| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - August 09 2009 : 7:27:33 PM
Which member of the 7th. Cavalry was referred to (behind his back) as Count, No-Account? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 30 2009 : 9:11:35 PM
Your guess would be absolutely correct; there would be no names. My lack of evidence does not preclude the possibility that my theory is correct, it just prevents from proving it which I would never claim. Any theory should be based upon a reasonable assumption at the least. from that point, one attempts to examine the whole picture of an incident. One way of doing so is to capture the persona of the witness, his or her motivation for testifying as they do, then draw reasonable conclusions based on common sense.
There was a period of time in our history when a first degree homicide conviction was impossible without locating the body. Look what has transpired in the last couple of decades, numerous individuals are awaiting their introduction to the twilight zone although a corpse was not part of the evidence presented.
this turn of events are a result of society's critical recognitions that as police technology grows so does man's ability to commit heinous and clever crimes like never before.
I earnestly repeat, I do not take any pleasure in called a man a "liar" be he dead or alive. I do believe the officers lied/stretched the truth/had selective memory/fear retaliation from a commanding officer/and or were induced to participate in the above.
Why? For the honor of the military which suffered condemnation and censure from a public that was still tired and stinging from 4 horrible years of horrendous warfare. A public that had the same mis-trust for a standing army as it did its police officers. A public who, sadly, regarded the American Indian as inhuman savages and, could not accept the reality of defeat by these heathens. Therefore, someone had to be at fault for this national disgrace.
Who better than Custer and his whole command who lay molding on the battlefield for several tears. men lie when properly motivated to preserve their personal honor from scrutiny. No az, I have no names on a list. I simple have common sense and a realization that the inquiry was so packed with convoluted mis-information that something was truly amiss. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 30 2009 : 08:18:15 AM
The Court would not have been convened unless Reno specifically requested it. Reno did so only because he was assured that he would be vindicated by the very personnel who were in charge of this torrid affair.
joe a typical statement that you make. So list each offcer that sat on the court that you have evidence that they assured Reno that he would be vindicated.
My guess is that your list has no names on it.
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 29 2009 : 9:47:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Pure Joe below
"The Court was convened, I feel, due to Whitaker's highly publicized accusation against the Army and Reno."
"No where in my statement did I suggest, imply, or alluded to anyone making an actual application for the Court other than Reno. This, my friend, is the "problem" I have with you;selective reading."
Alas and alack, az you continue to astound me with your inability to see the honesty in my posts. Your desire to make me out to be a liar are futile. I have never claimed to be always correct. For a certainty, I have been in error in some of my posts, not intentionally, but, nevertheless, incorrect.
What differentiates me from you, however, is motive. You're familiar with motive aren't you az? The Court of Inquiry came about because of the continuous and extraordinary allegations of wrong doing on behalf of Benteen, Reno, and others, that culminated in the extermination of Custer and his troops.
Individuals involved in this battle began to accuse Reno and Benteen for failing to support their commander. These accusations boiled and simmered for almost three years. One officer in the battle was alleged to state: " We would all have died if we hadn't been led by a coward." This is a paraphrase.
Accusations came to a head when Whittaker made allegations that could no longer be swept under the rug. My theory ( which i have explained before and which you refuse to acknowledge) is that the highly publicized statement of Whitaker are the indisputable reasons that Reno was contacted and,subsequently, requested to request a "hearing" in which he was assured that he would be absolved.
I am certain that you fully understood my theory from a previous post. However, you chose to denigrate my theory by selective selection of my words.
The Court would not have been convened unless Reno specifically requested it. Reno did so only because he was assured that he would be vindicated by the very personnel who were in charge of this torrid affair. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 27 2009 : 09:53:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
AZ there is absolutely no difference between Another's "Accout" and RCOI "Testimony"
This is what I meant.
I think the possibility that there is no difference may be correct. There are more chances for error in accounts due to translations for example. Most accounts are not subject to cross examination which may help to clarify or expose error in testimony. The penalty for a false account is certainly different from the penalty for false testimony. So there is differences.
