| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 31 2004 : 12:30:07 PM
|
LOL Bob, I understand. He, at first impression, seems to have done his research into the source documentation on, from what I can tell, the composition of the 7th. Speaking as someone who spends more hours than he would like to admit staring at microfilm and reading someone's writing which is over a hundred years old, I find some of the comments strangely familiar to things I have seen in the Custer trial papers as well as the Ft. Abraham Lincoln post returns. Looking over the notes however, I see that he does not list any of the primary source documents such as regimental returns, or post returns. An oversight or did he get all his information from secondary sources? If so, I will join you in slamming it (the book DC!) against the wall. If not, he needed to have stated specifically what primary source documents were used. For instance, if he only read the Frost book regarding the 1867 trial, he may have missed something. I am not saying that Frost was in error, it just seems to me that if you are going to write a book, you would, wherever possible, read the original documentation uncontaminated by anyone else's opinions/viewpoints/bias.
Question. Shouldn't we start a thread to talk about the various books or is there one already somewhere down the line?
Best of wishes for a Happy New Year ya'll!
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on December 31 2004 12:32:21 PM |
  |
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2004 : 12:53:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
Looking over the notes however, I see that he does not list any of the primary source documents such as regimental returns, or post returns. An oversight or did he get all his information from secondary sources? If so, I will join you in slamming it (the book DC!) against the wall.
Billy
My Skelnar book is packed, but I do remember he writing in his introduction admitting that he used no primary evidence. He says that all his work for his book is based on what people have written before him. That's why I write in my review of the book on Amazon that this kind of lazy research should not be supported. If you don't mind, Billy, would you check this to verify if my memory is correct?
Frankly, I'm growing very tired of wannabe historians, like Skelnar, standing up in front of Custer Idiots retelling the same old stories with the idea that they are contributing something new to the study of this battle. It's just a way for a few to boost their ego.
And, I learned today from a friend that the LBHA has appointed Steve Alexander as historical advisor to the group. If this is true, then that organization will quickly loose all credibility. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on December 31 2004 1:30:40 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2004 : 1:22:01 PM
|
quote:
My Skelnar book is packed, but I do remember he writing in his introduction admitting that he used no primary evidence. He says that all his work for his book is based on what people have written before him.
On page xiv of the introduction he states: "Since the book concentrates primarily on the military campaign, I have necessarily focused on army sources. None of this information has been newly discovered. In one form or another, the interviews, correspondence, and other papers reflecting participant accounts have been around many years. My sole contribution is the analysis, and in that, I have been as objective as my reading of the facts and my intelligence will permit, recognizing that subjectivity even in science is an ever-present, and inescapable condition."
On the acknowledgements, he does give thanks to the staffs of the U.S. Army Military Institute as wellas the late curator of the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU. But we are left to guess whether he used any primary documentation.
Whoa! Found this tidbit near the beginning, page xiii, "...so that my casual reading turned into pursuit of primary sources..." which leads me to think he looked at them but why not include them? It would give him much more credence.
Gotta go and do some honey-do's for the party tonight *groan*.
Have a good one folks!
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2004 : 2:17:11 PM
|
I - Dark "Cassandra" Cloud - warned you all this would happen if appropriate amounts of laughter and Bronx Cheers didn't start interrupting the spread of re-enactors (including CW re-enactors) and Custer worshippers and would-be channellers. Alexander allows himself to be billed as "the world's foremost Custer living historian" (http://www.kalamazooshow.com/2002/news_media_package/News%20Release_2005.PDF) although the extremely awkward phrasing might be a clue in itself.
Even Hal Holbrook makes no claims on Twain scholarship despite his rather strong ability to make a case and certainly valid attainments.
This is what happens when supposedly innocent pastimes - about which I've been told I'm too harsh - are allowed to go unexamined. There may already be people who believe Alexander is a legitimate historian rather than a wannabe actor, and that dressing up as Napoleon or Lincoln adds to the information and insight you have to impart. In fourth grade, perhaps. To annual meetings of The Custer Heavy Breather Society, maybe. But on the board of an actual 401k (I'm guessing) as a history authority? Has it come to this?
