For their valuable contributions to this work I would like to thank Doctors John Gilbert, Joseph Hobbs, William Harris of North Carolina State University, and Doctor James Barrett of University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Susan McClintock performed admirably as St. George in our struggles with the dreaded dragon of interlibrary loan. To my wife Lois “Libbie Custer” Repass, I can honestly say that I could not have done it without your support and encouragement.

A general impression has gone abroad, and to some extent throughout the country today, prejudicial to General Custer. He has been accused of disobeying orders, ’ and it has been said that he had made a forced march, ’ that ‘he was too impatient, ’ that ‘he was rash, and various other charges have been made, equally groundless and equally unjust, and all started and promoted by his enemies.

General Nelson Miles, Personal Recollections and Observations of General Nelson A. Miles, 1896

Custer told him (Bob-Tailed Bull) that... no matter how small a victory he could win, even though it was against only five tents of Dakotas, it would make him President,

Custer’s march on the Little Big Horn, which cost his life as well as the lives of 224 other men, was carried out

History has been unkind to George Armstrong (.uster. Much atten tion has been given to the Lieutenant-Colonel and his decision to attack a Sioux-Cheyenne village situated along the banks of the Lit tie Big Horn River on June 25, 1876. Over the past one hundred years,

explanations have been sought for his behavior on that day, and several theories have gained general acceptance. Current theories hold Custer solely responsible for the Little Big Horn disaster. Allegedly, for reasons of personal and political ambitions, and in defiance of orders from his commanding officer, General Alfred H. Terry, he recklessly attacked the Indian encampment and was annihilated.

Perhaps no better conceptualization of this theory has been offered than in Little Big Man, the movie (1970) and the book (1964). In the Hollywood epic, Custer, portrayed by Richard Mulligan, executes his ambitions and suicidal plan to perfection - as he charges into the Little Big Horn Valley, Mulligan (Custer) exhorts his men to “Take no prisoners! " Although Little Big Man is fiction, its stereotyped presentation of Lieutenant Colonel Custer and the battle is generally accepted today as fact.

Despite the abundance of Custer historiography, very little of it has actually been written by historians; no schools of historians have emerged to promote their scholarly views. Instead, an elaborate Custer myth has evolved from the strident clashes between Custerphobes and Custerphiles.

In retrospect, a crucial factor in the evolution of Custer myth and theory has often been overlooked - the cause and effect of Custer’s involvement in politics. The central concept of this thesis is that because of Armstrong's Democratic sympathies and activities in the 18^6 election year, he became the target of Republican attempts to discredit his reputation. In the acrimonious atmosphere of the Little Big Horn aftermath, cooperation between the army and the Republican party (President Ulysses S. Grant administration) produced contrived news releases and official reports designed to promote Custer as a scapegoat. Since much of the erroneous information disseminated to the public during that period has been woven into the fabric of contemporary theories, the association of Custer with politics and the Little Big Horn deserves a closer examination

The twin influences of politics and the military arts were evident in George Armstrong “Autie” Custer at an early age. At the young age of four after a painful tooth extraction, he emerged from his dentist’s office in Scio, Ohio, and proudly proclaimed to his father, Emanuel: “You and me can whip all the Whigs in Ohio, can t we? ¹ When Emanuel drilled with the hometown New Rumley “Invincibles militia, Autie imitated their movements and even “instructed his playmates in military tactics.²

As Autie matured, Emanuel’s influence became more pronounced. Particularly noticeable were three mutual characteristics: sense of humor, the courage to act on one’s beliefs, and a propensity to support the Democratic party. In the New Rumley environs it was no secret that the Custer clan patriarch was a confirmed admirer of Andy Jackson and the Democrats.

Armstrong’s vision extended beyond the horizons of New Rumley, Ohio, and Monroe, Michigan, which were typically small, rural, and provincial nineteenth century midwestern towns. Born in New Rumley, raised in Monroe, he realized that if he were to break restrictive bonds of past family patterns, he must acquire a college education. Finances were a problem, but the military academy at West Point offered a free education that became an attractive alternative.

From Hopedale, Ohio, May 27, 1856, sixteen-year-old George Armstrong Custer wrote to his representative in Congress, the honorable

Wishing to learn something in relation to the matter of appointment of Cadets to the West Point Military

I am desirous of going to West Point, and I think my age and tastes would be in accordance with its requirements . ... I am now in attendance at the McNeely Normal School in Hopedale, and could obtain from the Principal, if necessary, testimonials of moral character.

I would also say that I have the consent of my parents in the course which I have in view. Wishing to hearfrom you as soon as convenient.

Representative Bingham was a member of the dreaded Whig opposition who in later years would effortlessly transform himself into one of the nation’s most vociferous Radical Republicans. He was, in short, the political enemy; however, he admired Armstrong’s spunk, even though the boy’s next correspondence openly admitted his family s political sympathies. The appointment for 1856 had already been made, but Bingham promised Custer careful consideration for the next opening. With the Congressman’s blessing, Armstrong was appointed the following year; however, there may have been another factor involved in his selection. Armstrong had been courting Mary Holland, but her father, a wealthy farmer, was not at all pleased with the prospect of Armstrong as his son-in-law. Since West Point Cadets could

In June 1857, Custer entered West Point, and this single event probably had more impact on his destiny than any other. Without his graduation from the academy, it is unlikely that he would have been

provided the same opportunities to achieve his meteoric rise to fame during the Civil War.

Custer was one of the most popular cadets in his class, and many of his friends were Southerners. His opinions were openly voiced and were often in sympathy with the Southern cause. As the I860 presidential election approached, he supported candidates who were conservative and agreed with Southerners’ states’ rights and their right to own slaves. New York’s Daniel Stevens Dickinson, Virginia’s Robert M. T. Hunter, and Oregon’s Joseph Lane were acceptable to Armstrong as Democratic candidates, and he believed the Republicans would nominate William H. Seward.⁵ In a letter to a friend written on May 5, I860, he protested against Black-Brown Republicans who would . either deprive a portion of our fellow citizens of their just rights or produce a dissolution of the Union.”⁶

With the election of Abraham Lincoln and the call to war, Armstrong, like many of his classmates, faced a difficult decision. Would he fight for the South - a cause with which he sympathized - or with the North, in defense of his home territory? In the end, his conscience would not permit him to violate his oath taken upon entering West Point: to defend the government, which had clothed, fed, and educated him for almost four years.

Once his mind was made up, he did not look back. As his West Point years drew to a close, he wrote prophetically to a friend, Annette Humphrey: “It is useless to hope the coming struggle will be bloodless or of short duration. Much blood will be spilled and thousands of lives, at the least, lost. If it is my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country’s rights I will have no regrets.

