| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 29 2009 : 09:52:40 AM
|
One thing that continually bothers me is people who associate themselves with an organization, say the military or police or even some other profession should be the “experts” in determining what was true over 135 years ago in a similar profession. Yet we’ve had professors and scholars who had no association with these professions and common ordinary people who have who have studied these “histories”, and have become knowledgeable in the facts. And some of these people are indeed more professional in their assessment of what happened way back then, than those whose opinion based upon modern perceptions through modern service could ever know.
Grant, Sherman and Sheridan were military officers of that period and they didn’t know, so how would or should one expect those who served today, to answer in detail today what they could not back then?
Usually, no, not always, professional service people like to analyze this battle in the light of the battle itself. In other words what happened on the battlefield was more important than the events that led up to the battle. As anyone who has studied military history would tell you, this simply is not a way to conduct a proper investigation to uncover the facts. And this is where the RCOI fell short. It came up with inconclusive evidence that should have led to Reno’s Court Martial. And to have found out all the facts they needed to leave no stone unturned in the events that led up to that fateful day in June of 1876. When one looks back at events that led up to the battle, one can still to this day find some evidence to support not only the notion that Reno was negligent in the actions that followed, but Benteen as well. How can one possibly know these facts if they are not studied, analyzed and dissected in detail?
Today a battle rages between these so called self proclaimed “experts” on the battle only, and those who have placed more concern with the events that led up to the battle. Each seeks either to vilify Reno and/or Benteen, or honor them for what by appearances they did do.
The difference between the two groups could not be more diverse. Yet this diversity, instead of being embraced is selfishly projected, arrogantly pronounced and held at arms length in thoughts that seek division and not unity of purpose.
Those that study this battle from the perspective of the battle itself, rarely reflect upon the events that led up to that battle, almost always cherry pick the evidence, emphatically state the impossible and reject those statements and testimony as unbelievable; which does not fit their theory of what happened in that battle.
There is in fact no theory that properly can explain what happened. And when this battle or any other battle is approached in this fashion, theory first, it is doomed to failure and criticism. In order for them to get to the theoretical position where Reno and Benteen did honorable things and thus should be honored, they deny their mileages and times stated. Which in effect, calls them liars. Yet they never look to see why they would have lied? Why? Because they got it wrong, not because they lied, according to them, but because they innocently didn’t know. It should be an interesting exercise to see how much and how many of these statements are “rejected” as opposed to “accepted” because of this “innocence”. They damn these men because of their totally false statements and accept their theoretical position as honorable? When in fact the reverse is true. Their statements were true and were projected with honor, what wasn’t true was what they did not tell. If they were not asked, they didn’t tell. And if they were, they obfuscated the facts. But to make things in accord, the one thing they knew they could not do, and that was lie about the mileages or the times. For those, those could have been, would have been called into question at any Inquiry's, Inquest's or Court Martial, and this they did know and quite simply would not have done.
|
Edited by - Benteen on October 29 2009 09:56:47 AM
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 29 2009 : 9:05:29 PM
|
Benteen,
As you know, I am a retired Police Officer and, without an iota of hesitancy, I agree with your summation of individuals of our ilk. The worst thing that can happen, regarding an un-biased and honest approach towards the investigation of this battle, is to have a person like me and az get involved.
Why? Because the very nature of the "beast" is that Police Officers are very opinionated, narrow minded, and un-willing to change their perspectives. Their very means of survival on the "streets" is honed upon instant decision makikng that will determine the difference between life and death.
After a while of such acute and desperate life and death struggles, we become "know-it-alls" who know everything.
While in actuality we "know" very little.
It is is for that very reason that this study ( which I feel to be very important) can only exist and thrive with the valuable input of people like you!
The only difference between az an me is that I know I sometimes like an idiot. |
  |
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 30 2009 : 09:22:34 AM
|
Well sometimes Joe, I feel we all are Idiots, to be honest with you. We discuss possibilities and beat our heads against the wall to figure things out that haven't been figured out in over 135 years, and then have to common idiocy to think that ours is the only truth. And what more than anything has contributed to this idiocy? The RCOI as an official document, and to think anyone could quote anything from it and not be lambasted by someone else because they can and would find something someone else said that completely refutes your point. To use this document to say that anyone, whether panel members, guests or witnesses were beyond reproach, is like saying they were human saints of the first order that never went through the trials of life to attain sainthood.
One doesn't need to find evidence in the RCOI that said they made a prior arrangement with Reno to Acquit him. It is self evident in the way they investigated his so called negligence. And it wasn't so much in what they did do as much as it was in what they did not do. It wasn't the evidence that they brought forth and discussed that didn't convict Reno, it was what they did not allow that permitted his acquittal: And this is the best evidence that there was collusion before that Court ever convened to find him innocent of any and all charges. If one cannot see this for themselves, and wants further evidence in statements in that Court Document, they will not find it in most statements, because it would have pointed to that collusion.
Many today think that there was no conspiracy, there was. And it was a conspiracy of silence. A silence that was self evident in the cross examination of Girard that tells all of that collusion. And who better to see this for what it was, than a "police officer" of today? If we want to judge that document for what it was, and say that all were honorable and noble in their statements, one only has to look at the questions that were not asked or permitted by the members of the court, for theirs was the gravest errors that were committed.
quote:
As you know, I am a retired Police Officer and, without an iota of hesitancy, I agree with your summation of individuals of our ilk. The worst thing that can happen, regarding an un-biased and honest approach towards the investigation of this battle, is to have a person like me and az get involved.
I do not feel profession needs to be or should be stated here: It quite frankly does not matter. But if one is to draw upon their own experiences in reference to what happened at that Court, then who better to judge right from wrong than those who should know today?
quote:
Why? Because the very nature of the "beast" is that Police Officers are very opinionated, narrow minded, and un-willing to change their perspectives. Their very means of survival on the "streets" is honed upon instant decision makikng that will determine the difference between life and death.
And who better to judge Reno's actions in total, throughout that campaign, who as you stated deal with "life and death" and "survival" then as now? The LBH battle was about all three. The judgements made by that Court as anyone can plainly see for themselves was unjust, extremely biased and predetermined before the Court convened.
quote:
After a while of such acute and desperate life and death struggles, we become "know-it-alls" who know everything.
While in actuality we "know" very little.
It is is for that very reason that this study ( which I feel to be very important) can only exist and thrive with the valuable input of people like you!
I know of police officers, as i've stated before i'm supposed to be freinds with one. I make no pretentions of that friendship, because of the circumstances most law enforcement people find themselves in when dealing with those who are not. So yes "know it alls" could be percieved the way you state it. They are after all in a very visible public eye. And to be seen with someone who they do not know intimately is just something they do not desire, and may indeed be viewed in an improper light.
|
Edited by - Benteen on October 30 2009 09:24:16 AM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2009 : 3:48:49 PM
|
| Agreed! "know-it-alls" come in all shapes, sizes, and professions. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Reno Court of Inquiry & Official Documents
