| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 02 2009 : 9:04:48 PM
|
Poll Question:
Did Lt. Wallace give false testimony at the R.C.O.I
|
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on October 02 2009 9:10:41 PM
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2009 : 9:34:07 PM
|
Recorder: Q. What command were you with at that time?
Lt. Wallace: A. I was riding near Major Reno and with his battalion.
I believe that by testifying that he was at Reno's side during the initial phase of the battle, Wallace gave the Court a false inference that he was in position to hear any orders that Reno may or may not have received from Custer. By testifying that no orders were received by Reno from Custer created a false assumption that lent credence to the theory that Custer was a foolish commander who, as President Grant exclaimed,sacrificed his men "foolishly."
Wallace may have been privy to much information that he chose to conceal.
I believe orders were given by not obeyed. Of course,I do not possess any evidence to that fact but, why didn't Wallace simply tell the truth? What was he hiding and, why?
As the acting engineering officer, would not Wallace's post be riding along side with the Commander? Lt. Varnum remembered him being there. When Reno's battalion departed, Varnum asked Custer where they we going. Custer replied, "To begin the attack." He then gave permission for Varnum to accompany the scouts who were assisting Reno.
As he started off, Varnum shouted out to Wallace, "Come on Nick, with the fighting men. I don't stay back with the Coffee coolers." Custer than gave Wallace permission to go.
None of this information is capable of concluding what Wallace did or did not hear while riding with Custer. What it does imply is that Wallace's statement was untruthful and the inference that he rode at Reno's side during the entire time of the initial phase of the battle was a corker.
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on October 02 2009 9:44:15 PM |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2009 : 6:10:34 PM
|
I would say 50 yards at max is close and Wallace says what? Does anyone doubt that Wallace was with Reno rather than Custer when the Reno moved to battle? Certainly after moving to contact down Reno Creek when the actual battle was begun Wallace was with Reno.
Joe you are much worse than the press you stated gave your Department a bad reputation. At least they reported on convicted officers and Department of Justice actions taken. What actions were taken against Wallace. You state you have no evidence then why accuse Wallace of lying about his location?
Joe if Wallace is with Custer when Custer gives Reno the orders you think he would not hear them? If you are saying that Wallace was not at the lead of either column what evidence do you have for that?Its obvious that Wallace went across the LBH with Reno. Right?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 04 2009 6:47:30 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2009 : 7:43:32 PM
|
Poor Wallace seemed to get quite a few facts askew during his recital at the R.C.O.I. For example, Wallace testified to the number of men advancing down the valley was between 112 and 115, including the scouts.
"Q. What was the effective force of each of those different columns, if you know? State as near as you can."
"A. I can't give it accurately. Major Reno's was about 110 or 115 men including the scouts. Capt. Benton's was somewhat larger, as I think the companies he had were larger. General Custer's force was was something like 225."
In that statement two critical points are made perfectly clear:
Wallace's statement, "I can't give it accurately" was on the money.
Secondly, by reducing the number of personnel in the Reno battalion Custer is made to appear idiotic for sending such a minute force against the village.
For an engineering officer, his calculations were unbelievable inadequate. The following is the true account of personnel in Reno's battalion:
Company "A" - 3 officers, 47 enlisted men;
Company "G" - 2 officers and 38 enlisted men;
Company "M" - 2 officers and 47 enlisted men.
To this total may be added 21 scouts and 7 civilians, for a total of 174 men! Two of the Ree scouts were slain fighting in the battle. Another was seriously wounded. This, although they did not nor, were required to fight.
In other words, when one looks back, it appears that an attempt was orchestrated to give the impression that the force alloted by Custer was insufficient for the assigned task. As such, the resultant failure of Reno was due to his not being able to carry out his orders because of insufficient man power.
I spent four years in the military and, I understand the enormous difficulty that must be involved in testifying against one's commanding officer. The repercussions of such an act would be enormous, particularly during the era of this event.
Still, the truth, as close as we can get to it, must be known. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on October 04 2009 7:48:05 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2009 : 09:04:48 AM
|
When going into battle only troopers are counted by most since they are the ones doing the fighting. What distinguishes a Indian scout from a civilian scout as far as contract with the Army and requirements to fight?
So it would be simple for Wallace to have heard someone talking about fighting strength without having made any actual counts.
Joe you don't get it . Wallace made no calculations he stated he could not give and accurate count. Joe that is not a calculation it is a guess or opinion.
