| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 4:17:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : So now your reading Curley's mind too? Or his translator?...I asked for evidence, not inferences. If you have to 'infer' that Curley really meant to say what you want him to say, you've got nothing.
REPLY : The translation issue is a red herring. Curley words were translated by three different interpreters and each time the story was the same: CUSTER, CUSTER'S COMMAND, THE COMMAND went to Ford B.
Some corrections need to be made here. There are actually only two different interpreters in the three accounts which you are claiming support your theories --- the 1908 one is unidentified, and could have been one or the other. Since Russell White Bear interpreted for Curley on the battlefield in 1909, and the 1908 interview was also done there, it's likely he worked both.
The 1910 interview (Fred Old Horn) barely touches on Medicine Tail at all, and the only appearance of your beloved word "command" is in one of Camp's questions --- which should give you pause, and remind you that these are not "Curley's" words, but rather only his information, translated by a 2nd party, then further filtered through a 3rd party in the form written down by Camp. Pretending to have the ability to extract such exquisite detail from such a generic word as "command" is therefore ludicrous.
quote:
Curley did not say PART OF THE COMMAND went to the ford, and he did not say anything about three companies splitting off to go to Luce ridge or anywhere else.
He did not say the "whole command" either, as he did when he mentioned its presence at Calhoun Ridge, if you want to make an issue of it. What does it prove? Nothing. I don't understand why you keep wanting to extract large meanings from indifferent statements.
quote:
It is there in plain English, it would say the same in plain Crow, and anyone who says otherwise will have to eat crow.
Plain English doesn't need to be "inferred" to get the desired results.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : Russell White Bear's letters give no evidence for two trips to the ford.
REPLY : They say nothing at all about Ford B. They only say that Colonel Custer sent a gray horse troop toward the river.
My point is that a theory that Custer sent a company back to cover his retreat from the ford is more reconcilable with the other evidence -- Curley's Camp interviews, Two Eagles and Flying By -- than a theory that two companies went to Ford B and three to Luce ridge.
You used the White Bear letter to speculate that Custer made two trips to the ford. The letter indicates nothing of the kind. No other account known to me suggests such an event either. Ockham's razor tells us that you shouldn't needlessly multiply variables, and there is no need to do so here.
R. Larsen
|
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 8:12:05 PM
Mr. Larsen I think you are an intelligent, sensitive, understanding sage of fabulous character. Naw, I'M just a liar. That's o.k. though, I could have been you ugg! |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 29 2004 : 10:58:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Apparently it is neccessary to explain that my reference to Curley being the last survivor meant that he was the last survivor of those who entered the battle field under the auspices of the the calvary. The Indian warriors, of course, for the most part survived. Isn't it somewhat sad that such an obvious point has to be clarified for such a tiny (2) minority. Oh well, as they say, small minds make for small concepts.
I don't recall anybody objecting to you calling Curley the "last survivor," nor do I see why they would. I do remember quizzing you about how Curley could be "the only true witness" to the final moments, but those are two different things, and so can't be what you refer to here. If you've been paying any attention, however, you should know that that isn't what people have been having a problem with. It's your predilection for inventing things, and then if cornered about it, obfuscating or lying.
As I recall, the main issue on this thread is your claim that Curley was "consumed" for the rest of his life by some particular image. You had no evidence of that, and when called upon, could provide nothing, except for the assertion that you "understood" Curley and therefore could divine thoughts and feelings he had which he never revealed to anyone else.
A grown man would admit he made an error, and that he let himself go beyond anything the evidence could justify. You just try to change the subject. Or lie.
R. Larsen
|
| El Crab |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 10:01:03 PM
If you do believe Curley, his several accounts as interpreted point to Custer remaining with Keogh's battalion. I know this is a matter of contention among some of you. Its in Gray's "Custer's Last Campaign, that basically Curley was with Custer (the man) when he spoke to the commander of E Company (or whom Curley believed to be) and the Gray Horse Troop headed down toward the river. If you guys don't have it, I'll type it up. And if you need page numbers, I can provide them later. I don't have the book in front of me, but I read it last night. It was in both his 1926 and 1938 accounts, and perhaps the other ones as well. I haven't checked the other accounts today. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 9:12:58 PM
Apparently it is neccessary to explain that my reference to Curley being the last survivor meant that he was the last survivor of those who entered the battle field under the auspices of the the calvary. The Indian warriors, of course, for the most part survived. Isn't it somewhat sad that such an obvious point has to be clarified for such a tiny (2) minority. Oh well, as they say, small minds make for small concepts. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 5:42:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Lie not, and you won't be called a Liar.
