| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 04 2005 : 11:46:40 AM
|
This is in reply to Survivor's posting in the Poll thread that now is way off topic.
William Taylor's work was written well after the battle from his notes and with his fingers clearly damp to the then current political thermals.
Lee would have been quite happy with such testimony from Taylor. Lee thought others should have been glad to die with Custer rather than survive with Reno, and his prissy panderings to the Custer camp are a threat to those with diabetic tendencies.
This whole concept of 'the influence of alcohol' is dodgy at best. The British openly fired up their men before battle in Army and Navy with rum and booze. Booze often makes people belligerent and safety adverse, yet these references to Reno's drinking seems to suggest that booze is commonly understood to make people tentative, cowardly and cringing. It can prompt either, I suppose, or neither, but it is evidence for nothing. Further, Benteen and others - possibly many others - had booze on the trip. Weir, a famous drunk, got roundly zippered after the battle on the way back.
This is of a piece with those who claim letting Custer die would be a form of revenge for Reno and Benteen. It's the reverse - saving Custer - which would provide all the upside and none of the downside to those officers, if indeed revenge was a consideration at all. That accusation makes no sense either.
The packers, who had had previous run-ins with Reno, are not objective, and it's quite possible Reno caught them stealing from the supplies, apparently an issue that evening.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 04 2005 : 9:04:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Lee would have been quite happy with such testimony from Taylor. Lee thought others should have been glad to die with Custer rather than survive with Reno, and his prissy panderings to the Custer camp are a threat to those with diabetic tendencies.
I have spent a great deal of time perusing the Reno Inquiry regarding witness accounts, cross-examinations by the Recorder Lee for the prosecution, and Mr. Gilbert's position for the defense as well. In all my readings, I am unable to find a single statement wherein Lt. Lee, stated, inferred, or intimated that anyone "should have been glad to die with Custer" rather than survive with Reno.
Admittedly, I am no expert in this area, just an interested party. Could you be so kind as to submit your source(s) to substantiate your allegation that Lt. Lee actually endorsed such an idiotic and ludicrous position. Such an inflammatory statement attached, by you, to a man of no ill repute is puzzling at best. Certainly he has done you no evil, true?
In addition, as the husband of a wonderful wife who is fighting a courageous battle against the horrible disease, Diabetes, I can assure it is not a "tendency." Perhaps, because of my wife's situation, I am being hyper sensitive about any reference to this horrible disease in such a whimsical manner. Perhaps it is also a agitated response to an individual, who once again, has proven that he does not have a clue.
Possibly you are referring to a question that was asked of Capt. Moylan: Would it not have been better as a soldier to have been dead in the timber than dishonored on the hill? This explicit question would have been answered by many soldiers with an unqualified, "yes." A philosophy you would not understand. It refers only to a choice of Honor vs. Dis-honor for a trained soldier.
It denotes no joy in dying with Custer or anyone else. No sane person receives joy in receiving a violent death.
Moylan's response substantiates my theory: "I don,t know that that is a proper question to put to me. Very few men but would prefer to die in the timber than to be on the hill degraded." In summation, Moyland was taken back because he realized that very few soldiers (none) would have admitted to choosing degradation over an honorable death, anywhere.
Graham's Reno Inquiry, page 249:
Recorder Lee: "I have no attacks to make on any witness before this court, and my honest conviction is, that every witness examined has told the truth as to the facts within his knowledge as he saw them, and his opinions are more or less correct in proportion to his means of information, and perhaps his prejudices too."
How does such a statement of conviction, understanding, and reality to certain "truths" stand up against your callous and erroneous perspective?
" Men of class hesitate to slam others, classless individuals can't wait for the opportunity." J.Wiggs circa 8/05 |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 04 2005 9:48:35 PM |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 06 2005 : 11:57:05 AM
|
This is response to Ron in the Responsibility Thread.
There is no basis for saying Reno was an alcoholic, unless by that you mean he drank excessively. An alcoholic is someone for whom alcohol has become a physical demand and chronically, not necessarily excessively, attended to. For proof, talk to the people who handle elderly care facilities. Much of the WWII generation, aside from smoking, were also alcoholics IN THAT they drank virtually every day, and those two martinis - no more, no less - never put them in the street but they couldn't do without them. When they go into care facilities and that half century or more of alcohol stops, they sometimes get violent and even have DT's, but their families deny they were ever alcoholics because they were never, in their memory, drunk. It's not the same thing.
