| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 28 2003 : 1:44:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster2321
As to the orders, you could be correct. But what coldly objective participant source relates two orders tO FETTERMAN which was the original issue. I think only the Mrs. Powell is another issue. Fetterman is still an ignorant moron.
A lot of the testimony taken by the Sanborn Commission on the Fetterman Massacre is available on the web at http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/index.htm#fpk
In his testimony, Lt. Alexander Wands describes the repeated orders, though I can't say if he'd qualify as "coldly objective" --- he was Carrington's aide, if that bears on it. (He also gives an account of the Crazy Woman Fork fight, for the guy who was asking about that).
R. Larsen
|
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 2:02:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pjsolla
Larsen: Whatever Red Cloud's methods, he carried them out, on a regular basis. Hit and run, hit and run. From what I have read, he was going to keep cutting away at livestock, woodcutters, etc. until he reduce the command substantially. Where is it written? Nowhere.
But these "methods" were done by ALL Indians. Seminole, Sioux, Cheyenne, Apache, Pequot, etc. etc. etc. Why would they need Red Cloud to tell them to do this?
quote:
But you have to look at his actions and try surmize what he was trying to do. It's strictly reading the record and trying to make some sense out of it, same as you and all the rest. It's like you accepting Bradleys account of the killed and wounded at the Hayfield fight.
Well, I wouldn't say I "accept" Bradley's account. I just find it a lot more reasonable and probably closer to the truth than some of the other crazy figures that sometimes get put out.
quote:
But from what I read, Red Cloud did exercise a "fair" amount of input into what their actions would be.
No doubt. He was a respected chief. But chiefs in Indian culture didn't have that much clout, and maybe had *direct* influence over a couple dozen warriors. I think Red Cloud's role was probably more as a cheerleader and adviser, than chessmaster.
quote:
And DC: I think Carringtons repeat of the orders "twice" to Fetterman was because he knew Fetterman was going to ignore him and he wanted to reinforce what he wanted done. Almost akin to a kindergarten teacher repeating orders to students. Carrington knew Fetterman was going to try and subvert his orders. How do I know? I have to assume. Why have your adjutant run to the gate to reinforce orders "again". Simple. You have a gut feeling that "this officer" has intentions of ignoring what you said.
Then it begs the question why Carrington sent Fetterman in the first place. What kind of officer puts a guy he has no confidence in in charge of 80 men?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster2321
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 2:22:27 PM
|
Look at it this way. The Seventh Cavalry under Custer at the Wa****a, considered by all to be the biggest defeat to the plains Indians ever, in 1866, catching an entire village asleep, was able to kill about 150 people and capture 150 more. Custer outnumbered the village, although he feels that he was outnumbered 3 to one when the "twelve miles of continuous village" made menacing gestures afterwards.
So, our best unit can only inflict 300 casualties. Double it, as Custer was wont to do. 600 dead, wounded, captured if you catch them asleep and count babies.
But at the Wagon Box 3000 led by Crazy Horse against 34 terrified guys....... |
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 2:50:28 PM
|
Larsen: Your right, ALL the Indians did participate. I see Red Cloud as the central figure and a certain amount of acquiesence was afforded to him. Maybe respect is a better description. Overall I see a large degree of "cohesion" amongst the Indians. Maybe they didn't put it under a microscope as we discuss it, but it appears to be what I call a "tacit" approval by all tribes to "work" with Red Cloud. Otherwise I see nothing but mass confusion amongst them.
Regarding Carringtons' removal of Powell and letting Fetterman have his way? I hate to simplify it, nor is it meant to denigrate Carrington, but it boils down to "intimidation". Carrington appears to have been reluctant to take on Fetterman. At least at this particular time. Though I think Fetterman was a thorn in Carringtons side from the moment he arrived. If you remember early on, Fetterman wanted to do some sort of "stakeout" in the woods. Carrington was against it but let Fetterman do it anyways. Turns out the Indians hit from opposite the site Fetterman was at. From the getgo, Carrington was reluctant to engage Fetterman. Alas, this ultimately led to Fetterman taking charge of the unit on Dec. 21. Not Carringtons wishes, but he backed down. You just never know what goes on in someones mind with certain confrontations.
Reminds me of all those fighters Mike Tyson met early on. Almost every one folded in one or two rounds. They were totally "intimidated" by him. And some of these guys were prior heavyweight champions or top contenders. He just instilled fear in all of them. I am just drawing a parallell. Carrington was intimidated by Fetterman! And you are well versed on your material. When you go thru some of it, the die is cast. Fetterman, to a degree, "bullied" Carrington.
