| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 10 2006 : 11:06:39 AM
|
Starting with this thread's title (Custer's received orders? the orders he gave?)the issues are discussed without nailing down the glossary of terminology. There are too many assumptions and insertions of "fact" that aren't.
Benteen was not sent on a blocking mission which, not being military myself, I believe would conform to a resurrected hammer and anvil theory. Correct me on this.
His mission was complete when Gibson made it to a sufficiently high ground to see south into the LBH valley and found no sign of a village, at which point they headed back north back to "the command." This turn is rather far from the LBH valley itself, like miles away. So unless Benteen was to block Indians from rushing into this terrible cavalry land, that assumption of his mission can't be correct.
We have no indication from Benteen, who heard his orders from Custer and couriers, or any of those who claimed to also have also heard them, that Benteen was to enter the valley of the LBH absent the criteria of a village to attack south of the one Custer and Reno were approaching.
Yet again: a cartridge case (points? I learn) can only prove it was fired from a certain weapon. I'm reminded that Mr. Humphrey had claimed that there was a pile of cartridges found in place from one Springfield, but when queried, that wasn't supported. But NONE of these can prove that a soldier fired it, or a Sioux fired it, or that it was fired that day at all.
Yet again - yet again - I ask for explanations about all the post 1876 cases found on the field. How and for what reason did they get there? And do any of those explanations - and you have to explain them - automatically nullify the thought that pre-1876 cases might be reasonably assumed to have arrived there by the same methods? And then, how would those cases be distinguished from weapons assumed to have been used by Indians and soldiers?
And once you realize it cannot be done, detailed assumptions of movement based on these cases exits stage right forever. They do not rise to the level of evidence. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2006 : 11:51:51 AM
|
| Thanks for the info AZ - and yes, there is very little as I suspected. What would make me sit up and take notice is trailing a weapon from the soldier positions at Calhoun thru Custer and then to Deep Ravine. Bypassing Custer negates any certainty of direction of movement between Custer Hill and Deep Ravine, and as you say, of who the weapon was used by. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2006 : 4:30:51 PM
|
AZ....
AZ While I do not disagree with many things you have said upon this thread. I do take offense and vehemently disagree with your use of Terry's orders to give legitimacy to Custers actions after he left Busby, and went off trail to follow the indians. No where... absolutely no where does Terry's orders give Custer the authority to do that. You said [March 03 2006 : 11:40:15 PM] ..."I believe Terry's Order were to preform the recon as described "unless you shall see sufficient reason for departing from them."
You my find feathered friend are taking those words out of context. There was no sufficient reason for departing from them. At least those as so defined by Terry in that letter of instruction. Custer had no legitimate reason for being at the LBH at the time he was there. Trying to justify Custer's actions by Terry's orders is futile at best and ludicrous in the extreme. Terry's orders emphasized cooperation between Gibbons column and Custer's. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere do we see anything of that kind happening after Custer's departure at Busby. As Buddha stated..."Failing to do that (following Terry's instruction) could have been disastrous (and was) for Custer in normal circumstances. That is straight out of the manuals. Be where you are told, when you are told or people may die. There have been lots of complaints about Crook not following orders and going home without telling anyone, even though he was operating independently. There would be no difference here if Reno (Inject CUSTER here) unilaterally decided to not follow his orders." Which he did! And it was a disaster, and people died, in fact Custer's whole battalion. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2006 : 5:10:29 PM
|
....unless he saw reason for departing from them. I think it can be argued he did, and others would have as well.
1. Not only the trail Reno followed, but newer ones had gone up and over the Wolf MT's at that point. That wasn't coincidental and would suggest the location of the main village.
2. The Crow's Nest was the place his scouts knew was the place to scout out the LBH area at distance.
3. He had to have been concerned about the pack train, figuring the shape it was in now vs. what it would be like after long and hot marches in hostile territory alongside a stream that was so akaline many horses wouldn't drink it.
4. If the village was so close, there was no surety it would be there when he emerged from the south.
That said, he could have sent scouts to the CN long before, and done Tullock's as well. For all the talk, the scouts did little more than advance guard on the day's march. Still, I think the argument can be made that he was in compliance with Terry's instructions. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2006 : 5:38:41 PM
|
Buddha
I've been wondering just what a circle maneuver is, and I have a guess, but you need to explain to me in detail how and why it works.
It is a more advanced version of what us military men would describe as refusing flank.By performing circles Custer was in pepetual motion ,continuously refusing flank.This unortodox manoeuver was first used by General Pierre Gustave Toutant in defence of Richmond where with a pair of Southern Ginilmen,members of his own household and a dog he held off the Federals for 2 years.
I think this manoeuver also accounts for the shell casings from the same rifle which were found in various positions.
You will no doubt have read Indian accounts of the battle in which they describe the strange behavior of the troops.Well it was found that prolonged exposure to this tactical protocol induced light headedness and dizzyness .Marksmanship was compromised,troopers became disorientated and fell from their horses and all command and control disintregated.Custer tried desperately to rally his forces.Curley recalls hearing him shouting "you put your left flank in ,your left flank out ,in out .you shake it all about.
Sorry normal service will resume shortly.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2006 : 5:51:08 PM
|
The Crow's Nest was the place his scouts knew was the place to scout out the LBH area at distance.
