| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Benteen |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 12:51:50 PM
I have always wondered about this. It seems no small point when considering Benteen's accused slowness. As some attribute to him. In examining Gray's analysis of it. He times Reno's stop there with his men at 20 minutes. Should we expect then that Benteen's would have been the same? And most certainly no less! Given that the number of horses to be watered, would or should have been expected to have been about the same?
The other concern here is Reno creek or whatever one wishes to call it. Was it a flowing stream that day, or not? If it wasn't then was this so called morass, spring fed? And if that's the case is it still there today? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 30 2005 : 9:50:21 PM
We are always intrigued by things that have no answer. The enigma of this battle will never be solved; it is unsolvable. It is for this specific reason that our interest in this battle is so peaked. How else does one explain the utter fascination for every aspect of this battle which has no substantial relevance to our history at all. This battle did not define the end of the Indian way of life, it had already been destroyed. It did not define the limits of Manifest Destiny, it did not establish foreign policy. Relatively speaking, it was an insignificant military engagement in which the U.S. loss. Yet, here we all are, ranting and raving over every aspect of this battle. Guess what? A hundred years from now we will continue to do so. Go figure. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - July 27 2005 : 12:24:59 AM
All--
I don't understand from where all this frustration has blossomed. Let me put forth that none of us are 'experts.' That said, I haven't a problem with Benteen's bravery or ability (especially proven in the Trans-Mississippi theatre)whilst at LBH. Yes, on the Entrenchment site, he operated injured, though not particularly so ... and they lived until Terry showed up.
When one says "Custer's entire battalion" was repulsed or turned back at MTC, then you are saying EVERY company was involved in the feint or attack. Call me silly, but I have been under the belief that L and at least, I companies were held back, under Keough's direct command. Had Custer divided his battalion one too many times? Perhaps ... naah, probably. But there problems waay before that.
Granted, I've only started on Gray and, since 2003, have studied just Bruce Trinque's modified timeline ...
Not all of us will agree on who should be faulted for what on June 25, 1876--but that fact should not corrupt frank discussions, be they pro- or anti-Custer.
Regards,
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 26 2005 : 10:16:14 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Warlord
Benteen: On some further consideration!
Custer's whole battalion may not have been driven back from MTC! some rather educated people suggest he made a feign that way and tried to cross further down!
Benteen had some real personality problems which may have included lying! Nevertheless, when working in command on Reno Entrenchment he commanded his troops about as well as any officer fighting quite brilliantly, most agree!
Lastly, Reno did not charge the wrong way! Once you do the real studying on the combat situation he faced (read several accounts carefully), he charged a line of Indians who had surrounded him in order to break through to get to the river and a defensive position on the bluffs! So you see, he did not charge the wrong way!
Undoubtedly, Benteen was as stalwart and courageous a soldier as one can imagine. His abilities are justly illustrated by his Civil War record and, his military actions on Reno's bluff as well. That Benteen detested Custer is beyond doubt. Would Benteen have knowingly deserted Custer's command to their deaths because of his intense dislike;absolutely not! Believing he had done all that he could do, Benteen was honest and above board regarding what occurred during correspondence and statements immediately after the battle.
Only when a logical explanation was demanded to explain how a group of "savages" could defeat the elite "7th.", when American society demanded that a scapegoat be sacrificed to appease the rampant accusations of Malfeasance of Duty, when every action of every commander and soldier was unfairly scrutinized,in hindsight, did Benteen resort to, as Paul stated, "Lying."
He was hurt and crushed by the naysayers who suggested that he deserted Custer. This hurt slowly evolved into a genuine hatred for the man whom, Benteen believe, rushed into a situation that called for discretion. Benteen's ire was based upon an often overlooked, but decidedly, important factor. Having received orders to scout the southern end of THE valley (definite article) for Indians, Benteen failed to send a fast courier to Custer advising him that the south was free. This critical information would have encouraged Custer to maintain a concentrated command rather than split his forces as he did. This non-malicious oversight(he believed that no Indians were in the area)resulted in an Albatross of Infamy upon his shoulders. Only later, when sages began to question this act did he resort to reporting that he was sent to find "A" valley, an indefinite article. A valley among hundreds. Rather than admit he may have not followed a direct order(under unjust pressure) he transformed the order into one fraught with ambiguity and unclarity. Was this not a human reaction? Rightly or wrongly, I think so.
