| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - July 08 2005 : 11:31:44 PM
|
In this particular set of circumstances, the "Last Stand" was neither a proactive act nor was it an act of desperation, so I believe. It was merely a myth. A salve to ease the pain of an indignant, American public forced to face the harsh reality that the "elite" 7th. Calvary was defeated by a bunch of wild, unorganized, heathens. Thus, was a myth born! Out numbered by thousands, and thousands of screaming savages, Custer's only recourse was to gather the few remaining heroes to his side and, with his blond hair flowing in the wind, ultimately fall to his knees in defeat but, only after witnessing the death of the last trooper to fall before him. In summation, he would have won if there had not been to many Indians, had he not been betrayed by his own scouts, and had White men(renegades)not assisted the warriors in their victory. That philosophy is over a hundred and twenty-five years old. What is the reality we seek?.
Did a group of soldiers expire on a knoll after being punctured by a hail of arrows falling from the sky? Yes! Did these men fall where they did because it was physically impossible to move to another geographical location; Yes. Was this knoll, at the terminus of Custer ridge the final resting place for this unfortunate body of troopers;Yes!
So there was a "Last Stand", there was not a "Last Stand." To my good friend Lorenzo, who may review this thread as a condemnation of a heroic man whom we both respect, I say this. History repeatedly records tales of men who have stood out beyond the norm, men of action who possess a unique ability to lead other men in an arena we all detest, but somehow seems to be essential, war. I thank God that their are leaders today and yesterday who are capable of such ability. Custer was such a man.
The evidence for the "Last Stand" is there, it is not there. It depends upon your reality. |
  |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 09 2005 : 02:29:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
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.
In certain cases, the markers are obviously not accurate. Several members of of the Seventh died at the top of the hill, rather than on the west hillside as now depicted. Bos and Harry were found more on the way to Deep Ravine than close to their respective relatives. But supposedly, the markers on LSH reflect the pattern of bodies--and as Richard Fox likes to insist, in studying this battle, one is often stuck looking at patterns. And the pattern seems to be a clump of men around the top of that hill. And yes, DC, I am familiar with the marker mess-ups. I even have been able to visit the battlefield ... and gosh, I even took pictures.
When it comes to the death of certain Custers, the conjecture CAN be interesting with all kinds of creative results. But when one insists on judging the Indians as simply barbaric torturers and Anglos as civilised and clean beyond dispute in this battle, well, frankly it makes me ill. Why is there this insistence on a black and white reading of a very tinged with grey situation? Unfortunately, bad stuff happened that day, very brutal stuff, indeed (I'll be the first to admit). But it--what happened then--serves no basis for creating some darn personal theory of modern day politics! That is where some Custerphiles have missed the ferry boat of reality.
Okay. Rant over. |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on July 09 2005 02:32:00 AM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 09 2005 : 02:37:27 AM
|
Joe--
I enjoyed your image of Custer's "blond hair flowing in the wind," but I'm purty sure that at that point in his life, a little--okay, well, a lot--Rogaine would have helped! Or maybe the follicles were too far lost ... hehehe.
And don't forget that sabre in his hands as he defended himself ... hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
survivor
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 09 2005 : 08:52:25 AM
|
| newcomer, first post. Be cautious on determining flow of events on Custer field based on placement of markers. There are at least 50 markers that do not belong. These were added in the 30's, I think, to provide for the troopers that died with Reno and Benteen. Also, some have been moved, I suppose to accomodate the alterations made to the field,{I wouldn't call them improvements}, or to satisfy the whims of whoever happens to be in charge. From my first visit, 1968, to my second, 1970, the markers for Mark Kellogg and Autie Reed were relocated. For serious students, I recommend a couple of maps. One, County surveyor's map of Bighorn County. This was available through that office in Hardin in 1970, and covers the battlefield in good detail. Secondly, the United States Geological Survey map of the battlefield, drawn about 1896. During the original burials in '76 a wooden stake was driven into the ground at the site of each burial. During the reburial in '77 the wood stakes were replaced with iron. The USGS map precisely located each iron stake. During the years on my intense interest in this fight, 66-75, I came to the conclusion that the stories regarding Lame White Man, and the charge he led, were true. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 09 2005 : 1:55:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by survivor
newcomer, first post. Be cautious on determining flow of events on Custer field based on placement of markers. There are at least 50 markers that do not belong. These were added in the 30's, I think, to provide for the troopers that died with Reno and Benteen. Also, some have been moved, I suppose to accomodate the alterations made to the field,{I wouldn't call them improvements}, or to satisfy the whims of whoever happens to be in charge. From my first visit, 1968, to my second, 1970, the markers for Mark Kellogg and Autie Reed were relocated. For serious students, I recommend a couple of maps. One, County surveyor's map of Bighorn County. This was available through that office in Hardin in 1970, and covers the battlefield in good detail. Secondly, the United States Geological Survey map of the battlefield, drawn about 1896. During the original burials in '76 a wooden stake was driven into the ground at the site of each burial. During the reburial in '77 the wood stakes were replaced with iron. The USGS map precisely located each iron stake. During the years on my intense interest in this fight, 66-75, I came to the conclusion that the stories regarding Lame White Man, and the charge he led, were true.
