| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 22 2003 : 01:07:20 AM
|
Extremely interesting thread!!! Thanks Anonymous for pointing me to it!
OK, while this is from Carrington's testimony, it may shed some light upon what occurred that morning.
"On the morning of the 21st ultimo at about 11 o’clock A.M. my picket on Pilot hill reported the wood train corralled, and threatened by Indians on Sullivant Hills, a mile and a half from the fort. A few shots were heard. Indians also appeared in the brush at the crossing of Piney, by the Virginia City road. Upon tendering to Brevet Major Powell the command of Company “C”, 2nd U. S. Cavalry, then without an Officer, but which he had been drilling, Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Fetterman claimed, by rank, to go out. I acquiesed [sic], giving him the men of his own company, that were for duty, and a portion of “C” company, 2nd Battn. 18th U. S. Infantry.
Lieutenant G. W. Grummond, who had commanded the mounted Infantry, requested to take out the cavalry. He did so. In the previous skirmish Lieutenant Grummond was barely saved from the disaster that befell Lieutenant Bingham, by timely aid.
Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Fetterman also was well admonished, as well as myself, that we were fighting brave and desperate enemies who sought to make up by cunning and deceit, all the advantages which the white man gains by intelligence and better arms.
My instructions were therefore peremtory [sic] and explicit. I knew the ambition of each to win honor, but being unprepared for large aggressive action, through want of adequate force (now fully demonstrated) I looked to continuance of timber supplies to prepare for more troops, as the one practical duty. Hence two days before Major Powell, sent out to cover the train under similar circumstances, simply did that duty, when he could have had a fight to any extent.
The day before, viz: - the 20th ultimo, I went to the Pinery and built a bridge of forty five feet span to expedite the passage of wagons from the woods into open ground.
Hence my instructions to Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Fetterman, viz: - “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.”
To Lieutenant Grummond, I gave orders to report to Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Fetterman, implicitly obey orders and not leave him.
Before the command left, I instructed Lieutenant A.H. Wands, Regimental Quarter Master, and Acting Adjutant, to repeat these orders. He did so. Fearing still that the spirit of ambition might override prudence, (as my refusal to permit sixty mounted men and forty citizens to go for several days down Tongue river valley after villages, had been unfavorably regarded to Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Fetterman and Captain Brown,) I crossed the parade and from a sentry platform, halted the cavalry and again repeated my precise orders."
---Testimony of Col. H. B. Carrington to the Special Commission
Powell, in his testimony, does not mention being offered the role of commander,
"On that date about eight or half past eight o’clock in the morning, the picket reported an attack upon the wood train. Col. Carrington commanding the Post ordered the guns of the garrison to be got in readiness; during that time he sent his Adjutant to Col. Fetterman telling him that he would furnish him a detail to go to the relief of the wood train. The detachment of Infy. was formed, numbering 49 men, the detacht. of Cavalry was formed numbering twenty seven men, all under the command of Col. Fetterman and two additional officers, Capt. Brown of the 18th Inf. and Lt. Grummond of the 18th Inf."
---Testimony of Capt. Powell before the Special Commission
Regarding the fight. First, none of the relief force that same day or body retrieval group of the next day saw an inordinate amount of cartidge cases upon the ground. As the cavalry had its original Springfield rifles replaced by the band's Spencer carbines (the cavalry arrived on 11/25 I believe), it makes me wonder if the cavalry troops either had no training in the use of the Spencer or wasted their ammunition on the climb after the decoys. Same for the Springfield rifled musket brass used by the infantry. Capt. Powell's testimony is emphatic that while he could not vouch for the remainder of the Battalion's officers, he is "...fully convinced that Col. Fetterman’s Company was well supplied."
Numbers. While I have no understanding of the hachet job Powell did upon Carrington, I do respect his eye as a military man. Regarding the abortive "ambush" on 12/19, here is the testimony of Powell:
Q - "In your opinion, how many Indians made their appearance on the 19th Dec."
A - "From my observation, and the information received from Sgt. Bartlett, an old soldier, who saw the Indians in the pinery, besides those seen on the hills, they numbered about twenty five hundred, and possibly more."
Weather. I keep reading references to snow. It was cold, as evidenced by the mounted troops having to break ice crossing the Big Piney, but snow did not fall until the night of the 22nd I believe.
Grummond. Strangely enough, a couple of months ago, I was speaking to an administrator at FPK and we both were wondering the same thing, whether Grummond, and maybe Brown, went off on their own and Fetterman could not leave the poor idiots on their own.
80 men. I haven't found that documented anywhere either. However, I think it may stem from Carrington's testimony as to Fetterman wishing to take an expedition to strike the hostile encampment on the Tongue.
