| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 12 2004 : 09:47:07 AM
|
From Heitman's Historical Register of the U.S. Army (relevent sections regarding post-war rank bold-faced by me):
Keogh, Myles W. Ireland. D C.
Capt aadc 9 Apr 1862; maj adc vols
7 Apr 1864; bvt lt co1 vols 13 Mar 1865
for uniform gallantry and good con dur
the war; hon must out 1 Sept 1866; 2 It
4 cav 4 Mav 1866: capt 7 cav 28 July 1866:
bvt maj 2 Mar 1867 for gal and mer ser
in the battle of Gettvsburg Pa and It co1
2 Mar 1867 for gal and mer ser in the
battle of Dallas Ga; killed 25 June 1876
in action with Sioux Inds at Little Big
Horn River Mont.
Yates, George W. N Y. N Y. Q
m sergt 4 Mich inf 20 June 1861; 1 It 26
Sept 1862.; hon must out 28 June 1864; 1
It 45 MO mf 24 Aug 1864; capt 13 MO cav
22 Sept 1864; bvt maj vols 13 Mar 1865
for gal and mer ser dur the war and lt co1
vols 13 Mar 1865 for conspicuous gallantry
at Fredericksburg and Beverly Ford Va
and at Gettysburg Pa; hon must out 11
Jan 1866; 2 lt 2 cav 26 Mar 1866; r q m
12 May to 28 Ott 1867; capt 7 cav 12 June
1867; killed 25 June 1876 in action with , Sioux Inds at the Little Big Horn River
Mont.
Thanks for the reminder to look in Heitman since while reading Cozzen's Eyewitness to the Indian Wars, 1865-1890: The Struggle for Apacheria I had run into a reference for a Lt. James Calhoun, 32d Inf. cited for "zeal and eagerness they evinced on all occasions towards the success of the expedition." Heitman does say that our Calhoun was a 2d Lt. in the 32d Inf. effective 31 July 1867 who transferred to the 21st Inf. 19 April 1869. The scout which I referenced began 5 July 1869. Calhoun is still cited as a Lt. in the 32d in the report but I believe Heitman went by the dates of the orders, not when they were received, and with the condition of mail service in AZ, it is not unlikely Calhoun had not received word of the transfer.
Sorry about the tangent.
Billy |
Edited by - BJMarkland on February 12 2004 10:07:03 AM |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2004 : 2:11:32 PM
|
Gee, there's a shocker. So the previous threads, wherein the original thought was that Keogh was senior, were correct? Or is this new information only reflective of a transfer and not an elevation in rank? Is this tempest over something silly, like longest time at that rank while in the 7th, rather than longest time at that rank? Which is to say, what the hey? I thought Crab or someone provided proof positive that Yates was senior and would take over.
There's an official manual involved somewhere, I know it.
In any case, if Custer is wounded in the 7th, who decides the command needs to be transfered? Cooke? And if Custer is wounded, surrounded by two brothers, an adjutant, a nephew, and doesn't WANT the command transferred, what happens?
In my view, what happens is June 25, 1876.
I don't think the issue is really important, because things happened too quickly for a command change to have kicked in, but it's nice to see official documentation is just as confused as ever. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
pgb3
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2004 : 4:17:23 PM
|
Now you have me confused. What is confusing here about their rank? Keogh is senior to Yates. Period. Very clear in fact. And I still think you are confused as to what happens in a military command situation. Personal preferences have nothing to do with it. As much as you seem to dislike the structure of the military, that is the nature of the beast. If GAC is wounded, then the procedures are in place to transfer command. This just did not happen at MTC because GAC was not wounded at MTC. Had he been, Cooke would have high-tailed it over to Keogh’s side. If GAC was wounded, the troops would have reacted far differently. Not dragged a dead or dying commander all the way to LSH. Bypassing Keogh for personal reasons. Remember, they did not know that no one would survive, therefore, there would be recriminations for any abject disregard for Army SOP.
