| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 13 2006 : 10:06:08 AM
|
An incompetent decision isn't a verdict of chronic incompetence.
No such thing.People are incompetant not decisions.
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.Yes under Terry's direct control.Terry in relinquishing his command of the main strike force relinquished his responsibility and any influence to determine the outcome of the campaign.That action makes him equally responsible for the disaster.
It made no sense to tie cavalry to infantry,
It made every sense.Unsupported cavalry was one dimentional.Look at it this way DC the gatling gun detachment probably had more fire power than the entire 7th but who in their right mind would send them to the LBH unsupported.
Benteen
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!
Custer compaired to Crook was a virtual blabber mouth.
I think these old civil war vets were as f***ed up as Iraqi vets are now.
AZ
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
Custer turned off long before he knew where the village was. |
Edited by - wILD I on March 13 2006 10:42:19 AM |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 11:38:55 AM
|
Try as you might, Benteen, your apparently self-appointed task is beyond you. Anyone can read what I wrote rather than what you say I wrote, and your summation of my thoughts on Custer is obviously incorrect.
Even if he could turn over command of certain groups to less senior officers, which he could not, you confuse trust with competence. And rank, for that matter.
The people Custer liked and trusted are not necessarily his most competent. I don't think "most" people have an opinion one way or the other on who Custer could trust, or what you could possibly base that conclusion on. Nepotism has no rights to grant and the restrictions of the Army on any soldier still applied. In any case, you suppose him to have power he did not. That Cooke wrote a message does little to interfere with the contention Cooke - who apparently Custer trusted as part of his clique - was little more than his gofer and secretary and TWC - who he also trusted - was, in reality, his field adjutant.
I have no clue what I am - or anyone is - supposed to divine from your hamfisted combining of Terry's orders to Custer and one version of Custer's orders to Reno and/or Cooke's note to Benteen.
Make up another ID and start again. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 11:49:43 AM
|
Wild,
1. "People are incompetant not decisions." Dramatic, Wild. But decisions aren't "crazy," either, only people are. Yet, the invention of adjectives allows us to use it as such.
2. From the beginning, Sheridan viewed the 7th as the main striking force. Custer took his allowed out and left Terry's plan. Custer chose to attack when and where he did, not Terry. That was what precipitated the fiasco.
3. It makes zero sense to tie quick moving cavalry to slower infantry chasing mounted Indians.
4. "Not only is this difficult to believe, it's insane! Custer compaired to Crook was a virtual blabber mouth." This is based on what more than wishful thinking? Again. Besides, actions aren't insane! Only people.... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 13 2006 11:50:04 AM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 1:11:25 PM
|
The people Custer liked and trusted are not necessarily his most competent. I don't think "most" people have an opinion one way or the other on who Custer could trust, or what you could possibly base that conclusion on.
Talking in cirlces DC? I don't think "most" people have an opinion one way or the other on who Custer could trust..." Yet it is evident that you claim absolution from this conclusion by stating, "The people Custer liked and trusted are not necessarily his most competent." Please DC, do so inform us, in your humble opinion, who Custer could trust. And then kindly explain just exactly which "people Custer liked and trusted", who were," not necessarily his most competent."
"In any case, you suppose him to have power he did not."It wasn't me who claimed his nepotistic behaviour. Au contraire, I claimed no such thing. It was you who said, "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." You sir, granted him that power, not I! I only explored the limits of that power, and by appearances his supposed nepotistic behaviour didn't matter one bit the outcome, did it?
That Cooke wrote a message does little to interfere with the contention Cooke - who apparently Custer trusted as part of his clique - was little more than his gofer and secretary and TWC - who he also trusted - was, in reality, his field adjutant.
Suppostitions at best, not one shred of proof of any kind is there, DC.
I have no clue what I am - or anyone is - supposed to divine from your hamfisted combining of Terry's orders to Custer and one version of Custer's orders to Reno and/or Cooke's note to Benteen.
Those "hamfisted combinations" prove what you choose to ignore. Try again.
Make up another ID and start again.
Not a chance. I want you to know my thoughts as one person. I don't have to hide behind false names ad infinitum to valley hunt.
Custer chose to attack when and where he did, not Terry. That was what precipitated the fiasco.
So you do agree that he should not have turned and followed the mile wide indian trial to the LBH? That this fiasco was precipitated by that action. And by not following Terry's explicit instructions and that had he stuck to the plan and not "chose to attack when and here he did" that the outcome would have been more favourable? |
|
|
|
Buddha
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 2:21:48 PM
|
Dark Cloud – ‘The cases which were manufactured after the battle and found on the field need to have their presence explained.”
By definition, these cases were manufactured after the battle, so they were transported there after the battle and were not a part of it. The 7th was not the only unit to have access to the battlefield through the years. Any other Army unit or Color Guard or Honor Guard that was there in later years could have left the cases. I don’t need to look any further for a plausible reason for them to be found there.
AZ Ranger – To continue along this same subject line, if I recall correctly, Fox plotted not only locations of bullet impacts, but directions, and reversed them to get an idea where they might have been fired from, and from that, to who probably fired the bullet. A 45-55 bullet that was found impacted in a cavalry position was assumed to be fired by Indians unless you wanted to believe that the soldiers were fighting amongst themselves.
General thoughts on whether or not Custer obeyed orders of not – The general policy of the Army at time was that Indians belonged on reservations, and the purpose of the expeditions of Terry and Crook was to enforce that policy by forcing ‘wild’ Indians back on their reservation.. General guidance was given about areas to be searched, but no specific directions given as to how to go about this or requiring coordination. The commanders were left to their discretion on this. Consequently, when crook was whipped, or reduced to a non-fighting force for lack of ammunition, he left the field with no thought to advise Terry. Despite the possible consequences from the advantage of hindsight, there was nothing wrong with this.
Terry sent Custer off to locate the Indians. Once he had done so, following orders that had the intent of accomplishing that goal no longer needed to be followed. I would not have done so in Custer’s place since it would be a waste of assets and possibly jeopardize my remaining on the trail of the already located Indians. Had I felt a reason to recon along the Tongue, I would have done so by returning to my original orders after dealing with the Indians on the LBH.
“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.”
Where I would criticize Custer is that his actions did not adhere to the original orders from Sheridan, to locate the Indians and put them back on the reservation and that his actions in speeding up his movement by forced marching and a new emphasis on noise discipline indicated a desire to get close to and fight the Indians. On its face, that’s what a cavalry unit should do. Custer may or may not have seen enough from the Crow’s Nest to make any other commander change his mind. Custer was known though, for charging in where ordinary men feared to tread so what he saw didn’t matter to him. A good commander in this case, would have stepped back and considered how to best accomplish his orders rather than blindly following a course of action decided on days before without any information to go on. Further, Custer knew or suspected that Terry and Gibbons were in the vicinity and approaching the Little Bighorn. Once he located the actual Indian encampment, he could have remained out of sight somewhere, rested his men, and sent messengers to locate Terry and Gibbons and inform them as a minimum. This could have happened even before the actual encampment was sighted. If I remember correctly, Terry was expected at the LBH on the 26th. Had Custer not force marched, he would have been there on the same day as Terry. Had they then coordinated, it is my belief that the outcome would have been less fatal for the 7th. Whether or not Custer disobeyed orders is an argument that can be made either way, but in my opinion, waiting a day or two and combining with Terry and his forces was a better way to accomplish the intent of the original orders, regardless of the outcome. Should Custer have been able to see this? I think there is no doubt that a former Major General should have been able to do so.