Rereading it, it seems like Fetterman asked for fifty men. Here is Carrington's testimony in response to St. George Cooke's stinging reprimand of 12/27/1866.
"Because the country was broken; because most of the officers had not been with me in reconnoisances [sic], and had recently arrived at Post, entirely unused to Indian warfare; because I knew the Indians to be in large numbers, I would not authorize them to make hazardous adventures. When Fetterman and Brown asked for fifty mounted men to go with fifty citizens, on a trip to Tongue river, to destroy Indian village [sic]. I showed them by my morning report, for which I sent in the person of Adjutant Bisbee, that I should thereby absolutely break up my mail parties and my pickets, and then lack eight horses to supply the number desired."
Extractor problems. Didn't I read that a new compound was used to make the brass for the Springfield rifles beginning about 1874 or thereabouts? This compound, again by memory only, had a greater percentage of copper included. That may be just a dream though.
Enough, off to the Archives tomorrow so I need to get some sleep.
Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays, whichever floats your boat,
Billy
|
  |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 29 2003 : 08:34:40 AM
|
Oops!! The following sentence should be deleted from my previous post as I, obviously, suffered from a brain cramp when writing it!!
"Same for the Springfield rifled musket brass used by the infantry."
The breech-loading Springfields were not distributed to the FPK troops until 1867 so the infantry on 12/21/1866 were using the muzzle-loaders.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 29 2003 : 9:07:38 PM
|
I believe the term "rifled musket" refers to firearms that were originally designed to be muskets (smoothbore) and were converted to a rifled barrel. I think the Springfields used in the Civil War originally were designed with smooth bores, but as rifling became more prevalent, the design changed. So they were still considered muskets, but now being rifled. But don't quote me.
It could also be due to common bastardization of nomenclature. Band-Aid, Q-Tip and Coke were a brand, but they have become THE word for particular items. Its quite possible musket became the term for a rifle such as a Springfield from the early 1860s as these names became the word for their items. Its also possible that the name
"rifled musket" is closer to the continuation of "woods" being still used to describe certain golf clubs, despite the fact that they are predominantly metal now. People say "metal woods" all the time in the golf world... |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
Edited by - El Crab on December 29 2003 9:09:28 PM |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 1:13:29 PM
|
| So.....the excepts beneath the heading calls them 'rifles' but the heading is 'rifled muskets.' I'll assume it's not really a rifle unless it's breach loaded. Still, seems like this sort of thing could be confusing when trying to meld different recollections with off hand remarks to muskets and rifles referring to the same weapons. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2004 : 1:25:19 PM
|
D.C., I believe the typical way to distinguish between a rifle and a musket is whether the barrel is "rifled". However, your point is well made as I just remembered a term used in some books, "smooth bore muskets".
Happy New Year everyone!!
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 10 2004 : 12:29:02 PM
|
On my post of 12/22, I stated this:
quote:
"From my observation, and the information received from Sgt. Bartlett, an old soldier, who saw the Indians in the pinery, besides those seen on the hills, they numbered about twenty five hundred, and possibly more."
I am transcribing Col. Carrington's response to Capt. Powell's testimony (trust me, no love was lost between the two) and Carrington makes this comment:
Col. H. B. Carrington to the Secretary of the Interior, 11/5/1867
Pg. 9
"...after he now states he was threatened by 2,500 Indians, then reported by him, of from 300 to 500."
I just wanted to point out this contradiction to Powell's later testimony on the Indian force present 12/19/1866.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on January 10 2004 12:36:10 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 10 2004 : 1:39:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
:
"...after he now states he was threatened by 2,500 Indians, then reported by him, of from 300 to 500."
I just wanted to point out this contradiction to Powell's later testimony on the Indian force present 12/19/1866.
Interesting......
(In Powell's defence, he does provide himself a bit of cover by claiming that his total of 2,500 is a combination of his observations, and those of Sgt. Bartlett at the pinery --- but even so, that cover looks pretty moth-holed if what Carrington says is true).
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 09 2004 : 7:02:38 PM
|
On a scale of national importance in military annals, the Battle of the Little Big Horn ranks at the lower end of the scales. Its' outcome was not overly detrimental to the interest of the United States nor did it finalize or create a balance of power as the fate of the Native American preordained, and at a nadir, prior to the battle. How then do we rationalize the countless books, movies, periodicals, and hot debates that have spawned by theis event for the last hundred and twenty-five years or so? It is an Enigma! Despite the collective efforts of many an honorable scolar, we do not know the finite details of how this battle unfolded. Thus, we create and surmize what may have happened. ironically, for every theory created to "Explain" what happened, a counter theory is create to "Unexplain" what occurred.