I do agree that anyone could make a truthful account and that anyone could give false testimony. Everyone makes there own decision on what weight to put on an account or testimony.
AZ Ranger |
| Benteen |
Posted - October 26 2009 : 10:06:14 AM
AZ there is absolutely no difference between Another's "Accout" and RCOI "Testimony"
This is what I meant. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 26 2009 : 09:59:57 AM
Pure Joe below
"The Court was convened, I feel, due to Whitaker's highly publicized accusation against the Army and Reno."
"No where in my statement did I suggest, imply, or alluded to anyone making an actual application for the Court other than Reno. This, my friend, is the "problem" I have with you;selective reading."
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 26 2009 : 09:13:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Joe:
quote:
You are a big proponent of the idea that Indian testimony does not exist. I say that the "white" testimony was far more convoluted,contradictory, and absolutely more confusing than any Indian testimony know to history.
you can not get two "white" witnesses to say the same thing if your life depended upon it, the exception being the two mule packers.
Right on the money. Even a miss by 1 mile in their guess-timations severely hampers our understanding, and it throws off any timetable by that much also. This is where John Gray failed, and other still do to this day also do. Gray wasn't off by 5 to 10 minutes as he thought he was, he was off by hours by the time he had Reno back to the bluffs and Benteen there with him.
AZ there is absolutely no difference between "Account" and "Testimony" when it came to the RCOI. That's because that court was a farce from the beginning. They didn't allow potentially harmful evidence that could have, should have and would have convicted Reno of the charges brought against him.
I am having a hard time following the logic and conclusions. Read the quote and then your statement "AZ there is absolutely no difference between "Account" and "Testimony" when it came to the RCOI."
Is your conclusion correct because there were no Indian accounts or testimony at the RCOI. If that is not what you meant then you lost me.
Apparently there is a difference among us on what constitutes a court of inquiry. Reno asked for it. It did not come about from charges against Reno. A court of inquiry could make a recommendation for charges or as in the case of RCOI find there is not basis to make charges.
I think what you and Joe are looking for would have happened had the RCOI had found a basis to bring charges. There is no civilian equivalent of a court of inquiry where a civilian ask for it and granted it has his behavior reviewed.
In the civilian arena a grand jury is convened by the prosecutor with only one side is present and the result can be an indictment. There is no similarity between a grand jury and a court of inquiry.
A court of inquiry is not the forum to resolve the issues you have presented. I think the Army chose a proactive activity by reviewing training,tactics, modification of weapon systems,pack trains, and supplies. Horsemanship training was enhanced with Godfrey and Edgerly playing a role in it. Marksmanship training of soldiers was enhanced. Look what the Army did to improve itself with a more orderly system for pack trains, modification of the Springfield carbine, brass instead of copper ammunition, ammunition allocations, cavalry school, and marksmanship programs.
I applaud the Army in making assessments and then making improvements.
AZ Ranger |
| Benteen |
Posted - October 26 2009 : 07:55:08 AM
AZ there is absolutely no difference between "Accout" and "Testimony" when it came to the RCOI. That's because that court was a farce from the beginning. They didn't allow potentially harmful evidence that could have, should have and would have convicted Reno of the charges brought against him.
1) Why wasn't any evidence brought against him as to the charges of his dereliction of duty on his scouting mission a few days prior? And don't tell me that it didn't matter or should not have been admitted. I know better and so do you.
2) Why wasn't Girard's or for that matter any one elses testimony allowed as to what "Custer's plans" were? This had everything to do with Reno's case, absolutely everything. Yet the court did not want to hear what Custer's orders were in the late evening of the 24th and early morning hours of the 25th, or his plans or what he even said to be placed into the record. NO? Go to Girards "testimony" and read, it should enlighten you. Girard was trying to establish what Custer's plans and orders were; and yet the court didn't want to hear it?
