| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| lorendead |
Posted - April 22 2003 : 8:52:54 PM
Does anyone agree that had Weir survived and not died before the Reno Court of Inquiry. Thats his testimony would have resulted in formal charges being brought against Reno and Benteen? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| El Crab |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 11:11:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
So....what do you think?
It was good. I enjoyed the Bouyer part, and the time-motion is very impressive. It definitely changes the way you look at things. The way I see it, its like a prototype for all other interpretations.
Its kind of like a dinosaur skeleton. Let's say this skeleton shows this particular dinosaur stood around 20 feet high and had a 10 ft tail. You could surmise that other dinosaurs of the same species could vary somewhat in height and their tails could be slightly longer or shorter, but the parameters have been set for all other researchers of this particular dinosaur. More bones may be found, more things may be discovered about this dinosaur, but chances are they won't deviate much in terms of its size. The precedent has been set.
Gray set the timeline, Michno took this timeline and set the battle to it. Gray's work definitely is not to be ignored. On the contrary, it is the standard by which all other works should work from.
He also uses Curley's statements, which I had read, here and there, before. But he shows that his statements didn't necessarily change, that he is a reliable witness and his accounts line up with what we know, what we can deduce from archaeology and Sioux/Cheyenne accounts.
Both Michno and Gray covered the stuff I wondered about when I first started reading about LBH. I always thought there should be a book that pieces together the battle based on Sioux/Cheyenne accounts, and Michno brought us that. And I often thought you could reduce the possibilities of certain things by "mapping" the times out. While its not possible to know EXACTLY what time everything happened, you can remove what's not possible. Horses can only travel so fast, the terrain is known, the approximate route is known. So you can redo Gray's work, with slight changes, but he has set the timeframe to work from. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 9:43:45 PM
So....what do you think? |
| El Crab |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 5:27:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Crab, you really, really need to get Gray's book and read it. I promise you, as the other lonely fan of Connell here, it will re-orient your conception of the battle. You can skip the Boyeur bio, but the second part is mandatory. Until you hack through it, you won't really understand what Michno and others copied in concept, and why Slnar (?) and others just ignore it,and why there is such effort being made to disprove it.
I got it, and read it, months ago... |
| bhist |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 1:25:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Crab, you really, really need to get Gray's book and read it. I promise you, as the other lonely fan of Connell here, it will re-orient your conception of the battle. You can skip the Boyeur bio, but the second part is mandatory. Until you hack through it, you won't really understand what Michno and others copied in concept, and why Slnar (?) and others just ignore it,and why there is such effort being made to disprove it.
Because, until Gray is wobbled, the conspiracy nuts and the number of 'what if's' drop like a rock, and it hamstrings many theories that people want to lay over the LBH battle to argue (just about all trying to prove Benteen evil...), generally for reasons having nothing to do with the LBH battle. I tried myself, a decade ago, and you have no clue how frustrating it is or have an appreciation of the fussy detail Gray integrated to get his charts and graphs. I don't agree with the conclusions he drew from his work, but I can't budge his time lines enough to change anything. We're stuck with them absent compelling evidence of error. Or, more likely, a misinterpretation he made early on is the best potential candidate for revision. But thus far? Solid as a rock.
D.C. -- Well, I liked Connell’s book, too – not for its historical inaccuracy, but for its read. Connell’s book is like “They Died With Their Boots On” and John Wayne’s “The Alamo” in that it captured the minds of a new generation and latched on to a whole new group of LBH students. Connell continues to expound on long, worn-out myths of Custer or the LBH, but if one can overlook that, one will have one heck of a great read.
You’re very correct about Gray’s “Custer’s Last Campaign.” I did not agree with all of his conclusions either, but the unmitigated originality of his research and timeline will last nearly forever in the annals of LBH research.
I can’t imagine any “serious student” of this battle not having a copy of Gray's book for their library. Seriously, “Against All Odds – Custer’s Last Stand” posters – if you refuse to read Gray’s book, then you SHOULD NOT be posting here. If you haven’t read it, YET, for any unknown reasons, then you’re excused – for now. However, you cannot call yourself a student of this battle if you refuse to read it.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 12:42:10 PM
I cannot imagine a Custer riding a mule just on image issues. Crook had no problem, though.
