| Author |
 Topic  |
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - November 13 2003 : 2:59:35 PM
|
|
What's your favorite source on the Battle of the Little Big Horn? Personally, for analysis and theory, my choice is Lakota Noon. For overall information and interesting tidbits, I'll take Son of the Morning Star. What I like about SOMS is I can open to any page, start reading, and it won't be a problem at all. Michno actually quotes a writer referring to SOMS as "incoherent", but I think it actually works best in an incoherent manner. It jumps around if you're looking for a chronological discussion of the battle, but the book is about more than that. It covers topics on the spot, such as Iron Hawk's claim of putting an arrow completely through a soldier. Instead of moving on, the book cites other sources on the ability of warriors of different tribes with a bow and arrow. Plus, it stays away from many of the traps of other books, in telling the reader what happened. It leaves that up to the reader and other more specialized literature to make conclusions.
|
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2003 : 4:32:03 PM
|
So far, for battle information, I am enjoying "Lakota Noon" as well as Sklenar's "To Hell With Honour." But for gleaning tidbits of GAC's personality, I'll take "The Custer Story" by Marguerite Merington. Letters ARE a window to the soul.
Anything by Louise Barnett has proven helpful in my research. Not only would I recommend "Touched by Fire" as an excellent GAC bio, but also "Ungentlemanly Acts: The Army's Notorious Incest Trial" as an excellent look at the frontier army.
Just my ideas ...
movingrobewoman |
movingrobe |
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2003 : 7:49:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
For overall information and interesting tidbits, I'll take Son of the Morning Star. What I like about SOMS is I can open to any page, start reading, and it won't be a problem at all. Michno actually quotes a writer referring to SOMS as "incoherent", but I think it actually works best in an incoherent manner. It jumps around if you're looking for a chronological discussion of the battle, but the book is about more than that. It covers topics on the spot, such as Iron Hawk's claim of putting an arrow completely through a soldier. Instead of moving on, the book cites other sources on the ability of warriors of different tribes with a bow and arrow. Plus, it stays away from many of the traps of other books, in telling the reader what happened. It leaves that up to the reader and other more specialized literature to make conclusions.
I think "Son of the Morning Star" is the best book ever written on the subject. Not necessarily the best *history* ---- Connell is a little shaky on some things, such as his confused idea that 24 men from F fell away from their company and drifted to Reno Hill ---- but the best book. Well written, insightful, memorable. I was taken aback by that "incoherent" jab too; I'm afraid that Michno just doesn't get it, like he doesn't get a lot of things. It's not necessary for something to be linear chronologically for it to make sense. In Connell's case, its coherence is in that it proceeds thematically, rather than chronologically. His book has the logic and flow of conversation.
I also like "The White Lantern" and "A Long Desire," both collections of essays Connell wrote on historical subjects. I've never been a fan of his fiction though; his metier, I think, was the discursive essay.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
timbrads
Corporal
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2003 : 8:38:15 PM
|
| My favorte sources are the archives and letters. I get into going through the original reports and correspondence of the soldiers and the battles. Custer in 76 is a good source, The Custer Myth, there are many great resources, but I like the primary research material. |
|
|
|
pgb3
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2003 : 9:59:40 PM
|
Tim, I tried to send you a message back-channel but your e-mail bounced back. I used the one from your web site. Send me your address: creativeaz@yahoo.com.
PB |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2004 : 07:51:26 AM
|
Sheesh, I can't believe this thread has withered!!
Well, so far I agree with the previous posters. I will have to check the library for the books MRW & Larsen recommended.
I, like Tim, really enjoy getting into source material for the fun of the research. Of course, after transcribing Carrington's rebuttal to Capt. Powell's testimony, I have darned near sworn off transcribing. Boy, that man had terrible handwriting.
Anyway, a friend at the Command & General Staff College gave me a book of the materials they use for LBH, FPK, Rosebud, and Crook's Powder River campaign. One thing I read last night was a transcript of a report from Capt. J. S. Poland, commander of the Standing Rock, D.T. military post, dated 7/24/1876 featuring Indian accounts of the LBH battle. Before I find the original film and confirm the transcript, is this a generally known report?