That might give the impression that the CN was a prominent feature like Weir Point.From what I'v read they are not even sure where the CN is. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2006 : 2:17:35 PM
|
| Respectfully DC, anyone who believes that the whole content and meaning of Terry's instruction revolved around that one phrase has more than an overactive imagination. And they'd have to believe in fairy's and trolls too, wouldn't they. I don't see how anyone who studies this subject seriously can just on a whim, pull a rabbit out of a hat and randomly say this is the way it was. Okay then, by the same criteria, if we are to play the phrase game, we'll see DC, we'll see! Let's see how many things people said about the LBH can be messed with just because of one phrase. It should be rather insanely fun, wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2006 : 2:22:26 PM
|
Benteen you stated that the following was out of context?
"unless you shall see sufficient reason for departing from them"
You mean the context of what precedes the quote I took from Terry's "order???"
1 "It is of course impossible to give you any definite instructions in regards to this movement"
2" the Department Commander places to much confidence in your zeal, energy and and ability to wish to impose upon you precise orders"
Or the after the discovery of the Indian trail part of the "order???"
"perhaps as far as the headwater as the headwaters of the Tongue,"
What is the manual definition of perhaps as used in a military order?
It is obvious from Terry's dispatch to Sheridan, June 21st, that he did not have an exact location of the village. If the village was located at the "forks of the Big and Little Horn" Custer and Gibbon might have arrived at the same time, but not if Custer went to the headwaters of the Tongue. The infantry with Gibbons was still 5 miles north of the forks of BH and LBH on the 25th. The infantry could strike a village on the 26th if it were at forks but not where it was really located. The infantry was camped 20 miles north of the village on the 25th. The cavalry was at the forks on the 25th so they arrived a day early if the village was at the forks. If the village is further toward the headwaters, which was the best guess of where Terry, Gibbons and Custer thought the village might be before departing then the infantry with Terry is not in the right position to carry out Terry's plan.
Where in the orders do you find June 26th? If Terry believed as discussed before departing that village was located nearer to the headwaters area of the Rosebud and Little Bighorn the order makes sense for the instructions to Custer to continue on past the Rosebud, headwaters of the Tongue and back down the LBH. The village might have been reached on the 27th or later by either column. What Custer found for sufficient reason to deviate from the "perhaps" was that the village was located, an actual fact rather then a guess or hunch, on the LBH river two days further down stream than anticipated in the order. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on March 11 2006 2:46:28 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2006 : 3:23:12 PM
|
If orders are subject to interpretation, and the value of phrases within have to be weighed against each other, it's the writer's failure - not mine or anyone else's of interpretation. These are terrible orders by any standard. In the event, Terry gave Custer, in black and white, the latitude to depart from the orders if he saw best. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision, because we don't know exactly why Custer did what he did, but there's certainly arguable reason for his actions, some of which I've listed above. But having made the decision to depart from them, he's on his own hook and off Terry's.
Where it breaks down for me is the order for Reno to go into action - whatever the phrases used were - without having Clue One how to support him, or the size of the enemy, or much of anything. Even then, from Weir Point, he could see, regardless of dust, a mofo of a village of enemy rather inert and not running. Why he continued, if willingly, to where they ended is beyond me. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2006 : 4:58:24 PM
|
DC:
Where it breaks down for me is the order for Reno to go into action - whatever the phrases used were - without having Clue One how to support him, or the size of the enemy, or much of anything. Even then, from Weir Point, he could see, regardless of dust, a mofo of a village of enemy rather inert and not running. Why he continued, if willingly, to where they ended is beyond me.
Aye now matie, that be the rub tisn't it? No matter how one tries to reason it... it don't make any sense, now do it? The reason why is because most, like AZ, think in linear terms that define the man in a certain way. Ergo.. what they want him to be and not what he was. Custer was more the hero than most think. But not because of his martyredom, but because of the engimatic betrayal after the fact. Tis in this way Libbie portrayed him as. And the only way she she would have it. And for people like AZ it's simple, define the hero the way she did and you have a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, hidden behind a riddle. Then you have coverup after coverup after coverup. Each with their own selfish motives that made the man a hero because he was martryed. Oh poor poor Libbie. Custer was too late the hero. The troubling thought can't be reconciled in a rational way, nor can the understanding be made clear without first taking the log out of one's own eye.
The truth for most lay outside of their conventional thoughts. And in this they strive beyond all reason to find it. But even when the truth stares them in the face, they reject it, and try to find the truth by adding to the riddle. Some time ago I ran across a person who believed so strongly in the hammer and anvil theory that he based every concievable action by Custer upon it. Even going so far as to assert that - that, was Terry's plan. Like most, this poor fellow tried to rationalize this in only one way, his way. His rationale was clouded by his perceptions, so much so, that he had the definitive answer to the LBH mystery. Yet! It was the same old story written by Libbie, with the same old riddle perpetuating the mystery, with which I may add, the little twist of hammer and anvil antics as the theme de joure.
To tell you the truth DC, the beginning to understanding, not just the battle, but Custer actions as well, is in accepting that he disobeyed Terry's orders. Accepting those orders at face value, and not trying to inflict a moral crusade upon us otherwise. Once that is done, the other parts of the riddle, though spead far and wide, and piecemeal to boot, come together to finish the real portrait of the Custer's Last Stand puzzle. And realize DC, that one word describes and unconventionally defines and underlies all motives and powers that be, at that time. And that word is, was, and forever will be, betrayal. And it isn't the one's most people see on the surface and falsely accuse the particpants thereof. But it's there, rest assured, it's there. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2006 : 5:17:57 PM
|
There is no puzzle, no mystery. It was a battle, and virtually any battle given the same scrutiny this one has would turn up as much 'controversy.' There was no betrayal. No riddle. It's pretty mundane, really, and it is this silly insistence on a Great Mystery that clogs the normal arterial flow of discussion.
