| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 12:27:14 PM
This is in response to Markland's posting in the Poll thread which is too cumbersome.
Is heroism the opposite of cowardice? Generally so considered, but I'm not so sure. Cowards can be inadvertant heroes, perhaps. It depends on the viewer more than the participant how the term is applied.
I have some difficulty with the "love and respect" of buddies component, because I read it as having a dark side. Sure, deep friendship in combat units understandably evolves. But if a soldier fails to pull his weight in battle beyond a point, there's ample reason to think deadwood sometimes gets pruned. "Accidents..." "Snipers...."
And that remarkable story of the one man who failed to join Benteen's charge who was the only one killed, and he hiding behind cover, presents itself. Who thinks the Gods of Probability allowed Indians concerned with the attack to somehow at that point put a slug in his head? Who thinks a pissed off soldier or officer did it to absolutely zero complaint on their return? I don't know, but I have my suspicions.
There's been few slapped foreheads of disbelief when it was suggested soldiers trying to kill Custer hit Hamilton instead at the Wa****a. No evidence, but clearly fragging up and down isn't new. If that was accepted, more or less, than shooting non-performers isn't a stretch. And Custer himself ordered deserters illegally shot under arguable battle conditions, if not combat itself.
So, perhaps fear of losing your peer's respect can also be viewed as fear of being killed by your peers in an annoyed moment. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Benteen |
Posted - July 18 2005 : 11:37:53 AM
If this battle had not ended so tragically, sadly, it would be hilarious! Truely folks, this reminds me of F~Troop, and a movie called Advance to The Rear, starring Glenn Ford. Why? Real Leadership Problems ~ indeed! Starting with Custer himself. He didn't know how to follow directions! And then when confronted with someone who supposedly disobeyed his orders to keep the Regiment where they were, what does he do? This is Curious to say the least. It is apparent that whoever did, put the entire command at risk. But then Custer himself should be blameless, right? I mean like he gets all panicky and tells everyone that "weve been discovered", like he's some kind of Paul Revere, sounding the alarm! Uh.. wouldn't you have thought that he would have sent his scouts forward first to see if that was the case, before jumping to that disastrous conclusion? Why the frenzied worry over being discovered? Was it an excuse, and Tom a part of the ploy? One does have to seriously wonder.
However, trying to stay within reason. What happens next? Throughout the rest of the day. From what can be gathered. Custer seems ~ hesitant, kinda like "what the hell am I going to do now? ~ hesitant? You know? While the whole 'regiment forward' very well could have been contrived, what happened after seems to suggest otherwise! While trying to get an assessment of direction he hesitates before going to Reno hill, Scouts mess up big time and he has to do their job. Then he hesitates another what? 45 minutes over at Weir point! What in Lucifer's name ~ for? Nothing is rational here! He makes no coherent, lucid decisions! And when it's too late he boldly goes forward knowing full well that the indians are putting up a bloody struggle! Even if he just thought that it was his 200 men against a 1000 warriors, that was still 5 to 1 odds! Did he really think he stood a chance? Some charge that Benteen was the fault, he was, to quote them, "too slow"! Yeah right, I can prove that he wasn't! And if, just if, Custer was waiting for Benteen, then why didn't he? Another botched command decision? I'll let you decide! But in light of the way Custer's day was going, I'd say so! From the looks of it. It looks like he was trying to make a diversion at MTF, with an intentional fall back to near Calhoun hill, a rear guard if you will. This so that the he and the rest of the command would then ford the river further downstream and capture the non-coms. A last ditch effort? I'd say so, wouldn't you? But why the urgency, why the need not to wait for Benteen? None of it makes any sense at all. None of it, and it never will, because Custer didn't know either! I truely think that he was thrust into a situtation that he didn't know how to deal with. Whether that was by design or not would be interesting to know! It appears that he was caught off guard from this moment on, and truely didn't know what to do! |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 18 2005 : 05:36:12 AM
This points up some real leadership problems in this regiment.You said it Warlord.
Has anybody ever seen that section of the Reader's Digest--Humour in Uniform?
Who moved the regiment forward,was it you trooper Martin?
Benteen take the day off and go valley hunting.
I will support you with the whole outfit.Tee hee hee
Damn you bloody knife look what you've done to my shirt.Ok I'm out of here.Anybody want to save themselves?
