Little Big Horn

[agedman]

Actually, Custer was not an inept general. However, he was IMPETUOUS, a trait that has made or broken some generals. During the battle of Gettysburg, Custer impetuously led some 500 Michigan cavalry troops in a charge against Confederate General J. E. B. Stuart's 4,000 mounted soldiers. Custer managed to cause an immense traffic jam in a fairly narrow riding lane that prevented Stuart from attacking the center of the Union line from the rear. had Stuart succeeded, Pickett's Charge woulda overrun the Union center, enabling pickett and the rest of the Reb army to roll up each flank of the Feds. In the chaos which resulted from Custer's charge, Stuart had to order a retreat to re-organize hois troops. Custer wisely made a hasty exit with his men after that charge until more Fed cavalry arrived.

Custer graduated from west point last in his class of 34, in 1861, and was quickly pressed into service in the Civil War as a lieutenant. At first, he alienated the men under his command with showy uniforms and "fancy" hairstyles, but he soon won them over by his willingness to lead attacks, rather than just sending them forward and then hanging back. He told them his uniforms & hair were so they could easily see him and follow him, & that he was counting on the enemy's poor marksmanship to survive.

Custer impressed the Army of the Potomac's cavalry commander, Gen. Pleasonton, who brevetted him to brig. general. During the Civil war, his headlong charges were made only after careful planning, so they served him well. And there's no denying Custer was a "publicity hound".

After the war, he was reverted back to a captain, & considered leaving the Army. But the ongoing battles with Indians, and a lack of civilian jobs that interested him convinced him to stay.

His "last Stand" was a result of his failure to do a thorough recon job, for once, thus not knowing the size of the Indian force before him, and failing to recognize the fact that the Indians were well-led, well-armed, and were better marksmen than first thought. it's conceivable that Custer's vastly-outnumbered force could've succeeded, if not for Crazy Horse's quick reaction to Custer's attack and skillful leadership in countering it. Custer hadn't believed the Sioux capable of any ORGANIZED counter-attack, and thus was defeated.

Custer's first big mistake was his last.

Had Robert Lee not suffered a heart attack and still had available the skills of the autistic Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson the south would not have been defeated at Gettysburg.

Custer was basically as self serving jerk who lead four family members to death - Harry, Thomas, James, and his youngest brother Boston.

One of the saddest elements is that Sitting Bull was ignored:

“These dead soldiers are the gifts of Wanka Tanka. Kill them, but do not take their guns or horses. Do not touch the spoils. If you set your hearts upon the goods of the white man, it will prove to be the downfall of this nation.”


​

He was right - the backlash from Big Horn eventually destroyed not only his people but himself.

 

[kyredneck]

Estimates go as high as 90% of 'pre-contact' Native American populations were wiped out by European diseases. IOW, many more perished from white man's diseases than from white man's cruelty, and that BEFORE the two had ever met, the initial infections occurring early on with the arrival of the very first Europeans and spread through the native population like a wildfire afterward .

Here in KY in my area it was totally uninhabited when the white man arrived. Along about 1620 the Seneca acquired firearms from the Dutch in New York and made a beeline to KY and committed genocide, wiping out the native Mound Builders and then returned home. They took no prisoners nor occupied any land. When Boone and the Bush colonists arrived the only Indians were the Shawnee to the north and the Cherokee to the south that shared KY as a hunting ground.

The Mound Builders practiced human sacrifice as did some of those in Mexico and South America.

 

[Aaron]

Wow, did you just equate the treatment of Native Americans with the Jewish conquest of Canaan?

No, I did not. I'm illuminating a universal non-optional principle therein. When God promised the land to Abraham, it was told him he couldn't inhabit it for four generations, because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full. In other words, the Amorites still had legitimate claim to the land while they maintained a certain degree of lawfulness.

I am speechless.

Just read the Scriptures and my posts a little more carefully.

 

[Tom Bryant]

In short, natural law, or, the law of the land, is basically God's law. They were lawless, and just as the Canaanites lost rights to the land because of their lawlessness, or, their direct, sustained and institutionalized rebellion against God (albeit in ignorance), so do all who are likewise lawless.

And, yes, they were savage in the true sense of the word.

So what was the law of the land before Europeans came over? How do you get from natural law/law of the land to it being God's law?

So if any country doesn't live by God's law, we have the right and the obligation to take them over? And when we don't, someone else has the right to take the USA over? You're approaching the precipice of very slippery mountain.

