ten years later still trying to

clear his name. His grand-nephew finally cleared his name almost

100 years later (Hutton 38).

Many things have allowed Custer to live on in history.

Poems, books, and pictures enjoyed a wide circulation. For fifty

years this went on, building up his name and reputation, making

him larger than life. William (Buffalo Bill) Cody wanted people

to think he was Custer. He was very successful primarily by

reenacting the Battle of Little Big Horn in his stage show.

After a while, people started thinking that Buffalo Bill really

was at Little Big Horn and had:

1. arrived too late to save the day, and

2. was the lone survivor of the massacre (Hutton 28).

Other actors also used Custer's Last Stand as part of their

stage shows. At the same time, Custer was an ideal figure for

the movie screen. Over the next 35 to 45 years, a variety of

actors portrayed Custer. Each depicted Custer as a self

sacrificing hero, brave, and undaunted by the enormity of the

challenge before him.

Cassily Adams painted the most famous painting ever produced

about Custer's Last Stand. The painting was 12 feet by 32 feet

in dimension. The Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company took possession

of the painting after one of its saloons filed for bankruptcy.

They contracted F. otto Becker of Milwaukee to recreate smaller

5

versions of the painting for distribution. Afterwards they

transferred ownership to the 7th Cavalry. Hutton reports, that

the Anheuser-Busch distributed over 150,000 copies of the

resulting lithographs, copyrighted in 1896. These paintings

contributed tremendously to how future generations viewed Custer

(Hutton 29) .

To further analyze Custer's leadership, let's look at him

from the Indian's perspective. The Indians only knew the Custer

they fought. Therefore, the only perspective they could present

was from the battlefield.

General Sheridan ordered Custer to investigate the claim of

gold in the Indian's land. After his investigation, Custer

triggered a gold rush into the Lakota land and caused many

problems.

In 1874, the Lakota Indians called Custer "thief" because of

the 1868 Laramie Treaty. The treaty guaranteed land to the

Indians "so long as the grass grows." When Custer announced that

there was gold in the area, he caused serious problems. White

settlers came looking for gold which caused conflict between the

whites and the Lakota Indians. The treaty failed because of

Custer's arrogance. This was the only negative comment we found

that the Indians made about Custer (Hook 82) .

Yellow Horse, who fought with Crazy Horse at Little Big Horn,

said, ~Custer fought and Reno did not; Custer went to die, and

6

his fighting was superb; I never saw a man fight as Custer did;

he was conspicious in battle ... directing his men" (Ambrose

442) •

Another quote about Custer is:

Low Dog, Oglala Sioux Chief, interviewed in 1881 made

this comment of General Custer at Little Big Horn. The

white warriors stood ground bravely, and none of them

made any attempt to get away. After all but two of them

were killed, I captured two of their horses. The wise

men and chiefs of our nation gave out to our people not

to mutilate the dead white chief, for he was a brave

warrior and died a brave man, and his remains should be

respected.

Low Dog continued, I did not see General Custer.

do not know who killed him. We did not know till the

fight was over that he was the white chief. We had no

idea that the white warriors were coming until the

runner came in and told us. If Reno and his warriors

had fought as Custer and his warriors fought, the battle

might have been against us. No white man or Indian ever

fought as bravely as Custer and his men. The next day

we fought Reno and his forces again, and killed many of

them. (Utley 51)

Some historians claimed that General Custer was "reckless,

brutal, egotistical, selfish, unprincipled, and immature." Other

I

7

historians viewed him as, "a model of truth and sincerity, honor

and bravery, tenderness, sympathy, unassuming piety and

temperance" (Utley 8) .

Many whites disliked General Custer due to his arrogant

behavior in handling the Little Big Horn battle. The Indians,

however, saw him as a brave warrior.

No analysis of Custer's leadership would be complete without

looking more deeply into his Civil War record. Though he started

his military career moving against the grain, things changed

rapidly for Custer after West Point. Custer quickly became known

as a daring and aggressive leader. He took great risks with his

men to gain intelligence about the enemy's strengths and

weaknesses. He fought at the Battle of Bull Run and Gettysburg.

