| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 01 2006 : 10:25:00 PM
|
Hm. I COULD erase it.
But Wild will THINK it's his if we pretend. You can convince him of anything.....
Lord, I'm going to have to start reading posts again..........mumble. Apologies to Wild. We'll just pretend that didn't happen. Yup, that's what we'll do.
Note to Self: adjust medication up or maybe down....... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 01 2006 : 10:40:40 PM
|
"http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ssiegel/papers/msp/msp5_02.html"
OK DC I read the above page where you found the word misperception and I all ready stated it can be found on the INTERNET. One page stated if I sent them $29.95 they would tell me the definition of misperception from their unabridged edition.
The following is from the second page you presented I couldn't open the first.
"So if you misperceived, then in suspecting that things were not as they looked, you corrected for an error at the level of visual experience. Whereas if your visual experience told you something less committal about what you each saw in the bowl (as it would, for instance, if Thesis K were false), then your suspicion merely saved you from making an error at the level of belief in the first place. These two descriptions of the situation assume different accounts of what contents visual experience has. The less committal the contents of visual experience, the less misperception there is. Asking what shall count as a misperception is a way of making vivid the issue surrounding Thesis K, which is what properties visual experience can represent."
You have quite tortured me enough. I will write the headwaters of the the Tongue is in the Bighorn Mountains 1,000 times rather than trying to figure out Thesis K. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2006 : 12:11:59 AM
|
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-1953(198821)18%3A4%3C675%3AWAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
Sorry, the second half didn't register as a hyperlink, so copy and paste in address bar. NOT having a good day, for which I apologize. It happens often enough. Why look something up when you can wing it? I always say. Not so much anymore.
You didn't understand Thesis K? We studied it in second grade, in the original Aramaic, while doing Calculus in the original, er, Dutch. Whoever 'discovered' it the same day as Newton. I don't know what I was thinking, but didn't mean for you to have to read it. Lord knows I have no clue. Misread your post utterly, and I'll let it stand as a colosal error on my part for the ages.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2006 : 04:23:17 AM
|
Why don't you guys what speak English proper start a new thread
DC
It wasn't cavalry.Noooo!
The Indians could turn off at any point. What in the world do you mean
I dont know anymore can I borrow your tablets.
AZ
Wilds style while argumentative is not the same
Whatcha mean? I resent that.I'll see you after school.
A slow morning boys,what were you all doing the night.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2006 : 08:37:44 AM
|
Wild-- "AZ
Wilds style while argumentative is not the same
Whatcha mean? I resent that.I'll see you after school."
You and DC have discussed being able to guess the reviews of a book based upon the author. I would think it would work both ways. As many posts of yours that DC has read he should be able to figure out if you wrote it or not. I "realise" that I only responded to a short part of it but the original has enough information to figure it out. Before school gets out take this test. Which Post did Wild make?
A. "you took your grubby thumb and forefinger off the map and put that crow back on it's perch you just might make out the Bighorn mountains South of the Tongue.Not a place to take your Summer wander with wife and kids.The head waters of the Tongue were the last stop before the LBH."
B. "No AZR I meant misperception!
Perception ~ The quality, state, or capability, of being affected by an external idea or notion. ie...These ideas and notions are not the product of your rational belief and judgement, but someone elses!
Conception ~ The image, idea, or notion of any action or thing which is formed in the mind; a concept; a notion; a universal; the product of a rational belief or judgment. These ideas and notions are the direct product of your rational belief and judgement, not formed upon the basis of some "external" affectation thereof."
OK -- School is out and I choose water pistols at 25 feet at the headwaters of the Tongue river. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2006 : 09:03:47 AM
|
Wild "Why don't you guys what speak English proper start a new thread" Point taken.
Does Terry ever state why he choose to give Custer orders rather than accompany him? I think it would have been easier to give Gibbon clear succinct orders. Take the Yellowstone to the mouth of Big Horn and follow it upstream , at the fork of the Little Horn follow it until you run into Indians or Custer. I will send Herendeen if anything changes. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2006 : 09:44:09 AM
|
Azr, I am simply amazed to what lengths you will go to prove a point. And I must say that I have been thorougly entertained.  My one request is, please don't take it too far.