Let me say this in a shorter way. Being given the freedom to deviate from orders does not mean that you have the freedom to do whatever you want, such as go home to visit your wife or go fishing. It means that if you see a better way to accomplish your mission, you can do so. You should always consider that you must think about what you are about to do as a unit, and be able justify it as the best thing to do, not just emphasize that you shouldn’t be blamed ‘cause you had permission. The two lines in quotes say all of this in so many less words.
I don’t know who ordered the unit moved up when Custer was on the Crow’s Nest, but cynicism suggests to me that it was one of Custer’s cryptic remarks that was interpreted as his wanting the unit moved. Custer was known to be extremely critical and it could have been a case of wanting to avoid his displeasure rather than asking ‘What was that again? My wild guess. That’s all.
Benteen - “Nepotism means favoring relatives or personal friends because of their relationship rather than because of their abilities.”
This wasn’t Custer’s regiment. It was Colonel Sturgis’ regiment. Sturgis was off on recruiting duty and Custer was the Acting Commander. Had Custer, or any acting commander in any unit, made changes in command, he would have risked the extreme displeasure of the unit’s actual commander and very possibly have ended his career. One thing to consider along this line, and that is that Custer had only a limited time in command. The cynical could say that Custer was going to use this campaign to make his career regardless of the risk and did so.
Regarding Cooke, he was the Adjutant, the unit’s paperpusher. His job in the field was to follow Custer like a trained dog. Writing a note to give to bugler John Martin was something he would have done for Custer at his direction. When Sturgis later returned, Cooke would have remained in his position as Adjutant.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 9:59:57 PM
|
Benteen,
1. Not talking in circles, and you're not reading well. Your examples of opposites aren't. It doesn't matter who Custer trusts, I just pointed out that his trust didn't necessarily confer competence, and it wasn't competence that necessarily engendered the trust. Benteen was passing competent. Did Custer trust him?
2. That's correct, I claimed Custer ran a nepotistic regiment and you did not. He did. You seem unclear on its meaning. Nepotism isn't a power, although its result can often grant power. Custer worked and canoodled to get friends and relatives into the 7th and gave preferences to them; the proof is there. Nobody fails to notice the Custer clique, or how odd it is Maggie Custer Calhoun lost a husband, three brothers, and a nephew that day, or that her husband's brother-in-law, a fellow officer, provided Calhoun's shade with testimony of his waging a great fight. That's nepotism. And, as I've stated before, the reaction of so much family to a wounded member could well have influenced actions. And Boston Custer just left his post when he felt like it to no particular point other than personal desire to be with family. Nobody screamed, so they must have been used to such. Sturgis, by the way, already had had fights with Custer and lost in the court of Sheridan, and was assigned to a desk. Sturgis gave a list of officers he wanted dismissed, like Weir, and it didn't happen. Huh. All before LBH.
True, no proof, but it's a worthy suspicion, and while it took some years, the military eventually discouraged family in the same units, although I note Pat Tillman's brother was oddly close at his death.
3. No. Never claimed any proof, and often stated the opposite. But, just compare Cooke to Bourke. And who gave Kanipe his orders? TWC, saying he spoke for the General. May be. Absent the note, the most people seem to have noted about the 7th's regimental adjutant, a position normally of great power, was that he was a very fast runner.
4. Don't get a logical connection.
5. "Not a chance. I want you to know my thoughts as one person. I don't have to hide behind false names ad infinitum to valley hunt." Right.
6. "So you do agree that he should not have turned and followed the mile wide indian trial to the LBH?" I've said exactly the opposite. I have no major problems with Custer's actions till MTC, when they became unfixable. That doesn't negate the fact that once Custer headed west, he set in motion events that made him think an attack necessary - that they'd been seen and the camp would split. That wasn't true, as it happens, but nobody could know that and it was a reasonable conclusion. Still, his decision to leave Terry's plan, as Terry allowed him to do, and initiate his own action was what initiated the fiasco. The fact that the decision was probably incorrect doesn't mean it was a baseless one. And Terry said, in writing, to follow the plan unless Custer saw reason to do something he thought better. Terry also said he had faith in Custer's ability to make that decision. Explicitly.
Buddha,
1. About the cases, you've missed the point by discussing just a section of them. Obviously they were brought to the field after the battle. But so many of them aren't military cases at all, like the .22's. How did they get there? Did people go up there and shoot up the ground? Was the Army so negligent they didn't protect it through the years? Then: early on the field was described as picked clean, yet all these cases were there to be found when needed by VIP's. Strikes me a case can be made that cases vanished and others reappeared, because various officials have said or implied as much. Some, made after 1876, can be identified as irrelevant. But others, made pre-1876 and not military issue or known as an officer's weapon, are automatically called evidence of Indian weapons during those two hours or so. Doesn't follow.
You say "A 45-55 bullet that was found impacted in a cavalry position was assumed to be fired by Indians unless you wanted to believe that the soldiers were fighting amongst themselves." Or not. For example, Gall apparently told Barry in 1886 that soldiers west and below LSH fired at Indians upon it before they themselves were driven back to it, and that's what his photograph shows in the recreation. In WCF. No idea if true.
TWC, the person Custer yelled at when the regiment came forward to the divide, had opportunity and knowledge of the commander and probably brought it forward. Custer yelled at him, upset about it, and then nothing. Nobody recalls anyone getting yelled at except TWC, and that briefly. Wouldn't Custer have made his displeasure known to who was responsible? He perhaps already had, been advised of the reason, agreed with TWC's prescience, and moved on. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Buddha
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2006 : 10:51:22 AM
|
Dark Cloud – Let me say first that I often find it hard to follow your remarks for lack of clear references. I would like to understand what you are saying, but guessing at what you are talking about doesn’t always leave me a clear feeling that I have succeeded.
“Benteen was passing competent. Did Custer trust him?”
If you google Benteen, you will find that he was considered a very competent and personally brave officer in the Civil War who was promoted to the rank of Brevet Brigadier General for his performance leading men in combat. You will not find a reference to high casualties in his units. His competence under fire was demonstrated again at the LBH when he stopped at Reno Hill and helped Reno, who wasn’t in a very good state at the time, organize the position so it could be defended. In the course of doing so, he saw Indians massing about 100 yards away. At the time, they could have overrun Reno’s position. Benteen organized and personally led a pre-emptive attack on foot that broke up the Indians and pushed them back, saving Reno and his men and enabling them to eventually survive.
I sure that Custer didn’t trust Benteen, and that may have had something to do with why Benteen was sent off into the boonies for no apparent reason. The reason I’m sure Custer didn’t trust Benteen is that Benteen didn’t trust Custer. Following a meeting in 1868, Benteen left with a feeling of dislike that never left him. I’ve always suspected that it had something to do with Custer’s abandonment of Major Elliot at the Ou****a.
“Sturgis, by the way, already had had fights with Custer and lost in the court of Sheridan, and was assigned to a desk. Sturgis gave a list of officers he wanted dismissed, like Weir, and it didn't happen. Huh.
This is the first I’ve heard of the fights. You make it sound like Custer came out on top and Sturgis was re-assigned as a result, while we know Sturgis remained in command of the regiment. That’s hard to believe, especially if a man, Sheridan, who could reassign Sturgis and replace him with Custer failed to do so as a result of these differences. How about some elaboration here.