Terry said he wanted Custer to do thus and so unless Custer saw reason to do otherwise. That's pretty clear, and grants nobody else review over it. Custer did, and on him is the blame because he failed, but he didn't disobey Terry. Had that phrase not been included, and in the opening paragraph, you could claim it. But there it is. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2006 : 8:25:23 PM
|
Aye now matie, that be the rub tisn't it? No matter how one tries to reason it... it don't make any sense, now do it? The reason why is because most, like AZ, think in linear terms that define the man in a certain way. Ergo.. what they want him to be and not what he was. Custer was more the hero than most think. But not because of his martyredom, but because of the engimatic betrayal after the fact. Tis in this way Libbie portrayed him as. And the only way she she would have it. And for people like AZ it's simple, define the hero the way she did and you have a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, hidden behind a riddle. Then you have coverup after coverup after coverup. Each with their own selfish motives that made the man a hero because he was martryed. Oh poor poor Libbie. Custer was too late the hero. The troubling thought can't be reconciled in a rational way, nor can the understanding be made clear without first taking the log out of one's own eye.
Benteen you should stick to the points raised and questions asked. My experience in courts is that when the defense attorney has no true defense of not guilty they start bringing up distractions (motions and filings) and questioning how someone else thinks (the officer has a certain prejudice etc). The defendant also tries to badmouth the officer and tries to get a reaction so that can be used against him. I thank my Marine Corps drill instructors for giving me the ability to ignore what people say in ignorance. Most people are amateurs at insults etc. as compared to a DI. Dealing with drunks and criminals and the things they say for many years gives you a different perspective on what to do when someone says something about oneself and you know they don't know you. Tolerance is important because you have someone in a position they don't like, like not agreeing with there point of view, and you can expect them to say something.
Support yourself with facts on what you say I think about Custer one way or the other. You have none because I haven't taken a position nor do I intend too. What I have learned over my short time in the military and long time in law enforcement is that what different people say they saw given the same situations can very widely and they can be telling the truth as they perceived it. Interpretation of evidence falls along the same line.
My approach to LBH battlefield is like a crime scene;who,what,where,why when, and how etc. to name a few. If it was easy to figure this all out it would have been done a long time ago. I really don't care about the personalities as much as what was done and any evidence involved. As soon as you identify with a person you lose some objectivity. So if that is your point you are wrong.
This is entertainment to me along the lines of my current occupation. I have made four visits to LBH and the surrounding area. Maybe not as many trips as you have but enough to form my own opinion without having to rely solely on what I have read.I expect evidence to be contaminated when looking at something that has occurred so long ago a with so many visits by multitudes of people at the location. In that respect I tend to agree with DC on cartridge case locations not being definitive as to Indian and troop movements. I deal a lot with firearms and discharging of firearms. So the weapons used and effectiveness interests me. Training, tactics, and choice of tactics interest me also. I would lean more to Wild's view of cavalry when it comes to a charge. I could care less about how Elizabeth B. Custer portrayed her husband. She did what one would expect of a devoted wife and I would not have interviewed her as witness.
So if you can not accept that I do not believe Custer disobeyed orders because I read them and looked at what was done at what point in time and the "sufficient reason" to deviate and concurred with the deviation that does not change what I believe. I am more than willing to discuss it and if you have sufficient reason for me to change my opinion then I will change. I have no vested interest one way or the other. I know that it permissible for commanding officer's to deviate from orders that were a lot tighter than Terry's and they are a hero if their decisions result in victory. Even if Terry's order were hypothetically to follow the Indian trail until engagement it would not change what happened on June 25th 1876 which is the part I am interested in to begin with.
If the actual location of the Indian village is not sufficient reason than what is? Do you think this was a timing event(Terry's order) so that they arrived at an unknown location at the same time? If you think Terry knew the exact location and the day he would be in place then why not just state it in the order to Custer such as don't attack the village until we (Terry-Gibbons) are in place on the 26th or any other date? Also if Terry did know the location of the village why did he want Custer to go into Wyoming? Could it be he didn't know or that it might have moved making an order for a specific time and place hypothetical at best?
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on March 11 2006 8:43:34 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 09:54:38 AM
|
DC:
There is no puzzle, no mystery. It was a battle, and virtually any battle given the same scrutiny this one has would turn up as much 'controversy.' There was no betrayal. No riddle. It's pretty mundane, really, and it is this silly insistence on a Great Mystery that clogs the normal arterial flow of discussion.
Good one DC. Quite naturally the forces that be fell in lock step with you. You know DC your making about as much sense as someone who would rather brave the flood of the Thompson rather than smell the burning rubber and put out the fire in the Springs. I find it odd that you can state, "There is no puzzle, no mystery." It wasn't me who wrote:
"In the event, Terry gave Custer, in black and white, the latitude to depart from the orders if he saw best. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision, because we don't know exactly why Custer did what he did, but there's certainly arguable reason for his actions, some of which I've listed above. But having made the decision to depart from them, he's on his own hook and off Terry's.
Where it breaks down for me is the order for Reno to go into action - whatever the phrases used were - without having Clue One how to support him, or the size of the enemy, or much of anything. Even then, from Weir Point, he could see, regardless of dust, a mofo of a village of enemy rather inert and not running. Why he continued, if willingly, to where they ended is beyond me."
Ummm... lets see....
Point #1: " because we don't know exactly why Custer did what he did, but there's certainly arguable reason for his actions." Mystery, riddle, or enigma DC?
Point #2: "Where it breaks down for me is the order for Reno to go into action - whatever the phrases used were - without having Clue One how to support him, or the size of the enemy, or much of anything." Mystery, riddle or enigma DC?
