Custer's Many Wars
* One of the most persistent claims about George Custer is that he wanted to be president and hoped that a huge victory against American Indians would help him do so. This is also one of the most heavily disputed claims about Custer. The majority of scholars argue it is not true. Of all authors writing on Custer, novelist Larry McMurtry is the most persistent to make this argument. His book claiming so is also his least popular among his fan base.
* Mari Sandoz is the best known historian to claim Custer aspired to be president. Her approach, writing from the points of view of both whites and Natives, was groundbreaking at the time, and much of the hostility towards her argument came from the old guard, some who viewed Indians with openly racist contempt, and an even larger faction that admired Custer and hold him up as a martyr, an almost Christ like figure whose death was supposedly necessary to “tame” the west. But today there are easily as many scholars who are not admirers of Custer. The two main depictions of Custer are either as a doomed martyr, or as a glory hound who led his men to preventable deaths.
* Whether he wished to be president or not, what I am looking at is the obvious possibility: He could have become president had he so wished. Had he won a victory, or even anything that could be portrayed as not a defeat, there was enough public admiration for him to win the presidency.
* There are certainly other cases of generals reluctantly running for president, Eisenhower, Zachary Taylor, even George Washington. Custer may have another motive for running. He had been depicted as a perjurer in a scandal involving the brother of President US Grant. Custer was a Democrat, and after his death often depicted by Democrats as a martyr to Republican incompetence or corruption.
* In fact, shortly before his death, Grant almost denied Custer the command of the Seventh Cavalry, perhaps as retaliation for his testimony. Only the arguments of General Alfred Terry that there were no other officers available allowed Custer to go.
* If Custer had decided, against his own inclinations, to run it would be perhaps be in 1880, not 1876. The Battle of Little Bighorn was in early July 1876, and the conventions for both parties had already been held in June. Custer also was quite young, only 36 at his death. He was only eligible to be president by a year, and would have been the youngest ever had he been elected. He also would have been ten years younger than any president up to that time.
* In 1880, the election was mostly about the end of Reconstruction. In 1876, Republicans stole the election. (See Section Five.) Though Democrats had more popular and electoral votes, electors in several states ignored the popular vote and switched their vote. In exchange for Republicans selling out Blacks in the southern states and agreeing to no longer try to enforce civil rights. Democratic leaders agreed to no longer protest the stolen election.
* But the Republican President, Rutherford, agreed to not run for a second term. James Garfield won the nomination. Among those running for the nomination was former President US Grant. Given Grant's role in accusing Custer of perjury, revenge may be another motive for Custer to run.
* Winfield Scott Hancock was the Democratic nominee. A famed Civil War general, Hancock suffered from wartime injuries for the rest of his life. He also had been in command of a military district during Reconstruction. Andrew Johnson chose him because he correctly perceived Hancock would support white supremacists in the South over the rights of the Black population (See Section Five again.) If his injuries cause him to decide against running, or his failures during Reconstruction become an issue, the Democrats may choose Custer, another general perceived to be great, in Custer's case, inaccurately.
* The election was extremely close, Rutherford only winning by 3,000 votes. In seven states the margin of victory for the Republicans was under 5%. Custer would have a strong chance of winning.
* What kind of a president would Custer have been? Disastrous. The most obvious change would be in Indian policy. Custer is widely reviled among American Indians, and for good reason. After all, Custer massacred over 140 Cheyenne at the “battle” of the Washita. The Cheyenne had signed a peace treaty with the US. Custer massacred almost all noncombatants, women, children, and elderly. The men were mostly away. Custer's men even left Cheyenne babies to die of exposure and ripped open the bellies of pregnant women.
* Custer's admirers have often falsely claimed that he was moderate toward Natives and defended them. This is false. Custer did describe Natives in a romanticized fashion at times. But he also disparaged them as “savages” and “beasts.” Much like the “Indian” sports mascots of today, such an image of the Noble Savage is done to assuage white guilt and enhance the prestige of racists who justify conquest.
* We also know that Custer's wife had an extremely racist view of Blacks during Custer's time stationed in Texas during Reconstruction, and that Custer failed to protect Black civil rights during his time there. This was part of why Johnson chose him, and why many Democrats, at that time the party of white supremacists, admired him.
* Finally, the massacre on the Washita and Custer's clumsy lies to justify it show his racism. He maintained his men killed the women because they fought back with rocks, though Custer made no defense of killing children or elderly. Custer's troops, by all other accounts including the soldiers, killed women, children, and elderly indiscriminately. There were a small number of warriors present, but Custer dispersed them with a despicable tactic, using previously captured women as human shields. It is true Custer did not massacre all Cheyenne women at the Washita. That is only because those captured were intended for use as shields later on.
* By 1880, almost all Natives had been forcibly removed to reservations, except many Apache. Facing the Apache were Generals Howard and Miles, both of whom had genuine sympathy for Natives and lobbied for better treatment of their former enemies once they were confined. Custer likely would have relieved them and replaced them with more brutal commanders. But it was both men's respect that led to many Apache surrendering. Likely Custer's tactics prolongs the war, much like how the Washita Massacre sent a clear message to Natives that they could expect little mercy, causing them to fight even harder.
* We also know that Custer strongly opposed assimilation of Natives, “kill the Indian, save the man.” He argued Natives should be confined to reservations and then left entirely alone. The good part of this policy is there would be no war on Native cultures, and attempts to destroy Native languages stop or are at least delayed. But a policy of isolation also means neglect. Most reservations were not self sufficient. The land was too poor, thus at times Native hunters went hunting off reservation. That led to conflict between Natives and whites.
* Most reservations had been run by missionaries when US Grant was president. (See Section Eight.) That practice had declined since Grant left office, but Custer would likely kill it entirely. Since missionaries tried to convert Natives, Custer would see that as interfering with their “noble savagery.” Missionaries, at least, were far more honest than the notoriously greedy agents running reservations before and after the missionaries. A Custer presidency means more Natives cheated of their meager supplies.
* Custer's recklessness was legendary. Indeed, the central phrase used to describe Custer for generations has been “glory hunter” an egomaniac and poor general risking his troops needlessly for his own self promotion. There is no reason to think this trait would not carry over into every aspect of his presidency.
* Since the end of the Civil War, US interventions, or more accurately, invasions, had largely stopped overseas. (See Section Five.) From 1859 to 1890, the US did not invade Latin America. With Custer that will likely change a decade sooner. A strong believer in Manifest Destiny such as him likely would try for permanent US colonies.
* By 1880 Cuba was already in revolt against the declining Spanish Empire. There may be an earlier Spanish-American War under Custer. One would also expect an equally brutal campaign against Filipinos. (See Section Four.) A conqueror and seeker after glory like Custer also likely would want Cuba as a colony, not independent. US troops would have to put down Cuban independence, with great loss of life on both sides.
* The body count under a Custer presidency thus would be more deaths in the last war against Natives and an earlier Spanish-American War and brutal crushing of the Filipino independence movement. Likely there would also be a second independence movement crushed in Cuba. That makes for one longer war and three wars of aggression by choice. Custer would not be remembered as a martyr by those who think conquest inevitable or glorious as they do today. But he would be remembered even more as a glory hunter and bad military tactician.