| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - September 30 2004 : 07:47:40 AM
|
I agree with Larsen. Everything I've read suggests marksmanship was not a strength of the Seventh Cavalry. And while a few soldiers obviously scored some hits, most of what was fired probably didn't hit anything. It would have been a rare Seventh Trooper who got off 60 rounds and I'm guessing that more than a few got off one or two shots--or maybe none at all.
So the 30-50 range of warriors killed seems about right.
Warlord: I know it's difficult to believe--I had always thought the Seventh felled hundreds and hundreds of warriors as they went down fighting. But then I got on this board, did my reading, and have come to the conclusion that the Seventh was drubbed fair and square and aquitted itself (as a unit) quite poorly.
Swords--even if they had them-would have ended up as more Indian tropheys of the battle.
|
Edited by - Brent on September 30 2004 07:57:07 AM |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2004 : 1:27:56 PM
|
Anyone got any idea how many troopers were going into action for the first time?
But then I got on this board, did my reading, and have come to the conclusion that the Seventh was drubbed fair and square and aquitted itself (as a unit) quite poorly.
They did ok with Benteen considering the hammering some of them took with Reno.
Bye the bye Brent did I see you on the Irish military board? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2004 : 9:05:19 PM
|
Training, or the lack thereof, is not the singular criteria in determining why trooper marksmanship was so poor at the LBH.
In Vietnam, it was estimated that some battles expended over 50,000 bullets for each soldier killed.
Crooks' forces fired about 25,000 rounds and may have cause 100 Indian casualties.
At Roark's Drift, barracaded soldiers fired numerous volleys into massed groups of charging Zulu's at point blank range. Yet, they scored one hit for every 13 shots.
During the LBH battle, the Indians kept themselves out of harm's way by positioning themselves from 300 to 1,200 yards away from the troopers. (statistics by Dave Higginbotham).
A fatal combination of a natural inclination of soldiers to fire high, the inability (due to stress) of some to fire at all, the combat positioning of the warriors (they did not over run the soldiers until the end),training, failure to maintain disciplined and control fire, resulted in the well known results.
Other factors to be considered were the physical/mental state of the combatants. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2004 : 10:17:35 PM
|
| DC, your past post regarding the warm and loving relationship between you and Lorenzo is a shameless lie. You DEFY BELIEF. If any post were exchanged between you two, they were not the fuzzy wuzzys you would have us to believe. Lorenzo and I have been in constant contact for quite sometime now so don't bother to commit further B.S. You Sir, are a LIAR!!! |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2004 : 10:43:10 PM
|
Wiggs, by paragraph.
1. Really? Training soldiers - I'm just guessing here - would probably consist of learning the skills to fire accurately while in battle, I'd think, and building the physical and mental stamina required for their duties. What else?
2. In Vietnam, it was estimated that lots of things happened that did not. We had and have no idea how many enemy we killed and wounded, spraying the jungle at night, the wounded being hauled away or not, we didn't know. Also, the syllogism isn't there. At LBH they weren't just spraying everything in sight or out of sight. They could count bodies left, is all.
3. Not necessarily. Crook ended the battle with 25k less ammo then they'd entered it with. Doesn't mean it was all fired. Just not there anymore, lost with horses or left in the dirt.
4. How in the world would they know? Zulu Casualty Report #457? Corpses could be counted. Wounded? Who knows, they couldn't. It's an utter guess. Also, they assume every round they can't find was fired like we do. Also, it takes a believing mind to credit British statistics before WWII. They lied outright. The stuff they did in WWI was unforgiveable, just terrible, awful lies.
5. Maybe. We don't know. We do know Indians didn't shoot well as a rule either, and at 1200 yards (12 football fields)few bullets and no arrows would hit the 7th. It's a theory being petted and groomed, but I'd think to a warrior 'positioning' himself 1200 yards away would be like hiding. Two thirds of a mile is about the distance between the monument and Calhoun Hill. Was Mr. Higginbotham present? Or is he just building on the archaeological finds that somehow is onsidered 'evidence?'