And DC: As I said, we try to reconcile the numbers with "common sense". Sounds pretty outlandish though 3000 to 34. I must admit that. But even 1000 is a lot. Whatever the numbers, these guys held out. Sheer tenacity, reilable firearms, I don't know. However, they survived. And like I have said before, the written record is so replete with contracdictions. Gets very frustrating.
It's like Larsen says, Bradley makes the most sense to him. Thus, he can reconcile certain aspects of another engagement. However, Bradley may not fall in line with your thinking or mine (just an example), so we tend to not accept it. It is a never ending task. But, with constant input from everybody, dissenting of views, we put all the material together and maybe come up with some different conclusions. And maybe not. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 5:41:07 PM
|
| The amusing thing about the Fetterman Fight was the wood train they were sent to relieve came in on its own safely. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 31 2003 : 12:43:32 AM
|
 El Crab, I guess it's only amusing that the original wood train came in under its own power and unmolested because every Indian north of Ft. Phil and east of the Bighorns and south of Goose Creek were engaged in the act of wiping out the hapless Fetterman and his men, even though there is one on this board who suggests it could've just been 50 to 200 Indians who dispatched Fetterman, while the other several hundred stayed at home under their buffalo robes and awaited the outcome of this well planned ambush. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster2321
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 31 2003 : 12:39:07 PM
|
Yes, if you're willing to believe that the Indians conspired to await the correct snow and weather conditions and that the right (wrong) officer would lead and disobey orders and this was planned well in advance to bring a thousand plus warriors from disparate locations hundreds of miles apart to achieve this goal, fine.
Except for the fact that Fetterman blundered, this was a normal day. The woodtrain was just about ALWAYS attacked and the Indians ALWAYS waved their genitalia at their enemies and ran off but until Fetterman NOBODY had been stupid enough to fall for it. The Sioux did nothing different today; the Army broke with what had become a cherished tradition of response and followed. Normally, they would have escorted the train in.
I don't know how many Indians there were and neither does anyone; I do know it wouldn't have taken many to accomplish what happened. Couple of hundred would have done it, but five hundred is a likely ballpark. Could have been more, but feeding 2500 ponies in snow in close proximity for a long amount of time is problematic and so is feeding all those people. |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 31 2003 : 2:40:54 PM
|
 2321: Yeah, I am dumb enough to believe that this was a well- planned attack. I don't think you give the Indians enough respect to believe that they were able to band together for a simple plan as this. Of course they attacked the wood train almost daily, the haycutters, stole cattle, killed poor old Ridgeway Glover or anyone else caught out by themselves. But are you saying it's just a coinicidence that they had, let's take your figure of 500 warriors secreted on both sides of Fetterman Ridge? Are you saying that every time they attacked the woodcutters they had 500 or so warriors hidden a couple miles away just in case some stupid officer gave chase? They were hidden there on a daily basis? Why shucks, they could barely get them together for concerted effort on a frequent basis, but you're saying they must've carried out this plan almost daily until it worked, that 500+ warriors sat around in the snow patiently waiting for Crazy Horse to lead some troopers their way? Okay. As for the perfect snow and perfect weather, I'm not sure what you mean. I'd think the less snow, the better, as their bronze skin wouldn't show up as much. I always wonderered how the heck you could hide so many Injuns there and not be seen, especially in the snow, but after driving up and down the adjoining road and walking the ridge several times, I could see how it was possible. Forage for 2500 ponies? I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't their main camp about where present day Sheridan is? It's only about 15 miles or a little more. I think except for attacks such as on Fetterman and the one a little earlier and the Wagon Box fight that most of them were in camp and only enough were in the immediate vicinity of the fort and woodcutters to give them problems with minor skirmishes. No way would I think you'd have 1000 warriors hanging around there every day, despite the weather. Getting off track just a little--boy, that never happens on this forum--when I was there with a buddy last year for the Bozeman Trail/Ft. Phil Kearney days, a local realtor from Buffalo and who is on the board or committe took us up into the Sullivant Hills. If you've been to the fort and you look at the hills, you'll see the silhouettes of the three mounted Indians? From looking at the Sullivant Hills from the fort, it looks kind of like a peak, but when you get up there, it's a wide, rolling plateau that is quite large. There's a hodgepodge of homes being built up there, especially towards the west overlooking the wagon box site. I never heard this before, but he took us to two places up there where there were a couple of soldiers manning positions to overlook the fort and the woodcutting road. There's what almost look like foxholes with some rocks and stones built up, very small area, enough for two men. It occurred to me what lonely, terrifying duty that must've been to be up there, just two of you, with another such post several hundred yards away, and you're toast if any warriors came by. It's something to see. We also went to the blockhouses, which were quite some distance from the wagon box site. So, no, I never pictured 2500 Indians consistently roaming around in the immediate area of the fort. Bottom line, 2321, is I have to disagree with you. YeahI do believe it was a planned ambush by the Indians, and yeah, I do believe there were, just for the sake of argument I'll take your figure of 500 Indians, although I believe it was over 1000, and yeah, I think they sent a messenger to the fort beforehand requesting that Fetterman and Brown lead this relief. Okay, maybe not that part. Just admit it, they planned it, Fetterman took the bait, they executed it. It's really okay to admit the Indians occasionally could formulate and execute a plan.  |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster2321
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 31 2003 : 3:32:59 PM
|
And it's really okay to admit that Indians could sometimes beat the Army one to one, without much thought, but some never will. What I'm saying is far less derogatory than what you are. And while I'm not sure what we're supposed to make of your bronze skin and snow issue, it does call into question the whole scenario as previously recounted.