From the first Battle of Bull Run to Appomattox, George A. Custer cut and slashed his way in defense of the Union. At the age of twenty-three he became one of our nation’s youngest commanding generals when he was appointed Brigadier General of the Michigan Cavalry Brigade in June of 1863 Between campaigns, he met and married Elizabeth C. “Libby” Bacon of Monroe, Michigan. With his dashing good looks, panache, charisma, and success in battle, he soon attracted the attention of the Northern press. Pundits of the printed word referred to him as the “beau sabreur” and as a knight sans peur et sans reproche.” It remained, however, for the New York Herald to attach to Custer the sobriquet which became the most popular - “the boy general with the golden locks.’

The flamboyant boy general was assisted by the press in his rise to fame, but he also was fortunate to have the support of several able and prominent superior officers. Two of the most notable Custer supporters were Generals George B. McClellan (a Democrat) and Philip H. Sheridan, Armstrong’s vocal and well-known support for the former caused him much grief after McClellan was permanently dismissed from command by President Lincoln. Because of Custer’s Southern sympathies and his close association with McClellan, he was frequently criticized in the Republican press. During and after the war, Armstrong found it necessary to defend himself against charges of “being a Copperhead." Ironically, two of his most supportive lifelong friends were Senator Zachariah Chandler from Michigan and Representative Bingham from Ohio, both avid Radicals, Chandler defended Armstrong on one occasion as Custer informed his father-in-law in a letter dated January 1864:

I would have written to you at once when / learned of the efforts to injure me, but did not want to trouble Libbie.

You would be surprised at the pertinacity with which certain men labor to defame me. I have paid but little attention to them, trusting of time to vindicate me. And I do not fear the result. It was reported that / was a 'copperhead’, a charge completely refuted. Senator Chandler has expressed himself warmly in my favor*

At the end of the Civil War, Custer was blessed with fame but not fortune. He and Libbie were fond of the “good life,” so it came as quite a shock when his income was reduced from eight thousand to two thousand dollars per year. In addition, his actual rank reverted from brevet major general of volunteers to captain in the regular army. The army had been good to him, but the war had been even better.

In order to alleviate his financial embarrassment, he obtained a leave of absence in April 1866 and traveled alone to Washington, D.C., and New ’i ork City. There he visited influential friends, such as Secretary of State William H. Seward, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, General Ulysses S, Grant, and old standby

ULYSSES SIMPSON GRANT Photograph by Alexander Gardner Courtesy Peter A. Fuley & Son

Senator Chandler, in the hopes their patronage would improve his situation.⁹ Perhaps for the first time since his graduation from West Point, Custer seriously entertained the idea of leaving the army. From New York he wrote to Libbie: “I think it probable that I shall leave the army, but shall not decide till assured of success. I can obtain the position of Foreign Minister, with a salary in gold of from seven to ten thousand dollars per annum,”¹⁰ “Foreign Minister” was a polite euphemism for mercenary, for the offer was from the Juarez faction in Mexico to serve as their Chief of Cavalry. With this in mind he approached General Grant for a letter of recommendation, and the future Custer nemesis responded charitably in a letter to Mexican Minister Don Matias Romero by writing that: “There was no officer in that (Cavalry) branch of the service who had the confidence of General Sheridan to a greater degree than General Custer, and there is no officer in whose judgment I have greater faith than in Sheridan’s.”¹¹

Mexico was too much of a gamble for Armstrong to take. His request for a leave of absence was denied, and he did not wish to resign from the army for what might be a temporary position in Mexico. Other opportunities soon materialized. Although his application for position as Inspector General of the United States Cavalry was denied, he was offered and accepted a commission as Lieutenant Colonel of the Seventh Cavalry. Congress had recently approved expansion of the army s Cavalry Corps for service along the western frontier. They had finally conceded that slow-moving infantry could not defend settlers moving west against the guerilla tactics of the “Cossacks of the p atns - the Comanches, Kiowas, Sioux, and Cheyennes.

Before his exile to the plains, Armstrong was afforded sufficient time to play Sancho Panza to President Andrew Johnson’s Don Quixote. It was a matter of conscience for Custer; his support of the incoln-Johnson Reconstruction programs against the Congressional (Radical Republican) programs was an extension of his earlier support for certain Southern rights and the ideal of immediate recon-

For him, it was a question of morality and ethics based on perhaps a naive belief that the “golden rule” could be applied to politics and national affairs.

Just as his father remained loyal to the memory of Andrew Jackson, Armstrong became totally committed to Andrew Johnson. He wrote to Libbie’s father: “My confidence in the strength of the Constitution is increasing daily while Andy is as firm and upright as a tombstone, He has grown. He is a very strong Union man Union now and forever, one and inseparable.”¹²

President Johnson’s basic goals were a swift restoration to the Union of all rebel states and the restoration of all constitutional rights to citizens of those states. Southerners who had participated in the rebellion were not to be disenfranchised, nor was the Freedmen’s Bureau to become involved in organizing blacks as a political force which would perpetuate Republican dominance in national politics. Johnson, a Southerner himself, was aware of Southerners’ fear of conflict with their former slaves.

Johnson antagonized moderate Republicans by his veto of the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill (February 19, 1866). A complete schism developed between the president and the last vestiges of moderate Republican support when he openly opposed the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment defined American citizenship and the rights of citizens, and created a federal constitutional prohibition upon states to prevent them from denying equal rights and protection to all citizens, regardless of race.¹³

The 1866 Congressional elections were to provide a national forum for the issue of the amendment’s ratification. Johnson hoped to form a third party coalition of conservative Democrats and Republicans. In April 1866, the National Union Executive Committee was created as the nucleus of this party. It proved to be a short-lived creature soon dominated by Democrats, but it was a movement in which Custer became intimately involved.¹⁴

On August 9, 1866, Detroit was the scene of a mass meeting called to endorse the National Union platform which called for immediate readmission of Southern states. Armstrong attended and was

appointed as one of the four delegates to the national convention to be held in Philadelphia on August 14.¹⁵ The Philadelphia Convention was an emotional release for Northern and Southern veterans who believed in their united effort to effect a restoration of the Union. In an atmosphere of cooperation they worked to heal the lingering wounds and divisiveness created by the war. This new spirit of unity was represented by the delegates of Massachusetts and South Carolina marching into the convention hall in pairs with each delegate from the Northern state locked arm-in-arm with a delegate from the Southern state.¹⁶

During the week of the convention, Armstrong publicly declared his distaste for the Congressional Reconstruction Plan.