Please.
Also, a show of hands of those who already own a copy of the painting "Thoughts of Libbie" or who are planning on buying one or anything remotely like it. Check it out on the LBHA website. (http://www.lbha.org/Sales/reviews/RR2004.htm) It's the very definition of homo-erotic fixation, rivaled only by Custer re-enactment in the first person and three dimensions. It would not be out of place on the cover of poetry by Gerard Manley Hopkins or his like. If nothing else, it proves there is a suspected market for this sort of thing, and the longevity of such offerings proves it.
These are the guys who buy anything saying 'Custer' on it.
People like Alexander and this painter obviously fill a market void. But vague resemblance should not legitimize art to history. And bad art at that. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on December 31 2004 2:42:31 PM |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2004 : 5:06:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Also, a show of hands of those who already own a copy of the painting "Thoughts of Libbie" or who are planning on buying one or anything remotely like it.
Oh God, that painting sucks!! D.C. -- You ruined my New Years Eve!!
I remember the one and only LBHA event that I attended was in Billings in 1983. During one of the banquets there was a painting on display (I'm sorry I can't remember the artist) and it was called something like, "Goodbye at Heart River." It showed George and Libbie saying their goodbyes before he left her for the LBH. I was aghast at how many old, gray haired men got all teary eyed over this painting. However, it made sense considering my introduction the night before (spelled out in a previous post somewhere else on this board) about one needing to study this battle through the personalities.
Well, as I observed all these people going nuts over the painting it reinforced my opinion that the LBHA was not an organization searching for truth about the LBH, but a Custer worship group.
It was not long after that conference that some of the leaders of the LBHA, at the time, tried to get then Superintendent Jim Court and then Chief Historian Neil Mangum FIRED. They were serious. I cancelled my membership after all the terrible things some of these guys did to Court and Mangum.
Today, however, the LBHA is nowhere near as adversarial toward the administration of the battlefield as the CBHMA has proven to be. There are some good people running it. However, I still think the LBHA should change its name to the (CAS) Custer Admiration Society.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on December 31 2004 5:09:43 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2004 : 5:10:17 PM
|
quote:
Custer was known to bet a thousand dollars on a bluff in a poker game and loose" ot bet"five hundred on a horse racve and win"! Other than being in some lesser known Custer book lets see some real substantiation this actually happened! BJ, do you have any records of witness seeing these things happen, or once again is it just hearsay?
Extremely good point WL. Skelnar attributes no source for that statement. I am somewhat inclined to believe it as Skelnar does seem to be a Custer-apologist but, without documentation, you only have an opinion and everyone knows about those.
Again, great catch!
Happy New Year,
Billy |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2004 : 10:24:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
"Custer was known to bet a thousand dollars on a bluff in a poker game and loose" ot bet"five hundred on a horse racve and win"! Other than being in some lesser known Custer book lets see some real substantiation this actually happened! BJ, do you have any records of witness seeing these things happen, or once again is it just hearsay? The people without credibilty accept hearsay, I do not these days. I ask you since you seem to be so into research.
If Sklenar didn't make it up, my guess is he plucked it from one of Benteen's Goldin letters. I remember Benteen telling several Custer gambling stories, though the only ones that stick in my mind were about him skinning gullible young lieutenants. I don't recall if he was a participant, or just relaying hearsay. I'll look later tonight and see if something like this is in them.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2005 : 12:03:27 AM
|
Not in Benteen.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2005 : 7:03:56 PM
|
First of all, I wish everyone a safe, rewarding and happy New Year. I hope world peace becomes more prevalent.
