| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - July 13 2005 : 9:39:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
DC, I think your right about being "fair". To place blame has always been the issue on these boards, and others as well. The problem seems to be that most don't take an 'objective' view of the people, places and events of that day. Sure, placing blame in hindsight, I think is easy to do, we all do it. But the real issue in all of these types of discussions is, 'timing'. If the timing of those events were written in stone, there would be no doubt about anything, would there?
Ironically, I have not found that this board, or other boards, are consumed with the idea of placing "blame" on any participant of the battle. What I do surmise from my interaction with boards,of this nature, is a genuine effort to bestow responsibility for specific actions upon the shoulders of specific individuals who perpetrated specific acts that directly contributed to the final outcome of this battle. Undeniably interwoven with that concept, is the very human trait that encourages us to admire historical personages who act(in tines of crisis/opportunity for achievement) as we imagine "We" would act under the same circumstances. Concurrently, "We" do not admire those individuals who (in our eyes/perspective) fail to perform under stress as we believe "We" would do. Only by utilizing common sense combined with an intelligent survey of available information may we arrive at a plausible, reasonable, and comprehensive determination as to "what" occurred. Of course will never actually know.
Another astonishing point, regarding threads of this nature, is the insistence by some that an acquiesce to the actions of one character makes you the condemner of another. That the acknowledgment of an individual's failure to perform admirably under the stress of combat is to condemn him as a coward does not necessarily follow. To acknowledge culpability is not, necessarily, a "Carte Blanche" condemnation of all of the actions of the doer.
Benteen
The simple truth is it was Custer's fault for everything that happened. He was after all the commanding officer. Perfectly clear, concise orders would have alleviated any need for future peoples to criticize his or anyone else's orders.
Truth is never simple. It is as complex and intricate as the events that erratically unfold under the horrific sequence of actions collectively know as combat. To say that anyone individual is solely responsible for this battle is to deny fate, cause and effect, and the always highly volatile human nature. That the "Commander is ultimately responsible for the outcome of a battle" is one of the oldest cliché's know to man and, specifically created by the military to account for its many failures. Every soldier who has ever served in any Country, in any battle, during any time in history is aware of this reality.
Benteen
That we should also then conclude that it would take about the same time (timing), *20 minutes*, for Benteen's horses to have done the same? I think this is much more important in possibly understanding his delay! Most people harass his notions and statements, twisting them into what they desire. And I think falsely claim that he took his old sweet time.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Benteen's time at the morass was perfectly acceptable considering the condition of his mounts. Thanks for a well thought out and informative thread.
|
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 13 2005 : 10:30:23 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by whistlingboy
Do we have a source for Custer's direct orders to Maj Reno? I've never seen any per se. There is evidence however that MAJ Reno held different renditions of the truth, i.e. in his official report about the battle, Reno stated that "Custer intended to support me by moving further down the stream and attacking the village in the flank." And yet at the Court of Inquiry, Major Reno said, "I had no reason to believe that General Custer would support me in other manner than from the rear." If a person wants to defend Reno he adheres to the latter statement, if not, the statement in the report. The statements by Reno are political, no matter the motive, and thus researchers join one of the 'camps.'
One of the most controversial elements of this battle concern Custer's orders, or lack thereof, to Reno. The following excerpts are from "The Reno Inquiry" by Graham:
Sgt. Edward Davern "I was Major Reno's orderly on the twenty-fifth and twenty sixth of June, and was with Lt. Hare while the command was moving down the bottom after crossing the stream. The horses of the command were in tolerable good condition. I heard Adjutant Cook give Major Reno an order; it was "Girard comes back and reports the Indian village three miles ahead and moving. The General directs you to take your three companies and drive everything before you. Capt. Benteen will be on your left and will have the same instructions.
F.F. Girard
"I heard General Custer give the order to Reno.The General hallooed to Reno and beckoned him over. Major Reno rode over and Custer said, 'You will take your battalion and try to bring them to battle and I will support you'; and as the Major was going off he said, 'And take the scouts with you.'
Lt. L.R. Hare
"The Indians (Scouts) refused to go and he ordered them dismounted, and then turned to Adjutant Cook and told him that as the Indians would not go, to order Major Reno ahead with his battalion.
George Herendeen
"About a mile or a mile and a half from the village I heard General Custer tell Major Reno to lead out and he would be with him. Directly after, Custer said,' Take the Scouts with you too."
