| Author |
 Topic  |
|
aj
Recruit
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
 Posted - July 05 2005 : 4:05:11 PM
|
We now all know that Custer and his men did not fight an heroic last stand as shown in 'They Died With Their Boots On'. But now that this has been discovered historians and acheologists it seems that, in my opinion, that they have gone beyond the truth.
It seems now that since MOST of the troopers did not make an heroic stand that they are cowards (not the words used by the acheologists and historians but they were hinting at it.
I just want to know your views on this.
P.S I apologise if my views offend anyone
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 05 2005 : 6:46:07 PM
|
aj,
Welcome.
In response to your post...I'm not a Custerphile, nor am I a Custerphobe, but I do not consider attacking and slaughtering women and children as a heroic venture. That's what Custer was expecting himself to do, just as he did at the Wa****a in Oklahoma. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to call anyone a coward. I'm sure there were many acts of great heroism on that battlefield, not to mention those confirmed among Reno's troop. There were also likely many suicides--"save the last bullet for yourself" mentality applying. Fact is, they were overwhelmed to rapidly and so completely, there wasn't a heck of a lot of time to do anything.
By the way, in what part of the UK are you? |
Bob Bostwick |
  |
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 5:16:07 PM
|
Heavyrunner, where do you get that Custer slaughtered women and children on the Wa****a? Benteen stopped troopers from shooting down women and children, and when it was called to Custer's attention this was happening, he put a stop to it. He did not himself or condone the slaughter of non-combatants. In fact, part of his reason for attacking at the LBH was to try to capture hostages to help end the battle. And as for the innocent women, seems like they're the ones depicted as finishing off wounded soldiers and doing a lot of the mutilation. Just my thoughts
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
aj,
Welcome.
In response to your post...I'm not a Custerphile, nor am I a Custerphobe, but I do not consider attacking and slaughtering women and children as a heroic venture. That's what Custer was expecting himself to do, just as he did at the Wa****a in Oklahoma. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to call anyone a coward. I'm sure there were many acts of great heroism on that battlefield, not to mention those confirmed among Reno's troop. There were also likely many suicides--"save the last bullet for yourself" mentality applying. Fact is, they were overwhelmed to rapidly and so completely, there wasn't a heck of a lot of time to do anything.
By the way, in what part of the UK are you?
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 5:56:54 PM
|
AJ, we don't know that. We don't know much. In order to justify alleged importance of shell casings that may or may not have been part of the battle, over detailed story lines (to compensate for actual evidence)have been presented or fabricated (although, they might be true). TDWTBO could be a documentary like presentation, for all we know.
Of the 108 Custer claimed killed (others say 103), eleven (11) were confirmed as warriors. The rest were women, children and old men. Page 187 SOTMS. All 52 of the prisoners were women and children. The Park Service just says many women and children were killed. Even with significant error, that's an unpleasant equation. Custer claimed all were men, at least at first, in his report. Custer did lie, sometimes.
But here we have a village smaller than the entire (less one company) 7th and the tally is pretty dismal. The village was surrounded, asleep, in freezing weather, with poorly nourished horses and people and the crack 7th Cavalry (with "sharpshooters!" Bow and scrape, ye mere mortals...) inflicts about 160 casualties (dead, wounded, captured) over a period of hours. But eight years later we're to believe they inflicted how many casualties on the Sioux? Was it 5k? 10k? This in high summer with well fed and watered ponies and warriors and outnumbered, attacking with warning from one general direction (the southeast)across a river.
No doubt, a criminal conspiracy. The Cheyenne lied about their dead, which were in the thousands.....
If the 7th was killing women and children and Benteen put a stop to it, what does that say about the 7th? If Custer "didn't know," where was he? Would soldiers dare do such things if they didn't have a pretty good idea of officer and peer approval? And if women and arguable children are shooting at you, why would you stop shooting back?
Another great mystery........... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 6:00:06 PM
|
Frank,
I think you can easily look it up. Both Black Kettle and his wife, for example....If I recall the number correctly, it was about 105 claimed killed by Custer...all but about 10 of them being non-combatants. I'm writing from memory, but the numbers were bizarre.
