| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 16 2009 : 12:50:27 PM
|
Over the years one keeps hearing that same old song, ‘the Custer fight flowed from the South to the North.’ And in this regard many times we all overlook small details that prove this theory wrong. All that is known about that segment of the battle; was as most try to fathom what happened:
1] That by appearances C , I and L were left somewhere near battle ridge as a ‘rear guard’.
2] While E and F go to attack a ford downstream of point “B”.
3] Custer’s troops at the river, somewhere downstream of point “B” & meet resistance.
4] Company cohesion was lost, and at this point is where panic ensues.
5] After loss of cohesion and panic, what is certain is that they were taking casualties with Gall hitting their positions only to flush them as a covey of Quail into pockets of panic ridden troopers that were systematically destroyed one by one.
6] At this point the Indians tell us that E and presumably F because one cannot fathom them being separated, they retreat to LSH; where they dismount with the horseholders going into the ravine to the east.
7] At this time it is believed that C,I & L move or attempt to move, to cover E and F’s withdrawal. Or portions of this group, were charging away from their positions to push some Indians out of Deep Ravine.
The “Final” flow of this sequence tells anyone who would care that the “flow of the battle” from #3 onward was NOT from South to North. And for 5/7ths from the time they arrived there; until they were slaughtered: That their movements were in retrograde, and did not continue “North” or for that matter “West”, BUT in exactly the opposite direction.
Rosser - Reno letters pg’s 229 to 231 Custer Myth:
Date of Letter: August 16th, 1876
What did Rosser know?
Rosser’s unfavorable remarks to Reno in personal letters seemed to be highly biased against the good Major. However, there seems to be something to Rosser’s remarks that have long been overlooked.
He states:
You must remember that your situation was very different from the one in which Custer was placed. You had an open field, in which you could handle your command, while Custer was buried in a deep ravine or canyon, and as he supposed, stealthily advancing upon and unsuspecting foe, but was, by the nature of the ground, helpless when assailed on all sides by the Indians in the hills above him…
[Now what is very interesting here is a map that Rosser copied, and it wasn’t so much that it was a copied work, as much as where it was copied from…]
I enclose you a map which I have copied mostly from memory from one which I saw at Department Headquarters in St. Paul a short while ago, on which you will recognize the positions of the various detachments; and as you know no more of the movements of Custer after you separated from him, apart from what you could gather from the position of the dead and the appearance of the ground, than perhaps I do, you will pardon me for submitting to you my theory of the plan of engagement and the result.
[Notice particularly the references to this map as he proceeds.]
The topography of this map leads me to believe that Custer estimated the Indians to be few, and embraced within the hills which compass the first bottom, or the one in which you deployed your line of attack; and, with this conviction, he passed around behind the hills, hoping to cross the river at the lower end of the village and thus cut off their retreat. He evidently ran in at the first point where his trail approaches the river, thinking that he had gone far enough to accomplish his object; but, finding that the village was still beyond, he hurried on to this point, perhaps before you had crossed the river.
[A clarification is provided, but to state that clarification one must jump to his ending statements, which were…]
I have heard that someone has advanced the theory that Custer was met, at this point where he first struck the river, by overwhelming numbers, and so beaten that his line from that point on was one of retreat. This simply is ridiculous.
Had Custer been repulsed at this point his column would have been driven back upon the line which he had approached and the proposition is too silly to be discussed. I claim that the part which Custer acted in this engagement was that of a bold, earnest man, who believed he had before him a rare opportunity to strike the Indians a blow which, if successful, would end the campaign…and the general who plans for the enemy and is counseled by his fears is sure to fail.
[Rosser was clearly speaking of this “point” as being Medicine Tail Ford. And it would have been true: “Had Custer been repulsed (by an “overwhelming number) at this point his column would have been driven back upon the line which he had approached.]
…he hurried on to this point (beyond MTF), perhaps before you had crossed the river. He fell upon an overwhelming number at the point where he struck the river, and here, where he expected to find the lower end of the village, he found himself in the midst of a city which extended far (and which to him was before undiscovered) beyond, and while he was warily approaching this point by tortuous canyons, believing that the savages had not discovered him, they had poured out of this to him unseen, and, hiding behind the hills, took up a favorable position, which was to him inaccessible, and from which their destructive fire could not be withstood.
I speak of ravine and canyons, and the topography seems to bear me out on this, for all accounts speak of the country about Custer’s route as being very broken. While Custer’s command was making its way through these gorges to the enemy… believing his approach undiscovered, he is heard to exclaim ( I suppose to a messenger to you), “Charge. They are asleep in their tepees.”
