| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
 Posted - September 06 2005 : 09:21:05 AM
|
In answer to WildI's "Did Custer Crack up?", I don't think it was in his nature - I reckon he was loving it. It was his show and no-one was going to rain on his parade. My original gut feeling was that the warriors were lying in wait for him and simply overpowered his column by weight of numbers. Having read a bit more, I cannot discount the amount of Indian testimony to the contrary.
My problem with the Lakota Noon scenario is the reason given for Custer's Northward trip i.e. to draw the warriors away from the Village to trap them between Custer and Reno. I just can't understand it. Was it something in the demeanour of the Indians who ventured out to meet the threat? Its very hard for me to visualize the scale of the field and Michno does make a good argument for a long period of non-threatening, long distance tit-for-tat pop shooting. Alternatively, if it was Custer's intention purely to go after the women and children then witnessing, as he surely must have, the flight Westward, his (perhaps guided) movement to a new ford would make some sense. Waiting for the rest of the gang to show up before the charge would also be sensible. Perhaps his supposed wait for up to 20 minutes was more for his own column rather than Reno. The retreat back up the hill might then have come from the realization that his boys were in serious trouble back along the ridge.
Apart from the initial wander down MTC, the Indian accounts seem to point to the troopers staying on the ridges, which would be the best ground for the horses, while the Indians would have to contend with their ponies struggling around the gullies below.
My guess is now that perhaps events overtook Custer while he still believed he was in control. Mind you, I'll probably read another book in a few months time which .... |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 06 2005 : 12:49:41 PM
|
Custer was noted by at least one soldier as rather famous for changing his mind a lot, and for that he wasn't roundly liked. Given he and later his widow spent so much time trying to leave the impression of his calm and reasoned judgement in battle, it suggests the opposite in reality, since nobody else was claiming Custer a calming presence.
But it doesn't matter, true or not.
Rather than try to make the LBH unique, it should be viewed as yet another battle and as such not fought with any great unique characteristics or behavior. Twenty percent of the markers on the Custer field are bogus, and once you remove them equally, and then place the ones the monument edged downhill back up top, the spread out and the look and feel is very, very different. Do it on your Gray maps. And this, of course, assumes the markers approximate where bodies were found, which assumes it's where they died. Hah! We have ample reason to disbelieve all of that. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on September 06 2005 12:52:29 PM |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2005 : 10:57:22 AM
|
Certainly, there can also be the charge laid that he not only changed his mind, he also seemed to keep his commanders in the dark as to his operational intentions. Perhaps both sides of the same coin though. However, it would appear that the movement north (after the MTC retreat) was an ordered one, by accounts - at least for a significant amount of time. It would appear by that yardstick, that he was more interested in what he could see happening in the Village than tackling the relatively mild threat advancing half a mile away at that stage. Otherwise, why not just bludgeon in at MTC ford? By doing so would tie up the command while the Village fled, perhaps. The route down MTC was pretty bad ground too, apparently (if my reading of Michno is correct).
Another problem to gauge is when the mindset changed in the leadership, from offense to defence. I've no doubt Custer with volunteers would have covered an escape to Terry by his men if he knew the cause was lost. I reckon he found out too late he was outflanked east. That said, I still don't like the man - above excuses nothwithstanding.
BTW - apologies for cross-threading, but messenger Martin's shot horse still bothers me a lot. |
Edited by - Smcf on September 07 2005 11:05:58 AM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2005 : 11:38:07 AM
|
smcf here is a photo of the ford. From the looks of it I would say the direction is looking north. Behind and to the photographers right on the east side of the river. The land dramatically rises to a high bluff. To the east of the ford. The land at first gently slopes and then quickly rises into the mtc area. The land on the village side is relatively smooth bottom ground for about 1/2 mile. Then to the west-south-west it rises onto the first step in a plateau. The other area's to the west and north west are smooth river bottom land, on the village side. There is also a strip of river bottom perhaps about 1/3 of a mile in breadth between the river and the previously mention slope, that extends south for about a mile. This would be over the photographers left shoulder.
http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt338nc0tk/
If you can't get the hyperlink to work. Copy and paste it to your browser. |
Edited by - Benteen on September 07 2005 11:39:33 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2005 : 3:23:13 PM
|
I think that photo shows you looking west across MTC ford. Given that road construction, the termination of the Garry Owen loop, and a century and a quarter have passed, the composition of the current river bottom and banks cannot be seen as being important, I wouldn't think. There is nothing here to stop a cavalry advance except enemy fire, and if this was taken in the years immediately after the battle, it doesn't show any foliage to hamper that advance or to protect the Indians.
The theory of the advance north to make another crossing makes small sense, since all surprise and shock would be gone, it was a pointless roundabout to the civvies, if that were the goal, guaranteeing a bigger reception, and they had no indication that there was a better crossing further north and, anyway, nothing wrong with this one.
This is the only actual issue: why Custer didn't cross. He's past being able to think he can fool the village as to his movements, he knows its size. The simplest explanation, threatening nothing known, is that he thought the Indians would run and he attacked, was disabused of that theory, and was forced to LSH. No cavalry officer would want to head north and east from MTC, no cavalry officer would plan to stay on coverless ground and fight a defensive battle. Custer would not consider waiting, inactive, with the enemy at his front, in sight. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2005 : 5:18:53 PM
|
I'm not convinced that he didn't cross. Of course we may never know for sure. Because several theorys have been floated about over the years. I think it important not to dismiss that it may have happened.
This has been floating around the boards lately. See what you think. I'm no Nightengale fan. Because he has made some assertions that I do disagree with. However this one may have some merit.
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/prm/bllittlebighorn1.htm
He bases part of his theory on the shots heard. And/or perhaps even the battle at the ford seen by some. The last assertion I am not too sure about, but the first one seems possible. Custer's force would have been about a mile closer, and the shots wouldn't have been deflected by the hills. Something to think about. |
Edited by - Benteen on September 07 2005 5:20:11 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 07 2005 : 9:09:19 PM
|
True, we don't actually know if any crossing was achieved, but it wasn't rammed home if he did, to use that damning phrase from Miles and Godfrey later on discussing Reno's effort. So, I should just say, the only issue is why Custer didn't complete his attack, whatever it consisted of, or seemingly try very hard before retreating.
I think Nightengale the Straw Dog King. Nobody, at any time, claimed that a flank attack was an unsound or unheard of manuever, or that Custer was crazy for employing it. Custer was thought crazy by many for attacking what is often assumed to be a huge village. If he'd backed in on foot from every point of the compass singing opera, it wouldn't subtract or add to the foolishness, in their eyes, of attacking at all.
Nightengale's analysis of carbine fire and sound travel around the battlefield defies comment. Well, maybe just one. It was bovine, and either he's an idiot or he's convinced most Custer buffs are.
There's no mutual exclusive at work, there, though. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 06:36:52 AM
|
| Thanks for the photo, Benteen. Very atmospheric. The theory of a crossing is based on pretty thin evidence though and backed up by no Indian accounts. On the contrary, some accounts deny any attempt to get near the Village there at all. A Custer disabused of his running Indian theory still doesn't explain the march north, and it would appear to be pretty ordered at first. If Custer was attempting to retreat in the face of an assault, then he was going in the wrong direction. It doesn't add up. Attempting to head off a potential mass exodus north from the village makes more sense to me. Who knows what Custer could see happening down there, but down there was his goal and he didn't take what appears to be the obvious route, so whatever he saw convinced him to stay away, not run away. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 08:33:50 AM
|
You assume Custer (5 co) had a lot to say about which way he was going to go. The direction he moved makes little sense for him but a lot for the Sioux and Cheyenne, who'd want him pretty much where he ended up: exposed on a coverless hill in bad horse country, surrounded. Why would it appear to be pretty ordered? What evidence for that? I suspect the lower companies, first in line for the crossing, were rebuffed OR a Custer was wounded and they took the line of least resistence to get him to a place for his temporary protection. The upper, eastern companies, having no real clue, covered the movement and moved north to meet them at Calhoun. It was messy, confusing, and foolish.
And yet again: if hostages were the key, why was Custer concerned about attack at the Wa****a when he had them? Did the Cheyenee warriors from Black Kettle's village cease violence towards whites while the Army had captives over the years? Or the reverse. Would Gall care if Custer had Cheyenne hostages? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 09:34:14 AM
|
It was pretty ordered because that's what the Indian accounts say it was, at least for a considerable amount of time. Given the distances involved from the ridges to the ford, I can see (with some difficulty admittedly) how a longish time frame could develop before the troops were in trouble.
On the other hand, what evidence exists to point to a significant struggle anywhere near the ford - one dead soldier (again - correct me if I'm wrong) and a spurious account supposedly from White Cow Bull, who seems to have been everywhere on the battlefield at once.
A line of least resistence for an injured Custer would surely be back the way they had come, and to where support already was/could easily get to, coupled with being closer to the known trail in case Benteen showed up. The line you have the troops retreating from MTC implies a heavy Indian presence pushing them in that direction. That also implies some heavy fighting there, again for which there is scant evidence. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 09:34:20 AM
|
DC Very good questions indeed. Someone somewhere made this assertion about capturing the "non-coms", as it's called. Just who that was need's #4's help. I don't know for sure whether that was Custer's goal or not. But whoever stirred up that concoction, needed a stiff belt of espresso or 3. Just how in the world was Custer supposed to do that? How many indian nations were involved in this thing? Would the Sioux have cared had Cheyenne women and children were captured? And on and on it goes. Not only should those considerations weigh upon "Custer's decisions", as we understand them. But also the very nature of where most of the women and children were.
We have accounts that many of them were east across the river picking wild turnips. Now I don't know about you, but a village that size there must have been a sizeable number picking wild turnips. What Custer couldn't ~ didn't see them, when he topped the rise on or near Weir Peak? You see wild turnips don't grow in the valley's, coulee's, or ravines. They grow near the hilltops. I wonder, did Custer see the object of his affection? And if so, just how important were they to his strategy? I can just see the roundup now playing out to the strains of Advance to the Rear, yeee haww!!!
Now for the complicated part. According to Two Moons he returned from witnessing the Reno fight to find Custer's battalion on a lope to the river. He had just told the women not to tear down the lodges when Custer appeared. Ya think there were still women in the camp?
Then we have the impression, from god only knows where, that there was a mass stampede, exodus, whatever ~ of women, children and old headed for Squaw Creek. And these same impressionist say that this is what Custer wanted. No, from what I can tell it was Custer's full intent to attack the village. How do I know this. Well, uummmm... lets see. He sent Reno to attack it. He sent Benteen the "pitch into anything" attack orders. And he, Custer, even said he was going to attack it. I believe it was to Martin who relayed it, it went something like this. "We will go down and make a crossing and attack the village." Ironic, in no instance were the so called "non-coms" ever mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 12:58:20 PM
|
Smcf:
What Indian accounts say it was ordered? Who? Any Indian account that includes Anglo terms for geologic features or the words Custer, Benteen, train, or Reno is either bogus or given so long after the battle they had time to learn the names as well as the PC story the anglos wanted to hear.
There is no evidence for a long struggle at the ford. If a Custer was popped, no need for one. But there could have been. It was only shortly after the battle the rail line was built and MTC was where the trains stopped for tourist picnics, and any evidence like casings would have vanished. Further, the Indians DID cross here in strength, which would have obliterated any evidence of Custer's cavalry going the other way on a rocky runoff bed. Martin says there were Indians on the East side when he left (...eh..), and even if there wasn't, you cannot move cavalry in fours or twos or sixes galloping down a ravine on a dime. They couldn't return the way they came, there were too many of their own in the way. Once started uphill to the north, they'd have to continue to reorganize, but they weren't allowed to. Cavalry stopped and under fire is worse than dismounted cavalry under fire, who at least have the horses for cover.
The only for sure evidence we have is the testimony of the officers who saw the field. They said it looked like a rout except for Calhoun's guys.
Benteen,
Reno at one point thought civvies might have been the goal. Two Moon, a Cheyenne, would have had to use a transporter to return from watching the Reno fight to see Custer loping towards the river. And meaning what? He used the word "Custer" to mean Custer or soldiers or was this just a translator being helpful? Were these really soldiers or a group of warriors in soldier dress on soldier horses with guidons who scared the crap out of Cheyenne women when they appeared coming across the river into the Cheyenne circle, probably shedding items that lead to another "firing line" of a northern advance for the indomitable Custer, always on the offensive. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 1:26:14 PM
|
In Two moon's account of this it is pretty clear that he didn't participate in the fight. That he did however observe it. It also indicates that he didn't loose much time in observing but instead turned around and rode back to his village. This makes perfect sense, because if there were no other Cheyennes, and as he said it looked like the Sioux had things under control, why not return.
I don't believe that Two Moons is lying about this part of his statements. Oh sure, perhaps other statements attributed by him may be called into question. But I think this one seems pretty straight forward.
I haven't done any time-distance study of this, and one would have to have a fairly descent estimate of where his camp was. But from the reading taken by the odometer that Terry had with him the village was about 3.5 to 4 miles long. Just rationalizing this in a general way, it most likely would have taken him about 15 to 20 minutes or so one way. And the same to return. Altogether about 30 to 40 minutes. Not accounting for the time to observe. Would this put it within any time frame we know of? Gray's work, and again i'm generalizing but I believe it was about 45 minutes or so. This fits with the timing that has been established.
For me, I guess, i'm not so quick to judge events upon what others have said. I try to take into account whether it was possible or not. Then judge that for myself. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 3:09:29 PM
|
So, Two Moon for sure was on horseback? The length of the village, I thought, had been blown apart by those who thought that Terry's guys measured a village that had moved about as if it were one continuous unit. I don't know, of course, but there was reason to believe that the remains of the village looked bigger than it was.
Understand, "Custer loping towards the river" means Custer loping east to west, in a narrow gully, visible at a limited vantage point on the west bank. Custer loping parallel to the river, Custer loping vaguely along a ridge, would suggest something else. And true, if TM was only witnessing the first part of the fight, he'd have time to get there to see the MTC incident, whatever it was. This all depends on where the Cheyenne actually were. Except for 'northernmost', we don't know, apparently. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 9:28:20 PM
|
quote:
This all depends on where the Cheyenne actually were. Except for 'northernmost', we don't know, apparently.
I thought you'd never ask. While we don't know for certain. We can come very close.
The furtherest point north the Cheyenne village could have been was In an area:
1) 1 mile ESE of Ford d.
2) 1 1/2 miles SW of LSH.
3) 1 1/3 miles W of Calhoun Hill.
4) 1 1/2 miles NW of MTF.
In this area, it would take a rider on a horse approximatly 40 minutes round trip to the Hunpapa village.
The least known area would have been in an area:
1) 2 miles SE of Ford d.
2) 2 miles SSW of LSH.
3) 1 1/2 miles SW of Calhoun Hill.
4) 1 mile WNW of MTF.
In this area, it would take a rider on a horse approximatly 25 minutes round trip.
Because it would take longer because of the running about by everyone else. You know the sheer bedlam of being attacked. And we would have to also allow a few minutes for him to view the action to determine the outcome to his satisfaction. I don't believe it would be the furtherst point.
While we may not know for certain. I think this should help to clarify things. Was it possible for Two Moons to (yes, ride a horse as he said he did). To view the action at the Hunkpapa village? Given the time from the least known point to the most northern one. I would say yes. Could he see the valley from that point, ie. the closest? MTC at that point begins to descend from what; 50 to 75 feet or so in height. From that point he easily could have observed Custer's troops approaching.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 9:57:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Rather than try to make the LBH unique, it should be viewed as yet another battle and as such not fought with any great unique characteristics or behavior. Twenty percent of the markers on the Custer field are bogus, and once you remove them equally, and then place the ones the monument edged downhill back up top, the spread out and the look and feel is very, very different. Do it on your Gray maps. And this, of course, assumes the markers approximate where bodies were found, which assumes it's where they died. Hah! We have ample reason to disbelieve all of that.
It is true that no "unique" military tactics were utilized in this battle. It is also true that the behavior of the battle participants, although exceedingly bloody, was rather mundane. The "savages" attacked, the soldiers fled, and the "savages" mutilated the dead and wounded. While this battle marked the end of a way of life for the Native American, it did not alter the ambitions, goals, nor progress of this great Country one iota. In actuality, when compared to other world, military engagements it was rather insignificant.
How then does one explain the never ending,inexplicable,morbid fascination for this insignificant encounter over a hundred and twenty-five years after it occurred? Why do we argue, insult, praise,scream, and plead our personal perspectives regarding this battle to anyone who will listen. Why does this forum, along with so many others, exist? It exist because of the pathos and sadness it stimulates in all of us.
This saga contains all the critical elements that give birth to legends. A fearless leader/hero, a craven coward, savage monsters, a darling bride, a younger brother(s), women and children. It has it all. More importantly, it has no conclusive answers to the thousands of questions it's very existence promotes.
Therein lies the "uniqueness" of this battle. It can not be found in the folly and misunderstanding of the participants. It can not be found in bumbling government polices that made needless war with the Plains Indians inevitable, it can not be found in the actions and idiosyncrasies of a "Beau Geste" who fell on the battlefield of honor.
It is to be found in the hearts and minds of this forum and, every forum like it. This battle is without like or equal because you and I, the common man, chose to make it so. We spend our valuable time posting threads over, and over, and over again because this battle was "Unique." |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - September 09 2005 : 05:49:13 AM
|
DC:
There are only a few accounts (quoted in Lakota Noon) which detail any action at MTC. If those accounts are to be believed, then the same accounts mention only a few Indians there. No rout or panic. There is also mention of the dead soldier found there, and another one found 200 yards further up. If there was a rout, I reckon someone would have said so. None of these accounts state that the troops were chased. The horse tracks mixed up with the pony tracks up and down Deep Coulee could simply be captured horses taken back to the village from Calhoun.
White Cow Bull mentions a soldier shot in the river and retrieved by his buddies, but he's the only one. The other accounts state the small contingent of Indians were east of the river and at a distance from the troops. They correlate, White Cow Bull's account does not.
MTC is wide enough to facilitate an ordered retreat from a handfull of Indians, especially since we're taking about realively few troops. The tracks all along the ridges from the Cedar Coulee junction with MTC and north attest to a planned move, in the absense of a significant threat below (at this stage). The why is what I'm guessing at, i.e a mass movement of Indians north to be tracked, headed off then pitched into, perhaps miles from where they were at that point.
|
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 09 2005 : 1:19:05 PM
|
Please bear with me, okay. I realize that this is very much a long post. I will try to segment it into small paragraphs and try to title parts with separators. For the ease and comfort for everyone.
--------------------------------------------------
INDIAN TESTIMONY:
One thing about the testimony of all indians on the battlefield that day. One has to assume that everything they said ~ is possible ~ before rejecting it outright. Of course this is the American way. Innocent until proven guilty.
Perhaps the only thing that can be said against their testimony is their reckoning of time. And in certain instances spatial relationships to that time. Such is their lore. One cannot assume though that what they were trying to convey wasn't true just because it didn't fit into one's ideal of what they think was. And one caution. They often compress time and spatial relationships. So sometimes we have to back off on their "timing" of those events and spatially put them into proper sequence.
***********************************************************
PREPARATION FOR ATTACK ON VILLAGE:
Harry Moccasin:
"We met Benteen's command just south of where they afterward entrenched (Reno Hill). We said to Benteen, "Do you hear that shooting back where we came from? They're fighting Custer there now." We started to leave...."
Now I'm not going to try to put exact timing upon his words. But shortly after their departure from Custer's battalion they heard "shooting back from (the direction) where (they) came from. This could not have been much more than 5 and certainly no more than 10 minutes after their departure from Custer's battalion. The ~direction~ is certain, the "shooting" was occuring "back from where they came from." The time, was just before Benteen reached Reno Hill, ie he was just a few minutes from reaching there. This is a clear indication that some kind of action occured at MTF.
Curley in a 1913 interview:
"We joined Custer in MTC, as he was advancing toward the village...I had seen Reno defeated in the bottom and discussed it with Mitch. I saw Mitch say something to Custer when we met him and presumed Mitch must have informed him about Reno's situation."
Here is a confirmation of which direction Custer was advancing, ie. "toward the village." All we know from Curley at this point concerning Reno was that he was "defeated." There isn't a definite here. But this very possibly could have been at the time they (Reno's battalion) were in full retreat from the timber. So once again. we have an approximate time and place for each occurance.
Interpretation of Curley's statements 1908:
"Taking Curley with him, Bouyer passed on and over Weir Peak and then, (went) on a course directly north, parallel to Custer, until they came down in the bed of Reno Creek (MTC), where they met Custer about half a mile from the river."
*************************************************************
EARLY STAGES OF MTF ATTACK:
Curley in a 1909 interview:
"While we were here, Custer's command hove in sight, galloping right down MT coulee toward the river..." Now ~ remember ~ where Curley was. There is no indication that he moved. His observations would have been made somewhere east of the river on a bluff or (high area) overlooking the ford area.
Two Moons in an interview claims he witnessed this. And the indication is clear that they were marching in orders of four. Clearly indicating that the whole battalion was there. He also claims that the white horse group was leading, and as Curley will later prove, that this also was true. It'a also vivid portrait of Custer's battalion's charge at MTC.
Lt. Bradley's interview and interpretation ~ Curley, July 3rd 1876.
"When they reached the river, the indians concealed in the underbrush on the opposite bank, opened fire on the troops. Here a part of the command was dismounted and thrown forward toward the river and returned the Indian fire."
Here a part of the command was dismounted and thrown ~forward~ toward the river and returned the Indian fire. (I postulate that this company could have been E company and will later explain why. And I think it will be made perfectly clear which company that was.) The clear indication is, that this dismounted company was charging on foot ( "thrown forward") the indians firing at them from the "concealed underbrush on ~ the opposite bank!!!
Curley interview with Roe 1881:
They (indicating all companies, but for certain E company at this time) came down ravine to it's mouth (right to the ford itself) and one man with stripes on his arm on a gray horse rode into the river very fast, right into the Indians; acted like a man who wanted to die."
Of course this was written after all the facts were known. And Curley was clearly making a hindsight observation. So that last phrase, at the time of observation. Would not of course be known or thought of as perhaps something so stupid.
What is interesting is that "they came down the ravine to it's mouth" And of course the incident with the "one man." But was this all?
*****************************************************
EVIDENCE OF MAIN ASSAULT OF CUSTER'S FORCE AT MTF ~ E COMPANY POSITIONING:
Curley ~ Camp interview 1908:
"After Boyer and Curley joined Custer, the Command passed rapidly down to Ford B. As soon as the soldiers came in sight of the village, the Sioux gave a "heap big yell," and when the soldier got closer, there was a "heap shoot."
I will pause in the action here to make one comment. Notice "the command passed rapidly down to Ford B?" The whole command made a charge on that ford! One (F company) was dispatched ~ in advance ~, on foot to charge the concealed indians, shooting from across the river.
Curley, Russel White Bear ~ 1938:
"Custer, turning left (from Cedar Coulee), rode down MTC. After riding a while, he halted the command. Then the gray horse troop (Comp. E) left us and started down (to) the creek..."
Custer was at this time devising a plan to attack the village. Part of that plan included the Charge of E company on that ford. This happening well in advance of the other companies. E company's commander just like Reno did. Under fire dismounted at least a portion, if not all, (as Curley indicated) of his company to deal with the "underbrush shooters." They too (the dismounted) were as Curley clearly indicated were charging the river.
1926 Curley interview:
"He (Custer) rode to an officer (A.E. Smith) who seemed to be in command of one of the troops, which had Gray horses (co. E), and gave an order. Immdiately, the troop (E company) turned its direction toward the Little Horn...."
Again confirmation of E company's charge of the river. An event that preceeded any other there.
Ok what happened next?
*************************************************************
MAIN ASSAULT MTF:
Curley, Bradley interview July 3rd, 1876:
"During the fight at this point, Curley saw two of Custer's men killed, who fell into the stream..."
Clearly a different account than the "one" that had occured earlier. This is because after E companys charge and assault upon the feeble number of warriors opposite the river. Custer and his whole command charged! This clearly was a different event. An event where at least 2 of Custer's men were killed! Who by the way just happened to "fall into the stream." (ie. river).
Now for the infamous charge at MTC:
Curley, Camp 1908:
"The troops did not dismount here (meaning all companies except of course E.) and rode into the river before stopping and turning back. Curley saw one soldier gallop across the river just below the ford at great speed, pass up the bank through open ground beyond. The Sioux defending the ford he observed to be all unmounted. He afterward leaned that they did not have tme to get their ponies, which were grazing back on the hills west of the village."
He saw a trooper on horse charge through the river on into the village itself. This is an indication that some men did make it across the river on this charge. Just how many (especially E's foot chargers) may not have been seen by Curley because of the cut bank bluffs intervening between where they were and where Curley was observing from. Especially if it was "not" in the immediate vicinity of the ford.
Huge Note: White Cow Bull's testimony supports seeing this event. Where at least two of the troopers fell into the stream. In fact he claims to have shot the one in Buckskin. The other apparently was the standard bearer. That these two accounts corroborate one another, I find fascinating. And without any doubt the one single event that can be corroborated between any of the indian testimonies given. Back to this later as it does weigh heavily upon disaster and reason ~ blame and jealousy...
**************************************************************
INDIAN REACTION:
What Curley observes from here on is very interesting indeed. Something that when one puts it into an understandable sequence of events from each interview. Does I think cast some very doubt upon what some claim happened later.
Curley, Lt. Bradley interview:
"During this, warriors were seen riding out of the village by hundreds, deploying across his (Custer's) front to the left, as if intending to cross the stream... while the women and children were seen hastening from the village in the opposite direction."
This seems to indicate that literrally hundreds of warriors came charging from the south (left), (no surprise there, huh?) And the indication seems to be that they halted and/or was looking for another place to cross the stream. Another account clears up what he saw.
Curley interview, Camp 1909:
"It appeared to Curley here that Custer would charge across into the village, but the west bank was thick with dismounted Sioux, and back in the village hundreds of mounted ones were coming up."
The hundreds mounted warriors here coming from the south (ie. left) dismounted and "intending to cross the stream." Most likely repulsed E companies dismounted men on the east side of the ford. One does have to assume some of E company's dismounted men were on the "left" (or south) of the ford. While some were on the west side (right) of the ford. And thus leaving a gap open for Custer's mounted charge through and into the river (at the ford), and supposedly beyond. This is later confirmed by Curley's statements.
What comes as a shock is that there are literally hundreds of other mounted warriors charging the ford from the village. Which would clearly indicate from all directions from that village.
Ibid:
"Curley thought it would be necessary for Custer to retreat..." No more needs to be said about that. I think everyone would agree.
************************************************************
CUSTER'S BOLD CHARGE:
So what happened? Would the Custer we know have retreated? Curley explains.
Curley, Roe 1881:
"The Sioux could be seen mounting and coming toward Custer and commenced to fire... and the troops fired back, remaining unmounted (E company): only the front part of the ~ column ~ fired. The ~ column ~ was stretched up a deep coulee (MTC) and away back on the side of the ridge..." (where they had just came from, ie charging ~ ie. the same "ridge" where Curley made his observations from).
Oops! What you mean the whole battalion was virtually lined up and charging the river ~ in "column"?! Only the front part of the "column" fired! Clearly indicating that while E company, dismounted and firing (providing cover fire). Only the "front" part of the remaining "column" fired as they attempted to cross the river. The rest were lined up in ~ column!
Now we all know who was at the head of that column, don't we? So just why didn't Custer keep charging!? I can hear him now. "Oops, damn, we left our sabers back at camp supply. Damn inconvienent if you ask me!" And another question. The trees were not that thick along the LBH here. And Custer had to have known and seen in the short distance and time span the same thing Curley saw. Because between the time that he charged from the same ridge Curley was on to the ford, would not have taken but a few minutes at best! So why halt the charge?
*************************************************************
FINI:
He Custer didn't halt that charge! He wouldn't have. Someone else made the call to retreat.
Custer's Fall: Pg's 128, 129:
"White Cow Bull... as he fired from behind a low ridge near the ford...he did not know how much longer he and the other could hang on here between the attackers (Company E) and the camp...."Now he saw a white man on a sorrel horse, out in front of all the grays, fell in midstream, the oncoming soldiers did a strange thing ~~ they stopped in the middle of the charge. White Cow Bull could not see all that happened, for he was kept busy dodging bullets as the soldiers fired ~ volley after volley~ into the ridge, (E companies covering fire). But it seemed as though some of the soldiers dismounted there in the river and were dragging something from the water, while others, still mounted, kept shooting. (True as Curley states ~ the front mounted troopers of the column was firing.) With gunsmoke hanging thick in the still air, with no letup in the firing (volleys from E, while the mounted with Custer fired), they fell back to the far bank where the entire troop dismounted. The troops backed up into MTC also dismounted." (OH!!! Yet another confirmation of what Curley said. The troopers then in the "backed up" column also dismounted!)
"...It was true. White Cow Bull saw the soldier falling back as though siezed with sudden panic."
It surely wasn't panic, was it? Panic???
Earlier that day, Custer, according to the indian scouts, had changed into his buckskins. Easy enough to do, right? That Reno's men, or for that matter Benteen's men didn't see this event is quite obvious. They weren't there when he did it. Benteen on his scout, Reno on his charge.
So what about those men who were shot and fell into the stream?
ibid, 128:
"Just then in midstream, the unbelievable happened...Custer fell, a hostile bullet through his left breast. No Indian, Crow or Sioux, or Cheyenne, could say whether he died at once or later, after his men carried him up the ridge from the river. The wound in any case, was mortal."
"The troopers splashed to a halt around their fallen commander, Mitch Bouyer quickly jumped off his horse into knee-deep water to keep Custer from going under. A moment later an orderly with the flag crumpled from his saddle. A trooper grabbed at the flag and kept it from falling."
********************************************************
FOOTNOTE AND AFTER~THOUGHTS:
It seems inconcievable doesn't it? But to be quite honest. I do think that this happened. And it happened just the way Curley and other indian observers saw it. Most if not all indian accounts support this view. Exactly who was in charge after, remains to be seen. To tell you the truth. I don't believe Custer survived that shot, it would have been too close to his heart. While there is some evidence that GAC may have been alive later. That evidence isn't supported. When referencing Custer later, they may very well have been alluding to another "Custer" after all there were plenty enough of them there that day, wasn't there.
The same can be said about the non-mutilation of his body. If he had been dead for even a half an hour or so, there would have been definite signs. Glazing of the eyes, etc. The hole to the head was probably just to make sure by one of his own kin before the end. Or a coup by one of the indians. And as has been testified to, there wasn't much blood coming from that wound. No, Custer died trying to ford that river. The mistakes after, was made by some other commander. Custer fully intended to cross the river, and as Bouyer said, "Custer will stop at nothing, he's going to get us all killed." Fortunatly or unfortunatly he didn't get that chance. Had he lived, and the charge succeeded, which it may have, who knows. He indeed would have been the hero he always wanted to be.
I'm not saying whether or not what he did was right or wrong. I quite simply, don't know, and perhaps we never will. |
Edited by - Benteen on September 09 2005 2:32:41 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 09 2005 : 10:54:46 PM
|
| Benteen, give me a couple of days to analyze this tremendous post and I shall then respond with the same care, honesty, and commitment you used in writing it. Thank you my friend. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 10 2005 : 01:52:22 AM
|
Take your time. Again it's just a test. Nothing is set in stone. But one does I feel, have to try. Curleys words have been and still are ~ always misuderstood. There is alot more, and I think it will surprise alot of people. But it is simply too long to put here. I have been working on a book, and have alot of material like this. Perhaps I should just continue with my plans to publish it. I don't know much about getting a book published, but if people are interested. I would definitly try.
I have spent alot of time analysing not only his interviews but the other indians as well. The three principal indians in this part of the saga are of course Two Moons, Curley, and White Cow Bull. Each statement by them corroborates what the other said. Alot has been said to deny this ever happened. And it still will be quite controversial and unbelievable to most. Many of the so called "authors" of this age denigrate both Two Moons and White Cow Bull. Even going so far as to call their stories... well it's unmentionable here as far as I am concerned.
I know you and others will give me your honest opinions. And sure "constructive" criticizm is welcomed. Please anyone who does respond, let me know how you would feel about a book. It would start with the Belknap affair, and of course end where one expects it would. Thanx for your time.
Benteen |
Edited by - Benteen on September 10 2005 01:54:32 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 10 2005 : 1:08:43 PM
|
Benteen,
I have no doubt you're right more than not, and that Curley's words have been screwed with throughout, without question. It makes sense, and is consistent, and requires nothing new in Custer or Indian warfare. It isn't new, it's actually one of the oldest theories, and appeals to me because it makes the most sense, violates nothing known, and is consistent with the Custer of history. Custer waiting, Custer rushing to bad ground, Custer unnecessarily deploying as infantry, that's all incredible to me, both because it is offered and because so many are willing to shuck common sense in order to provide a chain of evidence with some cartridges that might not have any relevance to the year of the battle, much less the battle itself.
But the same problems remain. You're basing everything on the assumption we have testimony from these Indians. We do not. We have allegedly accurate translations of their words at different times by different people whose qualifications are assumed, and hardly ever vetted. At this point, we cannot.
For example, you have Bradley saying "warriors were seen"... by who? We assume Curley, but is that what was said by Curley? Perhaps Curley quoting someone else told Bradley they were seen. I'm being annoying on purpose, but you've made a big assumption, and all the details that fall into place, sorta, are reassuring, but you have to prove that these stories are what the Indians actually said, that the translators were good and unbiased, and that the later versions haven't been wiggled by the media and long conversations with other participants. Good luck. I don't know what suicide rate among dedicated authors and historians can be attributed to the LBH, but it cannot be small.
Never a soldier, I've read lots of battle tales, by honest and good guys long vetted as such, and their stories SELDOM gel because exhausted guys in battle lose all sense of time, they're in trauma, and they don't actually know the exact sequence of events and when they talked or did stuff. Sometimes what they were thinking at the time emerges as having been said. That's normal and not a sign anybody's a liar, idiot, drunk, or a coward. It's only when they get together after the fight and write out what happened, that they have to compromise on memory (which will change in time, anyway) and pat a story together that's mostly agreed upon. I'd imagine Indians are subject to the same sort of thing.
But when you get tales that gel, even dovetail, rather than being triumphant, I'd think you'd also need to be suspicious, and find out if they'd had contact with each other's stories.
I have never doubted that the Indians, at least initially, told accurate tales. I also have no doubt that those stories were transcribed and translated by those who were interested in none of that. To say the Indian stories are no more than tales as then-currently recalled (like most of the soldiers') is not a slam on the Indians. It just is not testimony, and we can't fluff it up and present it as such. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 10 2005 : 10:12:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
One thing about the testimony of all Indians on the battlefield that day. One has to assume that everything they said ~ is possible ~ before rejecting it outright. Of course this is the American way. Innocent until proven guilty.
Perhaps the only thing that can be said against their testimony is their reckoning of time. And in certain instances spatial relationships to that time. Such is their lore. One cannot assume though that what they were trying to convey wasn't true just because it didn't fit into one's ideal of what they think was. And one caution. They often compress time and spatial relationships. So sometimes we have to back off on their "timing" of those events and spatially put them into proper sequence.
This statement is a true reflection of a critical and false misrepresentation of the veracity of the only surviving witnesses of this battle;the Native Americans. Their individualistic,and personal observations of the battle(events that they actually participated while ignoring the actions of their brethren) derived from their very culture. A culture in which self acclamation was understood and respected. Also, it was true that several Indians attempted to profit from their "versions" of the battle. However, to assume that all Indians lied is to assume that an entire race of people are untruthful. This is patently false and biased. When one realizes that "White" testimony was as disjointed, puzzling, confusing, and down right contradictory as their counterparts, one must pause and ask, why was side of testimony accepted and not the other?
quote:
Curley in a 1913 interview: "We joined Custer in MTC, as he was advancing toward the village...I had seen Reno defeated in the bottom and discussed it with Mitch. I saw Mitch say something to Custer when we met him and presumed Mitch must have informed him about Reno's situation
."
It is doubtful that Curly actually saw Reno defeated. The time element does not allow Reno's halt, skirmish, entry into the woods, and subsequent "charge" to the bluffs to have been viewed by Curley. What I believe he and Mitch observed was Reno's charge that halted prematurely and, possibly, the subsequent fall back to the timber. This action would be very significant to these men and could be rightly perceived by both as a "defeat."
quote:
Curley in a 1909 interview:
"While we were here, Custer's command hove in sight, galloping right down MT coulée toward the river..." Now ~ remember ~ where Curley was. There is no indication that he moved. His observations would have been made somewhere east of the river on a bluff or (high area) overlooking the ford area.
This point of reference was probably Weir's Point or Sharpshooter's ridge.
quote:
Two Moons in an interview claims he witnessed this. And the indication is clear that they were marching in orders of four. Clearly indicating that the whole battalion was there. He also claims that the white horse group was leading, and as Curley will later prove, that this also was true. It's also vivid portrait of Custer's battalion's charge at MTC.
Lt. Bradley's interview and interpretation ~ Curley, July 3rd 1876.
"When they reached the river, the Indians concealed in the underbrush on the opposite bank, opened fire on the troops. Here a part of the command was dismounted and thrown forward toward the river and returned the Indian fire."
Cheyenne testimony is repleted with testimony describing the soldiers approaching the ford at Medicine Trail Coulée and, subsequently, being repulsed. Thus, the Indian conclusion that Custer was driver back towards Last Stand Hill were he and his men met their frightful deaths. This is a perfectly understandable error of perception on behalf of a few warriors who were actually there. At this point in time, most of the warriors had responded to the south end of the village to counter Reno. A few, for one reason or another, remained behind and shockingly, found themselves face to face with the on-coming troops filtering down MTC. Firing their weapons, this minor contingency of warriors were pleasantly shocked as they watched the soldiers abruptly turn right and ride off. naturally, the credited themselves with a major, offensive victory. Who could blame them? What they did not realize was that they had just witnessed a military "feint" designed to add impetus to the Exodus of Indians fleeing from the village and, to draw the Indians away from Reno. Unfortunately, this plan worked all to well. I agree this company was "E."
quote:
Curley ~ Camp interview 1908:
"After Boyer and Curley joined Custer, the Command passed rapidly down to Ford B. As soon as the soldiers came in sight of the village, the Sioux gave a "heap big yell," and when the soldier got closer, there was a "heap shoot."
Curley's comment of "heap Shoot" is reasonable but, does not necessarily mean that Custer's men were repulsed here as a result of massive Indian firing. Troops "E" and "F" consisting of approximately eighty men or so plus the Indian contingency would equal over a hundred guns, this would certainly qualify as a "heap shoot."
quote:
Curley, Russel White Bear ~ 1938:
"Custer, turning left (from Cedar Coulée), rode down MTC. After riding a while, he halted the command. Then the gray horse troop (Comp. E) left us and started down (to) the creek..."
That "creek" would be Ford "B" I believe.
quote:
Custer was at this time devising a plan to attack the village. Part of that plan included the Charge of E company on that ford. This happening well in advance of the other companies. E company's commander just like Reno did. Under fire dismounted at least a portion, if not all, (as Curley indicated) of his company to deal with the "underbrush shooters." They too (the dismounted) were as Curley clearly indicated were charging the river.
quote:
1926 Curley interview:
"He (Custer) rode to an officer (A.E. Smith) who seemed to be in command of one of the troops, which had Gray horses (co. E), and gave an order. Immediately, the troop (E company) turned its direction toward the Little Horn...."
I disagree here. I simply can not believe that Custer would send only two troops into a village of this magnitude while he simple watched from afar. Such an insufficient number of men could not have accomplished what needed to be done. However, I do believe that Lt. Smith was shot here and that the Cheyenne assumed that it was actually Custer who was shot. This perception was formulated upon their witnessing of the frantic efforts of the soldiers to retrieve the body/wounded man in buckskin. In the Indian mentality, such efforts, must have been afforded to a great leader to warrant such protection, or so they thought.
quote:
Curley, Bradley interview July 3rd, 1876:
"During the fight at this point, Curley saw two of Custer's men killed, who fell into the stream..."
A very understandable assumption on Curley's part. Both men were shot and, therefore, probably died. Lt. Smith, dead or alive was eventually transported to LSH by members of his troop.
quote:
He saw a trooper on horse charge through the river on into the village itself. This is an indication that some men did make it across the river on this charge. Just how many (especially E's foot chargers) may not have been seen by Curley because of the cut bank bluffs intervening between where they were and where Curley was observing from. Especially if it was "not" in the immediate vicinity of the ford.
What this scenario may have actually indicated is that one or more mounted soldiers were unable to control their terrified mounts who dashed,madly,across the ford into the village. Here the men and horses met their gruesome deaths. Two similar incidents also occurred earlier at the Reno skirmish line. There, also, two other unfortunates were unable to control their steeds as well thus, they died in a similar fashion. Pulled from their mounts they were slaughtered. After the battle, when the killing fields were later scoured and bodies identified, Ford "B" was extremely bereft of signs that would indicate a major engagement. No dead horses or men were found there. This gives credence to the incident being minor in actuality.
quote:
Huge Note: White Cow Bull's testimony supports seeing this event. Where at least two of the troopers fell into the stream. In fact he claims to have shot the one in Buckskin. The other apparently was the standard bearer. That these two accounts corroborate one another, I find fascinating. And without any doubt the one single event that can be corroborated between any of the Indian testimonies given. Back to this later as it does weigh heavily upon disaster and reason ~ blame and jealousy...
Undoubtedly White Cow Bull spoke the truth. His final perspective was, naturally, influenced by the grisly aftermath of the battle. Custer's plan to reunite his men with "E" and "F" after the "feint" was, rightfully, perceived as a defeat by the warriors.
quote:
"During this, warriors were seen riding out of the village by hundreds, deploying across his (Custer's) front to the left, as if intending to cross the stream... while the women and children were seen hastening from the village in the opposite direction."
Again, we must understand Curley's exaggeration at this point. Seeing hundreds of Indians moving in all directions, your adrenalin flowing, shots being fired everywhere, his estimation of warriors is understandable.
quote:
Earlier that day, Custer, according to the Indian scouts, had changed into his buckskins.
We have several reports that prior to the battle, Custer removed his easily identifiable buckskin jacket. (Of course I can not find the references now. I believe it Was Peter Thompson and Custer's aide whose name now escapes me. Can anyone help me here?)
hr]
[quote]I'm not saying whether or not what he did was right or wrong. I quite simply, don't know, and perhaps we never will.
[b]You have done a wonderful job and in the process of doing so, have set of standard of open mindedness to be envied. Thank you. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 10 2005 11:13:32 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 11 2005 : 01:51:32 AM
|
Dispelling a myth:
First of all. Gray like Fox does an excellent job when challenged within a certain expertise. But when it comes to rationalizing the Custer battlefield events. He like Fox falls short in his analyisis. Had he stopped with his timing and not speculated the end. Hardly anyone would have faulted him. And like Fox, this should have been the way it was.
Gray saying that what Custer did at MTF and after, was as much a myth as any other theory, before or since. He is the first that I know of who proposed the "feint" theory, and the further "planned" division of Custers remaining battalion. So....
To faint or not?
Gray's theory goes way out on a limb for speculation. So far in fact that if it was attached to a tree. That limb would have broken. First of all it didn't make any sense what~so~ever to break the battalion down. There was no immediate need or reason to do so. And absolutely no evidence for it. Nor for that matter even a suggestion that a "planned" separation was in the works up to and including the time after Martini left. We have statements from Curley that the "command" went down to Ford B. Two Moons statements confirm this. And White Cow Bull's statment confirms Curley's observation of the rest of the command in line going toward the river. This was suddenly halted when the two men were killed (or wounded). And apparently this was enough to decide the turn around at MTF. Didn't sound like a feint to me. It sounded like a charge, with E company (only) providing covering fire from the east bank of the river. Firing volley after volley according to him (WCB). In another statement by Curley he said that for the longest time they blew the trumpets here. Too long for his comfort by the indication of his statement. hmm.... I wonder, were they blowing "charge", "retreat", "revellie" or "taps"?