There's more a hell-of-a-lot more, and your willing to believe this, and place more trust in it than an Indian who said that Custer's battle didn't last over 20 minutes?
The Court didn't, in many an instance, properly 'follow-up' to clarify certain issues that would have convicted Reno had they done so. Joe is correct. All the court did was further obfuscate the matter by creating intricately twisted, often conflicting statements, mixing with it - complex paradoxical puzzles that perplexes, baffles, mystifies and bewilders and befuddles even the best we can throw at it today. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 1:50:00 PM
You are a big proponent of the idea that Indian testimony does not exist. I say that the "white" testimony was far more convoluted,contradictory, and absolutely more confusing than any Indian testimony know to history.
Your on the wrong track Joe. I make a distinction between sworn testimony and accounts. It has nothing to with veracity. Sworn testimony is subject to cross examination and if translated from a different language in court the translator is not the same as the person writing the account.
I believe that there are truthful Indian accounts and also there exists whites convicted of giving false testimony. I chose to make a distinction between testimony and account. I believe there is more chance for error in a written translation that is not recorded in the native language.
AZ Ranger |
| Benteen |
Posted - October 24 2009 : 11:12:20 PM
Joe:
quote:
You are a big proponent of the idea that Indian testimony does not exist. I say that the "white" testimony was far more convoluted,contradictory, and absolutely more confusing than any Indian testimony know to history.
you can not get two "white" witnesses to say the same thing if your life depended upon it, the exception being the two mule packers.
Right on the money. Even a miss by 1 mile in their guess-timations severely hampers our understanding, and it throws off any timetable by that much also. This is where John Gray failed, and other still do to this day also do. Gray wasn't off by 5 to 10 minutes as he thought he was, he was off by hours by the time he had Reno back to the bluffs and Benteen there with him. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 24 2009 : 1:48:13 PM
I try to read as much as possible, whenever I have time. I remember, as a child, my fascination with dr. Seuss books. No where in my statement did I suggest, imply, or alluded to anyone making an actual application for the Court other than Reno. This, my friend, is the "problem" I have with you;selective reading.
You see (in my posts) what you wish, disregard all else, then distort my rationale by citing points I neither made nor incur.
I followed my premise with what I clearly stated was a theory. My personal belief is that Reno took three years to make the request because he did not possess the intestinal fortitude to do so without, first, receiving assurances that he would not suffer any consequences for his actions. That his leadership or lack thereof would be casually overlooked.
You are a big proponent of the idea that Indian testimony does not exist. I say that the "white" testimony was far more convoluted,contradictory, and absolutely more confusing than any Indian testimony know to history.
you can not get two "white" witnesses to say the same thing if your life depended upon it, the exception being the two mule packers. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 24 2009 : 12:50:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Joe until you understand that Reno requested the Court of Inquiry and that is how courts of inquiry conduct business you will always find it confusing. This was not an official investigation by the Army of all events that occurred regarding the LBH. Reno wanted to clear his name officially and asked for the court of inquiry.
Reno was the recipient of slanderous actions from the time of the battle and, continues to be to this present day. The R.C.O.I. did nothing to vindicate Reno, it merely stated,in essence, that no further action be taken regarding the matter. The primary reason the Court came to its conclusion is threefold, it served the best interest of the U.S. Army, the testifying officers were, generally, afraid to condemn Reno because of possible retaliation, most of them were not proud of their own actions in this battle, and a lynching of Reno could have opened Pandora's box towards their own failings.
The Court was convened, I feel, due to Whitaker's highly publicized accusation against the Army and Reno. I further feel that a great possibility existed that Reno was assured, by the powers that be, that he would be absolved of any wrong doing should he agree to this trial. A casual reading of the transcript and evidence easily reveals that Recorder Lee lamb-blasted Reno with his original report that clearly contradicted his testimony yet, the Court still came up with its final finding.
Testimony of civilians and soldiers who did not share an officer's rank was treated like these folk were incompetent, stupid, buffoons who were incapable of seeing the truth, let alone testifying under oath.
