| Author |
 Topic  |
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 10 2004 : 4:04:49 PM
|
I looked through all five pages of this forum and was surprised to find there is no thread about Reno's short fight in the timber.
I posted this note in the thread about Benteen's orders and realized it should have its own thread. Here's what I posted...
I helped build the index to Ron Nichols “Reno Court of Inquiry” and I’m damn glad I did or else I couldn’t find the following:
Lt. Wallace, Jan 16, 1879: His answer to what would’ve happened to Reno’s command if they had stayed in the timber, “Major Reno and every man with him would have been killed.
Lt. Varnum, Jan 23: His answer if Reno could hold the timber with the men he had, “I don’t believe we had men enough to cover as large a line as it was necessary to cover in order to hold that timber. It does not seem so to me.”
Capt Moylan, Jan 25: “In my judgment the command, without assistance, would have been annihilated in the timber.” And my favorite by Moylan from the same day in response to the question, “Would it not have been better, as a soldier, to have been dead in the timber than dishonored on the hill? Moylan’s’ response, “I don’t know that that is a proper question to put to me. Very few men but would prefer to die in the timber than to be on the hill degraded.”
I know there are some statements made by others that feel the timber was defensible, but I don’t want to take the time to find them. The point to all of this is that none of us were in that timber or in those circumstances. I just don’t see how we can call what Reno should or should not have done in staying or retreating from the timber as bad or good.
What do you think?
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 5:34:44 PM
|
That surviving equals guilt.
Did I miss the part where whole sections stood and said "Retreat? Never, Reno! Never!! I'd rather be gutted and roasted slowly alive than live another sixty years with wife and family because I had the bad taste to actually survive! That's dishonorable! Oh, was that a command? Damn, damn the luck! I'm going to live, maybe! (Owie, owie, owie...) Damn you Major Reno!"
I don't recall that part. Amazing how many years later, somehow people imply something like it took place, because they, of course, were only too happy and willing to die for.......well, you know.
Court Recorder Jesse M. Lee, a Lt., is probably the SAME Lt. Jesse M. Lee Indian Agent (he eventually made it to Brig. General) who wrote down Crazy Horse's last words, since he was there when CH was murdered at Ft. Robinson, along with Calhoun's brother who was stationed there. Is it possible that this environment might have prejudiced Lt. Lee? And can we look to CH's alleged last words to gain some insight as to Lee's integrity and worldliness? Let's see: from http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist122/Part1/Indians.htm
"Crazy Horse, the great Oglala Sioux leader and hero of the Battle of the Little Big Horn, never had his photograph taken, and was on his deathbed before his thoughts were ever recorded on paper. Bayoneted by a Sioux guard at Fort Robinson, Nebraska, in 1877, he is supposed to have said these final words to Agent Jesse M. Lee.
My friend, I do not blame you for this. Had I listened to you this trouble would not have happened to me. I was not hostile to the white man. Sometimes my young men would attack the Indians who were their enemies and took their ponies. They did it in return.
We had buffalo for food, and their hides for clothing and our tipis. We preferred hunting to a life of idleness on the reservations, where we were driven against our will. At times we did not get enough to eat, and we were not allowed to leave the reservation to hunt.
We preferred our own way of living. We were no expense to the government then. All we wanted was peace and to be left alone. Soldiers were sent out in the winter, who destroyed our villages. Then "Long Hair" [Custer] came in the same way. They say we massacred him, but he would have done the same to us had we not defended ourselves and fought to the last. Our first impulse was to escape with our squaws and papooses, but we were so hemmed in that we had to fight.
After that I went up on Tongue River with a few of my people and lived in peace. But the government would not let me alone. Finally, I came back to the Red Cloud Agency.... I came here with the agent [Lee] to talk with Big White Chief, but was not given a chance. They tried to confine me, I tried to escape, and a soldier ran his bayonet into me.
I have spoken.
CRAZY HORSE, Oglala Sioux"
Why, why in the world is this given any credence? Did Lee speak Sioux? And what, dare I ask, was Lee's record in combat that allowed him to question others' records? Crazy Horse was murdered with the complicity of the authorities, which is to say Lee, and he makes sure in this remarkable and grammatical document of words and phrases of interest (not women and children but squaws and papooses...)that the prisoner was trying to escape when receiving his death wound.
If this is the same Lee, this guy has some nerve. Anyone know? I asked this months ago and got no answer. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 8:32:40 PM
|
May I add the following:
Lt. Charles deRudio: "Maj. Reno could have held his position in the timber three or four hours by careful use of ammunition."
F. F. Girard: "I think Reno could have held out against all the Indians as long as his ammunition and provisions held out if he were determined and resolute.
Dr. Porter: There were only about fifty Indians who were engaging Reno when he Halted. They increased to seventy five or a hundred.
George Herendeen: "Maj. Reno left the glade on a run and the men started in no order at all; and that fixed it in my mind that they were running.
Recorder Lee: Maj. Reno took the responsibility of disobeying General Custer's order. He left the timber not on account of the losses that had occurred, but of what might occur.
The debate continues. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 8:52:57 PM
|
Porter doesn't seem to agree with anyone else, including Herendeen, about the number of Indians.
As long as ammo lasted. Right. Unless they were burned out.
Reno did leave on account of prospects not current losses. So what? That's his job. He had no reason to think he'd be supported at that point, it's not like the Indians would eventually go home. They WERE home.
Who is posting under Wiggs' name? Great variation of style, punctuation use, and spelling under that name over time.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 9:29:46 PM
|
"Who is posting under Wigg's name? Great variation of style, punctuation use, and spelling under that name over time."
I mus confese Dark Cloud, I owe it all to yu. Before I met yu I was incompatant and a horrbale speler who did not desarve to live. Thank you for teeching me averthin yu know. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 01:19:38 AM
|
Perhaps you can place blame on Reno for not maintaining fire discipline on the skirmish line, if you believe they were burning too much ammo. But I've read as many accounts that stated they only fired a couple times before moving the timber, and others that say they burned more than that. I guess it depends on whom was asked. But, as Godfrey said, fire discipline will decide every major engagement. And if Reno did not make sure his command maintained fire discipline and was at risk of running out of ammo (which may or may not have happened), then where does the blame go?
Here's a little estimating:
Reno had about 140 troopers and 30 or so scouts. But we'll lower that to 132 troopers, as its always best to err on the side of conservatism and it will make the math easier. Reno pulled up short of the village, and formed a skirmish line. When this happened, 1/4 of the soldiers took the horses, each probably holding 50 rounds in the saddlebags, but again, we'll go conservative, let's say 40 rounds, leaving 60 rounds on each soldier. So right there, on the skirmish line, we have 99 troopers with 60 rounds each (33 soldiers holding 132 horses removed). That's 5,940 rounds. Now, the estimates for how long the skirmish line lasted has varied from 5 minutes to 20 minutes or so, depending on whom was asked. And that makes sense, since it was impossible for every soldier to instantaneously arrive on the line and start firing. So some soldiers were on the line longer than others. I've read accounts (I want to say a Sgt.) that stated the line lasted not more than 3 minutes or so from when said person joined it before it was abandoned. So let's say 10 minutes, as this will more than cover the soldiers who spent less time on the line. Its acceptable middle ground. And in this time, assuming every soldier was firing (which combat behaviour studies question), let's assume a firing rate of 6 times a minute (one round every 10 seconds, not unreasonable yet fairly optimistic, considering the fighting wasn't heavy). That would be 60 rounds! So the line was withdrawn due to running out of ammo? No. So the rate of fire could not exceed the amount of ammunition available. Let's work backwards, then. They had 60 rounds. The supply had to have lasted as long as the skirmish line did. So let's go with the 15 min account. No accounts seemed to point to any soldier exhausting his ammo on the line, but some accounts mentioned soldiers leaving the line to get more ammunition (questionable motives, in my part, as it seemed the line slowly dissolved before being abandoned, with even Major Reno allegedly leaving the for the timber before the troopers withdrew). So 15 minutes had to have subsided, and some ammunition on the troopers had to have remained. Let's go low again, and say each trooper exhaust 45 rounds of their allotted 60, about 3 per minute. Doubtful, because of the intensity of the fighting didn't really increase until the line was abandoned. Warriors did not close in on an unrouted foe. The fighting was at a distance, and there was very little bloodshed on the soldier side of the fight (only a couple casualties). Back to the math: the soldiers have 15 rounds left when they head to the timber (99 soldiers with 15 rounds, 1,485 rounds). But now they're back with the horses, so each man has their reserve, plus the 33 soldiers that held the horses, and thus had all 100 rounds remaining (33 soldiers, 3,300 rounds). Allowing for the loss of 10% of the horses (13 horses, 40 rounds each, 520 rounds), that leaves 4,265 rounds between, say, 130 soldiers, with 2 soldiers killed or wounded on the line. That leaves 32 rounds (rounding down from 32.8) per soldier. I consider this a worst case scenario for ammo usage. Most of the accounts point to a 50/50 split between carried cartridges and those in the saddlebags, if its even possible to hold 50 rounds in a belt. And some accounts stated that they only fired a few rounds before heading to the timber, so its possible there were plenty of soldiers who still had 90 rounds or more left.
Now, this is all an exercise in estimation, based on what we know (100 rounds maximum) and what we're told (how long the line lasted) and what we can guess at (rate of fire). Its not meant to prove anything, but its a start. I will, in the next few days, scour the accounts of the valley fight to add to this, and calculate some numbers based on more definite info. It won't prove exactly how much ammo was expended (I'd need a minute-by-minute account, and an ammo check, casualty report and loss of mounts total), but it will give me different possibilities to work from.
That's it for right now, but I'll close with this. This is not meant to blame Reno, but to present possibilities for how much ammunition was expended by the time they reached the timber. That's it. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 06:18:16 AM
|
When Reno saw the size of the village and the growing opposition he halted .The decisions he made following this just delayed the inevitable and resulted in the defeat and rout of his command.
Seeing the enormity of the village Reno really had only one option open to him and that was an orderly withdrawal out of range to some proper defensive position.
Halting, skirmishing,retreat,skirmishing and panic flight was just taking the sceanic route.
I don't think the question is how long he could have lasted in the timber but rather what he was doing there in the first place.
Regards |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 8:49:05 PM
|
Like I said, it appears that the command was slowly leaking into the timber. First, the horses were held there, then some soldiers claimed to have headed there to get into the saddlebags for more ammo. I find this suspect, because I doubt many soldiers ran out of ammo or came close. I think soldiers just wanted to be near their horses, or away from immediate danger. Its also said that Reno disappeared into the timber before the skirmish line was withdrawn. Basically, a skirmish line was formed, and it slowly decreased in population in the short time it existed.
Moving to the timber seemed to only be, for the most part, a chance for the soldiers to reach their mounts, as this was where they were being held. But after that point, Reno didn't maintain control of the situation. If they did not intend on staying in the timber as a military objective, then there should have been a plan. So let's examine this:
Reno apparently ordered the move to the timber, but why? To regain their mounts and leaving, or to form a second position with the purpose of fighting. What happened? They got their mounts, then stayed in the timber. But then, after a time of confusion, a verbal order to retreat was issued. To where? So the move to the timber was to basically extricate the battalion from the valley, yet no plans were made to prepare for this. So what was the point of the move to the timber? It is a good question, one that I've never seen asked, actually.
To me, it basically points out Reno's total lack of control. He seemed to have only maintained discipline in the march down the valley, the formation of the charge, and halting to skirmish. After that, it was a mess.
Did it doom Custer? No. But it did severely hamper any chance of winning the fight. If the situation in the valley was untenable, and an attack or offensive posture was not possible, then better organization and an orderly, covered withdrawl should have taken place. Instead, a failed skirmish line turned into disorganization in the timber, in a position that seems to have no purpose. If it was just to reach their mounts, why did they linger? If it was a defensive move, why was Reno so eager to leave? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 10:52:00 AM
|
Five more hours of daylight, not enough men to hold the perimeter against infiltration, supposed superiority of the enemy in night fighting, a proclivity of the Indians towards burning them out, being surrounded with increasing enemy numbers decreasing escape chances, no idea where anyone else of the 7th was, a felt need to seek higher ground. Custer had abandoned units before which, given 'his support' had vanished in time and space, seemed to have been a real possibility.
Whatever the current state of ammo, what would it be by noon the next day if they stayed in the trees? Indians could wait, eat at leisure, return. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 2:20:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Five more hours of daylight, not enough men to hold the perimeter against infiltration, supposed superiority of the enemy in night fighting, a proclivity of the Indians towards burning them out, being surrounded with increasing enemy numbers decreasing escape chances, no idea where anyone else of the 7th was, a felt need to seek higher ground. Custer had abandoned units before which, given 'his support' had vanished in time and space, seemed to have been a real possibility.
Whatever the current state of ammo, what would it be by noon the next day if they stayed in the trees? Indians could wait, eat at leisure, return.
Hence Wild I's question as to why they were there in the first place. Hadn't ever really thought about that before. If the skirmish line was withdrawn, then clearly the intent was either to form a better position or leave the valley, yet neither seemed to happen by going to the timber. It just wasted time, ammo and manpower. Clearly, Reno was not in control of his battalion at this point. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 8:14:27 PM
|
| Reno's approach towards the southern portion of the village prohibited his seeing the actual size of the encampment. To assume that the enormous size of the village is what prompted him to form a skirmish line is an erroneous perspective. While initially faced with 75 to a 100 Indians (according to Dr. Porter's testimony)once the line was formed ( thereby depleting the thrust of the attack) the now embolden warriors regrouped and,rushed forward instead of retreating. The amount of charging warriors suddenly increased. Reno's left flank was subsequently compromized. The line then fell, upon itself, towards the timber without orders. No trumpets were blown. At this point, Reno no longer had control of his forces. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 12:32:23 AM
|
| I have zero way of knowing, but bear in mind hitting the trees would seem logical waiting for imminent support. If they saw Custer while in the trees gracefully waving from high ground before vanishing north to unknown and unseeable crossings, that could have unnerved Reno. Waving goodbye? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 8:32:23 PM
|
| Sadly, Reno was unnerved the moment he received his "Lead-out" order. Alcohol consumption prior to a battle is probably not a great choice. It just got a basketball coach in trouble. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 11:29:45 PM
|
Liquid courage.
I've drank hard alcohol straight to calm my nerves before. A swig sometimes gets rid of the jitters. But if you're not confident in leading an attack on an Indian village, I don't think any amount of whiskey or other spirits would help that. Unless, of course, you get so drunk that you just don't care. But then you're screwed anyway. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 12:06:48 AM
|
Other than speculation, what is the evidence that Reno was 'unnerved' when he got his attack/lead out order? Or drunk at any point, by which I mean clearly the booze was talking, not a rational man?
Through the First and deep into the Second World War (and maybe today), British army and navy made a big show of rum rations before battle, a tradition of a couple of centuries. Didn't seem to hurt that much, given they ruled 25% of the planet.
Other nations' armed services did the same thing. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 2:36:13 PM
|
Hi El Crab
Clearly, Reno was not in control of his battalion at this point.
That is possible but I think he was caught between his fear of the Indians and his fear of Custer thus this half arsed withdrawal to the timber.Now if he did not order this withdrawal and men just leaked back there then the NCOs were not doing their job.Surely men cannot just leave a skirmish line because the fancy takes them.I mean what sort of an outfit was the 7th? |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 7:12:27 PM
|
Other than speculation, what is the evidence that Reno was 'unnerved' when he got his attack/lead out order? Or drunk at any point, by which I mean clearly the booze was talking, not a rational man?
Northwestern christian advocate of 7 september 1904: "To Arthur Edwards, who knew him well, and continued his faithful friend, Major Reno often unburdened his heart, and in one occasion in deep sorrow said that his strange actions (at LBH) were due to drink, and drink caused his ultimately downfall".
It will not be a decisive test, however at least one possibility...
|
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 8:04:55 PM
|
I would doubt the name of Reno's dear friend appears till well after Reno's death. I'm not saying Reno wasn't an alcoholic or periodically snockered in their careers. Many of the officers were, including Keogh and Benteen and I'd bet most of the others. While it was claimed that Reno was seen taking a shot or four at the LBH, none of these reports seem to have come from officers and those who dealt with him.
The image seems a great illustrative divide between the dry Custer, who heroically died, and the desolute Reno, who was a coward and drunk...etc, etc. Concurrent with the Prohibition movement's evolution at the end of the nineteenth century, there were a LOT of convenient cautionary tales that got passed around, much like the Wise Vietnam Veteran stories on the Internet that Snopes blows apart with regularity. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 9:13:27 PM
|
Did Reno "Acknowledged The Corn?
"General George A. Custer was and will always be regarded as one of the most brilliant officers of the United States Army. His career abounds in romantic interest; and his death, together with that of every and soldier fighting with him, was one of the most tragic and memorable incidents in Indian warfare. The story of Custer's last fight with the Indians, which took place on the Little Big Horn River in the summer of 1876, is graphically described by Cyrus Townsend Brady. it is not our purpose to relate the story of the battle, but to call attention to the real cause of Major Reno's conduct, which resulted in Custer's defeat and death. Major Reno was not a coward, as many believe. His career in the army during the Civil War and his promotion for gallant aand meritorious services at Kelley's Ford, March 17, 1853, and at the battle of Cedar Creek, October 19, 1864, are evidence of his courage. What then, was the explanation of his conduct at the Battle of the Little Big Horn? Dr. Brady does not give it. Perhaps he does not know. But Major Reno himself told the late Rev. Dr. Arthur Edwards, then editor of the Northwestern, that his strange actions were due to the fact that HE WAS DRUNK. To Arthur Edwards, who knew him well, and continued his faithful friend, Major Reno often unburdened his heart, and on one occasion in deep sorrow said that his strange actions were due to drink."
Published on September 7,th. 1904 by the Northwestern Christian Advocate. Thank you Lorenzo for this information.
