| Author |
 Topic  |
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - July 18 2004 : 6:43:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
I'm not sure Bobo was always with I, in reserve or whatever. With him there's a wrinkle, since Kanipe thought he saw his horse dead in a ravine between Calhoun Hill and Keogh's place. The horse may have gotten there on his own in the confusion, or a part of C Company may have been stationed there, but it's quite possible Bobo had at one time been further south, at Finley. That might fit with Fox's theory of a C Company charge; I believe it was Curley who said that some men were left at Finley Ridge, after which a group of men (dismounted?) charged into Calhoun Coulee, where several of them were killed.
It was Porter who was added, replacing Dr. Elbert Clark. Lord was actually a commissioned officer, and had been assigned to the 7th Cavalry for at least a year or two, I believe. Porter and DeWolf were contract surgeons--- civilians, of no military rank. Gray did the best research on this in "Centennial Campaign".
R. Larsen
I don't believe Bobo was always with I Company, either. I think there was a platoon of C on Finley, and the rest were near I in reserve. The cutting of the ridge that is mentioned by White Bull said they went between two groups of soldiers, circled and came back through another gap. So it seems that there were 3 groups, with two gaps. I don't believe this was F or E on LSH, but I, C and L. L collapsed at some point, running to I Company, where Bobo was found. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
  |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 18 2004 : 6:48:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
There is real evidence that TWC left his Co and escaped to LSH? The only member of C troop to do so? The men you mention were not from C troop. TWC's job was to serve where his CO assigned him wasn't it ?
Is it so strange that if Reno with three co's had need of an Adjutant, That Custer with five co's and command of the entire Regiment might need both an Adjutant and an Aide?
Edward Driscoll, Private, Company I
Tom "Boss" Tweed, Private, Company L
John Parker, Private, Company I
All found on LSH, apparently. They probably fled the field where their companies were mostly slain. There were also sorrels found on top of LSH, which most likely came from Company C men, who rode sorrels. Bruce Trinque believes these represent the few Company C troopers to have escaped, and likely one of those horses was TWC's, since he was found inside that ring at the top of the hill. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - July 18 2004 : 8:40:40 PM
|
| It is a possibility. I refer you to page 141 of FOX's Archeology, History, etc. Granted that Fox is not the supreme authority,but neither is Larsen. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 2:04:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
There is real evidence that TWC left his Co and escaped to LSH? The only member of C troop to do so?
As much evidence as there is for Parker, Driscoll, Tweed, Hughes, Harrington, McCarthy, Stungewitz, and any other Keogh battalion men found in the north.
quote:
The men you mention were not from C troop.
It doesn't matter, since I was referring to their shared connection: they were all from Keogh battalion companies and were not killed on Battle, Finley, or Calhoun Ridges. If Tom died there because he was an "aide-de-camp" (no evidence, pure speculation which has been recently enshrined as dogma by the uncritical readers of Fox), then what were they?
quote:
TWC's job was to serve where his CO assigned him wasn't it ?
And he was assigned to Company C. I ask again for the evidence that he wasn't.
quote:
Is it so strange that if Reno with three co's had need of an Adjutant, That Custer with five co's and command of the entire Regiment might need both an Adjutant and an Aide?
Benteen had three companies, no adjutant. There's no evidence that Keogh, three companies, or Yates, two companies, had adjutants. This is no kind of logic.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 2:11:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
It is a possibility. I refer you to page 141 of FOX's Archeology, History, etc. Granted that Fox is not the supreme authority,but neither is Larsen.
Who is? I'm just asking you to provide evidence for your claim, which you need to, since it goes against all existing documentation. There is no source, whatsoever, that says Tom Custer was not in command of Company C.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 3:49:43 PM
|
Peter Thompson stated : The captain of our company , Tom Custer,was on his brother's staff----this left Lieutenant Harrington in command of our company. This from Peter Thompson's Narrative of the Little Bighorn Campaign by Daniel O. Magnussen.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 5:54:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Peter Thompson stated : The captain of our company , Tom Custer,was on his brother's staff----this left Lieutenant Harrington in command of our company. This from Peter Thompson's Narrative of the Little Bighorn Campaign by Daniel O. Magnussen.