Regarding the Congressional Plan of Reconstruction. In my opinion as victors we have a right to name the terms on which peace shall be established and a Union restored . ... I believe that every man who voluntarily engaged in the Rebellion forfeited every right held under our Constitution to live, hold property. But I do not agree with you that it is a flagrant violation of our Constitution not to exact those penalties in full.. I believe this position— not to exact such penalties—lies within the provision of that instrument. For the government to exact full penalties simply because it is constitutionally authorized to do so would, in my opinion, be unnecessary, impolitic, inhuman, and wholly at a variance with the principles of a free, civilized and Christian nation, such as we profess to be.¹⁷

Administration newspapers harangued against the evils of the National U mon Party and insinuated on a daily basis that its leaders, including

^Uu!^er j^Wf^{Cre V}'^^{e c}°PP^erhea*. Undaunted, Armstrong issued a public defense of the platform’s principles which he believed could

be summed up in six words: “National Integrity, Constitutional Liberty, Individual Rights.”¹⁸

Johnson could not help but notice that Custer was a kindred soul, and he invited Armstrong and Libbie to join his entourage on his

ill-fated “Swing around the Circle.” The announced purpose of the trip was to lay the cornerstone on a monument honoring Stephen A. Douglas in Chicago and to visit Lincoln’s tomb in Springfield, Illinois. Johnson’s ulterior motive was the selling of his reconstruction program to the American people. He believed that his oratorical abilities, combined with the visible support of luminaries such as Secretary of War Gideon Welles, Secretary of State Edwin Seward, Admiral David A. Farragut, Major General George H. Thomas, General U. S. Gram, and the Custers, would convince voters that his programs were in the best interest of the nation.

Ironically, the two elements that Johnson relied on to win approval were largely responsible for the tour’s dismal failure. Stump campaigning may have been his specialty, but his inflammatory remarks and crowd-baiting tactics only exacerbated hostile crowds. Many of those present at the president’s speeches were agitators paid by the Republican opposition to create disturbances. The presence of two very popular military heroes, Grant and Custer, on the same platform as the president created unforeseen difficulties. They were much better received by the crowds than Johnson, and both were often called upon to play the role of peacemaker between the president and unruly mobs.

Grant, in particular, found himself in a compromising position. He was caught in the conflict between loyalty and obedience to the president he served and his desire to become the Republican candidate for president in the forthcoming 1868 elections. In Detroit, Grant issued a statement that his objective was not to involve the military in political affairs. In the contest between the president and his opponents he was neutral; he was along on the tour only because he was the General of the Army.²⁰ Fearful of losing valuable support, Grant finally decided that discretion was the better part of valor and abandoned the tour before it completed its circle.

On the afternoon of September 13 at New Market, Ohio, just over two miles from Armstrong’s birthplace of New Rumley, Ohio, Custer endured one of his most embarrassing moments. The hometown folks lustily cheered their local hero, but drowned out the president with

a chorus of boos as he tried to speak. This show of disrespect was too much for Custer; he snapped back that he was ashamed of them and that they were the worst class of people he had ever seen. At the same time, he vowed to Libbie that he would never visit Scio again. Like all vows Custer made, he honored it.²¹

At Steubenville, Ohio, the Custers parted company with the president. Before leaving, Armstrong granted an interview with a reporter for the Detroit Free Press. He reiterated his endorsement of the National Union platform and stressed that it was only a rumor that he was about to run for Congress on the Democratic ticket in Michigan.²²

The stage was set for Custer’s final foray into National Union activities before military obligation took precedent. On September 17 in Cleveland, Ohio, the Soldiers and Sailors Convention was called to order by Chairman-elect General Gordon B. Granger. At Cleveland he continued his organizational activities which began at Philadelphia. His sentiments were echoed by Granger when he announced the purpose of the convention was “. . . to assist in devising means for early restoration of confidence, unity, good will and cordiality to all sectors of our distracted country - to achieve a true and perpetual Union.”²³ The harmonious atmosphere of Cleveland was a welcome change for Custer after the acrimonious debacle of the swing around the circle. For one of the few times in his public political appearances, Custer was surrounded by fellow war veterans who shared his goals and ideals. The New York Times stated that: On September 26 a delegation of seven members from the convention, including Custer, held a non-political convivial reunion with the president. After which General Custer will retire from the political arena and join his regiment, the Seventh Cavalry, when he is Lieutenant Colonel

General Custer rode off into the western sunset, not on his cavalry charger, but on an iron horse. From the fall of 1866 until the sum mer of 1875, he was involved in remarkably little political activity. During this period he did achieve fame as one of the army’s premier

Indian fighters. Contributing greatly to this reputation was his surprise attack on Black Kettle’s Cheyenne village along the Washita River, Oklahoma Territory, in 1868. Eight years later he attempted to repeat the same tactics at the Little Big Horn but with decidedly different results.

Back in the nation’s capitol the Radicals continued to dominate government and politics. Armstrong’s friends, Chandler and Bingham, were instrumental in conducting the impeachment proceedings against Andrew Johnson. National Unionism was dead in body but alive in spirit in the revived Democratic party.²⁵

In 1868 Ulysses S. Grant replaced the harassed Johnson as occupant of the White House. Grant’s break with his former commander-in-chief and his reconstruction policies had been opportune and successful. Custer, in contrast, remained steadfastly loyal to Johnson and his .deals of National Unionism. When he was convinced of his cause Custer s course of action was “damn the torpedoes full speed ahead*” A collision between Custer, the irresistible force, and Grant, the immovable object, loomed on the horizon.

Elizabeth B. Custer, Tenting on the Plains (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971), pp. 287-288.

Frederick F. Van de Water, Glory-Hunter: A Life of General Custer (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1934), p. 22.

⁴jay Monaghan, Custer: The Life of General George Armstrong Custer (Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, 1959), p- 11.

⁷Marguerite Merrington, The Custer Story; the Life and Intimate Letters of General George A. Custer and His Wife Elizabeth (New York: The Devin Adair Co., 1950), p. 265.

"Frederick A. Whittaker, Complete Life of General George A. Custer (New York: Sheldon and Co., 18 6), pp. 340-341. ^I2Merrington, Custer Story, p. 179-

¹³J. G. Randall and David H. Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co., 1969), pp-

'"Monaghan, CwsJer, pp. 271-272; McPherson, Ordeal by Fire, p. 520; William S. McFeely, Grant: A Biography (New York: W. W Norton and Co., 1981), pp. 250-252.