At the verge of this high bank, the deep stream below, a vast city of Indians before him, your command retreating and the Indians rapidly accumulating on his front and flanks. Custer was forced to countermarch and begin his retreat, which he attempted in column of companies. The companies of Tom Custer and Captain Smith, being the first in advance and the last in the retreat, fell first in the slaughter which followed this retrograde movement, and were found as I have marked the line on the above map. Yates company, with its gallant captain, took up the position on the hill, where all perished, including Custer…and Cooke, Yates, Tom Custer and Riley, as I have indicated on the map; while a little further along, are found the remains of Keogh’s and Calhoun’s companies, which perished while fighting their way back to you - a few even reaching the point where Custer first struck the high banks of the river.
[Rosser's remarks sound remarkably like the flow [1 through 7] that I presented at the first of this article. What is intriguing is that map he "saw at Department Headquarters in St. Paul" This occurring before August 16th 1876, which they had in their possession at that time.]
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 08 2009 : 7:32:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Over the years one keeps hearing that same old song, ‘the Custer fight flowed from the South to the North.’ And in this regard many times we all overlook small details that prove this theory wrong. All that is known about that segment of the battle; was as most try to fathom what happened:
1] That by appearances C , I and L were left somewhere near battle ridge as a ‘rear guard’.
2] While E and F go to attack a ford downstream of point “B”.
3] Custer’s troops at the river, somewhere downstream of point “B” & meet resistance.
4] Company cohesion was lost, and at this point is where panic ensues.
5] After loss of cohesion and panic, what is certain is that they were taking casualties with Gall hitting their positions only to flush them as a covey of Quail into pockets of panic ridden troopers that were systematically destroyed one by one.
6] At this point the Indians tell us that E and presumably F because one cannot fathom them being separated, they retreat to LSH; where they dismount with the horseholders going into the ravine to the east.
7] At this time it is believed that C,I & L move or attempt to move, to cover E and F’s withdrawal. Or portions of this group, were charging away from their positions to push some Indians out of Deep Ravine.
quote:
Benteen, forgive me for taking so long to respond to this wonderful narrative. I will be interjecting my thoughts on how much of this scenario I concur with. a great many appear to believe and follow the above. I differ in that I do not believe that C, I, and L moved to support Custer. I believe movement was not initiated until the troops were overwhelmed and then, movement was initialed in panic.
The “Final” flow of this sequence tells anyone who would care that the “flow of the battle” from #3 onward was NOT from South to North. And for 5/7ths from the time they arrived there; until they were slaughtered: That their movements were in retrograde, and did not continue “North” or for that matter “West”, BUT in exactly the opposite direction.
quote:
I agree with your summation with one small exception. I believe that Custer made a quick jaunt to the ford located near Squaws Creek were the non-combatants were holed up. he soon left and arrived upon Cemetery ridge were he awaited the arrival of Benteen which never happened.
Rosser - Reno letters pg’s 229 to 231 Custer Myth:
Date of Letter: August 16th, 1876
What did Rosser know?
Rosser’s unfavorable remarks to Reno in personal letters seemed to be highly biased against the good Major. However, there seems to be something to Rosser’s remarks that have long been overlooked.
He states:
You must remember that your situation was very different from the one in which Custer was placed. You had an open field, in which you could handle your command, while Custer was buried in a deep ravine or canyon, and as he supposed, stealthily advancing upon and unsuspecting foe, but was, by the nature of the ground, helpless when assailed on all sides by the Indians in the hills above him…
[Now what is very interesting here is a map that Rosser copied, and it wasn’t so much that it was a copied work, as much as where it was copied from…]
I enclose you a map which I have copied mostly from memory from one which I saw at Department Headquarters in St. Paul a short while ago, on which you will recognize the positions of the various detachments; and as you know no more of the movements of Custer after you separated from him, apart from what you could gather from the position of the dead and the appearance of the ground, than perhaps I do, you will pardon me for submitting to you my theory of the plan of engagement and the result.
[Notice particularly the references to this map as he proceeds.]
The topography of this map leads me to believe that Custer estimated the Indians to be few, and embraced within the hills which compass the first bottom, or the one in which you deployed your line of attack; and, with this conviction, he passed around behind the hills, hoping to cross the river at the lower end of the village and thus cut off their retreat. He evidently ran in at the first point where his trail approaches the river, thinking that he had gone far enough to accomplish his object; but, finding that the village was still beyond, he hurried on to this point, perhaps before you had crossed the river.
quote:
Excellent summation!