Quotes please, and context, page number. I've never owned a copy of Peter Thompson's stories, but did get to read what he wrote a few years ago in a university library, and remember no such statement. I am thinking there was something about Harrington leading the company during the Reno scout, unless my memory is mixing Thompson with someone else.
If I'm wrong about there being no sources, I'll happily concede on that point, but what I said about real evidence remains true in either event. Thompson's writings are among the craziest, wildly inaccurate and most deceptive accounts ever written, in league with Theodore Goldin, Edwin Pickard, and Thomas B. Marquis, and nothing he says rates a bean, due to his fantasy-saturated mind.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 6:32:04 PM
|
"No evidence, pure speculation which has been recently enshrined as Dogma by the uncritical readers of Fox"
I am simply amazed at the volumn of this unadulterated, egotistical, unabashed string of mis-information crammed into such a relatively short sentence! Let's begin with this reasonable assumption; Fox proffered a possibilty as to why TC was discovered where he was. Giving an opinion is not creating an unbending, uncomprimising reason for a thing ocurring. Perhaps you inadvertenly used a word you were not familiar with. For you edification:
DOGMA- a tenet set forth as authoritive. You don't seriously opine that Fox is attempting to establish a doctrine,do you?
Secondly, you may have misappropiated the term "enshrined" also. Again, for your edification: Enshrine-to preserve or cherish as sacred. Somehow I doubt that Fox had the intent or ability to enshrine his opinion anywhere.
Last, but certainly not least, How many "uncritical readers of Fox" have you personaly met that would empower you to make such an all encompasing statement? One million, two million, or three million? How else could you discern which readers were critical and which were uncritical. Surely you are not saying that every human being that has read Fox's book in incapable of being a critic?
I only bring these points up because I don't want you to be attacked by less understanding fellows who would resort to calling you a liar or some other horrible thing. I hope I have been of some assistance Frick, I mean Frack, I mean Cole. Oh never mind, you know what I mean. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 7:16:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
[brI am simply amazed at the volumn of this unadulterated, egotistical, unabashed string of mis-information crammed into such a relatively short sentence! Let's begin with this reasonable assumption; Fox proffered a possibilty as to why TC was discovered where he was. Giving an opinion is not creating an unbending, uncomprimising reason for a thing ocurring. Perhaps you inadvertenly used a word you were not familiar with. For you edification:
DOGMA- a tenet set forth as authoritive. You don't seriously opine that Fox is attempting to establish a doctrine,do you?
You're making an ass of yourself, Wiggs. I never said anything of the kind about Fox. You would know this, if you had the ability to read.
quote:
Secondly, you may have misappropiated the term "enshrined" also. Again, for your edification: Enshrine-to preserve or cherish as sacred. Somehow I doubt that Fox had the intent or ability to enshrine his opinion anywhere.
Still not reading........
quote:
Last, but certainly not least, How many "uncritical readers of Fox" have you personaly met that would empower you to make such an all encompasing statement? One million, two million, or three million? How else could you discern which readers were critical and which were uncritical. Surely you are not saying that every human being that has read Fox's book in incapable of being a critic?
No, as anybody with a chimp's IQ could tell. It only takes two to make "readers", and I've met more than that who do read Fox uncritically, and I think more examples from clowns like yourself could be found through a hasty google search.
quote:
I only bring these points up because I don't want you to be attacked by less understanding fellows who would resort to calling you a liar or some other horrible thing. I hope I have been of some assistance Frick, I mean Frack, I mean Cole. Oh never mind, you know what I mean.
Actually, I don't. But I don't care either.
While you're all lathered up in a fury of incompetence, maybe you could surprise by admitting your lies and apologizing to each of us for making them. At this point, showing some integrity would be the most startling thing you could do (and intelligence, but integrity should come first).
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 8:26:32 PM
|
For the record, you can remove me from any list of "uncritical Fox readers". I don't agree with every one of his conclusions, but I do think he's done a lot in this field.
As for Thompson, some of his account can be determined as truth. I think the falsehoods come from his story AFTER his horse played out. He dropped out of Custer's line of march, ended up on Reno Hill. In between, he claimed to have seen the Last Stand, all kinds of nonsense like that. But I don't think the rest of his account can be thrown away because of this. You have to look at why people lie. Why lie about Tom Custer being with Custer's staff, if that's what Thompson said? It doesn't benefit him whatsoever. Now, saying he saw the Last Stand does present a chance of notoriety, so there's a reason to lie. No one else, with the exception of the other soldier(s) who dropped out of the battalion, could refute his claim. Mundane details of the march are not something you'd lie about. Being the only soldier to have seen and, by doing so, survive the battle at Custer field is quite the feat. Its a reason to lie, if you were so inclined.
