Again, when they discovered us we were probably in bivouac and, at all events, an ordinary day’s march distant from the village. The time of warning, I think, could be safely conjectured as the time of arrival of the few warriors that came out to meet the advance and attack Reno. All those warriors that had their ponies handy, I believe, were assembled at once to come out and meet the troops. The rapid advance didn’t give the Indians a chance to collect their belongings and mature any plans to escape; otherwise I believe the expected “scattering” would have taken place. And in just so much was the attack a “surprise.” That General Custer deliberately disobeyed Terry’s orders I do not believe. Custer was intensely in earnest and fully determined to find the Indians and, when found, to attack them, even if it took him back to the agencies. Suppose Custer had asked Terry “If I find these Indians shall I attack, or wait for you?” Undoubtedly Terry would have replied “Attack!” He was too good a soldier not to appreciate opportunity, but he was not enough of a cavalryman or Indian fighter to appreciate the flash-like opportunities for hitting the Indians on the broad prairies. Custer was what in these modern days is styled a “strenuous” man. Terry was not. He was the personification of gentleness and deliberateness. And besides, Terry’s instructions _gave the necessary latitude_. He told Custer what he thought should be done but, after all, left it to Custer’s judgment and discretion when so nearly in contact with the enemy.[124] If Custer had passed on south and the Indians had escaped, or had gone forth and attacked him, as they had Crook, and defeated him, would these instructions have shielded him? Not much. He would have been damned as cordially for the failure of the expedition as he is now, by those same men, for courting disaster. I have no doubt in my mind, that if Custer had passed south even one more day, the Indians would have attacked us as they had General Crook, and upon almost the same ground, just one week before.[125] Terry says, in his instructions, “He will indicate to you his own views of what your action should be, and he desires that you should conform to them unless _you should see sufficient reason for departing from them_.”[126] Custer was an experienced war soldier, a thorough cavalryman, and an experienced Indian campaigner. So why not give him the benefit of “sufficient reason”? Were Terry’s instructions “definite and explicit”? Terry himself says in his order that “definite instructions” were “impossible.”