| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - November 04 2004 : 2:17:03 PM
|
DC Just looking through Gray to reply to your post.I see this on page 280 in relation to Kanipe's instructions "If you see Capt Benteen tell him to come quick-big Indian camp".Sounds like the one man sent both messages.What do you think?
What you must remember in this time and motion study is that Benteen speeded up after meeting Kanipe .
What's the distance from Reno Hill to No Name creek [Kanipe's ride]
and the distance from Cedor Coulee to the Flat [Martin's ride]Also surely Kanipe's horse was in no better condition than Martins's.Kanipe was actually overtaken by indians driving ponies.
|
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 05 2004 : 7:23:05 PM
|
Well, no. Kanipe received his instructions solely from TWC. At no time does he say GAC told him anything. And this story emerged in 1903, anyway. Martin was told by Custer direct, Cooke wrote it down. They say, anyway.
Kanipe did not meet Benteen at No Name, but about a mile and one half west of the Lone Tepee (you understand above and below refer to stream direction?), a difference of 2.5 miles. So his ride from just south of Sharpshooter (what are you reading?), not Reno, (page 335 Gray; they've passed Reno) to Benteen, following the trail, is about four miles. I understand the differences, Benteen heading west when he meets Kanipe, north when he meets Martin at the Flat or near it. Martin looks to have a somewhat shorter trip, but not very much. This depends where, precisely, he started from. Martin said Kanipe left about 300 yards north of Reno, closer to Sharpshooter. He seems to say he himself left Custer 3/4 mile from where they saw Indians but that could mean Sharp or Reno.
Kanipe's horse had not been shot. Martin's was. You say Kanipe's horse was in the same shape, do you? The ponies seem like they were on a converging course, rather than overtaking Kanipe.
And I'm still curious how Boston Custer, who passed Benteen at 2:32, wasn't noticed by Kanipe (OR the scouts)who meets Benteen about an hour and ten minutes later. Given that Martin met him. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on November 05 2004 7:37:44 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2004 : 9:43:10 PM
|
The controversial and, often, acidulous arguments that have permeated this thread with Benteen's failure, or non-failure, to obey orders is best answered by Benteen himself: "A movement could have been made down the river in the direction Custer had gone immediately upon my arrival on the hill, but we would all have been there yet."
This statement is an acknowledgement that such an order, respond quickly to Custer's location existed and was, subsequently, ignored. The reason for doing so may be viewed by many as perfectly understandable.
Under the circumstances, I may have made the same decision. However the poll is explicit, did Benteen disobey orders, not whether he was justified in doing so. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 01:09:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
This statement is an acknowledgement that such an order, respond quickly to Custer's location existed and was, subsequently, ignored.
No it isn't. If you had a dictionary at hand for you to pillage the word "acidulous" from, you could also have troubled yourself to look up the words "acknowledgment" and "order". Your quote from Benteen does not acknowledge anything about an order. It just says a movement could have been made, but wasn't, at least not at that time.
quote:
Under the circumstances, I may have made the same decision. However the poll is explicit, did Benteen disobey orders, not whether he was justified in doing so.
The poll asks a stupid question as to whether Benteen violated a legal principle in assisting Reno, stupid because you've done no investigation into 1870s military law to determine whether the question is even meaningful. You don't know jack about what a "legal order" was in 1876, and if you want to talk about it in legal terms then it is not something you can just pop off an opinion about by voting in a poll.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 04:08:39 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Did the poll inquire about a legal principle being violated? Or did it ask about Benteen violating a order? I think it was the order, don't you?
It asked if Benteen violated a legal order, meaning that if he did he broke a law in stopping to help Reno. Learn to read.
quote:
I doubt that there are any huge differences in army regulations between 1876 and present day, although the language has changed somewhat.
Don't doubt. Prove it. Then once you've done that, explain what the order to Benteen was. Then show how Benteen violated it. Then find the military law or regulation which prohibits it. In other words, do what Wiggs has never done: do some research for his lazily asked question.
quote:
As I have pointed out to you, who can't seem to remember just like dc! There are General Orders (not many these days) and special orders! Now which do you think was which?
What, precisely, was Custer ordering Benteen to do?
quote:
So Rich is stupid too now, huh! You and dc! everybody and everything is stupid except you two!! The poll asks a stupid question is what you say!! But you can't even get the question right!