Point #3: "Even then, from Weir Point, he could see, regardless of dust, a mofo of a village of enemy rather inert and not running. Why he continued, if willingly, to where they ended is beyond me." Mystery, riddle or enigma DC?
And these were asked by you and yet you have the unsurpassed gall to say... "There was no betrayal. No riddle. It's pretty mundane, really, and it is this silly insistence on a Great Mystery that clogs the normal arterial flow of discussion."
What about...
1) Benteen's orders? What were they? Mystery, riddle or enigma DC?
2) What about Custer's departure north after giving Reno his orders? Umm... lets see... He had already sent scouts on ahead to look into the valley, but according to them, he didn't wait for their return and report. Enigma, riddle or mystery DC?
3) And last but certainly not the least, nor the last... Reno's orders? Riddle, enigma or mystery DC?
Would you care that I continue this line? Or do you still insist, "That's pretty clear, and grants nobody else review over it." Would that it were your hero isn't the hero you and way too many others portray is he? "Custer did, and on him is the blame because he failed, but he didn't disobey Terry." Odd statement isn't it. Try as anyone might the fault wasn't Custer's! Custer wasn't the glorified martryed hero that everyone wants to see. His heroism was, is and forever will be a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, hidden behind a riddle. Except for a few who do see the real hero. The one who did disobey Terry's orders and went above and beyond the call of duty, or tried to.
Like I said DC, we'll see. We'll see if, "Had that phrase not been included, and in the opening paragraph, you could claim it." We'll see if taking words, phrases and sentences out of context from the paragraphs and statements where written is right or wrong. I thought better of you DC. You seemed to me to have a higher education than most here. You above all here should have learned from your english classes that one never ever takes anything "out of context." Perhaps we should all study the riddles, enigma's and mysteries of the bible and apply our learned knowledge of taking words and phrases from context there, perhaps we could see a clearer picture of past events. And in this begin a new religion or cult, if you will. Hash, meth, marijiuana, LSD... anyone? Let's see how many minefields you have to walk over while intoxicated upon cult ethics before you realize the truth. Or how many Thompson floods you have to endure before realizing that the dam store isn't a myth, but a refuge. Climb the tower DC before it's too late! |
Edited by - Benteen on March 12 2006 10:00:07 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 11:57:23 AM
|
Benteen, your examples of mystery are rather strained. I don't know why I chose NBC news to listen to while I write, and it doesn't rise to the level of mystery.
That we don't know the precise reason that led Lee to Pickett's Charge doesn't elevate it to a Great Mystery. There were logical reasons for and against, each viewed through the distinct prisms of individual experience. But he did it, and the facts proved it a boneheaded play. That we don't know the prissy details of interior arguments doesn't elevate to Great Mystery. We know much of the elements that went into his thinking, and his remarks about it, and those of witnesses to it. But we don't know why he was adamant about such a boneheaded plan.
We often don't actually know the reasons for some things that the participants have explained in detail through the years, often because at the time of certain decisions they didn't know themselves. But because we know most of the array of factors, we know that some combination led them somehow to whatever happened. Eh.
"Mystery, riddle, or enigma DC?" For all your suggested Great Mysteries, one answer will do. These are the common occurances in battle and war, probably more so in the lax and nepotistic 7th. See Lee, above.
As to Benteen's orders. "What were they? Mystery, riddle or enigma DC?" Badly thought out.
"What about Custer's departure north" etc. Impatience.
"And last but certainly not the least, nor the last... Reno's orders? Riddle, enigma or mystery DC?" Mistake due to incompetence, I think it fair to say. Reno was ordered to attack an enemy of unknown size without any clue how to support him or clue if the whole regiment was big enough. That's incompetence.
I don't have heroes, and Custer wouldn't make the cut if I did. Custer is utterly responsible for the LBH. He was given a badly written wish list from his commander albeit with a clearly written ability to disregard it if Custer felt the need. There it is in black and white.
I've listed some reasons, there are others, why he may have felt this way. That we don't know which combination of factors propelled him forward doesn't make this a 'mystery.' Otherwise, everything is a Great Mystery. We know more about the LBH than we know about a lot of battles, some far more recent, truth be told.
Why do purported adults use multiple ID names on Custer boards? Is it simply because they like to think for once in their lives they're successfully putting one over on others? Because they have nothing else to do? Because it's the web version of 're-enactors' and dressup and role playing? Don't know, but since all disturbed children select toys from the same box, that I don't know exactly the reason for this precise toy doesn't elevate their actions to mystery, enigma, or riddle. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 12 2006 11:59:23 AM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 3:03:54 PM
|
As to Benteen's orders. "What were they? Mystery, riddle or enigma DC?" Badly thought out.
"What about Custer's departure north" etc. Impatience.
"And last but certainly not the least, nor the last... Reno's orders? Riddle, enigma or mystery DC?" Mistake due to incompetence, I think it fair to say. Reno was ordered to attack an enemy of unknown size without any clue how to support him or clue if the whole regiment was big enough. That's incompetence.
So let me see here. We have a description of a commander much revered in American history, and cherished by most as a hero; here so described by you as an... Impatient, incompetent, bonehead, whose orders were badly thought out. And this is why to you there is no mystery? Because you've solved it all with... it's all Custer's fault!? And yet you don't have the conciousness of thought to include, disobedience of orders? It would seem that your idealism of Custer would be complete if such was held in faith by you. That to me is a riddle in itself.
We often don't actually know the reasons for some things that the participants have explained in detail through the years, often because at the time of certain decisions they didn't know themselves. But because we know most of the array of factors, we know that some combination led them somehow to whatever happened.