My understanding of Custer’s suitability for command is that it was very low. He had previously deserted his unit when he decided to go visit his wife ‘on his own initiative’, so to speak. The result was a court-martial for being AWOL which resulted in his being suspended from active duty for a year. Only Libby’s strong intervention with Sheridan got him put back into the 7th.
“4. Don't get a logical connection.” Don’t understand what you are talking about here.
Cooke - Let me comment about Cooke and his position as Adjutant. Nothing I have seen indicates he had any power except what every other adjutant in the Army had. He had an office next to the Commander and would speak for him. He wrote all orders and signed them, sometimes in his own name, some times ‘for the Commander’. Writing notes, in the field, on horseback, would be an assigned duty of any adjutant. So far as I have seen, he was just doing his job at LBH.
“TWC, the person Custer yelled at when the regiment came forward to the divide, had opportunity and knowledge of the commander and probably brought it forward. Custer yelled at him, upset about it, and then nothing. Nobody recalls anyone getting yelled at except TWC, and that briefly. Wouldn't Custer have made his displeasure known to who was responsible? He perhaps already had, been advised of the reason, agreed with TWC's prescience, and moved on.”
I’m confused here. If Custer had “perhaps already had, been advised of the reason, agreed with TWC's prescience,”, why did he yell at TWC? That seems sort of contradictory to me.
If Custer had made intentions to keep the regiment in hiding known, this wouldn’t have happened. On the other hand, perhaps his actions of forced marching and enforcing noise discipline along with comments about not letting the Indians get away showed the officers there his intentions to attack as soon as possible and they anticipated what he would do next.
“1. About the cases, you've missed the point by discussing just a section of them.” – The archeologists found evidence of 47 different kinds of weapons being used at LBH. Their peer-reviewed assumption is that anything not clearly fired by soldiers was fired by Indians. They also made assumptions from evidence of their direction at impact. That falls below the level of proof, but it means that others knowledgeable in the field agree with Fox that assumptions like this are probably true. I’m going with the pros on this one.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2006 : 12:26:18 PM
|
Buddha,
1. Give an example of a remark you don't understand.
2. I don't understand your confusion. I know about Benteen. There's no evidence that Custer didn't trust Benteen in the field. He resented Benteen's article about the Wa****a, though. He borrowed money from Benteen, he had to respect someone who stood up to him in public and private. He may not have liked him, although most animosity seemed to have been the other way. You don't need to suspect the fate of Elliott was a reason; Benteen said so in the Wa****a article. To think Custer would sent 25% of his unit off to the boonies just before battle out of pique for vague reason is to say Custer was an idiot.
3. Sturgis was removed from field duty and this infuriated him, so yes, Custer came out on top and was regarded by the 7th and the public as the unit's commander and writing best selling books about it. Sturgis' effort "Heroic Indian Warfare As Seen From Downtown St. Louis and Other Boring Jobs" failed to find public acclaim. Custer may have been guilty of scams with sutlers and other things - he was always short money - that Sturgis reported, and along with his demands certain officers be removed, he lost out on those as well, although they festered. That Sturgis retained rank and command was more the result of the top heavy officer corps after the Civil War and the sensitivities of loyal Union officers like Sherman and Sheridan to them, and that Sturgis hadn't done anything wrong, particularly. This is Custer 101 and you can find this written in all the major books: Connell, Stewart, or here on the web.
4. Sheridan seemed to have a modest affection for Libby (the Appomatox table...) which she may have misread that lasted until Sheridan found a younger and beautiful wife, and Libby ceased to be of interest. Custer's re-emergence was because of the campaign against the Southern Cheyenne and the request of certain officers and civvies - including Benteen - that he be returned to duty.
5. That's because you're answering my reply to Benteen, not you. Maybe you can figure out the connection he sees. I cannot.
6. Regarding Cooke, yes, sorta. I used the example of Bourke, Crook's adjutant, who was far more than a secretary. He consulted with Crook about a lot of issues, but Custer's intimates were family and near family. If you read all the stories of the pre LBH 7th, and substitute Bubba Schultz for the name Tom Custer, at some point you'd find yourself wondering what the hell one of twelve company commanders is doing in Custer's lap all the time, issuing opinion and orders. I think TWC was the actual number two in the regiment, unstated but understood. Look again at the leeway Boston had, or the bizarre and somewhat cruel presence of Reed, sickly and of no real benefit to the command. Now imagine the leeway Tom had in proportion to ability and experience and closeness to bro. I think there was an official and an actual command structure in the 7th, and suspect that if a member of the family got hurt early, the priorities of the actual would take command, without objection or surprise to the other officers. I use the example of who brought the regiment forward, and the Kanipe order and mission, for which we have Kanipe's word that he had TWC's word that Custer gave it.
You misread. "Wouldn't Custer have made his displeasure known to who was responsible? (when he returned from the Crow's Nest to whoever was responsible for bringing the regiment forward) He perhaps already had (he'd just yelled at Tom and yelled at nobody else), been advised of the reason, agreed with TWC's prescience, and moved on." More to the point, you're confusing several short marches to the divide. Gray covers this in detail.
7. You're social climbing and not thinking. You say "The archeologists found evidence of 47 different kinds of weapons being used at LBH." By which I assume you mean the battle. They found evidence of 47 different kinds of non 1876 military weapons on the LBH field. They don't have, and there is no way for them to have, any idea if these weapons were used in the battle, the day after, the day before, the years after. As you mentioned and is known, this field hosted many reasons for cartridges. And people didn't cash in last year's ammo and weapons like Play Stations when new ones came out. Indians kept ammo for decades.
"Their peer-reviewed assumption is that anything not clearly fired by soldiers was fired by Indians." During the battle? You don't clarify. If so, then they and their peers are world class, letter sweater idiots of the first water. Quote me on that. It simply rolls off the tongue. That would only be arguably - and no more than that - true if proof existed that all detritus manufactured before the battle on the field appeared during the battle. But, I'm willing to bet that they aren't idiots and you'll find caveats to such a silly conclusion.
"They also made assumptions from evidence of their direction at impact." Fine. Relevant only if no horses, or feet, or prying hands, or frost heaves on that field of constant temperature and no moisture (right? otherwise....) existed to alter a trajectory path in shallow dirt over 130 years. Hey, there's surety for an assumption. What else they got?
"That falls below the level of proof (NO! AND the seventy-eight floors beneath 'proof', hitting the cellar bottom of History's Mysteries, and the bottom falls out....), but it means that others knowledgeable in the field agree with Fox that assumptions like this are probably true. I’m going with the pros on this one." Professional what? What field of study? Experts in the structural integrity of shallow bullet paths in dirt over 130 years in an unpaved marching field with one hundred degree variations in temperature and feet of snow and rain for each of 130 years?
In any case, they have no proof - and much reason for concern whether - these bullets were even fired that day during that time period of, say, two hours, whatsoever. Evidence? Doesn't really rise to the level of wishful thinking. Although I've found the articles and books by Fox and Scott et al to be inundated with caveats and, let's say, far more restrained conclusion than many of their enthusiasts. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 14 2006 12:29:54 PM |
|
|
|
Buddha
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2006 : 1:46:31 PM
|
“Give an example of a remark you don't understand.
5. That's because you're answering my reply to Benteen, not you. Maybe you can figure out the connection he sees. I cannot.”
I already did. This is a public forum, not a private one, so I have every expectation that any remarks made on it are for public consumption.
