| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 26 2004 : 4:17:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : So now your reading Curley's mind too? Or his translator?...I asked for evidence, not inferences. If you have to 'infer' that Curley really meant to say what you want him to say, you've got nothing.
REPLY : The translation issue is a red herring. Curley words were translated by three different interpreters and each time the story was the same: CUSTER, CUSTER'S COMMAND, THE COMMAND went to Ford B.
Some corrections need to be made here. There are actually only two different interpreters in the three accounts which you are claiming support your theories --- the 1908 one is unidentified, and could have been one or the other. Since Russell White Bear interpreted for Curley on the battlefield in 1909, and the 1908 interview was also done there, it's likely he worked both.
The 1910 interview (Fred Old Horn) barely touches on Medicine Tail at all, and the only appearance of your beloved word "command" is in one of Camp's questions --- which should give you pause, and remind you that these are not "Curley's" words, but rather only his information, translated by a 2nd party, then further filtered through a 3rd party in the form written down by Camp. Pretending to have the ability to extract such exquisite detail from such a generic word as "command" is therefore ludicrous.
quote:
Curley did not say PART OF THE COMMAND went to the ford, and he did not say anything about three companies splitting off to go to Luce ridge or anywhere else.
He did not say the "whole command" either, as he did when he mentioned its presence at Calhoun Ridge, if you want to make an issue of it. What does it prove? Nothing. I don't understand why you keep wanting to extract large meanings from indifferent statements.
quote:
It is there in plain English, it would say the same in plain Crow, and anyone who says otherwise will have to eat crow.
Plain English doesn't need to be "inferred" to get the desired results.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : Russell White Bear's letters give no evidence for two trips to the ford.
REPLY : They say nothing at all about Ford B. They only say that Colonel Custer sent a gray horse troop toward the river.
My point is that a theory that Custer sent a company back to cover his retreat from the ford is more reconcilable with the other evidence -- Curley's Camp interviews, Two Eagles and Flying By -- than a theory that two companies went to Ford B and three to Luce ridge.
You used the White Bear letter to speculate that Custer made two trips to the ford. The letter indicates nothing of the kind. No other account known to me suggests such an event either. Ockham's razor tells us that you shouldn't needlessly multiply variables, and there is no need to do so here.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 4:48:30 PM
|
I am not stepping in between these two for a minute, but Larsen had a statement which created a question in my mind.
Larsen, this afternoon you wrote:
quote:
"The 1910 interview (Fred Old Horn) barely touches on Medicine Tail at all, and the only appearance of your beloved word "command" is in one of Camp's questions --- which should give you pause, and remind you that these are not "Curley's" words, but rather only his information, translated by a 2nd party, then further filtered through a 3rd party in the form written down by Camp."
The question is, if the above is true (which I believe), how do we interpret any Indian interviews as far as validity? The majority were conducted by a researcher, asking his questions through a interpreter, and getting the response back the same way. Unless I am badly mistaken, please tell me if I am, you have to contend with the Indian cultural differences, the Interpreter's literacy in both English and whatever Indian language, background influences / motives, as well as whether the interviewer knew his subject when conducting the interview.
I am not versed whatsoever in the Indian versions but I am willing to bet good money that few Indian participants ever learned English well enough to convey in English little beyond their needs for everyday living, much less the more detailed explanations required by an interviewer asking detailed questions.
Sorry about the jumble, just a brain dump before I head back to the office.
Billy
|
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 5:33:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
The question is, if the above is true (which I believe), how do we interpret any Indian interviews as far as validity? The majority were conducted by a researcher, asking his questions through a interpreter, and getting the response back the same way. Unless I am badly mistaken, please tell me if I am, you have to contend with the Indian cultural differences, the Interpreter's literacy in both English and whatever Indian language, background influences / motives, as well as whether the interviewer knew his subject when conducting the interview.