Care to illuminate the valley DC? I think your attempt to put out the tire fire failed, and the flames are speading. Watch out for that last boulder on the way down Boulder's Yosemite falls, or am I too late to warn you about white water rafting down the canyon. Good grief DC think! This isn't about Santaland at the foot of the peak. Nor about little old ladies who dream up stories about reindeer so that it destroy's others fun. Your assertion that it was all Custer's fault and then not blaming him for disobedience of orders is about as believable as Bush saying.... Reindeer can't fly, but, yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus.
Why do purported adults use multiple ID names on Custer boards? T'is a puzzle no?
Is it simply because they like to think for once in their lives they're successfully putting one over on others? Mnnnn... could be. It's a mystery to me!
Because they have nothing else to do? Better than Columbine, wouldn't you agree? Oh, and i'm not talking about the flower DC! Although it's better than smelling burning tires.... And hearing some of the nonsense drivel spewed out upon these boards.
Because it's the web version of 're-enactors' and dressup and role playing? Don't know! What a conundrum! It's a mystery to me!
Don't know, but since all disturbed children select toys from the same box, that I don't know exactly the reason for this precise toy doesn't elevate their actions to mystery, enigma, or riddle. NO!? Then why do you ask my fine feathered falcon?
If you don't know something then it is a mystery to you. It puzzles you and you have to ask. Alas nothing new under the sun here! Why does this puzzle you so? Why do the mysteries behind their actions bother you so? So just what is your quest here all about? What was your purpose in asking..."Why do purported adults use multiple ID names on Custer boards?" Riddles, Mysteries, or the enigma of it all? It's something that obviously bothers you. It's obviously one mystery that you would like solved. Anyone care to tell him why so that we can get on with the other things that still mystify all of us. Why? Perhaps I can try... In a sentence, it's because it's that thing that keeps us all coming back to ask questions that we have no answers for. That element within all of us, that at one time or another, that asks... Is there a Santa Claus?
Mystery isn't so undefined as you may try to make it DC. You don't need to pretend otherwise, we all love a good mystery. And that mystery is why you are here, isn't it? |
Edited by - Benteen on March 12 2006 3:12:19 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 3:42:27 PM
|
I stated my reasons for being here a long time ago, and it hasn't changed.
"So let me see here. We have a description...." et al. We don't know what the breakout is about what people think of Custer, if they ever think of Custer. Many current officers will tell you (or their peers and subordinates will cheerfully tell you) that,in retrospect, they've given stupid orders sometimes, and sometimes only good luck saved rep and lives of the men involved. It happens. People make mistakes and have bad days. This isn't a mystery.
He didn't disobey orders. That's very clear. Terry gave him instructions he wanted to be followed unless Custer saw reason for doing otherwise. It's written and cannot be contested. From the minute he turned west, Custer had made the decision he had reason to part from his instructions as Terry allowed, Terry is off the hook, and all the follows is on Custer's head. What's the big deal? Custer still fouled up for good and/or bad reasons, but disobeying Terry's orders isn't really an honest accusation. He'd disobeyed orders before, just as clearly, but this isn't one of those times.
The selection of possible reasons doesn't elevate this to Great Mystery status simply because we don't know exactly which one. We would know little more if everyone had survived. We'd only know what they told us, and that may not be true.
As I say, I don't know why I did mundane things this AM, and it doesn't rise to the level of mystery. We have a bunch of 50-50 calls at LBH as in many battles. Sometimes a choice is made simply because it's seemingly thought so stupid the enemy will never expect it. But they all fall within recognizeable patterns and if you can narrow it down as the LBH has been for over a century, it's as close as you ever get. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 12 2006 3:44:38 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 4:14:18 PM
|
DC
Custer is utterly responsible for the LBH.
This has been debated but as you have brought it up again I cannot let it pass without the following observations.
1 Terry by giving Custer the pivotal role in the campaign went against the spirit of his own orders.
2 Terry allowed personal feelings with regard to Custer's predicament to cloud his judgement.
3 Terry devided his forces.
4 Terry was indecisive with regard to the strenght of Custer's force.
5 It was Terry's plan.
Your use of the term "utterly" is simplistic in the extreme |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 5:14:52 PM
|
1. The 7th, as a complete cavalry regiment, was always visualize as having the pivotal role of the northern group, with and without Custer. Whatever spirit you detect retained structural integrity.
2. An assumption, might be true.
3. It made no sense to tie cavalry to infantry, and the assumption was the 7th could do the job.
4. In that he was willing to augment Custer's forces if Custer felt them needed, and at the suggestion of Brisbin. That's hardly indecisive.
5. It was Terry's plan that allowed Custer to deviate from it if he thought it best, at which point Terry's plan ceased and it became Custer's. Utterly. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Buddha
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 6:04:21 PM
|
Smcf "@Buddha - not having read any of the forensic books, is it true that the same weapon can be traced all the way from Calhoun through to Deep Ravine? Now that would be very impressive."
Yes, it's true. You can't tell who pulled the trigger, but as part of a group of similar weapons, you can make some assumptions about it's use. The depictions shown on the various CSI TV shows where firing pin and other tooling marks can be matched are part of a forensic field that concerns itself with matching toolings marks on all kinds of tools such as saws, chisels and others. This type of evidence has been accepted in courts as reliable for some time now. To be a little more specific to Custer, the conclusions of Fox's archeological investigation have been peer reviewed since it was published and accepted.
wILD1 - About the circle maneuver, I think you have characterized it correctly and more politely than I was thinking of it.
My $.02" on the other comments since I last logged on
Orders were vague at all levels if you look at them and try to state instantly and clearly what one thing needed to be accomplished in order to know that you had succeeded in your mission.
