| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 11 2004 : 3:21:18 PM
|
I just was informed by Bhist that the Lee who oversaw the death of Crazy Horse IS the same as the court reporter at the Reno Inquiry.
If you read the supposed last words of CH, he praises Lee, who may have constructed his murder, and he goes on for quite a while given he's dying of a gut wound, not known as the Oprah Winfrey type, and under heavy sedation. Suspicious? Oh, I'd say so.
There is, at least, reason to believe that Lee conspired or was part of the murder (no proof, but it reeks of the probability) and fabricated a 'translation' by his paid underling to elevate himself and divert attention.
This is the guy castigating survivors of the LBH. Of all people, an Indian agent gets the nod to act as court recorder for such an important event.
Crazy Horse was under the thumb of Lee and James Calhoun's brother and who knows who else at Camp Robinson when he supposedly made a break for it, during which he was stabbed.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 8:46:19 PM
|
| Bhist is correct, Lt. Jesse M. Lee was appointed Recorder of of the Court (Reno Inqiury). When Crazy Horse was ordered to Ft. Robinson he, naturally, was under some misgivings and did not know what was the best thing to do. According to the Louis Bordeaux interview(July 6 and 7, 1910 Valentine, Neb.)He would only go if Lt. Lee and Lt. Burke would promise to intercede for him with Gen. Bradley and have him transported to the Spotted Tail reservation,only then would he voluntarily go. Apparently Crazy Horse knew enough of Lt. Lee to place his life in his hands. We now know that he was, in fact, murdered. To hold Lt. Lee responsible is a great leap. Is it possible that Crazy Horse knew more than we do? At the Reno Inquiry, Lt. Lee was afforded the opportunity to hear volumes of information from the actual participates, that places him heads and shoulders above us armchair speculators. |
  |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 8:57:34 PM
|
Was Lt. Lee an Indian agent before or after being the court recorder at the RCOI?
Let's not pretend Lt. Lee's role as the court recorder is proof of anything suspect about the RCOI. He seemed to go after the soldiers whom supported Reno, so what would that have to do with his being an Indian agent? Where's the conflict of interest? Everyone was involved in some way in the Indian situation.
The whole thing appears to be a whitewash, anyway, Lt. Lee's role notwithstanding. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 9:44:58 PM
|
| Perhaps I read a different book than you. I read nothing that would indicate that Lee was a sinister, undercover, operative whose sole purpose was to damn every soldier who spoke up for Reno. The conclusion of the Inquiry indicated that Reno was absolved of any wrong doing. I guess Lt. Lee was an incompetent agent at that. While many were involved in the Indian situation is undoubtedly true, to accuss Lt. Lee of conspiracy to committ murder based on NO evidence is inexplicable to me. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 10:31:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
We now know that he was, in fact, murdered.
No we don't.
quote:
At the Reno Inquiry, Lt. Lee was afforded the opportunity to hear volumes of information from the actual participates, that places him heads and shoulders above us armchair speculators.
He heard the same things we read.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 10:38:00 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
While many were involved in the Indian situation is undoubtedly true, to accuss Lt. Lee of conspiracy to committ murder based on NO evidence is inexplicable to me. Sorry.
You're the only person here who has declared it to be a fact that Crazy Horse was murdered. If he was, how could Lee not have been involved? If not in the act itself, then he couldn't avoid getting his hands dirty in the cover-up, if we assume the official story to be untrue.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 10:46:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
Let's not pretend Lt. Lee's role as the court recorder is proof of anything suspect about the RCOI. He seemed to go after the soldiers whom supported Reno, so what would that have to do with his being an Indian agent? Where's the conflict of interest? Everyone was involved in some way in the Indian situation.
The whole thing appears to be a whitewash, anyway, Lt. Lee's role notwithstanding.
That apparently was Lee's view of the matter. Walter Camp met him in 1912, when he was then a general, and from that drew up a note which read:
"Gen. Jesse M. Lee told me that Gen. Merritt, who drew up the conclusions of the Reno Court of Inquiry, said to him when the decision of the Court was announced: 'We have politely cursed him (Reno) and whitewashed it over.'"
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
pgb3
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 5:26:25 PM
|
DC writes:
"This is the guy castigating survivors of the LBH. Of all people, an Indian agent gets the nod to act as court recorder for such an important event."