Dr. H. R. Porter
"I heard the Adjutant give an order to Major Reno about 1 o'clock, June 25th. The Adjutant told him the Indians were just ahead and General Custer directed him to charge them. Reno asked whether Custer was going to support him. The Adjutant answered that Custer would support him. Reno asked if the General was coming along and he said, 'yes, the General would support him.'
There were more statements to this effect but time prevents me from listing them. What I find astonishing is that Reno swore he never received any orders from Custer. Also, is there a student of war, on this planet, not aware that a flank attack is as supportive as a rear attack? Reno, a graduate of West Point was unaware of this fact? I think not. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 13 2005 : 11:27:55 PM
|
And what do you make of the mutually exclusive testimony from these guys, Wiggs?
How was Benteen to appear on Reno's left in time for the charge just ordered short of a transporter? Herendeen says Custer gave the order no further than a mile a half from the village. How far, actually, was it? It's two miles from the ford to the tip of the Garry Owen loop, the alleged nearest part of the village, and these orders were given further east of the ford. If Custer gave Reno the orders directly, per Girard and Herendeen, why do the others say it came from the adjutant? Somebody's lying. Or, more likely, really confused and unsure which way to pander.
Further, given that Gerard, page 273 Gray, is quoted at testimony saying Custer told Reno "You will take your battalion and try and bring them to battle and I will support you.......and take the scouts with you," how believable is he? That quote from Gray (Which makes sense and what Reno did. On offense or defense, Reno was obeying that order, if true.) is very different. Gerard says Reno got his orders about a mile from the LBH, which would be FOrd A. The village could therefore be no closer than 2.5 miles and more likely 3, so Herendeen is way off. Girard is offering two tales.
This isn't unusual, but there's nothing preventing them all from being confused and/or wrong. And we'd be foolish to damn Reno given that some of this is very inaccurate and contradictory at best.
And what were Reno's exact words? You say that he said he never received orders from Custer? How odd. Page 275 Gray, he recounts under oath receiving the orders from the adjutant, conforming to Porter, more or less. Where does Reno say this did not happen? Of course, Reno grasps the concept of a flank attack, but when in the valley and seeing the bluffs unbroken for a long ways, he can be forgiven for assuming that Custer would have to support from his rear.
And here's another secret only the Brain Trust at West Point knows, the guys that gave our enemies Lee and Jackson, Hood and Pickett, and numerous others guilty of Grand Treason. If one vastly undermanned force pointlessly attacks a hugely superior entity, and then a second force equally deficient attacks the now alerted and annoyed and still hugely superior enemy force, chances are that - regardless of feint, flank, or caliber, or what unlikely line dance of trooper distribution occurs - both forces will get their asses kicked but good. As an example, look at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 11:04:10 AM
|
DC --
You are undeniably right about the principle of fairness. One of my problems posting on the forum has been a lackadaisical effort at writing a complete 'circle' approach in my opinions and points. It certainly hasn't been intentional. I'm not big on comparisons although life seems to be--I didn't like to grade 'on the curve' but in some of my classes the department dictated that policy and was usually right. I have been trying to observe posts to see to what degree serious endeavor is attempted and applied in ....yes, comparison, to the 'other stuff.' I was trying to speak of Reno in measures to himself and not thinking of him in terms of Custer's talents or lacks thereof.
You might very well be right about your thinking that the quote I used was a different one. On page 4 of his book, Nightengale, which he makes look like it is Reno's Official Report, signed and delivered, Reno says "...Custer motioned me to cross to him, which I did, ...when Lieutenant Cooke, Adjutant, came to me and said the village was only two miles ahead, and running away. To "move forward at as rapid a gait as I thought prudent, and to charge afterward, and that the whole outfit would support me." I think those were his exact words."
On page 89, Nightengale writes that Major Reno said: "I moved forward to the head of the column and shortly after, Lieutenant Cooke came to me and said, "General Custer directs you to take as rapid a gait as you think prudent and charge the village afterward and you will be supported by the whole outfit."
Page 90, Nightengale writes that in Reno's report of July 5, 1876, he says: "...Custer intended to support me by moving further down the stream and attacking the village in the flank."
On page 160, Nightengale writes that at the Court of Inquiry, Major Reno said: "I had no reason to believe that General Custer would support me in other manner than from the rear."
And this is only one author. So you might very well be right.
I do appreciate you bringing up this point of exactness because research commonly runs into contradiction and finding some facts still requires extrapolation, don't you think? |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 11:49:13 AM
|
DC -
Sorry, this laid back forum prompts me to wordiness. I realize the skirmish line was standard 'by the book' philosophy. As a proven commander was Reno also a strictly by the book one?