As far as your statement that it was idiotic to send such a small number of troops. That would be correct if the size of the warrior force and their willingness to fight was known even with 250 men.
Who is captain Benton?
Joe I all ready posted the question and answer from Reno court of inquiry. Only you would be ------ enough to think that being with Custer would mean he could not hear as much of the orders given as being with Reno or the conversation between the two. Without the placement of Wallace within or not of hearing distance gor the orders it makes no difference in his testimony. It is absolute fact that when Reno began the charge toward the village Wallace was with him and I doubt he was counting the number of officers, troopers and scouts. I would hope he was mentally preparing for battle.
Joe you read rch's discussion on the other board while you were posting as Red Dirt and then brought it here but you didn't get it right. Joe you are no rch.
Spending 4 years in military was no help in your case Joe. Exactly how many commanding officers were you requested to testify against in your military career? The COI of inquiry was requested by Reno not the army and its focus was Reno's actions.
Officers make mistakes Joe and some commit offenses. The starting point should innocent until proved guilty. Joe you complained about revealing convicted officers and a Department that was under jurisdiction of the Department of Justice for use of excessive force yet look at you heading of your poll and the choices.
If anyone should be ashamed of their conduct against dead officers it is you Joe.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 05 2009 09:59:59 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2009 : 09:15:15 AM
|
| Joe you need to read closely the two posted clips from RCOI. The first states the distances apart that Reno and Custer were before Custer called Reno over. The second is the distance apart after being called over and the question was asked of Wallace where he was when the two columns were riding side by side. That is when he answers where he was riding. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2009 : 09:36:39 AM
|
Joe are you implying that all Indian scouts had a different obligation to fight than scouts such as Charlie Reynolds? Indians were part of the Army and enlisted but were not soldiers. The "civilian scouts" were under contract with the Army. Scouts were not required to fight whether Indian or not. So I would hardly count them as fighting strength. The could do as they pleased such as steal horses.
Joe did you leave out the part where Wallace testifies to the 22 Indian scouts and troop strength of 35 to 40 troopers. Add in the contract scouts and the officers and how far off is Wallace's testimony?
If one takes the 40 figure that is 120 enlisted plus 22 Indian scouts, 7 civilian scouts, and 7 officers that totals 156. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 05 2009 10:02:56 AM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2009 : 11:19:01 AM
|
Benteen, it is so good to hear from you! It has been a long time. Your balanced and fair threads have been sorely missed.
Wallace, and others, were under some pressure to paint a picture that would alleviate the embarrassing accounts of the command staff involved in the Reno action. I remember, but can not recall where, that Wallace eventual regretted his participation in the whitewash.
He did not stand alone as I am sure you are aware. For example, McDougall stated that no one gave him any orders (Graham, Reno Court,472)although Sgt. Knipe testified that he personally gave Custer's oral orders McDougall.
How then do we explain this glowing testimonial he wrote in 1897, recommending Knipe for a position?:
"On the afternoon of June 25th, 1876 when the entire country was full of Indians, Sergeant Knipe brought to me an order from General Custer 'to bring the pack train across the way'where I found Major Reno...I take great pleasure in giving him this small certificate of merit."
There are some who will attempt to qualify this episode by explaining what McDougall really meant, was trying to say, or he got confused. Personally, I believe that none of us should try to read the minds of those who have been dead for so many years.
The battle was an embarrassment to some due to the defeat of the "elite" 7th. Cav. by a hoard of aboriginal "savages."
As a result, the number of warriors, size of the village, Custer's stupidity, and Reno's martial prowess were exaggerated to such a degree that the truth of what happened will never be known.
Again Benteen, thanks for posting. I hope we hear from you again soon!
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2009 : 4:33:04 PM
|
Benteen
Wallace's recorded times were available for reports written in 1876. So unless they were scratched out and rewritten in 1879 what is you point? Exactly what pressure are you thinking that he was under on June 25, 1876 when he recorded the times?
What you would need to prove pressure is the original times and the changed times don't you think? If Wallace's watch was off 1 hour and 20 minutes from a different time zone that is not lying and easily compensated for.