Shortly after the Cleveland Convention, Grant expressed to a reporter from the New York Times his contempt for one of the candidates in the 1866 election for governor in Pennsylvania:

Southern men he could make allowances for, and he could ride through the South and get out on a platform and shake hands in friendship with such men as Lee, Johnson, or Forrest, because though they had been almost educated into secession. They were now truly honest and loyal in their adherence to the Union, and were seeking to strengthen it. But he did not feel in that way toward Northern men who had once been disloyal, and neither desired to associate with them nor have them for his friends. No such men should have his support, nor ought they to be supported by Mr. Johnson s friends throughout Northern states. He particularly instanced, as a specimen of this objectionable class of men, Heister Clymer, the Democratic candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania, saying that to ask any soldier to vote for such a man guilty of at one time known disloyalty, against another who bad served four years in the Union Army with, credit to himself and benefit to his country, was a gross insult.¹ Smoldering enmity between U. S. Grant and Heister Clymer burst into flames ten years later in a conflagration that seriously damaged Grant s reputation. Custer, like a moth attracted to the glow of a candle, found himself inexorably drawn into the destructive fire of the Belknap Affair.

1*1 ’w&r 1*1

Shortly after William Worth Belknap became Secretary of War in 1869, he took direct action to reorganize frontier commercial activities. Prior to 1870 the army sutler had been appointed by recommendation of a Post Council of Administration composed of three senior officers next to the commander. Ultimately, the approval, supervision, and dismissal of the person selected remained with the General of the Army, who at that time was William T. Sherman. Belknap had served under Sherman during the war, and he had attained his appointment as Sherman’s superior with the general’s recommendation.

The harmony between Sherman and his former subordinate was shattered in 1870 when Colonel Robert Campbell wrote to Sherman protesting the removal of Robert Ward as post trader at Fort Laramie. Unknown to the general, the Secretary of War had personally removed Ward, and it occurred on such short notice that Ward could not satisfactorily settle his affairs without suffering substantial financial loss. Sherman informed Belknap that the prerogative of removal belonged to the General of the Army, not the Secretary of War, and then he promptly reinstated Ward. In the wake of their confrontation, an act was passed transferring the appointing power to the Secretary of War.² Effective control of the post traderships was vested in one man, William W. Belknap.

I nder the new law the traders were given the exclusive privilege of trade on military reservations to which they were assigned. No other persons were allowed to sell or trade goods on that military reserve. The post commander was authorized to inspect and approve t e trader’s rates which should be fair and reasonable and to report violations to the Secretary of War.^}

his subagent if he would remit to Marsh twelve thousand dollars per year in quarterly installments. Evans intimated that one-half of that amount subsequently would be paid to Belknap or his wife and that Fort Sill was only the tip of the iceberg. Alarmed, Hazen contacted General James A. Garfield, Chairman of the Commission on Military Affairs, in the spring of 1872. Belknap, with the assistance of the Republican-controlled committee, quashed attempts at an investigation. To add insult to injury, Hazen found himself transferred from the relatively civilized post of Fort Hays, Kansas, to the boondocks of Fort Buford, Dakota Territory. ‘

Congressional elections of 1874 returned to the House a Democratic majority. Under the leadership of Speaker John Kerr, partisan investigations into the conduct and affairs of President Grant s cabinet members were initiated. The House Committee for Investigation into Expenditures of the War Department was chaired by none other than Pennsylvania Representative Heister Clymer. By the summer of 1875! rumors were reaching the nation’s capitol emanating from the army posts stretched along the Upper Missouri River. The principle theme of those rumors was that Secretary William W. Belknap, in cooperation with the president’s younger brother, Orvil Grant, and others, was involved in the illegal sale of post traderships. Those rumors were like music to the ears of the congressman from Pennsylvania, for with one stone he could bring down two prominent Republican birds - Belknap, who had been his roommate at Princeton, and Grant, his old antagonist.

The Bismarck Tribune editorialized on July 21, 1875: “that there are more or less frauds in connection with the Indian business, those of us who have been on the frontier for a number of years, and who have kept our ey es and ears open, are fully aware. Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer was one of those who had been on the frontier for a number of years, and he had kept his eyes and ears open. In 1875 he was Commander of Fort Abraham Lincoln, Dakota Territory, which was situated less than five miles from Bismarck He shared a harmonious relationship with Clement A. Lounsberry, editor of the Tribune. Lounsberry capitalized on their relationship, even to the banal extreme of recruiting subscribers for his weekly paper, by promising them “a magnificent chromo-lithograph of General Custer worth two dollars with each subscription.”⁶

Lounsberry also provided a link between Custer and their mutual friend, James Gordon Bennett, Jr., owner of the New York Herald. In order to verify the rumors of graft and corruption in the dispensing of post traderships, Bennett dispatched an undercover investigative reporter, Ralph Meeker, to Bismarck. From July through October 1875, Meeker operated under the alias of J. W. Thompson with his true identity known to only a select few, including Custer. It appears that Bennett funneled Meeker’s salary through Custer and that Armstrong cashed drafts in Bennett’s name at the Fort Lincoln sutler s store. Meeker’s exposds were published in the New York Herald; and although they were a combination of rumor, heresay, and fact, they served to focus public attention in the east on the problems of corruption.⁷

If Belknap's reception at Fort Lincoln was lukewarm, it turned positively frigid in Bismarck. There, he was confronted by a barrage

O printed circulars designed as circus programs which heralded “Bilk-nap, rant and Company and their aggregation of acrobats as hav-g no lung but the most costly jewels and (Indian) rings. ’⁵ The u or o t e handbills was never positively identified. Clement

Meeker, but Washington cronies of Belknap charged Custer with the offense, a charge not substantiated.¹¹¹

In the fall of 1875 the Custers journeyed east on a two-month leave of absence. Both of them loved the stimulation, diversity, and culture of New York City. Evenings were spent at the opera or theatre. When possible, Armstrong visited an old friend, actor Lawrence Barrett, who was currently performing in Julius Caesar.¹¹

Extensions of leave were granted in November and January. Armstrong was well aware of the army’s plans for a campaign against recalcitrant bands of Sioux led by Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. From New York he wrote to brother Tom in January: “I have no idea of obtaining my promotion this spring or summer. On the contrary, I expect to be in the field in the summer with the Seventh, and I think the Seventh Cavalry may have its greatest campaign ahead."

Armstrong’s trip to New York was for more than entertainment. He was offered a contract with Redpath’s Lecture Bureau for five lectures per week at the princely sum of one thousand dollars - not bad for a man with a stammer when he talked. Custer put the offer on “hold” until after the summer campaign when he would have more time to prepare his material.¹³ On the negative side, Custer became involved in a civil suit which threatened to bankrupt him if the decision was not in his favor. In order to provide testimony in his defense, he pleaded with General Alfred H. Terfy and Lieutenant General Philip

H. Sheridan for an extension of his leave until April 1, 18 6. Terry believed that he might need Custer in the field before then and adamantly refused his request. After a flurry of confidential telegrams from Armstrong to Sheridan, a compromise was finally reached that granted Custer leave until February 15-¹¹ To facilitate his return, the Northern Pacific provided a special train from New York to Bismarck.