What he said. Stop making up things, Joseph.
R. Larsen
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 12:13:54 PM
Lie not, and you won't be called a Liar. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 9:18:08 PM
Mr. Larsen, in your world is not possible to have an opinion about a subject and not be dishonest. You know nothing of me, yet you judge my moral character as dishonest. I have a "quaint" statement for you, JUDGE NOT, LEAST YE BE JUDGED." |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 8:26:59 PM
Rocky 76,
Never, never have I read a written word about one of the characters of this drama that contained as much insight and dignity as your lastest post. I have no return comment because you said it better than I ever could. I don't know you, but I admire you. Thank you for your response, you have given me hope that someday the truth of this enigma will be revealed to us all. Again, thank you. |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 6:53:03 PM
While I am at it, how about a picture of Curley's house? Not the log cabin that is at the Cody Museum but the mansion he moved into later, part of that prosperity/jealousy thing between him and goes ahead/hairy mocassin/WMRH...or maybe it was his horses that paid for this...HA
Image Insert:
45.3 KB |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 6:35:28 PM
uh, actually, there is a video recording...but I doubt it supplies the answers you are looking for. The method used to "solve" the Curley question is acceptable to any trained historian, and uses mostly contemporaneous data. If you happen to be at the LBH on the 25th of June this year, look me up and I will introduce you to the man...then you can bump heads all you like, pack a lunch, but I will buy the beer for intertainment sake.
In the meantime, I have been scanning some old photos and came across one of Dan Newell's watch, would that please you. Actually it is pretty cool, as I like to tell the story about it...when I removed it from the case to take the photos it started to run and ran as long as I held it...if I set it down it would stop...spooked me. The watch has not been wound since the day Dan died in 1930. The man who was curator at Bear Butte where the watch resided for over 20 years told me a similar story, but it was not removed from the case that day....weird.
By the Way, Newell was the blacksmith for Co. M and was wounded in the leg in the valley fight, returned to Ft. Lincoln on the Far West...discharged Ft. Meade, hired on as civilian Blacksmith and later ran a smith shop in Sturgis, died at the soldiers home in Hot Springs in 1933, story of the battle published in the Sunshine magazine, good friends with Charles Windolph...
Image Insert:
70.55 KB |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 5:08:36 PM
Right. Rather, it's his place to build up suspense, interest, and book sales.
Unless there is a recently uncovered tape recording in Curley's voice or written record in Curley's hand - both somewhat unlikely - the 'big Curley picture' can be safely predicted to be a contortion of Gray's timing crossed upon supposition in the manner of Michno by using the third and fourth hand accounts we now have by uncertain translation. Maybe new ones.
The Big Curley Picture.....dare it be whispered? Someone has done it!
Imagine. Being Waylon Smithers to The Man Who Put It Together.
You guys....... |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 2:17:01 PM
>>What's the story here?
R. Larsen<<
Not my place to tell it...sorry.
|
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 12:36:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rocky76
Curley's story has not been told yet, but it's day is coming, and I am proud to know and be associated with the man that has made sense out of the "big Curley picture"...
What's the story here?
R. Larsen |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 12:24:58 PM
(Note: in my last post I jumped over a word. The first sentence, of course, should read "Ah - so in other words....")
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
No Anonymous one, I did not change my mind, attitude, or beliefs. I was being sarcastic(I'm ashamed to say.) To have not understood the possible psychological ramifications of a young man (he was only 17 when this happened)subjected to the torment of watching the slaughter of his friends, simply astonished me. I guess I assumed that anyone who read that post would understand that to witness such an image of death, carnage, and a life of being a branded a liar would consume any normal human being. At the least,perhaps, result in psychological scars? Maybe you were blessed with being made of sterner stuff. If so, I envy you.
So which is it? Sarcasm or deep psychological insight? You can't run with both.
What amuses me is that you DO think you understand the "psychological ramifications" of Curley's experiences. You really have no idea what was going on in Curley's head. Nor do I. We don't know unless he tells us.
Different people react to the same events differently. There's no justification at all for claiming, without evidence, that some particular image "consumed" some particular man for the rest of his life. You don't know, you have no way of knowing, and to pretend that you do is quaint but totally dishonest.