Custer helped cut off the south's retreat and personally accepted

the flag of surrender from General Robert E. Lee. General George

McClellan admired his commanding personality and aggressive

spirit (Hutton 20) .

Many successes marked General Custer's Civil War career. He

commanded at both the brigade and division levels. He made

significant contributions to the Union victories at

Gettysburg, Yellow Tavern, Winchester, Cedar Creek, Waynesboro,

Five Forks, and Appomattox. He fought and often outdid

confederate leaders like Robert E. Lee, J. E. B. Stuart, Jubal

Early, Wade Hampton, and Richard Ewell (Urwin 33) .

8

Custer's progression through the ranks was extraordinarily

rapid. As mentioned earlier, he graduated a second lieutentant

from West Point last in his class. Within two years, he was the

youngest and most popular general in the Union Army (Urwin 36) .

His exploits on the battlefield earned him the respect of his

superiors. The American public loved him. With such fame and

success, it seemed only natural that he would also experience the

jealousy of other officers. These officers had more experience

than Custer and many were field grade officers when he was a

lieutenant (Urwin 65). It would take time, but Custer did earn

their trust and respect both on and off the battlefield (Urwin

277) •

However, was he a great leader? Did he use the tactics and

forethought of a great leader? We say not. Custer's performance

at West Point was by no means exceptional. He was in trouble

throughout his years at West Point.

Custer violated many rules and regulations as a cadet. Lack

of attention to his studies, disciplinary issues, and protocol

were some of the areas in which he had problems. In fact, a

court-martial highlighted his West Point graduation. The charge

was failing to break up a fight between two cadets while Officer

of the Guard. Afforded the best military training, he failed to

apply himself and to use the training while a cadet. If not

fully realized as a cadet, it is unlikely that he would fully

employ this training on the battlefield (Urwin 44) .

9

We think General Custer was a very headstrong individual. On

the battlefield, as at West Point, he continued to have little

respect for orders and army regulations. He seemed ever thirsty

for glory and the limelight. Impressing his superiors was the

main focus for many of his battlefield tactics.

Custer's special uniform was another way to draw attention to

himself. It was after wearing this uniform that the press

began calling him the "Boy General with the Golden Locks".

The shortened version of the nickname "Boy General" was more

common (Urwin 58).

Custer appeared to display unquestionable courage in battle.

However, it could be argued that the recklessness of youth not

courage motivated him. Custer reacted to a more basic instinct

than courage. The mistake of the young is the disregard of

obvious danger and the belief in immortality. This lack of fear

propels a person to take extreme risks (Hutton 4) .

After the initial resentment and doubts, Custer's superiors

and subordinates began to respect him. After the Battle of

Gettysburg, his subordinates idolized him. His troops, whom he

nicknamed the Wolverines, began to wear red neckties. "The red

tie became a badge of honor for all men who followed Custer

throughout the Civil War" (Urwin 82). The troops became more

attached to him, primarily due to his exploits in conducting

cavalry operations. Over four hundred troopers petitioned for

transfer to follow Custer to the 3rd Divison. Unlike the men he

10

led on the Great Plains, these men had a great deal of respect

for Custer. He was proud of his troopers, both the Wolverines

and those in the 3rd Divison (Urwin 191) .

Custer did not display fear when in battle. Wounded only

once, he had horses shot from under him eleven times (Faust 200) .

Third Division had suffered many defeats in battle and morale was

very low when Custer took command. The situation changed

dramatically for the division after it's second battle under

Custer at Torn's Brook. This October 1864 victory was highly

successful for Custer and his new troopers. Because of Custer's

reckless style and their victory, they now felt that "their

outfit was finally worth something again" (Urwin 202). Soon

after this battle, every man started wearing the red neckties.

Custer had won the hearts and full support of the entire division

in a single battle (202).

Great leaders must be able to adjust their leadership style

to fit the situation. Custer was a successful leader during the

Civil War. Even though the media and publicity may have

exaggerated his image, he was a great contributor to the Union's

success. He did not learn how to vary his leadership at West

Point or on the Civil War battlefields. His headstrong,

recklessness, even rebellious behavior characterized him

throughout the Civil War. On the Great Plains, Custer failed to

adapt to his new enemy.