Mule, unicycle, what's the issue in play?
|
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 11:12:31 AM
oh and saddle mules were fairly common then, several people besides Kellogg were riding them, including not a few Indians. There were mules in the herd of "ponies" the Ree ran back from the river. |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 11:08:51 AM
Daniel Knipe's 1924 article..oh yes, I had forgotten about that as it is not at all representative of Knipe's earlier memories..in fact I hadn't read it in several years, so thank you for reminding me, it was fun to read again. aside from the strange story of carrying the message to packs first etc. he makes statements about bodies that are not in line either...
“I have your letter of the 6th inst. and in answer will say that in regard to Tom W. Custer, I did not see his body at all, and I do not think that he was right close to General Custer’s body, for if he had been I would have seen him, but I heard the other boys say when they buried him that he was not mutilated.” Knipe to Camp August 15, 1908
“I did not see the body of Lieut. Calhoun, and I never heard any one say whether his body was mulated. I don’t see how it was that I did not see his body as I passed right along where his marker stands. You know when we was up there in September that I showed you where I rode around there on the Hill and it looks to me like I passed right close by him, if he was there. I have some doubts about the way the markers are placed regards to the officers.” Knipe to Camp November 23, 1908
|
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 10:50:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
I don't know that Boston Custer rode one as well, but like I said, I believe I've read somewhere Boston Custer's horse played out, so he headed back for another and was told he could rejoin the battalion if it was safe.
I wonder who; I don't recall myself any later historian ever putting it that way. My impression is that the standard version, apparently relying on Edgerly, has Boston staying put with the pack train for a while before deciding to join his brother.
I never thought much about the episode before, but now that I am I highly doubt the "standard version" (at least as I remember it) is historically accurate. While digging through what I have here, I finally found a source that offers a reason for Boston's actions. It's another Camp interview, with Fremont Kipp, a private in D Company:
"Says Custer sent Boston Custer with a message to either Reno or Benteen, and this [explains] how Boston was in the rear" (On the Little Bighorn with Walter Camp, pgs. 184-85).
That provides some corroboration, at least, for the idea that Boston started with his brothers and then came back, but the explanation Kipp gives is ridiculous.
R. Larsen
|
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 10:30:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rocky76
I think the Boston story is going to prove critical to understanding the battle or at least it's "timeline"...
I don't see what the big deal is.
quote:
but I have no comment other than somewhere in the back of my dusty cavity of a brain is some bit of information that he was riding a mule...don't ask, I don't know.
Like El Crab said, it's Kellogg that had the mule. Hardy saod Boston had two Indian ponies, one he was presumably riding, the other being used by "Haddon".
quote:
When did Knipe mention Curtis as Hearst? And who did he mention this to?
In his article in Graham's "Custer Myth".
R. Larsen
|
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 09:53:10 AM
>>Rocky, you're HOPING the Boston story can dislodge the timeline.<<
Not really, it's just that there is a lot of shoulder shrugging when it comes to how Boston got where he got...it does irritate me, however, when authors assume anything about what Boston may have conveyed to his older brother...pure speculation at its finest. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 08:27:43 AM
A 'suggestion' from a superior would have stopped Boston, would it not? No? Then there is the shining example of the 7th's doom that day. Family over unit. Now imagine Custer wounded, and Tom giving orders out of the blue....
Rocky, you're HOPING the Boston story can dislodge the timeline.
Crab, you really, really need to get Gray's book and read it. I promise you, as the other lonely fan of Connell here, it will re-orient your conception of the battle. You can skip the Boyeur bio, but the second part is mandatory. Until you hack through it, you won't really understand what Michno and others copied in concept, and why Slnar (?) and others just ignore it,and why there is such effort being made to disprove it.
