| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 16 2005 : 11:47:52 PM
...and bringing the Poll thread direction here.
Whistling Boy ignores the time line. But first.....
A soldier's duty is not to pointlessly die in combat for the sake of dying in combat but to effectively complete his mission. Isn't that correct? Patton thought so. So do most generals. Where do you read different? Where were you trained different? So, when did the 7th's mission become Saving General Custer Who Most Likely Had Left Us and Gone North to Terry Having Not Done What He Said He Would And Risking the Entire Regiment? After all, he'd deserted the regiment before, and left men to the enemy before after that courtsmartial. Not an irrational assumption on Reno's part.
Again. In the one hour between Reno starting his charge and Custer starting his feint/attack/line dance, at 16mph how many times could Reno have run back and forth between the ends of the village? How many soldiers would he have at the termination of his first run through? One hundred thirty men in the middle of a village of how many? With all those supposed repeaters? And everyone above the age of eight can shoot an arrow pretty well. All those attractive horses providing motivation? Come on. Time it out.
Dr. Porter is given reverential treatment, although for no particular reason other than his tale is conducive to Custerphiles. You point out that Reno had a significant number of Indians in his rear (wake) and should continue into a village of thousands already surrounded when we know now - as Stewart did not forty years before Gray's work - that Custer was nowhere near able to give support to Reno, whatever difference that would have made.
You negelect to point out that everyone with Reno in Stewart's book agrees that after the skirmish line is formed, hundreds of Sioux suddenly appear in attack, which tends to support those who say there were significant numbers ahead. People saw what they recalled they saw, and there is no glaring discrepancies in their tales. You find such variations in all these battle tales, including the Rosebud earlier. It denotes nada about the veracity of these guys. It's a battle report. Remember, we named Chicago's airport for Butch O'Hare, who thought he'd sunk a non-existent battleship off Guadalcanal. He probably did think that. Just wasn't true. So we made him a hero because he died and we needed one despite the truth. We make others scapegoats when we need them despite the truth. Ask the Captain of the Indianapolis. Oh, wait. He killed himself.
We know that one or two ran into the village uncontrolled, since this was the fastest some had ever ridden (also in Stewart's book, referencing the Inquest, and a clear illustrative example of the quality of the 7th's training in general which, along with guns they never noticed fouled in such short time frames....)and clearly some weren't up to it. We know that one soldier was killed as they mounted to retreat with a bullet through the throat, then Bloody Knife. So two dead minimal before the retreat started, likely four. Likely more, actually, but there's no proof other than it's so chaotic it's unlikely anybody saw everything.
Reno was not known as a drunk or coward before this event till it was scapegoat time. French and Weir (and Keogh and others....)were, both died from likely booze related problems, yet they are treated as sober woulda been heroes for a lot of talk. For all we know, actually, the story about French clearing the carbines could be becausee he wasn't steady enough himself to shoot after the train came up. Supposedly, when sober he was about the best shot in the regiment, or one of them. Does it strike you as wise to so employ your best shot? Recall, Ryan said he once threw a hissy fit and tossed his new rifle away, which Ryan saved for him, previous to this battle. That's the sort of alcoholic reflex we can recognize: childish tantrum.
And those scouts. Odd it is there are no tales of their daring or great shooting as soon as the train and kegs were up, but they sure resented Reno patrolling the packs. While not heroic, Reno is recalled fighting on the Hill. Weir? The Scouts? It was Ryan who cleared Sharpshooter Ridge, apparently. But only Reno is suspected of drinking......
Absolutely nobody shines, soldier or Indian, in this well documented fiasco. And Benteen's comment that there wasn't enough liquor in the pack train (or Montana) to get anyone drunk on that Hill is worth considering. In the event, regular drinkers deprived of their booze are as likely to think as poorly as those with their normal allotment. You can't make sweeping assertions like this. It's just as likely booze inflames people to attack in ferocity. Perhaps more so.
And I don't think that the Indians knew from shot one to the final clubbing of TWC's cranium what the hell was going on. They were so unglued that, like Reno, they mounted, dismounted their lodges, were terrified of their own men on captured horses and in uniform, sometimes spoke of 'the village' clearly referencing their particular circle and sometimes a larger area, and in any case we have no first person accounts, since they couldn't write and they didn't speak English. And the kicker is they let a regiment of cavalry get that close at all. Little Bighorn was a disaster of a battle and terribly fought by both sides.
In the Bernard booklet, it's cheerfully pointed out that .22 casings have been found on the field. This means that shooting occured on the field well after the battle. If true, it's inconceivable that other shooting didn't occur, unknown and unrecorded. Or, since Bernard says the field and even the Reno garbage dump was clearly picked over in the years immediately after the battle, maybe the salting tales are true if casings disappeared so quickly before significant numbers of tourists arrived. Whatever. The casings on the field simply cannot be concluded to be evidence, as most do. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 08 2005 : 10:03:18 PM
Unfortunately, your insistence that "Nomadic" people are somehow inferior to other groups is inherently racist and, untrue. People hunt because they must do so to survive. You may remember that this great Country was founded by "people" who hunted to survive. They were called Pilgrims and Puritans. In fact, you and I, are descendants of those very same "machismo" hunters. The only difference being they lived in towns rather than roam the Plains.
Also, the Indian society was very much matriarchal as women of the tribe had rights then that "white" women did not achieve until the twentieth century. I realize that you were not aware of this. There are many things you are not aware of but, it never seems to stop you from inserting your foot into your cavernous mouth. Your reduction of a people's desire to resist unwarranted and unjustified encroachment on their very lives to a "mindset" is interesting. However, it does not warrant further comment.
Finally your erroneous assumption that there is much "unproven Idiocy" discussed on this board exemplifies the essence of you. I assume you are referring to the board's honest attempts to exchange ideas in an open and honest fashion. Only you, my delusional friend, possess the audacity to make such an egocentric statement. What an incredulous/incredible remark! A man of your intellect should not be hampered by folk like us, should you? Perhaps you would feel less stressed if you spent more time on that board of yours that you continuously and assiduously "hawk" with every one of your posts. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - October 08 2005 : 3:03:29 PM
Learn to use the forum code, Wiggs, if you're going to use it at all. Where does the quote "Huh???" arrive from, and who said it in relation to what? And what's your point? And where does the quote staring "This feint...." come from, and what's the point of that? I didn't post it.