[bConception ~ The image, idea, or notion of any action or thing which is formed in the mind; a concept; a notion; a universal; the product of a rational belief or judgment. These ideas and notions are the direct product of your rational belief and judgement, not formed upon the basis of some "external" affectation thereof."
Misconception then is the antithesis of conception. And is then by it's very nature, "not" something concieved. And in turn then is "not" the product of rational belief and judgment.
Perception ~ The quality, state, or capability, of being affected by an external idea or notion. ie...These ideas and notions are not the product of your rational belief and judgement, but someone elses!
Misperception this is the antithesis of perception. And is then by it's very nature, "not" something percieved. And in turn then is "not" the product of your rational belief and judgment ~ based upon being affected by an external idea or notion ~ but someone elses.
Benteen draws and fires the first shot. *squirt* *squirt* *squirt*. Oops, too many, oh well...
quote:
Azr ~ I will send Herendeen if anything changes.
Read Terry's instruction on this. I think you shall find that option was not open to Custer. As I said, it was the one clear order in Terry's instruction. There was no mistaking Terry's intent on that one. He wanted and ordered Custer to send Herendeen back, or if not Herendeen someone! |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2006 : 10:22:12 AM
|
Benteen--Everything below is your own words not mine.
"Azr, I am simply amazed to what lengths you will go to prove a point. And I must say that I have been thorougly entertained. My one request is, please don't take it too far.
[bConception ~ The image, idea, or notion of any action or thing which is formed in the mind; a concept; a notion; a universal; the product of a rational belief or judgment. These ideas and notions are the direct product of your rational belief and judgement, not formed upon the basis of some "external" affectation thereof."
Misconception then is the antithesis of conception. And is then by it's very nature, "not" something concieved. And in turn then is "not" the product of rational belief and judgment.
Perception ~ The quality, state, or capability, of being affected by an external idea or notion. ie...These ideas and notions are not the product of your rational belief and judgement, but someone elses!
Misperception this is the antithesis of perception. And is then by it's very nature, "not" something percieved. And in turn then is "not" the product of your rational belief and judgment ~ based upon being affected by an external idea or notion ~ but someone elses."
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2006 : 10:34:15 AM
|
Benteen draws and fires the first shot. *squirt* *squirt* *squirt*. Oops, too many, oh well...
Benteen If you follow the postings you will see this after school meeting doesn't involve you it is in reference to Wild.
Here is Wilds posting.
" AZ
Wilds style while argumentative is not the same
Whatcha mean? I resent that.I'll see you after school."
Here is my answer to Wild. (None of it was addressed to your postings)
Before school gets out take this test. Which Post did Wild make?
I then gave him examples of his own and your posts to demonstrate the style differences.
OK -- School is out and I choose water pistols at 25 feet at the headwaters of the Tongue river.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2006 : 10:47:22 AM
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Azr ~ I will send Herendeen if anything changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read Terry's instruction on this. I think you shall find that option was not open to Custer. As I said, it was the one clear order in Terry's instruction. There was no mistaking Terry's intent on that one. He wanted and ordered Custer to send Herendeen back, or if not Herendeen someone!"
Benteen- You have taken the quote out of context. below is the whole quote. My point was it would have been easier to write Gibbon an order than Custer. What you quoted was my example of an order that could have been written to Gibbon.
quote:
Does Terry ever state why he choose to give Custer orders rather than accompany him? I think it would have been easier to give Gibbon clear succinct orders. Take the Yellowstone to the mouth of Big Horn and follow it upstream , at the fork of the Little Horn follow it until you run into Indians or Custer. I will send Herendeen if anything changes.
My question was more to why Terry chose to go with Gibbon rather than Custer. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2006 : 3:38:56 PM
|
AZ
Does Terry ever state why he choose to give Custer orders rather than accompany him?
Look the entire campaign was planned and organised under the "old chums act of 1865".Terry and Gibbon were doing Custer a favour.