First of all, I'm not implying I would have been great on that battlefield. I hope I would have not put my life above those of my men, however. Saying that, does that mean I think Reno did?
That's certainly not my intent although one has to ponder whether when we enter a state of shock if we're still a member of the rational world and in the proper place to lead. I hesitate to even hint at Reno being a coward because after Bloody Knife's blood splatters his face, I don't think Reno is the same commander or person. The proximity of horror changes him forever and his subsequent decisions are tainted by panic at his side. You can mention Custer's record with wounded, etc. but at this moment in time, that has no bearing on Reno's further actions since I don't think he was considering what Custer might have done.
Many battles in the annals of warfare have meant soldiers defying the odds to attain victory. Into the face of death many have charged to victory because it was their duty. It is not fair to assume Reno would have been wiped out. (Can't use hindsight; he couldn't) Were you implying that Reno stopped because it was standard practice or because he was waiting for Custer's support? Do you think Reno took every word at face value when he was told he would be supported
"further downstream" by Custer in a 'flank' attack on the village? Those words certainly couldn't imply at 'his rear.' Custer would have had to ride along the stream in order for Reno to see him. On top of the ridge wouldn't have made any sense to him, I don't think, because of being in plain view. That only left riding up the coulees and draws parallel to the stream, which is what Custer did. Once Custer commits his troops up through those draws, he can't turn around. He assumes there will be another place close to ford the river but of course that's not until MTC. Maybe we should say 'oops' here.
I like your stuff, thanks.
|
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 12:25:57 PM
|
Benteen--
You too are a welcomed addition to the forum supplying excellent posts and queries, providing interesting and fascinating 'takes' on many issues. Your disallusionment with my 'old ways' thinking I do not find surprising to some extent. After all, you must be part of the 'new guard' and I hope the world will be better off thanks to you and your group, whatever that is.
However, we can't agree, and that's no big sin, on some principles. You told me how I might be wrong but you didn't tell me why your 'way' would be right. One of my many flaws would be my intent feelings about family, place, role and duty. In my life, and I am glad Warlord mentioned it, GOD is, of course, foremost and I feel cheap for even having to mention that. (I lose all the non-believers of a supernatural force here)
Without getting 'strict' about my beliefs, which I have no desire to tell, let alone try to thrust on anyone else, although I have to live in a new world where one parent and children are acceptable standards, I don't have to preach it. It must also be understood that when a parent 'tells' his children things, it doesn't mean what said will be accepted or adhered to.
Simply put, the example I cast to my son is one of responsibility of the highest order--to GOD, family and self. No questions asked--it is an assumed commitment. The destruction of the family unit is a pet peeve of mine and I do not wish to cater to the 'new' ideas, which, in my humble opinion, lay no foundation. I'm sure your way will work for you without my agreement and I too feel sorry for you. Just stay healthy and have a good life. The world needs you.
|
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 12:42:51 PM
|
Heavyrunner:
I have never bought the idea that the scouts were a well accepted part of these operations...maybe a necessary evil. Some scouts when ordered to go with Reno refused to go at first. Hatred between Bouyer and Custer is well-documented and stories abound. They were overrated. They vacanted Reno to save their own skins leaving him open. No doubt there were some real good ones but you know commander egos. Do you think race had anything to do with levels of trust among the participants?
Warlord:
Sorry, I didn't mean to leave out GOD. You are usually right about my 'thinking' and my 'writing' about what I am thinking. I try to take that into consideration too when listening to others. Thanks for noting that.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 2:13:24 PM
|
WB
Once Custer commits his troops up through those draws, he can't turn around. He assumes there will be another place close to ford the river but of course that's not until MTC. Maybe we should say 'oops' here.
Are you suggesting that if Reno had continued his charge into the village he would have eventually met up with Custer at MTC?The only thing wrong with this is that if Reno had by some miricle achieved this he would have had to entertain the Indians for a further 45 minutes before Custer arrived.
Just an observation on "cowardice".Strange how society will tolerate many kinds of irrational fear such as fear of heights,open spaces,enclosed spaces,flying,spiders etc but it will not tolerate the most rational of all fears i.e.fear of being killed in the act of attempting to kill another human.
I have always felt that Reno's order "those of you who want to save yourselves follow me"must be about the most stirring order ever given on the battle field. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 6:29:02 PM
|
Warlord and wILD--
I must admit that you have me thinking. Reno's command makes Custer's "Aye, looks like we caught 'em napping, boys!" pale in comparison ... kind of like expecting Princess Diana at your charity event and instead, getting Princess Michael of Kent ...