Survivor--
Welcome to the board--I'll be the first to admit LBH for me is not the end all when it comes to my reseach about Custer. My specialty is 1866-72. But as I said in an earlier post, I am aware of the myraid of problems when it comes to the markers on the battlefield. And yes, I do seem to recall that the initial burials had been marked since 1876.
On your second topic, it took reading Michno to really understand the importance of Lame White Man. At the same time, my opines about Gall and Crazy Horse have lessened.
Ya'ta'he'ey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 09 2005 : 3:18:57 PM
|
Mr. Wiggs--
From my seat, you have a good 'read' on what may or may not have happened on LSH. Your 'middle road' position is the safest and the soundest extrapolation of the millions of words in print about the crux of this battle; it's the truest position. Everything else is entertainment.
Stories abound with the initial 'digging' of the graves, their markings, their changing positions, additions of new ones, etc. and we quote books and author's words and ideas established clear after the fact and bicker with each other to maintain a view we don't truly have an iota of evidence about.
The point is, although the world will never know the exact spot a soldier died, the fact remains that there was, indeed, a battle fought there on that hill and, as you astutely stated, the story of those moments lives on in each of our minds 'depending on our reality' and the way we want it to have played out. Some 'minds' don't see Custer there but dying elsewhere, some see him shot first, some minds can see him crying out "Tom" while others see him going down last.
Thanks for your 'reality', Sir.
|
|
|
|
survivor
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 09 2005 : 4:34:32 PM
|
| MRW: 66-75 meant 1966-1975, my period of intense interest. It is impossible to study LBH without being drawn into earlier years and events, and the impact these had on the fight. IE, if Custer had not answered his summons to testify before the impeachment committee, and had led the Dakota column as originally intended, what would have been the outcome? From the first day out Custer and Terry had a serious disagreement on how the column should proceed. C wanted to cut straight to the Rosebud, certain no Indians would be found East of there. Terry wanted to investigate every watercourse to assure no Indians escaped envelopment. The disagreement was serious enough that for a time Terry had to keep C on a short and tight leash. Even the Rain in the Face affair ought to be studied. Gall's participation, I feel, is over-rated, mainly because he was more than willing to discuss his heroics with white correspondents. History belongs not only to the victors, but also to the survivors. I'd like to have heard what Lame White Man might have had to say. Maybe his known words say it all. "Come, my brothers. We can kill them all." My opinion is that the participation of Crazy Horse came late, but was devastating. Political intriques existed among the Sioux no less than among the whites, and while I believe CH more practical than political,he was at loggerheads with Sitting Bull. CH wanted to break up the camp, which secure commissary required. He believed the fight on the Rosebud satisfied Bull's prophecy. CH was not alone in this desire. Some Indians who participated in the Crook fight had returned to the reservations before the LBH. Others wanted to leave but were kept in camp by SB's "soldiers". This was a time when the bands should have been buffalo hunting, securing stores for the future. CH, {again, my opinion,} spent the early part of the fight in his tipi because his personal signs were not good. This would have brought him no calumny from the Indians, who had absolute respect for the personal "medicine" of others. When he decided to fight he rode through the Ogala and Cheyenne camps, others joining him, galloped below the battlefield, crossed the river, circled around and attacked the 7th from the Northeast at approx. the same time Lame White Man Charged. For those on LSH there were too many emergencies to be dealt with at the same time. The appearance of CH did not allow a counter move against LWM, and the latter's charge did not allow a consolidation against CH. Was the last stand heroic? I don't know, but to me heroism implies the presence of choices. On LSH there were no choices, only inevitabilities. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 09 2005 : 10:46:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
Mr. Wiggs--
From my seat, you have a good 'read' on what may or may not have happened on LSH. Your 'middle road' position is the safest and the soundest extrapolation of the millions of words in print about the crux of this battle; it's the truest position. Everything else is entertainment.
