| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 26 2004 : 4:36:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 "You don't know what Custer's logic was..."
REPLY : Custer said that Major Reno's charge would be "supported by the WHOLE outfit (not PART OF the outfit", and Martin heard him say to his whole column "WE (not SOME OF US) will go down and make a crossing and capture the village".
This evidence reveals Custer's plan and upholds the conclusion that all five of the companies of Custer's column went to Ford B.
Several assumptions here, none warranted. You assume that for Custer to support Reno, he had to attack with all five companies at one spot. You assume that the phrase "whole outfit" excludes different actions by the two battalions directly under Custer; if Benteen, who was also part of the "whole outfit," was free to operate independently, I don't see how that would have kept Yates and Keogh from doing so either. You assume that Custer learned nothing new about the situation over the next few hours, and that he couldn't be acting differently in the face of a different situation. You assume that Custer was unaware of Reno's retreat when he went to the ford, and therefore ignore any impact this may have had on his decision-making. You assume that Martin's quote (dredged up by him decades after the battle) is accurate historically, and that it "reveals Custer's plan". You assume that if Custer had a plan when Martin left him, he couldn't have changed it in the relatively long interval afterwards. You assume that even if Custer had a plan when Martin was with him, it had to involve all five companies doing the same thing at once.
You assume too much.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Four flags could have meant as little as two companies and Custer's personal retinue"
REPLY : It's very unlikely Custer would move his headquartes with the smallest of the regiment's four (Reno, Benteen, Keogh, Yates) ad hoc battalions.
It's neither likely nor unlikely. His staff, in fact, all ended up dying in the north, with the officers and men of E and F companies. The other three --- C, I, and L, Keogh's battalion --- got smashed in the south.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Martin claimed that Benteen sent him to the pack train in) his Reno Court testimony."
REPLY : In his Graham interview, Martin stated that Benteen did not send him back to the pack train. He said that the transcript misquoted him due to language difficulties.
He wasn't misquoted. Martin's English was just that bad ("I didn't speak English so good then"), which is another reason why using him or Curley to reveal Custer's thinking is a dubious endeavor.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Edgerly's testimony) doesn't confrim Benteen on Martin's precise choice of words ['skedaddeling']...the substance of Martin's bombast remains the same --doing total damage to the idea that Martin saw Custer withdrawing from the river under Indian attack."
REPLY : In the Graham interview, Martin said that when he was with the Benteen column, he wondered if Reno's charge had gone right through the village yet. This is consistent with Edgerly's testimony, that Martin said that Reno had "charged in and killed everybody", but not with Benteen's claim that Martin said the Indians were skiddaddling.
In that very same Graham interview, Martin says that when Benteen asked him where Custer was, he (Martin) told him "that the Indians were running".
quote:
The Graham interview,and Edgerly's testimony, casts grave doubts on the notion that Martin saw Reno retreating. How could Martin have seen Reno retreating when he wondered whether Reno had gone right through he village, and when he said Reno had charged in and killed everybody? This alleged statement that Martin saw Major Reno's column in retreat could well have been placed in error in the transcript because of language problems.
I think you misread the testimony. Martin only saw Reno in retreat when he came to the hill with Benteen's company.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Martin has no information relevant to how Custer came to Ford B."
REPLY : Martin left Custer's column about 600 yards from the river and saw them "galloping down the ravine, the gray horse troop in the middle". How long does it take to gallop 600 yards? At most a couple of minutes.
Martin rode to Benteen, joined him, then arrived on Reno Hill in time to see the tail-end of Reno's retreating soldiers .... harassed by Indian warriors who soon left upon becoming aware that more soldiers were making a demonstration at the ford. George Herendeen, who was left behind in the timber, first heard firing downstream "some time" after Reno left, within a half-hour. And yet you believe that Martin --- who saw Reno still in action in the valley ---- left "AT MOST a couple of minutes" before Custer opened his part of the fight? Ridiculous. Martin was never near Ford B. He probably left near Cedar Coulee, as Gray has him.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 6:20:17 PM
|
Herendeen is the guy who claims that the Sioux had a color coded command system of colored lances, right? Even though lances were Cheyenne weapons. That he saw someone directing huge numbers of Indians with this method, never ever noted by anyone else at LBH or anywhere, soldier or Indian.