Custer wrote long and very detailed explanations for all his

11

actions. Historians have speculated that some of his prose was

less than truthful, but it does provide insight to his thoughts.

Some of his actions led Karl Menniger, M.D. (1012), to

speculate that Custer's personality was psychopathic. He

considered such actions as:

1. In the name of war, Custer slaughtered women and

children.

2. He dragged his wife with him on the frontier, and so

possessed by her, he at times left his command to be with her.

3. He disregarded the welfare of his men in battle.

4. He disobeyed orders of supposed friends and of a general

who had previously revived his career.

"Excessive vanity and complete disregard for others characterizes

psychopathic personality. Also, lack of loyalty to causes,

friends, humanity principles, or the established code of ethics

is typical of psychopathic personality" (Menninger 1012).

Custer was looking for some permanent recognition. West

Point and the Civil War were early examples of his search for

recognition and glory. He spent time in Washington, DC searching

for positions of power and recognition that never came. The

press glorified his deeds, but we think he and his wife through

their writings magnified his glorification.

After the Civil War, Custer went to Texas to work with

General Sheridan. Here he learned some of the realities that

would face him during his years on the plains. Previously he

12

commanded volunteers who wanted to be a part of his command. Now

he led men whose only goal was to return to their homes in the

west or find their "pot of gold" (Ambrose 247) .

We believe he fell into the trap of thinking, if they don't

care, then I won't care for them. There are many examples of him

sending soldiers out on missions without regard for their safety.

Several times he sent soldiers to chase Indians without any prior

intelligence gathering. This starkly contrasted with his earlier

ability as a staff officer to produce detailed intelligence for

his superiors.

General Sheridan had requested a permanent two star general

promotion for Custer. However, in early 1866, Custer's volunteer

commission expired. Reduced to captain, he received a

reassignment to the east. He spent the next year learning that

he did not want to become a politician. After receiving a

promotion to lieutenant colonel, he went to Fort Riley, Kansas

(Ambrose 254) .

While at Fort Riley, he dealt with conflicting thoughts. He

knew his government sent him to be a peace keeper. His job was

to control the wild young braves, as well as protect the rights

of the Indians. However upon arrival, his military superiors

told him to seek out and destroy any Indian he could find.

Encouraged by General Sherman and General Hancock, Custer chased

the Indians across the plains, but with little success.

13

The first time Hancock sent him after the Indians, he used

the reckless leadership style he enjoyed most. He constantly

made decisions without prior planning. He spotted some antelope

and gave chase. After several miles, he realized his position,

lost on the Great Plains and worst yet -- he had deserted his

command. still caught up in the spirit of the chase, he spotted

and chased a bull buffalo for several miles. He had several

opportunities to kill the animal. His horse began to tire and

just as he placed the pistol to the buffalo's head, it swerved

into him. Firing his pistol as the buffalo swerved, Custer shot

his horse in the head. There the great leader of soldiers was

lost on the Great Plains without a horse. Fortunately, his

troops found him (Ambrose 266). Charles K. Hoflling described

this type of behavior as "boyish." Hoflling wrote that many of

Custer's actions were a result of never growing up (38).

Custer really tried to play the role of the protector of the

Indians. Again he found himself pulled in two different

directions. He thought he had made peace with Pawnee Killer.

When he told Sherman that he had convinced Pawnee Killer to make

camp by the fort, Sherman was furious. Sherman told Custer that

he had no business playing politics and that chasing and killing

Indians was his role. Sherman ordered Custer to take his command

and not return until he killed and captured some Indians. This

type of order led Custer to make decisions without taking caution

or using common sense (Ambrose 281) .

14

The events of this mission provide greater insight into

Custer's personality and the decisions that eventually cost him

his life. His mission was to seek out and destroy any Indians

his troop encountered. However, his obsession with his wife

clouded his judgment. To bring her to him, he decided to set up

a headquarters on the plains. He split his troops into three

parts, a strategy that in later years would get him killed. He

sent one portion to receive any new orders. He sent another

portion to bring his wife to him under the pretense of getting

fresh supplies. In the middle of Indian country, he had only a

third of his command. The Indians attacked, but his troops drove

them off. He sent a unit of soldiers to chase down the Indians.