It's not me but you who did not get the question right, not that I'm surprised. It's quite consistent with the primitive reading skills you've so far displayed. It was not, for example, Rich who asked the question --- as would be pretty obvious to anyone who'd bother to look. That was our own Joseph Wiggs. Even the fake neighborhood children crawling over his knees could have discerned that.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 9:09:58 PM
|
No question is stupid, rather it is a beginning of open dialogue wherein all people may benefit in an exchange of ideas, facts, and perspectives. To attempt to demean one who ask the question by using such a juvenile, unsubstantiated, and irresponsible nomenclature as "stupid" is beyound the pale of all that is rational.
It is your consistent, pertinacious, and pathological quest to demean all who may disgree with you that is astounding. If you would take the time to review my threads you will discover that I never stated that Benteen, "violated a legal principle in assisting Reno." This perspective was created, nurtured, and given birth by the enigmatic mind of one Larsen and no one else.
Under the given circumstances I may have chosen the same options as Benteen, or I may not have. Each man must be held accountable for his decisions, this is life. Honest discussion of choice is what divides men from boys. If you would respond to my threads, or any other thread of disagreement without resorting to such childish retorts of imbecility; myself and others would think the better of you for it.
I won't bore the forum with a detailed response regarding your inexplicable remark of:"Your quote from Benteen does not acknowledge anything about an order." I will simply end this discussion with a question, what did Benteen's remarks refer to, a possible date for the senior prom? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 06:04:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
If you would take the time to review my threads you will discover that I never stated that Benteen, "violated a legal principle in assisting Reno." This perspective was created, nurtured, and given birth by the enigmatic mind of one Larsen and no one else.
Wiggs, you chose to frame the question in legal terms. Don't whine to me because you're not equipped to handle it. Everybody else on this board has avoided the legal aspect and just asked, "What was the order? Was it reasonable? Did Benteen do what the situation obligated him to do?" and similar questions.
quote:
Under the given circumstances I may have chosen the same options as Benteen, or I may not have. Each man must be held accountable for his decisions, this is life. Honest discussion of choice is what divides men from boys. If you would respond to my threads, or any other thread of disagreement without resorting to such childish retorts of imbecility; myself and others would think the better of you for it.
Actually, I've responded courteously to everyone on this board, and usually well after someone has stopped responding courteously to me. I've been to the point to those who falsify, lie, and/or misuse history (yourself and Warlord are all who immediately come to mind here) for which I am unapologetic, since the flim-flamm of those who knowingly try to pass off nonsense such as Warlord's embrace of nonexistent authority or your cynical forgery of Sitting Bull's dreams must be stamped out.
quote:
I won't bore the forum with a detailed response regarding your inexplicable remark of:"Your quote from Benteen does not acknowledge anything about an order." I will simply end this discussion with a question, what did Benteen's remarks refer to, a possible date for the senior prom?
Because you can't. You claimed that Benteen, in that quote, acknowledged that an order existed and that he ignored it. That obviously is not true, as anyone who examines the quote in question can see. We all have a responsibility to properly use quotes and not pretend that they claim something they do not actually claim. If you want to say such things, then say them based on a quote in which Benteen actually does acknowledge that such an order existed and that he ignored it. It's incredibly simple, and is the quickest route to giving me nothing to critique you for. And you'd have the respect of others, in spite of such lapses as this (and we all occasionally do lapse in this way), if you'd just admit it and not try to manipulate history as a salve for your wounded ego.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 5:24:32 PM
|
If you want me to sugar the words I say to you, Warlord, you shouldn't post lies. It became obvious, as soon as anybody challenged you, that when you said "most" military authorities believed the Indians were the best light cavalry in the world you were making it up. You couldn't list even one person who acknowledged it to be true; the best you could come up with was the anonymous author of something called "Coup, Stick & Lance," who felt compelled to hedge, however, and grant it only a "probably". "Most" indeed. I finally had to help you, out of pity.
You could have defused it from the start had you just admitted you misspoke; we all do, so no one would judge you negatively. Instead you ran with it. Pretty pathetic, and you've been running frightened ever since.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 8:36:03 PM
|
| Your acidulous diatribes have as much influence on this subject matter as a chipmunk in a forest fire. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 9:37:27 PM
|
"Benteen has been criticized by some military analysts because he failed to obey instructions. He received the note, he read it, he thought enough of it to tuck it in his pocket, but he did not get the ammunition packs and rush forward to Custer's aid. Instead, as he approached the battleground after his scouting trip he saw Major Reno's demoralized men attempting to organize a defensive position on the bluff and he chose to join them. Benteen explained to the 1879 Court of Inquiry why he did what he did, and his reasoning is equally clear from subsequent remarks. He thought it was impossible to obey; to do so would have been suicide. 'We were at their hearths and homes, their medicine was working well, and they were fightingfor all the good God gives anyone to fight for.' E.S. Connell
I did not create this poll for the sole purpose of condeming the actions of Benteen, or for that matter, any other soldier involved in this battle. I may not have agreed with specific choices but, I have always tried to understand why these choices were made.
Obviously, some of the soldiers performed their duties much better than others. In war this phenomenon is a normal condition. Benteen's martial abilities probably saved Reno's command. Conversely, a harsh reality is that Reno failed miserably in his efforts and, may have been under the influenced of alcohol during some portions of this battle. Another reality is that many will profess that Benteen did what he had to do; an equal amount of opines will declare his actions a dereliction of duty.
There are no autonomous rights nor wrongs in a discussion such as this, only conjectures . When one personalizes his or her opinion as an absolute conclusion to the detriment of others, it reduces the process (open discussion) to it's lowest, common denominator.
To those individuals whose participation is this discussion have exemplified a mature stance of "agreeing to disagree" (as gentlemen and gentle women should) I thank you.
 
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on November 30 2004 9:47:03 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 9:57:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Your acidulous diatribes have as much influence on this subject matter as a chipmunk in a forest fire.
I never claimed to influence the subject matter, so I don't know what point you think you're scoring here. I just present my views as best I can, clarify or defend when asked, and try to stay honest. If I say something that ends up being wrong I retract it, with no hesitation or whining. Why would I not? I have no personal stake in any of this. I'm well aware that there are huge gaps in my knowledge, since it is something I'm constantly trying to correct.
I only bother coming here to find things out, and though I may have no influence on anybody else, I've benefited from the time I've spent here and learned much I would not otherwise, both from others and from my own digging inspired by what issues have come up here. My approach is innately skeptical, which I know irks people who would rather assert than prove, and for that I'm sorry. I'm not that sorry, however.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 10:07:50 PM
|
Wiggs-
Forget all the legal issues for a moment. What do you think, precisely, Custer was ordering Benteen to do? Warlord ducked this question, but maybe you'll be willing to pick it up. Because I think the note is so poorly written, so bendable to interpretation, that it cannot properly be said that Benteen disobeyed orders at all. What were the orders, precisely? I keep on asking people and get different answers all the time. This is not new with us; in the Court of Inquiry testimony we're told that people were confused even then.
How can Benteen disobey an order if no one can even agree what the order was?
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on November 30 2004 10:10:05 PM |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2004 : 06:31:12 AM
|
Interesting that altho there seems to be agreement that the Indians were excellent "cavalry", I wonder if just being excellent "horsemen" means the same thing??
Just a thought, is all---
And knowing that they were excellent cavalry/horsemen, it would have been nice if US Cavalry had developed training and tactics to match.
I've long lost my Barnitz book, but I seem to recall he had commented to his wife (in one of his letters) that 7th cavalry training was woefully inadequate for the enemy they were likely to face. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2004 : 3:41:09 PM
|
Warlord:
Oh I can see why people make that statement. I was just musing, is all. Just wondering if the ability to shoot a running buffalo from a moving horse would translate into military style operations such as "cavalry" might mount. Like operating as a "unit" rather than a bunch of good individual horsemen.
A comparison comes to mind with Alexander the Great (the new movie is pretty good, by the way). Went up against the Persian's Parthian/Sycthian/Bactrian cavalry who were often regarded as the best in the world. His own Companion cavalry were quite good themselves, and won the battles due to superior training and their ability to fight as a unit and deliver shock attacks against cavalry AND infantry.. The Persian cavalry (tho superb horsemen with supurb mounts) weren't up to facing a "real" cavalry charge and often scattered in all directions when faced with such pressure.
Like I said-just musing. |
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2004 : 5:17:10 PM
|
| Maybe we could compare them with Genghis Khan's horsemen. The Mongol army was a much more regimented force of course but I believe at least some of their training was done during a 'great hunt' where they honed their skills by shooting pray with bow and arrow whilst riding at full speed. They were expected to hit their target with one shot and were ridiculed when they could not. Hard taskmasters! |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2004 : 5:47:04 PM
|
Probarbly through the ages,there have been many really good Light cavarly.
Another factor is that the Indian horse was smaller,hardier and faster than those used by the Army,although not so good in the winter when feeding would have been a problem.
Most of the others posted earlier are really armies that conquered vast amounts of land,and where trained or used to fighting as such.
|
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
Edited by - hunkpapa7 on December 01 2004 6:00:19 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2004 : 7:18:48 PM
|
So. I cannot find an url for a book called "Coup, Stick and Lance" although I found a wargaming site on Yahoo for something called CoupstickandLance. On the cover page it refers to the Plains Indians as probably the finest light cavalry in the world. Was this your source, Warlord? http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/CoupstickandLance/ A makebelieve wargame site on Yahoo? Has anyone had any better luck than I and the library and found such a book?
Since nobody could possibly have made an objective judgment about who was the best - and the utter impossibility to have seen significant light cavalries around the world in action to have enough data for such a judgment - I suspect all these guys are doing is paying a compliment of a general sort. I doubt the horsemanship was better than that exhibited down in Argentina or other places, like the Cossacks or in China where they invented the stirrup. And it's not like the Plains Indians won much if they were so good.
I'm taking some joy in this because it feeds my theory of enemy fluffing so well. If people were upset that Custer was wiped out, 'well, the public just has to understand our men were up against the finest light cavalry in the world' which reads better than "your tax dollars pay for a military that can't ride, shoot, or do much of anything constructive." If the army won, it wasn't a slaughter of starving savages - men, women, and children - but "a victory over the finest light cavalry in the world."
We just got through doing this to the Republican Guard, remember. That fearsome group of savagely faithful warriors highly trained and with the best of military equipment oil money could buy. That was blarney, although many of them apparently can plant mines and with enough preparation and cohorts capture sixty year old unarmed female CARE workers and terrify them with rocket launchers until they kill them. They're good at that, all right. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2004 : 8:28:44 PM
|
quote:
Re: Coup, Stick and Lance. Just run a website search, one of little ability!
I did. Turned up nothing. I've never heard of this book/site/whatever before, and your refusal to name an author is suspicious. I did, however, run a search on the supposed quotation from "Coup, Stick & Lance" and came up with this http://www.angelfire.com/ca/ponywars/page1.html, titled "Plains Indians," which includes the material you quoted from CS&L, exactly. The author doesn't sign his name, and seems to be an Indian figurine maker. He makes no attempt to defend or argue his claim. If this isn't the source which you call "Coup, Stick & Lance," then somebody is plagiarizing somebody here.
quote:
"The Comanche have distinguished themselves as the FINEST LIGHT CAVALRY IN THE WORLD, with the exception of the Cheyenne indians who outclassed them". Biography of Captain Jose De Urrata, Commander of the Royal Presidio of San Antonio De Bexar. By John D. Inclan.
The biography is of Urrutia, not Urrata, and the claim for both the Comanches and the Cheyenne is unsourced, undefended, unargued. John D. Inclan, your "military expert," is apparently (judging from my web searches) a genealogist who has spent most of his time researching the family histories of Hispanic people in Texas. What qualifies him to make this judgment is unknown to me. He doesn't help by not giving the reader any reasons to believe him.
quote:
U.S. Army Officers who fought them, called the Commanche's The Finest Light Cavalry in the World". The Texas Archeological Society, Bulletin of The Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society, 9/29 P. 38-9, Vol. 1, No. 1.
That's a title, not an article, and these are Comanches, not the Plains Indians for whom you first made the claim, though I don't think it makes much difference. Who are these officers, and what are the arguments which they presumably make, assuming this is something they actually wish to convince reasonable people is true?
quote:
"Campaigning against some of the finest light cavalry in the world - the plains indian." Quote from Col. Benjamin H. Grierson, 10th Regimental Commander (10th Cavalry).