Some 'minds' don't see Custer there but dying elsewhere, some see him shot first, some minds can see him crying out "Tom" while others see him going down last.
Thanks for your 'reality', Sir.
Mucho Gusto En Verle, y egualmente, mi Amigo. Me gusta Tu.
You have so eloquently reduced my often convoluted and, always excessive verbiage to a critical essence that is, to me, vital. The battle was fought, each interpretation of how the battle unfolded is encompassed in the "Mind" of the reviewer. All is reality, all is fantasy. Or, as you say, entertainment. Oh my friend, forgive me for my unsubstantiated conjecture when I exclaim that the reality of Custer's last utterance may be surmised. I do not know the how or the why, and some will ridicule my conclusion as the meanderings of a foolish man, but the possibility of his cry for his brother is possible. It is such a human lament. I think he fell before the end and did cry out to his brother who may have fell close to him. Such a painful utterance would have, I hope, include a farewell to all the men who lost their lives on that particular day.
Evidence I have none, speculation, plenty. Let the whole world laugh at those who's minds could engender such a scenario, its O.K. with me. Thanks again for your always insightful and informative posts and, my inexcusable usage of high school Spanish. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on July 09 2005 10:51:10 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 10 2005 : 01:31:10 AM
|
Joe--mi amigo--
You are touching me with your Romantic take of Custer's Last Words. But I have to admit that he couldn't have said very much as he puked up blood from his injured aeorta. This is all conjecture, but I tend to believe Boston might have been there in those last moments of the Boy General. Tom, at least early in the process (i.e., Kanipe), assumed his elder brother's needs--I can't help but think that continued ... that is, if he (TWC) was still alive. Tom might have been too needed. Boston, as a civilian forager, had no official role, no duty to leadership ... his only 'duty' might have been to comfort his older brother, Armstrong.
hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on July 10 2005 01:33:05 AM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 10 2005 : 01:44:32 AM
|
Warlord--
Fortunately, my Outback (which I have paid for myself) motor can whisper, even going 110 miles an hour on I-90 from Billings. Lucky for you, I don't need GPS--I inherited something from my great-great-grandfather, who served not only as a translator to the Sioux (before he was transferred to Bosque Redondo by the Feds), but a scout. However, spouse warns me that "Old Crow" would prove a better option (This Injun prefers Savignon Blanc)! And be certain NOT to touch anything in the casino's restrooms. I don't care if you do have to saberize all 50,000 Indians in that village--those bathrooms are disgusting. It stinks to see pre-teen NA kids sitting on the restroom floor, waiting for their relative to claim them.
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
7th Trumpeter
Recruit
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2005 : 01:35:00 AM
|
| Question: Do you believe Custer and his men shot their own horses to provide protection, or do you think that the reported dead horses around LSH were just the normal combatant KIA? Personally, I would want to keep my mount ( ie: escape route ) alive and with me as long as possible. I know that there were the troopers that would hold 3 other horses so their riders could fire, but by the time of LSH, I believe every trooper was a self proclaiming King Richard the Lion Hearted,"A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" You would think you would roll the dice, mount up and ride like a bat out of hades, rather than place a .45 slug between ole Dobins' eyes! To me, I would have just sealed my doom shooting my mount. What are your views? I may be totally in the dark on this, but am more than willing to accept your light on the subject of trooper mounts on LSH. |
"God, please bless our Troops and may we learn from history so we don't repeat it." |
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2005 : 12:29:51 PM
|
| When is that time machine going to be invented? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 22 2005 : 10:40:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7th Trumpeter
Question: Do you believe Custer and his men shot their own horses to provide protection, or do you think that the reported dead horses around LSH were just the normal combatant KIA? Personally, I would want to keep my mount ( ie: escape route )
There is a great deal about this battle that we don't know. One of the few factors that may be unanimously agreed upon is that the troopers did shoot their horses to provide protection. How, you may ask, can we know this to be true? Let us examine alternatives that are reasonable. Would a Cavalryman destroy his only means of escape unless he truly believed that escape was impossible? I think not. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 22 2005 : 11:58:25 PM
|
Would a cavalryman on LSH have much to say about it? Is it beyond reason that the largest targets on an unprotected hill receiving hostile fire in a surround would receive much fire and fall? Commanche was supposedly shot a bunch of times by hostile fire.