Was it a planned ambush at all or just an ongoing set piece? Or were the Sioux's usual suspects hanging around as they always did to see if something developed and standing slack jawed at Fetterman's stupidity and then Crazy Horse wonders aloud 'let's just see how dumb these guys ARE?' A thin line of soldiers is such an easy target.
No Army officer wanted to report that his troops were slaughtered by a nearly equal bunch of Indians even if were true. They had to have been cleverly 'tricked' by savage guile, or betrayed, or outgunned. The official story makes small sense. It wasn't an 80 odd man contingent in reality, it was several small groups under different officers with stragglers and idiots rushing ahead that split into smaller groups in panic in a twenty minute or less period. I have no evidence, but I suspect small groups of five and ten were set upon sequentially. I have no proof that a couple of hundred Indians could have done it, but I see no reason why not.
The Sioux were not Rambo leaping from the ground (and I didn't know about the Sullivant Hill blockhouses which must have been the equivilant of death duty. If they ever DID see Indians, nobody could make it to the fort in time. Apparently they weren't in use that day?) I too have been on the field and I saw nothing to threaten either one of our theories, and we don't know what growing lumber is missing now. But they were on the Bozeman, it looks like, and mounted men were dead ducks and the infantry too slow and ill-equipped to constructivly play a role.
Could have been a trap, but they'd been doing this for a long time and nobody took the bait and they couldn't have had any expectation that day would be much different, could they? Given the key to their trap was Fetterman (Success Secret #405: Make Sure Your Opponent is a Moron. That'll be fity bucks. Do I bill you or is this cash?). |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 01 2003 : 01:33:36 AM
|
| 2321: Bill me or cash: Neither. Give me credit. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2003 : 01:40:40 AM
|
From what I've read, its possible the key to the trap was Brown or Grummond, whichever one was in charge of the cavalry. Fetterman is said to have made the choice to follow them, after they chased the decoys.
It had to have been a trap. I don't think it was more than 300 warriors or so. It very well could have been less. But I think it had to be at least 2x what Fetterman had, otherwise some of the cavalryman who ran past or away from the infantrymen. But it definitely was a plan of some kind. It might have been something they just thought of. But its pretty clear some decoys came to draw some soldiers out of the fort and towards a larger party of waiting Sioux. It had to be a trap, considering the soldiers said they taunted them in English. Mooning is one thing, but I doubt many Sioux knew how to say "come out and fight, you sonsabitches". Again, that could have been made up to ridiculously explain why the soldiers chased them instead of moving to aid the woodtrain, but I doubt it. It was basically the only tactic most Plains Indians tried. Rather like the Zulus, who only knew how to attack in the "horn" formation. They didn't even play defense, but were slaughtered like buffalo after an attack faltered. They just turned their backs and ran. Sound familiar?
I've also read that the warriors almost blew the surprise because of anxiousness. I don't think it was an intricately crafted plan, ordered by Red Cloud and directed from a highpoint by the chief himself. But I do believe the decoys were to try and lure a group of eager soldiers into a trap. And we all know when Indians stand up and fight, they are almost always sure they have superior numbers. Though it is possible that it was basically one v. one odds, since the cavalry got there first, panicked, retreated and the infantry chasing suddenly found itself chasing the horsemen the other way. And if they saw the cavalry, who undoubtedly left a few corpses behind, running like hell back to the fort, they probably weren't too infused with bravery. Especially considering they had muzzleloaders, and were not at a distance to fire them over and over. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2003 : 02:36:51 AM
|
The odds were never an issue. Fetterman had said, "give me 80 men and I will defeat all of them", or something to that nature. The mindset was already in play. Did Fetterman follow Grummond or did Grummond follow Fetterman becomes the issue? Fetterman always felt he could defeat any number of Indians, no matter the odds.
