| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 06 2006 : 3:30:47 PM
|
The 7th wasn't on the Rosebud till the 22nd,
Your defence of Crook is undermined by blunders such as the above.You seem to be as unaware of the troop dispositions as your gallant general.You don't even seem to know the whereabouts of the village on the 18th.
The 7th were little more than one day's march away from Crook and the village was at least 30 miles off the Rosebud which ment that a detachment [Indians and officer]had more than an even chance of getting through.Of course Crook did not know this but it does not excuse his dereliction of duty.
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.Are you complaining that I'm giving you too much information?
Sherman bitched about everythingand
Sherman was a loose cannon,
Here we see a great soldier one of America's best sacrificed on the altar of ridicule.How can one stoop so low as to suggest that an American hero's words and actions are of no more account than a cantankerous curmudgeon's.
It's totally dependent upon it.
Great crew pity about the system---suggest epitaph [no disrespect]for the Challenger.
The first published report of the Rosebud was when? How did they find out?
I do not claim this to be the first published report of the Rosebud but it must be close---July 22nd 1876 Harper's Weekly.It appears that their sources were officers of the various units engaged.The report uses the words check and retreatin relation to the outcome.
Benteen/Reno failed to lose their battleMost unusual use of the English language.
And yet, correct and easily understandable. They were still able to pursue the mission.You are hopeless DC try to understand that there is a difference between a battle and a war.
Starting with the intent of both parties, that analogy fails on every levelWell was the groom not up to the job? |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 06 2006 : 8:41:22 PM
|
1. True, I'd forgotten Reno's scout, although when you say 'the 7th' you'd imagine it included the commander and over half of it, which it didn't until the 22nd. If you're talking about the portion of the great village that crossed west from the Rosebud, nobody knows the location of "the" village on the 18th. About half of it was still coming down the valley of the LBH. Of course, none of this makes any difference. It would only make a difference if Crook thought or had reason to think that Reno was where he was. He didn't and had no reason to. And he did think the village was on the Rosebud, between him and the Yellowstone, requiring a large circumvention by a courier to the Yellowstone. If it was dereliction of duty, that probably would have meant someone would have noticed and charged him. If Custer hadn't gotten killed, this would never have been an issue.
2. I'm not looking them up, I know you too well, if anything those are investigations into Indian relations, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to slither out and say "problem" rather than 'investigation of the Army', which you don't and have never actually said they are.
3. A personal venting of one soldier to another is hardly indicative of all consuming hatred beyond the norm. All soldiers bitch always about everything, and I don't ridicule him, especially for a private note to Sheridan venting. I don't worship heroes, I just don't like the dead being slandered in safety from a challenge to a duel or lawsuit. I only say decorated soldiers (suggesting some competence and bravery) get called cowards and traitors awfully easy in Custerland, and those doing so aren't qualified. This assumes someone is, which I'm not sure of either.
4. Think, Wild. That's a classic case of people overruling the system for their own reasons since the system didn't approve of frozen O rings and cold weather launches. Every since Grissom, White, and Chaffee, Murphy has had a large portrait in Mission Control. Still, it would be almost relevant except the Astronauts aren't remotely in charge; they were more or less passengers, and Astronauts aren't even necessary to the system, since it can land on its own. The system was fine, but people overruled it and killed other people. In the Columbia, I know that tiles falling off the fuel tank and smashing against the wings aren't supposed to happen, but people overruled the system check because, well, nothing bad had happened yet, and they just kept gluing them back on because of budget cuts and time restraints. People killed people. It was like a trucker having his hood fly off into the windshield every cross country jaunt, but the company noted the windshield had withstood it for years, so who was to know that one day it would shatter the windshield, impale the driver and kill other people when the truck overturned on the Interstate. That's how obscene it was, and people should have been excoriated for that, but were not.
5. Right. In 1912, Harpers - whose scion escaped in one of the Titanic's boats with his dog and servant - ran fantastic stories that stutter even today. A withdrawal is not necessarily a defeat, don't you know, and in any case Crook never conceded it and had his defenders as well.
6. I do. They were able to pursue the war and did. That's my beef about rescuing Custer: at what point should the 7th's mission change to that at the risk of all else including the mission?
7. If the groom weren't, there'd be no need for that particular manuever, now, would there? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 07 2006 : 3:08:44 PM
|
If Custer hadn't gotten killed, this would never have been an issue.
Custer getting killed wasn't even an issue.No body was called to account.Poor old Reno had to demand a court marshal.
I don't ridicule him,
But you insist that the board takes you at your word---What I "tell" the board, Wild, is my opinion and clearly stated.
This is your opinion---Sherman bitched about everything and
Sherman was a loose cannon,Irresponsible and not to be taken seriously.
Anyway enough application of the old sodium.
