| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - July 28 2008 : 3:28:58 PM
|
|
The book by Pennington. I was considering adding either Donovan or Grahm to my collection, but then ran across this. Apparently not very kind to Reno or Benteen (which I'm not either) and suggesting Custer's plan was a great one (which I disagree with completely). So is it worth buying???? Or is he "out there" with his views??
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 29 2008 : 12:03:41 PM
|
Brent,
You just have to add Graham to your collection. He present the facts as is without adding or subtracting personal perspective. The two exceptions being his complete faith in the officer's testimony at Reno Inquiry and disregard of Indian testimony. However, so many facts are given that the reader receives a basic premise from which you can elevate to other sources.
I've just finished reading Donovan and I enjoyed the book very much. He portrays Custer evenly, addressing his positive attributes as well as his idiosyncrasies.
He also supplies some interesting post battle facts about Reno.
I haven't read Pennington yet but, I'll grab it this week. |
  |
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 02 2008 : 4:57:06 PM
|
| Brent, I just received my copy of "Custer Vindicated." I'll keep you posted. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 04 2008 : 10:52:40 PM
|
| Brent, I've read approximately one half of the book. I would not buy it again! |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 15 2008 : 2:20:52 PM
|
Brent, and Joe, I have Donovan,s book and I must say I have enjoyed
it very much, he does a great job in pointing out alot of things
that others have not. Very informative piece of work. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 16 2008 : 09:50:34 AM
|
Joe: What's his basic point? To vindicate Custer, he almost has to pound Reno and Benteen.
SGT major and Joe: I thought Donovan was pretty good also. He's very hard on Reno, somewhat hard on Benteen, points out Custer's good and bad points, the basic flaws in the battle plan, and the general whitewash that was the RCOI. I especially liked the part where he suggests an experienced trial lawyer would have torn apart Benteen's testimony. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 16 2008 : 10:42:06 AM
|
Donvovan's book is pedestrian and prejudicial. He states as fact what cannot be known as fact.
He himself isn't an experienced trial lawyer, or a lawyer at all, and an actual experienced litigator would point out to him the numerous traps that Benteen laid in front of Lee which the recorder was either too sharp to address or too focused on objectives not conducive to the sitting. In either case, Lee avoided them like a live grenade, which they were. So did the court, which could enter questioning at any time. Wonder why. Insofar as the RCOI was a whitewash, it was a whitewash of Custer as well. It doesn't hold a candle to Custer's actual whitewash of a courtmartial in the previous decade, where soldier deaths were on his head.
Benteen, for example, took great pains to point out Custer's "orders" and then saying he disobeyed them, daring anyone to go after him for it. Daring them. Benteen knew what would have to be conceded about Custer and his command abilities to go after him, probably not from any courtroom schooling, but from innate sense. And the note carried by Martin is quite damning to Custer.
Wiggs may just be gathering quotes about these books from other forums. In any case, his ability to absorb or read is highly in doubt, with much evidence for that on this very forum. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 16 2008 : 10:25:00 PM
|
| SgtMajor and Brent, I really enjoyed Donavon's book. I'm not saying he got it all right (as Brent says he does ware out Reno and Benteen a great deal)but, he does give Custer a fair and human representation. A man who made mistakes, as we all do, but, who was not a blithering idiot. Pennington, on the other hand, insists that Custer was shot at the ford, I just can not buy that. Brent, you are absolutely correct, a true barrister would have worn out several of the witnesses. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 17 2008 : 12:50:44 PM
|
Joe: I can see even myself in Lee's place and I'd have all kinds of questions for Reno and Benteen--and for a couple of others as well. But then I realize that wasn't the point of the RCOI. It seems to me that it was to let everyone off as easy as possible without damaging the reputation of the Regiment itself. So the really tough questions were never asked.