Being given a vague idea of 'how' to accomplish your mission is cool, at least in the Army, but you should know the 'what' so clearly that the lowest private would instantly understand what needed to be done when told. It seems to me that expressing yourself in this vague manner was the custom then, but I'm not sure I've seen enough of the expressions of that day to say for sure.
Benteen's mission has always been a mystery to me, at best. If the unit's mission, which should be supported by any orders that are issued, is to defeat the indians, sending Benteen's unit away from the village make a contribution in any way that I have ever seen. No matter how I have found to look at it, getting rid of Benteen was all that it accomplished. There was long standing personal animosity between Benteen and Custer. This might have been an expression of that feeling. The order might have been useful as CYA for Custer to say that he had tried to keep the Indians from escaping to the south. However, all of his other actions say that he had found sufficient reason to abandon that idea.
Custer's orders were the worst of all. He divided his unit and didn't let the different components know where the others were. Bad tactics. He didn't let anyone know what the objective was. Why are we doing this? What will it accomplish? Who knew, but him, or no one? Reno was ordered to attack the village. That's all he knew. I can't imagine that a unit commander today would follow such orders, but if he were bullied into doing such a thing, a call on the radio would bring help from higher units when he needed it and Custer's equivalent would be relieved on the spot. Of that I have no doubt. Others have expressed the idea that Custer would have been court-martialled had he survived.
Custer could have deviated from orders at any time he found it necessary, but deviation from the 'intent' of orders is very hard to explain, and Custer would have had to explain alot. That translates into not deviating from orders at all unless people are about to die or something equivalent. It really, really upsets commanders when their subordinates ignore what they say and take off on their own. Custer had located the Indians, to within a relatively small area, close enough that Custer had difficulty remaining hidden from the Indians. In the course of several weeks, he had located and followed one group of Indians and knew that he was travelling faster than it was. A bigger group would only travel slower. Once the Indians were located, a wait of a day or two for Terry wouldn't have hurt unless Custer did something to attract their attention, like charging into the village, and ran them off. On the other hand, a united command under Terry could have put more Indians back on to the reservation or in the ground than Custer alone. The braves might have run, or not, but the women and children could have been corralled and that would have brought the braves in soon enough.
So, why was Custer in a hurry?
I think that Custer had decided to attack days or weeks earlier, for reasons I can only suppose. However, his actions on pushing so hard to catch up to the Indians, to pass up Gatling guns and Infantry companies, to enforce noise discipline, to push his men almost constantly for the 36 hours before they found the village, are the actions of someone preparing to get close to an enemy and to fight them. His tactics baffle me, and learning more doesn't change that, but I can't see anything that he could have done to change the outcome significantly. Splitting his unit had the fortunate outcome of separating them from his and allowing them to survive.
|
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 9:47:36 PM
|
What no reply to Buddha, DC? Both Wild and Buddha made some excellent posts and well thought out replies on the subject. In reply to Wild, I think you missed the point! In not responding to Buddha's post, can we take it that his thoughts hit the mark much more closer to the truth?
I stated my reasons for being here a long time ago, and it hasn't changed. Please illuminate us all and grace us less fortunate newcomers with your "reasons".
"So let me see here. We have a description...." et al. We don't know what the breakout is about what people think of Custer, if they ever think of Custer. Many current officers will tell you (or their peers and subordinates will cheerfully tell you) that,in retrospect, they've given stupid orders sometimes, and sometimes only good luck saved rep and lives of the men involved. It happens. People make mistakes and have bad days. This isn't a mystery.
Okay, so let's see... Custer was an Impatient, incompetent, bonehead, whose orders were badly thought out, AND HE WAS HAVING A BAD DAY? The boy general who rose through the ranks to become a Major General in the Civil war was all of these! And in one single day this all went south for him! Don't you think your stretching this a bit. Reno said Custer had no plan, Benteen said that Custer had no plan. But surely if he wasn't disobeying Terry's orders, he had one, right? With so much riding upon the 7th's success or failure, would he have done what his subordinates claim he did? I don't know of any commander, even Custer, that would have done that. Custer had what, 600 some odd men and civilians in his entourage, and he wasn't going to tell them his plan? Not only is this difficult to believe, it's insane! And I for one don't think Custer was insane. And I don't think that he would have sent his subordinates off without clear and concise instructions on what to do, and what he intended to do. Especially if he thought that there may well be over 1500 indians (a number twice the size of his force) skulking about somewhere nearby.
He didn't disobey orders. That's very clear. Terry gave him instructions he wanted to be followed unless Custer saw reason for doing otherwise. It's written and cannot be contested. From the minute he turned west, Custer had made the decision he had reason to part from his instructions as Terry allowed, Terry is off the hook, and all the follows is on Custer's head. What's the big deal? Custer still fouled up for good and/or bad reasons, but disobeying Terry's orders isn't really an honest accusation. He'd disobeyed orders before, just as clearly, but this isn't one of those times.
Are you sure, DC? Are you sure this isn't one of those times? Your sure that Terry wrote several hundred words of instruction all in vain? And that just one phrase, just one phrase in all those instructions was all that mattered? Consider this courtesy of Buddha: "Custer could have deviated from orders at any time he found it necessary, but deviation from the 'intent' of orders is very hard to explain, and Custer would have had to explain alot. That translates into not deviating from orders at all unless people are about to die or something equivalent. It really, really upsets commanders when their subordinates ignore what they say and take off on their own."