Overfield II, Loyd J., The Little Big Horn 1876: The Official Communications, Documents and Reports (Glendale, CA: The Arthur H. Clark Co., 1971). The documents reproduced are limited to those dated within the 1876. An additional document of importance is one dated January 27, 1877, being the report of George Wallace from June 22 to 25. Includes rosters of the officers and troops of the campaign. Hardcover in like new condition, no dust jacket as issued. (Item No. 3008) ................$350.00: Another copy, hardcover in very fine condition, no dust jacket as issued. (Item No. 4102) .........$325.00
I think you can also find it in Chief of Engineers Annual Report 1877, 45th Congress
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 10 2009 5:52:24 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2009 : 6:16:02 PM
|
A "long scrawl?" man, that dissertation was right on the money:blame!
I know I am guilty of sometimes pressing to hard to make a point, as are others.
I do not believe that Reno was a coward. I do not believe that others who did not perform at their best were cowards either. I do believe that at a critical point in time, men did fall prey to an all too human, overwhelming fear resulted in panic and mental debilitation (battle stress)that was not understood in that bygone era.
Later, when the smoke settled, these men had to come to grips with their failings. Understandably, the truth was an unattractive option for the ethnocentric mind-set of the nineteenth century.
I have tried to point out some of these failings not as a personal vendetta but, as a means to garner a realistic approach to what may have occurred during the battle. In doing so, a few have seen my efforts as a personal attack against the involved individual.
Reno's deplorable manner of exiting the battlefield is an indisputable element of the final outcome of the battle. I do not dispute whether he should have left the timber but, the way in which he left without utilizing trumpet call and, some type of military cover; if not prior to reaching the river then soon after. That is the full extent of my argument. A minority have lam blasted me saying what else could he have done?
I am fascinated by your input on time lines and Gray's research. I will study up on these points as I have not been totally aware of them. You're right, it is too "squirrelly" to place blame.
When we closely scrutinize the actions of the participants (Indian and White) we may get a sense of what actually occurred.
I don't believe any information should be excluded but, there are some who insist that Indian testimony is no testimony at all. I have tried the same path as you, read, investigate, digest the information, and discuss it with others. Leave the blame game to others!
I really enjoyed your thread. I've been scrutinizing the R.C.O.I. files and will be addressing other participants who may have fudge on their testimony and why they chose to do so. To the members who may already be aware of this information please bear with me so that I may share this information with those who may not be aware. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2009 : 10:57:13 PM
|
Joe,
I look forward Joe to what you have to offer of what the other participants at the RCOI had to say, and how you perceive that testimony. I enjoy and appreciate your insights into this matter. On that score, not only was it the witnesses who fudged, it was the Court officials themselves who failed to pursue a line of questioning that should have produced a better result. For instance, the matter of Reno disobeying his order when on his Scouting mission on the previous days leading up to the 25th. Custer certainly thought that he had disobeyed his directive, and had he lived, that may very well have been a very interesting Court scene to have witnessed. The stenographer also made many errors, placing a comma where a period should have been, and likewise the reverse: or omitting them alltogether. It changes entirely the meaning of that sentence. And he did it consistently throughout. In one instance during the session a witness stated in his sentence that he had gone to ‘a ford’. The stenographer, instead of transcribing it that way, interpreted that witness to mean that he had gone to Ford “A”. This too occurred many a time, and it was never corrected. Also for the life of me, I could never understand why they censured Girard for telling what Custer’s intentions were on the evening of the 24th. From what I was getting from it, he was trying to tell the court what was happening all the way up to the divide. Had he been allowed to have done that, they very well may have determined that Reno ordered the column forward that morning, without orders as we understand it from Girard’s account.
As for the Indian statements: without it we have nothing in which to say anything about Custer’s battle. Theirs is the only statements we have concerning movement, time and at best, battle snap shots. It’s like I said about the couriers; take them away and everyone can enjoy a fine game of “beach blanket bingo in a privy pool”. Not one piece of evidence should be excluded to get at the truth; otherwise tunnel-vision creeps into our sight and the aforementioned privy pool can become a death trap; what a way to go. But then, one does suppose that there are those who would rather play bingo that way, hip deep in it and all.
And Reno’s retreat? Well there’s a whole nother story that involved Goldin and whether or not he delivered a message to Reno from Custer or not. Again, as you say, this should be discussed, but is it? And if it were presented would it be shouted down and chastised as false from the privy pool crowd? I can understand why you would think Reno “ran”, it certainly seemed that way; and I’ll not take issue with your analysis of it for now. This mainly because at this point, I don’t know myself. I guess start a thread on it and we’ll see where it goes. That is if one hasn’t been started on it already.
|
Edited by - Benteen on October 11 2009 12:12:08 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2009 : 08:37:02 AM
|
Not to worry Benteen. I am use to persons giving false and misleading statements. I have been listening to them and sorting out truth for 30 years. For example you state "As for Kanipe, yet to this day most still do not think he made that ride."I have never heard anyone state he did not make the ride. He would have died with Custer if he didn't. There is disputes on whether he was sent or went on his own volition but not that he made the ride.