Like a pellet of moisture that drops from heaven, freezes, melts, and re-freeses again transforming into a large ball of hail, this story continues to grow and create new life. Everytime we hear an explanation that contradicts what we belive it rankles our nerves and forces us to respond. It is this capability of enticing and tantalizing us that keeps it alive and well in the corners of our minds. If their was no unkown about this battle we would have long ago delegated it the realm historical incidents that lay upon the shelves of the forgotten and discarded. How fortunate we are that this is not the case. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 09 2004 : 7:47:51 PM
|
| otototot |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 09 2004 : 8:10:42 PM
|
On a scale of 1 through 10, in military annals, the Battle of the Little Big Horn ranks at the lower end of the scale. Its' outcome was not earth shakong nor detrimental to the interests of the United States. The battle did not finalize or create an ending regarding the lives of the Native American as theor fate was already preordained, and at its' nadir, when the battle occurred. Why then as this comparatively insignificant
confrontation stirred up so much interest? Why has this historical episode given birth to so many countless books, movies, periodicals, and debates for the past hundred and twenty-five years? It is an enigma! It stirs our imagination because we don't know the finite details of how this cultural conflict unfolded. Only discussions about the Bible and politics can promote more contraversy. Ironically the story grows in the telling, like a fallen drop of rain from heaven that freezes, melts, re-freezes countless of times until it is transformed into a ball of hail. What actually occurred has, over the decades, been melted and frozen by myth transforming all the particpants from the human to sublime legend. It is this ability to tantalize and sudece us with its' mysteries that entice us over and over to be a part of the story. Every time a theory is created to "explain" what actually happened, a counter theory is created to "explain" why the original theory is incorrect. If this battle was conclusive in every aspect of its occurence, it would be delagated to the duty shelves of the past. Are we not lucky that this is not so? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 10 2004 : 4:59:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
If this battle was conclusive in every aspect of its occurence, it would be delagated to the duty shelves of the past. Are we not lucky that this is not so?
No. Not unless you make a fetish of the mystery.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 11 2004 : 09:48:20 AM
|
Perhaps The Custer battle is better known because there was an imbedded journalist with the command---Mark Kellog[I think]
Regards |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 12 2004 : 07:13:34 AM
|
Hi Dark Cloud
I see by your posts that your are a knowledgeable student of the LBH battle.So I find it a little surprising that you dismiss Kellog as unimportant.I would be of the opinion that Kellog was at least as important as the two gallopers Custer sent back from the column.
Kellog did send a dispatch back to the Bismarck Tribune reporting that the 7th were setting out on a scouting expedition.A scouting expedition mind not an offensive operation.
Now this poses the question was the entire command under the impression that this was just a recce in force?Could this frame of mind have accounted for Benteen's apparent lack of urgency in "being quick"?
Iwould be interested in your opinion.
Slan
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 12 2004 : 10:39:17 AM
|
I am far from the most knowledgeable here. I AM the most cynical. I detest the maudlin romance and am revolted by the easy accusations that are made against the three main officers, all of whom deserve better.
Kellogg was a part time hack for a Bismark paper (circulation: 3) whereas Custer wrote for the NY press himself. He was unimportant and a bland writer.
Although 'scouting' out the Sioux was part of the job, Custer was told that if discovered or the Sioux showed signs of breaking up, he was to do what he thought best. He did.
This 'recon in force' term is a great favorite like 'tactical disintegration' and is often misused. Just because a force is too small to beat the found enemy and yet conceivably capable of a fighting retreat doesn't mean it was designed as a recon in force, however convenient the application after the fact. Could be just coincidence or command incompetence as well. A recon in force only makes sense if it was deliberate and a larger friendly force is nearby to act on its findings. Custer was the more powerful force in Terry's command as well as the most limber.
Benteen rode as responsibly and quickly as he could. If anyone had thought he'd let elements of the 7th be slaughtered, he'd have been shot on the spot. Same with Reno. Everyone realized they could have done better and different when the facts were known, but only Weir wanted to risk the command and rush to the sound of firing because it was a maxim of a safely dead general.
"Being quick" with exhausted horses is a relative term, and an oxymoron with an exhausted pack train. The oral orders by Kanipe about the packs bounding overland dropping boxes of ammo for the enemy was a stupid order if actually made by Custer. As it was, several of Custer's horses gave out. None of Reno or Benteen's. If Benteen had rushed to Custer's side, his men would have been strung out, the horses useless, his men doomed. I would choose to think such orders in Indian warfare carried unspoken caveats "Be as quick as you can and arrive with an intact unit able to fight as cavalry, the point of your existence." Otherwise, it makes no sense if they arrive, the horse collapse, and they're stuck, unable to attack OR defend, just like Custer.