You're absolutely right, and these are factors that any historian or researcher ignores at his peril. This accounts for much of the confusion present in many of the Indian narratives. There is telescoping of time, hearsay blended into personal experience, and other inconsistencies and potential traps for the modern guy who comes around trying to interpret them. One only has to look at the various Curley interviews, and the differences therein. Even in the five taken down by Walter Camp, we have evidence of mistranslation: in one version, two soldiers approach the river at the ford and then shy away unhurt; in a second version, they are killed. One of the interpreters must have gotten it wrong, and we only know about this instance because Curley got interviewed so many times. For Indians who only got interviewed once, we haven't the slightest clue whether and where a mistranslation occurred.
Another thing to be aware of is that often the people interpreting and interviewing the Indians had agendas of their own. Walter Camp once mentions how he tried but failed to get one Indian to change his story about a certain event. Thomas B. Marquis, unfortunately, seems to really have doctored the accounts given to him; altering a killing to a suicide, for example, and placing people as witnesses to events they probably never claimed to have been at.
So --- how do we interpret Indian accounts? Very carefully. Ideally, one should try to get as much multiple and independent sources as possible. This is a must for all historical inquiries, but particularly so here: it lessons the possibility of mistranslation or mistranscription being a major factor. Thus, there are many Indians who said that the fight along Battle Ridge was pretty much a rout. This information comes from different informants, different interpreters, and different interviewers. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that that is probably what happened.
We are lucky that we have so many Indian accounts. It makes things a lot easier. But one has to be very careful not to make a story say more than it does, or become too dogmatic about imprecise words and descriptions. When I read and study about the battle, I only try to figure out what PROBABLY happened. We will never KNOW what happened, and consequently, I am sure that many of the things I currently believe about this battle are mistaken. Hopefully, that is the one thing I assume.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 5:48:01 PM
|
Apologies for butting in, but it's even worse than that. Sometimes they used sign language in conjunction with all else. This is the equivilant of communicating by semaphore, always the first choice for precision nuance.
It's the glossary of terminology that stops all arguments about LBH cold. In languages without the verb 'to be' as we have in English, assumption of exact translation even when ability and intent is there will be highly, highly questionable. We have to take the word of folks that so and so could speak these languages well, and we don't know what family, tribal, community conflicts shaded their intents. But any time you see words in English for which there would be no need or concept in the AmerIndian daily life, be suspicious. Very. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 5:56:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
There is telescoping of time, hearsay blended into personal experience, and other inconsistencies and potential traps for the modern guy who comes around trying to interpret them.
Nor would I want to suggest that these are just problems with Indian testimony. Problems occur with white testimony as well. Take, for example, William Morris's story of the death of George Lorentz and William Slaper's story of the death of Henry Klotzbucher. They have the same location (timber), the same wound (bullet in stomach), and same cast of characters. They are so startlingly close in detail that they seem to be different versions of the same incident. Since Lorentz's death there is fairly well-attested, while Klotzbucher's isn't (Roman Rutten said the latter was killed "on the flat" with Cpl. Scollin), Morris's account is probably more accurate. That is just one example.
The only advantage white testimony has over the Indian is that the whites at least had some control over their words, and could write them down themselves (as Slaper and Morris did) or give them to an interviewer without an extra intermediary in an interpreter. But even then, that doesn't always assure accuracy.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 9:23:54 PM
|
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Since Russell White Bear interpreted for Curley on the battlefield in 1909, and the 1908 interview was also done there, it's likely he worked both.
REPLY : This is pure speculation.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Curley) did not say the 'whole command' either, as he did when he mentioned its presence at Calhoun ridge."
REPLY : At no point in any of the four Camp interviews does Curley state the the "whole command" was at Calhoun hill.
The only time the phrase "whole command" is used at all is on page 156:
"Reno and his command were plainly seen by Custer's whole command while marching this 3/4 mile."
Elsewhere in the narrative the phrases "Custer", "Custer's Command"
and "the command" are used interchangeably.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "why (do) you want to extract large meanings from indifferent statements (?)...Plain English doesn't need to be 'inferred' to get the desired results."