2. I don't understand your confusion. I know about Benteen. There's no evidence that Custer didn't trust Benteen in the field. He resented Benteen's article about the Wa****a, though. He borrowed money from Benteen, he had to respect someone who stood up to him in public and private. He may not have liked him, although most animosity seemed to have been the other way. You don't need to suspect the fate of Elliott was a reason; Benteen said so in the Wa****a article. To think Custer would sent 25% of his unit off to the boonies just before battle out of pique for vague reason is to say Custer was an idiot.
Custer was an idiot and, I may be wrong but I thought there was a lot of agreement on that. As for your opinions of what people thought, they assume a lot.
3. Sturgis was removed from field duty and this infuriated him, so yes, Custer came out on top and was regarded by the 7th and the public as the unit's commander and writing best selling books about it. Sturgis' effort "Heroic Indian Warfare As Seen From Downtown St. Louis and Other Boring Jobs" failed to find public acclaim. Custer may have been guilty of scams with sutlers and other things - he was always short money - that Sturgis reported, and along with his demands certain officers be removed, he lost out on those as well, although they festered. That Sturgis retained rank and command was more the result of the top heavy officer corps after the Civil War and the sensitivities of loyal Union officers like Sherman and Sheridan to them, and that Sturgis hadn't done anything wrong, particularly. This is Custer 101 and you can find this written in all the major books: Connell, Stewart, or here on the web.
I remember Custer barely being allowed to take command of the 7th, because he was so mistrusted by Sheridan, but all of my reference books are in storage, so I have avoided stating so. I can recall that Custer was called to a meeting on the steamer Yellowstone by Terry and told to not attack the Indians under any circumstances. I’m going to stay with that as Custer 101 for the time being.
FWIW, a top heavy officer corps would mean that it would be easier to replace Sturgis, not harder. It also meant that the new commander would be another Colonel, not a Lt Colonel like Custer. Had Custer been intended to remain the commander, he would have been promoted.
4. Sheridan seemed to have a modest affection for Libby (the Appomatox table...) which she may have misread that lasted until Sheridan found a younger and beautiful wife, and Libby ceased to be of interest. Custer's re-emergence was because of the campaign against the Southern Cheyenne and the request of certain officers and civvies - including Benteen - that he be returned to duty.
One of my books was written by a man who served in a unit with officers from the 7th, including Benteen, some time after LBH. At that time, Benteen was stated to still retain frequently expressed ill feelings about Custer. I don’t think he lobbied for Custer to do anything positive, certainly not to return to duty.
6. “Regarding Cooke, yes, sorta. I used the example of Bourke, Crook's adjutant, who was far more than a secretary. He consulted with Crook about a lot of issues, but Custer's intimates were family and near family. If you read all the stories of the pre LBH 7th, and substitute Bubba Schultz for the name Tom Custer, at some point you'd find yourself wondering what the hell one of twelve company commanders is doing in Custer's lap all the time, issuing opinion and orders. I think TWC was the actual number two in the regiment, unstated but understood. Look again at the leeway Boston had, or the bizarre and somewhat cruel presence of Reed, sickly and of no real benefit to the command. Now imagine the leeway Tom had in proportion to ability and experience and closeness to bro. I think there was an official and an actual command structure in the 7th, and suspect that if a member of the family got hurt early, the priorities of the actual would take command, without objection or surprise to the other officers. I use the example of who brought the regiment forward, and the Kanipe order and mission, for which we have Kanipe's word that he had TWC's word that Custer gave it.”
Enough about the Adjutant. Cooke was the unit paper pusher. That’s all. That Custer, who would have normally been the Regiment XO (second in command) employed someone to help him by serving as unofficial second in command isn’t that unusual. He probably could have used the help. If he employed his brother, who was awarded 2 Medals of Honor in the Civil War, wasn’t necessarily because of nepotism. Could be though.
‘You misread. "Wouldn't Custer have made his displeasure known to who was responsible? (when he returned from the Crow's Nest to whoever was responsible for bringing the regiment forward) He perhaps already had (he'd just yelled at Tom and yelled at nobody else), been advised of the reason, agreed with TWC's prescience, and moved on." More to the point, you're confusing several short marches to the divide. Gray covers this in detail.’
I think you’re confused about me. I’m not confused.
7. “You're social climbing and not thinking. You say "The archeologists found evidence of 47 different kinds of weapons being used at LBH." By which I assume you mean the battle. They found evidence of 47 different kinds of non 1876 military weapons on the LBH field. They don't have, and there is no way for them to have, any idea if these weapons were used in the battle, the day after, the day before, the years after. As you mentioned and is known, this field hosted many reasons for cartridges. And people didn't cash in last year's ammo and weapons like Play Stations when new ones came out. Indians kept ammo for decades.”
Lets see now. If I refer to archeologists as references, that’s social climbing. If you refer to an author, that’s not. Now I’m confused. I don’t feel like I have to be the absolute fountain of knowledge here or any place else, so if someone else, or a book, or an archeologist, has more knowledge than me, I have no problem giving them credit without thinking that I am somehow elevated by referencing them.
You are really going out of your way to criticize, aren’t you? Yes, LBH means the battle. Check which web site you are on.
“non-1876 military weapons”. What does non-1876 mean? What are you trying to say here?
The only military weapons at LBH were 1873 Springfields and Colts. The other 45 kinds were not military and were never said to be. Did I? Your repeated point that others and other weapons appeared on the battlefield site is known, and I think, I may be wrong though, that people whose profession it is to examine such historical sites could deal with that and not simply give up as you do and say that lacking absolute proof, no conclusion can be drawn about what happened on the site. (Oops. You disagreed with yourself in your last comments.)
"Their peer-reviewed assumption is that anything not clearly fired by soldiers was fired by Indians." During the battle? You don't clarify. If so, then they and their peers are world class, letter sweater idiots of the first water. Quote me on that. It simply rolls off the tongue. That would only be arguably - and no more than that - true if proof existed that all detritus manufactured before the battle on the field appeared during the battle. But, I'm willing to bet that they aren't idiots and you'll find caveats to such a silly conclusion.
First you call the archeologists idiots for making assumptions about the direction of fire, then you say they aren’t. Is that what is called a contradiction?
Your word ‘caveat’, is that what other people call an assumption?
You are so proud of yourself for not controlling yourself and calling people idiots. How bizarre.
"They also made assumptions from evidence of their direction at impact." Fine. Relevant only if no horses, or feet, or prying hands, or frost heaves on that field of constant temperature and no moisture (right? otherwise....) existed to alter a trajectory path in shallow dirt over 130 years. Hey, there's surety for an assumption. What else they got?
You’re working so hard at being critical, aren’t you? I’ll just bet that is why the pros don’t jump to conclusions about such things, and use the total of what they find, rather than a single incident, and only when they are finished gathering data do they begin to analyze the possibilities.
"That falls below the level of proof (NO! AND the seventy-eight floors beneath 'proof', hitting the cellar bottom of History's Mysteries, and the bottom falls out....), but it means that others knowledgeable in the field agree with Fox that assumptions like this are probably true. I’m going with the pros on this one." Professional what? What field of study? Experts in the structural integrity of shallow bullet paths in dirt over 130 years in an unpaved marching field with one hundred degree variations in temperature and feet of snow and rain for each of 130 years?
Criticism and sarcasm at any opportunity. Why do you work so hard to do this? Can you stand anyone else having an opinion. even when you agree, you have a problem letting a statement go.