Virtually the entire officer corps of the 7th were drunks, periodically. Benteen, Reno, Weir, French, Keogh, and the others drank as well. Recall the photos with Grant's son: those are some well lit individuals. Given the life, hard to blame them. Custer himself, in the past, was a drunk. And most of them gambled, which we now know is as addictive as anything else. Custer STILL gambled, and had lost much because of it, having to borrow money from a junior officer (Benteen) at one point. That's a major No-No in any circumstance, and made worse when he didn't exactly strain to pay it back. Which do you think was a bigger factor: Reno's drinking or Custer's gambling jones in the LBH?
You need to recall that if Gray is correct in his timeline, Custer didn't manage to move down MTC till a little after four, an hour after Reno charged. In Indian warfare - in cavalry warfare - that's hard to pat into shape as support. If Reno had continued his charge, he could have ridden to the northernmost end of the Cheyenne village and returned several times. This, laughingly, assumes that 130 odd men would have made it the first time, surrounded absolutely by vast numbers of the well armed interested in the cavalry's highly attractive propulsion units and in preventing their people from being killed themselves.
Reno's, or any officer's, job was to plan ahead. He had received no support from Custer, he was virtually surrounded and soon would be in the timber, he had no idea where Benteen was or what his orders were (was Benteen engaged in the south having found a satellite village?). Was the train safe, en route? This was not Beecher Island, where the Indians were also away from support. This was a position measurable in feet from a huge village of Sioux, well armed and motivated, able to refresh and return.
Reno wasn't a great officer, but given what he knew or could know or could assume, his decisions were okay. Those who contend that there ought to have been - and could have been - a sequential retreat don't really deal with the fact there were already Indians on the east bank of the river, and many of the casualties in the crossing and hill climb came not from the west but the north. Open question whether would have been better to stop on foot and take fire from at least two directions or run like hell.
Overriding all of this is the notion that damning Reno by interpreting his every action in the worst light elevates Custer. It doesn't. Custer, or whoever was in charge, made many of the same decisions as Reno in his battle. In the ones he made different - apparently he stopped and formed firing lines without cover - it didn't pan out real well. Running like hell - call it a 'charge' like Reno did - for the south and a reunited command makes far more sense than whatever actually happened north of MTC. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
RonH
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - August 06 2005 : 1:15:10 PM
|
Dark Cloud, you say there is no basis for saying Reno was an alcoholic. All you need do is look at Reno's subsequent military career, and what you will see is a person who allowed alcohol to take over his life. He was powerless over it and it destroyed him. You may not think so, and that is your right. However, I can tell you from personal experience, and sitting in on group AA meetings that Reno definately had a problem with alcohol. It doesn't matter what someone's family thinks about it. It doesn't matter that the consumption of alcohol never 'put them in the street'. That is not the question at hand. The issue is: Did Reno's drinking affect his capacity to lead and make life and death decisions for 140 plus soldiers & civilians under his command? Did his conduct inspire his men? Did he make sure his orders to mount and charge to the river were communicated to his whole command? You can argue that his decision to leave the timber position and lead a 'charge' to the bluffs was a good one. You can even say that you understand that under the circumstances he couldn't manage the crossing at the river due to the 'heat of battle'. Even though that has always been why modern armies have officers and leaders. You can forgive him for abandoning his command soon after reaching the bluffs and going back down the hill to find Lt. Hodgon's body. You can forgive him for not hearing the firing from Custer's command, even though many others heard it soon after the troops arrived on the hill. you can even forgive him for turning over virtual command to Benteen as he lay cowering on the hill during the battle.
You say: "Reno's or any officers job is to plan ahead". Well, did he? Did he properly plan and lead the movement from the timber to the crossing? Did he plan ahead to cover the crossing of the river to the bluffs? Was he planning ahead for the security of his command when, upon reaching the bluffs, instead of organizing his men he went down to find Lt. Hodgon?
You say: "Reno wasn't a great officer". I don't know, Sheridan (I'm pretty sure it was) recommended him for Brigadier General in the civil war. Maybe that was before he found the bottle?
You say: "If grey is correct in his timeline, Custer didn't manage to move down MTC till an hour after Reno charged". Well, Girard and others heard the firing from Custer's command soon after Reno dashed from the timber. Not just Girard, many others heard it as well. In fact, wasn't Reno curious as to why the Indians had left his front as soon as he reached the bluffs? He felt safe enough to go looking for Hodgon's (sp?) body.