BTW, you or someone listed a series of “violations” hat GAC had already committed, including something about dress or uniforms. What the heck do you mean? It was fairly standard to have a loose dress code in the field. In fact, uniforms standards were pretty loose all around in the frontier Army, and before. A great number of ACW troops were never even issued uniforms. Quite a few had gray uniforms, and then, quite a few of the militia just made up their own outlandish uniforms. I think they were pretty happy if you just showed up at muster each day.
BTW, this site is back to it's normal, long load standards today. So, when does this new server kick-in fully? Can't wait. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2004 : 6:56:23 PM
|
Dark Cloud wrote:
quote:
Or is this new information only reflective of a transfer and not an elevation in rank? Is this tempest over something silly, like longest time at that rank while in the 7th, rather than longest time at that rank?
Here is what the forward to Heitman's states about the origin of the records (Heitman, Introduction, pg. 9):
"5. All data relating to appointments or commissions has been obtained from original records of the War Department, supplemented from other authentic sources, or supplied by living officers or the families of those deceased."
"6. No record is herein given of appointments or commissions that were not accepted. Such as were declined, revoked, or canceled, and under which no service was rendered, have been omitted."
So, Keogh was senior to Yates. Doing a quick search, I found where Vet777a on Sept. 13, 2003 at 06:53 a.m. on the F Co. Again thread had written, "Author Brian Pohanka states that Keogh was the senior Captain among the 5 companies."
Per Heitman:
Keogh to Capt. 7/28/1866
Yates to Capt. 6/12/1867
Custer to Capt. 12/02/1875
T. H. French to Capt. 3/26/1868
Moylan to Capt. 3/01/1872
Benteen to Capt. 7/28/1866
Weir to Capt. 7/31/1867
McDougall to Capt. 12/15/1875 *Formerly with the 5th U.S. Volunteers. They were the Galvanized Yankees weren't they?
Calhoun to 1st Lt. 1/09/1871
Based upon the above, Benteen & Keogh were of equal seniority. All of the above officers, with the exception of Calhoun & McDougall, mustered out at the end of the Civil War and were reappointed. McDougall is a bit of a strange date. He was mustered out of the 5th U.S.V. 8/10/1866 but the records show that he was appointed 2d Lt. 14th Inf. 5/10/1866.
Anyway, I think that the customs of the service would indicate that if G.A.C. was incapacitated, the command would have fallen to Keogh. If Keogh was incapacitated, it would have gone to the next senior Captain, Yates.
Oh, to answer your question, read what Heitman's entries say. It is pretty clear to me that the dates are when they were promoted to Captain in the Regular Army, post-A.C.W.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2004 : 7:04:43 PM
|
I'm not confused, although I could be totally wrong. We've been provided with statements from other books that show Yates was senior to Keogh. One of the sources has to be bogus, right? Perhaps he who provided that info would resubmit it? I think it was Crab. But, as evidenced by the examples that day, I don't think it mattered.
Custer, convicted once of desertion and allowing his own men to be shot without trial, in direct contradiction of Sherman's orders through Sheridan, brought Kellog along. It was not normal for the commander of only 210 men to have two brothers, a nephew, a brother in law under him, and it cannot be true that there were not better qualified men about for those positions than Reed and Boston. In the event, Boston deserted his assigned position and just did what he pleased anyway. Nobody stopped him, which speaks either to his general pointlessnes, OR to the fact that the Custer family was in command, whatever the manual said.
The Civil War was eleven years in the past, and in fact there were many uniforms about, and new ones, but in a nod to reality apparently nobody enforced the apparel code on the march, although it was not the manuals' regulation dress. If you've read Custer's books and his wife's, you know that this was a standard practical joke played on rookies reporting to duty at the various Camp Ringworms and Ft. Scurvy's, and make them dress in accord with the book. Because it WAS on the books what soldiers were to wear.
If I'm wrong - I often am - please point out where the proper care for buckskin ensembles is located in the cavalry manual. For either officers or men. No doubt Custer, that hard-assed by-the-book guy, followed it.
I don't know where Custer was hurt, and neither does anyone, but the early wounding theory has logical merit.
If Custer was wounded, you say Cooke would have deserted him and run to Keogh? Really. Not a courier, but the adjutant himself? And if Custer belayed that and continued in charge, what then? Who decides when Custer's mind is not functioning well if he's still giving orders? Just curious.....