Well, I'm a Custer 'idiot' and therefore could never be a credible contributor to this forum, most likely, other than stating my opinions. And, in my opinion, Warlord, you are exactly correct when you infer that without irrefutable confirmed evidence, about 'anything,' let alone something about someone who lived a hundred years ago, the claims are genuine hearsay and subject to opinion. And, Mr. Lorenzo, I hope you keep stating your opinions because these discussions should not be about 'winning personal battles.' Well-stated, in my humble opinion. The most treasured aspect of any discussion is that it is a privilege and a 'right' to be able to offer your opinion. And Dark Cloud you do appear tuned- in, imo, when you were talking about the painting "Thoughts of Libbie" and mentioned that "this proves there is a suspected market for this sort of thing" and that "these are the guys who buy anything saying "Custer" on it." Do you honestly think that it is a 'suspected' market? It appears to me to be a 'merchandizing' heaven and there probably are people who will buy anything that says "Custer" on it; maybe not to the extent that Elvis Presley fanatics do or sports fanatics, etc. The danger or concern, in my mind, is the true picture of merchandizing concerning Custer and the LBH. The 'merchandizing' of the LBH event has been cleverly engineered by the government in the years since by its changing positions on some of the aspects of the battle and its rhetoric and/or acceptance of ideas and concepts controversial to the detail. Of course, my pet peeve is the relentless denigration of The General in many of the works it recognizes. The constant pursuit of attacking Gen. Custer's well-being, his wife, his personal habits to try and explain his accountability at the LBH has worked to further augment this legend and therefore, Mr. BHist, when you were talking about the LBHA and stated that it was your opinion that the LBHA was not an organization searching for the truth about the LBH, but a Custer worship group----if there was a chance that the truth would ever be known about the event and it conflicted with the government's 'revenue' earnings over it....well, I hope you don't think that the government would let 'that truth' get out. It would be merely a guess, at best, but I would hypothesize that much more money has been made since Custer's popularity reversal by the government and everyone else and any truth that would endanger that would become a closely guarded secret. No one needs 'legends' to be found out, do they? As long as there are people who 'think they know something'; people who swear 'they know something;' and plenty of agressive 'wannabe historians', etc. the legends live on. They live precariously in their "untruths," and are sustained by the 'glorifiers' and the 'denigraters' alike. Unfortunately, Mr. Custer's denigraters seem to be winning at the moment. And that is my opinion. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 02 2005 : 12:10:18 PM
|
Warlord: Happy New Year. I was away for a while but have enjoyed the messages and their content in my 'catching up' reading. I would like to see some discussion on those aspects of this event where there seems to be clear and concise agreement on the exact whereabouts of the U.S. 7th Cavalry troops at any given point along their route from the Crow's Nest to their final moments, i.e. of everybody's rich 'library' of sources are there any points during the traverse that most writers seem to be in agreement about...let's say, for example, the time the troops started out from the Crow's Nest; and then the time they reach point b; then point C, etc. I find this fun investigation because then we can all affix a symbol on our 'map' at those points where there seems to be a 'high incidence ' of agreement amongst the more notable
authors, students and researchers of the battle. That will leave those 'gray' areas of heavy opinion to concentrate on to determine if the General was smiling when he mounted 'Vic,' had a cup of coffee in his hand or whatever. And yes, I am being sarcastic but it would be nice to concentrate on the rhetoric...if I say 'this' happened because such-and-such said it in his/her book and the next person says.."that's wrong; it happened like this..because such-and-such in his/her book said this...."...well, then we can start to get somewhere (in our own minds, maybe)with this battle in terms of striving for a best possible agreement in the gray areas of least comprehension. We all have to extrapolate from what we read and comprehend that information the same way and that is very difficult and probably not possible. But we all learn something, don't we, by being able to assess all the different opinions that are submitted?
I know we won't always agree on something and that is probably 'great' in the learning process, but I truly appreciate your candor and your respectful flattery and your letting me 'opinionize' in my newness to the forum. Likewise, I look forward to all your forthcoming dissertations on this and other subjects. I am 'hung' by the fact and belief that in all the 'gray' areas of ambiguity that exist concerning this battle in general and General Custer in particular, to disparage his character and 'background' is an attitude that does not 'intelligibly' give him the 'benefit of the doubt;' Was his true 'nature' that of a coward; a heathen; a vainglorious, egotistical, selfish despot? Or was he compassionate, loving, caring, responsible and protective by his very 'nature?' Was he a good guy or a bad guy? Am I a good guy or a bad guy? Am I above sin and temptation? Am I pulled off the 'path' at times for one of various reasons? Yes. But who isn't? If the General would have 'saved skins' when he finally realized his commitment, would not he then been labelled a coward and court martialed for disobeying fixed army precepts? I don't know for sure. There is an old Latin proverb that states.."The wolf changes his coat but not his nature." Someone has to show me overwhelming evidence that Mrs. Custer's son, George, was ruthless, selfish, uncaring and so transfixed by a 'dream of glory' that he transcended the likes of his orders and 'hysterically' sacrificed his 'outfit' to their fateful end. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 02 2005 : 12:33:28 PM
|
Nobody has said that for a quarter century at least, Whistlingboy. You're battling an image that was never true and in any case doesn't exist anymore. Nobody is saying (now, they used to) Custer was an idiot or glory hungry. He may have gambled at the LBH and it caught up with him. Eh. Happened to a lot of guys and it doesn't erase his history or make him out a buffoon. War (hell, life) is like that, you takes your chances based on empirical experience.