6. The natural inclination of human beings is to shoot high, including Indians. Dust probably did more to doom the shooting than crafty positioning, and "resulted in the well known results" is a phrase for the scrapbook.
7. Yes, yes, other factors. Like being shot out of your saddle. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 12:16:39 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Michno tries to confuse his readers to prove a point that isn't really valid, and his statistics don't back up his conclusions. There is an element of tortured logic and hardwired deception that bugs me about Michno. I don't think he's a historian.
And, back to swords, is that it? The supposedly deep fear of swords that Connell and others mention Indians suffered from is based on one (1) battle pre-Civil War?
Well, my thoughts about Michno & his stats first. I think he has made the wrong conclusion. By that I mean he sets up a straw man with his Overland Trail argument. My opinion is that the stats should reflect that between 1840-1861, Indian attacks were more likely a possibility than a probability. Without doubt, more people died of cholera, smallpox, bad water, and bad food than were killed by all other means. Accidents such as accidental discharge of weapons, getting stomped on by a ox, mule, horse, buffalo or whatever, drowning, lighting strikes, snakebite, etc. were also a pretty significant source of deaths. Indians would, during that period, have constituted a small percentage of the total deaths. Note, the above only covers from the Canadian northward. The Apache were attacking whenever they could and the Comanche considered anything in Texas their personal property, including your hair.
During the Civil War years, things pretty much went to hell in a hand basket. Too few troops to guard too many miles of trail, too many isolated ranches, farms, or stations for there to be adequate protection. Too much opportunity for the Indians not to take advantage of the moment. Thus, 1864 drew to a close. Then that idiot Chivington led the Sand Creek Massacre. That was the back breaker. The Cheyenne, for all intents and purposes, had pretty much solidified their roles as Northern and Southern bands. Sand Creek and the vengeance trail drew them back together one last time. The Sioux, who were still extremely irate over having their villages burned and warriors killed by Sibley and Sully in, I believe, 1863 had been agitating and now also joined in the vengeance trail.
So back to the statistics/conclusion. First, the river of emigrants had slowed down to, if not a trickle, a much slower rate in comparison to the pre-Civil war days. Also, you had the country in between beginning to become populated with settlers. Gold rushes and flight from post Civil War poverty were the main impetus for emigration until the Government and the railroads started cheaply selling land. The number of settlers along with the teamsters and emigrants attacked, and often killed, from 1862 onwards is significant enough in my readings to move the Indian danger from a low-risk factor to a high risk proposition. And the above doesn't even count troops killed or wounded in combat with the Indian during that period.
So, what I am trying to adequately say is this. Some people are taking a total of emigrants killed and applying it against emigration volume for Y number of years and getting an average. To see the true picture, they should be breaking it down into periods of five year from 1840 to 1870 and using the total number of dead for those specific five years versus same period volume. To me (who managed to squeak out of Stats, and was quite happy about it, with a D) that seems to be the correct approach.
Whichever, I now know I will be driving about 25 miles, come Saturday, to this place, http://www.ci.independence.mo.us/nftm/research.stm, to begin digging into it.
Don't sweat it if your eyes glazed over. Hellfire, I wrote it and mine did!
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 09:36:45 AM
|
The natural inclination of human beings is to shoot high,
The natural inclination of human beings is to miss.Don't you think that armourers knowing this [shooting high]would adjust the sights to compensate?
If the LBH battle had been mainly a fire fight it would have lasted all day. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 09:40:52 AM
|
My impression (and memory, which is questionable) is that the number of people crossing the plains increased during the Civil War and certainly after. The North literally had significant percentages almost totally unaffected by the War, and its economy grew precipitously. Correct me if that's not true, but it will be a while before I can look into it.