Mebbe Custer was the entertainment committee that day?
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 7:11:28 PM
|
whistling boy,
If I interpret correctly the role of scouts, it was that of a pathfinder, locating the enemy but not necessarily taking part in the engagement.
I think commanders generally highly-valued their scouts and didn't want them in harm's way. Bouyer apparently didn't have (or did he?) the same choice as Curly, Goes Ahead, White Man Runs Him, Hairy Mocassin and others who were released (maybe with a Custer insult, but nevertheless...).
Yes, I'm sure race played a signficant part in relationships with Indian scouts, although the Army used them all over--as had been the custom for a few centuries, no doubt.
Maybe someone better read than I can shed some light on Reno's relationship with Bloody Knife. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 7:55:20 PM
|
Bob--
You bring up an interesting point. Hatred between Custer and Bouyer ...? Hadn't they been together but three days? As for Bloody Knife, I thought Custer had the stronger relationship with him. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 8:20:30 PM
|
MRW,
As I now recall, you're right that there was a strong relationship between Bloody Knife and Custer. Whether it was close or grudging, I'm not sure. I seem to remember that Custer also was prone to some cruel tricks or humor regarding Bloody Knife. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 10:56:41 PM
|
It appears Bouyer chose to stay, possibly due to an early wounding. Now, this brings me to Curley, who said Bouyer was wounded and unhorsed around Finley/Calhoun when he finally got Curley to leave. It used to be, as it has been mentioned in new works on the battle, that Curley was discounted. And even now, those that think his accounts were genuine and accurate have a small problem: Curley says a wounded Bouyer told him to leave, that the command was looking for a place to make a stand. The verbiage that is used seems fatalistic, that the command was doomed and was trying to un-doom itself. I've always thought that didn't fit with the idea of Custer moving freely about with the left wing, going to a possible northern ford, light firing, etc. But I never took the context of it all into thought.
Bouyer was under the impression that Custer was going to get them all killed. No matter what Custer was planning, Bouyer believed they were doomed. So even if the situation wasn't dire and Custer was in control and preparing to move north, Bouyer was certain they were dead men. So he told Curley so much, and to get out while he still could.
Also, if Custer was looking for a place to make a stand and the situation was dire, Curley would have had trouble getting out. Hence the stories. Curley was able to ride away with ease, I believe. But since Custer's battalion was wiped out, Curley HAD to have escaped miraculously, through the constricting hordes. Thus, the escape stories.
And that, my friends, is how I think Bouyer's belief in impending doom AND Curley's miraculous escape fit into a beginning phase of Custer's battle. A phase that does not seem to be a time of impending doom. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 14 2005 : 11:39:39 PM
|
I feel obligated to point out that the only source we have for that Boyeur statement is one of Curley's translators. Whoever he/she was. Curley was, we're told, 17, which is presented as a mere boy, and we all have read that this a perfectly acceptable age for a young warrior, and surely many Sioux and Cheyenne were in that group. But Curley rode off, and it sure helps that Boyeur had told him to go so he isn't called a coward. Also, what I've read is that Boyeur told Curley Custer was going to take them into the village, and that they had no chance at all. Where is he quoted as saying Custer wanted to "make a stand?"
Further, where in the world did this bizarre notion of animosity between Boyeur and Custer arise? Gray wrote an entire book on them and failed to note it. Custer brought back presents and jewelry for Bloody Knife, and clearly liked him, else why would he keep an scout prone to drink and laugh at Custer's shooting skills around? And why in the world couldn't Custer turn around at various stages? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 12:47:49 AM
|
I don't understand the not being able to turn around thing. Custer had been commanding brigades and divisions, and clearly showed competence in maneuvering such large forces of cavalry. Somehow, I'm supposed to believe that a coulee that the soldiers weren't even riding in prevented them from being able to turn around. Or the terrain in general was not agreeable with turning around and heading south. I don't buy it. We're talking 5 companies of 40-45 men each.
I'll have to check which books have the Curley/Bouyer on/around Calhoun Hill conversation. But essentially, here's what I gathered:
Curley and Bouyer are on Weir Point. At some point, Bouyer tells Curley to leave, that Custer will stop at nothing/will not stop/etc.
Curley does not leave.
Bouyer comes back from a meeting after the command is on/around Calhoun Hill, tells Curley to leave now, the command is doomed and Custer is looking for a place to make a stand and hope for the rest of the regiment to come up.