Joe is on another board as Red Dirt and picked up something by rch and tried to bring it here but he got it wrong. When a thread with a poll states “Why did Wallace lie?” It would appear to have an agenda don’t you think? The opening statement by Joe is below and has nothing to do with watch times. Does it Benteen?
I believe that by testifying that he was at Reno's side during the initial phase of the battle, Wallace gave the Court a false inference that he was in position to hear any orders that Reno may or may not have received from Custer. By testifying that no orders were received by Reno from Custer created a false assumption that lent credence to the theory that Custer was a foolish commander who, as President Grant exclaimed,sacrificed his men "foolishly."
Wallace may have been privy to much information that he chose to conceal.
I believe orders were given by not obeyed. Of course,I do not possess any evidence to that fact but, why didn't Wallace simply tell the truth? What was he hiding and, why?
As the acting engineering officer, would not Wallace's post be riding along side with the Commander? Lt. Varnum remembered him being there. When Reno's battalion departed, Varnum asked Custer where they we going. Custer replied, "To begin the attack." He then gave permission for Varnum to accompany the scouts who were assisting Reno.
As he started off, Varnum shouted out to Wallace, "Come on Nick, with the fighting men. I don't stay back with the Coffee coolers." Custer than gave Wallace permission to go.
None of this information is capable of concluding what Wallace did or did not hear while riding with Custer. What it does imply is that Wallace's statement was untruthful and the inference that he rode at Reno's side during the entire time of the initial phase of the battle was a corker.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 11 2009 08:48:18 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2009 : 09:18:57 AM
|
Benteen you can't be serious that the divide was crossed at 8 am based on Reno's report. In that report be states he also crosses over to Custer's side of Reno Creek at 12:30 which is where Joe started this thread regarding Wallace.
You really think it took 4.5 hours to move down Reno Creek? That's less than 3 miles per hour. There are lots of errors which are not intentional false statements. When something doesn't fit then it must be looked at for error. I reject the idea that Custer moved down Reno Creek at less than 3 mph.
What I don't do is call all these officers liars. I heard and read to many accounts and testimonies in my job to not realize that people make mistakes in reports and eye witness account without intentionally lying.
There is more evidence and accounts that have the crossing closer to noon than eight. The 1 lour and 20 minutes is the difference in real time and official time. It was offered by many as an explanation for the discrepancy without calling Wallace a liar.
Regards
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2009 : 10:54:30 AM
|
Ranger,
Regarding your post @ 08:37:02 AM.
Regarding Sgt. Kanipe’s ride: If one doesn’t believe Sgt. Kanipe in “any” of his statements concerning that ride, then it is the same as saying the purpose was different from the intent. You question the purpose, (the reason for which something exists or for which it has been done or made): One also questions the intent. (the intended outcome of something) The same is true for the reverse. If anyone questions the intent and/or the purpose of Kanipe’s ride, then it is the same as saying that he did not do it, ie “never made it” because of his stated reasons and goals. How different is this than Goldin’s or Martin’s rides? One simply must believe the purpose and the intent as stated; or its as if it never should have happened at all. When it comes to weighing this evidence, the burden of proof is upon those who would tear asunder that which the witness stated, and this usually if not always is accompanied by surrounding evidence involving time and motion to test the veracity of the witnesses statements and actions. As concerns your conclusion: “There is disputes on whether he was sent or went on his own volition but not that he made the ride.” One quite simply here is questioning whether it happened or not, and the varying degrees between: And there is only one outcome; either he did, as he said he did; or he didn’t.
quote:
“Joe is on another board as Red Dirt and picked up something by rch and tried to bring it here but he got it wrong. When a thread with a poll states “Why did Wallace lie?” It would appear to have an agenda don’t you think? The opening statement by Joe is below and has nothing to do with watch times. Does it Benteen?”
It’s been my experience that people of the “Red Dirt” very seldom have agenda‘s that are not worthy to pursue: They are a prideful lot, but deception is not the rule in their case: They will run to Barry you, or even Stoop to pass you by: But Plagiarism I can tell you is not in their dictionary. To accurately judge on the “agenda” question you ask of me, I would have to know what that “something” was that you accused him of plagiarizing.