At least one of the stories is that Vic fell as if running, and he was not at the top where allegedly Custer was found, although there's the problem with the body ID the next year that casts doubt on all of it. You'd think, if we're believing the Indian "testimony" where they notice soldiers shot themselves/each other that there would be lots of tales about shooting horses. Are there any? And if so, when did this tale emerge? After the heroic Last Stand had been cemented into place, no doubt. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 24 2005 : 10:11:25 PM
|
It is certainly possible that the mounts were felled by hostile fire. However, if I'm correct, the mounts may have fallen in a "pattern" that would indicate purpose rather than random selection procured by hostile firing. The evidence is rather confusing. Sergeant Kanipe said that he viewed horses "scattered all over the hill."
Lieutenant Wallace knew of references about a "breastwork", but did not see any evidence of it. On the other hand, Lt. DeRudio described five or six horses at "the very top laying as if to suggest a barricade." McClernand spoke of horse remains at the apex in a "30-foot diameter circle evidently used as breast works."
Fox opines that horse and human corpses at the apex of LSH and, just below, indicate attempts to cover "threats from several directions."
Ironically, there is ample evidence to support both positions. I'm inclined to go along with the theory that efforts by Custer, at the last moments, were to order the shooting of the horses to form breastworks. I believe he witnessed the collapse of Calhoun's skirmish line and, the subsequent mob retreat towards LSH. If so, the now abrupt and, total surround of his forces may have instilled in him a need for desperate actions. We will never know. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 24 2005 10:16:03 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 25 2005 : 12:15:09 PM
|
So, we have Indian stories that are quite detailed in some regards, setting aside all else, but nothing about the soldiers shooting their mounts? Nothing whatsoever? That strikes nobody as odd?
There is a tale Gall told of a group of soldiers all going down in a bunch from an Indian volley. Isn't that possibly what happened to those of LSH?
All these conflicting stories: they strike me very much as what was standard practice in literature, press, and 'history' back then. You elevated any evidence or plausible circumstance into direct comparison to an accepted template. Nobody expected that their stories would be compared, line for line, and they got burned for it and felt bitter about it. Right through the Civil War, the most melodramatic garbage was passed off as fact because the public accepted it in that form. Sheridan's ride to Winchester, etc., in that poem. Made everybody feel better, no real harm done, but now........
And now, ask yourself. There is no photo or drawing, we're basing this on conflicting and not too detailed descriptions. If this group had their mounts shot from under them as they approached the hill's top, and they engaged in a horrific few minutes of close combat and were killed, how would these bodies differ in description from Custer's supposed organized Last Stand? People saw what they were trained to see by the standards of the time.
You recall the old, old cliche of the editor breaking in a new reporter. The kid says a man was dead, shot, in the living room, with some blood on the floor. Under judicial questioning ("This blood, was it a lot? Did you look under the body? So there probably was a lot more under the body. Would you say, then, that he was lying in this blood? And with all the blood under the body you couldn't see, you could reasonably describe it as a pool of blood, couldn't you?")the editor gets the kid to write a florid interpretation suitable for the front page.
So, this clump of dead horses and men, would you say it formed any sort of pattern? Okay, maybe two or three separate patterns? And Custer was at the top? Well, his body fell down the slope, but he was there at the top it sounds like...... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 25 2005 : 2:48:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
All these conflicting stories: they strike me very much as what was standard practice in literature, press, and 'history' back then. You elevated any evidence or plausible circumstance into direct comparison to an accepted template. Nobody expected that their stories would be compared, line for line, and they got burned for it and felt bitter about it. Right through the Civil War, the most melodramatic garbage was passed off as fact because the public accepted it in that form. Sheridan's ride to Winchester, etc., in that poem. Made everybody feel better, no real harm done, but now........
You make an interesting point. I recently received some interesting information, offered by Billy Markland, regarding a news paper article from an "eye" witness. The paper was the Brooklyn Eagle dated July 13, 1876. The witness is Billy Cross, a scout and interpretor at the battle. His comments were contradictory, contained numerous mis-identification of soldiers killed, and was, generally, so confusing that I barely recognized it as an account of the battle.