I don't believe captains, even senior captains, had adjutants. They did have orderlies. Major Reno had an adjutant, as did Custer. They also had orderlies, or at least I know Reno did (Davern). I don't know if TWC would be described accurately as an orderly, but its possible he was an aide. And C Company did seem to have enough officers, including non-coms, to merit sending one as a messenger. A captain, a lieutenant, at least 3 remaining sergeants (Bobo, Finley and Finkle) to run the company.
I still find it humorous (and I might be on the wrong thread, but oh well) that DC thinks those of us who believe Custer was on the offensive, moving north for purposes unknown are idiots, while he thinks Custer getting shot and the battalion moving away from help, splitting up and getting annihilated makes sense. Despite three captains, all with Civil War experience, among his battalion. Sure, if Custer was hit, it'd be confusion. But they made it with very minor casualties to the final battleground. They deployed one company to hold back the Sioux. They sent two companies about a mile away, and held two other companies in reserve. They didn't hole up, shoot a bunch of horses and fight it out as one battalion. They didn't even seemingly deploy a majority of the battalion at first.
If Custer was hit, confusion reigned and the battalion was crushed because of this, why were the Indians deflected by one company on Calhoun Hill? They said they aborted an early charge due to soldier fire. Why was there a period of little to no firing, as the warriors said? Why were companies not deployed in battle lines? Why did warriors see the Gray Horse Troop go over a ridge, disappear, and reappear later?
It may not make much sense to do what Custer seemed to do, but it makes even less sense to carry a dying man, even Custer himself, several miles north, away from the rest of the regiment and then not immediately go on the defensive when the entire battalion was intact and in the same general area. Oh, right, Custer probably told them to do that, and they, being experienced soldiers and all, listened to his every word and followed them to the letter. A dying man with a chest wound is telling his officers to move north instead of south, away from help, and they do as told. Right. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 8:57:28 PM
|
"While you'er all lathered up in a fury of incompetence."
That furious statement is anomalous for one who is
calm. It is,however, apropos for one who has lost his cool. Incompetence is generally associated with ineptness, maladroitness, and hopelessness. You are the first person(s)I have ever known to use this term with the noun, "Fury." This would indicate that my incompetence is wild and passionate or I possess impetuosity in battle. Have I been complimented or insulted? By the way, the usage of the profane word a** is a no no.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 9:59:16 PM
|
I do not propose to absolve any principle character of this battle of the responsibility for its fatal outcome. I do not presume to "Idolize" General Custer at the expense of his two, junior commanders. To allege, insinuate, or imply that one single entity is responsible for this fiasco would be ludicrous.
Conversely, to label General Custer as the idiot of the world, who single handedly brought about this tragedy would be equally foolish.
In order to derive at an intelligent "Why" as to what occured, we must look at the motives of some of the principle players. Benteen, rightly or wrongly, was chastised for his failure to respond to Custer's position. A man of courage, and an exemplary war record would, naturally be incensed at such allegations. Thus, we understand his motive for some of his, less than truthful, remarks at the Reno Inquiry. Reno, on the other hand, was totally incompetent. This statement does not imply that his incompetence was the sole reason for failure. His incompetence was, however, a major contributing factor.
John Fox, private"D" co. - He says Weir remarked, "Custer must be around here somewhere and we ought to go to him." Reno said, "We are surrounded by Indians and we ought to remain here." (This statement was made despite the vast majority of warriors departing from his battle front in pursuit of Custer several miles away.)
Weir then said, "Well if no one else goes to Custer, I will go." Reno replied. "No you can not go. For if you try to do it you will get killed and your company with you." John Fox says Reno appeared to be intoxicated or partially so. He says that Moylan and Benteen stood by and heard what Weir said and they did not seem to approve of Weir going and talked as though to discourage him. At the very least, it would be safe to assume from these remarks and actions that Reno had already written the General off as a lost cause. We, of course, are speaking of an officer of the U.S. Army who should be held to a higher standard.
Private William O. Taylor "A" troop had this to say, "The major and lieutenant Hodgson were riding side by side a short distance in the rear of the company. As I looked back, Major Reno was just taking a bottle from his lips. He passed it to Lieutenant Hodgson. It appeared to be a quart flask, and about half or two thirds full of an amber colored liquid."
On January 6, 1892, in answering some questions asked by Theodore Goldin, Benteen said; "Ans. to 3rd. query, is this, I expect Godfrey to say in his article that Reno recommended the abandonment of the wounded in the night of the 25th., and of 'skipping off' with those who could ride, as he did to me, but I killed that proposition in the bud."
Would you feel confortable going into combat with such an individual? Again, to assume any one person is soley resposible for the outcome of this battle is silly. However, to disregard the motives, statements, and actions of principle players "in toto", with the worn and unsubstantiated, "It was all the fault of Custer" is to shut our ears and eyes to what may have really happened. I am of the belief that the very purpose of this forum is to discover the truth. Only the free and, unencumbered, exchange of information will accomplish this vital goal. Let us not be placated with an easily defendable premise that may not be valid. Let us, rather, take the high road.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 10:14:17 PM
|
What I've said, Crab, is that a wounded Custer's family (and the wound is variously described, sometimes as on the left side below the heart, sometimes as a chest wound, which could make a difference)might put his safety of some immediate import and head for a distant visible point. I don't think anyone would argue with Tom if he said he was speaking for his brother. If Keogh's command retreated separately to their namesake topographical features there's nothing absurd about that, either.
You state as fact these company efforts, deflecting Indians. I don't know how you can know such things for sure. There's no evidence, only slivers of possibilities based on iffy testimony piled atop each other. These aren't based on police reports, taken in immediacy, but taken years later after everyone settles on common stories by repetition or fabrication and then run through interpreters. They're just stories.
I also don't know why you attribute such competence based on the Civil War. Gibbon, Hancock, others, were all great CW warriors and dismal with Indians. How handy was Smith, a cripple? Really, how good was that Army at all? A million 19th century dollars to kill each Indian, said Robert Lincoln.
We don't know how many were killed on the way to LSH from MTC. Current theory attributes all those bodies in line to the later breakout, but we don't know that.
And yes, I think it very foolish to accept a far more complicated set of scenarios over simpler ones that are reflected in battles to this day.
I give Custer credit for not leading his men to where they ended up. I don't think his officers were idiots either. I cannot understand why they didn't make a crossing at MTC if their goal was to cross the river and deliver charge shock as quickly as possible with as much surprise as possible. So, I accept a wounded Custer, a family trying to protect him and get him quickly away from the enemy, a confused back three companies supporting that move and heading north on converging course with no clear idea what's going on. Changes of command under fire couldn't be fun.
It's very simple, no heroics, but no credulity stretches either. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 10:54:38 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
For the record, you can remove me from any list of "uncritical Fox readers". I don't agree with every one of his conclusions, but I do think he's done a lot in this field.
Wouldn't need to, since I never had you on any such list. I also lack no regard for Fox, who presents speculation as speculation and is honest about the problems. Others aren't, either from lack of understanding or indifference.
quote:
As for Thompson, some of his account can be determined as truth. I think the falsehoods come from his story AFTER his horse played out. He dropped out of Custer's line of march, ended up on Reno Hill. In between, he claimed to have seen the Last Stand, all kinds of nonsense like that. But I don't think the rest of his account can be thrown away because of this. You have to look at why people lie. Why lie about Tom Custer being with Custer's staff, if that's what Thompson said? It doesn't benefit him whatsoever. Now, saying he saw the Last Stand does present a chance of notoriety, so there's a reason to lie. No one else, with the exception of the other soldier(s) who dropped out of the battalion, could refute his claim. Mundane details of the march are not something you'd lie about. Being the only soldier to have seen and, by doing so, survive the battle at Custer field is quite the feat. Its a reason to lie, if you were so inclined.
I disagree. A liar is a liar, and a chronic liar such as Thompson would lie about anything. I believe he claimed that there was a wounded Sioux taken aboard the Far West --- what reason was there to lie about that? But he did. What reason was there for Joseph Wiggs to lie about Sitting Bull's dream of Custer in the Indian Viewpoints section? But he did. The thing about liars, once you know them well, is that they will spin untruths about anything. It may start off as only wishing to do mischief to history, but after a while they don't know the truth about anything. Liars, to the degree that Thompson and Goldin are, have no credibility whatsoever. They may lie to mislead people, they may lie to pretend to be better informed than they actually were, they may lie to sound interesting, they may lie to promote themselves. But the bottom line is: they lie. The truth is only accidental to them, and it's bad history to pick & choose from the droppings of the dishonest.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on July 20 2004 11:13:29 AM |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 11:02:16 AM
|
Larsen: I can't be more specific about the Thompson statement. I don't have the Magussen book and have only read excerps from it. The pagenumber given was49. The info was from a poster on another forum who is writing a book on Lt Harrington. I will try to learn more, but you have all ready disounted Thompson as unreliable.
El Crab has anwsered most of your arguements better than I could. I have never claimed to have postive proof that TWC served with headquarters, just that there are some indications. The men you list were not with C troop, except for Stungewitz who was only tenatively identified on LSH. It seems to me that the chance of Tom ,with his responsibility and record of bravery, would have less chance of reaching LSH than Privates whose only focus was reaching perceived safety. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 11:08:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Incompetence is generally associated with ineptness, maladroitness, and hopelessness. You are the first person(s)I have ever known to use this term with the noun, "Fury." This would indicate that my incompetence is wild and passionate or I possess impetuosity in battle. Have I been complimented or insulted?
Insulted. It's fitting that one so wildly incompetent as yourself would have to lug out a dictionary and still not know the obvious.
quote:
By the way, the usage of the profane word a** is a no no.
Since when? It's in the Bible, King James. I am charmed, though, that you deleted the insidious double S's; it does make every word look so much more sacred ....... Mi**i**ippi. Much better.
What's really profane is your lack of reading skills. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone make as complete a fool of himself as you did yesterday. The one thing you're expert in is wasting time.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on July 20 2004 11:22:51 AM |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 11:16:31 AM
|
| Larsen: There was a wounded Crow aboard the boat. Maybe Thompson was ignorant or confused, not necessarily lying. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 11:21:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Larsen: I can't be more specific about the Thompson statement. I don't have the Magussen book and have only read excerps from it. The pagenumber given was49. The info was from a poster on another forum who is writing a book on Lt Harrington. I will try to learn more, but you have all ready disounted Thompson as unreliable.
Thanks for the clarification. The Magnussen book is hard to find (and expensive if found), and I only came across it once in an out-of-state library. By all means track this info down --- things like this should be clarified and understood --- but Thompson IS unreliable. There's just no getting around it. But I want to know if he did say that about the Little Bighorn, and will try to track it down myself. Such things ought to be known.
quote:
El Crab has anwsered most of your arguements better than I could. I have never claimed to have postive proof that TWC served with headquarters, just that there are some indications. The men you list were not with C troop, except for Stungewitz who was only tenatively identified on LSH.
I don't see the point. Are you trying to argue that no men from C Company made it out of Battle Ridge? That's hard to argue, since we know some of their horses did.
quote:
It seems to me that the chance of Tom ,with his responsibility and record of bravery, would have less chance of reaching LSH than Privates whose only focus was reaching perceived safety.
Brave men survive retreats all the time.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 1:06:39 PM
|
Here it is. Prolar provides the evidence for the Custer Crush.
"...Tom ,with his responsibility and record of bravery, would have less chance of reaching LSH than Privates whose only focus was reaching perceived safety."
He's a Custer, therefore he is always brave. Privates cannot be brave because they're ......well, cowards. Like Reno.
For all you know - for all anyone knows - the privates courageously saved his butt and died protecting his whimpering, sobbing rush north to be protected by Big Brother. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 2:06:57 PM
|
Dark Cloud : Your claim about all the out of place officers on LSH wouldn't hold water even before it was shot full of holes. So I suppose you had to resort again to distorting what someone else said.
As a two time medal of honor winner, there is little doubt of TC's bravery. Of course Privates could be brave too, but they didn't have the responsibility to lead others. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 3:30:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Larsen: There was a wounded Crow aboard the boat. Maybe Thompson was ignorant or confused, not necessarily lying.
I'm glad somebody picked up on this because I was hoping I could riff on this some more. How the historian should deal with liars is a fascinating subject. When I was younger I was loathe to throw out any information, so I was sympathetic to the view that Crab and Prolar seem to advocate: some things people say are clearly impossible and could only have been said by someone deranged or trying to deceive; however, not everything these men say is necessarily implausible, and if we can be fairly sure they were there at the scene, and there doesn't seem to be any "reason" for them to invent such & such, why shouldn't we accept and use it? Eventually, I had to abandon this, because it just wasn't tenable, or fair to history. Peter Thompson is an illustrative example why.
First, is Thompson's story of the Indian a factual description of what happened? No, it is not. It's fantasy, perhaps inspired by something he actually witnessed, but in the version he regurgitates, it is not reflective of reality. You try to salvage Thompson by focusing on the parts which may incidentally be true --- there was an Indian aboard, and he was wounded. We have other sources, so we can say that much.
But what if there weren't any other sources? How would we go about dissecting Thompson's false statements to arrive at a hypothetical truth, which in fact may or may not exist? Perhaps there was a Sioux on board, but he was unwounded. Or was there a Sioux on board another boat that Thompson sailed on later in life, and he only projected this authentic incident onto the battle? Or was there really only a wounded soldier on board, but everyone just called him a Sioux Indian as a gag, and this got blown up into Thompson's story? That last one is a little ludicrous (so is Thompson), but I'm trying to make a point --- Thompson's word is so distorted and untrustworthy and tainted with fantasy that it cannot be accepted on any matter.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that Thompson did say that Tom Custer was put on the staff June 25th and that Harrington was in charge of the company. And maybe the statement does incidentally reflect the truth. But how much? Maybe it wasn't the 25th, but another date, the Reno scout. Maybe Harrington was in charge when Thompson left, but Tom wasn't actually on the staff --- he had just left the company for a while to do some independent scouting (or take a leak: "Harrington, you're in charge"). Maybe Harrington was directly in command of Thompson, but C Company was actually operating in platoons, with Tom in command of the rest, and Thompson's aged brain was only able to reflect that with a putative staff assignment. Or maybe Tom was just temporarily riding with his brother before they got to the village, but intended to rejoin his company for the actual fight, and Thompson's imagination distorted that into being on his brother's staff.
This is the nature of Thompson. His narrative often can be twisted around by interpreters so that it has some relationship to reality. But the relation is usually poor, making his account of no worth, in and of itself. If the quote without quotation marks Prolar provided is accurate, and its context is indeed the battle, how are we to decide how much of the statement is true? It's scraping up a dunghill on the unproven assumption that diamonds are there in the filth.
I'll give an example from another battle. Francisco Becerra's accounts are so rife with fantasy and implausibility that they can only be the work of a lunatic or a liar, and hence are completely unreliable. Yet he does say that eleven men were defending the Alamo chapel during the final assault. There's no rational reason why anyone would lie about that, and it doesn't interfere with any known evidence, so why not just accept it --- a diamond in the filth?
But I do not, because Becerra has no credibility, on ANYTHING. Fantasy is so entrenched in his story that he deserves none. And believe it or not, fantasy extends even to the mundane. Look at our own Joseph Wiggs. He's made up plenty of things, for no apparent reason --- Boston was smiling when he met Martin, Benteen and Elliot were personal friends. And you know what? It's possible the claims may each be true. But here's the kicker: Wiggs doesn't know that. Those mundane, trivial claims originated totally from his own mind. So with Thompson.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 5:37:40 PM
|
"What reason was there for Joseph Wiggs to lie about Sitting Bulls Dream of Custer in the Indian Viewpoint Section.?"
"A liar is a liar, and a chronic liar such as Thompson would lie about anything."
I am going to take a little time to adress Largents/DC's
most recent prevarication. I invite all forum members to confirm what I'm about to print by viewing, "The Indian Perspective Section." It's only a little over a page long and will take up just a little of your time. What you shall read is a crude attempt to emmulate a Machiavellian manuever against some of my posts. As per usual, his remarks were contrite and insincere. When I refused his demand to identify my sources, they became inflammatory. For the sake of brevity, I have abridged Largent's remarks as follows:
Largent:
6/19/o4 - "Fuzzy remanticism aside, Indians were killing each other."
6/21/04 - "Rather why do you say I mention Indians only, when that is untrue, and secondly, why post this stuff."
6/22/04 - "Um okay...Now why would you post your comment on a thread about Rain-in-the-Face?"
