| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 22 2004 : 05:01:10 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
He could have been mistaken, but I doubt a career soldier would have PURPOSELY included the notation regarding William Lewis, particularly if William Lewis didn't earn it and more so if he were still alive when the research was done in the decade following the battle. I also wonder whether he'd have known William Lewis Bostwick's family--a very short distance from his own home in New York. From what I've seen, I'll trust his work at least as much as I trust any other.
If he were so conscientious you'd think he would have ambled down to the War Department and checked the casualty returns, where a William Lewis Bostwick, Lewis Bostwick, or Louis Bostwick, civilian teamster, is conspicuously absent.
R. Larsen
|
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 05:12:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
The researcher collecting the family history over a century ago was a man of science, bringing forth his findings in a scholarly, rather than vain manor.
If he did that then he must have included documentation.
quote:
Of course, it's a very ugly thought to consider the violence done to the bodies of soldiers killed in a fight with Indians. I't just as ugly to consider what soldiers of that era did to women and children at Sand Creek and other venues. Come to think of it, it's pretty ugly to consider what an undertaker does to your body while preparing it for burial.
What do you call it when someone feels "envious" that one of their ancestors wasn't brutally murdered by Indians.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 09:57:40 AM
|
Wiggs,
I defamed you? Hardly. You did that yourself. Stop whining.
If you want solace, my spelling has gone to hell 'defaming' you from reading your posts, no doubt. Obviously, no failure on my part can be considered, being a 'genius' and all.....
Explain that, young man! Stop fidgeting. Look at me. Explain that! Harump.
Freshen my drink, it's almost 8. No ice. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 11:43:01 AM
|
| Dark Cloud: I was assuming that Gibbon commanded the Montana column and Brisbin's cavalry was part of it. My real interest was your take on whether Custer was to wait for or link up with Gibbon and Terry. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 3:15:08 PM
|
That was the plan, to join on the 26th (Terry was a day late) UNLESS the commander (Custer) thought circumstances demanded a command decision and other action. He did, and thought to attack on the 26th after resting at the Crow's Nest but thought he'd been seen and had to attack a day early. That's the story.
How Custer thought 700 men within ten miles of a large camp could stay concealed for that long is mystifying, if true. Water for a hot day of rest would also be an issue. Horses make noise when thirsty.
I think you're correct, that Grasshopper Jim was under Gibbon till the linkup. But there was infantry and the Gatlings with Terry and Custer and I don't know why they all would go to Gibbon. There are others than me who'd know right off. Custer only hard charge of the 7th after he was sent down the Rosebud. Before that, at least for a while, the 7th was divided into two wings under Reno and Benteen who reported to Terry, detritus from Custer's being removed from command of the regiment by Grant for this foray. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 3:39:37 PM
|
"If the United Staes wanted to kill all the Indians, there was nothing to stop them absolutely nothing."
The above statement is absolutely true. What "stopped" the U.S. from completing the act of genocide was the surrender of the Native Americans to their overseers. Their decision to capitulate was based on an absolute reality that, not to do so, would have resulted in the ternination of them all. This is the tragedy and the reality of the unbeliveable cruelty of any government that would systematically murder the members of a group untill they finally submitted to a brutal, and demeaning, reservation system.
You have but to walk a mile in their shoes to see the point. The U.S. is the best thing that has ever happened to this planet. I love this Country with every fiber of my being. I am eternally grateful to be a member of this society. However, to forget the horrors and injustices of the past is to invite the return of such despicable acts. That is why it is so important that we remember the past. To say that the U.S. did committ genocide has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. The shame lies in the attempt. Many despots have striven to liquidate various branches of mankind
without virtually completing the process. Does that make Hitler, Stalin, or Nero less monstrous?
To say that the U.S. could have killed everyone if they had wished to do so, but did not, implies that an amnesty of mercy was suddenly poured upon the noble heads of the Redman by a merciful government. Such a statement completely omits the real and harsh reality of the forced subjugation of human beings against their wishes..
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 01:47:58 AM
|
Let me see if I have this straight: a nation intent on genicide would care if the target surrendered?? That'd just make it easier. Explain....
Aside from the police actions, where is the evidence of systematic murder? Or a plan for systematic murder. Sherman said they'd all have to be killed or maintained as paupers. We chose the latter, the more expensive and most troublesome course. Cruel, dishonest, and crappy for everyone, but it isn't genicide.
If we'd instituted genicide, there'd have been another civil war, but in fact few were in favor of such a thing.
It was the pandemics that killed the most Indians, and with a few exceptions, none of them were intentional. Certainly the first great one that polished off about seventy percent of the humans in Mexico and north was not a desired goal of the Spanish, who were clueless they'd done such a thing till later. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 12:49:37 PM
|
HIdark Cloud
As for genocide, Wild, a little research indeed. What is your authority, again?
Donald Rumsfeld's Peekaboo book of Human Rights |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 1:49:44 PM
|
| Dark Cloud: I concede your point, I should have refered to Terry's command. I also agree that it was not reasonable for Custer to expect the regiment to remain concealed until the 26th. As for the plan, Im sure you are familar with Terry's orders if that is what they are. Terry was to be at the mouth of the LBH on the 26th. Custer was to continue up the Rosebud, "perhaps as far as the headwaters of the Tongue'. How, when, and where could he possibly have joined Terry? I think Terry's plan was invented after the disaster. A clear case of CYA. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 2:22:16 PM
|
I'm wrong, I guess. I thought they were to make contact on the 26th. I'm not where I can get to that stuff, so I'll believe you.
Also, my sarcasm may not have come through. There's a long thread where I was nailed because I thought Keogh was senior, and evidence was produced and then it was agreed that it was Yates, and then - you were right - it was agreed to be Keogh. It is Keogh, but all I could recall was that I was wrong last so I thought it Yates, again. That probably gives an indication of the importance I assign to it, but there it is.
The great story about the United States is how a standing military - which is by nature and purpose authoritarian and socialist - can function at the behest of a civilian boss of millions - by nature libertarian and capitalist -who also provide the soldiers. With the advent of the media to almost instant analysis and coverage, the military had to change. It hadn't by the time of LBH.
The soldier chosen to lead the My Lai investigation (the most decorated soldier of that war)said in his report and in the lay press that the first thing soldiers do when they get back from patrol or battle is to get the story straight. NOT to cover up, but because civilians don't fully understand how two soldiers, both way competent, can fight the same battle in the same foxhole and in their reports describe totally different things. Because the press would scream 'coverup' and imply something awful when trauma, fear, and whatever would explain it, soldiers have learned to at least get the basics right and agree to them before reports, before talking to the press or superiors. Even when they disagree or don't really know. Even when they tell the exact truth as it happens they give the whiff of collaboration and the press can jump on that alone.
This is why the idea of press guys with Custer gave Sherman gas, and he forbade it. This is why the military loves 'embedded' journalists, because who is going to badmouth the guys upon whose good humor your life hangs?
In utero, this is what happened at LBH, only way after remarks to the press had been made and not helped by the McGuire map which doesn't even show Sharpshooter Hill. I think confronted with the map years later that soldiers said things happened at Weir some of which happened at Sharpshooter, and when the omission was revealed, they had to scramble to rectify and not seem like covering up.
I truly suspect much of the 'mystery' of the LBH is due to being on the cusp of a responsbible media and a compentent and honest military. Given the number of duels fought for real and in the press after the CW over who did what when, you can imagine the motivations at work to keep the lid on it. I don't think anyone shined at the LBH, but when Benteen realized how a bunch of wrong 50-50 calls would read in the paper, he dissembled and they all did to one degree or another.
Read the self serving newspaper piece Custer anonymously wrote about Reno's Scout for the New York Herald. What a self-serving spin meister he was. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 8:37:05 PM
|
| Dark Cloud: Thank you, I guess.I would rather you reach your own conclusions instead of taking my word for it. I believe you are confusing me with someone else. I have not commented on your misstatement of Yates-Keogh seniority. I think you are too kind to Benteen. Some of the reasons you give for his failure to "come quick" may be valid, but there are a number of deliberate lies as to length of marches,instructions,Custer believing there was no village, etc.Reno, Benteen, Terry and his staff were all quick to blame Custer for the disaster. There was plenty of blame to share. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 12:46:04 AM
|
There's plenty of blame for a failed campaign based on misconceptions, but the loss of nearly half the 7th was Custer's fault. That distinction is so rarely made, much less emphasized.
There is weak evidence of meaningful "lies," and the terrain certainly lent itself to confusion.
Of course Custer knew there was a village. There are stories that 1.) he couldn't see it himself from the Crow's Nest or 2.) he didn't think it was as big as it was. None of that makes any difference. From above Reno's fight he could see all he needed, could have organized a second attack or rescue of Reno, could have attacked across MTC. Or retreated.
He risked and lost. Eh. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 06:23:32 AM
|
Just to return to Benteens "order".The "PS bring packs" is a further mistake.The pack train is the slowest moving unit of the regiment.Why tie Benteens progress to it.Its a contradiction---be quick but only as quick as the pack train??????.
|
|
|
|
inwit
Corporal
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 1:22:56 PM
|
"Packs" refers to ammunition packs. Custer wanted more men and ammunition ASAP.
You have to read Cooke's note in "context." "BIG VILLAGE." "BE QUICK."
