See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Just Who Are We Radicals And Reactionaries?
Source:
The Dollar Vigilante
URL Source: http://personalliberty.com/2013/09/ ... we-radicals-and-reactionaries/
Published: Sep 26, 2013
Author: Dr. Kenneth Karger
Post Date: 2013-09-26 11:36:11 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 1367
Comments: 53
“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” — H.L. Mencken I have often considered the possibility that I am the guy that Mencken described. But for those involved in the traditional political realm of left and right, I am simply delusional, labeled a “radical” by those on the right and a “reactionary” by those on the left. In fact, I am neither. Rather, I am the dreaded Libertarian who believes that government, if it must exist at all, must be structurally limited. And it is clear that in that belief I am a part of a small minority. To suggest to the majority (who remain emotionally invested in the pseudo left-right paradigm) that democracy is perhaps the worst form of government will get you written off quickly. To most, such an assertion is worse than delusional. It is traitorous. Most members of the herd don’t understand that the Founding Fathers likewise believed democracies were doomed to failure and that, left unchecked, ended up as nothing more than another form of tyranny: the tyranny of the majority. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies: …have . . . been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. (The Federalist, No. 10) It results in a deep and angry consternation that such a radical notion, an indictment of the revered democracy that America now exports at the end of a gun, was not suggested by the likes of radicals or reactionaries, but by James Madison, the U.S. President referred to on the White House’s own website as the “Father of the Constitution.” Few people believe he was radical or reactionary. Even fewer people know of his disdain for unfettered democracy. And that is unfortunate. Democracy, as a form of government, is like a ship without a rudder. It will move, but it is impossible to determine a direction. Each of the individual liberties so many Americans are proud of come from a republic with a constitution firmly protecting individual rights against intrusion by government, not a democracy that fundamentally assumes that 51 percent of the people are correct 100 percent of the time. In a pure democracy, if 51 percent of the people want to enslave a group or steal their personal property, they have the legal (and moral) right to do so. No property rights, no personal freedoms and no individual rights, regardless of genesis, are immune to a majority wanting to eliminate them. As did Madison, Ayn Rand, the often-reviled objectivist philosopher and novelist, railed against such tyranny, saying that individual rights should not be subject to a public vote and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities, noting that the smallest minority on Earth is the individual. Simply put, without effective structural limitation, the majority in a democracy can (and will) oppress the minority by simply having or buying more votes. The irony of a democracy is that it functions only if it can be restrained from actually being one. Such was the idea of the framers of the United States Constitution, and they were right. Where they got it wrong was to assume a determined majority could not and would not trample the structural hurdles put in front of them. They will and they have. A good example is the 2nd Amendment, simple in its wording, clear in its intent: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The anti-gun minority — or majority, or whatever the current polls shows them to be — argues that the words do not mean what they say. In a disgraceful and intellectually deceitful rewriting of history, they suggest that the Founders meant the right to have a hunting rifle, since so many people hunted for food at that time in history. But, in fact, history tells a different story. To wit, the 2nd Amendment’s purpose was to ensure that if and when another government needed to be overthrown, the people would have the armament to get it done. Such clarity is lost on those with an agenda to rewrite the 2nd Amendment, and so they do. Recently, a textbook in the state of Texas for students in Advanced Placement programs quoted a new version of the old 2nd Amendment: The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia. Such difference is not a simple oversight. An oversight is leaving out a marginally important phrase or a misspelling a word, not a dramatic sentence restructuring that changes the entire meaning of the sentence. And it is not as if there is any historical support for that revised language. To the contrary, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” And, if that wasn’t clear enough, he left no doubt of the Framers’ intent when he wrote: And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. “Arms” meant then (and still mean today) everything necessary to fight a war against a tyrannical government, not necessarily to overthrow it but to protect oneself from its abuses. Any comment to the contrary is merely ignorance of history or the worst form of disingenuous historical revisionism. To that end, I am reminded of former Senator Daniel Moynihan’s admonishment: “You are entitled to your own viewpoint, just not to your own facts.” The ability to protect oneself from government is best evidenced in modernity by the increasingly frequent abuses of citizens by government agents. An elderly man in my hometown of Fort Worth, Texas, was killed when a half dozen police broke into his house and he pointed a gun at what he believed to be intruders. Indeed, they were intruders; but they wore badges and bulletproof vests. It turns out they had the wrong address, which government writes off as merely being a mistake and which resulted in his being killed. Murdered is a better term, if only because it is more accurate. Last week, cops killed a Florida State athlete when he ran to their car trying to get help. They shot him 11 times and used a Taser on him. A few months ago, police in Los Angeles shot up a truck carrying two women delivering newspapers. Officers riddled the pickup with bullets and shot the women because their truck was similar to a fugitive’s truck. In the minds of government officials, that gave the police the right to do what they did: open fire without warning. These are but examples among dozens from a rapidly growing police state — the very kind the Framers worried would one day grow out of a failed Republic and a successful democracy. Rarely are the agents of government punished. The message of government is clear: We will protect our own, no matter how egregious their acts. Just as the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, it likewise isn’t about protecting ourselves from the bad guys. Rather, it is to protect ourselves from the good guys who become bad guys, which is the eventuality of any democracy, the regrettable, but necessary, end game.