REPLY : Why is it that in every account of the Little Bighorn battle, the phrases "Custer's command" and "Custer's column" and "Custer's battalion" is taken to mean companies C, E, F, I and L, but suddenly, here in Curley's narrative, it is taken to mean something else?
If you have any evidence that Curley's statements refer to anything other than the five companies aforementioned, please let all of us know what it is. Otherwise stop calling it an 'inference' to say that this is what Curley meant.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "You used Russell White Bear's letter to speculate about two trips to the ford. The letter indicates nothing of the kind."
REPLY : There were two Russell white Bear letters, not one.
The letters also says nothing about two companies at Ford B and three companies at Luce ridge. In fact, neither location is even mentioned in these letters.
To use the Russell White Bear letters to support such a theory that you propose is to INFER that such a thing happened, is it not?
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 9:32:09 PM
|
ABridgeTooFar: What books have you read? Is Lakota Noon among them?
And I don't remember if I mentioned it before, but your namesake is a good film, one I happen to own on DVD. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Rocky76
Corporal
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 11:08:36 PM
|
But are we sure Curley told the truth, even in Crow?
LTC Crab, "what books have you read????" What the hell does that mean?...I have read them all...uh, most of them anyway, so does that mean my word is gospel? |
|
|
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2004 : 12:28:00 AM
|
TO EL CRAB : The books by Graham and Camp are really the best books about the battle, because they let the Indians and cavalrymen speak for themselves. But Michno, Gray, Fox and Skelnar have some interesting insights too.
"A Bridge Too Far" is a spectacular movie, and book. Sean Connery was great as General Urquhart, the commander of the surrounded British paras. It's a shame he never got to play Custer in a movie.
Is your favorite movie "Little Big Man" by any chance? |
|
|
|
Rocky76
Corporal
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2004 : 01:55:21 AM
|
| Have you read the book? a must for everyone studying the LBH, it keeps you sane....I read it once a year...only takes a day or so....in an emergency you can just skim the parts that relate to the battle....I have a really great article from the St. Petersburg, Florida paper...a reporter from that rag was born and raised in Lead SD and Ralph Cartwright was living in retirement there and they viewed the movie together....you know that the final LBH scene was filmed on NCR, right? Cartwright caught that right away.....it's a great article.... |
|
|
|
Rocky76
Corporal
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2004 : 01:59:15 AM
|
| Dark Cloud has never read "Little Big Man" it is obvious to all. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2004 : 06:18:31 AM
|
I was asking what books you read because I was just curious as to your background. Lakota Noon certainly has several pieces of Sioux testimony that state only part of Custer's command went further towards the river. The other three companies did move towards the river, but not as close as E and probably F.
Yes, Little Big Man is a fave of mine. Richard Mulligan's portrayal of Custer is damn funny. Though the first time I saw it, I was rather pissed. I saw it not as a harmless movie, but as a slight of Custer. It just came out on DVD, haven't had a chance to pick it up. And no, my name has nothing to do with the movie. Its a name I use on car forums, as I have a racing team called "Dancing Crab Racing" and a business called "Dancing Crab Powder Coating". I wanted something with Crab in it, and El Crab sounds kinda like El Cid, so...
Connery as Custer? Now there's a stretch.
My favorite movie is JAWS, with Out of Sight (and many others) coming in a distant second... |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Rocky76
Corporal
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2004 : 09:52:01 AM
|
| El Crab, I apologize, re-reading my post, I came off a little "crabby", if you will. a little pompous also...I will be more humble. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2004 : 10:13:56 AM
|
Rocky, I read Little Big Man decades ago, quite possibly when it came out, and saw the movie first run, which apparently is before some of your parents met.
In any case, that you guys continue to insert novels and movies - and generally terrible movies like SOTMS - as meaningful, and wax longingly for the correct heroic actor to play your idol, is, shall it be said, extremely odd for adult males, and casts cancerous doubts on claims of being seekers of truth and not romantic poseurs, although that might be the same thing. I sense a longing to dress up in uniform and play soldier yourselves. Sorry, 're-enact' history.