Excerpt of Reno's official Report:
" After traveling over the trail, it is evident to me that Custer intended to support me by moving down the stream and attacking the village in the flank..."
Yet,he screeched and bellowed that he fled the timber because he was not supported by Custer.
Reno's attorney was a real shiner. In his closing address he calmly explained to the Court that :
" A private soldier of limited intelligence, who follows the heels of his commanding officer, is evidence to establish an important order." A order in which an individual is judged by his rank rather than his God giving attributes. He goes on to say that how could a mule packer tell the truth when he is only supported by another mule packer. He then alleges that Dr. Porter's courage failed on that day. Ironic isn't it. I could go on but, I'll save some for later.
In summation, this lawyer attacked witnesses by their class distinction. Men who were not officers were not quite human or intelligent. Therefore their testimony could be safely disregarded.
The very same witnesses who did not fear to tell the truth were safely eliminated of any credibility thereby ensuring Reno's acquittal. As I have said in the past, this type of prejudicial philosophies were part and parcel of the era wherein this battle occurred. To judge these people by contemporaneous standards (which some absolutely insist on doing) while send you down the wrong alley everytime. You ask why the board did not look into the actions of others. Amazing, you obviously did not read or comprehend my earlier response to that question. The Court declared that the actions of no other individual other than Reno would be subject to questioning.
That factor is why I came up with my theory. To purposely refrain from investigating the actions of the other participants is Prima Facie evidence that the sole purpose of this investigation was to exonerate the Army! In order to accomplish this mission, the only officer whose actions were to be evaluated, Reno, had to be absolved of wrong doing
AZ Ranger
Joe if you going to suggest that I read something then would it not be good advice to yourself. Does anyone after reading the extract below believe Joe about Whitaker? Looks to me it states a application was made to the President by Reno. Once the court was convened the Whitaker accusations came in but Whitaker could not call for a Reno Court of Inquiry only Reno could. The court allowed Whitaker's questions since the proceedings were requested by Reno and authorized by the President. Whitaker's question were within the scope of this inquiry. That being Major Reno. If Whitaker had 10 questions about Pvt Thompson for example they would not have been allowed unless they directly related to Reno.
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&entity=History.Reno.p0024&id=History.Reno&isize=M
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 23 2009 : 9:39:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Joe until you understand that Reno requested the Court of Inquiry and that is how courts of inquiry conduct business you will always find it confusing. This was not an official investigation by the Army of all events that occurred regarding the LBH. Reno wanted to clear his name officially and asked for the court of inquiry.
Reno was the recipient of slanderous actions from the time of the battle and, continues to be to this present day. The R.C.O.I. did nothing to vindicate Reno, it merely stated,in essence, that no further action be taken regarding the matter. The primary reason the Court came to its conclusion is threefold, it served the best interest of the U.S. Army, the testifying officers were, generally, afraid to condemn Reno because of possible retaliation, most of them were not proud of their own actions in this battle, and a lynching of Reno could have opened Pandora's box towards their own failings.
The Court was convened, I feel, due to Whitaker's highly publicized accusation against the Army and Reno. I further feel that a great possibility existed that Reno was assured, by the powers that be, that he would be absolved of any wrong doing should he agree to this trial. A casual reading of the transcript and evidence easily reveals that Recorder Lee lamb-blasted Reno with his original report that clearly contradicted his testimony yet, the Court still came up with its final finding.
Testimony of civilians and soldiers who did not share an officer's rank was treated like these folk were incompetent, stupid, buffoons who were incapable of seeing the truth, let alone testifying under oath.
Excerpt of Reno's official Report:
" After traveling over the trail, it is evident to me that Custer intended to support me by moving down the stream and attacking the village in the flank..."
Yet,he screeched and bellowed that he fled the timber because he was not supported by Custer.