You say: "Custer was himself, in the past, a drunk". True enough, but it didn't take Autie long to understand he had a problem and he quit. I'm not sure what you are trying to say about Custer's gambling. Yes, he gambled and lost. I've never understood how he thought he could accomplish the subjugation of a village that size with a single regiment of cavalry, many of whom were either recruits or inexperienced with Indian fighting.
But, that doesn't excuse Reno's behavior. Whether you want to call him a 'drunk' or not, his leadership and decisionmaking were key to the defeat at LBH. You don't have to be a Custerphile to acknowledge that. Many others in the 7th cavalry, while not being Custer worshippers understood that the Major's conduct and leadership were disgraceful. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 06 2005 : 3:41:49 PM
|
by paragraph
1. I laid out the differences between alcoholism - which is a physical deformity of the metabolism and physical addiction - and a drunk. Reno may have become an alcoholic, but we don't know. There is no basis for the claim. By the time of the LBH he was called, I believe by Godfrey, a "moderate" drinker by the standards of the regiment. It is the question at hand because you stated as fact he was an alcoholic. As to whether his drinking affected his command, that depends where you draw the baseline. Since everything affects everything, yes, of course. But then, the LACK of booze probably affected some others as well. To prove that Reno's drinking - and it couldn't have been much - affected the battle is a real stretch. Girard and Herendeen disagree about the firing heard and duration and other stuff. The supposed great respect for the honesty and objectivity of Herendeen and Girard is solely because their conflicting testimonies seem to damn Reno and back Custerphiles' forlorn quest to avoid the obvious. He hardly "abandoned" his command to bury Hodgeson. If he hadn't, you'd be saying what a crappy friend he was to let his adjutant and friend be subject to further mutilation. It is not, by the way, yours or mine to forgive anyone for their actions in this or any battle. I've never been in one. For you to damn him - you say he needs forgiveness - you'd better have been in one, in command, and done better.
2. More or less. As well or better than Custer. As I asked, would stopping to provide covering fire and then receiving it from at least two directions by superior force decrease or increase your own losses? This is another example of people longing to use military terminology in a sentence damning Reno for a process that is not guaranteed to have done better and could well have done worse.
3. That doesn't make him a great officer. Burnside, Pope, Pickett, and Hood were actual generals. A great officer is Reynolds, Lee, Grant, Sherman, or Johnson. He was a good officer, and there were worse drunks in the 7th. Weir, one of them, disobeyed orders, operated independently, pointlessly risked and nearly lost his own company, and then vanishes from memories of the battle. You know, when the train and booze was available. Reno was seen and, even disliked by many, nobody says he was drunk except the packers.
4. Girard and others don't agree about the start, duration, direction, volume of the fire they said they heard. On arrival at the hill, was Reno's job to risk the regiment searching for Custer or keep it in being for use in conjunction with Terry? When would the 7th's mission automatically switch from one to the other? How many horses had Reno's men lost, which is to say was he mostly cavalry or infantry at that time? Of the horses available, how many were capable of a further charge? If you don't know, these accusations are bogus on their face. It took four men on foot to carry a wounded man when they moved north, and there's no mention of extra horses. Absolutely everyone thought that Custer had been rebuffed and had ridden on north. Nobody thought he'd wait on his wounded, by the way, or come back for Reno or Benteen.
5. "Autie" was a term used by his immediate family and a few close friends, so you betray your prejudice. It's like calling him "Darling", for all intents, when you use a private term of endearment for someone long dead who did not extend that intimacy to many people in his life, and it's a real imposition to assume he'd appreciate it from us. It's become a code among Custerphiles to show you really, really, really love Custer. It's rude, honestly. I'm not trying to say anything about Custer's gambling; I said he was a gambler, it's an addiction, and sometimes the gamble is the rush desired and, loving that, he did what he did because he lusted for the risk. You know: a gambler. He had very few recruits, but the 7th wasn't very good anyway. Some of the soldiers in Reno's charge had never ridden that fast, as was brought out at the Inquest and never contradicted. Let's review: that means they hadn't practiced charging, along with these absent target practice sessions. Giving them a sword and putting the reins in only one hand is a subject that provides much amusement, especially coupled with the fact they couldn't seem to hit anything with their weapons. The 7th was a victim of its own image, bombast, and bull____. If the enemy didn't run, they were cooked.
