| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| bhist |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 4:04:49 PM
I looked through all five pages of this forum and was surprised to find there is no thread about Reno's short fight in the timber.
I posted this note in the thread about Benteen's orders and realized it should have its own thread. Here's what I posted...
I helped build the index to Ron Nichols “Reno Court of Inquiry” and I’m damn glad I did or else I couldn’t find the following:
Lt. Wallace, Jan 16, 1879: His answer to what would’ve happened to Reno’s command if they had stayed in the timber, “Major Reno and every man with him would have been killed.
Lt. Varnum, Jan 23: His answer if Reno could hold the timber with the men he had, “I don’t believe we had men enough to cover as large a line as it was necessary to cover in order to hold that timber. It does not seem so to me.”
Capt Moylan, Jan 25: “In my judgment the command, without assistance, would have been annihilated in the timber.” And my favorite by Moylan from the same day in response to the question, “Would it not have been better, as a soldier, to have been dead in the timber than dishonored on the hill? Moylan’s’ response, “I don’t know that that is a proper question to put to me. Very few men but would prefer to die in the timber than to be on the hill degraded.”
I know there are some statements made by others that feel the timber was defensible, but I don’t want to take the time to find them. The point to all of this is that none of us were in that timber or in those circumstances. I just don’t see how we can call what Reno should or should not have done in staying or retreating from the timber as bad or good.
What do you think?
|
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 30 2004 : 03:32:16 AM
Hi Wiggs
Many thanks for the info and for writing in contempory English.You have no idea what a pain in the butt that other style is.Is it possible that you are attempting to write in the same manner as Custer and his mates from the 1870s? You're English reminds me of those civil war letters---"I feel compelled to write a few lines that may fall under your gentle eye".I don't want to be rude but it does you're arguements no good at all.
We have been discussing the main players here but there are numerious secondary characters worth examining as well.
Cheers |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 29 2004 : 8:26:57 PM
I hadn't thought of that option but, it certainly possible. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 29 2004 : 4:54:09 PM
Or, fourth option, if you believe he didn't write the letter (Brisbin generally gets the nod as author) is not blame him for something he might not have actually claimed, himself. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 29 2004 : 4:28:40 PM
I hope the following helps Wild:
The only reference book that dealt with this event in depth (that I could find) was Kuhlman's Legend Into History. He writes that the skirmish line was formed near the site of the present headstone for Lt. McIntosh. "Its right rested on a narrow strip of timber running parallel, or nearly so, to an old riverbed. Troop "G" held the right, "A" the center, and "M" on the left."
In other words, facing the village, "G" is closest to the timber while "M" is the left flank of the line.
Kuhlman further states, "The troops moved into the edge of the timber and faced about, making the former "right" of the line now the "Left." It appears that the troops advanced forward, pivoting on "G".
Regarding DeRudio's behavior, he was often referred to as, "Count No Account", by other soldiers. It seems that a letter, he wrote, describing his exploits in the timber was fraught with exaggerations. It was also alleged that the letter was "Ghost Written" by someone else.
Apparently DeRudio, acting on a tip that Indians may have infiltrated the timber from the west, "Went with 5 or 6 men of company "A" to investigate." Seeing Indians to the high ground to his front and left,DeRudi and his men spent ten minutes taking pop shots at the warriors. Warned of the immanent "going out" of the troops, DeRudo alleges that he was left behind because he crawled 40 feet to retrieve a dropped guidon. While this could be described as an act of courage, crawling towards "20 or 30" hot and angry Indians could be construed as stupid. The third option, which is the most believable, is DeRudio lied. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 28 2004 : 04:16:09 AM
Question.
When Reno's command withdrew to the timber did it advance pivoting forward on its right company G as some books suggest or did it retreat pivoting backward on company G.
Anybody got any opinions on the behaviour of De Rudio?
He was 2i/c of A company which held the centre of the skirmish line yet some accounts have him entering the timber before the order to retreat there was given.He is well aware of the order to leave the timber but remains hidden there.When he discovers 10 or so other troopers still in the timber he makes no attempt to take command of them but leaves them to Herendeen and lies hidden with a sergeant Ryan for the next 36 hours.So possible the first man into the timber on the 25th he is the last out on the 27th.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 18 2004 : 12:13:49 PM
Like Green goes with anything..... |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 18 2004 : 10:18:50 AM
A Brit??????? We feed them to our young. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 3:17:55 PM
Not just the 7th. And high talk from a Brit! You guys were just as bad. Also, you dressed funny. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 2:46:12 PM
Seems it was a fashion in the 7th to strike subordinates.Did Custer not threaten to horse whip one of his officers?And I'v seen references to Keogh laying about him with his riding crop. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 10:45:15 PM
You don't say who's being quoted, but I'll assume Churchill. Because Reno had slapped Frett for mouthing off at an earlier date, his testimony wasn't particularly believed by the court. Churchill is a lot more tentative than Frett, whose name he doesn't even know.
