Custer at Little Bighorn: A Deep Political Hypothesis

[Charles Drago]

Charles, if you are already two "staff rides" ahead of me and have already conducted the introductory (and perhaps in-depth) research , then you are way ahead of me... all the more reason not to "debate" you. If you are looking for an "assist" or a contrapuntal set of questions to assist in your thinking and exploration, then I shall have to "saddle up", and that will require time and commitment.

Your non-debate conclusion is my loss. Your offer of contrapuntal questions is my gain. I should reiterate, however, that I'm at the place where scholarship and the objectivity that steers it enjoy greatly reduced speaking privileges. The process in which I'm currently engaged is the creative/artistic process. While said art is informed by empirical conclusions which clearly remain open to scholarly challenge, please keep in mind that now I'm writing fiction (I won't use the term "historical fiction," which Gore Vidal described as being "neither history nor fiction").

Herein lies the chasm between objective history and subjective art: By definition, my hypothesis must include identification of a human agent for Custer's downfall -- one (or more?) who had to have held a position(s?) of influence within the command structure. If I were writing history, I would be hard-pressed to defend my choice(s?) for the enemy(s?) within; my evidence is, at best, circumstantial in nature. But I'll luxuriate in artistic freedom and name my name(s?) secure in the knowledge that I have been as fair-minded and thorough as possible during the research stages of the project.

By the way, I'm sure you can easily name my prime suspect. But the individual I characterize as his co-conspirator likely will surprise you.

I am also very much aware of the creation of the mythlogy surrounding Custer and conscious that my perspective may be skewed from having been steeped in it prior to becoming more aware that all is not what it appears to be (indeed, that it may be a conversely-distorted image of the truth).

The study of deep politics will do that to us.

But the scandal seems the likely place to look in depth because it was current and simultaneous. Grant feared or knew that Custer knew something, I would suppose, and feared that it would be used in some forthcoming political candidacy by Custer. In the background politically is still the persecution of the Indian Wars and the degree of safety for the commonfolk during the ongoing westward expansion, the gold in them thar hills, and other factors.

If I may: Remember one of the most important lessons to be gleaned from studies of the structure of and motives for the JFK assassination. A half-dozen or more False Sponsors of the event were motivated to get involved at the Facilitator level of the plot. They were allowed to do so for operational reasons and for future use as patsies. So the scandal is worthy of serious study -- but study informed by deep political insight.

As for the Gatling gun question, I'll reserve further comment and judgment, but will make this comment:

In the simulation game with which I am most familiar with (covering the Battle of the Bulge), there is a wonderful and insightful comment made inside the designer's notes I have used several times and which comes to play here. 'Every time you want to move one of the German artillery units, you must recruit six of your friends and push a heavy sedan around the block in the rain." It keeps simulators honest when moving heavy pieces in pretense [cardboard counters] across hill and dale. So the best way to answer your question would be for me to actually pack and unpack a Gatling gun, bring it in by mule, set it up, fire off a beltful of blanks (apologize to the neighbors), pack it up, and move it 100 yards down the road and do the same thing. I suspect a number of Gatlings were to be the anvil for the cavalry's hammer.

Call me. I have some targeting suggestions.

And keep in mind that the Gatlings were included on the march as much for defensive purposes as for offensive firepower. They were to be used only if and when circumstances permitted their tactical application. Again I'll submit that the fact they were left behind to be used to shoot fish in the Yellowstone had as little impact on the LBH battle as did Custer's decision not to unpack the regiment's sabres.

As for rubbing ears with Shirley Horn, I cannot compete. I did, however, once interview Paul Simon, once sat on the stage next to Mark Stein of the Vanilla Fudge as they did "You Keep Me Hangin' On" [because I like you, I will spare your ears], and once saw the reconstituted Dave Brubeck Quartet at Saunders Theater at Harvard, reputed by one recording savant as the best place to record jazz in the US. (I speak of the principal, owner, producer, recording and sound engineer for esoteric, audiophile record label Mapleshade Records, Pierre Sprey, previously one of John Boyd's acolytes at the Pentagon. [There's an inside private story associated with his catalog arrival at my home.])

I've heard some great music at the Saunders, too. And I own a few Mapleshade sides -- most notably two CDs by the late, brilliant tenor saxophonist Clifford Jordan.

Bobby Millitello soloed on a rocking fast-paced rendition of "Koto Sing" -- I have searched since for a recording of it -- in which Millitello was chanting across the mouthpiece of the flute.

"Koto Song" has been recorded at least twice by the Brubeck Quartet c. 1960s. There's a later version with Paul Desmond available on YouTube. Don't know if it was captured during the Militello era -- although I believe that, back in the early '80s, I MC'd a Newport Jazz Festival at which Brubeck/Militello performed the number.

Dave, by the way, is without question the kindest, sweetest jazz superstar I've ever met.

And I met Stan Getz on a bender!