There is much unproven idiocy discussed on this board as if fact, though, that volume of postings doesn't increase or decrease a topic's relevance. I've never bought the feint theory, which I doubt originated with Gray but to which he gave much support.
But before that, learn the difference between incredulous and incredible. Yet another case of you having problems with words that sound alike. And yes, like the original Vikings, Huns, Celts and other nomadic family groups of hunters everywhere (its not a race issue, it goes with being nomadic hunters), the tribes of the northern plains were societies of patriarchal warrior machismo, which worked then but looks so ridiculous today within the AIM crowd, who still don't understand that mindset doomed them and its return via their contemporary struttings is not constructive. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 07 2005 : 10:17:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
quote:
And no, Wiggs, I don't really agree. What percentage of Sioux, Crow, and Cheyenne youth didn't fight younger even younger than 17? I'd think zero in a nomadic society of warrior machismo. Who knows how much shooting would seem significant to him, and why would that matter?
In any society that consists of human beings, (and they all consist of human beings) warfare thrust upon the "youth" of a society must have been a horrible experience. To face possible death, under any circumstances, must be the ultimate motivation for abject fear, let alone the inexperienced youth who has yet to understand the cruelty of war. Whether a society is nomadic or stationary, to suggest that an entire race of people were a, "society of warrior machismo" is incredulous. Did you interview every Native American for the last two hundred years to substantiate this statement? Is it possible that your theory includes the false assumption that all "Indians" were born with a lust to be machismo and kill the "white" man as quickly as possible. One can visualize the frontier "wanted posters", Little Chief, 8 years old, 3 ft. tall and weighing 56 lbs. Wanted for felonious assault by usage of a baby rattle.
quote:
And what was the point of this supposed "feint?" To hit and run only annoys them to follow and attack. If so, mission accomplished. But to what end? If you could attack across the river, why not there? Originally, there was an assumption that Custer had fought at MTC, and some thought he made it into the village. Only later did that original thesis vanish.
quote:
This "feint" has been discussed so many times by so many persons on this forum that I am stunned that you found it necessary to ask this question again.
Benteen said few of Company C's horses were found, so either they were shot off their mounts or they lost them to blanket waving while engaged in a line dance that broke and ran. In any case, they didn't shoot them for breastworks. Or being the 7th, they tried and missed.
quote:
Huh???
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 27 2005 : 2:52:35 PM
I've never said the Indians were at fault any more than a white man's honesty, but there is ample reason to distrust translators by intent as well as ability. I've read, it seems to me, a lot of first hand accounts of various battles and they are generally united by mutual exclusion, and sometimes it's hard to believe they're talking about the same thing although you know they're telling it as they remember it. This was brought home to me by the My Lai investigation of the Army, and they assigned their most decorated Viet Vet to oversee it, and he started out by saying that the first thing soldiers do after action is get the story straight about what happened. Excessive concordance isn't proof of truth but highly suspicious. After twenty or sixty years of two diverse stories being told in the same peer group about the same incident, they'd probably start to meld together into one coherent tale.
I think the warriors who dressed as soldiers have appeared in some stories as actual soldiers, and I think people without the verbal grammar to flense time as precisely as we do in English are at risk for having their stories amended by error and intent without actually mistranslation. |
| Smcf |
Posted - September 27 2005 : 06:59:51 AM
DC,
I take your general point. However, some of these accounts were repeated over time to different translators and researchers. In the case of references to pack trains, its just as likely that neither the Indian accounts nor the translations were at fault, rather the interpretation placed on the translation by the researcher. I can't really make a great case to argue here, though.
What's interesting to me is that the MTC accounts I referred to go against the accepted theory of events at the time, and from White interpretation of the scene. However, they are in concordance with the evidence as described at the scene, and with each other. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 26 2005 : 1:04:17 PM
SMCF,
See, I can't call the stories we have from the Indians "testimony", because it was translated and even then we're not sure how accurately. On another thread we talked about this testimony, where Indians chatting about the Reno field conflated time and had the train arriving as Reno got to the top and Custer charging and all sorts of things that could not remotely be. And there were all sorts of assumptions made about what units the Indians were actually talking about, and these stories were just assinged to convenient white theories.
And no, Wiggs, I don't really agree. What percentage of Sioux, Crow, and Cheyenne youth didn't fight younger even younger than 17? I'd think zero in a nomadic society of warrior machismo. Who knows how much shooting would seem significant to him, and why would that matter?
And what was the point of this supposed "feint?" To hit and run only annoys them to follow and attack. If so, mission accomplished. But to what end? If you could attack across the river, why not there? Originally, there was an assumption that Custer had fought at MTC, and some thought he made it into the village. Only later did that original thesis vanish.
Benteen said few of Company C's horses were found, so either they were shot off their mounts or they lost them to blanket waving while engaged in a line dance that broke and ran. In any case, they didn't shoot them for breastworks. Or being the 7th, they tried and missed. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 24 2005 : 2:44:05 PM
As mentioned, we may never know. However, the sources you commented upon agree, in general, that no major engagement occurred there. If one, for one reason or another, wishes to disregard Indian testimony that clearly states that no major battle occurred, then we must refer to "White" testimony. I can find no trooper who contends that they, shortly after the battle,observed significant signs of battle at the ford. No bodies, mounts, or equipment strewn about.
I also believe that archaeological digs, at the ford, discovered a dearth shell castings.
Curley's testimony was interesting in that he testified, "only the front part of the column fired."(Gray p.364). Taking this statement at face value, I believe he witnessed a "feint" by a small portion of the command. Curley was only seventeen years old. At such a tender age, any shooting would be deemed significant to him, don't you think? |
| Smcf |
Posted - September 23 2005 : 12:04:59 PM
Bodies without craniums I'd imagine would count, I'm aware of one story mentioning a beheading on the Custer field. Its not even the count which particularly interests me, its the correlation of the Reno testimony, the roster details and the independent statements of the Indians whose stories match at MTC and which are at odds with the stories of White Cow Bull and Curley ... just to clarify where I'm coming from here. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 22 2005 : 9:02:24 PM
In the event, would these hushed moments on Reno Hill in the present listening to volleys from the NC relate in any way to being surrounded by seven companies of annoyed soldiers, horses, screaming wounded, and those mules in the distance? This is the sort of the excessive and irrelevant precision substituting for point and probability with which Custerland is full. Reno said he heard firing. He said he didn't hear volleys. Those sitting further north with less ambient noise didn't agree whether there were volleys or not. In any case, how is a volley indicating distress to be distinguished from a volley indicating else, or just a cluster of firing?