Now, I don't think that's quite the truth, as I said before. Because it seems that Custer wasn't in a defensive state of mind at the time, and the situation does not appear to be dire. So anything Curley says Bouyer said was either A) Bouyer's pessimism; B) Bouyer's persuasion; or C) Curley's excuse. Meaning either Bouyer thought they were doomed even if Custer was still thinking offensively and spoke to Curley with that in mind, or Bouyer was gilding the lily to convince Curley, who already passed on a chance to leave, to finally get the hell out. Or, as DC theorizes, Curley embellished the reasoning to show he got out because they were in trouble and he was told to get out. That maybe so, but the scouts were not expected to fight, and the other Crows were released and actually left. Curley seemed to be attached to staying with Bouyer.
As for the animosity, I think there's something behind that. Custer and Bouyer seemed to have some problems, but nothing major. They had a working relationship. There was the Crow's Nest exchange, which went something like:
Custer: I don't see this village you say is there.
Bouyer: If there's not the largest gathering of Indians ever in the valley below, you can hang me.
Custer: It'd be good sight to see you hanged.
Nothing more than banter. But I think the fact that Bouyer died with Custer's battalion, rather than leaving when he was allowed to, says it all. He couldn't have hated Custer THAT much if he was willing to fight when he didn't have to. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 12:51:03 AM
|
DC et al.
Custer's Last Campaign, p. 369-382 concerns Curley's accounts and mentions what I was referring to. That was easy. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 09:52:33 AM
|
I'll be damned. Never noticed that about the stand, that I recall. I'm sure, though, there is a quote saying Boyeur pointed at Custer and said "This man...." is going to take them into the village and they had no hope at all. I'll have to dig that up. Quite different in attitude and I'll bet an earlier interview: one offense to the max, one defense to the last.
Ah! Also easy to find, but unsourced (joy). Page 314, SOTMS. I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere and will try to turn it up. But that was never contested, so I'd be surprised in Connell got that wrong. Forget who researched for him. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on July 15 2005 10:11:37 AM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 4:35:07 PM
|
whistlingboy ~ quote:
The destruction of the family unit is a pet peeve of mine and I do not wish to cater to the 'new' ideas, which, in my humble opinion, lay no foundation. I'm sure your way will work for you without my agreement and I too feel sorry for you.
I am not part of any new age movement. And the solution that I proposed to you was that your son, "love" his wife family. And that from this, he would instinctively know what to do. What's so "new age" about that?
Someone said this, I'm sorry I didn't get the name:
quote:
Custer would have had to ride along the stream in order for Reno to see him. On top of the ridge wouldn't have made any sense to him, I don't think, because of being in plain view.
One thing about this kind of bothers me. At some point in that conflict. Some of Reno's men saw Custer crossing sharpshooter ridge, or thereabouts. I'm not picky on this, ok? Anyway. Wouldn't it be prudent at some point for Reno's men to tell him this? And was it possible that Reno saw Custer himself ~ up on the ridge?
El Crab: quote:
It appears Bouyer chose to stay, possibly due to an early wounding. Now, this brings me to Curley, who said Bouyer was wounded and unhorsed around Finley/Calhoun when he finally got Curley to leave. It used to be, as it has been mentioned in new works on the battle, that Curley was discounted. And even now, those that think his accounts were genuine and accurate have a small problem: Curley says a wounded Bouyer told him to leave, that the command was looking for a place to make a stand. The verbiage that is used seems fatalistic, that the command was doomed and was trying to un-doom itself. I've always thought that didn't fit with the idea of Custer moving freely about with the left wing, going to a possible northern ford, light firing, etc. But I never took the context of it all into thought.....And that, my friends, is how I think Bouyer's belief in impending doom AND Curley's miraculous escape fit into a beginning phase of Custer's battle. A phase that does not seem to be a time of impending
Please don't get me wrong, okay. I like Gray, and I think he's done alot to help us understand the battle. But, one of the grey area's in this is Curley's statments. Trying to place Curley at a definite location by what Bouyer was saying, isn't all that difficult. I don't believe that this event happened anywhere near Calhoun hill! The statement could only have been made later, either right before the attempt at Ford D, or right after. I would place this somewhere near the flats. If Bouyer was wounded then it probably occured after! After the failed Ford D skirmish, and during the time that ~ that part of Custer's battalion briefly halted at or near The Flats. In a way this makes sense to me. Bouyer is wounded at Ford D, they fall back, and while Custer waits, Bouyer tells Curley to leave! Now then, Bouyers body is found not too far away. In Deep ravine. I never did believe that those soldiers who were found in Deep Ravine went there from Custer Hill. This episode is a description of events from the flats area. A possible diversion or screen, while the others made their way to Custer Hill. And Bouyer is one of the participants. I can't see Bouyer travelling that far with a wound and then back again. That just doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 5:23:04 PM
|
Fair enough, Benteen. I don't hold Gray above all others. I was just offering up some info and where it could be found. Upon looking at Gray's pages, it said Bouyer was unhorsed (but not wounded). So who knows.