Custer’s return to Fort Lincoln was brief. Shortly after his arrival, he received a subpoena on March 15 to appear before the Clymer Committee. Two competent Custer biographers, Jay Monaghan and Edgar I. Stewart, contend that his outspoken opinions gained the attention of Democrats while the Custers were on their New Y ork vacation. Stewart expresses the view that “.. . it would seem possible

that Custer, who was not without political ambitions of his own, was at least partially responsible for the commencement of the whole campaign against Belknap.”¹⁵ While Stewart’s statement is plausible, he fails to produce evidence of Custer’s political ambitions in his study.

Another theory, favored by historian John Gray, involves a rather eccentric former captain of the Second Cavalry, George A. Armes. In 1870 as a result of a court-martial, he had been dismissed from the army, and he believed Belknap was remiss in not suspending his sentence. For almost six years he waited for an opportunity to avenge himself against the Secretary. While employed as a real estate agent in Washington, D.C., the chance came. Representative B. B. Lewis of Alabama, a Democrat, was in need of housing. He was referred to Armes. During the search for a house, Armes intimated to Lewis that with the assistance of a member of Congress he could produce facts so detrimental to Belknap that he would be forced out of office. A meeting was arranged by Lewis between Armes and Clymer at which Armes presented a list of potential witnesses against the Secretary.¹⁶ Armes, in another version, claimed he had originally been given the list by General Hazen on January 11, 1876.¹⁷ W hether the list was compiled by Armes or Hazen, Custer’s name appeared on it. Consequently, Clymer summoned him to Washington.

Upon receipt of the summons, Custer’s immediate reaction was to consult General Terry for legal advice. The general had been a lawyer m civilian life. Neither Terry nor Custer desired Custer’s absence from ort Lincoln. Terry had been instructed on February 10, 1876, by

^erii8°_Th^{the Secretaf}y ^{of War} to begin hostilities against the Sioux. The honor of commanding the Dakota column in the field

CuterTl °r i ^ ^ ^UP°^{n CUStCr Acting on Tcrf}y'^{s advice}’ Custer telegraphed Clymer on March 16:

This was followed by a second message to Clymer later that day: “After further consideration, fearing my request to be relieved from obeying summons may be construed into a desire to avoid testifying, I have concluded to prefer no request to that effect.”²⁰

By the time Armstrong arrived in Washington on March 28, the major damage to Secretary Belknap and the Grant administration had already occurred. On February 29 before a closed hearing, Caleb Marsh, the Democrat’s star witness, testified against Belknap. His testimony incriminated Belknap, as well as the Secretary’s second and third wives, for accepting payments totaling twenty thousand dollars from Marsh in return for his control of the post tradership at Fort Sill.²¹ Later that afternoon, an obviously shaken Belknap appeared before the committee, but he said little to justify belief in his innocence. Reportedly, a Republican member of the committee, Lyman K. Bass, informed the Secretary of the Treasury, Benjamin H Bristow, of Belknap’s precarious situation on the morning of March 2. Dutifully, Bristow immediately rushed to the White House to warn the president. After a brief discussion, Bristow departed and Belknap soon appeared at the president’s doorstep accompanied by close friend and Secretary of the Interior Zachariah Chandler. Grant, in one of his most astute moves as a politician, accepted Belknap’s resignation at 10:20 a.m. that morning.²² By that adroit maneuver the disgraced Secretary of War ultimately escaped the humiliation of impeachment. Undaunted by the Secretary’s evasive maneuver, the Democratic-controlled House unanimously adopted a resolution calling for Belknap’s impeachment. The Senate on August 1, 1876, finally decided that since the Secretary had resigned they had no jurisdiction over him.

George Armstrong Custer was not the most effective witness before the Impeachment Board, but he was one of the most prominent. Because of this, friends of Belknap believed it imperative to discredit him, and on March 29, 1876, the sparring began with his first appearance before the Impeachment Committee. In 1873 when

Armstrong began his tenure as Commander of Fort Lincoln, the post traders were S. A. Dickey and Robert Wilson. On July 1, 1874, Robert

C. Seip was appointed by Belknap to replace Dickey and Wilson. Perturbed by his loss of the post tradership, Wilson wrote a letter to A. C. Leighton, post trader at Fort Buford, which accused the Secretary of War of being involved in the same firm.²³ Dickey confided to him that they were removed because they did not “divide” in order to maintain their proprietorship. When Seip’s prices became exorbitant, a captain of the Seventh purchased supplies in St. Paul to sell to his men at cost. Seip protested this act of competition to the Secretary of War, who wrote to remind Custer of the War Department circulars prescribing the rights and privilege of traders. Belknap pointedly referred to one clause:

They will be allowed the exlusive privilege of trade upon the military reserves to which they are appointed, and no other person will be allowed to trade, peddle, or sell goods, by sample or otherwise, within the limits of the reserve. ’

Custer confronted Seip with reports that he, along with other traders, was forced to pay a tax to outsiders for the privilege of doing business. Accordingly, Seip informed him that the yearly profits were fifteen thousand dollars, and

always under the impression that a portion of it went to the Secretary of War,²⁵

With the Secretary conveniently implicated. Armstrong next coned the president s younger brother, Orvil, _to the scandals. Orvil's opportunity came in the fall of 1874 when an order was issued

suspending the licenses of all traders on the Upper Missouri. As if by magic, Orvil and his partner, A. L. Bonnafon, appeared on the frontier to negotiate the price for license renewals. On their way to conduct business the two entrepeneurs shared a train ride with Armstrong from St. Paul to Bismarck. While enroute they intimated to Custer that they were visiting several trading posts. Out of respect for the president, Custer provided a wagon and scout for the posts. According to Custer, Bonnafon claimed equal interest with Orvil in four posts and that they were going to effect the transfer of the current owner. Fort Berthold created problems which were cleared up when Orvil returned to Bismarck and telegraphed Secretary of the Interior Columbus Delano to renew the license of J. W. Raymond. Supposedly, Raymond showed the telegram Orvil sent requesting his appointment to several people in Bismarck and claimed he paid Orvil one thousand dollars for the renewal.²⁶ Custer did not witness the exchange of telegrams and it appears likely his source of information was the disgruntled Robert Wilson who later testified before the committee that Raymond showed the telegrams to him.²

Custer’s testimony concerning Orvil’s illicit activities was based on direct knowledge. Although it implicated the president’s brother, Orvil had already done that much more efficiently in his own appearance before the committee on March 9- His involvement and character were accurately assessed in The Nation.

