| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 09 2008 : 9:16:11 PM
|
I have, and will always continue to have, the utmost respect for trailblazing work of Col. W.A. Graham. His book,The Custer Myth, is a must read for the serious student of the Battle of the Little Big Horn. In his "The Reno Court of Inquiry" he writes: "The inquiry was duly held; the witnesses testified under oath. In the main they told the truth as they saw it."
Mr. Graham was a great respecter of the officer class of that era which is quite understandable. However, the assumption that the truth was testified to isn't necessarily so. This does not infer that out right lies were given; they were not. I believe half-truths were proffered to protect the honor of the regiment.
In other words, if it were proven that Reno's performance was less than honorable would result in a stain on the 7th. Calvary that would never be forgotten. In addition, the fall of one officer could result in the fall of others, the "domino effect" as it were. Few of thew surviving officers (Benteen, Edgerly, Gibson, French, and Moylan example)could not have been totally proud of their actions.
For the sake of the regiment and, on a personal level, individual officers it may have been expedient to lay the blame of a fiasco upon the shoulders of those who could no longer speak than to reveal the actions of those did the best that they could under the circumstances.
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2008 : 6:30:29 PM
|
My previous thread calls for additional information for purposes of clarification. Events occurred after Reno's "charge" that could only be detrimental to the entire 7th. Calvary. Edgerly's abandonment of a trooper in his hasty retreat from Weir's Point, Benteen's "dawdling" on the back trail, Gibson and Moylan's hiding on the hill during the battle, DeRudio's questionable motive for retrieving a guidon, French ignoring a plea to form a rear-guard, etc.
A seasoned,trial lawyer would have ripped Benteen's haughty testimony apart and destroyed Reno's credibility which was extremely weak at best. Lee himself, I believe, held back in his cross examination realizing that the bitter truth was simmering just below the surface of a thin veneer of subterfuge. A truth which would have humiliated all of the survivors. I, for one, am grateful that the truth was not exposed at that point in time. Men would have been undeservedly branded cowards. In our contemporaneous era the realization that panic when faced with overwhelming odds is a natural response. Cowardice is a conscious act not to fight, flight, however, is a response to an acute stimulus. |
  |
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2008 : 11:35:12 AM
|
I pretty much agree, except perhaps too much blame on poor Reno. An ordinary officer at best who I think became unstrung when he expected immediate support and instead saw Custer riding off in another direction.
My own suspicion is that the Army itself conducted no formal court of inquiry (although after a debacle such as LBH, one could easily have been convened) precisely because they didn't want the whole sordid affair exposed in detail. I also think that when Reno called for his own hearing, many of those officers you mentioned had major "uh-oh's" going through their minds. But by then, time had passed and memory became "convenient"--- |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2008 : 5:34:39 PM
|
An accurate and very well done summation. I sometimes feel that perhaps I may have been a little harsh on the Major in past posts. Particularity when one reads about his sad life and death after the battle. However, To forget to utilize the "trumpet" system to notify his entire command at such a critical time is inexplicable unless, he simple lost his head. I don't propose that I could have done any better than he although one can only hope that he or she performs well under stress.
Leaving the timber was understandable. Leaving the way he did (sans any regard action)is unforgivable. There have been some past posts that suggest Reno did not have the time to "ask for volunteers." Soldiers are trained to obey specific orders given by specific commanders under specific circumstances. Under combat, you don't ask for anything. You demand! While there are no guarantees that said orders will be followed to the hilt, there certainly can be no accomplishment of orders if they are not issued in the first place. Reno's oral command, "All those who wish to escape, follow me!" was only heard by those men closest to him. Others received the announcement through word of mouth, others not at all; particularly Troop "G".
Reno should certainly not carry the burden of the outcome of this battle solely upon his shoulders. However, his actions were anything except admirable, God Bless the poor soul. Thank you Brent for your response, first rate as usual! |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 29 2008 : 11:30:53 AM
|
I think his worst mistake was that "retreat" (more precisely, the conduct of it) to Reno Hill. It only emboldened the Indians and panicked the 7th (including probably many of Benteens men (and quite possibly Benteen himself!!) when they came up and saw what had happened to Reno. At the least, further offensive operations from that combined group were pretty much shot at that point
Stopping the initial charge was sort of understandable in light of Custers non-support. Not staying in the Timber longer is-and has always been-a matter of debate. All I know is that some Indian accounts suggest they would have had a bit of a problem getting at reno in the Timber, and that mob action back to Reno Hill was exactly what they (the INdians) wanted to see |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 29 2008 : 3:35:25 PM
|
You are absolutely correct when you stated that the Indians were "emboldened" by Reno's departure from the timber. Indian testimony was jammed with references of Indian boys and warriors taunting the soldiers as they fled. The demoralized troopers exemplified the adage, "we don't run because we panic, we panic because we run!" You also hit it on the head regarding Benteen. He stated that had he directed his men towards the valley they would still be there. Benteen was an experienced old soldier and knew that the demoralization of Reno's troops would have affected his own men.
