| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - November 11 2009 : 8:38:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
quote:
And everything that I've presented to you so far has supported this, and there is alot more.
The 26th date is a red herring. If Custer continued up the Rosebud per the order he could not make it there by then. There would be a minimum time that Terry could be in place but that is not the same as a planned date. Terry was not in place to support on the morning of the 26th.
There is no misinterpretation on my part. Terry's order would as any officers orders would include a desire for a successful mission.
[quote]Absolutely untrue! The 26 date is no "red Herring" in fact, it was the date when the three columns were confident that they would meet in the general time in the general vicinity.
furthermore, except for a bit of bad luck (or good luck depending on how you view things) the columns would have met at the predicted times.
Firstly, Custer was determine to surround the village and attack the next morning in a tactic identical to the Wa****a battle. He was talked out of the plan by one of his scouts who stated empathetically, that it was a bad plan and the a attack should start as soon as possible. Custer became angry, initially, and stated once again that the command had not be discovered and, that he would wait. Finally, he acquiesced to the scouts demands and the rest is history.
Terry's and Gibbons command became hopeless lost during a night march in a terrific storm losing precious time as a result.
It should also be noted that no one could estimate the times of the meeting precisely. Like all plans, one can only devise reasonable undertakings with a high as probable success rate; the rest is up to faith. |
  |
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 11 2009 : 10:35:06 PM
|
quote:
‘I think you guys would better understand what went on if you understood what a military court of inquiry does. In this particular case the statute of limitation had run for a court martial. So none of the participants had to worry.’
EVEN RENO. And yes, he did plan it that way. Damn dumb of him not to have.
quote:
Interesting theory do you have any proof that his original field book is altered? Secondly you state Wallace altered it 6 months after the fact. Have you ever had the government publish anything of yours? It was published in January of 1877 which is what they do for the previous year's information. So the question is what date was it submitted if you know?
I doubt Wallace altered it Christmas of 1876 and had it published by January.
Not a theory, a fact. What? Were supposed to believe ONE man’s watch time, the ONE and only time he looked at it from the divide to the LBH. Get real. Even he admits it could have been wrong, and you hang on it as if it’s gospel truth.
And if this is all you’ve got Ranger, you have nothing, red herring statement and all.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2009 : 06:19:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
quote:
‘I think you guys would better understand what went on if you understood what a military court of inquiry does. In this particular case the statute of limitation had run for a court martial. So none of the participants had to worry.’
EVEN RENO. And yes, he did plan it that way. Damn dumb of him not to have.
quote:
Interesting theory do you have any proof that his original field book is altered? Secondly you state Wallace altered it 6 months after the fact. Have you ever had the government publish anything of yours? It was published in January of 1877 which is what they do for the previous year's information. So the question is what date was it submitted if you know?
I doubt Wallace altered it Christmas of 1876 and had it published by January.
Not a theory, a fact. What? Were supposed to believe ONE man’s watch time, the ONE and only time he looked at it from the divide to the LBH. Get real. Even he admits it could have been wrong, and you hang on it as if it’s gospel truth.
And if this is all you’ve got Ranger, you have nothing, red herring statement and all.
So you believe Joe is incorrect that Whitaker caused Reno to request the court of inquiry. He was just waiting to get past the statute of limitation.
You err on the number of times recorded in the January 1877 and you are confused as to the difference of looking at a watch, recording time and estimating time. Wallace states he looked at his watch but did not record it when he crossed over to Custer. That is much different than Girard or Reno estimating time.
Again you do not understand what a fact is. You state that Wallace altered his time 6 months later which would be published in January. It is not fact just because you state it. Wallace recorded the divide time. To be a fact it would have to have been recorded at a different time and then 6 months later altered in his field book and used to complete the report. When you state 6 months then you should have evidence that it occurred 6 months later. According to your theory at 5 months out his field record would have a different time.
What date do you think they had the data in order to publish by January 1877?
I don't and have never said any of these things are gospel. So you make a false statement. I suggest they are evidence upon which one can make a decision as to veracity or what weight you want to place on it. I believe a court or jury determine fact in a legal matter not the attorneys putting forth evidence.
I do not believe that you stating something makes it a fact. Show us the altered diary page where the times were changed or in my opinion you have not produced evidence that would support a finding of fact.
A fact is something that can be verified it is not an opinion or belief as you use it.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2009 : 06:40:24 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
quote:
And everything that I've presented to you so far has supported this, and there is alot more.