That's my beef about rescuing Custer: at what point should the 7th's mission change to that at the risk of all else including the mission?Not sure what you mean but a few posts back you were worried for the health of a few scouts.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 08 2006 : 10:10:44 AM
|
1. Court(s) martial, and it wasn't. An Inquiry.
2. I not only don't insist I don't request anyone take me at my word. The opinion about Sherman is mine and held by history and Sherman himself. If you read his autobiography he chats that all up himself.
3. I wasn't worried for them, but since 'unhealthy' scouts would defeat the point of their mission, that would be a waste of life.
I note you're no longer claiming those were Congressional Investigations of the Army (as opposed to Interior or Indian questions in general or related or maybe just standing committee reports.) |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 03:37:00 AM
|
I not only don't insist I don't request anyone take me at my word.
On this side of the pond the above would mean that your word is worthless.
The opinion about Sherman is mine and held by history and Sherman himself. If you read his autobiography he chats that all up himself.
So according to you Sherman was unable to communitate his feelings on matters of great importance and that his behavior was erratic.You think they gave 4 stars to a fool?
Let me quote another outstanding general on the issue of the staff bureaus. "Any possible question of their consolidation or reorganisation anyway is utterly insignificant as compared with that of their union with the line as part of one whole under one head.Here is the whole question in a nut shell.Shall due subordination be enforced throughout the Army? or,shall every chief of staff in Washington have a seperate command."
I wasn't worried for them, but since 'unhealthy' scouts would defeat the point of their mission, that would be a waste of lifeIn a war situation the lives of the combatants are not paramount.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 08:55:12 AM
|
1. Why would it? In any case, it's not necessary to take me at my word. Evidence provided.
2. That's not what I said or implied at all.
3. Dramatic, but we're talking about expensive civvy scouts like Herendeen.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 10:09:53 AM
|
What I "tell" the board, Wild, is my opinion and clearly stated.
it's not necessary to take me at my word.
Rich is there anyway you can attach a health warning to DC posts?
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 04 2006 : 12:28:26 AM
|
What I "tell" the board, Wild, is my opinion and clearly stated.
it's not necessary to take me at my word.
Rich is there anyway you can attach a health warning to DC posts?
Wild you know you enjoy your debates with DC. What would the warning say "BE PREPARED, NO QUARTERS ASKED OR GIVEN POST AT YOU OWN RISK" |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - March 07 2006 : 6:44:01 PM
|
"If Custer hadn't gotten killed, this would never have been an issue."
"Custer getting killed wasn't even an issue.No body was called to account.Poor old Reno had to demand a court marshal." sic...(COI)
To put the matter to rest the only way to guage this is; did Custer disobey his orders. If he did then, "Custer (having) gotten killed" would have everything to do with it!!!
I think without any doubt that Custer did disregard Terry's instructions. Whether or not he was justified in doing so is the real question. Genl. Terry alluded to this in a confidential report made on July 2nd, 1876. "...I do not tell you this to cast any reflection on Custer. For whatever errors he may have committed he has paid the penalty, and you cannot regret his loss more than I do, but I felt that our plan must have been successful had it been carried out, and I desire you to know the facts."
General Gibbon writes, (Ft. Shaw, Nov. 6th, 1876)
"So great was my fear that Custer's zeal would carry him forward too rapidly that the last thing I said to him when bidding him good bye after his regiment had filed past you when starting on his march was, "Now, Custer , don't be greedy, but wait for us." He replied, as with a wave of his had he sashed off to follow his regiment, "No, I will not." Poor fellow! Knowing what we do now, and what an effect a fresh Indian trail seemed to have had upon him, perhaps we were expecting too much to anticipate a forbearance on his part which would have rendered cooperation of the two columns practicable."
Most people who study this aspect get the false impression that "the plan" was concieved and concluded at the conference aboard the Far West. And that it was the "joint" work of Terry, Gibbon and Custer. Pursuant to the facts of the matter, Gibbons column was put in motion before noon on the 21st, this before Custer's command had yet to arrive at he mouth of the Rosebud at about 2 pm. Terry's plan was in put in motion before Custer even arrived at the conference!!!
Terry based his plan upon the only source of information avalable at that time... Reno's scout. Which had found the fresh indian trail a mile wide heading for the LBH. With the benefit of scouts like Mitch Bouyer and Charlie Reynolds and other Crow Scouts they would likely know the usual haunts and locations where the indians encamped. In concert with this plan we see that on the 20th after learning news of Reno's scout he (Terry) told Custer what would be expected of him, and cautioned him to husband the forces of his men and animals. To do this Terry had to have something in mind, didn't he?