"And still you blame Custer." |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on June 14 2004 9:28:06 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 10:52:19 AM
|
Here's why the fulminations of a Methodist screed ought to be taken with large salted amounts of font water.
Custer was never, ever regarded as brilliant. Brave and successful, maybe, not brilliant. Even "every and soldier dying with him" would not call him brilliant. Methodist preachers (and not just them) to this day are given to remembering those they bury as "good friends" based upon a meeting in a receiving line or a word from a third party. Yes, they lie, or the term "friend" has no meaning.
Reno wasn't a church goer, and he died destitute of cancer in a public ward. I don't know who officiated at his funeral, if anyone, but it wasn't his 'good friend,' I'd bet. And would a 'good friend' reveal such even if it were true? No.
Would he reveal such at the insistence of the dying friend? Maybe, but immediately after death so the revelation would do good for both the cause and the soul of the friend. Nothing like that happened. Just a convenient anectdote years down the line where it cannot be questioned but only blindly believed because it feels good to believe it. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on June 15 2004 10:53:22 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 8:28:50 PM
|
John Frett (civilian Packer)Reno Inquiry
"the first time I saw maj. Reno was after the firing ceased. I went over where we put the packs into breastworks and passed an officer. When almost in front of him I saw it was Maj. Reno. I saluted and said, "Good evening." The first he said was "are the mules tight." I said "tight," what do you mean by "tight". He said "Tight, God damn you"; and with that slapped me in the face and leveled a carbine at me and said "I will shoot you." Then a friend of mine named Churchill pulled me back and that was the last I saw of him till the next day. He had a bottle of wiskey in his hand and as he slapped me the whiskey flew over me and he staggered." |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 11:17:44 PM
|
| I don't believe this melodramatic incident was ever verified, nor can I easily believe the salute and salutation from a civilian in those circumstances, nor that Reno hitting someone and pointing a gun at him would have passed unnoticed in the close confines of Reno Hill. I have no trouble believing that those with booze drank it. God knows, I would have. I also recall that Reno and Frett had had altercations before, and it could be payback time at the Inquiry. There were enough officers who disliked Reno and surely Godfrey would have said Reno was drunk if he were, or Benteen, or Weir in his report, or someone. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 10:12:11 PM
|
Reno Inquiry
"I did not see Maj. Reno that afternoon; but did after dark, about 9 or 10 o'clock. A Mr. Fritz (sic.) was with me. We had started out on the line to get our blankets and something to eat, and saw Maj. Reno standing there, though we did not noticed him till he spoke to Fritz (sic.) He asked Fritz (sic.) want he wanted. He said he was after something to eat. Reno then asked him if the mules were "tight,". It sounded like "tight" but Fritz (sic.)thought he meant "tied," and said "Yes." Maj. Reno again asked if the mules were "tight" and Fritz (sic.) asked him what he meant by "tight" and then some words passed between them and Maj. Reno made a pass to strike Fritz (sic.); and some whiskey flew over me and Fritz(sic.). At that Maj. Reno stepped back and picked up a carbine-whether he intended to strike Fritz with it I don't know. That was the last I saw of Reno that night. He was, I thought, under the influence of Liquor."
Contrary to the belief of a decidely minor group of individuals, civilians of this battle fought courageously and, by the side of the soldiers. Secondly, the majority of researchers today are aware that during the Reno Inquiry testimony, the ultimate goal was the preservation of the honor of the 7th. Eventually, human nature being what it is, is precisely why the truth began to leak out in testimony of a later date. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 10:35:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Contrary to the belief of a decidely minor group of individuals, civilians of this battle fought courageously and, by the side of the soldiers.
Who composes this "decidely [sic] minor group of individuals" you refer to? And what instances of courage do you have in mind? And what exactly is the point of this bromide?
quote:
Secondly, the majority of researchers today are aware that during the Reno Inquiry testimony, the ultimate goal was the preservation of the honor of the 7th.
Explains why Benteen said that Custer's men panicked and died in a rout.
quote:
Eventually, human nature being what it is, is precisely why the truth began to leak out in testimony of a later date.
You mean Arthur Edwards?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 10:45:15 PM
|
You don't say who's being quoted, but I'll assume Churchill. Because Reno had slapped Frett for mouthing off at an earlier date, his testimony wasn't particularly believed by the court. Churchill is a lot more tentative than Frett, whose name he doesn't even know.
Who ever claimed that the civilians didn't fight? In any case, they were fighting for their own lives, so of course they'd bring a smidgeon of enthusiasm to it, just like the soldiers. A straw dog again, Wiggs. Nobody is attacking them, so you can't score points by defending them. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Timber