For the record, and after viewing Custer's clothing and what I guess was his jock strap publicly displayed at the museum, it seems Custer was around 5 foot nine (in height..)plus or minus. He was balding with a weak chin. He had a famously high voice, and he stammered. By his own admission he giggled and dissolved in hysterics during theater comedies uncontrollably. He actually was quite self-deprecating in his writings, and he clearly had a sense of the absurd about himself and a sense of humor rather absent from most military people. He also bragged and lied for career advancement.
These aspects contrast with his endurance and aggressive manner and competence. But you could make as strong a case for Richard Simmons to portray Custer as Frank Zappa, never mind Sean Connery. None of which affects any of the issues allegedly of interest here.
Further, it's worth noting again that the Indians who participated at LBH NEVER got to speak with their 'own' voice. They had it filtered through white men or translators or descendents with agendas, sometimes conflicting agendas. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Rocky76
Corporal
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2004 : 10:37:55 AM
|
| I have never seen SOTMS...I did read the book once years ago... they are still trying to understand John Lattman's letter's to Camp... |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2004 : 01:11:00 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Rocky, I read Little Big Man decades ago, quite possibly when it came out, and saw the movie first run, which apparently is before some of your parents met.
In any case, that you guys continue to insert novels and movies - and generally terrible movies like SOTMS - as meaningful, and wax longingly for the correct heroic actor to play your idol, is, shall it be said, extremely odd for adult males, and casts cancerous doubts on claims of being seekers of truth and not romantic poseurs, although that might be the same thing. I sense a longing to dress up in uniform and play soldier yourselves. Sorry, 're-enact' history.
For the record, and after viewing Custer's clothing and what I guess was his jock strap publicly displayed at the museum, it seems Custer was around 5 foot nine (in height..)plus or minus. He was balding with a weak chin. He had a famously high voice, and he stammered. By his own admission he giggled and dissolved in hysterics during theater comedies uncontrollably. He actually was quite self-deprecating in his writings, and he clearly had a sense of the absurd about himself and a sense of humor rather absent from most military people. He also bragged and lied for career advancement.
These aspects contrast with his endurance and aggressive manner and competence. But you could make as strong a case for Richard Simmons to portray Custer as Frank Zappa, never mind Sean Connery. None of which affects any of the issues allegedly of interest here.
Further, it's worth noting again that the Indians who participated at LBH NEVER got to speak with their 'own' voice. They had it filtered through white men or translators or descendents with agendas, sometimes conflicting agendas.
My parents married on May 22nd, 1970.
According to records, Custer was 5'11" tall.
The rest of your post is the reason I have decided to ignore you from this point forth. So what if we start talking about movies and portrayals of Custer in them? Why do you even give a ****? Oh, that's right, so you can act holier than thou because you don't ever think about this things, and you don't enjoy talking about them. And I'm glad to know you're the expert on how people should act/talk about/etc. We like to talk about whatever the hell we want to. If today we decide to talk about SOMS, the movie, no matter how bad it was, so be it. If you don't like it, I'm sure you can find the door. I would again ask why you are even here, but since I won't read your response, what's the point? Its really unfortunate that such a dark cloud has been cast over this forum, as we could have benefitted from some people who are very knowledgeable about this subject but looked it over and decided against posting.
As I said, Dark Cloud, I'm done with you. I'm sure you'll have some reply filled with surprise and backhanded remarks. So be it. But I will not read it. Good day. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2004 : 01:15:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rocky76
El Crab, I apologize, re-reading my post, I came off a little "crabby", if you will. a little pompous also...I will be more humble.