The basis of this plan was set in motion long before they ever did the conference aboard the Far West. And it was with the expressed purpose to trap or encircle the indians in such a manner as to prevent their escape. As far as Terry knew they couldn't escape southwest without meeting Crook. They couldn't go westward because they were already on the eastern boundary of the territory of the Crow nation. If they tried to go north they would be met by Gibbon. And if they went south the Big Horn Mountains, which they could not have been able to have maintained themselves for any considerable time. And it is with this we see why Custer's scout up the Rosebud was so important. It was to all intents and purposes to prevent their escape in that direction. And that intent is clearly seen in Terry's instructions to Custer. It served a double purpose, not only to intercept if the indians were found to be fleeing, but to move in such a way as to give time for Gibbon's column to move into postion. Gibbon..."I saw Custer depart on the 22nd with his fine regiment fully impressed with the conviction that our chief aim should be to so move that whaever force might be on the Little Big Horn should not escape us *** And it was fully understood beweeen us that to give my troops time to get up, and to guard against escape of the Indians to the South, he should keep constantly feeling to his left."
Now we come full circle. Herendeen's report to Gibbon. We can now see why Terry sent Herendeen. Terry needed to know from Custer whether or not the indians had moved. Or whether or not Custer had located the indians in a different place than the trail Reno had found indicated. If they were to encircle the indians this cooperation would have been crutial to Terry! Very crutial indeed. Custer wasn't sent to attack the indians... there was not one word mention of Custer attacking anything in Terry's instructions. He was merely sent to find them... IF they were anywhere near his well directed path, then Terry wanted to know. It would also have been valuable information to Terry to know if Custer's column had found nothing. That would only confirm Terry's understanding of where the Indians were. And in all likelihood he may have hastened Gibbon's column to meet at the desired time. The Scout of the Tullochs forks area was also very important because it was to prevent any escape of the indians to the east, and also to locate them if they were there. A "thorough" search of this area was indicated by Terry to be of prime importance. And a "thorough" search means actually putting feet on the ground there. But as we know this thorough seach wasn't done. For whatever reason, this was one clear instruction that Custer should not have ignored. And it was the one instruction, the only one that is needed to hang him on charges of disobeying orders.
Several things to bear in mind.
1) This operation was directed against an indian village. If it was found by the indians that there was more than 1 cavalry column descending upon them, it would in all liklihood prevent them from leaving their village to attack one of those columns while exposing their wives, children and property as easy prey to another. It was well understood that Gibbon could not be in place without resorting to forced marches. And could not be in place before the 26th at the earliest. And by Terry's instructions it can clearly be seen that if Custer had done as directed that he would have been within "cooperating distance" on the only possible line of retreat if the indians should have attempted to run.
2) When Custer began his forced march to the LBH he didn't have any new information concerning the indians. There was nothing in Terry's instructions that permitted Custer to depart from the orders given him... AT THAT TIME. Some use the phrase, "when nearly in contact with the enemy" to defend Custer's actions. Custer's column was not "nearly in contact". And in fact the nearest village was well over 40 miles away! Only when he found their fresh mile wide trail was he compelled to turn off trail and from then on his force would not then nor ever be "within cooperating distance" of Terry and Gibbon's forces. A fact that he had to have known. This brought his column into postion on the night of 24 within close proximity of the indian village. A position he should have occupied on the morning of the 26th, and at least 24 hours before Gibbon could possibly be expected to be in place! According to Terry's plan Custer had no business being there AT THAT TIME! And had he not flagrantly disobeyed the plain language and perfectly understood purpose and spirit of his orders... he would not have been there! And for any other arguements concerning this aspect. I say... He was not in the place his orders directed him to be.
3) Was there "sufficient reason" for departing from Terry's orders? Let me ask that a little differently. What new conditions existed that gave Custer the authority to depart from those orders? Was anything essentially different than what Terry had expected when he issued those orders? There is not one thing, as anticipated by Terry, different when Custer departed from them. Not one! Nothing different was found, was there? Nothing was in any way different from the conditions found by Custer up to that point when the direction taken by the Indian trail was definitely ascertained.... Just as Terry said and knew that it would,..." almost certain it would be found."... And that the trail indeed would turn towards the LBH, just as Terry said it would. Nothing is new here, is there? There was nothing there that warranted any deviation from the order. Not one thing.
Custer had found exactly what Terry said he would. And there was and should have been no doubt about what Terry intended for him to do, was there? And there should have been and wasn't no discretion to do otherwise than as ordered, was there? Which was to..."still proceed southward, perhaps as far as the headwaters of the Tongue..."
|
Edited by - Benteen on March 07 2006 6:51:25 PM |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 07 2006 : 8:01:08 PM
|
Interesting discussion, Benteen...you bring back a critical point---join up with Gibbon on the 26th. History sometimes tells us that Custer's ambition demanded that he defeat the tribes without a share of the glory to Gibbon or Terry...maybe so. At the same time, his aggressive nature might well have taken him directly at the village when he sensed an opportunity, along with the possibility that the village would dismantle and hit the road.
The debate and discussion go on ad infinitum. So, what if Custer had waited for Gibbon? What then?
