| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
 Posted - November 20 2009 : 2:23:40 PM
|
quote:
I think Custer knew he was at odds with the mission as defined in Terry's orders. He needed to send Benteen on a recon in force to comply with the spirit of the order in preventing fleeing Indians.
Reno was sent as an advance with orders to charge. An advance guard function is to bring them to battle allowing the main body to take advantage. The plan ends there because Custer needed more information.
Battles are dynamic and Custer's choice of staying with the main body and not directing the others based upon what developed after moving across MTC is the part of the "plan" that I think is missing.
Whole different ball game if Custer sent the main body ahead and remained with the HQ where he could watch it develop. He would be there when Reno retrogrades, he would be there when Benteen arrives and he would be there when the pack train arrives.
Not a very good opinion of his abilities, but then what would one expect? The only one at "odds with the mission as defined in Terry's orders" is your opinion of those orders. And if you understood Terry's intent you would not have felt the further need to critique the rest. Of course this is all in my humble opinion of course based upon my own perspectives of what Terry's orders actually did convey.
|
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2009 : 6:39:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
quote:
I think Custer knew he was at odds with the mission as defined in Terry's orders. He needed to send Benteen on a recon in force to comply with the spirit of the order in preventing fleeing Indians.
Reno was sent as an advance with orders to charge. An advance guard function is to bring them to battle allowing the main body to take advantage. The plan ends there because Custer needed more information.
Battles are dynamic and Custer's choice of staying with the main body and not directing the others based upon what developed after moving across MTC is the part of the "plan" that I think is missing.
Whole different ball game if Custer sent the main body ahead and remained with the HQ where he could watch it develop. He would be there when Reno retrogrades, he would be there when Benteen arrives and he would be there when the pack train arrives.
Not a very good opinion of his abilities, but then what would one expect? The only one at "odds with the mission as defined in Terry's orders" is your opinion of those orders. And if you understood Terry's intent you would not have felt the further need to critique the rest. Of course this is all in my humble opinion of course based upon my own perspectives of what Terry's orders actually did convey.
Terry was alive to share his opinion and I posted it. That is not my opinion against yours. It is you against the man who wrote in his dispatch "The proposed route was not taken but as soon as the trail was struck it was followed" and "but I feel my plan must have been successful had it been carried out, and I desire you to know the facts." finally " He thought, I am sure, that the Indians were running. For fear that they might get away he attacked without getting all his men and divided his command so that they were beaten in detail." |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2009 : 9:10:23 PM
|
| Did he say anything about Custer disobeying the intent of his orders? NOPE, not one word. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2009 : 9:20:04 PM
|
Heavyrunner,
Thinking hard about it, there must have been multiple reasons for the scattered remains of the 7th, the proposed wounding of Custer perhaps being the first.
quote:
Maybe we should start a thread on whether a different battle plan, one that did not divide the forces, could have resulted in a different outcome. Or what might have happened had Benteen been available.
I think Custer, et. al, were on their way to being whupped pretty good,regardless, that coming from a healthy respect for Indian numbers,fighting skills, riding skills, armament and their incredibly pissed off attitude. However, there might have been considerably more survivors via retreat.
Perhaps you should start another thread, as you suggest. Maybe you could keep this group on subject.  |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2009 : 9:55:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
Thinking hard about it, there must have been multiple reasons for the scattered remains of the 7th, the proposed wounding of Custer perhaps being the first.
Maybe we should start a thread on whether a different battle plan, one that did not divide the forces, could have resulted in a different outcome. Or what might have happened had Benteen been available.
I think Custer, et. al, were on their way to being whupped pretty good,regardless, that coming from a healthy respect for Indian numbers,fighting skills, riding skills, armament and their incredibly pissed off attitude. However, there might have been considerably more survivors via retreat.
Bob I have only visited the battlefield 4 times. The last time with my son only who is interested in the battle. We spent a whole day from opening to closing and then went up Reno Creek road the next day.
For a long time DC has talked about the spurious markers and that one would need to remove them in order to form an opinion. He is correct I believe. The problem is which ones are the spurious ones. No matter where you look a good proportion may be the spurious ones.