The 26th date is a red herring. If Custer continued up the Rosebud per the order he could not make it there by then. There would be a minimum time that Terry could be in place but that is not the same as a planned date. Terry was not in place to support on the morning of the 26th.
There is no misinterpretation on my part. Terry's order would as any officers orders would include a desire for a successful mission.
[quote]Absolutely untrue! The 26 date is no "red Herring" in fact, it was the date when the three columns were confident that they would meet in the general time in the general vicinity.
furthermore, except for a bit of bad luck (or good luck depending on how you view things) the columns would have met at the predicted times.
Firstly, Custer was determine to surround the village and attack the next morning in a tactic identical to the Wa****a battle. He was talked out of the plan by one of his scouts who stated empathetically, that it was a bad plan and the a attack should start as soon as possible. Custer became angry, initially, and stated once again that the command had not be discovered and, that he would wait. Finally, he acquiesced to the scouts demands and the rest is history.
Terry's and Gibbons command became hopeless lost during a night march in a terrific storm losing precious time as a result.
It should also be noted that no one could estimate the times of the meeting precisely. Like all plans, one can only devise reasonable undertakings with a high as probable success rate; the rest is up to faith.
My point is not when Custer planned to attack. I believe that he would wait until morning and was consistent with past tactics. He was discovered because he moved and followed the trail. Choosing to go that way allowed the discovery to happen.
Sounds like you agree in your last statement that the 26th date was a red herring. There was no plan to attack an unknown location on that date. They didn't take 15 days rations to slow the pack train down. I don't think Terry's plan expected both units to attack on the same day. He was putting up a blocking force and there would be a minimum time that it would take to be in place. I believe Terry expected Custer to make the first strike.
There is no way Crook was to be anywhere on the 26th other than eating the fish he caught on the 25th. Crook was not in Terry's chain of command and could have no idea of the order given to Custer.
Crook was cooperating in an effort but was equal to Terry not subordinate.
My conclusion drawn from Terry's order is that Crook is not expected to come from the south up the LBH that is what Custer was expected to do.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2009 : 09:20:09 AM
|
quote:
My point is not when Custer planned to attack. I believe that he would wait until morning and was consistent with past tactics. He was discovered because he moved and followed the trail. Choosing to go that way allowed the discovery to happen.
No he didn't. Because this would have meant that there woulda, shoulda been some kind of coordination and communication between the columns. Which there was not, his and Terry's.
As I said Ranger, you have nothing if that's what you're arguing about, because Terry told his staff while on the Far West, that Custer's 7th would "strike the first blow". Never once was it brought out in testimony that He was to do otherwise, not once. And in fact, there is more there to support Terry's "intent" that Custer should be the first to strike.
Do you really think that he didn't want Custer to "pursue" those Indians just the way Kellog stated it? Custer was to "find those Indians" that's what he was charged with doing. No, not follow that trail, until he did, because the trail may not have led him to them by that time. Who knows where they would have been, after Reno's blunder. Now, go to Girard's testimony, and read it again, did they find the Indians? And if they did, what was Custer supposed to have done, waited, twiddled his thumbs, gone off half cocked in another direction? Send word to Terry? There's no such instructions there, Ranger, none. Now, read Terry's dispatch to Sheridan again, and Kellogs statements, because they are in accord on this. If Custer FOUND those Indians, which his scouts did, in the late evening hours of the 24, he was supposed to do what Ranger? He was not supposed to do what Reno did? And if he had rode on, 'after discovering where those Indians were'; past that trail, how much better, how much worse than Reno would he have performed in the eyes of Terry and/or Sheridan - after Terry's dispatch to him?
Many TODAY do not realize the idiocy with which they proclaim any kind of 'coordinating attempts' between the columns. Yet, there was not one hint of this in Terry's instructions nor his dispatch to Sheridan. Why no mention say of Custer holding off any kind of attack until Gibbon's column could be maneuvered into position? This is the one glaring error in both Terry's 'instructions' to Custer and his dispatch to Sheridan. Had there been any 'coordination' attempts that would have been in there. Instead, INSTEAD, all we have is, "I only hope that ONE of the two columns will find the Indians." Notice the words "find the Indians", Ranger? What was Custer suppose to do? And when he did, was he suppose to turn tail as Reno did and beat it back to Terry? As Benteen would say, "I think not."