6. Reno didn't divide the regiment, order an attack in sections over an hour apart, fail to scout, or lose his entire command. Others in the 7th discovered that the LBH needed a scapegoat because nobody looked good, including the incompetent Sioux who allowed civvies to be killed. Reno was convenient, was in charge, and he had not done well. The foolishness of blaming Reno is shown by your reluctance to explain how Reno, without stopping, could have survived the time in the village before Custer made a move, feint, charge, effort. That's an hour Reno would be in that village. If Custer had hustled, maybe only 45 minutes. But most officers with Reno thought they'd be dead in fifteen minutes or less if they'd continued. This was badly done from every point of view, and it's Custer's baby. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 06 2005 5:13:48 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 06 2005 : 10:09:48 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
by paragraph
1. I laid out the differences between alcoholism - which is a physical deformity of the metabolism and physical addiction - and a drunk. Reno may have become an alcoholic, but we don't know. There is no basis for the claim.
We do not know, and can never know, if Reno was an alcoholic, drunk, or a teetotaler. Since he left no authorized statements to substantiate any of the above and, he isn't here to let us know his condition, one way or another, we must seek elsewhere for input. Being reasonable and semi-intelligent human beings we must (for those who have interest in the matter) therefore rely upon available evidence, such as it is.
June 25, 1876 (Sometime before noon): "Lt. Derudio came across him (Reno) chatting with interpreter Gerard in the middle of the little Big Horn where they had paused to water the horses. The Major (Reno) was swigging at a flask when DeRudio splashed by. 'What are you trying to do?' Reno asked, 'Drown me before I am killed?
A month after the battle, Leighton & Jordan (traders) maintained records of purchases of alcohol by members of the elite 7th. "During the first three weeks of August he (Reno) brought seven gallons and two demijohns of whiskey."
After nightfall, June 25th: Civilian witnesses Frett & Churchill observed Reno with a flask of whiskey and a carbine. According to the testimony of both men, Reno approached them and spoke with slurred speech then slapped the face of Frett. Both men testified, under oath, to the veracity of the incident as they experienced it. There are some who believe that Frett was a tool of Frederick Whittaker who convinced the latter to come forth with false allegations against Reno at the Inquiry, years after the incident occurred. This is absolutely false. Frett originally made this accusation in July 1876, and it was published by the Chicago Tribune on the 28th. of July. Frett went on to become a policeman in the city of St. Paul.
September 26,1876: "When said post (Fort Lincoln) was exposed and liable to attack from Sioux Indians, he, Major Reno did become drunk. And did, by malicious and insulting comments, provoke a rough-and-tumble fistfight with first Lt. John A. Manley.
Dismissed from service, without pay for two years.
August 3, 1878: "Having been invited to supper at the home of post trader W.S. Fanshawe, Reno git drunk-'disgustingly drunk'-according to Mrs. Fanshawe.
August 8, 1878: "In the billiard room of the Officer's Club he got drunk, knocked some money out of the bartender's hand, punched a hole through a window with a chair, and fell three times on the way home."
October 8, 1878: "He lost approximately $300.00 playing against Lt. William Nicholson, after which they got into a fight."
November 28, 1878: Stood before a General Court-Martial for peeking into the parlor window of the commander's quarters scaring his daughter almost to death. For this he was dishonorable discharged.
On September 7, 1904 the editorial of the Northwestern Cristian Advocate alleged: Major Reno was not a coward, as many believe. What then was the explanation of his conduct at the Battle of the Little Big Horn? Major Reno himself told the late Rev. Dr. Arthur Edwards that his strange actions were due to the fact that HE WAS DRUNK.
All of the above information may be casually dismissed by statements such as most Preachers are drunks themselves, or there were wittinesses who claim Reno was sober as a judge (there were) or why do people insist upon degrading Reno when everyone knows that Custer was the blame for whatever happened. The reality of the situation is extremely dismal. Some of the officers were drunks, as were some of the soldiers. To attempt to distinguish between the levels of alcoholic intake is a parody of rhetoric. Tell the wives, husbands, and children of deceased alcoholics of the difference in physical and mental addiction. Tell the homeless person in the gutter who only lives for the next drink that he is not an alcoholic; just a drunk.
As for me, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck.
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 07 2005 : 10:12:40 AM
|
Ahhh, the smell of napalm in the air is so refreshing LMAO!