AZ Ranger
dc likes to use the word "spurious" when referring to the markers thus, giving the impression that all of the markers are somehow incorrect. Once again, he is wrong. when the markers were placed, the men responsible for doing so neglected to account for the deaths of the soldiers who perished during Reno's "charge" to the bluffs.
As a result, some of the markers were placed in "pair" due to the fact that some of the kill sites were recognized by the scraping of soil from each side of a fallen soldier. later, these depressions were confused by the expectation of two men fallen at a singular spot instead of one.
Ironically, the pattern of the fallen was not disrupted by this schematic. Basically, the pattern rings true. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2009 : 08:41:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
Thinking hard about it, there must have been multiple reasons for the scattered remains of the 7th, the proposed wounding of Custer perhaps being the first.
Maybe we should start a thread on whether a different battle plan, one that did not divide the forces, could have resulted in a different outcome. Or what might have happened had Benteen been available.
I think Custer, et. al, were on their way to being whupped pretty good,regardless, that coming from a healthy respect for Indian numbers,fighting skills, riding skills, armament and their incredibly pissed off attitude. However, there might have been considerably more survivors via retreat.
Bob I have only visited the battlefield 4 times. The last time with my son only who is interested in the battle. We spent a whole day from opening to closing and then went up Reno Creek road the next day.
For a long time DC has talked about the spurious markers and that one would need to remove them in order to form an opinion. He is correct I believe. The problem is which ones are the spurious ones. No matter where you look a good proportion may be the spurious ones.
AZ Ranger
dc likes to use the word "spurious" when referring to the markers thus, giving the impression that all of the markers are somehow incorrect. Once again, he is wrong. when the markers were placed, the men responsible for doing so neglected to account for the deaths of the soldiers who perished during Reno's "charge" to the bluffs.
As a result, some of the markers were placed in "pair" due to the fact that some of the kill sites were recognized by the scraping of soil from each side of a fallen soldier. later, these depressions were confused by the expectation of two men fallen at a singular spot instead of one.
Ironically, the pattern of the fallen was not disrupted by this schematic. Basically, the pattern rings true.
Joe your scarring me now. Tell me you weren't in charge of investigations at any time.
Spurious not genuine: different from what it is claimed to be, not authentic, or not valid or well-founded.
Please tell how many pairs there were and how many Reno markers were placed on the Custer Battlefield.
"One set, two markers, had no human remains. One set, two markers, was surrounded by the remains of two individuals, one a human and a horse. The remainder contained the remains of only a single individual."
"While the occurrence of the single pair that represented no burial is to rare an occurrence to from which extrapolate, it suggests that the paired markers might account for even more of the spurious markers."
That means we don't know. There are 42 spurious markers. Even at that read Sgt Butler's marker in where Custer Fell and tell us that we know for sure it is correct.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2009 : 8:44:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
[quote]
Terry was alive to share his opinion and I posted it. That is not my opinion against yours. It is you against the man who wrote in his dispatch "The proposed route was not taken but as soon as the trail was struck it was followed" and "but I feel my plan must have been successful had it been carried out, and I desire you to know the facts." finally " He thought, I am sure, that the Indians were running. For fear that they might get away he attacked without getting all his men and divided his command so that they were beaten in detail."
Gee, he used a lot of red paint this time. Benteen, methinks you hit a sore spot. az, Terry wrote what he wrote because Benteen submitted a report where he increased the mileage of each march which encouraged everyone to believe that Custer was a fanatical maniac whose sole driving desire was to kill, kill, kill, injuns even if it meant the death of all his men. ridiculous isn't it. Sadly, a few (like yourself) believe it. I recently posted this information giving the details of benteens lies which I am sure you read.
This information is know,I believe,to the vast majority of earnest students;you of course are the exception. As you earnestly hawk my posts to gather crumbs of minute indiscretions to use against me, I am sure you have read the post I refer to. Yet, you argue with Benteen by screaming in cyber space, "I just posted his opinion" when you must know that the opinion of Terry was tainted.