One last thing here Ranger. Terry would have had to have had some kind of communication network established between Custer and his command, to know where the other column is/was. Which was NEVER established, if they were to coordinate anything. The only mention of communication was two things; Herendeen and Custer's report after 15 days in the field. Herendeen's stated purpose was for what, to give Terry intel on Tulloch's Creek. Why would that have been important to Terry? Because had the Indians been there, think? But they weren't, Custer on the night of the 24th knew that, he knew where they were and knew Terry/Gibbon's column was in no danger, thus there was no need to send Herendeen through.
From all of this Ranger, what have we deduced? That Terry didn't know diddle squat where the Indians were? That Reno's Scout had screwed everything up, and Custer was sent with his regiment to try to rectify that situation. Sure they had their suspicions, but one does not can not act upon suspicions, and Custer did not. And on the evening of the 24th, when word that the Indians had been found, exactly what did Custer do, Ranger? Exactly what he had been ordered to do. Terry sent a whole Regiment after those Indians, and just as Kellog stated, Custer traveled light, because? Custer was charged to "FIND, PURSUE & OVERTAKE THE INDIANS" and all of Terry's and other's statements on this bear this out.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2009 : 8:03:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
quote:
My point is not when Custer planned to attack. I believe that he would wait until morning and was consistent with past tactics. He was discovered because he moved and followed the trail. Choosing to go that way allowed the discovery to happen.
No he didn't. What does this refer to? Because this would have meant that there woulda, shoulda been some kind of coordination and communication between the columns. Which there was not, his and Terry's.
As I said Ranger, you have nothing if that's what you're arguing about, because Terry told his staff while on the Far West, that Custer's 7th would "strike the first blow". Never once was it brought out in testimony that He was to do otherwise, not once. And in fact, there is more there to support Terry's "intent" that Custer should be the first to strike. Striking first has not been argued by anyone that I know of. It is striking early that I have read discussed. Who states Terry was to strike first?
Do you really think that he didn't want Custer to "pursue" those Indians just the way Kellog stated it? Custer was to "find those Indians" that's what he was charged with doing. No, not follow that trail, until he did, because the trail may not have led him to them by that time. Who knows where they would have been, after Reno's blunder. Now, go to Girard's testimony, and read it again, did they find the Indians? And if they did, what was Custer supposed to have done, waited, twiddled his thumbs, gone off half cocked in another direction? Send word to Terry? There's no such instructions there, Ranger, none. Now, read Terry's dispatch to Sheridan again, and Kellogs statements, because they are in accord on this. If Custer FOUND those Indians, which his scouts did, in the late evening hours of the 24, he was supposed to do what Ranger? He was not supposed to do what Reno did? And if he had rode on, 'after discovering where those Indians were'; past that trail, how much better, how much worse than Reno would he have performed in the eyes of Terry and/or Sheridan - after Terry's dispatch to him?
Many TODAY do not realize the idiocy with which they proclaim any kind of 'coordinating attempts' between the columns. Yet, there was not one hint of this in Terry's instructions nor his dispatch to Sheridan. Why no mention say of Custer holding off any kind of attack until Gibbon's column could be maneuvered into position? This is the one glaring error in both Terry's 'instructions' to Custer and his dispatch to Sheridan. Had there been any 'coordination' attempts that would have been in there. Instead, INSTEAD, all we have is, "I only hope that ONE of the two columns will find the Indians." Notice the words "find the Indians", Ranger? What was Custer suppose to do? And when he did, was he suppose to turn tail as Reno did and beat it back to Terry? As Benteen would say, "I think not."
One last thing here Ranger. Terry would have had to have had some kind of communication network established between Custer and his command, to know where the other column is/was. Which was NEVER established, if they were to coordinate anything. The only mention of communication was two things; Herendeen and Custer's report after 15 days in the field. Herendeen's stated purpose was for what, to give Terry intel on Tulloch's Creek. Why would that have been important to Terry? Because had the Indians been there, think? But they weren't, Custer on the night of the 24th knew that, he knew where they were and knew Terry/Gibbon's column was in no danger, thus there was no need to send Herendeen through.
From all of this Ranger, what have we deduced? That Terry didn't know diddle squat where the Indians were? That Reno's Scout had screwed everything up, and Custer was sent with his regiment to try to rectify that situation. Sure they had their suspicions, but one does not can not act upon suspicions, and Custer did not. And on the evening of the 24th, when word that the Indians had been found, exactly what did Custer do, Ranger? Exactly what he had been ordered to do. Terry sent a whole Regiment after those Indians, and just as Kellog stated, Custer traveled light, because? Custer was charged to "FIND, PURSUE & OVERTAKE THE INDIANS" and all of Terry's and other's statements on this bear this out.