The selection of possible reasons doesn't elevate this to Great Mystery status simply because we don't know exactly which one. We would know little more if everyone had survived. We'd only know what they told us, and that may not be true. Sounds like a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, hidden behind a riddle to me. You just worded it different.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 11:22:50 PM
|
I'm as sure as I can be he didn't disobey orders. There's no mystery. And yes, one phrase. You can give someone detailed instructions, over 5000 pages, and if you write at the end "unless you don't want to for some reasons you consider sufficient", that one phrase conquers all. And that's about what happened. Absent about 4998 pages.
As to intent, formerly 'spirit', Custer may have thought he could drive the camp north into Terry, which was in the spirit of the thing. We don't know, can't know, and in any case Terry excused Custer if Custer felt the need. You can argue about why Custer did it to no end, but all that's needed is Custer's decision that he needed to act to remove the charge of disobedience.
Reno and Benteen said they didn't think Custer had a plan, and insofar as he didn't know where the village exactly was or its composition, that's probably correct. At the point he turned west he had left Terry's plan, as the plan gave him permission to do. I don't see how that can be argued.
In turn, we don't know if he had a detailed plan to replace it at all or not, or how he could for a camp whose location wouldn't be known till the Crow's Nest - if there. That isn't relevant to the decision to leave Terry's plan. You want it to be, but it isn't.
I don't care why others are here, and if you don't want to look up available answers to your question about why I am, your choice. Easy. It's not relevant to the thread or board.
An incompetent decision isn't a verdict of chronic incompetence. Everybody, even those known for extreme competence, make mistakes, and they sometimes admit it later. Grant had several real bad days, and lots died because of it. Overall, he's the guy you wanted in charge, but nobody understands his actions at Cold Harbor, which seem so stupid in retrospect. Nobody calls it a mystery. So while I've said certain decisions were incompetent, that's not the same as saying Custer was incompetent overall. A number of people, with different opinions on Reno and Custer, heard the orders to Benteen and to Reno and while they vary some, none of them can be called particularly detailed as to an attack on the village.
I doubt anyone agrees as to the 'intent' of Terry's orders, which is testament to their awfulness. Orders should not be subject to interpretation. The only clear thing about them is that Custer could choose not to follow them if he thought it best. Says so, clear enough.
It was a bad decision, but I've suggested reasons he may have felt sufficient that are in good faith and requires no insane or overly ambitious Custer. Because he failed, people take delight in pointing out that had he stuck to Terry's plan, it would have been better. Well, duh. Coulnd't be worse, really. But that's all irrelevant to his decision and Terry's permission for him to make it, which may have been honestly composed in his mind for good reasons.
I've replied to Buddha's points for years before he posted them. In such a large village, it's only an assumption that civvies held hostage from some tribes would divert the warriors of another. I don't see Gall making a compassionate decision after his family had been shot up if the Cheyenne civvies were in chains. The 7th had hostages at the Wa****a and still performed Ben Arnold's feint in their fear of attack. It's worth recalling that with only one company less, the 7th took forever and a day to subdue a small village at the Wa****a which they outnumbered. Custer ended up unnecessarily attacking a far stronger village on the LBH by making bad decisions that day and previously by cultivating a nepotistic clique within the regiment. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 12 2006 11:36:22 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 12:16:40 AM
|
Smcf "@Buddha - not having read any of the forensic books, is it true that the same weapon can be traced all the way from Calhoun through to Deep Ravine? Now that would be very impressive."
Yes, it's true. You can't tell who pulled the trigger, but as part of a group of similar weapons, you can make some assumptions about it's use. The depictions shown on the various CSI TV shows where firing pin and other tooling marks can be matched are part of a forensic field that concerns itself with matching toolings marks on all kinds of tools such as saws, chisels and others. This type of evidence has been accepted in courts as reliable for some time now. To be a little more specific to Custer, the conclusions of Fox's archeological investigation have been peer reviewed since it was published and accepted. Buddha--I have three of the Fox books which include the tracking of fired cartridges. You are correct that you can not tell who pulled the trigger but more to the point is that there is 4 different Indian firearms with identifiable cases to the same 4 weapons at the same two locations as the 1 Springfield. They are adjacent too but not in same area as the trooper markers. From the mapped Indian locations of the cases it would be easy to fire into the troopers in the place where they died. I agree that fired case tool markings from the firing pin and extractor identification pass the Frye test which means the cartridge can be traced to the same firearm scientifically and that is all. Since almost all Springfields were captured by the Indians then finding a fired Springfield case in 2 locations and also finding fired 4 cases in approximately the same 2 locations the preponderance of evidence would support an Indian using a captured Springfield. If they had found identifiable cases in piles at two locations within the skirmish lines then it would more likely be troopers firing the carbine. Since you can't tell direction then it could be Calhoun to South Skirmish line or the reverse. There was no evidence of an individual Springfield fired case presented in Fox's book as having been recovered at Calhoun, LSH, and Deep Ravine.
With modern forensic that we use now and given the opportunity to have been there on June 27th maybe it would have helped to answer some questions. I doubt it though. In my job we use these forensic techniques frequently on poached animals. Find a fired case on the ground or recover a bullet and then find out who has the rifle or handgun and then see if the rifle marked the case or fired the bullet. All fired Springfield cases could be traced to ones the Indians possessed at the end of the day June 25th, 1876 at Custer battlefield. What is needed to know is when they took possession and which cases came from the carbines while the troopers still possessed them. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 12:49:30 AM
|
The cases which were manufactured after the battle and found on the field need to have their presence explained.
Then, we need to provide reasons why cases that chronologically could have been in the battle could not have appeared the same way.
Then, make a list of the contemporary comments regarding the lack of, or the explosion of, cases found on the field.