Thanks in advance,
Billy |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 05 2004 : 8:29:12 PM
|
| My favorite sources are the warrior, revelations compiled by Richard G. Hardorff. His intensive study and review of Indian documents have gone far to explain what was once unexplainable. HOKAHEY! A Good Day to Die relates a realistic view of Indian casualties and, a very comprehensive account of the killing of Deeds. Deeds, a young Sioux, whose death has been misunderstood for sometime, has finally been clarified. Also, I would like to make mention of The Arikara Narrative of Custer's Campaign and the Battle of the Little Bighorn. This is a fascinating revelation of the courage of the "REE" scouts who fought with Custer. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on June 05 2004 8:31:44 PM |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 06 2004 : 05:48:40 AM
|
| There are many works, and many bad works on this subject. Then It's very difficult to find the best, for me however, a very good source is Ambrose, as Frost, Graham, Libbie Custer with her diaries, the Godfrey narrative, and first of all, I agree with Timbrads: letters are a very good way to understand. So Merington one is a great book. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 06 2004 : 1:05:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
My favorite sources are the warrior, revelations compiled by Richard G. Hardorff. His intensive study and review of Indian documents have gone far to explain what was once unexplainable.
Hardorff's okay for printing all those accounts, though I do wonder why he keeps bleeding them out over several little 150 page volumes --- and a heavy amount of those 150 pages being composed of Hardorff's repetitive and unsourced footnotes. It would have been a lot more useful if he had published just one book, like Hansen recently did for the Alamo, but I guess somebody decided that wasn't the way to go. Maybe because of that, the collections are frequently incoherent, as Hardorff just stuffs in whatever he has handy. "Lakota Recollections," for instance, has a Cheyenne account tossed in for no better reason than "what the hell". Or was it "Cheyenne Memories" with a Lakota account? His recently published "Indian Views of the Custer Fight" includes three white soldier accounts, for no obvious reason. (One of them, by the way --- a diary kept by Sgt. Charles White of M Troop --- is very interesting. Extremely critical and scathing, and rather unfairly so, towards many of the surviving officers, and some of the dead ones, whom he attacks by name. This type of bitterness must have been common soon after the fight, but we don't see it much later, except in Benteen's rants to Goldin, and in some of the rumor-mongering that Camp collected later from some of the aged survivors.)
But back to Hardorff. All the statements in his footnotes ought to be taken with a grain of salt, since when you try to trace them back to the sources, one frequently finds that his absolute statements rest on very shaky, and dubious, documentation. That qualifies as a sin of omission, at least.
For example, "Indian Views," pg. 105 includes this footnote: "... the facts of evidence do not corroborate Yellow Nose's statement. Eyewitnesses who viewed Custer's body stated that only four wounds were found on the corpse...." The only trouble with this is that NO eyewitness ever stated that Custer had four wounds. Two men, and if I am not mistaken, two men alone --- John Hammon and Jacob Adams --- said he had three wounds. Hammon, the two bullet wounds everyone knows about, plus a forearm wound; Adams, the same two bullet wounds, plus a gash in a thigh which Adams could never consistently describe. No eyewitness is ever on record as saying that a fourth wound (the infamous arrow in the dick) was on Custer. That's just 2nd/3rd hand hearsay from the 1930s. Hardorff is not being accurate at all in the way he relates "the facts of evidence," which is unfortunate, since a novice could easily be misled. Having such a loose regard for what constitutes "the facts of evidence" is at the root of one of the biggest problems in the Custer book-writing industry: namely, how quickly and unjustifiably one book's speculation becomes the next book's "fact".
Later on in the same note Hardorff remarks that Tom Custer was "apparently one of the last to die on Custer Hill". That is not apparent to me at all.
I don't know how many times Hardorff has repeated in his books the statement that "Nathan Short's remains were discovered by White Man Runs Him, a Crow scout, on the divide between the Rosebud and the Yellowstone, in August of 1876." What he won't tell you is that White Man Runs Him, in his several different interviews, never claimed to have done any such thing. His only basis for that statement is some hearsay derived from a Bernard Prevo letter to Walter Camp, written 35 years after the battle.
I could go on and on; all in all, Hardorff just has a bad habit of taking inadequate evidence further than can be reasonably defended. It's one thing to say that Tom Custer "may have been" one of the last men killed on the hill, and then giving your reasons why. There's no very good reason to think so, but it's fair discourse. It's quite another thing, however, to say that Tom "apparently was" one of the last men to die. That's the route Hardorff often chooses to take. If he publishes more, he REALLY should start including citations to his footnotes.