And here is my ongoing observation. There are people who want to defend Custer, in one of his many images, or attack Custer, in one of his many images, to satisfy some need in themselves, to project on this guy and battle emotions that have nothing to do with either.
Custer had money problems, he had nearly been booted twice and - absent something impressive - his Army future was not currently promising. All this had to weigh on him to some extent. Whether it directly affected his decisions and actions, no way to tell whatsoever. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 02 2005 : 2:57:51 PM
|
On the contrary. Given you numerous sources and nobody disagrees except you, who hasn't read anything on it. And by real, live, professional historians. With footnotes, even. And big words.
I've never claimed any education, any degree, anything. Of course, for now the fifth time, if you want to find out about me, I have a website, on which is the Hyde Park Forum, where you can inquire and I'll answer. Since your question is not valid for this board - and of interest to nobody except you - why not query me there?
http://www.darkendeavors.com/forum/category-view.asp
As for the floating Custer - taken from a hackneyed literary theme so satirized it appeared on The Simpsons - it is sick (my point) and so accurately reflects the postings of people I was discussing. Of course, you missed that as well. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 02 2005 : 4:42:26 PM
|
| Technically, Dark Cloud, to say "...in any case doesn't exist anymore," of course, means it did exist "a priori" and besides I am not sure if you were talking about his image as an 'idiot' or a 'glory hunter.' I'm not sure about the 'idiot' image but being a 'glory' hunter still surfaces against him now and then. Whether those references carry as much 'clout' as they use to might be open for debate, I suppose. And you are right when you say "it happened to a lot of guys..." most of which have seemed to have escaped the continual barrage of attention accentuating their every mistake. I do agree about your observation that people 'have to satisfy a need' inside themselves and "project on him and the battle" feelings that are irrelevant to either. But that is, in part, my point. The focus should stick to the battle and his decisions as an Army officer and leave the 'intangibles' about the man back at Ft. Lincoln. I mean, if someone knows, they should write..."General Custer, fighting a severe headache, a bad pain in his back and severe stress over the $500 he lost and forgot to tell Libby about, decides to split his battalion into three columns to separate himself from some of his closest critics.." Personally, I would have to think that 'nothing' was on his mind but what he had to do and I just think he was energetic, impatient and excited like every other battle he had ever been in. I want to think it was his 'nature.' Do I know that? No. But as far as I can tell, Mr. Custer wanted to be a soldier and I feel he took it very, very seriously. He made mistakes if they were mistakes in his mind....and you know, DC, when we make mistakes we try to regroup, re-coupe, get up and try another response. His responses and his options dwindled fast. I do feel, however, and I know I am an odd-man out, on this, but I do think that if he did have a clear view of MAJ Reno's predicament down in the valley, that 'diversion' probably entered his mindset. If Reno could have maintained the line longer to create more confusion, the event might have lasted longer and may have effected the Indians thinking. Reno's dart to the trees clearly sent a strong signal to the enemy that Reno knew his force was rapidly decaying...of course, the Indians up front could see it but Reno quickly confirmed it by running. Custer probably knew he didn't have time to come to Reno's aid from the rear and that only left trying to come in behind the Indians at a low place on the river. But of course everything went awry. If that had been Terry or Gibbon who had come upon the Indians and Custer had gotten the other route, is there any reason to believe, given the same circumstances, having been 'found out' by the hostiles, that they wouldn't have attacked? Would they have disobeyed Army precepts and gone away from the area after coming that far in search of the hostiles? They too would have come up against the 'wall;' trapped by time and circumstance and, most likely, would have had met with the same fate as Custer. A soldier has to do what a soldier has to do and carries in his mind a 'set of rules' of what he has to do. Sometimes those circumstances may mean you are in trouble if you do and trouble if you don't, but...running (unless you are an isolated detachment) is, most always, not an option. So you raise your sword, defend your ground, and defend your honor and hope that in the end your team wins the war. I appreciate your response and, actually, I was calling myself a Custer idiot, meaning, I guess, that I am too 'blurry-eyed' about General Custer to recognize any of his faults. Of course, that's not true. I do not want to adhere to the principles of dogmatism. I've rambled enough..good day, sir. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 10:42:10 AM
