What is up with the Custer bashing?
George Armstrong Custer was an extremely competent officer. He had a reputation for dash and being a little "out there," but that was and is expected for a Cavalry officer. You don't want a plodding follower doing this, you want aggressive, competent innovators, which Custer was by all decent accounts.
He was highly regarded for his actions during the Civil War, and was notorious for leading the often bloody actions from the front. That he even survived the war is a testament to his skill and courage. During that war, he was "breveted" to General during the Civil War, which was common practice during that conflict, promoting officers to a temporary rank. He reverted to his permanent rank after the war, which I believe was Major at the time. He was later promoted to LTC.
Custer gets frequently bashed by the left as some sort of genocidal mysoginistic deade white guy, representative of all of the evils of the 19th Century. I had enough Custer bashing in college, enough so that I read his book, "Life on the Plains" at one point. I got an entirely different picture of him. He was rather sympathetic to the plight of the Native Americans, thought that they were getting royally screwed by the government, and even opined that if the situation were reversed, he would be out there fighting the US government. He thought the whole situation could be solved by honoring treaties and treating the Indians with respect and courtesy (go figure). He also had a whacky theory that the Indians were one of the lost tribes of Israel, and as such deserved reverence and respect from a religous standpoint.
As to his competence, if the rest of the damned Regiment would have showed up like they were supposed to, Custer's men would likely have won at Little Big Horn.
Oh, and the horse indient? Custer details that in his book, too. He was out riding with a few of his troops, on his best horse (which he bought himself, common practice for serving officers of the day, who also were required to buy their own weapons). He decided to bag a buffallo for fun and to get the troops some fresh meat. The buffallo ran, and he chased it down over several miles, his speedy horse rapidly outpacing the other troopers. As he finally got close enough to dispatch the horse with his pistol (hard to shoot a rifle from a moving horse), he violated rule 3 (which he severely chastised himself for, even though they didn't have a rule 3 back then), and had his finger inadvertently on the trigger. As he drew close to the buffallo, the buffallo attaempted to gore his horse (again, this is all at extremely high speeds). He hauled back on the reins, inadvertently pulled the trigger on his single action revolver, and shot his own horse out from under himself. Having to walk several miles back to his patrol, carrying his tack (which he also had to pay for), after shooting his best horse by accident was punishment enough. His account of that incident was rather self-deprecating and humorous, as he wrote about it in his book.
The only real criticism I have of Custer was that he refused the first two Regimental commands he was offerred after the Civil War, which were the 9th and 10th Cavalry in Texas. He refused to serve as commander of those Regiments because he felt that leading African-American troops (the 9th and 10th Cav and 24th and 25th Infantry Regiments in the West were formed using all black troops) would damage his career, though he spoke with great respect for those regiments' prowess and skill.