Finally, in light of the above, explain what possible heft the cases could possibly have as evidence for the battle. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 02:06:22 AM
|
Are you sure, DC? Are you sure this isn't one of those times? Your sure that Terry wrote several hundred words of instruction all in vain? And that just one phrase, just one phrase in all those instructions was all that mattered? Consider this courtesy of Buddha: "Custer could have deviated from orders at any time he found it necessary, but deviation from the 'intent' of orders is very hard to explain, and Custer would have had to explain alot. That translates into not deviating from orders at all unless people are about to die or something equivalent. It really, really upsets commanders when their subordinates ignore what they say and take off on their own."
Benteen & Buddha-- I believe that the intent of Terry's orders were first and foremost to prevent the Indians from escaping. A second intent to lesser degree would be that both columns where in close proximity to the village and could support each other. There are to many possible scenarios regarding the possible location of the village that would not allow it happen as both columns at the same time.
If anyone can show me where it says in Terry's orders that I want both columns to hit the village at an exact location on the 26th at the same time then I would agree that Custer disobeyed orders.
Up to the 24th Custer traveled at a rate of speed that was within 30 miles per day average. The 7th makes camp and sends out scouts to recon. The scouts go to CN which was absolutely within the recon mission of the scouts. They discover the village. They report to Custer in camp on the Rosebud.
My question to you Buddha is do you think Custer should continue all the way to the headwaters of the Tongue and come back down the Little Big Horn? How much more worn out and tired would the troopers be if Custer does that? If he doesn't do that does he disobey Terry's order by not doing it? If he just stays on the Rosebud and has scouts watch the village is he disobeying the orders? His horses could be more rested and the troopers also if he just stays there. Most arguments that I have seen that say Custer disobeyed state he needed to continue going off into Wyoming when he knew the Village was in Montana. I can't believe any person would believe it is tactically sound after you locate the enemy you continue for several days away from them searching for the village that you know is not there just because and order states perhaps as far as the headwaters of the Tongue.
Custer asked questions of his scouts if he could move the column during the next day without being seen. The answer no. So he moved them shortly after midnight. I have heard no disagreement among the survivors that the intent was to rest the horses and troopers on the 25th and attack the morning of the 26th. The last move of 3 miles was not done by Custer. Does anyone know who ordered the 7th to move up? Custer asked his brother who ordered the movement and the reply was he didn't know(Reno Board of Inquiry).
In hindsight I believe staying on the Rosebud an extra day might have been better but would not have changed whether or not he disobeyed orders. Reno stated at his board of Inquiry that the grazing was terrible and 600 horses eat a lot. Moving locations facilities feeding the horses.
to push his men almost constantly for the 36 hours before they found the village Buddha-- The village was located while the 7th was in camp on the Rosebud. The push came after the village was located.
As far as the horses I am not as convinced as some that the horses were as worn out as some have stated. Horses can be pushed to near death and near that point they quit and some die. There were some that did quit and the troopers survived. If the horses were pushed so hard on the marches to the point where Custer divided his Regiment, how did Reno gallop for 3 miles toward the village, withdraw to the timber and then charge up to Reno Benteen. A horse can trot all day long but a 3 mile gallop is not indicative of horses about to drop over dead. Maybe at the end of the day they were worn out. I checked earlier today on what is the maximum you could expect out of a top rider and horse. The best time for 100 miles was under 12 hours at 11 hours and 18 minutes. Did the cavalry have these kind of riders or horses no but the vet checks for the horses completing the 100 mile run confirm that the horse is ready to continue at the end of the 100 mile endurance contest or it is disqualified. Last year the best time was 15 hours for the 100 miles. Since the cavalry horse is constantly in training on this mission it should have been in fairly good shape.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 09:33:13 AM
|
Custer ended up unnecessarily attacking a far stronger village on the LBH by making bad decisions that day and previously by cultivating a nepotistic clique within the regiment.
Ok, now once again we have a concise picture of your thoughts about the boy general. He was an Impatient, incompetent, nepotistic bonehead, whose orders were badly thought out, AND HE WAS HAVING A BAD DAY?
Nepotism means favoring relatives or personal friends because of their relationship rather than because of their abilities. Now if one is to assume that this was true why not give Captain Custer command of Benteen's regiment? In fact why not give Reno's battalion to Keough or Cooke. They both had Civil war credentials that would have given Custer the nepotistic right to do so. Keough and Cooke were brevited a Lt. Colonel's by the end of the Civil War. If Custer was as nepotistic as you say he was. Why take the chance on everything failing with people who most say he couldn't trust. And replace them with people he could? That he didn't do so means otherwise doesn't it? That it was Cooke and not Tom C. who wrote that message to Benteen also indicates otherwise doens't it? Where's the nepotism DC?
In what way do the following words change anything, DC.
It is, impossible to give you any definite instructions in regard to this movement, and were it not impossible to do so the Regimental Commander places too much confidence in your zeal, energy, and ability to wish to impose upon you precise orders which might hamper your action when nearly in contact with the enemy. He will, however, indicate to you his own views of what your action should be, and he desires that you should conform to them unless you shall see sufficient reason for departing from them. General Custer directs you take as rapid a gait as you think prudent and charge the village afterwards, and you will be supported by the whole outfit.
It is, impossible to give you any definite instructions in regard to this movement, and were it not impossible to do so the Regimental Commander places too much confidence in your zeal, energy, and ability to wish to impose upon you precise orders which might hamper your action when nearly in contact with the enemy. He will, however, indicate to you his own views of what your action should be, and he desires that you should conform to them unless you shall see sufficient reason for departing from them. Benteen, come on, be quick, bring packs, ps bring packs |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The new myth