Benteen come on be quick ,bring the slow moving packs.Ya gota be joking.
Where are the Indians Martin.The're skadadling Sir.Wait Sir I ment to say in this direction.
Where the hell is Weir off to now.Does he know something we don't?
What's that song Tom you liked to sing I lost my heart to the Black Hills |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 17 2005 : 10:23:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by alfuso
Wiggs
Wouldn't Reno, as senior Major, have been the one to bring the regiment forward? Tom had no say about that as a recent Captain. Custer had left orders for the regiment to move out at 8 a.m. and never rescinded them before he left for Crow's Nest. ***Had Tom failed to do so, Custer's famous temper certainly would have "Abrupted" like a volcano.***
That ***line was not in my original post. Did you mean to say it in yours?
alfuso
Absolutely the line was mine and not yours. |
| alfuso |
Posted - July 17 2005 : 9:49:42 PM
Wiggs
Wouldn't Reno, as senior Major, have been the one to bring the regiment forward? Tom had no say about that as a recent Captain. Custer had left orders for the regiment to move out at 8 a.m. and never rescinded them before he left for Crow's Nest. ***Had Tom failed to do so, Custer's famous temper certainly would have "Abrupted" like a volcano.***
That ***line was not in my original post. Did you mean to say it in yours?
alfuso |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 17 2005 : 3:01:21 PM
Joe
Custer did,indeed,leave orders for the movement to the Crow's nest.
Gray [page 241]describes how Custer rounded on Tom asking "Tom who in the devil moved these troops forward?My orders were to remain in camp all day and make a night attack on the Indians?
Now it is not that the command was brought farward that is puzzling but that it was brought forward and was halted [halt 2]and then advanced again.That is 3 decisions someone took.
Reading this section of the approach to the LBH Tom never seems too far from the action at the head of the column.Further at the second halt he joins up with Calhoun and Moylan and they take themselves off for a quiet smoke.He then gallops forward to report to the returning Custer as if he was in command of the column and not Reno.And all the while Reno is just following along as if it was standard practice for little brother to call the shots.
On the march to the LBH Reno is never part of the HQ group ,never seems to act as the 2i/c,his only role being that of a troop commander. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 17 2005 : 2:16:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by alfuso
...snipped for brevity...
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Here, though, Wiggs started out by providing quotes (I don't vouch for them, but they don't violate anything I've read)regarding Reno's orders on the 25th from Custer as to
When called on it, he regresses to a previous event - bringing the regiment forward, an event that Custer had not asked for and which his brother probably had done - where Reno had not received orders. Neither had Benteen. This is a separate incident, and the quotes and alleged point of Wiggs' posting regarded solely the orders Reno received regarding the attack. This is as relevant as finding quotes where Reno might have said he'd received no orders for something on the Yellowstone, or during the Civil War.
Wouldn't Reno, as senior Major, have been the one to bring the regiment forward? Tom had no say about that as a recent Captain. Custer had left orders for the regiment to move out at 8 a.m. and never rescinded them before he left for Crow's Nest. Had Tom failed to do so, Custer's famous temper certainly would have "Abrupted" like a volcano.
alfuso
Alfonso, of course you are correct. Your comments represent a genuine and comprehensive knowledge of this event. The erroneous, statement "an event that Custer had not asked for" is representative of a substantial lack of knowledge and the typical unwillingness, by the user, to gather information prior to shooting one's mouth off. Custer did,indeed,leave orders for the movement to the Crow's nest. Certainly Custer's famous temper would have "abrupted" had Tom not followed orders. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 17 2005 : 1:21:32 PM
Yes, you'd think.
None of the three enabled - Cooke, Benteen, Reno - seems to have done it. And given the high feelings, if they said they had not been so ordered, but they had, some of their fellows would cheerfully have reported this. The 7th came forward as TC rode to his brother on Crow's Nest. I've always thought TWC was more than just another Captain, and acted as Custer's spokesperson often enough. If you read what we have of the 7th, and change TWC's name to Fred Smith, it's very odd this guy is always around and involved with command decisions, a status granted neither by rank nor seniority. Nobody seems to have objected, though.