The Indians trapped the soldiers but they made a stand and fought

their way out. Custer thought he had learned a valuable lesson

from this. He surmised that a well-armed cavalry unit could

stand off and win against any amount of Indians. This

misconception proved fatal at the Battle of Little Big Horn

(Ambrose 283) .

No new orders awaited him. Further, the Army had moved his

wife to another fort for safety reasons. With his entire command

reunited, he continued with his mission. His soldiers, tired

after the long campaign under exhausting conditions, were ready

to go home. Several soldiers deserted his command in broad

daylight. Custer ordered them chased down, shot, and killed.

When the soldiers wounded and captured three deserters, he

15

ordered the doctors not to treat them. He later rescinded the

order in private (Ambrose 287) .

He cut short the campaign claiming his supplies were low and

his horses worn out. But it was only another excuse to go find

his wife. Custer left the majority of his troops at the main

post. He took a mounted escort and rode all night until he got

to the next fort at approximately two o'clock in the morning.

There he woke Colonel Smith and reported his mission was complete

and his troops were standing down. He told the Colonel that he

intended to go on leave for a few days. Custer then boarded a

train to where his wife was. When his superiors learned of his

actions, they brought charges against him. The court-martial

found Custer guilty of deserting his post, shooting deserters,

and destroying government property (the horses). They suspended

his rank and pay for one year. This did not overly concern him

because his superiors still looked favorably upon him. They

looked upon him as the only one who could subdue the Indians

(Ambrose 301) .

Custer accomplished almost nothing on his first great Indian

hunting expedition. He traveled thousands of miles, received a

court-martial, lost his pay and rank, and killed two Indians. We

conclude these facts don't warrant Custer being recognized as a

great military leader.

Eventually, the American public and the railroad industry

demanded prompt action against the Indians. The government's

16

campaign had failed to control the Indians on the Plains.

Fortune or luck again struck Custer. General Sheridan,

remembering his aggressiveness during the Civil War, explained

that Custer was the one for the job. Custer was the only one who

could bring the Indians to their knees.

Sheridan wanted a winter campaign even though all his

seasoned scouts advised against it. True to form, Custer's

comment was "How soon do I start" (Ambrose 312). In late

November 1868, Custer rewarded the faith placed in him. He found

a large village of Indians, divided his forces into four parts,

and at dawn attacked. Overwhelming Indians, Custer took control

of the village. But the Indians began to reappear on the hills

above the village (315).

We conclude that at this point Custer had gained the

advantage but failed to use it. If Custer had gathered the

proper intelligence, he would have known that other villages were

in the area. Had he pressed his attack, he would have reduced

the strength of the Indians. Custer controlled the situation and

chose not to be aggressive. We believe this occurred because he

had accomplished his goal. He had finally killed some Indians

and wanted to return to share his glory with his superiors.

Again, he did not seek intelligence on his adversary's strengths

and weaknesses. He had tired and nearly frozen men and horses.

He lacked concern for the overall safety of his soldiers. His

17

thoughts were on reaffirming his superiors faith in him as an

aggressive and fearless Indian fighter.

Almost immediately, controversy surrounded his victory. His

original job in the west was as mediator with the Indians, not a

killer of women and children. He had also left one of his

patrols to fend for themselves. When the patrol did not return,

Custer refused to send out a search party. Another example of

not caring for his soldiers. Continuously not gathering

information on the enemy's strength was Custer's biggest error.

He and his soldiers would pay the ultimate price for that

underestimation. Custer received great praise from his military

superiors for his victory. This praise only inflated the image

that both he and the public held of him.

Little Big Horn provides the final example in the

clarification of our discussion on Custer's leadership.

Throughout our discussions, we have pointed out some major

deficiencies in Custer's leadership style. Examples of these

are:

1. He never seemed to care for the welfare of his soldiers.

2. He never sought the advice of the experts.

3. When given advice, in most cases, he choose not to

listen.