"Hokahey" is his best book, but I'm a little bit uneasy with some of his reasoning. There are several times, in that book and in some of his later ones, where the name of an Indian victim crops up who isn't on Hardorff's "official" list. Hardorff usually suggests, with no evidence, that such a name must be a nickname for one of the other Indians, which may be true. But is it? I'm not sure there's much Hardorff can say in answer to that in some cases.
I do think he's right that the Indian fatalities, however many they were and whoever they were, were only a fraction of the soldier deaths. He gives 40; the real number might have been a little more or a little less, but likely not by much.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on June 06 2004 1:16:01 PM |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 06 2004 : 7:02:58 PM
|
| I'd guess he says Tom Custer was "apparently one of the last to die on Custer Hill" because of the mutilations? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 06 2004 : 8:18:16 PM
|
| There is a fascinating theory that, on Last Stand Hill, Tom was mistaken for his brother George by the Indians. I believe this theory is based on the excessive damage accorded to Tom's body. Where George had, apparently, removed his dearskin jacket before the battle, Tom wore his. His stylish dress, the fancy boots, and bright red scarf, signaled him as the leader of the troopers. I guess I'm getting old as I can't remember from which source I got this info. If I find it I'll post it. |
|
|
|
Rocky76
Corporal
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 06 2004 : 8:50:13 PM
|
| >>>Deeds, a young Sioux, whose death has been misunderstood for sometime, has finally been clarified. <<< How do you figure? Best book on Custer? hmmmm, I guess my most worn out is Nichols, Men With Custer...but the best was the one Walter Camp didn't write...put the Camp papers in order and you have the best book written on the BLBH. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 06 2004 : 9:19:13 PM
|
Iron Hail: On the night of June 24, a boy by the name of Thunder Earth came into camp. The next morning, the boy and his father went after the horse. The cavalry came upon them and killed the boy."
In 1928, Walter Campbell became interested in this matter, and from the Hunkpapa, One Bull, he learned that the slain boy was known as Deeds. In a second Interview with One Bull, he revealed that Deeds was killed on the west side of the Little Big Horn River, on the flat were Reno crossed in retreat. Eagle Bear also indicated that location as the place were Deed's was killed.
Joseph G. Masters went to the Standing Rock in 1936 to secure further facts regarding the death of Deeds. He wrote: After stopping to water the horses as they crossed the river, the (Reno) soldiers rode far out toward the Western Hills where the Indian boys were herding the horses. In this story of the battle, all of the Indians recounted the fact that the soldiers killed a ten-year-old boy by the name of Deeds.
It was once believed that Deeds was killed during the cracker box incident in which Sgt. Curtiss responded to the west side of the divide to recover lost property from the previous night's march.
Some how I found it comforting to know where the death of such a young lad actually took place. |
|
|
|
Rocky76
Corporal
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 06 2004 : 9:47:38 PM
|
| Joe, I do believe that there was a boy killed and he WAS gathering horses…but that is the end of what I believe…I don’t accept David Humphrey Miller’s account or Master’s or Walter Campbell’s…not because they write poor history, although in the case of Miller it may be so, but because they came along years too late…Moving Robe Woman (Mary Charger) is involved in this story, so that tells me that it was true in a sense…some young man lost his life, but we will never know who…the NA’s don’t know who. Feather Earring told the same story in his own way…but it was not on the flat near the Reno retreat Xing…if a youth was killed at this location it was done by the Ree, but they claim no such honor, they gave up that chase to capture ponies…yet Herendeen claims they killed a few women here…Michno blows that up to be Gall’s family based on a Chicago Times story from 1886…but that has no support from any other account taken from Gall in 1886, or for that matter any subsequent evidence given by the Gall family….the fact of the matter is that rumors ran rampant in the 10,000 soul village, exactly as they would have ran in a town that size in Pennsylvania during the Civil War…. 10,000 versions of the story…and then add 40 years….good lord, how could you say it is solved? Mary Charger told several stories over the years…some not so involved. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 07 2004 : 12:23:36 AM
|
| Rocky76: I'm unclear as to what you're trying to say. I've read that Gall stated that he found his family killed at some point, and after that Gall was so enraged that he "killed (his) enemies with a hatchet". Are you saying Gall never said that? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 07 2004 : 06:22:08 AM
|
I like Lakota Noon, as well as Fox and Gray.