Many adjutants were a real presence in their units, as Bourke was in Crook's. But Cooke in Custer's regiment is a blank compared to Tom and even Benteen and Reno. Not in any way proof in and of itself, but in aggregate with other stuff provides suggestions of the depth of the nepotism that permeated the 7th. Quoting myself, there was an official and an actual command structure, and I think much silliness is perpetuated trying to pat that into shape and to make Custer a by the numbers kinda guy as needed. Cooke was a gofer. TWC was the real adjutant, the one to whom Custer turned often enough. Again, no proof. |
| alfuso |
Posted - July 17 2005 : 12:22:02 PM
...snipped for brevity...
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Here, though, Wiggs started out by providing quotes (I don't vouch for them, but they don't violate anything I've read)regarding Reno's orders on the 25th from Custer as to
When called on it, he regresses to a previous event - bringing the regiment forward, an event that Custer had not asked for and which his brother probably had done - where Reno had not received orders. Neither had Benteen. This is a separate incident, and the quotes and alleged point of Wiggs' posting regarded solely the orders Reno received regarding the attack. This is as relevant as finding quotes where Reno might have said he'd received no orders for something on the Yellowstone, or during the Civil War.
Wouldn't Reno, as senior Major, have been the one to bring the regiment forward? Tom had no say about that as a recent Captain. Custer had left orders for the regiment to move out at 8 a.m. and never rescinded them before he left for Crows Nest.
alfuso
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 17 2005 : 10:14:54 AM
Yes. Well, see Wiggs, here's another example of you not knowing what you've written. And if anyone doesn't believe me, or thinks I'm being cruel, they need only read Mr. Wiggs' Benteen Orders thread. It's all still there. The pretend past, the illiteracy, the plagiarism, the inability to know what it is he's written, and his casual assumption he can accuse people of all sorts of things and get away with it. All there.
Here, though, Wiggs started out by providing quotes (I don't vouch for them, but they don't violate anything I've read)regarding Reno's orders on the 25th from Custer as to what Reno was to do regarding the attack about to be made. This occured after they had crossed the divide into the LBH valley. They're mutually exclusive, for the most part. But that's not Wiggs' error. He says, in the same posting, that he cannot believe the Reno claimed he'd never received orders from Custer. This was, of course, untrue regarding the topic Wiggs has selected to discuss.
When called on it, he regresses to a previous event - bringing the regiment forward, an event that Custer had not asked for and which his brother probably had done - where Reno had not received orders. Neither had Benteen. This is a separate incident, and the quotes and alleged point of Wiggs' posting regarded solely the orders Reno received regarding the attack. This is as relevant as finding quotes where Reno might have said he'd received no orders for something on the Yellowstone, or during the Civil War.
This is the problem with functional illiteracy. Just as he used "erupt" when he meant "abrupt" solely because they sounded alike. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 16 2005 : 10:35:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
3. What erroneous quote? There's no point reading your postings, you don't know what you've said half the time.
4. Your original statement was "What I find astonishing is that Reno swore he never received any orders from Custer." That isn't true, is it Wiggs?
A belated Post Script: The Reno Court of Inquiry, W.A. Graham.
Major Reno There upon took the stand in his own behalf.
'On the morning of the 25th, Col. Benteen came over to where I was, and while he was there, I discovered that the column was moving. I was not consulted about anything. I never received any direct orders, and exercised the functions of what imagined where those of a Lieutenant Colonel.'
'At the time I was in the timber I had not the remotest idea where either the pack train or Benton's column were. There was no plan communicated to us; if one existed the subordinate commanders did not know of it.'
'When I say that no plan was communicated to us I mean to the regiment. I do not think there was a plan.'