Unfortunately, I must disagree with your assessment that Joe’s opening statement “has nothing to do with watch times.” In fact anything that would involve people one must question means, motive and opportunity; all which do require time and motion to accomplish it. The following will demonstrate that motion and time do weigh heavily into any decision in human events:
1] I believe that by testifying that he was at Reno's side during the initial phase of the battle…
The placement of Wallace then should be established throughout that “initial phase”.
2] Wallace gave the Court a false inference that he was in position to hear any orders that Reno may or may not have received from Custer.
One simply must establish item #1 before establishing whether or not #2 was truthful or not. If you are accusing Joe of being dishonest in his “agenda” here, then the burden of proof is upon you to prove him wrong. To do that one would have to undertake a time-motion study of Wallace’s possible whereabouts, and whether or not he was with Reno throughout the “initial phase”.
3] By testifying that no orders were received by Reno from Custer created a false assumption that lent credence to the theory that Custer was a foolish commander who, as President Grant exclaimed,sacrificed his men "foolishly."
Again, one must establish whether or not Custer gave Reno a direct order. And once again time and motion studies would have to be undertaken to fully appreciate and understand whether or not such was the case or not. Simply taking sides on this issue of accusation should be beyond the purview of all concerned: Unless one is willing to take up the scalpel of operational ability & culpability, let not one disagree in theory; unless otherwise proven false, which you have not done, this investigative work remains unfinished.
4] Wallace may have been privy to much information that he chose to conceal… I believe orders were given by not obeyed. Of course, I do not possess any evidence to that fact but, why didn't Wallace simply tell the truth? What was he hiding and, why?
This is in reality what you object to; is it not? To develop this “information” once again a detailed investigation must be conducted to determine all of the above #’s 1 through 3. Only if and when that is done can one truthfully discern whether or not the evidence would, should or even could support any facts concerning, “why didn’t Wallace simply tell the truth? [and/or] What he was hiding and, why?” For now your objection is sustained as Joe admitted that, “ I do not possess any evidence to that fact…” Until such evidence is presented, the court adjourns to another day to take up the issue.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2009 : 1:38:32 PM
|
If anyone questions the intent and/or the purpose of Kanipe’s ride, then it is the same as saying that he did not do it, ie “never made it” because of his stated reasons and goals. How different is this than Goldin’s or Martin’s rides?
Your logic escapes me. Kanipe might have been going back for personal reasons. He certainly erred in what he told the troops. That he rode back is not in dispute. Maybe he was look for all the missing C company troopers and ended up being one. As for the difference among the three Martin was assigned to Custer and came from Benteen's company. Martin had a note written in Cooke's handwriting. Both Kanipe and Goldin have been questioned as to the nature of their ending up a survivor with Reno's battalion.
2] Wallace gave the Court a false inference that he was in position to hear any orders that Reno may or may not have received from Custer.
Again your logic escapes me if he was riding with Custer at the front how would that make him any less likely to hear a conversation between Reno and Custer. What we know for fact is that he did ride with Reno across the LBH.
It was at that 2nd halt where Custer gave the regiment “battalion orders”. This was about 5 miles from ford “A”. Now go back and place into that equation the 11:30 time as previously determined was a “slip”. They went about 4 miles in a half an hour [8mph] to that tepee that they later burned arriving there at 11:30.
So we are on the same page:
I have Halt 1 on the 25th as occurring on Davis Creek
Halt 2 is also on Davis Creek for concealment
Halt 3 Custer assigns battalions shortly after crossing the divide
I do not have Custer halting when he sent Reno ahead. I have Custer walking while Reno trots and gallops.
I have it at 12 miles to the LBH from the divide Halt 3
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 11 2009 2:45:20 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2009 : 5:23:41 PM
|
Benteen, I say the following not because if a personal agenda nor do I comment to support your perspective against the views of AZ. I write merely to tell you that your responses in my view represent the epitome of logical, concise, informative, and thought provoking ideas.
Unfortunately, many aspects of this battle were birthed in a bed of mis-information, prevarication, personal agendas, and ego-mania that precludes many other battles of this genre. There are some who have been so completely seduced by these `false premises, who are so certain that they have the answers that any perspective that does not coincide with their personal beliefs are disregarded as pure folly.