You do realize that the members of this forum can read, don't you? |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 12:21:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
Thinking hard about it, there must have been multiple reasons for the scattered remains of the 7th, the proposed wounding of Custer perhaps being the first.
Maybe we should start a thread on whether a different battle plan, one that did not divide the forces, could have resulted in a different outcome. Or what might have happened had Benteen been available.
I think Custer, et. al, were on their way to being whupped pretty good,regardless, that coming from a healthy respect for Indian numbers,fighting skills, riding skills, armament and their incredibly pissed off attitude. However, there might have been considerably more survivors via retreat.
The best case scenario would have been an organized retreat. More importantly, i wonder, if there were plans that were ignored or disrregaredunder pressure.
Entering the battle in a combined unit would have made a difference in which way I'm not sure. I'm going to sit down and completate the possibilities. Let's get this thread started folks. Thanks Heavyrunner for suggesting it! |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 2:28:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
[quote]
Terry was alive to share his opinion and I posted it. That is not my opinion against yours. It is you against the man who wrote in his dispatch "The proposed route was not taken but as soon as the trail was struck it was followed" and "but I feel my plan must have been successful had it been carried out, and I desire you to know the facts." finally " He thought, I am sure, that the Indians were running. For fear that they might get away he attacked without getting all his men and divided his command so that they were beaten in detail."
Gee, he used a lot of red paint this time. Benteen, methinks you hit a sore spot. az, Terry wrote what he wrote because Benteen submitted a report where he increased the mileage of each march which encouraged everyone to believe that Custer was a fanatical maniac whose sole driving desire was to kill, kill, kill, injuns even if it meant the death of all his men. ridiculous isn't it. Sadly, a few (like yourself) believe it. I recently posted this information giving the details of benteens lies which I am sure you read.
This information is know,I believe,to the vast majority of earnest students;you of course are the exception. As you earnestly hawk my posts to gather crumbs of minute indiscretions to use against me, I am sure you have read the post I refer to. Yet, you argue with Benteen by screaming in cyber space, "I just posted his opinion" when you must know that the opinion of Terry was tainted.
You do realize that the members of this forum can read, don't you?
Just pointing out in red Terry's words which Benteen stated was my opinion. Terry stated he took responsibility unlike you Joe he was man of honor. He was pointing out the differences between his plan and the failure at LBH.
Joe I left out the part of the mileage for it was an error. That did not effect the comments made by Terry in red.
Only a ignorant person would believe it is opinion "The proposed route was not taken but as soon as the trail was struck it was followed". That is one of the few facts that we are sure of.
So Joe lets next look at:
"He thought, I am sure, that the Indians were running. For fear that they might get away he attacked without getting all his men and divided his command so that they were beaten in detail"
Fact- all 12 companies were not engaged at the same time
Fact- Custer was beaten in detail
Opinion shared by most and this what you disagree with?
"He thought, I am sure, that the Indians were running"
So Joe show what you meant when you said everyone can read and explain to us any error in opinion by Terry in the red portion posted. Everyone can see and read it so show us Joe.
You do realize that the members of this forum can read, don't you?
In your case Joe I have my doubts at least as far as comprehending what you read. Please tell us the difference between believe and believed for instance. I believe that you will not do so as I believed in the past that you have lied. The reason is simple if you admit you understand the difference than you would be admitting that you erred in assessing Benteen's testimony. Instead of admitting you erred on the interpretation of Benteen's testimony you want everyone to accept that believed and believe are the same.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on November 22 2009 3:10:23 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 3:01:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Did he say anything about Custer disobeying the intent of his orders? NOPE, not one word.
"but I feel my plan must have been successful had it been carried out
You would have to argue that it was not Terry's intent to have his orders carried out. You are so far off from my position that I am not sure you understand my point. Custer could deviate at any time he chose and so can other officers. If an officer decides his personal observations have sufficient cause to change the plan they can do it but they must be successful. Notice Terry's uses the word successful.
My position is that a problem developed by being discovered after "The proposed route was not taken but as soon as the trail was struck it was followed" which Terry points out.