Wouldn't this bizarre, unremarked upon testimony necessitate some hesitation before taking Herendeen at his word, as so many do? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 6:55:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Herendeen is the guy who claims that the Sioux had a color coded command system of colored lances, right? Even though lances were Cheyenne weapons. That he saw someone directing huge numbers of Indians with this method, never ever noted by anyone else at LBH or anywhere, soldier or Indian.
Wouldn't this bizarre, unremarked upon testimony necessitate some hesitation before taking Herendeen at his word, as so many do?
Ah, the color-coded flags! That comes from a newspaper interview published a couple weeks after the battle, in which Herendeen's name is given as "Haynden". Herendeen never mentions this (as far as I know) in his written accounts, his court testimony, or his interview with Walter Camp. The 1876 article includes "Haynden's" first-hand descriptions of the deaths of Lt. McIntosh and Lt. Hodgson, which Herendeen never mentioned elsewhere ever seeing --- in fact, in (I believe) his Court testimony he denied seeing any of the killing at the retreat ford.
The article with the story of the flags was evidently touched up a bit by the reporter, and offers a further illustration of what can happen when a man's account has to go through an intermediary.
The timing of the firing (after Reno's retreat) is mentioned by several others, white and Indian.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 26 2004 7:01:12 PM |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 8:11:59 PM
|
| The colored lances/flags/whatever sounds like the Bison/Sitting Bull/West Point education story. It smacks of desires to make the Indians out to be more than they really were: a bunch of warrior nomads who fought individually in groups. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 8:12:05 PM
|
A professional, unnamed journalist distorted testimony for career advancement? Come on, get real. I suppose the part about Rain ripping out Tom's/George's heart and eating it with fava beans and a '72 chianti isn't true either, then?
Fortunately, we can be sure the mental wanderings of the aged forty years or more after the battle are as it surely happened, especially in another language using map terminology not then in existence and malleable through the decades.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 10:55:36 PM
|
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 " "You assume that the phrase 'whole outfit excludes different actions by the two battalions directly under Custer...You assume that (Custer's plan) had to involve all five companies doing the same thing at once."
REPLY : All five companies had to support Reno, and if three were left at Luce ridge, they could not support his charge.
The only way these three companies at Luce ridge could be considered to be supporting Reno is if the Indians crossed the river.
Are you conceding here that in order for your theory to work, Custer must have "known" that the Indians would counter-attack across the Little Bighorn river?
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Martin) wasn't misquoted (in the transcript.) Martin's English was just that bad."
REPLY : Your point earlier on was that it was your belief that the 1879 Court of Inquiry was when Martins "memory was freshest", but it should also be pointed out that this is when his command of the English language was poorest. For this reason, it would be a mistake to use any of his court testimony to try to arrive at definite conclusions about the battle.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "In (the) Graham interview, Martin told (Benteen) that "the Indians were running."
REPLY : Martin told Graham that he saw Reno's charge, and imagined that Reno would charge right through the village, but, on the other hand, that he saw the Indians 'ambush' Custer.
In the Camp interview, Martin strongly denied telling Benteen that the Indians were running or 'skiddaddling'.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8159 : "You assume that Custer learned nothing newabout the situation over the next few hours...You assume that Custer was unaware of Reno's retreat when he went to the ford, and therefore ignore any impact this may have had on his decision-making....(Reno, on the bluffs, was) harrased by Indian warriors who soon left upon becoming aware that more soldiers were making a demonstration at the ford."
REPLY : It is doubtful that soldiers were still at Ford B at the time that Reno arrived on the bluffs.
Curley, in one of his Camp interviews, said that they witnessed Reno's retreat and reported it to Custer, just as the latter was about to assault Ford B.
It is likely the retreat mentioned is Reno's withdrawal to the woods.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "You assume that if Custer had a plan when Martin left him, he couldn't have changed it in the relatively long interval afterwards...Martin was never near Ford B. He probably left near Cedar coulee, where Gray has him."
REPLY : Camp p. 105 (Martin 1910 interview) "I showed (on June 27) Benteen where I left with note from Custer, and Benteen estimated the distance to be 600 yards to Ford B."
There was no "long interval afterwards". Custer's column was charging, and a couple of minutes from arrival at Ford B.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "You assume too much."
REPLY : I have no assumptions to present, just cold, hard facts.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2004 : 2:43:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 " "You assume that the phrase 'whole outfit excludes different actions by the two battalions directly under Custer...You assume that (Custer's plan) had to involve all five companies doing the same thing at once."