Also, while increased numbers of people did indeed increase the numbers of attacks and fights, that would also raise the number of deaths by other causes, and I'd bet the percentage of deaths attributed to Indian attacks actually got less, since they'd be less likely to attack the large trains but the percentage of dummies cleaning their guns while drunk would stay about the same.
My eyes did not glaze over; that's what I'm here for.
I would also suggest that in the era of Intel chips, we can break things down to the month if need be, and probably should. Arbitrary groupings of years aren't really handy or necessary anymore. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 10:08:14 AM
|
You can adjust and improve sights all you want, but if the guy firing the gun is panicked or insufficiently trained, what's the dif? There isn't a Civil War memoir that isn't filled with recollections of officers telling men to 'shoot low,' and that would reflect the tendency of the soldier to raise his weapon slightly as he tightens his muscles to pull the trigger.
But you're right, the tendency is to miss, and if SLA Marshall is correct, it's a decision as much as a result. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 10:16:40 AM
|
Well, Wiggs, they were PM's on this site, so the site master's records could verify it. Or, keeping everything, I could print them out here on the forum. I don't think Lorenzo would mind, but it would be polite to ask. Since you're in contact with Lorenzo, why don't you ask him? Be advised, I never claimed a warm and fuzzy relationship. I said we'd had a polite and friendly exchange.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 10:41:32 AM
|
*groan*
DC, I had a nice, long, eye-glazing response typed up for you. The only trouble is that I hit "Post New Reply" and had an "Awwww, S**T" moment as I realized I had cleaned out the cookies on my PC and was no longer logged in. Thus, into the electronic version of LSH went my well reasoned response.
I will get to it sometime today after I get some real work done and talk to a doctor about avoiding hand surgery.
Best of wishes,
Billy
(belatedly remembered that there were survivors at LBH, unlike my response) |
Edited by - BJMarkland on October 01 2004 10:59:32 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 10:57:11 AM
|
Well DC, normally in your spats with Mr Wiggs I find myself tending to support your point of view. However in respect to Rorkes Drift I think he's correct, and if anything being slightly generous.
The 1 in 13 statistic I suspect has absolutely nothing to do with the British military and everything to do with some 20th century historian. If anything the figure is wildly optimistic, which of course bolsters Mr Wigg's statement.
If you can be bothered to read the following URL
http://www.martinihenry.com/zulu-wars.htm
then you'll see that the hit ratio may have been significantly lower. In fact when you take into account those Zulu's who were stabbed to death by bayonet (for example, 2 Zulu's were apparently stabbed to death by a Swiss NCO), were casualties from friendly fire or had a heart attack mid way through, then ratio drops even lower.
I've read a lot of military history (much too much actually... curse the internet!) and one consistent factor seems to be that soldiers regardless of era, seem to be quite good at finding fresh air with their bullets. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 11:18:40 AM
|
I don't see how that page (thank you, by the way) supports your view. It says "Per Lt. Chard's report, the number of Zulu dead buried by the British was 351. It is estimated that another 300 Zulus died later as a result of wounds sustained during the battle. So, conservatively speaking, every 25th shot fired by the defenders of Rorke's Drift resulted in an eventual Zulu death, and every 50th shot was an outright kill." This is wishful thinking risen high, denoted by happily high and round estimates.
How, by what logic or method, is the mortally wounded figure achieved other than utter guesswork? In any case, how does this support the one in thirteen figure quoted? If, as is supposed, close in fighting resulted in one bullet inadvertantly killing two Zulu, it's even less impressive shooting, since it effectively pads the results.
And, given the British Army's CYA attitude of the Empire (also risen high), I'd view all this with cancerous eye. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 11:57:38 AM
|
hmmm? I don't understand.
In what way does it not support my point of view? 1 in 25 is a substantially lower ratio than 1 in 13. And if two Zulu's were killed by a single bullet, then really thats only further in favour of my argument.
In any case Rorkes Drift, the other battles of the Anglo Zulu war, maybe the Boxer Rebellion are extreme outliers from a period when a combination of antiquated tactics and surges in firearms technology made the rifle far more effective than had ever been before, or after (World War I that is).
Statistics (whats the Mark Twain quote, something about statistics and lies) for what they worth suggest that most soldiers expend a mountain of ammunition for every casualty they inflict.
I believe that in the early 1950's the Pentagon analysed something like 3 million combat reports and came to the conclusion that most soldiers couldn't hit a barn door over 200 yards, and that enemy deaths were as much a result of unaimed fire as they were of aimed.
The eventual result of that project was that the .30 calibre M-14 was replaced by the .223 M-16. The theory being that soldiers could carry more ammunition, and that if you put enough bullets into the air then eventually probability would determine that one would find a target.
The point of this little tangent, is that if soldiers with modern weapons have problems hitting their targets, then its a reasonable conclusion that the 7th with their trapdoors which weren't particularly modern even in 1876 would have had much greater problems. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 12:07:44 PM
|
Perhaps I misunderstood your argument, since you said you were coming to Wiggs' aid, but your offering didn't seem to support it. Well, if you're trying to show the great shooting, coincidental double deaths inflate it. Like all of this, no way to prove such happened in meaningful numbers. It's a guess, is all.
I think the result of the 1950's analysis is that drafted soldiers aren't keen to kill, and Special Forces and rapid fire personal weapons is the way to go.
Probably true summation, but recall these were volunteers with plenty of time to train if commanding officers had wanted them to. Live ammo a problem, though. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 3:08:48 PM
|
Statistics (whats the Mark Twain quote, something about statistics and lies) for what they worth suggest that most soldiers expend a mountain of ammunition for every casualty they inflict.Recent research has found that your average grunt just does not want to kill.It was found that somewhere in the region of 10% of any unit are the only ones doing the serious fighting.As DC points out it is only with the kind of training special forces receive that your average trooper becomes effective.
Perhaps this has been already been pointed out but Zulu wounded who could not get away although their wounds may not have been fatal were finished off with the bayonet.
[i]And if two Zulu's were killed by a single bullet, then really thats only further in favour of my argument.
Just on that point Dave,the Brits used a soft nosed bullet which fragmented on contact and would not pass through a body.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 3:19:13 PM
|
Set up sixty cans at from 25 to 50 yards take a single shot rifle like a ruger 30-06 and time how long it takes you to shoot sixty cans,
Try loading and firing your 30-06 from the back of a horse while dozens of pissed off Indians are looking for your scalp. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 3:41:33 PM
|
Warlord, no one was attempting to short change you on your answer. My take is simply that to duplicate the conditions, you need to have heavy blue clothes on in a blazing sunshine, have been up since very, very early, eyes red from dust and lack of sleep, be scared that you are going to die or worse, be captured as well as have your cans bobbing up and down and moving side to side and in many cases you would be shooting downhill with a rifle that you had shot less than a hundred rounds through in the past three months or longer. Oh, let us not forget you would be constantly ducking flights of arrows or having bullets whiz by your ear.
I agree with you that the number was likely higher than currently thought, I tend to go with Benteen's high side, but that is only my opinion and, to be frank, is quite unprovable either way.
That is the good thing about a mystery. We are all right and even though logic may seemingly dictate certain actions on the parts of the protagonists, no one knows for sure whether people were acting rationally or not on that day.
I read something in a book last night and went on the web to the MOA site to find the original report which I will quote. Let me know if the conditions sound somewhat similar to those "enjoyed" by the 7th Cavalry on June 25, 1876.
"The station is also utterly indefensible, being surrounded by hills and knolls full of gullies, enabling the Indians to ambush and creep upon us at points where they could not be reached by a cavalry charge. Shortly after our main body got in they attacked us in force and with great boldness. The suddenness of the attack, the condition of the men, and the character of the ground interfered with proper discipline and system on our part, and the fighting at first was rather miscellaneous. We found it necessary to imitate the Indians, get under banks and creep up to favorable positions, watch for an Indian's head, shoot the moment it was shown, and pop down at the flash of his gun."
Report of Lt. Col. William O. Collins on the Battle of Mud Springs, Nebraska Territory; dated February 15, 1865
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?root=%2Fmoa%2Fwaro%2Fwaro0101%2F&tif=00114.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DANU4519-0101&coll=moa&frames=1&view=50
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on October 01 2004 3:53:06 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 4:48:04 PM
|
Warlord:
"Now let me get this straight the Indians armed mostly with bows and a few rusty guns"
During the 1980's, archaeological studies were conducted on the battlefield. There were 2,361 cartridges, cases, and bullets recovered which, purportedly, came from 45 different firearm TYPES. Resources tell us that the troopers were armed with two types, the Springfield rifle and the Colt Single action revolver. This count leaves the Indians with 43 types of weapons. A greater arsenal than a few "bows."
"They snipped all at 1,200 yrds."
The same arcchaeological studies discovered Indian positions at several locations. Cartridge, bullets, and cases identified as belonging to the other, 43 types of weapons were discovered at Greasy Grass Ridge.
Calhoun Hill, a soldier position was 400 to 550 yards away.
"End of lunch, end of trail, or what? You need to edit your postings more carefully."
I assumed that the end of the "battle" was an obvious conclusion as no prior posts on this forum have ever discussed wht the troopers ate for lunch. Sorry I was not clear enough.
"Someone said there were only two dead Indian ponies"
I do not have the slightest idea what you'er talking about. I never said that. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 6:04:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
There are several books on the efficiency of military units. Despite what some people may think the facts are during WWII the German SS divisions and airborne were at the top in efficieny for military units. This is empiical fact not emotion! Stangely there was only one American unit that reached this efficiency level and it had to do with the commander, not pertinent here. Currently the U.S.Air Assault Units and Marine Corps (there are others) are the most efficient! All these military units have several things in common. They are volunteers, they are highly motivated,they train a lot and tend to have charismatic commanders. Many of these attributes were present with the Seventh Cavalry at LGH.
I think the disjunct we are seeing is that there is a clear difference of opinion regarding the training that the 7th received. Also, I don't believe it was standard procedure to use the carbine from a moving horse. That is why they were issued pistols. Somewhere around here I have the cavalry drill book for squads, platoons, companies and regiments. Let me find it and see if there are any drills with which to practice shooting carbines from moving horses. The closest I can think of is "Firing from the mounted skirmish line." You also neglect to address the fiscal cheapness of the U.S. Congress, who was begrudging any money spent for the Army, thus ammunition expenditures were kept to a minimum. I seem to recall that there were also plans afoot to reduce the size of the Army prior to Custer's unfortunate collision with history. I will need to look at the Ft. Abraham Lincoln Post Record to see how much training went on that winter. Most of the Post Records I have seen indicate when target practice was held, what unit took it and number of rounds per man fired. Also, don't forget that the regiment, or most of it, was stationed at Ft. Abraham Lincoln in North Dakota. If you have been on the Northern Plains during the winter months, you will realize that opportunities for extensive outside drill were likely limited. Granted they had the period between departure and LBH to learn to ride and perform basic functions of the cavalry but how much good would that do. And just for your information, the best trained, most veteran cavalry regiment on the Plains and likely in the Army was the 10th U.S. Cavalry, the Buffalo Soldiers. I have often wondered what would have happened if the 10th had been assigned to Terry rather than the 7th.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 6:35:39 PM
|
The 10th likely would have cleared the house and taken names. The problem was, nobody else would serve with them: they were black and they were a better unit than their peers as anyone who had seen them in action apparently knew.
Better yet? Give the 10th to Crook, who had this annoying habit of seeking and rewarding merit and competence where he could find it and using it, be they white or red.......... or black.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on October 01 2004 7:17:45 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2004 : 11:51:28 PM
|
quote:
You and some others, do not seem to think these trooper's fought very hard or well! Well, I will tell you even though I was not there, they fought as hard as we did at Hue or or the Ia Drang valley.
Warlord, just to explicitly let you know that this is not an attempt to denigrate anyone who wore the uniform and put their life at risk in a combat situation. I haven't been placed in the situation and I have hopes that I will not be. If I am we are having tough times as I am well over 21.
OK, to your statement. When I think of LBH, I think not of Tarawa, Edson's Ridge, Ia Drang, Khe Sahn, Spottsylvania Courthouse, Gettysburg, Stone's River and a freaking multitude of others.
I think simply this: KASSERINE PASS
With respect,
Billy
|
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 01:27:39 AM
|
I break the silence just to let this quick note. What should I be now? A composite fiction? Dark, I don't understand why you still have doubts talking about me. And I also find hard to understand why you're always attacking Joseph, that have rights as everyone here to tell his story. In this period I've never stop to reading the forum and I toke time also to read old posts: I discover incongruences in all posts, as it is normal, but no one of the authors but Wiggs was accused to be liars. I think this is not fair at all.
Well, as I have a chance to do it, I wish to thank one more time all "starrings" in this forum. I personally get out of this first, because I am not a put on, and second because the language barriers did'nt allowed me to clearly explain what I really wanted to.
I'm glad Dark that you found my two pm nice, but, would'nt you address to me without using strange definitions please?
Now I go back to LSH, back in silence. A wish of happiness and joy to everyone. I follow you daily boys. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 09:22:49 AM
|
The Irishman thinks no one can fight from the back of a horse, even though they were trained for it,
Ya think the 7th were a circus act Warlord?My guess is that not one of them ever fired their carbines from horse back.
Custer's men performed exactly as Reno's when he ordered the retreat.A disorganised rout of the lead units and a forlorn stand by Keogh and Calhoun. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 09:36:47 AM
|
Lorenzo,
I was going to write you to ask permission to post our brief correspondence, but that is now unnecessary, so thank you. I don't have doubts about talking about you, I just don't know who you are. These sorts of forums are generally full of people with several personas trying to shill their books or something of that sort, and I remain in my olde age suspicious of all that.
Sorry if Wiggs inveigled you to write. Since you have, he probably thinks he doesn't owe yet another apology for calling me a liar about your admitted PM's to me, yet another humiliation in his already stretched quiver. Glad this pressing business has been cleared up. He does, however, have so much to apologize for, starting in early May.
In the thread Wiggss started about Benteen's Orders, he posted on May 10:
“Benteen failed to render aid to 10 to 12 soldiers that HE obsevred being slaughtered in the valley. This is according to his own testimony. Hwhen his actions became questioned and scrutinized later, by public opinion, he fell upon his past military experience....”
Wiggs on May 11, however:
“Your insistance in continuing to misquote me, however, is fascinating. I did not charge Benteen with failure to render aid to the troopers left behind on the valley floor.”
This is called, in any language, "lying." It's also called "remarkably stupid lying" since it's all on the board and can't be contorted into anything else, yet he tried and then settled on ignoring it. It's still up and readable. And this is before the plagiarism, the falsified quotes, all the rest. Wiggs isn't put upon, Lorenzo; all the contempt is justified. He uses you, Lorenzo, to hide behind, because you're an honest and sympathetic sort and he is not.
You've suggested that you admire people who fight for the right and for their country. Well then, don't let them be slandered by such as Wiggs. In democracies, it's everyone's responsibility to speak truth to falsehood, not just everyone's right to receive it unasked. Everyone makes mistakes, misspeaks, blathers, says stuff they regret. For which, apologies often go a long way. Wiggs won't do that, because he pretends to knowledge and insight painfully denied to him and he cannot admit it. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