Dr. Kenneth Karger lives with his wife in Fort Worth, Texas, and Chetumal, Mexico. He is the brother of Jim Karger, a frequent contributor to The Dollar Vigilante and TDV’s concierge in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-13) not displayed.
.
.
.
#14. To: GreyLmist, all, 4 (#13)
Most interesting thread once it swerved over to Custer - thanks.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Custer's own lack of planning and his ego probably contributed greatly to that defeat. That and underestimating "the enemy." Paul Craig Roberts
You're very welcome. Mighty pleased to hear that. :) Edit to add: P.S. Hat tip to randge for the swerve. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Some say it was largely due to the fog of war, literally, that obscured his line-of-sight on a scouting Edited for spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I guess there are any number of reasons why that particular defeat happened. All we really have at this date is just guesswork. Paul Craig Roberts
I guess there are any number of reasons why that particular defeat happened. All we really have at this date is just guesswork. Recommending: Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors by Stephen E. Ambrose iirc, Ambrose reports that the Indians were contemptuous of Major Reno and/or Captain Benteen, who they considered cowardly. Not scalping Custer or mutilating his body, as they did others who died at the Little Big Horn, was a show of respect for him. However, according to Ambrose, the Indian women who went to the scene afterward used needles to "open his ears" so that he could hear better in the afterlife. Edited for punctuation + line 1 after the link and spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Saved this link awhile back. The Wild West Magazine writer agrees with your comments to some degree although he says that the story is not as straightforward as we've been led to suppose. This is the end of a long article on Little Big Horn & Custer's defeat. It's worth a read, and there's lots of stuff here on the firearms used for those that are into this topic. Wild West is worth bookmarking, BTW. Great stories posted every week. Problems arose, however, when tactics broke down from midlevel and small-scale, to micro-scale. According to then Brevet Major Edward S. Godfrey, fire discipline–the ability to control and direct deliberate, accurate, aimed fire– will decide every battle. No attack force, however strong, could reach a defensive line of steady soldiers putting out disciplined fire. The British army knew such was the case, as did Napoleon. Two irregular warriors could probably defeat three soldiers. However, 1,000 soldiers could probably beat 2,000 irregulars. The deciding factor was strength in unity–fire discipline. It was as Major Godfrey said: 'Fire is everything, the rest is nothing.' Theoretically, on the Little Bighorn, with a small-scale defense in suitable terrain with an open field of fire of a few hundred yards, several companies of cavalrymen in close proximity and under strict fire control could have easily held off two or three times their number of Indian warriors. In reality, on the Little Bighorn, several companies of cavalrymen who were not in close proximity and had little fire control, with a micro-scale defense in unsuitable, broken terrain, could not hold off two or three times their number of Indian warriors. The breakdown stems from an attitude factor. Custer exhibited an arrogance, not necessarily of a personal nature, but rather as a part of his racial makeup. Racial experience may have influenced his reactions to the immediate situation of war. It was endemic in red vs. white modes of warfare and implies nothing derogatory to either side. Historically, Indians fled from large bodies of soldiers. It was Custer's experience that it was much harder to find and catch an Indian than to actually fight him. Naturally influenced by his successful past experiences with small-unit tactics, Custer attacked. He was on the offensive. He knew he must remain on the offensive to be successful. Even after Reno had been repulsed, Custer was maneuvering, looking for another opportunity to attack. The positions that Custer's dead were found in did not indicate a strong defensive setup. Even after the Indians had taken away the initiative, Custer's mind-set was still on 'attack.' Although a rough, boxlike perimeter was formed, it appeared more a matter of circumstance than intent. Custer probably never realized that his men's very survival was on the line, at least not until it was too late to remedy the situation. The men were not in good defensible terrain. They were not within mutual supporting distance. They were not under the tight fire control of their officers. Custer's troopers were in detachments too small for a successful tactical stance. When the critical point was reached, the soldiers found themselves stretched beyond the physical and psychological limits of fight or posture–they had to flee or submit. Seemingly out of supporting distance of his comrades, the individual trooper found himself desperately alone. The 'bunkie' was not close enough. The first sergeant was far away. The lieutenant was nowhere to be seen. The trooper responded as well as he could have been expected to. He held his ground and fought, he fired into the air like an automaton, he ran, he gave up. Some stands were made, particularly on and within a radius of a few hundred yards of the knoll that became known as Custer Hill, where almost all of the Indian casualties occurred. When it came down to one-on-one, warrior versus soldier, however, the warrior was the better fighter. George Armstrong Custer may have done almost everything as prescribed. But it was not enough to overcome the combination of particular circumstances, some of his own making, arrayed against him that day. Inadequate training in marksmanship and poor fire discipline resulting from a breakdown in command control were major factors in the battle results. Neither Custer's weapons nor those the Indians used against him were the cause of his defeat. Battle of Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
Thanks for this additional information.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Thank you.