And I have no idea what the odds were. I am still reading transcripts, etc. to try and ascertain that aspect of it. Though with what happened and how it happend, I am inclined to view the 1000 warrior mark as a reality. I don't know if 80 cavalrymen and infantry would have balked at a few hundred Indians. Numbers going into 500-1000 could cause some worry. And the figure of 2000-3000??? Run like hell!
How these numbers climb is beyond me. Though as one poster has said, to show that a smaller number of Indians defeated a combined cavalry/infantry does not bode well with the powers and public.
But, so goes the written record. Which is why we all stay at the forum sites Constantly go over this stuff and wait and see if somebody comes up with something. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2003 : 02:39:59 AM
|
| Well, its been said that many of the soldiers with Fetterman were pretty green. A few hundred warriors suddenly surrounding them might have caused them to panic, especially if you're an infantryman, tired from trudging through the snow, up til now chasing the cavalrymen who just ran past you. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2003 : 07:06:16 AM
|
Larsen: Lt. Wands says in his testimony that he gave his orders not to go beyond Lodge Trail Ridge twice to Grummond. Then Col. Carrington repeated it to Grummond a third time when he was outside the gate. Wands never mentions giving the order not to cross Lodge Trail Ridge to Fetterman. Actually Wands says "not to cross the bluffs".
So, did Carrington NEVER give the order to go beyond LTR to Fetterman? I have a hard time seeing Wands forget this important piece of info during testimony. He was quite clear on everything else.
And Carrington on the other hand is emphatic about having given the order not to cross to Fetterman. This puts quite a different spin on things. Now the question becomes, was Fetterman aware of Carringtons orders not to cross LTR? If not, is that the reason he headed in that direction early on. Though he had already joined with Grummonds troops when this movement began. Now we have to ask, did Grummond advise Fetterman of Carringtons orders NOT to go over the bluffs? We will never know.
But, to fault Fetterman at this point, knowing that Wands has not mentioned anything about those very important, but specific orders, crys foul!
Did Wands forget he gave those orders to Fetterman and forgot to mention them? His testimony is quite detailed. I have a hard time thinking he forgot. He knew he gave the order twice to Grummond.
Comments anybody?? This will put Fetterman in a different light if there is nothing else to reinforce Carringtons testimony. Though we know of Fettermans temperment and he was hell bent on killing Indians.
I am wondering, did Grummond advise him not to cross the ridge? Quite funny that upon effecting a joining of Grummond and Fetterman, they immediately headed for the ridge. Ya gotta wonder what was said! Possibly, "screw Carrington, lets go get some Indians?"
If anyone has further info on these orders, lets hear from you. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2003 : 5:49:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pjsolla
The odds were never an issue. Fetterman had said, "give me 80 men and I will defeat all of them", or something to that nature.
This comment is not really directed at you, but rather at the story of the alleged Fetterman quip "With 80 men I can ride through the whole Sioux nation," or variants thereof. It's usually repeated just as is, with no hint of where or when it was said.
Anyway, it is fairly obvious that the story of this quip originated from a plan Fetterman and others had of leading a force of 100 men --- half soldiers, half civilians ---- in a winter raid on an Indian camp believed to be at the Tongue River. In a memorial address Carrington delivered in 1908 to commemorate the Fetterman Massacre monument that was put up there, Carrington left no doubt of this in his own version of the quote: "I can take eighty men and go to Tongue River." This is also a lot less outrageous than the pulp version of ".....the whole Sioux nation," which I think originated with one of the Carrington wives and probably has its basis in gossip. I doubt it's actually historical.
Another reason people like repeating the "80 men" quote is because of its delicious irony. Fetterman said he could do it with just 80 men, and lo and behold, he had 80 men that day! People love this sort of stuff, and it pops up elsewhere. I think there's a similar story about Lt. Grattan. But since the PLAN asked for 100 men, I doubt Fetterman actually said 80 at the time ---- and that the current quote is a result of post-Massacre hindsight and good-story-making.