DC, you stated,
quote:
This was not Beecher Island, where the Indians were also away from support. This was a position measurable in feet from a huge village of Sioux, well armed and motivated, able to refresh and return.
I seem to remember that the Cheyenne village/villages was fairly close to the battle site. I remember reading that many non-combatants watched the battle from the bluffs, I believe to the north of the island. Also, Roman Nose was sitting in camp attempting to rework his protective magic? and was ridiculed by a rival into taking part in the battle.
Joe, since I am sure this is addressed to my post of the other night, I feel somewhat obliged to answer. You wrote:
quote:
All of the above information may be casually dismissed by statements such as most Preachers are drunks themselves,...
Actually, I stated one preacher was a drunk, not all. Although as a child of eastern North Carolinian Southern Baptists, I likely have more experience with the breed than you.
My thoughts on whether Reno was drunk or not on June 25, 1876 are irrelevent. The man made one terrible decision, i.e., not the decision to leave the woods, but the decision to leave in the disorganized fashion that it occurred in. We can attempt to throw a blanket of absolution upon him by claiming he was drunk but, in my mind, that does not absolve him of his responsibility to lead in a professional manner and fulfill his responsibilities to his commander and command.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 07 2005 : 10:52:28 AM
|
Not surprisingly, Markland, you're absolutely correct. Apparently "thousands" of civvies on the hills around the battle site, although I'd contend the village was significantly further away from the Island than the Unkpapas were from Reno's woods and much larger. Still, solace was at hand for the Cheyenne, and my point invalid. http://www.rootsweb.com/~coyuma/data/souvenir/beecher.htm
So, it was like the Yellowstone in '73, then. If it turns out that village was around the bend, then it wasn't like Midway in '42. That's irrelevant, but it has the charm of being correct, finally.
I'm still not entirely convinced that the formal withdrawal procedure would work as well as claimed or better than Reno's 'charge.' The first company exits, goes to the first position where the others pass, and then surrounded and under fire and now standing still either in the saddle or with horseholders, they return volley fire .......at who, in which direction? Was the 7th good at hitting moving targets at distance? Why do they have to stand still when the Sioux are mounted and moving? Unknown numbers of Sioux are already on the eastern bluffs firing at the soldiers' backs. And this would, somehow, discourage the Sioux from attacking the rest?
They're sitting ducks and now outside their cover. Once over the river, they have to cover against those to the north as well as those on the west. Could be, but I don't see it as the remedy for the disaster at all. Once out of the timber, they were going to lose significant numbers of soldiers, and the alleged "charge" might well have been the best option, coincident or not. Among other things, they didn't know exactly how to get where they were going, so the advance planning for sequential positions is notional.
Further, isn't this what Custer did? How'd that work out? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 07 2005 10:56:57 AM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 07 2005 : 11:16:31 AM
|
You have a point about an organized vs. disorganized retreat but rationally, I can't help think that some type of organized, fighting withdrawal would have resulted in fewer casualties. I seem to recall that some interviews by Camp indicated that even during the rout, the Indians would back off and look for easier targets if the their original quarry pointed his gun in their general direction. As far as marksmanship, you don't have to hit the Indian, a horse is a fairly large target and unlike the Custer/Calhoun battlefields, the land did not offer as many means for the Indians to infiltrate closely enough to overwhelm the troops with firepower and hand-to-hand combat tactics.
I was reading Greene's Wa****a this morning after awakening and I believe I am getting a real sense of why Godfrey earnestly despised Reno. I was unaware, until this morning, that Godfrey's company at Wa****a performed the same type of fighting withdrawal against superior numbers as he later did in the withdrawal from Weir Point. Two times he succeeded and both times had to reorganize his men in the midst of the withdrawal. In other words, a commander, totally unlike Reno on June 25, 1876.
Later, have to go cut the grass (and disturb the neighbors sleeping in on Sunday morning  before heading over to Leavenworth to look for dead soldiers.
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 07 2005 : 12:15:55 PM
|
At the Wa****a, the 7th outnumbered the village attacked, and Godfrey's instance of withdrawal was not from a place of good cover to a previously unvisited location up steep bluffs after finding a hitherto unknown river ford in the spring runoff. At the withdrawal from Weir Point, they were going to a known place with the enemy essentially coming from one direction. It was well done.