Paul Craig Roberts
Custer is famous for graduating 34th out of his class of 1861 at West Point. Unfortunately, there were only 34 members of the 1861 West Point Graduating Class. Not sure if this is true, but it would explain a lot. I'm pretty sure it's true, but I wasn't there. corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
Much like McKook.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Custer would have needed 100 years of college to do as much damage as Johnny-boy. corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
Only because Custer didn't live to be in cogress or the white house.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Assuming Custer had lived and never made it to Washington, he couldn't have lived long enough to do a thousandth the damage to this country as that idiot McCain and his boytoy, Lady Lindthey Graham. Paul Craig Roberts
I'm off to ride my low rider bikie through Ted Kennedy's flock. Wish me luck.
corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
LOL! Godspeed my friend.
Paul Craig Roberts
The 'lil thugs' just don't seem to act as tough with 300lb of steel, reflectors, and viking charging at them.
corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
BWAHHAHAHAHA!!!
Paul Craig Roberts
I'm serious, some Section 8 "family" moved into the neighborhood a couple weeks ago and have been terrorizing all the old folks and church families. Bach's Fugue in D Minor, combined some spooky valkyries crap usually works.
corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
That, or a 12 gauge in 00 minor, should do the trick.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
None of them are over 16, they'd have the police on me. My attorney has also advised against skittles laced with cyanide. I'm hoping Ludwig's 7th will disrupt their flock. corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Add a strobe light to your rolling contraption: darkies are scared of anything that approximates 'spirits' or seems unnatural.
#15. To: randge (#10)
The more conspiratorially minded say that someone slipped the Injuns Henrys and Winchesters because Custer was aiming for the White House.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#16. To: Lod (#14)
(Edited)
Most interesting thread once it swerved over to Custer - thanks.
#17. To: James Deffenbach (#15)
(Edited)
Custer's own lack of planning and his ego probably contributed greatly to that defeat. That and underestimating "the enemy."
maneuver maneuver to accurately assess the scope of "the enemy" encampments.
#18. To: GreyLmist (#17)
Some say it was largely due to the fog of war, literally, that obscured his line-of-sight on a scouting manuever to accurately assess the scope of "the enemy" encampments.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#19. To: James Deffenbach, Lod, randge, 4 (#18)
(Edited)
Some say it was largely due to the fog of war, literally, that obscured his line-of-sight on a scouting
manuever maneuver to accurately assess the scope of "the enemy" encampments.
#20. To: James Deffenbach, GreyLmist, Lod, Cynicom Turtle (#15)
Custer's own lack of planning and his ego probably contributed greatly to that defeat. That and underestimating "the enemy."
Dividing up a command in the near presence of an enemy may be an act to be avoided during large-scale maneuvers with army-sized units, but such is not the case during small-scale tactical cavalry maneuvers. Custer adhered to the principles for a successful engagement with a small, guerrilla-type, mobile enemy. Proven tactics called for individual initiative, mobility, maintaining the offensive, acting without delay, playing not for safety but to win, and fighting whenever the opportunity arose. It was accepted that Regular soldiers would never shirk an encounter even with a superior irregular force of enemies, and that division of force for an enveloping attack combined with a frontal assault was a preferable tactic. On a small scale, and up to a certain point, Custer did almost everything he needed to do to succeed.