REPLY : All five companies had to support Reno, and if three were left at Luce ridge, they could not support his charge.
The only way these three companies at Luce ridge could be considered to be supporting Reno is if the Indians crossed the river.
Are you conceding here that in order for your theory to work, Custer must have "known" that the Indians would counter-attack across the Little Bighorn river?
No, all you've done is just create more assumptions. You assume that Custer was at a point where Reno's "charge" still had to be supported. We don't know that. By the time Custer reached Ford B, there's a good chance he had bigger problems on his mind than how to merely "support" Reno's attack. The timing of the firing suggests that when that happened, Reno was already sitting atop a hill, with 40 dead soldiers scattered along the valley, and more Indians chasing what was left.
Even if Custer didn't know that Reno's attack had failed, you assume that all five companies "had" to support Reno in only one way, in only one spot. Since the five companies were really two separate battalions, Custer may very well have wanted them to do two different things, or do the same thing at different places. You blithely ignore these factors.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Martin) wasn't misquoted (in the transcript.) Martin's English was just that bad."
REPLY : Your point earlier on was that it was your belief that the 1879 Court of Inquiry was when Martins "memory was freshest", but it should also be pointed out that this is when his command of the English language was poorest. For this reason, it would be a mistake to use any of his court testimony to try to arrive at definite conclusions about the battle.
I don't seek to arrive at "definite" conclusions, but it is certainly true that Martin's memory was fresher in 1879 than it was in 1908 or 1923. That his English was also worse then is just something that goes with it.
Besides, his understanding of what was said by Custer, Cooke, etc. on June 25 all came when his English was EVEN WORSE than it was in 1879. That is why using Martin's dubious quotations of Custer to declare what the latter's "plan" was happens to be so questionable.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "In (the) Graham interview, Martin told (Benteen) that "the Indians were running."
REPLY : Martin told Graham that he saw Reno's charge, and imagined that Reno would charge right through the village, but, on the other hand, that he saw the Indians 'ambush' Custer.
In the Camp interview, Martin strongly denied telling Benteen that the Indians were running or 'skiddaddling'.
And in the Graham interview he asserted that he told Benteen the Indians were "running". Benteen and Edgerly each remembered him saying essentially the same thing. What is there to argue? That Martin didn't know which way his head was spinning?
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8159 : "You assume that Custer learned nothing newabout the situation over the next few hours...You assume that Custer was unaware of Reno's retreat when he went to the ford, and therefore ignore any impact this may have had on his decision-making....(Reno, on the bluffs, was) harrased by Indian warriors who soon left upon becoming aware that more soldiers were making a demonstration at the ford."
REPLY : It is doubtful that soldiers were still at Ford B at the time that Reno arrived on the bluffs.
Curley, in one of his Camp interviews, said that they witnessed Reno's retreat and reported it to Custer, just as the latter was about to assault Ford B.
It is likely the retreat mentioned is Reno's withdrawal to the woods.
Not likely, since it doesn't square with the first heard firing of Custer by the white men, nor does it square with those Indians who say they chased Reno out of the valley *before* Custer's troops made their appearance.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "You assume that if Custer had a plan when Martin left him, he couldn't have changed it in the relatively long interval afterwards...Martin was never near Ford B. He probably left near Cedar coulee, where Gray has him."
REPLY : Camp p. 105 (Martin 1910 interview) "I showed (on June 27) Benteen where I left with note from Custer, and Benteen estimated the distance to be 600 yards to Ford B."
And would you happen to have a quote from BENTEEN verifying this?
quote:
There was no "long interval afterwards". Custer's column was charging, and a couple of minutes from arrival at Ford B.
This is clearly not so, for Martin couldn't ride to Benteen, ride with him to Reno Hill, and see the Indians chasing the last of Reno's men, in under two minutes.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "You assume too much."
REPLY : I have no assumptions to present, just cold, hard facts.
I think the trouble with your approach is that you really do believe that your assumptions about what Custer would do ARE cold hard facts.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2004 : 10:55:50 PM
|
8169 : "The timing of the firing suggests that...when Custer reached Ford B...Reno was already sitting atop (Reno Hill)."
REPLY : Herendeen could hardly be expected to hear the sounds of firing from Custer's hard-pressed troopers several miles away when his own battle was fiercly raging. The fact that he did not hear any firing from downstream before the Indians to Reno's front melted away can hardly be cited as evidence that Custer was not fighting earlier on.