Who ever claimed that the civilians didn't fight? In any case, they were fighting for their own lives, so of course they'd bring a smidgeon of enthusiasm to it, just like the soldiers. A straw dog again, Wiggs. Nobody is attacking them, so you can't score points by defending them. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 10:35:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Contrary to the belief of a decidely minor group of individuals, civilians of this battle fought courageously and, by the side of the soldiers.
Who composes this "decidely [sic] minor group of individuals" you refer to? And what instances of courage do you have in mind? And what exactly is the point of this bromide?
quote:
Secondly, the majority of researchers today are aware that during the Reno Inquiry testimony, the ultimate goal was the preservation of the honor of the 7th.
Explains why Benteen said that Custer's men panicked and died in a rout.
quote:
Eventually, human nature being what it is, is precisely why the truth began to leak out in testimony of a later date.
You mean Arthur Edwards?
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 10:12:11 PM
Reno Inquiry
"I did not see Maj. Reno that afternoon; but did after dark, about 9 or 10 o'clock. A Mr. Fritz (sic.) was with me. We had started out on the line to get our blankets and something to eat, and saw Maj. Reno standing there, though we did not noticed him till he spoke to Fritz (sic.) He asked Fritz (sic.) want he wanted. He said he was after something to eat. Reno then asked him if the mules were "tight,". It sounded like "tight" but Fritz (sic.)thought he meant "tied," and said "Yes." Maj. Reno again asked if the mules were "tight" and Fritz (sic.) asked him what he meant by "tight" and then some words passed between them and Maj. Reno made a pass to strike Fritz (sic.); and some whiskey flew over me and Fritz(sic.). At that Maj. Reno stepped back and picked up a carbine-whether he intended to strike Fritz with it I don't know. That was the last I saw of Reno that night. He was, I thought, under the influence of Liquor."
Contrary to the belief of a decidely minor group of individuals, civilians of this battle fought courageously and, by the side of the soldiers. Secondly, the majority of researchers today are aware that during the Reno Inquiry testimony, the ultimate goal was the preservation of the honor of the 7th. Eventually, human nature being what it is, is precisely why the truth began to leak out in testimony of a later date. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 11:17:44 PM
I don't believe this melodramatic incident was ever verified, nor can I easily believe the salute and salutation from a civilian in those circumstances, nor that Reno hitting someone and pointing a gun at him would have passed unnoticed in the close confines of Reno Hill. I have no trouble believing that those with booze drank it. God knows, I would have. I also recall that Reno and Frett had had altercations before, and it could be payback time at the Inquiry. There were enough officers who disliked Reno and surely Godfrey would have said Reno was drunk if he were, or Benteen, or Weir in his report, or someone. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 8:28:50 PM
John Frett (civilian Packer)Reno Inquiry
"the first time I saw maj. Reno was after the firing ceased. I went over where we put the packs into breastworks and passed an officer. When almost in front of him I saw it was Maj. Reno. I saluted and said, "Good evening." The first he said was "are the mules tight." I said "tight," what do you mean by "tight". He said "Tight, God damn you"; and with that slapped me in the face and leveled a carbine at me and said "I will shoot you." Then a friend of mine named Churchill pulled me back and that was the last I saw of him till the next day. He had a bottle of wiskey in his hand and as he slapped me the whiskey flew over me and he staggered." |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 10:52:19 AM
Here's why the fulminations of a Methodist screed ought to be taken with large salted amounts of font water.
Custer was never, ever regarded as brilliant. Brave and successful, maybe, not brilliant. Even "every and soldier dying with him" would not call him brilliant. Methodist preachers (and not just them) to this day are given to remembering those they bury as "good friends" based upon a meeting in a receiving line or a word from a third party. Yes, they lie, or the term "friend" has no meaning.
Reno wasn't a church goer, and he died destitute of cancer in a public ward. I don't know who officiated at his funeral, if anyone, but it wasn't his 'good friend,' I'd bet. And would a 'good friend' reveal such even if it were true? No.
Would he reveal such at the insistence of the dying friend? Maybe, but immediately after death so the revelation would do good for both the cause and the soul of the friend. Nothing like that happened. Just a convenient anectdote years down the line where it cannot be questioned but only blindly believed because it feels good to believe it. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 9:13:27 PM
Did Reno "Acknowledged The Corn?
"General George A. Custer was and will always be regarded as one of the most brilliant officers of the United States Army. His career abounds in romantic interest; and his death, together with that of every and soldier fighting with him, was one of the most tragic and memorable incidents in Indian warfare. The story of Custer's last fight with the Indians, which took place on the Little Big Horn River in the summer of 1876, is graphically described by Cyrus Townsend Brady. it is not our purpose to relate the story of the battle, but to call attention to the real cause of Major Reno's conduct, which resulted in Custer's defeat and death. Major Reno was not a coward, as many believe. His career in the army during the Civil War and his promotion for gallant aand meritorious services at Kelley's Ford, March 17, 1853, and at the battle of Cedar Creek, October 19, 1864, are evidence of his courage. What then, was the explanation of his conduct at the Battle of the Little Big Horn? Dr. Brady does not give it. Perhaps he does not know. But Major Reno himself told the late Rev. Dr. Arthur Edwards, then editor of the Northwestern, that his strange actions were due to the fact that HE WAS DRUNK. To Arthur Edwards, who knew him well, and continued his faithful friend, Major Reno often unburdened his heart, and on one occasion in deep sorrow said that his strange actions were due to drink."