#21. To: randge (#20)
#22. To: randge (#20)
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#23. To: randge, GreyLmist, James Deffenbach, Lod, Turtle (#20)
(Edited)
#24. To: Dakmar (#23)
#25. To: Lod (#24)
Much like McKook.
#26. To: Dakmar (#25)
#27. To: Dakmar (#25)
Custer would have needed 100 years of college to do as much damage as Johnny-boy.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#28. To: James Deffenbach (#27)
#29. To: Dakmar (#28)
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#30. To: James Deffenbach (#29)
(Edited)
#31. To: Dakmar (#30)
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#32. To: James Deffenbach (#31)
(Edited)
#33. To: Dakmar (#32)
#34. To: Lod (#33)
#35. To: Dakmar (#34)
if that doesn't get the desired result, hit'em with Enya -
#36. To: Dakmar (#32)
-Alex Kurtagic
#37. To: X-15, Dakmar (#36)
LOL! Reckon he could clean out the District of Criminals and Corruptions with that?
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#38. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
This paragraph says it all. ;) Just as the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, it likewise isn’t about protecting ourselves from the bad guys. Rather, it is to protect ourselves from the good guys who become bad guys, which is the eventuality of any democracy, the regrettable, but necessary, end game.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#39. To: BTP Holdings (#38)
Yes, I think it is a superb article. Thanks.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#40. To: Cynicom (#1)
very interesting post cyni. what else do u know about these athiest jewish "austrian" economists?
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
#41. To: Artisan (#40)
Firstly, anything that the Rockefeller clan touches, is soiled for life. Mises and Hayek were on the payroll nearly from the beginning. """ Importantly, the involvement of the Rockefeller dynasty in promoting Austrian economics predates the Volker Fund. Indeed, Rockefeller, who was taught by Hayek in London, “had been intermittently subsidizing Hayek since his Vienna days at Mises’ business cycle institute” according to Mirowski and Van Horn. Already in 1926, Ludwig von Mises’s first tour in the United States was paid by the Rockefeller Foundation. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which supported Mises in the 1940s, was also heavily sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. Mises’s salary in New York was paid by Lawrence Fertig, Kohlberg’s colleague at the AJLAC, and by the Volker Fund."
#42. To: Cynicom (#41)
.thanks. i recently heard an american free press interview of Catholic author Michael A Hoffman who has written a book on usury. Hoffman pointed out several blashphemous comments by Mises, who upon more research i learned was extremely & demonstrably anti- Christ. i found this fascinating given the fact that Catholic libertarian sect in the ron paul movement (napolitano, woods, rockwell etc). Of course i wouldnt attribute Mises hatred of Christ to these men any more than id attribute tom jefferson's desire to "break the chains of monkish superstition" to the average Catholic constitutionalist.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
#43. To: Artisan (#42)
Years ago, Eustace Mullins wrote in a small note about the Rockefeller clan/money, about how they cultivated people that could be useful to them in the future. This extended even to people that were diametrically opposed to the Rockefeller views on life, politics, society, race etc etc. These people were kept under their financial wing, one way or another, for life. The prime example to Mullins, was the John birch society.
#44. To: Dakmar, James Deffenbach, Lod, randge, 4 (#23) (Edited)
Not sure if this is true, but it would explain a lot. I'm pretty sure it's true, but I wasn't there. At West Point, 'Goats' Are an Exclusive Bunch - WSJ.com While the title is in many ways a joke, the distinctive mix of the school's prestige, the tradition's long history and the achievements of many goats of decades past lends the name an unlikely significance, making it perhaps the most exclusive last-place award there is. The origins of the goat are a mystery, but the earliest written reference to the term goes back to 1886, according to author and historian James S. Robbins. Mr. Robbins counts the collection of goat stories as a cherished hobby, and eventually wrote a book about them, called "Last in Their Class." In most cases, Mr. Robbins said, a goat either tried hard but just barely made it through the school's tough academic and physical program, or opted to do the bare minimum to get to graduation, preferring to socialize or pull pranks rather than study. Some were charismatic risk-takers; others didn't exactly fit in, though the most typical trait among goats appears to be a stubborn refusal to give up. Far from failures, Mr. Robbins argued, these cadets should be seen as survivors. It should be remembered that Custer's class was graduated a year early because of the "Civil War". Not to denigrate