 

[Aaron]

Read the post directly above yours.

 

[Tom Bryant]

No, I did not. I'm illuminating a universal non-optional principle therein. When God promised the land to Abraham, it was told him he couldn't inhabit it for four generations, because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full. In other words, the Amorites still had legitimate claim to the land while they maintained a certain degree of lawfulness.

Just read the Scriptures and my posts a little more carefully.

It doesn't answer it at all, but let me ask if you are saying that Europeans were promised North America in the same way that Jacobs descendents were promised Israel?

If that's what you're saying, then yes, you are being logical. But I am unable to find any place where anyone was promised this land.

And I still want to know if this principle is at work for the take over of other countries who do not follow God's law.

 

[agedman]

It doesn't answer it at all, but let me ask if you are saying that Europeans were promised North America in the same way that Jacobs descendents were promised Israel?

If that's what you're saying, then yes, you are being logical. But I am unable to find any place where anyone was promised this land.

And I still want to know if this principle is at work for the take over of other countries who do not follow God's law.

good question!!!

The Scriptures teach that in the millennium Christ will rule the world with a rod of iron. All will submit to his leadership.

So, in a sense that is "take(ing) over of other countries who do not follow God's law."

I that OUR responsibility?

I started a study that I never came close to finishing - the volume of work was just to massive before the computer age.

The working hypothesis: Those who held covenant theology (in particular amillennial) were predisposed to some type of "manifest destiny" view.

I started with Spain - who had the view that God had blessed them with the ability to make weapons more powerful than others, and therefore most certainly God commissioned them to conquer (the conquistadors) that all might be "converted" or die. Those converted were to be happy in spiritual slavery to the RCC and physical slavery to Spain.

But, like I said, the shear volume of work was just too massive, and bulky to systematize.

However, that pattern seemed to be forming, and although I long ago threw away all documentation.

Conversely, those who were more "Baptistic" (individual responsibility and independence of the believers and assemblies) and also not holding strongly to "covenant theology" (taken as the church replaced Israel) were in fact less likely to be following pillage mentality that infects the world systems.

Sadly, such thinking was NOT that of those English who thought the state church could be "purified" to be made acceptable.

Folks forget that the "puritans" were basically the church of England which came out of the RCC because the king wanted other women. There was very little right with the righteousness of the Puritans - does anyone remember Salem? Do NOT confuse the Puritan thinking with that of the Pilgrims or that of Baptists (who the Puritans wouldn't tolerate).

When one looks historically at Spain, England, France and later the US, the background system of thinking was always - we know what is best because God put us on this world to shape it to be just like us.

Fool hardy were those who took them self to be Paul when he said, "Be imitators of me," and not including, "just as I also am of Christ."

 

[Van]

People have been twisting scripture to put God on their side for a very long time. Manifest Destiny said the west, no matter how far west, belonged to the "God fearing" Christians of America.

Sandburg wrote a wonderful poem, I think entitled "My Land" but it went something like this. "Whose land is this?
Is is my land! Why is it your land? Because it was my Father's land. Why was it your fathers land? It was his father's land. And why was it his land? He fought for it. I will fight you for it."

Way back in the early days a preacher wanted to treat the Indians fairly and justly, just as scripture teaches. He was run out of town.

I once visited the Huntington Library and they had a display on slavery. One display had sermons presenting the "biblical' basis for treating blacks as slaves. It was as absurd as Calvinism, but many of those nice boys dressed in grey believed it and died for it.

Once we set aside the "and justice for all" maxim and treat others differently than we would treat ourselves, we are sowing the seeds of bloodshed.

 

[Aaron]

It doesn't answer it at all, but let me ask if you are saying that Europeans were promised North America in the same way that Jacobs descendents were promised Israel?

Again, no. That covenant is no longer in effect. Now, shed your dispensational blinders, and look at Genesis 15. Why is it that Abraham would have to wait to lay claim to the land? Because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full. From the point of view of earth, that principle preceded and supercedes the promise to Abraham.

And I still want to know if this principle is at work for the take over of other countries who do not follow God's law.

More accurately, those who are lawless cannot lay claim to any land. Land inhabited by the lawless is there for the taking by those who will conform to the law of the land and will subdue it, and bring forth the fruits thereof.

 

[saturneptune]

How happy are GEICO customers? Happier than Aaron when royalty has a new baby.

 

[saturneptune]

They were lawless.