|
| For all the books you supposedly own and have read on the LBH, you'd think you could have quoted some of them that back you - at least one that suppports your moronic view of Indian casualties - or could distinguished between Gray (who you obviously have not read) and Michno, and not been forced to pretend and bluster a child's gamesite introduction was a valid source of information. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 1:59:38 PM
|
The Army, unless it has changed its 'ways,' may introduce a new recruit to his weapon(s) and let him 'practice' and familiarize him or herself with it for a few hours before they have to qualify with it. And if you don't qualify, they don't kick you out...the Army will get you qualified. And I think you still have to 'qualify' every year but that is the extent to which any 'practice' is allowed. Making a soldier a good shot is not a serious army 'endeavor' unless it has changed. When I was called to 'duty' in November '65, right off the bus at 2:30am in the morning, standing in our 'civies' in formation at Ft. Leonardwood, MO, the first words out of the sergeant's mouth was ..'Welcome to Ft. Leonardwood. Gentlemen (all boys then)pay very close attention to your instructors because many of you after 8 weeks of basic training will be going to Vietnam and some of you will receive advanced individual training.' I'll never forget that! And as I couldn't wait to get to the weapons, that would be a 'long time down the road' and then it hardly amounted to anything. Of course, the discipline (brainwashing, making you a team player, etc.) was the top priority and they started immediately.
The literature certainly verifies that little time, if any, was allowed for practice back then also and I personally feel that the 'notion' of them being good or bad shots is a moot and unproveable point. I would think that they were probably good, average shots to the extent that their 'weapons' were good and average. But, again, that is all subjective thinking and could be argued (because of sparse to little evidence) endlessly and is not worth risking friendships and/or progress in a serious endeavor.
It is not that hard to learn to shoot a weapon; I think it might be harder to teach the "responsibility" that goes along with discharging that weapon. Of course, to the Army, being able to disassemble and reassemble that weapon blindfolded and hours of picking up 'cigarette butts' are a couple of higher priorities. (ha) You have to try and learn to defend yourself by being a better shot kind of on your own. It is sort of ironic that our boys in harms way in those hummers today (I was just watching a news event on the tube...it might be an isolated event) go about finding anything steel to weld to their vehicle to better protect themselves. But the American soldier is very resourceful and I certainly agree with you, Warlord, that he/she is to be greatly admired.
Under deep duress conditions with screaming Indians all about, arrows landing everywhere, fellow comrades falling, smoke burning your eyes, etc., etc., etc. I seriously doubt if anyone had tons of time to do anything but re-act...the mind was in complete control and all the involuntary functions of the body were in command trying to 'help' the body to survive. I could not believe to think anything other than that. In fact, I think they probably did a great job under those conditions and I want to think that the General(as long as he was alive)went down shouting words of encouragement as he constantly strained to 'visually protect' his 'family' members. I think he came to that point where he was 'ready to die a soldier's death of honor.' That's the 'hollywood' script I want to believe. Why would I want to believe and broadcast any other story line of this Officer and a Gentleman? If I don't know anything to be the 'absolute' undeniable truth, why 'paint' a bad picture to make and send all around the world?