We can deduce you are arguing with yourself. You certainly haven't represented my position. Tell Joe it wasn't a coordinated attack. You can read Terry's order right? What does it state about what Custer should do if he found the trail leading to the LBH?
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on November 12 2009 8:05:16 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2009 : 8:38:30 PM
|
So after all your conjecture and statements lets look at what Terry wrote after the battle.
"It was that Custer with his whole regiment should move up the Rosebud till he should meet a trail which Reno had discovered a few days before, but that he should not follow it directly to the Little Big Horn; that he should send scouts over it and keep his main body further to the south so as to prevent the Indians from slipping in between himself and the mountains."
Looks like Terry doesn't agree with your very long post and he was the senior officer. Right? What better source for what Terry thought?
His own words. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2009 : 9:04:50 PM
|
Ranger,
This isn't rocket science here. What was Custer and his 600 some men doing out there? Picking daisy's along the trail?
What were the reports that came to him, Custer the night of the 24th from his scouts? Did they report finding the Indians/village?
What was he supposed to do then? Run off a different direction, just as Reno did? And find more flowers to pick along the way?
Indeed, Terry's own words:
"...No Indians have been met with as yet, but traces of a large and recent village have been discovered 20 or 30 miles up the Rosebud. Gibbon's column will move this morning on the north side of the Yellowstone for the mouth of the Big Horn, where it will be ferried across by the supply steamer, whence it will proceed to the mouth of the Little Horn... Custer will go up the Rosebud tomorrow with his whole regiment and thence to the headwaters of the Little Horn, thence down the Little Horn. I only hope that ONE of the two columns will find the Indians. I go personally with Gibbon."
|
Edited by - Benteen on November 12 2009 9:05:41 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2009 : 06:53:13 AM
|
So after all your conjecture and statements lets look at what Terry wrote after the battle.
Terry states what Custer should do if he finds them. Read it again.
"It was that Custer with his whole regiment should move up the Rosebud till he should meet a trail which Reno had discovered a few days before, but that he should not follow it directly to the Little Big Horn; that he should send scouts over it and keep his main body further to the south so as to prevent the Indians from slipping in between himself and the mountains."
Looks like Terry doesn't agree with your conclusion. Since he was the author of the orders your opinion does't matter.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on November 13 2009 07:01:42 AM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2009 : 09:07:02 AM
|
Ranger, you do not need to "shout" at me. "Should" is a suggestion, is it not? And if the Indians and/or their camp "should" be found, as it had been, then what?
Major James S. Brisbin, Commander 2nd Cavalry, Montana Column - wrote this in a letter addressed to the New York Herald.
“It was announced by General Terry that General Custer would strike the blow and General Gibbon and his men received the decision without a murmur… The Montana Column felt disappointed when they learned they were not to be present at the capture of the great village, but General Terry’s reasons for affording the honor of the attack to General Custer were good ones.”
Every pre-battle statement: by Terry, by Brisbin, by Bradley, by Herendeen, by Kellog, etc. tell you that Custer was to pursue and find those Indians, that's what they were out there for. Your enraged words are simply the parsing of words to make Custer the scape goat for his own tragic end. Yet neither Terry, Brisbin, Reno, nor Benteen ever faulted Custer for following that trail, only YOU do. |
Edited by - Benteen on November 13 2009 09:22:59 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2009 : 04:00:34 AM
|
Ranger, you do not need to "shout" at me. "Should" is a suggestion, is it not?
Its not shouting its emphasis on what I think you missed.
I believe that you will find that should is an order and follows the form of the day in construction of a written order. When a commanding officer orders should that is clear in intent.
Again when one deviates from orders there is an expectation to do so to complete the mission. If you don't follow the should in an order than you had better be successful in your decisions.
That Terry included it in his letter of what went wrong indicates to me that he did not like the way the mission failed and was pointing out that Custer deviated from his orders. Even if only CYA on Terry's part he used it to defend his plan and orders. As I stated before if Custer was successful then Terry would have never mentioned that Custer should have continued on south even after finding the Indians crossed over to the LBH.
I find it odd that you think Terry didn't criticize Custer when the quote I am using is not from the order. It is from Terry himself after the battle explaining what went wrong.