But Curley himself seems to have pointed at this being near the Finley marker. That he departed when they were in that area. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 6:07:26 PM
|
I've been told that the quote in SOTMS is in Stewart, so I'll dig it out and see where he got it. If from a different Camp/Curley exchange, the point about translators is pretty well made. Again.
And who were Camp's translators? Did he speak Crow and Sioux as well? And how can these various translations, whoever made them, be explained, saying as they do different things? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 11:31:33 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
And what do you make of the mutually exclusive testimony from these guys, Wiggs? How was Benteen to appear on Reno's left in time for the charge just ordered short of a transporter? Herendeen says Custer gave the order no further than a mile a half from the village. How far, actually, was it? It's two miles from the ford to the tip of the Garry Owen loop, the alleged nearest part of the village, and these orders were given further east of the ford. If Custer gave Reno the orders directly, per Girard and Herendeen, why do the others say it came from the adjutant? Somebody's lying. Or, more likely, really confused and unsure which way to pander.
Once again, I am genuinely and completely confused by your response. This is not intended as a reflection upon you, perhaps I'm simply missing something. I quote testimony from the men who were actually engaged in the battle and, as such, described their positions in this conflict and you respond to that testimony by asking me how Benteen could appear on Reno's left short of a transporter by questioning my veracity.
Whistling boy's question: "Do we have a source for Custer's direct order to Major Reno" was extremely appropriate as some students of the battle are not aware that reliable and authentic sources are available. Particularly when one understands that Reno emphatically stated that he was "unaware" of any "plans" from his commander. The quotes I referred to where given by actual participants in the battle who reported their experiences as best as memory or, the lack thereof,would allow.To suggest that non-conformity in reports of time frames of occurrences reported three years after the incident occurred are grounds for mutual exclusiveness is the height of arrogance. Would you have testified better?
D.c.
Further, given that Gerard, page 273 Gray, is quoted at testimony saying Custer told Reno "You will take your battalion and try and bring them to battle and I will support you.......and take the scouts with you," how believable is he? That quote from Gray (Which makes sense and what Reno did. On offense or defense, Reno was obeying that order, if true.) is very different. Gerard says Reno got his orders about a mile from the LBH, which would be FOrd A. The village could therefore be no closer than 2.5 miles and more likely 3, so Herendeen is way off. Girard is offering two tales.
Since Girard did not take an odometer nor a stenographer into battle with him, I prefer to give his testimony the benefit of the doubt. Testimony given three years after the event can be expected to be somewhat cloudy. This is human. To disregard all testimony under such human conditioning as foolish. There is nothing unusual about the time references given by the witnesses. Another thing, coming from a man who insist that we will never know the "facts" of this event why do you now insist that I present facts?
Despite your erroneous quote,I have never intimated,suggested, or desired to "damn"Reno. Peruse every thread I have written and you will find this so. Just once, on a lark, read my threads sans your predisposed mindset of dislike for me,and you would realize this fact to be true. Again, for those who have ears but refuse to hear, holding an individual accountable for his actions is not an act of damnation;it is responsibility.
D.c.
And what were Reno's exact words? You say that he said he never received orders from Custer? How odd. Page 275 Gray, he recounts under oath receiving the orders from the adjutant, conforming to Porter, more or less. Where does Reno say this did not happen? Of course, Reno grasps the concept of a flank attack, but when in the valley and seeing the bluffs unbroken for a long ways, he can be forgiven for assuming that Custer would have to support from his rear.
Reno: "At the time I was in the timber I had not the remotest idea where either the pack train or Benteen's column were. There was no plan communicated to us; if one existed the subordinate commanders(all officers ranked below Custer) did not know of it."