Considering the fact that Terry was already whipped, there could be a good argument that the Indians would have also made short work of a Gibbon-Custer column. I believe they would have. They had the strength to do so. Again, had that happened, what then?
Does the U.S. sue for peace, similar to Red Cloud's victory? Does Deadwood disappear and the Black Hills revert (again) to the Lakota?
Does the political landscape dramatically change, allowing Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse to die from old age?
That's much upon which to speculate, but there are those here scholarly enough to do so. I will be gone for the next six days, so I'll catch up.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - March 07 2006 : 9:40:39 PM
|
Respectfully Bob, I must decline to answer the speculation concerning what may have been. There is just way to much to take into consideration of such things. It's not that I defend one personage over another, nor whether or not "the plan" adopted by Terry was right or wrong. The only indication that Terry's plan would have worked was what the indians thought upon seeing Reno's charge. They thought that the whites had come to talk. And was preparing to accept their parley. Had conditions existed for this parley to have occured, who knows?
We all can look back and wonder about the woulda, shoulda and coulda's. Sometimes the truth is a huge pill to swallow. And sometimes people are less accepting of the truth, when something simple and more modern seems a better approach to a problem. The facts of the battle are history, whether you or I like that or not. And whether we accept what was said about it has little or no bearing upon what Custer did.
Was Terry's plan a perfect one? Could it have worked? What would have happened? Quite frankly I don't know, and sadly we never will. Terry expressed his belief that it would have worked. Gibbon's comments also go hand in hand with this belief. And they were the commanders in the field at that time.
Do I criticise or chastise Custer for his errors? No, not really. Custer glorious... Custer the bold dashing hero will always be a part of American History. Does the fact that he disobeyed his orders impart something inglorious about the Little Big Horn campaign and his part in it? As a truth it shouldn't. What was done was done. And there is nothing now no one can do about it. Because Custer made countless errors after he turned towards the LBH, the fact that he disobeyed orders then seems to put things in a proper light. The real question then becomes... What was Custer's plan? Both Reno and Benteen plead ignorance when it came to this question. Yet both seemed to plough headlong into the largest indian village ever assembled upon the plains without knowing these plans. It seems rather unacceptable that Custer or for that matter any other commander would have gone off and left his subordinates without proper understanding of his intentions. Especially with so much at stake. Did he really do this? I for one don't believe that he did. There was too much riding upon the 7th success for him not to have confided his intentions to his subordinates.
Sometimes we have to step back fromt he fray and look at the truths invovled. The facts that we do know. And only when all of those truths are known can we really know what happened that day. Sure speculation sometimes can lead to the truth. But most of the time, it does more harm than good. Quite simply because they become a part of the myth, and perpetuate the legend that Libbie so dedicated the rest of her life to. And all of that was just a lie built upon countless glorifications of her need to absolve her husband of any and all wrong. Was she wrong? I don't know. It's all a part of American history now. But like most people, I seek the truth, even though sometimes, just sometimes it goes against what history has mythically wrought, and people heroically need.
Custer was just human like the rest of us. And he need not be idealized more in death than what he was in life. Did he die a hero's death? It's all a matter of perspective isn't it? If the truth about his disobedience to orders sheds light upon the truth of what really happened at the LBH then it shouldn't matter. What it does is shift the blame or glory on Custer's shoulders. I for one thought Custer's shoulders was broad enough to withstand the weight. Because there are some in this field of interest who vehemently disagree with the facts. Try as they might to lift the burden, they buckle under the weight of proof.
It is not my intent to bring Custer down, nor is it my intent to seek something that isn't there. As many do. It wasn't the first time someone disobeyed orders, and it certainly won't be the last. Was he justified in disobeying them? There seems to be no justification for his actions. And as many have claimed, had he won, would he have been court martialed for his victory? That he didn't win is what most can't fathom. That he was thrashed by heathen savages that didn't or shouldn't have known squat about military tactics is quite simply unbearable for most people interested to think about. And we still haven't brought ourselves to the reality that it not only could have happened, it did.
Custer's fall brought upon the plains indians the wrath of a nation. This put them on the reservations where they never ever regained their previous stature. The question shouldn't be: What if Custer had won. The question should be: What would the outcome have been of a Custer victory? How many innocent women and children would have died that day in taking the village? How would this have been recieved by not only critics within our own, but within the indian community at large? Would it have perpetuated a united indian civil war against our nation? We just don't know the conditions that such a victory may have set in motion. And I for one don't believe for a moment that such a victory would have been as glorous as most believe that it would have been. The killing off of the buffalo could have been disastrous to this outcome. For the only way for the indians to have survived would have been to take what they could from any white man after the battle(s). And the killing would have likely been furious beyond anything the plains indians ever had done before.