My opinion, and let me make clear that it is only that, is that sometime in December 1866 Fetterman told Carrington, "I can take one hundred men and go to Tongue River," or words to that effect. I am skeptical he ever said, "With 80 men I can ride through the whole Sioux Nation," or something similarly sensational.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2003 : 6:23:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pjsolla
Larsen: Lt. Wands says in his testimony that he gave his orders not to go beyond Lodge Trail Ridge twice to Grummond. Then Col. Carrington repeated it to Grummond a third time when he was outside the gate. Wands never mentions giving the order not to cross Lodge Trail Ridge to Fetterman. Actually Wands says "not to cross the bluffs".
So, did Carrington NEVER give the order to go beyond LTR to Fetterman? I have a hard time seeing Wands forget this important piece of info during testimony. He was quite clear on everything else.
Fetterman did not receive any repeated orders (he left some time before Grummond & the cavalry). According to Carrington, he verbally delivered these orders to Fetterman: "Support the wood train. Relieve it and report to me. Do not engage or pursue Indians at its expense. Under no circumstances pursue over the ridge, viz., Lodge Trail Ridge, as per map in your possession." Although this conversation was witnessed by others, nobody is known to have been close enough to have heard what was said. Carrington is our sole source.
quote:
And Carrington on the other hand is emphatic about having given the order not to cross to Fetterman. This puts quite a different spin on things. Now the question becomes, was Fetterman aware of Carringtons orders not to cross LTR? If not, is that the reason he headed in that direction early on. Though he had already joined with Grummonds troops when this movement began. Now we have to ask, did Grummond advise Fetterman of Carringtons orders NOT to go over the bluffs? We will never know.
But, to fault Fetterman at this point, knowing that Wands has not mentioned anything about those very important, but specific orders, crys foul!
Well, if what Carrington said was accurate, then I don't think Fetterman should have needed to have been told twice (or thrice). The guy had been a soldier for years and shouldn't have needed to be treated like a know-nothing shavetail.
quote:
Did Wands forget he gave those orders to Fetterman and forgot to mention them? His testimony is quite detailed. I have a hard time thinking he forgot. He knew he gave the order twice to Grummond.
The historical record is very clear that Fetterman's orders were given only by Carrington. Wands doesn't seem to have forgotten anything.
quote:
Comments anybody?? This will put Fetterman in a different light if there is nothing else to reinforce Carringtons testimony. Though we know of Fettermans temperment and he was hell bent on killing Indians.
I am wondering, did Grummond advise him not to cross the ridge? Quite funny that upon effecting a joining of Grummond and Fetterman, they immediately headed for the ridge. Ya gotta wonder what was said! Possibly, "screw Carrington, lets go get some Indians?"
If anyone has further info on these orders, lets hear from you.
Well, although I have suggested earlier in this thread that Fetterman may not have provided the *impetus* for the disaster, I think it's clear that since he was the man in command, he naturally bears ultimate responsibility for what happened. Whatever choices he made, he obviously screwed up some of them.
The only book I've seen people mention on Fetterman is Dee Brown's. That is only a popular account, and doesn't go into all that much detail. By far the best thing written on the Fetterman Massacre is a chapter in Jesse Wendel Vaughn's "Indian Fights: New Facts on Seven Encounters." It examines in detail the testimony of the encounter, reports the artifact discoveries Vaughn made on the field, reprints several important documents on the subject ........ it's really the only good quality thing ever published on it. Vaughn, for what it's worth, believes that certain inconsistencies in the testimony suggest that Carrington may have actually ordered Fetterman to attack the Indians. I'm skeptical of this, since there are inconsistencies in *every* collection of eyewitness accounts about anything, but anyway, that's what Vaughn thought could have possibly happened. There's no real direct evidence to support it. Vaughn's piece is not a conspiracy rag though, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in this.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2003 : 6:23:43 PM
|