8169 : "(Martin's) understanding of what was said by Custer, Cooke, etc on June 25 all came when his English was EVEN WORSE than in 1879"
REPLY : By the time Martin was interviewd by Camp and Graham, Martin had a much better grasp of what Custer and Cooke were saying on June 25, than he did when he testified at the 1879 Court of Inquiry.
8169 : "In the Graham interview (Martin) asserted that he told Benteen that the Indians were 'running'"
REPLY : Martin also said in the Graham interview that Benteen "didn't give me (Martin) the chance" to give him more information. Was Martin refering to the Indians whom Gerrard spotted running before Custer ordered Reno to charge? Possibly.
8169 : : "Indians...say they chased Reno out of the valley before Custer made his appearance."
REPLY : But not before Custer reached Ford B.
The Indians who tell of chasing Reno out of the valley only reached the Custer battle in its late and final stage.
8169 : "Martin couldn't ride to Benteen, ride with him to Reno Hill, and see the Indians chasing the last of Reno's men in under two minutes."
REPLY : In the Graham interview, Martin recalled seeing Reno's men in the valley, still "dismounted and in skirmish line", and also seeing the "line falling back". This occured shortly after he saw Custer about to charge Ford B.
Custer reached Ford B long before Reno had even retreated to the woods, and long before his was atop Reno Hill.
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2004 : 11:53:24 PM
|
| As far as Martin understanding what Custer and Cooke were saying, try this: Take a basic course in a language, then watch a scene from foreign film in the same language. Then take intermediate and advanced courses, and see if you can, without rewatching the film, remember and decipher what you heard previously. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 30 2004 : 10:18:40 AM
|
How would any Indian able to see Custer make an 'appearence' (where? at the ford? Weir Point? Eastern ridge?) know that Reno had been totally chased out of the valley at that time? How would any Indian actually in combat with Reno know when Custer appeared miles away? Only by conversation and guesstimates based upon them with others after the fact.
In short, hearsay even before the translators went to work. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 30 2004 : 3:07:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
8169 : "The timing of the firing suggests that...when Custer reached Ford B...Reno was already sitting atop (Reno Hill)."
REPLY : Herendeen could hardly be expected to hear the sounds of firing from Custer's hard-pressed troopers several miles away when his own battle was fiercly raging. The fact that he did not hear any firing from downstream before the Indians to Reno's front melted away can hardly be cited as evidence that Custer was not fighting earlier on.
Of course it's evidence. Herendeen heard no firing from Custer's direction until 20 minutes after Reno had left the timber. That this isn't what you want to believe may make it inconvenient for your theories, but the evidence is what it is. More pertinent would be for you to find evidence for Custer and Reno attacking at the same time, rather than inventing reasons why such evidence does not exist.
American Horse, for example, was quite plain to George Grinnell: "Reno's party was the first to get down to the Indian camp, and most of the men went up there to meet him. I was with those who went to meet Reno, as he was charging down on the flat where the timber stands. When the troops reached this timber, they stopped and went into it, and stopped. The Indians were all around them. Then the Sioux and Cheyennes charged and the troops ran for the river. The Indians rode right up to them [and] knocked them off their horses as they were running, and some fell off in the river. It was like chasing buffalo, a grand chase.
"Reno's troops crossed the river and got up on the hill. Just as the troops got on the hill, the Indians saw a big pack train of mules coming, which met Reno there. The Indians all stopped at the river; they did not try to cross, but turned back to look over the dead for plunder, and to see who of their own people was killed.
"While they were doing this, they heard shooting and calling down the river: a man calling out that the troops were attacking the lower end of the village. Then they all rushed down below and saw Custer coming down the hill and almost at the river. I was one of the first to meet the troops and the Indians and the soldiers reached the flat about the same time. When Custer saw them coming, he was down on the river bottom at the river's bank. The troops fought in line of battle, and there they fought for some little time. Then the troops gave way and were driven up the hill."
Start producing, Bridge. What you have is a rather radical interpretation, of which no one I can remember has ever endorsed. Extraordinary claims ....... require at least SOME evidence, if not evidence equally extraordinary. But start with some.
quote:
8169 : "(Martin's) understanding of what was said by Custer, Cooke, etc on June 25 all came when his English was EVEN WORSE than in 1879"
REPLY : By the time Martin was interviewd by Camp and Graham, Martin had a much better grasp of what Custer and Cooke were saying on June 25, than he did when he testified at the 1879 Court of Inquiry.