The whole context is that a major battle in imminent and more men and ammunition are needed - not mules !!!!! |
Edited by - inwit on May 25 2004 1:27:03 PM |
|
|
|
inwit
Corporal
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 1:51:42 PM
|
| In fact, the inference could be drawn from Cooke's note that Custer did not believe he had sufficient men or ammunition for the fight. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 2:22:08 PM
|
There was a slim possibility he could have got the men.The message ensured he got neither.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 2:52:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
There was a slim possibility he could have got the men.The message ensured he got neither.
How did the message ensure he didn't get the men?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 04:32:56 AM
|
| By tieing the speed of Benteens march to that of the slowest moving unit of the regiment |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 07:39:15 AM
|
Packs doesn't necessarily mean ammo. Kanipe's message was for ammo, but the second message a short time later, says packs, twice. It's not necessarily a repeat message, but an altered one reflecting new info like the size of the village or a late awareness of how vulnerable the train would be so near such a village, and that dividing it and its escort per the recent order was a mistake.
How about this possible context:
"We're near a big village, so protect the packs this near it. Come quick as possible so we can finish them off and get the show on the road. Isn't this great?" The message is only ominous in hindsight. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 08:24:44 AM
|
| Maybe, but don't know.I really think all Custer had on his mind that day was his presidential acceptance speech not mules. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 11:42:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
By tieing the speed of Benteens march to that of the slowest moving unit of the regiment
But that didn't happen. Once Benteen received Martin's message he moved on at a trot, and made no attempt to do anything with the packs, because he felt that "the Indians could not get to the pack train without coming by us" (Nichols, Reno Court pg. 405).
Besides, Benteen figured that since Sgt. Kanipe had already been sent back with orders to speed up, there was no way he could "expedite" things any further by going back, or waiting for the train to catch up --- which he thought was an hour and 15 minutes behind him (427 of same book). He moved on.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on May 26 2004 12:13:27 PM |
|
|
|
inwit
Corporal
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 12:42:33 PM
|
Furthermore, Benteen described the order from Custer (based on Benteen's understanding that it referred to the pack train) as "senseless."
If it was senseless, then it should have occured to him that the order referred to ammunition packs. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 2:01:38 PM
|
I think you might have a point there Anon.
There was certainly no point in him returning to the pack train but he was now responsible for it and he just might have moderated his pace to keep in touch with it.But it really did not matter because there was no way he was going to abandon Reno unless that order was far more precise in what Custer required of him.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 7:27:47 PM
|
Wild,
Custer had just been fired and barely reinstated in time for the campaign. He wasn't running for President (he was a Democrat and Tilden pretty much had it sewn up) he was fighting for his job. The country, after Grant, was highly unlikely to turn to another and lesser professional soldier who'd already been courtmartialed for unsavory actions and had zero political base.
Custer wasn't stupid. Even had he won, I don't see the Democrats doing it, given Custer had just been enforcing reconstruction down South, which was ALL Democrat. I've always thought this was a bizarre canard. He may have hoped someday, but it clearly wouldn't have been that year. He was what, 37? Don't think so. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 01:23:47 AM
|
The presidential nomination theory was contrived, I believe, to explain why he was seemingly in a hurry to engage the Sioux and unwilling to wait for Terry. More recently, this "rush" has been attributed to just the sequence of events. The only time Custer changed the timeline was the night march across the divide and the attack moved up from the morning of the 26th to immediately.
He was 36 years old. I believe you have to be 35 years old to be president, though I'm not sure when that was instated. But its a moot point, as Custer wasn't likely to have sought the Presidency.
Was Custer fired? I don't know that fired is the right term. It might be for lack of a better word, but what really was the situation? I believe he was relieved of his command of the Montana Column in the 1876 campaign by and/or due to Grant's anger. Fired would imply that he was no longer the commander of the 7th, permanently. I have read nothing that said this was a fact, nor a permanent decision. He was relieved of the command of the column and the 7th, which was (obviously) rescinded before the campaign.
Was Custer in danger? I doubt it. Everyone points to his courtmartial in 1867, but that was 9 years ago and he had since had success leading the Black Hills expedition in 1874. While he did piss off Grant, field command of the 7th would likely still fallen to him after the 1876 campaign, unless Reno suddenly became something he wasn't: a capable and talented Indian fighter.
Custer wasn't going to be courtmartialed or demoted in rank due to testimony in a congressional hearing, based on what he said. He may have offered information that was hearsay and didn't help either sides, but that was the extent of it. It damaged Grant (or at least Grant thought it did) and it accused higher-ups of corruption, but it didn't have much to do with the precedings or judgement. Grant did about all he could do without going around the rules. Or, at least I believe that's how it went. I don't pretend to be an expert on what a president can or can't do, but since he committed nothing that would warrant a court martial, how could he be fired or demoted? He was only told to report to a different duty station, and await orders. That's not termination or demotion. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