Its quite alright. I should have been a bit more forthcoming as to why I asked in the first place. I think its important to know what people have read or have access to. Often we point someone to a page or a book to further explain something. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Rocky76
Corporal
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2004 : 01:22:31 AM
|
| 5'9" is pretty close...maybe a hair taller but certainly not 5'10"...but how and why did he slip that into the conversation....maybe it's in the thread somewhere....dunno. 5'11" is a PR thing....it's pretty cool how in photos he never seems to be standing right next to anyone that we do know the height of ...he preferred sitting or lying down. I am somewhat impressed with the use of the suit to determine that...seen that done before, was impressed then also. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2004 : 06:01:33 AM
|
I stand somewhat corrected. In They Died With Custer, on pg. 80, Custer's stature is discussed. It is said from historical documents and photographs, its estimated that he was 5'11", though his recommendation to West Point states he was 5'10" while still a teenager. It follows that George Yates was 6'0", so if you see any photos of the two of them, there's a reference point.
It was mentioned in DC's post. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2004 : 12:23:06 PM
|
Rocky, oh no--the great height debate (again). Okay. I took a good look at the two uniforms (and the buckskins) on display at LBH. I was completely shocked by how small they were ... now of course, I was going into the thing believing Libbie's story that her husband was 6'0" (in her dreams). Then I remembered GAC's letter to WP where he states that he measured himself (and who does that accurately) to be 5'9" ... so I'm standing there and wondering if my husband could even fit in the things (for reference he is 5'8" with heels and 135 lbs soaking wet). GAC was pretty scrawny at the time he wore the black velvet tunic, okay, but even the buckskins were small ... okay, okay--I know this discussion won't pass muster with the gods, but hey, those are just my limited observations. And you're right--you never see GAC standing near anybody (except Wallace in 1875 and he was 6'4")straight up--he's always standing in some strange contrapposto position. But Louise Barnett has some interesting takes about the "hierarchy" of GAC photographic poses. He was always thinking of that reputation! And as a single boy, he could languish with the best of 'em ...
And yes, "SOMS" is a horrific movie. Absolute torture--but the battle scenes were great, not necessarily accurate, but well-choreographed. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2004 : 3:18:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Since Russell White Bear interpreted for Curley on the battlefield in 1909, and the 1908 interview was also done there, it's likely he worked both.
REPLY : This is pure speculation.
No more so than your unqualified assertion that the 1908, 1909, and 1910 interviews were all translated by three different interpreters.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Curley) did not say the 'whole command' either, as he did when he mentioned its presence at Calhoun ridge."
REPLY : At no point in any of the four Camp interviews does Curley state the the "whole command" was at Calhoun hill.
The only time the phrase "whole command" is used at all is on page 156:
"Reno and his command were plainly seen by Custer's whole command while marching this 3/4 mile."
Elsewhere in the narrative the phrases "Custer", "Custer's Command"
and "the command" are used interchangeably.
You need to read a lot more carefully, Bridge. Page 167 of Custer in '76: "When whole command was at Finley the volleys were fired, and they were fired at the Sioux who were closing in". Finley is Camp's shorthand for the ridge that is usually today called Calhoun.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "why (do) you want to extract large meanings from indifferent statements (?)...Plain English doesn't need to be 'inferred' to get the desired results."
REPLY : Why is it that in every account of the Little Bighorn battle, the phrases "Custer's command" and "Custer's column" and "Custer's battalion" is taken to mean companies C, E, F, I and L, but suddenly, here in Curley's narrative, it is taken to mean something else?
If you have any evidence that Curley's statements refer to anything other than the five companies aforementioned, please let all of us know what it is. Otherwise stop calling it an 'inference' to say that this is what Curley meant.
Because it is an inference. You even have to infer that "command" was Curley's word. It was definitely Camp's, since he wrote it, but trying to a parse a generic word transcribed by a 3rd hand intermediary is a foolhardy endeavor.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "You used Russell White Bear's letter to speculate about two trips to the ford. The letter indicates nothing of the kind."
REPLY : There were two Russell white Bear letters, not one.
You used Russell White Bear's letterS to speculate about two trips to the ford. The letterS indicate nothing of the kind.
quote:
The letters also says nothing about two companies at Ford B and three companies at Luce ridge. In fact, neither location is even mentioned in these letters.
