| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| El Crab |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 06:28:41 AM
I've heard that Custer and others were not found where they are purported to have fallen, so where is this information? And why? If I remember correctly (and my memory has, at times, failed me very recently) it had to do with the horses found on LSH? That it was easier to move bodies rather than dead horses. If that's the case, I would assume the dead mounts were thick enough at the top to deter any burials there?
Is there any documentation as to where bodies were moved from? And anything that discusses dead horses? I've only heard the amount of mounts found on the hill, and that many were in a rough circle. |
| 5 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - April 09 2004 : 11:16:22 AM
There is a sentimental thing to remember: General Custer would have sure liked to be buried togheter with his men up on the last stand where he started his last journey...So I find almost a good circumstance that his body was maybe left there...would have been good to have his Elisabeth near too...Maybe somewhere they are now togheter. I hope for their great love. |
| Captain Outwater |
Posted - April 05 2004 : 6:44:16 PM
Horses were not moved at LSH, except perhaps in a very few exceptions to make room for human burial, but I haven't read anything about any horses being moved. For that matter, the humans were buried were they lied, because the bodies could not be moved very far. There were few tools, no wagons, no good way to move anyone. Time was short. The bodies were only covered with a sprinkling of dirt and brush as it is.
Captain Outwater |
| Captain Outwater |
Posted - March 30 2004 : 9:24:33 PM
The men and officers at Custer's Last Stand were reportedly buried where they were found. This was supported by the archeological evidence, when they looked at various grave sites.
There are too many grave markers on the field. Many of these extras seem to be because they put two markers at many graves, one on each side. Many people thought these marked buddies, who fought together. However, the archeologists found these seem to mark individual graves.
The reason seems to be the original grave diggers dug dirt up onto the bodies from each side of the body. This left two slight trenches at each grave, which looked like two graves to the latter persons placing markers.
The officer who marked the Custer field also used the markers for the graves on Reno's field. Other markers were added later, and there are not records for all of them.
Then there is the question of who is actually in Custer's tomb. Custer was specially buried and his grave marked specially well.
Yet when they returned to get his remains, the body they found was in a corporals blouse. The odds are high they got the wrong one!
YHS,
Capt. Outwater |
| El Crab |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 3:48:24 PM
I'm trying to remember where I heard or read that soldiers were moved down the hill for burial because it was easier to move human corpses than horse carcasses. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 1:15:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
I've heard that Custer and others were not found where they are purported to have fallen, so where is this information? And why? If I remember correctly (and my memory has, at times, failed me very recently) it had to do with the horses found on LSH? That it was easier to move bodies rather than dead horses. If that's the case, I would assume the dead mounts were thick enough at the top to deter any burials there?
Is there any documentation as to where bodies were moved from? And anything that discusses dead horses? I've only heard the amount of mounts found on the hill, and that many were in a rough circle.
The accounts of the burial details indicate that the bodies of about 10 men (including Custer) were found on the very top of Custer Hill, where the mass grave is now situated (and no marble markers). This receives confirmation from a photograph of the site taken by J. H. Fouch in 1877, which shows at least six wooden gravemarker stakes at that place. These graves were all obliterated when the remains from the entire battlefield were reinterred on the knoll in 1879.
(Although Walter Camp was positive that the top of Custer Hill had been graded down by Lt. Roe in 1881, the photographs of 1877 and 1879 show that this was not the case. The knoll looks the same today as it did in 1877, and probably the same as it did in 1876, otherwise those grave markers wouldn't have been there a year later.)
According to DeRudio, "Custer lay on top of a conical knoll. Five or six horses lay as if they had been led there and shot down for a barricade, as empty shells lay behind them. These horses were all sorrels from Company C." Gibbon says 4-5; Sheridan, 5-6; Goldin, 6.
Unfortunately, there is a discrepancy about who buried Custer, and there is about equal support for each. John Ryan claimed to have done it with a detail from M Troop, and this is corroborated by William Slaper, who told one Mr. McMurry in 1926 that not only had Ryan done it, but he (Slaper) had helped him.
On the other hand, Cpl. John Hammon of G Troop also claimed to have buried Custer, and his claim is supported by Tom O'Neill, who said that he helped him. To add to the confusion, Lt. Gibson in a letter to his wife claimed that Custer was buried by a detail from C Troop, which he was temporarily in command of. However, the Gibson letter only survives in a copy, and there is some reason to believe that the copyist may have misread a "C" for a "G".
So that's that!
For what it's worth, Ryan doesn't explain why Custer was buried in a place other than where he fell. Hammon claims Custer's body was buried "where it lay".
O'Neill, on the other hand, tells a story so simple that it almost has to be the truth. He says he was digging a grave to put John Vickory -- an old friend of his -- in, when Lt. Wallace strode up to him, saying, "O'Neill, I think that will be a good grave to bury General Custer in ...."
R. Larsen
|
|
|