That is not true. They had a complex set of laws and standards. They had a functioning government. They had a functioning religious belief. They bought, sold, and went to and fro. They were the governing authority. There is no merit to your statement.

 

[preachinjesus]

That is not true. They had a complex set of laws and standards. They had a functioning government. They had a functioning religious belief. They bought, sold, and went to and fro. They were the governing authority. There is no merit to your statement.

This is my point.

The Native Americans were a highly developed society in terms of a non-technical people. They had specific technologies that were highly refined, social structures and understandings that went beyond paper laws, and inter-tribal rules that were carefully observed. Was it perfect? No. Did they act differently than their oppressors? Certainly.

 

[blackbird]

More accurately, those who are lawless cannot lay claim to any land. Land inhabited by the lawless is there for the taking by those who will conform to the law of the land and will subdue it, and bring forth the fruits thereof.

Does this mean----if I decide to become a lawless one(like you claim the American Indians were)----you can walk on over here and take my land and house for your own!!?? I've got somethin' in my gun cabinet that'll . . .

 

[Bro. James]

A short kibbitz: Have we forgotten that the creation, including all or our stuff, belongs to God? We will be giving an account. We have done a remarkable job of polluting the planet--food, air and water.

What we have done and continue to do to the American Indians(etal) is without Biblical sanction. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of The Living God.

Remember Gen. G. Custer?

The manifest destiny of this planet is hell. Now what? So much for 401Ks.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro.James

 

[Crabtownboy]

George Custer was an egotistical, self-serving, glory seeking man. Of course he won everlasting fame, but not in the way he wanted.

He divided his command, a mistake, and then made the mistake of attacking a vastly larger army, a much larger mistake.

On law:

Hills are always more beautiful than stone buildings. Living in a city
is an artificial existence. Lots of people hardly ever feel real soil under
their feet, see plants grow except in flower pots, or get far enough
beyond the street light to catch the enchantment of a night sky studded
with stars. When people live far from scenes of the Great Spirit's
making, it's easy for them to forget his laws.

Walking Buffalo

 

[Tom Bryant]

Again, no. That covenant is no longer in effect. Now, shed your dispensational blinders, and look at Genesis 15. Why is it that Abraham would have to wait to lay claim to the land? Because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full. From the point of view of earth, that principle preceded and supercedes the promise to Abraham.

More accurately, those who are lawless cannot lay claim to any land. Land inhabited by the lawless is there for the taking by those who will conform to the law of the land and will subdue it, and bring forth the fruits thereof.

Aaron,
About the first part, I agree. It's not an issue of dispensational blinders since I'm not one. You used the illustration of Israel and the land.

Thanks for answering the 2nd question. I disagree completely, totally and absolutely. I hope you always follow the law so that no one can take your stuff over.

 

[Bro. James]

Even though George did not necessarily follow orders, there were military and civilian authorities above George C.

We live in a narcissistic world--many narcissists are packing bibles.

We had a problem with too many bureaucrats and carpetbaggers after the Civil War.

The problem is getting worse.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Revmitchell]

This is my point.

The Native Americans were a highly developed society in terms of a non-technical people.

Really? Did that include attacking, killing, and enslaving each other?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Really? Did that include attacking, killing, and enslaving each other?

Seems the White folk did a lot of attacking, killing and enslaving of others. Remember:

1. Bleeding Kansas
2. The Trail of Tears
3. The Civil War
4. Harpers Ferry and John Brown
5. The lynchings
6. The witch trails
7. the Coal Field War
8. The enslavement of millions of Africans
9. The interment of Japanese Americans during World War II
10. Took Indian children away from their parents and shipped them to schools far away.
11. Broke every treaty that we and they signed.
12. The list can go on and on

 

[Crabtownboy]

Even though George did not necessarily follow orders, there were military and civilian authorities above George C.

I expect that in today's Army Custer would have been busted for refusing to follow orders. He often did not listen to his superiors.

He did not gain the fame he desired during the Civil War and was determined to achieve it later. Actually his war record was not all that great.

Throughout his career, Custer exhibited a reckless temperament that kept him in almost constant trouble with superior officers. Yet his courage has rarely been questioned. In life he was a flamboyant man who attracted ardent admirers and severe critics. In death it has been the same. His wife, Elizabeth, through her publications and lectures during the half century she survived him, did much to create the image of a beau sabreur that still persists. Probably more words, pro and con, have been written about George Armstrong Custer than any of his military contemporaries of comparable rank.

http://www.history.com/topics/george-armstrong-custer