The truth is, controversy provides a 'living flow' of energy to events. 'Less' becomes better than 'more.' Less known about the facts of an event usually means a better chance of sustaining its 'life.' I like this 'legend.' Knowing the 'absolutes' of this case no longer captivate my interest. BUT providing a positive legend seems more 'true American' to me than trying to sustain a 'tainted' lunatic image of this hero of American lore. Please, someone tell me what they would have done differently in the same situation that makes this 'hero' of mine so bad. In my book of this battle, death would be gory, senseless, sacrificial and proud.
It would be about courage and would depict the Indian 'fathers, brothers and uncles' as heros in their own right, too, for they were just that to their loved ones. Like it or not, it was a second 'civil war,'as such, between two races inhabiting this land. Maybe the perspectives didn't make it so at the time but inalienable "rights" did. The fact that the Indian braves' mothers, sisters and sweethearts were in extremely close proximity and therefore 'in harms' way,' alone, put the 'Bluecoats' at a great disadvantage and should have forecasted the premonition of expected disaster. This has been fun for me and I am grateful to everyone for allowing me to voice my opinion on this event. All the 'words' (and there have been plenty) I have used in my 'posts' on this subject have said...I like Mr. Custer, his legend, this battle and its legend. I want it to survive for generations and I see no reason why it shouldn't. I have had no intentions of 'forcing' my opinions on anyone and view all other opinions as a way of self-analyzing my own. It is a healthy way of monitoring growth and maturity in one's belief in a given subject area and a measure of one's objectivity. Change is wonderful, sometimes; seeing something from a different point of view and being 'intrigued' by the perspective can be an invigorating moment and a new 'challenge.' We all can still make a difference to another person, if only for a moment, and I like that idea. I hope my simple practicalness and slant on this subject does not impede the 'natural fun' and direction of this forum.
' |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 4:23:00 PM
|
I hope my simple practicalness and slant on this subject does not impede the 'natural fun' and direction of this forum.
It's an awful long way of saying you admire Custer but at least you are now using paragraphs.
Meanwhile back at the LBH.
It has always puzzled me as to how Custer's 5 troops came to their final positions.There seemed to be no logic to it.So using a number of maps and aerial photos I have come up with this senario for what its worth.
On leaving Reno Custer's line of march was this. HQ,brother's troop C[remember Tom had sent back the first messenger],Yates's troop F,Smith's troop E,Calhoun's troop L and bringing up the rear Keogh's troop I.[Keogh had time to accompany Reno for some distance]
It was Custer's intention to attack the North end of the village in support of Reno.The first possible crossing point was the ford at Medicine Trail Coulee but this led right into the middle of the village.So he proceeded further north to Calhoun Coulee.This led down to Deep Coulee ford but as he led his troops down this ravine he found Indians massing to his front.Rather than double back up Calhoun Coulee he led his troops up Deep Ravine.This withdrawal became a running fight which turned into a rout just as Reno's retreat had degenerated into into a rout.
Calhoun and Keogh with troops L and I further back had seen the attack on the leading troops and that to have followed them would have been madness and took a defensive position along Battle Ridge to cover the withdrawal of their comrades.
As I'v said Custer's withdrawal had become a headlong flight up Deep Ravine with the rearward E troop all but wiped out.Deep Ravine leads directly up to LSH where troops C and F made a stand.I think that with the possible exception of Harrington from C troop all the officers from troops C,F and E died here.Maps indicating the positions of markers would seem to suggest that some survivers from LSH got some distance towards Keogh's position.
There's no way of knowing at what time Keogh was hit by Gaul's Indians.I doubt if the attack on Custer's men and Gaul's attack on Keogh were simultaneous.A case can be made that Calhoun had time to send Sergeant Butler back for help.The position where his body was found was close to Medicine Trail Coulee up which Gaul led his warriors.
I think Keogh and Calhoun were still offering organised resistance some time after the position on LSH had been over run.
DC said something about looking for heros at the LBH.Well I think the actions of these two men in staying to fight when they had a chance of saving themselves is heroic and I don't think we give them the recognition they deserve.
|
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 4:35:43 PM
|
Someone else brought this to my attention, so I can't take credit for it -- it appears that whistlingboy and warlord are the same person. I think it might be a good idea, if Rich has time, to verify by checking out the IP address or anything else he has access to.