Mr. Grant appears to be an unsuccessful man, who, when all else failed, tried to get a living in some easy way out of the Government, and accordingly applied to his brother to license him as an Indian trader .... He told him of posts at which the traders were going to be removed, and Orvil accordingly applied for licenses not for one, but for

4, and obtained them. This was in 1874, and he at once put ‘partners’ of his in all the vacancies, who were to pay a heavy share of the profits .... Orvil confessed to the committee in the plainest manner that what was regrettable in his eyes in the whole affair was, not his use of his influence, but the smallness of the amount he made out of the trader ships.¹*

Those statements were printed eleven days before Armstrong arrived in Washington to testify. His testimony did not damn Orvil Grant; to Orvil alone the credit belongs.

Custer’s rambling testimony also criticized President Grant. In January of 1875, by presidential proclamation, the Great Sioux Reservation had been extended to include the west bank of the Missouri River. The reason given for the extension was to limit the supply of rum to the residents of the reservation, but Armstrong hinted at another purpose. The proclamation increased the value of traderships by establishing a monopoly in that territory. Instead of improving the morals of the Indians, the only effect was to increase the profits of the traders, and that was the real motive behind the extension,²⁹

Custer s next target was the Indian Bureau. After receiving a shipment of 8000 bushels of corn in sacks suspiciously marked “Indian Department,’ Armstrong refused delivery, “Detective” Custer suspected that an unscrupulous contractor had made an agreement with the Indian agent to certify delivery of the shipment and then illegally transfer it to Fort Lincoln for double payment. Accordingly, Armstrong reported the irregularity to General Terry’s headquarters in St. Paul, and in return received orders from Secretary Belknap to accept the corn.³⁰

For some reason this particular testimony by Custer upset the hierarch) of army command. From General Sherman to General Sheridan, to General Townsend to General Terry, telegrams were exchanged to verify the incident. Custer wired the committee on May 6, 1876, after consulting w^rith General Terry that:

General Terry, commanding the Department of Dakota, informs me that the report I forwarded from Fort Lincoln, regarding certain com delivered at that post for the use of the Army, in Indian sacks, was received at his headquarters in this city, and after due investigation was acted upon finally by his authority; and that it was he and not the late Secretary’ of War who sent the order to Fort Lin-co n directing that, under certain restrictions to protect the Government, the corn in question should be received.

The receipt of the order was reported to me and I at the same time derived the impression that the order emanated from the War Department*¹ Actually, Terry’s “investigation” did not ascertain whether fraud was involved, and those . . certain restrictions . . were never clarified.

Armstrong concluded his testimony the 29th by agreeing with Clymer’s statement that if the Secretary of War had been a man of purity of character and integrity of purpose, frauds could not have continued.

They could not possibly have been carried on to anything like the extent they were without the connivance and approval (of the Secretary), and when you ask me how the morale or character of the Army is affected, ... I think it is one of the highest commendations that could be made of the service, to say, that it has not been demoralized, when the head has shown himself to be so unworthy}¹ The die was cast. Friends of Belknap, Republicans, and personal enemies of Custer sought chinks in the knight errant’s armor. A March 31 article entitled “Belknap’s Anaconda,” which appeared in the New York Herald dated March 21 from Bismarck, afforded the Custer opposition their first opportunity for attack. Custer had been in Bismarck on March 21. The content of the article was similar to previous diatribes against the Secretary and Orvil Grant and included a reproduction of the circus program which had insulted Belknap on his earlier visit to Bismarck. Circumstantial evidence was introduced before the Clymer Committee in an attempt to prove that Armstrong was the author of that article and a paid correspondent for the New York Herald as well. The chief witness against Custer was the Fort Lincoln trader, Robert Seip, who testified on April 13- Seip made vague references to material that had been given only to Custer which appeared in the Herald article. In addition, a telegram in the Herald of March 15 included an expression used by Seip only in the presence of Custer at Bismarck. Still, Seip admitted that he could not swear that Armstrong was the author of the “Anaconda article.

Further questioning of Seip by a Republican member of the Impeachment Board was aimed at establishing Custer as a Herald correspondent- The witness admitted that on at least one occasion he had cashed a draft made out to the general from James Gordon Bennett. That information, though, was hardly incriminating since Ralph Meeker, Herald correspondent, had already clarified circumstances where Custer cashed drafts for Meeker’s benefit. Earlier on the 13th he testified that Armstrong had been doing him a favor by cashing drafts which were in reality the correspondent’s salary.³³

Who then authored the “Belknap Anaconda’’ article? Historian John Gray in his Centennial Campaign attributes the article to Meeker’s pen.³⁴ The Herald correspondent, however, testified before the Impeachment Committee that he had written the original “Anaconda” article referred to in the article of the 31st, but he did not know who had written the latest attack on Belknap. Meeker stated positively that at no time was Custer employed by the Herald. While it is true that Armstrong possessed certain literary talents, and he did have a longstanding relationship with James Gordon Bennett, the evidence that connects him to authorship of the “Anaconda” article remains circumstantial at best.

On April 4, Custer was recalled before the Impeachment Committee. Apparently this phase of his testimony was in response to administration newspapers which questioned why Custer and his fellow officers had failed to report alleged improprieties earlier. Armstrong referred to an order issued by the Secretary of War, March 15, 1873: No officer, either active or retired, shall directly or indirectly, without being called upon by proper authority, solicit, suggest, or recommend action by members of Congress for or against military affairs. Second, all petitions to Congress by officers relative to subjects of military character will be forwarded through the General of the Army and the Secretary of War for their action and transmittal. Third, an officer visiting the seat of Government during a Congressional session will, upon his arrival, register his name at the Adjutant-General’s Office

<» now required; and in addition, address a letter to the Adjutant General of the Army reciting the purpose of and time that will be embraced by his writ and the authority under which he is absent from his command or station.

The purpose of object so recited will be the strict guide of the officer during his stay. 'ⁱ⁵ Those restrictions amounted to a “gag" order which . . sealed the mouths and tied the hands of the officers of the Army about as effectively as it could be done.”³⁶ As an example of possible consequences, Armstrong referred to the tribulations of General Hazen who, because of his request for an investigation into corruption at the Fort Sill post tradership, was transferred to Fort Buford. In his opinion, if any army officer . . should report anything against the Secretary of War, of course when it reached his hands he would pigeon-hole it, and he would probably pigeon-hole the officer at the same time.’’³⁷