Gibbon outranked Custer and was a column commander.He makes no protest at the suggestion that his force was to be stripped of it's offensive capability and that he was to play a subordinate role in the plan.Neither Gibbon nor Terry needed or wanted this particular detail so if they can facilitate an old comrade why not.It should also be noted that line officers of that period hated staff officers, another reason to support one of their own after the way he had been treated in Washington. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2006 : 9:02:48 PM
|
"It should also be noted that line officers of that period hated staff officers, another reason to support one of their own after the way he had been treated in Washington."
That sounds insightful, and to the extent it's true at all it's always been true, but in this case, the staff officers of the period had been good and long serving line officers to whom most still in the field owed, big time, and who understood exactly what their issues were. They weren't hated as the officious slackers at those desks often seemed to be later on, drinking their Bevo. It had always been the concept that the 7th was the main striking force, and that's why Custer was the original campaign commander. There was no military point to Terry going with the attack, and would be about as meaningful as the Bismark having its captain outranked by an Admiral on the bridge with no other ships once the Prinz Eugene left them. Custer was the throwback, of the valuable commander leading charges. Terry had to orchestrate cavalry, infantry, artillery, river transport and prepare for battle results whatever they were. That was his job, not leading the charge.
And really? It wasn't Custer's, either. Imagine if Custer had sent scouts south instead of Benteen, kept the 7th together with each company having its packs, stayed on Weir Point with his trumpeters and couriers, and directed a better planned attack from that high ground, and brought the rest of the regiment to bear. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2006 : 11:02:11 AM
|
| "And really? It wasn't Custer's, either. Imagine if Custer had sent scouts south instead of Benteen, kept the 7th together with each company having its packs, stayed on Weir Point with his trumpeters and couriers, and directed a better planned attack from that high ground, and brought the rest of the regiment to bear."We probably wouldn't be discussing it then. I still believe Terry would have had time to make all the arrangements you mention and accompany Custer. He could have insured Custer stayed on Wier Point, etc. and held the Regiment together. Was it just to allow Custer by himself to have his chance at glory or did Terry think Custer would not do as good a job if he accompanied him? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2006 : 11:56:27 AM
|
| I don't think it ever makes sense for a commander to have one person above him along whose sole function is to command him alone. It can't look good to the soldiers to see their commander with a uniformed vulture hovering around. Plus that worthies additional headquarters and crap. I cannot imagine a more godawful position for any officer. If Brisbin's team were along, yes, but just the 7th? To what end? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2006 : 1:29:24 PM
|
That sounds insightful, and to the extent it's true at all it's always been true, but in this case, the staff officers of the period had been good and long serving line officers to whom most still in the field owed, big time, and who understood exactly what their issues were.
You greatly underestimate the problem DC.The staff officer of the period had the same status and influence as one of Joe Stalin's political commissars.A staff officer could hobble his CO.Their influence on military spending was total.Thus the Springfield was not withdrawn till 1892 because money was diverted to fact finding missions [staff officers only]to Europe.
Anyway that's bye the bye,the real culprit was Crook.Although the three columns could act independently there was an overall strategy and that was to snooker [for want of a better word]the Indians.Crook was the first to confront them.He knew their strenght,their firepower and approx location of the village.By breaking off contact he allowed the Indians freedom of movement.And the fact that he did not bother to send word to Terry's forces was criminal.
If a system's failure can be attributed to the initial fault then responsibility should be laid at Crook's door. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2006 : 2:12:27 PM
|
Again, Wild, cool the hyperbole. Or offer an example of a U.S. staff officer of the period in question having in any sense the status and influence of a political commissar, whose word could condemn a man or officer to life in prison or death.
Probably at no other time in our history had we such informed and experienced soldiers in charge in the bureaucracy. Too many. No budget, but that's not the issue. The Springfield was used in the Spanish American War and in the Philippines, military excursions were considered good for diplomacy as well as informative and given we faced no war the money was better spent on the trips anyway, if that were really an issue. Looking ahead. Sheridan himself went to see the Franco Prussian War.