I don't fault Custer for following the trail and I get tired of you making up someone else's position. It is whether the mission was successful or not that comes under scrutiny. My point is that once Custer started following the trail he became responsible for the success of the mission. Up to that point Terry's plan was responsible for the success of the mission.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on November 14 2009 04:23:34 AM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2009 : 10:23:22 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
So after all your conjecture and statements lets look at what Terry wrote after the battle.
Terry states what Custer should do if he finds them. Read it again.
"It was that Custer with his whole regiment should move up the Rosebud till he should meet a trail which Reno had discovered a few days before, but that he should not follow it directly to the Little Big Horn; that he should send scouts over it and keep his main body further to the south so as to prevent the Indians from slipping in between himself and the mountains."
quote:
Az, you are missing the whole point. The directive to not follow the trail directly to the Big Horn sending scouts instead was made for several reasons. While Terry had an inkling of the Village location (due to Reno's scout) he did not know the exact location. As such, at a certain point in time, scouts would be sent out to confirm the location. This would prevent the likelihood of the village stampeding and escaping.
The twist is that when Custer discovered the trail, he realized that the village was some forty miles further up river than had been realized. His option was to stay on the "hot" trail and not risk loosing it or, to continue south and risk loosing it.
Had he continued south and lost the village, which is very likely to have occurred, there was a good chance that Terry's weaker force would have met the Indians while Custer was still roaming south.
What Terry wrote after the battle is an all too human recollection of an event that was tragic and extremely horrible to accept. Under such extreme psychological duress, Terry's responsibility for this failure would be overwhelming. The need to exonerate his participation in the battle is certainly understandable.
|
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2009 : 10:59:24 AM
|
Right on Joe, you're exactly right. Many try to say that Custer should have maintained the trail south and not followed the Indian trial, just as Ranger asserts. And in this argument they usually also assert that Herendeen should have been sent back as well. Thus the cooperative venture and tone of Terry’s instructions deems them to say. The trouble with that was, as Custer well knew was, was that it would have taken Herendeen a day to have traveled back to Terry, and if Terry wanted to coordinate any further efforts after finding out what Custer knew, it would have taken, at least, if not more than another day, to have sent back another courier to Custer. This coordinating effort would have taken well over 2 days to have developed into a plan of action. In hindsight, we now know that the Indians planned on moving out, but Custer spoiled that by attacking them.
Had Custer have maintained his southward trek, the Indians would have broke camp and the opportunity to attack them would have vanished. And another Reno like incident occurring, only this time it would have been Custer’s fault, something that Terry personally ordered Custer not to do. And after Reno did what he did, and as infuriated as Custer was with him, does anyone honestly believe that he would pull that same thing? I think not.
Custer had found his quarry on the evening of the 24th by the scouts who came back to camp late that evening and told him. He knew, just as Terry knew that he was supposed to attack them if he found them, and he did. His intentions as we do know was just as Girard indicated and Custer’s conversations with one of the Indian guides was to lay over until the early morning of the 26th and attack then. But all of that was circumvented when ’someone’ moved the column while he was atop the Crows Nest and the column was discovered on the move, just as Varnum and Herendeen’s conversation indicated. All the cracker box incident did was add fuel to the flames. |
Edited by - Benteen on November 14 2009 10:59:56 AM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2009 : 8:26:08 PM
|
| What makes the thing even sadder is that Terry was fed false information regarding the march to the Little Big Horn by Benteen. As a result, he was led to believe that the men and horses were needlessly tired out. Benteen poisoned Terry's mind with his exaggerated distances marched that, by the time it reached Washington, it had grown to 83 miles in 24 hours. Actually the greatest distanced marched in any 24 hours was 35 miles and the whole distance from the Rosebud to the battlefield was 113 mile. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2009 : 8:29:24 PM
|
| What makes the thing even sadder is that Terry was fed false information regarding the march to the Little Big Horn by Benteen. As a result, he was led to believe that the men and horses were needlessly tired out. Benteen poisoned Terry's mind with his exaggerated distances marched that, by the time it reached Washington, it had grown to 83 miles in 24 hours. Actually the greatest distanced marched in any 24 hours was 35 miles and the whole distance from the Rosebud to the battlefield was 113 mile. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 16 2009 : 08:48:15 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Right on Joe, you're exactly right. Many try to say that Custer should have maintained the trail south and not followed the Indian trial, just as Ranger asserts. And in this argument they usually also assert that Herendeen should have been sent back as well. Thus the cooperative venture and tone of Terry’s instructions deems them to say. The trouble with that was, as Custer well knew was, was that it would have taken Herendeen a day to have traveled back to Terry, and if Terry wanted to coordinate any further efforts after finding out what Custer knew, it would have taken, at least, if not more than another day, to have sent back another courier to Custer. This coordinating effort would have taken well over 2 days to have developed into a plan of action. In hindsight, we now know that the Indians planned on moving out, but Custer spoiled that by attacking them.