As for women on the battlefield afterward, that had a purpose in culture, did it not? At the same time, mutilating a dead body is a far cry from skewering a child with a saber--or blowing his/her head off. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 6:26:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
AJ, we don't know that. We don't know much. In order to justify alleged importance of shell casings that may or may not have been part of the battle, over detailed story lines (to compensate for actual evidence)have been presented or fabricated (although, they might be true). TDWTBO could be a documentary like presentation, for all we know.
Of the 108 Custer claimed killed (others say 103), eleven (11) were confirmed as warriors. The rest were women, children and old men. Page 187 SOTMS. All 52 of the prisoners were women and children. The Park Service just says many women and children were killed. Even with significant error, that's an unpleasant equation. Custer claimed all were men, at least at first, in his report. Custer did lie, sometimes.
But here we have a village smaller than the entire (less one company) 7th and the tally is pretty dismal. The village was surrounded, asleep, in freezing weather, with poorly nourished horses and people and the crack 7th Cavalry (with "sharpshooters!" Bow and scrape, ye mere mortals...) inflicts about 160 casualties (dead, wounded, captured) over a period of hours. But eight years later we're to believe they inflicted how many casualties on the Sioux? Was it 5k? 10k? This in high summer with well fed and watered ponies and warriors and outnumbered, attacking with warning from one general direction (the southeast)across a river.
No doubt, a criminal conspiracy. The Cheyenne lied about their dead, which were in the thousands.....
If the 7th was killing women and children and Benteen put a stop to it, what does that say about the 7th? If Custer "didn't know," where was he? Would soldiers dare do such things if they didn't have a pretty good idea of officer and peer approval? And if women and arguable children are shooting at you, why would you stop shooting back?
Another great mystery...........
True, DC--another mystery. The story I have always heard, mostly from Custer apologists, is that the Osage scouts were solely responsible for the deaths of the non-combatants, who were their peoples' "enemy." I believe I read that Benteen admitted that he was "forced" to kill a kid who threatened him ... I'll try to rattle my brain for the source--it might have been Wert.
My biggest beef with the entire operation was the killing of over 800 horses and ponies. Granted, in winter the forage situation is bad and that the Seventh themselves almost starved out there, but it seems such a waste. But that's war.
Hoka hey. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 6:33:10 PM
|
While we're on the subject of Black Kettle and the massacre...we might also remember that Black Kettle had just been given assurances that he would not be attacked, having just conferred with Gen. Hazen at Ft. Cobb.. He had also signed the Medicine Lodge Treaty and the Little Arkansas Treaty...
He was displaying the Stars and Stripes, along with a white flag, for Christ's sake. It was murder...far worse, by the way than dead horses... |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 7:27:43 PM
|
| It's one of the problems with thinking of NA's as whites, only red skinned. There was nothing approaching command structure. I believe that Custer followed the tracks of specific annoying Indians to Black Kettle's village. While the old guy himself may have been utterly as one with the white man's treaties, it's unlikely he had any idea what some of his young men had been doing or, for that matter, who was in his camp at a given time. People left, returned. Visited. Might be hunting. Might be something else. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 7:35:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
While we're on the subject of Black Kettle and the massacre...we might also remember that Black Kettle had just been given assurances that he would not be attacked, having just conferred with Gen. Hazen at Ft. Cobb.. He had also signed the Medicine Lodge Treaty and the Little Arkansas Treaty...
He was displaying the Stars and Stripes, along with a white flag, for Christ's sake. It was murder...far worse, by the way than dead horses...
Yeah, but "supposedly" within this camp, a camp that proudly flew the Stars and Stipes, Black Kettle was harbouring warring, youthful underlings and that made him, according to some philes, a perfectly proper target. I say this as a devil's advocate. In all honesty, I haven't figgured out what my position on the Was-hita is or how deeply Custer was involved in any possible civilian deaths of its inhabitants.
I'm sure it's about time for Alfuso to chime in.
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
alfuso
Corporal
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 12:29:35 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
While we're on the subject of Black Kettle and the massacre...
He was displaying the Stars and Stripes, along with a white flag, for Christ's sake. It was murder...far worse, by the way than dead horses...
The only flags flown at Wa$hita were the 7th's. You are confusing Sand Creek with Wa$hita.