Of course, we know that the 7th wouldn't be attacked by the other villages at the Wa****a because they had hostages. Right? Sure, we know this.
During this withdrawal at Weir Point, as an aside, Company G seemed to have only three members present: Wallace and two soldiers. Since the casualty rate wasn't that high for G, it could give a firm indication that casualties among horses were the more significant statistic forming Reno's decisions. However, by the lack of many dead ponies, even this was beyond the 7th's skill in turn.
I still would contend that soldiers stopped, in line, mounted or not (which drops their fire power to horseholders) would simply be stationary targets for those on the East bank bluffs or those firing from a further 300 degrees of the compass. Movement seems to have been the safest position on either of the battlefields that day.
So. Reno and Custer find themselves about to be surrounded by superior numbers. One says mount and follow me before we die, the other (allegedly and in non conformance to his personality and history) breaks out The Big Book of Infantry Dance Steps for Cavalry While On the Offensive. Which one worked?
If only they had their swords.......... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
RonH
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - August 07 2005 : 3:50:44 PM
|
Dark Cloud, Thanks for responding. For years I was a 'Reno man', believing that Reno was damned and made a scapegoat to cover for Custer's bad generalship at LBH. And, to a large extent this is true. The debacle at LBH was primarily Custer's fault, but his supporting cast was anything but stellar. Benteen hated him, and moped after receiving orders to hurry forward with the packs. Reno halted his charge to the village, and formed a skirmish line. OK, give him that. You and I weren't there and the testimony of how many indians were in his front is conflicting. Some present thougth it was the only thing he could do. OK, accept that as a reasonable action. He held the skirmish line, and eventually retreated into the timber to avoid being surrounded and destroyed. Again, nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell. So far, so good.
My problem with Reno starts with the way he ordered the 'charge' from the timber. Not everyone heard the order to mount and prepare to 'charge'. It was made in haste, and many men were surprised to see the battalion mounting and leaving. Even officers, Hare, Varnum, DeRudio and others never heard the command to leave. These officers should have been made aware of the plans, and help to inform and organize the men!
Varnum said when he left the timber, and rode to the front of the line he found Reno at the head of the column, and mentioned to Reno that it shouldn't be so disorganized, Reno responds "I'm in command here". The command is very lucky they found a place to ford, as no one thought ahead to where and how they would cross the river. They were lucky not to be cut to pieces on the river bank. Then, upon reaching the bluffs Reno goes back down to find Hodgson's body. You excuse this, as Hodgson was Reno's friend. But, Reno was in command, and therefore responsible for the survivors who desperately needed leadership. True, the indians had left their front and were obviously massing against Custer, but the men were demoralized and it was Reno's responsibility to organize them and lift their sagging morale. Just think of the suffering he could have prevented, had he thought about getting water from the river at that time. Later, there was much suffering for lack of water, and men were killed and wounded attempting to acquire it. If he had organized a squad of men to go down to the river, get water and find any wounded men who needed assistance it would have been better than losing his composure and wimpering about one individual. I just think you cut him too much slack in the attempt to prove it was all "Custer's baby". Whether or not drinking affected his actions that day, I don't know but something obviously did. His civil war record, though not brilliant and storied like Custer's, was very good. He was, as we know recommended for a star. It doesn't matter if we agree or not about the definition of alcoholism. Something affected Reno's conduct that day, the evidence seems to me to be that it was drinking. Maybe it was good old fear? Maybe he had a greater fear of the 'reds' than he did confederate cavalry? We just don't know.
Have you ever read Fred Dustin's book: The Custer Tragedy? Dustin goes beyond the call to damn Custer and defend Reno. I don't think it's necessary to do that, Custer was in overall command, and his subordinates actions, although not stellar, weren't the primary cause of his defeat. |
Edited by - RonH on August 07 2005 3:54:17 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 07 2005 : 4:25:42 PM
|
Hare, Varnum, DeRudio and others never heard the command to leave.
They heard it alright but decided to take their chances in the timber. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 07 2005 : 6:47:02 PM
|
by paragraph
1. The supporting cast was as good as it got in the 1876 Army. Benteen did hate him, but he didn't mope. He made good time and he was responsible to arrive in condition to fight. IF HE HAD BROUGHT THE PACKS he might still be there. This was the first exclusive pack train in that military department, and it was a cluster____ and a disaster. Read how Crook, who studied the issue, did it. He packed so well and wisely that his mules ran with their units always. The 7th's attitude was that the slowest and dumbest were punished by being put in charge of the packs. See, that's quite dumb considering the importance of the packs. Like so much else, the packers don't seem to have been well trained in their art.