There was no plan, there were no orders. A maniac decided to charge into a mass of irate Indians and get himself, and his entire command annihilated. Sleep well Reno, and may God bless you. May God bless you too D.c. I make this wish because you can not be as obnoxious, arrogant, pompous, ignorant, uninformed, and utterly inhuman as you have, thus far, appeared to be.
|
| Benteen |
Posted - July 16 2005 : 4:12:34 PM
whistlingboy ~ quote:
"It is suggested by Darling also that Custer trusted Reno with a lot of confidence--that he could handle any situation he came upon. The crux of the problem still seems to boil down, in my thinking, to whether or not Custer, Reno and others knew there was a huge encampment and its exact whereabouts. Custer turning northwest leads me to believe they were still 'scouting.' When Reno runs into trouble, Custer is out of sight; I think he could still hear, faintly, shooting, hollering, etc. He could not turn around fast enough and continued his course which is much rougher than the flat plain Reno is on. He must have seen the smoke and dust rising from the valley floor in the distance to his left up above the rises. Did Custer get a glimpse of Reno in the valley and at what time? If he sees him in skirmish formation, he knows he doesn’t have the time to help him since he would have seen the hordes of hostiles also now inundating his position. Custer probably now hastens his pace to find a low spot across the ‘stream.’"
The Crows and Rees told Custer where this camp was at! And how big it was ~ when they were at the crows nest! The number of horses alone told them how immense it was. And they could see the campfires, so yes, they did know it's exact location, and size. As Warlord said: "Whether Custer chose to believe it is another subject " While I tend to agree with Warlord on this one. It does play an immense part in what follows! And shouldn't be dismissed as a part of this conversation. The answer is not so easily given. The rest of your statement asserts that Custer was somehow blind with regards to what was happening to Reno. Anyway that's what it seems to suggest. In this assessment you are somewhat correct. And has spurred the Reno Orders debate for a century or more! The question isn't what was meant or implied by the orders. But how Custer later reacted to the situation, when presented with the conditions you so eloquently described! Every 'turn' of events have to be scrutenized in order to understand things properly. One area that most boards like these seem to overlook is not the orders, heavens no! But the events themselves!
When Custer approached the southern base of the Reno hill/creek area, and before going across the LBH, in Reno's wake. Admittedly not far away! What did Custer do? And more importantly, why? There seemed to be a halt. During this short halt. Custer tried to get the indians scouts to go up near Reno hill and scout the area. Presumably to not only see what was happening with Reno! But to also see if hostiles were in the vicinity. The indian scouts refused, right? Then they reluctantly acquiesed and went. But went where? To Reno's battalion. An obvious mixup or misunderstanding! But whatever the indians scouts mission was supposed to be. It must have had most definitly something to do with Reno. Wouldn't you say? Not desiring to stay any longer. And the need for the above info. important before Custer made a decision to proceed one way (following Reno) or another (over Reno Hill). He takes it upon himself and the whole battalion to proceed! Why? It is evident that at the time, he didn't have the needed intelligence on the matter to make that decision! But he did! And again one has to ask, why? In this sad comedy of errors, it was the indian scouts confusion over their orders that led Custer to the "scout" at or near Reno Hill. Whatever he saw, convinced him to go further, and not back! Again, why?
Warlord ~ quote:
"Perhaps you have never heard the term mounted infantry, or their tactics? Infantry carried to the front by horses! Cavalry is best used for shock value. That shock is best imparted by sabers or lances! Here at LBH the military quotient was drastically changed by disarming the cavalry of its sabers! The thinking appears to have been the Colt SAA replaced it! This of course was totally in error. The issue of 100 rounds for the carbine and 24 for the revolver was so inadequate as to have been criminal. All the responsibilty of Georgie Custer!"
I couldn't agree more! For me it is simple. Because of certain events that leads one to honestly believe this. And yours is the most glaring! The first instance of this as I have described above in response to WB! Are there more? Most certainly! But to lengthy to go into detail here.
Wiggs ~ quote:
"a horrific battle and the expiration of three years in the re-telling of an incident, any incident, can affect the human psyche. If two witnesses told the exact story their collusion would be obvious to most anyone."
I have to agree with you, to a degree. The rethinking of these events would have been thought of in a new light! Ie. Saving one's own hide! Was there collusion? Of that I am quite certain. Was there any truth? Again, in the statements themselves, I don't think so? The only thing truthful would have been the times, as they wouldn't see in those any reason to lie. And, I think it would have been the most difficult thing to fabricate.
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 16 2005 : 3:11:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
1.I don't think it an attack on me, and wouldn't care anyway, and I didn't question your veracity. Here, anyway. I'm questioning a collection of mutually exclusive quotations as to what they might prove in aggregate. Nothing, except call into question the veracity and competence of some of them.