Which seems to happen a lot.
alfuso |
Deny Everything
Prepare to Panic |
Edited by - alfuso on July 07 2005 12:30:56 AM |
|
|
|
aj
Recruit
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 04:51:02 AM
|
| I find it amazing how we can go off a topic about how Custer and his men didn't make an heroic last stand but at the same time were not cowards, to a taking about if he did or didn't slaughter women and children and then to a battle that happened 8 years before the Little Bighorn |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 09:59:37 AM
|
Bob posted:
"While we're on the subject of Black Kettle and the massacre...we might also remember that Black Kettle had just been given assurances that he would not be attacked, having just conferred with Gen. Hazen at Ft. Cobb.. He had also signed the Medicine Lodge Treaty and the Little Arkansas Treaty...
He was displaying the Stars and Stripes, along with a white flag, for Christ's sake. It was murder...far worse, by the way than dead horses..."
OK, Alfuso has pointed out that you had mistaken Sand Creek for Wa****a and I would like to point out that you are doing the same regarding the "attack-free zone" you attribute to Bvt. Gen. Hazen. Look over on the research page, my last post, and download the source documentation (partial) for Wa****a from the Sec. of War and go to near the end. You will find Gen. Hazen's report of his meeting with Black Kettle and Big Mouth there. Hazen did not promise them that they would not be attacked. He told them that they would have to make their peace with Gen. Sheridan as Hazen did not have the authority to make peace treaties. Which brings up a historical "what if" scenario but I will not digress.
Also, a report I transcribed yesterday as part of the Sec. of War's documentation states that while Black Kettle was camped on the Wa****a, three war parties left. Two were still out, one had returned, which is the one which Custer followed. Found in the village were letters carried by a courier from Ft. Dodge who had been killed and "horribly mutilated". Oh, by the way, the information about the number of war parties was obtained from Black Kettle's sister. As a matter of fact, two of those war parties-the two which had not returned-left while Black Kettle was meeting Hazen.
Simply put Bob, you are mistaken in your assertation 
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 10:03:56 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by aj
I find it amazing how we can go off a topic about how Custer and his men didn't make an heroic last stand but at the same time were not cowards, to a taking about if he did or didn't slaughter women and children and then to a battle that happened 8 years before the Little Bighorn
AJ--
Get used to it. Topics are always meandering about this place! 
hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 4:50:57 PM
|
Billy,
Yes, I agree that Hazen did not give pure assurances. Despite the facts that Black Kettle had signed treaties, Hazen would not permit the tribes to gain refuge at Ft. Cobb--telling them that only Sheridan could permit that--or Custer. So, seeking peace, he was slaughtered.
As for war parties, Custer didn't fight war parties. Instead, he attacked their children and grandmothers. I truly hope folks here can understand the difference.
Black Kettle was a peace chief, seeking it until the end. What happened at the Wa****a is almost a perfect parallel to Sand Creek--and I do know the differences, the biggest of which was that Custer rode for the War Dept., rather than a local band of cutthroats and thugs. The results were pretty much the same. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 5:53:48 PM
|
quote:
Yes, I agree that Hazen did not give pure assurances. Despite the facts that Black Kettle had signed treaties, Hazen would not permit the tribes to gain refuge at Ft. Cobb--telling them that only Sheridan could permit that--or Custer. So, seeking peace, he was slaughtered.
The only assurance that Hazen gave to him was that if Black Kettle made peace with Sheridan he would be welcomed to draw supplies from him. Custer was not mentioned. Hazen specifically said that Sheridan was the general in charge of the war. After reading your last, I went and reread Hazen's report. Have you read it yet? So, Black Kettle had signed treaties? Bob, you can't have it both ways guy. Whether personally for peace or not, he was in-charge of the village from which numerous war parties had committed depredations.
quote:
Black Kettle was a peace chief, seeking it until the end. What happened at the Wa****a is almost a perfect parallel to Sand Creek--and I do know the differences, the biggest of which was that Custer rode for the War Dept., rather than a local band of cutthroats and thugs. The results were pretty much the same.