Terry accepted responsibility since Custer was dead and it would serve no purpose. Custer could have defended himself for the choices he made but it left the door open when he followed the trail. I don't blame him but it was not the only alternative and was his choice. I see the logic in what he did just not the success.
If success is not a factor in the determination of following orders then the officers I have spoken with our incorrect in their opinions.
Do you think Terry would have written the same thing if Custer succeeded. I think not. I think he would have pointed the leeway that he gave Custer in the order to succeed in the mission.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on November 22 2009 3:12:04 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 5:50:56 PM
|
| az, we all possess at least one dictionary in our homes. Please cease ans desist your juvenile and unnecssary habit of giving definitions. Again, when are you going to act like a 61 year old adult and post credible information on this forum? |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 8:41:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
az, we all possess at least one dictionary in our homes. Please cease ans desist your juvenile and unnecssary habit of giving definitions. Again, when are you going to act like a 61 year old adult and post credible information on this forum?
Please use your dictionary to look up
ans
unnecssary
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 24 2009 : 9:56:58 PM
|
How can you be taken seriously. We are dealing with issue of critical importance regarding the battle. Your teen-age insistence on personalizing every comment is boorish.
If you can't keep up with the big boys, jump off the bus. BUS B-U-S! |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 25 2009 : 08:30:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
How can you be taken seriously. We are dealing with issue of critical importance regarding the battle. Your teen-age insistence on personalizing every comment is boorish.
If you can't keep up with the big boys, jump off the bus. BUS B-U-S!
Your teen-age insistence on personalizing every comment is boorish.
If you can't keep up with the big boys, jump off the bus. BUS B-U-S!
Benteen, methinks you hit a sore spot. az
No buses here - 3 horses, 3 4WD trucks, 1 quad, 2 boats, personal watercraft
You can have the bus Joe - the short yellow one
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 25 2009 : 2:37:57 PM
|
| You have confirmed your inability to post with dignity and decorum. From this point I will respond only adult posts. My time is too important and valuable to waste with children. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 26 2009 : 10:22:46 AM
|
| Are you saying you are not posting any more? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 26 2009 : 10:28:35 AM
|
quote:
"but I feel my plan must have been successful had it been carried out
You would have to argue that it was not Terry's intent to have his orders carried out. You are so far off from my position that I am not sure you understand my point. Custer could deviate at any time he chose and so can other officers. If an officer decides his personal observations have sufficient cause to change the plan they can do it but they must be successful. Notice Terry's uses the word successful.
My position is that a problem developed by being discovered after "The proposed route was not taken but as soon as the trail was struck it was followed" which Terry points out.
Terry accepted responsibility since Custer was dead and it would serve no purpose. Custer could have defended himself for the choices he made but it left the door open when he followed the trail. I don't blame him but it was not the only alternative and was his choice. I see the logic in what he did just not the success.
If success is not a factor in the determination of following orders then the officers I have spoken with our incorrect in their opinions.
Do you think Terry would have written the same thing if Custer succeeded. I think not. I think he would have pointed the leeway that he gave Custer in the order to succeed in the mission.
AZ Ranger
So Joe here is my post and let's look at yours following it.
joe wiggs Posted - November 22 2009 : 5:50:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
az, we all possess at least one dictionary in our homes. Please cease ans desist your juvenile and unnecssary habit of giving definitions. Again, when are you going to act like a 61 year old adult and post credible information on this forum?
joe wiggs Posted - November 24 2009 : 9:56:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you be taken seriously. We are dealing with issue of critical importance regarding the battle. Your teen-age insistence on personalizing every comment is boorish.
If you can't keep up with the big boys, jump off the bus. BUS B-U-S!
joe wiggs Posted - Yesterday : 2:37:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have confirmed your inability to post with dignity and decorum. From this point I will respond only adult posts. My time is too important and valuable to waste with children.
So Joe what exactly is your point again?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on November 26 2009 10:29:42 AM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 26 2009 : 12:05:57 PM
|
Joe, yours of November 22 2009 : 12:21:37 PM
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
Thinking hard about it, there must have been multiple reasons for the scattered remains of the 7th, the proposed wounding of Custer perhaps being the first.