This is not somebody who thought that the Indians Fetterman fought were the best light cavalry in the world.
quote:
"They are the finest rider's in the world." Speaking of the plains Indians. From notes of Vincent Colyer, credentialed by Pres. Grant and the U.S. Indian Commission.
This man makes no relevant claim at all.
quote:
The South African Militery Society in their 3/97 Newsletter again refers To "The Plains indian as the worlds finest light cavalry".
You're doctoring quotes, Warlord. The actual newsletter in question (http://www.rapidttp.co.za/milhist/97/97marnew.html) says: "On the other hand Carrington's opponents were the Sioux Indians, variously described as the world's finest light cavalry." Variously described by whom, they do not mention. The author (apparently one George Barrell, whom I've never heard of) gives no souces. No attempt is made to defend or support the claim. That's becoming typical of these things.
quote:
GAC himself, apparently referred to the plains indians as "The finest light cavalry in the world". According to: A Dispatch to Custer: The Trajedy of Lt. Kidder mentioned in Review Epinion.com
I own "A Dispatch to Custer," all 118 pages of it, which I have just looked over, and nowhere did I see any document quoted from Custer in which he made this claim. It's pretty cheesy to be quoting book reviews from Epinion.
quote:
All I can say is this thing about the indian warriors being the best of the then current cavalries of the world is really not something made up or a lie!
There may be a few people here and there --- eccentrics, cranks, hero-worshippers, internet people --- who believe this, and some of them may even have been soldiers, as Bourke was, but it is just an assertion they make which none of them, as far as I can see, has yet tried to defend. To say that most military experts believe such a claim to be accurate is obviously false; experts, if they deserve the name, have to actually make arguments, and produce sources, and explanations for the claims they make, and that can't really be done for this. I think that's why you have yet to find one author who writes histories that are referenced and foot-noted (such as Jerome Greene, or even Greg Michno) tie himself to this ridiculous claim, let alone "most" of them.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2004 : 8:39:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
So. I cannot find an url for a book called "Coup, Stick and Lance" although I found a wargaming site on Yahoo for something called CoupstickandLance. On the cover page it refers to the Plains Indians as probably the finest light cavalry in the world. Was this your source, Warlord? http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/CoupstickandLance/ A makebelieve wargame site on Yahoo? Has anyone had any better luck than I and the library and found such a book?
I picked up a guy who makes Indian figurines and stole the quote. An "expert," of course.
So "Coup, Stick & Lance" is a wargame site ?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 04:07:51 AM
|
Actually, I looked for the title WL quoted myself and came up with nothing significant.
But, isn't the term "finest light cavalry in the world" really a red herring? In the Custer battle, the majority of the Indian attacks were made on foot if I recall correctly. In the Fetterman battle, there were some horses used but again it seems the majority were made on foot.
Someone please correct me with factual information if I have an unclear understanding of the enemy tactics.
Yes WL, I consider the Indian the enemy. I suspect that in your mind, that will make me a racist. Fine.
Regarding the opinions of the finest light cavalry in the world. How about the nomadic tribe, the Scythians or the tribes which took over, the Sarmatians, which annihilated the Roman XXI legion? In my opinion, they would be in the top five.
http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/sarmatians/sarmatians.html
http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/scythians/scythians.html
By the way WL, all your references pointed to the Comanche tribe, not Plains Indians in general.
Merry Christmas,
Billy |
Edited by - BJMarkland on December 02 2004 04:08:53 AM |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 06:14:14 AM
|
Billy does make a good point, especially regarding the LBH. It does seem that a large part of the fighting (except perhaps the chase of Reno to the bluff) was done on foot---.
Which makes me curious--were there legitimate Indian "cavalry" vs. US Cavalry engagements during the "Indian Wars"?? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 10:58:53 AM
|
But, isn't the term "finest light cavalry in the world" really a red herring?
Yes.Perhaps individually good horse men but never cavalry.Cavalry denotes a body of horsemen under formal leadership acting in concert.And the term finest would have to have been earned.I have never heard of a body of Indians attacking in anything like the numbers cavalry would attack in. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 9:43:32 PM
|
Larsen, at your request I will attempt to answer your inquiry sincerely and with personal conviction. I am in no way assuming that my perception of Benteen's actions are valid; 'tis only a theory. The famous written order (in my mind) was not confusing. It only became so as it gathered baggage through the years for the purpose of maligning or defending some of the playes after the tragic outcome of this battle.