I have already answered regarding who the pros are. You shouldn’t have to be told if you are smart as the average person.
“In any case, they have no proof - and much reason for concern whether - these bullets were even fired that day during that time period of, say, two hours, whatsoever. Evidence? Doesn't really rise to the level of wishful thinking. Although I've found the articles and books by Fox and Scott et al to be inundated with caveats and, let's say, far more restrained conclusion than many of their enthusiasts.”
This has been discussed already.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2006 : 4:43:51 PM
|
Buddha,
By paragraph.
1. "I already did. This is a public forum, not a private one, so I have every expectation that any remarks made on it are for public consumption." Correct, and while it's quite possible you're Benteen as well, I was replying to him/her coordinating a numbered reply to his paragraphs. So, if you have a question about the response, go read his query. It had gone on for a while.
2."Custer was an idiot..." I don't think so. I don't think anyone who rises so fast and wrote so well could be an idiot. He made mistakes that day, but such is the nature of things. You may have the books, but I don't think you've read them. Not only the Sturgis issue, of which you say you knew nothing, but none of my opinions about Custer are unique to me. They assume little if anything.
3. "I remember Custer barely being allowed to take command of the 7th......" Here, you're going back and forth between decades and campaigns. I didn't imply it was hard to replace Sturgis, but rather said CW vets tried to be fair to each other. Sturgis, unlike Custer, hadn't done anything "wrong" and was kept. Hardly any officers were promoted at all between 65 and 76. This was before up or out.
4. "One of my books was written by a man who served in a unit with officers from the 7th, including Benteen, some time after LBH. At that time, Benteen was stated to still retain frequently expressed ill feelings about Custer. I don’t think he lobbied for Custer to do anything positive, certainly not to return to duty." Well, this is way after the events we were discussing, and Benteen told Goldin he did.
5. "Enough about the Adjutant....." You don't have to talk about him. Allow others to. An adjutant wasn't always just that, all I'm saying. Besides that others outranked him, TWC was a good choice and competent.
6. "I’m not confused." Sounded like you were when you posted "I would like to understand what you are saying, but guessing at what you are talking about doesn’t always leave me a clear feeling that I have succeeded." Again, an example?
7. "Lets see now. If I refer to archeologists as references, that’s social climbing." Yeah, if you pander to their opinion without question. "If you refer to an author, that’s not." On the contrary. Can't you tell how hard I seek approval on this board? In any case, Buddha, you seem to miss any attempt at humor totally.
8. "You are really going out of your way to criticize, aren’t you? Yes, LBH means the battle. Check which web site you are on." You're being silly. Saying found on the LBH field is not saying it came from the battle. There's a difference, and an important one. Right now, the only way to exclude some is manufacture after the battle. The doesn't mean 1874 ammo wasn't fired in 1880 on the field, does it? See, that's what “non-1876 military weapons” means.
9. "The only military weapons at LBH were 1873 Springfields and Colts." Really? I thought French had a non 1873 Springfield, French had a Sharp's, Custer had different pistols and carbine, someone had a .50 something. And that's just the ones we think we know about. "The other 45 kinds were not military and were never said to be. Did I?" I suspect a lot of Indian weapons may have been military at one time, certainly the Navy colts. But, I didn't claim you had. You've misread again. "Your repeated point that others and other weapons appeared on the battlefield site is known, and I think, I may be wrong though, that people whose profession it is to examine such historical sites could deal with that and not simply give up as you do and say that lacking absolute proof, no conclusion can be drawn about what happened on the site. (Oops. You disagreed with yourself in your last comments.)" I haven't "given up" or said lacking absolute proof nothing can be learned. I'm saying until you can prove the bullets were fired in the battle proper, you have nada regardless of where they're found, but once that's reasonably settled, maybe. Put a bullet in dirt three inches below ground and get the ground muddy and stomp on it for 130 years of 100 degree temperature change. The chances of it appearing even very near the place where it came to rest is.......well, low. And reflective of where it was fired from? Please.
10. "First you call the archeologists idiots for making assumptions about the direction of fire," close enough.."then you say they aren’t." Is that what is called a contradiction?" Actually, what I said was that they include caveats you don't mention. Reread, I'll wait. Hmmmmmm. Isn't that right? A caveat is a warning. It's very common. Soldiers would know it since it appears in manuals. Very common word. I AM rather proud of myself but not for the reasons you list, sorry. And actually, Buddha, what I said was if what you said they say is true, they'd be idiots. And then I offered the suspicion they were far more restrained in their conclusions then their fans are, which is what I recall.
11. "You’re working so hard at being critical, aren’t you? I’ll just bet that is why the pros don’t jump to conclusions about such things, and use the total of what they find, rather than a single incident, and only when they are finished gathering data do they begin to analyze the possibilities." Yeah, I know Buddha.
12 "Criticism and sarcasm at any opportunity. Why do you work so hard to do this? Can you stand anyone else having an opinion. even when you agree, you have a problem letting a statement go." Not hardly. Much of Custerland needs far more sarcasm and cynicism. Much of the "science" at LBH hasn't proven much at all beyond matching bullets to some weapons, but it sure has inflamed the thought it has. And to have the public collapse in awe is pretty sad. The LBH is just a proving ground for other projects, by the way. New theories based on the archaeology are being stated as FACT, now. Excused because of science. Michno states as fact Custer died waiting for rescue and Benteen. That's a guess, but he uses the archaeology for support. It really does not, and I've provided ample reason for not buying it outright. I think that important to focus on. Once things slip in as "fact" it's hard to get it out. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 07:53:42 AM
|
AZ
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
Custer turned off long before he knew where the village was. Wild, I might be wrong but I don't believe he did from what I see and read. On the 24th Custer was where he was suppose to be on the Rosebud and was not going any faster than the 30 miles per day. When the scouts reported late in the evening of 24th that they discovered the village is when Custer changed his direction of travel. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 08:29:42 AM
|
"AZ Ranger – To continue along this same subject line, if I recall correctly, Fox plotted not only locations of bullet impacts, but directions, and reversed them to get an idea where they might have been fired from, and from that, to who probably fired the bullet. A 45-55 bullet that was found impacted in a cavalry position was assumed to be fired by Indians unless you wanted to believe that the soldiers were fighting among themselves."
Buddha-- I think we are basically on the same page.
But here is my thoughts :
1 Drawing a line between two cases fired from the same carbine or any other weapon does not indicate the actual route of travel. There is no drawings showing direction of firing by bullet recovery in Fox. Without immediate access to the scene it would be impossible to have it accurate. If you could find a bullet and several points it passed through then maybe you could. You would need at minimum two points a bullet passed through to determine direction and angle but deflections could make it unreliable.
2 None of the bullets have been identified to the carbine it was fired from. It would useless since the Indians have the carbines. I would also suspect that as the troopers were over run they would be firing in their own ranks and possibly could have placed a bullet in the ground within their ranks.
3 As far as the manufacture of cartridges after 1876 but of the same type of manufacturing and headstamp or lack of headstamp there would not be a way to tell them apart from those at LBH on June 25th, 1876. I doubt the army got rid of the ammunition made prior to the battle so there would be available ammunition of the exact year and headstamp that could have been placed on the battlefield. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on March 16 2006 08:32:49 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 08:49:57 AM
|
"Dark Cloud – Let me say first that I often find it hard to follow your remarks for lack of clear references. I would like to understand what you are saying, but guessing at what you are talking about doesn’t always leave me a clear feeling that I have succeeded.