Is it any wonder that, today, we are enmeshed in an up hill struggle to ascertain any facts, when this mishmash of information was hawked as "truth" only several days after the battle. I guess that mis-information was more readily accepted by the folk of yesteryear who lacked our current, social sophistication and the media "blitz" of today. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 25 2005 2:56:16 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 25 2005 : 4:50:49 PM
|
| Survivors of Pickett's charge were often asked to describe the action.Most replied that they knew nothing of what was happening around them other than within the few yards of their immediate vicinity.Their world just shrunk to what was important to them.There was no detailed bird's eye view such as we have enjoyed from the banks of the LBH. |
Edited by - wILD I on September 25 2005 4:52:07 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 26 2005 : 1:18:21 PM
|
I'd think anything with a great deal of concordance to other offerings after a confused and lost battle is suspect. And I don't think people always or maybe ever want truth: they want to feel that it was worth it, that soldiers died bravely and at peace with their actions for which we are responsible. And that they don't blame us. We try to assure ourselves we have nothing to be guilty about, and a soldier dying bravely is a great source of comfort......to us.
But we owe them the dignity of truth. And momentary lapses need be forgiven and only viewed as part of a career. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 26 2005 : 9:03:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I'd think anything with a great deal of concordance to other offerings after a confused and lost battle is suspect. And I don't think people always or maybe ever want truth: they want to feel that it was worth it, that soldiers died bravely and at peace with their actions for which we are responsible. And that they don't blame us. We try to assure ourselves we have nothing to be guilty about, and a soldier dying bravely is a great source of comfort......to us.
But we owe them the dignity of truth. And momentary lapses need be forgiven and only viewed as part of a career.
Could you elaborate on the sentence in bold please. I'm not following you here.
BTW, what I PM'd you about was Custer's manner of death on the battle field. You in a previous post mentioned some Indian accounts and a 22 bullet.
I often speculate about Custer's manner of death. It's a sorce of mild curiosity for me that few accounts survive mentioning mutilation to his body. (Compared along side reports of horrendous mutilation occuring to his soldiers, combined with the frontier's common knowledge of captives undergoing extreme torture, I don't buy that anyone held anything back to make things easier for Libby.).
Custer's "clean" wounds, especially the temple shot, incline me to believe that he or one of his kin took his life. I've also read somewhere that the natives did not touch a suicide. What are your views? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 26 2005 : 9:23:17 PM
|
I asked you to email me, Terri. You didn't, so I posted my reply on whatever thread that was. Regardless, the references of concern to you would be Waterman. The .22 casings refer to the fact that casings have appeared on the field that have nothing to do with the battle, and therefore it's a safe bet that all or many of those Springfield and Colt casings are not part of the battle either. Basing anything on casings is dicey. This references past threads. I have no interest in mutilations and don't understand those who do.
Bob Palmer wrote a book based on his brother killing Custer. He only had, if we can believe it, two wounds. It is not always claimed it was a temple shot. Some say there was no powder burn, so no suicide, again if we can believe it. How in the world would some Indian, coming upon Custer, know he was a suicide? And why would Indians not mutilate him? The point of mutilation references, supposedly, their afterlife concerns.
As to your concern on the sentence in bold, I don't know how it could be clearer. We like to think soldiers died on our behalf bravely, therefore - we hope - willingly, and therefore agree with us, and we have nothing to be guilty about for sending him/her to their death. Contrary, of course, to reality often enough. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 27 2005 : 10:47:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I asked you to email me, Terri. You didn't, so I posted my reply on whatever thread that was.
As to your concern on the sentence in bold, I don't know how it could be clearer. We like to think soldiers died on our behalf bravely, therefore - we hope - willingly, and therefore agree with us, and we have nothing to be guilty about for sending him/her to their death. Contrary, of course, to reality often enough.
Thanks DC for responding. Yeah, its been busy for me and I didn't get 'round to sending you an email, but I did see your reply on another topic. Thanks.
As to soldiers and death on the battle field, that's as individual a response as the soldier himself -- between the individual and God as far as I'm concerned.
I sense you have more of a fatalistic view than I. But please don't lump me in a catagory of glassy-eyed romantics viewing Custer as the archtypal image of Errol Flynn, standing alone on a hill next to his guidon, curly locks flowing in the wind. I've lost family members in battle. Hurts. Regardless, I believe in Patton's quote, and I'm paraphrasing, "Your job isn't to die for your country. You're job is to make the other poor son-of-a-bitch die for his country." And in my opinion, I believe Patton had the right idea. Naw, make that a lot of right ideas. 