Reno: "The only expectation of support I had from the order I received (not from Custer but Cook) was from the rear. When I say no plan was communicated to us I mean to the regiment. I do not think there was any plan. An attack on the flank would not have been a support under the circumstances. Reno received definitive orders despite his assertion that he did not.quote] |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on July 15 2005 11:34:33 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 15 2005 : 11:49:21 PM
|
1.I don't think it an attack on me, and wouldn't care anyway, and I didn't question your veracity. Here, anyway. I'm questioning a collection of mutually exclusive quotations as to what they might prove in aggregate. Nothing, except call into question the veracity and competence of some of them.
2. An odometer wouldn't solve the issue. You need to compute the hypotenuse of a triangle. Then, you have to explain why Herendeen and Girard are so at odds. You noticed that, right? Otherwise, it looks quite stupid.
3. What erroneous quote? There's no point reading your postings, you don't know what you've said half the time.
4. Your original statement was "What I find astonishing is that Reno swore he never received any orders from Custer." That isn't true, is it Wiggs? If these are quotes in your latest posting, you need to close them off and tell us where you got them. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 16 2005 : 10:55:45 AM
|
wILD I --
Cavalry is unique because it is 'mounted.' The hostiles are 'cavalry' by design. The terrain dictates such strategy, don't you think. I have not read yet of any officer saying that a whole group of hostiles, by choice, dismounnting to repel an aggressive force of soldiers. I appreciate if you know of some evidence of this happening. Cavalry is most vulnerable, and probably in dire straits, when it dismounts. Standard practice or not I feel Reno invited subjugation when he did that. I know I am alone in my thinking. If his gait is all-out speed then he might have eclipsed the two miles or so because it is difficult to hit a moving target for most and a fast one...well...His force would have had to command more attention by more and more hostiles but they would have probably forced his turn across the MTC. Not saying he would have met Custer 'right there' but (without hindsight) could of then anticipated meeting up with some contingencies of his own color.
There is, of course, confusion on what everyone means by the 'village.' Darling in his book mentions that the hostiles Custer directs Reno to chase were headed to their village not far away. If true, that probably didn't mean the huge encampment they learned about later.
It is suggested by Darling also that Custer trusted Reno with a lot of confidence--that he could handle any situation he came upon. The crux of the problem still seems to boil down, in my thinking, to whether or not Custer, Reno and others knew there was a huge encampment and its exact whereabouts. Custer turning northwest leads me to believe they were still 'scouting.' When Reno runs into trouble, Custer is out of sight; I think he could still hear, faintly, shooting, hollering, etc. He could not turn around fast enough and continued his course which is much rougher than the flat plain Reno is on. He must have seen the smoke and dust rising from the valley floor in the distance to his left up above the rises. Did Custer get a glimpse of Reno in the valley and at what time? If he sees him in skirmish formation, he knows he doesn’t have the time to help him since he would have seen the hordes of hostiles also now inundating his position. Custer probably now hastens his pace to find a low spot across the ‘stream.’
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 16 2005 : 3:11:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
1.I don't think it an attack on me, and wouldn't care anyway, and I didn't question your veracity. Here, anyway. I'm questioning a collection of mutually exclusive quotations as to what they might prove in aggregate. Nothing, except call into question the veracity and competence of some of them.
2. An odometer wouldn't solve the issue. You need to compute the hypotenuse of a triangle. Then, you have to explain why Hereunder and Gerard are so at odds. You noticed that, right? Otherwise, it looks quite stupid.
3. What erroneous quote? There's no point reading your postings, you don't know what you've said half the time.
4. Your original statement was "What I find astonishing is that Reno swore he never received any orders from Custer." That isn't true, is it Wiggs? If these are quotes in your latest posting, you need to close them off and tell us where you got them.
The following passage is for the dim-witted who simply can not comprehend certainly realities: (That would be one person)
I don't NEED to do anything but breath and pay taxes. D.c, you are a hopeless idiot. You must be the only individual on this planet who is incapable of comprehending how a horrific battle and the expiration of three years in the re-telling of an incident, any incident, can affect the human psyche. If two witnesses told the exact story their collusion would be obvious to most anyone.
Secondly, I listed a series of individuals who made comment on the orders that Reno received. Why have you hung your hat, the deed to the house, and your reputation as a member of the intelligentsia upon the remarks of two witnesses while making no comments regarding the others.
More importantly, the discrepancy in Gerard's and Hereundeen statements have exactly what to do with the price of tea in China. Hello!, is there anyone home? The question was reference a source for Custer's Direct orders , if any. The source is The Reno Inquiry by Graham.