To use the Russell White Bear letters to support such a theory that you propose is to INFER that such a thing happened, is it not?
No, because the White Bear letters plainly state that Custer's men did not go to the river in a united column. Company E, it says, went down there, and E's presence there receives confirmation from the Indian side. It is more speculative that F Company was at the ford, as all admit; no Indian informant specifically identifies it there (the only way they could was by horse color, and F's horses were not distinctive among the five companies). But F and E together apparently formed a single battalion under Yates, and White Shield, for instance, mentions the presence of "one other company" there at the ford, exclusive of the Gray Horse Troop. Circumstantial evidence comes from James Rooney, who said he identified the body of Private William Brown, F Troop, within the village near his horse. Red Horse and Curley both said one soldier lost control of his horse near the ford and galloped into the village, where he was presumably killed. That sounds like Brown.
What the evidence doesn't show is that all five companies charged the ford. Company E was probably there, and F is likely to have been also, though that is not so certain. Sometimes in these things there are degrees of probability and likelyhood.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2004 : 9:50:01 PM
|
8169 : "Your unqualified assertion that the 1908, 1909 and 1910 interviews were all translated by different interpreters (is pure speculation).
REPLY : No, it isn't. In the 1908 interview, the "interpreter" was Camp himself (of Curley's gestures and pigeon english)!
8169 : page 167 of Custer in 76 (says) 'when whole command was at Finley, the volleys were fired...'
REPLY : The troops at Finley are identified in the 1908 intervieas being "the command" (p.156) and again in the 1913 interview as being "the command" (p.172), proving that the terms "command" and "whole command" are interchangeable.
8169 : "trying to a parse a generic word transcribed by a third party intermediary is a foolhardy endeavour."
REPLY : In the Russell White Bear letters, the gray horse troop is clearly distinguished from "the main command" and from "the remainder of the command." No such distinction occurs in any of the interviews of Curley by Camp. The phrase "the command" can only be interpreted as meaning all five companies.
8169 : "You use Russell White Bear's letters to speculate about two trips to the ford"
REPLY : What I said was that there was one trip to the ford and one trip in the direction of the ford, which did not attain its goal.
8169 : "The White Bear letters plainly state that Custer's men did not go to the river in a united column."
REPLY : The letters in question mention absolutely nothing about Custer reaching the river at all. The only thing they plainly state is that a gray horse troop was seperated from Custer's command while it was in the Medicine Tail Coulee, and that this happened either before or after a rider on a sorrel-roan mount was dipatched with a written message.
8169 : "What the evidence doesn't show is that all five companies charged the ford."
REPLY : What the evidence clearly does show is that E company was not the only company at the ford. There is absolutely no evidence of any division of Custer's command other than the seperation of the gray horse company mentioned by Russell White Bear. These two facts, taken together, strongly indicate that all five companies were indeed at Ford B.
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2004 : 11:46:01 PM
|
There may be no proof in Curley's accounts, but many Sioux and Cheyenne accounts speak of soldiers appearing close to the ford, then ANOTHER group of soldiers cresting the ridge farther above.
I'm not convinced from any accounts that ANY group of soldiers were at Ford B, or within one hundred yards. The only soldiers who probably got that close were on untenable mounts. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 30 2004 : 3:12:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
8169 : "Your unqualified assertion that the 1908, 1909 and 1910 interviews were all translated by different interpreters (is pure speculation).
REPLY : No, it isn't. In the 1908 interview, the "interpreter" was Camp himself (of Curley's gestures and pigeon english)!
And you know Camp was the interpreter how? Furthermore, if that was how the interview was conducted, then its value is seriously degraded. Gestures and pidgen English? My God.
quote:
8169 : page 167 of Custer in 76 (says) 'when whole command was at Finley, the volleys were fired...'
REPLY : The troops at Finley are identified in the 1908 intervieas being "the command" (p.156) and again in the 1913 interview as being "the command" (p.172), proving that the terms "command" and "whole command" are interchangeable.