The last thing we need on this board is this kind of game playing.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 4:39:23 PM
|
In Custer's Seventh I have searched so far in vain to find Custer's policies on firearms training if any.
Warlord I have read somewhere that during his civil war years Custer organised special marksman units and was well aware of the effect recognition of arms skills had on morale.There's no reason why he would not apply the same policy in the 7th.
Just in passing our lot here often have shooting competitions against other armies.Our Styer rifle always gives much better results than whatever your lot are using |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 5:00:26 PM
|
I suspect that target practice may have been supposed to be held monthly, at least that is the impression I get from reading the Post Record of Events for Ft. C. F. Smith in 1866-1868. Here is one result of a practice which I have had to abstract for this format:
Co. D, one drill, expended 130 cartridges from Franklin Arsenal, 3 defective cartridges, no fulminate powder in cartridges.
Co. H, 3 drills, expended 128 cartridges, Franklin Arsenal, no general defects
Co. I, 1 drill, expended 100 rounds, Franklin Arsendal, no general defects.
The above took place in February, 1868. Looking over it closely, I see that they only started entering whether they had target practice or not in January, 1868's Record of Events.
The above, minus the target practice results, can be seen at this URL:
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/fpk/cfsmith_roe.html
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 5:44:56 PM
|
Rather, the need to find heroes. You're praising them for supposed actions at unknown times, Wild. Once dismounted, under fire, cavalry is a dead duck in that land. I don't think they had much opportunity to run with down and stolen horses. Still, those two troops put up the only real fight the 7th could see two days later based on casings and space between bodies.
Your scenario is remarkably close to mine (sorry), absent a wounded Custer and the crossing issue due to a perpetually moving village according to theory convenience. MTC once was the middle of a huge village, while now I thought it was claimed as the north end of a much smaller village, and empty of warriors anyway, of which there were only five, two with cholera. In any case, what is gained by not crossing at MTC? A slower advance north in view under fire and utter lack of surprise should you finally cross.
If Companies still had between thirty and forty men, we're to believe that firings of three or four rounds per man constitutes........what, actually? Serious practice by a professional army? And did it happen once a month, or was it just a good idea? We owe those guys an apology. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 10:23:36 PM
|
quote:
Rather, the need to find heroes. You're praising them for supposed actions at unknown times,
DC, while I haven't concentrated on LBH, my feelings are that all, who fought and died, are heroes, whether scared-Wa****a-less, as they would have had to be, or not.
I know you weren't hammering the sacrifice, as someone we all despise and spit on will say, still, most did their duty, which was simply to fight until they could not fight any longer (or they received further orders, which unfortunately never arrived). I will suppose you to say that they missed their targets while doing their duty, but, I will have to agree with the previously mentioned person in saying that I think more than 30 Indians were killed. My guestimate would be somewhere around 50-60 killed directly with another 20-30 dying of wounds received. Still a long way from 1300 but, we are working on it!
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 11:29:06 PM
|
There's no reason to believe, given what is known about the 'generous' practice time and ammo alloted, that the 7th were good shots or could be. The frontier army as a whole didn't seem to be good shots, and even Whitaker - the apologist of apologists - says this in his hagiography, essentially claiming that the Indians didn't think much of the white man warrior anymore. I can't recall anything particularly complimentary about the shooting of the average soldier being recorded; can anyone?
I have no trouble thinking it possible up to 200 Indians got hit and died, but a sizeable portion would have to be friendly fire in a surround like that. After all, they killed and scalped Lame White Man before they knew which side he was on. Anything over that would be so far above the norm that it feels way out of place. Even Kildeer Mountain didn't have that many Indian dead, I don't think, and that's the one battle closest in size, the same tribes, all of it.
After all, look how few Cheyenne men, women, and children the 7th killed at the Wa****a when they outnumbered them and caught them asleep in the lodges, how few Elliott killed (one as reported) when he was surrounded, it's pretty bleak. It doesn't suggest the 7th would be suddenly better than its history. Fifty shots a year don't keep really do it if you aren't accomplished to start with. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2005 : 09:29:26 AM
|
Whether or not the troopers of the 7th were or were not good shots is something of a mute point.They never got the chance to display their skill.