Az has spent more time filling cyber space with tales of my cloak and dagger forays as "red Dirt" that he does not realize his quirky his obsession with his premise.
Ironically, he can't see the Forest for the trees, he misses the point entirely. let's say you are correct, no one cares but you. Define the crime that you have spent so much time in discovering.
To my knowledge, I am the only poster who has used his real name on this board. Certainly you were not born with the name AZ. Yet, according to your unbelievably tiresome and convoluted investigation (no witnesses, no confessions, no evidence, no motive) I am RED DIRT the scourge of of the forums, the killer of women, children, and the weak, the harbinger of corruption, the pirate of the seven seas.
Who cares? If anyone besides AZ gives a hoot about this silliness please contact him and make his day. Another thing AZ, plagiarism is not posting on the board under a sobriquet, if so every poster would be guilty of a crime, including you. What I find utterly fascinating is your propensity for demanding things on the board then resorting to name calling when you don't get them. You and your cohort insisted that I reveal my sources, assiduously. When I ultimately supplied the source book, chapter and page, I was accused by you of mis-quoting, whatever that is. Is that similar to being a Red Dirt.
For your edification Reddirt represents the soil of the great state of Oklahoma. I live in this state although I was not born here. I wish I had thought of the name, it's an honor to be called so.
Benteen, there is much that I can say about your extremely logical references, particularly those concerning Wallace and the time-line studies. Why did he not simply tell the truth? I will be posting further discrepancies in his testimony very soon. Why? Because he lied. Nothing personal.
Another thing AZ, Pennington (I hope I spelled the name right) wrote a book (Custer Vindicated) espousing Benteen's theory of the 8 0'clock time line. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on October 11 2009 5:47:13 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2009 : 6:52:00 PM
|
Joe,
quote:
“Benteen, I say the following not because if a personal agenda nor do I comment to support your perspective against the views of AZ. I write merely to tell you that your responses in my view represent the epitome of logical, concise, informative, and thought provoking ideas.”
That is all I could hope for. To seek support for an idea or any one idealism is in and of itself a false hope: And quite frankly not what I would want anyone to think about my efforts. To expect some or all to challenge my ideas is perfectly understandable, desirable and expected. To expect some or all to challenge my idealism is seeking to change my thought process, would mean to change my perspective that is not welcomed, desirable nor acceptable. In my work that I present, I seek not to change the latter in people who view it. I do it to bring new ideas to the discussion. To share these ideas in a manner that perhaps has not been seriously looked at in over 135 years.
quote:
“Unfortunately, many aspects of this battle were birthed in a bed of mis-information, prevarication, personal agendas, and ego-mania that precludes many other battles of this genre. There are some who have been so completely seduced by these `false premises, who are so certain that they have the answers that any perspective that does not coincide with their personal beliefs are disregarded as pure folly.”
And I may add is similar to a religious faith in “idealism“, that is so ingrained into their being that they can not see past the myth to find the truth. To change this one must shake their faith, something that I do not try to do; nor would I dare attempt it. What they cannot stand is the very “idea”, the “notion” that it could be as easy as DeRudio, or Girard, or Benteen or Reno said it was. These are a part of all who come to share here, yet to say that their story’s are false because, or they lied because: Is relegating that part of their faith in this history to a fiction that never was: And in this they do “miss the point” entirely.
quote:
“Benteen, there is much that I can say about your extremely logical references, particularly those concerning Wallace and time-line studies. Why did he not simply tell the truth? I will be posting further discrepancies in his testimony very soon. Why? Because he lied. Nothing personal.”
All I can hope for here is that you post his erroneous times with those events he sites.
quote:
“Another thing AZ, Pennington (I hope I spelled the name right) wrote a book (Custer Vindicated) espousing Benteen's theory of the 8 0'clock time line.”
Hmmmm… Pennington; never heard of him. Although I would imagine by the title that some may burn the book rather than read it because there are quite a few who harbor the notion that Custer was not blameless in his own death: A complicity I may add that defies belief, especially when not one person can tell us to this day: Which direction was “left” in Benteen’s mission, or for that matter: How long Reno’s skirmish line lasted in the Valley Fight: Or which trail did Custer follow in his march from Reno Creek to his field of battle? And the seemingly endless list from the actual placement of Benteen’s morass to which tepee was which, and where. This alone is enough to ponder before arriving at a premature conclusion, which blames Custer for his own death.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2009 : 09:50:23 AM
|
Gray contends, with evidence, there were two halts early on the 25th on Davis Creek before crossing the divide, which makes sense, the last when TWC (most likely) brought the regiment forward as Custer came down from the Crow's Nest. Page 226 CLC.
