Talk:George Armstrong Custer

Custer's last brevet rank is missing from the article. In 1868, he was appointed again as brevet major general, making his official rank until his death Brevet Major General, Lieutenant Colonel. I have added this to the Dates of rank table, as well as a citation for the table pointing to a National Parks Service webpage that lists each of his army commissions, including photographs of their certificates. I know his last brevet is referenced in some Custer biographies, and I will dig into the history of it more later with the books on-hand so that I can add further information to the article. Additionally, some of the dates of rank listed on the NPS webpage do not match what is mentioned in the article. These dates should be cross-checked with more sources. Twcus (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Twcus: You can restore the content but don't remove the links to Google Books and don't add URLs on the section header. Instead you should put links to sources in section body. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're misreading the certificate. The appointment was from 13 March 1865, so that would be the effective date of the brevet. His actual service rank until his death was Lt Col. Intothatdarkness 23:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Ranks Table has the same date, March 13, 1865, listed for Brevet Brigadier General as for Brevet Major General. Is this a typographical error or did Custer receive two promotions on the same day? I suppose the latter is possible, but I'd hazard the former is more likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.36.8 (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Heitman (Historical Register and Dictionary Vol. 1) lists both promotions as taking place on 13 March 1865 (the BG one for Five Forks and MG for the Appomattox campaign). This date also appears in the 1868 Army Register, although it only shows the date of his highest rank promotion. There are other brevet promotions, but they're all noted as volunteers. Intothatdarkness 14:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

There should be an explanation of who Thomas Marquis was. He appears to be a historian or biographer of some sort, but there are no details or description of him in the article. He is mentioned randomly as conducting interviews without context. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good catch! Have linked the subject Thomas Bailey Marquis. His first mention is inside a quote so we can't adjust wordings. The link was a simple solution which moves the reader forward if they are curious. BusterD (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is one view of Custer:

I can tell you buster

I ain't got much time for Custer

It should likely be mentioned here.

In general, I'd say the whole article is far too sympathetic to Custer. Pashley (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

That song was written by Peter La Farge. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Far too sympathetic?" If you have a problem with the quality or tone of the article, you are welcome to suggest or make changes, but, to me, it simply sounds like you're upset that the facts of the article challenge some preconceived image you have of Custer in your head. 199.231.199.22 (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lightiggy: I saw you added Custer to the category of White Supremacists. Your edit was reverted by Rolesafter1. I am inclined to believe Custer wasis a White Supremacist, but we need WP:RS for that and to put it in the article. Do you have WP:RS? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [revised 02:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC) per next comment.]Reply

I think you mean was, since he's deceased. And you'd need some serious RS to support a category claim like that. Intothatdarkness 01:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

From Mechler, Victoria (2016-04-17). "George Armstrong Custer – C&I Magazine". Cowboys and Indians Magazine. Retrieved 2024-02-12. T. J. Stiles says: "Yet [Custer] was also clearly a white supremacist." The subtitle: "In his new book, Pulitzer-winning author and historian T.J. Stiles looks deeply into the complex life of one of the country’s most controversial figures." The book is Custer's Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America. I believe one or both should be sufficient for the claim--at least somewhere in the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I understand the urge to categorize an infamous American expansionist as a white supremacist, like Intothat says, you will need serious RS to support a category claim like that.

The book you cited by T. J. Stiles doesn't seem to actually make a clear argument that Custer was a white supremacist. The closest Stiles gets to it is primarily in Chapter 16, where he discusses Custer's political opinions on Reconstruction, which do not outright endorse white supremacy. Additionally Stephen Ambrose, who is cited repeatedly in the article, describes Custer's relationship to Reconstruction politics as complicated in his book Custer and Crazy Horse, and something Custer eventually didn't want anything to do with. Ambrose, like Stiles, doesn't make a connection between Custer and white supremacy in the way that other figures clearly had during that time period.

I am not trying to defend Custer and I wholly sympathize with the indigenous Plains tribes. Please don't put me in this position. I'm merely trying to ensure that these categories are supported with the standard RS, otherwise virtually every political figure from Custer's century will be assigned this. Rolesafter1 (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation. otherwise every political figure from Custer's century will be assigned this. Indeed. I was thinking just that as I wrote the above. Those supporting settler colonialism by exterminating or expropriating land of the "inferior" native population, holding slaves, etc. are IMHO deserving of the label. However, the definition has to follow the WP:RS's description as you say, even if common sense says otherwise. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a modern label, so isn't really appropriate here. We can use RS to outline a person's views and let readers draw their own conclusions without doing it for them. And if we add such categories to people like Custer, we'd have to add them to virtually every Spaniard involved in exploration/conquest in Central and South America. They were often far more explicit in their views. It also loses sight of the nuanced views many Frontier Army officers held of both Reconstruction and the Indian Wars writ large. Intothatdarkness 13:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The version I've seen is published by the "Anheuser Busch Brewing Association" (no hyphen) and is titled "Custer's Last Fight" (not "Stand")... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

"So, in 2005, after a vow of 100 summers of silence, Northern Cheyenne tribal historians revealed that it was a female warrior, Buffalo Calf Road Woman, who killed Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer (by clubbing him in the head) at the Battle of Little Bighorn. June 25, 1876. pic.twitter.com/phC0DMAqG7" tweet. [later] "The period of silence was to protect her and her family".

The clubbing is mentioned in the article but it doesn't say anything about the 100 summers of silence. Seems worth chasing down. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:9BB0 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply