| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 16 2005 : 2:59:31 PM
|
Poll Question:
Did Custer Disobey Orders at the Battle of the Little Big Horn?
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 7:45:16 PM
|
The following is an excerpt from a letter written by Col. jacob L. Greene on Sept. 1st., 1904.:
"In other words, the charge of disobedience can never be proven. The proof does not exist. The evidence of the case forever lacks the principal whose one and only definite order was to take his regiment and go in pursuit of the Indians whose trail was discovered by Major Reno a few days since. They were the objectives; they were to be located and their escape prevented. That was Custer's task. All details were left, and necessarily left, to his discretion. All else in the order of June 22nd. contain merely the "views" of the commander to be followed 'unless you shall see sufficient reason for departing from them'." |
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 10:17:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Did Custer Disobey Orders at the Battle of the Little Big Horn?
This is kind of a dead issue, isn't it? I mean, it's been accepted for decades that Custer's orders allowed him the leeway to make an attack if he chose, though it proper, in his best judgment, etc.
If Custer's actions are to be debated, it's not the decision to attack that's open to criticism, but what he did afterwards. And the confusing orders, disjointed assault, and hard-to-rationalize pull to the north don't look pretty.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 8:38:20 PM
|
I have never believed, intimated, nor surmised that General Custer was a holy saint whose death was the direct result of incompetence or betrayal by his subordinates. In war, the variables that determine the winner fom the loser are as complex, fluid, and ever changing, as life itself. If one or two critical "situations" were reversed, Custer may have won. I do believe that he was merely a man with all the aspirations, dreams, and human failings that we all possess. Endowed with courage beyond the norm, he equated a charge with victory. In this case it proved to be his undoing.
I also believe that he became a victim; twice. Once at the Little Big Horn and, secondly by his former comrade-in-arms.
Much of what we believe today was initiated by the Reno Inquiry wherein a group of soldiers collectively and individually decided to spare the U.S. Military of a great embarrasment. One associated with the public perception that the elite, 7th. Calvary's loss to a group of savages was impossible. A feasible and exceptable explanation that caused this dire situation to become palatable,however, was that the enemy was numerically superior beyond reason, and the commander committed a series of inexcusable (read foolish) mistakes that culminated in disaster. Thus the birth of a scapegoat to soothe the "savage beast."
The critical criteria in selecting one to shoulder the blame for any fiasco is that he or she be dead and, unable to defend his or her self. A second criteria is that the scapegoat possess qualities that others envy, detest, or do not understand. If you respect a person, everything he does seems reasonable, if you do not, everything he does appears foolish, neither concept is correct. From a personal perspective, there are those on this very forum, who know nothing about me, who have convinced themselves that I am the idiot of the world because of my style of writing. Try and convince then they are wrong.
Another example, Col. James S. Brisbin:
In a letter to Godfrey (1892).
"Now my dear Godfrey, you as well I, and all of us know that Custer did disobey his orders, if not in letter then in spirit."
Brisbin based this asumption on the fact that Custer turned off the line of march from the Rosebud, "just twenty miles short of the end of the pins and the blue line." The inference being that in his haste to obtain glory, Custer moved in before Terry and Gibbon were expected to arrive to insure that he, and his command, would arrive first. This, of course, was not true.
What would make a respectable member of the armed forces place such a negative spin on Custer's actions? Once again, I opine that he felt that someone had to pay the price; thus let it be Custer.
In an admittedly convoluted and meandering way, my response to Larsen's inquiry is that some do not understand the vast discretion allowed to Custer in his orders and, as a result, truly believe that he was a raging lunatic, foaming about the mouth in his eagerness to attack. Falsehoods were planted, nurished, and reaped by his contemporaries and served to an unsuspecting public in an appetizing platter, "Lo these many years."
(All boring quotes dedicated to D.c.) |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on January 17 2005 9:09:58 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 07:11:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Another example, Col. James S. Brisbin:
In a letter to Godfrey (1892).
"Now my dear Godfrey, you as well I, and all of us know that Custer did disobey his orders, if not in letter then in spirit."
Well Godfrey didn't know that, and in his Century Magazine article denied that Custer had disobeyed any orders. See Graham 148.
quote:
What would make a respectable member of the armed forces place such a negative spin on Custer's actions? Once again, I opine that he felt that someone had to pay the price; thus let it be Custer.
I'm not sure how respectable he was; Brisbin was a weird guy by all accounts, and most mentions I remember coming across of him are slighting or half-contemptuous. His fancifulness seems to have been legendary in the army. Look at his write-up of DeRudio's story, which DeRudio denounced, and Graham himself --- in that very letter you quote from earlier --- caught Brisbin doctoring an excerpt from Terry's orders in order to make it look like Custer had been given a tighter string by Terry than he in fact was. See Graham 156.
quote:
In an admittedly convoluted and meandering way, my response to Larsen's inquiry is that some do not understand the vast discretion allowed to Custer in his orders and, as a result, truly believe that he was a raging lunatic, foaming about the mouth in his eagerness to attack. Falsehoods were planted, nurished, and reaped by his contemporaries and served to an unsuspecting public in an appetizing platter, "Lo these many years."
Well, I guess I agree, except for that last part, since his public image was pretty good up until the debunking biographies of the 1930s. Most criticism during that time was restrained, or done in private, as in Brisbin's letter. But even then, I don't think the criticisms of the last few decades have much focused on whether he disobeyed Terry. What's been controversial is his handling of the battle, and really, that has always been the main issue.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 11:00:29 AM
|
Mr. Wiggs, an impressive work of prose, well-stated, well-written and great fun to read and ponder.
"Now my dear Godfrey, you as well I, and all of us know that Custer did disobey his orders, if not in letter then in spirit."
".....if not in letter..." from the above quote certainly implies 'discretion' on Custer's part does it not? If they can't implicate him on disobeying the 'black and white' of the orders, and they want to blame him, they handily and conveniently try to implicate him through the 'gray' areas of the orders. Must not a commander have flexibility in his orders to deal with all contingencies and to best surmise the situation without fearing strict accountability for his actions during the heat of battle? I have had many friends and acquaintances, both male and female, read the General's orders to help me see what I may have been missing in reading and analyzing the dictums contained therein. These are not all persons whose views are closely aligned with my thinking or type of thinking. Many of them possess qualities I would like to possess to use in my analytical thinking. But the 'fuzzy' areas were still perceived as 'fuzzy' and not binding and 'room to roam' in the orders was still perceived by them all. The General could not be implicated for wrong doing. It cannot be denied that someone is usually held accountable, must be held accountable in some eyes, for failure to succeed. If Gibbon or Terry arrive first, it would have been them. Would they have waited for Custer? No way. Would they have had needed Custer's forces? Absolutely. Would they have figured that the Indians would tail and run? Probably and would have re-acted expediently when they didn't, as did Custer.
Army precepts and rules of engagement instilled in the minds of the officers were, I think, deeply ingrained in their psychic and manipulated by the 'spirit of their mission'--to search out, locate, capture and/or subdue the renegade tribes of Indians still uprising against the government. The slightess chance of allowing them to escape, once discovered, would have been unexplainable and not tolerated. In an officer's mind, 'damned if I do and damned if I don't' must be thoughts that are always present. 'Mr. Custer, why did you not attack the Indians when you first knew you had been discovered? I wanted to wait a couple of days for Gibbon and Terry to arrive so we could all figure out how to deal with this situation.' Well, I think not. That would have been too risky and would have meant preparation for a defensive stance and would have been a 'hard sell' to his troops and would have put the whole regiment at a disadvantage---mentally. Offense. Back in the early 80s, before the mass interest was born, I use to chase tornadoes with a small group of guys from Oklahoma up through Kansas and Nebraska in the early spring and to this day, whenever ominous, threatening clouds and conditions are present in the skies overhead, I have to go outside and 'chase' around the neighborhood, so to speak, so I can be prepared to face the danger upfront rather than hide in a basement or somewhere where I have to wait and not know what is about to hit me. Custer would have never hid in the basement if he had had the means to confront the menace on his terms, with his mind mentally prepared and those of his soldiers. I truly believe that. In my mind, the General did not disobey his orders; he interpreted the situation and made the decision.
Aside from the fact that incidents in life, not just battles, are scrutinized with the tools of hindsight, they should be 're-capped' and reviewed in hopes of developing new and better strategies to better address the next similiar event. But to mount a 'charge' against the General because he could have done 'this' or 'that' that could have made a difference, is not fair and an all to easy 'way out' for the government to explain the atrocity.
Thanks for the great posts.
|
Edited by - whistlingboy on January 18 2005 11:05:38 AM |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 11:17:23 AM
|
| No, he did'nt disobey at all. |
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 |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 3:25:42 PM
|
Terry expected that Custer's column would find them first and would strike the first blow.
Custer was given limited strategic latitude,but was given Carte Blanche to carry out Terry's plan as he saw fit. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 8:48:37 PM
|
You, hunkpapa7, have encapsulated the essence of my position in a concise and extraordinarily perceptive statement, thank you.
Whistlingboy, you continue to amaze me with your ability to transcend the mundane and achieve the pinnacle of Valhalla. Everytime you post you shatter the dim sphere of preconcieved "truths" with the glaring light of reality. I'm not trying to start a mutual admiration society, but please never stop posting.
Larsen, you are correct when you advise that the controversy regarding Custer's orders pale when analyzed with his subsequent battle decisions. However, the demise of an initial falsehood encourages and promotes the creation of truth. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 19 2005 : 2:00:00 PM
|
Terry expected that Custer's column would find them first and would strike the first blow.
No Hunkpapa he did not.In fact he accused Custer of forcing the pace as to arrive first.
Terry's plan was for a combined operation with Custer and Gibbon arriving together.Terry's order reflects this as he advises Custer to proceed beyond the trail towards the headwaters of the Tongue before crossing over to the LBH.Nor did Custer check out Tullock Creek as he was directed to.
Terry's order states --"he desires that you should conform to them unless you shall see sufficent reason for departing from them.There was never a sufficent reason for departing from Terry's plan.
Custer's actions from the 22 to the 25 show him up for what he was, a disloyal officer both to his CO who had given him this opportunity to redeem himself, to brother officers who he left in the lurch and to the ordinary troopers who's lives he wasted.
Did Custer Disobey Orders at the Battle of the Little Big Horn?
Of course he did.That written order was only part of the deal.Custer had in the company of Gibbon and Terry agreed a plan of action which he disregarded as soon as he departed with the 7th.
Must not a commander have flexibility in his orders to deal with all contingencies
What contingencies do you think forced Custer to deviate from the agreed plan?Whistling boy
'Mr. Custer, why did you not attack the Indians when you first knew you had been discovered?
Or how did you get yourself discovered Mr Custer?Following the wishes of your general? |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - January 19 2005 : 8:19:19 PM
|
No Hunkpapa he did not.In fact he accused Custer of forcing the pace as to arrive first.
Terry's plan was for a combined operation with Custer and Gibbon arriving together.Terry's order reflects this as he advises Custer to proceed beyond the trail towards the headwaters of the Tongue before crossing over to the LBH.Nor did Custer check out Tullock Creek as he was directed to.
Terry's order states --"he desires that you should conform to them unless you shall see sufficent reason for departing from them.There was never a sufficent reason for departing from Terry's plan.
Custer's actions from the 22 to the 25 show him up for what he was, a disloyal officer both to his CO who had given him this opportunity to redeem himself, to brother officers who he left in the lurch and to the ordinary troopers who's lives he wasted.
Wild,
In Army failures against the Sioux in 1876,an examination by Francis B Taunton
volume 2 in the British Custeriana Series
He states ther e can be no doubt terry expected that Custer's Column would strike the blow.there is so much contemporary evidence confirming this that there should be no confusion about it.
What he did not want,however,was his strategic column operating hundreds of miles from the other,since both would then be vulnerable.
Custer was givenlittle strategic Latitude,but he was given Carte blanche to carry out Tery's planas he saw fit.
\The operative phrase here is "Terry's plan"
But I have come accross a article to be fair by another of the British Custeriana,and will post this tommorow,which you might like. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
Edited by - hunkpapa7 on January 19 2005 8:22:31 PM |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 12:44:05 AM
|
| Wild I: "Terry's Plan" was devised after the disaster. Before that, he was happy to leave Custer on his own. A clear case of CYA. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 02:50:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Terry's plan was for a combined operation with Custer and Gibbon arriving together.
Not really feasible, as Terry's order reflects by noting that "further movements must be controlled by circumstances as they arise". Besides, Terry's order doesn't say anything about Gibbon and Custer arriving together --- something rather difficult to arrange giving the unknowns. It simply expresses the hope (his word) that "the Indians, if upon the Little Horn, may be so nearly inclosed by the two columns that their escape will be impossible". That could be one action, or a series of actions.
quote:
Terry's order reflects this as he advises Custer to proceed beyond the trail towards the headwaters of the Tongue before crossing over to the LBH.Nor did Custer check out Tullock Creek as he was directed to.
He didn't because he thought the signs were sufficient to show that the Indians could not be there, and to make the foray would be a waste of time. Sufficient cause was covered in Terry's order --- and it was in Custer's discretion to judge it..
quote:
'Mr. Custer, why did you not attack the Indians when you first knew you had been discovered?
Or how did you get yourself discovered Mr Custer?Following the wishes of your general?
Hell, Gibbon got himself discovered a day before he got to the village too. I don't get how following Terry's "wishes" would have prevented this. Especially considering that Terry was with him.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 06:47:16 AM
|
Has anyone read,GAC by Fred Dustin ?
it first appeared in the Michigan History Magazine April 1946.
Custer's trial the Aftermath,and deals with his account of the LBH.
His writings match with some of Wild1 thoughts,and is very critical of Custer.
This appears in Volume 1 in the British Custeriana Series.
Sorry lads if I am a good bit behind,but I read all your postings with interest. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 08:27:07 AM
|
There was no logic in sending 2 columns into the valley of the LBH and having them act independently.
It was the intention of Terry to have both forces converging in the LBH valley on the 26th.At the planning meeting distances and timings were worked out.Terry sets this out in his report of the action and this is confirmed by Gibbon who states that Terry strongly emphasised to Custer the importance of continuing South before crossing the devide.
He didn't because he thought the signs were sufficient to show that the Indians could not be there,
Fine but by continuing further South he kept to the timing and blocked any escape in that direction. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 11:21:50 AM
|
Terry's order states --"he desires that you should conform to them unless you shall see sufficent reason for departing from them.There was never a sufficent reason for departing from Terry's plan.
Wild, but in order for, in this case, Terry not to be held responsible for 'any' future action on the part of a subordinate, he uses the phrase "...unless you shall see sufficient reason..." and Custer must have seen sufficient reason. Who in the aftermath of the battle attacked this point during their traverse and decided that Mr. Custer didn't have sufficient reason? What did they say was Custer's reason? I realize what could be 'assumed' they were by would-be historians if they have to find fault in order obedience. But I have never read any 'specifics', per se. Don't you think this is another 'gray' area left to a commander's discretion?
"What contingencies do you think forced Custer to deviate from the agreed plan?Whistling boy"
Scouting might answer that? Who would know if he didn't send the scouts out? Truthfully, I don't think any historian has a clue what happened in the 'micro' moments of any of those days, in the lives of any of the 'players' including Terry and Gibbon. Everything has to be patched together wholely from the perspectives of, in hindsight, who gets the 'say.' No one, absolutely, no one knows what was in Custer's mind at any time. And no one knows what was in Terry's or Gibbon's, either. The difference is that 'they' got the 'say.' Isn't that right or are you privy to something else. I am not cantankerous, mean minded, willingly disrespectful as to say 'I think I will ignore somebody' that some grown people have done here at this site,not you, etc., etc., etc. You seem to see it that way for your reasons and I can't see that in those orders for the same reasons. That still makes you a great person because you are living, breathing, participating and trying to understand something with your interesting, motivating and 'reasoned' posts. I will take that just for that and my motivation will be to read more, interpret more and above all, listen more to all what is being said by you and all the others on this forum. This day and age, if a person would really know 'something' who would believe him or her? As hard as it is to be objective, many 'sides' have been drawn and I am interested in this forum from the perspective of watching the movement of that principle. If a person wants to change my character or views on life I know it wouldn't be easy; I just don't know why? Thank you for your post.
Thank you too, Warlord, for your post.
|
Edited by - whistlingboy on January 20 2005 11:24:43 AM |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 12:30:49 PM
|
no one knows what was in Custer's mind at any time. And no one knows what was in Terry's or Gibbon's,
But all three were at the planning meeting and Gibbon agrees with Terry as to what was intended.
Must the reputations of another two officers be sacrificed as were Reno's and Benteen's in order to protect the Custer? |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 5:48:27 PM
|
| Wild I: At the meeting it was agreed that Custer's pace was to be about 30 miles per day. He followed this allmost to the letter. On the evening of the 24th, he was nearly in contact with the enemy, he had been given discretion at this point. Terry expected to be at the mouth of the LBH on the 26th and he was.This was not the battle site. Even if Custer had waited until the 26th to attack as he had planned, Terry would have been no help to him.There was never any plan to join on the 26th. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 8:27:13 PM
|
| bhist: Actually, I was referring to his 'kind' remark, if you don't mind. I know you are a 'substance' guy, I guess, and I don't know why you have it in for me. I don't think I have 'injured' you or called you any disrespectful names. I know I haven't offered much 'substance' as yet but I am listening to see what you know about the subject that not many people know much about except what has been gleaned from all the same books we've probably all read in. If my feeling that 'you have it in for me' isn't correct and I'm not being 'ignored' then I would appreciate a kind word. This isn't the only forum around, you know. I stumbled on to it and was fascinated by the quality of some of the transmissions and the level of articulation. Name-calling doesn't interest me and does nothing for motivating the furtherance of the subject matter. I don't mind being ignored but show me what makes you great. Furthermore, Warlord might be insulted if you think I am him because he knows a lot more and has contributed a lot more to this forum than this rookie. Please don't think you know me, kind sir, cause you don't. |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 9:20:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
bhist: Actually, I was referring to his 'kind' remark, if you don't mind. I know you are a 'substance' guy, I guess, and I don't know why you have it in for me. I don't think I have 'injured' you or called you any disrespectful names. I know I haven't offered much 'substance' as yet but I am listening to see what you know about the subject that not many people know much about except what has been gleaned from all the same books we've probably all read in. If my feeling that 'you have it in for me' isn't correct and I'm not being 'ignored' then I would appreciate a kind word. This isn't the only forum around, you know. I stumbled on to it and was fascinated by the quality of some of the transmissions and the level of articulation. Name-calling doesn't interest me and does nothing for motivating the furtherance of the subject matter. I don't mind being ignored but show me what makes you great. Furthermore, Warlord might be insulted if you think I am him because he knows a lot more and has contributed a lot more to this forum than this rookie. Please don't think you know me, kind sir, cause you don't.
Actually, I don't have "it in for you" and, honestly, can't figure out why you think so. I wasn't questioning your notes lacking of substance, but Warlords.
Here is the message I wrote to you in full:
"What post are you speaking of, WB? There is no post of substance by WL anywhere in this thread. Can you please be more specific of what it is you're thanking WL for?"
Not one insulting remark is directed at you, no name calling at all and there is nothing noted there that should make you so defensive as you've become. I was very curious as to what it was you were thanking Warlord for. Now, you've answered it and I appreciate it.
All of your posts up to this point have been kind except for the one directed at me. Again, I invite anyone on this forum, except Warlord of course -- because we all know how biased he is towards me, to read the post I sent you and advise if it was mean spirited, name calling and if I had "it in for you, WB."
Thank you.
I have to admit, and I may be wrong, but I definitely see a hint of Warlord in your post to me -- it is so out of character for every single post WB made earlier. Also, I find it interesting that you misinterpreted my note about Warlords' lack of substance as being directed at you. My note was very clear...maybe the Warlord in you is starting to come out?
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on January 20 2005 9:21:44 PM |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 10:45:28 PM
|
Actually, bhist, I was referring to your post, below, of January 03, 2005 at 4:35:43 pm on Page 19--Responsibility at Little Bighorn:
"Someone else brought this to my attention, so I can't take credit for it--it appears that whistlingboy and warlord are the same person. I think it might be a good idea, if Rich has time, to verify by checking out the IP address or anything else he has access to.
The last thing we need on this board is this kind of game playing."
|
Edited by - whistlingboy on January 20 2005 10:47:59 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 10:54:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
Actually, bhist, I was referring to your post, below, of January 03, 2005 at 4:35:43 pm on Page 19--Responsibility at Little Bighorn:
"Someone else brought this to my attention, so I can't take credit for it--it appears that whistlingboy and warlord are the same person. I think it might be a good idea, if Rich has time, to verify by checking out the IP address or anything else he has access to.
The last thing we need on this board is this kind of game playing."
Actually, the original speculation is mine. I still think that you and Paul, if not the same person, must know one another. The mutual admiration society between yourself and Paul "bloomed" much too rapidly to attribute it to anything else since, at that time, Paul was too fixated on his "avenging angel" impersonation to contribute anything worthwhile (beyond his original hypothesis of thousands of Sioux/Cheyenne dead).
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 11:21:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
BJ: Whistlingboy and I have no connections beyond this board. I can assure you he is a seperate poster. Make no mistake I am very interested in Custer and the history. As you know, I tend to get distracted on occassion. I might not be the nicest guy you know, but I don't have to lie. Something which cannot be said about everyone here.
Oh, you might want to take a look at the diagram blowup Dave found of the 1873 Carbine. Very informative. Lets you see what everyone is talking about.
Regarding the blow-up, not trying to steal Dave's thunder as he is the one who recognized the importance of it, I spotted that during the intial research on the Springfield Cartridge thread but *blush* considered it irrelevent. Difference between a layperson and someone who knows what they are looking at.
You & WB are not the same person? Then your wife better thank God that he is a he because that was the quickest mutual admiration society I have ever seen formed! But, if you say so. If he IS you, I actually like that side of you better..LMAO!
Best of wishes,
Billy
P.S. And, you really do owe Bob an apology you know. You assaulted his integrity for no reason whatsoever, except, to paraphrase, he got in middle of an argument you were having with someone. Totally unbecoming of you, whether angry or not.
|
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 11:26:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
Actually, bhist, I was referring to your post, below, of January 03, 2005 at 4:35:43 pm on Page 19--Responsibility at Little Bighorn:
"Someone else brought this to my attention, so I can't take credit for it--it appears that whistlingboy and warlord are the same person. I think it might be a good idea, if Rich has time, to verify by checking out the IP address or anything else he has access to.
The last thing we need on this board is this kind of game playing."
Wb: Even with that clarification of the original post, I copy and paste below comments I made above that you still do not address.
"Not one insulting remark is directed at you, no name calling at all and there is nothing noted there that should make you so defensive as you've become. I was very curious as to what it was you were thanking Warlord for. Now, you've answered it and I appreciate it.
All of your posts up to this point have been kind except for the one directed at me. Again, I invite anyone on this forum, except Warlord of course -- because we all know how biased he is towards me, to read the post I sent you and advise if it was mean spirited, name calling and if I had "it in for you, WB."
You have accused me of being mean spirited, name calling, and more -- all directed at you. Like Warlord you now start to slander me with false accusations that have no merit and infringe on my reputation. Even more proof that you and Warlord are the same.
I sure wish Rich would check this out and if he finds the disguise to be true, then Warlord needs to be sent to Siberia at last.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on January 20 2005 11:29:56 PM |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 11:32:50 PM
|
Mr. Markland, I'm still not sure what all the 'rhetoric' is about but I am new to this particular forum and am not aware of what you are referring to. I appreciate and respect your candor, however, and was more concerned about Warlord being targetted for something I did in somebody's eyes--whatever that might have been. I was not aware that a prerequisite of participation at this site was 'not being able to like someone.' Actually, I have never talked to nor ever met Warlord but if I ever do, it will be my pleasure, as it would be my pleasure to meet all of you guys. Like it or not, there is one common thread running through this forum and that is the "fascination with Custer and this battle." That is all that interests me but you speculated wrong and that happens sometimes in the 'speculative world'--just ask Custer.
Thanks again for your posting. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Custer's Orders