Like you, I also believe that Reno's stopping the charge was understandable. However, imagine the additional panic he could have mustered among the village had he gone additional hundred yards or so. Despite Reno's statement, "They seem to be gowning out of the ground" the initial amount of warriors that met him were insignificant. The Indians were pleasantly surprised when Reno dismounted his men. Then, and only then, did the heretofore panicking Indians turned about and fiercely charged. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2008 : 06:27:57 AM
|
It certainly wasn't the Charge of the Light Brigade, that's for sure. And even giving it the name "charge " may be stretching it a bit. It was half-hearted at best--but again, some of that may be because Reno was expecting support that wasn't there.
Interesting tho--had he gone farther, Custer MAY have had more time to do whatever it was he was planning to do. But had he been given support, he probably COULD have gone farther!! |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2008 : 3:15:01 PM
|
I agree, had the support come from the rear as he expected it to do, Reno would have found the courage to have gone further than he did. Supported by the presence of such a dominate personality and additional forces Reno would have been, understandably, encouraged to "go where no (White) Man had ever gone before."
The critical difference(I think)between Reno and Custer was a sudden and profound difference in philosophies between the two men occurred. Initially, both were convinced that the village would flee at the onslaught of the troopers. They all did, from the high command to the lowlyest grunt! Reno had to see no more that fifty or so Indians before he quickly changed his mind. It was an epiphany of "Crap, they are coming the wrong way!" Custer, on the other hand, saw this moment as a golden opportunity to capture and, hold hostage, the non-combatants he observed fleeing north from the village (away from Reno) from Sharpshooter's ridge.
In other words what was one man's moment of anguish and trepidation was another's Valhalla. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on May 31 2008 3:19:36 PM |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2008 : 09:31:54 AM
|
| That's pretty much it, I think. Custer still saw fleeing Indians, Reno found out quickly they were fighting Indians. And Benteen (initially at least) had no idea what really was going on and saw NO Indians!! When he met up with Reno and saw what the Indians had done to him, I think the fight (offensively at least) went out of him as well as Reno. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 03 2008 : 6:15:26 PM
|
| Again, you have hit the nail on the proverbial head! The warrior was raised, from youth, to engage in activities that called for a physicality and aggressiveness required to survive under rather primitive conditions. As a result, their ability to fight was honed to an intensive height of ferociousness. In other words, once aroused they were a dominating force of fury not easily quenched by philosophical niceties such as mercy and forgiveness. The shock of the warrior response to Reno's charge knocked the willingness to fight out of the heart's of the troopers who sought only to escape. A substantial number of the them were in the field not for the love of Country,honor, or National pride. Many of them were rejects from society. At a critical point in time at a specific location these men, understandably, elected to vacate the area as quickly as possible. A few hardened officers, non-com's, and grunts fought back but, stood no real chance in the final analysis. To flee yet, not to be able to escape and find safety. What a horror of horror these poor souls must have experienced before death released them. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2008 : 09:07:21 AM
|
I think we need to understand the nature of a court of inquiry. It is at the request of the officer, in this case Reno. It not a court martial although things discovered could be used for one. Since it is initiated by the officer then he should be sure that there is no evidence against him. There is nothing like this in a civilian arena. You can not ask for an investigation of yourself to clear your name in state or federal courts when there is not sufficient evidence to have the elements of a crime committed. So recorder Lee knew before it started that there would probably not be enough facts and evidence to bring criminal charges. Reno knew this and hoped to clear his name.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2008 : 8:21:32 PM
|
You are absolutely clear and correct!!! That is exactly why Reno made his request. He could not demand a Court Martial and the fact that no charges were presented against him for two years after the incident made it relative safe that no evidence existed that would have convicted him of unofficerlike conduct. He knew that while his actions were questionable, they could not and would not be damnable. Not charging through the village was, under the circumstances, understandable. Leaving the timber was also understandable. It was the manner in which he left that was deplorable. He allowed Bernteen to "en facto" take charge because his leadership capabilities were minuscule, at best.