Reno's attorney was a real shiner. In his closing address he calmly explained to the Court that :
" A private soldier of limited intelligence, who follows the heels of his commanding officer, is evidence to establish an important order." A order in which an individual is judged by his rank rather than his God giving attributes. He goes on to say that how could a mule packer tell the truth when he is only supported by another mule packer. He then alleges that Dr. Porter's courage failed on that day. Ironic isn't it. I could go on but, I'll save some for later.
In summation, this lawyer attacked witnesses by their class distinction. Men who were not officers were not quite human or intelligent. Therefore their testimony could be safely disregarded.
The very same witnesses who did not fear to tell the truth were safely eliminated of any credibility thereby ensuring Reno's acquittal. As I have said in the past, this type of prejudicial philosophies were part and parcel of the era wherein this battle occurred. To judge these people by contemporaneous standards (which some absolutely insist on doing) while send you down the wrong alley everytime. You ask why the board did not look into the actions of others. Amazing, you obviously did not read or comprehend my earlier response to that question. The Court declared that the actions of no other individual other than Reno would be subject to questioning.
That factor is why I came up with my theory. To purposely refrain from investigating the actions of the other participants is Prima Facie evidence that the sole purpose of this investigation was to exonerate the Army! In order to accomplish this mission, the only officer whose actions were to be evaluated, Reno, had to be absolved of wrong doing
AZ Ranger
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 19 2009 : 10:39:58 AM
When trying to put together what happened I believe that Wallace's 2 hours from the divide to shortly before crossing the LBH is closer to the actual timing than Reno's 4.5 hours. I think it could be significantly (15 minutes) shorter and still be realistic.
One does not have to be a liar because his watch doesn't match what someone else thinks is the correct. There could be a multitude of reasons for all these time differences. The timing in Reno's report takes to long to move down Reno Creek in my opinion. That would indicate an error but not necessarily a lie.
AZ Ranger |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 19 2009 : 10:30:24 AM
Joe until you understand that Reno requested the Court of Inquiry and that is how courts of inquiry conduct business you will always find it confusing. This was not an official investigation by the Army of all events that occurred regarding the LBH. Reno wanted to clear his name officially and asked for the court of inquiry. He was surprised that there were charges of wrong doing being brought up by the recorded from Whitaker regarding Reno's behavior. Reno argued that it should not be allowed and the court ruled that it would since it was within the narrow focus of Reno's behavior. The same type of charges or praises against Benteen would not be allowed and the court ruled on that and did not allow praise or accusations. In that ruling Reno's attorney was trying to enter praise of Benteen and the court would not allow it. There were no complaints against Benteen that the court had to rule on. If there were they could not hear them at the Reno Court of Inquiry as the ruled in regards of the praise for the same reason.
The focus is Reno and his actions. The court let into evidence whatever may shed light on Reno's actions. That would include what Custer did and to a lesser extent Benteen. Custer because he was in charge and sent Reno in to the valley. Benteen only if there were some connection between Benteen's battalion and Reno's battalion. That occurred when they joined up and there is no evidence presented that Benteen and Reno would be relying on each other before that time.
Joe when you see some use COI rather than RCOI that may be clue that they want it to be broader than just Reno's behavior. It may be they just abbreviate it but if their points are that there was a whitewash or the Army didn't inquire into others wrong doings than using Reno Court of Inquiry might be confusing since it would explain why didn't look into behavior of others.
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 18 2009 : 8:49:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
So Reno puts Wallace with him also.
Reno's report could and should have included information from Wallace who gave it to McGuire. Wallace's timing was published in January,1877. So how could Wallace know that 2 years latter his testimony would be significant to people in 2009? It certainly wasn't to the court in 1879.
As a horseman it makes sense to me that Wallace would make a notation after crossing a creek. To what benefit does anyone gain by having different reports of times for certain events and locations?
quote:
AZ Ranger
Wallace could not have know the significance of his testimony to students of 2009. Nor can we have a complete understanding of the motivation that prompted the participants of this battle to perform and testify to what occurred then. We can not because we can not read minds. What we must do is seek and find clues that will assist us in discovering possibilities as to why certain events occurred.