DC, you seem to castigate those whom you feel do not precisely state their case. Well, just where do you find that Capt. Jesse R. Lee was an “Indian Agent” at any time during his long military career? Please, inquiring minds would like to know the source of this misstatement. |
Edited by - pgb3 on June 12 2004 5:27:45 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 7:54:05 PM
|
| Let me get this straight. A man is promised to be sent to the Indian reservation of his choice. He is then, instead, led to a dark, urine smelling, primative, jail house. Realizing he has been betrayed he bolts for freedom and has a bayonet thrust threw his body. As a result of this attack he dies. This is not murder? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 12:12:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Let me get this straight. A man is promised to be sent to the Indian reservation of his choice. He is then, instead, led to a dark, urine smelling, primative, jail house. Realizing he has been betrayed he bolts for freedom and has a bayonet thrust threw his body. As a result of this attack he dies. This is not murder?
Nope. If the official story is true, it's panic, confusion, and incompetence. That's sad and unfortunate, but not criminal.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 8:21:51 PM
|
| If he were slapped in the face, knocked to the ground, spat upon, beaten senselessly, falsely incarserated, or stripped of his dignity, I could call this incident sad, unfortunate and, resulting from panic, confusion, and incompetence. However, the man died from a stab wound as he attempted to flee. He didn't survive to address the gross injustice perpatrated against him. I'm glad as hell that I, nor anyone I know, have been that unfortunate! |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 11:26:07 PM
|
| Well, if he truly attempted to flee, its not murder. He was a prisoner. He tried to flee. Prisoners who flee put their own lives at risk. If he was just standing there when the soldier bayoneted him, then that's murder. If they planned to bayonet him as they moved him along, then that's murder. If he was trying to escape, resisting arrest, whatever, then its not murder. It was probably excessive force, but they didn't have pepper spray, mace, tazers, stun guns, etc, back then. From what I can gather from the situation, a confused soldier, not sure what the hell was going on except that Crazy Horse, a warrior of reputable ability and killing prowess (I think? Did he have a rep back then?), was trying to escape/resisting/struggling with those trying to shackle him. And said soldier bayoneted Crazy Horse. Could there have been an order that he was not to escape, that if he tried, lethal force was to be taken? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 12:21:47 AM
|
Killing someone without legal justification or standing is murder, as we all know. CH's legal status was not a POW, because no war had been declared, by president or Congress. So his legal status was nebulous despite the massive precedents of (likely illegal)dealing with Indians by the United States' own laws. From some points of view he was deceived into incarceration and was kidnapped. These are many of EXACTLY the same issues we're still dealing with in Afghanistan and Guantanomo and Iraq, and because of precedents, the feds can't really claim a known legal status for al Quada and had to make one up. That's what Bush has done and that's what they did with the Indians by implication.
After all, the violence was because of Treaty violations by......the feds, and he was on his land, and the treaties granted legal legitimacy to tribal governments, and Crazy Horse is sometimes considered a 'chief', but not always, and not being prepared for trouble or escape is a form of institutional incompetence that wouldn't in itself justify that amount of force. Noriega lives, but CH dies by knife?
These aren't dead on syllogisms, but they're close enough to be utilized in discussion, because although the 'frontier' has moved, the legal - and ethical - issues are still with us. Scarily enough.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on June 14 2004 12:22:38 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 9:35:39 PM
|
| A universal law (within the confines of the United States)regarding legal homocide is clear and concise. An officer of the Law may take a life when the life of another, or serious harm to another, may be prevented in doing so. Being a prisoner of war does not give the containee the "right" to take the life of another for attempting to escape. This philosphy is the essence of the Geneva Accord. Yes, I realize that this accord did not exist during Crazy Horse's day but, the morality of right and wrong has existed since the dawn of man. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 10:35:35 PM
|
A universal law within the confines of the United States is a national law, not a universal law. Further, they are not concise and clear, and vary from state to state. Think abortion. Think execution. Think make my day laws. Think euthenasia. It's that kind of sweeping, grandiose generalization often based on a falsehood that annoys, Wiggs.
If caputured al Quada tried to escape, they'd be shot and who, again, would bring charges under what provision of the Accords? The 'essence' clause?
Was Crazy Horse a soldier, a guerilla, a citizen combatant protecting his home? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 11:02:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
A universal law (within the confines of the United States)regarding legal homocide is clear and concise. An officer of the Law may take a life when the life of another, or serious harm to another, may be prevented in doing so. Being a prisoner of war does not give the containee the "right" to take the life of another for attempting to escape. This philosphy is the essence of the Geneva Accord. Yes, I realize that this accord did not exist during Crazy Horse's day but, the morality of right and wrong has existed since the dawn of man.
Actually, the morality of right and wrong has changed perennially since people first began writing about it. Read Hammurabi. Or look at history itself for the last several thousand years. Or just in the last 10 years. Or months. But I'm digressing.
People get killed trying to escape all the time. Alcatraz offers examples. Or Andersonville. So I don't know what you're talking about when you cite this "clear and concise universal law within the confines of the United States". If it's so clear and concise, perhaps you could quote it?
Besides, if I'm correct, the official Army view was that the death was an accident, the cause of Crazy Horse stumbling/falling into Gentles' bayonet, or something, while he and others were attempting to restrain him. That isn't murder even by the standards of your dreamy "law", which brings us back to your silly claim that it is now "known" that Crazy Horse was "murdered". If only history was that easy.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 8:54:17 PM
|
| If you truly believe that Crazy Horse "stumbled" upon a bayonet that literally transsected his body, then I have some swamp, I mean land in Florida I'd like to sell you. (And he calls me a liar?) |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 9:57:21 PM
|
I don't "truly believe" it. I do think it may well have been what happened. The incident happened so quickly and in such confusion that it's debateable whether Gentles even had a clear idea of what had occurred. Many certainly didn't, and even those such as Louis Bordeaux (whom you quoted) and Black Elk, who depict the killing as being more purposeful in nature, have Crazy Horse armed with a knife at the time he was trying to escape. And yet you declare it to be a "fact" that Crazy Horse was a victim of murder. Facts are stupid things, I suppose.
Exactly how was this act of "murder" carried out? How much planning was put into it? And how was Lee innocent of any involvement, ex post facto or otherwise? And why won't you quote this fantastic law you cite --- or is it just another lie?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 10:27:32 PM
|
| There are several classifications for murder. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another. Then you have First Degree murder which includes Malice Aforethough and premeditation, (planning.) Murder in the second degree may preclude planning but, is never the less is murder, as there is malice involved. Gollum, everytime you call a stranger a liar you confirm the old adage," It takes one to know one." Please continue as all of us are amazed by your significant lack of intestinal fortitude.(smile) |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on June 16 2004 10:32:36 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 10:49:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
There are several classifications for murder. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another. Then you have First Degree murder which includes Malice Aforethough and premeditation, (planning.) Murder in the second degree may preclude planning but, is never the less is murder, as there is malice involved. Gollum, everytime you call a stranger a liar you confirm the old adage," It takes one to know one." Please continue as all of us are amazed by your significant lack of intestinal fortitude.(smile)
You didn't answer any of the questions. What precisely do you think happened to Crazy Horse, and what specific crime were his killer(s) guilty of? If it is a "fact" Crazy Horse was murdered (which degree?) then you ought to be able to answer this, as well as explain how you know that your scenario is the only one that could have happened.
In addition, since you didn't provide any quote from that "clear and concise" "universal law" you pompously alluded to earlier, I think we can probably add it to your list of lies, which has grown so long that even someone as jaundiced as myself winces at the sheer callowness of it all.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 8:29:10 PM
|
I would like to profer a bit of information that may help to discern the hidden dynamic of the Reno Inquiry that was hidden from the general public. I believe that this memorandum helps to explain why Reno may have been exonerated:
MEMORANDUM
The Army and Navy Club
Washington
I have frequently heard Major-General Eben Swift, who for a period was Adjutant of the Fifth U.S. Calvalry when Gen. Wesley Merritt commanded it-declared that Gen. M. who was a member of the Reno Court of Inquiry held in Chicago in 1879 told him that the Court in its findings-"damned Reno with faint praise"-because they were compelled to base that finding according to the evidence-and most all of the witnesses seemed reluctant to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" but testified only to such facts as would sustain the honor and uphold the reputation of the Seventh U.S. Cavalry.
R. G. Carter
Captain U.S. Army, Ret'd
Washinton, D.C.,
July 11, 1932 |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 9:00:20 PM
|
Judas, what a bombshell!!!!!!!!! Reno was exonerated on the evidence.
And Carter, with whom Graham debated, was a Custer partisan of the first rank and likely to doubt the veracity of any officer who didn't support his rather irrational views. That witnesses seemed not totally forthcoming could be complicity in deceit OR it could be they all had something to hide unrelated to Reno and Custer. Or it might not be true at all.
Of course, this is geezer testimony, provided by a partisan, of a safely deceased officer's supposed comments which strike me as pretty lame to the max. And so coincidently blemishes the 7th in comparison with the rival 5th which, shockingly, is the officer's unit. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 9:33:15 PM
|
Extract from letter of Capt. Myles Moylan to Capt. E.S.
Godfrey, 1892: Of his personal conduct (Reno) in the bottom or subsequently on the hill the least said the better. If what Col. Benteen told me at Meade in 1883 was true, and I know of no reason to doubt it, then Reno ought to have been shot."
"I have always felt that no individual names should be placed on the marker. Because I have always felt that major Reno utterly failed in his part in the valley attack in the disposition of his command when he fell back in the old stream bed; that he failed to execise any fire control; that he could and should have held that position."
"The Sioux, mounted on their swift ponies, dashed up by the side of the soldiers and fired at them. Little resistance was offered, and it was a complete rout to the ford."
George Herendeen, Scout
"Reno then gave the order:"The Indians are taking us in the rear, mount and charge." This was then about 1:30 P.M. I was surprised at this change of position as we had excellent cover and could hold off the Indians indefinitely. Benteen and his command came came up and the demoralization of Reno's men affected his own men and no attempt was made to go to Custer's aid."
F.F. Girard, Scout
"Of course, this is geezer testimony, provided by a partisan, of a safely deceased officer's supposed comments."
Dark Cloud
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 10:31:45 PM
|
More quotes, some correctly attributed. No, it isn't geezer testimony, it's just irrelevant to the point at hand.
1. Moylan was the guy crying after running up the hill, right? The one Goldin and Benteen decided nobody liked?
2. This is a quote of Godfrey's to either Graham or Mrs. Custer. Well known. Relevance?
3. Agreed, but so what?
4. He's off by nearly two hours, you can hold off Indians till ammo runs out and you don't adjust positions after ammo runs out. No attempt was made to go to Reno's aid, as promised, either. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 18 2004 : 12:52:01 AM
|
What does "supported by the whole command" mean? Custer? Benteen? Did Custer say he would support Reno directly? Can't it mean "hey, I'll go strike the flank"? Its not a definite comment. What is support?
Reno needed aid because he seemed to have no confidence in his own abilities. So what if it took Custer an hour to appear at the ford from when Reno crossed into the valley and formed up. Isn't it possible that Custer changed his plan when he saw or was informed of Reno's retreat? DC seems to think Custer's movements don't match his career, but we don't know what we know. We can try and figure out what fits, and create theories. Its possible he paused in the MTC area upon hearing or seeing Reno's retreat. He couldn't go to his aid immediately in the valley. He had to go back over the same terrain, which took longer than probably expected. He probably could see Benteen coming up. It seems that Benteen was coming up as some of Reno's troops were still arriving on Reno Hill. So its possible Custer saw this, waited to make sure Benteen's battalion was reinforcing Reno's. Then he decided to carry on, with undoubtedly a different plan.
Reno's "charge" and skirmish lines failed. Custer might have known this. He wasn't stupid, Curley said Bouyer and sometimes Custer were present on high ground, watching as the column moved north. So if he knew Reno failed and Benteen reinforced him, his only chance of victory was to chase down the non-combatants. So he moved north, tried to find a way to get them, tried to hold the door open for Benteen-Reno to move to him when ready. Sounds like he was still being Custer, if that's a believable theory. A different commander would retreat to the south, lick his wounds and live to fight another day. Custer was aggressive, gambled, made decisions quickly and was not intimidated by long odds. He pushed his luck, and his luck, or the Sioux and Cheyenne, pushed back. And his battalion was destroyed.
Sound plausible? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Lt. Jesse M. Lee