2. An odometer wouldn't solve the issue. You need to compute the hypotenuse of a triangle. Then, you have to explain why Hereunder and Gerard are so at odds. You noticed that, right? Otherwise, it looks quite stupid.
3. What erroneous quote? There's no point reading your postings, you don't know what you've said half the time.
4. Your original statement was "What I find astonishing is that Reno swore he never received any orders from Custer." That isn't true, is it Wiggs? If these are quotes in your latest posting, you need to close them off and tell us where you got them.
The following passage is for the dim-witted who simply can not comprehend certainly realities: (That would be one person)
I don't NEED to do anything but breath and pay taxes. D.c, you are a hopeless idiot. You must be the only individual on this planet who is incapable of comprehending how a horrific battle and the expiration of three years in the re-telling of an incident, any incident, can affect the human psyche. If two witnesses told the exact story their collusion would be obvious to most anyone.
Secondly, I listed a series of individuals who made comment on the orders that Reno received. Why have you hung your hat, the deed to the house, and your reputation as a member of the intelligentsia upon the remarks of two witnesses while making no comments regarding the others.
More importantly, the discrepancy in Gerard's and Hereundeen statements have exactly what to do with the price of tea in China. Hello!, is there anyone home? The question was reference a source for Custer's Direct orders , if any. The source is The Reno Inquiry by Graham.
Having totally ignored the premise of the original question, you immediately scrutinize written testimony by two of the witnesses (ignoring the rest)found you inconsistency regarding distance (not content referring to orders)and screamed Eureka! Your responses are similar to a snake who writhes and twist in a frenzied attempt to find an excuse to call something, anything "stupid."
You are right about one thing, adults do ignore that which they do not like, I think I'll start with you. |
| whistlingboy |
Posted - July 16 2005 : 10:55:45 AM
wILD I --
Cavalry is unique because it is 'mounted.' The hostiles are 'cavalry' by design. The terrain dictates such strategy, don't you think. I have not read yet of any officer saying that a whole group of hostiles, by choice, dismounnting to repel an aggressive force of soldiers. I appreciate if you know of some evidence of this happening. Cavalry is most vulnerable, and probably in dire straits, when it dismounts. Standard practice or not I feel Reno invited subjugation when he did that. I know I am alone in my thinking. If his gait is all-out speed then he might have eclipsed the two miles or so because it is difficult to hit a moving target for most and a fast one...well...His force would have had to command more attention by more and more hostiles but they would have probably forced his turn across the MTC. Not saying he would have met Custer 'right there' but (without hindsight) could of then anticipated meeting up with some contingencies of his own color.
There is, of course, confusion on what everyone means by the 'village.' Darling in his book mentions that the hostiles Custer directs Reno to chase were headed to their village not far away. If true, that probably didn't mean the huge encampment they learned about later.
It is suggested by Darling also that Custer trusted Reno with a lot of confidence--that he could handle any situation he came upon. The crux of the problem still seems to boil down, in my thinking, to whether or not Custer, Reno and others knew there was a huge encampment and its exact whereabouts. Custer turning northwest leads me to believe they were still 'scouting.' When Reno runs into trouble, Custer is out of sight; I think he could still hear, faintly, shooting, hollering, etc. He could not turn around fast enough and continued his course which is much rougher than the flat plain Reno is on. He must have seen the smoke and dust rising from the valley floor in the distance to his left up above the rises. Did Custer get a glimpse of Reno in the valley and at what time? If he sees him in skirmish formation, he knows he doesn’t have the time to help him since he would have seen the hordes of hostiles also now inundating his position. Custer probably now hastens his pace to find a low spot across the ‘stream.’
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 11:49:21 PM
1.I don't think it an attack on me, and wouldn't care anyway, and I didn't question your veracity. Here, anyway. I'm questioning a collection of mutually exclusive quotations as to what they might prove in aggregate. Nothing, except call into question the veracity and competence of some of them.
2. An odometer wouldn't solve the issue. You need to compute the hypotenuse of a triangle. Then, you have to explain why Herendeen and Girard are so at odds. You noticed that, right? Otherwise, it looks quite stupid.