Reno's approach was exactly where Custer ordered him to go. The problem was that he did not complete the charge as requested by his commanding officer. Should he have charged further? Those who were not with him scream a resounding, " yes"! Those who were with him (facing acute danger) scream, "Hell No"! /quote] |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 26 2005 : 4:20:33 PM
Right. But where does Gray say Reno watered at the morass? |
| Benteen |
Posted - July 26 2005 : 2:49:25 PM
Detractor's aside. It was an inherint wish that I could gather information here. Posting another question to answer mine. Isn't exactly what I expected. I didn't come here to seek your support of, for or for that matter, against Benteen. Nor for that matter argue a point by point bias with you nor anyone else. Been there done that!
As far as I am concerned this battle happened just the way it was written over 125 years ago (period)!!! Custer went down MTC to MTF and him and his entire battalion was driven back from MTF to Custer Hill. There does that satisfy your longing for a statement from me about this! Benteen was a paltroon, puscillaneos sob who didn't know his back side from a hole in the ground and Reno charged the wrong way! Everyone is in agreement and accord, right? And there is nothing new under the sun.
As with most site's that discuss this kind of thing. You have people that just can't see past their own preconcieved notions of right and wrong! And harbor prejudices that go far beyond their cherished notions. Unfortunatly, from my experience any way it is the people, who like me. Who want to find the right answers. And sadly they are no longer there. And what is left after we leave these sites, is total agreement on nearly every issue. I guess there is nothing else to discuss, right?
I come not to offer any discord and disagreement, but research, and I get this! My view has been clearly stated above for all to see. And if you really care to find out the truth. See my new thread. Scratch your head and a few other places for all I care. Berate it, denouce it, flaunt your stuff! But as Nixon once said, "You won't have me to kick around anymore!" |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 26 2005 : 12:23:35 PM
Where are you seeing Reno at the morass? He watered at the LBH.
Gray does provide the relationship you require, provided we/he knows what Benteen's exact route was. And actually, Benteen's command was in three parts: Gibson riding ahead, Benteen with his 'headquarters', and the rest. Benteen apparently got ahead of both at some point and Gibson went decidedly further to the LBH. So when people talk about Benteen's distance, to what do they refer? Because there could a significant difference. None of his officers contradicted Benteen at that time or later, and none felt they were deliberately delaying. |
| Benteen |
Posted - July 25 2005 : 12:30:04 PM
erm...back on topic, I hope?
Wild1
quote:
Benteen had long departed the morass when Cooke's message arrived.So the halt at the morass cannot be used to convict Benteen of tardyness.
Just looking at a map in LBH 1876.It shows the position of the morass and states "3.02 pm Benteen delays at Morass."The use of the word delaycan only be used if it is assumed that Benteen knew that Custer was up s***s creek without a paddle.
Wild, while I most certainly agree that the timing to these events are critical to our understanding. I don't always believe the times that others put out. Especially when it comes to the timing of Custer's men after they pass Weir point. While Gray's analysis is certainly, I think, the best we have. Even I don't always agree with him when it comes to circumstances like these. I don't know where you get the 3.02pm time, but someone musta skipped about an hour! Could it have happened? I think so. I've done it, haven't you. Haven't we all at one time or another looked at a watch or clock, epecially w/o numbers and misread it? This theory seems to "jive" if you will with the known facts, as Benteen and his men arrived what? Ten to fifteen minutes later at 4:15 to 4:20?
The other thing is this. Could a realistic estimate of the morass's size be acquired? I think so. Because while we may not know it's location or actual size in terms of volume/location. We can know it's size in terms of comparing Reno's tenure there with Benteen's. According to Gray it took about 20 minutes for Reno's horses to water there. So... if Benteen's number of horses were similar, it should have taken about the same time, ie. 20 minutes, or anywhere from 4 to 6 horses watering per minute. And that doesn't take into account the one's that could take longer!
What I am looking for is a total event/time relationship from the time Benteen left on his 'wild goose chase' as some have put it, to the time when he actually arrived on Reno Hill. And from this hopefully extract an accurate portrayal of what happened. Not just some generalization that say's "he was too slow", or a rebuttal of same.
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 22 2005 : 10:30:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Sorry for the typo.