[A clarification is provided, but to state that clarification one must jump to his ending statements, which were…]
I have heard that someone has advanced the theory that Custer was met, at this point where he first struck the river, by overwhelming numbers, and so beaten that his line from that point on was one of retreat. This simply is ridiculous.
quote:
I agree empatically!
Had Custer been repulsed at this point his column would have been driven back upon the line which he had approached and the proposition is too silly to be discussed. I claim that the part which Custer acted in this engagement was that of a bold, earnest man, who believed he had before him a rare opportunity to strike the Indians a blow which, if successful, would end the campaign…and the general who plans for the enemy and is counseled by his fears is sure to fail.
quote:
God bless you! What an insightful and compassionate summation!!!
[Rosser was clearly speaking of this “point” as being Medicine Tail Ford. And it would have been true: “Had Custer been repulsed (by an “overwhelming number) at this point his column would have been driven back upon the line which he had approached.]
…he hurried on to this point (beyond MTF), perhaps before you had crossed the river. He fell upon an overwhelming number at the point where he struck the river, and here, where he expected to find the lower end of the village, he found himself in the midst of a city which extended far (and which to him was before undiscovered) beyond, and while he was warily approaching this point by tortuous canyons, believing that the savages had not discovered him, they had poured out of this to him unseen, and, hiding behind the hills, took up a favorable position, which was to him inaccessible, and from which their destructive fire could not be withstood.
I speak of ravine and canyons, and the topography seems to bear me out on this, for all accounts speak of the country about Custer’s route as being very broken. While Custer’s command was making its way through these gorges to the enemy… believing his approach undiscovered, he is heard to exclaim ( I suppose to a messenger to you), “Charge. They are asleep in their tepees.”
At the verge of this high bank, the deep stream below, a vast city of Indians before him, your command retreating and the Indians rapidly accumulating on his front and flanks. Custer was forced to countermarch and begin his retreat, which he attempted in column of companies. The companies of Tom Custer and Captain Smith, being the first in advance and the last in the retreat, fell first in the slaughter which followed this retrograde movement, and were found as I have marked the line on the above map. Yates company, with its gallant captain, took up the position on the hill, where all perished, including Custer…and Cooke, Yates, Tom Custer and Riley, as I have indicated on the map; while a little further along, are found the remains of Keogh’s and Calhoun’s companies, which perished while fighting their way back to you - a few even reaching the point where Custer first struck the high banks of the river.
quote:
Excellent!
[Rosser's remphaticallyRosieremphaticallyRosieremarks sound remarkably like the flow [1 through 7] that I presented at the first of this article. What is intriguing is that map he "saw at Department Headquarters in St. Paul" This occurring before August 16th 1876, which they had in their possession at that time.]
quote:
You are the man and I am proud of your efforts. Without hesitation i feel this is the most comprehensive thread I have seen in the last 6 years. Great Job!
!
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on November 08 2009 7:50:42 PM |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 08 2009 : 8:00:38 PM
|
A friend of mine who passed away recently also believed in a north to south theory. He sent a copy to Boston I believe. His daughter is working on his book.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 08 2009 : 8:46:21 PM
|
Thank you Joe. I appreciate the compliment. As Ranger pointed out, i'm not the first, nor would I exude and confidence in an attempt to state that I was.
You speak of Gordie, Ranger. Why not say his name? Should you not honor the man? |
Edited by - Benteen on November 08 2009 8:48:17 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 08 2009 : 10:40:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Thank you Joe. I appreciate the compliment. As Ranger pointed out, i'm not the first, nor would I exude and confidence in an attempt to state that I was.
You speak of Gordie, Ranger. Why not say his name? Should you not honor the man?
I will honor him in my own way and it certainly does not involve you or Joe.
Besides it is you that remains anonymous by not using a real name in your members profile so why do you worry about using others names? Does it mean you do not honor yourself if your name is not there?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 09 2009 : 07:05:26 AM
|
Ranger, your proclivity to NEED to know everything about the poster on the other end of your conversation, tells me a lot more about you, than you care anyone to know. There’s a difference between needing to know, and wanting to know, and each are governed by a different set of moral principles.
Want implies something someone wishes for, would like, feels like, yearns for, be looking for, hope for, aspire or fancy. The expression of wanting something, in the “personal” sense isn’t a desire that’s NEEDED. Look at the words that tell us this: wish, feels, yearns, hopes, aspires, fancy’s.