Confronted by an unforgiving and hostile general public who demanded an explanation of the impossibility of savage heathens having the ability to destroy the famous 7th. The surviving senior commanders(Reno and Benteen)where thrust upon the horns of a delimma. While it is fashionable to malign the General today, 'twas not so at the time of his demise. He was admired by many then.
For years, after the battle, Reno and Benteen were scapegoated with the responsibility of failure. The phenomenon of "Monday Morning Quaterbacking" was as prevalent then as now. Understandably, by the time of the Reno Inquiry, both men believed thenselves to be unjustly put upon while the real culpit, Custer, was absolved of all wrong doing.
This is why Benteen resorted to his outrageous statements regarding "Orders" at the Reno Inquiry. He classified Custer's orders as "senseless", mere "valley hunting ad infinitum" and also claimed he was to "pitch into anything I came across." He bragged that his return to Custer's trail was in "violation of (Custer's) orders" that would have taken him to "Fort Benton." According to Gray (and others)he charged Custer with sending him on a "stupid and endless" combat mission.
The reality of what occurred is quite different and plain to see. At approximately 12:15 on June 25., Benteen started his march to the left. His orders were verbal and, perhaps, indefinite. Custer would, of necessity, leave much to the discretion of Benteen. He had not traveled far when Custer sent him two supplementary orders. The first instructed Benteen to go to the second line of bluffs if nothing was found on the first. The second order directed Benteen to go into "the" valley ("the" being a definite article meaning a specific valley and not valley hunting ad infinitum)if he found no Indians on the second bluff.
In Benteen's report written only a few days after the battle,he stated that he was "ordered to move to the left with his battalion to explore a line of bluffs some four or five miles away, to pitch into anything he might find and, to SEND WORD to Custer."
In a letter to his wife he said essentially the same thing, "I was sent over the immense hills to the left in search of THE valley which was suppose to be VERY near by."
Lt. Gibson ("B" troop under Benteen) confirmed these facts in a letter in which he stated, "the battalion was ordered to the left in an attempt to discover whether any Indians were trying to escape up the valley of the Little Big Horn." As soon as they had satisfied themselves that the Sioux were not moving in that direction, the battalion was to "REJOIN THE MAIN COMMAND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE."
How then can we justify Benteens's total incomprehension of five simple words, "Benteen Come on. Big Village." What had been searched so diligently for by the troopers had been found, the prize was now within the grasp of the 7th. Calvary.
Custer intended Benteen's excursion to be brief and was nonplused by his tardiness. Remember that the initial message sent to the pack-train by Kanipe was not addressed to Benteen. The second message (note) was. Why? Custer assumed that Benteen was late because he had joined the pack train. This is a logical assumption when one realizes the overwhelming importance of protecting the ammunition. Thus the last demand "bring packs (ammunition)and the subsequent P.S., "bring packs." (again a referrence to the ammunition)
My final point is that Benteen did not comply with the order because he believed it to be impossible to do so.
The demoralization of Reno's Troops and the vast number of warriors were overwhelming factors that he could not ignore. Under the giving circumstances, Benteen's actions were understandable. You and I may have reacted differently, or maybe not. Regardless of the moral implications, the rightness or wrongness of doing so, the last order was not obeyed. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 02 2004 9:49:07 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 07:13:54 AM
|
Wiggs or anyone else. In the letter from Lt. Gibson, quote:
"the battalion was ordered to the left in an attempt to discover whether any Indians were trying to escape up the valley of the Little Big Horn."
Does anyone know whether the wording he used "...valley of the Little Big Horn" was his interpretation or the exact words? What I think I am seeing here is Benteen playing word games by not assigning a specific place to the words, "the valley". I, and I am sure everyone one else, automatically replaces "the valley" with "the LBH valley" or "the river valley".
Doesn't it still all come down to inexact/unclear orders being transmitted?
Nice summation Wiggs! Those kids are getting good! 
Best of wishes for a Merry Christmas,
Billy |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