I'm going to have to research this a little more, re-read stuff I haven't turned to in years. While we are encouraged to question,I wonder why everything has to be rehashed. For instance, why all the controversy over Fetterman's alleged claim,"With 80 men I can ride through the whole Sioux nation," and then by some circumstance he wound up with 80 men. If Wheatly and Fisher hadn't joined him and he'd have wound up with 78, would it make a difference? If he'd have said, "With 100 men, I could ride through the entire Sioux Nation," would you then be questioning: 100? Why not 80? It goes on and on. As for how many warriors he was up against, I'm still going with the 500-1000. One thing I'd like to look up is Tyn Eck's reports of his encounter of an attempt to being drawn into the fight when he went to render help or recover the bodies and backed away. Someone mentioned the taunts being thrown out,I don't know if you meant taunts to Fetterman or not, but I know there were taunts hollered at Tyn Eck. As to Carrington's orders to Fetterman, did Grummond or Wands or anyone else relay them to Fetterman? While it would've reinforced Carrington's orders, who gives a Wa****a? He gave him the orders initially. A soldier is supposed to follow orders the first time and not pick and choose which ones he wants to carry out. They're orders; not guidelines, such as, well, maybe I'll do that this time. I know, someone even questioned that. Do you think Carrington said, "Gee, just go drive the savages away"? without the admonition, especially in view of what'd happened to Grummond earlier? Was the statement made to Custer, "Now, George, save some Indians for us"? Why not dissect that to death too? Maybe it was a Custer hater who related that statement to make GAC look bad. Maybe that darned old Benteen made it up. Did Caesar say to Brutus, "Et tu, Brute?" (Forgive my spelling.) Who says he said that? Maybe he said, "What the heck, Brutus?" While questioning is good, do you see how rediculous all this disecting can be carried to rediculous extremes? Are we sure the general, during WWII, when asked about surrendering really said, "Nuts"? or is that just good drama? Were you there? ANYTHING that's ever been uttered that is quotable can be questioned. Well, in view of all y'all's questinion, I'll see you in a week or so after I've done some re-reading. Bye. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - September 02 2003 : 7:09:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
I'm going to have to research this a little more, re-read stuff I haven't turned to in years. While we are encouraged to question,I wonder why everything has to be rehashed. For instance, why all the controversy over Fetterman's alleged claim,"With 80 men I can ride through the whole Sioux nation," and then by some circumstance he wound up with 80 men. If Wheatly and Fisher hadn't joined him and he'd have wound up with 78, would it make a difference? If he'd have said, "With 100 men, I could ride through the entire Sioux Nation," would you then be questioning: 100? Why not 80? It goes on and on
I think it's every historian's job to clear out, if possible, the pulp and muck that may surround reality. I don't think the quip is very important myself, but a lot of people apparently do, since it's quoted in every account of the battle, and it has been repeated several times already in this thread, sometimes in support of an argument or point. When this is done, the pulp version is invariably used, while Carrington's more prosaic version in 1908 (which is a lot more grounded in reality than the other, since we know that Fetterman had indeed proposed this plan) is ignored.
Bad history deserves to be countered, or have its weaknesses exposed. I don't know if that makes much of a difference, but it's something that has to be done. Otherwise we're stuck with myths.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster2321
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - September 03 2003 : 1:05:07 PM
|
And this brings us back to the fact that the 2nd Mrs. Carrington, then Mrs. Grummund(?), insists she heard Carrington give the order loudly so everyone could hear.....twice maybe.
Maybe she didn't like her then husband and was always grateful to Carrington for removing that curse from her. In any event, she and Wand can't both be correct. She didn't testify under oath, as I recall, either.
Given all the inter-relationships within the 7th cavalry, it had to have played its role just as it apparently did here. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster2455
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2003 : 01:34:08 AM
|
Hello everyone who has resonded to this thread so far. I know I'm a month late, but I just stumbled on to your conversation and I just have to respond. My Masters' Thesis was written on the Fetterman Fight. I'm totally blown away by this thread and the articulate discussion. I hope you will find my ideas stimulating. My 4 years of research supports the following:
#1 - No primary sources support Carrington's claim that he gave explicit orders multiple times DIRECTLY to Fetterman not to cross Lodge Trail Ridge. Certainly Frances Grummond Carrington was not out in the front gate area and heard the orders herself as she later claimed in her book written 40 years later. Wands’ (officer of the day) testimony supports Carrington’s detailed and repeated orders to GRUMMOND, but no one heard the orders given to Fetterman. In fact, Wands stated that the orders he passed on to Grummond were to “tell Fetterman”—not remind him—not to cross the ridge. Powell said he saw Carrington in conversation with Fetterman as he prepared his infantry detachment, but he did not hear what orders or instructions were given. In addition, if Carrington’s orders were to go directly to the wood train to support and relieve it, Fetterman immediately disobeyed them. Witnesses are uncharacteristically unanimous about the fact that Fetterman did not proceed west to the wood train—he went northeast directly toward the southern end of Lodge Trail Ridge. Grummond caught up to him about a half mile out. Much more on this but I won't go in to it.