“Benteen was passing competent. Did Custer trust him?”"
Buddha--I read it as Benteen is absolutely competent as an officer but Custer didn't trust him as a friend or on his side in the Regiment. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on March 16 2006 09:03:54 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 09:18:46 AM
|
Budddha--Custer was an idiot and, I may be wrong but I thought there was a lot of agreement on that. As for your opinions of what people thought, they assume a lot.
I am not sure everyone agrees that Custer was an idiot. If so wouldn't it take a bigger idiot to put him in charge of a regiment or turn him loose on his own? Custer was an effective tool to be used by the army in certain types of operations. If you needed a charge by cavalry into the enemy then he would be a good choice. Letting Custer decide what to do is a different matter. A good commanding officer should have only allowed Custer free rein when that commander decided it necessary. As far as MTC and beyond two theories have been offered here,Custer was wounded or killed and Custer was mentally off.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Buddha
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 09:52:05 AM
|
AZ Ranger - I don’t think you can make any determinations from a single bullet or it’s impact, but if you find a number of bullets that have impacted in a known position and the ‘reverse trajectory’ goes back to a known or likely position, you can make some assumptions from that. That is what I recall having taken place, and it sounds reasonable to me. That’s where computers come in handy.
“As far as the manufacture of cartridges after 1876 but of the same type of manufacturing and headstamp or lack of headstamp there would not be a way to tell them apart from those at LBH on June 25th, 1876.”
I’m not sure that we aren’t talking about two different situations here. Anything headstamped after 1876 would definitely not be part of the battle, but anything headstamped 1876 or earlier could be even if it were brought to the battlefield at a later date, if I understand you correctly. I agree with that. Anything not headstamped, such as Henry 44 rimfires, could have been placed there at any time. I agree with that also. I think what you do is go with the bulk of the data that you have. Data that can’t be accounted for or seems to be a single data point with no context would not be used, but remain in the notes in case more data is found later. At least, that is the procedures the engineers that I know would follow. What would cause a great number of cases to appear at some place on the battlefield site? The only thing I can think of is one battle or another. So far as I know, the Army would not train on that site, although Honor Guards would fire salutes at memorial services. The cases, if not policed up, would be found in straight lines at known locations. They would also occur in relatively small numbers. Crook’s men fired thousands of rounds in a very short period, and this was the case at other battles. I guess adrenalin does that to you. That is a good justification for not using data from a single or a few cases or bullets.
“Buddha--I read it as Benteen is absolutely competent as an officer but Custer didn't trust him as a friend or on his side in the Regiment.”
I read it a little differently. Benteen was absolutely competent from what I know, but if Benteen disliked Custer as much as I believe, I’m sure the feeling was returned. This was not just one instance of not understanding or following Dark Cloud. There have been others, and I am beginning to pass by his threads simply because his statements aren’t clear. References as have been shown here and in your post are very easy to follow. No references leaves you guessing.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 1:14:02 PM
|
AZ
When the scouts reported late in the evening of 24th that they discovered the village is when Custer changed his direction of travel.
Custer did not know the location of the village until the CN.Even then he was not sure thus Benteen was sent off on the left flank.By turning off and following the trail Custer put in jeopardy Terry's plan.If the Indians had turned South rather than North they would not have been between the two forces. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 5:47:02 PM
|
Buddha,
1. What would possibly be the basis for belief that a bullet found is where it ended after being fired 130 years ago, even provided it was not deflected on impact?
2. How do you distinguish bullets fired into the dead bodies, through the corpses, in the hours after the battle, sometimes using Army weapons, sometimes not? What about mere celebratory firings, another Indian habit.
3. How would you distinguish bullets fired into visible skeletons in the years right after the battle, especially that first one, when this highly popular area was visited by Indians, who normally desecrated the dead of enemies? Wooden Leg was there the winter following the battle.
4. Of the bullets and casings that were manufactured after 1876 found on the field, how did they get there, do you think? There are only four possibilities in my mind.
a. the LBH was an accepted dump for cases.
b. people shot on the field and didn't police it
c. the field was salted with cases for unknowing tourists to steal and take with them
d. all of the above.
5. For the reasons you listed for number 4, why would that not also apply to earlier weaponry?
6. How cool would it be to fire weapons on that battlefield if you were a kid, an Indian kid especially?
7. Given that the early markers and stones were desecrated, chipped away, and stolen, why is it so implausible the same minds wouldn't shoot on the field if they could get away with it? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 8:23:10 PM
|
AZ Ranger - I don’t think you can make any determinations from a single bullet or it’s impact, but if you find a number of bullets that have impacted in a known position and the ‘reverse trajectory’ goes back to a known or likely position, you can make some assumptions from that. That is what I recall having taken place, and it sounds reasonable to me. That’s where computers come in handy.
Buddha--The total number impacted in an area I would agree that it indicates whom might have fired it. You can't determine reverse trajectory from a bullet or bullets in the ground. At best you could say the distance from which the maximum would be and ground features that would block the trajectory which could eliminate a location such as a hill between two known locations.
“As far as the manufacture of cartridges after 1876 but of the same type of manufacturing and headstamp or lack of headstamp there would not be a way to tell them apart from those at LBH on June 25th, 1876.”
I’m not sure that we aren’t talking about two different situations here. Anything headstamped after 1876 would definitely not be part of the battle, but anything headstamped 1876 or earlier could be even if it were brought to the battlefield at a later date, if I understand you correctly. I agree with that. Anything not headstamped, such as Henry 44 rimfires, could have been placed there at any time. I agree with that also. I think what you do is go with the bulk of the data that you have. Data that can’t be accounted for or seems to be a single data point with no context would not be used, but remain in the notes in case more data is found later. At least, that is the procedures the engineers that I know would follow. What would cause a great number of cases to appear at some place on the battlefield site? The only thing I can think of is one battle or another. So far as I know, the Army would not train on that site, although Honor Guards would fire salutes at memorial services. The cases, if not policed up, would be found in straight lines at known locations. They would also occur in relatively small numbers. Crook’s men fired thousands of rounds in a very short period, and this was the case at other battles. I guess adrenalin does that to you. That is a good justification for not using data from a single or a few cases or bullets. Buddha Some .45-55 were produced without a date on the headstamp. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on March 16 2006 8:26:29 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2006 : 10:25:46 PM
|
AZ
When the scouts reported late in the evening of 24th that they discovered the village is when Custer changed his direction of travel.