A few posts ago you made reference to an assumption that others may find you "cruel" for your continuous, negative remarks against me. I honestly do not believe that a single forum member finds you to be "cruel" for your philosophical stance regarding your opinion of me. After all, every man and woman is entitled to his or her opinion. However, I must admit that the only point of your contention against me wherein I take umbrage upon is that you have assumed that that your actions have caused "pain and suffering;pitiless" at my expense. Do you truly believe, as your statement indicates, that I give a rat's ass what you think about me? If so, you have serious problems that need be attended to.
Yes, you are correct. You did not capitalize "God", you "uncapitalized" it. Does this factor render your gross remarks any less gruesome? Finally, why is it that every time you make a mistake, and there are many, it is merely a "typo" while others,like me, are charged by you violating all ten of the Commandments? |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - July 22 2005 : 11:45:56 AM
I will agree that Custeriana is a great way of looking at and reflecting upon humanity's foibles--it's kind of like going to the airport to people watch but not having to pay for parking. And yep, there's all kinds out there .... |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 22 2005 : 10:15:23 AM
Alas. My tough luck, it seems. The visage has been plucked from public view, and I can't hold down lunch reading the postings seeking examples.
I have no questions about/for the LBHA message boards at all, but thank you for answering the unasked question of, apparently, someone else. You said an individual footnoted his postings and that this habit should also appear over at this board. I can find no examples of these footnotes, so I asked.
Despite your condemnation, I don't use Ward Churchill to damn footnotes. I use him to demonstrate he discovered a lot of people (in and out of academia) don't read footnotes at all and assume their existence means substance. I live among footnotes and - golly gee - see their role. But as Custerland inspires people to suddenly discover they were once soldiers, or if soldiers suddenly to discover they were in life and death combat, it also - being the UFO/Area 51 of 19th century western history - attracts those who pretend to what they are not. Custerologists, like UFOlogists, deserve scorn till proven otherwise.
I've made no academic or military claims about myself. Others, hard to say who, have, and when this sore subject arises, they react in a huff. La Warlord, for example, considers you a historian. I thought your degree was in art history, or did I miss something? |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - July 20 2005 : 12:41:35 PM
True, Warlord. In the realm of cyberspace, it does seem that footnotes, when used on a bulletion board such as these, all get rendered as endnotes, due to the average side of the post. However, I do appreciate it when people notate their sources with page number, etc. The poster to which I refer not only does that but also provides the information that one would usually find in a bibliographical section (publishing co, date, etc.,)--talk about going beyond the call of duty!
For the Civil War, read "Custer Victorious" by Urwin. It is a bit over the top when it comes to saluting the heroic Autie, but until someone writes something else, it is the best study limited to Custer's Union army career and battles.
Granted, this has nothing to do with the morass.
Hoka hey! |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - July 20 2005 : 12:33:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I did. They seem to be gone or he removed his avatar. In any case, if someone finds an actual footnote over there not included in a quote, which is to say offered by the poster, please point it out if you have time. Which user name are you using today over there, MRW?
Tough luck, then. I post and have always posted under one name there--just like I have here. It is relatively easy to identify similar writing styles, as you so often point out. And if it isn't, I'm sure there is a way to trace ISPs. Not that it's any of your business.
If you have concerns about source material on the LBHA board and the use of such, I'd take them to the members of the board--ON their board. You don't have to be a member of the organisation to post there. Diane Merkel would be happy to answer your questions. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 20 2005 : 11:55:30 AM
I did. They seem to be gone or he removed his avatar. In any case, if someone finds an actual footnote over there not included in a quote, which is to say offered by the poster, please point it out if you have time. Which user name are you using today over there, MRW?
|
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - July 20 2005 : 11:24:38 AM
DC--
You are completely hopeless and have no obvious interest in taking a scholarly approach to the Custer/LBH situation. Notations (uhh, that would be the accurate noting of pre-existing source material)--be they end or footnotes--are just one of those darn standards accepted for true "scholarship." By assuming that one--granted, infamous--professor uses footnotes to make his papers look impressive, you cast a pall on the entire community of people who spend the better parts of their lives in research and as a result, publish in the scholarly arena. I'm not about to argue with you about a process in which you have no apparent knowledge or interest.
As for finding your LBHA target's posts, figure them out yourself. The LBHA board comes with easy-to-read directions. Follow them. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 20 2005 : 10:26:42 AM
Sorry for the typo.