I used to like SOMS, but after reading the others, I think it's a bit "dated". (I seem to recall that he postulates somewhere that the Indians had almost no guns whatsoever until they captured them from the 7th). Don't believe that's quite the case--. And he does jump around from subject to subject, that's for sure.
And I find Connell's writing almost to the point of making fun of Custer and the 7th and how stupid and inept they all were. It's almost as tho he holds them in contempt for the tactics and how they fought during the battle--.
So--an entertaining book, I guess, but not exactly great history.
All in my humble opinion, of course!! |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 07 2004 : 5:01:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
I'd guess he says Tom Custer was "apparently one of the last to die on Custer Hill" because of the mutilations?
Yes, and on some Indian stories that describe men in buckskin as still fighting during the final rush. The mutilation, though, is meaningless, since men were mutilated, many beyond recognition, all over the field. Much of it is testified to have been done by squaws, who surely could not have known and targeted the "last man" or "men," even if they wanted to.
I take all those sightings of men in buckskin, especially the more detailed and dramatic ones, with a good grain of salt. The Indians must have found out pretty quickly how interested the whites were in possible sightings of Custer or a man in buckskin ----- notice how many interviews include a denial (or claim) of recognition of Custer during the battle, meaning they must have been asked --- and human nature being what it is, many interviewees must have felt a strong temptation to give the white interviewers something they wanted. And they wanted to hear stories about men in buckskin.
But this is complicated by the fact that even if some of the tales of men in buckskin were not imaginary, there were several persons dressed so on the battlefield. Perhaps a half-dozen alone died on Custer Hill. Trying to single out one as being Tom is impossible, since they could just as easily be Boston, or Porter, or Yates........
But this is all by the board. What really got me was Hardorff's assertion that Tom "apparently was" one of the last survivors on Custer Hill. No justification for that all; the idea cannot, and probably never will, rise above speculation.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on June 07 2004 6:28:30 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 07 2004 : 5:15:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brent
And I find Connell's writing almost to the point of making fun of Custer and the 7th and how stupid and inept they all were. It's almost as tho he holds them in contempt for the tactics and how they fought during the battle--.
Well, to plead Connell's point, look at the results.....
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 07 2004 : 5:52:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Some how I found it comforting to know where the death of such a young lad actually took place.
You know where it took place? Not even Hardorff makes that claim.
The bottom line is that all accounts of the boy's death are hearsay, since none of the people allegedly with him --- his dad or grandfather or brother Brown Ass, or some other person --- ever left an account to anybody, that we know of. Almost none of them agree on any details, except that he was killed. And a couple of the accounts Hardorff mentions on pg. 18 suggest that not even that may have happened.
We really don't know jack about it, if you get right down to it. Something obviously happened, but its details are buried in rumor and hearsay. I don't see how it can be said that anything has been "clarified" or "revealed".
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on June 07 2004 6:16:19 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 07 2004 : 6:14:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
There is a fascinating theory that, on Last Stand Hill, Tom was mistaken for his brother George by the Indians. I believe this theory is based on the excessive damage accorded to Tom's body. Where George had, apparently, removed his dearskin jacket before the battle, Tom wore his. His stylish dress, the fancy boots, and bright red scarf, signaled him as the leader of the troopers. I guess I'm getting old as I can't remember from which source I got this info. If I find it I'll post it.
Okay-- How could you know that Tom's buckskin clothing was "stylish," his boots "fancy," and his red scarf "bright"? For all we know, everything he wore could have been so last year.
I'm doubtful the Indians would have been able to tell his dress was "stylish" by wasichu standards, even if it was. Or that they would care. Why would buckskin clothing mark a man as a leader anymore than it would a scout?
Then all this talk is complicated by the fact that Daniel Kanipe, who may have had better knowledge of what he was talking than Godfrey, told Walter Camp that on the day of the battle Tom was dressed in a blue flannel shirt, and in soldier pants with a stripe the same size as a sergeant's. Supposedly, Tom had the reputation in the regiment of being a "slouchy" person.