2. Only in movies and bodice rippers do soldiers in combat all hear the orders at the same time and/or obey them. Orders in combat are made in haste. I've read a lot of first hand stories, and this isn't uncommon at all. It's one of the reasons close order formations survived into the Civil War, because soldiers could hear their officers. (I traditionally point to William Manchester, a combat vet of the Pacific and Pulitzer historian, and Paul Fussell, a decorated combat officer in Europe, for their stories of this because they write so well.) I remain puzzled by this so called confusion. The area occupied wasn't large. A bunch of your buddies mounting up would draw attention, you'd think. Reno says he gave the orders to be passed along. Who knows. Regardless, Reno's decision was apparently prompted by these observations: a.) they were surrounded, and badly outnumbered. b.) while ammo was okay at present, the woods were being infiltrated and who knew how long bullets would last c.) If it did give out, it would be at night, where Indians excelled in combat (especially in their actual backyard) and d.) at that point, at night, out of ammo, it's rather late to wonder what happened to support and ammo and help and what to do about it, So e.) let's shake a leg out of here NOW, and reunite with someone on high ground near where Custer's guys passed. That makes sense.
3. As I read it, Varnum is alleged to have exhorted the soldiers not to run once out of the timber, but stand and fight. He wasn't talking to Reno. When Reno said 'I'm in charge', Varnum meekly rode on. Eventually the tale became stand, fight, go back and get the wounded. I understand the attempt to play on my words about Reno's thinking ahead. But you can't be serious in suggesting the river should have been walked to find the best ford under attack, are you? It's a generally shallow river. Reno was responsible, and you can argue about Hodgeson, and I nowhere excuse it, only point out that whatever Reno does, the worst imprint is given it. But he did not shine. Once at Reno Hill, he could not know they'd be there that night, but the men had recently watered and some did again. Men did go down under command to seek wounded and they were driven back by Indian fire. He didn't wimper about one individual. He buried one. What is the basis for something affecting Reno's conduct? What is the connection between booze and specific Reno conduct? But you're right, we don't know, and we'd better have actual evidence before defaming a decorated soldier. Much of the damnation of Reno came from well after the fight. Stuff like this happend all the time, and because of Mrs. Custer having to live off her husband's rep, this all became way overblown. If Crooke hadn't stopped some men he'd sent after a nonexistent village and they'd been wiped out, perhaps the same thing would have happened at the Rosebud.
4. I haven't actually read The Custer Tragedy, but it seems to have been well incorporated in other works. The bibliography that Graham reprints is pretty impressive. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 08 2005 : 07:52:07 AM
|
Drink of course is known as Dutch courage.It does in fact improve performance in the kind of close contact situation of a cavalry charge.
If Reno was aware that Varnam was ordering the troops about he should have shot him. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 29 2005 : 09:53:21 AM
|
| It seems to me that drinking and military personnel is a common event. In Viet Nam at the military base clubs beer was 10 cents a can. We would consume quit a bit. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 29 2005 : 10:54:53 AM
|
Because Custer didn't drink, the intake of others is greeted with verbal shame by Custerphiles. I like and believe Benteen when he says there wasn't enough liquor on the Hill (he wants to say 'in God's earth') to have gotten anyone drunk under those conditions ("...you pissant momma's boy'). Virtually all the officers drank and everyone periodically binged in the god awful conditions of frontier life. I still think French, Weir, and others deserve more likely condemnation than Reno. French, one of the best shots, is employed tapping out cartridges? Burkman for that. I think French and others got blistered when the train came up with their bottles. Really, think about it.
Given that Reno's known reaction under booze was bellicose rage, not timorous inaction, I've never gotten this any more than the ridiculous accusation that Benteen wouldn't rescue Custer if he could. Balderdash, all of it. And genuine problem drinkers at all levels are far worse when deprived or under a hangover than when in the swing of things. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 29 2005 : 3:44:18 PM
|
| I would say that most of the officers of the 7th who served in the civil war were suffering from PTSD or whatever it is called.Certainly the LBH was the last straw for Weir. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 29 2005 : 11:17:15 PM
|
| WILD I would agree with you and alcohol was one way not to have to think to hard about things. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
The Accusations Against Reno