As you said AZ, the attack from individuals like Frederick Whittaker provoked Reno to attempt to clear his name. Under the circumstances Recorder Lee did as best as he could. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 26 2008 : 2:59:47 PM
|
Another reason not to trust the findings of the Inquiry:
(Donovan-A Terrible Glory, Note 45, p.472)
Captain Robert Carter wrote:
"General Brainard told me this date that he had often heard Capt. Whelan and Lt. Roe...say that when Zthey reached Reno's defensive line on the bluff all of Reno's officers talked wildly and excitedly about the fight, and of Reno's cowardice, etc. A little later they shut their mouths like clams and would not talk. It seemed to them...that there suddenly sprang up among the Seventh Cavalry Officers an understanding and resolve about the affair which would reflect in any way upon the honor of their regiment or regimental esprit, even if they had to sacrifice their own individual opinions concerning the plan of the campaign or the conduct of the battle, either by Reno or Custer. This was later shown by their testimony before the Reno Court of Inquiry, where all but Godfrey refused to charge Reno with cowardice." |
Edited by - joe wiggs on July 26 2008 3:00:47 PM |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 27 2008 : 12:12:20 PM
|
| Joe, I've often wondered exactly what the scuttlebutt was among the officers and the men just after the battle. You know, a day or two later when the disaster was fresh in everyone's mind. Maybe at the Post bar somewhere or other. Would be interesting to hear what the enlisted ranks thought of their officers (and their own)performance, and especially what the surviving officers thought of each other..just after the battle, not some years later when everyone had time to think, ponder, reflect, and change or embellish their stories. |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 29 2008 : 1:17:10 PM
|
Brent, Joe, It would be very interesting to know what was said. Reading
the transcript of the COI, was interesting to me to find that the officer
who came close to calling Reno a coward was Lt Godfrey. And you know your
self having been in the service, as I do, that when something goes wrong
that men talk and point fingers. I am sure that it was done there, and
at the COI, there were few enlisted men, and only a few Sgt's, and I did
find Sgt Culbertson's testimony very interesting. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 30 2008 : 1:37:00 PM
|
I agree. When things go wrong "pointing fingers" becomes a national pastime. It's probably a combination of things. A proven charge of cowardice would be a black mark against the regiment. Also, a few of the officers committed acts that they could not have been proud of; Edgerly's abandonment of the furrier in his retreat from Weir's point being one of them.
Another point of interest: In his article "The Campaign against the Sioux", Terry's Brother-in-Law (Capt. Robert Hughes) wrote that when Terry asked the surviving Seventh Cavalry officers to supply an estimate of the number of Indian warriors, he received replies that, "pivoted about the figure 1,500." No one in the group pushed the number above 1800. He further states that he recalled Benteen's reply almost verbatim: 'I have been accustomed to seeing divisions pf cavalry during the war, and from my observations I would say that there were from fifteen to eighteen hundred warriors.'
How then do we explain Benteen's later assertion that there were 9,000 or more warriors?
"Like a snow ball rolling down the hill...its growing." |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 30 2008 : 5:23:44 PM
|
Joe, It was very interesting to read what many of them had to say.
I don't think there was one who could agree with the others on the
amount of Indians they had seen or fought against. As for Benteen
and Reno as well, what they had to say was like a blowing wind, you
never knew which direction it was blowing. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 31 2008 : 07:59:20 AM
|
Gross exaggeration of enemy numbers has been around for years. Ditto for the number of enemy claimed to be killed.
1,500 warriors seems to be the generally accepted #--making the "true" ratio not up to 3 to 1. If there were fewer Indians (as some suggest),the ratio would be even closer to 2 to 1.
So 9 or 10 thousand sounds much better when you were defeated as badly as was the 7th...I mean, how could the 7th have possibly dealt with that????? |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 31 2008 : 11:21:42 AM
|
Brent, No doubt you are right, even if Custer had stood against 2000
Indians, better armed, and more then likely he faced that many. No
way he and his command could have stood against those numbers. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 31 2008 : 9:05:50 PM
|
I agree absolutely gentleman. Custer never stood a chance for victory. What I am amazed about, and always have been, is why did he feel the compulsion to attack such a heavily populated camp? The only rationale I can come up with is that(it sometimes seems)that normally intelligent people are prone to make obviously silly mistakes. For example, prior to the Battle of the Rosebud, the largest contingency of soldiers killed by Native American was the Fetterman contingency. Prior to that, when confronted by a large military force, the Indians always ran. Alway!