Yeah right. El Crab already made the point, far stronger than I could, why this is so fanciful.
quote:
8169 : "In the Graham interview (Martin) asserted that he told Benteen that the Indians were 'running'"
REPLY : Martin also said in the Graham interview that Benteen "didn't give me (Martin) the chance" to give him more information.
And all Benteen ever said Martin told him was that the Indians were "skedaddling". So?
quote:
Was Martin refering to the Indians whom Gerrard spotted running before Custer ordered Reno to charge? Possibly.
Edgerly said that Martin mentioned Reno currently killing these people.
quote:
8169 : : "Indians...say they chased Reno out of the valley before Custer made his appearance."
REPLY : But not before Custer reached Ford B.
Actually, they say the opposite.
quote:
The Indians who tell of chasing Reno out of the valley only reached the Custer battle in its late and final stage.
Wildly unsupported. There were a few Indians who said they didn't make it to Custer until the battle was nearly over, but those are a minority. American Horse and others all got there very early, in time to see Custer near the river.
quote:
8169 : "Martin couldn't ride to Benteen, ride with him to Reno Hill, and see the Indians chasing the last of Reno's men in under two minutes."
REPLY : In the Graham interview, Martin recalled seeing Reno's men in the valley, still "dismounted and in skirmish line", and also seeing the "line falling back". This occured shortly after he saw Custer about to charge Ford B.
This occurred shortly after he left Cedar Coulee.
quote:
Custer reached Ford B long before Reno had even retreated to the woods, and long before his was atop Reno Hill.
I appreciate that you want to believe this, but the evidence bankrupts this interpretation.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 30 2004 3:43:14 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 30 2004 : 7:24:13 PM
|
Is this American Horse testimony even possible? Here's my problem with Indian testimony filtered through whites.
JUST as the troops (first one? last one? most?)got up on the hill, they saw the pack train coming - and then arriving - from their vantage point on the west bank as they never crossed the river, and no mention of Benteen arriving, which would have been of interest. Where is the pack train, precisely, when they see it coming? THEN, they dilly dally with the dead and wounded. What time, how long?
THEN they hear screams from the north the troops are ALREADY ATTACKING the lower end of the village. They gallop from their various places the two miles plus/minus to MTC (how long to do this?)and they STILL arrive in time to see Custer coming down the hill ALMOST to the river and meet him on the flat (on which side?) but Custer didn't see them coming until he was at the river's edge. The 7th then fought in "line of battle", a phrase American Horse no doubt did NOT use in this account which is in the first person which switches to third but is in any case coming from Grinnell. And the soldiers gave way and retreated.
Of course, the coldly objective source was De Man and one of the first to meet the enemy (who was firing earlier?)and save the village after galloping.....oh never mind.
You can make sense if you change 'attacking' with 'heading towards' and various other minute alterations but at that point it definitely isn't testimony and has the strong whiff of AH repeating hearsay reasonably assembled and with a certain logic but as is not inconsistent with logic, probably wrong, and boy does he look good if he says so himself.
But if you believe this - that they MET ON THE FLAT - and there was a battle on the river bank area there you have to cast aside the feint routine of Gray and others (good)and conclude there was an intended attack that screwed up (likely)and that the rear of the column, to allow retreat room and to cover it, pulled back east. Probably with significant numbers of enthusiastic Sioux following up the ravines.
Which American Horse is it and when did Grinnell chat with him? One American Horse supposedly died later in the campaign in custody. Was this the same man and was that the opportunity for Grinnell to talk with him? If so........
In any case, if the pack train arrived before Benteen, or they were so unobservant they didn't see Benteen, then either Wrangler's point is well taken and the mules flew that day, or the Indians are just relating events that occured in their specific lives only, which is made into linear group chronology by Mr. Grinnell and others to confusing end.
I understand Grinnell's credentials, but this rendition has serious problems. They all do. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 30 2004 : 9:07:10 PM
|
One more comment on Martin: I think its safe to say he never used the word "skedaddle" when speaking to Benteen. And what he thought was happening was just that: a thought. He left Custer to locate Benteen, he was excited, and he figured Custer was already in the village, kicking butt.
American Horse: This rendition sounds like it either: doesn't recognize Benteen as a separate unit from the pack train; or Benteen was already on or in the vicinity of Reno's troops on the hill when sighted, which is pretty much what some soldiers said (after all, Benteen's "timely" arrival is said to have saved Reno's command. So either Benteen was lumped in with the pack train or Benteen was already there, with the pack train coming up, within view.