4. He always underestimated the strength of his enemy.

5. Finally, he thought he could always defeat any size

18

force because of superior weapons and leadership ability. At

Little Big Horn all these factors came into play.

If Custer had followed the advice of his superiors, he would

have taken the two additional troops offered him. With the

assistance of those soldiers, he might have survived the battle.

Obviously he could have used the Gatling guns, increasing his

fire power. Had he known the strength of his adversary, he

probably would not have split his command into three parts

(Ambrose 444). His scouts warned him of the large number of

Indians in the valley. When he decided to take a personal look,

the fog and mist in the valley obscured his vision. He

incorrectly presumed that the scouts had given him a wrong report

(431) .

Custer also thought the Indians did not know that he was

there. The Indians did not know, but their leaders did. They,

unlike Custer, did not make critical moves until they knew the

entire situation. They reacted to it correctly. They attacked

Custer from two directions and sealed his fate. Had he listened

to the Indian scouts, he would have known his enemy's position

(Ambrose 436). He would have known that the Indians had repeater

rifles compared to his soldier's single shot weapons. So

concerned about enhancing his image, he could not wait the extra

day to rest his soldiers. Nor could he wait for the extra help

that would have arrived a day later. History would have written

19

a different story, had Custer done the things true great leaders

do before going into battle (Dillon 167).

Research revealed to us that Custer is not the brilliant

leader represented in history. Written works, stage plays, and

movies present a flawless individual and brilliant leader. But

from his earliest military life, he displayed attributes not used

to describe great leaders. His complete disregard for rules and

regulations and his court-martial are classic insights of a

soldier rebelling against authority.

His early days as a staff officer for the Union Army include

some impressive intelligence gathering on the Confederate forces.

We subscribe the work was not done with loyalty to the Union, but

to prove himself to his superiors. Documents greatly support his

"brilliant victories" for the Union. We believe his vanity and

search for glorification were the backbone of his efforts. His

successful efforts of self gratification won him the nickname

"Boy General."

His reputation carried him on the Great Plains until the very

end. His superiors always presumed him to be the only one who

could defeat the "savage Indians." But he never won a decisive

victory. He never killed an enormous number of Indians. He

never accomplished the mission the United states government

sent him west to do. He left his command on several occasions

and received a court-martial. He showed no regard for the

welfare of his soldiers, and took no one's advice. The Indians

20

thought he was a great fighter at the Battle of Little Big Horn.

It is apparent to us that a great leader would not have led his

men to death. He would have led his men to victory -- like a

hero.

21

Works Cited

Ambrose, Stephen E. Crazy Horse and Custer. New York:

Doubleday, 1975.

Brereton, J.M. "Consumation at Little Big Horn." Blackwoods

Magazine 318 No 1922, (1975): 524-525.

Dillon, Richard. North American Indian Wars. Facts on File,

In., 1983.

Faust, Patricia, ed. "George Armstrong Custer." Historical

Times, Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War. 1986.

Hofling, Charles K. "George Armstrong Custer: A Psychoanalytic

Approach." Montana 21, (Spring 1971): 32-43.

Hook, Jason and Hook, Richard. American Indian Warrior Chiefs.

New York, NY, 1990.

Hutton, Paul A. "From Little Big Horn to Little Big Man: The

Changing Image of a Western Hero in Popular Culture."

Western Historical Quarterly, Jan 1976.

The Custer Reader. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska

Press, 1992.

Menning, Karl. "A Psychiatrist Looks at Custer." Surgery,

Gynecology & Obstetrics. May 1947:· 1012.

Urwin, Georgory J. W. Custer Victorious: The Civil War Battles

of General George Armstrong Custer. Lincoln, NE:

University of Nebraska Press, 1990.

Utley, Robert M. Life in Custer's Calvary. Lincoln, NE:

University of Nebraska Press, 1987.

22

Utley, Robert M. Custer's Battlefield. Washington, DC, 1969.

Department of the Army. Field Manual 22-100, Military

Leadership. Washington, DC, July 1990.