Having totally ignored the premise of the original question, you immediately scrutinize written testimony by two of the witnesses (ignoring the rest)found you inconsistency regarding distance (not content referring to orders)and screamed Eureka! Your responses are similar to a snake who writhes and twist in a frenzied attempt to find an excuse to call something, anything "stupid."
You are right about one thing, adults do ignore that which they do not like, I think I'll start with you. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - July 16 2005 : 4:12:34 PM
|
whistlingboy ~ quote:
"It is suggested by Darling also that Custer trusted Reno with a lot of confidence--that he could handle any situation he came upon. The crux of the problem still seems to boil down, in my thinking, to whether or not Custer, Reno and others knew there was a huge encampment and its exact whereabouts. Custer turning northwest leads me to believe they were still 'scouting.' When Reno runs into trouble, Custer is out of sight; I think he could still hear, faintly, shooting, hollering, etc. He could not turn around fast enough and continued his course which is much rougher than the flat plain Reno is on. He must have seen the smoke and dust rising from the valley floor in the distance to his left up above the rises. Did Custer get a glimpse of Reno in the valley and at what time? If he sees him in skirmish formation, he knows he doesn’t have the time to help him since he would have seen the hordes of hostiles also now inundating his position. Custer probably now hastens his pace to find a low spot across the ‘stream.’"
The Crows and Rees told Custer where this camp was at! And how big it was ~ when they were at the crows nest! The number of horses alone told them how immense it was. And they could see the campfires, so yes, they did know it's exact location, and size. As Warlord said: "Whether Custer chose to believe it is another subject " While I tend to agree with Warlord on this one. It does play an immense part in what follows! And shouldn't be dismissed as a part of this conversation. The answer is not so easily given. The rest of your statement asserts that Custer was somehow blind with regards to what was happening to Reno. Anyway that's what it seems to suggest. In this assessment you are somewhat correct. And has spurred the Reno Orders debate for a century or more! The question isn't what was meant or implied by the orders. But how Custer later reacted to the situation, when presented with the conditions you so eloquently described! Every 'turn' of events have to be scrutenized in order to understand things properly. One area that most boards like these seem to overlook is not the orders, heavens no! But the events themselves!
When Custer approached the southern base of the Reno hill/creek area, and before going across the LBH, in Reno's wake. Admittedly not far away! What did Custer do? And more importantly, why? There seemed to be a halt. During this short halt. Custer tried to get the indians scouts to go up near Reno hill and scout the area. Presumably to not only see what was happening with Reno! But to also see if hostiles were in the vicinity. The indian scouts refused, right? Then they reluctantly acquiesed and went. But went where? To Reno's battalion. An obvious mixup or misunderstanding! But whatever the indians scouts mission was supposed to be. It must have had most definitly something to do with Reno. Wouldn't you say? Not desiring to stay any longer. And the need for the above info. important before Custer made a decision to proceed one way (following Reno) or another (over Reno Hill). He takes it upon himself and the whole battalion to proceed! Why? It is evident that at the time, he didn't have the needed intelligence on the matter to make that decision! But he did! And again one has to ask, why? In this sad comedy of errors, it was the indian scouts confusion over their orders that led Custer to the "scout" at or near Reno Hill. Whatever he saw, convinced him to go further, and not back! Again, why?
Warlord ~ quote:
"Perhaps you have never heard the term mounted infantry, or their tactics? Infantry carried to the front by horses! Cavalry is best used for shock value. That shock is best imparted by sabers or lances! Here at LBH the military quotient was drastically changed by disarming the cavalry of its sabers! The thinking appears to have been the Colt SAA replaced it! This of course was totally in error. The issue of 100 rounds for the carbine and 24 for the revolver was so inadequate as to have been criminal. All the responsibilty of Georgie Custer!"
I couldn't agree more! For me it is simple. Because of certain events that leads one to honestly believe this. And yours is the most glaring! The first instance of this as I have described above in response to WB! Are there more? Most certainly! But to lengthy to go into detail here.
Wiggs ~ quote:
"a horrific battle and the expiration of three years in the re-telling of an incident, any incident, can affect the human psyche. If two witnesses told the exact story their collusion would be obvious to most anyone."
I have to agree with you, to a degree. The rethinking of these events would have been thought of in a new light! Ie. Saving one's own hide! Was there collusion? Of that I am quite certain. Was there any truth? Again, in the statements themselves, I don't think so? The only thing truthful would have been the times, as they wouldn't see in those any reason to lie. And, I think it would have been the most difficult thing to fabricate.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Glossary of Terminology Regarding LBH