Glad the guy has been helpful. So what, though?
Footnotes excite you, do they? Ward Churchill uses a lot of them, and they often say the opposite of what he thinks they do, but he can count of people not noticing and being impressed with quantity and not accuracy. So long as sources are noted, whether footnote or endnote or hyperlink or simple notation, it doesn't matter on a message board, does it? You use lots of footnotes on message boards?
I went to see if I could find an example of this guy's footnotes, but I cannot find his postings at all, at least with that heroic photo (Thoughts of Thoughts of Libby?). Could you provide a link to an example of his footnotes? Not endnotes, not references, but footnotes? |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - July 20 2005 : 10:07:28 AM
DC--
That is uncapitalized ... not "uncaptitalized." I do have a tendency to agree that some philes go a bit (?) too far when it comes to the love of Custer, but the poster to whom you are referring at the LBHA boards has been very helpful to me. His posts (despite the posed photo) always come well-footnoted (footnoted!); that's something I see rarely around these parts.
Hoka hey! |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 20 2005 : 07:47:48 AM
Impressive. As informed as you are courageous, Wiggs. No doubt, a robust petting will result. Meanwhile, learn to distinguish between the capitalized and uncaptitalized, since you falsely quote me as capitalizing god. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 19 2005 : 10:17:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
It's not very important, actually; there's no evidence that Benteen did anything wrong or inappropriate. Wild's summation is correct; only later did it become necessary to have a godlike memory of the diorama of the LBH, and the crappy map of Terry's guy Maguire did not help. It would be refreshing if someone, anyone, answered a question on the stand with "I haven't the slightest idea, it all runs together in my mind, being three years after the fact and having seen a lot of land that looks the same." Instead, we're to believe they recall exactly. Nonsense.
More than anything, Custerphiles want to prevent their idol (which, if you can stand to read the lbha message boards, some think they can channel under their various user names, and one of whom now offers himself as a variant of GAC and graciously affords the world a posed view of himself....) from anything approaching an objective consideration. By keeping attention on Benteen's motivations - and they would more likely be the exact opposite of what Custerphiles claim, since saving Custer would be better for Benteen than not - and Reno's supposed cowardice they cast an aura of 'yes, but' around any criticism of their god, while seeming superficially reasonable. They're not, though.
O.k., all kidding aside. I can not believe that I am the only forum member who is completely sickened by this unsubstantiated,obnoxious, sanctimonious, and sacrilegious reference to Custer as "their God". "Their" being who? There is not a human being on this earth who would consider a dead, Civil War General,and unsuccessful Indian fighter as a God. So, to whom are you referring to? Name the member(s) of this forum who worship Custer as God! Give them an opportunity to defend themselves before you condemn them to damnation and eternal hell. What you can't name anybody? You mean you can not identify one of "their." Then stick to facts and leave your delusions aside.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 19 2005 : 3:03:25 PM
Again: we don't know the exact site of the morass, only the written descriptions provide a general area. We don't know the size of the morass, and how many horses could water at one time. Being a morass, it could evaporate in a week of hot weather. We don't know how decades of cattle padding around has changed the ground, so while it's a reasonable assumption that the morass was located where current ones are, it isn't proof beyond what officers then described.
Here we see a reasonable belief issued by a someone of regard being cemented as fact. No current photo can be said to be of THE morass.
It's not very important, actually; there's no evidence that Benteen did anything wrong or inappropriate. Wild's summation is correct; only later did it become necessary to have a godlike memory of the diorama of the LBH, and the crappy map of Terry's guy Maguire did not help. It would be refreshing if someone, anyone, answered a question on the stand with "I haven't the slightest idea, it all runs together in my mind, being three years after the fact and having seen a lot of land that looks the same." Instead, we're to believe they recall exactly. Nonsense.
More than anything, Custerphiles want to prevent their idol (which, if you can stand to read the lbha message boards, some think they can channel under their various user names, and one of whom now offers himself as a variant of GAC and graciously affords the world a posed view of himself....) from anything approaching an objective consideration. By keeping attention on Benteen's motivations - and they would more likely be the exact opposite of what Custerphiles claim, since saving Custer would be better for Benteen than not - and Reno's supposed cowardice they cast an aura of 'yes, but' around any criticism of their god, while seeming superficially reasonable. They're not, though. |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 19 2005 : 05:16:31 AM
It should be remembered that the morass and the other natural features such as the coulees, ravines and fords would have been of little significance until after 5pm on the day.The officers had no detailed maps,the features were unnamed,one ravine was just like another why pay any attention to it?Witness statements were based on memory of time and location,hoplessly unreliabely if not aided by maps and timed navigation.