Maybe we should start a thread on whether a different battle plan, one that did not divide the forces, could have resulted in a different outcome. Or what might have happened had Benteen been available.
I think Custer, et. al, were on their way to being whupped pretty good,regardless, that coming from a healthy respect for Indian numbers,fighting skills, riding skills, armament and their incredibly pissed off attitude. However, there might have been considerably more survivors via retreat.
The best case scenario would have been an organized retreat. More importantly, i wonder, if there were plans that were ignored or disrregared under pressure.
Entering the battle in a combined unit would have made a difference in which way I'm not sure. I'm going to sit down and completate the possibilities. Let's get this thread started folks. Thanks Heavyrunner for suggesting it!
Actually Heavyrunner’s observation about the “scattered remains of Custer’s 7th” and Joe’s observations about a “best case scenario would have been an organized retreat”; sound more and more like what Custer was trying to accomplish. From what one can gather from Curley’s observations and Rosser’s statements, as few as they were, some of those companies were trying to get back to Reno’s position. This requires a little thought that would preclude knowing ’first’ where Reno would be retreating to, and/or ‘2nd’ where Benteen was or should have been by the orders given to him. Rosser’s statement places the burden squarely upon Reno’s shoulders, not Benteens, however I’m not one to let Benteen off that hook so easily, simply because of the position Benteen thinks he found himself in when confronting Reno on the hill…’two birds of a feather…’ There were more statements that confirmed Rosser’s statements than would deny, and these came from Benteen’s men and not Reno’s, so the lion’s share here would also have to be equal in nature when it came to the blame game as far as whether Custer and or his men was trying to get back to Reno and/or Benteen.
Finally the reason for the ’blame game’ that went on right after the battle, and Rosser’s being one of the first, exemplifies the fact that, as Joe puts it, “there were plans that were ignored or disregarded under pressure”, one of which was Custer’s very last order to Benteen by Martin. Were there other’s? Of that, one can only state this at this time. If there were orders to Reno to expedite as quickly as possible any junction with Custer downriver, he clearly did not do it. And the last consideration of this would be? If he could not do it, then what should he have done? At no time was Reno in any danger on the bluffs, at no time, until the Indians “came back”. He should have told Benteen to continue, not ’stop’ and ’help’ him, which he clearly did not need at that time any ’help’ whatsoever. And if he did, the pack train and it’s detail were only minutes away, not the hour or two some try to tell us that it was. And there would have been ample help there to assist him, and he could have easily, had he been of a brave state of mind, assisted in extracting some of Custer’s men to safety by sending Benteen and his men on.
|
Edited by - Benteen on November 26 2009 12:06:53 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 26 2009 : 10:24:19 PM
|
The irony is that I think Custer would have disdained any thoughts of retreat. His goal was to break the backs of the recalcitrant Sioux. Certainly during the last minutes of his life he would have given anything to get his men out of there.
Getting trapped on ground unfavorable for a calvary charge is mystifying for a man of his Civil War astuteness unless we consider the failure of Reno and Benteen to respond to his orders an unanticipated part of the equation that spell doom for his command.
Rosser instantly knew, as a veteran of the Civil War, that what occurred to Custer had to be the result of portions of his command to come to his aid. I believe that is was absolutely possible and probable that a combined charge of Benteens' command and Renos' command (sans the wounded and guard for them) would have enabled Custer to charge down the valley and reign havoc on the valley floor. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 27 2009 : 07:19:37 AM
|
Custer did not have to go past where he observed the big village. That was his choice based upon his observations. I believe he did not see the full extent of the village and may have thought that the majority of warriors were engaged with Reno or helping the rest to prepare to flee.
I suspect there were many warriors that could not have been ready in a short time for Reno and they went to bring Custer to battle on the other side of the river away from the village once the got their war gear ready.
On the Custer Battlefield I do not see a retreat by the main body toward the other battalions. It does appear to me that Custer was driven back by the Indians but I don't think it was Custer retreating in an organized retreat of 5 companies.