Once one realizes that the Court's main concern was the exoneration of the survivors from any implication of wrong doing then, and only then, does the testimony of numerous witnesses began to make sense.
For example, Benteen told so many exaggerations that his motive became obvious to Recorder lee and, members of the board as well. Absolutely nothing could be done about it for only the action's of Reno was up for review and censure.
Reno was shown his official report which flagrantly contradicted his testimony and simple shrugged it off with a casual whatever.
it is my opinion and, I'm not saying that I have all the correct answers, but I truly feel that the sole purpose of the Inquiry was to clear the military of malfeasance of duty. Custer and his men were dead so, what the hey!
I believe Wallace to be an honorable soldier who truly believed he was doing what was best for God, the military, and the wonderful U.S.of A.
In discussing this battle let us agree to disagree and keep the door open to many possibilities. If you feel that I am wrong then convince me with facts not personal character assassination. let us share facts and reasonable suppositions based on credible possibilities. Do this and we all become winners in this mighty struggle to understand the Battle of the Little Big Horn. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 17 2009 : 09:53:58 AM
So Reno puts Wallace with him also.
Reno's report could and should have included information from Wallace who gave it to McGuire. Wallace's timing was published in January,1877. So how could Wallace know that 2 years latter his testimony would be significant to people in 2009? It certainly wasn't to the court in 1879.
As a horseman it makes sense to me that Wallace would make a notation after crossing a creek. The battalion gets out of formation during a crossing and regroups on the other side. Perfect time if you in the front and had crossed to make a note while next to Lt Hare on his right and Reno on Hare's right. Crossing the creek is consistent with a short stop on the other side. So unless Wallace made up crossing the creek which we all know happened it tends to support that he was there and had opportunity to stop and make a notation.
To what benefit does anyone gain by having different reports of times for certain events and locations?
Reno timing down REno Creek is slower than what the pack train was moving. At what point did the pack train pass Reno and Custer assuming it took 4 hours for the pack train and 4.5 hours for Reno?
AZ Ranger |
| Benteen |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 10:58:26 PM
Ranger, always a safe bet, huh? 
Joe & Ranger,
Reno’s statements pg 560 -561 RCOI,
The other columns [his and Custer's] moving on opposite banks of the stream until we go down within sight of the Indian tepee that has been referred to, I can’t tell the distance. We were moving almost parallel when the commanding officer beckoned me with his hat to cross over to the bank on which he was. The crossing was a little difficult so that when I got on that side the battalion was somewhat scattered, and I was about opposite the rear of the column commanded by Gen. Custer. I there received an order from Lt. Cooke to move my command to the front. When I got up there - there was a turmoil among the Indians that were with us as scouts. They were stripping themselves and preparing for a fight. I afterwards understood that they would not go forward and Gen. Custer had ordered them to give up their guns and horses.
I moved forward in accordance with the orders received from Lt. Cooke to the head of the column. Soon after that Lt. Cooke came to me and said, “Gen. Custer directs you to take as rapid a gait as you think prudent and charge the village afterwards, and you will be supported by the whole outfit.”
Q, Who was with you at the time?
A. My battalion adjutant, Lt. Hodson was on my left and Lt. Wallace was on his left. He came up and said he was going with that battalion as a volunteer aide, laughing, and took his place on my left. He was not at the time on any company duty.
Wallaces statements, pg 20 - 21 RCOI,
After going ten or twelve miles Major Reno was called across to the same side of the stream on which Gen. Custer was moving. The two battalions then moved along parallel to each other for some distance further. We passed a tepee which had some dead bodies in it and soon after passing that the adjutant came to Major Reno and said that the Indians were about 2 miles and a half ahead and Major Reno was ordered forward as fast as he could go and to charge them and the others would support him.