Because, until Gray is wobbled, the conspiracy nuts and the number of 'what if's' drop like a rock, and it hamstrings many theories that people want to lay over the LBH battle to argue (just about all trying to prove Benteen evil...), generally for reasons having nothing to do with the LBH battle. I tried myself, a decade ago, and you have no clue how frustrating it is or have an appreciation of the fussy detail Gray integrated to get his charts and graphs. I don't agree with the conclusions he drew from his work, but I can't budge his time lines enough to change anything. We're stuck with them absent compelling evidence of error. Or, more likely, a misinterpretation he made early on is the best potential candidate for revision. But thus far? Solid as a rock.
It's also good to remember that LBH is a business, and the business is controversy, so things absurd on their face are allowed to seep into the fabric just to keep it going. That's fun and fine and surprisingly profitable but it is not history or receptive (or even reactive) to (actual) scientific attitudes, which are not really held by the archaeological proponents. |
| El Crab |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 10:07:16 PM
The reporter, Mark Kellogg, rode a mule. I don't know that Boston Custer rode one as well, but like I said, I believe I've read somewhere Boston Custer's horse played out, so he headed back for another and was told he could rejoin the battalion if it was safe. As if that would have stopped him from joining his brothers and nephew, or at least trying to... |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 9:52:57 PM
I think the Boston story is going to prove critical to understanding the battle or at least it's "timeline"...but I have no comment other than somewhere in the back of my dusty cavity of a brain is some bit of information that he was riding a mule...don't ask, I don't know.
When did Knipe mention Curtis as Hearst? And who did he mention this to? |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 9:38:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
For a horse. I've heard that. Now that I think about it, I believe I've read he was sent back, by Custer, to get a fresh horse and he could rejoin them. I've been going through my materials here (not every book is here at my girl's house, some are at my place), but that sounds right to me.
Makes sense, though I'd like to know if there was anybody at the battle who ever said so. I've been looking but haven't found anything. Hardy in the same interview claimed that "Haddon had Boss Custer's extra pony. Boss had two Indian ponies".
Trouble is no "Haddon" was in the 7th Cavalry. Hardy might have meant William Hardden, or one of the Hammon brothers. Or somebody else entirely. Once you've garbled a name, it's sometimes hard to get back to the original. Witness how Daniel Kanipe remembered the name of Sergeant Curtiss, the breadbox squad leader, as "Hearst".
R. Larsen |
| El Crab |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 8:56:18 PM
For a horse. I've heard that. Now that I think about it, I believe I've read he was sent back, by Custer, to get a fresh horse and he could rejoin them. I've been going through my materials here (not every book is here at my girl's house, some are at my place), but that sounds right to me. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 8:39:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
According to Walter Camp, Boston Custer was a guide. He is not listed as a packer. I've also read he was a "quartermaster guide", whatever that is. Either way, he was along for the ride. I believe Boston Custer had to ride with the packtrain because that's where his duty required him on the march, whether he actually performed one or just kept up appearances.
Giving Boston Custer the paid position of "Guide" was a bad joke (the other men who were paid as guides were Bloody Knife and Charlie Reynolds) and reeking of irony on Custer's part, since just a few months before he had been getting into it with Secretary Belknap and Major Lewis Merrill about allegations they had been taking graft. Boston was essentially being paid a hundred dollars a month by the US government to ride around and collect souveniers.
But being a "guide," even if it was in name only, certainly wouldn't require somebody to stick to the rear. Guides are meant to guide. Boston had worked as forage master the year before, but he wasn't doing that in the summer of 1876.
I think Edgerly might have been wrong about Boston "staying back" with the train. It's possible he may have instead gone back for some reason. Trumpeter Hardy told Walter Camp that Boston was with Custer's men at the divide "when Reno separated," and in another Camp interview with McDougall, it is said that "he saw and talked with Boston Custer when he came back to the pack train" (my emphasis).
If Boston returned to the pack train for some reason after first going off with his brother, it would make more sense to me than the alternative, which is him staying there eating dust the whole time while his brothers and nephew ride off to the front. But why would he go back?