R. Larsen
|
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 11:11:47 PM
Joe, one thing you need to keep in mind is that these people, Curley, Knipe, Sgt. Roy, John Martin, Peter Thompson, Charles Windolph, Benteen, Reno, Crazy Horse, Feather Earring, Sitting Bull, Rain In The Face, etc. are real people, they had things on their minds other than Custer and the battle of the Little Big Horn. To varying degrees they were drug kicking and screaming back to those two days at different times in their lives...but all in all they were just everyday people who had their lives touched by legend. Some handled it well, some not so well...Teddy Goldin for example.
It's easy to read their words in the books containing their interviews with Walter Camp or Graham or wherever and not have a feeling for the men who spoke. It is harder to associate a living breathing human with the words you are reading...very little of the ordinary fellow stuff is printed, it is usually excluded to save you from some "boring or irrelevent" exchange using ...... if you read all of the Knipe letters and then follow that up by reading his exchange with Brininstool after Camp's death you get a better feel for the man, not always flattering to him, but a better view of who he was.
Goldin was willing to write to everyone who would write back, and so there are more letters available...he is easy to read...he lied...but who knows why?, or for that matter about what?
Curley is a special enigma, he was the last man...last man to what is not important, he was the man...that is what the other Crow were "jealous" of, when reporters/researchers/interested tourists came to Crow Agency to talk Custer, they always asked for Curley..that meant prosperity for him and prosperity was important on the Crow reservation during the early part of this century...you must look at the big picture here, Curley did not die a rich man, but he got by. One thing that you need to keep in mind is that Curley was an honorable man, and he never made anything up, it is all the truth. That was important to him, I think.
Curley's story has not been told yet, but it's day is coming, and I am proud to know and be associated with the man that has made sense out of the "big Curley picture"... |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 10:04:20 PM
Rocky 76, 'twas a pleasure to hear form you. You did not agree with me but, you argument has much merit. Perhaps I projected to much of my personal feelings into the entity know to us as Curley. I just get so fed up with the naysayers who constantly called him a liar. His reports were probably influenced, as you say, by others, however, I still believe that he may have been a witness to the end. Later, when the three other Crow scouts arrived home, they assumed that everone with Custer was lost and, spoke of Curley's death. An assumption. When Curley showed up alive and well, they were astonished and dismayed. Curley's survival after after their failure to remain had to be explained. It was then that the birth of Curley fabrications were born. Soon mis-information regarding Curley became history. |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 8:44:05 PM
Curley gave us some information in the summer of 76, Mike Sheridan blew it in 77 so that opportunity was lost, unless, of course someone finds a letter or document telling what Curley told Sheridan, I know of none. By 1908 the Cheyenne had been living next door for over 20 years, and Curley had fallen under the spell of B.B. Cody and others...by the time Camp entered the picture, Curley was well versed in the Custer Lore.
Oh, and by the way, Jules Seminole knew that story Wolf Tooth told Sits In Timber way back in 1904 and he was living on the Crow reservation at that time, a long story. Frank Bethune also knew of the casings on the ridge. In 1877, as a small boy, he herded horses for Curley, Big man, Goes Ahead and others on those ridges just to the east of the old Reno Village.
Don't get me wrong, I think Curley was an honest fellow, tried to please everyone and just get by the best he could. He was not a liar. I also don't think he lost a lot of sleep over the whole thing. Well, maybe that fake Curley might have upset him a little...after all the man was taking silver dollars from Curley's jeans pockets. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 8:19:13 PM
No Anonymous one, I did not change my mind, attitude, or beliefs. I was being sarcastic(I'm ashamed to say.) To have not understood the possible psychological ramifications of a young man (he was only 17 when this happened)subjected to the torment of watching the slaughter of his friends, simply astonished me. I guess I assumed that anyone who read that post would understand that to witness such an image of death, carnage, and a life of being a branded a liar would consume any normal human being. At the least,perhaps, result in psychological scars? Maybe you were blessed with being made of sterner stuff. If so, I envy you. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 5:44:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
From that position, it is very possible that Curley watched the last monents of the battle which occurred suddenly. The image of his fiends being slaughtered coupled by the later disservice he received as a survivor, just may have "consumed" him.
Ah - so in others, you were just making it up when you said:
"This image consumed him for the rest of his life. The poor lad then rode away towards his fate with destiny."
Thanks for the clarification.