3. What erroneous quote? There's no point reading your postings, you don't know what you've said half the time.
4. Your original statement was "What I find astonishing is that Reno swore he never received any orders from Custer." That isn't true, is it Wiggs? If these are quotes in your latest posting, you need to close them off and tell us where you got them. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 11:31:33 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
And what do you make of the mutually exclusive testimony from these guys, Wiggs? How was Benteen to appear on Reno's left in time for the charge just ordered short of a transporter? Herendeen says Custer gave the order no further than a mile a half from the village. How far, actually, was it? It's two miles from the ford to the tip of the Garry Owen loop, the alleged nearest part of the village, and these orders were given further east of the ford. If Custer gave Reno the orders directly, per Girard and Herendeen, why do the others say it came from the adjutant? Somebody's lying. Or, more likely, really confused and unsure which way to pander.
Once again, I am genuinely and completely confused by your response. This is not intended as a reflection upon you, perhaps I'm simply missing something. I quote testimony from the men who were actually engaged in the battle and, as such, described their positions in this conflict and you respond to that testimony by asking me how Benteen could appear on Reno's left short of a transporter by questioning my veracity.
Whistling boy's question: "Do we have a source for Custer's direct order to Major Reno" was extremely appropriate as some students of the battle are not aware that reliable and authentic sources are available. Particularly when one understands that Reno emphatically stated that he was "unaware" of any "plans" from his commander. The quotes I referred to where given by actual participants in the battle who reported their experiences as best as memory or, the lack thereof,would allow.To suggest that non-conformity in reports of time frames of occurrences reported three years after the incident occurred are grounds for mutual exclusiveness is the height of arrogance. Would you have testified better?
D.c.
Further, given that Gerard, page 273 Gray, is quoted at testimony saying Custer told Reno "You will take your battalion and try and bring them to battle and I will support you.......and take the scouts with you," how believable is he? That quote from Gray (Which makes sense and what Reno did. On offense or defense, Reno was obeying that order, if true.) is very different. Gerard says Reno got his orders about a mile from the LBH, which would be FOrd A. The village could therefore be no closer than 2.5 miles and more likely 3, so Herendeen is way off. Girard is offering two tales.
Since Girard did not take an odometer nor a stenographer into battle with him, I prefer to give his testimony the benefit of the doubt. Testimony given three years after the event can be expected to be somewhat cloudy. This is human. To disregard all testimony under such human conditioning as foolish. There is nothing unusual about the time references given by the witnesses. Another thing, coming from a man who insist that we will never know the "facts" of this event why do you now insist that I present facts?
Despite your erroneous quote,I have never intimated,suggested, or desired to "damn"Reno. Peruse every thread I have written and you will find this so. Just once, on a lark, read my threads sans your predisposed mindset of dislike for me,and you would realize this fact to be true. Again, for those who have ears but refuse to hear, holding an individual accountable for his actions is not an act of damnation;it is responsibility.
D.c.
And what were Reno's exact words? You say that he said he never received orders from Custer? How odd. Page 275 Gray, he recounts under oath receiving the orders from the adjutant, conforming to Porter, more or less. Where does Reno say this did not happen? Of course, Reno grasps the concept of a flank attack, but when in the valley and seeing the bluffs unbroken for a long ways, he can be forgiven for assuming that Custer would have to support from his rear.
Reno: "At the time I was in the timber I had not the remotest idea where either the pack train or Benteen's column were. There was no plan communicated to us; if one existed the subordinate commanders(all officers ranked below Custer) did not know of it."
Reno: "The only expectation of support I had from the order I received (not from Custer but Cook) was from the rear. When I say no plan was communicated to us I mean to the regiment. I do not think there was any plan. An attack on the flank would not have been a support under the circumstances. Reno received definitive orders despite his assertion that he did not.quote] |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 6:07:26 PM
I've been told that the quote in SOTMS is in Stewart, so I'll dig it out and see where he got it. If from a different Camp/Curley exchange, the point about translators is pretty well made. Again.
And who were Camp's translators? Did he speak Crow and Sioux as well? And how can these various translations, whoever made them, be explained, saying as they do different things? |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 5:23:04 PM
Fair enough, Benteen. I don't hold Gray above all others. I was just offering up some info and where it could be found. Upon looking at Gray's pages, it said Bouyer was unhorsed (but not wounded). So who knows.