Custer spent his entire career as an Indian fighter chasing Indians all over the West failing to win a glorious victory until his Wa****a engagement; a dubious distinction at best. Custer's Waterloo was that his tactics (although ridiculed by many) were absolutely successful. He accomplished his mission with such finesse, the warriors could not flee and abandon their families to certain death. They had to stay and make their "stand." Had Custer not be so successful in sneaking up on the village they surely would have fled.
Rightly or wrongly, I am convinced that Custer was convinced that the Indians were on "the Jump" which prompted him to sent Reno in. On the jump and dispersing in a frenzy in a hundred directions. From weir's Point (or Sharpshooter Ridge)he observed an empty village for the most part. the majority of warriors had already responded to Reno's thrust. The non-combatants were fleeing north and west. As he had done at the Wa****a, he hoped to capture a sufficient amount of refugees to stymie the warriors from retaliation. This factor is what saved him at the Wa****a.
Needing Benteen's extra men to accomplish such a monumental task, he sent the famous "order" for suppot to hurry up. Fox believes that Custer waited on Cemetery ridge for approximately twenty minutes for the delinquent Benteen. |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 02 2008 : 3:22:14 PM
|
It was very interesting for to note in the COI, of a statement to a
question asked by the recorder of Major Reno. The recorder was asking
Reno if he was justified in his every act. Reno said yes. The asked
if his act was intentional or otherwise? Reno answered, I am convinced
that there was no command down there when I got out of the woods. they
were all dead. By the recorder, what command do you refer to. he said
the five remaining companies of the regiment.
Now here is Reno saying almost the same thing that Benteen had said. His
claim was that when he was given the order by Martin that Custer and his
command were already dead. Now when Reno had met Benteen on the hill
had both of those officer convince each other that Custer and his com-
manned was dead, and had Reno told Benteen there was know need to go
looking for Custer that his command is already dead. I think it kind
of strange that two officers, before even seeing each other were con-
vinced that Custer was already dead. I am sure that Reno and Benteen
were very happy that Capt Weir was not there, and besides that there
were two others not asked to be witnesses, Gibon and French. Kind of
makes you think that there was more going on then we know about.
|
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 02 2008 : 6:29:58 PM
|
Well for one I don't think have to prove anything. I think the facts speak
for themself. Neither Benteen or Reno had any evidence that Custer and
his comaand were dead. Others had testified of hearing firing down the
river, which had indicated to others that there was fighting going
on down the river. Reno only excuse was he was waiting for the packs
to come. Benteen had three companies with each soldier having a 100
rounds of ammuniton, and they can't use the excuse that they did not
know where Custer went. Reno knew where he had went and I have no doubt
the Benteen did as well.
If you wish references I will be glad to provide them. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 02 2008 : 7:17:46 PM
|
Virtually every student of this battle is certain of one salient factor, Custer's command was still alive when Reno fled the timber. Witness after witness testified to the "sound" of firing for approximately an hour after Reno reached his hill. Volley firing was reported.
When we consider the lack of facts and the abundant amount of hearsay involved in the investigation of this battle, it is no wonder that many of us disagree now and then.
Having said that, for Reno to testify that he found information, after the battle, that Custer was dead when he left the timber is incomprehensible. He sat in the Courtroom and heard testimony to the contrary. In fact, he and Benteen were the two who heard nothing. How quaint, the two individuals who would gain the most by not being able to respond to Custer's aid, heard no sound of firing.
The only reason Reno got away with this travesty is that the Army itself did not wish the true facts to come out in a Court Martial. Had that been done, an already maligned military would have received a black eye it could ill afford.
I have said before and, I repeat myself by saying it is not our responsibility "judge" Reno and Benteen. Rendering aid to Custer may have been an impossibility. what we should not do is ignore the know facts because they may be distasteful to our personal perspective. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 02 2008 : 8:34:01 PM
|
Reno Testimony:
2/8/79, 24th. Day, Page525:
A. No Sir, I am convinced now that there was no command down there when I got out of the woods. They were all dead.
Q. What command do you refer to?
A. The remaining five companies of the regiment>
Sgt. Culbertson Testimony:
1/31/79, seventeenth Day, p331
Q. It was the belief that night (long after Reno left the timber)that Gen Custer and his command were alive?
A. Yes Sir, there was no other impression.
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on August 02 2008 8:36:23 PM |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 09 2008 : 3:10:49 PM
|
Didn't I read somewhere that not long after Benteen arrived at Reno Hill, almost all the Indians in that vicinity were seen heading in another direction. Where did Reno and Benteen think they were all going??
To grab a late lunch before attacking them???? |
Edited by - Brent on August 09 2008 3:14:44 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
The validity of the Reno Court of Inquiry