The other American Horse died after the battle of Slim Buttes, I believe. If I recollect correctly what I've read, he was shot in the gut and had to hold his innards in with his hands. Yet he made nary a peep about it, and died in the night. I would be very, very surprised if that man was the same American Horse that spoke with Grinnell. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 30 2004 : 10:12:19 PM
|
Per Gray's interpretation of Wallace and Godfrey's times:
at 4:10 the van of Reno's men arrives on the Hill
at 4:25 Benteen arrives
at 4:52 Reno sends Hare to speed up train
at 5:10 last heavy firing from Custer heard - by no theory is anyone still by the ford unless pulling back from it at 5:19 first mules arrive. American horse starts the two mile jaunt to the ford to meet soldiers on the flat: I don't know, five minutes to get there through all the people and stuff? Then at 5:15, the Seventh is still coming down the coulee because they meet on the flat. But the eastern units are firing or have fired their final volleys ten minutes before.....
There seems to be about one hour between Benteen and the mules reaching their quarters for the night. Even with significant error, conspiracy, that's an awful big time problem. Nobody says, to my recollection, that the mules came up with Benteen or near him, and American Horse could probably tell a pack mule from a man on a horse, I'd think. But for this testimony to be reasonably valid, time wise, there's that hour to account for, and the speed of the train from the waterhole to Reno Hill must have been spectacular, watches broken, evil afoot. And three hundred people never noticed or let it go.
Or, American Horse hadn't clue one and was telling the story of the battle he'd been told and found himself easy to frame in the thick of it. Or something. But it doesn't make sense. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2004 : 7:30:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Which American Horse is it and when did Grinnell chat with him? One American Horse supposedly died later in the campaign in custody. Was this the same man and was that the opportunity for Grinnell to talk with him? If so........
This is the Cheyenne American Horse, the one who was active in tribal politics during the reservation years; Grinnell interviewed him in 1895. This piece has been reprinted in Hardorff's "Cheyenne Memories".
quote:
In any case, if the pack train arrived before Benteen, or they were so unobservant they didn't see Benteen, then either Wrangler's point is well taken and the mules flew that day, or the Indians are just relating events that occured in their specific lives only, which is made into linear group chronology by Mr. Grinnell and others to confusing end.
In the case of the "mules" which American Horse claimed to see, I think that is an example of hindsight worming itself into the narrative, or conflation. Offhand, I can recall a couple other Indians who claimed that they were stopped from chasing Reno when "the packs" or "the mules" arrived atop Reno Hill, but I don't think that is historical. It sounds like memories of the later siege on Reno Hill have carried into the first appearance of soldiers on Reno Hill. It's also possible that the detail of the "mules" is just something Grinnell consciously or unconsciously added to it, particularly if he had only a general knowledge of the battle, which I don't know.
In any case, I think Graham and the other early historians were right when they declared that there were a lot of impossibilities in the Indian narratives. This has become an unpopular opinion lately, in the wake of the work of Fox and others, but I think it's unavoidable. A lot of stuff doesn't make sense. However, the general trend of all these accounts --- and all the white accounts --- is that Reno's attack happened first, and Custer came second. I don't know of any evidence, even bad evidence, that Custer and Reno were attacking the village simultaneously. My conclusion is that what everybody says, is probably what happened.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2004 : 9:52:42 PM
|
I tend to go with that, although I immediatlely start dissenting.
I still think it possible - everything is, to a degree - that Custer sent the whole kaboodle down MTC and when the first one or two companies got in contact and in some confusion when they couldn't cross (or didn't, anyway), the back three pulled back to cover the retreat from the unexpected counter attack.
I only think that because Custer and cavalry in general would want to hit hard with what they had asap, and it was about an hour after Reno had been fighting, so to get any advantage of that Custer had to move then. I also tend to think Custer got wounded there and the companies acted independently thereinafter, for the most part. Nobody would want to second guess Custer in such a nepotistic outfit. I don't see signs of command above company afterwards, myself.
I don't buy the feint and these intricate manuevers heading in the worst possible direction and vacating any and all advantages to cavalry. It makes no sense to me to retreat a mile and a half or whatever from the river on 'the offensive' and send these notional piddling advances towards the river/camp/casino. It's no secret, everyone can see you for miles, who you fooling, what's the point? Charge or retreat. Don't pretend to charge with a small portion and then camp in the open dismounted to wait for help. Or something.