Your faith in the 7th as a well-oiled machine is touching, given they'd never been in a fight as a complete regiment before and Tom Custer had told the regiment to mount and ride forward that morning uncontested by the numerous people who outranked him and throughly annoying his brother, who did not punish him, for raising all that dust to no purpose by the Crow's Nest.
And yet, surprised that an attack is rebuffed, or that the Indians are not only standing but attacking, and with no evidence anything he'd done had worked thus far, we're to believe Custer, wounded or not, decides to further divide his command, void any advantage of cavalry and make them infantry plus horseholders and wait for help on high ground with no protection for man or beast?
I don't see Custer doing that if he's in the saddle.
You say "... there would be recriminations for any abject disregard for Army SOP" and I say 'maybe,' but there certainly would be more than mere recriminations if people hadn't follwed through on Custer's wishes while he lived, if the battle was won OR lost. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2004 : 06:42:38 AM
|
http://www.mohicanpress.com/messageboard2/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=102&SearchTerms=,yates,senior
I erred when I said we determined Yates was senior. I had it backwards. Forgive me, I was posting that off the top of my head. A simple search would have been better the first time.
But the point still stands. No one claimed anything on the Yates/Keogh Seniority issue, they only offered information from the records. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
Edited by - El Crab on February 13 2004 06:45:56 AM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2004 : 12:04:01 PM
|
D.C. wrote:
quote:
"...Tom Custer had told the regiment to mount and ride forward that morning uncontested by the numerous people who outranked him and throughly annoying his brother, who did not punish him, for raising all that dust to no purpose by the Crow's Nest."
From the "Did Custer Go To Medicine Tail Coulee" thread, by Alfuso, 9/30/2003 at 05:33:19:
"That is because GAC hadn't rescinded the "move out at 8 a.m." orders when he ran off for the Crow's nest. So Tom and the other officers, brought the regiment forward to where their commander was, according to his own orders.
Certainly, Benteen and Reno would have balked at a TWC "taking command" like that. But they moved out because those were GAC's orders."
quote:
"...Boston deserted his assigned position and just did what he pleased anyway. Nobody stopped him, which speaks either to his general pointlessnes, OR to the fact that the Custer family was in command, whatever the manual said."
The following quote, again from Alfuso, same thread, post of 9/30/2003 at 05:16:19 in my opinion puts it in a nutshell:
"Custer was a nepotist in an age of nepotists. He carried it to an art form, but he had a good example in Grant."
EDITORIAL COMMENT FOLLOWS:
We seem to be involved in a loop here. Everything that I see argued on this current thread was discussed last fall. Mostly the same participants, arguments and point of view. It is as if no one is listening to the other except in a seemingly macabre effort to score debating points. Maybe Custer's ghost is keeping score, because quite honestly, every action between Martini's departure and the finding of the bodies will be based upon conjecture or opinion. Some theories on various actions have empirical observations to back them, others have only speculative logic. And a few, damned few, have incontrovertible fact as a buttress. Not saying one is totally right or wrong, it is just the way it is. The only way a cohesive, understandable, realistic theory may be devised is if we all put aside our individual blinders and to paraphrase the old refrain, "walk a mile in the other's shoes." And having said that, the minute after we all agree to a unified theory; some one, somewhere will blow it out of the water with a new fact or discovery.
END EDITORIAL COMMENT
Question to any and all. I keep reading the speculation that Custer was wounded or killed at MTC which is based upon the Indian report of a, and I paraphrase, "man in buckskin" being shot at the crossing. Help me on this. I remember reading, in the distant past, an author who supposedly debunked the whole idea that this man was Custer. I seem to recall that this author (Gray?) stated Custer was wearing what was known as a "duster". I will look in Graham's book tonight if possible to see if there is any reference GAC's garb supported by eye-witnesses. I did find this doing a Web search. It shows Custer & Clan with Custer wearing what looks to be a white leather jacket. At least the sleeves seem to have fringe.
http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00100424 B-424
While trying to find the above referenced photo again (at the Denver Public Library), I found this very interesting article by GAC regarding a fight on the Yellowstone during Stanley's expedition. It is well worth reading with many parallels to the LBH fight. BTW, GAC in the article did mention wearing a buckskin jacket.