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2005 : 11:50:03 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
As to your concern on the sentence in bold, I don't know how it could be clearer. We like to think soldiers died on our behalf bravely, therefore - we hope - willingly, and therefore agree with us, and we have nothing to be guilty about for sending him/her to their death. Contrary, of course, to reality often enough.
I believe this post needs further clarification. Whom do you refer to when you say "we" having nothing to be guilty about when sending him/her to their death. While I can not speak for anyone else here, I can emphatically state that I have never sent anyone to his/her/their deaths.
Secondly, the last time I looked, it was the governments of Nations that sent men to war. Governments usually,not always, consist of politicians who seldom maintain guilt for sending men to war. I do not recall reading or hearing of Julius Caesar, George Washington, Hiller, Gen. MacArthur, and/or George Bush wallowing in grief because of the death of the men they sent off to die.
Once again, I will speak for no one else but, I like to "think" that soldiers die for a cause that they believe in, not on the behalf of individuals they know nothing of. Anyone can be forced to the battlefield. Once there, however, the willingness to fight (or not to fight) becomes extremely individualistic. Can you imagine,if your theory were credible,that brave soldiers who are currently falling in Iraq did so for individuals like Cindy Sheehan?
Men fight for a myriad of reasons; bravery, fear, self-preservation, personal beliefs, government brainwashing, stupidity, anger, love, etc., etc., etc. What the collective "we" like to "Think" is an impossible determination due to the extremely complex issues regarding the "why" men fight. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 01 2005 11:53:29 AM |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2005 : 5:53:21 PM
|
This was taken from the voices from the western frontier.
I dont know if any have read this,but here it is.
Fort Yates, North Dakota
Friday, August 9, 1929
New Angle On The Custer Massacre
The Lemmon Tribune is publishing a series of articles written by G. E. Lemmon. As Mr. Lemmon is well-known in the Standing Rock country, we are taking the liberty of reprinting extracts from these interesting articles.
In 1903 the Lemmon Cattle Company, known as the [undeciperable] 7, leased a large portion of the west side of the reservation, and for several years ran large herds of cattle thereon. Mr. Lemmon is 79 years old and has followed the cattle trails from the lone star state to the Dakotas. In his younger days he was one of the fastest and most daring riders of the plains.
Our readers have read much of what led up to General Geo. A. Custer's defeat. That he split up his command before attacking the Indian camp. Reno and Benteen were given orders to move to the upper end of the camp and attack while Custer struck at the lower end, etc.
We are quoting those portions of Mr. Lemmon's article that appear to throw new light on the much discussed Custer fight, as follows:
"Thus they divided with Reno and Benteen to Custer's left and nearer to the Indian village. It had been agreed that time should be given Custer to reach a [undecipherable] the lower [undecipherable] and simultaneously Benteen and Reno were to attack as soon as the river had been crossed and the terrain would permit, Custer had to travel approximately 8 miles to reach his point of attack. Taking his course to a more westerly direction Reno found that when he reached the ground sloping toward the stream, his command was exposed to the full view of the Indians. Thus instead of Benteen and Custer having had time to get into position and make the attack first, the Indians charged Reno with practically their full war force. This attack so completely demoralized Reno that with only a feeble resistance, he sought cover. About this stage of the fight an Indian courier arrived and announced to Chief Gall that another force of cavalry was making for the lower end of the village at a lively clip. As it was plain to Gall that Reno was badly demoralized and could easily be held with a part of his force, he dispatched Crazy Horse and Crow King with the main war force to intercept the threatening advance of what turned out to be Custer's immediate command. The distance from the besieged Reno to Custer at this time was approximately three to four miles. Since the Indians wished to make that distance under cover of the shelter of the meandering river, the distance would be somewhat farther and their progress slow, so Crazy Horse dispatched Whiteshield who was mounted, to intercept and harass Custer by popping up in pairs out of the gulches at five different places along the trail and fire at long range.
They repeated this performance about three times, completely deceiving Custer, who believed the gulches to be swarming with Indians, and momentarily stopped his march to investigate. This gave Crazy Horse ample time to form his ambush and when Whiteshield finally rode out into plain view of Custer together with his companions, mounted on identical horses they had seen pop out of the gulches along the trail. Custer seemed convinced that the ruse had been worked in order to give the families time to escape, for the lower end of the village was in plain view and it was hastily being torn down by the camp Indians.