But Curley himself seems to have pointed at this being near the Finley marker. That he departed when they were in that area. |
| Benteen |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 4:35:07 PM
whistlingboy ~ quote:
The destruction of the family unit is a pet peeve of mine and I do not wish to cater to the 'new' ideas, which, in my humble opinion, lay no foundation. I'm sure your way will work for you without my agreement and I too feel sorry for you.
I am not part of any new age movement. And the solution that I proposed to you was that your son, "love" his wife family. And that from this, he would instinctively know what to do. What's so "new age" about that?
Someone said this, I'm sorry I didn't get the name:
quote:
Custer would have had to ride along the stream in order for Reno to see him. On top of the ridge wouldn't have made any sense to him, I don't think, because of being in plain view.
One thing about this kind of bothers me. At some point in that conflict. Some of Reno's men saw Custer crossing sharpshooter ridge, or thereabouts. I'm not picky on this, ok? Anyway. Wouldn't it be prudent at some point for Reno's men to tell him this? And was it possible that Reno saw Custer himself ~ up on the ridge?
El Crab: quote:
It appears Bouyer chose to stay, possibly due to an early wounding. Now, this brings me to Curley, who said Bouyer was wounded and unhorsed around Finley/Calhoun when he finally got Curley to leave. It used to be, as it has been mentioned in new works on the battle, that Curley was discounted. And even now, those that think his accounts were genuine and accurate have a small problem: Curley says a wounded Bouyer told him to leave, that the command was looking for a place to make a stand. The verbiage that is used seems fatalistic, that the command was doomed and was trying to un-doom itself. I've always thought that didn't fit with the idea of Custer moving freely about with the left wing, going to a possible northern ford, light firing, etc. But I never took the context of it all into thought.....And that, my friends, is how I think Bouyer's belief in impending doom AND Curley's miraculous escape fit into a beginning phase of Custer's battle. A phase that does not seem to be a time of impending
Please don't get me wrong, okay. I like Gray, and I think he's done alot to help us understand the battle. But, one of the grey area's in this is Curley's statments. Trying to place Curley at a definite location by what Bouyer was saying, isn't all that difficult. I don't believe that this event happened anywhere near Calhoun hill! The statement could only have been made later, either right before the attempt at Ford D, or right after. I would place this somewhere near the flats. If Bouyer was wounded then it probably occured after! After the failed Ford D skirmish, and during the time that ~ that part of Custer's battalion briefly halted at or near The Flats. In a way this makes sense to me. Bouyer is wounded at Ford D, they fall back, and while Custer waits, Bouyer tells Curley to leave! Now then, Bouyers body is found not too far away. In Deep ravine. I never did believe that those soldiers who were found in Deep Ravine went there from Custer Hill. This episode is a description of events from the flats area. A possible diversion or screen, while the others made their way to Custer Hill. And Bouyer is one of the participants. I can't see Bouyer travelling that far with a wound and then back again. That just doesn't make sense. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 09:52:33 AM
I'll be damned. Never noticed that about the stand, that I recall. I'm sure, though, there is a quote saying Boyeur pointed at Custer and said "This man...." is going to take them into the village and they had no hope at all. I'll have to dig that up. Quite different in attitude and I'll bet an earlier interview: one offense to the max, one defense to the last.
Ah! Also easy to find, but unsourced (joy). Page 314, SOTMS. I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere and will try to turn it up. But that was never contested, so I'd be surprised in Connell got that wrong. Forget who researched for him. |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 12:51:03 AM
DC et al.
Custer's Last Campaign, p. 369-382 concerns Curley's accounts and mentions what I was referring to. That was easy. |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 12:47:49 AM
I don't understand the not being able to turn around thing. Custer had been commanding brigades and divisions, and clearly showed competence in maneuvering such large forces of cavalry. Somehow, I'm supposed to believe that a coulee that the soldiers weren't even riding in prevented them from being able to turn around. Or the terrain in general was not agreeable with turning around and heading south. I don't buy it. We're talking 5 companies of 40-45 men each.
I'll have to check which books have the Curley/Bouyer on/around Calhoun Hill conversation. But essentially, here's what I gathered:
Curley and Bouyer are on Weir Point. At some point, Bouyer tells Curley to leave, that Custer will stop at nothing/will not stop/etc.
Curley does not leave.