Custer did not know the location of the village until the CN.Even then he was not sure thus Benteen was sent off on the left flank.By turning off and following the trail Custer put in jeopardy Terry's plan.If the Indians had turned South rather than North they would not have been between the two forces. wILD-- You are correct and I stand corrected I should have said the scouts knew the direction of travel both over the divide and had scouted the Rosebud to the location of the Sioux camp site after the battle with Crook (Goes Ahead). The trail from that camp headed down the little Bighorn. Based upon this information the village would be located on the Little Bighorn in close proximity to the camp Custer was in on the night of the 24th on the Rosebud. The new trail over the divide had not been determined by Reno. The scouts told Custer that there was a place ,CN, that the village location could be determined. I believe this to be "sufficient reason" to deviate from the orders. It still makes no sense to me to continue up the Rosebud and then the headwaters of the Tongue, etc.,if you know the fresh evidence of the direction of travel and the nearness that the village must be from the discovered sign. On that point the scouts were correct for the camp was discovered within a short period of time from CN. After some research it would appear Gray shares the same concern of continuing up the Rosebud. Gray states if Custer follows the orders" he would leave a trail as readable as a poster, and discovery would warn the village to flee and scatter. He would also lose track of the village and at best have to search for it again; at worst it could escape undetected back to the Rosebud and eastward or down the Bighorn and attack Terry's weaker force on the march." As you know Custer discussed the information received and made the judgment that he must cross the divide in the dark to not be seen and the rest is history. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 17 2006 : 1:22:53 PM
|
I stand corrected I should have
No AZ you don't stand corrected you still stand in error.None of the scouts civilian or Indian had scouted beyond the CN.Varnham only reached it on the 25th.
and had scouted the Rosebud to the location of the Sioux camp site after the battle with CrookThe camp site of the Indians on the 17th was on Reno Creek just short of the LBH perhaps 5 miles beyond the CN.
The trail from that camp headed down the little Bighorn.This was not known on the 24th.
I believe this to be "sufficient reason" to deviate from the orders.On the 24th Custer had only 2 pieces of new information.1 He had found the turn off point of the Indian trail and that it was fresh.You recall Terry's orders that he should proceed further South past this point.The purpose being to coordinate his arrival time with Terry's and to ensure that the Indians were caught between the two forces.
he would leave a trail as readable as a poster, and discovery would warn the village to flee and scatterThis possibility was known at the planning stage and if he had continued South his trail would have been seen as going away from the Village.
No AZ Custer had no reason to deviate from his orders.
|
|
|
|
Buddha
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - March 17 2006 : 5:41:57 PM
|
Dark Cloud
" Correct, and while it's quite possible you're Benteen as well,
Maybe the remark about Benteen is an attempt at humor. Okay, it might be funny, but it’s incorrect.
2."Custer was an idiot..." I don't think so. I don't think anyone who rises so fast and wrote so well could be an idiot. He made mistakes that day, but such is the nature of things.
Custer was an idiot. He survived, so you can say he got away with it, and was promoted on the bodies of a lot of dead men. Maybe there is some tactical genius involved in a cavalry charge, but I don’t see it. My opinion, not my books.
4. "One of my books was written by a man who served in a unit with officers from the 7th, including Benteen, some time after LBH. At that time, Benteen was stated to still retain frequently expressed ill feelings about Custer. I don’t think he lobbied for Custer to do anything positive, certainly not to return to duty." Well, this is way after the events we were discussing, and Benteen told Goldin he did.
So first Benteen disliked Custer, then he lobbied for him, then he disliked him even years after the man had been killed. Makes no sense to me.
5. "Enough about the Adjutant....." You don't have to talk about him. Allow others to..
I apologize for trying to stop anyone else from talking.
6. "I’m not confused." Sounded like you were when you posted "I would like to understand what you are saying, but guessing at what you are talking about doesn’t always leave me a clear feeling that I have succeeded." Again, an example?”
Most any time that the reference isn’t next to the statement. This post of yours is a welcome change.
7. "Lets see now. If I refer to archeologists as references, that’s social climbing." Yeah, if you pander to their opinion without question. "If you refer to an author, that’s not." On the contrary. Can't you tell how hard I seek approval on this board? In any case, Buddha, you seem to miss any attempt at humor totally.
Why not just skip the name calling?
I’ve read the National Geographic story on the archeological exploration of the battle. I’ve read the book, and I’ve seen the documentary on the exploration several times. In the process, I’ve watched how they go about it and concluded that they covered all of the bases and knew that they didn’t have all of the answers to constitute proof, but the had some supportable theories. So, that means that I didn’t include my questions abut it in a posting here. Since their data is physical, not based on individual memories or reports with an unknown biases, I place a great deal of faith at this time in what the exploration said. That isn’t pandering.
I have missed the humor, but you can see that I tried in the remark about my being Benteen.
8. "You are really going out of your way to criticize, aren’t you? Yes, LBH means the battle. Check which web site you are on." You're being silly. Saying found on the LBH field is not saying it came from the battle. There's a difference, and an important one. Right now, the only way to exclude some is manufacture after the battle. The doesn't mean 1874 ammo wasn't fired in 1880 on the field, does it? See, that's what “non-1876 military weapons” means.
You got me there. That is just such an unusually constructed expression that it wasn’t clear to me. And I thought we were talking about weapons, not ammo. That confused me, too.
9. "The only military weapons at LBH were 1873 Springfields and Colts." Really? I thought French had a non 1873 Springfield, French had a Sharp's, Custer had different pistols and carbine, someone had a .50 something. And that's just the ones we think we know about. "The other 45 kinds were not military and were never said to be. Did I?" I suspect a lot of Indian weapons may have been military at one time, certainly the Navy colts.
I’ve been around guns all of my life, shot them, worked on them, reloaded them, and hung out with other people who liked guns. By common usage, a military firearm is one that has been adopted at some point by a country as it’s military firearm. Even if a firearm was sold to another country in a military version, as Custer’s Rolling Block was, its sale here as a civilian firearm dictates what it is called here. A firearm simply used by a soldier would be referred to in the same way. That’s my perspective for looking at the weapons in the battle. Custer, or Tom, may have carried a British Bulldog military revolver at some time, but Custer was carrying a .45 Colt at the battle as far as I know. He also did not carry either of his Rolling Blocks. The Sharps would be difficult to carry in a cavalry charge (think Quigley here), so I doubt it came along when French left the Crow’s Nest. It was a heavy civilian firearm and unwieldy on horseback. .44 Henry’s were used in the Civil War, but not considered military, their use assumed to always be by an Indian. Considering my perspective, what am I missing? The 1873’s were the military weapons at LBH, I still believe, with an exception or two.
“that lacking absolute proof, no conclusion can be drawn about what happened”
True, you didn’t come right out and say that, but you consistently voice reasons why this should be the case. That’s what I see you convey in what you write.
10. "First you call the archeologists idiots for making assumptions about the direction of fire," close enough.."then you say they aren’t." Is that what is called a contradiction?" Actually, what I said was that they include caveats you don't mention. A caveat is a warning.
I don’t think I attempted to tell many of their conclusions, but usually spoke of their methods.
Yup, I know what caveat means, too, and I said that the archeologists made assumptions that fell short of proof, which drew a very sarcastic response from you. There may not be the word caveat in there, but I think the effect is the same.
11. "You’re working so hard at being critical, aren’t you? I’ll just bet that is why the pros don’t jump to conclusions about such things, and use the total of what they find, rather than a single incident, and only when they are finished gathering data do they begin to analyze the possibilities." Yeah, I know Buddha.
I guess I couldn’t tell.
12 "Criticism and sarcasm at any opportunity. Why do you work so hard to do this? Can you stand anyone else having an opinion. even when you agree, you have a problem letting a statement go." Not hardly. Much of Custerland needs far more sarcasm and cynicism. Much of the "science" at LBH hasn't proven much at all beyond matching bullets to some weapons, but it sure has inflamed the thought it has. And to have the public collapse in awe is pretty sad. The LBH is just a proving ground for other projects, by the way. New theories based on the archaeology are being stated as FACT, now. Excused because of science. Michno states as fact Custer died waiting for rescue and Benteen. That's a guess, but he uses the archaeology for support. It really does not, and I've provided ample reason for not buying it outright. I think that important to focus on. Once things slip in as "fact" it's hard to get it out.