Custer never in fact made a last stand.The last stand was never any more than a myth fabricated to console a shocked nation.
Custer was leaking men in his headlong flight up Deep Ravine towards LSH.Why are there no markers on the summit?Because he was brought to a halt just short of it by Indians in whose possession it was.Three troops followed Custer down to the river.Approx 120 men of whom 48 made it back up to near the summit of LSH.There is a photo of the markers in the book IN HEROS' FOOTSTEPS by Tim Newark.They look so few,pathetic and hopeless.I doubt that it took more than 10 minutes to knock them all down.No there was no last stand here just butchery.
48 Troopers died with Custer, 58 with Keogh and Keogh offered organised resistance.The monument should have been placed out on Battle Ridge where Keogh and Calhoun saved the honour of the regiment.
You're praising them for supposed actions at unknown times, Wild.
Yes but there is sufficient evidence to make the case.Where as the last stand is pure public relations led by Libbie & Co.Handfuls of medals were handed out to the likes of Goldin while Keogh and Calhoun had no champions. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2005 : 11:28:58 AM
|
First, while the LS was a fabricated myth, it may be based on truth. There were horses down in arguable position, it could have happened in one form or another. Waterman's testimony, for example. There's no evidence one way or the other that's worthy. They had ample opportunity to display whatever skill they had, it just wasn't relevant. Once they stopped and dismounted, they were dead.
There are no markers on the summit, Irish, because that's where they put the monument, and everything was sort of elbowed down a ways by people who wouldn't believe blood would be spilled over the relevance of every button, casing, angle of corpse repose. In any case, standing heroically on the summit per se means you're a target from a full 360 degrees. Further yet, the markers mean little; the ones for Reno's field were just added on to the Custer one instead.
More to the point, I don't think the markers mean very much at all. Where bodies ended up after the battle after two days of drag and slice, where the earth was soft enough to dig a sorta grave on the 27th, where the initial markers stood before the wolves dug them out, where the next 'real' burial placed them, and where Sweeney thought they were meant to be, all of that may have left us a very inaccurate image. Which is why I think the first hand testimony of Benteen, Godfrey, and Edgerly are valuable and should be considered above else regarding bodies and what it looked like. It's all we have, really.
If you subtract off the Reno markers and then imagine that, say, 20% of the remainder don't really reflect where the body died as opposed to where it was found and/or buried (and that's not a huge stretch), things could be a lot different in interpretation, couldn't they?
For example, although I don't know one way or the other, there were standard Victorian motifs for this sort of thing. You have the sense (although no proof) that the tale was sort of nudged into compliance with handy Roland and Arthurian images of heroic death: the brothers died together....not much to say about this flat roadkill that's Tom, but let's pretend the General wasn't disembowelled, the Custer/Calhouns have too much to deal with anyway. And Reed and Boston died up there next to the Bro's, okay? And...it's a last stand. Sure. Fine. Really, who cares and what difference does it make? Make the family feel as good as possible. It's all we can give them.
Which is to say, Wild, I don't think these guys lasted long either but I take issue when you wander into "honor" and that crap. Honor's a name, and England's far.
I have no doubt that Calhoun and Keogh fought well - the three officers above say they seem to have - but how and in what fashion did they save the honor of the regiment? In fact, how was that honor, however defined (and we soon will), under threat? Defeat? A short, ugly fight when surrounded and outnumbered? Not to me. To who?
Not to be Captain Bring Down, but the purpose of the 7th Cavalry was not to serve as grade school level Etonian inspiration but to win ugly rather than lose 'gallantly,' whatever that means. That's one of the reasons Jesse Lee annoys me. He'd prefer a gallant charge into pointless and sure death over a messy retreat to fight and win another day. Not just stupid, disrespectful of your soldiers' lives.
Even given the fact we don't know how people with Custer fought, you can't say they weren't honored. Keogh and Calhoun had forts and things named for them. Not like it was slipped under the rug. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 04 2005 11:39:09 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