Bouyer comes back from a meeting after the command is on/around Calhoun Hill, tells Curley to leave now, the command is doomed and Custer is looking for a place to make a stand and hope for the rest of the regiment to come up.
Now, I don't think that's quite the truth, as I said before. Because it seems that Custer wasn't in a defensive state of mind at the time, and the situation does not appear to be dire. So anything Curley says Bouyer said was either A) Bouyer's pessimism; B) Bouyer's persuasion; or C) Curley's excuse. Meaning either Bouyer thought they were doomed even if Custer was still thinking offensively and spoke to Curley with that in mind, or Bouyer was gilding the lily to convince Curley, who already passed on a chance to leave, to finally get the hell out. Or, as DC theorizes, Curley embellished the reasoning to show he got out because they were in trouble and he was told to get out. That maybe so, but the scouts were not expected to fight, and the other Crows were released and actually left. Curley seemed to be attached to staying with Bouyer.
As for the animosity, I think there's something behind that. Custer and Bouyer seemed to have some problems, but nothing major. They had a working relationship. There was the Crow's Nest exchange, which went something like:
Custer: I don't see this village you say is there.
Bouyer: If there's not the largest gathering of Indians ever in the valley below, you can hang me.
Custer: It'd be good sight to see you hanged.
Nothing more than banter. But I think the fact that Bouyer died with Custer's battalion, rather than leaving when he was allowed to, says it all. He couldn't have hated Custer THAT much if he was willing to fight when he didn't have to. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 11:39:39 PM
I feel obligated to point out that the only source we have for that Boyeur statement is one of Curley's translators. Whoever he/she was. Curley was, we're told, 17, which is presented as a mere boy, and we all have read that this a perfectly acceptable age for a young warrior, and surely many Sioux and Cheyenne were in that group. But Curley rode off, and it sure helps that Boyeur had told him to go so he isn't called a coward. Also, what I've read is that Boyeur told Curley Custer was going to take them into the village, and that they had no chance at all. Where is he quoted as saying Custer wanted to "make a stand?"
Further, where in the world did this bizarre notion of animosity between Boyeur and Custer arise? Gray wrote an entire book on them and failed to note it. Custer brought back presents and jewelry for Bloody Knife, and clearly liked him, else why would he keep an scout prone to drink and laugh at Custer's shooting skills around? And why in the world couldn't Custer turn around at various stages? |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 10:56:41 PM
It appears Bouyer chose to stay, possibly due to an early wounding. Now, this brings me to Curley, who said Bouyer was wounded and unhorsed around Finley/Calhoun when he finally got Curley to leave. It used to be, as it has been mentioned in new works on the battle, that Curley was discounted. And even now, those that think his accounts were genuine and accurate have a small problem: Curley says a wounded Bouyer told him to leave, that the command was looking for a place to make a stand. The verbiage that is used seems fatalistic, that the command was doomed and was trying to un-doom itself. I've always thought that didn't fit with the idea of Custer moving freely about with the left wing, going to a possible northern ford, light firing, etc. But I never took the context of it all into thought.
Bouyer was under the impression that Custer was going to get them all killed. No matter what Custer was planning, Bouyer believed they were doomed. So even if the situation wasn't dire and Custer was in control and preparing to move north, Bouyer was certain they were dead men. So he told Curley so much, and to get out while he still could.
Also, if Custer was looking for a place to make a stand and the situation was dire, Curley would have had trouble getting out. Hence the stories. Curley was able to ride away with ease, I believe. But since Custer's battalion was wiped out, Curley HAD to have escaped miraculously, through the constricting hordes. Thus, the escape stories.
And that, my friends, is how I think Bouyer's belief in impending doom AND Curley's miraculous escape fit into a beginning phase of Custer's battle. A phase that does not seem to be a time of impending doom. |
| Heavyrunner |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 8:20:30 PM
MRW,
As I now recall, you're right that there was a strong relationship between Bloody Knife and Custer. Whether it was close or grudging, I'm not sure. I seem to remember that Custer also was prone to some cruel tricks or humor regarding Bloody Knife. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 7:55:20 PM
Bob--
You bring up an interesting point. Hatred between Custer and Bouyer ...? Hadn't they been together but three days? As for Bloody Knife, I thought Custer had the stronger relationship with him. |
|
|