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?coll=moa&root=/moa/gala/gala0022/&tif=00093.TIF&view=50&frames=1
The LOC American Memories search page is where I found the above article and photo. It has plenty of related Custer information. The URL for the search page is:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mdbquery.html
Another good article, from the Galaxy, by Frederick Whittaker offering a thumbnail of Custer's career and the legend of Cuser's Luck:
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?coll=moa&root=/moa/gala/gala0022/&tif=00366.TIF&view=50&frames=1
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2004 : 2:07:31 PM
|
As with all topics things tend to get rediscussed, which is what happens when new people join. And new people is the goal of every forum host. But as this thread just proved, a statement about succession to command was wrong and nobody corrected it till now. I also recall quotes from a book bolstering that position, so I'm puzzled by the top of the head remark, but my memory isn't great. I do know I was slapped for saying Keogh was next in command back then and recently in this thread. So, I don't find that talking in circles.
Custer's orders were to be ready to move at 8AM, not move. And both Reno and Benteen were surprised that the regiment started moving, as no orders had been given, at least not by Reno. Or Benteen. Or Custer.
But of course, I'm referring to the complaint of Custer to his brother and Calhoun around 10:30. This is when Custer remonstrated with Tom.
So whatever is happening in the 7th, it isn't by the book. And you can't just ignore these people inserted above or outside the command structure by Custer. Doesn't matter who was nepotistic, what matters is whoever gave them power accepts responsibility for their actions.
And no, my shared theory that Custer was wounded early on, probably at MTC and environs, isn't based upon the alleged testimony of a Sioux. It's based upon the counterproductive actions of the companies in Custer's command from Weir Point on. He neither gave support to Reno in anything approaching a timely way, nor charged into the village although what evidence there is suggests the relatively wide crossing was lightly defended.
If he was going to corral hostages - a dubious assumption, this of Reno's, but possible - his best bet is to still take the crossing, because the more time he gives his enemies, the worse for him, and it's the shortest distance. I find the convoluted explanations for this, and the retreat to way east of the river where the ground is clearly and visibly terrible and then go north makes no sense when you mouth that theory to yourself on the field and can see it. I don't think ANY cavalryman would willingly do that.
And I don't think any cavalryman did. So what would mandate a move to the east and north rather than a sensible retreat south to unite the command? Confusion.
A wounded Custer in a nepotistic outfit that wouldn't want to have to explain to him why his last orders were not obeyed explains a lot and is consistent with the companies and bodies.
That there are reports of a man in buckskin being shot and falling and his command pulling up around him is convenient but not compelling. What the command did is, though. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2004 : 6:30:06 PM
|
Regarding the articles, Whitaker is rather icky even by the standards of the John Brown's School Days era. This is a chapter from that godawful bio he wrote.
Custer's article I'd read elsewhere, but I hadn't really noticed that what he did that day is exactly what Reno did at LBH, right down to the woods. Reno knew that what solace was coming was not enough, and he - as Custer did here - knew his men had blown their ammo pretty well. At any rate, Reno can no longer be castigated because he did what his commander did previously and with - even accepting Custer's numbers of Sioux - much greater odds against him.
If however, you offer this as an explanation of the dismounting of Custer's men at LBH, I disagree. At the Yellowstone, he didn't know the size of his enemy till too late. At the LBH, he saw it early enough and yet still went north and to MTC. At the Yellowstone, there was cover, water, and overwhelming help coming soon. At the Yellowstone he had few options. At LBH he had many, and of those chose badly. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2004 : 9:39:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
Question to any and all. I keep reading the speculation that Custer was wounded or killed at MTC which is based upon the Indian report of a, and I paraphrase, "man in buckskin" being shot at the crossing. Help me on this. I remember reading, in the distant past, an author who supposedly debunked the whole idea that this man was Custer.