Bob, I agree with you regarding Black Kettle's wanting peace. But, the very nature of the Indian "political" system was his downfall. He had personal influence, not power to enforce his will. Thus the war party of braves from his village and Arapahoes went on the raid around Fts. Dodge and Harker?, killed three men, one of whom was a courier and then came back leading GAC's scouts right to Black Kettle's village.
What gives with the odious comment about U.S. troops equalling "cutthroats and thugs?" For every wrong you can attribute to the Army, I can point out even more equally horrific things done by the Indians.
quote:
As for war parties, Custer didn't fight war parties. Instead, he attacked their children and grandmothers. I truly hope folks here can understand the difference.
Indians never thought twice about killing women or children. Would you care to read some reports of Kiowa and Comanche raids in Texas? Apache raids in Arizona, New Mexico? How about the German family? Perhaps a refresher of the raids by the Sioux and Cheyenne upon the Solomon river farms? Or, we can go back in history a bit and look at the Cheyenne's performance in 1864 on the Blue River in Kansas. And by the way, Custer did a credible job on the Yellowstone in 1873 fighting "war parties."
See Bob, the difference is that while we did not go into it looking to kill the women and children, a bullet once fired is blind. When you are shooting from a moving horse, your neck attempting to swivel in 360 degree movements, movement all around you of which many are enemy warriors, men shot at any movement not wearing blue. Face it, if in a charge in the middle of a village with all hell breaking lose, acting purely on instinct, I and likely every reader on this board would have done the same. Only if, and when, you had time for a rational moment would you likely distinguish between whether the movement was by a woman, kid, or a warrior.
Respectfully yours,
Billy |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 7:30:36 PM
|
Billy,
The "thugs and cutthroats" to which I referred were those of Chivington at Sand Creek--I thought that was clear enough. If you can write off the Wa****a so easily, you can do the same for Sand Creek, the Trail of Tears and Wounded Knee, I reckon.
Kiowa, Comanche and Apache raids in Texas and New Mexico have nothing to do with Black Kettle, nor Custer for that matter. Why do so many people, including scholars, so often put all Indians in the same box--same culture, language, ect., ect, ad infinitum--attacking Cheyennes atones for what Apaches did in New Mexico? Oh, brother.
The brutality of fighters, Indian or otherwise, gets no praise from me. You're right. I can't have it both ways--and neither can you. Indiscriminate slaughter of innocents cannot be justified or excused--by you or by me.
I do agree with you that Black Kettle's influence was not strong enough. I do not agree that in a brief fight, soldiers on horseback don't know who is on the business end of their saber, or in their cross hairs. They knew damn well who they were killing. Custer even bragged about it and, of course, left out the part that 90 per cent of the Indian casualties were non-combatants. Beyond that directed at Elliot's 18, history doesn't show much return fire from the Indians--and Elliot was a couple miles away.
I haven't read Hazen's report, only accounts of it. If he wrote in the style of Custer, well.....
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 9:16:15 PM
|
| Heavyrunner: I don't believe that you will find any testimony that Custer gave orders to kill women and children. Even Benteen didn't claim that.Of course it is bad that some were killed, but in a hot fight in a close space it was probably unavoidable. If 90% of the causalties were women and children and Custer took 62 women and children captive, just where were the warriors? Kind of like enemy claims that American bombs allways fall on schools and hospitals isn't it? |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 10:35:31 PM
|
All--
As much as DC seems to prefer all these arguments, the one thing I have learned from my Custeriana experience is that when we start comparing the barbaric natures of Anglo and Indian, everybody loses. Whilst I am proud that so many of us have strong opinions and are determined to stick with them, this stuff only hurts our relationships with each other. As I have said over and over again, both sides committed horrible acts--for every Sand Creek, there was a kidnapping and mutilation--one side was no more inherently evil than the other. Human nature, I suppose. I am still undecided when it comes to the Battle of the Was-hita ... so I am enjoying everyone's thoughts. But remember that these thoughts sometimes come with a heavy price. Okay, rant over ...