It appears that Custer immediately moved forward at a swift pace and in a few moments was in the center of a complete ambush with bullets and arrows pouring in on them from three different points at close range and nothing in sight for Custer and his men to shoot at, so completely were the Indians concealed, and becoming more so every minute as the smoke from the discharge of their guns seemed to hover over in the gulch. On the other hand the smoke from the cavalry fire on the ridge rose and left them fully exposed to the murderous fire of the Indians.
[Undecipherable] his men were [undecipherable] effect coming from their fire, Custer called a retreat which he led and succeeded in extricating himself and more than half of his men. But when he discovered Keogh, Calhoun and Smith were cut off and surrounded, he would not abandon them, but charged to the northwest on the right hand side of the slope, swinging in enough to strike the center of their position and expecting to cut their way to them, as they closed in the shooting from their beseiged comrades ceased - they were all killed - and then Custer found that the Indians had closed in behind hm and he was completely surrounded and doomed. It was at this time he fired his distress signal and in less than 20 minutes afterward Custer and is entire command were dead.
There were many times the number of fighting Indians in that village, than Custer supposed were there. The full strength of the Indian man-power will probably never be known. I would not be surprised if 5,000 would be somewhere near the number, for they had been streaming out of all the agencies both east and west of the Missouri river for this camp for many weeks. Many educated young Indians were there in the fight and the full strength of the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arrapahoes and two other smaller affiliated tribes. While some were armed with bows and arrows, by far the greatest number were armed as Indians were never armed before. Even so, many soldiers were killed with arrows only and but little evidence of "tomahawk" and "warclub" which goes to show that there was little or no hand-to-hand fighting. No, the Indians were well concealed until practically all the troopers were killed and even then the main body of warriors did not tarry to "scalp" and loot the field, but went swiftly back to attack Reno and defend their families. What mutilation occurred was at the hands of the squaws. One of these, Mary Crawler, was said to be the only squaw participant armed. Much of this history I got from her, at her home in Bull Head, and she gave as her excuse for joining in the action the fact that a few years prior to the Custer battle, some soldiers had hung a brother of her father on Lance Creek in Wyoming. She said she would not have been so incensed and vindictive had they shot him, but since he was hanged his soul was so disgraced that it could not enter the "happy hunting ground," and she could not forgive them for it.
It was said that Sitting wanted Gall to attack Reno but Gall said no. He stated that he had gained enough glory with little loss and had shown the troopers that the Indians would fight to protect their families and their hunting grounds.
The facts here given have been secured from Indian participants from time to time and they all agree that it was Broked- Bloated-Jaw who fired the shot that killed Custer and not Rain-In-The-Face as is popularly supposed. Broked-Bloated-Jaw was an educated Indian east of the Missouri river.
How ridiculous to suppose that any part of the Custer movement was a surprise to the Indians. They may have been in the wrong in their surmise as to the intent of Custer at times, but his movements were an open book. They had scouts coming and going from all the agencies at all times and no doubt Indian spies had watched his march to the Little Big Horn from the beginning."
|
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
Captain Outwater
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2005 : 12:05:44 PM
|
Most historians do not deliberate try to imply something they do not want to state. So if you are reading into their statements that they imply cowardice, you are reading into it, not just reading it.
Most historians agree that the troopers were generally poorly trained. Many had never fired their weapons before.
Add to that the archeological evidence that there was a sudden collapse of the troopers and it points not to cowardice but a sudden change in the situation they were not ready to respond to- in most opinions, the build up of Indian repeating rifles within 200 or so yards that suddenly opened up and drove the troopers into a sudden collapse that never had a good chance to reform.
Custer's halting near Last Stand hill allowed the Indians to infiltrate within a range they should not have been allowed.
The best question of the battle is why did he stop there? Was he waiting for Benteen, or a scouting report, or was he scouting himself with some officers, or was he watching some Indian movement?
In any event, the archeological record shows that some men fought well, while most reacted to a sudden attack with panic like movement and little resistance. This is typical of green troops suddenly under heavy fire. It is a factor not of cowardice, but of training, experience and leadership. Apparently they lacked some of all of these factors.
your servant,
Glenn
quote:
Originally posted by aj
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
|
Your humble servant,
Captain John Outwater |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The new myth