There's no evidence Wallace lied, nor purpose if he did. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2009 : 10:15:58 AM
|
"To my knowledge, I am the only poster who has used his real name on this board. Certainly you were not born with the name AZ."
So Joe you never went to the members list and see if names are there or look at the bottom of DCs posts.
Glad to see you admit you are Red Dirt. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2009 : 10:26:48 AM
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have Halt 1 on the 25th as occurring on Davis Creek.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your halt 1 is a misnomer. It was on Davis Creek about 5 miles from the divide.
What? the only difference between your halt 1 and my Halt 1 is that I capitalized the H. Is that the misnomer? I gave no miles and stated it was on Davis Creek so what is the misnomer? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 12 2009 10:51:44 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2009 : 10:33:47 AM
|
Gray page 222
"A prolonged Halt 1 terminated the night march about 7 miles out, and a shorter Halt 2 ended a morning march of 3,3/4 miles (10,3/4 total)3/4 mile short of the divide pass."
Page 10 Godfrey's diary
Godfrey's notation has the regiment in Camp at 8 AM making coffee on Davis Creek.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 12 2009 10:46:37 AM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2009 : 11:57:38 AM
|
Ranger and DC,
quote:
“--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have Halt 1 on the 25th as occurring on Davis Creek.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your halt 1 is a misnomer. It was on Davis Creek about 5 miles from the divide.
What? the only difference between your halt 1 and my Halt 1 is that I capitalized the H. Is that the misnomer? I gave no miles and stated it was on Davis Creek so what is the misnomer?
DC answered your question in part. “Gray contends, with evidence, there were two halts early on the 25th…” (and no DC the rest doesn’t make sense because Gray left out an essential distance element which would and did affect his time-motion study): These halts occurred ’after’ the overnight halt at where they camped. And yes, it was where you put it Ranger; however it was not described by those who participated as “Halt 1”; that is the misnomer.
quote:
“Gray page 222
"A prolonged Halt 1(sic) terminated the night march about 7 miles out, and a shorter Halt 2(sic - into camp for 3 hours) ended a morning march of 3,3/4 miles (10,3/4 total)3/4 mile short of the divide pass.“
There were a number of figures thrown about by all who participated. I see no reason to disbelieve Reno, nor for that matter Benteen and Girard in favor of others who were not in command or a position to have not known. All three gave accurate times and distances. And if they were just 3/4ths of a mile short of the divide pass, then according to Girard, Benteen and Reno that would have put them 5 to 6 miles closer to the LBH by the time of the 2nd halt: That place would have been near the burning tepee about 3/4ths of a mile from Ford “A”. Not that I haven’t seen that figure before, but if this happened this way, it may explain more than what most would want to admit to. The stated distance from Busby, where they departed was about 25 miles from the LBH (Ford “A”) vicinity. One must simply ask, if Gray thought he was right, where is the other 5 to 6 miles that he forgot to account for? (10 to camp + 10 from the divide is 20 not 25.) Benteen and Girard together answered that question a long time ago. Girard said that the divide pass was about 5 miles from where they went into camp and stayed there for about 3 hours before departing at 5 am (Reno) or 5:30 am (Benteen).
That the first halt without question was beyond that divide pass was provided once again by Reno, Benteen and Girard. Girard as previously stated, said that the distance to the divide pass was 5 miles (Gray‘s lost mileage) from their overnight camp. Benteen stated that they went 6 to 7 miles before halting at that first halt. The confirmation that they had passed that divide came from Reno’s official report when he said that they had passed it by 8 am.
quote:
“Page 10 Godfrey's diary
Godfrey's notation has the regiment in Camp at 8 AM making coffee on Davis Creek.”