Now as for a 'heroic' last stand on Last Stand Hill, it was the simply the result of the situation. In other words, Custer faced a time when his offensive way of thinking fell out of the tubes. And as we know, cavalry was only good for attack. And defence was not in Custer's experience. Certainly Custer surrounded himself with his most devoted soldiers--and that esprit des corps carried the day--or doomed the day, if you like. He seemed to follow accepted the granted, faulty, military tactics of the day ... there was evidence of a last stand: the horse breastworks, etc., and the act of the horse holders releasing what the troops didn't use. Of course, this was not the way Custer wanted to end the battle. It EVOLVED whether they liked it or not ... and if we can accept the treatment of Tom Custer's body, there were a few who wouldn't go down without protest. Was this an act of bravery? Perhaps, but I see it as more an act demanded by the situation.
I am also one of those folks who do not believe that the 'last stand' occurred in Deep Ravine. I am becoming more and more convinced that the men lost there were attempting to report to their 'new' commanding officer, Reno. And darn if they didn't get caught.
Regards and welcome to this board, AJ--
|
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on July 07 2005 10:40:31 PM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - July 08 2005 : 08:18:58 AM
|
AJ, I'm not sure if I'm answering your question correctly, but undoubtedly (in my opinion) there was a last stand, or at least an attempted last stand.
I don't have much source material, but going by a National Geographic article on the archaeology of battlefield, the densest clustering of markers is on LSH itself. Whilest I don't think there is any reason to think that the markers accurately locate where a soldier fell (considering that the bodies were probably moved while the Indians were stripping them, and then were possibly moved again for burial), but I do think that they give us an overall picture of how the battle unfolded.
I guess it really depends on what your definition of a stand is. Indian testimony seems to indicate that the last stand took as long as a man takes to eat lunch or smoke a pipe - or some quote along those lines. Which might mean 5 minutes, 30 minutes or more . Whatever the time period was, it seems to me that the LSH marks the last coherent defence mounted by Custers men. The fighting almost certainly went on afterwards, but it was more probably of the nature of the Indians hunting down a few last stragglers.
I doubt whether the men on LSH were able to offer much resistance, one of the reasons I say that is, that is you were to a look at a map of the markers, you would see that there is a distinct line of markers joining Calhoun hill to LSH, where Keogh's men were harried by the Indians. I think that its likely that Custer's immediate companies were unable to fire volleys at the approaching Indians for fear of hitting the remnants of Keogh's and Calhoun's men as they escaped towards LSH. And then by the time Keogh's/Calhoun's men were clear, the Indians had already swirled around the hill. And by then it would have been too late to mount much of a defence.
The National Geographic shows a heavy concentration of Indian artifacts to the east of the hill, which possibly provides evidence that the Indians may have flanked them to the east at first, which could in turn explain why there may have been an attempt to flee the hill in the direction of Deep Ravine as resistance collapsed.
All of Custer's movements after the departure of John Martin are of course speculative, but it seems to me that Calhoun and probably Keogh were assigned some sort of rear guard action while the rest of the companies escaped. I think its most likely that Custer was waiting on the hill for Keogh and Calhoun to re-join him, but they were overwhelmed before they could do this. I don't think Custer's companies (F and E) were running, and then overhauled on LSH, or the pattern of markers would for be different. I think they would be far more dispersed, and scattering in different directions. I suspect that they were stopped, probably milling around as they anxiously waited for Keogh and Calhoun.
But whatever the truth is, or was, I wouldn't regard any soldier who stood and died around Custer and his officers to be a coward. |
Edited by - dave on July 08 2005 08:24:39 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 08 2005 : 11:45:04 AM
|
MRW,
What is the evidence FOR a Last Stand at all?
Because there were clumps of dead horses at the top of LSH, done deliberately? It's only assumed the soldiers shot them (not baseless), but for all we know Custer was leading a rush north and hit a wall of fire when he hit the top. The reality is, soldiers two days later had to explain what they saw under the best possible interpretation. Their instinctive (and only) source was literary, not forensic analysis. And there had been a recent actual Last Stand (Sedan) which, being French, brought up easily applied Song of Roland comparisons, and the press, not wanting to stretch its readers minds with new formats, climbed aboard.
What motivates people to worry this around, year after year, is far more interesting than whatever the truth about LBH is. The "truth" about Custer's last facial expression and direction of pistol fire - along with powder load and all that - push to shove, isn't all that important, is trivia, and you'd be hard pressed to compose a calm explanation of why it would be otherwise.