Criminal. Really. Tell us what Crook had been told about Terry's column, and where Crook would think Terry and Gibbon and Custer were and at what date? What basis had he for informed supposition? He could hardly send messengers through the Sioux he'd just fought, and it's to be doubted anyone would have risked it anyway. Same reason Herendeen supposedly didn't ride from Custer to Terry with much less evidence for concern. This was the first time a huge army (for the Indian wars) had been deliberately attacked, much less arguably defeated west of the Mississippi.
Nobody looks good, and most 50-50 calls that campaign were wrong, soon remedied, but it's annoying when people are called criminal and murderers and traitors just for amusement in Custerland. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2006 : 4:34:29 PM
|
Again, Wild, cool the hyperbole. Or offer an example of a U.S. staff officer of the period in question having in any sense the status and influence of a political commissar, whose word could condemn a man or officer to life in prison or death.
No DC the comparison holds good.The influence the staff officer had to cripple the ability of line commanders to control their own logistics is comparible to the influence a commissar had over an individuals life and death, it was total.
Probably at no other time in our history had we such informed and experienced soldiers in charge in the bureaucracy
And this red hot bureaucracy had to be investigated by successive congressional committees.The situation was farcical with Sherman the commander of the army having less authority than the adjutant General and Inspector general.He had no control over supply ,ordnance or medical services.He was a commanding general without an army.
Criminal. Really. Tell us what Crook had been told about Terry's column, and where Crook would think Terry and Gibbon and Custer were and at what date? What basis had he for informed supposition?
Are you suggesting that the three columns were converging by sheer chance?Would Crook not be aware of Terry's operational base?Were the column commanders not in communication with Sheridan?
Nobody looks good, and most 50-50 calls that campaign were wrong, soon remedied, but it's annoying when people are called criminal and murderers and traitors just for amusement in Custerland.There was a moral obligation to inform Terry that the indians were not running,the basic assumption underpinning the whole campaign.The information on firearms was also critical.
Did Crook put his pride before his duty as soldier.The fact that the Rosebud was his second reverse and that his was the largest force ever checked on the plains must have contributed to his reticence to inform Terry.
He could hardly send messengers through the Sioux he'd just fought,
For heaven's sake what were messengers for arranging picnics?
This was the first time a huge army (for the Indian wars) had been deliberately attacked, much less arguably defeated west of the Mississippi.Oh yeh! See para on keeping defeats quiet. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2006 : 5:08:04 PM
|
1. In theory and Tom Clancy and in every cya report by a field officer, it's surely true. But an example in the years about 1876?
2. It was top heavy with officers, but they made do with what the Congress gave them, and then as now Congress had the power. Which Congressional Committee investigated the Army, when in those years, about what, and how does it compare to a 'normal' year? There was no public support for the Army after the CW, and so no money.
3. No, Wild, I'm not. You've called someone criminal, and you have zero evidence for that charge. Which, by the way, IS criminal.
4. What information on firearms? What in the world was "critical" about it? Crook had about as little personal vanity as was possible. He was a slob, and he cared little for medals and that crap. He was like Stilwell. "Must have...." That's wishful thinking.
5. To not sacrifice themselves needlessly, for one. Which scout was holding up his hand screaming "send ME!" when he knew thousands of Sioux were between him and Terry and would be on the lookout? As I said, Herendeen somehow decided his mission to Terry wasn't critical.
6. It's preposterous to think Crook would try to keep it quiet or think it remotely possible. By Army standards, he'd won. Possession of the field, the enemy ran. By Indian standards - and current standards - they'd won. He had no clue but that the Sioux had gone to camp and broken up back to the rez, and he may have thought that. During the Rosebud, he'd thought the camp was just around the bend and almost fell for a trap. If he'd pointlessly claimed he'd been whipped, the Army still would have spun it the way he did for public release.
As it happens, unless a messenger could have gotten through to Terry - Crook had zero clue Custer was off on his own, and didn't actually know that Gibbon and Terry had united, and would have no clue where they were other than north along the Yellowstone, descending south on their river of choice (that's a LOT of territory) - and could do it in two days (highly, highly unlikely absent divine luck and given the huge sidetrack to avoid what was a large camp) I'm not sure what was critical at all, or sure what would have been done different.