R. Larsen
|
| El Crab |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 7:55:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I'm puzzled about the Weir Benteen issue. Wasn't that after the battle?
Rocky and Wrangler are dedicated to proving Gray's timelines wrong, apparently towaards the goal of providing more time for Reno and Benteen not doing anything. Larson knows more than I on that.
Well, not much. I'm still a little befuddled about the whole thing. Wrangler seemed to think that by finding one reference book which gave different rates of speed than Gray's, he had debunked his entire book. That's nonsense, of course, and it turned out that Wrangler didn't have much else than that. What followed was a lot of sound and fury, signifying .... well, if not nothing, then nothing much.
I thought Wrangler might have suggested good reasons for thinking that Gray was off a bit on Boston Custer, but Boston on the 25th is a side-show about which we know very, very little. I'm not even sure why Boston was put with the pack train in the first place anyway. I can't remember any explanation ever being offered by anyone who was there and might know. It's somewhat surprising that Burkman never has anything to say about it.
R. Larsen
According to Walter Camp, Boston Custer was a guide. He is not listed as a packer. I've also read he was a "quartermaster guide", whatever that is. Either way, he was along for the ride. I believe Boston Custer had to ride with the packtrain because that's where his duty required him on the march, whether he actually performed one or just kept up appearances. I'll look into it more closely, but my memory seems to think it knows the story. I believe Custer told his little brother that he had to stay with the train for a while, but he could join GAC when the battle was near/underway. Or maybe it was when the battle was turning in their favor? Kanipe never said anything about it (that I can remember, but again, I'll check into it), but his arrival with a verbal message for the packtrain seems to be when Boston Custer took off for Custer's battalion. |
| El Crab |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 7:45:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Actually, the best written and most interesting is still Connell. He has errors and it's twenty years old this year, but Son of the Morning Star is still the book that haunts and makes all the characters pretty damned interesting. It's the one I suggest to get people into it. It touches on all the argument points at least and seems quite fair even after all this time.
Still amazed how much he followed others' leads, but he is such a good writer. There are passages that stay with you without effort.
Very, very true. SOMS is by the most interesting and best book for the overall stories and myths of the fight. It covers many of the persons involved, and while it seems to jump around, it flows well. Great book, and everyone interested in the Custer battle should read it. |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 5:01:24 PM
I can visualize Elwood Nye roaring about "military crests" and the impossibility of Benteen's line being were Windolph pointed it out to Ralph and Joe in '28 and watching Joe bend over and pick up a casing right between Nye's feet as the guy always smoking a cigarette and leaning on a shovel in the NPS photos of the 40's picks one up right behind him....HA. The spot is the location of Thomas Meador's headstone. Cartwright and Nye had had an argument a couple days before and Ralph drove to Joe's place on the Musselshell and brought him back to prove some point to Nye. |
| bhist |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 4:25:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rocky76
Stewart was not highly thought of by Luce, the man was afraid of snakes and exercise, he pulled a Red Fox everytime he was asked to do field research (it's my heart!, this is the big one!)...but if it was possible to live a day in history I think I would pick the day that Capt. Luce, Ralph Cartwright, Edgar Stewart, Charles Kuhlman, Lt. Col. Nye and Joe Blummer spent a day together on the battlefield.
That would be one of my picks, too. Whenever I go across Nye-Cartwright I think like that. |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 4:21:03 PM
Stewart was not highly thought of by Luce, the man was afraid of snakes and exercise, he pulled a Red Fox everytime he was asked to do field research (it's my heart!, this is the big one!)...but if it was possible to live a day in history I think I would pick the day that Capt. Luce, Ralph Cartwright, Edgar Stewart, Charles Kuhlman, Lt. Col. Nye and Joe Blummer spent a day together on the battlefield. |
| bhist |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 3:22:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rocky76
there must be some books I have not read, but Gray's are not on that list...I did mention Stewart, I prefer his over Gray's, so call me a fool.
