by Jack L Pennington
|
| List Price: | $18.95 |
| Amazon Price: | $17.05 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. |
| You Save: | $1.90 (10%) |
| Average Rating: |  |
| Lowest New Price: | $13.78 |
| Availablitiy: | Usually ships in 24 hours |
|
 |
|
Product Description
A controversial evaluation, Custer Vindicated challenges the historical views on the Battle of the Little Big Horn that depict Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer as an incompetent leader. In this his fourth book on Custer, Jack L. Pennington presents the results of his most recent research and the evidence that proves Custer was not at fault for the loss of his five companies or the defeat suffered by the 7th Cavalry. He critiques three well-known writers’ views as he lays the groundwork for reassessment of the long-time inference that the decisions Lt. Colonel Custer made until he reached Medicine Tail Coulee were not militarily sound. Pennington also explores the roles played by the Reno Court of Inquiry and the 7th Cavalry officers in making Custer a historic scapegoat. Whatever you have read about or heard from other experts on the Battle of the Little Big Horn, Pennington encourages you to consider questions that have never been asked regarding a famous battle that, to this day, still remains one of the greatest conflicts in U.S. history.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Average Customer Review:
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
 Largely Compelling, 2008-06-18
I found this book quite compelling, and a good summary of the opinions that I have held for years. While it could have done with a stiff editing job and some of the stridency and tone of the book undermine its otherwise sound logic, if you can overlook those faults, it does present a very supportable theory about the fiasco of the Little Big Horn battle.
Any serious and thoughtful student of George Custer and the battle itself (and I might add that to express any reasonable theory on what happened that day, you must spend considerable time on the battlefield as well) should be completely mystified by what happened once the Custer column turned away from Ford B. None of it makes any sense whatsoever, and I firmly believe that the only explanation is that Custer was an early casualty of the battle, lost at the ford. While the author doesn't press the issue as well as he could, there was no reason to leave that relatively simple ford and the flat terrain beyond it to head off to the north over impossibly rugged terrain in hopes of finding a better ford. If wanting to get ahead of retreating noncombatants was the issue (which I doubt), that could have been achieved much quicker on the flat land to the west of the river rather than the broken land to the east. The quarry would have just gotten that much further ahead had Custer gone further north over the slower country.
If Custer had, for whatever reason, determined to move to the defensive, there is no reason I can think of why he would go north, rather than back to the south where his support was. And, if Reno and Benteen could establish and hold an effective defensive position I have no doubt that Custer could have done so as well. Again, strong support for the theory that Custer was not exercising any command over his troops after Ford B.
A couple of flaws exist in his theory, I think. First, the argument that with the "come quick" message Custer was ordering Benteen to follow on the Custer trail is unconvincing. Further, you are left wondering why, if Custer was so sure of the size and location of the village, his ambiguous, short message had to say "big village." I also think he missed an opportunity to clear up some of the obfuscation created by Benteen and Reno by pointing out that neither Kanipe nor Martin appeared to have any difficulty at all in finding Benteen, whereas Benteen would have it as if he were off in various gullies, far off the beaten track the whole time.
A couple more good points made in this book--the timing the author proposes is pretty sound and it was good to see some of the contrary myths debunked. It was also interesting to me to see the conclusion that the pack train was trailing by metres, not kilometres. I look forward to other thoughtful students addressing the major points made by the author.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
 Custer the scapegoat, 2008-06-01
I agree that Custer has been the scapegoat all of these years. Though far from a perfect human (who is) Custer is the most misalingned slandered historical figure in American History. Too bad there aren't some brave directors and actors in liberal hollywood with enough guts to tell the real story on film based on true historical facts.....May Custer's soul rest in peace!
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
\\\\\custer Vindicated at last, 2008-04-28
So someone has at last said what needed to be said, Custer while no saint was no better or worse than those around him. His big mistake was getting himself and his command killed and therefore was never able to answer all the slur's thrown against him. Grant always pointed out the high casualty rate of Custer's units, who is he to talk look at his own Civil War record (Cold Harbor to name but one disaster). Custer is not blameless in what happened at LBH but there are a lot of other factors as this book points out , so lets stop kicking GAC and blaming him alone for the defeat at the Big Horn, Reno and Benteen did not act like soldiers personal likes or dislikes should not have played a part in any of their decisions but one was a twisted bitter man and the other was too fond of the whiskey bottle. Yes Let Custer take his fair share of the blame but let's start spreading that blame around and lest also remember that we wanted the eventual out come, the subjugation of the Plains Indians. Shame on us all, Custer has been made a scape coat for all our sins towards the Lakota nation for too long now let him rest in peace.
4 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Shot at Ford B, 2008-04-08
Excellent and very thorough piece of work. Beats the frustrating `chest-beating' that emanates from the many `knowledgeable' LBH fanatics on the Custer/LBH web forums.
I like his suggestions, but there are gaps...
From reading other work I am not sure Custer was at Ford B.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
It was about time someone wrote this kind of book... very good., 2008-02-15
Was Custer a fool?
Was Custer overconfident?
and what's more... for all his faults... WAS THERE A COVER UP?
The author makes a very convincing thesis (specially for Custerophiles) about the incongruence's of Reno's Court of Inquiry... the main points he raises are:
Does anyone believe Custer HAD NO PLAN?
Does anyone believe Custer THOUGHT there was no village?
Does anyone believe the "OFFICIAL" version about HIS TACTICAL ORDERS that day?
What about THE TIME GAPS in the accounts...
really fascinating, as a result I had to buy the Liddic book he criticizes so well (damn expensive!)... but a must have counterpoint to check...
It is hard to believe such a cover-up was done... but in a way... if only he is half right... Reno and Benteen would have to been cashiered (or judged, sentenced and shot!... if you are really angry at them...).
Very difficult to say after so much time... but I was impressed...
Great book for readers interested on the facts (a bit "technical" in the sense much is taken for known... it did not personally bother me at all... but probably not the place to start... try Bob Snelson's DEATH OF A MYTH first or even the Panzeri CAMPAIGN OSPREY as a basis... and then compare.)
A worthy addition to any Custer aficionado library.
ADB
PS: And even if the possibility exists I do not think Custer was shot at the ford. This has nothing to do with the amazing quality of the book.
Price is accurate as of the date/time indicated. Prices and product availability are subject to change. Any price displayed on the Amazon website at the time of purchase will govern the sale of this product.
|
Store Categories
|