Need implies an essential, necessity, requirement and a “demand”. So it wasn’t a simple request. You need to know who exactly they are, where they are, and other minute details of their lives, and the reason for this overwhelming desire? Let me tell you Ranger. While you are just a shill, or should one use Reno’s term “decoy” to lure in the innocent and unsuspecting, while the Obama mafia fakir, The Shadow, sharpens his scimitar of Damocles in stealth mode; a ghost, a mere apparition, a phantom, a spirit, a spook, & a wraith, shall find out so the overwhelming need be fulfilled. To shadow, menace, worry, and threaten danger is the purpose of your wrath. So that one falls into line with your thoughts, your feelings and your sense of right and wrong, so that all are in accord, or they leave in the fear or shame you need them to. And all that matters is your perspective, your thoughts and your elevated sense of self and NOT their HONOR.
So, I will put this to you as succinctly as I can. It is none of your business who I am. Where I am, or what I do, or what time of day I do it. For you would use that information for malicious purposes and intent. You Ranger a self proclaimed officer of the law not only permits this use, you encourage it, and that is why I do not believe you are a law officer. Not one law officer in this country would jeopardize their job over this. Or would they? |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 09 2009 : 08:04:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Ranger, your proclivity to NEED to know everything about the poster on the other end of your conversation, tells me a lot more about you, than you care anyone to know. There’s a difference between needing to know, and wanting to know, and each are governed by a different set of moral principles.
Want implies something someone wishes for, would like, feels like, yearns for, be looking for, hope for, aspire or fancy. The expression of wanting something, in the “personal” sense isn’t a desire that’s NEEDED. Look at the words that tell us this: wish, feels, yearns, hopes, aspires, fancy’s.
Need implies an essential, necessity, requirement and a “demand”. So it wasn’t a simple request. You need to know who exactly they are, where they are, and other minute details of their lives, and the reason for this overwhelming desire? Let me tell you Ranger. While you are just a shill, or should one use Reno’s term “decoy” to lure in the innocent and unsuspecting, while the Obama mafia fakir, The Shadow, sharpens his scimitar of Damocles in stealth mode; a ghost, a mere apparition, a phantom, a spirit, a spook, & a wraith, shall find out so the overwhelming need be fulfilled. To shadow, menace, worry, and threaten danger is the purpose of your wrath. So that one falls into line with your thoughts, your feelings and your sense of right and wrong, so that all are in accord, or they leave in the fear or shame you need them to. And all that matters is your perspective, your thoughts and your elevated sense of self and NOT their HONOR.
So, I will put this to you as succinctly as I can. It is none of your business who I am. Where I am, or what I do, or what time of day I do it. For you would use that information for malicious purposes and intent. You Ranger a self proclaimed officer of the law not only permits this use, you encourage it, and that is why I do not believe you are a law officer. Not one law officer in this country would jeopardize their job over this. Or would they?
I could care less who you are. It is you that stated that not mentioning someone's name had anything to do with honor. I mearly pointed out that since you do not identify yourself either that your honor statement is shallow.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 09 2009 : 08:26:35 AM
|
| And this conversation is going the same direction as the "Mathey company Liar" business. Its a "credibility" thing with you isn't it Ranger. Credentials mean everything, is that it? Who am I to.... What do I do to..... Personally I think a 13 year old could do as good a job as you, and be alot more smarter in pursuing the "honor" question than you have. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 09 2009 : 09:04:57 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
And this conversation is going the same direction as the "Mathey company Liar" business. Its a "credibility" thing with you isn't it Ranger. Credentials mean everything, is that it? Who am I to.... What do I do to..... Personally I think a 13 year old could do as good a job as you, and be alot more smarter in pursuing the "honor" question than you have.
Actually you have nothing that states I want to know who you are? I believe the anonymous persons Benteen and Boston are the same anonymous person. So what? It is you that worries about credentials. I have never asked for any of yours. If you apply your own standard you should not worry about mine. Right?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 11 2009 : 8:54:02 PM
|
Please give me a much deserved break! Now you got Benteen in a state of alter ego's.
Benteen, I don't care if you have a dozen sobriquets under various sexes, Benteen, Boston, Superman,Batman, Astro Boy, etc.,etc.,etc.
As long as all of you keep posting like you all do. I'm learning about new things and, am enjoying the process. I'm four people with two sexes but, I'm o.k with it. I never have to look for bridge partners. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on November 11 2009 8:57:14 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 11 2009 : 11:03:19 PM
|
quote:
Besides it is you that remains anonymous by not using a real name in your members profile so why do you worry about using others names? Does it mean you do not honor yourself if your name is not there?