Some may not like it that Custer disobeyed orders. Think not that a Custer victory would have yielded the desired results. For it is more than likely that seeing the slaughter of innocents may have spurred the warriors to fight to the death. And none dare call that a massacre in the event of a Custer victory, right? In this event Custer would have been seen more a butcher than a hero. And the aura surrounding the LBH battlefield today would be much different in nature.
Some try to see the positives from a Custer victory. What the fail to see is the negatives. The same is true of his defeat. They try to see the positives of his defeat. What they fail to see are the negatives. And it isn't so much that they can't see them. It's more that they don't want to see them. A massacre is still a massacre no matter which side won. And when Custer turned the corner and followed that trail, only a massacre would have happened... one way or the other. Custer was bent upon a fight. There was not one sign that he intended to talk to them. Not one. Sadly for him, it perhaps was his only chance at victory. And one that, sadly, he didn't consider.
|
Edited by - Benteen on March 07 2006 9:48:04 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 07 2006 : 11:16:59 PM
|
It was to all intents and purposes to prevent their escape in that direction. And that intent is clearly seen in Terry's instructions to Custer. It served a double purpose, not only to intercept if the indians were found to be fleeing, but to move in such a way as to give time for Gibbon's column to move into postion. Gibbon..."I saw Custer depart on the 22nd with his fine regiment fully impressed with the conviction that our chief aim should be to so move that whaever force might be on the Little Big Horn should not escape us *** And it was fully understood beweeen us that to give my troops time to get up, and to guard against escape of the Indians to the South, he should keep constantly feeling to his left."
Benteen I think you give Terry to much credit for knowing the true layout of the land. As Vern Humphrey pointed out earlier and DC made me aware of the location of the headwaters. The headwaters of the Tongue are in Wyoming in the Bighorn mountains. There is no way Custer can go to the headwaters of the Tongue then turn towards the Little Horn and arrive on the 26th. Terry also states that Gibbons column will "move up at least as the forks of the Big and and Little Horn." If the village had been there Gibbons would arrive first. Custer would still be traveling from the headwaters of the Tongue if he followed the orders as written. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on March 08 2006 12:40:03 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2006 : 12:38:13 AM
|
Terry needed to know from Custer whether or not the indians had moved. Or whether or not Custer had located the indians in a different place than the trail Reno had found indicated. Since Reno only knew a direction Terry could not have known a exact location. As Wild pointed out the LBH valley is 60 miles long. Terry states the Little Horn and he was correct but its length made it a general area rather than an exact location. If you move the village along that length one column or the other could arrive at least two days earlier than the other. Terry's dispatch to Sheridan on June 21st confirms he didn't know the location of the village. "I only hope that one of the columns finds the Indians."
Custer wasn't sent to attack the indians... there was not one word mention of Custer attacking anything in Terry's instructions. He was merely sent to find them... IF they were anywhere near his well directed path, then Terry wanted to know. It would also have been valuable information to Terry to know if Custer's column had found nothing. That would only confirm Terry's understanding of where the Indians were. And in all likelihood he may have hastened Gibbon's column to meet at the desired time. There is nothing in the order that states either column would attack nor is there any order not to attack without permission of Terry.
) When Custer began his forced march to the LBH he didn't have any new information concerning the indians. There was nothing in Terry's instructions that permitted Custer to depart from the orders given him... AT THAT TIME. Some use the phrase, "when nearly in contact with the enemy" to defend Custer's actions. Custer's column was not "nearly in contact". And in fact the nearest village was well over 40 miles away! Only when he found their fresh mile wide trail was he compelled to turn off trail and from then on his force would not then nor ever be "within cooperating distance" of Terry and Gibbon's forces. A fact that he had to have known. This brought his column into position on the night of 24 within close proximity of the Indian village. A position he should have occupied on the morning of the 26th, and at least 24 hours before Gibbon could possibly be expected to be in place! According to Terry's plan Custer had no business being there AT THAT TIME! And had he not flagrantly disobeyed the plain language and perfectly understood purpose and spirit of his orders... he would not have been there! And for any other arguments concerning this aspect. I say... He was not in the place his orders directed him to be.Custer was exactly where he was to be on the 24th up to midnight on the Rosebud. He was following Terry's plan to letter on the 24th. He doesn't deviate from Terry's plan until the 25th early in the morning. By the night of the 24th they had traveled 73-76 miles in 2 1/2 days which is real close to 30 miles per day. (12 miles on the 22nd, 33 miles on 23rd, 28 miles on the 24th, Custer's Horse pages 48&50) The camp was on the Rosebud where it should be.
