| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - July 26 2005 : 10:16:14 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Warlord
Benteen: On some further consideration!
Custer's whole battalion may not have been driven back from MTC! some rather educated people suggest he made a feign that way and tried to cross further down!
Benteen had some real personality problems which may have included lying! Nevertheless, when working in command on Reno Entrenchment he commanded his troops about as well as any officer fighting quite brilliantly, most agree!
Lastly, Reno did not charge the wrong way! Once you do the real studying on the combat situation he faced (read several accounts carefully), he charged a line of Indians who had surrounded him in order to break through to get to the river and a defensive position on the bluffs! So you see, he did not charge the wrong way!
Undoubtedly, Benteen was as stalwart and courageous a soldier as one can imagine. His abilities are justly illustrated by his Civil War record and, his military actions on Reno's bluff as well. That Benteen detested Custer is beyond doubt. Would Benteen have knowingly deserted Custer's command to their deaths because of his intense dislike;absolutely not! Believing he had done all that he could do, Benteen was honest and above board regarding what occurred during correspondence and statements immediately after the battle.
Only when a logical explanation was demanded to explain how a group of "savages" could defeat the elite "7th.", when American society demanded that a scapegoat be sacrificed to appease the rampant accusations of Malfeasance of Duty, when every action of every commander and soldier was unfairly scrutinized,in hindsight, did Benteen resort to, as Paul stated, "Lying."
He was hurt and crushed by the naysayers who suggested that he deserted Custer. This hurt slowly evolved into a genuine hatred for the man whom, Benteen believe, rushed into a situation that called for discretion. Benteen's ire was based upon an often overlooked, but decidedly, important factor. Having received orders to scout the southern end of THE valley (definite article) for Indians, Benteen failed to send a fast courier to Custer advising him that the south was free. This critical information would have encouraged Custer to maintain a concentrated command rather than split his forces as he did. This non-malicious oversight(he believed that no Indians were in the area)resulted in an Albatross of Infamy upon his shoulders. Only later, when sages began to question this act did he resort to reporting that he was sent to find "A" valley, an indefinite article. A valley among hundreds. Rather than admit he may have not followed a direct order(under unjust pressure) he transformed the order into one fraught with ambiguity and unclarity. Was this not a human reaction? Rightly or wrongly, I think so.
Reno's approach was exactly where Custer ordered him to go. The problem was that he did not complete the charge as requested by his commanding officer. Should he have charged further? Those who were not with him scream a resounding, " yes"! Those who were with him (facing acute danger) scream, "Hell No"! /quote] |
  |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 27 2005 : 12:24:59 AM
|
All--
I don't understand from where all this frustration has blossomed. Let me put forth that none of us are 'experts.' That said, I haven't a problem with Benteen's bravery or ability (especially proven in the Trans-Mississippi theatre)whilst at LBH. Yes, on the Entrenchment site, he operated injured, though not particularly so ... and they lived until Terry showed up.
When one says "Custer's entire battalion" was repulsed or turned back at MTC, then you are saying EVERY company was involved in the feint or attack. Call me silly, but I have been under the belief that L and at least, I companies were held back, under Keough's direct command. Had Custer divided his battalion one too many times? Perhaps ... naah, probably. But there problems waay before that.
Granted, I've only started on Gray and, since 2003, have studied just Bruce Trinque's modified timeline ...
Not all of us will agree on who should be faulted for what on June 25, 1876--but that fact should not corrupt frank discussions, be they pro- or anti-Custer.
Regards,
|
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on July 27 2005 12:26:27 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 30 2005 : 9:50:21 PM
|
| We are always intrigued by things that have no answer. The enigma of this battle will never be solved; it is unsolvable. It is for this specific reason that our interest in this battle is so peaked. How else does one explain the utter fascination for every aspect of this battle which has no substantial relevance to our history at all. This battle did not define the end of the Indian way of life, it had already been destroyed. It did not define the limits of Manifest Destiny, it did not establish foreign policy. Relatively speaking, it was an insignificant military engagement in which the U.S. loss. Yet, here we all are, ranting and raving over every aspect of this battle. Guess what? A hundred years from now we will continue to do so. Go figure. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Morass. Just how big was it?