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 5:16:10 PM
Curley's most significant revalation regarding the battle, is that at the separation halt(within Cedar Coulee) Custer divided his force, sending a detachment down Medicine Trail Coulee toward Ford B, While Custer led the remainder up and out of the coulee. For many years, branded by many as a liar, Curley's statements were disregarded as untruths. Some argued that Custer went directly to ford B while others argued that he rode the ridges directly to Custer Hill were he died. We now know, thanks to Curley, that both occurred. Curley( a Crow Indian)hated the Siouz as many of his race did. Their territories had been enfringed upon by the Sioux for many years. The Crow people admired the calvary and viewed them as a hope of salvation from the dreaded Siouz. when Curley was advised to head east by Mitch Bouyer before it was to late, he left a beloved mentor and many other firends behind. In 1909, he reported to Camp, "I escaped by riding to the right and front...I went straight east or south of east." (Russell White Bear): "He followed it untill he reached the high ridge east of the battlefield, about1 1/2 miles."
From that position, it is very possible that Curley watched the last monents of the battle which occurred suddenly. The image of his fiends being slaughtered coupled by the later disservice he received as a survivor, just may have "consumed" him. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 15 2004 : 11:34:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
The only true witness to the final moments of Custer's five companies was the seventeen year old, Ree Scout, by the name of Curley Head.
How is he any more a "true witness" than the Indians who beat them?
quote:
Unfortunantly, his reports as to what happened were mis-quoted,mis-understood, and rediculed for over 125 years. The butt of so may jokes, and innuendos the poor youth died mis-understood and a bitter old man. My heart weeps for him.
I'm sure Curley was annoyed at some of the gibes he was treated to, but the man lived 70 years and I doubt he viewed the Little Bighorn (a battle in which he had only a very small role) as the very center of his life. Just what is your evidence that he died "bitter"?
quote:
After arriving at Calhoun Hill, "L" troop was deployed to skirmish, "C" and "I" (Keogh in command)were held in reserve. The scout, Mitch Bouyer, requested that Curley leave. Convince that the command was doomed to die, he said, "Curley, you are young, go to Terry and tell him what happened, tell him that this man (pointing to General Custer) is going to take us into the village where we will be all killed." Curley begged Mitch to leave with him, He replied that his injury was to severe to attempt escape. He decided to remain. What courage!
Perhaps. But most other versions are less flowery, and just have Bouyer telling Curley they were in a tight spot and that now might be the time to leave, if he could.
quote:
This image consumed him for the rest of his life. The poor lad then rode away towards his fate with destiny.
How do you know this image "consumed" him? In all his interviews it seems to be related very matter-of-factly.
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 14 2004 : 10:24:21 PM
The only true witness to the final moments of Custer's five companies was the seventeen year old, Ree Scout, by the name of Curley Head. Unfortunantly, his reports as to what happened were mis-quoted,mis-understood, and rediculed for over 125 years. The butt of so may jokes, and innuendos the poor youth died mis-understood and a bitter old man. My heart weeps for him. After arriving at Calhoun Hill, "L" troop was deployed to skirmish, "C" and "I" (Keogh in command)were held in reserve. The scout, Mitch Bouyer, requested that Curley leave. Convince that the command was doomed to die, he said, "Curley, you are young, go to Terry and tell him what happened, tell him that this man (pointing to General Custer) is going to take us into the village where we will be all killed." Curley begged Mitch to leave with him, He replied that his injury was to severe to attempt escape. He decided to remain. What courage!
Traveling east for approximantly a mile and 1/2, Curley stopped, looked back and realized that the troopers were surrounded and doomed. This image consumed him for the rest of his life. The poor lad then rode away towards his fate with destiny. |
| pgb3 |
Posted - March 04 2004 : 02:47:42 AM
Very well done. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - March 04 2004 : 02:21:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
Michno's "Lakota Noon", which El Crab has been urging everyone to read, contains the account of a Cheyenne Indian named Wolf Tooth, originally published in "Cheyenne Memories" and in Powell's "Sacred Mountain".
Wolf Tooth's account tells of a band of fity or so warriors who were roaming outside the village and who came upon Custer's soldiers coming up Medicine Tail Coulee. The story tells of how Wolf Tooth and the other braves battled some of Custer's soldiers as they moved down a high ridge and crossed the coulee. It explains how Custer's column came to be divided, although it does not settle the arguement as to how many soldiers were in each division.