In a good defensive position the main body with all 5 companies in mutual support of each other should have been able to hold out against the Indians. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 27 2009 : 07:57:27 AM
|
Joe,
quote:
The irony is that I think Custer would have disdained any thoughts of retreat. His goal was to break the backs of the recalcitrant Sioux. Certainly during the last minutes of his life he would have given anything to get his men out of there.
This is where Curley's comments do come in. They do explain this retrograde move, and it happened fairly quickly once the arrived at the river bank.
"unless we consider the failure of Reno and Benteen to respond to his orders an unanticipated part of the equation that spell doom for his command" Then getting trapped, obviously wasn't anticipated either in so short a space of time, or was Benteen's failure greater than we know?
quote:
Rosser instantly knew, as a veteran of the Civil War, that what occurred to Custer had to be the result of portions of his command to come to his aid.
Rosser recognized a great many things from the map that he observed a few days prior to sending that letter. But the greatest achievement was that he did recognize that some of the companies were as he stated it "trying to get back to him" or his position. And if they were trying to do that, then they had to have known where Reno's position was, and vice-versa.
quote:
I believe that is was absolutely possible and probable that a combined charge of Benteens' command and Renos' command (sans the wounded and guard for them) would have enabled Custer to charge down the valley and reign havoc on the valley floor.
I believe that had Reno been in a "brave state of mind" and had let Benteen go on with his orders from Custer, some of Custer's men would have been spared. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 27 2009 : 08:07:59 AM
|
Rosser instantly knew, as a veteran of the Civil War, that what occurred to Custer had to be the result of portions of his command to come to his aid.
Rosser's first letter page 225 The Custer Myth
"It is not safe at this distance, and in the absence of full details,to criticize too closely the conduct of any officer of his command, but I think it quite certain that Gen. Custer had agreed with Reno upon a place of junction in case of repulse of either or both detachments, and instead of a effort being made by Reno for such a junction he took refuge in the hills, and abandoned Custer and his gallant comrades to their fate."
Rosser, Custer's friend, did not instantly know Joe as you write. " Rosser instantly knew, as a veteran of the Civil War, that what occurred to Custer had to be the result of portions of his command to come to his aid" Rosser actually stated "It is not safe at this distance, and in the absence of full details,to criticize too closely the conduct of any officer of his command,"
Then Rosser continues of what he thinks happened. It seems as if Rosser believed at the time the roles were reversed. That Custer was the advance guard and Reno had the main body with 7 companies. He states that "Gen. Custer had agreed with Reno a place of junction in case of repulse of either or both detachments". We all know that Custer had the main body and Reno had only a single battalion. There were two other independent detachments. Benteen on his recon in force blocking the south escape and the pack train with the rear guard. We know that there was no planned junction or there would be no need to for Kanipe or Martin or the messages would be to go the planned junction place.
Reno with the advanced guard had only 3 companies. It is interesting that Rosser does state he thinks there should have been a plan of what to do when repulsed. Did he point out an error on Custer's part or was there a vast conspiracy. That Benteen had to be recalled with his 3 companies and the pack train plus McDougall and the rear guard needed to ordered would indicate to me that the majority of troopers after Reno was repulsed were under no plan by their immediate commanders of a junction point.
Rosser a great civil war officer was thinking as one in my opinion in regards to a junction place. At the time of Reno being sent as the advance guard to bring the warriors to battle the size and exact location was not known.
Even if Custer had chose a junction place does anyone think it would not have been on the same side of the river as the village?
Under what military theory does the advance guard have an obligation to rescue the main body?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 27 2009 : 11:27:37 AM
|
It's fairly silly to value Rosser's comments much above Julia Grant's. He wasn't there, he didn't know squat about what happened, and as any number of incidents proved and remarks by veteran civilian scouts illustrated, experience in the Civil War wasn't all that helpful in the West against the Sioux, anyway. People who insist upon Sioux flanks and command structure and all that do nothing but misinform so they can pose as an authority to someone and discuss a mob action as if it were as precise as Cannae, with Indian units behaving under crisp command.