Why didn't it make any sense to break down the battalion further? Simply put, they didn't know what was over that next ridge (greasy grass/calhoun). There was never any indication from anyone that a recon was made of that area prior to their arrival there. And no indian accounts speak of this. For all they knew there was another indian encampment over that ridge. So by breaking the battalion down further and "planning" the "feint" move would prove disastrous if that was the case. Why? Because by "feinting" and then falling back to Calhoun and a joyous ~ happy ~ peaceful ~ successful 'reunion' there ~ Would sandwich them between the possible village there and the indians they had just stirred up! Not too brilliant! And in fact this is what did happen in a way. No, there was no indian village in Deep Ravine. But there may as well have been! And for all Custer knew 'there was'! Now would Custer really have planned such a thing? If he did, he was stupider than I thought.
That's the power of the indians words. They may not have the meaning of the white man's words. But they do speak an innocence that is quite remarkable when one applies logic to what they say. Something evidently Gray either wanted to overlook, or reject perhaps because of a certain bias. On this one event alone. MTF I can corroborate many individual accounts by the indians. These statements were made to different interviewers at different times. So it is doubtful that a "conspiracy" was formed to "get their story straight." Something that at that time, they wouldn't have even thought about. I can just hear them now. Two Moons; "Me wantum huge wampum, me tell lie to get wampun, any ideas?" Curley; "Tellem Custer fainted at the river while crossing." White Cow Bull; "How we git him do that?" Curley; "Show him two moonrs."
What Gray did was inadvertantly blame Benteen. A blame that has caused a furor to this day. Why? Because poor Custer was waiting for him. And then you have the ridiculous theory that says that Benteen was supposed to go to MTF and resume action there. Ya right? After he, Custer stirred them up and then left. Kinda sounds like he had it in for Benteen, doesn't it? I can just hear Custer now. "I'll get that old sourpuss. Lets go down and make a 'feint' at that ford. Tom you take these troops over that ridge over yonder and I'll go down and get them to chase me. Meet ya over thar! Then when Benteen arrives i'll semaphore him telling him to attack those thousand or so indians that i've just stirred up, down there at the ford." Tom; "But Armstr..." GAC; "No, butts Tom. Now you go and do what I say's. We'll see how fast he goes once they chase him. One way or t'other he'll be a gittin the lead out." |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 11 2005 : 5:28:24 PM
|
"That's the power of the indians words. They may not have the meaning of the white man's words. But they do speak an innocence that is quite remarkable when one applies logic to what they say." Not sure what you mean by innocence, but I think I disagree. In any case, I don't believe you can say we have the Indians' words. We have various stories that purport to provide them, but always through at least one other source, and often more. Second hand at outside best. We really have no clue if they're accurate. Some of these words are offered in elevated language using terms Indians did not use, like "Ford C" or Weir Point or company or Custer.
"Something evidently Gray either wanted to overlook, or reject perhaps because of a certain bias. On this one event alone." What bias? What did Gray want to overlook? He stated repeatedly that anything after MTC was a guess, and he just offered one of his own, is all. He didn't like Benteen or Reno, but he tried to be fair. Like Barbara Tuchman, he announced his prejudices so the reader could judge. I disagree with him, but respect his intent and method.
"MTF I can corroborate many individual accounts by the indians. These statements were made to different interviewers at different times. So it is doubtful that a "conspiracy" was formed to "get their story straight." I don't suggest conspiracy. I suggest time affords many possibilities. Stories tend to homogenize together over periods of time, and get melded and retooled. I'd bet we all have family stories of no importance that have, eh, changed over the years so that Uncle Henry is suddenly present when he tells it in the first person even though he was in Korea then, and it happened to his father according to his wife who hadn't been born yet. So who did it happen to, did it happen at all? And who was there to verify it? Stuff like that. People who live cheek by jowl by campfires supposedly aren't likely to nitpick stories that vary a tad more each telling through the decades and after a time nobody knows for sure. We're human, is all I'm saying, and stories originally told at least partly to pass the time unexpectedly and unfairly became historic documents that have to be fitted together. And defended against charges of lying.
Setting aside the competence of the translators and their honesty and inclinations, if all these accounts had been taken within a year or so of the battle and they were more or less in accord, that would be helpful and of note. That they were taken by different people (sometimes of unknown competence, honesty, and inclination) over three quarters of a century does not rise to the level of mutual verification. Further, Indians simply did not have the words and tenses needed to provide temporal and geographic accuracy even when they gave the remotest hoot. God only knows what early descriptions of trains meant to tribes who'd never seen them.
I do not speak Sioux or any Indian language, but in my readings (Oh, by the way? If I wanted to elevate myself here, I could say 'but in my research, my analysis by applied logic shows....' Please....) of people who apparently do, accurate translations into English need caveats appended like "in the sense of..." which appear not at all in these specific tales about the LBH. That alone makes me, and I'd hope others, suspicious of the exact words spoken even if honest translation was attempted. Factor in sign language and the dubious English skills at the other end, we're likely dealing with a historic game of Telephone.
We can never know exactly why Custer ended up where he did, but I'd think you'd start with tales that don't violate the Custer of history or anything described on the ground by trained observers June 27, 1876. Much of what is offered up today does, I think. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2005 : 05:37:38 AM
|
Nice work, Benteen. Sorry I missed your post. I hope I'm not spreading any disinformation, so correct me if I get anything wrong. According to Michno, White Cow Bull's account does not fit the testimony of a number of Indians including Roan Bear, White Shield and Calf (among others) who's stories correlate with each other but directly contradict White Cow Bull's. He claims to have been with the self same Indians who mention each other, but fail to mention either White Cow Bull, or the soldier being toppled into the river. Their stories claim troops were engaged by a small group of Indians who crossed the river to meet them, not firing from the opposide bank. Further accounts state the troops in MTC all dismounted. Again, I can't see the likes of Standing Bear saying "Custer" never got near the Village if there were enough Indians around there to see and talk about the opposite. Michno also refers to Godfrey (I think - I haven't got the book handy) who noticed an unbroken trail all the way north along the ridges, and was confused given the on-site theory of a fight at MTC ford. At a 10 year reunion, his confusion was put to rest by Gall, who told him that the troops stayed on the ridges. Now Gall wasn't at MTC at that time, but I reckon he'd hardly hold to an opinion which was contrary to a popular belief at the agencies, if any such belief were so. If Michno's analysis of the MTC action is flawed, then it would be educational to see it broken down.
Again, seemingly at each point in the battlefield where the Indians got close to the troops, there is a body count. At MTC ford, there isn't. If the Indian were strong there, where are the bodies? If the Indians weren't, then why halt the "charge"? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Referencing Stewart's Custer Luck