Published on September 7,th. 1904 by the Northwestern Christian Advocate. Thank you Lorenzo for this information.
"And still you blame Custer." |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 8:04:55 PM
I would doubt the name of Reno's dear friend appears till well after Reno's death. I'm not saying Reno wasn't an alcoholic or periodically snockered in their careers. Many of the officers were, including Keogh and Benteen and I'd bet most of the others. While it was claimed that Reno was seen taking a shot or four at the LBH, none of these reports seem to have come from officers and those who dealt with him.
The image seems a great illustrative divide between the dry Custer, who heroically died, and the desolute Reno, who was a coward and drunk...etc, etc. Concurrent with the Prohibition movement's evolution at the end of the nineteenth century, there were a LOT of convenient cautionary tales that got passed around, much like the Wise Vietnam Veteran stories on the Internet that Snopes blows apart with regularity. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 7:12:27 PM
Other than speculation, what is the evidence that Reno was 'unnerved' when he got his attack/lead out order? Or drunk at any point, by which I mean clearly the booze was talking, not a rational man?
Northwestern christian advocate of 7 september 1904: "To Arthur Edwards, who knew him well, and continued his faithful friend, Major Reno often unburdened his heart, and in one occasion in deep sorrow said that his strange actions (at LBH) were due to drink, and drink caused his ultimately downfall".
It will not be a decisive test, however at least one possibility...
|
| wILD I |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 2:36:13 PM
Hi El Crab
Clearly, Reno was not in control of his battalion at this point.
That is possible but I think he was caught between his fear of the Indians and his fear of Custer thus this half arsed withdrawal to the timber.Now if he did not order this withdrawal and men just leaked back there then the NCOs were not doing their job.Surely men cannot just leave a skirmish line because the fancy takes them.I mean what sort of an outfit was the 7th? |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 12:06:48 AM
Other than speculation, what is the evidence that Reno was 'unnerved' when he got his attack/lead out order? Or drunk at any point, by which I mean clearly the booze was talking, not a rational man?
Through the First and deep into the Second World War (and maybe today), British army and navy made a big show of rum rations before battle, a tradition of a couple of centuries. Didn't seem to hurt that much, given they ruled 25% of the planet.
Other nations' armed services did the same thing. |
| El Crab |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 11:29:45 PM
Liquid courage.
I've drank hard alcohol straight to calm my nerves before. A swig sometimes gets rid of the jitters. But if you're not confident in leading an attack on an Indian village, I don't think any amount of whiskey or other spirits would help that. Unless, of course, you get so drunk that you just don't care. But then you're screwed anyway. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 8:32:23 PM
Sadly, Reno was unnerved the moment he received his "Lead-out" order. Alcohol consumption prior to a battle is probably not a great choice. It just got a basketball coach in trouble. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 12:32:23 AM
I have zero way of knowing, but bear in mind hitting the trees would seem logical waiting for imminent support. If they saw Custer while in the trees gracefully waving from high ground before vanishing north to unknown and unseeable crossings, that could have unnerved Reno. Waving goodbye? |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 8:14:27 PM
Reno's approach towards the southern portion of the village prohibited his seeing the actual size of the encampment. To assume that the enormous size of the village is what prompted him to form a skirmish line is an erroneous perspective. While initially faced with 75 to a 100 Indians (according to Dr. Porter's testimony)once the line was formed ( thereby depleting the thrust of the attack) the now embolden warriors regrouped and,rushed forward instead of retreating. The amount of charging warriors suddenly increased. Reno's left flank was subsequently compromized. The line then fell, upon itself, towards the timber without orders. No trumpets were blown. At this point, Reno no longer had control of his forces. |
| El Crab |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 2:20:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Five more hours of daylight, not enough men to hold the perimeter against infiltration, supposed superiority of the enemy in night fighting, a proclivity of the Indians towards burning them out, being surrounded with increasing enemy numbers decreasing escape chances, no idea where anyone else of the 7th was, a felt need to seek higher ground. Custer had abandoned units before which, given 'his support' had vanished in time and space, seemed to have been a real possibility.
Whatever the current state of ammo, what would it be by noon the next day if they stayed in the trees? Indians could wait, eat at leisure, return.
Hence Wild I's question as to why they were there in the first place. Hadn't ever really thought about that before. If the skirmish line was withdrawn, then clearly the intent was either to form a better position or leave the valley, yet neither seemed to happen by going to the timber. It just wasted time, ammo and manpower. Clearly, Reno was not in control of his battalion at this point. |
|
|