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2009 : 06:46:29 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Please give me a much deserved break! Now you got Benteen in a state of alter ego's.
Benteen, I don't care if you have a dozen sobriquets under various sexes, Benteen, Boston, Superman,Batman, Astro Boy, etc.,etc.,etc.
As long as all of you keep posting like you all do. I'm learning about new things and, am enjoying the process. I'm four people with two sexes but, I'm o.k with it. I never have to look for bridge partners.
Benteen is one person on each board and not a problem for me. Only 4 Joe? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2009 : 1:18:34 PM
|
| Ranger, If the website's allow that, then what's your complaint? It's their fault, is it not? |
Edited by - Benteen on November 12 2009 1:18:56 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2009 : 6:42:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Ranger, If the website's allow that, then what's your complaint? It's their fault, is it not?
My complaint is your logic and conclusion. I don't care who you are. For all I know you may be another Joe alias. I was addressing your dumb honor comment because I chose to not identify a friends name and I pointed out that you yourself are anonymous. It has nothing to do with what a website allows. You attached honor to using a name yet did not use a name yourself. The website does not prevent you from using your name.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2009 : 9:15:16 PM
|
| Az, calm down. Your "dumb honor" remark is one that Benteen does not deserve. Disagreement is one thing, slinging arrows at one's integrity is not only unworthy, it is demeaning for the one who slings it. Benteen is honorable and sincere. I can assure you he is not me because he has a lot more class than I. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2009 : 9:25:45 PM
|
Joe is correct here, Ranger.
However, you failing to see the "logic and conclusion" in the fact that anyone who runs an online website is responsible for the content of that website. They are also responsible for who can and who cannot post. If they choose to allow a person to join up umpteen times under different aliases, then that's the administrators fault for letting that occur, not the person who does it. The logic and the conclusion fits, whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2009 : 07:06:24 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Az, calm down. Your "dumb honor" remark is one that Benteen does not deserve. Disagreement is one thing, slinging arrows at one's integrity is not only unworthy, it is demeaning for the one who slings it. Benteen is honorable and sincere. I can assure you he is not me because he has a lot more class than I.
It is Benteen suggesting that I did not honor someone. So my dumb honor statement is correct.
You assured us many times and the result was that assurance was false. Why break your streak now? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2009 : 07:18:29 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Joe is correct here, Ranger.
However, you failing to see the "logic and conclusion" in the fact that anyone who runs an online website is responsible for the content of that website. They are also responsible for who can and who cannot post. If they choose to allow a person to join up umpteen times under different aliases, then that's the administrators fault for letting that occur, not the person who does it. The logic and the conclusion fits, whether you like it or not.
You must be in a stupor you are the only one posting about what the website allows. Your dumb honor statement was in reference to your post regarding using someone's name rather than using "a friend". How in your great logic and conclusion do you derive that has anything to do with what the website allows?
Since you made it an honor issue using a name rather than what I chose to use "a friend" I pointed out that you do not use your name. It has nothing to do with what a website requires. Just showing that you didn't apply your dumb honor statement to yourself.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2009 : 09:37:38 AM
|
Evidently it does. Because you were the one who brought it to my attention, in a prior post, that can be sited, that Joe was posting under multi-assumed aliases elsewhere; at least that's what I assumed, unless you're Joe here and posting under multiple aliases here. It does matter and does bother you greatly that he does that, as you alledge he does, does it not? So why not address this issue? Instead of "personalizing" this issue the way you are attempting to do? Your personal attack upon me is an insane issue Az. Do yourself an honor Ranger, and STOP. Get on with the topic of this thread - now.
|
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2009 : 10:03:38 PM
|
Benteen,I find myself agreeing with you over and over again. For good reasons. When I think back to the posters on this forum I remember the first time I offered my thoughts to this forum. I was a novice. However, I learned so much that I began to set aside my embarrassment over being a "newbie" and decided to go forward. The result was that dc called me every name but a saint. He made every accusation of malfeasance that one could imagine. It, unfortunately, made me bitter.
You See, he made me understand that most posters are confident enough in themselves to agree to disagree. They don't make a personal issue out of it. Unfortunately, there are a minority of posters who take disagreement personally thus, becoming angry if they perceive themselves as being "attacked."
AZ, for some time, posted informative posts that were very credible and interesting. He and I did not have a falling out until the infamous discussion regarding Reno's "Charge." Shortly there after, he came after me with a gusto and élan of unbelievable energy.