Nothing about Custer's actions after MTC make sense to me, and the current silly theories bear no resemblence to the Custer history knows. I personally think he was shot early on (he was always up front) - not killed - and nobody dared take over from him with his family and officers in line having divergent goals and sets of orders until it was too late. Custer was far too sharp to get caught on such ground, to not attack down MTC when he could if the village wasn't too large, to not retreat to unite the command if it were. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 8:14:32 PM
|
| Larsen, I just noticed your post of May 10 in which you referred to my making a fetish of a mystery. Forgive me for such a belated response, I will keep it short. A fetish is an abnoral fixation of an inanimate object, like a shoe, or an article of clothing. I don't believe that a debate on the Battle of the Little Big Horn falls within those parameters. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 8:31:34 PM
|
Well, DC figures anyone who doesn't think exactly like him (read: everyone but Dark Cloud) is a Little Big Horn fetishist. In his world, there's something wrong with wanting to learn things that he deems unimportant. Ironically, his fetish is spending all his time making fun of/berating those who choose to discuss LBH. I find that to be much more pathetic than studying and discussing the battle.
He's like the guy who spends his time ridiculing a particular movie and informing those who like it that they're stupid for doing so. You'd think someone would want to spend time delving into subjects they seem to enjoy. If you didn't really enjoy watching about baseball, especially around people who love the sport, would you go to a ballpark to watch a game? Or in this case, buy season tickets? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 11:40:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Larsen, I just noticed your post of May 10 in which you referred to my making a fetish of a mystery. Forgive me for such a belated response, I will keep it short. A fetish is an abnoral fixation of an inanimate object, like a shoe, or an article of clothing. I don't believe that a debate on the Battle of the Little Big Horn falls within those parameters.
It does when you start fetishizing the mystery for its own sake. A fetish doesn't refer solely to someone who has sex with a shoe or mop. It is applied to any extreme, irrational reverence. Counting yourself "lucky" (of all things) because there are a lot of missing facts about the Little Bighorn sounds weird and fetishistic to me.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 8:32:23 PM
|
| El Crab, you don't need to go to the battlefield, everything it represents is within you. A major portion of this story concerns a gigantic clash between two cultures were many good men died, both soldiers and Native Americans, needlessly. We have gathered at this forum in an attempt to make sense of it all. We must learn from history or, history repeats itself. You understand that he who yells the loudest, is not necessarily correct. He who attacks a man's character because his opinion may differ lacks intestinal fortitude. Those who read the incessant tirades of odious venom spewing from the lips of a select few understand of which I speak. I have been very fortunant to have visited the battlefield. I hope you too will get there soon. |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 8:37:03 PM
|
 Joseph, on a scale of 1-10, it's not that important? Everything that I've read or heard suggests Custer's defeat, far from being a big victory by the Indians, set in motion their demise. I've gotta believe this Indian "problem" would've last somewhat longer had there not been a Custer's Last Stand. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 01:11:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
El Crab, you don't need to go to the battlefield, everything it represents is within you. A major portion of this story concerns a gigantic clash between two cultures were many good men died, both soldiers and Native Americans, needlessly. We have gathered at this forum in an attempt to make sense of it all. We must learn from history or, history repeats itself. You understand that he who yells the loudest, is not necessarily correct. He who attacks a man's character because his opinion may differ lacks intestinal fortitude. Those who read the incessant tirades of odious venom spewing from the lips of a select few understand of which I speak. I have been very fortunant to have visited the battlefield. I hope you too will get there soon.
While I understand what you're saying, its a bit on the melodramtic side. And I've had enough experience with the people on this site to know what to expect and, as you may or may not have noticed, I don't post as much as I used to.
Don't worry about me getting to the battlefield, I'm going under the best possible circumstances and in very good company. Plus, I'll have access to so much more than your average visitor. Should be a blast. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 10:59:14 AM
|
El Crab,
It hasn't passed un-noticed by myself that you're not posting as regularly as you once did. Personally I'm very disappointed, although I understand your reasons.
For what its worth. I really enjoyed reading some of the conversations you initiated. I found some of the topics exceptionally interesting, like the thread on whether Custer might committed suicide (incidently just on that subject, Custer allegedly packed a pair Bulldogs which had round which was far more anemic than the Colt. How might that effect your conclusions?).
Anyway, I just thought I would let you know, that your efforts haven't gone un-appreciated. And it was because of some of the high standard postings you contributed in the past, that I decided to register on this forum.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fetterman v. Custer