To the best of my knowledge the story of the man in buckskin comes from David Humphrey Miller's book, "Custer's Fall". The book is imaginative, pulpish, and dissonant with other evidence. I think the man you're thinking of is Gregory Michno, who drilled into Miller in his book "Lakota Noon". I have my disagreements with Michno, but when it comes to Miller I think he is dead on.
quote:
I seem to recall that this author (Gray?) stated Custer was wearing what was known as a "duster". I will look in Graham's book tonight if possible to see if there is any reference GAC's garb supported by eye-witnesses. I did find this doing a Web search. It shows Custer & Clan with Custer wearing what looks to be a white leather jacket. At least the sleeves seem to have fringe.
Godfrey wrote in a memo (reprinted in "The Custer Myth") what he remembered of the officers' dress. Most of it is non-regulation. The only officers whom he thought wore the uniform were Lord, Sturgis, and Reily.
However, Godfrey added the caveat that he was only describing what the officers "generally" wore, and he couldn't say for certain if they were actually wearing these clothes when killed. He seems to have been wrong about Tom Custer, for instance.
Although Godfrey thought Tom was dressed the same as his brother (buckskin suit, fringed trousers etc), he was probably mistaken. Daniel Kanipe, whose opinion on this I would think has more weight, told Walter Camp in a letter that "Tom Custer wore soldier pants, the same size stripe as a sergeant, blue flannel shirt, on June 25th, just like all the rest of the soldiers, and you could not have told him from any other soldier, unless you knew him personally".
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 4:29:38 PM
|
Knew him personally like General Godfrey, the one who used to swim with TWC, and who recognized 'the form' and the skin graphics? Why in the world would Kanipe, whose recollections are often savaged by others, have more weight than Godfrey on this or anything?
I don't think it matters, particularly, but has Kanipe undergone a rehab of reputation as happened to Curley that I've missed? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 9:37:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Knew him personally like General Godfrey, the one who used to swim with TWC, and who recognized 'the form' and the skin graphics? Why in the world would Kanipe, whose recollections are often savaged by others, have more weight than Godfrey on this or anything?
Because he was a member of C Company and his last sighting of Tom Custer was closer to the end than Godfrey's.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 9:55:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I don't think it matters, particularly, but has Kanipe undergone a rehab of reputation as happened to Curley that I've missed?
Skipped over this in my last post, but I wasn't aware at all that Kanipe was in need of a rehab of reputation. Could you be thinking of Peter Thompson?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 10:47:25 PM
|
I was thinking of Graham's endnote to Kanipe's 1924 piece: "The many inaccuracies of Sgt. Kanipe's story...." When was this letter to Camp?
Kamipe says Custer was shot through the heart and lay with Tom and Calhoun, that Terry had seen 200 bodies "in the valley below", that Indians never hurt a dead man but just the wounded, and only one horse survived. Not deliberately misleading, perhaps, but just wrong.
And while,yes, he surely saw Custer after Godfrey that day, I think Godfrey's account entered the record before Kanipe, who was older when his story was requested and not as reliable. None of which proves anything, of course, to unravel this major mystery. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2004 : 12:42:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I was thinking of Graham's endnote to Kanipe's 1924 piece: "The many inaccuracies of Sgt. Kanipe's story...." When was this letter to Camp?
August 4, 1908. Graham was only noting that Kanipe's 1924 article contains mistakes which are "characteristic of the accounts of most of the enlisted survivors recounted during the '20s," which is easily demonstrated; besides the ones you mentioned, he forgot the presence of Co. L, misrembered the name of Sgt. Curtiss of the "breadbox" incident as Sgt. Hearst, and placed Bloody Knife with Custer's command. Kanipe was over 70 years old when he wrote that piece.
quote:
And while,yes, he surely saw Custer after Godfrey that day, I think Godfrey's account entered the record before Kanipe, who was older when his story was requested and not as reliable. None of which proves anything, of course, to unravel this major mystery.
Sure, it's only a sidenote, though one where we have conflicting witnesses. It's not possible to say categorically that one or the other was wrong; and no matter who entered the record first, both are coming 20 years or more after the battle, which allows plenty of time for the memory to get fuzzed. Godfrey, for example, in the same memo appears to think that Calhoun died near Custer Hill.
I do think that Kanipe is more likely to have been right about this particular issue than Godfrey, for the reasons I stated; I don't pretend to be able to take it any further.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Making Sense of Martin