AZ, assaulting me is understandable. I can be arrogant at times although I hate it when I do so. Perhaps 6 years arguing with the Prima Donna dc has made me half the jerk that he apparently is.
Who knows? What I do know is this, Benteen in a honorable man as no doubt, are you. He has never made a post that I have not completely respected.. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2009 : 10:33:45 PM
|
Joe, you are correct. It's not about who is right or wrong in their perceptions. Everyone has an opinon to share, and should be able to share what they think. The problem occurs when the "facts" seems to indicate two opposite thought processes. Much like Terry's orders to Custer and whether a "strict" interpretation of them should be allowed or what was said about them also be taken into consideration. It was said that Terry's brother, a lawyer may have had something to do with altering them, after the fact. This may have been true, as Graham discovered the origional didn't contain a sentence in it that most today think is still there.
As for Reno's charge. It may be argued that he was not ordered to charge the village in the first place, but merely was to charge after the fleeing 40 to 50 Indians. Later after Girard came back Custer sent Cooke to Reno to amend Reno's orders to Include the village in some manner. As to what exactly were those particular orders were, Reno seems to confuse the issue, Davern's seems the most plausible explanation. Reno may have been confused by the time Cooke arrived with the orders because shortly thereafter he sent back McIhargey & Mitchell, I believe to clarify those orders.
Reno's charge, if one may call it that back to the bluffs, was in reality a misnomer. For all didn't participate in that charge. And I'll leave it at that.
|
Edited by - Benteen on November 13 2009 10:59:14 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 13 2009 : 11:09:20 PM
|
Back to the origional intent of this thread.
What I found interesting in Rosser's statements was this paragraph.
Rosser - Reno letters pg’s 229 to 231 Custer Myth:
Date of Letter: August 16th, 1876
quote:
At the verge of this high bank, the deep stream below, a vast city of Indians before him, your command retreating and the Indians rapidly accumulating on his front and flanks. Custer was forced to countermarch and begin his retreat, which he attempted in column of companies. The companies of Tom Custer and Captain Smith, being the first in advance and the last in the retreat, fell first in the slaughter which followed this retrograde movement, and were found as I have marked the line on the above map. Yates company, with its gallant captain, took up the position on the hill, where all perished, including Custer…and Cooke, Yates, Tom Custer and Riley, as I have indicated on the map; while a little further along, are found the remains of Keogh’s and Calhoun’s companies, which perished while fighting their way back to you - a few even reaching the point where Custer first struck the high banks of the river.
Several things here.
First, he places Reno's retreat at the same moment Custer retreats. Why is this pertinent? This letter was written Aug. 16th, 1876, not long after the battle, and it does jive with what Curley said of the battle, that Custer's troops were retreating as Reno's troops were retreating. (How did Rosser know this?)
What I find so interesting is the company's he attributes as the "first in" Company's C and E. He stated that they being the first in, they were the last out, and the first to fall. Then a little later he states this, "while a little further along, are found the remains of Keogh’s and Calhoun’s companies, which perished while fighting their way back to you..." Now while speculation could end right there, he didn't because he went on to say something else, "a few even reaching the point where Custer first struck the high banks of the river." To our poor understanding at this point this would seem to have been MTF, the question remains, was it? And if it was, "these few" who were they? |
Edited by - Benteen on November 13 2009 11:13:51 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2009 : 03:31:18 AM
|
A friend of mine who passed away recently also believed in a north to south theory. He sent a copy to Boston I believe. His daughter is working on his book.
AZ Ranger
Thank you Joe. I appreciate the compliment. As Ranger pointed out, i'm not the first, nor would I exude and confidence in an attempt to state that I was. You speak of Gordie, Ranger. Why not say his name? Should you not honor the man?
Amazing Benteen you make the above statement and then when you can't defend your honor statement you want to get back to the thread. Good idea but don't expect someone not to comment when you make such a statement. You could have said you erred at the honor statement but you chose not to do so. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 24 2009 : 10:03:09 PM
|
| Why didn't you mention his name? it would have been an understandable thing to do. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 25 2009 : 09:56:24 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Why didn't you mention his name? it would have been an understandable thing to do.
I don't believe he ever posted on this board at least to my knowledge. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 25 2009 : 10:18:12 PM
|
| Don't you think that this board needs to be made aware of such a friend. From the little information you have given us, he sounds like a true gentleman and, an honorable one. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Flow of Battle on Custer Battlefield