You and I do agree on one thing -- Edgar Stewart. His "Custer's Luck" still holds up and is one of the best. I also recommend that book as a first read -- Stewart was a great writer of history. He wrote with drama and suspense -- all the elements that most non-history readers like. I feel very lucky in that I have a signed, 1st edition of "Custer's Luck." |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 2:38:37 PM
there must be some books I have not read, but Gray's are not on that list...I did mention Stewart, I prefer his over Gray's, so call me a fool. This is a pretty silly argument after all. I only questioned Gray's interpretation of some sources (not exactly libel), but you on the other hand seem to have some deep seated hatred for Wayne, so any further comment on my part will only feed that. |
| bhist |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 1:36:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rocky76
Major Cloud, Sir, my dedication is not to anything Gray, I just find areas in his books that are based solely on "accepted" information, and some of that information will not stand the test of time (no pun intended). I do apologize if I offended anyone, it was not intended. Wayne Sarf's book is a good book, contains a lot of information that is overlooked in others (including Gray), the one irritation I had with it was no sources were sited. Wayne is always helpful in tracing them down however. I might add that anyone that is going to read only one book on the BLBH is not going to find Gray's timelines helpful or interesting. Sarf and Stewart wrote books that are accurate and interesting. Mari Sandoz wrote one that was even better for a one book read. I do not like discussing the battle with one book "historians", and there are a few out there.
Rocky – I debated whether to reply to you or not after your last post, but since Gray was a friend of mine, I must. Now, I get it. You used the word “manipulative” in a post when in actual fact you met “I just find areas in his books that are based solely on "accepted" information.” WOW!! There’s a big difference between “manipulative” and “accepted information.” Using the word “manipulative”, in this case, is downright libelous.
Second of all, I’m beginning to think you’ve never read “Centennial Campaign.” Gray doesn’t get into timelines like he does “Custer's Last Campaign.” Matter-of-fact, in Centennial he only covers the battle in a few paragraphs. Centennial is about the Sioux campaign whereas "Custer's Last Campaign" is about the LBH battle. As far as timelines, in "Custer's Last Campaign" -- you are wrong again. You say most of his work is on other “accepted” works – hell, Gray invented the timeline – no one, not even a wannabe historian like Sarf had one iota of input into it. Again, the one book I recommend that covers the Sioux War is Gray's "Centennial Campaign." I do not recommend Gray's last book, "Custer's Last Campaign" for the novice -- it would go way over their heads.
Finally, I’m shocked that you would accept a wannabe historian’s book by Sarf with no references (even though he’s kind enough to provide them if asked for) over a book by Gray that is well documented. Are you crazy? Can’t you see the difference in historical discipline between Sarf and Gray? Gray worked mostly with primary sources whereas Sarf works with second, third and kindergarten sources. That, Rocky, is the difference in historical discipline. The former works for a quarter of a century with original documents, while the latter logs onto the internet a couple of times a day to see what else he can find to put into "his book."
I accept your apology, but if you still recommend Sarf over Gray then I think you need to take History 101 over again in college.
Ok, let’s take the gloves off and shake hands. But, wait; before we do, would you please throw that ridiculous Sarf book in the trash where it belongs?
|
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 1:03:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I'm puzzled about the Weir Benteen issue. Wasn't that after the battle?
Rocky and Wrangler are dedicated to proving Gray's timelines wrong, apparently towaards the goal of providing more time for Reno and Benteen not doing anything. Larson knows more than I on that.
Well, not much. I'm still a little befuddled about the whole thing. Wrangler seemed to think that by finding one reference book which gave different rates of speed than Gray's, he had debunked his entire book. That's nonsense, of course, and it turned out that Wrangler didn't have much else than that. What followed was a lot of sound and fury, signifying .... well, if not nothing, then nothing much.
I thought Wrangler might have suggested good reasons for thinking that Gray was off a bit on Boston Custer, but Boston on the 25th is a side-show about which we know very, very little. I'm not even sure why Boston was put with the pack train in the first place anyway. I can't remember any explanation ever being offered by anyone who was there and might know. It's somewhat surprising that Burkman never has anything to say about it.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
