Crazy Horse & Custer

[Pat Holscher]

Stephen E. Ambrose may well claim to be the best known military historian of the current day. His series of books on WWII, speicifically the combat soldier in France following the Invasion of Normandy, have made him a household name on the topic, and the virtually unchallenged expert of the day. Additionally, his fairly recent book, Undaunted Courage, on Lewis and Clark have made him quite well known in the field of western movement as well.

With that backround in mind, I was eager to read "Crazy Horse and Custer", a book recommended to me by a local friend. Knowing that Ambrose is well respected, I was eager to see what he did both with Custer's familiar tale, and Crazy Horse's less well known one.

Reading the book rapidly reveals why Ambrose is such a popular writer. The writing style is engaging and entertaining. Ambrose more than holds the readers interest. Moreover, he manages to skillfully work his way around the difficult topic of a dual biography, that is taking on two characters, with vastly different backgrounds at the same time. While I certainly cannot claim to have any first hand knowledge of such a task myself, I would think it would be particularly difficult here, given that the two subjects were not even remotely from the same cultures. None the less, Ambrose made his subjects tales very interesting, I almost hated to see the next chapter arrive while reading it, and the book shift to the next character, to find myself feeling the same way at the end of that chapter.

Having said all that, I do not recommend this book. The principal reason is a fairly simple one. Like most potential readers of this book, I cannot claim to be an expert on either of these men. I do, however, have some limited knowledge on certain topics covered by it, and it was that that caused me to rethink the book while reading it.

Specifically, Ambrose has to go into the events following the Sand Creek Massacre, no book on the west could help but do otherwise. Starting off with the Massacre itself, Ambrose is not necessarily inaccurate, but he does not provide enough detail to accurate cover the nuances of the tragedy. Importantly absent, in my opinion, is the fact that Chivington was a Colorado militiaman, not a career soldier. This is simply not discussed, but the attitudes of Chivington, in relation to the Army's, are important. Chivington, of course, was actually a minister (Methodist) who had only come into service during the Civil War. Like a lot of temporary soldiers in that war, as opposed to career officers, his views towards opponents, in this case the Indian, were particularly virulent. Also absent, as is typically the case, is mention of Chivington's earlier successful role as commander in the Battle of Glorieta Pass. While that certainly does not excuse his barbarity, it does add a dimension to him that is typically lacking.

While I was prepared to forgive the short treatment given Sand Creek, the following treatment of the Battle of Platte Bridge Station pretty much caused me to distrust the rest of the book. Ambrose starts off by describing the 11th Ohio Cav troopers who were stationed there, and elsewhere in Wyoming, as buckskin clad cavalliers. This was hardly the case, rather they were mostly dispirited CW volunteers fearful of dieing of disease in their inadequate quarters, and wondering why they had been sent to fight a war they had not volunteered for. Some of the troops stationed at the fort, in fact, where "Galvanized Yankees", Confederate troops enlisted in US service and sent west. Whatever the attitudes of the Ohio troops, it is hard to imagine the Southern soldier as anything but dispirited. Ambrose goes on to describe the battle itself in terms which are uninspired. Given as he makes this battle a significant one for Crazy Horse's career, he should have investigated it more closely, although his description of the battle more or less matches, or condenses, previous ones. This is a bit unfortunate, as the existing descriptions have tended to rely upon the 19th Century ones, which oddly handled three skirmishes as three separate battles. Ambrose only covers two of them, condensing them into one. A fresh look at this engagement is really overdue.

This handling does not, I suppose, amount to a massive error, if it is an error at all. None the less I found myself questioning everything I read thereafter. Ambrose raises many interesting points in his book, particularly about both mens early lives. His discussion of Custer at West Point I found to be genuinely novel and insightful. I would like to have had fewer questions, therefore, about the accuracy of completeness of what I was reading.

On Crazy Horse, I found this book to be, in theme, much like the earlier work of Mari Sandoz. Perhaps this is not surprising, given as this book was written in the politically charged 1970s, and Sandoz was certainly an early proponent of the views expressed later in that decade. However, I'd tend to favor Sandoz over this treatment as she is fairly honest as to where she is coming from, an important thing to know in a biography attempting to advance a point. Also, regarding Crazy Horse, I would liked ot have been provided with more insight as to his reasoning in his final months as a free man.

This book was published in 1975, at what was really the height of a new awakening on the Indian and his plight. While the book has much to recommend it, I would look elsewhere. In part this is because the climate of that time seems to have creeped into the book, causing viewpoint to be perhaps excessively portrayed as fact.

Pat

[Pat Holscher]

Probably everybody is aware of the current controversy over The Wild Blue, and some attribution concerns regarding some of its text. Philip and I were discussing that story and he located and sent to me the Forbes link, which concerns the reviewed book. I thought it interesting, and so I am posting those links here.

http://forbes.com/2002/01/07/0107ambrose.html

http://forbes.com/2002/01/07/0107ambrose_2.html

I have found that, for whatever reason, I'm less impressed with this book than I was at the time I reviewed it, which given as I gave it a thumb down means more of a thumbs down. The research effort on certain items, as mentioned above, seems quite lacking to me.

Pat

[Pat Holscher]

Probably everybody is aware of the current controversy over The Wild Blue, and some attribution concerns regarding some of its text. Philip and I were discussing that story and he located and sent to me the Forbes link, which concerns the reviewed book. I thought it interesting, and so I am posting those links here.

http://forbes.com/2002/01/07/0107ambrose.html

http://forbes.com/2002/01/07/0107ambrose_2.html

I have found that, for whatever reason, I'm less impressed with this book than I was at the time I reviewed it, which given as I gave it a thumb down means more of a thumbs down. The research effort on certain items, as mentioned above, seems quite lacking to me.

Pat

[Bob Rea]

On Chivington, I remember a story told to me by a very knowledgeable Cheyenne friend of mine. Chivington, being a Methodist preacher, was why the Cheyenne, when asked what religious denomination would settle among them to teach them...
decided on the Mennonites. You don't find many Cheyennes who are Methodists.

Bob Rea

[Bob Rea]

On Chivington, I remember a story told to me by a very knowledgeable Cheyenne friend of mine. Chivington, being a Methodist preacher, was why the Cheyenne, when asked what religious denomination would settle among them to teach them...
decided on the Mennonites. You don't find many Cheyennes who are Methodists.

Bob Rea