By the afternoon of April 4, Custer’s testimony before the Impeachment Committee had concluded, but the Manning Committee on military affairs soon thrust him back into the spotlight. It began innocently enough with his testimony on March 31 concerning proposals for reorganization of the army. After the appearance of Major Lewis Merrill, Seventh Cavalry, before the committee on April 3, it degenerated into a vendetta against Custer by Merrill, supported by administration newspapers. Merrill had been summoned before the committee to answer two charges against him. The first concerned his acceptance of twenty thousand dollars from the South Carolina legislature as reward for assistance in the arrest and conviction of Ku Klux Klan members. This practice was considered improper behavior for army officers, but it was not illegal. The second allegation concerned the major’s acceptance of a bribe in 1870 while acting as Judge Advocate at the court-martial of Samuel B. Lauffer in Texas.³⁸ This “bribe” proved to be nothing more than payment of a gambling debt that Lauffer owed Merrill. The committee found no evidence of Merrill’s wrong-doing and dropped the investigation. Merrill believed Custer was the instigator of the investigation, and

the New York Times surmised that Custer disliked the major because Merrill had once testified before an army hearing that Custer was too harsh a disciplinarian.³' In 1872 Armstrong had brought to the attention of Colonel Samuel D. Sturgis, Commanding Officer of the Seventh Cavalry, the two allegations against Merrill. Sturgis decided not to investigate the issues, and Custer considered his responsibility and involvement ended. Once again, however, the energetic George A. Armes entered into the picture, and he appears to have been Merrill s real nemesis. His motive, as usual, was revenge because the major had been the Judge Advocate at his court-martial. When questioned by Armes for information he could use against Merrill, Armstrong unwisely mentioned the KKK payment and the possible bribe from Lauffer With that information, Armes pushed for an investigation into Merrill's conduct.

would be nonpolitical with no speeches. My duties here prevent my accepting. ⁴¹^}

With his testimony before the Manning and Clymer Committees completed. Armstrong considered his duties done, and he was anx-

nf H ^l° '|^{X ,Urn l}° ^F°^{rI ijnco}*^{n Custer w}as informed on a regular basis of developments at the fort in his absence, and he was not pleased

Terry’s reply was not encouraging, so on April 16, Reno pleaded to General Sheridan to intercede; but the general tersely replied that Terry was in charge of the expedition and he did not wish to interfere with his plans.⁴³

As the impeachment trial opened on April 17, attacks on Custer increased. The New York Herald, under the heading “Effect of Custer’s Exposures - A Counter Attack in Progress - The General Ready for the Fray,” described the point-counterpoint.

Ex-Secretary Belknap and his friends are collecting material to make out a case against General Custer with a view to having him tried by court-martial before General Terry at St. Paul. Belknap has secured copies of the testimony given before Proctor Knott’s and Clymer’s committee, and he is collecting the testimony given by General Custer concerning the post tradership and Indian frauds of the Upper Missouri River. It is charged that Custer swore falsely and it is on that ground that an attempt is to be made to court-martial him. The General does not seem to be alarmed. He says he is willing to have his record examined with the closest scrutiny and every official act of his life thoroughly investigated. He did only what he considered his duty, and he does not regret that he exposed any irregularities that came to his knowledge.⁴⁴ Despite their threats, evidently the material collected by Belknap and friends was not sufficient to warrant a court-martial at St. Paul or elsewhere.

Finally, probably with a feeling of great relief, Armstrong telegraphed Terry on April 20 that he was enroute to St. Paul via New York and Detroit.⁴⁵ His joy was short-lived. On April 22, Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, George A. French, telegraphed to General Sheridan in Chicago requesting the location of Custer. Sheridan, who did not care at all for the political pyrotechnics in Washington or for the absence of Armstrong from his command, snapped back: I do not know where General George Armstrong Custer is. I thought he was in Washington. It is possible General A. H, Terry at St. Paul, where

Custer belongs, can tell you.”⁴⁶ On April 24, Armstrong was unpleasantly surprised in New York by a deputy sergeant-at-arms who delivered to him another summons. Custer considered his delay to be only temporary since he doubted the impeachment managers needed additional testimony from him. To facilitate his release, Armstrong requested that Terry telegraph the managers and stress the necessity of his presence at Fort Lincoln.⁴⁷ Optimistically, Armstrong wrote to Libbie on the 28th:

There is a strong possibility - I certainly hope well-founded - that the Senate will decide, General Belknap having resigned, the case lies outside its jurisdiction. I saw General Sherman today at the War Department, also had an interview with the Secretary of War who will write the Impeachment Board, requesting my release to return to my duties. Do not be anxious. I seek to follow a moderate and prudent course, avoiding prominence. Nevertheless, everything I do, however simple and unimportant, is noticed and commented on. This only makes me more careful.**

Armstrong’s attempt to walk softly was a little late, for unknown to him earlier on the 28th, Terry had received the following telegram from Sheridan: “The General of the Army telegraphs me that instructions have been received through the Secretary of War coming from the President to send someone other than Custer in charge of the expedition from Fort Lincoln.”⁴⁹ After an exchange of telegrams it w as agreed that Terry should command the expedition in person.

rant was clearly the moving force behind the removal of Custer rom field command. Realistically, the entire affair should have been one of the president’s business; it was not his decision, but rather

me impeachment Board’s concerning the testimony. While it is true that Grant wa< of our nation’s armed forces, the decision the Dakota column belonged with the two Sheridan and Terry. Terry, with Sheridan designed the operation with Custer in chart

necessity of Armstrong’s s the commander-in-chief on who should command department commanders, s blessing, had originally je, and they had no reason

In reality, Grant had two reasons for replacing Custer: partisan politics and personal revenge. Grant was still considered by some as a possible candidate for a third term in the White House, and the popular Custer’s presence before the Clymer Committee indirectly damaged Grant’s chances, in particular, and Republicans, in general. Although the president was not overly fond of his younger brother, Orvil, he was family, and Custer had implicated him in the illicit sale of post traderships. Yes, Grant had enough motivation for replacing Custer, and he exercised the power of his office to that end.¹¹"

No one could say that Custer was not a fighter, and he was not about to roll over and play dead. On the 29th he obtained his release from the impeachment managers and followed Sherman’s advice to confer with the president on May 1 before departing from Fort Lincoln. The afternoon of the 29th he confidently telegraphed Terry that he would depart Monday, the first of May, for duty with his command since he had been granted authority that day.⁵¹ Even though the proper authorities, the impeachment managers, and the General of the Army, Sherman, had granted Custer permission to return to Fort Lincoln, the president was determined to undermine his plans.