And in the 1908 interview he said he took a Winchester from a dead Indian, while in 1913 he said he took a Sharps rifle, proving that the terms "Winchester" and "Sharps" are interchangeable. Where do you come up with this stuff?
quote:
8169 : "trying to a parse a generic word transcribed by a third party intermediary is a foolhardy endeavour."
REPLY : In the Russell White Bear letters, the gray horse troop is clearly distinguished from "the main command" and from "the remainder of the command." No such distinction occurs in any of the interviews of Curley by Camp. The phrase "the command" can only be interpreted as meaning all five companies.
"The command" can be interpreted as any body of soldiers, because it is too generic to allow the kind of specificity you are attempting to project onto it. You interpret these chaotic, messy interviews like some guys interpret the Bible.
quote:
8169 : "You use Russell White Bear's letters to speculate about two trips to the ford"
REPLY : What I said was that there was one trip to the ford and one trip in the direction of the ford, which did not attain its goal.
Yes, and there's no support for that interpretation in the documents you cited.
quote:
8169 : "The White Bear letters plainly state that Custer's men did not go to the river in a united column."
REPLY : The letters in question mention absolutely nothing about Custer reaching the river at all.
Who said it did? They do state that only a part of the column advanced towards the river.
quote:
8169 : "What the evidence doesn't show is that all five companies charged the ford."
REPLY : What the evidence clearly does show is that E company was not the only company at the ford. There is absolutely no evidence of any division of Custer's command other than the seperation of the gray horse company mentioned by Russell White Bear. These two facts, taken together, strongly indicate that all five companies were indeed at Ford B.
Of course there's evidence for a division of the command, and I have cited it on the Medicine Tail thread. We also know from military sources that Custer's battalion was divided into two squadrons. What we don't have is evidence for a united command; you've come up real empty on that one, as has everybody else, which is why about all researchers for the last 20 years have accepted the objective reading of the evidence and concluded that only a part of Custer's men did anything at the ford. And your contention that White Bear's description of the Gray Horse Troop detaching from the rest and going towards the river "strongly indicates" that all five companies were at Ford B, is ludicrous on its face.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 01 2004 : 11:45:41 PM
|
What Gray, Fox, Skelnar and Michno all have in common, bsides their endorsement of the theory that Custer placed three companies on Luce ridge, is their trust in the veracity of Curley.
Is this trust justified?
In one of the Camp interviews, Curley claims to lift a Winchester off the body of a dead Sioux. Yet in another , he says the rifle was a Sharps. In the White Bear letters, Curley is quoted as mentioning the Gray Horse Troop being to the ford and says nothing about the rest of the command going there. Yet in the interviews by Walter Mason Camp, Curley mentions "Custer's command" going to Ford B, but says absolutely nothing about the Gray Horse Company.
Still another version of Curley's story emerged in interviews with journalists after the battle. Newspapers reported Curley claiming to have witnessed Custer's death, which took place an hour before the battle ended. According to Curley's account the battle went on until sunset and that the last man to be killed was the illustrious Captain Keogh.
The three Crow scouts who were with Curley -- Hairy Moccasin, Goes Ahead and White Man Runs Him -- all branded him a liar, and said that Curley left Custer's column before it entered Medicine Tail Coulee, and that his claim to be the sole survivor of Custer's Last Stand was utterly false.
Of all the accounts of the battle, there is none more dubious than those given by Curley. His many stories are full of conflicts and contradictions, and his claims are belied even by his fellow Crows. It is pointless to debate over what Curley meant. Instead, he should be dismissed as an Indian version of Baron Munchausen, a teller of tall tales who provides no useful information.
It was a mistake for Gray and other writers made was to trust Curley. Without this misplaced trust, the theory of Custer splitting his command at Medicine Tail Coulee would not even exist.
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 01 2004 : 11:58:06 PM
|
| The theory of Custer splitting his command would still exist. More Indians than Curley have attested to this. I think you need to re-read Lakota Noon. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Curley and Ford B