6/22/04 - How would honoring Indian Leaders lead to understand the 'Enigma' of the LBH."
6/30/04 - "Oh yea, that's definitely coming from an authentic Indian perspective."
7/03/04 - "What is your source for this schmaltz?"
7/04/04 - "Not an answer Wiggs."
7/04/04 - Did you or Did you not make all of this up?"
7/05/04 - "Pretty low Wiggs. An egregious fraud even by your standards."
7/06/04 - "You falsified an Indian perspective."
Without a "shread" of evidence, Largent made an accusation, confirmed it in his own mind, and published that slanderous, erronious, and inexplicable judgement as fact. This act is both dispicable and sad. You certainly have issues that you need to address.
Furhter, anyone who has made even a preliminary perusal of this battle is aware that Thompson exaggerated his involvement in the battle but, to disregard every statement made by him is certainly no answer. As Largent so emphatically remarked, "A liar is a liar." Largent's statement exemplifies the old adage, "It takes one to know one." |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 5:39:11 PM
|
Larsen, it was only a sugesstion. I said before that I had not read his account. I have seen him referenced by some writers, so he has some credibility with some. He did win a Medal of Honor for carring water after being wounded. I respect him for that.I know that Camp said that part of story couldn't be believed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "out of Battle Ridge". My point was that while a very few C troop men may have made it to LSH, you aren't proving it by listing men from I and L troops found there.
Since you are into nit-picking, You said in an earlier post that Sharrow maybe was with headquarters. Where else would the Regimental Sgt Major be? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 6:16:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Without a "shread" of evidence, Largent made an accusation, confirmed it in his own mind, and published that slanderous, erronious, and inexplicable judgement as fact. This act is both dispicable and sad. You certainly have issues that you need to address.
I don't know what point you think you're making, but I am impressed by all the time you spent obsessively collecting all those quotes. If you had only shown the same zeal in backing up your bull**** story, I would have been pleased. I too urge everyone to visit that thread, since it gives a pretty ugly picture of yourself that needs to be seen to be believed.
But for those who won't, I'll tell them. Since you were posting a bunch of saccharine excerpts from (you claimed) a dream Sitting Bull had had of Custer, and which I had never heard of before, I naturally wondered where you were getting them from. I asked. Repeatedly. You refused to give any source, forcing me to conclude that you were fabricating the entire story, just as you had lied before on other threads ..... a conclusion neither "slanderous," "erronious [sic]," or "inexplicable," as those who read the thread will see.
Even today, you still tap-dance away from giving a source or retracting the story, which is dishonest and contemptible to the extreme.
quote:
Furhter, anyone who has made even a preliminary perusal of this battle is aware that Thompson exaggerated his involvement in the battle but, to disregard every statement made by him is certainly no answer. As Largent so emphatically remarked, "A liar is a liar." Largent's statement exemplifies the old adage, "It takes one to know one."
You're not making any sense, but disregarding Thompson is a better solution than fancying you can separate fact from fantasy in his wretched accounts.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on July 20 2004 6:53:14 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2004 : 6:35:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Larsen, it was only a sugesstion. I said before that I had not read his account. I have seen him referenced by some writers, so he has some credibility with some. He did win a Medal of Honor for carring water after being wounded. I respect him for that.I know that Camp said that part of story couldn't be believed.
Yes. I don't want to condemn Thompson too much. By all accounts, he fought with distinction at the Little Bighorn, and his role as a straggler from Custer's column is affirmed by others. Unfortunately, he was fantasy-prone and was incapable or unwilling of relating his experiences factually. He died in an insane asylum.
quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "out of Battle Ridge". My point was that while a very few C troop men may have made it to LSH, you aren't proving it by listing men from I and L troops found there.
The sorrel horses alone show that some of them probably made it, but by listing Keogh men who ended up there my only point was showing that men from Keogh's battalion could end up in the north without being appendages of the staff. The argument for Tom being an aide-de-camp basically boils down to him being found on Custer Hill. That's creating a problematic scenario (because it strips C of its most experienced officer while adding a redundant aide to Custer's already aide-bloated staff) when a simpler one is available.
quote:
Since you are into nit-picking, You said in an earlier post that Sharrow maybe was with headquarters. Where else would the Regimental Sgt Major be?
You're too casual a nit-picker; I said I guess he was, not maybe. You tell me where else he would be.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