#2 - No primary sources support Carrington's claim that Fetterman INSISTED on taking the relief mission that Carrington had just assigned to Powell. Wands wasn't exactly a Carrington supporter, but he wasn't Bisbee or Powell (who clearly despised Carrington), and as officer of the day his testimony carries a lot of water. He did not ever mention that Carrington offered the command to Powell and Fetterman "insisted by rank" to take the relief mission. Nor did Powell EVER claim that he was offered the relief mission.
#3 - No primary sources support Carrington's claim that Fetterman said "give me 80 men and I'll..." or any other flavor of the infamous statement attributed to him. This claim was fabricated and egregiously embellished over time to help the beleagured colonel Carrington protect his reputation. General of the Army Ulysses S. Grant was caught in the middle of the political intrigue of Andrew Johnson's presidency and could not afford for the army to look bad so he "allowed" Carrington to take the fall. Carrington's first official report (sent about a week after the catastrophe when the weather broke) didn't even emphasize Fetterman's arrogance or disobedience. He was distraught over the disaster and pointed the finger entirely at his superior (General Philip St. George Cooke - J.E.B. Stuart's father-in-law) and army headquarters for their total lack of support. My Masters Thesis traces the origin and evolution of the "give me 80 men" statement and it originated (as one of the posters on this thread pointed out) in some officers' fantasies to take about 100 men out to attack the Sioux camps on the Toungue River. The documentary trail has Brown fantasizing about this and perhaps requesting Carrington to endorse the idea - and Fetterman is standing in the background when Carrington points out that the army had less than 3 dozen servicable horses and the mission was virtually impossible at that time (which Fetterman and every other intelligent officer knew).
#4 - Grummond was the idiot. Not Fetterman. Grummond was a Great Lakes sailor who fell in love with horses and mounted infantry during the Civil War. He was also publicly reprimanded for disobeying orders and causing a Union loss and for being incompetent as a commander. He was also a bigamist - he left his pregnant wife and 2-year-old son in Detroit and then courted a young southern belle in Tennessee who ended up marrying him and following him to the frontier where he continued his recklessness and was killed less than 3 months later. Vaughn's OUTSTANDING battlefield analysis, including a detailed time-versus-distance analysis, clearly shows that Fetterman marched his green footsoldiers into a horrific ongoing battle after Grummond and the 27 mounted men dashed over Lodge Trail Ridge.
I could go on and on about all the evidence that supports Fetterman was a FAR better officer and gentleman than history has portrayed (how many of you wrote "moron" and other such descriptors just like Dee Brown and the many other brilliant (and I do mean that seriously) historians! :-) - but the above evidence isn't even the crux of my thesis. The fact is that two women, Carrington's 1st and 2nd wives were able to publish books that portrayed Fetterman negatively in order to deflect blame from their husband. William T. Sherman is even a player in this whole snow job. The reason the women could do this is that men (particularly army men) were too chivalrous in this era of Victorian sensibilities to publicly challenge a woman's account. Sherman even sent a support letter to Carrington's 1st wife upon publication of her book while he was at the same time calling for a military court of inquiry into her husband.
Oh, and if I haven't freaked you all out enough here's one last thing: even die-hard military scholars are forced to agree that the Sioux Alliance (directed, if not formally commanded in the Euro-American sense, by Red Cloud) had a definite military strategy. They conducted reconnaissance (sent spies into the fort and did drive-by attacks to gage enemy strength), they had a detailed battle plan (supported by multiple distinct oral lines of history from the several different bands of Lakota, N. Cheyenne, and N. Arapahoe, among others). The logistics and management of the camps along the Tongue River also demonstrate a sophisticated level of military planning and strategy. The camps (documented by Jim Bridger, several Crow Scouts and other unique sources) represented a population that was larger than the city of Omaha at the time. Feeding the people and livestock and controlling the warriors and coordinating meetings and destinations among many different bands and sub-groups required a level of sophistication far above the happy-go-lucky strike-and-retreat haphazard attacks that have been credited to the Sioux Alliance.
I hope I don't come off as snitty or pedantic - I really don't mean to, I am absolutely thrilled to read all of your cool posts about Fetterman vs. Custer - and know that many of you agree with me that this was a phenomenal event. My manuscript on this topic was recently accepted by University of Nebraska Press after being "blind reviewed" by multiple scholars (military, western, native american, and women's historians) who all were incredibly positive about the evidence turning this story on its ear. Hope you'll all be interested and if I haven't bored you to tears I'll share more about my thesis and sources. Have a great day. -HistoryChick |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster2321
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2003 : 09:15:31 AM
|
That's interesting. Would love to read the complete work.