It's not "Wolf Tooth's" account, even by the somewhat looser standards we give for Indian testimony. It's John Stands in Timber's hearsay recollections (in the 1950s) of what Wolf Tooth had supposedly
told him decades earlier.
quote:
White Bull's account of the battle (Lakota Recollections pp. 111-112)contains the following statement:
"The women and children were about half a mile (away), and Custer stopped about straight across from the camp. There were four companies. Custer was in the 2nd from the north."
Four companies which White Bull said he saw from the east side of the river, from where he claims he charged them a few times. In an account given two years later, White Bull described the action this way: "Where we were standing on side of hill, we saw another troop moving from east to north where camp was moving, and we charged; it was Custer. We went down east side of the river and we rode straight to Custer. Was three miles from where we left Reno to Custer. Chased Custer indefinite distance. Could not see Custer as he was in company. But was about mile from Custer to hill. Still riding in a walking and trotting, still close together. Custer did not stop before they reached [Calhoun Hill?]. They kept shooting as Custer kept moving."
I don't see any indication in there of a ford action.
quote:
The case against Curley's veracity includes quite a lot more than the internal bickering among Crows and sensationalist reporting by yellow journalists.
Let’s see what you have.......
quote:
Red Star reported that Black Fox had told him that he and Curley were at Ford A (where Reno crossed the river earlier) while the Custer fight was going on.
No he did not. He claimed they were there together “when Custer stood at the bank where Hodgson’s stone stands”, after which they left off to go find some hardtack. Even the Crows denied this, Hairy Moccasin claiming that Curley left Custer at Weir Point, while White Man Runs Him asserted that Curley left them at Reno Creek. In their eagerness, apparently, to stick it to Curley they got their stories twisted.
quote:
In a statement made shortly after the battle Curley said, in a statement translated by LeForge, "I did nothing heroic. I was not in the battle."
The source for the statement is Thomas B. Marquis, who (if not a colossal dupe) was a bona fide hoaxer, his most famous creation being the mass suicide myth.
quote:
Col. Sheridan concluded that Curley's statements were untrustworthy and that he had ran away before the fighting had started.
Sheridan did not give his reasons for his skepticism, but his conclusion was not that Curley had run away "before the fighting had started"; he thought he had "run away before the fight really began," and I don't see how that is inconsistent with what is in Curley's interviews.
quote:
The Hunkpapa war chief Gall called Curley a liar to his face. He sarcastically asked Curley where his wings were, since only a bird could have escaped from Custer's surrounded column.
Gall really wouldn't know, one way or the other. How is this “evidence” that Curley was perpetrating a hoax?
quote:
In his first Camp interview, Curley said that a Sioux warrior had made off with his pony with a lariat, and that he escaped by riding away on the pony of another Sioux shot by a trooper. In his second Camp interview, Curley changed his story, saying that his horse had not been stolen after all, and that the escaped by donning a cape which he had sewn together and which was tied to his saddle. This amazing disguise somehow enabled Curley to ride right through the Sioux warriors without being noticed. In the third Camp interview, Curley changed his story yet again. He now said that the Indians did indeed notice him, and set off in pursuit, but that his steed was too fast for them and he got away.
“The Sioux gave chase, but my horse was too fast, and they did not pursue far and I soon got away from them. Not sure they knew me to be a Crow.” The parts you omitted to mention sound important to me, and give a different tone to the story; but then agenda-driven analysis tends to skip over such things.
You’re trying to argue that Curley perpetrated a hoax because some interviews he gave, years after the battle — to third parties which had to both translate and transcribe them — don’t fit perfectly together in some details. That’s silly. Under that standard, just about anyone could be called a hoaxer. Perfection and memory are not correlative.
Curley’s accounts hold up generally well with the stories we get from other sources. About the fighting at the ford, movement toward the main field, early fighting focused on Calhoun Ridge; they fit in good with what we get from the Indians. They also fit in well with themselves. Your “case” against Curley amounts to quotes from a few feeble sources, some distortions of source material, and lastly the requisite desperate grab (Gall?). Feathers fluttering in the wind. This is what happens when you begin with the conclusion first, and then scrabble trying to find supporting evidence, which has been the main problem of your entire approach, not just in this but in other aspects of the battle. You end up with just a handful of sand dripping through your fingers.
R. Larsen
|
| BJMarkland |
Posted - March 04 2004 : 01:06:02 AM
Testing!
Gee, no one has replied to anything!
Billy |
|
|