After all, their theory was the camp would break up, and hearing about Crook's fight, that's what they'd assume, isn't it? This is what I mean about applying the same standards across the board. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 03 2006 5:14:31 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 04 2006 : 2:16:50 PM
|
In theory and Tom Clancy and in every cya report by a field officer, it's surely true. But an example in the years about 1876?
I'm flattered DC that you think I have such a grasp of American history that I can regale you with anecdotes from the mess halls and QM stores of the lower echlons.I must disappoint you on that score, however I'm familiar enough with the subject to state that the staff v line situation was a huge problem.I will go further and state that it was one of the main contributing factors to the disaster on the LBH.Grant's betrayal of his old Civil war mate Sherman set in train a plethora of blunders not to be surpassed until the arrival of H Simpson esq.
You've called someone criminal, and you have zero evidence for that charge. Which, by the way, IS criminal.
On the 17 of June [8 days before the "LS"]Crook was in possession of the following information Indian numbers,armaments,morale,leadership,the fact that they were opperating in one large force rather than scattered bands and they were not running.Now he had extreamly good Indian auxies who had proved themselves in the Battle, any number of whom could have been sent north to the Yellowstone with every chance of finding Terry.The white scouts who were not rushing to volunteer could have been sent south to Fort Fetterman which had a telegraph.Not knowing the dispositions or timetable of Terry's forces does not absolve him from this responsibility.Information which could have saved lives was witheld and I class this as criminal.
when he knew thousands of Sioux were between him and Terry and would be on the lookout?That's a joke,Custer got within 500 meters of them!
Crook had about as little personal vanity as was possible. He was a slob, and he cared little for medals and that crap.What has keeping your flies done up got to do with professional pride.He was a soldier and what soldier worth his salt does not care about being defeated. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 04 2006 : 2:56:24 PM
|
1. It's not true, you have no evidence, there isn't any, Grant did not betray Sherman, you don't understand how the government works then or now. Also, name ONE Congressional Investigation of the Army in the 1870's (absent LBH), which you've also claimed was rife with them. One.
2. He did, eventually. If he didn't know the disposition or timetable of Terry's forces, but he's to send couriers through huge numbers of Indians to somewhere on the Yellowstone........ You advocate Ft. Fetterman, telegraph to where, and how would that get to Terry? And when? Not in time to affect anything. "Terry, had battle with Sioux, drove them from field, taking wounded back to Goose Creek and await orders." What different would have happened, except that now Custer would assume the village would have broken up.
3. What's the joke? They don't know where Custer is, where Terry or Gibbon is, or where the village is. Shoulda/coulda, but of dubious value by the time it would have arrived, at which point - from what we know - the wrong decision would likely have been reached: the camp must have broken up after the battle. Which, in fact, it did and moved to the LBH where about an equal number joined them.
4. By accepted standards of day, he won. Drove enemy from field, retained control, left at his leisure. And probably would assume the village had broken up when warriors returned to their camp, as would Custer and Terry when they got news Crook had had a fight with over a thousand warriors. What good that 'critical' info now? Further Wild, what new info - except for the fact they attacked a regiment sized outfit, which could have been by early morning error - had Crook learned that Sheridan and everyone hadn't assumed before the soldiers set out? The armaments, warrior portion, leadership, were pretty well known and the Rosebud confirmed it. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 05 2006 : 2:53:15 PM
|
It's not true, you have no evidence, there isn't any, Grant did not betray Sherman, you don't understand how the government works then or now. Also, name ONE Congressional Investigation of the Army in the 1870's (absent LBH), which you've also claimed was rife with them. One.
Are you telling the board that there was no staff v line problem?That Grant did not betray Sherman over the issue?That the congress did not investigate the problem?These are major issues DC not only for students of the LBH but also for you as an American.I'm very surprised at your shrill post saying these things are not true it is your history after all.
Sherman withdrew his HQ from Washington to St Louis and gave up any pretence at commanding the army in disgust and frustration at Grants rescinding of his order to have all orders directed to the army transmitted through the general officer commanding.Without checking I believe it was Rawlins who won out over Sherman.