Again, how many horses did Reno have left? What percent of his force was there on the hill, able to ride to the offensive, on horseback?
And, at what point would any supposed obligation to rescue Custer be curtailed by time and events? If Custer had gone on to Terry, as so many thought and as Custer had, by previous actions, indicated was a move well within his ethics, the people who complain about Reno would still be dumping on him for being so naive. |
| Billybob_tnt |
Posted - September 22 2005 : 6:58:01 PM
In Nightengale's article for Wild West Magazine titled “Little Bighorn Cover-up?” he states that a "task force of experts” concluded that tests, conducted in 1994-95, indicated, “that it was unlikely the gunfire heard on Reno Hill originated from Custer Hill.” Many have stood on Reno hill and heard the volleys of shots fired at the National Cemetery during military burials, just a short hundred yard or so further North West. If heavy fighting, especially coordinated volley, was taking place on last stand hill it would not have been a problem for Reno to hear it.
A bronze marker at the site of last stand hill gives the number killed at 220 Soldiers, Scouts and civilians.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 22 2005 : 12:13:54 PM
I keep reading 210, but who knows? You have the heads/bodies found in the village with the pots, you have bodies that were not found at all till later like the one found by the Reno crossing, and the supposed guys found around the West who supposedly escaped. The actual rosters were lost on their sergeants, I'd thought. Are there mentions of bodies without applicable craniums found? Didn't read that, but could be true, I guess. Given the obvious lies and fabrications about the various burials, a too close concordance between field and book is suspicious at best.
I don't think there was a big fight at MTC, as I've said, but there's no real evidence - anymore - one way or the other. |
| Smcf |
Posted - September 22 2005 : 08:04:39 AM
A published A-Z roster for the 7th Cavalry: http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/7th%20US%20Cavalry,%201876.pdf (you need adobe acrobat reader for it). A quick count of those Officers and men listed killed with Custer column yields 205 (I may have miscounted one or two) plus one missing/presumed dead. Reno stated in his report of 5th July that the body count of Custer's soldiers, plus a couple of civilians, buried on 28th at the Custer field was 204. A little empirical I know, but the figures tally roughly and serve further to distance me from thoughts of kidnapped soldiers, or men killed anywhere other than where they were found. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 21 2005 : 2:18:36 PM
None, and I don't think there was a huge battle there, but it could have happened for all we know. There's no way to know, is all I'm saying. |
| Smcf |
Posted - September 21 2005 : 06:45:11 AM
Of course, you've got to form an opinion and assess what you regard as sufficient evidence to back it up. Quality of evidence will always be subjective here. Putative theories like significant numbers of bodies could have been washed downstream don't appear to me to be worthy of serious consideration. But then again, what's the harm of running it up the flagpole. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 20 2005 : 2:12:05 PM
There could have been a huge battle there, for all anyone knows. Bodies that fell in the river, washed downstream. They could have been dragged into the village and tortured and burned. MTC was the site where the trains stopped for tourist picnics soon after, and any items of interest would have vanished, and did. The bodies could still be there, since it wasn't so long ago a body was found in the river bank upriver. Or nothing happened. We don't know. We cannot.
Again, the year of this Cheyenne testimony, and did they speak English? (No....) So who did the translation? And we believe this is not subject to the same corrupting influences that affect other people, because.....? Nothing like testimony exists from the Indian side, and none of it is first hand. It's absurd to claim it as such. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 19 2005 : 9:56:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Smcf
.
Again, seemingly at each point in the battlefield where the Indians got close to the troops, there is a body count. At MTC ford, there isn't. If the Indian were strong there, where are the bodies? If the Indians weren't, then why halt the "charge"?
I agree. Cheyenne testimony concurs that no more than ten warriors engaged the troopers at the ford. Understandably, when the troopers made an unanticipated right "oblique" the warriors naturally assumed that their efforts were responsible for this unforeseen turn of events. The warriors did not comprehend that they were witnessing a military tactic.
In addition, all witnesses(White and Red) proclaim a lack of dead bodies, horses, and equipment at the ford. The absence of physical evidence at this location corroborates the assumption that no action of significance occurred there. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 14 2005 : 08:30:06 AM
You find solace in Godfrey's claim Gall "told" him stuff, SMCF. At the tenth anniversary, if I recall, Godfrey noted Gall was not pleased with their translator's efforts, and edged Godfrey away for a personal recap. Godfrey did not speak Sioux. Gall did not speak English, although he knew some words. What in the world sort of accuracy in unknown communication could have occured? Sign language? It's probably possible that Shakespeare can be performed in silence and semaphor but there is some stuff - time flensed into the past pluperfect among other things - that simply cannot. Yes, that is important.
We know that Cheyenne warriors dressed as soldiers on soldiers' horses with uniforms and guidon and rode into the village, scaring the hell out of everyone who saw them at first. If someone not present heard the initial reports of that before revelation, this could be the source of soldiers in the village, in aggregate with those few soldiers whose horses ran away with them. In any case, anyone claiming soldiers in the village needs to provide assurance that the references are not to those dressed up warriors. |
| Smcf |
Posted - September 14 2005 : 05:37:38 AM
Nice work, Benteen. Sorry I missed your post. I hope I'm not spreading any disinformation, so correct me if I get anything wrong. According to Michno, White Cow Bull's account does not fit the testimony of a number of Indians including Roan Bear, White Shield and Calf (among others) who's stories correlate with each other but directly contradict White Cow Bull's. He claims to have been with the self same Indians who mention each other, but fail to mention either White Cow Bull, or the soldier being toppled into the river. Their stories claim troops were engaged by a small group of Indians who crossed the river to meet them, not firing from the opposide bank. Further accounts state the troops in MTC all dismounted. Again, I can't see the likes of Standing Bear saying "Custer" never got near the Village if there were enough Indians around there to see and talk about the opposite. Michno also refers to Godfrey (I think - I haven't got the book handy) who noticed an unbroken trail all the way north along the ridges, and was confused given the on-site theory of a fight at MTC ford. At a 10 year reunion, his confusion was put to rest by Gall, who told him that the troops stayed on the ridges. Now Gall wasn't at MTC at that time, but I reckon he'd hardly hold to an opinion which was contrary to a popular belief at the agencies, if any such belief were so. If Michno's analysis of the MTC action is flawed, then it would be educational to see it broken down.
Again, seemingly at each point in the battlefield where the Indians got close to the troops, there is a body count. At MTC ford, there isn't. If the Indian were strong there, where are the bodies? If the Indians weren't, then why halt the "charge"? |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 11 2005 : 5:28:24 PM
"That's the power of the indians words. They may not have the meaning of the white man's words. But they do speak an innocence that is quite remarkable when one applies logic to what they say." Not sure what you mean by innocence, but I think I disagree. In any case, I don't believe you can say we have the Indians' words. We have various stories that purport to provide them, but always through at least one other source, and often more. Second hand at outside best. We really have no clue if they're accurate. Some of these words are offered in elevated language using terms Indians did not use, like "Ford C" or Weir Point or company or Custer.
"Something evidently Gray either wanted to overlook, or reject perhaps because of a certain bias. On this one event alone." What bias? What did Gray want to overlook? He stated repeatedly that anything after MTC was a guess, and he just offered one of his own, is all. He didn't like Benteen or Reno, but he tried to be fair. Like Barbara Tuchman, he announced his prejudices so the reader could judge. I disagree with him, but respect his intent and method.
"MTF I can corroborate many individual accounts by the indians. These statements were made to different interviewers at different times. So it is doubtful that a "conspiracy" was formed to "get their story straight." I don't suggest conspiracy. I suggest time affords many possibilities. Stories tend to homogenize together over periods of time, and get melded and retooled. I'd bet we all have family stories of no importance that have, eh, changed over the years so that Uncle Henry is suddenly present when he tells it in the first person even though he was in Korea then, and it happened to his father according to his wife who hadn't been born yet. So who did it happen to, did it happen at all? And who was there to verify it? Stuff like that. People who live cheek by jowl by campfires supposedly aren't likely to nitpick stories that vary a tad more each telling through the decades and after a time nobody knows for sure. We're human, is all I'm saying, and stories originally told at least partly to pass the time unexpectedly and unfairly became historic documents that have to be fitted together. And defended against charges of lying.
Setting aside the competence of the translators and their honesty and inclinations, if all these accounts had been taken within a year or so of the battle and they were more or less in accord, that would be helpful and of note. That they were taken by different people (sometimes of unknown competence, honesty, and inclination) over three quarters of a century does not rise to the level of mutual verification. Further, Indians simply did not have the words and tenses needed to provide temporal and geographic accuracy even when they gave the remotest hoot. God only knows what early descriptions of trains meant to tribes who'd never seen them.
I do not speak Sioux or any Indian language, but in my readings (Oh, by the way? If I wanted to elevate myself here, I could say 'but in my research, my analysis by applied logic shows....' Please....) of people who apparently do, accurate translations into English need caveats appended like "in the sense of..." which appear not at all in these specific tales about the LBH. That alone makes me, and I'd hope others, suspicious of the exact words spoken even if honest translation was attempted. Factor in sign language and the dubious English skills at the other end, we're likely dealing with a historic game of Telephone.
We can never know exactly why Custer ended up where he did, but I'd think you'd start with tales that don't violate the Custer of history or anything described on the ground by trained observers June 27, 1876. Much of what is offered up today does, I think. |
| Benteen |
Posted - September 11 2005 : 01:51:32 AM
Dispelling a myth:
First of all. Gray like Fox does an excellent job when challenged within a certain expertise. But when it comes to rationalizing the Custer battlefield events. He like Fox falls short in his analyisis. Had he stopped with his timing and not speculated the end. Hardly anyone would have faulted him. And like Fox, this should have been the way it was.
Gray saying that what Custer did at MTF and after, was as much a myth as any other theory, before or since. He is the first that I know of who proposed the "feint" theory, and the further "planned" division of Custers remaining battalion. So....
To faint or not?
Gray's theory goes way out on a limb for speculation. So far in fact that if it was attached to a tree. That limb would have broken. First of all it didn't make any sense what~so~ever to break the battalion down. There was no immediate need or reason to do so. And absolutely no evidence for it. Nor for that matter even a suggestion that a "planned" separation was in the works up to and including the time after Martini left. We have statements from Curley that the "command" went down to Ford B. Two Moons statements confirm this. And White Cow Bull's statment confirms Curley's observation of the rest of the command in line going toward the river. This was suddenly halted when the two men were killed (or wounded). And apparently this was enough to decide the turn around at MTF. Didn't sound like a feint to me. It sounded like a charge, with E company (only) providing covering fire from the east bank of the river. Firing volley after volley according to him (WCB). In another statement by Curley he said that for the longest time they blew the trumpets here. Too long for his comfort by the indication of his statement. hmm.... I wonder, were they blowing "charge", "retreat", "revellie" or "taps"?
Why didn't it make any sense to break down the battalion further? Simply put, they didn't know what was over that next ridge (greasy grass/calhoun). There was never any indication from anyone that a recon was made of that area prior to their arrival there. And no indian accounts speak of this. For all they knew there was another indian encampment over that ridge. So by breaking the battalion down further and "planning" the "feint" move would prove disastrous if that was the case. Why? Because by "feinting" and then falling back to Calhoun and a joyous ~ happy ~ peaceful ~ successful 'reunion' there ~ Would sandwich them between the possible village there and the indians they had just stirred up! Not too brilliant! And in fact this is what did happen in a way. No, there was no indian village in Deep Ravine. But there may as well have been! And for all Custer knew 'there was'! Now would Custer really have planned such a thing? If he did, he was stupider than I thought.
That's the power of the indians words. They may not have the meaning of the white man's words. But they do speak an innocence that is quite remarkable when one applies logic to what they say. Something evidently Gray either wanted to overlook, or reject perhaps because of a certain bias. On this one event alone. MTF I can corroborate many individual accounts by the indians. These statements were made to different interviewers at different times. So it is doubtful that a "conspiracy" was formed to "get their story straight." Something that at that time, they wouldn't have even thought about. I can just hear them now. Two Moons; "Me wantum huge wampum, me tell lie to get wampun, any ideas?" Curley; "Tellem Custer fainted at the river while crossing." White Cow Bull; "How we git him do that?" Curley; "Show him two moonrs."
What Gray did was inadvertantly blame Benteen. A blame that has caused a furor to this day. Why? Because poor Custer was waiting for him. And then you have the ridiculous theory that says that Benteen was supposed to go to MTF and resume action there. Ya right? After he, Custer stirred them up and then left. Kinda sounds like he had it in for Benteen, doesn't it? I can just hear Custer now. "I'll get that old sourpuss. Lets go down and make a 'feint' at that ford. Tom you take these troops over that ridge over yonder and I'll go down and get them to chase me. Meet ya over thar! Then when Benteen arrives i'll semaphore him telling him to attack those thousand or so indians that i've just stirred up, down there at the ford." Tom; "But Armstr..." GAC; "No, butts Tom. Now you go and do what I say's. We'll see how fast he goes once they chase him. One way or t'other he'll be a gittin the lead out." |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 10 2005 : 10:12:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
One thing about the testimony of all Indians on the battlefield that day. One has to assume that everything they said ~ is possible ~ before rejecting it outright. Of course this is the American way. Innocent until proven guilty.
Perhaps the only thing that can be said against their testimony is their reckoning of time. And in certain instances spatial relationships to that time. Such is their lore. One cannot assume though that what they were trying to convey wasn't true just because it didn't fit into one's ideal of what they think was. And one caution. They often compress time and spatial relationships. So sometimes we have to back off on their "timing" of those events and spatially put them into proper sequence.
This statement is a true reflection of a critical and false misrepresentation of the veracity of the only surviving witnesses of this battle;the Native Americans. Their individualistic,and personal observations of the battle(events that they actually participated while ignoring the actions of their brethren) derived from their very culture. A culture in which self acclamation was understood and respected. Also, it was true that several Indians attempted to profit from their "versions" of the battle. However, to assume that all Indians lied is to assume that an entire race of people are untruthful. This is patently false and biased. When one realizes that "White" testimony was as disjointed, puzzling, confusing, and down right contradictory as their counterparts, one must pause and ask, why was side of testimony accepted and not the other?
quote:
Curley in a 1913 interview: "We joined Custer in MTC, as he was advancing toward the village...I had seen Reno defeated in the bottom and discussed it with Mitch. I saw Mitch say something to Custer when we met him and presumed Mitch must have informed him about Reno's situation
."
It is doubtful that Curly actually saw Reno defeated. The time element does not allow Reno's halt, skirmish, entry into the woods, and subsequent "charge" to the bluffs to have been viewed by Curley. What I believe he and Mitch observed was Reno's charge that halted prematurely and, possibly, the subsequent fall back to the timber. This action would be very significant to these men and could be rightly perceived by both as a "defeat."
quote:
Curley in a 1909 interview:
"While we were here, Custer's command hove in sight, galloping right down MT coulée toward the river..." Now ~ remember ~ where Curley was. There is no indication that he moved. His observations would have been made somewhere east of the river on a bluff or (high area) overlooking the ford area.
This point of reference was probably Weir's Point or Sharpshooter's ridge.
quote:
Two Moons in an interview claims he witnessed this. And the indication is clear that they were marching in orders of four. Clearly indicating that the whole battalion was there. He also claims that the white horse group was leading, and as Curley will later prove, that this also was true. It's also vivid portrait of Custer's battalion's charge at MTC.
Lt. Bradley's interview and interpretation ~ Curley, July 3rd 1876.
"When they reached the river, the Indians concealed in the underbrush on the opposite bank, opened fire on the troops. Here a part of the command was dismounted and thrown forward toward the river and returned the Indian fire."
Cheyenne testimony is repleted with testimony describing the soldiers approaching the ford at Medicine Trail Coulée and, subsequently, being repulsed. Thus, the Indian conclusion that Custer was driver back towards Last Stand Hill were he and his men met their frightful deaths. This is a perfectly understandable error of perception on behalf of a few warriors who were actually there. At this point in time, most of the warriors had responded to the south end of the village to counter Reno. A few, for one reason or another, remained behind and shockingly, found themselves face to face with the on-coming troops filtering down MTC. Firing their weapons, this minor contingency of warriors were pleasantly shocked as they watched the soldiers abruptly turn right and ride off. naturally, the credited themselves with a major, offensive victory. Who could blame them? What they did not realize was that they had just witnessed a military "feint" designed to add impetus to the Exodus of Indians fleeing from the village and, to draw the Indians away from Reno. Unfortunately, this plan worked all to well. I agree this company was "E."
quote:
Curley ~ Camp interview 1908:
"After Boyer and Curley joined Custer, the Command passed rapidly down to Ford B. As soon as the soldiers came in sight of the village, the Sioux gave a "heap big yell," and when the soldier got closer, there was a "heap shoot."
Curley's comment of "heap Shoot" is reasonable but, does not necessarily mean that Custer's men were repulsed here as a result of massive Indian firing. Troops "E" and "F" consisting of approximately eighty men or so plus the Indian contingency would equal over a hundred guns, this would certainly qualify as a "heap shoot."
quote:
Curley, Russel White Bear ~ 1938:
"Custer, turning left (from Cedar Coulée), rode down MTC. After riding a while, he halted the command. Then the gray horse troop (Comp. E) left us and started down (to) the creek..."
That "creek" would be Ford "B" I believe.
quote:
Custer was at this time devising a plan to attack the village. Part of that plan included the Charge of E company on that ford. This happening well in advance of the other companies. E company's commander just like Reno did. Under fire dismounted at least a portion, if not all, (as Curley indicated) of his company to deal with the "underbrush shooters." They too (the dismounted) were as Curley clearly indicated were charging the river.
quote:
1926 Curley interview:
"He (Custer) rode to an officer (A.E. Smith) who seemed to be in command of one of the troops, which had Gray horses (co. E), and gave an order. Immediately, the troop (E company) turned its direction toward the Little Horn...."
I disagree here. I simply can not believe that Custer would send only two troops into a village of this magnitude while he simple watched from afar. Such an insufficient number of men could not have accomplished what needed to be done. However, I do believe that Lt. Smith was shot here and that the Cheyenne assumed that it was actually Custer who was shot. This perception was formulated upon their witnessing of the frantic efforts of the soldiers to retrieve the body/wounded man in buckskin. In the Indian mentality, such efforts, must have been afforded to a great leader to warrant such protection, or so they thought.
quote:
Curley, Bradley interview July 3rd, 1876:
"During the fight at this point, Curley saw two of Custer's men killed, who fell into the stream..."
A very understandable assumption on Curley's part. Both men were shot and, therefore, probably died. Lt. Smith, dead or alive was eventually transported to LSH by members of his troop.
quote:
He saw a trooper on horse charge through the river on into the village itself. This is an indication that some men did make it across the river on this charge. Just how many (especially E's foot chargers) may not have been seen by Curley because of the cut bank bluffs intervening between where they were and where Curley was observing from. Especially if it was "not" in the immediate vicinity of the ford.
What this scenario may have actually indicated is that one or more mounted soldiers were unable to control their terrified mounts who dashed,madly,across the ford into the village. Here the men and horses met their gruesome deaths. Two similar incidents also occurred earlier at the Reno skirmish line. There, also, two other unfortunates were unable to control their steeds as well thus, they died in a similar fashion. Pulled from their mounts they were slaughtered. After the battle, when the killing fields were later scoured and bodies identified, Ford "B" was extremely bereft of signs that would indicate a major engagement. No dead horses or men were found there. This gives credence to the incident being minor in actuality.
quote:
Huge Note: White Cow Bull's testimony supports seeing this event. Where at least two of the troopers fell into the stream. In fact he claims to have shot the one in Buckskin. The other apparently was the standard bearer. That these two accounts corroborate one another, I find fascinating. And without any doubt the one single event that can be corroborated between any of the Indian testimonies given. Back to this later as it does weigh heavily upon disaster and reason ~ blame and jealousy...
Undoubtedly White Cow Bull spoke the truth. His final perspective was, naturally, influenced by the grisly aftermath of the battle. Custer's plan to reunite his men with "E" and "F" after the "feint" was, rightfully, perceived as a defeat by the warriors.
quote:
"During this, warriors were seen riding out of the village by hundreds, deploying across his (Custer's) front to the left, as if intending to cross the stream... while the women and children were seen hastening from the village in the opposite direction."
Again, we must understand Curley's exaggeration at this point. Seeing hundreds of Indians moving in all directions, your adrenalin flowing, shots being fired everywhere, his estimation of warriors is understandable.
quote:
Earlier that day, Custer, according to the Indian scouts, had changed into his buckskins.
We have several reports that prior to the battle, Custer removed his easily identifiable buckskin jacket. (Of course I can not find the references now. I believe it Was Peter Thompson and Custer's aide whose name now escapes me. Can anyone help me here?)
hr]
[quote]I'm not saying whether or not what he did was right or wrong. I quite simply, don't know, and perhaps we never will.
[b]You have done a wonderful job and in the process of doing so, have set of standard of open mindedness to be envied. Thank you. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 10 2005 : 1:08:43 PM
Benteen,
I have no doubt you're right more than not, and that Curley's words have been screwed with throughout, without question. It makes sense, and is consistent, and requires nothing new in Custer or Indian warfare. It isn't new, it's actually one of the oldest theories, and appeals to me because it makes the most sense, violates nothing known, and is consistent with the Custer of history. Custer waiting, Custer rushing to bad ground, Custer unnecessarily deploying as infantry, that's all incredible to me, both because it is offered and because so many are willing to shuck common sense in order to provide a chain of evidence with some cartridges that might not have any relevance to the year of the battle, much less the battle itself.
But the same problems remain. You're basing everything on the assumption we have testimony from these Indians. We do not. We have allegedly accurate translations of their words at different times by different people whose qualifications are assumed, and hardly ever vetted. At this point, we cannot.
For example, you have Bradley saying "warriors were seen"... by who? We assume Curley, but is that what was said by Curley? Perhaps Curley quoting someone else told Bradley they were seen. I'm being annoying on purpose, but you've made a big assumption, and all the details that fall into place, sorta, are reassuring, but you have to prove that these stories are what the Indians actually said, that the translators were good and unbiased, and that the later versions haven't been wiggled by the media and long conversations with other participants. Good luck. I don't know what suicide rate among dedicated authors and historians can be attributed to the LBH, but it cannot be small.
Never a soldier, I've read lots of battle tales, by honest and good guys long vetted as such, and their stories SELDOM gel because exhausted guys in battle lose all sense of time, they're in trauma, and they don't actually know the exact sequence of events and when they talked or did stuff. Sometimes what they were thinking at the time emerges as having been said. That's normal and not a sign anybody's a liar, idiot, drunk, or a coward. It's only when they get together after the fight and write out what happened, that they have to compromise on memory (which will change in time, anyway) and pat a story together that's mostly agreed upon. I'd imagine Indians are subject to the same sort of thing.
But when you get tales that gel, even dovetail, rather than being triumphant, I'd think you'd also need to be suspicious, and find out if they'd had contact with each other's stories.
I have never doubted that the Indians, at least initially, told accurate tales. I also have no doubt that those stories were transcribed and translated by those who were interested in none of that. To say the Indian stories are no more than tales as then-currently recalled (like most of the soldiers') is not a slam on the Indians. It just is not testimony, and we can't fluff it up and present it as such. |
| Benteen |
Posted - September 10 2005 : 01:52:22 AM
Take your time. Again it's just a test. Nothing is set in stone. But one does I feel, have to try. Curleys words have been and still are ~ always misuderstood. There is alot more, and I think it will surprise alot of people. But it is simply too long to put here. I have been working on a book, and have alot of material like this. Perhaps I should just continue with my plans to publish it. I don't know much about getting a book published, but if people are interested. I would definitly try.
I have spent alot of time analysing not only his interviews but the other indians as well. The three principal indians in this part of the saga are of course Two Moons, Curley, and White Cow Bull. Each statement by them corroborates what the other said. Alot has been said to deny this ever happened. And it still will be quite controversial and unbelievable to most. Many of the so called "authors" of this age denigrate both Two Moons and White Cow Bull. Even going so far as to call their stories... well it's unmentionable here as far as I am concerned.
I know you and others will give me your honest opinions. And sure "constructive" criticizm is welcomed. Please anyone who does respond, let me know how you would feel about a book. It would start with the Belknap affair, and of course end where one expects it would. Thanx for your time.
Benteen |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 09 2005 : 10:54:46 PM
Benteen, give me a couple of days to analyze this tremendous post and I shall then respond with the same care, honesty, and commitment you used in writing it. Thank you my friend. |
| Benteen |
Posted - September 09 2005 : 1:19:05 PM
Please bear with me, okay. I realize that this is very much a long post. I will try to segment it into small paragraphs and try to title parts with separators. For the ease and comfort for everyone.
--------------------------------------------------
INDIAN TESTIMONY:
One thing about the testimony of all indians on the battlefield that day. One has to assume that everything they said ~ is possible ~ before rejecting it outright. Of course this is the American way. Innocent until proven guilty.
Perhaps the only thing that can be said against their testimony is their reckoning of time. And in certain instances spatial relationships to that time. Such is their lore. One cannot assume though that what they were trying to convey wasn't true just because it didn't fit into one's ideal of what they think was. And one caution. They often compress time and spatial relationships. So sometimes we have to back off on their "timing" of those events and spatially put them into proper sequence.
***********************************************************
PREPARATION FOR ATTACK ON VILLAGE:
Harry Moccasin:
"We met Benteen's command just south of where they afterward entrenched (Reno Hill). We said to Benteen, "Do you hear that shooting back where we came from? They're fighting Custer there now." We started to leave...."
Now I'm not going to try to put exact timing upon his words. But shortly after their departure from Custer's battalion they heard "shooting back from (the direction) where (they) came from. This could not have been much more than 5 and certainly no more than 10 minutes after their departure from Custer's battalion. The ~direction~ is certain, the "shooting" was occuring "back from where they came from." The time, was just before Benteen reached Reno Hill, ie he was just a few minutes from reaching there. This is a clear indication that some kind of action occured at MTF.
Curley in a 1913 interview:
"We joined Custer in MTC, as he was advancing toward the village...I had seen Reno defeated in the bottom and discussed it with Mitch. I saw Mitch say something to Custer when we met him and presumed Mitch must have informed him about Reno's situation."
Here is a confirmation of which direction Custer was advancing, ie. "toward the village." All we know from Curley at this point concerning Reno was that he was "defeated." There isn't a definite here. But this very possibly could have been at the time they (Reno's battalion) were in full retreat from the timber. So once again. we have an approximate time and place for each occurance.
Interpretation of Curley's statements 1908:
"Taking Curley with him, Bouyer passed on and over Weir Peak and then, (went) on a course directly north, parallel to Custer, until they came down in the bed of Reno Creek (MTC), where they met Custer about half a mile from the river."
*************************************************************
EARLY STAGES OF MTF ATTACK:
Curley in a 1909 interview:
"While we were here, Custer's command hove in sight, galloping right down MT coulee toward the river..." Now ~ remember ~ where Curley was. There is no indication that he moved. His observations would have been made somewhere east of the river on a bluff or (high area) overlooking the ford area.
Two Moons in an interview claims he witnessed this. And the indication is clear that they were marching in orders of four. Clearly indicating that the whole battalion was there. He also claims that the white horse group was leading, and as Curley will later prove, that this also was true. It'a also vivid portrait of Custer's battalion's charge at MTC.
Lt. Bradley's interview and interpretation ~ Curley, July 3rd 1876.
"When they reached the river, the indians concealed in the underbrush on the opposite bank, opened fire on the troops. Here a part of the command was dismounted and thrown forward toward the river and returned the Indian fire."
Here a part of the command was dismounted and thrown ~forward~ toward the river and returned the Indian fire. (I postulate that this company could have been E company and will later explain why. And I think it will be made perfectly clear which company that was.) The clear indication is, that this dismounted company was charging on foot ( "thrown forward") the indians firing at them from the "concealed underbrush on ~ the opposite bank!!!
Curley interview with Roe 1881:
They (indicating all companies, but for certain E company at this time) came down ravine to it's mouth (right to the ford itself) and one man with stripes on his arm on a gray horse rode into the river very fast, right into the Indians; acted like a man who wanted to die."
Of course this was written after all the facts were known. And Curley was clearly making a hindsight observation. So that last phrase, at the time of observation. Would not of course be known or thought of as perhaps something so stupid.
What is interesting is that "they came down the ravine to it's mouth" And of course the incident with the "one man." But was this all?
*****************************************************
EVIDENCE OF MAIN ASSAULT OF CUSTER'S FORCE AT MTF ~ E COMPANY POSITIONING:
Curley ~ Camp interview 1908:
"After Boyer and Curley joined Custer, the Command passed rapidly down to Ford B. As soon as the soldiers came in sight of the village, the Sioux gave a "heap big yell," and when the soldier got closer, there was a "heap shoot."
I will pause in the action here to make one comment. Notice "the command passed rapidly down to Ford B?" The whole command made a charge on that ford! One (F company) was dispatched ~ in advance ~, on foot to charge the concealed indians, shooting from across the river.
Curley, Russel White Bear ~ 1938:
"Custer, turning left (from Cedar Coulee), rode down MTC. After riding a while, he halted the command. Then the gray horse troop (Comp. E) left us and started down (to) the creek..."
Custer was at this time devising a plan to attack the village. Part of that plan included the Charge of E company on that ford. This happening well in advance of the other companies. E company's commander just like Reno did. Under fire dismounted at least a portion, if not all, (as Curley indicated) of his company to deal with the "underbrush shooters." They too (the dismounted) were as Curley clearly indicated were charging the river.
1926 Curley interview:
"He (Custer) rode to an officer (A.E. Smith) who seemed to be in command of one of the troops, which had Gray horses (co. E), and gave an order. Immdiately, the troop (E company) turned its direction toward the Little Horn...."
Again confirmation of E company's charge of the river. An event that preceeded any other there.
Ok what happened next?
*************************************************************
MAIN ASSAULT MTF:
Curley, Bradley interview July 3rd, 1876:
"During the fight at this point, Curley saw two of Custer's men killed, who fell into the stream..."
Clearly a different account than the "one" that had occured earlier. This is because after E companys charge and assault upon the feeble number of warriors opposite the river. Custer and his whole command charged! This clearly was a different event. An event where at least 2 of Custer's men were killed! Who by the way just happened to "fall into the stream." (ie. river).
Now for the infamous charge at MTC:
Curley, Camp 1908:
"The troops did not dismount here (meaning all companies except of course E.) and rode into the river before stopping and turning back. Curley saw one soldier gallop across the river just below the ford at great speed, pass up the bank through open ground beyond. The Sioux defending the ford he observed to be all unmounted. He afterward leaned that they did not have tme to get their ponies, which were grazing back on the hills west of the village."
He saw a trooper on horse charge through the river on into the village itself. This is an indication that some men did make it across the river on this charge. Just how many (especially E's foot chargers) may not have been seen by Curley because of the cut bank bluffs intervening between where they were and where Curley was observing from. Especially if it was "not" in the immediate vicinity of the ford.
Huge Note: White Cow Bull's testimony supports seeing this event. Where at least two of the troopers fell into the stream. In fact he claims to have shot the one in Buckskin. The other apparently was the standard bearer. That these two accounts corroborate one another, I find fascinating. And without any doubt the one single event that can be corroborated between any of the indian testimonies given. Back to this later as it does weigh heavily upon disaster and reason ~ blame and jealousy...
**************************************************************
INDIAN REACTION:
What Curley observes from here on is very interesting indeed. Something that when one puts it into an understandable sequence of events from each interview. Does I think cast some very doubt upon what some claim happened later.
Curley, Lt. Bradley interview:
"During this, warriors were seen riding out of the village by hundreds, deploying across his (Custer's) front to the left, as if intending to cross the stream... while the women and children were seen hastening from the village in the opposite direction."
This seems to indicate that literrally hundreds of warriors came charging from the south (left), (no surprise there, huh?) And the indication seems to be that they halted and/or was looking for another place to cross the stream. Another account clears up what he saw.
Curley interview, Camp 1909:
"It appeared to Curley here that Custer would charge across into the village, but the west bank was thick with dismounted Sioux, and back in the village hundreds of mounted ones were coming up."
The hundreds mounted warriors here coming from the south (ie. left) dismounted and "intending to cross the stream." Most likely repulsed E companies dismounted men on the east side of the ford. One does have to assume some of E company's dismounted men were on the "left" (or south) of the ford. While some were on the west side (right) of the ford. And thus leaving a gap open for Custer's mounted charge through and into the river (at the ford), and supposedly beyond. This is later confirmed by Curley's statements.
What comes as a shock is that there are literally hundreds of other mounted warriors charging the ford from the village. Which would clearly indicate from all directions from that village.
Ibid:
"Curley thought it would be necessary for Custer to retreat..." No more needs to be said about that. I think everyone would agree.
************************************************************
CUSTER'S BOLD CHARGE:
So what happened? Would the Custer we know have retreated? Curley explains.
Curley, Roe 1881:
"The Sioux could be seen mounting and coming toward Custer and commenced to fire... and the troops fired back, remaining unmounted (E company): only the front part of the ~ column ~ fired. The ~ column ~ was stretched up a deep coulee (MTC) and away back on the side of the ridge..." (where they had just came from, ie charging ~ ie. the same "ridge" where Curley made his observations from).
Oops! What you mean the whole battalion was virtually lined up and charging the river ~ in "column"?! Only the front part of the "column" fired! Clearly indicating that while E company, dismounted and firing (providing cover fire). Only the "front" part of the remaining "column" fired as they attempted to cross the river. The rest were lined up in ~ column!
Now we all know who was at the head of that column, don't we? So just why didn't Custer keep charging!? I can hear him now. "Oops, damn, we left our sabers back at camp supply. Damn inconvienent if you ask me!" And another question. The trees were not that thick along the LBH here. And Custer had to have known and seen in the short distance and time span the same thing Curley saw. Because between the time that he charged from the same ridge Curley was on to the ford, would not have taken but a few minutes at best! So why halt the charge?
*************************************************************
FINI:
He Custer didn't halt that charge! He wouldn't have. Someone else made the call to retreat.
Custer's Fall: Pg's 128, 129:
"White Cow Bull... as he fired from behind a low ridge near the ford...he did not know how much longer he and the other could hang on here between the attackers (Company E) and the camp...."Now he saw a white man on a sorrel horse, out in front of all the grays, fell in midstream, the oncoming soldiers did a strange thing ~~ they stopped in the middle of the charge. White Cow Bull could not see all that happened, for he was kept busy dodging bullets as the soldiers fired ~ volley after volley~ into the ridge, (E companies covering fire). But it seemed as though some of the soldiers dismounted there in the river and were dragging something from the water, while others, still mounted, kept shooting. (True as Curley states ~ the front mounted troopers of the column was firing.) With gunsmoke hanging thick in the still air, with no letup in the firing (volleys from E, while the mounted with Custer fired), they fell back to the far bank where the entire troop dismounted. The troops backed up into MTC also dismounted." (OH!!! Yet another confirmation of what Curley said. The troopers then in the "backed up" column also dismounted!)
"...It was true. White Cow Bull saw the soldier falling back as though siezed with sudden panic."
It surely wasn't panic, was it? Panic???
Earlier that day, Custer, according to the indian scouts, had changed into his buckskins. Easy enough to do, right? That Reno's men, or for that matter Benteen's men didn't see this event is quite obvious. They weren't there when he did it. Benteen on his scout, Reno on his charge.
So what about those men who were shot and fell into the stream?
ibid, 128:
"Just then in midstream, the unbelievable happened...Custer fell, a hostile bullet through his left breast. No Indian, Crow or Sioux, or Cheyenne, could say whether he died at once or later, after his men carried him up the ridge from the river. The wound in any case, was mortal."
"The troopers splashed to a halt around their fallen commander, Mitch Bouyer quickly jumped off his horse into knee-deep water to keep Custer from going under. A moment later an orderly with the flag crumpled from his saddle. A trooper grabbed at the flag and kept it from falling."
********************************************************
FOOTNOTE AND AFTER~THOUGHTS:
It seems inconcievable doesn't it? But to be quite honest. I do think that this happened. And it happened just the way Curley and other indian observers saw it. Most if not all indian accounts support this view. Exactly who was in charge after, remains to be seen. To tell you the truth. I don't believe Custer survived that shot, it would have been too close to his heart. While there is some evidence that GAC may have been alive later. That evidence isn't supported. When referencing Custer later, they may very well have been alluding to another "Custer" after all there were plenty enough of them there that day, wasn't there.
The same can be said about the non-mutilation of his body. If he had been dead for even a half an hour or so, there would have been definite signs. Glazing of the eyes, etc. The hole to the head was probably just to make sure by one of his own kin before the end. Or a coup by one of the indians. And as has been testified to, there wasn't much blood coming from that wound. No, Custer died trying to ford that river. The mistakes after, was made by some other commander. Custer fully intended to cross the river, and as Bouyer said, "Custer will stop at nothing, he's going to get us all killed." Fortunatly or unfortunatly he didn't get that chance. Had he lived, and the charge succeeded, which it may have, who knows. He indeed would have been the hero he always wanted to be.
I'm not saying whether or not what he did was right or wrong. I quite simply, don't know, and perhaps we never will. |
|
|