Had Custer have maintained his southward trek, the Indians would have broke camp and the opportunity to attack them would have vanished. And another Reno like incident occurring, only this time it would have been Custer’s fault, something that Terry personally ordered Custer not to do. And after Reno did what he did, and as infuriated as Custer was with him, does anyone honestly believe that he would pull that same thing? I think not.
Custer had found his quarry on the evening of the 24th by the scouts who came back to camp late that evening and told him. He knew, just as Terry knew that he was supposed to attack them if he found them, and he did. His intentions as we do know was just as Girard indicated and Custer’s conversations with one of the Indian guides was to lay over until the early morning of the 26th and attack then. But all of that was circumvented when ’someone’ moved the column while he was atop the Crows Nest and the column was discovered on the move, just as Varnum and Herendeen’s conversation indicated. All the cracker box incident did was add fuel to the flames.
Benteen
Here is another clear example of you misleading. The red letters are a quote taken from Terry after the battle where do read that I asserted it rather than just posting what Terry wrote. I am pointing out what Terry was using as evidence in his report to explain why it ended in failure.
quote:
Many try to say that Custer should have maintained the trail south and not followed the Indian trial, just as Ranger asserts.
How hard is it to understand that most plans break down when the confrontation begins and officers are to make choices based upon the actual environment they find themselves in. It is expected rather than an exception. When the results are not successful the causes are subject to review and blame.
It seems to me Terry's early assessment and early report was that the plan was sound but Custer caused the confrontation to begin sooner than Terry desired. Would anyone expect anything different from the maker of the plan?
The evidence Terry provided was to support that position. As Joe pointed out some evidence was faulty such as reports of distances traveled each day. The bottom line though is that Terry was attempting to provide evidence of Custer moving to contact to soon.
The desires in the orders of Custer going further south supported Terry's position of moving to contact to soon.
Once Custer decided he had cause to follow the trail everything else that occurs is a result of that decision. That is why Terry would use his order plan to go further south to defend his plan. He wanted to show that Custer moved to contact sooner than the plan. Since Custer was dead he knew that there would be no court marshal and he could maintain that his plan was not followed even if Custer could due to circumstances justify his actions. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 16 2009 : 5:59:01 PM
|
| Terry can write anything he wants to write after the battle to justify his actions, so nothing is brought down upon his head. The facts remain from all evidence "before" the battle, that Custer was given full authority by Terry to pursue, find and attack the Hostile Indians wherever he found them, and find them on the evening of the 24th he did. Had he not done so, then he would have went further south, simply because Terry thought they would try to escape into the mountains. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2009 : 06:57:31 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Terry can write anything he wants to write after the battle to justify his actions, so nothing is brought down upon his head. The facts remain from all evidence "before" the battle, that Custer was given full authority by Terry to pursue, find and attack the Hostile Indians wherever he found them, and find them on the evening of the 24th he did. Had he not done so, then he would have went further south, simply because Terry thought they would try to escape into the mountains.
You finally realized you are arguing with Terry instead of my opinion. Big step forward. Next let's understand that officers can deviate from orders much tighter than Terry's order but if you do your assessment, action, and outcome are subject to review especially by the officer issuing the order.
Imagine Custer going down Reno Creek and the Indians instead of being willing to fight and staying put fled to the south and were not engaged at all. Do you think Custer could defend following the trail then?
That the Indians did not run and stayed to fight was not regarded as a high probability even by Custer. So Custer following the trail and contacting the Indians was an exception to what was thought the Indians would do. In this case it is Custer's luck that they did not run. Although it was bad luck because there was lots of Indians willing to fight also.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2009 : 08:37:48 AM
|
quote:
Next let's understand that officers can deviate from orders much tighter than Terry's order but if you do your assessment, action, and outcome are subject to review especially by the officer issuing the order.
As long as you keep insisting this, and you know me, hell will freeze over first; read my lips. No I am not arguing with Terry, i'm agruing with you, i'm not delusional, and i'm not unkind enough to point out that you are. The mental health issue here is really beginning to take everyone's breath away Az, and yeah, i'll use that term when I have ta.