People here really ache to establish a personal connection to Custer, deny it, do it again, get annoyed that it's pointed out, and become wounded animals, striking out blindly. They have to be honest about their own motivations first and foremost. They're not, as a rule. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 08 2005 : 12:21:43 PM
|
Cloud--
As I stated in my post, there wasn't a get together where Custer tells Yates, "hey, we're fubar, so let's throw a last stand ..." The last stand was obviously a defensive move that didn't really work very well and from Michno, it doesn't seem overly planned. But there was some kind of battle up there on that hill. I think Dave's response offers a measured summary of the last stand evidence ...
As for your obsession with Custerfreakia, yeah, people can get really nuts if they think you're playing unfair with their sacred idea of the Magnificent and Beyond Perfect, Vallahala-bound Autie.
hoka hey |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - July 08 2005 : 1:34:59 PM
|
quote:
I guess it really depends on what your definition of a stand is. Indian testimony seems to indicate that the last stand took as long as a man takes to eat lunch or smoke a pipe - or some quote along those lines. Which might mean 5 minutes, 30 minutes or more . Whatever the time period was, it seems to me that the LSH marks the last coherent defence mounted by Custers men. The fighting almost certainly went on afterwards, but it was more probably of the nature of the Indians hunting down a few last stragglers.
This time has been accepted as about 20 minutes. But not all the action was directed LSH as I shall try to explain later.
quote:
I doubt whether the men on LSH were able to offer much resistance, one of the reasons I say that is, that is you were to a look at a map of the markers, you would see that there is a distinct line of markers joining Calhoun hill to LSH, where Keogh's men were harried by the Indians. I think that its likely that Custer's immediate companies were unable to fire volleys at the approaching Indians for fear of hitting the remnants of Keogh's and Calhoun's men as they escaped towards LSH. And then by the time Keogh's/Calhoun's men were clear, the Indians had already swirled around the hill. And by then it would have been too late to mount much of a defence.
Here, I feel, there is some truth to this, and would have to agree in principle. The movements here can best be analyzed in context with Fox's description of events. I realize that most think that his writing is nothing but smut - mumbo jumbo, but I think on this point his is the best plausible explanation. Why? Because most discount the Ford D evidence, and the attempted crossing by co's E and F there with Custer in the lead! His work along with Gray's timing makes for some intriguing insight, and does help to understand events both at The Flats and LSH.
It was claimed that after the failed ford D crossing that Custer and his men withdrew to The Flats and was there for some time. [And using Gray's timeline, this couldn't have been more than about 5 minutes or so.] Most of the action from Custer's men occured here, The Flats, as Fox describes. When you put Gray's timing to it, Custer and his men didn't reach LSH until the very last moments before it was overwhelmed. And there is some evidence, using Foxes work that one of the company's was sent on ahead to LSH before the others. The evidence seems to suggest when one uses Foxes work with Gray's timeline that the movement towards LSH didn't occur until the fall of Calhoun hill, or a happening that was almost simultaneous.
quote:
The National Geographic shows a heavy concentration of Indian artifacts to the east of the hill, which possibly provides evidence that the Indians may have flanked them to the east at first, which could in turn explain why there may have been an attempt to flee the hill in the direction of Deep Ravine as resistance collapsed.
This is most intriguing, as I hadn't heard this. If this was the case: Was this possibly where Crazy Horse charged? Through LSH, and not to the south as has been so asserted time and time again? In a way this seems to make some sense. If Crazy Horses supposed charge occured here, one could assume that Custer saw the need to defend LSH only after the fall of Calhoun hill, and the fact that he could see 80 or more followers of Crazy horse flanking the Keogh position to the eact and headed for Custer Hill. Again, this seems to make sense in light of the archaelogical evidence. And this would seem to make sense, especially if Custer then ordered one of his company's to occupy that position, as Fox asserts.
quote:
All of Custer's movements after the departure of John Martin are of course speculative, but it seems to me that Calhoun and probably Keogh were assigned some sort of rear guard action while the rest of the companies escaped. I think its most likely that Custer was waiting on the hill for Keogh and Calhoun to re-join him, but they were overwhelmed before they could do this. I don't think Custer's companies (F and E) were running, and then overhauled on LSH, or the pattern of markers would for be different. I think they would be far more dispersed, and scattering in different directions. I suspect that they were stopped, probably milling around as they anxiously waited for Keogh and Calhoun.