3) Was there "sufficient reason" for departing from Terry's orders? Let me ask that a little differently. What new conditions existed that gave Custer the authority to depart from those orders? Was anything essentially different than what Terry had expected when he issued those orders? There is not one thing, as anticipated by Terry, different when Custer departed from them. Not one! Nothing different was found, was there? Nothing was in any way different from the conditions found by Custer up to that point when the direction taken by the Indian trail was definitely ascertained.... Just as Terry said and knew that it would,..." almost certain it would be found."... And that the trail indeed would turn towards the LBH, just as Terry said it would. Nothing is new here, is there? There was nothing there that warranted any deviation from the order. Not one thing.
Custer had found exactly what Terry said he would. And there was and should have been no doubt about what Terry intended for him to do, was there? And there should have been and wasn't no discretion to do otherwise than as ordered, was there? Which was to..."still proceed southward, perhaps as far as the headwaters of the Tongue..." The order only allows for one person to see sufficient reason "you" referring to Custer. It was not up for a vote or to be second guessed it doesn't say that a reasonable person would find sufficient reason or any other wording. Custer was the only one that needed to see sufficient reason. Apparently Custer saw sufficient reason. Maybe the new trails he saw were sufficient for him. It doesn't matter because it was his choice alone to make. Terry certainly knew Custer and choose to give him the latitude to deviate if he saw sufficient reason. Again did Terry want Custer going in to Wyoming to the headwaters of the Tongue?
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on March 08 2006 12:43:37 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2006 : 10:03:42 AM
|
It was to all intents and purposes to prevent their escape in that direction. And that intent is clearly seen in Terry's instructions to Custer. It served a double purpose, not only to intercept if the indians were found to be fleeing, but to move in such a way as to give time for Gibbon's column to move into postion. Gibbon..."I saw Custer depart on the 22nd with his fine regiment fully impressed with the conviction that our chief aim should be to so move that whaever force might be on the Little Big Horn should not escape us *** And it was fully understood beweeen us that to give my troops time to get up, and to guard against escape of the Indians to the South, he should keep constantly feeling to his left."
Benteen I think you give Terry to much credit for knowing the true layout of the land. As Vern Humphrey pointed out earlier and DC made me aware of the location of the headwaters. The headwaters of the Tongue are in Wyoming in the Bighorn mountains. There is no way Custer can go to the headwaters of the Tongue then turn towards the Little Horn and arrive on the 26th. Terry also states that Gibbons column will "move up at least as the forks of the Big and and Little Horn." If the village had been there Gibbons would arrive first. Custer would still be traveling from the headwaters of the Tongue if he followed the orders as written.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First ~ Okay you seem to think that they were in no mans land. Land that only the Lakota and Cheyenne knew. Wrong! Think again! Where was Fort Benton? Where did the Bozeman Trail go? The place along the LBH where the indians were encamped was part of the Bozeman Trail! Custer had been to this area previously, 1873 if If remember correctly. Anyone remember Pompeys Pillar? How far away from the LBH encampment was that? 20 to 25 miles? What about the names of places? Ever wonder about that? Yellowstone River? Powder River? LBH, BH ad infinitum. The troopers as well as officers themselves spoke of these places even before they arrived there. They most definitely knew where they were. And the most definitley knew more than you give them credit for. And... What they didn't know, Mitch Bouyer, Charlie Reynolds and the Crows would and indeed did fill in.
2nd... Everyone seems to look upon these orders in light of what happened. DONT! The plan was designed as Terry and Gibbon both stated, so that Custer should give time for Gibbon's column to move into position. Whether you, I or the moon thinks that that was wrong is irrelevant. What was relevant that it was a part of the plan that Terry's orders clearly indicate, Gibbon confirms, and something that no one can deny.
3) With all due respect to MR. Humphrey. Read those orders again. This time read them with the intent that was stongly implied and clearly stated. And... please do keep in mind the Gibbon moving into position time frame that Custer's orders was to consider during his march. The phrase where the headwaters of the Tongue in Custer's orders, Terry uses the word "perhaps". Again within the spirit of this letter of instruction Terry uses a word that most seem, thinks to confuse the issue. In fact the reverse is true. When one looks at that map and marks a trail from Custers start on the 21st on a line to the headwaters of the Tongue or should we say "perhaps" as far as the headwaters of the Tongue and then back the the LBH, dont think of this in terms of miles, but in terms of days. Custer's force could cover a distance, per day, anywhere from 25 to 35 miles. This unknown quantity of time, adjusted for the cavalry's speed of movement, was intended to use Custer's time diligently for thoroughly scouting the covered areas, and...AND!!! Giving the needed time for Gibbons column to advance and be in position so as to be "within cooperating distance" when the time came. Quite simply, Custer was to adjust his route according to this timeing. And "perhaps", just "perhaps" that distance and timing would put his as far as "the headwaters of the tongue.
Terry needed to know from Custer whether or not the indians had moved. Or whether or not Custer had located the indians in a different place than the trail Reno had found indicated.
Since Reno only knew a direction Terry could not have known a exact location....