Just like him to note the time when he took the last swallow to catch up with the rest. I won’t go so far as to say he lied, but then someone had to have, or their memory was shot full of holes that the Indians had missed.
|
Edited by - Benteen on October 12 2009 1:02:06 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2009 : 4:02:19 PM
|
| Some claim only one halt, and some two, and in exhausted memory they likely became one. Or, they might only count Halt 1 because they ate, and went into concealment at Halt 2 till Custer - who left at Halt 1 for the Crow's Nest, returned and angrily wondered who had brought the command forward You ignore that and focus on the accounts that appeal and ignore the others. Page 235, Gray makes a good case for the confusion and addresses Girard's and Reno's accounts. On page 121, Gi/erard says the command had come forward. Whether he or any one back then called them Halt 1 and Halt 2 isn't relevant, as there were two. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2009 : 9:24:27 PM
|
Here are Reno's times from his report:
"We then made coffee and rested for three hours, at the expiration of which time the march was resumed, the divide crossed, and about 8 a.m. the command was in the valley of one of the branches of the Little Big Horn."
They had to be halted to make coffee and that is clearly before crossing the divide. DC was correct about the halts and calling them halts. That was my terms to get us talking about the same thing. I doubt they had a daily halt number assigned to a particular halt.
"I saw Benteen moving farther to the left, and, as they passed, he told me he had orders to move well to the left, and sweep everything before him. I did not see him again until about 2.30 p.m."
Reno has Benteen arriving 6.5 hours later on Reno Hill.
"As we approached a deserted village, and in which was standing one tepee, about 11 a.m., Custer motioned me to cross to him, which I did, and moved nearer to his column until about 12.30 a.m. [p.m. ?] when Lieutenant Cook, adjutant, came to me and said the village was only two miles above, and running away; to move forward at as rapid a gait as prudent, and to charge afterward, and that the whole outfit would support me. I think those were his exact words. I at once took a fast trot, and moved down about two miles, when I came to a ford of the river. I crossed immediately, and halted about ten minutes or less to gather the battalion, sending word to Custer that I had everything in front of me, and that they were strong."
Now Reno has himself crossing the LBH starting at 12:30 and going 2 miles at a trot. If one uses 7 mph (middle of the 6-8 range) it would take 17 minutes. That would put him in the the LBH from 12:47 to just before 2:30 PM for a total of approximately 1.5 hours. That's a long time for no support from Custer or any other part of the regiment.
The bottom line is that you would have to believe it took 4.5 hours to move to within 2 miles of the LBH after crossing the divide. You would have to believe that for 2 hours Reno was on his own before meeting up with Benteen at 2:30 PM. That Custer did not cross the river to support Reno and was where from 12:30 to 2:30?
The easy thing is to believe that Reno was guessing at times and qualified his guesses with the word about. I don't imagine Reno looking at his watch much. I don't think he lied he was just not accurate.
I think without checking that if they were 3/4 of a mile across the divide and stopped 3 hours or more before crossing the moving speed is faster in Davis Creek in the dark.
Using Reno's 8 AM time
Bivouac to divide 11.5 miles (5 hours of halt time) moving 3 hours 3.83 mph in the dark
divide to 2 miles before LBH for at total of 10 miles in 4.5 hours 2.22 mph down Reno Creek
I think that none of these persons lied but some had better recall. Reno never states he used watch time in his report and his abouts were the his best estimate would be my guess.
Hare in a Camp interview also supports Wallace with times close to noon than 8 AM.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 12 2009 10:13:56 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2009 : 10:25:05 PM
|
Benteen I am not following your lost 5 miles. Gray, Camp to divide 11.5 miles (pg.228). Divide to lone Tepee 8 miles(pg. 251) Lone Tepee to Ford A 4 miles (page 272). Ford A to skirmish line 2 miles (pg. 290)
Total miles = 25.5 miles |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 14 2009 : 08:23:24 AM
|
I think when looking at times one should look for persons who kept times in daily events. If one kept a diary then they would be more likely to have a habit of recording times. If one was required to keep times then it would be expected. If one was required to write reports they may record times also.
Since Reno was second in command exactly what was he required to keep regarding events or times. Reno didn't even have a battalion assignment until the movement down Reno Creek. He could not have known that he would be writing a report because of Custer's death. He certainly had a lot things going on between his battalion assignment and writing his report that could distort his memory.
When one states only the hour rather than hour and minute it suggest a recollection not based upon looking at watch and recording the time.
When I issue a citation I put my watch time on the citation, for example 11:22 AM. When I write the report I put approximately because my watch could be off by minutes so it reads approximately 11:22 AM.
I would not use Reno's times because he had no reason to record them when they occurred and certainly had numerous events that would distort his sense of time. I am sure he would think his time in the valley was an eternity.
This does not mean anyone lies but it does not mean that just because someone puts 8:00 AM in a report that it is accurate.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Why Did Wallace Lie?