Southern cadets of West Point (like Confederate Major General Pickett, who also graduated last in his class of 1846; General Longstreet near the bottom in 1842; Jefferson Davis towards the bottom in 1828 and who was also placed under house arrest there for participation in the Christmas Eve "Eggnog Riot/Grog Mutiny") but this video clip shows why there were only 34 graduates of Custer's class; because of the cadets that left to serve the Confederacy. Custer might not have graduated last if the war hadn't occured or hadn't occured until after his class had graduated as scheduled in 1862: Fitzhugh Lee and 'Dixie' at West Point Custer was a school teacher before he went to West Point. He reportedly received some demerits for playing pranks on his fellow cadets, which likely had something to do with his placement of last in his class that didn't get to complete their full studies there. However, that sporadic "insubordination" characteristic by him probably saved many lives when he brought Indians back to the fort with him instead of eliminating as many of them as was possible at Washita and beyond, as he was expected to do. More perception mismanagement about Custer can be surmised from the obliteration of his "Civil War" leadership from the frontlines that had turned the course of that war a number of times from beginning to end -- especially with respect to J.E.B. Stuart's cannonry enroute to Gettysburg, iirc. George Armstrong Custer - Wikipedia His division blocked Lee's retreat on [the war's] final day and received the first flag of truce from the Confederate force. Custer was present at the surrender at Appomattox Court House and the table upon which the surrender was signed was presented to him as a gift for his wife by General Sheridan, who included a note to her praising Custer's gallantry. She treasured the gift of the historical table, which is now in the Smithsonian Institution. George Custer Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com As a reward for his heroism, Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan, a huge Custer supporter, gave the young military hero the table used to sign the war's peace terms. With it he wrote a note to Custer's wife, Libbie [Elizabeth], in praise of her husband. "Permit me to say, Madam," he wrote, "that there is scarcely an individual in our service who has contributed more to bring about this desirable result than your gallant husband." McLean House (Appomattox, Virginia) - Wikipedia ...are now located in the... War Department Building in Washington, D. C., I give and bequeath to the United States Government... Edited for spelling + 1st paragraph after the video. Custer is famous for graduating 34th out of his class of 1861 at West Point. Unfortunately, there were only 34 members of the 1861 West Point Graduating Class.
In a 210-year-old military academy bristling with traditions, "the goat" is a curious custom that one might not expect to find at a school better known for its selectivity and high standards. Yet every year, the last-ranking cadet to make it through to graduation is anointed the goat, showered with praise, given a dollar from every other fellow graduate—amounting to roughly $1,000—and granted the biggest applause at the graduation ceremony.
[On May 24, 1862, Custer led] an attack with four companies of the 4th Michigan [Wolverines] Infantry across the Chickahominy River above New Bridge. The attack was successful, resulting in the capture of 50 Confederates and the seizing of the first Confederate battle flag of the war.
He was known as "The Boy General," and his daring and bravery led him to stay in the thick of the fight until the war concluded. Its end, too, was owed in part to Custer, whose cavalry units were crucial in standing down Confederate General Robert E. Lee and forcing him to surrender at Appomattox, on April 9, 1865.
Elizabeth Bacon Custer's will states:
...the table on which the surrender of General Lee to General Grant was written
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#45. To: GreyLmist (#44)
Could the "goat" be a jab at the mascot of the Naval Academy?
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#46. To: Lod (#45)
Possibly. The WSJ article says that last in the class at the Naval Academy is called the anchorman. Could the "goat" be a jab at the mascot of the Naval Academy?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#47. To: GreyLmist (#46)
At least that makes complete sense...all the way to the bottom.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#48. To: GreyLmist (#44)
"Desirable result" to tyrants everywhere no doubt. As a reward for his heroism, Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan, a huge Custer supporter, gave the young military hero the table used to sign the war's peace terms. With it he wrote a note to Custer's wife, Libbie [Elizabeth], in praise of her husband. "Permit me to say, Madam," he wrote, "that there is scarcely an individual in our service who has contributed more to bring about this desirable result than your gallant husband."