Okay lets suppose for a moment. That Bouyer and Reynolds and the Crows weren't along for the ride. What then? Don't you think that the maximum use of these assets was in the best interest of the expedition. It's a no brainer isn't it. Did they know where the hostiles were encamped? They took Custer to them in less than 24 hours didn't they. And in less than 24 hours Custer and his entire battalion was wiped out to a man! Stop, think and reason. It isn't difficult to see that Terry knew with reasonable assurance where the hostiles were.
Custer wasn't sent to attack the indians... there was not one word mention of Custer attacking anything in Terry's instructions. He was merely sent to find them... IF they were anywhere near his well directed path, then Terry wanted to know. It would also have been valuable information to Terry to know if Custer's column had found nothing. That would only confirm Terry's understanding of where the Indians were. And in all likelihood he may have hastened Gibbon's column to meet at the desired time. There is nothing in the order that states either column would attack nor is there any order not to attack without permission of Terry.
1) When Custer began his forced march to the LBH he didn't have any new information concerning the indians. There was nothing in Terry's instructions that permitted Custer to depart from the orders given him... AT THAT TIME. Some use the phrase, "when nearly in contact with the enemy" to defend Custer's actions. Custer's column was not "nearly in contact". And in fact the nearest village was well over 40 miles away! Only when he found their fresh mile wide trail was he compelled to turn off trail and from then on his force would not then nor ever be "within cooperating distance" of Terry and Gibbon's forces. A fact that he had to have known. This brought his column into position on the night of 24 within close proximity of the Indian village. A position he should have occupied on the morning of the 26th, and at least 24 hours before Gibbon could possibly be expected to be in place! According to Terry's plan Custer had no business being there AT THAT TIME! And had he not flagrantly disobeyed the plain language and perfectly understood purpose and spirit of his orders... he would not have been there! And for any other arguments concerning this aspect. I say... He was not in the place his orders directed him to be.
Custer was exactly where he was to be on the 24th up to midnight on the Rosebud. He was following Terry's plan to letter on the 24th. He doesn't deviate from Terry's plan until the 25th early in the morning. By the night of the 24th they had traveled 73-76 miles in 2 1/2 days which is real close to 30 miles per day. (12 miles on the 22nd, 33 miles on 23rd, 28 miles on the 24th, Custer's Horse pages 48&50) The camp was on the Rosebud where it should be.
Please complete your itinerary.... "This brought his column into position on the *night of 24 within close proximity of the Indian village. A position he should have occupied on the morning of the 26th, and at least 24 hours before Gibbon could possibly be expected to be in place! According to Terry's plan Custer had no business being there AT THAT TIME! (*night of the 24th-25th... after his forced night march... if you want to get technical about it!)
3) Was there "sufficient reason" for departing from Terry's orders? Let me ask that a little differently. What new conditions existed that gave Custer the authority to depart from those orders? Was anything essentially different than what Terry had expected when he issued those orders? There is not one thing, as anticipated by Terry, different when Custer departed from them. Not one! Nothing different was found, was there? Nothing was in any way different from the conditions found by Custer up to that point when the direction taken by the Indian trail was definitely ascertained.... Just as Terry said and knew that it would,..." almost certain it would be found."... And that the trail indeed would turn towards the LBH, just as Terry said it would. Nothing is new here, is there? There was nothing there that warranted any deviation from the order. Not one thing.
Custer had found exactly what Terry said he would. And there was and should have been no doubt about what Terry intended for him to do, was there? And there should have been and wasn't no discretion to do otherwise than as ordered, was there? Which was to..."still proceed southward, perhaps as far as the headwaters of the Tongue..."
The order only allows for one person to see sufficient reason "you" referring to Custer. It was not up for a vote or to be second guessed it doesn't say that a reasonable person would find sufficient reason or any other wording. Custer was the only one that needed to see sufficient reason. Apparently Custer saw sufficient reason. Maybe the new trails he saw were sufficient for him. It doesn't matter because it was his choice alone to make. Terry certainly knew Custer and choose to give him the latitude to deviate if he saw sufficient reason. Again did Terry want Custer going in to Wyoming to the headwaters of the Tongue?