Q. What command were you with at that time?
A. I was riding near Major Reno and with his battalion.
Q. What little stream do you speak of?
A. It is a tributary of the LBH and runs into it a mile or two above where the village was located.
So exactly what is the difference between these two statements?
Notice in Reno’s statements, that he stated Cooke came to him twice. The first time just after he had crossed the stream and was at the van of Custer’s column. The 2nd time Cooke came to him was after he had moved to the “head of the column” just as Custer's first order through Cooke had ordered him to do. After going there, to the head of the column, and observing the recalcitrant Scouts and after he had already started for the river: he said this: “…the orders received from Lt. Cooke to the head of the column. Soon after that Lt. Cooke came to me and said, “Gen. Custer directs you to take as rapid a gait as you think prudent and charge the village afterwards, and you will be supported by the whole outfit.” Reno confirms Wallace’s presence at that time.
Now notice Wallace does not mention this crossing of Reno to Custer’s side of the stream, other than he was “called across”. Wallace also gets the timing wrong because he thought that they rode parallel after Reno was “called across”, but Reno tells us different: He stated that Cooke came to him as he struck the van of Custer’s column, hardly “riding parallel for some time“ as Wallace stated it. Wallace’s recollection was skewed by the fact that he indeed was with Custer’s column at the time Reno was called across or he would have known about that first order Custer had sent to Reno through Cooke, to “move his column to the front.”
Locations? The tepee Reno mentioned was the tepee DeRudio stated was about 5 miles from the river. This was where Custer waved Reno across with his hat. Reno then caught up with the head of Custer’s column shortly after Custer had ordered the Scouts to pursue the 40 to 50 Indians. This as it has been testified to was at another tepee about 3/4ths to 1 mile from Ford “A”. And as Reno himself explains: “Soon after that Lt. Cooke came to me (again) and said, “Gen. Custer directs you to take as rapid a gait as you think prudent and charge the village afterwards, and you will be supported by the whole outfit.” And was at this point where Wallace did join him.
A vital key in understanding this last location is Wallace’s own misguided statements place it: “After going ten or twelve miles Major Reno was called across to the same side of the stream on which Gen. Custer was moving. The two battalions then moved along parallel to each other for some distance further.” Not much room here for interpretation, is there? Only if one interprets Wallace’s mileage as from the divide does one get any sense of where it may have been that he was referring to as a starting point. But even then he ruins any interpretive chance by further stating: “ The two battalions then moved along parallel to each other for some distance further. “Some distance further”? If he was using the divide as a reference point that “some distance” should have been not over 2 miles to our understanding, and that only is if it was 10 miles and not the 12 he did state. Clearly his reference of that tepee, then had to have been the tepee nearest the river and about 3/4ths of a mile or so from ford “A”. He however did get one thing right. They had moved “some distance” about 4 miles from the 1st tepee, where Custer had waved him across to where Wallace finally gets a chance to join Reno near the 2nd tepee closest to the river.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 8:41:20 PM
Riding next to Custer a few moments before he was given permission to ride off with his friend to join the fun.
PS. Which he, of course, perjured himself in his testimony. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 10:07:28 AM
On his horse. |
| Benteen |
Posted - October 11 2009 : 1:25:10 PM
Where was Wallace when Reno was waved across Reno Creek by Custer? |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 04 2009 : 7:02:01 PM
Answer: The ever faithful, Private John Burkman. "Dog Robber" was another term for "Striker", he acted as a servant for Custer as well as taking care of his horses and dogs. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 02 2009 : 5:20:21 PM
4th. question" Which trooper performed the task of Custer's "Dog Robber?" |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 13 2009 : 2:10:34 PM
Weir remained at fort Hayes and did not participate in the Hancock expedition of 1867. During that time he served as an escort for Libby, a normal practice for officers on frontier posts. Rumors began to circulate, some headed by Benteen and the rest is history?. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 06 2009 : 12:37:56 PM
3rd.Question: How did the rumor of liaison between Libby and Weir get started? Hint: You should not be surprised concerning who? |
|
|