So your sarcasm and cynicism are to stop people from saying whatever you disagree with? Can’t people speak?
AZ Ranger –
I think you and I mostly agree except for semantics.
1 Drawing a line between two cases fired from the same carbine or any other weapon does not indicate the actual route of travel. There is no drawings showing direction of firing by bullet recovery in Fox. Without immediate access to the scene it would be impossible to have it accurate. If you could find a bullet and several points it passed through then maybe you could. You would need at minimum two points a bullet passed through to determine direction and angle but deflections could make it unreliable.
I’ve been thinking about this one. You said you were a cop at one time, so you would feel the need to account for every bullet to an unquestioned degree. This isn’t evidence though, and bullet impacts that aren’t accompanied by others to corroborate them aren’t included in the data to draw conclusions. That would best be done by a grouping of bullet impacts that all seem to come from a common direction and form a discernible pattern in the ground. If the ground had shifted to any significant degree over the years, the majority of bullets would then point back in random directions rather than in a common one. Otherwise you have to think that the ground shifted exactly the same over say, a 100 yards stretch. From there, you look at likely possibilities and make some educated guesses about where the fire originated from, and the types of bullets would tell you the likely who fired them.
2 None of the bullets have been identified to the carbine it was fired from. It would useless since the Indians have the carbines. I would also suspect that as the troopers were over run they would be firing in their own ranks and possibly could have placed a bullet in the ground within their ranks.
I suspect I would have been one to shoot the ground, but bullets that are pointing so vertically aren’t included in the data.
3 As far as the manufacture of cartridges after 1876 but of the same type of manufacturing and headstamp or lack of headstamp there would not be a way to tell them apart from those at LBH on June 25th, 1876. I doubt the army got rid of the ammunition made prior to the battle so there would be available ammunition of the exact year and headstamp that could have been placed on the battlefield.
True.
AZ Ranger
Budddha--Custer was an idiot and, I may be wrong but I thought there was a lot of agreement on that. As for your opinions of what people thought, they assume a lot.
I am not sure everyone agrees that Custer was an idiot. If so wouldn't it take a bigger idiot to put him in charge of a regiment or turn him loose on his own? Custer was an effective tool to be used by the army in certain types of operations. If you needed a charge by cavalry into the enemy then he would be a good choice. Letting Custer decide what to do is a different matter. A good commanding officer should have only allowed Custer free rein when that commander decided it necessary. As far as MTC and beyond two theories have been offered here,Custer was wounded or killed and Custer was mentally off.
I know everyone doesn’t agree, but some have said so previously. I think turning him loose was a mistake, and that Terry had reservations about him that he expressed on the Steamer Yellowstone. He was lucky in the Civil War, but his men weren’t. At LBH, where had couldn’t just come on line and charge, his orders and tactics were vague and confusing, and maybe he was just incompetent, not an idiot. I don’t think you leave a man in command when you don’t trust him 100%, because you can’t babysit him all of the time. I wonder about Terry’s doing so, but letting Custer take off with so many men from Terry’s column, leaving Terry with relatively few, would suggest to me that Terry intended for Custer to rejoin him and coordinate their attacks. Terry couldn’t have attacked alone with the men he had.
I think I’m going to look into what I can find on Custer and his application of tactics other than giving a command to charge. He wasn’t a bright light at West Point, barely graduating from there. He may not have been as knowledgeable about tactics as I assumed him to be. If so, that could explain some things.
Dark Cloud
I think all of those things are possibilities with regard to others firing bullets on the battlefield site in the years afterward, but I think what I replied to AZ Ranger above covers what you question with the bullets, cases and impact holes. You don’t have to use every single bullet or case to make a conclusion. Knowing that you may be not looking at datapoints that you should, but that doesn’t corroborate, you know you might need to reconsider your conclusions later. For the time being you go with what you have, and change when you need to.
Wild1 -
“No AZ Custer had no reason to deviate from his orders.”
I agree. Only if the Indians were going to move on should Custer have even thought about attacking them.
This is way too long. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 17 2006 : 6:26:02 PM
|
Actually, if you just count your contribution, it's quite short. This is a waste of bandwidth and storage. As some have discovered it distracts the reader from posters being held to what was said.
1. Not an attempt a humor. I still think it possible given the numerous people with several User ID's.
2. Opinions differ. He won a lot.
4. You're deliberately blending decades and incidents. Benteen always disliked Custer, but he wrote in favor of his return to the regiment once. If you've read the Benteen letters to Goldin, this wouldn't be surprise.
6. It's pretty much only you having the difficulty. And again, an example?
7. National Geographic isn't really a great resource for this. You say "the" book? Which of the many is "the" book? In any case, the 'documentaries' on television - and I believe AZ might support this - are often, in the kindest light, badly written and sometimes wrong. We'd need to discuss this based on the specific shows. I think you're showing here a willing gullibility and wish to believe.
8. You're finding solace in my sloppy example. Something found on the field is not evidence of its inclusion in the battle, given we know of other gatherings.
9. No. You need to read Ryan and others on French and Ryan's weapons. I said French twice, and meant Ryan and French. There is much disagreement over Custer's weapons, I don't know or care about them. But the point is the big conclusions are being drawn from so few cases and bullets, that you previously adament statement's devolution down to your latest speaks to the uncertainty.
10. If you knew what it meant, why did you ask?
11. No argument.
12. I've never requested or tried to silence anyone on this or any forum. Point to where you think I have. I have called people on their fabrications and slanderous remarks against those who can't defend themselves to ingratiate themselves to others.
People have certainly tried to silence me, and still do. If you can't defend your statements on the forum, you're probably wrong, and people don't like to be publicly wrong, and if they are, they want to kowtow to an officer or at least a soldier in the process. Feels better, I guess. But it's the short step to believing anything said by a uniform and granting it automatic respect that bothers me, and is too Prussian for tolerance, I think. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 17 2006 6:27:16 PM |
|
|
|
Buddha
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - March 18 2006 : 6:53:46 PM
|
I started looking for information on Custer's training or experience in conducting attacks as at LBH, thinking that inexperience might have something to do with how he controlled the unit there. I found the article below from the Kansas State Historical Society that discusses the first year that Custer spent in the West. The second paragraph speaks of his lack of experience in planning attacks. The remainder of the article speaks of his experience in the field leading up to his court martial. Some may find it interesting. Some may not.
http://www.kshs.org/publicat/khq/1970/70_2_millbrook.htm |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 19 2006 : 07:49:51 AM
|
I'm much interested, if the information in that article was new to you, upon what you had to that point concluded Custer was an idiot?
To counter that, read East of Gettysburg, in which a devoted Custerphile draws opposite conclusions about Custer's abilities.
There is little in there, or anywhere, to support your contention Custer was an idiot. There is much to demonstrate that he was a pathological liar devoted to himself and his own. Given everything, Benteen's distaste for Custer's priorities, and Reno's question of his comptence, are hardly baseless, and their actions at LBH, even in the worst possible interpretation, seem firmly based on an accurate and cynical knowledge of Custer's past. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 19 2006 : 6:06:31 PM
|
DC--
Show me where GAC was a pathological liar. I'm in no manner his biggest fan, but you're taking a flat place and making it into a Mount Everest. Yes, he spread more rumour than anything else at the Belknap hearings, but there's a world of difference between that and a mental condition.
Regards,
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The new myth