The answer to your last question was and is an unqualified ~ yes! If that's what it took to coordinate his plan. And again, it doesn't matter what we think today of Terry's plan. That's the way it was. The clear intent is there. It's easy to see, and no there wasn't any room for deviation from that plan, not one thing. The only reason.... the only one would have been, should have been, as clearly indicated with those instructions was, if for some unforseeable reason Custer's column met up with some hostiles...(close proximity ~nearly in contact~, etal...) This was the one thing Terry couldn't forsee. And no, not one commander would want to hamstring his subordinate with orders that would impede his progress in such an eventuality. But that didn't give Custer the right to disregard those orders in the eventuality that he wouldn't be, and wasn't "nearly in contact" with the hostiles. The "nearly in contact" was what killed Custer's logic to any deviation at the time that he chose to do it. He wasn't "nearly in contact". In fact he was 40 miles from being "nearly in contact"!!! |
Edited by - Benteen on March 09 2006 10:12:10 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2006 : 8:59:56 PM
|
| First ~ Okay you seem to think that they were in no mans land. Land that only the Lakota and Cheyenne knew. Wrong! Think again! Where was Fort Benton? Where did the Bozeman Trail go? The place along the LBH where the indians were encamped was part of the Bozeman Trail! Custer had been to this area previously, 1873 if If remember correctly. Anyone remember Pompeys Pillar? How far away from the LBH encampment was that? 20 to 25 miles? What about the names of places? Ever wonder about that? Yellowstone River? Powder River? LBH, BH ad infinitum. The troopers as well as officers themselves spoke of these places even before they arrived there. They most definitely knew where they were. And the most definitley knew more than you give them credit for. And... What they didn't know, Mitch Bouyer, Charlie Reynolds and the Crows would and indeed did fill in.It was no white man's land due to the 1868 treaty closing forts and the Bozeman trail. In 1869 the railroad replaced the need for the trail at any rate. Fort Benton is on the Missouri River north and east of Great Falls a long ways from LBH. I am not sure of your point but either Terry didn't know where the headwaters of the Tongue river was located or he did and didn't want Custer involved on the 26th. The headwaters are still in Wyoming in the Bighorns mountains. These locations haven't changed. Looking at my maps it appears that there is another 20 miles of the Rosebud from Custer's camp on the 24th. Then if you head southwest and hit the Tongue river it would be a total of another 40 miles to the headwaters. At the headwaters of the Tongue near the current town of Burgess Junction,Wyoming head north and pick up the Little Bighorn it is 60 miles down stream to the village. That is a total of 120 miles. From the 24th of June how long would it take to travel this distance? Custer did the right thing because he was not only following the older trail but also the newer fresh ones. Terry's point in regards to Custer's travel was to not let the Indians escape. It is only what happened on the 25th where things went wrong. Your original point was that Custer was not where he was to be on the 24th. That is not correct. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on March 09 2006 10:07:16 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2006 : 10:34:10 PM
|
AZ stated--"Custer was exactly where he was to be on the 24th up to midnight on the Rosebud. He was following Terry's plan to letter on the 24th. He doesn't deviate from Terry's plan until the 25th early in the morning. By the night of the 24th they had traveled 73-76 miles in 2 1/2 days which is real close to 30 miles per day. (12 miles on the 22nd, 33 miles on 23rd, 28 miles on the 24th, Custer's Horse pages 48&50) The camp was on the Rosebud where it should be".
Benteen Stated--" Please complete your itinerary.... "This brought his column into position on the *night of 24 within close proximity of the Indian village. A position he should have occupied on the morning of the 26th, and at least 24 hours before Gibbon could possibly be expected to be in place! According to Terry's plan Custer had no business being there AT THAT TIME! (*night of the 24th-25th... after his forced night march... if you want to get technical about it!)"
AZ reply--The 7th went into camp on the evening of the 24th on the Rosebud and did not move on the 24th. It is up to you to show me that Custer traveled anymore than Terry instructed up to this point on the 24th. Your statement above " night of the 24th" is Custer had no business being there. If he follows Terry's orders to the letter he would not have ever been at the Crow's nest on the 26th, he would be traveling down the Little Bighorn after exploring the headwaters of the Tongue.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 07 2007 : 8:02:47 PM
|
quote:
Poor old Reno had to demand a court marshal.
Poor old Reno did not demand a Court Marshall, he asked for and received a Court of Inquiry. No soldier can demand a Court Marshall.
"A Court of Inquiry, unlike a Court Marshall, which tries only criminal charges, is a purely investigative body whose one and only function is to inquire into and report aspirations or other derogatory matter respecting a person in the military service, with a view to establishing facts."
Subsequently, a Court of Inquiry may only make recommendations regarding possible further actions. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 08 2007 : 3:56:53 PM
|
Ack ...!
It's a court martial! Not marshall or marshal or marshell or any other spelling! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 08 2007 : 8:42:29 PM
|
| Oops! Egad, alas, and alack. there is something very humorous about me trying to sound intelligent yet, making a snafu like the above. Movingrobe Woman, may I categorically state that I an "emulsified?" |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2007 : 08:57:26 AM
|
It's am not an. Fortunatley I do not fancy myself as a writer.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2007 : 08:59:34 AM
|
The Marshall brings the guy to court.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2007 : 8:27:04 PM
|
| Good one Az, my only excuse is that on the keyboard, the "N" is right next to the "M." I humbly rest my case. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2007 : 9:08:27 PM
|
I would hate to see my posts without spell check.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 10 2007 : 8:11:26 PM
|
| SEMPER FI! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Custer's Orders