Rosser was a combat vet on a losing side in a traditional war and knew Custer at the Point, is all. Did he ever see the field? If he referenced the MaGuire map, his uselessness as even a pundit is unmatched.
It's helpful, I would contend, for people to get a sense from reading up on other incidents beyond the LBH to see the normal level of contradictory stories and confusion that attends virtually all of them. Common. What percentage above that adheres to the LBH to justify these often absurd theories of conspiracy and failure to support? Cherry picked testimony (as AZ proves above when he includes Rosser's caveats that render their initial, dubious value utter ether) atop wishful thinking for conversation topics to inflate the poster's self image from the shards of his slander against combat vets. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 27 2009 : 12:32:11 PM
|
DC,
Carl Gustav Jung (b.1875-d.1961) was a Swiss psychiatrist who forged a link between psychology and spirituality. Jung’s idealism in psychiatry and his search within spirituality led him to believe in a force within ourselves he called the “shadow”. Jung’s commitment to the idea, portrayed this shadow as those inferior aspects of the human spirit or soul that we are ashamed of, or not honored to admit. Quite often these are represented within one’s soul as a desire of conscience guilt or of an overwhelming desire to be frowned upon by their peers. These by long evolution, involving known and unknown inferior aspects of one’s own self, produces the ego of that individual. The repression or expression within the environment of the unconscious mind all playing an equal role. Usually this shadow ego takes on bizarre and/or unhealthy interest & pursuits in all forms and manifestations of incivility. When this persons ego is challenged; repressed thoughts, memories, feelings and ideas of the shadow rises to the surface through the crevices of the imaginative sense, and manifests itself in demented and tormented ways. The mind’s hidden part: that part of the mind which contains memories, thoughts, feelings, and ideas that the person is not usually aware of in a conscious state, manifest themselves in dreams and dissociated acts and is then absorbed into consciousness, and for some who are quite deranged, they recognize the nature of their own evil, and only would admit to backing down, recanting or even seek absolution in the face of “absolute evil”.
These people who let their shadow guide their every thought, word and deed feel the overwhelming desire and need to project their mental instability upon others. Usually this manifest itself in various unorthodox issues of morality and civility. They despise innovative idealism because it pushes their buttons: They feel it distorts and fragments the subject portrayed by any new innovative idealism simply because it threatens their own deranged mind. The Shadow grips their persona, and they are not even remotely aware of its entranced hold upon them. Their perverse impulses are all truth and righteousness for them, it is their religion. In their mind they are the Majestic Leader of “anything” & “everything” - “all seeing & all knowing”: And any other who does not believe the same as they do, & does not act or speak the same as they do needs to be “eradicated” as they are adjudged by him as being “evil“, ie. has committed some “evil act“ by word or deed. Jung knew that these “alleged evils” that those possessed with the shadow, observed in other normal people, were nothing more than their own evil impulses of their deranged mind. They arbitrate the power of the shadow with an unhinged charisma that sways a great many otherwise ordinary normal people into committing morally unthinkable, ethically unspeakable acts, words and deeds on those they project. “Whenever self-righteousness and hate combine“, Jung said, “the shadow is being projected by the hater onto the hated.”
|
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 27 2009 : 1:38:24 PM
|
Oh Hell, this whole thing sounds like someone I actually know! "The shadow is being projected by the hater onto the hated" has a significant significance. It explains so much including issues that have come before us. Ergo, the intense anger for "normal people."
"All seeing & all knowing" is a monumental testimony to a monumental ego whose appetite for Majesty (where none exist)includes the media which (according to Indian lore)like land and the sky can never be really owned by anyone. One thing is for sure, Mother Earth was better off when this lore was true.
Despising "innovation because it pushes their buttons" has been so apparent and obvious on this forum at to be absolutely stunning.
Benteen, could you do some additional research and ascertain if their is any hope for people like you described. I kinda feel sorry for people who are trapped in such a dismal,cloudy,absolute zone of inequity |
Edited by - joe wiggs on November 27 2009 1:42:36 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Battlefield Surround, Custer's Fight Opens