First, you don't realize this but each and every time you put down Joe for being or impersonating a woman, you are putting down women in general. What is wrong with you? Yes, Joe is right about that, get a grip, and stop accusing him. And read my lips, and anyone elses; It doesn't matter what his/her gender is. It is not for you to question. It is not for you to criticize. And each and every time you do, you put down women. You are condescending, arrogant and do not care what other may percieve about what you post. Indeed Ranger, GET A GRIP.
So on both these issues, the best one can hope for is to say, you right i'm wrong or visa versa, and your point is that its all over because, NO ONE WON the round. We could go on and on, and neither of us will change one or the others mind, will we. It's absolutely pointless. For those who want to believe that Custer was all s**t for brains vainglorious yours offers them the best arguement that I have ever seen in my entire life. And the conclusion fits the argument best, he caused his own demise by following that trail, that he was ordered not to do. Yup. Go for it and the next thing you know Custer will be vaingloriously standing on LSH all alone looking for help, expecting help, but should have known better because..... Yup, he did it again... Stupid Custer, Arrogant Custer, Dumb Custer.... He went off all alone and Sent Benteen on a s**t for brains mission and Sent Reno's small detachment to attack a village of millions, Yup, Stupid Custer, Arrogant Custer, Dumb Custer.... s**t for Brains Custer.... And it was all caused because, he disobeyed Terry's order and followed that trail, dumb Custer, Stupid Custer, Arrogant Custer, s**t for Brains Custer....
Lets not ever changer that perception, oh no, heaven forbid. And lets never change that perception of Benteen, that glorious father of mercy and heavenly manlyhood who single handedly stood there and let an Indian shoot his heel off. WOW
I can see why people today refuse to come to websites to discuss new ideas, and to try to discuss anything that could have been true. It's because of people like you Az, who think they have it all figured out, and really don't. It's people like you who give these websites a bad rep. It isn't about YOU, and I have said this repeatedly. It's about what really happened, and you know; there's enough people out there AZ that do not agree with you, or for that matter, even me, that knows that what i've just said is more true than what either you or I have been arguing about on this whole thread. And they, like I, know where it will end up. With you ducking or side tracking this thread into the twilight zone of personal insults and issues. And they are sick and tired of that, as I am. GET OVER IT, will ya.
Now, for the very last time. When it comes to me or to Joe or any other poster who happens to come here to post. If you or anyone else wants to bring this thread down to a PERSONAL level of discussion about their posting habits on OTHER websites, kindly address the issue on those OTHER websites and NOT HERE. IT'S THEIR PROBLEM NOT OURS.
|
Edited by - Benteen on November 17 2009 08:48:29 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2009 : 7:45:19 PM
|
Benteen I would think women would be offended by Joe posing as one. There is no argument Joe posted as a 61 year old female. It was exposed when Joe denied it. If you don't want to hear it don't bring it up. It was you that brought up a name from another board when it suited your purpose. So get off you soap box you are disingenuous.
As far as Terry's order and his defense of his plan it is there for anyone to read in many books. I am comfortable with my opinion on orders having spoken with enough officers to form my opinion.
If it is anyone thinking that they have it figured out it is you Benteen. You don't like it when others post alternatives to you. I don't believe all these officers lied and see more simple explanations. You state things are fact which are not.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on November 17 2009 8:07:20 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2009 : 9:16:21 PM
|
quote:
Benteen I would think women would be offended by Joe posing as one.
For several years a woman on this website posted as a male, and was not chastized for it. In fact at the time she told me she was doing it, no, not here, but elsewhere. Did I think her disingenuous? Did I think what she was doing was wrong? Did I do what you are doing now? The fact of the matter was and still is NO. This kind of thing happens all the time Ranger. It happens all over the web. Heck you don't know who the heck is on the other end sometimes. I sure didn't, until the lady here told me, and this occurred years ago. And you don't think it isn't happening now somewhere on the web?
I'm quite sure that some would think this a perversion, and used for all the wrong reasons, it would be. But simplisticly speaking registering and posting incognito is what its all about for alot of people. And many, way too many of these websites become a scavaging ground for those who seek personal information for nefarious reasons. Does the words "below asylum" ring any bells?