It doesn't look like they knew what they were doing, and the three up on Calhoun were waiting for direction or to hear from a command no longer functioning when they got swamped themselves.
It's way too late to seek ways into the village after the rebuff at MTC, and this on top of Reno's retreat. If it's too strong to enter from MTC with five companies , who are handy, it's too strong, period, don't you think, for a more intricate series of weaker attacks in plain sight later. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
pgb3
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 01 2004 : 12:13:02 PM
|
Then how come we have Indian testimony and archaeological evidence of further maneuvers? And, in the case of Kellogg, and identifiable body that further helps establish this. And having Custer shot at the MTC ford would only mean that the rest fall back to the south—not north.
The Indians tell us only weak opposition at MTC, why not believe this? That can only mean there was no crossing planned here, or rather, none attempted. Custer was in search of hostages. These had already fled north, and the Indians facing Reno had not yet had time to arrive at MTC. The Cheyenne had not yet had time to get themselves together and arrive at the ford, so, Custer pulls back, reorganizes his troops, leaves C,L and I to hold open the trail for Benteen, and heads off to scout a northern crossing to capture hostages. What is so strange about this action? At this time, it appears that only L and some element of C were engaged, and that was the “long range” part of the battle—a defensive action that was fairly low-key in nature. I was in reserve across the ridge, and GAC had E. F and perhaps another portion of C with him on this scout to the north.
Perry
|
Edited by - pgb3 on February 01 2004 12:20:42 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 01 2004 : 5:06:31 PM
|
What you state as fact is just assumption.
Technically, there is NO eyewitness Indian testimony whatsoever in existence. We have only hearsay claims that this and that was their testimony. We've gone from believing none of it to believing all of it, and neither is helpful.
Despite all the furrowed brow science, what few archaeological artifacts exist are simply evidence of archaeological artifacts. They may have nothing to do with the battle. There is nothing to prove they arrived where found in that key one hour period, June 25, 1876, or who used them, or in what purpose. As is reluctantly admitted here, there have been numerous and large violations of the 'crime' site almost since 1876.
We don't know captives were Custer's goal. Reno thought so.
Neither do we know that Custer could return south even if he wanted to after leaving MTC. We do know that heading north and east mandated dismounted fighting, and whatever edged them to where they fell, it was either very stupid or simply a rout. Custer wasn't stupid, and he generally was in the van of an attack.
That's why I think Custer was wounded early, which would explain a light fight and a retreat at MTC becoming a rush uphill to regroup that was not allowed - leaving Keogh and Calhoun to guess and deal with their own - makes the most sense. It's certainly the simplest, and consistent with the historical Custer who was unlikely to not utilize an open door lightly defended, or attack with less than what he had.
I have nothing worthy of being called evidence except that simplicity. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
pgb3
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 07 2004 : 12:33:24 AM
|
| Both Boston C. and Martin made it back and forth over the back trail. There were no real threats to them if they retreated south. And if GAC was wounded, meaning almsot dead from the wounds that were reported, Keogh would have moved them back - to the south. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 07 2004 : 01:27:57 AM
|
Yes. Well. There is an interval of time between Boston joining his brother and a possible advance down the MTC. If, say, the eighty odd men of the first two companies stopped and angled to the north while Custer was hustled to safety, one company providing delaying cover, the other three companies might have just pulled back to high ground covering Custer's advance up to Custer Hill. First, because they had no clue, and, second, seek high ground till you know what's happening. It was dry and must have been FAR dustier than paintings suggest, which all the Indians substantiate. Keogh might never have known Custer was hit and then had his own immediate concerns.
Again, no evidence on my part except I find it hard to believe Custer wouldn't have used MTC as the quickest way to attack while there was still time to benefit from Reno who, after an hour and without a train, could reasonably be assumed to be running low on ammo. I don't imagine Custer thought, as time and surprise left the divan, stretched, and exited a while ago with the Crow scouts, that current circumstances suggested a complicated series of feints and misdirection charges at that time of day on bad cavalry ground. Get on the flatland while Reno was there and get to shooting. All else, too late.