In compliance with Sherman’s wishes, Armstrong appeared at the White House on the morning of May 1. His card was sent to the president at 10:00 a.m., but it solicited no response. Custer cooled his heels in an anteroom until 3:00 p.m. when he finally received word that Grant would not see him. Frustrated and angered, Custer left a written note for Grant before departing:

Today for the third time I have sought an interview with the president - not to solicit a favor, except to be granted a brief hearing - but to remove from his mind certain unjust impressions concerning myself which I have reason to believe are entertained against me. I desire this opportunity as a matter of justice, and I regret that the president has declined to give me an opportunity to submit to him a brief statement, which justice to him, as well as to me, demanded.⁵²

General Sherman was in New York and was expected to return that evening. Armstrong made three attempts to contact Sherman, but he failed; however, he had already received, as noted, his permission to return to Fort Lincoln. In accordance with the proper military procedures, Custer obtained approval from Adjutant General Edward D. Townsend and Inspector General Randolph B. Marcy to leave.⁵⁵

Following the maxim that the best defense is a good offense, Custer fired one last salvo at Grant before departing Washington. Both the New York World and the New York Herald headlines on May 2 screamed: Grant’s Revenge. He Relieves General Custer of His Command. T he General’s Reward for Testifying Against the Administration.” The president was accused of . . high-handed abuse of his

o icial power.” When General Sherman defended Custer by telling Grant that Armstrong was the best qualified man to lead the expedition, the president allegedly replied that . . this man Custer had come here both as a witness and a prosecutor in the Belknap matter to besmirch his administration, and he proposed to put a stop to it.” In conclusion, the article postulated that Grant would defend his action by claiming Custer would not be able to return to Fort Lincoln in time to assume command of the expedition before it marched. Since

was Ime Th ^W3S °^{n HiS Way t0 FOft LinC}°^ln’ ^Grant’^{S eXCUSe} Custer’s ^arU r ^{001 designed to} P^cate the president, and n J ^{gY produccd the} opposite desired effect.⁵⁴

his remrn tott^COntH°^Ve7^y ^ ^ ^{InStead he chose to trum}P^et command of h'1 ' ^ °^{rmm8 the} P^ubIic that he was ready to take “r “ ^{field 0pera}“°^{ns a}«^ai"⁵‘ 'he Sioux.'⁵ But

™ ™r_y‘sHe “rc sCr ’^{,he foi,owin8} ^,iZiin™rrT^{vised ,hat Generai cu}«"

myself. Please intercept him and await further orders; meantime, let the expedition proceed without him.⁵⁵ As noted, Grant refused to see Custer, and Sherman had previously given Armstrong permission to depart for Lincoln. Pressure on Sherman originated with the occupant of the White House.⁵⁶

Oblivious to the gathering storm, Armstrong was already aboard the train bound for St. Paul when Sheridan’s Adjutant Colonel James A. Forsyth arrested him on the morning of May 4. If Custer had previously been frustrated and angered by Grant, now shock and humiliation could be added to the list. An exchange of telegrams among Custer, Terry, Sheridan, and Sherman resulted on May 5 with the following message from Sherman to Sheridan and Terry:

Have just come from the President who orders that General Custer be allowed to rejoin his post, to remain there on duty, but not to accompany the expedition supposed to be on the point of starting against the hostile Indians under General Terry.⁵⁷

Custer arrived at Terry’s headquarters in St. Paul on May 6. For Armstrong, it was not only a question of how far his friendships with Terry, Sheridan, and Sherman would carry him, but also how effective would pressure from anti-administration newspapers be in winning back his command. The combination of the two ultimately tipped the scales in Custer’s favor for a marginal victory.

From all indications, Armstrong remained in constant communication with the New York Herald, which took the lead in Custer’s counterattack. On May 4 it opened up with:

Suddenly he (Custer) is deprived of a command which he has always held with distinguished honor, and sent back to his regiment disgraced professionally, so far as an order of the President can disgrace him. We have no reason assigned for that act except we read in the Washington column of a contemporary that the President did not mean to allow Custer to smirch the administration.⁵⁸ If the fourth was a skirmish against the president by the Herald, then the sixth was an all-out frontal assault. Headlines read, “Custer

Sacrificed, Interception in Chicago by the President’s Order, Stripped of His Command, and the Indian Expedition to Go Forward without Him.” In its effort to discover why Custer was dismissed from command, the Herald concluded that:

If appears that the only reason given for this step was that George Custer had left Washington without first paying his respects to the president. No formal charges are preferred against Custer, and he is disgraced simply because he did not crook the pregnant hinges of the knee’ to this modem Caesar,⁵⁹

While opposition newspapers hammered away at Grant, Custer appealed to Terry for his personal intercession. With Terry’s assistance, the following telegram was drafted as a final plea on Custer’s behalf and forwarded through military channels to the president: To His Excellency, the President:

ColonelCuTJ ZTj* ^SUperiors Whether Lieutenant umn or not it n * ^t’^ermi,,e‘^t *> accompany the col-

the reasons uhonf° 1" ^COmmand °f <*■ ^{1 d}° not know reasons upon wh,ch the orders given rest; but if these

reasons’ do not forbid it, Lieutenant Colonel Custer’s services would be very valuable with this regiment,

The sordid affair was drawn to a close on May 8 when Sherman telegrammed to Terry:

The dispatch of General Sheridan enclosing yours of yesterday touching General Custer’s urgent request to go under your command with his regiment, has been submitted to the President, who sends me word that, if you want General Custer along, he withdraws his objections. Advise Custer to be prudent and not to take along any newspapermen, who always work mischief and to abstain from any personalities in the future.⁶² The source usually cited for that telegram is Robert Hughes’ “Campaign Against the Sioux,” written in 1896 in defense of his brother-in-law, General Terry. Hughes served as captain and aide to Terry during the 1876 Sioux campaign, and he was never an ardent admirer of Custer. Since the 1896 publication of Hughes’ article, subsequent writers have relied on his version of Sherman’s telegram. However, in the National Archives the unedited telegram concluded with some revealing personal advice from Sherman: “Tell him 1 want him to confine his whole mind to his legitimate office and trust to time. That newspaper paragraph in the New' York World of May second, compromised his best friends here, and almost deprived us of the ability to serve him.”⁶³ Here, then, is tacit confirmation from an authoritative source, Sherman, that Grant’s decision to replace Custer was precipitated by the New York World article of May 2.

The extent of Custer’s involvement in the Belknap Affair is difficult to ascertain. Insufficient evidence exists to substantiate charges that Armstrong initiated the Belknap investigation. His first priority was the organization of the expected Sioux campaign, and he reluctantly obeyed his summons to appear before the Clymer Committee.

Although most of his testimony was based on hearsay and contained little of intrinsic value, Custer’s prominence imparted a significant value to it for the purpose of partisan Democratic propaganda. Vi hen

President Grant removed Armstrong from command of the Dakota column, he played into the Democrats’ hands. Whether Custer desired it or not, he became a hot political issue in an election year, and that is the key to understanding attempts to discredit Custer in the aftermath of the Little Big Horn disaster.

1*1 1*1^_______^11*1


I. From Sancho Panza to Don Quixote—The Metamorphosis of	11

III. The 1876 Sioux Campaign: Custer Marches to the Little
IV. The Web We Weave: Partisan Politics and the	67
V. Custer at the Crow’s Nest: “The Best Laid Schemes O Mice	85
	. -95
	103
	113
	117
	125