How were the winter camps in the area distinguished that year from any other year, insofar as communications and provisioning?
Who/what are "die-hard" military scholars? Trained historians experienced in military combat, learned in the ways of the Sioux? And who were they?
The Sioux have many distinct oral lines of history of dubious value: they also claim they've owned the Black Hills 'forever.' This was news to the previous inhabitants.
Bridger and scouts could prove the Toungue hosted villages equalling Omaha in population? How many miles did the villages stretch, was this unusual, and what was the population of 1868 Omaha, anyway, including the Army post? How many other western rivers could say as much?
Did the Indians do anything particularly different that day that they hadn't done before? Or was the only difference that someone fell for it? How does this strategy differ from what they did elsewhere, or ever, to whites or other tribes, or they to them?
So, if Fetterman was in charge, and you say he clearly did not obey Carrington's orders, directly given or relayed by Grummund, then why is the sobriquet of "idiot" released from his brow? Was it wise or useful to lead 50 odd foot soldiers in snow after Sioux? Why did he not keep Grummund nearby and in communication? Why did he not rescue the train, the entire point of the mission? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2003 : 1:42:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster2455
I hope I don't come off as snitty or pedantic - I really don't mean to, I am absolutely thrilled to read all of your cool posts about Fetterman vs. Custer - and know that many of you agree with me that this was a phenomenal event. My manuscript on this topic was recently accepted by University of Nebraska Press after being "blind reviewed" by multiple scholars (military, western, native american, and women's historians) who all were incredibly positive about the evidence turning this story on its ear. Hope you'll all be interested and if I haven't bored you to tears I'll share more about my thesis and sources. Have a great day. -HistoryChick
I'd certainly be interested in reading your thesis. Is it going to be published by the University of Nebraska anytime soon, or if not, would there be some other avenue towards getting a copy?
I didn't know that Grummond had had such a controversial Civil War record. The standard books usually gloss over that period by merely describing him as one of those gallant "boy generals" ---- I believe he got the rank in one of those volunteer militias ---- though I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that he established that kind of pattern of behavior well before he came to fight Indians.
We like talking about Fetterman here, so by all means, stir up the discussion.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2003 : 2:51:07 PM
|
| I enjoyed your post, and am very interested in reading your thesis and the time-motion of the Fetterman fight. Where can we find these sources? Maybe everything I've read about Fetterman is wrong. Its very possible. But to this point, I'd yet to have read a single source that indicated Fetterman wasn't a moron, that he wasn't arrogant and that he wasn't to blame for his "massacre". At least with Custer, for every "Custer: Arrogant Glory-Hunter" book, there's a "Custer: Talented Officer" book. No such ratio exists in the Fetterman genre, if you can even call it that. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2003 : 12:44:18 AM
|
History Chick: Man, or lady, am I glad you posted this instead of me. Your thesis flies in the face of everything I and probably most everyone else has ever read, so get ready. You've seen from the posts of the anonymous gang you'll have to prove everything you said or you'll be compared to some other doofus in some ludicrous parade army hat getting all misty-eyed over the subject.
If your thesis can be proven, it turns the whole Fetterman fight upside down. At this point I have to disagree with you, only because I'm going with what I've read over the years from Dee Brown to other accounts. But I'm sure open to listen and would also love to see your thesis and the research on which you base it. Good luck, and don't let these anonymous guys get you down. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 27 2003 : 07:08:07 AM
|
I'd sort of left this thread early on, but it has rekindled some interest.
Just some observations: Even if Grummond was the real "culprit", he was still under the commnad of Fetterman--much as both of them were under the command of Carrington. And as we all know from our military training, an officer is held resopossible for all his unit does--or fails to do. (Even if he really isn't, in a strict sense)
I seem to recall some testimony at the Fetterman "hearings" that there was not much "harmony" in the force at the Fort--not exactly a "band of brothers", if you will. Similar situation with Custer--at least among the officers, not a unit in "harmony". As we see, this can lead to big trouble and tons of finger-pointing down the years.
Also seem to recall that many observers at the fort were stunned to learn that the Indians would even dare to attack 80 men. Their MO in the area seemed to be to just pick off any stray soldier/civilian gathering wood or other supplies, that went too far afield to be able to race back to the Fort in time.
Fetterman (Grummond?)riding out a bit too far and with a bifurcated command gave them a larger, golden opportunity. And as opportunists, they took full advantage. And with probably fewer than the 1,000 warriors generally credited to them (but of course we'll probably never know the truth).
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fetterman v. Custer