The following are the sessions of Congress which investigated the problem.
40th Congress 3rd sess.
42nd Congress 3rd sess.
44th Congress 1st sess.
45th Crongress 2nd sess.
All this has relevance to the LBH because it was Belcamp who was accused of abusing the staff situation to enrich himself.Custer as we know got entangled in this scandal resulting in his humilation leading on to Terry giving him an oppurtunity to redeem himself.
I trust the above has been of some help to you in understanding the situation.
What different would have happened, except that now Custer would assume the village would have broken up.
The most logical route to Terry is North along the Rosebud.The best scenario was meeting him on the Rosebud if not his trail would be found at the mouth of the Rosebud or by taking a hard right turn.If Terry was no where in the vicinity then great no problem.But Custer was on the Rosebud from the 18th on.So the question is would the intel from Crook have altered anything?With that information available to him Custer would not have [could not have]sent puny 3 troop battalions to pitch into anything they found.
4. By accepted standards of day, he won. Drove enemy from field, retained control, left at his leisure.
Ah yes the purpose of the campaign was to hold a few acres of bog along the Rosebud and then a leisurely withdrawal.By the same criterion Benteen/Reno won.
And probably would assume the village had broken up
Well you know what assume invariably does.So are we to believe that this is US Army strategic thought---They will scatter on our approach or they will scatter after they have inflicted a defeat on us? |
Edited by - wILD I on February 05 2006 2:56:50 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 05 2006 : 3:24:16 PM
|
4. By accepted standards of day, he won. Drove enemy from field, retained control, left at his leisure.
Ah yes the purpose of the campaign was to hold a few acres of bog along the Rosebud and then a leisurely withdrawal.By the same criterion Benteen/Reno won.
So based upon Terry's orders what would have constituted a win?
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 05 2006 : 5:14:27 PM
|
Wild,
1. What I "tell" the board, Wild, is my opinion and clearly stated. I don't have to prove a negative, you have to prove your assertion: your claim about the staff officers being hated, etc. etc. As usual you try to muddy the waters. The issue isn't "the problem," Wild, you're trying to slither out. I'd said the Army's bureaucracy (we were talking staff)was never better given that the staff had such a high number of actual former line officers from the CW. You said, to the contrary, there were many Congressional committees investigating the Army's bureaucracy. I asked, absent the LBH, for you to name one in the years about 1876. Name one. Belknap wasn't part of the Army, and those investigations were not into the Army. Nor, by the way, is the existence of a committee a sign of a problem. They're sometimes permanent oversight committees. The Army was not under investigation, but I believe there was an inquiry into the LBH.
Sherman was not betrayed by Grant, he never thought that. He and Grant held similar opinions of the government, which was quite unlike the Army. If Sherman wasn't held in high regard - no bureaucrat had anywhere near his immense popularity, including Grant towards the end - how do you think he was able to (logically) move Army headquarters to St. Louis against Grant's or the Congress' desires? Sherman was a loose cannon, likely to say anything, and he did. After visiting Arizona, he thought we should declare war on Mexico to make her take it back. Oh, and that war wasn't like hell, but was hell, and all the toodle doo, rah-rah types were full of it, explaining his regard of Custer and his ilk.
2. Crook had no reason to think Custer was on the Rosebud, he DID have reason to think the village was on the Rosebud. The 7th wasn't on the Rosebud till the 22nd, not the 18th, although Gibbon was close and the boat puttered back and forth. Custer left the Tongue on the 20th. The Rosebud battle was the morning of the 17th, Crook left the 18th. Given what Crook's guys thought - there was a huge village on or near the Rosebud, which there was at that time - there was zero chance of getting through, at least in any meaningful time frame.
3. Crook didn't think he'd been defeated, and nobody else did at the time. Maybe not a win, but the cavalry 'chased' them away. And it WAS the mantra of the Army that the Sioux would avoid a big fight and break up and scatter, so he was left with the supposition that his scouts had spooked a nearby village and brought them on him in defense. OR, the unheard of event that they'd been attacked deliberately from a distance, which was outside Army experience for such a large group of soldiers. If Crook had gotten the fight info through, what would that collective mindset think different? They'd think Crook hadn't pursued and nailed them, and they'd broken up, Custer's fear. Crook had insufficient ammo for another fight, wounded to care for, and no way to safely retire them to help without significant cover, negating his attack force.