What is the source for the claim that Tom wore a red scarf? Godfrey, in his memo on the dead officers' clothing, says nothing about it.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 07 2004 : 9:32:24 PM
|
I believe one of the soldiers trapped in the timber (De Rudio?) thought he saw Tom Custer and hollered out at him. His greeting was returned with gunfire. And the soldier in question stated he thought it was TWC based on his manner of dress, which was to say his buckskins.
Accounts point to those found in full buckskins as thought to be scouts, which could explain why Custer was not treated that badly. Its also possible that Tom Custer wore a buckskin jacket, but was not wearing it. And yes, Knipe/Kanipe would be a better source, as he was one of the last to see Tom Custer alive and a sergeant in his company.
I say again...
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
I'd guess he says Tom Custer was "apparently one of the last to die on Custer Hill" because of the extent of his mutilations?
|
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 11:18:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
Accounts point to those found in full buckskins as thought to be scouts, which could explain why Custer was not treated that badly.
Doesn't explain, though, why Porter was probably mutilated beyond recognition, why Tom nearly was if we are to believe Godfrey, or why Cooke got his face scalped. Most of the mutilation seems to me to be random in nature. Perhaps the only victims who were specifically targeted for abuse were the Rees and Dorman.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 9:24:01 PM
|
| Indians, somewhat like the rest of us, have preconceived notions as to how a "leader" should dress and act. The Deerskin jackets worn by several officers were of a greater expense than the normal military jacket. This was obvious to everyone of that era as it would be in ours. As a result, officers wearing them stood out. Please do not assume that Indians are incapable of recognizing stylish clothing. It is not only ethnocentric to think so, it is also incorrect. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 09 2004 : 12:35:46 AM
|
| And in the same way, you should not assume that warriors saw a person in buckskins and assumed they were officers. There are accounts that said they saw a dead man in buckskins and thought they were NOT soldiers at all, and thus they were spared mutilation and/or scalping. So there goes that theory. Warriors may have found a buckskin jacket to be rather stylish, but its not clear that they all recognized the cost (after all, they made a lot of their clothes) or whom could afford to wear such a garment. In fact, they seemed to notice officers by the metal bars on their jackets. They also mentioned the chevrons on a sergeant's or corporal's shirt as well. Now, a soldier wearing soldier pants and a buckskin shirt may have been ID'd as a soldier. But don't fool yourself or try to pass off the notion that EVERY or even a majority of the Indians saw buckskin and thought "hey, that's expensive, must be an officer". |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 09 2004 : 08:32:04 AM
|
So now, Wiggs, that you got to use 'ethnocentric' is a sentence, resenting any insinuation that a Sioux warrior can't release his inner Joan Rivers to bitch enviously about someone else's clothing, is it the new theory that LBH was an early pilot for a show to be called Sioux Eye for the Dead Guy?
I mean, just HOW stylish are we talking about here? Share..... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 09 2004 : 5:50:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Indians, somewhat like the rest of us, have preconceived notions as to how a "leader" should dress and act. The Deerskin jackets worn by several officers were of a greater expense than the normal military jacket. This was obvious to everyone of that era as it would be in ours. As a result, officers wearing them stood out. Please do not assume that Indians are incapable of recognizing stylish clothing. It is not only ethnocentric to think so, it is also incorrect.
Well I'm charmed by how I've suddenly been converted into an "ethnocentrist" for questioning whether anybody would think Tom was dressed stylishly, but I still have to ask how you know all this.
Why do you assume that the officers would be wearing fancy, expensive clothes on campaign? Wallace, in one of his letters to a friend that year, mentions that he was wearing pants with a big patch on the seat. The other officers' clothing could have been just as crummy as Wallace's. One of the luxuries of being an officer was that they could wear cheap and crummy clothes into battle, if they so wanted. There's nobody to impress, and no point in fouling up a good shirt with blood, brains, or dirt. Every buckskin jacket in that command could have been moth-eaten and covered in boogers, for all you know.
So I'm curious how you KNOW that Tom's clothing was stylish, his boots fancy, and his scarf (who said he had one?) a no doubt blindingly bright red. If all this is true, show me.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on June 09 2004 6:05:15 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Farvorite Source