Benteen
It seems no small point when considering Benteen's accused slowness.
Benteen had long departed the morass when Cooke's message arrived.So the halt at the morass cannot be used to convict Benteen of tardyness.
Just looking at a map in LBH 1876.It shows the position of the morass and states "3.02 pm Benteen delays at Morass."The use of the word delaycan only be used if it is assumed that Benteen knew that Custer was up s***s creek without a paddle. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 10:30:12 PM
El Crab and MovingrobeWoman, your contributions (photographs and actual visitation regarding the "Morass") and, your unselfish contributions of this information to the forum is the very reason why your efforts are always greatly appreciated. Both of your point of references contribute much to the understanding of the enigma of this battle. I have visited the battlefield twice. My first time as a typical tourist who believed that I had some idea as to what occurred. I was wrong. I returned on a second trip, much smarter and better equipped to conquer the truth as to what occurred during this battle. To my dismay, I left the field still a verified idiot. Years later, after reading and consuming much information, I have began to feel a sense of maybe, just maybe I may be blessed in unlocking a few minor mysteries of this battle. If I succeed in doing so, I will acknowledge such information, as you have served, as the catalysis to any personal discovery.
Unselfish,informational contributions to this forum, such as yours, exemplify the best in human character. This is why I am eternally thankful to forum contributors such as you and,(there are many worthy members)I consider myself to be a lucky guy, indeed, to be a part of this wonderful group. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 9:55:34 PM
I'll bet. Never done it. |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 8:38:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I don't know, but I'd imagine cattle have created and moved morass areas through the years.
Who knows. But it was in the general area that Gray stated. IIRC, the pic is of what Rich Fox believes is the approximate location, and his brother Dennis pointed out the other one as his candidate. Or maybe I'm mixing up the lone tepee village location. I don't remember.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
If Reno Creek is to our right, aren't you on the opposite side of the creek from the LT site?
I was looking at a different picture when I wrote that. We were on the left side of Reno Creek. We could not get to that side, so I took pix of the whole area. Plus, its possible the previous village was on both sides. The lone tepee is what's remembered, but it was a campsite. I may check with Fox on that point.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
There seem to be three rises in the distance. I assume the middle, softer mound is closer and not part of the Reno Hill area.
It is not closer. It is part of the Reno Hill complex. I have several zoomed pictures that show the top of the Reno/Benteen monument and the tops of cars in the parking lot. Right smack-dab in the middle of those two mounds. And it was pointed out to us that that was Reno Hill. Hence, my reasoning for taking grainy, zoomed pix of some mounds on the distant horizon.
It was really eye-opening to see things like the Reno/Benteen entrenchment site and Custer's field from new vantage points. Of course, they were all knew to me, but all the pix I'd seen were from the LBH valley. Seeing the sites from the path to the LBH that Custer took and from the bluffs west of the village site was rather cool. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 5:27:28 PM
The Reno Creek Road (south fork) provides a frontage kind of thing and is accessible from both the LBH battlefield exit and the Garryowen exit on I-90. Most folks use this road to get to the Real Birds' battle reenactment site, just below MTC. The road then diverges from the shadow of the freeway and meanders south and towards the Crow's Nest. Bring a high-clearance vehicle should you want to explore.
Whilst we are exploring some topographic elements of the battle (if not the battlefield), can I have a firm clarification of the following:
'Ford A:' Site of Reno's original crossing of the LBH River?
'Ford B:' MTC (perhaps in this case it would be MTF)?
'Ford C:' Squaw Creek (below Cemetary Ravine)?
'Ford D:' Various locales, now considered to be around the railroad bridge near the I-90, Rt. 212 intersection?
Regards, |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 4:45:24 PM
I don't know, but I'd imagine cattle have created and moved morass areas through the years.
If Reno Creek is to our right, aren't you on the opposite side of the creek from the LT site?
There seem to be three rises in the distance. I assume the middle, softer mound is closer and not part of the Reno Hill area. |
|
|