Once again, I agree with you in priciple. The Keogh and Calhoun sectors was being used as a rear guard action, but not as a means of escape ~ think offensive here not defensive, okay? This rear guard was so that Custer with E and F troops could cross ford D and capture the non-coms. We know it failed and from above what happened next.
quote:
But whatever the truth is, or was, I wouldn't regard any soldier who stood and died around Custer and his officers to be a coward.
To be quite frank, no one was a hero, not one of them, they didn't have time to be hero's or cowards, they were all victims. Victims in a tragedy that should have never been. Alot of people blame this one or that one, blame this action or that one. The harsh cruel reality is: That it was Custer's own misperceptions that caused this. Misperceptions from the first instance when he turned at the divide and followed the indian trail, and there is no denying that. This one act alone spelled their doom simply because the indians were going to fight that day, all 2500 of them, and he knew it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 08 2005 : 1:39:49 PM
|
| A Last Stand is a proactive act, although in obvious desperation. There is no evidence that those guys ended there by military intent, or intended a defensive battle at any point. Or knew what the hell was happening till the end. Certainly, there's some reasonable evidence for it, but it doesn't rise to the level required by the desire for it. Saying there was or was not a Last Stand cannot be based on evidence: there is none. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on July 08 2005 1:40:45 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - July 08 2005 : 2:01:50 PM
|
| I tend to agree in principle DC. I don't beleive that it was an intended position for a defense. But was as you say a proactive battlefield solution to events. And in light of Fox's work and Grays analysis, I don't think that a concerted effort to defend it was ever taken or for that matter possible. By the time that any of Custer's men reached it was under assault. And when you take into consideration that had Custer ordered a company to occupy that position ~ previous to the others following, that from beginning to end, any attempt to defend it was futile at best! This also explains why it happened so quickly. The piecemeal destruction of individual units, instead of the battalion as a whole. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 08 2005 : 4:17:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
A Last Stand is a proactive act, although in obvious desperation. There is no evidence that those guys ended there by military intent, or intended a defensive battle at any point. Or knew what the hell was happening till the end. Certainly, there's some reasonable evidence for it, but it doesn't rise to the level required by the desire for it. Saying there was or was not a Last Stand cannot be based on evidence: there is none.
Cloud, Captain Benteen:
Yep, it's all conjecture after MTC--or when Martini was sent away. Whatevers your pleasure. There was no grand plan for a heroic last stand, indeed. It was an evolution of events, not particularly logical, and hastily thrown together. Nothing more, nothing less. But one cannot argue with the placement of those dead about the grassy knoll, not unlike the clear line of markers in the Keough/Crazy Horse sector--something happened on that ridge to a gang of men, clustered together. Well, unless you believe that in some great conspiracy theory, the Indians moved the Seventh's bodies about in some crazy tribute to a fellow warriors' bravery. Or it was some nuts CYA on behalf of the fallen Boy General.
I think I recall that in "Lakota Noon," even the Indians present at the fight used the term "stand" to describe the soldiers' actions on LSH. Now whether they were modifying their testimony to say what Anglos wanted them to say, embracing the legend of the brave Autie for their own survival, is quite another matter.
Ya'ta'he'ey |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 08 2005 : 4:53:43 PM
|
But one can argue about the placement of the bodies. Not only because it's possible and likely some were dragged about by the warriors but because we know (per Larsen and, I think, Markland who mentioned that corrective photos exist) the markers were moved when the monument went up, including Custer's. Currently, the layout gives the impression that they made it or took cover only to the lip of the hill, and apparently they made it over.
And there were horses apparently killed heading uphill, one supposedly Custer's. I place no faith in these tales one way or the other, but there is at least as much evidence for these guys being blown apart without much of any organization as there is for the Last Stand scenarios.
And beyond a point, long ago passed, I don't understand the drive to pinpoint the precise cause, manner, and type of death for these guys, anyway. It's quite morbid for its own sake. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The new myth