As for Pennington--on more dig up of the "Custer died early" theories, eh?? I don't buy it either. |
Edited by - Brent on August 17 2008 12:52:21 PM |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 17 2008 : 4:13:23 PM
|
I think what we have to understand is that it was a COI, and not
a trial, Lee was right when he said not all was told or brought
out. And as Gen Merritt said, was also true, none of the officers
there was were willing to talk. I don't think anyone wanted to
disgrace the regiment. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 05 2008 : 10:39:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sgtmajor109th
I think what we have to understand is that it was a COI, and not
a trial, Lee was right when he said not all was told or brought
out. And as Gen Merritt said, was also true, none of the officers
there was were willing to talk. I don't think anyone wanted to
disgrace the regiment.
Correct and not just a COI but a Reno Court of Inquiry requested by him. It was not the LBHCOI nor the Benteen Court of Inquiry. The purpose was to look at Reno's actions not the whole battle. Benteen's testimony was to reflect upon Reno to help the court make a decision. It would do no good to go after Benteen since the findings were to be for Reno and his action. If they wanted Benteen court martial then they could go after him.
Benteen objected to the division of the Regiment before anything happened. So it is natural when he is proved right that his hindsight suggests Custer erred. Benteen did not bring charges against Reno so it was someone else's job to do that. It did not happen. The statute of limitations ran out at the beginning of the COI. The only purpose the COI could serve was for Reno to attempt clear his name and reputation.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 05 2008 : 1:48:52 PM
|
AZ, When it came to RCOI, I don't believe that Benteen wanted
to bring any charges against Reno, what ever his thoughts or
feelings may have been towards him, he kept to himself. In a Feb 22,
1892, pg 193-94, "The Custer Myth" to Goldin, and he talking about the
COI. This is part of what he said. "I would answer now as I did then,
and shield Reno quite as much as I then did; this simply from the fact
that there were alot of harpies after him". That statement alone tells
you he never wanted to accuse Maj Reno of anything, and to do his best
to keep others off his back.
|
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 05 2008 : 1:57:15 PM
|
It's a safe bet Benteen didn't want to bring charges against Reno. We know that because he could have and didn't. Neither, be it said, did any other officer. They had the courage to bitch behind his back, but not to testify to it in court, either because they behaved as bad or worse or, in general, it wasn't true and told to excuse the poor performance of the 7th.
What Benteen also said is that what he tried to keep out of the RCOI and public discourse was the bit about moving and leaving the wounded who couldn't go, of which Godfrey threatened revelation, and eventually did reveal, although he'd only heard it from Benteen after the fact. Benteen said he canned that. So, here was a tale that would, and did, make Benteen a sort of hero that he never told till it came out decades later. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on September 05 2008 1:57:57 PM |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 05 2008 : 3:16:18 PM
|
DC, I have alot of respect for Benteen,basicly because he really
took charge when the men on the hill needed someone to step up
to plate. However, if Benteen had brought charges against Reno,
do you think those officers then would have come forward to back
up Benteen's charges. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 05 2008 : 8:44:12 PM
|
Benteen's inclination to not prefer charges against Reno may tell you a great deal Dark Cloud but, for the rest of mankind it merely tells us that he did not prefer charges. Your initial premise, "Its a safe bet" started off reasonably enough than you resorted to "we know that because" which is pretty much nonsense. Unless you are 1-800-psychic, you can not know "why" he did anything. you can, like the rest of us, speculate as to why he did what he did.
I have a few speculations for you. Why did Benteen lie for Reno a man he personally despised? Why did Reno alter his testimony from his original report wherein he stated that he assumed Custer was to strike from his (Reno's)flank to the testimony at the Inquiry in which he stated that he expected support to come only from his rear.
Reno was the recipient of support from so many because none of them wished to imbue the honor of the regiment with dishonor and, not many of them were proud of their own, personal actions during the battle. to impeach Reno would have necessitated the impeachment of a substantial (if not all) portion of the Officer Corp. involved in this famous battle. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
"Custer Vindicated"--worth getting?