But he didn't. And a hurt, not dead Custer, would bring about the circumstances that finished them off as it happened in a manner consistent with the majority of assumed facts. It's undramatic, but really accounts for the way they were found reasonably. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
pgb3
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 08 2004 : 02:51:24 AM
|
| And of the two wounds describe, which one would have left him "hurt, not dead"? Neither. They would not drag a wounded comamnader up to Calhoun, then over to LSH, then sit and wait to die. How stupid. Just could not have happened that way. Think about this. It is just not logical. Period. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 08 2004 : 11:14:35 AM
|
It makes a certain sense; certainly as much as a further division of forces for an attack 'later.'
Well, he supposedly had a fatal wound to the head. Then one on the left side below the heart, not necessarily in the chest. The latter would not necessarily have killed him right off, and if obtained at MTC, would conveniently explain subsequent actions.
There is some story from the Sioux that a man in buckskin was shot and fell from his horse at MTC and others stopped and pulled up around him when apparently the dust clouded all else. That could be anyone, admittedly, but - if Custer - then this incident, in combination with an increasing fire from the Sioux, might have inspired the 7th to head for ground of some safety where the surgeon could go to work to save the General. Who, of the 7th's officers, would suggest otherwise?
Why would they drag him to Calhoun? Who says they did? The front company or two with Custer may just have run to LSH where they were snockered, and the back three in their own time. Secondly, the assumptions of the mortality of the body wound is questionable, given it was seen three bloated days later in an era of bad assumption and worse medicine. And people lied to protect the widow, and couldn't keep their story straight. Ryan has the wound on the right side, and he buried Custer.
You err if you think that visual communication between the companies would have been instant or even possible, or that officers would efficiently dispatch couriers to the other companies when under moving fire. If Custer were shot, it isn't like, osmotically, anyone would know right off except those around him, or that they would choose to broadcast it, or that another would take over from a wounded Custer, or that he would allow it.
Zero proof or even evidence on my end, but it makes more sense, consistent with the Custer hitherto known, that he would choose to strike asap with what he had, that he would lead, and that the limited targets first exposed would increase the chance he'd get hit. A Custer pulling a mile and half back to the East to engage in probing attacks while waiting for help is a new Custer hitherto unseen: tentative and moronic.
And while you brought it up, Keogh had no authority over any but his own company or 'wing.' Yates was next in command, we've been told here. Although this is notional, because Tom Custer had already demonstrated that day that he felt he spoke for his brother, and there was Cooke. This was a nepostistic outfit, and a hurt but conscious Custer was the worst of all possible things for it, because who would override Custer's expressed intent, if any? Who would stand up to his family, who would take command?
And if you forget for a moment all else and look at the map of the bodies, imagine my scenario. (Neither original nor particularly mine, actually) Two companies, one fighting a rear action, advance to LSH more or less directly from MTC, under attack and soon meeting the Crazy Horse Fun and Gun. The back three companies, seeing the advance down the coulee blunted for whatever reason, retreat in order to Calhoun and are soon under attack themselves. It pretty much fits the field. It violates no history of Custer's methods. It makes sense given what officers would have seen (high ground)and known (virtually nothing). It's simple and could entertain either a long or short fight.
It's my experience that the simplest explanations are often the truth. Not always, but often. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
pgb3
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2004 : 03:09:13 AM
|
| And of Curley’s quite cogent description of the reunion at Calhoun, with an alive and active GAC? Your theory just does not hold water. And how did Yates become the next to command? All of GAC’s actions and assignments up to then had been by the book, SOP. What would change that now? GAC hit at the river? No way. Your scenario is one of the least plausible I have heard. And since when does a cavalry charge stop dead just because an officer is hit. Granted a commanding officer, but there were/are others who have their orders and must carry them forward. When in the ACW did that happen? |
|
|
|
pgb3
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2004 : 03:14:49 AM
|
| BTW, I love this new server! But kill the flood control. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2004 : 04:11:17 AM
|
I could be utterly bonkers, no doubt - and no evidence - but you have Custer passing by a great opening on cavalry ground into the village without using it, and none of the explanations for why this didn't happen make much sense.
The comparison to the Civil War is rather silly. Few Generals charged surrounded by family, nor was there a surety a captured officer would be disemboweled and gelded by the enemy.
To suggest that GAC was by the book on this or any march - start with regulation uniforms and weapons, Boston and Reed and Kellog... - defies comment.
Yates was senior to Keogh, apparently. According to this forum. It was news to me as well. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2004 : 07:41:57 AM
|
| Yates was senior based on military records, not because someone on here said so. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Making Sense of Martin