As for our differences on the "facts", I'm willing to leave the conversation stand at our differences, if you are. Your trust in their honor is more simplistic than my own. I see no honor in what happened back then, and a lot more critical disgrace than what you want to believe happened.
|
Edited by - Benteen on November 17 2009 9:22:40 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 18 2009 : 09:18:25 AM
|
Sounds fair enough to me. There were no outstanding performances for officers that day. At the same token I believed they acted within acceptable ranges for officers. The nature of hitting a moving target of unknown size with the exception to the rule of flight is what I believe was the major factors influencing the outcome.
To many Indians willing to fight.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 18 2009 : 09:47:22 AM
|
Night and day on this issue as well, I fear Ranger. Not to start anything here either. But I can't see it that way, because it really didn't happen that way. This of course has been the story written for so long, that it has become the 2nd verse to a long song for so long, that it has virtually became an Anthem unto itself.
I’ll go with what Benteen said, and broaden it to include him and Reno as well, “I think there might have been a great many commands given, but I think very few were obeyed.”
As for outstanding performances, the opportunities were there, and if they had obeyed the commands given them and “acted within acceptable ranges for officers“, there indeed would have been outstanding performances; so I cannot agree that they “acted within acceptable ranges for officers. One simply must trust in your commanding officer at a time like this, I think anyone in the military service would tell you this. If there is ’no confidence’ or any hesitation in his abilities, then it would be and was, in this case a disaster in the making. Both Reno and Benteen expressed this ’no confidence’ in Custer at the Court, and they harbored the same at the battlefield, and it did influence how they performed that day.
As for you assertion that there were too many Indians willing to fight, it didn’t phase Custer one bit, He knew before he ever left the bluffs, that they were putting up a fight against Reno, and he knew that they would put up a fight against him too. It wasn’t a misjudgment about what the Indians would or would not do; it was, sadly so, what his own men would or would not do, and DID NOT DO.
|
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 18 2009 : 8:47:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Sounds fair enough to me. There were no outstanding performances for officers that day. At the same token I believed they acted within acceptable ranges for officers. The nature of hitting a moving target of unknown size with the exception to the rule of flight is what I believe was the major factors influencing the outcome.
To many Indians willing to fight.
AZ Ranger
quote:
There were a few officers that performed admirably that day.
Godfrey established a skirmish line on the retreat to Weir's Point that, in all probably, prevented Reno's command from being wiped out as well as Custer.
An Indian sharpshooter was systematically picking off troopers from Sharpshooters ridge When French and others fired toward the warrior and silenced him. While shots were being fired all about him, it is said that French calmly dug out stuck rounds from carbines without flinching.
Benteen, with enemy rounds about him and men begging him to take cover demanded that Reno reinforce his line of the battlefield and, personally led a charge against encroaching warriors.
Lt. Varnum, during Reno's "charge" the Lt. halted to succor his orderly, Elijah Strode, who had been shot.
The problem is that the officers and men who did not do as well was an embarrassment to the proud and elite 7th.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 19 2009 : 07:51:00 AM
|
There were a few officers that performed admirably that day.
Godfrey established a skirmish line on the retreat to Weir's Point that, in all probably, prevented Reno's command from being wiped out as well as Custer.
Joe that is basic tactics not something exception but standard
An Indian sharpshooter was systematically picking off troopers from Sharpshooters ridge When French and others fired toward the warrior and silenced him. While shots were being fired all about him, it is said that French calmly dug out stuck rounds from carbines without flinching.
Again basic, What do you think they brought their weapons for?
Benteen, with enemy rounds about him and men begging him to take cover demanded that Reno reinforce his line of the battlefield and, personally led a charge against encroaching warriors.
Did Benteen lead the charge or form it? Did Reno go on the charge?
Lt. Varnum, during Reno's "charge" the Lt. halted to succor his orderly, Elijah Strode, who had been shot.
Retrogrades are preformed using many tactics.
The problem is that the officers and men who did not do as well was an embarrassment to the proud and elite 7th.
The 7th may have been proud bit they were not elite
None of your examples show officers making decisions that increased the offensive nature of the action. All your examples are individuals or defensive in nature. The 7th was on offense but the Indians forced them to defense. There was only one medal that could be awarded and that was the medal of honor. Many were awarded to the troopers. How many were awarded to officers?
The only offense was Reno charging down the valley and forming a skirmish line. From there on it went to defense withdrawing to the timber and a retrograde. Custer, Benteen, and the pack train were on the defense when the major engagements occurred. There was no outstanding offensive action by the 7th in my opinion.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Custer's Plan