4. Benteen/Reno failed to lose their battle. Hard to claim they won it, but they ended better than either Custer OR the Sioux that day, and Reno is the only known officer to have led a charge that day.
AZ Ranger,
Terry wasn't ordering Crook, although he was senior, Crook was following Sheridan's orders, I recall. Nobody thought the Sioux would seek out and attack such large units, and once you had casualties, you had to defend them. It was a bad call, in retrospect, but based on what was known then, Crook had an argument for what he did, and like Benteen and Reno and all the survivors, had to rethink and recalibrate after he heard about Custer. And, he probably wasn't impressed with his men, after Reynolds and now the recent fiasco. Nobody looks good that entire year. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 05 2006 5:22:12 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 06 2006 : 09:50:55 AM
|
I'd said the Army's bureaucracy (we were talking staff)was never better given that the staff had such a high number of actual former line officers from the CW.
A bureaucracy is a system,it can be good or bad but this is not dependent on the calibre of those working it.
I asked, absent the LBH, for you to name one in the years about 1876.Would you be satisified with the index no. to the relevant document?[then you can do the research yourself].
40th no 33 House Reports
42nd no74 House Reports
44th no 354 and House Misc.Docs
45th no 56
Further in a communication to Sheridan,Sherman relates how staff officers are accusing him and his line officers of wanting to usurp the powers of the President.Sherman is also went as far as stating that the line/staff system would eventually bring about the ruin of the army.
Sherman was not betrayed by Grant,
On this issue he was, as I have posted he reversed a decision to placate Rawlins.
Crook had no reason to think Custer was on the Rosebud,
He knew he was in the field and that the Yellowstone was his line of communication and he was morally obliged to do everything to contact him.
The 7th wasn't on the Rosebud till the 22nd,
Wrong DC the 7th were on the Rosebud on the 18th.So you might want to revisit---there was zero chance of getting through, at least in any meaningful time frame.
Crook didn't think he'd been defeated, and nobody else did at the time.From memory the press got it right and reported a reverse.
If Crook had gotten the fight info through, what would that collective mindset think different?Guess who would have got the gatlings and the 2nd cavalry?
Benteen/Reno failed to lose their battleMost unusual use of the English language.
Reno is the only known officer to have led a charge that day.
Coetus interruptus I believe
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 06 2006 : 11:28:28 AM
|
1. "A bureaucracy is a system,it can be good or bad but this is not dependent on the calibre of those working it." It's totally dependent upon it.
2. I asked for one Congressional Investigation of the Army in the 1870's, and you start with the 40th Congress, which wasn't in the 1870's. Which one of these is a Congressional investigation of the ARMY? Sherman bitched about everything, and I've never said there was no conflict between staff and line, only that the relationship was probably better then than ever before or since. And the staff was correct, by the by.
3. So? Where does Sherman accuse Grant of betrayal? You're supposing. Sherman was well aware of political realities.
4. No he wasn't. He was only under obligation to make good faith and reasonable effort, and he apparently felt there was no chance, just as Custer and Herendeen did about Tullocks.
5. According to Gray, page 198, at the mouth of the Tongue on June 20th, Terry directed Custer with the left wing and impedimenta to proceed to Reno's camp and then "proceed to the mouth of the Rosebud." Yet you say the 7th was there on the 18th? Only Reno's scout returning. But Crook had every reason to believe the village was between himself and the Yellowstone. Perfectly reasonable, if wrong, and it may not have been. Crook had no reason to think there was anyone on the Rosebud.
6. The first published report of the Rosebud was when? How did they find out?
7. Why? What point? Combined with Reno's info, the Army would think the village had disbanded, wouldn't they?
8. And yet, correct and easily understandable. They were still able to pursue the mission.
9. Starting with the intent of both parties, that analogy fails on every level. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Custer's Orders