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#49. To: James Deffenbach, 4 (#48)
The South could have won, in a month or less, had they pressed on to deecee and finished business.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#50. To: Lod (#49)
Too bad they didn't and didn't finish business by hanging that damned tyrant, "Honest" Abe.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#51. To: James Deffenbach (#48) (Edited)
"Desirable result" to tyrants everywhere no doubt. In 1863, at the age of 23, Custer became one of the youngest Generals in the Union Army -- maybe the youngest but I'd have to research it more to say so for sure. As a Southern sympathizer, I've learned that it's not an easy task to identify Military prowess and gallantry as evident on both sides of that sad history. Being so young and trying to survive a war where he was pitted against his former West Point colleagues and they against him, I think he wasn't much concerned about the politics of war at the time but was more so a decade later, when he testified about the Trader Post corruption scandal (involved in the impeachment process of Pres. Grant's Secretary of War, Belknap). That testimony is probably the main reason for why he is still so villified even by people who do support tyranny. I suspect his political views on that resulted in his death at the Little Bighorn, largely due to Major Reno, who failed to provide help by pressing his attack, and Captain Benteen's late arrival, likely due to machinations by Reno. Edited sentence 2. As a reward for his heroism, Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan, a huge Custer supporter, gave the young military hero the table used to sign the war's peace terms. With it he wrote a note to Custer's wife, Libbie [Elizabeth], in praise of her husband. "Permit me to say, Madam," he wrote, "that there is scarcely an individual in our service who has contributed more to bring about this desirable result than your gallant husband."
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#52. To: All (#51)
George Armstrong Custer - Wikipedia The following morning General Sherman sent a telegram to General Sheridan ordering him to intercept Custer and hold him until further orders. Sheridan was also ordered to arrange for the expedition against the Lakota to depart with Major Reno replacing Custer. Sherman, Sheridan, and Terry all wanted Custer in command but had to defer to Grant. Sherman wrote Terry: "Custer's political activity has compromised his best friends here, and almost deprived us of the ability to serve him".Being so young and trying to survive a war where he was pitted against his former West Point colleagues and they against him, I think he wasn't much concerned about the politics of war at the time but was more so a decade later, when he testified about the Trader Post corruption scandal (involved in the impeachment process of Pres. Grant's Secretary of War, Belknap). That testimony is probably the main reason for why he is still so villified even by people who do support tyranny. I suspect his political views on that resulted in his death at the Little Bighorn, largely due to Major Reno, who failed to provide help by pressing his attack, and Captain Benteen's late arrival, likely due to machinations by Reno.
After Custer testified on March 29 and April 4 before the Clymer Committee, Belknap was impeached and sent to the Senate for trial. Custer left Washington on April 20, but [when he returned] to Washington on April 21 in response to a Senate subpoena, Custer found he was the center of a vilification campaign in the press, accused of perjury and disparagement of brother officers. General Sherman asked the new Secretary of War, Alphonso Taft, to write a letter requesting Custer's release so Custer could take command of the Fort Lincoln expedition against the Lakota. President Grant forbade Taft from issuing that request, and, perhaps angry at Custer's mention of his brother's involvement, ordered Taft to appoint another officer to take command against the Sioux. Brig. Gen. Alfred Terry determined there were no available officers of rank to take command, but Sherman ordered him to make an appointment. Stunned that he would not be in command, Custer approached the impeachment managers and secured his release. General Sherman advised Custer not to leave Washington before meeting personally with President Grant. Although Colonel Rufus Ingalls requested such a meeting, Grant refused.[citation needed] On the evening of May 3, Custer took a train to Chicago.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#53. To: randge, 4 (#20)
Wild West is worth bookmarking, BTW. Great stories posted every week. Battle of Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor [Originally published by Wild West magazine. Published Online: June 12, 2006] I'm fairly certain that I've referenced Wild West magazine too in discussions of Custer. :) On the quoted section above, just wanted to comment that disciplined fire/unity–fire discipline also involves troops being willing to fire in the direction of the enemy, which is sometimes a problem but probably not so much regarding experienced fighters of the 7th Cavalry, imo. Likewise, I don't think that weapons were the deciding factor at the Little Bighorn or substandard training either. Custer and his men were vastly outnumbered there but much more than they should have been, as I mentioned at Post #51, regarding reinforcements denied by Reno and his stalling of those who reportedly wanted to go and help them, like Captains Benteen and Weir. This is the end of a long article on Little Big Horn & Custer's defeat. It's worth a read, and there's lots of stuff here on the firearms used for those that are into this topic.
[...] According to then Brevet Major Edward S. Godfrey, fire discipline–the ability to control and direct deliberate, accurate, aimed fire– will decide every battle. No attack force, however strong, could reach a defensive line of steady soldiers putting out disciplined fire. The British army knew such was the case, as did Napoleon. Two irregular warriors could probably defeat three soldiers. However, 1,000 soldiers could probably beat 2,000 irregulars. The deciding factor was strength in unity–fire discipline. It was as Major Godfrey said: 'Fire is everything, the rest is nothing.' [...]
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest