| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 16 2007 : 4:49:05 PM
Benteen, obviously, did not hold Custer in great esteem and, his testimony at the Reno Inquiry regarding the General's actions were,to be polite,inconsistent. What below factors do you feel best explicate his extensive dislike for Custer? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 23 2011 : 11:09:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
His testimony wasn't inconsistent, and you'd be hard put to provide an example.
quote:
Examples: Benteen insisted that he receive orders that were "senseless" "Valley Hunting As infinitum" and that hie return to to Custer's trail was in "violation of orders" that could have taken him to "Fort Benton." In fact, every time benteen referred to his "scout" his comments became increasingly bizarre. Every student of the battle is aware of these inconsistencies except you.
I'd glad your devoted scholarship concluded "Benteen believed that Custer deserted Major Elliot" because, you know, Benteen said so and, also, Custer had. You mean "either situation", not both.
quote:
Custer ordered Capt. Meyer with troops to extended search of at least two miles to ascertain the whereabouts of Elliot. the captain returned and reported that nothing was found. In addition, hundreds of warriors were observed pouring toward Custer from the villages down river. a reasonable conclusion was made that Elliot was still ahorse and, the entire command was in jeopardy of extermination if they did not exit immediately. Once again, you apparently were not aware of these facts.
I think you confuse Reno wishing to attend the funeral of his wife, denied by those other than Custer.
quote:
I think that for the third time you have no idea what you are talking about. the two events were separate and, sadly, you continue to post erroneous remarks.
Affecting the writing styles of others doesn't work for you.
quote:
What others are you referring to. No one was with me when I sat down to this computer.
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 22 2011 : 09:00:07 AM
Joe you were exposed as having multiple personalities on the other board by the moderator by your ISP and you also admitted here. End of story on that subject.
You can't even look at the avatar on the other board and describe it properly. It does not say state police on it. Does it? I do work for the state as a peace officer. I have explained my job more than enough times and if you can't figure it out that is your problem.
Show us in my post previous to the one you just posted any name calling on my part. You can't and you fabricated or lied again. Ignorance is not a name rather a condition. You can fix that with knowledge.
Ron White has an album "You can't fix stupid"
It is an absolute lie that I referred to your Department as brutal. If that term was used it would be from the Federal Prosecutors or the writer of the article. Goggle your Department again and see that if stories don't continue. You act as if that is not common to most Departments it does and includes mine. So not sure of your point. Very seldom do the good things officers do make the news. In Arizona we have AZ POST as an overall review of an officers commissioning and publish an integrity bulletin of officers losing their commission. If you lose your POST commission you can't work anywhere. My different than losing a particular police job. If you attempt to cover for another officer and lie about it you will lose your AZ POST commission.
Kind of ends the good Ole boy era don't you think Joe?
What I recall is asking if this was your Department and posted the information or link to the information. Show us in my own words in a post where I state that. Now you now why I asked you to not put quotes inside my quotes. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 21 2011 : 9:53:38 PM
I just spent an half hour responding to your typical, name calling, juvenile responses but, lost it all through a quirk in the computer. I'll give you a condensed version this time.
You have identified yourself as a State Police Officer by utilizing an Arizona state badge on the other forum. Substantial departments adhere to a philosophy referred to as Vicarious Liability. Simple put, the department assumes responsibility to ensure that the best officer (healthiest) possible is on the street. the reason is also simple, should an officer fail to respond to his or her duty due to an undetected health issue, the department may be held responsible.
did I tell you I worked in Police Personnel for five years?
Hence the retirement system to ensure that personnel do not linger to long thus, becoming a liability.
It is true that some small towns utilize the constable system as well as the small town sheriff. You do not fall in that category.
Another thing, your childish vernacular and propensity to sling childish taunts belie your ability to have been a long term, experienced police officer. Also, I repeat - no real police officer refers to another department as "brutal" based on media reports..you did!
I post on this forum as Joe Wiggs, I post on Custer file as Joe Wiggs, I have not posted on your forum for a very long time because i could not stomach you and the pompous DC. (for the reader, az is convinced that I am a man pretending to be a female on another forum yet i use my real name on this forum as well as another. a wonderful example of Az's police, investigative abilities |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 18 2011 : 11:40:55 PM
Again you are wrong there are plenty of peace officers that are in their 60s where have you been hiding? For a guy that poses as a female to get sympathy on his weak posts or reduce their criticism it doesn't surprise me you use words like "naughty" is that one of your police terms or your female poster terms.
What is it that you think you have exposed? Only your own ignorance is my opinion. I posted your words against yourself and you still don't get it.
As far as pushing things I respond to your posts and certainly am not afraid of your posts. It is you that brought up my age, my retirement system and information about your Department in old posts. The posts stated the federal government took action and that is either true or not. Which is it Joe?
So follow your own advice and see what happens.
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 18 2011 : 5:08:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Joe first off I presented what was on the Internet and you could not refute it. Every agency has bad officers and bad times. So what I think you forget is that you are not an officer and have not been in the business for many years. We no longer have the good old boy syndrome and what happens in the Department stays in the Department. Things change so get over it. I do agree that eastern agencies have more tendencies that you describe from my observations.
I think you don't understand what my agency does or you couldn't make the statements you do. We make lots of contacts that do not involve probable cause stops. Just how much patrol work did your supervisor do? Seems LTs and above don't do much patrol work do they?
You're right officers out here put integrity before any thin blue line. Not only for personal reasons but to maintain a job.
If the persons who wrote the articles were wrong or the Federal agencies did something wrong to your former agency I would suggest you talk to them or sue them. Maybe your FOP could look into that. Ours would do that.
AZ Ranger
Az, real police officers do not denigrate other officer based upon news articles! Aware of media tactics, real police officers obtain facts prior to making idiotic and unsubstantiated statements. No officer in this Country is active, full time, at the age of 63! Such a policy would be detrimental to any law enforcement agency for reasons of civil action should the officer succumb to death with no reasonable preventive actions on behalf of the aggrieved department which would be held liable.
Now you asked for this by continuing to act like a naughty child instead of an adult in your responses. I do not enjoy exposing your for the charlatan you are but you forced my head.
Please do not push this sad incident any further and try to stay on topic; I know you can do it if you really try! |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 18 2011 : 03:39:34 AM
So Joe here again is your typical ignorant statements.
Perhaps you should consider retiring, as i have, from your department and get a little rest. After all, at 63, you are practically working for free. if you joined at the minimum age (21) you are currently a 42 year old veteran. As you are, undoubtedly aware, retirement begins at 20 years service. 22 years later, your retirement payment is more than your actual pay. Why go on burdening your body with exposure to the criminal element when you can sit back in leisure and make more money while doing it.
JwiggsI do not profess to know anything about your system nor have I ever indicated that I desired to know anything about it if memory does not fail me what I do know is the following:
It is insane to have a 63 year old man on the force whose pay scale is so advanced that he would be making less money while active then if he retired. If you want to "pass on" some intellectual greatness rehire as a civilian instructor at your Academy.
Now lets look at the reason why I chose ignorant with only your words posted below even you can figure it out:
JwiggsI do not profess to know anything about your system nor have I ever indicated that I desired to know anything about it if memory does not fail me
After all, at 63, you are practically working for free. if you joined at the minimum age (21) you are currently a 42 year old veteran. As you are, undoubtedly aware, retirement begins at 20 years service. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 18 2011 : 03:11:09 AM
Joe first off I presented what was on the Internet and you could not refute it. Every agency has bad officers and bad times. So what I think you forget is that you are not an officer and have not been in the business for many years. We no longer have the good old boy syndrome and what happens in the Department stays in the Department. Things change so get over it. I do agree that eastern agencies have more tendencies that you describe from my observations.
I think you don't understand what my agency does or you couldn't make the statements you do. We make lots of contacts that do not involve probable cause stops. Just how much patrol work did your supervisor do? Seems LTs and above don't do much patrol work do they?
You're right officers out here put integrity before any thin blue line. Not only for personal reasons but to maintain a job.
If the persons who wrote the articles were wrong or the Federal agencies did something wrong to your former agency I would suggest you talk to them or sue them. Maybe your FOP could look into that. Ours would do that.
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 10 2011 : 5:29:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Az, I'm really beginning to worry about you my friend. I honestly can not decipher your last message, I haven't a clue as to what you are trying to say,really i don't.
JwiggsPerhaps you should consider retiring, as i have, from your department and get a little rest. After all, at 63, you are practically working for free. if you joined at the minimum age (21) you are currently a 42 year old veteran. As you are, undoubtedly aware, retirement begins at 20 years service. 22 years later, your retirement payment is more than your actual pay. Why go on burdening your body with exposure to the criminal element when you can sit back in leisure and make more money while doing it.
I retired with 21 years service 14 years ago and I'm loving it. Hey, I wonder if they have a silver medal for the oldest, active police officer in the world! You would be a cinch buddy!
AZIt was never about the money something maybe you can't understand. My current goal is to pass on to the new officers from my own experiences.
quote:
JwiggsUnless your department has a minimum amount of manpower, there should be a substantial amount of officers to pass on that "Torch of Valor" to the new guys. Do you honestly feel that your "experience" is so inclusive (of all that is know to man regarding police work) that your department would,somehow, collapse if you left?
AZSeems odd you feel that you know about all state and local retirement systems. Are you sure all law enforcement has a 20 year plan?
quote:
JwiggsAll systems have a plan that usually begin upon attaining twenty years and continues until you reach a maximum position which is usually propostionate with 75% of you base pay. You do not have to be a Houdini of fiscal affairs to know this information, just common sense. I left in 21 years because at 49 years I was to damn old to be chasing bad guys.
AZIn our system you don't max out till 32 years which is at 80%. We also have a drops plan where you retire and the retirement system banks your retirement for you while you continue to work for up to 5 years.
quote:
JwiggsI do not profess to know anything about your system nor have I ever indicated that I desired to know anything about it if memory does not fail me. what I do know is the following:
It is insane to have a 63 year old man on the force whose pay scale is so advanced that he would be making less money while active then if he retired. If you want to "pass on" some intellectual greatness rehire as a civilian instructor at your Academy.
AZSo your assessment is as usual without attention to facts. Myself I spent time the Marine Corps and then got a degree at the University of Arizona. That takes times but the degree is required for the job.
quote:
JwiggsHere is an assessment for you! Police in every part of this Country have developed a "brotherhood" and loyalty to each other that was created, developed, and honed over years of constant battles to Protect and Serve a community that has fought against us, refused to understand us, and have repeatedly harbored ill will against the "Thin Blue Line." As a result, 50% of all retirees (National scale) commit suicide within a five year period of retirement. Misunderstood, chastised, and scorned by the very populace we swore to protect will do that to you.
Now here's the rub, from the moment you posted me sometime ago and denigrated and ridiculed my department (Prince George's County Police)as being brutal and the recipient of enormous civilian complaints I knew you were not and never could be a member of the Brotherhood. Real Cops don't do that to real Cops! Only civilians who have no idea of the danger we encounter daily would make such a statement. Get my drift!
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 10 2011 : 5:24:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Az, I'm really beginning to worry about you my friend. I honestly can not decipher your last message, I haven't a clue as to what you are trying to say,really i don't.
Perhaps you should consider retiring, as i have, from your department and get a little rest. After all, at 63, you are practically working for free. if you joined at the minimum age (21) you are currently a 42 year old veteran. As you are, undoubtedly aware, retirement begins at 20 years service. 22 years later, your retirement payment is more than your actual pay. Why go on burdening your body with exposure to the criminal element when you can sit back in leisure and make more money while doing it.
I retired with 21 years service 14 years ago and I'm loving it. Hey, I wonder if they have a silver medal for the oldest, active police officer in the world! You would be a cinch buddy!
It was never about the money something maybe you can't understand. My current goal is to pass on to the new officers from my own experiences.
quote:
Unless your department has a minimum amount of manpower, there should be a substantial amount of officers to pass on that "Torch of Valor" to the new guys. Do you honestly feel that you "experience" is so inclusive of all that is know to man regarding police work that your department would, somehow, collapse if you left?
Seems odd you feel that you know about all state and local retirement systems. Are you sure all law enforcement has a 20 year plan?
quote:
All systems have a plan that usually begin at twenty years until you reach a maximum position which is usually 75% of you base pay. You do not have to be a Houdini fiscal affairs to know this information, just common sense. I left in 21 years because at 49 years i was to damn old to be chasing bad guys.
In our system you don't max out till 32 years which is at 80%. We also have a drops plan where you retire and the retirement system banks your retirement for you while you continue to work for up to 5 years.
quote:
I do not profess to know anything about your system nor have I ever indicated that I desired to know anything about your system. what I do know is the following;
It is insane to have a 63 year old man on the force who pay scale is so advanced that he would be making less money while active as he would retired. If you want to "pass on" some intellectual greatness rehire as a civilian instructor at your Academy.
So your assessment is as usual without attention to facts. Myself I spent time the Marine Corps and then got a degree at the University of Arizona. That takes times but the degree is required for the job.
quote:
Here is an assessment for you! Police in every part of this Country have developed a "brotherhood" and loyalty to each other that was created, developed, and honed over years of constant battles to Protect and Serve a community that have fought against us, refused to understand us, and have repeatedly harbored ill will against the "Thin Blue Line." As a result, 50% of all retirees (National scale) committee suicide within a five year period of retirement. Misunderstood, chastised, and scorned by the very populace we swore to protect will do that to you.
Now here's the rub, from the moment you posted me sometime ago and denigrated and ridiculed my department (Prince George's County Police)as being brutal and the recipient of enormous civilian complaints I knew you were not a member of the Brotherhood. Real Cops don't do that to real Cops! Only civilians who have no idea of the danger we encounter daily would make such a statement. Get my drift!
AZ Ranger
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 09 2011 : 08:51:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Az, I'm really beginning to worry about you my friend. I honestly can not decipher your last message, I haven't a clue as to what you are trying to say,really i don't.
Perhaps you should consider retiring, as i have, from your department and get a little rest. After all, at 63, you are practically working for free. if you joined at the minimum age (21) you are currently a 42 year old veteran. As you are, undoubtedly aware, retirement begins at 20 years service. 22 years later, your retirement payment is more than your actual pay. Why go on burdening your body with exposure to the criminal element when you can sit back in leisure and make more money while doing it.
I retired with 21 years service 14 years ago and I'm loving it. Hey, I wonder if they have a silver medal for the oldest, active police officer in the world! You would be a cinch buddy!
It was never about the money something maybe you can't understand. My current goal is to pass on to the new officers from my own experiences.
Seems odd you feel that you know about all state and local retirement systems. Are you sure all law enforcement has a 20 year plan?
In our system you don't max out till 32 years which is at 80%. We also have a drops plan where you retire and the retirement system banks your retirement for you while you continue to work for up to 5 years.
So your assessment is as usual without attention to facts. Myself I spent time the Marine Corps and then got a degree at the University of Arizona. That takes times but the degree is required for the job.
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 03 2011 : 10:12:07 PM
Az, I'm really beginning to worry about you my friend. I honestly can not decipher your last message, I haven't a clue as to what you are trying to say,really i don't.
Perhaps you should consider retiring, as i have, from your department and get a little rest. After all, at 63, you are practically working for free. if you joined at the minimum age (21) you are currently a 42 year old veteran. As you are, undoubtedly aware, retirement begins at 20 years service. 22 years later, your retirement payment is more than your actual pay. Why go on burdening your body with exposure to the criminal element when you can sit back in leisure and make more money while doing it.
I retired with 21 years service 14 years ago and I'm loving it. Hey, I wonder if they have a silver medal for the oldest, active police officer in the world! You would be a cinch buddy!
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 03 2011 : 01:24:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Again you are putting quotes within my post that is also quoted. Its only ignorance after the first time it pointed out to you.
How dare I use my inalienable rights as a human being to dispute how you feel! I should be drawn and quatered. Can you ever forgive me your Majesty? I do not deserve to live!
Tell us how one (successfully) disputes how another feels on a message board? |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 02 2011 : 8:49:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Again you are putting quotes within my post that is also quoted. Its only ignorance after the first time it pointed out to you.
How dare I use my inalienable rights as a human being to dispute how you feel! I should be drawn and quatered. Can you ever forgive me your Majesty? I do not deserve to live! |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 02 2011 : 8:44:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I don't think anyone, ever, thought Benteen was "needful" at any time. Until the LBH, nobody thought that about Reno, either. The only reason these accusations are made is to excuse Custer.
quote:
Hmmmm, Benteen was part of an attack force but you do not think he was "needful".
Bouncy phrases like "go with the flow" don't really support the accusations, because Reno DID go with the flow, as did Benteen. The "flow" was not going the 7th's way, and a glance at the village size rather confirmed it. It was Custer who did not go with the flow. Whether intentionally or not, he did not react appropriately to the reality on the ground.
Anyone who truly believes that Reno "DID" go with the flow, any flow other than his own desperate need to escape is potentially an Alien!
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - July 30 2011 : 12:30:33 PM
I agree, after the fisr time of being told I've shown my ignorance. Now, could you please answer my reply? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 18 2011 : 08:10:47 AM
Again you are putting quotes within my post that is also quoted. Its only ignorance after the first time it pointed out to you. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - July 17 2011 : 7:37:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
If anyone didn't go with the flow it was Custer. Once the size of the opposing force was identified where did he make a move in the direction of the rest of the regiment.
quote:
I'm going to make an assumption that you meant "why" instead of the high lighted "where" did he make a move...
Custer's mission was not predicated on the "size" of the military target. He was not sent to negotiate surrender. His ordered objective was surprisingly simple; to force the recalcitrant Indians to assigned reservations. Apparently Custer assumed that the other segments of his command would, as ordered,attack as he did at the appropriate time. He could not have, under any circumstances, for seen otherwise. He did do what military protocol required; sending a "courier" with specific orders to Benteen.
Instead we are to believe that packs are to be going to Custer when nobody knew where that was and he didn't remain in a location for them to make contact.
quote:
In the terrain that the soldiers transversed, hoof prints of hundreds of horses of mounted soldiers were followed like "neon" signs from one point to another. In fact, although Benteen failed to inquire from the courier as to the whereabouts of Custer, he located the exact point of separation of the two commands (Reno and Custer) simply by following the trail of hoof prints and horse manure. Under these circumstances even you could have located the trail
.
Can you imagine how comical to the Indians it would appear with Custer heading north from MTC the packtrain mules being whipped to try and catch Custer and the ammunition there for the taking to be used by the Indians.
quote:
Benteen himself proclaimed that he would not respond to the pack train because he realized that the Indians could not get to them without coming through him. it was absolutely vital to send the ammunition forth, not the entire pack train. I don't think the Indians, nor anyone else for that matter, found this situation "comical" other than yourself
.
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 09 2009 : 8:45:45 PM
Actually, Benteen possessed aversion against most of the officers of the 7th., to include Custer. Those in doubt have only to read col. Graham's "Custer's Myth" to read a shocking list of his damnation of just about everyone involved in the battle.. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 01 2009 : 8:38:56 PM
Kanipe was sent to the pack train.
I don't why you have trouble with Benteen thinking at the time that Custer was alive and then after visiting th battlefield and time to reflect he believes Custer was actually dead when he put up the flag
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - August 30 2009 : 11:13:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Simple. Donovan deliberately distorts by adding "quickly interjected" which is his, not Benteen's nor in the transcript, in keeping with his distortion of testimony and his endnotes sometimes as much as three removes from the source, misleading the inexperienced or inept reader to assume surety where none exists.
At the time he planted the guidon, Benteen had no reason to think Custer was dead. At a later time, but before the RCOI, he had concluded Custer and his men had been dead for a while when he'd been at Weir Point. There's no conflict whatsoever.
Aren't there some quotation marks missing from your post, Wiggs?
Once again your facts are incredible incorrect yet, posted with such aplomb as if you actually knew what you were talking about.
On Saturday, February 1st, 10:00 AM, Benteen sworn under oath that he placed his men upon a ridge and planted a guidon to attract the attention of Custer's command. One can only assume that Benteen was not trying to contact spirits but, the living.
Recorder: "State what efforts, if any, that command made to inform Gen. Custer or his command of your position..."
Benteen: "The troops were by file on a line of river bluffs, and as I have stated another company was placed on right angles on another ridge. I planted a guidon at the highest point that looked over that country."
Now we know this event occurred some time in the area of 5 PM., after the pack train arrived on Reno Hill, Weir took off on his own, and the rest of the command straggled after him.
At 2PM. the Court adjourned and re-convened at 10AM, Monday, February the 3rd.
Recorder: Did you not receive such notification from General Custer at the hands of Trumpeter Martin?
Benteen: "I received an ORDER to 'Come on - be quick, big village - bring packs, Bring packs" We had then found - I wish to say, before that ORDER reached me, that I believe that General Custer and his whole command were dead."
We know that Benteen received that ORDER from Sgt. Kanipe in the neighborhood of 3PM.
In summation, Benteen swears under oath that he was attempting to attract the attention of Custer's command at approximately 5 pm. even though he knew they were all dead at three PM.
Did Benteen, who impressed the ladies who attended the hearing with his cool and calm testimony, suddenly become nonplussed and erred? I guess anything is possible.
One last point, did you notice how Benteen referred to that notification as an ORDER? Isn't it somewhat ironic that Benteen himself refers to the notification as an ORDER, an idea you have vehemently and assiduously refuted for lo these many years?
PS. "quickly interjects" does not distort the meaning of that passage whatever. Whether quickly interjects, slowly interjects, interjects, paused, etc., is included the meaning is the same. Your allegation of distortion is distorting. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - May 18 2008 : 7:17:45 PM
My rationale for harboring upon Benteen's apparent animosity for Custer is not based upon personal vindictiveness. I hold no grudge against Benteen or any other participant of this battle. To do so would be monumentally egotistical and valueless as far as research is concerned. However, I can not but feel that it is very important to discern why some of the witnesses testified at the Reno Inquiry as they did, particularly Benteen and Wallace. Both men performed their duties reasonably at a critical time while others, unfortunately, may not have fared as well.
Benteen's testimony,particularly, was diametrically opposed to his earlier comments, letters to his wife, and official report. Wallace, on the other hand, did not flagrantly lie but, managed to subtlety alter known facts in such a manner as to change some of Custer's actions from credible to not so credible.
Establishing the truth that was disguised and covered by fabrications, mis-information, and omission of fact will go far in establishing what may have happened. While it is impossible to know the entire truth, much more information may be obtained then we currently possess. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - May 18 2008 : 7:15:08 PM
My rationale for harboring upon Benteen's apparent animosity for Custer is not based upon personal vindictiveness. I hold no grudge against Benteen or any other participant of this battle. To do so would be monumentally egotistical and valueless as far as research is concerned. However, I can not but feel that it is very important to discern why some of the witnesses testified at the Reno Inquiry as they did, particularly Benteen and Wallace. Both men performed their duties reasonably at a critical time while others, unfortunately, may not have fared as well.
Benteen's testimony,particularly, was diametrically opposed to his earlier comments, letters to his wife, and official report. Wallace, on the other hand, did not flagrantly lie but, managed to subtlety alter known facts in such a manner as to change some of Custer's actions from credible to not so credible.
Establishing the truth that was disguised and covered by fabrications, mis-information, and omission of fact will go far in establishing what may have happened. While it is impossible to know the entire truth, much more information may be obtained then we currently possess. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - May 09 2008 : 8:21:46 PM
An additional tidbit of information that may shed a bit more light upon Benteen's animosity towards Custer was his alleged request from the scout Ben Clark. Soon after the Battle of the Wa****a, Benteen asked Clark to make a statement that Custer had "Knowingly let Elliot go to his doom without trying to save him."
Clark later reported, "I refused to have anything to do with the matter."
Barnett, Touched by Fire,371. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - May 08 2008 : 09:57:12 AM
While what you say may certainly be true, I can not help but feel that denial to attend a funeral of a loved one is harsh indeed Undoubtedly, there are times and circumstances when such things occur but, I thank God that I have never been a recipient of such a ruling. Pity the man or woman who has.
I would not have blamed him had he left on his own! |
| frankboddn |
Posted - May 01 2008 : 3:29:35 PM
Posted - July 17 2007 : 07:37:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think it is the norm to be denied such leave. I also think a father would be obligated to put in for leave knowing it would be denied. Life was hard then and someone was always sick or dying. If nothing was going on maybe such leave would be granted.
Maybe he should have done like Custer when he was worried about Libbie and just left on his own.
|
|
|
